Selectively sexist

Model and worldwide desire-object Lara Bingle, infamous for uttering the words “Where the bloody hell are you?” in the ‘controversial’ Tourism Australia ad, is suing lad wank mag Zoo Weekly for defamation, misleading conduct and breach of copyright after it published pics of her posing in a revealing swimsuit.

Breach of copyright makes sense since Zoo Weekly didn’t own the photos, but defamed how? According to the Herald, Bingle’s lawsuit claims the magazine implied she:

  • Consented to pose in a G-string bikini for a smutty men’s magazine;
  • Was the sort of model who would invite readers to achieve sexual pleasure from her photographs; and
  • Was prepared to demean herself for money by being photographed scantily clad for a smutty men’s magazine.

This would all be terribly unjust if the mag had, say, followed her down to the beach and taken photos without her permission. But these pics were from a professional photo shoot done in August and were “taken only for two uses: promoting the photographer’s company, Roger Management [snigger] and her modelling career“.

So Bingle’s beef is not so much that she was being objectified for the pleasure of men but who gets to treat her as if she were a piece of meat. It’s a bit rich to say you’re not prepared to demean yourself for money in a men’s mag if you’re quite clearly prepared to demean yourself for money for a photographer or modelling agency.

9 Comments Add yours

  1. Josh says:

    Interesting . . . I’ve noticed a few click-throughs for this article coming from larabingle.celebsunzipped.net. I also noticed they’ve ripped off some of my commentary and included it in their own editorial blurb, naughty naughty.
    Interesting business model, though. Trawl Google for some images and text from around the interweb, steal the best bits and watch the hits – and ad revenue – roll in. As long as not too many people sue for stealing (the fashionable word these says is “aggregating”) their intellectual property and you keep up with enough in-the-news celeb gossip, it’s minimal work for I guess reasonable pay.

  2. Kristy says:

    I cant stand that girl..2 words describe her.. homewrecker and a skank!!

  3. polyestergirl says:

    oh,poor lara bingle.she is an absolutely beautiful young woman, although not the sharpest tool in the shed i will admit, but not everybody can be. i find it a real damn shame that people can only criticise her for speaking out against lads mags trash for publishing photographs of her without her permission.so what if she posed erotically for a photographer. a woman has the right to choose what she does with her life and her body. what right did zoo magazine and co have to publish photos of her without her permission, and then make up some smutty captions that are highly degrading to women as if she were the one who had said.lara bingle is a young model and like it or not there are young girls who look up to her and the fact that she is rebelling over the loss of her control over her identity to lads mags filth is a positive step for women. lara bingles outcry brought the media’s attention to problem. if lara bingle chooses to be a model,let her. let us blame the real protagonists, the media, for propelling the misogynistic views that society treats as a norm!

  4. Josh says:

    So it’s degrading and sexist for Zoo to publish the photos without permission because they have smutty captions . . . but if she has raunchy photos taken to further her career, that’s an empowered feminist choice? That’s a level of hair-splitting I’m not prepared to accept.
    I’ve got nothing against her being a model and nothing much against her using her looks and body to advance her career. But it’s hypocritical to get all huffy and litigious when someone else publishes photos that demean her sexually if she is obviously prepared to do the same to herself when it suits.

  5. thepigs says:

    remember: paying prostitutes means its not rape.

  6. I suppose she has to find some way to translate her grievance into acceptable legal categories. For what it’s worth, I don’t approve, in general, of the concept of photo defamation. I’m happy if she wins on the other grounds. Good luck to her. Of course, any good lawyer will advise her to pursue whatever grounds have some prospect of success. You can’t blame them for that, or her for going along with it.

    Incidentally, I’m showing my age, but I’ve never heard of her – or never taken much notice if I have. (It’s doubtless mutual.) I’ll assume she is pretty, as models do tend to be, but I’m kind of addressing this issue in the abstract with no real sense of the person involved.

  7. Polyestergirl says:

    vealmince, i dont think you quite understand, but thats ok, your interpretation is highly typical of this confused and backward society. the point is that whether or not exhibitionism is degrading or not is entirely subjective. if you think it is, then that is your opinion. but who was the bigger exploiter in this situation? its one thing to exploit and/or sell yourself. its an entirely to exploit someone else, which is what zoo did. so where is the hypocricy?

Leave a reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s