darth_ender said:
But do we have to see everything? I can tell someone is in the shower just by seeing bare shoulders and head, tiled walls, and water emitting from a shower head. Do I need to see a butt crack to be sure? But this fails to address my point in the quoted paragraph that most of us value modesty in life, even if many enjoy the lack of it it movies.
Yes we have to see everything and yes you have to see butt crack, if the director wishes so. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. And it has nothing to do with modesty, since seeing naked breasts or butt is not to be considered as any kind of "bonus" but something completely normal and casual.
darth_ender said:
But now since you went beyond the topic let me say this... when it comes to bad stuff from ancient cultures, modern religions took those things and even "evolved" them. I won't go into details of medieval Church public executions and torture again, or suppression of people with different ideas.
Yes, because it was only the Catholic Church that did this, not other religions and societies, or even irreligious societies. But this is not the point of this discussion.
I wasn't walking only about Catholic Church... that was only an example. I said "modern religions" when I was making the main point.
darth_ender said:
darth_ender said:
I know know of no movie or show that glamorizes sex and pregnancy when it shows you some famous actress's breasts bouncing on screen.
Showing bouncing breasts on screen actually has nothing to do with sex. It merely showing something natural about human body. Bouncing breasts are human body under the laws of physics.
I'm not just talking about watching a girl in a bikini on the beach. I'm talking about explicit scenes that show breasts while I woman is in the act of sex. You missed my point more here than anywhere, as I am saying that sex is shown to be only fun, while glossing over the risks (and joys) of pregnancy or the risks (and sorrows) of STDs. It's just all about the self-indulgence of sex.
Well if the storyline prescribes a scene that is to rely an information that two characters had sex (let's say sex just for fun), then that's what the scene should rely. Why the hell would you force filmmaker to attach a big discussion about pregnancy and STDs to the film, just because there is a sex scene in the story?
darth_ender said:
I am tempted to continue itemizing responses, but I am still convinced you are an idiot who is determined to miss my point most of the time.
We went over this already once. If you want people not to miss your "points" write them in one or two sentence and leave out all the unnecessary ballast.
And it may not be that I missed/ignored your points just because I didn't directly replied to them. If I estimate that something came down to a matter of different opinions, then there is little to no room for further arguments and discussion.