AusCelebs Forums

I see. So when wolverine objectifies her it's ok but when I state clearly what he was insinuating it's not ok?

To be clear as you may not know - Louise Milligan is an ABC journo (usually 4corners) who has in the past been fairly militant in her views to the point of using her clout/platform to cancel people because they disagree with her. EDIT: & then letting the ABC use tax payer money to pay her legal fees and penalties even when shes incurred then NOT performing in a role as journo for the ABC.
She also has a cracking pair of tits.

There - now I'm objectifying women. Altho I'd still call it "admiration". I've included a pic - I'm sure Lou's been on sbs at some point in her career.

Well the [auscelebs] tag doesn't work.

I understood exactly what Wolverine was implying, and I wasn't rapt with it, but I give him a little leeway for at least trying to disguise it a bit. We have to leave some room for bawdiness or innuendo that just misses the mark.

As I've said before I would like to think that if the subjects of my posts were to visit this forum, they would not be overly offended and might even get a kick out of how they are presented here (or at least in my posts). As is often the case in human nature, all the positive feedback (including the thanks) can be diminished by a blunt statement such as yours. By the way, your description of Louise Milligan seems reductive rather than admiring to me. I don't think any woman would feel better (let alone safer) after reading such things, and the effect would probably be worse on someone younger, or less confident. They are vulnerable because they are attractive and their profession demands that they be in the public eye. Perhaps you'd reply with something like "it's their choice", or "gotta take the good with the bad"... I would argue that we owe them some duty of care, but perhaps I am just trying to justify my own participation in this forum. Then again, I'd like to think that most on this forum would feel the same.

I read your post and my 1st thought wasn't kind. But I've reflected. I had a similar discussion with others in the Hex thread.

The pursuit of fame (whether for financial gain or notoriety) is a double edged sword. You can't be famous without the attention and commentary of others - it's human nature and has been this way for a long time. Granted the net, 24 hr news cycle and 'influencers' etc. has changed it a bit but the fact that this forum exists is testament to that.

Brushing it off as me saying "it's their choice" and calling them vulnerable does them a disservice. Don't forget - many of these people went to uni or wada/nida etc. to get a qualification to be in the public eye. And the competition in the field is immense. So kudos to them for getting there but there's no point in giving them latitude for wanting that fame and going thru the process to get it but then saying "Respect my privacy!"'

I may be blunt but I do know of what I speak - I have served in public office (not going to doxx myself) and I have worn the brunt of unwanted/unwarranted attention.
I also accepted at the time that that was part of the job - I couldn't' stick my head above the parapet so to speak without risking getting my head shot off. You simply can't have 1 without the other and thinking so is naive.'

If Louise came here I would hope she would see that there are those (I know I'm not alone') who don't share her politics and behaviour of canceling publicly those who disagree with her and don't agree that the national broadcaster which is tax payer funded should have paid her legal fees for a defamation case brought against her based on a tweet she made on her own personal twitter account while NOT actively performing in her role as a journo for that org.
The size of her breasts is st least secondary to that.

EDIT: and frankly if you want a reason to get upset about blokes here objectifying women go and read the Kylie Gillies thread.

You are simply conflating the two issues (politics and looks) in order to rationalise your desire to talk directly about a woman's anatomy. No matter how well you think you have justified/rationalised your online persona, I don't think your argument would convince many women represented here (and their supporters/admirers) to just suck it up, which is basically your position. Your supposed experience in pubic office does very little to strengthen you argument either, by the way. It doesn't really relate to an attractive young woman deciding to be a journalist (or vice versa chronologically) and having her body parts explicitly evaluated on an internet forum. Basically, I would argue the case that empathy for others should moderate the way we talk about them in public, even for those we disagree with. Whether you think your comments should be taken as compliments, that you are showing your "admiration", says more about your sense of entitlement than anything else.

And if I feel that there is a good chance of attracting comments such as yours, or from the dude who keeps telling everyone how he'd like to all and sundry, then the only power I have left is to stop posting.

Onto my foes list you go - can't say I'll miss your omnibus 600x400 posts.

And I'm sure you need a list to keep track of them

OK, lets stop right here gents. I made an observation and you went to war over it. Let’s dial it back a notch and keep things friendly, alright?