Is HBO Giving Us the Shaft?


According to a study by the Parents Television Council, full-frontal instances on network TV increased 6,300 percent in 2012. Full nudity (non-frontal) is also rising, jumping 407 percent from last year. If the networks are showing a 6,300 percent increase in full-frontal nudity, it would stand to reason that HBO would be showing us bunches of boobs and a plethora of penises, right? Well… not exactly. HBO, as always, treats us to lots and lots of breasts and plenty of female full frontal, however, we are totally getting the shaft, penis-wise.

Other premium channels, Starz, for example, has been generous with us in the penis department. The Spartacus series is the perfect place to go if you want to see, ehem… cock. Lots and lots of cock, in fact. And I’m not just talking about random guys in the background of the Ludus or secondary characters wandering around, oh no. You’ll see the penises of the stars on Starz. Major characters like Manu Bennet and Craig Parker went full frontal on the series. Da Vinci’s Demons, one of the newer arrivals to Starz, also gave us several penis shots during its first season, and they don’t discriminate. Old, young, big, small, season one was actually a bit like watching a lesson in male anatomy.

Showtime has also had their fair share of penises on display. One fellow in particular that comes to mind is Jody (Zach McGowan) on Shameless. Not only did we get a look, they even gave us a long close up. It was, shall we say, memorable. Overkill? Heck no! It was situational and it drove the plot, which is more than I can say for countless shots of female full-frontal nudity or breast shots.

Wall Sushi’s Infographic Art – Boobs Per Episode, Game of Thrones Season 1

So where are the penises showing up on HBO? Since Oz has been off the air, they’re appearing primarily on Game of Thrones, however not in great numbers. So far we’ve seen Theon Greyjoy, Hodor, and the creepy wine seller bare it all. Will we see more in the coming seasons? Let’s hope so, as we’ve seen enough full-frontal female nudity on Game of Thrones to last us several, extra long winters. And dear HBO, in the future, if you’re going to display male genitalia, how about going a bit heavier on the younger, and/or more attractive male cast members wandering around unwrapped? More in the Theon category, than the Hodor, perhaps? Although not too young… this is Game of Thrones we’re talking about. And let’s face it. It would be hard to be grossed out by Charles Dance or Michael McElhatton, even if they’re not as young as they used to be.

Another thing you’ll find on Game of Thrones is copious numbers of boobs. Check out Wall Sushi’s excellent infographic of Boobs Per Episode of Game of Thrones (Season 1) if you don’t believe me. In fact the producers of the show seem to like to feature breasts so much, in addition to numerous brothel scenes, they actually have added female characters with speaking roles who have spent seventy five – one hundred percent of their screen time, unclothed. It’s easy to see that the number of breasts versus the number of penises shown on Game of Thrones is not even close to being in the same ballpark.

During this season of True Blood, we were shown slightly more than we’ve seen in past seasons, however, a quick flash of the outline of Alexander Skarsgard’s vampire genitals from about a mile away, and in shadow, is not exactly what I would call full-frontal male nudity. Nor is the bloody mess of dismembered member that Eric ripped off of a doctor at the Vamp Camp and left lying in a pool of gore.

Why then, does HBO, a network that airs shows like Hung, which is actually about a man who possesses and extra large appendage, seem to be so slow to show us the money shot? It’s a question worth asking. Is it because the people making these decisions are primarily male and therefore, not interested in equality when it comes to nudity on their shows or their network? I would argue in the case of Game of Thrones, that the answer to that question is yes. But is that the case across the board? Or could it be an insecurity issue? Do the producers of HBO series “X” feel as though the fewer on screen penises they have to look at, the less they have to worry that they, themselves, won’t measure up?

Perhaps it’s a case of what the men at home want to see (or not to see). It’s highly possible that the average television viewer sitting on his couch in his living room, may be “grossed out” by having to see another man’s manhood. Although, I would wonder here, are they grossed out when watching porn? And if not, why not? What’s the difference?

How about the ladies? Does it make the average female viewer squirm to see Theon Greyjoy bear all? If so, what is it that makes us so uncomfortable? It’s natural, all men have one (well, OK, most men), and I’d be willing to bet most of us have seen one in real life, or in some other context. This isn’t the 50’s, I’d be willing to bet that we’re not all having sex with the lights off, so why are we against seeing an unclothed male on TV or in a movie? Rather than broadening our horizons and helping us to become more accepting of the male form, has the amount of porn that’s become available to us in our internet driven society actually hindered our ability to view and accept the male body as art?

Of course there are women out there who actually enjoy seeing an attractive naked man. Yes, we actually do exist! Some of us aren’t even ashamed to admit it. Those of us who enjoy reading (or even writing) erotica or watching a little (or a lot) of porn, on our own, or with our significant others, are certainly not averse to seeing an actor take his clothes off every now and then. It may not always feel socially acceptable, but women have sex drives, just as men do. And I’ve yet to meet a gay man who didn’t enjoy the occasional nude male TV or movie moment. Why then, with the amount of boobs on display, do we not get our fair share of the eye candy?


There is, of course, the unrealistic side of the male full-frontal nudity that we’re allowed to see today, as although we do see the penis pop up more often than in the past, there remains the fact that we rarely see a penis in a realistic sexual situation. Sex and flaccidity do not go well together, and yet showing a man with an erection would surely be crossing the line into porn. Or would it?

I still argue, however, that it will never be convincing to see a sex scene where we see a fully nude woman and never quite catch a glimpse of her partner’s anatomy. It takes two (or more) to tango, and so it seems odd that when watching a steamy scene, the man is always ever so strategically covered while the woman has it all on display. Is it not sexist (and no, I’m not a feminist, so please don’t accuse me of crying misogyny) to showcase nude women to the extent that we see in our television and movies today, and yet we see male genitalia so infrequently, that we it remains (to many) shocking and somewhat distasteful?

My hope is that one day we’ll see more male full-frontal nudity on HBO. Not because I want to see it, (hell, that’s what the internet is for!) but because male genitalia exist and I can’t see any reason to hide that fact. I’m not asking for fewer breasts, I’m just asking for equality. We’ve showed you ours, so you show us yours. Go on, I dare you!

Here’s College Humor’s take on the whole shebang:

[poll id=”27″]

UPDATE: Check out the other side of the “dong” story!

About The Author

274 thoughts on “Is HBO Giving Us the Shaft?”

  1. I have to agree with you. I’ve always wondered why showing an erect penis on a TV show is considered ‘too close to porn’ and therefore cannot be shown. Well, what about women? There is no difference in seeing a vagina than an erect penis. If a vagina got ‘erect’ and for arguments sake lets say ‘extended’ would they not show vagina’s on TV? Just because a penis looks different when erect and non erect and a vagina doesn’t (well mostly) does not mean that it shouldn’t be on TV.

    1. An erect penis is the same as an erect clitoris. You want non-erect penises to be shown, that’s the same as a non-erect vulva, and yes, female genitals do get erect – the vagina grows from about 3 inches to over 5 inches, the clitoris becomes engorged in blood, the labia swell up and turn red. This is the same as an erect penis. If you don’t need to have the penis erect, then a non-erect penis is the same as showing a woman’s non-erect labia and clitoral hood, both of which would cause women and gay men to go ballistic if they were ever shown on TV which is why they are not shown on TV. How exactly is this fair? People want vaginas to be shown too, not just penises. Get over your fear of vagina already, it’s getting ridiculous. It’s 2015, not 1815.

  2. I stopped watching the show. I’m just disgusted by the inequality and won’t watch ANY shows/movies any more that do not show equal time of female/male nudity. And I’m spreading the word and getting others to do the same.

  3. In response to the featured comment I will not only answer myself why, but I will tell you. I give you a single argument that makes full sense and trumps any complaints this article might be validating. You start clearly with the idea of genitalia equality (or rather inequality, in favor of the male wishes). Homologous parts: Breasts =/= penis. It just so happens that we’ve sexualized female breasts. That is undeniable and there are tons of breasts eveywhere. But If this is a topic of nudity you cannot compare apples to bananas (pun intended). I would fully agree that breasts are everywhere but if we are arguing about fairness in full frontal nudity especially through demanding more penises, homologous parts must absolutely be where the conclusions are drawn from.

    Every scene that counts as full frontal male nudity makes the external genitals visible. shaft, balls, head check. For your benefit of the doubt, 2 out of 3 of those things.

    A scene that shows female “full frontal” nudity only has to show pubic hair. This is the same thing you are counting for “genitalia equality.” No external genitals required. The overwhelming majority of the time even the pubic hair is not natural, but rather a “merkin” – a synthetic pubic hair wig made to be worn INTENTIONALLY with the purpose of obscuring any clear views. In most contexts the quantity/style is not accurate to what are cultural norms, and not necessarily to natural physiology.

    I challenge you to take a thorough look through premium cable series and R-rated movies. You will find (as I already have) that it is damn near impossible to find a view of vulva (by that I mean even so much as the distinction that there is separation between the two labia majora…. or even more, the labia minora which are part of the external genitals/vulva and are homologous to the penile skin) and that if you compare scenes that actually show genitals the number of male scenes vastly outnumber that of female scenes. Lets not lie to ourselves and say that if we saw just a guy’s bush we’d be satisfied with calling it “genital.”

    It would not be unrealistic or contrived to catch a view of vulva on film, but has rather been intentionally avoided. It is well known among directors that visible labia (almost without exception) will earn the NC-17 kiss of death. When the director of “Zach and Miri Make a Porno” was interviewed, he said one of the scenes that was hardest to get was that of auditioning porn actresses. In LA, it seems, you’re hard pressed to find an actress (much less any average person, no offense to you if you like to wear it full and proud) that has enough pubic hair to meet the MPAA’s standard of self censorship. It might be worthy of mentioning that this is a movie that has a scene of a male actor naked, walking down the hall with his genitals clearly visible. He proceeds to the fridge and we get a spectacular shot of his butt along with hanging scrotum and penis from a rear view – a nice gander, not a split glimpse. Swap out that scene with a female with all the same conditions, you would be able to see her stuff from front to back, in the same way.

    The above mention of self censorship also means that many actresses cannot be shot naturally in the buff at all as they are not “tidy” enough – the labia minora / clitoral hood make themselves too seen, apparently. Which I’d like to note is not uncommon for the average woman, who, in a standing position will have more on display than in just about any R-rated or premium series you can find. This is also a phenomenon in softcore pornographic magazines such as playboy. Photos which depict female genitalia are edited, even from casual poses, cutting, squeezing and rearranging until that “tidy” adjective comes up once again. Apparently to actually show a random natural woman is vulgar. This is what a combination of simultaneously demonizing and pedestalizing lady parts will do for a culture.

    boobs =/= penis
    lots of boobs =/= lots of penis
    vulva = penis
    we see penis
    we don’t see vulva
    this is an intentional move by actors, directors, rating boards alike.
    genitalia equality is not in the position you seem to, or would like to believe

    If you dont like how much boobs, complain about how much boobs.
    If you don’t like how few penis, complain for more penis.

    BUT DONT use false information and the argument of fairness to try and get what you prefer. Because true fairness would mean every pair of boobs = 1 man’s chest and every instance of “full frontal male nudity” would be accompanied by actually seeing (gasp) what women display down there… because no one already knows, of course.

    Now you should ask yourself why you working to contradict what I’ve said, and why you are deluding yourself believing it.

    1. disqus_jUCtajspxG

      A penis is both a sexual organ when erect and non-sexual when not erect. So…don’t show it erect. Or show the man’s testicles only, which are secondary sexual organs, like breasts.

      1. A man’s testicles are analogous to a women’s ovaries.

        A women’s breasts are analogous to men’s breasts, which are seen everywhere on this show. There are a lot more male breasts than female breasts on this show.

        1. Stop making so much sense Dyrus. You just make get called an idiot by the author who trolls here own comment board.

  4. There was full frontal and non-pubic hair nudity in Spike Jonze’s “Her” if anyone interested (the woman is pregnant though).

  5. This is childish you can tell who ever is writing this article or believes in this is a women or a homosexual .The reality is if they put more male nudity in films they would lose out on tickets because of all the straight men in the world don’t want to see other men naked .You have to understand it ‘s psychology 101 Men are different than women they aren’t all in touch with their feelings or open sexually as women are with each other .People need to get real the same is true of pornography no one cares about the guy its all about the female .She sells the movie because that’s all most people care about

      1. Women are NOT naked all the time. They are topless only. You want men to show their penises but don’t want women to show their vaginas? How is that fair? Time for you to get over your fear of vagina.

  6. To summarize the arguments thus far:

    argument #1: I don’t want to see so many cocks on TV. It’s nasty.

    Fair enough. You are a heterosexual male and you are not attracted to

    penises, so you don’t want to see as much male nudity.

    argument #2: We’re all for equality! Spread those lips and bend over.

    Lel. Just be honest- it’s not about equality. You just want to see famous poon.

    1. To summarize yet another woman who will probably get the featured comment with nonsense like this.

      To summarize the women we are all for equality as long as that means men showing us their genitals and all we have to do is take our shirts off. That’s the woman’s idea of equality. It’s also the idea that hiding behind a merkin is somehow equivalent to a man graphically showing his genitals. Well congrats for the most intelligent comment and yet another woman who is scared to death of actual equality. Hey did you get home schooled and your folks forgot to teach you about what the genitals are and what the breasts are? I think you and the author need a refresher course on the sexual reproductive system.

      Let’s be honest you really have no idea what genital nudity is or you didn’t care to read the article.

      1. Oh, believe me- shaved genitalia is the equivalent of shaved genitalia. Both should be visible in sex scenes.

        I was just referring to the posts that ask for female nudity under the guise of psuedo-feminism or sexual liberation. It really is about wanting to see famous women naked, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

        Conversely, the female argument that equates breasts with penises is an odd mixture of juvenile slumber party fluff and puritanical “eyes only” psuedo-feminism.

        To sum up the female arguments:

        1) We want to see penises (tee hee)!

        2) I’ll show you my boobies but you can’t see anything else! Hands off, boys (tee hee)!

        It’s another attempt at pseudo-feminism, but their side is oddly antiquated.

        They want to be sexual creatures, but only in a very limited capacity. Only when they can use it to taunt and tease, but never to experience mutual sexual satisfaction in a mature relationship.

  7. I disagree, I think boobies do not equal pp (to borrow terminology from Friends). Actual female genitalia is rarely if ever shown, showing the mound or pubic hair is not really the same thing as actually showing “it”. Female genitalia is shown even less then male genitals which as noted in this very article, is not without its spotlight. Things are indeed unequal but not in the way the author posits.

    1. disqus_jUCtajspxG

      Just happens that a penis is both a sexual or (when erect) and on-sexual (when not erect). And they convey totally different responses from women.

  8. Re: Game of Thrones, I don’t care if there is tons of sex, tons of full frontal nudity, male or female. My problem lies with being true to the books. In the books, there are not huge gay sub plots and no gay sex yet on the show, there is tons. Which brings me to another point about this article. The author states that perhaps there is so much female nudity because the executives at HBO are all men. I will go one better, yes, they are all men. Gay men. There is tons of gay male sex all over premuim cable. Disproportionately so. But hey, if that’s a problem, just turn it off, right? But when you take books that are very admired and then alter them (in some cases, drastically) in order for marketing or personal preference, it is borderline shameful.

    1. Someone clearly hasn’t read A Song of Ice and Fire or just skipped parts, else why would they complain about homosexual acts when a fair share engage in same-gender sex (Renly, Ser Loras, Oberyn, Cersei, etc). If the books can talk about the horrors of Westeros including castration, pedophilia, incest, then I think we should be more than fine with homosexuality and bisexuality . Stop living in the dark ages.

  9. Lets start seeing labia shots in these shows as well, it is after all the REAL equivalent to male privates, it’s a cop out saying dicks are the equivalent to female nipples, women see a shot with a pubic triangle 50 foot away in the dark, and have an issy fit, male nudity outnumbers female (in U K ) by 85/15, and still it’s only women who complain about same sex nudity, only women are allowed to complain, what it really is, is censorship and it’s not fair, female nudity is being (very cleverly) phased out of the media,(the only female nudes we see today are in these HBO shows) and because of the current climate, they get away with it, they always have excuses, they always have the last word, if dicks are allowed on T V there should be labia shots as well, that ban should be lifted, I only live once, in my lifetime I’m not allowed to see female genitalia but yet I don’t have to look far on sky or channel 4 to see a man’s, and still the only people who complain about nudity are women, these women demanding to see dicks on Thrones, got the hump because a certain actor didn’t get it out the time they wanted him to,these are the women of today, expect it all, and if they don’t get it demand, we can, you can’t, I demand labia shots in Game of Thrones, I don’t care, I’ll never watch it again anyway.

    1. The same thing happens here in the US. Women have severe vagina insecurity issues, that if you show a woman with fake pubic hair covering the vagina (happens in mainstream movies and shows like GoT ALL THE TIME), women viewers STILL complain, get angry and call the movie porn, even if it has nothing to do with porn. Even Trance was called porn by vaginally insecure women everywhere, and yet that movie couldn’t be further from porn. It’s actually good to see more and more men (and some women too) standing up to this feminazi garbage of how women supposedly are getting the shaft nudity-wise, yet the truth is men are the ones getting the shaft and women are in such ridiculous denial. Denial over having insecurities regarding vaginas, and denial over who really is getting the shaft nudity-wise.

      Dick = Pussy, and only that. Not boobs or fake female pubic bush. Why is it so difficult for women to accept that, unless vaginas scare the daylights out of women everywhere?

      1. disqus_jUCtajspxG

        Then show a man covering his penis but show us the testicles. I am just tired of all the tit scenes in these shows. I stopped watching!

        1. Testicles are genitals, so that would be the same as showing vagina/labia, which is something that would cause women to rip their hair out if they ever show something like on TV. You are seriously comparing tits to testicles? How old are you, 5?

          And to think, MJ Snow the author, said women are not afraid of vaginas being shown on TV, so why are women desperately trying to see how much of a man’s genitals can be shown without having to show a woman’s vagina in return? Vagina phobia alive and well.

  10. Karina Høegh Poulsen

    And by the way, to make everything a whole lot easier, there should not be shown genitals at all!

    1. First you argue for more penises to be shown, then you realize that would mean we should start seeing vulvas/vaginas for a change so you backtack and say genitals shouldn’t be shown at all? Typical vaginally insecure woman – wanting penises to be shown without any hint of vagina in the equation. Is your name MJ Snow by the way?

      1. Karina Høegh Poulsen

        I must say that it’s surprising how far from true it is what you are accusing me for here. No, I did NOT realize that we should start seeing more vulvas as a justification for seeing more penises and nor did I mention anything about it. On the other hand, I clearly stated that there is far more female full frontal nudity than male, and to make it equal there should be shown more male full frontal nudity! I added in my last comment that it actually would be even better if no genitals/full frontal nudity were shown at all (and with genitals I mean NOT covered by merkins but pubic areas with/without natural pubic hair!) because it simply would be easier/better to many people if they were not showed! No hidden messages or anything, but for some reason you are bold enough to try to calculate my mind and tell me what I’m thinking! Furthermore you are twisting my words for your benefit of blaming me for something I never said. I wonder what kind of issues you might have for being so nasty to others and not even having a name or picture of yourself…?

        The one and only reason I’m getting involved here, is to claim some justice for all – not to take sides(!), and as far as I see it, frequent female frontal nudity is the only reason that we haven’t reached it yet!

        Regarding your unsecureness about my credibility: No, I have nothing with MJ Snow to do – actually I do not totally agree with her, althrough you probably won’t believe me in this.

        Last thing is that I think it’s really sad if you have a need to belittle everyone with a different opinion than yours. If you’re only here to victimize other people and impose your “male know-it-better attitude”, then it’s simply just pathetic and childish if you ask me!

        But seriously I don’t see any reason to continue this. I gave my opinion (which, unfortunately, you decided to criticize), and I have a clear idea of how it will continue from now on, so I prefer to take my free opportunity to leave the conversation. Some people are just not worth your time and energy!

        Oh, and finally I’m not going to ask you about the size of your penis, because that would simply be too low.

        1. Full frontal female nudity outnumbers full frontal male nudity? Really?! You seriously need to watch more movies/TV shows if you actually believe that. Full frontal male nudity is shown more often and more graphically than full frontal female nudity has ever been shown. As mentioned several times, actresses wear merkins these days because a lot of them shave all or most of their pubic hair, so merkins are NOT full frontal nudity. If you take into account full frontal female nudity with real or no pubic hair, the amount of movies and shows is almost non-existent. Meanwhile, full frontal male nudity is shown with little to no pubic hair at all including lingering closeup shots (as MJ Snow made mention on the TV show Shameless). Can you list these movies and shows with lingering closeups of vaginas/vulvas that you claim outnumber penises? Good luck.

          And you didn’t ask about penis size because no one asked you the size of your clitoris nor how long does your inner labia hang loose.

          1. I’ve seen far more female nudes on TV than men, one of my hobbies is to count nudes like in a soccer game. Female frontal nudes usually win 2-0, 5-0… And I’ve seen a LOT of movies/series in my life, you can bet.

          2. what are you counting as full frontal? Synthetic fur bikini in low light shot from 30 feet away from the side for 0.7 seconds? I count as well, but with a much more equal criteria than apparently you do.

          3. I’m counting as whatever looks like full frontal nudity, of course people wearing bathing clothes do not count. I don’t care if it’s a disguise or something that “technically” is not a nude body. Synthethic pubic hair is still nudity for me, because there is no way to know if they wear that or not. You see it as *nudity* and that’s what I count – you haven’t seen a lot of Spanish cinema I think :) Lots of naked women here for no reason. Very few men.

          4. Sorry. You’re wrong in your assessment. This article wants GENITAL NUDITY EQUALITY. I.e. you have to visibly see genitals, and I’m afraid the truth is that only male actors accomplish this in any sence of actual nudity. In fact, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a female actor on any HBO, SHOWTIME or any mainstream TV show (and 99.99% of movies for that matter) that have shown actual labia/clitoris. If I’m wrong I’m happy to retaliate with the overwhelming number of male actors that have.

          5. That’s not fair, you know you’ll never see clitoris or genitalia, don’t be silly… full frontal nudity does not include see that or the uterus, that’s impossible, again don’t be silly.

          6. Then why do they use fake pubic hair merkins on nude women if you would see no genitalia? What would it be covering then? I suggest you watch Trance where Rosario Dawson shows her genitals, and you clearly see it, or look through Playboy where you clearly see it too. That’s what we are arguing for yet vaginally insecure women everywhere claim you wouldn’t see anything? How dumb.

          7. Can any lady on here actually name an Actress that has shown her fully exposed vagina on film or TV without pubic hair?

            Can I name male actors who have? If you can name more women than men then you have an argument.

            Genital equality is exposed penis to completely exposed vagina without merkin or ginormous bush.

            Ben Affleck, Tom Cruise, Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, Harvey a Keitel multiple times, Robin Williams, M.C. Gainey, Jason Segel, Diego Luna, Ewan McGregor, Kevin Bacon, Jude Law, Michael Pitt, William H. Macy, Steve Howdy, Zach McGowan, shall I go on?

            Now name 3 female stars that have shown their vaginas without being hidden behind a merkin or cavewoman bush. Without sex tapes that were leaked or photos that were hacked. I assure you not many.

          8. The shot youre talking about from Dreamers is its uncut NC-17 rated version so it doesn’t count at all. That scene is left in but that shot and a couple others are removed in the R rated version. To their credit one of the shots in a different scene was removed that featured eye level close up penis. At the end of the day the R rated version still has a bunch of penis.

        2. You are in fact completely wrong that there is more female full frontal. Synthetic fur bikini =/= genitals

  11. Karina Høegh Poulsen

    I’m really sorry for upsetting you with my “great female logic”. But we obviously see the things from different angles! For me it is just as graphic to show a vulva with natural pubic hairs as to show a penis with natural pubic hairs – I never said anything about merkins so please stop putting words in my mouth!! If all pubic hairs were removed from both sexes it would be perfectly fine with me too! Jesus, in both cases we’re talking about private parts = equal body parts, and there should be no difference in how frequently they appear on the screen!!

    1. The problem is the majority of people, especially women who are hired actresses do not wear that much pubic hair. The vast majority of the time it’s a merkin.. Many of the scenes with men have reduced pubic hair as well. and as you put it “showing a vulva with natural pubic hairs” isnt showing a vulva at all if its a dense patch straight out of the amazon that sucks all light into a vortex. By that logic, showing breasts under a bra is topless.

  12. Karina Høegh Poulsen

    As true as it is said! Far too much female frontal nudity out there with the vulvas in display (whatever hairy or not)! Time to show that penises exist too and stop this frickin’ sexism! Is nude equality really to much to ask for??

    1. Here we go again… great female logic as usual!
      I’m not going to copy and paste… (re)read the comments below.

      And NO! Vulvas are NOT exposed if they’re covered with hair and merkins! Full frontal female nudity is NON-graphical; male full frontal nudity is VERY graphical. Compare like for like. Or is it okay to introduce man-size merkins?

      1. The problem is that there is no logic. I say a man sized merkin cause pubic hair is now apparently the equivalent to genitalia. What is a joke is the sexism comment from a wanna be feminist.

      2. Men are pervs and prudes. Men are the most insecure beings in this planet! Omg a woman said something…they’re only to be seen not heard. Stop being so insecure and man up! How can you say male frontal is very graphic and female is not? You’re not a woman. Oh and to the earlier comment, a man doesn’t ask our vagina size, but they have no problem asking us our boob size?

        1. wow you’re so much more idiotic than the people youre trying to call out. boob size does not equal penis size. penis size equals vagina depth or labia minora length because the 2 things are homologous i.e. literally the exact same origin of tissue and organ starting in the womb before it begins to diverge as a result of hormones being present or not. It does not take being a woman to observe the facts in these things. by your logic, you would have to be a man to understand how much the male frontal nudity weighs in and therefore you can’t have any opinion on it. You should google radical feminism (i.e. the kind thats giving constructive feminism a bad wrap to the whole world). And perv and prude are f***ing antonyms. So dumb.

    2. a vulva is not exposed when its hair to the point of being absolutely obscured. Not a hard concept to understand. Don’t forget its usually a very intentionally placed synthetic pubic wig.

  13. Jessica Dawson

    Misinformation and incorrect facts seems to be a common theme among the HBOWatch authors here… TRANCE is now airing on HBO and has been for some time now.

    I highly suggest MJ Snow, as well as Kelly, Shane, Serahe, and Evie_L (aka MJ Snow 1, 2, 3, & 4) watch it as it will undoubtedly teach you/all of you what the visible parts of a Vulva actually look like.

    Yes, Danny Boyle somehow did the impossible, he managed to get this “invisible” and elusive part of a woman’s genitalia on film. Twice!

    1. It is not an incorrect fact to say TRANCE is airing in April because it is and just because I stated that it is does not mean that it is not airing now. Therefore, I am a very competent author.

      I also find it quite interesting that any of you really care passionately on whether there is enough nudity on HBO. I prefer my nudity up close and in real life and don’t care one way or the other whether it is on HBO or not.

      However, I must thank you all for an entertaining debate that is over two hundred comments long now. And with a cross reference in an upcoming piece this post may just sky rocket with even more comments. The analytics for the site is looking good due in part to posts and comments like this.

      1. I know, I said “authors”, plural. You’re misinformed, especially for an “HBOWatch author” failing to mention (or not knowing) that TRANCE is airing “now” on ‘HBO’.

        Your daughter (or friend/girlfriend), MJ Snow, is the factually incorrect “HBOWatch author”. She also appears to be anatomically ignorant based on the words in her article and posts.

        […”Therefore, I am a very competent author.”…] *shrugs* If you say so, Jef. ;-)

  14. TRANCE is airing in April if anyone feels the need to check out Rosario Dawson’s full frontal nudity.

    1. Tell that to MJ Snow who says the vulva/vagina cannot be seen at all without “ridiculous” camera angles. Tell that to other female commenters who are insecure about vagina exposure so they try to bargain with men by suggesting boobs are good enough, and vagina exposure is automatically “porn” (yes, there are women who claimed Trance is “porn” because of Rosario Dawson exposing her genitals). But please warn these vaginally-insecure women that they might vomit when watching Trance because they will see *that* body part exposed which they have total disgust over.

    1. I’m sure he’s straight!! Congrats for the separate posts to make sure she got to 200 posts. They can call for all the male nudity they want but still cowher behind merkins and shadows “or those weird” camera angles. I call for actual equality but there’s that phobia we have grown so accustom to here with women. With the four separate posts within a short time I have a sneaking suspicion that you and MJ hang out.

    1. Again, the only male nudity they see as nudity graphic nudity. Something not required by females. Talk about inequality – that is the real inequality! Keep the tits and pubes/wig, give us visible vulva!!

  15. “‘Game of Thrones’ star Kit Harington advocates more male nudity on the show: ‘It’s only right’ The British actor, who plays Jon Snow, maintains that the show should be more equitable in showing skin. “It’s only right, if you’re going to make a show where nudity and sex is a large part of it, that you be a part of that,” Harington told the April issue of GQ.”

    1. Stop asking for male genital shots (graphic nudity) as if its the equivalent of female breasts and pubes/wig. If you want dick shots go get your fill watching porn. Cant believe the double standard. Demanding male graphic nudity as some kind of equality to female non-graphic nudity. What kind of idiotic reasoning is this?

      1. Who are you to decide what is graphic or not? A nude form is a nude form. A woman unclothed is just as nude as a man unclothed. You are drawing lines where there need be none. I agree that if sex and nudity are a part of the show then male nudity should be shown as well. Note, I did not say don’t show any part of a woman, both should be shown equally. Sorry to disappoint you but your penis is not sacred ground. It is just a penis. Boobs and vulvas are just that too. In fact, I have not seen any female commenter here say that there should be less or restricted female nudity in exchange for male nudity, shocker – women like to see naked men as much as men like to see naked women.

        1. If we want so see naked bodies just for the sake of it there is a lot of that in the internet! Sometimes it’s disturbing that they are showing nudity all time like if this was the only interest to see a TV show or a film. There should be lees nudity in general, specially when it is gratuitous or doesn’t add to the story, but the way they hide the man body that is just ridiculous as well. And over all, it should be treated with naturalness.

        2. 2 things: most people trim their pubes in this millenium. The “nude” female forms you’re referring to are usually not nude because they are wearing a synthetic pubic hair wig. Even if it was real hair it’s still less graphic than genitals. I am not deciding that, just observing through the use of logic.

  16. I’m really surprised at the criticism this article is getting. Here in the UK, we don’t really worry so much about nudity on television. It’s never been as much of an issue as it is for you Americans. It’s fascinating for us Brits to see how much store you attach to nudity. As a country based around freedom, it still seems that you somehow cling to your Puritanical roots.

    Further, this is an **opinion** piece, it doesn’t need facts. If the writer wants to see more penis, she has a right to her opinion. Why are you people attacking her personally? Really, I find the hate here quite strange. This now feels like a witch hunt. Is it no longer acceptable to have an opinion about something sex related without the masses coming after you with torches and pitchforks?

    And no, before you accuse me of being her bestie, I don’t know the writer. I’ve read a few of her other articles on this site, however, and found them to be well written and intelligent. She’s the one writing articles for a high traffic website. You are the
    ones sitting home making lists of naked body
    parts on television. I reckon the more controversy you create, the better for her. For an opinion piece to have nearly 200 comments, whether positive or negative, is fantastic. Her editors most likely are toasting MJ as the number of clicks her article receives rises, padding their statistics and allowing them to charge higher prices for advertising.

    1. Jessica Dawson

      Ignorantly classing non-genital body parts as actually being genitalia… Comparing apples to oranges in a poor effort to support/make an unsubstantiated and baseless argument… Failing to see a difference between graphic and non-graphic levels of nudity… And last but not least, writing articles on the Internet asking for pornographic levels of male nudity…

      If you think these are the hallmarks of a “well-written” and “intelligent” article, then you must think Dr. Seuss books are Shakespearean works of literature.

      1. Who decides what is graphic and not? This is a ridiculous argument. Boobs don’t equal penis? So what? Who are you to decide what equals what? Get over your penis insecurity.

        1. Jessica Dawson

          There’s a little (well-known) organization you may have heard of called The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), and they are the one’s who have defined what classifies as “graphic” nudity. I agree with their definition on the matter as well as my–same–assertions in all of my posts.

          In addition, breasts are not genitalia, a penis is. They are not equal, nor are they the same. You see, It’s not a decision on what’s equal, it’s using common sense.

          Still confused? Find a computer and Google “MPAA guidelines”, then, Google human reproductive anatomy. While your at, look at as many vulva (pussy) pictures as you possibly can. Who knows, you might just get over you vaginal insecurity and learn that a vulva (a pussy) is more than just pubic hair. By the way, MJ Snow is still in denial on this fact.

    2. The valid point the commentors are making is that Snow’s ‘opinion piece’ is severely flawed. That is it. People are nanoyd because she ignorantly drums up the bullshit notion that ONLY females again are ‘exposed’. She’s trying to, laughably, tell us that HBO should show more dick (and it already does!), because it would only be fare for female viewers. Her entire argument rests on the premise that female non-graphic nudity (breasts and pubes/wig) is somehow equal to male graphic nudity (even asking for erections!!!). What a horrible neglect of common sense.

    3. The people that have issues with nudity are vaginally-insecure women. That is why they are desperate to compare penises to boobs. The only equal to the penis is the vagina, yet women have difficulty conceding that. Can you tell us why since women usually ignore this fact?

      If the author wants more penises, fine. She has a right to her opinion, as you said. But why is it when men call for VAGINA to be shown do women cower in fear? Why do they insist on breasts being good enough? Why do they lie and claim vaginas are totally invisible without certain camera angles? Why do they have difficulty even saying “vagina” (as you clearly demonstrated)? What is the issue with that body part? That is the only body part remaining that is still taboo to show and talk about. If supposedly Americans have issues with nudity, it’s female genital nudity, and it’s all thanks to vaginally-insecure women who yell and scream at anyone who even dares to ask for vaginas to be shown, even though it isn’t any more than what women are asking for in terms of male nudity. The reason why the author is being attacked is because she began the attacking by claiming the supposed lack of penis is due to men being insecure about penis size. But vaginas are shown a hell of a lot less often, so what does that say about women? What insecurities do women have when it cones to the vagina? Help us understand.

      Show penis? Sure. They are already being shown, as the author did list these shows. But show vagina too. Not boobs. Why is it difficult for women to accept this? It’s getting ridiculous in this day and age.

      1. Again, who said anything about restricting vaginas? Show all the vaginas you want (which by the way is a misnomer, the vagina is the internal part of the vulva and it would be hard to get a good shot of that on television). Most women do not have a problem with naked women, or naked men. You are making an assumption based on what you think women mean by saying there are lots of boobs, where are the penises? The point is, men have their eye candy, where is ours?

        1. Perhaps men are only content with the same calibur of eye candy you are? You still arent debunking the argument for the use of equivalent homologous parts. Wouldn’t ripped abs, pecs, and butts be eye candy for women? oh… it has to be penis?

    4. FYI even though the UK is so much more progressive, there are people on this thread and many others like it from your region that have expressed outcry about seeing a penis every 10 minutes on “channel 4” while vulva remains an elusive creature.

  17. Di you read the news where GIRLS just got slapped by HBO and was told to cut back on the nudity! One of our writers may just turn that into an HBOWatch post so keep your one-eyed jack out for it.

  18. Wow. Who knew that asking to see a few more penises on tv could cause such an uproar? It’s been more than six months since this piece was originally posted
    and the arguments and author bashing are still going strong. There seems to be a few individuals on here that just can’t bear to let it go. It’s great to see the passion they exude in their quest to demand that penises be equated to vulvas and not boobs, but seriously, is it worth getting this worked up about? The generalizations, moments of speaking on behalf of entire genders and petty name calling really add nice touches to the arguments too.

    The point of the article is not about determining exact anatomy equivalency and using that as a basis to determine which body parts to show more of. The point of the article is simply that pleasing to the eye female body parts that are easily viewed without tricky camera angles (which in a lot of cases happen to be boobs) are shown all the time, so why not level the playing field and show a greater number of easily viewed pleasing to the eye male body parts (which in a lot of cases happen to be penises)? That’s all there is to it. Show more cock. We want the D.

    1. If you are referring to name calling then yes you got me. I simply was responding to the statement that if you go against the author then you must have penis size insecurities or you feel you don’t measure up. Or that fact that the author said she would break it down in bullets so that even the “dumb” could understand. But yet I get called immature for responding in like fashion and yet she herself resorted to name calling. It’s like playing the race card or in this argument the size card when you have nothing left to say. Quite immature if you ask me.

      No, I don’t think the author is ugly, fat or sexually frustrated. My apologies if anyone was confused.

      I personally would like to see less nudity overall. Most of the time it does nothing for the show or movie we are watching. Like for example in Spartacus or GOT, these both could be very good programs without the nudity. Look how well The Walking Dead is doing and they don’t have to use any nudity, although I’m sure they could put a few naked walkers in there and it could be fairly accurate to the show.

      It has become now like a political argument. Both sides ( myself included) have gone after each other and haven’t really done anything in the process.

      My point is that we as men should get to see more than pubic hair or fake pubic hair if we are going to show a majority of guys naked and shaved, that’s it. I’m not calling for less penis just likewise representation of the genitals (shaved).

      That’s it, plain and simple.

      Although I’m sure there is something wrong with what I have said so I apologize in advance.

    2. We are not calling for less cocks. We are calling for cunts to be shown as well, yet the thought of such a thing repulses people even though men are not asking for anything more than what women are asking for. If you want more D, fine. Show the P (pussy) as well so that neither gender feels like they are getting the shaft. Why is it so difficult for people to comprehend this?

      Also, if you are accusing anyone of name calling and generalizing a gender, you should direct that to the author. She states that the reason why penises aren’t being shown as often as she would like is because men have penis size insecurity issues. Really? Then what does the bigger lack of vagina on tv say about women? Obviously it means vagiphobia. We are just using the author’s own words to explain the lack of vagina on tv.

      For a lot of men, the vagina is as visually appealing as a penis is to women (the old saying is some men are boob men, some men are butt men, but all men are vagina men). Why must boobs be used as a substitute for the vagina? Why not give men what they want too? What is this fear of vaginas? This fear is getting ridiculous.

      And you don’t need “tricky” camera angles to see a vagina. Certainly no more “tricky” than the camera angle used in Shameless to show a penis. And certainly no more “tricky” than the straight camera angle used in the movie Trance which showed Rosario Dawson’s vagina in all its glory. Stop coming up with excuses to not show a vagina just because you are disgusted by them. Men who are not afraid of vaginas should not be deprived of seeing this body part on tv just because some might be repulsed at the sight of one.

      Show the P (pussy) too. That’s what we are calling for.

  19. I’m just not able to understand why the men commenting on this post
    think that the women are uncomfortable with vaginas/vulvas being shown
    on TV, or otherwise. I’m fine with that, bring it on. I’m comfortable
    with my own body, and other women’s bodies. I have zero issue there.
    Please stop putting words in our mouths, I can’t find one female
    commenter (with the exceptions of Jessica Dawson who seems to just want
    to be on the boys’ team) on this post who is expressing fear over the
    idea of vaginas being shown. That is utterly ridiculous and as I
    commented below, I’d be perfectly happy and comfortable seeing more
    vaginas on TV.

    Let me simplify it for you with some bullet points, so that *hopefully* even None and Randy can understand.

    – There are lots of nude females on TV.

    – We feel it would be nice to see more penises on TV.

    – We want to see more penis shots, however we are not asking for less female nudity.

    – We, the girls commenting on this post, are not uncomfortable with vagina/vulva shots on TV.

    – Not all actresses wear merkins.

    – Hairy pubis does not equal merkin.

    – Female genitalia, contrary to the ideas of several of the men on this post, do NOT hang own to our knees or flap in the wind.

    – The majority of women could stand naked in front of you and you won’t be able to see their vulva waving at you.

    – Most modern women shave. Being hairy is kind of gross. Even so, you still can’t really see our vulvas unless we spread our legs and show you.

    Do you guys not watch porn? Have you never seen a real naked woman?
    If you’ve had sex, was it in the dark? I suggest you do your homework
    and look at lots of photos/video of naked women. If seeing naked men
    makes you uncomfortable, there is plenty of girl on girl porn out there.
    Check it out, maybe you’ll learn something.

    The ones uncomfortable with their sexuality here seem to be the guys, not the girls. Are your penises not big enough? Are you worried that the more penises we see, the more we’ll realize that you’re not up to par? I’m far from a feminist but that’s what women deal with all the time. Men with unrealistic expectations of what a “real” woman is. A lot of women are insecure about their bodies because of the way tv/movies/media portray women as Barbie dolls. It seems that you guys don’t want to open the door to that kind of scrutiny. I wonder why.

    1. Your simply a pathetic individual. Again you swipe at all those who disagree with your article. We bow to your marvelous knowledge matter and admit that we know nothing compared to the almighty MJ. Quite pathetic. I wonder why you can’t present any facts? Maybe it’s because you don’t have any and your actually upset that several men called you out on your agenda. Or maybe I should go as low as you and suggest you have small breasts, a pot belly and thunder thighs.

      1. HAHAHA! Actually I’m in good shape, have a nice figure and I’ve never had trouble getting a date. But nice try. I have no agenda. I simply think that we should see an equal ratio of male to female nudity. My opinion. I’m sorry it makes you so upset and defensive. It’s immature to have to resort to name calling, but I can see that is all you have to fall back on, as you don’t have a leg to stand on in this conversation. I’m not presenting any facts? Neither are you? Where are your stats? I’d like to see them. All I’m doing is presenting an opinion. You can agree or disagree, but you’re really putting a lot of time into this. It’s my job, but what’s your reason? Why are you so angry? You should probably think about finding something more constructive to do with all your free time.

        1. Uhm… Until someone has done a statistically accepted study on the number of visible female genitalia vs male genitalia, all anyone can do is to present a hypothesis. And to do so, you present substantiation, i.e. evidence

          So here goes; I present that their are much more, several times more male graphic nudity shown in mainstream TV and film than there are of female graphic nudity. The definition of graphic nudity, in any general sense of the meaning, implies partial or clearly visible skin of the genitalia. Breasts, buttocks or body parts otherwise non-genital, from either male or female, are considered non-graphic nudity.

          I present the following (non-exhaustive) list as evidence to my argument for male graphic nudity:

          – Forgetting Sarah Marshall
          – Mall Cop
          – Zack and Miri make a porno
          – Eastern Promises
          – Bruno
          – Finding Bliss
          – Watchmen
          – Borat
          – Walk Hard
          – The Hangover
          – Sex and the City
          – Jack Ass

          – Game of Thrones
          – Spartacus
          – John Adams
          – Shameless
          – Rome
          – Carnival
          – Oz
          – Tell me you love me
          – True Blood

          I recognize Trance and Broken Flowers as two examples of graphic female nudity. Two.

      2. Randy… you should go further than just this. As penis size seem to matter MJ Snow, then I guess average (most guys) wouldn’t be good enough for her. You know what they say… “hippo poles for hippo holes”.

    2. Jessica Dawson

      Lol. Do you even know what a Vulva is and the — visible — parts it includes?

      And are you honestly going to continue with this ridiculous BS that the Labia Majora and the Labia Minora and Clitoral Hood ARE NOT visible on most groomed women? All of these parts are perfectly visible on “real” women with most of their pubic hair removed. Apparently you’re the one with the deluded sense of what a “real” woman’s genitals look like. Google “Vulva”, you may learn something…

      Your last paragraph clearly shows your bitter “its payback time for men” agenda. Sadly, you seem to think our modern day media only objectifies women as sex objects.

      As for everything else you wrote, MJ, it’s simple, If you need to be sexually entertained while watching something, then perhaps it is you who needs to “go watch porn”.

      1. Maybe if you’ve got your legs spread, you could see the labia minora and clitoral hood, but not if you’re standing, laying down with your legs somewhat together, or if they were to choose their camera angles carefully. Jessica, you may have labia minora that drag on the ground when you walk, but the majority of women do not. I do know what a vulva is, thank you. You don’t need to be a gynecologist to know that, I did take health class in high school. You can argue all day long, but you still won’t be correct. Women can be filmed in the nude without showcasing their inner labia and clitoral hood.

        I’m not bitter against men, nor do I have any kind of an agenda. I’m simply stating that the men commenting on this post seem to have zero knowledge of the female anatomy, in the same way that you seem to be ignorant on that particular subject.

        I’m kind of horrified at the way you and the male commenters on this post put words in other people’s mouths and accuse other commenters of saying things that are the polar opposite of the points they’re making. It was funny at first, but now it just seems desperate.

        As a bisexual woman who is comfortable with my own sexuality and not afraid to encounter members of either sex without their clothes on, I’m finding it really sad to see how you, None and Randy keep trying to push your insecurities off on the people who would just like to see more equality when it comes to nudity on screen. Not to be sexually entertained. Just because it’s long overdue. If I want to be sexually entertained, then yeah, I’ll totally go watch porn.

        1. yes you can, you just making the usual excuse, you can see a female labia when she’s just standing nude,(same as a man parts) she doesn’t have to spread

    3. Rosario Dawson’s labia majora and clitoral hood were visible in the movie Trance, and she was standing straight, her legs NOT spread. Ever heard of Playboy, MJ? Same thing. No leg spreading, yet very easily seen labia majora, labia minora, clitoral hood.

      And it’s silly, MJ, that you now are ok with vaginas being shown. Not long ago, you posted how ridiculous it is to compare a vulva to a penis because you’d need certain camera angles to see a vulva and it would be ridiculous to do such a thing, yet your article praised how close up and lingering the penis shot was in Shameless. Are you saying that it wasn’t a ridiculous camera angle to show that and if they showed a woman in exactly the same position, you would see nothing? You also called for erect penises to start being shown yet you claim a woman would need to spread her legs to see her genitals, but wouldn’t leg spreading be similar to erections? Why do you want one to be shown and use the other to imply that it can’t be shown outside of porn?

      And if women weren’t insecure about vaginas, then why the comparison of penis to breasts? Even the college humor video of the 4 girls calling for “genital equality” made no mention of vagina, vulva, labia, clitoris, nothing, nada, just breasts. Why would they do that unless they are insecure about vaginas and wouldn’t even think of bringing up that body part during discussion? Don’t you want the vulva compared to the almighty powerful penis so the female anatomy can finally achieve a sense of normalcy rather than remain a body part of shame and disgust?

      Why do I see women get up and walk out of movie theaters when a woman is shown bottomless (even with a merkin)? Why do women in theaters yell at their husbands/boyfriends to cover their eyes during a scene like that? Why do women insist on labeling a movie “porn” or “gratuitous” when female genitals are shown (like many women said about Trance) if they are not insecure about that body part?

      No male has said penises should not be shown. What they are saying is it’s time for the vagina to be compared to the penis (not breasts) and it’s time for vaginas to start being shown on GoT and other shows and movies, yet women falsely believe that because penises aren’t being shown as often as breasts (NOT equal body parts) that somehow women are getting the shaft, even though it is obvious that men are the ones getting the shaft, as evidenced by the fact that you come up with excuses about how vaginas cannot be shown without ridiculous camera angles, similar to the lingering close up camera angle which showed a penis in the tv show Shameless. A women shown in exactly that position would expose her entire vulva.

      Your article was very condescending towards men claiming that the supposed lack of penises on tv is due to men being insecure about their penis size, but what does the even bigger lack of vulva on tv say about you and other women? Are you insecure about the size of your vaginal slit? Or the size of your labia minora? Or the size of your clit? See, MJ. Two can play at this game.

      1. Dear God
        I haven’t been on this discussion for a while. Still nice to see MJ Snow being torn a new one. I see she’s diverting like crazy now that she’s been found out. Couldn’t cough up evidence of (unobscured) pussy shots shown on TV/main stream cinema, yet still asking for dick to be shown. Yeah… the ol’ tits for dicks mantra. Still nice to see her trying to spin it though; only to be ground down by the facts though.

  20. Scary thing is…i don’t think most of the men even understand their own reaction to this article. Why are you so mad that women would like genitalia equality? I haven’t seen a single argument that makes a lick of sense. If you are male and offended by this article, ask yourself why?

    1. Really? We don’t understand. I think it’s the women that don’t understand here. Partial nudity to full graphic nudity is not the same or can’t you grasp that concept? It’s not genitalia equality by a long shot. Men are always show fully nude while women hide behind fake pubic hair and the vulva is never exposed. So there is your alleged equality. Funny how guys are always shown shaved and fully graphic and women desperately try to compare breasts to genital nudity. If you can’t see that then you apparently are just like all the other women that post hear, insecure that they should show equal genital nudity and not hide behind fake pubic hair. I think it’s you who should be asking yourself why you didn’t read the article. It’s about non genital nudity being compared to genital nudity.

    2. In addition to what Randy said, it’s not so much that the female author of this article is comparing women’s fake pubic hair with men’s penises, but she is actually comparing women’s BREASTS to men’s penises in arguing for “genital equality” – as did those 4 dumb girls in the college humor video. As if breasts are now “genitals.”

      I think it is time for women to ask themselves why they are so insecure about vaginas that they are now using their breasts as “genital” substitutes. I personally would welcome genital equality with open arms and if we are to achieve true genital equality, that would mean a colossal increase in vagina/vulva shots in movies and tv shows to balance out the multitude of graphic, lingering, close up penis shots in numerous, R-rated mainstream films and tv shows currently being shown. Only then would we finally achieve genital equality.

      Numerous people have been asking why women are so insecure about vaginas being shown even though these very women are calling for more penis shots, yet not one woman has been able to answer that question. Men are not asking to see any more than what women are asking for yet women cower in fear over the thought of vaginas being shown. I think it’s time to ask yourself why and help us to understand why.

    3. My thoughts exactly. There is no valid reason given for NOT showing male genitalia on TV, not by any of these commenters, yet they accuse us girls of being insecure? It’s quite funny, actually.

      1. What’s funny is you still don’t present any valid facts and you accuse men in this article of being insecure. Your “facts” are breast vs genital nudity, very pathetic and juvenile. There is also NO VALID REASON for women not bare all but they continue to HIDE in the shadows and behind fake pubic hair. Whats really funny is that you dismiss many arguments that you know have valid points just to booster your “article” and push your agenda. Male genitala is shown far more frequently and far more graphically then any female has been shown. You know it and I know it but that would require you to do a little research before you write your “article.” All it shows is your lack of understanding of the human body or your chosen ignorance of the subject matter in attempt to salvage a pathetic “article.” Men bare all and 95% of the time are completely shaved, while women are covered by fake pubic hair. Just because you refuse to believe the truth doesn’t make it false.

