Social Question

Shippy's avatar

[NSFW] Do you actually "care" that Kate Middleton was photographed topless?

Asked by Shippy (9857 points ) September 17th, 2012

I read this in the newspaper today, and have been irritated ever since. The Dutches (of some place in the UK) was spotted tanning topless and snapped by the media. The photographs have been held back by some responsible person who understands the trauma the Royal Family have endured since the death of Princess Dianna.

Do the photographs actually matter? They would fetch a high price, I ask myself why?, who wants to see her tits anyway? I feel mostly just bored by the whole “famous people being snapped in uncompromising positions” situation. So I certainly wouldn’t purchase a “Rag” in order to look at this. Plus I feel as a Royal its the least to ask her, to keep her top on in public. Most of us do?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

73 Answers

gailcalled's avatar

No, nor do I care.

Trillian's avatar

I didn’t even know who the hell “Kate” was.

Seek's avatar

1. She was not in public. She was on the roof of a private home far away from “public”. The photos are as poor quality as they are because they were taken with an extreme close-up lens from a great distance.

2. People love controversies, and the perfect pretty princess getting caught being intimate with her husband out of doors is a fantastic way to rile up social conservatives.

3. I personally don’t care if she, you, or anyone else wants to walk around the grocery store topless. However, I think the extreme lengths people go to in order to embarras someone who actually isn’t doing anything wrong is dispicable.

Shippy's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr If I were Royal, I would understand that outside of my home no matter where it was, was public. I do hear what you saying, but I still ask why she took it off, when in the past so many of them have been snapped in similar positions. I also don’t care who is topless or not. I feel though some people have a responsibility to their public.

JLeslie's avatar

I don’t care about her naked breasts, but I do care that people took photos of her while on private property that could only be had by a very very very strong telescopic lense. She should be allowed her privacy. Even if she were on a public beach I think people should have more integrity than to take beach pictures and plaster them all over magazines, tabloids, and the internet. But, public beaches would be fair play legally. Still, when someone dresses a certain way on the beach or by a pool, I just don’t think it should be for public consumption. Meanwhile, she was on private, fairly secluded, property.

wundayatta's avatar

Of course I do. I clicked on the photos right away. Fame and nudity. It’s better than just garden variety nudity. Although if there were any female jellies who wanted to post their nude photos, I’d probably click through on those even faster!

Wait? Her husband was there? (I just read @Seek_Kolinahr‘s post). Didn’t notice.

Sometimes I wonder if women really get it about men and nudity and sex. Do you understand why porn is so popular? Why nudity is so popular? Do you understand what it means to think about sex so much during the day? Do you understand the primitive relationship between sex and status?

Sometimes I think women love to tut-tut and make fun of men for being so driven by their penises. Perhaps it makes them feel morally superior? Or intellectually superior? Like women are not nearly as driven by their physical nature? Or maybe they can control it better?

And now you posted a response, @Shippy.

It made me think that perhaps she did it deliberately. Maybe they even posted the photographer there deliberately as an effort to gain popularity for the Royals. It shows them in both a sympathetic light (nasty photographer invading their privacy) and a popular light (hot young royals having fun in a “private” moment—don’t you wish you could be them)?

Seek's avatar

So because she’s a duchess she’s not entitled to direct sunlight?

We’re talking about a person on a vast private property, on a roof, three storeys up. She has clearly done her due diligence with regard to being out of accidental eyesight.

6rant6's avatar

I’d look. Is that what you’re asking?

Shippy's avatar

@wundayatta I certainly would keep my top on for their salary is all I am saying!!!!! @Seek_Kolinahr not sure where the direct sunlight came in, but yes, I feel that as a Royal she could keep her top on, even on a roof top, where media love to catch royals. Maybe Google rooftop naked photos of Royals. Again I hear your point totally, but as a Royal maybe act differently from us mere humans? All in all though, for the most part a tit is a tit no matter where its attached. Why so much for a Royal one?

Seek's avatar

Because some people (not naming names) people get all up in arms with the belief that “Royals” should keep their tops on at all times. Perhaps they should bathe clothed, just in case some paparazzo attaches a camera to the shower head. They have a responsibility to their public, after all.

Shippy's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I fully expect a royal to be naked while in the shower. But thank god I don’t have to witness it.

Seek's avatar

Not yet.

TheProfoundPorcupine's avatar

I understand we should all be given some privacy at various times and the royals are no different. But then they also know that people are going to try and take their photos whenever possible no matter the country they are in and in actual fact they probably get it a bit easier here in the UK than anywhere else in the world.

If I knew that the press were going to be nearby (and if I had boobs) I certainly wouldnt be going around flaunting them and then complaining when they appeared in the press and lets face it William knows all about the lengths the press will go to for that exclusive shot as they see money in front of them and not a person.

If you know their previous then do not give them the opportunity in the first place which is what they did with this.

harple's avatar

Just for the record, she married into the Royal family just this year. Oh, and she’s the future Queen.

JLeslie's avatar

What I was thinking when I first heard the news about the photos was, “it’s Europe. What is the big deal? Topless sun bathing is commonplace.” Why would Europeans even care or treat it like a big peek-a-boo show. But, I guess for the royals expectations are different. As far as the photos beng seen all over the world, well for the conservative countries around the world that is the problem of the people in that country. I think Kate’s response to the whole thing should be a big, “so what? Who cares. Big deal.” But, I also think the royals are completely justified in suing.

elbanditoroso's avatar

The royals royally screwed this up. They should have smiled and ignored it. Now it has blown up to be much larger than it needed to be.

I don’t get what the big deal is. She may be a future queen, but I’ll be she goes to the bathroom just like you and me. So why is it such a big deal if she has boobs?

ETpro's avatar

I think it is extremely poor taste for the paparazzi to use ultra telephoto lenses to spy on people who, in the setting they are in, should have every expectation of privacy. I don’t care to see the tripe they captured in that way.

TheProfoundPorcupine's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr I do not know where you are going with this bathe clothed part as at no point was it mentioned but you can enjoy the sun without getting your knockers out when you are becoming one of the most famous women in the world. I bet the Queen did not just shrug it off although Prince Philip probably wanted a look.

Shippy's avatar

@TheProfoundPorcupine Never thought of that, I guess the Queen did get her “knockers” out but in those days they had a “look at the birdie” camera!!!! So no one caught her?

gailcalled's avatar

@TheProfoundPorcupine: @Seek is using irony.

Shippy's avatar

@wundayatta Are men really so obsessed with their penises and breasts?

TheProfoundPorcupine's avatar

@gailcalled irony: The expression of one’s meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect

Must have missed the funny part.

JLeslie's avatar

What if she had been photographed just in a bikini? Even then the photos would have probably sold, and it would have been an intrusion of privacy, and from what I can tell against the law.

wundayatta's avatar

@Shippy Penis? What penis. I didn’t see a penis. Must not have been looking in the right place.

Yeah. I think a lot of men are obsessed with breasts and perhaps more. I know I am obsessed with breasts and the female form, in general. I think it is the highest form of beauty. If it were ok to view such things at work or at home—I’d probably spend all day long looking at the images of beauty. Is that obsession? I don’t know. I mean, I do without it. But then, most of us can’t spend all day doing what we really want to.

Shippy's avatar

@JLeslie Yes agree totally. I have mixed feeling on this, on the one hand the utter boredom of even thinking that her tits are big sellers, or her bikini, and on the other, I feel that perceived leaders should have a certain standard. Don’t know if that makes sense? Kind of a double bind question.

Shippy's avatar

@wundayatta I find men truly fascinating, I do!!

Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

Personally? I don’t care.

For the English royal family, I can see how this would be a scandal. Plus, the culture in England is different than in other countries. The royal family is also up to their neck in hot water due to their nonexistent role in ruling the country, their expense to tax payers, and their previous “indecencies”. The photos bring nothing to the table, other than financially supporting the lowest common denominator of “news” businesses.

Just like any other person who is willing to risk the spotlight when carrying out an act that might be perceived as scandalous, they know what is involved. Surely, she and William knew this.

Coloma's avatar

I could care less, I don’t follow any celebrity or royal gossip, I am too busy being topless in my own yard. lol

Nullo's avatar

First I’ve heard of it. And no, I don’t, except that apparently nobody can have any privacy anymore.

