Paparazzo or pervert?

25 Sep

Photo courtesy of bruniroquai at flickr.com

If i was walking along the street and a random guy decided to lie down on the pavement and take a good look up my skirt what would my husband say? He’d just shrug his shoulders of course.

And what if i had no knickers on? (ok so i always wear knickers, but you know in a different world i might be having a kinky day). Well he’d just say “Oh well dear, if you’re gonna go out with a bit of loose change and no purse to keep it in you’re asking for it really”. Of course bloody not.

So why is it okay for lowlife photographers to thrust a camera up a “celebrity”‘s skirt to get, what i can only imagine they refer to as, the “money shot”?

Surely it’s assault? Or invasion of privacy? Or just down right morally wrong?

So who would blame Russell Brand for getting a bit agro when some seedy pap tried to get his lens in close proximity to his lady-wife-to-be’s dinglies? Well apparently its his actions and not those of the photographer that require the long arm of the law.

I just don’t get it.

I can’t even imagine opening up a magazine or newspaper and seeing my flower peeking out from amongst the leaves. And that’s putting it politely. Usually it’s a slightly hazy picture (enlarged 10 times of course) of a few folds of skin reminiscent of a shar pei’s neck. The title screams “Miss X goes out without knickers and shows a bit too much”. Well if you shoved a zoom lens in between my legs while i was getting out of a cab i’d probably show a bit too much of my ladybits too. With or without knickers (let’s face it they’re usually displaced / swallowed up from all that wobbling while on the move anyway).

Perverts masquerading as paps?

Burn the paparazzo pimps and all their filthy tabloid customers.

15 Responses to “Paparazzo or pervert?”

  1. Sarah Fontó September 25, 2010 at 9:21 am #

    “Burn the paparazzo pimps and all their filthy tabloid customers”

    Seconded.

    I particularly loathe the way they count down to a young girls 18th birthday so they can commence ramming their lenses up her dress.

    Personally I’d have no issue with it labled a form of sexual assult and prosecuted accordingly.

    Times and equipment change. The law needs to adapt to the new reality.

    • marketingtomilk September 25, 2010 at 11:13 am #

      Right, just how does one start a national petition?

  2. London City Mum September 25, 2010 at 1:39 pm #

    Sadly it always comes down to ‘more sales’.

    As for legal rights, it’s a bit like where the law protects the burglar when the victim is accused of assault for protecting their property.

    Easy answer is just don’t buy the silly mags.
    Or be in the public eye.

    LCM x

    • marketingtomilk September 25, 2010 at 1:44 pm #

      but isn’t there a difference between protecting your flat screen tv and protecting your vagina?
      I can’t imagine a tabloid pic of an up the shorts shot of a couple of balls? Or am i just looking at the wrong magazines…

  3. Jean Has Been Shopping September 25, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    I wasn’t aware of this story, but that photog’s behavior sounds disgusting and completely unacceptable.

  4. Alethea September 25, 2010 at 5:14 pm #

    Thank you for being a voice of reason!

    The last thing I want to see over my bowl of corn flakes in the morning is some little hollywood nit’s doodad.

    I think it’s disgusting and cannot imagine who would buy this rot. Although most of these slebs don’t feature on my radar, in this one instance I do pity them.

  5. Princess L September 25, 2010 at 9:14 pm #

    *cheers* well said that woman!

  6. keatsbabe September 26, 2010 at 10:56 am #

    I want to say it again and say it louder!! You are so right. I haven’t met anyone who likes these shots so why take them? Bit naive I know, but who buys papers for this stuff?

  7. Beckicklesie September 26, 2010 at 2:51 pm #

    Hear, hear!

    I heard about it and ignored it.

    As far as I’m concerned he did the right thing. And, as you say in your post, I’d hope that my H2B would do the same too.
    It’s ridiculous. What is the obsession with fangina shots?! Really?

    They should be sacked.

    Becca x

  8. Rachel frowd September 27, 2010 at 9:55 am #

    I hate hate hate the media. Everything about it -it’s obsession with showing the worst of people. It’s obsession with invading people’s privacy. What youve described is akin to assault. I’d feel abused if someone did that to me. Or even published a picture of my (rather abundant) cellulite. It wasn’t like this when we were growing up and it really makes me fearful for my daughters future. What does it say about society and how will it make them feel about their bodies?

  9. Very Bored in Catalunya September 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm #

    I rarely come down on the side of celebs but in this case you are dead right. Unless the woman in question is deliberately flaunting her knickerless-ness, which some do let’s face it, then nobody should be sticking a camera up their skirts or positioning themselves at such a level to catch the shot as they try and leave a car.

    Newspapers just shouldn’t be allowed to print the pictures and photographers should be arrested for trying to take them.

    • marketingtomilk September 27, 2010 at 4:32 pm #

      To say that by wearing no knickers you invite yourself to be photographed is not so far away from saying that girls who wear short skirts are asking for it. If i want to go out knickerless then, as long as i take the necessary precautions not to show it off, i should be able to go out knickerless. (not that this is what you were saying of course!)

  10. Paula September 27, 2010 at 7:26 pm #

    I’m so out of touch – I’d heard he’d been arrested but had no idea why. It just disgusts me that this can be considered acceptable – where is the line? Apparently to be in the public eye is to invite the kind of intrusion and of course there are those who court it and are desperate enough to take the (un)coverage wherever they can find it.

    Surely this is assault? Do paps have some sort of special dispensation that says because they’re being paid for their wares they’re not filthy perverts with no moral code? Or are they absolved because it’s the magazine publishers who buy and publish the shots? Or are THEY absolved because they only publish what the public wants to buy? NO! They aren’t…it’s wrong, pure and simple, and good on Russell for having a pop. Px

  11. Emily O September 28, 2010 at 9:04 pm #

    Like Paula, I didn’t know the full story and it sounds really stressful and unpleasant for Russell and Katie. I think if you put yourself in the public eye then you need to take the publicity that comes with it on the chin. But there need to be boundaries and the authorities seem to really struggle with their regulation of these people. And after Russell got into his fight that presumably gave the paps more pictures and made them even more money. Something’s wrong somewhere. Don’t buy these mags people *hides OK magazine bought last week in a lax moment*

  12. Nmaha September 30, 2010 at 4:03 pm #

    Nasty paparazzi and their horrid tabloid readers. This is a gross violation of privacy.
    Just found your blog today and I am impressed.

I'm all about the debate. Would love to hear what you think.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: