Posted by Paracelsus (1595 posts) - - Show Bio

I haven't seen the photos of the Duchess of Cambridge(Kate Middleton in lay terms) allegedly taken by a French "scandal sheet "as she sunbathes topless in France but there are a lot of things I haven't seen-or would care to see- for myself, although they are readily available on the Internet(like child porn, bestiality, beheadings of "infidels" by jihadists, violent car crashes et al).

Let's get it straight- unlike the allegedly "Islamophobic" film "The Innocence of Muslims", members of the British Royal Family are NOT regarded as divine or semi-divine creatures(no matter how widely respected they like our current Queen are) unlike the Emperor of Japan until 1946 when the then Hirohito renounced his "divinity". Yes, the Duchess HAS breasts( just as my nieces and my own mother do) so in a certain sense the hoo-hahing by the whited sepulchres of Fleet Street is nonsensical. As intrusive and painful as it may be for the Duchess, this is the way of the world in the 21st century- just ask celebs like Drew Barrymore about what the late Diana bitterly termed the "stalkerazzi".

Perhaps an almost forgotten speech by then US President Dwight David Eisenhower at Dartmouth College in 1954 sums up thw wisest course of action- "don't join the book burners(or book banners)!"

Anybody think as I do?

Terry

#1 Posted by laflux (15316 posts) - - Show Bio

I think it was wrong to intrude in their privacy- but the overreaction has been annoying. Someone tweeted me the pictures yesterday- they are nothing special =D .

#2 Edited by Strider92 (16253 posts) - - Show Bio

It's an invasion of privacy. If the picture had been taken on a local beach fine because if your walking around topless on a beach you obviously don't care but spying outside someones private residence and taking indecent photos is wrong. Simple as that.Having said that there's no point in overrating. Whats done is done.

#3 Posted by Selinaky (677 posts) - - Show Bio

It is sad that she can't get privacy in their own private villa (or whatever it was), but being a Princess has it's downsides. Not being able to sunbathe topless is probably one of them.

Anyway, it's still wrong of the French magazine to post those pictures, it's just disrespectful.

#4 Posted by ARMIV2 (8428 posts) - - Show Bio

@Selinaky said:

It is sad that she can't get privacy in their own private villa (or whatever it was), but being a Princess has it's downsides. Not being able to sunbathe topless is probably one of them.

Anyway, it's still wrong of the French magazine to post those pictures, it's just disrespectful.

I agree completely. That's some real douchebaggery on their part.

#5 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

First I even heard of it.

Famous people goin topless and then gettin their piccy taken. Wha?

#6 Posted by 8bitGangsta (392 posts) - - Show Bio

lame publicity stunt

#7 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

She be a ladee and gots dem titties? Wha? Neva seen no titties b4.....

#8 Posted by TheNooseIsLoose (1900 posts) - - Show Bio

I AM OFFENDED!!!...by the poor quality of these photos.

#9 Posted by Chaos Prime (10842 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

I AM OFFENDED!!!...by the poor quality of these photos.

agreed..

#10 Posted by theTimeStreamer (2841 posts) - - Show Bio

oh no. poor member of the royal family. cry me river. harry or whatever his name is seen shitfaced butt naked 3 times a month. gold digger.

#11 Edited by spartan92 (2520 posts) - - Show Bio

One of the reasons why i would hate to be famous ( i would like to be rich ), no privacy what so ever.

Now, were are these topless pics.

#12 Posted by laflux (15316 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

I AM OFFENDED!!!...by the poor quality of these photos.

lmao

#13 Posted by KnightRise (4785 posts) - - Show Bio

Boobs are good. Celebrity boobs are great. Royal boobs? Thats top tier.

#14 Posted by BumpyBoo (8467 posts) - - Show Bio

Why does it matter whether she is a member of the Royal family? She's still a person. If someone took pictures of me naked and published them without my knowledge or consent, it would be a grotesquely voyeuristic invasion of privacy. No human being should be exploited in this way. if someone hasn't given their consent, then nobody has the right to take pictures of them, let alone distribute them. To a certain extent you do give up your privacy when you are in the public eye. But this does not give people the right to lech over your boobs. It is intrusive, disgusting, and degrading. And don't give me the argument that if she didn't want anyone to see them then she shouldn't have gotten them out. The poor woman was enjoying a supposedly private moment and we have NO RIGHT to take that from her.

Moderator Online
#16 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@BumpyBoo said:

And don't give me the argument that if she didn't want anyone to see them then she shouldn't have gotten them out. The poor woman was enjoying a supposedly private moment and we have NO RIGHT to take that from her.

If one is famous and has scumbag papparazzi following one around and one doesn't want said scumbag paparazzi taking piccys of ones boobies one should be extremely certain one is truly private before one pulls ones top off. If one is not extremely careful one shouldn't be surprised.

Beyond all that they are jus boobies after all.

Her posterior was far more interesting to this letcher. =)

#17 Posted by BumpyBoo (8467 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

And don't give me the argument that if she didn't want anyone to see them then she shouldn't have gotten them out. The poor woman was enjoying a supposedly private moment and we have NO RIGHT to take that from her.

If one is famous and has scumbag papparazzi following one around and one doesn't want said scumbag paparazzi taking piccys of ones boobies one should be extremely certain one is truly private before one pulls ones top off. If one is not extremely careful one shouldn't be surprised.

Beyond all that they are jus boobies after all.

Her posterior was far more interesting to this letcher. =)

Well I think that they are the ones in the wrong, not her, and they should know when to back off. Anyone outside of the paparazzi who decided to sneak around, hiding in bushes and taking pictures of topless women would be arrested, and possibly added to the sex offenders register. These people should not be above the law.

Moderator Online
#18 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio
@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

And don't give me the argument that if she didn't want anyone to see them then she shouldn't have gotten them out. The poor woman was enjoying a supposedly private moment and we have NO RIGHT to take that from her.

If one is famous and has scumbag papparazzi following one around and one doesn't want said scumbag paparazzi taking piccys of ones boobies one should be extremely certain one is truly private before one pulls ones top off. If one is not extremely careful one shouldn't be surprised.

Beyond all that they are jus boobies after all.

Her posterior was far more interesting to this letcher. =)

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"
#19 Posted by BumpyBoo (8467 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Moderator Online
#20 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20146 posts) - - Show Bio

Another one? Seriously?

What's next? Another B-List celebrity dying?

#21 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

#22 Posted by PowerHerc (83257 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheNooseIsLoose said:

I AM OFFENDED!!!...by the poor quality of these photos.

Lol!

#23 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

She was using her head. She was not on a public beach. She was on private property. She was inside a private villa that they paid a lot of money for so they could be left alone. You can tell by the pics that the photographer was far away. The couple did as much as can be reasonably expected to ensure their privacy. As someone said, If a dude was taking pics of you inside your house that is cause for arrest. This should be no different.

#24 Posted by BumpyBoo (8467 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

I wasn't saying that anyone was in favour of sexual assault, it would be horrible and inexcusable to say that about someone you don't even know. I agreed with the comparison because in both cases, to say such a thing is to blame the victim instead of the perpetrator. And I am certainly not going to resign myself to it, to deny any sense of moral responsibility by just accepting that this is the world we live in. The world is this way because we allow it to be. People make their living this way because we encourage it, we justify it for them. I accept that we will never live in a perfect society, but that doesn't mean we should all have a "put up and shut up" attitude.

Also: If I concentrate hard enough? There is certainly no need to be patronizing or condescending because I do not agree with you. I am well aware of the world we live in, thank you, and I am merely expressing an opinion.

Moderator Online
#25 Posted by The Stegman (23918 posts) - - Show Bio

Google search commences 

Online
#26 Posted by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

She was using her head. She was not on a public beach. She was on private property. She was inside a private villa that they paid a lot of money for so they could be left alone. You can tell by the pics that the photographer was far away. The couple did as much as can be reasonably expected to ensure their privacy. As someone said, If a dude was taking pics of you inside your house that is cause for arrest. This should be no different.

You say "this should be different" . That appears to be a statement which includes a value judgement. I wasn't speaking about the MORALITY of the act only to the fact that paparazzi are a REALITY which the hoi polloi need to take into account in seemingly every aspect of their lives. The paparazzi have telephoto lenses (SHOCK) so draw your blinds or just keep your top on.

I am not justifying the paparazzi. I'm just stupified that people are surprised when they nick nude photos. That is their bread and butter. If there was no demand there would be no supply. If folks got off to the color of a celebs toe nail paint that is what the paparazzi would fight over to get.

Any way, I was just posting here for fun and it ain't no more. Fame has a price. Deal with it. Make new laws but until then just deal.

#27 Edited by ReVamp (22865 posts) - - Show Bio

@ARMIV2 said:

@Selinaky said:

It is sad that she can't get privacy in their own private villa (or whatever it was), but being a Princess has it's downsides. Not being able to sunbathe topless is probably one of them.

Anyway, it's still wrong of the French magazine to post those pictures, it's just disrespectful.

