Amanda Brunker article about Hugh Hefner

Wibbs

Lux23 wrote: »

Sexual assault accusations ruin careers?

They tend to yeah.

Bill Cosby,

His came out after he'd largely faded from the public eye and he won't be invited to any gigs now. He's history. Good thing too the rapey bastard.

Bill Clinton,

Monica? Consensual.

Donald Trump

How he's survived so long is a mystery to me.

Some women said no because they may have been big enough deals themselves or they were strongminded people. Some would have said yes out of fear. Some may have said yes because of the misguided idea that it would help their career. Either way, Weinstein is the creep here and you should really stop trying to play down his actions just because of the occasional woman who actively seeks to sleep her way to the top (mythical being probably.)

"Mythical being"? You have got to be kidding me. There are a lot of examples of the type and a well known type it is in the biz(and not just women either). Vanishingly few men(if any) with power in Hollywood would tell you they never encountered them. Women in the business have regularly reported it as a thing and an issue and it has been from very early days.

And I never said Weinstein wasn't a creepy bastard. He clearly is going by reports. I merely suggested that it's not always the usual easy to digest mantra of "women are always the victims".

That's before we get to the women who he paid off and the money they took. They were clued in enough to ask for said cash as a payoff. Never mind the same cash seemingly eased their conscience over not publicly reporting a greasy bastard who was well known it seems for targeting young women. Took them the guts of twenty years and now they smell blood in the water and want to get their name on the list of his victims. Pardon my cynicism but...

And the bloke who pretends to be a right-on feminist dude is something I am more than familiar with, I have met plenty of fake male feminists in time.

Sure, but the point being that he was getting the come on from a few actresses who knew he was married to help further their career. Now he jumped at them, no debate that he was the cheating wanker using his position, but they were also using his position to help themselves.

Bambi985

Honestly, is it really that much of a mystery or an excuse to be cynical when a young aspiring actress in Hollywood wouldn't report a big-shot studio head who could make or break her career or reputation in one fell swoop? Rape and sexual assault are notoriously underreported crimes, it's hardly surprising stuff that's even less so in the face of powerful influential men.

One attorney told Judd that because she had previously done a sex scene, she had no chance against Mr BigShot Starmaker. Same was said to a Cosby victim who was once a Playboy bunny. In the face of that kind of rhetoric and increasing pressure from the most powerful media lawyers in America, of course a nobody actress with no influence or power is going to be intimidated into settling.

As we've seen time and time again, one single allegation against a powerful man is likely to be far, far more harmful to the lesser known female than to her alleged perpetrator. In the Cosby case, 14 women came forward in 2005 and it made absolutely fcuk all impact on his status in America, until a male comedian called him a rapist on stage nine years later as part of an on-stage gag.

Who the fcuk in their right mind is going to be the woman to individually take on Mr Most Loved Family Man in America Himself, or Mr Hollywood, especially when they're an aspiring model or actor in their late teens/early twenties?

I find it hilarious this perception some people have about actresses, models, or anyone that goes into an industry that is based on their appearance. Sure, some women become successful in acting because they are incredible actresses, but the vast majority that gain positions in roles/jobs do so because they fit an image the casting crew or director (male or female) has. And we are talking about America here. Hollywood is notorious for its sexual displays, and drug-fuelled orgies. The modelling industry has it's own 'scandalous' reputation of drugs and sex being a huge part of it. (and can't fall back on acting as a reason to be hired... better walking skills rather than their appearance?)

Both men and women sell themselves to get jobs in these industries. Whether they're selling their time, their 'soul' or their bodies. It's not just women who give sex to get jobs... there's plenty of reports of men giving sex in return for jobs too. Nobody mentions rape though when a man is forced to have sex to get a job. Interesting that.

