Lucy Pinder Photo Gallery Lucy Pinder Videos Index Lucy Pinder Television Website on Facebook LucyPinderNews and LPinderOfficial twitter feeds
Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum Index Facebook button Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum
Lucy Pinder - Pictures, News, Videos - The One-Stop Shop
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister (Problems? See here)
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Twitter button Lucy Pinder Videos Index

Daily Mail Sensationalism
Go to page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum Index -> Lucy Pinder
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
animal_mofo



Joined: 26 Jul 2011
Contributions: 36

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:00 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2099508/A-Mail-investigation-reveals-terrifying-ease-children-downloading-vile-images-mobile-phones.html

I assume its this video:

Video: Lucy Pinder - Rosie Jones - Photoshoot for Nuts magazine 22-03-11 issue - part 1




Video: Lucy Pinder - Rosie Jones - Photoshoot for Nuts magazine 22-03-11 issue - part 2

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6640

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:35 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Like most Daily Mail articles it is just too stupid for words... and whoever wrote it needs to be shot (in the stomach, so they die slowly) for calling Lucy and Rosie's work "pr0n".

So sick of this stupid idea that the sight of an unclothed female body is somehow so horrific that anyone under 18 seeing it will be mentally scarred for life.

So sick of the stupidity of people who have apparently forgotten that when they were kids they used to find real pr0n in hedges and pass it round the school, and did not end up scarred for life as a result. (If they didn't scrounge pr0n out of hedges when they were kids, they are not normal.)

So sick of the stupidity of people who give their kids internet-enabled mobile phones and then moan about what they do with them as if it wasn't their own fault for giving them the phone and paying the bills.

And it's kind of interesting that so many of the comments on the Mail's own website are to say that the articles are rubbish, yet they still go on spouting the same old cack...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Pinderlust



Joined: 05 Oct 2009
Contributions: 431

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:39 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Agreed Pigeon Thumb Up!

Easily the most ridiculous thing I have seen all day. Of all the things that they could pick on that are easily available to "corrupt youth", they pick on an innocuous thing like that!! The Daily Mail makes me sick; time for it to go the way of the "News of the World" as quickly as poss Hehe

It's the same ridiculously puritan attitude to the beauty of the female body that is on youtube and suchlike! All kinds of horrible violence, gore, bad language and/or depravity is on offer amongst the video clips if you know what to look for but they musn't allow a naked breast because that would be the end of the world Roll Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
RockyMoney



Joined: 06 Jan 2010
Contributions: 2276
Location: Winchester

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:17 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


I was just about to point out the same thing Hehe Thumb Up!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ccunlif1



Joined: 10 May 2010
Contributions: 96

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:37 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Idiots mate, Daily Mail well done again, this bloke needs to have a day off Grandad

P.S. let's hope he doesnt look to hard online there's alot stronger Stuff out there!!! Censored
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marty



Joined: 17 Nov 2011
Contributions: 562

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:41 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Oh my god, have they got nothing better to report on?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sexybeast



Joined: 16 Jan 2010
Contributions: 755

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Mar 12, 2012 10:22 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


You mean shot in the gut P..like the westerns Hehe ..but really i did get scarred for life before i was 18 Spinning Eyes ..of course that could be because i stopped growing mentally at the age of 13 Hehe Hehe ...though on a serious note..i live in the land of KAMASUTRA..but still talking or thinking about sex in this day and age here is taboo..and yet our population explosion is not only killing this country but suffocating the entire world....so my point is..the world is filled with idiots..if you are really fortunate its only going to be every second person u meet..God or nature or whatever one believes in made us like this..so as long as i'm not the cause of a fellow human being's misery..i should be able to live my life the way i see fit and if people don't get it..who cares Big Laugh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Poggy



Joined: 12 Feb 2009
Contributions: 579

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Tue Mar 13, 2012 8:18 am    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Robster wrote:
The Daily Mail makes me sick; time for it to go the way of the "News of the World" as quickly as poss Hehe



What you mean get relauched a few weeks later under another name Screwy


In a way I can see what they have done here. They picked on one if not two models most people would know. I think they do have a little bit of a point. But they've gone about it in all the wrong way. It is actually a disclaimer issue they should be talking about. I mean most films have rating. Many adult theme things have a warning and age rating. But I've never seen one on such a Nuts video for example or is that just me not looking?

End of the day though. Noting is going to stop a kid watching this if they really want to see it. As what is a warning or disclaimer going to do to actually stop someone. They are just designed to cover the makers back from anything legal.

They should have grown up with a older brother. I think I knew just about everything about sex before I was 10 and seen some of it too Teacher ROFL
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snowflake



Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Contributions: 663
Location: France

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:46 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Propaganda and incitement in blind puritanism against incitement for bad erotic though!
It's obvious this is not journalism, but issued from a subjective feeling about glamour industry. (and why not a deep repulsed feeling of jealousy or other complexe Hehe !)
Plus, the autor of this worthless bulls**t seems to play deliberately with the difference between "pornography" and "erotism". Whoever can write anything and try to corrupt the spirit of people more than they think glamour reading can do!! Thumb Down

Pornography is all about showing sexual relations.
Erostism is all about sensations wich can excit our sexual senses.
Pornography without erostism is how you call in English & American language: "hard" pr0n.
Pornography with erotism is what is called "soft" pr0n.
I think it's a deliberate case of vocabulary game for making this text be read (shame!!) Thumb Down ...

Voluntary or involuntary sexy attitude like Nuts pics or art pics of LP are in a standard of erotism wich doesn't represent a big case of danger for children... But the case of lesbian attitude like in these vids could disturb some young guys & girls... So even if he can be right about the danger, I think his words are a bit too much agressive and specially sent to LP & RJ! Thumb Down Like if he accuses her to do this job and not the global media coverage system...

It's normal, kids are curious and attracted for a sexual education at acertain age, and want to see this style of video. But it's right that some not very well "balanced" children could be more easily disturbed. I think the fault doesn't come from media but parents!

Pigeon wrote:
So sick of the stupidity of people who give their kids internet-enabled mobile phones and then moan about what they do with them as if it wasn't their own fault for giving them the phone and paying the bills.

Thumb Up!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mr angry



Joined: 16 Aug 2009
Contributions: 22
Location: Cheshire UK

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Sat Mar 31, 2012 4:54 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


The Daily Mail is so barking mad that it is sometimes unintentionally funny. It exists to make Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells angry, with its rota of things to be purple faced with apopleptic ,impotent, fury about.

The EU, tax, Trade Unions, immigrants, single parents etc etc. On a quiet day they pick on Lucy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6640

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:45 am    Subject: A rather different kind of article from the Guardian Reply with quote


...and by way of contrast we have this from the Grauniad:

Article: The woman who edited Nuts magazine (Terri White) wrote:


As the sound of jazz filled the air in the office that night I diligently got on with the task at hand. It was slow. It was laborious. It was tedious. It was decapitating topless women. I was associate editor on the best-selling men's weekly magazine Nuts and tomorrow was the launch of Assess My Breasts – an online brand extension inviting women to upload pictures of themselves (or rather, their breasts) to be rated out of 10. But first, before we went live, I had to populate it; ensuring it launched with a 100-boob bang rather than a no-boob whimper. Faces were a no-no – part of the "appeal" was anonymity so the girls would feel comfortable with being publicly graded. And so, there I was at 9pm, attempting a mass head-chopping on pictures we kept on file and had sought permission to upload.

Decapitationgate was the peak of the "real girl" phenomenon in men's magazines – ordinary girls, in ordinary situations, pictured in their underwear. A phenomenon we at Nuts had happened upon several months before and one that had made the magazine a huge success. And along with it, a success of the people who worked on it.

