My daughter wants to model for Playboy *nsfw*

Funkenpants wrote:

Am I the only one who is looking at this thread with a crappy 15-inch monitor?

How long have you been staying with your grandmother?

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

The Internet has taught me that everything is a "slippery slope".

True; I should have said that Playboy isn't necessarily the beginning of the end. It certainly could be.

Jayhawker wrote:

People are free to read what they want, and pose for what they want. But people are also free to judge others by their actions. Any attempts to spin posing for Playboy as innocent overlooks the fact that there are consequences to that de...ay to be included with those exceptions.

It's more a gateway.
Wait, she had to pay to get in the casting call? I know it's not much if you get called, but wow! I thought they would be begging women to pose! Is that how most of this stuff works, with the pay up front for us to look at you? I know it's that way trying to get many galleries to look at your artwork and pictures.

Having a cyberclub subscription is worth its moneis today!

MaxShrek wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
*Legion* wrote:

The Internet has taught me that everything is a "slippery slope".

True; I should have said that Playboy isn't necessarily the beginning of the end. It certainly could be.

Jayhawker wrote:

People are free to read what they want, and pose for what they want. But people are also free to judge others by their actions. Any attempts to spin posing for Playboy as innocent overlooks the fact that there are consequences to that de...ay to be included with those exceptions.

It's more a gateway.

I don't even want to go there. Let's assume that his daughter is smart enough not to get caught up in "the business" and manages to keep the whole culture of the industry at arms length. Even this is going to have significant consequences. One can talk all one wants about the relative "classiness" of PB to PH or others, but the fact of the matter is that there is a sizable portion of the male, professional population that will not take you seriously if you are in that subset of females that everyone has seen naked. And if you're going for an MBA with the hopes of working in management or finance, it is pretty much a given that you will encounter a larger than statistically average number of these folks. Moreover, it might be even harder to get the respect of female coworkers who will, fairly or unfairly, assume that your professional achievements are a function of your willingness to take of your clothes or worse.

People are vicious.

Paleocon wrote:

Right or wrong, the consequences of making a decision like this is that folks she will need to impress in the future will see her in a very different light than they would otherwise. Some will be okay with it. Others will think it's great. And yet others will will, for whatever reason, see this as a reason to discount her ability or judgement.

So how does this come up without her volunteering in the future? (Not being snarky; it's an honest question.) I mean, assuming she's not covergirl-of-the-decade, everybody-recognizes-her-on-the-street, do folks go looking for this kind of information?

EDIT: Plus, if she's pretty, she'll face that same sort of pre-decision making about her (though on an admittedly smaller scale).

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Right or wrong, the consequences of making a decision like this is that folks she will need to impress in the future will see her in a very different light than they would otherwise. Some will be okay with it. Others will think it's great. And yet others will will, for whatever reason, see this as a reason to discount her ability or judgement.

So how does this come up without her volunteering in the future? (Not being snarky; it's an honest question.) I mean, assuming she's not covergirl-of-the-decade, everybody-recognizes-her-on-the-street, do folks go looking for this kind of information?

EDIT: Plus, if she's pretty, she'll face that same sort of pre-decision making about her (though on an admittedly smaller scale).

HR departments everywhere are hiring folks to do internet searches for public source information on potential hires today. It's extremely naive to think that the information one puts out is NOT going to make it in your employee file. It's one thing to put something on a Facebook page where you have *some* level of control over it. It's an entirely different thing to have it published and to lose control over its distribution.

The justification for this sort of snooping is that firms do not want to be embarrassed by revelations of precisely this sort of distraction at a later date. It may not prevent a particular hiring, but it definitely isn't going to make things easier.

Paleocon wrote:

HR departments everywhere are hiring folks to do internet searches for public source information on potential hires today.

Hmmmmmm, this sounds like a fun job. Sign me up!

Paleocon wrote:

HR departments everywhere are hiring folks to do internet searches for public source information on potential hires today. It's extremely naive to think that the information one puts out is NOT going to make it in your employee file. It's one thing to put something on a Facebook page where you have *some* level of control over it. It's an entirely different thing to have it published and to lose control over its distribution.

The justification for this sort of snooping is that firms do not want to be embarrassed by revelations of precisely this sort of distraction at a later date. It may not prevent a particular hiring, but it definitely isn't going to make things easier.

That's all well and good, except BadKen already said that she didn't use her real name.

So, at this point, she would have to volunteer the information, or someone would have to have a Cyber Club subscription AND recognize her from something they probably looked at once for a minute or two.

