Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
SHEEZUS LAWD O' MERCY
....I've just come.
She needs to wear more clothes.
who gets her boobs/bum out pretty much every photo shoot she does
(she does have very nice boobs and bum though)
i think she looks a bit like Kate Bush
she has beautiful eyes and tousled hair and stuff. yeh.
I could stare at it all day. Through a window. While she slept.
she is mindblowing
As well as being Gavin Rosendale's daughter she is also Doctor Who's girlfriend, and also, incredible. YEH. aw. daisy.
is nothing short of magical. Can all girls do that? It strikes me as something that all girls should want to be able to do. Why don't girls do that more often?
The difference is that Daisy Lowe has uncommonly attractive proportions to her body. Most girls find it hard, as Scout says up there, to stay that thin but at the same time maintain such... ample bosoms.
Every girl in the world should learn how to dance like that.
because it has the original, better music on it.
my favourite bit's when she covers up her boobs with an old Penguin edition of Gulliver's Travels.
because it has daisy lowe in it.
BAH GAWD AWMIGHTEH, AH SWEAR SHES BEEN BROKEN IN HAF!
and i think she's incredibly pretty.
well done you.
She sounds like she's smoked 40 royals in a hour. It's FIT.
But it deserves a :'D reply
I wonder how she manages to stay so thin, and yet have such lovely breasts?
8===WWD - --
z z Zzzz
[something about Bush / 'Swallowed']
given half the chance you mans would suck on her quim like it was the last Calippo in the Sahara
She's a beautiful, beautiful woman, and, as someone else said, she looks like Kate Bush.
This is a magnificent thing.
Bloody hell. Times like this make me wonder whether there is such a thing as a god.
But then I'm a total sucker for dark-haired girls with tousled hair and bangs. Bit pathetic, really.
other people were ripping on her, not me guv, I swears it
More like Daisy WOAH!
I'm so sorry, everyone. I have been reduced to the level of a dumb beast.
but she reduces me to total wordlessness really.
probably the most beautiful woman in the history of anything, ever. at least since like, Louise Brooks or something.
it has killer shoots with Kate Moss, Agyness Deyn, Lily Cole and some other awesome people in the space of like, 10 pages, as well as Daisy
more like :-D
or something like thaaaaat
where it's just her bum. I need that in my life. In picture form.
Straight in the wank bank. I'd love to poke her in the baby maker
Gorgeous. So fucking gorgeous.
All of you giving Esquire credence. Should be fucking ashamed of yourselves. The thrill of looking at a 2D rendering of an attrative is nothing to that of meeting and engaging with one IRL.
You're not kidding anyone.
Plenty of people are stunningly attractive. The fact that this lady has been pushed by the lad media shouldn't make her automatic beneficiary of worship, even though this is sadly both Esquire's intention and achievement. Nobody here NEEDED to see Daisy Lowe today. Our lives are none the richer for her image. Unrealistic aspirations of beauty mean we'll buy more products. Works on men just as well as women.
long before lad mags got hold of her.
then we'll talk.
i happened to be at a thing where she, along with many other minor celebs/scene people were, once. She was the only one who seemed to talk to people nicely, with any degree of humility. really really nice.
Hilarious and sexy, a deadly combination.
She should be a girl in a Bond film, she should
i'd shoot her right in the baby-making machine!
Get a grip, hellatronix
SUCH LADDISH BEHAVIOUR
boys going OH MAN SHE HAS SUCH A NICE FACE AND SHE'S PRETTY HOT AND WOW
calling each other gay and talking about Bond films.
has brought in the change i'm afraid. Some people just feel the need to bitch about things for the sake of it.
i'm making an observation. there's a difference.
it's lesbo behaviour too
my point is that it's quite amusing to see how comments become more and more crude, as everyone's trying to out-hetero each other on the fancying women front.
Show women a picture of say..........Tyson Beckford and you'll probably get similar crude comments. Women just tend usually to keep such to themselves on in close company, whereas men don't.
Some of us can look at a woman in awe and not think purely of the many, many ways that she could be defiled.
i bet it was very impurely
How the fuck would you know if it was impure? Jesus.
You've only gotten so riled you can't spot a joke! Anyway, I'm just giving Daisy Lowe more publicity. The people are getting what they want. Ignore my qualms if you fancy.
If fact, NOBODY could cause its the internet, and jokes surprisingly are not that easy to figure out.
