Comments on: Nudity in movies http://butler-harris.org/archives/225 How can you have the last word if you haven't heard the first? Wed, 19 Nov 2008 02:26:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.4 by: Adam K http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-34450 Sat, 27 Sep 2008 04:26:46 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-34450 Very thoughtful piece. Visual media is not only a waste of time and a means of societal mind control... it is likewise (as has been observed) an ingenious tool of the Devil to stream images into our homes that we would otherwise never even consider allowing. Personally, I am a virtual "book-totaller" and enjoying every minute of it! Very thoughtful piece. Visual media is not only a waste of time and a means of societal mind control… it is likewise (as has been observed) an ingenious tool of the Devil to stream images into our homes that we would otherwise never even consider allowing. Personally, I am a virtual “book-totaller” and enjoying every minute of it!

]]> by: Jim http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-34421 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:32:30 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-34421 If a beautiful woman was being entertained in my living room, would I ask her to take off her clothes so I could enjoy her more? NO one questions that that would be inappropriate (to say the least) even if there was no touching, I didn't desire her for myself, and my wife was present. So should I PAY someone else to do just that, take pictures of it, make a movie, call it art, and VIEW it in my living room? I've never heard of a movie, outside of porn, where the naked human body on display wasn't purely gratuitous. If a beautiful woman was being entertained in my living room, would I ask her to take off her clothes so I could enjoy her more? NO one questions that that would be inappropriate (to say the least) even if there was no touching, I didn’t desire her for myself, and my wife was present. So should I PAY someone else to do just that, take pictures of it, make a movie, call it art, and VIEW it in my living room? I’ve never heard of a movie, outside of porn, where the naked human body on display wasn’t purely gratuitous.

]]> by: MRB http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-16147 Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:20:53 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-16147 Though a bit off topic, <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whYi8sCF5Pg&eurl=http://bravenewfilms.org/blog/18210-fox-attacks-decency-with-bill-o-reilly-leading-the-way" rel="nofollow">here</a> is a video about nudity on FOX. Not FOX channel, but FOX News. Bill, Sean, and the rest of the gang love to deride smut on their programs, but they also love to show the smut as they condemn it. Michael Hoffman says the purpose of such programming (television programming as well as psychological programming) is to induce in the viewers a double-mind: "Your newspaper will condemn sex and violence in the loftiest terms but there in its entertainment section is a half-page advertisement for a new "action" movie accompanied by a photo of women in string bikinis and high heels fondling automatic pistols and machine-guns... There is the official attack on sex and violence... And yet, one need not be Sherlock Holmes to detect that the very themes which Orthodox Officialdom condemns with its right hand, its left-hand -- Counter-culture Officialdom -- disseminates." "Yet we cooperate with it. We are its prey. Both sides -- light and shadow -- have magnetic attraction for us. The Official Orthodoxy allows us to indulge our good sense about ourselves as people who can still be outraged. Meanwhile, the Establishment's Official Counter-culture allows us to indulge our "guilty pleasures." ... Pleasure -- as distinct from joy or happiness -- is almost always enhanced by the patina of the forbidden, and having reassured our persona of our essential goodness by sharing in the condemnations promulgated by the Official Orthodoxy, we can then fling ourselves headlong into guilty indulgence of the very themes we agreed were execrable when condemned on the nightly news." (From <em>Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare</em>) Things have advanced since Hoffman published this six years ago. Now nightly news, at least FOX News, gives us both at the same time. <strong>WARNING: VIDEO IS RATED FOX</strong> Though a bit off topic, here is a video about nudity on FOX. Not FOX channel, but FOX News. Bill, Sean, and the rest of the gang love to deride smut on their programs, but they also love to show the smut as they condemn it.

Michael Hoffman says the purpose of such programming (television programming as well as psychological programming) is to induce in the viewers a double-mind:

“Your newspaper will condemn sex and violence in the loftiest terms but there in its entertainment section is a half-page advertisement for a new “action” movie accompanied by a photo of women in string bikinis and high heels fondling automatic pistols and machine-guns… There is the official attack on sex and violence… And yet, one need not be Sherlock Holmes to detect that the very themes which Orthodox Officialdom condemns with its right hand, its left-hand — Counter-culture Officialdom — disseminates.”

