I guess thats just the cross we bear.

:)

ETA: I find it humorous that SthrnZeta is the poster who can't get over PhiGam. :D Keep doing your thing PhiGam dude. Whether you intentionally do it or not.

I read this and thought about this thread:

Kim Cattrall may wear fur in the movies, but she doesn't in real life.

I’m told Cattrall has made arrangements for PETA to receive the four white furs she wears in the upcoming Sex and the City movie. The coats were used for separate takes of a scene in which PETA-like activists splatter Jones' coat with red paint.

The animal-rights group will distribute the coats to the homeless. Furs donated to PETA are given to the homeless, used in protests and displayed in various animal-rights exhibitions and events. “The only people who can be excused for wearing fur are the homeless—to keep warm during the winter,” says PETA rep Michael McGraw.

McGraw says about 15,000 furs have been donated to PETA in the last 15 years. And yes, PETA cleans the pelts to get rid of the red paint. However, the group shaves a section down and covers it with a PETA patch because, says McGraw, "It drastically reduces its resale value."

Sorry to interrupt the catfight. ;)

/hijack

Yeah yeah.... :rolleyes:

continuing the hijack
 

If you're anti-fur, why would you wear real fur in a movie that's going to be seen by millions and will probably increase the cachet of fur with younger women? Plus, why does it make it any better that PETA will get the coats and gives them away - the animals are still dead! These aren't going to be old furs from Grandma's closet from before the days when people were more enlightened about all this - they're probably going to be custom made (and killed) for the film.

Sorry, but this is a subject that I get really hyper about (having owned a fur-bearing animal as a pet).

I agree, if she was really anti-fur, she'd have fake ones made for the movie and wear those instead, and maybe even have a note about the furs not being real in the credits.

the animals have already been destoyed and are not coming back, no matter what happens to the coats. the coats might as well be used for some good, and donating them to homeless people who are freezing on the streets seems like a good thing, but maybe your point was why have the furs in the movie in the first place, and that is a point well taken. i imagine that kim cattrall has enough star power to refuse to wear the furs without any negative outcome to her contract or paycheck.

it reminds me of a woman i saw years ago who had on a thigh-length fur coat that had all these tails hanging off it-it looked like she was being attacked by a troop of rabid squirrels. how anyone could think that looked attractive is beyond me.

:)

Yes, that was exactly my point. Her taking a stand and not wearing them at all would make a lot more of an impression on young women than donating the coats to PETA.

I wonder if she didn't know about the fur until the coats were purchased/whatever by wardrobe. By that point, wearing them and donating them would have been the best option. Wearing fake fur would still cause the same "fur is cool" effect because few people would look for a disclaimer.

Really taking a stand would be not wearing the fur at all, and face it, it IS in Samantha's character to wear it. And perhaps she doesn't have the pull to get that changed. There was a lot of in-fighting between the actresses by the end of the show, and a smart director/producer would have gotten a tight contract.

I think homeless people should get them instead of them being thrown in the trash as someone mentioned since the animal is already dead.

However, I am not animal activist and I love fur. So there would be an arse kicking in store for anyone who threw paint on me.

I'm a little surprised that H-F and other paraphenalia companies arent' stricter about selling items. Whenever I've ordered pins or such from the DAR or its jeweler (Caldwell), they need the membership number AND whether or not you're earned the pin involved. Frankly, we call them Girl Scouts on speed, but when you belong to an organization, you play by their rules.

As for fur, I have one fur that's in fantastic condition, but is also about 80 years old. Those critters' great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren are probably dead. I also have a faux fur that's so realistic, a furrier didn't believe me until I showed her the tags. I would be seriously ticked off if someone tried to paint my coats!

Besides, PETA isn't as ethical as they make out to be, IMHO. Opening cages to let sick animals to fend for themselves isn't ethical, it's murderous. Those poor things don't know how to take care of themselves. Also, I've heard that PETA isn't even in favor of people owning pets! Can someone confirm that?

I have a chapter sister that's pretty big into PETA (dead animal pics on her Myspace and all) - and she owns a dog that she treats better than most people treat their children. So I know not ALL PETAs believe that (if any even do).

honeychile: That way of thinking may be antithetical to their message, since they advocate humane treatment of animals. If no one owned animals, then there would be a whole lot of stray dogs and cats that would be euthanized. Now, I am not in PETA, so I don't know, but logically, I don't think that would make sense. :confused:

Sidenote: I think where people are getting that from is due to the fact that PETA is lobbying to have Michael Vick banned from ever owning pets... http://www.peta.org/mc/InTheNews/arc...ll&ID=5&page=3

Here is their stance...

Basically, if it's a stray, it's ok, but you shouldn't buy from pet shops (because of puppymills) or let your pets breed. It seems like their idea is that if no more puppies or kitties are bred, eventually there won't be any more, so none of them will suffer.

I've also heard that once they rescue animals from shelters/puppymills/fur factories, they kill them anyway. It really seems like they're more for the extinction of animals than anything.