_______________ PRETTY IN MINK BY TRACY QUAN (05/26/98)
	Tracy Quan's article about the sexuality of fur was as full of self-contradiction as the publicity machine of PETA, which she was criticising. I can't claim to be of pure thought and deed, being a meat-eater and leather-wearer, but saying that PETA "overstate the evils" of the fur trade is just plain wrong. There are two arguments to address here: first, the morality of fur and the treatment of the animals used; second, progress in the power struggle between men and women, prostitutes and clients. There is no need for the human race to exploit animals for meat or leather. In fact, our species would make less impact on the environment if we didn't. If you can't accept that, then surely we should be able to rear the animals we eat humanely, without resorting to battery cages, veal crates, fish farms and the consequent uses of hormones and antibiotics. Also, can't we limit our killing to the supply of food and only use the skins that are byproducts? Most fur coats are a product of both cruel farming -- keeping minks in cages in which they turn psychotic and/or suicidal -- and fur production for fur production's sake, leaving the corpses with no value. The role of the prostitute is probably the most explicit version of the old-fashioned power relationship between men and women, one that, unfortunately, has not yet died. No matter how masochistic the john in sexual terms, he is still the one with the money and, in a society such as that in the U.S. or U.K., money will always be equated with power. For a true turning of the tables, I'd like to see a rich, educated man agree to stay at home and do the housework. It's not very sexy, but that's the underlying truth about power. I hope Ms. Quan will continue to contribute to Salon. It is important that prostitutes be heard and not ostracized by the society that pays for them. But just this once, on this subject, I had to make an objection. -- John Devaney Bristol, United Kingdom I suppose Tracy Quan fashions herself a sexual outlaw with her treatise on the kinkiness of fur. How radical to say fur is a sexual-object choice, especially when such a statement no doubt brings howls of disgust from the anti-fur side. Quan seems to be saying that in a time when homosexuality and the S&M lifestyle are now de rigueur, what's left to please the erotic underground but death? But just like other dead-animal wearers who justify their cruelty with the "It's my choice" mantra or the "It keeps me warm" excuse, Quan presents an argument in favor of fur that falls flat on its face for one reason alone: It forgets where fur came from, and where it can take you. Oh sure, she admits that wearing fur is cruel, and part of the pleasure she gets from a patchwork of 60 dead animals comes precisely from its deadly creation. But didn't the suspects in recent high school shootings from Kentucky to Oregon think the same thing? Wasn't it the fascination with death and hunting and killing animals that made them pick up a gun in the first place, and eventually led them to use firepower to pick off their unsuspecting classmates? Quan's arguments that killing can be fun and sexy hits a bit too close to home these days, whether it's the slaughter of cats at an Iowa shelter or the slaying of fellow human beings at a high school cafeteria. Yes, animals are killed by the millions each day around the globe, and not everyone who eats meat, wears leather or goes to the zoo is a criminal mind. But Quan's giddiness at killing animals for the fur -- one of the most egregious forms of animal destruction -- is morose and frightening, and has no place in modern society. Don't forget, the reason "a good mink coat creates a primal glow that lights up almost any woman's face" is because it was meant to do the same thing for its original owner. -- Erik Piepenburg Chicago In her piece on fur, Tracy Quan quotes one (of apparently many) of her fur-wearing acquaintances as saying of the antifur supermodels, "These chicks don't live in the real world!" I would suggest that Quan, who helpfully notes that "The glamour of fur ... is available to anyone with a few thousand dollars to spend," doesn't either. The notion that any person, male or female, would have a "few thousand dollars" to spend on luxury clothing is almost inconceivable to this middle-class male living in the Great White North of Toronto (and whose hundred-buck Polar-Tec parka works just fine to keep him warm in winter, thank you very much). Far from the "real world," Quan seems to come by most of her take on this issue from high-priced call girls, a group that I think most people would agree are hardly representative of the mass of humanity. Quan is certainly right that fur is erotic and sensual, and that the grimly humorless PETA doesn't really come to terms with this, but please, let's not pretend that fur isn't an elitist way of eroticizing wealth. -- Michael Gemar Toronto, Ontario Shame on Salon for publishing such a morally bankrupt article. Tracy Quan's "Pretty in Mink" would be mildly amusing fashion fluff if it dealt with, say, spandex. But fur causes too much suffering to deserve such a simple-minded treatment. Quan dismisses anti-fur arguments by claiming that, "The enemies of fur continue to overstate its evils." Yet she provides no analysis to back up this claim. She gives us not a word about mutilating leg-hold traps. Not one word about anal electrocution. Needless cruelty is the reality behind every fur coat. But instead of presenting the truth, Quan tries to sell us image. Who cares what fashion statement fur makes, or if a coat can become a bridge from call girl to kept woman? Quan's arty prose can't hide the truth: Fur wearers choose vanity over compassion. The Fur Information Council ought to put Quan on retainer for getting her mindless pro-fur drivel into a publication that normally appeals to readers with a conscience. PETA is vilified by the fur trade and much of the media as an organization of animal rights extremists. But the fight against fur is being won precisely because PETA's position on fur resonates with the public's opinion that wearing fur is deplorable. -- Erik Marcus How utterly on the cutting edge you are, Salon! With the exception of Karl Lagerfeld's recent collections for Chanel, Tracy Quan's marvelous essay on fur seems to me the strongest fashion statement that has been made in quite some time. The drab blacks and grays that dominate fashion for both men and women today are depressing to say the least. But fur is the cure. I'm sure of it. The truly chic woman (and, I would think, the superchic male) will go right out and get herself a fur after reading "Pretty in Mink." I know it's my goal for the year! And until last week, I was totally against the wearing of fur. What changed my mind was hearing an anti-fur resentnik on the radio going on and on about the ways animals are killed. I knew I was supposed to be appalled by what I heard, but really, the descriptions given didn't sound that horrible. I think the way our cows are treated in America for the production of meat and leather goods is far, far worse than the ways other animals are killed for their pelts. And yet I, along with millions of others across the country, have had at least one hamburger this month. I would gladly give up my hamburgers for a fur! Especially fox. -- Damion Matthews
_______________ "BULWORTH'S" RIGHTEOUS WRATH BY CHARLES TAYLOR (05/15/98)
	Mr. Taylor repeats the charge that Democrats are turning right on the issues to placate the voters. What is the problem? If the voters wanted more welfare, higher taxes and soft-on-crime pols the candidates would oblige. Maybe the citizens are smarter than the Taylors and Warren Beattys of the world. -- Steven Carter
_______________ CUSTOMER DISSERVICE BY SIMON FIRTH (05/21/98)
	I loved the article. I think the deal with Fry's is this: There are a huge number of low- to middle-end tech jobs in Silicon Valley that pay between $15 and $30 an hour for people with only limited technical skill. This means that anyone who knows virtually ANYTHING about computers wouldn't work at Fry's. This, however, is not the case in the rest of the world, where perhaps technically oriented people would see Fry's as their only employment option. -- David Isbister
_______________ DON'T GO THERE BY TIM BARRETT (05/14/98)
	In his travelogue "Don't Go There," Tim Barrett exhibits the elitist ignorance that has made American tourists the laughingstock of the world. He approached Dzilam de Bravo with the apparent expectation that it would be Disneyworld and Club Med rolled up into one exotic adventure: sanitized, gourmet food; elegant cultural displays; luxurious accommodations. All, of course, for some paltry sum in "real" money. What a shock to discover that it just ain't so! Tim wasn't out to discover the "real Yucatan." He was looking for "a beach full of cheesecake on holiday." He should have stayed home. -- Michael Thelen SALON | May 28, 1998