Episode 291: Under the Skin – A Conversation about Nudity in Art and Entertainment. Plus, ‘Elio!’

9 Responses

1. Thank you for this discussion and that podcast. Though I’m not comfortable with children watching sex-as-entertainment things, I’m glad that you’re willing to admit that it does happen, without necessarily endorsing it or demeaning children’s underlying desires and healthy, natural questions. My big question in counter-point: Why do we have an entire term (“pornography”), as well as a specific class of laws, for governing a genre of media where people strip and have sex, while we don’t also have those things for governing genres of media that glamorize any number of other potentially objectionable premises and contexts? We don’t reduce military films to calling them war-nography, we don’t reduce greed/theft/heist films to poor-nography, we don’t reduce “cheat to win the sport” stories as score-nography, and so on.

   I find it more deeply problematic that we’re even engaging the question of, “Is it always wrong to show nudity,” when we hardly ever hear the question of, “Is it always wrong to show violence” or bigotry or sexism or what have you Our culture has come up with plenty of excuses for showing violence, for instance, but one upside of this is where we can clearly see that it’s possible to depict something without necessarily implying that we endorse every aspect of what we’re depicting. I think it should disturb us that our culture, including in the church, is often more comfortable with witnessing the destruction of life than with the potential creation of it, whereas the latter is so often treated as being inherently ‘dirty’ to show, which I think does more to demean and objectify it than quite a lot of what the secular culture’s “go ahead and show it” mentality does. And sometimes it becomes even more specific than that, to the point of making theologically baseless rules that disproportionately punish certain individuals and groups, like where a movie poster for the second “Sin City” was censored because of a woman’s nipples being visible, while a movie poster for one of the “Magic Mike” films featured a topless man blatantly pointing at his genitals.

   Yes, romances can often be conveyed without explicit sex scenes, but that doesn’t necessarily make explicit sex scenes immoral, and I think there’s a huge culture gap that Christian media could address in a Godly way if it’s willing to question and go against that man-made taboo, using something like Ephesians 5:25-28 as a backdrop, with the governing principle being that we are called to be compassionate to our spouses and to love our wives as Christ loved the church. Have there ever been any Christian movies that are willing to even depict sex in a healthy and beautiful context without acting as though it’s never to be seen or depicted except in private, behind closed doors, by those experiencing it firsthand? (Where did this taboo originally come from? Because it’s not in the Bible.) Like a Christian movie that’s willing to tell a healthy story in a Godly way, especially if it goes against stereotypes that too often appear both inside and outside of the church. A man’s body does not have to look like XYZ in order for God to call it good. A woman’s body does not have to look like XYZ in order for God to call it good. But I rarely hear Christian media bring this up and dissect it, whether the people are clothed or not.

   You yourself brought up the fact that our American fears regarding this subject are culturally influenced and not universal. This is especially true since so many churches preach unhealthy rules or dogmas about sex and sexuality (some of them even abet adultery or make excuses for the man leaving for a younger partner), such as a sometimes lack of willingness to talk about consent and lack of consent, or sometimes making sex disproportionately about one partner’s pleasure, such as the man’s, instead of valuing both partners and their desires and their limitations equally. I’ve seen too many messages that treat married women as though they have no right to say no, and that’s an area where the church needs to speak up because too many people are not only being harmed, but being harmed in the name of something that’s being called Godly. And that’s much worse than the secular world doing something selfish for its own sake, because at least that doesn’t cloak itself in a divine privilege or a mandate.

   If the excuse for an unwillingness to ever openly show this subject matter is that “it will tempt people to lust,” too many people will do that anyway, because they don’t have empathy or they don’t have self control. Full-length uniforms won’t stop someone else from lusting. Burqas won’t stop someone else from lusting. Too many people even treat children in this manner, and too many children get blamed for something they have no responsibility over. We should be teaching people, both as children and as adults, to have empathy and compassion and Godly self-control and to see other people as human being with innate dignity and value, not as people whose worth lies only in their willingness to sexually say “yes” to us.

   Depiction of nudity isn’t necessarily “exploitation,” and I think it’s paternalistic to conflate those two things, particularly when so many people have chosen to turn this into their own business without being beholden to a production company. Is that depiction in Hollywood stories sometimes silly? Yes—”Chernobyl” used a man’s nudity as comic relief, and while that wasn’t necessary for the story, I wouldn’t call it outright immoral or “objectifying” to depict, even as it could have been removed or ignored without impacting the plot. I do think nudity is often used as a marketing device to make money, but my issue there is not so much the nudity but rather the turning of it into a marketing scheme. “The person needs to look like this, with such-and-such body build as filtered by these measurements and that height and potentially even that ethnicity, or the movie won’t sell.”

   That sometimes also ventures uncomfortably into our examination of culture – both secular and religious and I think there’s not always a clear distinction between those two things – because it forces us to take a very blunt, very financially motivated look at what our culture thinks is and isn’t attractive. Sometimes I’ve even seen this in the church, or in conservative circles, like when the original “How to Train Your Dragon” film came out and some people demonized its premise because they thought Hiccup was a wimp and a shrimp instead of a big, strong man whom they thought should actually be the hero. But the Bible repeatedly shows us that God isn’t bound by our cultural definitions of who is strong and who is able.

   I did highly welcome your “combating the shame,” emphasizing teaching children the way they should go instead of being silent and letting false teachers (both inside the secular world and inside the church) be the first-across-the-door just because they’re the only ones actually willing to talk to young or sensitive listeners about these topics. I also liked how you appeal to personal maturity levels instead of trying to make a catch-all rule that isn’t in the Bible and ultimately does not make us more holy (Colossians 2:20-23). If you don’t mind my asking, was the name of this discussion (“Under The Skin”) inspired by the Scarlett Johansson movie of the same name, which examines subjects like this without necessarily glorifying or inherently demeaning them?

   1. Nudity and porn, whether implicit or explicit, has an effect on the brain in a way that violence does not. That’s why it’s treated differently. And yes some portrayals of violence is culturally condemned by both secular and non-secular. Emotionally-charged violence, torture, sexual violence. These are not the same cutting the heads off monsters and orcs in lord of the rings.

   2. ” Full-length uniforms won’t stop someone else from lusting. Burqas won’t stop someone else from lusting. ”

      This is something useful for me to hear as a woman. I have known a number of people who don’t approve of women wearing pants, saying that dresses and skirts will keep men from being tempted. I actually feel more exposed wearing a skirt and it is more challenging to do work in one, so it is interesting to hear another perspective.

      Also I didn’t realize audiences demonized Hiccup for being a wimp, I thought it was just the Vikings in the movie who were… I think whoever was criticizing How to Train Your Dragon to you was missing the point.

2. Erik H I love your comment so much. I always thought it was weird that my parents would let me watch movies like Lord of the Rings and other movies with war and violence, but romance/sexual themes were this huge deal that I shouldn’t watch. That makes me sad. I would much rather hear my next door neighbors sleeping together than murdering each other.

   I also worked as an aide in nursing homes from 17 years old on, nudity to me is just…. a naked body is a naked body. I’ve showered and dressed so many people, was that immoral to see? Silly. It’s the person who is important.

   1. Thank you so, so much!! This really means a lot! The second part of your comment made me think of the scene of the Cate Blanchett movie “Tár” where one character’s elderly mother is briefly shown in a nude and sympathetic but nonsexual state.

      A really unsettling impression I’ve gotten from various Christian works is that if they ever bring up sex at all, it’s rarely in a context we’d wholeheartedly endorse. Infidelity (A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood). Prostitution (Paul, Apostle of Christ; Risen; The Passion of the Christ and The Last Temptation of Christ). And this even from movies that were generally very, very good and often exceptional (“Paul, Apostle of Christ” is one of my favorite Christian movies). I don’t think it’s ” ” ” the secular world ” ” ” that’s taking something God made sacred and beautiful and presenting it in a morally unacceptable light.

      A very sobering thought that someone else brought up long ago (trigger warning) is that sexual violence is considered acceptable for broadcast, and not even just for adults-only shows, while explicit [e.g., genital insertion shown] consensual sex is generally not considered acceptable at all. That’s a very problematic message.

3. God created our bodies, but he’s also the one who gave us clothes after the fall of man. There’s never been a point in the Bible where he’s said “ok, you all can go naked again now.” As far as violence/sin depicted in movies vs. nudity and sex…the difference is that the violence is NOT real, but the nudity is. My kids and I greatly enjoyed watching the making of the Lord of the Rings, which showed how all of that stuff was done. We talk about “remember how they did that?!” when we watch the movie. They understand those characters are not really getting shot with arrows or having their arms cut off. Also, I don’t watch movies that glorify sin or violence with my kids…I don’t even like movies like Ocean’s Eleven which makes the criminals seem so smart and glamorous. But watching a movie with nudity or sex can literally scar a child for life. It can change the whole trajectory of a kid’s life if not handled properly. Also, I would say there’s a definite difference between sexual nudity and comedic nudity. When Mr. Bean loses his shorts in the swimming pool, I still hold a book in front of him when he’s scurrying around, but we laugh because it’s a comical, embarrassing situation. I think really things are less difficult than we make them out to be if we consider Biblical principles and the common sense God gave us.

4. I think you make good points about that nudity affects people differently. I remember being 14 and my relatives bought a 2 foot replica of the statue of David. I was too embarrassed to study it as a Christian teen girl, even though I was already drawing pretty well by then and could have learned something by looking at it. Nowadays I work as an R.N. in the hospital and it does not bother me help wash people unable to wash themselves if they cannot do it themselves or to inspect wounds and injuries. I should mention, though, that I don’t have a photographic memory, so my experience may be different from others.

   Now that I work in the hospital, I have watched a few sci-fi movies & TV I had been avoiding previously for having brief nudity, but I honestly came away with the impression that the actors were uncomfortable with those scenes and that it wasn’t truly necessary for the story. I also noticed it was the less-experienced actors who were usually given those roles. From my limited experience acting in high school and performing music, I realize there is a lot of pressure to see yourself as your character or role and maybe not think about yourself. I don’t think our society should expect actors to do nude scenes. Acting is an art and obviously nudity can be done in an artistic way, but it’s clear much of the audience won’t look at it in an artistic manner despite the best intentions of the filmmakers.

5. In regards to nudity,
   1 Corinthians 12:23-25
   [23] and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, [24] which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, [25] that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another.

   Because of sin, we give greater honor to those parts of our bodies. We don’t live in the Garden of Eden, where Adam and Eve were, “naked and were not ashamed.”
   And on the conversation of violence maybe that’s something else we should abhor from.

   1. “Less honorable” is culturally subjective, and that passage pertains to the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:12). There’s nothing in that passage that specifies, for instance, female breasts/faces/hair but not male equivalents as being obscene, unlike what is practiced in many cultures. I used to see a “Modest is Hottest” shirt in some Christian stores with that same Bible verse on it, and it always frustrated me because that seems to take the verse out of context.