- Nude men should be shown more in movies
- Nude men should be shown the same in movies
- Nude men should be shown less in movies
Most Helpful Guys
Because most producers and directors are men.
Most film studio heads are also men.
Also, even though this may be somewhat outdated, most movie studios still see Young Men as the demographic that watches the most movies at theaters, and thus, the demographic that is the most profitable for them, and hence they often try to market their movies to a male audience.
They know that most heterosexual young men have been conditioned all their lives to view women as objects (passive, to be looked at), and themselves as the subjects (the ones who are active and look at the objects) and, as a result, are very, very uncomfortable when seeing men being placed as objects of sexual desire. Couple this with the homophobic culture that runs rampant in most parts of the world, and you can understand why studio heads don't want to mess with what they think is the tried-and-tested formula to grow their bottom line.
Also, you should consider this:
- Breasts are not equivalent to Penis.
The breasts are secondary sexual characteristics in women.
The penis is a primary sexual characteristic, or a sexual organ.
Saying that a woman exposing her breast is equivalent to a man exposing his penis is a false equivalency.
In most movies where women are shown completely naked, nearly all such women wear merkins, or their genitalia is completely covered with pubic hair. The only recent movie I can think of that comes even close to showing a woman's bare genitalia upfront - and here I just mean a shot from the front, and not in complete detail as you do in porn - is Trance, staring Rosario Dawson. And that movie immediately received an R-rating. If you show just an inch of the cleft that makes up a woman's bare genitalia, you will most like get an NC-17 rating unless you cover the offending bit with a merkin.
There are far more movies that show male penises compared to showing a woman's bare vulva. Therefore, you cannot compare movies that show women's bare breasts to movies showing men's penises. You should be comparing movies that show women's bare genitalia to men's penises.
First of all sex appeal sells. It's not the only reason we guys watch a movie with boobs in it, but it possibly adds or gets guys talking about the movie. Thus increasing sales. I don't think you should feel that movies with lewd content is degrading to all women. Unless the movie is a documentary or has a story that is directly saying or implying "this is what all women should be seen as and should act like". You should just look at the actress as playing some lewd roll for a fictional character in a made up story. With no more significance than we or the story allows her character. As for movies with more male "anatomy" in it. If it fits into the story and you ladies out there want it, i see no reason for it not to be there. Although haven't seen any studies done on Male "Anatomy" screen time in relation to amount of female viewership / sales. But I have a feeling it could be enlightening, lol.
Most Helpful Girl
Because women are not interested in seeing nude guys in movies, but men are very much interested in seeing nude women in movies.