Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Art, Fashion & Design >

Leather - a dead animal on your shameful back, or very teh sexy, or neither, or both?

Page: (1)2

18:09 / 19.09.05

On the one hand, it's a poor thing, arguably, to parade around the place with something's flayed skin about one's person, but on the other, I tried on some leather trousers recently and I looked sort of a bit, vaguely, in a 'not wearing my glasses at the time' kind of a way, like Jim Morrison, I thought.

Shortly afterwards I was sedated, but that's beside the point - Share your thoughts about leather here!

00:06 / 20.09.05

lots of people already eat them, why not walk around in their skins?
especially if it looks cool.

00:26 / 20.09.05

Well, it's clearly the remains of a dead animal, so your feelings about it are going to be coloured hugely by how you feel about that. I've never had much respect for the argument that it's a 'by-product' from the meat industry, anymore than I'd respect someone who justified eating meat on the basis of it being a by-product of the leather industry. But that aside, having made an uneasy peace with the fact that I exploit animals, I still have mixed feelings.

It's certainly very practical for some things. I've never seen a pair of smart, non-leather shoes I've liked the look of. And it's good for belts. In stores I can't afford to shop in, I've longingly fingered £5,000 jackets so soft I concluded they must be cut from some voluminous foreskin. But leather trousers... no no no. I'm sure that this is something of a Marmite matter, and I know people whose taste I respect who find them stiffeningly fabulous, but I've never seen anyone wearing a pair who I didn't think looked ridiculous. Or perhaps just that they would have looked a lot better in something else. Unless you have an arse like machined steel, they always seem to hang dreadfully. And it always seem to be the people (particularly men) they least suit, who are most attracted to them.

I feel a bit ashamed to say that. I'm sure I must be missing something.

All Acting Regiment

07:26 / 20.09.05

Leather trousers: I think only Raw Power era Iggy could pull off that look; same goes for leather jackets with fake leopard fur trim and a painting of a leopard's face on the back. Baby.

However, I think most anybody can swing with the leather bomber jacket, and this will always look cool, but yes, I second/third the opinion that it's part of something dead and you should think about that.

Can we get some info on ethically sourced or "vegetarian" leathers?

09:33 / 20.09.05

I can't decide whether I'm glad or sad that my grandma never even attempted to look like Jim Morrison.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen leather trousers look good. And they sure are cosy, making them impractical for any activity that might involve an upward shift in body temperature.

09:34 / 20.09.05

Here is some info on "vegan jackets". Up close it's generally obvious they are not real leather, but I still think they look okay. Fake leather shoes can often look pretty good - my partner has several pairs which are quite stylish. Only available via mail order at the moment though.

Generally I think that if you are going to exploit animals for food its only right you use the whole animal including its skin. However, we often hear about ethically/organically reared meat but never "ethical" leather.

And what about fur?

Tryphena Absent

09:41 / 20.09.05

The problem with leather is that it's deceptively cheap on the high street. This makes me hope that all the leather I own is a by-product of the meat market, at least then I really am using the whole animal.

I always forget that I shouldn't wear leather when I'm buying shoes and by forget I mean, I completely forget. I remember when I'm sitting here typing but when in a shop it passes me by that this product comes from an animal. I'm sure I'm not the only one- they should legislate for signs.

Tryphena Absent

09:42 / 20.09.05

I know that sounds callous but it's true.

09:49 / 20.09.05

Is the particular ethical objection to fur the fact that many animals are killed to make the same amount of fabric? I’ve never really understood why paint gets thrown at women in Knightsbridge, but not so much at men on Old Compton Street.

Generally I think that if you are going to exploit animals for food its only right you use the whole animal including its skin.

Brunner, I’ve heard this line before, but again, never really understood it. I can see how one might object to killing one cow for its meat and then another for it’s hide, but if you were to kill one animal, why is it better to wear its skin than throw it away?

10:09 / 20.09.05

I suppose because it's less wasteful, or considered to be -I don't know, I'd rather that my supper and my boots came from the same cow than think that there are two landfills, one full of stuff that could be used for food and another full of stuff that could be used for clothes. And I think this is another of the arguments against fur, that no-one's going to sit down to a mink steak of an evening so there's a lot of waste in the industry.

10:19 / 20.09.05

Yeah, but we’re not talking about Inuit herdsmen, here. Yes, if warm clothing were scarce, and had to be made from skins, then I see why it’s a good thing to use the animals that you’re killing for meat (ie. so you don’t have to kill another batch of animals for boots). But if you don’t need to wear leather, why is it better to wear leather just because you’ve killed a beast for steaks. See what I’m asking? Why not just throw it away and make a coat out of wool. For one thing, continuing to wear leather only perpetuates its place in our clothing culture, and could be used to excuse eating meat since if you have a leather industry, there’s no reason not to think of meat as being one of its by-products. Is there?
I don’t imagine the mink would give a shit whether you eat its mousey flesh after you’ve flayed its skin. And leather isn't waste in the same way that plastic bags are waste.

11:00 / 20.09.05

But if you don’t need to wear leather, why is it better to wear leather just because you’ve killed a beast for steaks

I'm really not sure that it is -it's possible that the whole argument is just a way of convincing oneself that leather is not worse than meat, rather than convincing onself that leather is perfectly okay ethically. Will try to come back to you on this one... I've also just read the thread again and realised you've already mentioned the 'better than killing two animals' argument -sorry I missed that...

11:11 / 20.09.05

I always forget that I shouldn't wear leather when I'm buying shoes and by forget I mean, I completely forget.

In a way Nina that's the whole point of our cultural attitudes to animals - we're not supposed to think - oh my god, this is part of dead individual on my foot, corpse alert!!. Our culture works very hard at maintaining an absolute distance between the individual beings at the farm/slaughterhouse and the 'end products' that hang in wardrobes, sit in fridges etc. Its struck me time and again that people don't feel they are sitting down with an animal, or a part of being, when they eat meat - meat is seen as faceless/identity-less, and same goes for leather/fur.....

12:38 / 20.09.05

I'd agree with that last point. Most people (well the majority I've ever discussed it with) try not to think too hard about where their food comes from or whether the steak they are eating or jacket they are wearing had a good life. And the industries that bring us these products generally like it that way because its cheaper to rear animals in squalid conditions than it is to provide a nice environment.

Vegetarians, vegans, animal rights people, even those promoting organic/ethical practices are still in the minority. Although there are compelling arguments for giving up eating meat, I believe a majority will always continue to do so, bird flu/vCJD pandemics notwithstanding! It's against this lack of care or understanding that I'd advocate full use of an animal as opposed to only a small part of it. It WILL die for meat anyway so why be wasteful? However, I'd be against killing an animal primarily for its skin with meat as a by-product, say for dog food. And if by some miracle we all became vegetarian/vegan, I'd hope to see leather as fabric become completely redundant. The same for jelly babies too!

Goodness Gracious Meme

12:50 / 20.09.05

Don't wear leather primarily for the reasons that maenad and brunner explore above. But then, I don't eat meat either and it seems fairly simple to me in that respects.

I do think, though it's possible to have different stands on these two issues, eg for example, I've said to myself in recent years that if my health was seriously deteriorating and that eating meat was the only thing likely to arrest that, I'd do so.

I can't imagine a comparable situation in which I *needed* to wear leather.

To me, it's now at the level of habitual. I don't really *see* leather clothing. I know where I'm likely to find non-leather shoes/which brands of trainers tend to be non-leather, and then I'm very fortunate to live in a town with a shop called Vegetarian Shoes, which does what it say on the tin. (it does mail order as well)

This, of course, doesn't say shit about the *human* ethical conerns of the shoes I buy.

12:51 / 20.09.05

I pretty much agree with all that, Brunner. However:

It WILL die for meat anyway so why be wasteful?

I don’t want to sound like a prick about it, but why *not*? I mean, has using the whole carcass got anything to do with the ethical treatment of animals (in cases where not using the whole thing won’t just mean more animals are killed)? Would the animal give a shit? Would wearing fur be more defensible so long as the wearer had eaten the flesh? Surely the offence isn't the waste.

