I agree it's tasteless, and typical of how low (perhaps not in that kit) some people will stoop to put the opposition off in a game of mixed doubles.
Proposed amendments to the rules of lawn-tennis
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Pegleg View PostI agree it's tasteless, and typical of how low (perhaps not in that kit) some people will stoop to put the opposition off in a game of mixed doubles.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by eighthobstruction View PostI'm glad you got to the bottom of that ff....
"...the isle is full of noises,
Sounds and sweet airs, that give delight and hurt not.
Sometimes a thousand twangling instruments
Will hum about mine ears, and sometime voices..."
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sydney Grew View Post4) Whenever any part of the under-garments of a player (male or female) becomes visible to the umpire at any time during the course of a match, the wearer thereof will be deemed to have lost the said match.- - -
John W
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by french frank View PostPretty tasteless, not say sexist. To say nothing of the outrage to Mr Grew's sensibilities. There has been a complaint, but perhaps it can stand as an example of what is officially considered out of keeping with this forum.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostI don't see that picture as tasteless or sexist.
What a nation of prudes we are all becoming.
I'm sure that if you expressed those nethanderthal views in many places you would rapidly become one of the better known sopranos
actually
I am a man
I am heterosexual
I find that image very offensive
I am not a prude
but it's simply offensive soft porn
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Flay View PostWonderful picture, Flossie! Look at the faces in the crowd - every one is laughing. So our micturating colleague is incorrect when he says:
(I've just realised that the man in the picture isn't infringing the underwear rule, as no underwear is visible )
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Flosshilde View PostIt's strange that in this type of publicity photo no-one seems to be looking at anybody. They're all looking vaguely - or is it meaningfully? - into the distance, as if they've put something somewhere, but can't quite remember where. (perhaps, in this case, it's a body)
Comment
-
-
This has wandered completely off topic.
For what it's worth, my view is that few people are in any way bothered about the sight of a woman's bare bottom - that would be prudish. But this was an example of what is generically described as "glamour photography" (she is not playing tennis in that outfit!)- posed photos designed to titillate, and what makes some women, and indeed some men, uneasy is the public display of such photos of women and the sight of a load of appreciative men ogling them. Old Master paintings aren't in the same category because on the whole, where publicly displayed, the viewers are general art lovers.
I would feel uneasy in a factory works canteen, with a load of men silently chomping and attentively studying the photos of Page 3 girls, adorning the walls. It is not prudery. It feels like sexism.
And, with all due respect to Flossie, his male photo isn't "glamour photography" and is humorous. That is the intention. I suspect men took both photos(?). So no calendar girlie pics here, please.It isn't given us to know those rare moments when people are wide open and the lightest touch can wither or heal. A moment too late and we can never reach them any more in this world.
Comment
-
-
amateur51
Originally posted by Mr Pee View PostYou need to get out more....
Are you not able to make a connection between the publication of that photograph on this forum, your fantasies and the recent outrages against women in India?
Comment
Comment