This year marked the debut of MPAA’s use of the phrase “male nudity” as a criterion for rating films. This disclaimer was used thus far in the ratings of three films in 2010: “Jackass 3D,” “Eat Pray Love,” and “Grown Ups.”
The ratings given to these three recent films reveal that the Motion Picture Association of America — the supposed moral bastion of Hollywood — is totally defunct.
The MPAA has a long history of promoting male hegemony through their rating system, and the addition of this phrase to their repertoire is an indication of that. However, it is rather hard to work out just why this is so.
Now let’s look at the new, and less humorous addition to the MPAA’s ridiculous rating’s repertoire.
By creating the disclaimer “male nudity,” the MPAA has acknowledged that in our culture male nudity only applies from the waist down. However, female nudity seems to encompass the entire female body.
However, before delving into the details of these ratings, let’s take some time to reflect on the MPAA’s history of ridiculous ratings.
In 2004, “Team America” was given an R rating for, “graphic crude and sexual humor, violent images and strong language — all involving puppets.”
Don’t you like the disclaimer at the end of the rating? It’s unfortunate that the MPAA didn’t build upon this rating and give “Twilight: New Moon” a PG-13 for, “the promotion of self-indulgent behavior—all involving human teens, vampire teens, and werewolf teens.”
The seminal children’s classic “Alice in Wonderland” received a PG rating for, “fantasy action/violence involving scary images and situations, and for a smoking caterpillar.” While the MPAA should be credited for the creativity of this rating, why not just say that the film included smoking, instead of pointlessly maligning the caterpillar. It’s not his fault he was written that way.
Another children’s film that received an interesting rating is “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” which was given a PG rating for, “quirky situations, action and mild language.” It’s important not to expose children to quirky behavior too early — they’ll stop playing group sports and spend all of their time knitting tea cozies and hanging out in thrift shops if you don’t monitor their exposure to quirky situations.
In 1996, the MPAA released the penultimate of ridiculous ratings when Twister received a PG-13 rating for the, “intense depiction of very bad weather.”
While the weather in the film was rather poor, should the weather really be part of the criteria the MPAA uses when rating a film? They could have just rated the film PG-13 for, “the portrayal of a cow in its unnatural environment, and for portraying tornado hunting as a viable lifestyle choice.”
The majority of female nudity in films is used in a sexual manner, but male nudity is often used as a joke; hence “Jackass 3D.” The cause of this discrepancy is the fact that the most nudity in films is catered towards men. Furthermore, the MPAA is sending the message to filmmakers that women can be objectified in films as long as they recognize that they will receive a harsher rating for “nudity or sexuality.”
If they include full frontal male nudity in their film, however, they will have the disclaimer “male nudity” tacked onto their film. In other words, the MPAA has acknowledged that when they include a disclaimer warning of nudity or sexuality in a film that warning is focused on women. They have placed “male nudity” in a category of its own, to be treated differently. They are saying that men deserve special protection from viewing something different or potentially more offensive.
The MPAA needs to either replace their newest sexist disclaimer with “full frontal nudity,” or start warning people when a film contains “female nudity.” It is time for the MPAA to start taking their job seriously, and to think about the underlying messages they are sending to viewers through the disclaimers they tack onto films.
Daniel Renfrow is an Anthropology junior and may be reached at [email protected].
Not a bad article, Daniel. But you need to look up the meaning of the word "penultimate".
Your IQ is lower than a potted plant. The fact is exposure of breasts and buttocks is different than exposure of genitalia. You would be hard pressed to name a half dozen films in which the genitalia of females has been shown in the last decade in MAINSTREAM film. However I could easily name a dozen that have shown full frontal male nudity in the past 5 years. Its reached ridiculous proportions and bluntly put its reverse sexism.
So do us a favor Daniel, try some objectivity and fact finding or stop wasting our time
Ok if breasts aren’t considered nudity why is it acceptable for men to walk around with no shirts on but if women do the police will be called. Explain that. Your logic is very unsound. And the point was that the mpaa calls female nudity just “nudity” but male nudity gets its own special name as though men’s bodies deserve more respect than women’s.
I think women know that if there is full frontal female nudity the female gentalia is off limits as far as a graphic shot. All you see is hair and if the women is shaved they will give her a merkin(wig) to make sure nothing is seen. Men however bare everything in full frontal. I think if women really wanted equallity in full frontal they would change there minds pretty quick if women were doing spread eagle shots on film. Also boobs dont equal genitals sorry ladies,I'm sure you know that but you will exhaust that to your hearts content.
Women get to see mens breasts all the time and we get a 2 second glimpse and women think men should show there genitals? That's quite the double standard. That's like saying if a man shows his naked butt we men should get to see your genitalia. I think there are so many people with different feelings regarding nudity that they should just take it out of t.v. and movies all together. If they can't make a movie interesting enough to watch without nudity then it probably is not worth watching anyway.