Jennifer Aniston May Be Next In Line For PETA Fur Attack

23
by Michael dEstries August 15, 2008
Categories: Animals, Fashion
Tags: .

Actress Jennifer Aniston stopped by the Edwards-Lowell fur boutique in Beverly Hills yesterday — prompting speculation that the former Friends star may be picking out some new animal skins for the winter.

We obviously all know what might come next should Jen decide to walk that road: a harshly written letter from PETA and some not-so-flattering press. How could there be any appeal in shopping in places like a fur boutique these days?

We know that Aniston loves animals — she had two dogs of her own — so here’s to hoping that someone informs her of the cruelty associated with the fur trade and the detriments of supporting it.

via JustJared


Categories: Animals, Fashion
Tags: .

About Michael dEstries

Michael has been blogging since 2005 on issues such as sustainability, renewable energy, philanthropy, and healthy living. He regularly contributes to a slew of publications, as well as consulting with companies looking to make an impact using the web and social media. He lives in Ithaca, NY with his family on an apple farm.

View all posts by Michael dEstries →
  • anon

    she didnt buy anything

  • fbr

    The human race has worn animal skins for as long as we’ve existed. If you wish not to consume any animal based products you’re free to do so, but criticizing someone for wearing a fur coat is pointless. The animals used to create that coat were the lucky ones compared to those that are at the mercy of nature’s cruelty.

  • VeggieTart

    fbr, 100 years ago there were no options to keeping warm. Plus, 100 years ago people didn’t keep animals on fur farms or throw traps out and let animals suffer for hours or days after being caught. There’s a big difference between breeding, mutilating, and confining animals and an animal “left to nature’s mercy.”

    But it’s the 21st century, and you’d think people would get over wearing the skins of other animals because they think it’s pretty. There are plenty of ways to keep warm that don’t involve wearing the pelts of animals. Furthermore, it doesn’t really get that cold in L.A. Unless Aniston is planning a trip to the Arctic Circle this winter, she doesn’t need a freaking fur.

  • David

    All the time I hear.. “A woman has the right to do with her body what shes wants” ( in discussions about abortion).

    In the case of a woman wanting to wear a fur coat, it’s the same thing.

    If PETA wants to write someone a harsh letter…”That’s their right”…but…

    When PETA nut cases start throwing paint on women that wear fur coats, they should be treated like the nut cases that break the laws & try to block women from going to an abortion clinic.

    I’d buy a fur coat, just to rub PETA’s nose in it.

  • Krisi

    Amen to that VeggieTart!!!

  • http://www.furisdead.com Hales

    That’s intelligent. You’ll advocate the torture of animals just to get at the people who fight against the torture of animals. Go to the PETA site or do a Google search to see how fur is made and the animals its made of (including dogs and cats) and then perhaps you’ll be on their side.

    I really hope Jennifer Aniston hasn’t fallen that low.

  • fbr

    VeggieTart, you might want to check your facts. “Throw[ing] traps out and let[ting] animals suffer for hours or days after being caught” is exactly what was done 100 years ago. You do realize that animals getting maimed by each other, and suffering for hours or days before dying, is completely natural and happens all around us all the time?

    True, today we have oil based materials we didn’t have access to 100 years ago, but that’s about it. Without animal based products we could not keep warm or feed the population on the Earth today.

    The animal rights extremism today seems to stem from people living incredibly sheltered lives without any understanding what the nature is like. The “suffering” caused by the fur industry is nothing compared to what happens in the nature every day, and that is why the animals that end up as some celebrity’s coat are the lucky ones.

  • Patricia

    fbr, you are so ignorant. Maybe you need to actually watch undercover video footage of some Chinese fur farms. The animals are literally SKINNED ALIVE. Most fur in the US comes from China. Those animals used for fur are in no way the “lucky ones”.

    I have always been a fan of Jennifer Aniston. But if she sinks that low to wear fur on her back, she will no longer receive my support. I hope PETA does contact her.

  • http://kwanzoo.com/social-trivia Liz

    Can’t PETA focus their efforts on the retailers who sell fur instead of people who walk into them? Last time I checked, there’s nothing morally objectionable about walking into a store that sells things you don’t agree with.

  • liz

    fbr i have news for you animals in the fur trade don’t just suffer “hours or days” before they die. they suffer their whole lives. would you rather be in a cage where you can’t even sit up your whole life cramped in there where you can hardly breathe or take your choices out in the forest with prey? I think i’d take the latter. But I almost think I’d rather be in that filthy cage than spend time with YOU.

  • fbr

    Patricia and liz, if you have a reasoned argument in defense of you position, please make it. Making assumptions about your opponents and then criticizing them is pointless and does nothing to advance the debate.

    One last time: Yes, I have seen how animals are treated in a wide variety of different conditions ranging from “undercover video footage” by animal rights activists to actually seeing in person well managed conditions. I have also studied and experienced what the real nature is like (not the furry documentaries on Animal Planet). Comparing these I find nothing morally questionable about the current state of the fur industry; it could be far more cruel and still not match what happens in nature all the time.

  • Patricia

    I do agree that PETA should focus on retailers, but celebrities are in the spotlight and many people look to them as fashion icons. Also, consumers are what keep the fur industry in business, so you have to also focus on the consumer.

    There is absolutely NO REASON to wear fur, so why should the animals suffer just so someone can drape animal skin over their back? What happens in nature is well, natural! Humans keeping animals in cramped cages, electrocuting them in the anus,etc. and then stripping the fur off their backs just so some rich, selfish human can look good is not NATURAL!

  • http://www.theveganbus.com veganicat

    fbr – humans using animals for food in increasing amounts is one of the main trends pushing us towards extinction. The oceans are almost depleted, factory farming is polluting the environment and grazing ruminants are the leading cause of global climate change. That is just the tip of the melting iceberg.

