FrappyDoo! - Movies Without Nudity

FrappyDoo! (http://frappydoo.com/forum/index.php)

- Crouching Tiger, Paint Your Wagon (http://frappydoo.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=16)

- - Movies Without Nudity (http://frappydoo.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2537)

Quote:

Originally posted by Alec
The definition of pornography is: Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.

Why do you think that Playboy is not pornography? It definitely meets the definition. They don't put those pictures in there for their artistic value.

I don't think I'd call Playboy a mainstream magazine.

Key words: primary purpose.

Essentially it's a college boy magazine, but its articles on public policy and social trends are excellent.

I haven't seen it much for years but in the 60s and 70s it had a series called "the History of Sex in the Cinema" which was excellent.

Yeah. I only read it for the great articles.

It was a porn magazine that tried to look legit by putting articles in it.

In the 1976 election, Jimmy Carter's "Playboy Interview" was a major campaign event. No serious Presidential contender would have granted them an interview if they weren't "legit".

Except maybe a Democrat. ;)

A politician doing something doesn't make it legitimate. If anything, it exposes it.

I'm surprised Jimmy Carter did it. Doesn't he make a big deal out of being a Christian? Maybe he's just a public Christian and not a very devout one.

Quote:

Originally posted by jamesglewisf
Except maybe a Democrat. ;)

Hahaha...

Good response, Outlaw.

On another note, the Super Bowl Halftime show doesn't qualify for the list! There's a good 500 stories on it at google already.... I wish I had watched halftime more intently, not to see that but to see Pats linebacker Matt Chatham level an idiot who ran onto the field in a g-string. Yeah!!! I still don't know what anyone who runs onto a football field full of 300lb guys could possibly be other than really, really drunk.

Ahhhh. I'm surprised everyone is whining about her striptease act, but no one cares about the raunchy song she was singing. The sad thing is that children can't watch the Super Bowl anymore.

Quote:

Originally posted by jamesglewisf
Except maybe a Democrat. ;)

A politician doing something doesn't make it legitimate. If anything, it exposes it.

I'm surprised Jimmy Carter did it. Doesn't he make a big deal out of being a Christian? Maybe he's just a public Christian and not a very devout one.

Carter is in all respects a very sincere Christian. He was active in the Southern Baptist Church and was a deacon, but about 5 years ago or so he and other liberal Baptists split to form a church independent of the SBC over disagreement with the SBC's being part of the Religious Right.

I'm not surprised he did it at all. Carter knows in a world of injustice and oppression, nekkid wimmen is a relatively irrelevant issue.

Thanks. You answered my question for me. He's a liberal Christian. Makes sense now.

I'm kind of interested in what Outlaw thought about Janet Jackson exposing her breasts during the Super Bowl half-time show.

One of the interesting takes I saw in the USA Today today description of Madonna and MTV in the 80's:

Quote:

Anything today's pop stars know about sensationalism, they learned from Madonna. Long before the Britney kiss, Madonna used America's peculiar blend of prudishness and prurience to get attention.

While her Open Your Heart video isn't her most shocking one, it became a sexual turning point -- and a fair example of what kids have been watching for years on MTV while parents looked elsewhere. The video is a simulated peep show: Payment reveals a provocative Madonna clad, for the first time, in the leather corset that would become a trademark.

Here you have the seeds of the Super Bowl halftime: voyeurism, simulated sex and the mainstreaming of S&M imagery. What's missing -- to Madonna's credit -- is that added touch of violence against women that really made Timberlake's performance so vile.

http://www.usatoday.com/usatonline/2...0/5911823s.htm

That's the first time I read about that, but then again, I wasn't near many news sources last week.

Anyhow, was that appropriate for the middle of the Super Bowl?

ABC is now talking about editing a sex scene in NYPD that is showing in some time zones in an earlier slot.

Quote:

Originally posted by Outlaw TexasRed
I'm not surprised he did it at all. Carter knows in a world of injustice and oppression, nekkid wimmen is a relatively irrelevant issue.

Ask if it is irrelevant to a wife that is leaving her husband because of a pornography addiction. I think you'll get a different answer.

My database now has over 3,000 movies in it. Still growing...

4,428 movies - still growing. It's pretty pathetic that 49% of the movies have nudity in them.

And most of those aren't necessary ... it's like "Oh no, I can't think of a plot - quick, take your clothes off!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesglewisf (Post 28441)

I'm not trying to wrap women up in a burkha. I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I created the list for myself. I published it because I know there are plenty of like-minded people who will appreciate it.

You call lust normal. That' fine. Lying, stealing, cheating, promiscuity, murder, disrespect, rudeness, drunkenness, and violence are all normal also. I'll not dispute that at all. That's a very Biblical understanding of the human condition. That said, the Bible says that all of those things are sins and that I'm supposed to do my best not to do them. That's what I'm doing.

Why does it have to be extremes? You're either normal and embrace your lust or you're a prig? That's the equivalent of me saying your either normal and try to control your sin nature or you're a pervert. Neither is a fair summary of the situation.

I have a friend who runs a national ministry. Half of the personal problems he counsels among his staff (all missionaries) is addiction to pornography. It's ruining their marriages. So, are they all perverts because they struggle with pornography? Or are they all prigs because they've decided to try to turn their lives around and honor their wives by not ogling naked women?

How about they are normal men struggling with normal issues that normal men struggle with. Why call them names?

You think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill. Well, where am I supposed to draw the line? Naked butts are OK, but naked breasts aren't? Or is it naked breast are OK, but full frontal nudity isn't? 30 minutes of nudity is bad, but 20 minutes is OK? Or is it 2 minutes of nudity is bad, but 30 seconds is OK? That's why I just drew the line at film or photos of naked women, regardless of the duration, are not OK.

I completely agree with you....My husband and I started checking movies out on imdb before watching them after porn almost ended our marriage. I admire what you're doing, please keep it up!