CMNF / embarrassed and/or exposed girl scenes in films

[ChuckFin84]

The movie Hound Dog with Dakota Fanning is one that might be a lot less scandalous in some ways. To me however; and I believe as an American film, it pushes the boundaries of what is considered acceptable. Throughout the film she apears in to small revealing clothes and has many intentional panty slips. She wears one dress that belongs to a much smaller girl and her panties can clearly be seen when filmed from behind. She is filmed taking that dress off and therefore is shown in only panties and a tank top. There is a bath scene at 12:43 that apears to be fully naked although i dont think anything is really shown. She must feel quite exposed in front of everyone like that.

A theme throughout is her relationship with a boy her age. Both were 11 when the film was made. In the first 3 minutes of the film she convinces him to take off his shorts to show her his willy in exchange for a kiss. He pulls down his shorts and is seen in his underwear. She says "no stupid, you have to take it all off." He pulls down his briefs off camera. At 10:48 there is a swimming scene with her and him where she is in panties and a tank top. Close ups of her wet panties are included. They leave the lake and find an abandoned car and begin playing in it, she is still in panties and a tank. 27:11 begins another similar swimming scene, less revealing, but very interesting. When they leave the lake she puts on an adult sized dress that is vey open at the front. They go to a small general store full of boys and men and she shops at the store with her panties on display.
Throughout the film she steals things and pulls up her dress to put items in her underwear.
Lastly is a scene that starts very interesting and becomes very difficult to watch. A recurring theme is her desire to see Elvis live. A man tells the boy that he will give her tickets. When she shows up to collect the tickets, the boy and the man with the tickets are there. The boy tells her she has to sing hound dog by Elvis to get the tickets. She begins to sing, the boy then whispers in her ear. She cries out "what, why!" She then starts unbuttoning her dress and removes it. We again see her in panties and a tank. She begins singing again. The boy then says "no stupid, you have to take it all off." She protests, but removes all her clothes and starts singing. Obviously we can't see anything, but she acts the part of embarrassed yet determined very well. If the scene ended there I would be ok, but the man proceeds to have his way with her. It is very disturbing as she is crying out and her face is very expressive throughout the scene. The boy is shown quite distraught that he put her in this situation. The scene starts at 52:30.
I find it unusual to have such a charged movie version focused on the sexuality of young children. I also wonder how Dakota felt knowing she was in her panties in front of the boy and so many men, as well as knowing that anyone could watch the movie and see her. She would no longer be able to see any boy or man and be sure he hadn't seen her in underwear. She knew that many of the boys she came across had seen her and that she didn't have many secrets from them anymore.

https://ok.ru/video/1599089805951

Content Warning: I'm going to talk in detail about terrible things that happen to children in the aforementioned film Hounddog and a film called Doctor Sleep. I'm doing so to make a point, but the events I describe (one has already been mentioned in the post I'm replying to) are very upsetting and could ruin a decent person's entire day just by reading about them, so... exercise caution.

Very deeply disturbing film, and while it was extremely controversial it showcases the unspeakable stupidity of how my culture sees nudity and violence.

You are right that the film shows the girl in her underwear quite often, but is very careful not to show Dakota Fanning's naked body. If it had, the film would not have been made. However, it is perfectly fine depicting the girl being raped, showing her horrified face close up as she begs him to stop, and even her inhaling and eyes widening which is I'm pretty sure the moment the rapist actually thrusts into her. One of the worst things I have ever seen in my life, and it doesn't help that she is such an incredible actress.

If the girl had been filmed swimming naked, it would have generated more controversy. In fact, there is no way the film would have passed the censors. The girl is raped, but at least you don't see her genitals... not even her completely flat chest. Give me a f**king break, and to be clear I am NOT saying one is necessarily ok and the other isn't. I've posted before that I think specifically the parents who consent to their children being filmed naked are at worst knowingly selling out their child who depends on them, or at best are very, very, extremely, unspeakably naive. You might think I'm a hypocrite because I simultaneously have contended that there is nothing wrong with general nudity in and of itself whatsoever, particularly that of a child, but the society we live in contains a lot of very creepy people and by consenting to your child to be filmed like this you are consenting to ANYONE on the planet to be able to see their naked body, and unfortunately it is a reality that many, many people who can easily access these scenes FOR FREE will gratify themselves by watching them. It is just a statement of fact, and I really am curious if the parents of these kid actors really thought about that. It is absolutely the case that many of said parents and children from earlier films could not have known what was coming with the advent of the internet. But I digress.