Coloma's avatar

I have never understood WHY we expect perfectly “acceptable” behaviors from celebs and royalty. Sure, if you are in a position of representing a big picture value set, obviously you should be discriminating in such matters as blatantly cheating or being deceptive, or picking up prostitutes, haha but really, if any of these people want to sunbathe naked, smoke a little pot, whatever…jesus, let it go! They are just humans not gods.
I agree with @Nullo….privacy violations are not acceptable, ever!

WestRiverrat's avatar

If they are not within reach they are of no interest to me. I never saw much sense in paying to just look at someone else’s playground.

ucme's avatar

“Oh my goodness Will.i.am, the peasants can see my titties, what a simply dreadful to do!!”
I don’t care, nice baps though.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

OMG, future queens are allowed to keep their breasts? I thought they had to give them up because boobies are obviously a sign of indecency and loose morals!

For the two of you who really don’t seem to grasp what half the people on this thread are saying, the above statement was pure sarcasm, meant to make fun of the people who are making such a big deal over a pair of tits, especially royal tits.

What actually bothers me about the whole thing is that people apparently can no longer take their clothes off on private property, for fear of some pervert with a camera.

Nullo's avatar

@Coloma Maybe someone can employ counter-sniper measures. Not kill anybody, but maybe scare the crap out of ‘em.

Coloma's avatar

@Nullo

Haha…boy, I’ll tell you what, if some jackass was spying on me they would be in for an experience they would never forget. I’d strip them naked, tie ‘em to a tree and rub ‘em down with bacon grease and it would only be a matter of time until their savory scent and fearful pheromones called in the cougars and coyotes over here. lolol

tedd's avatar

Men want to see everyone’s tits. Past that it’s all just media hype about the royal family.

Jaxk's avatar

The pictures of Jacquelin Kennedy nude made big headlines back in 1971. Nothing new about all this. Paparazzi will continue to try and get photos of anything we don’t normally see. Neither surprising nor unusual.

flutherother's avatar

In a private setting everyone is entitled to privacy whether they are a royal or not. The law in France recognises that and that’s why the magazine was infringing the law in publishing these pictures. The issue is privacy not breasts. That the Duchess of Cambridge has breasts shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. They are spoken for and I have no interest in them but I will be following the court case.

wundayatta's avatar

I think that the effort to catch celebrities nude has something to do with jealousy and an effort to knock them down a bit.

You may be the future Queen of England, but I’ve seen your titties and you ain’t no better than anyone else.

You could substitute any celebrity for Queen of England in that sentence and the emotional message would be the same, even if their breasts were quite spectacular. It’s that the public gets to horn in on your privacy while we remain safe and secure. It is, I think, part of the price of being famous. You make oodles of money, and in return, people get to live vicariously through you, and you can’t control how they see you. Fair game. Game on!

deni's avatar

I’m sure her boobs are nothing to write home about anyhow, she’s pretty thin. I’ll go look at mine in the mirror over searching for pictures of someones tits I don’t know, thanks. No, I don’t care at all. Honestly at first I read that as Kate UPTON, and I cared a little more (cause she’s pretty hot and has big boobs) than I do now that I realize it’s the princess or whatever the hell her role is. I am really apathetic about royalty and such.

tedd's avatar

@deni Can I look at yours in the mirror too?

heyooooo

ucme's avatar

I don’t know what all the fuss is about, I really don’t.

flutherother's avatar

@ucme I wasn’t going to look but I did. It’s amazing what sells magazines these days.

ucme's avatar

She may have only one tit, but my…....it’s a little cracker.

DrBill's avatar

it is true that once a man sees a naked woman, he wants to see the rest of them. it is also true that ½ the people in the world have breast, so Kate’s are just one in three billion, there is nothing special about them. I have no urge to see hers when there are six billion others to look at.

Coloma's avatar

Udderly uninterested.

Seek's avatar

@Coloma * rimshot *

Coloma's avatar

^ LOL

lookingglassx3's avatar

I think it’s a big confidence knock for Kate. She’s young, and she’s new to the whole Royal thing. She’s spent the past year or so trying to build her identity as a member of the Royal family and to gain the public’s approval. She seems a sweet, sincerely nice girl.