I could have said that I'd fuck her brains out, but I didn't cause I gots class.
Campus-liberal, annoying, male apologist types came barging through like a fucking battering ram.
who fucks his gf and thinks of Daisy Lowe
also you're exceptionally easy to wind up :D
Cause if you were, I'm strangely flattered.
Pretty odd to sneer at Nuts magazine then say you'd 'give up red meat to watch her eat a sausage roll' (which was really funny, by the way)
im not into moralising with this but there are definite double standards with attitudes towards nuts or zoo or something, idk.
daisy lowe is quite pretty huh
i wasn't sneering at nuts magazine. i didn't even look at this thread since i posted that!
but disagree with your taste. In conclusion, we can still be friends.
she's the absolute definition of a butterface. Bbelow average facially. She just looks like your fucking teacher or something. Stupid hair too.
girl with nice body presents nice body for men to look at, men look and go "Yep, very nice, well done", she gets paid
ain't nuthin' rong wit dat
she just has a butterface is all
and put it in caps.
but that is a TERRIBLE CHOICE OF PHOTO for trying to disprove the butterface comments.
It's OK. I know I have bad taste in face. I've come to accept that now.
too busy looking at the bewbs
My favourite is the cover.
I really do think that's a beautiful face. Maybe I just like boring brunettes then. Meh.
Lordy, lordy me.
Still a bit of an exhibitionist though, I guess.
her mum is Pearl Lowe, who is...[mumbles] and married to the drummer out of Supergrass
stepdad's Danny Goffey, went out with Mark Ronson for a little while and had a dalliance with Matt Smith too.
she's the keeley hazel for a certain demographic
it's hard not to picture joined at the mouth to that skinny ginger prick in the crap band who occasionally modelled for Burberry and complained about how poor he was while living in a gorgeous Chalk Farm townhouse.
One day, a beautiful girl will go out with a nice guy and the world will be at peace. Until then, pass the Kleenex.
There are plenty of beautiful girls who go out with nice guys... Famous-wise... I guess Alex Turner goes out with Alexa Chung, and he seems like a cool, down-to-earth and talented bloke.
I've never seen anything to indicate that either of them have been fucked up by their fame, and they clearly make a great couple.
She should put on some weight, mind.
Which would be a huge step up. I love Matt Smith. Get in there son.
Apparently they had a three month fling but it's already over.
Well done that lad, though.
MATT SMITH IS A FACKING GOD.
well, i say met, it went something like this;
friend: "Hello Daisy this is my friend Pip"
Daisy: "Hi Pip! *shoreditch double cheek kiss*
Then she chatted to my friend whilst I stared gormlessly at her. Mr Cool.
Gavin Rossdale is a fair bit older than I thought. I'd always just presumed he lived in some sort of horrible pop-grunge time vaccum where no-one aged.
When I saw her age I was thinking he must have been 16 when she was born. But no, the guy's 10 years older than me. I don't know what this means. Probably that I'm amazed someone older than 20 could have written gash like 'Swallowed'.
'Get in there son' mentality. I expected more.
From a thread based on a soft-porn photo of a girl no one had really heard of and whose fame seems to have come from famous parents and a penchant for doing soft-porn or borderline soft-porn fashion shoots?
Especially among those that are interested in music, fashion, celebrity and, um, Doctor Who. Even a passing interest in any of those areas would make anyone aware of her. I’d be surprised, and perhaps a little disappointed, if there were many British DiSers claiming that they’d not heard of her.
Most replies at the start were of the 'who?' variety.
I'd heard the name and I like Doctor Who but I still had no idea who she was. I just assumed she was Zane Lowe's wife/daughter, to be honest. I have no idea how old Zane Lowe is so I couldn't really guess on the wife/daughter thing.
I take no interest in fashion or celebrity and consider that something of an achievement whereas you would seem to be implying this is a bad thing.
but I don’t consider having an interest in fashion or celebrity an inherently good thing, although I do consider having no interest in them to be a bad thing.
Especially if it’s a deliberate act.
I’m one of these people that doesn’t see how the worlds of music, film, fashion, art, poetry, theatre, dance etc., etc., are divisible. They are not branches of culture, they are nodes in an inseparable mesh, each influencing and being influenced by the others.
I just take no interest in them and I consider it an achievement because TV and newspapers seem desperate for me to take an interest in them.
I don't consider it bad that a lot of people take no interest in computers, maths or physics and I'd say they're all nodes in the same thing, surely? I think things are very divisible. Two people can like the same film but have completely different reasons for doing so...
to pick up.
then that’s fine. But do you not get a little dismayed when people say ‘oh, I was rubbish at maths *giggle*,’ or ‘none of it is relevant,’ or they force people to apologise for being good with numbers? I know I do.
Re. fashion. It winds me up a little when people (especially, it has to be said, men) are really into music and are, at the same time, really scornful of fashion, considering it beneath them, or taking pride in not caring about it. Bollocks. There’s no way that you can buy or wear clothes without considering fashion or your appearance – even those that choose to wear plain t-shirts, jeans and converse trainers.
I don’t understand your final sentence – I’ve not said that people don’t enjoy films for different reasons.
My thing about films was in response to your suggestion that all aspects of art are linked and can't be separated. To me you seemed to be saying that if you like films you must have an interest in fashion.
Equally we're talking at cross purposes. I consider fashion to be something that involves models, labels and events designed to promote those. That (to me) is different to saying that I clearly know what is a choice of clothes that isn't going to look wildly out of place or will look 'nice'. Even then I don't think anything I wear has changed particularly in the last 15 years. I still see people wearing pointy leather shoes and don't like it.
But going back to a maths analogy I don't think that's taking an interest in fashion any more than calculating whether you have enough money to buy something is taking an interest in maths, or owning a computer means you have an interest in computers: some things are part of life.
I'm drawing a distinction between knowing that jeans and a t-shirt will look pretty good and enjoying Project Runway on a very serious level.
about fashion though. The same way you can buy a James Blunt (or, to be less snobbish and out of date, any) CD because you like the songs but still not reaally pursue music as an interest in anyway.
But then it doesn't wind me up if people are heavily into one aspect of culture and very scornful of another, despite any hypocrisies that might entail.
...just you and Vamos, really.
and it's about some indie wank fodder bint doing a photoshoot. It was hardly going to be a meeting of minds.
'More hit songs than you realise' &c. A Crowded House for our times?
I: yee-hawing, hats thrown in the air, rainbows across the nation
II: AM I TO BELIEVE THIS TOTAL PERVERSION I AM WITNESSING?
Indie white knight steps up, in alliance with partner in fun-hating (albeit approaching from very different angles) the poster claiming subject is hideously ugly canyounotseethis?
THE COME DOWN
III: Reflections, justifications, male-led Discussion Of Feminism
Why must I always be here in time for number 3 and never number 1? I want to post something sexist too
are you saying the IWK claims that the subject is hideously ugly? the people denigrating this thread by saying DL is hideously ugly are worse than the yeasayers
given who they are, I don't really think they seriously believe she is unattractive
if they seriously believed she was unattractive they'd have a right to express their opinion - it's that they're piling in so vigorously and graphically that makes them offensive. on principle they're not worse than the yeasayers as they're just having a joke, but in practice their posting probably leaves a more acidic taste
IV: Idiotic newbie overthinks it
Assuming it doesn't descend into objectification.
What's lovely about her is that she's pretty and sweet AND sexy, and also kind of attainable looking too. She's not the prettiest girl I've ever seen by a long shot, but allure is about so much more than just that.
I'm telling him all about you.
I'm also telling him you said that.
(i'm not really. I haven't spoken to him for about 4 years.)
I’m meant to be going to see them tomorrow night.
It's their last London show.
I think that they're finishing off by playing Oxford sometime.
for lovely pic of me and Gaz (SG, not bush) :D
just oh my goodness.
Photos like this make me understand my stalkers do what they do.
Well done, you thread full of complete arseholes.
The delayed coach of misandry eventually finds its way here
but I would just like to say that I appreciate metaphorical extensions, nice work.
the original picture is basically soft pornography. not all pornography, especially soft pornography is inherently sexist. intelligent debate on gender issues has got far enough to recognise that there are different types of sexualised image that embody and engender different kinds of attitudes (and an increasing view in third-wave feminism that certain types of pornography are acceptable and not necessarily misogynistic - though they remain the exception).
now it seems to me that this particular image, and the majority of responses to it, have been in tandem. the general attitude that the image and the responses seem to embody is that Daisy Lowe, over-excited indie boys and suchlike, aren't really about objectification or oppression. The image doesn't depict demeaning sex acts; she is beautiful yes, but it seems, wholly realistic; everything about it is clearly consensual; the image and most of the responses to it are clearly about titillation but I think both are also receptive to Daisy Lowe being a super-pretty human being rather than A WOMAN DYING FOR A FUCK. The whole power-dynamic of the image and the responses just isn't like that in the same way that more explicit types of pornographic image (including lots of the stuff you get in LAD mags) are...
