The naked princess...

alan davus said:
And generally about this thread: I wonder why there are so few women on RFF?

What????.....And when women get together they don't talk about good looking blokes, sex and the like?? What planet are you from.
My initial thoughts were, there's a photographer who's put bread on his table this week........ And I'd describe her as quite attractive but the word cute doesn't come to mind.
Click to expand...

Talking about members of the opposite sex and attractiveness in a way that objectifies them is really not a good thing in any context. Invading privacy and reaping large personal profit is more than sad.
 
greyelm said:
If a long lens can fix onto the Duchess then so could a telephoto gun sight. So much for security.
Click to expand...

Prince William is their security 🙂

Fact is the distance record is over 8000 ft... not much protecting from that. also a beach is a great place to be out in the open.
almost always high and unpredictable wind, among other reasons. Anyone who can shoot, wouldn't. maybe that was thought out.
 
I Love Film said:
12.jpg
Click to expand...
Mai goodness. 😀
 
Trius said:
Talking about members of the opposite sex and attractiveness in a way that objectifies them is really not a good thing in any context.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with discussing sex and attractiveness. It doesn't "objectify" women any more or less than discussing their IQ, personality, or anything else. It is simply one characteristic amongst many that can be evaluated by others. People judge other people all the time.

I don't need a politically correct commissar to tell me what the boundaries of my perceptions are, or whether my opinions are "good or bad things".
 
I Love Film said:
Nonsense. There is nothing wrong with discussing sex and attractiveness. It doesn't "objectify" women any more or less than discussing their IQ, personality, or anything else. It is simply one characteristic amongst many that can be evaluated by others. People judge other people all the time.

I don't need a politically correct commissar to tell me what the boundaries of my perceptions are, or whether my opinions are "good or bad things".
Click to expand...


She's really not all that attractive.

Emperor's new clothes.

I don't think she could even get signed for a porn movie.
Click to expand...


Go back and have a look at a couple of your comments and ask yourself if you'd want someone talking about your daughter/wife/girlfriend in this way.

Then get back to us!
 
What? To say that a woman is not really attractive?

So then one must say all women are equally attractive?

I don't see anything offensive about having a subjective opinion. If you were the editor of a magazine, or a casting director, you have to make judgements about women's physical attractiveness. It's a fact, not an insult.
 
"Do you know what would be the best way to wipe out all of humankind if you were a space alien with a special mind-ray?"

"Nope, I don't believe it has ever come up to me."

"Make all women telepathic. Cos' if they suddenly found out about the kind of stuff that goes on in our head they'll kill us all on the spot. Man are not people! We are disgustoids in human form.
Women think we are normal..like them, cos' we talk to them like normal people:
'Hello, how are you? Haven't seen you in this place before...What type of music do you like?'
But all the time in our brains we got the word 'Breasts' on a loop. If we ever lost control for a second we all start shouting : Breasts! Breasts! Breasts!"

Jeffrey Murdock(my favorite brit)
 
This is odd.

I opened this topic, expecting to read insightful ideas about the rightness or wrongness of whether the images should have been taken...or whether the French Closer magazine should have published them...

At least, that's the form of discussion I generally expect on RFF.
 
Trius said:
Talking about members of the opposite sex and attractiveness in a way that objectifies them is really not a good thing in any context. Invading privacy and reaping large personal profit is more than sad.
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it's human nature...... And let's face it, these photos are only taken because there is a huge market for them.... mainly womens magazines.
 
I agree it's wrong to "invade their privacy", but this Royal Couple "make a living" by putting themselves on display almost every waking hour.

From the "Royal Wedding" staged to be viewed by hundreds of millions, to their constant public appearances and fashion parades, to their constant intentional exposure to the public eye, they very much make themselves totally public figures.

So let's not pretend they or we are TOO shocked when someone captures their unstaged images and sells them to a voracious public.
 
shheeesh, what a thread.You know, I feel Ok making comments on the passing of Steve Jobs and how `his' products are manufactured, also OK with the Neil Armstrong thing..but this!!
Lots male bull#@*! through this one.Dream on guys.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Move to France, dear boy. Or indeed to pretty much anywhere in southern Europe. I spend very little time on beaches but even I have seen plenty of toplessness on the Mediterranean shoreline.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Or dear boss, alternatively move back to ol Blighty/Devon and view some real white pointers.

That "Med" look of golden brown can age very quickly: Looks hot when their young, but are all roasted done by 31.

But, where exactly were you Roger? On the beach or lurking on the shoreline? Perhaps there is a difference - but who can be sure in this day and age of global warming and receding sandlines...

