MovieChat Forums > Child Bride (1938) Discussion > What's so horrible about a naked body?

What's so horrible about a naked body?

posted 17 years ago by electrictroy
36 replies | jump to latest

I don't get it.
It's just a body.
What's so "immoral" about seeing a body without clothes???

reply

[–] voyeur26m 16 years ago

Ridiculous, isn't it?

Somehow, nudity now equals sex and sex is wrong.

Conversely, guns, bombs and death are glorified on TV. The most popular shows on TV these days are crime shows about murder which open with a gory, detailed closeup of some dead person. You can show an execution in prime time, but bare breasts must be done later, presumable to protect the children who are now all in bed.

I think it's a result of ignorant prudish masses who are pandered to by politicians, who enable them to live in their perpetual state of fantasy... One where nudity is wrong and violently fighting for their beliefs is right.

Screwy, eh?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

And would he look better or more desirable if he was fully dressed?

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] przgzr 16 years ago

I don't look much better, and believe me, clothes can't help it.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Black_Dahlia 16 years ago

-Eat more slowly.

-Drink lots of water.

-Breathe faster.

-Move from point A to point B as quickly as is safely possible. This includes not only travel by foot or bicycle but completing manual tasks other than eating.

reply

[–] zharth 15 years ago

Seriously. It just baffles me that people make this sort of thing out to be such a scandal. To quote one of the reviews:

"it is unbelievable...Shirley having no qualms or shyness about doing these scenes - she appears totally natural and actually enjoying herself splashing in the water!"

Heaven forbid! That she should be totally natural and even enjoying herself while splashing about in the water! :O

What was truly scandalous was the insidious way that, while trying to help the community, the schoolteacher was also passing on her uptight "city" views about nudity and its "evils". :/

reply

[–] cal_dad_e 15 years ago

The problem with this movie is the implied pedophilia, plain and simple. I'll give you the "nudity is okay" arguement to a point, but what was going on with the men in this film was something much deeper and darker. And the producer/ director must have had some of their own issues; why else would that skinny- dipping seen have been so long? Either that, or they wanted to make it so long that it would make people really uncomfortable. Seriously, the girl was 12 when this was filmed!?
Having said that, it's not nearly as controversial as I had anticipated, based on reviews, etc. The acting, for the most part, is not very good, but I think that adds to the "real feel" of the film. That doesn't necessarily make it good, though. I'm sorry, but the only thing that stands out with this film is the fact that it was made in 1938... oh, and the child nudity.

I DO UNDERSTAND WHY MST3K WOULDN'T TOUCH THIS ONE; THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER.

"Good Mid-nite to ya!"

reply

[–] Ddey65 9 years ago

The problem with this movie is the implied pedophilia, plain and simple. I'll give you the "nudity is okay" arguement to a point, but what was going on with the men in this film was something much deeper and darker.

That alone should be the clearest answer available. A simpler way to figure this out, is that if you're my age and turned on by a naked Jennie, there's something wrong with you. But if you're my age and you're turned on by women who are older and clearly more developed, you're perfectly normal.

reply

[–] DingleDootie 15 years ago

It's horrible because it is the body of an underaged girl.

Let me emphasize that.

It is the body of an UNDERAGED GIRL.

If you are not disturbed by this fact, I am deeply concerned.

reply

[–] zharth 15 years ago

Hm, I must have missed the memo, because I don't see what's so horrible about "the body of an underaged girl". There are enough horrors out there (like child marriage, perhaps?) to get worked up over something silly like underage nudity. I just hope you're not telling underaged girls in person what you think about their bodies, as that sounds like a quick trip to a lifetime of body shame. But since this is the internet, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

reply

[–] DingleDootie 15 years ago

Fair enough.

reply

[–] zetatheta972 15 years ago

It doesn't matter that she's underage, nudity and sex are not the same thing. A body is just a body no matter how old it may be. There's nothing magical that happens at 18 that makes it then ok to admit that there is a human being underneath the clothing.

If it was kiddy porn, well that's a whole different story, but there's nothing sexual about nudity unless you see it there. That's the whole reason it's not illegal.

reply

[–] electrictroy 14 years ago

>>>It is the body of an UNDERAGED GIRL.

Which is, itself, a reflection of our Creator's image. Man was made in God's image, so if the human body offends you, that means the sight of God's "body" would offend you.

