Will be there be nudity in Season 2?

[Awesome Possum]

I could, and have before on other forums. But it's a circular argument because if you perceive me as conventionally attractive, I'll still be regarded as 'arrogant and conceited' for my previous comments.
Regardless, you're argument is flawed. I'm not an actor on this series so I shouldn't be held to the same scrutiny as those in the industry.

Are you personally insulted by my comment about Tilly? Sounds like it, if you had to bring this to a personal level.

No, I just have issues with an actual woman being attacked for her looks. Especially by those afraid of showing themselves out of fear for the same. I see it as being pretty pathetic and immature. But what do I know, i, just an adult who grew out of that middle shit a long time ago. I guess others weren’t that lucky.

Dude. The catsuit on her looked great. It isn't sexist for a confident attractive woman to show off her feminine physique. If anything, it empowering.

No, not at all. The opposite in fact.

I think it’s also disgusting to say you want to see certain actresses nude...everyone can have their crush on screen characters etc, but there are ways of expressing that non?

It’s honestly creepy. I’d avoid any guy who constantly goes on about seeing some actress nude like the plague. I’m pretty most other women would as well. It might be why those guys are just left with random actresses appearing nude because the TV can’t turn them down.

 

[Kane_Steel]

No, I just have issues with an actual woman being attacked for her looks. Especially by those afraid of showing themselves out of fear for the same. I see it as being pretty pathetic and immature. But what do I know, i, just an adult who grew out of that middle shit a long time ago. I guess others weren’t that lucky.

LOL... should 'mods' even be talking like this? Hilarious.

So you were so personally insulted by my Tilly comment (and I think we can all speculate why), that you made it personal and asked me to post pictures of myself... which I'm perfectly fine with doing.

There's no law saying which actresses I can find attractive and which I do not, and there's nothing wrong with voicing my displeasure at who I do not want to see naked onscreen.

There's also nothing wrong with discussing the physical appearance of an actor or actress, whether it be negative or positive. I'm not personally attacking any members of this forum. That type of discussion is fair game for celebrities who put themselves out there onscreen.

 

[Kane_Steel]

Which is a terrible counter. They market their image on their terms. That does not make them objects or commodities which you can own or demand to see in certain ways.
Actually they have exactly the same rights as everybody else. Including that to exercise control over their own bodies.

It's debatable depending on the situation.

Melissa Benoist (CW's Supergirl), for example, had hardcore XXX pictures of herself all over her phone.. and those got hacked and released all over the net. But as a celebrity in the public eye, she should have known better than to take such photos and carry them around on her mobile (which is super weird).

If someone chooses a career in the public eye, like being an industry actor for example, you are held to a different standard of privacy. That's the price of making that choice.

There are lots of normal jobs in real life that have similar standards. We've seen countless employees get fired for what they say or do in private whether they had control of that information leaking out or not.

 

[Awesome Possum]

LOL... should 'mods' even be talking like this? Hilarious.

So you were so personally insulted by my Tilly comment (and I think we can all speculate why), that you made it personal and asked me to post pictures of myself... which I'm perfectly fine with doing.

There's no law saying which actresses I can find attractive and which I do not, and there's nothing wrong with voicing my displeasure at who I do not want to see naked onscreen.

There's also nothing wrong with discussing the physical appearance of an actor or actress, whether it be negative or positive. I'm not personally attacking any members of this forum. That type of discussion is fair game for celebrities who put themselves out there onscreen.

I said others, I didn't direct it at you. But you were personally insulted (and I think we can all speculate why).

 

[Awesome Possum]

It's debatable depending on the situation.

Melissa Benoist (CW's Supergirl), for example, had hardcore XXX pictures of herself all over her phone.. and those got hacked and released all over the net. But as a celebrity in the public eye, she should have known better than to take such photos and carry them around on her mobile (which is super weird).

If someone chooses a career in the public eye, like being an industry actor for example, you are held to a different standard of privacy. That's the price of making that choice.

There are lots of normal jobs in real life that have similar standards. We've seen countless employees get fired for what they say or do in private whether they had control of that information leaking out or not.

Yes, blame the victim.

 

[Spot261]

It's debatable depending on the situation.

Nope

But as a celebrity in the public eye, she should have known better than to take such photos and carry them around on her mobile (which is super weird).

Nope

If someone chooses a career in the public eye, like being an industry actor for example, you are held to a different standard of privacy. That's the price of making that choice.

Nope

 

[Locutus of Bored]

No, I just have issues with an actual woman being attacked for her looks. Especially by those afraid of showing themselves out of fear for the same. I see it as being pretty pathetic and immature. But what do I know, i, just an adult who grew out of that middle shit a long time ago. I guess others weren’t that lucky.

LOL... should 'mods' even be talking like this? Hilarious.

First off, she's not a mod in this forum, so don't play the "should a mod do this" card. She's just another poster here like anyone else.

Secondly, nothing she said broke any rules.

You've been posting toxic rhetoric all over the forum and that post was objectionable to you? Give me a break.

 

[cultcross]

Melissa Benoist (CW's Supergirl), for example, had hardcore XXX pictures of herself all over her phone.. and those got hacked and released all over the net. But as a celebrity in the public eye, she should have known better than to take such photos and carry them around on her mobile (which is super weird).

So it's the victim's fault? Classy.

We've seen countless employees get fired for what they say or do in private

Yeah but that usually involves them doing something wrong. Taking private pictures of yourself naked on your private phone is not doing something wrong.

 

[Spot261]

LOL... should 'mods' even be talking like this? Hilarious.

Entirely aside from being a mod in another forum @Awesome Possum is one of the most popular and well loved posters in here with good reason.

