Neurological Differences in Males, Females and Sexualities.

Here's a relatively short post.

Why do we say "Love is Love" and that there are no differences between males and females in terms of athletic performances yet, supposedly, science is showing that there are neurological differences between the following -

• male and females
• homosexuals having neurological frameworks of their opposite sex (hence why they're attracted to their own sex)
• transgender having neurological framework similar to that of the sex they want to transition in (hence their feeling of being in "the wrong body" aka Gender Identity Disorder/Dysphoria)

So when shallow platitudes of "Love is Love" is bandied around, or when commercials showing a huge "x-ray" where people kiss behind it, where the audience only sees the skeletal frame of the two people kissing or hugging, to be met with different races, religions and two people of the same sex once they step in front, you should probably think twice. 

As I said, given the neurological differences, the promotion of sodomy and transgenderism should be questioned. A same-sex pairing isn't going to be worried about committing sodomy and getting pregnant. A transgender has a ton of stuff to work out. Simply put, second and third points to a disorder. Wires crossed or misaligned. We go skin deep to skeletal to microscopic. When people say there's no difference between female and male brain, think again. 

What SHOULD constitute as porn in the tv & movie industry, especially softcore?

WARNING: Crude stuff ahead.

I talked about this in a past post, but it bears to be repeated given, as of late, a number of streaming channels releasing tv series containing graphic sex scenes aimed at a mature audience, specifically teenagers.

One criteria:

• TV and movies that have sex scenes with nudity = softcore porn (i.e. Euphoria series, I Know What You Did Last Summer series, The Dreamers), rape scenes not counted.

Not porn:

• Actress who just appears nude, whether topless and/or full-blown but no sex scene = hired stripper (i.e. Halle Barry in Swordfish, Rose Leslie in Game of Thrones, Rosaria Dawson in Westworld)
• Nudity with sex scene on stage = exhibitionist

Of course, there are some exceptions (okay, only one) - Kate Winslet in Titanic as she posed as a model for Leonardo Dicaprio's Jack. This is one scene that actually added to the movie and to the characters.

I have more respect for glamour models, strippers, soft/hardcore porn stars and even OnlyFans amateurs because they don't dress up what they do as "art" or attach some faux intellectual excuse to it. The latter three know they aren't going to get respect from society and they're okay with that; they just do what they do. But actors who strip or agree within their contract to perform nudity + sex scenes, well, they want respect if you disagree with that they're doing.

Out of all those that shed their clothes, the only position I respect for nudity are nude models in art classes. Why? Because what's being done is twofold: use the model as an example of beauty or just "this is the human body", like med students view a cadaver, and to practice the craft of drawing/sketching/sculpting. The end result, if done well, is usually admirers who compliment the artists skill of sketching the nude model, or the wonder of the sculpture made stone or marble resemble skin or soft silk.

Now this begs the question: Why do actors stop at graphic sex scenes? Why not actually just commit to the act of sex then? They'd say that's crossing the line into hardcore porn but so what. There's a decent argument to be made that what happens in Eurphoria is softcore porn, so what's the real different in actually agreeing to have sex with your co-worker? Sure, there's money to be spent on STD tests, before and after, but the porn industry already has that sorted out, so just learn from them. Or, just wear condoms. Everything is the same just like in a hardcore scene except the ejaculation.

But it's as if an actor should actually commit murder if their character kills someone in the script. Not quite. Here's why: People think sex and nudity is a-okay in real life which they are if a-okay means having no eroticism attached to it. Killing someone, not a-okay. Nudity and sex scenes are viewed as some sort of rite of passage with actors; their admires are just waiting for the day that a young actress who just turned 18 will shed their clothes and reveal all. It's a waiting game. It may happen within that year (i.e. Thomasin McKenzie) or it may take more than a decade (i.e. Kate Mara). 

Edit: Paramaters of softcore porn verse hardcore porn. This link confirms my judgement that yes, all of the sex scenes were have seen on tv and on film can be comfortably categorized as softcore. As the link states -

There are specific rules that need to be respected when it comes to making soft porn or hardcore porn videos. Namely, in soft porn, you can rarely (if ever) see the male or female genitalia. There cannot be real oral sex too, so when the male actor goes down on a woman, he usually pulls down to the pubic bone, resting his forehead on it while the woman lifts her leg and braces him with it just enough to cover what’s truly going on. Of course, soft porn is not short of the moans and cries a woman does while real sex happens in the otherwise “normal” sex videos, also known as hardcore porn.

 Now this is what's said about how different hardcore porn is -

While soft porn is more secretive and intimate, hardcore porn leaves nothing hidden and shows the actors entirely from every angle in every pose. Hard porn exposes their genitals, and while in soft porn there cannot be penetration shown, hardcore porn relies on it. The videos also indicate a close-up on oral sex with the man coming on her body. This type of porn has become very popular in the first decade of the 21 st century, and with the internet, it has been booming ever since.

As Irish actress Sarah Bolger puts it regarding on screen nudity -

"With acting and my job, nothing scares me about nakednss.  I wouldn't even think twice if it was right for the script and project," said the Dublin star.

