Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Would you pose for Playboy??? *READ MOD NOTE IN POST 1#*

Options
24567

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Honey-ec
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    Meh, it's her body, she's entitled to make money out of it in whatever way she sees fit. I don't have a problem with anyone posing nude.

    I've only seen the cover shot of Rosanna, but I think she looks far, far too thin in it.


  • Options
    #33
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    To ensure their posts aren't at risk of deletion - could posters please refrain from using text speak.

    It's both horrible to read and specifically covered by both site and forum rules.

    Cheers.

    Any issue with/comment on this post should be dealt with only via PM


  • Options
    #34
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    LittleBook wrote: »
    What grinds my gears is when they try to justify a fake, re-touched, heavily styled, unnatural photo shoot like this ... which is simply a well-paid, personal choice with a view to furthering a career ... and try to turn it into some kind of feminist statement.
    +1000 *hands pint to LittleBook* If she posed for Playboy au natural, no makeup, spider veins, tiny wrinkles natural skin tone diffs and cellulite showing to show her industry up for what unnatural images it imposes on women(and men's expectations) then I'd say fair play, but getting ones enhanced boobs out for the lads as feminist is utter tosh. Then again in the rarified atmosphere of minor "celeb" culture she probably believes that guff.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #35
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    Wibbs wrote: »
    *hands pint to LittleBook*

    Beer! How did you know?! :)


  • Options
    #36
    hollypink
    Registered Users Posts: 1,508 ✭✭✭hollypink


    said women were at the forefront of her mind when she agreed to do it.

    What a load of nonsense, it annoys me that she isn't just honest about why she did it i.e. to further her career and earn some money. To my mind, while posing for Playboy is tacky, those are valid reasons for doing it. I'm not likely to be asked to pose for Playboy (!) so it's easy to say "oh no, I'd never do something against my principles like that" but I guess if I had a career like Rosanna Davison, it would be tempting to do it. The lack of honesty about her reasons for doing it remind me of the mini marathon fiasco in June, where she continued to insist she had run the race despite a number of strong indications to the contrary, including her chip time.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Not for Playboy. I might do it for Pirelli Calendar type shoot or some art photography, if I'd have the body.

    As for RD, I always thought she is tacky and I don't see any value in the "Irish model" franchise anyway. I don't know if posing in a bikini at the opening of some sewage plant or similar is so much better than posing naked for Playboy. In fact I'd say it's worse.


  • Options
    #38
    Honey-ec
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    meeeeh wrote: »
    Not for Playboy. I might do it for Pirelli Calendar type shoot or some art photography, if I'd have the body.

    To be honest with you, there isn't a world of difference between Playboy and the Pirelli calendar, other than the fact that one is shot in black & white. They're about as explicit as eachother, and that's not very.


  • Options
    #39
    Sarah**
    Registered Users Posts: 531 ✭✭✭Sarah**


    If I was asked to, you are damn right I would. We are not here for a long time and I think it is an honour to be asked. It was started in 1953 and starred Marilyn Monroe as its very first cover! I dont think it is demeaning or degrading and think if you have the body for it and are asked why not? - at least in years to come when time hasn't been so generous to you, you can look back and smile at how you used to look!

    However the reality of the matter is that I wouldn't be asked and if I was I am that self conscious that I couldn't ever imagine being able for it! So fair play Rosanna!! :)


  • Options
    #40
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Honey-ec wrote: »
    To be honest with you, there isn't a world of difference between Playboy and the Pirelli calendar, other than the fact that one is shot in black & white. They're about as explicit as eachother, and that's not very.

    If you are talking about prevailing morals. There is a world of difference in artistic sense. I have absolutely no problem with nudity in art, in fact I think that some of the best art photography is nude photography. As I edited in my previous post, jumping in a bikini on Grafton Street is about as low as you can get.


  • Options
    #41
    LittleBook
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,716 ✭✭✭LittleBook


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Then again in the rarified atmosphere of minor "celeb" culture she probably believes that guff.

    It appears (to me) that a lot of women who've responded have no problem being topless or naked (or with anyone else doing it) but wouldn't want to be photographed.

    I think this is because the implications of having naked photos of us circulating in our everyday lives are completely different to the implications for someone like Davison. In the world she lives in, it's no biggie.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Yes, me trying to build a serious career and having photos like that floating around? No.
    Even if I didn't have that to think about, I'd prefer something a lot more tasteful than that. I haven't seen the photos but if they're in any way tacky, no thanks.
    Artistic nudity - sure, could be beautiful. "lol look at my tits in a glossy mag", no.


  • Options
    #43
    Ellsbells
    Closed Accounts Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Ellsbells


    LittleBook wrote: »

    I think this is because the implications of having naked photos of us circulating in our everyday lives are completely different to the implications for someone like Davison. In the world she lives in, it's no biggie.

    Thats a really good point in her defence. Her body is her job so to speak and she is not at all self conscious like the rest of us could be.

    With reference to the lady doctor who wears her hijab when men will be present, I have to ask what the difference is - one girl is taking her clothes off to please men and the other is wearing something to please her man as stated within the Quar'an as follows 'they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands'. At the end of the day, both actions are to please men.


  • Options
    #44
    Ellsbells
    Closed Accounts Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Ellsbells


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Yes, me trying to build a serious career and having photos like that floating around? No.
    Even if I didn't have that to think about, I'd prefer something a lot more tasteful than that. I haven't seen the photos but if they're in any way tacky, no thanks.
    Artistic nudity - sure, could be beautiful. "lol look at my tits in a glossy mag", no.

    They are really tacky....


  • Options
    #45
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    To answer the OP's question - if it was done tastefully, and the money was good, yes I would.


  • Options
    #46
    KingFred
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭KingFred


    Can I just say I'm male and don't get me wrong I appreciate beautiful women as much as the next guy, but I think the idea of posing for Playboy is ridiculous. Rosanna has gone down a lot in my opinion as if she needed the money. A great man once told me keep your integrity at every cost, it's as if she sold her dignity. Would definitely put me off a women if she would be willing to do that.


  • Options
    #47
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,196 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Meh, who ever respected Rosanna Davison anyway? She's a spanner who's made her living displaying her wares on Grafton Street and, worse in my opinion, her personal life in the tabloid rags... That said, there's been paparazzi shots of her tits on the internet for years so why shouldn't she capitalise on it when someone is prepared to give her silly money to show something the entire world can see for free anyway?

    I do wonder would a lot of those saying "never in a million years" be so quick to say no in reality. Think about it: a six figure sum would dig many out of their negative equity, pay a huge chunk of your mortgage, allow you to go back to college with no impact on your lifestyle etc. For a few days of being naked in front of a camera and some heavily airbrushed photos of you being published in a magazine? It's not exactly hardcore porn where there'd be issues regarding fidelity etc.

    Personally, if anyone was offering, I'd do it (hell, I'd do it for a few grand, never mind six figures!) and would have no problem with my fiancée doing it once there was a significant enough paycheque involved that it would make our lives easier.


  • Options
    #48
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    She's had a busy year all the same - getting naked for cash, setting world records in the half marathon...


  • Options
    #49
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Sleepy wrote: »
    I do wonder would a lot of those saying "never in a million years" be so quick to say no in reality. Think about it: a six figure sum would dig many out of their negative equity, pay a huge chunk of your mortgage, allow you to go back to college with no impact on your lifestyle etc. For a few days of being naked in front of a camera and some heavily airbrushed photos of you being published in a magazine? It's not exactly hardcore porn where there'd be issues regarding fidelity etc..

    No impact on lifestyle? I really can't imagine coming out of this new college degree, were I to go back, to a range of offers for "that tacky playboy girl", not in any serious place.


  • Options
    #50
    Gurgle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,064 ✭✭✭Gurgle


    She makes a living by getting her (fake?) tits out, at 28 years old that career is nearly over.
    Best job she can hope for now is a premier league WAG, and she's not going to sell that merchandise if it's not on display.
    Did she pay Playboy or did they pay her?


  • Options
    #51
    Monty Burnz
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,455 ✭✭✭✭Monty Burnz


    Gurgle wrote: »
    She makes a living by getting her (fake?) tits out
    I also thought they looked a little bit unnatural when I checked the pictures for research purposes. Not that appealing.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Teyla Emmagan
    Registered Users Posts: 5,641 ✭✭✭Teyla Emmagan


    I never thought very much of her, so my opinion wasn't to get a whole lot worse. What a ridiculous world she must live in. And those photos are HILARIOUS! Her boobs are like a pair of rockets launching off her chest, that has actually given me a good laugh this morning.

    I think I might actually be mortified for Chris de Burgh.


  • Options
    #53
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    bluewolf wrote: »
    No impact on lifestyle? I really can't imagine coming out of this new college degree, were I to go back, to a range of offers for "that tacky playboy girl", not in any serious place.

    There is a likelihood that you would already be working in a profession where nudity is not uncommon (modeling, movies). At least if you would want to get some decent money out of it. Payments for unknown models aren't great as far as I know.


  • Options
    #54
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,196 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    bluewolf wrote: »
    No impact on lifestyle? I really can't imagine coming out of this new college degree, were I to go back, to a range of offers for "that tacky playboy girl", not in any serious place.
    Do you really think anyone would remember it in 4/5 years time unless you were courting publicity in the meantime or had done so for years beforehand?

    It depends on your choice of career of course. I'm sure the old-boys-clubs in the Law Society or Kings Inns would have a problem with it but can't imagine a Software company being too bothered. You might end up dealing with very judgemental people in any industry of course but having been involved with Playboy prior to her appearance on The Apprentice wouldn't seem to have done Michelle Massey any harm: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=64389565&locale=en_US&trk=tyah2


  • Options
    #55
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #56
    Ellsbells
    Closed Accounts Posts: 985 ✭✭✭Ellsbells


    IrishFeeney92 wrote: »
    Personally I feel a lot of women who say they wouldn't actually would, you can claim its tacky and slutty but if some women were offered the money she got for that shoot they would definitely take it. I think a lot more women claim they do not like men "admiring" them but when it happens they actually do enjoy it.

    But Kudos to those who wouldnt :D

    And what do you base that hypothesis on?


  • Options
    #57
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #58
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Ellsbells wrote: »
    And what do you base that hypothesis on?

    We're clearly too stupid to know for ourselves what we would or would not do


  • Options
    #59
    DipStick McSwindler
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,460 ✭✭✭DipStick McSwindler


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #60
    Dolbert
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,154 ✭✭✭Dolbert


    bluewolf wrote: »
    We're clearly too stupid to know for ourselves what we would or would not do

    Clearly. *sigh*

    It's one thing for someone in the modelling/ entertainment industry to do it, as it's hardly going to harm their career. In any normal industry, with the risk of pics being found and passed around years from now when you're trying to be taken seriously, or having your future kids stumple across them? Er, no thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Honey-ec
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Honey-ec


    Dolbert wrote: »
    It's one thing for someone in the modelling/ entertainment industry to do it, as it's hardly going to harm their career. In any normal industry, with the risk of pics being found and passed around years from now when you're trying to be taken seriously, or having your future kids stumple across them? Er, no thanks.

    In fairness, the chance of anyone in a "normal" industry being asked to pose for Playboy aren't exactly huge, so that's a bit of a moot point.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement