Lady Gaga, Beyonce, and other Celebrities That Wear Fur Fashion

Click thumbnail to view full-size
Rhianna is too busy creating masterpieces like "S&M" then to be concerned with animal welfare.
Rhianna is too busy creating masterpieces like "S&M" then to be concerned with animal welfare.
Rhianna is too busy creating masterpieces like "S&M" then to be concerned with animal welfare.
Source


In recent celebrity-related news, Lady Gaga has become yet another celebrity out of a handful seen wearing fur fashion and who has been targeted by the animal rights group PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as a result.

Her response? Some wonky, defensive reply about being against bullying or something.

Let’s be clear on the fact that I do not support PETA and other similar animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States. I’m a strong believer in consumer freedom and the right of an individual to make choices outside of another person or group's opinionated emotional sentiment. With that being said, fur fashion production is one of the most vicious, egomaniacal, and ethically repugnant industries carried out in this country that is somewhat accepted by our civilized society. It is an aberration of what should be considered basic moral decency. It really shocks me that any debate remains about this subject. It simply shouldn’t be occurring.

Fur and Biological Imperatives

But first, it is necessary to debunk once and for all the inane myth that fur-wearing is comparable to the consumption of animal-based foods.

Allow me to illustrate some perspective without suggesting any definiteness, as I won’t bother dragging a debate over why I personally think animal-based foods are a healthy choice for most people.

What many individuals in the vegan/vegetarian movement seek to ignore is the stone fact that humans (Homo sapiens) evolved consuming meat nutrition throughout the dawn of their existence. The dispute over whether or not people ‘need’ to consume meat or benefit from it permanently remains in a tedious state of dissension, along with the many biased correlation studies, wishful-thinking alternative theories, and emotional commitment perpetuated by special interest groups that exist on both sides of the controversy. I’ve shuffled through many nutritional theories and was only able to deduct one consistent fact: different dietary lifestyles work for different individuals.

List of celebrities who wear/have worn fur

  • Mary J. Blige
  • Kim Kardashian
  • Lady Gaga
  • Rhianna
  • Aretha Franklin
  • Amber Rose
  • Kanye West
  • P.Diddy
  • Kelis
  • Pattie Labelle
  • Jennifer Lopez
  • Joan Rivers
  • Beyonce
  • Paris Hilton

No one has to concur with my nutritional views, but let’s just entertain the idea that ‘perhaps’ some people cannot absorb, utilize, or efficiently convert nutrients from some sources of food as efficiently as another person may be able to. It should also be considered that the human brain, which is the defining factor that separates humans from many other animals, is composed of cholesterol and fats, and an alteration in the diet may or may not have an impact on how efficiently it works. Pre-natal development may also be impacted by a diet restricting certain fats.

This is also disregarding that not every person is as committed, or aware enough to research and compose a nutritionally complete diet when restricting animal fats. Therefore, these decisions should be up to the person, and not another person’s code of ethics. If a food source is whole and natural, what right does one person have to insist to another that their diet is unacceptable and should be amended? Simply put, people should have the natural right to make whole food decisions that they are comfortable with, just as they have done for thousands of years. Eating is applicable to a person's quality of life. What are the ramifications of abstaining from buying fur?

Unless you own a fur farm, none. There is a clear and obvious biological incentive to consume meat, and that is the case for almost any other omnivorous animal. No supposed nutritional study is going to erase this fact.


Animal rights supporters may think they see an opportunity to insert their animal liberation ideology when people fret over the subject of animals being killed for trivial fashion, but they are kidding themselves.

The idea that fur-wearing is as much of a choice and is no worse than consuming animal-based products is a dangerous mentality for animals, and serves to hinder our progress in creating reasonable welfare standards for the animals we incorporate into our lives.

Click thumbnail to view full-size
Screenshot from the music video for "No More Drama" where the artist begs for 'no more pain' while looking at sad images on TV. A truly great start to ending suffering in the world would be lack of electrocuting whatever animal(s) this was. No conscious.
Screenshot from the music video for "No More Drama" where the artist begs for 'no more pain' while looking at sad images on TV.
Screenshot from the music video for "No More Drama" where the artist begs for 'no more pain' while looking at sad images on TV.
A truly great start to ending suffering in the world would be lack of electrocuting whatever animal(s) this was.
A truly great start to ending suffering in the world would be lack of electrocuting whatever animal(s) this was.
No conscious.
No conscious. | Source

Mary J.Blige sheds many tears over God-knows-what in her overwrought music videos, than gleefully poses with fur from multiple animals, firing back at her critiques with this statement:

"Those PETA people don't want to mess with me, they don't want to throw paint on my coat because it's not just going to be throwing paint. It's going to be Mary in the news the next day, you know what I mean? "What gives them the right to destroy someone's coat because their opinion is that you shouldn't wear animals? Understand what I'm saying?"

The epitome of fakery and deception.

Click thumbnail to view full-size
'America's favorite couple' (Beyonce and Jay-Z), when they are not closing down hospitals to birth their children, indulge in fur-wearing as they have bragged about in the popular song "Crazy in Love". Beyonce visits the United Nations for 'World Humanitarian Day'.
'America's favorite couple' (Beyonce and Jay-Z), when they are not closing down hospitals to birth their children, indulge in fur-wearing as they have bragged about in the popular song "Crazy in Love".
'America's favorite couple' (Beyonce and Jay-Z), when they are not closing down hospitals to birth their children, indulge in fur-wearing as they have bragged about in the popular song "Crazy in Love".
Source
Beyonce visits the United Nations for 'World Humanitarian Day'.
Beyonce visits the United Nations for 'World Humanitarian Day'.

Fur should NOT be acceptable

Fur is a frivolous aspect of our modern culture; a mere fabric of the fashion industry. What’s worse, it is an approbation of the human desire to appreciate what is superficial, paltry and classist. Much of fur’s appeal is in the egocentric qualities that displaying it on oneself possesses. Fur screams, ‘look how many expensive animals were raised and killed just so I can wear them’. How else would one explain that while the current trendy aesthetic favors form-fitting clothing, many of these coats resemble a blanket draped over the wearers’ shoulders, suggesting a sort of ‘medieval appeal’. Common-place in perhaps an age where animals and even humans were subjected to massive amounts of rights and welfare violations, this mindset should be frowned upon today.

A friend once told me when I outlined why fur-wearing/support is not unlike supporting animal cruelty and neglect, that well, so many people do it. How can you condemn people for wearing it when it is so common? This is how fur acceptance prevails and is not seen as how it should be.

It is poignantly contemptible that anyone would allow a single animal to die for such a purpose. This is of course without touching on how terribly animals raised for fur live before they are ‘dispatched’ through neck-breaking, beating, anal electrocution, and the ever so popularly claimed ‘skinned alive’, which, for the sake of my own sanity, I will assume doesn’t happen often or purposely.


One of the few 'nicer' images I could locate that provides some perspective on the permanent living conditions of farmed foxes.
One of the few 'nicer' images I could locate that provides some perspective on the permanent living conditions of farmed foxes. | Source

Factory Farming

Another issue not considered is that many fur-bearing animals used in this severely under regulated industry are more demanding and cannot be humanely ‘farmed’ (this is something I have enhanced knowledge of from keeping an exotic). Agricultural animals such as cows, chickens, bison, and sheep ideally should be raised free-range, and/or should be feeding on hay in roomy sheltered pens. Predacious animals that are commonly farmed for fur, such as mink and foxes, cannot be confined to such conditions without it being detrimental to their well-being. Carnivores are active hunters. Stereotypical behavior is common and evident among confined predators, as they are provided with zero enrichment and not enough room for them to take 2 steps without meeting a wall. How can we expect to even begin to address the (equally important) conflicts with the agricultural industry when we still have torturous and incredibly unnecessary practices like fur production occurring?


It should be understood that if we can justify death, let alone torture of animals solely for adding another frivolous fashion choice (among many, including faux fur) to those with disposable incomes, we cannot rule away a person’s ‘choice’ to fight dogs,create and distribute “Crush” fetish videos, poach elephants for ivory, or pleasure hunt animals with no intention of eating the meat. In Lady Gaga’s case, “art” is what inspired her to forfeit a basic principle of moral decency. Whether or not her coat was real, her denial to comment on the subject is just empowering her followers to ignore the horrors of such a decision. People who are indifferent to fur wearing are on par with Michael Vick supporters, in my opinion.

Jennifer Lopez in one 'musician' who sells fur in her own fashion line.
Jennifer Lopez in one 'musician' who sells fur in her own fashion line. | Source

Why Pick on Celebrities? They Are Influential.

Many of these celebrities have piles of followers. Gaga specifically, lauds her efforts with anti-bullying campaigns and support of gay rights. It baffles me that they can flash their fake smiles, allege to be reasonable human begins and be celebrated by unthinking people as model citizens while they can’t even bring themselves to skip a near sadistic choice of fashion. It is behavior that would be expected from some sociopaths and people with certain forms of anti-social personality disorder (which in all honesty is why the fur-wearing committed by people like Kanye West and 50 Cent to me, is unsurprising), but for celebrities that masquerade as caring individuals with human values, it is entirely unacceptable behavior and, in the broad scheme, is just one of the most senseless crimes one can commit against animals because it is so simple to just not purchase or market clothes that use real fur. It's pathetic that I have to struggle to be able to maintain my right to keep pets that are not domesticated, while praised celebrities like Beyonce and Lady Gaga are unquestioned by their devoted fan base. It is perplexing and stress-inducing how backwards our priorities are. These 'artists' need to abandon this display of lack of morals so I can go back to hating them solely for being worshiped despite lack of talent.

This is NOT a subject only reserved for animal rights radicals, and this is what groups like PETA accomplish with their inanity. If only these groups could recognize the damage they cause when they convince people that this issue is a facet of the animal rights movement.

More by this Author


Comments 19 comments

Shaddie profile image

Shaddie 4 years ago from Washington state

The subject of animal fur is a tough one for me, as I enjoy furs and own quite a few of them (though none of them are pieces of clothing, they are taxidermied pelts). I try to justify my collection by saying that I've never purchased fur from fur farms or any companies that mass produce these products. Rather, they have all been second-hand items from odd antique stores, Craigslist, or spoils I have "made" myself from animals I found already deceased. Though I understand how purchasing any fur, from anywhere, could possibly just be further fueling the demand. It's something I struggle with on occasion.

I like fur, but it's hard to explain why. Perhaps its the smell, the feel, or maybe it's something else entirely. I know from pre-killed animals that I have "collected" skins or skulls from in the past, that it feels almost as if I am immortalizing said animal by cherishing its pelt or its bones. To me it feels honorable, but I know to many it could be perceived as a disgraceful defilement.

But I would like to add that I do not approve of fur clothes. People go to stores and buy these heinously expensive items simply because they're fur, and fur is a symbol of wealth. The faces, legs, and often the tails of the animals used are chopped off these days, as if to shield people from realizing they're wearing a creature that was once living and breathing. They become nothing but soulless skins sitting in a glittery store, and they make me sad.


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 4 years ago from New York Author

I don't understand, were the animals killed specifically to produce your fur? I don't see anything wrong with taxidermy-ing animals that have died for other reasons that are not frivolous. That is rather analogous to the fur trade in high fashion. But a lot of people have exotic animals that die and I wonder why anyone would specifically kill animals just to produce a taxidermy item when there are probably plenty of dead animals available for that. I don't think it's consistent with our moral code to rear animals and sacrifice them for superficial purposes. But I guess if the items already exist, they shouldn't be wasted.


Shaddie profile image

Shaddie 4 years ago from Washington state

The furs I have bought (that I did not harvest myself), I am truthfully unaware of their origins since I get them from people who got them from people, etc, so I can't say for certain if they animals were killed solely for fur. But in the case of badgers, coyotes, and other small carnivores, it is unlikely they were killed for meat.

Many people do keep exotic animals, but I've found it very difficult to collect the bodies of peoples' deceased pets. Most people are reluctant to allow their pet to be used for fur or other things, despite the worth of their parts. Which is unfortunate...

Perhaps it's a silly idea, but if private keepers and zoos allowed the fur from their deceased charges to be harvested and used towards [whatever people use fur for] then we might see less fur farms and less poaching.


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 4 years ago from New York Author

They were probably collected, I know hunters shoot animals like foxes and badgers all the time, for reasons that I'm not so sure of. But I doubt it's mainly to collect the fur, more like a by-product of a more frivolous sporting venture disguised as 'pest control' . Trust me people would complain if zoo animals and pets were used for fur. They think a non-living animal can be 'disrespected' and worry that it would indirectly fuel the fur trade.


tussin profile image

tussin 4 years ago from Behind You

Just curious, are you also against wearing wool? What about leather made from the hides of animals that are used for food, cattle in particular? If the animal is already being killed for meat, should the skin be harvested too or left to go to waste?