    It is our “nature” to have a high level of intelligence and an exceptional ability to create and use tools and language. We have the ability to perceive our own impact on the environment and to make changes to live harmoniously. We do not need to continue on forever as a barbaric species that thrives on war and creating suffering in others for our own benefit. We can understand evolution and perhaps we can even expand our minds to realize we are a part of it.

    Because “nature” is inherently cruel does not mean that we should be. We perceive ourselves to be the pinnacle of creation, yet as a whole we act like an idiotic virus trying to kill it own host. Our violence begins with our diet and expands outward. We feed our “food animals” diets of pesticide-ridden grains and waste animal proteins. We keep them imprisoned and abused. We then kill them and ingest their flesh, which reacts violently in our own bodies, causing us disease. We try to cure our diseases by torturing many thousands of more animals. We hoard everything and go to war to keep what we could easily share.

    Nature is a meaningless term. Everything is nature. It is within a practice of compassionate nonviolence that we can achieve something meaningful. If we aspire to be the pinnacle of creation we profess to be then it is our duty to lift all species towards a higher state of being.

    I hope that someday you may realize the places in your life where you have become desensitized to violence, and the reasons.

  • VeggieTart

    fbr, there is a big difference between what other animals do–because they don’t have the ability to reason, nor do they have the highly developed conscience humans do–and what humans do.

    I don’t advocate violence against purveyors of animal cruelty. But shaming celebrities out of wearing fur is another matter entirely. There are plenty of people who will want a fur because a celebrity does; discouraging them from doing it will reduce demand for cruel “fabrics.”

    Why are you so anti-animal, anyway, fbr?

  • Jake

    I was going to make a comment about this story, but fbr’s comments are far more entertaining! I haven’t laughed so much in ages!

    Comparing what wild animals do to each other in nature, and what supposedly civilised human beings do to animals for their own gain is lunacy.

    A lion attacks and kills a zebra, for example, because the lion has no other alternative if he is to survive. A human being who permanently ends the life of a mink so they can gain financially from his skin DOES have a choice, because their own survival does not depend exclusively on doing so. Being a fur farmer is a choice, not a right, and many other forms of employment are available.

    To summarise, wild animals hurting and killing other animals is unavoidable, and they do so for their own survival. Human beings hurting and killing animals for fashion IS avoidable, and is done for financial gain and vanity.

  • smarty

    I think fur coats are awesome and I hope Jennifer gets one and enjoys it. PETA exists to elicit emotional reactions from people so they’ll send in money. This organization is getting too big for its britches, offering to buy off Aretha Franklin’s mortgage if she’ll stop wearing fur, etc. As other posters have indicated, there are plenty of reasons for wearing real fur. PETA has been exposed in the past faking its videos and was even found guilty of the practice in a European court. If you want to do something nice for animals, get a dog and treat him well. Harrassing people who wear or sell fur does nothing to help animal populations, not in the least.

  • smarty

    I’m also interested in how many of these anti-fur types are pro choice. So it’s okay to kill an unborn human baby for nothing more than the convenience of the mother, but it is wrong to kill some rodents to make a coat that will keep someone warm for years. If a woman has a right to do what she wants with her body, then she has a right to wear fur.

  • gloria

    100+ years ago, when an animal was killed it was used for food (meat), clothing (pelts), the oils were used to make soap, and even the bones were used for “boning” in women’s undergarmets. We’re not living 100 years ago. While it may have been necessary at one point in history, we have many more options available now for food, clothing, ect. We should be smarter. Man is also an animal – supposedly the most intelligent animal. I often wonder about that.

  • Patricia

    Smarty, if you think fur coats are awesome, then wear them. You are only making yourself look like a selfish, materialistic jerk with not one ounce of compassion in your body. Since becoming an animal activist long ago, I have become ashamed to be human, especially when it comes to ignorant humans such as yourself.

  • Zuke

    I bet 99% of the people crying about bunny rabbits are prochoice.
    Prove me wrong.

  • smarty

    Patricia:

    Like most fanatics, you do not even pay attention to anyone who disagrees with you. You know everything and that’s it. You did not even read my post. I know this because, if you did, you would see that your response does not make sense. I made an observation that goes beyond what you think. I said nothing about me wearing fur. I defended someone else’s right to wear it. Do you comprehend the difference? I further questionedn PETA’s intentions given their past actions and pointed out that animal rights activists really do very little to help animals. None of this even registered with you, because you’re a brain-washed follower.

  • smarty

    Also, why is it that animal rights activists, like VegiTart, always assume that someone is “anti-animal” if they do not buy into the extremist animal rights agenda? Why Vegi-Tart are so many animal rights activists anti-human?

    Couldn’t it be that those who oppose your views do so, not because they dislike animals, but because they favor freedom of choice? People should be allowed to make their own moralistic choices, Vegi. They do not need the likes of you telling them what is right and wrong. If you don’t like fur, don’t wear it. You say that you think its okay to intimidate celebrities into doing or not doing something. What if those same tactics were used on someone who just got an abortion. What if a pro-life person decided to publicly humiliate and intimidate a pregnant woman in order to discourage her from getting an abortion? Would that be acceptable to you? What is the difference between this and what you are advocating? Go ahead now, start the spin.

  • Mannywrd

    There is no such animal called pro-life. You can’t be dropping tons of bombs on kids far away and be pro-life. The pro-life in America is a political notion. Opposit tactics among the political parties grab hold of a realistic concept as selling feature. One who kills wild animals is a sick blood thirsty sob. We managed thru our history to destroy the buffalo..why? Why hunt and kill so few left?

« PREVIOUS POST
NEXT POST »