I think it’s wrong that after she’s spent so much time adjusting to the Royal scene – which, when you think about it, is pretty weird. We stick someone on a throne and give them power and yet they’re dictated how to live their life, really – she finally gets a break on some private property, where she thinks that she finally has the chance to act like a young woman. I mean, she IS entitled to be a young woman once in a while, especially on private property. For photos like this to surface, it must be horrible for her. I mean this is the girl who is rarely seen holding her husband’s hand in public. Now the whole world can see him lathering sun tan lotion on her backside.

Seek's avatar

The oddest part of it all is that it happens the same week the tabloids in America are screaming “IT’S TRUE, SHE’S PREGNANT!”

How the hell do people think that happened?

filmfann's avatar

Hmmm… I guess she’s been stuffing all this time.

Coloma's avatar

I wholeheartedly agree with @lookingglassx3
Poor thing, WTF!
There is NO amount of fame or fortune that would tempt me to put myself under the microscope of public scrutiny. The media and paparazzi are fucking vultures that will chew every last scrap of flesh off of their victims, including turning them into roadkill like Princess Diana.

Leanne1986's avatar

I don’t care at all. The way I see it, she’s incredibly famous so of course the paps are going to try and get all kinds of pics of her. If she, and the royal family, don’t realise that then more fool them (and I’m a royalist).

ZEPHYRA's avatar

Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!

Sunny2's avatar

My first thought was, “I bet she looks great. She has a very pretty figure.” Then I thought of the role the paparazzi played in the death of William’s mother. I find the behavior of paparazzi reprehensible and wish there was a penalty for the excessive methods for broaching the privacy of famous people. I’m glad there are going to be charges filed in this case..

Bellatrix's avatar

I’m not interested in Kate Middleton’s tits. I am interested in whether publishing these photos is in the public interest. I see no public interest in these photos or photos of any other celebrity’s tits. This is all about magazine revenue. For me the interest comes from the discussion around journalism ethics. I would say the major reason UK newspapers are avoiding this material like the plague is they are still stinging from the Leveson Inquiry and phone hacking debacle. It certainly isn’t about any concern for the royal family.

harple's avatar

@Seek_Kolinahr Just speculation at the moment – no formal confirmation… (I’m watching that one closely though, as it may be she and I are at the same stage of pregnancy… can’t see anyone being interested in a picture of my boobs though.)

Bellatrix's avatar

:-O @harple – should we begin congratulating you yet?

harple's avatar

@Bellatrix First scan is a week today – all being well I go officially public then :-)

Bellatrix's avatar

My fingers are silent until then but I am very excited for you!! :D

rooeytoo's avatar

I get sick of the hollywood celebrity types getting all upset about being pursued by papparazzi because the next week they are asking them to take pics to promote a new movie. But I do sort of feel sorry for these two, seems as if they should have some privacy and since it is illegal to spy in France then they might as well take the legal route and sue.

Shippy's avatar

@Bellatrix That’s the real question here, are people interested enough to want to buy the Mag to make the media richer. It is just nuts I feel.

wundayatta's avatar

Public interest? You bet there’s public interest! It’s even got a question on fluther. Not to mention however many gazillion hits on the internet and the repostings of the pictures and who knows how many magazine sales.

@Bellatrix You’re not interested (which surprises me, since you’ve participated on this question), but there are many who are very interested.

Bellatrix's avatar

@wundayatta. You are confusing people being interested in something with something being in the public interest. I have no doubt that there are voyeuristic people who want to see a picture of Kate’s breasts, taken with a long lens, from about a kilometre away. Some are curious, some are sad, pervy types who would probably also enjoy looking at upskirt photographs taken in similarly furtive ways, others may dislike the royal family for a variety of reasons and they are enjoying any public humiliation these photos might bring. You will have to judge for yourself which camp you belong in.

Personally I don’t fall into any of those camps and no, I am not interested in seeing her breasts. Firstly, I can’t believe there is anything fascinating about her breasts. Secondly I think the photos breach her rights to privacy. Not because she is a Dutchess, but because she is another human being, in a private setting and the photos were taken without her having any knowledge of the photographer being there or giving permission. They have no public value beyond “titilation” value. I don’t believe because she has a public profile she gives up all rights to respectful and fair treatment from the media. I would feel the same if it was you and someone took a picture through your bathroom window. Where is the line in the sand when we say – no, that’s not acceptable and I won’t look at that? That’s a debate I think is interesting. Looking at a pair of tits, not really.