Hmm... In any case, this image that a few posters here in the acting/modelling industries as being naive little victims with no awareness of what they were letting themselves into is just... so 'traditional'. Refusing to recognise that not everyone values sex the way society/religion tells us to. Many people see their own appearance and giving sex as being a way to improve their lives... and they're not damaged creatures needing society's forgiveness. I'm guessing that these posters have never really travelled and noticed the massive prostitution industries that contain women who chose those lifestyles.. not because they were damaged (although I think many would be), but becuase they saw this as a way to make serious money. I guess I wouldn't be able to make comparisons with the women who seek sugar daddy boyfriends to support them financially while they offer companionship? They must all be tricked into these lifestyles... And they're all damaged.. or simply want to make money and sex is a rather quick way to make money if you're beautiful.

I'm sorry but anyone that thinks that most girls/women who enter acting as adults don't know that sex sells is lying to themselves. There are actresses out there who refuse to do sex scenes, do nudity scenes, etc... and most of them are supporting actresses/actors. Think of most actresses, and usually a few movies before their career ends, they'll do a movie with a nude/sex scene. (Not all, but quite a few do).

Hugh Hefner was a creepy git. No denying that. Fact is, most men in those positions were/are. Most women too (don't think power sex is a solely male activity). But the point is that in most cases, people entered into these situations of their own free will. They might have been misled or lied to. Sure, some probably were. But then, Hollywood is notorious for being fake. These people put themselves into an environment where people prey on each other.

Purple Mountain

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There are two and only two reasons anyone has ever heard of Brunker and it's therefore ironic she has an issue with Playboy or the decisions anyone makes when taking a paycheck from it

Amen!

Ash.J.Williams

Jake1 wrote: »

Bruncker was a fame whore herself, Id say she have latched on to Hef like a leech, if she the looks to have caught his eye.

Maybe because she her self was so vulnerable and fell into bed with a married man ( James Nesbitt )she assumes all women are like herself.


Im female and hate this poor helpless female shyte

Patrick kielty wouldn't be my thing at all but james Nesbitt presented an award to him at the iftas one year and he introduced him as "former comedian Patrick kielty"... Kielty walks straight up to the mic like a boss and says"thank you former monogomist james Nesbitt ".... I laughed...

jbt123

Fieldog wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbowNGKvTq8

Never forget lads...

Wow. It's being some time since I've seen such self-indulgence.....

Lux23

Lux23 wrote:

Like what the actual f**k, are you saying that a young girl starting out in the film industry has any power against an older, powerful and extremely successful man like Harvey Weinstein*. A man that has been known to make or break people's careers. It is not a one-way street in any way if the person doing the asking can destroy your career if you say no! Girls didn't say yes for to help careers, they said it most likely out of fear for their careers. They weren't willing victims.

Oh ffs. Read what he said

There was an article in the Irish Times the day after he died. I can't remember who wrote it, but some of the comments in it made me quite annoyed. One was "If there is a hell, I really hope Heffner is in it". Another was "Heffner hated women and he regularly called them dogs".

My first thought was "Why didnt you publish this article before he died?", and then realized its not libel if the guy you are telling lies about in print is dead.

I don't really get the hatred for him. Did the above columnist write she hoped Saddam Hussein was in hell? Or Bin Laden? Or Ceaucescu?

He didn't kill anyone, unlike Jimmy Saville he didnt sleep or grope underage girls, and I really dont think he hated women. I hate rats. I wouldnt use that hate to start a magazine about them. And if I were to put my hatred of rats into a magazine about them, they definitely wouldn't be cute pictures of them. Surely logic suggests if he hated women the pictures he hosted in the magazines would have been degrading? Instead the images you see in playboy are relatively tame by 2017 standards. They are basically fashion shots only without the clothes.

Can anyone tell me why he's so hateful?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think modern Feminists hate him more because he glorified the female body. Look at most of the diehard strong feminists. They don't encourage the idea of a beautiful slim woman who uses her beauty to succeed. Instead, the vast majority of feminists encourage the idea of being 'large' (fat), bizarre fashion styles (which do little to make them attractive), hair growth anywhere, etc. That being a woman is to be freely 'natural'. And that men are wrong not to appreciate them in their natural state.

HH encouraged a vastly different image of the female who took care of her appearance. And also created a media that was softcore. It wasn't like Hustler which was often creepy and intended to be 'in your face.' Playboy had some degree of class that didn't make women into slaves, but encouraged the idea of beautiful women being somewhat normal... a lot of magazines encouraged the bio's showing the normal girl becoming the playboy success.

