To think this is vile

[RedRedWine1980]

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1267500/Meet-SWAGS-Service-Wives-And-Girlfriends--cheeky-n aked-calendar-raised-26-000-Help-For-Heroes.html

Money raising or not- urghh, just urrrghh.

'Wow, I thought that people were reading too much into it yesterday but I'm a bit angry that some of us are trying to link the dog picture to the SS dog incidents, which were appalling. I've seen Schindler's List and I didn't make that association. Not because I'm uneducated or naive but because it's a charity calendar being sold to raise money for the British forces and I find it very difficult to comprehend that they would set up such a picture with the intention of insinuating the rape of women by SS dogs.'

cupcakes, I don't think anyone has said that was the photographer's intention.

But, the parallel makes that picture inappropriate. It doesn't have to be intentional on the part of photographer, or the models - but alarm bells should have been going off in someone's mind when they thought it was a good idea to pose women like that. Oddly enough, faking a scene of brutality and terror is, you know, likely to make it look like brutality and terror is being portrayed.

As for 'If you don't like it, don't look' - er, yes, that works well. Because what I'm really bothered about here is my delicate eyes, not the messages that are being sent to women troops or civilians.

Fifi, it's all about choice really, isn't it? No-one is sexually objectifying YOU. There's little to nothing you can do about women who actually want to be objectified, much less mind being so.

Playing devil's advocate a bit here but women will always be seen sexually by men, whether they've got their norks out for a calendar or whether they're just walking down the street dressed normally. Men find women attractive, I think that's how the world works. So I don't think that these women are setting back the women's movement any by showing off nothing more offensive than their arses. I think that hardcore porn and how easily accessible it is has more to do with sexual obectification of women than what is essentially no more revealing than you'd see on some beaches in Europe. Or are

RedRedWine1980 Fri 23-Apr-10 09:07:32
CSD you are wasting your time- people are too keen to sit back and 'do it for their country' so to speak, the men probably make them feel 'now now little woman, dont make a fuss, smile and look like you are enjoying it'

That would only wash if the entire thing hadn't been organized by women.

It was suggested by one of the boyfriends....

Well, even so. I know what I'd say to my DH if he suggested I got my bits out for charity.

What would you say?

I'd tell him to go and boil his face.

Why? It's for charity!

More to the point, surely, they felt the need to stress in the papers that it was suggested by the boyfriend. As in:

My boyfriend gives his full permission suggested the idea.

Carmen

I did make some comments re the stats you showed.

Scurryfunge, my dear little crosspatch

I would say no because I find the idea of baring my sagging tummy, my cellulite-y thighs and bloated norks for all and sundry to see quite horrifying. But that's me. I don't know how differently I'd feel if I had the body that some of those girls have. I think the anaswer would probably still be the same. I was never one for flaunting my bod even when I was lithe and young. But it's about choice. I wouldn't choose to do it but I ain't going to berate those who do.

The point I was trying to make is this; if my DH suggested I got my kit off for charidee, I'd tell him to swivel. So would any woman who didn't want to do it. Just because it was suggested by a boyfriend doesn't mean they were unwilling or cajoled into doing it. Unless we are suggesting that they are oppressed subordinates now yawn yawn.

Aaah, so I'm the one with the sick mind for making the SS association?

No love, it's called having a social conscience, a respect for history and the people who lived through such atrocities.

I can't believe that no-one would have raised any objection before the publishing of the calendar, given the multitude of people that would have seen the picture, it's not even a very nice image without the connotations I see in it.

Show it to a group of deathcamp survivors, see if they think it's harmless.

As a stand alone image, it's grim, just because it's for "charidee", doesn't make it justifiable.

Sorry Malificence, but I just didn't "get" those connotations from that picture. Fair enough, that was the only picture that I did look at and think "yeah that's a bit off" because it portrayed two women as prisoners. That's the only reason though. The dog thing didn't rankle with me. Sorry.

Anyway, the term SWAGS pisses me off more than some Carry-On style nude pictures ever could...

Morning cupcakesandbunting, it's good that you have the choice. Some people unwittingly take part as a means of fitting in, they aquiesce for survival. To fit in with the general male point of view of what is attractive, desirable is an alternative to fighting it or leaving the situation altogether....sometimes fighting is too hard and leaving is not an option

Apart from the woman who's bf suggested the idea, how do you know that all of the other women aren't lesbians and are doing it for the girls?

And yes, as cupcakes said, it was 'suggested' that they had done the dog photo knowingly and so she was correct in her reply. Imagine if you were an RMP dog handler doing your regular walk with the alsatian of the perimeter fence (as they do), and you came across two strangers you dind't know and who had just used wire clippers to get under the fence. (Bear with me). You would keep your distance, tell them to face the face with their hands above their heads. That is exactly what would happen and that's the whole reason they use dogs as security patrol animals.
Now replace the security guard and two intruders with the calendar girls. hey presto - that's the shot. As cupcakes said, why on earth would they intentionally have set up a photo referring to the ss dog scenario?

Because, Lucie, the photographer and people who approved the photo are nazi sympathisers and the women were FORCED to do it, poor lambs.

Schnell, schnell burn your bras or something suitably angsty.

Morning cupcakes. Just wondering if you're a forces wife?

lucie, didn't see the post where someone suggested they posed the photo knowing it was recreating a scene from Auschwitz. Who said that?

I don't understand why you think the scenario you described is ok, anyway. It's not funny or fun, it's scary, surely? Dogs, security patrol, intruders with their hands in the air: that's not happy frolics, is it?

And what on earth would if have to do with it if the women were lesbians?

I'm not a foces wife, Lucie, nor do I have any particular sympathies with them. I just object to people pushing their ideals onto others.

Who is pushing their ideals on anyone? Debate is putting your view across is it not?

Has anyone changed or tempered their view as a result of this debate? (that includes lurkers!) Genuine question.

I haven't. I still say good for them and everyone's got the right to take their kit off if they wish, for whatever reason.

Anyone else willing to jump in?

I've tempered my view of forces' wives.

Because someone higher up and I can't face trawling up the page for the 100th time, "doing it for the lads". I'm just saying that you don't know that the women who were in the pics (other than kelly) have bfs/dhs or in fact dws. So the 'doing it for men' thing doesn't necessarily hold true.
LRD - how have you tempered your view of forces wives?

Nope- my view has changed as in I feel slightly more depressed how many women just accept we are sexualised objects for the gratification of men.

If you think about what a tank does, that's not particularly pleasant either LRD (in reference to your comment about Auschwitz), but lots of people said it was only the dog picture that bothers them.

Why doesn't someone (if they're that bothered) take it up with the army and see what their response is.