Was the PENIS scene necessary?

I have spoken of this subject before. Male frontal nudity simply can't be compared to female frontal nudity, no matter what!

And anyway, this homo man never even saw this movie until the this year. The idea of comparison between male and female nudity in movies makes no sense! There is no real necessary comparison at all, male to female, hetero vs homo, etc.

I thought the movie was good (not great). Does anybody else like it beyond the penis scene argument?

Peace To All!
John D. Martin, Homo

You make a good point, hecantune. It's true that the 'glimpse and then cut away" shots at the beginning and at the end (the nudity at the end was unnecessary) was kind of [stuff]. In the break up scene Peter Bretter was just noode throughout. During the earlier break up scene Peter Bretter was simply bare nekkid! He was in the presence of his "girlfriend" no matter what his and her life eventually changed to. It was a truly good scene. The breakup scene was not meant to suggest sexual arousal or sexual activity in the end.

It's only a human penis regardless how anybody reacts to it on a personal level. So, what's the problem? [smiles]

"...Eek! A human penis and stuff! I must run away!..."

John David Martin, 47, Lifelong Homosexual Man

Gonna list the clueless arguments one by one:



1) ("what's the big deal?")

"it's just human anatomy"
"we all have one"
"you're born naked"


You're right. Let's put porno's in the movie theatres as well. It's just
the human body, it's just sex...we all have seen it or done it. What are
you scared of you prude? While we're at it, I think more anuses should be
shown in movies because "it's just the human body" and buttholes are so
damn funny.


2) "it's so funny!"

Call me old fashioned, but I'm not really understanding what's so freakin hilarious
about seeing someone's penis. Do you go into locker rooms where there's naked people
and just crack up the whole time because it's so freakin funny? If anything, awkward
is the thing that comes to mind.

3) "showing boobs are the same as showing genitalia"

Wow, if your logic level is that low, I don't know what to tell you.
I'm not even going to explain how making this comparison is retarded.
You should be able to figure it out for yourself.



4) "it's 2009, get with the times"

So you're definition of "getting with the times" is having zero standards
for anything that comes before your eyes and tolerating everything? ok then.
How low can your culture's moral standards go?


5) "it's necessary to the plot of the story"

I'm really sorry if you are too dense to understand a scene without seeing every single detail of being naked (like a butt shot wouldn't suffice to showing that he's naked). Some things can be left to the imaginationa and the audience should be able to figure it out that he's naked.




In the end, the primary reason this recent trend of showing genitalia in movies is MONEY. People predictably talk about it more (like now) which = more publicity for the given film which = more ticket sales. I really don't need to hear all these other reasons like "it's so important to emotion of the character" BS. It's in the movie because Hollywood has become Homowood (along with the rest of Southern California) and because of supposedly straight men like Judd Apatow making it his agenda to show penis as often as possible. (what straight man would feel compelled that way I ask).


If this is a trend that sticks, well then bring on the shaved vaginas/clit appearances in mainstream movies for nudity equality.