Movies Without Nudity
 

I've got some new information up at www.movieswithoutnudity.com on Movies Without Nudity.

Basically, it is a list of movies that indicates whether or not they have nudity in them. I've only made it through the A-K's, but I'm working on it. The list has about 1,750 movie titles so far.

A lot of people might wonder why I would create such a list. Basically, one of the main struggles for men is lust. An awful lot of men struggle with pornography, and it is destroying marriages. Nudity in movies is just a jumping off point.

http://www.time.com/time/2004/sex/ar...n_the_01a.html

Did you know that nearly 1 in 5 rentals is a porn flick? 1 in 4 American adults surveyed in 2002 admitted to seeing an x-rated movie in the past year. (All stats from the print version of the Time article.)

I was gonna say after seeing this topic, "Whaa? Such a thing exists?"

Sounds like a good project.

I personally have nothing against nudity in movies, or anywhere for that matter. (Of course I don't watch many movies so I don't see it that often.) However, I DO believe that there must be a viable reason for having nudity in a movie, and that selling more tickets is NOT a viable reason.

That 1 in 5 rentals is a porn flick is a sad statistic.

It's all part of a bigger trend we're facing in society... I have a whole rant here but I'll spare you :-)

Our society has become one that sells so much stuff with sex and scantilly clad women that we have dumbed ourselves down on the concept of lust being a sin. That's what my lesson/article deals with.

It's hard to tell from looking at the list. What's the ratio of with nudity versus without nudity?

Ooops. Wrong Thread.

Where is the access to the list?

Bottom of the page at http://www.marriedadults.com/movieguide/ where it says "Download Movies Without Nudity List in PDF Format."

So all it is is a list?

Yeah. There are plenty of websites with reviews and blow-by-blow descriptions of content. What I wanted was just a quick reference for whether or not the movie has nudity in it.

If you want more info, check out our other thread: http://frappydoo.com/forum/showthrea...&threadid=2373.

I believe I noticed at least one error on the list. What is the source for the information?

A bunch of websites:

Desert News
ScreenIt
Kids-in-Mind
movies.com
IMDB

Which movie?

You need to have some kind of page where people can make a pledge to stop watching that trash.

It was "But I'm A Cheerleader".

Personally I view such a list as a poor tool by which to make decisions on what to see. One may as well make lists of films showing left-handedness and people eating French food for all the good it does.

I dunno, these days there might be a lot of people wanting that French food list {rolleyes}

Oddly enough a little while back I remember finding a list with descriptions of movies that did show nudity, but only in a non-sexual context. (I'm not quite sure how getting out of bed afterward qualifies into that category though, but apparently it did...) I can try and dig up the link again if anyone wants to check it out.

It's not a recommendation on which movies are worth seeing. It's a list of movies and whether or not they have nudity in them.

The reason for this list is that for a Christian man, it is not OK for me to just ignore that lust is a sin. There are only two types of men that don't struggle with lust: dead ones and liars. One of the ways I battle this temptation is not to knowingly put myself in a situation where I'll be tempted. If women understood how many men are addicted to pornography and wreck their lives with it, this wouldn't be a discussion.

Wow, I never noticed that. So there were people holding flash cards and this was on the cards, and, you can easily gauge the size of the cards and therfore how big the image was.

Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

What's different between your solution and the Taliban's practice of wrapping women up in a burkha?

Quote:

If women understood how many men are addicted to pornography and wreck their lives with it, this wouldn't be a discussion.

I respectfully disagree. This is a matter of apples and oranges. A man who looks with lust is normal. A man who feels a need to repress it is a prig.

Many men and women view pornography and enjoy its entertainment value. Many of them are Christians.

Everyone is 100% responsible for their own behavior. Many who seek solutions outside themselves for problems that originate inside themselves forget that or reject it.

My views on the subject are kind of in the middle here...

The reason pornography has so much entertainment value to so many people comes from the decisions people make for us before we even have a chance to think about it for ourselves. So many people automatically associate nudity with sex... we need to move away from this trend, otherwise our society could become very dangerous.

This subject is a perfect example of how a person can be conditioned. After several experiences being at a naturist resort, for example, most people aren't aroused by just a nude body at all anymore. On the other hand, after a serial rapist (someone who does equate nudity with sex) has gotten his sexual fix, what he used to do doesn't titillate him anymore and he ends up moving on to more hardcore, more violent methods.

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.

The only reason I can imagine you have a problem with this is that you don't really care one way or the other, and you assume that I'm calling you evil for your opinion. Nothing is further from the truth. I'm providing a tool for men or women who are tired of nudity in movies. I'm not trying to outlaw it.

If that's not it, why are you so offended by me not wanting to watch movies with nudity in them?

I can give you an analogy that might help. If I am an alcoholic, do you think I really want to spend tiime hanging out in bars or at parties where there is lots of drinking? By your definition, if an alcoholic won't have a drink every once in a while, he's a prig. He must be advocating prohibition. He's trying to prevent everyone else from drinking. Well, maybe he's just trying to stay sober for his family or his Creator.

For Christians, eating French food and being left-handed are not sins. A better analogy would be "One may as well make lists of films showing profanity, violence against women, drug abuse, etc. for all the good it does."

Sorry for the multiples posts. Multiple thoughts at multiple times.

I don't think anyone really has a problem with the list itself, just the philosophy (and that would be society's philosophy in general) that's behind it...

Addiction isn't the reason this is an issue today... there are many more people addicted to nicotine, alchohol and other drugs, yet we see these in movies all the time without much of a fuss.

And logically speaking, you can't make a connection between a smug, overprecise person and a pervert. Nor can you compare pornography with alcohol, for example, because alchohol doesn't have the component of lust along with it.

Brings up another point: loaded language when it comes to these topics. Nudity is either "wicked", "sinful", "perverted" or on the flip side it's "natural" or "freeing." My opinion is that it just, uh... is.

You're equating Jim with the Taliban? That seems like name calling, not debating.Jim is a Taliban Prig?BEEEEEEEP. I'm sorry, but someone who claims to be a Christian but enjoys pornography or embraces lust is either a Christian in name only, not in reality, or he is or is a baby Christian that is unfamiliar with the Bible and in need of instruction. You can't believe the Bible is true and believe that lust or pornography are acceptable.A Christian would tell you that people are 100% responsible for their behavior, but that the solution is outside yourself and it is Christ, not pornography.

HEY! This is the first interesting discussion we've had in a while. Way to go, Outlaw TexasRed!!

Why don't we talk about non-Christians then? Any arguments there?

Interesting points. I suppose I can be neutral about your interest here as it appears you are not trying to force others to adopt your stance. I do have major problems with censorship, though. I have problems with wowsers calling mainstream magazines like Playboy pornography and trying to repress them.

The definition of pornography is: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.

It doesn't matter whether you are Christian or non-Christian, a husband addicted to pornography does not make the average wife happy. I think you'd find that Outlaw Texas Red is the exception among women regarding her views on pornography.

Most wives aren't too fond of their husbands ogling other women, whether they are clothed or not.

Here's a telling interview."A real teen-movie moment" = boobs. It's nice to know who they are targeting with nudity.

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.

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.

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: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.

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.