Why can't vaginas be shown in R-rated movies?
-
thedeeperwell — 15 years ago(December 18, 2010 12:22 AM)
Before I say anything else, let me state that I'm a woman and I'm not a prude or a religious person. However, I cannot think of one reason why any movie aside from a porno flick would ever need to show a clitoris or an actual vagina. A clitoris is small, and a camera would have to be up close and pretty damn personal to get a good shot of one. Why would any non-pornographic film need to do this unless maybe it's a documentary about gynecology? And, as others have already mentioned, a vagina is an internal passageway made of muscle (kind of like the intestines), not something that can be seen easily and NOT the same as labia. If you want to see labia on film so badly, there are plenty of movies out there that feature them and full frontal female nudity. I remember seeing Interview with the Vampire when I was a kid and being surprised at the full frontal shot of a naked woman, pubic hair blazing. And, as Maria Bello mentioned in this documentary, it is pretty silly that pubic hair could not be shown in her film when it's been done so many other times.
I think that one of the issues here is that women (at least attractive ones) will ALWAYS be seen as sex objects. And it doesn't matter how "progressive" a man is - if he's straight, he can't help but see a nude woman that way. A man can be naked on screen and most people don't care because a naked man is not seen as inherently sexual, depending on what he's doing. If he's just lounging around naked, that's all there is to it. Replace the man with a naked woman and all that changes. It doesn't matter if she's sitting there reading a book or washing the dishes or baking a cake, people will sexualize the moment because of her nudity. The more attractive she is, the more sexual it becomes. And that is just human nature, I guess. That's why nude scenes in Holocaust films aren't criticized as harshly since the women are always old or emaciated. Small chance for a boner there. I'm not saying it's bad or good, but that is the reason why female nudity is handled the way it is. A male behind is shown on the big screen, and hardly anyone even notices. A woman gets naked on screen and half the men in the audience have to adjust themselves, especially the younger guys. I remember going to see the movie Open Water several years ago in the theater. It was just me and a friend, and then a group of guys in their early twenties was sitting a few rows in front of us. There was a scene when the main female character is lying in bed nude. (There was even a flash of pubic hair. Oh, boy.) A couple of the guys raised their cell phones up to get a shot of the screen, and then they all started cat-calling the screen like she could hear them. I guess if that's the way grown people are going to react to a naked woman in a non-sexual scene, then the movie ratings will always reflect that. -
ebrock1988 — 15 years ago(March 19, 2011 03:59 PM)
hardly a fair set of examples. adolescent males, being what they are, need only THINK about female nudity to get a stiffy, and what you saw in Open Water was a group of young people feeding of of each other(a very mild example of mob mentality), especially the guy with the camera phone. i doubt he took that picture for "future reference," but rather to elicit a laugh from his buddies.
i'd bet money that the reaction would have been very similar, if not identical, had it been a group of young women and the scene showed a good-looking guy. don't believe me? sit through any flick featuring a shirtless Billy Zane with a group of your BFFs and see for yourself(maybe throw in a few beers. not that Mr. Zane requires beer goggles, but it's quite possible those guys in the theatre weren't totally dry).
as for the top half of your reply, i agree completely. a nude scene with a woman would have to be a lot moredeliberate, i guessto show much more than pubic hair than if it were a naked man. -
turock — 15 years ago(April 03, 2011 10:52 PM)
thedeeperwell
I read this board not expecting to see anything id care to reply too but your line
"
think that one of the issues here is that women (at least attractive ones) will ALWAYS be seen as sex objects. And it doesn't matter how "progressive" a man is - if he's straight, he can't help but see a nude woman that way.
Im a straight man and I dont instantly want to make love to every naked women i see on screen no matter how theyre trying to portray her. Im a photography hobbyist but i can appreciate the beauty of the female form without wanting to make love to a woman just because shes naked. In fact a few films have done this quite successfully. The fact that not everyone appreciates it as the art it is just means not everyone is going to grasp it.
That aside there are women that when shown on screen WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO SEE NAKED, and often times dont get. Lots of guys for instance WANT to see Angelina Jolie naked on screen. I for one dont even want to see her on screen.
My point is just that not ALL women on screen are women we want to see naked. I forget her name just now but she was on Grays Anatomy and went on to do films like Knocked Up, shes really pretty but i could honestly care less if shes ever seen naked in film. Though there are im sure some guys who want to see her naked.
I guess what im getting at is not ALL guys want to see EVERY woman naked on screen.
This message has been deleted by an administrator. -
la_cinematheque — 13 years ago(May 12, 2012 10:11 AM)
Both men and women are socialized to find the female form inherently sexual, it's not "just human nature." It's also not something that should be blindly accepted because it forces women to have a more restrictive relationship with their bodies and their sexuality than men have.
The Open Water example you gave shows perfectly why this is a problem. If female nudity is only ever shown in contexts where it's meant to arouse, the message is that female nudity can only exist to arouse. But if ratings stop catering to that sexist mindset and female nudity is allowed to be shown in other ways, it can also begin to be viewed in other ways. -
feral_shade — 2 years ago(March 29, 2024 05:03 PM)
This seems like a self-perpetuating issue.
I don't think film editors would want to include elements that they anticipate would distract from that segment of the story.
But, like you said, the only way to desensitize the audience to the objectification is to change the media.
…I mean, outside of a theater, the issue is too multifaceted and complex for an audience member to approach.
So what would motivate a filmmaker to compromise his/her multi-million dollar, career-building vision? "Do I want to feed my children or help improve the film industry a tiny bit?" -
hiimryan66 — 15 years ago(September 15, 2010 06:57 PM)
"oppresive Muslim societies"
Listen pal, this opression only exists in beep like Persia and Saudi Arabia, In places like the UAE and Jordan however, it is entirely optional. Hell even in hardcore fundie states the hijab (which has no oppresive value whatsoever) is the leading garment of choice.
"I SERVE NONE BUT KORROK". -
feral_shade — 2 years ago(March 29, 2024 05:17 PM)
Her point is still valid, even if the details aren't universal. True, not all Muslim women wear burkas. However, that article of clothing isn't a polarized representation of gender equality. There are a lot of Muslim denimations and communities that are more liberal about clothing, yet are still treated as 2nd class citizens.
I do get that there are layers and subtleties. There are everywhere. When I was in Iraq, TECHNICALLY, there was an "equality". Men managed affairs outside the home, Women managed affairs home-related. It seems fair and equitable. But then you visit a family and see the women act like servants, and realize rules/laws/doctrine take a back seat to social conditioning.
The values people preach often differ from the values people practice. -
la_cinematheque — 13 years ago(May 12, 2012 10:19 AM)
Hairless labia is a Western trend that's not anywhere close to universally adopted even in countries where it's most popular. Sorry kiddo, but what you see in porn and among a generation raised on porn isn't a reflection of how most of the women in the world handle pubic grooming.
-
grrrdevin — 14 years ago(March 03, 2012 01:49 PM)
In Victorian England, for example, a woman could not even expose her ankles without condemnation.
Choose facts, not feminism.
"I've been living on toxic waste for years, and I'm
fine.
Just ask my other heads!" -
Frostrose — 13 years ago(June 22, 2012 09:16 PM)
Whatever There are 100000000000 movies with female nudity and loads of them show bush and more than that as well. And how many movies have full frontal male nudity?
What rating they get - I don't care, because there is already too many movies with female nudity so if there's anything that's discriminating it is that they always use women to sell crap.
Why is it always OK to show naked women on TV, but not men? You can see bush, you can't see penises. There's the real double standard. -
Death163 — 13 years ago(February 13, 2013 04:10 PM)
All you could see is bush any time a vagina is shown in a rated r movie it has to be covered by either real public hair or a murkin (pubic topay) to prevent the lips or clit from being shown there has yet in the 100+ year history of movies to be a rater r movie that showed a women without massive amount of pubic hair mean while any rated r film can show a shaved penis and it's ok that's that's difference.
"The People Of America Have Spoken THE REAL TITLE TOWN U.S.A IS VALDOSTA GEORGIA"