A Long Overdue Subject
Imagine this scenario if you will. Imagine a fourth grade teacher is putting on a play involving his students and he wants someone to rehearse a scene for this play in the classrooom for a production he's going to put on in the auditorium this Christmas. He asks his students to clear a patch in the classroom for rehearsals (moving desks and chairs out of the way so that he could have some of his students rehearse a scene in the classroom clearing.) He brings out a tub filled with warm water and puts it in that clearing. He also puts a mat next to that tub. He then mentions "We have already done the auditions so lets get the more embarrassing things out of the way; you Johnny have to get naked for this scene". Laughter erupts. "Well you don't have to become completely naked. You just have to show your naked bottom". More laughter erupts including from Johnny." I am going to involve my two year-old son in this scene." As the scene progresses we see the teacher put his naked two year-old son in the bath; and he directs eight year-old Johnny to wash him down by rubbing him up and down from his armpits to his knees. He then instructs Johnny halfway through this rehearsal to moon the audience; his class- to actually bare his bottom and say "Look at my bum, look at my bum". The audience "his classmates" laugh hysterically as he wriggles his naked butt back and forth.
He then proceeds; "In this next scene involves both you Jessica and Billy. In this scene you are going to have to lie down on this mat Billy, you are playing the part of the younger brother and you Jessica are playing his nurse. I am going to give you this thermometer and I would like for you to pull down his underpants." Laughter erupts from the class. "and I want for you to insert this thermometer into his butt." More laughter erupts. She does as she's told, but very reluctantly. After those two scenes are rehearsed they move on to other scenes. Now really if it were factually confirmed that something like this were to happen at the elementary school down the street from you; I could assure you that the police would have a very difficult time getting the teacher from the front of the school building to the police car without everybody in town trying to string him up from the nearest flagpole; and that would be right before the school building burned down the next day under mysterious circumstances. Oh shit! It would have been Armageddon up in that motherfucker; so that begs the question why are Hollywood and independent filmmakers held to a different standard when it comes to children? Why are they allowed to ask underaged children that they don't know to perform certain scenes on a movie set with cameras rolling that the rest of us would go to prison for if we were to ask the neighborhood kids in our vicinity to re-enact those same scenes in the basement of our houses with a movie camera or in the case of the scenario that I described in a school classroom; later to be acted out in the school auditorium? I ask this because those rituals that those kids were asked to do in that fictitious scenario were actual scenes involving child actors in two different MPAA approved films. Don't you see the double standard? Now on to the presentation;
This subject is about the use of nude minors in mainstream Hollywood movies. Since the sixties- the late sixties to be exact there has been a demand for nude children in the media. The argument was that it shouldn't be a big deal for child actors to do nude scenes in movies as long as there is no frontal nudity (bare-bottoms only). Skinny-dipping for example is an innocent act that shouldn't be considered pornography.
I will give you an example of that type of scene; The scene in question showed about five naked boys skinny-dipping while in the background three girls spied on them and poked fun at one of the boys' genitals. As the scene progressed the boys became embarrassed as the girls showed up at the pond. As the scene progressed they decided to steal their underwear and led them on a nude stampede across an open-field. Everybody in the theater found it hysterical.
So piutywrec what is your point? Why are you bothered by that scene? Well if you thought that that scene was funny then you really didn't analyze the problems with it in detail.
Before we analyze that scene in detail let's talk about sexual abuse. Now most people have completely narrowed down sexual abuse to physical contact. The fact of the matter is that sexual abuse involves a lot more than just penetration and fondling; it can involve how one talks and acts towards a child. Let's look at the different ways that a child can be sexually abused;
1) Penetrating a child orally, analy or missionary style (obviously)
2) Feeling the child's erogenous zones or having the child fondle the offender.
3)Calling a child lewd and vulgar names especially in such a way that pokes fun at his or sexuality;calling a child a faggot, whore, motherfucker or dike for example is sexual abuse. (You see most people don't know this but it's the professionals who have to deal with these individuals who have been abused this way. They see first hand how this can seriously affect somebody sexually.)
4)Poking fun at a child's sexual development (genital size etc.)
5) Photographing children for sexual purposes. Now take note; photographing your child having his or her first bath or exploring the house nude is not sexual abuse. The key word here is "intent". We are talking about erotica and sexually explicit photographs here.