"It's not like I'm making a conscious effort to push the boundaries but I won't ever limit myself in any way.  There is always something new with every opportunity that comes along, you just have to do what you will with that." 

In my view, actors are hired strippers to film/tv as strippers are to a bachelor/bachelorette party.  

Pope Francis

I'll admit, Francy boy is a bad pope. Sure, there are many who have returned to the faith because of his approachability, but overall he does nothing that strengthens the faith. When socially left clerics and religious members like him you can take that as a sign of complete mediocrity. 

Education: Institution Prestige & POCs

 Particularly African-Americans born post 1975. I tend to find them lacking in actual intellectual vigor - not all of course. I can't seem to remember but maybe I addressed it in a past post, but I remember two African-Americans, one whom I believe was half-white, where just based on their CV that their degrees that they sought out were mainly based on public perception of the institution. Case in point of the following two examples.

Case #1

• African-American female
• Attended an Ivy for undergraduate
• Attended an Ivy for doctoral degree 
• After completing her doctoral degree, she lamented that her first academic job, a tenured track job to be exact,  at a small liberal arts college out West wasn't seen as prestigious as the institutions she received her formal education. The college? Colorado College. 

This was, I guess in mid-2015. I checked the department page to see if she was still there but it turns out she wasn't listed. I suppose she used it as a stepping stone for a few years and moved on to a more known institution.

Case #2

• African-American female
• Attended non-Ivy, non-prestigious university for undergrad (DI volleyball scholarship)
• Attended masters at an Ivy (field in which masters was received the wide spread wisdom is to get it at the cheapest program; Ivy name has no real pull)
• Attended doctoral degree at an Ivy (filed in which Phd was received the best schools for it tend to be public institutions)
• Was employed by Ivy institution for first tenured track job; no longer at Ivy institution
• Research interests are equally or better suited within non-Ivy league institutions (i.e. public institutions)

This same prestige/name-brand hunting could be said to be present amongst African-Americans when it comes to medical schools and post-grad residency/fellowships. I think a decent indicator of whether or not the POC (i.e. African-American) is academically sound is if they get into AOA, the medical school  version of Phi Beta Kappa. In places like University of Chicago (Pritzker) med school the African-Americans who have attended in the past four years, only a minority of them were inducted in AOA. Arguments for the lack of POCs, especially African-Americans, is, of course, racism. Unlike that Northwestern study, AMA's own survey is more interesting.

Unpopular Catholic Thought #1

Those who are in the Latin Rite but want to convert to the Eastern Rite are really just rite shopping like Protestants do with their churches. In most cases this isn't about orthodoxy of the priest and/or seeking out a reverent liturgy, but "being drawn to" (whatever that means) Eastern Rites, which, historically, are Orthodoxy. "Being drawn to" is shallow in my mind, at least in the Catholic sense since instead of converting to another religion or denomination one makes a conversion within the Catholic Church. I call these people "meta-converts." Don't like the pope and all the legalism and clericalism of the Latin Rite? Well, I guess I'll seek out the Eastern Rite or even Eastern Orthodoxy. Have issues with the Church's view on NFP? Well I can't consider myself a Catholic anymore and become Orthodoxy instead! Don't like the precision, or imprecision, of a Latin Rite encyclical? Well heck, I'll just go to Orthodoxy cause I don't have to bother with my wannabe philosopher brain nitpicking on what some dead pope said!

If Catholicism is ever driven back underground I wouldn't be surprised if such meta-converts would be absent. When the going gets tough they'll back out. What a bunch of Judases. 

Yes, "not all men."

Modern feminists or those who are tired of the rebuttal of "not all men" are [insert whatever men are being] that is uttered when the supposed patriarchy is the topic are practicing double standards. In fact, it's intellectual dishonesty. 

By using "not all men" modern day feminists are upset that men are being defensive. This is the same upset nature when people throw the "white privilege" card where white men, or even women, become defensive and say that they don't have such privilege. It is believed that by being defensive they are missing the point of what's being said; oddly enough by not understanding and accepting why men are upset modern day feminists skip over the "meet them where they're at" stage that is often practiced in therapy in fields like social work or clinical mental health. 

When people use a race or ethnicity nonchalantly in a critical way as in "black people need to focus more on education" to "black people need to raise their kids in a two parent household"; or even imply it like when Mark Cuban said that AAU basketball, which consists of a majority of black people, need to focus on fundamentals more and less on dunking, there is always a whoa whoa whoa wait a sec, What do you mean black people? or Are you saying that the culture found with AAU is inferior - that's racist. There's a double standard at play and I'm positive that those who accuse others of racism for making blanket statements are aware that the same technique is done to men, especially white men.

It's only fair that non-Woke men who hear blanket statements like "men are disgusting and are sexist", or hear things about the supposed patriarchy, that their emotions get riled up, get defensive and want to defend themselves. After all, their own sex is being criticized. Same thing with saying a white man has "white privilege." If a guy is just shooting the breeze at the local bar and says something like "women are too emotional" no doubt a modern day feminist would say that's an example of sexism and toxic masculinity. Of course, it's a general statement and typical, yes, depending on what country you're in women tend to be more emotional than men. 

