She's doing it to earn money for law school.

[cosine]

Enlighten me - why is it sinful to work as a stripper?

To put it simply, deliberate, intentional misuse of the sexual tendencies of human beings.

In the context of marriage a striptease could legitimately be used as foreplay between spouses preluding the act of intercourse, but for such an action to be used as a means of titillation among those who are not married, it is objectively a misuse of the sexual tendencies of human beings. (again, notice I said objectively, the moral culpability is still subjective upon extenuating circumstances.)

[CAnnoneer]

To put it simply, deliberate, intentional misuse of the sexual tendencies of human beings.

What makes it a "misuse"? The dancer sells her time and labor, the spectator buys it. She does not sell stolen property, he does not take anything by force. She gets a good workout, he satisfies a natural need. Seems pretty legitimate to me.

[MechAg94]

From a purely commercial point of view, lots of things most people don't like seem perfectly fine. 

The only real difference between that and prostitution is the happy ending. 

[cosine]

To put it simply, deliberate, intentional misuse of the sexual tendencies of human beings.

What makes it a "misuse"? The dancer sells her time and labor, the spectator buys it. She does not sell stolen property, he does not take anything by force. She gets a good workout, he satisfies a natural need. Seems pretty legitimate to me.

Sure, if you look at it as a business deal, the business deal is legitimate. However, that what is used in the creation of the "business deal," (the object, or the thing that the business deal revolves around, in this case, the objectification of someone's human body as solely being a means of physical, sexual pleasure) is being misused.

It is a misuse because the sexuality of human beings is to be deliberately used only in one particular setting: within marriage, as a means of satisfaction and a physical communication of love between spouses, and possibly the creation of new human beings.


I'm not trying to proselytize, I'm just answering questions and presenting what the Catholic Church teaches for those that may be interested. 

[Monkeyleg]

So, Cosine, during all the years that I photographed bikini models for Snap-On Tool posters, I was engaging in some kind of sin?

[wingnutx]

Now that's a cool job.

[CAnnoneer]

It is a misuse because the sexuality of human beings is to be deliberately used only in one particular setting: within marriage, as a means of satisfaction and a physical communication of love between spouses, and possibly the creation of new human beings.

Hmmm, I thought the official position covered only intercourse as "for procreation only", ergo the criticism of contraceptives. You seem to extend the definition beyond intercourse. That's why I don't see how stripping impinges upon catholicism. Here we are talking from that perspective (one that I personally do not share).

[cosine]

So, Cosine, during all the years that I photographed bikini models for Snap-On Tool posters, I was engaging in some kind of sin?

I'm not in the position to judge; but I'll make a comment.

It would depend upon a few things (the extenuating circumstances I keep mentioning). Firstly, it would depend upon the intent and purpose for which the poster were being made. The moral culpability (of which I am not to judge) of that would be mostly upon the company for whom the posters were being made.

Secondly, it would depend upon your attitude, such as your engagement of such a job in order to deliberately further the objectification of someone's human body for sexual pleasure versus your engagement of such a job simply because it is a means of work and a means of making a living.

Thirdly, the sinfulness of posters such as those would depend upon the attitudes of those who received them and viewed them, whether they intended to use them as a means of sexual pleasure (both physical or imagined) or not.

And, like usual, all extenuating circumstances also would be determent upon your understanding at the time of your actions and their potential or non-potential sinfulness or even whether you considered your actions sinful or not. 

As you see, there are quite a few crucial points to be hashed out before a judgment of your moral culpability could be made, and then you firstly would be the one capable of doing so.

Hope you aren't offended by this post; such is not my intent. My intent is only to try to answer your question as well as I can. 




Another point, a bit off-topic: The standards of modesty differ between cultures. For example, there are cultures in Africa where women normally go topless. In that case their actions are not even objectively sinful, because their culture is different than our (the breasts are not seen as being as much of a sexual part of the body as in our culture), and the intent and purpose of such exposure is not to be titillating and provocative, as the exposure of such organs are normally seen in our current culture. Such a manner of dress is ingrained in their traditions.