Gilden didn't care much for beaches, as he took his best Coney Island photos fully clothed resplendant with boots in the middle of summer. And that first body of work is still one of his more compelling edits. I guess you could say context is everything>
 
Jaans said:
. . . But, where exactly were you Roger? On the beach or lurking on the shoreline? Perhaps there is a difference - but who can be sure in this day and age of global warming and receding sandlines...
. . .
Click to expand...
Can't remember the names of the places. I only ever go to the beach because Frances wants to, and we only ever go to beaches that are reasonably near to being on the way to somewhere else, where we are going for some other reason. In the last 2-3 years, Greece, France (on the way to Arles), Spain (for a piece I was doing on the Pyrenees), and (obviously not Mediterranean) Estonia. I daren't go in the sea any more, or into swimming pools, because it's pretty much guaranteed I'll get an ear infection. And I can't think of anything more boring than sunbathing. Well, I can, but not many things.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Can't remember the names of the places. I only ever go to the beach because Frances wants to, and we only ever go to beaches that are reasonably near to being on the way to somewhere else, where we are going for some other reason. In the last 2-3 years, Greece, France (on the way to Arles), Spain (for a piece I was doing on the Pyrenees), and (obviously not Mediterranean) Estonia. I daren't go in the sea any more, or into swimming pools, because it's pretty much guaranteed I'll get an ear infection. And I can't think of anything more boring than sunbathing. Well, I can, but not many things.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Agreed - I also can't stand sunbathing as its boring and I also get burnt rather easily. I do enjoy a spot of swimming here and there though.

It can be rather daunting in this day and age to take photos on the beach, especially of strangers in a 'street photography style' (minus the bitumen). Martin Parr is one photographer who springs to mind - I just wonder if he could get that access and shoot the same style of photos now that he did in the 80's? There could potentially be a few irate parents.
 
Jaans said:
Agreed - I also can't stand sunbathing as its boring and I also get burnt rather easily. I do enjoy a spot of swimming here and there though.

It can be rather daunting in this day and age to take photos on the beach, especially of strangers in a 'street photography style' (minus the bitumen). Martin Parr is one photographer who springs to mind - I just wonder if he could get that access and shoot the same style of photos now that he did in the 80's? There could potentially be a few irate parents.
Click to expand...

There's no problem (in my experience) outside what the French call the Anglo-Saxon world. Certainly, in the countries I listed, no-one blinked at my carrying a camera.

I used to love swimmimg, but as I say, I daren't nowadays. I've just finished 3 weeks of ear-drops and antibiotics for the last ear infection, acquired without swimming.

Taking pictures is about the only way to pass the time, therefore.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
There's no problem (in my experience) outside what the French call the Anglo-Saxon world. Certainly, in the countries I listed, no-one blinked at my carrying a camera.
Click to expand...

really?
You don't get any reaction when wandering a beach with topless ladies or kids for that matter, and taking pictures?
I'm not arguing, here, It's just a situation where I would think some people would be p!ssed, and I'm quite careful at what I point my camera when on the beach (not taking a picture that could be misinterpreted).
 
sanmich said:
really?
You don't get any reaction when wandering a beach with topless ladies or kids for that matter, and taking pictures?
I'm not arguing, here, It's just a situation where I would think some people would be p!ssed, and I'm quite careful at what I point my camera when on the beach (not taking a picture that could be misinterpreted).
Click to expand...
No adverse ones. The occasional smile. Then again, like you, I try not to take pictures that would offend people, or even that could be misinterpreted..

Cheers,

R.
 
For me, the point is that *all* people are entitled to privacy in their own home, and when they are 'off-duty', and to respect always. The fact that when on-duty they have to present themselves to the world is irrelevant.
 
Mr_Toad said:
This is odd.

I opened this topic, expecting to read insightful ideas about the rightness or wrongness of whether the images should have been taken...or whether the French Closer magazine should have published them...

At least, that's the form of discussion I generally expect on RFF.
Click to expand...


Me too. I'm rather shocked at some of the comments here.

Let no one fool him (or her) self: the ONLY reasons these photographs have been taken and published are (1) the subject is the Kate Middleton/the future Queen and (2) the images are intended for consumption in a sexual context. We are meant to be ogling her breasts.

They are not at all the same as photographs of topless bathers on a beach. First, no one who chooses to be naked on a beach has any reasonable expectation of privacy. Secondly, assuming a reasonable number of other people on the beach, the setting is rarely sexual.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom