# 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:** 17\ **Page:** 5
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/81 "2006-01-21T23:05:47Z")
Shodan, I would have said that his insistance that seeing people have sex is unnatural was in fact an attempt to insist that hiding it was the norm. It’s not. ---
**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 22, 2006, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/82 "2006-01-22T00:05:42Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > 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. No, the opinion “it is not natural to see people having sex” is just that, an opinion. It cannot be correct or incorrect. You either share it or you don’t. Just because majorities in other cultures did not share that opinion, does not make an opinion incorrect. Pretty much every opinion has people both agreeing and disagreeing with it. Does that mean _all_ opinions are incorrect? Or just the ones that had the majority of a culture sometime, somewhere, with the opposite opinion? If he or she claimed \*\*all or most cultures feel \*\* it is not natural to see people having sex, then it might be incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/83 "2006-01-22T01:19:25Z")
The statement “it is not natural to see people having sex” is not a statement of opinion. It’s a simply declarative sentance - a straightforwad statement of fact. As it happens, in this case, it’s a straighforward statement of a _false_ fact. Adding “I feel” to the front of a declarative sentance doesn’t somehow insulate the declarative part from being correct or incorrect. You might perhaps qualify the declarative statement by stating “it is not natural _in our current culture_ to see people having sex” but the OP didn’t say that. And of course, that qualification would just be an opening for people to point out that the prevalence of sex scenes in popular cuture means it really is natural in our culture. ---
**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 22, 2006, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/84 "2006-01-22T01:47:46Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > The statement “it is not natural to see people having sex” is not a statement of opinion. It’s a simply declarative sentance - a straightforwad statement of fact. No, because there isn’t a non-subjective way to judge of something is natural or not natural, in every case. When speaking of something like seeing people have sex, the judgement of whether that is natural or not is not a factual one but a subjective one, and hence an opinion and not a statement of fact. There may (or may not) factually indisputed statements where calling something natural or not might be considered a statement of fact, but I do not believe this is one of them. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 4:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/85 "2006-01-22T04:53:21Z")
> [@FlyingCowOfDoom](#): > > You missed my point. If you were a stuntman, would you care if people watched you crash through a wall? If you were a programmer, would you care if people watched you program? I didn’t ask if you would want to have sex (who doesn’t 😉 ), I asked if you would want people to watch you have sex. If I were an actor in a movie with sex scenes, I wouldn’t mind if people watched me have sex. I guarantee that none of the actors in Wedding Crashers mind that people can see their bodies. They weren’t forced to strip at gunpoint! ---
**Author:** ![Alan\_Smithee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/2acd7d/32.png) [@Alan\_Smithee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alan_Smithee)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/86 "2006-03-06T10:14:40Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > No, because there isn’t a non-subjective way to judge of something is natural or not natural, in every case. When speaking of something like seeing people have sex, the judgement of whether that is natural or not is not a factual one but a subjective one, and hence an opinion and not a statement of fact. > > There may (or may not) factually indisputed statements where calling something natural or not might be considered a statement of fact, but I do not believe this is one of them. Huh? I was happy to read this thread from the sidelines, until I got to this. I don’t get it. What else could it possibly mean to say that a behavior is natural, than that it occurs widely in a variety of contexts? What else could it mean to say that a behavior is not natural than that it does not occur except in unusual, contrived, or dysfunctional situations? Or is “natural” just a synonym for “good”? ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/87 "2006-03-06T11:33:45Z")
> [@Alan Smithee](#): > > I was happy to read this thread from the sidelines, until I got to this. I don’t get it. What else could it possibly mean to say that a behavior is natural, than that it occurs widely in a variety of contexts? What else could it mean to say that a behavior is not natural than that it does not occur except in unusual, contrived, or dysfunctional situations? > [@](#): > > nat·u·ral > adj. > > 1. Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl. > 2. Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment. > 3. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death. > 4. > 1. Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people. > 2. Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader. > 3. Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex. > > 5. Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive. > 6. Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce. > 7. Faithfully representing nature or life. > 8. Expected and accepted: “In Willie’s mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper). > 9. Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights. > 10. Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate. > **[Definition of natural | Dictionary.com](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/natural)** > > Definition of natural from Dictionary.com, the world’s leading online source for English definitions, pronunciations, word origins, idioms, Word of the Day, and more. Natural means so many things that without clarification it is almost meaningless. Revtim is quite right that there is no subjective way of determining ‘natural’ as it was used here. When you boil it right down natural means something that would have existed even were humans not present. So a river is natural, but a dam isn’t. Of course when you are talking about acts undertaken by humans the word makes no sense. Seeing humans have sex can’t be other than something that occurs because of humans. Or alternatively, you couldn’t see humans haing sex if there were no humans in existence. So in that sense seeing humans have sex is inherently unnatural. But it’s also a tautology. Of course an act that only exists because people perfeorm it wouldn’t be seen if there were no peope to perform it. The only alternative is to use natural as meaning against some higher order (eg God). And that really is subjective. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/88 "2006-03-06T13:01:08Z")
> [@Balke](#): > > When you boil it right down natural means something that would have existed even were humans not present. No. In the sense you are trying to use it, natural would mean something that would only have occurred if humans had not taken artifical steps to create or change it. Humans are as natural as our cousins the apes and many human actions (including sex) are natural. _Watching_ other humans engage in sexual activity for fun and profit _may_ not be natural, (I am not up on the voyeuristic tendencies of bonobos), but it is an error to claim that the mere participation of humans renders an action unnatural. ---
**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:** [March 6, 2006, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/89 "2006-03-06T14:07:18Z")
> [@Alan Smithee](#): > > I was happy to read this thread from the sidelines, until I got to this. I don’t get it. What else could it possibly mean to say that a behavior is natural, than that it occurs widely in a variety of contexts? What else could it mean to say that a behavior is not natural than that it does not occur except in unusual, contrived, or dysfunctional situations? As the dictionary definition shows, there’s more to it than that. But suppose, for the sake of argument, it is limited to your definition, “occurs widely in a variety of contexts”. OK, how widely? Whether a behavior occurs widely enough to fit that definition is subjective opinion, not fact. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/90 "2006-03-06T21:54:19Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > No. In the sense you are trying to use it, natural would mean something that would only have occurred if humans had not taken artifical steps to create or change it. No, that is a tautology. Artifical _means_ “[human created](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=artificial)”. Referring to humans taking _artificial_ steps to create anything is a tautology. You just said "natural would mean something that would only have occurred if humans had not created the steps to create it. Well yeah, it’s true. If humans hadn’t taken steps to create something then human wouldn’t create it. Not exactly enlightening to add ‘artifical’ to the defintion was it?. And of course if we remove the word ‘artificial’ then all you are saying is “natural would mean something that would only have occurred if humans had not taken steps to create or change it”. That is almost exactly what I said: “natural means something that would have existed even were humans not present.” The only difference is that by your abreviated defintion dioxane pollution is natural ,since humans never took steps to create it. It occured entirely because of steps humans took create something else. At no stage did anyone take steps to create dioxanes. I doubt of too many people acept that dioxane pollution is natural. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/91 "2006-03-06T22:14:30Z")
I got dibs on the scenes **FCoD’s** new DVD player cuts out. ---
**Author:** ![Snickers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@Snickers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snickers)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/92 "2006-03-06T22:23:32Z")
I, too, am confused by the “sex scenes = okay, body parts = not okay” dichotomy that’s been set up here. Surely the act of sex is just as intimate, just as special, as the body parts involved, and so should probably also be avoided per **FCoD** ’s parameters, yet **FCoD** has stated that he doesn’t have a problem with sex scenes so long as they’re filmed in such a way that “naughty bits” are obscured. I understand (tho’ I don’t agree with) those who would want to limit exposure to all sexual content (including artfully filmed sex scenes that obscure body parts), but I’m not getting how sex scenes without body parts are OK, but explicit ones are not. And **Cliffy** , I don’t think the women in bras (or not in bras, as the case may be) were flopping on the bed _post-coitus_ (and thus, for the bra’d ones, would indeed be quite strange - who wears a bra during sex?), but rather, they were flopping on the bed _pre_-coitus. At least, that was my interpretation. It makes a little more sense that way. I’m with you - artificially keeping the woman (or man, for that matter) clothed during an intimate scene is annoying. Sure it happens, but probably not that often for the majority of people. The whole course of the discussion had me wondering often FCoD and his significant other were naked around each other. I’m not to the level of some on these boards (where once they’re home, it’s naked time), but I’m certainly not afraid to be nude around Mr. Snicks. I like to think that he thinks my bits are special, but I don’t wait for a special time to show them to him. Nope - I’m nude around him quite frequently. Dunno whether I could sleep in clothes the majority of the time, honestly. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/93 "2006-03-06T22:27:23Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > The only difference is that by your abreviated defintion dioxane pollution is natural ,since humans never took steps to create it. It occured entirely because of steps humans took create something else. At no stage did anyone take steps to create dioxanes. I doubt of too many people acept that dioxane pollution is natural. Are you talking about the well-known problem of _dioxin_ pollution, or is there actually a problem with dioxane that I’m unaware of? Used to use it as an analytical standard for NMR in the chem lab. They told us it was about the most dangerous thing in existence. But when I looked at the MSDS, it didn’t look like it was that dangerous. Anyway, you and **tomndebb** have done an admirable job of pointing out that calling a behavior “unnatural” is essentially meaningless and has no use in a debate. But then, seems like we figured out that **Flying Cow of Doom** couldn’t come up with any honest reasoning behind his opinions months ago when this original thread happened. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [March 6, 2006, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/94 "2006-03-06T22:46:16Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Are you talking about the well-known problem of _dioxin_ pollution, or is there actually a problem with dioxane that I’m unaware of? The probelm is that it has been over a decade since I studied biochem, and I wans;t very good at it then. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/95 "2006-03-07T15:22:46Z")
On Clearplay, last year Congress passed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which was specifically designed to exempt Clearplay and similar devices from the copyright laws. It was, of course, passed with the full backing of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a noted prude and also a representative of the state where Clearplay is based. **Cow** , IMHO your views on nudity are nuts, but that doesn’t bother me. Your views on how the rest of us should be like you, on the other hand, are offensive. I love boobs, lots of them, and all in a sexual context. My wife’s too. Your ideal world is a nightmare to me. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/96 "2006-03-07T16:26:05Z")
> [@acsenray](#): > > On Clearplay, last year Congress passed the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, which was specifically designed to exempt Clearplay and similar devices from the copyright laws. It was, of course, passed with the full backing of Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), a noted prude and also a representative of the state where Clearplay is based. > > **Cow** , IMHO your views on nudity are nuts, but that doesn’t bother me. Your views on how the rest of us should be like you, on the other hand, are offensive. I love boobs, lots of them, and all in a sexual context. My wife’s too. Your ideal world is a nightmare to me. Look, I don’t have any more sympathy for **Flying Cow of Doom** than you. But he’s fled the thread - this happened a long way back and there’s not much point in arguing with him when he’s not here. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [March 7, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505/97 "2006-03-07T17:09:06Z")
> [@Excalibre](#): > > Look, I don’t have any more sympathy for **Flying Cow of Doom** than you. But he’s fled the thread - this happened a long way back and there’s not much point in arguing with him when he’s not here. Anyway, I mainly came in to advise on the Clearplay point. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/anyone-with-the-wedding-crashers-dvd/340505.md?page=4)