Jamie Sale-exposed?! [Archive]

PaulWyliefan

12-07-2003, 05:27 PM

You're absolutely right that there's nothing wrong with the human body. But just because the body is a good thing, that doesn't mean that everything people choose to do with it -- like baring it for millions of strangers -- is right or appropriate. (We are talking about more than just a little skin in this case.) That cheapens and degrades something that should be private and special.

And yes, I understand that Jamie is a grown woman posing for an adult magazine. But if you don't think this stuff "trickles down," as the politicians say, into teens' and even kids' culture, take a look at some of the preteen girls parading around in Porn Star brand T-shirts and wearing thongs under their miniskirts. It's horribly sad. But it's inevitable -- if you have a culture full of adults who think that displaying oneself naked, in front of anyone who's willing to shell out a few bucks for a magazine, is a natural and healthy thing to do with one's body, how in the world are those adults going to teach good sexual values to their kids?

By the way, I apologize for a mistake in my previous post -- I meant Maria Butyrskaya, not Pasha Grishuk.

butterfly

12-07-2003, 05:29 PM

I have to add my disappointment. I am sorry she felt the need to bare her breasts for a magazine. She is beautiful but now she has cheapened herself. Too bad they didn't photograph her feet nude now that would be interesting. We have come to this in our society that women always have to bow to the naked body in a men's magazine to make money. This always seems to be the ultimate prize. She has a gold medal and she is so talented in skating, why does she think that baring her breast with pretend snow is a smart thing to do. I am no longer an admirer. Women are more than a naked body. I don't think we will see Sarah Hughes or Michelle Kwan making such stupid dicisions.

sierra

12-07-2003, 05:39 PM

Oh come on! She poses for a few pictures and now she's contributing to the lack of morality in young people today???!! She's a beautiful woman who had some photos taken. She showed a little skin. She's clearly very comfortabe with her body, and that is a very healthy thing. I think some people need to get some perspective.

Sk8Bunny

12-07-2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by flippet
They're athletes, and individuals, making individual choices. They shouldn't be tied to someone else's standard if it's not their own.

Good point. Many time we like to think,(whether we realize it or not) as fans and spectators, that athletes should be doing everything for us and they are our own(role models,etc). Not true. Its exacetly how you said-- they are individuals and arent obligated to anyones ideas or standards.

Justine_R

12-07-2003, 06:23 PM

Oh my gosh!!!
Shes a beautiful woman!!
If she wants to pose in a magasine with snowflakes on her breasts then so be it!
I completly support her in everyway.
And for the others who think that she has turned sleazy and chep.sheesh.who do you think you are?
She is another human being,she has feelings just as you do.
How could you be so inconsiderate?
Therse days you see 14 year old girls(sometimes even younger)Going round in jeans that looked like they have been sowed to there legs they are so tight and there thongs sticking up out of there pants.
They hardly wera anything to cover themselves up!
And Jamie hasn't even posed naked and you're saying how sleazy she looks.
In that picture you can hardly see anything.
Of course...Parents wouldm't want there children seeing that picture but how are children actually going to find this picture anyways?]
She is very beautiful and she has done all canadians proud with her wonderful skating.

Dont put her down because remember its not your body its hers so dont brand label her as sleazy and cheap..because just go walk the streets at night and im sure you wioll see some sleazy and cheap people.

Justine_R

12-07-2003, 06:25 PM

Oh my gosh!!!
Shes a beautiful woman!!
If she wants to pose in a magazine with snowflakes on her breasts then so be it!
I completley support her in everyway.
And for the others who think that she has turned sleazy and chep.sheesh.who do you think you are?
She is another human being,she has feelings just as you do.
How could you be so inconsiderate?
Therse days you see 14 year old girls(sometimes even younger)Going round in jeans that looked like they have been sowed to there legs they are so tight and there thongs sticking up out of there pants.
They hardly wear anything to cover themselves up!
And Jamie hasn't even posed naked and you're saying how sleazy she looks.
In that picture you can hardly see anything.
Of course...Parents wouldn't want there children seeing that picture but how are children actually going to find this picture anyways?]
She is very beautiful and she has done all Canadians proud with her wonderful skating.

Dont put her down because remember its not your body its hers so dont brand label her as sleazy and cheap..because just go walk the streets at night and im sure you will see some sleazy and cheap people.

I think she deserves an apology.

Justine_R

12-07-2003, 06:26 PM

sorry i posted twice~~~~~~HELP FLIPPET PLEASE!!

Roma

12-07-2003, 06:42 PM

Well, I am certainly disappointed, but not from the morality standpoint. My concern more has to do with self-respect. I don't understand why so many women feel that after achieving success in sports they need to bare their skin, and appear as a sex object. Put it this way, how many men do you think would pose in a similar fashion? Very few. I don't mean things such as underwear ads, etc, in which the persons is selling a product, I mean when the person poses for no ohter reason than to expose their flesh for the sexual enjoyment of people whom they will never even meet.

I think it's degrading. Again, no comment on morality here, just a comment on dignity.

PaulWyliefan

12-07-2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Oh my gosh!!!
Shes a beautiful woman!!
If she wants to pose in a magazine with snowflakes on her breasts then so be it!
I completley support her in everyway.
And for the others who think that she has turned sleazy and chep.sheesh.who do you think you are?
She is another human being,she has feelings just as you do.
How could you be so inconsiderate?
Therse days you see 14 year old girls(sometimes even younger)Going round in jeans that looked like they have been sowed to there legs they are so tight and there thongs sticking up out of there pants.
They hardly wear anything to cover themselves up!
And Jamie hasn't even posed naked and you're saying how sleazy she looks.
In that picture you can hardly see anything.
Of course...Parents wouldn't want there children seeing that picture but how are children actually going to find this picture anyways?]
She is very beautiful and she has done all Canadians proud with her wonderful skating.

Dont put her down because remember its not your body its hers so dont brand label her as sleazy and cheap..because just go walk the streets at night and im sure you will see some sleazy and cheap people.

I think she deserves an apology.

In answer to your question about who I think I am, Justine -- believe me, I don't think I'm anybody particularly special. :-) But neither do I think I was inconsiderate or hurtful to Jamie to say what I did. It's possible to say that you think someone did something wrong without being insulting to that person -- we all make our own judgments about behavior without being personal about it. For instance, you appear to think I'm wrong, or at least mistaken, on this issue, but you weren't trying to be inconsiderate or hurtful to me.

And, sierra, as I mentioned before, we're talking about more than "a little skin" here. A low-cut top or a miniskirt shows a little skin. We're talking about a woman taking her top off.

Justine_R

12-07-2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by Roma
I think it's degrading. Again, no comment on morality here, just a comment on dignity.

What are you saying?
That because she is a beautiful woman she is losing her dignity for posing in a magazine?

sierra

12-07-2003, 07:08 PM

PaulWyliefan, you do seem to take great offense to what are really quite tame photos. Have you looked inside a women's fashion magazine lately?? I can assure you you'll see pretty much the same amount of skin showing there. We are not even seeing her breasts in any of these shots. Have you been to a beach lately? Next time you do I suggest you avert your eyes.:roll:

And to Justine R, I agree with you 100%. It seems some people insist on labelling Ms. Sale as "sleezy" simply because she chose to do a photo shoot in a bikini. That's not only ridiculous, it's also rather sad.

Justine_R

12-07-2003, 07:15 PM

Thanks Sierra-I agree with you too.

Paulwyliefan,
Jamie is a grown woman, she does what she wants to do.
And just because she is beautiful and has a nice body you cant label her well im sorry to come out with this but you are labeling her like a prostetute and that is completly unfair.
She may be well known and respected but even if she does pose in these magazines for men the bottom line is-

What is it to do with you? Who gave you permission to be talking about her like this??

You have absoloutly no right to talk about her like she has just become a speck in society when if you go to a beach in the summer you will see people lying there naked!!

She is doing this because she wants too.
End of dissussion.

Roma

12-07-2003, 07:37 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
What are you saying?
That because she is a beautiful woman she is losing her dignity for posing in a magazine?
Justine, whether or not she is beautiful has nothing to do with it. And yes, I am saying that it is undignified to pose topless, and in sexually provocative poses, in a men's magazine.

Justine_R

12-07-2003, 07:54 PM

Roma,
We all have differnt opinons and really like come on it has nothing to do with whether shes beautiful or not?
Really?..i wouldnt be too sure.
She can be who she wants to be and me and sierra are behind her 100%!!
GO JAMIE!

maruko

12-07-2003, 07:56 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
What are you saying?
That because she is a beautiful woman she is losing her dignity for posing in a magazine?

Justin, I have to agree with Roma. Yes, if a woman has dignity, she will not post nude in an adult magainze. It is a simple as that. Call me old fashion for all you want.

cygnus

12-07-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by maruko
Justin, I have to agree with Roma. Yes, if a woman has dignity, she will not post nude in an adult magainze. It is a simple as that. Call me old fashion for all you want.

Um yes but she wasn't nude. There weren't even any pictures where one could see any of her "naughty bits". There wasn't much more exposure there than one would see on an average beach- or even in a skating exhibition. I saw nothing wrong in the pictures- it's hardly Penthouse, or even Playboy. Just a bit risque in the expression, but plenty left to the imagination. And I'm somewhat old fashioned too.;)

maruko

12-07-2003, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Thanks Sierra-I agree with you too.

What is it to do with you? Who gave you permission to be talking about her like this??

You have absoloutly no right to talk about her like she has just become a speck in society when if you go to a beach in the summer you will see people lying there naked!!

She is doing this because she wants too.
End of dissussion.

Well, and who gives you permission to forbid people from talking about it? She posed nude in an magazine being sold to the public and the public has the right to talk about it for all they wish. This forum for God sake is meant for people to discuss things.

Oh, yes, she posed topless because she wants to and no one is saying she cannot. It is that we have the freedom to express if we like it or not.

maruko

12-07-2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by cygnus
Um yes but she wasn't nude. There weren't even any pictures where one could see any of her "naughty bits". There wasn't much more exposure there than one would see on an average beach- or even in a skating exhibition. I saw nothing wrong in the pictures- it's hardly Penthouse, or even Playboy. Just a bit risque in the expression, but plenty left to the imagination. And I'm somewhat old fashioned too.;)

Ok, ok, she wasn't nude, but almost-nude, are you happy now? But honestly speaking, that is sexually provacative enough to be classified as pronography.

sierra

12-07-2003, 08:16 PM

Maruko, you've obviously not seen the pictures - she did NOT pose nude!

Since you clearly do not know what you're talking about, you should not be passing judgement.

cygnus

12-07-2003, 08:21 PM

Originally posted by maruko
Ok, ok, she wasn't nude, but almost-nude, are you happy now? But honestly speaking, that is sexually provacative enough to be classified as pronography.

Somewhat erotic- with a "come hither" look. But hardly pornography-
or is all skin exposure (note- there are no boobs or any other "naughty bits" exposed!) considered pornography? If so, you must avert your eyes in any art gallery- especially in the Renaissance painting section.

sierra

12-07-2003, 08:29 PM

"Ok, ok, she wasn't nude, but almost-nude, are you happy now? But honestly speaking, that is sexually provacative enough to be classified as pronography."

okay, that crossed the line. Either you are too young to understand what pornography is or you are completely out of touch with reality. Those photos are in no way shape or form anything close to "pornography". And to say that is was is beyond ridiculous. Shame on you.

Roma

12-07-2003, 09:30 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Roma,
We all have differnt opinons and really like come on it has nothing to do with whether shes beautiful or not?
Really?..i wouldnt be too sure.

Exactly. My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with whether Jamie is pretty or not. Why would you not 'be too sure'? Please explain.

sk8er1964

12-07-2003, 09:43 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Paulwyliefan,
Jamie is a grown woman, she does what she wants to do.
And just because she is beautiful and has a nice body you cant label her well im sorry to come out with this but you are labeling her like a prostetute and that is completly unfair.
She may be well known and respected but even if she does pose in these magazines for men the bottom line is-

I looked at the link, and Jamie is not showing anything that models in the Victoria secrets catalogue are showing. However, the pose is very suggestive, as are the poses of the other models on the webpage in the link. This is clearly a magazine that is aimed at the male imagination.

I agree that you shouldn't label her as a prostitute. However, we, as women, have fought for so long to be accepted as thinking, feeling, successful people in our own right - without having to use our bodies to get ahead. To see a thinking, successful woman use her body in such as fashion disappoints me (and I include the star of JAG in that assessment too, which is one of the other pictures).

jp1andOnly

12-07-2003, 09:53 PM

As a female, I've sure admired the guys in Cosmo when they bare their lovely chests. I think with sexuality, the door revolves in both directions.

SkaterBrett

12-07-2003, 09:55 PM

JAMIE IS JUST WEARING A BATHING SUIT!!!! IT'S NOT LIKE PLAYBOY & SHE IS NUDE!!!!

No different than Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera!!!

Roma

12-07-2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by SkaterBrett
JAMIE IS JUST WEARING A BATHING SUIT!!!! IT'S NOT LIKE PLAYBOY & SHE IS NUDE!!!!

No different than Britney Spears or Christina Aguilera!!!

She is wearing a TOPLESS bathing suit. Also, you have to look at the whole context. She is not walking down the beach in a bathing suit, she is lying on her back topless in one pic with 'snow' on her chest, and in another, she is exhibiting her rear (not nude - but you know what I mean, it's clearly the focal point of the pic).

On a lighter note -- the fact that she is no different that Britney or Christina actually supports my point!

sk8er1964

12-07-2003, 10:45 PM

Originally posted by jp1andOnly
As a female, I've sure admired the guys in Cosmo when they bare their lovely chests. I think with sexuality, the door revolves in both directions.

Unfortunately, it doesn't. Women are way more exposed (exploited?) then men.

maruko

12-07-2003, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by sierra
"Ok, ok, she wasn't nude, but almost-nude, are you happy now? But honestly speaking, that is sexually provacative enough to be classified as pronography."

okay, that crossed the line. Either you are too young to understand what pornography is or you are completely out of touch with reality. Those photos are in no way shape or form anything close to "pornography". And to say that is was is beyond ridiculous. Shame on you.

Shame on me? What in God's name are you talking about? That is personal attack and you have no right to. Yes, buddy, I think I am old enough to understand what is pornography. I do not need a lecture. Pronography, by definition, is anything that intends to arouse sexual passion. Those pictures, while not as hardcare as you see in Playboy or Penthouse, does intend to achieve that purpose, as least according to some of us here. Look at other hollywood models on that same page and one can easily tell this magazine is aimed at adult males. Call me conservative for all I care. You may have a much more liberal view and that is none of my business. If you can honestly tell me those photos does not suggest one bit any sexual context or at least aimed to be seductive, then there is really no point to continue the discussion.

Please don't jump on the defensive so soon. Nobody is suggesting she is a prostitute. I just want to say those pics are of poor taste because, instead of showing off her fit, healthy body, those pics make her looks cheap and trashy. If you think there is nothing wrong with it, that is OK with me too, really.

No, nudity does not automatically equals to pornography. It all depends on the context of the pictures and how the model poses. Some are tastefully done, while some are not. That is all.

ceceB

12-07-2003, 11:19 PM

Well, the pictures don't bother me. Jamie is a healthy young woman, who takes great care of herself and has the confidence to show it off. I can see where those of you who object to these pictures are coming from, but I'm one of those believers that women should be able to walk around topless all they want if men can. ;)

I don't feel that women who choose to bare their stuff are being exploited very much in this day and age (I'm talking about someone like Jamie), I think that they're kind of the ones with some power. ;)

You know, I'll bet in a few years from now, people will look back at "provacative" pictures like these ones and it will all be considered prudish. Like those old time bathing suits, and dresses that didn't cover the ankles. Give it time. :D

sierra

12-07-2003, 11:23 PM

"Shame on me? What in God's name are you talking about? That is personal attack and you have no right to."

Yes, shame on you. You are making a ridiculous statement calling this pornography. And yes, that does make you out of touch with reality. You want to be proud of making such judgemental, narrow-minded statements? I wouldn't be.

"Pronography, by definition, is anything that intends to arouse sexual passion. "

No it's not. That's idiotic. You clearly have no concept of the definition. Enough said.

"If you can honestly tell me those photos does not suggest one bit any sexual context or at least aimed to be seductive, then there is no point to continue the discussion. "

Come on, there are a great many things in this world that are sexy, sexual, and sexually alluring - that does not make them pornographic sweety. That makes them sexy.

"Please don't jump on the defensive so soon. Nobody is suggesting she is a prostitute. I just want to say those pics are of poor taste because, instead of showing off her fit, healthy body, those pics make her looks cheap and trashy"

You are calling her cheap and trashy because she took some photos that revealed little more than *gasp* her bare back? Statements like that which attack her character are what I call extremely distasteful. Some people do not have the same hang-ups as you clearly do with their bodies, and do not find sexuality pornographic. That does not make them cheap or trashy. It makes them human.

Blade1

12-07-2003, 11:25 PM

I find this whole post rather interesting to read. I checked out the pictures and there isn't anything wrong with them. She's a beautiful woman and there isn't anything tasteless about those photos. Even the one where she is topless. I've seen alot worse in some magazines out there.

triple twist

12-07-2003, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Thanks Sierra-I agree with you too.

Paulwyliefan,
Jamie is a grown woman, she does what she wants to do.
And just because she is beautiful and has a nice body you cant label her well im sorry to come out with this but you are labeling her like a prostetute and that is completly unfair.
She may be well known and respected but even if she does pose in these magazines for men the bottom line is-

What is it to do with you? Who gave you permission to be talking about her like this??

You have absoloutly no right to talk about her like she has just become a speck in society when if you go to a beach in the summer you will see people lying there naked!!

She is doing this because she wants too.
End of dissussion.

Calm down! I've read over her posts and and NO WHERE does it say that Jamie is a prostitute.

The difference between lying on the beach naked and actually posing for pictures and selling them is totally different. Because of her athletic standing and history, of course is makes you turn a head when you hear that jamie sale is posing in a FHM magazine. It's about the person's reputation that sits behind a person's photo.

Jamie also had said that she did it for the puiblicity, not just for personal liking.

Sure shes beautiful and damn right she has a cute body and a cute face, but it doesn't necesarily mean that she must post topless. I also agree that the pictures are not as derogitory as many other magazines, and these are more sort of "art" pictures.

I've always been against the whole magazine deal, having women posed naked for the amusement of the opposite sex, simply because I believe that the female body is not something that need be exposed to the whole world.

I think that jamie probably has the most self respect, but since I'm not really into the whole women posing in mags thing, I just don't think its a good idea.

triple twist

12-07-2003, 11:48 PM

[i]
"Pronography, by definition, is anything that intends to arouse sexual passion. "

No it's not. That's idiotic. You clearly have no concept of the definition. Enough said.

You are calling her cheap and trashy because she took some photos

Acutally yes it is. And it's not idiotic. I don't see why this conversation needs to lead to immature name calling? And like you said, Enough Said.

I brought this up because I was interested in how people would react to this.

And about the person who talked about ankles not being covered up, I totally see your point and where you're coming from. But all this pushing the limits just makes new rules that really shouldn't be. You can't fall into this just because the majority of people are "showing their ankles" (im using that as an example and this doesnt have anything to do with jamie but about your point! :D) Here maybe I can explain myself better: If a school's dress code was to wear all black, and some students started wearing pink, the school should tell them to dress black. But instead, they let it go and more and more people would start wearing pink, and eventually, the school would cave in and say "you are allowed to wear pink." I just find it silly really :oops:

sierra

12-07-2003, 11:58 PM

"Acutally yes it is. And it's not idiotic. I don't see why this conversation needs to lead to immature name calling? And like you said, Enough Said."

No it is not. If you think that anything remotely sexy or sexual is pornographic then you are very very wrong. I sense that you are very young so I am not going to provide you with the actual definition.

And yes, the statement that anything sexual is somehow prnographic is very idiotic. That would make 70% of everything to see and hear in the media pornographic, and I can assure you sweetie, it is not.

nycbumpkin

12-08-2003, 12:11 AM

She SAID she did it for publicity right? That would make it most appropriate to talk about, beat to death even, in this forum. So how about no more "enough said" from self-righteous "open-minders."

There certainly seems to be a lot of disagreement over what constitutes porn. Remember the old definition, "I know it when I see it"? I guess I agree that Jamie's pictures are not porn. However, they were taken for the primary purpose of arousing men. It is SAD that a woman who has accomplished so much and worked so hard buys into the twisted idea that getting naked (or close to it, provocative) for men to get off looking at her is some kind of career move. What's more, PUH-LEEZ stop with all the "she's a beautiful woman" stuff. You who are saying that are NOT GETTING IT. What sick leap of logic takes you from "I'm beautiful" to "I'm going to display myself for men to imagine having sex with me." GEEZ. And pleeeeez don't tell me that isn't the first, second and last thing any (straight) man seeing those pictures will be thinking. If you don't get THAT at least, you are SERIOUSLY out of touch with reality.

Peter_K

12-08-2003, 12:35 AM

I have to sit here and chuckle at how passionate some seem to be about this event that, surely will lead to unnatural growth of hair, curviture of the spine and the corruption and imminent downfall of civilization as we know it. ;)

If you're going to take someone to task for "showing some skin", then maybe we should take a long, hard (pun not intended) look at the sport itself. Case in point:

1. Female skaters often wear, what could be considered, skimpy dresses with plenty of "nude" colored fabric.

2. Was there not some controversy recently in dance circles about toning down some of the more athletic lifts that, depending on the angle of view, either leave very little to the imagination or leave the imagination to really start to wander.

3. I don't know how many times I have heard people talking around me at a competition about a male skater's "skater butt". It works both ways, folks.

4. I remember the first time I had front-row seats to an event. (how do I put this delicately) There was no doubt in my mind that some of the ladies skating found the rink rather cold. (Don't worry, I got over that one rather quickly. I don't even notice that anymore.)

I remember seeing the Katarina Witt pictorial in Playboy and thought to myself. She's good looking, but without the alluring costume, she's just another athletic bodied naked chick.

-Peter

Roma

12-08-2003, 05:00 AM

Originally posted by Peter_K
I have to sit here and chuckle at how passionate some seem to be about this event that, surely will lead to unnatural growth of hair, curviture of the spine and the corruption and imminent downfall of civilization as we know it. ;)

If you're going to take someone to task for "showing some skin", then maybe we should take a long, hard (pun not intended) look at the sport itself. Case in point:

1. Female skaters often wear, what could be considered, skimpy dresses with plenty of "nude" colored fabric.

-Peter

Why is it that so many posters, if they stumble across a thread in which they don't have a strong opinion, feel the need to exaggerate the opinions of posters who are expressing their views?

And by the way, I also find that many, many costumes are overly and unnecessarily revealing. Unfortunately, both on tv, and while in a live audience, I've seen a LOT more of women skaters' bodies than just whether they were cold. Yet, how does some skaters wearing tasteless costumes prevent us from having an opinion about a skater posing topless for a men's mag?

Also, regarding admiring men's butts: there's a world of difference between seeing the shape of an athlete's body through appropriate skating clothes, and having a person pose in a magazine in next to nothing, lying on the ground with strategically placed 'snow.'

Alexa

12-08-2003, 08:41 AM

I don't think the pictures revealed all that much, but some of them did seem tacky to me. I don't know if it was that the pictures weren't all that great, or what. Jamie looked great of course, but overall I think the pictures could have been done better.

Plus the pictures along with the article, which was tacky in itself, made me question what Jamie was thinking when she did this publicity. The article was not very good, and focused on the "sexy" side of skating, basically trying to turn her skating into some sort of sex thing. I just found the whole thing a bit strange and not typical of something I would expect Jamie to be involved in.

flippet

12-08-2003, 09:52 AM

Okie dokie. While I see nothing wrong with a discussion of this topic, even on these boards, this particular thread can probably have a fork stuck in it, 'cause it's done. :)

Let's all calm down a bit (Justine, you especially--no need to go hysterical). Meanwhile....locking this one.

Thanks,
~flippet

flippet

12-09-2003, 08:49 AM

I'm re-opening this thread upon request for some topic-relevant discussion. Keep it to topic however, because if it degenerates like before, I'll close it again.

Carry on. :)

~flippet

arena_gal

12-09-2003, 09:10 AM

video link (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctvVideo/CTVNews/canadaam_sale_031209/20031209/?hub=CanadaAM&video_link_high=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2003/12/09/ctvvideologger1_143kbps_2003_12_09_1070974930.wmv&video_link_low=mms://ctvbroadcast.ctv.ca/video/2003/12/09/ctvvideologger1_45kbps_2003_12_09_1070975020.wmv&clip_start=00:00:18.82&clip_end=00:05:39.81&clip_id=ctvnews.20031209.00046000-00046217-clip1&clip_caption=Click%20here%20to%20watch&subhub=video) or main Canada AM Website http://www.ctv.ca/generic/generated/static/AMdefault.html

Jamie Sale and David Pelletier appeared on Canada AM this morning, to promote a skating show in Toronto upcoming, but the conversation was about her magazine shoot. I think it is relevant to this thread to hear what Jamie herself has to say.

highlights:
The magazine approached Jamie, she's been on their sexiest100 for two years. She was flattered, naturally. Many many other athletes have posed to show their bodies, and she is surprised at the fuss, especially in Canada.
David was there for the entire shoot, except for when he took a walk around NYC
The interview was done after the shoot and Jamie is disavowing it, as it was taken totally out of context.

Glenda

12-09-2003, 09:40 AM

I have no problem with the idea of a smart, sexy woman (or man) choosing to use his/her image in a way that is controlled, with final input over how the ultimate image is presented. However, I do have a problem if a person does not have final editorial control over their own quotes & thoughts. I thought the article was purely laughable. I HOPE it was taken out of context, because if it wasn't, I didn't think it was particularly articulate or flattering to Jamie.

But then again, a man's magazine is not looking for a technical explanation of the sport. Just the "sexy" side. Which is fine, but her quotes were pretty silly. I was embarrassed by the article, not the photos!

erin_m

12-09-2003, 10:44 AM

Jamie posted on their official site today and part of the post discusses the FHM pictures. Here's the link:
http://www.sale-pelletier.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000016

Some other article links if you want more to read:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2003/12/07/279782.html

http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id=97B3E5C0-D633-4B1C-ABC1-C262150224CC

Skatingsarah

12-09-2003, 11:07 AM

I myself can see why this thread is obviously split into 2 parts. When I first read topless I thought OMG no, not Jamie. I didnt think that a figure skater like Jamie needed that kind of publicity. Also taking in consideration that she and Dave are spokespersons for RootsWear. But then....
I looked at the pictures and they really werent was I was expecting reading the 'topless' quotation. I think Jamie went about this in a mature manner and her picture are tasteful and dont push her limits over the boundary. I still dont understand why she did this, is it for like a cause or something?? Anyways, IMO Jamies a beautiful girl and she really wasnt overly exposed so good for Jamie!

gandalf

12-09-2003, 11:26 AM

The photos are OK, they could have been better, they could have been alot worse. They certainly have nothing to do with Jamie's dignity or morals. I have no problem with men and women posing in very little clothing or nude. More power to them, as far as I'm concerned. I would love to have that kind of confidence in my appearance. Suggestive pictures aren't necessarily about sex. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

And for those who cry foul over a handful of very tame pictures, don't visit an art gallery any time soon. They're full of paintings of women who showed alot more than Jamie did.

blurrysarah

12-09-2003, 05:40 PM

From Jamie's point of view, I guess it would be hard to turn down. Heck, I'm horribly self conscious enough to never wear sleeveless tops in public, and yet if someone offered me a photo shoot where they worked their Photoshop and makeup magic to make me look decent, I'd do it. It's a self esteem thing, I would love to see myself looking sexy for once, and most people never get the chance to do such a shoot. As long as it was tasteful and not completely nude (as Jamie's are, yes, it's a men's mag and most probably the readers won't be looking at her pictures innocently, but I'm often surprised at what men will find titillating anyway, clothes and all) I say good for her. It's her body, her decision. She never signed her name in blood to the public that she'd be a squeaky clean role model. Come on parents, raise your children yourself.

PaulWyliefan

12-09-2003, 09:04 PM

Originally posted by Bondo
There are two parts to the definition of pornography that both need to be met for it to be pornography.

One is the intent...to sexually arouse as our resident prudes have already informed us of.

The second is content...sexually explicit content. These pictures are not sexually explicit...they don't explicitly show anything sexual. Hinted sexual context in a pose or a barely covered area isn't explicit.

So, yes, I think it is rather absurd to consider these pictures pornography.

"Resident prudes"? Bondo, my old sparring partner, I'm surprised at you. We've had some lively debates in the past, over at the Sashafans board, but I don't ever remember you resorting to name-calling before. What's that about?

icyboid

12-09-2003, 09:56 PM

The pictures are definitely erotic and sensual, but I think there's some artistic merit to that set of photos.

The naked human body reveals a different type of beauty, a sensual beauty some might feel uncomfortable with, especially in a sport that is known for being conservative. It's still beautiful nonetheless.

Now if she had a pose in the Besti squat, then THAT would be pornographic.

GoldElephant7

12-09-2003, 11:26 PM

I'm with the majority here. I see no problem with Jamie posing for the magazine. Now...if Jamie would just consult Nicole's plastic surgeon, we would have more skin to look at. :twisted:

Blade1

12-09-2003, 11:30 PM

Thanks Erin for the link. I haven't been to the S&P boards in a LONG TIME , just been so busy pre-paring for the holidays.

I've got to agree with Jamie, I can't believe how everyone has just "jumped" on this, especially in the media. Even MY local news actually talked about it, showing the pictures on TV.

I think Jamie is a beautiful women, and I say YOU GO GIRL !! I think there isn't ANYTHING wrong with the photographs. Like Jamie said it is an honor to be with the other women in the magazine.

Glad to read that Jamie's pleased with the results, and she has every right to be!

Justine_R

12-10-2003, 06:43 AM

Go Jamie GO!

sk8er1964

12-10-2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by gandalf
And for those who cry foul over a handful of very tame pictures, don't visit an art gallery any time soon. They're full of paintings of women who showed alot more than Jamie did.

You make a good point. I don't think I would be uncomfortable with Jamie's pictures in an art gallery, because the setting there is for art. However, the setting for these pictures is in a mens' magazine that sports other pictures of women with their body parts exposed in suggestive fashions. We all know what the purpose of that magazine is, and it certainly isn't for enhancement of the arts!

erin_m

12-10-2003, 09:43 AM

Another article link, although this one deals with more than just the FHM pictures but there is mention of them of course.

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/columnists/story.html?id=6062927d-2cac-48ac-a05c-fd89132e9a68

gandalf

12-10-2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by sk8er1964
However, the setting for these pictures is in a mens' magazine that sports other pictures of women with their body parts exposed in suggestive fashions.

Exactly, so if you don't want to see women "with their body parts exposed", don't pick up mens' magazines. I just don't think other people should be condemned for looking at them or posing for them. And lots of paintings are very erotic and suggestive in nature, yet because they hang in a gallery they are considered art and "safe". It's a total double standard.

Justine_R

12-10-2003, 02:34 PM

They aren't the best pictures of Jamie but we need to respect her.
So just Lay off.

skaternum

12-10-2003, 03:53 PM

With all due respect, Justine, we don't have to respect her. That's the beauty of freedom of thought and speech. We are all entitled to different opinions. Some people believe that kind of behavior is morally objectionable -- and they're free to do so. Others believe it's just fine -- and they're free to do so. We don't all have to respect Jamie. We DO have to respect the right to have different opinions.

And, BTW, using the classic "Lay off" phrase is a dead give away. It's akin to saying, "I don't know how to conduct a rational discussion." Right up there with "Get a life."

ClevelandDancer

12-10-2003, 04:05 PM

Originally posted by gandalf
Exactly, so if you don't want to see women "with their body parts exposed", don't pick up mens' magazines. I just don't think other people should be condemned for looking at them or posing for them. And lots of paintings are very erotic and suggestive in nature, yet because they hang in a gallery they are considered art and "safe". It's a total double standard.

ITA. Actually, if you don't want to see women "with their body parts exposed", don't pick up WOMEN'S magazines either. I think there are more nearly-naked women than men in any given issue of Glamour, Cosmo, etc.

I thought the photos were fine ... when this thread first started I was curious as to how raunchy they were because of all the "it's PORN" comments. I waited until I got home to take a peek (egads, porn at work = big no-no). I was pretty surprised because I saw nothing I ... or the majority of other adults in North America ... would classify as porn. Cheese-cake yes, but not in bad taste. As someone mentioned, nothing you wouldn't see at most beaches. I'm torn as to whether I'd rate it PG or PG-13.

The comments were cheesy, but it seems Jamie isn't too happy about having her words/answers twisted either.

Justine_R

12-10-2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by skaternum
With all due respect, Justine, we don't have to respect her. That's the beauty of freedom of thought and speech. We are all entitled to different opinions. Some people believe that kind of behavior is morally objectionable -- and they're free to do so. Others believe it's just fine -- and they're free to do so. We don't all have to respect Jamie. We DO have to respect the right to have different opinions.

Thats the beauty of freedom of speech??
Seeing that you are going to talk about her in this way its not fair
:(It makes me sad.
But you are right.You have your own opinon and it is a free world.

Kemy

12-10-2003, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by skaternum
With all due respect, Justine, we don't have to respect her. That's the beauty of freedom of thought and speech. We are all entitled to different opinions.

I hope Justine meant that we have to respect her right to choose what she does...even if we don't necessarily respect HER...(not saying that I don't...I don't see anything wrong with her posing. I recently had a girly mag with Evan Marriott posing with just a teeny towel around his waist...eeeew.)

Justine_R

12-10-2003, 04:29 PM

That is what i meant.

supersk8er

12-10-2003, 10:53 PM

Maybe I'm crazy...But I think it takes more dignity than trash to take sexy pictures...But to tell you the truth, I've seen more "sex-explicit" driven pictures in last months Cosmo. When I saw the pictures, my first thoughts were, "Aw man, I thought she was going to be naked?!" Isn't it kind of silly to condemn someone for posing in a magazine JUST because it's a magazine for men? :??

And whoever said the thing about the sexy pictures not working both ways with men and women needs to take a class in humanity...I'm sorry, but you're the kind of people that need to change because you hold ridiculous double standards.

sk8er1964

12-11-2003, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by supersk8er
Maybe I'm crazy...But I think it takes more dignity than trash to take sexy pictures...But to tell you the truth, I've seen more "sex-explicit" driven pictures in last months Cosmo. When I saw the pictures, my first thoughts were, "Aw man, I thought she was going to be naked?!" Isn't it kind of silly to condemn someone for posing in a magazine JUST because it's a magazine for men? :??

And whoever said the thing about the sexy pictures not working both ways with men and women needs to take a class in humanity...I'm sorry, but you're the kind of people that need to change because you hold ridiculous double standards.

Umm, that was me, and I think you need to take a class in reading comprehension before you resort to slamming my standards.

What I said, and I will type this very slowly so that you can understand, is that society has a double standard when dealing with nudity and how it is portrayed in the media. Women are shown in suggestive positions and/or nude/semi-nude in magazines and film far more then men are.

As for my standards, they are not double, thank you very much. I do not choose to look at pornographic pictures of men any more than I choose to look at pornographic pictures of women. I don't buy Playboy, and I don't buy Cosmo. I'm afraid it's just not my thing, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with that. Sheesh. :roll:

butterfly

12-11-2003, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by sk8er1964
Umm, that was me, and I think you need to take a class in reading comprehension before you resort to slamming my standards.

What I said, and I will type this very slowly so that you can understand, is that society has a double standard when dealing with nudity and how it is portrayed in the media. Women are shown in suggestive positions and/or nude/semi-nude in magazines and film far more then men are.

As for my standards, they are not double, thank you very much. I do not choose to look at pornographic pictures of men any more than I choose to look at pornographic pictures of women. I don't buy Playboy, and I don't buy Cosmo. I'm afraid it's just not my thing, and I certainly don't see anything wrong with that. Sheesh. :roll: You go sk8er341964....well said.

Justine_R

12-11-2003, 03:52 PM

This thread needs 2 be closed.

Skatewind

12-11-2003, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
This thread needs 2 be closed.
You must have missed this post by flippet from earlier today in another topic:
Originally posted by flippet
Justine, if I recall correctly, previously in this thread in fact, I've asked you to not try to moderate on these boards. How about if other people seem to be 'namecalling', you just stay out of the fray, and report it to a moderator, ok? All you're doing is adding fire to fire. Please stop, both on this thread, and on others. Thank you.
This is another interesting subject & I have enjoyed reading it. There's nothing wrong with a variety of views & flippet's not the only one who would like a break from the constant "This thread needs 2 be closed" comments.

AshBugg44

12-11-2003, 05:18 PM

The pictures never even show anything, except for a little bit in the last one. I don't think she's cheap for doing it at all. I see nothing wrong with what she did.

Justine_R

12-11-2003, 08:04 PM

Sorry.

aloha

12-11-2003, 08:11 PM

personally... i love the photos... they are very tasteful. when people told me she did this i was like :O oh my gosh thats sad. but when i saw them i realized how beautiful she really is. its not showing anything. they're very classy and i think she has a lot of courage to do that. great job jamie

supersk8er

12-11-2003, 09:57 PM

Skatewind

12-12-2003, 07:51 AM

According to this editorial, it says she wasn't paid for it:

Editorial about Jame Sale (http://www.canada.com/montreal/montrealgazette/editorials/story.asp?id=C0B5A6CB-175B-47B4-B209-924115CB5EF5)

Is that correct? Article also says it's interesting we don't get to see David Pelletier partially clothed too since he's the other half of the pair.

gandalf

12-12-2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by Skatewind
Article also says it's interesting we don't get to see David Pelletier partially clothed too since he's the other half of the pair.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing David half clothed. ;) 8-)

second_destiny

12-12-2003, 11:18 AM

Personally, I think she looks beautiful. She's allowed to do whatever she wants, really, and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. Even David said that she'd asked him about it and that he supported her 100% ("I'm not that insecure") and that she was old enough to make her own decisions. Even Patti said that they were nice.

Really (and don't yell at me for this, PLEASE) I don't see what the big fuss is. She's a beautiful young woman, both physically and spiritually, and these pictures reflect a very sexy side of her. Y'all knew it was there! If you didn't, you haven't seen Lovin' Touchin' Squeezin' ;)

Anyways, my $o.o2 cents. I think she's beautiful and always will :)

Crystal :D

Ileana

12-13-2003, 02:15 AM

I think everyone has the right to their own opinion and we all need to respect what others are saying if we want our comments respected.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the pictures. There's nothing wrong with a woman wanting to feel sexy. I can almost assure you that if a male skater had done this the comments would be so different. For some reason if a woman acts sexy it's a bad thing but when a man acts the same way it's "Oh, well he's a man. It's okay." I'm not saying everyone here thinks that way, but usually that's what people (in general) think.

Jamie isn't doing anything wrong in the pictures and I think we should all just respect her decisions.

BJY4EVR

12-13-2003, 11:24 AM

Obviously there's nothing wrong with her taking provocative pictures. She's not the first athlete to do so and she definitely won't be the last. But when she publicly states that her sole motivation for taking the pictures was PUBLICITY, then one has to wonder.... there's something wrong when an Olympic champion thinks she needs to do this to boost her career...

triple twist

12-13-2003, 04:27 PM

Originally posted by BJY4EVR
... there's something wrong when an Olympic champion thinks she needs to do this to boost her career...

THATS what I was trying to get out! Thank you!

triple twist

12-13-2003, 04:33 PM

Well i found an interesting little message from Jamie. It's from her personal message board from her website so I'll just post the link instead of copy and pasting just in case of politics, privacy and such:

http://www.sale-pelletier.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=14&t=000016

sierra

12-13-2003, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by BJY4EVR
there's something wrong when an Olympic champion thinks she needs to do this to boost her career...

She's an Olympian so she's not allowed to do anything to boost her career?? if you haven't noticed an Olympic gold medal doesn't automatically mean instant anything in terms of fame and fortune. There's nothing wrong with an athlete doing a photo shoot for publicity. Funny, actors and musicians are allowed to do whatever they please for publicity, but an athlete (or, perhaps just female athletes) are treated by some like they've commited some kind of offense. I don't get it.

Steffi

12-14-2003, 01:03 AM

Going by what she's said in interviews, I don't think she wanted the publicity for herself, but more for Stars on Ice to get more people interested and coming to the shows. Ticket sales were down last year and she has expressed concern about this on several occasions. I doubt it was to keep her and Dave's skating career alive. They have a long-term contract with SOI, they've been extremely successful in their pro comps, and are asked to perform in tons of shows/TV specials.

Roma

12-14-2003, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by sierra
Funny, actors and musicians are allowed to do whatever they please for publicity, but an athlete (or, perhaps just female athletes) are treated by some like they've commited some kind of offense. I don't get it.

Sierra, I don't think anyone is saying that female athletes should be held to any different standards than male athletes, or musicians and actors. People are either saying that it is undignified (I am in this group) or that it is immoral (others here are in this group). Nothing that I've read from either group indicates that they think it is WORSE for Jamie to do this than it would for other people, but rather that it would be a bad idea for ANYONE to do this.

For those who think that this is a legitimate career move (i.e. drumming up SOI business), don't you think it odd that Jamie is one half of a PAIRS team, but it is only the woman from the pair that did the semi-nude photos? That's where the double standard comes in. The double standard is that way more women than men expose (or partially expose) themselves in this way, not that we think it is worse for a woman to do this than it is for a man.

Justine_R

12-14-2003, 04:29 PM

Why is Jamie Being critisised like this?
Is this your body??
No then therfore we should not be concerned with this topic.

triple twist

12-14-2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Why is Jamie Being critisised like this?
Is this your body??
No then therfore we should not be concerned with this topic.

:roll:
8O

sierra

12-14-2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Why is Jamie Being critisised like this?
Is this your body??
No then therfore we should not be concerned with this topic.

why? because some people consider themselves the morality police, and they feel the need to bash Ms. Sale for posing for some pictures that are really quite tame and completely harmless in the world of reality. What a newsflash people, men like to look at women's bodies, what a colossal shocker! If Miss Sale wishes to pose in a men's magazine it is her body and her right. She's fine with it, and as much as some people like to criticize, it's really none of their business.

Justine_R

12-14-2003, 05:13 PM

Exactly thanks sierra.

flippet

12-14-2003, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by sierra
If Miss Sale wishes to pose in a men's magazine it is her body and her right. She's fine with it, and as much as some people like to criticize, it's really none of their business.

I feel the same way---however, it's a perfectly valid topic to talk about. Not everyone has to feel the same way about it. Discussion is good, and it's what this board is here for.

I don't feel Jamie's being 'attacked'--and she probably doesn't feel that way either, after all, she had to know that doing pictures of this type would provoke discussion at the very least! I imagine that if she would feel attacked when people do, in fact, talk about said pictures, that she likely wouldn't have done them in the first place.

If someone's tired of feeling that their idol is being attacked, the solution is simple...don't open the thread. I highly doubt Jamie needs 'defending' from us.

Andie

12-14-2003, 11:04 PM

I disagree that there's nothing wrong with it. It's trashy to pose provocatively or nude/partly nude. Why not just become a stripper?
"Men like to look at women's bodies." That's exactly my point- women are objects. Women themselves are to blame for that 'cause they're constantly re-inforcing MEN SEEING THEM AS OBJECTS. Isn't that what those wonderful feminists were AGAINST?

I'm only 18 and I think I have better judgment than some immature 28- and 38-year-olds (who read Cosmo, which is probably as bad as Maxim!).

Why do people think that for women to feel sexy, they need to be nude or scantily clad? I feel sexy when I'm WEARING clothes. I'm sorry other people think they need to be nude to feel sexy.
As a sidenote: I've been told that I'm beautiful, plus I've almost always wanted to become famous. But I keep telling myself that I wouldn't pose nude/ topless for any purpose. I will let only my boyfriend/husband see me like that. :)

Ileana

12-15-2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Andie
"Men like to look at women's bodies." That's exactly my point- women are objects. Women themselves are to blame for that 'cause they're constantly re-inforcing MEN SEEING THEM AS OBJECTS. Isn't that what those wonderful feminists were AGAINST?

Those wonderful feminists, as you referred to them, also want equality between a man and a woman. We see men with no t-shirts on in so many magazines and nothing is said. But a woman poses in a bikini top and all these moral issues come up. So many actors pose t-shirtless and in provacotive poses and as soon as woman does it, BAM! She's trashy!

We never hear people talk about this:
http://www.bradpittfan.com/pics/misc/cos055a.jpg

But this we do!
http://www.fhmus.com/images/girls/jamiesale/6med.jpg

skaterdujour

12-15-2003, 09:49 AM

In an attempt to rid of the double standard, the feminists advocate emultating the worst side of male behavior, and fail to recognized and accept the fact that men and women are different.

sierra

12-15-2003, 10:09 AM

Originally posted by skaterdujour
In an attempt to rid of the double standard, the feminists advocate emultating the worst side of male behavior, and fail to recognized and accept the fact that men and women are different.

Yes, and the morality police continue to express distain for all forms of sexuality. Men like to look and women's bodies, women like to look at men's bodies, and the cycle of life continues.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Yeesh.

Skatewind

12-15-2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by sierra
Yes, and the morality police continue to express distain for all forms of sexuality. Men like to look and women's bodies, women like to look at men's bodies, and the cycle of life continues.

Talk about making a mountain out of a mole-hill. Yeesh.
The morality police doesn't only apply to people with strong comments on the opposite side of this topic from you. It also applies to people who constantly update remarks disallowing the opinions of others because they believe theirs is the only right one.

Roma

12-15-2003, 10:58 AM

Despite the fact that I always remain open to other's opinions on this board, some posters who have made up their minds that semi-nude photos are totally harmless will probably not even consider the possibility of changing their minds. But for those of you who try to be open-minded here, I hope that you will at least CONSIDER the possibility that photos like these add to the objectification of women.

Originally posted by skaterdujour
In an attempt to rid of the double standard, the feminists advocate emultating the worst side of male behavior, and fail to recognized and accept the fact that men and women are different.

Just FYI - there are more than 20 different forms of feminism - and only one branch, liberal feminism, makes an argument CLOSE to the one that you just offered. No form of feminism argues that there are NO differences between men and women. Rather, they argue that many differences between the sexes are products of custom, and that this especially true for many male/female differences that result in men having more power.

By the way, I did a lot of research into sexual objectification and found that sexual objectification is more powerful when the subject is presented lying down, from behind (including looking over the shoulder), etc.

Not only are women shown partially nude much more frequently than men (a difference in total numbers) but women are much more likely to be shown in the most objectifying and vulnerable shots: lying down (a position that is sexually suggestive as well as relatively powerless, compared to standing), shot from behind peeking over the shoulder (as though the photographer snuk up on the person in the picture,also these shots usually cut off part of the subject's face) and especially shot only in pieces (just the person's butt, etc, and because the person is essentially headless, looks more like an object than a person.) The first 2 of these apply to Jamie's photographs. Men are far more likely to be shown standing, facing directly into the camera, etc. That is why, for example, the Brad Pitt picture is not as sexually objectifying as Jamie's. Men are far less likely to be shown lying down etc. Take a quick look at music videos, just as an example. You will see many more women than men in revealing clothes, and you will see far more women shown lying down, shot from behind, shown as mere body parts (chest, legs, or butt only, etc.)

flippet

12-15-2003, 11:14 AM

There's a difference between 'revealing vulnerability' and 'sexual objectification'. Just saying. If men are photographed less often in 'vulnerable' poses, perhaps it has less to do with anything sexual, as it has to do with perceptions of power. Being upset about seeing women in poses where they are perceived as being vulnerable or powerless has more to do with their gender than their sexuality. Let's not confuse the two.

Roma

12-15-2003, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by flippet
There's a difference between 'revealing vulnerability' and 'sexual objectification'. Just saying. If men are photographed less often in 'vulnerable' poses, perhaps it has less to do with anything sexual, as it has to do with perceptions of power. Being upset about seeing women in poses where they are perceived as being vulnerable or powerless has more to do with their gender than their sexuality. Let's not confuse the two.

Actually, Flippet, I agree with you that there is a power dimension in all this, as well as dimensions of gender and sexuality. I also agree that they are distinct from one another and should not be confused. However, they also work together.

For example, if a man were photographed in a winter jacket, long pants and boots standing and looking directly into the camera, and a woman were wearing a similar outfit but was photographed lying down, there would be a gender difference, and a power difference, and the sexuality difference would be minimal. (Although there are some lying down poses that are more sexually suggestive poses than others. For example, is she laughing and looking like she just fell during a snow fight, or is she 'posing' and flirting with the camera...but for argument's skae I'll agree that there are gender differences and power differences, but sexuality is largely missing here).

But if you then change the woman's outfit to a bikini - and a bikini that has no top, you have clearly added an element of sexuality. Further, by having that woman lying on her back with snow strategically placed on her topless chest, you have combined dimensions of sexuality and power.

Don't forget that Jamie and David - who are two halves of this pair team - did not both pose. Only the woman of the pair did - so gender clearly gets thrown in the mix.

I think a key point in all this is that it's not just random. There are definitley some men who pose in ways similar to Jamie. But it's the fact that women do the posing so much more frequently, and that in general, the types of shots of women are more sexual/vulnerable/powerless, etc. that makes Jamie's photos part of an overall pattern in which women are objectified far more frequently than are men.

sk8er1964

12-15-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Roma
Actually, Flippet, I agree with you that there is a power dimension in all this, as well as dimensions of gender and sexuality. I also agree that they are distinct from one another and should not be confused. However, they also work together.

For example, if a man were photographed in a winter jacket, long pants and boots standing and looking directly into the camera, and a woman were wearing a similar outfit but was photographed lying down, there would be a gender difference, and a power difference, and the sexuality difference would be minimal. (Although there are some lying down poses that are more sexually suggestive poses than others. For example, is she laughing and looking like she just fell during a snow fight, or is she 'posing' and flirting with the camera...but for argument's skae I'll agree that there are gender differences and power differences, but sexuality is largely missing here).

But if you then change the woman's outfit to a bikini - and a bikini that has no top, you have clearly added an element of sexuality. Further, by having that woman lying on her back with snow strategically placed on her topless chest, you have combined dimensions of sexuality and power.

Don't forget that Jamie and David - who are two halves of this pair team - did not both pose. Only the woman of the pair did - so gender clearly gets thrown in the mix.

I think a key point in all this is that it's not just random. There are definitley some men who pose in ways similar to Jamie. But it's the fact that women do the posing so much more frequently, and that in general, the types of shots of women are more sexual/vulnerable/powerless, etc. that makes Jamie's photos part of an overall pattern in which women are objectified far more frequently than are men.

Well said.

sierra

12-15-2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by Skatewind
The morality police doesn't only apply to people with strong comments on the opposite side of this topic from you. It also applies to people who constantly update remarks disallowing the opinions of others because they believe theirs is the only right one.

Oh please. So, only those who choose to criticize Ms. Sale and her "shameful" pictorial are allowed to post, or in your words "constantly update"??? The hypocrisy in your post is rather ridiculous.

IgglesII

12-15-2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Roma

I think a key point in all this is that it's not just random. There are definitley some men who pose in ways similar to Jamie. But it's the fact that women do the posing so much more frequently, and that in general, the types of shots of women are more sexual/vulnerable/powerless, etc. that makes Jamie's photos part of an overall pattern in which women are objectified far more frequently than are men.

Another key point - this is the type of pictorial that runs in FHM. Generally it's actresses or musicians, but there is the occasional athlete. It's not a secret. And since it isn't a secret, she knew what she was in for.

I've read her explanations that she was under the impression that a different wardrobe would be involved. Bull. She's either lying, or was actually dumb enough to show up at a photo shoot for a magazine without having first checked out an issue or two of said magazine in advance.

triple twist

12-15-2003, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by sierra
Oh please. So, only those who choose to criticize Ms. Sale and her "shameful" pictorial are allowed to post, or in your words "constantly update"??? The hypocrisy in your post is rather ridiculous.

Theres something you missed...there was nothing ridiculous abou their post because what Roma wrote did not swallow anyone else's posts nor did she intentionally say "you're wrong" or turn down a person's opinion. She wrote without saying "here's where you're wrong" or name-calling, like we've seen, or even orders being given from person to person where they really have no right. It's become an animal fest in here!

slimpme

12-15-2003, 11:58 PM

I undertand that professional skating is in a bit of a slump, but I doubt that photos of Jamie Sale cavorting about in her skivvies will do too much to change that. Certainly there's a bump of publicity now and I understand the magazine is selling briskly, but in the long run, much more is needed to put "asses in the seats" (to quote Seinfeld). Athletic achievements compell viewers to watch professional sports. Tiger Woods brought a whole new audience to the PGA Tour, Lance Armstrong's successes at the Tour de France encouraged many more Americans to take an interest in professional cycling. Until professional skating develops it's level of athleticism, the returns will continue to be disappointing.

valuvsmk

12-16-2003, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by slimpme
I undertand that professional skating is in a bit of a slump, but I doubt that photos of Jamie Sale cavorting about in her skivvies will do too much to change that. Certainly there's a bump of publicity now and I understand the magazine is selling briskly, but in the long run, much more is needed to put "asses in the seats" (to quote Seinfeld). Athletic achievements compell viewers to watch professional sports. Tiger Woods brought a whole new audience to the PGA Tour, Lance Armstrong's successes at the Tour de France encouraged many more Americans to take an interest in professional cycling. Until professional skating develops it's level of athleticism, the returns will continue to be disappointing.

Curiously, Lance Armstrong has also posed nude (without revealing anything frontally, but without Jamie's "granny panties" as well. Should he be as excoriated here as she has been?

slimpme

12-16-2003, 12:35 AM

Originally posted by valuvsmk
Curiously, Lance Armstrong has also posed nude (without revealing anything frontally, but without Jamie's "granny panties" as well. Should he be as excoriated here as she has been?

I saw a "nude" photo of Lance Armstrong as part of a series on athletic champions assembled in a book by photographer Annie Leibowitz -- is that what you're referring to? If I may posit a theory, I think most of the photos by Leibowitz were designed to showcase the power and elegance of the athletic form. In the pictures I saw, the photographic emphasis is clearly on the musculature of the body (IIRC in the shot of Armstrong, the picture is of him in profile on his bike in classic racing form with his powerful leg muscles in bold relief -- no "naughty bits" exposed.) I seem to recall another photo from that series of Olympian Jackie Joyner Kersee taken from behind, where the rippling muscles of her back and shoulders are clearly the object of the shot. By contrast, in the photos of Jamie Sale that I've seen from the FHM shoot, the emphasis is pretty clearly elsewhere. (In the "Granny panties" shot, that amphasis seems most apparent ....) Coupled with the "come hither" look in that shot and others and her remarks in the article (since disavowed, I understand), I would argue that the intent of her photos is more sensual in nature than those of the Liebowitz series. And I don't think Armstrong, or Joyner Kersee, or Martina Navratilova (who, if memory serves, also appeared in the Liebowitz book) have been taken to task for their photos to the extent that Sale has been for hers because their intent seems to be more purely artistic rather than alluring. (Not that there's anything wrong with that...) Though, clearly, both series showcase the nude form.

Now, would Sale have been the subject of so much commentary if she appeared in a shot in mid-throw (a dangerous proposition, no doubt), perhaps with Peletier, where the emphasis was on the strength and athleticism of her body, rather then more blatantly seductive attributes?

Skatewind

12-16-2003, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by sierra
Oh please. So, only those who choose to criticize Ms. Sale and her "shameful" pictorial are allowed to post, or in your words "constantly update"??? The hypocrisy in your post is rather ridiculous.
Read again. My message was that some here are doing themselves from the other extreme the same type of thing they are taking issue with when it comes to other posters. I am not one of the people here who has continually suggested the topic be shut down or that differing opinions be disallowed. I am all for reading about *both* sides of the issue, so you have obviously presumed my viewpoint & your presumption is incorrect. Your misunderstanding is not my hypocrisy.

ilovetoskate890

12-16-2003, 09:18 PM

jamie sale
how could she do that i am a figure skater but i wouldnt do that even for money

2footedquad

12-16-2003, 10:23 PM

I think doing these pictures looks like a desperate act of someone whose career is in decline. And I think that it's an unwise choice, for many of the reasons already stated above.

2footedquad

12-16-2003, 10:52 PM

I know this isn't the central point here, but I never found Jamie Sale beautiful, as so many of you said above. She's good looking, but definitely not beautiful.

--I would still think posing for the pictures displays bad judgement even if she were gorgeous, but I just thought I'd add in my 2 cents, since so many of you are saying how beautiful she is.--

Justine_R

12-17-2003, 06:40 AM

Well it was her choice to do this and if she wants to she can.
And BTW , we can't judge her just because she did this.
Being beautiful is also a part of it and even though you say she isnt she is!

Its her life and its up to her what she does, i don think she wants attention she is just showing off another side of her.
There is definelty nothing in those photos that shows anything at all(cant see anything).

So why all the fuss?

Alexa

12-17-2003, 07:48 AM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Well it was her choice to do this and if she wants to she can.
And BTW , we can't judge her just because she did this.
Being beautiful is also a part of it and even though you say she isnt she is!

Its her life and its up to her what she does, i don think she wants attention she is just showing off another side of her.
There is definelty nothing in those photos that shows anything at all(cant see anything).

So why all the fuss?

I think we all understand that you support Jamie's decision to do this and we respect your opinion. But you have to understand that not everyone feels the same way you do. Yes, it was her choice. But in terms of judging her, everyone has a right to have a feeling about what she did--she is in the public eye and chose to pose for a magazine. When you do that you are going to evoke a response--good or bad.

All I am trying to say is that you can continue to express your opinion about it, but it is not going to change the opinions of others. No one opinion is right--this is a discussion forum in which both sides share their views. So, I know you don't understand those that disagree with what Jamie did, but please try to understand that there are other viewpoints than yours.

Skatewind

12-17-2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by Justine_R
And BTW , we can't judge her just because she did this.
Being beautiful is also a part of it and even though you say she isnt she is!
Here's another example of what I meant. "We can't all judge her..." As a matter of fact, people can judge her if they want to & people don't have to judge her if they don't want to. If your opinion is that you don't want to judge her, then you should express that as your opinion & stop demanding that everyone else feel the same way you do. "Even though you say she isn't she is!" Again, it's your opinion that's she's beautiful, but it's not something everyone worldwide must agree with. If you think she's beautiful, stick to points about why you think she's beautiful rather than telling everyone else exactly what they're allowed to think. Then everyone can actually discuss the topic with some mature points of view.

gandalf

12-17-2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Andie
I disagree that there's nothing wrong with it. It's trashy to pose provocatively or nude/partly nude. Why not just become a stripper?

What's wrong with becoming a stripper? Plenty of honest, hardworking people make a good living as strippers. Just because it's not my own (and evidently not your) personal goal doesn't mean other people should be looked down upon for choosing it. And besides, I think there is a big difference between a one-time photo shoot and becoming a stripper.

Originally posted by Andie
"Men like to look at women's bodies." That's exactly my point- women are objects.

I've got news for you - women like looking at women's bodies as well. And I'm not just talking about lesbians here. The female body is a thing of beauty and has been celebrated in art for centuries. Enjoying the female form does not automatically mean you are "objectifying" the person you happen to be looking at.

Originally posted by Andie
I'm only 18 and I think I have better judgment than some immature 28- and 38-year-olds (who read Cosmo, which is probably as bad as Maxim!).

And you are entitled to your opinion. But I don't consider skewering someone whose actions you happen to disagree with to be exhibiting particularly good judgement. And there is lots of very useful information in Cosmo if you could ever bring yourself to pick it up and actually read it.

Originally posted by Andie
Why do people think that for women to feel sexy, they need to be nude or scantily clad? I feel sexy when I'm WEARING clothes.

I think most people would agree that women can be very sexy while fully clothed (same goes for men).

Originally posted by Andie
But I keep telling myself that I wouldn't pose nude/ topless for any purpose. I will let only my boyfriend/husband see me like that. :)

Many people share your conviction and I respect you for your choice. I just wish you could respect others who choose to disagree with you.

Skatewind

12-17-2003, 03:52 PM

LOL gandalf, I agree. Jamie could get a job as a model at any art school in the country wearing less. For a thread that's supposed to be about R-E-S-P-E-C-T, there's an awful lot of D-I-S-R-E-S-P-E-C-T in some of these comments. All we need is Aretha to sing us the new version.

Gaela

12-17-2003, 08:25 PM

Anyone who is willing to bare all can pretty much can work as an art school model, I did it a fair bit in my 20s, its actually very hard to hold a pose for hours on end, but it's allright work for not bad money, and noone sexualizes you.

I doubt it is much more than $20 an hour or so these days, probably not worth Jamie's while. She'd do better waitressing at Earls, should she need the money. .

But wait, their are porny magazines who actually PAY women to do what she did, maybe an 'on ice' nude pictorial would rake in the bucks, she could try out that French maid deal, in the course of doing some jumps. Wheee. :D :D

sasafrass452

12-18-2003, 08:28 AM

I didn't look at the pics & I don't even want to. Yes, she's an adult who can make her own choices, but since those pics are on the internet, kids may end up seeing them unless there's parental control on the computer. Pictures like that are degrading IMO, & it's not right. I don't condone it in any way. She's a wonderful skater, & I'd hate to see her do that to herself.

ClevelandDancer

12-18-2003, 09:51 AM

Originally posted by sasafrass452
I didn't look at the pics & I don't even want to. Yes, she's an adult who can make her own choices, but since those pics are on the internet, kids may end up seeing them unless there's parental control on the computer. Pictures like that are degrading IMO, & it's not right. I don't condone it in any way. She's a wonderful skater, & I'd hate to see her do that to herself.

Well, if kids are left unsupervised in their internet usage on a computer without parental controls, they could go surf some actual PORNOGRAPHY! For all the fuss that's being made about this, these pics are PG-13 at "worst", not XXX or even R.

It is your right to like or dislike these pictures. Considering you haven't even looked at these pictures you probably should withhold the condemning statements.

sasafrass452

12-18-2003, 10:24 AM

Having read some of the comments in this thread, I don't have to see the pics to know that they're not for young eyes... even mine, & I'm an adult. And what makes you think those pics aren't pornographic? They're in a men's magazine, meant to appeal to a man's eyes. When a woman bares *almost* all in a magazine for all to see, it's not much better than porn. Not that Jamie would pose for actual porn mags, but those pics certainly give that impression.

Originally posted by ClevelandDancer
Well, if kids are left unsupervised in their internet usage on a computer without parental controls, they could go surf some actual PORNOGRAPHY! For all the fuss that's being made about this, these pics are PG-13 at "worst", not XXX or even R.

It is your right to like or dislike these pictures. Considering you haven't even looked at these pictures you probably should withhold the condemning statements.

ClevelandDancer

12-18-2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by sasafrass452
Having read some of the comments in this thread, I don't have to see the pics to know that they're not for young eyes... even mine, & I'm an adult. And what makes you think those pics aren't pornographic? They're in a men's magazine, meant to appeal to a man's eyes. When a woman bares *almost* all in a magazine for all to see, it's not much better than porn. Not that Jamie would pose for actual porn mags, but those pics certainly give that impression.

Again, you HAVE NOT EVEN LOOKED AT THE PICTURES. There is more skin shown on regular network TV. There is more skin and body-parts shown in your average soap (i.e., Dial, Ivory, Lever 2000) ad then there was in any of the pictures. There is no frontal nudity, no bare bottom, no nipples. The raciest two were one where you can see the side of a breast under her arm from the back while she was looking over her shoulder, and one where she is laying down without a top on but covered with fake snow such that no breast-skin is showing. I looked at the pictures they are not pornography.

As for suitability for young eyes, PARENTS should be responsible for monitoring what their children are doing on the internet. If your kids, my kids, or anyone elses kids are looking at things on the internet (or any other source) that their parents think they should not be looking at, this falls under BAD PARENTING, not bad Jamie or bad magazine.

butterfly

12-18-2003, 11:56 AM

If we are all talking about these photos then there must be something about them that is "adult" rated. I think it all comes down to how sensitized we are to naughty pictures. These pictures are not porn but they are definitely a little naughty. My take is that any woman who feels she has to display her body in this particular way is as shallow as the pictures. I like her skating but I feel very differently about her as a person. Tacky, tacky way to get publicity. I can't imagine Michelle Kwan, Sarah Hughes or Christy Yamaguchi doing this...much more classy women and with strong family influences that they would never want to disappoint. Now Jamie can appear on Howard Stern and fit right in.

ClevelandDancer

12-18-2003, 01:10 PM

Butterfly, I agree these pictures are for an adult audience (in an adult audience magazine), but that still doesn't make them porn. Trying to get this back on topic (skating), I was pointing out that declaring these pictures to be porn, distasteful, etc., based on the statements and opinions of others without ever seeing them is akin to ...

Person A went to a competition X and posted that Skater Z skated well.

Person B read Person A's post (didn't see the competition) and posted that Skater Z must have had a beautiful program.

Person C read these two posts (also didn't see the competition) and started arguing that Skater Z has skated the most wonderful program in the history of skating. And that this must be true because everyone is saying so on some message board.

And so forth ... lots of people discussing a topic as if they know what they are talking about, when in reality some are just being sheep. As I said, like the pics, don't like the pics, but if you haven't even seen the pics you probably should stop judging them.

butterfly

12-18-2003, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by ClevelandDancer
Butterfly, I agree these pictures are for an adult audience (in an adult audience magazine), but that still doesn't make them porn. Trying to get this back on topic (skating), I was pointing out that declaring these pictures to be porn, distasteful, etc., based on the statements and opinions of others without ever seeing them is akin to ...

Person A went to a competition X and posted that Skater Z skated well.

Person B read Person A's post (didn't see the competition) and posted that Skater Z must have had a beautiful program.

Person C read these two posts (also didn't see the competition) and started arguing that Skater Z has skated the most wonderful program in the history of skating. And that this must be true because everyone is saying so on some message board.

And so forth ... lots of people discussing a topic as if they know what they are talking about, when in reality some are just being sheep. As I said, like the pics, don't like the pics, but if you haven't even seen the pics you probably should stop judging them. I have seen them, I don't think they are porn, just distastful and tacky and I keep asking what is her point. If she wasn't a gold medalist she would be just another semi naked woman. I would never make a judgement without knowing what I was discussing. Actually, I think she looks a bit pudgy :).

sierra

12-18-2003, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by butterfly
I have seen them, I don't think they are porn, just distastful and tacky and I keep asking what is her point. If she wasn't a gold medalist she would be just another semi naked woman. I would never make a judgement without knowing what I was discussing. Actually, I think she looks a bit pudgy :).

No, no value judgement there at all. :roll:

2footedquad

12-18-2003, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by butterfly
I have seen them, I don't think they are porn, just distastful and tacky and I keep asking what is her point.

Ditto.

2footedquad

12-18-2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by sierra
No, no value judgement there at all. :roll:

Sierra, Butterfly did not say that he/she was not making a value judgement, Butterfly said he/she "would never make a value judgement without knowing what I was discussing," meaning that Butterfly was offering an opinion after actually seeing the pictures.

Justine_R

12-18-2003, 07:44 PM

What is this disscussion of people saying its porn!
Its definetly not porn, its Jamie expressing herself in a different way.

She always surrounded and watched by the ISU but this gives her a chance to let her down and make some money.

Oh and Btw, if people say this is porn then wouldn't that make Jamie a porn star?

supersk8er

12-18-2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by butterfly
Actually, I think she looks a bit pudgy :).

Ouch...You think? :??

Justine_R

12-19-2003, 06:40 AM

Originally posted by supersk8er
Ouch...You think? :??

Pudgy umm no.

flippet

12-19-2003, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by gandalf

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andie
I disagree that there's nothing wrong with it. It's trashy to pose provocatively or nude/partly nude. Why not just become a stripper?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's wrong with becoming a stripper? Plenty of honest, hardworking people make a good living as strippers. Just because it's not my own (and evidently not your) personal goal doesn't mean other people should be looked down upon for choosing it. And besides, I think there is a big difference between a one-time photo shoot and becoming a stripper.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andie
"Men like to look at women's bodies." That's exactly my point- women are objects.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've got news for you - women like looking at women's bodies as well. And I'm not just talking about lesbians here. The female body is a thing of beauty and has been celebrated in art for centuries. Enjoying the female form does not automatically mean you are "objectifying" the person you happen to be looking at.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andie
I'm only 18 and I think I have better judgment than some immature 28- and 38-year-olds (who read Cosmo, which is probably as bad as Maxim!).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you are entitled to your opinion. But I don't consider skewering someone whose actions you happen to disagree with to be exhibiting particularly good judgement. And there is lots of very useful information in Cosmo if you could ever bring yourself to pick it up and actually read it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andie
Why do people think that for women to feel sexy, they need to be nude or scantily clad? I feel sexy when I'm WEARING clothes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think most people would agree that women can be very sexy while fully clothed (same goes for men).

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Andie
But I keep telling myself that I wouldn't pose nude/ topless for any purpose. I will let only my boyfriend/husband see me like that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many people share your conviction and I respect you for your choice. I just wish you could respect others who choose to disagree with you.

Excellent post, gandalf. :)

That's just it. Sex and sexuality are not bad, wrong, shameful things, although unfortunately some folks have been raised to believe that they are. It's hard to find the line where you protect your children from too-early development of their sexuality without stifling their development of healthy sexuality and views toward it when the time is right. Lots of parents just put the ix-nay on the whole thing, and thus we have shock and disdain.

Even with a healthy view, what people disagree on are acceptable times and places for display of sexuality. And that's fine--there's nothing wrong with differing opinions. Where it starts getting dicey is when one person prescribes those limits for another. If you think what Jamie did is shameful, well, that's your opinion, and not everyone has to share it. The same goes for the reverse. Thank goodness it's really not up to us to tell Jamie what to do. She apparently doesn't have a problem with it. If I do have a problem with it, well, it's then my prerogative to not buy the magazine, or even not buy tickets to Jamie's shows. But in that case, the skin's not off anyone's nose but mine--and I think I look kind of funny with a skinned nose.

Why not let people do what they do, even if they make choices that perhaps you wouldn't make.

Roma

12-19-2003, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by flippet

Why not let people do what they do, even if they make choices that perhaps you wouldn't make.

Well, I for one, posted already in this thread, stating that I disagreed with Jamie Sale's decision to do the pictures. But I never once stated, or even implied, that she didn't have the right to do it.

I am not a big believer in changing peoples' actions through prohibition. But I am a firm believer in debate, such as what is occuring on this thread. Debate often can result in persuasion, which in my mind, is far more effective than prohibition.

I don't believe that there should be a law against women taking their clothes off for the titillation of male viewers, but I sure wish more women would be persuaded not to do it. In fact, I doubt that Jamie Sale would ever read this thread, and I further doubt that anything said here would change her mind about what she already did. But perhaps the debate among the posters on this board changes the opinions of other board members.

At this point, there are several pages of debate here, and nearly 5000 views. I think that's where the heart of this discussion lies, among the board members who post here, or who at least read and think about what everyone here is saying. If someone on our board would have considered doing similar photos but was persuaded (not forbidden) not to, then I think that is a great thing.

Skatewind

12-20-2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by Justine_R
She always surrounded and watched by the ISU but this gives her a chance to let her down and make some money.
:?? ?? Jamie is a professional skater. She is not surrounded & watched by the ISU.

what?meworry?

12-20-2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Mel On Ice
she looks beautiful, provacative and alluring without being sleazy. She's an adult woman in an adult-audience magazine.

who has been and still is a role model for young skaters with dreams of achieving the level of success and popularity jamie did as an eligible skater.

granted, championship skating can get pretty steamy in it's choreography (particularly dance) but i think i'd prefer that she had not done this so soon after retiring into professional ranks.

i do believe that it is an obligation of successful eligible skaters to set a high standard of behaviour for the young up-and-commers.

yes, the pictures are tasteful, she's beautiful, but she's still just recently out of the elegible ranks and i believe such "provocative" images send the wrong messages to younger skaters who look up to her as a role model.

young people have enough questionable messages thrown at them by the movie and music industry. at least in this sport, i'd like to see the "stars" set a more positive example.

Justine_R

12-20-2003, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Skatewind
:?? ?? Jamie is a professional skater. She is not surrounded & watched by the ISU.

Sure but they are like her managers

flippet

12-20-2003, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by what?meworry?

i do believe that it is an obligation of successful eligible skaters to set a high standard of behaviour for the young up-and-commers.

This is where I disagree. Skating is a physical activity, that can be done competitively to find out who skates better than who. That, at base, is what most competitive skaters get into the sport for. They don't say, 'gee, I really want to be a role model for kids, it's what I've always dreamed of....now how can I do that...oh, I know, I'll become a successful competitive skater!' Being a role model is a side effect of celebrity--and celebrity is a side effect of athletic success. A skater 'signs on' for the athletic endeavor, NOT the side effects.

Frankly, I think it's an obligation for parents to set a high standard of behavior for their children, and a standard against which the children are able to judge for themselves whether a celebrity is someone they ought to emulate or not. Ultimately, no celebrity is responsible for the behavior of someone else's children, and they shouldn't have to be. If an adored celebrity is 'behaving badly' according to a certain family's standards, then that family needs to have a discussion about it. It's not the celebrity's responsibility to change their behavior because Joe Schmo in Midwest USA thinks his kid doesn't need to see it. Censorship of what a child sees is up to individual families.

Skatewind

12-20-2003, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Sure but they are like her managers
This is totally incorrect. She is no longer an eligible skater, they turned pro after Olympics. Even as eligible skaters, skaters at this level have their own management representation if needed.

Justine_R

12-20-2003, 03:35 PM

Well the ISU still watches them.

Glenda

12-20-2003, 09:45 PM

You know, it's really pretty simple. Some people think Jamie's photos are acceptable. Others do not. Attempting to persuade others to agree with one side or another doesn't really work, as we know. Once a person's opinion of acceptable behavior has been formed, it's really very difficult to change others' opinions, especially on a message board.

Skaters are not superhuman role models. They, like us, are simply human beings, who make a thousand unique decisions (some big, some small) everyday in the course of personal and professional lives. Some decisions people will agree with; some will not. Some people will do things others will find questionable & distateful, regardless of what profession they are in. This is one of those circumstances.

