Children can be shown in all manner of places:
- books
- photos
- videos/movies
It is NOT illegal. It's just a body. We even have naked children running around on nudist beaches.
Take a chill pill.
[deleted]
[deleted]
They were arrested for child sex.
We're not discussing that.
We're discussing child nudity,
which is legal (they even sell the books on amazon.com).
"U.S. Supreme Court ruled underage nudity is legal"
The Supreme Court needs a doze of jail time!
[deleted]
Yes.
Or even amazon.com (which sell photo-books of child "au naturel"). The U.S. court is very protective of the right of free speech/free press. You're even allowed to "mimic" child sex, as long as the actors as adult or CGI or animated.
Child sex is illegal.
Child nudity is not.
That's why this movie is still floating around within U.S. borders. It's NOT illegal.
[deleted]
OK, I personally believe there is nothing wrong with small children running around naked on beaches.
But at what age does a child become an adult? If we look at Brooke in this movie we see a child's body, but it is the way that it is portrayed which treads a fine line between innocence and soft porn.
I do think calling this film 'art' and getting it passed the censors in this way was quite daring, but then there are many movies which have been given the OK using the same tactics.
The movie obviously told it the way it was in those days, but again I do think they were definitely teetering on the edge by making an innocent childlike body into something desirable.
We worry about our kids being molested, and let we are quite happy to OK films like Pretty Baby. Strange world we live in me thinks.
[deleted]
Children are molested whether people watch this movie or not, you talk as though the movie was influencing people to be sexually attracted to children when really this movie is ART, it is a story portraying situations that acctually happen (The movie isn’t promoting illegal behaviour)
"Just my little tribute to Caligula Darli'g!"
[deleted]
When I see on the news that a child molester has been arrested, the stuff in his personal collection is almost always child pornography of the very illegal sort AND/OR stuff like diaper commercials and Disney movies and Sesame Street and stuff like that. I can't recall Pretty Baby ever having been mentioned, though of course it's possible that I didn't see that news story.
You can't in any way judge the value of a movie by whether or not a pedophile might have it in his collection. He will have stuff that none of us would consider "dirty." Anything is "dirty" if approached with a mindset that wants to see dirt.
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
I dont see anything wrong with it either i mean if i am watching a movie and a 15 year old girl or boy happens to show up nude on the movie big deal i am not going to like think sexual things about it there just naked so i dont know why people are so hung up when it comes to teenagers nude in movies. I mean in todays world they show pretty much anything. I rather see a 15 year old nude on a movie then seeing a 15 year old being shot up with guns. Its funny how people dont b***TCH about prime time tv when they show CSI shootings and killings and drug use but a 15 year old nude its like wait a minute. I always say if you dont want to see it you have an OFF button on the tv.
shareWhile I basically agree with you, Brooke Shields was twelve in this movie, not fifteen.
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
well as long as the parents signed off on it and oked it and if Brooke was ok with it at that time i dont see what the big deal is.
shareI agree, but I'm a weird American.
_____
http://www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm
The subject comes up often enough.
yea i mean if a 12 to 18 year old actress was asked to do a nudity part if the parents felt they were not comfy with it or if the actress herself did not feel comfy with it they can always say NO and ask that they cant go any farther then there underware or something. then the person making the movie could either say ok you have a deal or no we will find someone that is willing to do this cause in the movie cause in this movie i feel we need to show a nude boy or girl to make this part of the movie a success.
shareBut how many children can say no to something if they don't want to do it and are actually listened to by the adults around them. Especially when the adults are seeing $$$$$ signs and that is all they are interested in.
I wonder how much Brooke Shields at the age of 12 or 13 wanted to be naked in front of people she didn't know very well. I think that was the adults telling her she had to do it and wasn't going to take her wants into thought at all.
The court may say child nudity is okay, but what if the child doesn't want to be nude but they are forced to do it any way.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court needs to explain how it is okay for an adult to force a child into getting naked so the nudity can be shown if the child doesn't want to do it.
To me that is also child abuse.
I wonder how much Brooke Shields at the age of 12 or 13 wanted to be naked in front of people she didn't know very well.Brooke Shields had been modeling nude since the age of three, so she didn't mind any more than most twelve-year-olds would mind being in a red dress in front of people she didn't know very well. It would have embarrassed the hell out of me, but not her.
The sad part is that nudity, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I can't count how many parents in the world have a cute shot of their two toddlers in the bathtub, covered in soap suds and laughing. But, fact are facts, and it is the people that would take those same pictures and put them on sites meant to exploit children, that make it neccessary for us to even have this conversation in the first place. I look at places like france and other European countries, and how matter of factly nudity is viewed, and wonder whether or not taking the same approach in America would make any difference. Either way, creeps and monsters are here to stay.
shareyea i know that i have photos of me naked in a photo album when i was little. I mean every parent that i know has taken photos of there little ones nude in a bathtub or running around the house naked and they put them in photo albums to show off later in your lifetime like when you find that special someone they whip it out and show all your photos as a kid even the naked ones in the bubble bath you know those ones lol. I just think its the selected few that say Nudity is dirty so then that is the way the world things about it but to me Nudity is not dirty.
share[deleted]
Yea it would be hard to make movies like this in todays ERA with out people having a fit over it that is for sure. I mean look when Hanna Montana when she did that magazine shoot she was nude under the covers yes but all you could see was her bare back and people were all upset about yet you watch alot of shows that are geared to kids and pre teens and there are lot of sexual topics shown on the shows or you see girls in bikinis and so its like what is the difference i guess you know.
shareReally irks me that the U.S. Court would EVER say that child nudity was not pornographic, especially in light of the undeniable witch hunt that's been on for the unlucky ones who inadvertantly find themselves in possesion of that. Where on Earth did OP gather the fact of the Court saying that?
It's really sad commentary that something as powerful as the U.S. Court can't make up its mind as to whether to condone what has been proliferated in the Media so far that anywhere resembles that kind of thing or say it's ALL bad and prosecute on a selective and imbalanced basis.
Sorry but at least until I can get the hell outta Dodge I'm gonna err to the cautious just to save my own neck.
We're entering into a 21st Century Victorian-Puritan age here in the states and the political overcorrectness continues to be forced upon us without relent.
Personally I think this movie is great, and the nude scenes do not bother me personally. Obviously, there must be some sort of law on the books that says this movie is ok, but I find it hard to believe that the US Supreme Court actually declared underage nudity legal, when minors themselves are getting arrested and labeled as "sex offenders" for having naked pictures of their girlfriends or themselves on their phones. Does anybody know where I can read the actual law that says that underage nudity is legal?
share[deleted]
These standards really need to be thrown out. The exact same image can get you thrown in prison or not based on whether one jury thinks it's "too sexy" but another jury thinks it's "only kind of sexy."
Or to get right down to it: whether a jury believes that the image will cause somebody looking at it to think bad thoughts.
How about this: if the image makes it clear that something bad was done to the child, then whoever made that image (and whoever supports the making of it financially) goes to jail because of what was done to the child, and not because of what somebody else thinks when looking at the image.
- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.
xenophile2002 I agree that the standards for what is or isn't legal need to be thrown out. You shouldn't have to guess about something that serious.
I think the US Federal law is OK other than that last "lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" part that's so subjective. If they would just get rid of that part, the way the law would work is if there is a minor in an actual sex act in the image, it's illegal. If not then it's legal no matter what the model is wearing or not wearing. That would make it easy for photographers and film makers to know exactly what they shouldn't do.
Judges seem to like vague laws, because it gives them the power of selective enforcement. PASE v. Hannon involved a judge that decided his expert witnesses in psychometrics weren't needed to make a decision about IQ testing in Chigago. Judge Grady determined that he could look at the test items and decide if they were racially biased or not... of course he was later shown to be wrong; just another flaming loonie that thought he could look at something and know what's best. To this day California is still shredding IQ test results for black kids, even when they're no longer in the state because of that prick and others like him.
Why would they want to give up that kind of power? It makes them gods in our litigious society.
You're right about the judges. However, it isn't judges who make these vague laws, it's the legislatures. They should be a little more clear, and not leave it so that people are imprisoned for what they think or what they might cause somebody else to think.
Suppose I make a montage of images from the 2008 Summer Olympic Games. I post this to YouTube under the title "Gymnastics is Amazing!" Over in the info box I list each gymnast's name, nationality, and final score. The video consists mostly of sixteen year old girls in leotards doing splits, running, doing splits, swinging on the uneven bars while doing the splits, jumping, doing splits, standing on their hands while doing splits, oh, and doing the splits.
Am I in trouble? Well I might run afoul of some copyright issues, but I'm almost certainly not in trouble for any sort of child pornography anything. After all, has NBC been charged with airing this material to the entire US and anybody overseas with a satellite?
Now suppose I post that exact same video on YouTube, only in the info box I list each gymnast's name, age, and measurements and nothing about nationality or score. I also change the title of my video to "Hot Under-Aged Cuties Spreading Their Legs!!!"
Yep, I'm going to jail. What NBC was allowed to broadcast to the universe suddenly becomes "lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" because it's now obvious that I was thinking bad things, and that other who respond to that title will be thinking bad things as they watch.
- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.
[deleted]
"One way to re-write the CP law would simply replace the "licencious" display with a "no genitals" rule (and by this I mean genitals, not butts or chests). If you can see them, its illegal, "
Sorry, but the NO genital rule still leaves a wide range a posibilties open that are and should still be legal.
If not check this image:
http://2fm.rte.ie/blogs/dave_fanning_news/2009/09/23/nirvana_nevermind_cover.jpg
I have a copy of that same album in my collection and I bet a third of America do as well. Is that image in an album cover illegal??
I see what you're getting at, and you're right. Problem is, we still have vagueness. For instance, if you posted that cover image under the title "THE GREATEST ALBUM OF ALL TIME!!" you're safe. If you posted it under the title "BABIES HAVE SEXY DICKS!!" you'd be in trouble.
