duchess of cambridge sunbathing topless pics

PJ_Soul

redrock wrote:

chadwick wrote:

pandora wrote:

Strange timing right after Prince Henry :?

hmmm perhaps a new era

what has the prince harry done?

i heard from a friend he was buck ass naked partying his lil fanny off in florida. i miss a lot of details as i am tv-less. i hesitated calling details news... i think i was right

Harry is a very different situation. He had been partying for a while with friends, picked up girls, eventually went up to his suite, played strip-pool and one of the girls at the party took photos on her mobile.
So really no comparison to stalker photos taken from a mile away, though it is still a privacy issue. Here there is an obvious breach of trust, lax security (mobiles should have been taken for 'safekeeping' by security present in room) and recklessness on Harry & friends part. It was still very opportunistic and wrong for that girl to sell photos of what was a private party

Except it was the Pap who took photos of him (probably the girl too, but still). The media took photos through his hotel room window, and those are the ones that got published.

redrock

As far as what was reported all over UK press, there were no paparazzi involved in those photos. Those published in the papers were definitely 'guest' photos taken within the room, with the 'photographer' identified. There were loads of photos all over from his Vegas holiday... A young man with his mates, having a drink or two (or more!) having a blast.... Why is this newsworthy? Why is it in the 'public interest' (besides being nosey). Just like any other 'celebrity'. Are Kate's tits newsworthy? Not really... no big deal.. topless sunbathing is more than common. Stalking, intrusion, invasion of privacy.. all that for $$$$ and public titillation?

Same when the media goes on and on about someone having an affair, etc. How are couples/families supposed to try and sort things out when the media dig up/make up salacious details that may or, usually, may not be true? Does one care if a 'celebrity' went out on a Saturday night, got drunk and fell over? Intrusion.

whygohome

redrock wrote:

As far as what was reported all over UK press, there were no paparazzi involved in those photos. Those published in the papers were definitely 'guest' photos taken within the room, with the 'photographer' identified. There were loads of photos all over from his Vegas holiday... A young man with his mates, having a drink or two (or more!) having a blast.... Why is this newsworthy? Why is it in the 'public interest' (besides being nosey). Just like any other 'celebrity'. Are Kate's tits newsworthy? Not really... no big deal.. topless sunbathing is more than common. Stalking, intrusion, invasion of privacy.. all that for $$$$ and public titillation?

Same when the media goes on and on about someone having an affair, etc. How are couples/families supposed to try and sort things out when the media dig up/make up salacious details that may or, usually, may not be true? Does one care if a 'celebrity' went out on a Saturday night, got drunk and fell over? Intrusion.

Why? Because the public are morons. Seriously though, there is a disease in the U.S., and the developed world for that matter, called "Celebrity Worship." I would really like to see a psych/sociological study doen on this topic.
Why are we so obsessed with the minutiae of a celebrities daily life? IS it because we are so bored/depressed with our own lives? Is it some type of ego/narcissism where we get pleasure from the downfall and pain of others?
Whatever it is, it is quite sad. I may do a search for some type of study, but I have more important things to worry about.

PJ_Soul

redrock wrote:

As far as what was reported all over UK press, there were no paparazzi involved in those photos. Those published in the papers were definitely 'guest' photos taken within the room, with the 'photographer' identified. There were loads of photos all over from his Vegas holiday... A young man with his mates, having a drink or two (or more!) having a blast.... Why is this newsworthy? Why is it in the 'public interest' (besides being nosey). Just like any other 'celebrity'. Are Kate's tits newsworthy? Not really... no big deal.. topless sunbathing is more than common. Stalking, intrusion, invasion of privacy.. all that for $$$$ and public titillation?

Same when the media goes on and on about someone having an affair, etc. How are couples/families supposed to try and sort things out when the media dig up/make up salacious details that may or, usually, may not be true? Does one care if a 'celebrity' went out on a Saturday night, got drunk and fell over? Intrusion.

Then a citizen took photos through the window. I saw photos taken through one.
Anyway, yeah, I don't get it. I don't give a shit about seeing celebrities naked and I don't know why anyone would. Cannot understand the obsession with celebrities when it doesn't have anything to do with why they're actually useful in the world (if they even are - I would argue that the Royals are, and actors are too).

chadwick

it is a damn shame certain magazines even exist. i forget their names....(pausing to think of super-market checkout lane's magazine rack mag title(s))

the national enquirer & the like probably might should be burnt to the ground. i just read where the national enquirer is more than 50 years old. what the fuck?

who buys this bunk ass bullshit? i'll tell you who! stupid ass bastards, that's who. i worked with a dude in 1993 after the great mississippi river flood the summer of. we worked for the government cleaning up & tearing down buildings/homes & rebuilding structures. also we did road work where the flood damaged roadways. this construction worker dude who mooed at cattle every single time we drove passed cows bought every single paparazzi magazine the store's magazine rack could offer. i would be very accurate if i suggested that he paid $20 at a time each time, once or more times a week. this dude was a bunk ass cocksucker & well up to date on stupid ass bullshit.

and the mooing at cows about got the fucker slapped stupider than he already was. come to find out that when a person mooes at cows, they actually have a mental disorder... crazy goofy ass prick shoulda been kicked square in the ass

PJ_Soul

chadwick wrote:

it is a damn shame certain magazines even exist. i forget their names....(pausing to think of super-market checkout lane's magazine rack mag title(s))

the national enquirer & the like probably might should be burnt to the ground. i just read where the national enquirer is more than 50 years old. what the fuck?

who buys this bunk ass bullshit? i'll tell you who! stupid ass bastards, that's who. i worked with a dude in 1993 after the great mississippi river flood the summer of. we worked for the government cleaning up & tearing down buildings/homes & rebuilding structures. also we did road work where the flood damaged roadways. this construction worker dude who mooed at cattle every single time we drove passed cows bought every single paparazzi magazine the store's magazine rack could offer. i would be very accurate if i suggested that he paid $20 at a time each time, once or more times a week. this dude was a bunk ass cocksucker & well up to date on stupid ass bullshit.

and the mooing at cows about got the fucker slapped stupider than he already was. come to find out that when a person mooes at cows, they actually have a mental disorder... crazy goofy ass prick shoulda been kicked square in the ass

If there was a bold disclaimer on every page in the National Enquirer saying that it was fiction, not news, I wouldn't mind it at all. But that completely made up stories can be presented as news that actually happened is terrible. It should be illegal straight up, and not simply subject to civil suits (which hardly anyone bothers with). Same goes for nude photos of people. Unless they are naked out in public, it should be illegal to publish such photos.

chadwick

what kinda grown ass man actually buys those mags & then even actually admits to such purchases? i mean really? i'd rather be beat down by a war-hammer wielding midget on pcp than purchase a mag with princess katherine's boobs in it & the story of richard gere's nights of being a homosexual werewolf who eats live chickens

comebackgirl

PJ_Soul wrote:

redrock wrote:

chadwick wrote:

what has the prince harry done?

i heard from a friend he was buck ass naked partying his lil fanny off in florida. i miss a lot of details as i am tv-less. i hesitated calling details news... i think i was right

Harry is a very different situation. He had been partying for a while with friends, picked up girls, eventually went up to his suite, played strip-pool and one of the girls at the party took photos on her mobile.
So really no comparison to stalker photos taken from a mile away, though it is still a privacy issue. Here there is an obvious breach of trust, lax security (mobiles should have been taken for 'safekeeping' by security present in room) and recklessness on Harry & friends part. It was still very opportunistic and wrong for that girl to sell photos of what was a private party

Except it was the Pap who took photos of him (probably the girl too, but still). The media took photos through his hotel room window, and those are the ones that got published.

I hope the paparazzi don't show up in Missoula :shifty: :nono:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

whygohome wrote:

Why? Because the public are morons. Seriously though, there is a disease in the U.S., and the developed world for that matter, called "Celebrity Worship." I would really like to see a psych/sociological study doen on this topic.
Why are we so obsessed with the minutiae of a celebrities daily life? IS it because we are so bored/depressed with our own lives? Is it some type of ego/narcissism where we get pleasure from the downfall and pain of others? Whatever it is, it is quite sad. I may do a search for some type of study, but I have more important things to worry about.

I believe it to be what I have underlined in your post. to me it's jealousy, plain and simple. we like to see those who we perceive to be better off than us make fools of themselves and/or fall from grace. when in reality celebrities/rich people are people, just more money and/or more debt than you/me.

same problems. bigger credit limit.

getting joy out of watching someone at their lowest is disgusting. it's pathetic. but it's the new Jerry Springer.

and now with Twitter/other social mediums, people actually believe they are somehow intimitely involved in the celebrity's life, which just makes this whole thing worse.

whygohome

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

whygohome wrote:

Why? Because the public are morons. Seriously though, there is a disease in the U.S., and the developed world for that matter, called "Celebrity Worship." I would really like to see a psych/sociological study doen on this topic.
Why are we so obsessed with the minutiae of a celebrities daily life? IS it because we are so bored/depressed with our own lives? Is it some type of ego/narcissism where we get pleasure from the downfall and pain of others? Whatever it is, it is quite sad. I may do a search for some type of study, but I have more important things to worry about.

I believe it to be what I have underlined in your post. to me it's jealousy, plain and simple. we like to see those who we perceive to be better off than us make fools of themselves and/or fall from grace. when in reality celebrities/rich people are people, just more money and/or more debt than you/me.

same problems. bigger credit limit.

getting joy out of watching someone at their lowest is disgusting. it's pathetic. but it's the new Jerry Springer.

and now with Twitter/other social mediums, people actually believe they are somehow intimitely involved in the celebrity's life, which just makes this whole thing worse.

I absolutely agree. The Jerry Springer analogy is a good one.
I don't think we can expect this will change any time soon; human nature is human nature, and, well, we're always going to be humans....actually, we are cyborgs, but that's a topic for another thread..........

hedonist

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and now with Twitter/other social mediums, people actually believe they are somehow intimitely involved in the celebrity's life, which just makes this whole thing worse.

I don't disagree with your post at all, and it got me thinking last night - moreso than usual .

Does any responsibility fall on the shoulders of those so-called celebrities who DO partake in, maybe even exploit, social media? I mean, what's the point of having a Twitter account if not to make your views known to your "followers", to post photos of yourself in supposedly private moments, to encourage others to respond?

I'm trying to figure it out. Facebook, Twitter and the like have shifted the lines of privacy. I realize it's far from black-and-white, but it also strikes me as a trying to have your cake and eat it too type of thing.

chadwick

i was just photographed sitting on the john in some outhouse over @ the state park whilst having a picnic event with friends. one of my so called pals got out their phone/(sneaky) camera and snapped pictures of me doing my business. i was in my blue denim bibs & beekeepers hat mesh face thingy. i would guess by this time next week front page headlines in the enquirer will read...

'iowa hillbilly sits on outdoor throne studying algebra, writing poetry, & uses corncob to wipe"
read more inside...
pg. 79

Godfather.

chadwick wrote:

i was just photographed sitting on the john in some outhouse over @ the state park whilst having a picnic event with friends. one of my so called pals got out their phone/(sneaky) camera and snapped pictures of me doing my business. i was in my blue denim bibs & beekeepers hat mesh face thingy. i would guess by this time next week front page headlines in the enquirer will read...


that just aint the same as say.....farmers daughter sits nude on out door throne doing her business and reading poetry pictures inside on page 79


Godfather.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

hedonist wrote:

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

and now with Twitter/other social mediums, people actually believe they are somehow intimitely involved in the celebrity's life, which just makes this whole thing worse.

I don't disagree with your post at all, and it got me thinking last night - moreso than usual .

Does any responsibility fall on the shoulders of those so-called celebrities who DO partake in, maybe even exploit, social media? I mean, what's the point of having a Twitter account if not to make your views known to your "followers", to post photos of yourself in supposedly private moments, to encourage others to respond?

I'm trying to figure it out. Facebook, Twitter and the like have shifted the lines of privacy. I realize it's far from black-and-white, but it also strikes me as a trying to have your cake and eat it too type of thing.

yes, as far as I'm concerned, if you use social media to market yourself, as celebrities are their own product, then that's fine. but if you cross the line and make it personal yourself, you are the only one to blame when someone else crosses the line that you yourself erased.

I saw on facebook that Chris Cornell posted a photo of his daughter because it's her birthday. I follow his facebook to get music news/updates, not personal info about his life. I found that weird. Save it for your actual friends, Chris.