Other Sports1 min ago
What a girl has to do to get rich and famous
61 Answers
I'm watching Celebrity Big Brother, which I quite enjoy. One contestant is Natasha Giggs, who happily (always with a big smirk on her face) tells other housemates that she's famous for having had an 8-year affair with her brother-in-law Ryan Giggs. Until recently such a thing would have been a matter of great shame. Now, mainly because she's a quite good-looking and quite young woman, she's massively rewarded for telling her story in the tabloids, she becomes a celebrity and therefore reaps the benefits of that which includes appearances on shows like this and posing for the lads mags. In other words, she's got rich and famous from her disgraceful behaviour. Another housemate, Georgia Salpa, admits live on this show that she had a fling with Callum Best. "Obviously I shagged him" she announced proudly. She looks gorgeous, so she's now one of Ireland's top lingerie models, and after appearing on this will no doubt be inundated with big-money offers to do this n that...probably til her looks fade. What on earth does it say about today's society - and more importantly tell today's young girls - that being a looker and sh*gging celebs is the path to becoming a celeb yourself, with more money than you could dream of?
Answers
Yes, Camilla is public enemy no 1 isn`t she? Why isn`t Prince Charles though? Maybe because he is a man? Likewise the woman (or women) who slept with Ryan Giggs. They are slappers but he is not. Strange. Men can sh@g around but women can`t. It never changes does it? The most interesting point is that it is women who condemn other women. Any ideas why?
22:11 Sat 07th Jan 2012
Actually Jno you are wrong. Anne Boleyn had every intention of becoming Queen a very long time before the divorce of Henry and Catherine. They were actually married on 25th January 1533 whilst he was STILL married to Catherine of Aragon. That marriage was not annulled until Cranmer did it in May of the same year and at the time had no validity whatsoever. Coupled with the fact that Elizabeth I was born in early September of the same year most historians of repute acknowledge that Henry and Anne's relationship was sexual before their marriage in the January of the same year and that her pregnancy obliged things to be moved along far more quickly than planned.Aside from the fact that one of my degrees is in history and my specialisation is the period covering the Wars of the Roses and the early Tudor dynasty ANYONE would be hard pressed to think Anne Boleyn did not cause more hurt, trouble and destruction than the Giggs girl is likely to ever dream of. Whatever you may hope, people simply do not change, they seek self satisfaction, money, fame and power and it's naieve to think people are much different now to the way they were in antiquity. I reiterate that was all my point was.
Nox, I am a bit perplexed by your outburst and not sure how this thread became a history lesson.
You think it's bitch central because so many are appalled at the behaviour of certain ladies, but what would it say about us if we didn't get offended or digusted by some of the stuff we have witnessed on BB. Call us bitches ... But at least we still have morals.
You think it's bitch central because so many are appalled at the behaviour of certain ladies, but what would it say about us if we didn't get offended or digusted by some of the stuff we have witnessed on BB. Call us bitches ... But at least we still have morals.
Returning to chirpy's original post, the big difference between 'the past' (a big shapeless all-defining thing?) and today is that people were at pains to maintain a front that conformed to certain principles. I'm not siding with that being right or wrong. But within that framework, women and men who were seen to have been promiscuous were denounced. The likes of Nell Gwynne were OK while their 'protector' was about, but Charles II knew she'd get very little change once he'd passed away.
Nowadays our all-controlling media positively applaud women and men who splurge every detail of their amorality, addictions and selfishness across the airways, while at the same time encouraging consumers to hate women in particular - but not solely women - for their actions.
But in essence this thread is a discussion of how we ought to behave, and who are the arbiters of that. As a society we are letting the media barons do this, so they constantly manufacture and destroy a parade of strumpets, trulls, dandies and macaronis (arcane words are seldom blocked), and we like fools buy their products and our children copy the apparently successful behaviour.
