Staff sergeant relieved of duties after posing for Playboy

[Lilith]

SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AP) -- An Air Force staff sergeant who posed nude for Playboy magazine has been relieved of her duties while the military investigates, officials said Thursday.

In February's issue, hitting newsstands this week, Michelle Manhart is photographed in uniform yelling and holding weapons under the headline "Tough Love."

The following pages show her partially clothed, wearing her dog tags while working out, as well as completely nude.

"This staff sergeant's alleged action does not meet the high standards we expect of our airmen, nor does it comply with the Air Force's core values of integrity, service before self, and excellence in all we do," Oscar Balladares, spokesman for Lackland Air Force Base, said in a statement.

Manhart told Playboy that she considers herself as standing up for her rights.

"Of what I did, nothing is wrong, so I didn't anticipate anything, of course," Manhart, 30, told The Associated Press. "I didn't do anything wrong, so I didn't think it would be a major issue."

Manhart, who is married with two children, joined the Air Force in 1994, spending time in Kuwait in 2002. She trains airmen at Lackland.

[jseal]

Lilith,

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I remember a similar incident in 2006 or 2005, when a group of Army soldiers were disciplined for appearing nude in a different magazine.

[1nutworld]

Back in 1990-1993 or so there was an army sgt who also appeared in Playboy.

[1nutworld]

Back in 1990-1993 or so there was an army sgt who also appeared in Playboy.
July 1992. Amanda Hope.

[wrestlemark]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>NO PICTURES !!!!!! i don't believe you :rolleyes: :sun: :wave: :x:

[jseal]

July 1992. Amanda Hope (http://www.centerfold.com/199207.html).

:D

[Irezumi Kiss]

It's amazing that these things still happen. Playboy is so nauseatingly pedestrian and vanilla in this day and age that it's no longer a joke to say that you read it for the articles.

[IowaMan]

Just got my issue from the post office a little bit ago and it is right here on my desk. Definitely a pretty mild pictorial. Absolutely stunning woman.

I won't go so far as to say I just get Playboy for the articles but it's certainly not something I hide when I get it out of the box and others are around down at the post office. Hell, a couple of months ago when the new issue arrived there was a lady in there who is a parent to a kid I went to high school with and she asked me if I'd open it up there so she could read the party jokes.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me what would be so offensive to the USAF but then again.............. :shrug:

[scotzoidman]

Yeh, instead of getting all riled up about it, maybe they should work it as a recruiting tool...but then again, the US military is still so buried in mid-20th century morality, that's not gonna happen...

[Lilith]

Does it show her in or part-way out of uniform?

[IowaMan]

There's two pics on the first page showing her fully in uniform giving commands and two pics of her with firearms. The opposite page shows her on a weight machine wearing part of a ribbed white tanktop, and some camouflage Daisy Duke shorts that are open so you can see her thong. She's wearing her dog tags and her left breast is exposed. Next page has two more pics of her at the weight machine. The shorts are gone and thong is coming off in first pic. Breast still exposed and dog tags visible. The third pic is at weight machine back to camera wearing thong, no top, dog tags hanging down back just below her ponytail. There are five more pics on the next couple of pages but no signs that she is in military. She really is an absolutely gorgeous lady.

So really the only way someone would know that she's in the service by looking at the nude pics is from the dog tags in three of the poses. I suppose some could find that offensive but I really don't see why they would.

[WildIrish]

"Of what I did, nothing is wrong, so I didn't anticipate anything, of course," Manhart, 30, told The Associated Press. "I didn't do anything wrong, so I didn't think it would be a major issue."



Of course it wasn't!



She's only a Staff Sgt. :p

[txgrneyes]

Working for a department they want a clean image portrayed so if we did something like that in uniform...then we wouldn't have a job. Simply because when your wearing the uniform or even parts of it you are representing that department. So the same goes for the military. Now if she didn't have any thing on that would show she was in the military or even the headlines in the magizine saying she was in the military then she wouldn't be representing them. There is consiquences to every action.


NOW MY PERSONAL OPINION:


Do what you want to do. And if you have a nice enough body (compliments of the military)then by all means show it off. We ALL would love to see it.

[wyndhy]

it's not a prude thing, it's an honor thing.

[Lilith]

I have always heard do what you have to do just don't do it wearing the uniform. I have even suggested to some members that they may not want to post certain pics where they have been in uniform. As a former millitary wife I just remembered hearing that you do not allow publication of you in uniform without the millitary's approval.

[Irezumi Kiss]

Even though I personally don't think it's a big assed deal, I can understand if the military has image guidelines they wanna protect.

Considering that her being in the military was the only selling point to her posing, I guess it's sort of fait accompli for this thing happening...

[jseal]

More on the topic of "not while in uniform"...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6297569.stm