Personally I tend to find nudity distracting, except in such instances where its absence is distractingly implausible. Sometimes the distractingness is tittilating, but more often it's like, Okay, I cannot guess how she feels by reading the expression in her nipples, please move the camera up a tiny bit.

Fair point. I do tend to feel a pang of irritation at attacks of modesty from characters whom we're to believe have spent hours shagging like shag monsters - the modesty sheet clutched to the bosom. And the whole still-wearing-their-undies thing. But it's no more irritating than the perfect hair and makeup phenomonon. (Oh, how I loved Lilah! Because I did believe that she'd had the hot monkey sex and needed a shower, I really did. Bless her.)

Actually, Fay, the nudity I mentioned on that other thread this morning? That was plausible, plot-driven nudity, and I dug that. I also tend to think that investigator-type shows, of which we have millions and millions, would benefit from the sheet not being up at the dead person's neck all the time. Because, you know, starkness, realism, and I have trouble imagining someone ogling a naked corpse in an autopsy bay.

But yes, many a comment has been made about "L-shaped" sheets on a bed, that come up to a man's waist but up to a woman's neck.

Sorry, I think maybe I came across as being argument lady, whereas really I think I agreed with you. I mean, this:

Personally I tend to find nudity distracting, except in such instances where its absence is distractingly implausible

is perfectly fair enough, imho.

The New York Times had an article recently (and here it is) about the increasing acceptance of porn in mainstream american culture. Interestingly, the amount of sex in mainstream movies is going down - I think it said that only 8 R-rated movies this year were rated R for sex; the rest were for violence. The author posited that the reduction of sex in mainstream entertainment was related to the increase in aceptance of porn.

The author posited that the reduction of sex in mainstream entertainment was related to the increase in aceptance of porn.

See, now that's a dang shame, because while I am entirely accepting of porn, I don't watch it. I prefer seduction to sex I guess, at least on screen.

The bra seemed odd because they'd been able to film Faith shirtless perfectly well before in "The Zeppo." It might have been that Dushku reportedly is trying to change her image - she had Kevin Smith tone down the character she played in "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back" and even remove his intended homosexuality for character. (He just left it in for his wife and the one playing her girlfriend.) In her mind, leaving a bra on during sex might have seemed more grown up or mature.

We had a side view this time. They'd have risked nippelage.

It might have been that Dushku reportedly is trying to change her image - she had Kevin Smith tone down the character she played in "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back" and even remove his intended homosexuality for character.

Dude.

That is so depressing. What's with that? I mean, I could understand her wanting to try trading less upon her sexuality - wanting to be taken more seriously, avoid typecasting, get a wider range of roles blah blah blah. I could understand that. But saying you won't play a character 'cause they're gay? That you've got to het them up?

I mean, hell, Faith was never expressly, unambiguously, textually gay. Implicit as hell that she wasn't stick shift only, but it's not like Dushku was playing Tara or Kennedy or Willow. So it's not a case of trying to avoid typecasting, surely? wtf?

Fay - I really expect it is more what Trudy said.

It was side view. If she had not been wearing a bra we would have had nippelage. Not allowed on stupid puritanical American broadcast TV.

t On Edit

Sorry Trudy -name changed.

Hee, Typo-- could you change my name?

Or MAYBE she's droopy. Could happen.