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 4 years ago from New York Author

Of course not, as I'm not against eating meat. I have another hub entitled 'Is it Ethical to Eat Meat for Taste?' It is a good thing to get more uses out of byproducts from the meat trade. The issue becomes more complicated when I ponder, 'what if they found a way to use the meat of the dead chinchillas? What if they put it in pet food or something?' Yet I think this is still not right, as I think the byproducts should only be derived from 'food animals', not because these animals deserve to die more, or want to live less, but because these animals are the best suited for farming, and these are the animals we eat, culturally. I hate the idea of meat-consumption turning into anything other than a natural exchange, or frivolous, as we know that it is technically 'unfair' but this isn't a perfect world. I'll probably comment more on that when I write about the exotic meat market (lion burgers).


Ilikecake 3 years ago

I'm not so sure a chinchilla or mink suffers more on a farm than a laying hen, broiler chicken or pig (which are animals that are more intelligent than dogs). These animals aren't suited for crowded conditions anymore than mink or foxes are, which is why they have to have their beaks and tails cut off so they don't injure each other. Sows have to be kept in small stalls because they will fight to the death.

And it's not like the carcasses of fur animals are thrown away. They're turned into pet/zoo animal food and/or fertilizer. I'm sure if fur wasn't so taboo to begin with, they could market them for human consumption.

Leather is not a harmless by-product. The hide of an animal contributes to about 7-10% of its worth. Tanneries also pollute the environment with the toxic chemicals that are used to process hides, which ends up harming the environment and wildlife. If wearing leather was as taboo as fur, raising cattle would not be as profitable. If its not as profitable, fewer people will raise cattle. If fewer cattle are raised, fewer are killed.

In large scale egg production, millions of male baby chicks are thrown into grinders daily while still alive because they generate no profit, as they don't lay eggs. Nobody needs eggs anymore than they need fur. Yet no one calls egg-eaters monsters.

I'm sure many people could live fine on a meat-free diet, yet still eat meat. I know I can. I still eat the meat my hunting relatives give to me. I "need" meat as much as I "need" a fur coat or blanket. While the way many animals are raised sucks, I don't see how wearing fur, leather or eating meat in itself is inherently unethical.

I have no desire to wear a fur coat or even a leather jacket, but I have a hard time demonizing people who wear fur when a bazillion baby chicks are thrown into grinders so millions of Americans can get cheap eggs that they can easily live without. Maybe people are so upset about it because when you see a fur coat, you realize that the pelt used to belong to a living animal. When you look at pack of $1.00 eggs at the grocery store, you don't see the pile of ground up dead baby chicks that were treated like garbage to make that price tag possible. Or maybe people just value cute furry animals over chickens.

As for the belief that skinning alive is some sort of common or accepted way to dispatch fur animals in the U.S.:

http://www.furcommission.com/saving-society-from-a...


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 3 years ago from New York Author

Thanks for commenting again Ilikecake, this time with contrasting thoughts. I accept your alternative opinion.

"I'm not so sure a chinchilla or mink suffers more on a farm than a laying hen, broiler chicken or pig"

In my experience carnivore care is far more demanding than that of herbivores. I have a spotted genet, which is similar to minks in a lot of ways. These animals are 'continuous predators'. That means they have ingrained mental instincts to constantly search and hunt. I've committed much time toward attempting to satiate my pet's instincts and I'm still working on it. Without such enrichment excessive stereotyping is nearly always the result and it is likely that without satisfying the motivations of these animals anxiety and stress is occurring. One study suggested that a pool as enrichment (minks are semi-aquatic) is about as important to minks as food. Fur minks are housed in small cages, obviously no enrichment except some bedding. They get fed routinely, another huge issue with carnivore care. I consider these conditions to be inhumane. I also consider most factory farming conditions to be inhumane.

I don't know if pigs are 'smarter' than dogs, I haven't investigated further into this popular claim. It might just be that these animals are quicker at performing some tasks, but I need to investigate if species predisposition is responsible. Anyway, pigs still have more simplistic needs. They are ground forgers. If this element were to be introduced into commercial farming it would enhance their welfare.

"And it's not like the carcasses of fur animals are thrown away."

Look at it this way; if I declared I was going to buy a puppy so that I could kill it for my own amusement, would it make you feel better if I said I was going to toss the puppy into a pile of fertilizer once I finished using it? We have enough fertilizer. Chinchillas have very little meat on them and have specialized care requirements, hence why they weren't chosen to farm in the first place. Keeping them in 1'x1' boxes is also inhumane. I don't know which dog foods used dead minks and chinchillas, I dissuade people from using pet products that won't specify where the meat ingredient came from.

" If wearing leather was as taboo as fur, raising cattle would not be as profitable."

People eat A LOT of beef so I find that hard to believe. I have absolutely no need to wear or sit on leather, so if that were true I could drop it in a heart beat.

"Nobody needs eggs anymore than they need fur."

Animal protein is certainly -not- something I or most people who consume it could drop in a heart beat, so I find the comparison to fur to be invalid. Fur wearing has positively nothing to do with our biological evolution. There is a large vegan lobby running rampant in the scientific community proclaiming that vegetables were responsible for human evolution, but each side can only cite theoretical evidence. For many people who enjoy the 'SAD' diet, meat products possess their greatest chances of eating a real whole food outside of processed faux food products that are responsible for the majority of chronic illness. The vegan lobby would like us to believe meat started being bad for us 100 years ago and it has little to do with rancid vegetable oils, processing, excess salt, hormonal imbalances ect. I tend not to agree.

Your diet also effects the way you feel after you finish eating, and regardless of other people proclaiming they feel much better without meat, that is them, not me. People vary both on a physiological level and psychologically. Many people associate vegetarianism with good health but still don't eat that way, and many vegetarians fall back . Did they start hating animals or good health? No biological mechanism entices me to wear fur, it is entirely a frivolous, outside-of-nature decision and it is unnecessary.

I don't find cheap meat or eggs ethical, either. When I buy eggs, I buy farmer's eggs. My pets only eat free-range meats. Last time I checked, baby chicks were the epitome of cute.

"As for the belief that skinning alive is some sort of common or accepted way to dispatch fur animals in the US"

That makes no difference to me. It is likely the trade indirectly supports isolated cases of this. Either way, it is all totally unnecessary and cruel, like dog fighting.

"http://www.furcommission.com/saving-society-from-a"

This link depressed me. It seems to glorify the fact that a law banning the sale of horrific crush videos didn't succeed because of the first amendment.


PaoloJpm profile image

PaoloJpm 3 years ago from Philippine

I wonder? Its been so many years since this is practice. Another thing is that, we all know fashion explores everything out of the box. And using animal's fur or skin is part of it. Yes, it has its life and rights, but, does we apply those when we eat them? Basic reason to think of. But, would you choose to waste such, that can be reproduce? back in the basic hundred and hundred years ago, when men learned to hunt down animals, they had used their little knowledge that I considered as their extinct to use the meat as meal and use the remaining parts such as fur for clothing against cold. So, from the very beginning its been a practice, a practice that also maintains the balance of ecosystem since man is on the top of the food chain. Another thing is that, today, animal raising has been a trend for business purposes that I say wont tremendously affect's the number of animal used as fur. Anyway, nice hub. It's just me.


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 3 years ago from New York Author

PaoloJpm, thanks for commenting and the hub addresses the meat argument. This hub is about killing for 'high fashion' and not about killing food animals and using all the parts of it. The fur trade is additional, unnecessary killing that uses no byproducts from food production.


PaoloJpm profile image

PaoloJpm 3 years ago from Philippine

Yeah, I know, I just did pointed it out. Anyway, it's a different way of understanding things isn't it?


Annie 2 years ago

Are you against wearing faux fur as well, or do you just find that frivilous?


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 2 years ago from New York Author

Considering that faux fur requires no killing, I can't say that I am.



eleanna 16 months ago

I have accidentally witnessed the ugliness of fur industry in my country, Greece... My family and I accidentally found an injured mink who had escaped from a local filthy fur farm. Definitely would never buy real fur, never!


Cynthia 16 months ago

Personally I am okay with fur. In a time were are drawn to the go green movement we need to make a decisions on what we define as green. To me green means biodegradable anything the earth can breakdown and make new. While animal lovers often opt for faux fur because it may be kind to the animal it isn't for the environment. Faux fur is made of petrochemicals, plastic that when throne away will not break down in a very long time. Fur however will.


Melissa A Smith profile image

Melissa A Smith 16 months ago from New York Author

I don't give a shit about 'green'. I don't stand for this ridiculous cruelty.


dari langone 13 months ago

only a subhuman fool could think torturing any animal is okay. As far as some famous people who wear furs with no regard for life please tell me how can some of them be able to look in the mirror. Not only from shame but also seeing their ugly face looking back.


JORGE 11 months ago

IS ALL DIRTY CRUEL MAKING MONEY ON THE SUFFERING OF NIMALS IN CAPTIVITY,,,,HELL WITH YOU IGNORANTS..

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working