I agree completely. That's some real douchebaggery on their part.

Is it douchey? Yes, undoutedly? Is it more douchey than if they had taken a photo of Giselle Bundchen in her own house and posted them? No.

EDIT: Not in my opinion, at any rate. I can't tell anyone what to think or not, obviously.

#28 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (32993 posts) - - Show Bio
@kuonphobos said:

@pooty said:

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

She was using her head. She was not on a public beach. She was on private property. She was inside a private villa that they paid a lot of money for so they could be left alone. You can tell by the pics that the photographer was far away. The couple did as much as can be reasonably expected to ensure their privacy. As someone said, If a dude was taking pics of you inside your house that is cause for arrest. This should be no different.

You say "this should be different" . That appears to be a statement which includes a value judgement. I wasn't speaking about the MORALITY of the act only to the fact that paparazzi are a REALITY which the hoi polloi need to take into account in seemingly every aspect of their lives. The paparazzi have telephoto lenses (SHOCK) so draw your blinds or just keep your top on.

I am not justifying the paparazzi. I'm just stupified that people are surprised when they nick nude photos. That is their bread and butter. If there was no demand there would be no supply. If folks got off to the color of a celebs toe nail paint that is what the paparazzi would fight over to get.

Any way, I was just posting here for fun and it ain't no more. Fame has a price. Deal with it. Make new laws but until then just deal.

There already is laws that's why the magazine in question is being taken to court 
#29 Posted by BumpyBoo (8467 posts) - - Show Bio

But this was already a moral debate when you joined, we were discussing whether or not it was right to do this. The comment you pulled me up on was about the moral implications of this, so by quoting and questioning it you are, by definition, commenting on the moral aspect of this story. You could have expressed your opinion without dragging me into it. That was your choice.

But no bad feeling intended.

Moderator Online
#30 Posted by pooty (11017 posts) - - Show Bio

@kuonphobos said:

@pooty said:

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

She was using her head. She was not on a public beach. She was on private property. She was inside a private villa that they paid a lot of money for so they could be left alone. You can tell by the pics that the photographer was far away. The couple did as much as can be reasonably expected to ensure their privacy. As someone said, If a dude was taking pics of you inside your house that is cause for arrest. This should be no different.

You say "this should be different" . That appears to be a statement which includes a value judgement. I wasn't speaking about the MORALITY of the act only to the fact that paparazzi are a REALITY which the hoi polloi need to take into account in seemingly every aspect of their lives. The paparazzi have telephoto lenses (SHOCK) so draw your blinds or just keep your top on.

I am not justifying the paparazzi. I'm just stupified that people are surprised when they nick nude photos. That is their bread and butter. If there was no demand there would be no supply. If folks got off to the color of a celebs toe nail paint that is what the paparazzi would fight over to get.

Any way, I was just posting here for fun and it ain't no more. Fame has a price. Deal with it. Make new laws but until then just deal.

What they did was morally wrong AND against the law. That is the part that makes this completely inexcusable. If the magazine acted within the boundaries of the law then i would agree with you. But they broke the law. they were forced to take the pics down. and they are being sued. So that makes this COMPLETELY the magazines fault.

#31 Edited by kuonphobos (4898 posts) - - Show Bio

@BumpyBoo said:

But this was already a moral debate when you joined, we were discussing whether or not it was right to do this. The comment you pulled me up on was about the moral implications of this, so by quoting and questioning it you are, by definition, commenting on the moral aspect of this story. You could have expressed your opinion without dragging me into it. That was your choice.

But no bad feeling intended.

No bad feelings. This subject is not weighty enough to really matter. Sometimes it is hard to know exactly who one is responding to as the thoughts come hot and heavy.

I agree the paparazzi are scum. I said so in several of my posts. One poster said that what they did was illegal and if so then by all means prosecute them.

My only points are these:

There is only one foolproof way to keep one's nudity from finding it's way into the tabloids...that is to not get nude.

If you do get nude, then don't be surprised when it shows up on the tabloids. Be outraged if you like. Seek legal action if you like. But don't be surprised.

also the "If you concentrate hard enough" was not intended for you.

#32 Posted by ThatThorFan (951 posts) - - Show Bio

It is stupid.

#33 Posted by nickzambuto (13386 posts) - - Show Bio

Pics or it didn't happen.

#34 Posted by jobiwankenobi (1459 posts) - - Show Bio

This is like that story where the guy got arrested for being naked in his own home. He literally got out of bed naked went into his kitchen to get coffee and went and got into the shower. While in the shower someone started banging on his door. His wife got up to answer it. She came and got him out of the shower. The police were there saying there was a claim of public indecency regarding said man. The guy had to go get dressed and leave in a cop car in front of his kid, wife, and neighbors. This all happened between 6:00 and 6:15 I believe.

