Why is Hollywood so afraid of oral sex?

CLEM BASTOW
Last updated 11:48 03/12/2013
Charlie Countryman

CENSORED: Shia LaBeouf and Evan Rachel Wood in a scene from Charlie Countryman.

Relevant offers

Film

Cost of making Hobbit movies close to $1 billion Kristen Stewart is 'overly happy' right now Disney's next Frozen is set in the South Sea What Brad Pitt learnt from filming Fury Oz's Wicked Witch a lesbian icon? Review: Hector and the Search for Happiness Pride movie a funny, passionate tale Pride movie mines historical drama From Wellywood to Hollywood in the 1930s DVD review: Belle

Evan Rachel Wood is as mad as hell and she's not going to take it anymore. Specifically, she's furious at the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America, the US' ratings board) for demanding a scene in the upcoming Charlie Countryman, in which Shia LaBeouf's title character goes down on Wood's, be removed from the final edit lest the film suffer an NC-17 rating (which replaced the "X" certificate, and is generally considered to be a kiss of death for a film's commercial prospects as many cinemas won't screen NC-17 films).

On Twitter, Wood lashed out at the MPAA's "censorship" in a blistering screed: "The scene where the two main characters make 'love' was altered because someone felt that seeing a man give a woman oral sex made people 'uncomfortable' but the scenes in which people are murdered by having their heads blown off remained intact and unaltered.

"This is a symptom of a society that wants to shame women and put them down for enjoying sex, especially when (gasp) the man isn't getting off as well!"

Wood's open letter (of sorts) isn't the first of its kind; Ryan Gosling famously spoke out against Blue Valentine's being slapped with an NC-17, which he and producer Harvey Weinstein suspected was due to a scene in which Gosling's character goes down on Michelle Williams'. 

Ryan Gosling spoke out about the representation of female sexuality after Blue Valentine was slapped with an  NC-17 rating.

Ryan Gosling spoke out about the representation of female sexuality after Blue Valentine was slapped with an NC-17 rating.

"You have to question a cinematic culture which preaches artistic expression, and yet would support a decision that is clearly a product of a patriarchy-dominant society, which tries to control how women are depicted on screen," he wrote in a statement at the time.

"The MPAA is okay supporting scenes that portray women in scenarios of sexual torture and violence for entertainment purposes, but they are trying to force us to look away from a scene that shows a woman in a sexual scenario, which is both complicit and complex. It's misogynistic in nature to try and control a woman's sexual presentation of self."

It's difficult to shake the notion that there is a shadowy patriarchal force at play, at least when you consider the relative dearth of scenes featuring male-on-female cunnilingus compared to woman-on-woman (Blue Is The Warmest Colour, The Kids Are Alright and Black Swan being the most recent high profile examples).

When I tried to recall even semi-recent notable scenes of (for all intents and purposes) heterosexual cunnilingus - outside of porn, obscure erotica or those films that blur the edges between the mainstream and underground, such as 9 Songs or Shortbus - I didn't exactly come up with an embarrassment of riches.

Ad Feedback

There's the aforementioned, Steve McQueen's Shame and Ridley Scott's The Counsellor, a handful of '90s efforts, and before long you're looking at classics like Don't Look Now's notorious 1973 roll in the hay (long rumoured to be unsimulated) between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie.

As Ben Beaumont-Thomas notes in The Guardian, the act is "conspicuous by its absence" beyond the realms of exploitation and B-movies, "and even more so when you consider the ubiquity of the blowjob. This is arguably the trickle-down (again, sorry) effect of an industry dominated by men who still find women strange, even disgusting."

That the MPAA apparently considers films featuring cunnilingus to be worthy of harsher classification or a complete re-edit yet apparently doesn't flinch at increasingly sexualised violence is certainly concerning. Especially when you consider the MPAA's history of moralising via The Hays Code.

Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch - a film jammed with rape allusions and lingering butt shots during scenes of indiscriminate violence - only won a PG-13 rating after excising a sex scene between Emily Browning and Jon Hamm's characters.

Of the cut, Browning remarked, "[The MPAA] got Zack to edit the scene and make it look less like she's into it. Zack said he edited it down to the point where it looked like he was taking advantage of her. That's the only way he could get a PG-13 [rating] and he said, 'I don't want to send that message.'"

By marking cunnilingus scenes as "explicit" - which generally guarantees an NC-17 rating unless considerable editing takes place - the MPAA places them in the same group of ratings components as sexual violence and rape.

Wood's and Gosling's outcry might seem an overreaction were you not to consider the ways in which film and TV sets the tone (good or bad) of the cultural dialogue.

By insisting that films either edit out scenes of man-on-woman cunnilingus lest they face restrictive classifications, which in turn ensures that fewer audiences see the act as just another part of "when a man and a woman love each other very much...", what subconscious message is the MPAA sending to viewers?

-Daily Life

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content