[goda90]

Lots of nudity in film is of a sexual nature. Uncontrolled exposure to fictional depictions of sex could create unhealthy understanding of sex in children that parents want to avoid. Hence not family friendly. I'm not saying most in film violence is either, but that's the reason.

One film I think of in this regard is Schindler's List. I've seen both the original and the TV edit that Spielberg made to broadcast for teenagers to see. The primary edits I noticed were sex scenes and post-sex nudity. Those scenes weren't gratuitous(they showed something about the characters) or anything, but were edited(either cut or blacked out part of the frame). BUT there was still lots of nudity in the edited film. This was nudity of a different nature. People forced to strip down and paraded in the open for inspection.

Sometimes parents just want to take the easy path and consider all nudity as out of bounds for their kids. I think that's fine.

[dirtnugget]

I would generally put Schindlers List onto the "not-so-family-friendly"-list. It’s educational I guess but I wouldn’t want to show it to anyone below 16. And after that the nudity should be fine.

[kube-system]

FWIW, my local secondary school here in the US has no issues showing Schindlers List to students in class. But this attitude isn’t something that would extend to a movie with nudity of a sexual or casual nature.

[heavenlyblue]

> Sometimes parents just want to take the easy path and consider all nudity as out of bounds for their kids.

Sometimes parents consider vaccinations to be out of bounds for their kids, too.