I avoided this thread other than reading it. But all I have to say is good luck to your daughter Ken and I hope it works out for her. She's a pretty girl and she might as well use what she has. Hopefully you brought her up with enough self confidence that whatever happens in her adventure she can deal with it (the good and the bad).

PAR

Couple things...

I'm not even going to comment on Jayhawker's post except to say that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Also,

Funkenpants wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

...cameltoe and all.

I didn't even notice that.

you're seeing things.

MaxShrek wrote:

Wait, she had to pay to get in the casting call?

Not sure where you got this idea, but she was paid for the casting call, and also for the photo shoot at Playboy HQ in Chicago. Including travel, hotel and meals.

As far as whether Playboy is classy or not, or whether it is even pornography, I guess that's an individual decision, too. Sure, some of their stuff is intended to be more prurient, but the majority is not. Believe it or not, there are people who can look at nude art without having to immediately grab the tissues and run for their bunk. Maybe I'm in the minority on that one, I don't know. Any problem, if there is one, is not with Playboy. (Stupid articles approved by new management excepted. )

I really don't get the sentiment that media intended for adult audiences is automatically pornographic.

Also, as I've said before, she probably feels, as I do, that any place that would care about something like this in her past is probably a place she doesn't want to work. Why would you intentionally surround yourself with uptight busybodies at work?

Also, as I've said before, she probably feels, as I do, that any place that would care about something like this in her past is probably a place she doesn't want to work. Why would you intentionally surround yourself with uptight busybodies at work?

As long as she understands she won't be working in several fields because of her choice, it's fine, but if she comes back 2 years from now and says "I want to be taken seriously in the corporate world", it's going to be funny, and it won't just be power playing jackals like myself who will attack her, a lot of women busted their asses off actually doing work to get into powerful places who will view her as the devil embodied. If you want to show your snatch for cash, cool, but don't expect to be viewed as anything but a girl who took off her pants for stranger's viewing please.

As far as whether Playboy is classy or not, or whether it is even pornography, I guess that's an individual decision, too. Sure, some of their stuff is intended to be more prurient, but the majority is not. Believe it or not, there are people who can look at nude art without having to immediately grab the tissues and run for their bunk.

She's your little angel and all, but she's not making a an art piece, she's going to be spread eagle on a pool table with a short article telling us about her turn on's and first sexual experience, that's really stretching the definition of art.

MaverickDago wrote:

As long as she understands she won't be working in several fields because of her choice, it's fine, but if she comes back 2 years from now and says "I want to be taken seriously in the corporate world", it's going to be funny, and it won't just be power playing jackals like myself who will attack her, a lot of women busted their asses off actually doing work to get into powerful places who will view her as the devil embodied.

Wow, that's an ugly assumption and a surprisingly back-handed putdown.

The human body is beautiful. If we weren't such a puritanical society, twisted in knots about our own bodies, then this thread wouldn't even exist.

It sounds like Badken and his daughter are in a good place about this and have given it a lot of thought.
More power to you and your daughter.

If it's any consolation, when I subscribed to Playboy, it really was for the articles (and comics). The internet has desensitized me to the point where I pretty much need full on furry-on-mermaid porn to get into it.

Chumpy_McChump wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

As long as she understands she won't be working in several fields because of her choice, it's fine, but if she comes back 2 years from now and says "I want to be taken seriously in the corporate world", it's going to be funny, and it won't just be power playing jackals like myself who will attack her, a lot of women busted their asses off actually doing work to get into powerful places who will view her as the devil embodied.

Wow, that's an ugly assumption and a surprisingly back-handed putdown.

Indeed. The people making these assertions don't seem to consider that not all of us have any desire to work in environments that foster that sort of attitude.

DSGamer wrote:

The human body is beautiful. If we weren't such a puritanical society, twisted in knots about our own bodies, then this thread wouldn't even exist.

(Looking at this thread I guess we're all very happy that we live in puritanical society, then :D)

MaverickDago wrote:

She's your little angel and all, but she's not making a an art piece, she's going to be spread eagle on a pool table with a short article telling us about her turn on's and first sexual experience, that's really stretching the definition of art.

Why so hostile?

I'm not sure what magazine you're thinking of, but it's not Playboy.

LiquidMantis wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

As long as she understands she won't be working in several fields because of her choice, it's fine, but if she comes back 2 years from now and says "I want to be taken seriously in the corporate world", it's going to be funny, and it won't just be power playing jackals like myself who will attack her, a lot of women busted their asses off actually doing work to get into powerful places who will view her as the devil embodied.

Wow, that's an ugly assumption and a surprisingly back-handed putdown.

Indeed. The people making these assertions don't seem to consider that not all of us have any desire to work in environments that foster that sort of attitude.

