Comment by Mark

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 11:51

Playboy not smut? That’s pretty funny.

Comment by Michel Angstadt

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 12:05

OK, so when is Ian Thorpe going to be featured in Playgirl? (presuming the magazine is still in circulation)

(This one goes to you, Julie).

Comment by button

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 13:21

is playgirl a gay mag?

Comment by nealh

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 15:05

on a related note…this was actually overheard at an age group swim meet: clerk of course announcer “ATTENTION! WOMENS OPEN BREAST WILL BE FOLLOWED IMMEDIATLEY BY MENS OPEN FLY…” not kidding, either.

Comment by lala

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 18:37

My opinion may not be popular, but, I don’t think Amanda is stupid. At Swimmingworldmagazine.com, the article says she will “grace the July cover.” I am hoping that is all there will be, or maybe some slightly provocative shots inside. I can’t imagine a full spread. I see think she must know that a nude spread unless it is really tastefully done, will pretty much kill her chances of doing clinics for youths. ( Although it open doors for a university tour.) There is a publication in Australia called B&W magazine that has published special edition books called “The Sydney Dream” and “The Athens Dream”. In them, Australian Olympians are photographed nude. They are really beautiful photos. I don’t think those photos ruined the reputations of those athletes, which include Michael Klim, Petria Thomas, Brett Hawke, Brooke Hanson and Grant Hackett, just to name a few. And there were athletes representing many of the other Olympic sports. I think we in America have a pretty uptight attitude sometimes about nudity. But if the photos are not raunchy, I say Amanda should go for it. She is a natural, beautiful woman.

Comment by Kirk Nelson

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 21:49

I think it’s a safe bet that if Amanda’s on the cover she will appear nude in the magazine. But, come on folks, it’s Playboy. It’s not exactly hard core pornography we’re talking about. Have you seen the photos in the Playboy? The women are airbrushed to the point of barely being recognizable.

Comment by Cliff

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 21:59

lala, that reminds me; I have a coffee table book with some beautiful pix of athletes posed in their various sports, both male and female. There are some swimmers in there such as de Bruijn, etc. Lots of skin, and some pix are close to nude and are sensual but without being overly sexual if you know what I mean. I think that’s a whole different story. I don’t mind my kids seeing them at all; they inspire more than they titillate if that makes sense.

Comment by lala

Posted on May 2nd, 2007 at 23:03

I do know what you mean Cliff. I actually have The Athens Dream. It was delivered to me at work and my co-worker grabbed it, and after he flipped through it said, “These pictures are not hot at all. I don’t like athletes bodies.” I could not get him to admit that it was interesting how different sports sculpt a body differently. I think that is the beauty of that sort of book. Now, I know that Playboy is not like that, but I also know that not all the photos are too revealing in Playboy. I guess it is the reputation of the magazine that will wreck people’s opinion. On the other hand I think we should wait to burn her at the stake until the photos come out.

Comment by Moe Golden

Posted on May 3rd, 2007 at 03:21

I’m just kind of upset that people could be so closed-minded here to say, “I won’t let my kids attend a clinic of hers.” solely because she poses nude - if indeed she does.

She is an athlete - essentially, ALL athlete’s ENTIRE lives are based on their bodies. You can think of a photo of a nude body as pornography in and of itself, but that’s pretty shallow. Playboy keeps it tamer than some British newspapers.

And, you know, there is also the whole other issue of someone needing to plant seeds for a post-athletic career. Sure, she’ll probably always be involved in swimming, but who is to say that entertainment and/or being a “personality” isn’t her wisest move?

Put yourself in her shoes. She’s a lovely woman, and now, she’ll probably be the most famous Olympian. With that distinction, she’ll get some endorsements.

Comment by Jimmy

Posted on May 3rd, 2007 at 05:03

I guess “breast stroke” will have a whole new meaning now…

Comment by Cliff

Posted on May 3rd, 2007 at 06:48

Lol, I would guess, just the phony ones who don’t care if they risk lookin like a hypocrite to their own kids who find the Playboy. They’d be the type who’d go for those fake airbrushed shots anyway.

Comment by Shane Falco

Posted on May 3rd, 2007 at 07:57

Just because she is on the cover doesn’t mean she’s naked inside as it turned out March 2007’s cover-girl Mariah Carey was fully clothed on the inside. Also Haley Cope posed naked in Playboy right before the Athens Olympics, so she wouldn’t be the first if she did.

