So, I read it, and it doesn't say anything to indicate that nudity (whether a little or a lot) in a movie is harmful, but that the particular nudity in this particular movie wasn't the product of the creators artistic vision but power plays by a funder, and that the harmful stemmed explocitly from the manipulative personal power dynamics, not the nudity.

Yes, this was probably a very isolated incident. Keep telling yourself that.

> Yes, this was probably a very isolated incident.

That's not the issue; the harm—and the article explicitly says this—wasn’t the “nudity in a movie”. I’m sure this isn't an isolated incident, either for Wienstein or more generally.

But Hayek has done a fair amount of nude work for a mainstream actress, so when she explicitly points to the source of the problem and says it's not the fact of doing nude work for a film, I wonder why your so desperate to recast it as being about nudity in film.

We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem? The fact that nudity in film is common allowed Harvey the pretense to demand full-frontal nudity, "the senseless scene," as Hayek described it.

The point I'm trying to make, apparently too subtly, is, how many nude scenes were coerced just like Hayek describes the one in Frida in order to satisfy the lusts of the male director/producer/writer just like this? It doesn't seem far-fetched, with all the revelations of sexual harassment coming out, that it's a lot of them.

Maybe it's so many that we should simply not tolerate nudity in films. If there was some way to certify that the nude scene wasn't "forced" then it would be OK, but if we accept that this was an act of force on Weinstein's part (Salma could have chosen not to do the movie, yet we all seem to agree this was still evil on the part of Weinstein), then how could that certification ever be done?

> We are talking about sexual harassment here. How could nudity not be the problem?

It was in large part retaliation for Hayek not acceding to Weinstein's demands for sexual favors offscreen. If nudity were categorically prohibited or simply commercially unviable in film, and instead of a “do this scene or no movie” threat Weinstein had simply canned the film in retaliation, or demanded some distasteful (whether or not itself sexual) offscreen favor to avoid such cancellation in retaliation, it would have been just as much of an act of sexual harassment.

The problem here has nothing to.do with nudity.

A little nudity in a movie is harmless. A little nudity being forced into a movie as a sexual power play isn't. The problem isn't the nudity, it's why it's there. If people are naked due to an act of symbolic rape in the real world and not as a device to enhance the story, that's a problem. However, if no one forces anyone else to do something that they don't want to, I have difficulty seeing that as a problem.

The nudity isn't the harm. Being forced into it is.

So define "forced" here. She could have said no and not made the film. Does that mean this was OK?

> "I had to say yes" and "I had convinced so many talented people to participate" and "How could I let their magnificent work go to waste?" and " and "I wanted him to see me as an artist [not only as a prop for sex appeal]"

as a Dad with daughters I am horrified by this evil. Coercion and oppression to obtain debasing sexual content makes me sick: "There was no room for negotiation. I had to say yes."

Why do people go to such great lengths, even to compromise their personal ethics, to please others peoples imagined sensibilities or expectations?

Forced. Compelled. Persuaded by threats and/or violence. The consequence of the film not being made was just as unnatural an imposition as the nude scene would've been in the first place.

> She could have said no and not made the film. Does that mean this was OK?

I think you know my answer to that, and I don't think you're making an argument in good faith. How about you just come out and say directly what you'd like to say?

Weinstein imposed a "choice". But it wasn't a real choice. It was a threat. An ultimatum. Visiting violence upon others is not OK.

I expect that you're going to take the least-charitable possible interpretation of what I've said. That seems to be your MO, reading the rest of the thread. You're angry, and I get it, but I think that your anger is misdirected.