I'm increasingly annoyed by the issue of Kate Middleton's topless pictures.

[redqueen]

Everything about the situation is outrageous.


What is wrong with people who want to see images of other people, which the people in the images do not want them to see? Is the ethical problem with that desire not just glaringly obvious?


How can anyone defend the fact that someone shouldn't expect privacy from this far away?

[abelenkpe]

1. She was photographed from that far away?

Creepy.

[MADem]

4. Lens the size of a Volkswagen, probably.

That said, her security team failed in their duty. A few strategically placed potted trees or other screening could have ensured privacy without overly intruding on the openness of the setting.

Complaining about what others want to look at is pointless, I have found. There's just no accounting for tastes--even poor ones.

[redqueen]

5. It's not a matter of taste. It's a matter of if one cares at all about other people.

If someone else doesn't want me to see them naked, I won't go looking for ways to get around their wishes.

It's basic issue involving fundamental respect for other people. Yes, some people have none. Most people recognize that that is fucked up.

[MADem]

9. I just don't get into telling other people what they can/cannot be interested in.

I live my life in the most authentic way I can manage, and I know that lecturing others on what they should/should not do rarely if ever works. That's not anything I'd pay to see in a magazine, but that's me.

There is a market for this shit, however. That photographer wasn't standing on that road because he wanted to improve his health in the lovely fresh air. He got a nice paycheck for some uninteresting and blurry pictures that happen to include a little bit of Ooooh-Aaaah Bosoms.

The Security Team that accompanies the newlyweds need to get better at using decoys, diversions, flat-out lies, and doing a bit more terrain analysis. They aren't going to shame, scold or sue people into stopping trying to get pictures of this famous couple. People want to know everything they can about them--including what sort of swimsuits they wear or don't wear and how they spend their leisure time. They are celebrities, and the Royal Family has touted them as such and put them forward as representatives of an outdated notion of "royalty" and worked very hard, indeed, to create the very buzz about them that resulted in these photos.

That's just the bottom line, and it's not likely to change. If they want less attention, they'd need to abdicate and become homebodies. They'd still get some notice, but it would abate over time and if they wanted some press, they'd end up like the Duke/Duchess of Windsor, begging for publicity and shamelessly courting the media.

[seabeyond]

13. how about CONDEMNING them and not lecturing on creepy, disrespectful, unacceptable

behavior. that simple MA.

[MADem]

19. No, I can't do that either. This is not a "condemnable" offense.

People are going to try to photograph this couple. The photographs have value, plain and simple.

It's is naive to think people will not try to get "personal" shots because you're wagging a finger at them.

If they do not want to be photographed, their security people need to do a much better job.

One person's unacceptable behavior is another person's living. If you don't like to see those photos, don't click the links and don't buy the magazines. That's how I handle things that don't interest me.

[seabeyond]

21. wow... just fuckin wow. fuck you woman, that you do not want

your boobs all over the place even though clearly, this was a position of privacy.

just fuck you. so insignificant, your nakedness matters not. the entitled rule.

wow.

throw the word decency out of our vocabulary

[MADem]

26. Again, I just don't understand you, with all the "fuck you" comments you are making.

There is no need to resort to invective because you (apparently--I can't really be sure) have some different viewpoint. I'm not really sure whose "boobs" you are talking about now, anymore, either.

Apparently you are outraged, so we should probably just leave it at that.

[seabeyond]

29. ya. i happened to think if someone is working on privacy the world does not have the RIGHT

to pornify a woman.

just a pet peeve of mine.

[MADem]

38. Whatever you say -- I don't understand it, but whatever you say. nt

[Tumbulu]

24. people who take these pictures

AND people who buy the pictures are all to be shamed. I find that this sort of thing irrigates stupidity and fertilizes the idea that women, all women are simply sex objects to be seen by all.

Any excusing of this behavior is a mistake.

Of course there are bigger issues, but this is so disrespectful.

To all women.

[MADem]

36. Like I said, I wouldn't pay for the magazine and I really don't care what

the Prince's bride is or is not wearing.

I also don't care to lecture people about what they are interested in. Some people are addicted to gossip about famous people, and that is why there is a market for this stuff.

