How do we know shit just got real in the brou-ha-ha surrounding those topless pics of Kate Middleton? None other than vaunted lech The Donald has weighed in:
Trump tweeted, "Kate Middleton is great-but she shouldn't be sunbathing in the nude-only herself to blame" and "Who wouldn't take Kate's picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on Kate!"
Come on, indeed. I know some of my countrymen swoon like they're suffering delayed Stockholm Syndrome every time that collection of inbred figureheads stands on a balcony, but the traction this story has gotten continues to surprise me. And while you could traditionally measure my concern for Royal Family shenanigans in micro give-a-shits, this particular incident has officially reached "outrage" levels for me, because I'm convinced the sheer glut of coverage is what caused the unforgivable lag in getting updated fantasy football scores last Sunday.
So the conclusion - what I've been able to put together through exhaustive Internet analysis of the pics in question, at least - is that European women just can't keep their shirts on. That, and the appetite for famous boobs is never sated
The guy who took the photos had to do so from a third of a mile away with a (probably) 800mm lens. And why? I mean, I know she's the Duchess of Cambridge and snagging a few grainy pics of royal talent (as Joe Bob might say) was too much for some magazines to resist (in spite of the couple's subsequent criminal complaint in French court, UPDATE: the court ruled in the royal couple's favor today). British efforts to suppress publication of the photos are simultaneously hilarious and pathetic, since they've been almost inescapable on the Internet for the last five days. They've been crossposted in at least three (unrelated) message boards I hang out on. Hell, it's actually more of an effort *not* to see the damn things than it is to actively seek them out. It's like trying to avoid spoilers for a new Harry Potter movie.
And why? Is it simply as Ron White said, "Once you've seen one pair of boobs...you pretty much want to see all of 'em?" While this is certainly true, I don't think the sentiment really captures it. Not to say every pair of boobs is on display out there, but it's pretty close. Between Girls Gone Wild and the more...explicit sites I personally have never visited but am assured by interested parties are out there, breasts aren't in short supply on the Internet.
Likewise, I don't think the fact the ta-tas in question are famous is statistically significant (but wouldn't that be a fun academic exercise?). If you're adamant about ogling celebrity bosoms, Mr. Skin is there for you. And that's assuming you can't get your hand out of your Jockeys long enough to do a Google search. No, I don't know if mere celebrity status explains the interest either.
In the end, it comes back to unintentionality. Lindsay Lohan has taken it off in magazines and movies, but it's the inadvertent nipple slips and sans pantalones shots that generate the most interest. That famous "wardrobe malfunction" of Janet Jackson's came only a few years after she exposed essentially the same amount of flesh on the cover of Rolling Stone. Only in the case of the former, it was allegedly unplanned.
This speaks to some unpleasant reptile brained aspect of our society when, despite the sheer tonnage of women gracious enough to get naked voluntarily for our viewing pleasure, we only get excited about those who are caught accidentally.
The Duchess of Cambridge will weather this just fine. Meanwhile Prince William (and Harry, lest we forget) will be left with another reminder of just how awesome the paparazzi have been to their family.