Underaged actors in nude scenes

Remove all ads!

Yeah, just that i AM catholic, but that doesn't mean i have to take anything the church says serious, does it ?

So what are you saying ? You waited until the law said you were allowed to fool around ? Gimme a break, i started fooling around when i felt i was ready for it, such decisions are not for anyone else to make.

 

Actually the decision is completely in the hands of the government to make. You agree to live in a country you agree to live by their rules, if you don't like it - leave.

---

People do seem to be straying from the question at hand here. It's about the double standards in the film industry and where the line is drawn. The law here seems pretty iffy considering toddlers and babies are able to be displayed nude during daily commercial breaks.

 

First of all, i didn't agree to live here, i happened to get born here, and i don't recall signing any terms of agreement on my first day.

And second, i wonder how many of you had the age of consent in mind on your first date with your girlfriend. Did anyone think of the law at that particular night, or did you just let things happen ? get real guys, we all know nobody even bothers thinking about that on such occasions. That's part of the beauty of love, it can't be restricted by any stupid rules or laws, it leads it's own life and is completely uncontrolable.

Those who have ever been in love know exactly what i mean. Age of consent my ass. Believe me, that was the last thing on my mind on my first date with a girl. And btw, i wouldn't even know what the age of consent would be here in the Netherlands.

 

First of all, you don't have to sign anything to show your agreement. It is assumed that your very presence in a country shows that you accept the laws that country upholds. I can't go on a rampant killing-spree, get arrested and expect a legal excuse to be "I didn't sign any papers stating that I wouldn't go on a killing-spree."

Second, it's not about dating or courting, it's about sexual intercourse. Of course they can't police underage people dating. Not to mention it doesn't apply if both parties are underage (I assume the age of consent is 16).

 

I thought Bully was hilarious!! That sex scene between that naked red-haired girl and Bully's best friend/killer was just plain silly..i mean that's some weird-ass humping! It's like they sat there talking to each other and every now and then decided to move their pelvis'. My buds and i geeked on that!

On the topic though, i never really saw much if any underage nudity in any movies. When i saw American Beauty the last thing i thought of was "is she over 18 to be showin her boobs?". Then again i was like 19 when it came out and thought they were damn nice boobs. I'm 23 now and i would still (whether proper or not) think the same. Guys are guys and we look at all girls(now im not talkin kids or anything gross like that.) All my friends are in the range of 20-23 and even though Salma Hayek get's our turbos spinnin', unfortunately so does Lindsay Lohan. We can't help it. It's natural. Unless youre into kiddie porn or something atrocious like that, i wouldn't feel too, too guilty when that Hilary Duff music video comes on and you don't change the channel right away. It's programmed in our brains like that.

Also I can't resist............(sorry Beren)
A quote from another-
"Yeah, just that i AM catholic, but that doesn't mean i have to take anything the church says serious, does it ?"

Dude, I believe in God and all, but if i were you i wouldn't take ANYTHING the Catholic church says seriously!

 

Let's repeat what has been said -> Chevalier, I live in Europe, and like to see movies.
I haven't seen that many yet, but quite a few nonetheless.
Now can you state the titles of at least three movies that, according to you, include the problem you have.
Then, specifically indicate which scene(s) were offensive to you, and why.
Furthermore, I wish to add this: any underage ACTRESS should not be seen displaying any private parts, anything else like 'building sexual tension' is differently interpreted by everyone and thus cannot be judged on.
Also, an 18+ ACTRESS playing an underage CHARACTER shouldn't be a problem, I mean, the characters aren't real remember.
Lastly: if you really find this material offensive, don't go and see the movie; if 'offensive' material scares customers away, it cuts the profits, and NO ONE will produce it anymore because it doesn't make money

On a side note to ALL: leave religion out of this, it is and it so far has shown real potential for a flame war.

 

First of all, one thing must be stated in order that the record can be set straight:

People don't start discussion of a subject to hear responses following the pattern of "If it offends you, ignore it". If ignoring were an option, it would have been done and the whole discussion would not have been started at all, in the first place.

Next, in this discussion I am not referring to any particular scenes that I would consider offensive to me, nor am I going to criticise any specific film. The problem is: should parents be entitled to decide for their children as to whether said children should pose naked or not. Anything else is background information or downright off-topic.

In this view, the argument:

doesn't pertain to the subject. Moreover, if I state that "In most movies that are shot now there are nude scenes.", it isn't a faulty premise, as it can't be a logical claim in the formal sense. The reason is that it's unprovable - unless all movies were to be checked for nude scenes - and so it is a matter of more or less subjective observation, which in the strictest understanding of formal logic is evaluation, therefore not subject to true/false qualification. So much as it can't be proven, it can't be disproven, either.

Film producers would probably gladly support this one, but the reality is that film producers are so much selfless servants of art as politicians are selfless servants of the nation. Theory doesn't meet with practice here. The first and foremost reason why a movie is shot is money, with little exception. I'm not necessarily saying that it's bad, but movies are a business, like magazines and others. As we all know, sex sells. Sex is probably the most successful merchandise ever, followed by violence. Perversion, usually drawing from the source of widely understood violence, adds to the thrill and excitement.

The next point raised that I'm going to address is Natalie Portman. As it is suggested, she doesn't really seem to display symptoms of trauma after posing in nude scenes underaged. However, that can't be attested credibly, nor can this singular case warrant anything in general. It is still debatable if her parents should have the right to decide in this case. My position is that they shouldn't have had that right. It should be construed (!= is) as criminal offence much like with regular nude shots of kids that you can find on the internet and that are treated like criminal children pornography no matter if it's a sexual act or just a nude photo.

Sorry to disappoint you, but if you have a problem with the law, you should try asking your country's legislative body to give you a break and not me. I really don't have power over those things.

Regrettably, it seems that we won't avoid a lecture on the age of consent.

So, the age if consent is the age beginning with which a person can legally consent to have sexual intercourse or other sexual activity. There is no clear borderline and individual cases are researched by courts, taking into consideration the age of participants, the level of awareness and other circumstances. Laws don't typically refer to an adult having intercourse with a minor. Contrary, they look more like "Whoever engages in sexual activity with a minor below the age of 14/15/16/whatever, shall..." and so on.

The reason is that in most countries minors up to a specific age (not necessarily equal to legal age) can't commit a criminal offense. They can perform illegal acts like everyone else, but guilt can't be attributed and so they can't be held culpable. Therefore, criminal sanctions apply to adults having sex with minors and not to minors having sex with each other. However, sexual activity between minors is still technically illegal. This disctinction is very important and it allows courts to order measures to be taken to prevent minors from having sex with each other, especially if the parents were to request them.

The age fo consent extends to posing nude as well according to criminal laws of most countries, if not all.

Movies get away with it if they aren't intended to be pornographic as a whole. Imagine a porn movie with all actors over the age of consent except just one. I'm quite sure it would meet with all sanctions that non-pornographic movies are spared in similar cases.

On a final note (for this point), minors of the age of consent but below the legal age are still not on their own. Parents have constitutional (in most countries) right to bring them up according to their own (the parents') moral, ethical and otherwise beliefs. So, the parents still have something to say in the matter of their children's sexual conduct.

Thank you, too, for gratuitous feedback on the Catholic Church, but I would really appreciate something more in-topic. If the Catholic Church bothers you so much, perhaps you should start a discussion.

 

If we are to talk about whether it is right for parents decide if their children should pose nude in a movie I think we need an example when that has happened. Debating a phenomena like this without knowing whether it exists or not is kinda hard

 

Then who should have had the right? The child? I see your point in this, that greedy parents would exploit their children to make money, but what if the situation was reversed? What if the parents DIDN'T want the child to pose nude, but the child did? In that case would you still say it's OK? Isn't one of the responsibilities of parenthood to use good judgement in your child's well-being?

I don't know if you can just say that parents shouldn't have the right to decide, because then the opposite arguement would come up. If parents can't allow their children to pose nude, then the parents also can't prevent them from doing so either.

 

I addressed the reverse situation a few posts up IIRC.

I see the logic behind this, but as I see, you're starting from the assumption that someone has to have this right. This assumption necessitates a prior assumption that the right has to be there. Which is not necessarily true.

Not necessarily true. If the child can't make decisions for himself, then either parental consent is needed or the decision is not to be made until the child grows up to the legal age for the decision in question.

For instance, children can't marry below a certain age no matter what the parents say. Granted, with parental consent they can typically marry earlier than legal age, but a certain barrier is in place.

The same way does the age of consent work. Younger than age of consent? So no nude shots and case closed.

Before you raise the problem of infants: depends if they are presented as sexual objects. Same to all minors anyway, actually. Nude bodies of teenagers just have to be in medical manuals, don't they?

 

This IS in-topic feedback. I'm sorry mate, but you started a very touchy topic here, and if the discussion somewhere faded to the catholic church, and you have a problem with it, you'd better prepare for other diversions. This subject can go in a lot of different directions, simply because it's a complex subject. If some parts of the feedback you got so far are not what you'd like to hear, then maybe you should reconsider starting such discussions in the future.

 

Pac-Man! This has nothing to do with the Catholic Church! The Churches don't make laws, let alone the Catholic Church.

Back on topic...

Parents' are allowed to make their children pose nude unless the child objects. It's simply like marriage, both parties have to agree to get married and the state has to recognise it. In this case, both parties (the parents and the child) both have to agree and the child must be over the age of consent if they are to be portreyed in a sexual manner.

 

So when people provide examples of underage nudity portrayed in a tasteful manner, it doesn't matter to you, as it is merely "background information" and "off topic?" Not only that, but you are not required to provide examples of underage nudity in films: keep in mind, nobody here seems to be able to think of an example of such an instance in a film. See, my problem here is that since you don't provide any examles, you're simply talking about a completely theoretical situation, since you haven't proven that such things DO take place. You aren't trying to prove your standpoint, and when I present examples to disprove your standpoint, you're dismissing it as irrelevant and off-topic, which really violates the spirit of the entire discussion.

To address your question of "should parents be entitled to decide for their children as to whether said children should pose naked or not": by "decide" do you mean "force", as in should parents be allowed to force children to do nude scenes against their will? Worded that way, of course not, but again this begs the question: does this actually occur in any medium other then illegal underground pornography? Again, you haven't managed to prove that it does, and don't seem interested in doing so, despite many people commenting on how difficult it is to debate a topic with no examples and no hard definitions.

Again, a blatantly incorrect statement. I'm sure that we all agree that cinema is an art form, and that those who create movies are artists. So by extending your logic, the main reason that any artist produces a work of art is for financial gain. Can anybody actually say that with a straight face? Off the top of my head, I can think of a few dozen movies where the main purpose was most certainly NOT to make money. Bowling for Columbine, Adaptation (too weird to be marketable), Lost In Translation (ditto, and with limited release as well), Thirteen (limited release) are just a few examples. These films are meant to be artistic, and/or to bring attention to a particular topic. These are prestiege films, not to be confused with hollywood blockbusters in the vein of Spiderman and The Matrix. Is money A reason to release them? Of course, but it isn't the MAIN reason, or even a major reason. Some, and I'll say a great many, films exist as an artistic vision of the director (somebody can correct me if I'm wrong, but the producers don't have nearly as much to do with the actual content of the film as the director) who is interested in telling a story.

How is this on topic? Well, as I've said, many movies exist to tell a story, and for some stories, underage nude scenes may be necessary for whatever reason. If such a thing is tastefully handled, then I have no problem with it.

Note that I'm not exactly answering your question of whether parents should be able to decide if children should act in these scenes or not. The reason for this is I feel that you've squirreled the question into a form that is easiest for you to answer without actually having to uphold your point of view. I am instead choosing to address the question of "Should underage nude scenes be allowed in films".

 

Any example to anything ever is background information as, by definition, the purpose of example is to illustrate. You've also twisted the logical operator here, it was OR and not AND. I do trust you didn't do that deliberately so as to suit your needs in the discussion.

Firstly, scroll up.

Secondly, you provide such examples yourself down there in your post. As you, obviously, are a part of everybody, then it's not true that everybody is unable to provide an example. Conversely, it's not true that nobody is able to think of such an example. You blatantly contradict yourself.

I don't need to prove common knowledge any more than I need to prove France is in Europe or grass is green (edit: green, damn it; the red thing was something else and I hurried too much).

You didn't suppose I would agree on this one, did you...

To decide for someone means to make the choice in that person's place.

The former was discussed to death up there (scroll up) and the latter is correct for obvious reasons.

Idealistic, spirited, but wrong. First of all, opinion is not a statement. Next, opinion cannot be correct or not in the logical sense (that you use here). So it's quite empty what you say.

Next, so much as you are sure that "we all agree that [...] those who create movies are artists", you're also wrong. Why? Because I am a part of "we all" and I don't agree (not all people who make decisions in movie business are artists). ERGO: it's not true that we all agree...

I don't suppose I need to tell you that being sure is no proof, either.

Nice try, but no logical backing. Since when are films all art and film business people are "any artist"?

Please pay attention when you read the quotes you refer to. I said "with little exception", which is not equal to "without exception".

I don't suppose many people would agree that earning money isn't a major reason for making a movie.

In some cases it's true, but again, spirited idealism is not compatible with business. While the producer has less contact with the actual content than the director, it's the producer who has more to say and who makes decisions: simply, he's the guy in charge. The producer has a media company to care about and that company has stockholder value to care about. If the company is to make millions, the movies are to bring those millions to stockholders. The movie has to sell.

If we, however, take an independent director or a producer who doesn't have to care about profitability, it doesn't get much better. Sure, it gets more artistic, but here attention and fame supplants financial gain.

So, ultimately, it's always showing underaged nudity for the movie maker's personal gain.

However, the story's needs don't justify everything and they certainly don't place anyone above the law. The age of consent and the legal age are not to be taken freely and it's not a relic of some ancient morality that is out of touch with reality now. They are there for specific reasons. Simply: people below a certain age are not to be considered sex objects.

Plus, they can always get a double or make a plastic doll. They can always get a 18 or 19 year old that looks less. For static scenes they don't need a real person even, and a doll will do.

From the point of view of the audience, perhaps yes. But from the point of view of the audience and the needs of the story, anything that looks like a live teen body will do and there's no need for a live actor.

Thanks for feedback. Feel free to PM me if you have more.

Will do as well if we consider the age of the actor and not the age of the character.

The age of nude characters is a separate problem and an even more controversial one. However, so long as it's only the problem of characters and not the actors, I agree with most of what you say, provided this reservation is made.

[ May 30, 2004, 16:18: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

I am a bit confused here. Surely this isn't a gray area?

If the age of consent is defined by the law and child pornography is again, defined as illegal, I assume there must also be a legal definition of the term itself? Onwards, the only example provided so far of this wide-spread and 'common knowledge' phenomenon is American Beauty. Since it was allowed, I am assumning that the scene in question does not fall under the legal definition of 'child pornography'.

Can someone please provide a workable definition before we continue?

Oh and BTW:

Grass being red is presumably from the same school of common knowledge as the wide-spread child nudity in today's cinema?

 

Errr... right, I was tired and thinking both about grass being green and something obviously red being obviously red. Somehow I managed to make up one thing of both. I'll edit that part. Sorry for all confusion. The error was quite obvious, though, and sarcastic comments weren't needed, nor do they look so witty as intended. Carry on the discussion, please.

 

Well, no, actually I think that's a very good example. Sorry if the sarcasam sounded too harsh, let me explain what I mean:

If somebody came to me, and asked me to offer him a reasonable scientific explanation as to why grass was red, I could probably come up with a workable hypothesis. However, before I did this, it is not unreasonable to suppose that I might go over a few fields and verify the consistency of the starting statement. If I couldn't find any red grass I would ask the person in question to provide some so that I can examine it...

I have watched a fair amount of movies and cannot say that I have noticed an overall prevailing trend for nudity in films these days, and CERTAINLY not underage nudity. The reason I wished you cited a few examples is that I (and seemingly noboody else here) has noticed this worrying trend...

However, I do think you raise an interesting point about who gets to decide what the kid does (quite unrelated to any nudity/porn/ random moral outrage). There seems to be a large number of child actors, who, having known fame and riches since an early age essentially waste a large part of their lives. And it does seem that some of them were pushed into it all, without concern for their own well-being, by their parents. Apart from film (e.g. Macauly Culkin) this trend does seem to occur in other areas where the child can earn money and fame from an early age (Michael Jackson, Mary Pierce, Jelena Dokic were all pushed ruthlessly into their respective carreers by their parents). And, even though the acticvities they were driven to were in no way illegal or immoral the child still suffered... The moral outrage should really come from the fact that these kids were forced into things they didn't necesserily want to do.

Incidentally, as for our only working example so far, I remember reading an interview wih Thora Birch about American Beauty. Not only were her parents on set, but a social worker as well. It really seems that her interests were fairly well protected. Much more so than if she had been forced to play tennis since being a toddler by a mad father...

 

Underaged pr0n? Where!?

Seriously, though, I've not noticed anything. Our Mormons in Utah, along with reliable old Hatch, would raise all kinds of Cain.

Is it just a European thing? What's consent in Spain? Like, 12 or something? Isn't Australia trying to pass that "Grass on the Field" law?

 

The age of consent in Spain is 14.

@Vukodlak: well, then, I suppose I owe you some explanation:

When I was speaking about a prevailing trend, I didn't have underaged nude scenes on my mind. Actually, what I said wasn't very important for the discussion, it was background information and I referred to the fact that most movies have at least one scene of sex or something close and a few gratuitous showings of private parts.

In no place did I say that underaged nudity was that trend. No, underaged nudity is just a part of that trend and I mentioned it to stress that nudity is there for the movie to sell better simply because the audience wants to see it. In this sense, nudity might still be some form of artistic expression, but the primary purpose would be making more profit from arousing the audience for a little while. Following that, excuses like "artistic" wouldn't apply to underaged nude scenes in movies, even if they work, to some extent, for more private forms of art - ie ones that don't involve crowds of people watching and associating the scene with a specific name as shown in the credits.

 

I agree. Chevalier, you have argued about the age of consent and stated that technically having sex under that age is illegal. Furthermore, you have said that all countries have what you described. The United States does not. The law here states that it is legal to have sex at any age, but if you are under 16 then your partner must be within four years of you. That does not fall into your definition of "age of consent."

I would disagree with you there. Many times the actors or actresses will object to the scene or the scene will be cut because it makes absolutely no sense given the overall plot of the movie.

Do you still object to teen actresses being nude in a movie if only the people on the set (not the audience) see that nudity? You've changed your objections to the extent that I do not believe that people even know what you are attempting to debate.