No fook it, There is no reason for a 12 year old to be naked.
it does nothing for the plot, in any of the nude scenes with the 12yo brooke shields does she have to be butt naked no. Would the movie suffer if the only nude scene was susan surandon no. You can call it art or whatever you want to say at this point.
I am not a pedo but i understand that some peoples mindsets and their justification of the fact that there are gorgeous girls under 18 beauty is beauty.
HOWEVER I AM SICK
of reading on this boards history people try to defend brooke shields being nude at the age of twelve as art.
GO FOOK YOURSELVES
Justify all you want in the two or three scenes where she is nude in this movie, you could have had the same dialogue same set same characters there is no reason why she needed to be naked.
EXPLAIN TO ME WHY A 12 YEAR OLD GIRL [b]NEEDED[\b] to be naked when her nudit does nothing for the plot could be completely omitted and the film would still be the same.
its not *beep* art.
its a rich perv and an irresponsible mother forcing an easily influenced twelve year old girl in the 70s to be naked in a film that would have just as much impact omitting the nude scenes in this.
I have jerked off to some things, and had legit justifications
But at least I am honest enough to ad it that a twelve year old being completely nud did nothing to make this film progress, nothing to make it oscar worthy, no justification really.
You would have the same fooking movie without brooke shields nude in it.
So keep trying to justify why these scenes are in this movie, because flat out this movie does not benefit from a twelve year old being nude.
SERIOUSLY
GIVE
ME
ONE
REASON
WHY
SHE
HAAAAAAAAD
TO
BE
NAKED
Just one reason why this easily influenced little girl had to be naked.
WHAT DOES HER BEING NUDE IN ANY OF THOSE THREE SCENES FURTHER ANYTHING PLOT STORY OR ENVIRONMENT WISE.
Face it, this is a pedo movie, made by a rich pedo, watched by all pedos, and justified by poor pedos.
TUB 4:20