Double Standards, Child Nudity and Hollywood

Double standards is defined in the dictionary is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or by two different people in the same situation.[1] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when applied by another group.

Before I go any further I must say that what I am about to discuss(rant) I am by no means justifying either side. That being said this topic is of a sensitive nature and its something that has puzzled me for some time now...It was again brought to my attention last night while watching the movie called "the little girl down the lane" its a rather dated movie starring a very young Jodie Foster, She was obviously a minor when this movie was made and there is a nude scene of Jodie Foster, it shows her naked backside and her breasts, in this scene she is getting into bed with her new found young lover...

Here is the double standard...why is Hollywood exempt from the laws of child pornography? Please someone explain this to me...There are many other examples like this in Hollywood movies...IMO it is child porn and I don't understand how they can get away with it... It makes me want to post a sign outside the directors house that says child pervert lives here...

Meh, sich a non-issue for me here. The whole idea of caring about this is like saying, "why can't everyone make CP??"

Which... Isn't really a strong argument or one I'd support.

But in any case, they are exempt because it's art. They still have to abide by the general laws, but there are some things that are frankly artistic, or considered art, and yes they do not fall in the same category of a criminal behaviour.

reply to post by shells4u


Touchy subject indeed.

You're blaming Hollywood, yet this is a French-Canadian movie, so it's not Hollywood.

Funny you mention nothing about the little girl being a murderer?

Is that not a double standard on your part?

Offended by a child being nude but not being violent?


ETA: and it appears that Connie Foster, Jodie's sister who is 7 years older than her, was used for the nude scenes.

www.imdb.com...

What constitutes child porn varies from country to country.

The problem is that some people equate child nudity with child porn. The law in most Western countries makes this distinction. It is an important distinction.

Child Porn is the sexual depiction of a child. It is not child nudity.

If you get upset with these films that show children in their natural states try something like Ice Castles. It is a Norwegian film and handles child nudity as it should be, ie, a part of life. Careful, you may blow a gasket!

P

: and it appears that Connie Foster, Jodie's sister who is 7 years older than her, was used for the nude scenes.

reply to post by AlphaHawk


I was wondering about that...using doubles over the age of 18 for the nude scenes...As for nude minors being on the silver screen and it being a form of art...I suppose its all a matter of folks having different tastes...

Child Porn is the sexual depiction of a child. It is not child nudity.

reply to post by pheonix358


If the naked child is portrayed in the movie as being naked and getting in bed to have sex, is that not sexual depiction of a child?

If you can watch a Hollywood movie with a nude child in it without thinking dirty thoughts, you're normal.

If you watch a Hollywood movie that has a nude child in it, and you either have dirty thoughts or are offended, then you've never been or had a child.

If you watch a Hollywood movie that has a nude child in it, and you either have dirty thoughts or are offended, then you've never been or had a child.

reply to post by Unrealised


I have two grown children and a grand daughter...It is not my stinking thinking or your stinking thinking that this rant is about, Its Hollywoods stinking thinking that irks me, You cannot honestly say that there are chesters out there that watch these movies and think nice thoughts...Seems to me that it would be the opposite and furthermore may fuel them to go out and get their rocks off for real with some poor child...

Originally posted by shells4u

Child Porn is the sexual depiction of a child. It is not child nudity.

reply to post by pheonix358

 

If the naked child is portrayed in the movie as being naked and getting in bed to have sex, is that not sexual depiction of a child?

No, not necessarily. It is simply part of the movie, the artistic depiction of events. Showing the child having sex would be child porn by today's standards. Standards have changed over the years. It is a long time since Jodie Foster was a child and in that era, this was accepted as were many other movies by quite well known Directors. David Hamilton is one such example.

Different things offend different people. Public breast feeding is one that really gets some people upset.

P

Given we had a naked baby lifting a car in superman 1 there must of been a different view than these day and at the time of filming the age of consent in Canada was 14 and she was 14/15 at the time of filming of legally ok if morally a suspect

Originally posted by pheonix358
What constitutes child porn varies from country to country.

The problem is that some people equate child nudity with child porn. The law in most Western countries makes this distinction. It is an important distinction.

Child Porn is the sexual depiction of a child. It is not child nudity.

If you get upset with these films that show children in their natural states try something like Ice Castles. It is a Norwegian film and handles child nudity as it should be, ie, a part of life. Careful, you may blow a gasket!

P

Child nudity in artistic expression is considered non-sexual. If however the sole purpose of the "art" is to depict naked children for other purposes, it stops becoming art and becomes a criminal act.

The only reason I comment on this distinction is to stop any misinterpretation before it happens. In other words, you can't just go around taking naked pictures of kids, and it's ok because it's nudity but not sexual. If the intention is to use it for sexual purposes in the future, even if it is just simple nudity, it still becomes a criminal act.

This is my interpretation anyway.

There are some very shady photographers that probably get away with much more than they should be able to...

Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Child Pornography

Images of child pornography are not protected under First Amendment rights, and are illegal contraband under federal law. Section 2256 of Title 18, United States Code, defines child pornography as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving a minor (someone under 18 years of age). Visual depictions include photographs, videos, digital or computer generated images indistinguishable from an actual minor, and images created, adapted, or modified, but appear to depict an identifiable, actual minor. Undeveloped film, undeveloped videotape, and electronically stored data that can be converted into a visual image of child pornography are also deemed illegal visual depictions under federal law. Notably, the legal definition of sexually explicit conduct does not require that an image depict a child engaging in sexual activity.

U.S. dept. justice

Hollywood is above the law...I guess that doesn't come as a shock...we are all too aware that if you have enough money it can buy you all sorts of nifty little things...

After some googling it seems like it was Jodies 20 year old sister doing the actual nude scenes (and stood in for her in Taxi as well)

Years ago there was a lot of controversy over the movie "Pretty Baby" with Brooke Sheilds.



Then at age 15 she did the controversial Calvin Klein ads..



Her Mother took a lot of heat for allowing her to do projects that sexualized her at such a young age, which at the time I really never gave much thought to as I was about the same age. I will say that at 15 me and my friends liked and wore Calvin Klein jeans and our intent was to look sexy. I will also admit most of us were sexually active at that age.

Now as an adult who has raised a daughter, 22 yrs. old, I have mixed feelings. One could say that this type of sexualizing of teenage girls "caused" certain behaviors, others could say it expressed the natural sexuality of young girls? Even one of my favorite shows at the time, "Little house on the Prairie" had both characters Mary and Laura falling in Love with older boys wanting to marry them, and Pa made them wait till they were 16 yrs. old.

I think there is a distinction between a child and a teenager when it comes to sexual attraction. I have taken a lot of heat here on ATS for pointing out that many young girls/boys that get involved in porn are exploited and often times drug and alcohol addicted and come from broken homes, that is just a fact. Inevitably that position will come under attack, lol, and honestly I'm not up for that debate this morning.

At this point my conclusion or thoughts, lol, for what they're worth... Is to have a healthy acknowledgement that there is a natural sexual energy that surrounds youth after puberty and that the adults in their lives need to help guide them to respect themselves and others. There are boundaries, IMHO, that can cause deep mental problems if they are crossed.

The human body in it's natural form isn't dirty or pornographic. Lust comes from the mind of the adult as I'm sure you already know.

Protect children, it is a shared responsibility but don't corrupt them by teaching them their bodies are immoral or unclean.

Thanks everyone who posted in this thread...All points were sincerely taken...