So I'm fighting with a friend...

[MystyGlyttyr]

I put this here and not at CS.com because I figured it had potential to disintegrate fast, heh. And I wasn't sure what group to put it in, but I thought here would fit best since I suppose it is a social issue we're discussing.

Anyway, a friend and I are sort of snapping at each other. This isn't the first time we've had this argument, and it's not something we're going to stop being friends over. Hell, he just e-mailed me some pictures of mutual friends and we're both laughing at them now. It's just a little irk.

The argument is that he's irritated at me because I admitted that I wouldn't be opposed to posing in Playboy. Now, note that I didn't say I WANTED to pose in Playboy, or even that I WOULD if the offer came to me. Just that I wasn't against the idea. He says that just the fact that I'm not against it means that I want to do it, but that's an idiotic argument for a different time.

His reasoning being that if I want to be taken seriously as a wrestler (we're both in the business) and even as a woman in general, that to pose naked in any kind of magazine like that would shoot all my credibility right out the window. "No one will ever look at you as anything but a wank-off doll ever again," was the thing he said that set me off insulting his manhood, heh.

Now, I know part of this is probably a bit of a fatherly feeling...this fellow is 12 years older than me and kind of protective. No dad or dad-figure wants to see his little girl in a skin magazine. I'm cool with that. I just don't agree with his arguments. I mean, a list of famous women who've posed includes Farrah Fawcett and Drew Barrymore, and when you hear their names, an appearence in Playboy is NOT the first thing that springs to most peoples' minds.

It's just NAKED PICTURES, man. I don't think little kids should see them or anything, but it's NOT a big deal. I mean, hell, if I were famous and good-looking enough that anyone would offer me a shoot, people would be making fake naked pictures of me online anyway. I don't think it's a big deal. Pose naked, cash check, go back to work. I won't get a big ego (any bigger than normal anyway ) or anything.

And it's not like it's Penthouse or anything. So far as naked magazines go, as I've said many times, Playboy is as classy as it gets. It's not some hardcore nastiness, it's just girls standing around in next-to-no clothes. It's not showing off so much that doctors can diagnose a liver disease at a glance.

Anyway, like I said, I know he's just protective and worried about me screwing up my rep or something like that, but I don't think it's something that WOULD screw up my rep. Maybe it was a major scandal once upon a time but these days it's pretty much commonplace. And like I said, it's not even that I WOULD do it, it's just that I can't say I wouldn't. Depends on the mood I'm in if I'm asked and my schedule for the near future at the time, mostly.

So, I don't know, what do you guys think? It's more a curiosity than anything.

[Norton]

If a woman is comfortable with her body and wants to make a little money by having it photographed in it's natural state, more power to her.

Not long ago, I bought a PlayBoy magazine for my mother at her request. A local photographer had taken some very artful nude photos of women on our local beaches, and my mother wanted to see the results of the shoot. I had never looked through a PlayBoy before. I was suprised by how tasteful the photos were. It was more like art than pornography.

[Saydrah]

I think you are completely in the right. Men pose nearly nude all the time- all the "Men's Fitness" magazines show just as much body as Playboy. It's a double standard to say that a fit, athletic man can show his body and be applauded for his committment to fitness, while a fit, athletic woman becomes a wank doll. I guarantee lots of men and women wank to the fitness mags too, but you don't hear men turning down posing in them because of that.

[rahmota]

I got to agree with Norton. If a woman (or person in fact) is comfortable in their skin and doesnt care and knows what they want then no one has the right to tell them they cant.

What I think a lot of the problem is a lot of people cannot get the seperation between sexual nudity and artistic nudity into their heads.

Score, Hustler, Penthouse they cater to the sexual nudity crowd. the wank off dolls as it where. These women are paid a good deal of money to do this and are all consenting so thats their choice, but there is no way without stretching the definition of art that you can really compare them to art magazines or stuff like a davinci, reubens or Playboy. Not to really throw a playboy pictoral in the same category as the great masters but comparatively speaking I'll agree Playboy is one of the most tasteful and artistic of skin magazines you can find.
Part of it is the lighting, the editing the airbrushign (what you didnt think all their models have absolutely perfect skin did you?) and makeup and all sorts of other thigns that are more for artistic eroticism and not just plain do me now sexuality.

I've been to a nudist colony before. Talkign to a person they equated that with a constant sexual orgy as in their minds the only reason a person gets naked is to take a bath or to have sex. They couldnt understand that a person can be naked and not be sexual. One of the problems with our overly puritanical culture.

And no I don't think posing in playboy would really hurt/destroy or demean a woman's career. look at Chyna/Joanie Laurer. She posed and while she isnt exactly a household name I havent exactly heard about her career collapsing into a pile of dung either. And dont forget about this list of classic people who have appeared in playboy and not exactly had their image tarnished:
Marylin Monroe, Ursula Andress, Jayne mansfield, Kim Basinger, Daryl hannah, katerina witt, linda evans, shannon doherty,brooke burke.....So um yeah gracing the pages of playboy is not exactly a great career ending move.

And yes I will admit that I have quit a collection of playboys on the shelf of my office goign back quite a few years. I havent collected nay recently except for a few special issues. SO anyhow I approve of a consenting adult doing what she wishes to do with her body, her career and her life. Tell you friend to go wank off and chill about it.

[lordlundar]

It's funny, I never see Playboy as demeaning. On the contrary, I look it as a sense of accomplishment. A large portion (if not a majority) are doctors, lawyers, active in the political scene, and with 9/11, police, firefighters, etc. They mainly do it to show off their occupation. It actually shows more that the women in the occupation are actually lovely women and bring positive attention to the occupation.

I see Playboy along the same lines as Weird Al Yankovic. May be offensive to people who like the person they are being exposed/spoofed, but the people being exposed/spoofed, they see it as a badge of honour.

I recall an interview with Sung Hi Lee, where on a chat site, if someone started getting offensive, they were driven away by the fans, all of which treat her as a person.

[Norton]

Part of it is the lighting, the editing the airbrushign (what you didnt think all their models have absolutely perfect skin did you?)

That was the only thing I disliked about some of the pictures. Some of the models were very heavily photoshopped. I'm sure the models were very beautiful without the editing. So what if they have blemished skin, or a little cellulite on their thighs? I would prefer it if they eased up on the airbrushing, and showed that imperfections don't make a woman less sexy.

Then again, as a heterosexual female, I'm not part of their target demographic, so what I would prefer to see wouldn't really matter to PlayBoy.

[blas87]

Steering a bit away from Playboy and Hustler, even high fashion supermodels sometimes have to bare all. Watch ANTM sometime, when the girls refuse to pose nude, they pretty much get eliminated.

[Greenday]

I say go for Maxim magazine. You can be naked all you want, but you still cover up the important areas. A LOT of famous women have posed for Maxim and are still taken seriously. W00t Maxim!

[Amethyst Hunter]

His reasoning being that if I want to be taken seriously as a wrestler (we're both in the business) and even as a woman in general, that to pose naked in any kind of magazine like that would shoot all my credibility right out the window. "No one will ever look at you as anything but a wank-off doll ever again," was the thing he said that set me off insulting his manhood, heh.

I'm going to be the unpopular one here and agree with your friend.

Sure, fans probably won't see it as wank material (and those that do won't admit to it), but the other 90% of the public likely will. And it may not be a career-ending move, but it definitely has potential to affect future career decisions and even spill over into personal relationships. Playboy is not about 'reading material', no matter how much it might try to sell itself as such. And while it may not be on the same level as Hustler, I wouldn't exactly call it a 'classy' magazine either.

Do women have the right to pose for such 'zines if they want to? Certainly. Can they expect a general change in attitude towards them as a result of such actions? Definitely. Does that mean it's right? Not at all. But it is a hard fact of life. Women already have it rough in the world, I'll never understand why some choose to make it harder for themselves and for the others in general.

[Seshat]

There is a section of the community for whom both nakedness and sexuality are value-neutral. To that section of the community, a shoot in Playboy won't make any difference to how they perceive you.

There is a section of the community for whom non-sexual nakedness is value-neutral, but sexuality is heavily loaded with values. To that section of the community, a shoot in Playboy may or may not affect how they perceive you, depending on their exact value loading for sexuality, and their opinion of Playboy magazine. Note that it's their opinion that matters, your opinion of Playboy isn't going to affect how their perception of you changes.

Finally, there's a section of the community for whom all nakedness is either for medical or hygiene reasons, or is sexual. And for almost all of this section of the community, sexuality is heavily loaded with values. The majority of this section of the community suffers some version of the Madonna/Whore dichotomy: a woman can be sexual, or can be taken seriously, but not both.

For that third section of the community, even posing nude for a fine artist is risky. Playboy? May as well tattoo 'whore' on your forehead. The percentage of the 'Western' population who belongs to that third section is reducing, and has been since the 'sexual revolution' started. However, think of the stereotypical Republican whose homemaker wife wouldn't dream of wearing anything slinky or low-cut to the charity ball, even though her husband stares at that slutty girl who's hanging off the charity president's arm.

And think of this: the burqa/hijab style clothing is an empowerment outfit. It declares 'the only parts of my body that are important to you are my eyes and hands. Treat me as a person.' The nun's habit has the same purpose, as does the 1950's twinset-and-pearls with a tweed skirt, or even a modern female business 'power' suit. Women all over the world still dress to signal that they fall on the 'madonna' side of the dichotomy.

If you honestly don't care what the sexuality-is-heavily-loaded people think of you, then fine. Go for it. But be aware that a lot of rich people either think that way or pay lip service to thinking that way, and many of the backers of wrestling may well be among those rich people.

I don't know the politics of the wrestling world. You're the one who can know that. Find out what the backers, financial people, publishing people and influential people in the industry think, and how they live. If any of them look like they might subscribe to the 'good girls don't, girls who do are sluts and whores' way of thinking, be aware that posing for Playboy could sink your career.

And what do you want to do when your body is no longer fit for wrestling? Will posing affect your post-wrestling career?



Is it right? No.
Should you have to think like this? No.
Is it possible that you could be completely screwed for life if you don't? Yes.

[DesignFox]

I say go for Maxim magazine. You can be naked all you want, but you still cover up the important areas. A LOT of famous women have posed for Maxim and are still taken seriously. W00t Maxim!

And I happen to think Maxim is garbage... (sorry Greenday)

Personally Mysty, I think the choice to pose is yours and yours alone. If your friend is really your friend, he should support you even if he doesn't like the choice you would make.

My opinion of nude/mostly nude images mainly hinges on the actual photos... I think a lot of what is published toes the line between "trash" and "art." I don't really understand why a woman with a successful career in anything other than modeling would want to toe that line...I try not to let it lower my opinion of the person, but sometimes...it just does....I feel like it's a "sell out" when a successful singer sells her body to the publishers (for example).

[Shangri-laschild]

Considering what a lot of the female wrestlers wear on tv? Not to mention that one of them was just in one of the lesser skin magazines (I think it was maxim but I'm not sure). Maybe in some professions it might detract from your image and how seriously you are taken but I don't know that it would in yours. I don't know how I feel about the whole posing in magazines thing, but honestly, if you feel comfortable with it then it's up to you.