…I have no doubts that this would have been your position. But apparently **TriPolar **does doubt your position, so its a good thing you cleared things up for him.
Why are you suggesting that? Do you think nudity is unconscionable?
…but that wasn’t the question you actually asked. And considering that no-one in this thread appears to hold this opinion, I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer.
WTF? Of course not. I do, however, think that our society, for very good reasons rooted at minimum in our culture and possibly in our genetic wiring, treats sexual entertainment as different from other forms of entertainment.
There are plenty of contracts that cannot be enforced. If I’m a restaurant worker, for example, and my boss only offers me a job if I sign a contract to pay for any dishes I break, and I drop a giant freakin’ pile of fine china, my boss cannot recover damages from me, because that’s not an enforceable contract. The boss can fire me, sure, but that’s very different from holding me accountable for his financial losses due to my activity.
I’m suggesting that sexual entertainment deserves additional protections in contract law.
I’ll try one more time. It is exactly what I asked. I did not ask what other factors would make nudity an non-enforceable contract term. And I gave you two examples where people think it is, could be or should be unenforceable. It doesn’t matter for what reason they made those statements. Neither of them have explained their reasoning, their explanations assume there would be a reason without explicitly stating what that reason is.
Now if you can answer the question then do so.
I doubt it. She’s not claiming any special Christian basis to her beliefs. And the anti-porn crowd’s already got plenty of real ex-porn stars for their talk show circuit - they’re not going to want to listen to stories about a topless scene when they can hear about the hardcore stuff. And she won’t make it on the conservative circuit because she’s not blaming everything on the liberals - she’s committing the heresy of blaming a major media corporation. You’re not going to get a chance to say that on Fox.
What do you feel I haven’t explained? I think I’ve explained my reasoning multiple times.
Turn it back on you: do you think the additional regulations we put on sexual entertainment are all completely bogus, and that a person doing sexual entertainment ought to be regarded by the law in the same way that a restaurant worker is regarded?
…I’ll try one last time. Because protracted debates over semantic points in Great Debates are tiresome.
But you asked a different question. I’ve quoted it, I’ve shown it to you, you simply refuse to acknowledge that the questions were different.
Both of those examples you cited don’t demonstrate what you were looking for. Left Hand of Dorkness has explicitly said that it wasn’t.
I wouldn’t have bothered answering your question if it had been worded the way you intended. I answered the question that you actually asked: because it appeared you didn’t know the answer.
Now I’ll let you get back to waiting for an answer to a question no-one here can answer as no-one holds that position.
First, I started my post #165 before you posted #164. So that was an explanation not reflected in my post, and I apologize if I missed where you made such an explanation before.
Now to your question, no I don’t think the additional regulations we put on sexual entertainment are all completely bogus. However I don’t think the actress in this case was being asked to sexually entertain on a contractual basis. She was not asked to perform actual sex, she’s not a prostitute, or even a stripper working a live show. She was being asked to act. Nudity is a common occurence in the movie business whether or not it is for sexual entertainment, and the definition of sexual entertainment is too broad for making contract law. In my own opinion it is a perfectly reasonable term of a contract to have a person agree to perform nude and their failure to do so should be treated like any other breach of contract.
…nudity isn’t that common. Most actresses could probably spend their whole lives without having to do nudity, and only a very small pool of actresses would take a role as explicit as in Femme Fatales. Acting, as you point out, is one of the few jobs that may require nudity on the job and for the overwhelming majority of workers out there taking off your top isn’t a job requirement. So as an actor it isn’t “common.” And for the rest of the world it would be unheard of. This is precisely why things like nudity riders exist. And if the production company can produce the evidence that they did everything properly and above board they will probably win their case.
You might not consider acting on Femme Fatales as sexual entertainment. But I doubt anyone is watching for the story lines. You seem to be hung up on the “actual sex” thing. But “actual sex” isn’t the point.
And who thinks otherwise?
I’ve never seen that show, but I have seen some or “Rome” which also had nudity and simulated sex. I’m sure no one was watching that long show only for the sex.
Such as? Contracts are negotiable. And too many restrictions - especially the ability to back out at the last minute with no penalty, would either make an existing segment of entertainment impossible. Perhaps you want to do that, but I wonder if it is constitutionally permissible. Would you add something to the contract to make it illegal to ban actors and actresses backing out from being refused jobs for unreliability?
If actors as a group want additional rules it can be negotiated, as so many things are.
…Rome is not Femme Fatales. And the work of Helmut Newton is not the same as the work of Suze Randall.
Why are you asking me this question–have I not made a specific proposal?
Again, I’ve given a specific proposal. It does not entail being able to back out at the last minute with no penalty. It wouldn’t make an existing segment of entertainment impossible.
However, it would also ensure that an actor would never face the choice of performing sexually or being financially destroyed.
I think that’s a fair compromise that respects everyone’s interests.
We disagree, but you’ve made your point clear and it is probably shared by many people. Even though I think nudity shouldn’t be something special as a matter of contract law it’s still a touchy subject with many people. Your proposal does offer a solution based on fairness, and I think it’s a lot like the way Hollywood operates now outside of the courtroom. Few actors could compensate a production company for losses in these cases and the impact on their careers is the usual reason actors abide by their contracts.
There are plenty of award-winning actresses that have never done a nude scene. Body doubles, in fact, are a common way for a given performer to keep from exposing herself while allowing the film narrative to present its artistically necessary skin-revealing scenes.
The body doubles have a contract too. And it is common in acting even if the majority of actors don’t appear nude or semi-nude in movies. There is a significant portion of actors who have done nude scenes, a larger percentage who have been in movies where other actors performed nude, and the vast majority of actors know another actor who has done a nude scene. So it is common, not some kind of exceptional event.
In this case a body double was used, and may have been planned on, but in most cases where a body double is used the primary actor must still appear nearly nude. A very large number of actresses have worked topless with just pasties on to give the impression of nudity even if no actual nudity was in the final result. The use of body doubles, specified in the AFTRA contract does protect the producers and their ability to create the work they intend, but what happens if a body double is flown out to a location shoot and then refuses to appear nude? Should producers eat the cost of bringing in actors for specific purposes who then refuse to perform?
BTW: I’m not clear on your position here, you lost me at the consensual/non-consensual thing. Were you just saying that some part of a contract which is voided may void other parts of the contract?
You keep using the term “sexual entertainment” as if it means something specific. Please define the term.
To the extent that other portions of the contract are not severable, sure.
Oh ferchrissakes. Entertainment intended for the purposes of sexual arousal, and the definition might include simulated sex and/or the exposure of those body parts covered by your swimsuit area, all right? This is a really stupid request for a definition, and I won’t indulge any others, because you’re perfectly capable of making a best guess at what the term means and moving on from there.