I'm not sure it takes the fostering of any particular attitude for this to be a factor. I agree that, ideally, it shouldn't make a difference, but the reality is that too often it does. I suspect that this is one of those things like getting a facial tattoo that shouldn't be anyone's business, but affects you profoundly anyway.

BadKen wrote:

Couple things...

I'm not even going to comment on Jayhawker's post except to say that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. Also,

Funkenpants wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

...cameltoe and all.

I didn't even notice that.

you're seeing things.

MaxShrek wrote:

Wait, she had to pay to get in the casting call?

Not sure where you got this idea, but she was paid for the casting call, and also for the photo shoot at Playboy HQ in Chicago. Including travel, hotel and meals.

I read the "casting call" part of the website, there were 3 prices. Unless that was for people who wanted to be a member of the cyber club.

BadKen wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

She's your little angel and all, but she's not making a an art piece, she's going to be spread eagle on a pool table with a short article telling us about her turn on's and first sexual experience, that's really stretching the definition of art.

Why so hostile?

I'm not sure what magazine you're thinking of, but it's not Playboy.

As somebody who spent much time being single from 1999 to 2005, I've "read" my share of Playboys, and I never saw anything like that. There's Playboy, which has the closed clams, and Hustler, which has the open clams. Unless things have changed?

Paleocon wrote:

I'm not sure it takes the fostering of any particular attitude for this to be a factor. I agree that, ideally, it shouldn't make a difference, but the reality is that too often it does. I suspect that this is one of those things like getting a facial tattoo that shouldn't be anyone's business, but affects you profoundly anyway.

It is a long term risk versus immediate reward choice. Going in under an assumed name will lessen the risk, but there will always be a chance that it will come out later in the wash. This is a choice that sounds really cool when you are in your early 20's, but may not be seem so cool when she's 40.

Facial Tattoos are a great comparison. You can overcome them, but having one gives you a set of assumptions that you are working against in certain situations. You also can't claim that you had no control over their existence. A facial tattoo is a choice, unlike a facial birthmark. A spread in Playboy requires her consent/choice, so people who want to hold that against her aren't going to cut her much slack.

That's how I've always looked at this type of a decision. It is something that once done, can't be taken back. If she's ready to make that decision, then more power to her. She just has to accept that if she changes her mind later on and wants to go into a field that has a more straight-laced mindset, it could work against her and the one paying the price will be her.

LiquidMantis wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:

Am I the only one who is looking at this thread with a crappy 15-inch monitor?

How long have you been staying with your grandmother?

Hey. with more threads like this one I might find the energy to leave the house to get a bigger monitor. That's if grandma makes with the bigger allowance...

TheCounselor wrote:

So, at this point, she would have to volunteer the information, or someone would have to have a Cyber Club subscription AND recognize her from something they probably looked at once for a minute or two.

Chances are the people who see her in Playboy will look at her longer than a minute or two. Probably they will see her once or twice a day until the next issue arrives.

Paleocon wrote:
LiquidMantis wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
MaverickDago wrote:

As long as she understands she won't be working in several fields because of her choice, it's fine, but if she comes back 2 years from now and says "I want to be taken seriously in the corporate world", it's going to be funny, and it won't just be power playing jackals like myself who will attack her, a lot of women busted their asses off actually doing work to get into powerful places who will view her as the devil embodied.

Wow, that's an ugly assumption and a surprisingly back-handed putdown.

Indeed. The people making these assertions don't seem to consider that not all of us have any desire to work in environments that foster that sort of attitude.

I'm not sure it takes the fostering of any particular attitude for this to be a factor. I agree that, ideally, it shouldn't make a difference, but the reality is that too often it does. I suspect that this is one of those things like getting a facial tattoo that shouldn't be anyone's business, but affects you profoundly anyway.

The assumption that I'm talking about is Maverick's; the implication that, should she want to be taken seriously, she'll only be using her bare ass to get anywhere comes across as quite vicious, not least because it's thrown into his comment as if it's a given. I wouldn't be surprised if some co-workers assumed it, but I was surprised to see it a) from someone who doesn't know her in the least, and b) before she's even decided to be "taken seriously", let alone done any of the work necessary to end up in a position where co-workers might assume that she got there by shaking her money-maker.

[quote=UCRC]

DSGamer wrote:

The human body is beautiful. If we weren't such a puritanical society, twisted in knots about our own bodies, then this thread wouldn't even exist.

If we weren't in a puritanical society, the market to be paid so highly for her to pose nude in a magazine that implies all things sexual wouldn't exist. It goes both ways. If she wanted to be a nude model for other, less pornographic mediums (painting, more 'artsy' photography, live art, etc), I'm sure she could, she would just be paid less.

