Why Are Penises Always Funny In Movies?
Posted by: Justine Fields
Filed in:
entertainment
11:00AM, Thursday July 16th 2009
After seeing “Bruno,” one of my male friends went on a 5-minute rant about how penises in movies are always played for laughs. In his opinion, the nudity law of cinema is that when a woman’s naked, it’s completely serious or titillating, but when a peen pops up on screen, it’s meant to be hilarious. He repeatedly asked the question—why?
While I haven’t seen “Bruno,” I do recall “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” where the full-frontal shot of Jason Segal as he’s about to get dumped serves to make you chuckle and up the awkwardness during an otherwise poignant scene. Honestly, the only man meat scene I can think of that was supposed to be truly dramatic was when Mark Wahlberg lets it all hang out at the end of “Boogie Nights.” While it was meant to be serious, I still remember cracking up.
In an article on Double X, the writer points out:
“A recent New York Times story on the science of desire found that women, more than men, were turned on by pictures of heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, monkey sex, naked female bodies, and naked male bodies if the fellow in question was erect. Just about the only thing they weren’t turned on by? An attractive man without a boner.”
And since showing an erect penis is a no-no in major motion pictures—that’s what gets you an X rating—it seems that filmmakers are left with but one option to portray the peen: humorously.
As funny as flaccid is, any girl with hormones must admit that there’s some sadness in knowing that the only way to view a steamy naked male at full mass is in porn. Do you think there will ever be a day when we’ll be able to see that pistol in men’s pockets? Or are we forever doomed to take after Mae West and live by the euphemism while laughing at the limp?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
bumbler
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 11:18 am: [report]
One exception to the rule: Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises. The steam room fight scene was gruesome not at all funny.
Erin G
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 11:23 am: [report]
What about in the Watchman movie? While it wasn’t SUPPOSED to be funny, most of the dudes and some of the girls in the audience laughed. I think soft penis makes people feel uncomfortable. Oh well.
delovely
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 11:28 am: [report]
The naked male form is just awkward and funny. Honestly. The face can be a gorgeous as anything but naked men are funny-looking, even erect. It’s a wonder I’m able to have sex without laughing…
newmakcity
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 11:31 am: [report]
Of all the times I’ve seen Ewan McGregor’s penis, I don’t remember a single time it was for the sake of humor. I think this is a genre issue. Comedies seem to have issues with naked men, so they make it into a joke. Meanwhile even in the silliest comedies naked women are still there for titillation and not as punchlines.
_jsw_
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 11:39 am: [report]
While I don’t expect our prudish nation to change much, I also wish we could see sexual arousal as more than just “adult entertainment”. I mean, yes, it is adult, but it should be possible to see aroused men without it being porn.
Coral
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 12:08 pm: [report]
When a movie shows a woman’s breasts, it will get a rating of PG-13. But as soon as you show a penis, it is R. More people, especially younger people, have the ability to see PG-13 movies and maybe women are just accustomed to seeing a sex scene in where a woman is naked and a man is only partially naked. It suddenly becomes shocking news when a movie shows a penis. Women are shows nude or partially nude in movies all the time and it only adds to the objectivity.
SassySexpert
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 03:10 pm: [report]
Well, an erect penis is seen as something powerful - a man’s weapon if you will - and a flaccid penis makes us think of impotence, that is a lack of power. Viewing a flaccid penis tehn makes the man appear especially vulnerable to the audience and perhaps, more often than not, it’s uncomfortable laughter as opposed to knee-slapping funny laughter from the viewing of a vulnerable man in a society that pushes “tough” masculinity onto men.
Isabela Laval
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 03:39 pm: [report]
I know when I saw Giles awesome manliness in the SATC movie, I was definitely NOT laughing. Maybe drooling and panting, but NOT laughing!
_jsw_
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 03:54 pm: [report]
@Isabela Laval: I completely agree. I was at home after a dentist appointment, my mouth still numb with novacaine, and my allergies were in full swing, so I was so stuffy I couldn’t breath. SATC was on the TV, and I must admit, I definitely drooled and panted through the whole thing and rarely laughed.
OK, seriously, while I’m not a penis aficionado, even I have to admit that the guy’s in great shape. I don’t remember a penis sighting, though. Must’ve blocked that memory out.
msu.umich
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 05:00 pm: [report]
I rented Oz JUST TO SEE Chris My Future Boyfriend Meloni’s sac attack, and there was nothing funny about those scenes, lemme tell ya.
stringbeans
wrote on July 16 2009 @ 06:00 pm: [report]
for an erect penis in a film that isn’t porn there is always european cinema. they aren’t afraid to show anything. The Dreamers definately comes to mind there, and if you squint you can trick yourself into believing you are seeing leo dicaprio instead of micheal pitt
friskyman68
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 05:00 am: [report]
@ _jsw_ it’s ok to kill murder multiate torture. but show some adults doing a healthy adult behavior and its wrong and called porn. I guess that’s my way of saying I agree with you.
