Roslyn
Heir Apparent
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2006
- Messages
- 4,140
- City
- Tintenbar
- Country
- Australia
I'm assuming we're talking about the snake pics. FWIW, I certainly don't classify them as porn.
Very precise definitions, and for those who have only seen the 'Slitz' bikini and snake photos of Sofia Hellqvist, certainly an accurate assessment (though I can’t quite see the ‘glamour’ part in them).Based on the pictures that I've seen, Sofia hasn't actually been in porn.
Pictures that simply feature nudity are not porn. There are 3 different forms of nude photos that can be taken: glamour photos, soft core pornography photos, and hardcore pornography pictures.
Glamour photos feature subjects portrayed in romantic or sexually alluring ways - they may be clothed or semi nude. The intent is not to deliberately arouse the viewer.
Pornographic photos are photos that explicitly display sexual subject matter for the intent of arousing the viewer. In porn sexual acts are shot - in soft core in a more suggestive manner, and in hardcore in a more explicit manner.
In short - suggestive photos that don't display any sex are glamour, photos that suggestively display sex are softcore porn, and photos that explicitly display sex are hardcore porn.
What Sofia did in Slits is glamour, not porn.
Sorry, but with all respect, I can't say that Sofia is working hard, she is far from hard-working people, at least there are members of royal families who work harder with less publicity. I admit she is working in this field of charity and she does her best, but she is not Mother Teresa in the real proportions of work. In our age of humanity there is nothing new in the connexion of different celebrities with charity organizations, so Sofia is not new here and after all the rumours she needed a good PR company. She does not have any specific achieviements besides her beauty and working as a model and now she is working at improving her image.A lot of people make mistakes in their lives and some people just go about exploring life more differently than others. Some people make their mistakes and then move on in their lives.
Sofia is now in a good place in her life, from what I see. She went on to open a studio and started to teach yoga in New York. She has gone on to co found a charity in Africa that help those in need. She works hard with others in raising money for her charity. From what I see, she's in a loving relationship with a young man who just happens to be a prince.
Is she not allowed to move on and be happy with the person she love and who love her? Or should she be bashed, punished and thrown in a dungeon forever because of what she did in her young and green days?
From what I see, Carl Philip and his family isn't punishing her for something she did before she met them. They are embracing her for who she is today and not holding the past against her.
Even if she liked the idea of fame a little, tell me who don't. The other European princesses do their official duties very well and believe in duty to their family, country and the people but I think they also enjoy the glamour, noterity, prestige and honor that goes along with the job. Even Princess Maxima have admitted that being royal is a pretty nice job at the time William & Catherine's engagement.
If had the chance to become a Prince, I wouldn't complain about it but rise to the occasion and enjoy the ride. That's just me.
Very precise definitions, and for those who have only seen the 'Slitz' bikini and snake photos of Sofia Hellqvist, certainly an accurate assessment (though I can’t quite see the ‘glamour’ part in them).
But her many photos taken when she was sixteen are definitely borderline soft porn, IMHO; the poses are far too suggestive to not have the purpose of what you’re calling 'the intent of arousing the viewer'. The fact that she actually looks younger than sixteen in the pics and that the series includes some bondage-like imagery leaves a rather bad aftertaste.
The same goes for the series of nude pics taken much later in New York where she was living with a boyfriend and his child shortly before she started to date Prince Carl Philip; in that photo shoot, everything is intended to arouse and present a kinky atmosphere, including fetish elements, and nothing hints at 'romantic' or 'glamour'.
Still, I agree with 'blauerengel' above:
The most worrying aspect about her is not that these photos exist (although they would be all over the media once an official engagement should occur and cauzse damage no matter what) but that these photos are part of a single-minded but unsuccessful determination to become famous which appears to have been her only real ambition in life until she met the Prince – and which might still be her major motivation after meeting him.
She's the co-founder of a charity, not a patron. There a big difference
Most interesting...
...because in earlier press releases until last year, for example about the PP activity during the Volvo Ocean Race, 'Project Playground' used to be founded in 2009.
But apparently it was co-founded once more by two people in 2010... which allows to omit any timeline before and is a nice example of what I meant by 're-writing history'.
Seems that Frida Vesterberg is truly a very good friend.
So, now, my question still remains the same as back in November of 2012: is she really a co-founder, or was the history re-written to make her look like one?
Perhaps the charity needed to be revamped and Sofia helped do that.
It really don't matter anyway because Project Playground seem to be doing pretty good on helping those in need. The charity is doing what it suppose to do and the founders are working hard to keep everything going.
IMHO very incorrect, as Carl Philip's last name happens to be not Svensson but Bernadotte... and incorrect also because the Swedish people finance at least part of his and his girlfriend's life.I am so tired of having to say this, but if CP has no problem with her past ambitions then that is all that matters.
Oh good gawd! So she wanted to be famous, who cares. It was years ago and once again CP and his family appear to not be threatened by her past actions or desire to be famous. Perhaps she has grown up and gotten over the superficial desire. I am so tired of having to say this, but if CP has no problem with her past ambitions then that is all that matters. Unfortunately people on this board think they can dictate what Carl Philip does and who he marries.
