This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Well, personally? I kinda want to slay the dragon."
11981 members | you are not logged in | 22 April 2018


March 12 2004

Charsima Poses for Playboy. Just a quick blurb I came across unexpectedly. Kinda cute though: The source says, "A photo assistant fell and Charisma got up mid-pose -- completely topless -- to help her up." Sorry, no pics. Scroll waaay down (I think it's the eleventh bit).

I can't believe I'm asking this, but which issue is it that she's going to appear in?
"A photo assistant fell and Charisma got up mid-pose -- completely topless -- to help her up"

Unfortunately, she then knocked her out with her left breast.
Prufrock censors himself.
Unfortunately, she then knocked her out with her left breast. LOL.
Hey everyone, a long time ago I heard that SMG was suppposed to pose for Playboy, (my husband told me, probably not a good source). Anyway, I never heard anything else about it, and I don't read Playboy,so I have a feeling that my husband was messing with me. Did anyone else ever hear that?
Maybe I'm way too old fashioned...but I really wish she weren't doing smacks of something approximating desperation, and that saddens me.
I thought I read somewhere where SMG said she wouldn't do that type of thing.
I am not thrilled Charisma is doing it either. I think she has enough talent to stand on her own.
I agree with CHRIS IN VIRGINIA, I thinks it's degrading to pose nude. I have always thought that anyone doing it, could only be doing it for money, I mean why would you want everyone to see you naked? Sure, she's proud of her body after having her baby, so throw on a bikini and cruise the beach. If she's looking for more exposure, she's sure getting it
The first Buffy, Kristy Swanson, posed for Playboy sometime recently. It was never supposed to be SMG. She has a pretty tough policy about nudity for film/tv so I can't really see SMG changing her mind about this.

As for CC, yes, it does smack of desperation. Also, if she wanted the Wonder Woman role so badly, I don't know how this would help. WW has always been a very PG kind of role, even in the comics, so a Playboy spread would certainly hurt her chances one would think.
I still have to ask, how does this degrade women? If a woman is confident enough in her body, and she wants to show it, more power too her. Nudity is not the evil most people think it is.
I agree, there is absolutely nothing wrong with nudity, and for someone to be able to do it on their own terms is empowering.

Nudity is the most bizarre of the puritanical mindsets that Americans cling desperatetly to. Nevermind the fact that the female form is beautiful or that there have been nude paintings and sculptures considered to be the very highest of high art on display for centuries.
I agree with 400lb_Gorilla. It is her choice, and she might as well do it now while she still looks good. I don't think that there's anything wrong with it, though nudity is often a controversial topic. As a fan, I support her decision.

cubiclesatan - I believe she's in the May or June issue.
There's a fine line between the artful display of the beauty of the female body and the exploitive degradation of a woman's sexuality. I think this is the former.
Invisible Green - A fan of Charisma, or of Nudity?
Nudity is not the evil most people think it is.

Well said.

The human body is a natural work of art; Charisma is proud of hers and wants to share it. If she gets a nice paycheck to boot, then good for her.

She's already done photo shoots that show good (quantitative and qualitative) portions of her bare skin; saying that showing just a bit more would make a moral difference strikes me as odd.

If a person is forced to do something against their will then I would call it degrading.

Just read this:

Nudity is the most bizarre of the puritanical mindsets that Americans cling desperatetly to. -- I second that!

[ edited by Ubqtous on 2004-03-12 23:38 ]
I don't feel that nudity is bad. Certainly nude artwork doesn't bother me if it's tasteful, but an artist's painting of a nude woman is seriously different than Playboy.They are not viewed the same way. A painting is meant to be thought provoking I think, not just gratuitous. Playboy is for taking into the bathroom when your wife hasn't put out for a week. And now, instead of people saying "gosh that Carisma Capenter is sure a good actress", they'll most likely say "nice rack".
It's not like she's posing for Club Explicit or doing Hustler's "Beaver Hunt" or something--Playboy is pretty much in a league of its own. I'm sure she wouldn't be doing it if the pictures weren't tasteful. I think it shows her sense of fun.

lisi: People seem to be saying "nice rack" about her anyway when they should be commenting on her acting so she might as well.

[ edited by stakeholder on 2004-03-12 23:44 ]
There have been plenty of women who have posed and still get some decent roles. Drew Barrymore is one that comes to mind. She posed back in 1995. It certainly didn't hurt her career considering she's got a pretty successful production company and she pretty much has her choice of roles.

It's not the stigma, nor an act of desparation some of you believe. It's not like she's doing this with Penthouse or Hustler. This is Playboy. They're a premier magazine that's got plenty of respect in the entertainment industry.

That being said, Charisma's a beautiful woman, and I'm excited about this. Think of me what you will. I'm a fan of Charisma, nudity and the beauty of the female form. Sue me.
They are not viewed the same way. A painting is meant to be thought provoking I think, not just gratuitous. Playboy is for taking into the bathroom when your wife hasn't put out for a week.

Painting and photography are both forms of expression. Whether the result is art, pornography, etc is a completely subjective matter.

If paintings were more portable, I'm sure many sexually frustrated spouses would be carrying them into the bathroom!

And now, instead of people saying "gosh that Carisma Capenter is sure a good actress", they'll most likely say "nice rack".

So it's not possible to simultaneously admire talent and beauty? I think it is, and I also think that people will say "nice rack" and/or "good actress" regardless of Charisma's state of undress.
Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with Charisma doing Playboy. Like stakeholder mentioned Playboy is not smutty like Penthouse and Hustler. Playboy is very tame compared to other men’s magazines and I can say as a straight woman that I think their pictorials are pretty and tasteful, more like pin-ups than pornography. Charisma has taken plenty of racy pictures for other magazines and one of the main comments made after “You’re Welcome” were about her “rack”. In my opinion, it’s beautiful when a woman can be confident in her most vulnerable state.
I will have to throw in my support with the "wish she wasn't doing this" crowd. While I have no real problems with Nudity as art, per se, it seems to me that the purpose behind magazines like Playboy (even if it is the most "respected" one) are not for the sake of art, but rather for the sake of providing an image over which to lust. It seems to me that the purpose of Playboy in particular is for the dissatisfied lover to take into the bathroom, if you will, whereas a photo/painting/ whatever of the human form is not in and of itself designed for that purpose.

/my opinion, for what it's worth.
Well at the end of the day, it's her choice and if she wants to do Playboy I respect her for it. She's a strong intelligent woman and no doubt has thought long and hard about it.
But RootBoy42, I thought we all got Playboy to read the articles?

In all seriousness, if Charisma feels confident and happy to pose for Playboy, who are we to condemn her? As many others have said, it's certainly not like she's posing for Hustler or any other number of truly distasteful publications. And women have been portrayed nude in works of art for millenia. It's not going to stop now.

IMO, I'd rather have Charisma pose in the nude than see her trussed up in any number of whorish outfits such as Maxim does. Those magazines bother me because it's like "let's see how close to nude we can get this person in the photo and still make it onto the Target or Walmart shelf!" Pffft!

[ edited by cubiclesatan on 2004-03-13 00:15 ]
So is she going to be showing full nipplage, or just 'tastefully' covering her areolas? Either way, more power to her. She's not a stick figure, and I think more women who are normal sized(ok, she's still thinner than your average American gal) need to see that you can still be considered sexy in the media. If she wants to, go for it. I don't see it doing much for her career, but that's her business. I'm interested to see the spread. I KNOW my hubby is. I think she's a beautiful woman and after all the "Cordy got fat" crap when she was preggers, I think it'll be a very nice thing for her to flaunt her stuff!

As for SMG.....the thought of her naked makes me shiver, and not just cuz I'm a straight gal. Her in all her boney stickness.....ugh.....Eat something, girl!
And to those who argue that nudity in art is somehow more pure than other forms of commercialized nudity, I highly recommend reading John Berger's Ways of Seeing. (Or renting the documentary based on it.)

Rogue Slayer--Like your post, shudder at your choice of words: I'm interested to see the spread. I KNOW my hubby is. ;)
No condemnation here...her call, obviously...but, why now? Why not when she was a Charger girl?...or while she was in Buffy, or Angel?

As I say, to me, it simply seems a sad attempt to say "look at me!"...I'm happy to look at her already...I think she is an extremely fine actress...and I fear that some producers may determine that she's eye candy and nothing more...and that's sad...
Does anyone recall the episode where Cordy is shooting the commercial, and Angel shows up and gets ticked off that she is basically being used as a sex object? She is also obviously upset by it, but says nothing until after Angel asks her about killing some demon and she says "I hate my whole life."
I think I am of Angel's mind on this one.
There was something posted on her website a while back that said none of the pictures would have frontal nudity below the waist. Everything else was fair game. Also, that her husband was with her in the studio for the duration of the photo shoot.
"A fan of Charisma, or of Nudity?"

