Game of Thrones= Sin?!

[ironchapman]

I can’t think of any serious works of art that involves steamy lesbian sex scenes. No, you will have a hard time convincing me that the sex and nudity scenes in Game of Thrones are intended for anything other than getting some jiggly bits on camera for the male gaze. C’mon we aren’t talking about art; we are talking about smut with high production value.

I haven’t seen Game of Thrones, and I don’t care to. It’s not really my sort of story anyways.

I’m in this topic because I’m tired of reading people on this forum who think all nudity, regardless of art form, depiction, intent, etc., should be proscribed.

 

[Kamaduck]

I’m in this topic because I’m tired of reading people on this forum who think all nudity, regardless of art form, depiction, intent, etc., should be proscribed.

Same here. I don’t take issue with people saying Game of Thrones is inappropriate. I take issue with people saying all nudity is pornographic in nature.

 

[ironchapman]

Same here. I don’t take issue with people saying Game of Thrones is inappropriate. I take issue with people saying all nudity is pornographic in nature.

Yes.

Personally, I don’t know if I’d class Game of Thrones as a sin to watch, period, but I certainly am not watching it. FWIW, “Simulated” sex scenes in movies have never really interested/tempted me, because they’re not even real and the relevant naughty bits are usually covered anyways to give the illusion that the act is actually happening. With that said, most movies with sex scenes aren’t usually in a genre or story that interests me, regardless.

 

[edwest2]

I can’t think of any serious works of art that involves steamy lesbian sex scenes. No, you will have a hard time convincing me that the sex and nudity scenes in Game of Thrones are intended for anything other than getting some jiggly bits on camera for the male gaze. C’mon we aren’t talking about art; we are talking about smut with high production value.

Expensive to produce smut but smut nonetheless. And yes, this is all about tempting males with bare breasts and simulated sex.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I haven’t seen Game of Thrones, and I don’t care to. It’s not really my sort of story anyways.

I’m in this topic because I’m tired of reading people on this forum who think all nudity, regardless of art form, depiction, intent, etc., should be proscribed.

Art is not excused. Too many think that by attaching the word art to something that it is immediately inviolate. That it is now outside of reality. As if just saying the word art compels us to shut off the critical thinking part of our brains. That I object to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Baelor]

I can’t think of any serious works of art that involves steamy lesbian sex scenes. No, you will have a hard time convincing me that the sex and nudity scenes in Game of Thrones are intended for anything other than getting some jiggly bits on camera for the male gaze. C’mon we aren’t talking about art; we are talking about smut with high production value.

While there is certainly some gratuitous nudity, Daenerys’ nude scene at the end of Season 1 is clearly not intended for “getting some jiggly bits on camera for the male gaze.”

Game of Thrones really, really is not smut, and it most certainly is art.

Art is not excused. Too many think that by attaching the word art to something that it is immediately inviolate. That it is now outside of reality. As if just saying the word art compels us to shut off the critical thinking part of our brains. That I object to.

It seems very much like that part of your brain is shut off anyway, especially given that you are ranting about something that it is increasingly obvious you have not even seen.

 

[agnes_therese]

Favorite so far was the Golden Crown hehehehe… >BD

Oh my gosh, yes! As soon as Drogo said he would give him a golden crown that “men will tremble to behold,” I knew it would not end well for the twerp.

 

[ironchapman]

Art is not excused. Too many think that by attaching the word art to something that it is immediately inviolate. That it is now outside of reality. As if just saying the word art compels us to shut off the critical thinking part of our brains. That I object to.

Peace,
Ed

And I object to proscribing all nudity in any and all forms of art. That goes against a substantial amount of Western tradition and history dating back to the statues of ancient Greece, and it even includes parts of church history, even pre-Rennaissance, such as the icon of Mary the Milk-Giver with her bared breast and infant Christ suckling or about to do so. It’s not my favorite icon, but it is well-supported in history and traditon.

 

[StudentMI]

Art is not excused. Too many think that by attaching the word art to something that it is immediately inviolate. That it is now outside of reality. As if just saying the word art compels us to shut off the critical thinking part of our brains. That I object to.

Peace,
Ed

I agree with this and your previous post about the purpose of showing that kind of nudity on a show like that. That has become a problem along with the cynicism I mentioned on the first page of the thread. If someone says a movie or TV show is too bleak or if there is too much sex or nudity: the response is always “sex is part of life, don’t be a prude,” or “life isn’t always happy, grow up.” It’s unfortunate our culture has come to this.

 

[edwest2]

I agree with this and your previous post about the purpose of showing that kind of nudity on a show like that. That has become a problem along with the cynicism I mentioned on the first page of the thread. If someone says a movie or TV show is too bleak or if there is too much sex or nudity: the response is always “sex is part of life, don’t be a prude,” or “life isn’t always happy, grow up.” It’s unfortunate our culture has come to this.

