Lucy's risque photographs - Sitcoms Online Message Boards

seventies_sitcoms · 06-20-2005, 04:12 PM

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?

TripperFan · 06-20-2005, 04:19 PM

I didn't even know there were any.

Many young starlets have though - like Marilyn Monroe.

seventies_sitcoms · 06-20-2005, 04:25 PM

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?

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?

desilu #1 · 06-26-2005, 12:02 AM

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.

Tweety · 06-28-2005, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventies_sitcoms

...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?

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

But lots o' luck anyway!

seventies_sitcoms · 07-07-2005, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tweety

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

But lots o' luck anyway!

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

ricardo/mertz · 07-07-2005, 11:55 PM

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.

desilu #1 · 07-08-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricardo/mertz

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.

Ricardos4ever · 07-16-2005, 07:37 PM

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

JaneTVFan · 07-30-2005, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventies_sitcoms

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!

desilu #1 · 07-30-2005, 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneTVFan

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%!!!

Mikado · 07-30-2005, 10:55 PM

That doesnt look anymore like Lucy than my GF does

desilu #1 · 07-30-2005, 11:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikado

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.

Mikado · 07-30-2005, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desilu #1

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

Ricardos4ever · 07-31-2005, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneTVFan

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!

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneTVFan

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaneTVFan

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.

06-20-2005, 04:19 PM	#2
TripperFan In God's Arms Now Forum Star Join Date: Sep 14, 2003 Location: Heartbreak Ridge Posts: 12,086	I didn't even know there were any. Many young starlets have though - like Marilyn Monroe.
	__________________ If I don't see you in this world, I'll meet you in the next one.....don't be late James Marshall Hendrix Voodoo Chile The Forum Legend formerly known as TripperFan "religion is for people who are afraid of hell--spirituality is for people who have been through hell"---anonymous

06-26-2005, 12:02 AM	#4
desilu #1 Lucy/Desi 4-EVER Forum Regular Join Date: Sep 23, 2000 Location: Battle Creek, Michigan USA Posts: 724	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.
	__________________ Amy M. Weaver

07-07-2005, 11:55 PM	#7
ricardo/mertz Member Frequent Poster Join Date: Aug 22, 2002 Posts: 454	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.
	__________________ http://www.mortysmall.com/lucy/i_lov...color_cast.jpg

07-16-2005, 07:37 PM	#9
Ricardos4ever Henna-rinsess Frequent Poster Join Date: Jan 28, 2002 Location: Somewhere in the middle of the world's longest Conga line Posts: 473	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
	__________________ ELVIS LIVES ***** "They had one of those historical marriages, like Napoleon and Josephine, Richard and Liz--destined to be trouble but destined for them to never find anyone as passionate or as fabulous." -- Lucie Arnaz on her parents, Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz

06-20-2005, 04:12 PM	#1
seventies_sitcoms * Senior Member Join Date: Jan 09, 2005 Posts: 2,244	Lucy's risque photographs 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?

06-20-2005, 04:25 PM	#3
seventies_sitcoms * Senior Member Join Date: Jan 09, 2005 Posts: 2,244	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? 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?

07-30-2005, 10:55 PM	#12
Mikado Main st bridge Forum Superstar Join Date: Jul 06, 2005 Posts: 25,880	That doesnt look anymore like Lucy than my GF does