Photo Credit: Associated Press

Joseph Turner, Global Animal

Two weeks ago, the South Korean government demanded that Fendi, the luxury fashion house, not show any fur on the catwalk in Seoul’s upcoming fashion show. But the initial victory for animal lovers and activists proved short-lived. Seoul officials reversed their position and are allowing Fendi’s models to wear fur.

First Seoul welcomed Fendi. Then the government sided with its citizens who didn’t want fur promoted in their city and gave Fendi a no-fur mandate. Now they’re allowing fur again. Why the political flip-flopping?

Seoul officials want to show off new tourist destinations on the Han River’s floating islands and fear that no Fendi could mean less media exposure at the fashion event. Press trumps pelts. The South Korean government is trying to appease those who care about animals with claims that Fendi models will wear fewer dead animals on the backs than initially planned.

The only real decision is to allow fur or not. Less fur is some fur, and as a compromise, it’s meaningless. Animals are either killed for clothing or not. Who has the authority to preemptively disband the show if Fendi violates the compromise in the reduced number of fur articles?

Those who protect animals and who promote wearing animals are diametrically opposed.

Though fur was once a necessity to keep warm, that was a long time ago. We now have many beautiful alternatives to fur that aren’t predicated on killing fellow animals. How can someone dress elegantly while wearing the remains of a once living being?

Fendi’s idea of luxury is a relic. Fendi’s fashion statement is dead. — Global Animal


Related Stories:

Seoul Tells Fendi No Fur On Catwalk

Fur Flies as 50,000 Minks Are Freed By Activists

Israel Introduces Bill To Be World’s First Fur-Free Nation




  1. It’s appalling that anyone still wears fur, after they’ve repeatedly been made aware of the ethical problems associated with it. China is the world ‘s largest exporter of fur clothing to the US and dog and cat fur is deliberately mislabeled so that it can be sold to unsuspecting Americans– the same China who cut safety corners to sell us contaminated pet food, lead-painted toys, melamine in flour, etc., is also selling us fur from animals that have been skinned alive (it’s cheaper that way). This is not an issue that concerns only animal rights advocates. Everyone from Pink to Paul McCartney has denounced fur. Even if you put aside the ethical problems and the cruelty, fur is so out-dated. Women who wear fur look like my old grandma going to her weekly bingo game. YUCK!!!

    • We’re with you, Patrick. Fur is profoundly grotesque and cruel. To my mind, wearing fur is an announcement to the world of one’s disconnectedness, datedness, and utter gullibility. Not very fashionable qualities at all.
      Thanks for your comment, Patrick.