However, I'd be against killing an animal primarily for its skin with meat as a by-product, say for dog food.

More so than killing an animal primarily for its muscle, with the skin as a by-product, say for trousers? Interesting. Why?

Goodness Gracious Meme

12:57 / 20.09.05

Oh, and I'm afraid that I'm of the anti-leather trew brigade. Nasty.

Very few people can pull that off.

Was talking with friends about the sexy-shading-into-fetishistic associations of leather clothing, which don't really doing anything for me. I'm not sure whether the ethical objection, and therefore the 'ick' associations, or the aesthetic judgement came first on this one.

Rubber, on the other hand...

Then again, I'm talking there about a specific type of leather clothing, as I don't have much familiarity with what I'm sure is the vast range of uses of leather. I do remember an ex having some leather gloves made of incredibly soft (kid?) leather. I could certainly see the aesthetic/practical appeal of those, while finding their production pretty vile.

12:57 / 20.09.05

Think its a bit of misnomer to talk of leather as a byproduct, its more of a coproduct of the animal use industry - if my memory serves me right about 20% of the value of a carcass is in his/her skin, which all contributes to overall profitability of farming etc. More info here on leather production

Goodness Gracious Meme

13:01 / 20.09.05

Its struck me time and again that people don't feel they are sitting down with an animal, or a part of being, when they eat meat - meat is seen as faceless/identity-less, and same goes for leather/fur.

Yep, but to disagree/expand slightly, I think this might be another reason why people are often more squeamish about fur. It still *looks* like an animal, and a cute fluffy animal at that. Whereas unless you're already thinking about leather as animal product, it's much easier to think of it merely as a fabric, like canvas, cotton, pvc etc.

Also, there's a socio-ecnomonic/class association to the distinction, isn't there? Fur is a luxury/elite product, expensive and noticeable, whereas leather is practical, we all use it, it's just stuff to make shoes etc out of.

Argh. That's a bit crude, I'll come back to it.

Lilly Nowhere Late

13:10 / 20.09.05

I don't eat meat and nearly never wear leather. Remember your handbag issues too, all.

On the look of things, just yesterday i saw a man wearing leather trousers who leared at me and my girlfriend. He was most astonishingly non attractive.
However, I remember once seeing an individual who wore leather trousers so well that I did look twice. And it wasn't Jim M. but he did it right well too, eh?

13:14 / 20.09.05

I'm surprised that none of our Matrix Warriors have weighed in on the leather trousers issue.

Its struck me time and again that people don't feel they are sitting down with an animal, or a part of being, when they eat meat - meat is seen as faceless/identity-less, and same goes for leather/fur.

I know that Nina admitted to exactly this, but frankly I find it hard to believe. I know it’s the received wisdom that meat is prepared and packaged in such a way as to disguise its origin, but I just don’t believe anyone honestly falls for that (if there is in fact anything to fall for). A chicken might be trussed up in a way you’d only see in the kinkiest of farmyards, but we still talk about the breast, the leg or the wing. Steaks are clearly labelled as being off the rump, ox tongue is tongue as in tongue. I mean to say, we don’t use euphemism as much as one might expect if obscuring the origin of this stuff was the name of the game. Even when I’m eating something as anonymous looking as sausages, I’m as acutely aware that it’s mashed up pig as I am aware that baked beans are beans that have been in some way baked. Thinking about it, I’m more aware. Are other people honestly not making the same connection.

13:17 / 20.09.05

Meme - The key thing for me is that each animal is an individual being, whereas words/concepts such as leather, meat, fur strip away that individuality and transform uniqueness into an amorphouse nothingness. We are not even encouraged to ponder on the species of animal that a pair of shoes has been made from, let along their gender, age, country of location etc. To me its fragmentation, dislocation, commodificaiton in the extreme. And then there's meat - how many individuals lie in the average supermarket packet of mince? How many members of how many species get mixed together in the average sausage??? Don't mean to sound preachy everyone, I'm just very interested in the multiple layers of misdirection, avoidance, denial etc. in our culture and how insidious they are......

