The word in bold are often the same words, or group of words, used to justify nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film. This does not include implied sex scenes where there is no nudity.
The defense of "it all depends on the context of the nudity and sex scene" holds very little traction.
Calling someone a prude because they object to 99% nudity and sex scenes is admission that you don't have an argument. It's like calling someone racist these days or a Nazi.
Accusing someone that if they didn't view sex as taboo then we wouldn't be having this conversation is not a good talking point. One can object to softcore porn depicted on screen yet enjoy sex or have a more healthier mentality towards sex at the same time. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Trying to turn the tables and say that you're sexist because one is putting shame on women fails because most nudity is done by actresses, so it's natural to focus on women. I say so what - politically we put shame on others for not voting and thinking the we want them too. There are countless archives of female celebrities with their nude screen caps. Plus, shame is good at times. In this case, I think it's good - for both men and female actors.
But wait. You probably got to this point and said I'm the asshole. I'm only the asshole because I say things that make you upset - not because what I say is necessarily false. Don't believe me? Read on.
When a softcore porn writer and producer sorta kinda admits that, yes, the nudity and sex scenes seen today are equal to the nudity and sex scenes in softcore porn films then it's just confirming what we already know - or least should know. So much for the "it all depends on the context" talking point.
In the adult industry, work like Bridgerton, Normal People, and a lot of HBO’s lineup would be categorized as “softcore porn”—frontal nudity, but no penetration or visible “money shot.” This is clearly not mainstream Hollywood or media’s definition. A Vulture article described Normal People’s sex scenes (which occasionally dominated up to a third of the episode) as “never pornographic but quite explicit.” If explicit sex does not make a scene pornographic, what does? As sex-forward shows only seem to get more graphic—and more popular—the need to hold on to this distinction is looking a little dishonest, and maybe a little desperate.
Hey, take it from the horse's mouth not mine.
When actresses like Amanda Seyfried comes out to say that she felt pressured to do nudity once she joined the age of majority then you have face the reality that there's something really off within the tv/film world.
When you have the likes of Sarah Bolger who said she'd have zero issue with going nude because of the opportunities that it might afford her, or that a character with nudity might let her work with actors and directors she admires, then we have evidence that actors are no more than strippers on demand who literally sell their bodies, though in different ways than sex workers.
No, "selling one's body" in the form of nudity and sex scenes in mainstream tv and film isn't the same as "selling one's body" for a job or even the military. Why? Because there isn't sex or nudity involved you dumbasses. It's like people who equate getting a tuition free education because you're a Division 1 athlete is the same as being enslaved since you don't get paid (pre-NIL). Okay. Um, you're a moron.
When you have the likes of Emma Stone insisting on showing her breasts after an implied sex scene even though such nudity wasn't written in the script in The Favorite because she thought it would add to the screen, then you have a fine example of someone who volunteers their body that is the vacuum of today's nihilistic entrainment industry in the name of "art" and "storytelling." Maybe she confused her work with nude modeling with art students.
And no, depicted violence isn't the same thing as nudity and sex, though excessive violence is both disgusting and tiring. In fact, violence and nudity were never were the same thing - neither were two sides of the same coin. People know sex sells. People follow certain actors' careers because, mainly, of their sex appeal. If we can complain about porn violence in the form of The Purge or Saw franchise (with the former also inserting sex scenes into its script), then we can also complain about the nudity and sex scenes - even if there's just one or two or three of them in a single movie or series.
In the movie Charlie Countryman, actress Rachel Evan Wood objects to a simulated oral scene that was that her character receives by a man. This scene was cut. She states -
No, Rachel, it's not a double standard. The people in charge aren't unaware that women are sexual being too and enjoy sex - whether giving or receiving pleasure. The thing is society still views sex as a private matter and somewhere in their brain and soul they know that the oral scene is borderline softcore porn. If left in, it would be 99% awkward for the audience. The allowance of violence isn't even the same thing given violence has been depicted in film long before any sexual act was explicitly shown.
No comments :
Post a Comment