MovieChat Forums > 3 Men and a Baby (1987) Discussion > Why was the infant frontal nudity necess...

Why was the infant frontal nudity necessary?

posted 9 years ago by gra05
17 replies | jump to latest

It seems to me the diaper changing scene went on for too long and they kept showing the baby's privates when it wasn't necessary. When they first take her diaper off you can tell they shoot at angles to avoid showing her privates.
But then the scene goes on and on and they start showing her privates constantly . Why? Why is it always a girl baby in these movies when there is a long perverted diaper changing scene? They don't do this with boy babies and they shouldn't so why are they doing it with girls? Are they extending the "lets show women naked more than men" double standard to infants too? If so then why? And why do movies that have female infant nudity get pg ratings while the few that show quick and brief male nudity get R ratings?

They shouldn't be showing infants nude at all. When the child grows up they have to look back in embarrassment as their selfish parents made this decision for them. If it was a boy baby they did this to I would be just as irritated but I am tired of this disturbing double standard. I am not saying they have to go out of their way to block infant nudity, but it should be brief. The diaper changing scene in this film went on for way too long showing parts of the baby from certain angles that weren't necessary. And it is only female babies that are the center of attention during these long perverted diaper changing scenes.

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago

It was necessary for realism. That scene was set up to show that Michael and Peter clearly have no idea what they're doing. They've never taken care of a baby before, so we watch them struggle to figure out how to change a diaper.

They don't show male babies nude as much as girls because with boys, it's more visible, alright? That goes without saying.

You're thinking WAY TOO DEEPLY into this.

[–] gra05 9 years ago

I don't understand your response. The reason you give for them not showing boys as much proves that you acknowledge that they shouldn't be showing genital nudity, at least on boys since it would be more visible. But you think this scene is okay where they are showing a girls less visible privates as much as possible?

For the record, they have shown nude infant boys in lots of movies more than girls so maybe things are about even. I just don't understand why movies that have these long perverted diaper changing scenes always have girls. If your answer were correct, that it is easier for them to hide female nudity,.......well then why do they show the female baby's genitals more than is necessary. They show boy babies too and probably more often but not where the scene goes on and on like this.

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago

It's not perverted, only sick, sensitive people like YOU find it perverted.
The whole point of the scene was to show how inexperienced Peter and Michael were with baby care, which is why it took them a while to change the diaper.
If it were a scene with somebody who knew what they were doing, it would've been quicker: take off the dirty diaper, lift the legs, wipe the bottom, put on the clean diaper, and voila. But Peter and Michael are both hesitant, but know it has to be done, so they go about it as best as they can guess.

[–] gra05 9 years ago

Calling me a pervert is very strange indeed. I am the one trying to say that children should be protected from this embarrassment. How would you like it if your parents put you nude in a movie when you were too young to know and then later in highschool you get made fun of? I think it makes more sense to call the people perverts who are trying to justify this. There was no purpose for showing her genitals during that scene no matter how real it needed to be. Tom Selleck's hand could have blocked the view or the baby's leg or they could just show it from far away or from certain angles. During the first half of the scene you can tell they were blocking her nudity in the manner I described above but then it is like the director stepped in half way and said "wait! We just HAVE to show the baby's privates". Very sick indeed.

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago

Get a life.

[–] gra05 9 years ago

It appears YOU need to get a life. Why are you following me on IMDB and justifying every instance of underrage female nudity being shown that I complain about? Your first response to me was under the movie "Pretty Baby" which tells me you are a fan of that movie as opposed to you following my trail of comments there. You never fully answer the underlying gist of my questions: is underrage female genital nudity okay to you but not for males? Even in this discussion you imply that male infant nudity isn't okay because it is more visible but then you go on to justify female genital nudity....dodging my accusations. You did the same under "Pretty Baby".

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago

I recommend a Cat scan for you, my friend. And if you're a male, get a vasectomy. If you're female, have a tubal ligation.

[–] gra05 9 years ago

Still making insults without answering my question. Really makes me wonder. It isn't a difficult question to answer.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ExplorerDS6789 9 years ago



[–] gra05 8 years ago

Your response makes sense. Explorer's response made no sense. It sounded to me like he was justifying underrage female nudity while trying to explain why male underrage nudity is worse. Unlike you , he wasn't consistent and kept dodging my questions. You acknowledge that both male and female infant nudity has been shown equally and that it is equally innocent. I will respect that argument because you are being consistent. The other guy wasn't so I don't understand why he is clapping for your response.

[–] ExplorerDS6789 8 years ago

Would you just *beep* OFF, NOW!

[–] gra05 8 years ago

You are the one who enjoys following me around on here and who appears to have too much time on your hands. I am just on here stating my opinion. You don't have to read my posts if you don't want to. The fact that you got excited over the fact that another poster came on here and agreed with your point of view during a discussion about a diaper changing scene of a baby girl is very sad and peculiar to me. I will leave it at that. I don't mind people disagreeing with me like the other poster did, but the manner in which you yourself have been defending underage female nudity within the comments under two different movies now, one which is about a 12 year old prostitute, is quite disturbing to me. But I will stop there and give you the benefit of the doubt, assuming I am misunderstanding your intentions.

[–] taran-rod 8 years ago

Please, get the *beep* out...

[–] daughterofolaf 8 years ago

these long perverted diaper changing scenes.

Your hangup on an infant's genitals being shown and referring to scenes with diapers being changed as "perverted" says far more about you and how your mind works than any infant nudity in this film does about anyone else. You sound like you have some severe issues since changing a diaper is viewed as something sexual to you. F v c k ing creepy.

"Your petty vengeance fetish will have to do withOUT Mr. Groin!"

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] captain-bryce 8 years ago

Why is it always a girl baby in these movies when there is a long perverted diaper changing scene?

You mean as opposed to scenes where an infant boy is completely naked (also in context with the story) like in Man of Steel?
http://i.imgur.com/DuYJN0W.png?1

...or perhaps in the much older Superman...
https://theiapolis.com/d4/hMN/i1ORN/k4/l1P65/w1H9/aaron-smolinski-as-baby-clark-kent-in-superman.jpg

They don't do this with boy babies and they shouldn't so why are they doing it with girls?



http://www.billboard.com/files/media/Nirvana-nevermind-cover-billboard-1240.jpg



Are they extending the "lets show women naked more than men" double standard to infants too?

No. Because these are not "women" or "men", they are INFANTS you idiot! 

And why do movies that have female infant nudity get pg ratings while the few that show quick and brief male nudity get R ratings?

Is this really your issue? Because neither of this wasn't adult nudity, nor was it sexual. It was innocent nudity in the context of a diaper change. Therefore there is no reason for it to be rated R, anymore that there is a reason for Superman to be rated R for showing a nude boy.

They shouldn't be showing infants nude at all. When the child grows up they have to look back in embarrassment as their selfish parents made this decision for them.

Parents embarrassing their children is part of growing up. There is nothing malicious about it and it isn't something likely to cause psychological scarring of the now grown up infant. They don't remember it, and they don't even look like that anymore, so what's the big deal?

If it was a boy baby they did this to I would be just as irritated but I am tired of this disturbing double standard.

There is no double standard; you just have selective viewing! I just showed a scene from a Superman movie where baby Kal-El is nude.

I am not saying they have to go out of their way to block infant nudity, but it should be brief.

Why exactly? What difference does it make. Again, it's an INFANT!

The diaper changing scene in this film went on for way too long showing parts of the baby from certain angles that weren't necessary.

Or perhaps it is YOU going on for way too long about something that should be a non issue.

And it is only female babies that are the center of attention during these long perverted diaper changing scenes.

Something is wrong with you. Stay away from children...please! 

This artist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPvcgejKpw