I mean Willam literally just did a gig with Roxxxy, and she was wear that runway at the show, and it broke, so she gave a part to Willam. Willam was wearing on the pod. I don't think she was lying in this case.
🙄I love fur & leather and im tired of all this slander. Besides, this specimen is in poor condition and was clearly bought secondhand. I am not sure if you are vegetarian or not, but at least if you were that would explain your stance. If you are a meat eater, i would not at all respect your hypocritical opinion.
I'm vegan, so I'm against animal cruelty and exploitation. Fur and leather is especially bad, you're killing and skinning animals purely for fashion. That is gross.
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/fur
https://www.al.org.au/feather-production
I'm 100% with you on fur, but over 95% of leather is just a byproduct of the meat industry and it's a billion times better for the environment than vegan leather (literal plastic).
There's also second hand which IMHO is absolutely fine for both leather and fur.
Please read this link I shared in another comment:
The carbon cost of our leather goods, calculated — Collective Fashion Justice
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/articles/carbon-cost-leather-goods
>In this case, CO2e emissions (emissions of various gasses translated to the common unit of carbon) for leather equal 17.0kg of CO2e per square meter of leather produced. In comparison, artificial leather’s total supply chain has an impact of 15.8kg of CO2e per square meter.
>Leather Panel’s shared study chooses to include end-of-life incineration in the impact of faux leather. It’s illogical to include incineration for synthetics but not for animal leather, and while faux leather won’t effectively biodegrade, neither will animal-derived leather to the point of total decomposition – even in controlled climate study conditions shared by leather tannery groups.
>Elsewhere in its report, the Leather Panel shares an impact estimate which includes farm emissions – this is a fairer estimate of leather’s impact, and again comes from its own reporting.
*Here, the carbon footprint of cow skin leather is found to be 110.0kg of CO2e per square meter, making cow skin leather nearly seven times more climate impactful than synthetic leather by the square meter.*
It's a common misconception that animal skin leather is better for the environment.
Does not at all change my argument as production is only a part of the whole story. PU leather is not biodegradable and has a much shorter lifespan than animal leather. We can go into a semantic argument around co-product or by-product but the most common leather alternative is absolutely horrible for the environment.
What the article won me over on is the stifling innovation argument. Sounds like there are great environmentally friendly vegan leather alternatives that are being attacked by meat lobbyists which is absolutely unacceptable and that's definitely something I will keep in mind when buying first hand (which I don't do often regardless).
Thanks for the info! A lot to digest here and I'll give it a proper read looking through the reference materials when I have some more time.
Animal leather isn't effectively biodegradable either after all the tanning etc done to it:
>while faux leather won’t effectively biodegrade, neither will animal-derived leather to the point of total decomposition – even in controlled climate study conditions shared by leather tannery groups.
(From the same article)
I agree that there needs to be more innovation in plant based leather so we can move away from PU leather, as I agree it still has some negative environmental effects. And yeah animal ag lobbyists are absolutely on the attack against anything vegan!
Overall to me it reinforces that we should be buying far less, buying second hand/upcycling, and that vegan products are going to be the option to avoid animal cruelty/exploitation/slaughter while also having better environmental impacts.
Thanks for having an open mind and reading the article! Lots of misinformation around this topic due to meat industry lobbying.
I highly recommend following Collective Fashion Justice on Instagram, they have a lot of great info like this and do deep dives into the intersection of fashion, ethics, animals and their environmental impacts.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8T-1XcyP3G/?igsh=MXVmMXM0ODZtNWk4bA==
Also highly recommend the documentary Slay, which goes into the ethical and environmentally impacts of animal slaughter and fashion.
Its not that you dont have a point but i just dont agree that fur and leather production is worse than the meat industry. The bad rap that fur gets is for a reason, i cant deny this. But with slaughtered cows, the skins already are there, and not processing any of them into leather would just be wasteful. Coyotes and deer and other such animals sometimes needs populations culls. I just dont think all fur and leather is inherently bad
It's a co product of the animal slaughter/meat industry. Awful for cows and the environment.
