How could it be pornography when there is absolutely NO explicit sex?
----------------------
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/
I'm sure the OP would consider Michelangelo's David as also being pornography. I'm curios, if a film contains footage of the statue viewed from the front, would it get an R rating in USA?
shareNobody said it was "art" and it's OBVIOUSLY not pornography. It's a dramatic movie.
Suppose Melanie Griffith (I assume that's the issue here) was a lot younger, say, two, and some guy like the OP saw her naked and got hot and bothered about it. Is that the movies' fault? Of course, it's much more normal to be attracted to a naked 16 year old, but then you're probably attracted to a CLOTHED 16 year old too. Do we have to dress teenage girls in burkas, so you don't get aroused?
The point is there is something wrong with people who see "pornography" everywhere. Even in 1975 there were plenty of XXX pornographic movies, so if that's what they were after, they didn't need to disguise it as "art". Even if you think it's about the "underage" thing, most people couldn't tell a girl Melanie's age from a "legal" 18 year old, and there was no IMDB to give birthdates (and you're assuming THOSE are accurate because actresses never have any reason to claim to be younger than they are). I doubt anyone noticed or CARED if she was a year or two shy of legal because they simply weren't obsessed with insane bullsh!t like this then like they are now.
Anyone who thinks the depiction of naked children is pornography needs to have their head examined, because they obviously get sexually aroused by looking at it.
My vote history: http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9354248
Topless women were common in films of the late 1960s and 1970s. Some time between then and now, U.S. society became more prudish than the Victorians. There was no pornography in this movie. You saw some nipples, of which two belonged to a teenage girl, but rest assured you are not going to hell.
share