Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×

More from deviantART



Details

Submitted on
September 18, 2012
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
4,241
Favourites
6 (who?)
Comments
42
×
I know that the mainstream media is in a fairly sad state nowadays. I usually watch it while I eat for entertainment purposes.

But I'll be damned, how boring has these last few days been? All they've had on their mind is the royal titty. No, really, spending hours of airtime talking about a pair of naked tits over and over again. And when they are done, they do that, over, and over, and over again, yet again.

The idiocy is mind boggling. The court injunction to ban the publication of images being discussed over the last few days - just outright pathetic. A simple Google image search for "kate's tits" finds plenty of images which have proliferated the interwebs and cannot be censored, and are available for free to anyone. I did grab a quick look, and what a sorry pair of tits it is, especially from the front. Really disappointing, if you ask me. The bikini royal behind is at the very least sexy.

Which brings us to the important question - who is buying these magazines, and who is driving this interest? Ah, yes, the amazing populace. Just because a pair tits belongs to a glorious royal celebrity, everyone squirms with interest to catch a grainy glimpse of the sagging nipples. Meanwhile, the Internet is overflowing with much better tits in HD, albeit without royal pedigree.

Why do people worship celebrities? Why do they subjugate themselves to the titty influence of a random chick who married a balding heir to an ceremonial throne? Who is it that lines the streets to meet these two unremarkable individuals made famous not because of what they've done or the quality of their ideas, but simply by their genetic makeup? For my money, royals are least deserving celebrities. They aren't even famous for somewhat more relevant achievements of being amazing at getting a tennis ball over the net, singing, acting, or being hilarious.

Don't even get me started on these Muslims killing people over a video pathetic enough to be an elementary school project. When the main Hezbollah beard called it "The most serious insult to Islam ever" I almost fell off my chair.
  • Mood: Sadness
  • Listening to: silence
  • Reading: 50 psychology classics
  • Playing: volleyball
  • Eating: tuna
  • Drinking: tea
Add a Comment:
 
:iconcodexcdm:
The media is in a sad state... apparently it's not just stateside only...

But then again... outside the UK... who the **** cares about the "Royal Couple" or whatever they call them? Why should we? Aren't they just symbolic figureheads at this point? But nope... their wedding took up *ALL* TV news stateside for hours. Now with naked pics of the both of them... folks clamoring about that shit too.

The reactions to that shit film is absurd too... it's a fucking internet video... It's like the internet troll theory has gone nuclear. Some jackasses make a crude and offensive film... presumably made in the US of A... and folks are all up in a tizzy. It was posted on Youtube, it could've been posted from *anywhere* in the world. Easy enough to fake your location, then post online for almost complete and hard-to-trace anonymity.
Reply
:iconunlimited-flight:
unlimited-flight Sep 22, 2012  Student Writer
[link]

a good article in reply to your comment about the "Muslim rage." I think pretty much everyone agrees that both the video and killings were ridiculous
Reply
:iconunlimited-flight:
unlimited-flight Sep 22, 2012  Student Writer
in fact, here are a few more good links
[link]

[link]
Reply
:iconanointedphilosopher:
AnointedPhilosopher Sep 20, 2012  Hobbyist Writer
A pair of tits is like eating out. Even when they're not that fantastic, they're still pretty good. LOL.

You're right about all of this hullabaloo being ridiculous.

Me: FUUUUUUUUU
Reply
:iconinterloperux:
InterloperUX Sep 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
I've been meaning to look them up, out of curiosity, but I can't say I care.
Reply
:iconaieren:
aieren Sep 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
From where I sit, it is completely unforgivable to display someone's private parts anywhere without obtaining permission before doing so. It feels like a violation and I am honestly extremely offended that the editor seems to think it is okay because she is a public figure - and that all the other assholes follow suit because they are making an effort to flaunt their mind boggling lack of respect for other people and convince the rest of us that it is okay to publicly rape (in a figurative - but no less violating - sense) poor Kate over and over again. So excuse me, but I think you have completely missed the point of the discussion.
Reply
:iconinterloperux:
InterloperUX Sep 20, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Let me put this to you - If you walked outside half-naked, or naked, and some jerk snaps a shot and puts it online, sure you can be angry, but whose fault is it, really? You put yourself out there. Being a person of some status in the world, however relevant or irrelevant she may be (personally, I only know her name and that she's associated with the royal family), you'd think she'd be more cautious. Surely it wouldn't have been the first time she'd encountered overly invasive pseudo-journalists.
Reply
:iconaieren:
aieren Sep 23, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
If I walk outside on private property dressed or undressed, then whose business is it but mine? And if some jerk snaps a photo of me and posts it anywhere, then he would be a creep and violating my privacy, and I would drag him to court.

And perhaps she should have been more cautious, because she should know the world is full of disgusting stalkers, who have nothing better to do than dog after celebrities in the hopes of catching them in embarrassing situations. But how is that in any way okay? If she had been a regular person there would be no doubt that the stalking by the photographer and the printing of the photos were unlawful acts. But she is married to the future king of England, and that, apparently, is a viable reason not to treat her with common decency and respect.
Reply
:iconinterloperux:
InterloperUX Sep 24, 2012  Hobbyist General Artist
Privacy laws hinge on the victim having a reasonable expectation of privacy, in that circumstance. 1. She was *outside*. 2. She's a celebrity. 3. She was topless. 4. Tabloid photographers have been hounding celebrities for decades, paparazzi-hounding is to be expected, regardless of anyone's opinion of them, when you're a celebrity. I don't see any reasonable expectation for privacy, for someone in her position.
Reply
Add a Comment: