Is Erotic Pole Dancing Immoral?

[MaddLlama]

In the scenario you described with the teacher and student, there is no temptation involved.

Sure there is. I am tempted to watch TV or play video games instead of studying for my test. So, maybe I should blame my test grade on the manufacturer of World of Warcraft.

If a drug addict seeks out a drug pusher to buy drugs, it is only the drug addict's fault and NOT the drug pusher's? If that was the case, the police would have no reason to arrest drug dealers who just HAVE drugs but have not as yet sold them to anyone. If the police swoop down on both of them, should they arrest only the buyer because he fell for temptaion, because the drug dealer did not force anyone to buy drugs? The buyer came to the dealer.

There's a difference, but not much of a difference. Drugs actually do harm to your body. Seeing a woman in her skivvies does no such thing. Drugs are also illegal, so the police have every right to arrest someone who is selling or is possessing an illegal substance. Pole-dancing is not illegal. And, drugs also have an immediate and visible effect on a person. Strippers normally don't have sex with thier clients, and not every man who visits a strip club is inspired to cheat on his wife. So, what's the moral difference between a married man looking at a live woman in her underwear at a strip club, and seeing one on TV, or on the beach? Lots of things you happen to see on the street could possibly plant a seed for you to do something immoral later. How do you propose we control that?
If a person chooses to ruin his life with drugs, it is his responsibility to control his own actions and stop taking drugs, and not just sit around smoking crack waiting for his dealer to die, move away or stop selling. Plenty of people who takes drugs do so recreationally, and not everyone who takes or sells drugs is ruining lives.

Is the concept of personal responsibility so far removed from our society that we just have to place the blame for our problems on someone else?

 

[Hema]

Sure there is. I am tempted to watch TV or play video games instead of studying for my test. So, maybe I should blame my test grade on the manufacturer of World of Warcraft.

There is no lust involved!

Pole-dancing is not illegal.

It my country it is very much illegal!

Is the concept of personal responsibility so far removed from our society that we just have to place the blame for our problems on someone else?

I never said that the blame is wholly on someone else. Members of society are interdependent on each other and I said that both are to blame!

 

[Hema]

Rather, she made the comment that women who are afraid to be naked in front of others may have self-confidence issues, which makes sense. She personally was able to strip because she already had self-confidence. I was merely speculating before that stripping was also a way for her to express her self-confidence.

I will never strip in front of others. It doesn't mean that I have self confidence issues. It's just that I see my body as a Temple of God.

 

[MaddLlama]

There is no lust involved!

So, if you do something that somehow promotes lust in another person, you are morally responsible for that person's behavior?
If, say on a beach I am in a bikini and putting sunblock on myself and a man happens to walk by and think about sex, am I morally responsible for his infidelity if he chooses to cheat on his wife next week?
Does personal responsibility only get thrown out the window when sex is involved?

It my country it is very much illegal!

Are all things which can possibly be construed as promoting lust illegal where you live?

I never said that the blame is wholly on someone else. Members of society are interdependent on each other and I said that both are to blame!

So, personal responsibilty doesn't matter that much?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I will never strip in front of others. It doesn't mean that I have self confidence issues. It's just that I see my body as a Temple of God.

That's completely understandable.

I wonder if there are those who also view the body as a temple, yet still strip; perhaps they wish to share their temple.

 

[Hema]

So, if you do something that somehow promotes lust in another person, you are morally responsible for that person's behavior?
If, say on a beach I am in a bikini and putting sunblock on myself and a man happens to walk by and think about sex, am I morally responsible for his infidelity if he chooses to cheat on his wife next week?
Does personal responsibility only get thrown out the window when sex is involved?

Wearing a bikini and being nude are two different things. As I have said before it is obvious that we have two different opinions on this. To me, dancing naked amongst strange people is similar to degrading one's body which is a Temple of God. I know that you have a different opinion. I am firm to my beliefs and you are firm to yours. I will not cahnge my mind and if you don't want to change your mind, then that has no effect on my life. It's your life. Sometimes people have to agree to disagree. I really don't like the way that this discussion is turning out. MaddLlama, you are my sister in spirit...we are all related on the spiritual level. Please lets just shake hands and agree to disagree.

Are all things which can possibly be construed as promoting lust illegal where you live?

Of course not. However, dancing naked is illegal.

So, personal responsibilty doesn't matter that much?

It matter a great deal. I never said it doesn't.

Peace and love,
Hema

 

[Hema]

That's completely understandable.

I wonder if there are those who also view the body as a temple, yet still strip; perhaps they wish to share their temple.

Thank you.

Even if the consider the body a Temple...a Temple of what? According to my beliefs, one should not use the body to promote lust because it is a Temple of God. Of course everyone will not agree with me and as such as entitled to their own opinions.

 

[MaddLlama]

Not all erotic dancers are nude. A majority of them wear a thong.

I just don't understand where the difference is. Promoting lust is promoting lust whether or not it is your overt intention, or accidental. If you value personal responsibility so much, why should a stripper be partially responsible for the infidelity of a man she never touches? That is definately not personal responsibility. Either a man is responsible for his own actions, or he isn't. It really just is that simple.

If a man cheats on his wife, and there are no strippers involved, who gets the blame for his infidelity?

 

[Hema]

I just don't understand where the difference is. Promoting lust is promoting lust whether or not it is your overt intention, or accidental. If you value personal responsibility so much, why should a stripper be partially responsible for the infidelity of a man she never touches? That is definately not personal responsibility. Either a man is responsible for his own actions, or he isn't. It really just is that simple.

I arouses lust. Ted Bundy the serial rapist/murderer said the reason he raped and murdered all those girls was because of porno. He started off with soft porn then he wanted more and more hard core stuff. I know that porno and stripping are not the same but they both arouse the same type of lust.

If a man cheats on his wife, and there are no strippers involved, who gets the blame for his infidelity?

Him and his mistress.

 

[MaddLlama]

I arouses lust. Ted Bundy the serial rapist/murderer said the reason he raped and murdered all those girls was because of porno. He started off with soft porn then he wanted more and more hard core stuff. I know that porno and stripping are not the same but they both arouse the same type of lust.

Yes, but plenty of other people watch pornography and go to strip clubs, and they don't murder or rape anybody. Feeling lust for something is amoral - it's just a thought. It is what action a person chooses to do with that lust that can be immoral. A man can go to a strip club on his way home from work, and use those feelings of lust to inspire desire to have sex with his wife. Is that immoral?

Him and his mistress.

Would she still be responsible if she didn't know he was married?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Thank you.

Even if the consider the body a Temple...a Temple of what? According to my beliefs, one should not use the body to promote lust because it is a Temple of God. Of course everyone will not agree with me and as such as entitled to their own opinions.

I do like the idea of the body being a "Temple of God." Being panentheistic (for now), I understand and share that view.

My own personal belief is that lust is not necessarily a corruption. It can lead to corruption, but so can't love. For me, the display of a human body can go beyond lust, but when it is done lustfully, it can be sensual and fulfilling to both parties. It can sometimes be a spiritual action; abandoning social restraints can open doors to emotions more primal, more basic, less materialistic but more sensual.

That is, of course, a personal belief. I certainly can see how someone else can see such an act as a violation. Sex - and the human body - mean different things to different people.

 

[Hema]

A man can go to a strip club on his way home from work, and use those feelings of lust to inspire desire to have sex with his wife. Is that immoral?

Again, this depends on one's beliefs. In my faith, a married man should see all other members of the opposite as sisters and mothers. Similarly for women, they should see other men as brothers and fathers. According to my faith, sinful thoughts are still sinful...although they are thoughts. We think that no one can see them but God can.

Would she still be responsible if she didn't know he was married?

No she wouldn't be.

 

[Hema]

For me, the display of a human body can go beyond lust, but when it is done lustfully, it can be sensual and fulfilling to both parties. It can sometimes be a spiritual action; abandoning social restraints can open doors to emotions more primal, more basic, less materialistic but more sensual.

This is what Tantric sex is all about. Making a spiritual connection with someone you are in love with during sex. Love is the true nature of the spirit. This to me is what sex is supposed to be about.

 

[Valjean]

Would it be a good thing to inure people against lust by promoting casual public and private nudity, partial or otherwise?

In tropical societies where little, (and occasionally no) clothing is worn there is no great problem with "lust" hypersexuality, infidelity, &c. Nudity and sexuality are disconnected.

In some areas of Europe nudity is accepted much more casually than it is on this side of the pond, and there is much less sex-crime and premarital pregnancy.

Much western fashion is designed to tease. It is designed to be prurient, to incite lust. Some fashions hide nothing, clinging, skin-tight, to every curve and fold, This is, in fact, typical of ordinary beachwear. There is even a growing trend of painting "beachwear" on otherwise completely nude women.
Clothing can be more titillating than actual nudity. Nudity, after some exposure, is a yawn.

In societies where much clothing is worn any exposed body part seems to promote sexual lust. In some Arab countries even a display of woman's hair is thought to incite a dangerous lust in males, and is actually illegal.

You remember that old song: "In olden times a glimpse of stocking was thought of as something shocking now heaven knows, anything goes" How true.
Today's conservative western fashions would have shocked our great-grandparents, yet they don't incite a second look on the street. Trendy western fashions appear little short of nudity in the middle East. Only prostitutes and trollops would wear such things. Yet the public here is blase.

Ergo, it occurs to me that encouraging complete public nudity in warm weather would go a long way to reduce the general lust-level, reduce sex-crimes and premarital experimentation, shut down strip-clubs, &c.

Thoughts?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

This whole discussion reminds me of a time I worked at a sign shop in a seedy neighborhood. For a time there was a prostitute who hung out on the corner every morning as I arrived at work. She was always pleasant even after she realized I wasn't going to partake of her services. The neighborhood association decided to "clean up" the hood and chased the "working girls" off to a new neighborhood. She was replaced by a number of young men who, after they woke up around noon, would hang on the corner drinking 40 ouncers, spewing f'ing this and f'ing that every third word of their dialogue while waiting fot the OTB office to open at 3.

A member of the neighborhood association happened by one day and I pointed out the offenive behaviour of the young men and said I thought we were better off with the prostitute, at least she was pleasant and had a job. He left offended.

Now of the two situations, which was the most moral? This post has dissertations on the morality/immorality of an obviously immoral activity expounding on where the more sin lies. Amusing and saddening at the same time. Littmus Lozenges for all.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

If children are starving in africa, then why don't you cancel your internet subscription and fly there to personally deliver food?

Do you ever spend money on frivolous things? Even just once? If other people are suffering in poverty, isn't it immoral to spend any money on something that may give you comfort and luxury?

I see, morality is defined only by what each person performs themselves. Moral relativism at it's finest.

 

[eudaimonia]

Ergo, it occurs to me that encouraging complete public nudity in warm weather would go a long way to reduce the general lust-level, reduce sex-crimes and premarital experimentation, shut down strip-clubs, &c.

Thoughts?

I think you are probably right about that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[eudaimonia]

I will never strip in front of others. It doesn't mean that I have self confidence issues. It's just that I see my body as a Temple of God.

I agree with you that there may be many reasons why a woman won't strip in front of strangers.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Sunstone]

Would it be a good thing to inure people against lust by promoting casual public and private nudity, partial or otherwise?

In tropical societies where little, (and occasionally no) clothing is worn there is no great problem with "lust" hypersexuality, infidelity, &c. Nudity and sexuality are disconnected.

In some areas of Europe nudity is accepted much more casually than it is on this side of the pond, and there is much less sex-crime and premarital pregnancy.

Much western fashion is designed to tease. It is designed to be prurient, to incite lust. Some fashions hide nothing, clinging, skin-tight, to every curve and fold, This is, in fact, typical of ordinary beachwear. There is even a growing trend of painting "beachwear" on otherwise completely nude women.
Clothing can be more titillating than actual nudity. Nudity, after some exposure, is a yawn.

In societies where much clothing is worn any exposed body part seems to promote sexual lust. In some Arab countries even a display of woman's hair is thought to incite a dangerous lust in males, and is actually illegal.

You remember that old song: "In olden times a glimpse of stocking was thought of as something shocking now heaven knows, anything goes" How true.
Today's conservative western fashions would have shocked our great-grandparents, yet they don't incite a second look on the street. Trendy western fashions appear little short of nudity in the middle East. Only prostitutes and trollops would wear such things. Yet the public here is blase.

Ergo, it occurs to me that encouraging complete public nudity in warm weather would go a long way to reduce the general lust-level, reduce sex-crimes and premarital experimentation, shut down strip-clubs, &c.

Thoughts?

Would you say Americans prefer to encourage sexual lust rather than encourage nudity? After all, many clothing styles are titillating, while nudity, once one becomes accustomed to it, is not.

 

[dawny0826]

Immoral...probably.

But it looks like one heck of a fun work out.