Motion Picture Assoc. approves trailer with nudity!

[bar Jonah]

By the way, for those of you who periodically write to various companies or organizations in defense of morality and liberty regarding political and spiritual matters, you may like to know that the Motion Picture Association of America has now "approved for all audiences" a movie trailer featuring female topless nudity in the form of an undressing hooker.

The trailer for "Owning Mahowny" is featured at Quicktime.com and is running in theaters now, possibly in front of PG movies attended by young children.

Just thought you might like to know.

[yxboom]

I remember the trailer to jaws had the girl swimming naked and IIRC it showed that she was in fact nude.

[Jin-Roh]

Watched the trailer. It could be worse, but that's still bad for advertisement.

[bar Jonah]

Could be worse?

Hollywood has gone from prohibitting anyone from even kissing on screen... to hookers undressing in movie trailers that are approved for young children.

Every year, they push it further and further... And every year, we hardly notice because its so subtly incremental. Could be worse?

It could be a darn sight better, too, my friend.

[Rubia Warren]

Honestly... I am so sick of all the nudity and foul language in EVERYTHING.

[yxboom]

Egad no kidding what happened to you Rubia :eek:

[Rubia Warren]

I've put my clothes back on and turned over a new leaf.















(april fools! HAR.)

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 02:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50451#post50451)
RightIdea:

Could be worse?

Hollywood has gone from prohibitting anyone from even kissing on screen... to hookers undressing in movie trailers that are approved for young children.

Every year, they push it further and further... And every year, we hardly notice because its so subtly incremental. Could be worse?

It could be a darn sight better, too, my friend.

I wasn't saying that it wasn't bad. Its just from the way you described it I expected to get flashed...

[Sozo]

Today @ 04:39 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50462#post50462)
La Rubia:

I've put my clothes back on and turned over a new leaf.

You wear leafs?














(april fools! HAR.)

[Rubia Warren]

Sometimes, yeah.:rofl:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 03:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50472#post50472)
Jin-Roh:



I wasn't saying that it wasn't bad. Its just from the way you described it I expected to get flashed...
You didn't? Are we talking about the same trailer? The woman is topless, and you can see her breasts. You don't call that flashing?

[Jin-Roh]

Today @ 09:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50733#post50733)
RightIdea:


You didn't? Are we talking about the same trailer? The woman is topless, and you can see her breasts. You don't call that flashing?


Well maybe we didn't. I only saw her backside, no frontal.
I'll watch it again and look harder this time.
:brow:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 10:41 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50737#post50737)
Jin-Roh:
Well maybe we didn't. I only saw her backside, no frontal.
I'll watch it again and look harder this time.
:brow:
Dont' go looking for sin, brother.

But yes, you can clearly see her breast and nipple. I did not have to look hard to see it. I'm not seeing things, and I didn't go over it with a fine-toothed comb. I saw it clearly (and unexpectedly) the first time I viewed the trailer.

[yxboom]

I watched the trailer twice cause it got interrupted and the first time I didn't even know which part this thread even referred to. The second time I watched I was more aware but still noticed nothing but a backside. La Rubia's, shoot even Sozo's avatars show more cleavage than that trailer and it seems I would be the fool to make a huff over a backside.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 11:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50755#post50755)
yxboom:

I watched the trailer twice cause it got interrupted and the first time I didn't even know which part this thread even referred to. The second time I watched I was more aware but still noticed nothing but a backside. La Rubia's, shoot even Sozo's avatars show more cleavage than that trailer and it seems I would be the fool to make a huff over a backside.
Backside? I saw no backside. I saw a woman's chest, clear as day. And I wasn't looking for it.

[yxboom]

If we are talking about the same trailer. A lady takes off her coat and it reveals her backside for say less than 2 secs.

Are you married bro? :hrm:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 11:32 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50767#post50767)
yxboom:

If we are talking about the same trailer. A lady takes off her coat and it reveals her backside for say less than 2 secs.

Are you married bro? :hrm:
I am not married. Yes, that's the scene, and her chest is clearly showing, including nipple. Are you looking at it with a poor resolution or something?

[yxboom]

I have a 19" NEC monitor at 1280x1024 at 105Hz. I think I know what I am seeing. It is a backside from her hips up and she is facing AWAY from the camera cause her hair is down her back.

So far it is 2 saying it is a back and 1 saying it is a chest.

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 11:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50773#post50773)
yxboom:

I have a 19" NEC monitor at 1280x1024 at 105Hz. I think I know what I am seeing. It is a backside from her hips up and she is facing AWAY from the camera cause her hair is down her back.

So far it is 2 saying it is a back and 1 saying it is a chest.
I know I am not seeing things. I see a breast with the nipple for at least two frames, which is hardly "subliminal."

[yxboom]

I tried doing a screen capture but the Quicktime frame messes up. I will show you.

[GrayPilgrim]

As to getting worse. I remember back inthe mid 90s when NBC put Schindler's List on unedited, I figured it woudl open up the door to nudity on prime time TV as long as it had the MA rating. But other than flipping through adn catching a brief scene on TBS a few years back they have shown more restraint than I thought they would.

GP

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50785#post50785)
GrayPilgrim:

As to getting worse. I remember back inthe mid 90s when NBC put Schindler's List on unedited, I figured it woudl open up the door to nudity on prime time TV as long as it had the MA rating. But other than flipping through adn catching a brief scene on TBS a few years back they have shown more restraint than I thought they would.

GP
The lines are a little more hard to cross on TV than on the movie screen.

[yxboom]

Ok you done made me do it...

It is a BACKSIDE!

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 12:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50800#post50800)
yxboom:

Ok you done made me do it...

It is a BACKSIDE!

Dude, I don't know what you're talking about. I dont' see anyone's rear end in that picture. But about 1 or 2 frames after that shot, you see her chest sticking out, clear as day.

Do we really need to be posting pictures about this? I think we're focusing on the wrong aspect of the issue. LOL

[flipper]

I declare this Naughtiest Thread Ever! Even if we're not altogether certain what was the naughty part, or parts, in question.

Hurray!

[Piebald]

There is the possibility that you guys are seeing different versions of the same trailer...

[Rubia Warren]

I hate the word "nipple". It's such a corny word. Why do women get stuck with all the dumb names for their body parts?

[SynchroKnight]

OK, this is what I saw...

For exactly two frames there is a profile of a breast.
(RightIdea is correct)

However, when played at normal speed, its virtually impossible to see it. (hence, I have no idea what the fuss is about):huh:

[yxboom]

Yesterday @ 10:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50773#post50773)
yxboom:

It is a backside from her hips up and she is facing AWAY from the camera cause her hair is down her back.


I said it is her backside from her hips up. Cher is the only female on this planet I am aware of that has her rump above her waist. I was referring to her BACK not her rearend.

[yxboom]

Today @ 06:46 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50971#post50971)
SynchroKnight:

OK, this is what I saw...

For exactly two frames there is a profile of a breast.
(RightIdea is correct)

However, when played at normal speed, its virtually impossible to see it. (hence, I have no idea what the fuss is about):huh:

A profile is not a chest shot which is what RightIdea is insisting it was.

[Rubia Warren]

Cher has highwater booty?:huh:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 07:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50985#post50985)
yxboom:
A profile is not a chest shot which is what RightIdea is insisting it was.
I didn't say it was full frontal. I said you can clearly see the breast and nipple... and you can. And that should be utterly unacceptable.

I've never heard of the term "backside" as referring to someone's back. I've only heard the back called "the back." LOL

And it's not almost impossible to see the offending details. I wasn't looking for it, but I saw it clear as day.

[yxboom]

Today @ 07:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50994#post50994)
La Rubia:

Cher has highwater booty?:huh:

:rofl:

RI,

On page one you said you saw her "chest" clear as day. So, I will give it up to you that it was a misunderstanding than.

[Jin-Roh]

So two votes for nudity, and two votes for backside.
Personally I think that this is getting a little silly...
:duh:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51402#post51402)
Jin-Roh:

So two votes for nudity, and two votes for backside.
Personally I think that this getting a little silly...
:duh:
Yes, I concur.

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50733#post50733)
RightIdea:
You didn't? Are we talking about the same trailer? The woman is topless, and you can see her breasts. You don't call that flashing?

I've read this thread with some amusement. Seriously, just what is so evil about some woman showing her breasts and/or backside on a movie trailer (or anywhere else for that matter)? You need to lighten up, IMO.

