Jump to content

Born in the wrong country


coleap2803
 Share

Recommended Posts

For a furlover the last few decades the Netherlands seem to be the wrong place to be for wearing and liking fur. It became a tabu due to the actions of anti fur organisations. In a reaction a few days ago I mentioned that often a furfetish starts with what you see or feel as a child. In my case it was a woman on a bike with a black mink coat. I was about 5 years old. When I lived as a five year old now I would never experience that, because there is hardly anyone wearing fur in Holland. Except for those parka's but I can't find them classy. Just don't like them. I know the UK quiet well and it is the same story there. I wonder myself if there are more dutch furlovers who wear or own furcoats. How do we break through the tabu? Are there still furshops in Holland. I only know of one in Sittard and one in Apeldoorn (Hettinga I believe). Does anyone know good second hand shops for fur coats in Holland. I only can think of the German Ebay for me to get a good buy for a good price. Bought last year two coats and for the price they were great.

Was with the summerholidays in the cheg republic, and in Prague I saw some nice furs but only one real shop. In the jewish Quarter I believe. Does anyone know the name of the shop or it's email adres?

All those quiestions, now some answers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are quite a few furriers in Prague; including in the centre. Nice one in one of the arcades off Wencleslas square.

 

ther are plenty of places in the UK that you can still wear fur. I was at a party the other night where there were 4 girls wearing classic furs.

 

I imagine the same story is in Holland...people are just careful where they wear them.

 

This is not a fur problem it is a politics of envy problem. I get s*** in the street for wearing a trilby or a bowler hat or a silk top hat and tails if on the way back from Ascot. It isn't antis; it is morons who are looking for trouble who are the problem.

 

If you are in Holland...have a party on a theme, something like :

 

You are cordially invited to a party on the evening of............

at.........................

Dress code: men:formal Ladies: formal: feathers and furs

 

Just don't invite any friends who would be anti. You will soon see the girls come in their mum's classic eighties furs. look on photoshare or flickr..that is what people are doing.

 

We are lucky here because we have hunt balls etc and lots of private parties otganised by hunrs. So I have seen plenty of fur even on summer evenings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I certainly don't know Holland, though I was there briefly a little over two decades ago touring with my father and brothers. It wasn't dead winter when we were there. Tulips were blooming. Be that as it may, I do distinctly remember one blue fox jacket from then.

 

So I can't help you with suggestions of where to wear or find furs in Holland.

 

Still, you raise some interesting questions about our relationship with those who care about fur but see only its shadow--the antis. I've wondered at times if antis don't, despite their best intentions, contribute to the cultural climate where fur lovers emerge. How many of us are at least partially allured by the dark side? I'd have to say that as a kid, I felt drawn to furs despite having it rubbed in about how cruel it is to kill animals to make them, so I'll have to admit that is part of what draws me. Are we really about pretending that killing and skinning cute little animals is an angellic behavior? If it is part of what draws at least some of us, then having a choir of antis emphasizing it contributes to furs' social value as wicked.

 

I wonder sometimes if antis might after all realize more of their fondest hopes (at least in "curing" society of its hard-core fur lovers) by ignoring the subject. On the other hand, maybe they do gain more as far as absolute numbers by making it socially unacceptable for those who might wear fur if it were fashionable but who aren't deep down instinctively compelled to want it. My guess is that if it's meant to be for coming generations to have their fur lovers, it will express itself even if fur's visible only on a few parka trims. If it's meant to be that we are among the last generations of fur lovers, so be it. It's served its purpose in my life, and I don't expect to live forever. I can let whatever comes after take care of itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the fact that if you demonise something it gains incredible allure.

 

However... "not angelic behaviour to kill animals" is a nonsense. If your ancestors had thought that none of us would be here now, and if we do not go back to using animals then we and they may not be here very much longer.

It is the world of synthetics and intensive arable crop and urban development that is true evil...even more so because it is purposefully ignorant to the destruction it is causing.

 

It is no more evil for a man to kill an animal than for a leopard to kill an antelope. It is very evil to destroy both their habitats so they cease to exist for us to have palm oil and coffee.

 

No woman wear fur because she thinks it is cruel. THAT is absurd. They may wear it because they are rebelling against being told what to do; and wearing fur may be a rebel stance...hence wrong in the sense of deviant .

 

So lets not get on to this again eh? Wearing fur is NOT bad...it is good and it is what nature designed us for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to a semi-famous college professor give an interview on the radio this afternoon. He was talking about terrorism. He made a really interesting point about the life cycle of terrorist organizations.

 

Specifically, he referred do the I.R.A. **1**

 

The professor said that, in the beginning, terrorist organizations like the I.R.A. may have a legitimate cause to fight for. Then, as they grow and mature, they need to raise money to support their activities. The leaders of those groups often turn to organized crime to raise that money. Next, as they raise more and more money, the powers-that-be within those groups find the lure of all that money to be too irresistable. They get greedy. Finally, in the end, the original cause becomes merely a front for the organized crime.

 

According to the professor, this is what killed the I.R.A. They got greedy. The flow of money from all the bank robberies they pulled, originally to buy weapons to fight the government, became more important than Irish liberation. The general populace, who once thought the I.R.A. was a just cause, slowly came to realize that they were nothing more than a bunch of criminals, out to fill their own pockets at the peoples' expense.

 

I can see a parallel between the I.R.A. and PeTA.

 

Maybe at one time, long ago, PeTA had a just cause. (Not saying they do. Not saying they don't. Just, for the sake of discussion, stipulating that they might have.) But, now, their semi-legitimate fundraising activities and their criminal tactics have become the end instead of the means.

 

This, I believe, is the message that we have to get out to the people, at large. People need to understand that organizations like PeTA and H.S.U.S. are not legitimate. (Any more.) If people realize that their money REALLY goes to pay for Mary Beth Sweetland's Beemer and her million dollar condo and not for the cause they think they believe in they'll stop giving money and, 501 c 3 - Tax Exempt or not, the organization will shrivel from within.

 

Once they see that happen, people will stop the "knee-jerk" reactions every time they see somebody wearing a fur coat.

 

I don't think that the people in the Nederlands are any more or less anti-fur than the rest of the population of the world. I just think they feel traumatized by the proliferation of anti-fur rhetoric from those terrorists.

 

 

----

 

**1** I'm not here to talk about whether the I.R.A. has a legitimate cause. If you live in Northern Ireland, your view of the I.R.A. will be substantially different than somebody who lives, say, in Pennsylvania like I do. I only use the I.R.A. as an example because that's what the professor giving the lecture talked about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear furlovers,

 

I love the filisofical reactions. Can't even understand all of it because English is not my first reaction. I only know that Holland is a strange country. And people do tend to behave what you could call politicaly correct. We listen to minorities we kind off take them serious and that can influence a lot of people and even politics. But a lot of the items are also european items. Everybody knows the anti smoking campains. When I was not allowed to smoke in the building where I work and I had to go outside to smoke I had a feeling of being treated like a naughty kid which is sent outside. I stopped smoking now because I don't like it that the system says go outside with that sigaret.

Thank god with fur it is the other way around. One is not excepted to wear them outside (though some people think it wil change the next few years). But inside my house nobody will judge you because you have your privacy there.

But I must admit that the idea that fur is a tabu item at least in Holland gives it a extra thrill. To do something which is socially not excepted but still no law against owning one. It is like the icing the cake, can I say it like that.

One other funny thing in Holland is that trade is more scrupilous in Holland. Till now we still have quiet a few mink farms and free trade is still hapening. I am not sure which number Holland is in the list of producing countries but I thought it is quiet high. They call Holland the country off free trade and the minister (vicar) wit'h his finger high in the air and telling us what's good and what's bad. I guess a bit the same as The United States. If New York stands for the roots of what the usa stands for it propably looks a lot like Holland. Again free trade and protestantism. In Holland though people don't go to churches so much anymore. It looks like that organisations like Peta and lot's of other anti organisations are playing the role of the vicar with it's moral finger in the air. In a way it is good that people can do that only alas it is in disbalans, hypocrit and not always to the point. Lot of Peta people love dogs so to say and buy the lots of flesh out of can's every year, so which point are they trying to make. I mentioned that last remark before I should not repeat myself. Hopefully I make a bit of sense. It would also be nice to hear some more filosofy about these subjects. For me it is also a way of trying to understand my country and the people who are living in it. But thanks again for your reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well said all...some interesting points.

Fitsytly from worker about the role of causes being inevitabley corrupted, and secondly from Coleap about groups like PETA replacing religion as the moral authority.

 

We can't in western society as they can in Islam...turn around and say what the bible/koran says for our moral guidance. So we look to other moral Authortistas. Doctors, politicans, media,"ethical" leaders.

 

And that is fine; if you live your life by a set of principles in one of these religions also fine, as long as they do not encroach on other peoples reigious/social freedoms.

 

There is nothing in any religion at source about smoking drinking gambling alcohol wearing fur etc. It is always man who corrupts something for a religion to start on one of these..and usually to establish a "cause" and again gain funds.

 

None of this opression over the rest of us will stop unless we all stand up against it.

 

Smoking does not kill. There is no evidence. It is bad science. There is evidence that it can cause conditions that could affect your health...but that is all. Quite clearly some people smoke into old age without problem.

So other factors are at play, and some people are able to smoke for life without problems manifesting.

If smoking causes cancer every smoker would get cancer. Throwing yourself in front of a speeding train kills. You could scientifically prove that with 100% of test specimens. With smoking. The test groups have only come up with a miniscule amount of risk and other factors were not accounted for (like social , geographical and cultural differences). YET

people believe in this ridiculous witch hunt against smokers at a passive smoking level, for which there is no evidence at all of damage. It has become a crusade based on BELIEF and not good scientific basis.