Modern feminists want men to understand them yet it appears that the feminists refuse to understand men. It's as if they sorta kinda want men to literally not get upset by any blunt statement or presentation about dominating men and their beliefs. 

What modern feminists refuse to acknowledge is that men are not a monolithic entity, and when talks about patriarchy is brought up they expect men to nod their heads and agree that yes, the patriarchy is horrible. But modern feminists forget to point to an actual patriarchy. What are men to say? What state in what county and in what community? What country? There really isn't any specifics - just vagueness and anecdotal evidence here and there, especially if it's in the US. 

You see, as social liberals see the South and the Midwest as horrific places to live, especially for racial, ethnic and sexual minorities, modern feminists (a demographic within social liberalism) see men, in general, as sexist pigs. It's like when an actual racist in the US sees a black person and says quietly to himself That fuckin' nigger. So yes, I just did equate a modern feminist to an American racist - they share the same hate but just for different parties.

As one can see, the arrow usually goes one way, which has been the norm for the past number of year - give or take the last six or seven. You can utter a critical statement about the supposed patriarchy and  socially conservative beliefs, but you can't do that with certain demographics (i.e. racial and/or ethnic minorities, women, LGBT+) or else. White males are fair game alongside Christians when it comes to criticism, insults and condescension in the mind of modernism.

Evangelical Leaders and their Public Downfalls.

 I suppose it's the same with Catholic priests, but then again the issue with Catholic priests going all socially "progressive" because either they have same-sex attraction themselves or some other sexual disorder doesn't have much of the same effect as a prominent Protesant's fall from grace.

• Jerry Fallwell Jr., the then face of Liberty University, and his wife Becki Tilley's unknown open relationship with a pool boy starting in 2012 that carried on for a few years after the initial meeting. Like really?
• A number of children of Protestant pastors either losing their faith and going to atheism (i.e Abraham Piper) or even making a living as a pornstar.
• A female Protestant pastor in order reconcile with her bisexuality, found more liberal Christian viewpoints but ultimately decided to leave her faith to eventually become a stripper and "life coach" (a most likely unlicensed and self-serving position). Her husband accepted her bisexuality but that wasn't enough - she divorced him (somehow she was able to gain child custody of her three kids as she was reported to laugh about her divorce) since she yearned to make money where being a SAHM (stay at home mom) wasn't financially fulfilling. In one month she made 47k in her new profession. On an old YouTube vid of her preaching a commenter wrote - "She was an exhibitionist before she decided to go professional."
• Protestant youth group leaders turning out to be homosexuals unknowingly to their girlfriends or even wives. I mean, can you not know or suspect? Even if the guy isn't an outright queen or flamboyant there are signs (timber of voice, body language). When a young Jesuit priest came to say his first mass at his home parish his voice sorta-kinda gave away his sexuality. 
• Devout Protestants losing their faith as they learn about deconstructionism, where, logically, they go to agnosticism and then to atheism. These types of atheists are more well-verse in the Bible but also tend to be Gnu Atheists. Or they're ex-conservatives turned atheist in the form of Hunter Avallone (supposedly he was influenced by his wife to leave conservatism). 

Do you see anything that most of these stories have in common? Sex, sexuality and then money. Or as one podcast entitled their episode about the Fallwell Jr. scandal - "In God We Lust." And the influence of women arguably acting as Eve with an apple. 

Differences between UK/Europe and The USA.

UK/Europe: 

• Protests and breaks into private property because fans of a soccer club's wealthy soccer/football owner "abused" the fans/supporters by seriously wanting the club to participate in a closed-system tournament consisting of the most competitive clubs across Europe.
• Protests against police even though their police system is known to have a relatively healthy relationship and perception with and amongst its everyday man, as inspired by police protests and race riots in the US.
• Protests against the US presidents that they don't like, or gives US politicians they don't like the cold shoulder, who visit their country while salivating over US presidents and politicians that they do like.
• Sends out sappy instagram post about staying in the EU i.e. David Beckham. 

Summary: Muh soccer/football. Muh EU. I love the NHS.

USA: 

• Protests and trespasses onto what is technically public property in the form of nation's Capitol building due to what they believe was a corrupted presidential election stolen by the winning party. 
• Protests against police and the jailing industrial complex (as they like to call it) who they believe have been treating minorities and people in general unfairly.
• Doesn't really care what politician visits America with the exception of Kim Jong-un.
• Broke away from what was considered at the time the world's superpower to form its own country to later overtake the unofficial title of world superpower. 

Summary: Muh fairness and government integrity. Muh social justice. Eagle says cacaaawww!

March Madness and Other Basketball Thoughts

 The 2021 NCAA Tournament is done, with Baylor University winning over the University of Gonzaga. In order the tournament to "not suck" I had a number of criteria for it to be somewhat satisfactory. 

