Re: The Stacy Keibler general thread - part 11

by LieutenantGEORGE.STOUT Sat 23 Feb 2013, 07:08

KATIEDOT BANS...THEN ATTACKS SO OTHERS CANNOT DEFEND THEMSELVES.

"Vapid" as in dull, monotonous, same superficial plastic smile, same poses...a robot. Like a cyborg. That's what OP meant.

by LieutenantGEORGE.STOUT Sat 23 Feb 2013, 07:10

[deleted by Katiedot for breaking forum rules]

by LieutenantGEORGE.STOUT Sat 23 Feb 2013, 07:15

[deleted by Katiedot for breaking forum rules]

by melbert Sat 23 Feb 2013, 07:19

First cocktail since New Year's Eve! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
— Stacy Keibler (@StacyKeibler) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by playfuldeb Sat 23 Feb 2013, 07:20

That pic on her tweet doesnt even look like her.

by Katiedot Sat 23 Feb 2013, 08:05

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by melbert Sat 23 Feb 2013, 08:36

Thanks Katie! I can't copy from Instagram.

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 08:54

[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/img][img][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.][/img][You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Pictures DO say a lot about the morality of a person, Katiedot. And it's not neccessary to do that!

by Joanna Sat 23 Feb 2013, 09:05

There's Much Much More on view than that on the beaches every day. So everyone there is immoral too ?
I have to disagree with you dearest Dior.

And I feel sad for you that you may have to keep away from the
lovely seaside for fear of seeing a crotch or two.

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 09:13

And I feel sorry for you, too.
Your obsession to defend this person by attacking other posters seems to be pathological.

by Katiedot Sat 23 Feb 2013, 09:13

Dior wrote:Pictures DO say a lot about the morality of a person, Katiedot. And it's not neccessary to do that!

She's messing around, showing her underwear. Women wear less than that on a public beach. I really think you'd have to be a fool - which many men are, admittedly - to think that she's seriously offering herself to the audience - but that's part of the joke.

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 09:24

Oh, didn't know that this is common behaviour...messing around, showing your underwear...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
When did you do that in public for the last time, Katiedot?

by watching Sat 23 Feb 2013, 09:52

Katiedot wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Wasn't she doing tequila shots on the Globes red carpet? That was mid January. I guess she considers doing a straight shot of booze different to a cocktail.

Girlfriend has been dieting and working out hard in the lead up to the Oscars - she has lost more weight in the face. The apples of the cheeks are more prominent and pronounced than they have been in the past and she looks very taut. Cough Botox cough.

by Katiedot Sat 23 Feb 2013, 10:14

Dior wrote:Oh, didn't know that this is common behaviour...messing around, showing your underwear...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
When did you do that in public for the last time, Katiedot?

Underwear: pool party last weekend. State of undress in public: will be on the beach tomorrow.

by party animal - not! Sat 23 Feb 2013, 10:17

I wonder who took the photo....

Love that silk jacket.

Snow up there, Jo? Just checked LA weather. Nice and warm - grrrr.

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 10:30

Beach is no argument, Katiedot.
Especially when you are talking to a person who likes to go topless. Yes I know, now I destroyed your image of me being a prude, sorry.

by melbert Sat 23 Feb 2013, 11:06

Well, there ya go...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
— Stacy Keibler (@StacyKeibler) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by watching Sat 23 Feb 2013, 11:12

Katiedot wrote:
Dior wrote:Pictures DO say a lot about the morality of a person, Katiedot. And it's not neccessary to do that!
She's messing around, showing her underwear. Women wear less than that on a public beach. I really think you'd have to be a fool - which many men are, admittedly - to think that she's seriously offering herself to the audience - but that's part of the joke.

