MovieChat Forums > My Father the Hero (1994) Discussion > Why is the thong scene legal?

Why is the thong scene legal?

posted 11 years ago by Rickee
30 replies | jump to latest

Can someone, hopefully a lawyer, explain to me how the thong scene could be legal?

It sure seems like it should count as child pornography. Heigl was only 14 when this was filmed and the thong completely exposes her butt. And I don't mean "virtually" or "almost." I mean completely. The center strap is completely hidden in her butt crack and the cross strap is way up in the small of her back, so every square inch of her bum is visible including the crack.

This is NOT comparable to a bikini, even a thong bikini. In fact, what she's wearing is not actually a swimsuit at all. It is a thong leotard and it was popular in the late 80s and early 90s, but it was one layer of a two layered workout outfit. Sometimes gym shorts were worn over it. Sometimes leggings were worn underneath. But there was always a second layer. No one went out in public wearing just the thong leotard. And despite what her character says in the movie ("Everybody is wearing them"), there was never any such fashion in swimming suits. There are nude beaches and there are topless beaches, but there's never been a non-nude beach (or ordinary hotel swimming pool as in the movie) where women (of any age) wore what she is wearing.

I know that there had to be a parent or guardian present on the set and that they had to sign waivers; but that is true of all movies with actors under 18, whether there is anything sexy in the movies or not. Moreover, I find it hard to believe that a parent's permission is enough to turn something that would otherwise be child porn into something legal. If my neighbor had a 14 year old child and I filmed her naked butt (and sold the tickets to the film, made a DVD, etc.) would that be legal simply because my neighbor gave me permission?

Every few months I read a story in the newspaper about somebody arrested for molesting children and almost invariably the story says that child porn was found on their computer and that they are also being charged with possession of child porn. So, it seems like anyone who owns the DVD of this movie is committing a crime.

I'm probably missing something here, but I wish someone (someone who's qualified to know, please) would tell me what it is.

[–] shobomil 11 years ago

Lighten up it's only a thong besides she was 16 and they were in France so it's legal

it's ok if you got a hard on

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Rickee 11 years ago

I didn't say I was offended or that the scene should be illegal. I simply asked why about a legal puzzle. So telling me to lighten up makes no sense.

BTW, do your homework, she was born in November of 1978. So she was 14 when the movie was filmed in the summer of 1993, not 16. And it was filmed on Paradise Island in the Bahamas, not France. Also, the laws were it was filmed have nothing to do with my question. If you have child porn photos on your computer in the US, then you are breaking the law. It doesn't matter where the photos were taken or what the laws are there.

[–] raindog517 11 years ago

A thong isn't naked.

[–] maturity 10 years ago

Define pornography. It means having sex on film or video for money, derived from the greek words porné (prostitute) and porneia (prostitution). Pictures of nude children on a nudist beach are perfectly legal (with their parent's permission, I assume) and you can easily find them on nudist websites whether looking for them or not. Unless someone is engaging in sex or touching themselves, how is it porn? You will not be arrested just for having images of nude children on your computer if they are non-sexual. It doesn't matter if their vagina is fully exposed unless that is the focus of the picture and they are playing with themselves maybe. You can put nude pictures of children on the internet and in nudist videos with parent's consent. They are perfectly legal, AFAIK, and exist on many nudist sites hosted in the USA and containing pictures of Americans.

There is some lame review on Amazon claiming that Katherine Heigl was "exploited" because of the 30 second thong scene and scene at the end when she's on the beach and her dress blows up for two fleeting shots of her panties from the side. Many girls and women would love to be "exploited" like that, getting lots of cash and free vacations to the Bahamas. A one-piece thong bathing suit isn't child porn or "exploitation," any more than having kids wear bikinis or go to a nude beach and take pictures of them and put them on the internet at nudist websites. Unless you know laws saying otherwise, why be so shocked it's legal?