13:28 / 20.09.05

Even when I’m eating something as anonymous looking as sausages, I’m as acutely aware that it’s mashed up pig as I am aware that baked beans are beans that have been in some way baked.

smoothly, I'm not saying that people don't know that meat comes from an animal, its more that the knowledge is rather vague and unproblematised. And yes, there certainly are instances such as chicken and ox tongue where our meat language does acknowledge the species of origin (unlike say pork, beef, where a degree of separation occurs). But even when people talk of chicken its exactly that - we use chicken as a general catch all concept, as oppose to talking about the or a chicken which go someway to acknowleding individuality. We also tend to be gender neutral when we talk about animals (alive or dead) - always it as oppose to he/she.....

Goodness Gracious Meme

13:36 / 20.09.05

I'm just very interested in the multiple layers of misdirection, avoidance, denial etc. in our culture and how insidious they are......

OIC. Yes, there is something very interesting about the naming of products(and this spreads way beyond this debate and the 'denial' is utlised in the service of many causes) and the distancing process therein.

SW, you seem to be talking about meat-associations, where as if understanding correctly, Nina's talking about animal textile-associations. I don't find it that difficult to believe that the association with meat is far stronger, while, as mm points out, still being a mediated one, whereas that with something that is simultaneously an animal skin and a textile product is far more tenuous.

Goodness Gracious Meme

13:40 / 20.09.05

But even when people talk of chicken its exactly that - we use chicken as a general catch all concept, as oppose to talking about the or a chicken which go someway to acknowleding individuality

This, of course, being very much a cultural construction, probably at its height in modern western cultures.

In many other environments, you'll pick, for eg, the chicken that you want while it's alive from a market or you may rear it yourself. There's an immediacy and implication in the process which is pretty much absent for us.

13:45 / 20.09.05

Good point on the pronoun thing, maenad. Although I’d always talk about *a* chicken when buying one, and *the* chicken when cooking it. I just wonder whether our terms are unproblematised because we don’t find it particularly problematic, rather than there being some loose conspiracy of obfuscation. If people did talk about ‘putting chicken in the oven’ it would sound *more* personalised to my ear, like when midwifes talk about ‘baby’ – as if that’s its name. And honestly, are you saying we should talk about sausages as if they had genders?

SW, you seem to be talking about meat-associations, where as if understanding correctly, Nina's talking about animal textile-associations. I don't find it that difficult to believe that the association with meat is far stronger, while, as mm points out, still being a mediated one, whereas that with something that is simultaneously an animal skin and a textile product is far more tenuous.

You’re right, GGM, although that didn’t seem like too big a leap to me at the time. I think I’m just as conscious of the fact that my armchair is covered in the stained skin of an animal as I am that my burger contains the minced flesh of the same. I might not dwell on it in exactly the same way, but then there’s a difference in how we consume food and how we consume fabrics. I honestly don’t see much denial going on (but then I wouldn’t, would I?)

13:51 / 20.09.05

I don't think anyone is saying that meat, as it is packaged for the consumer, is trying to be something other than meat, formerly a living animal. Its just that for many people, certain animals only seem to exist so they can be turned into meat/milk/wool/leather etc. These are the people who are shocked that other cultures might eat, for instance, dog. But the life of the farm yard animal is somewhat irrelevant because nowadays we are so removed from the production process or at least try to keep some of its vile practices from our minds. I think this is kind of sad.

Smoothly, you're right, the offence isn't really the waste. But all I'm saying is, if you have to kill it for food, you might as well use the whole thing rather than kill another one for its skin. It doesn't make it right but it could be worse. And I think there is a difference for killing for meat and killing for leather/fur. Many would argue the former is essential but I bet no modern westerner could give a valid reason for the latter. An Inuit or Sami possibly could...

14:01 / 20.09.05

But all I'm saying is, if you have to kill it for food, you might as well use the whole thing rather than kill another one for its skin.

With you. I agree. I think I was just thinking about the fur debate, and the idea that one of the problems with killing animals for fur is that we *don’t* eat the meat. Since we don’t kill other minks for their flesh, I guess we agree that that argument is bollocks.

14:01 / 20.09.05

are you saying we should talk about sausages as if they had genders?

I realise we're straying seriously off topic, but then again, could easily substitute 'shoes' for sausages in above quote. Anyhow, getting back to question - I reckon it would be pretty hard for a sausage to have a gender because they are usually made up of the body parts of several individual animals, often across species. A steak however really is he/she......and I realise as I say it that it sounds preposterous, but that (for me) refers back to how far removed we are from our 'food'. It seems kind of ironic to me that its often those who don't eat animals who know the most about how they are treated during life and at the point of death - in my experience very few meat eaters are informed about farming/slaughter practices. And I don't mean that as a dig at people who eat meat, again for me this is a predominantly cultural-economic point.

14:10 / 20.09.05

A steak however really is he/she

Yeah, that does sound preposterous. I think it possibly is preposterous. A steak is a *piece* of a he or a she, but that’s not the same thing at all. I wouldn’t call a slice of my arse ‘him’.

Again, straying off topic, but this from Brunner:

Its just that for many people, certain animals only seem to exist so they can be turned into meat/milk/wool/leather etc.

Gadzooks, I think I'm one of those people. I thought that was just plain true. Isn’t it?

14:14 / 20.09.05

Yeah, that does sound preposterous. I think it possibly is preposterous. A steak is a *piece* of a he or a she, but that’s not the same thing at all.

hmmme, I suppose there's a kind of continuum at work here - when it comes to whole carcases we should be talking he/she, but I can see you point regarding 'pieces of people' as oppose to a whole body. Partly what's informing/influencing what I'm thinking is the way people (in our culture etc.) readily attribute gender (and often names, nay personalitites) to inanimate objects - boats, cars, favourite coffee mugs etc, but then seem loath to do it where/when it seems to count.....

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:15 / 20.09.05

I always try to make sure that I say "human flesh tastes just like that of a chicken".

Sorry. I eat meat and wear leather, which is, I realise, bad. On the other hand, I don't eat beef as a rule, because of the environmental implications of harvesting beef. I buy leather shoes, albeit rarely, because good leather shoes last longer than synthetic alternatives in my experience, but I don't buy anything larger first-hand. It's a sort of combo of permaculture and galloping hypocrisy.

14:20 / 20.09.05

Wandering off-topic is good, I do it all the time these days.

Being slightly facetious here, but couldn't it be argued that if the animals concerned are bred to be killed in the first place, as, realistically, is the case a large amount of the time, then as long as they're treated decently while they're alive (this being the sine qua non of a defensible meat industry, personally,) then the more of them killed the better? A short but happy life being better than no life at all.

14:29 / 20.09.05

Go on then, if you insist.

This is one of the things that makes vegetarianism (as opposed to veganism) problematic to me. Would I be right in thinking that the production of things like milk and eggs requires that animals be killed. Are vegetarians really doing much to distance themselves from the routine slaughter? This is kinda what I was getting at earlier. If we are using animals at all (beyond maybe riding on them and nursing them through old age) what does it matter whether we eat their bodies or not?

as long as they're treated decently while they're alive (this being the sine qua non of a defensible meat industry, personally,)

Again, I struggle with this. I just find it hard to think that treating an animal decently while alive can include murdering it. Not slaughtering a healthy, happy animal would be the sine qua non of treating it decently, I’d have thought.

14:30 / 20.09.05

Okay it is true that vast numbers of sheep, cows etc only exist to be killed for food. I don't think their is anything inherently wrong in this as long as the animal has a good life and is humanely killed. Its the factory process I hate and the fact that many people expect meat on the table everyday. It's only recently this has become the norm (for us rich westerners anyway). I was also trying to ask why some people think its okay to eat cows and not dogs? Off topic I know....

As an(other) aside, I've heard of many avid meat eaters who claim Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall as their champion and role model but for the fact that can't afford their own small holding to raise organic porkers or whatever. But when they get to the supermarket, well, if a free range organic chicken is £6.99 and a battery reared chemically manipulated chicken is £1.99*, well its a no brainer isn't it! People just don't want to pay extra to ensure their meat (or their leather jacket) had a good life.

* NB: I have no idea what meat costs to purchase

Page: (1)2