Charisma, as I'm sure you knew I meant.
I did, just being snide. I should have used purple.
I don't think posing in Playboy did any harm to the careers of Drew Barrymore, Cindy Crawford, Naomi Campbell, Sharon Stone, or Kim Basinger. It's probably a good move for her at this time.
I agree with Xkot. That list would probably be much, much longer if so many of today's A-list female celebs weren't armed with a brigade of lawyers, publicists, agents, & personal connections.
Okay, I haven't read all the comments, cause I don't care. I will toss in my two cents here. From the article, it reads as if she's doing a topless shoot, not full frontal, and if some of us didn't live the "panties in a bunch" United States, but rather Europe, we'd see breasts a lot more than we do now. And you know what? It'd be no big deal. I'm more offended and disgusted when some fatass guy with man boobs decides to go shirtless at the beach, or worse, in the neighborhood while mowing his lawn.

As for pandering, or desperation, that's crap. Especially considering her own comments in other articles, it seems this is about empowerment for her. She had a kid, she got big, she's getting herself thin and in shape and she wants to prove it. That takes balls. And if it gets her a little extra publicity, that's great! At least she's someone who's gone somewhere with her career first, and is then posing, not like Pam Anderson or Jenny McCarthy who have based their careers on baring it all right out the gates.
jack knight--

That takes balls?

LOL. You just made my day, stakeholder:-)
As an Australian, I've always found the American "Oh my God, is that a nipple!?" idealogy a little hypocritcal, considering the somewhat disagreeable gun laws and insane amount of senseless violence churning out of Hollywood. But not to get off topic, Charisma would hardly see this as a desperate attempt to get noticed. I defintely agree with jack knight and the rest in that this is a depiction of art, not a degrading cry for attention. The human form has been art for milennia. Not everything boils down to sex; even nudity.

[ edited by kaivaal on 2004-03-13 06:33 ]

[ edited by kaivaal on 2004-03-13 09:53 ]
Excellent, kaivaal. Excellent. I'm with you 100% on the human form as art.

There are times when I honestly believe I was meant to be born in another country, because I think this one is so messed up
Interesting thread here. Lots of people seem to think those who said less than supportive things about the Playboy shoot are somehow moralistic about nudity but I didn't see a lot of that merely that doing a photo shoot for Playboy smacked of a sort of career desperation which, to be honest, is kinda hard to ignore. I mean you don't see many actresses in Playboy who are working regularly, you certainly didn't see Charisma topless when she was
Well I stand firmly (no pun intended) on the side of "grow up America, it's just a damned nipple"! She's not doing softcore porn or fetish videos here, it's just a topless shoot.

But in response to punkinpuss who said, "Also, if she wanted the Wonder Woman role so badly, I don't know how this would help. WW has always been a very PG kind of role, even in the comics, so a Playboy spread would certainly hurt her chances one would think"... I disagree. WonderWoman originally was something of a bondage fetishists wet dream. Sex was ALWAYS wrapped up in her mystique, and if you do a little research you'll find that it's only been in recent years that her image has been "cleaned up" any. The old school WW was pretty risque. Hell, even the modern version isn't the kind of character whose image is going to be tarnished by a couple of nipple shots. It's not like she's Janet Jackson or anything.

*rolling eyes*
Okay, as an American who was offended by the "grow up America,it's just a nipple" because it was way more than that. It was the Superbowl, not MTV. It was when people were sitting with their kids watching a game. It was a blatant display of an overly sexual show with crotch grabbing and simulated sex moves. Not a prude, just think there is a time and place for that other than a show that millions of Americans sit down to watch with their little kids. I watch r-rated, sometimes x-rated movies, I enjoy shows like Nip/Tuck which are very sexual in nature. I just don't think the superbowl was the time and place for it.

Now as for Charisma, she isn't doing this on the superbowl stage. She's doing it where if you want to see it you can go out and buy it. She is a beautiful woman with a beautiful body and was unfairly ridiculed when she got pregnant and put on weight. I think this is her response to that, she's saying, see I am a beautiful woman still, even after giving birth. I don't know if it is a choice I would've made but it's her life and her decision. I also don't think anyone can truly judge yet without actually having seen the pictures.