      2. No valid reason huh? You must have about 10 extra arseholes by now; because dear god you have been torn up soooooo many times for saying this exact shit. You are clearly a troll, and that on your own article as well. Tisk tisk tisk.

        Its plain and simple. You cannot demand genital equality by asking for more inequality, like you and your article is asking for.

        You have now further perpetuated the complete lie that there is somehow an inequality of male vs female nudity, when you know full well that males show far more graphic nudity than females.

        To even up the scores you demand even more inequality. And somehow you find validity in this?

    4. If breasts and penises are not equal, as most of the men are suggesting, what male part is equivalent to the female breasts? Pecs? no. Butt? no. Penis? no. Balls? yes. I guess we should be fighting to see balls then. Or maybe there shouldn’t be so many boobs being shown. Why is it okay and normal to see exposed breasts but see nothing of the guy? Why do some men think that straight women are okay with seeing boobsboobsboobs all the time? I’m straight, I have no interest in seeing boobs other than my own.
      Boys, I don’t think anyone is saying boobs = penis, so how about this: Do 1 penis per 10 boobs. You guys okay with that?
      Get boobs off TV or give us equality.

      1. No, what we are saying is penis/balls are not equal to boobs. Penis/balls equal labia, vulva, vagina. Why is it so difficult for women to understand this unless they are incredibly insecure about the pussy to allow that body part to be shown?

        1 cock = 1 cunt

        It’s that simple. Boobs are NOT genitals, so if you are arguing for “genital equality”, don’t bring up boobs. 10 boobs do not equal 1 penis. Neither would 100. Or 1000.

        How about we say let’s show 10 male butts for 1 vagina and call that even? Are you ok with that?

        Just because you don’t think men have the equivalent body part to boobs doesn’t mean you start comparing boobs to genitals. Women have genitals just like men do, so you compare those two areas to each other.

        Wow, just look how insecure women are when it comes to vagina exposure. They call for “genital equality” yet refuse to compare vagina to penis, and instead bring up boobs which are not genitals to begin with. Vagiphobia among women is alive and well.

        Please help us understand why that is. Are vaginas really that ugly to you? Are you that embarrassed at the thought of one being exposed on tv? Will you vomit at the sight of one? What is the issue here?

        1. Like I asked, are breasts equal to a man’s chest? no. Also, I never said breasts are the same as genitalia, who cares if they aren’t genitalia? We are asking for sexual/nudity equality, not genitalia equality…

          Boobs and balls are the equivalent physically, but of course, no one wants to look at balls whereas men want to look at boobs. If there is no equivalent, then I guess your vote is: no boobs. Unless you’re a sexist of course.

          1. Wait, so now you don’t want genital equality? In your first post, you talk about women wanting genitalia equality, now all of a sudden, you don’t? Which is it?

            Also, balls are genitals, so they are not equal to boobs. In fact, testicles are equal to ovaries, and you see neither. You only see the scrotum, which is analogous to a woman’s labia and made out of the same embryonic tissue. If you don’t find balls appealing to look at, that would explain why women are so disgusted at the site of the vulva since essentially what you see is the female “scrotum”.

            And if you feel that a man’s chest is not equal to a woman’s chest, why would you compare a man’s penis to a woman’s chest? That’s even LESS equal. How about we have women go bottomless only so that they show their vaginas and not boobs? It’s no more ridiculous than topless only. Would you be ok with that, or do vaginas still scare you that you prefer topless only?

          2. meh, i used “genitalia equality” loosely. you are splitting hairs and being super literal, so fine, call it sexual/nudity equality if it makes you feel better.

            I think my knowledge of male and women parts is superior to yours, so, yes I know “literally” balls and ovaries are equal, but when you compare them physically to external body parts, balls are equal to boobs.

            To answer your question: TV shows a lot of boobs, hence the argument here to show more male parts vs only showing female parts. If you’re okay with TV only showing female parts and no male parts, then you are sexist. As for your suggestions, perhaps you should take them to a TV network, as I do not currently own or work for one.

            I’m not really sure where fear of vaginas or calling labia scrotums come from. DIdn’t come from me, so must be from you.

          3. Well if this doesn’t prove women are insecure about vaginas, I don’t know what will. MJ falsely states that women are not uncomfortable with vaginas being shown on tv, yet you seem to prove her wrong time and time again.

            Balls are not equal to boobs any more than men’s butts are equal to vaginas. Compare equal body parts.

            And please don’t back track about what you said about “genitalia equality”. Now that you know it means women would have to expose their vaginas, you want no part of that discussion so you change the subject.

            And I never said men should not be shown nude. MJ gave us a list of tv shows with penises in them. We are calling for vaginas to be shown and if women were not afraid, disgusted, and insecure over vagina flashing, they would allow for that to happen rather than try and bargain with men by saying 10 boobs equal 1 penis like you did.

            1 vagina = 1 penis. Stop being so vagiphobic already.

            Oh and congrats on finally saying the word “vagina” for once. You might be fearing vaginas a bit less now that you are able to say the word. Maybe. (keeping fingers crossed)

          4. So I guess since you don’t have any valid argument for not showing vaginas that it means you fear them. Great, you’ve proven my point. MJ can no longer say women on this message board are uncomfortable with vagina exposure since you clearly are.

            And I wouldn’t go around calling people morons if you compare a man’s balls to a woman’s boobs or claim 10 boobs are equal to 1 penis, all in the name of keeping the vagina hidden.

            Vagiphobia alive and well here.

          5. What I said is intelligible, that’s why you can’t come up with a legit and intelligent response. You’re certainly not denying your fear of vaginas.

          6. What is fear of vagina you ask? Easy. It’s when a female writer complains that there are not enough penis shots on tv and wants more, yet does not acknowledge that vagina shots on tv are almost non-existent. It’s when a commenter refuses to compare 1 vagina to 1 penis, but wants 10 boobs equal to 1 penis so that vaginas never have to be shown. It’s when 4 dumb girls starring in a video arguing for more penis on tv to achieve “genital equality” yet never mention vaginas, vulvas, labia, clitoris, but only mention boobs – as if boobs are now genitals. It’s when women call a movie “porn” just because female genitals are displayed even if it is part of the storyline and has nothing to do with porn, like how women did to the movie Trance. It’s when women get up and walk out of movie theaters when a woman is shown nude from the waist down, even with a merkin, but never when a man is nude from the waist down or a woman is topless only. It’s when women refuse to allow their boyfriends/husbands to watch a movie because an actress is shown nude from the waist down, even with, you guessed it, a merkin (just take a look at the imdb message board for the movie Flight). It’s when the word “penis” is allowed to be used on tv without complaints yet women complain when the word “vagina” is used, so tv shows have to use pet names like “vajayjay” instead, as was done on the show Grey’s Anatomy. It’s when Viagra commercials are allowed to be advertised on tv but women complain about tampon commercials, hence you see tampons advertised very little on tv or not at all. It’s when modern artists are depicting vaginas in paintings and sculptures, like the recent “Great Wall of Vagina” exhibit yet women criticize these exhibits and complain that they want more paintings and sculptures that depict the penis – apparently the thousands of years of phallic depictions in art are useless if some artist FINALLY now wants the vagina to achieve artistic merit the way the penis already has. It’s when a group of female college students in Australia took pictures of their vaginas and placed them on the cover of the school newspaper Honi Soit, with censor bars, yet still potentially face criminal charges for doing that, and were called very bad names by other women, even though a penis was already depicted on the cover of the very same newspaper uncensored back in the 1990’s and created zero controversy (google “Honi Soit vagina” to see the censored, as well as uncensored pics of the vagina cover). The girls did this as a protest to the obvious fear of vaginas, which in turn has caused many women to get unnecessary surgery on that part of their body. And yes, the fact that these surgeries, labiaplasty and vaginal rejuvenation surgery, have now surpassed boob jobs on the list of procedures women are getting these days, only adds to the notion that there is a fear of vaginas in our society, and frankly the world, otherwise why would they feel the need to get these procedures done?

            There are many other examples of how women are afraid, disgusted, and insecure about vagina exposure, so I’m not sure how you or MJ can claim women don’t have any fear when it comes to the vagina. How do you explain all of the above then? Vagiphobia. The first step in solving a problem is admitting there is one, yet you and other women refuse to admit this fear exists in our society. Why is that? The fear is beyond obvious.

          7. Jessica Dawson

            Excellent post, None! I completely agree with everything you said, although, it might be far too much common sense, logic, and fact for Serahe (aka MJ Snow), Shane (aka MJ Snow), and Evie_L (aka MJ Snow) to follow.

            Also, the “Honi Soit vagina” photo is a superior example! Unfortunately, MJ Snow 1, 2, 3, and 4 wouldn’t have a clue as what she/they were looking at. After all, they all ignorantly claim a Vulva can’t easily be seen…

          8. I double that None! I think this the best post by some margin. MJ Snow and reincarnates should pay attention and continue from this. But they wouldn’t; neither they or Jef (editor?) or whoever would dare. Or have the talent for that matter. Its absolutely unbelievable how they avoid presenting evidence, drumming up a loosing nonfactual rhetoric.

          9. I fucking care that their not genitalia you scum pig, full frontal male is the equivalent to full frontal female, whatever rules you try to make up.

      2. a mans nipples is the equivalent to a womans nipples, they should be band from the screen, stop making the rules up the way you want to, or lets ban breasts ( your doing that anyway) and start showing vaginas, thats a good solution.

    5. This is just a female, I’m allowed to mock trait, if men complained as much as women do about same sex nudity, men would have a voice on the subject, but most men are weasels, if TV showed female genitalia and male gentitalia was taboo, women whould be organising marches, my argument is, if your allowed to see male genitalia, then you should be allowed to see female genitalia, it is the equvalent, if mans was inny and womans was outy, the same thing would be happening and you would have a different excuse, you always have excuses, a womans genitals can be seen without leg spreading, these images should be allowed.

    6. Markus Sarén

      What I don’t understand is that you seem to think that the male actors would just be okay with showing their erect penises on screen. You can’t “act” an erection, which means they’d actually have to be aroused for the scene. Do you think they’ll want that?

    1. She and the other actresses should call for females to bare all for a change – sorry, fake pubic hair covering the vulva is not nudity. And please don’t tell me she was yet another vaginally insecure woman that falsely compares women’s breasts to men’s penises.

      Once we start seeing vulva shots, instead of fake female pubic hair, to balance out all the penis shots in shows and movies, then she and others can call for more males to bare all.

      What is up with this fear of the vulva? Quite pathetic.

      1. Not all actresses wear merkins. Some do, yes, but it is not uncommon for actresses to truly bare all.

        I don’t think Sibel has a fear of the vulva. She used to be a porn actress before she did GOT. Try googling “Sibel Kekilli porn” if you want to see how comfortable she is with her vulva.

        1. “Not all actresses wear merkins. Some do, yes, but it is not uncommon for actresses to truly bare all.”

          All that’s needs to be said is LOL. If that line were true it may have given a bit a validity to your “article.” Every full frontal I have seen in a non porn movie and she has a bush big enough to trap a small animal in.

          You seem desperate when you put lines like that in, that you know do not have a spec of truth.

        2. It is not uncommon for actresses to truly bare all? Really?

          And I did google Sibel Kikelli porn and she has a landing strip of pubic hair, not the 1970’s shag carpet merkin we are used to seeing in R rated movies and shows. Funny, in some of her photos, she is standing straight with her labia minora and labia majora in full view. So much for your theory that female genitals are completely invisible without ridiculous camera angles.

          And it’s silly for you to say actresses truly bare all or that actresses would not have issues baring all. Just recently, the 50 Shades of Gray movie had to be postponed until next year specifically because actress after actress turned down the lead role since it requires her to bare all. How much do you want to bet that the actress who is playing the lead role in this film will bare a 1970’s shag carpet merkin when the movie is finally released? Movies like Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, A Serious Man, Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay, among several others including GoT and various tv shows have conceded to using merkins on the actresses to conceal their vulva/labia minora, even though they show male genitals, often completely or almost completely shaved.

          Can you name a movie or show that depicts an actual vulva like the way actress Rosario Dawson showed hers in the movie Trance? And if you saw this movie (a British film, not Hollywood, which Hollywood rejected because of the female genital exposure), you would have seen Rosario’s labia majora and clitoral hood. Shocking that she has rare visible female genitalia from a standing position!

  21. Congratulations to Evie L, posts approximately 20 comments in one night and proves absolutely nothing. Glad you have an opinion but like MJ you present a non factual argument. Go troll somewhere else.

  22. I have a brain

    Have a great idea for all of you. How about you just go get porn and allow everyone else to watch a normal TV show without full frontal fucking anything. I don’t think we should be jumping on to objectify someone else it’s just ridiculous. My entire world doesn’t revolve around sex, and when I want to watch people do it I’ll go get a porn. It would be really awesome to not be completely uncomfortable every time I watch a show with family or friends come on get real. Their catering to children and as an adult I’m being forced to watch it. It’s actually really jacked up. To all the women out there who love looking at a man’s flaccid penis congratulations go on the Internet.

    1. I highly question the validity of the statement you put for your name if that’s your whole argument.

  23. Are we arguing over the objectification of a man’s penis? Oh boo hoo. Women have been dealing with being treated as mere
    sexual objects since the dawn of time. Equality for both sexes is still far from an accomplished goal. The people demanding more graphic displays of vaginas need mental help to deal with their own penis size insecurities.

    1. Actually, the author of this article (a woman) demands more graphic penis shots, including erect penises, yet she and you and other women cannot stand the thought of someone calling for graphic vagina shots – you know, equal nudity.

      And actually, MEN have been objectified since the dawn of time. Just take a look at paintings, statues, sculptures from ancient history depicting the nude male, fully nude with genitals out, broad shoulders, six pack, etc, while women in art have been covered, certainly their genitals have been, but sometimes completely covered. The only reason why you think only women have been objectified is because of radical feminism where only things perceived as being unfair to women are talked about but when things are unfair to men, it is ignored – just like how men here are asking for EQUAL genital exposure but women want nothing to do with that conversation.

      If there are any people out there insecure about the display of a body part, it would be women insecure about displaying the vagina. That is why they are desperate to compare boobs to penises. Who exactly needs mental help?

      1. And you actually sound like a total moron. Making a sculpture of a man had nothing to do with objective of man please for the love of God read a book. Wow, just ignorant.

        1. It’s not “objective”, it’s OBJECTIFICATION. It is still objectification of the male form even if it’s a sculpture, and a lot of the paintings and sculptures were of real people (did you think they had cameras back then?), and often exaggerated the male form (six pack, broad shoulders, etc.), which objectifies males. I think you need to read a book, moron.

    2. None. Eva appears to be another woman calling for equality but doesn’t have a factual argument to stand on. Just an uneducated rant about women are so beat down and not respected. Oh and let’s throw in a jab at the penis size, because that’s the real issue, wow you are such a good mind reader. Not one person here has brought up breast size and attempted to make fun of the opposite sex. So either you are a complete and utter idiot or you are 12 years old. The argument is genital vs genital nudity or can’t you read. But like every other woman that posts on this site, they cant back it up with facts. So when you present facts and not just pathetic jabs at men to make yourself feel better, someone may take you seriously. Oh and make sure you take your meds. Thanks again for another woman proving our point. More rants and no facts. Thanks.

    3. Eva, does that mean women who demand more graphic displays of a penis need mental help to deal with their own wide vagina and larger than normal labia minora insecurities? I’m just trying to follow your logic here…

      Maybe I’m the odd one, but I always viewed men who wish to see ALL of a woman’s body as just being a bunch of normal healthy heterosexual males. This is not a bad or evil thing.

      And for the record, men were completely objectified all throughout history as well, especially in Greek and Roman societies, learn your history.

      1. What? Being a heterosexual woman who enjoys looking at naked men is “ignorant” now?

        1. Yeah you just proved that earlier statement. Let’s try and be a comedian cause you don’t have a factual argument. I won’t go that low cause apparently I’m talking to a child.

          1. “Factual”?

            Fact: Even without pubic hair, on an upright naked woman with her legs together you will usually only see the outer labia. With pubic hair, you’ll pretty much just see hair.
            Fact: On an upright naked man, regardless of pubic hair, you can generally see his penis.

            Are you arguing that an upright naked woman is somehow “less naked” an upright naked man? That is not “factual”, it’s an opinion, and a bizarre one at that.

          2. You are so ignorant there isn’t words to describe. Glad you carry the intelligence of a child. How’s MJ by the way? You two obvisouly took the same sex ed course or lack thereof. Just another vaginally insecure woman grasping to somehow equate partial female nudity to full graphic male nudity.

