I don't understand Brit's ladybits!
Interesting…
"According to one former newspaper editor this week, if Britney did destruct, we would all have her blood on our hands.
The photographers who snapped the woman as she lay manacled in an ambulance, said the Guardian's Peter Preston, "are working for us": we who buy the newspapers and push TV ratings through the roof as we tune in to learn more.
Gawping at mental breakdown is not so new. In the 18th Century, for a penny, you could peer into the cells at Bedlam and enjoy the inmates' antics.
But these days, perhaps are we more ready to learn from what we see."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7177345.stm
I wouldn't bet on that! The article then goes on to talk about how Kylie getting breast cancer raised awareness of the disease around the world. OK, but breast cancer is something we're familiar with the concept of. We feel sorry for people who've developed this disease — it's nasty and we know it.
Mental illness is something we're all afraid to face. Mad people are discomfiting because it could happen to YOU. So rather than sympathise and lobby for some sort of help or intervention, we're going to laugh.
Well who wouldn't?
When insanity manifests itself as shaving off all your hair, getting pissed and leaving your knickers in the niteclub toilets — leaving yourself exposed to the world (ooh, there's some wank mag material, eh?) and then being mental with your children. It's more like a drama than anything else, and we're all hooked.
I'm pointing fingers, but there's one aimed at myself.
Remember those pix of Brit's clit? (Not entirely accurate, but a nice rhyme, no?) Who took them and why? Well, I had a look when I found out they were on the net. Why? Curiosity.
Was my life enriched in any way by the sight of this famous fanny? No. Was I aroused by the picture? No. Would I have paid to see the picture? Most definitely not. Would I have cared about the precise contours of the Spears ladybits had their image not been blogged? Not in the least.
So who would? What sort of person is interested in seeing a drunken, harassed and borderline psychotic total stranger's vagina?
Then there's the question, would anyone have cared had the picture not been taken? I guess we'll never know. Sure, there are doubtless people who've prayed since 1997 that Brit would do a Hustler shoot, but this is hardly the same thing.
So it becomes a question of ethics on the part of the photographer and the editorial team that commissioned/published the picture. It's their fault, since they made the image available to the masses.
It's a bit of a Garden of Eden thing. Do we blame the snake or the moron who eats the apple?
"According to one former newspaper editor this week, if Britney did destruct, we would all have her blood on our hands.
The photographers who snapped the woman as she lay manacled in an ambulance, said the Guardian's Peter Preston, "are working for us": we who buy the newspapers and push TV ratings through the roof as we tune in to learn more.
Gawping at mental breakdown is not so new. In the 18th Century, for a penny, you could peer into the cells at Bedlam and enjoy the inmates' antics.
But these days, perhaps are we more ready to learn from what we see."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7177345.stm
I wouldn't bet on that! The article then goes on to talk about how Kylie getting breast cancer raised awareness of the disease around the world. OK, but breast cancer is something we're familiar with the concept of. We feel sorry for people who've developed this disease — it's nasty and we know it.
Mental illness is something we're all afraid to face. Mad people are discomfiting because it could happen to YOU. So rather than sympathise and lobby for some sort of help or intervention, we're going to laugh.
Well who wouldn't?
When insanity manifests itself as shaving off all your hair, getting pissed and leaving your knickers in the niteclub toilets — leaving yourself exposed to the world (ooh, there's some wank mag material, eh?) and then being mental with your children. It's more like a drama than anything else, and we're all hooked.
I'm pointing fingers, but there's one aimed at myself.
Remember those pix of Brit's clit? (Not entirely accurate, but a nice rhyme, no?) Who took them and why? Well, I had a look when I found out they were on the net. Why? Curiosity.
Was my life enriched in any way by the sight of this famous fanny? No. Was I aroused by the picture? No. Would I have paid to see the picture? Most definitely not. Would I have cared about the precise contours of the Spears ladybits had their image not been blogged? Not in the least.
So who would? What sort of person is interested in seeing a drunken, harassed and borderline psychotic total stranger's vagina?
Then there's the question, would anyone have cared had the picture not been taken? I guess we'll never know. Sure, there are doubtless people who've prayed since 1997 that Brit would do a Hustler shoot, but this is hardly the same thing.
So it becomes a question of ethics on the part of the photographer and the editorial team that commissioned/published the picture. It's their fault, since they made the image available to the masses.
It's a bit of a Garden of Eden thing. Do we blame the snake or the moron who eats the apple?
posted by Stephen McMullin at 11:50 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home