For those who strenuously object to Jamie posing because "she is a role model to children", think of this as a learning tool. I welcome situations such as this because I think *any* situation -- positive or negative -- provides an opportunity to discuss what values we choose to impart to our children, which is our responsibility as parents.

If you disagree with her decision to pose in these photos, then use this episode of an example of "what NOT to do" --- as a negative role model -- if you think that is the case.

If you agree with her decision to pose in these photos, then use this as a way to explain how this is really no one's business but hers. And that because of her freedom to express herself however she feels (regardless of whether you *personally* agree with her actions or not), she is a positive role model -- if you think that is the case.

Take these situations, and use them to your advantage as parents, rather than passively letting events shape how your child views the world.

butterfly

12-21-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Glenda
You know, it's really pretty simple. Some people think Jamie's photos are acceptable. Others do not. Attempting to persuade others to agree with one side or another doesn't really work, as we know. Once a person's opinion of acceptable behavior has been formed, it's really very difficult to change others' opinions, especially on a message board.

Skaters are not superhuman role models. They, like us, are simply human beings, who make a thousand unique decisions (some big, some small) everyday in the course of personal and professional lives. Some decisions people will agree with; some will not. Some people will do things others will find questionable & distateful, regardless of what profession they are in. This is one of those circumstances.

For those who strenuously object to Jamie posing because "she is a role model to children", think of this as a learning tool. I welcome situations such as this because I think *any* situation -- positive or negative -- provides an opportunity to discuss what values we choose to impart to our children, which is our responsibility as parents.

If you disagree with her decision to pose in these photos, then use this episode of an example of "what NOT to do" --- as a negative role model -- if you think that is the case.

If you agree with her decision to pose in these photos, then use this as a way to explain how this is really no one's business but hers. And that because of her freedom to express herself however she feels (regardless of whether you *personally* agree with her actions or not), she is a positive role model -- if you think that is the case.

Take these situations, and use them to your advantage as parents, rather than passively letting events shape how your child views the world. Well said, and I think it is a productive exercise for us to discuss such issues. We do not have to agree but we should be open enough to discuss and share our opinions.

Harris!here!

12-21-2003, 02:19 PM

Listen tons of women have pose dtopless and nude, now she not only was not nude she was hardly even topless there were no nipples or butt crack ever seen! If you dont agree with it or dont like DON'T BUY IT! In closing.... HOT! VERY VERY HOT!

jp1andOnly

12-21-2003, 02:26 PM

Originally posted by flippet
This is where I disagree. Skating is a physical activity, that can be done competitively to find out who skates better than who. That, at base, is what most competitive skaters get into the sport for. They don't say, 'gee, I really want to be a role model for kids, it's what I've always dreamed of....now how can I do that...oh, I know, I'll become a successful competitive skater!' Being a role model is a side effect of celebrity--and celebrity is a side effect of athletic success. A skater 'signs on' for the athletic endeavor, NOT the side effects.

Frankly, I think it's an obligation for parents to set a high standard of behavior for their children, and a standard against which the children are able to judge for themselves whether a celebrity is someone they ought to emulate or not. Ultimately, no celebrity is responsible for the behavior of someone else's children, and they shouldn't have to be. If an adored celebrity is 'behaving badly' according to a certain family's standards, then that family needs to have a discussion about it. It's not the celebrity's responsibility to change their behavior because Joe Schmo in Midwest USA thinks his kid doesn't need to see it. Censorship of what a child sees is up to individual families.

I agree. As a teacher, we are told we have to set an example for the children. I agree. However, during my off time if I like to go to a local pub and have drinks, or go out to the clubs, I should be free to. I however am always watching my back just in case I run into a student and their parents and when I was teaching highschool an underage student in the nightclub. I purposely live a 40 min drive from my school. What I do on my own time is my business. I don't need nor did I sign up for parents and others watching what I do in my spare time.

Skatewind

12-22-2003, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by Justine_R
Well the ISU still watches them.
Where are you getting this information? Once skaters are no longer eligible skaters, the ISU may "watch them" by reading the same news updates you & I read, or through information shared by an affiliate. They are not watching them as you have implied might be the case. The skaters do not report to the ISU & don't need to be concerned with having any activities approved by them one way or the other.

flippet

12-22-2003, 10:22 AM

Justine, maybe you could do some research into what kind of an organization the ISU is, and what exactly it is they do, and how it differs from what a manager does. I know, at 12 years old, it may not make sense to you if all you know about them is what you get off of message boards.

Justine_R

12-22-2003, 10:25 AM

ok.

Justine_R

12-23-2003, 06:43 PM

nice disscusion

second_destiny

12-25-2003, 10:27 PM

Can I just take a sec (as someone who supports Jamie and David no matter what) to thank the people who have been mature and respectful in agreeing or disagreeing with Jamie's decisions. You all have the right to agree and disagree and I can see both sides of the argument :)

Thank you (you know who you are)

AndAllThatJazz

12-26-2003, 03:40 PM

That sounds like you are saying that only people who agree with Jamie posing nude are mature.
Just my opinion, but, I think the opposite.
It seems to be the youngest posters who seem to think it is alright to take your clothes off in front of strangers.
We oldtimers were raised different.
I have a daughter about Jamie's age and I would be completely humiliated and ashamed of her if she had done this.
Thank God, my daughter has more respect for herself than to do something like that.

ClevelandDancer

12-27-2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by AndAllThatJazz
That sounds like you are saying that only people who agree with Jamie posing nude are mature.
Just my opinion, but, I think the opposite.
It seems to be the youngest posters who seem to think it is alright to take your clothes off in front of strangers.
We oldtimers were raised different.
I have a daughter about Jamie's age and I would be completely humiliated and ashamed of her if she had done this.
Thank God, my daughter has more respect for herself than to do something like that.

Hmmm ... by your own profile, you are 32yo. You have a 20-something daughter? Very interesting when you do the math.

Cleveland Dancer, who for the record is over the age of 32 and thinks whatever Jamie chooses to do is Jamie's business. BTW, Jamie didn't pose nude (insert previous sheep comments here).

AndAllThatJazz

12-27-2003, 10:46 AM

Actually, I gave my daughters birthday in my registration, so, I can remember it if I forget my password and have to give other info to get it sent to me. You might be surprised at how few people actually give correct info when they register anywhere.
It's not anyone's business, and can be dangerous if it gets in the wrong hands.
Paranoid? Maybe, but, smart.
I am 56.
Bondo, I don't need some kid not much older than my grandson to tell me if he thinks I am mature or not. Kindly keep your opinions to the other underagers please.
didn't your mother teach you to respect your elders? LOL
Ah, I am certainly no prude. Been there, done that. Well, except for the posing nude part.
I was just giving my opinion of Jamie's posing semi-nude. Don't approve, my right to do so.

I am editing to say to Cleveland that you actually did me a favor. I thought the profiles were hidden on this board. I am now off to change the birthdate as I am not comfortable with people having seen my daughters exact birthday. Can't be too careful.

butterfly

12-27-2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by Bondo
The respecting elders thing didn't work because I realized many of my elders are rather unintelligent and lacking in reasoning skills (think our President). I give respect regardless of age based on a person being respectable. I don't practice ageism as you seemingly do by writing me off for being young. I hope you appreciate your grandchild despite his horrible age defficiency.

For the record, as a person turning 21 in less than a month, I've been an adult for quite a while now, not really all that close to underaged (unless we are talking about drinking or renting a car). Do you base respecting someone based on their level of intelligence? And you only respect someone if they respect you? You are 21 and you think you have been an adult for quite awhile???? I know people that do not act adult that are 42, 52, 62.... I also have 14 year old acquaintances that sound more mature and have more respect for themselves and others than to pose nude for publicity. Being an adult is not about age but about knowledge, selflessness, caring. From what you write I would say you need a few more years under your belt before you can be considered adult.

This posing without clothes for magazines is not based on whether you are an American or French or Canadian. It is not based on whether you think the human body is beautiful (it is), it is based on your need for attention, what you were taught growing up and your specific morals. Just let the people that don't approve have their opinion and we will let you have yours...EASY. I find it amusing that you should attack our president as unintelligent....Guess what you may think him unintelligent, but he is the leader of the greatest country in the world....something for you to aspire to.

jp1andOnly

12-27-2003, 01:13 PM

just a little comment on the last post....what is the greatest country in the world? According to who? To you? Let's just say it's not the greatest in MANY eyes around the world. Why do you think many foreigners hate America...because of the attitude "we are the greatest". Yes, I like the US and it does a lot for the world. But so do other countries.

Ok..off my little rant. Sorry to take the thread off topic

Edited to add: I don't know who would aspire to be George Bush. Aspire to being the President of the US of course :)

butterfly

12-27-2003, 02:17 PM

Originally posted by jp1andOnly
just a little comment on the last post....what is the greatest country in the world? According to who? To you? Let's just say it's not the greatest in MANY eyes around the world. Why do you think many foreigners hate America...because of the attitude "we are the greatest". Yes, I like the US and it does a lot for the world. But so do other countries.

Ok..off my little rant. Sorry to take the thread off topic

Edited to add: I don't know who would aspire to be George Bush. Aspire to being the President of the US of course :) I don't hate any part of the world and I am pleased to say that, but saying you love your country better than others or that you feel you are fortunate to feel you live in the greatest country is called patriotism and I would not feel badly at Canadians, Chinese, French or whatever in feeling that they live in the greatest country. Get over your petty little insecurities and frankly I guess you have to wonder why so many people want to come to this country if they hate us so much. You can't please or appease people who can't be pleased or appeased so why bother. Jealousy comes to mind. It appears by the polls that George Bush has approval...you are among the minority and you sound like what you call a "foreigner" to me and can't vote anyway. I hope they shut this thread down...it has gotten political and rude...where is Justine_R when we need her. God Bless America!!!!!!!!! Don't knock my country!!!!!!

jp1andOnly

12-27-2003, 04:56 PM

Patriotism is fine but not when you shove it down others throats. In the summers I teach ESL students from various Asian countries. when asked would they ever move to the US the majority say "no"

Do I think my country is the best...it has its good points and bad. Just like the US. I don't think we can say which country is the greatest. I think we can say" i think my country is great because......"

And no I don't think anyone was rude but yourself.

Originally posted by butterfly
I don't hate any part of the world and I am pleased to say that, but saying you love your country better than others or that you feel you are fortunate to feel you live in the greatest country is called patriotism and I would not feel badly at Canadians, Chinese, French or whatever in feeling that they live in the greatest country. Get over your petty little insecurities and frankly I guess you have to wonder why so many people want to come to this country if they hate us so much. You can't please or appease people who can't be pleased or appeased so why bother. Jealousy comes to mind. It appears by the polls that George Bush has approval...you are among the minority and you sound like what you call a "foreigner" to me and can't vote anyway. I hope they shut this thread down...it has gotten political and rude...where is Justine_R when we need her. God Bless America!!!!!!!!! Don't knock my country!!!!!!