Attractive girls, white knights and the internet, a match made in hell.
It's an opinion, he has the right to post it, she has the right to reply. He clarified what he meant in a second tweet, as his initial tweet was taken the wrong way, it's a big fuss over nothing and there are worse things said about women on twitter than a grump over a wank mag doing a soft shoot. It's a small amount of replies so not remotely a big deal imo and nothing to do with the forum anyway. Does it make her look bad, not really, does it make him look bad, not really.
Skully, you're far too gentle and lenient for the internet! Though I am something of a reactionary, I admit. The guy did nowt wrong, that's all, and yet the wolves came out to pounce on him. It's a shame.
Not really, I've banned far too many people and handed out far too many warnings to be considered gentle or lenient.
I just don't let stupid shit like that bother me, she took something the wrong way, he didn't apologise, as he didn't need too, but did clarify what he meant. A couple of models and a couple of guys posting replies that were neither here nor there, it isn't a big deal.
She didn't even insult the guy, so I doubt he's as bothered by it as you are, I know this stuff winds you up...which is your prerogative, but meh. lol.
I agree Skully
the problem being is that IMO when u give constructive criticism to some one it works two ways - they either accept or they don't. IMO she may have taken the comments made the wrong way, but at the same time, she probably had her own brief/idea for how she wanted the photos to look. And at the same time I can see the guys point too and agree it isn't a big deal.
I think her reply was reasonable enough, and she finished it with a kiss smiley.
It's hardly her fault if others start chipping in (and even that was mild compared with some of the crap you see)
So as an occasional defender of the forum on twitter (boredom and an occasional need to antagonize if I'm honest) I had a quick scan of the tweets.
All very good natured and harmless until a load of other pitched in and it got a bit silly. However a couple of things struck me which mildly annoyed and amused:
1) Delia likening her decision on what to show with the struggle for universal suffrage (I really wasn't sure where to start with this
)
2) A lot of the Babeshow girls don't seem to have twigged that they are not getting Paul Raymond shoots because they are the greatest models. They are getting them (and there is barely a month without a babeshow girl on the cover) because the girls have the biggest social media footprints which helps particularly online sales. If the sell rates are crap (when word gets out Delia doesn't show) she won't get asked back.
I guess its the certainty of ignorance (for the sloganising of "our body, our rules" read "shit sales, f**k off") that most amuses me
Still I though Delia handled it (outside of the "pressure" comment) very nicely
Interesting that she fails to remember when she did BG Skype shows with Yasmin James for £100 for 10mins
Yeah just saw that, the bit that got me was Jessie Jensen's reply some girls want to leave something to the imagination or something like that. Code for unless i'm paid x which is extortion i won't get my fanny out. I mean did anyone expect anything differently from Delia? i haven't seen them but they could probably be printed in the star for how risqué they were. Her response was over the top but it’s what’s to be expected from these babes now. They only really want to be surrounded by white knights and the slave/paypigs!!
I agree... It all seems a bit of a storm in a teacup. His comment was pretty mild and innocuous and her response was pretty measured and polite.
Considering that the central topic was nudey pics in a porn mag, it was about as genteel an exchange as one could imagine on today's Internet.
(Have you ever read the chat scroll next to the CNN live stream? That's like fucking Thunderdome!)
All of that said -- and at the risk of being mis-portrayed as a "white knight" -- I can understand why girls might be overly defensive when it comes to guys wanting to see more than they get. Although this particular comment was pretty tame, I've seen plenty of unwarranted criticism of babes for not showing enough skin on a day show, or not being topless in a tease hour, or not getting completely naked by 10:05 PM. So it wouldn't surprise me if a babe over-reacts now and again to some poor sap that probably doesn't deserve it.
It's not the messenger she's mad at ... it's the underlying and tiresome 'get yer tits out for the lads' message.
I will say this:- When the likes of Zoo/Nuts etc went out of business I did half expect the focus of those mags' demise to turn on the porn ones I think in a way the Raymond magazines had their height of success in late 70's & '80's through to early 90's when you consider the page 3 girls that were then and I think many of us would remember that the girls were offered huge sums to strip off back then and quite often, there was a lot of guessing going on which girls had done so.
Delia could have responded a little cheekier rather than the way she did, and the banter would been better. I would say that content in porn magazines now is nowhere near as strong as the stuff seen online these days or as it was in the "Vintage" period as I described above and still amazed the mags are still around.
It's well documented how badly some babes treat their fans/customers. But if we're going to start feigning outrage at something as innocuous as that it kind of undermines our side of the argument.