The parents guide is wrong! Graphic Nudity - Where?

when ava is taking body parts she is literally butt naked

The parents guide is always over sensitive. Sometimes it says things like "a man is seen topless, briefly, from behind."

As if a kid would be distressed by that.

_________________________
http://youtu.be/GAIJ3Rh5Qxs

Ah yes, Ava's mons pubis. Her pubic mound. Or did you mean to say her pudendum? The terminology is always tricky. Is it her pudenda, or her pudendum? Is it female genitalia, or female genitals? Both are plural!

At any rate, in the scene which you are referring, it's true that Ava's is covered in pubic hair. However, was it really "thick" in your estimation? Personally, I would describe it as "moderate". She was neat, clean, tidy, kempt, fresh, and well-trimmed. In this regard, I found absolutely nothing offensive in its display and would have to disagree with any parental guide claiming otherwise.

Furthermore, I thought the exhibition of Ava's bare buttocks was also respectfully done. Clearly there were many ways it could have gone wrong. For instance, the shot could have been filmed from squarely behind. In that case, it could have been possible that her dangling labia could have been seen from between the gap. As it were, the director wisely shot it from a slight angle, thereby ensuring only her round cheeks and the modest crack in between them were visible. Just as importantly, note that the cheeks of her buttocks were closed. A less experienced director might have missed this detail and not taken the care to ask the actress that they not be relaxed and open. Had that been the case, then perhaps a parental ratings guide might have had a legitimate grievance. However, given the way the scene was shot, they do not. As you can see, the director was navigating a minefield and succeeded with flying colors.

Finally, while Ava was admiring her naked breasts in front of the mirror, what was offensive about the way she was doing it? Yes, she was standing there fully nude without a shred of clothing. But was she, for instance, jiggling her breasts? Was she handling her breasts? No, she wasn't. She was simply admiring them and the rest of her naked body from a purely visual standpoint, and the viewers asked to join in.

So I must agree with you, CookieMonsterV, that the warnings by any parental ratings guide about the inappropriateness of any scenes in this movie are without merit. Graphic nudity? Hardly! If anything, I would say this was family friendly nudity, perhaps even wholesome nudity!

It's a bit weird to talk about 'nudity', when we're talking about a ROBOT, a MACHINE, that isn't even there!

Also, I hate (and wonder) how the word 'graphic' can mean 'graphics', as in 'graphic artist', but also something 'gross'. How the heck do these words come about, when the same word can refer to two completely different concepts?

In any case, nudity vs. 'graphic nudity' is probably a legalese thing, but still kind of weird. I bet the most stuck-up cencors couldn't differentiate those two otherwise, or point out to a picture of nudity that's not graphic, and one that is, and explain why that is.

I would just assume 'graphic nudity' would mean either a male erection higher than 45 degrees (why is this world full of such prudishness when all the 'gay pride' crap is at the same time shoved upon everyone's faces?), or *gasp* visual of female genitalia, that has been easy to access in about 5 seconds by almost anyone with an internet connection.. It's hard to imagine there being people in the world that haven't seen at least pictures (and also videos) of female genitalia in various forms already.

I mean, who are these censors protecting anyway?

Is it really that grotesque to be able to see the very tunnel entrance YOU YOURSELF just came out of?

Is seeing a biological stick standing up going to be completely and utterly traumatizing, because it might have some shape and color? I mean, I don' treally get how this is supposed to work, where you can see people murdered with blood spilling everywhere and no one bats an eye, but if one public hair finds its way near a camera lens, the world flips its breakfast table!

Also, how is a visual of a body part going to traumatize anyone of ANY age, but the James Bond scene that doesn't even SHOW ANYTHING with the dogs chasing the woman (was it Goldfinger?) is perfectly non-traumatizing? (Heck, I almost got traumatized by that and my physical eyes are old and that scene doesn't even show anything!)

Hypocrisy..