Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is vile

706 replies

RedRedWine1980 · 21/04/2010 22:45

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.

OP posts:
SolidGoldBrass · 25/04/2010 02:07

Scurry: But self-important whiners can overhear things that get their haemorrhoids hurting anywhere, any time. So it's more important to defend the right to offend than the right of inadequates, fuckups and control freaks to not be offended.

SolidGoldBrass · 25/04/2010 02:17

For instance:
It would be unreasonable of me to stand on your doorstep and sing hurtful songs about your bottom.
It would not be unreasonable for me to sit in my own room and sing hurtful songs about your bottom that no one else could hear.
It would be unreasonable of you to be offended if I sang hurtful songs about unspecified people's bottoms in a public place.

Original poster
RedRedWine1980 · 25/04/2010 10:44

The worst kind of insults are veiled 'oh I didnt mean anyone on here..' type insults

OP posts:
CarmenSanDiego · 25/04/2010 10:55

I hate the term, but I believe that would be passive aggression if you sang a hurtful song about bottoms when you knew someone present was concerned about their bottom.

It's a bit pathetic.

People are arguing over the meaning of a picture on this thread. So your 'twats having a tantrum about a picture' just randomly ended up on this thread did it?

Really. Have the courage of your convictions and just call people twats to their face. Or are you somehow better on your weird morality scale for just making veiled comments?

SolidGoldBrass · 25/04/2010 11:30

Ok. If YOU think your interpretation of a picture is the 'correct' one even when it differs from the interpretation placed on the picture by the person who created it, then yes, you are a twat.

Original poster
RedRedWine1980 · 25/04/2010 11:34

Yes but we could say to believe it is all just innocent and jolly good fun and not harming anyone at all makes you a twat...but nobody else has gotten that offensive have they?

OP posts:
CarmenSanDiego · 25/04/2010 11:37

Eh? That doesn't even make any sense. Fairly obviously an interpretation is by nature going to be subjective.

So you're now creating some weird imaginary viewpoint no-one here actually has so you can call me a twat, without /quite/ calling me a twat.

Oh dear.

luciemule · 25/04/2010 16:44

Gosh - went away to York for the weekend and just read the posts since yesterday morning.

Can't remember who said it but I agree with the point about the offended people taking priority than the non-offended ones.

Secondly, I've asked 16 people independently since yesterday, whether they knew about the ss dog thing. None of them had - and that included my DH who has studied numerous wars in detail throughout his army career.

Lastly, it makes me sad that the very title of the post will be telling the 50 or so women who posed that they are vile and that's not kind. How upset do you think you would feel if, when showing someone your holiday snaps of you in a bikini, they said they thought you were vile.

JaneS · 25/04/2010 17:19

lucie, I think you're saying a lot of sensible things, so don't think I'm jumping on your post, I was going to post this anyway.

Just spoke to my friend who is in the army and she is pretty upset about the calendar. So, you see, not everyone in the troops thinks it's lovely and supportive.

Original poster
RedRedWine1980 · 25/04/2010 17:19

The difference is Lucie im not going to put my bikini shots out in the public eye to generate discussion.... you do something like this you surely know some people will approve and some wont and as a free country (which gives you the right to lose your clothes for a calendar) people have the right to voice those views.

OP posts:
JaneS · 25/04/2010 17:24

(Btw, obviously I asked her if she'd seen it, she doesn't randomly tell us she's annoyed with her colleagues wives!)

luciemule · 25/04/2010 19:06

LRD - I don't think for a minute that everyone thinks it's okay - perhaps I'm just very broad minded and believe in thinking the best of people - especially if they're trying to raise money (legally).

scurryfunge · 25/04/2010 19:26

Just re-joined and see that Nubian1's posts have been deleted....was Nubian1 a troll?

scottishmummy · 25/04/2010 19:29

ok sentiment eg raise cash but calendar is cheesy and bitty lookey at dem burds phwoar look at her tridents

JaneS · 25/04/2010 19:33

lucie, we can agree to differ on who/what counts as 'broad minded' here. I am sure these people just intended to raise money legally; I certainly wouldn't call them 'vile' or anything like it. But that doesn't mean what they did wasn't remarkably ill-judged.

