# Anyone with the Wedding Crashers DVD? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 18, 2006, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505 "2006-01-18T14:06:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/61 "2006-01-19T17:30:30Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > There is nothing wrong with acting according to your innate views, but there’s something very deeply wrong in declaiming that your sense of propiety is the way things ought to be. I’ve got to disagree. I can’t fathom **FlyingCow** ’s view that a person can be okay with such a crass movie as Wedding Crashers, but be offended by a boob. That just makes no sense to me, but whatever. I can’t find anything that indicates that he’s trying to force his views on anyone else, as you assert, **Cliffy**. Yes, he’s said he feels sad and disturbed for people who don’t share his view, but I can’t say that’s some attempt to change people’s minds, because I kind of feel the same way about his view. It is kind of disturbing to me that some adults have such a violent, negative reaction to a flash of a boob onscreen. It just makes no sense to me. So, **Cliffy** , by that measure, am I trying to force my views on **FlyingCow**? But the bottom line is that **FlyingCow** started this thread not in protest of boobs in movies, but simply wanted to know know what moments of the movie he should skip so the fragile sensibilities of he and his wife are not offended. So far as I can tell, this is the exact model of what the easily offended should do when confronted with material they don’t like: don’t watch it. It’s obvious that he has a very severe reaction to nudity, and while it seems to make no sense to anyone else here, I don’t see that he’s seeking converts to his POV. But insisting that his personal beliefs are wrong, especially when he’s not advocating that Wedding Crashers be banned or boycotted or whatever, seems to me to be the greater offense than not liking to see boobs in movies. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/62 "2006-01-19T18:02:28Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > Now I WILL use some derogatory words, 'cause I’m pissed off: Cliffy, you’re an asshole who felt the need to call my opinion dopey because you didn’t agree with me. > . . . > . And while you’re at it, go fuck yourself. Now I will use some choice words: We have an entire Forum set aside for people to demonstrate their anger using personal insults. This is not it. If you feel the need to call posters names, open a thread in [**The BBQ Pit**](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=5) and provide a link from a post in this Forum. Do not call people names in **Great Debates**. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Zebra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c0e974/32.png) [@Zebra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zebra)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/63 "2006-01-19T18:10:05Z")
My wife, can not look at spiders. (and she is a big LotR fan) She has to hide her face or sometimes leave the theatre. It sounds, to my non-professional therapist view, that it is some kind if irrational thing the **FCofD** has and since it is irrational, it’s hard to argue about it. When I worked in theatres, the usual view of parents was that it’s OK for the kids to see violence but not nudity. I remember a group of boys, all around age 12, who wanted to see Rambo II and I called their parents and all of them asked about nudity and all knew that it would be violent and all but one of them said OK. I didn’t tell the boys which dad said no. I recall another time that the nudity was OK because it wasn’t a sex scene. (Some girls flashed their boobs) So then the mom said it was OK for her young teen daughters to see the movie. Only once, did I have a mom say to me. “It’s OK for them to see sex but I don’t want them to see violence. I know that sex will someday be a part of their lives but I hope violence never is.” ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/64 "2006-01-19T19:16:14Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > I can’t find anything that indicates that he’s trying to force his views on anyone else, as you assert, **Cliffy**. I don’t assert that. What I said was that **Cow** tried to argue from logic that his personal prejudices are RIGHT and that mine are WRONG; i.e., “But let’s be honest: there’s no artistic reason to include naked breasts in the Wedding Crashers…” He pretends that there are reasons for his views that exist outside his own head. There are not. > [@](#): > > But the bottom line is that **FlyingCow** started this thread not in protest of boobs in movies, but simply wanted to know know what moments of the movie he should skip so the fragile sensibilities of he and his wife are not offended. And, indeed, I left him alone until he began to try to pervert logic into justification for his personal tastes. See my above response: I never called his opinion dopey, but his rationale is. > [@](#): > > But insisting that his personal beliefs are wrong, especially when he’s not advocating that Wedding Crashers be banned or boycotted or whatever, seems to me to be the greater offense than not liking to see boobs in movies. I agree. I hope you aren’t suggesting that I’ve done any such thing. Because I have not. Only his logic is absurd; his views on gazongas are his own. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/65 "2006-01-19T19:47:10Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > I don’t assert that. The only reason I responded to your post is that you wrote: “You say in your most recent post that you’re not trying to force your views on anyone, but that’s false.” I just didn’t see any evidence of it, since I thought it was quite clear that “in my opinion” could be easily inferred from each of his statements (aside from that nonsensical “would you have sex in public” question). As in, “(in my opinion) there’s no reason for boobs in movies.” I don’t think anyone need to say IMHO for every single non-factual, non-persuasive statement. Anyway, all this should be OBE by now. This thread probably ought to die on its own. ---
