| I doubt that even a sixteen year-old boy who legally isn't considered mature enough to take care of himself without some sort of adult supervision and make some of the most trivial decisions that we adults take for granted such as how to pay our taxes, how to rent and maintain our own apartment, how to buy and maintain our own car and how to just stay out of trouble without parental supervision is the same child who can make the career decision that can mean the difference between ruining his or her life forever, affect him/her sexually and having absolutely no affect whatsoever. You adults know how emotionally and mentally immature teenagers can be. You and I were that age once. Another problem that I have with a minor "consenting" to shoot those scenes is that when you are a child you are at the mercy of the adults. In a world where parents can and often do sell their children for sex and get away with it without criminal charges being filed by their children, what makes you think that a town as corrupt as Hollywood isn't filled to the brim with those same types of parents; parents who are willing to sacrifice their children for money that legally belongs to the parents and not the child? Sure those children on the set of that aforementioned movie could have wilfully consented to do that scene but what message is that giving to abusive over-domineering parents? By shooting scenes like that in movies doorways are being opened for children to be forced to do nude scenes against thier will which will leave room for tragedies and not comedies. Another problem with a child's consent is that since children are at the mercy of adults you have to take into consideration the different shades of obedience that children display; more often than not when children "consent" to do nude scenes or anything an adult asks of him or her they do so because they feel intimidated by that adult especially if the adult making the offer is the parent. ( Do you know how easy it is for many adults to get 12 year-olds to "wilfully consent" to have sex with them? It's very easy.) You now know why I think that it should be a crime to merely offer a child to take part in something like that; I dont care how many adult lawyers or psychologistst were present. Realize that a lot of children in that industry are there because they were programmed to be there from birth. I wonder how valid the consent is of a sixteen year-old who legally isn't old enough to vote or live on his/ her own. Now it is hard for responisible adults to act out innocent non-sexual nude scenes; why do you think that it would be easier for defenseless children to make that same decision especially when they are in a position where they feel that they are obligated to please their parents. Now one person argued; "You know piutywrec not all child-actors have a problem with doing nude scenes. You shouldn't make this trend illegal because of a few cases where a child was manipulated into doing a nude scene against his or her will. Interesting point; but how is that different from saying; "It shouldnt be illegal to market flame throwers to six-year olds because of a few incidents where children were burned to death. Not all six year-olds and their parents are that irresponsible."? My point is that I think that it's mandatory to make a behavior illegal if a) the community does not have a strong demand for it, b) it is not necessary for the good of the people and most importantly c) It has the potential to hurt innocent bystanders. And as far as I'm concerned using nude children in public entertainment contains all three points. Now a woman once told me; "I do think that it's wrong to force a child to pose completely nude. I also think that it's wrong to force a child to pose completely clothed, but you wouldn't make it illegal to force a child to pose completely clothed because of instances where a child was forced to do so. I mean what's the difference?" The difference is that when you force or kindly ask a child to pose completely clothed you are not having him or her take part in something that can potentially affect him/her in a negative sexual way for the rest of their lives. Again you say; "piutywrec come on we are talking about skinny-dipping here. That is just a fact of normal everyday life. There isn't anything shameful about showing that." Well I agree. I also agree that that the site and act of about five twelve year-old boys standing around a campfire and extinguishing it with their urine is equally as non-sexual and innocent as skinny-dipping. Does that make it appropriate for a grown man to order a child to take his penis out on film as long as it's shown in that context? I think not. I doubt that most boys who often do that for fun would feel comfortable doing that same thing on camera. The point is that even though skinny-dipping is an innocent non-sexual act it is also a private act which is why it is usually only done around members of the same sex in secluded pond area surrounded by woods and not in one's back or front yard or in a public beach or swimming pool; which is why it stops being innocent when a pervert photographs it and shows it to other people. Again you say; "piutywrec you are making it sound like these nude scenes show frontal-nudity we are only seeing bare-bottoms here." Oh I see; so if you were a middle-school principal and you found out that your school's drama coach had the twelve year-olds in his club parade around naked on stage you wouldn't feel the need to fire him or press criminal charges as long as they are completely nude except for those little loin girdles pasted on their genitals covering those important parts; and as long as the scene is in context; you also wouldn't have a problem with you your ten year-old son or daughter being made to wear an invisible g-string to swim practice since it's only their "non-sexual" bottoms being exposed, you wouldn't feel the need to press charges against their swim coach; as a matter of fact since there is nothing sexual about naked bottoms, since everybody has one g-strings should be hot on the market for twelve year-old boys and girls since they are much more comfortable than speedos and since as you alleged their is nothing sexual about a person's naked bottom. I am also assuming that since a person's naked butt is no big deal as you alleged; if your six year-old had gotten access to spanking porn you wouldn't be concerned at all with the fact the he has gotten access to adult pornography; no your biggest concern would be that he has gotten access to violent but not sexual material since all we are seeing are naked bottoms being hit. (I don't think so.). This is a culture where children have a very hard time being caught standing in front of a window in their underpants and that covers both genitals and buttocks alike; what makes you think that those same children would feel comfortable wearing less than that in front of the whole country as long as their genitals are not showing? Being filmed naked is being filmed naked regardless of what is or isn't being shown. Recently some Calvin Klein underwear ads were snatched off of billboards as being child-pornography and they didn't show any child-nudity; there is no reason why we shouldn't have a stricter attitude towards photographic images that bares all. Now that you see my view on the use of child-nudes in movies let's go back to that afroementioned scene in that movie; now that scene involved about five boys skinny-dipping while about three girls spied on them and poked fun at one of the boys' private parts. Now I told you before how spying on a child like that and poking fun at their bodies can sexually devastate a child regardless of whether or not they are being sexual in their state of nudity, which is the second reason why I didn't find that scene even remotely funny. If you think that I'm overreacting let's take that same scene and reverse the genders; let's say that the scene showed about five naked twelve year-old girls being spied on by by three boys as they oogled them and poked fun at their sexual development. Do you think that people in the theater would have been laughing as long as "we only saw those girls bare-bottoms?" I don't think so. If anything that scene would have caused one of the biggest media scandals in American history if that movie made it into national release with that scene intact. A typical reaction to this would be; "Oh come on piutywrec these are guys......... Go to page 4 Return to page 2 , Home |