Nudity discussion

[Phuzzy4242]

FLM used to be almost entirely about kids in nude scenes but we've tried to move away from that. We discourage posting clips here because they could be classed as CP. If a nude scene is in a movie, it's incidental - the scene isn't the reason the film was made. If a clip of only the nude scene is made, the only reason for it is the nude scene. It's the intent, not the content.

[Sully23]

If it is from a movie or it is a museum painting it can be considered art, something very different when it is something home in some countries is allowed but it is not if they are inappropriate poses

We are film critics, we also have the right to think or question things that happen in a movie. Only ghost published a screen of the unknown film 667202598 I would have thought if they publish a screen should be with some censorship

[Tiny Blondie]

Strictly and legally speaking not, if the film is not in the category of CP, then parts of it can't fall into this category, although some suspicious minds may find it "strange", "weird", "twisted", but couldn't be true for adults who collect films focusing on kids ? Isn't it suspicious in itself ?

The existence (for years and without any troubles) of boards that offer such nude scenes only (so-called "short films") demonstrates that it is not illegal (but see above). Cops have other fish to fry.

But I would agree it's useless to take risks and jeopardize the existence of the board, anyway, when you get the entire film, you also get the crispy parts (when they exist), but nudity is not a necessary ingredient to make a great film. If people just look for nudity, a film with nudists will do the job, but it does not offer anything else. The film "Lamb" (2015) doesn't have any nudity, but what a great movie !

[Warg]

I'd like to challenge that a little:

I have read somewhere that in Japan the possession of a legal movie for the sake of the scenes is illegal ...

And how do you know if a movie is CP if any incompetent fool of a judge can declare a movie as such arbitrarily (like "Maladolescenza" in Germany)?

Also in Germany a prominent member of parliament bought a movie with teens over 14 (and as such completely legal) in an online shop - police started to investigate, his immunity was cancelled, they made a house searching, found illegal stuff and he was found guilty in court - his claim that the start of an investigation agains a member of parliament because of the possession of a legal movie was inconstitutional was dismissed by the judges because "the possession of such a (fully legal!) movie raises a well founded suspice against the possessor to possess also illegal stuff" ...

Never believe in the word of the law or your capacity to understand it (except you are a lawyer)!

Personally I believe that pictures are much more dangerous. Texts you have to read, clips you have to download - that means some effort. But if you plaster a thread with "controversial" pictures anyone will get an impression on the first glance.

[Phuzzy4242]

If it is from a movie or it is a museum painting it can be considered art, something very different when it is something home in some countries is allowed but it is not if they are inappropriate poses

We are film critics, we also have the right to think or question things that happen in a movie. Only ghost published a screen of the unknown film 667202598 I would have thought if they publish a screen should be with some censorship

We're talking about how people perceive things, and nobody gives a damn if you call yourself a "film critic" if they think you're dealing in CP, no matter how the kids are posed. We don't want that wrong perception to happen.

[Sully23]

If you have to judge a collector of a film it would be the same as judging a painter who curiously works only children because he does not know what else to paint or Jock Sturges only a court his works in photography were arts not CP as others do not they do the same

Well no film does not necessarily have nudity, some film fans complain in the movies do not eat do not defecate do not piss or bathe in pods there is sex, if one of the children went to the river to swim the director believes that he should get wet with clothes that they call him when a story has some realism, they say sex and the nude sells, one would not see Showgirls 1995 if there were no such scenes or that Fifty grays of shades 2 was bad little naked and little sex between Cristian and Anastasia, that's advertising

[uggla]

Come on, people... There isn't remotely any "CP" here! Some movies have child nudity and some may have underage erotica, but that's it! You won't call just any nude scenes with adults "porn", so why would anyone call nude scenes with children "CP"?

[Sully23]

In Russia there are documentaries about nudism and naturism includes both adults and children and it is legal does not constitute any violation of any right as the same producer says 'it is naturism not porn'

[Warg]

It's quite unusual to see a modern film from North America (USA and Canada) with child nudity so openly displayed. There was no doubt whatsoever the little girl was nude, there was no blurring, no 'accidental' blocking by something in front of her, except for her leg being strategically positioned to prevent too much showing, but that was all. Such innocent nudity is a lot more common in European films.

It has become rare everywhere. But isn't that political uber-correctness rather restricted to Hollywood? Even in the USA you could make a film like Angela in 1995.

[Warg]

Come on, people... There isn't remotely any "CP" here! Some movies have child nudity and some may have underage erotica, but that's it! You won't call just any nude scenes with adults "porn", so why would anyone call nude scenes with children "CP"?

Counter question: Why would anyone call a person of about 16 years a "child"? It's absurd. But CP laws of many jurisdictions do so.
It's a mistake to judge this from a standpoint of reason. Reason is of course common sense under normal circumstances - but not if a society has long been convinced or persuaded to think that participating in a witchhunt is "reasonable" and even a duty for every honest citizen. Think of McCarthy - that's how totalitarism works ...