I understand its a movie and the actors are of legal age, but why are audiences allowed to see teenagers naked and having sex? Especially since this film is aimed at adult audiences? Teenagers shouldn't be sexualized, and yet no one is uncomfortable with movies like this? There would be a lot of issues with a movie about a 12 year old character being shown nude or having sex, even if the actor was legal..
I know its a generalisation but I think its mainly the US that has such a problem with nudity. The actors are above legal age and sure might be portraying younger kids but they're acting. Just like people don't really kill each other in movies. Seems a right old double standard as the guy up thread correctly (IMO) hints at!
Yeah, don't worry. There are enough laws and lawsuits out there now that most studios don't want to risk people freaking out by seeing an adult naked if they are playing a character who is "only" 16 or 17.
But, god-dammit we can for sure see them and younger ones get their head's chopped off or split open any time we want!!!!
Church people talk about sex and violence as if they are the same thing yet I see plenty of violence in premium channels during the day but not much nudity, as if church people consider sex and nudity to be worse than violence.
Now, I'm not advocating more nudity/sexuality in regular media. I'm just saying that it is crazy how they'll blur the breast of a woman nursing her child in a show that is on at 9pm on a Wednesday night, but they'll show a movie where guys are getting their heads chopped off at 10am on a Saturday morning.
I wish I could remember what movie it was but there was a movie where a character had sex with her boyfriend; no nudity. Later in the same movie the same character (same actress) was raped and they showed nudity.
The movie, and even more so the book on which it was based, wasn't necessarily endorsing underage teenage sex. It was showing how eager the kids of that era were to lose their virginity at an early age--in Stacey's case, she was anxious to do so on the advice of her sleazy friend, who warned her against being the only virgin in the entire high school. Stacey's parents are briefly shown checking on her in her bed at night, believing that she's an innocent little child; as soon as they leave, she jumps out from under the covers, fully dressed, and sneaks out of the house to meet the 20-something guy she hardly knows just so she can give it up because she's a freshman and the clock is ticking. This was how a lot of teenagers behaved in those years, while their parents were either unaware of what was going on or else looked the other way, not wanting to know. It also depicted Stacey getting pregnant by a punk who then turns on her and refuses to support her during an abortion, so sex wasn't glamorized. Again, her parents remain unaware, while her brother, more knowledgeable about randy teenagers, is the one to help her out. It was only in the years following this film's release, in the wake of the AIDS epidemic, that recreational sex in movies began to be toned down.
Sure, AIDS is a problem but a much larger influence is that sex and nudity has become big business. They show less nudity now because they want to make more money. Some actresses want to show more but they are not allowed to. I don't have any evidence of that, sorry, so if you want to say I am wrong then there is nothing more I can say.
I was born in '78, & even I as a kid during the times felt bad for girls having to strip in a movie. I know they were movies, consensual, & all that, but it still felt voyeuristic.
At the same time, there's a LOT more sexuality in today's culture sans nudity. Sure, breasts aren't being bared in every other teen flick... but there's sure a ton more being implied & joked about.
Apples & Oranges, yet there hasn't seemed to be anywhere near the amount of cinematic nudity from any age let alone teens in the entire industry since the 80's. Linda Hamilton's topless in The Terminator... that wouldn't happen in 2015.
It is kind of interesting. They didn't show much nudity in PG/PG-13 movies back then, but did all the time in R movies. But, teens couldn't go see R movies and adults wouldn't usually go see R comedies.
So, to make more money, studios are making more PG/PG-13 movies so teens can spend their money to see them. That means less movies like Fast Times that are 'teen age' R rated movies.
But, that doesn't mean less nudity because of the internet and cable/satellite TV. It just means less nudity in a "teen" setting, which of course makes the OP a happy prude.
You say "girls having to strip". They should not if they are uncomfortable but as far as I know they were willing to. I sure hope that none of them were forced to. These days, there are very many young women having sex just to get less money than most actresses do for just getting naked.
I hate to break this to you, but most adults HAVE seen teenagers naked--actual teenagers--because we WERE teenagers once and we weren't all virgins until we were 21.
It's OK that they don't show actual teenagers naked today, but there's nothing wrong with showing a pretty 20-something actress naked when she's only PLAYING a teenager, especially when EVERYBODY KNOWS the majority of teenagers are sexually active. It's idiotic to say teenagers shouldn't be "sexualized" when a lot of them were having sex in the 80's and no doubt are right now. And it's not like movies and TV shows today pretend that teenagers don't have sex--they mostly just seem to pretend they don't have nipples, pubic hair, and butt cracks.
And nudity is not sex. They show babies naked. That's not controversial. Why? Because pretty much no one is attracted to babies. On the other hand, take an actress like Chloe Moretz who only recently became "legal". Do you really want to bet no guy looked at her "voyeuristically" before she turned 18 or never fantasized about having sex with her just because they never saw her NAKED in a movie? Whether you want to *bleep* somebody or not has very, very little to do with whether you've seen them naked.
Also, the "legal" thing is to protect ACTRESSES from being in sexually explicit movies. It doesn't necessarily apply to simple nudity. It doesn't mean that no one under 18 is ever going to have sex. And it doesn't mean no guy ever fantasizes about girls under 18 OR--and I can't stress this enough--the girls he had sex with when both he and they WERE under 18. You're turning something completely practical--a law to keep young actresses from being exploited--into something completely idiotic and out-of-touch with the entire reality of human sexual development.
First, as you admit, all of the actors having sex are 18 or over. No under-age teen was actually harmed in the making of this film.
Second, movie standards were looser back in the 1980's. As someone else pointed out, this was before AIDS.
Third, this movie originally got an X rating, and had to be cut it in order to get the eventually R. Basically, it's an R movie right on the edge of being X.
Fourth, the movie has an abortion sub-plot that shows the negative effects of teenage sex. I think that scored some points with the movie raters. Also, the main character ultimately decides she doesn't want sex. She wants a relationship. Sex is much more tolerated in movies if the movie ultimately shows the error in their ways.
Fifth, most surveys shows that the average age for loss of virginity is 16 or 17. Many would argue that teen sex in movies isn't being exploitative. It's just being honest.
It is not on the edge of X. The only difference between this and many other R-rated movies made now is that in this movie they dwell on Jennifer Jason Leigh's naked body longer.
I don't particularly care that we saw "teens" naked and having sex--I see that all the time in horror movies but I will say that this movie has always given me the absolute creeps due to the depiction of a 15-yr-old girl getting pounded by a guy who is 26 or whatever he is and it is shown as normal and a non-issue. That has always bothered me.
Jennifer Jason Leigh is creepy, too--I don't think I have ever seen her in anything where I didn't get a horrible feeling from her except maybe The Hitcher. She just comes off as a totally awkward freak and this movie is no exception.
"Jennifer Jason Leigh is creepy, too--I don't think I have ever seen her in anything where I didn't get a horrible feeling from her except maybe The Hitcher."
Glad to know it's not just me. Jennifer Jason Leigh always makes me ill at ease. I think it's her eyes-she looks concussed or under the influence of something.
Send lawyers,guns and money/The *beep* has hit the fan
Uh yeah, because you likely grew up after the prudish family values culture that started in the mid 80s and skyrocketed after that fueled by overprotective parents. Theyre just boobs they aint gonna kill you and people back then were a little bit more grounded about human bodies. We all have one, we all know what they look like, no reason to hide em. And what the heck do you mean teenagers shouldnt be sexualized? Sexual energy and dynamics is the whole point of being young. You dont breed when youre 35, which is apparently the new norm in messed up current America. You breed and have sexual energy when youre young and vibrant and can produce healthy kids. Thats the physical norm of humanity. Teenage years ARE and should be a time of sexual exploration.
Teenage years ARE and should be a time of sexual exploration.
It is a double-edged sword. Yes, you are young and should have fun. But what good does that fun do when you are 15 and pregnant? What good does it do to get an STD from the local slut and carry it with you all of your life.
Also,
You dont breed when youre 35
. I think you meant, "You don't start breeding until you're 35", right?
I'm not saying people should lead a chaste life until marriage, but at the same time, how much fun is life when you've got to mix 3 or 4 different families because you have 2 children from two different women who you never married, plus your kids with your wife, and her kids from her first marriage....
Also, my dad died young so I thought I wanted kids when I was in my 20's so I'd have more time if I died young as well. Had I had kids in my 20's I'd have been a horrible dad. I'm glad it didn't happen until I was in my 30's. I may not be as agile as I was before, but I'm not torn about having to give up a softball league or playing golf as much as I would have back in my 20's. Plus, my wife and I got to do lots of things without the kids hanging on to us - therefore we don't feel like we missed anything.
But, again, it is all about balance. Have fun, but be responsible. Be responsible, but remember to have some fun.
reply share
It's not merely about "having fun." It's about having life experiences. That's how people grow and develop. It's perfectly normal and healthy for teenagers to have sex. At least, it used to be. If the studies I've heard of are true, today's teenagers are more into watching porn and texting than actually having sex with each other.
I was sitting just sitting here at home with the tv mindlessly on (I never actually watched Fast Times before) , and I look up and there are teen tits on the screen. My first thought was wow, what channel do I have on. Then before I know it it goes to a depiction of teen sex and a full length side nude shot of Stace/JJL. Yowza! I figured it must be a fluke or some sort of uncut version, so I came here to check, but apparently not.
I have no problem with nudity (no , I did not look away, lol )if it applies to the story. But stumbling across a scene portraying nude teenagers and teen sexuality on regular tv/cable @ 9pm I find a little unsettling.
Thats a valid point but thats not a criticism of the movie, thats a criticism of broadcast regulations. Youre likely talking about the airing on IFC. And yes, thank god, its uncensored. American TV, 50 years after Europe, finally cleared the way for uncensored stuff to air on broadcast cable TV. IFC is one of the cable pioneers on this, and I dont think we shouod be critical at all of us finally showing art in its original form. Use your channel blocker if you dont want to see uncensored movies.
I don't think anyone would disagree that with sexualized nudity there is a difference between showing a character who is supposed to be 17 naked and showing a character who is supposed to be 12 naked.
The girls shown in this movie were supposed to be 17 or so, and didn't look like they were 12.
It shouldn't be such a big deal. They aren't trying to make the girls look really young as a way to get around child porn laws.