Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Seamonkey
So elwood, basically you think anytime there's nudity it's probable that it was exploitive in one way or another?
It seems to me that your personal morality is getting in the way of this discussion, I think Moogle has expressed his points and you can't see past your own opinion of the situation to understand what he's saying.
I don't think there's anything wrong with having a strong moral opinion, that's great, but you seem to be applying it to other people, and there you can run into trouble.
Anyway, for the record I agree with Moogle and what he's trying to say (or rather, has said).
|
Actually, it has little to do with my personal morality. Maybe my ethics. Big difference between the two, however. You can broadly define what is ethical, but you can't do the same with morality since it's inherently a personal choice.
As I said before, I understand fine what he is saying. He's saying women should do nude scenes or find another career. Pretty simple, actually. He can guise it in comments such as "it's about reality" and "they get to make a choice," but then there's really no choice if it comes down to pose nude or lose your job, is there? It's a complete removal of choice.
As I've noted earlier, I am not even against nudity in films. I just think for the most part it can be avoided and probably 90% ore more of the time when it is there it's simply there for titilation. Here's an example of where it WAS needed--the Terminator films. They travel through time and only things cover in flesh make it so they lose their clothes. There's really no other way to show that happening to show some nudity, but really all three films did it tastefully without having to zoom in on Arnold's penis. Compare that to the example Moogle was ranting about concerning a woman in bed after sex with the covers pulled up. You know she just had sex. What's the point of showing her breasts? Can you reason any? The truth is that it wouldn't be that odd for her to be under the covers, or pulled up against the man (also hdiing her breasts). To have her simply lying on her back with her breasts exposed is fairly pointless. It doesn't contribute to the story in any fashion. It's done to show tits.
When a woamn is asked to do that in a scene, when a perfectly good other method is sitting there, should she be fired because the director wants to show some tits? It isn't a moral issue, but simply asking how should people be treated? I don't know how to make it that much simpler to understand. My guess is that most women would never want to do such a thing because they would be horribly embarassed by the filming and later showing of the scene. To blame them is completely one-sided. That's why I said to grow up and see it from all perspectives. So far I continue to only hear one--that of the audience.