I don't know if this will get deleted or not, but can somebody tell me why somebody like Lucille Ball would degrade herself by having a series of risque photographs taken when she was young? Did she really need the money that bad to do a dumb stunt like that? Did the pictures ever come back to haunt her later, like somebody wanting her to pay them off to keep quiet about them?

I didn't even know there were any.

Many young starlets have though - like Marilyn Monroe.

Actually there was a picture in a Lucy biography at the public library. I don't remember if I checked that book out or not. There are so many Lucy books. I guess if I did check it out then I would know right? :lol: I can't even remember the name of the book now.

I just found out Marilyn Monroe is a fourth cousin to me. We just had the family tree researched on my mother's side of the family. Pretty crazy, huh? I wonder if I can get any money on the official licensed merchandise? :eek:

As far as I know there were no series of photos of Lucy like that. In Kathleen Brady's book titled "Lucille, the life of Lucille Ball" there is a topless photo in their that she claims is Lucy but to be honest with you most of us fans believe that is NOT Lucy.

Now, you want to talk about degrading behavior? Marilyn Monroe was a tramp to say the least so if Lucy ever did have photos taken, that pales in comparison to what Marilyn did! JMO. ;)

...I just found out Marilyn Monroe is a fourth cousin to me. We just had the family tree researched on my mother's side of the family. Pretty crazy, huh? I wonder if I can get any money on the official licensed merchandise? :eek:


Unfortunately, you'll probably have to get in line behind a whole bunch of second and third cousins :lol:

But lots o' luck anyway! :thumbsup:

Unfortunately, you'll probably have to get in line behind a whole bunch of second and third cousins :lol:

But lots o' luck anyway! :thumbsup:

Yeah, by time I received my share Cousin Norma's $$$ wouldn't have been worth it!

There are a lot of stars that did far worse than posing topless.
I have that Kathleen Brady book and I don't think it looks like Lucy. Of course it was a long time ago, and she was very young. So, it could be her.

There are a lot of stars that did far worse than posing topless.
I have that Kathleen Brady book and I don't think it looks like Lucy. Of course it was a long time ago, and she was very young. So, it could be her.

If you read my above post, I agree that it's not her either.

Oh geez. This again. I made this post on this board about a year ago, but I found it and will repeat it....




First of all, the Brady's book said that the photo was (or may have been) taken in NYC when Lucy was a struggling model. However, the person in the topless photo obviously had thin, painted on eyebrows. This is strange because Lucy didn't get rid of her eyebrows for good until she went out to Hollywood and did her first picture, "Roman Scandals." (They made her shave them off, and they never grew back).

Another thing that struck me about the topless photo is that you can clearly see the woman's ear--and the ear is kind of unique, if you ask me. In all of the side shots of Lucy that I've seen, her ears don't seem to resemble that at all. It's a strange way of comparing things, I know. I could be wrong though. Added to this is Lucie Arnaz--she has said that she has a hard time believeing that that photo is of her mother.

I will let you guys judge for yourselves though. Follow this link: The photo on the left is the topless photo (Don't worry, I cut out the topless part) and the other is another photo of Lucy, but probably years later...

http://referringtolucy.freewebpages.org/compare.html

I don't know if this will get deleted or not, but can somebody tell me why somebody like Lucille Ball would degrade herself by having a series of risque photographs taken when she was young? Did she really need the money that bad to do a dumb stunt like that? Did the pictures ever come back to haunt her later, like somebody wanting her to pay them off to keep quiet about them?

I have seen that photo and don't think they woman in it looks the least bit like Lucille Ball. But if it is, so what? There is nothing sexual or provocative about that photograph ... at all. It is a tasteful, artistic photo. And even if the photo were sexual, so what? Sex is life. Why is it that this society is so uptight about sex and nudity? And I'm talking specifically about the sexually repressed United States; most of the rest of the world has matured far beyond this puritanical country and doesn't make such a big deal about such silly and trivial matters. People here get all bent out of shape over a little nudity, and are afraid of their kids seeing it, but don't bat an eye over violence in movies or television. Violence is okay, but nudity (and sex) is evil. This is such a friggin' backwards mentality. Do you people think it's bad for your kids to grow up and have sex but okay for them to kill people? This discussion reminds me of that ridiculous Janet Jackson thing at the Superbowl. They're only breasts, people! Good grief. They're a thing of beauty, and they also give life to millions of newborns every year. The human body in and of itself is a beautiful thing. What is so degrading about revealing it and celebrating its beauty? Geesh!