 

Likewise PETA has come up with a bizarre belief based system, and a similar moral crusade. They have some up with the stupid idea that after 250 000 years of using animals in human evolution that it is morally wrong. Quite clearly to anyone with a modicum of intellectual ability that is warped; perverse.

 

No nobody is forcing people to become Christian, Moslem, smoke, go foxhunting ,or wear fur. But Groups ARE enforcing their moral code on smokers, hunters and fur wearers.

When any belief system forces its crusade on another it must be resisted.

At all levels. Liberty is the issue here.

 

We must affirm our liberty. The only way we can do this is stop accepting the opressors interference.

But no; we swallow it whole.

Smokers BELEIVE that smoking is bad and that they are really wanting to quit.

Fur wearers BELIEVE that maybe what they are doing is cruel.

 

This is crap.

 

Next time you get accosted for smoking or wearing fur just tell the opressor to get his/her jackboots our of your face.

 

Before we get accused that wearing fur can cause "passive" damage to others.

 

Actually the problem is not the moral minority; tiny as they are. It is the bulk of people unable to think for themselves that accept it.

 

The same is true now as it always was.

If you don't like being in a smoking area move.

If you don't like fur fine don't wear it...but don't criticise if you eat meat or wear leather...because you have NO logical argument.

 

That is why PETA persue this last point. If they can condemn fur as immoral...everything else we are doing to animals follows on. People who think fur is wrong but eat meat are CLEARLY hypocrites....and PETA know it.

 

 

Smoking doesn't kill you (or it would kill all smokers in the end presumably after a quantifiable number of smokes) and fur is not immoral. That is TRUTH...and truth has a habit of winning in the end.

You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time. But not ALL of the people all of the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the additional perspectives contributed. I do believe I think for myself. If anything I think too much and feel too little. Sometimes thinking for myself gets me into trouble.

 

I appreciate touchofsable's comments about hunter-gatherer ancestors' using fur, but I also wonder. Theirs was a very different world. For the most part, they probably couldn't afford the kind of accumulation which is relatively easy for those of us living in contemporary affluence. And if we own computers, I'd say we're that affluent. So there were likely built-in limitations to how much fur they could acquire. I also wonder if another part of their survival was a reverence for themselves and the creatures that surrounded them. Taking more than was needed could throw the system out of balance. So I wonder if our modern nemesis, those who are offended by furs, aren't also in a way descendents of that earlier balance.

 

I'm not proposing that this place be turned into their forum. Still, I want to be willing to accept situations and people as they are. I don't think there's anything to be gained by trying to prove that I'm right for loving fur while someone else is wrong to hate it. I believe that such an attitude only reinforces resentments on either "side."

 

I don't believe someone is a bad person to hate furs. I'm likely to disagree with them at least in that regard. My disagreement doesn't have to get in the way of my honoring their personhood, maybe even being willing to let them share with me what's behind their hatred, providing that they're willing to show me a similar respect.

 

I don't believe in my lifetime all critics of furs will be silenced. I care passionately about what I see as looming ecological and economic disasters: global climate change and peak world oil production. So far, I've found the most politically supportive home for these concerns of mine is green, whether Green Party or green-oriented. But on the other hand, anti-fur passions run feverishly in such circles. I don't think I'm going to singlehandedly change that climate. So I ask myself if I'm being true to myself where to be open about my attitude towards fur could lead to my being excluded. It seems to me now that only if I'm willing to engage in compassionate dialogue with those who see things differently will I be able peaceably to take a place there while being wholly true to myself.

 

But that's not the end of where I need to be able to face fur haters compassionately. I was reared in a vegetarian household. I was reared to believe our abstaining from meat made us morally superior. I've since found grace to let go of that snotty attitude. Still, I have this childhood taboo against eating meat, and I don't care to mess with it. Then, of course, the same mother that fed me no meat along with the notion it made me a superior person had strong reservations against wearing fur. I've never heard of her joining a vigil or paint-bombing someone wearing fur; still, I seldom heard her mention either meat or fur without giving a shudder like she'd just mentioned the ultimate creepiness. So there's anti-fur in my family as well.

 

I don't believe I have to give up everything I am in order to accept other people the way they are. And I believe I have a couple choices when it comes to acceptance. I can accept, or I can try (without success) to control. If I ever expect to find my way out of the pro- anti-fur labyrinth, keeping track of that thread of acceptance is all important.

 

And we were supposed to be talking about the Netherlands being a wrong country for a fur lover. What's accepting that fur haters hate fur got to do with that? Well, I guess there was something in the original article about the difference between the Netherlands before the late surge in anti-fur madness and today. I've rambled enough tonight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

go to amsterdam:

and then: waterlooplein & albert cuyp markt..

lots of furs in autumn/winter season...

 

there is also a shop called mody marie,

they have stores in amsterdam, den haag and maastricht..

it;s furshop in winter and expensive dresses in summer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...