h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

In an otherwise very thorough article, I was a bit disappointed to see no mention of the double standards for gender that the MIAA applies to define nudity. A single instance of full frontal nudity by a man typically garners a movie an "R" rating. If the fellow is aroused or portrayed in a sexual manner, this goes very quickly to "NC-17." Meanwhile, full frontal nudity of women is perfectly okay for "PG-13" films and the occasional "PG" film. I've never heard of a film bumped to "NC-17" because of too many lewd portrayals of naked women.

All this amounts to tricky camera angles and carefully placed bedsheets to avoid showing the man's penis (and buttocks in most cases) in otherwise explicit sex scenes. The wildly successful video pornography industry in America is in part a response to MIAA's ratings and the subsequent movie censorship of human behavior.

I can only guess that children take away from this the lesson that men's bodies are taboo and ugly, while women's bodies are beautiful and reasonably exploitable. For that matter, I think this is another case where the MIAA's ratings system magnifies America's social hangups to the point of absurdity.

Not to defend the MIAA, but I think the criteria is in regard to the showing of primary sexual organs, ie, the penis or vagina. Full frontal nudity of a woman typically does not
expose her vagina, while it is rather difficult to depict full frontal nudity of a man *without*
exposing his penis.

Does anybody have any data on ratings of movies comparing depiction of vagina vs. penis? Probably not, as I suspect there are precious few, if any, rated movies which
show a woman's vagina.

I do find it inconsistent that our society, and by implication, the MIAA, considers a topless
man to be perfectly acceptible in many sitiations where a topless woman is not. Apparently, a man's nipples are more acceptible than a woman's.

I guess my argument is this. The MIAA should reflect the general standards within our country.

If the MIAA treats men's nipples as less obscene than women's, that is because our entire country does so. You will find in most local ordinances about public indecency that women's breasts displayed in public are indecent, while men's chests are not. I don't agree with this mindset either, but you can safely say this is America's hang-up, not the MIAA's.

In the case of male and female genitals, the MIAA is putting forth a standard that is different from common law and common decency. On television, men and women's pubic areas are similarly expected to be covered or otherwise made unviewable. In local areas, the rules for strippers regarding the covering of their genitals is always the same for both genders. Either g-strings are required for both men and women, or they are required for neither. Why should the MIAA use a different standard than the American public?

I sincerely hope you are mistakenly using "vagina" as a general term for women's genitals. If you understand basic anatomy, you will know the closest female equivalent to a man's penis is the woman's clitoris. A woman's clitoris and labia are highly erogenous, and are viewed in R-rated and even PG-13 movies. There is no equivalent to the female vagina in men. Women simply have more sexual plumbing. If the vagina were the only off-limits sexual organ for women, a movie would require the use of medical equipment to portray women in an X-rated fashion.

A good example is Parker & Stone (Southpark) movie Orgazmo. Which was a NC-17 but had less nudity than many R rated movie. But it was a spoof on the Porn industry, staring a few actual porn stars.
A lot less racy than Boogie Nights (serious movie with actors about the porn industry)which ended up with a R rating.

I never have fully understood the american rating system nor how the British system seems so much more lax now. The UK have ratings of U suitable for all. PG parental Guidance. 12, 15 and 18, these are self explanitory, noone below etc.

Well I keep reading about movies in the states being cut so as not to recieve a U17 Certificate and find some of these arriving uncut in the UK and receiving a 15. Also the 18 Certificate is not as big a deal over here as the U17 seems to be over there. It will still get disributed in all the main cinemas. But then maybe that has something to do with us being far freer about what we allow over the public TV channels that the US as well.

Compared to the UK, the US is more lax on violence and more strict about nudity. This is a reflection on our Puritan legacy, and again is not specific to the MIAA. You'll also see this reflected in the censorship of our television, radio, and print media. We seem to think it is better to kill people than create new ones.

I am constantly amazed by this as well. Most of the arguments about censoring information that would be 'harmful to minors' involve nudity, not violence.

Makes me think of the students killed at Columbine. Well, they may have been killed by classmates carrying guns, but at least, thank God, they didn't see any pictures of naked people. That would have harmed them.

I also find the sex discrimination practiced in the US strange. In some areas, a man topless is just fine while a woman topless is guilty of indecent exposure. A woman bottomless is still guilty of indecent exposure, but a man bottomless is guilty of lewd and lascivious behavior! Go figure.