I have seen that photo and don't think they woman in it looks the least bit like Lucille Ball. But if it is, so what? There is nothing sexual or provocative about that photograph ... at all. It is a tasteful, artistic photo. And even if the photo were sexual, so what? Sex is life. Why is it that this society is so uptight about sex and nudity? And I'm talking specifically about the sexually repressed United States; most of the rest of the world has matured far beyond this puritanical country and doesn't make such a big deal about such silly and trivial matters. People here get all bent out of shape over a little nudity, and are afraid of their kids seeing it, but don't bat an eye over violence in movies or television. Violence is okay, but nudity (and sex) is evil. This is such a friggin' backwards mentality. Do you people think it's bad for your kids to grow up and have sex but okay for them to kill people? This discussion reminds me of that ridiculous Janet Jackson thing at the Superbowl. They're only breasts, people! Good grief. They're a thing of beauty, and they also give life to millions of newborns every year. The human body in and of itself is a beautiful thing. What is so degrading about revealing it and celebrating its beauty? Geesh!


Thank You!!! I agree with you 110%!!!

That doesnt look anymore like Lucy than my GF does

That doesnt look anymore like Lucy than my GF does

That's because it's not...at least IMO. But even if it were, I have a hard time wondering what the big deal is. Like I said before, Marilyn Monroe did far worse than Lucy could ever think of doing.

That's because it's not...at least IMO. But even if it were, I have a hard time wondering what the big deal is. Like I said before, Marilyn Monroe did far worse than Lucy could ever think of doing.
i know its not her, that was my point ;)

Why is it that this society is so uptight about sex and nudity? And I'm talking specifically about the sexually repressed United States; most of the rest of the world has matured far beyond this puritanical country and doesn't make such a big deal about such silly and trivial matters.

The United States is sexually repressed??? Do you and I live in the same country? So much of what I see on television, watch in the movies, and hear on the radio is so overtly sexual that it is ridiculous. The Paris Hilton Carl's, Jr. commercial, for instance. Good gosh! Sex is even selling hamburgers now!


People here get all bent out of shape over a little nudity, and are afraid of their kids seeing it, but don't bat an eye over violence in movies or television. Violence is okay, but nudity (and sex) is evil. This is such a friggin' backwards mentality.

There's plenty of people who are just as concerned about sex on television as they are about violence.


This discussion reminds me of that ridiculous Janet Jackson thing at the Superbowl. They're only breasts, people! Good grief. They're a thing of beauty, and they also give life to millions of newborns every year. The human body in and of itself is a beautiful thing. What is so degrading about revealing it and celebrating its beauty? Geesh!

I highly doubt that Janet Jackson did what she did to show the world that the human body "is a beautiful thing." The song was of a sexual nature, and in this country breasts are more often than not associated with sex.

Maybe in other places like Euorpe, where they are more laid back about nudity, it is perfectly alright to see a picture of a topless women in a magazine. It's accepted; people don't care because they don't necessarily associate it with sex. But here, people aren't raised with that mentality.

We live in a more modest country, and nothing is wrong with that. People shouldn't have to worry about their kids watching the superbowl half-time show and seeing someone's bare breast be revealed by a man who is singing "gotta have you naked by the end of this song." People had a total right to be outraged about that. Kids shouldn't be exposed to something like that, especially during the biggest television event of the year that families watch together. Lucy would agree--she didn't even want her name in the credits of a Tom Cruise movie she helped produce because it had a steamy sex scene in it.

The United States is sexually repressed??? Do you and I live in the same country? So much of what I see on television, watch in the movies, and hear on the radio is so overtly sexual that it is ridiculous. The Paris Hilton Carl's, Jr. commercial, for instance. Good gosh! Sex is even selling hamburgers now!