The first I wanted my own team to win (which they didn't). The second was to not have Alabama win. Thankfully UCLA defeated them in the Sweet Sixteen. The third was to see Houston go down. This also happened in the Final Four where the eventual champion, Baylor snuffed them out. And fourth, to have Gonzaga's perfect season be tainted by their single defeat - the biggest game of their season. This wish became true when Baylor man-handled them in both halves. 

And yes, I do think Gonzaga was overrated as a team in general which is based on a multitude of reasons. So here's another list -

• Weak in-conference schedule. Let's face it, the WCC is not just a mid-major conference, but low-mid-major conference outside the likes of the MAC and Horizon League, both of which are relatively solid and more competitive.
• Non-conference regular season was good at best. Beating ranked opponents in the form of Iowa, Kansas, Virginia and West Virginia in the beginning of the season is impressive, but as one person said each team, no matter the talent level and predicted level of success, is still figuring themselves out. Take for example #12 ranked Illinois vs non-ranked Norther Carolina  in 2005. It was a match-up to relive the the 2004 NCAA championship game between the two very same programs in which North Carolina won by five. This time around Illinois won the game where both teams received bids to the NCAA tournament. At the end of the season North Carolina was ranked higher than Illinois at #10 while Illinois dropped down a step to #13. Both lost in the Round of 32 with #3 seeded North Carolina losing to a #11 seeded George Mason.
• Weak in-conference schedule masked any on-court team weaknesses that are generally exposed throughout the season by either equal or superior talent. Gonzaga's talent is a cut above any team found in the WCC besides BYU. Their closest game was against BYU, winning by eleven. But the talent was suited for the WCC - not for equal or better competition on a weekly basis. The lack of speed and overall athleticism by Gonzaga's starting line-up in the NCAA championship game showed; Coach Few seemed lost and unprepared as Baylor, more or less, did what they wanted to do with the Zags. 
• Gonzaga's uninterrupted 20+ NCAA appearances by Coach Few starting in 1999 is impressive but not remarkable. When you recruit better than your competition where the ranking of incoming the class consists of players that are either high-major or solidly P5 recruits, when your competition is such low quality from top to bottom, and when your head coach is a cut above any other WCC coach in terms of X's and O's, the chances you coming in first place every single year is quite high. The only time Gonzaga weren't conference winners? In 1999-2000 and 2011-2012 season where they ended up in 2nd place. 
• KenPom ratings are misleading since it doesn't take into factor the low quality defense and offense attributed by Gonzaga's in-conference competition. You're going to shooting more efficiently, create more and defend much better if your in-game plan and on-court talent exceeds what a vast majority of your competition can muster. I doubt Gonzaga can do that in conferences like the Big Ten, ACC or even Big 12.
• The amount of defense thrown at Gonzaga's lost is both understandable yet pathetic. They did go undefeated in in-conference play, which is historic in it of itself, but the devil is in the details as stated above. This is the first time that I've watched any second-place team be defended, almost coddled, by amateur sports analysts (me not included) appealing to the amount of consecutive NCAA berths and relatively deep tournament runs pointing to 2017 and 2021 in particular.

Another thing I'd like to discuss is the comparison that men's college basketball is of lower quality than the NBA. Of course it is. One entity consists of amateurs with various skill parity, both on the individual and team level, from the very top programs to the lowest ranked program at the D1 level. The other is the best of the best in the game of basketball. 

For the most part, players at the D1 collegiate level are the best high school players in their state, region or even the nation. Then that pyramid reaches the very peak in the form of drafted players of the NBA where only a tiny percent of the players of the 357 D1 programs are drafted. Then are more ways to see who truly are at the peak. Here are four standards so to speak of when vetting the talent that do go professional. 

• The first are those who manage to make a living in the NBA until their retirement. 
• The second are those who are starters. 
• The third, and the highest standard, are those are who recognized for awards like All-Stars, MVPs, or All-Defensive Teams.
• The fourth are those that are un-drafted or do not manage to make a living as an NBA journeyman, who tend to go overseas to play either in continental Europe or SE Asia.

There is one caveat: A number of fantastic college players at the D1 who are drafted do not pan out for whatever reason. Usually it's because their college game isn't suited for NBA-style games, their lack of speed at their position wasn't a hindrance in college, or they're too one dimensional (i.e. Tyler Hansbrough, Adam Morrison, Jimmer Fredette). One person stated it perfectly: "Pretty much everyone in the NBA was a star in college, [it's] the same way how not every college player ends up a star in college despite being a star in high school. The NBA is the best of the best[.]" 

The very last point of this post is to rebuke the statement of NBA fans who say that there is no defense played in the NBA. On the surface this may seem to be true given many games are high scoring and there is a belief that players just want to score. In my perspective this is a shallow assessment.