I left lads' mags four-and-a-half years ago and, in that time, sales of these magazines (in line with the rest of the industry) have declined significantly, while I've reaped the rewards for being part of their rise. I'm aware that evenings like my one as a trainee serial killer greatly helped my career, and that my nice life has been effectively built on other women's boobs. At the time I fiercely defended the magazine, insisting we didn't exploit women. This conviction has wobbled over the years. Being from a working-class background, I was painfully aware that many, if not most, of these women were from a similar place. Now, with the passage of time, do these women feel that we exploited them? Do they regret their naked five minutes? Had I betrayed the sisterhood for my own gain?

I grew up poor – really poor – and was desperate to change this. University seemed the only way and a month after my final exam (English literature, with a dissertation on black feminist theory) I was in London, working as editorial assistant and PA on a mature men's title, Later. I'd been obsessed with magazines since I picked up my first copy of Just Seventeen. My ambition: learn as much as I could, as quickly as I could, and become an editor by 30.

When I was offered a job on a new magazine launch in 2003, I didn't hesitate. I didn't even care what it was. I'd heard rumours that the company was pumping millions of pounds into it, that the names attached to the launch were some of the biggest in the industry and figured that if it was a success it would be my big break. That magazine was Nuts, and it worked like a dream: I was promoted several times until I was its number three.

Our launch cover star was Nell McAndrew, perkily sporting a vest. Wholesome Beyoncé in a ra-ra skirt soon followed. I loved working for a men's magazine and spouted the magazine's no-nipple policy while getting a kick out of the features we ran on the French SAS and the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

The "real girl" phenomenon, when it happened, surprised us all. Research showed that the young men of Britain didn't want glossy, unattainable, shiny-haired women from LA. They wanted Tracey from the neighbouring village. Moreover, they wanted to see breasts. And more specifically, nipples. The surprise, in retrospect, was that this was ever a surprise.

The concept of "normal" women trying glamour modelling wasn't in itself revolutionary – the now defunct car magazine Max Power and men's monthly FHM had both run model competitions. The difference? We weren't trying to discover a hidden gem who would transform swan-like into a professional. We made a virtue of the fact that they were everyday women. We rejected "professional" shots and encouraged them to submit pictures in day-to-day situations – their bedroom, garden, taking a shower, straddling the kitchen table, crawling on the bonnet of their boyfriend's car. One imaginative girl took a picture of herself in a bush. We gently suggested that they might want to look a bit more "natural" and go easy on the hair extensions, razor-sharp talons and thick fake tan.

Nuts was in the right place at the right time. It burst on to the scene at a particularly unique time in British culture – when reality TV had just exploded and the promise of overnight fame was screamed from the front pages of every tabloid newspaper. "It was a bit of a perfect storm really," says ex-deputy editor of Nuts Hans Seeberg. "At the time we just took a bit of a flyer. The editor said: "Let's try real girls" and the issue did really well." Before long the postbags were bulging. "Girls had seen the likes of Katie Price and Lucy Pinder – who they imagined earned a good living – standing in front of a camera in their bra and pants with their hair and make-up done," says Seeberg, pondering the appeal. "They probably thought, 'That's quite an easy life and I bet I'd make more money than I do working at Boots.'"

The "perfect storm" was more than just a mix of B*g Br*ther and instant celebrity. As feminist Natasha Walter notes in her book Living Dolls, the third element was the resurgence of glamour modelling – previously seen as an 80s, perm-based phenomenon. "We've always had Page 3 in the newspapers, but I think the fact that you could model for a magazine made it upmarket," says Walter. "That made it attractive to young women – that it was mainstream and a little bit glossier than Page 3."

Walter's theory is borne out by statistics – a 2005 poll revealed that 63% of young women would rather be glamour models than nurses, doctors or teachers. And a survey carried out the following year showed that a third of teenage girls saw Jordan as a role model.

But this new model of "success" for young women came under fire for being reductive and dangerous. "Who are the women who appear to do well and be successful within this culture?" asks Anna van Heeswijk from Object – the organisation that campaigns against the objectification of women. "For the most part it's often women who are completely sexualised in this way. That certainly does have an impact on self-esteem and the aspirations of young women and girls."

Initially I wasn't overly concerned about this shift in the magazine's editorial focus. The champagne corks popped as we posted each circulation rise. To me, it seemed harmless – the copy was cut through with cheeky seaside humour, making it feel like "good clean fun", and there were editorial rules laid down so we didn't disrespect the women we featured. We must never use the word "tits". Swearing was banned. We must never make jokes at their expense. We should write about them with charm and wit. These women were to be put on a pedestal – the suggestion was that if the readers were lucky and not completely hapless, they might one day get to be with a woman like that. Might.

But as the fight for sales became fiercer, we needed to be bigger and bolder. The pictures became more outrageous ("First time topless!"), the volume higher ("100 Real Girls' Breasts!"), the spin more novel ("Real girls in the bath!"). I once ran a brainstorm simply titled "New ways to do breasts". A meeting in which I, and several educated, brilliant men, sat around, scratching our heads trying to "spin" boobs. I walked out of the room with "BUMS??" written in my notebook, believing we'd had an anatomy epiphany, only to be told that bums didn't sell.

I was becoming increasingly uncomfortable. We went right into the young man's stomping ground – bars and nightclubs – to take pictures of girls flashing. One windy Monday night in Kingston, I approached a girl to ask if she'd like to be photographed for Nuts. She nodded, put her hands up her skirt and started to pull down her knickers. I stopped her, horrified, and tried to tactfully explain that she didn't need to bare her vagina to get into the magazine.

By the time Assess My Breasts was born, two years into my time at Nuts, I had serious concerns. "In hindsight, that could have perhaps been done a little better," concedes Hans Seeberg. "But it was not the sort of thing that gave me sleepless nights. Knowing the people who worked on Nuts, it wasn't done with any cynicism."

What it did abandon was the idea that the girls' personality was essential. That the readers weren't just interested in her cup size – they wanted to know who she was, where she lived, what her hobbies were, how she took her tea. It's fair to say that a pair of disembodied mammary glands is about as far away from this philosophy as you can get. I knew we were crossing a line, that perhaps we had done so long before, but I buried it and continued to be a happy, hard-working member of the Nuts team. My armour wasn't even punctured when a fellow female journalist approached me in the pub to ask me how I slept at night: I was outraged that she'd asked me such a question.

My personal ambitions were being fulfilled and I felt lucky to have a journalism career, when life could have been so different. And in truth, going in to work was a joy. Contrary to what people might think, Nuts was mainly staffed by left-leaning middle-class family men (and women) who were smart, funny and talented. The office would usually be found picking apart last night's Newsnight, rowing about politics or discussing house prices. The one time we did have topless women in the office – they trooped in with a PR to plug some random product – the editor was horrified and the staff awkward and red-faced with embarrassment, looking intently at their screens. They were the funniest, brightest group of people I'd ever had the pleasure of working with.

Hans Seeberg became a father soon after leaving Nuts and I ask him whether this, coupled with a bit of distance, has resulted in a change of heart or any sleepless nights since. "I don't feel guilty," he says. "I look back on working there with fondness. Lots of people who worked on Nuts at the time had families and no one seemed to have a problem. Plus, there were girls like you working there, which probably made us feel a bit better, too." He does tell me, though, that he may feel differently had he had a daughter and not a son. I think back to my reaction when my younger sister, Roxanne, wanted to be in Nuts. My immediate response was a high-pitched yell of "Over my dead body!"

The first person to trouble my conscience was Natasha Walter. She interviewed me for Living Dolls when I was deputy editor of Maxim magazine a couple of years later. In her book, Walter recounts the conversation: "When I asked White whether she thought the women who strip for these magazines are being exploited, she bridled. She insisted that the glamour-modelling world respects and celebrates women, and again returned to the theme of free choice. 'We are never misogynistic about the women who model for us. They sell the magazine for us.' And she added: 'I find it really offensive when people say that. It's their choice. A lot of them have huge ambitions, or just want to be in a magazine. Who are we to judge them?'"

My skin shrinks a little tighter against my bones as I re-read it. I remember feeling very defensive when being interviewed by Natasha and not entirely believing each word that shot out of my mouth. I speak to Natasha again now and ask her what she thought of my argument. "At the time I thought you were wrong and I still think that women who say that are wrong," she says. "Because when we participate in this type of exploitative media, we're not just reflecting it, we're also reinforcing, and helping it to grow. So if we don't like that kind of media why are we participating in it and encouraging it?"

Twenty-eight-year-old Lucy Marles was in Nuts when she was in her early 20s and waitressing in Pizza Hut. I travel to Torquay, keen to discover if she now looks back on her semi-naked magazine appearance with fondness, or with deep regret. A bright and articulate woman, she has three AS levels and a secretarial diploma, and now works in an auction house. When I ask her what motivated her to pose, she breaks into an easy grin. "I was just focused on having a good time," she says. "I thought it would be nice if it led somewhere, but if it didn't I wouldn't be heartbroken."

Lucy says several times that she was just "having fun", then mentions a relationship that broke down at the same time. I ask if it was a factor. "I maybe did it because of that," she says. "Deep down perhaps I was thinking, 'This has happened, I'm gutted, look at what you've messed up.'" But she says she enjoyed the attention and insists she has no regrets. "It involved being in front of a camera and showing off my youth. That was it, really."

Vikki Hansekowitsch, from Harrogate, sent pictures of herself to FHM and Zoo. It was her then boyfriend's idea. "Just a laugh,," she says. She refutes any suggestion of exploitation. "It's a positive thing – it boosts a girl's confidence. It's up to you what you do with your body, and if you're having fun, just do it."

The next natural step in men's media was online and mobile, both of which became more important as print sales declined. Unlike the print features (which are mainly unpaid), women on the mobile sites get a cut of the profits when their picture is downloaded. And so I head for Caffè Nero in Hull to meet Shaz. Shaz gets 5p in every pound, but doesn't think this is a fair amount. "It's our bodies that we're showing," she says. Currently unemployed, Shaz makes around £10 per month, which doesn't even cover the cost of her pay-as-you-go dongle.

She submitted her first picture to a mobile site at the age of 36 at a friend's encouragement, after her ex-husband had left her for a younger woman, leaving her depressed. Initially, Shaz didn't show her face – "I was worried my family would think I was slapper," she says. "But it's my life and I'm doing it for myself." Shaz received around 200 positive comments from men on the site, and is now on several "real girl" sites. "When I was younger, I was obese – 13st by the age of 12. I lost all that weight, but it always stuck in my head that I was fat and ugly. Doing this has boosted my confidence." She tells me she'd still love to be in one of the magazines. Just once. All three women angrily react to my suggestion that many women don't agree with what they did. "Who am I to say it's wrong? Who's anyone to say it's wrong? It's our choice at the end of the day," states Lucy firmly.

I put this "personal choice" argument to Anna van Heeswijk. "The issue of choice is complex and doesn't exist in a vacuum," she says. "And the issues we're discussing are far broader than those of individual choice. Because when women are persistently objectified and sexualised, and pornographic images become more mainstream and more normalised, that has an effect on how women and girls feel about themselves and on our choices."

While lads' mags alone didn't create this sexualised culture, they responded to it and reinforced it, helping it grow into a mass-market monster wearing a glossy mask of normality. We told a generation of young men that a woman's value lay in the pertness of her breasts and willingness to flash in a public place before going home to have sex. The dirty kind. We told a generation of young women that it wasn't necessary to get an education or build a career to improve your life. Just be willing to bare your breasts and look what you could win! A pot of gold! And a footballer! And I was a part of that for entirely selfish reasons. I tossed any concerns out of the window in favour of the feel of the monthly payslip and the warm glow of success.

But I still feel awkward at the thought of telling women that they should not and could not participate in this culture. The dominant voices in this debate are still those from the middle class, who can only imagine what it's like to walk in these women's 5in heels. I remember what it's like to feel that opportunities just don't exist for your kind and that when they come along you need to cling on for dear life. And maybe, just maybe, some of the women who claim to do it and enjoy it really do mean it.

