Amanda Beard to appear in Playboy (Page 2)

I don't really care since she's not my sister or niece... but how much attention does the girl need?

I think that quote is hilarious - she's baring her nekidness to bring her ACCOMPLISHMENTS to a wider group of people? And here it only looked like she just wanted people to get a really good, long and hard look at her goods - her bare boobies are just to bring her triathlon accomplishments to your attention. Riiiiiiight.

Go nekid, Amanda, but don't pretend it's about anything other than using your nekidness to get attention. I agree - the photo shoot doesn't trivialize her accomplishments; the photo shoot trivializes who she is.

Is running in a race naked bad too?

If you would be proud of it for your own daughter, you're just in a different mindset than most parents, I guess.  

Right.

OK, so the woman spends her professional life in spandex. But spandex is the uniform that the sport requires to be competitive.

And sure, men will try to objectify women whether there is porn or not, but porn makes that oh so much easier.

And it's not that nudity in photographs itself is wrong, it can be very beautiful. It's the context that matters. Do it one way, and you have art and beauty. Do it another, and all ya got is porn.

OK, for all you fathers and father wanna be's out there who enjoy porn: How would you feel about your daughter getting involved in the business? When she's of age of course, 'cause after all you wouldn't want her doing anything unseemly, let alone illegal, when she's just a kid. If you like that idea, pm me and I'll hook ya up, 'cause I know photographers in the business. If you read Playboy, you've seen their work.

It's the saddest business I've ever seen.

[and just for the record, since this post will remain on the internet forever, or until marma has had enough of it, if there are any detectives out there using bots to search the net for smut peddlers doing illegal things, my offer is meant to be sarcastic... personally, I hope you catch them all and put them away for a long time...]

While FHM/Playboy may fall a little short of qualifying as "art," it certainly isn't what the mainstream considers pornography (i.e., the depiction of consenting adults having sex).

I love to see photos of beautiful women.  Whether clothed or not (actually prefer leaving a little something to the imagination).  It's just my opinion, but my appreciation of the female form does not result in an objectification of the person.  It's a "men are from mars" kind of thing.

I thinnk we're getting into hyperbole territory here with the porn, at least for this thread......

Heaven knows, we try to avoid hyperbole here on the old BT

....but how ever you feel comfortable with yourself to name it, the bottom line is, if you're happy and proud as a peacock when it's your daughter, then by all means go right ahead and ogle other men's daughters.   Just man up and admit that's what you're doing, and stop being a hypocrite about it.

And Chris M....just want to say I'm not addressing you directly with anything past the hyperbole jab 

I know it's not directed at me, but I'll start -- I, for one, am no hypocrite.  My name is Chris, and I look at other men's daughters (well, at least the ones I find attractive, and I wouldn't call it ogling, I try not to be obvious or creepy, no matter what my wife says). 

So what?  Show me a man that says he doesn't track an attractive woman with his eyes when she walks by, and I'll show you either (1) runningwoof or (2) a liar.

I ogle men. Not men in magazines but rather the men on my running path, at my pool, at the grocery store, whenever/wherever they are walking by. I enjoy the moving, breathing male figure.

So you've never, not once, walked by a billboard, saw a magazine ad, saw a photo of a friend of a friend, and said to yourself, "now there's a nice hunk of manmeat!"

yeh right!

Brian, you know when your girlfriend or wife says to you that the way you picked up the paper this morning hurt her feelings?  It's like that, it's another language, neither of us can completely understand the other.....  it's god's little joke

But what would you know.. you're obviously a Neanderthal, just look at your avatar.  tsk!

Hah!

I do believe that getting nekid for Playboy is trivializing. She's promoting her nekidness in a magazine that panders to salaciousness. Now, I have a strong streak of salaciousness myself but I indulge it privately. Once you go public, however, then it's all about just being an attention mongerer. To disrobe for the world to see because you crave attention is, IMO, just sad. Not much different than the celebrities who are always trying to get their face in a magazine or on tv.

And the ridiculous spin that she's doing this to bring attention to her triathlon accomplishments - who believes that? Why not just say "I like getting nekid and it's none of your business why?" Shoots her credibility to say she's bringing her accomplishments to a wider audience. She's bringing her tatas to a wider audience. Get real, Amanda.

FWIW, I don't read romance novels. But, as mentioned in post above, I do enjoy ogling men-in-the-flesh. The nude (or mostly nude) human form is beautiful.

No, that's not the conclusion you should have drawn. It's more like "So, you don't purchase magazines for the purpose of ogling men?" And my response would be "No, I don't." In fact, I don't buy magazines. I had a subscription to Runners World but that was a bunch of fluff so I discontinued it. I picked up a couple of Triathlon magazines. That's it.

I totally admit to enjoying the male form. I prefer that form to be in the flesh - those I ogle quite a bit. Do I admire a form on tv? Sure. On billboards? Sure. I just don't go out of my way to procure material in the hopes of seeing that form.

Well, since I'm not run, I assume you mean me.

You know that old saying, (I'm sure you heard it in highschool ): the first look is temptation, the second look is sin.

Come on guys,  you all know what we're talking about.  It's that moment when you leave the zone of "admiration", and enter the zone of "oh man, if only...". 

That's porn.

The OP photo is trying to do that.

Look, if any guy reading this isn't himself addicted to porn, then I bet you know someone who is.  The internet has taken porn to a whole new level.  Guys use to have to slink off to some threadbare part of town and hope that no one saw them walking into the store.  Now it's just a click away.

And it's ruining lives.  It's breaking apart families.  It's confusing young people.

And it's hurting women. 

Oooh! Me! Pick me! I have an answer!

A tiny fraction of those that died while you posted all your innumerable trivial threads.

Am I right?!

Scott - you hung that one low over the plate buddy.

About 14,840 between Tania's first post and yours.

What's the point? 

so you don't track an attractive woman with your eyes as she passes, if even for the briefest of moments (assuming Cornelia is not around, of course)???  Recall my original statement had no thought attached to it, you added that.

The original picture is porn?  Better alert marma. 

whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute, people, I finally got past the picture and clicked the link.  Why are posters excoriating Amanda Beard's "justification" for appearing nude.  Far as I can tell, there ain't no quotes by Ms. Beard, and the piece, including the "bringing her accomplishments to a wider audience" is written by some guy named David.

Let's give the poor Ms. Beard a break here, eh?

Yes I do, sometimes.

Am I proud of that?

No I'm not.

Ought I to be doing that?

No.

Does it help my marriage?

No.

Do I want my sons doing it?

No.

The original picture is porn in that it's intent is to stimulate sexual desire. If it's successful, that has the result of causing a man to go off into fantasy land, maybe start stimilating himself with this objectified image of a woman in his mind, maybe come home to his wife and see a piece rather than see his beloved.