From: newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com>
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Full headers:
Path: news.netfront.net!goblin1!goblin2!goblin.stu.neva.ru!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!border2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!buffer2.nntp.ams1.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:33:40 -0600
Subject: Re: How political-correctness ruined the Pirelli calendar
Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
References: <1ac80c3a-5746-47dc-b881-bba99d4faeba@googlegroups.com>
<p6d26j$1jb$1@dont-email.me>
From: newshound <newshound@stevejqr.plus.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 20:33:39 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <p6d26j$1jb$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <IIudnUeHtfE5qRbHnZ2dnUU78UGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
Lines: 43
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-HS4984Bdfpc9ZZvjEE/ZZ9nJHyOle4+QBQgpppWQzD276LqgGluNd9qegm/+r5aMgI8wx+i239DUOc/!HcJwEnFygXMwFUjGjM24UQcKES4jqRbPkFBjVeJ55o5nhOEJbQNYvqZ8OncgYpNjQz3qf6P7ak/c!UkXkzJzdSptX17+TtI8+J3rOPrTE
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.40
X-Original-Bytes: 2904
Print Article
Forward Article
On 18/02/2018 23:28, Mayayana wrote:
> "RichA"<rander3128@gmail.com>
> 
> | Ugh.
> |
> |
> https://petapixel.com/2015/12/01/annie-leibovitz-shoots-the-pirelli-...
> |
> 
>    Depressing, huh? :)
>    It's fine to be nude, so long as they're sexually
> unattractive. But then there's the question of whether
> alleged accomplishment is interesting to look at.
> What's the point if it's not nudes? Why women?
> But then, does anyone want to spend a month
> looking at a CEO or art museum director, just
> because they have a high status job?
> 
>    I saw a local magazine running a "most eligible
> 20 in Boston" the other day. They can't focus
> on attractive women. They can't focus on men
> with money. They can't even focus on hetero.
> At least one was gay, but it was never actually
> stated. So what are they eligible for? Being
> desired for anything other than what you might
> desire them for? This is getting very awkward.
> 
>    None of the women was attractive to me. They
> were all what might be termed, brassy, suburban
> extroverts in jobs like media or management. So
> why were they eligible? It seemed the only common
> thread among the 10 men and 10 women was a
> tendency to be involved and known in public
> circles. So.... Fame is still a legal sex object!
> Class is not going to be scrutinized in the new
> wave of PC fascism. It's essentially an anti-sex,
> puritanical, cultural inflammation.
> 
> 

Reminds me of an old Spike Milligan joke. Man goes to his priest,
"Father is it wrong to want to look at pictures of naked women?"
"Of course it is my son, otherwise we would all be doing it".