Western Europeans & Trump

What do Western Europeans know about Trump? 99% of their opinion of him is negative, as if they're just the European extension of America's coastal/urban/academic pretentiousness and faux social elite. 

Quick Take: "Arthouse" or "prestige" Tv and film are the lazy man's idea of art right next to Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain."

Read title. 

Disney's The Little Mermaid (2023): Halle Barry's casting - merit or diversity hire?

I think the strongest argument to prefer a white actor is simply for the fact that the fable was written by a Danish person where, at the time of its writing, I'd guess 99% of all Scandinavian countries where light skinned. "Clear and delicate" may not be describing the little mermaid's skin color, but from what we know of the cultural context that Christian found himself in there's a very good chance he saw her looking like other young Scandinavian girls during his time. 

Was Halle's casting based on merit, being the best out of all the potential actresses given an audition, or what it a diversity hire? It's hard to say, at least on my end. I'll have the audacity to gander that it was a bit of both. I don't doubt Marshall was impressed, but this is Disney. Many directors compromise on who their leads are too, or simply are fine with whatever actor producers out forth. 

If there is ample proof that past iterations of The Little Mermaid were unfaithful to the source material there is as much proof that Disney saw Halle as checking off more than two boxes to fulfill their diversity quota (just see the entire cast of Marshall's Little Mermaid). I am sure you are well aware that since 2020 Disney has gone full DIE (Diversity, Inclusivity, Equity) 

Unlike sports, tv/film acting is highly subjective where politics do factor in on who gets cast. It's who's trending and who's not. It's who has the better agent and who doesn't. It's whether the studio wants to cast an unknown, an up-and-comer or an established, prestige actor. Let's not be naive: studios, producers and agents have categorized actors like Home Depot categorizes all their stock. This is why tv and film actors are usually categorized as such on most sites of talent agencies. That's just the surface of weird things in the industry. What they don't show you is even more interesting. No doubt they have lists of "white, black, brown, blonde, brunette, redheads, black-haired etc." actors to pull from. Need a Hispanic up-and-coming actress? Not a lot of them currently, but there are some. Need a white actress? There's a lot but we need to further split hairs. Up-and-comer? No, no - we need an established one for the lead. Cast an up-and-comer for one of the two secondary female leads. (Usually for this latter group whomever has the slightly better filmography and better agent will win the role.) 

Personally, I don't really buy the argument that because past iterations weren't 100% faithful to Andersen's fable that it would justify further unfaithful adaptions. Two wrongs doesn't make a right. I'd respect that argument better IF we acknowledge the reality of casting noted above and IF we see that the first "wrong" made way for present "wrongs" and future "wrongs." 

But in the end does it matter? Yes and no. Yes because we know that studio execs will cast non-white actors in what were originally historically white roles under the pretense of "diversity." No because people who watch tv/film for mostly entertainment purposes will forget whomever was cast because they aren't involved in the politics of casting let alone are the ones cast. As much as I loved Brandy as Cinderella I would still prefer a white actress to play the part. Why? Because non-white actors make up a small percent of working actors, so casting a non-white actor in a historically white role will garner some questions - from me at least. 

Some Catholics attribute to the pornification of mainstream tv/film.

EXPLCIT CONTENT (EMBEDDED PORN LINK)

And not by Catholics being content with watching things like Game of Thrones (explicit), Normal People (really explicit) or even PG-13 rated Servant (apparently there's nipple somewhat visible underneath the actress' hair covering her breasts if you look close enough in the sex scene). I mean by discussion of the topic.

When it comes to talking about nudity in film, whether pointless nude scenes like when an actress is undressing or dressing, or is seen the shower (i.e. Scenes of a Marriage, Take This Waltz), or sex scenes with nudity (explicit or partial) the fundamental nature of Protestants has an advantage over layman Catholics. 

Protestants tend to look at not only what's depicted, or what the audience sees, but they also look at the situations leading up to the scene, the effect it has on actors, and the politics behind the inclusion of nudity. Catholics usually just look at it as an audience member are more tolerant of nudity. See here.

You see, this type of nudity was different because it was "tastefully" done and it showed the emotions the actors! Well, if softcore porn was "tastefully" done would you still excuse it? I doubt it.

This type of reasoning is what plagues Catholic discussions. But let's see a compilation of the "tasteful" nudity in HBO's Rome by the actress named Polly Walker. Apparent there are other compilations of other actresses who appeared in the tv series. 

Yes, there was enough nudity and sex scenes footage in HBO's Rome from a single actor to make a 5 minute compilation. That last scene shown said "this isn't a softcore porn scene but it is, really, but it isn't. Just trust us."

What really annoys me is that too often Catholics refer back to the nudity done in the Renaissance as a precedent to accept nudity in tv and film. Part of this I feel is intellectually dishonesty - they point to partial nudity on our crucifixes or even religious art as examples as further precedence to okay more explicit nudity. They know perfectly well what critics of nudity in film and tv are talking about: the Game of Thrones, Normal People, Bridgeton and 50 Shades of Grey levels of nudity and sex scenes. 

To further prove my point, some Catholics try to justify it in exactly the way I've laid out. Again, they only concentrate on (1) what the audience sees and (2) if it's "necessary" to the plot. Both lose traction once we isolate every and each nudity and sex scene. The "within context" fails since that's just an excuse to allow nudity. Funny enough, they try to refer to Church doctors who do support their stance (the Church doctors most likely wouldn't agree with 99% of the nudity shown on screen). See below -

I don't believe this poster below is a Catholic, but regardless his criticism of nudity is by far more holistic than the navel-gazing Catholics do who do seriously talk about nudity in mainstream entertainment. 

Some Catholics do stand up to nudity in mainstream entertainment. Matt Fradd is one of them who did, marvelously, call out tv series like Game of Thrones for inserting softcore porn scenes into otherwise non-porn entertainment. He is more forgiving to nudity in *religious art, but then again so am I. 

The Church is also rather direct in rejecting nudity within mainstream entertainment. But layman Catholics? Eh, they need to do a better job in connecting the dots. Besides Fradd, other Catholics have discussed nudity within mainstream entertainment and have touched upon points deeper than "as long as it doesn't make you sin." This is a very Protestant/Evangelical way of approaching it because it's relatively shallow. Can one watch hardcore porn if it doesn't make you sin? C'mon on now.

Some are rather direct -

And -

Other's play the "this is only an American thing" -

Though it's not being fearful - it's about rejecting nudity on screen: if Catholics, or non-Catholic Christians, were indeed fearful we'd have sex with our clothes on and shield our eyes at Renaissance paintings. This is like saying Christians are homophobic because they disagree with same-sex "marriage" and sodomy. No. There really isn't any phobia - no fear - just strong disagreement because we have strong beliefs in the concept of marriage, sex and sexuality. It's the same thing with nudity. 

But do tell me, what are the cases where nudity adds to the development of a character and moves the plot forward? I can only name a handful, one being Rose's nude figure drawing scene in Titanic. 

On the sex scene in Schindler's List to show Schindler's infidelity, happening early in the film -

Now the top comment of this screen cap is interesting. She refers to her own sexual drive as reasoning in that such a depiction of sexuality was "needed." Huh?

Other discussions brought up Game of Thrones where it was agreed that the nudity was excessive and didn't really add to the character's development or to the plot. See here, but the argument of violence is equally as conquering as nudity just doesn't gain as much traction as people think it does -

Portraying violence on screen isn't the same as portraying nudity for the sake of nudity (i.e. Rome, Scenes from a Marriage), whether standalone scenes or through sex scenes. The poster gets it right by saying a woman's breasts is for her, her husband, her child during breastfeeding and (my addition) for healthcare professionals. To be worried about violence on screen would be trotting down the path of worrying that video games with violence normalizes school shootings, mass shootings or gang violence. It doesn't. Unless you're a sociopath or a psycho, most likely one won't physically hurt another person. But sex and sexuality? That's far more potent when it's depicted on tv/film since on screen nudity 9 out of 10 times is naturally titillating. Don't lie. You know that's the truth. 