Despite who financies who, If Carl Philip decide to marry Sofia, he will do so and there's nothing any of us on this board can do about it. He will do as he see fit.
Also, just because Sofia co-founded a charity does not mean anyone is trying to make her out to be a saint or even close to one. From the pictures and little videos I have seen, Sofia and others are doing this stuff from their hearts and caring about those children. Even Carl Philip believe in this charity and just the other day helping out raising money at the charity's dinner.
Very precise definitions, and for those who have only seen the 'Slitz' bikini and snake photos of Sofia Hellqvist, certainly an accurate assessment (though I can’t quite see the ‘glamour’ part in them).
But her many photos taken when she was sixteen are definitely borderline soft porn, IMHO; the poses are far too suggestive to not have the purpose of what you’re calling 'the intent of arousing the viewer'. The fact that she actually looks younger than sixteen in the pics and that the series includes some bondage-like imagery leaves a rather bad aftertaste.
The same goes for the series of nude pics taken much later in New York where she was living with a boyfriend and his child shortly before she started to date Prince Carl Philip; in that photo shoot, everything is intended to arouse and present a kinky atmosphere, including fetish elements, and nothing hints at 'romantic' or 'glamour'.
Still, I agree with 'blauerengel' above:
The most worrying aspect about her is not that these photos exist (although they would be all over the media once an official engagement should occur and cauzse damage no matter what) but that these photos are part of a single-minded but unsuccessful determination to become famous which appears to have been her only real ambition in life until she met the Prince – and which might still be her major motivation after meeting him.
Oh good gawd! So she wanted to be famous, who cares. It was years ago and once again CP and his family appear to not be threatened by her past actions or desire to be famous. Perhaps she has grown up and gotten over the superficial desire. I am so tired of having to say this, but if CP has no problem with her past ambitions then that is all that matters. Unfortunately people on this board think they can dictate what Carl Philip does and who he marries.
The idea is basically that porn depicts sex, while glamour does not - the pictures taken in "glamour" shots may not be all that glamourous to you or I, but that's what it's called.
Unless Sofia has had photos taken of her engaging in an actual sex act she is not a porn model, she's a glamour model.
What's more is that I highly doubt photos taken of her at age 16 are (or were intended to be) porn. The age of consent for porn in most countries (including Sweden) is 18.
You're funny. Of course were not dictating Carl Philip. We're merely looking out for his best interests.
No offense, and I've said this before, but people like you are hypocrites cause you bash people like Paris Hilton and the Kardashians and you uplift people like Sofia. That to me is wrong.
I've seen nude photos in W magazine and Vogue where the goal is to emphasize the jewelry or hair design... that's a glamour shot. Sofia's pics in my opinion were not glamour in any way. They were basically there for the reader, who are mostly men, btw. So I wouldn't say they were full blown porn pics but they definitely were headed that way. Just so you know, you don't have to be engaging in a sexual act in your photo for it to be considered porn. A naked woman in a racy magazine is proof of that alone.
The same arguments go round and round on this thread every couple of weeks. Obviously some people can never forget or forgive what Sofia (or presumably anyone) did in her younger days so she will never ever be acceptable to them. Sad really. Others are prepared to let by gones be by gones and let her move on with her life. I fall into the latter camp.
Obviously his family know about her past and have not found it so repugnant that they have refused to be seen with her or associate with her. Time will tell if the relationship leads to marriage or not.
The idea is basically that porn depicts sex, while glamour does not - the pictures taken in "glamour" shots may not be all that glamourous to you or I, but that's what it's called.
Unless Sofia has had photos taken of her engaging in an actual sex act she is not a porn model, she's a glamour model.
What's more is that I highly doubt photos taken of her at age 16 are (or were intended to be) porn. The age of consent for porn in most countries (including Sweden) is 18.
I think it's a bit ridiculous to think you can look out for the best interest of a man you don't know because you think a woman that you also don't know isn't good enough for him. I would assume Carl Philip and his close family are more than capable of looking out for his best interests and they seem to have accepted Sofia and welcome her to family events.
Isn't this the royal forums where we talk about the royals we care to follow?? So I don't see how that's ridiculous. Of course your welcome to your opinion and I'll have mine
Of course this is where we talk about royals we care to follow and of course you're entitled to your opinion. Just as I am entitled to the opinion that it's absurd to think you can "look out for someone's best interests" in regards to their love life when you don't know that person and you don't know the person they're dating.
!!!Again-there is nothing wrong with posing nude when that is your job and you need it to pay your rent & nobody should be ashamed of their body or afraid to show their beauty!!!
Sofia has had a normal family and she has had every opportunity to study and live a "normal" life. When she was sixteen and a minor, she didn't need to pose at the photos to pay her rent, it was her parents duty to take care if her.
And clearly they didn't and didn't guide her away from posing for those photos and she was obviously raised in a household that was open minded about nude photography and this lead her towards a choice that while controversial in some cultures, is also totally legal and doesn't harm anyone.
Love how you make excuses for Sofia. How do you even know her family was okay with the pictures? I don't care what country you're in, who would be ok with their 16 year old daughter posing nude!
I just don't happen to believe in judging and shaming people for the rest of their lives over something they did when they were young that harmed no one and was not illegal.