Apparently, Mrs. Patton felt it wasn't "natural" to do the scene with her shirt on, or just with implied nudity. She told her director her decision, which of course he didn't mind. What about her husband?
"I called [him] the night before and I said, 'What do you think?' And he's like, 'Go for it,'" Patton said. "He's all about the art in the end." (see source article below)
I'm pretty sure I don't want a husband who is into that kind of "art."
Take away the Hollywood star part and the fancy words. If we think of someone who takes off her clothes and simulates sex on video, and gets paid for it, what would we call her? A porn star.
Paula Patton gets a lot more than the average porn star. So is that why what she doing is considered "art"? Or...maybe...is it because we define things according to our own desires? The people who wanted her to do it, the people who will watch the movie, the people who want to look--it's easier for all of them, including Paula herself, if it gets called something different. Something that sounds good. Cleaner.
|Paula Patton, wife and mom to a 3-year-old, who says "We don't get hung up about those things," about going topless onscreen.|
I spend a lot of time teaching people about human trafficking, about young teens, children, men and women who are exploited in the areas where they are vulnerable. I talk about traffickers and their tactics, one of the biggest of which is making something bad sound good, getting a victim to believe it, then using that power over them.
Porn feeds the trafficking industry. As one former prostitute said, "They are sisters." Isn't it just logical to conclude that, the more porn invades shows our nation sees as acceptable, the more people welcome the lie that selling yourself for money (or buying someone for money) is okay, and the more room trafficking has to work?
I'm aware that most of Hollywood has no desire to follow the guidelines of Jesus Christ, as I do, so I'm not pointing a finger at Paula. She's doing what matters to her and I can't expect her to do any differently.
But because I am a follower of Christ and I do want to live as a light in this world, I have to learn to think wisely about the messages being sent my way. Think with me for a minute:
If Paula Patton went to another man's house in real life, took her top off and had sex with him, that would be considered adultery--or "cheating" as some would call it. Most people, regardless of faith or lack of faith, would say that's not okay.
So, then, why is it okay for her to come into rooms all over the country and take her top off and act out sex? Worse still to do so on huge movie theater screens in front of thousands and possibly millions of people?
Why is it okay in one place, if it's not okay in another? I still remember the first sex scene I saw on TV. I was a little kid, at a friend's house, and she turned on HBO. I don't remember the movie, don't remember the starts, but I can still see in my mind that scene that I did not even understand at that age.
Please, Christians, think about what you watch. Think about what's flashing in front of your children's eyes, even during commercials. And, may I be so bold as to suggest something? If it's wrong, if it's something you would turn away from in "real life," turn the thing off.
I disagree with Paula and her husband. It's not art. It's porn, and it's not coming into my house.
Info Source Article
Photo Quote Source
Related Posts: Pretty Woman and the Media's Glamorization of Prostitution
A Letter to Victoria Secret from a Father
Trafficking, 12-year-olds, and Willow Smith's new Music Video