“Partial Nudity” Is Not Okay
I was very disappointed in a recent popular movie, a sequel to a film that has attracted people of all ages. I don’t know why I was so dumb as to think “partial nudity” meant something else except “partial nudity”.
During what was supposed to be a light sex scene you can clearly see her left breast. In the water there is a lot more skin then I ever thought there was going to be. Before buying tickets, I researched different parent reviews, hoping to find out if there was anything in the movie that I wasn’t going to approve of. None of the 6 different sites I looked at ever discussed what the partial nudity was. I considered walking out of the theater when I saw that, but stayed. The rest of the movie was pretty good. There’s just that one part…
Sometimes in situations like these I think, “why am I making such a big deal about it? Everybody else thinks its o.k., even most LDS people. Why am I the only one who makes a big deal out of it?” Then I look at my beautiful daughters and remember why I make such a big deal over one scene of “partial” nudity. I hope that more people will take a stand against “partially” harmless t.v. shows, movies, magazines, and other entertainment. Not only to stay away from it but to speak out against it. I don’t want them to believe that if they ever became actresses that it would be o.k. if they showed *only *“*partial*” nudity. I don’t want them to believe that as long as they aren’t the ones showing their body that its o.k. to watch it, just so long as it’s *only* “*partial*” nudity. And, I don’t want their future daughters or sons to think it’s okay to watch nudity, partial or not and be okay with it.
Thomas Monson has said: “Some persons struggle to differentiate between what they term ‘soft-core’ and ‘hard-core’ pornography. Actually, one leads to another. How applicable is Alexander Pope’s classic “Essay on Man”:
Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.
“An ominous warning was voiced by Laurence M. Gould, former president of Carleton College: “I do not believe the greatest threat to our future is from bombs or guided missiles. I don’t think our civilization will die that way. I think it will die when we no longer care. Arnold Toynbee has pointed out that 19 of 21 civilizations have died from within and not by conquest from without. There were no bands playing and flags waving when these civilizations decayed. It happened slowly, in the quiet and the dark when no one was aware.”
I remember reading a review of a new movie. The leading actress told the reporter that she objected initially to the script and the part she was to play. The role portrayed her as the sexual companion of a 14-year-old boy. She commented: “At first I said, ‘No way will I agree to such a scene.’ Then I was given the assurance that the boy’s mother would be present during all intimate scenes, so I agreed.”
I ask: Would a mother stand by watching were her son embraced by a cobra? Would she subject him to the taste of arsenic or strychnine? Mothers, would you? Fathers, would we?
Let us join in the fervent declaration of Joshua: “Choose you this day whom ye will serve; … but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.” Let our hearts be pure. Let our lives be clean. Let our voices be heard. Let our actions be felt.”
I hope that more people will take a stand against “partially” harmless t.v. shows, movies, magazines, and other entertainment. Not only to stay away from it but to speak out against it.
Regina, A Voice for Virtue