MovieChat Forums > Ken Park (2003) Discussion > WAYYYYY TOO MUCH MALE NUDITY

WAYYYYY TOO MUCH MALE NUDITY


IM THINK IM GONNA BE SICK NOW

reply

You most have a really hard time changing clothes after the gym class.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"You mean women like to look at a good looking penis...."
*********************************************************

I wouldn't say "good looking" so much as "big", and don't forget the gay guys! Size matters.



"Believe not what you wish to believe, but what in truth you can"

reply

[deleted]

Well personally, I don't find anything rong with the human body and therefore wasn't bothered by this film.

reply

Again, very sexist and discriminating. IF they HAVE to show nudity (which they never need), they should at least not make difference between male and female nudity. In European movies you can sometimes even see naked men and no naked women. That would be outrageous in America, wouldn't it?

Personally, I am not interested in getting nudity shoved up in my face in every movie. I watch a horror movie for the horror, if i wanted the sex I'd watch a porn. Why they have to give you more than what you wanted? All horny people should go to the porn shop instead. Keep the normal movies clean instead. I don't get the need to show nudity at all in movies, because it is unnecessary to the story. They just want to sell women as always. Halle Berry for instance, is basically a whore, they do get paid to be naked etc. There is no great acting involved in sex scenes, and nudity is not art. Face it, nudity is never gonna do anyone any good on TV, it doesn't last, it doesn't make it better, and no one has a need to watch naked people in movies when they could be getting their own GF/BF instead.
It's just pointless, that's all. All about money, and who buys it? Since it is only female nudity that sells, everywhere... Who buys? Duh..

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

mjensen-3, it helps to know how to f_uck, but for everything other than vaginal intercourse, don't tell us that size doesn't matter!







"Believe not what you wish to believe, but what in truth you can"

reply

"I agree, but what does this have to do with nudity in movies?"
A: It has everything to do with the nudity in movies. It is unnecessary, if it was necessary - you'd get it from a porn.

"Define normal? Because this movie clearly wasen't ever intended to be."
A: Normal = All movies that claim to NOT be porno.

"In most movies their isn't any need for it, but in others there is. It's called realism. If someone is taking a shower or having sex, they should be nude otherwise it's unrealistic. If you don't want to see nudity, avoid movies that have scenes like this. That's why we have a ratings system."
A: Good idea... Not. If I were to do that I couldn't see any movies anymore. What if I want to see the rest of the movie which is good? While the nude scenes wouldn't have harmed the story if they were CUT. I'm for realistic movies, but showing nudity isn't the kind of reality you need in a movie. It is just as effectful in the movies where the shower-scene is not shown completely. Everybody get the idea that they're in the shower - but it's less harmful and would have gotten a better RATING for it = Viewable for more people.
There never is a need for it.

"Whores get paid to have sex! Nobody pays a whore just to get naked, those are called models. In anycase if any actor decides to act out a part in a film where nudity is part of the script, you label them a whore huh! Real mature."
A: That would be your definition. My definition of a whore is anyone who would place sexual arousal, lust and satisfaction in people for money. It all has to do with sex, sex in exchange for money. And penetration isn't the only way to have sex. Strippers, whores, pornstars, actresses... Actresses are doing the same as pornstars do. Sad how it has become so accepted for people to behave like this. It has nothing to do with maturity, better women with more respect for themselves wouldn't NEED to be naked in movies just because it's "part of the script". BTW, how would you know what people pay whores to do and not? Maybe they just like to watch, like strippers, while they masturbate to it, same as probably lots of guys would do to "normal" movies.

"Actually there is a lot of acting in sex scenes and if you've ever heard a real actor talk about filming them, you would realize that they are some of the most difficult scenes to act and require total professionalism and dedication."
A: It is the most difficult because sex is supposed to be a personal thing. You are naked and in a private moment, only they need to care what they look like while doing it, focusing on lines and everything. It is not great acting, the hard part is because you're lying there for the wrong reasons.