Yes, this country is repressed. You're making all my points! Paris Hilton does this commercial and people here get outraged over it. Howard Stern has been run off the airwaves and had to go to satelite radio to survive. Anything that is "overtly sexual" in our media causes people to go crazy. (No, I'm not trying to defend Howard Stern here; I think his show is a waste of time.)


There's plenty of people who are just as concerned about sex on television as they are about violence.

I don't hear nearly as much outrage over violence as I do over sex. If an ad for a violent TV show is run during a "family" show, nobody bats an eye. But as soon as a "Desperate Housewives" ad runs, all hell breaks loose.


I highly doubt that Janet Jackson did what she did to show the world that the human body "is a beautiful thing." The song was of a sexual nature, and in this country breasts are more often than not associated with sex.

And like I said, sex is life. None of us would exist on this planet if it were not for sex. Sex is vital. Sex keeps the world going. Sex is *good*. Parents should be teaching their kids to respect sex, not teach them that it's something bad and keep them ignorant of it. This ignorance is what leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs.


Maybe in other places like Euorpe, where they are more laid back about nudity, it is perfectly alright to see a picture of a topless women in a magazine. It's accepted; people don't care because they don't necessarily associate it with sex. But here, people aren't raised with that mentality.

Exactly!


We live in a more modest country, and nothing is wrong with that. People shouldn't have to worry about their kids watching the superbowl half-time show and seeing someone's bare breast be revealed by a man who is singing "gotta have you naked by the end of this song."

People should be worried about seeing a breast in the first place. Do you think these kids are unaware women have breasts? When I was a kid, I and some other kids in my neighborhood saw Carol Burnett show her breasts in a sex scene with Walter Matthau. We weren't marred by this. We survived. It's OKAY.


People had a total right to be outraged about that. Kids shouldn't be exposed to something like that, especially during the biggest television event of the year that families watch together. Lucy would agree--she didn't even want her name in the credits of a Tom Cruise movie she helped produce because it had a steamy sex scene in it.

Lucy didn't help produce that movie, her husband did. And yes, she did become somewhat of a prude in her later years. I saw an interesting show where Lucy and Otto Preminger were being interviewed together. Otto was all over her case about her these attitudes about sex and film. I'm firmly in Otto's camp on that. It seems funny that Lucy reached that point because sex was a big part of her life.

People should be worried about seeing a breast in the first place.

Correction: I meant "people should NOT be worried . . ."

Anything that is "overtly sexual" in our media causes people to go crazy.


There's nothing crazy about a mother wanting her children not to be exposed to something like that at such a young age.



And like I said, sex is life. None of us would exist on this planet if it were not for sex. Sex is vital. Sex keeps the world going. Sex is *good*. Parents should be teaching their kids to respect sex, not teach them that it's something bad and keep them ignorant of it. This ignorance is what leads to unwanted pregnancies and STDs.


Sure, it's the parents' job to teach their children how to be responsible when it comes to sex with regards to unwanted pregnancies and STDs. But it shouldn't be the media's job. The media, for the most part, is teaching children that it is ok to be promiscuous and sexually "free" with their bodies, and THAT is what leads to unwanted pregancies and STDs, especially at a younger age.


People should be worried about seeing a breast in the first place. Do you think these kids are unaware women have breasts? When I was a kid, I and some other kids in my neighborhood saw Carol Burnett show her breasts in a sex scene with Walter Matthau. We weren't marred by this. We survived. It's OKAY.


And I'm sure that film would have not lost any entertainment value for the average American had Carol chosen not to show her breasts in the movie. Better yet, the movie probably would have been just as good if there was not a sex scene at all! So many sex scenes in the movies today are totally unnecessary.


Lucy didn't help produce that movie, her husband did. And yes, she did become somewhat of a prude in her later years. I saw an interesting show where Lucy and Otto Preminger were being interviewed together. Otto was all over her case about her these attitudes about sex and film. I'm firmly in Otto's camp on that. It seems funny that Lucy reached that point because sex was a big part of her life.

Sex was indeed a big part of Lucy's life, but there's nothing wrong with her belief that sex belongs in the bedroom, not up on the movie screen where young eyes can see and become jaded way too early. There is that rumor that Lucy became pregnant as a teen. If that is true, maybe she wanted to protect kids from making the same mistakes that she made, and it all starts with the attitudes kids develop toward sex which are, unfortunately, highly influenced by what they see in the movies and watch on tv. I know if I ever have children, I want to be the one to teach them about sex, not the sex-crazed media.

Frankly, while that Superbowl thing with Janet Jackson was deffinately in poor taste ( And was NOT accidental ), I think that violence on TV is 1000 times more destructive than sex.... 90% of "Dramas" are about a murder investigation, and to me, murder as entertainment isnt just wrong, its immoral, and makes life seem amazingly cheap!!! In most of those shows, you never see the the blood and gore that youd see at a real murder scene and the families hardly seem to grieve,as if a murder was just a normal occurence; is it any wonder some children today will kill another kid for their sneakers without any thought of the consequences ???? (endofsermon)

... This discussion reminds me of that ridiculous Janet Jackson thing at the Superbowl. They're only breasts, people! Good grief. They're a thing of beauty, and they also give life to millions of newborns every year. The human body in and of itself is a beautiful thing. What is so degrading about revealing it and celebrating its beauty? Geesh!


The main problem with the Super Bowl "show" was the fact that it was done as a 'surprise', with no opportunity for people who didn't want their kids seeing that to tune out...

I didn't see the half time show in question, because I don't watch half time shows... they're just commercials for albums I won't be buying anyway..

If the network had announced that 'at halftime, Janet Jackson's breast will be exposed', then a lot of people who were watching THE GAME with their kids could have decided whether it was appropriate for their kids to see such a thing.

This is another example of the left trying to shove THEIR so-called 'values' down the throats of Americans, which of course is something they are constantly accusing conservatives of doing. The left is also always saying that 'if you don't like something on TV, just turn it off'. Well, that's great advice...but by the time anyone knew what happened, it was too late to 'turn it off'.

Say what you want about the 'beautiful human body'....there is a time and a place for everything... a football game really isn't the place for that, but the 'performers' (and the network, who claimed they didn't know this would happen) evidently decided otherwise. If they would have warned people what was coming, the reaction would have been less intense.

I for one tune in the Super Bowl to watch the game...so do a lot of people... real football fans couldn't care less about Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson ... or any other acts they bring in..

Turning the question around, would there be anything wrong with a network warning parents what was going to happen ahead of time? Shouldn't parents have a say in what their kids are watching (we're talking kids of ALL ages here)? You apparently don't think so...

"This is another example of the left trying to shove THEIR so-called 'values' down the throats of Americans"

ummmm im a Liberal, and i certainly dont count sticking breasts in childrens faces as one of my values, thank you very much! :nonono:

"This is another example of the left trying to shove THEIR so-called 'values' down the throats of Americans"

ummmm im a Liberal, and i certainly dont count sticking breasts in childrens faces as one of my values, thank you very much! :nonono:


I apologize...Actually, I should have qualified that somewhat...I should have said the Hollywood left, that was not meant to indict liberals everywhere... but liberals do seem to be the ones who are saying we're making too much of the J Jackson episode... I don't see a lot of conservatives saying "oh come on, it's only a breast"

Maybe instead of liberals, I should have said "blue state people" - (only kidding!)

:)

Seriously, my 'beef' in this instance is with the good folks in hollywood, not your average liberal who's doing the best THEY can to raise and protect their kids in this society today, just as conservatives are...

K apology accepted, I guess :lol: ;)

You can read my oppinion about the JJ breast thing, just over yours, btw

K apology accepted, I guess :lol: ;)

You can read my oppinion about the JJ breast thing, just over yours, btw

Yes, saw it...and you're right about kids killing kids for their sneakers today... really sad, but true way too many times... and it is mostly because (1) no parental role models in their lives and/or (2) they've been de-sensitized to violence and don't seem to really understand what death is...