Another Catholic briefly touches upon the "double standard" of violence and sex -

I think it's about time for Catholics to have a robust discussion on nudity and sex scenes in tv/film. I feel many lean more towards the secular view of accepting it, but this stance puts them in the same group with Catholics who support same-sex "marriage" on a civil level, artificial birth control to prevent birth because NFP is found difficult or, a better comparison, is "pro-choice" on the cases of rape and incest. 

*Religious art with nudity isn't the same as nudity in tv/film - not even close. Anyone who argues otherwise isn't being honest: They support nudity in tv/film. 

Tv and film: Nudity and sex scenes resemble a porn shoot.

 In terms of content and process, softcore porn. In terms of coaxing the actors to show (more) skin while filming, hardcore. 

Those that have watched enough hardcore porn know what I'm talking about. See below.

In hardcore porn, sometimes the cameraman or someone behind the camera shoots off directions or "words of encouragement" to the porn actress, whether to look up to get a better angle or to "get at it" or something to that effect if they see she's having a hard time. 

Shower Thought: Actors and nudity.

If actors are fine being nude on film for all the world to see, for whatever artistic reasoning or chalk it up to artistic "integrity", why are (most) actors who have done nudity hesitant to pose nude in Playboy or haven't thought of doing a true softcore film, or get upset when nude photos of themselves are leaked?

People will say the nude photos were a private matter, but then again so was filming nude scenes - funded by a private company with restricted access to the set when any nudity or sex scene was filmed. Not all films and tv series see the light of day even when production is done for many reasons, one being lack of distributor or the production company withholding distribution because it'll come to a financial loss, and another politics (see: Paramount+ Heathers).

Only difference is the leaked pictures or sex tape had no consent to be released into the public. So what. Why do  actors feel violated now? If your tits were shown in that one tv series, what's the big difference of a leaked nude selfie? Not much. If not a hint of embarrassment was felt filming a nudity or a sex scene, why would the actor feel embarrassed here? I suppose one can't justify the selfie with "for artistic reasonings" but instead it falls under the common man "play stupid games win stupid prizes." They aren't seen as an "artist" who's telling a story, but as a common man without the flattering lighting and camera work, or the butt kissing of trade magazines. They don't like that. They only do nudity if it benefits their career; taking nude selfie isn't doesn't benefit the actor outside of social media circulating the pics. It doesn't give their agents much to work with. 

I can only think of true benefit: A producer sees the nudes, like what he sees and decides to cast you in a role that showcases your tits. 

Secular world and its backwards views on dating, marriage, sex and procreation.

It's assumed that, if not a given, that if you're dating someone that you're also having sex with your significant other. If you're not having sex then that's seen as utterly bizarre and foreign. 

"What do you mean you're not having sex?"

"Your relationship must be so boring."

In great irony the secular world divorces dating with marriage and sex with procreation. If anything, if wanting and succumbing to sexual urges within dating is natural if not okay, then so is seeing dating as one step towards marriage and where procreation is seen as the natural consequence of sex. But that's not the case in the secular world.

Marriage is seen as something only one does in their late twenties - the earliest. Or marriage is optional. Dating is just that - dating and the concept of marriage isn't really orbiting around the concept of dating.

If sex and dating go and in hand, while the idea of marriage is given the hand and kept at a good distance, then at least the idea of procreation is in the back of their minds, right? Yes and no. Non-religious and plenty of Christians know that there's a chance they could get pregnant while dating (we're assuming they're having sex) so they willingly sterilize themselves via artificial birth control. 

All of this to me is obvious and is a broken approach to relationships. This is like people wanting to drink alcohol excessively or suck up some nicotine without getting drunk or get addicted. And those are just the surface negatives of engaging in such soft drugs. Beer bellies, smelly clothes, being dependent on the feeling that nicotine gives you - it's almost as if one is a sex addict and cannot control the urge get off or to engage in sexual intercourse with whomever and weever - they just need to slap some skin and to orgasm. That dopamine effect is what they live for. Pathetic? Yes. Sad. Immensely more so.

To ignore that dating is the natural stepping stone to marriage and that the main purpose of sex is for procreation, to feel uncomfortable when people make such connections isn't the issue with such connections or the person making them - the issue lies with the person being uncomfortable if not disagreeing. When you isolate dating just for romantic and sexual needs you create something that was never meant to be used that way. This the great irony of the modern world. 

This also ties into sodomy and open marriages - using our bodies and societal institutions (given by a divine) in ways they weren't meant to be used. 

The social normalization of alcohol and nicotine in society: Yes, you "do drugs" when you smoke and drink.

People either are aware and don't care or they aren't aware that alcohol and nicotine are drugs. They are considered soft drugs. 

The different between consuming these drugs and other drugs like cocaine or oopium is that alcohol and nicotine are socially accepted to the degree that they are sold like any form of liquid or hard material one finds in a grocery store, granted you have to be a certain age to legally purchase them which varies between county to country. In the US the legal age to purchase cigarettes was moved up to 21 in the end of 2019. Prior it was the age of 18 - the age of majority.

When the question "Have you ever done drugs before?" is asked people usually think of hard drugs or marijuana (which is considered a soft drug, but due to negative stigma it's looked at as "more of" a drug than alcohol and nicotine). They often respond with a "No." The technically right answer would be a "yes" if they consume alcohol and nicotine weekly or monthly.

TV/film before it was colorized normalized smoking amongst women, granted it was probably already more socially accepted in Western Europe. It was seen as 'cool.' Years later scientific research has shown that the weekly consumption of nicotine is rather bad - damaging the lungs, heart, throat, mouth and teeth. Despite hard evidence, people still consume nicotine in Western Europe and shrug their shoulders as if it's no big deal. In the US the stigma of nicotine is present where the scientific evidence has more of a effect on whether or not one smokes. The US has designated smoking areas in restaurants unless you go to bar where it's often allowed. There are even designated smoking areas outside buildings where you can only smoke a certain feet from the entrance. A bit much, but it does put emphasis on the effects of smoking on the smoker and second hand smoke. I personally support designated smoking areas in restaurants and don't mind smoking being allowed in bars. 

Usually smoking, if done by a woman, is seen as negative and unattractive in the US.  Is it biased and therefore sexist? Yes and maybe. In American tv/film, smoking is snuck in by people who know it's not healthy where they quickly hide "the evidence", brushing away the smell of smoke off their clothes before they renter the building or go back to studying for their chemistry exam.

In my younger years only a "particular person" who lived in an environment where it was excused smoked. And it was always a disappointment to find someone whom you thought knew better all of a sudden whip out a packet of cigarettes and started smoking. Smoking in the States has more of a negative social stigma than in Europe - and I think that's a good thing.

In Asia it's lopsided in terms of the sexes. In Europe it's common to have more of a 50/50 split of men and women who smoke, where at 18 it's completely normalized - I'd even bet smoking was allowed prior to turning 18 where 16 or 17 yr olds smoke in greater numbers than in the US. In Asia men far outweigh women in smoking. This lopsidedness is a good thing to a degree: it puts stigma on smoking and it frames the male and female dichotomony in a specific way. Females aren't so much grasping at bad habits to "be like the men" or push the "we're equal" mentality. 

People have examples in their life of what not to do and what to do. Take example my own household. My father has been smoking since as long as I can remember. My mother doesn't like it, or at least she tolerates it, and has said numerous times under her breath that she didn't want me or my older sibling to pick up "that habit." We never did, well, at least not cigarette smoking. I tried a cigarette twice while in Tokyo at a night club when I was 22, but that was the end of my nicotine phase. I was never drawn to nicotine since then.

How society treats alcohol is equally absurd since knowing full well of its effects. There are AA meetings worldwide, physicians warnings of abusing alcohol where pictures of damage livers are shown, national embarrassment where countries like Ireland and England are known to have weekends where its citizens are sloshed, car deaths via intoxication to domestic abuse caused by alcohol yet the social lubricant within society is given a pass. Ireland and England are no wiser. Even alcoholism has made its way into entertainment where the likes of Stephen King has made it a theme in his novels, and where tv and films use alcoholism as a serious, detrimental character flaw. But then there's the good portrayal and use of alcohol: the American sitcom Cheers.

The show revolves around a group of friends who work and own a bar named, well, Cheers (a real life bar located in the city of Boston). They use alcohol has a way to destress where conversations and shenanigans are held in and around the establishment. A number of themes were integrated into the show -

"Many Cheers scripts centered or touched upon a variety of social issues, albeit humorously. As Toasting Cheers puts it, "The script was further strengthened by the writers' boldness in successfully tackling controversial issues such as alcoholism, homosexuality, and adultery."

Granted, these are all adults much older than 30, so it also built in a perspective that alcohol consumption was "for responsible grownups" even the weathered adults weren't immune to the ill-effects of the soft drugs that is alcohol. I never once saw a show made in Western society where alcohol wasn't abused by those under 30. In reality, this is often true since a vast majority can't hold their liquor.

So the question should be asked: Why are minors, when they turn of age, so eager to smoke and drink alcohol? Though one sample size, smoking wasn't never a thing for me nor was it for a vast majority of my friends. Prior to 2019, the legal to purchases cigarettes was 18 now turned 21. This doesn't effect me since I'm neither under 21 and I don't smoke. Drinking in the States is at 21 legally, where many of us did commit underage drinking, but there was enough people around me that didn't drink or where quite responsible at consuming alcohol. Many of those who did go wild were never admired or looked up with respect. Looking back at this I now have respect for those that chose not to drink, or at least never went too far where they were sloshed. 

As written elsewhere on another platform, it's not so much the age of legal consumption of alcohol and nicotine that concerns me, but the motivation to consume and the normalization of consumption that intrigues me. I personally don't know what age it should be legal to drink and purchase smokes. People in Western society tend to smoke if it's normalized at a young age - whether by their parents, their friends or by the cultural norm set in their country or place of work (tv/film, fashion). Even then there are people who try to quit smoking. You don't get that much with drinking unless it has become destructive. Drinking, no matter the country, is arguable more fantasized than smoking, so there's a stronger pull to consume it since more people consume it: pubs and bars indirectly further normalize it. For smoking, you get packs of cigarettes from behind the cashier. Usually you need to go outside for a smoke if you aren't in a pub or bar, or if there's no designated smoking area inside. For alcohol, 9 out of 10 times it's accessibility is far more easier since once can simply go to any liquor store and grab beer, whiskey or vodka off the shelf without anyone acting as a gatekeeper.

Secular society knows exactly what it's doing when it showcases "sex, drugs and rock & roll." It knows sex and drugs are very similar to each other: they just abuse art forms, like music, to encourage its casual consumption. Maybe the prudes did have a good point in being skeptical of rock & roll? The act of sex is abused. Drugs are abused. Yet those that abuse them say they're adults. Hmmm. I don't think so. Actions speak louder than words or so they say. 

This also brings up the hypocrisy of people who extoll that they eat "healthy" yet do soft drugs. If people are so concerned about their health, why don't they completely cut out alcohol and nicotine? If they cut out added sugar, processed food, dairy, eggs and meat logically they should cut out any and all forms of soft drugs. But here's the thing: Since alcohol and nicotine are not seen the same way as unhealthy foods they chances they look seriously at alcohol and nicotine are slim to none. 

There is far more research that shows the ill effects of alcohol and nicotine in comparison to how "bad" consuming dairy, eggs and meat. There's actually no true scientific consensus that says a vegetarian or vegan diet is better than a diet that includes dairy and meat, yet we have hoards of people turning to no meat no diary diets. 

Now I exercise five out of seven days. I tend to eat a balance diet and I don't make any claims that I'm a health enthusiast. I just like leading a balanced life in terms of health. I also consume the soft drug that is alcohol every now and then. It varies, really. It may be a dram or two of whiskey one weekend night per one month, or it could be months without whiskey consumption. I'm not really a bar goer, but I do go to the bars usually when friends want to. Then again I'm a working adult older than 25 so I'm past the stage of being petulant and wondering why the age of drinking is 21. Thank god I'm not a European or else I'd be bitching to the heavens. I have had plenty of weekends where I know I can have fun and socialize without consuming alcohol or going to the bar.

And that's another thing: Society is too dependent on alcohol when it comes to socialization. It's as if it can't go a week or two - or even a month -without having sex. If you need alcohol to socialize and to have a good time then that's a red flag. You may need to self-reflect your relationship with alcohol. No legal age will make you an adult, truly. Adulthood is a long path starting at pre-school. 

I read an opinion that said turning to drugs, even soft drugs, for escape is a form infantilism. I can't help but agree to this. This further makes my belief that the age of majority of 18, as deemed by society, is a faux measure of true adulthood. It's no better than the Amish's rumspringa. I'd even argue that the secular 'starting line' of "you're 18 - go fuck, go smoke, pose nude and drink alcohol legally if you aren't already" is worse! But what is "escapism" though? I think it's fair to say that if it's an escape from childhood, since "this is what adults do" then yes, it's ironically making that 18 year old turn back it infantilism in which they believed they were shedding for the modern world. Even when one ignores the clear proof of ill effects of nicotine, yet consumes without concern because "this is normal" then that's also infantilism. There's no respect towards the drug. Out of the two, nicotine should be avoided more than alcohol. You can still consume alcohol within reason and be healthy in general, but that's not so much the case for nicotine. You don't see any athletes where cardio matters suck a cigarette or two per week. They'd be deemed an idiot.

But there is some upside: Even if it's more normalized in Europe, and with the  acception of older films romanticizing it, it's been long enough that smoking has never been made to "be sexy" in the past 25 years nor there has never been an attempt to delve in the "art" of making cigarettes. It's a nasty habit that's normalized like porn or prostitution yet people willingly and often times brainlessly engage in it. "So what?" they say. "It not your business. It's my body." Okay, kid. I hope you apply that same attitude to strangers when you see them eating a triple burger and eating Oreos. Go have fun eating tofu or your third acai bowl.

The only "art" of smoking came when it involved cigars and pipe smoking but there aren't nearly the same amount of tobacco users in comparison to those that smoke cigarettes. Oddly enough cigars and pipe smoking are mostly consumed by men around whiskey as they talk about the deeper questions of life (or from what I gather). You'd be hard pressed to find any women in such circles, but it does happen.

Now let's see how alcohol is handled before it reaches the pubs and bars. We have a growing amount of people who actually respect the drug: breweries, whiskey distilleries and vodka companies delving into the history of beer and whiskey and vodka, making their own alcohol and branding it. Usually you won't find people younger than 25 on brewery tours, but instead you'll find young professionals that skew somewhere in their late 20s to early 30s as walking tourists. Though young Americans still abuse alcohol to a large percent, it's seen as juvenile. I suppose the saying of Oscar Wilde "with age come wisdom" has some truth to it in this situation. 

I do want to reiterate something before I end this post: Vast majority of people only smokes because it's normalized via family member or place of work. This applies especially to millennials or a Gen Z. You'd have to hold a special type of ignorance to not know the effects of nicotine. You only smoke because you can and that it's normalized amongst people around you - not because you see it as something sexy, or something that can benefit you (fashion model tend to smoke in order to stay thin) despite its recent stigma and scientific evidence revealing its effect on health. One needs to go into the juvenile "I don't care I'm gonna do it anyways" mindset when they know better. Only a small amount of people smoke to deal with things like PTSD. Alcohol is easily more pushed to consume at an early age because more people drink than they smoke.

And just because Christians like G.K. Chesterton smoked pipe tobacco doesn't make smoking cigarettes okay. If Chesterton did cocaine would you be okay with it? No, of course not. 

In other words: If you smoke and you're well aware that there's no health benefit to it as you claim to be healthy and what not, I can't take you seriously. Have a pint on the weekends, but when you smoke it's as unattractive when you're sloshed. I question your judgement. 

Why the diversity of, or freedom of, thought makes the US great and the rest of the world lame.

Usually when non-Americans list things they don't like, or things that they believe represent the worst of its people, they list the usual suspects. 

• Republicans
• (social) conservatives
• religious people
• Christians

Given that most of Western Europe is non-religious this comes to no surprise but even then these people don't have much traction in their hate (no pun intended). Historically Republicans were always thought of as selfish, bigoted people by Western Europeans. The religious Americans just freak them out. I bet the religious would be okay at a Pride Parade despite not supporting the debauchery presented than Western Europeans sitting in a Baptist church as a cultural experience in May somewhere in the South. 

They go on and list things they just can't believe Americans believe. 

• anti-vaccine
• Creationism
• flat earth believers

Again, these tend to be secular non-Americans who list these things. 

But who cares, really. Western Europeans "believe in science" since whatever stance they believe in was reached by a consensus, supposedly. I think I'm reasonable and fall into this camp to some degree, but I don't clutch my pearls if someone is skeptical of vaccines. I don't care much to debate Creationism or flat earth believers because people will hold different beliefs and theories than the "educated" or the "enlightened." Who cares. If anything, it adds to the uniqueness of ideas; it's not all "what does science say and I'll believe it" - that gets real old. A materialist worldview just doesn't much appeal to.

The great thing in the US is that such people can voice their thoughts and there's usually a decent engagement of ideas. It's still happening but it's become rarer because we have "I believe in science" extremists/snowflakes that cannot function online, let alone in a society, where people think differently than they do. 

I was watching a video about a British medical student who was reviewing her medical match in the US as an IMG (international medical graduate). She was very happy to be matched for internal medicine in NYC, but was nervous prior to knowing her match because she was very hesitant to be matched in upstate New York. She then showed a map of the state of New York -

This is probably the recent map of NY counties with its voting pattern. The red is Republican votes while the blue is Democrat votes. The British medical student apparently did not want to be too far up in New York because that would be mean she'd be in a Republican/conservative county. Oh the horror. A medical student who doesn't want to serve her community as foreign physician because she may encounter more Republicans/conservatives than she's willing to encounter. Isn't that bizarre? She's more than willing to put up with difficult patients in NYC during a night shift than deal with a conservative patient. 

Religious and/or conservative Americans may be more parochial where they live sometimes succumbing to tribalism towards outsiders, but that is the norm everywhere in the world even in secular populations. In the UK, people tend not to absorb new friends as much as their American counterparts throughout their lives as they get older; they like to keep their circle of friends as it is. Europeans want to distance themselves from the Yanks because they think Yanks are dumb, uncouth and in general bigoted people. They're too religious for them. After all, why should the sophisticated, progressive European be seen sitting next to a suburban American dad with white New Balance shoes on a train heading towards Lisbon or Stockholm or Antwerp? 

The issue with the "enlightened", ironically, is that they see no need to talk such people because they have a strong belief that they have nothing to learn from them. Their brains aren't as elastic or flexible or open-minded as they think it is. It's rather stuck in its ways. And with this, they view the religious American as a representation of what makes America embarrassing to the world. 

You know what, all of a sudden I wouldn't mind talking to that suburban American dad with his New Balance shoes that has tinge of green rising from its soles. I'd like to hear about his church, if the preacher had a good sermon last Sunday and if they have any social gatherings planned. And I don't mind if his he has some theories on evolution and Creationism. I'd like to hear that perspective too. 

So, about Amazon's Prime The Rings of Power: A Review of Ep. 1-5 S1

As someone who is not familiar with any of Middle-earth lore in terms of the books - I haven't read the trilogy, The Hobbit, The Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales which covers all the movies and the series - I will be honest: At best it's above average and at worst painfully cringe. For the most part it straddles between those two. Those who are familiar with the lore obviously will be much more critical of the series.

I won't give it a 1 star because I think that's underserving from someone who isn't educated on the lore so I realize I may be more generous in my criticisms. A five star? Definitely not. Not even a 4 star. I probably give it solid three if I'm generous, but a 2.5 will suffice. 

Positives

Some shots are really nice, but they're few and far between. The show has some highlights but outside of these the show runs on mediocrity in all aspects of a tv production where, as mentioned, it occasionally dips into cringe. 

Markella Kavenagh, who plays Nori Brandyfoot, is the standout out of all the actors involved. Genuine sincerity in her line delivery, proper facial expressions that match her emotions and lines, decent physical acting too. She gives Nori that naive yet brave demeanor. Nori is probably the best written character, but that is a low bar to accomplish given the rest of the characters are one-dimensional or underdeveloped. 

The only issue I have with Nori as a character is that her character jumps too soon into accepting The Stranger as some benign entity, believing it's her mission to help him all in under a day because "there must be something out there." Not even Bilbo Baggins was this eager (or naive) to engage in something completely unknown to him. 

It was good acting by Daniel Weyman who plays The Stranger alongside Markella. These two are paired together in their storyline throughout S1 and they work well off of one another. Weyman barely has any lines, and his character is truly enigmatic. It's a role that requires more physical and facial acting where words are absent. The lines he does have he delivers them fine enough. The audience can tell he is a man who is slowly regaining his memory and therefore his purpose.

There are some lovely cinematography going on. In episode 1 when the Harfoots are introduced, there is a sweeping shot of a grain field in which two hunters are walking back to the camp. Unknowingly to them they are walking near the Harfoots' village. 

Another beautiful shot was when Nori and Poppy Proudfellow, played by Megan Richards, were pushing The Stranger up a hill to get him to the Harfoot village. In their quarreling, Nori and Poppy let go of the wheel barrel in which The Stranger is in. Gravity enters the picture and slowly brings the wheel barrel down the path that they just climbed up. Both Harfoots scramble to reach him. Here the director focused on giving a portrait view of the scene showing the two Harfoots, The Stranger, their surroundings and the bluish-purple night sky. The shot entirely lovely and brought me back to the scene when Gandalf shares a smoke with Bilbo on his birthday in the very first Lord of the Rings movie.

When Galadriel was sailing to Valinor for eternal life as a reward was also well shot (for the most part - I had an issue when the camera did a close-up on Galadriel's face where it appeared she was adjusting her eyes due to the brightness; that just annoyed me). Great lighting (maybe too much?), sound and set pieces. 

Some set designs were quite nice, but if you put these in Game of Thrones, Spartacus or Rome I wouldn't known any better. 

The makeup and costume designs of the orcs are the absolute best in the show; they'd fit right in with their film orc counterparts. Some shots of Galadriel were done well too. The one that stands out was when she was in full armor when boarding ship with the Numenoreans - I think that costume design was great.

And Durin. Besides Nori, I do enjoy his character. Some don't but I suppose that's because they are familiar with the lore where I am not. Owian Arthur who plays Prince Durin IV is great. As with Markella, he has great line delivery and his facial expressions and physically lines up well with his character in the stations he find himself in. Put him right alongside the other actors who played drwarves in The Hobbit and LOTR and he wouldn't miss a step.

I think there are a few more, but that's what I remember throughout the first five episodes.

The opening title credits of RoP I'm starting to warmup to (nice visuals and music with was written by Howard Shore).

Cons

I will absolutely agree with this one: the writing, in general, is poor. Half the time it's not even mediocre - I give the mediocrity to the pacing. It's poor on what the writers and producers are trying to achieve which is their own PG-13 epic fantasy akin to GoT. It just doesn't pass muster. The dialogue, when the actors go on monologues that give exposition is at times cringe, trying to grasp Peter Jackson like tonality in verbal form. It doesn't work. There's an attempt, but it just doesn't work.

What producers agreed to cast Benjamin Walker as High King Gil-galad? I wonder what was said between his agent and Amazon Prime when casting was being finalized. People will say he was given bad direction and that his character was poorly written. Maybe to both. I say it's just, largely, a miscast. Him trying to be an elf with nobility comes across as a caricature. "This-is-my-idea-of-a-king-elf-who-is-concerned-for-his-people." 

The portrayal of Galadriel played by Morfydd Clark is a poor one. Some don't want to blame the actress, but it's clear - to me - that she's playing this character is a brazen way that makes little sense to me from what I've experienced with how Galadriel is in LOTR trilogy. Granted this Galadriel is a young Galadriel, her portrayed makes it hard to believe that a strong-headed, arrogant elf like Clark's turns into a controlled, tempered wise elf as portrayed by Cate Blanchett.

