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. 

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. 

 

"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. 

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.

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. 

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? 

Why so many posts talking about nudity and sex scenes?

 Good question. I think it's good for me to come out clean.

Probably at the age of nine - maybe eight I was exposed to video games like Tombraider and comics like X-Men. I loved video games and comics when I was a kid - and I still do to an extent. Their depiction of women made an impression on my young mind. It would later pave the way to me being receptive to hardcore porn. I do not remember when I began watching hardcore porn, but let's say it was around the age of 10. As the years past I would eventually become a porn addict. With this addiction came other complications healthwise that would arguable jeopardize my ability to start a family. Later, I would actually spend hundreds of money buying hardcore porn. 

In my early twenties I also got into film, so much so I entertained the notion of becoming a film producer. I learned as much as could about funding and casting, the politics of it all and how movies were bought and distributed worldwide. It's an interesting business to be a part of - on the business side of things.

When nudity and sex scenes came up I was sorta kinda indifferent - and this was the best of my reactions. At worst I felt uncomfortable if not disappointed - for the actors and for the storyline. I adopted a "it depends on the context" perspective. Later did I realize that a vast majority of such acts weren't needed, at best they could've been implied, and that if the explicit sex acts and nudity were excluded the story would've been just fine if not better. But given my experience with hardcore porn as a consumer something in me thought "something is really off" about this normalization of sex and nudity on screen. I recognized that they might be more related than different and that those who partook in it weren't nearly the sophisticated "ah-tists" that they believed themselves to be.

I've seen, read and observed many things about the porn industry and what I've seen, read and observed in mainstream tv & film when nudity and sex scenes are involved is that the mainstream process is awfully similar to both softcore and hardcore film making. People who try to separate the two seem desperate at times; their arguments and talking points aren't convincing.

Given today's growing acceptance of sex workers doing OnlyFans and the willingness of young women to shed their clothes to hump their co-stars in the name of "art" and "storytelling" in mainstream tv and film once they turn 18 (if a 17 yr actresses is offered a role that does have nudity in it, some studios and directors actually wait for them to 18 specifically so they can sign the "nude is a go" clause, this would sometimes delay principle photography i.e. Thomasin Mckenzie), I will not go gently into the night and be quiet when such things happen. I feel sorry for such actresses.

Like Beckett Cook or Jospeh Scriambra, both homosexuals and atheists turned Christians, whose mission is to object the LGBT+ lifestyle; like Katy Faust, product of a same-sex household, who advocates for a two parent opposite sex household; part of my reason I bring up sex & nudity within mainstream entertainment a lot on this blog is to talk about the overlapping similarities between them and the adult industry (which includes the likes of OnlyFans and stripping).

Unlike them I am not as articulate, intelligent, patient or charitable as they are. I wish I was. But I will tell it like I see it. Kirk Cameron may not be the best actor in the world, but he has awareness that nudity and (fake) sex acts in front of the camera for "art" is just bizarre. I want to expose this bizarreness - this debauchery for all that it is in hopes to deter actors, actresses, directors, screenwriters, producers and the audience from partaking, normalizing and approving of such acts. 

The medium of tv and film has overstayed its welcome when it introduces bare skin in such a way. We as a society have given it too much power that it does not deserve - and never did deserve. 

Am I being a prude? Who cares. Okay, maybe I am. What's so bad about being a prude? Prudish? Maybe more people should be prudish. If we can question our parents, then we can question tv & film actors and the system that they earn their living from. After all, their tv shows and films are advocated for and whatever nudity and sex is depicted is defended, but not the values of our parents - our parents are finite while tv and film, just by sheer invention of a device they did not build, live on forever. 

Yes, 99% of nudity and sex scenes depicted in mainstream tv and film are softcore porn.

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.

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.  

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.