Lusciious.x has issued a statement regarding to her stance on fur. It has not been edited. You can see it for yourself in her presentation:Fur is for animals. As harsh as it may sound, it is true, and it is a fact I stand firmly by. Anna Wintour, Editor-in-Chief of American Vogue, has led the way, and many have followed. But why kill innocent animals when high-quality faux-fur is (nowadays) just as good? Of course, faux-fur is cheaper, but does that make it less popular? Of course, I am not a hard-core advocate, and I am not a member of PETA, or any other anti-fur organization, but I make my stand. Quietly. Calmly. Steadfastly.
Quite frankly, it's no surprise that she is the Editor of a magazine, she writes so well. But, the real question is this: will this pit her against fur-lovers Style_Magazine and BeverleyHillsHei? Oh, what a shame. Just when they were becoming friends...
xoxo
Elle
1 comment:
I completely agree. I think wearing furis cruel, unnecessary and completely unjustified. Style_magazine says that fur is an 'artwork'. Hmm. "Ah yes darling, This is dead carcass, from the lethal traps of wintry Russia. Vintage Michael Kors" Still seem 'vogue'? I have to say, Ive lost respect for Style Mag.
Visit me on stardoll, im Welsh_Witch
Post a Comment