Why can't women enjoy sex?

[Skanky Vamp]

Based on an anecdote that Emily Browning told Nylon magazine about a sex scene cut from Sucker Punch, it would appear that a movie in which the female character enjoys sex can't get lower than an R rating.

"I had a very tame and mild love scene with Jon Hamm. It was like heavy breathing and making out. It was hardly a sex scene"¦ I think that it's great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn't like that. They don't think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they're from the Stone Age. I don't know what the f**k is going on and I will openly criticize it, happily. So essentially, they got Zack to edit the scene and make it look less like she's into it. And Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her. That's the only way he could get a PG-13 (rating) and he said, "˜I don't want to send that message.' So they cut the scene!"

It creates a disturbing dynamic if you take Browning's quote to mean that the MPAA will award a lower rating to a scene that seems to depict rape, as opposed to sex that a woman actually wants and enjoys.

Full Article

As movie go'ers, have you noticed this? At first glance it may seem the case.

 

[zobothehobo]

That's absolutely disgusting.

 

[arabella]

I haven't noticed this before, I suppose I will pay attention now. That is really just ridiculous.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Seeing Red]

The first thing that comes to mind for me is the movie Cruel Intentions, you hear Kathryn enjoying sex but never see her having it. I don't believe I have ever seen a movie where a female is enoying herself. I would this would be because the people who rate the movies don't want the movie to seem like a porno.

 

[prophecygrrl]

Ugh. This is so disgusting. I saw this a couple of weeks ago, and I don't know who Emily Browning is, but I'm proud of her for speaking out when she could've easily gotten in trouble for it.

What's even grosser is that this isn't surprising. This reminds me of when Blue Valentine got an NC-17 rating just for an man-on-woman oral sex scene that wasn't even very graphic.

---------- Post added at 07:32 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:21 AM ----------

Oh lol I haven't read the whole article, whoops. God I hate the MPAA. Especially since Sucker Punch (I haven't seen the movie but you can't really miss the ad campaign, lol) is SO sexualized it's ridiculous. We're talking adult women in tiny schoolgirl uniforms and pigtails, and yet they can't even get a consensual sex scene? Sexualized, but not allowed to be sexual.

 

[Kean]

This has been a trend since the dawn of time. A sexual woman is a threatening woman. How many women have we seen in popular culture and the media demonised or punished because they dared to enjoy sex? This is nothing new.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

How many women have we seen in popular culture and the media demonised or punished because they dared to enjoy sex? This is nothing new.

Oh, sorry.. I was thinking you meant actresses not characters.

 

[Washburne]

Can someone please go through the stages of ratings. Yes I'm lazy. Here we got only four and the last two is for 11 year olds (from 7 if in company with and adult) and up and for 15 year olds and up.Sucker punch got the 11 year olds limit. Which in theory mean that 7 year olds can watch it here.

If the rating depends on if it's a woman or man enjoying sex it's ridiculous. I thought it was depending on the scene itself and nothing more. Silly me.

 

[Goby]

A sexual woman is a threatening woman. How many women have we seen in popular culture and the media demonised or punished because they dared to enjoy sex? This is nothing new.

Women who enjoy sex are tramps. Everyone knows that! We can't let children see that. 🙄 (*said with a huge amount of sarcasm and rolling eyes*)

 

[Harley]

If the rating depends on if it's a woman or man enjoying sex it's ridiculous. I thought it was depending on the scene itself and nothing more. Silly me.

See, this is where I am. I think there's very little evidence that its true and I think that the entire article is purely opinion based.

This paragraph is what bothered me the most:

While Browning's explanation is hearsay and there doesn't seem to be a cut-and-dried MPAA guide that corroborates it, it makes a lot of sense. Plus, it creates a disturbing dynamic if you take Browning's quote to mean that the MPAA will award a lower rating to a scene that seems to depict rape, as opposed to sex that a woman actually wants and enjoys.