    1. No, we want WOMANflesh for a change! Not breasts or fake pubic hair, but full vagina/vulva/labia shots. That would make things a bit more”equal”, much to the chagrin of vagina-insecure women everywhere, especially those who ridiculously compare a woman’s breasts to a man’s penis.

      1. What is this, the latest MRA meme? The equivalent to incidental male nudity is incidental female nudity. You don’t see “full vagina/vulva/labia shots” when a female character, say, gets out of the bath, but you would see a male character’s penis.

        1. Apparently, you’ve never seen the movie Trance where Rosario Dawson’s entire vulva was visible when she walks out of the bathroom.

          And it’s laughable that you would claim male nudity is “incidental”. Just re-read MJ Snow’s article where she praises the show Shameless for showing an extended close up of a man’s penis. Is this “incidental” to you? Sounds more like deliberate, not incidental.

          Just admit it, the vulva scares people while the penis doesn’t, especially to vagina-insecure women (and there are PLENTY of these women in our society).

          1. You don’t know what “incidental nudity” means, do you?

            I just looked up the clip you mentioned and she has a completely shaved vulva. You see her mons pubis and outer labia, which is what you’ll see on most women who are standing upright and completely shaved/pubic hair trimmed short. It’s the same as you see on Osha in game of thrones, by the way, which is bizarre because a full bush would suit the character better. You do not see her clitoris, inner labia or vagina, and you wouldn’t, on most women, unless you had them lie down and spread their legs.

            When a man walks naked out of the bathroom you’ll see his penis. Incidental nudity in both cases.

            A woman lying down with her legs spread is not equivalent to a nude man standing up.

            Get it yet?

          2. Well I have the privilege of owning Trance on BluRay and you see Rosario Dawson’s outer labia, vaginal slit, and clitoral hood – you know, the foreskin covering the clitoris. If what you did was see the scene online, there are a ton of sites that still have the blurry photos shot when someone took pics in the movie theater, which wouldn’t look as clear as on BluRay or even DVD. This movie was screened for Hollywood distributers and they all wouldn’t touch it with a 10 foot pole – I wonder what these vagiphobes in Hollywood were so afraid of, maybe a certain body part Hollywood is known for being fearful of? Not to mention women were pretty upset with the vulva exposure in Trance calling it pornographic and gratuitous, even though it fit the storyline. I bet the same wouldn’t have happened had a man’s penis been shown exactly the same way.

            I cannot find anything on Osha’s vulva except one with what looked like a merkin covering it. It looked way too neat to be her real pubic hair, and there was no vulva exposed anyway.

            You do not need a spread eagle shot to see what we are asking for. Most women do also have their inner labia visible even from a standup position. The reason why you think they don’t is when they show nude women in films and shows or even in some magazines, the actresses legs are pressed close together, almost like they are crazy glued together, which is an unnatural position when standing or walking and would certainly cause chafing.

            Also, because of fear of female genitals, often times a woman’s inner labia is photoshopped/airbrushed completely out. In Australia for example, it is illegal for a woman’s inner labia to be shown, so Playboy type magazines have to photoshop out the inner labia – and these are women who are standing upright, not spread eagle. This has led many women to get unnecessary surgery cutting their entire labia minora off because they think “normal” inner labia should not be visible at all. Search for the not safe for work “The Vagina In The Media” on YouTube to see what I’m talking about, but be careful because this documentary shows vulva shots aplenty, so there might be people who will vomit at the sight of female genitals, like some on this site.

  24. If MJ Snow taught sex education, she would teach you “boys have a penis, girls have boobs.”

    I was always taught boys have a penis, girls have a vagina.

    If you are calling for more cocks in movies and shows, it’s time to show cunts in movies and shows. Please don’t compare women’s breasts to men’s penises because not only does that make you look foolish, it shows how insecure you are when it comes to vaginas.

    Also, in many parts of the US, it’s legal for women to be topless out in public – in New York for example, it’s been legal for women to be topless out in public since 1992.

    Once we start seeing vagina in films and shows (and no, not fake pubic hair, but actual vagina lips), then you can call for more penises. Until then, your rant falls on deaf ears.

    1. Haha you must be a real fucktard! We call for equality u motherfucker! if you want women to be shown raped and beaten from all body angles ur promoting rapist culture u motherfucker!

    2. I don’t know what show you’ve been watching, but there have definitely been vulva shots on GoT.

      To be honest, I’m not sure what point you and most of the dudes here are trying to make. Are you seriously arguing that showing boobs don’t count as frontal nudity for women? It sounds to me like you’re just uncomfortable with the idea of nude penises on the show, and you’re trying desperately to rationalize that.

      1. Actually there Lova there hasn’t been one vulva shot on Game of Thrones as I have watched all three seasons. Or do you not know what a vulva is? Every shot of these naked women is conveniently covered by shadows or a pubic wig so nothing is visible. But there was three shots of the male penis with all of these men shaved, apparently that’s what these guys did back then. So there has not been one shot of the female genitala on the Game of Thrones. The fact is genital nudity ( penis shot) does not compare to non genital nudity (boobs), why is this so hard for people to understand? So when they actually show a genital shot of a female, that exposes the vulva or clit then I’m all for male genital nudity being shown. Otherwise it’s not a comparitive argument. Anatomy class anyone?

        1. Uh, what you’re looking at in those shots is the vulva. The outer labia are part of the vulva. It’s like claiming you didn’t see someone’s mouth because the tongue wasn’t showing.

          Why does this topic upset you so much? It’s really psychologically fascinating.

          1. Uh, apparently you are like every other woman that post here. The vulva is never exposed on TV or movies, just because you think it is doesn’t make it fact. Great analogy too. My earlier comments prove true. What is actually psychologically fascinating is the vagina phobia you women have and yet I don’t have time to respond to every ignorant comment you made other than to point out that another woman posts without a FACTUAL ARGUMENT. Get over yourself and present a valid argument and not rants and ignorant swipes.

          2. That’s funny, because I’ve seen many, many naked women on GoT, and whatever is visible from the front on women with groomed pubic hair, is visible.
            I have been in many a ladies’ dressing room and sauna, and contrary to what you imagine, women do not walk around in with their clitorises, labia minora and “vaginal slits” hanging out in plain view. What you see on HBO is quite representative. Sorry to disappoint.
            I only ask to see as many men walking around in the nude. I’m not asking them to get into undignified and pornographic poses. I don’t even really care if it’s the actor’s real penis. I’d just like to see something for the ladies, since there is plenty of gratuitous female nudity for the guys.

      2. Showing boobs is not “full frontal” nudity, if anything, it’s just partial nudity – similar to showing butts. As I mention, in many places in the US like New York, it’s perfectly legal for women to be topless out in public, meaning it doesn’t even count as nude.

        Vaginally insecure women are desperate to compare breasts to penises, which makes as much sense as comparing a man’s butt to a woman’s vulva. These are not equal parts.

        Until we start seeing clear shots of labia majora, labia minora, clitoral hood/clitoris, vaginal slit, you know, the outer portions of female genitalia, unobscured by FAKE pubic hair which is what is currently being shown on shows and R-rated mainstream movies, then you can call for more penis shots. Let the vulva catch up to the penis first before calling for more penises or even erect penises.

        No one is saying male nudity should be banned, what we are saying is let’s show vaginas in exactly the same way penises are, and not more. We are calling for true equality here, yet women always cower in fear anytime someone calls for vaginas to be shown. Why is that? What is this fear that women have over that body part that they have to find a substitute like boobs? This is your body part yet you are so afraid and disgusted of its appearance that you have to find a substitute? I don’t understand this.

        1. Showing a naked woman, standing up and facing the camera, is equivalent to showing a naked man standing up and facing the camera.

          Showing a man from below with his legs spread to give a full view of his balls and taint is equivalent to what you want. I think that’s rather undignified and inappropriate outside porn, don’t you?

          1. The problem with your argument is male genitalia has already been shown to what you describe as “porn” – close up, lingering, and intrusive camera angles (Shameless for one, and pretty much a ton of recent R rated comedies for example), while female genitals have not. And please, using the taint to compare it with female genitals is stupid. We are not asking for a woman’s taint to be shown – just her vulva, which is very visible from the front (and in particular, from the rear). How does Playboy manage to show the vulva very clearly yet not show a woman’s taint? You seriously need to look at more nude women as you are lacking knowledge regarding the female anatomy. But then again the fear you women have over the vulva, and the lack of vulva shots in movies and TV would explain why you know nothing about your own body part.

          2. If you could see all the things you asked for: “clear shots of labia majora, labia minora, clitoral hood/clitoris, vaginal slit,” you’d see taint and asshole as well, because that requires a spreadeagled shot. Not very familiar with female anatomy, are you? Just repeating the words you learned in sex ed last week?

            You see what is visible from the front all the damn time. By the way, women actually do grow real pubic hair, you know, and they don’t do it just to annoy you.

    3. How in the world would you know what MJ Snow would teach if she taught a sex education class? What gives you the right to impose your condescending attitude and presume to know what this author’s thoughts would be and what does speculating about them even have to do with this article?

      One thing that’s obvious is that she has a much better understanding of male and female anatomy than you do. You say you want to see more vagina in films and shows? You do know what a vagina is, right? Um, it’s INTERNAL. How, pray tell, would you expect to see that? And you want to see “vagina lips?” Well that would be quite an oddity considering the fact that “vaginas” don’t have lips. The vulva does, however. Two sets, in fact. There’s the labia majora, which are the outer lips and the labia minora which are the inner lips. Now that you have been educated about female anatomy, if that is what you’re wanting to see, do you have any concept of what kind of scenes and positions and camera angles would be required to achieve this?

      Perhaps YOU should have taken a sex education class to educate yourself first about female genitalia and not make yourself look so foolish while busy blasting this author for her opinion on HBO’s practices of showing nudity in their shows. Until you can make valid points about this subject using correct terminology, YOUR rant falls on deaf ears.

      1. CLEARLY, the original poster used the word “vagina” as slang for “vulva”, which is quite often done in our society.

        1. Just because slang is often used in our society, it doesn’t make it correct or accurate. And no, the assumption was not CLEAR that the poster was, in fact, using it as slang. Once again, third party presumptions are being made. Without questioning the poster directly, there is no way of truly knowing if they were using slang or if this is what they believe to be fact. I was basing my comment on their own written words. If they actually meant something other than what they typed, well, then they should have used different terminology.

          1. Well, there you have it, the original poster clarified what they meant. They were talking about a “Pussy”. And yes, I’m using slang, but when I say the word “Pussy”, (in slang), I’m talking about the whole enchilada! (more slang),

            The mons pubis, the labia majora and the labia minora, clitoris, clitoral glans and the clitoral hood, the urinary meatus, the vaginal orifice… In short, the entire visible Vulva which most seem to think is invisible.

          2. What on earth kind of woman has all that stuff visible while standing up, even if she is shaved bare the way you little boys like it? Er, “Jessica”. Haha.

      2. Vagina, vulva, it was meant to be used to refer to the same thing.

        And yes I do know what kind of camera angles are needed to see the VULVA (happy?). The same exact camera angles shown in the TV show Shameless where a man’s penis was shown up close for an extended amount of time – you know, the same scene the author of this article made mention of. Exactly like that and you would be able to see every single part of the female anatomy at those angles.

        Besides, what’s the point of using a merkin (fake pubic hair) if female genitalia is invisible?

        1. Using a merkin? The most recent mention I saw of one of those was an article mentioning how the actress who played Osha did not wear one, though she thought it would suit her character better if she had.

          You know, after hearing so many guys, over the years, claim they would like to be objectified, it’s pretty amusing to watch them squirm as soon as someone actually suggests it.

      3. Shane were sorry did we offend your friend MJ or maybe it’s MJ in disguise. Impressive rant for a uneducated feminist. If you took time to read the article then maybe you would see the argument is pathetic and not comparative. But looking at the facts and actual statements would require more intelligence than the average female that posts on this site. You have proved just how much of an idiot you are by making this silly statement. 99% of anyone over the age of 9 has a better understanding of sex and genital nudity than MJ. So thanks for educating us and bringing us up to speed on the fact that the vagina is internal, whew I thought I may never get someone to explain that to me. So from now on for the sake of Shane and the lack of understanding on how people really talk about the human body and its “private parts”, we should all use the proper terminology. Good job at blasting someone and really not proving anything but our point. Do you know what camera angles it would take to do this? Thanks for proving our point that the vagina, oh wait excuse me, let’s use the proper terminology, ….. Vulva, labia majors or labia minora, has never been shown on any show, movie or series. Thanks for that. You are so clever that you proved all our points, good job. My deaf ears are hearing pretty well today.

  25. I just saw the movie the Black Book on Stars last night. I was disgusted by the full frint male nudity. Maybe it was because the actor was un-attractive. However, I think it needs to be left for rated x movies. I feel Americans are not ready for that much exposure to the human body.

  26. MJ, your article is completely void of comparative argument. The definition of full frontal nudity is… of a nude person exposing the genitals to full view… All out; unrestrained. Both sexes have the 3 B’s…breasts, butt, bush. The only true difference between the sexes is the genitalia. Both American TV and film have been exposing the male genitalia for over forty years. The female genitalia has NEVER been seen on American TV or film. And, since many females are now shaving their pubic area, the merkin industry is taking on a new importance. The penis and testicles are now allowed to be shown up close, for an extended period of time and in a semi-erect state. The vulva, and, god forbid, any of the internal parts, is strictly off limits, period, end of discussion. I will give you that the unclothed female body has seen much more screen time than the male body. But, like I already mentioned, I see nothing more in the way of body parts than what I see in my own mirror.

    1. “. The penis and testicles are now allowed to be shown up close, for an extended period of time and in a semi-erect state.” What the hell kind of TV are you watching?

      1. Basically mainstream R-rated Hollywood films, which will show the penis in this erect state, even shaved completely and up close while being scared to death of showing the vulva/vagina in this very manner – no doubt Hollywood is run by a bunch of vagiphobes, similar to a bunch of women on this site.

    1. la comparaison entre la nudité complète de l’homme versus la nudité
      partielle de la femme m’a semblé totalement ridicule, c’est pourquoi je
      n’ai pas pris plus de mon temps pour transmettre mon opinion en anglais
      —–> Google translate, if you are curious.

  27. le pénis est, au contraire, bien trop affiché! pratiquement tout les films non pornographiques contenant de la nudité complète font l’éloge du membre masculin! spartacus est la série par execllence pour se qui est de montrer le pénis, mais ne vous attendez pas a voir une vulve, au non! les vulves son tous cachées par du faux poils pubiens ou des bijoux. Cet exemple est valable pour pratiquement tous les films et séries du genre! voyez par vous même!

    -Pink Flamingos (1972) de John Waters, contenant une scène de fellation homosexuelle pratiquée par l’acteur Divine sur l’acteur Danny Mills.

    -L’Empire des sens (Ai no corrida) (1976) — séquences non simulées, notamment la fellation (jusqu’à éjaculation) entre Eiko Matsuda et Tatsuya Fuji[1],[5].

    -Le Diable au corps (1986) (Il Diavolo in corpo) — fellation pratiquée par Maruschka Detmers sur Federico Pitzalis[1],[7],[8].

    -La donna lupo (1999) — fellation (non complète) réalisée par Loredana Cannata[9].

    -Romance (1999) — Caroline Ducey prend dans sa bouche le sexe de Sagamore Stévenin, ou de sa doublure (fellation non complète). On voit par contre l’actrice saisir le sexe en érection de Rocco Siffredi à pleine main, mais la véracité de la pénétration de Rocco Siffredi sur Caroline Ducey a été déniée, notamment par la réalisatrice Catherine Breillat[11] et Caroline Ducey, mais confirmée par Rocco Siffredi[12]. Si rien n’est donc sûr quant à la simulation ou non des actes impliquant l’actrice principale, des actes sexuels non simulés (pénétrations, éjaculation) sont toutefois effectués par des acteurs de porno et bien visibles dans une scène du film[5].

    -Baise-moi (2000) — nombreuses scènes non simulées impliquant Karen Lancaume et Raphaëla Anderson, par ailleurs actrices porno. Le film a été interdit ou classé comme pornographique dans plusieurs pays, parfois provisoirement (en Australie par exemple)[5]. Le film comprend une dizaine de plans montrant une pénétration non simulée ainsi que des fellations et des éjaculations[13].

    -In extremis (2000) — une fellation est pratiquée lors d’une scène où l’on voit Sébastien Roch entrer dans un club érotique[14].

    -O Fantasma (2000) de João Pedro Rodrigues – scène de fellation en gros plan dans des toilettes publiques entre le personnage de Sergio (Ricardo Meneses) et un figurant.

    -Intimité (2001) (Intimacy) — fellation (non complète) de Kerry Fox sur Mark Rylance[1],[5].

    -Le Pornographe (2001) — scène de tournage d’un film pornographique (dont le réalisateur est interprété par Jean-Pierre Léaud) avec pénétration et éjaculation impliquant Ovidie[16].

    -Ken Park (2002) — l’actrice Tiffany Limos joue une scène sexuellement explicite avec deux acteurs où l’on voit clairement une fellation non simulée. Plusieurs autres scènes non simulées sont visibles[1].

    -The Brown Bunny (2003) — à la fin du film, Chloë Sevigny pratique une fellation sur Vincent Gallo (qui est son compagnon dans la vie), apparemment jusqu’à éjaculation[1],[17]. Toutefois, après avoir vu la première du film à Cannes (qui fit scandale), la réalisatrice Claire Denis a déclaré devant plusieurs personnes que le phallus apparaissant dans cette scène était une prothèse. Selon Denis, qui avait dirigé Gallo dans le film Trouble Every Day, il s’agirait d’un des accessoires de son film, que Gallo aurait dérobé[18]. Dès la sortie du film, le critique Emmanuel Burdeau s’interrogeait dans Les Cahiers du cinéma : « Fellation de Daisy à Bud, de Chloë Sevigny à Vincent Gallo. Inscription vraie, ou bien scènes feintes ? »[19].

    -9 Songs (2004) — multiples scènes non simulées entre Kieran O’Brien et Margo Stilley, dont une montrant une éjaculation[20].

    -Anatomie de l’enfer (2004) — pénétration non simulée entre les personnages joués par Rocco Siffredi et Amira Casar. Ce n’est toutefois pas Amira Casar qui a tourné les plans non simulés mais une doublure, comme la réalisatrice Catherine Breillat le confirme dans un entretien[21]. La séquence d’ouverture du film montre une fellation entre hommes mais il est difficile de dire si l’acte a réellement été accompli.

    -Batalla en el cielo (2005) de Carlos Reygadas montre des fellations et une éventuelle pénétration impliquant Anapola Mushkadiz, ainsi que d’autres scènes non simulées entre des acteurs secondaires du film[22].

    -Shortbus (2006) de John Cameron Mitchell contient plusieurs séquences non simulées dont une scène d’auto-fellation[1].

    -Serbis (2008) de Brillante Mendoza — des fellations non simulées sont filmées dans le cinéma porno qui sert de décor au film[25],[26].

    -I am curious (Yellow) (Jag är nyfiken – en film i gult) (1967) – Lena Nyman embrasse et joue avec le pénis de son partenaire.

    -Sweet Movie (1974) – Carole Laure prend en main le pénis de son partenaire et le passe sur son visage. L’actrice avait obtenu la suppression de cette séquence pour la distribution en France ainsi qu’une autre où elle apparaît nue sur un lit, les jambes écartées face à la caméra[33].

    Je pourrais continuer a en énumérer pendant des heures! L’inégalité est chez les hommes comparé aux femmes pas le contraire!

  28. Jim is this article as about violence and how it is portrayed on tv, cable, and the movies I would have to agree. However, this article is about the alleged “inequality” of nudity between men and women. And when I use the term “article” I use it very loosely. The or the pathetic attempt to compare graphic full male nudity to partial female nudity, ie topless, is down right laughable.

    1. It’s not only “topless”. That I can think of there’s 3 female full frontals in the latest season. I believe that’s the same number of male full frontals (IF you even count Hodor) as you see in the entire 3 seasons. If there’s a nude female in a scene her naked body is always viewable through the entire scene, rather she’s relevant or not. The females are usually attractive, in shape, and -mentally capable-. There’s also the fact that most sex scenes are portrayed with the female being the…giver. I’d like to see an attractive male in motion as much as a man like to see a women in motion…and all we get is butt! BUT it’s still something.

      1. Eleanor, are any of these females vulva’s (vagina’s [slang]) actually visible?

        I don’t recall any of the scenes you mentioned, BUT I have yet to see any visible female genitalia on this show, only penises.

        Your point about “partial, non-genital” female nudity is taken, but the women on this show have never had to have their actual genitals exposed like the men have.

        It’s not “full” frontal nudity without visible genitalia. I don’t know why people can’t use any -effing- logic on this one…

  29. I really don’t know why nudity is a problem with so many people. It seems odd to me that nudity of any sort is considered less problematic then say showing someone be decapitated. If we are thinking about what is worse, you know violent murders or bodies without clothes on I know where my opinion falls. How odd it is that people feel the need to censor out a penis, boob, or vagina while leaving scenes where the ‘hero’ mows down badies with an automatic rifle completely untouched. Such odd priorities…

    1. Nudity isn’t a problem for me, but I understand and respect the feelings (without questioning them) of those who do have a problem with seeing nudity.

      Just because your moral sense doesn’t allow you to relate to those individuals, doesn’t make them wrong or silly (i.e. “they can handle violence and gore, but they can’t handle nudity…”)

  30. As an editor and writer for this site. I wish I had substanial facts for you, though I don’t know what substantial facts you are looking for. I won’t speak for the writer of the piece except to say I’m sure it was not meant as a scientific post about anatomical details.

    What is does prove to me is that it is amazing how fired up people get about nudity in this country. All 70+ comments have proved quite amusing. I’m even surprised at how sexually literate most of you are and I think the amusement I find is the intent of the post. If you don’t see that it reflects something of you not us. Enjoy more nudity to come on HBO!

    1. As a “non-editor” and “non-writer”; just an everyday person with common sense… One doesn’t need “substantial facts” to see the childishly ignorant comparisons MJ Snow made in her article (i.e. genital and non-genital
      body parts, as well as entirely different levels of graphic and non-graphic

      Jef, if you can’t see the fallacies her article is full of, combined with her ignorant comparison of apples to oranges as some “inequality”, then, as an “editor” and “writer”, you obviously can’t read.

      1. I don’t see where I claimed not to see fallacies in the post. I am simply saying, and not simply enough I guess, that it is a fluff piece and was meant to stir up comments. It evidently accomplished that quite well.

        Thank you and everyone for their contribution.

        1. It’s a “fluff piece” … “meant to stir up comments”? Jef, I thought you didn’t want to speak for the writer?

          MJ Snow — admittedly — has a key interest and passion on the topic of sex and nudity, which hardly qualifies this as “fluff”. If this article were “fluff”, then the words in her article would show a complete lack of interest about the topic, hence, one of the reasons why I’m questioning you reading and comprehension skills.

          Jef, you may think you’re being clever, but you’re not. I would class you as a Johnny-come-lately, but even that would be a complement.

          1. Actually, this article was exactly what Jef said, meant to stir up controversy and get people commenting. Jef is correct in saying there are no statistics available, but even if there were, who cares? Yes he is clever, that’s why he writes for this site and you don’t. There is no reason to be disrespectful of someone offering a valid opinion.

            In my opinion, you cannot compare topless women to topless men. That means we should be seeing more penis shots, to somewhat balance out the massive amount of boobs we see on television. I never addressed vulva shots, because that is ridiculous. The penis, like breasts, is visible for all to see. For vulva shots, you’d need a lot more intrusive camera angles, it wouldn’t be possible to show an equal ratio of vulva to penis shots without going to some pretty ridiculous lengths.

            Which brings me back to how ridiculous it is to get all fired up about this topic. The article was supposed to make you think and offer an opinion, not to incite people to insult each other’s intelligence and be rude to each other. Do you want to see more cock shots on TV? Yes? No? Why? Maybe people could try to be less condescending and just offer their thoughts. I’m not wrong or right, and neither is anyone else. We’ve all got an opinion.

          2. Pretty ridiculous lengths to show a vulva? Really?! You mean like how ridiculously up close the penis shot in Shameless was shown that you mentioned and praised in your article? If they showed a woman in EXACTLY the same camera angle, EXACTLY the same camera distance, EXACTLY the same scene lighting, you would be able to see every inch of the woman’s vulva, yet you would claim that it would be ridiculous to show such a thing, while praising the show for displaying the penis in this very manner?

            What’s ridiculous is the fact that these shows force the actresses to wear merkins (fake pubic hair), yet why would they do that if the vulva were as invisible as you say they are? What about Playboy magazine where the vulva is clearly shown without the need of intrusive camera angles? Are you going to suggest that these women in Playboy are cyborg women who have weird visible vulvas?

            Your article was very condescending towards men, claiming men are insecure about seeing other men’s penises, yet what does the lack of vulva shots in movies and these shows, and your ridiculous comparison of boobs to penis, say about you and other women? You are the ones clearly insecure about your vaginas and would be livid at the thought of vaginas being shown in exactly the same manner as penises are currently being shown. Vagiphobia, MJ Snow. Vagiphobia. Don’t cover up your insecurity with vaginas by using boobs as a cheap substitute.

            In every category of skin being shown, the male version is shown more often and more graphically:

            Men’s chest shown more than women’s chest
            Men’s butts shown more than women’s butts
            Men’s genitals shown more than women’s genitals.

            Yet you want more penises to be shown to balance out the breasts? These are not equal parts. We need WAY more vaginas to be shown to equal things out in the genital-equality category. As mentioned, in many areas of the US, like New York, women legally can be topless out in public. Topless is not nude, and certainly not equal to the penis. Anyone who thinks so is either ignorant or a very vaginally-insecure woman.

            What we are calling for is cunt shots on TV, yet you women cower in fear over such a thing. We are not asking for anything more than what you are asking for. What is the problem you have with cunt shots on TV? Help us understand this vagiphobia.

          3. Lol, what? You actually believe someone comparing like for like (penis and vulva, stating something factual as many have done in here) is ridiculous? But then you believe your ignorant and obnoxious comparison of non-genital with genital body parts is not ridiculous?

            What takes the hypocritical cake, though, is the fact that you actually have the nerve to accuse others in here of being ridiculous about the topic when you’re the one who has publicly made an entire article ranting about the very same subject — I think some of Jef’s “cleverness” might be rubbing off on you…

            … MJ Snow said: …”Yes he is clever, that’s why he
            writes for this site and you don’t….”

            I know, writing for an obscure, insignificant, non-official site on the Internet about pornographic levels of male nudity is quite the feather in one’s career cap! It shows just how creative and “clever” the two of you really are.

            What’s ridiculous, are perverts like you making entire articles on the Internet complaining about the lack of “penis” (i.e. pornographic levels of male nudity) on primetime TV. If you need to be sexually entertained while watching primetime shows, then you’re watching the wrong programming.

            … MJ Snow said: …”For vulva shots, you’d need a lot
            more intrusive camera angles…”

            Lmao, no you don’t. The Labia Majora, and on most women, the Labia Minora are perfectly visible, but I’m sure you truly believe what you said, only reinforcing your ignorance.

            … MJ Snow said: …”I never addressed vulva shots,
            because that is ridiculous…”

            But asking for full penis shots is not ridiculous? Hypocritically sexist, much?

            In addition, if I, or others seem condescending, then it’s usually the result of one realizing that they are
            talking to a child, or someone with the ignorance and intellect of one.

          4. I heard Rosario Dawson’s vulva (in the movie Trance) was extremely difficult to film. So difficult, they managed to get two great shots of it on film. And can you believe it, no fancy camera angles were needed and no bright lighting was used. She must have one of those extremely rare vulvas that every other woman is born without.

            Seriously, you do realize you are accusing others in here of getting all “fired up” and “ridiculous” over the very same topic you seem to be all “fired up” and “ridiculous” about as well, right? Isn’t that your article at the top of the page; an article that madly rants on and on with highly imbalanced facts about “unfair” female nudity?

            You speak of others needing to show respect, while at the same time, you freely show no respect towards others (i.e. telling them they’re ridiculous, or resorting to petty name calling). Did you not call me a “Militant Feminist” earlier?

            You accuse others of being condescending and disrespectful, when you, yourself, were very condescending and disrespectful towards men (among many other things) in your article.

            You complain about an inequality against women with a ridiculous apples to oranges comparison as your facts, yet you ask for another inequality against men, and then you fail to understand why it’s getting a mostly negative reception among men, and some women.

            Respect is a two-way street, and in my opinion, you’re getting all of the “controversy” and “stir up” you hoped for.

    2. The substantial facts we are looking for are pretty clear. Graphic male nudity to actual graphic female nudity. I would venture to guess it wouldn’t be close by a long shot. But we won’t visit that as it makes more sense to write and disguise personal bias as literature. Let’s see if HBO will actually compare apples to apples and present a factual article. I would also venture to guess that this to will go unanswered.

      1. And you would be wrong.
        There are no statistics, at least available to us, determining the percentage difference between female/male genitalia appearing on the channel. Sorry about that. Since you are so fascinated you can do that research for us. We’d love to know what you come up with. Until then I guess there is nothing more to say.

  31. They won’t respond to you Jon cause they have no facts to bring. They have been called out and not one spec of factual information has been presented. You are spot on and yet we will always have delusional, misguided, ignorant people that will continue spew misinformation to support their agenda.

    1. Exactly, they can’t present facts to backup their claims because they don’t even know what they’re talking about. Faulty information, in MJ Snow’s case, can only get her so far with her argument.

      Her anger (disguised as satire) over non-graphic partial female nudity has clouded her objectivity making it harder for her to separate fact from fiction.

  32. Image turning on your television only to catch a show where 4 guys sit on a couch (in a comedy skit) demanding that “HBO SHOULD SHOW PUSSY”!…

    Can you image the absolute outraged shit-storm that would ensue from it? Every media outlet, every woman… hell, almost all of society would immediately blast this skit as entirely inappropriate and complete misogyny, regardless of the context. The resignations of network executives would be demanded, the entire cast of the skit would be fired and made a public example of; there would be an overwhelming public outcry for the show to be cancelled, indefinitely!

    Not too long ago I caught an interview (on daytime NBC!) where Maria Menounos asked Joe Manganiello if “that was his ‘real’ penis” in Magic Mike? … Again, could you image what would happen if a male reporter on NBC asked Maria Menounos “Hey, Maria, was that your ‘real’ pussy in those bikini failure photos?” He would be publicly executed for it! It would never be tolerated and rightfully so.

    It’s unbelievable to the point that it defies logic, how our society excuses and tolerates this type of misandrist, reversed sexist, and completely inappropriate behavior from women. This, like your article, and the skit by these four ignorant, low-classed idiots, is nothing more than a baselessly false agenda disguised as satire.

    MJ Snow, it’s obvious your still a child who probably snuck onto mommy and daddy’s computer given your article is childish and full of convenient lies and nonfactual information, it makes a politician look like a saint. In addition, just like the mindset of a child, you ‘are’ ignorantly comparing genital body parts with non-genital body parts in a poor effort to subvert the facts.

    The study should only count the number of penis shots versus actual vulva (vag, labia majora/minora, clitoris) shots, period. Like for like, children.

  33. How about a graph with actual vag shots to penis. ?????
    Exactly 50-0 in favor of penis.
    Get a life girls and accept when you are wrong.
    Like arguing with a child.

  34. Common place these days gents. Talk to any normal woman who doesn’t have her agenda to push and she will agree. Breasts are not the same as full male nudity. The simple fact is women want equality and they don’t want everything that comes with it. Women are always protected, ie. commit a crime, lessor sentence. It’s getting ridiculous nowadays with male nudity in all new movies. It’s ok to show that but never a vag that isn’t covered by a bush large enough to stale a weed eater. To those who think there should be an erect penis in a rated R movie then you are seriously stupid. That is meant for porn and they would never show a women spread legged turned on without a mega bush. But we go back to that equality thing which doesn’t exist, we all see it. Women getting protected for nothing more than being born a female. Feminism 101, make men feel bad for being a man. This is the biggest joke i have read, this is talent? Agenda, Agenda. Remember it fellas.

  35. Was that video up there before? I saw the “HBO SHOULD SHOW DONGS” on and came back here to post the link in the comments section but now I just noticed it’s already here. I think it just further backs up MJ Snow’s editorial and compliments it perfectly. Yes, it’s time for some actual equality. =)

    1. Are you just trolling, Culdee, or do you really believe this?

      Graphic male nudity versus non-graphic female nudity, which is the current state of our entertainment, isn’t “equality”.

      Out of all of the posts I’ve read in here, aside from MJ Snow’s article and posts, yours are the most sexist and childishly ignorant.

      1. A naked man, standing up, seen from 6 feet away is “graphic”, while a naked woman depicted the same way is “not graphic”?
        How do you figure?

        1. Covered by a pubic wig or can’t you read. Just because you can reply to all these statement doesn’t prove a thing. It does show you have an opinion but no facts. Like talking with a child. Hows MJ doing by the way?

        2. Jessica Dawson

          I’ll try to simplify it…

          Exposed genitalia, Penis or Vulva = “Graphic Nudity”.

          All other exposed body parts = “Non-Graphic Nudity”.

          Also, a Penis is a dick, and a Vulva is a pussy.

          Let me know if you need it dumbed-down any further. ;)

  36. Are you kidding? Boobs =/= penis. You say that there has been enough female full frontal nudity to last several winters, but they all wear pubic wigs – basically a hair bikini. Male full frontal shows everything, female full frontal is censored. Genital nudity is becoming even more on sided because of articles like yours.

