When is Hollywood going to drop these constant double standards and start to show female genitalia as well.
Please note , breasts are not genitalia!
There has not been one single Hollywood produced film in the last 5 years to show a Vulva.
ITS TIME FOR THE MERKINS TO COME OFF, ITS TIME TO FREETHEVULVA!!
Please read my Bio.
I can see a few problems with your suggestion.
First, supplementing superfluous male nudity with superfluous female nudity, for the sake of "equal time," is not progress in any area, as far as I can see.
Second, female nudity in general is already overdone and often gratuitous, usually to the detriment of female characters. The real challenge is to end the double standard of male actors getting better roles and women actors playing the male heroes' attractive sidekick. Working on any double standard regarding the showing of crotches is way down the list, in my view.
Third, the situations are different based on simple biology. A nude man seen from the front is automatically displaying his genitals, unless he takes the trouble to hide them. It's not the same with the female body. When a nude woman is seen from the front, only her pubic hair (if any) will be visible; the genitals barely visible, if at all. To show a woman's genitals clearly in a film would require a very deliberate, pre-planned, spread-leg camera shot, which, for one thing, would be awkward to include if the point were ordinary or casual nudity. A really clear view of the female genitals, therefore, would automatically come across as a pornographic display, which is not ideal, especially for those of us who would like female actors (and their characters) to be more respected apart from their sexual appeal.
If you simply mean that full frontal nudity should be used equally for both sexes, you may have a point; but you refer specifically to visible genitalia
"Moving in for the obligatory hug."
Well I have just a few observations......
First, supplementing superfluous male nudity with superfluous female nudity, for the sake of "equal time," is not progress in any area, as far as I can see.
female nudity in general is already overdone and often gratuitous
the situations are different based on simple biology
A really clear view of the female genitals, therefore, would automatically come across as a pornographic display
Women do not have to spread legs in movies. Some women have genitals partly visible even while standing. But they must be shaved to see anything. The reason why women wear merkin is that their genitalia are visible and it must be covered. We have a taboo in society when it comes to female genitalia and it will not change quickly. I do not understand why. Women's genitals are even prettier than the male one. BTW: Do not forget close ups which are used often when they show penis. Make a zoom on the female crotch. You will also see everything but they don't do it. For me, full nudity is when you see every part of the body. Men are displayed fully nude, women not. Simple. I hope that this will change in the future because it is unfair.
shareReally?
I'm a 57 yr old woman.
All my life have been a frequent user of health clubs which oftentimes had shared locker rooms and shower rooms.
Now understand I'm not looking there, but I've never even glimpsed a woman's genitals when she's just standing around naked. And yeah, frequently they shave.
Maybe you're looking more closely than me
Sounds like you've zoomed a few female crotches - could be you're more of an expert than I am.
A good example of this is Game of Thrones. The girls are often trimmed (though I don't think they shave much on Westeros). They don't shine a spotlight on the bush Hustler-style, but neither to the hide / obscure / murkin them. We see pretty much all of the ladies parts we're going to see with them just walking around, but you don't really see the peach parts.
Oddly enough, contrary to what the OP would have us think, we don't actually see a lot of penis in that show.
As for the whole "tits are not genitalia" thing, I suppose it's true that they're required for procreation, but it's all I needed to get good and <ahem> excited when I was a boy.
I find this whole "more explicit vaginal details!!" thread to be weird.
RIP IMDb message boards!
Hey Goobs, long time, no see. Who did you want to see naked in this movie? Ann Dowd?
shareThe girls in this are kids and teenagers. Hollywood would never show that. Certainly not full frontal. We saw the youngest boys butt, but people are weird about young girls and nudity even more than they are about adult women.
It wasn't in the Sister of the Dad or his Mother-in-Laws characters to be open with nudity.
You have a point, but not with this movie.
Your right , but my point was general and not specifically the females in this movie. My point was that this is yet another film with male genital nudity compared to none with female genital nudity
I think that just as Christopher Walken has a dance scene contracted into every movie, so Vito has a nude scene. Still, why not ; he's got a nice three piece.
"ah have always depended upon the strangeness of kindness..."
Hold up!
Is someone taking notes on this?
If there's to be justice, present numbers!
Female frontal nudity=
Male frontal nudity=
It's like when we were kids, I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Isn't equality great?
Get a medical book ... when is that relevant to the story unless it is a documentary about gynecology?
shareDude! Haven't you seen Trance with Rosario Dawon? Second best full frontal in film history next after Eva Green in Dreamers, man!
share[deleted]