The Hounddog scene reminds me of the film Doctor Sleep from 2019 in which a boy is graphically tortured to death. Again, an extremely good actor whose character is deliberately tortured slowly and with intent to inflict the maximum amount of pain that he can possibly feel before he finally dies. He begs them for mercy as they fasten him down to the ground, and they directly tell him they are going to inflict fear and pain on him. They stab him for hours, deliberately calculating how they can make him feel ALL of the pain he can possibly feel before he dies, and they do. He screams and cries in unspeakable pain. The book details that he screams for so long that his vocal chords rupture and he can no longer scream. While Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, I will never forgive him for writing this, and I can never forgive one of the modern masters of horror Mike Flanagan for filming it as graphically as he did when he did not need to. Behind the scenes interviews revealed the boy Jacob Tremblay had a great time filming the scene, and there is a great picture of him smiling after filming it with the actress Rebecca Ferguson (who had a son his age at the time this was filmed) looking deeply upset, something she (and the other actors playing the other torturers) later confirmed. So at least the boy had a good time... but it makes me wonder if he had any idea the reality that he was portraying in this scene, and how he looks back on it retrospectively. Again, I digress.

A film that depicted the boy where, for whatever reason, you could see his penis, would never have made it past the censors... because the nakedness of a child is more objectionable than a child being tortured to death, dying in the maximum amount of fear and pain and being stabbed until he can no longer scream in pain. There is something DEEPLY twisted about a society where this is the case, where violence against children including being raped and being tortured to death is more acceptable to film than their naked bodies. I'll leave it there.

I have to agree, I think the USA specifically has major hang ups on nudity, but putting it in film is incredibly irresponsible at best, but could be considered exploitation in truth. As far as Hound Dog, I find the film interesting because the main focus is on the sexuality of 11 year old kids, not just coming of age, but more sinister I think. The scene itself is sickening. Some writer director thought, this will he good entertainment. That is deeply disturbing. And her acting is superb, but lacks an innocence that should be present for an 11 year old girl. The face she makes, and the inhaled breath show knowledge of something she should be only beginning to learn about. It could be derived from good directing, but that brings me again to the disturbing attitude of the director. How would a conversation like that look between an unrelated grown adult and a child.
I find it interesting as well that her reputation was undamaged, but Brooke Shields' reputation was quite tarnished. Like you said, the nudity itself was more controversial than the violent sexual content. It could be argued that Pretty Baby was very sexual in nature as well, but had they handled it without nudity, it might have been treated much like Hound Dog. Both children were exposed to extremely adult content, and their innocence most certainly destroyed, but because one lacked the body parts, it was ok.

[dunbarbarian0]

The movie Hound Dog with Dakota Fanning is one that might be a lot less scandalous in some ways. To me however; and I believe as an American film, it pushes the boundaries of what is considered acceptable. Throughout the film she apears in to small revealing clothes and has many intentional panty slips. She wears one dress that belongs to a much smaller girl and her panties can clearly be seen when filmed from behind. She is filmed taking that dress off and therefore is shown in only panties and a tank top. There is a bath scene at 12:43 that apears to be fully naked although i dont think anything is really shown. She must feel quite exposed in front of everyone like that.

A theme throughout is her relationship with a boy her age. Both were 11 when the film was made. In the first 3 minutes of the film she convinces him to take off his shorts to show her his willy in exchange for a kiss. He pulls down his shorts and is seen in his underwear. She says "no stupid, you have to take it all off." He pulls down his briefs off camera. At 10:48 there is a swimming scene with her and him where she is in panties and a tank top. Close ups of her wet panties are included. They leave the lake and find an abandoned car and begin playing in it, she is still in panties and a tank. 27:11 begins another similar swimming scene, less revealing, but very interesting. When they leave the lake she puts on an adult sized dress that is vey open at the front. They go to a small general store full of boys and men and she shops at the store with her panties on display.
Throughout the film she steals things and pulls up her dress to put items in her underwear.
Lastly is a scene that starts very interesting and becomes very difficult to watch. A recurring theme is her desire to see Elvis live. A man tells the boy that he will give her tickets. When she shows up to collect the tickets, the boy and the man with the tickets are there. The boy tells her she has to sing hound dog by Elvis to get the tickets. She begins to sing, the boy then whispers in her ear. She cries out "what, why!" She then starts unbuttoning her dress and removes it. We again see her in panties and a tank. She begins singing again. The boy then says "no stupid, you have to take it all off." She protests, but removes all her clothes and starts singing. Obviously we can't see anything, but she acts the part of embarrassed yet determined very well. If the scene ended there I would be ok, but the man proceeds to have his way with her. It is very disturbing as she is crying out and her face is very expressive throughout the scene. The boy is shown quite distraught that he put her in this situation. The scene starts at 52:30.
I find it unusual to have such a charged movie version focused on the sexuality of young children. I also wonder how Dakota felt knowing she was in her panties in front of the boy and so many men, as well as knowing that anyone could watch the movie and see her. She would no longer be able to see any boy or man and be sure he hadn't seen her in underwear. She knew that many of the boys she came across had seen her and that she didn't have many secrets from them anymore.

https://ok.ru/video/1599089805951

Content Warning: I'm going to talk in detail about terrible things that happen to children in the aforementioned film Hounddog and a film called Doctor Sleep. I'm doing so to make a point, but the events I describe (one has already been mentioned in the post I'm replying to) are very upsetting and could ruin a decent person's entire day just by reading about them, so... exercise caution.

Very deeply disturbing film, and while it was extremely controversial it showcases the unspeakable stupidity of how my culture sees nudity and violence.

You are right that the film shows the girl in her underwear quite often, but is very careful not to show Dakota Fanning's naked body. If it had, the film would not have been made. However, it is perfectly fine depicting the girl being raped, showing her horrified face close up as she begs him to stop, and even her inhaling and eyes widening which is I'm pretty sure the moment the rapist actually thrusts into her. One of the worst things I have ever seen in my life, and it doesn't help that she is such an incredible actress.

If the girl had been filmed swimming naked, it would have generated more controversy. In fact, there is no way the film would have passed the censors. The girl is raped, but at least you don't see her genitals... not even her completely flat chest. Give me a f**king break, and to be clear I am NOT saying one is necessarily ok and the other isn't. I've posted before that I think specifically the parents who consent to their children being filmed naked are at worst knowingly selling out their child who depends on them, or at best are very, very, extremely, unspeakably naive. You might think I'm a hypocrite because I simultaneously have contended that there is nothing wrong with general nudity in and of itself whatsoever, particularly that of a child, but the society we live in contains a lot of very creepy people and by consenting to your child to be filmed like this you are consenting to ANYONE on the planet to be able to see their naked body, and unfortunately it is a reality that many, many people who can easily access these scenes FOR FREE will gratify themselves by watching them. It is just a statement of fact, and I really am curious if the parents of these kid actors really thought about that. It is absolutely the case that many of said parents and children from earlier films could not have known what was coming with the advent of the internet. But I digress.

The Hounddog scene reminds me of the film Doctor Sleep from 2019 in which a boy is graphically tortured to death. Again, an extremely good actor whose character is deliberately tortured slowly and with intent to inflict the maximum amount of pain that he can possibly feel before he finally dies. He begs them for mercy as they fasten him down to the ground, and they directly tell him they are going to inflict fear and pain on him. They stab him for hours, deliberately calculating how they can make him feel ALL of the pain he can possibly feel before he dies, and they do. He screams and cries in unspeakable pain. The book details that he screams for so long that his vocal chords rupture and he can no longer scream. While Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, I will never forgive him for writing this, and I can never forgive one of the modern masters of horror Mike Flanagan for filming it as graphically as he did when he did not need to. Behind the scenes interviews revealed the boy Jacob Tremblay had a great time filming the scene, and there is a great picture of him smiling after filming it with the actress Rebecca Ferguson (who had a son his age at the time this was filmed) looking deeply upset, something she (and the other actors playing the other torturers) later confirmed. So at least the boy had a good time... but it makes me wonder if he had any idea the reality that he was portraying in this scene, and how he looks back on it retrospectively. Again, I digress.

A film that depicted the boy where, for whatever reason, you could see his penis, would never have made it past the censors... because the nakedness of a child is more objectionable than a child being tortured to death, dying in the maximum amount of fear and pain and being stabbed until he can no longer scream in pain. There is something DEEPLY twisted about a society where this is the case, where violence against children including being raped and being tortured to death is more acceptable to film than their naked bodies. I'll leave it there.

I have to agree, I think the USA specifically has major hang ups on nudity, but putting it in film is incredibly irresponsible at best, but could be considered exploitation in truth. As far as Hound Dog, I find the film interesting because the main focus is on the sexuality of 11 year old kids, not just coming of age, but more sinister I think. The scene itself is sickening. Some writer director thought, this will he good entertainment. That is deeply disturbing. And her acting is superb, but lacks an innocence that should be present for an 11 year old girl. The face she makes, and the inhaled breath show knowledge of something she should be only beginning to learn about. It could be derived from good directing, but that brings me again to the disturbing attitude of the director. How would a conversation like that look between an unrelated grown adult and a child.
I find it interesting as well that her reputation was undamaged, but Brooke Shields' reputation was quite tarnished. Like you said, the nudity itself was more controversial than the violent sexual content. It could be argued that Pretty Baby was very sexual in nature as well, but had they handled it without nudity, it might have been treated much like Hound Dog. Both children were exposed to extremely adult content, and their innocence most certainly destroyed, but because one lacked the body parts, it was ok.

You just put into words something I was never able to express before. The big difference between the two is that Brooke Shields' naked body was actually filmed and in addition to that Blue Lagoon movie she never quite recovered from it, even though she was a child at the time who was being exploited. That's a very astute observation. The only difference I'd point out is that Pretty Baby was an actual well received film at the time by a hot-shot director, and in my opinion is actually pretty good although I don't understand why it was made... what purpose it served, especially at the expense of that poor girl. Pretty Baby didn't break the bank, but people went to see it. It made double its budget I believe. Hounddog made around $100,000 at the box office against a 4 million dollar budget and was panned by the critics. The film critically and commercially tanked. Nobody saw it, until after it was streaming. The controversy must have came afterwards, or perhaps that's why nobody went to see it in the first place.

[ChuckFin84]

Content Warning: I'm going to talk in detail about terrible things that happen to children in the aforementioned film Hounddog and a film called Doctor Sleep. I'm doing so to make a point, but the events I describe (one has already been mentioned in the post I'm replying to) are very upsetting and could ruin a decent person's entire day just by reading about them, so... exercise caution.

Very deeply disturbing film, and while it was extremely controversial it showcases the unspeakable stupidity of how my culture sees nudity and violence.

You are right that the film shows the girl in her underwear quite often, but is very careful not to show Dakota Fanning's naked body. If it had, the film would not have been made. However, it is perfectly fine depicting the girl being raped, showing her horrified face close up as she begs him to stop, and even her inhaling and eyes widening which is I'm pretty sure the moment the rapist actually thrusts into her. One of the worst things I have ever seen in my life, and it doesn't help that she is such an incredible actress.

If the girl had been filmed swimming naked, it would have generated more controversy. In fact, there is no way the film would have passed the censors. The girl is raped, but at least you don't see her genitals... not even her completely flat chest. Give me a f**king break, and to be clear I am NOT saying one is necessarily ok and the other isn't. I've posted before that I think specifically the parents who consent to their children being filmed naked are at worst knowingly selling out their child who depends on them, or at best are very, very, extremely, unspeakably naive. You might think I'm a hypocrite because I simultaneously have contended that there is nothing wrong with general nudity in and of itself whatsoever, particularly that of a child, but the society we live in contains a lot of very creepy people and by consenting to your child to be filmed like this you are consenting to ANYONE on the planet to be able to see their naked body, and unfortunately it is a reality that many, many people who can easily access these scenes FOR FREE will gratify themselves by watching them. It is just a statement of fact, and I really am curious if the parents of these kid actors really thought about that. It is absolutely the case that many of said parents and children from earlier films could not have known what was coming with the advent of the internet. But I digress.

