MovieChat Forums > Silent Witness (1996) Discussion > naked male corpses vs naked female ones

naked male corpses vs naked female ones


Admittedly I haven't seen every episode, but of the ones I have, when there's a naked female corpse on the table she's totally naked (even when they're just looking at a head wound), but when it's male, there's a sheet across the lower half. Now either cover up both, or reveal both; enough of these dual standards. Or maybe actors are allowed to pull their weight about such matters more often than actresses can without being labelled "difficult"?

But if it's because there are rules about not being allowed to show penises on mainstream shows, then afford the actresses the same courtesy about their lower halves too. I get that the torso needs to be shown when it's the torso they're looking at, but a head wound- really? It's tough enough that they've got to get their breasts out without getting the compensatory chance to show off their acting skills.

I've no problem with nudity- i just want to see equality whichever way they decide to do it.

reply

If the show the upper part of the males it's fair that they show the upper part of the females too. On a dead body it's not sexual. It's just a body part.

reply

It's not the upper half of the body I mentioned- it's the lower half.

My point is that female bodies have their whole bodies shown whilst male ones don't. And whilst it's true that during a real investigation they're not a sex object, on a tv show it's a real actress and there are many people who don't take such an innocent or mature view; a phenomenon satirised by Seth McFarlane in his song, "We Saw Your Boobs". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jwtenNl77w&t=10s And that song would probably be truer if he'd actually sung "We saw your pubes".

reply

I don't recall seeing any female frontal nudity until this season. I've only seen a couple of seasons before though. However, unlike the teats, which are often visible in closeup, the frontal stuff has been long, blurry shots. My point is that you're making it sound like it's common. In my experience it isn't.

Finally, in the U.S., male frontal nudity has always been a far greater taboo than female.

reply

unlike the teats,
Teats? Really? We're talking about humans, not farm animals.

Finally, in the U.S., male frontal nudity has always been a far greater taboo than female.
"Taboo" isn't the issue. We see less male nudity in US entertainment because men aren't the objects, they're the objectifiers. Women's bodies have been used to sell every freakin thing for as long as I can remember (for ex., jiggly 20-y-o women in bikinis for car ads -- really?????) -- women have long been seen as objects to be used for whatever means the user chooses, whereas men are seen as people who get to make up their own minds about how they proceed in life.
........... Has any male pop star *ever* worn the kind of skimpy, overly-sexualized crap that we see on Miley, Lil Kim, Rihanna? No -- because men are performers 1st and hunks 2nd. Do we *ever* see male celebrities subjected to the endless scrutiny about weight gain? Does a huge percentage of the male population get pec implants and butt implants and PENIS-SCULPTING SURGERY, for gds sake, to live up to some horribly restrictive societal notions about how they should look???? The double standard the OP writes of is just an extension of the horrifying double standards that exist thruout the world and affect every part of every woman's life.

On TV in the US, an actress is expected to show everything but nipples and pubic hair (men have been able to show far less), plus women actresses are out-and-out expected to show skin (not so for men). So more women show skin then men, and each of those women shows more skin than any male counterpart. We see lots of young, nearly naked women on screen because that's what they're *there* for -- to gratify the male gaze. Until recently, women didn't even have a platform to say, "Hey, I'm not here solely for your gratification!" or "Hey, we women want to see some man candy, too -- enough with the double standard, let's have some gorgeous man-torso-with-butt-and-thighs!"

The OP is on target re: the double standard. And like the OP, I'm neither prudish nor salacious -- I don't care whether shows opt for naked corpses or for covered ones, but enough with the double standard already!

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

reply

Teats? Really? We're talking about humans, not farm animals.


Yes, teats. They're what all mammals have, including humans. Feminists tend to dislike it when people are properly described as animals because that connection leads to political incorrect ideas like instinctive gender roles, which every mammal on earth clearly has. I know you want me to say "breasts," but I hate that word. It's one of the most awkward and unpleasant sounding tongue twisters in the English language, and the fact that you dislike my word choice doesn't make it any less viable than yours.

Secondly, I thought the OP's point was about the relative frequency of male and female frontal nudity. I pointed out that there hasn't been a lot of either, and to base your conclusions on the last episode or two is misleading.

reply

Uh, have you been watching* the show? I've seen the recent episodes, I've said the same to myself as the OP.

I'm also fairly certain you're hardly prone to refer to male nipples as "teats" in your everyday water cooler talk. It's a caricature on females, not only is it immature & questionably inappropriate, your notion on how women convey sexism as 'that awful feminism thing' is disturbing. Clearly you have spent very little time understanding the balance of power, objectification, and struggles that the EVERY female identity undergoes. We could be surrounded by strangers in our overalls, and find ourselves the objects/victims of a much louder form of obnoxious male privilege. I am uncertain as to why you would expect anyone to value your opinion as it condescendingly mansplains female perception away as 'unnecessarily cerebral,' if you will.