Good luck to you and yours, BadKen. Tough decisions, and lots of emotions and potential pitfalls along the way. I'm guessing that she is interested in modeling as a career, so hopefully this leads more in the "Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit" direction than others. Well, if I were in your position I would be hoping that. I suppose you could do some research in modeling agencies and find out where Playboy models go after they shoot in Playboy, if you haven't already.

RedJen wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

I'm not sure it takes the fostering of any particular attitude for this to be a factor. I agree that, ideally, it shouldn't make a difference, but the reality is that too often it does. I suspect that this is one of those things like getting a facial tattoo that shouldn't be anyone's business, but affects you profoundly anyway.

It is a long term risk versus immediate reward choice. Going in under an assumed name will lessen the risk, but there will always be a chance that it will come out later in the wash. This is a choice that sounds really cool when you are in your early 20's, but may not be seem so cool when she's 40.

Facial Tattoos are a great comparison. You can overcome them, but having one gives you a set of assumptions that you are working against in certain situations. You also can't claim that you had no control over their existence. A facial tattoo is a choice, unlike a facial birthmark. A spread in Playboy requires her consent/choice, so people who want to hold that against her aren't going to cut her much slack.

That's how I've always looked at this type of a decision. It is something that once done, can't be taken back. If she's ready to make that decision, then more power to her. She just has to accept that if she changes her mind later on and wants to go into a field that has a more straight-laced mindset, it could work against her and the one paying the price will be her.

I don't normally like to chime in without much to contribute, but I just want to say that RedJen and Paleocon have made very good points here.

I think we are missing the real issue here folks. When is she visiting you again BadKen and where should we have the slap and tickle?

edit:In retrospect this statement probably would make more sense if I disclosed that my location is also Tucson.

MaverickDago wrote:
Also, as I've said before, she probably feels, as I do, that any place that would care about something like this in her past is probably a place she doesn't want to work. Why would you intentionally surround yourself with uptight busybodies at work?

As long as she understands she won't be working in several fields because of her choice, it's fine, but if she comes back 2 years from now and says "I want to be taken seriously in the corporate world", it's going to be funny, and it won't just be power playing jackals like myself who will attack her, a lot of women busted their asses off actually doing work to get into powerful places who will view her as the devil embodied. If you want to show your snatch for cash, cool, but don't expect to be viewed as anything but a girl who took off her pants for stranger's viewing please.

As far as whether Playboy is classy or not, or whether it is even pornography, I guess that's an individual decision, too. Sure, some of their stuff is intended to be more prurient, but the majority is not. Believe it or not, there are people who can look at nude art without having to immediately grab the tissues and run for their bunk.

She's your little angel and all, but she's not making a an art piece, she's going to be spread eagle on a pool table with a short article telling us about her turn on's and first sexual experience, that's really stretching the definition of art.

What a terribly demeaning post. You're projecting your own views onto your presumption of the "corporate world", and the consequences of this are being overstated unless she's restricting her future job search to the Bible belt. There are plenty of industries where this won't even be a blip on the radar. Not to mention that in big cities, this sort of thing probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

More power to her, I'm sure will have no trouble getting by in the future.

Evo wrote:

What a terribly demeaning post. You're projecting your own views onto your presumption of the "corporate world", and the consequences of this are being overstated unless she's restricting her future job search to the Bible belt. There are plenty of industries where this won't even be a blip on the radar. Not to mention that in big cities, this sort of thing probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow.

More power to her, I'm sure will have no trouble getting by in the future.

Though I agree that the tone of his post was undiplomatic, I think it is a tremendous overstatement to say that such a decision would not matter in "big cities". This absolutely would matter outside of the "bible belt". Whether it would be a disqualifier is a different matter, but it doesn't help and only serves to make being taken seriously more difficult.

I'm sure she will get by as well. This isn't like a felony conviction. But it does matter to a lot more people than you might think.

kuddles wrote:

You know, other people in this thread have managed to express their disapproval without being an insulting douchebag about it.

Indeed. It's interesting that some of the "beware the consequences" crowd seem blissfully unaware of the consequences of revealing oneself to be a judgmental, inexplicably vindictive jerk.

And I totally agree with DSGamer. Our uptightness is no virtue; the body is beautiful.

Mex wrote:
BadKen wrote:

Nice job there man

BadKen wrote:

And no, you can't have her phone number.

I'll take her email address then

Damn, you beat me to it.

I'd be honored if the baby female bordone wanted to grace the pages of playboy.