No sex was involved.
Watch Steve McQueen movie Papillon.
Topless young island native girls with Victor Jory in one scene. PG rated.
Porn?? Not hardly!!
Do scenes with nude teens automatically mean porn?
Guess that means pictures of a family at a nude beach would be porn to some even though no sex would be involved.
Yeah, people are always banging on about this subject. Half the time it's simply because they think the IMDB birthdates are necessarily always ACCURATE and that ACTRESSES have no motivation to ever fudge their age to seem younger than they are.
"Child pornography" requires both a "child" and "pornography". Calling a 16-year-old (like I'd guess Melanie is here)a "child" is questionable when they can legally have sex at that age in most US states and all of Europe, and moreover, they might be completely PHYSICALLY developed and virtually indistinguishable from adult women. 16 year olds are not considered mature enough to legally be in a SEXUALLY GRAPHIC film, but a lot of American men have this stupid idea that they're "pedophiles" if they find a 16-year-old girl who looks 25 attractive. Why wouldn't you?
More importantly as the OP said, nudity is NOT sex. If it were, showing nude babies in diaper commercials would be REALLY sick. Melanie could have done this particular skinny-dipping scene at 8 and it STILL wouldn't have been child pornography because unless you are ALREADY sexually attracted to her, there's no sex here and no pornography. The problem is a lot of people ARE attracted to a 16-year-old Griffith naked (and no doubt clothed), and if that bothers you so much, go in the closet and flagellate yourself, but it has NOTHING to do with the actual movie.
Finally, a lot of the same MEN who will go on about innocuous nudity in a 1975 movie, have no problem masturbating to some online porn that might feature graphic sex with a girl who just turned 18 YESTERDAY. Yeah, that's a lot better. I actually dated a girl this age in 1991 (and saw her naked too!), but before you call the cops, consider I was born in 1974. Of course, the nuts in this country (the US) legally prosecute teenagers for having sex with other teenagers today, so I wouldn't put it past them to prosecute an underage girl on a nude beach for "distributing child pornography". But people like that need to deal with THEIR OWN sexual feelings and grow the *bleep* up.
Let be be finale of seem/ The only emperor is the Emperor of Ice Cream..
She was 17 when she was filming this, and 18 when it was released. I'd hardly say she looked her age, let alone 25...she looked more like 14-16. She aged a lot in two years though, as she did a nude photoshoot at 19 and looked much more filled out and proportioned.
Anyway, back in the day if children (anyone under 18) were to pose nude or show their nude body on screen they would simply need their parents consent. I think that still goes today, but it's only in film or on TV and not as common of a practice due to obvious reasons. However, if a child were to appear nude in a sexually suggestive manner, it could be considered child pornography.
Who cares? She seemed to enjoy what she was doing, and nobody got hurt. The 1970s was a more sexually enlightened time. Today, most people are immature and more uptight than Victorians.
share