This is "celebrity voyeurism." It isn't about "women" at all. If it were a naked Justin Beiber splashed across those tabloid pages, it would get far more interest on the net than the (relatively) fuddy-duddy princess. A naked Prince William, as I said elsewhere, would get better play because he's so stodgy and the headlines just write themselves.

It's about the fame, not the gender. When you have fame, you don't have privacy, unless you seek it by moving away from the paparazzi - rich places where the elite meet. The Prince and his bride will not move out of those fashionable circles, as he is "Heir to the Throne"--whatever that means in this day and age.

No one--not even the paparazzi-- is going to bother someone who is living in relative obscurity in Northern Maine or Montana much, if at all, but if you live in LA, all bets are off. If you have any star power, you will be stalked. It goes with the territory. Complaining about it, and demanding that people be "shamed," will not change it or shame anyone--if it didn't change after Diana died in that car crash, it's not going to change because some stupid security personnel responsible for the security of the "Royal Couple" didn't do a "line of sight" examination and provide simple screening--potted vegetation or a bit of portable fencing would do the trick-- to prevent long lens photography from public roads.

You might as well insist that people stop liking chocolate--it just will not happen. There's profit in it, and that, like it or not, is the bottom line.

[Tumbulu]

49. Well, let's see

I am not asking you to lecture people.

I don't lecture people either. Except here on an anonymous board.

But I do judge people on these sorts of choices. I generally do not chose to spend my time with people who enjoy or support this stuff.

I sincerely try to avoid people who support porn.

I see it all as the same issue really.

People who are doing things with their lives to move us along on our path of protecting our earth and respecting all people, or people who are just along for the ride making everyone feel bad, in some way or another, personal gain trumping any societal obligations.

When it is a female the fame follows the pattern of the patriarchy- shaming of the woman for having a body.

It should not go with the territory. Shaming for being female.

[MADem]

62. Well, I don't agree that there's any shaming for being female happening here.

I think there's undue curiosity because she's a "royal," a trend setter, a style icon, and the future "queen" --whatever that means. She is well known and people like to copy her. That is why the pictures are newsworthy.

The French, like other Europeans, do not have the American hang-ups about body issues, and they don't take it as seriously. It is not unusual for people who are swimming to be wearing very little clothing, and tops are optional in many places.

It's a Fame thing, these naked pics-- not a female thing. The same sort of interest (actually, a bit more, I think) percolated when the nude --nothing left to the full frontal imagination-- photographs of a frolicking Berlusconi (long lens/villa swimming pool setting) came out in El Pais; ironically, the Berlusconi Group was one of the papers that published the Harry pictures and the Kate pictures--I suppose Silvio doesn't want to be alone, or something.

[seabeyond]

73. against her will. without consent. you seem to be totally oblivious to this concept. nt

[MADem]

84. Against Harry's will, without his consent, against Berlusconi's will, without his consent, etc.

It has to do with fame, not gender.

[seabeyond]

12. right... cause NO ONE has a responsibility to be decent. it is ALL our responsibility to

at all cost, all the time, think like a creep and shield ourselves from it.

what was she wearing? was she drunk? she walked out into a parking lot alone????

[MADem]

20. What are you talking about?

She was sitting by a pool. She wasn't drunk in a parking lot.

Prince Harry got the same treatment in Vegas. This has nothing to do with gender, it has everything to do with "royalty." If Prince William had been airing his meat and two veg, it's probable that the pictures would have fetched an even higher price, as the headline opportunities ("The Crown Jewels&quot are much improved.

[seabeyond]

22. like hell it is not the same. she dared, in the privacy of her home, took off her top. her fault.

not that we can insist there be a line of decency. all is free game. i get it. i get that is the world you are cool with. not me.

and no. i saw no naked dick. why is it the only pictures we had of harry was when he covered his dick?

you think he only had his hand over his dick thru the whole thing? amazing the only pictures we got was when a certain amount of cover up was had.

[MADem]

23. I am not understanding you.

This "free form" writing you indulge in just isn't making sense to me, sorry. You're angry because you didn't see Harry's penis? There was a fair view of his posterior, which isn't normally on display--that wasn't enough?