Incidentally, does anyone have any explanation for why (some) Christians get so exercised about anything with the slightest connection to human sexuality, but seem to be quite accepting of violence in entertainment?

[SynchroKnight]

Yesterday @ 11:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51404#post51404)
RightIdea:


Yes, I concur.

I agree...we should be discussing that horrible wig they put on Minnie Driver.


:wink:

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 04:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51430#post51430)
Alien:
I've read this thread with some amusement. Seriously, just what is so evil about some woman showing her breasts and/or backside on a movie trailer (or anywhere else for that matter)? You need to lighten up, IMO.

Incidentally, does anyone have any explanation for why (some) Christians get so exercised about anything with the slightest connection to human sexuality, but seem to be quite accepting of violence in entertainment?
Sex is a beautiful and glorious blessing bestowed by our Creator, meant for the context of sacred marriage blessed by God. To abuse it and treat it with disrespect is disgusting and inappropriate.

[Em7add11]

Today @ 05:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=51402#post51402)
Jin-Roh:

So two votes for nudity, and two votes for backside.

My vote is for nudity.

What's this about a movie trailer?

[Alien]

Yesterday @ 08:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=#post)
RightIdea:
Sex is a beautiful and glorious blessing bestowed by our Creator, meant for the context of sacred marriage blessed by God.

Or, sex is beautiful and glorious indeed, and perfectly alright (like anything else) in any context where no innocent party gets hurt as a result of it.


To abuse it and treat it with disrespect is disgusting and inappropriate.

I totally agree, but I suspect we differ widely on what would represent abuse and disrespect.

We'll never agree on this.

How about commenting on what I said about violence in entertainment?

[flipper]

RightIdea:


To abuse it and treat it with disrespect is disgusting and inappropriate.

I would argue that to abuse others and to disrespect them is disgusting and inappropriate. Probably all that is wrong with some kinds of sex can be traced back to abuse and disrespect of all kinds.

Whether or not you need to be married is irrelevant. I contend that it is your attitude towards sex and the person you are having it with that is at issue here.

[Minnesota]

So a child sees a flash of breast that lasts less than a second. So what?

Let me you asks this: How many seconds of violence would you allow your child to see as a trade off for not looking at a half second of a naked breast?

[yxboom]

Welcome to TWeb Minnesota

:yx:

[bar Jonah]

Yesterday @ 09:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=71518#post71518)
Minnesota:

So a child sees a flash of breast that lasts less than a second. So what?

Let me you asks this: How many seconds of violence would you allow your child to see as a trade off for not looking at a half second of a naked breast?
Hours. Why?

[Minnesota]

Hours, why?

Just curious as to how your moral priorities line up. Interesting!

[bar Jonah]

Today @ 09:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=72659#post72659)
Minnesota:



Just curious as to how your moral priorities line up. Interesting!
Interesting, how? Violence frequently solves problems. Just look at the Holocaust, one of the best examples in recent human history. The fact that police carry guns is a daily example. Sex, however, is much more restricted in the contexts in which it is appropriate. And it isn't appropriate for children to witness, except in a strictly educational, scholastic sense. (Which needless to say this movie obviously isn't.)

So, your point?

[Minnesota]

The implication of your choice is that the state of being semi-nude is somehow more determental than an act of violence. This is an extension of the idea that seeing partial nudity is worse than seeing violence. Nudity is nothing more than a state of being: nothing untoward is happening to anyone. It is a very natural and neutral state. Everyone is often semi-nude with no attendant ill effects. Your mother and grandmother have been semi-nude thousands of times: do you hold this against them or find such behavior deplorable? I would hope not. Our attitudes toward nudity is almost entirely cultural: where nudity or partial nudity is seen as an acceptable natural state--think of the more primitive societies here if it helps--there are no consequent ill effects. Where nudity or partial nudity is seen as a taboo, it is capable of creating guilt, anxiety, repression, etc.

Violence, however, is quite different. Violence as a whole is pretty much avoided if not deplored by most people. Where an alternative to violence as a means to a solution is available the prevailing opinions among civilized folk is to to take that alternative if possible. Other than in sporting venues, violence is seldom seen as a "good." Violence, unlike nudity, which is a state of being, is a state of action. If someone is violent toward another, the victim may well end up in a hospital. If someone exposes a breast to another, the "victim" has the choice of dismissing the exposure if they wish. The "victim" can CHOOSE if or how he will respond, unlike the victim of violence who MUST respond either defensively or become violent himself.

