Thank You, MPAA; Stalwart Saviours of Purity and Moral Fibre

10262235_10152559848440695_5033236313145013944_n
Did you just look at that poster? You did? Well, congratulations: you’re fucked, now. According the the ever-vigilant eye of the Motion Picture Association of America, the above poster for Sin City 2 was deemed ‘too risque’ for having the audacity to highlight the fact that women apparently have breasts. It came as a pretty big shock to me: living in the real world and interacting with women on a daily basis, I had no idea.

Thankfully, the MPAA were quick to act and demand the poster be censored to cover up the boob silhouette, presumably because it was too late to get Eva Green to come back on set and do another shoot wearing a parka, zipped up to her chin. Here’s how the poster looks, now:

article-0-1E77D78E00000578-238_634x935

Disaster averted!

It’s probably not coming across in my tone, so I better just lay my cards out on the table: this is fucking ridiculous.

I could list a hundred reasons why this decision to censor what wasn’t even an explicit depiction of an inherently non-sexual part of the female anatomy is a dumb thing to do, but I’d rather let a picture do all the work for me, because I have a ham sandwich sitting here that’s not gonna eat itself.

I don't see where you're going with this...

I don’t see where you’re going with this…

Maybe I’ve not made my point. Here, let me try again:

300-poster

What, it’s too violent? I don’t get it.

Okay, I hear you. You’re all like, ‘Rob, why are you being so damn cryptic, just say what you feel.’ Ugh, I always have to spell it out, don’t I? Fine:

Wolverine_Inmortal_New_Poster_latino_e_Cine_1

So now you’re saying it’s racist for Australians to pretend they’re Canadian? What’s this got to do with tits?

Okay, I think I’ve milked that bit enough, but it does serve to highlight just how fucking stupid this apparent moral outrage over a covered boob really is.

The MPAA will claim that, by doing this, they are upholding the moral fibre of society and protecting our children from smut and erotica, (because they certainly couldn’t find that anywhere else,) but in reality all they are doing is re-enforcing archaic gender stereotypes and the idea that a woman should be ashamed of her body and cover it up while men are allowed to go taps aff without a moment’s notice or any fear of reprisal.

You can argue that I’m just mardy I don’t get to see a hot lady’s boobs and I guess you wouldn’t be entirely wrong, but I would shoot back that if women/gay guys are allowed to look at hot man boobs –because you’re not telling me that all those topless men are on those posters to cater to a straight male audience– then why is the other way round somehow perverse or corrupted?

Seriously, tell me right now why it is acceptable to show male nipples but not female ones. (Protip: ‘They’re sexier,’ doesn’t count as an argument because there is nothing inherently more sexual about female nipples; any sexual characteristics applied are a societal construct or projected by the individual.)

This is the absurd moral double standard of modern society, still operating on the idea that a woman is a thing to be coveted or a prize to be won, and that only to the victor goes the spoils of seeing boobs, while men are free to preen and present for anyone and in any way they please, even the ones that you really, really wish would put a shirt on (I’m talking to you, overweight Glaswegian man with the glass bottle of Irn Bru hanging out your back pocket.)

I will concede that, if a woman did appear topless on a movie poster it would be shocking, of course it would, but only the first time it happened. Just like it was probably pretty shocking the first time someone was allowed to be openly gay in the public eye, or a black man could walk into a shop without having to worry he’d be refused service on account of the colour of his skin. It was never shocking because it was a bad thing, that shock is only the minds natural reaction to experiencing something new.

Just like Britain didn’t crumble and sink into the sea the day the first gay couple married, nor would it turn to ash if Eva Green was allowed to appear slightly more nude on a poster for a grindhouse film about ultraviolence and hyper-sexualisation.

That’s how progressiveness works, and that’s why every single one of these issues can always be traced back to a fear of change, and a fear of relinquishing even a modicum of the power held by those who champion the status quot only because it benefits them the most.

Covering a woman up, telling someone to keep their sexuality to themselves, these are far more dangerous and destructive actions than allowing freedom of expression, because they further promote the idea that we should be ashamed of ourselves and who we are if it even slightly deviates from what is perceived as the norm.

Since I can already hear the chants of ‘White Knight’ and ‘Social Justice Warrior’ echoing in the distance, I’ll just close by throwing up Jessica Alba’s Sin City 2 poster which, as far as I’m aware, the MPAA have felt no need to censor in anyway, so presumably there is nothing risque or sexually provocative about it, at all…

"What? This is just a comfortable, totally normal way to sit."

“What? This is just a comfortable, totally normal way to sit.”

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Advice, Current Affairs, Films, The World at Large. and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s