-----
Because God created it, the human body
can be uncovered and preserve His splendor. -Pope John Paul

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] neglndr 14 years ago

This is not full frontal nudity it only shows her backside and even then she is under water. When she is out of the water her body is hidden behind some brush so she was not showing anything.

reply

[–] detune 12 years ago

I would go as far as to say it isn't nudity at all. Nothing is ever visible due to very long shots and/or obscuring by water. The fact that there was a "scandal" at all is laughable. More than likely, the rumors alone had the intended effect.

reply

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

I didn't really expect to get through this without God being brought into the mix. Sigh.

reply

[–] chamohlamb 9 years ago

I'm not disturbed when I see a naked child in a movie because I'm not sexually attracted to children. A naked little girl does not arouse me and it doesn't offend me either. If they are being exploited however, that's another issue.

reply

[–] zetatheta972 15 years ago

Because our bodies are dirty, sinful, shameful things!!!

...not really.

Because this is puritan America?

reply

[–] DearJohnny 14 years ago

There is nothing wrong with a naked body.

There is a great deal wrong with this movie.

CHILD BRIDE was an 'exploitation film.' That is, a cheaply made film made specifically to appeal to voyeurs in the days before actual pornography was legal. They were made independently by a handful of people and shown in run-down theaters, lodge houses, generally whereever the producer could rent a space. The moralizing plotline was a dodge to try to help it squeak past local censors.

In other words, this is not a 'normal' movie which happens to include a scene with a twelve year old girl skinny-dipping. This is a movie made to play for voyeurs who want to watch twelve year old girls skinny-dipping.

reply

[–] chongajuly 14 years ago

Was there an outcry when 12-year-old Brooke Shields played a child bride who appears totally nude in 1978's "Pretty Baby"? Both actresses need not be embarrassed by their work,at the beginning of long,fruitful careers.

reply

[–] DearJohnny 14 years ago

Actually, yes, there was an outcry about Brooke Shields in 'Pretty Baby,' particularly the mass marketing of her at the time as an underage sex symbol where she posed seductively, appeared in provocative commercials, etc. It actually helped publicize the problem of kiddieporn, which was largely ignored until then.

reply

[–] Ddey65 9 years ago

Actually, yes, there was an outcry about Brooke Shields in 'Pretty Baby,' particularly the mass marketing of her at the time as an underage sex symbol where she posed seductively, appeared in provocative commercials, etc.

I remember that, and I'm only a few months younger than Brooke Shields... and I thought she was ugly at the time. I was more into girls like Kim Richards, Kristy McNichol, or Dana Hill.

reply

[–] Samuraibro 10 years ago

You are the only one with sense around here. The rest don't seem to understand the difference between nudity in a regular film, and nudity in an EXPLOITATION FILM. All they do is preach about "puritans" and "OMG NUDITY ISN'T A BAD THING UR JUST A PRUDE!!!1"

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DearJohnny 14 years ago

To appeal to pedophilic voyeurs? Yep, it would be. That's why legitimate directors are extremely careful handling material like this. They don't want to pander to the people they've supposedly condemning. Unlike CHILD BRIDE, where that was the whole point.

reply

[–] MrBelette 14 years ago

It was based on a true story that happened in 1937 anyway. And Shirley Mills had a stand in for the swimming scene. You can read it all in issue 124 of "Filmfax"

reply

[–] DearJohnny 14 years ago

Yes, it was based (sort of) on a true incident; a man married a nine-year-old girl and there was legally no means of preventing it. It caused a great commotion and quite a few states made a point of establishing legal ages to marry.

And Shirley Mills had a stand-in for PART of the swimming scene. She couldn't swim that well, so they needed someone to do the more elaborate dives and such. Both were nude, and underage.

I did read the FILMFAX article, thank you.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] zachtheman 13 years ago

anyone ever see walkabout that movie has under age nude scenes and animal slaughter and is rated a PG get over it

why the hell do people think movies should abide by the moral campus of the bible or even real life because in a movie you can do whatever the hell you like as long as its simulated via humane means

same goes for animal slaughter it happens on a day to day basis most of the human race eat or have eaten meat but its all taboo to show were it comes from on film people should get over it and worry about more important things

you will have to forgive the lack of full stops lack of proper spelling im dyslexic but not stupid

reply

[–] SnoozeAlarm 12 years ago

I don't think that those opposed to nudity in films like this believe that a naked body is horrible, so by the very way that you have phrased your question, you have already closed the door to open and honest debate.

http://tinyurl.com/cjsy86c

reply