So, I see a basic difference in the two situations. One is a state of being, which can be ignored if one wishes; the other, a state of action, which will likely call for a response--probably not of ones choosing, either. Taking this a step further, what is the consequence of watching either?

Is looking at a naked breast harmful? For women, the obvious answer is, "No." Is it harmful for males to see a naked breast? Under all but the most aberrant conditions of the mind, I would say, "no." How about the male child? What is the worst that could happen? I can't speak from experience because all my early glimpses of a naked breast were positive, so I leave it to you to describe the awful damage that will result.

Is looking at violence harmful? Indeed it is, which has been borne out my numerous studies that showed a positive correlation between watching violent acts and subsequent antisocial behavior.

This is why I found your answer interesting: You obviously know of the dangers of viewing a naked breast, something that has eluded me. AND, these dangers overshadow the known consequences of viewing violent acts.


As for your reference to the Holocaust, you must forgive me for my inability to see the relevance, maybe you could explain. The same goes for police carrying guns. Police carrying guns is certainly NOT an example of an act of violence. The use of a gun may be a violent act, but it is one that we have decided is just. And, I will agree that police carrying guns can be a solution to problems. BUT, the solution, if it results in the use of the gun, is an act we, as a society, have deemed necessary to protect our rights. It is a consented and controlled use of violence. But, is that the ONLY form of violence you have in mind when you say that you would trade hours of violence for a brief glimpse of a naked breast? I know it isn't.

Then you say, "Sex, however, is much more restricted in the contexts in which it is appropriate." I agree, but we're not talking about sex here, we're talking about partial nudity. I'm sure you know the difference. You go on, " And it isn't appropriate for children to witness, except in a strictly educational, scholastic sense." I'm not so sure I would accept this without qualification, but I understand where you're coming from; yet, again, I must remind you we are talking partial nudity, not sex.

[sbgrace]

Context is the issue, in my opinion. You talk about a naked breast, but is it the breast of a mother nursing her child, or the breast of a prostitute attempting to titillate? (no pun intended) Both are naked breasts, but I would restrict my children from seeing one and not the other. Same with violence. I hate movies with pointless violence (they usually have a constant stream of expletitives too). However, if the violence is in the context of a meaningful story and serves a purpose in telling the story, that's much more acceptable.

What really irritates me is that I can research a movie ahead of time and determine it to fall within the parameters of what my wife and I consider acceptable for our children, but then the previews that are shown violate our standards!

As a teacher I can also tell you that many of the elementary students I work with have been exposed too far too much sex via movies and now have a twisted notion of what it's all about.

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

Most of the time, they make more than one trailer for any given movie. You all are probably seeing two different trailers for the same film. They may be showing the one Jin and Boom saw at PG movies and the one RI saw at R movies, perhaps.

By the way, I have to agree with Right Idea on this one. If there is indeed a two-frame shot which shows bare breast and nipple, it is utterly unacceptable! I mean, geez, only two frames? That's just cruel!

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

04-02-2003 @ 08:31 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=50957#post50957)
La Rubia:

I hate the word "nipple". It's such a corny word. Why do women get stuck with all the dumb names for their body parts?

What's this "women" stuff? Last time I checked, guys have them, too!
:lol:

[Tobias Reiper]

r00bz:

I hate the word "nipple". It's such a corny word. Why do women get stuck with all the dumb names for their body parts?

You think that's bad, at least you're not stuck having to say the word (pass if you're ignorant on anatomical nominclature and wish to remain so, otherwise highlight the space) scrotum every time you go in for a physical.

[Yog^sothoth]

you know. i was watching some old movie the other day...from the 80s or so and there were breasts everywhere...in the previews!

EGAD! Say it isn't so!!!!

Oh, but it is so. I saw them.....I have nightmares still.

[Xmansmommy]

:shocked:

[Yog^sothoth]

:yog:

[Xmansmommy]

:hi: :yog:

[Paul]

:huh:

Was this just an April fool's joke?