Same picture.
Different thoughts.
- Aging is a physical problem, and physical problems are amenable to engineering solutions.
[deleted]
[deleted]
yea i have no problem with film makers if they need to have a teen or kid nude in a movie as long as they are ok with it and there parents are ok with it i dont see what the big deal is. I have seen pretty baby many of times and i think Brooke shields did a great job and yes she was nude and its like big deal you know. to me nudity and sex are 2 different things.
shareto me nudity and sex are 2 different things.
You can buy Pretty Baby, nudity and all, from Amazon, and I haven't heard of anybody at Amazon being arrested over it.
http://www.amazon.com/Pretty-Baby-Brooke-Shields/dp/B0000AUHQ6/ref=sr_ 1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1272518902&sr=8-1
Turner Classic Movies has shown Pretty Baby, nudity and all, and nobody at Turner Classic Movies has been arrested over it.
http://www.rolemommy.com/blog/role-mommy-recommends/turner-classic-mov ies-hosts-31.php fifth paragraph
I'd call that pretty strong evidence.
-
What If Rick James had Become the Hulk?
http://tinyurl.com/59hfwy
You can buy PB on Amason all day but still there is a chance that the purchase of that will be tracked by detectives and eventually someone gets lynched. You occasionally hear on the news about someone being in possession of child nudity but reporters and law enforcement officials never disclose just what the manifesto of the child nudity consisted of, so that doesn't rule out something that is on DVD.
Turner has lots and lots of money for the best legal representatives and Turner's own legal research department knows exactly what palm to scratch and when so if they are ever under fire it's quickly resolved through the words of cold hard cash doing the speaking. So in that respect Turner is one thing but the average joe or jane with even a modest income and very limited knowledge of all the zigs and zags in the legal defense system wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.
Wow you people are paranoid if you think that by just owning the movie Pretty Baby you will go to jail or something for having child pornography. That movie is not considered child pornography dumbasses, it's a freakin movie! You are allowed to legally own that movie because it is a legitimate movie not a porno. Stop being so damn paranoid unless you actually have something to be paranoid about!! My mom has the movie on VHS somewhere that she got a long time ago in the early 90's because she was a fan of Susan Surandon and Brooke Shields. She also has the movie The Blue Lagoon, that some idiots probably think that is child pornography too! If this were not an actual movie and all it had were images of Brooke naked then yes that would be child pornography but it's an actual MOVIE and it wasn't made for the sole purpose of showing Brooke naked or the intent to arouse anyone by her being naked. Calm down.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
You're forgetting that prosecuting somebody for owning a copy of Pretty Baby would perforce draw everyone involved with the movie (director, producers, distributors, and sellers of the DVD) because if the film is child porn that necessarily implicates them (and begs the question of why they, too, are not being prosecuted), so that you can pretty much bet your behind that the big corporations associated with the film would rigorously defend the buyer in court, and would have the money to hire a "dream team" that would wipe the mat with the prosecution team. Prosecutors know this - which is why you never see anybody prosecuted for owning a film containing child nudity if the film was made by or is sold by a huge corporation.
shareI did a project on child pornography in highschool law class. I'm Canadian but the laws are pretty similar in the sense that a child can be nude if it's not portrayed in a sexual manner. You can get past the 'sexual manner' part if you claim 'artistic merit'.
Child pornography is illegal as it should be. But a child being nude is not pornography. Like what was said before, most parents have a picture of their child in a bathtub and it's not porn. To most people, nudity like that is not sexual, but to pedophiles, nudity like that is sexual.
A movie like Pretty Baby can be taken both ways. If it is viewed as art and a film, it's legal. If it's viewed sexually, then it is illegal. If your everyday person has Pretty Baby sitting next to Avatar and their Family Guy series collection, it's not going to be counted as pornography. If a person has it inside their collection next to other pornos and some child porn, it would be counted as a porn item if the police busted in looking for child porn.
It all depends on whose holding it and who is viewing it. If a 'normal' person is watching it for the sheer entertainment of the film in general, it's a movie. If a pedophile/person is watching it to get off on the fact that a child is naked, it's porn and judged as so. Somebody can be charged with having it as child porn if you can show that they viewed it sexually. But most people would not as they are not looking at it in that way and the film makers were using it as an art form and not in a form to turn the viewer on. If they were making it to promote is as porn, then they'd be charged as so.
The scenes like that make me feel uncomfortable, same with the film Lolita (I've only seen the one from the 90s, but the scenes of her having sex was awkward to me), but they were supposed to, that's part of the film. But if left out, the films would not have the same impact to the viewer as they would with those scenes left in. I just hope the actors involved in films like that are explained properly what is happening, how to go about it, and made sure they are comfortable with things.
It all depends on whose holding it and who is viewing it.
I did a project on child pornography in highschool law class. I'm Canadian but the laws are pretty similar in the sense that a child can be nude if it's not portrayed in a sexual manner. You can get past the 'sexual manner' part if you claim 'artistic merit'.
[deleted]
Good on ya.
share