Research Paper on:
Attitudes About Wearing Fur

Unformatted Sample Text from the Research Paper:
wearing of fur as a representation of an industry based in animal cruelty, fur has come to symbolize a level of social and economic status (Harper & Simonson, 2008). The  value placed on fur and the attitudes towards the wearing of fur are based on social constructs and beliefs related to luxury and the expense of fur as a consumer  product. As a result, assessing socioeconomic conditions and gender as factors influencing perspectives on the wearing of fur can add some insight into discourse on this issue.  Harper & Simonson (2008) maintained that fur represents a number of social ideals that support this high-end industry. First, fur is recognized as synonymous with desire, and humans seek  out fur not because it is uncommon, but because it represents luxury and wealthy. Correspondingly, attitudes towards fur often relate to fur as a component of seduction, sensuality and  somatic sensation, and in order to do this, humans must separate the idea of fur from the actual animal origins of the fabric. In the end, though fur is  a "sadist-fabric," most people who wear fur ignore the violence against animals that occurs in order to create the products they wear (Harper & Simonson, 2008). Research shows that  attitudes towards animals that can be linked to attitudes against fur wearing is based on the humanization of animals and the creation of empathy for animals (Hills, 1993). Animal  rights activists who challenge fur wearing and protest against it are motivated by an identification with animals and heightened empathy towards animals, values that are often assessed more frequently in  female populations and in middle income, college educated populations (Hills, 1993; Paul, 2000). Individuals capable of developing empathic responses to other humans, are subsequently more likely to show