That wasn't something that feminists wanted. Most Feminists want every woman to be bitter about their appearance, and bitter about men. That way they have plenty of bitter friends to complain about men not appreciating them for who they really are. :rolleyes:

B0jangles

Deleted User wrote: »

I think modern Feminists hate him more because he glorified the female body. Look at most of the diehard strong feminists. They don't encourage the idea of a beautiful slim woman who uses her beauty to succeed. Instead, the vast majority of feminists encourage the idea of being 'large' (fat), bizarre fashion styles (which do little to make them attractive), hair growth anywhere, etc. That being a woman is to be freely 'natural'. And that men are wrong not to appreciate them in their natural state.

HH encouraged a vastly different image of the female who took care of her appearance. And also created a media that was softcore. It wasn't like Hustler which was often creepy and intended to be 'in your face.' Playboy had some degree of class that didn't make women into slaves, but encouraged the idea of beautiful women being somewhat normal... a lot of magazines encouraged the bio's showing the normal girl becoming the playboy success.

That wasn't something that feminists wanted. Most Feminists want every woman to be bitter about their appearance, and bitter about men. That way they have plenty of bitter friends to complain about men not appreciating them for who they really are. :rolleyes:

Funny funny stuff, 10/10.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

I think modern Feminists hate him more because he glorified the female body. Look at most of the diehard strong feminists. They don't encourage the idea of a beautiful slim woman who uses her beauty to succeed. Instead, the vast majority of feminists encourage the idea of being 'large' (fat), bizarre fashion styles (which do little to make them attractive), hair growth anywhere, etc. That being a woman is to be freely 'natural'. And that men are wrong not to appreciate them in their natural state.

I know there are extreme elements of the Fat Acceptance Movement that glorify obesity, but in general I always thought the message was to leave overweight people alone. Granted, the extreme end of fat acceptance does get more media time. I have no issue with the support group end of the scale, but pushing obesity as a good thing is irresponsible. In general though, it would be far from mainstream. For evidence, look at all the weight loss shows on TV and slots on radio (I guess they might be considered exploitation in their own right) and indeed the amount of pamphlets in the Doctor's surgery. The mainstream and generally accepted narrative is that losing weight is a good thing. Anything else is a fringe, but yes they can be vocal and they can also take the vulnerable along for the ride.

Deleted User wrote: »

HH encouraged a vastly different image of the female who took care of her appearance. And also created a media that was softcore. It wasn't like Hustler which was often creepy and intended to be 'in your face.' Playboy had some degree of class that didn't make women into slaves, but encouraged the idea of beautiful women being somewhat normal... a lot of magazines encouraged the bio's showing the normal girl becoming the playboy success.

Then both are selling a dream. One incorrectly informs morbidly overweight people that there is nothing wrong with it and that it's all normal. The other attempts to sell the idea that the "normal girl" will end up being a Playboy bunny.

Neither of the above is real life, they are both propagating a different kind of fantasy.

Regarding Hefner, as long as there was no coercion involved, then I'm agnostic about him. Everybody involved appeared to have been consenting adults, so that's really that. It certainly wouldn't be the kind of life I would choose. Nor do I think it should be held up as a beacon for "female empowerment". But live and let live, or in this case I guess it's live and let die.

Deleted User wrote: »

That wasn't something that feminists wanted. Most Feminists want every woman to be bitter about their appearance, and bitter about men. That way they have plenty of bitter friends to complain about men not appreciating them for who they really are. :rolleyes:

Sweeping generalisations there. But going with the part in bold, if this was the case, then why be part of the FAM if the idea was to have women unhappy with their appearance? Taking a stab in the dark, I would say that maybe one or two with a media profile might say such things to be noticed and to get clicks (I have never come across that), but in the grand scheme of things, having women bitter about their appearance would not be part of any Feminist philosophy....not even the really zany post-structuralist stuff.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mzungu

mzungu wrote: »

I know there are extreme elements of the Fat Acceptance Movement that glorify obesity, but in general I always thought the message was to leave overweight people alone. Granted, the extreme end of fat acceptance does get more media time. I have no issue with the support group end of the scale, but pushing obesity as a good thing is irresponsible. In general though, it would be far from mainstream. For evidence, look at all the weight loss shows on TV and slots on radio (I guess they might be considered exploitation in their own right) and indeed the amount of pamphlets in the Doctor's surgery. The mainstream and generally accepted narrative is that losing weight is a good thing. Anything else is a fringe, but yes they can be vocal and they can also take the vulnerable along for the ride.

