MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > What do you think of child nudity in fil...

What do you think of child nudity in films?

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
84 replies | jump to latest

What do you think of child nudity in films? Personally, it doesn't bother me at all. There are some really good films with child nudity in them. There are several instances where the story may require child nudity so I can see valid reasons for it. I don't think the human body should be viewed as inherently sexual or dirty, so there is nothing immoral or wrong about nudity of any age in films. What do you think?

(Note: I'm asking this as a movie related question and not in any kind of sexual way, so don't call me a pervert or dirty old man.)

[–] samoanjoes (58613) 5 years ago

Hell no.

[–] moviechatterer (16326) 5 years ago

Seconded!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Who not? What is your objection to it?

[–] samoanjoes (58613) 5 years ago

Children aren't old enough to decide if that's an appropriate decision.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Very young children may not be able to decide, but I think most older children could. Fore example, I think a ten year old could decide what they were comfortable showing in a movie.

[–] samoanjoes (58613) 5 years ago

But they could regret it when they're older because of a decision they made when they were 10.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Possibly, but you could say the same about adults who do nude scenes. An adult may do a nude scene at 25 and end up regretting it. An actor of any age could end up regretting being in a film, even if there is no nudity. I don't think possible, hypothetical, future regrets is a good justification for avoiding nudity in films.

[–] chilone (18333) 5 years ago

The critical difference is adults are responsible for their own decisions. Children are not. If they're gung ho to do it and the parents consent, if the child later regrets it, then what? Who's to blame? With the potential for that kind of outcome, is it appropriate for a parent to allow it?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I think it would be appropriate for the parent to allow it if the child wants to do it. I don't think it would do any real or lasting harm.

[–] chilone (18333) 5 years ago

As a parent, I'd be horrified if I allowed it for my child an they later regretted it. Maybe not even later. What if their friends (or NON-FRIENDS) found out? I don't think I need to expand on the damage that could cause.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Their friends should support them and be happy for them. It's possible that some kids might make make fun of a kid for being nude in a movie, but those kids would make fun of other kids regardless. Doing nudity in a film is something that an actor, child or adult, shouldn't regret or be ashamed of. If I see a kid's butt in a movie, why is that a big deal? We all have butts. I think you might be overestimating the possible damage.

[–] chilone (18333) 5 years ago

That's great that you think their friends should support them and they wouldn't get bullied but that's not necessarily reality. Kids get bullied for a lot less. Some are victims of violence or are driven to suicide. I stand by my assertion that it's not a thing that a responsible parent should allow. I certainly wouldn't take that kind of gamble with my kids.

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

If I see a kid's butt in a movie, why is that a big deal? We all have butts. I think you might be overestimating the possible damage.

The reason is that somebody could be turned on by that butt and could use that image to jerk off. Since that's considered morally wrong, the fact itself that the child is nude becomes morally wrong.

It's the same principle in Muslim hijab. In Islamic culture, hair has a high erotic value. That means that a man can be turned on by a woman's hair. Since it's considered morally wrong to be turned on by a woman that it's not your wife, then the very fact that women show their hair becomes morally wrong.

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (2002) 2 years ago

That's fucking stupid. That's like saying Any one of us could murder someone with their bare hands, and therefore hands are murder weapons and should be illegal.

[–] overseas7 (5071) 5 years ago

Agree. That is exactly the point

[–] kukuxu (5409) 5 years ago

No problem with it.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

What is dodgy about it, in your opinion?

[–] IMDBrefugee (435) 5 years ago

I don't think it's necessary.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Couldn't you make that argument about any nudity of any one in any film? You could even make the argument that violence and profanity are not necessary in films either. If a film has a scene where a child would be naked in real life, it may not be absolutely necessary to show nudity, but there is no reason to completely avoid it altogether.

[–] IMDBrefugee (435) 5 years ago

You could make that argument. Which is why movies that have an over emphasis on it generally don't do well - Violence, profanity, Nudity. Obviously there are exceptions or they may develop a cult status but it's probably not going to be received well and thus not worth it, nor is it again even necessary.

I don't understand your second point - ' a film scene where a child would be naked in real life'. Like if they're changing their clothes? Why show that?

It's very different to have where the reaction be whoa looked good. vs. and the reaction is most people scratching there head.

Lastly I think a parent would have an issue with their adolescent child being nude for something that is again not necessary to get the point across to viewers, yes they're naked.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

In regards to my second point, if the nudity is natural in that scene, then my view is why go to extreme lengths to not show the nudity? Why not show it, would be my thought. For example, a child might be in the bath talking to the parent and that scene may be relaying important information related to the plot. I don't see any reason to film the scene in an unnatural way to hide the nudity. My philosophy is nudity is natural and a part of life so I think it should be included in films. And yes, some parents might have an issue with their kid being nude in a film and in that case the child should not do the nude scene. I would be opposed to forcing a child to do nudity if the child or parents are uncomfortable with it.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

I don't like it. I don't mind if other people like it, but I don't like it. I think movies (and arts in general) don't have to depict unecessary things. For me, great art is in it's simplicity. Less is more.

Depiction of child nudity, even if it's not morally ambiguous, is hardly ever necessary in telling any story.

The same can be said to violence and gore in movies too. A beheading scene, for example, can be shown in full grotesque manner with a clear slash, showing CGI meat and bones complete with blood splatters as in the movie 300. Or, it can be shown off screen, with the slash obscured by a sillouette, and the sound simply took care the rest. Personally, I find the first one just feels cheap and the later a lot more sophisticated.

Don't get me wrong, 300 was an entertaining movie. It's simply not exactly the greatest piece of art.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I get what you are saying, but isn't the same true about any nudity in any film? Adult nudity is not absolutely necessary in telling most stories either. I would agree about excessive gore in film, but I think nudity is very different from graphic violence or gore. Nudity is natural and beautiful and graphic violence gore is not.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 5 years ago

It's the same. I used to like adult nudity in movies when I was a young lad with a raging boner. But now, I appreciate movies that can tell the same story without the need of nudity a lot more. It's actually harder. If done wrong, no nudity would totally butcher a scene.

I always roll my eyes when a movie depict people having sex with the bra on or a woman that after having wild sex last night would feel it's necessary to cover her breasts using the blanket when they wake up in the morning. It just screams laziness.

In violence and gore term that would be like showing a man being shot mercilessly by a machine gun only to not show any blood. It's the same. Laziness.

So to actually tell a captivating story in a scene without resorting to nudity or violence and gore, it certainly takes more skillz (with a z.)

[–] Kawada_Kira (7282) 5 years ago

It really depends on the society. In the movie "The Baader-Meinhof Complex" the opening scene is on a beach where a lot of people are nude, including children. That's because the movie was made in Germany and it's just considered normal there, that's just how it is on beaches there. There's nothing even remotely sexual about it. There are lots of cultures like this, for instance in various indigenous areas of South America and parts of sub-Saharan Africa, nudity isn't considered inherently sexual and isn't taboo. But in cultures that are a lot more uptight about nudity and consider any and all nudity to be sexual, it's a bit risky. So it's a cultural thing, it depends on where you're at.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I would agree with you, Kawada.

[–] jriley555 (8552) 5 years ago

pretty much.

i think parents giving young children a bath can be a very evocative scene, in the right context.

beyond a certain young age, though, in US culture at some point a taboo adheres.

but we're cool with shotgun blasts to the face for young adults on up.

[–] chilone (18333) 5 years ago

Bath scenes can be evocative without showing the gibblets, not to mention the creepiness of an actor/actress touching a non-familial, naked child.

[–] StoneKeeper (28408) 5 years ago

It can be funny. (See little dude pissing in a puddle in 13 assassins 2010) Otherwise, I would stay away from it as much as possible as a client, as a director and as an actor.

[–] 000 (474) 5 years ago

not sure how it works legally but mila jovovich and keira knightly both showed boobs on film b4 they were 18
not exactly a child, but its a boundary of sorts