So. Michael Clarke needs to break up with his fiancee Lara Bingle because it's getting in the way of his being Skipper of the Australian Cricket Team. So say high level cricketing type people
( Read more... )
Leaving aside Fevola for the moment, can we not also drag into this sorry mess all of the other players who helped "circulate" the photo and who didn't say a peep about it?
Nearly as guilty, in my view.
Yes, this is appalling, I agree. And actually really worsens the AFL case about it not being recent. It means they were turning a blind eye, or someone was.
But I must say, my Cretaceous brain can't help but think the following: "here is a young woman who has previously made money from fully topless photo shoots - images of which are readily available through a google search - who is crying foul one week over people seeing a different topless picture taken of her,
Everyone woman has the right to determine what and where and who and how. Prostitutes who sell their body for a fee have a right to be protected from rape. This image was a violation, it looks like she was in the shower or something, it very much looks taken without consent. Every person has the right of consent.
The bit where she is selling her own story to the publication that printed the other photo? Yeah, thats where she loses me too.
is why professional sports people always seem to have partners and family watching them perform.
I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion since she wasn't there watching him perform?
Yeah, that last bit was just me venting about something which has bugged me about the whole "WAG" thing for a while. Largely tangential, true, but vaguely related to the "sportspeople are just like any other worker" thing which you mentioned in the initial post.
If your job involved working in a public arena for the entertainment of a crowd, and was viewed and examined on TV and the internet, (ie: sports, being a rock star or a matador) I'd imagine your loved ones would go and watch at least some of the time.
I agree with you here: she chose to pose topless in the paid modelling shots - the photo of her in the shower isn't one she wanted taken, much less distributed.
And it takes her out of the loop - for the photos she did as her *job*, she decided the situation and she got *paid*. This was just a total taking advantage of her.
Nearly as guilty, in my view.
Yes, this is appalling, I agree. And actually really worsens the AFL case about it not being recent. It means they were turning a blind eye, or someone was.
But I must say, my Cretaceous brain can't help but think the following: "here is a young woman who has previously made money from fully topless photo shoots - images of which are readily available through a google search - who is crying foul one week over people seeing a different topless picture taken of her,
Everyone woman has the right to determine what and where and who and how. Prostitutes who sell their body for a fee have a right to be protected from rape. This image was a violation, it looks like she was in the shower or something, it very much looks taken without consent. Every person has the right of consent.
The bit where she is selling her own story to the publication that printed the other photo? Yeah, thats where she loses me too.
is why professional sports people always seem to have partners and family watching them perform.
I'm not sure of the relevance to this discussion since she wasn't there watching him perform?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment