thread to continue the sex/gore in movies/tv dicussion from the Random Thoughts thread — Page 2

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

Imperialscum, I don't know if you are aware, but you are actually a bigot.

Am I? I actually consider myself tolerant. For example, I think the religion is one interpretation of nature. Like science is. Something that you won't hear from many atheists, let alone scientists. However I obviously think science is by far better one.

To you, religion is one interpretation that is, as you say, nonsense.  In other words, without giving it its due credit, you shut it down and attribute nothing good to it, and much that is less than good.  I've read many of your posts, and I see you say nothing positive about religion, not even acknowledging what is generally well accepted.

darth_ender said:

If sex is so acceptable for general discussion, why don't we include children in the visuals?  Why do we lock the bedroom door so our kids can't get in?  Why don't you walk around the house naked with your significant other at all times? Why do we keep most details between partners?

Well you lock the door because you want a privacy in general. I lock the door when I go to a toilet. I lock the door when I work (is now work inappropriate because people like privicy when doing it?). I even prefer to eat alone if possible. But that doesn't make any of that inappropriate to be shown in a film/art. Whether you want to see it is up to your preference. However you have no ground to forbid artists showing it.

I'm sorry, but even among snooty British spellings (and my imagined British pronunciation that accompanies it), the word is still "privacy" :P

But if it's just so natural that we shouldn't be ashamed at all, why do we hide it?  Because we do in fact want "privicy" in what we do.  We expect some degree of modesty.  I work with a number of females, as you might imagine in the nursing field.  But I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable ever saying to one of my coworkers, "Hey, I feel like I might have a hemorrhoid.  Since I was born naked and it's no big deal, can you take a look and give me your professional opinion?"

As for art, how is Game of Thrones showing it for artistic purposes?  It is showing it for erotic purposes, clearly, so that it can garner a greater appeal among zit-faced nerds who have no lady friends.

darth_ender said:

Why do most people remain faithful to partners, or at least find that an ideal, especially since in evolutionary terms, a strong bull impregnating multiple cows is the best way to ensure a stronger species and many children to pass on genes?

One bull impregnating multiple cows does not necessarily ensure stronger species. Too many offspring from a single individual (no matter how good it may be) may reduce the variety. Poor variety is not good from evolutionary perspective.

It ensures the survival of the species, which is why polygamy is such a prevalent practice among natures creatures.  We humans are more the exception than the rule in at least holding the ideal of a lifelong partner.

darth_ender said:

In fact, now that we're on that topic, if sex is so important for evolution, why is its primary evolutionary function (reproduction) downplayed and in fact portrayed as undesirable more often than not?  Why is it lust that is advocated, not love, not producing children whom one could love?  Why is the possibility of pregnancy skipped nine times out of ten, as if contraceptives were not of concern because, hey, we're talking about fun sex here?  Why are the less pleasant aspects not usually shown, such as messy bodily fluids, or the difficulty of bringing women to orgasm or sometimes simply arousing them, or the discomfort of a woman's first time, or premature ejaculation, or heck, unless we're talking actual pornography, even the most essential organs for sex actually shown?  Still, people find it necessary to censor certain things, it appears?  Why?

I will answer: because people still draw certain lines where they take offense or find revulsion.  But filmmakers want to push that line.  I remember reading that the director of Basic Instinct wanted to be the first to show an erect penis and still maintain an R rating.  He did not succeed, but not for lack of trying.

So what is the point of showing all this?  It's not to show the beauty of sex.  Anyone who has had love-filled (not lustful) sex already appreciates that beauty.  It's to arouse, to make it self-serving and about pleasure and indulgence.  We are a society that loves to indulge ourselves rather than give.  And it is that selfish indulgence that film makers and TV producers are appealing to.

All I am saying is that an artist can freely show nudity and sex as these things are nothing inappropriate. They aren't considered inappropriate by the society per se. Ancient Greek or Ancient Rome had not problem with it. It is the more modern religions that polluted the society with "moral" standards that consider them inappropriate.

You're not a bigot, but modern religion "polluted" Greek and Roman cultures? Well, let's look at ancient cultures then.  Some religious cults (not in the modern pejorative sense, but cult in the actual dictionary sense) were centered on fertility and and public sexuality.  I guess modern religion polluted those noble ancient ideals.  Maybe you and your significant other could try to reinvigorate those ideas with public acts.  Don't be shy.  Don't demand privicy.  Don't go behind locked doors.

And as I recall, the Romans publicly executed prisoners in violent manners until modern religion polluted them once again.  The Greeks suppressed other cultures whom they had conquered, but modern religion polluted those ideas too.  The Romans thought their way of life so superior to that of others' that they took it upon themselves to militantly spread that lifestyle to the rest of the world.  Now, thanks to modern religious corruption, we no longer practice such methods.  Gosh, it looks like modern religion just ruined everything good, since the Greeks and Romans were right about everything.

darth_ender said:

Yes, I sound high and mighty.

Well I am.

:p

darth_ender said:

And Imperialscum, I also don't know if you realized, but you're a bit of an idiot.  You have cast religion as nonsense and sex (nominally baby-free) as essential to evolution.  Has it occurred to you that the reason that religion is so prevalent is because it too is an important evolutionary step?  But please, don't stop being an idiot or a bigot on my account.  Continue to be a jerk, by all means.

When I said "sex" I was referring to the entire concept (reproduction included). You seem to twist things the way you want to hear them.

 I know what you said, but really you are not advocating for the showing of the less fun aspects.  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.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

Also in a less spoiler-ish fashion, the heroic sniper sent from God was a bit daft.

 Sent from God?  I know the sniper believed in God, but sent by God?   I don't think the movie depicted him that way.

Yeah I'm probably over stating it. He was a bit gimicky, is perhaps what I mean. The point of the character was to show that being an awesome sniper who quotes from the bible like Sam Jackson in Pulp Fiction was that killing was waaay cool. At least that's what I took from it, probably not what Spielberg intended ;-)

 Yeah, the way I interpreted it was that he was sort of dealing with the cognitive dissonance of his faith and killing others, invoking scripture to either justify what he was doing or trying to maintain a pure mind while his body did what he knew he had to do.  That's my take at least.

ATMachine said:

darth_ender said:

ATMachine said:

For my part, I think that true respect for the human body would involve not being disgusted by its mere appearance on screen.

But then, I clearly don't run the MPAA.

On the other hand, I agree with you to the extent that "less is more".... that is, restrictions on creativity often force filmmakers to be more clever and entertaining than they would otherwise have been.

Still.... I really hope you're not advocating that filmmakers submit themselves to moral censorship based on Christianity. You do realize that doing so means, in effect, going back to the bad old days of the Production Code and the Catholic Legion of Decency?

I've heard stories about how Hays Office censors objected to films about the Holocaust because they feared the nudity of emaciated concentration camp prisoners would somehow be titillating.

Faced with the specter of censorious bureaucratic fools, I'll take Game of Thrones any day.

 You don't know me too well, but I don't recall saying that I am disgusted with the human body.  I am a nurse who just got off shift.  I probably have seen more people naked than you, and I'm not just talking about movies or particular websites.  Real people with real privates that I at times have to examine closely.  I do not find the human body repulsive.

Am I advocating moral censorship?  Only self-censorship.  I don't believe in taking away people's rights, but I do believe that their right is still wrong (clever pun there, eh?).

Thus, with you better understanding my views, as well as the obvious intent of trying to treat sex and the human body disrespectfully, do you think that respectful art or the Holocaust would somehow be included as not appropriate?  For children it probably is not, but for mature adults, certain things remain in fact preferable.  Who'd want to see the Holocaust as anything less than horrifying.  And speaking of which, why were those Holocaust victims so often forced into nudity?  Because it was humiliating, disrespectful, degrading, another opportunity for Nazis to exert control over others?

