Excuse me? Brazil women's football team poses for Playboy?
Started by munkie, Jun 19 2002 11:33 AM
25 replies to this topic
#1 Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 June 2002 - 11:33 AM
I hope this doesn''t violate the forum rules for no ''pr0n'', but seeing as I''m just questioning this issue, and not posting any related "visual" material, I hope I can get some valid replies in..
Well, I heard from numerous sources (and witnessed the images myself) that the women''s football team of Brazil had posed for Playboy in NUMEROUS explicit shots. If these are the true female players, I''d like to know why an entire team of women, who are most likely role models to alot of younger Brazilian girls, would expose themselves in such a degrading way..
I mean, what''s next? The U.S Olympic Gymnastics Team starring in a hardcore pornography film?
I''m just pretty baffled as to how all of these women would agree to this. Are they in such dire need of money?
But rest assured..no complaints here (heh), just curiousity as to perhaps..WHY!
Sponsor:
#3 Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 June 2002 - 11:41 AM
A picture of one teammate with her mouth clenching the nipple of another player is nothing to be proud of. I'd think any woman, especially with the entire country watching her, would have more self-respect than that.
edit: Hmm, looking back, it's probably going to be just a matter of time until someone jumps on my case irrelevantly for seeing these pictures in the first place..sigh.
[edited by - munkie on June 19, 2002 6:42:58 PM]
edit: Hmm, looking back, it's probably going to be just a matter of time until someone jumps on my case irrelevantly for seeing these pictures in the first place..sigh.
[edited by - munkie on June 19, 2002 6:42:58 PM]
#5 Staff Emeritus - Reputation: 1668
Posted 19 June 2002 - 12:15 PM
It''s "modern society": everybody''s supposed to be sexual and proud of it. I''ve long since given up on morality crusades; the world will eventually either collapse under the weight of its own complicty or plunge into massive puritanical reform.
#6 Members - Reputation: 706
Posted 19 June 2002 - 12:25 PM
quote:
WHY!
I couldn''t care less. Maybe they needed money, maybe they enjoy that sort of thing
, maybe they got bored and someone dared them too! Whatever it is, they chose to do it and they did it, no business of mine. ------------
aud.vze.com - The Audacious Engine <-- It''s not much, yet. But it''s mine... my own... my preciousssss...
MSN: nmaster42@hotmail.com, AIM: LockePick42, ICQ: 74128155
#7 Moderators - Reputation: 1411
Posted 19 June 2002 - 12:39 PM
quote:
Original post by munkie
A picture of one teammate with her mouth clenching the nipple of another player is nothing to be proud of.
And why not? Maybe they "really like each other" and are proud of it...
quote:
Original post by munkie
edit: Hmm, looking back, it's probably going to be just a matter of time until someone jumps on my case irrelevantly for seeing these pictures in the first place..sigh.
IMO, there's nothing wrong with your having seen those pictures - but to then turn around and complain because the women in the pictures don't conform to your ideas of how they should behave...
It's a minor thing so don't sweat it.
[edited by - lessbread on June 19, 2002 7:41:09 PM]
#8 Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 June 2002 - 12:49 PM
It''s not about them conforming to my beliefs.
I have no issues with women who are in the pornography business, purely. While I think alot of these women are "skanks", I couldn''t really care, because they do their job well: looking good naked. But that''s besides the point.
The issue I''m concerned about here is that these are celebrities, recognized world-wide. It would be like the Yankees posing for PlayGirl. It''s generally the same thing.
I have no issues with women who are in the pornography business, purely. While I think alot of these women are "skanks", I couldn''t really care, because they do their job well: looking good naked. But that''s besides the point.
The issue I''m concerned about here is that these are celebrities, recognized world-wide. It would be like the Yankees posing for PlayGirl. It''s generally the same thing.
#9 Members - Reputation: 136
Posted 19 June 2002 - 01:12 PM
quote:
Original post by munkie
It would be like the Yankees posing for PlayGirl. It''s generally the same thing.
It think it isn''t, the Yankees posing in PlayGirl would be *far* more controversial,.... all of conservative america would be knocking on your door.....
#11 GDNet+ - Reputation: 267
Posted 19 June 2002 - 02:17 PM
quote:
Original post by munkie
The issue I''m concerned about here is that these are celebrities, recognized world-wide. It would be like the Yankees posing for PlayGirl. It''s generally the same thing.
Since when is womens footie a mainstream entertainment source? I mean, if you didn''t see that Playboy thing, would you even of known that Brazil had a womens team?