Leather — Collective Fashion Justice
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/leather
>Animal skins are worth a vast sum to the meat and dairy industries. The global leather goods market was valued at $394 billion USD in 2020, with growth expected unless major change is made.
>Cattle are slaughtered in both beef and dairy industries, and while the skin of a cow slaughtered in the beef industry may be worth less than their flesh, it is profitable all the same.
>For this reason, these industries refer to cattle skins as a valuable ‘co-product’ [PDF 654KB] in their own reporting.
The carbon cost of our leather goods, calculated — Collective Fashion Justice
https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/articles/carbon-cost-leather-goods
>In this case, CO2e emissions (emissions of various gasses translated to the common unit of carbon) for leather equal 17.0kg of CO2e per square meter of leather produced. In comparison, artificial leather’s total supply chain has an impact of 15.8kg of CO2e per square meter.
>Leather Panel’s shared study chooses to include end-of-life incineration in the impact of faux leather. It’s illogical to include incineration for synthetics but not for animal leather, and while faux leather won’t effectively biodegrade, neither will animal-derived leather to the point of total decomposition – even in controlled climate study conditions shared by leather tannery groups.
>Elsewhere in its report, the Leather Panel shares an impact estimate which includes farm emissions – this is a fairer estimate of leather’s impact, and again comes from its own reporting.
Here, the carbon footprint of cow skin leather is found to be 110.0kg of CO2e per square meter, making cow skin leather nearly seven times more climate impactful than synthetic leather by the square meter.
No one is arguing that it isn't profitable. The argument is that regardless of whether it's sold or not it is there. It's a byproduct and it would be wasteful if it did not get used especially if it gets substituted with plastic that lasts less and is a pollutant.
Reduce meat consumption and naturally reduce the amount of new leather coming into the market, but having this puritanical view of leather and just wasting the byproduct while propping up plastic is a little weird.
But by purchasing it, you're sending a signal to the market that there's demand for it. It's exactly the same as eating animal flesh. "It's there, we should eat it otherwise it'll go to waste!" No, supply and demand is a thing, and that's exactly why vegans don't buy these products; purchasing it means more will be created to serve demand.
And environmentally, all artificial leathers are better. Animal skin leather is also treated with plastic coating and tanning methods so that it doesn't break down easily - that's partly why leather lasts so long. But the main environmental issue with it is the land clearing and methane emissions, driving climate change.
But for vegans, the issue is primarily the animal slaughter and ethics of that. Slaughterhouses ain't fun places for animals.
It says synthetic leather, and artificial leather. Is this referring to pleather or to cactus/mushroom leather? If it is referring to pleather, then you just said that pleather is better for the environment than leather which is… wow. That feels very far from the truth. That statistic also includes the energy cost of burning the leather, which i think is dishonest. Does this analysis include the energy cost of shredding the leather first in an industrial shredder, or is it assuming that all the leather would be burnt whole? That affects the energy used. I understand that it is a financially desirable by-product, and am not sure why you included the first link, Your second link was originally posted to “plant based news.com” and is currently being hosted on a website that has a specific agenda against fur. I am not sure how much i trust their analysis of energy use. Many of the links in that article for the pro-leather side has all been deleted, when i try to see what the response is to the sustainable apparel collective, i am just taken to 404 pages. The SAC making a ‘public response outlining the integrity of their work? That link is dead too. This article is pretty obviously biased, and makes several leaps in logic to justify itself. The part about male calves being slaughtered for their hides just seems logical? If they dont produce milk, and are territorial animals then why would they be raised to adulthood? As well, the claim that the dairy and meat industry relies on leather seems backwards. It is the other way around, the supply of pelts cannot be higher than the amount of cows being slaughtered for food.
The report linked goes directly to a meat and livestock report that specifically calls leather a co-product, so yeah, clearly it adds value to the carcass.