Um, I said fat not obese. I wasn't describing the minority of feminists that live under bridges but rather the natural look movement who tend to glorify the overwight appearance. That it's perfectly fine to go on a date without any attempt at makeup or skincare, because men should accept them for who they are. That kind of thing. I didn't mention obesity at all.

Then both are selling a dream. One incorrectly informs morbidly overweight people that there is nothing wrong with it and that it's all normal. The other attempts to sell the idea that the "normal girl" will end up being a Playboy bunny.

Ahh, but the playboy bunny was a possible dream in the 70s/80s. Perfection wasn't the main drive of these magazines. The girl next door was the driving aim of most playboy articles of that period. Sure, later they expanded into other fantasies, but originally they focused on the girl next door, and the surfer girls. Tanned firm bodies which could be gained through exercise. Am I suggesting that everyone could become a Playboy bunny. Of course not, but the typical popular girls of any town would likely have a good shot if they were interested. Admittedly though I don't see much opportunity for flat chested girls in the playboy mags..

Regarding Hefner, as long as there was no coercion involved, then I'm agnostic about him. Everybody involved appeared to have been consenting adults, so that's really that. It certainly wouldn't be the kind of life I would choose. Nor do I think it should be held up as a beacon for "female empowerment". But live and let live, or in this case I guess it's live and let die.

Yup. Totally agree with you here. I just put it down to the freedom to choose your own lifestyle and deal with the consequences of that choice. In my experience, feminists want to take a lot of options away from other women...

Sweeping generalisations there. But going with the part in bold, if this was the case, then why be part of the FAM if the idea was to have women unhappy with their appearance? Taking a stab in the dark, I would say that maybe one or two with a media profile might say such things to be noticed and to get clicks (I have never come across that), but in the grand scheme of things, having women bitter about their appearance would not be part of any Feminist philosophy....not even the really zany post-structuralist stuff.

Of course, there are generalisations there. I can't imagine any discussion about feminists without generalisations.

But fair enough. Our experiences have been different. I have no issue with posters having different opinions to me.

mzungu

Deleted User wrote: »

Um, I said fat not obese. I wasn't describing the minority of feminists that live under bridges but rather the natural look movement who tend to glorify the overwight appearance. That it's perfectly fine to go on a date without any attempt at makeup or skincare, because men should accept them for who they are. That kind of thing. I didn't mention obesity at all.

Regarding obesity, that's fair enough, wires crossed. When it comes to beauty ideals like going for the natural look, I have no idea how prevalent that is now, but Fresh Lipstick by Linda Scott does deal with the issue. The upshot, according to her, is that beauty ideals are beauty ideals, whether you are pulling out all the stops with the gladrags/cosmetics or if you only just wear functional dresses and zero cosmetics. They are both ideals, and it makes little difference which one you subscribe to. It's still conformity to an ideal, an ideal influenced by the Puritanical worldview that was common at that time. Interestingly enough, the "natural look" itself (we are talking late 1800s early 1900s here) was out of reach for all but the more well off in society. For a start, the look required one to be clean so soap and water was needed, something that was just not accessible to most at that time. Hence, the beauty ideal is a paradox. Dressing in the natural way was an option open to only the most affluent.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh, but the playboy bunny was a possible dream in the 70s/80s. Perfection wasn't the main drive of these magazines. The girl next door was the driving aim of most playboy articles of that period. Sure, later they expanded into other fantasies, but originally they focused on the girl next door, and the surfer girls. Tanned firm bodies which could be gained through exercise. Am I suggesting that everyone could become a Playboy bunny. Of course not, but the typical popular girls of any town would likely have a good shot if they were interested. Admittedly though I don't see much opportunity for flat chested girls in the playboy mags..

