Why Are The Royals Entitled To Privacy When The Rest Of Us Aren’t

Having put a link on Facebook to my last post “SHOCK HORROR The Duchess Of Kate Has Nipples” I managed to trawl up a Facebooker who is too stupid to be called a troll.

This guy (I’m not going to give him the oxygen of publicity he craves by naming him) started yelling about privacy and asing how would I like it if some perv popped out from behind a tree and pointed a camera at my daughter.

Well apart from the fact that anyone pointing a camera at our Cleo without having been invited to would soon be at the nearest hospital having said camera surgically removed from his posterior orifice. That apart, let’s get real, Kate was in no danger, she was attended by an army officer and a small army of special branch men. And the pap who snapped her paps as it were was several miles away. That’s what they have those long lenses for.

Having run out of arguments he started raving about our right to privacy. Fair enough, but we are all responsible for ourselves and anyone in the public eye who gets her tits or his knob out anywhere can expect the pictures to show up on the net. All that protects the privacy of most of us is the fact that nobody is interested in our rude bits. Anyone with a high public profile should only get their bits out un the bedroom … with the blinds drawn.

How much negative intelligence would it need for someone like The Duchess of Kate not to know the risks of getting ’em out. IQ -140 maybe? Qualifying her for the anti-MENSA.

That being the case, how stupid and detached from reality does a Facebook troll have to be to defend the right to privacy of a celeb while being so careless as to advertise his own stupidity on Facebook.

related posts:
The slow murder of democracy by mainstream media

Men No Longer Hitting On Jordan

It was quite a surprise today to learn that 85% of the people who visit the website of Jordan (aka Katie Price) are women. A disturbingly high proportion are in fact young women hoping to pick up some tips on how to become a professional tits out for the boys model. These girls see the pneumatic Ms. Price as a role model whose example will guide and inspire them in their quest to make £millions by getting unfeasibly large breasts, a botox face and a trout pout.

Of the men who do hit Jordan’s page most are looking for older pictures when the plastic passionella looked slightly human. Not many men are interested in Miss Chavvy (2009 version).

There is a valuable lesson for Jordan wannabees in that. Blokes are not that turned on by the idea of feeling up sacks of silicon or kissing collagen hard lips. There is no warmth or allure in a botulin smile no matter how much its owner is being paid for revelations about her body functions in OK magazine.

Go down the road Jordan has taken and soon the only men available will be Peter Andre duhalikes.

You have been warned.

More humour every day at Boggart Blog

Body Language

I was rather disappointed a couple of weeks ago when a musical item I placed on an American web site was censored because the title “Suzanna’s Tits” attracted complaints of obscenity and pornography.
Now as approximately fifty per cent of the world’s adult humans have tits of some shape or form I cannot really see what his obscene about them, quite apart from the fact that the lyric of Suzanna’s Tits is about the way the media uses sensationalism to distract us from the big issues we should be getting uptight about; poverty, hunger, environmental decay and whether Tom Cruise wears personality lifts.
For a while, between thirty and fifteen years ago I guess, it looked as though we had got over that “bare flash equals immorality” hang up that was a relic of an era that… actually never really happened. The pious have banged on about God and Armageddon every few decades. The decadent rich and the indifferent poor just banged. Apart from the minority that will always obsess about what others think of them, the human condition dictates that we get our kit off and get jiggy with somebody at every available opportunity.
But that is sex, and nakedness alone does not equal sex. Creationists argue that the story of Eve and the apple illustrates that nakedness is naughty but (apart from the fact of that story’s non – appearance in the ancient scriptures on which the Bible is supposed to be based) does it. What Eve did wrong was to cover up her nakedness, in effect saying to Adam, “I’ve got something under this fig leaf that I’m not letting you see until you have finished decorating the arbour.”
Adam, thicko that he was, fell for it hook line and sinker even though he had been looking at everything Eve had got for yonks.” What did he think she had under the fig leaf, a portable TV, a Gameboy?
This revival in “old – fashioned values” is American in origin. We British had our own “old fashioned values” evangelists of course but their creed was greed and self – interest.
The morality of the Abrahamic religions has always been anti – sex. Even in the circumstances you are allowed to have sex, you are not allowed to enjoy it. People who suppress natural urges become obsessed of course and that is where the idea that nakedness must generate unbridled lust comes from. If you see lots of boobs and muffins and willies you are not likely to think much about it. If you have never seen any naked flesh at all even a glimpse of a pretty female ankle or a well muscled male chest can be devastating.
Actually tits are fairly low on the schlock – horror scale, alongside bare botties. Muffins cause much more consternation and willies are positively satanic. Looking back to the furore over Janet Jackson’s famous wardrobe malfunction a couple of years ago I wonder what the guardians of American morals would make of Orlaith and Mikosi in the Big Brother house. These two, having between them only one tactic to attract votes must now compete for who can wave her whaps about most blatantly. The lovely Orlaith went so far as to invite her colleagues to cop a feel and see how real they felt. Mikosi countered by saying that hers were all her own at least. Orlaith, not being the most quick witted girl failed to retort that hers were all her own too as she had paid the final instalment. There is of course nothing at all erotic about any of this, which proves my point. All Janet Jackson’s episode proved is that she employs a more competent surgeon than her brother. The breast exposure was about as erotic as when Judy Finnegan whacked one out.
But that is breasts. The major no-no is willies. That fact that men have willies just seems to enrage some people which I suppose is why men in American made-for-TV movies have developed the knack of getting a shag without even unzipping their trousers.
I remember an incident last year during a cricket match when England’s Andrew (Freddie Flintstone) Flintoff got a spontaneous stonker while standing in the field. Although the camera only stayed on him for a few seconds before one of the production team noticed, there were complaints. What could the T.V. company have done, even a cricket crowd could get nasty if members (I choose my words carefully here) of the Political Correctness Police Penis Squad had marched onto the field and ordered the umpires to suspend play while Flintoff too a cold bath.
Fit young guys are known to get spontaneous erections occasionally. It is another part of the human condition. It was seen on TV, so what? The guy had his trousers on, he did not make obscene gestures towards the camera, it might just as well have been a banana in his pocket.
I have come to know many Americans via the net, they are lovely people (I have avoided getting to know the unlovely ones,) but there is something very wrong in their society and unfortunately it is spreading around the world. It is illegal to expose breasts in public in the USA, yet in some parts it is still legal to shag twelve year old girls, so long as you marry them first. If things go on the way they are it will soon be illegal for a woman to carry breasts in a public place. But anybody can carry a gun.
One wonders what the Bush administration would make of beaches around the Mediterranean at this time of year. All those bronzed boobies bouncing about at liberty, not to mention myriad suntanned willies swaying in the breeze would surely convince them that “Yoorp” was a hotbed of “tururism” and should be nuked. And yet we Europeans do not find the nakedness on display at all sexy. Sexy is one on one (or two perhaps) in private.
It is not the decadence of the majority that poses a danger but the dirty mindedness of that screwed up minority sometimes referred to as “the moral majority.” We already have a war on terror that is exacerbating the threat of terrorism, and war on drugs that is making the drug problem worse. Do we really want a war on filth that will only make many people as obsessed with sex as those who can see obscenity in the pointy little body of a cartoon frog?

Janet Jackson
a feminine view
Silver Ring Thing
Moral Majority
Big Brother
Orlaith’s Official Big Brother News Page