When is a fur, not a fur?
Another month, another moral dilemma. And, it involves fur. Oh dear, I hear you say. Indeed. That, amongst many other things, is just what I said myself.
In another, less environmentally responsible time, when all manner of creatures had no rights at all and that included small furry ones, furs were a status symbol, a luxury item, and one of the most desired items on the planet. Fur - of course - was originally a necessary means to a keeping-from-freezing-to-death end and a by-product of our most basic need, nutrition - but with the advent of man made fabrics (or at least fabrics man could weave, knit, and cobble together as opposed to making out of recycled
plastic ashtrays or whatever it is that that horror, nylon, is made from) furs moved from the strictly practical to the totally unaffordable - at least with the smaller and less populous creatures.
Any woman who, as a little girl, ever snuggled into their grandmothers' fur coat - long relegated to the back of the cupboard for fear of egg- throwing activists - will never forget the silky soft sensation sliding sensuously... I need to stop this train of thought immediately.
Now, I would be one of your most ardent anti-fur exponents in RL. I can't imagine wearing something that had to die horribly (or even humanely, for that matter) in order for me to wear it. But, this is SL. What to do?
Given that the average pixel is neither cute, endangered nor requires clubbing into submission - though many of the designers of my acquaintance may beg to differ on that one - does the acquisition of a fur anything in SL contravene one's ethical stance on RL fur? The meaning of 'faux' becomes quite convoluted and leads to even further confusion as - is a faux-fur really a faux-faux-fur, and does that make fur actually faux-fur after all if its constructed in SL?
I have pondered mightily and don't think I'm any closer to a conclusion. Is fur really fur in SL? Is it the concept of fur? Is a graphical representation of a photograph of fur that is alive and well and wandering
about happily in RL, morally reprehensively or easily defensible? Do we have to engage with our designers to enquire whether the item we covet was constructed from photographs of dead fur or alive fur? Would our designers be even faintly interested in such a dialogue or would we find ourselves in
an even worse position with outraged designers and virtual egg-throwing activists?
The whole thing moves into fresh fields when you consider such items as tiger-skin rugs, moose heads on wall plaques, and even stuffed parrots in cages. Considerations of good taste aside - I mean, moose heads are hardly a style desirable in either world, even in hunting lodges - if you wouldn't have it on your RL lounge room floor or wall, would you have it in SL?
A difficult dilemma indeed. I have given it as much consideration as I actually can without twisting my brain into irreparable convolutions and I've decided that, much like RL, it will have to be a personal choice and a reflection of one's own ethics. I wouldn't do it in RL, so I won't be doing it in SL either. I'll just have to think with nostalgia of the feel of those furs from when I was a little girl - and remember I'd rather live in a world where everything from the littlest furry to the biggest hairy - is safe,
protected, and able to live free. And that includes my Second Life as well.
Comments