This Is Why Female Nudity Seems To Be So Much More Acceptible In Movies Than Male Nudity
By
Michael Avery in
Facts
On 4th November 2016
While the reasons are primarily based on trying to cater to the male gaze, there is one pragmatic reason behind it. In the US, if a man is shown on screen with an erection, or even part of one, the work is subject to being banned or censored as containing obscene content. The standards for a naked woman are less well defined and harder to achieve in film without overly close shots.
The laws determining this have been on the books for a while now, and in my opinion could really benefit from revision. But they are the laws, and thus a lot of filmmakers understandably play it safe.
Many people wonder why male nudity is so much more unacceptable than female nudity in movies.
Women can be shown fully from the front and a movie will just be rated R.
If a man is shown fully naked, the movie will receive a hard R rating at the least or an NC-17 if it's visible for more than a couple seconds.
Some people think this is because women are objectified in movies, but we have a slightly different take on the subject.
We believe that male nudity is shown much more.
A man's nipples can be shown in a PG movie, whereas a woman's nipples will almost always guarantee an R rating.
It is true that women are shown nude from the front more, but there is almost always public hair covering their actual genitals.
A man would have to have a serious bush or be very tiny to hide his private parts.
Another interesting disparity is that a woman masturbating will almost guarantee an NC-17 rating, which is not the same for men.
We think that all of these rules come from Victorian ideals of propriety, and do not stem from the objectification of women.