Would I do it all again knowing what I know now? No. We did too much damage. While the magazines themselves may be in decline, the culture they helped to create can still be seen in towns and cities all around the UK – from the Saturday-night porny perspex heels to the casual DIY sex tapes and still-held hopes for fast fame. And, in retrospect, I could have built a career and achieved the financial security I hankered for without my Nuts years and without using other women's breasts as my stepping stone to get there.




Being as I didn't go to bed last night my brain is currently much too fried to make much by way of serious comment on it, but...

As with the Mail article, it is entirely the sort of thing one would expect from the newspaper that published it, so one has to wonder to what extent it genuinely reflects Terri White's views and how much of it is the editor...

I'm dead sure I'm not alone in hating those decapitated boob pics Smile Editorial policy is not always in tune with the readership... as many comments on here attest Smile

"What it (the decapitated boob pics) did abandon was the idea that the girls' personality was essential. That the readers weren't just interested in her cup size – they wanted to know who she was, where she lived, what her hobbies were, how she took her tea. It's fair to say that a pair of disembodied mammary glands is about as far away from this philosophy as you can get." - Which is something I massively object to. A picture of "a pair of disembodied mammary glands" is, frankly, dull and uninteresting. The girls' personality is essential. A picture without the face is a waste of ink - might as well just draw a couple of U shapes with dots in on a piece of A4 with a biro and look at that.

"We should write about them with charm and wit. These women (the models) were to be put on a pedestal..." - Yer wot? Granted Nuts isn't as bad as, for example, Max Power, but there still isn't the slightest trace of anything resembling "charm" or "wit" in what is written in Nuts. Far from "putting them on a pedestal", the textual content is demeaning, trivial, and goes out of its way to deny the models' intelligence and instead portrays them as airheaded bimbos who think about nothing but sex and partying. (Which indeed is one of the reasons I take care to remove all trace of textual content from the scans I post.)

It's a bit confusing in places... the "Lucy" it quotes here and there is not our gorgeous princess, but someone else entirely; where it says "the print features (which are mainly unpaid)", it's referring to the self-submitted pics, rather than the cover features; indeed most of the article is about the self-submitted stuff rather than the professional stuff, and it could really do with making that considerably clearer.

"the culture they (lads' mags) helped to create can still be seen in towns and cities all around the UK – from the Saturday-night porny perspex heels to the casual DIY sex tapes and still-held hopes for fast fame." - Showing yourself off and wanting instant fame are as old as humanity, and "DIY sex tapes" exist because of the technology to make them becoming so cheap and accessible. Don't blame the lads' mags for the results of human nature and technological advance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Pigeon
Site Admin


Joined: 13 Jan 2009
Contributions: 6640

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 12:28 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Hehe Seems I was right about there being dodgy stuff in that article selected by the editor...

article wrote:
Walter's theory is borne out by statistics – a 2005 poll revealed that 63% of young women would rather be glamour models than nurses, doctors or teachers.


The reality of this poll was...

- It wasn't a proper statistical survey, it was a publicity exercise.

- The study didn’t ask girls whether they "wanted to be glamour models". It asked 1,000 girls aged 15-19 whether they’d rather be like "Abi Titmuss, Germaine Greer or Anita Roddick", and 63% picked Titmuss.

- It quite possibly never even happened at all, they just made it up.

http://sarahditum.com/2012/04/23/feminisms-zombie-stats-63-of-young-women-would-rather-be-glamour-models/
http://www.drpetra.co.uk/blog/glamorous-careers-for-girls/
http://twitter.com/DrPetra/status/194017569756291075
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Lucy Pinder
Poggy



Joined: 12 Feb 2009
Contributions: 579

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:52 am    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Pigeon wrote:


- The study didn’t ask girls whether they "wanted to be glamour models". It asked 1,000 girls aged 15-19 whether they’d rather be like "Abi Titmuss, Germaine Greer or Anita Roddick", and 63% picked Titmuss.



Titmuss was a nurse. She had to be better at doing that than anything else she's done Hehe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
snowflake



Joined: 14 Aug 2010
Contributions: 663
Location: France

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:59 am    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


Pigeon wrote:
Hehe Seems I was right about there being dodgy stuff in that article selected by the editor...
article wrote:
Walter's theory is borne out by statistics – a 2005 poll revealed that 63% of young women would rather be glamour models than nurses, doctors or teachers.

The reality of this poll was...
- It wasn't a proper statistical survey, it was a publicity exercise.
- The study didn’t ask girls whether they "wanted to be glamour models". It asked 1,000 girls aged 15-19 whether they’d rather be like "Abi Titmuss, Germaine Greer or Anita Roddick", and 63% picked Titmuss.
- It quite possibly never even happened at all, they just made it up.

This article is very interessant and precious for me. Thanks P.! Thumb Up! I coud write many pages of comments but i will begin slowly by comment the poll and the light you did on.

It's not important if the poll respected the rules of a standard survey or not. Anyway the figures can take the sense of what we want to interprate in them. That i find important is that i noticed that the worth of human paramater at this precise moment of life (15-19) is evaded by everybody. If i give a worth at this parameter, well, it makes me think that this poll doesn't have a great sense. To make short, it's like it was asked to future women what kind of woman do they want to look like in a moment or the question is only in becoming women. At this age the processus of individualization and feminisation is an enormous and delicate crossroad to cross and not every one is armed the same way. But mainly, this evolution drives them to express feminine worths by concrete ideas like obvious feminine beauty, money security, easy job, fame, sex-appeal, etc, (incluing of course all there is in staring careers of showbuisness) rather than to express something about career when the choice is given, over all when these careers are not very appealing in a sexualisation sense. So, a poll for saying a truth in summary. Shrug
Every interpretations i can read make me feel they are made of an imbroglio of both. Women, don't take it wrongly Big Smile . This elements have to be taken in symbolic way, i'm not saying that they caracterize the women behaviour and that they are all as this inside Wink .

The figures of the poll don't chock me cos i find it normal, here, society doesn't influe on what they become but just give the specific elements of the time culture for expressing what their inside side evolution makes them feel. Where it becomes more serious, it's when these girls use the means of the society for selling her body. For exemple, the deep motivations of Lucy Pinder (wich she certainly doesn't know really herself) for selling her body don't appear in the pictures. Only is transmitted a way of expression and feminine symbols, but not the motivations (even if some of us can feel a little something about it after so many years:) ). But this is said, you know Pigeon that Lucy feels she can serve of model for young women, and so feel responsable of the image she transmits to her... I'm curious to see later if this work and grow up in her head for having an influence on her career evolution. Scratch Chin

Feminists want to battle against a way of expression for the name of the morality behind wich it's so easy and comfortable to hide itself. They are wrong about their target. Lads'mags are spacegoats cos they are unpowerful in front of the real ennemy who certainly sleep in their own home.

Terri White doesn't have to feel guilty. The way of expression that she permited to exist could have offered for women the means for making an experience as she made her own experience by working for Nuts, and made some liberating conclusions for going forward in life better. Roll Eyes Feminists should thank her for this. Hehe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
qwertiebertie



Joined: 18 May 2009
Contributions: 239

Daily Mail SensationalismPosted: Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:38 pm    Subject: Daily Mail Sensationalism Reply with quote


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2134702/Glamour-model-Lucy-Pinder-covers-drab-outfit-attends-premiere-debut-movie-Strippers-vs-Werewolves.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Lucy Pinder Television Website Forum Index -> Lucy Pinder All times are GMT
Go to page 1, 2  Next
Go to page 1, 2  Next

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Lucy Pinder News on Twitter Lucy Pinder TV on Facebook Lucy Pinder herself on Twitter


Powered by phpBB 2.0.23+repack-4 (Debian) © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
phpBB SEO