Comment by Jimmy

Posted on May 3rd, 2007 at 08:19

I’m a subscriber for 15 years and my June Playboy was already delievered. I’ve seen the “coming next month” preview section, and I can tell you that it’s not a Mariah Carey type of situation. Amanda is going to be completely naked.

Comment by Cliff

Posted on May 3rd, 2007 at 20:15

Lol, marcio, I work with little kids, they know EVERYTHING these days. Don’t kid yourself, the days of innocence are gone. FYI sat near Beard at a swim meet not too long ago and she was dressed pretty scanty/slutty, tons of makeup, hair dyed, pretty fake and cheesy looking. Unfortunatley, that’s kinda mainstream these days…….

Comment by Bob Sugar

Posted on May 4th, 2007 at 05:51

I couldn’t agree more with Cliff about Natalie Coughlin. And I also think the “uptight victorian attitude of most of the conservative Bible thumping U.S.” is as weak a ’cause’ of perversion as nudity and porn. But I had a question for him. If as a liberal democrat atheist he claims to hold ‘other values’, what are those values? Beard is making an autonomous decision here, ‘her body her choice’, doing what she wants to make herself feel loved, desired, whatever. What values trump self-indulgence and self-expression? And where do these ‘values’ come from and how do we know to honor those values? If we ourselves ‘make’ these values (not God), then how do you know your values are better than Beard’s?

I hope Beard falls flat in ‘08. Then those of us who care about personal dignity, modesty and self respect (and fame for swimming performance and not lewd exhibitionism) can point to Beard as an example of what happens to a talented athlete when they turn themselves into a human Bratz doll.

I’m sure I’m not the only one. I’m guessing it’s no accident that Megan Quann’s husband’s only comment on this whole matter was to say how cool Kurt Vonnegut is.

Comment by gretta

Posted on May 4th, 2007 at 17:58

In my opinion I think Amanda Beard should do some other things first before Playboy; magazines like Women’s Health and Oxygen and Glamour..stuff like that. I do not really think she will have as many opportunities (positive ones..) after the shoot. I’m not quite sure how posing in Playboy will “boost the sport of swimming” because mostly only middle aged to older men read it..and are those really the people that are going to support swimming? Didn’t think so….
Anyways I may be totally wrong, and it will def. get her name out in the open, but I don’t think anyone should rush to pose in Playboy before getting to do a lot of other things. (other popular magazines, commercials..)

Comment by Todd Kramer

Posted on May 4th, 2007 at 20:31

I just find it interesting that FAR more people decide to weigh in on if it’s ok for Amanda to pose in Playboy than posted on articles here that are on doping. Guess it says something about the way the world is today when someone doing something that is not illegal and is 100% their choice gets more attention than someone cheating and breaking the law.

Note: I am not criticizing here, just saying that this fact is very interesting to me. Man, I wish I had studied Psychology in college like I originally wanted. It’s rather hard to apply economics or engineering(boo engineering, boo!) to a situation like this.

Comment by Jon

Posted on May 7th, 2007 at 20:37

I think its pretty sad that she is so money hungry that she is resorting to this. But what I really don’t understand is how she got the gig. While she might have a nice body (but there are a billion of them in the world) she is not a very attractive person. I guess she can now add to her inspirational talks to young female swimmers that they too can aspire to bare it all for a bunch of horny men who will do who knows what when they see her. And the number of girls who died at a young age and appeared in the magazine is significant. Again, very sad. I think she has taken some pretty poor advice.

Comment by Bill

Posted on May 7th, 2007 at 21:47

Money and fame baby! It’s always about the money, don’t kid yourself.

I would much rather get paid big money for getting my photos taken, than working at some run of the mill job.

Money ain’t the key to happiness, but I’d much rather be wealthy and miserable than poor and miserable.

I’ve been working for over 25 years and I don’t blame her a bit!

Comment by Cliff

Posted on May 8th, 2007 at 11:50

She’s already wealthy; she didn’t have to do it for money; probably more about holding onto fame or getting rid of some demons from being a geek as a teenager. I dunno, but I’m sick of this topic. She’s not that interesting to me….

Comment by VictorSpoils

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 04:04

If she isn’t on your top five list of hottest swimmers then you probably have a list comprised of dudes. Just saying.