My point is, over the last 40 years, the volume control on immodest/lewd/perverse depictions on TV has gradually - very gradually - kept getting turned up. And all the while, there were those who said we were overreacting, we were prudes, and less polite things.

Wake up people. Next stop - more graphic depictions. Maybe not this year but in the next year or so based on clear evidence.

The answer? Stop allowing the poison into your eyes, into your mind and into your heart. There is nothing to be embraced here. Nothing. And I have seen several episodes.

Peace,
Ed

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I believe the author may be a misogynist as well. Apart from the pervasive sexual objectification, few of the female characters have attractive personalities. Many of the “strong” female roles belong to women who are witchy/ vain/ incompetant though there are some notable exceptions.

If it did have strong female characters, posters here would be complaining about how it’s a “radical feminist” work. Notice how few people really seemed concerned about your accusation of misogyny?

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Well, since animation can also be porn, it follows that animated breasts should be restricted under your no-exposed breasts rule.

Would a living woman feeding her child also be porn, by your definition?

I wonder if he’s ever been to certain places in Africa or elsewhere, where breast exposure is not considered unusual. He would feel like he was living in a porn movie. LOL.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

While there is certainly some gratuitous nudity, Daenerys’ nude scene at the end of Season 1 is clearly not intended for “getting some jiggly bits on camera for the male gaze.”

I was referring to the episode “You Win or You Die.” The scene where Littlefinger teaches his young prostitutes the tricks of the trade is probably the most graphic sex scene outside of pornography. You really aren’t going to convince me that the nudity and sex as it appears in the show is OK because Sistine Chapel.

 

[Baelor]

I was referring to the episode “You Win or You Die.” The scene where Littlefinger teaches his young prostitutes the tricks of the trade is probably the most graphic sex scene outside of pornography. You really aren’t going to convince me that the nudity and sex as it appears in the show is OK because Sistine Chapel.

I agree with your first point. It was gratuitous.

I never tried to make a connection between GoT specifically and the Sistine Chapel. The Sistine Chapel was relevant in a larger question of whether nudity may ever be morally permissibly portrayed.

 

[StudentMI]

I never tried to make a connection between GoT specifically and the Sistine Chapel. The Sistine Chapel was relevant in a larger question of whether nudity may ever be morally permissibly portrayed.

I brought it up, and as stated the intent was not to compare the Sistine Chapel with Game of Thrones. It is ludicrous to even think of comparing them. I was referring to non-sexual nudity in art which was apparently being condemned. As edwest2 stated later it is the purposefully exploitative use of nudity in Game of Thrones (apart from the sex scenes) that is wrong. I agree with what he said.

 

[Baelor]

As edwest2 stated later it is the purposefully exploitative use of nudity in Game of Thrones (apart from the sex scenes) that is wrong. I agree with what he said.

And I just want to make it clear that while some, and even much, of the nudity and sexual content of GoT is gratuitous, it is not all tasteless and merely titillating. Furthermore, the series is not merely glorified thematic porn.

 

[Midwest88]

I really am skeptical of many TV shows nowadays, and movies. Look at television. The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad and I’m sure others (I don’t watch a lot of tv) all reduce to the same cynical cliche: people, when in a tough situation, will do anything – no matter how violent, immoral and sick – to survive. Very original.

bold: Such is the paradox of the entertainment business. They seem to confuse provocative and titillating with originality.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I was referring to the episode “You Win or You Die.” The scene where Littlefinger teaches his young prostitutes the tricks of the trade is probably the most graphic sex scene outside of pornography. You really aren’t going to convince me that the nudity and sex as it appears in the show is OK because Sistine Chapel.

Lord Baelish isn’t exactly the most virtuous aristocrat in King’s Landing. I saw that scene and it only reinforced what kind of man he was. Don’t see a reason why they wouldn’t depict a scene of him at work.

Oh my gosh, yes! As soon as Drogo said he would give him a golden crown that “men will tremble to behold,” I knew it would not end well for the twerp.

His screams still ring in my ears… and put a smile on me face. BD

That has become a problem along with the cynicism I mentioned on the first page of the thread. If someone says a movie or TV show is too bleak or if there is too much sex or nudity: the response is always “sex is part of life, don’t be a prude,” or “life isn’t always happy, grow up.” It’s unfortunate our culture has come to this.

Cynicism isn’t the product of entertainment. It is but the reflection of an evil that is already there in real life. Heck, what you’re looking at is just the condensed version of how the utter chaos we call reality never tires in straining our hopes with its lack of transparency.

At least in shows like Game of Thrones, we don’t lose much when a character dies or the story moves in a bad direction. But what of our own? Are you going to tell me that real life is supposed always happy? That fiction should only reflect the positive side? Do we really think we’re the heroes and that we are not capable of committing actions or mistakes that mark us as villains or at least members of a weak supporting cast? Fictional characters are lucky that way. Their actions are not real. Ours are.

So you tell me, how can fiction not be cynical these days? It’s simply reflecting a grim truth that people are getting tired of acknowledging.

