[Ads-l] Full-frontal

Neal Whitman nwhitman at AMERITECH.NET
Sun Nov 16 21:02:06 UTC 2014


http://literalminded.wordpress.com/2007/08/02/fully-frontally-nude/

We went to see /The Simpsons Movie/ (shouldn't it be /The The Simpsons 
Movie/) last week. Of course, since it was a PG-13 movie, we checked the 
parent-oriented reviews. It seemed like the main thing that bumped it 
from PG to PG-13 scene was some full frontal nudity, so I figured it was 
OK. The author of the review had an annoying habit of referring to the 
relevant scene as the "full-frontal scene." Is nudity the only thing 
that can be fully frontal? What about assaults, lobotomies, and snogging?

...

As it happens, the part with the nudity was the funniest part of the 
movie. I was laughing out loud during Bart's entire naked skateboard 
ride. At first I was laughing because of the way the movie made fun of 
the cinematic cliche of having one thing or another appear in just the 
right place to cover the naughty bits. It was funny at the end of the 
first Austin Powers movie, but funnier here. Then I was laughing because 
the movie completely deflated the convention (in typical Simpsons 
fashion) by putting Bart's genitalia in plain sight. ...

After the movie, we were talking about our favorite scenes, and I told 
Doug and Adam why I liked the nudity gag, and Doug added, "Yeah, and it 
was really funny that when they finally did show his privates, that's 
ALL they showed!"

He was right. What happened was that Bart skated behind a hedge, which 
was trimmed at the bottom, so that as he skated, the only part of him 
you saw between the hedge and the ground was his pelvic area, from the 
front. As I remembered the scene, I realized the significance of this 
detail:

That was *not* full frontal nudity! Granted, Bart was fully frontally 
(and dorsally) nude, but it only counts if you show it. What we saw 
through the hedge was partial frontal nudity.


On 11/16/2014 3:12 PM, victor steinbok wrote:
> ---------------------- Information from the mail header -----------------------
> Sender:       American Dialect Society <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
> Poster:       victor steinbok <aardvark66 at GMAIL.COM>
> Subject:      Full-frontal
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> This is not likely to be new, but do add to the list
>
> http://goo.gl/ZLKJ4O
>
> This seems to be yet another case if specific >> general, displacing more
> appropriate terminology. In this case, the term is "full-frontal" for
> what's actually partial dorsal.
>
>> In the most revealing photo (seen above, with black bars that didn't make
> their way to the magazine), a nude Kardashian goes full-frontal, wearing
> nothing but a pearl choker.
>> Not everyone was a fan of the now-famous booty shot
> If it's a booty shot, it cannot be frontal. Never mind that "full-frontal
> [nudity]" usually implies head-to-toe naked. The reference to "nothing but
> a pearl choker" also seems to be a bit off. But, I suppose, one can still
> get a full-frontal shot with boots, gloves and hat on.
>
> Years ago I commented (posted by AZ) about "quadriplegic" taking over
> "paralized" and "paraplegic". And there are plenty similar examples.
>
> VS-)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org
>

-- 
Dr. Neal Whitman
Lecturer, ESL Composition
School of Teaching and Learning
College of Education and Human Ecology
Arps Hall
1945 North High Street
whitman.11 at osu.edu
(614) 260-1622


------------------------------------------------------------
The American Dialect Society - http://www.americandialect.org


More information about the Ads-l mailing list