Prince Harry

[Guest American Woman]

Nudity remains a big deal to a not-so-small and not-so-quiet and not-so-uninfluential segment of the US population.

It was a big deal to Kate, and it was her breasts.

The Duchess of Cambridge's breasts appear on the covers of popular, regular circulation magazines in Europe.

I guess that makes Europe so much more enlightened than the U.S., eh? Too bad the person whose breasts they are doesn't feel that way. She doesn't care to entertain y'all with her "nice to look at" breasts. But yeah, there's something wrong with the U.S. for not publishing such invasion-of-privacy photos. I'm so embarrassed to be an American.

[g_bambino]

It was a big deal to Kate, and it was her breasts.

I imagine it is. But, I wasn't talking about them in the sentence to which you responded.

But yeah, there's something wrong with the U.S. for not publishing such invasion-of-privacy photos.

I never made any judgement call on the rightness or wrongness of publishing them. Again, I merely made an observation about attitudes towards nudity in Western culture.

[Guest American Woman]

I imagine it is. But, I wasn't talking about them in the sentence to which you responded.

That was the issue, was it not?

I never made any judgement call on the rightness or wrongness of publishing them.

No, you just referred to how Europe published them in contrast to the prudish U.S. No judgement call there at all.

Again, I merely made an observation about attitudes towards nudity in Western culture.

But the issue is not about "nudity," per se, is it? It's about Kate - and her feelings about it. Your "we're so cool about nudity" is a joke, anyway - as if y'all aren't drooling over the "nudity" (ie: women's nudity) that you make yourself to be oh-so-sophisticated about. "There are topless women in daily newspapers in the UK" is something to be proud of? You think they aren't there to attract male attention? They are not there for artistic purposes. They are there because sex sells.

[GostHacked]

It was a big deal to Kate, and it was her breasts.

If I was a woman, I'd be upset too if my breasts looked like hers.

Edited September 21, 2012 by GostHacked

[Guest American Woman]

deleted - double post

Edited September 21, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

If I was a woman, I'd be upset too if my breasts looked like hers.

Thanks for proving my point. Now if all you enlightened non-American men would be big enough* to put your dicks out there for the same kind of scrutiny - perhaps "on the covers of popular, regular circulation magazines in Europe" - or "in daily newspapers in the UK" - we could actually have a discussion about attitudes towards nudity in Western culture.

*pun intended

[GostHacked]

Thanks for proving my point. Now if all you enlightened non-American men would be big enough* to put your dicks out there for the same kind of scrutiny - perhaps "on the covers of popular, regular circulation magazines in Europe" - or "in daily newspapers in the UK" - we could actually have a discussion about attitudes towards nudity in Western culture.

*pun intended

I have no problem with nudity. It's the plethora of violence on the tele that I am tired of.

How about a new motto, MORE BOOBS LESS GUNS !!! .. Wait .. sometimes breasts are called 'guns' as well. And in some cases CANONS! ... But Kate has ... pop-guns.

[Wilber]

Interesting the difference between the reaction to the photos of Harry versus those of Catherine. Is it because of the context in which each were taken; uninvited paparazzi versus invited guest? Is it the legacy of Diana thing?

I wonder if the Duchess of Cambridge had simply ignored the publication of the pictures of her, the hubub might have died down by now. The Western public (outside the US, maybe) doesn't seem to be all that scadalised by nudity anymore, especially when it's just breasts; nice to look at, but a scandal? Hardly.

Interestingly, she accepted a garland of flowers from an indiginous woman in the Solomon Islands recently. The woman was, as is traditional (and ergo entirely socially acceptable), bare breasted. I doubt the irony was lost on the Duchess.

I think the difference is she had a reasonable expectation of privacy where her pictures were taken, Harry didn't or shouldn't have. In his case, being pissed didn't help.

[cybercoma]

I didn't say her nude photos. I said nudity. There are topless women in daily newspapers in the UK. Broadcasters are slapped with multi-million dollar fines for showing a partly covered breast on television in the US. Bare buttocks are seen on Canadian cable television. US networks pixilate animated butt cheeks. The Duchess of Cambridge's breasts appear on the covers of popular, regular circulation magazines in Europe. US weeklies wouldn't even include them on the back page. Nudity remains a big deal to a not-so-small and not-so-quiet and not-so-uninfluential segment of the US population.

Although Facebook reversed their decision, they recently censored (by taking down the image and demanding it be changed) a cartoon from The New Yorker. A simple line drawing was too much for the tender sensibilities of people and allegedly violated the terms and conditions for using Facebook. I think the ridiculousness of this particular incident highlights your argument.

[cybercoma]

If I was a woman, I'd be upset too if my breasts looked like hers.

This kind of comment is totally unacceptable. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[cybercoma]

I think the difference is she had a reasonable expectation of privacy where her pictures were taken, Harry didn't or shouldn't have. In his case, being pissed didn't help.

I disagree. He was in a hotel room. You should expect a reasonable level of privacy in your hotel room, no?

[Wilber]

I disagree. He was in a hotel room. You should expect a reasonable level of privacy in your hotel room, no?

Depends who you let in to the room. I think the saturations were very different. Harry's photos were taken by a so called friend who as far as we know was in the room with his consent. Kate's were taken by a peeping tom.