In Europe, you see women without tops every day at the shore. You also see men with their jewels hanging out of too-small speedos. Europeans do not get as tense about these things as Americans seem to do.

It's just not that big a deal. What makes this matter interesting isn't the bosoms, it isn't the gender, it's the ROYALTY. Just like the Harry pics were interesting for that very same reason.

[valerief]

2. I don't really give a shit. I worry about kids going to bed hungry. nt

[redqueen]

3. I can worry about two things at once. And no one on DU defends kids going to bed hungry.

Does that clear things up?

[valerief]

7. I still don't give a shit. And I worry about kids going to be hungry AND

Social Security being privatized AND prison slave labor AND lots more. But not Middleton's bare chest.

[redqueen]

8. It's not "Middleton's bare chest" it is *the principle* involved.

And I almost can't believe I have to explain this. Almost.

But then we see women referred to as MILFs on DU, so... yeah.

Also, you left out fracking. I can go toe to toe on the righteous lefty stuff if you like. I'd rather skip it and focus on the issue rather than the derailment though, if you don't mind.

[seabeyond]

16. you do not have to explain. the poster gets it and rejects it

cause he does not give a shit. probably posts about the knuckledragger on the right.... but, entitlement wins. when self concerned.

[valerief]

35. It's not an issue. It's what people who live high off the taxpayers have

to live with. I have to deal with tailgaters on my way to work. Much tougher to deal with than snapshots. Oh, yeah, and it was HER CHOICE to accept that deal.

BTW, don't you have any women's REAL issues to discuss instead of this celebrity stuff? Or do you just want to make fun of "the righteous lefty stuff" as you call it?

[MadrasT]

57. Again with the derailing.

This thread is about Kate Middleton's situation and that is what this group wants to talk about in this thread. If it is beneath your radar of things you care about, there is no need to diminish people who do want to talk about this.

Other threads (of which there are many, in this group and many other forums and groups) talk about any number of other women's issues. Maybe one of those will be "REAL" enough for you. Or if there is some "REAL" issue you think needs to be discussed while we waste our time on this, start your own thread.

[valerief]

64. I thought I was responding to redqueen. Oh, well, this must be Celebrity Central. Ciao. nt

[seabeyond]

14. well, there you go. fuck womens issues. hey... why are you in this forum? nt

[K8-EEE]

6. I find the issue of her topless pix very easy to ignore

It is completely meaningless -- yes it was an invasion of privacy but you know what? Lack of privacy is their one rent bill that these "born to rule" families pay. They own a good chunk of their part of the world, they and theirs will always have everything BUT privacy. Kate could walk around topless in any beach in Europe without consequence, if she didn't marry the mob but now she is in line to be the queen so that's just how that goes.

When she accepted that proposal she must have known she was submitting to being photographed and gawked at, so, if you are royalty either wear a bathing suit by the pool or deal with the consequence of zoom lenses.

[MADem]

10. Very nicely articulated. nt

[seabeyond]

17. yes, misgyny excused cause it was done to 1%'er. or cause it is a rw women. we always

find ways to justify inappropriate behavior toward certain women, but then, it really effects all of us.

would you be more empathetic to the woman that put a breast feeding "how to" video together and men picked that up and put it in online porn? she was one of us.

[K8-EEE]

61. Meh, naked celeb pix are always in demand, same with Prince Harry

Don't really see it as "misgyny" but whatev! Big deal anyway -- when I was in France I was the only one with a bathing suit top the shocking thing to me is that people are making such a federal case out of it.

[seabeyond]

11. entitlement. along with not seeing her as a person. a right to see her exposed, even when she says

NO.

it was amazing on those threads the number of people that insisted boobs are not a big deal and we need to get over it. france is so much more healthy. and people did not get the contradiction in that argument.

because there is the RIGHT to all boobs, because men are entitled to ALL boobs, and really has nothing to do with the woman, then her boobs on front page is fine. it doesnt matter she said NO. it doesnt matter that it was in france, where nakedness is not suppose to be a big deal, but the very fact they put her out there, without consent, to sell papers, shows the bogus of that argument.

because women are so pornified, we MUST ALL allow ourselves to be pornified, and if we do not, then we are prudes.

nifty, how our porn industry normalized porn to such an extent, that if we do not want some man jacking off to our body, offered for their pleasure and entertainment, we are prudes.