[Taffsadar]

Oh no run to the hills, the boobies are coming!

Somehow this seems silly since I just need to go to the beach in order to see some breasts (well not right now but during the summer)... I've never reall figured out why some yanks make such a big deal out of it.

[Patroclus]

utterly unacceptable!

:rofl: Somebody should tell Freud about this pun/ parapraxis!

[Xmansmommy]

Nope, no joke here. :nsm:

[Darwin]

RightIdea

Backside? I saw no backside. I saw a woman's chest, clear as day. And I wasn't looking for it.

WOW! I suggest you take another look. The shot was a 3/4 rear angle, Only the side of her right breast was exposed, and then for only a fraction of a second. And, unless one is uptight about using the word "breast" and finds "chest" a less titillating term, usually a singular breast is not considered to be the chest.

Aside from that, I welcome the drift away from the prudish notion that nudity, in of itself, is somehow detrimental to humans, children included. The flash of breast in the trailer, was far, far, far briefer than the full frontal, fully nude depictions of women and men accessible to children of all ages in many of our museums. Just consider Leda and the Swan: not only a picture of a totally nude woman, but a depiction of her having sex with an animal.

Were it not for the insidious uproar from the more-moral-than-thou religious right, who try to foist their hangups upon the nation, I would find the issue here laughable. But because this straight-laced attitude--bereft of common sense--seems to feed on itself and propagate a censorious mind set, it functions as another threat to our freedom of harmless expression. Prove harm and I will acquiesce to your fear driven position, and join hands to help see these things are quashed.

[Taffsadar]

Today @ 09:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=354693#post354693)
Darwin:


Just consider Leda and the Swan: not only a picture of a totally nude woman, but a depiction of her having sex with an animal.


And where can I find that movie?

[Darwin]

Taffsadar
And where can I find that movie?

No movie, just old fashion oil paintings.
Here is one among many such pictures.


http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/WebMedia/Images/18/NG1868/mNG1868.jpg

For more, just click on

Nasty Pictures We let our Children Look At While
Screaming That a Naked Breast In A Movie Will Send Them To Hell (http://www.indiana.edu/~myth98/leda.html)

[Patroclus]

Hey Darwin,

I don't want to speak for RightIdea. He and I have known each other for a while, and while we disagree frequently, we maintain mutual respect. So, for the sake of argument, there is quite a bit of difference between Venus DeMilo and a prostitute dropping a fur shawl.

Now, while I do not believe that seeing a little profile is going to send somebody to Hell, nor necessarily send a youngster reeling into the throes of sexual frustration (though some of my Freshman students might give me cause for concern) we are dealing with a difference between beauty and pornos.

Venus, though she is the goddess of female sexual love, is the ultimate representation of youthful feminine beauty. Personally, I find about as much provocation in that as in in Picasso's Nude Descending a Staircase. While I cannot necessarily plum the depths of intent, my suspicion is that Venus and Nude are studies of beauty, as much as Michaelangelo's David is a study of beauty.

Pornos however is an exaggeration of beauty with the purpose of titilating. There is a reason why a High School student may be able to look at Venus, but he or she is prohibited from looking at Jennifer McCartney in Playboy. McCartney, portrayed within the context of Playboy is titilating. Moreover, nudity, within the context of prostitution, is also titilating.

So, Darwin, et al, are you more willing to discuss the possible issues of titilating nudity (or Pornos)?

:pat:

p.s. I still think the "utterly unacceptable" is the best pun of the website this year.

[Darwin]

Patroclus,

Nice post.

I agree that there is "quite a bit of difference between Venus DeMilo and a prostitute dropping a fur shawl." But I question whether that difference is really germane. One is a work of art and the other would like to work on Art. :lol: But seriously, rather than using the Venus DeMilo as a point of comparison (one which is fairly tame in nature) let's stick with Leda and her off color antics. What principle do you see as differentiating a picture of a naked woman having sex with an animal, from a picture of a prostitute dropping a coat and momentarily exposing the side of a breast?

You say we are "dealing with a difference between beauty and pornos." (Is the italicization significant?) If you consider the sight of the side of a naked breast to be pornography, I'm afraid we will have to part company right now. Both of us would have too much of an up hill battle with the other.

