Female Sergeant booted for nude photos in Playboy

[NakedGary]

Female Sergeant booted for nude photos in Playboy.

Link to MSNBC article "Female Sergeant bares all for Playboy"

[Sanslines]

She may be in hot water not because she posed nude but because she used aspects of her uniform in the spread. This is what the Air Force is most probably objecting to. Had she posed in anything other then a uniform or anything relating to the Air Force, then this would not be an issue.

[K and C]

When will people understand nudity is not a Crime? I just find it ridiculous what some people lose due to posing nude in a magazine or having nude pictures of them on the internet. I love America but some of our nudity rule are just plain ignorant.

[Sanslines]

When will people understand nudity is not a Crime?

Is it really about just plain nudity or is it about an Air Force Staff Sergeant who uses her uniform to link the Air Force with Playboy and nudity? Would the Air Force object if she made no reference to the Air Force or used no aspect of her uniform when posing in Playboy?

Now watch everyone in this forum rush out and buy this issue of Playboy.

[roadrambler2]

Aim High!

[Naturist Mark]

Well, I guess this is one troop who isn't going to be stop-lossed.
-Mark

[True Brit]

Pretty much appaling that someone can devalue their position and the good name of their regiment, a total lack of respect towards all of those who have served that regiment past and present.

AND FOR WHAT

The next strip should be her stripes!!

[DoctorSurferDude]

I think that Playboy is the hem of the grander umbrella of porn (not that it's a grand umbrella at all).

I wouldn't put it in the same class as derogatory porn....but it's certainly weak art, and really far to cheezy and airbrush-edited to be considered artistic photography.

Playboy is like Hamburgers.....it will never win any award for caliber and it has no substance of value....it's just.....there for the consumer, and it sells.

"For the articles", right? Um....no. Newsweek and Time Magazine have good articles. Playboy has a much more common use....sexual fantasy, masturbation, etc.

She wouldn't have been in trouble for participating in nudism.....the reason she's in trouble is because she was in a sexually-oriented magazine, and because if they allow her to slide on that, then it sets a precidence for others to follow, and pretty soon every pretty woman who joins the military will be objectified more, respected less and asked to do a spot in Playboy.

There are certain professions which cannot afford to be compromised. In the medical profession, for instance....any physician, nurse or licensed professional that is found to be involved with the pornography industry will lose their license. Same goes for teachers, psychologists, councelors, government officials, etc.

She made her choice, I'm sure she knew the risks.

I wonder what she'll do in L.A. I hope she doesn't choose to "further" the skin career....cause that is a dark dark road.

[Daveinct]

I love the line about the "high standards" of the Air Force. Reminds me of the line from Alice's Restaurant when Arlo is asked if he's rehabilitated himself after littering.

Dave

[Daveinct]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Playboy is like Hamburgers.....it will never win any award for caliber and it has no substance of value....it's just.....there for the consumer, and it sells.

"For the articles", right? Um....no. Newsweek and Time Magazine have good articles.

Among the respected (and award winning) authors who have written for Playboy are Joyce Carol Oates, Tom Clancy, Kurt Vonnegut, Saul Bellow, John Updike, David Black and on and on and on, but if you don't look, you won't see them.

Dave

[DoctorSurferDude]

Playboy has been around since 1953.....50 years or so, times 12.....600+ magazines. So those are definately impressive authors, and I did not know about them writing for the magazine. But it still makes up about 1-2% of the publications, which is hardly an reason to say "I like it for the articles"

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by DoctorSurferDude:
Playboy has been around since 1953.....50 years or so, times 12.....600+ magazines. So those are definately impressive authors, and I did not know about them writing for the magazine. But it still makes up about 1-2% of the publications, which is hardly an reason to say "I like it for the articles"

Well, perhaps I'm a bit older than you, so let me put it in my perspective as a doddering 55 year old guy who was a high school teenager in the 1960s.

Back when I was 15-16 or so, there was no "age limit" when buying Playboy. My parents knew I read it, and so I was permitted to have my own subscription. It was sent to the house but more often than not, I'd have to fight with Mom and Dad over it if they got their hands on it first.

Back in the 1965-1970 time period, Playboy was EVERYWHERE. It was a best-selling magazine and had a high demographic profile. Imitators like Penthouse and Hustler weren't around as yet. There were "dirty magazines" - which were NOT permitted in our house, but Playboy was always around.

Playboy also operated a string of prestigious nightclub/restaurants around the country in those days. My older sister ocassionally dated gentlemen who would try to make a big impression by taking her to the Playboy Club in Park Square in Boston.

There were also two late night shows - one way ahead of its time and one that was timely (1969) but didn't enjoy widespread syndication.

http://www.tvparty.com/recplayboy.html tells the story well.

Back in those days - the topics discussed in the magazine were -- politics, and many politicians submitted for interviews, as well as showbiz types, athletes, and controversial figures; music, and the annual music poll was great. There was the Playboy Philosophy - school for thought.

It was liberal, and spoke out against government repression, segregation, and eventually the Vietnam war. While many despised the magazine and condemned it as smut, there were those who were contemptous of its leftist viewpoints.

And there was a lot of serious literature in the magazine back in those days. Political articles, fiction, and current events. Even the letters to the editor were worth reading.

And the editorial content was CERTAINLY more than 1-2 percent of the total found within it.

There were reviews of cars, clothing, travel, food and booze.

And cartoons, jokes, and of course the pictures.

Why did Dad let me read it? Most parents would shudder if their 15-16 year olds read it. My parents knew I did, so what's the sense of hiding it? And, we occasionally discussed a good article from the magazine.

Another reason - Playboy, was, back in the 60s, a neat "wish book" for a 15-16 year old. There were cars, stereos, music, travel, (oh yeah, women), and a taste of the overall good life featured in Playboy.

My parents knew -- these were actually - positive objectives for a high school boy -- and it took hard work, studies, luck, investment, and SUCCESS to attain what is offered in Playboy. And they encouraged their children to read anything that wasn't harmful -- and if you're honest about it, Playboy wasn't harmful for a teen boy.

Years later, I subscribed, and found the magazine not to be as good as it was in its 60s and 70s "glory days". It was thinner, didn't have the content, and maybe I outgrew it.

Sure, there were some funny things during my term as a youthful subscriber. As a 16 year old, I went to the New England auto show with my Dad. We knew the previous month's "Playmate" was signing glossy 8 x 11s, so I took the centerfold and asked her to sign it... and she gladly complied. With a HUGE smile, a wink, and a flip of the tongue!

And in senior year, a phone call came to my parents from a teacher, who was alarmed because I had quoted a Playboy article in a political science term paper. My father, also a teacher, quelled the panic. There was nothing wrong with the quote, or the content, and I didn't take the magazine to school.

So - go back, try to find an issue from the 1960s or early 70s -- one of the big jumbo issues -- you'll find them on e-bay -- and then come back and tell us that only 1-2% of the magazine had any serious content in it.

The poster rattled off a FEW of the writers who had written for the magazine over 50 years. There were a LOT more -- and many published their work more than once in Playboy.

I was there. It wasn't what you think it was.

[Jason Lee]

Playboy model wage

1959–1960 $500

1961–1965 $1,000

1966–1967 $2,500

1968–1969 $3,000

1970–1977 $5,000

1978–1983 $10,000

1984–1989 $15,000

1990–1999 $20,000

2000-2006 $65,000

[Sanslines]

Don't forget the Jimmy Carter (Playboy) interview back in the '70's. This interview is credited with helping him win the '76 election.

[usuallylurk]

Originally posted by Sanslines:
Don't forget the Jimmy Carter (Playboy) interview back in the '70's. This interview is credited with helping him win the '76 election.

I think it's sad because the magazine doesn't have the "drawing power" it had in the 60s and 70s.

There are a few copies in my files -- the Carter interview and a great interview with Groucho Marx in 1969 are the two I still have kicking around. It was a fabulous magazine in its heyday, but today, it doesn't carry the weight it used to. If you look at the advertising, a lot of it is "internal" (Playboy's own ads).

Now, it is featuring its photospreads and seeks out controversial ones to sell its magazine. In 1976, they used an interview with a Presidential candidate to sell it. Today, they use the notoriety of a participant in a photo layout.

Quite a difference...