Has anyone ever asked their NH or IHQ about what the policy would be, or are we assuming what policy is, by how we feel and by what some orgs have done?

Her sisters care. Her sorority cares. The point is this: you CAN'T be considered a member in good standing if you aren't upholding the ideals of your sorority. For many sororities, these ideals include a moral obligation, which means that you agree to distance yourself from situations that would portray you - and the sorority of which you are a representative - in a bad light.

Say you have a sister who is loved by everyone in her chapter, has a 4.0 GPA and is always on time paying her bills. That's great! :) That means she has fulfilled 2 of her obligations to the sorority: academic and financial. However, if she poses nude for Playboy, she is NOT a member in good standing because she has failed to live up to the third type of obligation: Moral.

Even though she may be a financially-responsible, intelligent and sweet girl who gets along well with her sisters, she has still fallen short in the eyes of her GLO because she has failed to meet her moral obligation to the sorority. She has conducted herself in a manner that goes against the basic principles of her GLO and, for that reason, she is no longer in good standing. You simply can't pick and choose which tenants of your sorority you want to uphold. You either uphold all of them equally, or you get out. It's as simple as that.


It doesn't really matter to me if this sounds "judgemental" or not. Sororities are not public entities. They are private organizations which are founded upon very specific ideologies. If girls don't share the ideology of an organization, then they don't have to join. However, when they do decide to join, they shouldn't be surprised when they are asked to follow the creed of the GLO. Nor should they be shocked or angry if they are terminated from the organization for going against those basic principles.

It doesn't matter if your organization's ideals were founded 100 years ago or 10 years ago. The ideals themselves are timeless, and they should be respected and upheld no matter how long ago they were created. For Heaven's sake, it's not like the GLO is asking its members to wear floor length skirts and long-sleeved shirts! The sorority is simply asking its members to act in a way that is considered suitable in polite society. And let's face facts: if being nude in public was considered socially acceptable, then there wouldn't be so many laws regulating pornographic materials, including magazines like Playboy.

As for my comment about girls who pose nude being considered "easy", I am not saying that all of them are. However, I AM saying that they are perceived to be by many people in society. And that simple fact is why sororities do not want their members posing nude. There is a very real stigma attached to the act of revealing your body to the public eye, and sororities do not want to be associated with that stigma.

UMgirl - I'm not trying to offend you with this post. I just want to give everyone an idea of where your sororities may be coming from on this issue, and why they have the feelings that they do. :)

BUT-- "Morality" is not easily defined.

What is moral to me, may not be to someone else, and vice versa. And I don't think even within our GLOs its defined well.
Which is the issue--that Nationals can "look the other way" for some members, and revoke membership for others.

Campus climate is a factor too. Perhaps a larger one.

Where I went to school I don't see this as being an issue. (I speak of the times when I was there, I don't know how it is now)
Being in Los Angeles, being in a liberal city, county and state, being so close to Hollywood. I don't think it would have been an issue. If the member didn't say "I'm an XYZ!" in the publication, chances are very few eyebrows would be raised. Not when the entire student body (gross exagerration) has their own headshots and is not so secretly seeking their big break... Not when our "Greek Legend" yearbook features pages and pages of girls in their bikinis... etc.

So if no one at your school thinks its a big deal, chances are the issue would not be raised with nationals... etc.

But I am with ErikaXO on this issue. I don't see the big deal, and I don't think someone else, ie" founders back in the late 1800's can decide what my morality in 2002 should be. Use common sense, do what is right for you, what portrays you in the best light, and by doing that, you will be portraying your GLO well in 99 out of 100 cases.

I think it is all B S! There were no clothes in Eden until Eve talked that dumb ass Adam into eating that stinking apple!

Women are built different than men and vice versa!

Women like to look at me and men like to look at women! They get the hots for each other have sex, get married, have a kid, get divorced and work the rest of their lives! That is the American way:)

Yes I get Playboy, I look at the Pictures and admire a beautiful air brushed woman. But I like the cartoons better!;)

If you beleive God made woman then it must be a wonderful thing. It is like looking at a beautiful painting or building.:D

If I had it, I would flaunt it and be proud of what I had! Abeautifl or pretty woman is a work of art!:)

excuse me?
 

Lexi,

You have so much pride in your membership in Kappa Delta, and that is wonderful.

But being proud of your organization does not mean that you should run down other groups while praising your own.

Perhaps I'm reading your post wrong, but are you intimating that if other sororities don't conduct their business in the same way as KD, they are "mediocre"? To the issue at hand, are you saying that a group that doesn't kick a Playmate out for posing (fyi, in case you've forgotten, I am an ASA, same as Lindsey who we've been discussing) doesn't care about the caliber of its members?

I apologize for the harsh tone, but your post really disturbed me. You seem to be saying that your group is on a level above all others in every regard. That type of attitude toward your Panhellenic sisters is not honorable, beautiful or highest.

Oh and one more thing
 

Burt Reynolds, as we've probably all heard, is a Phi Delt. He was also one of the first men to pose nude for a magazine in Cosmo. That doesn't seem to have bothered Phi Delt or they wouldn't cite his name so often.

Just by law of averages, some of the men who posed for Playgirl were probably fraternity men. How do you think their brothers viewed that?

OK, here goes!

UMgirl: Disrespect can come in many forms, posing nude in palyboy or any pornographic venue would be such that an organization has the right to pull a membership and/or members would connote that as embarassing/not upholding the organizations values. When you say the orgnaization should respect you, what does that mean? Does your organization not have your best interests in mind and hasn't she opend many oppurtunites to you and filled your college life with memorable experiences...is that not respect? In return do you not have a obligation of membership to uphold the same ideals, to give back to the best of your ability...not doing something that could intentionally damage your group...is that so hard?

Amycat: There is a difference between art and Pornography. Playboy is not art. Art isn't pairing heels with a birthday suit before an ad for sextoys, herbal viagra... at least in my book it isn't.

33: Not what I meant. I meant we all joined a group that to us was our best fit and that should be regarded as sacred. And for me it is KD and for others it should be your letters as well. Mediocre in terms of I could have not been Greek and been able to do anything and only hurt myself in the process-the easy way out, not having to worry about how I effected others.

For the rest. When you joined your organization, you had to have taken an oath of some sort to uphold membership within the confines of your organization's standards...right? Does that mean you have to be a perfect cookie cutter XYZ, no, but it does mean you joined an organization, assumed responisibility for those letters for your life, and should have some obligation to uphold your organizations name.

DZrose: I wish there were more like you out there.

Lexi, thank you for clarifying that.

I think this has officially replaced the ebay pin debate, which replaced the racial debate in "dig in your heels-ness."

But chew on this (and don't flame me, this is NOT MY opinion): there are people out there who view beauty pageants as being every bit as demeaning to women or pornographic as Playboy. And there are LOTS of sorority women in those. Makes you think, doesn't it?

33: I see what you are saying, but in any situation a reasonable person could see the difference b/w Playboy and Miss America. In today's society it is all relative!

I see what you're saying, but I think that this is a very dangerous way to argue. You have your definition of "art" and someone else may or may not agree, and may define "art" differently. Whether something is "art" or not should, I strongly believe, be left up to an individual. I do not want to live in a world where someone else gets to decide what art is (or more likely is not), and control what I get to see based upon his or her morals and opinions, instead of being able to decide on my own. To each his or her own, and I suppose that you could also say to each organization its own, as well.

Lexi,
the key phrase there is IN YOUR BOOK. :) You are entitled to your beliefs as I am to mine as we all are to ours. Our sororities propose a general type of morality--it is highly interpretive. And, will be interpreted in a thousand different ways if a thousand different people are looking at it.

Standards for behavior in my part of the country are more liberal and relaxed. And so, an active posing would be treated differently here than they would in other areas--that is the only point I make.

As for the art v porn debate -- let me cite Cindy Crawford's playboy pictorial...I believe Herb Ritts photographed it (if anyone knows for sure, please confirm/correct me) and it was gorgeous.
Not all pictorials are like this granted, but you cannot make a blanket statement that a photograph of a naked woman cannot be art.

That, like everything else I said is MY OPINION, which I am entitled to.

