Is Human Nature's Nudity Really Bad?

I just rented the movie today. There is a lot of nudity and sexual situations. Hilary Duff is only in one scene and only has one line. Her character has a condition where hair grows all over her body. Hilary's scene consists of her running home from school, unbuttoning her shirt and discovering that she has hair on her chest. The scene cuts to her sitting in a doctor's office, where she says her one line, which is something like "by the age of 20 I looked like an ape". It is one of the very first scenes of the movie, and it takes place before any of the nudity, so maybe you could convince your guardian to just let you watch that scene if you really wanted to see it.

that is a hilarious question; because one of the themes in the movie is
that we try to suppress sexuality and our bodies

I would suggest watching it together when you are old enough, you might have a good discussion about it afterwards, or at least a good chuckle!

Don't you know?

Americans are more stuck up and religious than Iranians.


God forgive a teenager sees a nipple or hell even part of a breast - OBVIOUSLY he's going to grow up to be a rapist after that point.

There are taboos in ALL cultures and EVERY country exercises censorship of one kind or another over it's populace. That censorship may take the form of banning the use of explicit language on tv (remember the AO mod. tv vers. of Blue Velvet? - 'You friggin' frigg!'), hiding a naked willy behind a black box or not reporting the massacre of innocents in a tiny African backwater because it won't sell newspapers.

The reasons behind censorship are many and varied but they are not always rooted in the interests of public morals as many people on this board seem to think. A controlled populace - one that is induced by it's creative mediums to think a particular way or to consume particular products - is a stable populace. This is why America in the 1960's was both such a dangerous place and such an idealistic one in many of it's outer fringes; freedom to think alternatively and to question openly created huge rifts, not just between the Establishment and the Free Thinkers, but between generations, races, and religions. The antidote to that, of course, was the 1970's where it was generally discovered that idealism was a something of a pipe dream and the 1980's, where that lost idealism turned to cynicism and then became the 'Greed Is Good' philosophy which still overhangs us now in the form of rampant commercial globalisation.

The 'freedom' that American leaders speak about today has very little, it seems to me, to do with either the open exploration of ideas or the liberty their forefathers fought so hard for when they gained their indepedance. Freedom today, in Reagan/Bush/Cheneyspeak has everything to do with expanding American markets and shackling a growing marketplace into the ranks of a controlled populace. This is why this subject - censorship, 'morality' in art, taboos - must be discussed openly; because while all of us are controlled in our thinking and feelings on various matters by our own experiences there is little worse than having that control sublimated by somebody or Somebodies who just want our dollars and our vote to further their own agendas.

BUT - i digress slightly.. and there is a flip side to this debate.

The fact is that in countries where there is little censorship by western standards (and I mean British/American standards here) the artistic culture leans towards being flaccid and insular. How many great Scandinavian epics in literature or film has the world been challenged by in the past fifty years? Not many by my count but I am willing to stand corrected. Censorship and repression it seems to me is VITAL to creative growth. Would there have been a Clockwork Orange without the trashy Disney flicks of the 60's? Would there have been a Sex Pistols or a Clash without the back to back excesses and sweeping conservatism of the 70's? Would there have been a Nirvana without the shallow hair bands of the 80's? Who can say? But rebellion nurtures creativity - that is clear.

While I deplore the commercial domination of American art over the rest of the world, AT LEAST an American can freely choose to see a violent or sexual film whenever they please by simply finding one at their local video store. Interestingly, one can do the same, I am told, in most Middle Eastern countries where ultra-violent Amercian action films make as much money per capita as they do back home.

The important thing, it seems to me, is that - regardless of whether we get to see Hilary Duff's titties in a movie, or regardless of whether we get to hear 'c**ksucker' or 'socksucker' on tv or not - we stand for open debate and free choices. America may well suck at many things - just as every other country on earth sucks in it's own unique way - but that is because it is populated by human beings. And human beings, given power, influence and imagination will ultimately seek to further their own ends by any means necessary, whether that be through censorship or through military might.

And all i know is that im getting sleepy and im not making as much sense as I intended to when i started and i have bored myself silly.

I thank you :)

[deleted]

I wouldn't want you to see the movie simply because you want to see Hilary Duff. The movie features her for maybe five minutes. You'd probably just be weirded out by the rest of the movie if you don't have a rather open mind.

didn't know what you were starting did you?

wow. this is a funny website/board.


i guess it's all human nature now isn't it?

[deleted]