The filthy talk indulged in by the Housemates as described by chirpy went on and was well exceeded in the stews and bordellos of the past - but it was not paraded before the public and you had to go to it to get it if you wanted it.
And as I pointed out earlier, now we have a pair of adulterers as heirs to the throne and we are trained to ignore the betrayal they conspired in to get what they wanted.
It is very sad to think that the outcome of the long struggle for women's equality has been the normalising of behaviour that may make one woman rich and 'respectable', or another woman rich and notorious, but makes most women into commodities.
Nowadays our all-controlling media positively applaud women and men who splurge every detail of their amorality, addictions and selfishness across the airways, while at the same time encouraging consumers to hate women in particular - but not solely women - for their actions.
But in essence this thread is a discussion of how we ought to behave, and who are the arbiters of that. As a society we are letting the media barons do this, so they constantly manufacture and destroy a parade of strumpets, trulls, dandies and macaronis (arcane words are seldom blocked), and we like fools buy their products and our children copy the apparently successful behaviour.
The filthy talk indulged in by the Housemates as described by chirpy went on and was well exceeded in the stews and bordellos of the past - but it was not paraded before the public and you had to go to it to get it if you wanted it.
And as I pointed out earlier, now we have a pair of adulterers as heirs to the throne and we are trained to ignore the betrayal they conspired in to get what they wanted.
It is very sad to think that the outcome of the long struggle for women's equality has been the normalising of behaviour that may make one woman rich and 'respectable', or another woman rich and notorious, but makes most women into commodities.
I'm no fan of Prince Charles, but my view is that they should have been allowed to marry from the outset - it was only because Camilla was not virginal (so they say) that they couldn't. Diana was selected as virgin breeding stock, not for love. I have absolutely no problem with Camilla now - I am glad they are together in later life. However - apart from a few press leaks - they did maintain privacy and didn't parade their illicit relationship in public. Show me kings and nobility in past who didn't have a bit on the side - it was the norm - the husband/wife for name and decency and public standing, and the mistresses and lovers for fun.
Nox, you're quite right about the timing, though as I recall the point of the annulment was that it wasn't a divorce, it was that Henry never was married to Catherine in the first place and had thus been free to marry all along. But I think the blame for the personal betrayals sits with Henry, not Anne. The guy was king, so power imbalances take this a bit beyond the territory of TV celebs.
As far as I can see the point of this thread is not so much the bad behaviour of Natasha Giggs as the fact that it's making her rich and famous with the aid of the media. But I'd have to agree that equally bad behaviour doesn't seem to have affected the reputations of Henry VIII and Charles II much.
As far as I can see the point of this thread is not so much the bad behaviour of Natasha Giggs as the fact that it's making her rich and famous with the aid of the media. But I'd have to agree that equally bad behaviour doesn't seem to have affected the reputations of Henry VIII and Charles II much.
It's certainly not an outburst NoM, I merely stated intially that the comments on here showed a considerable amount of self righteousness. 'Morals' are a subjective thing and by definition personal, what is okay to you might not be to me and vice versa. I commented that ladies of dubious virtue who gained fame by their liasons were no new thing and gave examples to back that up only to be told by Jno that my information was incorrect, which it wasn't. I pointed out to Jno where he/she was mistaken hence the 'history lesson' as you put it.
If you prefer, since you seem to have issues with anyone disagreeing with you, I'll concur and join in the lynching.
'Oooh int they a pack of dirty little trollops, disgusting, discraceful, they ought to be hung up they 'ad. Well I never did, wouldn't have happened in my day, she's no better than she should be' etc etc ad nauseum...
There, better?
If you prefer, since you seem to have issues with anyone disagreeing with you, I'll concur and join in the lynching.
'Oooh int they a pack of dirty little trollops, disgusting, discraceful, they ought to be hung up they 'ad. Well I never did, wouldn't have happened in my day, she's no better than she should be' etc etc ad nauseum...
There, better?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.