So before continuing, I would have to know your answer, AND why you were titillated by the picture of the side of a bare breast and not by any of the more "arty" depictions of nudity.

[Patroclus]

Darwin:

Patroclus,

Nice post.

Thanks. I aim to please.


I agree that there is "quite a bit of difference between Venus DeMilo and a prostitute dropping a fur shawl." But I question whether that difference is really germane.

On the contrary, I think that it is quite germane. As you have noted, reaction to nudity is largely a function of culture. There are people, such as John Ashcroft (I admit, an extreme case) who finds such paintings and sculptures that I have described, as smut. Whenever one deals with nudity, there is a dialog between the nude and the observer. For the prostitute in the motion picture, her part in the dialog is, "I am willing to have sex with you." This is a titilating conversation starter. However, the reaction can be as varied as the reactions we have seen in this discussion. The reason why children are an important issue is because many of them have not been given the correct tools for proper engagement of this dialog. For a Christian, the hope is that the child will engage in the dialog by rejecting the offer. However, if the child is not first porperly exposed to this ideal response, or is not exposed to a response at all, he or she is likely to respond unfavorably. I think that is the issue that RightIdea fears, legitimately. As for John Ashcroft, I fear that he is pornotroping art.


One is a work of art and the other would like to work on Art. :lol:

Nah, she looks almost as dirty as Christina Aguilerra. Didn't you ever learn about STDs?


But seriously, rather than using the Venus DeMilo as a point of comparison (one which is fairly tame in nature) let's stick with Leda and her off color antics.

I will try, but in all honesty, I know very little about this painting.


What principle do you see as differentiating a picture of a naked woman having sex with an animal, from a picture of a prostitute dropping a coat and momentarily exposing the side of a breast?

Well, I am not sure. I do not know the psychology of bestiality. Furthermore, I do nto know the story (if there is any story) behind Leda. From a Christian standpoint, I would have to say that both are offering sin. As one who engages in the dialog, the question is how will I respond to that sin?


You say we are "dealing with a difference between beauty and pornos." (Is the italicization significant?)

I italicize pornos because I want to differentiate the Greek from the commonly assumed English derivation, "pornography."


If you consider the sight of the side of a naked breast to be pornography, I'm afraid we will have to part company right now. Both of us would have too much of an up hill battle with the other.

No, again, you must consider the context. In real life, if a doctor sees a naked breast during an examination, as long as his or her end of the dialog is clean, there is no problem. If that same doctor sees the breast of a hired prostitute that night, for the purpose of sexual favors, there is a problem. It is about context.


So before continuing, I would have to know your answer, AND why you were titillated by the picture of the side of a bare breast and not by any of the more "arty" depictions of nudity.

Again, I am concerned with context and the sexual dialog.

[bar Jonah]

Thank you, Pat; as usual, your arguments are inspired.

Also, Darwin, you are unwise to assume I believe children should see paintings of women committing bestiality with animals. Where on earth did you get the idea that I would show such paintings to children?

I am not threatened by nudes, but yes, there is art that is inappropriate for children, without a doubt.

On top of everything else, I don't even personally find the female breast inherently erotic or sexual (as I have related to a number of fellow TWebbers). I can honestly say that even seeing a topless woman in real life (in person) isn't inherently sexual or erotic, as I don't believe the breasts are primarily for that function in the first place. This appears to be a purely cultural standard, not one of absolute morality. I would even go so far as to say I would not have a problem with such things as topless swimming at the beach, etc., IF it would not pose a problem to others. (However, it certainly does in our culture.)

However, this isn't about me, but rather about (1) other people for whom such a sight is a stumbling block and (2) children who don't yet know how to discern, especially in our sex-saturated culture.

If a person could earn a living making assumptions, you'd be in three figures by now. :wink:

[Paul]

Darwin:

Patroclus,

My comments were meant to go no further than the issue at hand: the fractional glimpse at the side of a bare breast in a movie trailer, and its comparison to classical works of nude art that are available to children. That you want to broaden the discussion is entirely another matter. I'm still concerned that some feel that the brief glimpse in the trailer is some how vile or at least deserving of editing.

Darwin,

I think what Pat was saying was that it is not the glimpse of the "side of a bare breast" itself which is wrong, but the whole portrayal surrounding it inclusive of the glimpse.