It was her job to play a role and everyone was in on it. Tease and be provocative when not wrestling in your underwear. All the women involved in that "job" played the part of a tease and played to a man’s fantasy. The point of their part in the show, and please remember it was a show much the same as any of G’s acting jobs, was to “live out ” so to speak, a straight guys fantasy – lingerie wrestling / mud wrestling and hot girls fighting over a bloke, etc. That would be up there in a high percentage of men’s Top 10 fantasy lists. Remember, this is entertainment designed for men. The aim and purpose of it is to appeal to a base desire that is upon seeing a super hot girl, they imagine what it would be like to be banging her. This business model has worked for decades. It is how Playboy and men’s magazines flourish. How swimsuit model is an actual occupation. How strip clubs turn a profit. It is simply a part of the Masturbation industry which makes billions every year.

Therefore the WWE ensured that they build this side of their business to increase their profit and market share. Hence the attractive women. Hence the outfits. Hence the ludicrous scenarios they had to play their part in. Hence none of the women would have ever been more than a size 6 – and that would only due to muscle tone. Why part of her job was flashing her panties to get the crowd excited and keep the enthusiasm level up in between the actual wrestling. Why none of the women were promoted as educated, with a great personality or charity driven. Why the women had to play to a generic stereotypical male fantasy characters. It is about escapism for the crowd. The premise of girls’ job was to fill in time between the blokes who were the main event at the wrestling and give the guys in the audience some eye candy to fantasise about, which in turn helped lure them back to the show the next week. And subscribe to pay per view. And buy the merchandise. And attend the shows. And see the tours. All this is the sound of ringing cash registers to the owners.

Everyone who watches wrestling for more than 30 seconds knows it is not real, it’s fake and all scripted – why then would the audience suddenly believe that the women and their behaviour was 100% real and authentic? That it was a true testament to their values, character and belief system? I don’t get that. The men can engage in pointless violence without a complaint but the women wear something short and tight and immediately she is called a lady of negotiable affection and her integrity is questioned? She was playing a character – I believe it’s called acting. George has shown more than his underwear in the projects he has undertaken – does that make him of loose character and no ethics too?

by party animal - not! Sat 23 Feb 2013, 11:31

Yep, Watching. All part of the Wonderful World of Entertainment.....

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 11:44

In short:
She sold her body to the wrestling industry and was recommended to behave like a stripper.

Leave alone the fact that women fight for not being reduced to be male masturbation fantasies in showbusiness since ages, wrestling is a rude business for rude people.

You will not make it there being sensitive, sweet and kind hearted.

by watching Sat 23 Feb 2013, 13:05

Dior wrote:In short:
She sold her body to the wrestling industry and was recommended to behave like a stripper.

Leave alone the fact that women fight for not being reduced to be male masturbation fantasies in showbusiness since ages, wrestling is a rude business for rude people.

You will not make it there being sensitive, sweet and kind hearted.

So Stacy’s previous job – which by all intents and purposes was an acting job – is the reason you take issue with her as you did not like the character she played? So using that as our model, how do you support George? Look at the roles he has played. So many have been violent, flawed, ethically and morally bankrupt characters– but his acting jobs are ok but Stacy’s isn’t?

I don't think so a second that Stacy got the job for being sensitive, sweet and kind hearted. The girl became a professional cheerleader at 18. You think she just fell into that job? How many jobs do you think were around like that in Baltimore? The number of women going for it would have been through the roof. The type of determination and willingness to do whatever it takes, I believe, was ingrained in Stacy long before the WWE days. My guess (and I have nothing to back it up) is that she has some serious stage parents who live vicariously through her and her "fame".

by Katiedot Sat 23 Feb 2013, 13:11

Ah, but George is a man. It's only women who get judged, condemned and thrown on the scrap heap of life forever because of their choice of job.

To be honest, I think a person's job doesn't necessarily define their moral, ethics or anything else. You might as well say all nurses are angels but I can point you to any number of news stories that would belie that opinion. And let's not even get started on abuse by clergy.

A person is good or bad. What they do for a living doesn't particularly come into the equation.