Besides, admiring the beauty of famous people is hardly limited to men talking about women. Post a topless photo of Gael Garcia Bernal on a message board with a predominantly gay readership and no doubt you're likely to get similar responses.
That isn't to say that there weren't some misogynistic responses to it. There was some really crudity a bit further down as has been pointed out. It's hardly the great misogyny train rolls on - it's some people discussing a famous, pretty person, a couple of people being misogynistic and a few more people instantly massing judgment on them.
I realise I've now committed the grave sin of being a man leading a discussion of feminism; I'm sorry if I come across as an apologist for pornography because that's really not the intention - rather that there are shades and I think quite a lot of people on DiS are intelligent enough to recognise them; and that as someone who has a fairly engaged interest in gender studies I thought I'd maybe offer an alternative perspective, though I fully expect to have my argument ripped apart in a bit (in advance to Wishpig - I provisionally already demure to any points you might make on this.)
all i can see is A WOMAN DYING FOR A FUCK in block capitals.
it's jsut me being a nauseating cultural studies student. ignore it.
A WOMAN DYING FOR A FUCK
The fact that there is 'worse' objectification as you've identified does not excuse other instances of objectification.
"That isn't to say that there weren't some misogynistic responses to it. There was some real crudity a bit further down as has been pointed out. It's hardly the great misogyny train rolls on..."
I don't know how many misogynists it takes to make a 'train', but I do know that this thread is full of dozens and dozens of comments which show scant regard through to outright hostility towards Lowe and women more generally, which makes for a truly frightening and disappointing record of ignorance and barely concealed social inadequacy. I appreciate your reference to the complexity and degree of variation in imagery, but most of the post(er)s in this thread are a considerable distance from apprehending that sort of subtlety.
If you're a man, and you don't like looking at boob, then you have something seriously wrong with you.
I couldn't be arsed to elaborate further so just took an easy way out for the latter. Poor form.
But still, to put it another way, the art of LOOKING at something (which, in this instance, is VOLUNTEERING to be looked at) is all part of attraction. And it always will be. And anyone who denies themselves the thrill of this is, well, a bit silly...
Or are you literally incapable of appreciating anyone's perspective other than your own?
We're not talking about some woman being harrassed in the street. It's one thing to defend this in the abstract, but I'm assuming that the entire reason for doing the shoot was to appeal to exactly the audience and instincts on display here. Some of the comments are a bit crass, but when it comes down to it, the general reaction of the thread is surely WHAT THE ARTICLE WAS FOR
is that Esquire's aim was to promote objectification; and viewers participated in said objectification. I'm quite sure Esquire are perfectly happy, but it's not really them I'm interested in, is it?
but by the same token, i think a lot of assumptions are being made about her intentions for doing this shoot.
"but women are in porn, therefore it's okay to treat them as sex objects"? I really hope I've missed something here.
(Her role is a separate subject than your attitude, unless you support the idea that her participation legitimises your perspective)
and objectification and any sort of behaviour which fails to value people as people instead of diminished objects.
drakepress 1, logic 0
I can read, and analyse, the perspective of others but I cannot and DO not appreciate rampant idiocy. And your posts are full of them. I appreciate you take the time to post but, I fundamentally disagree with what you say on this matter.
We've had an argument over this before, so I'm going to leave before you get on some kind of tedious syntactic or semantic high horse about all of this. See ya.
or inherently linked to sexism seems flawed to me too.
objectification is prevalent in our society far outside pornography or sexual politics. it pervades national and international politics, serious aesthetics, high and low culture (films, magazine covers.). Objectification exists even in our real, meaning-invested sexual relations with one another.
It would seem that objectification is an inherent trait, or one that is culturally constructed but so deeply ingrained that it seems inherent. We judge on appearances, we judge on sexual desire in spheres outside of the sexual, at some level we turn lovers into objects when we wanna fuck.
