MovieChat Forums > Pretty Baby (1978) Discussion > The child porn denial: Female nudity is ...

The child porn denial: Female nudity is always sexual.

posted 9 years ago by !!!deleted!!! (64202489)
23 replies | jump to latest

Let's get something straight. Female nudity is ALWAYS sexual to heterosexual men. People who try to suggest that female nudity is not sexual are either liars, homosexuals, or women. Therefore, showing a nude underage Brooke Shields in a movie is child porn to heterosexual men.

The idea that a man's mind can distinguish between a small female body and a normal-size one is ridiculous. Many adult women (even in their 20s) have small breasts and remove their pubic hair. Men find this physically attractive, and no one argues with it, which further confuses the issue.

Our society is not even logically consistent on the issue of nudity in public. If anyone wants to suggest that nudity is harmless, then I would immediately ask why it is still illegal to walk around nude in public. It seems like all the perverts and deviants who want to suggest nudity is not sexual live here in the fantasy world of the Internet. Out in the real world it doesn't quite work that way.

[–] wvsarafan 9 years ago

It works that way just fine for people who have a brain. Obviously you are lacking in one.

Stop posting.
Delete your account.
You're way too stupid to post here.

[–] unknown_soul278 9 years ago

No, it isn't, but in this movie it is. It takes place in a whorehouse where everything is sexual. But a heterosexual man does not see all female nudity in a sexual context.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jedite1000 8 years ago

I don't find it that attractive if girls shave their pubic hair

I don't like baldness in any shape or form either from lady parts or a mans head

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 2 years ago

Yet you scoff at women with hairy legs, arms, and armpits. Lulz

[–] Sequentialist 8 years ago

Not always hot.

And this is hot.

[–] ms-trixi 8 years ago

I'm sure female nudity is not always sexual to father's of young daughters, or even to those men who have sisters. Or most men who know that children are not sexual objects. It even disgusts them when they see young girls sexualized!

[–] efc2009 8 years ago

I recently bought the film on amazon and it only run for 1 hour 45 mins yet it says on here it is 1 hour 50 mins long.Any advice?

[–] meathead (43) 5 years ago

Wrong, or are you turned on by the sight of an infant girl's privates if you accidentally see them while the mother is changing her diaper? Either you must answer "yes" in which case you are a sicko, or answer "no", thereby admitting that not all female nudity is sexual. Just as you can look at an infant girl's nakedness and not be the slightest aroused, most men can look at a prepubescent girl's naked body and feel no desire. Most men who saw such would feel embarrassment/discomfort, not arousal. And most men can tell the difference between a small female body and a normal-sized one just fine, thank you very much - think you are the one having a problem.

[–] liscarkat (18373) 2 years ago

Normal heterosexual men are not aroused by female infants or pre-pubescent children. However, once sexually mature characteristics have developed, like breasts, it's impossible not to notice, regardless of what anyone says. You just mentally put it aside and never act on it until they're old enough.

[–] raymondoz2007 (2098) 2 years ago

This is the same as the Tracy Lords scandel, Whoever has this movie should be arrested for kiddie por.