"Art is a subjective term isn't it. One persons art is another persons trash. Since Michaelangelo's David is one of the most famous pieces of art in history, I think many people would disagree with you."
A: They sure do. And art, as critics claim and everyone else who think they know something about this, is not seemed subjective at all. They classify it as well.
So, if what you're saying is true - then I can say Michaelangelo's "art" sucked, and then all those who disagreed with me would claim it WAS art - and I'd be wrong, because again, the majority decides. Right?

"Based on your comments, you are obviously a) an American, b) incapable of appreciating nudity as art and c) associate any form of nudity (no matter what the intentions are) with perversion, which may say something about you."
A: Says nothing about me. If you had bothered to check, you'd see I am not an American. I don't associate nudity with perversion, I associate it with privacy, something personal which you are not supposed to show around to whoever wants to watch, for money. So that leaves B. I am "incapable" because it isn't art. Walk around naked, film yourself, do whatever naked, it isn't art. Nudity is natural, something that IS, art is something that you make.
I just think nudity in itself isn't worthy of being art just because it's nude. It's not like any of the sexscenes in movies are made to make you think "wow, artistic". Usually it is just "wow, what a hottie!".

"One that you probably never really considered because of your upbringing. In Europe, nudity is shown on television and nobody cares about it, do you know why? It's not because Europeans are a bunch of sexual perverts, it's because they aren't."
A: I am European, so I am well aware of it. And they should care about it. No matter how normal and natural it is, doesn't mean it is a good thing to watch OTHER people naked just to prove they are not perverts. Nothing good comes out of it. Frankly, it would have been a lot better if there were no nudity at all on TV. That way it would be something you'd reserve for the one you should be reserving it for.

"Ken Park was not really that great of a movie, but doesn't deserve to be at disregarded because they show nudity. The movie should have been judged on it's overall content."
A: And it would still suck. I don't know any teenagers who act like these at all. It isn't realistic. It is just another movie trying to shock people on purpose by showing you the lowest they can think of. The worst, darkest and most depressing sides of human nature. As usual.




Also, another reason why I don't like nudity in movies, especially American movies, but all others as well, is that it is discriminating. It is almost always women, and they all are thin and "hot". It is rather boring seeing the same nude- and sexscenes over and over again.
Focusing on nudity in this way is going to create more discrimination. They will get used to seeing all that which is not good for them or others self image.

reply

Perhaps instead of voicing typical euortrash opinions of the states you should actually see some US tv. Citing only one example HBO tv shows have much more nudity (and yes, male nudity) than any european tv shows, (not movies). I know this from experience as I have been living in Spain for nearly two decades, and when you are lucky enough to see "explicit" US programming, (even South Park!) its always in the wee hours (12 am+), not prime time like in the "puritanical" us!!!!

reply

Another observation, when males are shown nude - you see their buttocks, but never their penis but you rarely see a females buttocks in a movie, or her vagina - but it's a lot common to show her breasts.

I think nudity in movies is balanced because I think I've seen an equal number of guy butt and girl boobs out of all of the movies i've seen, I just don't get why the vagina and the penis are kept so discreet - god gave us them, I don't see the harm in showing them, but modern age has made everything too sheltered.

reply

Yeah, when you consider what can or can't be showm of male vs female nudity to get an "R" rating, it's really male chauvinistic and discriminatory. America is one of the worst of the lot on this.





"Believe not what you wish to believe, but what in truth you can"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

I have a question ill be getting the DVD soon and I was wondering if anyone can tell me which scenes have the male nudity so I can tell if its the original version or not? thanks.

reply

How much male nudity was there?

reply

[deleted]

The male body is absolutely sexy. I love movies that show ass and cock. I don't know how many times I've gotten off to Tate's scene.

reply

Even the image of a well-hung prick asserting its point against the fabric in the crotch of a dude's pants is at least as exciting as a pert and full set of titties struggling to escape from skimpy decolletage!




"Believe not what you wish to believe, but what in truth you can"

reply

i found this film to be absolutely beautiful. it gave me renewed hope following a couple of difficult sexual encounters. this is a very necessary film.

as a life model and unofficial naturist(!?), I would say that the general aversion to nudity in either sex of any shape or age is very unnatural. The nudity should not be at issue at all, but rather its depeiction. In this instance I found it to be extremely healing. It showed the balance of sexual use and abuse (the father, the murderer) before ultimately illustrating how the protagonists overcame their respective situations. The threesome scene was a perhaps idealised, fun and relaxed, celebration of youthful beauty, friendship, the sheer JOY of sex and its ability to heal. i think the inclusion of the character reading a magazine at one point illustrates how, once we remove sexual restrictions and are allowed to freely express our sensuality, a lot of the power and mystic surrounding sex (that which is often perverted) is removed and it becomes as potentially light-hearted and nonchalant as any other activity.

i am glad i had the fortune to see this film and only hope todays teenagers attitudes towards sex are as healthy as depicted here.

one concern is the lack of contraception involved, but then that wasn't this films remit, it having already being covered previously in KIDS. Which, incidentally, should both be shown bareback to back in schools. ahem.

reply

Thanks for your fresh and upbeat take on this film, katalyzer!






"Believe not what you wish to believe, but what in truth you can"

reply

Yeah, I could've done without all the naked guys walking around.. I really don't want to look at a bunch of pale skinny teenager-looking guys walking around naked.. A little more female nudity in place of it would've done well.

reply

I don't know. I think all those complaining are either children or watching this film for the wrong reasons. And who should dictate what anyone else should be able to watch should they be inclined to. Live and let live is what I say. Anyone who doesn't like what they see should not watch, then they can not be offended.

reply

[deleted]

yeah, man, chill out. let larry clark do his thing. isn't your movie.

reply


way to focus on the details and miss any true meaning to the film. honestly, why even watch films with this point of view. just save yourself some time and judge movies without seeing them. cause i really doubt the actual watching affects what you think. is there a list, like a check list, of things to critique? and if there's enough you ignore any beauty or truth in a movie because it has more nudity than your comfortable with, or is more violent than you'd like to accept people are capable of.

reply

To be quite honest, i don't think so. It would have made it into one of thousands of movies that exploit sex to get through to a str8 male audience, ant therefore pointless and insignificant. Want proof? The very existence of this thread speaks for itself.
And BTW, this *might* come as a shock to you, but there might be *some* people out there that actually like

pale skinny teenager-looking guys walking around naked
way much better than
A little more female nudity in place of it
. But that's just my two cents.

--
if you don't see the FNORD it can't eat you.

http://www.movie-watchers.de

reply

Get over it and just watch the movie. It's sex, and in sex both men and women are equally naked. Once again, it's sex and you need to get over it.

reply

So you are THAT afraid of your sexuality? Who cares..

My vote history
http://www.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=21237198

reply

Sue IMDB for the sensorous administrator who deletes messages banning freedom of speech.

reply

I think it has a balance considering how much female nudity occurs.

I think the human body is great.

Males bumpy? thats just sociology for you.

reply

There is no such thing as "too much male nudity". Come on people!

reply

O__o

reply

I have something to say on this:

I don't have a problem seeing male nudity. I don't have a problem watching female nudity either. What I don't like is seeing errect cocks, or ejaculate in a non-porn film.

I mean: A womans' body is aesthetically the same whether or not she is turned on. It's possible her nipples might harden, but that's about the only visual difference. A males' arousal, is quite visually noticable, however. His nipples might also harden. When a woman orgasms, (unless she forcefully ejaculates) a tv crew is not going to be able to show any difference in her state pre/ post orgasm (apart from breathing rate/ skin flush whish is also present in males). When a man orgasms, it is visually obvious before/ after.

So, to my mind, when I see a womans' naked body on screen, I see a non-pornographic image (hard-core porn, I mean). When I see a woman splaying herself open, to show up inside her vagina (why the fark do women in porn do that??? WHO would get turned on by that? Do colonoscopies turn people on too???), that is when I see a pornographic image of a woman.

When I see a man naked on screen with a hard on, or ejaculating, I see a pornographic image. When I see a naked man with a flacid penis on screen, I see non-porn. For example, I did not consider Betty Blue to be pornographic. Not even the part where she kisses his cock.

But anyway, what I'm trying to say is: If I want to watch porn, I'll watch porn. That's where I'll see all sorts of no-holds-barred (pun [poor pun] intended) intense sexual activity. That's where I'll see hard cocks/ cum/ inner labia/ clits/ etc...

When I'm watching a non-pornographic movie, however, I'd rather not see hard cocks/ cum/ etc... I want you to know how hard it is for a hetro-male to say this, but I also don't want to see inner labia/ clits/ female ejaculation/ etc...

I think european filmakers/ tv stations/ whatever reflect this paradigm, as most euro films that make it onto free-to-air tv follow the same guidelines. While they may contain quite graphic nudity, they are not in essence pornographic, because they don't show 'excited genitalia', even though they may indeed show genitalia, and quite a lot of it.

While I recognise that there are directors like Tinto Brass out there, and while I can't say whether or not his films make it onto general European free-to-air tv, this is my sentiment.

Getting back to the OP now, I felt that seeing hard cocks, and cum in this film made me feel more like I was watching a porno than a film. I'm still ok with it, I just re-evaluate my impression of the film itself. I'll not do anything as -to my mind- childish as suggest that there should be shots of inner labia/ clits/ women with dildo's protruding from various intimate orifices. I think it's absolutely fine to have a one-sided porn-esque film such as this.

For myself, the re-watch value of this film has suffered a mortal blow, as I don't overly like films that cross and re-cross the film/ porno lines that I've outlined above -with the exception of "9 songs" which i feel was masterfully done-.

But that's my two cents worth. I;m afraid that the comments have run so long now that I;m unlikely to hear a response from anyone : (

reply

like anyone is gonna read all that crap

reply

You deserve a better response than that , I'll try to provide one.

I thought yours was a well-written post but I don't agree with you.

First of all, the real definition of pornography is not the one you suggest. You're probably aware of this but I'll explain it just in case. Pornography's sole purpose is to arouse the person watching/reading/hearing it. There is no artistry involved in any form. I think Clark's film has more than enough of artistic ingredients to not be a part of the pornographic category.
Your definition of porn is understandable considering the vast amount of movies that show aroused females but so few aroused males. The place were we see the most aroused males is, of course, porn. So when you watch a non-pornographic film that includes aroused male genitalia you are likely to draw the conclusion that what you are watching is pornographic.

But even if this was porn, I still don't understand why there is a problem. You made it clear that crossing the line between porn (your definition) and non-pornographic films was something you didn't want but you never explained why.

Does it make you uncomfortable or do you just think it's wrong?

reply

The problem Razar_C, is that I want to see a movie with balance of sexual images (because it IS part of life, and I find it fascinating, and not because of some "pornographic" purposes) plus plot. You won't see that in porn movies.
So, please stop with all that "if i wanna sex, I watch porn" etc argument, it's getting old. Not everyone thinks like you.

reply

I have something to ask, too:

If there is anyone reading who does like seeing images of women spreading/ ripping their labia as wide open as they can, to show up inside them, can you please tell me what the fascination is?

I mean, you're no longer looking at anything recognisable. On the outside, you have the labia (inner, and outer), you have the clit, you have the mons pubis, there's the pubic hair, the delicate lines between labia, and legs..... There's so much to see and admire on the outside. But looking up inside a womans uterus is quite featureless. So, what's the attraction? This is a genuine question, by the way.

Also, another genuine question: If these same people are into anal sex, do colonoscopy videos turn you on? Or is it the act of brutally rending an oricife that's the attractive part?

I'd really like to get some input on that one, as I don't personally know anyone who likes it (though my last girlfriend was quite surprised to find out I didn't like it, she never made it clear if she did).

reply

[deleted]

I don't out of my way to look at porn or nude movies.

But I am concerned how it seems to be ok to see Women naked and oh the breasts and nipples are ok and even pubic hair excuses but the male not at all...obviously coming from old values male posters and what small mindedness.

Equality? so do we regard women as inferior and exploit them? but males are superior and require more privacy? is the male inferior from mass media images? well lets just ban the David statue too and replace it with a female version as thats ok...jeebers!

If you don't want to see full nudity on screen in a movie it should apply to both genders. Otherwise it is just being sexist to males and females.

Don't go to Florence I hear there is nude male statue on display called Dave...

reply