Comment by Jane

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 10:01

I’m so sick and tired of the ignorance surrounding the so-called “benefits” of posing for playboy. Why is getting nude something to applaud and cheer on? I do it everday when I get dressed. First and foremost, it IS absolutely a smut magazine. You have got to be kidding me about the articles, who honestly buys it thinking “Gee I want to read some great political commentary.” Secondly, this will not raise the profile of swimming, this will raise the profile of Amanda Beard. No one will take swimming any more seriously after seeing her breasts. She is absolutely a sell-out. She hasn’t competed or won anything since the 2004 Olympics, and thus relies on posing nude or semi-nude in men’s magazines in order to maintain publicity. And as for the Aussie photographs, those are in a whole different category. Those pics are more about art, whereas playboy is more about women as sex objects. And parents should absolutely be concerned. What are young female swimmers supposed to think? That this is what they need to do to be successful? No one is telling her what to do, it’s a “free” country, but how is this positive for female swimmers? Amanda is only thinking about her own selfish need to gain attention. I applaud swimmers like Katie Hoff who are using their TALENT to draw attention to the sport, and aren’t trying to draw attention to their breasts. This isn’t about being puritanical, I don’t see anything wrong, for example, with nude beach and nudist environments. This is about female athletes not being taken seriously. This is about all the women striving to gain attention in the male dominated world of sports that are sadly pressured to drop their clothes to get noticed. Why don’t we encourage male athletes to get nude? Why don’t we find it necessary for them to be talented AND attractive? No one tells Phelps or Hansen that they should get naked to gain attention for their sport. Women posing nude is not an advancement for women, walk through an art museum, portraying nude women is the oldest thing in the world. But in the case of playboy, this only serves to say that women with great athletic ability need to be reduced to sex objects in order to get noticed. So sad, Amanda. I’ll be cheering for Katie Hoff among the other talent swimmers to beat her during Olympic trials.

Comment by Jane

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 11:01

Seriously Susie, it worries me that you have daughters that look up to Amanda and you don’t even care. So if they both asked you if they could pose nude to get noticed, would you support them? People who are superficial care about nonsense such as celebrity and fame. The problem is with a nation that values fame over accomplishment and hard work. Seriously, why is being famous for no reason such a good thing? Why is being famous a good thing, period? Who cares if people know your name, it’s what they know you for that matters. I would rather accomplish something in life that I can be proud of, not achieve nothing more than being a household name. Amanda will be known as the swimmer who posed nude, she won’t be remembered for anything actually involving the sport of swimming. Natalie Coughlin and Katie Hoff will be remembered for what they actually achieved in the pool. I’m not sure why showing the world her breasts somehow makes her a multi-dimensional. Did you think that maybe Natalie wants to be applauded only when she wins medals, not when she strips down? Maybe she doesn’t care to become a mainstream celebrity who is stalked by paparazzi and is famous for being famous. Playboy photo-shoots will not raise swimming’s profile, they raise the idea that women can’t be taken seriously for their talent, only their looks. Do you honestly think swimming’s popularity will increase after her July cover? If her goal is to gain publicity, well that will happen. But STOP PRETENDING that this will increase the popularity of swimming. And at what cost are we to gain attention? So if all else fails, get naked. She might temporarily cause SOME people to watch HER swim, but no one will care about swimming any more than they do now, they will only care to see HER. Most people looking at her nude photos won’t even know she’s a swimmer. Don’t you find it sad that we are more likely to see female athletes on the cover of men’s magazines then sport’s magazines? Doesn’t it bother you that female athletes are only taken seriously when they are posing naked? I would rather see Amanda on the cover of Sports Illustrated. No one even talks about her as a swimmer anymore, it’s only Amanda the sex kitten.
I also wanted to address maly from france: I’ve seen the photos from that calender, they are art compared to the garbage of playboy. However, the men posing for those photos were not the fake, airbrushed images of women in submissive, degrading positions that “grace” the covers of playboy. Not to mention, men are already taken seriously in the world of sports, whereas female athletes are only paid attention to when they have no clothes on.

Comment by May 9, 2007 « If I had to pick…

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 11:40

[…] Next four: This guy was drafted before I was born. Why don’t we get more runs at the Crown Jewels nowadays? This must have been easier than hiding all the steak knives. Finally, a reason to care about swimmng again. […]

Comment by Ed Ochs

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 11:42

I bet Jane is fat and ugly.

Comment by Ed Ochs

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 12:36

I have met at least 4 playmates at various events such as Playboy sponsered ski races that I competed in and believe me, they look as good or better in person than they do in the magazine. There is very little airbrushing going on, I have seen with my own eyes. That is just an excuse for ignorant jealous people to slam the women who have the guts, beauty, and bodies to pose.

Comment by Kirk Nelson

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 13:10

You’re right, Ed, it’s actually all done with Photoshop now :)

Seriously, they touch up the photos heavily. I’m not saying the girls aren’t actually that attractive, but jeez the photos look more like paintings sometimes!

Comment by regala

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 14:12

I guess we find out how fitting her last name is….

Comment by David

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 18:44

Jane:

Thank you for your comments, and you do share a side of the story that seems to be underrepresented in the comments. Yes, women do struggle with forging their own name without sex appeal. I would argue that this is more symptomatic of society as a whole rather than sports, or even swimming, in particular.

In terms of Playboy, I also agree that most people will probably buy the magazine to see the pictures. BUT, that doesn’t take away the fact that it has wonderfully well-written articles including, as I mentioned, the Playboy Interview. But, despite these wonderful articles, as you said it will always take on a somewhat negative moral connotation (for instance, Jimmy Carter did the interview with them that outlined his political stances in ‘76…people ignored this and called into question JIMMY CARTER’S moral fiber. Jimmy Carter? Come on).

Also, in terms of your comparison to Katie Hoff: completely nonsensical. Amanda Beard established herself by winning three medals and breaking American Records in Atlanta, at 14, then coming back to win another in Sydney (despite EVERYONE doubting here). She only started poising, etc. in the leadup to Athens, where gasp, she put on another show in the water. Don’t call into question how she got there, and, I hate to say it, but Katie Hoff is young and we don’t know where she will be after having three Olympics under her belt.

Also, I agree that it might not be the correct “means to an end” so to speak in terms of bringing more popularity to the sport…but it absolutely does achieve the same end: more people watching swimming. Look at women’s beach volleyball. You can argue that it’s bad attention, but sex appeal has absolutely brought more viewers (the women are trouncing the men in terms of viewer popularity).

Comment by Tyler Totman

Posted on May 9th, 2007 at 20:34

You know it is a strange country where a man can be shot 5 times in the chest (quite graphically) and the movie gets a PG-13 rating, yet even intense sexual innuendo will garner a Restricted rating. Frankly it isn’t my place to judge what another person does - so I hope she has fun doing it and is happy with her choice in the end.

Comment by Billy Gibbons

Posted on May 10th, 2007 at 08:04

Everyone is blasting Amanda for the “porno” photos that nobody has seen yet.

Why don’t you folks lighten up a little UNTIL you see the photos, then you can have your say.

I’ve got much more important things to worry about.

Comment by maly

Posted on May 10th, 2007 at 12:42

i find interesting the american attitude to nudity, in europe we have a much more relax relationship to that. in france, if you go on any beach, you will find topless women and no one will give a damm about it.

Comment by Ross

Posted on May 10th, 2007 at 15:54

Seems everybody has an issue with her posing nude but nobody seems to care that it has been a pretty long standing “rumor” that Amanda Beard is a lesbian. Can’t take my kids to a swim lesson with a playmate but a dyke is ok.

Comment by Jason

Posted on May 10th, 2007 at 16:56

>Comment by Mark
>Playboy not smut? That’s pretty funny.

Why is Playboy smut? Because there are naked women in it? It is as tasteful a treatment of nudity that could be thought of. What is your definition of “smut” exactly? Because according to most dictionaries it is synonymous with obscenity. Are breasts necessarily obscene?

>Comment by Bob Sugar
>And where do these ‘values’ come from and how do we know to honor >those values?

Values are unimportant. Ethics are important. Ethics are inherited and/or learned behaviors that support the function of society. This is where we get our universal revile of things like murder, and universal support of things like generosity and charity. They help society directly to function.

>If we ourselves ‘make’ these values (not God), then how do you know
>your values are better than Beard’s?

“Values” are an invention of religious institutions and are useless. Your values are not better than Beard’s because they are important only to you.

>I hope Beard falls flat in ‘08.

How very vindictive of you.

>Then those of us who care about personal dignity, modesty and self
>respect (and fame for swimming performance and not lewd
>exhibitionism) can point to Beard as an example of what happens to a
>talented athlete when they turn themselves into a human Bratz doll.

First of all, her posing nude is not incompatible with having dignity or self-respect — only in your eyes is this the case. Next, she WILL have fame for swimming performance; people will remember her for this first and foremost. Only in your mind, and those like you, is her Playboy spread such a big problem that you will think of it before you think of her athleticism. If anything bad happens to her or her career, it will likely be due to the puritanical attitudes of others, and not anything inherently bad in her decision. YOU are the one choosing to degrade her as a “human Bratz doll”, and YOU are the one who has decided that this will overshadow her achievements. In many minds, it will not.

>Comment by Jane
>Seriously Susie, it worries me that you have daughters that look up to
>Amanda and you don’t even care. So if they both asked you if they
>could pose nude to get noticed, would you support them?

Irrelevant. Amanda isn’t posing nude to get noticed, she already IS noticed. She is already famous, she has already accomplished things. Likely, Playboy approached her and she decided that it would be okay because, presumably, she likes being thought of as beautiful (who doesn’t?) and she doesn’t find nudity objectionable. She didn’t seek them out and ask to do a spread.

>The problem is with a nation that values fame over accomplishment
>and hard work. Seriously, why is being famous for no reason such a
>good thing?

Agreed. But why does this apply to Amanda Beard? It doesn’t. She isn’t famous for no reason, she is famous for being a swimmer. One of the reasons that Playboy sought her out is because she IS a celebrity already, and she got that way by being an excellent swimmer.

>Amanda will be known as the swimmer who posed nude, she won’t be
>remembered for anything actually involving the sport of swimming.

Maybe by you, but I vehemently disagree with this. I don’t even follow swimming and I know who Amanda Beard is. Why is this spread such a big deal that you feel it will overshadow the very thing she became famous for? I have a feeling that many people will not consider it to be a decision of such gravity.

>Did you think that maybe Natalie wants to be applauded only when she
>wins medals, not when she strips down?

Good for Natalie, maybe Amanda wants both. Whats your point? Is that a bad thing? She is beautiful and people like being thought of as beautiful. Both men and women. There isn’t anything wrong with that, it is just the way it is. Showing off your beauty is no great sin; it probably makes her feel good, other people like to look, what harm is done? This will not keep her from being a great swimmer, people will still cheer when she wins medals.

>Don’t you find it sad that we are more likely to see female athletes on
>the cover of men’s magazines then sport’s magazines?

Have you looked at any sports magazines lately? I see women on the covers of them all the time.

>Doesn’t it bother you that female athletes are only taken seriously
>when they are posing naked?

Do you really think this is the case? I don’t.
Jenny Finch is taken seriously. Maria Sharapova is taken seriously. The Williams sisters, and Michelle Wie, and Martina Navratilova (who isn’t even attractive), not to mention a whole bevy of gymnasts like Mary Lou Retton, are all taken very seriously in their respective sports.

If my position isn’t clear already, I think it is fine that Amanda is doing this. She didn’t need to, but I see no reason to object to it. Probably it will not promote swimming, but neither will it eclipse her own considerable accomplishments, particularly if she does well in the coming summer games. I am not sure why so many people think that nudity is such a terrible infraction, but she is no less great an athelete than she was before. People who know her as a great swimmer now will still know her as a great swimmer after the article is published.

Comment by Billy Gibbons

Posted on May 10th, 2007 at 20:07

Long standing rumor?

I’ve never heard it and I do not give a damn either.

Ross, name your source(s) if you have the balls, which I doubt you do.

I’m waiting…………………….

Comment by Bill

Posted on May 10th, 2007 at 21:35

Wow Amanada Beard is hot.Now all we need is to see Jennie Finch naked in Playboy.

Comment by james

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 10:56

Good for her, take the money and run.

Comment by vicky riley

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 12:07

Playboy objectifies women. It is “Beauty Porn”. Too bad female athletes sell themselves in this degrading way. Beard, men supporting Beard’s appearance and Playboy in general are part of a large probelm regarding respect for women in our society.

Comment by Steve Beardo

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 14:08

It’s comforting to me to read these posts that reek of envy to know that due to her accomplishments and gender Amanda is being held to a higher standard of concocted morality. As though her accomplshments define her as a person. Perhaps a person can define themselves any way they wish? And maybe, just maybe, one is free to do whatever they like with the caveat that they not bring any others to harm.

Comment by Eric

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 15:29

To Jane and Brian Norris: GET A GRIP!!! Jane…I’m sure you’re some kind of self-proclaimed Gloria Steinem…the big difference between you and Amanda is that people actually WANT to see Amanda naked…doubt there’s much public outcry for you to pose in Playboy. And Brian, are you freakin kidding me?!?! Do you REALLY think that whatever guy is LUCKY enough to land Amanda as a bride is really gonna give a rat’s arse if millions of guys saw her naked in Playboy?!?! You need to wake up and smell what you’re shoveling. Maybe you folks on the rapture right don’t agree, but why don’t you wait to make another posting until your 1940’s-esqu world view catches up to us in the 21st century.

