Is Madonna A Dirty Old Woman?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498861/PIERS-MORGAN-dirty-old-woman-Madonna-man-just-pariah.html

Just imagine if a geeza had done this?

She's too old now to get away with all the sexual stuff she did in her twenties.   It's undignified and just looks desperate.

She was always about the sex and the attention.
Shame really as she didn't have a bad voice and made some pretty Awesome and catchy pop songs.

Stormee wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498861/PIERS-MORGAN-dirty-old-woman-Madonna-man-just-pariah.html

Just imagine if a geeza had done this?

But she's not a man. So your point is pointless.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Stormee wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3498861/PIERS-MORGAN-dirty-old-woman-Madonna-man-just-pariah.html

Just imagine if a geeza had done this?

But she's not a man. So your point is pointless.

Yourz is pointlesser. ooopz

mutton dressed as lamb as they say...well past her "display untill" date

Stormee wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

But she's not a man. So your point is pointless.

Yourz is pointlesser. ooopz

No, my point is that it's a gender normative issue.

Lord Foul wrote:mutton dressed as lamb as they say...well past her "display untill" date

I agree. She's become embarrassing.

Not surprising Rocco wants to stay with dad.

I can't believe you're all saying such things so soon after international women's day.

They were both make a public statement. So brave.

PIERS MORGAN is a hypocritical old mysogynist perv; an expat pom living in the USA  --  there's probably some good reasons there why he's in no hurry to return to Britain (?).

HE'S also full of shit == a 16 year old is NOT "considered an adult" over here !
THE age of consent is 16, but a person still has to be 18 to vote, to drink alcohol legally, and to sign contracts to buy real estate or shares in their own right -- much the same as England, if I'm not mistaken ?  
AND  to be locked up in an adult jail..

AS FAR AS the measure of the man goes, I'm sure a few people here would be aware of how badly he has been slagging off British sports people over the years (rugby, cricket, tennis..)?

I WONDER if maybe Madonna either rebuffed Morgan or 'slapped him down' 20 or 30 years ago, considering his vitriol in that article !??
NOT that I would bother defending her though -- I reckon she is on the way out, a fading light on the music scene, refusing to "grow old gracefully"..
EARLIER in the week, she was nearly three hours late starting her Melbourne concert;  with hundreds leaving beforehand and demanding refunds.
MAYBE we're witnessing the professional demise of a former diva ?     

She's a twat.

She is an embarrassment. I know the 17 year old is not offended, but Madonna had no right to drag her top down in front of thousands....now millions of people.
What makes some people think they can do what they like just because they are famous?

SOMEONE SHOULD ENTER HER IN CRUFTS

Meh, too much is made of breasts. That's gynocentrism, not feminism.

Breasts are quite natural.

Original Quill wrote:Meh, too much is made of breasts.  That's gynocentrism, not feminism.

Breasts are quite natural.

Some more natural than others.

Original Quill wrote:Meh, too much is made of breasts.  That's gynocentrism, not feminism.

Breasts are quite natural.

So are penises, but I bet you wouldn't want your pants whipped down in front of thousands of people.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Meh, too much is made of breasts.  That's gynocentrism, not feminism.

Breasts are quite natural.

So are penises, but I bet you wouldn't want your pants whipped down in front of thousands of people.

\\

Right on Syl.

It is a quip, I am not 'supporting' her.

Stormee wrote:

Syl wrote:

So are penises, but I bet you wouldn't want your pants whipped down in front of thousands of people.

\\

Right on Syl.

It is a quip, I am not 'supporting' her.

I know...it was Quill who made that post not you.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Meh, too much is made of breasts.  That's gynocentrism, not feminism.

Breasts are quite natural.

So are penises, but I bet you wouldn't want your pants whipped down in front of thousands of people.

Gd. point. I think altogether too much is make of nudity. Whether it's the porn purveyor or the prud just out of church, they should all be locked up on Sundays. Lol.

After all, if we weren't all so frantic about it, it would be a non-issue, right?

she should be charged the age of consent is 16, the age to be in sexual explicit performance however is 18.
 

if it had been a man say a male rapper they would have been charged no questions asked. sexism and hypocrisy

veya_victaous wrote:she should be charged the age of consent is 16, the age to be in sexual explicit performance however is 18.
 

if it had been a man say a male rapper they would have been charged no questions asked. sexism and hypocrisy

Yes, but there is a different theory going on with the underaged. The theory is that, legally, they can't consent because they haven't reached a condition precedent...the age of maturity.

That's a lot different than non-consensual.

I say, forgetaboutit!!

