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.

Hmm. So trying to support the Afghan population in overthrowing the Taliban is wrong, somehow. And female nudity is 'gross and vile'.

Is there a link here somewhere? Would you be happier, Nubian, if we created in the UK a "secure environments where the chasteness and dignity of women may once again be sacrosanct"?

Nubian - you are obviously very anti-war.

Now I'm getting annoyed- how can you (unless you have a connection to the forces in a detailed way or unless you're a civil servant in the defence dept etc,etc) possibly know more than a british army officer who has served there twice in the past 2 years and has the highest level vetting for work carried out in the head quarters? Sorry if that sounds arsey - it was supposed to.

Anyway - back to the calendar - I have recieved a full and honest reply from the photgrapher's team with regards to the Alsatian photo. I may give the details if they let me know that they're happy for me to say (and yes, they've read the whole thread) and I may not (if they don't want me to). Suffice to say though - you were all wrong about any connection to ss dogs (knowingly or unknowingly). I' mglad that I actually bothered myself to find out otherwise I wouldn't have felt so good at being right!.

Message deleted

Message deleted

I actually don't think that it was Al Queda that crashed on 9/11 - I think that was a ploy by the US to get into Afghanistan. A bit like the nuclea weapons thing for getting into Iraq. However, that said, I still do believe they are now there for the reasons stated by Hf.

Aah..the old 'but they were perfectly happy with only being educated until they were 8 and being whipped in the street if they went out without male supervision and say what you like about being physically violated for wearing nail polish and not allowed to work - you don't get Afghan women degrading themselves posing in the altogether' argument.

Gosh, you are right, we should have waited for them to write us a nice letter requesting support.

Tanga - indeed. The Taliban were fired by a misplaced messianic zeal inculcated in them by half-baked, obscurantist clerics.

Not a religious zeal based on the true principals of Islam.

Er...why don't you start a thread on the Afghan War rather than hijacking a reasonable discussion about the calendar?

The calendar is raising money for Help for Heroes - so I think discussion on Afghan/Iraq is relevant.

I have to say I don't like the way this thread is going. I am intrinsically "anti-war" but I am married to someone in the Forces. I think this is the wrong place to air your "well, I didn't ask them to go to war, therefore they get no sympathy from me" feelings. They are at war because our government, elected by the British people, sent them to war. They are in the forces and don't have the luxury of choosing whether or not they believe in the politics that sent them there. Regardless of whether the war is right or wrong they should be properly equipped and looked after.

If you want to debate the rights and wrongs of war, take it up with the politicians. NOT the forces wives who are dealing with the fallout.

Absolutely....the fors and against is not relevant here......the original debate was about the calendar and sexist issues....justification or not for any war belongs on a separate thread (which I'm quite happy to contribute there too)

Actually, an artist statement is not a definitive description of a work.

I don't really care what the photographer says. Fairly obviously, he or she is going to say, "Ooh, it's a lovely patriotic picture that has a lovely doggy in it. What jolly fun"

Perhaps that was the intention. But it failed in the execution as many of us find the picture disconcerting if not outright offensive in terms of imagery.

Lucie - I still feel that I was right about them not thinking at all - in effect, they have admitted that they didn't think of the connotations that could be construed from that image - yes?

It doesn't make me wrong for thinking about the possible correlation, other people were disturbed by the image too, they aren't wrong either.
Just because the photographer doesn't think of the image in that way, that doesn't mean that other people can't perceive the image differently and find it highly unpleasant.
They can argue infinitum that the photo was not meant to be taken that way, but I still made that mental connection . I found it neither saucy or cheeky - just simply nauseating.

Just what did they think the point of that image was meant to be?