  37. MJ Snow, you hit the nail on the head with this article! Funny, obviously tongue in cheek, and a little bit naughty. The people hating on the article need to lighten up. How on earth can they not see the humor here? And I say if there is nudity, it should be equal between men and women. No, bare chests do not count for men, neither do merkins or prosthetics. I feel here in the UK we are a little bit more open about nudity on tv, but we all have a long way to go to become equal!

  38. Great example of the type of article that a woman who hasn’t gotten laid in a very long time would write. Tell you what… lose some weight, work on your self-esteem, and (without putting your standards too high) you might meet a decent guy who’ll make you forget the need to seek out penis on HBO. You really should get out more. It’s kind of disturbing that you’re pushing for more “less flaccid” penises to be shown. Honey, where have you been for the last 40 years? Have you not heard of pornography??! Oh. but that’s so dirty, huh!

    Guess what: if HBO really wants to grow some major balls, they’ll start showing wide open vaginas… FULL VULVA!! I honestly can’t say that I’ve ever seen one in a mainstream movie or on TV. The day HBO starts showing pussy is the day that I’ll resubscribe to cable (or satellite). We’ve got weenies galore in just about every R-rated movie today (okay, not “galore” but there’s plenty), we’ve got singing and cooking shows on every night of the week, and Justin Bieber’s a teen sex idol… wow. Anyone see a trend here?

    1. Lol, Confucius. firstly, you’ve spelled Confucius incorrectly. Second, I’m not fat, unattractive or single, nor have I been for a long time. I also write erotica and co-run a porn site, so there is nothing out there that I’m missing out on. I wouldn’t be against showing “full vulva,” either. I just would like to see a bit more equality in the ratio between male and female nudity on TV. I hope you’re not a phone psychic or anything… if so, you should look for a new career. ;)

      1. ————————————-
        “I … co-run a porn site, so there is nothing out there that I’m missing out on.”

        A: I’m now seeing the motive behind your article as you’re nothing more than a “co-” smut peddler. ……AND

        B: Since you’re “not missing out” then you should be able to go without it on your local movie channels.

        “I wouldn’t be against showing “full vulva,” either. I just would like to see a bit more equality in the ratio between male and female nudity on TV.

        Your own word in your article say otherwise, making this statement completely disingenuous.

        1. Wow, troll much, Jessica? This is obviously a witty commentary on nudity on the premium channels and you are taking it so seriously! Go out and get laid, you will feel better and won’t need to keep picking fights with people on the internet!

          1. Lol. Grow up, Clara.

            This is an adult topic meant for adults only. Telling people they need to “go out and get laid”, or perceiving someone who’s expressing an opposing point of view as “attacking someone” is ignorant and childish.

            Next time, get some parental supervision to help you properly conceptualize things when engaging in any adult discussion such as this.

      2. The problem lies in that women’s breasts are considered nudity, with no male equivelent. Eliminate breasts from the equation and you see far more male nudity. It’s totally cool if you want to see more penises, but don’t go making inaccurate statements.

    2. It’s really funny how much some men hate being objectified. Oh well, at least my husband doesn’t mind. :)

  39. What an unfair and biased point of view. Your glaring falt here is that you’re comparing female nude breasts as the ‘equivalent’ to male nude genitalia. Get over yourself – the two cannot be compared. Hopefully you can see that if you want equality, then compare like for like. I.e. nude vagina (nude! not covered with fake pubic hair) with nude penis. Now *that* would be equal. And if you’d like to see erect penises (peni?), then how about showing some spread legged female vagina. Like for like, see?

    1. Yupppp I agree with this simple simetrical logic…! Come on girls.. more nude man mean more GAY… aren’t you all afraid if most man would become GAY..? kiss like a girl…? acceptable if most of you girls are Lesbian.. :( Any way I personaly hates Lesbian Act.. Yuckk!

    2. I’m not against showing more “real” female genitalia on TV at all. I’d just like to see as many nude males as there are nude females on television.

      1. There are no shows (outside of porn) that show female genitalia.

        With that said, why do you think it’s fair that they should show more male genitalia?

        Again, you’re asking for graphic male nudity when there is no graphic female nudity (i.e. no visible female genitalia).

        1. Never in the article does the author say that she is against showing female genitalia or that she’s against female nudity of any kind. Can you read? She wrote an article about inequality when it comes to male genitalia versus female nudity of any kind on the premium channels. Which is a fact that, although you don’t believe it, is true. So why are you attacking her and saying to revise her article? She wrote an article that you don’t agree with. Wow, get over it.

          1. Oh I see Clara has decided to pick on Jessica.

            “She wrote an article about inequality when it comes to male genitalia versus female nudity of any kind on the premium channels. Which is a fact that, although you don’t believe it, is true.”

            Jeez… because you say its true, it therefore must be true…NOT! Why don’t you answer some of the questions and FACTS Jessica puts forth. Snow’s article rests on the proclamation that there is an inequality between male and female nudity; somehow equading nude female breasts (merkins do NOT = pussy!!!!) to male penis!!?? Male genitals outweighs female breasts by ALL reasonable measurements of nudity. Can you see this at least?

            So, on this topic, I double dare anyone to call out a MAINSTREAM show where they’ve clearly shown vaginal skin as I’ve seen many times they do of the penis, and in frequent cases of main stream male actors – not some extra in a background scene. NOTE: Not obscured or hidden, but clear vaginal skin.

            Any show on mainstream television! And please do not mention females with excessive pubic hair and merkins as being portrayed as “fully frontal” nude, cause if you can’t see the clit, clitoral hood, labia, or any or all of the vulva, then she isn’t nude in the same sens that men are when they do full frontal. Its pretty hard to hide a dick and balls when shown up front.

            Game of Thrones is nothing compared to Spartacus where CLEARLY showing penis seems to be the norm. And what is it women are showing you say? Wrong!
            Tits and Pussy wig my darling, PUSSY WIG! And this pattern seems to be duplicated in so many other shows and movies.

            In my immediate recollection I can think of only TWO recent movies (Trance, Broken Flowers) where they clearly show *some* part of the vagina (bless you Rosario Dawson!). But these are the only ones showing clear skin, albeit only some skin. Still, I haven’t seen anything remotely similar in mainstream TELEVISION.

            So…just from the top of my head, here are just a few recent shows/movies where they’ve CLEARLY shown male genitalia. Now, if you want to put your EVIDENCE where your mouth is, give me a list showing female genitalia:

            – Forgetting Sarah Marshall
            – Mall Cop
            – Zack and Miri make a porno
            – Eastern Promises
            – Bruno
            – Finding Bliss
            – Watchmen
            – Borat
            – Walk Hard
            – The Hangover
            – Sex and the City
            – Jack Ass

            – Spartacus
            – John Adams
            – Shameless
            – Rome
            – Carnival
            – Oz
            – Tell me you love me
            – True Blood

            Talk about a double standard!

            Get your facts straight next time! And open BOTH your eyes. In the land of the blind the one-eyed is king.

          2. ——–
            “…….female nudity of any kind on the premium channels” … “Which is a fact that, although you don’t believe it, is true.”……..

            What are you talking about? What “female nudity of any kind”, Clara? Don’t just state your delusional opinion, back it up with fact. Name these shows that show a lot of actual “pussy” (actual labia majora/minora, clitoral hood…) in them?

            You are (illogically) comparing apples to oranges (i.e. male only genital nudity with non-genital female nudity)? It’s absolutely ridiculous.

            You, as well as MJ Snow and Culdee, are conveniently generalizing (perversely twisting) graphic male only nudity (genital male nudity) as being the same as non-graphic female nudity (non-genital female nudity) to defend her obnoxious article. Agreeing, or saying such a ridiculous thing only shows how anatomically ignorant you all seem to be — It also comes across as being extremely adolescent minded, and very sexist towards men.

            ……..”Never in the article does the author say that she is against showing female genitalia or that she’s against female nudity of any kind. Can you read?……..

            That’s not what I’m arguing, but thank you, Captain Obvious.

            Can you read?

      2. And therefore you draw comparison between female breasts / pubic hair and male (clearly visible) genitalia? Wtf? Just how old are you? Take down your silly article or at least update it with some truth.

        1. I would suggest that you think about the fact that this is a blog, which in addition to news pieces, runs opinion pieces or editorials. An editorial is an article that contains the
          writer’s opinion. Sometimes, the piece is not actually the writer’s personal opinion, the Editor in Chief may assign a particular opinion piece to a staff writer who may or may not possess the opinion they are instructed to present. Editorials are not considered news stories, and do not need to be backed up with facts. The purpose of an editorial or opinion piece is often to stir up controversy or create discussion. Sorry to break it to you, but this writer is doing her job, quite well in fact.

    3. The pubic hair is not fake much of the time, and if it is, it’s only imitating what is, you know, natural. The fact that you’re used to seeing women shaved bare in porn does not make it a right.

  40. Game of Thrones goes way overboard with male nudity. they go out of they way to show some guy’s dick. it’s a wet dream come true for the heshe’s on queer eye for the straight guy.

  41. MJ Snow—well said! I agree with every point in your brilliantly written article.

    Game of Thrones should definitely be more liberal about penises on display. In fact, I’m slightly offended that they haven’t done it already. The male body is beautiful—including the penis! I just role my eyes at all the male nude scenes that have some strategically placed piece of furniture that perfectly obscures the penis from every angle. C’mon people—it’s the 21st century. Get out of the past, get over your own insecurities, and learn to accept that full-frontal male nudity is equally as desirable as any female’s. =)

    Some folks commenting below are under the delusion that pubic hair shouldn’t be compared with penises. If we carry that pseudo-logic to its full extent, than women shouldn’t ever need to wear swimsuits at beaches or pools. So why isn’t that reality? Because it’s false—pubic hair does *not* conceal the female genitals; it merely frames them. I’ve seen Game of Thrones and vulvas *are* indeed visible. So it’s only fair to expect that the corresponding male anatomy is given at least as much visibility.

    Bottom line: Nudity is nudity. It’s not about which gender’s genitals we can expose more of; it’s about calling out the lame-sauce, double-standard reasons for constantly hiding one gender’s genitals (ie. the male’s) over the other’s. If the producers aren’t going to put any effort into concealing certain regions during a full-frontal female shot, then why should they do it with men? The double standard is stupid, immature, and unnecessary. So bring on the DICKS! Time for the male producers/actors to man-up! B)

    1. Nice post. **rolls eyes** It does a great job proving that common sense truly is a gift, of which, you appear to have none.

      …………”…pubic hair does *not* conceal the female genitals…”…………

      It does in Hollywood! They call it a Merkin — used solely for the purpose of concealing any part of the vulva **pussy** from being seen, entirely, which is the main argument being made here.

      …………”…get over your own insecurities…” “…stupid, immature, and unnecessary. So bring on the DICKS! Time for the male producers/actors to man-up! B)…”…………

      So, by your own logic, if a female actress chooses to wear a merkin (concealing her genitalia from being seen), she or the producers aren’t being **stupid or unnecessary**, **So un-21st century like**, **immature**, **insecure**, nor does she need to **woman-up**, she’s just being modest, and she needs to have her modesty protected, right? However, if a male actor refuses to show his genitalia (since he can’t wear a merkin), he’s just being **insecure**, **unmanly**, **he needs to get with the 21st century and man-up!**, etc… because it would be CRAZY to think the explanation could be as simple as… male modesty, right? Are men not allowed any modesty? Are they not allowed to have any options for concealing their genitalia in your sexist/misandrist world/point of view?

      The double standard **since you can’t seem to grasp the simple concept that this side of the argument is trying to make** is about actual genital nudity/exposure. Only someone devoid of common sense and logic would actually compare non-genital female nudity with male genital nudity as being the same. They’re not, period! Wait, I forgot, we’re being “delusional”…

      Hollywood, quite often, shows plenty of penises, even in states of arousal in R rated and primetime cable television, but they very rarely, if ever, show an actual vulva (pussy). That is the TRUE double standard!

      Google the facts, but be careful to avoid anything which contains common sense and actual, unbiased truth as it might cause your narrow-minded head to explode.

      1. ———-
        It does in Hollywood! They call it a Merkin — used solely for the purpose of concealing any part of the vulva **pussy** from being seen, entirely, which is the main argument being made here.

        Merkin or not, the actress’s pubic region still appears fully visible to the audience. The audience doesn’t stop and think “oh wait I didn’t actually see her vulva; it was probably just a merkin”. The audience sees a mons pubis, pubic hair (fake or not), and a vulva (except you, of course). It’s how it’s *received* by the audience that is what matters. Did you know that nipples are sometimes CG’d in? It doesn’t matter! The audience sees exposed nipples in the final product. Here in game of thrones, all we see are nude women. It’s just weird that females can be filmed nude from any angle, but the males always have some strategically placed leg, cloth, or piece of furniture. Male actors should be proud to bare it all just like their female counterparts. They have nothing to be ashamed of. Again, I think an enlightened mind would not be offended by a fully-visible penis in an R-rated film, assuming it’s tastefully done.

        So, by your own logic, if a female actress chooses to wear a merkin (concealing her genitalia from being seen), she or the producers aren’t being **stupid or unnecessary**, **So un-21st century like**, **immature**, **insecure**, nor does she need to **woman-up**, she’s just being modest, and she needs to have her modesty protected, right? However, if a male actor refuses to show his genitalia (since he can’t wear a merkin), he’s just being **insecure**, **unmanly**, **he needs to get with the 21st century and man-up!**, etc… because it would be CRAZY to think the explanation could be as simple as… male modesty, right? Are men not allowed any modesty? Are they not allowed to have any options for concealing their genitalia in your sexist/misandrist world/point of view… without being ridiculed for it?

        A merkin is not modest, at all. The actress’s pubic region appears nude on screen from any angle. Again, that’s how the audience *receives* it. Next time I visit a public pool or beach, I’ll look for women wearing merkins to maintain their modesty. No need for a swimsuit, lol. Part of the reason some actors won’t show their penis is because some backwards thinkers in our culture have taught them that only female genitals are attractive. Thankfully these male body shamers are becoming a tiny minority, which is why we are very slowly seeing more actors embracing the beauty of their male form and bearing it all, penis included. =) Now if only Game of Thrones would come out of the past and follow this new trend.

        The double standard **since you can’t seem to grasp the simple concept that this side of the argument is trying to make** is about actual genital nudity/exposure. Only someone devoid of common sense and logic would actually compare non-genital female nudity with male genital nudity as being the same. They’re not, period! Wait, I forgot, we’re being “delusional”…

        Only someone who wants to perpetuate penis-shaming would say they are different. Using *your* logic, these are the same people who said women need to cover their breasts in public. If you think both men and women should legally be able to expose their breasts in public, why can’t male actors expose their pubic region/genitals in films just like their female counterparts? It’s a double standard.

        Hollywood, quite often, shows plenty of penises, even in states of arousal in R rated and primetime cable television, but they very rarely, if ever, show an actual vulva (pussy). That is the TRUE double standard!

        lol. No. I think 99% of people would agree that Hollywood at present almost never shows a penis in mainstream R-rated films.

        Again, as I said previously, nudity is nudity. Game of Thrones is perpetuating a backwards standard that female genital regions are fair game, but male’s have to be awkwardly covered. If you really wanna stop the double standard, then both men’s and women’s pubic regions should be awkwardly covered. No pubic hair. Nothing. Either both are concealed, or neither are concealed. I say neither, and encourage G.O.T. to do the same. =D

        1. —————————
          ……….”The audience sees … a vulva”

          Is that right? Name 20 of these so-called *R-RATED* movies that actually shows a hint of the vulva — all made within the last decade, U.S. release, mainstream films. (NR, NC-17, indie/limited release foreign films are excluded). Prove your argument with actual facts instead of just posting lies.

          What’s “rare” in films and television, is showing an actual vulva.

          ……….”A merkin is not modest, at all.” … “Merkin or not, the actress’s pubic region still appears fully visible to the audience…”

          Their pubic regions are not fully visible, Lol. Your argument is ridiculous! Pubic hair is hair, not genitalia. When a movie or TV show exposes a guy’s pubic hair only (and there are a lot of them), I don’t go around saying that they just fully showed his pubic region.

          A great example would be the first “Planet of the Apes” movie (RATED **G**), where Charlton Heston and the other two male actors are shown fully nude, only wearing large merkins (to cover their penises). Are you going to argue that their pubic regions were fully shown? Or does this only apply to women? Reverse sexism in not a valid argument.

          ………”Here in game of thrones, all we see are nude women.” … “Game of Thrones is perpetuating a backwards standard that female genital regions are fair game, but male’s have to be awkwardly covered.”

          First, what version of “Game of Thrones” are you watching? Because I have seen plenty of penises shown on this show. In fact, the original poster included two pictures of scenes where a penis was shown.

          Second, in what episode have you seen a vulva shown, please name a few? Maybe I missed it while looking away or taking a phone call, but aside from seeing pubic hair or, “Emilia Clarke’s” vulva being purposely CGI’d out, I have NEVER seen an actual vulva shown on Game of Thrones.