I do agree, though, that Americans can be too prudish, not all of us but, unfortunately enough who know how to organize and make waves (Christian Coalition). I think the human body is a beautiful thing and as a woman I don't see anything wrong with tastefully done photos. I take more offense in overly violent things being shown without warning on the news or in commercials for upcoming shows when you're watching tv with little kids. It is amazing to me that people get offended by the naked body but think nothing of watching overtly violent stuff.
Was Ms. Carpenter really ridiculed for putting on pregnancy weight? What kind of (word I can't say because it would be rude) would say something like that?
blwessels, I fully understand and respect your position and opinion, here was the thing you should tell any kid who saw "nipplegate" and said what was that(in fact i did tell this to my little cousin who is 5). Little Tommy - "What was that?" You - Tommy, that was a woman's breast, that is what she uses to feed her babies untill they are old enough to eat harder food. Little Tommy - Oh....okay, You - now if you wanna see the harder stuff, go to www., wait a minute, forget that last part.
I think blwessels was saying that coupled with the "crotch grabbing and simulated sex moves" that made it a bit more than simple exposure. Actually I think your post was very well stated blwessels. This whole nipple thing has been meaningless to me and I've ignored it but reading your post--well, I'm thinking less "inappropriate" and really more just "yuck". I mean, why would anyone want to watch Janet Jackson and that idiotic guy whose name I can't think of simulating sex?
Thanks Stakeholder, you got what I meant. And 400lb_Gorilla, you shouldn't have to worry about explaining what a breast is for to you young ones because one was flashed on TV. I've always been way open with my kids and I choose the moments to have had those conversations with them and it shouldn't be forced on a parent on the spot because something, unexpected, in an innappropriate manner was shown on TV.

Child: "Mommy, what was Justin doing to Janet when her breast popped out?"

Mommy: "He was sexually assaulting her sweety, she was playing hard to get so he grabbed her and ripped off her top because he was gonna get her naked by the end of this song"

Child: "Mommy why are they grabbing their crotches"

Mommy: "Because they forgot to go pee pee before the show started."

Point is, it was the Superbowl, which is known as a "good,ole American family day of fun", a day you spend in front of the TV having friends and family over. I'm a fan of the team that won and it was great accomplishment for them winning two superbowls in three years and you know what everyone was talking about the next day? Janet's boob.

If that all had been shown on the MTV awards it wouldn't have been such a big deal because most likely you wouldn't be sitting down with Grandma and Grandpa and little Tommy.

It also brings back memories of little children all over America asking what a Lewenski was (in case you don't know what I'm talking about, it's what Monica did to Bill).

[ edited by blwessels on 2004-03-13 21:34 ]
Unitas: "Was Ms. Carpenter really ridiculed for putting on pregnancy weight? What kind of (word I can't say because it would be rude) would say something like that?"

Yes, unfortunately, there were lots of comments about how she looked while pregnant and after she had the baby. Someone even did an online skit recently making fun of all the stars of Buffy and Angel and one part of it was Charisma in the audience scarfing down food. There was also a lot of speculation that she got "fired" because she put on weight during the pregnancy. I don't believe that but just the fact that people were commenting on how much weight she had gained during her pregnancy was uncalled for. Women gain weight when they are pregnant and if you don't you are most likely not eating healthy like you are supposed to be doing.

So, there was quite a bit of publicity surrounding her pregnancy weight gain and this could be her way of saying to the world, "look at me now" and maybe it will drum up acting jobs for her, who knows.
My major complaint about Playboy and FHM is that the editors and photographers frequently portray their posers as dirty “Girls Gone Wild” sex objects and not as contributors to works of art.

"A photo assistant fell and Charisma got up mid-pose -- completely topless -- to help her up" is a clear example of the crap they give us. They try to make this sound innocent, but we all know it exists to perk up men’s imaginations. While I have always been a lady watcher, I am not comfortable with thinking of Charisma that way. The same goes for Julie Benz and Amy Acker; I want to admire them as actresses. It’s amazing these people think we’re all that narrow-minded.

While I don’t want to post a link here, websites with nude photos that are used as an art form do exist. I just did a search and found some myself. About a year ago, I also flipped through a magazine with such pictures. The models who pose for those pictures contribute to real works of art portraying the beauty of the human body. There is no shame in what they’re doing. No, if I had kids, I would not want them seeing these. For adults, however, they’re worth seeing, and I don’t feel trashy for admiring them.
blwessels - OK, thanks for the info. I remember the stuff you are talking about now (actually, remember the Buffy sketch now and realise that I didn't get the CC joke at the time so I get to feel really stupid in retrospect). I was thinking stuff in the actual media, not the ramblings of the net.
There was a Get Fuzzy recently that did ask the question, why weren't people more offended by the violence of "nipplegate" (sexual assault) rather than the nudity.

In terms of Charisma, I honestly thought before I found out she was pregnant in early Season 4, that they were dressing her to make her seem more busty. That I thought was a little lowbrow, a la FOX. But I never thought she looked fat over the course of it
I want to admire them as actresses

bingo! give this person a prize!

where are the respected male actors posing nude, huh...? not in playgirl, not anywhere. not since burt reynolds posed in playgirl way back in the 70's at any rate. there are several double standards at work which find a 30 something actress posing for playboy. all of which exhaust me to think of, so i'm going to abandon this comment now outside of saying i feel sorry for charisma but also wish her the best of luck. i want to see her on my tv, soon and often.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home