Agree CSD...like any photographer team for a tacky calendar is going to admit to trying to represent anything other than a commercial interest...please

I take on board that people made that connection to the photo of the girs with the dog (I still haven't actually seen it) but I really doubt they thought that deeply about it. Once someone points it out, perhaps it is an obvious connection, but I really doubt the photographers were thinking about it in that depth- seems to me that they were trying to get all aspects of the forces into the calendar, and thought they would get the dog handler aspect in, rather than make an oblique reference to nazism. I'm sure they will be shocked that people made that connection (I've watched Schindler's List and read books about the concentration camps and it never occurred to me, tbh)

I think I shall plant some flowers in my front garden in the shape of a swastika. But don't worry, it's ok because my intention is to recreate the lovely Hindu luck symbol. Nobody can complain, right?

I know that's a horribly simplistic comparison, but I'm thoroughly depressed at reading 13 pages of women defending something that normalises the idea of other women as things to be looked at rather than people to be listened to.

Also wanted to point out the irony of RRW being told earlier in the thread that she can't speak for all women, but it's ok for people involved with the forces to speak for all of them. I wouldn't claim to speak for all women, but I also wouldn't claim to judge all forces personnel on my ex BIL and his friends or I would assume they were all violent, misogynistic, borderline illiterate morons. Which clearly, they are not.

That IS a horribly simplistic comparison, bestlaidplans.

I don't see this calendar as something that "normalises the idea of other women as things to be looked at rather than listened to". These women chose to do this, and men (and women) can choose whether or not they look at it. They don't speak for all women, and I don't claim to speak for all forces' wives- hell, I don't actually know any other forces wives!

But interesting that you judge these women on the basis of a few photographs, without knowing anything else about thm. Does that say more about them or about those that judge?

JJJ, I was referring to particular posts where those points were made, I don't think you made them. I'm sorry if you thought I was generalising to everyone on the thread.

I also said nothing about the women in the calendar. I do think the calendar was a bad idea for the reasons I, and many others, have made, but I understand why they wanted to do it. Yes it's completely their choice to make. It's people's choice which political party they vote for, that doesn't mean I can't disagree with them without knowing anything about else them.

I had just written a huge amount about the reply from the spokesperson for the calendar and then my stupid laptop lost it!
So in brief:

• She was horrified at some of the negative comments on this thread when what they have is purely something fun and a way of raising loads of cash.
• She didn't know anything about the awful SS dog thing but was shocked that people could think they would have been so carefree had they have known.
• The alsatian dog isn't an MP dog but the pet dog of the make up artist for the shoot who asked if she and her dog could take part as she thought it looked like lots of fun.
• The reason the women are facing the fence is purely because they were orignially going to be walking towards the camera with the handler and dog but one of the girls couldn't make the final shoot day. This meant that ther ewas only kelly availble to replace her and as she's already been in 3 pics, they couldn't show her face. therfore , they placed them in front of the fence and only one girl looked towards the handler.

I hope this goes some way to proving how innocent the whole shoot was and everything was done in a very harmless way to provide a fun calendar to raise cash for Help For heroes.

The reason the dog looks like an MP dog in the pic is because it was the only way they could use him in a military way within the calendar.

BLP- don't worry, think I am still a bit upset about the anti-forces posts! Yes, I agree with your right to disagree (after all that is what debate is all about) but I think these women have, in a way, made people sit up and listen to them, rather than just ogling them, IYSWIM (whether that was their intention or not!)

I don't know whether the women who did this are the kind of people I personally would have as friends, but then, they might be. I know nothing about them other than the fact that they wanted to raise money for a cause that was important to them. I would tend to reserve judgement on them unless I knew them. Would be interesting if, following luciemules e-mails, they came on and gave us background.

Yes, fine Lucie ....it has already been expressed though.....the emphasis is not on the intention but on the perception

x-posts luciemule! Would be interesting if some of the women involved could come on here and give their view!

Scurry - loads of people have said or done things completely with the best of intentions and then it's been read completely the wrong way. However, sometimes people dig too deeply and for the wrong reasons. I feel absolutely no guilt for saying I don't find it offensive because I 100% know that the intentions were honest. To keep harping on about the perception is unnecessary now that you their intentions were only harmless.

It doesn't wash sorry....you cannot excuse whatever is said or done just because of the intention......it is the perception that matters. I think we shall have to agree to differ for tonight....I'm off to bed....have enjoyed the discussion to date....goodnight