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 14:04

Its not about her selling sex. Its abiut her sexualizing the image of young girls. And you can say others do it but we are talking about stacy here and if just because others do it and you get paid for it doesn't make it right. Anyone wh thinks it is okay to sexually exploit the image of a child and don't think it does any further damage you are wrong and should be ashamed.

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 14:21

She was "messing around" with pony tails and a school girls dress showing her butt in the ring. Atrocious.

First of all she should be ashamed of what she did.

Like lela said, she is a disgrace to women.

And I can just laugh at you calling that an acting job.

Ridiculous.

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 14:38

Katiedot wrote:Ah, but George is a man. It's only women who get judged, condemned and thrown on the scrap heap of life forever because of their choice of job.

To be honest, I think a person's job doesn't necessarily define their moral, ethics or anything else. You might as well say all nurses are angels but I can point you to any number of news stories that would belie that opinion. And let's not even get started on abuse by clergy.

A person is good or bad. What they do for a living doesn't particularly come into the equation.

Your are talking bullshit.
A woman with morals, honesty, some sense of education, a heart for children and some DIGNITY would never do a job where she had to show off her naked butt in a childrens dress, nor be a part of this rude business.

And shame on you for supporting such persons in your forum, pretending it would be harmless like nudity at the beach.

by Katiedot Sat 23 Feb 2013, 14:46

Dior wrote:A woman with morals, honesty, some sense of education, a heart for children and some DIGNITY would never do a job where she had to show off her naked butt in a childrens dress, nor be a part of this rude business.

It's clear we're not going to be able to reach an agreement, so let's agree to disagree.

All I can say is go out and educate yourself a little on what women working in your supposedly "shameful" professions are really like. You'll find many of them are decent, honest, nice women doing a good job of raising children. Not all by any means, of course, but there's no profession where all people are wonderful, decent and kind no matter how much you wish so. Your profession doesn't define your moral character.

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 15:07

The beach is such a stupid argument and isnt related to what we are talking about. Its not about the amount of clothing someone wears. Its about sexual explotation and suggestion. Stacy is doing this on tv in front of millions of people and children. (yeas a lot of children what wrestling), its also about the exploitation of the image as a child as a sexual object. Images like these have a great deal of influence on people and their behavior. if we continue to show a school girl as a sexual being then it becomes accepted by many that young girls are sexual objects!!!!!!!!! Stacy doesnt have to do this to feed her family, she does it because she desperately wants fame at any cost. that shows her morales or lack of morales. its all about fame and money to her. If she was working the streets to feed her children then I would have much more respect for her as she would be forced to do this behavior. Stacy chooses to do it because she doesnt want to work hard and have a real job she just wants to be famous!!!!

by lelacorb Sat 23 Feb 2013, 15:18

Dior wrote:Beach is no argument, Katiedot.
Especially when you are talking to a person who likes to go topless. Yes I know, now I destroyed your image of me being a prude, sorry.

I'm not a prude and I go to the beach with small bikini, thong not because I can not stand the wire in the ass, but only for this reason but to see some photos of Stacy showing her ass and her panties to the public and compare it to the people on the beach I find it ridiculous ! At the beach, some more than others but all are naked and nobody looks at you Stacy in that show performing her ass and her private parts and this is vulgarity! if she did in an art film to film needs could understand but Stacy did it in front of an audience almost all male and was drooling looking! It was sexy? No, she was just gross!

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 15:31

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Dior Sat 23 Feb 2013, 15:38

When did I talk about "shameful professions"?
And when did I say, your profession defines your moral character?

Katiedot, I am really fed up with this discussion and I'm just holding back the barf after you telling me, I should got out and educate myself.
.
You are just turning around words to make yourself and the wrestler look better.

A few days ago, I asked you not to talk to me like I was an idiot and here we are again.

What do you know about me and my education? Nothing.

I am a free spirit who likes to speak the truth. The way you deal with that says more than a thousand words about you and YOUR character!