Hmmmm


what you appear to be saying is that you consider "law" and in this case in particular staute law, to be inadequate to deal with what is becomming an increasingly complex situation.

if thats so...what is YOUR solution?

Original Quill wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:she should be charged the age of consent is 16, the age to be in sexual explicit performance however is 18.
 

if it had been a man say a male rapper they would have been charged no questions asked. sexism and hypocrisy

Yes, but there is a different theory going on with the underaged.  The theory is that, legally, they can't consent because they haven't reached a condition precedent...the age of maturity.

That's a lot different than non-consensual.

I say, forgetaboutit!!

nope she did it in all her shows got someone and did this.

If it were snoop dog they would have tried to arrest him
they DID when he allegedly tried smoked pot on stage
EQUALITY means NO Exceptions for an old white woman

She has been late and caused Public transport dramas that have cost the tax payers money
AND SHE HAS BROKEN THE LAW
as producer of that show it is not allowed Any nudity from someone under 18 especially not sexualised nudity Which that WAS. it is Technically Child Porn.

My opinion is that individual’s like Madonna must be held to a much higher standard than regular joe and NO WAY regular joe could pull a 17 year olds top down on stage during a PAID performance without being in a tonne of shit.

^Quite.

If a male performeer did this to a 17 year old girl there would be outrage.

She is a desperate old has-been who is so determined to stay in the limelight that she does something bordering on criminal as well as just tacky and indecent.

Its time for her to let it go and retire.

Lord Foul wrote:Hmmmm


what you appear to be saying is that you consider "law" and in this case in particular staute law, to be inadequate to deal with what is becomming an increasingly complex situation.

if thats so...what is YOUR solution?

You are absolutely right. I consider laws like this the product of 19th-century religious rites. I have no issue with laws prohibiting sex with minors, but showing a little chest? C'mon. Underaged men (boys) go to the beach every day and show their chests.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but there is a different theory going on with the underaged.  The theory is that, legally, they can't consent because they haven't reached a condition precedent...the age of maturity.

That's a lot different than non-consensual.

I say, forgetaboutit!!

nope she did it in all her shows got someone and did this.

If it were snoop dog they would have tried to arrest him
they DID when he allegedly tried smoked pot on stage
EQUALITY means NO Exceptions for an old white woman

She has been late and caused Public transport dramas that have cost the tax payers money
AND SHE HAS BROKEN THE LAW
as producer of that show it is not allowed Any nudity from someone under 18 especially not sexualised nudity Which that WAS. it is Technically Child Porn.

My opinion is that individual’s like Madonna must be held to a much higher standard than regular joe and NO WAY regular joe could pull a 17 year olds top down on stage during a PAID performance without being in a tonne of shit.

Veya, I'm talking about the legal theory involved. You can't just say "NOPE", because you haven't provided any counter-theory. In fact, we aren't even in the same discussion until you see this point.

Cass wrote:^Quite.

If a male performeer did this to a 17 year old girl there would be outrage.

She is a desperate old has-been who is so determined to stay in the limelight that she does something bordering on criminal as well as just tacky and indecent.

Its time for her to let it go and retire.

It isn't about male vs. female perps.  It's about, Is there anything behind the sentiment (what is illegal) here?

Original Quill wrote:

Cass wrote:^Quite.

If a male performeer did this to a 17 year old girl there would be outrage.

She is a desperate old has-been who is so determined to stay in the limelight that she does something bordering on criminal as well as just tacky and indecent.

Its time for her to let it go and retire.

It isn't about male vs. female perps.  It's about, Is there anything behind the sentiment (what is illegal) here?

sexually explicit performance of a minor, technically live child porn.

Quill IT IS 100% illegal to pull the shirt off a 17 year old girl in public. make it part of a perfomance and it is child porn
techniclaly every image of the minor is child porn. That is the way the law is written.

Quill how are you even suggesting it is legal?

If that had been Snopp dog or any rapper any 'not pop princess' they would have thrown him in jail as fast as they could.

Like many down here SICK of Rich White Woman Getting away with what NO ONE ELSE would!!!

I thought you were a lawyer, Quill?

Are you saying its legal to do this to a minor?

Legal theory?!
Nonsense, it's not theory that the predatory old bitch exposed the breast of a minor in a live performance. She should be arrested and on the sex offenders register quicker than you can say attention whore.

Quill is not a lawyer or he would know the law.
She could be charged with sexual assault.

What a silly fuss. The girl didn't mind - in fact it got her name out there.

veya_victaous wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

It isn't about male vs. female perps.  It's about, Is there anything behind the sentiment (what is illegal) here?

sexually explicit performance of a minor, technically live child porn.

