Menswear: What were they thinking?


Show original post
swiftus
swiftus avatar

1276 posts since 1/7/09

24 Nov 2020 15:21
Richgee wrote: but wearing animal carcass is no different from eating it

Agreed. Could say eating it worse. As a coat will last a lot longer than a hamburger.

@Centurionone - you vegan?
Richgee
Richgee avatar

97 posts since 26/4/15

24 Nov 2020 15:46
swiftus wrote: Logic says you can sedate an animal, and then take its fur off. So it's still technically alive, and therefore a lot easier to handle.

that's gonna smart
Dee
Dee avatar

11809 posts since 22/11/07

24 Nov 2020 16:09
seen the video of dogs being skinned alive - nasty.
deuce
deuce avatar

13963 posts since 21/1/08

posted 24 Nov 2020 16:11, edited 24 Nov 2020 16:11
swiftus wrote:
deuce wrote:
joeyjojo wrote: Usually the fur is taken when the animal is alive so they are skinned alive which is obviously a lot more painful for the animal.
simply not true. i think there was a video circulating ages ago of this, and it actually led back to PETA

ask yourself;

from a logical view, why would anyone skin something alive? imagine how difficult it would be to skin something that is squirming, kicking and trying to survive/escape. all whilst the skinner has an insanely sharp knife in their hand, and the animal is trying to bite/scratch/kick.

a damaged pelt = worthless

fur = leather without the hair burned off. literally no difference

Logic says you can sedate an animal, and then take its fur off. So it's still technically alive, and therefore a lot easier to handle.

Source: I just made it up, but sounds reasonable.

I did read somewhere that it's preferable when they're alive, because the skin is still 'fresh' (for lack of a better word).

why have the fur 'fresh', then put it through endless curing chemicals and cycles? again, makes no sense.
all businesses do things for profit and ease, aint no one wrestling with a live mink which diet consists of fucking crabs, when they could just DONK it on the head and kill it first.
imagine the damage its teeth would do your hands
swiftus
swiftus avatar

1276 posts since 1/7/09

24 Nov 2020 17:07
deuce wrote:
swiftus wrote:
deuce wrote:
joeyjojo wrote: Usually the fur is taken when the animal is alive so they are skinned alive which is obviously a lot more painful for the animal.
simply not true. i think there was a video circulating ages ago of this, and it actually led back to PETA

ask yourself;

from a logical view, why would anyone skin something alive? imagine how difficult it would be to skin something that is squirming, kicking and trying to survive/escape. all whilst the skinner has an insanely sharp knife in their hand, and the animal is trying to bite/scratch/kick.

a damaged pelt = worthless

fur = leather without the hair burned off. literally no difference

Logic says you can sedate an animal, and then take its fur off. So it's still technically alive, and therefore a lot easier to handle.

Source: I just made it up, but sounds reasonable.

I did read somewhere that it's preferable when they're alive, because the skin is still 'fresh' (for lack of a better word).

why have the fur 'fresh', then put it through endless curing chemicals and cycles? again, makes no sense.
all businesses do things for profit and ease, aint no one wrestling with a live mink which diet consists of fucking crabs, when they could just DONK it on the head and kill it first.
imagine the damage its teeth would do your hands

jordan out here like he's clubbing rabbits on a regular
rural
rural avatar

17735 posts since 26/9/06

24 Nov 2020 17:28
Put a DONK on it
Hanto
Hanto avatar

2512 posts since 30/11/09

24 Nov 2020 17:30
Most people seem to echo the point I made earlier, but I guess it also comes down to whether the material has a practical purpose/benefit, or is purely cosmetic.

Does a handbag/wallet need to be made out of leather, possibly. Does it have to be crocodile skin, not necessarily, but it is a variation on the raw material, which, based on it being outside of the 'norm', is frowned upon. If you were wearing that jacket in Alaska, would it be as unnecessary as wearing a Woolrich Parka, or an Eddie Bauer jacket with a real fur hood?

If I tell someone I have a pair of Kudu Aldens, they don't bat an eyelid. If I said it was antelope, some would question it. Same with Shell Cordovan or Shinki leather being horse etc.
joeyjojo
joeyjojo avatar

4414 posts since 24/8/06

24 Nov 2020 19:33
deuce wrote:
joeyjojo wrote: Usually the fur is taken when the animal is alive so they are skinned alive which is obviously a lot more painful for the animal.
simply not true. i think there was a video circulating ages ago of this, and it actually led back to PETA

ask yourself;

from a logical view, why would anyone skin something alive? imagine how difficult it would be to skin something that is squirming, kicking and trying to survive/escape. all whilst the skinner has an insanely sharp knife in their hand, and the animal is trying to bite/scratch/kick.

a damaged pelt = worthless

fur = leather without the hair burned off. literally no difference

So if there’s a video of it, it happened right
EssexBoyII
EssexBoyII avatar

6948 posts since 5/6/07

24 Nov 2020 23:25
Fur is deffo for cunts and mad that some of her are too dense to see the difference. Probably have no issue with cosmetic testing either.

And leather is not a by-product of the meat industry? Right so they take the hide and throw it away then do they. That makes amazing business sense Cool Cool
quest
quest avatar

3603 posts since 11/7/11

24 Nov 2020 23:38
^Cool business sense
crutch
crutch avatar

470 posts since 22/11/12

25 Nov 2020 07:39
Cow leather is a byproduct of the meat industry (at least that used in footwear which the area I work in). But I’ve heard that some companies/tanneries are looking ahead to a point where demand for leather is higher than for meat - but I think that’s a way off.
More ‘exotic’ skins like kudu etc gets a bit of a grey area as they are generally from population controls/culls rather than farmed animals.
I guess fur differs as it’s only the pelts that are used? The trapping of wild animals is pretty cruel too, I can’t see that there’s a harmless way of doing that, trap lines sound pretty grim. I wonder if there’s an emotive reaction too as fur is clearly from an animal whereas leather is pretty abstracted from the raw material? (Just to clarify I’m not making a pro fur argument here at all).

Again just speaking for shoes it’s a really complex issue - on a tangent but most leather alternatives are PU based, so basically oil materials and plastics which are t great environmentally. Some interesting things happening with plant based ‘leathers’ though