it is to be expected because of the one couple, but i was just wondering how much because i really want to see it and i will not be comfortable with my aunt and brother if their flaunting their bodies off the whole time....thanks.
shareThe nudity in the film is totally innocent - non threatening - non sexual. It is human bodies naked. If you feel uncomfortable with looking at naked humans then propably best avoid the film. I feel that you will miss out on a lot as the film has a very good heart and is genuinely warm and great fun but it is also 'authentic' and naturists are naked.
shareagree
to be honest it's surprising because not many mainstream films these days do have full frontal nudity, even in the teen films like American Pie, so it seemed especially surprising in this sorta innocuous looking british comedy. Still as the last poster said, it's non-sexual and non-threatening, so what;s wrong with it?
shareyou see everything. i'd have preferred the woman in it to look like lucy pinder too.
shareLucy Pinder? I would prefer Sophie Howard
shareHave you never seen a documentary on naturism? They never look like Lucy or Sophie.
shareWhich is a shame.
shareI love Olivia Colman,She's gorgeous,so She's nude in this?
Look what your brother did to the door!
Yes, she is. If only it'd been Jessica Stevenson.
shareYeah,like her too!
Got hold of this on DVD now,might have to watch it on my own.
Look what your brother did to the door!
i would pay alot to see jessica stevenson naked.
bonk!
fap
fap
fap
Thats exactly what i had been wishing for..
Damn >.<
[deleted]
The double standard as usual. The penis is hanging out, but there will be no revealing of the vagina. You might get a side glimpse of female pubic hair, but that is all.
shareYou'd never be titillated by the nudity in this film, that's for sure...just lots of saggy bits. Definitely not a stroke flick.
shareThe double standard as usual. The penis is hanging out, but there will be no revealing of the vagina. You might get a side glimpse of female pubic hair, but that is all.
I agree. The comparison to having a vagina on screen would be an erect penis. Porn.
Not double standards at all, what an odd thing to say.
Tsk.
No NDfairy, a penis IS equivelant to a vagina. An erection is equivelant to showing a spread-open vagina. The erection is the maximum amount of male nudity that can be shown. It is the penis in a penetratable state (sexual). The only female equivelant would be showing the vagina in a penetrated state, or spread -open like they do in Hustler magazine. Learn to make accurate comparisons.
sharemariannekk25, don't give me your feminist-pig B.S.! Why can't women be shown in natural poses where their legs are apart and their vagina is visible? Women are often in positions where their legs are apart....so why can't that be shown? Do you think women ALWAYS keep their legs together and their nudity hidden? Have you ever been to a nude beach???!! And how dare you say that penises should be on full display while vaginas are kept hidden. Typical feminist sexist double-standard !
No. Real nudists are often in a variety of body positions and that includes positions where female genitalia is visible. It IS a double-standard that films like this will be accurate in portraying full male nudity without restriction, but are careful to avoid showing women in any position where their genitalia is visible too. And showing a vagina is just nudity dumb-ass, and it would NOT result in an X certificate. Only actual sex constitutes pornography, NOT simple nudity. (by the way, fool, they don't even have "X-certificates" any more. )Also, the clitoris is the female equivelant of the head of the penis. Thus, if a penis can be shown, so can the clitoris. You're the one who needs the biology lesson!
"His penis is hanging out because that's what penises do" Ha ha ha F * cking love it lol
"Hasta la vista, baby."
Double standard "as usual"?! For years they would show nude women head-to-toe on all sides, but they would show nothing of the men, perhaps a little side view of butt-cheek. Now there's some male nudity in what's referred to as a "natural" setting and you're going to cry about a double standard? Pfft.
shareok, maybe it would be too much to have her sitting with her legs apart but there could have been a bit of bending over for a cheeky burger shot
shareExactly, dhorstead. The women should be nude in natural poses, such as bending over to pick up a volleyball, and showing their meat too. Fair is fair.
shareQuite a bit, but it's all non-sexual and natural.
share<<it is to be expected because of the one couple, but i was just wondering how much because i really want to see it and i will not be comfortable with my aunt and brother if their flaunting their bodies off the whole time....thanks. >>
Just tell your aunt and brother to keep their clothes on - geez!
"it is to be expected because of the one couple, but i was just wondering how much because i really want to see it and i will not be comfortable with my aunt and brother if their flaunting their bodies off the whole time....thanks."
--------------------------------
The offense one might take to the nudity in this film is nothing compared to the offense one should feel due to the wretched stupidity of the film itself. The nudity is about the only good thing about it, and it ain't that great either, as the principals involved are waify losers. I like girls with meat on their bones. Not fat, but sturdy and meaty. The chicks in this movie are ultra lame.
[deleted]
this thread is crazy. i never cease to be amazed that threads like this can even exist.
only animals on earth that are ashamed and downright scared of our own bodies.
a penis is just a penis. it's not going to stab you.
It's quite a penis! Wow!
Samantha
"Nobody's perfect."
Too bad things weren't fair. I would like to see some full FEMALE genitalia for a change. Why can't we see a pink slit? If a man's penis can be shown, then a woman's full genitalia should be shown too. They could have had a hot girl bending over to pick something up or crawling around on all fours ...
shareNow that's too much. It's one thing for an actor to be naked - I don't see a problem with that, but when you're talking about "full genitalia" it's the equivalent of an erection - only in porn.
And totally unnecessary to the storyline.
Much as I would love to get a look at Robert Webb in full splendor (his lucky wife, right, girls?), the point is that they're nudists, which means they see nothing wrong in pursuing everyday activities in the nuddy and do NOT see nudity as a sexual thing. You're missing the point.
Samantha
"We're here. We're dead. Get used to it."
A movie featuring nudists who are not nude? That would seem to defeat the purpose of the practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ Why does Canada need a queen?
It actually used to be that way, until recently, when it somehow became cool to expose male genitalia moreso than female.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5GZIDnMzZQ Why does Canada need a queen?
Pink slit?! You briefly do see the actress 'full frontal' and her pubic hair is intact, so there really wouldn't be that much to see anyway. Why on earth is everyone so hung up on this? Was it so upsetting to see a penis that we needed to see a vulva as compensation?!
share[deleted]