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.

RRW - this is relevant to me- just wondered if you could give your age/decade if not? I'm thinking the 1980 would imply you're 30?

'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.'

Well, I think you'd have to be massively naive/stupid if you imagined that posing in a nude calendar to raise money for troops wasn't somehow 'for the men', wouldn't you? I accept they might not have been doing it for their own boyfriends, but I think the implication of a nude calendar is still that men will buy it.

'LRD - how have you tempered your view of forces wives?'

To be honest, I thought you'd perhaps be more like the women I've known who're in the army.

I was genuinely surprised there weren't more forces wives being upset about the calendar. In a way, it's great that these women aren't sitting around feeling sad, but I wonder what most people's partners would feel to know they'd been out serving while their partners stripped off. It must be quite a difficult thing to accept when you're so far away and unable to come home for so long.

(that's not me being judgmental btw, that's me being surprised by what people accept)

Yes i was born in 1980

lucie, I'll be honest and say that it does bother me. But then, I have pretty strong reservations about war and glamorising war - which is one of the things that calendar does. To me it's a slightly separate issue from demeaning women, though, which is why I'd not addressed it here.

have a look at what Sir Richard Dannatt said about the calendar

Has anyone read this

That's why they did it. I know plenty of male members of the Armed Forces who would do it to if protocol allowed.

God, I wish people would read things properly !
Nobody said that the idea behind the shot / intention of it, was to recreate wartime brutality , it just saddens me that no-one thought that the image was a disturbing one when they were viewing it for publication.

The fact that many people, including cupcake, thought there was something "off" about the image, without knowing why, speaks volumes to me.

If it were black people shown naked and under guard, there would quite rightly be an uproar because of the slavery connection, this is no different.

Thanks RRW - I assumed you were older - that's not meant to be rude - just from the nature of your posts, I thought you might be a chick of the 1960s - I know that's very judgemental though so that's why I asked.

Yes we KNOW why they did it- my objection is WHAT they did and also the fact you can raise such a huge amount of money by getting your kit off for the boys to enjoy. Ive also seen many of the comments at the end of the daily mail article for instance from men 'phwoar' 'it certainly made me stand to attention' etc etc..which just shows that men think nothing more about it then having a cheap thrill.

"The girls dressed up to represent the part of the forces their partner is from, posing for the calendar, wearing nothing but a smile and a few strategically placed pieces of Army, Navy and RAF gear!"

Just like scary said - representing the regiments etc that their partners are from.

Thats the thing though- im young, im reasonably attractive and post baby had a cracking size 8 figure yet have always objected to women being seen this way. If it makes me a prude or whatever so be it, but its women all the time who are the ones constantly judged on their looks, boob size, ability to 'put out' being 'one of the lads' 'up for it' etc etc and it gets me down.

If the photos were representative of the respective partner's job, why wasn't the MP one a group of the women patrolling the perimeter? Why the prisoner angle? It simply wasn't necessary.

I imagine there are plenty of service wives unhappy about the calendar, I certainly would have been (20 years ago).

I understand your point RRW - no one is saying you're a prude. You have your own views.

Regardless though of any money being involved, when it comes down to it, women and men will always use their bodies in a sexual way because it's how we're wired and it's because of science and the ability to have we live today, that means people think very differently and our inherent natured are masked. Now I'm not suggesting we should go back to the dark ages and slavery/children down the mines etc, but I'm just saying that women and men will always use their bodies to get what they want.

a few typos in that last post!

But thats my point- why NOT argue it? Why not say hang on we want MORE for pur younger generations than to grow up thinking they need to be eye candy for men and vice versa with men? Whats wrong with standing up and saying well actually no- I am happy to be me, and if that means not dying my hair blonde covering myself in fake tan and getting my kit of to please men then so be it. Men find women attractive in clothes also- leave them something to desire and show them you are not someone who just runs with the crowd. THAT is the message I would rather my kids live by.

Mal - perhaps they thought people wouldn't realise that a group of women were the MP and that it would be more obvious if their were 'prisoners' The thing is, you can 'read' it how you want.
The whole point of art is that it means different things to different people - I for one, think that it was mary magdalene sitting next Jesus in Da Vinci's last supper painting. Others don't. Please don't think I was particularly calling the calendar 'art' .

That's the message I also want my kids to have. I certainly wouldn't be overjoyed if dd chose to become a topless model but there'd be nothing I could do about it if she did. Yes, it's terrible the way young people are influenced today.

Thats a rather apathetic attitude though. I dont personally DO apathy, if that makes me a dried up old harpie who needs to get a life so be it. Id rather be proactive in my views.

I don't think it would have raised very much money if they had been wearing their twin sets and pearls.

Exactly- because the 'men wouldnt like it'. Again it boils down to what the men like. Crass boring and old hat, its about time people were more imaginative than always catering to the lowest common denominator.

RRW - so you mean that once your child becomes an adult at 18, you'll be able to be proactive about what they choose to do with their life?

It was a one off shoot to raise lots of cash - end of.

Redred -www.pinupforheroes.co.uk/ it's been tried here]]

They raised about 20% of the more risque one.

End off- my god could people be anymore arrogant? If I want to object to something I will, dont you dare tell me 'end off'