 

[Veridical16]

Hey here’s a good encyclical,
Whenever questions like these, I’m always reminded of
Pius XI, Vigilanti Cura
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_29061936_vigilanti-cura_en.html

Should have some answers of those trying to discern and reflect on consuming the products of the industry…

I am reminded also of a priest who has given good homilies to be leery of the “spirit of entertainment” instead of remembering that it’s a “spirit of penance” we have to always remember. that we’re not to be of this world.

I believe the spirit of entertainment has gotten us to try to relax our sensibilities of what we ought to know does not conform to what is good, even if its quibbling over just visual and aesthetic details. Too much importance has been placed on t.v. shows and movies anyway.
They are not THAT important, yet, we give a lot of our time to them… are these things really worth defending??
"KostyaJMJ:

I was referring to the episode “You Win or You Die.” The scene where Littlefinger teaches his young prostitutes the tricks of the trade is probably the most graphic sex scene outside of pornography. You really aren’t going to convince me that the nudity and sex as it appears in the show is OK because Sistine Chapel.

The show runners know what they’re doing and what they’re delivering, even if it’s at the expense of the storylines …

Here’s their modus operandi: It’s either three episodes in the first or second season , or nine episodes in, they drop in a scandalous scene.

My experience is that Catholic or not, one can’t trust HBO productions (or most of the premium paid channels Showtime, etc) they go hand in hand with public approved sodomy, licentiousness and want to continue to ingrain that in the masses … (HBO is rampant with LGBT friendly execs) I’ve noticed that they are so blatant in their motives where they will look to shoe horn in, a homosexual act, or what not – even in shows where the time period and setting would be far removed from even occurring as well as unnecessary to the plot. (It’s almost in every single one of their shows regardless of genre.)
I pretty much lose interest in whatever new series was recommended, when this funny business occurs.

Most of today’s “buzzworthy” entertainment are either dependent on the “spectacular”, its good production value, or its good promotional campaign that keeps people talking about it.

Art is not excused.**** Too many think that by attaching the word art to something that it is immediately inviolate.**** That it is now outside of reality. As if just saying the word art compels us to shut off the critical thinking part of our brains. That I object to.

Peace,
Ed

Great comment.

Certain literary authors for instance, wrote novels that were explicitly intended to attack the faith of men, etc. or promote heresies (to this day). Some t.v. creators explicitly say their intention of creating a certain show, was to be an attack on Christ.

Also, Satan was head of the angelic choir… so just because something maybe pleasing to the eye or ear, or lulls one’s sense based on the passions or emotions doesn’t mean its good art or entertainment.

 

[Veridical16]

bold: Such is the paradox of the entertainment business. They seem to confuse provocative and titillating with originality.

A lot of what we are seeing is analogous to rat poisons – in order for the rat to eat it, it has to be combined with partly good, attractive, to innocuous food material…

… with the not so good suggestion concentrated within the whole…

I guess as Catholics we need to be able to spot error and discern whether an author(s) has malicious or neutral intent in what they’re trying to say…
If something would appear to be offensive to me, where i would not be able to sit still in showing it to parents, relatives, girlfriend and/or little children. (disturbing sex scenes , or gratuitous gore, irredeemable behavior lined with a bad philosophical , or subtexted agenda) then i know the creators are just trying to scandalize innocent eyes.

Whenever this trend of increasingly offensive art mediums are pervading the culture, I’m reminded of Jesus giving example of himself retreating whenever the masses were inclined to retreat and pray. I myself have to sit through some shows that I like and I get less and less interested when I come upon an attack on innocence, purity of mind. The eyes.

I’m also reminded of Mark 9:47
Hollywood wants people to keep thinking, that tv shows and movies are something worth keeping our energies focused on in the long term. They’re not.
Some are useful as inspiring art and recreation, and leisure in moderation.
But most of them are vanity of vanities or even sinister, and few are equivalent to grand literary works or a requiem or piano concerto that raise the hearts and minds in respect to creation…

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

I would also remember John Paul II’s letter to artists when thinking about art and true artists…because “beauty” isn’t just a subjective word. It’s a reflection of what the artist, can find within this created world and his connection to its truths…

The link between good and beautiful stirs fruitful reflection. In a certain sense, beauty is the visible form of the good, just as the good is the metaphysical condition of beauty. This was well understood by the Greeks who, by fusing the two concepts, coined a term which embraces both: kalokagathía, or beauty-goodness. On this point Plato writes: “The power of the Good has taken refuge in the nature of the Beautiful”.(5)
It is in living and acting that man establishes his relationship with being, with the truth and with the good. The artist has a special relationship to beauty. In a very true sense it can be said that beauty is the vocation bestowed on him by the Creator in the gift of “artistic talent

I think the sense of Beauty becomes lost in a society that turns its back on the Father, the Creator. Remember St. Augustine in City of God when he was criticizing the Christians of his times who partook in the pagan entertainments… who tried to justify it etc.