*Lady Gaga's Fur Coat Shocks Bulgarian Capital
By Kirsty Mccormack
The Daily Mail
She's known for causing a stir when it comes to her style, but Lady Gaga's latest look and her actions may have caused a fresh outrage.
The 26-year-old singer stepped out in Bulgaria yesterday wearing what appeared to be a real fur coat as she left her hotel carrying a puppy.
Gaga, who was recently slammed by animal charity PETA for wearing a pink fur coat, then took to her Twitter account just to confirm that the garment she was wearing was real.
In a rather sarcastic manner, the pop star wrote: 'For those press and such who are writing about whether or not my fur is actually real, please don't forget to credit the designer HERMES. Thank You! LOVE, gaga.'
Her latest tweet is no doubt going to receive a backlash worldwide, but as she stepped out in Sofia yesterday, Gaga didn't seem to care what anyone thought of her attire.
The quirky star teamed the large grey coat with a pinstriped dress that was slit right up to her hips and almost revealed her underwear.
She completed her look with a pair of patent heels and large dark sunglasses while carrying the pooch and a small designer handbag.
As she left her hotel, the New York-born star waved to her waiting fans and even stopped to sign autographs for them.
Gaga is in Sofia for the start of the European leg of her Born This Way Ball world tour which kicks off tonight at the Armeets Arena.
Her arrival in the capital comes as RadarOnline revealed that PETA has targeted the singer by writing her a personal letter and begging her to no longer wear fur.
'Many of your gay fans, I among them, have long admired what you told Ellen: "I hate fur, and I don't wear fur,"' wrote Dan Mathews, Senior Vice President of PETA.
'What happened? Are your stylists telling you that it's fake, or are you a turncoat?' Mathews asked.
'Many gays are animal advocates because we recognize that the same arrogance and indifference that some have toward animal suffering has at times been directed toward us personally because of our orientation," he went on to say.
'By wearing those dumb furs in a heat wave, you're making yourself a target just like the mindless Kim Kardashian. As we plan our fall campaigns, please tell us whether what you gracefully told Ellen was heartfelt or just a pose.'
*The title has been changed by Novinite.com
- » South Stream Could Consider ‘Plan B’, Russian Journalist Says
- » Sofia’s Latest Move to Halt South Stream “Could Be More Serious”
- » Forbes: 'The Bulgarian Banking Disaster'
- » FT: Corpbank’s Bond Default Dents Bulgaria’s Credibility
- » Reuters: Risk Rises KTB Bondholders Will Seek Legal Action
- » FT: Kristalina Georgieva 'Among Most Effective Commissioners'
Since the beginning of time, Geeky, fur has been highly valued as a warm covering, nothing new. What maybe new(ish) is the fashion for fur which increases the price. I have found, however, that the price in Eastern Europe is no-where near to that in the west so maybe eastern Europeans are more moral on this matter and see the product still as warm clothing rather than a fashion item. We, will never agree Geeky so let's just agree to disagree. Have nice day!!
For a summary of where Gleeky got her ridiculous animal welfare views see here:
That may be, PP - however there's a world of difference between breeding an animal for food and then finding a use of the rest of it and breeding it purely for its fur and then trying to find an acceptable (or more properly "economic") use for the rest ex post facto. In the first case, the primary product is food, in the second mere vanity and ostentation (leaving aside people such as the Inuit who can make a good case for fur as a necessity survival).
The moral dimension is what makes the difference here - unless you're suggesting it's okay to kill anything for any purpose as long as it's as quick and painless as possible?
"Breeding animals for food and then using the rest of the animal so as not to waste any of it is one thing, breeding animals to be slaughtered purely to pander to the whims of the rich is something completely different and totally reprehensible."
More self-righteous nonsense from this forums answer to Volen Siderov. Interesting to note that Gleeky's animal rights views were shared by his national socialist party heroes in Germany.
So just when did YOU last tuck into a nice juicy mink steak?
Breeding animals for food and then using the rest of the animal so as not to waste any of it is one thing, breeding animals to be slaughtered purely to pander to the whims of the rich is something completely different and totally reprehensible.
What a load of b---- you only have to walk down Pirin Street in Bansko, along to the gondola station to see many shops selling furs so why all the fuss? A/R agitators should restrict themselves to rooting out cruel farming of animals not their breeding and use for clothing. Breeding Mink for a fur coat is no different than eating Pork that is bred for consumption and the skin for bags/purses.jackets etc. What is wrong is if the animals are ill treated before they are killed.