How do you see it?

[Guest]

Is it?

[applepansy]

So what about if the person in question is single? Do you still see it as wrong?

Suzie, you're implying that its ok to kiss someone other than your spouse under "whatever" circumstances fit.... in this thread movies.

Is that how you really feel?

[Suzie]

Applepansy, I am not really sure what you are talking about. Where or how do I imply that it is okay to kiss someone other than your spouse under "whatever" circumstances? Please explain.

But to be more clear on this particular issue, I don't see anything wrong with a married LDS actor/actress or single LDS actor/actress to kiss someone in a movie.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Suzie

[Guest]

You don't get the point or you don't agree with the point?

I don't get the point. I don't get the point of why watching Titanic is bad but watching Tangled isn't.

Of course, I'm making the assumption that applepansy thinks Tangled is an okay movie to watch.

[Guest]

But to be more clear on this particular issue, I don't see anything wrong with a married LDS actor/actress or single LDS actor/actress to kiss someone in a movie.

x2 here.

I don't see anything wrong with actors portraying a kissing scene just like I don't see anything wrong with actors portraying a gangster shooting somebody.

[Suzie]

x2 here.

I don't see anything wrong with actors portraying a kissing scene just like I don't see anything wrong with actors portraying a gangster shooting somebody.

It's funny though that a lot of people would have issues with a kissing scene but not with the role of a serial killer.

[JudoMinja]

x2 here.

I don't see anything wrong with actors portraying a kissing scene just like I don't see anything wrong with actors portraying a gangster shooting somebody.

In my mind, the problem is that the kissing scenes are no longer a portrayal of kissing or whatever other form of intimacy. The actors are physically kissing one another, petting one another, etc. It is real, wheather the relationship or situation being portrayed is fake or not, the actions they are going through to put on their performance are real acts.

When someone gets shot in a movie, we know it is fake. Nobody is really getting killed- that's the magic of make-believe and movie making. We use all of our cinematic skills and tricks and arts, our special effects and our gimmicks, to make something fake appear real and tell a story. The act is no longer an act though, when we find it acceptable to just film the real thing, and this is exactly what is happening with a lot of the "romantic" portions of movies and television shows.

This is why I had my number one determiner- How fake is it, really? What lines are we crossing when we say it is okay for actors to be feeling one another up and sticking their tongues in each others mouths because thats what the directors want so they can get a good detailed shot and make the "romance" come alive? It loses the magic and the art of making something fake look real, because it is no longer fake.

Whether it is an act or not, if you are doing something that you would consider breaking the law of chastity on a date or adultery if you are married, then it is wrong. If it is fake and simply looks real thanks to the gimmicks and art of theatrical production, fine. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, and I in fact quite enjoy it. But to actually engage in those intimate acts with another and say it is okay simply because it is their job or it isn't a "real" realtionship, to me, is justification for sin.

Then of course, the problem with your comparison between Titanic and Tangled raises my number two factor- What is the purpose of the act and what do we learn from it? There is no good moral to Titanic. You can say it is about a historical event, but there are already films out there that cover the history of the Titanic and the good lessons we can learn from that debacle quite fine without the sexualization. Titanic is nothing but a "romantic" story that lies about what "true love" really looks like, as many many other romantic films out there do.

Tangled, on the other hand, for one is animated so there are no actors engaging in unneccessary acts of intimacy. And even if it was real actors, there are no inappropriate scenes. Then, for another, it actually has a moral lesson and purposeful meaning behind the story- more than just a fun reinactment of the story of Rapunzel. Those who watch Tangled can learn lessons about pursuing their dreams, overcoming their fears, rebellion, seeing even frightening "brigands" for the person underneath, what manipulative abuse looks like, sacrificing for others, love and family, etc. Sure there are some bad things in it like theivery, but everything works together to teach moral lessons that can apply to our lives.

[Guest]

In my mind, the problem is that the kissing scenes are no longer a portrayal of kissing or whatever other form of intimacy. The actors are physically kissing one another, petting one another, etc. It is real, wheather the relationship or situation being portrayed is fake or not, the actions they are going through to put on their performance are real acts.

What's the difference between an Italian man kissing another Italian man in greeting and to a gay man kissing another gay man?

Intent.

What's the difference between the actors for Carol and Mike Brady kissing lip-to-lip and me kissing my husband lip-to-lip?

Intent.

Just because someone's lips touches another doesn't make it "real" intimacy.

It all boils down to intent.

Then of course, the problem with your comparison between Titanic and Tangled raises my number two factor- What is the purpose of the act and what do we learn from it? There is no good moral to Titanic. You can say it is about a historical event, but there are already films out there that cover the history of the Titanic and the good lessons we can learn from that debacle quite fine without the sexualization. Titanic is nothing but a "romantic" story that lies about what "true love" really looks like, as many many other romantic films out there do.

Tangled, on the other hand, for one is animated so there are no actors engaging in unneccessary acts of intimacy. And even if it was real actors, there are no inappropriate scenes. Then, for another, it actually has a moral lesson and purposeful meaning behind the story- more than just a fun reinactment of the story of Rapunzel. Those who watch Tangled can learn lessons about pursuing their dreams, overcoming their fears, rebellion, seeing even frightening "brigands" for the person underneath, what manipulative abuse looks like, sacrificing for others, love and family, etc. Sure there are some bad things in it like theivery, but everything works together to teach moral lessons that can apply to our lives.

That doesn't make sense. There's a lot of lessons learned in Titanic. It has more lessons than Napoleon Dynamite.

A movie doesn't have to have "lessons" to be enjoyable. And bad stuff doesn't cease to be bad just because you got a "lesson" out of it. Robin Hood may be heroic but he's still a thief. Darth Vader may have killed the Emperor but he's still... Darth Vader.

What makes a scene inappropriate? According to who? An actor may be good enough to be choosy and only portray LDS-approved movies. Fact of the matter is - there are only 13 million LDS people and 6 billion non-LDS ones. And a lot of the movie-goers have no problem with having sex in a car in a boat without the blessings of the priest. Or a werewolf without a shirt.

You watch a movie for what you get out of it - not that you agree with what is being portrayed. It's like going to the mall. All these teen-agers with their skimpy clothing - meh, even grandma these days have skimpy clothing - you don't stop going to the mall just because you get to see all these semi-naked people. You go to the mall because you want to buy something.

[Guest]

Just because you go into a kiss or make-out session without the intent to stir up feelings, doesn't mean you won't. Just because you tell yourself it's only work and won't affect your marriage, doesn't mean it won't. Just because you might be able to play with fire without getting burned, doesn't mean should.

[Guest]

Just because you go into a kiss or make-out session without the intent to stir up feelings, doesn't mean you won't. Just because you tell yourself it's only work and won't affect your marriage, doesn't mean it won't. Just because you might be able to play with fire without getting burned, doesn't mean should.

Shoulda woulda coulda is a different matter. Just because I could break my neck when I jump off the tree doesn't make jumping off a tree a bad thing.

This is the same argument as having a facebook account.

[Guest]

Locking lips with someone and having a facebook account aren't even in the same ballpark.

[Guest]

Locking lips with someone and having a facebook account aren't even in the same ballpark.

Did I say it was?

It's the coulda woulda thing that makes them the same.

People insist that facebook is bad because you COULD end up cheating on your wife because of it.

People insist that the actor for Mike Brady kissing Carol Brady is bad because you COULD end up cheating on your wife because of it.

People insist that playing shoot-em-up video games is bad because you COULD end up shooting some kids in Columbine.

Different ballpark, same point.

[JudoMinja]

What's the difference between an Italian man kissing another Italian man in greeting and to a gay man kissing another gay man?

Intent.

What's the difference between the actors for Carol and Mike Brady kissing lip-to-lip and me kissing my husband lip-to-lip?

Intent.

Just because someone's lips touches another doesn't make it "real" intimacy.

It all boils down to intent.

To an extent, I agree with you here. The intent of the action does help define it, but intent is not everything. If one is crossing the lines we define in the law of chastity, intent does not matter. It is wrong. Where exactly we draw that line will vary depending on personal and cultural opinions for what is acceptable and what is not. In many cultures a kiss is nothing more than a form of greeting- as long as it's just a peck on the cheek or the lips and isn't long, drawn out and sensual. So, something similar in a movie would be acceptable. But crossing a line one would only cross with their spouse is just plain wrong, whether you are portraying a married couple or not.

If you are engaging in an intimate act is it real intimacy, in my mind.

That doesn't make sense. There's a lot of lessons learned in Titanic. It has more lessons than Napoleon Dynamite.