You, on the other hand, seem to be going out of your way to offend and alienate people with some pretty awful views and ignorance of basic decency.

 

[cooleddie74]

Well, we already know what some people look like stripped naked just based on their posting history. Victim blaming is the lowest form of fandom.

Well, that and thinking Klingon ships in DSC look good.

 

[Spot261]

And this is why we shouldn't have nudity in season 2.

Because even if it is integral to the story, even if the performers themselves are all on board and see artistic merit in it, there will still be entitled people who see it as their goddam right to see those performers stripped naked and having it delivered to them will only reinforce that perception of actors and actresses as reduced to public property.

 

[ITDUDE]

I am neutral on this whole debate. If actors want to be naked, let them. Should famous people be treated differently to privacy on their phones compared to regular people? No. Private is private no matter if you are famous or not. If they want nude pics on their phones, by all means. That's no different than what's on half of the phones of the general public. Trust me, I work in IT. I have literally seen it all, and good half of it I wish I could forget. BUT Anything related to them being in public, like being followed by paparazzi, not really having privacy when out in the open, well that IS the price of being famous.

 

[Spot261]

BUT Anything related to them being in public, like being followed by paparazzi, not really having privacy when out in the open, well that IS the price of being famous.

It can also be the price of being cast in the public eye unwittingly, it doesn't require that people seek out fame but is rather an ugly aspect of our society and the worst in human nature.

However we weren't discussing the public behaviour of the paparazzi, we are discussing whether people in the public eye have any less rights with regard to their own bodies, to which the answer surely is "no". We were discussing whether it is appropriate for people to feel they have some innate right to demand to see such people naked for their own entertainment, to which the answer is also surely "no".

 

[ITDUDE]

whether it is appropriate for people to feel they have some innate right to demand to see such people naked for their own entertainment, to which the answer is also surely "no".

Well, hold on. People having "a right to demand" is basically Free Speech. They can and DO have a right to demand anything they want. I can go into middle of largest city and scream and demand that "someone give me $100 million dollars". That's a stupid thing to demand, people will just laugh at me, but no one can stop me from "demanding" it. As long as I don't start attacking people and taking their money. So some hobo, sitting at a computer, demanding some actress get naked for him, has full right to do so. No body has to listen to him or follow his "demands", but you can't stop him from talking.

 

[Spot261]

Well, hold on. People having "a right to demand" is basically Free Speech. They can and DO have a right to demand anything they want. I can go into middle of largest city and scream and demand that "someone give me $100 million dollars". That's a stupid thing to demand, people will just laugh at me, but no one can stop me from "demanding" it. As long as I don't start attacking people and taking their money. So some hobo, sitting at a computer, demanding some actress get naked for him, has full right to do so. No body has to listen to him or follow his "demands", but you can't stop him from talking.

True, which is exactly the problem when freedom of speech clashes with basic human decency. The worms come out of the can.

 

[cooleddie74]

Demanding that they see somebody naked isn't much above demanding they have sex with you or else. It's just one or two steps removed from not hiring or even firing an employee or not giving them a promotion because they won't sleep with you.

Nobody is owed any bare skin and those who think they are because they're fans of an actress are just creeper material. Want tits? You're on the Internet. Go find some and leave these performers alone.

 

[ITDUDE]

Which is exactly the problem with putting freedom of speech above basic human decency. The worms come out of the can.

Yes, it could be a problem. In Downtown SF, homeless literally shit on the street. It's at a point that if I want to visit some store on Market (and let's say it's 5 miles from my home) or drive to San Jose for same store (35 miles away), I'll gladly drive south. Yes, human decency is somewhat gone from Downtown SF in huge part because homeless are allowed to do whatever the hell they want. But I still hold out hope that both Freedom and Human Decency can co-exist. After all, SF is still an exception, for now..

 

[jaime]

Well, we already know what some people look like stripped naked just based on their posting history. Victim blaming is the lowest form of fandom.

Well, that and thinking Klingon ships in DSC look good.

We are all the victims of Klingon design.

And we are all to blame...

 

[Spot261]

Yes, it could be a problem. In Downtown SF, homeless literally shit on the street. It's at a point that if I want to visit some store on Market (and let's say it's 5 miles from my home) or drive to San Jose for same store (35 miles away), I'll gladly drive south. Yes, human decency is somewhat gone from Downtown SF in huge part because homeless are allowed to do whatever the hell they want. But I still hold out hope that both Freedom and Human Decency can co-exist. After all, SF is still an exception, for now..

I was more talking about the behaviour of misogynistic entitled creeps online who can't distinguish between paying for a TV show and owning the people whose livelihood is acting in it, but if homeless people offend you that much maybe donate to a charity?

 

[jaime]

And this is why we shouldn't have nudity in season 2.

Because even if it is integral to the story, even if the performers themselves are all on board and see artistic merit in it, there will still be entitled people who see it as their goddam right to see those performers stripped naked and having it delivered to them will only reinforce that perception of actors and actresses as reduced to public property.

Nah. I part ways there..kinda (I do not actually want nudity in s2)
If an adult person wishes to be naked as a part of a work of art, that’s up to them and the artist. If it’s art, there’s no seediness except the projections of someone viewing the art. There’s a discussion around the male gaze (something I think only really comes in around photographed art..or screen obviously...which covers DSC) obviously, but in general, that way lays the path of mad puritanical censorship. (With the obvious exceptions of ensuring its suitable for its audience, and that its audience are adults.) we shouldn’t strip artists of their agency under the pretense of protecting it.

That said...no thanks. Teenage me had to live with the Starfleet issue sweaty vests, and this generation will just have to do the same.