Body for Hire

I recently had a discussion on my FB Fan Page with a young lady about Hooters Girls. Her stance was that being a H.G. is unbecoming of a lady. My stance was being an H.G. and serving hot wings is more tasteful than wearing a short skirt to the nightclub and "backing it up" on the dance floor against some random dude's crotch. I don't see anything wrong with a person using what they have to get what they want... if it's legal. Then I ran across this story on the USA Today website...

I knew about this story on a local level, but now Taylor Corley has made national news. The USA Today has a story about the freshman cheerleader from Mississippi State University who decided to bare it all for Playboy Magazine.

Now, the controversy coming from the local media is if Taylor should be allowed to participate as a cheerleader since most men across the country have seen her assets. Some parents are up in arms and want her tossed, but Miss. State's VP said since she didn't go into the mag representing Miss. State, that the school won't seek any action against her.

Taylor, who went by the last name Stone in PB, participated in the photo shoot before enrolling at Miss. State. The mag started circulating in November and now she's a household name in Starkville.

So, should she be tossed from the cheerleading squad or not?

My answer is "no" and "yes".

"No," because she did not do anything (to my knowledge) that was illegal. She was a body for hire and there's nothing wrong with posing nude for a magazine. Now, I know some of my followers are saying, "As old school as you are, you think it's okay?"



Yep. Nudity isn't new school. Folks have been getting "bucket naked" for entertainment way before magazines were printed. From a moral standpoint, I understand anyone who opposes the idea of someone showing their blueprint to the world. From a realistic standpoint, I don't think it's up to any of us to judge what a person does in the proper venue. She wasn't on a billboard or on the side of Highway 82 wearing nothing but a smile. She was in an adult magazine where only people of that lifestyle will dare to peek.

Now, from another point of view, "yes," she should be booted from the squad. Simply because she's a distraction. Despite the increased attendance the cheerleaders will probably see (due to the recent exposure of Taylor), it will more than likely cause the other cheerleaders to resent her or feel awkward.

So, Taylor made her bed and now has to lie in it. Nude. She took the money and now has to accept what comes with it. I'm pretty sure she'll be okay with whatever ultimately happens. At least she got paid for it. I went to college with women who would strip for a Budweiser and some hot wings. So, in comparing the two, it's hard to argue with Taylor's decision since she obviously doesn't care that people know. She's getting paid.

Besides, I don't agree with actresses getting naked in movies and having it called art while models in Playboy are called whores. Playboy is not a porno mag, it's a magazine with photos of nude women. There is a difference. Besides, the same perverts who will drop $10 on a PB mag are the same pervs who will drop $10 on that garbage of a movie, "Monster's Ball," to see Halle Berry get busy with Billy Bob Thornton (Why? I haven't a clue). So, I don't want to hear someone say Halle screaming, "make me feel good" is art.



Taylor has reportedly done Maxim and now Playboy. Next could be a Reality Show. She wanted attention and now she has it. They say bad publicity is better than none at all. I tend to agree with that statement. If you asked Taylor, then I'm sure she would, too. As long as her family has accepted her decision and explained the ramifications, then so be it.

What Taylor did was legal in the court of law, but it won't prevent her from being judged in the court of public opinion.

Check out the follow-up to this post -> Body for Hire 2: Taylor Made for TV