As to being in the “public interest”, there is a big difference between being of interest to certain members of the public or of having ‘public interest’. These photos fall into the first category. They have “titilation” value and nothing more. There is no benefit to anyone for these photographs being in the public domain.

As I said in my first post, I am interested in the debate about whether these photos have any ‘public interest’, about the right to privacy people (public figures or not) have and what these photos add to the debate about journalism ethics.

@Shippy there are enough people who fit into the three categories I mentioned above to make it worthwhile for paparazzi to keep going after this type of photograph. If we voted by not buying the mags, or by not accessing those sites, perhaps editors might stop buying and publishing such crap. I won’t be holding my breath on that happening soon.

Shippy's avatar

@Bellatrix Agreed, Not only am I not interested in this story, but any other public story regarding so called famous people. Unless it has a deep core value. A life changing story. I am personally not a fan of the Royal Family, in fact I am a “fan” of no one I cannot see or touch or know personally, but having said that, Princess Dianna was one of the first most “well known” persons, to hug a person with AIDS. To this day I respect her for that.

wundayatta's avatar

@Bellatrix I think my humor was lost on you. I’m having you on.

Of course, many people in the public are interested, but that’s not the same as something being in the public interest. But determining the public interest is a philosophical kind of issue. What is the public good? Normally we think about things like health care and roads and the good of the people.

Is entertainment in the public interest? Certainly. Is entertainment at the expense of public figures in the public interest? It could be argued. Although it would have a cost.

Is public nudity in the public interest? I would argue that it is. I would argue that the puritanical prudery that runs rampant in our society is pretty devastating to a lot of people, especially women, who suffer from the brunt of expectations of beauty. If we were able to be naked more often and in public, then we’d see all kinds of bodies and people would have to stop acting like nudity is a crime, and internalizing the pain from being told their body isn’t fit to see.

As it is, most of us carry a burden of shame about our bodies, and hardly anyone is aware of this. They think of nudity and they get all righteous about it, as if the body is morally wrong, somehow. As if when we show our bodies, we turn into ravening sex geeks. It’s absurd. Yet it is the basis for society.

The more people show their bodies, and especially the more that famous people show they are just like us, the healthier our society will be. Slowly, we will lose the shame we carry about nudity, and as that shame drops away, we will get healthier psychologically speaking. So royal nudity is in the public interest as well as being something the public is interested in.

Of course there are many people who won’t buy my argument. Or won’t get it. Or will have a knee-jerk reaction that I’m being absurd. That just shows you how far we have to go in order to lift the burden of needless shame from our shoulders.

Bellatrix's avatar

And I would argue photographing a woman in the nude, without her permission, could be construed as abuse. Given she is suing the publishers – I would say she feels her privacy was violated. If you don’t get the difference between forced and voluntary nudity, that’s really your problem. The argument about these photos is not about nudity or prudery.

I didn’t see any humour in your earlier post. Out.

wundayatta's avatar

@Bellatrix I know you didn’t. That’ why I had to point it out.

As to forced nudity… I think there’s a difference between public figures and private figures. If you become a public figure, then you have to know you are volunteering for open season. The papparazzi will be after you. They do not stop to make sure things are fair.

What the papparazzi do is not fair and not right and I would agree that it is abuse. Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop it. SO people who are subject to their scrutiny might do well to go to lengths to avoid being seen by them. Great lengths. It’s the prudent thing to do.

Frankly, I’m not sure the right to privacy means anything any more. So many people plaster all their stupid details all over Facebook and on TV shows and it seems like few people respect their own privacy, much less other people’s. If people don’t care, it’s going to be hard to get society to protect privacy. Only we can do that for ourselves, and we have precious few tools to do it with.

Nullo's avatar

@Bellatrix Thank you for using “furtive” in a sentence! It has been far too long.

Bellatrix's avatar

Thank you @Nullo.

Only138's avatar

I say if she wants to show her boobies in public or in the privacy of her own property, more power to her. I LOVE boobies. :)

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther