I’ve seen lots of topics around gender pop up on the web over the past few days, so I’ve decided to dedicate two factoids to the issue. Today’s focuses on the men; tomorrow, on the women.
Cinematical took a look at the MPAA’s sexism in evaluating nudity in movies. Listen to this statistic:
Since 2006, 786 movies have been flagged for “nudity.” Only three — all 2010 releases — have the warning of “male nudity”: Jackass 3D, Eat Pray Love, and Grown Ups. Zero in five years carry a “female nudity” red flag.
So why the discrimination against men? Apparently it’s the legacy of “Bruno,” which angered quite a few parents. I’ll admit that it was quite graphic (and a little bit more than I expected from an R), but I’m sure there are plenty of movies with graphic female nudity and we don’t see them getting descriptors added. And for those wondering, “Bruno” was rated R for “pervasive strong and crude sexual content, graphic nudity and language.”
I don’t understand why male nudity is that much more taboo. I saw “Eat Pray Love” and “Grown Ups,” and neither featured any sort of traumatizing images. Both were just bare backsides, which can pass in PG movies. The double standard seems quite strange. Are we just protecting women from the indecency of seeing certain things?
There’s only one fair way to do this: either the MPAA takes the unnecessary step of adding the gender of the naked person before each mention of nudity in a movie OR they just go back to saying “nudity” and leaving it at that.
Marshall and the Movies 
I agree, Bruno was totally out of control, especially with that swinger party, my jaw just dropped. I do think that when it comes to penis’ and vagina’s, the MPAA is so much more harsh, because that’s more traumatizing. But back-sides should get around to a PG to PG-13 rating, and boobs should get R, just to be safe.