Now, these gals are obviously proud of their bodies, and want to show them off, and is it such a bad thing? They''re role models, and they might encourage other girls to work to achieve the same good health and scrumptious bootie that''s being paraded in Playboy.
The only people who wouldn''t like it are stuck-up right-wing extremists who think the human body is something which should be hidden away and neber exposed to daylight. Get a grip [pun not intended].
#13 Members - Reputation: 264
Posted 19 June 2002 - 02:29 PM
I don''t even consider playboy porn. It''s technically porn, but at least they don''t do anything explicit like {insert sexual term here}. It''s just posing. It may be intended to be erotic, but it''s only the human body.
It depends on how you see it. Some people just can''t handle the issue as well as others.
---------------------------------------------
Total Instant Messenger. It''s better than AOL.
It depends on how you see it. Some people just can''t handle the issue as well as others.
---------------------------------------------
Total Instant Messenger. It''s better than AOL.
#14 Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 June 2002 - 02:38 PM
Well, I find there to be some contradictory statements here. I toned down my original post in order to keep the thread from going against the FAQ rules..and now moderators are telling me that all of this is natural, only extremists want women clothed, there''s nothing wrong with being proud of one''s body..etc..
So why would it be so objectionable to post the actual pictures? Give me some valid reasons. Or maybe you all think this is just a black and white world..
I guess you''re either a right-wing extremist, or a ''DIRTY pr0n LOVER''. So I''m assuming most of you are the latter.
Maybe I should change my original post to show my true feelings: "OMG wow lot''s of naked women in the shower..mmm..wait a minute, this is a football team? Mmm..lower regions..".
Wait a minute, I''d be a dirty pr0n lover, and that would violate the forum rules! Blah. A lose-lose situation.
So why would it be so objectionable to post the actual pictures? Give me some valid reasons. Or maybe you all think this is just a black and white world..
I guess you''re either a right-wing extremist, or a ''DIRTY pr0n LOVER''. So I''m assuming most of you are the latter.
Maybe I should change my original post to show my true feelings: "OMG wow lot''s of naked women in the shower..mmm..wait a minute, this is a football team? Mmm..lower regions..".
Wait a minute, I''d be a dirty pr0n lover, and that would violate the forum rules! Blah. A lose-lose situation.
#15 Members - Reputation: 524
Posted 19 June 2002 - 02:41 PM
Munkie, you''re a conservative bloke aren''t you?
i''m starting to get that general feeling.
who cares if they are in playboy, who care''s if there in debbie does brazil the porno.. If millions of people would pay money to see what they have to offer physically, then more power to them.
How many actresses have been in Playboy? Singers?
It''s totally irrelevant that they are ''sports stars''.
Just because nobody would give you a peso to see you naked, doesn''t mean you have to raise a stink because someone would pay money to see these ladies naked.
Do you HAVE an interesting bone in your body? or are completely made of wood?
i''m starting to get that general feeling.
who cares if they are in playboy, who care''s if there in debbie does brazil the porno.. If millions of people would pay money to see what they have to offer physically, then more power to them.
How many actresses have been in Playboy? Singers?
It''s totally irrelevant that they are ''sports stars''.
Just because nobody would give you a peso to see you naked, doesn''t mean you have to raise a stink because someone would pay money to see these ladies naked.
Do you HAVE an interesting bone in your body? or are completely made of wood?
#16 Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 June 2002 - 02:50 PM
quote:
Original post by aegrimonia
Munkie, you''re a conservative bloke aren''t you?
Nah. I think my last post pretty much explained all of this. I particularily like naked women. It just struck me odd that an entire team would do something like this. There''s a crime in that?
quote:
Just because nobody would give you a peso to see you naked, doesn''t mean you have to raise a stink because someone would pay money to see these ladies naked.
Well spoken, from a man whose only source of the female body was from working at a strip club, wishing he could actually be with a woman of that caliber (No PuN iNteNded. yeah.), instead of drooling over them..back in the darkness. Uh oh..I took the flamebait. Making things ''interesting'' yet?..if not..
quote:
Do you HAVE an interesting bone in your body? or are completely made of wood?
I can''t be interesting in this forum without being a dirty pr0n lover. If I was allowed to be interesting, I would have whole heartedly posted images of these PlayBoy excerpts.
#17 Members - Reputation: 1657
Posted 19 June 2002 - 03:16 PM
quote:
Original post by munkie
Well, I find there to be some contradictory statements here. I toned down my original post in order to keep the thread from going against the FAQ rules..and now moderators are telling me that all of this is natural, only extremists want women clothed, there''s nothing wrong with being proud of one''s body..etc..
