Chris Pratt ‘refuses to even consider’ doing love scenes because of his faith

Chris Pratt

The Enquirer published a story about how Chris Pratt won’t let his newish sex-god status jeopardize his faith. Pratt has talked before about how he found the power of prayer when his son, Jack, nearly passed away after being born. The Enquirer says Pratt is growing more extreme in his hardcore Christian status. In other words, anyone who wants to see a sex scene between him and Jennifer Lawrence in Passengers is flat out of luck. Is this story true? Pratt’s riding so high in his career that he could make such a demand and still get the jobs he wants. But it’s a little odd to hear this story coming from a former male stripper. Let’s see what’s going on here:

Star of Jurassic World Chris Pratt is keeping his onscreen sex life G-rated!

The new king of the box office is turning down any big-screen canoodling in favor of celebrating his Christian faith, sources told The National Enquirer.

“Everyone wants a piece of him,” said our insider, “but Chris refuses to even consider anything that involves a sex scene!”

The star hasn’t hidden from his past as a stoner living in a van while picking up extra cash as a male stripper during his younger days.

But now the Guardians of the Galaxy hero is a real-life do-gooder who visits kids in the hospital and quotes Scripture on Facebook. So while the ladies may want more beefcake, the star is determined to save the universe as chastely as possible.

“He knows that he’s become a sex symbol,” the pal told The ENQUIRER. “But it’s not the public image he wants to project – and it’s not something he sees as compatible with his faith!”

[From The Enquirer]

Well, it’s certainly Pratt’s prerogative to put his foot down about sex scenes. This will disappoint some of his female fanbase, perhaps. He won’t hurt for work (unlike an actress, who might suffer for the same demand). Just on a hunch, I believe this story is probably true because he’s incredibly devoted to Anna, and he can get away with placing such restrictions on roles. I also believe that Pratt is a bit of a hypocrite because he loves to flash his junk at people. He does so in an unsolicited manner, which is pretty creepy. He does it not for any sexual reasons (according to his way of thinking) but because he thinks it’s funny. Again, this is pretty weird and two-faced, yet that’s Pratt.

Chris Pratt

Chris Pratt

Photos courtesy of WENN

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

121 Responses to “Chris Pratt ‘refuses to even consider’ doing love scenes because of his faith”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Toot says:

    I’m not heart broken, at all. Actually, I’d like to thank you Chris.

    • Kitten says:

      LMAO. +1,000,000
      “Sex symbol”? Mmmmkay.

      Interesting about the Christianity. He must be one of those religious types who thinks that human lives have more value than the lives of animals. I assume that’s why he’s so big on going to Africa and doing trophy hunts Walter Palmer-style.

      Yeah, I still cannot stand this guy.

      • Sam says:

        Seeing as how almost every person who got in a twist about Cecil I knew eats meat (religious or not) I’d say that almost everyone who claims to “value the lives of animals” has a little hypocrisy going on. You can’t get worked up about a lion that lived a relatively decent 13 years (suffering only in the last two) but than rhapsodize over a cheeseburger. Those two don’t exactly compute.

      • Tifygodess24 says:

        Actually Sam I’ve been a vegetarian since I was 5 years old (no meat , seafood or poultry and I rarely do dairy) and im 34 now and I was upset about Cecil. We aren’t unicorns, so no it’s not every person not even close. But hey I’m glad I know the rules! Thanks. And it’s very silly to say that meat eaters can’t have compassion or be upset for an animal that was murdered for the “fun and thrill” of being killed.

      • Kitten says:

        Sam please don’t equate hunting for food with hunting for fun.

        ….and please don’t equate luring a lion out of a protected area, shooting it with a bow and arrow, then tracking it for 40 hours only to shot it with a rifle with someone eating a cheeseburger at McDonalds.

        “He lived a good life for 13 years”? THAT’S your attempt to justify what Palmer did? Ugh.

        *hive fives Tifygodess24*

      • bluhare says:

        Still in a twist about Cecil, still a vegetarian, and agree with Kitten.

        Agree about agribusiness, though it does not justify what happened to that lion.

      • Sam says:

        Kitten, you’re dodging the point. I don’t know if you’re familiar with the Betham-Singer argument? Since you seem so into animal rights, I presume you might have come across it at some point.

        Modern animal rights are based upon concern for the animals’ suffering. And yes, under that framework, which is the dominant one now, Cecil’s death actually rates lower than the burger you enjoyed. Why? Because death is merely one aspect of the animal’s life – suffering is what counts. Cecil got to live 13 years relatively undisturbed, engaging in his regular lion behaviors, etc. (It’s also worth noting that the average male lion lives between 10-12 years, so Cecil was actually believed to be nearing his twilight years). That’s a good thing. His last 48 hours were quite bad, and we can and should feel bad about that. But that cheeseburger you had? That cow? It spent almost it’s entire life in suffering, being exposed to deplorable conditions, being forced to consume things that are not part of it’s natural diet, etc. Unless you certify every piece of beef that passes your lips as free-range, organic, etc., yes, you were part of a chain of suffering far worse than what Cecil experienced.

        You can’t get worked up for one animal that you happen to value and not extend that same courtesy to others. A cow and a lion are not so vastly different that one deserves to live a life free of human encroachment and the other can be sacrificed for your personal pleasure. It’s just hypocrisy to claim otherwise.

      • Kiddo says:

        Yeah, and also so far cows aren’t nearing extinction.

      • Francesca says:

        Proudly waving hand! I, too, am one of those “religious types” who thinks that human lives have more value than animal lives. All day, every day, in every instance!

      • Sam says:

        Kiddo: Lions are listed as “vulnerable” – which means that they are not endangered at this time but may become so in the future. Cecil’s particular genus is actually doing fairly well in number – which is why the hunts are even authorized in the first place. You just have to go through the proper channels. But it’s a myth that the lion is generally in some form of immediate danger of extinction. A few particular sub-species are, but Cecil’s is not among them.

      • Kitten says:

        I certify that all beef that I eat is grass-fed and free-range ORGANIC. In fact, I just got two 4-packs of pub burgers at Star Market on Saturday (buy one get one free y’all!) that were FREE-RANGE, GRASS-FED ORGANIC.

        And I’m familiar with Betham-Singer but thanks. Betham-Singer doesn’t justify the inhumane suffering and killing of not just Cecil, but hundreds of African animals every year including elephants, lions, giraffes, and various big cats that are farm-raised to be shot NOT for human consumption, but so some guy with a small d*ck can feel good about himself for a second of his miserable pathetic life.

        What does the Betham-Singer framework say about elephants who’s entire lives are destroyed because their kin were killed? Does Betham-Singer acknowledge the studies that show that human activities can disrupt the social skills of large-brained mammals that live in complex societies for decades? Socially, elephants are a mess when one of theirs are killed. They are extraordinarily sensitive animals. What about Cecil’s cubs, who were left abandoned and ended up being killed by the next dominant male because they no longer had their father to protect them?

        Lastly, you’re dodging the most important point here. You haven’t even bothered to ask yourself WHY are people doing this? Does that really not matter to you? The fact that these animals don’t have to die at the hands of a human, that they don’t DESERVE to die at all?

        Animals MATTER, life MATTERS. Would it make the murder of one of your loved ones ok because he/she didn’t suffer? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument.

      • Mark says:

        ‘who thinks that human lives have more value than the lives of animals’

        Because they do have more value.

      • mayamae says:

        @Sam, twenty-five year vegetarian here, and I have a problem with Cecil’s death. You have a valid argument regarding the suffering of animal’s on factory farms. But I also feel you’re using the argument that meat eaters use to dismiss vegetarians. Do you wear leather? Do you eat honey? Do you have silk? As if it’s all or nothing.

        For a lot of people, it’s about minimizing the suffering. For instance, I know many meat eaters who simply can’t stomach the amount of suffering that goes into veal. Others buy organic milk and free range eggs. I am a lacto-ovo vegetarian, who’s currently not disciplined enough to be vegan. I volunteer weekly at an animal shelter, and I give what I can financially to the animal causes I believe in. What I do is not nothing, and I won’t be dismissed.

      • V4Real says:

        Kitten don’t barf but I find him sexy even when he was a bit chubby. But yeah I was like this is coming g from a man who shoots animals.

        @ Sam you can eat meat and still value an animal’s life. The dentist killed Cecil for sport. At least Pratt claims to eat what he kills, though I don’t fully agree with hunting . A cheeseburger comes from an animal that was hopefully killed in a humane way to feed humans. I eat meat sometimes but I can still feel bad for Cecil

      • Kitten says:

        Oh hi, Mark!! I’m SO happy you’re here!!!!!!!!

        @V4Real-Pratt said that he shoots coyotes. I doubt he’s eating them. Do you have an IG page for your Ragdoll and Husky yet? You must do it. Come be a nerd with me….

      • Sam says:

        Kitten – you’re still dodging the question. Betham-Singer doesn’t differentiate among types of animals. The suffering of a cow is equal to the suffering of a lion. If it can appreciate pain and discomfort, it counts under that framework. And you haven’t disputed what I actually pointed out – that Cecil suffered far less in his lifetime than most animals that are served as food. Hence, the outrage over Cecil is completely inordinate.

        Cecil’s cubs? They seem to be doing alright now. But why not bring up dairy cows if you have such a concern for baby animals? You know about them, right? Most dairy cows are forcibly separated from their babies, and male calves routinely become veal, etc. I presume you know that. But I also presume that you enjoy dairy products. So why have such strong concern for Cecil’s children but not for the children of the cow? In my mind, it makes no sense.

        And good on you for going the free-range route – it’s better, it’s not best. Consuming beef in any form still causes suffering, since the death is still wholly unnecessary (yes, let’s get it out of the way that you do not need meat to live, period). So you’re still part of a system that kills sentient beings and causes them to suffer (some suffering is inherent in the process). It’s far less than conventional, but the only suffering-less option is to not consume them, period.

        I’m really not trying to come off as combative or nasty, really. I could do far, far more than I do. But when I heard about Cecil, I was upset because it was an unnecessary animal death and the method of his demise was quite brutal and that upset me – but my anger was tempered by the fact that I know that I am not in a position to have much righteous anger in this case. I hope the dentist returns to Zimbabwe and faces the consequences of his actions. But all the outrage is masking any opportunity for actual meaningful discussions about how Cecil compares to other animals and what real compassion would look like. And almost nobody is doing that.

        @V4Real: See, we disagree. I don’t believe you can really value an animal and consume it. Period. To me, valuing a life means, fundamentally, that you do not take any action to harm that life. That’s it. I cannot claim to love somebody if I actively hurt them. And all the research now suggests that animals have rich emotional lives, same as humans. They have emotions, family structures, empathy, language, etc. They are more like us than we ever thought. If I value their lives, the most fundamental thing I can do is to leave them be. And that means not killing them when an alternative is available. You do not have to eat meat to live (heck, a lot of research says you can thrive doing that). To me, that is the basis of valuing animals. I don’t see how, logically, it works – “I value you, but I am going to kill you, disrupt your family structure, cause grief to your group, etc. But I value you.” No, I don’t get it.

      • says:

        You keep accusing me of “dodging”, Sam, even when I’m clearly responding to every point that you make. Where exactly am I dodging?

        “Betham-Singer doesn’t differentiate among types of animals. The suffering of a cow is equal to the suffering of a lion. If it can appreciate pain and discomfort, it counts under that framework”

        How does that even apply in this context? Cecil DID suffer, for over 40 hours in fact. The grass-fed, free-range cow that became my burger presumably did NOT. I ATE the animal that died, Cecil was beheaded to give some dbag a morbid souvenir. Seems like you’re the one that’s dodging this very important point.

        TBH, I’m not even a huge red meat fan but I have severe anemia that started with my ED and the iron pills I’m supposed to take kill my stomach. And YES I eat green leafy vegetables but it’s not enough. I don’t know why I should even have to explain that though. I’m not going out and shooting a cow just so I can put its head up on the wall.

        Since I had to assert that I only eat grass-fed, free-range can you confirm that every trophy hunt is a “clean” and humane killing without any suffering? Judging by Cecil, I doubt you can.

        This is going to be another argument that we need to give up on, particularly if your desire is to change my mind. You do not believe that animals suffer beyond the physical, but I do. I believe that animals, particularly large-brained ones, suffer tremendously when they lose one of their own and hundreds of studies back me up.

        In fact sociality is probably the single most important aspect of lion life and cannot be emphasized enough. While other big cats are solitary hunters; the lion is a cooperative group hunter. Other cats live alone, the lion lives in prides. A lion pride is a complex social network that lions and their cubs depend on. A death of a lion within their pride is a loss and it disrupts the entire pride.

        I get that to you it doesn’t matter if that lion didn’t suffer (which really we have no way of knowing or not) but it DOES matter to the surviving members of the pride.

        Elephants are also well-known for their intelligence, close family ties and social complexity.
        Elephants have the ability to remember for years other individuals and places. They form special relationships with other elephants that can last their entire lives. You really don’t think that they can feel a loss when one of their own is shot?

        I’m done arguing with you about this. You’re free to have your opinion and tout the Betham-Singer study as some justification of Cecil’s death and trophy-hunting, just like I’m free to say f*ck the Betham-Singer study. There is a WORLD of difference between what Alaskan Inuit do with the seals that they hunt and what Walter Palmer did with Cecil the lion.

      • Kiddo says:

        Sam, I don’t give a crap, vulnerable means that they can become extinct easily. No one needs a goddam trophy to put a VULNERABLE species closer to the brink. Further, I don’t eat cows. I am concerned about all industrialized food because it does torture living beings and it is unhealthy for those who eat it. But a cow that is mass produced is not the same as a lion who is vanishing in numbers across the Earth.

      • bluhare says:

        You are missing the point here, Sam. That lion was killed as a TROPHY not for food. His carcass was left out so other animals could feed and his bones will be used for a memorial to illegal poaching. Because that’s exactly what happened. That animal was illegally lured from its protected park, shot, stalked and killed.

        The hunt was conducted illegally. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Who had the better life — Cecil or a cow — is a question indeed, but not relevant to the argument.

      • cheryl says:

        People are outraged and disgusted over the death of this lion. Rightfully so. What people eat doesn’t have bearing on that, unless they proudly shop the illegally poached trophy meat aisle of the grocery store.

        Outrage over the treatment and death of animals that are produced cheaply for food is another issue. And I’m grateful that many of us are thinking of those issues too.

      • bluhare says:

        Amen, Cheryl.

        I’d also like to amend my comment that Cecil’s bones being left out to be part of the chain has nothing to do with the hunter. He only cared about the head and pelt.

      • Sam says:

        Kitten, you’re not answering my fundamental question – how can the cow’s death be justified and Cecil’s cannot?

        And I’m not arguing for hunting. Hunting turns my stomach, personally. But so does eating a burger, because I get that they have moral equivalence. And your burger DID suffer, as much as you might wish to deny it. It was killed unnecessarily. You do not have to eat beef to live – you eat it because it gives you pleasure. But isn’t the question then why your personal pleasure should trump a sentient being’s right to live? All the research indicates that cows have family structures, they experience emotions, they form bonds to each other, etc. Sorta like Cecil and his pride. Do you somehow operate under the impression that the cow lived in a bubble and it’s death caused no impact to any other being? Presumably it was part of a herd. Is it possible it’s loss is felt by the other members? Look up a woman named Krista McClennan, who spent years observing beef cattle. Her research concluded that cattle herds create friendships amongst the members and cooperation and they display mourning behaviors when members go to the slaughter. There are other people who’ve come to the same conclusions (John Webster, etc.)

        It all comes back, in the end, to “But I like that burger and I want it so I’m going to pretend like it’s okay.” Let’s be real here. There’s no good argument, logical or intellectual, for eating the burger. You do it because you want to. Which, on some level, is fine. But then don’t get worked up over Cecil. Because everything that’s true about him is true for the cow. He suffered, the death was unnecessary. Same as the cow. The issue isn’t arguing whether Cecil’s death was a tragedy (because it was). The issue is the failure to see the equivalent tragedies that you’re actually supporting.

      • Kate says:

        Sam, the human primate is by nature an omnivore. Our bodies metabolize meat. It is natural for human beings to be omnivorous. There is nothing natural or morally defensible about killing a threatened species for fun, to hang its head on your wall as a trophy. It’s simply intellectually dishonest for anyone with minimal reasoning skills to profess not to see the difference. Cecil the lion was killed illegally. That is not in dispute. There is nothing illegal about going to Five Guys and getting a cheese burger.

      • katy says:

        Sam, here’s the difference:
        The hunter who poached Cecil decapitated him, skinned him, and left the rest to rot. He only wanted decoration.
        Hunters who hunt to eat, take everything home with them; most of the hunters I know make use of everything. Bones for stock, meat for eating, skin to make use of the hide. Any meat that isn’t good enough for cooking, they make into jerky. Some people I know even use the organs for various things (some cook with them and it’s gross, don’t eat it). And yes, we “live in modern day, who hunts things when they can grow them, what barbarians” – people in South America and Africa still hunt because it’s hard for some tribes to get to the local grocery store that sells tofu, and especially in Africa where it’s hard to grow things. All hunters aren’t bad, but I agree that not all of them are “good,” either.

        Either way, I’ve lost some of my lady boner for Chris Pratt. I wouldn’t attach a rope to that potential crazy train.

      • bettyrose says:

        Sam, ITA! I was upset about Cecil, but I’m upset about all animal suffering. I was puzzled by the international outrage from people who aren’t bothered by the cruelty of the meat industry.

      • Pandy says:

        Veg here. Just want to add that cows suffer when they lose their calves and they offer empathy to other cows who are suffering. As do pigs. So it’s just not lions, elephants, etc., we mess up when we slaughter animals.

        Stop eating meat. Then we can all be in a homicidal rage over all animal killings without having to add “yeah but” …

      • Feebee says:

        The outrage over death of Cecil the lion has nothing to do with meat eaters vs vegetarians or animal suffering in Agribusiness. It was a rich American feeling entitled to go to Africa and illegally murder a animal with standing in the community and pretty disgusting wastefulness not to mention entitlement thinking of trophy hunting. If that wasn’t enough… the lying, cover up and his previous behavior… Perfect storm for outrage production. If Chris Pratt shares the view that trophy hunting is okay then… Well… It makes me dark on him. Not Donald Trump dark, but maybe Tom Cruise dark. He’s lucky he’s funny.

      • Illyra says:

        Excellent posts, Sam.

      • LA Juice says:

        wait what? Chris Pratt has been on safari hunt? what the hell did I miss. this makes me immeasurably sad…. I liked this guy.

      • Carmen says:

        Sticking in my oar here: I eat meat and wear leather and make no apologies for either. People have hunted animals for food and clothes since prehistoric times. But it takes so-called civilized people to hunt animals just to mount their heads on a wall. Even cavemen didn’t kill animals for fun. I abominate that dentist who killed Cecil just as I abominate that horrible woman who killed a giraffe for sport. I don’t think I’m being hypocritical for that.

      • bettyrose says:

        Carmen, I get what you’re saying, and I see why trophy hunting is reviled even by non-vegans, but I’ve become guilty of attributing the personality traits I see in my pets to all animals, especially mammals. I can’t help but think about the emotional pain felt by dairy cows when their babies are taken from them so the milk can go to humans. They cry for days, so there is real evidence of their pain. I imagine Cecil’s cubs are also experiencing emotional pain, regardless of whether Cecil was killed for sport or food. I understand intellectually why human lives have more value, but I still hurt for animals who suffer for our conveniences.

    • Mimz says:

      Yeah no matter how hot he is now, for some, I can’t see him in a sexual way. Too vanilla and I’ve seen him way too many jerk/idiotic/ vomit-inducing movie roles in the past, it’s pretty much like imagining Jonah Hill all buff, like a gym bunny, and wanting to see him doing a sex scene.
      Just.. no. The ridiculous roles they played in some movies (that in my mind are quite similar) wont allow me to imagine that.

      • Kitten says:

        Yeah, do you want to see Jim Carey having sex? lol

      • bettyrose says:

        But he isn’t hot. I mean, he’s not grotesque or anything but he’s not someone I’d even notice if I passed him on the street. And there’s nothing about his personality that triggers a cerebral attraction for me. I don’t get why he’s a thing.

      • Mimz says:

        HAHA @Kitten just. NO.
        *Trying to kill the visual*
        … i just hopped into bed (10pm here) and Im hoping I don’t have nightmares of Jim doing the deed…

        @bettyrose because he’s a success weight loss story, he’s likeable, hard working, funny, has a six pack, married man, goofy, blonde, tall… im sure he fills a lot of women’s fantasies of a perfect guy. so that would probably make him sexy……………………..still nothing to me.

      • qwerty says:


        THIS. I don’t get why we’re even talking about this guy.

    • V4Real says:

      Coyotes, damn not cool, not cool at all. I will get working on that IA for my precious ones.

      @Sam, please give it up. Better yet, don’t go killing any ants, bugs, roaches, bees, etc because according to you they are living things.

      Lastly Kitten said she’s against cruelty of animals and killing for sport. She never said she was off to join PETA.

  2. Esmom says:

    Not sure if I buy this, it sounds too Kirk Cameron to be real. It seems like somebody picked up on his Christian faith and just ran with a story that they thought would sell.

  3. MrsBPitt says:

    That’s his right…but I totally agree, that a female actor, woud probably have a much harder time having those demands agreed to…quick, somebody call that feminist icon, Demi Lovato!!!!!!!

    • Goats on the Roof says:

      I think I disagree, actually. IF this is true, it’s because his box office returns have been sufficient enough to warrant this kind of special behavior. A female actress on par with Chris would probably not have much trouble being accomodated in this manner. Jennifer Lawrence, Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore could make these demands and studios would give in to keep them on the project. I think it has less to do with gender and more to do with how famous/bankable an actor is if these sorts of wishes are met. After all, those female actresses not in the top tier are having sex scenes with somebody, right?

      • Dana says:

        Actresses would have a harder time because they’re more dependent on love interest parts and love stories than men are, and because there’s simply fewer lead roles available for women in the first place – Variety recently reported on the stats for diversity in film in 2014, the ratio of male to female characters was 2.3:1.

        It’s going to be hard for most actresses to get to Chris Pratt’s level without ever having to do a love scene. Jennifer Lawrence is an exception that proves the rule – star-making protagonist roles in non-love stories like Winter’s Bone are not exactly falling out of trees for up-and-coming actresses, and neither are protagonist roles in action blockbuster franchises.

  4. lisa2 says:

    I don’t really believe this story. Besides acting out a sex scene is not sex.. and I don’t think Chris has the power yet to demand this in a contract. Yes he has had some major BO successes..but I don’t think that necessarily equals having that kind of power just yet. I could be wrong; I just don’t see it. He is being offered a certain type of role.. He is not picking Directors to work with or dictating the direction of a project. That is power.

  5. G says:

    I think Chris would find this story very funny

  6. GlimmerBunny says:

    Whaaat, isn’t Passengers supposed to be a love story? Wouldn’t he need to do a sex scne for that?

    • korra says:

      Not so much, it’d be like a 10 second quick scene in a montage. I read the script and I actually like the movie. I am not excited for him to be in this. He’s gonna be wooden throughout. I’m honestly not excited for their pairing. He’s too goofy, too Andy Dwyer.

  7. Chinoiserie says:

    I do not think that many male stars have sex scenes in blocbusters and he is a big star now so I do not see why not a Christian actor could refuse to do them. I am a Christian so I would not want to do those scenes but as a woman it would probably mean I would not get nearly any starring roles outside of childrens films lol. And hopefully the flashing thing is just him being goofy, not interested in clicking links.

    • Ronda says:

      if women have those roles there must be a lot of men doing them too, they are not all lesbian scenes.

      • Lena says:

        Sure, usually there’s both a man and a woman involved (though showing two women having sex is way more popular than showing two men). But compare how they are shot! For example, look at game of thrones and compare the amount of male and female nudity shown. Lots of sex scenes linger on the body of the actress and also her face during orgasm while barely showing the male body nor his face during the orgasm. I am sure a male actor has a lot less problems getting a job with no nudity than a female actress.

    • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

      I am a Christian and I’m not sure why this is an issue. I wouldn’t be in a porn movie, but actors in non-porn movies are not really having sex. They’re acting. Would you play a part where the character lied? Stole something? Killed somebody? Envied her neighbor? Failed to honor her father and mother? Surpassed the speed limit? Ate shellfish? I just don’t get it. Why pick sex out of all the “sins” to exclude? Especially when he’s exposing himself to other people to be “goofy.” So silly, in my opinion.

      • Franca says:

        I am also a Christian, and I don’t think I could ever do a sex scene. Not because of my faith, but because I would be so extremely uncomfortable. I’d rather jump out of a aeroplane.

      • Jessica says:

        But to do an actual sex scene (not a ‘love scene’ where nothing’s really shown) you do have to up against another naked person. No you’re not actually having sex, but you might be groping each other, rubbing up against each other, putting your barely covered genitals in very close contact to someone else’s barely covered genitals etc..

        It’s not really the same as doing a scene where you lie or steal or so on. That’s pretending, but you can’t ‘pretend’ to caress an actresses breasts for example. It’s acting, but still, you’ve got your hands all over a naked woman who’s not your wife. I can easily see how a lot of actors could be uncomfortable with that even without bringing in religion.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        The world will be grateful to know that I will never do porn. Lol

        Anyone can refuse to do sex scene for whatever reason they choose and that’s their right. I just don’t get what being Christian has to do with it unless you refuse to portray anything that conflicts with your Christian values. It’s just another way of showing off and seeming virtuous without any substance behind it, which has become so popular these days.

        Jessica, I see your point, but he has no problem showing his genitals to people. I would never do that – would you? But now he’s all modest? It just doesn’t make sense to me.

      • bluhare says:

        If he were single, he really wouldn’t have an argument because I don’t think there’s a “thou shalt not get naked with someone for money” commandment, but maybe he feels uncomfortable because he’s married.

      • Jessica says:

        Well I wouldn’t randomly flash people, but I have no problems with nudity. If I was an actor I’d be totally fine with being buck naked on-screen, but I wouldn’t do sex scenes because I don’t want to get naked and grind up against anyone other than my husband. Not because I’m modest, not because I’m religious (I’m not), but because I personally would consider that cheating.

        I don’t think it’s about modesty. To do a sex scene you have to do things that in any other context would constitute cheating on your partner in quite a major way. A lot of actors (and their partners) are going to feel like a line is crossed somewhere between kissing another actor and sucking on their boobs or rubbing their crotch with their hands. Most actors have a line they won’t cross, it’s actually quite rare for American actors in particular to do proper sex scenes (as opposed to love scenes). I think you can feel like a full on sex scene is too much or disrespectful to your relationship without being ‘modest’.

        I think it’s Brad Pitt who’s made a point of not even kissing another woman on-screen since he’s been with Angelina. Pratt isn’t going that far, so it’s not like he’s being remotely extreme here.

      • GoodNamesAllTaken says:

        I get what you’re saying, Jessica, but I still see hypocrisy in a man who will flash his genitals to whoever claiming that he won’t do sex scenes because it’s against his Christian values. I don’t consider simulated sex by two actors to be cheating. I can’t imagine many scenarios less sexually exciting. If that’s your job, it isn’t the same thing as cheating to me. And I haven’t seen a movie in my memory where the actors were actually touching each other’s crotch. Maybe that one about New Orleans a hundred years ago, (Hot something or something night – memory like a steel trap over here) but you couldn’t really see any crotch touching. It was just implied. So to each his own, but I still think he’s a big hypocrite.

  8. Talie says:

    He had a graphic sex scene in Wanted.

  9. teatimeiscoming says:

    And there it is: the thing that killed my love for Pratt’s weirdo antics.


    • belle de jour says:

      Yep. Not looking for theological consistency from a grown man who still thinks it’s a hoot to ‘flash’ his genitals, either.

      As heard: “There ain’t no sinner like a reformed sinner.”

  10. Jules says:

    Hmmm…well, I read the script for Passengers and there are quite a few love scenes in there! (LOL!). I’m not buying this story…Pratt has his religious convictions but he also does not seem like the type to argue with the Director (an Oscar nominated Director) as well as tge Producers, studio.

    I mean, he is working with Jennifer Lawrence!…the hottest actress on the planet and there will be a ton of people who will want to see a sweet love scene between the two. A love scene can be directed as something beautiful, passionate…it doesn’t have to look hardcore for Christsakes.

    • korra says:

      Did you read a newer version? The one I read there’s at least one in a montage and maybe another one, but we only see the morning after.

      Honestly, they couldn’t have picked a more bland and vanilla couple for this movie.

      • Jules says:

        @Korra: No, not bland at all…especially Jennifer Lawrence. Bland is Taylor Swift, Jessica Simpson, Bieber, etc.,…

        Is there a new version of the script?…the one I read was pretty passionate where the love scenes are concerned…again, nothing really that graphic, but passionate.

      • korra says:

        Yes bland. BLAND. Did I say jlaw no I said THIS couple. Its a bizarre coupling and if you read my comment above I consider Pratt the weak link. They got these two together for the publicity tour that will happen and their bankability. But I’m not a big fan of the coupling for the movie. It’s a good script. Lots of potential (hopefully doesn’t go the route of Prometheus). I’m just not a fan of this particular pairing. And yeah I think jlaw is an insanely overblown actress, but again like I’ve already stated I think Pratt is the weak link….and I like the guy for the most part. Maybe they’ll have great chemistry and blow people away. Maybe. Maybe not. I’m more than willing to see the movie and find out. But it’s doubtful. The publicity tour will be fun and this movie will make bank so not like it matters now does it?

      • Jules says:

        Well…yeah, when you write “they couldn’t have picked a more bland and vanilla couple”… that implies both, no?…(LOL!). So, I disagree. Anyway, not really worth getting angry about. You have an opinion that I don’t agree with…relax.

        Oh, and ” bizarre coupling” but you still see how and why they are chosen for the film to star opposite one another?…huh?.


        P.S. I agree that the press tour will be amazing!.

      • korra says:

        Bizarre in the sense that I don’t think it fits the movie, but continue to be basic. I get overall why they are chosen together. The name of the game is cash in hollywood and these two bring the cash with their antics that the public laps up and celebrates. Whatever though, continue bottling and collecting Jlaw’s farts….it’s what all you looney fans do for your idols. I would like these people so much more if it weren’t for their delusional fans. Honestly, I doubt Jlaw would ever wanna be friends with you in the first place though. Oh wait, doesn’t she love TSwift? And the transgender niece groping douchbag Russell? She might actually like fans like you then. So nvm.

        …yup I’m living up to the name LOL. Celebitchy. You should start bringing your a-game.

      • Jules says:

        Korra: LOL!…each reply is funnier than the last. Oh, and my A-Game is reserved for those that earn it and well, you’re not really bringing it. (LOL!).

        Look, Korra, you need to relax sweetie. You are taking ALL of this waaay too seriously so…step away from the keyboard, go outside, breathe in the fresh air and have some fun!.

  11. inthekitchen says:

    So…his faith prohibits him from being naked, but permits him to kill animals for fun? Yeah, okay, whatever. Seems a bit selective…

  12. Ninks says:

    Why is it that extremist religious types are usually the most hypocritical?

  13. Mom2two says:

    I don’t know how trustworthy The Enquirer is but I can’t say I’d believe a Chris Pratt sex scene. Some actors got it like Viggo Mortensen who can make the scenes believable and some don’t.
    I don’t know what happened with their son Jack but both Chris and Anna have described his birth as traumatic, I believe he spent a couple of months in the NICU, which had to be a difficult and scary time. I would not be surprised if Chris did turn to a faith.

    • Wren33 says:

      Yeah, I was just talking to an ex at our 20th high school reunion. His son was born way premature and almost died, and he said that he turned to prayer and his son survived, so he is feeling strangely religious now even though he wasn’t at all before.

    • ria says:

      Viggo Mortensen at his most dirty day is a Million times more sexy than Chris Pratt.
      And i liked Chris in Jurrassic World.

  14. kay says:

    He had no problems dating the underage Emily Van De Camp while he was mid 20s but he has problems with sex scenes.

  15. grabbyhands says:

    So he appreciates that he has a new sex symbol status and doesn’t mind being ogled, and thinks women should enjoy being ogled too, but he draws the line at a sex scene because he is such a hardcore Christian? Okayeeeee.

    Of course, this could just be the Enquirer doing its usual hatchet job on someone, But I hope he really sits down and realizes (as Bedhead and others have said) and realizes how lucky he is to be able to say that, if it is in fact true, An actress making that statement would be labeled as a prude that is difficult to work with and be relegated to Hallmark Channel movies because no one would want to hire her-at least an actress that is more or less at the beginning of her film career as he is.

  16. InvaderTak says:

    Well, that’s his call and his reasons are his own. Agree with your point about actresses not given the same treatment.

  17. morc says:

    Not a fan of sex scenes in general.
    I’m not a prude but they somehow annoy me? I mean, I know they are just telling a story, sex doesn’t make it more realistic, it’s only a cheap way to get people in.
    If I wanted to see people who aren’t attracted to each other go at it I’d watch porn.

    • EN says:

      I feel exactly the same way. Sex doesn’t sell a story for me. To the contrary it breaks the suspension of disbelief spell because like it or not it is too carnal and physical. It takes me back to reality,

    • Anne tommy says:

      I agree morc, graphic sex scenes rarely improve a movie and are often fairly gratuitous. I love Chris Pratt, but don’t especially want to see long scenes of making out.

  18. JENNA says:

    That story is probably fake.

  19. Kiddo says:

    But he’s really bringing ‘the sex’ in those two last photos. Such a loss for humanity.

  20. Colette says:

    Story is BS

  21. Don't kill me I'm French says:

    1/ many actors and actresses don’t made sex scenes
    2/ I think he is very very religious ( and conservative) .
    3/ does he wear a wig ?

  22. Pedro45 says:

    To paraphrase Laurence Olivier, maybe Pratt should try acting.

  23. FingerBinger says:

    The story is believable. Jim Caviezel refused to do love scenes because he’s a catholic.

    • teatimeiscoming says:

      Jim Caviezel has always been ultra-devout, which is a big part of why Mel Gibson wanted him in Passion of the Christ. He, to my knowledge, wasn’t a stripper or a crotch-flasher while claiming religious piety.

    • Kori says:

      I was thinking of him too. And he was never on Pratt’s level of bankability and I think it did limit him. I was happy when he got Person of Interest.

  24. Crystal says:

    Why is it so hard to believe people can grow and change? Just because he flashed his junk at people or previously did a sex scene doesn’t mean he can’t change his mind… He is married with a child now- hats kind of a game changer. Even though an on screen sex scene would not be real, he is probably being mindful of his wife’s feelings as it would still require intimate contact with another woman. Maybe he doesn’t want his children to grow up and watch him in a sex scene. Maybe he doesn’t want his in-laws to watch him in a sex scene. Not hard for me to believe at all. With regard to his Christian faith- who knows. Does anyone know what specific faith he is? Mormons don’t believe in watching R rated movies so I could see if he was Mormon or something with similar values he wouldn’t want to be part of something that would conflict with the values of his faith.

  25. suzanne says:

    Hey, he went through a traumatic event and his beliefs strengthened- good for him!

    • Pinetree13 says:

      Yeah nothing wrong with thinking your prayers saved your baby…guess the babies that didn’t make it …their parents just didn’t pray hard enough right?? Or maybe god just loves him more right?

      Religious people = narcissists

  26. lolavie says:

    He hunts wild animals, looks corn-fed and is a hardcore Christian… yeah bye bitch.

    He is repulsive.

  27. Lucy2 says:

    I don’t know how true this story is, but if any actor feels uncomfortable in that situation, they should have the right to decline roles that require it. I would only have a problem if they accepted a role, knowing what is involved, and then tried to change it.

  28. Danskins says:

    I hope he’s not turning into a Duggar…ugh.

  29. LadyL says:

    If your and ex- stripper you must do sex scenes? So much for choices.

  30. EN says:

    I have no objections to this position of his. Let it stay this way.

    On a serious note, I think most movies these days stick nudity and sex scenes, just because they feel like they have to. They don’t add anything to the plot.
    Most of the times when I see a sex scene it actually breaks the story for me and I realize I am watching actors pretending,

  31. Lola says:

    He must be a gemini

  32. Lamppost says:

    It’s an enquirer story therefore almost certainly nonsense.

  33. Anne says:

    This is bs or he wouldn’t agreeded to do Passengers. That script has hot sex scenes and i doubt they removed because he asked.

  34. Keaton says:

    I know it’s not cool to like Pratt now but I still do. I adore his devotion to Anna and sometimes I find him cute and amusing. However, I won’t be crying over the lack of Chris Pratt sex scenes in my movie going future. He’s an appealing on screen persona but I’m not dying to see the guy naked.