[redqueen]

15. Yep. Bluenorthwest nailed it in that thread. Hardly anyone noticed of course. Too busy fixating

on boobs, or whose boobs they were, or whether they should expect to have their privacy violated, so ... that makes it ok, somehow, I guess. (And women who expect to be subjected to street harassment... I guess we should stop complaining too! Gee, this "STFU" argument works wonders for everyone! If a bad behavior can possibly be forseen, well STFU, and don't bother trying to change anything for the better! Hmmm... seems a bit conservative in its logic, somehow.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1342862

[seabeyond]

18. or the woman that dared to stand in a night club and drunk man put hand up her skirt and

played with er crotch a bit.

shouldnt have been in that club. if at home, wouldnt have happened.

ya

right

[Tumbulu]

25. Me too, it is an outrage

and these sorts of reporters need to be prosecuted for invasion of privacy.

I hope the Royal Family starts to do this- prosecute.

[seabeyond]

31. so... if she does not want to be pornified, SHE needs to get over it. SHE does not have a choice

it isnt about HER.

we all must be at access to the males entitlement of all our tits, cause your right trumps?

[darkangel218]

33. This is not about male entitlement , as anyone who has google can see them

It's not a feminist issue, its a privacy issue, regardless of gender.
My point is, she took her top off, she assumed the risk, now she and everyone else needs to get over it and move on.
The Royal family is enjoying all the perks and benefits of being " royal" , well that comes with the price of losing some of their privacy.
Did you know all British ppl stil pay the queen a certain amount of money per year?
You can't have the cake and eat it too.

[seabeyond]

39. and it really is not an issue of being top 1%, but, thanks for playing. we manifest all kinds of

reasons for misogynist/sexist behavior and justify with knee jerk, but she is rich, she is a repug, she is....

[darkangel218]

44. She chose to be part of the royal family

She needs to either cover up when outdoors, or quit complaining. Paparazzis will never go away, you can't ban them from being on public roads.

BTW, I never called anyone names, so I have no idea why you're putting words in my mouth.

[seabeyond]

47. wrong. simply wrong. it is the attitude that it is HER problem, not societies problem that is the

issue with so many things. cause you have a chip on the shoulders because of what she has, what happens to her is insignificant. it is that attitude that allows the ugly in the world to grow.

[seabeyond]

51. because of the words you use in every one of your posts. nt

[darkangel218]

52. Just agree to disagree and quit making personal attacks.

[seabeyond]

53. you sure into telling people the way it is and what to do. doesnt set well with me. nt

[darkangel218]

56. Im telling you to stop putting words in my mouth , yes.

Not an acceptable way of having a discussion.

Are you making it personal for entertainment purposes? Cuz so far I'm having a blast. What else is it that I am thinking and I'm not aware of?

[seabeyond]

75. you just keep on telling me what i am suppose to do, dude. control issues much? nt

[darkangel218]

54. and speaking of " words " , go take a look at your own posts.

You were the one using faul language and making false accusations. As far as I know, one doesn't need that to prove their point.

[seabeyond]

76. OMG... foul language, shoot me. bah hahaha. fuck that. nt

[2on2u]

28. Wow, you can hardly see the photographer, just a speck. n/t

[MichiganVote]

30. What's the difference between this and a peeping tom and the laws about that?

[seabeyond]

32. exactly. nt

[darkangel218]

34. The difference is

Shes not Jane Doe.
Celebrities have and will always have to deal with the media and paparazzi, its part of being famous.

Like I said above, you can't have the cake and eat it too!

[MichiganVote]

37. So they're not entitled under law to the 'peeping tom' statutes others expect.

That means if at any time you or I are deemed a celebrity, people can take pictures of us on our own property without the expectation of privacy.

[seabeyond]

43. i am sick at hearing you whine about people that have something you dont, get over it....

that is the way it works for you, right? just fuckin get over it.

[darkangel218]

45. So in your opinion,this is the reason why i think ppl should get over it?

Because the celebrities have something I don't have??

Projecting much?

[seabeyond]

48. reading every one of your posts. they come off.... she deserves it. nt

[MichiganVote]

58. Well apparently, per your view, they don't have any privacy to lose.

[darkangel218]

59. They have privacy to lose.

But it comes with the teritorry. She shoudve been more careful if she didn't want topless pix in international tabloids. Afterall, paparazzis are everywhere , even in France.

[MichiganVote]

66. So where exactly is the privacy line-the bathroom?

But I suppose if somebody clicks a pic there, they've asked for that too.

[darkangel218]

68. They were on vacation in France

As royalty, you may think she would've been warned of possible paparazzis around. She made the decision to bathe topless, who's fault is it?

Imo, unless they change the laws regarding taking pics from public roads, her Majesty needs to stop whining and suing left and right. She could instead teach her grandkinds how not to put themselves in this kind of predicaments.

[MichiganVote]

83. Ok so the bathroom is still sancrosanct but vacations are not. Ok. Got it.

As for the warning-since her spouse was by her side, one wonders if he was in on it. What do you think?

[JoeyT]

92. That this doesn't fall under the peeping tom laws.

In most places if you're visible from a public space, you're fair game.

I disagree with the law, but no one consulted me. I personally think there should be an expectation of privacy distance: If you have to use lenses that are designed to photograph craters on the moon, the person should have an expectation of privacy that trumps your right to take a picture of them.

[MichiganVote]

93. Well but this was not a public space right? It was private property.

[JoeyT]

94. I'm not sure.

It depends on where the photographer was standing, not where the person they're taking pictures of is.

That's in the US, I have no idea about other countries.

[JustAnotherGen]

40. It bothers me

Because she is humiliated. I would be.

[grasswire]

41. don't the royals' security worry about "field of fire"?

If they can take pictures with a lens, someone can use a scope with a gun.

[MADem]

63. This was a security failure, plainly. I don't think the detail accompanying the royals is quite up

to scratch, to put it bluntly.

[MichiganVote]

67. Maybe Mitt Rmoney will set them straight too. LOL!

[MADem]

85. He sure loves to give the Brits advice, doesn't he!

[MichiganVote]

88. Well one things 4 sure. If he's read this thread, his wife's breasts are stayin' hidden.

[MADem]

89. He wears rather unrevealing underclothing -- if she does likewise, she's quite safe from prying eyes

I'm guessing...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/a-brief-guide-to-mormon-underwear

[Violet_Crumble]

91. It was a royal balls up...

No, wait. That was the incident in Vegas....

[ismnotwasm]

46. Clearly

Judging from this thread, some people have no difficulty defending it.

Ms. Middleton is entitled to privacy in her own home.

[darkangel218]

60. She wasnt home, they were on vacation in France.

[ismnotwasm]

70. Yes

I posted that from work, I hadn't been paying attention to any of it. Allow me to revise;
Ms. Middleton deserves her privacy at a private reort, or private personal area while on vacation in France.

[ismnotwasm]

74. Let me revise again

Ms. Middleton, deserves her privacy in any situation where a prudent person would expect such privacy.

Ms. Middleton and her husband are upset. They expected privacy. That they are royalty and very famous doesn't give those who invade their privacy a pass, IMO

Why this is in the HOF, is because of the objectifying sexualization of the female body, not international nudity laws.


When the other royal son ran around naked it raised a stink, but not nearly as a big one. Given he didn't have breasts.

Personally, I wouldn't mind more nudity, male and female seen as a natural state and nothing to be ashamed of, but that's not the society we live in.

[darkangel218]

79. You'll see the results of their lawsuit

Will be 0.

Because this is not about sexualization, objectification, or any of that. Have you browsed through any of the tabloids? All you see is unflattering photos of celebrities. BOTH genders. I don't buy the junk, but I know what's in there.

So unless the paparazzi laws are changed, good luck with that!

