Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
W E L C O M E      G U E S T S

Welcome to 6 Star Wrestling. We are a small community of dedicated wrestling fans. Our forum members range from new to the product to 20+ years of viewer knowledge of the product.

We discuss WWE, TNA, ROH, WCW, and various other wrestling companies. Regardless if you have just watched your first wrestling show or if you have been following wrestling your entire life, I guarantee that you'll find someone to have an in-depth and enjoyable conversation with.

We also have discussions that are not related to wrestling. We discuss movies, music, news, play games, and do all sorts of fun and interesting things. So even if you are not a wrestling fan, we can guarantee you'll find something to keep your interest while you are here.

Feel free to follow us on Twitter and Like us on Facebook with the links below!

Please enjoy,
The 6 Star Community

Register your free account today!

http://6starwrestling.net

http://twitter.com/6StarWrestling

http://facebook.com/6StarWrestling

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Magazine to publish nude pictures of Benoit...; ... Nancy Benoit.
Topic Started: Jan 2 2008, 06:23 AM (930 Views)
MY85
It's a fabulous new day, yes it is!
Don't know if this should be put in General Wrestling or in the Entertainment & Sports section.

Gerweck.net
 
The upcoming issue of Hustler magazine (March 2008) has a two page spread of nude photos of the late Nancy Benoit. Apparently these images are from when she was married to Jim Daus. Apparently she was touring doing bikini and wet t-shirt competitions in Florida when one of the hosts told her she should be in Penthouse. He set up a photo shoot for her and then videotaped the photo shoot. Nancy never submitted the photos and later had them destroyed but either never knew about or got the video which is now in the possession of Hustler.

It is the March 08 issue of Hustler magazine with a headline on the cover. I have a subscription so I got my issue in advance. I don't think it is on the newsstands yet as I live in LA and I haven't seen it there yet. Actually if you can get a hold of the Feb 2008 issue, there is an ad for it in the "Coming Next Month" section
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
L69
Member Avatar

I read this a week or so ago and I didn't want to post it because it is sick, and disrespectful towards Nancy's Family.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kame

That's fucking disgusting. Why would anyone want to look at nude pictures of a deceased woman? :no:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
As long as she was alive, many don't really care that she's dead now...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Legacy
Member Avatar
snooooooooop
I aint gonna jerk to a dead woman. :shifty:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
Legacy
Jan 2 2008, 03:36 PM
I aint gonna jerk to a dead woman. :shifty:

Wow, what an amazing pun you just threw in right there. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Legacy
Member Avatar
snooooooooop
What was it?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
WWEFootos48
Member Avatar
God
"a dead woman." Nancy's old ECW/WCW character's name was Woman. So pretty much you're saying "a dead woman," as in a dead female, and "a dead woman" as in Nancy Benoit, the person formerly known as Woman.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
L69
Member Avatar

As Kame said, it is disgusting, however they still publih pics of Anna Nicole Smith.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nubochanozep
Member Avatar

But they were alive when the photos were taken, so it's ok to look! :tu:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
I see nothing disgusting about publishing these pictures. She volunteered to take them when she was alive. She must have known they'd be published or known there was a chance that they could be published. She was obviously fine with it. Her being dead doesn't really change anything. It's no different than looking at nudie magazines from years past. Those girls are either old or dead, but you don't think about that. All you think is "Wow, Miss September 1967, what a nice full bu..." Um, nevermind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The Prodigy

There is a distinct difference though Cy, Mrs. September 1967 may be old now, or possibly even dead......that is what we all expect to happen to each of us eventually, so you don't really give the fact that she may be dead/old a second thought.

HOWEVER, with Nancy, she was brutally murdered, and that is the only thing that will play on my mind if I saw the pictures, and as thus, makes it distasteful in my view.....I would feel uncomfortable looking at the pictures, and that says enough for me when I would look at Miss. November 1872 without a real problem.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ChainGangmaster2kgen
Member Avatar
From Out of No Where
This is fucking sick. :angry:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nubochanozep
Member Avatar

I'm pretty sure I made two posts in this thread. Which overzealous, over-confident, egocentric and metamaniacal (I made that one up, but I think it made sense) mod decided they had the power to delete one of my posts? WHO WAS IT!?!?!?!

Unless I didn't make a post. Then I humbly apologise.

The Prodigy
 
There is a distinct difference though Cy, Mrs. September 1967 may be old now, or possibly even dead......that is what we all expect to happen to each of us eventually, so you don't really give the fact that she may be dead/old a second thought.

HOWEVER, with Nancy, she was brutally murdered, and that is the only thing that will play on my mind if I saw the pictures, and as thus, makes it distasteful in my view.....I would feel uncomfortable looking at the pictures, and that says enough for me when I would look at Miss. November 1872 without a real problem.


Well that's all well and good then Prodigy, but Cybrus made it pretty clear when he said "I see nothing disgusting." But I get what your saying.

I guess one potential problem with the images though, is that given the time of their release, they seem to be capitalising on a murder for teh moneyz. I guess that's not at all cool.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
PWTorch
 
The following is an excerpt from Hustler Magazine's March 2008 Nancy Benoit pictorial:

"Back when Nancy was ready to take everything off for the camera, her future had yet to be written. The Nancy of yore was merely an innocent young woman seeking an opportunity to model, not a world of freakish pranks, demonic gimmicks, and insidious steroids. One can only imagine what fate would have had in store had she continued her quest to become a model..."

-------

Bruce Mitchell Analysis: Leave it to Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine to compound their callousness in publishing decades-old pictures of murder victim Nancy Benoit with this cheap shot. Like people come out of the pornography business healthy and happy, or in some cases, alive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JD Storm
Member Avatar
McDonald's Heavyweight Champion
Cybrus
Jan 3 2008, 12:29 AM
I see nothing disgusting about publishing these pictures. She volunteered to take them when she was alive. She must have known they'd be published or known there was a chance that they could be published. She was obviously fine with it. Her being dead doesn't really change anything. It's no different than looking at nudie magazines from years past. Those girls are either old or dead, but you don't think about that. All you think is "Wow, Miss September 1967, what a nice full bu..." Um, nevermind.

if everything was cool, then Hustler would've published these pics years ago. instead, they wait for her to be brutally murdered. they see that there was plenty of media attention surrounding this. thus, they want to publish the pics after the attention died down, so they don't look like money hungry pigs.



plus, it was also reported on other reports that Nancy had later destroyed most of the pics that were taken. according to what i heard, she believed that she destroyed all the footage.



just because you take photos doesn't mean you consent to having them published.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
JD Storm
Jan 7 2008, 12:07 AM
just because you take photos doesn't mean you consent to having them published.

If you willingly pose for pictures for a publication like Hustler, then you'd be foolish to expect them not to be published at some point.

The images are already making their rounds online. From what I've seen, it shouldn't even be considered a "nude" spread. You'll see more skin on WWE.com. :shrug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cerebral Assassin

It's more about the timing than anything. If she was alive...I say go for it. This is called making money off of the dead and that's morally wrong. Then again, this is America....
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Purple Marauder
Member Avatar
Stand Back! There's a Hurricane Coming Through
JD Storm
Jan 6 2008, 11:07 PM
if everything was cool, then Hustler would've published these pics years ago. instead, they wait for her to be brutally murdered. they see that there was plenty of media attention surrounding this.

Well, in truth, why would they publish them before? She was a nobody. Most people would have no clue who she was so publishing the pictures wouldn't make them any real money other than what they normally make. Now, Nancy is famous (infamous?) and a world wide name. This magazine will sell more than it normally would and make Hustler more money. It's like when one of those political scandal scanks gets famous, then everyone wants to publish nude pics. And, Hustler is a business that wants to make money. I hope no one is looking for the moral high ground from a porno mag.

Now, as to her being dead and the bad thing is that she was murdered and that makes this disgusting. I don't see it that way. Marilyn Monroe was killed by the CIA and people still like to look at her and her nude pics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nubochanozep
Member Avatar

[qupte=Purplemarauder]Marilyn Monroe was killed by the CIA[/quote]

lol

Cerebral Assasin
 
This is called making money off of the dead and that's morally wrong.


:)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JD Storm
Member Avatar
McDonald's Heavyweight Champion
Purplemarauder
Jan 8 2008, 10:41 AM
JD Storm
Jan 6 2008, 11:07 PM
if everything was cool, then Hustler would've published these pics years ago. instead, they wait for her to be brutally murdered. they see that there was plenty of media attention surrounding this.

Well, in truth, why would they publish them before? She was a nobody. Most people would have no clue who she was so publishing the pictures wouldn't make them any real money other than what they normally make. Now, Nancy is famous (infamous?) and a world wide name. This magazine will sell more than it normally would and make Hustler more money. It's like when one of those political scandal scanks gets famous, then everyone wants to publish nude pics. And, Hustler is a business that wants to make money. I hope no one is looking for the moral high ground from a porno mag.

Now, as to her being dead and the bad thing is that she was murdered and that makes this disgusting. I don't see it that way. Marilyn Monroe was killed by the CIA and people still like to look at her and her nude pics.

should it matter if Nancy was a nobody? magazines have published stuff countless times of people who aren't famous. why would this be any different? did they suddenly go in the business of pubishing pics of famous people only?


on your point of Marilyn Monroe, i believe her pics were published when she was still alive. she posed for the purpose of having those pics published. that makes the situation completely different.



Quote:
 
If you willingly pose for pictures for a publication like Hustler, then you'd be foolish to expect them not to be published at some point.
nowhere did i read that the original photographer worked for Hustler......unless i missed it, when i first read this. even if she willingly took nude pics for someone, that doesn't automatically give them rights to send them off to the first publication that wants them.

it's like making a sex tape with a significant other while on a honeymoon. most people would expect that sort of thing to be kept private.

the fact that Nancy started destroying the photos that she knew about tells me that she obviously didn't concent to having the pics published. it shows me that she didn't intend on letting these pics get to "the wrong people", in a manner of speaking.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
JD Storm
Jan 13 2008, 02:37 AM
it's like making a sex tape with a significant other while on a honeymoon. most people would expect that sort of thing to be kept private.