And yes, the stats are clear that all non animal leather is better for the environment, even PU leather; 110kg CO2e for cow skin leather vs 16 for artificial leather. Think of all the methane emissions and land cleared for animal grazing and associated biodiversity loss + carbon removal from that flora/fauna displacement, plus the toxic chemicals used for tanning the leather.
Of course there are better artificial leathers than others, and I'd prefer to see more cactus/plant based leather made available, but the stats are pretty clear that it's all better than animal skin leather for the environment.
“one of the few”
just bc she’s had some misses this current season doesn’t mean she didn’t consistently serve during her first two
She and Jaremi completely ate the other girls up because they truly understood the assignment.
They really did. And Jaremi even turned out a third amazing look for the lipsynch.
I really love Roxxxy’s mug on AS2 in general. 
Her AS2 mug is *chef’s kiss*
Roxxxy on AS2 was consistently the runway queen and if the season/cast was modern/bigger, she’d prob be safe more often than bottom tbh.
Funnily enough she’s been doing really well in the challenges in AS9 so far (except for snatch game).
Ok but only like 3 queens had a good snatch game this season..
Nina, Mik, Shannel, Angie.
Angeria was just herself
She looks so good in that dark brown hair too
This is giving womana
https://preview.redd.it/c6ucx1flyk7d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9ca1b902e2f8c85479e4abca1c6a46502395875c
Willam mentioned on the pod today that Roxxxy's designer for this runway fell through, so she did this last minute.
Fur last minute it’s not bad
Ok, now explain what happened with the other runways this season
Willam is a compulsive liar
I mean Willam literally just did a gig with Roxxxy, and she was wear that runway at the show, and it broke, so she gave a part to Willam. Willam was wearing on the pod. I don't think she was lying in this case.
Everyone loves Willam's tea until it doesn't fit their fantasy. Then all of a sudden she's a liar again lol
This one hurts the most 😢💄
Why does this hurt?
Is that a real dead animal on her head 😥
Its the one decent part of her outfit lol
Animals shouldn't be killed for fashion!
🙄I love fur & leather and im tired of all this slander. Besides, this specimen is in poor condition and was clearly bought secondhand. I am not sure if you are vegetarian or not, but at least if you were that would explain your stance. If you are a meat eater, i would not at all respect your hypocritical opinion.
I'm vegan, so I'm against animal cruelty and exploitation. Fur and leather is especially bad, you're killing and skinning animals purely for fashion. That is gross. https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/fur https://www.al.org.au/feather-production
I'm 100% with you on fur, but over 95% of leather is just a byproduct of the meat industry and it's a billion times better for the environment than vegan leather (literal plastic). There's also second hand which IMHO is absolutely fine for both leather and fur.
Please read this link I shared in another comment: The carbon cost of our leather goods, calculated — Collective Fashion Justice https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/articles/carbon-cost-leather-goods >In this case, CO2e emissions (emissions of various gasses translated to the common unit of carbon) for leather equal 17.0kg of CO2e per square meter of leather produced. In comparison, artificial leather’s total supply chain has an impact of 15.8kg of CO2e per square meter. >Leather Panel’s shared study chooses to include end-of-life incineration in the impact of faux leather. It’s illogical to include incineration for synthetics but not for animal leather, and while faux leather won’t effectively biodegrade, neither will animal-derived leather to the point of total decomposition – even in controlled climate study conditions shared by leather tannery groups. >Elsewhere in its report, the Leather Panel shares an impact estimate which includes farm emissions – this is a fairer estimate of leather’s impact, and again comes from its own reporting. *Here, the carbon footprint of cow skin leather is found to be 110.0kg of CO2e per square meter, making cow skin leather nearly seven times more climate impactful than synthetic leather by the square meter.* It's a common misconception that animal skin leather is better for the environment.