[ismnotwasm]

81. Perhaps

No i havent seen what the fuss was about until today. But given the forum you are actually in, objectification is bound to come up. This isn't GD.

As for objectification? I'll bet they'll be a new 'Kate Middleton' porn movie within a month.

[Violet_Crumble]

90. There's no need to. There's already privacy laws in France...

They'll sue under that and try to stop any further publishing of the pics. Sounds reasonable to me...

[DJ13]

55. I've long thought everyone's image should automatically be considered copyrighted

That would necessitate consent before it could be published.

Outside of a real time news event theres no reason that consent shouldnt be required.

[MADem]

65. To include public figures? No photos of Obama, Biden, RMoney, Bachmann, Newt??

There's so many interesting and revealing pictures we'd never see if the "real time news event" caveat was applied.

Of course, a royal couple on their honeymoon holiday could also be considered a "real time news event" too--it might be "celebrity news," but it's still news, since everything the royals do sells clothes, food, cars, vacations, you name it.

[DJ13]

69. Not in their private moments, no

Are we all worse off because no one had a cellphone camera at the WH pool when JFK entertained the ladies?

[MADem]

86. The unfortunate reality is that public figures don't have "private moments" if anyone

other than their immediate circle is present--and that's only if their immediate circle is not craven.

I wonder if the imagined rompings of JFK are more salacious than the actual events. Sometimes, a picture makes the dramatic look more pedestrian.

[Texasgal]

96. Public figures *should*

have moments that are private.

It's the disgusting amount of people that are dying to see this crap is what has fueled this issue. If people, in general were not so eager to see the Princess's breasts we wouldn't be having this convo would we?

[Tumbulu]

71. Good idea!

that would solve a lot of problems.

Thanks for posting it.

[appleannie1]

77. They are a married couple. They are not priests and nuns. Taking pictures like this is

no different than planting a camera in a motel to take pictures of unsuspecting couples.

[octothorpe]

78. I'm with ya.... I don't understand why people enjoy stuff like that so much

We can't even say "well they shouldn't have taken such photos if they wanted them to be private" (which isn't necessarily a valid excuse to plaster nude photos of someone who doesn't want them out there)

I guess people are just assholes. I couldn't see myself taking photos of someone like that and then putting them up for everyone to see. That's just an asshole move.

[seabeyond]

80. "I guess people are just assholes." and THAT, is the bottomline. nt

[riverbendviewgal]

82. This is alarming because if you can take a picture that far

then a sharpshooter sniper can also shoot to kill...eh?

The newspaper should be sued for endangerment.

[MADem]

87. The security team should be fired. They "missed a spot" as it were.

The photographer was standing on a public road. He wasn't on the property of the vacation retreat. This could have been avoided with a few judiciously placed screening plants. The two could have been out there in their birthday suits and, without a helicopter, no one would have been the wiser.

[Texasgal]

95. I have to agree Redqueen

It's disgusting how much her privacy was invaded!

I don't buy this "she's famous" crap. If someone took a pic of my boobs without my consent would they be shown around the world? Ummm...no! She was humiliated around the world... No one deserves that!

I am saddened by the complete lack of respect for her.

[seabeyond]

97. what bothers me more is so many people feel that cause they feel it should not be an issue,

they feel it should not be one for her. like they have a right to see. lacks common decency.

[hlthe2b]

98. That a photo could even be obtained from that distance, horrifies me because it is only emblemmatic

of how little privacy any of us have anymore. Of course no one cares to take photos of me from that distance (or perhaps, at all--lol). That's not my point. But, when I see how much of my personal information is out there (forever) on the internet, despite my extreme care to avoid it (not on facebook, nor facebook predecessors, no twitter, etc., etc), it leaves me profoundly concerned.

Granted these Royal figures have far less expectation of privacy than the rest of us, but still, it leaves me horrified and rather depressed that ALL of us are losing what I consider a precious part of our very beings--to chose with whom we share private and very personal information and images.

[redqueen]

99. Well this sure blew up. I thought it'd stay a discussion among people sympathetic

to the concerns of women.

I guess we should all get used to upskirt shots, toilet cams, changing room cams, etc.

I mean it's not like we don't know how people take such pics to out up on the net, right?

