nudity in a pg-13 movie?

Don't get excited, it's probably Matthew Fox's ass or something.





The password is Fidelio

Nudity is one thing, actors stooping each other on screen is another and I don't need to see this.
If you are a strict Christian or Muslim then perhaps you are not permitted to see nudism, yet the rest of us have no issue seeing a guy's rear or a woman's boob.
After all we should be adult about things here. We are not in Saudi Arabia and when I'm constantly reminded of us being a free country I cringe, because we have more regulations because of our Puritan views. Other countries don't cry out freedom, yet they will show nudity without even batting the proverbial eyelash.
Maybe we should put clothing on all nude statutes too, for god's sakes.
With the Honey Boo Boo type of mentality which is permitted, makes it possible for a little girl to be dressed like an adult, almost hooker like and that bothers me. I find that's abusive to the child and it is perverted.

PG 13 films have been able to have nudity for quite some time. It just can't be for that long and is restricted to a quick breast shot or some buns. It's just a body man. It's just a body. In a film about a man who tortures and kills people, it's amusing to see someone worrying about nudity.

Procrastination fools you into thinking you succeed merely by not failing.

I remember the old days of boobies and butt shots in PG movies.

Titanic?

Um... there's no nudity. There is a moment where you slightly see part of Fox's pelvis and can tell he's not wearing pants. That said, how about a lesson on what is and isn't allowed in PG-13 movies as far as nudity. This is straight from the MPAA description for PG-13:

A PG-13 rating is a sterner warning by the Rating Board to parents to determine whether their children under age 13 should view the motion picture, as some material might not be suited for them. A PG-13 motion picture may go beyond the PG rating in theme, violence, nudity, sensuality, language, adult activities or other elements, but does not reach the restricted R category. The theme of the motion picture by itself will not result in a rating greater than PG-13, although depictions of activities related to a mature theme may result in a restricted rating for the motion picture. Any drug use will initially require at least a PG-13 rating. More than brief nudity will require at least a PG-13 rating, but such nudity in a PG-13 rated motion picture generally will not be sexually oriented. There may be depictions of violence in a PG-13 movie, but generally not both realistic and extreme or persistent violence. A motion picture’s single use of one of the harsher sexually-derived words, though only as an expletive, initially requires at least a PG-13 rating. More than one such expletive requires an R rating, as must even one of those words used in a sexual context. The Rating Board nevertheless may rate such a motion picture PG-13 if, based on a special vote by a two-thirds majority, the Raters feel that most American parents would believe that a PG-13 rating is appropriate because of the context or manner in which the words are used or because the use of those words in the motion picture is inconspicuous.

No need for nudity, or swearing. It does nothing to further the plot. Only in the minds of the low rent viewers is it necessary.

I swear, I don't understand some people.

I'm a 36 years old male. I've seen plenty of movies of all sorts, but the scene where Picasso drugs the woman and starts cutting off her fingers was pretty hard to watch for me.

I wonder what's more harmful for a child: seeing a naked breast/butt or mutilation?