Comment by Mike

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 17:42

People

Get a life. I don’t know WHO Amanda Beard is, at least before this kerfuffle. Who made her the paragon and representative of women’s sports? Face facts, without Title 19, (no, I do not adovacatethe repeal of it, and in fact support it), where would women’s sports be? Do you REALLY beleive people watch women’s basketball because “they play a game more true to the fundamentals”? People watch NBA to see the slam dunk, or the pick that leaves you in the front row. They watch NFL and NCAA football to see speed, power, and collisons. If women, regardless of what they look like, weighed 325#, could clean and jerk 500# and run a 4.4 second forty yard dash, I would like to believe men would want to see them compete.
Times and interests change. At one point the world was interested in women’s tennis. Then soccer (I don’t believe that one player whipping off her T-shirt on the field fostered some kind of incredible interest). Women’s swimming, in our country, has for years enjoyed a huge following, and Ms. Beard’s actions will have minimal to no impact on the sport. Our country’s need to idealize and worship “sports heroes” is ridiculous. If you need a hero, look around. You touch elbows with them every day. Back off and let this woman live her life. By the way, Brian Urlacher is a true Sports God and we should all pray at his alter.

Comment by Jon

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 20:56

I think its great! Maybe she can jumpstart her career just like Anna Nicole Smith did by posing. Then for the marriage thing she can just marry some 90 year old guy for his cash as he certainly won’t care that a bunch of lonely guys (especially all of you writing to this site) will have her for more bathroom material. If she’s lucky she’ll avoid the fate of many playmates (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070218/D8NCDG7O0.html) and live happily ever after. I’m sure she will look back on this decision fondly.

Comment by Jon

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 21:25

Oooh Billy. You hurt me so much. Your questioning if I’m 12 and your the one with the name Billy? I’m guessing you use it to fool the chicks into thinking your in ZZ Topp.

Doesn’t matter what AB has accomplished. The point is the world she is opening herself up to. You have no clue at all.

Comment by Billy Gibbons

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 22:02

Yeah, I do have a clue.

#1. It’s a cover shot, she’s not a “playmate”.
#2. She has been on other magazine covers in the past. So she has already exposed herself to the world as a model, including the SI swimsuit issue.
#3. Playboy has had 12 playmates a year for over 50 years, which equals at least 600 girls.
#4. The article you referenced mentions 12 women who had died at an early age, that equals 2% of all playmates. Or one in 50 died prematurely, not an abnormally large number. Unfortunately, it happens.
#5. I am not that Billy Gibbons, but I love his guitar playing. One of my all time favorites.
#6. You can call me Bill.
#7. Was Johnny Carson less worthy because he was called Johnny?
#8. Bobby Bowden? Jimmy Cliff? Rocky Marciano? Stevie Wonder?

Comment by TKD Rulez

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 22:12

Some of you folks bring out some interesting points. But heres my take on it…when a successful athlete poses nude in a magainze like playboy(and most people who read it , don’t admit to reading it because of obvious reasons) it only gives young women the idea that posing nude is ok. We should be looking up to athletes as role models, but I won’t let me son or daughter look up to some one that is selling herself for money. Shes being a bad role model thats the bottom line. To be honest, shes got a nice body and she looks ok, just the fact that she posed nude has a negative impact on her and if you are just another guy like me, how many of you guys take that kinda woman serioiusly? I think women are losing their image and are turning into objects and men are laughing on the side lines. Its time for women to wake up or else they will stay behind(just a nice guy looking out!)

Comment by Billy Gibbons

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 22:23

When does it hit the newstands?

Naked women = Fine art.

Comment by Jimi Hendrix

Posted on May 11th, 2007 at 23:05

I am changing my name to Jimi Hendrix. It is a little more refined than Billy. If that offends some, I will then call myself Johnny Ramone or Dee Dee Ramone or Joey Ramone.

Or Buddy Rich or Tommy Lee or Tommy Iommi or Jimmy Soul or Larry Bird.

Sounds like some of the protestors have never seen a woman naked.

I think that the NCAA Naked Womens Swimming and Diving Championship would get killer ratings LIVE on national major network TV.

One qualification to watch. You must be a red blooded american male!

NAKED or NUDE are words that have a nice ring to them…..

Comment by Jennifer

Posted on May 12th, 2007 at 12:39

It’s unbelievable how much attention this issue has received! Some interesting comments out there. I would like to voice my opinion as female, and a former competitive swimmer of fifteen years. A lot of my college teammates were close friends with Amanda, and had an immense amount of respect for her due to her accomplishments as an athlete. Let me add that most of what she accomplished as an athlete was by going against conventional wisdom and having the independence to chase her dreams. When she won silver and gold at the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta as a 14 year old, the swimming world criticized that it was the last we would see of Amanda. Once she “grew up” and “became a woman,” her centre of gravity would change so dramatically that she would lose her coordination in the water and her career would be over.

