Amanda Beard to appear in Playboy (Page 4)

Good grief I fail to see how this is at all this important…  It is her choice not yours buy the magazine of don’t  I for one won’t it is not a moral thing, or a oh my it will lesson the sport thing, it is a I don’t need it thing.  There are much more important things to discuss like what wheels I should buy see my other thread.

Man I need a beer.

oh god... maybe Borat will find his traveling companion jacking off to her picture.  Now, that is what I see as the difference between art and porn.   I'll shut up now.... 

Couldn't she just get a job coaching a kids' swim team so the dads could oogle her then?  She must of been hard up (no pun intended) for money.   

Are you Catholic? If so, the question you should ask is what's not a sin. I used to be one, so I know. I think accidentally wandering into the women's undergarment section of Wal-Mart is a sin.

It may have something to do with American's puritanical views about nudity.

Nudity=cool with me, I love to be nude.

Photos of people who are intentionally posed to be provocative=less cool. Does that make me a Puritan?

There's obviously a difference.... 

I'm reading through this thread thinking maybe we should withhold judgement until we see exactly *how* she appears in Playboy. Maybe she's just going to be interviewed. Maybe there'll be pictures, but she won't be nude. Maybe if she is nude, they'll be "tasteful."

I have a had time imagining that she'll be wrapped around a stripper pole, or straddling a goat.

edit: obviously you're not a Puritan, Hollis, but this is a society where you can't even flash a boob even if it's in the context of feeding your child on an airplane.

(I'm definitely doing the nude tri....)

To a certain extent it depends (to me) on the circumstances. I'm not a big fan of strip clubs for the most part. When I have been at them for bachelor parties etc. I feel bad for the women. I realize that most of them wouldn't want to do this if they had a choice. My experience at Club Supersex in Montreal was different. The women there seemed in complete control and liked what they were doing. Even then, I wondered what their parents, siblings or brothers would think.

  To an extent, most of the women in Playboy and FHM have a choice whether they want to do photoshoots. I think it empowers women when they decide to use their bodies to further career goals and not just out of necessity. Although a little cheesey for me, the OP pic is sexy to me.  I wouldn't want my daughter to do that kind of thing, but it wouldn't be the end of the earth if she did.

 So I suppose I'm a little on the fence abou this. Little in life is absolute, and there are boundries of healthy sexuality that overlap with what our society deems inappropriate.  I have to admire Don for being so strong in his convictions. I'm just not sure that the level of vigilance he's calling for is necessary. 

Are you a shower or a grower? If there are a lot of hotties it might not matter....(Damn my objectification, Bad Steve, Bad Steve).

I "used" to be too. Was raised Irish Catholic. I literally haven't talked to a lot of my extened family in 8 years because I got divorced. I guess in some folks minds I'm already in line for a ticket to "hell." I get it, I'm just amazed when anyone actually feels the drive to reproduce, PARTICULARLY when well controlled, is a sin. I wonder how someone who can think like that  can love their god.

Wow!  What a whole load of emotions this subject has brought to the surface!

Personally I just see it as her saying; "I'm fit and my God don't I know it" - which is cool.  Most people like to show off the things they have worked hard to achieve in one form or another.

It's a picture - it's not a statement saying she's putting herself about.  She may be a complete prude for all I know.

Perhaps it's this whole triathlete thing but I see a picture like this and respect the work and time she's had to put in to getting her body in that state.  Yeah - I also think less than pure thoughts but I do that on a regular basis anyway - I'm a bloke.  Even Trixies avatar brings my heart rate into zone 2!!

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to notice that obvious fact. Bravo!

You're right, maybe I should have just carried on. ChrisM asked me if I ever track women down the street. I said, yes. Same with threads in BT. Most threads that seem to be about sexual banter, I just try to avoid. Sometimes I check them out to see where people are at, see what the zeitgeist is. Sometimes I feel pulled to them just like anyone else. But mostly I ignore them. This thread was starting to get some hits, and given the subject line it made me curious if there was an interesting discussion. And sure enough, I read Tania's post and saw classic CoJ controversy.

ChrisM, I know it's nothing personal between us. I respect you as well. Actually, I respect everyone on this board. I try to understand everyone's point of view. And if their arguments are stronger than mine, I may actually change my mind. People often say here that you can't change anyone's mind. Not true. Maybe I'm the only one whos mind has been changed here, but I don't think so.