[–] clearthinkernow 8 years ago

No one's vagina can be "fully exposed" as a vagina is completely internal to the female body. None of it can be seen without an actual internal exam. Please learn anatomy.

[–] maturity 8 years ago

Learn to use language as it's commonly used and understood. Stop being a troll. The areas around the vagina are commonly called the vagina for convenience in casual conversation. This is not a medical forum for gynecologists. And if a woman spreads her labia, the vagina (birth canal) is visible. It doesn't require a medical exam.

"Relax. You'll live longer."

[–] manage-932-700755 9 years ago

I was in Paradise Island, a the Paradise Island hotel, just 3 years before. I wish had been there for the filming of this great film. I did't see anyhting wrong with the filing of the yong girl in the bathing suit. She had no fat at all. Beautiful. What is your problem?

Force of one, my man. Stick em.

[–] FeelGoodHit-OfTheSummer 11 years ago

It's not illegal for a person under the age of 18 to be naked, so its not illegal film to show a person naked, especially if there is permission from the parents and there is nothing exploitative about it. It happens in a lot of films (American Beauty/Keeping Mum/Macbeth)

It is however illegal for someone under 18 to have sex on film, so that's where child porn comes into it. The intent is completely different.

MASSIVE difference between that and child porn.

http://www.tumblr.com/blog/thelastreview
https://twitter.com/thelastreview

[–] Rickee 11 years ago

Thanks. You actually answered my question, unlike every other reply up to today.

[–] PaladinNJ (20309) 4 years ago

For example, Jessica Biel did a nude photoshoot when she was 16 or 17. Her parents gave their consent and were present the whole time.

[–] mrtron81 11 years ago

Showing part of someone's butt or even completely nude isn't considered pornographic in itself. The US Supreme Court has said that nude doesn't make an image illegal.

What makes an image of a minor illegal under US law is if the image is sexually explicit. The definition of sexually explicit involves the obvious things such as sex acts, but it also involves another part that involves "lewd exhibition of the genitals or pubic area." The courts have made the interpretation of that part of the definition kind of complicated, but what it boils down to is if the emphasis of the image is on the genital or pubic area of the minor it could be illegal.

Because none of the shots of Katherine Heigl in the thong swimsuit were focused on that area of her body it's not illegal.

[–] briand10 11 years ago

Perfect reply, basically what I was going to write.

[–] lazarillo 11 years ago

It was in questionable taste (especially, for a Disney movie!), but it's not illegal for the reasons people mentioned. And this is nothing compared to something like "Pretty Baby" which had 11-year-old Brooke Shields actually nude, but that got a pass because it's an "art" film.

This is a re-make of a much better French film that actually had a 16-year-old actress (Marie Gillain, who easily looked twenty) and that scene did focus on the thong. But the French have never had a problem leering at slightly underage girls in revealing swimwear or even nude. It surprised me though they put this scene in the American Disney re-make, but, hey, if people are really turned on by 14-year-old girls, they're turned on by 14-year old girls. You really shouldn't blame the movies or the girls. . .

[–] Rickee 11 years ago

You are misremembering the French version. She wears an ordinary bikini, not a thong.

[–] maturity 10 years ago

According to IMDB, "alternate versions," the USA theatrical cut was digitally altered so her butt was more covered. The thong shot is on the USA Blu-Ray and probably the DVD (I haven't seen the DVD recently). Trust me, movie studios do employ lawyers who analyze their films to be sure they don't violate laws like copyrights or child porn or defamation. They pay stiffly in lawsuits and fines when they occasionally fail to cover their own ass legally.

[–] dbeaver-994-374656 10 years ago

Marie Gillain does wear a swimsuit pulled up into a thong in the French Version. She is also older and can pass for an older girl again (anything between 16 - 20) . For that reason, the French version is more appropriate and sexy, rather than a bit creepy.
The thong doesn't look right on Katherine Heigl as she wasn't developed enough and it was a bit odd, but at the end of the day it is just a bare bottom; we all have one!

[–] maturity 10 years ago

Touchstone is owned by Disney, but they never claim to make only kid's films so what's the point of equating them with Disney's standards? Touchstone made "The Color of Money" and many other films geared for adults. According to IMDB under "alternate versions," they didn't show the thong in the USA theatrical version. They digitally altered it for fear of American prudes being offended.

[–] Rickee 11 years ago

Thanks mrtron81 for a very informed answer. I'm sure you are correct.

[–] TongueFu 11 years ago

Lighten up, Francis. You're a little too concerned about whether she exposed too much ass or too little ass. It's a moot point: Ass-lovers come in all varieties. Some prefer the full Monte where others are more titillated by only a hint of cheek.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maturity 10 years ago

What makes you an expert on fashion trends everywhere in the world, or even 1993 upper class New York City for that matter? She was a rich girl. Her mother lived (apparently) in a penthouse apartment with its own private elevator in the foyer (or at least a full-size condo with no other residents on the same floor). Maybe her character was lying that "everybody is wearing them." Maybe she just wore it at private pools around friends. In the Bahamas, they're probably less repressed than Americans anyway.

I don't get why showing the full butt crack would make it pornographic or obscene either. Pornography means having sex in pictures / film or lewdly exposing vagina or anus and playing with yourself maybe. There are no laws saying you can't show teenagers or children totally nude in movies even with vagina and butt completely exposed, as long as they're not the main focus. If you show the full body and not spreading their legs or masturbating, AFAIK, it is legal to put in movies and on the internet (with parent and child consent). Child porn's nothing like nude non-sexual pictures and videos of children and families.

The movie The Last Picture Show had a scene at a private pool with lots of teens swimming nude. Some of them were probably under 18. Big deal. JOdie Foster was a prostitute in Taxi Driver and was 13 or 14 when it came out. Maybe 12 or 13 when it was being shot. She spoke and was spoken to in lewd language, IIRC, but there was no nudity or sex. You could argue it's bad to expose kids to such things and maybe you're right, but it's not illegal. Her parents and she read the script & knew what they were doing, just like the kid who played that vicious gangster in RoboCop 2. I would argue that child had a much more negative effect, on kids and adults, than a 14 going on 15 year old girl in a thong.

Americans are pro-violence and anti-sex (and nudity), I think Hugh Hefner said.

[–] Floridaoutlaw 9 years ago

Im sure this movie took alot of heat for that scene but this movie was made 20 years old ago, its in the past, get over it!

[–] ydobon-1 9 years ago

I know I'm a little late to the party, but I wanted to chime in here for anyone else who may read this thread...

Can someone, hopefully a lawyer, explain to me how the thong scene could be legal?

Because nudity and sex are two separate things.

Porn is something that is meant to sexually arouse the audience, usually without any other redeeming qualities. Which is why you can have images and videos of nude minors and not have them be porn. Conversely, courts have ruled (dangerously in my opinion) that drawings and photos of fully clothed children can be considered child pornography depending on what they depict or how they're framed.

Of course the fact that nudity and sex are separate things doesn't prevent some uptight people from trying to use the two interchangeably. Many people get upset at child nudity and many prosecutors have tried to have people thrown in jail for taking photos or videos of their kids in the tub, or for taking a photo of a baby crawling naked on a bed.

Photographer David Hamilton almost exclusively takes photos of nude young girls. His work is still legal despite the fact that he's faced almost constant harassment from the law over it.

There are nude beaches and nudist resorts that cater to families. Teens as well as little kids walk around stark naked with complete strangers and it's completely legal.

As others have pointed out, many other movies have had child nudity and they're all still legal. Brooke Shields was naked in Pretty Baby. Greta Scacchi showers naked with an equally naked Rebecca Smart in The Coca-Cola Kid. Other films have shown preteens being dried off after a bath, etc.

Normally the scenes aren't meant to sexually arouse the audience and it can be argued that the movies have artist merit, so they don't qualify as porn.

This is a THREADED message board. Please reply to the proper post!