6) Showing a child pornography or adult erotica
7) Stripping a child to hit or spank bare-bottom. (You see a lot of people don't know this either. A person's bare-bottom is filled to the brim with sensitive erotic nerve endings; it's an erogenous zone which is why it's considered indecent exposure to bare ones naked bottom in public. So when you slap a child's bare-bottom you are not only creating a nasty sting you are also igniting those erotic nerves creating a lot of shame and it is mainly the cause of spanking fetishes in adulthood. Why do you think that there is a thriving spanking-porn industry? In effect spanking somebody bare-bottom is not that much different than slapping a woman across her bare-breast or sticking sharp objects up a child's rectum for punishment.
8) Being sexual in front of a child. This can also include being a prostitute and having your child wait outdoors to collect fees from customers.
9) Exposing yourself to children in a sexual way. This can include being a woman and parading around your twelve year-old in naughty lingerie
10) Voyeurism; this involves not respecting your child's privacy when he or she is naked. A covert example of this can include a mother walking in on her twelve year-old when he's naked in order "to get something". And this can be extremely damaging to a child.
11) Making a child discuss intimate details about his or her sex-life or sexual fantasies.
Now here are the myths about child-molestation;
Myth 1) All offenders are males.
Truth; Most offenders are males; although very rare there are some female offenders (Mary Kay LeTourneau).
Myth 2) Most offenders are strangers to their victims.
Truth; 70% of offenders are well-known to their victims and their families. Sometimes it is the child's parents who are the offenders.
Myth 3) When males are sexually molested it is not as damaging as when it's done to girls.
Truth; It is equally damaging and painful as when it is done to girls. It's just that males in this culture are taught not to show any emotion, "to tough it out."
Myth 4) When a female perpetrates a male it shouldn't be considered abuse since guys like sex. As a matter-of-fact is should be considered an honor as a rite-of-passage.
Truth; It is very painful for a guy or anybody to be sexually-molested by a female. More often than not boys question their sexuality when they find that they didn't enjoy being sexually-abused by a female; the fact that they didn't enjoy the experience has everything to do with the fact that they were in an abusive relationship and nothing to do with their sexuality.
Now sexual abuse doesn't just happen in overt ways, it can be covert as well, which means that the act can be disguised as non-sexual when in fact it is sexual often fooling the victim, but the pain still shows later on. A good example is that of a mother who bathes her fourteen year-old son and spends a half an hour bathing his genitals to the point where he is erect. Another example is that of a parent who gives their children one too many enemas when they know that they don't need it.
Now I mentioned how extremely damaging voyeurism can be on a child. If you don't believe me talk to psychiatrists who deal with sexual-abuse survivors; they know first hand how such an act can ruin a person's life. That being the case let's talk about being strip-searched; being strip-searched can be a sexually-devastating act especially when it is unauthorized. Realize that we are not talking about the same thing as searching somebody's house or car for illegal material, we are talking about something that makes papers and is often the grounds for lawsuits.
Now if you can empathize with people who feel the shame of being strip-searched, imagine this scenario if you will; let's say unlike all strip-search victims who are strip-searched in front of only two people, you are about twelve years-old and are in a room with about forty strangers men, women, freaks, pedophiles and all. Among those forty strangers about five of them are holding cameras pointing directly at you. One of those strangers who happens to be sitting in a director's chair says; "Cameras, lights, action." prior to telling you to drop your underpants in front of all of those people. After parading around naked for a couple of hours on end on that set prior to putting your clothes back on what would happen to your self-esteem? What would happen to your self-esteem some more when an additional millions of more strangers stare at your naked body on screen when the film is released? Realize we are talking about something a lot more sacrificing than a potentially sexually-degrading strip-search which takes place in front of only two guards of the same sex as the strip-searched. Would it make a difference if the scene was shown in a non-sexual context such as a skinny-dipping or shower scene?
Now some of you are saying; "You know piutywrec the child-actors don't have to do those scenes if they don't want to; we are talking about child-actors who consented to do those scenes after signing a countless number of consent forms not to mention the co-signatures of their parents; they are not forced to do those scenes." Well that's what I have a problem with; now I mentioned that merely looking at somebody's naked body can be a sexually devastating thing for that person which is why you literally have to think about what you are doing before you consent to model in the nude or act in the nude because it could come back to haunt you in later years when there is no turning back....
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 willfully consented to do that scene but what message is that giving 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 their 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 "willfully 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 don't care how many adult lawyers or psychologists 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 responsible 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.
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. Now if Joe Blow the Little League swim coach down the street took his ten, eleven, twelve year-old students skinny dipping a the local YMCA with a movie camera everybody here would label him as a pervert. Oh yes the police would have a difficult time getting him from the front door of the swimming pool house to the police car without everyone in town trying to string him up from the nearest telephone pole. So why hold Hollywood and independent filmmakers to a different standard in such a scenario?
