Is Virtual Fur Politically Correct?
An old SL friend of mine recently dropped me a surprise gift. I eagerly rezzed it on the ground and copied the contents of the gift box into my inventory.
What did I find there? A fur coat!
Note that I’m wearing Neko ears and tail. So technically I think that makes me a furry. Right?
Now, let me point out an odd thing. It so happens that the old friend who gave me this unexpected gift is… yes you guess it! … a furry!
Yes, he’s a wolf. He’s been a wolf almost from the day he arrived in SL. I know because I was the one who gave him his first wolf avatar.
My wolf friend is married to a tigress (has been for a long time now) and they are happy and even have a litter of children. One of their children is even named after me!
Wouldn’t you think that a furry would have a problem with fur coats on general principles? I would think so.
Perhaps he didn’t really think it through.
This isn’t the first time I’ve seen this odd state of affairs in Second Life.
Another friend, who is otherwise VERY Politically Correct, recently embraced a rather questionable cause. The name of that cause is “Support Virtual Fur!”
This friend is a musical performer in SL, and even performed with a banner behind the band, promoting the wearing of Virtual Fur in SL!
Now, I found it rather hypocritical, if not simply ignorant, for someone who wouldn’t support the production, selling and wearing of fur coats in Real Life, to promote the wearing of a Virtual Fur Coat in SL.
I brought up the question of the ethics of such a decision with my friend.
You: what was that sign about on the stage — Support Virtual Fur?
Them: yes
Them: in SL
Them: it is all Virtual fur
Them: for the fashion awards
Them: i had [another SL avatar] on stage as his tiger
Them: as a statement about fur
Them: and not to wear real fur
Them: only virtual fur
Them: like in SL
You: hmmm, so it is ok to wear a fur coat in SL because it is virtual fur?
Them: yes
You: SL child molesters should be ok then, it’s only a virtual child
You: 😉
Them: no
Them: that is different
Them: a texture of fur doesn’t imply that the animal died
Them: but an av is a real person
Them: and even if roleplaying a child still damaging
What do you think? Is it just me, or is this some kind of naive hypocracy?
Wizzy's Workshop 
December 18, 2008 at 3:11 pm
I have heard from reputable sources that virtual fur comes from a massive recycling effort, the aim of which is to keep our sims clean of excessive fur that is shed in the springtime by all the furries. Twice a year the sims are cleaned of all shed fur pixels that are at least 10 meters away from their respective owners, and these fur pixels are donated to the various fur texture creators’ guilds who then work dilligently for hours on end to fashion them into new textures, some of which are sold to garmet manufacturers for a meager profit. Now it may well be that some of the furries who donated these fur pixels are tortured, but it would be politically incorrect to go into details of their private affairs on SL in a public forum.
December 23, 2008 at 6:55 am
hmmmm….. tricky. Now, anyone who causes any disconfort to animals is pretty low down the evolutionary scale in my opinion, but that includes meat producers as well. Now, whether child avatars promote paedophilia or furries promote bestiality is questionable. I am, unfortunately, hampered by a belief that people are generally nice, although they dont make the newspapers for being so. I think fur in all shapes and sizes, virtual or not, used to be a vital clothing fabric in places where temperatures go very low in the winter, however, for the last 20 years or so, synthetic materials are far superior, and, most importantly, are not related to animals virtual or non-virtual.
I dont think I will wear fur, my island isnt far from the tropics, and a swimsuit is far more useful really…
xxx