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

How come her VAGINA wasn't shown?


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.

reply

When it come to vaginas, I'm always skeptic.

[spoiler]My Favs: Hurt Locker, A Beautiful Mind, Schindler's List, Inglourious Basterds[/spoiler

reply

It may come as a surprise for you, but the MPAA has nothing to do or say about any international movies - an hence, international movies do not care to think what the MPAA thinks about their movie. In most of Europe we do not censor anything, not movies, not songs, lyrics, texts, not anything. Free speech - and if people choose to use the f-word (as a courtesy to all americans I will now censor my text) or show p's or v's (again, as a courtesy to the ones who believe in censorship - but I think you will know what I am referring to) all throughout a movie they are free to do so - and no one will say that they cannot do it.

Abandon censorship - all studies show that it doesn't work anyway.


//Steffen.

reply

[deleted]

It wasn't shown because it didn't need to be bleached. They're all pink inside!

reply

If you want to see one, there's this thing called the internet. Just google "vagina" and you can see as many as you want. And maybe, someday, you'll see one for real.

If we all liked the same movie, there'd only be one movie!

reply

Hah ... there are maybe 20 kinds of movies ... not just one, but in some respects, as in social control, they are all the same.

reply

Simple answer.... Her hairs are not inside her vagina. No need to apply peroxide in that area. Plus, by spreading herself open, the peroxide might get inside and it would burn much more than it did.

"Loves turned to lust and bloods turned to dust in my heart"

reply

Watch Babel.

reply

Maybe it's a matter of context. His penis was shown on the way to the urinal, and not "necessarily" sexually provocative, and was flaccid, which I think makes a difference in what the film is rated.

reply

What they show in the movie needs to go wit the plot.
They showed the soldier's dick in the bathroom with the women to
make a statement about him - that he is running around naked and
just all about sex and greed.

There is no other such logic to showing any more of her vagina than
they did.

Also, I am just watching the movie now, and just watched that scene a
few minutes ago. I can't sweat to it, but I thought the close ups were
not real, they are silicone models.

reply

>Pubic hair is NOT genitalia, it is just hair!

If you think it’s just hair, have some woman flash her bush in public and watch how quickly she gets arrested.

Personally, I think pubic hair is hotter than seeing inside the vagina in films and shows.

Don’t get me wrong, when I’m having sex, then I dive tongue first into her vagina.

But I’d rather see pubes on screen in mainstream films.

That’s why I hate women being shaved. It’s so boring.

reply