Or just for their private collection. I mean who are we to complain, right? It's only flesh.


Please spare me any lectures about the letter of the law. I'm more interested in the spirit of it.

Oh yeah, and this seemingly forgotten thing called ethics.

I'm about to start making the argument in GD that we should stop being naive and accept republican ideology, I mean heck, it's not realistic to ever expect that most people will be anything but crooked and selfish, so why bother appealing to the better angels of anyone's nature. Or maybe that only applies where women's issues are concerned.

[boston bean]

100. What bothers me the most

is that they were having a private intimate moment.

That is what was invaded. They were enjoying eachother, and some creep takes pictures of that and displays it to the world.

William is just as much a victim here as Kate is. Both of their privacy was invaded. Yet, in this world a womens breast is so important to be seen, we must intrude upon their private intimate moments.

It's pretty disgusting to me, and not different than the sickos who plant web cams in hotel rooms and bathrooms and then post the footage on web sites.

I wonder how many men here would like their private intimate moments shared with the world?

This couple deserves to have some privacy, period. I don't give a flying cluck that they are famous. That doesn't excuse the fact that someone took pictures of them enjoying a very private moment and then plastering the tabloids with pictures of it, from 3/4 miles away.

[SkepticMetric]

103. William's Horror Surely Relates to His Mother's Death Due to Money-Grubbing Picture Takers!

Let's say photographers driven by a financial bonanza and fame through infamous photos chased YOUR mother through the streets of London in a crazy car chase! You would be outraged that the profane game was driven by a vile desire to snap a picture. How pitiful that the ghoulish goal was to expose her frightened face to voyeuristic freaks throughout the whole world. Yet the camera crews lust to makes sure the VIPs they covet to get in their lens are shown in their worse light! Cheerio, crude and morally rude camera crews, cheerio!

This debate could be less shallow and callow if the supporters of this loco photo action would put aside the baloney of "freedom of the press" rights as their avowed sacred premise for sadistic practices.

Think like Prince William must! How would YOU feel if the person you loved most dearly literally was being exposed to the same level of indecency that led directly to the death of his own mother, Princess Diana? Perspective, imbeciles, perspective!

[seabeyond]

104. damn straight. absolutely. thank you for your post. nt

[Texasgal]

108. Pretty disgusting

Just for the record, I have zero desire to see a picture of Kate's breasts. I mean really... who enjoys this shit? You know that picture or pictures as it were have sold for millions. Disgusting that the photographer would do it, and even MORE disgusting that people BUY IT.

Jaysus!

[Anthony McCarthy]

101. All I could think was, "those poor kids".

When I saw the pictures of their wedding, all I could think was, "those poor kids". The British monarchy is the world's plushest kind of totalitarian domination as well as the basis of the putrid British class system. You get the feeling that this family should be dispossessed of its wealth and freed from that gilded cage.

As for the cesspool bottom feeder media that creates and feeds on this, we owe them no support. They work for the worlds slimiest human beings. There's a reason that Murdoch is one of them.

[seabeyond]

102. watching football game last night with hubby. today show ad. middletons topless pictures tomorrow

on the today show.

i had it. enough. fuckin enough.

hm.... today has never felt the need to advertise during a football game. tits. hey.... all you men watching football, tomorrow we will talk about middletons tits.

so pissed.

[MadrasT]

105. That would have sent me off the deep end.

And everyone in the room (assuming it were my normal crew of football-loving friends) would've been like, "What are you so pissed about? Lighten up!"

How do people not see this stuff? How is it OK?

[seabeyond]

106. ya.

it hit me so wrong. upside the head, unexpected. all the family heard me thru out the hall, as the kids settled in bed. i was so offended and pissed. just the vulgarity and acceptance of it.

people bring up harry. at a home party. where he posed. sure to cover his dick.

what?

[MadrasT]

107. I know, right, who gives a fuck about Harry?

This isn't about HARRY, who is prancing around specifically to GET ATTENTION.

[Texasgal]

109. Exactly!

Where is his penis pic?

You know there has to be one, I mean shit! the dude was nekkid partying his ass off... where are these pics?