**Author:** ![Ethilrist](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ethilrist/32/4604_2.png) [@Ethilrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ethilrist)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/66 "2006-01-19T19:52:44Z")
> [@charizard](#): > > Sounds like what you need is [Clearplay](http://www.clearplay.com). > > You have to buy a special DVD player, but they’re cheap nowadays - and after that you just download a filter for whatever DVD you want to watch and they do the skipping for you. You can set options for what sorts of things you want to filter out. > > We got one of these for watching movies with our kids, and it’s one of the best things I’ve seen in a long time. There are lots of movies that are fine for kids except for a few scenes that they throw in. Yeah, like Jennifer Connelly’s shower scene in _Labyrinth._ ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/67 "2006-01-19T21:18:25Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > No, I don’t want to let people watch me have sex, however, I understand that other people choose not to exercise that choice in the same way and are quite happy to let people watch _them_ have sex. I see no problem or double standard (in principle) with my watching other people doing what they have consented to make public, while at the same time not making it public should I choose to carry out similar activity. > > Seriously, people exercise these sorts of choices all the time: People open their private gardens to visitors; would I visit one? Yes! would I open my own garden to visitors. No; why should I? Many things we see in movies are not things we’d wish to show off if we were actually in that situation. I wouldn’t want people to watch me commit murder, but I’ve seen plenty of murders in movies. I wouldn’t want people to see me have an emotional breakdown, or an embarrassing conversation, or any number of a thousand other things. That’s what movies are, though - attempts to depict something about humanity. Virtually every movie depicts some sort of private moment. It’s inane to apply that standard to sexuality and not to all the other things movies show. > [@Patty O'Furniture](#): > > What would happen in a locker room situation? Even if you pick a locker in the corner and never glance left or right, and don’t walk to the showers, you’re still showing your “private parts” to others so it seems like this has to be against the rules as well. Right. It’s simply incorrect to claim that nudity generally is kept private and shared only with one’s SO. The arguments around what “should be” the case are well-countered by examples from other cultures with bare breasts (or alternately, covered faces.) The rationales being offered for this somewhat unusual position simply don’t support it. I have to agree that this does appear to be mere prudery. ---
**Author:** ![flex727](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/258eb7/32.png) [@flex727](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flex727)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/68 "2006-01-20T01:20:17Z")
It’s too bad that **FCofD** got disgusted and left. I think he was piled on unnecessarily. I, likewise, do not share his opinion, but it is neither unreasonable nor illogical. However, what _is_ illogical is his willingness to ask someone else to violate his moral code. In order for someone in this forum to grant his request, it would be necessary for that someone to watch the DVD _paying special attention to the nude scenes_! ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/69 "2006-01-20T01:36:40Z")
He was piled on, for sure; I don’t know about unnecessarily. It was inevitable that this thread would turn into a debate(or get sent to the pit), simply because it’s based on quite an unusual premise that most people seem to consider unbalanced or absurd. The question was answered as well as could be before it headed off in several directions; that’s a good thing. ---
**Author:** ![iamthewalrus\_3](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/258eb7/32.png) [@iamthewalrus\_3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iamthewalrus_3)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 1:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/70 "2006-01-20T01:38:52Z")
> [@flex727](#): > > It’s too bad that **FCofD** got disgusted and left. I think he was piled on unnecessarily. I, likewise, do not share his opinion, but it is neither unreasonable nor illogical. However, what _is_ illogical is his willingness to ask someone else to violate his moral code. In order for someone in this forum to grant his request, it would be necessary for that someone to watch the DVD _paying special attention to the nude scenes_! To be fair, that’s not asking much. 😉 Is it immoral to ask someone to tell you how to avoid something you consider immoral, if you know that they’ve already done that immoral thing? I’m disappointed because I wanted to ask about _Sin City_, in the case that he’d seen it. IIRC, the first breast shot is not at all sexual in nature. It’s just someone sleeping who wakes up and isn’t wearing anything. Later ones, however, are clearly sexual. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/71 "2006-01-20T08:57:17Z")