Why did this happen. Some lady was in front of his house with her 8 year old (AT SIX IN THE MORNING for some reason), looked in the house, saw the man naked, and called the police. Last time I checked, that made you a peeping tom, and the person looking in the window got arrested. Idk how the whole thing eventually turned out, but it was taken to court I believe.

If you can't be naked in your own home, then where can you be naked?

#35 Posted by Paracelsus (1595 posts) - - Show Bio

As with the "innocence of Muslims", BOTH sides miss the point-Kate and Wills were in a private villa on private property( the law has clearly not caught up with high powered cameras). The offending newsmagazines may very well be fined but they can more than make up the costs out of increased sales and syndication rights!

#36 Posted by mrdecepticonleader (17859 posts) - - Show Bio

Interesting video.

#37 Posted by Zorn_a_Rust_Red_Scythe (310 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't see what the big deal is. Her body is mostly flat anyway.

#38 Posted by Chaos Prime (10842 posts) - - Show Bio

@pooty said:

@kuonphobos said:

@BumpyBoo said:

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Exactly!! So right.

Now now....

It is along the same lines as "use your head" there are going to be photographers who earn their living this way...the same idiots who chased your mother-in-law to her death. They are fiends and freaks of the highest order but calling them names isn't going to stop them.

There is the world we want to live in and then there is world we actually live in. I am not focusing my statements on the MORALITY of their behavior only it's INEVITABILITY and REALITY. If you concentrate hard enough you will see this and then avoid making specious comparisons that are tantamount to asserting another poster is in favor of sexual assault. I'm not, never have been, never will be.

She was using her head. She was not on a public beach. She was on private property. She was inside a private villa that they paid a lot of money for so they could be left alone. You can tell by the pics that the photographer was far away. The couple did as much as can be reasonably expected to ensure their privacy. As someone said, If a dude was taking pics of you inside your house that is cause for arrest. This should be no different.

No, No No..These people dont pay for nothing!! the villa was lent to them by Williams best Friend..

#39 Posted by jack16ichigo (453 posts) - - Show Bio

@BumpyBoo said:

Why does it matter whether she is a member of the Royal family? She's still a person. If someone took pictures of me naked and published them without my knowledge or consent, it would be a grotesquely voyeuristic invasion of privacy. No human being should be exploited in this way. if someone hasn't given their consent, then nobody has the right to take pictures of them, let alone distribute them. To a certain extent you do give up your privacy when you are in the public eye. But this does not give people the right to lech over your boobs. It is intrusive, disgusting, and degrading. And don't give me the argument that if she didn't want anyone to see them then she shouldn't have gotten them out. The poor woman was enjoying a supposedly private moment and we have NO RIGHT to take that from her.

This sums up exactly what I think except with better words.............

#40 Posted by tg1982 (2715 posts) - - Show Bio

As others have said if, Kate was on a topless beach, that's different. There is no expectation of privacy. But she wasn't, she was inside a private villa. That's what makes this wrong.

@jack16ichigo said:

@BumpyBoo said:

Why does it matter whether she is a member of the Royal family? She's still a person. If someone took pictures of me naked and published them without my knowledge or consent, it would be a grotesquely voyeuristic invasion of privacy. No human being should be exploited in this way. if someone hasn't given their consent, then nobody has the right to take pictures of them, let alone distribute them. To a certain extent you do give up your privacy when you are in the public eye. But this does not give people the right to lech over your boobs. It is intrusive, disgusting, and degrading. And don't give me the argument that if she didn't want anyone to see them then she shouldn't have gotten them out. The poor woman was enjoying a supposedly private moment and we have NO RIGHT to take that from her.

This sums up exactly what I think except with better words.............

And this. Well said.

#41 Posted by UnderDogs_OverBoard (1137 posts) - - Show Bio

after I saw this I immedeately searched for google

Kate Middleton Topless

I was satisfied

#42 Posted by Glitch_Spawn (17132 posts) - - Show Bio

She is nothing special. It sickens me that Americans even care about British royalty. I'm no hawk or anything but Americans were brought up to denounce our mother nation lol.....

#43 Posted by CapFanboy (4776 posts) - - Show Bio

@Jonny_Anonymous said:

You know thats along the same lines as "if that girl didn'y want to have sex she shouldn't have been dressed like a slut"

Dave Chappelle covered this