Good for you for standing up to censorship and getting an erection while you're at it.

Apologies if I offended you.

I'm very glad to hear that you don't actually advocate the sort of external censorship that led to the Hays Code. And I quite agree that a certain amount of restraint in filmmaking is welcome.

The trouble is, of course, that censorship is a slippery slope. I cited that Holocaust example for a reason.

A real person, in a position of power in Hollywood, actually thought that a movie about Holocaust victims might be dangerous to show--because it might turn the audience on!

It seems to me, therefore, that lewdness is in the eye of the beholder.

And as far as this discussion goes, I think it would help if you remembered that atheists are people just as much as religious believers.

Do you discriminate with medical care in your hospital based on a patient's religion? I'd hate to go to a hospital where they did.

 I have friends who are atheists.  I respect them, certainly, and I respect you and your beliefs as well.  I certainly wouldn't discriminate.  What I wish and hope is that audiences would censor what they watch, rather than have organizations censor what is made.  I wish there was more discrimination based on what I see as a disregarded moral standard.  People often fail to realize what social benefits there have been due to restraint in sexual matters, just like there are social benefits of other restraint.

Sorry if I came off rude with my last post.  I had gone over 24 hours with very little sleep, so I was probably a bit touchy.

That's the problem. Its the audience should censor things, based on your opinions, rather than their own.

I think too many people miss my point.  What I said in the beginning is something very close to this: "Why does our society glorify sex?"

Are you not trying to convince me that your morals are right?  Is not everyone who has argued with me trying to tell me that their views are right, and that I should change my perspective?  Why is there this huge backlash when I try to share what I believe to be right?  Did I take away your right to watch whatever you want?  How dare I?!  How dare I hold a view that we could treat something with a little more dignity?!

"What I wish and hope is that audiences would censor what they watch, rather than have organizations censor what is made.  I wish there was more discrimination based on what I see as a disregarded moral standard."

Based on what YOU see. I don't think your beliefs should dictate what I see in say, a horror film. 

Um.  Is it that hard to understand that I wish people held a standard like mine?  That isn't the same as dictating that they should.

boredom3031 said:

That's the problem. Its the audience should censor things, based on your opinions, rather than their own.

I think what he meant was that audience should censor things based on their own opinions and he wished and hoped theirs matched his. 

Alright, then I apologize for the previous statement.

Ryan McAvoy said:

Warbler said:

how can you say that it was the point of the Character?

It's my opinion from watching the film a few times.

I'm just not sure how somone makes something the point of a character by accident.

Warbler said:

I see very little resemblance beween the sniper and Samuel Jackson in Pulp Fiction. 

I'd agree but I never said one resembled the other. Only that they both quote from the bible while killing in a stylized way. Tarantino meant his character to sound cool while doing it, Spielberg did the same, only by accident. Again just my opinion.

 resemblance was poor choice of words on my part.   Perhaps "similar character traits"  would have been better.   In thinking about, I suppose I can see how one might think the sniper was sounding cool.  I could be wrong, but I don't think he quoting from the Bible.  I think he was reciting a prayer.   I'd have to rewatch to movie to be certain.

darth_ender said:

Um.  Is it that hard to understand that I wish people held a standard like mine?  That isn't the same as dictating that they should.

 I wish people held a standard like mine on all things, but it ain't gonna happen, so I try not to spend too much time worrying about it.

My biggest problem with people having standards different than mine is not when they have them, but when they try to force them on me.

Basically, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is here.  Don't like?  Don't watch.

Oh dear.  This again?

Short of relying on overly harsh censorship, society is always going have to enforce its own sense of discretion and good taste.  Unfortunately this means there will be plenty of rubbish produced, since there are many people with no sense of either, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everything resulting is degenerate and void of all artistic merit.

After all, as we know from Sturgeon's Law, ninety percent of everything is crap, and ninety percent of people lack the ability to distinguish between what is crap and what is not.  The key here is to ignore the bad and concentrate on what is good; because in simply being bad, the rest is not worth taking seriously in the first place.  The best thing to do is to focus on cultivating the ability to distinguish the good from the rubbish—in order to do so, it may be necessary to re-examine one's own criteria.

For my part, I'm far more offended by crass portrayals of violence than of sex, because violence is a much more disturbing and harmful thing.  I don't really care if people are aroused by portrayals of sex, since being aroused is kind of important to the whole idea of having sex in the first place (lol), but it is generally more artistically justifiable to include it when it is suitable for story purposes, rather than for its own sake.

TV's Frink said:

My biggest problem with people having standards different than mine is not when they have them, but when they try to force them on me.

 I certainly hope you are not implying that is what I am doing.

imperialscum said:

darth_ender said:

But if it's just so natural that we shouldn't be ashamed at all, why do we hide it?  Because we do in fact want "privicy" in what we do.  We expect some degree of modesty.  I work with a number of females, as you might imagine in the nursing field.  But I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable ever saying to one of my coworkers, "Hey, I feel like I might have a hemorrhoid.  Since I was born naked and it's no big deal, can you take a look and give me your professional opinion?"

I thought we are discussing nudity in film/art here. Showing something natural in film/art is something completely different to what you proposed. If a film scene is to show someone taking a shower, he/she obviously has to be naked.

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.

darth_ender said:

It is showing it for erotic purposes, clearly, so that it can garner a greater appeal among zit-faced nerds who have no lady friends.

Who is "high and mighty" now?

I first said I was high and mighty, not you.  Please reread the appropriate posts.  Besides, this was a joke and an exaggeration, and I hoped such was obvious.

darth_ender said:

It ensures the survival of the species, which is why polygamy is such a prevalent practice among natures creatures.

As I said, polygamy by itself is far from ensuring the survival of the species.

I disagree with your argument, but it's a point I care so little about that I see no reason to further defend it.

darth_ender said:

You're not a bigot, but modern religion "polluted" Greek and Roman cultures? Well, let's look at ancient cultures then.  Some religious cults (not in the modern pejorative sense, but cult in the actual dictionary sense) were centered on fertility and and public sexuality.  I guess modern religion polluted those noble ancient ideals.  Maybe you and your significant other could try to reinvigorate those ideas with public acts.  Don't be shy.  Don't demand privicy.  Don't go behind locked doors.

And as I recall, the Romans publicly executed prisoners in violent manners until modern religion polluted them once again.  The Greeks suppressed other cultures whom they had conquered, but modern religion polluted those ideas too.  The Romans thought their way of life so superior to that of others' that they took it upon themselves to militantly spread that lifestyle to the rest of the world.  Now, thanks to modern religious corruption, we no longer practice such methods.  Gosh, it looks like modern religion just ruined everything good, since the Greeks and Romans were right about everything.

Again, I thought we are discussing nudity/sex in film/art. I did not say Ancient Greek and Rome were generally perfect. I specifically said they had no problem with nudity/sex in art, as it is evident by many statues etc. And that is one decent thing from ancient cultures upon which modern religions regressed.

Decent in your opinion...while religion is indecent in what morals are actually a regression in this, and as you've stated, in other ways?  How dare you shove your views down my throat!  Heretic! (Hint: this is sarcasm, as he is merely expressing his opinion, and while I find it ignorant, he continues to push it, and no one makes him out to be demanding).

But my point is that just because an ancient culture, even one we are indebted to for our culture, found certain behavior acceptable, it does not mean it is for us.

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.

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.

darth_ender said:

Um.  Is it that hard to understand that I wish people held a standard like mine?  That isn't the same as dictating that they should.

There is only one step from wishing to imposing, and it is called power. When people get in power their wishes will be imposed on others, consciously or subconsciously.

