Talk:Diana Dors

Watching the orgies

If DD arranged to film her sex parties on 8mm, she'd hardly have been watching them the next day, as the article currently states. Film needs to be processed which would normally take several days. In fact the sexual and possibly illegal (at the time) content might require 'special' processing, which would take even longer. --Ef80 (talk) 21:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

A bit late, but having just noticed this comment, I've now amended the article. Blurryman (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

defraud Vs exploit

There seems to be only a single sentence regarding any potential fraud in the article: "Following her final separation from Hamilton in 1958, Dors discovered that her company Diana Dors Ltd was in serious debt. Hamilton had steered the company toward the dual purpose of publicising his wife and helping himself, overpaying tax bills and establishing financial stability" whereas there are multiple references and examples of exploitation. In all, there is much more evidence of exploitation than there is of fraud, and even the single sentence can be boiled down to "overpaying tax bills" - "helping himself" and "establishing financial stability" are examples of how he exploited Dors.

The lede is to summarise the article, and there seems to be much more exploitation than there is fraud. Chaheel Riens (talk) 14:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The first question is - does this really need to be in the lead, or is that an extraneous detail that should be covered in the article itself. I mean, without going through the article history, I wonder how much of that is left over from earlier versions when the article was still in stub form.

But then it becomes an issue of what is the better word. I don't see evidence in the article of exploitation. Who exploited her? She exploited herself and her reputation when she needed money. But the rest is him ripping her off. Kellymoat (talk) 18:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that this is exploitation:

Hamilton also made sure that she had the lifestyle attachments of a sex symbol, agreeing to a lease-deal with Rolls Royce such that a headline could be created in the tabloids that at aged 20, she was the youngest registered keeper of a Rolls-Royce in the UK.

Hamilton went to great lengths to advance Dors' career and his income or influence from it. After her death, friends and biographers said that Hamilton would lend Dors out as a favour to hiring producers and leading actors, much as in the "casting couch" practices of Hollywood. In 1954, Hamilton had the idea of exploiting the newly printed technology of 3D. He engaged photographer Horace Roye to take a number of nude and semi-nude photographs of Dors which Hamilton subsequently had published in two forms: the semi-nude pictures were issued as a set called "Diana Dors 3D: the ultimate British Sex Symbol", which was sold together with a pair of 3D glasses; the full-nude test shot photographs became part of Roye's booklet "London Models" (1954).

Advancing ones own income by pushing somebody elses career is one of the definitions of exploitation - according to the Exploit disambig "[e]xploit means to take advantage of something (a person, situation, etc.) for one's own end, especially unethically or unjustifiably" - I'll accept that you could say this is also "ripping her off" - but there's a difference between these examples of ripping off and defraud - to defraud somebody is illegal, whereas to exploit somebody (perhaps sadly) is not - or at least not in this case. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

While this is true, it is also a partner's job to do it. Business partner, husband, manager - take your pick, if the "star" isn't making money, neither are you. And if you manage a star, other people want you to manage them as well. That's not exploitation, that's Hollywood.

50 Cent testifies in court that the millions of dollars in jewelry he wears was rented to look the part. Joan Rivers asks "who are you wearing", because they got those dresses for free because it is publicity for them. The Kardashians were recently sued because their Twitter posts don't say that they are paid advertisements.

I can see where you are coming from (always could), but in this case it is a two way street. Her status grew based on his efforts, that was his job. But ripping her off is where the distinction gets made. Kellymoat (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Bankruptcy

"In June 1968 she reported that she owed £53,000, of which £48,000 was to the IRS..."

Is this correct? The "IRS" ("Inland Revenue Service") is an instutution of the government of the United States. The equivalent British institution was, at that time, the "Inland Revenue", or in full "The Board of Inland Revenue". It was never referred to as the "IRS". Did Dors owe money to the U.S. goverment or to the British government? Hundovir (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

"Diana Fuck" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Diana Fuck. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 02:33, 19 December 2019 (UTC)