MovieChat Forums > Zwartboek (2007) Discussion > How come her VAGINA wasn't shown?

How come her VAGINA wasn't shown?

posted 15 years ago by kellycastlebridge
38 replies | jump to latest

Ever notice that R-rated films will NEVER show a woman's vagina, even though several films have shown penises?

Notice when the actress was nude with her legs apart while dying her pubes, great care was taken to show only her pubic hair, and avoid showing any of her actual genitalia. The MPAA will NOT allow a woman's genitalia to be shown in an R-rated film. The most they will allow of a woman to be seen is her pubic hair. Pubic hair is NOT genitalia, it is just hair! But a man's entire genitalia (pubic hair, penis, and testicles) can be shown, and were shown in this film. Why does the MPAA allow the full genitalia of men to be shown, but not women?? It is an unfair, sexist double-standard designed to keep the female genitalia hidden and repressed from society. When will a filmaker have the courage to put a VAGINA in a film and SUE THE MPAA if they try to rate it NC-17?! The sexually discriminatory rating policy of the MPAA regarding genital nudity should not be tolerated! Full genital nudity should get the SAME RATING, regardless of the gender.

[–] NebLWeffah 15 years ago

You're quite angry when it comes to vaginas, aren't you?

More importantly, I don't think displaying a vagina in this film would have the slightest bit to do with the plot.

[–] fred-889 14 years ago

That's not the point, not everything in a film has to be linked to plot development, by any means. If that were the case, films would be very dull and two-dimensional; not saying that a gawp at Carice van Outen's vagina would have been a fantastic artistic elevation, just that a fi;m is just as much about the periphery as it is the core-plot.

The OP was just stating the double standard of the MPAA when it comes to female nudity and sexuality compared to male. For instance, Boys Don't Cry was given an NC-17 for a scene of a girl masturbating - with her clothes on, no less - yet if it were a boy, there would have been little worry.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Valerian (10481) 2 years ago

You're quite angry when it comes to vaginas, aren't you?

░░░▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄░░░
░▄▀░░░░░░░░░▀▄░
▄▀░░██░░░██░░▀▄
█░░░░░░░░░░░░░█
█░░▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄░░█
░█░░▀▄░░░▄▀░░█░
░░▀▄▄░▀▀▀░▄▄▀░░
░░░░░▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░

[–] Strazdamonas 15 years ago

In my humble opinion MPAA should have been sued for at least third of their ratings already.

----------
In this universe, there's only one absolute... everything freezes!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] universoespejo 15 years ago

AMEN!!

[–] h_ovidiu 14 years ago

simply hilarious

[–] cubicledweller 14 years ago

Verhoven already did a vagina shot in Basic Instinct, it would have been boring and repetitive for him to do it again..

[–] jim6263 14 years ago

>by - cubicledweller on Fri Nov 27 2009 10:44:43:
>"Verhoven already did a vagina shot in Basic Instinct, it would
>have been boring and repetitive for him to do it again."

Guess you really are as your username suggests? I can guarantee you that *most* (hetero) guys (esp. younger) would *not* find such find such illumination boring nor repetitive! Not only that, in "Basic Instinct," all that was shown was a glimpse of her labia (outer genetalia)... and I looked! Lol.

It is, and has been, clearly a hypocritical double standard in the U.S., as it has been for centuries, what with our Puritan religious heritage/background. It is time to be adults, and admire Nature's beauty as it is. None of us would be here w/o it!

[–] DurakSuka 8 years ago

Calm down, virgin.

Hama cheez ba-Beer behtar meshawad!

[–] Shazam-O 14 years ago

seriously, can that *ever* get repetitive?

[–] Suntory_Times 14 years ago

Your point is moot, Code 46 showed a vagina and it was rated R.

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time...

[–] shaun3701-1 14 years ago

Her pubic hair was shown... did you want her to spread it open for the camera?

[–] Jon364 14 years ago

Why did you capitalise the word vagina in your heading? Are you 7 years old?

---
One thing that irritates me about imdb boards it's the "looks like" topics. Never even close.

[–] praxagora 14 years ago

lol. I just have to ask this - it was fairly obvious what was going on, would making it more explicit have made it a better scene?

Or is it just silly to even ask the question? ;-)

[–] shaun3701-1 14 years ago

lol the thing is you can't really "see" a vagina unless the women spreads her legs wide open. You can see a penis from just about any angle.

[–] legnadibrom 14 years ago

check out michael winterbottom's "code 46" with tim robbins and samantha morton,
it's rated R and morton shows her pussy,
you can see her lips

http://www.last.fm/music/Disuse

[–] Popcorngal (4347) 8 months ago

I really do not need to see that in a film. I will skip this one.