[cosine]

It is a misuse because the sexuality of human beings is to be deliberately used only in one particular setting: within marriage, as a means of satisfaction and a physical communication of love between spouses, and possibly the creation of new human beings.

Hmmm, I thought the official position covered only intercourse as "for procreation only", ergo the criticism of contraceptives. You seem to extend the definition beyond intercourse. That's why I don't see how stripping impinges upon catholicism. Here we are talking from that perspective (one that I personally do not share).

A common misconception. Intercourse is not intended solely for creation only. It may be legitimately used as a means of pleasure between spouses. The enjoyment of such pleasure does not need to be secondary in intercourse to the purpose of "procreation only." Spouses may seek out intercourse from each other for the purpose of pleasure and the physical communication of love. However, (here is the point that usually is misunderstood) all acts of intercourse are to be open to the creation of new life, hence the Church's stance on "no contraceptives." That means that if intercourse between spouses is sought out at one time or another for pleasure or the physical communication of love, they need to be accepting of the possible result of their action even if that is not the sole intent of said intercourse.

The point where stripping is objectively sinful is because its intent is normally to arouse sexual pleasure, and the Church teaches that all deliberate sexual pleasure is to be ordered to the eventual act of vaginal intercourse, completed with orgasm for both parties.

I understand we're talking from a difference of perspective; I don't mind. It keeps the conversation extraordinarily civil and polite.   I'm just presenting the Catholic Church's perspective as best I understand.

[Strings]

besides Dick, almost anything a godless heathen like you does is sinful... :neener:

[cosine]

besides Dick, almost anything a godless heathen like you does is sinful... :neener:

I've meant to tell you this for a while, but I finally got to it...

You know, HR, you need a real "neener" smiley for the amount you like to use it. Here's the one from THR:

I grabbed it and hosted it, here's the address: http://h1.ripway.com/tangent/neener.gif 

Feel free to use it (if you like) whenever you want to add :neener: to your post.

[Sindawe]

On sin, personally I think this sums it all up quite nicely.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful–just stupid.)

But whatever get ya through the day.

[cosine]

On sin, personally I think this sums it all up quite nicely.

Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense. (Hurting yourself is not sinful–just stupid.)

But whatever get ya through the day.

Likewise, I believe that all the things I consider to be sins hurt others unnecessarily (whether they realize it or not; and of course, if they don't realize it they moral culpability would normally be greatly diminished), however, with the difference in perspective mentioned by CAannoneer we're not going to be considering "hurt" and "others" and "unnecessarily" in the same way. 

Back atcha; whatever gets ya through the day. 

[Perd Hapley]

So, Cosine, during all the years that I photographed bikini models for Snap-On Tool posters, I was engaging in some kind of sin?

Uh, yeah.  You're not really surprised, are you? 

[Perd Hapley]

gunsmith, I see what you're saying about how "very Catholic" she was.  She does seem fairly Catholic aside from the points disputed.  I was just askin'. 

[zahc]

For example, there are cultures in Africa where women normally go topless. In that case their actions are not even objectively sinful, because their culture is different than our (the breasts are not seen as being as much of a sexual part of the body as in our culture)

I have such a hard time seeing how the exact same actions can be a sin in one place but not another. It just seems so arbitrary. It seems like a lot of work keeping up with it all.

the Church teaches that all deliberate sexual pleasure is to be ordered to the eventual act of vaginal intercourse, completed with orgasm for both parties.

*files away for future use*

[cosine]

So, Cosine, during all the years that I photographed bikini models for Snap-On Tool posters, I was engaging in some kind of sin?

Uh, yeah.  You're not really surprised, are you? 

Wait, you think it was some kind of sin? It may or may not have been.

[cosine]

I have such a hard time seeing how the exact same actions can be a sin in one place but not another. It just seems so arbitrary. It seems like a lot of work keeping up with it all.

Even though said actions may seem to be exactly the same, they are, in fact, not. Intents, purposes, results, traditions, culture, etc., all influence the moral culpability of such actions. While the actual physical actions may be exactly the same, the inner mental and spiritual modifiers (which are the aforementioned intents, purposes, traditions, culture, etc.) of said physical actions are not the same.

the Church teaches that all deliberate sexual pleasure is to be ordered to the eventual act of vaginal intercourse, completed with orgasm for both parties.

*files away for future use*

For what?

[CAnnoneer]

For what?

Now that would be telling. You'll see in due time. Hehehe.

[Strings]

cosine: I appreciate the help with my :neener:... except that's how it gets used at THR (I'm Strings there). So hows 'bout this one: PBTHPBTHPBTHPBTHPBTH!!!!! 




that better?

 And on "sin", I agree with Lazarus Long (via Sindawe)...

[cosine]

cosine: I appreciate the help with my :neener:... except that's how it gets used at THR (I'm Strings there). So hows 'bout this one: PBTHPBTHPBTHPBTHPBTH!!!!! 




that better?

:neener:     

[Monkeyleg]

I've made it a point to not engage in religious discussions on THR, TFL, and APS. Too much potential to alienate people, and not enough upside to justify alienating people.

Cosine, I shot the "girlie" posters for Snap-On for a number of reasons. First, the budgets were very good.

Second, the posters themselves didn't even border on "soft porn." In the late 1980's, the posters showed attractive young women in bikinis that covered more skin than most J.C. Penny underwear ads I've seen. As the years went on, the models wore outfits that progressed from short dresses to eventually full racing suits. Hardly the sort of material that some kid would take into the bathroom.

Third, the posters were give-away's to the mechanics who bought Snap-On Tools from the local distributor. Most mechanics are guys. And guys like to look at an attractive female. I've been in the business of helping to boost sales, but not prostitution.

Fourth, the young ladies I worked with were extremely professional. They kept their bodies in shape, and knew exactly why they were hired. The stylist was always a woman, and no male ever touched the models.

It's funny. Back when Snap-On's head of the legal department (a newly-arrived female attorney) decided to kill any posters or calendars that showed women on them, I complained to my wife.

At that time, my wife was working in a plastics factory. In the women's locker room was a very large poster of a guy, fully naked, who was unusually endowed.

When I complained to my wife about the decision from the head of legal at Snap-On, she said, "that's the way it should be."

When I reminded her of the poster in her locker room, she said, "well, that's different."

Huh?

Ah, well. Welcome to the 21st century.

[cosine]

I've made it a point to not engage in religious discussions on THR, TFL, and APS. Too much potential to alienate people, and not enough upside to justify alienating people.

I usually don't engage in religious discussion either. By explaining and trying to clarify my beliefs I sure hope I haven't alienated any of you here. 'Twas not my intent.

[mustanger98]

cosine, I've been following this thread and I've not read anything that should, following common sense, alienate anyone.

[gunsmith]

Well, she sure seemed like a good Catholic to me.
Better then the Nuns that used to hit me with a ruler for no good reason.
But I get your point, her marriage wasn't annulled, and the other things mentioned.
But that seems like the old Catholic Church, the new Catholic Church
seems to let a lot of things slide.

We are not dating anymore anyway, but I still talk to her and consider her a friend.
She grew annoyed with my right wing gun nut views, I wasn't invited to many
San Francisco dinner parties after people discovered I vote for Bush, pro life, pro death penalty,
gun nut.
It's a political town and I would be honest if asked..

Anyway, back to the topic I have met 3 or 4  smart/nice strippers and a hundred of stupid  ones.

I lived on Broadway in SF for years and there are 7 strip clubs on one block, and have been a late
night cabbie