• Aug 14, 2019

In the world of fashion it is restless again: the known brands one by one refuse use of natural fur in the collections. So what actually are these loud statements besides a part of advertizing campaign?

Some of the last Gucci, Versace and Maison Margiela joined Fur Free Alliance. Before in alliance of refusal of fur there were Stella McCartney, Tommy Hilfiger, Calvin Klein, Hugo Boss, DKNY and other producers of clothes. Change of reference points is followed by slogans: "fur – it is old-fashioned", "I do not want to kill animals to create fashion".

 animals for the sake of fur, a wild animal, gucci

More than two years ago the known Armani brand also said that it will not use natural fur in the collections.

everything is good

I, but to this statement fur already was not among the materials necessary for production of products of fashion house.

Many other fashion houses, local producers of fur products are not included into this alliance. And, most likely, realize that they get the increasing part of the market of persons interested to get natural fur products. And for the last few years a variety of such products only increased: caps, beretka, jackets, coat, fur coats, winter and even summer footwear, children's and cosmetic goods. Official statistics for 2014 is given below. Relevant indicators do not install optimism: more than 100.000.000 murders of animals for the sake of fur are committed annually.

 statistics, murders of animals
 statistics, murders of animals
, murders of animals

Experiences and experiments more than 150 million living beings claim the lives. Number of the killed for agricultural needs – more than 70 billion.

Murder of animals — the large-scale production existing for satisfaction of needs of various target audiences in differentiable price segments. And the refusal of fashion houses of fur use does not mean the termination of use of genuine leather in any way.

It also does not tell about increase in level of humanity in society, the termination of existence of exploitation of living beings to a stop of carrying out various, not always scientific experiments. And an animal all the same what part of their skin and on what will be used for what business they perish.

 a pet, a wild animal, a mink

of Opinion of the public about it same versatile and many-sided, as well as the existing problem. Someone, supporting refusal of fur, will never replace leather footwear and accessories artificial. Another яро will defend a position of the ban on use of natural materials, daily using kilograms of animal food.

And the answer to a question why the person consciously supports massacre, is in his unconscious desires. Let's not forget that sensible arguments and reasonings can not have any advantages near ours the unconscious need for feeling of own importance. And desire to be wrapped up in expensive mink coat not always a question of convenience and comfort.

Related Articles