There was never any shortage, but I think the girl next door stuff was a carrot on a stick. It gave the illusion that "it could be you". Out of all those girls who went seeking fame and fortune in the mansion, only a few ever made it. The more aesthetically gifted among those girl's would have had an advantage, they were trying to find the perfect fit after all. It was just as cut-throat then as it is now, just dressed up a bit differently. The odds of success were slim.

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Totally agree with you here. I just put it down to the freedom to choose your own lifestyle and deal with the consequences of that choice. In my experience, feminists want to take a lot of options away from other women...

In the book I mentioned above, the author had a similar experience, but this was back in the 1970s (hence why she wrote the book to try and find the origins of the natural look stuff). It might have passed me by, but I certainly haven't heard of any recent movement to shame women into the natural look. Plus, I have no doubt anybody trying to force that idea would be told where to go quick smart.

Deleted User wrote: »

Of course, there are generalisations there. I can't imagine any discussion about feminists without generalisations.

But fair enough. Our experiences have been different. I have no issue with posters having different opinions to me.

Aye, my point was that while there was shaming in the past regarding the natural look, the way things are now looks like being more an acceptance of everything (skinny to overweight and everything in between) as opposed to your earlier point that attempts were being made to make people unhappy with how they look. If you meant it as tongue in cheek then thats cool

Road-Hog

This bullsh1t that playboy was/is something more than a glorified t1tty and vag mag because it ocassionally printed stuff by sophisticated/intellectual authors is no different than the claim some guys make about buying the U.K. Red top tabloids because of the 'sports coverage'

Hefner had few redeeming attributes and was the ultimate perv/slimey dirty old man

silverharp

^^^

I'd cut him some slack :pac:

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4565862/hugh-hefners-first-wife-cheated-playboy/

But it was the betrayal a young Hefner suffered at the hands of his first wife that marked his formative years and one that he went on to describe as "the most devastating moment" of his life.

He married Mildred Williams in 1949 in the belief the pair had 'saved themselves' for one another.

The couple had met at college in the mid 40s.

Little did Chicago-born Hefner know that his beloved Milly had slept with another man while her beau served in the US military during the Second World War.

Lux23

Deleted User wrote: »

T

I don't really get the hatred for him. Did the above columnist write she hoped Saddam Hussein was in hell? Or Bin Laden? Or Ceaucescu?

I can just imagine the ire a column written by Amanda Brunker would receive from the main contributors to this forum. She wrote about Hefner because his work is a similar field to hers. Seriously, why would she write about Bin Laden?

And to add an informed opinion to your discussion about why feminists dislike Hefner, it's not the male gaze that is the problem for many it is commodifying it that would bother me as feminist. For example, I much prefer amateur porn to the glitzy, silly stuff you see. The way sex and women are packaged by the industry bothers me, not the nudity or sex.

Ash.J.Williams

Lux23 wrote: »

I can just imagine the ire a column written by Amanda Brunker would receive from the main contributors to this forum. She wrote about Hefner because his work is a similar field to hers, I can just imagine the ire from you lot if she published an article next week about foreign affairs or Brexit. Seriously, why would she write about Bin Laden?

And to add an informed opinion to your discussion about why feminists dislike Hefner, it's not the male gaze that is the problem for many it is commodifying it that would bother me as feminist. For example, I much prefer amateur porn to the glitzy, silly stuff you see. The way sex and women are packaged by the industry bothers me, not the nudity or sex.

Just because porn is amateur doesn't make it ethical. In fact the parties may be trafficked or blackmailed and in most cases more abused than "glitzy" porn as you call it.

Lux23

Fair point, but I was thinking more along the lines of porn filmed in normal people's homes? Stuff that you might share with another couple or what have you.

Ash.J.Williams

Lux23 wrote: »

Fair point, but I was thinking more along the lines of porn filmed in normal people's homes? Stuff that you might share with another couple or what have you.

You watch your neighbours have sex?

Lux23

Funnily enough, that did happen once.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

feargale

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

You watch your neighbours have sex?

Only when there isn't football on tv.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

Lux23 wrote: »

The way sex and women are packaged by the industry bothers me, not the nudity or sex.

I'd agree with you there alright. Never really got the "glamour shot" stuff. If anything I find it more seedy for the want of a better word. As for Hefner, I never really took to him myself. He made it mainstream and as pointed out above it wasn't all about the tits and arse on show, but I suppose I found it and him sleazy.

mzungu

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd agree with you there alright. Never really got the "glamour shot" stuff. If anything I find it more seedy for the want of a better word.

Aye, never got the appeal of it myself. I have no idea how anybody could find it a turn on. It's completely non-human.

Wibbs

"Jane is the girl next door who enjoys nature, good food, walks on the beach, tennis and evenings by the fire just cuddling and is soooo tired of false and flashy men with Porches and is looking for an ordinary normal looking Ford driving guy with a big heart who loves her for who she is[you the generic reader and semipro onanist]" Now consider this and fan out my photo spread(pun intended) and choke the monkey. And feel a little dirty after.

While I'm actually shagging the local nightclub owner who's two years older than my dad. And snorting coke and drinking too much to get through it. I think he's nice to me. He cares? I wanted to be a star. I'm trying to save up the bus fare back to Idaho. Oh god, how can I face my parents. Crap I think I'm pregnant. My name's not Jane either, it's Doris Nowaski. But I think Jim whose dad runs the hardware still may hold a torch for me. And so forth.

Yeah my cynic gene was lighting up like a fcuking Christmas tree even back in the days of the 70's early 80's Bush Porn©*/Playboy found in one mates' dad's attic and passed around the class. For a small fee. Like two bags of Minstrels, or next week's 2000AD(before comics became "graphic novels"). Toblerone not accepted as currency. Or mints. The Beano? Feck off! I'm 13, not 6. Oh you have Smarties...

Hey, I get turned on by the naked womanly form and the more naked the better(g'way with your Viccie Secrets stuff) and that's natural, but I don't get turned on by the thought of some hack writer and photographer soft focusing it trying to push those buttons of mine.







*ask your Da™ when he's drunk. For future ref, Da™ stories are always better when they kick of with; A) I've had a few and Don't tell your Ma™. Your Ma™ already knows of course, but she has the decency to give him that..

johnnyskeleton

Lux23 wrote: »

And to add an informed opinion to your discussion about why feminists dislike Hefner, it's not the male gaze that is the problem for many it is commodifying it that would bother me as feminist. For example, I much prefer amateur porn to the glitzy, silly stuff you see. The way sex and women are packaged by the industry bothers me, not the nudity or sex.

Are the latter and the former not the same?

I thought the male gaze was the theory that cultural depictions of women was primarily as sex objects and the perceived harm (from the feminists' point of view) wasn't that the individual model/actress was being objectified, so much as the way it presented women in culture.

For what it's worth, I think both men and women are presented as sexual beings quite often. If a movie about male strippers gives an unrealistic view of men, so what? I don't have to watch it. Equally, I don't feel upset that women might enjoy it. I don't think women are so stupid that they will assume all men should be like the ideal as presented on TV/Magazines.

So if Playboy shows unrealistic representations of naked women, should you not trust men to be able to understand that it is not realistic? If an individual man cannot comprehend this, then he is not a suitable companion for you.

Overall, if one adult voluntarily allows themselves to be photographed in the nud, and another adult voluntarily pays money to see same, I don't see where the problem is and I certainly don't see what business it is of third parties who have no connection to them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Overall, if one adult voluntarily allows themselves to be photographed in the nud, and another adult voluntarily pays money to see same, I don't see where the problem is and I certainly don't see what business it is of third parties who have no connection to them.

It also diminishes other peoples free will to make their own life choices. I have female/male friends who have worked as host/hostesses and a couple of friends who have worked as strippers. They enjoyed the attention they received almost feeding off it and using it to their advantage. Both for monetary gains but also social/influence.

The problem is that our society tends to place a lot of importance on nudity (especially female nudity), and making love. Sex is seen as being something that should be special, and while there is still the hesitant acceptance of casual sex, there's also a very moral undertone of 'no, that's the wrong way to live'. But making love is something special and therefore shouldn't be lessened by our 'baser' impulses.

And yet, all the objections just make porn more popular. The only time in my life that I enjoyed traditional porn was when I was a teenager hiding it from my parents. That sense of excitement was fantastic... and then I forgot all about it when I left home. Admittedly I still sometimes enjoy a lapdance. but porn in itself hold no interest for me.

However, I can appreciate the place that Playboy has for many men...

LostinBlanch

Wibbs wrote: »

"Jane is the girl next door who enjoys nature, good food, walks on the beach, tennis and evenings by the fire just cuddling and is soooo tired of false and flashy men with Porches and is looking for an ordinary normal looking Ford driving guy with a big heart who loves her for who she is

Is that a euphemism? :pac:

Ah I think I've got it to have a porch you have to have your own house. So she's looking for a fella with his own place. Obviously someone solvent so. That makes sense.

This Wibbspeak can get a bit confusing at times.

Lux23

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh, I am really into revenge porn.

Lux23

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Overall, if one adult voluntarily allows themselves to be photographed in the nud, and another adult voluntarily pays money to see same, I don't see where the problem is and I certainly don't see what business it is of third parties who have no connection to them.

It is a bit different though when it is one naked person who gets a few quid for stripping off from a media company who then makes a fortune off reproducing and selling the images.

Pawwed Rig

Lux23 wrote: »

It is a bit different though when it is one naked person who gets a few quid for stripping off from a media company who then makes a fortune off reproducing and selling the images.

That is just life really and is replicated across every industry. The guys at the top make money while the rest of us work for it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

johnnyskeleton

Lux23 wrote: »

It is a bit different though when it is one naked person who gets a few quid for stripping off from a media company who then makes a fortune off reproducing and selling the images.

Ok, but is the fact that playboy magazine earned moee than any individual model your only criticism of how women were presented in it?

Wibbs

Baron Kurtz your post has been removed. No more of that thanks.

lazybones32

Lux23 wrote: »

It is a bit different though when it is one naked person who gets a few quid for stripping off from a media company who then makes a fortune off reproducing and selling the images.

But the male/female model signs a contract allowing the company to do so. Pornstars the same, moviestars too. They sell the rights. The bigger the name, the more they can command or even get a %.

I was approached in Stockholm by some crew making an advert for bjorn borg underwear. At the end, they wanted me to sign a form saying i gave them permission to use my image and what i said, in their marketing campaign. And no, it wasn't some guys looking to take pics of me in underpants...once bitten, twice shy and all that.

lazybones32

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That applies to the vast majority of women though. Make-up; posing to accentuate whatever aspect of her body; duckfacing on fb photos to streamline the face or highlight the cheeks. Google jessica alba without makeup for a striking example of the difference makeup makes.

Of course PB et al is about creating sexual fantasy! When i see a fine babe i want to imagine making her unable to walk straight for a few hours, not the realistic 'adventures' of hormonal ramblings or having to unclog the shower of long hair after her.

Lux23

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

That is just life really and is replicated across every industry. The guys at the top make money while the rest of us work for it.

Yes, and I don't like the system of capitalism. It f***s us all over, some of us literally.

Lux23

lazybones32 wrote: »

But the male/female model signs a contract allowing the company to do so. Pornstars the same, moviestars too. They sell the rights. The bigger the name, the more they can command or even get a %.

I was approached in Stockholm by some crew making an advert for bjorn borg underwear. At the end, they wanted me to sign a form saying i gave them permission to use my image and what i said, in their marketing campaign. And no, it wasn't some guys looking to take pics of me in underpants...once bitten, twice shy and all that.