“Yet we cooperate with it. We are its prey. Both sides — light and shadow — have magnetic attraction for us. The Official Orthodoxy allows us to indulge our good sense about ourselves as people who can still be outraged. Meanwhile, the Establishment’s Official Counter-culture allows us to indulge our “guilty pleasures.” … Pleasure — as distinct from joy or happiness — is almost always enhanced by the patina of the forbidden, and having reassured our persona of our essential goodness by sharing in the condemnations promulgated by the Official Orthodoxy, we can then fling ourselves headlong into guilty indulgence of the very themes we agreed were execrable when condemned on the nightly news.” (From Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare)

Things have advanced since Hoffman published this six years ago. Now nightly news, at least FOX News, gives us both at the same time.

WARNING: VIDEO IS RATED FOX

]]> by: Jim Harris http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-12372 Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:33:26 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-12372 Actually, all major movies already are produced with the offensive scenes removed for use on airplanes and TV, but are otherwise hard to get. Some Christians have tried to set up e-stores, like Netflix, with those movies, but have met with unconscionable and powerful resistance from the producers. They claim their art would be degraded. And indeed, in that sense it would be if the "moral" public voluntarily, (as opposed to legally mandated)used only the cleaned up versions. Imagine if only the sleaze population used the offensive versions. But we're not there yet, and it will take time before a Christian world view predominates this field of art. But I believe it will and is coming. Actually, all major movies already are produced with the offensive scenes removed for use on airplanes and TV, but are otherwise hard to get. Some Christians have tried to set up e-stores, like Netflix, with those movies, but have met with unconscionable and powerful resistance from the producers. They claim their art would be degraded. And indeed, in that sense it would be if the “moral” public voluntarily, (as opposed to legally mandated)used only the cleaned up versions. Imagine if only the sleaze population used the offensive versions. But we’re not there yet, and it will take time before a Christian world view predominates this field of art. But I believe it will and is coming.

]]> by: steve hoffmeister http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-6887 Wed, 02 May 2007 23:09:16 +0000 http://butler-harris.org/archives/225#comment-6887 hi tim, In response I have the following: 1. Part 1 "Clothing reverting back to Eden" -- would it be better to suggest that the lack of clothing by Hollywood is a <em>celebration </em>of the rebellion? 2. Part 2 Man's body does hold an aesthetic value ... 3. Part 4 Rushdoony calls adultery family high treason. 4. Part 6 i like it but i think it needs more development. All in all, i agree that nudity, or maybe "acts" of sex if you will, have a big money idea behind them. Also as of late i have noticed in PG-13 movies show some "Cheesecake" sort of kind of shots. These appeared in two movies i saw not long ago, one couple was married the other was not. In my opinion, they were unnecessary: as you follow the plot you get the idea of what is about to happen -- i do not need pics of it. This brings me to my next problem: does the development of a story by the writer make me sin when i think "this couple is about to have sex"? i do not see it maybe, but i do know what's about to happen, and is the fact that they are married or not a problem (i mean the characters, not the acters)? i remember one puritan minister warning his congregation about the possibility of falling into sin because he was about to preach on adultery. So this whole issue can be problematic in many senses and i think we need to be very careful of what we see, and think. steve hoffmeister hi tim,
In response I have the following:
1. Part 1 “Clothing reverting back to Eden” — would it be better to suggest that the lack of clothing by Hollywood is a celebration of the rebellion?
2. Part 2 Man’s body does hold an aesthetic value …
3. Part 4 Rushdoony calls adultery family high treason.
4. Part 6 i like it but i think it needs more development.

All in all, i agree that nudity, or maybe “acts” of sex if you will, have a big money idea behind them. Also as of late i have noticed in PG-13 movies show some “Cheesecake” sort of kind of shots. These appeared in two movies i saw not long ago, one couple was married the other was not. In my opinion, they were unnecessary: as you follow the plot you get the idea of what is about to happen — i do not need pics of it.

This brings me to my next problem: does the development of a story by the writer make me sin when i think “this couple is about to have sex”? i do not see it maybe, but i do know what’s about to happen, and is the fact that they are married or not a problem (i mean the characters, not the acters)? i remember one puritan minister warning his congregation about the possibility of falling into sin because he was about to preach on adultery. So this whole issue can be problematic in many senses and i think we need to be very careful of what we see, and think.
steve hoffmeister

]]>