• First, why would there be no defense? Once you think about it's absurd. There was a time where I'd nod and say that the NBA was just glorified street ball, but rethinking and watching more NBA I wholeheartedly disagree. I can't imagine a working environment where I would half-ass my defensive effort when part of my job is to (1) score/help score and (2) stop the other team from scoring. 
• Second, defense is emphasized since the moment one picks up a basketball, from co-ed elementary leagues to programs like Duke to Houston Baptist. Why would NBA coaches and players suddenly drop this aspect of the game? Some basketball programs to do it better than others. Some players are liabilities on defense where the slower pace of college basketball helps mitigate either lack of defensive talent and/or lack of lateral quickness.
• Third, the best college offenses would struggle against the worst NBA defense. Arguable there are more elite offensive players than defensive players at the NBA level where the defense is already top-tier. I remember Jeremy Lin saying that at the NBA level, on offense, that being a foot off from your mark would ruin a given play since the defense is so much more stifling.
• Fourth, the NBA offense is just that good. It's an offense that creates an illusion that there's very little defense played. The league consists of the very best offensive talent that can shoot three's way beyond the assigned three point arc. The league consists of specimens like LeBron James and Zion Williamson.  There are players in the form of Alex Caruso and Stephen Curry who are deceptive in their perceived lack of athleticism. There's better shot selection, better technique in follow through, better offensive spatial awareness, better basketball IQ and better offensive rebounding (which is also a form of defense). All of this combined creates havoc on mediocre to poor defenses. 

Well Justin, hate to say it, but I bet everything the conservative grandparents warned about is probably true.

Justin's profile and self-description, and him being overweight if not a twig, are pretty spot on when one thinks of his political stripe. I'm surprised he didn't list "soon to be vegan" or "Criterion Collection lover." It's as if the Justin's of the world have a list of particular "must do's" and a vocab list to use once you adopt their mentality. 

Next up for Justin, reddit moderator! I can't wait for that group photo when he gathers with like-minded people.

New Site Added to Link Sidebar: William M. Briggs

William M. Briggs.

I remember the name to which I believe Briggs is a regular poster on Ed Feser's site.  He seems like an erudite person who can hold his own against New Atheists. He's a Election Day 2020 skeptic.

Every now and then a true racist pops its head from The Right to express what you'd think a racist would express.

An article, written by William M. Briggs, in which the following screen cap was posted on was pinged back to an NRx site. Meet "Liberty Mike." Mike wrote the following when Briggs showed some sympathy to military members, whom he referred to as warriors, about the purge that Biden's Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, was planning against conservative officers and enlisted members. 

I actually like some aspects of NRx, one of many denominations of what is called the alt-right. With that said I have come across one racist who didn't believe non-whites could possibly understand what it meant to be part of a male fraternity (Greek Letter Organization) that wasn't race/ethnic focused (i.e. black or Asian fraternities) in America and uphold the organization's values because they simply weren't white. Though Liberty Mike pinged back the article to an NRx site, I am not sure if Liberty Mike is anyway sympathetic to NRx. He might be. I wouldn't be too surprised if he was, given what he said and  by my observations, experience and reading of the general beliefs of those in the NRx camp about race and ethnicity.

It's a strange post by Liberty Mike since the military does not protect what he thinks/wants them to protect. It was never in their job description no matter the MOS in whatever branch and component (Reserve, Guard). What he's upset about is the job of politicians who craft public policy, not the military. Perhaps Mike expects the military to intimidate non-whites or uphold true systemic racism and bigotry.

In his last paragraph, Liberty Mike openly advocates for the firing of anyone for any reason - be it their color of their skin, religion or lack there of, sexual orientation etc. What he wants are the days of the Old West were,  more or less, social anarchy was the rule of law once you passed the Mississippi River. 

Liberty Mike is the white guy who holds many disgusting ideas in his head and diminishes what is actual liberty. Liberty Mike is the guy who doesn't make America great. He's the type you punch in the face - out of your own liberty to enact on your own disgust. 

Should we as a society believe women who say they experienced sexual assault or rape?

 Well should we, just on face value?

My answer is be skeptical. If non-believers say that their non-belief is due to there being no evidence of a divine, then adjust your stance when accusations of sexual assault is brought forth. Say that in each case of an accusation of sexual assault is just that - an accusation  - that has yet to be proven and due to this is devoid of direct evidence. The accused is innocent until proven guilty. 

The same goes for sexism, racism, xenophobia and LGBT+phobia.

Reason for my absence.

I  haven't written for quite some time. Almost a full year and a half starting in late December 2018 then the gap in between that stretched till mid-2020. The reasons are simply: At times I get tired of writing where an idea may seem too grand in its moral decadence, too sewage-like, to write about; sometimes I had an idea I wanted to write about but then time escaped me; though a good chunk would be me focusing on my career where I would completely forget about this blog. It's simple as that. I still view this blog as worthwhile, and practically every idea and thought I espoused I still stand by. 

I always viewed myself as someone who has decent observation skills when it comes to observing society and its people. I trust these skills. There's also no doubt that modernism is at full swing in the most popular facets of society, so there will be ample amount of material to work with. I'll be complaining about something. 

There will probably be some religious and theological posts, maybe starting in mid-2021. Depending how I grow in my faith there may be more.

Today is the first day of Black History Month in the States.

I just received a notification on my phone from GrubHub, a food delivery application, to support black owned businesses. Given what happened last summer where mobile applications like Uber and UberEats prioritized black drivers and black business owners in order to show support aka virtue signal for the black community, brought upon by BLM riots and demonstrations nation- and worldwide, I will not be patronizing any black owned food businesses for the duration of February. My tailors are Hispanic and Asian. I can make my own fried chicken, mac & cheese and collared greens. The more that streaming channels in the form of Amazon Prime, Hulu, Netflix and Disney+ promote "black voices," I refuse to click on their ads. 

Then again I never celebrated Black History Month in my life; I was lucky enough to attend schools that had curriculums that taught history without the social commentary. As a non-black or white person, it's a fact that such household don't celebrate Black History Month. In my case there were a couple of reasons. First, I never cared to, and second it wasn't relevant to my professional growth despite me working with many African-American people. I'll read plays and novels written by "black voices" on my own time driven only by my curiosity and not by some outside force encouraging me to. But then again even if I don't I don't think I'm missing out on much. Sorry Maya Angelou - you're not a must in my book. 

Part I: Thoughts on the Entertainment Industry - Sex Scenes and Nudity

Rating: R (for mature content; locker room language)

What's the difference between tv/film actors and, say, glamour models, strippers, and soft and hardcore porn actors?

The answer? In my eyes, not much, especially if the actor/actress agrees to do nudity that often does not move the story forward or adds to the their character.

As I mature my passion and enthusiasm for tv/movies has dwindled. Due to COVID and lockdown I've watched more movies in the past six months than I have in the past three years. I use to be very into movies, wanting to become a movie producer, though I did not know how. This didn't stop me from learning the politics and procedures of how films were made, how casting was done (for the most part), what needed to happened for a movie to make profit, and how the movies were distributed. It's a fascinating industry in those aspects. But that story is for another day. 

I never was fully comfortable with nudity on screen, mostly because when there was nudity it was always done relatively cheap in the sense that it was nonsensical and trivial. The characters were either in affair or were never going to get married; rarely were the sex scenes between a married couple. It was also more or less the same thing in terms of sex positions. The actress riding the actor with her breasts frot and center, either gyrating her hips or bouncing up and down. Or when she's in doggy-style and we see her breasts swing as the actress tries her best to put on her "this-feels-real-good-face" accompanied with moans. Or when the actors are in missionary position where we see the actress' breasts, once again. I wonder how many takes were needed. And of course,  not all actresses do nudity where some opt for a body double. 

I don't necessarily consider myself a prude given I don't mind nudity in say, paintings, life size stone figures, or even nude modeling for a paining. These mediums tend make one admire the bodily form of a woman (or man). There is no true technique of "shooting a sex scene" in movie or tv unlike knowing how to make stone look like flesh and how to make curves of a butt, hips or chest, or how to shade properly when sketching a nude model. What technique is there when a film director shoots a backside, butt and side breast scene (i.e. The True Story of the Kelly Gang - 2019)? Usually when a nude/sex scene is being done only the needed cast and crew are allowed on set with the actors being "very comfortable" and "trusting of" the director (you see where this is going?). 

As the audience, you don't know if there will be nudity or sex scenes unless word gets around after early previews. If not, it's all unraveling before you. Only those who have worked on the film will know. With soft and hardcore porn, photoshoots for glamour models and strippers you definitely know what you're getting. But why does this even matter? What's was the statement about pornography? "You know it when you see it." Now nudity in tv/films aren't porn, but some sex scenes are pretty close to soft porn. 

Defense of nudity will say that American are prudish and are "afraid of sex"; this is a ridiculous accusation. Most nudity and sex scenes are tasteless and aren't needed for the plot to move forward or does it add anything to the character. It's meant purely for titillation. Speaking of titillation ....

Another issue I have is that tv/film industry is predatorial. Take for the example The True Story of the Kelly Gang (2019) as previously mentioned. The actress, Thomasin McKenzie who rose to fame with Leave No Trace (2018) and Jojo Rabbit (2019), with The King (2019) and Kelly Gang (2019) being much smaller roles, just turned 18 when her nude scene was shot (backside, butt, side breast) in the Kelly Gang. On the movie's wiki page it was noted that production was postponed for an unknown reason until July of 2018; shooting was originally schedule for early 2018. Mckenzie's birthday is in July. A coincidence? I think not. It was probably a calculated move to allow an underage actress to come of age in order to shoot her nude scene; after all, when Kristen Stewart turned 18 while filming Twilight, in celebration, they shot throughout the night given the days before they could not due to working hour restriction on minors. 

Now I'm not sure what compelled McKenzie to take the role given it probably wouldn't be seen as a "strong female role" (at best it's neutral), then again she did play a young prostitute who already had a baby (more on actual prostitutes later). I suppose in her mind that scene was her "nudity for beginners" scene, and simply she saw the role as a way to add to her already growing credits (actors like Nicholas Hoult and Russell Crowe were cast), so anything helps I guess. I would not be surprised if within three years we see her breasts on the silver screen. Mom, especially mom (more on mom later) and dad would be proud. 