Chris is right, it is ultimately my responsibility to raise my kids. I said as much in my rant. And, as he acknowledges, I also said that issues like porn, soft hard or in between, in the media makes that job harder. But in the end, it's still on me. The problem these days is that this stuff is everywhere. I think we may have crossed a line from rightful "freedom of speech" into illegitimate "license to say whatever we want". License is not necessarily freedom. It's makes it harder to give my kids fresh water when the well has been poisoned

As far as young girls being the problem these days. I'd agree that the sexualization of young girls is a problem. But the answer to it probably ought to come from men. Enough women have weighed in on this thread and said that there is a problem with this stuff to confirm that there may actually be a problem going on that we need to address. (and the the only reason I spoke up is because a woman objected to the photo being shown) It's men who need to put an end to the damage and violence done to women because of porn and the hyper sexualization of our culture.

As for the notion that there is some uncontrollable connection between a man's brain and his gonads; give me a break. This is a board full of endurance athletes, who to one degree or another make it a point to try to master biological urges; getting out of bed to workout rather than sleep in, avoiding junk foor even when you have the cravings, pushing their bodies through pain in order to get to the finish line. The vast majority of you are way better at this kind of mastery than I am. I learn from you and your accomplishments. You've taught me that you don't have to be a slave to your desires. Sexual desire is just another one of them. It certainly is possible to break the chain between impulse and act. And it doesn't matter how old or how young you are.

Welshy's question is a good one. Should this kind of self control apply to only married men? Are single men a different category?

If you break down the notion of love into it's three classic parts, you get:

Agape - the love of God, and the love that tries to emulate the love of God

Filial - the love of neighbor, from which my city gets its name Philadelphia

Eros - sexual love

So with this question we're dealing with eros. What's the proper place for eros. I think Welshy is onto something in pointing out that it may be different for an unmarried man vs a married man. I don't think it's different to the extent that it spills over into consuming porn. But sexual attraction obvious plays a role in the mating game. So the human experience of attraction itself is not a problem. The question is, has it gone out of whack.

As for the mischaracterizations of Catholicism that have come up in this thread: I'm happy to deal with any of these questions. In the context of this thread, though, I don't think they are relevent. I haven't said that "this is wrong because the Catholic Church says they are wrong". I'm in agreement with several women here who are not Catholic, so the issue transcends religion. So, if you want to debate issues of the Catholic Church, feel free. Myself, I'm not going to get into it on this thread unless it veers way off from where it's at. Start another thread, and I'm there. Just be ready to defend your position.

I'm with Opus so there's at least two of us....

That's an interesting statement in that it brings up the philosophy of art.

There's a triangle of artistic experience in which the three points are: 1. the artist's intent 2. the actual work itself 3. the audience's experience, with the lines being how each interact with the other.

Saying that the phenomenon of art all falls solely to the audience is not so cut and dried.

If an artist's intent is to paint an image of a sunrise, and the audience has the experience of seeing a moonrise instead, then there is a problem somewhere in the triangle. Probably with the work itself.

I agree up until (and perhaps not surprisingly) the last sentence.

The influences that the audience have experienced in the lifetime leading up to seeing the piece of art that have caused them to form a judgement that may be miles away from the artists and in this case, the subjects, intentions for making it.

I love how chippy posts here about once a month, but when she does it seems to effortlessly cut through all of the crap and get to the exact point of the matter.

Yea Daniel, I agree with that. Definitely

The audience arrives at the particular art experience having been formed, to a large extent, by the culture. That formation itself is the result of inumerable triangular art experiences.

I'd say that that's something the artist, in this case the photographer, needs to take into consideration.

If my intent is to make a visual meditation on the beauty of the human female form, then I need to be aware that if I pose my subject in a certain way, as Possum pointed out, with her back arched one way and her eyes having a particular expression, it's going to probably have one type of effect, versus if I pose her another way. And the probable effect may not be the one I intend. In that case, the misunderstanding is on me.

An artist needs to know their audience.

Well, to be fair, some boobs are better than others.

(Black Spandex Man would be so ashamed)

Also, you said "in the end". Heh.

I understand your point.  I'd prefer artists not to feel the need to compromise their expression because they know some people will choose to ignore the art and see an object.  To me such a pose is a direct confrontation to people who choose to objectify the piece - it says "I've got the power to reduce you to this" whilst at the same time saying to the rest of us "isn't this beautiful"

I think by making the compromises you suggest (an alternative pose, a less provocative statement) it's allowing both those who objectify and those who would prefer the wider audience denied access to the images win.  And that's a fundamental for me that needs to be fought.

Agreed.

But I'd say the context matters to an extent.  Putting a nude photo in Playboy is like putting a frame around it.  A simple white frame is going to lend one thing to any photo.  A large gilded gold frame is going to lend something else.

So seeing the photo in Playboy is the totality of the experience.  In a way, that's the final work.  Not just the photo itself.