posted by guest

Sep 11, 2007 11:22AM

PETA protesters are boring. When I was in high school, I used to protest the circus and then I realized that, despite my best efforts to make a difference, the only person outside the circus that cared...was me.
Anyway, after watching Lacey on Rock of Love use PETA as am excuse to physically attack another contestant, I wouldn't want to be associated with her OR PETA. Not to mention those horrible Halloween outfits above. Yech.

posted by MH

Sep 11, 2007 11:29AM

Come on, really? This is a rhetorical question, right? You used a picture of them, as did most every other major news outlet in the country, which achieves their purpose--they don't care if it's fashionable or not, it's a P-U-B-L-I-C-I-T-Y S-T-U-N-T. The priority is to get the message out to the public, not to impress the fashion divas in the tents, who still wouldn't support them anyway.

And yes, I wear fur and leather. I can only hope this post was intentionally missing the point to spur debate.

posted by Laia

Sep 11, 2007 12:08PM

As much as I don't care for fur, I generally abhor PETA tactics, so I usually side with the fur wearers.
Exploiting animals for their skin= bad.
Exploiting women = apparently a good solution for everything.
UGH.

posted by Leggo my Hooters

Sep 11, 2007 12:21PM

A Hooters protest-- now that's something I could get behind.

posted by WendyB

Sep 11, 2007 12:30PM

I've always been amused that a group that demands respect for animals uses women's sexuality to promote its cause. Whatevs! I guess the ladies are lining up to strip down, so it's all good.

posted by tmm

Sep 11, 2007 12:32PM

I don't see a difference between wearing fur and wearing leather. You still have to kill the animal. It's like those protests against people eating horse, for example. Just because it's a domesticated animal (in many respects) doesn't make it any different- you're eating MEAT! It's hypocritical at best. There are animal byproducts in everything from tires to makeup to film processing fluids. It is unavoidable in most normal lives. If it makes you feel better not to wear fur, is it because fur is obvious and more "animal" and thus makes you more uncomfortable? It is the SAME as wearing leather (umm, they just take the fur off). It is still a blatant use of a dead animal!

That being said, I do wear vintage fur!

posted by HeatherChandler

Sep 11, 2007 12:51PM

@tmm

I'm not trying to be a smart ass here, but when you say "vintage" do you mean vintage as in last season or last century?

posted by guest

Sep 11, 2007 1:14PM

I abhor PETA. They've become so militant and obnoxious that they've driven people away from their message. Throwing paint and pies? If someone threw paint on me I'd walk up to the PETA headquarters with a bag full of kittens and turn each into a coin purse.

posted by Carolyn

Sep 11, 2007 1:48PM

Well, for a lot of anti-fur folk, it's the revolting killing methods and poor regulation of the fur industry (particularly out of China) that is the issue more than the killing itself.

But I personally also think the look of fur is just incredibly ageing.

(And needless to say, MH and the 1st Anon had it completely right. The whole sex-sells tactic isn't my style, but if they're willing adults, they can do what they gotta do. Big props to people with serious convictions looking to open discussions.)

posted by Elle

Sep 11, 2007 1:50PM

When these faux leather clad "ladies" approached me with their fliers and said "Do you like animals?" I responded: "Yes, and I like paper." I love that PETA is saving muskrats, but annihilating rain forests. Oh, the hypocrisy!

posted by Alison Cool

Sep 11, 2007 4:31PM

Wendy - I agree, I just don't see why PETA has to promote animal rights by having skimpily-clad women hanging out outside the tents, and in bad skimpy outfits at that.

posted by tmm

Sep 11, 2007 5:29PM

Miss Heather Chandler,

By vintage I mean a rabbit fur vest (must be seen to be appreciated- otherwise blah-sounding) where one side is fur and the other is muted silver-grew puffer (very minute). I wear that bitch to whole foods when I'm feeling serious snark. I also have three fur wraps- a muskrat capelet from the early 60's, a mink neckerchief (unknown age- but perhaps 40's which I pin with a glorious brooch), and a hand dyed mink wrap with little "pockets" for your hands (late 60's early 70's Sakowitz fur).

