MovieChat Forums > Fifty Shades of Black (2016) Discussion > Damn! Graphic nudity again :(

Damn! Graphic nudity again :(


Does every f'n R-rated comedy these days have to show us a penis? For f's sake stop it already.

And the trailer shows a scene in a male strip club -- so there will be tonnes of male g-string shots as well. Yaay!

Let me guess, maybe a fleeting topless shot, but no female will take off her bottoms or even give us a good look at her butt in a g-string. The film's racy sexy poster, of course, tries to lure us with female skin.

Can't we have a guys' night out to see an r-rated comedy that features at least as much female nudity as male?

I think I'll have to bad mouth this film on every web site that mentions it. If I can prevent even a dozen guys from seeing this, I am happy.

reply

LOL. This guys movie that shows as much female nudity as male nudity you just described was literally every single raunchy comedy in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s.

It is about damn time that the nudity scale is balanced because the male to female nudity ratio is STILL way off. Pfft.

reply

Based on your retarded logic, just about every movie coming out of Hollywierd from this day forward should include tons of gratuitous labia footage just to make things fair! Gotta admit: I AGREE!!!

reply

No that's actually not what I'm saying at all. It's frustrating that when people don't understand things, they automatically label them as retarded.

I'm just tired of the complaining about gratuitous male nudity NOW when women have historically been oversexualized by gratuitous nudity scenes NOW and IN THE PAST. That's where my statement about evening the balance comes in... so I don't know why you're talking about future movies as a way to make things even.

It's difficult that some people feel the only way to rectify seeing penis in films is to also be exposed to labia as a way to 'make things fair.' Full frontal is full frontal, labia or no, sack or no, bush or no, etc. etc.

It's not anyone's fault that female reproductive organs just so happen to be internal while male reproductive organs happen to be external. Just like it's no one's fault that female breasts contain more fatty tissue than male breasts and are therefore larger but there again, females have been subject to a media oversexualization of a non-sex organ.

Gender inequality in film comes in many forms, nudity is just one of them. So please, calm down with this 'logic' business. No one's trying to be logical here, it's a message board for a terrible looking movie. Hope this clarifies it a bit for you and helps you understand better.

reply

If "full frontal is full frontal" then topless is topless :)

If you have the guts, do a Google search on "trance Dawson nude" then click on "images". This is decent female frontal. No attempt is made by the film maker to hide Rosaria Dawson's vulva with a massive fake bush.

We know that the MPAA's double-standard policy would never let a film maker zoom in on female genitals, but frontal nudity like that provided by Rosaria Dawson would balance things a bit.

reply

ty for the info on the Dawson link. Much appreciated. :)

reply

[deleted]

Amen.

I like my phone like my dreams... dead.

reply

So you're saying they should show a bunch of penises in movies to make it even? Wtf.

reply

A male reproductive organ! Good heavens, I might faint!!

Not seeing this movie either way, but this is a poor excuse to not go.

reply

It is too bad that we are not discussing an upcoming film in which you retort:

"A female reproductive organ! Good heavens, I might faint!! "

Why are bottomless females in legit films so taboo? We see breasts all the time, and these days every film has to show a penis and/or men's naked backsides, so why not a vulva/labia or even a female backside? What's so faint-inducing about the female anatomy?

Video games are practically banned because the physics of bouncing animated breasts (full-clad) are too realistic. So why can't guys complain about very graphic male nudity in films?

Me thinks I will round up some guys and just go to a strip club for some r-rated fun. Hollywood can keep its current obsession with male genitals for people like you who seem to have no problem with the double-standard.

reply

No nudity should be "faint inducing." If you'd assume so, you'd be a fool.

reply

I'm just in shock you took the time to complain about no full frontal nudity in a movie that you see in public. You actually make plans for a guys night to see a movie and hope to see some vag in a movie? I mean they do make free porn sites so you and your buddies can sit around having a "guys" night lol

reply

Here we go again. So based on your brainwashed beliefs, a visible vagina (i.e. labia, vulva) in a movie qualifies it as pornographic material. Really??!? But penises are okay... Reeally???!!!?

reply

telus-sux-I am with you. I have been boycotting films as well as HBO for a couple years now. I, like you, are sick and tired of the double standard of showing male genitals time after time but never seeing any female frontal nudity or , gasp, a labia. The problem continues to be that there are too many emasculated males these days who are unwilling or incapable of speaking up against this double standard out of fear for being criticized. I am willing to put up with male genitals if they would also include equal amounts of female nudity. Unfortunately, it appears Hollywood has a definite agenda of including as much gay male sex and male genitals as it can put in film after film after film and at the same time making sure to avoid showing any female frontal nudity or labia. Those females who have criticized males speaking out about this double standard have shown themselves as being sexist. In this age and time no one should criticize others for wanting to be treated equally. So, if they don't like it , get over it for we are here to stay and we will be moving forward. Slowly, it appears, but we will move forward. The more males who are willing to speak out against this double standard the better. Maybe one of these people will have the knowledge of establishing a website and and knowing how to contact these studies and cable companies in mass. It will be a long road ahead but reaching equality will be woorth it. Until then, I will continue to boycott all films and cable shows that do nothing but show male nudity.

reply

Wow you sure are angry about a dick.

Seriously this is stupid. It's a penis. Get over it.

reply

Ahhh, the good old-fashioned debate about penises in films. Here's my honest, pedantic, and mostly objective take on it. I agree that penises are way over-used in mainstream American films nowadays. I wouldn't have a problem if it showed up every now and then in a natural setting to enrich the plot. The problem is that it is thrown into every new "raunchy" R-rated mainstream comedy for shock value. And since the viewers are now becoming numb to seeing a glimpse of a penis, the boundaries have to be pushed- whether it's shown for longer periods of time, in more ridiculous ways, excrutiating close-ups with fabulous angles and lighting, fully shaven, or now the en vogue preference, in erect form. Here's a taste of the new movies I am alluding to: Fifty Shades of Black, The Night Before, Dirty Grandpa, Vacation, Spy, Unfinished Business, Get Hard, Hall Pass, Bruno, Borat, The Hangover films, Saving Sarah Marshall, Wolf on Wall Street, and so on. Whether it's a prosthetic or a real penis is irrelevant given the super realistic new age cinematic dongs being used. When I speak of erections, you will conveniently find them in Spy (more in unrated), The Night Before, Wolf on Wall Street, Bruno, Under the Skin, and many non mainstream films not worth mentioning. When will the exploitation of the male body end? And why must it be so ubiquitous in comedy films, many of which are intended for the male viewer?

The MPAA has clearly demonstrated that the penis is no longer off limits for R-rated films, and that it's inclusion no longer requires adequate justification. Indeed, the penis scenes have become just as common as the topless scene, albeit in different contexts. One could even argue that it has surpassed the almighty breasts in terms of exposure. This should raise concerns, or at the very least, curiosity, about the significance of this paradigm shift with respect to cinematic nudity, and exactly what this means for the future. Some may argue that this makes up for the decades of exploitative full female nudity, often meant to titillate the male viewers. There are others like myself who believe I shouldn't have to be surprised by a penis every time I want to see an edgy R-rated film. The debate surrounding this topic is heavy and common ground is often elusive. This brings me to my next point: where's the vagina?!

Where IS the vagina? When was the last time you actually saw any hint of the female genitals in a mainstream R-rated American film? Think of one now...can you? I doubt you can, at least one with verifiable exposure. Sure, you'll mention Basic Instinct, but the problem is that the lighting was so poor, and the pubic hair so thick, that even relying on slow-mo with a quick pause of the remote, you still question whether there's even a sliver of labia major. Then there's Knocked Up with the birthing scene where an unmistakable baby's head is exiting the birth canal. But do you see any detail surrounding the head? The clitoris is simply MIA (missing in action)! Leave it to the human mind to embellish what it thinks it saw, and ridicule the opponents. Take the film, Harold and Kumar Escape from Guatanamo Bay. There's a bottomless party scene where all of the women lack undergarments and appear to be well-trimmed, if not fully shaven. The problem is that no matter how hard you look, you simply cannot see any pudendal cleft, labia, clitoris, or anything else (for reference, a pundendal cleft is seen in natural, standing position: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pudendal_cleft). There's even a close-up scene where the camera pans down the front of a bare female to the pubic region, but you still cannot see any hint whatsoever of the genitals. Why is that, you ask? In an effort to protect the sanctity of the almighty vulva, a thick merkin was place atop the sensitive region to fully conceal the details. Why even have a scene like that if you have to hide what's naturally there? And back to the myriad bottomless women at the party- they all wore either skin-colored merkins or were later photoshopped to be perfectly smooth and bereft of genitals. Some have argued that the cart-wheeling female did indeed show the cleft, but I had difficult discerning any detail. This is nothing new. You will see the same treatment in the film Wolf on Wall Street with the fully nude and "shaven" women in the hot tub scene (not one vulva is revealed). Hell, even a person associated with that movie's production crew admitted that the MPAA demanded the removal of any and all female genitals, hence the photoshopping, merkin use, and whatever it took to reach compliance. Don't mind the masturbation seen where an erect penis was seen on Jonah Hill before and after he was beat by his girlfriend... To be fair, the vulva has made an appearance in some lesser-known films such as Trance, Code 46, and a couple others I can't think of now.

Let's get this over with now: I may be a pervert and may have spent an unhealthy amount of time concerning myself with this seemingly innocuous cinematic phenomenon. Call me what you will, but I do have a psychology degree and a healthy curiosity of the natural world around us, including human sexuality.

In conclusion, it has been almost a decade since I witnessed the paradigm shift in cinematic nudity, and it has piqued my curiosity ever since. I think it's the dichotomous perceptions of those experiencing the new form of male exploitation that is the most interesting. Sure, a penis is only a penis, but what does it mean? People like me and the OP so clearly recognize a trend or a double standard, while others either don't see it for a number of reasons, or simply don't appreciate the gravity of the situation. Either way, this is an unfolding scene in the movie industry and one that may take some interesting turns in the future. There's nothing wrong with either the male or female body, and nothing to fear with either. Let's just poke fun at both of them equally without discrimination, hate, fear, or jealousy. Let's all move to a position of understanding and move beyond it. But first, let's recognize that the elephant in the room is not the beastly display of the penis, but instead the utter absence of female genital exposure in any form, and the common fear that goes along with it. That my fellow movie-goers, is the real travesty here.

reply

There's a pretty simple answer to your question as to why R-rated comedies these days show penis, but not vagina.

The answer is because they are going for shock comedy. Showing a penis in these movies is always used as a punchline or laugh point. Showing a vagina wouldn't necessarily be funny. They aren't showing penises in a sexy way. THAT is why the vagina is considered more taboo in film.

But, if you watch art house/independent/foreign films, you'll see PLENTY of full frontal female nudity. But, if you're looking for it in a raunchy comedy, you're just not going to see it unless it can be made funny.

Also, and this is a more minor, but graphic point - male genitalia is easier to show than a female's. Since everything is outside of the body, the camera angles don't have to feel quite so intrusive when capturing them. For a woman, most of the goods are in and under, and often shadowed by hair...

What's going on? What's all this shouting? We'll have no trouble here...

reply

What this dude said. Penises are rarely if ever SEXUALIZED when shown in film, whereas vaginas are almost always shown in a sexual context.

The absolute nonsense being spewed here that male nudity in film and TV is somehow overtaking female nudity to the point of being upsetting is just laughable. If you REALLY think that there is *MORE* male nudity in film now than female, you are either seeing the wrong films or you're just delusional. Somebody asked if I could name a recent film that showed female frontal nudity off the top of my head...? I could name twenty in less than a minute. Kristin Wiig in "Welcome to Me", 2014. Several actresses in "Ex Machina", 2015. Sarah Silverman, Michelle Williams and like 4 other actresses in "Take This Waltz", 2011. Seriously I could name a *beep* ton more but the point is made.

In reality, in this movie there is a totally fake prosthetic penis used in a scene where Marlon Wayan's glues astroturf over it as if it were pubes. That's how much Hollywood DOESN'T like to put penises on screen - they are constantly using prosthetic ones.

reply

Those aren't vaginas that you saw (no visible labia) and they aren't Hollywood mainstream films either. They are foreign films, not produced and distributed by mainstream Hollywood.

Also, Hollywood shows fake pubic hair merkins on women all the time. That's how much Hollywood hates vaginas - they have to cover them up with fake pubic hair!

And Orange is the New Black showed a pussy pic and it was funny and not sexualized. It's rather easy to show vaginas in a comedic way, especially since people fear them so much, but Hollywood is way too afraid to do so.

reply

You lose. Showing a vagina is much more shocking than a penis, so if they are going for shock value, they are choosing the wrong body part to show.

Also, the tv show Orange is the New Black showed a closeup pussy pic in one of the early episodes and it was shown in a comedic/non-sexual manner. How did they show that and make it funny too if you are saying vaginas cannot be funny?

Also, to Hollywood, vaginas are not sexy. That's why films keep making fun of them, calling them roast beef, smells like fish, etc. And don't get me started on how Hollywood makes fun of women's menstrual cycles. That doesn't sound like Hollywood believes vaginas are sexy.

The problem is Hollywood is run by PC liberal douchebags who fear that body part and who don't want to upset a vaginally insecure female audience by showing off vaginas. THAT is the reason why you don't see vaginas in Hollywood even though every other movie industry in the world in a free and democratic society shows them. Why does the indie market show vaginas but mainstream Hollywood is too afraid to do so - are they saying that the American public can't handle seeing vaginas?

reply

I "lose?" What did I lose? There was a prize involved?

It is common knowledge and factually based and verified that the members of the MPAA, the people who actually DECIDE ratings and force directors to censor their work and NOT show genitals, are all DEEPLY CONSERVATIVE. Your assertion that it's "PC liberals" is just nonsense.

reply

The "you lose" was directed at WeDidntBurnHim not you.

Trance, The Blue Room, Code 46 among others are foreign films that show explicit vagina shots (in fact, The Blue Room showed the lead actress spreading her legs open and showing her wet vagina up close in two separate scenes). All these films were rated R by the MPAA.

Hollywood filmmakers CHOOSE not to show vaginas. They can if they wanted to especially since precedent has already been set by the movies I mentioned above. Also nearly all films released on DVD/Bluray are released UNRATED (not submitted to the MPAA for a rating). That does not explain why they don't show vaginas when they can.

Why do they choose not to show vaginas? PC liberals and their fear of that body part, that's why.

reply

[deleted]

You managed to misconstrue just about everything I said, so congrats on that.

I didn't say penises are shocking and vaginas are not. I said they are used in shock comedy movies. I am just saying that, in the context of THESE movies (which is what we were discussing) showing a penis automatically becomes a punchline.

I also didn't say that vaginas can't be funny. I said they aren't NECESSARILY funny. Meaning, you don't just show one and get a laugh every time in a movie like this. Orange is the New Black is NOT a movie like this (which, again, is the topic at hand).

Also, to Hollywood, vaginas are not sexy. That's why films keep making fun of them, calling them roast beef, smells like fish, etc. And don't get me started on how Hollywood makes fun of women's menstrual cycles. That doesn't sound like Hollywood believes vaginas are sexy.

There is some of that, but if you, once again, reread what I wrote - I didn't mention Hollywood. I said art house/independent film. That's the opposite of Hollywood.

What's going on? What's all this shouting? We'll have no trouble here...

reply

What did I misconstrue? I said vaginas are more shocking than penises (which you agree) so they are showing the wrong body part if they are doing this for shock value.

Showing a vagina in a funny manner will ALWAYS elicit laughter. We're talking about showing them in a humorous manner yet you bring up sexual manner. It doesn't matter if Orange is the New Black is a movie or not - we are talking about CONTEXT here. If you can show it in a funny manner on a show, then you can just as easily show it in a movie like that too.

Mainstream Hollywood makes fun of vaginas all the time. At least the indie/foreign market does not AND they show vaginas too. I'm talking about mainstream Hollywood and their total disgust over that body part.

reply

Bla bla bla. I've read this whole board and still haven't heard if there's dick in this movie and whose it is, because I'm certainly not going to watch it for the comedy. So, anybody seen it?

reply

Just comes off as extremely lazy humor to me anymore. It used to be, if a movie had a dick scene, it was a well-done joke that fits the context. The original scary movie surprised you with including a dick, but I had no problem with that scene- it played on real pop-culture situations (men having gay encounters in secret in men's rooms) while spoofing on the scene from Scream where they guy gets stabbed through the head after listening to what he thought were people having sex. In Life of Brian, you see full frontal of a man who went outside after having sex, thinking he was alone, unaware that he had an audience out there. The dick was less a prop and just more a part of the situation- he got caught at a bad moment.

Now, it seems like it's a lazy writer's way to try and get another gag in. Penises are used in such a way that it amounts to- "LOL! PENIS!" It's stupid. It's not funny. It's incredibly lazy and tiresome. The "shock value" of seeing one died years ago. Now, it's just a case of "Oh, another penis, great."

Female nudity alone isn't funny either, but writers don't seem to see it that way either, so that's why you don't get it as much.

reply

[deleted]