:)
Amy

This Post Is Not To Offend Anyone
 

First....DZ, dont worry Im not offended at all. It was just your opinion and you have a right to say it just like I have the right to say what Im gonna say now.
Would there be a discussion if she was going to pose in Sports Illustrated's Swim Suit additon (which one year wwas wayyyy more raunchier than Playboy)?
Would we be singing a different tune if it had the signature of Michael Angelo or Monet under it? It would still be the same picture.
I totally agree with Amycat on this... What YOU think is art might not be what I think art is, and what your morals are might be different from mine and no one has the right to criticize anyones.
Lexi: each org. has different values just like people do. What I was saying is that yes, she should respect her org for what it has given her, but they should respect the fact that this is what she wants to do and as long as she make sure (if her org actually cares about her doing this)that its in good taste. It DOESNT even have anything to do with her org as long as she doesnt involve them. Its a college issue, if someone is going to take the time to find out what sorority all these girls could be in, then in my opinion they need to get a life.
Do you let the one girl who gets wasted every weekend and hooks up with everyone ruin the rep of an org or chapter? NO
Do you let the one chapter that may haze ruin it and let everyone think the org is that way..I should hope not.
THIS GIRL POSING FOR WHATEVER IS NOT GOING TO HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON HER ORG. OR CHAPTER.
True, her sisters may care, but in my opinion, theyre worried over nothing, and to a point they could be jealous who knows?? (Im just saying, you never know)
Also whats good standing in your org is different from my interpretation of my org. it doesnt say what moral codes we are suppose to uphold. What it says it that we should try to hold ourselves to the best standard we can, but that we should also honor and be true to ourselves. To me it really couldnt give me a moral code to live by anyways, because my faith and morals are going to be different from Greeklawgirl's, her's different from OTW's, hers differ from Lynn and Alphagam1019 and so on.
Truthfully (and the AGD's on here might kill me for this :D) if you want to get technical and read into stuff. She'd kind of be living up to some of AGD's purpose by posing....
To develop and prize health and vigor of body . Well she must definately prize her body in order to pose for playboy.
To covet beauty in enviroment, manner word and though Her body could be considered an enviornment.
.... to lover her for her womanhood. Self explanatory.
In the end, I dont always agree with or like what my org does, but they do it. And they will not always like what we do either, but if it makes us happy and we feel its right, why should they stop us from doing it, when we don't stop them? If sometimes going against or not agreeing them makes me a bad member then they better take my badge away.
This was just a general statement and sorry that it was soo long, just had alot to say. AGD's please dont think wrong of me for using the Purpose this way, but I was just trying to use it as a kind of twisted (but truthful) example :D

#1 I love agruing with everyone! I think it is funny that when someone is expressing their own opinon that they have to be reminded that everyone else is doing the same. This is what this type of venue is for...right?

As I have said, this is how I feel and I wouldn't suggest doing it. That's all. I couldn't care less who is in it, I don't check out Playboy so whatever, I just don't think it is the best possible move in anyone's future.

UMgirl:The whole art debate is a little crazy, I am aware it is all relative, but their is a difference b/w going to view an art show and going to the local 711, showing ID, and buying a playboy with a cover on it. All I was trying to point out is there is a difference in a tasteful pictoral of naked women and pornography.
To say that this wouldn't invovle the organization is far fetched. Look at this thread, isn't the girl who is in the picture(with the crazy red shoes) an ASA and that has been mentioned? That doesn't invovle undo attention to that organization? It's not like we are talking about her donation of her playboy funds to the NPC foundation we are talking about her choice to do this and we don't care to know anything else, or at least no one has brought anything else up.

Heck, if I had such a great body like these women in Playboy it would be hard for me to say no to $100,000 but, let's face it, we all make our own choices and I couldn't make such a bad impression for my family so I wouldn't even consider it a good NPC move either. I would like to volunteer for KD until I cannot anymore and I doubt they would like an ex Playmate to be a national representative.

Well, I have to go, I cannot stay at work all night to debate, but will be interested to see what happens over night to this!

I am sure Playboy and other companies like them are upstanding, tax paying entities, but it's not my cup of tea. END OF STORY.

Good Luck to all whom disagree!

I searched under her name with ASA attached to it on the Internet, and found nothing. In one interview she mentions "my sorority" but doesn't say which one, and even in her college newspaper it doesn't say which one. If she was trying to get ASA's name out attached to her centerfold, she did a lousy job.

I think the human body is a beautiful object. When I was in figure drawing we drew nude women all the time, live and photos. I did some drawings with playboy's and I think the pictures are very artisitic in comparison. Personally I would never pose nude because I do not have the courage to do so. but I do think that the women who do are more than welcome to pose. But if an organization deems posing in magizines as unmoral then it is that organizations right. I think especally in the south it is frowned upon because we have very particular codes of ethics. I can't image one of my sisters posing for playboy because it is definatly considered risque, and not a positive representation. If you are going to pose for a magizine you should be prepared for what ever happens as a result.