Thanks for explaining contracts, money and model release forms to me. You're completely missing my point.

johnnyskeleton

Lux23 wrote: »

Yes, and I don't like the system of capitalism. It f***s us all over, some of us literally.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/kim-jong-un-reinstates-pleasure-troupe-harem-of-young-women-10150879.html

Communism is a much better way of doing things. Except that a playboy bunny can legally leave any time and get another job without getting a bullet in the head, whereas I can't say the same for Kim Jong Un's pleasure troupe.

johnnyskeleton

Lux23 wrote: »

Thanks for explaining contracts, money and model release forms to me. You're completely missing my point.

What is your point though? Capitalism allows two people to decide whether to enter into a contract or not. Nobody forces them into it. A young woman who decides that she will take a few hundred dollars for a nude shoot by a multi million dollar company is making a choice as a rational actor. She can always decline, or go off and set up her own magazine, or any number of things. Nobody is forcing her to do it.

And if she wants more money, then she can ask for it and if the market will pay it that is what they get.

Wanderer78

Lux23 wrote:

Yes, and I don't like the system of capitalism. It f***s us all over, some of us literally.

johnnyskeleton wrote:

Communism is a much better way of doing things. Except that a playboy bunny can legally leave any time and get another job without getting a bullet in the head, whereas I can't say the same for Kim Jong Un's pleasure troupe.

I personally think it's our form of capitalism is the problem, I.e. neoliberalism. I do get bored with the capitalism v communism arguments.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

What is your point though? Capitalism allows two people to decide whether to enter into a contract or not. Nobody forces them into it. A young woman who decides that she will take a few hundred dollars for a nude shoot by a multi million dollar company is making a choice as a rational actor. She can always decline, or go off and set up her own magazine, or any number of things. Nobody is forcing her to do it.

And if she wants more money, then she can ask for it and if the market will pay it that is what they get.

The problem is that most people don't read contracts fully. In ten years of credit control, I can't recall many debtors who had actually read the fine print of the contracts they signed up for. As a manager hiring staff for my department, I noticed the same for employment contracts. I agree with you btw... but I find that most people have this unrealistic expectation that they're somehow protected from abuse due to their ignorance of the terms. Or they do read the terms but remember later, it as being far different from the original. :rolleyes:

You sign a contract, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Don't like the terms, negotiate or seek the same service elsewhere.

Pawwed Rig

Lux23 wrote: »

Yes, and I don't like the system of capitalism. It f***s us all over, some of us literally.

But provides us with a standard of living that our ancestors couldn't even imagine.Yes down with capitalism. We would all be happier picking potatoes.

Pawwed Rig

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

But provides us with a standard of living that our ancestors couldn't even imagine.Yes down with capitalism. We would all be happier picking potatoes.

Agreed. The problem isn't with capitalism. The problem is allowing corporations to untouchable. Fining them does nothing and they screw us all. Small-medium sized businesses contribute far better to the economy. Also, the belief that we are entitled to keep the majority of the money we earn is a great concept. It's a pity that governments have decided to remove that from us and replace it with being taxed to the hilt to provide for everyone else.

Capitalism isn't the problem.

lazybones32

Lux23 wrote: »

Thanks for explaining contracts, money and model release forms to me. You're completely missing my point.

I wanted to explain contracts, money and model release forms to you. I completely missed your point. (You've just been hepeated!)

Well comrade, getting paid to stand in front of a camera, pout, tilt head etc, etc is a pretty easy way to make a few quid. The magazine is covering all costs, production, distrubution and giving exposure to the model. Now i think the one who expose themselves to greater financial risk should have the potential for greater reward but such principles mightn't sit too well with cultural revolutionists.

(What device are you using to post to boards, comrade? For my own curiosity)

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote: »

Agreed. The problem isn't with capitalism. The problem is allowing corporations to untouchable. Fining them does nothing and they screw us all. Small-medium sized businesses contribute far better to the economy. Also, the belief that we are entitled to keep the majority of the money we earn is a great concept. It's a pity that governments have decided to remove that from us and replace it with being taxed to the hilt to provide for everyone else.

Capitalism isn't the problem.

i still agree with those that say, its our form of capitalism that is the problem, but id also agree with you and others, that capitalism has most definitely improved our standard of living