We didnt see the cut scene so, while she may think it wasnt too heavy, anything can be edited to look like anything else. I don't think it's fair to jump from

And Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her

to

That's the only way he could get a PG-13 (rating)...

even it it came across to her that way. The only way he could get a PG-13 rating was to make it look like he was trying to rape her? I hardly believe that.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

The entire article IS opinion based; which is why I highlighted that and asked if it seemed logical. I mean, seriously, Sex in the City was rated R. It seems to me there may be something legitimate to the statement.

 

[Harley]

Titanic, Ace Ventura, Forrest Gump, and Dances with Wolves all had sex scenes and were Pg-13. I don't remember the women being depicted as not enjoying themselves either.

Scobro agrees: "taking advantage of" doesn't mean "rape" though.. she never said rape. (not seen the movie so if rape happens i apologize)

The scene she was talking about wasn't even in the movie, but there were a couple scenes that implied rape.

Could you explain more about the differences that you see between the two terms are? Unless you're meaning that rape only implies penetration, in which case I see what you're saying, but I lumped "trying to rape" and "taking advantage of" as the same thing.

Also, the article itself jumps from her quote to addressing scenes that "seem to depict rape."

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Ace Ventura had sex!?! Really?

Well, taking advantage of could be numerous things.. a shoulder for her to cry on and get her all emotional then make out.. just one example. There are lot of other ways to take advantage of.

 

[Harley]

Ace Ventura had sex!?! Really?

Totally. With Courtney Cox of all people.

Well, taking advantage of could be numerous things.. a shoulder for her to cry on and get her all emotional then make out.. just one example.

Well, if it was something like that, I would hope a scene like that would get a lower rating than a sex scene. In that case, it would be based on the scene itself, which is how it should be.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

I do not remember that Cox scene.. though seeing Carrey Cox might not be worth remembering.

 

[Harley]

I do not remember that Cox scene.. though seeing Carrey Cox might not be worth remembering.

It was in Ace Ventura - Pet Detective so if you haven't seen that one, thats why.

 

[Skanky Vamp]

No, no.. I mean I know the movie well.. I just dont remember that scene. I remember the Einhorn is that your gun.. and what not, but not Cox and him.

 

[Zeppo]

The option to keep the scene was available to them but the studio doesn't wish to have anything more than a PG-13 rating to bring in the people. It's a fact that this PG-13 are money makers for studios - just look back at a good handful of the "horror" that are this rating (Prom Night, The Unborn, Pulse, etc.). They don't want to loose it.

I'm not a MPAA fan but I feel that their standards are defined by society and the audience that watches movies. Parents trust the system and I think both parties have laxed on what PG-13 means. It's the new PG.

The movie is marketted at teens and if it's rated R teens can't go. Thus the scene had to go. Don't take Emily's quote as gospel; no one has seen the scene. She put time and work into it so her opinion on how the scene comes across to her is biased. She might see it as being taken advantage of but maybe an audience does not. I've only heard praise for the film and have yet to hear uproar over that part.

If the movie was aimed at adults 19-25, the scene would've been kept in as the R doesn't affect the target audience.

---------- Post added at 10:59 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:55 AM ----------

Scobro agrees: Wow.. you have only heard praise for the movie? I haven't heard ANY praise for it!

Haha, weird! Yeah, no bad reviews have come to my ears.

 

[white avenger]

I've never understood the difference in the way that men and women are judged by how sexually active they are. A man who is very sexually active (Visualize James Bond here) is called a stud. A woman who behaves exactly the same way is a slut. It's ridiculous.

(Incidentally, on the movie ratings subject, it's well known in the motion picture industry that a "G" rating on a movie pretty much delegates it to the "kiddie movie" class. In order to avoid the "G" rating for the original "Star Wars," Locus had to add two extra scenes to the movie: the scene showing the burned corpse at the Skywalker farm, and the cantina scene where Ben cuts the guy's arm off. Without those two scenes, "Star Wars" would have been "G" rated, almost certainly would not have attracted as many viewers, and there would have been no "Empire Strikes Back" or any of the other sequels ever made)

 

[Skanky Vamp]

Funny how they have now been re-rated to a G status, huh? What's that say about society?