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 15:42

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

by LornaDoone Sat 23 Feb 2013, 15:52

The next mrs clooney wrote:The beach is such a stupid argument and isnt related to what we are talking about. Its not about the amount of clothing someone wears. Its about sexual explotation and suggestion. Stacy is doing this on tv in front of millions of people and children. (yeas a lot of children what wrestling), its also about the exploitation of the image as a child as a sexual object. Images like these have a great deal of influence on people and their behavior. if we continue to show a school girl as a sexual being then it becomes accepted by many that young girls are sexual objects!!!!!!!!! Stacy doesnt have to do this to feed her family, she does it because she desperately wants fame at any cost. that shows her morales or lack of morales. its all about fame and money to her. If she was working the streets to feed her children then I would have much more respect for her as she would be forced to do this behavior. Stacy chooses to do it because she doesnt want to work hard and have a real job she just wants to be famous!!!!

Well on this point I'll have to agree. As much as some of you are saying her purpose was to entertain the male fantasies, I find some of the depictions ill advised. I really do have issue when these women portray children as sexual beings. And continuing to do so without objecting - gives the impression that we as society are saying it IS okay to sexualize children and I find that deplorable.

I don't agree that Stacy is a strong woman doing her thing. In fact, I think she's pretty weak and I have to agree that her motivation seems to be merely to seek attention and often the fleeting fortune that comes with it via this "15 minutes of fame" machine that the entertainment industry is famous for. (yea, I ended that sentence with a preposition but too lazy right now to fix it).

She takes a job as live action masturbation doll. She's on a reality show. She ends up dating a guy who gets a lot of attention on his own and as his arm candy she is quite aware that she will too. I don't see anyone, including George, banging on her door offering her any parts in films. She did that one film but as I said, her range of acting was quite limited.

I agree that she's determined and has lots of drive but she doesn't have any talent and she's picking the easy way - which works for her because she's got a nice body --for the moment-- (perfect to be a clotheshorse) and she's photogenic - despite what the trolls say about her.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that there are different paths to take to fame and fortune - if that's your goal. Stacy has made some decisions that affect some people's ability to take her seriously and to respect her.

by cindigirl Sat 23 Feb 2013, 17:53

It's amazing how George's girls are scrutinized for their past. I don't think any of us don't have a "past." None of us has been sitting on a block of ice waiting for the perfect opportunity to gain recognition. He chooses women who are in the entertainment industry and there's going to be some racy pictures of them out there. There's no nude pics of her which is more than I can say for some of the "successful" actresses today.

by Mazy Sat 23 Feb 2013, 18:19

I have to say I also have a big problem the depiction of children in this way. Having girls I was extremely upset when the ‘baby doll look tops’ came out. Because there are so sickys out there. I don’t have the age group statistics handy but I do know that 1 in every 3 women will be rape in her lifetime. Whether you realize it or not I’m sure you know someone that has been raped many even children do not tell. Mainly because somehow they blame themselves.

I try very hard not to judge women because it is difficult for many to survive in this world. I have no problem what anyone does as long as it does not affect children. Or is not forcing women to do things that they do not choose to do. Many times when they try to get help they are made victims all over again.

Things have not progressed that far. I read that the House now is not going to approve ‘VAWA’ without making changes. One being that a victim must submit to “two vaginal probes” not one but two. They are fixated on Vaginal Probes and this includes children.

This type of male mind-set is what’s disgusting. I personally think that it would do well for Stacy’s reputation if she made some sort of reference to pass sexual depiction of a child. As far as the rest goes, it should not be where children can observe the antics. Things are not going to change until the morality of vast amount of the male population stops being localized on their penis.

