- This topic has 323 replies, 96 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
.
- Posts
And, Chantal Sutherland times her Vanity Fair photoshoot perfectly for this thread.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2r5b8ci.png
Anyone reckon Frankel would still refuse to settle if she was on the pacemaker?
Video of the shoot! http://m.vanityfair.com/video/2012/05/1616261695001
Ugh, I hate Chantal. She’s more concerned about making it in Hollywood than about improving as a jockey. Reminds me of Danica Patrick. Really makes a joke of female jockeys and female athletes in general.
And, Chantal Sutherland times her Vanity Fair photoshoot perfectly for this thread.
http://i48.tinypic.com/2r5b8ci.png
Anyone reckon Frankel would still refuse to settle if she was on the pacemaker?
Video of the shoot! http://m.vanityfair.com/video/2012/05/1616261695001
its very dangerous to be riding a horse without a riding helmet she should know better
Certainly a non-contender would be the woman at Ascot this afternoon wearing a lurid green mini-dress.
Nothing wrong with mini-dresses or mini-skirts per-se, I’m a normal male who appreciates a pretty woman, however this particular individual had what can best be described as thunder thighs and, arguably, the majority of the nations supply of cellulite.
It was so, so wrong – has she no friends who could have had a quiet word with her?
Certainly a non-contender would be the woman at Ascot this afternoon wearing a lurid green mini-dress.
Nothing wrong with mini-dresses or mini-skirts per-se, I’m a normal male who appreciates a pretty woman, however this particular individual had what can best be described as thunder thighs and, arguably, the majority of the nations supply of cellulite.
It was so, so wrong – has she no friends who could have had a quiet word with her?
LOL – BOOM – she needs introducing to this site, actually this thread!!
Seriously though, seven shades of Katie Walsh
And God bless her stutter, it makes her more endearing……what a woman
If only she had a more interesting family as well
Seriously, what a woman! I think it’s time for someone to start talking about a restraining order!!
Granted her link to horse racing is very tenuous indeed since she’s only qualified by virtue of being engaged to a man occasionally attends race meetings and sometimes posts on a horse racing forum. But it has to be my beautiful fiancee.
Seriously though, isn’t this all incredibly sad? Admiring women on their looks alone demeans men as much as it demeans women plus it encourages the rank and hollow tartism as alluded to by Miss Woodford.
Besides, the culture of aesthetically judging women says much about the perpetrator. Namely that said ogler is either painfully insecure, a virgin or devoid of the attributes required to secure a beautiful and gratifying woman of his own.
Tell your fiancee BH, her opinions were very well dictated.
I’m very much against judging women on looks alone. Lydia Hislop hasn’t got what some might call conventional good looks, but she has the over all package, including personality and sense of humour (and a dirty laugh) I like.
However, whether someone is "physically attractive" is just one way we (the public) judge people and it always will be. The ITV programme "Loose Women" is the most sexist programme on day-time TV, and yet it is female on male. Women can make any judgement they like towards men these days, yet it seems we can not do the same.
Ask a woman why she enjoys going to a rugby match and see what answer you get BH.
Value Is EverythingSeriously though, isn’t this all incredibly sad?
The looks aspect should be only a very small part of the overall picture of how someone is judged by others but it’s a fact, sad or otherwise, that people who are blessed with very good looks are much more likely to get on in all areas of life, whether it’s in the media or in other, more mundane aspects of life.
It shouldn’t be that way but that’s the reality.
Good luck to them. There’s no point being po-faced about it.
It’s a bit rich now for Selina Scott and others to keep bleating on about women being dropped from high-profile TV roles when they got older, greyer and more wrinkled.
The reason she got her job in the first place was because of her looks. Same with Anna Ford. They may both have good journalistic and presenting skills as well, but the primary reason they got their jobs at the time was because of their looks. To claim now, when other younger reporters and newsreaders come along, that looks shouldn’t be important is hypocritical. In fairness, Selina has recently admitted this.
Why do you think all those attractive female presenters, sports reporters and weather presenters get their jobs on Sky (with a few exceptions)? It’s because of their good looks. The news presenters are not called autocuties for nothing.
They all know it but most of them refuse to admit it publicly, preferring to think that their journalistic or presenting ability really got them the jobs. It’s self-delusional and, of course, the equality proponents delude themselves when they rail against broadcasters for seemingly putting only pretty women on TV or claim that women are discriminated against over looks because men are supposedly not subjected to the same rules about looks.
Anybody who is very attractive, confident, well-presented and generally pleasing on the eye will always have an advantage over the rest of the people. It’s a fact of life. I don’t like it or condone it but it’s a fact of life. Image is everything, especially if you work for Sky.
Julie Etchingham and Mary Nightingale are excellent at their jobs (Julie was outstanding during the general election coverage) but I’m sure she would concede that she first got her job on BBC Breakfast TV, before moving to Sky and then ITN, primarily because of her attractiveness. It’s life, sadly. Better to accept it than deny it. I don’t resent people who are good looking for their added good fortune in being able to use their looks to open doors that are closed for others but I don’t like it when such people, or others trying to deny basic realities, try to pretend that physical good looks are not the great advantage in life that they undoubtedly are.Besides, the culture of aesthetically judging women says much about the perpetrator. Namely that said ogler is either painfully insecure, a virgin or devoid of the attributes required to secure a beautiful and gratifying woman of his own.
I’ll get my coat.
I couldn’t disagree with anything you say ginge (although one could make a point of contesting your concluding statement as it would be unfair to suggest that women are incapable of enjoying rugger for the finer tactical aspects rather than the unadulterated machismo that comes with it…)
I do hope that my views aren’t misread as something championing that of a rug munching bra burner for I can assure you that they are not. I utterly abhor sexism and consider contemporary feminism to be as unequal, divisive and hypocritical as any of the -isms.
Furthermore, it does not escape me that neither shallowness or superficiality are gender specific traits. David Beckham is the most famous footballer known to the majority of English women despite him not having set foot on an English pitch since March 2010. Conversely, many female football fans will tell you that Lionel Messi is "proper lush" despite the fact that he’s a 7/10 at best and his attraction is based solely on his status.
My gripe is that as a man, I feel that my gender is kicking itself in the balls when it enslaves itself to the masturbatory fantasies espoused within this thread. Fantasies which ironically, are most unmanly.
Still, I hope that your love for Lydia will one day be requited
My school mate’s sister was a pretty popular lady jockey in her day. Maxine Juster. Married Sir Colin Cowdrey I think.
Seriously though, isn’t this all incredibly sad?
It shouldn’t be that way but that’s the reality.
Good luck to them. There’s no point being po-faced about it.I was more on the side of lamenting/pitying the enablers of this vacuity than anything else.
Besides, the culture of aesthetically judging women says much about the perpetrator. Namely that said ogler is either painfully insecure, a virgin or devoid of the attributes required to secure a beautiful and gratifying woman of his own.
I’ll get my coat.
???
My gripe is that as a man, I feel that my gender is kicking itself in the balls when it enslaves itself to the masturbatory fantasies espoused within this thread. Fantasies which ironically, are most unmanly.
Still, I hope that your love for Lydia will one day be requited
My love will sadly always be unrequited BH.When this thread started, I did have reservations along the same lines as your gripe. But I haven’t seen anything that any women mentioned on these pages could find offensive. Which surely is a tribute to the men on this forum? In fact one lovely lady Lekha seemed over the moon to be mentioned in this thread.
Besides, there is nothing wrong with "masturbatory fantasies", as long as those fantasies do not change the way a man thinks about real women. And if you ask your good lady, she may even tell you some of her "masterbatory fantasies" about men.
Value Is EverythingBesides, there is nothing wrong with "masturbatory fantasies", as long as those fantasies do not change the way a man thinks about real women. And if you ask your good lady, she may even tell you some of her "masterbatory fantasies" about men.
And thats coming from the biggest W*nker on here eh Ginge!
[attachment=0:3v5gpjlp]chantal-sutherland.jpg[/attachment:3v5gpjlp]
Chantal Sutherland is the 130th jockey in the country in terms of earnings in 2012.
Rosemary Homeister is 96th.
Forest Boyce is 87th.
Emma-Jayne Wilson is 85th.
Rosie Napravik is7th
. She’s 4th in the Belmont Park standings so far this meet, and was 1st at last two Fair Grounds meets. She got another big win this weekend in the G2 Peter Pan on Mark Valeski.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.