Yeah, there's no difference between you and one of those troll gamers that end up on IMDB on relentless basis as far as I can see. 'Another 'feminist' opinion to no doubt discount. Oh 'sweetie,' no feminist would find herself *insulted* by labels applied to us by your kind. We have been dealing with this type of arrogance and contentious response every five tweets, facebook posts, message board threads, in person- household or office personalities etc etc.

reply

If people are sexualizing actresses while they are portraying corpses I would say the problem lies with these people and not the fact that the actresses are shown topless which is often realistic (a thorough autopsy includes cutting the chest cavity open after all, the body is usually just covered up to be shown to the families).
The same would be the case if an older actress portrays a young girl who gets taken advantage of by an older man. Would you not be repulsed by what is portrayed onscreen because you know that the person is of age in reality? Or a scene shows someone getting raped: should people consider it a turn on because the person is not really getting raped?
NB: If they are showing the lower party of the women and not the men that is weird, unless there is some explanation behind it such as maybe they are going to do a rape kit? Or maybe it's easier to give females fake outer genitalia than it is with men (you'd be surprised how often this is used in nude scenes)?

reply

[deleted]

If the show the upper part of the males it's fair that they show the upper part of the females too. On a dead body it's not sexual. It's just a body part.
Your comment is illogical. Society doesn't automatically shut down its fascination with female breasts just because they happen to be on an actress who is pretending to be dead.

But let's say you're right -- that everyone who looks at a TV corpse sees only innocuous body parts and not bits and pieces that, in life, were sexualized. If so, then male corpses also should be 100% naked, if fake-TV-death renders all their bits sexless.

The reality is, in our culture, breasts are still highly sexualized. Men can go shirtless in public; women cannot (it's literally against the law in most places). So a "topless" male corpse is just as acceptable as a topless live man in the street, and a "topless" female corpse is just as unacceptable as is her live counterpart in the street. UNLESS -- and this is what the OP is saying -- UNLESS we are saying, "Let's apply a standard for the morgue corpses that we wouldn't apply to live humans in public" -- and if that's the case, then one-standard-for-all-corpses makes sense. Like the OP, I don't care if they're sheeted or naked, I just want an end to the double standard.

"All you need to start an asylum is an empty room and the right kind of people."

reply

Shown in this context the person is suppose to represent a corpse. Corpses aren't sexual. You are suppose to be able to read the context of the scene which in turn will make you not want to see it in a sexual way.
Another example would be watching a rape scene. You know that the scene isn't showing actual rape. It's an actor pretending that they are being raped. None the less I would expect that most people aren't turned on by it because of the implications.

reply

I noticed that too. But you know how it is, you can't say anything without someone screaming at you for being a femnazi and wanting to take over the world and destroy men.

reply

Hee hee, had to come and look what this was about. Just wondering if you are watching this in the UK (where it is made by the BBC) or overseas as I am a regular viewer and they treat male the male corpses nudity in exactly the same as females in my experience. You frequently see the flaccid "Crown jewels" of the male bodies on the slab... so I am wondering if these scenes are cut when the show is shown in certain countries?

reply

Good point.

It's a regular issue here where overseas viewers are talking about something not making sense. Across most of the BBC / ITV output shows are butchered for PBS or Netflix.

I pay for both Amazon and Netflix but it's disheartening when you want to watch something like Jonathan Creek or Hustle to see the programme length of 44 minutes or 52 minutes when you know the original broadcast was 6 - 10 minutes longer.

'tler

reply

Wow, I didn't know they did that for sure, but had a hunch that might be why this thread arose. Hhhhhmmmm, good luck on seeing more than a few minutes of Taboo with Tom Hardy then ;)

reply

There's definitely a double standard when it comes to male and female nudity dead or alive! But I feel that it might be more of a British or American issue where we somehow get hysterical over male body parts. I see more blatant male nudity and, by that I mean full frontal, in European films and TV dramas, like when a male character gets out of the shower or getting changed or something like that.

I also remember discussing this with a French colleague a few years ago and she was laughing and saying how prude Brits are about penises and she said that on French TV you see them often swinging! LOL

reply

just watched ep 5 and the woman was completely visible , the man had a towel covering his middle , totally stupid don't understand why they show breast and bush but no penis?

reply

Women don't have anything to see unless you get up close at the right angle, dicks are pretty obvious from a distance.

reply