Anyone with the Wedding Crashers DVD?

Great Debates
41

pulykamell, I’m not really sure what you’re trying say here…that there’s more than one viewpoint about this subject? Was there ever a question about that? I consistently say that I don’t expect others to share my opinion. How is reversing my position relevant to the discussion?

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. It’s not religious, although my religion does have a similar viewpoint (Catholic). I have held this viewpoint for longer than I have been Catholic, so my views on this subject were not influenced by my religion.

–FCOD

42

The subject of your agitation seems to have shifted from simple nudity in the first few posts, to people having sex. I realise you’ve tried to explain this in a post mid-thread, but it really does seem like you’re saying something quite different now.

43

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 :wink: ), I asked if you would want people to watch you have sex.

–FCOD

44

I’m consistently talking about nudity in a sexual context. Forgive me if calling it by different terms was confusing.

–FCOD

45

So what? That would have been lame. Anything along those lines negatively impacts the verisimilitude of the film. Like I said, if you want to think it’s worth it, that’s up to you. But don’t pretend that such things do not hurt a viewer’s ability to suspend disbelief, because no one will buy it.

I normally don’t like to whip out the ol’ “Did you even read my post?”, but dude. I never said I watched the film because of nudity. Indeed, quite the opposite – having seen the previews in which there are similar scenes of women flopping on the bed post-coitus with their bras on, I assumed it’d be yet another film that inanely pretends that people wear clothes when they have sex. I went to see it because Vince Vaughn makes me laugh. The boobs were a pleasant surprise.

Fortunately, no matter how supercillious you posture, you don’t know dick about me.

Cow, you simply make the same statements over and over like they were true. But they ain’t true. So please stop pretending that your dislike of nudity is anything but personal prudishness. Again, as I’ve said a thousand times now, I don’t begrudge you it – but it’s simply your taste, and there is nothing to it but your personal (IMO erroneous) belief that it’s improper. So get off the horse.

–Cliffy

46

Pardon me: “supercilliously you posture,” or, alternatively, “supercillious your posture.”

Carry on.

–Cliffy

47

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?

48

Forgive my somewhat incoherent post. I had just woken up when I wrote it. I suppose what I’m trying to ask is why are you “disturbed” and “sad” that the rest of us don’t share your view? At least, that’s the feeling I’m getting across given your choice of words, that somehow we don’t experience the same level of intimacy that you do because you don’t choose to see other people naked in a sexual context.

For me, seeing sexual nudity does not do anything to affect the desire or the privacy between me and my SO.

49

<mod>

DVD? BVDs? GD! ASAP!

:stuck_out_tongue:

</mod>

50

Yay! As I said, I think there’s an interesting debate here (in fact more than one).

My position on the current branch:
There is no double standard - it is quite acceptable to view (or receive in some other way) activities that others have consented to make available to the public, while still withholding that same consent should you carry out the same activity yourself; there is no hypocrisy, only simple recognition of the different choices that have been made.

51

‘Private Garden’ being a euphemism for…?

52

Pelvic region, of course.

No; really, some people actually spend a lot of time manicuring their lawn (no euphemism) and nurturing their gardens, ending up with a really fantastic show; there’s a national open gardens scheme where you can advertise your garden (or you can just stick an ad in the paper or put up a sign); I’m quite happy to visit these gardens, and I see no hypocrisy in my choice not to open my own garden, regardless of how presentable it may or may not be.

53

I think I’m pretty much finished with this thread… I asked a simple question, and was asked in return to explain my personal viewpoint. I think I’ve made my position clear, and I don’t really feel like defending it any more. I don’t expect others to agree with me, and I would never use derogatory words to describe some else’s opinion. While there have been several posts with a genuine intent to have an intelligent discussion about my opinion, there have been a few that are inflammatory, and frankly I don’t feel like being told that my opinions are wrong.

They’re true to me. When did I EVER pretend that others should follow my beliefs? 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. Sorry, you can’t tell me that my opinion is wrong because you disagree. Get off my horse? I didn’t even offer my opinions until someone asked me. Cliffy, why don’t you learn to respect other people’s opinions and not use negatively connotated words in an intelligent discussion. And while you’re at it, go fuck yourself.

Sorry that I won’t be continuing in the discussion Mangetout…I can see that you want to participate in an intelligent discussion on the subject, and I appreciate the alternative viewpoints that you’ve offered to me.

–FCOD

54

Now, now, not to junior mod or anything, but be careful what you say in GD.

55

BTW, I am a programmer, which is why I mentioned it specifically; I don’t want a fly-on-the-wall documentary camera following me around; I have no objection to other people exercising the choice to allow one to follow them and again, I wouldn’t feel hypocritical watching such a documentary (although I probably wouldn’t watch it on the grounds of it being dull), despite not wanting to participate in one.

56

I guess the OP won’t be returning, but I wonder if seeing male nudity would also be off limits (assuming FCOD is a heterosexual male). There’s no sexual interest involved, but I’m guessing the answer will still be no, based on the “private parts” rationale. So it has nothing to do with being sexually interested in the nudity (the OP did say that statues and paintings were ok).

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.

57 

Watch Carefully now.
This is the part where he
Types in a comma
When he should have used
a Semi-Colon.

:eek: Riveting!!!

58

Dunno; despite the protests to the contrary, the OP did start off talking about simple nudity; talking specifically about being able to see ‘private areas’ and stating that males with shirts off are OK (implying that females with shirts off are not OK).
This distinctly changed to ‘nudity within a sexual context’ - IMO, as a result of being pressed to defend the position on simple nudity.
This shift may be because of mis-stating his position at first, but it sure doesn’t look that way.

It’s a shame the OP has left; I don’t think there’s anything to debate without him.

59

Do you mind!? There may be children watching!

60

I can take it. Kinda made me giggle, actually.

Cow, you said you’re done with the thread, so this being the Internet I know you’ll read this. First, I never once called your opinion dopey, or made any derogatory comment about it. Nor did I call it wrong, as you claim I have. I disagree with it, certainly, and I do think that as you’ve described them your views are logically inconsistent, but I never ever said your opinion is not valid.

What I said is that your rationale is dopey. Because it is. You offer no support for your thesis that nudity is bad other than saying you think it’s bad (or “unnatural,” or “private,” or anything else that really means bad). That’s not a legitimate argument; it is simply a rationalization of your personal axiomatic beliefs. Be a man – think what you want to think without pretending that you’re folowing pure reason. Because your beliefs are not based on reason, as amply demonstrated by me, Princhester, Mangetout, and others. They are simply based on your innate sense of propriety. 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.

You say in your most recent post that you’re not trying to force your views on anyone, but that’s false. You are, by claiming that reason supports your position, so that those of us who love reason will agree with you no matter the contrary advice from our humours. Every time you say “it’s not right,” you actually mean “I believe it’s not right.” OK, believe it. But recognize that of the two of us, you are the only one who has tried to “prove” that his personal moral opinion is correct, and don’t get your knickers in a twist because I don’t accept an argument demonstrating the validity of your moral structure which is based on a pre-existing acceptance of your moral structure. Duh.

OTOH, someone in this thread has called me “sad,” “disturb[ing],” and “troubling.” He’s also cast aspersions on the depth of the relationship I have with my wife, even though he’s never met us. I think we can all agree that anyone who’d do that based on a personal difference of moral opinion must be a dweeb.

(Of course, I did call you supercillious. But, well, you know…)

–Cliffy