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

[280plus]

So, Cosine, during all the years that I photographed bikini models for Snap-On Tool posters,

A quick interjection by me to say, "That was YOU?!? THANK YOU EVER SO MUCH!!" 

Sinners or not, me and strippers got along fine when I was hanging out with strippers. Just like all walks of life, some are good, some are not. Later on in the back to being single days I used to live upstairs from a bevy of them. They were all just young pupsters to me, I was like their big brother / fatherly advice guy and they would do things like feed me and hang out. Again, I never went to see these girls at work either, they was my pals.

I have to disagree with bogie though, In the immortal words of Ron White, "If you've seen one woman naked,,, you want to see the rest of them naked."

[Cromlech]

Biological urges? Maybe not entirely, but what lusting/attraction/whatever isn't a bio-chemical reaction in your body, is just the work of a vastly powerful super-computer running a piece of software.

The software is called: Me v1.0

[Perd Hapley]

YOU are the one arguing there is a difference between lust and sexual desire. So, elaborate. Or retract (your argument, that is).

I'm not arguing anything, I'm just helping you to understand the meaning of a word.  Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, expecting you to look up "lust" for yourself.  Or maybe I give the dictionaries too much credit. 

Anyway.  Lust is illicit desire.  Hence, terms like blood-lust.  Trying to hurt someone is good in a certain context (self-defense, etc.).  Trying to stab someone just because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy (blood-lust) is bad.  In the same way, having sexual fantasies about one's wife is essentially good.*  Having sexual fantasies about someone you haven't committed to love and cherish till death do you part - not good.  Hence, lust. 

Looking at a pretty girl and thinking she's pretty is just fine.  Looking at her lustfully is not.  The women Monkeyleg spoke of were dressed for lust.  Some grey area there, but that's just a basic sketch.  The point is that the Christian is constrained by love for God and for his neighbor.  It ill serves my wife for me to dwell on my attraction to some half-dressed tool calender hottie.  It ill serves said hottie to participate in her exploitation.

All that is to explain and describe a Christian point of view, not to argue for anything. 

*I say "essentially good" because such fantasy is good as a concept.  If the fantasy is about something that would be degrading to your wife that would not be good. 

[Iapetus]

I've always thought of lust as having an implication of obsession.

Also of being solely concerned with sexual desire, to the exclusion of all else.

E.g. if I think my girlfriend is a really nice person, and I really enjoy her company, and I also would like to go to be with her, that isn't lust.

But if the entire sum of my relationship with her is me wanting to have sex with her, then that is lust.

[Monkeyleg]

Fistful, in my mind, the women I photographed weren't dressed for lust. They were dressed to appeal to the mechanics. I looked at the posters, thought the girls were very attractive, but didn't have any sexual fantasies about them. If other guys did, that was their problem.

For several weeks, the studio I work at has been photographing women for Jockey underwear. There's been dozens of very attractive young women in all sorts of bras, bikinis and hosiery. It's for advertising Jockey's underwear, that's all.

I see as much skin or even more in these Jockey shots than I did in the Snap-On posters. So, which one is more sinful?

I guess it's hard for me to be objective about the issue of these photographs, because to me they represent just another job. It's my job to make them look good, just as it is for me to make a lawn mower look good.

Out of all the times I've shot the women for Snap-On or other clients, there was just one time when I felt sexually aroused. And she was wearing a dress.

[wingnutx]

I, for one, think the 'Jockey for Her' ads are pretty hot 

[280plus]

I, for one, think the 'Jockey for Her' ads are pretty hot 

Oh yea, a big thumbs up on that. Apparently we're pretty evil... 

 

[Strings]

yep... we're evil sinners, doomed to hell. You bring the brats, I'll bring the Shiner Bock!;)

[Perd Hapley]

Monkeyleg,

I didn't mean to give the impression that sexual fantasies were the only form of lust.  I know photography is your livelyhood, so this kind of talk is bound to step on your toes.  But remember, you were the one that asked.  In fact, you were the one that compared Snap-On calenders to stripping.  Clearly, you already knew that stripping down to a bikini to sell tools is not entirely unlike taking it all off in a bar.

[CAnnoneer]

I'm not arguing anything, I'm just helping you to understand the meaning of a word.  Maybe I'm giving you too much credit, expecting you to look up "lust" for yourself.  Or maybe I give the dictionaries too much credit. 

Anyway.  Lust is illicit desire. 

Hehehe. The above is both condescending and wrong. And so, it is pretty entertaining. Back in the real world, Webster says:

Main Entry: 1lust
Pronunciation: 'l&st
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English; akin to Old High German lust pleasure and perhaps to Latin lascivus wanton
1 obsolete a : PLEASURE, DELIGHT b : personal inclination : WISH
2 : usually intense or unbridled sexual desire : LASCIVIOUSNESS
3 a : an intense longing : CRAVING <a lust to succeed> b : ENTHUSIASM, EAGERNESS <admired his lust for life>

If the fantasy is about something that would be degrading to your wife that would not be good. 

What if the wife likes what the preacher would consider "degrading"? Still sinful?

Hehehe. I am not touchy about it. I just revel in logically dissecting such "ethical" religious constructs until they fall apart under the weight of reality.

[Brad Johnson]

I just revel in logically dissecting such "ethical" religious constructs until they fall apart under the weight of reality.

When I read that, three sayings immediately came to mind...

"Faithful people inspire me.  Religious people scare me."

"Reality = (Possibility minus Probability) / Density of Jello."

"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Brad

[Monkeyleg]

Fistful, there have been so many posts on this thread, including ones from me, that I had to go back and re-read everything I've said.

And I never said that the girls who posed for the Snap-On posters were doing the equivalent of stripping in a bar. Far from it: I think the marketing people at Snap-On always erred on the side of being tasteful. Especially compared to their competitors, like Rigid Tool.

There were never any poses that were explicitly suggestive, as opposed to, say, what a dancer might do with a pole on the stage. (I hope this doesn't have to go any further than that for me to draw a distinction).

You're not stepping on my toes at all, so don't worry about it. I've been photographing young women in all modes of dress since I started out back in 1978. Back then, one of our clients sold a lot of t-shirts, beach towels, things like that. If the client wanted a model to hold a beach towel, what should she wear? A burqua?

Apparently there's a distinction here that's personal. I don't view a photo of a woman in a bikini or a short skirt as equivalent to a woman taking it all off in a bar and doing what such dancers do.

Ah, well. I guess I'll find out if I was right or not when I meet St. Peter.

[cosine]

I just revel in logically dissecting such "ethical" religious constructs until they fall apart under the weight of reality.

And I've never met one whose dissolution of "ethical religious constraints" (which are normally a philosophical matter) did not stem from their fundamental philosophical notions of reality.   

It's quite simple. I have never encountered a discussion between differences that did not eventually reach a philosophical impasse, because of the differences between basic, fundamental beliefs. Eventually you always move outside of the realm of physical reality.

The quote "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" really does sum it up quite well. 

[280plus]

The quote "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" really does sum it up quite well.

So does this...

You bring the brats, I'll bring the Shiner Bock!;)

 

[Perd Hapley]

I don't view a photo of a woman in a bikini or a short skirt as equivalent to a woman taking it all off in a bar and doing what such dancers do.

Then why did you bring it up in a discussion about strippers?  Cosine was explaining why stripping was considered sinful in the Catholic persepective and you asked about your photo shoots.  I can only assume that something about his comments reminded you of those calenders. 

What is the moral difference you see between pole-dancing and posing half-naked with a tool-box?

[Perd Hapley]

The above is both condescending and wrong.

What if the wife likes what the preacher would consider "degrading"? Still sinful?

Hehehe. I am not touchy about it. I just revel in logically dissecting such "ethical" religious constructs until they fall apart under the weight of reality.

Hey, man, I'm just trying to keep up with you in the condescending department.  We're only talking about a semantic disagreement over the meaning of "lust," so Christian morality is not going to fall apart under it.  Sorry.  I tend to think language shouldn't change as quickly as most dictionaries are content to allow it to, so I will still use the word lust as distinct from sexual desire, and leftist lexicographers can go suck eggs.   

Now, if you'd like to re-read my statements and substitute "illicit sexual desire" every time you see the word "lust," maybe you will understand me better.   The preacher really has nothing to do with what is sinful.  Christian morals come from the absolute standard of the Bible, rather than the mullings of mullahs.  Some sex acts are clearly intended to be degrading, and such would be sinful no matter who likes them.  Something like, say, a woman performing oral sex on a man would probably be a grey area.  Some people would not find it degrading to the woman, although I'm not sure how. 

Degradation is important because Christian morals find their theoretical basis in Christ's commands (in both Old and New Testaments) to love God and love others.  As I love my wife, I can't contribute to something that degrades her, even if she likes it.  That would be to enable an unhealthy state of mind. 

[mustanger98]

This thread just reminded me of a discussion I was in on another board several years ago. It had to do with Dillon Precission's Blue Press catalogs. What does Blue Press have to do with stripping? Absolutely nothing. Yet some clown insisted the photography was "titilating" among other things. I recall one cover shot just before that thread started... the model reminded me of a good friend who's into Old West stuff, especially since she was wearing the fringe jacket and holding a 1885 Winchester with a tang sight. And there was another cover shot just last fall... the blonde was wearing a strapless top and jeans and had nice hair and makeup. I showed it to Mom and asked her "what do you see"... she commented on hair and makeup, but didn't notice the gun until I said "look at her right front pants pocket". As I said, this has nothing to do with stripping. But, some clown with issues wanted to run it all down. From Monkeyleg's description of his work on the SnapOn tool posters, I'd say it's about the same story.

[Ron]

The sin appears to be desiring someone else's wife, hence adultery.

So CAnnoneers definition is fine with me.

Hehehe. I am not touchy about it. I just revel in logically dissecting such "ethical" religious constructs until they fall apart under the weight of reality.

If you need a definition of what God means by PRIDE see CAnnoneer also, his arrogance is breathtaking.

[CAnnoneer]

If you need a definition of what God means by PRIDE see CAnnoneer also, his arrogance is breathtaking.

Absolutely right. And I revel in it as well. But I do insist you do not limit your respiration on my account.

Pride is not a sin in my book, but a virtue. Doubtlessness is the replacement sin in The Gospel of CAnnoneer.

[CAnnoneer]

It's quite simple. I have never encountered a discussion between differences that did not eventually reach a philosophical impasse, because of the differences between basic, fundamental beliefs. Eventually you always move outside of the realm of physical reality.

Reality is far more objective than subjective. There are many opportunities for people to be technically, objectively, or logically wrong within the subspace of shared objective phenomena. There also are many opportunities for fallasies within the logical edifice in any subjective belief system, e.g. by clashes with objective phenomena or by internal inconsistencies. All of the above are legitime territory for winnable arguments. To dump everything into a model of parallel subjective realities or solipsysm is a convenient but inaccurate simplification.

[Ron]

Reality is far more objective than subjective.

Then you have no excuse for your foolishness.

[CAnnoneer]

Then you have no excuse for your foolishness.

Right back at you. Hehehe.

[wmenorr67]

With the way that we argue with great pleasure, respect and dignity on this board everything from the most trival subjects such as how this thread started and then turn it into a discussion of religious beliefs and standards, maybe as a collective group we could run this country and maybe even rule the world.

Oh no, I feel a Pinky and The Brain moment.

Pinky:"So Brain, what are we going to do tonight?"

Brain:"The same thing we do every night.  Try to take over the World.  Ha Ha Ha!"

[Monkeyleg]

Fistful: "Then why did you bring it up in a discussion about strippers?"

Because something Cosine said made me wonder about whether what I had done for Snap-On and other clients was considered sinful under Catholic doctrine. I thought Cosine was very thoughtful in reply.

Now that this thread has gone from its original question ("She's doing it to earn money for law school") to debates about religion, I guess it's time for me to bow out.

Enjoy the discussion.

[Twycross]

With the way that we argue with great pleasure, respect and dignity on this board everything from the most trival subjects such as how this thread started and then turn it into a discussion of religious beliefs and standards, maybe as a collective group we could run this country and maybe even rule the world.

I dunno. With all this argument, intelligent as it may be, has it actually changed anybody's mind on anything?