I'm a little curious about naked men...!

[Guest Rich.]

DOWN! You RABID dogs!

 

Sorry, but I'm asking about naked men in film and on television in the USA.

 

OK, before Deej leaps for my jugular accusing me of laziness or incompetence (I deny the former, but accept the latter graciously), I have tried searching t'internet for a definitive answer to my query, but without success.

 

So, I was wondering if Members would be willing to offer a helping hand?

 

I've just received some Region 1 DVDs from the a friend and realised that they've been edited to remove the scenes where male genitalia is on display. This seems to apply both to films and to a television series.

 

In my (undoubtedly feeble) researches, I gather there seems to be a conflict of opinion about how such censorship is applied in America, seemingly dependent on whether it's a theatrical release, terrestrial, cable, etc.

 

I confess that it feels a bit schizoid to me, as pornography in the UK is illegal (unless it has BBFC R18 certification and is sold in licenced sex shops), but Channel 4 (a free-to-air station over here) quite happily showed the gorgeous Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) playing a 15-year-old schoolboy stripping off, getting rimmed, then buggered and finishing with his partner shaking his spunk off a mobile phone (actually the jizz scene may have been a first for UK television!).

 

I'd be interested to learn what the score is on that side of the pond, before I acquire any more, what are to my mind, bowdlerised DVDs!

 

Thanks in advance to any Honourable Member willing to advise.

 

Richard.

[fedssocr1]

I don't think you'll ever see frontal male nudity on US TV. At least non-pay-cable (HBO, Cinemax, etc) TV. There have been a few butt shots here an there on later evening dramas on "regular" TV. I can't think of hardly any feature films with male full frontal...although i am sure there have been a few. I think if you search "nude male celebs" or something like that you will find some references. We're a weird country. We use sex to sell everything but are ruled by a bunch of prudes.

[Epigonos]

Being a film buff I have always found this question fascinating. It is extremely interesting to compare and contrast U.S. films with those made in the UK. We as individuals and as nations are prisoners of our pasts. The American colonies were founded by Puritans seeking freedom from the Church of England. To say that the Puritans were sexual prudes is to be it mildly. There is still a strong puritan streak in U.S. culture to this day. American films have always reflected that puritan streak when dealing with nudity and sex on both the big and small screens.

It is thus interesting to note that American filmmakers have always and still do censor nudity and sex from their film yet at the same time allow some of the most wanton violence imaginable. British filmmakers on the other hand carefully censor wanton violence yet allow extensive nudity and sex to be shown. What an interesting world we live in!!!!!

[+ purplekow]

I believe that the first network show to regularly feature male nudity was NYPD Blue in which men's asses were shown with the men leaving bed or in a shower or in some appropriate context. That was in the 1980s but network TV has rarely featured my favorite male body part since. As for a penis. It is rare to hear the word spoken let alone to view a glimpse of some heftily endowed young stud. On network TV, penis appear to be fuzzy screen static areas between a man's thighs.

Now and again on cable TV they will show a penis. On the show Gigilos, you see male sex but no penises, at least I have never seen a penis on that show. Most of the time that penises are shown, it is non erect and usually non sexual. Even Logo, a gay themed TV station on cable, blurs out the penis for all but a very few purposes.

Yes Shameful is the middle name of the good old USA U Shameful Americans.

[seeker630]

I don't think you'll ever see frontal male nudity on US TV. At least non-pay-cable (HBO, Cinemax, etc) TV. There have been a few butt shots here an there on later evening dramas on "regular" TV. I can't think of hardly any feature films with male full frontal...although i am sure there have been a few. I think if you search "nude male celebs" or something like that you will find some references. We're a weird country. We use sex to sell everything but are ruled by a bunch of prudes.

 

Even on the pay channels, you're much more likely to see vaginas than penises - and never an erect one (at least, as far as I know). I remember a scene in 'Rome' in which someone purchased a slave with a very large penis and there was a brief shot of it, but otherwise I'm hard-pressed to think of examples (disclaimer: I haven't seen the 'Spartacus' series on Starz, tho I may subscribe soon for the new Trochwood series ) There's a an HBO 'documtary' series called 'Real Sex' that shows more genitals than I've seen elsewhere, but there's much more female forntla nudity than male.

[uwsman2]

I think the US cable series Oz (set in a prison) came close, if possibly crossed the line a few times, but in soft focus. Generally you won't see male genitals on anything produced for broadcast because of restrictive rules by the Federal Communications Commission.

[Phil_musc]

Yes, Oz had quite a bit of nudity - fore and aft shots (to save you time, go to season 4). There was also some frontal nudity during the first season of Spartacus.

 

Yes, we live in a strange country as far as sex goes as has been noted above. Sex is used to sell just about everything, but it's mostly innuendo and implication. Then too there's the shameful way we've been treating our elected officials who have decided to use the internet to spice up their lives. Whatever happened to free speech (as broadly conceived by the Supreme Court)?

[corndog]

Three categories, really:

 

- Broadcast, over-the-air television is heavily restricted by the FCC. Although you may occasionally see butts in shows meant for broadcast after 10pm, you'll never see boobs or penises.

 

- Cable TV is not regulated by the FCC and each network can set their own standards. Many cable networks voluntarily follow the broadcast tv guidelines, but pay channels like HBO and Showtime are more liberal and will allow nudity in certain programming, up to "soft porn" in late-night time periods which will generally show sex but not penetration.

 

- Theatrical releases are not restricted, except for things like child pornography. HOWEVER, nudity will almost always earn a theatrical release an "R" rating by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and sexualized nudity such as an erect penis or penetration will usually yield an "NC17" (formerly known as "X") rating which is generally regarded as commercial suicide for a film release since most theaters won't present movies with that rating. Some films will opt not to be rated, but that designation also prevents many movie theaters from presenting them.

[+ deej]

Ratings for theatrical releases:

 

http://www.mpaa.org/ratings/what-each-rating-means

 

In addition to editing films to avoid the dreaded "R" rating, directors will sometimes release a "Director's cut" on DVD which will include the stuff that was removed. And, of course, when movies air on TV they are "Formatted for television" (which really means cleansed).

[Guest Rich.]

Fedssocr, Epigonos, PK, Seeker, Uwsman2, Philmusc, Corndog & Deej,

 

Firstly, let me say thank you for taking the time out to give me an education, it's really appreciated.

 

As I said, it was a surprise to find that even mainstream US theatrical releases (on DVD) of such films as Alexander had a separate edit for the American market, including having the handsome Colin Farrell's endowment cut!

 

I should confess that I'd also gotten a little confused by the fact that the UK R18 rating is for hard core pornography sold in licenced sex shops, whilst the US R18 rating is used for a theatrical release.

 

During the 80's and 90's, we looked with envy at the easy access our American cousins had to hardcore pornography, including theatrical releases of films such as Inside Linda Lovelace and Boys in the Band.

 

OK, over here an erection would be considered pornography, but naked male genitalia is acceptable, both in the cinema and on TV. I can remember as far back as 1969 to the nude wrestling scene between Oliver Reed and Alan Bates in Women in Love...

 

[video=youtube;1HvlkL3XVzE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HvlkL3XVzE

 

... progressing to a gay love scene between the gorgeous Rupert Graves and James Wilby in the 1987 Merchant Ivory production of Maurice...

 

[video=youtube;E_utKGPOYGA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_utKGPOYGA&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

 

... to 2011 when nakedness can even appear as part of a mainstream quiz game on a free-to-air (network) television channel!

 

[video=youtube;gcpImyyF8Gw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcpImyyF8Gw

 

I'm wondering if it's just that us Brits have long been surrounded with Museums and Galleries chock full of nudes and therefore we've somehow separated the idea of nakedness and sexuality!

 

Thanks again, Guys, for your interesting, helpful and informative posts.

 

Richard

[+ deej]

As I said, it was a surprise to find that even mainstream US theatrical releases (on DVD) of such films as Alexander had a separate edit for the American market, including having the handsome Colin Farrell's endowment cut!

 

Perhaps it's to accommodate local laws in some locales. The lowest common denominator wins. Although it's sounding more and more like you've got a special production. I've never seen such an edit produced for domestic distribution. If anything, the DVD release will generally be MORE explicit than the theatrical release, not less. (Such edits exist and are used on some cable channels, but they're generally not available for the home market.)

 

I should confess that I'd also gotten a little confused by the fact that the UK R18 rating is for hard core pornography sold in licenced sex shops, whilst the US R18 rating is used for a theatrical release.

 

You keep trying to combine the two entirely different sets of laws. As I've said previously, it is pointless and confusing to do so. The US DOES NOT HAVE a R18 in the same way the UK has a R18, in either name or intent. Porn is legal in most places in the US.

 

In the early days, when "The Boys in the Sand" was shown in theaters, there was no home market for pornographic films because there was no home mechanism for showing them. There were entire chains of movies theaters across the country that specialized in showing only porn movies. Residents of Los Angeles can still visit one of the last of these, the TomKat, where they can still find Linda Lovelace's and John Holmes' handprints and footprints immortalized in concrete on the sidewalk out front.

 

It has been argued whether VCR popularity created today's porn industry or the other way 'round.

[MsGuy]

It has been argued whether VCR popularity created today's porn industry or the other way 'round.

 

Something of a chicken and egg argument but from the stats I've read, plus talking to a few guys who ran video stores early in the game, porn drove the sales of VCRs until the price dropped down to around the cost of the average TV. Who would pay $1200 to watch "The Sound Of Music" in the privacy of his home?

[Guest Rich.]

Thanks Deej, very informative! However, a small point:

 

You keep trying to combine the two entirely different sets of laws. As I've said previously, it is pointless and confusing to do so. The US DOES NOT HAVE a R18 in the same way the UK has a R18, in either name or intent. Porn is legal in most places in the US.

 

OK, you're under the mistaken belief that I'm trying to combine two entirely different sets of laws. I'm honestly not. However, I do think you're probably confusing classification versus content.

 

You might be unaware that historically the US and UK classifications ran almost in parallel, and today they are still pretty close. You kindly provided a link to the MPAA's categories, here's a link to the BBFC's version (the relevant information is in the right-hand column). As an aside, see how laughable it is that even main stream porn releases that receive a BBFC R18 classification can only be bought in a licenced sex shop, not by mail order, here in the UK!

 

If you compare both, you'll see our U now equates to a G, PG is a match, 12A and PG-13 are close, we have 15 (which can contain strong sex but not extreme violence), 18 which is similar to your R, and R18 which is a much more restricted version of your NC-17. I was simply suffering under the miscomprehension that our R18 and your R were roughly similar. My mistake, I apologise if that was pointless or confusing for you.

 

However, the point is that while both the MPAA and the BBFC are charged with classifying content into legal enforceable categories, what ends up in those categories is merely a matter of taste, ie. what proves acceptable to those doing the classification.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Richard

[JT Brooklyn]

I'm thinking most Male Actors are just as Happy that Full Frontal rarely comes up in their Contracts. Mainly because thery would end up on a "Who has the Biggest Dick Site"!

 

Which some would definitely feel uncomfortable about where as other's would not!

[Guest Rich.]

I seem to recall Mark Wahlberg wore a false one for Boogie Nights. Daniel Radcliffe went without for Equus, live on stage. Oh, and Colin Farrell has NOTHING to worry about, either way!

 

Richard

[+ deej]

However, the point is that while both the MPAA and the BBFC are charged with classifying content into legal enforceable categories, what ends up in those categories is merely a matter of taste, ie. what proves acceptable to those doing the classification.

 

There is nothing legally enforceable about MPAA ratings.

 

In fact, films can be released unrated.

 

MPAA ratings are marketing.

[Guest Rich.]

There is nothing legally enforceable about MPAA ratings.

 

In fact, films can be released unrated.

 

MPAA ratings are marketing.

 

Are you sure Deej? It's rare these days, but we occasionally have prosecutions against cinemas that routinely permit under-age entrants to certificate 18 films, more common are prosecutions against retailers who supply 18-rated DVD's (and games) to those under the age of 18.

 

Richard

[fedssocr1]

yes, I'm sure it's true that MPAA rating have no legal standing. However, most theater chains will not show unrated or NC-17 films for whatever reason. So the studios know it is commercial suicide to not get an MPAA rating of R or below. Art house theaters or chains like Landmark will show unrated films. I am guessing that they more or less will only program films that comport with their community's "standards" though. So it's more likely to see more nudity and so forth at a theater in a place like NYC than Des Moines.

[Guest Rich.]

I appreciate your posting Fedssocr. I was under the mistaken impression that the MPAA classifications had similar legal standing in the USA to the BBFC ones here in the UK. It came as a surprise to learn that MPAA certification is legally meaningless! Thanks for helping me get a better grasp on the US position.

 

Richard

[TruthBTold]

Yeah, Colin Farrell in A Home At the End of the World. Not much else I remember about the movie but a nude Colin Farrell (tho actually the movie has its good points.) Rent and enjoy.

[corndog]

There's an interesting documentary about the corruption and hypocrisy of the MPAA called "This Film is Not Yet Rated."

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0493459/

[Guest Rich.]

Fantastic Corndog, much appreciated. I've just ordered up a copy. Thanks!

 

Richard