Looknsee Photography wrote:
Alicia Silverstone would rather go naked than wear wool.

No complaints from me....

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Alicia Silverstone would rather go naked than wear wool.  (Mildly 18+).

Wool?  I kinda think that sheep need to be sheared each year -- otherwise, they can grow a 70 pound fur ball that is totally tangled.  It's not like we kill sheep to get to the wool, do we?  It grows back, and the sheep are happier & cooler for the shearing.

Is a wool boycott really a thing?

(She does look pretty good, though).

Yes, it is a thing.

MOST people don't have problems with wool as a product, but the 'wool industry' and how they treat livestock. But, like any other hot-button issue, there are going to be some goobers that see a video or three of some terrible conditions, and swear on their mother's grave that's how it works in every farm around the world.

As with most products, you can buy a sweater made with responsibly harvested wool from sheep that never see a factory - but it will set you back $350. Unless you own cats(and a PETA supporter should never own pets), it's actually a wise investment. An Irish-style cable knit will never, ever go out of style(it hasn't yet in over a century), it lasts just about forever, and wool from sheep that live on a proper farm(rather than in a factory) is warmer and tougher.

One of the reasons why many militaries still issue wool overcoats is that it is one of the only fabrics on Earth that is almost as warm when soaking wet, and actually resists  tearing and cutting when wet. If you try to cut wet wool felt with a pair of scissors, it'll drive you nuts; you'll make it about an inch and then jam the scissors.

Zack Zoll wrote:
One of the reasons why many militaries still issue wool overcoats is that it is one of the only fabrics on Earth that is almost as warm when soaking wet, and actually resists  tearing and cutting when wet. If you try to cut wet wool felt with a pair of scissors, it'll drive you nuts; you'll make it about an inch and then jam the scissors.

and that's why it is so valuable. i think there may be some new fleece materials that come close to wool in that dept, but wool still is king. many a fisherman in the irish/north seas were spared hypothermia from good old aran wool sweaters.  

and i know this topic can easily veer into locked material. all i'll say is that folks who have a problem with wool should realize that any man made fabric that can compete with it come from a petroleum based background.

damned if you do, damned if you don't. i love wool, and will wear it until i croak.

GK photo wrote:

and that's why it is so valuable. i think there may be some new fleece materials that come close to wool in that dept, but wool still is king. many a fisherman in the irish/north seas were spared hypothermia from good old aran wool sweaters.  

and i know this topic can easily veer into locked material. all i'll say is that folks who have a problem with wool should realize that any man made fabric that can compete with it come from a petroleum based background.

damned if you do, damned if you don't. i love wool, and will wear it until i croak.

I have one of those old Russian greatcoats. I also have a Barbour wool sweater with a nylon wind liner on the inside. Wearing both at once, I have broken a sweat in subzero weather just from walking.

To a certain extent, I understand veganism. We never would have progressed past Neanderthals if we were always vegan(the extra fat and calories in meat played a large role), but I get that we live in a modern age where many animal products are no longer needed.

That said, it is very easy to try and speak for everyone'a needs - or worse, to convince yourself that you're that smart. Nobody is that smart.

I would be a lot more likely to believe this message if it came from a Finnish or Russian person - same as I wouldn't believe an Alaskan lumberjack who told me that lightweight nylon was just a way for the oil companies to trick us into buying worthless stuff.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
is showing her ass going to make her relevant again? the article refers to her as the actress in clueless. ..which was a movie from 21 years ago! has she done nothing since?

my opinion:
this is in bad taste.

why with the nudity?

Bad Taste ???
How so ?

Hunter  GWPB wrote:
There is a telling line in the ad:
"Wear your own skin.  Let the animals keep theirs."  The skin is not removed from the animal when the wool is sheared.  There are often a few nicks and cuts, which are far from life threatening.  The sheep never seem to enjoy the process but they would have a really tough summer if they were not shorn.   

Sheep are not raised in confined spaces like chickens, so they are not living an horrible life.  They come and go as they please on the small farms around here, and live on the open range in western states.

Many years ago, I would put a deer or two and a lamb in the freezer every year.  In those cases, they lost their skins.

I wonder if people ever consider that world wide veganism would result in the demise of domestic animals instead of preserving them?  (No, I don't mean preserving them in jars or as jerky.)  There would be no economic reason to keep farm animals.  They would trample and consume the food supply of a vegan society were they to be released into the wild suburbs of America.

There would also be no way to keep carnivores like dogs and cats in good health, unless we set them all free. At which point, the Shih Tzus and the Persians would all starve to death.

But let us not worry about the logic of fringe groups, left or right. If their logic were infallible, they wouldn't be fringe groups - not after a few decades and massive amounts of publicity, any way.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I would be a lot more likely to believe this message if it came from a Finnish or Russian person - same as I wouldn't believe an Alaskan lumberjack who told me that lightweight nylon was just a way for the oil companies to trick us into buying worthless stuff.

punto.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I have one of those old Russian greatcoats. I also have a Barbour wool sweater with a nylon wind liner on the inside. .

i still have my navy pea coat that i got from my local army/navy store in like 1979. it still looks great, and does the job, insulation wise.

Zack Zoll wrote:

There would also be no way to keep carnivores like dogs and cats in good health, unless we set them all free. At which point, the Shih Tzus and the Persians would all starve to death.

But let us not worry about the logic of fringe groups, left or right. If their logic were infallible, they wouldn't be fringe groups - not after a few decades and massive amounts of publicity, any way.

Which brings up the environmental disaster that domestic house cats cause when they are let out or go feral.  Even though they are occasionally food for coyotes and foxes, owls and hawks. 

A lot of dog food is corn based.  Or maybe it is Soylent Green.

Paolo Diavolo wrote:
is showing her ass going to make her relevant again? the article refers to her as the actress in clueless. ..which was a movie from 21 years ago! has she done nothing since?

my opinion:
this is in bad taste.

why with the nudity?

Nudity -- I'm all for it, especially if we are talking attractive women.  Sorry, but that's how I figure it.

She was in a more recent movie, "Wild" (?) -- wasn't she nominated for an Oscar for that role?

Zack Zoll wrote:
One of the reasons why many militaries still issue wool overcoats is that it is one of the only fabrics on Earth that is almost as warm when soaking wet, and actually resists  tearing and cutting when wet. If you try to cut wet wool felt with a pair of scissors, it'll drive you nuts; you'll make it about an inch and then jam the scissors.

It is also highly fire resistant. More so than cotton and a lot more so than nearly any synthetic short of Nomex or Kevlar,

Studio36

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Nudity -- I'm all for it, especially if we are talking attractive women.  Sorry, but that's how I figure it.

She was in a more recent movie, "Wild" (?) -- wasn't she nominated for an Oscar for that role?

that was Reese Witherspoon

Looknsee Photography wrote:
She was in a more recent movie, "Wild" (?) -- wasn't she nominated for an Oscar for that role?

Motordrive Photography wrote:
that was Reese Witherspoon

Oh.  Sorry.  (Are we sure those are two different people?)

Looknsee Photography wrote:
A few thoughts:

1)  I think it's cruel not to shear sheep.  Their fur doesn't stop growing.  I seem to remember a recent article about an escaped sheep that was found after a few years -- it had 60 extra pounds of wool on its body, and it really couldn't move around.

Unsheared Sheep So Wooly He Nearly Died



2)  Humans, for as long as we were humans, have exploited animals -- not only for food & clothing but also for housing, transportation, farming, weapons, medicines, and so.  Our bodies have evolved to consume animals.  We wouldn't be humans without animal exploitation.

3)  I live downtown, and on one of my walking routes, there is a fur store.  About twice a year, there's a half-assed "Fur is Murder" demonstration, drawing maybe 6-8 protestors.  I walked by, and as I did, I pointed to the leather belts & shoes & bag & jackets, and asked, "Why is fur bad but leather good?"  When I walked back by the store on my way home, the protestors were gone.

Leather can be made from animals slaughtered for meat. Can be.

Outside of bears, and the most rugged trappers and food tourists, nobody eats the animals we get fur from.

And 'sheep' don't need to be shorn - they existed for a long time before we started doing that. That's the argument, anyway.

The counterpoint is that sheep existing today do need to be shorn, as they've been selectively bred for larger and fuller coats. Truly wild livestock only exist in a few places in the world, and only slightly resemble their captive counterparts. What we'd need to do is genetically reverse-engineer the older breed(those projects exist for cattle), and then let THOSE free.

Of course, that's got it's own argument against it.

Really the only logical solution is to ban breeding, and continue to use the animals until they all due of natural causes.

Well, would be logical. Good luck convincing ranchers to pay millions of dollars to feed and maintain these animals when their business is guaranteed to fail in a few years.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Leather can be made from animals slaughtered for meat. Can be.