JaneS · 25/04/2010 19:33

scurry - Nubian has been on a few threads recently. He or she clearly has some big issues with the war, let's say.

Original poster
RedRedWine1980 · 25/04/2010 19:38

Thinking the calender is vile doesnt mean you think the people in it are- there is a huge difference.

OP posts:
scurryfunge · 25/04/2010 19:38

Lucie, broadmindedness shouldn't equal a disregard for legitimate feelings....if the pictures offend or have potential to offend,then that surely can't be right. We cannot excuse sexist behaviour just because they "didn't mean it". that could be an excuse for anything

scurryfunge · 25/04/2010 19:39

Ah...ok LRD...best left alone

luciemule · 25/04/2010 20:28

I think my real issue is the fact that nobody (as far as i can see) has acknowledged any factual points about the calendar/army wives made by people on here. Their comments (and I don't mean just my comments) seem to have been brushed over.
I have actually admitted that I don't generally like nudey calendars and that I do actually think the calendar looks tacky in a carry On kind of way and that I wouldn't have one on my wall. I have also said that RRW has made some valid points with which I empathise. However, many of you have still failed to acknowledge the facts about army wives and implied that anything that pro-calendar peeps have said, aren't correct. Kind of like only dealing with the issues you pick out and the other stuff (even though it's true) can be ignored.
None of you have yet said something like 'well, I don't think nude calendars are a apprpriate way to raise money however, they are really brave doing it and obviously support their partners and believe in the cause very strongly. I reckon if something more along those lines had been said, I for one, would have far more empathy with your points.

AnyFucker · 25/04/2010 20:41

hello lucie

I have also been away for the weekend

my comments on this thread about the calendar actually have no bearing on the fact they are army wives

if it were "doctors wives", "mechanics wives, "builders wives", "bankers wives" my thoughts would have been the same

it is degrading and puts women's issues as equal memebers of society down the shitter

I think there is extra emotion on this thread about the fact it is "for our boys"

I have no objection to money being raised "for our boys"

I am immensely proud of "our boys" and everything they represent

I just think this is a stupid and naive way to raise a buck and that is what I have been saying from the beginning

JaneS · 25/04/2010 20:50

think my real issue is the fact that nobody (as far as i can see) has acknowledged any factual points about the calendar/army wives made by people on here. Their comments (and I don't mean just my comments) seem to have been brushed over.
I have actually admitted that I don't generally like nudey calendars and that I do actually think the calendar looks tacky in a carry On kind of way and that I wouldn't have one on my wall. I have also said that RRW has made some valid points with which I empathise. However, many of you have still failed to acknowledge the facts about army wives and implied that anything that pro-calendar peeps have said, aren't correct. Kind of like only dealing with the issues you pick out and the other stuff (even though it's true) can be ignored.
None of you have yet said something like 'well, I don't think nude calendars are a apprpriate way to raise money however, they are really brave doing it and obviously support their partners and believe in the cause very strongly. I reckon if something more along those lines had been said, I for one, would have far more empathy with your points.

lucie, what 'facts' do you want us to admit? What you've mentioned are opinions. You think they're brave; you think they 'obviously' support their partners and believe in the cause. They might well do; someone else on here has suggested a rather more boring motive concerned with the starting of a glamour model career for one of the girls.

So, leaving aside those opinions, what facts would you like to make us aware of?

JaneS · 25/04/2010 20:51

Sorry, there should have been quotation marks from the start, to '... empathy with your points'. That's what lucie said, above. The rest is me.

JaneS · 25/04/2010 20:57

Incidentally: I do not see where 'bravery' comes into the making of a nude calendar. In fact, I'd say that, if you think it's a 'brave' act, surely you're undermining your own arguments about what the calendar represents.

Personally, I don't find it an act of courage to take my clothes off. Nor would I find it required 'bravery' to do so in front of people, or to do so and have the results visible to the general public, if I believed strongly that what I was doing was a good thing.

If you think that these girls are being 'brave' by getting their kit off, surely you're buying into the idea that female nakedness is something most people would rather cover up (which sounds rather like being a prude, something RRW and I have been labelled).

Original poster
RedRedWine1980 · 25/04/2010 21:33

Good point LRD

OP posts: