Baptist College bars students posing for Playboy.

In addition to the question of *why* a Christian College would feel the need to issue a warning to Dedicated Christian Young Women at all...

This is also a very good question...

Mike Sr.

 

In addition to the question of *why* a Christian College would feel the need to issue a warning to Dedicated Christian Young Women at all...

This is also a very good question...

Mike Sr. </font>[/QUOTE]But it is also a separate issue and has nothing to do with the argument of whether or not it should be permissible, or whether the school should have issued the warning. The girl quoted is just deflecting the issue. It's like when kids (and adults) all of a sudden become expert witnesses on the bad-behavior of their siblings when they are caught doing something wrong. "But Timmy did XYZ the other day and didn't get in trouble!"

Baylor is not what it used to be. It is naive to think that every woman there is a devout Christian and wouldn't even consider posing. I bet there are several women there who would love to take Playboy up on the opportunity. (plus people do stupid things for a few minutes of fame they wouldn't normally otherwise do.)

If the University had remained silent on the issue you know then they would be blamed for silently endorsing it. The parents of the girls would sue. Also, if the University permitted it, then guys would use it as an excuse to go buy said issue. (sort of like how sex ed is correlated with increased rates of promiscuity)There are probably more than a few guys there who would love to brag that their girlfriend (or someone they know) was in Playboy.

It's sad they think it was necessary to issue the statement, but I think it stems from the litigious nature of our society. The University is covering its butt.

With that said, it would have made Baylor look much better if nothing had been said, and no girls took Playboy up on the offer. That would have said volumes about the character of Baylor women and would have been good for Baylor's image. (just thinking "out loud" here) But Baylor I think was really put in a tricky spot. Say nothing and you risk major embarassment (and perhaps lose financial supporters, etc) say something and you insult the majority of women at Baylor who would not want to pose.

I guess they thought the risk was too big to say nothing.

Then again it was just an email sent to students, not a press release or anything that was supposed to be made public. I would be interesting in seeing said email. The article could be totally slanted.

Another good question is would they have issued the same warning if Sports Illustrated were doing the same thing with a Swimsuit issue? (but again a separate issue)

Baylor IS in the same city where a Catholic priest blessed the opening of a new Hooters!
(not that that has anything to do with the argument)

 

Ben W, quoting Reuters:

Conservative? Really?

No matter. Good for Baylor

 

In the grand scheme of things...Baylor IS conservative.

Compare Baylor to Harvard, Yale, etc...

 

StefanM, you're right. I guess when you describe something as conservate, the proper followup should be "compared to what"?

 

Baylor, I think, is conservative as is the whole town of Waco. But just over two hours south is Austin, which is about as "conservative" as San Francisco.

 

You make a false assumption that everyone who is a student at Baylor identifies themselves as a Christian. Texas Baptist schools do not restrict enrollment to Christians. They seek to engage the broader culture and give anyone who meets the academic standards the opportunity to have a high-quality education.

Therefore, when I went through my Texas Baptist university (not Baylor), I had some classmates who were Muslim, Buddhist (only one), and more than a few unchurched hedonists. (There were also a few "churched" hedonists who clearly did not understand the call of Jesus.)

All of us took the required religious courses and surveys of the Old and New Testament, and we saw a number of those non-Christian and "churched" non-Christians come to Christ.

 

Turns out this is nothing new. It happened back in 2002. And people did show up to be interviewed this time around. The Reuters article left out. In light of that, the warning is definitely warranted.

LINK

Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey would not say how many women showed up but said the turnout was less than at other schools "because Baylor is a religiously affiliated school."
&lt;snip&gt;
In 2002, a Baylor student who posed nude in Playboy's Big 12 issue was suspended, although her picture did not appear in the print version of the magazine. Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity also was suspended for one year after about 50 members were featured, clothed, along with four bikini-clad women in the issue.

Reaction among Baylor students was mixed. Some said appearing in the magazine should be their choice, while others said a private university has the right to govern student conduct.

"I don't know that they're necessarily overstepping their bounds because when students come to Baylor, they're agreeing to the rules in the handbook," said Sarah Tinsley, a 23-year-old graduate student. "But I do think it's a little ridiculous for the school to try to dictate what people do outside of school."

 

I’m hardly a big fan of Baylor, but this statement strikes me as very naïve.

Sin has been around a long, long time and young men and women have been making foolish choices for nearly the same amount of time.

Our broader culture (the one in which almost all of us are called by Christ to live) sees Playboy as a rather mild sexy magazine. It also has the reputation, some of it deserved, for launching young women into very profitable modeling and movie careers. It would be foolish to think that it would not be a temptation for some young women who are desperate for money or full of ambition.

Of course it’s a very bad choice, but teens, especially those who have recently been freed from over-protective homes, are prone to make very bad choices.

 

I remember hearing about this back in late 1970s. I had to listen to a dinner table argument between my brother and father over a similar situation. As I remember, some Baylor students had posed nude and Baylor expelled them. My brother thought it was wrong for Baylor to be the "morals Gestapo" and my father pointed out that Baylor has a right to impose penalties for violations of student conduct agreements.

 

I’m hardly a big fan of Baylor, but this statement strikes me as very naïve. </font>[/QUOTE]Well, it's not like it's pulled a Harvard, but like many schools that start off founded on Biblical principles(inclduing where I got my undergrad), it has strayed from its roots. All I did was state the obvious.

 

Good for Baylor, They should expel anyone who chooses to pose. I also think my alma madder TCU should do if faced with the same problem.

I of course feel that they should reserve the right to expel students who get abortions, are practicing homosexuals, proposition prostitutes, etc. It is when schools fail to act that they become just another secular college.

 

Ugh...you must be in upper management.
This makes me think of when people abuse certain privileges at work,and instead of disciplining that one person, the entire company now does not have that privilege. (I am not condoning guys reading Playboy)

The nature of the two acts are different. A girl posing for Playboy is not the same issue as a guy reading Playboy. Both are wrong, but not the same. The validity of the email is not contingent on whether Baylor prohibits males reading pornography. Perhaps it is an issue that needs to be addressed, but the issue at hand is girls posing in Playboy.

If I tell little Johnny it is wrong to throw his food, and he says "Well Susie sits on hers!" Both actions are unacceptable, but of a different nature. The comment is meant as a distraction to try and get out of addressing the issue at hand. And also because Johnny feels he is being treated unfairly. Johnny's actions affect more than just himself, others could be hit by this food, but Susie sitting on her food mostly affects herself. If I proceed in correcting Johnny, it does not mean I am condoning the behavior of Susie.

The issue of Baylor girls posing for Playboy is not a constant issue, therefore, the manner in which you treat/approach the issue is different.

Playboy doesn't just come around to Baylor everyday asking for girls to pose. But a guy can access Playboy whenever he wants.

Plus, if in fact some girls do end up posing in Playboy, wouldn't it make more sense to send the guys an email about purchasing that issue once it is about to hit stands?

Let me put it this way. If my wife confronts me and says "Honey I told you to put your clothes in the laundry basket" and I turn around and say "Well you keep leaving your shoes all over the place" how do you think she will respond?

Anyway, that's my 3.5 cents (more than you asked for )

 

Actually, they advertise for Baylor students on a regular basis. Every two or three years there is at least a news blurb about Baylor warning their students about the consequences of posing for Playboy.

For what it's worth, if guys didn't "read" Playboy, then there would be no demand for the women to pose. Men who support Playboy (and other magazines/videos/Web sites) create the market and work to degrade women.