^^^you can say THAT again !^^^

Maybe instead of liberals, I should have said "blue state people" - (only kidding!) :) ...
No offense....im Canadian :lol:

No offense....im Canadian :lol:


NOW you tell me!! :lol: :wave:

*Waves back across the border.....lets guy in turban with a suspicious looking suitcase go by....* :wave:

Sadly, it is her. In the biography, "Ball of Fire: The Tumultous lif and Comic Art of Lucille Ball" by Stefan Kanfer, that picture is shown and he said it was something she regretted the rest of her life and that it haunted her for 60 years.

Lolac
:(

Sadly, it is her. In the biography, "Ball of Fire: The Tumultous lif and Comic Art of Lucille Ball" by Stefan Kanfer, that picture is shown and he said it was something she regretted the rest of her life and that it haunted her for 60 years.

Lolac
:(


Does it say why she did it?

Does it say why she did it?


Yes. Lucille had a very difficult childhood and as a young woman, had to strike out on her own. She took any job she could find. She saw a want-ad for a young woman to model overcoats. She was hired and began a free-lance modeling career. The legitimate jobs were not enough to support her, so she did some posing for photographers. The author says she later came to regret these pictures, and the topless shot remained in circulation for the next 60 years.
So she did it to earn money. She also hung out with some pretty unsavory characters in her youth. It's a very interesting biography. I really enjoyed reading it.

Lolac
:cool:

Yes. Lucille had a very difficult childhood and as a young woman, had to strike out on her own. She took any job she could find. She saw a want-ad for a young woman to model overcoats. She was hired and began a free-lance modeling career. The legitimate jobs were not enough to support her, so she did some posing for photographers. The author says she later came to regret these pictures, and the topless shot remained in circulation for the next 60 years.
So she did it to earn money. She also hung out with some pretty unsavory characters in her youth. It's a very interesting biography. I really enjoyed reading it.

Lolac
:cool:
Im still not convinced that pic is her....the ears are completely diff ( Earprints are like fingerprints ), diff noses...though, thats EZ enough to change , not to mention, several " non-authorised" bio books have come out with false claims about celebs over the years.....just look at all the lies they print in the tabloids alone!!!

Sadly, it is her. In the biography, "Ball of Fire: The Tumultous lif and Comic Art of Lucille Ball" by Stefan Kanfer, that picture is shown and he said it was something she regretted the rest of her life and that it haunted her for 60 years.

Lolac
:(

Just because a couple people print this photo in their books and say it's Lucille Ball doesn't mean it is. I can go through every facial feature in that photo and point out distinct differences with Lucille's face. But all that notwithstanding, if that is Lucille Ball, what is so "sad" about it. What's sad is that she had to live in a society that was so judgmental it made her feel regretful for having posed for an artistic photograph that celebrated the beauty of the human form.

Im still not convinced that pic is her....the ears are completely diff ( Earprints are like fingerprints ), diff noses...though, thats EZ enough to change , not to mention, several " non-authorised" bio books have come out with false claims about celebs over the years.....just look at all the lies they print in the tabloids alone!!!

The only "fix" Lucy ever did to her face in those years was her teeth. I've seen plenty of photos of Lucille Ball from that period before, and what distinguishes those other photos from this one is that they all looked like Lucille Ball! About the scandalous non-authorized bios, notice how they seem to start popping up after a person has died? There's a simple reason for that: the only people who can sue for libel are the actual persons being written about. Once they die, anyone can write whatever they want without fear of being sued. Have any of you read those books that wrote how nasty Lucy was to Jack Benny when he appeared in the "Jack Benny's Biography" episode of "Here's Lucy"? I've seen specific accounts written about certain footage showing Lucy rehearsing a dance number with her. They claim she was harsh and causing tension with Benny and the studio audience. That very footage, thank goodness, is now available to the public in the "Here's Lucy" DVD. If you have that DVD, and if you've read those negative accounts about it, take a look and compare what was written to the actual footage. It's hard to believe these writers were watching the same thing given their false and misleading interpretations of it. Lucy was clearly joking, and they make out like her sarcasm was for real. And Jack Benny was totally playing along, and the studio audience was eating it all up. There was no tension to be found.

ummmm Jane, im on your side....I dont think its her @_@