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 a non-sexual 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 aforementioned 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 ogled 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 that we are talking about here. There is a difference." As a matter of fact there is no difference. A boy can be equally as demeaned over something like that even if the genders were reversed. But that is not the biggest problem I had with that scene. My biggest problem that I had with that scene is how those underaged non-consenting boys felt being told by a grown woman to get naked like that in front of their female costars while about "forty people were watching, and all of the moms took pictures". Can you imagine what would happen to Steven Spielberg's career let alone his life if he asked a bunch of underaged girls to get naked and skinny-dip while their male co-stars poked fun at their sexual development.
Another scene that comes to mind is a scene involving a bunch of boys sunbathing on a roof in New York in their underwear as a nun comes and tries to chase them off the roof. The boys responded by mooning her. Again if you found that scene innocent then lets take that scene and reverse the genders; imagine a bunch of twelve year-old girls sunbathing and splashing each other in only their underwear prior to mooning a male priest who comes up on the roof to chase them off. I don't think that people in the theater would have found that scene too funny. If anything that scene would have caused the biggest media scandal in the history of the world. Now for those of you defending that scene you are probably saying; "Oh come on piutywrec" we are talking about mooning here." Now if Joe Blow the elementary school teacher asked the twelve year-old boys at recess to moon him while he took pictures for the school newspaper everybody would want him registered as a sex offender, so why are Hollywood filmmakers held to a different standard when they ask kids to bare their bottoms while they shoot footage in a way that the rest of us would go to prison for?
Now there are some instances where I think that child nudity is okay in the mass media; some examples include nude images of babies two years-old and younger; why this exception? Because it is socially acceptable for children that young to be naked in public places. If you are going to arrest filmmakers for including naked pictures of preverbal infants in their films then you might as well arrest every parent in America for allowing their baby roam the beaches nude as well as take naked pictures of them.
Another instance where I think that child nudity is okay involves instances with cultural nudity involving indigenous people in foreign non-industrialized cultures, the type of nudity that one would see in National Geographic shows as well as films such as The Gods Must Be Crazy. Why this exception? because by seeing said minors nude you are seeing them in a way that they wouldn't mind being seen if you were to go to their native country and see them walking down the street on a Sunday morning. Unlike American children and children in the English-speaking world their is no grounds for them to feel humiliated by being seen nude in because of the cultural context of their nudity. You see what I am proposing is protecting the privacy of the child being used in said photography, videography and filmography as opposed to protecting the public from "indecent" images of children. What is and isn't indecent is a matter of perspective. I have seen far more "indecent" things involving child actors that are more disgusting that the nude scenes that I described but I am willing to defend them on account of freedom of speech; so it's not about indecency, it's about protecting the privacy of the child who can't consent to showing his naked body in the mass media.
Another criticism to my thesis is that the difference between that scenario that you described with the fourth grade teacher and what goes on in a movie set involving minors is that the child actor goes through a whole process before performing a nude scene. They sign a form saying that they are going to be nude not to mention the co-signatures of their parents, not to mention the many studio teachers that are on the set to make sure the child is alright with it and isn't negatively affected by the experience. And let's not forget that the child actor is getting paid a salary for his work. As long as the scene is not sexual it's okay. Interesting observation; that's like a grown man paying a twelve year-old boy that he doesn't know to "non-sexually" shower with him (which technically speaking does not have to be a sexual act or experience for said child or adult) under the guise that he is getting paid a salary and that his parents gave their co-permission and studio teachers were there to make sure that the boy was not sexually affected by the technically non-sexual act. It could happen. But that begs the question why would a grown man want to pay a twelve year-old boy to non-sexually shower with him with his parents, studio teachers and psychologists present to make sure nothing inappropriate happens? My point exactly. It's pointless for a grown man to want to pay a child to shower with him even with all of those safety protocols put in place to make sure that nothing happens; and there is no problem to worry about arresting said man, his parents, as well as his studio teachers for enacting such an endeavor not only because it's pointless but because it looks bad and is out of protocol as to how adults and children should interact in an institutionalized setting. Likewise it's pointless to non-sexually ask a child to do things like bend over to pull up his underpants, bend over to pull down his underpants as well as non-sexually get naked and shower, skinny dip, or bathe while you shoot footage even with all of those said safety protocols in place. We are not better off or liberated with such scenes in movies. And there is no shame in legally prohibiting such behavior on a movie set simply because it looks bad and out of policy when it comes to how adults and children should interact in the public arena. Anyway I want for your input on this issue.