FYI. My comments for anyone who scoffs:
"it was either him or me. somebody had to lose"

"he had it coming"

"I was hungry... and cold"

tootles!

posted by Kay

Sep 11, 2007 6:48PM

Elle - I believe your argument is a bit of a red herring. Does the use of paper as an advertisement for an organization (Greenpeace, Human Rights Campaign, Oxfam, Children's Aid Society... all of these organizations have mailings and informational pamphlets) invalidate the mission of that organization? Must an organization support all possible missions even to the detriment of their primary mission? Is the use of cars by USAID to Africa hypocritical because it contributes to emissions that possibly cause global warming? Further, are you sure that the flyers you saw are annihilating "rain forests?" Are you sure the flyers are not recycled? Even if they are not, using paper doesn't invalidate the mission of PETA, just like it doesn't invalidate the mission of USAID to Africa. Sorry to go on, but your argument has serious flaws.

posted by rachel

Sep 11, 2007 7:29PM

laia, siding with fur wearers for the sake of pissing off peta is just plain idiotic.

you guys, don't lump all animal activists in with peta. even shelter animal activists like me are not so happy with peta as peta is anti- pit bull. anyone who has been around a responsibily-raised pitbull knows they are one of the sweetest breeds. there are many crazy things that peta supports, but the fact that they are aiming for the greater good of those who cannot speak for themselves is highly admirable.

just like the aspca- this organization is highly flawed, but aims to help.

posted by rachel

Sep 11, 2007 9:23PM

Very well said, Kay. It is immature for people to mock non-fur supporters, just because they feel like pushing it in their face........Come on now, grow up!

posted by Jac

Sep 12, 2007 1:18AM

I have a lot of old (think 60's vintage) fur coats, I don't want them I plan on moving to California and living there the rest of my life. WHere does one sell these? I can't really figure out where I fall on the animal debate. I eat meat, wear leather (not fur, there's no reason really for there to be fur in my life), but get disgusted and appalled at the thought of animal testing/cute animals being harmed. PETA sucks though. I'll take my anti-animal cruelty stance sexual objectification-free thanks.

posted by Nina

Sep 12, 2007 7:21AM

Without taking into account whether or not I support wearing fur, I still believe that PETA is an organisation that is mostly a waste of space/time.

In a way, I believe that PETA is an example of indulgent, selfish Western-ism. What I mean to say, there are many more important issues in the world right now than whether a designer is putting fur into their collection (and this is even ignoring that fact that most upper-end designers source their fur from ultra-respectable sources, and it's only the mass market stores that uses fur from dogs/cats).

posted by alissa

Sep 12, 2007 8:57AM

jac, send me a picture maybe ill buy one

posted by guest

Sep 12, 2007 9:29AM

@Jac:

You can donate old fur coats to the Humane Society, as part of Coats for Cubs...they turn old fur coats into blankets/bedding for injured animals they are rehabilitating. It is a tax-deductible donation as well.

http://www.hsus.org/furfree/campaigns/c4c/

(Apologies, not 100% related to the fur debate but a good idea to repurpose furs that already exist)

posted by DownwithphoneyFashionistas

Sep 12, 2007 7:15PM

Wow fashionista has now hit an all time low in reporting and in the sense of presenting themselves as educated, modern, fashionable, and intelligent women. They have proven with this post (and several others) that they are clearly none of the above. The PETA members are making a statement against inhumane treatment to animals. THEY ARE NOT TRYING TO BE FASHIONABLE. You idiots are too busy gawking at the tents to realize this. And honestly, IF MARC JACOBS (this site's unnamed but certain fashion hero!) PUT TACKY COP UNIFORMS AND PLASTIC HATS ON THE RUNWAY IN NEW YORK YOU AT FASHIONISTA (fans of his from all over the world) WOULD BE THE FIRST TO SAY HOW ARTISTIC AND HOW GROUNDBREAKING OF HIM -you'd swoon for it and wish you could some how buy it for real or pray for a great knock-off. Please get over your personal stupidity girls and grow up mentally. You have proven yourselves to be glib in all affairs (except for your opinions-you have no problem assuming you're right and convincing others to believe it). Remember you're not the only fashion site and as people you are not the brightest bulbs in the box. Thanks to the anonymous poster who mentioned the fur donations and several others who disagree with wearing fur and support PETA and other enviromentally affiliated groups.

posted by JAc

Sep 12, 2007 8:54PM

I'll have to get back to you alissa, there at my mom's house and she has no idea how to work a computer to get pics to me online. We'll probably end up donating them, just because selling will probably be a hassle.

posted by rachel

Sep 13, 2007 3:32PM

nina, a fur coat is a fur coat. an animal is an animal, whether it is fur from a dog or fur from a mink farm.

peta has every right to stand up for animals. if you don't like their tactics that is one thing but to say "that there are more important things to think about in the world to worry about" is entirely relative.

i hope that you never own a pet, for that pet's sake.