darth_ender said:

It's really not that hard when you imagine that the whole discussion is about the morality of such open sexuality, instead of all the minor supporting points you fight against. You, my friend, are the very epitome of "Can't see the forest for the trees."

You can blame me now, but unlike you, I was staying on topic (i.e. nudity/sex in film/art), except when I replying to your off-topic arguments.

So if I briefly restate my point... there is absolutely nothing improper about nudity/sex appearing in film/art, if they represent natural parts of our lives. Showing nudity/sex in film is done for the sake of authenticity of scenes. As I said, if you take a shower you do it alone and naked. If the scene shows a character naked and alone taking a shower, that is just an authentic reproduction of real life. It most certainly doesn't compare to "walking around naked" in real life or any other weird stuff you suggested.

And your argument that showing nudity/sex should be avoided in film by just hinting it is without any ground and a very dumb one too. Then why the hell don't they just avoid showing all other casual parts of our lives like: talking, eating, walking etc. Ahh why even make a film at all when they can just make a hint with a title...