[Guest American Woman]

Depends who you let in to the room. I think the saturations were very different. Harry's photos were taken by a so called friend who as far as we know was in the room with his consent. Kate's were taken by a peeping tom.

There is a whole lot of difference between allowing someone into your room and a stranger invading your privacy with a monster of a telephoto lens. In Harry's case, it was bad judgement on his part - but his hands were covering the "crown jewels," so there really wasn't much to see there.

[GostHacked]

This kind of comment is totally unacceptable. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Why would it be unacceptable? Because she is Royalty?

[Guest American Woman]

Why would it be unacceptable? Because she is Royalty?

Because it's ignorant, that's why. Her privacy was invaded, she wasn't "putting herself out there" for anyone's pleasure or critique, so to insult her is boorish and immature. How would you like your privacy to be thus invaded* and have worldwide judgement of your - since you're apparently fond of gun comparisons - '9mm pocket pistol?'

*I know I thank God there's no such interest.

[GostHacked]

Because it's ignorant, that's why. Her privacy was invaded, she wasn't "putting herself out there" for anyone's pleasure or critique, so to insult her is boorish and immature.

I did not take the pic, and I would not be one to go out of my way to take pictures of Kate. I'd much rather have pics of Pipa!

Men will be men, and breasts will be rated.

How would you like your privacy to be thus invaded* and have worldwide judgement of your - since you're apparently fond of gun comparisons - '9mm pocket pistol?'

I value my privacy and do many things to maintain that. And with a society where privacy is constantly being eroded, I find it really funny that people would defend her right to privacy at the same time not affording that same right to the general population with regards to expectations of privacy.

This is another literal 'mountains out of molehills'. I'd put my dick out there for you, but I don't think you actually be able to handle a real man.

[cybercoma]

Why would it be unacceptable? Because she is Royalty?

Because she's a human being and your remark was appalling.

[Guest American Woman]

I did not take the pic, and I would not be one to go out of my way to take pictures of Kate. I'd much rather have pics of Pipa!

Men will be men, and breasts will be rated.

Is that what it is - "men being men?" More like 'alleged man being a boy' from where I sit.

But yeah, I can see why you're all for "nudity," as "nudity" = women's breasts, and the opportunity for men to rate women's naked breasts. That's oh-so-enlightening. Not sexist or demeaning to women at all. Let's all give our support to more "nudity" in the media.

I value my privacy and do many things to maintain that.

They were on private property, where only a lowlife with a super-telephoto lens stalking her could capture such photos. In other words, I'm sure they were valuing what they thought was their privacy, too.

And with a society where privacy is constantly being eroded, I find it really funny that people would defend her right to privacy at the same time not affording that same right to the general population with regards to expectations of privacy.

The general population is being stalked by photographers with state of the art telephoto lenses while living their private family life - and then having their nude pic plastered all over the world? I'll answer that for you - the answer is a resounding NO.

This is another literal 'mountains out of molehills'. I'd put my dick out there for you, but I don't think you actually be able to handle a real man.

Yeah, and the reference to "your hand gun" was literal, too. FYI, you and I have very different ideas of what constitutes "a real man."

Edited September 22, 2012 by American Woman

[Wilber]

Why would it be unacceptable? Because she is Royalty?

Because it was ignorant.

[Wilber]

Normally a person creeping around in the bushes with a telephoto lens taking pictures of people on private property would be considered a pervert. Because he was doing it for money makes it OK for many. Such is the world we live in.

[cybercoma]

Neither set of photos were acceptable to be sold to the media.

[Wilber]

Neither set of photos were acceptable to be sold to the media.

I agree. In my opinion, if a party involves alcohol, all phones and cameras should be checked at the door, put in a locked container and the owner doesn't get them back until they leave.

[bleeding heart]

Normally a person creeping around in the bushes with a telephoto lens taking pictures of people on private property would be considered a pervert. Because he was doing it for money makes it OK for many. Such is the world we live in.

True.

[GostHacked]

Because it was ignorant.

I really don't care one way or the other.

[g_bambino]

No, you just referred to how Europe published them in contrast to the prudish U.S. No judgement call there at all.

Not on the rightness or wrongness of publishing the pictures, no. Again (the third time now?), that sentence was my observation of current Western attitudes towards nudity and, as no more than a bracketed aside, the US' place at the more conservative end of the spectrum.

But the issue is not about "nudity," per se, is it? It's about Kate - and her feelings about it.

It was never about her feelings on nudity, which we can't know unless she expresses them. It was clearly about her course of action in the wake of the picutres being published vis a vis the way her brother in law handled a very similar incident only weeks before and whether or not - i.e. it's just something to be considered - doing nothing would've made the "scandal" go away much quicker, as it did for Harry. I hypothesised that the West (with the Internet and laxed mores) has mostly become quite desensitised to nudity; so, from the public's perspective, the nudity - even celebrity nudity - itself isn't all that interesting. (Shia LaBeouf's penis recently made its appearance all over the internet and what's the reaction but a collective shrug?) Hence, the story of Harry's Vegas pictures just withered up and died after a week or so, despite the media's best efforts to milk the story for all its worth. Catherine, however, has given her topless photos story extended exposure in the mainstream media by keeping it going with toothless lawsuits.