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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