> [@flex727](#): > > It’s too bad that **FCofD** got disgusted and left. I think he was piled on unnecessarily. I, likewise, do not share his opinion, but it is neither unreasonable nor illogical. \*! If you followed the debate carefully, you would have noticed that what was disputed was not whether his opinion was unreasonable or logical, but whether certain of the arguments he attempted to use to justify his opinion were logical or reasonable. They were not. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 9:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/72 "2006-01-20T09:17:14Z")
It could have been a double-bluff. “Exactly what is the timestamp of the nude scenes so I can, er… avoid them? Yeah, that’s it. _Avoid_.” ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 9:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/73 "2006-01-20T09:27:20Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > If you followed the debate carefully, you would have noticed that what was disputed was not whether his opinion was unreasonable or logical, but whether certain of the arguments he attempted to use to justify his opinion were logical or reasonable. They were not. Thank you **Princhester** for putting this into succinct words; that’s why (or at least mostly why) people piled on; not because the position was an unreasonable one (although it’s certainly _unusual_), but that the explanations and arguments presented supporting it just _don’t adequately explain it_. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/74 "2006-01-20T15:05:36Z")
Thanks, **Princhester**. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/75 "2006-01-21T01:05:55Z")
So… nobody else thinks it’s odd that the OP has no problem with _sex scenes_, obviously depicting private contact, just as long as they don’t show any boobies? Because that’s what **I** thought was weird. ---
**Author:** ![Othersider](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/cab0a1/32.png) [@Othersider](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Othersider)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 10:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/76 "2006-01-21T10:57:27Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > So… nobody else thinks it’s odd that the OP has no problem with _sex scenes_, obviously depicting private contact, just as long as they don’t show any boobies? Because that’s what **I** thought was weird. I find it a bit odd too, but it’s hard for me to try and imagine what he might think about sexual scenes that don’t actually show “naughty shots” as opposed to scenes, sexual or not, that do. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/77 "2006-01-21T20:10:25Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > I mean that I feel that it is not natural to see other people having sex. I feel that it is an intimate, private act and should be kept that way. This statement is factually incorrect. Historically, it was entirely common for people to have sex in semi-public areas. Historically and across cultures, it was common for people to share rooms and even beds with each other (whether the room was one of many in a castle or one room only shacks.) Sex might be more or less discreet or quiet, but it wasn’t something people felt the need to hide. Many cultures felt that the politness burden was on other people not to stare, rather than on the couple to retreat some place remote. Modern notions of privacy in the West have developed in the context of the shift to individual family homes with multiple rooms for each person. In most cultures even today it wouldn’t be possible to have complete seclusion during sex. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/78 "2006-01-21T21:55:38Z")
A person’s feelings or opinions cannot be factually incorrect. **FCoD** didn’t claim his or attitude was historically common, only that it was his or her feeling. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/79 "2006-01-21T22:59:03Z")
Nor did he make any attempt to establish his own, clearly-stated preference as normative for anyone else. But, as ever, the Usual Suspects, having failed to get him to say what they wanted to hear, went ahead and pretended that he said it anyway. _:shrugs:_ Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/80 "2006-01-21T23:03:38Z")
A statement of opinion which hinges upon an incorrect fact can lead to incorrect opinion, can’t it? Surely, some opinions can be incorrect. The opinion “it is not natural to see people having sex” is incorrect because the underlying fact is wrong. In most cultures throughout history it was not only natural, it was the norm. His feelings about it don’t change that fact. If he were to say “I feel it is wrong for me to see people having sex,” - that statement would be irreproachable on these grounds. He would be discussing his personal feelings and he himself would be the only expert. But in stating “I feel it is not natural to see people having sex,” he’s stating his opinion about a fact, a fact unrelated to his personal feelings. If he had said, “I feel it is not natural to eat with your fingers” - that would seem to be a similar instance of an opinion of based upon an incorrect fact. It may be wrong for whatever reason, or even merely wrong for him personally, but it couldn’t possibly be called “unnatural.” That’s how I look at it, at least. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505.md?page=5)