Four years later, in 2000, a more “womanly” Amanda medalled at the Olympics again. People called it a fluke. There was no way she could do it again.

Four years later, in 2004, Amanda again took home hardware from Athens, and broke the 200m breaststroke world record.

Here is a confident young woman, who is obviously not concerned about the naysayers. Good for her. If her indepencence and willingness to believe in herself when very few others are on board doesn’t inspire confidence in asipring young athletes, I don’t know what does.

Let me mention that I am also currently a swim coach, and I asked the female athletes at the pool what their views were on Amanda modelling for Playboy. Most were impressed with her confidence–and the most negative opionion was neutral. From what I could see, these are athletes who respect her swimming accomplishments as what they are, and her decision to model for Playboy is just that–a decision.

Yes, I’m a liberal-minded person. I think you’ll find that most female athletes are. Most of us are interested in high-performance sports, being independent, and being the best we can be. This decision is indicative of her independence.

Amanda is a woman with talent, work ethic, brains, and beauty. The human body is a beautiful thing. An athletic body is even more beautiful. I don’t understand why we have such hangups about nudity in North America. Call Playboy what you want–overtly sexual, pornographic, tasteful, wasteful. To me the opinion of the magazine is irrelevant. The bottom line is that Amanda is a beautiful woman, and good for her to have the confidence to display her beauty. If you have the beauty, why hide it?

As per earlier comments, I also agree with the fact that if I were in her shoes, I would do the same. You have a small window in your life where you can excel in sports, and most athletes her age receive poverty-level income in which to support their training. Let me ask all of you: If you were offered 6+ figures to display your beauty, would you turn it down? Financial security is not a negative thing…especially when most athletes out there can barely make ends meet. I hope Amanda kicks ass in Beijing and again silences all the naysayers.

Comment by Joey

Posted on May 12th, 2007 at 16:44

You guys are getting too rude to each other……..I’m out.

Comment by Jason

Posted on May 13th, 2007 at 03:02

>Comment by TKD Rulez

>But heres my take on it…when a successful athlete poses nude in a >magainze like playboy(and most people who read it , don’t admit to >reading it because of obvious reasons) it only gives young women the >idea that posing nude is ok.

Is it not ok?

>We should be looking up to athletes as role models, but I won’t let me >son or daughter look up to some one that is selling herself for money.

She isn’t selling herself, she is posing nude. Do you ascribe her entire worth to what is underneath her clothing? She is letting people see a part of her, and not even the most important part. Why are you, who ostensibly respect women, essentially insinuating that any woman who has bared her skin or exhibited sexuality is no longer to be taken seriously? She has done nothing objectionable except be naked, something that plenty of people do not find objectionable.

>Shes being a bad role model thats the bottom line.

Some people would disagree. Kids who have parents that actually raise them and talk to them about such things when questions arise will be no worse for it. Just because a kid sees a magazine with nudity in it doesn’t mean that they will think that it is ok to go pose naked for the next person they see with a camera, or at least they won’t if they have good parents. However, they will also not be ashamed of their own body or their sexuality, and shame over such things causes much more harm than good.

>if you are just another guy like me, how many of you guys take that >kinda woman serioiusly?

I would. Why would I not?
What is so inherently wrong with female sexuality that any woman who exhibits it is not worth listening to? To me, that is a more objectifying attitude than to simply allow women to exercise their sexuality and recognize that you are only getting to see one small part of them.

To promote the attitude that “any woman who poses naked is nothing more than a harlot” is to imply that the entirety of a woman’s worth is contained in her sexuality, and that to share or show it is to spoil the woman herself. Now THAT is what I call objectifying women.

>I think women are losing their image and are turning into objects and >men are laughing on the side lines.

I’m not laughing, and I don’t think they are losing their image; I think they are gaining control of it. In fact, I think once nobody cares whether they have gotten naked or not and simply judges them on their accomplishments, that is the point to which we need to get.

Comment by Brian Wallace

Posted on May 13th, 2007 at 08:08

My God, for the people who are anti-Playboy what color is the sky in your world? We get your point. Amanda Beard is a sell-out slut/whore who will kill the sport of competitive swimming, fail miserably in the next Olympics and turn any young girl within fifty meters of her into another “sell-out slut/whore.” She’s EVIL. She is a mature independent woman who is chosing to pose nude in a men’s magazine for whatever reason. Let’s judge her. “Those who are without sin cast the first stone?” Forget that! I think Speedo has announced that from now on, Amanda will have a large scarlet A (or should that be N?) on her swimsuit.