There's a pattern to Clark's line delivery. When she's saying lines that are meant to portray great sadness, stress or urgency her voice sorta shakes. This was fine at first but it becomes annoying after a while. She is beautiful - both with makeup and without. 

There are other things I have issues with with how Galadriel was written, like how she became a martial art master with a sword when teaching inexperienced soldiers how to fight properly when facing orcs. Or the writers wanting her to be obsessed with finding Sauron because she's addicted to war and battle. She's just horribly written and so far rather one-dimensional. 

CGI is nothing special and it was shown when the series entered the island of Numenor. The sails on the ships? 1 billion dollar budget. 1 billion dollars. When it dwells on the island the series becomes a generic fantasy series set in a time that has a weird mixture of Rome-ish and GoT feel. Again, I'm coming at this as someone who hasn't read any of the books in which Middle-earth is explained so I have zero clue if set pieces and costumes should look the way they do here. 

The portrayal of the village people and the interactions between the Numernoreans and Halbrand were cringe. "Drinks for everyone!" as ancient string instruments are played in the background. 

The writing also just doesn't give enough exposition on what's happening. I'll admit I watched intently but I'm still slightly confused on what exactly is going on. With this, the characters' reactions and reasoning due to the bad writing all adds to the confusion. For example, if Galadriel and the Numernoreans are going to sail to the Southlands to battle Sauron, why are they so content with sailing with inexperienced soldiers - with only three ships that fit 100 men? I'm totally ignorant on anything relating to t military tactics, but given this seems like a major event that will forever change Galadriel psychologically and emotionally, and Middle-earth's future, you'd think they would want a larger army and be excessively concerned about soldier preparation and battle tactics before they set sail. 

The supposed romance between Arondir and Bronwyn just screams "we, the producers, needed a romance so here it is." It adds nothing to the overall series. The actors who play said characters are not given any favors in the script - because they're so thinly written - besides them being in this production to add to their actor brand.

Do I care if Arondir is a non-white elf since it's a rarity in Middle-earth to be a non-white elf or so I'm told? I don't really care because his character is so badly written that the actor's race is not even a concern to me. That enough is a turn off because without solid writing it really doesn't matter if the character has an arm sticking out of his side just for shits and giggles. 

Conclusion

It is as bad as the LOTR die-hards make it out to be? I can only empathize with them. If I knew the lore inside and out like they do, loved every word of Tolkien, I'd probably be much more critical. 

I don't appreciate LOTR normies like myself mocking them, calling them "extreme textual fundamentalists" if they object to the inconsistent racial casting, or when people accuse them of taking it too seriously with them kneeling at "the alter of a 100 year old book." Those types of words say more about those who do the mocking than those who are mocked. 

But what are my thoughts about the remaining three episodes? I don't see the Rings of Power getting anywhere higher than a 3 from me depending how the last three episodes are played out - it's too small of a sample size to redeem the writing from previous episodes - and I don't have great hopes that the quality will improve. Maybe season 2 will be better. 

I won't give it a final rating, but my current rating will be a solid 2.5 out of 5.

European actors are hypocrites if they're concerned about capitalism - especially American capitalism.

After all, many of them make money via American productions, and if not through an industry that thrives off of being a billionaire dollar industry, that allows them to pocket a handsome six figures (or more) EACH project they do.  Multiply that over a decades of acting and you get a multimillionaire. 

Americans and Insularity: A Double Standard By Non-Americans (And Self-Loathing Americans)

 If non-Americans, if asked on their impressions of Americans in general, and they say they think we're insular because they read or watched something by an American that they deemed as "slightly backwards" or not inclusive, I ask "Compared to what?"

I argue that the US is no more insular than any other Western country. 

Wouldn't it be a double standard to claim London is not insular or the country of England is not insular, but inclusive yet they ban conservative thinkers like Rush Limbaugh, give the cold shoulder to then Senator Mitt Romney when visiting, and make a giant blow-up balloon of then President Trump? Should we get into the almost unanimous negative opinion of Donald Trump and "what he represents" (as said by a Londoner)? Wound't it be hypocritical of a Londoner saying that what makes London great is that you can meet different people each day from all walks of life yet deem an American "slightly backwards" because you didn't agree with what he said? Let us not get into cultural relativism where the premise is that differences in one culture does not make is inferior or superior to another - just different. The Londoner would be pulling the rug from underneath his own feet! Indeed, if the Londoner views the American as "slightly backwards" that's a value statement being made - a statement that reaches to an absolute truth - that this belief is "slightly backwards." But by his own modern framework that "slightly backwards" belief is no better or worse than any other culture or belief one would encounter in London on any given day no matter the time or season.

The talks about inclusivity and diversity is just that - talk. It means very little. It does not matter if you can meet people from different backgrounds each day if you yourself do not take advantage of the resources that their culture brings, or better yet get to know them on a personal level. It's all window dressing. Just because you have a university degree doesn't make you smart or wise. Just because you're 18 doesn't make you an actual adult fully capable of discerning "adult decisions." Just because you make "art" doesn't make you insightful, talented or fearless. 

The curios case of Sumner Stroh and Adame Levine: 23 yr old said she was "naive and young." What about the whole 18 is an adult thing?

In pop culture news, lead singer of the American band Maroon 5, Adam Levine, had an affair with a young woman named Sumner Stroh. Stroh is an OF model. Oh boy. Levine has been married to a Victoria Secret model since 2014. Hoo boy. Levine and his wife are expecting their third child. Please let me out of the room!

On the public finding out of the affair this is what Stroh, now 23, said - "I was young and naive." Hmmm. Well, given she was probably around 22 during the affair that lasted a year wouldn't the "young and naive" part be odd given society, particularly Western society, keeps using the "it's legal" alongside the "she/he is 18 yrs old so it's fine" card? If a 22 yr old who has an OF account and manages to sleep with a married man - let alone a celebrity of Levine's stature - counts as being "young and naive" I wonder what counts as being a real adult because being at or older than the age of consent proves that the concept of an "adult" is relatively meaningless in Western society. 

Stroh argues that she was "manipulated" by Levine because she believed his marriage was over (for whatever reason). Really? Wait, if we play the "two adults" and "consent" card then it really doesn't matter who manipulated who because Stroh isn't saying he raped her. By the logic of sexual libertines cheating doesn't do any harm to anyone - but only to the person stepping outside of a relationship in order to fulfill their libido if their feelings are hurt, either by their sexual partner or by their oh-so-mean significant other.

Gee, I thought a 22 yr old, fours years past 18, would be a veteran adult! Levine is a man child if you are aware of his past political rants. He isn't an adult. 

The whole story is a mess. Apparently she took pictures of her and Levine's affair and sent it to "people she trusted" thinking they would keep the whole thing private. First, if this was true, yes, the friends she trusted shouldn't have done what they've done. But they did. Let's move back a bit. How could this have been prevented? How about not taking pictures in the first place! Ah, sorta like when people take nudes of themselves - whether for themselves or for their significant others on their smartphones then their phone or iCloud gets hacked. "Did you see Jenny's nudes? She's bigger than I thought!" Not a good idea in general. Probably take the nude with a polaroid maybe, if you're so compelled to take that kind of picture.

And Levine, if the the texts are legit, wants to name his third kid after her. I hope to God that this isn't true because it further proves my point that the whole "as long they're adults and there's consent" is so utterly shallow and meaningless when sexual acts are involved. 

Catholicism and LGBT+ members.

 I suffer, amongst others things, of the curse of being uncharitable at times.

I will be uncharitable right now.

Given how many outreach programs saying how nice Catholics need to be to the LGBT+ all the while saying but not saying that same-sex attraction isn't a disorder you'd think they'd get the point that, yes, the Catholic Church - and science - is right that same-sex attraction is, indeed, a disorder.

Not even Black Americans, who have historically suffered discrimination that was more severe and constant, would need this type of constant affirmation and coddling. But no, at least not at the level of LGBT+.

I see this all the time mental health circles as well. 

"Being gay isn't a disorder."

Treats gay people like fragile sheep. 

Gay people constantly displaying they suffer from various disorders found in the DSM. 

"Yea, totally fine here!"

Actors: nudity, sex scenes and moans.

I focus a lot on the action of undressing, intimate handling of the body, kissing and humping your co-star, but there's one thing that I left out: the moans.

Usually moans done outside the bedroom are done in a joking manner, at least in the Western world when taking a jab at a friend or foe when a possible love interest come to light. We can see this in tv and film when a bully makes fun of a virgin or a friend urging another friend to have sex because they're too wound up from stress. In real life this rarely happens, but it does happen from time to time - again, mostly around friends. 

When it comes to acting, sex scenes have multiple stages during rehearsal and during filming. I will lay it out below, the sequence 1-3 in each stage is not binding since each can be transitive. 

1. kissing + hand placement, undressing
2. undressing + hand placement + kissing
3. nudity + hand placement + kissing
4. "penetration"/humping + hand placement + moaning
5. cover privates or lay naked
6. director says cut + actor's dress + reset scene 
7. actors wait until lighting and scene is reset
8. repeat scene until director is satisfied 

When filming 1-8 it does take several hours, maybe even half the work day to get a sex scene completed. There's also a very high chance of several takes from different angles and different takes from the actors to see what works best under the lighting conditions and what works best for the camera. What 17 yr old actress who agrees to do nudity at 18 thought "Gee this is what I dreamed of! I'm doing what adult actors do! Who knew I'd be in this situation when I was 16!"

If partial nudity was agreed to (if the following example counts as partial nudity and if partial nudity is a thing) - say no breasts will be bare when filmed - since the actress' hair or bedding will cover her chest, this doesn't mean the actress is not topless because usually they are when such situations are put in place. During movement when filming a nipple or full chest nudity will most likely be accidently shown therefore a reset will have to be done. Hair covering her breasts always reveal "nipple(s) slip" when movement is done so actors may have to keep a mental note to take is slower in order for the hair to remain in place. Such bare nudity is not put into the final cut, but there's no doubt it was caught on film with the director and fellow actor experiencing all that nudity. Now it's the editor's job to take the best take where the hair does cover the breast just enough in order to honor the partial nudity clause (i.e. actress will be topless but hair will cover breasts). Devil is in the details. People who share my concerns concentrate on what's shown and what's not shown, or whether or not the nudity causes one to sin, while forgetting the process of it all. This is just looking at one side of the coin. It's an incomplete view. The other side of the coin is what's done - and what's accidentally shown in takes that aren't used - to get to that point on what the audience experiences. And usually, even if the actress' hair does cover her breasts there's going to be a nipple shown to some degree unless the director directs the actress to to put a vast majority of her hair over her chest. 

What was described was an actual sex scene. The actress was 20 when the sex scene happened. It was clear that they tried to cover as much of her body as possible but, the internet being the internet, found out more was revealed than intended. Plus the sex scene clearly was a waste of time given it added very little to the characters involved and did not move the *plot forward (as we currently suspect). 

When social experiments are done it's usually to make the subject uncomfortable and to see how they react to this feeling. If we told people in public that we'd give them $5 if they could moan out loud as they would having sex, but not in a joking manner, but in a genuine manner - with facials expressions and body movement too, they'd probably feel damn awkward. 

How about this, instead of letting then do the social experiment standing up let them do it on a chair. The men would sit as they usually do when sitting on a chair, but pretend they have a woman on top of them riding, so hand placement, kissing and them thrusting. For women, they're facing the opposite direction so the front of their body is to the backrest. The women hold onto the backrest as if using that as leverage as they grind or move up and done simulating penetration. 

Add in the moans.

A bizarre situation, right? Maybe not. Flash some big money, a promise that you'd be cast in bigger role and you get actors doing that as if it's drinking with their best friend. 

Even if you do that social experiment in the privacy of your own bedroom it's still awkward. 

When actors are required to cry usually they go into a state where they recall a sad memory or really get into the situation their character is in and empathize with them, hence making crying easier. Actors really get into fight scenes and dramatic, tense scenes too. But, for the most part, they don't apply the same enthusiasm towards sex scenes or heavily intimate scene because sex and intimacy is a private matter. Actors usually just bite the bullet and get on with it. You don't have actors saying a fight scene or a tense dramatic scene where monologues are dished out as awkward. Rarely it happens. Why? Because those types of scenes are what actors really cherish. They want to be that action hero or be seen as that prestige thespian. But nudity and sex scenes? A majority of actors, when honest, would rather not do it. What actors don't confess is that even if they're fine with such scenes because "that's just what we do" or "nudity is normal" or "it's my character" they won't do it on command. If an audition required them to undress they'd probably do it but it'll look like it's an auction for a porn shoot. Ah, yes. You see how mainstream acting is just one stone throw away from resembling the porn industry? I told you so. 

There's no "dang this is gonna be fun" like when physically preparing for a role that requires the actor to jump, run and fight. Okay, maybe actors dread this physical work but they aren't going to approach it the same way they do with nudity and sex scenes both mentally and emotionally. When sex scenes are done only the required people are on set - director, lighting, sound people, necessary design crew and actors. That's it. Sex scenes are "closed off" situations. Why? If these scenes are just like any other scenes they wouldn't be treated this way. 

So the stages of a sex scene is more than getting over the nudity and doing the correct hand placement. The actor needs to vocally act too - where their moaning hopefully sounds halfway convincing where it matches their facial expressions. There's no doubt it's both amusing and sad at the same time. I mean, after that first rehearsal and first take ask the actress how she feels. Either she's dead inside because she realizes she just joined CelebrityMovieArchive, she wants this to end or she's laughing inside because it's so utterly ridiculous. 

What counts as professionalism in these situations really is just trivializing the body, the act of sex and all that comes with it. It deadens the soul. It's not like a medical examination at all. Mainstream tv and film can't have its cake and eat it too because sooner o later the actors will come out, or, someone like me will point it out. 

*Theories are saying the sex scene formed a basis for the female character to form a sexual relationship with the man in order for her to get pregnant and therefore remain in the man's family - a permanent, so to speak, blood tie given she is an outsider. This of course is an intriguing theory, but nothing in the past of the female's character proves she's even capable of thinking up such a contrived plan let alone have the ability to effectively execute it.

Using Ayn Rand to put in perspective nudity and sex scene in mainstream tv & film

 "Art (including literature) is the barometer of a culture. It reflects the sum of a society’s deepest philosophical values: not its professed notions and slogans, but its actual view of man and of existence." - Ayn Rand

So what does accepting, if not celebrating, nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film tell us about society and what it holds dear?

That's a loaded question, eh?

From mindless nudity in tv and film comedies, to gay/lesbian/bi make-out scenes, to sex scenes that don't add anything to the plot in "serious" dramas, my interpretation is that producers, directors and even actors justify nudity "as normal" but they never really expand on this besides "it happens in real life." Well, I piss and shit in real life too. Why even have an actual script and just follow the actors around as they do improve - much more "real" than each actor have dedicated lines. What they don't tell you that nudity and sexual acts on screen is innately voyeuristic in nature. They have little to no respect for the flesh or the act of sex itself since 99% of all nudity associated with sex scenes are premarital sex acts. 

Politics is downstream from culture and the politics, or lack of politics, surrounding nudity and sex scenes tells us were the culture is. The (secular) culture is nothing transcendent. It is trash. Smut. All the best camera work, color palettes, costume and set design, sound experts and makeup artists cannot turn a pig into a civilized, dignified upright citizen. A pig is still a pig that goes "oink! oink!" that prefers to eat out of a trough. 

 

Shower Thought: Would the passing of Queen Elizabeth spark a movement to make NO mass ACTUALLY reverent AND back the return of the TLM?

Given all the gushing about how the UK is filled with tradition (the monarchy + queen's funeral) in comparison to lame America, and the rise of pathetic boasting of how the constitutional monarchy is fucking amazing to a constitutional republic, American traitors and pompous Brits have responded as one would imagine who has observed modernism.

Will the "eh whatever TLM" types who prefer the NO be swayed to make the NO reverent (I get the feeling they're also traitorous Americans) and would this hot air about tradition be also applied to immense support for the return of the TLM?

Hate to be that guy, but TLM proponents should use this double standards to their advantage and make a hard appeal to tradition and reverence. 

I will bet money these are the same people who want a centralized healthcare system, one month of paid vacation and "free" higher education amongst other things.

 

"Your first time" in mainstream tv & film

EXPLICIT CONTENT 

Those who are familiar with the forums dedicated to pornography, or just nudity in tv and film, in general will notice one thing: the excited anticipation of a pornstar's first anal scene (nowadays it's the rise of cuckoldry with black sexual partners). The discussion goes something like this.

Person A: I cannot believe Amy Star [fake pornstar stage name] hasn't done anal yet. It's been four years!

Person B: It's not if, it's when.

Person A: I just can't wait for it to happen. Same with her first *interracial scene.

Given the scenario above it's almost identical to those who wish to see a certain actress nude, whether it's s throwaway nude scene (i.e. dressing/undressing, shower or bathing, topless sun bathing) or a sex scene (explicit or not). See below.

Person A: Has this actress done any nudity yet? She has a great body and hella cute.

Person B: Not yet. It's only a matter of time. Some take longer than others, but it'll happen eventually. She just needs the right role for it. 

If the pornstar has done one anal scene then more than likely she'll be open to do more anal scenes. This is usually the case. Same thing with actors who have done nudity and/or **sex scenes - all they need is that one scene and that'll leave the doors open to more nudity and sex scenes as long as they act. 

Talks amongst female actors usually end up like girl-talk of "when was your first time" (on screen versus in one's own sexual life) mainly because sex scenes are innately treated like such talks. During an actors' round table, actress Jennifer Lawrence recalled her first sex scene to which, quickly, Cate Blanchett responded for clarifcation "your first sex scene on film?" Of course the latter knew what she was talking about, with the question made in light jest, but the topic could have been easily directed towards the losing one's virginity in real life. Hmmm. Interesting. 

First film/tv sex scene oddly resembles talks of one's first time having sex in real life ... 

*Interracial sex in pornography: In mainstream tv and film actors doing gay/lesbian/bi roles that involves sex scenes (explicit or not) are seen in the same light. In fact, it's now seen as a "check mark" role to get out of the way, like in the 2000s to play an oppressed Jewish person in order to get an Oscar nomination.

** Rarity, some actress have done sex scenes who were not nude. Case in point Saoirse Ronan. Her earliest intimate scene was in The Host where she wore a sports bra (it wasn't a time period film). Her other sex scenes, one with Kate Winslet in the lesbian movie Ammonite Ronan was also fully clothed (time period piece where she was given oral); and another in Brooklyn - also clothed in which the sex scene was amazingly tame despite her character having sex with her boyfriend, though it was in a more socially conservative time period. In The Host I believe she specifically noted she didn't want to get nude - whether be nude for the scene itself to be filmed or nude in general where her hair or bedding would cover her breasts between her co-star. Other sex scenes were in Queen of Scots and Lady Bird, both of she again was clothed. 

Currently, she and Watson are the only actresses that I know of, with their establishment, who outright said no to nudity or made the potential of nudity to zero as they convinced producers to be clothed for such scenes. For Watson, she had a body double in Regression. 

In defense of actors who have done nudity & sex scenes.

The script, more or less, is the Bible on set. It is doctrine. 

If there are no sex scenes, implied or explicit, or no scenes with nudity then the actors remained clothed. That's it. The producers always find ways to sexual a female character if given the chance. Producers tend to be sharks who, if they smell a drop of blood, will charge. 

Even if the scene doesn't involve explicit nudity, for example see-through lingerie or actors in underwear, given the nature of tv and film, whether in dramas or comedies, that's a wide enough door for anyone who's involve on what happens in front of the screen to rationalize nudity.  One example would be Emma Stone who insisted on being topless in a scene after implied sex/intimacy in The Favourite even though the script did not depict it. For this we can only look towards the actor for literally putting themselves in that sad, awkward situation.

Directors and screenwriters - don't put your actors in situations that degrade them even if it's "consensual" and even if the actors are of legal age. No sex scenes and no nudity written in the script usually results in no nudity. Don't believe me? See films directed by Christopher Nolan and M. Night Shyamalan. Many of the most beloved films do not have nudity or sex scenes at all. 

Many of Wes Anderson's films don't feature nudity, and if there is nudity it's usual non-sexual manner; but if there is - for titillation sake - it's usually with actors who have done explicit nudity (damaged goods) in the past or are relatively new to film acting (exploit the heifer). Arguably most of Anderson's nudity don't add much to the plot or character, so he is no exception to the rule. 

The actors are merely receivers of the script. Whatever the script dictates they say and do, for the most part. Actors are yes men and women. Give them orders that showcases their acting ability - not their skin because that's not acting. That's what strippers are for. That's something else - and it ain't art. Actors aren't nude models too in such cases - no one's freezing the frame to draw their bodies. Instead, they're collecting them and masturbating to their nudity. 

Not so truthful Hollywood

 

On Obesity and Health: US vs Western Europe - Double Standards and Hypocrisy

Western Europeans: Americans are fat and unhealthy.

Also Western Europeans: Smokes weekly if not monthly and is on caloric deficit due to a "strict" diet. Has little concept of a balanced diet like an obese American. 

Being skinny doesn't necessarily mean you're healthy. Skinny is just that: skinny - it's not really an indiction of good health. And if you smoke under the age of 35, no matter the reason, I can't take you seriously. Of course, if you're overweight that doesn't mean you're healthy (exceptions would be NFL players are overweight depending on position they play; sumo wrestlers are overweight).

For a region that's really struck by how "anti-science" Americans are,  Wester Europeans sure do like to suck on cigarettes like they like to strip down for the camera if paid ("because no big deal") despite the consensus in (real) science saying smoking cigarettes literally is a detriment to your health every time nicotine enters your mouth and blood stream. 

I understand if you're 40 or older given that was the norm growing up, and it's hard to bread the habit, but if you're 30 or younger and smoke - get the fuck outa my face when you're talking about "being serious about your health." At least most Americans who smoke don't proclaim to be "fit and healthy" for their jobs if it doesn't call for them to be thin. 

I'll bet on the overweight American and within a year or two and with proper nutrition, movement and some God in their life, he'll be in a much better place than the Western European mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually. Give that now fit American a pint of beer and even a some pipe tobacco to smoke when it gets chilly and he'll be the most interesting man when stepping on European soil. 

The Death of Queen Elizabeth Made Some Americans Traitors

And I partially blame Jordan Peterson for this. I've come across a number of Americans who, when met with the their own personal sadness that the queen has passed away, vouching for a Parliamentary Democracy. 

What the fuck did I just read? 

A number of days ago Peterson reflected on the queen's death where he passive aggressively said that the separation of celebrity and politician was a good think in the UK. Okay, sure. He poopood countries like the US which didn't not have a monarchy because he believed the position of the president absorbs that celebrity status which then translates into a less effective leader. Maybe, but for the most part he's speaking as an outside looking in on American politics. He points to Trump but he never pointed to Obama as an example. He never states the pressure that's put on the president within that four year term as a politician - and not some pseudo-celebrity. 

Now we have a bunch of Americans simping for a monarchy while fueling the smugness of Brits picking their noses at the Americans because "we have history and you don't and we have an effective government and you don't" bullshit. 

For the most part I enjoy Peterson, but I think this time he overstepped and needs to be called out on it. 

Actors and Nudity.

If actors are fine with stripping for a role in various scenes in various character situations (i.e. sex scenes, random shower scene, dressing/undressing), would they be fine not wearing clothes for the purpose to promote their film or tv series during their project's premiere on the red carpet? Or maybe wear completely see through blouses and pants and underwear when it comes to press junket rounds? I'm just sayin'. If they give it all for the "art" then arguably they'd do it as well to promote it. After all, they aren't ashamed of their bodies - being nude and all - and as long as the environment is professional.

Reddit's r/conservative is just a group of "I was born yesterday", socially libertarian at best and current issues (that bore people, like taxes).

It's September 11 today. The day when Al-Qaeda committed murder on American soil in NYC and DC.

On the subreddit that is r/conservative, when Queen Elizabeth died a thread with 700+ comments paid their condolences and even paid homage to the monarchy as they adulated the old British Empire.

Today, the amount of comments remembering 9/11 didn't even reach 100 as I write this. 

Remember This: Many on The Left Were The Ones Disparaging The Death of Late Queen Elizabeth

As opposed to many on the right who gave their respects to the Royal Family even if they did not care for the monarchy. (After all, we're bloody Americans! We bow before no human royalty.)

Former President Trump also wrote (or his publicist) a fine farewell to the Queen Elizabeth. And The Left thought they had some decency? Yea right. 

The tv and film industry waits on minors (notable 17 yr old women) to do nudity once they turn 18.

Even those who succumb to their lusts have some sorta of capacity to question what they're doing, or at least are cognizant enough to have some sort of border.

Taken from a Reddit sub focusing on nudity within mainstream tv and film ("WatchItForthePlot"). This one thread was for an actress who didn't do outright nudity, but her scene was "sexy" (according to one adult site) given it required her to be in see-through lingerie. 

One poster recognized she was fairly young, but not quite 20 (he probably recognized her since she appeared in a tv series that's widely popular and acclaimed), so he had some reservations.

When the official press release announced that she, and others, joined the project it was November of 2017. Her birthday is in October - she just turned 18. Filming was done later that year and concluded in August of 2018. 

Everything is in the waiting. The agent knows this but they don't care - they need their clients to sign the dotted line to as many big name projects as possible and the bigger (whether tent-pole or prestige) the better. The actress knows that they're waiting for her to turn 18 so she can officially sign on as an "legal adult" in order to do any degree of nudity. She's not entirely innocent in the process; she knows exactly what she's doing. And that's the truly sad part.

Sounds awfully similar to pornography signing up young, eager newly minted 18 yr old girls, fresh from their birthday party, to showcase their goods and do sex acts in front of the camera. But, hey tv and film are "different." Yea right.

The "2 yrs ago" label dictates these posts were made in 2020. And as you can see, the comment questioning the age when this was filmed was removed by the moderator. 

About tv series in which this scene took place:

The actress' character is later brutally murdered (shot in the head without any remorse simply because she was collateral, and then later twice once on the ground) in broad daylight when her older boyfriend when they were attacked by a group of criminals (associated with the boyfriend). Her character was 18 as well. I suppose , if the actress even remotely reflected on her character afterwards, is that questionable, if not bad decisions tend to lead to bad consequences. We later learn that her on-screen boyfriend started to date when her character was 16; the boyfriend was arguable in his mid-20s at the time. 

But here's the kicker: Her father ran a skeptical business as he preyed on minors himself. So yea, I suppose we can say she was born into dirt and preyed on my dirt. She's an innocent victim surrounded by outright bad role models. It's a dreary reality no matter how we analyze her situation. 

I equate her character's situation with the siblings of Mathilda in Leon: The Professional who were brutally shot down when corrupt, rogue cops raided their apartment as they went after their drug dealing father. Good company tends to attract good company. Bad company tend to attract bad company. In the latter, innocence - both literally and figuratively - is usually lost in a tragic manner. 

Americans v The World (Mostly Western Europe ... And Canada)

Embrace the 2A. It scares the sophisticated Europeans.

Embrace the automobile. It angers the confuses the Europeans since they have little concept of individual freedom itself.

Embrace your lack of fashion. It makes the Europeans crinkle their noses.

Embrace your work ethic and 40 hr week. It makes the European look lazy and weak as they conveniently forget about Japan's average work schedule.

Embrace meat, dairy and even sugar. It makes European food look bland and redundant (because objectively it is). 

Embrace the open road. It makes Europe look like a cluster fuck of countries all crammed together (because it sorta is). 

Embrace the American flag. It makes Europeans uncomfortable and it exposes their lack of flexible when dealing with a different culture.

Embrace American football, baseball, basketball and hockey. It makes Europeans confused because it seems they're unable to enjoy other team sports outside of soccer, rugby and cricket.

Embrace soccer. It makes the Europeans scared and worried that if America does get really good that it will be another American conquest. (Hey, in the end we got better fish to fry - like going to Mars.)

Embrace your prudish stance towards nudity. It makes the European angry and confused. I mean, no, I don't want to see your vagina or tits, Ms. Swede. I have no right to even if you insist. 

But most of all embrace the traditional nuclear family, religion and social conservatism. It makes the European believe you're backwards as they drink pints of nihilistic dreams and, ironically, support collectivist shallow social norms.

On nudity and sex scenes in tv and film: It's doesn't matter whether or not nudity in your country is NOT a big deal.

It doesn't mean you're anymore enlightened, right or mature about the subject of nudity in general.

I've been coming across a number of comments, mostly written by non-Americans (German, Britons) who puff up their chest when it comes to the topic of nudity in tv and film, saying something to the likes of "well in my country nudity isn't seen as a big deal" as if they passively imply that America should get on the same page they are on the topic. What they miss is the cultural differences, also implying their culture is somewhat better than the mentality of a more conservative approach to sex and sexuality in entertainment. They resort to the same tired old jab that Americans are being puritanical or puritan because of their objections to nudity on screen as if they shot the werewolf with a silver bullet.

I always counter this poor argument that other nations besides the US don't have the same mentality as the desensitized, unenlightened brains that pervade Europe. I add onto this that though nudity on screen is more accepted, that they themselves as Germans, or Brits, or Italians or Swedes don't go walking down their street topless. They most likely need to show up to work fully dressed. When they enter shops they most likely need to show up with some form of footwear and be fully clothed. 

Germans will say that they have hundreds of clothing optional beaches, some where nudity is mandatory (policy implemented by FKK nudism organization), but still that doesn't add to their argument like they think they do. Unlike nudity in tv and film, where the nudity is almost unnecessary if not voyeuristic, nude beaches actual have more prudence to the standards on how to conduct yourself amongst fellow nude beach goers. Supposedly, you aren't allowed to bring cameras. Despite the reality if naked people around you, it's not apparently titillating given you're too focused on minding your own business and enjoying the breeze and sunlight on your body (it does feel good and refreshing) - after all, it is said Europeans don't like people invading their personal space in terms of chatter - so people most likely aren't going to strike up a conversation asking you on a date. 

The "we got nude beaches" is mostly a surface deep argument since it's rather different than nudity seen in tv and film. But nude is nude, right? No. There's nudity in your bedroom. There's nudity in a physician's room for your health. There's nudity for art in terms of figure drawing or sculpturing. There's nudity in terms of relaxation at the beach. Then there's nudity for the sake of nudity in terms of putting camera in from of you. Is it porn? What's the point? Would mom and dad be proud? Do you have any standards? 

I quickly googled one participant who showed up on the UK's version of Naked Attraction (a dating show where the potential date undresses, and the male or woman chooses who advances). Why did I chose her? C'mon - when I was discussing this topic with other non-Americans I googled the show and, of course, the internet knows when they see a good body when it appears to them. Apparently, after the her appearance on the show, she got more tattoos, got bigger implants and opened an OnlyFans account. How liberating and "whatever what's the big deal" Europe! You showed us prudes how it's down. Totally representative of the general population. One reviewer wrote -

Even in more socially lax countries, when their country adopted the concept of the show, was met with skepticism and surprise - and reviews aren't glowing. One British reviewer said that though Naked Attractions originated in the UK, the show's concept itself is a rarity. So when Europeans say we X or Y show that showcases full body nudity like Naked Attractions they're not taking in account that X or Y are not the norm in terms of raw numbers. Wow, one show. Whoopdeedoo. How many people actually viewed it? Just enough to get it renewed. Even those living in the UK but aren't native to the sovereign states are okay with its existence showed concern on how easily it is to be accessed (apparently UK allowed it be broadcasted on four different channels). As one transplant Brit writes -

The person goes on -

The concept is bold, I agree, but the substance of it and the end product don't live up to the boldness of it. So what's the point of it all?