So in other words, one should not wish that others would agree?  One should not continue to stand for a value he/she holds dear, hoping to convince others that maybe he/she is right?  Then why are you contiuining to argue your POV?  Were you in power, would you then require that I accept all forms of art as equally valid, that public sexuality is acceptable, and that religion is rubbish?  Boy, no more opinions or wishes for me.

.....................................................................................................

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.  Perhaps I'll give a proper response when I'm not so irritated with how off base you are.

EDIT: Never mind, I can't resist.

hairy_hen said:

Oh dear.  This again?

Short of relying on overly harsh censorship, society is always going have to enforce its own sense of discretion and good taste.  Unfortunately this means there will be plenty of rubbish produced, since there are many people with no sense of either, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everything resulting is degenerate and void of all artistic merit.

After all, as we know from Sturgeon's Law, ninety percent of everything is crap, and ninety percent of people lack the ability to distinguish between what is crap and what is not.  The key here is to ignore the bad and concentrate on what is good; because in simply being bad, the rest is not worth taking seriously in the first place.  The best thing to do is to focus on cultivating the ability to distinguish the good from the rubbish—in order to do so, it may be necessary to re-examine one's own criteria.

For my part, I'm far more offended by crass portrayals of violence than of sex, because violence is a much more disturbing and harmful thing.  I don't really care if people are aroused by portrayals of sex, since being aroused is kind of important to the whole idea of having sex in the first place (lol), but it is generally more artistically justifiable to include it when it is suitable for story purposes, rather than for its own sake.

 This is a good post, and though I still disagree with some points, it shows me that I probably should not have been so unnecessarily harsh with you (and in general, I really should not be so harsh with many, and I admit that I often get irritated and snappish).  I apologize for my mean-spirited statements in the past.

I too am opposed to violence in movies, at least graphic and senseless violence.  For instance, in Indiana Jones, I see an evil man get shot and I root for Indy because the bad guy was indeed evil, and it's really not terribly graphic.  On the other hand, Saw or Hostel have absolutely zero appeal to me and I feel there is no reason to watch such crap.  I have the exact same desire: that society as a whole would reject it.  But alas, these kinds of movies persist as well.

darth_ender said:

 

TV's Frink said:

My biggest problem with people having standards different than mine is not when they have them, but when they try to force them on me.

 I certainly hope you are not implying that is what I am doing.

 Not necessarily, though you cetainly wish people like me would think like you.  More importantly, it seems to bother you that it isn't the case.

Again, I'm not sure what the problem is.  Don't like, don't watch, done and done.

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

 

TV's Frink said:

My biggest problem with people having standards different than mine is not when they have them, but when they try to force them on me.

 I certainly hope you are not implying that is what I am doing.

 Not necessarily, though you cetainly wish people like me would think like you.  More importantly, it seems to bother you that it isn't the case.

Again, I'm not sure what the problem is.  Don't like, don't watch, done and done.

 If you could see my lips, I would ask you and all to read them.  Who on earth does not wish more would see things their way?  Have I been bothered that others don't share my views?  What has bothered me is the criticism of even having such views, of sharing them freely.  I have the right to feel that way, to share it, to justify it, and to encourage others to do the same.  Do whatever you want.  I don't care.  What I care about is the number of people that glorify sex.  But if you don't care, that's fine.  What I am fighting for is the right to share my views without being told to shut up and get over it.

imperialscum said:

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.

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."

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

 

TV's Frink said:

My biggest problem with people having standards different than mine is not when they have them, but when they try to force them on me.

 I certainly hope you are not implying that is what I am doing.

 Not necessarily, though you cetainly wish people like me would think like you.  More importantly, it seems to bother you that it isn't the case.

Again, I'm not sure what the problem is.  Don't like, don't watch, done and done.

About the best piece of advice in this thread.

maybe I should bookmark this thread for the next time someone picks on me for using multiple quotes in a post.