It's hardly comparable to compare a very private situation such as posing privately with a significant other and a public situation such as posting for someone that says they work for Penthouse. The first report in this thread says she posed for pictures for a guy claiming he was from Penthouse. Her right to privacy went out the window then and there. She may have regretted it afterwards, but the publication still held the rights to publish those pictures if and when they saw fit. If she felt as strong about the pictures as you are trying to make out, then she would have went the lawyer route.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JD Storm
Member Avatar
McDonald's Heavyweight Champion
i'll quote a few things from the original post, which i feel works against your argument.

Quote:
 
Apparently she was touring doing bikini and wet t-shirt competitions in Florida when one of the hosts told her she should be in Penthouse.


Quote:
 
He set up a photo shoot for her and then videotaped the photo shoot. Nancy never submitted the photos and later had them destroyed but either never knew about or got the video which is now in the possession of Hustler.



these quote indicate that first, Nancy was talked into doing a photo shoot......hearing the line that she should be in Penthouse.

the second quote indicates that she was given the photos, in order to send them in. based off how i'm reading this, these were done for her benefit.......much like a model would get for a portfolio.

this also mentions that she either had no knowledge of the video tape of the shoot or couldn't/didn't get the tape. going off the thought that she actually destroyed the photos, i think she would've destroyed the video, had she known about it.

based off how i read the first post, i think it's safe to compare this situation to the sex tape example i made. she did this photoshoot, got hold of what she believed was all the photo evidence. she later destroyed the pics, which was essentially her property.


apparently, she had no intention of sending the pics into Penthouse, Hustler or anybody else. if she did, she would've actually sent the photos in. Hustler simply gained hold of the video by shady circumstances.



no where did she actually agree to a deal with Hustler, Penthouse or anyone else. if she had actually sent those pics in, this wouldn't even be an issue. instead, as this news bit implies, she didn't send anything in. she apparently decided to keep everything that she knew of.



i really can't buy into your argument of this, Cy.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Cybrus
Member Avatar
STAY HYPED!!!
I really don't see what is so difficult to understand: Someone said they'd take her photos for Penthouse. She took her clothes off. End of story.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JD Storm
Member Avatar
McDonald's Heavyweight Champion
if she wanted them published, she would've sent those photos in. how hard is that to understand? she thought she had all the originals!

this is similar to a model having a portfolio. they take the pics, with the intent of showing the photos to the people that they feel need to see the photos.....not intending it for publication. if they feel that some of the pics aren't going to help them out, it's not likely a model would keep the photos, right?


i think the same could be said here. Nancy got this with the intent of possibly reusing them later. she eventually decided against it, believing that these were for her to send in, at her leisure & free will......not knowing that someone else had extra material.




unfortunately, i think both of us will just continue to see the facts in a different light. should we agree to disagree?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nubochanozep
Member Avatar

JD Storm is right (sadly). Regardless of what she said at the time, she subsequently had them destroyed which is clear cut proof that she didn't want them published. It was therefore wrong...well, wrong from a moral standpoint only I suppose. Then there's also the fact that they only published them after she was dead, hence, profiting from a murder victim.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Purple Marauder
Member Avatar
Stand Back! There's a Hurricane Coming Through
OK, I found the pics online and this is getting blown WAY out of proportion. The pictures don't show anything. I could post them here and we wouldn't be in TOS violation. She is on a bed and keeps herself covered with a blanket. You see cleavage and basically the side of her hip. While she is technically nude, the pictures are not of her showing any "private areas".

EDIT

Scratch that. There are a couple of topless pics too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Nubochanozep
Member Avatar

k, but like, i can't be assed to read through the whole thread again, but was anyone really complaining about how much skin was shown? Surely everyone's arguments remain the same regardless of how much skin was shown. Eg: She still didn't want them published, Hustler still only published them after she was dead etc.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JD Storm
Member Avatar
McDonald's Heavyweight Champion
Jimmy C
Jan 14 2008, 11:31 PM
JD Storm is right (sadly). Regardless of what she said at the time, she subsequently had them destroyed which is clear cut proof that she didn't want them published. It was therefore wrong...well, wrong from a moral standpoint only I suppose. Then there's also the fact that they only published them after she was dead, hence, profiting from a murder victim.

finally.......someone that's grasping my logic!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MY85
It's a fabulous new day, yes it is!
Now her family is gonna sue Hustler...

PWMania.com
 
The family of Nancy Benoit has filed a lawsuit against Hustler Magazine, who published pictures of Nancy in their March edition. According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution newspaper U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Thrash on Friday denied Maureen Toffoloni's (Nancy's mother) request for a temporary restraining order against the publication, basing his ruling on the First Amendment rights that provide for freedom of expression.


I know Nancy didn't want them published, so now her family's gonna sue... they might win some bucks... whatever...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Wrestling · Next Topic »
Add Reply