I really don't want to get sucked into this argument.  I just figure that if "Fur is Murder", then so is leather.  I also figure that we can't turn all those animals loose because their natural habitat is mostly gone by now.  It is not logical to ban breeding.  Question:  I love lamb -- what's the relationship between lamb & sheep?  As long as we've been selectively breeding animals, we've been selectively breeding humans -- our bodies have evolved to take nutrition from meat, and those various vegetarian / vegan diets are unnatural.

Looknsee Photography wrote:

I really don't want to get sucked into this argument.  I just figure that if "Fur is Murder", then so is leather.  I also figure that we can't turn all those animals loose because their natural habitat is mostly gone by now.  It is not logical to ban breeding.  Question:  I love lamb -- what's the relationship between lamb & sheep?  As long as we've been selectively breeding animals, we've been selectively breeding humans -- our bodies have evolved to take nutrition from meat, and those various vegetarian / vegan diets are unnatural.

Oh, it was absolutely not my intent to start an argument. I'm just saying that if there is a major ethical difference, that's what it is. Whether it's right or not is something for another conversation.

studio36uk wrote:

It is also highly fire resistant. More so than cotton and a lot more so than nearly any synthetic short of Nomex or Kevlar,

Studio36

I love wool products!  It is a fabulous material.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Oh.  Sorry.  (Are we sure those are two different people?)

One is chin. One is forehead.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I love wool products!  It is a fabulous material.

Don't let her pull it over your eyes, then!

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
edit...Oh its PETA nevermind

wooly bully

Augustine wrote:

One is chin. One is forehead.

Looknsee Photography wrote:
Is a wool boycott really a thing?

(She does look pretty good, though).

Her position seems well explained & thought out even if I disagree with its premise. & I applaud her for finding a cause that means something to her & actively doing something about it. That's more than what I can say for the majority of us Americans.

Farenell Photography wrote:

Her position seems well explained & thought out even if I disagree with its premise. & I applaud her for finding a cause that means something to her & actively doing something about it. That's more than what I can say for the majority of us Americans.

Except at 62 my ass looks horrible in a photograph.

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
Except at 62 my ass looks horrible in a photograph.

I'll bet she could refer you to a good retoucher:-)

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
She looks very good for her age.

Oh, the political opinion? Wasn't paying attention. Maybe PETA should realise that this campaign has outlived its shock value?

Yep. And Pam Anderson was still relevant when she posed. Not extremely, but at least enough that I wouldn't believe you if you told me she'd been dead for a decade.

This ad dials back on everything. The photography is solid though.

David Shinobi  wrote:

No complaints from me....

Yep, she is still a hottie.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Leather can be made from animals slaughtered for meat. Can be.

Outside of bears, and the most rugged trappers and food tourists, nobody eats the animals we get fur from.

And 'sheep' don't need to be shorn - they existed for a long time before we started doing that. That's the argument, anyway.

I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure that you have your facts wrong, or at least your terms.

-Conceptually there is little difference between leather and fur in that they are the skin of an animal. In today's reality, all leather and fur is produced from farmed animals except in rare cases (I don't know this about fox, but it is true for mink and similar).
-Your notion of 'outside of bears' than no animals that produce leather or skins are eaten is just plain false. Majorly false and sorta kinda exposes a lack of global awareness of other cultures. Just because Americans follow the Beef-Pork-Chicken triad does not mean that every culture does.
-Leather and shearling (sheepskin) are byproducts of the meat industry. Cows, pigs and horses (yes, horses) are slaughtered for their meat and the skins are used for leather. Even dairy cows are slaughtered at a later age (than beef cattle) and produce meat and leather.
-Sheep (the topic at hand) are raised to the point of their first wool coat and sheared. Then they are slaughtered for meat and skin--hence the term shearling.
-Leather and shearling are not considered fur because of the two points above
-Your notion about other fur animals is partially true in that mink and similar are not farmed for meat, but there are some uses for the carcass (http://furcommission.com/faq/)

I am not an advocate or apologist for the industry, but since you interjected some erroneous information I thought it was fair to comment. Personally I draw the line leather and shearling and do not wear or shoot fur. I learned a lot shooting for leather and shearling clients in my career. I would suggest research before making such sweeping statements.

Santa Claus wrote:

I'll bet she could refer you to a good retoucher:-)

That comment made me laugh . Thanks