Q&A: Movies with Immodest Scenes
Movies with Immodest Scenes
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I’ve noticed that over the years, the “measure” / “level” of modesty in movies and TV series keeps dropping and dropping and dropping, to the point that almost every movie and series has immodest scenes, and many of them also have partial or full nudity of women, and sometimes even outright sexual scenes with nudity. Sometimes such scenes can come suddenly and without any warning.
The question is whether it is okay to watch such movies and series, because if not, that narrows the selection very significantly, and in addition such scenes appear in some of the movies and series considered the best / highest-quality / most gripping.
Thank you very much
Answer
First, my impression is דווקא that it has declined significantly (because of feminism and the maturation of the industry). Second, I already wrote here in the past that if this is a work of value, there is room to permit it under the principle of “it is unavoidable and one does not intend it.” There is an article by Rabbi Avraham Stav (search online), although in my opinion he is too stringent (even though of course people criticized him for being lenient).
Discussion on Answer
If I may add a question that may be trivial, but still…
In those specific scenes, should one avert his gaze?
Seemingly, a person walking in the street doesn’t need to keep averting his gaze all the time, right? Is there a difference between the settings? Or in both cases should one?
Thank you very much!
I think there is no obligation (that is what the Chafetz Chaim writes in Be'er Mayim Chayim), but it is certainly very advisable.
The question is what the status is of forbidden thoughts that arise in such a situation. Is this an inevitable result, and if someone places himself into a coerced situation, is that still considered coercion? In any case, it is very advisable to avert one’s gaze.
Forgive me, but in my humble opinion, such scenes in a movie are no different from other forbidden sights… And just as in the street / in public places one must be careful about guarding the purity of one’s eyes, so too regarding movies and series of this kind.
Forgive me, Rabbi, but perhaps the Rabbi is not so familiar with the content shown today, or the questioner did not present the question correctly, because in all* movies today the boundaries of modesty are not maintained, and very often they are totally breached—from women in immodest dress to sexual scenes.
* (Aside from a few exceptions or children’s movies, though even in those, whether we like it or not, this causes extra gazing at women.)
Again, forgive me, Rabbi, but unfortunately I speak from experience and knowledge.
Hello Chadad.
I don’t want to answer in the Rabbi’s place, but it seems to me that according to his view, if the essence of the film contains content that matters to you, even though it includes promiscuity, it is permitted to watch because there is no other way. By contrast, movies whose entire point is promiscuity and stimulating desire seem certainly forbidden. In addition, it seems the Rabbi holds that even in the street, if you are going about your business, you need not be concerned about the promiscuity because there is no other way, though when there is promiscuity it is preferable to avert one’s gaze.
Best regards.
Indeed.
What is the definition of “important”? Is enjoyment considered important?
That there is some benefit in watching it. Each person according to his own level, and the heart knows whether it is for honesty or crookedness. Not everything can or should be defined. What counts in Jewish law as a great need? A substantial loss? A change?
If they permitted a woman to go with a wig because it isn’t her own hair, then one could also permit looking at flickering pixels on a screen since there are no actual human beings there.
A woman’s hair being considered nakedness is not because of erotic thoughts; even a wife is forbidden to her husband in uncovering her head at the time of reciting the Shema, for example. Forbidden sights in pixels fall under the category of sinful thoughts, which are worse than the sin itself.
I would be glad for the source for what the Chafetz Chaim says in Be'er Mayim Chayim. Also, what exactly does “advisable” mean? Either it is forbidden according to Jewish law or it is permitted; after all, this is not a moral issue, and in Judaism there is nothing beyond Jewish law?
Rule 6, section 14.
Jewish law is not only obligations. There is piety beyond the letter of the law, acting beyond strict הדין, what is advisable, and the like.
A woman’s hair being considered nakedness is because of modesty and erotic thoughts. And one must distinguish between a married woman and an unmarried one.
And we are talking about a custom that turned into a prohibition.
Thank you.
Decisor, what custom turned into a prohibition? A woman’s hair (without getting into exceptions) does not cause erotic thoughts, unlike immodest sights. What is unclear?
What causes erotic thoughts are things that are covered. That is, the custom / prohibition turned it into a source of erotic thoughts.
There are places among primitive tribes where women go without covering the upper part of the body. And that is normal there, so it does not cause erotic thoughts.
At first, the upper class used to cover themselves with many items of clothing, and women covered their heads, and this trickled down to the people. In the end it became a prohibition.
I didn’t understand how the Rabbi cites Be'er Mayim Chayim; at the end of the passage he writes that matters of forbidden sexual relations are different because a person’s soul desires them, and it is forbidden to look even unintentionally.
If I quote him, does that necessarily mean I agree with everything he says?
In other words, according to your question, he ruled that you may watch even if there are such scenes. As it says: “Walk in the ways of your heart and in the sight of your eyes” [Ecclesiastes 11:9].