So why would it be so objectionable to post the actual pictures? Give me some valid reasons. Or maybe you all think this is just a black and white world..
I guess you''re either a right-wing extremist, or a ''DIRTY pr0n LOVER''. So I''m assuming most of you are the latter.
Maybe I should change my original post to show my true feelings: "OMG wow lot''s of naked women in the shower..mmm..wait a minute, this is a football team? Mmm..lower regions..".
Wait a minute, I''d be a dirty pr0n lover, and that would violate the forum rules! Blah. A lose-lose situation.
Because these forums are visited by 11 year old kids (who are not looking for pr0n at the time) as well as professionals who want to engage in game development discussion (granted, this is the lounge, but any professionalism or lack there of reflects on the whole site). There are many places on the internet to find naked pictures of woman, Gamedev is simply not one of them.
#18 Moderators - Reputation: 1411
Posted 19 June 2002 - 03:29 PM
quote:
Original post by munkie
It''s not about them conforming to my beliefs.
I have no issues with women who are in the pornography business, purely. While I think alot of these women are "skanks", I couldn''t really care, because they do their job well: looking good naked. But that''s besides the point.
The issue I''m concerned about here is that these are celebrities, recognized world-wide. It would be like the Yankees posing for PlayGirl. It''s generally the same thing.
It seems your gripe is all about them conforming to your belief in how athletes should behave. So that it''s ok by you for a "skank" to expose herself, but not not ok for an athlete to do so - and that contradiction was what I meant.
I don''t suppose you remember the stir that Joe Namath caused by posing in Playgirl?
Here''s a little bit of sports history in a nutshell for you and for those not familiar with American football.
Joe Namath is famous for having led the underdog New York Jets to a superbowl in the late 60''s - Superbowl 3 iirc. The merger of the AFL and the NFL at the time was still somewhat shaky and it was widely held that the AFL teams were inferior to the NFL teams. Although the Jets were the underdogs, Namath bragged before the game that he would lead his team to victory - and he did. More importantly, this demonstrated that the AFL teams were just as good as the NFL teams.
Ok. So that gave Namath some fame. What did he do with it? Why, he made TV commercials like most athletes turned celebrity do. What products did he promote? Pantyhose! Yes, Joe Namath made a TV commercial that featured him wearing pantyhose. The commcercial began with a shot of shapely legs wearing pantyhose as the camera panned upwards to reveal - you guessed it - Joe Namath. You see, pantyhose are good for keeping your legs warm and when you have to play a game outside in freezing weather it''s very important to stay warm. This was long before the advent of "domes" for stadiums - and it was also long before advances in thermal clothing were made. Pantyhose are also lightweight, flexible and they don''t absorb persperation as much - so they don''t add the weight that a pair of cotten or woolen longjohns would (especially sopped in sweat).
Namath made this commercial in the early 70''s. He also starred in a couple of B-grade movies. As he got older and his fame began to subside - he made one last splash by posing for Playgirl in the late 70''s. I was only 10 at the time so I didn''t understand what the fuss was about - but I remember my mom''s sisters giggling over the prospect of seeing Namath in the buff. Whatever!
Looking back on it in the context of today''s rampant flesh mongering - the giggles of my aunts seem somewhat innocent.
#19 Members - Reputation: 524
Posted 19 June 2002 - 04:03 PM
quote:
Just because nobody would give you a peso to see you naked, doesn't mean you have to raise a stink because someone would pay money to see these ladies naked.
quote:
Well spoken, from a man whose only source of the female body was from working at a strip club, wishing he could actually be with a woman of that caliber (No PuN iNteNded. yeah.), instead of drooling over them..back in the darkness. Uh oh..I took the flamebait. Making things 'interesting' yet?..if not..
hehe.. wow munkie, you got me there dude. "your only source of female body is a real female, while mine are in playboy".
yep.. you got me there, i feel awful now.
[edited by - aegrimonia on June 19, 2002 11:04:15 PM]
#20 Members - Reputation: 122
Posted 19 June 2002 - 04:05 PM
quote:
Original post by aegrimonia
hehe.. wow munkie, you got me there dude. "your only source of female body is a real female, while mine are in playboy".
yep.. you got me there, i feel awful now.
Odd. Just a while ago, you thought I was too boring to like naked women. Now you think I spend all my time in PlayBoy? Strange.