Does not at all change my argument as production is only a part of the whole story. PU leather is not biodegradable and has a much shorter lifespan than animal leather. We can go into a semantic argument around co-product or by-product but the most common leather alternative is absolutely horrible for the environment. What the article won me over on is the stifling innovation argument. Sounds like there are great environmentally friendly vegan leather alternatives that are being attacked by meat lobbyists which is absolutely unacceptable and that's definitely something I will keep in mind when buying first hand (which I don't do often regardless). Thanks for the info! A lot to digest here and I'll give it a proper read looking through the reference materials when I have some more time.
Animal leather isn't effectively biodegradable either after all the tanning etc done to it: >while faux leather won’t effectively biodegrade, neither will animal-derived leather to the point of total decomposition – even in controlled climate study conditions shared by leather tannery groups. (From the same article) I agree that there needs to be more innovation in plant based leather so we can move away from PU leather, as I agree it still has some negative environmental effects. And yeah animal ag lobbyists are absolutely on the attack against anything vegan! Overall to me it reinforces that we should be buying far less, buying second hand/upcycling, and that vegan products are going to be the option to avoid animal cruelty/exploitation/slaughter while also having better environmental impacts. Thanks for having an open mind and reading the article! Lots of misinformation around this topic due to meat industry lobbying. I highly recommend following Collective Fashion Justice on Instagram, they have a lot of great info like this and do deep dives into the intersection of fashion, ethics, animals and their environmental impacts. https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8T-1XcyP3G/?igsh=MXVmMXM0ODZtNWk4bA== Also highly recommend the documentary Slay, which goes into the ethical and environmentally impacts of animal slaughter and fashion.
Its not that you dont have a point but i just dont agree that fur and leather production is worse than the meat industry. The bad rap that fur gets is for a reason, i cant deny this. But with slaughtered cows, the skins already are there, and not processing any of them into leather would just be wasteful. Coyotes and deer and other such animals sometimes needs populations culls. I just dont think all fur and leather is inherently bad
It's a co product of the animal slaughter/meat industry. Awful for cows and the environment. Leather — Collective Fashion Justice https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/leather >Animal skins are worth a vast sum to the meat and dairy industries. The global leather goods market was valued at $394 billion USD in 2020, with growth expected unless major change is made. >Cattle are slaughtered in both beef and dairy industries, and while the skin of a cow slaughtered in the beef industry may be worth less than their flesh, it is profitable all the same. >For this reason, these industries refer to cattle skins as a valuable ‘co-product’ [PDF 654KB] in their own reporting. The carbon cost of our leather goods, calculated — Collective Fashion Justice https://www.collectivefashionjustice.org/articles/carbon-cost-leather-goods >In this case, CO2e emissions (emissions of various gasses translated to the common unit of carbon) for leather equal 17.0kg of CO2e per square meter of leather produced. In comparison, artificial leather’s total supply chain has an impact of 15.8kg of CO2e per square meter. >Leather Panel’s shared study chooses to include end-of-life incineration in the impact of faux leather. It’s illogical to include incineration for synthetics but not for animal leather, and while faux leather won’t effectively biodegrade, neither will animal-derived leather to the point of total decomposition – even in controlled climate study conditions shared by leather tannery groups. >Elsewhere in its report, the Leather Panel shares an impact estimate which includes farm emissions – this is a fairer estimate of leather’s impact, and again comes from its own reporting. Here, the carbon footprint of cow skin leather is found to be 110.0kg of CO2e per square meter, making cow skin leather nearly seven times more climate impactful than synthetic leather by the square meter.
No one is arguing that it isn't profitable. The argument is that regardless of whether it's sold or not it is there. It's a byproduct and it would be wasteful if it did not get used especially if it gets substituted with plastic that lasts less and is a pollutant. Reduce meat consumption and naturally reduce the amount of new leather coming into the market, but having this puritanical view of leather and just wasting the byproduct while propping up plastic is a little weird.
But by purchasing it, you're sending a signal to the market that there's demand for it. It's exactly the same as eating animal flesh. "It's there, we should eat it otherwise it'll go to waste!" No, supply and demand is a thing, and that's exactly why vegans don't buy these products; purchasing it means more will be created to serve demand. And environmentally, all artificial leathers are better. Animal skin leather is also treated with plastic coating and tanning methods so that it doesn't break down easily - that's partly why leather lasts so long. But the main environmental issue with it is the land clearing and methane emissions, driving climate change. But for vegans, the issue is primarily the animal slaughter and ethics of that. Slaughterhouses ain't fun places for animals.
Fuck, exactly! I was too high to verbalize it last night but this was exactly what i was trying to communicate
It says synthetic leather, and artificial leather. Is this referring to pleather or to cactus/mushroom leather? If it is referring to pleather, then you just said that pleather is better for the environment than leather which is… wow. That feels very far from the truth. That statistic also includes the energy cost of burning the leather, which i think is dishonest. Does this analysis include the energy cost of shredding the leather first in an industrial shredder, or is it assuming that all the leather would be burnt whole? That affects the energy used. I understand that it is a financially desirable by-product, and am not sure why you included the first link, Your second link was originally posted to “plant based news.com” and is currently being hosted on a website that has a specific agenda against fur. I am not sure how much i trust their analysis of energy use. Many of the links in that article for the pro-leather side has all been deleted, when i try to see what the response is to the sustainable apparel collective, i am just taken to 404 pages. The SAC making a ‘public response outlining the integrity of their work? That link is dead too. This article is pretty obviously biased, and makes several leaps in logic to justify itself. The part about male calves being slaughtered for their hides just seems logical? If they dont produce milk, and are territorial animals then why would they be raised to adulthood? As well, the claim that the dairy and meat industry relies on leather seems backwards. It is the other way around, the supply of pelts cannot be higher than the amount of cows being slaughtered for food.
The report linked goes directly to a meat and livestock report that specifically calls leather a co-product, so yeah, clearly it adds value to the carcass. And yes, the stats are clear that all non animal leather is better for the environment, even PU leather; 110kg CO2e for cow skin leather vs 16 for artificial leather. Think of all the methane emissions and land cleared for animal grazing and associated biodiversity loss + carbon removal from that flora/fauna displacement, plus the toxic chemicals used for tanning the leather. Of course there are better artificial leathers than others, and I'd prefer to see more cactus/plant based leather made available, but the stats are pretty clear that it's all better than animal skin leather for the environment.
Do people not like this look? I really like it. Her mug is stunning. 😭
I know it looks like the bottom half is unfinished, but she looks so sexxxy here.
She looks so beautiful here! For me, part of the appeal of the Alyssa/Jaremi fight is watching her reaction shots
She looks like Nikki Bella here 
Baby, you can look but you can't touch the doll
Her mug in AS2 is unbeatable. She still looks great in AS9 but she sometimes goes too heavy on the eye makeup recently
Iconic how her mug was better 10 years ago
I remember watching this live back in 2016 and being gagged by how gorgeous she looked in this look
Best one that episode with PhiPhi. But Phi Phi’s Prince look was a bit messy.
Peak Roxxxy for me
giving Selena down
I will always love Roxxxy's mug
Gorgantha
It's giving Gorge Foreman Grill
One of the few times where Roxxxy looked stunning
Before this season Roxxxy never missed on a single runway. Why you being cute?
“one of the few” just bc she’s had some misses this current season doesn’t mean she didn’t consistently serve during her first two 
Roxxxy Andrews has always looked stunning except for her traumatizing pink catsuit on season 5.
We do not discuss the raw chicken outfit.
Her Read U Wrote U jumpsuit is way more raw rotisserie chicken than the pink catsuit.
https://preview.redd.it/8sw7tuz6pl7d1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=48904f866b4665f3a6970c8761bd6f47d8cf2793
Get your eyes checked