Other actresses like Rooney Mara and Sydney Sweeney have done nudity where their scenes don't add much to their character. Sure, Mara's sex/nude scene in Side Effects (2013) was between Channing Tatum who played her husband, but was it necessary? No. Did it move the plot forward? I can't say it did. And the scene was relatively "raw" in the sense (if you spot it quick enough) that Tatum was wearing a skin colored piece to cover his penis as Rooney vigorously and loudly dry-humped him, as her character fell back onto the bed after her climax. Rooney's all-too-wet makeup scene between Catherine Zeta Jones added more to the movie and her character. Sweeney's role in the tv-series Euphoria is playing a sexual promiscuous teenager who's boyfriend is having his own sexual identity problems (SPOILER: he's a homosexual; his character it portrayed as totally uninterested in a naked Sweeney riding him - good acting on his part, really). The scenes are raw and literally has Sweeney showing her breasts in all their glory. Yes, glory. I used that word for a very specific purpose and it isn't me getting all riled up as I write. I have never watched an episode of Euphoria (some say it's the US' version of UK's Skins), but besides the series being promoted by HBO Max and receiving a number of Emmy nominations, one would've thought that Sweeney's breasts were given their own Emmy nomination.  Ditto for Alexandra Daddario in True Detective whose filmography hasn't really improved since then, so if she wished showing her amazing rack to all would gain her more prestigious roles and respect (?) that has failed. Men have respect for her chest. Sorry, Daddario - you did this yourself. 

Glory. You see, actresses who are busty in comparison to more flat chested ones (Daddario vs Mara) is what they're known for - especially if they reveal them on screen. (In this aspect, Daddrio's chest has more prestige than Mara's.) How many guys have searched the internet for screen caps of Sweeney's and Daddario's breasts? Hundreds. Thousands. Millions probably. They aren't really known for their acting. Daddario is 34. She's not getting younger; she isn't in the same acting prestige bracket as Mara. Both McKenzie and Sweeney are in their 20s so they have time to build their credits and connections, and if promise of more prestige and better roles means shedding their clothes and having simulated sex then they'll do it. Even better if the director is a "respected" director. 

There is something to be said for all of this. The actresses need to be willing; no one is actually forcing them. Some say it's part of the job. This is partially why I think actors/actresses are just glorified strippers and soft porn actors when need be. If the director and distributing company decide to make a still of two actors in the film being distributed, posing in bed nude, waist up, implying sex, that, by definition would be categorized as an erotic still entering it into soft porn.

Being "trusting" and "comfortable" with a director and actor that you're doing a nude/scene with just raises red flags because it opens up a door into asking "what are you really willing to do for 'art'?" One can do lot of weird and degrading shit they normally wouldn't do when they're trusting of someone and comfortable around them (see: kinky sex, BDSM etc.). Actor Eric Dane of Euphoria, in a sex scene where supposedly a fake penis was used but half the audience wasn't sure of it admitted he'd do "whatever the scene/role called for" if it meant showing his actually penis. In fact, if I remember correctly, he'd say he would've done it anyways. His character was having a sexual encounter with a teenage transgender girl. I wonder if he'd be for actually having sex with a transgender girl, after all he said he'd "do whatever the scene/role called for." Also, why on earth would anyone want to see a tv series about teenagers and their sexual encounters? Yes, that's what Euphoria basically is. One doesn't need to watch a single episode to come to this conclusion. It's basically pushing the "teens have sex okay!" and "you can fall in love with a transgender if you just let it happen ya know!" narrative.

Another question that enters my mind is what does all this seemingly nonchalant view of nudity and sex (scenes) get society? More "bravery" in talking about sex? I mean, Emma Watson, who said she wasn't willing to do sex (used a body double in Regression), instead admits she's interested in reading about sexual kinks and admires couples who are in open relationships because of their transparent communication. Oh vey. 

"Hi I'm Amy. 

"I'm Peter."

"I'm Scott."

"What you're about to see are consensual acts between consenting adults . If at any point any one of us feels uncomfortable and says stop, the action will stop."

In the movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) there's a scene that encapsulates how I feel when an actress does their first nude scene that, in 99% of the time, adds nothing to the film (besides an R-rating) and to their character. In this scene Mila Kunis' confesses that the owner of the bar she works at makes the girls who need to use their restroom for the first time flash their breasts where he takes a Polaroid of them and posts it on the wall of the bar's restroom for all to see. It hangs there forever. There's an actual database for tv/film nudity, partial or full, for practically every actress living today. It's called Celebrity Movie Archive. As soon as the tv/film hits streaming platform it'll be posted. Rooney Mara. Sydney Sweeney. Alexandra Daddario. They're all there. No Emma Watson (yet). And then there's nubile Thomasin McKenzie, who arguable is the youngest in the past fives years that I'm aware to do nudity, at 18. Ah, another one bites the dust and joins her fellow thespians into being a "professional actress." Where's that hardy handshake and warm hug? Welcome to the fold. Who will you undress with your eyes next (as her character in Kelly Gang says her lover)? 

There are parallels as well to this when it comes to pornstars. Now this is where I get a bit graphic in my language. I'm entering smut talk here now. As people seek out the scenes and screen caps of actors who have done nudity, those that haven't their admires are waiting patiently. It's only a matter of time - until the right role and director enters some say. Not all pornstars do anal sex. Some refuse to. When some noticed that pornstar Gianna Michaels had never done anal sex, some where "praying," "begging," and "wishing" their hearts out till the day she finally did her first anal scene. Her admires, when looking back on her career, said that she did porn her way and on her terms. Like some actors (i.e. Kate Mara, older sister of Rooney Mara), where the atmosphere needs to be just right to do nudity, some porn stars will do anal. I'm not sure if Michaels ever did an anal scene. Maybe she did. If so, her admires got their wish. But I bet they wanted more.

So what separates a "professional actress" and a glamour model and pornstar? Each can show up on IMDB with their credits given pornstars have been cast in some roles. Even real life escorts were cast as they were. The biggest differences is that aspiring tv/film actresses believe what they do is "art" and the promise of red carpet galas on an annual basis with the big bucks. It can be. A small percent of working actors make a living off of their craft. But we have to remember that actors were once considered bottom barrel "professionals" in the age of Shakespeare; there was no prestige in it and that some of the first actors on stage were prostitutes. Today's actors, if they "make it," are relying on the market and other professionals to make them look good, make them sound good, and guide their careers. Actual strippers that shed their clothes for a living (so do actors, but not as often and not under such unsavory conditions) where some make the crossover to porn, they know what they are. They're strippers. They make no fuss on what they really want: they work for the money. Their patrons don't make them anything more than that. Who wants to date and marry a stripper? Practically no one. Pornstars know what they are; some admit they're modern day prostitutes. Who wants to date and marry a pornstar? Maybe one person. Both the stripper and pornstar, more or less, calls it quits before the age of 40. Let's be honest, no man wants to see sagging breasts, and the stripper and pornstar know it unless they get the bolt-on ones. Actors? Only in today's modern world can they do what they do with the respect they garner (and think they should garner - worldwide). 

Actors are the jocks of the performing arts community so to speak. But they only play jocks on screen; only a few actors actually are athletic let alone know the rules of a sport. Some play strippers but they never go in and out of strip clubs hustling for the money. And they probably despise being compared to a pornstar. What do strippers tell their parents and friends what they do for a living? "Oh, I'm a dancer." What do pornstars tell their parents and friends? "Oh, I'm an actor/actress." What do actors say? "Oh, I'm an actor." 

I'll have the audacity to say that strippers, glamour models and pornstars should garner more respect, whatever left there is, from the public than actors. Unlike Thomasin McKenzie and Emma Watson, the former whose mother is also in the acting community in New Zealand, who had the groundwork paved out for them in terms of who to look up to in acting, strippers and pornstars tend to come from broken backgrounds who have some sort of mental disorder. They don't get the red carpets and the stylists to fit them in beautiful dresses and gowns to celebrate their film. They aren't dotted on by talk show hosts or film journalists. They don't get to work with prestigious directors or producers to either further or stabilize their careers. They get really nothing in comparison to actors who "make it." But here's the thing: the porn industry generates anywhere between $6-15 billion dollars. Strip clubs were deemed a necessary business during COVID lockdowns. Actors? Arguable not as necessary. Society only turned to film during lockdowns because they were bored. I know I did. I forgot about the films that were suppose to be released in 2020 but got delayed. I don't have much interest in going to the cinema in 2021 if society ever opens up to that point. My interest has faded. Filming continued in late July and early August and people got pissed because, in some controversy, small businesses next to film sets couldn't open up.

So what about this rant? It's to say that actresses who pursue a role with nudity that really doesn't add anything to their film besides a mature rating and their own place in Celebrity Movie Archive are actually on the same plain as strippers, glamour models and pornstars. I'll even add cam models. 

Is there any nudity or sex scene I thought was beneficial to a movie? Why yes. The only nude scene that I'm aware of that made sense and moved the story forward wasn't even a sex scene let alone nudity after implied sex. I'd argue this nude scene was, in the most rarest cases, forward thinking. It was the nude scene of Kate Winslet as she posed for Leornardo DiCaprio's character Jack in James Cameron's Titanic (1997). Yes, people were talking about that scene but it wasn't in some salivating way. Unlike Thomasin Mckenzie's nude scene in Kelly Gang (2019), which indeed hovered over her exposed backside, butt and side breast  (there's little doubt in my mind that this was exploitation on behalf of the director and producers), the talk was about how it tied the story together with the fact that it was James Cameron's hands that were shown sketching. The camera didn't focus on Kate's breasts or vagina, but more so on how nervous her character was posing and the talent of Jack's character as an artist. 

With all that said, putting her politics aside, this is why I respect Emma Watson more as an actress - at least for now. She did say that revealing less is better and creates a grander mystery, or something to that effect. I can stand beside that.