This is swimming, people! No other sport has its competitors closer to being naked while competing! Most good swimmers have gone/continue to go SKINNY DIPPING! That’s swimming without clothes! They must also be horrible sell-outs too! I’m sure that these adult swimmers are glad have people (like most of the people in this thread) pass judgement on every little thing they do. That’s great.

> Comment by Bob Sugar

> Her “work” so far has been simulated/intimated sex. And to put everyone
> straight, I like seeing a hot woman buck naked. I call her “wife”.

And she must be sick of your pompous, long-winded diatribes. You must write a lot of letters to the editor.

Brian Wallace

Comment by Taylor Spivey

Posted on May 15th, 2007 at 18:30

As someone who has spent time with Amanda it makes me sad how people are so quick to judge her character. She is a wonderful, down to earth woman who works extremely hard. Naked or not, her swimming skills gave her these opportunities and it is her right to take advantage. By the way, this is not the first time a female swimmer has been in Playboy because Haley Cope was featured in Playboy’s Girls of the Pac-10 in the late 90’s. I say, Flaunt what you’ve got, she works hard for that body and there is nothing wrong with showing it off. She is a role model, but it is the parents’ job to raise their children, not Amanda’s.

Comment by Bob Sugar

Posted on May 15th, 2007 at 21:53

Jason:
I am impressed that you know what a strawman argument is, and I’m guessing you can differentiate “your” from “you’re”. So I salute your tackling the issue in a methodical way. And I take it that the narrowly selective manner you chose to address my comments demonstrates that you concede most of my points. I must point out that in certain areas, if you didn’t quite pick it up, that I was using hyperbole—a rhetorical device of exaggeration—to illustrate that the value of ‘doing whatever you want if it doesn’t directly harm other people’ isn’t much of a value at all. I agree that adultery and heroin abuse are not victimless. And as for the other conduct you mentioned, yes, it IS wrong. But you evidently have a “line”, which suggests to me that you do realize that there is a right and wrong. So, what about stripping? Do you think you’d want your sister or daughter stripping? It is a variation of the ‘would I want my actions put in newspaper headlines’ gauge of ethical conduct. Courtesan? Well, a prostitute is someone who, for a fee, allows ‘access’ (however you want to define it) to their erotic zones for others’ sexual pleasure. Beard took a fee, allowed access, and ensured others will get their cheap jollies. And as for that condescending tone, brother, you’d have to be as high as Gary Hall training in Colorado Springs to condescend to me.

James Brown:
Again with the ‘idiot’ thing! I suppose we should overlook your numerous drug possession and domestic violence charges when weighing your comments. Amanda looks at you with those comely eyes, the camera capturing all those angles and curves, that cleavage and crevasse you yearn to see, some Vaseline and Kleenex, and…AWWW! I feel good. Kiss myself. (Oh, what’s that? You were going to write “go f-yourself”? Hah, the predictability of the prurient mind)

Brian Wallace:
Sorry, but I usually save my hectoring for people whose mothers didn’t teach them to keep their privates private and their moral imbecility to themselves. You get “our” point? Well done, Inspector Clouseau! And “we” get yours: Butthead: “Naked chicks are cool! Huh-Huh.” Beavis: “Yeah. Take it off, TAKE IT OFF. Heh.” And the color is the sky in my world? Humoring your hackneyed non-point, I’ll answer blue, evidently the same color as you prefer your magazines. I guess I should expect as much from someone whose moral compass gauges ‘writing letters’ as bad and ‘posing naked’ as good.

Comment by Bob Sugar

Posted on May 15th, 2007 at 23:27

Of course “James”. I realize he’s been dead for a while. But if you’re going to weigh in on a topic with some moral dimensions, pick a better moniker.

The root of my vitriol? Turpitude. Crassness. The moral coarsening of sport. I don’t think Beard is a terrible person; I think she got some bad advice and has some wrongheaded ideas about how to make a buck. But then these simpletons got rambling about how this is good and how admirably independent she is. This is complete nonsense. Posing naked is not an virtuous way to fame, nor is it something to be admired. Great athlete? Sure, in one event. A person of great measure? Well, I guess you’ll see in June, won’t you?

How did I get my ideas about Beard’s layout will be used? Wow, let’s see. Men’s magazine. Sexual content throughout. Naked women posing in sexually suggestive poses. Gosh…to imagine that would lead to men’s salacious thoughts and self-pleasuring…yeah, it seems to be a bit of a stretch of my imagination doesn’t i