The Hounddog scene reminds me of the film Doctor Sleep from 2019 in which a boy is graphically tortured to death. Again, an extremely good actor whose character is deliberately tortured slowly and with intent to inflict the maximum amount of pain that he can possibly feel before he finally dies. He begs them for mercy as they fasten him down to the ground, and they directly tell him they are going to inflict fear and pain on him. They stab him for hours, deliberately calculating how they can make him feel ALL of the pain he can possibly feel before he dies, and they do. He screams and cries in unspeakable pain. The book details that he screams for so long that his vocal chords rupture and he can no longer scream. While Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, I will never forgive him for writing this, and I can never forgive one of the modern masters of horror Mike Flanagan for filming it as graphically as he did when he did not need to. Behind the scenes interviews revealed the boy Jacob Tremblay had a great time filming the scene, and there is a great picture of him smiling after filming it with the actress Rebecca Ferguson (who had a son his age at the time this was filmed) looking deeply upset, something she (and the other actors playing the other torturers) later confirmed. So at least the boy had a good time... but it makes me wonder if he had any idea the reality that he was portraying in this scene, and how he looks back on it retrospectively. Again, I digress.

A film that depicted the boy where, for whatever reason, you could see his penis, would never have made it past the censors... because the nakedness of a child is more objectionable than a child being tortured to death, dying in the maximum amount of fear and pain and being stabbed until he can no longer scream in pain. There is something DEEPLY twisted about a society where this is the case, where violence against children including being raped and being tortured to death is more acceptable to film than their naked bodies. I'll leave it there.

I have to agree, I think the USA specifically has major hang ups on nudity, but putting it in film is incredibly irresponsible at best, but could be considered exploitation in truth. As far as Hound Dog, I find the film interesting because the main focus is on the sexuality of 11 year old kids, not just coming of age, but more sinister I think. The scene itself is sickening. Some writer director thought, this will he good entertainment. That is deeply disturbing. And her acting is superb, but lacks an innocence that should be present for an 11 year old girl. The face she makes, and the inhaled breath show knowledge of something she should be only beginning to learn about. It could be derived from good directing, but that brings me again to the disturbing attitude of the director. How would a conversation like that look between an unrelated grown adult and a child.
I find it interesting as well that her reputation was undamaged, but Brooke Shields' reputation was quite tarnished. Like you said, the nudity itself was more controversial than the violent sexual content. It could be argued that Pretty Baby was very sexual in nature as well, but had they handled it without nudity, it might have been treated much like Hound Dog. Both children were exposed to extremely adult content, and their innocence most certainly destroyed, but because one lacked the body parts, it was ok.

You just put into words something I was never able to express before. The big difference between the two is that Brooke Shields' naked body was actually filmed and in addition to that Blue Lagoon movie she never quite recovered from it, even though she was a child at the time who was being exploited. That's a very astute observation. The only difference I'd point out is that Pretty Baby was an actual well received film at the time by a hot-shot director, and in my opinion is actually pretty good although I don't understand why it was made... what purpose it served, especially at the expense of that poor girl. Pretty Baby didn't break the bank, but people went to see it. It made double its budget I believe. Hounddog made around $100,000 at the box office against a 4 million dollar budget and was panned by the critics. The film critically and commercially tanked. Nobody saw it, until after it was streaming. The controversy must have came afterwards, or perhaps that's why nobody went to see it in the first place.

That is an interesting point. I have to wonder what it would have looked like if it were different. If somehow Hound Dog had gotten away with showing her body in the bath scene, and maybe had her topless while swimming instead of in a tank. The movie would certainly have gotten much more attention, and stirred a lot of opinions. However, it might have made millions instead of 100k. If I'm not mistaken, with Pretty Baby, a lot of naysayers went to see it in the name of "proving" it was pornographique. Obviously it was probably just people wanting a peek. Would Hound Dog have yeilded the same result?

