"Emilia Clarke reveals Hollywood's other #MeToo problem"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Maxirad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Servant of God Fulton J. Sheen taught that there is an element of the demonic in nudity. Remember the B&W movies where such things were (best) left to the imagination of the viewer?

Everything has become so incredibly graphic.
 
And actresses need to say no even if it means their career will not advance.
 
True! They may be playing a role, but they are revealing themselves. When does art cross over into porn?
 
I think the problem many actresses face is they have often signed a contract already, so they genuinely can’t say no unless they’re willing to pay millions and be blacklisted.

Often times, these women say no because they’re uncomfortable with being objectified rather than an additional reason of not being okay with participating in sin. So it is not like they would be a martyr and walk away, and unfortunately, they’ll just go through the scenes feeling worse than ever.
 
Last edited:
Pope_St_Pius_X said:
She saw her contract and signed it full well knowing what it involved. She didn’t have a problem then. She sounds very hypocritical, or possibly she’s just trying to go along with the current Hollywood #metoo trend.

The reality is many women enjoy being objectified. They enjoy the attention of being an object of desire and being pursued. For some it is also empowering (weaponizing their sexuality so to speak. Ever hear the saying “women control men”?). Women have long used sex as a form of power. Opening a history book and also studying sociology will tell you that.

It is hard enough for us Catholics to follow God’s teachings on sexuality, imagine how it is for secular society.
Click to expand...
To be fair, she was young and starting out in an industry where it is notoriously difficult to get any work at all. A lot of people in her situation face, and succumb to, enormous, and quite real, pressure to make.choices they regret with hindsight and added maturity.

It is unfair to assume that she, or those.like her, have the balance of power in a world where pretty girls willing to take their clothes off on screen are far more numerous than.acting roles.
 
Last edited:
@LilyM
Your reply is much more elegant than what I was planning to reply:
Pope_St_Pius_X said:
She saw her contract and signed it full well knowing what it involved.
Click to expand...
Unless there’s a copy made public we don’t know that. Legal text is rarely easy to comprehend. Sometimes things aren’t mentioned and then the directors may decide to take advantage of that.
Pope_St_Pius_X said:
She didn’t have a problem then.
Click to expand...
People can regret things they’ve done.
 
Last edited:
All covert snarkiness aside,

Q: When do you need to look upon a nude human body that is not:
  1. your spouse?
  2. a baby?
Physicians excepted.
 
Last edited:
But then you have the “sex positive” movement that howls at the idea that nudity in art is prudish and hating on sex and bodies and stuff.
 
‘Sex positive’ appears in practice to mean ‘all sex all the time or else you’re a prude if not a bigot’.
 
LilyM said:
To be fair, she was young and starting out in an industry where it is notoriously difficult to get any work at all.
Click to expand...
Did she have to be an actress? Frankly, St. John Chrysostom was right about theater.
 
My daughter read the books by George R. R. Martin and started to watch the HBO series, but said that the book didn’t have the graphic nudity and sex in it, and she got disgusted with the series, so stopped watching it and just read the books, which she loved BTW.

They didn’t have to include the graphic sex scenes to make the series good, in my opinion.
 
po18guy said:
All covert snarkiness aside,

Q: When do you need to look upon a nude human body that is not:
  1. your spouse?
  2. a baby?
Physicians excepted.
Click to expand...
Anytime I’m in the NSW Art Gallery. Last time I saw Michaelangelo’s David. When I was walking through the Sistene Chapel. But we’d all agree that that’s art.

When do you think art becomes porn? We need to know so we can tell what you consider ok and what you don’t.
 
I like Emilia Clarke, she did a very good job in Game of Thrones, and I even sympathize with her concerns on one level. Seriously the first season of Game of Thrones was…well…very hard to watch and way too graphic. It was certainly not the best season of the series.

With that being said, I’m not going to be able to see Emilia Clark as a victim. She became an actress and signed on with HBO in today’s environment. It is very hard for me to believe that anybody forced her to make those decisions.
 
Last edited:
Ask yourself how many marriages are destroyed because the husband visits art galleries too much ?

Porn is design to arouse the sexual appetite, most often that of males.

Art in the Sistine Chapel and museums is not designed for that purpose

It’s easy to understand the differences.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Porn is design to arouse the sexual appetite, most often that of males.
Click to expand...
A good answer. I hope po18guy reads it. But we need to fine tune this a little more.

Does it include literature as well (The Perfumed Garden, Lady Chatterley’s Lover)? Paintings (some of Carravagio’s works)? As the man said, I know porn when I see it. But something erotic may not be what I describe as porn.
 
I remember reading that the actress that played Arya was able to dictate her single sex scene. It was shot at angles that didn’t show what she didn’t want to show. Of course, this was by season 5, I think. It’s not like they could dismiss her at that point. She was quite young in the first season and there weren’t any sex scenes for the Stark children. I read what Emilia wrote about the first season. It was her first major role and the first season had nudity and sex all over the place which dropped off significantly after that.
 
JimR-OCDS said:
My daughter read the books by George R. R. Martin and started to watch the HBO series, but said that the book didn’t have the graphic nudity and sex in it, and she got disgusted with the series, so stopped watching it and just read the books, which she loved BTW.

They didn’t have to include the graphic sex scenes to make the series good, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I had a similar experience with a different series.

I began watching ‘True Blood’. It was interesting but full of nasty bits. Then I tried reading the first of the "Southern Vampire Mysteries’ on which the series was based.

The book were head and shoulders above the series, and free of all the nastiness. 🙂
 
Snarky! The Cistine art was painted under a not-so-pornographic culture, IIRC.

Can we please be adults?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top