The issue is where we draw the line at what is acceptable objectification and what isn't depending on our cultural expectations on equality and sex. Not whether objectification is good or bad. There is 'worse' and 'better' objectification.
but we're getting off topic a little here (or at least the point I'm raising), which is that the attitudes and comments expressed by many posters in this thread in response to this set of images conveys considerable objectification, sexism, misogyny and ignorance.
What outright misogyny there has been was quite clearly meant in jest.
Of course whether that is acceptable is another question - my guess is that you'd say that it's not.
That comment is so symptomatic of my frustration here. So just because other people/discussions are more offensive makes this one okay? I'm glad I missed the other ones.
I was more expressing surprise at why it's this thread that's got you so riled and not the others.
I knew it was there somewhere
There’s the telling women how they should present themselves:
“She needs to wear more clothes.”
“She should put on some weight, mind.”
“The way she gyrates in that video is nothing short of magical. Can all girls do that? It strikes me as something that all girls should want to be able to do. Why don't girls do that more often?”
“Every girl in the world should learn how to dance like that.”
“Her face isn't very interesting (she does have very nice boobs and bum though)”
“The difference is that Daisy Lowe has uncommonly attractive proportions to her body. Most girls find it hard, as Scout says up there, to stay that thin but at the same time maintain such... ample bosoms.”
“She's a bit teethy”
“She's the absolute definition of a butterface. Below average facially. She just looks like your fucking teacher or something. Stupid hair too. “
“She's fit but she's not in like the top bracket of supergirls is she?”
The downright creepy:
“I could stare at it all day. Through a window. While she slept.”
“If i was Gavin Rossdale, i would have done something terrible by now.”
“Photos like this make me understand why stalkers do what they do.”
“That's all you really had to type to have most of us nodding in glazed eyed assent.”
“Okay so people saying 'nice arse/tits, meh face': seriously though given half the chance you mans would suck on her quim like it was the last Calippo in the Sahara”
“I'D SHOOT LOW ON HER DAISY!!11!11!”
“Straight in the wank bank. I'd love to poke her in the baby maker”
“I'd shoot her right in the baby-making machine!”
“I see: A WOMAN DYING FOR A FUCK. LAD”
The textbook objectification:
“Indie girls who get their tits out >>> all”
“The many, many ways that she could be defiled.”
“I could have said that I'd fuck her brains out, but I didn't cause I gots class.”
“If you're a man, and you don't like looking at boob, then you have something seriously wrong with you.”
And we can finish with
“She also seems a lot more grounded and intelligent than I would have expected, going by that interview. Still a bit of an exhibitionist though, I guess.”
“She's an ugly cunt.”
“Why's this daft slut famous?”
Is it okay to treat people poorly just because you think you're joking? Does it matter whether other people find your joke repellent?
If you can't see that was me joking about the fact she had her tits out, and as an aside, about my own faintly conservative disinterest in 'phwoar tits out' culture, then you're an utter cretin.
As if your posts on this thread haven't already made you look fairly much like that anyway.
And somehow who objects to sexist objectifying lad-culture is an "utter cretin"?
Good to know where you stand, I'd mistakenly pegged you as someone more reasonable than that.
I am FULLY behind the we need less of this objectification that you support.
But I'm not in support of the po-faced way you've gone about trying to make your point.
'Craftily layered'? Okay I apologise. I didn't realise it was so crafty. You're not an utter cretin.
To my mind it was a pretty obvious lame joke, one that had been done many times before in one form or another.
I scanned a bunch of quotes for that post to demonstrate the collective effect, so if your comment was misinterpreted then sure, it doesn't belong with the others.
I'm glad you're in support of less objectification. If you can actually think of a way of trying to communicate this to people without coming across as po-faced (and without watering down the message) then I'm be delighted to hear it because I've not seen it done. It seems unavoidable due to the fierce objection from those intent on maintaining the status quo.
with people who aren't really taking a subject seriously. I mean, it's clear no one is or else they'd be upset.
Better to state your opinion and not get drawn into long preachy responses to people. You've come on here and made people react against your argument, which is a shame.
Perhaps, but then the community remains sexist. Also, not taking the subject seriously isn't just the terms of the debate, it's actually the problem in and of itself. I get what you're saying - kinda between a rock and a hard place really - I suppose I'm just trying to ensure visibility for the alternative viewpoint under the potentially mistaken notion that it is better to present the argument and at least inform people of the effects of their worldview rather than saying nothing and thereby offering no opportunity for people (and specifically men) to actually critique their cultural norms and treat other people with more dignity and respect. The fact that no one has made a reasonable justification for this thread (aside from "lighten up!") is also useful evidence.
When I said that Alexa Chung should put on weight I meant it because she looks like she's anorexic. It was a comment on her health, dear.
What do you actually know about Alexa Chung's health? What makes you think you have any authority to comment on her health (because you aren't anyway, you're commenting on her appearance). You probably think it's harmless, but this is why you and almost everyone else in this thread doesn't understand why it's so objectionable.
You're a doctor with extensive experience with melanoma. Whilst waiting to cross the street you notice that the man in front of you has a mole with worrying characteristics on the back of his neck.
Do you point this out to him?
with Alexa Chung's appearance?
That's like saying it's a compliment when a guy catcalls at a girl who's wearing a short skirt, and that she was asking for it by the fact that she wore a short skirt.
And even though some would take that as a compliment, in reality it's a misogynistic action that demeans women. And the women are not to blame.
Perhaps it's a nonsense distinction that only really makes sense in my head, but I wonder if some people in this thread are conflating misogyny and sexism. I can get, if not necessarily agree, why people might see sexism in this thread and some of the attitudes seemingly expressed in this thread. I don't really see much misogyny though.
so just drop it.
well, we all gives thanks to the primordial ooze for producing someone of your vast worth and contribution to society.
'my favourite bit's when she covers up her boobs with an old Penguin edition of Gulliver's Travels.'
'i like to think i'm an articulate person
probably the most beautiful woman in the history of anything, ever. at least since like, Louise Brooks or something.'
you'd presumably defend the right of consenting girls to strip off for the pleasure of men if there is no exploitation involved? because defining yourself as a post-feminist kinda implies that. we don't live in a post-feminist age yet though; but we're moving towards one.
As for my earlier comments. As Vikram says, I'm a lustfool, but I'm no fool. I'm pretty self-aware of the ways in which I express myself on this sort of thing.
I'm not really sure what your post here even contributed beyond a personal attack on me.
that we currently seem to be moving backwards, from where I'm standing.
There is loads of misogyny in this thread, what's sad is that most people (and many whom I respect) are so desensitised to it that they can't even see it.
I wish I had time to stick around and debate this point, but I don't, though I'd love to discuss it further with you some time in the future.
TBH....she's got this mostly right.
I suppose that's part of her appeal though <3
I just got proslo'd
this thread got ugly!
I'm just gonna watch that video of her dancing again.
Like any self-respecting man I thought, 'Cor, she's got a right pair on her.'
i think we can all agree on the brilliance of this line
''i've been round her house! she was like 16 though and contrary to popular belief i am not paedo'' (vikkers)
i just liked the way you worded it.
i was just a big fan of juxtaposing....'contrary to popular belief' and 'i am not a paedo'
thought it a funny way to phrase it, tis all.
They probably think they're in a different league to someone who wanks over a page 3 model.
it isn't NECESSARILY the same thing. i can't be bothered to explain it again - but Vikram's right. It's all about objets des wanks and wankers' attitudes.
you've completely misunderstood what I've explained above about how objectification is linked to context and power dynamics.
i didn't really bring feminism into it. i don't think that looking at photos of daisy lowe makes me a feminist, nor do i think that it doesn't make me a feminist. nor is it about intelligence or culture. i wasn't justifying anything by culture or aesthetics like that.
as for feminism: there are many third-wave feminists who are OK with pornography depending on the issues about context and objectification that I set out above. I also, largely, hold this view on things, but I realise that outside of middle-class whiteindieboy British culture particularly things are not so clear cut.
But to say that all objectification is the same is just a bit thick really.
TheWza claims burlesque isn't the same as stripping?
For reasons mentioned previously, and sketched out by vikkers here.
It was essentially massively classist and full of intellectual snobbery.
it was more about the shittest beer I've ever tasted than the dancers. We went in and ordered nine pints of beer. We left after 20 minutes and left more than half of it behind.