[dunbarbarian0]

I have to agree, I think the USA specifically has major hang ups on nudity, but putting it in film is incredibly irresponsible at best, but could be considered exploitation in truth. As far as Hound Dog, I find the film interesting because the main focus is on the sexuality of 11 year old kids, not just coming of age, but more sinister I think. The scene itself is sickening. Some writer director thought, this will he good entertainment. That is deeply disturbing. And her acting is superb, but lacks an innocence that should be present for an 11 year old girl. The face she makes, and the inhaled breath show knowledge of something she should be only beginning to learn about. It could be derived from good directing, but that brings me again to the disturbing attitude of the director. How would a conversation like that look between an unrelated grown adult and a child.
I find it interesting as well that her reputation was undamaged, but Brooke Shields' reputation was quite tarnished. Like you said, the nudity itself was more controversial than the violent sexual content. It could be argued that Pretty Baby was very sexual in nature as well, but had they handled it without nudity, it might have been treated much like Hound Dog. Both children were exposed to extremely adult content, and their innocence most certainly destroyed, but because one lacked the body parts, it was ok.

You just put into words something I was never able to express before. The big difference between the two is that Brooke Shields' naked body was actually filmed and in addition to that Blue Lagoon movie she never quite recovered from it, even though she was a child at the time who was being exploited. That's a very astute observation. The only difference I'd point out is that Pretty Baby was an actual well received film at the time by a hot-shot director, and in my opinion is actually pretty good although I don't understand why it was made... what purpose it served, especially at the expense of that poor girl. Pretty Baby didn't break the bank, but people went to see it. It made double its budget I believe. Hounddog made around $100,000 at the box office against a 4 million dollar budget and was panned by the critics. The film critically and commercially tanked. Nobody saw it, until after it was streaming. The controversy must have came afterwards, or perhaps that's why nobody went to see it in the first place.

That is an interesting point. I have to wonder what it would have looked like if it were different. If somehow Hound Dog had gotten away with showing her body in the bath scene, and maybe had her topless while swimming instead of in a tank. The movie would certainly have gotten much more attention, and stirred a lot of opinions. However, it might have made millions instead of 100k. If I'm not mistaken, with Pretty Baby, a lot of naysayers went to see it in the name of "proving" it was pornographique. Obviously it was probably just people wanting a peek. Would Hound Dog have yeilded the same result?

The sentiment is true but it just never would have happened. I think first off her parents would never have agreed to it, she would never have agreed to it, and it never would have passed the censors if they had. It's so f**king bizarre to me, but it would have been seen as nudity because you would be able to see her nipples. I'm sorry to point it out but I'm just stating the facts: her chest in that film is as flat as the boy's. Something about our society has decided that a prepubescent girl's nipple qualifies as nudity which feels sick to me and that's a hill I'll forever die on. Would her swimming bare chested with the boy have drawn more viewers? Probably, a bunch of people would have been excited to see that, but that's the sickness of our society that says nudity is an inherently sexual thing, and that a little girl who has no signs whatsoever of breast budding qualifies as nudity if you can see her nipples. There really should have been no problem with her being filmed without the tanktop in that film, and it would have been interesting to see how the boy would have reacted to it, but I couldn't blame her parents or her for being against it because there's no doubt it would gratify people and probably tank her reputation as an actress like what happened to Brooke Shields.

[Somebody]

Alright this thread is officially anathema. It was bad enough people being like "isn't this just BIZARRE?" then "How was this ALLOWED?" and now they're talking about actresses being traumatized or having their reputations damaged or other nonsense like that, just from nudity (or in many cases, no actual nudity in the film).
The point of this thread was supposed to be "oh yeah, that's normal in movies, and fun" right? You guys can just hand-wring by yourselves, I'm gonna use my hand for something else.

[dunbarbarian0]

Alright this thread is officially anathema. It was bad enough people being like "isn't this just BIZARRE?" then "How was this ALLOWED?" and now they're talking about actresses being traumatized or having their reputations damaged or other nonsense like that, just from nudity (or in many cases, no actual nudity in the film).
The point of this thread was supposed to be "oh yeah, that's normal in movies, and fun" right? You guys can just hand-wring by yourselves, I'm gonna use my hand for something else.

I’m going to pay you the conflict of assuming that you’re not serious.

[ChuckFin84]

Another thing I don't think has been mentioned is more for tv than for film. But in the 90s everyone in America knew of and watched America's Funniest Home Videos. As a kid I always looked forward to it. For those that don't know, the premise is showing 10-30 second clips of funny and embarrassing home videos. The videos would then be voted on and the winner awarded 10k.

Usually each episode would include at least one or two videos of someone losing their pants or a dress blowing up. Sometimes groomsmen would lift the dress of a bridesmaid. But was common to see EUF or EUM of all ages. Since it was a different time, if a child had a mishap that showed their chest or butt it would not be blurred. If you re-watch, they have now been blurred. I found it interesting that these girls, (and boys I guess, but to me the girls were more interesting.) Would allow everyone in the country to see their undies and in some cases chest or butt.

I have a couple I think deserve mentioning.

On girl probably 11 or 12 was celebrating Christmas or a birthday I think and a young child yanked her sweatpants down. Her panties were fully shown. Her family won the 10k and Bob Saget interviewed her. He asked, are you embarrassed that America has seen this video? She answered, not anymore now that I won ten thousand dollars.

Another one I remember was a girl, probably around 9. She was on a catwalk modeling. Apparently she was supposed to have something under her romper, because she took it off and was in her panties. I don't remember that one well because it's been years. I remember another girl was with her and held her hand and consoled her because she was embarrassed. Then her family took the video and showed it to everyone in the country.

Another one was a girl going down a slip and slide. Probably around 9 or so. Her bathing suit left the chat. It was most definitely blurred, but she laughed hysterically. I thought it was strange that she didn't care. I also found it strange that her parents sent a video of their naked daughter to the producers of the show and that Bob sage and all the producers most definitely saw the girl naked.

It always puzzled me, but I didn't care. I loved it as a kid. And I wanted to be a video screener when I grew up.

[mars357]

Wish you had tips for specific episodes/times but I understand your memory won't be that accurate!

[Kdog]

Another thing I don't think has been mentioned is more for tv than for film. But in the 90s everyone in America knew of and watched America's Funniest Home Videos. As a kid I always looked forward to it. For those that don't know, the premise is showing 10-30 second clips of funny and embarrassing home videos. The videos would then be voted on and the winner awarded 10k.

Usually each episode would include at least one or two videos of someone losing their pants or a dress blowing up. Sometimes groomsmen would lift the dress of a bridesmaid. But was common to see EUF or EUM of all ages. Since it was a different time, if a child had a mishap that showed their chest or butt it would not be blurred. If you re-watch, they have now been blurred. I found it interesting that these girls, (and boys I guess, but to me the girls were more interesting.) Would allow everyone in the country to see their undies and in some cases chest or butt.

I have a couple I think deserve mentioning.

On girl probably 11 or 12 was celebrating Christmas or a birthday I think and a young child yanked her sweatpants down. Her panties were fully shown. Her family won the 10k and Bob Saget interviewed her. He asked, are you embarrassed that America has seen this video? She answered, not anymore now that I won ten thousand dollars.

Another one I remember was a girl, probably around 9. She was on a catwalk modeling. Apparently she was supposed to have something under her romper, because she took it off and was in her panties. I don't remember that one well because it's been years. I remember another girl was with her and held her hand and consoled her because she was embarrassed. Then her family took the video and showed it to everyone in the country.

Another one was a girl going down a slip and slide. Probably around 9 or so. Her bathing suit left the chat. It was most definitely blurred, but she laughed hysterically. I thought it was strange that she didn't care. I also found it strange that her parents sent a video of their naked daughter to the producers of the show and that Bob sage and all the producers most definitely saw the girl naked.

It always puzzled me, but I didn't care. I loved it as a kid. And I wanted to be a video screener when I grew up.

Perhaps we could get a thread going of pantsings?

[ChuckFin84]

Wish you had tips for specific episodes/times but I understand your memory won't be that accurate!

If I knew I would share. I may get back into looking. It's hard to filter through the episodes, and I think they have removed some of those clips.