Explain why isn't her topless at 16 considered Child Porn…But?
-
-
lewiskendell — 15 years ago(July 19, 2010 12:47 PM)
Books or pamphlets, I'd still be happy to peruse them.
Movies I've seen in 2010:
http://www.flixster.com/movie-list/2010-movies-6 -
Nikon11 — 12 years ago(August 26, 2013 11:48 AM)
kids younger than her are nude an doing simulated sex scenes in foreign films
And you think that's ok?
We all make stupid decisions, and I'm sure that there're some actresses who showed it all at 24, who now wish that they hadn't. A lot of 16 yr olds make poor decisions - so as far as I'm concerned, it's preying upon their innocence, naivete, and willingness to do something now, and not worry about the future or consequences.
Sure, her parents gave her the thumbs up, but they're former porn stars - what would they say no to?
Believe me, I love seeing nude women, and have no hang-ups about porn. I just think that there needs to be a line drawn somewhere, and I don't have a problem with 18 being the limit. -
Son_Of_A_Bitch_Must_Pay — 12 years ago(August 26, 2013 12:56 PM)
No I was just saying that kids her age then or younger have done more in foreign films than just flashing like she did in American Beauty
Gamesystems never become obsolete if they are still fun to play -
RacingThoughts — 15 years ago(July 28, 2010 11:44 PM)
There is a difference between nudity and pornography. The difference is the intent. Nudity with no artistic or scientific merit is pornography for the purposes of the law. It would be hard to argue that a movie like
American Beauty
lacks artistic merit, because it has a lot, and that particular scene wasn't gratuitous or irrelevant to the rest of the movie. It was integral to the development of Thora's character. So there's more than enough grounds to argue that the shot was artistic rather than pornographic.
On the other hand, girls sending topless photos of themselves over the Internet is done without even the pretense of artistic expression. It's nudity meant only to arouse lascivious desires without any redeeming value. The
real
irony is that laws written to
protect
children are now being used to prosecute them. In my opinion that's even worse than a double standard (which the law contains plenty of as well). Charging them with a crime is protecting them from exploitation? You can always count on America's district attorneys to raise the bar on pure absurdity! Franz Kafka, eat your heart out.
LIFE: It's just a movie. -
Franco_Zed — 15 years ago(September 09, 2010 12:54 AM)
What if some 16 teen year olds start sending each other nude photos that definitely do have artistic merit, or are definitely debatable. That could be problematic.
Missing You
, A Short Play by F. Zed
Ann: I miss you every day.
Ed: Yeah, your aim sucks. -
cheluzal — 13 years ago(November 21, 2012 08:12 AM)
Oh, yeah, I'm sure no lascivious desires were aroused when guys watched a 16 y/o girl'd boobs. A cursory look at this board proves otherwise.
You can claim it's a movie and artistic but the majority of people just act ;like neanderthals and just see naked girl.
Semantics won't change that.
Real LOSERS spell 'loser' looser!