Latest on MJJC

Janet is the new face of BlackGlama

Status
Not open for further replies.
I bet some of you own a leather wallet talking about you're against animal cruelty. Ch...
 
im sure those who defend her cuss everyone else out who wear, promote, and endorse fur. thats the real hypocrisy going on here.
 
Well first off, PETA are ridiculous with that article. What a shame, an organisation that could have a lot of sway and influence and they resort to childish insults.
As for wearing fur, I am quite firmly against that. There is no need, it's ugly and vulgar, and barbaric...I could go on. But whatever. Good for her I guess.
 
I believe she is right, time will tell once and for all, things happening surely aint no coincidence.

where did my signature go? u know im damn tired by all the mod hypocrisy going on. who removed my signature? lorraine said it was the right size for me to have as i a donator why dont u mods ask each other before
 
Last edited:
i'm wondering why Janet hasn't come out and spoken up for herself. say whether or not they are slandering her, or if this is all true. i know it's old fashioned, but i'm still one who needs unshakeable evidence, before i say something about somebody. that one is for people who think i'm hypocritical in regards to Janet Jackson, as opposed to Michael Jackson. you know how many times people passed judgement on something, only to have egg on their face, in this era of court of public opinion? i'm still defending Barry Bonds, who was accused of steroid use. evything was thrown at him, including a book of accounts. the only thing not thrown at him, was a positive blood test. and yet many are sure he abused steroids. so, as rediculous as it may sound to some people, i'm still wondering if that fur is real or not...if it's photoshopped, or not. you'd be surprised. Barry Bonds came out and said, the truth will prevail, and he said he did not knowingly use steroids. yet people call him a steroid user. Now, Janet Jackson...she has said absolutely nothing. most world wide entertainers do all they can to keep a big audience from all walks. why stay silent on a whole cross section? one would gather that the family is financially secure enough that it doesn't matter to her, anymore(she did say it doesn't matter what people think..she's in her 40's..and i'm guessing that's referring to anything she does and says in general..but i don't know)....
 
Last edited:
prettygirlmj said:
Don't know if this was posted but Pamela Anderson slams Janet in today's article

http://community.livejournal.com/ohnotheydidnt/49294728.html

Oh Snap.
Click to expand...

Is it true that Janet was against wearing fur before? That would be hypocritical. And a shame really. If it's wrong it's wrong and it won't be cool again when you get paid or when fashion tells you it's 'in' again.

I love Pamela for her consistant stance against animal abuse in general.
 
Yeah, Janet was against fur in the 90's. Her mind has changed obviously lol

Yeah, Pam Anderson may have a 'different' lifestyle and may come across as a bit odd when she speaks, but that woman sticks to her principles and has defended animal rghts for like 20 years!
 
I heave never heard her publicly speak out against fur, so what is Pamela talking about, sounds like she is just listening to what peta is telling her . and if Janet changed her mind that's her opinion, she has a right too , Naomi Campbell who was against fur changed her mind and did the blackgama campgain because of peta and their radicules behavior.
 
144 said:
i'm wondering why Janet hasn't come out and spoken up for herself. say whether or not they are slandering her, or if this is all true. i know it's old fashioned, but i'm still one who needs unshakeable evidence, before i say something about somebody. that one is for people who think i'm hypocritical in regards to Janet Jackson, as opposed to Michael Jackson. you know how many times people passed judgement on something, only to have egg on their face, in this era of court of public opinion? i'm still defending Barry Bonds, who was accused of steroid use. evything was thrown at him, including a book of accounts. the only thing not thrown at him, was a positive blood test. and yet many are sure he abused steroids. so, as rediculous as it may sound to some people, i'm still wondering if that fur is real or not...if it's photoshopped, or not. you'd be surprised. Barry Bonds came out and said, the truth will prevail, and he said he did not knowingly use steroids. yet people call him a steroid user. Now, Janet Jackson...she has said absolutely nothing. most world wide entertainers do all they can to keep a big audience from all walks. why stay silent on a whole cross section? one would gather that the family is financially secure enough that it doesn't matter to her, anymore(she did say it doesn't matter what people think..she's in her 40's..and i'm guessing that's referring to anything she does and says in general..but i don't know)....
Click to expand...


I don't expect Janet to honestly respond to this maybe if they responded in a civil manor instead of attacking they probably would have gotten a response
 
twinklEE said:
where did my signature go? u know im damn tired by all the mod hypocrisy going on. who removed my signature? lorraine said it was the right size for me to have as i a donator why dont u mods ask each other before
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. I'm damn tired of mods being attacked for things they haven't even done, and for doing nothing but working to create a place for fans to come and be together. SMDH.
 