[joke about cleaning their pipes goes here]
the context of something like this, and the attitudes of its audience both work together in terms of the sexual politics of it all in my view.
the argument that it was classist would stand up if it wasn't the case that loads of gross rich businessmen regularly go to strip clubs. the point is that that with "some skank perspex-heeled stripper shaking her muff in your face for pound coins in a pint glass" there are all sorts of cultural expectations about service, power, economy that just don't exist when somebody goes to see serious burlesque. especially in the 21st century. The context that these events take place in is very very different as well - a club putting on burlesque is likely to be much friendlier to a mixed rather than exclusively male audience.
in the same way, page three models are airbrushed in a certain way (i realise daisy has prolly been airbrushed, but it hasn't been to sear her of all imperfections and individuality), are infantilised, the core of their audience I would be willing to wager has different expectations about what pornography is there fore. And in the case of soft porn like this, it's especially true when it's all but shorn from its original context like that picture of Daisy Lowe is.
Money isn't really where the lines should be drawn in these post-Thatcher days.
It feels like classism to me and really intellectual snobbery is pretty much the same thing.
shut the fuck up.
They're both forms of striptease. Well done on that observation.
Some efforts are very clearly more about the strip. And offer to go further than just kecks-off on the main stage.
Some efforts are very more about the tease. And don't even end in full nudity.
Some are inbetween, but there are definitely two ends to the striptease spectrum that are poles apart.
There has been a recent trend for shitty 'burlesque nights' to pop up which are either discos that encourage piss poor obvious-fetish-lite or are just yer usual pub stripper with dark hair and a fringe, and billed as some kind of version of the Suicide Girls or whatever.
It's inevitable that they blur the terms of this kind of debate. But then very few things are ever *completely* black and white.
I'm not trying to *completely* seperate one from the other to the point of saying there are no similarities. But there are *many* key differences that must be acknowledged.
my rosie huntington whiteley thread - ridiculous general consensus of SHE WELL UGLY
daisy lowe thread - best looking person of all time
To the LADs here? Maybe they think so.
But to an actual grown up? Nah.
Nekkid = first glance eye-catching? Maybe. Instincts and all that. Maybe.
Nekkid = more attractive? Not necessarily.
'tramp' or 'shes gasping for attention'
I like something left for the imagination :)
I was meaning more from a point of view of girls going out of theie way to show off the goods.
"aren't popping their boobs out in reality" - have you ever been out on the lash down the main drag of any major city
"dress on a summers day" - a halter neck knee length affair with a floral print? sounds nice to me.
"same woman wearing a coat in winter you probably wouldn't notice" - perhaps not with the same lightning reaction times (again - instincts and all that), but the amount of headturning ladies in coats and boots and scarves &c. that look good in winter can get out of hand sometimes. Winter clothes are more forgiving and even things out, so the allure and imagination factor can be ramped up somewhat.
I'm lower upper middle class :)
or otherwise, has got nowt to do with knowing that there are plenty of girls about every day and night of the week who are (just shy of or actually, in some cases) hoiking their boobs up and out. We've pretty much all been out on the lash for drinkiepoos in townie bars at sometime or other and seen it in full swing. Or maybe not if you live in a convent. :-) But I've no idea where this is supposed to be going...
Guess everyone was too busy wanking
Theo, for mine
I might put a Batman costume on and climb something
JUST ACCEPT YOU WANK OVER LADIES
COS YOU THINK THEY'RE PRETTY SEXY
NOT COS THEYRE INTERESTING
YOU JUST WANK OVER LADIES ACCEPT IT
Reading, Film, Music, Wanking Over Ladies.
I've just got back from Bedfordshire. This had better be good.
Every time I think of the 'misogyny' now I'm going to think of this thread and either laugh or despair, probably both.
WTF were you doing in Bedfordshire?
Something fairly impressive about his level of commitment and I agree with much of what he said but wow. The rest of the thread hasn't done a great deal to inform my stance a great deal further than 'this belongs in a discourse of blatant objectification and is above all just a bit sad'.
I was visiting the RSPB Lodge. Aren't I just the grooviest.
ex singer with 'powder' and now a fashion designer and married to supergrass's drummer......this is the celebrity couple that did the 'swapping' with jude law and sadie frost? that caused their relationship to break up.
Just call me 'Mr Celebrity Gossip'
I don't think it was with Sadie though, someone else, Sienna or someone. I dunno...which one sounds more hip and interesting? Yeah...that one. Probably.
i bet he was just too hipster for her! i wonder if he'll hook up with Amy Pond IRL now. They are always really cute and coupley in interviews.
alexa chung/ caitlin moran style
but also the sausage roll thing. so true.
you people need help
i need to put it away.
THANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOUTHANKYOU......FOR INTRODUCING ME TO THIS 8TH WONDER OF THE WORLD
There be bush