[Darwin]

Patroclus,

My comments were meant to go no further than the issue at hand: the fractional glimpse at the side of a bare breast in a movie trailer, and its comparison to classical works of nude art that are available to children. That you want to broaden the discussion is another matter. I'm still concerned that some feel that the brief glimpse in the trailer is some how vile or at least deserving of editing.

FYI. Leda and the swan is a story from classical mythology about the rape of Leda, a queen of Sparta, by Zeus, who had taken the form of a swan. Helen of Troy was conceived in the rape of Leda.
W. B. Yeats wrote a famous poem entitled “Leda and the Swan.” Many pieces of art, both paintings and sculpture have depicted the event.




RightIdea,


Darwin, you are unwise to assume I believe children should see paintings of women committing bestiality with animals. Where on earth did you get the idea that I would show such paintings to children?

I never made such an assumption. All I said or meant to imply--if you check back--is that we, as a society, have decided such works of art will be available to the entire public, children included.


If a person could earn a living making assumptions, you'd be in three figures by now.

Well, the only assumption I made was that your position was "fear driven." A fear that the glimpse of a nude breast would somehow corrupt children. If this is not a fear of yours, then please tell me what is driving your desire to prevent children from seeing a bare breast out side the context of education. What is the motivating force, if not a fear of the consequences?

And FYI, my comment, "Were it not for the insidious uproar from the more-moral-than-thou religious right, who try to foist their hangups upon the nation, I would find the issue here laughable. But because this straight-laced attitude--bereft of common sense--seems to feed on itself and propagate a censorious mind set, it functions as another threat to our freedom of harmless expression." was not directed at you personally.


Paul,

Please note my remarks above to Pat.

[bar Jonah]

Compassion. Love.

That is the motivation. :smile:

[Patroclus]

Darwin:

Patroclus,

My comments were meant to go no further than the issue at hand: the fractional glimpse at the side of a bare breast in a movie trailer, and its comparison to classical works of nude art that are available to children. That you want to broaden the discussion is another matter. I'm still concerned that some feel that the brief glimpse in the trailer is some how vile or at least deserving of editing. Emphasis added

I don't know about the editing. What I am concerned with in this argument is how we distinguish between beauty in the nude and pornos in the nude and the ensuing dialog therein. As far as how "vile" that screen shot is, I cannot say. What I can say is, having studied advertising for the last four years, sex sells - this much is obvious. Also, if Hollywood is lacking anything, it tends to lack artistic appeal. Furthermore, trailers are designed as an advertising tool to draw people into the theatres or video stores. Therefore, if Hollywood lacks artistic appeal, and the nudity is displayed in the chief mass-media advertising component, my guess is that the nudity is meant to titilate, rather than sublimate. This is the pornos. What you do with this is up to the dialog that you have with the clip. I cannot edit it, and lobbying will not help in the long run. Hollywood has flown below the radar of the law since 1948, and they will continue to do so.


FYI. Leda and the swan is a story from classical mythology about the rape of Leda, a queen of Sparta, by Zeus, who had taken the form of a swan. Helen of Troy was conceived in the rape of Leda.
W. B. Yeats wrote a famous poem entitled “Leda and the Swan.” Many pieces of art, both paintings and sculpture have depicted the event.

Well, then you have given the context. If you will note my previous post, I mentioned that I would question it, without context, based on the explicit bestiality. I can pornotrope anything I want (like John Ashcroft), but it behooves me to realize the context if I can. With the proper context, I am far less reserved concerning that painting.

Context - dialog

:pat:

[Darwin]

Patroclus,

Asked why you italicize "pornos," you replied:


I italicize pornos because I want to differentiate the Greek from the commonly assumed English derivation, "pornography."

Which sent me to a reference (Strong's), which said.

Pornos: Male prostitute (Strong's #4205) A man who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse for pay.

Then you write:
I don't know about the editing. What I am concerned with in this argument is how we distinguish between beauty in the nude and pornos in the nude and the ensuing dialog therein.

Now, is that how you are using the word (Strong's def.) or can we agree on its more common definition: A derivative from pornography, which is

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

because the Greek definition isn't making sense. If you have YOUR OWN definition I'd be happy to listen. But as it stands, I don't know what you're trying to get across by its use.