Don't be mad Stacey. We know all you guys do is in our best intrest.
Anyway back on subject, I don't see what all the fuss is about with everyone, it may have been a bad move and maybe she shouldn't be wearing fur, but I don't see people slamming Elizabeth Taylor for doing it anywhere near as much, or anyone else who did it for that matter. If PETA's gonna call Janet desperate then they should be calling Liz, Naomi Campbell and the rest of them, ptherwise they are hypocrites.
I'm gainst fur but please....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pamela Anerson is getting paid to say that about Janet. She is in their new ad campaign, which btw is already getting banned in Canada lol, where there is plenty of fur.
I eat meat and have leather things, so I really am in no place to judge those that wear fur.
I think if it were a closet full of fur I'd be concerned. But I don't see anything wrong with one coat. They last years. My mum has had the same mink coat for like 20 years now.
Plus, Janet is doing it for a rare purpose, its a legacy campaign, which very few get to be part of. Atleast its being put to good use on her, a real legend, and not some lame D-list celebrity who really is looking for attention.
 
Blackglama has also expanded its product line, introducing leather bags, eyewear, fragrance and fur accessories, in an effort to make it a less seasonal, more year-round brand.

It doesn't say fur coats, just fur accessoires. This could mean its a fake fur coat. I have no idea, but if she used to be against fur, i'm sorry but i can't condone this. Especially if she used to be against it and now wearing fur, that's as hypocrit as it gets. IF it is real fur of course.
 
raz2911 said:
Don't be mad Stacey. We know all you guys do is in our best intrest.
Anyway back on subject, I don't see what all the fuss is about with everyone, it may have been a bad move and maybe she shouldn't be wearing fur, but I don't see people slamming Elizabeth Taylor for doing it anywhere near as much, or anyone else who did it for that matter. If PETA's gonna call Janet desperate then they should be calling Liz, Naomi Campbell and the rest of them, ptherwise they are hypocrites.
I'm gainst fur but please....
Click to expand...

oh, peta has gone after all of them. trust me. that's why they are so...uhm...well known. and, of course the anti fur campaign is out there, aimed at everybody.
 
The logic of some of the arguments is flawed.

You're against wearing fur, yet you wear other apparel and accessories that's made from animals? :ermm: :unsure: :rolleyes2:
 
OnOurWay said:
The logic of some of the arguments is flawed.

You're against wearing fur, yet you wear other apparel and accessories that's made from animals? :ermm: :unsure: :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...


I understand what your TRYING to do lol, but fur is FUR and theirs a reason why soooo many people are against it.
 
Last edited:
Oh lord, the bottom line is Janet made statements to PETA about her aversion to fur in the past and now she does'nt seem to have a problem with it

This is Janet's call and any blacklash or whatever she receives, she'll just have to deal, not any of us.
 
Humans now have other ways of staying warm without wearing animal fur. Also, there are now products that look just like real fur; so there is really no good reason for humans to continue to wear fur. Janet Jackson took this fur wearing gig just for the money.

I hope Janet Jackson does not influence younger women to take up this tacky fashion habit.
 
Pamela Anderson: "Janet greedy since Michael's death"

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/music/musicnews/Pamela+Anderson+Janet+Jackson+is+greedy-82926.html

Pamela Anderson might not be in any position to comment on anyone's money situation considering she's living in a trailer park these days, but it hasn't stopped her having a pop at Janet Jackson.

It's fair to say that Janet's career was dying (excuse the pun) before her brother Michael passed away, but the publicity has gotten her back in the game and she's now fronting a fashion company called BlackGlama. Which Pammy is NOT happy about.

Apparently Pamela is angry because BlackGlama sell a lot of mink and Janet will be modelling some of it; "It's disappointing. She has spoken out against fur before, I don't know why some people stop listening to their heart. I guess some people get greedy, but it's sad."

What do you make of it…. should Janet really be swanning about in a dead animal? It is a bit unfair.
 
Re: Pamela Anderson: "Janet greedy since Michael's death"

I have to agree with Pamela, why does Janet has to use animal skin??? is that even needed??? if she has a good eye for designing, why the NEED to KIll Animals??!!!, if she can make good things, she wont need anything of that

Janet is sooo, i dont know... i think i dont like her that much, i liked her because she was the one Michael loved the most, but this, Michael wouldnt approve
 
Re: Pamela Anderson: "Janet greedy since Michael's death"

FedoraHatGirl2058 said:
I have to agree with Pamela, why does Janet has to use animal skin??? is that even needed??? if she has a good eye for designing, why the NEED to KIll Animals??!!!, if she can make good things, she wont need anything of that

Janet is sooo, i dont know... i think i dont like her that much, i liked her because she was the one Michael loved the most, but this, Michael wouldnt approve
Click to expand...


it's not her company , she's not designing nothing she's endorcing the company. and how do you know what Michael would of approve of espically sine he didn't care when Both Elizabeth Taylor and Diana Ross did the exact same add campaign .
 
Last edited:
OnOurWay said:
I bet some of you own a leather wallet talking about you're against animal cruelty. Ch...
Click to expand...

Leather is a by-product of the meat industry.

Whereas these animals are skinned alive for their fur, to protect its quality.
 
Last edited:
I don't wear fur because I can't afford it. However if you can afford it and want to wear it go for it. I have no right to tell people what they can wear, eat, or say. And neither does anyone else
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top