Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!rcj
From: rcj@burl.ATT.COM (Curtis Jackson)
Newsgroups: soc.singles
Subject: Movie rating rules (nudity) and nude picture developing
Message-ID: <1501@burl.ATT.COM>
Date: Sun, 12-Oct-86 19:55:52 EDT
Article-I.D.: burl.1501
Posted: Sun Oct 12 19:55:52 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 13-Oct-86 05:47:42 EDT
References: <4107@reed.UUCP> <1056@dadla.UUCP> <246@zen.BERKELEY.EDU> <709@midas.UUCP> <426@cci632.UUCP> <4186@reed.UUCP> <7917@sun.uucp>
Reply-To: rcj@burl.UUCP (Curtis Jackson)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany NJ
Lines: 37

In article <7917@sun.uucp> falk@sun.UUCP writes:
>> In article <426@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>> >Ever notice that female full frontal nudity is rated "R" in films
>> >while male full frontal nudity is rated "X"?
>I don't know if it's all that strict.  "Life of Brian" had male nudity
>and didn't get a tough rating.  Same for "Deer Hunter" and I saw *that*
>on television once -- uncut!

If a movie is to be pushed from R to X for nudity alone (rare), it will
be pushed to X by showing genitals.  The movie industry defines genitals
as all them fun things both sexes got down there but it does not include
pubic hair in that definition.  Therefore the full frontal nudity for
females; if they're not in certain positions you can't see any of what
the movie ratings folks define as "genitals".

As for some movies slipping by like those sited above, the nudity must
usually be brief and must definitely have no sexual overtones.  The Playboy
channel is one possible exception in that it is strictly an R-rated cable
TV channel; yet you do get the occasional fleeting glimpse of male genitalia.
It is usually *very* slight (no, not the genitalia, the glimpse!), and you
either have to be looking for it explicitly (nope, not me, sorry) or you
have to have all your attention focused on the screen (there yuh go!)
I don't like Playboy channel though -- got real boring after about a week
or two -- my SO and I had it for a couple of months and dropped it.

As far as Kodak and other major film-developing concerns are concerned,
they will develop your snapshots as long as there is no pubic hair in
the picture (well, no pubic hair where you'd normally expect it, anyway),
and certainly genitalia are right out!  I had a couple of topless pictures
of my former SO developed no problem.

No, Griz, you can't have prints -- I don't even have them anymore!  ;-)
-- 

The MAD Programmer -- 919-228-3313 (Cornet 291)
alias: Curtis Jackson	...![ ihnp4 ulysses cbosgd allegra ]!burl!rcj
			...![ ihnp4 cbosgd akgua  watmath ]!clyde!rcj