The Nudity Double Standard
April 16, 2008
I’ve never quite understood the big whoop about male frontal nudity versus female. There’s more of it going on now than in the past, but apparently guys on film hanging it all out for the camera to see are still quite the big deal, as this article about new movie Forgetting Sarah Marshall makes clear.
“America fears the penis, and that’s something I’m going to help them get over,” producer Judd Apatow has said. Who are these people who so fear the penis and why? Do they have a problem with Michelangelo’s “David”, too?
Entry Filed under: Uncategorized. .
9 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
1.
Mike | April 17, 2008 at 1:45 pm
It’s a guy thing! Unless we are super endowed most of us do not want to display “the family jewels” in public or on film because we are self conscious about the size of our you-know-whats. Unless we are gay we don’t even want other guys to see our ding-a-lings at the urinal. We know there is going to be some snickering and somebody out there in the audience with a bigger schlong than us who will be smirking. Women can go full frontal in films (although not often enough for me!) but guys probably have it in their contract to keep “Junior” under cover.
It’s so ridiculous in a sex scene where the dude still has his shorts on while supposedly “slipping the salami” to his lady fair. It’s like we haven’t progressed since the puritanical 1930’s when two people, even married people, couldn’t even sleep in the same bed in films. It’s okay to show people being beheaded and disemboweled of course, just don’t show any dude’s weenie. God help us if it’s in a state of arousal!
Uhh….what was the question again?
2.
Debbi Mack | April 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Hi Mike,
Wow–thanks for the “guy” perspective on this. I’d never even thought about that.
FWIW, because I suspect most women could care less about size.
Debbi
3.
scott | May 8, 2008 at 1:27 pm
All I can say is… gotta love the french, they’re not sexist when it’ comes to things flapping about onscreen,
I’m no big fan of Mr Apatow, but he talks a LOT of sense, don’t get me started on that whole jaet jackson superbowl debacle…
USA doesn’t just fear penis, they fear nakedness, and it’s a helluva a state to be in, I’m glad I love nakedness and could give a hoot about seeinga guys swingers.
on the subject of size comparison, and having been to a nude beach, just relax
go with the flow, or swing, if you’re uptight blood will stay in brain, obviously you dont’ want too much, but…
good blog, scott
4.
Debbi Mack | May 8, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Thanks, Scott! When I started this thing, I’d always been told a blog had to have a theme. I thought “Why?” and just blogged about whatever struck my fancy. (In fact, I’d originally thought of naming it “The Unrepentant Generalist.”)
Since then, I’ve started a couple of other blogs that are more focused–one on the business of writing at http://writing4hire.blogspot.com/ and one with book reviews and news about authors, books and publishing at http://bookspublishing.blogspot.com/ . I think three blogs is about my limit, unless someone pays me to do it.
5.
Jeffery | May 10, 2008 at 11:36 am
Why do people constantly want more dicks in movies? How a bout a pussy? I have never seen a pussy in a mainstream movie. Pubic hair does not count. There seems to be so much more graphic male full frontal nudity now. If male genitals are shown so graphically, why shouldn’t female genitals be shown the same way? Enough with cocks in movies.
6.
Debbi Mack | May 10, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Well, men’s genitalia does have a natural tendency to just hang out. Whereas women’s tend to hide in the bushes. (groan, sorry, but I just couldn’t resist)
Unless you’re talking about showing women with shaved genitals (and I certainly wouldn’t object to that–fair is fair, after all), a lot of up close and personal camera work on that area could come across as less aesthetic and more gynecological. But I do see your point. (ooh, did I inadvertently do it again? my mind is obviously corrupt beyond hope)
7.
Jeffery | May 10, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Well, 95% of women today shave their bush, yet 100% of women in movies have a bush you need a lawnmower to see through. It’s not realistically represented. Harold and Kumar tried to show a pussy, but the MPAA would not give them an R-rating, but did allow many penises to be shown. It’s a double standard, although I really wish the MPAA wouldn’t allow genitals in any R-rated movie. I find it distracting and uncomfortable to watch and it is just exploitive in nature, and thats all its in there for.
8.
Debbi Mack | May 10, 2008 at 5:13 pm
I agree that nudity tends to be used for exploitative purposes, but feel like filmmakers have the artistic right to use it if they wish. But when you consider how good many old movies that didn’t even show people in bed together were, there’s no denying that great movies don’t depend on things like nudity or amazing special effects. Technical wizardly and gimmicks have always had a place in films. But truly great films rely on good writing, acting and direction. Characters you can care about or feel something toward–clothed or unclothed.
9.
Jeffery | May 10, 2008 at 6:07 pm
The thing that bothers me about movies like Sex and the City with male bashing and frontal nudity and movies that exploit men with full frontal nudity along with nudity that just exploits women, is that it pushes the genders further and further apart and it ruins relationships and develops a lack of respect for each other. I know there are a lot of factors for this, but this is one of them. Families aren’t what they use to be. Tension between the genders seems to be so high these days. No wonder there are less and less marriages and more and more divorces. Children are the ones really suffering.