A movie doesn't have to have "lessons" to be enjoyable. And bad stuff doesn't cease to be bad just because you got a "lesson" out of it. Robin Hood may be heroic but he's still a thief. Darth Vader may have killed the Emperor but he's still... Darth Vader.

What makes a scene inappropriate? According to who? An actor may be good enough to be choosy and only portray LDS-approved movies. Fact of the matter is - there are only 13 million LDS people and 6 billion non-LDS ones. And a lot of the movie-goers have no problem with having sex in a car in a boat without the blessings of the priest. Or a werewolf without a shirt.

You watch a movie for what you get out of it - not that you agree with what is being portrayed. It's like going to the mall. All these teen-agers with their skimpy clothing - meh, even grandma these days have skimpy clothing - you don't stop going to the mall just because you get to see all these semi-naked people. You go to the mall because you want to buy something.

As an aside- I never watched Napoleon Dynamite. Couldn't even get past the first five minutes when I tried.

And it is my personal opinion that the whole point of film is to teach. What it is teaching is very, very important. I don't watch movies simply for enjoyment's sake. I watch them with the hope that I can learn something from it- and enjoy it at the same time. I love art in all its forms and film is one of my absolute favorites- and as I've thought about the many many movies under my belt I've come to realize something. Every minute I spend watching a movie has helped shape my outlook on the world. What outlook am I shaping? These movies, popular media, have a huge impact- more of an impact than much of our education I think. And as movies become less and less moral so does the world, because people believe that things are supposed to be the way they are in the movies and television shows. People mimic what they see on the television in their daily social interactions and expect to find similar results. What moral lessons are we embedding in ourselves?

Of course you are right that films are not all going to abide by LDS standards since we are such a minority of the world population- we have to either make some compromises between what we deem acceptable and what we will watch or make sacrifices because so little meets acceptable standards. I try to juggle a middle line because I enjoy film so much, but I have honestly been leaning more toward the sacrifice end of late and just cutting out television and movies altogether.

And yes, bad stuff does not cease to be bad just because we learn a lesson from it... but isn't that part of why we are here on this earth in the first place? To learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others? What better way to learn from mistakes than to see in film an accurate portrayal of the consequences of making bad decisions? If we watch movies where people do bad things and have to suffer the consequences, or movies where people learn from their mistakes and change their lives for the better, is that not a good thing? But if the film glorifies the bad and makes it appear good... What are we teacking ourselves?

There's a line from a song I sang in a play that highlights my view on the matter- "You don't have to listen in to everything they say, you don't have to sing along with everything they say, you don't have to read about everything they write, and you don't have to watch everything that's on tonight. You can turn the dial, walk away, close the cover, refuse to play- remember in everything you do, the choice is up to you." I am not going to try to force my morals and opinions on others and tell them they can't do something just because I don't agree with it. But it is my choice whether or not I will watch it and/or support it. I haven't always been the best at turning away from things I don't agree with, but I'm always striving to get better and choose to bring only media into my life that will be uplifting- to seek after those things that are "virtuous, lovely, or of good report, or praiseworthy" and avoid all else.

[Guest]

I don't agree with your logic, anatess, but I won't force you not to kiss your next movie or television co-star. :)

[Jennarator]

Did I say it was?

It's the coulda woulda thing that makes them the same.

People insist that facebook is bad because you COULD end up cheating on your wife because of it.

People insist that the actor for Mike Brady kissing Carol Brady is bad because you COULD end up cheating on your wife because of it.

People insist that playing shoot-em-up video games is bad because you COULD end up shooting some kids in Columbine.

Different ballpark, same point.

If they are a different ballpark, why bring them up?

I just don't see the point in putting yourself into situations that have a high likelyhood of causeing temptaions.

But to me that isn't the point of what most people on this thread are saying. What I see as most people saying is that you might not be kissing or touching a person for the purpose of being sexually aroused by it, however you are physically touching or kissing them. Most people on this thread (from what I can tell) feel that is is anappropriate.

To me, it's one of those things where people try to rationalize or make exceptions for things.

Most people agree you shouldn't be kissing someone else if you are married. Yet, somehow people think there is an exception to rule if you are doing it for others' entertainment.

People think you ought to me modest in dress, except if you are pregnant and getting a photo done. Or if you are in a different country where it is socially acceptable.)

Fine, if that is the way you feel, then act accourdingly.

I, for one, try to stay away from things that seem questionable of the things the GAs of the church and church leaders have taught.

[Jennarator]

I guess my point is, if it is inappropriate NOT in a moive or play, then it is inappropriate, period. I don't see an exception.

[Guest]

I don't agree with your logic, anatess, but I won't force you not to kiss your next movie or television co-star. :)

I wish... unfortunately, Val Kilmer doesn't look good anymore.

On the other hand...

:D:D:D:D

[Guest]

Tell me you could kiss that and not feel anything. I think I need to go read my scriptures.

[Dravin]

It's funny though that a lot of people would have issues with a kissing scene but not with the role of a serial killer.

Because one pretends to shoot someone, unless one is stage kissing, one actually kisses someone. I can understand people who don't feel what is being done to do the portrayal is an issue but to liken it to shooting someone (or being someone who kills people) on screen overlooks the (or a least a) core of the issue some people have with actors kissing, it's not that that what is being depicted is a a problem (for example the characters could be married), but what is done to depict it is (married people kissing someone who isn't their spouse).

Note before either side wants to peg me to a wall I'm clarifying what I see as one half of the conversation, I am not championing one side over another.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Dravin

[Jennarator]

Tell me you could kiss that and not feel anything. I think I need to go read my scriptures.

I could, not attracted to him. But I still wouldn't kiss him, lol.

[Guest]

". . . so the fourth day the duck walks into the bar and asks, 'Got any nails?'. . ."

[Guest]

I'm not attracted to the actor, but the character. No kissing, either way.

[Dravin]

Tell me you could kiss that and not feel anything. I think I need to go read my scriptures.

I couldn't kiss him without feeling anything. I would feel a rather acute and heaping dose of pure squick.

[Guest]

If they are a different ballpark, why bring them up?

You are missing the point. The point was not the ballpark. The point was the use of the sliding slope argument.

I just don't see the point in putting yourself into situations that have a high likelyhood of causeing temptaions.

But to me that isn't the point of what most people on this thread are saying. What I see as most people saying is that you might not be kissing or touching a person for the purpose of being sexually aroused by it, however you are physically touching or kissing them. Most people on this thread (from what I can tell) feel that is is anappropriate.

To me, it's one of those things where people try to rationalize or make exceptions for things.

Most people agree you shouldn't be kissing someone else if you are married. Yet, somehow people think there is an exception to rule if you are doing it for others' entertainment.

I don't believe there's an exception to the rule. But then, you have a different view of a kiss than I do.

A kiss is not something that gets me sexually aroused. I kiss my children, for crying out loud. That would be eeky if I look at kissing in that way.

People think you ought to me modest in dress, except if you are pregnant and getting a photo done. Or if you are in a different country where it is socially acceptable.

Wow. That's an old thread. But - I never said I, an LDS, should stop being modest in the Philippine Igorot region. I said - I don't believe Igorots are immodest for wearing g-strings.

Fine, if that is the way you feel, then act accourdingly.

I, for one, try to stay away from things that seem questionable of the things the GAs of the church and church leaders have taught.

Same here. But walking in the mall in the middle of half-dressed giggly teen-agers is not something I consider questionable. I question more LDS women oggling Taylor Lautner's abs.

[Guest]

Because one pretends to shoot someone, unless one is stage kissing, one actually kisses someone. I can understand people who don't feel what is being done to do the portrayal is an issue but to liken it to shooting someone (or being someone who kills people) on screen overlooks the (or a least a) core of the issue some people have with actors kissing, it's not that that what is being depicted is a a problem (for example the characters could be married), but what is done to depict it is (married people kissing someone who isn't their spouse).

Note before either side wants to peg me to a wall I'm clarifying what I see as one half of the conversation, I am not championing one side over another.

I completely understand your point, Dravin. This is also what Judo was trying to say.

But, as an actor who wants to portray a gangster, he has to portray hate. Yes, the bullet coming out of the gun is make believe. But the hate he exudes to his cast member is... as much pretend as the intimacy in the kiss.

Okay, I can see clearly where my opinion is different from most of you here. In my world view, a KISS (let's limit it to lip-locking because that's all I'm talking about - I don't believe extended kissing and such - you know what I'm talking about, I hope - is necessary in a movie)... anyway, in my world view, a kiss does not equate to cheating on my husband. I guess that's also why I didn't immediately feel disgusted to see those high-school kids getting kissed by their parents.