          You’re free to make any argument you want, but at least be truthful about it.

          …………”…why can’t male actors expose their pubic region/genitals in films just like their female counterparts? It’s a double standard.”

          A lot of male actors DO expose their penis in plenty of films. However, FEMALE actresses hide theirs (labia majora/minora, clitoral hood, etc…) behind a silly pubic wig.

          Again, all we ever see (99.99% of the time) is female pubic hair/wig, what you claim to be the same as genitalia.

          Yes, it is a double standard, but you have it backwards. There is constant male genital exposure in almost all R-rated comedies and primetime cable shows, while actual female genital exposure is very, very rare in anything outside of porn.

          ………”nudity is nudity. No need to be hung up in all the little technicalities.”

          It’s not that black and white, and making sweeping generalizations on this subject (i.e. “nudity is nudity”) doesn’t work –unless you’re prepared to start classing all XXX pornography as just “nudity”.

          You’re conveniently labeling graphic nudity as just “nudity” to justify your argument, but it reality, it doesn’t apply real world. The MPAA (inept as it is), as well current obscenity laws, would disagree with you. Whenever genitalia is visible (in most contexts), it’s now in “graphic” nudity territory.

        2. “The audience sees a mons pubis, pubic hair (fake or not), and a vulva
          (except you, of course). It’s how it’s *received* by the audience that
          is what matters.”

          Good point. And, to be honest, I don’t care if the penises we see belong to a double, or are CG’d in, or have some kind of realistic looking covering on them. The point is not that I get to invade the actor’s privacy, but that the show caters to my sexuality as well as to a guy’s.

    2. “Because it’s false—pubic hair does *not* conceal the female genitals; it merely frames them. I’ve seen Game of Thrones and vulvas *are* indeed visible. So it’s only fair to expect that the corresponding male anatomy is given at least as much visibility.”

      Lol!! If vulvas *are* indeed visible then why do actresses insist on wearing merkins? Like the author above you too make the mistake of NOT comparing like for like.

      Here are the facts – not my facts, but facts to the obvious unbiased eye:
      – male pubic hair cannot and does not NEARLY cover genitalia as much as with female genitalia. In fact, almost ALL females doing full frontal nudity chose to use merkins! So not even a chance of “framing”. And in any case, “framing”, if there is such a thing, is a poor version of the actual thing.

      – nudity figuratively speaking is not nudity literaly speaking. A topless female is not as ‘nude’ as a female with a full bush full frontal, in turn not as nude as a female shaved full frontal, and in turn not as nude as a female fully shaved with legs spread. These are all figuratively nude and subject to my perception of nudity. BUT without a doubt, literally speaking, by way of variant degrees of exposure of the genitalia, these are all different in levels of ACTUAL nudity. Movies are chock and block full of figurative female nudity as is, but when it comes to male nudity it prefers to show actual nudity. This has always been the case, for I have seen very little actual exposed vagina to date. I dare you to show me CLEARLY exposed (visible!) female genitalia – for I will show you much more clearly exposed male genitalia.

    3. You are a complete and utter idiot. No where do they show vulva or are the female genitals exposed. Get your facts straight or finish school before you comment again. You and this piss poor article are way off. I have not seen one person who agrees with this article name one movie or one tv show that shows anything but breasts on women. The huge bush doesn’t count or maybe all the men should wear a huge pubic wig and cover everything and then we can compare nudity. Plain and simple it’s not even close. So calling you out….. Name a movie and or tv show in which the female genitals are clearly displayed. Otherwise you are blithering idiot who has no support for your comments. I will be waiting…..

    4. Well, it *does* hide the female genitals if she isn’t groomed 21st century style, but you only have that old feminazi, mother nature, to blame for that.

  42. If you want equality, stop counting women topless as “nudity” and tossing aside topless men as nothing. The fact that one is okay and the other isn’t is sexist and is the problem. I’m okay with a dick on screen, but don’t act like women are getting the shaft because they don’t see a cock as often as a woman’s breast.

      1. Wrong. Ridiculous would be you comparison of non-genital body parts with genital body parts being the same.

        And for the record, his isn’t all that ridiculous. A topless male is considered nudity, but our society disregards it, just like other societies disregard topless women as nudity.

      2. If topless men being compared to topless women is “ridiculous” as you say, then why would you compare a topless woman to a man’s penis? That’s even MORE ridiculous.

        Penis = Vagina. Why are women so insecure about the vagina? This is not just ridiculous, but downright ignorant. What are we men missing here that we just don’t understand women’s fear of vaginas being shown that they have to substitute in their breasts for their vagina? Please help us to understand why women have such a fear and disgust over this body part of theirs because I just don’t get it.

    1. Well, I can’t say I know for sure, but I doubt it was women who decided breasts were a sexual body part.

  43. Mattias Von Bismarck

    Boob shots do not equal penis shots. Period. Visible penis must be matched with fully visible vaj in order for there to be equality. End of discussion.

  44. feminism ≠ misogyny. but i agree, game of thrones, as fairly daring as it is w/male frontal, is heavily skewed to female uh…exposure. i haven’t read the books but from comments i’ve read, the sex/nudity and the like is in keeping with the writing…

    1. No problem – they already do; but would you object if they equal up the nudity stakes by showing equal amount of clearly visible vagina?

  45. MJ Snow, this is the most ignorant and uninformed thing I have ever read. In fact, it sounds like it was written by someone with the anatomical knowledge, and intellect, of a 12-year old. Honestly, are you really comparing breasts and pubic hair with actual genital body parts?

    Breast and pubic hair are NOT genitalia, Einstein. To compare them as if they are genitalia (or the same as a Penis) is like trying to say a foot is an elbow.

    In addition, your rant is disingenuous as you have conveniently omitted the fact that none of these shows, NONE of them, ever show a Vulva <— A Vulva is the proper name for female genitalia, since you seem to be clueless in this area.

    I have never seen actual female genital nudity on ANY of these shows. Only graphic male genital nudity. As a lesbian, I would love to see an actual Vulva shown as much as the Penis is shown. ………..I can just hear the vagiphobes now, (99.999999%) of heterosexual women…

    "It's okay to show and expose a penis, but they better not show her a pus**!"

    1. Stop being so condescending and pedantic! No where in the article did MJ Snow say that breasts are genitalia. She was simply stating the fact that breasts are the most shown private body part of the human anatomy in Game of Thrones. She also compared the amount of female nudity to the amount of male nudity. While, yes, she was comparing the female full-frontal to the full-frontal of a male and his penis, she was not making these body parts interchangeable, but acknowledging what the majority of the female audience would like to see more and less of (along with what males of the crew and audience see almost every episode). Just take the article as it is and stop finding fallacies in someone that’s not even trying to be too serious.

      1. Condescending and pedantic…? Lol. The typical tactic of the opposition hoping to derail a factual argument. And for the record, she IS comparing a male ‘genital’ body part with ‘non-genital’ female body parts as being equal, period.

        MJ Snow and Aaliya, how often do we see an exposed vulva (a pus**) on any of these shows? Never! Why? Because most heterosexual females (vagiphobes) become mentally unhinged at the sight of one.

        So, in yours and MJ Snow’s ideal world, all male actors should give their female audience graphic levels of genital nudity while female actresses only have to expose their breasts and not their genitals… I’m seeing the — sexist — equality here!

        An exposed penis is equal to an exposed vulva, nothing else!

        Furthermore, I think we’ve lost the whole “our breasts are private” argument, as I can walk around completely topless, anywhere in my state, and not be arrested for indecent exposure.

        1. “So, in yours and MJ Snow’s ideal world, all male actors should give
          their female audience graphic levels of genital nudity while female
          actresses only have to expose their breasts and not their genitals…?
          I’m seeing the — sexist / female chauvinistic — equality here!”

          No, I think women should also be fully exposed, but that is not the topic of the article.

          1. ——— “No, I think women should also be fully exposed, but that is not the topic of the article.” ———–

            You do, then why make a whole article that says otherwise?

            Why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, revise your article and say so. Then we’ll all see just how genuine your response is here.

          2. Huh? That is precisely the topic of the article – your calling for “equality” in the nudity department by complaining that there is not nearly enough penis shots as breast shots. What people are complaining about is the penis is not equal to breasts – it is equal to the vagina, and unless you don’t equate the penis with the vagina, then your statement makes sense, but then I’d have to believe you suffer from fear of vaginas.

            So yes, that is the topic of the article and people are correct in saying a penis is equal to the vagina. And if you truly wanted equality, you would not dismiss peoples’ complaints about women not being fully exposed by claiming it is not the topic of the article when in fact it has everything to do with this topic.

            How could calling for fully exposed women not be the topic of this article when the article argues for “equality” and says men should be fully exposed? Smh smh.

          3. The topic of the article is whether or not we should be shown more male genitalia. The reason for the article was to create controversy and get people chattering about their opinions. Job done.

          4. Wrong. The topic of the article was to have male genitalia shown because they are not shown as often as breasts. You mistakenly compare genitals to non-genitals, probably not even realizing that women have genitals too, and it’s not their breasts. To use this fallacy and claim victory for stirring controversy is rather disingenuous. That’s like saying the sky is green and grass is blue and claiming victory when someone points out your misinformation.

            If you want to stir up controversy and get people talking, then you can start by equating the vagina to the penis first, and then you can talk about which part needs to be shown more often, but I’m willing to be you won’t because you know that penises are already being shown exponentially more often than vaginas and you don’t want to give filmmakers any incentive to show vaginas more often.

    2. Your comment was condescending and pedantic. The article was written to be a slightly facetious, which, of course, militant feminists like yourself would not be able to recognize, not being in possession of a sense of humor. But thanks for reading. :)

      1. —— “The article was written to be a slightly facetious…”

        Lmao. You’re so full of crap. It’s obvious you have a bitter axe to grind against this show (or the network as a whole) while trying to disguise it as slightly tongue-in-cheek.

        Again, you’re comparing non-graphic female nudity with graphic male nudity, (i.e. non-genital female nudity with genital male nudity). There is no equal (or fair) comparison here. Normally this isn’t a difficult concept to grasp, but it clear you’re not an individual who can think outside the box, much less think at all.

      2. Well I’m neither militant or feminist; but I’ll tell you this. I have no time for wannabe journalists who spin garbage like this to air their opinion, especially if they cannot back it up with facts. What ever your agenda was, your attempt was very poor.

        When you set out to wright this did you actually do any research? “Slightly facetious”, give me a break. Seems more like backtracking to me. Just take down this silly article. At least (in your favour) it’ll take down the comments ripping you a new one as well.

        1. Once again, an editorial is an article that contains the
          writer’s opinion. No facts needed to back up said opinion. The writer has certainly got your panties in a bunch. She’s done her job well, and you Sir, if you can’t feel the fact that the piece is slightly facetious, should probably try some form of stress management, as you are severely lacking in your sense of humor.

          1. One again Jon you should shut your mouth. Or is it Joan???
            You get a sense of humor and learn that if women want equality then let’s have it. Otherwise we don’t need a daddy trolling this site.

      3. That isn’t a feminist. It’s a men’s rights activist if I ever saw one, and most likely the same one every time (either that or they are using a script!)

    3. It’s funny how all of you people say the exact same thing, in the exact same writing style. Just sayin’.

      1. Like how funny it is that not woman can present a factual argument. You know just sayin’.

  46. I agree also !! Funny to read this article I banned all the men’s nude women channels too. IF the movie have both than it would be ok . But that’s not case I see

  47. I agree us women want to se more goodlooking erect penis”@!!!!Maybe than my hubby and I get to both watch rated r movies again. Because no double standard is a loud In my hoise …its banned in my house , just like it is in a lot of women’s homes ! Why should women be the ones to cringe …i got sick of it don’t watch any

    1. So, by this logic, your husband should also be allowed to see a spread eagle, swollen, dripping wet pus**, in this “R” rated movie that also contains an erect penis, right? After all, fair is fair, and you certainly don’t tolerate any double standards in your house — just your own, sexist ones, right?

      As stated above, breasts and pubic hair are not genitalia, nor does this level of nudity expose a woman’s genitals or show her in a “penetrable” state. A erect penis would show a man in a “penetrable” state as would showing a woman’s vulva spread open, swollen and wet.

      Furthermore, you don’t allow your husband to watch “R” rated movies that contain female nudity? Wow, I really feel sorry for the man.

  48. I could do without all the unnecessary nudity on Game of Thrones. It is a waste of time, when there is already too few episodes per season. That said, if they’re going to show female nudity, then they should have an equal amount of male nudity. And please, no more old/ugly/gross shots. Spartacus is a good example, though even that show has way more female nudity than male.

  49. You already said it”that’s what porn is for”. Besides showing penises because you see a women’s breast or merkin is like saying a women should show her genitalia because they showed a mans naked but. It’s funny. Maybe they should stop showing women’s breasts on tv and show clear shots of their down under so we can comment on them. Then we could all be happy looking at actors genitals and the movies would be so much better.

      1. See any of Jessica Dawson’s comments – I couldn’t have said it better myself. I cannot agree more with EVERYTHING she said.

  50. Lets see a lingering close up of vagina like mentioned about the penis on shameless. Or an unsimulated urination scene done by a womanin detail as was done on Oz. Do I want to see that? No. But if it can be shown by a man why are female genitals always obscured by dark lighting, distant shots, awkward poses, merkins or a combination of the above. Let’s see a vag for once! The true taboo and double standard.

    1. Wtf? Did MJ Snow “vote up” this comment? But this the exact opposite of what he article says. Yes! Its not a mistake, I see she did the same further down again in similarly aligned comments too. Care to ammend your article then Snow?

  51. Do you really want to be using sources from PTC, a conservative organization that’s been well-known for its crusade against art and the right to express that art? Why give people like them any credibility?

  52. I really don’t want to see more nudity on TV, it just feels like cheap trick to please the audience quickly to me. Too many shows use it to cover bad writing. I think Game of Thrones is a great show with great writing though, but it’s going overboard with the nudity. The problem with male nudity is that it may be cold where they shoot, and many men may not want to take off their boxers then. They could just solve that the way they did with Hodor though and “greensock” the actors and let the computer animators do the rest. But still, below the waist nudity in general is really nothing I want to see forced into TV. There are other sources for that.

  53. If it’s good for the goose, it’s good for the gander. So unsheathe those swords and let our eyes meander.

    1. Yep. If we see penis lets see some vagina/labia for once instead of clamped legs, llw lighting and merkins

  54. LMBO! Pure AWESOMENESS! They forgot to be thankful for that last clip of Erick on TB season finally! YAY

  55. On our (really, my husband’s) giant HD TV, Alexander Skarsgard’s package was not AT ALL difficult to see. (And I quite enjoyed the view, thank you.) But I watched the episode again on our downstairs set, and it couldn’t see jack.

    So, yeah … I guess size matters. :-)

    Ps: Hodor.

  56. Congratulations on the article. I think this whole issue deserves attention. It’s very irritating to notice how frequently they cover all the men while the women are totally naked. It’s not fair with the female audience, which is big enough to be relevant in those decisions.
    Thank you for your contribution to the cause.

    1. I’m afraid you’ve been duped, and are wrong. See any of Jessica Dawson’s comments – I couldn’t have said it better myself. I cannot agree more with EVERYTHING she said.

  57. Great article, I really enjoyed reading this! It’s cool to see these statistics all in the one place. Puts everything into perspective.

    I’m going to be perhaps a bit controversial though (I voted “Who Cares?” btw):
    I really don’t see the need for more male nudity unless it serves the plot. For example, in Boardwalk Empire the emphasis on female nudity (in most cases) makes sense, as a lot of the shots are of female prostitutes in the process of seducing men. Game of Thrones does, however, take it to a whole new level with a ridiculous amount of nudity, urged by the producer who happens to be the self-appointed representative of the pervert side of the audience. Again, while an emphasis on female nudity does make sense at the expense of their male counterparts (it’s a medieval and therefore patriarchal society, with a lot of prostitution), there are too many pointless nudity shots and scenes thrown in. I’m not sure if the way to counteract this is for a male cast member to whip out their own member every so often though. On the subject of male genitalia, don’t forget we also got a brief shot of the guy’s junk in that horribly staged Littlefinger/Loras thing in season 3.

    TL;DR – Nudity in general doesn’t bother me on HBO, nor does the distribution of it between genders, but GoT takes it too far.

    P.S. I think Deadwood is an example of a show getting the amount of nudity perfectly appropriate; it was in no way intrusive, and served the plot.

    1. I’m sorry, but I haven’t seen any statistics. Just incorrect information, lies and biased opinion. Read the article again would you please – Snow outright makes comparisons of the uncomparible, and then seem to backtrack when asked for evidence. Read some of the comments taking her and her article to peaces every time. If she has any real integrity she’ll at least come out and say she’s made a mistake. Or failing that, if she wants respect, back up her claims with some actual facts. FACTS damnit!

Comments are closed.