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

How come her VAGINA wasn't shown?

posted 16 years ago by kellycastlebridge
40 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.

[–] mib6116 15 years ago

The MPAA rating board is more likely to give a film an NC17 rating for showing female vagina, rather than penis. Most directors therefore will not show "full on vagina" because they might get an NC17 rating and then no distribution in the USA.

Watch documentaries like "This Film is Not Yet Rated", which shows a correlation between showing vagina to higher ratings.

______________________

"People are just bastard coated bastards with bastard filling."

[–] gogiggs 15 years ago

Yes, the MPAA is arbitrary and inconsistent. You can show a penis, as long as it's not erect. You can show pubic hair, but not the actual vagina. You can show all the breasts you want. Also, violent dismembering and graphic torture? Thumbs up!
Still, I'm left with two observations: 1, in what way would the movie be improved by a beaver shot? 2, I'm pretty sure you know exactly why her vagina wasn't shown.

[–] Jon364 15 years ago

It's really not important either way in terms of this film.

I agree about your point about MPAA and double standards though.

------------------
My opinion

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cookiela2001 15 years ago

<< How come her VAGINA wasn't shown? >>

Among other things, maybe the actress didn't want to?

(The hair she's dying is a little prop pubic wig, BTW. Sorry to have perhaps ruined your day.)

[–] TheAnimalMother 15 years ago

I couldn't agree with you more. In fact, Kelly, I think I love you. :D

My body's a cage, it's been used and abused...and I...LIKE IT!!

[–] cpuller-642-329716 14 years ago

Did you maybe think of the fact that the dutch equivalent to the mpaa probably doesnt care if theres genitalia or not?

So there was no reason to censor anything in order to get any kind of rating.
Women had a bush in the 1940's thats why you dont see anything.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sxilderik 14 years ago

Because you don't know what that word means in the first place ?

The only way to see a vagina is with some sort of speculum and head light, or a mini cam device.

For example, this ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Origine_du_monde ) is not a vagina, it's at best a pretty good shot at a vulva ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulva ).

Is this what you wanted to see so badly in this movie ?
____________________
'Cause what you hears today you got to tell the birthed tomorrow.