Donate SIGN UP

What a girl has to do to get rich and famous

Avatar Image
chirpychirpy | 22:30 Sat 07th Jan 2012 | Film, Media & TV
61 Answers
I'm watching Celebrity Big Brother, which I quite enjoy. One contestant is Natasha Giggs, who happily (always with a big smirk on her face) tells other housemates that she's famous for having had an 8-year affair with her brother-in-law Ryan Giggs. Until recently such a thing would have been a matter of great shame. Now, mainly because she's a quite good-looking and quite young woman, she's massively rewarded for telling her story in the tabloids, she becomes a celebrity and therefore reaps the benefits of that which includes appearances on shows like this and posing for the lads mags. In other words, she's got rich and famous from her disgraceful behaviour. Another housemate, Georgia Salpa, admits live on this show that she had a fling with Callum Best. "Obviously I shagged him" she announced proudly. She looks gorgeous, so she's now one of Ireland's top lingerie models, and after appearing on this will no doubt be inundated with big-money offers to do this n that...probably til her looks fade. What on earth does it say about today's society - and more importantly tell today's young girls - that being a looker and sh*gging celebs is the path to becoming a celeb yourself, with more money than you could dream of?
Gravatar

Answers

21 to 40 of 61rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Avatar Image
Yes, Camilla is public enemy no 1 isn`t she? Why isn`t Prince Charles though? Maybe because he is a man? Likewise the woman (or women) who slept with Ryan Giggs. They are slappers but he is not. Strange. Men can sh@g around but women can`t. It never changes does it? The most interesting point is that it is women who condemn other women. Any ideas why?
23:11 Sat 07th Jan 2012
I don't watch it and couldn't care less about the contestants but I think criticism of Prince Charles and Camilla is uncalled for
The idea of being famous is totally repugnant to me. I would hate to be the centre of attention for all the idiots who have nothing better to do than worry about what 'celebs' are doing. I have a life of my own and a family of my own so I don't have to concern myself with these people and I don't want total strangers to interfere with me and mine. What I wear to put the rubbish out is my business and only mine, thank goodness.
If people didn't watch such programmes and buy the magazines these silly young things wouldn't do it.
jno, that's a relief
The whole celebrity culture has grown out of all proportion and that's why these people get air time. I don't care about any of them, but I find it very sad that a lot of youngsters these days only have the ambition to be a celebrity - most of who are celebrities for doing nothing much, e.g. Tara Palmer Tomkinson. 15 minutes of fame is one thing - being famous just because so many people buy these dreadful celeb magazines is very sad to me.
What a lovely word - strumpet - yes I like it. It describes them perfectly. It's all the fault of the pill. Before that the fear of having a baby out of wedlock ( oh the shame of it) made women say no. The pill set them free to do what men had been doing all along (if they could find someone to say yes). Whether this is a good thing or not, I do not know, but I don't see why men should get away with it all the time while women seem to get all the blame. As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango.
Naomi, she is married to his brother..
I'm still smarting because of beig called a trollop!
God it's b1tch central on here tonight. Would you all ever get over yourselves?
Whilst I agree that the cult of celebrity is not something to emulate and never has been to be perfectly honest, but the way you're all talking you'd think that this generation invented having affairs, going on the lash and being a bit of a devil. Never heard then of Nell Gwynne, Cleopatra, Catherine the Great and other ladies of doubtful virtue? Lovely collection of fine upstanding morally pure girls they were. None of this is anything new (except the awful Victorian morals still being spouted on this thread- they only turned up in the last hundred years or so).
You'd think that after a thousand years or so (as in Cleo's case) women would have evolved into something a little more civilised NOX, but it seems like a retrograde step with these celebs, and the youngsters of today think that it's OK to emulate them.
Nox, I think having an eight-year affair with your brother-in-law counts as more than just being a bit of a devil. People got betrayed there, which by and large Nell Gwynne didn't do.
jno I just checked in to see if you had apologised
for what?
for calling a trollop
^
me
To my knowledge Nell Gwynne was the long time mistress of Charles II from 1668 ( he being married to Catherine of Braganza since 1662), so why is that different? To me they are the same- people were betrayed- but okay then lets have a bash with Anne Boleyn, she was having a right old carry on with Henry VIII behind Catherine of Aragon's back and in turn had it done across her with Jane Seymour- my point being whoever is doing whatever, none of it is new, and as such shouldn't really be suprising- people don't change.
Sibton, that was intended tongue-in-cheek (I don't normally use words like trollop). I do apologise; no offence was intended.

Nox, Anne Boleyn was famous for not carrying on with Henry. She resisted his advances until he was free. But regardless, I'd like to hope people would behave a bit better to their partners these days than in the days of Henry VIII, which was a pretty brutal time to be alive.
Nell was one among many. As with many royal marriages back in the day it was made for dynastic or as an alliance not a supposed "love" match. It was expected that a king should have a mistress - take a look at Louis XIV for heavens sake! What we were discussing here was that some of these women have achieved fame or notoriety not for anything major they may have contributed to society but for who they have slept with irrespective of the fact that they were either married to someone or that their partner in crime as it were was also married or was already in a relationship
That should be "married for dynastic reasons or for an alliance"
it's late my only excuse
thank you jno, i'ma bit sensitive at the minute, should have seen the humerous side x
sibton, it's my job to make myself clear, not your job to understand me. I didn't do it right.

21 to 40 of 61rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

What a girl has to do to get rich and famous

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.