Fast Eddie
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 07:43 am: [report]
It is perhaps that a stiff johnson isn’t the normal state of affairs. It takes some effort to get it up. In the presence of a beautiful women the tool doesn’t always respond in a predictable manner. Admittedly that can happen with very little stimulation but the amount of time that it can stay hard is limited despite claims of some over achievers.
I used to be and an active nudist, camps and beaches, and other then during special circumstances I never saw a boner. What that says about our perception of seeing a penis in either state I have no idea. Society is obviously not ready to accept public nudity on the street. At the same time we do accept animals, dogs, horses, and others with an exposed penis. Same goes for exposed breasts of humans and the discrimination therein between men and women.
bogart4017
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 07:52 am: [report]
Ok say we relax the ratings system for a moment. We will now show an erect penis on full screen. What is the character suppose to be doing with this erection? See now why we catch an x rating? While erect is a natural state guys don’t walk around in a natural state all the time.
metricula
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 03:55 pm: [report]
I’m totally more comfortable around hard penises than soft ones!
_jsw_
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 04:01 pm: [report]
@metricula: I assume that’s because the soft ones just don’t feel right in there.
Alex
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 05:01 pm: [report]
How about we see some vagina’s for once in a movie. I see plenty of penises, but never a vagina. Who cares about a breast. Women are just as turned on by a well defined male chest as men are with a woman’s chest. If the MPAA are going to allow graphic penises like all these movies in the last few years, then they need to start allowing graphic vagina shots.
_jsw_
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 05:07 pm: [report]
@Alex: “Knocked Up” was on TV the other night. During the delivery scene, I saw plenty of vagina shots. Yes, they were fake vagina shots with a fake baby’s head fake-crowning, but still, they were vagina shots. And I’ve seen plenty of movies with nude women. No, they didn’t tend to make them spread their legs so we could peer between them, but they were there.
Of course, technically, I think you mean vulvas. Maybe not.
Alex
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 05:20 pm: [report]
You can’t include a fake Vagina. You can say a dildo is a penis then. I have never seen a graphic shot of a vulva in a movie. It is always covered by pubic hair or by an angle so we can’t see it. The penis in Bruno was so pornographic. They also showed his penis in a pump masturbating the penis. I don’t know how they got away with that. My point is, if they are allowed to show a penis, then show a vulva. And I appreciate you correcting me on the technical terms of the pussy, but nobody really calls the outer parts of it a vulva. Vagina is the accepted term. LOL
retro chic
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 05:50 pm: [report]
More peen screen time is demanded! We laugh ‘cause we’re so starved for any sightings, we have to point and gasp in disbelief it’s really a peen, even if for a fleeting moment. “Did I hallucinate that?” It’s almost always a retelling of “The Emperor’s New Hose.” THEN, there’s the criminal pretext of the pic “The Full Monty,” when there was none! Only Indy’s and Foreign deal well with it – not The Three Stooges treatment they get here. I will promise to stop pointing, if the actors start – deal?
_jsw_
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 06:07 pm: [report]
@retro chic: I completely agree. In fact, I’m very much in favor of plenty of penis, flaccid and erect, in sci-fi and blockbuster films. That way, both we men and our dates could enjoy the shows. Likewise, to appease Alex and others, I think any traditional chick flick should be required to show at least one up close and personal shot of a vagina.
Alex
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 06:12 pm: [report]
Yes, show equal of both. That would be fair, but the MPAA chooses to rate a vulva as NC-17 as if they are too ugly to be seen or something. Personally, I feel women should be angry that the MPAA feels a vulva should never be seen. It doesn’t even make sense. If male genitals are ok to be shown, so should female genitals.
retro chic
wrote on July 17 2009 @ 07:07 pm: [report]
@jsw: OK, I realize concession sales might go down for more mixed mainstream versions, but at least equal-time for both, organic and appropriate to the story or genre, ie, natural and believable.
Look, as it is, the MPAA is *so* backwards, female actors mostly wear merkin – they’re adding, not subtracting any time soon. Unfortunately, breasts are deemed sexual fare based on their dirty archaic ideas of women’s bodies. So, in their twisty rationale, they’ve given in to both sides. Wrong. It’s not our fault we have more parts that are covered up (usually)!