You know many of the Gossips can say what they want about George being a womanizer however, he may be to a little extent. Have they every been able to say that he did something sexually that she did not want done? No… Has he been accused of physically or mentally forcing women to perform things that they choose not to? No… Does George support and respect women rights? Yes… There are not a lot of so-called womanizer like that. He just has not found anyone that he wants to spend the rest of his life with, he is of good character that is why we love him.
Letting off steam

I don’t mean to get on my soapbox just when it comes to children I get a little crazy.

by OofOof Sat 23 Feb 2013, 18:26

As a woman, I have to say, some of those videos of Stacy during her WWE days are disturbing. Over and above the overt sexualization of all the women in the WWE, the thing I found even more disturbing was the depiction of violence against women. The few videos I've been able to stomach, she and others are slapped by their male handlers, even thrown physically out of the ring for "cheating" on their WWE partners. The difference for me from a movie like say The Accused, where a woman is raped and beaten, is the intention of that movie was to show how amazing the human spirit is in the face of absolute horror. The "shows" Stacy was in were demeaning towards women in general and saying it's okay to beat women when they don't do what their men tell them to do. And it was the same week after week.

The WWE promotes violence against women in every show. They belittle women in every show. Yes, Hollywood does the same thing and I don't like the way they typically depict women either. If a movie has nudity and lots of sex, and there's a legitimate tie in to the story, I don't have a problem. But when it's just to show tits and ass and the women in the movie are there solely for that, I get mad. And, I wish more actresses would tell this male dominated industry to go f*
As far as Stacy, while what she did in the WWE should not define her, I don't think comparing it to wearing a bikini on the beach or even, nudity in many movies is a logical comparison. She may have been acting but she was promoting a purely objectified view of women and, more importantly, was participating in a show that on a weekly basis, promoted violence against women. As someone else said, it's not as though she was a woman with no other options.

I will agree with Katie that she was probably raised by a stage mama. I remember reading somewhere she said her mom took her to dance school everyday and didn't want her to play soccer because she might hurt her kegs. She was an only child and most likely the absolute focus of a mother who, as Katie said, lived vicariously thru her daughter.

My problem with blaming Stacy for who she is is that we leave George completely out of the discussion. He says all the right things about women and women in film and yet hooks up with women who are mostly involved in the "masturbation industry" to use Watching's wonderful phrase. He calls flight attendants "girls".

Stacy will probably never be a mega star in Hollywood even with George as her significant other, mostly because frankly she can't act. But her past as a WWE girl has also played a role in the way she is seen by the industry. Almost all of the parts she's gotten, she's played "sexpots". Look at her friend Torrie and it's the same thing. They're both really mostly arm candy for famous men. So rather than dump on her, I choose to feel a bit sorry for her.

by cindigirl Sat 23 Feb 2013, 18:48

I hope I didn't sound hardnosed with my previous post. My point is that her WWE days are in the past but are always brought up - almost like beating a dead horse. It seems she's trying to maintain a cleaner image now that could give us lots to talk about.

by Mazy Sat 23 Feb 2013, 19:15

Sad to say cindygirl it is something that will never go away for her. Now with the internet it will always haunt her. In some ways I feel sorry for Stacy but this is now something she has to deal with. I don't see George has anything to do with things. I do not think that he is chauvinistic however like I always say I am partial. But I honestly think that he let's them know upfront and they have free will to walk away. To me that is much different.

by noodle Sat 23 Feb 2013, 19:23

I'm not sure if he let's them know up front or not. It bothers me that all of them seem to think after a while that they are "the one". It makes me think he's giving them a reason to. I remember an interview with Sara Larson after the split. She said they talked about marriage often and had plans to get married. I hope he doesn't lead them on that way.

by OofOof Sat 23 Feb 2013, 20:34

Sarah was indulging in a little self preservation with that interview I would think.

I cannot imagine George Clooney ever actively involved in a discussion about getting married. I don't think he's a jerk who leads poor, naive women on. I think he's probably pretty up front with them but after a year or so of going to events with the President of the United States, meeting icons of the entertainment business and being treated like an A lister by entertainment reporters and even fashion designers, I can see how they decide they're in it for the long term. He is apparently very kind and basically ensconces them in his life with all his friends and all the accouterments that life with a rich man offers. It would be very difficult to give all that up.

