Suprised The Censors allowed the Bare Ass kids Scene

It is the way you ask the question that I don't really understand. You sound upset that they aren't showing young girls more than young boys naked since "that is the case for adult nudity". Will men ever be satisfied? It isn't enough that women through the years have almost always been shown fully frontally nude much more than men, I would say by a percentage of 85 to 15% if not more. Yet in the cases where males get shown more or a certain part of a male gets shown more, I see complaint after complaint from men on the internet. I don't get it. The sexes are different and double standards in certain cases are always going to exist for certain reasons. Both men and women have to learn to deal with the short end of the stick.

But overall when it comes to showing actual offensive nudity I would the sexes are pretty equal. Let me explain.

Adult women get shown more because there is more of an appeal to see it, plus it is easier to hide a woman's genitals with pubic hair. So when it comes to actual genitals, men and women get exposed equally. But pubic hair on women is seen more than on men for the reasons I go into above.

But in other ways men get exposed more. A woman's body is more appealing but is also considered more sexual than a man's , whereas male nudity is usually shown in a matter of fact way or for humor. This is why we see men's chests and perhaps even butts more than women's. So even though women are shown in sexual manners more, men might actually get exposed more. Again, the only thing we really see more of on women is pubic hair.

This might also be why underage males get shown more than females. For decades now it has been more typical for boys to be doing activities like skinny dipping instead of girls. How many purposes could a director come up with to show girls naked that isn't considered deviant? Probably hardly any. It is also easier to show boys more naked since they can go shirtless outside. But still as someone said above, child nudity overall is rare, and surely they don't show boys below the waste unless it is briefly from the back right?

I am a prude and I don't care for nudity in movies, especially from children since they don't get to make the decision. Their parents do it for them which is sick. I am equally disturbed by all the nude infants in movies too for this reason. If you want to see another strange double standard, look at infant nudity. They might show boy babies in more movies overall, mainly because males have more important roles and so there are more instances where a newborn baby's gender needs to be shown, usually male. But on the other hand, it seems nude infant girls get shown on screen for longer. I can think of three movies where a girl baby is getting her diaper changed, (2 out of the 3 times by a man), and a huge perverted spectacle gets made out of it, showing the baby's genitals multiple times when it isn't necessary. And in addition to these three movies, there was also a sitcom that did this (Full House) although in that case the baby's rear was only shown but for way too long. I have never been able to imagine scenes like this with boy babies. Maybe it is done because men having to take care of a baby on their own, especially if it is a girl, is funnier. I still don't understand why those scenes are necessary.

So it seems whether we are talking about adults, children, or infants, males might be shown more overall, but it is in matter of fact manners and the scenes aren't specialized and prolonged like they are for females.