Mind you, if you can't see what people are talking about then there's not a lot of point in having the thread. I don't like clicking onto the DM website.
Bah. Swings and roundabouts innit?
A two-sentence summary of the image, and what makes it objectionable, should be enough, with a link for those who want one.
It's useful that Mailwatch logs the Mail's repeated use of gratuitous and titillating pictures, especially as the rag gets on its high horse about decency and refuses to print the word 'crap' without asterisks. The Mail is the voyeurist's paper of choice — I think this forum should emphasise that, without contributing to it. That might be a difficult balance to strike. I often find myself clicking on a link thinking, 'They haven't, have they?'
Mind you, you could say that about the Tits thread too.
I must admit to being less than comfortable with that one, myself. It seems to go against what we set out to do here, whereas in fact the Mail is just doing what all news outlets do (I see that Huffpost is running the lingerie-company story, too, but with fewer tits.)
I post quite a lot in Tits (and Arse). Partly it's to emphasise the flimsiness of the Mail's attempt to disguise the pornographic content of its articles by cloaking it in hastily-written text which appears to have been composed by computers fed a diet of rubbish euphemisms and descriptive passages from 1950s wank mags. Partly it's because the Mail's approach to ladyflesh is uniquely sleazy and misogynistic (and here I disagree slightly with Malcolm), as it combines the power trip of peeping-Tom pap snaps with a reductive, dehumanising view of women, depicting them as a combination of pricktease, dancing bear, and showroom dummy. I wouldn't have linked the lingerie story, and I don't repost the Mail's photos unless I can't make my point without them; but I'm not going to object to whoever did as I'm sure it would be easy to take issue with some of what I have