‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’


Animal fur sales were brought down to an all time low after PETA launched their ‘naked campaign’ featuring images of celebrities, completely nude, with the slogan ‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’.  This provocative campaign caught the eyes of many, and brought to the attention of the public the suffering that innocent creatures endure to produce clothing goods. Obviously, there are arguments for and against using animals to test vaccines and other products that may potentially save millions of lives, however there are simply no pros of using animals for fashion. After all, no one would feel beautiful sporting a bag made of human flesh, so why is it any different with animals?


To begin with, the suffering of these animals is completely unnecessary. When you compare a faux fur and a real fur coat, you can’t even tell the difference. I own a white faux fur coat which looks absolutely stunning, and I can wear it proudly knowing no creature was hurt to produce it. However the sad reality is that the majority of high end brands such Burberry and Micheal Kors use animal skin and fur in their products. In fact, every Chanel bag is made from either leather or lambskin, and yet their purses are still deemed the most beautiful and iconic accessory. Yet many are so unaware of the brutality used to obtain animal skin, so they have no shame in walking round with a dead baby creature over their shoulder. But there have been reports of the horrific conditions animals are kept in, and how they are beaten and tortured simply so someone can have a ‘pretty’ handbag.


Another huge issue is testing cosmetics on animals. Brands such as MAC and L’oreal openly test on animals with little shame. The image below shows an innocent rabbit suffering after having eye makeup tested on it. After seeing pictures like these it really puts things into perspective; why would anyone be happy to hurt a creature simply so they can have long lashes. And the worst part is that the animals can obviously not give consent to be tested on, showing how inhumane the whole process is. Humans would never be tested on against their will, so we have no right to decide that an animal’s life has less value and therefore it’s ok for it to suffer to produce cosmetics. Yes, human’s are the most intelligent of species, but at the end of the day we are still animals as well, and all animals feel pain. And who knows, maybe we’re not that intelligent if we overlook the suffering of the innocent.


Thankfully, fur sales have dropped recently, and the increase in celebrities speaking out against animal cruelty has had a very positive effect. Also we can take comfort in knowing that there are many brands that refuse to test on animals such as Lush, Urban Decay and Dermalogica, so choose your products carefully to ensure you’re buying from a brand that doesn’t promote cruelty to animals. I think I would feel much more fashionable and confident with a manmade bag over my shoulder- it’s equally as beautiful, and completely cruelty free. And as for wearing fur? I’d rather go naked.



The Idiot’s Handbook to Lamb Explained


Victoria’s Dirty Secret: Paying for Cruel Tests on Animals in China



One thought on “‘I’d rather go naked than wear fur’

  1. Unfortunately there are celebs who still wear fur, making it appear popular and acceptable – which it isn’t. It’s good to read sales have declined, but unfortunately animals are still tortured so that others can wear fugly fur coats. 😦

    About animal testing – thanks to the EU animal testing has been outlawed (if I remember correctly the UK was the last party to implement this law just in time for the deadline in 2013 I believe). The law (I don’t remember the exact name) basically stated that non-pharma products like cosmetics, toothpaste, make-up, toiletries etc CANNOT be sold in the EU if the product or its ingredients have been tested on animals. Sure, almost every products contains ingredients that were tested on animals at some point in the past, but retesting of ingredients which are considered safe is not permitted. I remember that initially L’Oréal wasn’t happy with this, but the EU made it clear to them that if they wish to continue to operate in markets where animal testing is required, they would have to develop new products. So yeah, L’Oréal Europe is complying with the law. So is MAC, so is Proctor & Gamble… The problem is still China. As the majority of the big brands sell in China, their products have to undergo testing by law. I would support any campaign to stop this sick practice – but despite many public calls to ban animal testing, China really doesn’t care. 😦 And I really fear what’s going to happen if the Brexit is triggered because apparently the UK is very keen on more trade with China. 😦

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s