Quill IT IS 100% illegal to pull the shirt off a 17 year old girl in public. make it part of a perfomance and it is child porn
techniclaly every image of the minor is child porn. That is the way the law is written.

Yes, but I was referring to that which is "behind the sentiment" of the law. In other words, I wasn't talking about the law per se. I was talking about the sentiment motivating to the law.

What is the sentiment for hiding the breasts? We don't have the same sentiment for men, apparently. Males go topless on the beach everyday, and they even have teeny-tiny little areolas, don't they? So, is this a sexist law...or what?

Breasts are relatively massive blobs of fat mounted on chests, which contain mammary glands that produce milk. Is there something frightening, or perhaps embarrassing about producing milk? We disrobe and reveal our toes? Our arms, hands and fingers. We certainly are not shy about our faces, and the expressions we can make with them. How about our ears? What is it about these blobs of fat mounted on chests that make them so holy and sacrosanct?

This isn't about law. I know revealing one's breast is against the law. I'm questioning why?? Laws are written by men, not gods. Laws didn't just appear on the horizon one morning. Men write them down and pass them around. Presumably, these men have a sentiment to make bare breasts illegal. What is the sentiment behind the law to hide the breasts?

I strikes me a bit like Muslim women must hide their faces. Well, western women must hide their chests. No reason...God said so, I guess.

veya_victaous wrote:Quill how are you even suggesting it is legal?

If that had been Snopp dog or any rapper any 'not pop princess' they would have thrown him in jail as fast as they could.

Like many down here SICK of Rich White Woman Getting away with what NO ONE ELSE would!!!

My post had nothing to do with law.  I'm well aware it's illegal.  What I'm addressing is: what is the sentiment that motivates this particular law?

Did you not read my original post?  

Original Quill wrote:It's about, Is there anything behind the sentiment (what is illegal) here?

The words are right there.  Go back and re-read.

Anyway, if you wear a boob tube, you should expect it to come adrift at some point.

Raggamuffin wrote:What a silly fuss. The girl didn't mind - in fact it got her name out there.

That's a most poignant point. If she wasn't offended, who was??

eddie wrote:I thought you were a lawyer, Quill?

You are certainly no judge of that! You can't even read a single sentence, and distinguish between "the sentiment" and the actual law.

nicko wrote:Quill is not a lawyer  or he would know the law.
She could be charged with sexual assault.

A bit jealous, are we? FGS, you can't even read at the 3-grade level. Don't be passing judgment on your superiors.

What size hat do you take---------loser.

She is still a disgusting old baggage. Yuk.
I can't believe any one would class the illegality of this as sentiment

nicko wrote:What size hat do you take---------loser.

Hey, I'm a respected professional. You are the ex-POW who allowed himself to be caught. As Trump would say-----------loser.

Raggamuffin wrote:What a silly fuss. The girl didn't mind - in fact it got her name out there.

I'm not sure I believe that, given her expression of shock and disbelief. Maybe she just didn't want to challenge a powerful celebrity.

Original Quill wrote:

nicko wrote:What size hat do you take---------loser.

Hey, I'm a respected professional.  You are the ex-POW who allowed himself to be caught.  As Trump would say-----------loser.

That is nasty.

@lex wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:What a silly fuss. The girl didn't mind - in fact it got her name out there.

I'm not sure I believe that, given her expression of shock and disbelief. Maybe she just didn't want to challenge a powerful celebrity.

She was most probably flattered rather than intimidated. She was thrilled because old slapper Madonna was saying she looked like a Victorias secrets model.....the girl is 17 and easily impressed.

Stormee wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Hey, I'm a respected professional.  You are the ex-POW who allowed himself to be caught.  As Trump would say-----------loser.

That is nasty.

I don't like baby-killers any more than he likes lawyers.  Sorry, if that is nasty...it's nonetheless real.

They go into an independent country, and they don't bring warm puppies.  They go in with guns, knives and tanks.  Now what do you think they are all about?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:I thought you were a lawyer, Quill?

You are certainly no judge of that!  You can't even read a single sentence, and distinguish between "the sentiment" and the actual law.

I do know what the term "backtracking" means though - and so do you by the looks of it

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are certainly no judge of that!  You can't even read a single sentence, and distinguish between "the sentiment" and the actual law.

I do know what the term "backtracking" means though - and so do you by the looks of it

I have no idea what you mean. "Backtracking?" I haven't gone anywhere. I've been here all along.

Raggamuffin wrote:Anyway, if you wear a boob tube, you should expect it to come adrift at some point.

It didn't come adrift....it was yanked down.