This version of this essay first appeared on my other blog before I’d really conceived of having a site devoted to erotica and sex writing. Now, that this has become my primary home online, I thought it might be appropriate to move some of the relevant content over here. I hope you enjoy. xx.M
Earlier this year, when the build-up was just starting for Sin City: A Dame to Kill For, I was ridiculously excited. I loved the first film and had gobbled up the graphic novels early on, so I was excited to see the next installment, especially since it’s been in the works for nearly a decade. And then one of the posters got pulled and replaced with an airbrushed version. Apparently, Eva Green’s poster for Sin City 2 had been banned in the United States because it contained too much “visible breast.” Rather than get into the nitty-gritty of what the hell that means, I’m going to post the banned image below so you can see it for yourself. If you have an issue with “visible breasts” consider yourself warned.
According to Fox News, (there’s irony in there somewhere), the MPAA disapproved of the image “for nudity — curve of under breast and dark nipple/areola circle visible through sheer gown.” The oh-so-effective fix? Make the gown a little less sheer, so it’s harder to make out quite so much of that offending nipple. If you’d like to see the edited image, you can check it out here.
Now, why am I posting on this? Two reasons. The first is that I think Eva Green is gorgeous and wanted to write about Sin City. The second, and far more substantial reason, is that I think the MPAA’s disapproval of the original image is ridiculous, especially given the fact that the ratings board approved both Jessica Alba’s far more suggestive image, as well as a poster of a super sexy Rosario Dawson holding a massive knife
What is it about the curve under a breast and the shadow of a nipple that is so offensive, when images of hot women holding weapons and stripping are ok? Don’t get me wrong – I don’t have a problem with the posters of Alba or Dawson. In fact, I think they’re both gorgeous little bits of visual marketing. What I have a problem with is the fact that the MPAA objected to the mere suggestion of female anatomy under a gauzy robe while approving other, even more highly sexualized images. Whose sensibilities, exactly, are they trying to protect?
Personally, I have no clue. As far as I’m concerned, that show of oddly placed morality is laughable at best and hypocritical at worst. There is nothing wrong with the curve of a breast, any more than there is anything wrong with a long stretch of leg or a lovely, well-toned ass. It’s all anatomy. It’s all sexualized female anatomy, juxtaposed with images of sexual agency, desperation, or violence. If you’re going to get up in a flap over a breast, get up in a flap over all of it. Otherwise I’d rather you left the gown sheer. At least that’s an honest, open appeal to sex, rather than the semi-nuetered wink they ended up with.