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 20:40

cindigirl wrote:I hope I didn't sound hardnosed with my previous post. My point is that her WWE days are in the past but are always brought up - almost like beating a dead horse. It seems she's trying to maintain a cleaner image now that could give us lots to talk about.

The past always comes back to you haunt you especially in the entertainment industry. She might stand a better chance of escaping it if she changed her image but she hasn't. She is still doing everything she can to make a quick buck and be a celebrity and doesnt give any thought to how it will affect her image. She's not selective in the roles she has taken, most of them have been a dumb blond picking up men in bars, she will put her name to any product for money, and all she talks about is superficial things like constantly tweeting about her facials and cleanses etc. Many young actresses hoping to make it will do anything to pay the rent but Stacy is not a young actress she is 33 and her days are numbered at this point. Seems that she will always just be the former wrestler and nothing more.

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 20:45

Katiedot wrote:Ah, but George is a man. It's only women who get judged, condemned and thrown on the scrap heap of life forever because of their choice of job.

To be honest, I think a person's job doesn't necessarily define their moral, ethics or anything else. You might as well say all nurses are angels but I can point you to any number of news stories that would belie that opinion. And let's not even get started on abuse by clergy.

A person is good or bad. What they do for a living doesn't particularly come into the equation.

maybe in general but not in my mind. I think Channing Tatum is disgusting because of his past as a stripper and I will never take him seriously in any of his roles. Unfortuntely i am just one person and cant change the world Very Happy

by Joanna Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:18

Tnmc....I feel the same about the Roman Catholic priests here
in Europe.
We've had so much information about vile sexual abuse of children by RC priests brought to our attention recently....and in the past it's been covered up by the hierarchy. Evil men.
That's much much worse than a few female wrestlers or male strippers... to me anyway

Sorry for going off topic for a spell.

by melbert Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:27

Well, Stacy's working today.

Tight quarters getting ready on location w dominiquesamuel & @[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
— Stacy Keibler (@StacyKeibler) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:29

Also heading for a sexual harassment lawsuit if she's doing this at work. Stupid girl.

by OofOof Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:34

I don't get the sexual harassment comment. I must be looking at the wrong pic?

What I'd like to know is what hair products they're using on her because her hair looked amazing in that photo theminis posted yesterday and today, it looks shorter and dry. They're obviously using extensions but they're great at making them look like real hair and they are able to make her hair look beautiful. I wish I had them doing my hair everyday! I've got a bad case of the frizzies today! Help Luke or whatever your name is!!!!!!

by melbert Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:41

OofOof wrote:I don't get the sexual harassment comment. I must be looking at the wrong pic?

Dominique is seated between Stacy's open legs...

by party animal - not! Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:45

If you look on #supermarketsuperstars there are a few more interesting pix

by The next mrs clooney Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:48

melbert wrote:
OofOof wrote:I don't get the sexual harassment comment. I must be looking at the wrong pic?
Dominique is seated between Stacy's open legs...

To be more precise stacy has her legs wrapped around him and her crotch is pretty much touching his.

by very vera Sat 23 Feb 2013, 21:53

Eeesh what is he a hairstylist or a gynecologist

sorry bad joke Twisted Evil

by OofOof Sat 23 Feb 2013, 22:05

Not liking Stacy is one thing--hey everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I actually agree with some of what's been said here-- but to suggest something other than the fact that they're obviously in close quarters is going a bit far, in my opinion. He's doing her makeup while the other guy does her hair. It looks perfectly innocent to me, if not a little uncomfortable.

I'm just tired of every photo coming from this job involving hair and makeup people. Seems like almost every photo on her Twitter site involves makeup and hair people and stylists. I want pics with George and all the other famous people she's meeting thanks to G. Cough 'em up Stace!

by Sponsored content