Are Glamour Models Immoral?

[1PeaceMaker]

Back to the topic of this thread. Glamour models ... merely sweet, innocent, modestly dressed working girls .... or

Loose, cunning vixens with the morals of an alley cat whose sole purpose is enticing sweet, angelic men ... who, by no fault of their own, go out of their way to seek these women out?

Both men and women are naturally hormonally visually stimulating in both plain and dressy attire of various skin coverage amounts.

It is also true (according to scientific research that I'm aware of) that ovulating women tend to wear less yardage on their bodies. It's totally subconscious. But it's good for the sexes, I believe.

Even if it's flirty on some level, it's not enticement to sin or a personal invitation to sex for the observer.

It's just social proof to our hormonal brains that the women of society are fertile and are capable of seeking healthy males to procreate with.

Pigeons can't lay eggs unless they see another pigeon - but even a reflection of themselves will do.

 

[ok doser]

elo musta missed this one, so i'll throw it back out for him:

Those in the Church are not to judge those outside the Church. is rape acceptable if performed by those outside the church? child molestation? murder?

 

[Nick M]

Back to the topic of this thread. Glamour models ... merely sweet, innocent, modestly dressed working girls .... or

Loose, cunning vixens with the morals of an alley cat whose sole purpose is enticing sweet, angelic men ... who, by no fault of their own, go out of their way to seek these women out?

Oh, so they aren't street walkers any more? You surely didn't mean for that one to slip.

Apparently immorality is in the mind and eye of the beholder. However, if one wishes to make judgment about scantily clad women, these models certainly fit the bill.

Interesting. You choose loose cunning vixen.

 

[Granite]

Oh, so they aren't street walkers any more? You surely didn't mean for that one to slip.

Interesting. You choose loose cunning vixen.

Proving you truly are the Jedi Master of Totally Missing the Point.

 

[elohiym]

elo musta missed this one, so i'll throw it back out for him:

When I respond to you, you typically ignore my points, snip my comment to a word or a few then claim you're not interested in discussing anything with a retard. You also claim I'm a non-Christian, so why are you bugging me?

 

[Rusha]

If it increases male testosterone and sperm count, I beg to differ.

Models are not modeling clothes for the purpose of having children, but rather for selling clothes and collecting a paycheck.

Now the customer (in the case of men) would be a different story depending on the man.

 

[Rusha]

Oh, so they aren't street walkers any more? You surely didn't mean for that one to slip.

Interesting. You choose loose cunning vixen.

Proving you truly are the Jedi Master of Totally Missing the Point.

:chuckle: He seems to only understand sarcasm when he believes it is beneficial to his point.

Not that he has made one ...

 

[Granite]

Models are not modeling clothes for the purpose of having children, but rather for selling clothes and collecting a paycheck.

Now the customer (in the case of men) would be a different story depending on the man.

Okay, now, I really do have to ask...

Uh...

What kind of guys do you think seriously seek out high-end fashion mags featuring models for the sake of using them for pornographic purposes?

That'd be kind of a niche market, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if I were to see a stack of Vogue, or Elle, or whatever, sitting on a dude's magazine stand, I'd likely assume he's gay, or that his girlfriend has taken over the magazine rack.

 

[elohiym]

An example of wrongly judging someone outside the church is calling Rusha a god-hater. That is why I made my original comment, and it stands.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Models are not modeling clothes for the purpose of having children, but rather for selling clothes and collecting a paycheck.

Now the customer (in the case of men) would be a different story depending on the man.

I don't picture a male customer, unless you mean the checkout-stand type gawkers who wouldn't spend a dime.

But it is selling sex to women, saying "look sexy like me" and it does visually, on a subtle level, stimulate some men in a way that serves the purpose of procreation.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Okay, now, I really do have to ask...

Uh...

What kind of guys do you think seriously seek out high-end fashion mags featuring models for the sake of using them for pornographic purposes?

That'd be kind of a niche market, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if I were to see a stack of Vogue, or Elle, or whatever, sitting on a dude's magazine stand, I'd likely assume he's gay, or that his girlfriend has taken over the magazine rack.

Good point.

 

[elohiym]

But it is selling sex to women, saying "look sexy like me" and it does visually, on a subtle level, stimulate some men in a way that serves the purpose of procreation.

Yes, but that probably isn't the intent of the model, and it depends on the man and specific images (modeling a fur coat versus a string). And we can say the same for the male model and women's reactions, I guess.

 

[Rusha]

Okay, now, I really do have to ask...

Uh...

What kind of guys do you think seriously seek out high-end fashion mags featuring models for the sake of using them for pornographic purposes?

That'd be kind of a niche market, wouldn't you say?

I mean, if I were to see a stack of Vogue, or Elle, or whatever, sitting on a dude's magazine stand, I'd likely assume he's gay, or that his girlfriend has taken over the magazine rack.

In reference to THIS OP, the kind of guys who would blame other people for controlling their sexuality.

You know, it's those same women who make them view Vogue ...

And yes, as a matter of fact, I am being sarcastic as a way to highlight the double standards of *some*.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Yes, but that probably isn't the intent of the model, and it depends on the man and specific images (modeling a fur coat versus a string). And we can say the same for the male model and women's reactions, I guess.

I'm sure you are right, but then if I was posing for the picture, as I imagine doing so in my mind I'm either thinking and projecting "I'm feeling like a cool person and enjoying myself" or "I'm sexy and I know it" for the right body posture and expressions to sell the magazine or items in question that would need me to come across as a winner for it to work.

Either way, coming across as a winner is arguably coming across as "hot" since winners get the girl or guy, and that winner image sells the stuff it gives social proof to.

It's like smiling for the telephone, I'm thinking. The energy has to be projected into the picture a bit. But we all know of instances where body language has been misread, so I'm not brave enough to assume exactly what actual individual models are thinking, no matter what I think of their attitude the way they are posing.

 

[Granite]

In reference to THIS OP, the kind of guy who would blame other people for controlling their sexuality.

You know, it's those same women who make them view Vogue as well as making them get in their car and drive down to the nearest strip joint.

And yes, as a matter of fact, I am being sarcastic as a way to highlight the double standards of *some*.

I know, I was just struck by the funny image of a lady finding her guy reading...um...women's fashion. For the...pictures. Maybe it's just me but I can imagine that conversation going a couple different ways. "No, dear, I just really like reading about...uh...cucumber facials. Also Keira Knightly's got such good taste." :chuckle: :noid:

 

[Rusha]

I know, I was just struck by the funny image of a lady finding her guy reading...um...women's fashion. For the...pictures. Maybe it's just me but I can imagine that conversation going a couple different ways. "No, dear, I just really like reading about...uh...cucumber facials. Also Keira Knightly's got such good taste." :chuckle: :noid:

:rotfl:

 

[ClimateSanity]

An example of wrongly judging someone outside the church is calling Rusha a god-hater. That is why I made my original comment, and it stands.

She clearly is a God hater. You don't seem to understand the term judging in the context of the verse you are quoting.

 

[elohiym]

She clearly is a God hater.

Present your evidence or stop bearing false witness and wrongly judging someone outside of the church.

You don't seem to understand the term judging in the context of the verse you are quoting.

Then feel free to explain the term judging in the context of 1 Corinthians 5:12-13. "But those who are outside, God judges."

 

[Rusha]

An example of wrongly judging someone outside the church is calling Rusha a god-hater. That is why I made my original comment, and it stands.

She clearly is a God hater. You don't seem to understand the term judging in the context of the verse you are quoting.

Oh, this is what you meant by wishing to be left alone, eh?

Anyways, you are being intentionally dishonest. Again.

Considering the holier than thou attitude you are using when calling me a *God hater* perhaps you can explain to everyone why you didn't use the label of Christian but chose "other" when you previously snuck back in under the username BOLCATS?

Perhaps hiding your identity was a priority over professing yourself as a Christian. :think:

 

[elohiym]

She clearly is a God hater.

Do you hate her?