Sex

Yas Kassana

Yas Kassana

Well-known member
I don't know if this subject has been discussed before, i sure couldn't find it, so i thought i'd bring it up.

Is it okay for 2 consenting adults to have sex on film, you be naked get intimate etc..whilst being married to someone else? Is it immoral? Is it okay because the body is a beautiful thing? Does the same rule apply to violence in cinema - i.e. to make as real as possible? Is it really that important to the storyline??

FIlms like 9 songs(crap film and dvx shot BTW), In the realm of the senses(haunting good film) just going too far, by showing explicit sex? Is it pornorgraphy or just 2 people having sex? Does it cross the barrier between professionalism and being personal?

I mean for sure would never let my fiance actress get naked, let alone kiss someone in a movie - even it was 'just acting'. However, I don't have any answers, what do you guys think?
 
Yas Kassana said:
I don't know if this subject has been discussed before, i sure couldn't find it, so i thought i'd bring it up.

Is it okay for 2 consenting adults to have sex on film, you be naked get intimate etc..whilst being married to someone else? Is it immoral? Is it okay because the body is a beautiful thing? Does the same rule apply to violence in cinema - i.e. to make as real as possible? Is it really that important to the storyline??

FIlms like 9 songs(crap film and dvx shot BTW), In the realm of the senses(haunting good film) just going too far, by showing explicit sex? Is it pornorgraphy or just 2 people having sex? Does it cross the barrier between professionalism and being personal?

I mean for sure would never let my fiance actress get naked, let alone kiss someone in a movie - even it was 'just acting'. However, I don't have any answers, what do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Well It really boils down to the individual. Think about it for something to be immoral you would have to have a set of morals to compare it to and most peoples moral are based on some form or religion ( which I will not discuss at all in this forum). So it's very subjective.

Now whether or not it crossed the barrier of personal or professionalism ask your are porn starts professionals? isn't it a job for them ? don't they try to be the best they can be ?

Now let's look at the definition of pornography "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" so technically if the purpose it's purpose is to properly convey the story then no it's not pornography but if it's sole purpose if for sexual excitement then yes it is.
It's all about the context of what you are doing. For instance a johnson and johnson commercial shows babies nude and we think nothing of it but If I put those same images on a website and charge 19.95 a month for it I would be sitting in prison right now.

Remember actions are based on intentions so each man will have what he intended
[Al-Bukhari & Muslim]
 
I didn't mention religion. I would get rid of the qoute from bukhari and muslim, without getting controversial, it's nothing something i follow.
 
SilverWolf said:
Now let's look at the definition of pornography "the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement" so technically if the purpose it's purpose is to properly convey the story then no it's not pornography but if it's sole purpose if for sexual excitement then yes it is.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't know where that definition comes from, but it certainly does not imply what you are saying. That is, it says "intended to cause sexual excitement", not "SOLELY intended to cause sexual excitement." So, in a strict sense, it doesn't matter if conveys the story or not.

Nor does it, however, allow for 90% of what we don't call pornography. "Erotic behavior" from a behavioral/sociological/psychological point of view is found in many commercials, TV shows, G-rated movies. Erotic doesn't mean naked grunting and groaning - many would argue that most porn has sex but not eros. A good tango is pure erotic behavior. So are certain glances.

Now Yas, it's not clear exactly what you're asking... "OK" meaning legal? Moral? Acceptable within a relationship? All these have different answers. And, more importantly, every person has different answers.

I'm not an actor. But an actor (well, perhaps I mean a good actor?) must put themselves in all sorts of positions and mental states that may be distasteful. Is a sex scene worse than torture, or murder?
 
I think inference in a film is better than an actual sex scene. Focus on the content people!

Two people are about to have intercourse, they stare at eachother. They kiss. Maybe they get on the bed. end scene. We know they're going to have sex! So why show it?

but.. like you say it depends on context. I think A history of violence DID NOT need sex scenes, but they moved the story along IMO. Where as, movies like BASIC INSTINCT are reliate upon sex scenes.
 
let my fiance actress get naked, let alone kiss someone in a movie
Click to expand...

You may want to reconsider dating someone behind the lens Yas. Eliminating kissing just killed her career. None of my business obviously, but a surprising statement from a filmmaker.

-

This conversation reminds me of an expression of sex in the cinema and what constitutes porn (or going too far):

What is porn ?

You'll know when you see it.

-------------------------------------------------------

There are some steamy films that show a ton of flesh:

Last Tango in Paris
A Clockwork Orange
Wild Orchid
9 1/2 Weeks
Basic Instinct
Body Double
Wild Things
Monster's Ball
Mulholland Drive

I don't consider any of these in bad taste.

How about the Brown Bunny Gallo film ? What the **** was he thinking ? That was porn.

-------------------------------------------------------

You'll know it when you see it.
 
I always thought the scenes in A Clockwork Orange were in bad taste... But I also thought that was kind of the point. I mean, not bad taste as in porn, but bad taste in context. I know that didn't taste like sugar to my mind. But then again, there's more than one scene. One scene I thought was rather humorous, the others were meant to be somewhat visceral. Kinda like the Devil's Rejects. Is it in bad taste? Absolutely. Should they have pulled the punch? No, of course not, the movie is supposed to be like that.

I have yet to see any of his films, but Gallo seems a bit strange.
 
spencer said:
I always thought the scenes in A Clockwork Orange were in bad taste... But I also thought that was kind of the point. I mean, not bad taste as in porn, but bad taste in context. I know that didn't taste like sugar to my mind. But then again, there's more than one scene. One scene I thought was rather humorous, the others were meant to be somewhat visceral. Kinda like the Devil's Rejects. Is it in bad taste? Absolutely. Should they have pulled the punch? No, of course not, the movie is supposed to be like that.

I have yet to see any of his films, but Gallo seems a bit strange.
Click to expand...

Nice post !
 
ullanta said:
Well, I don't know where that definition comes from, but it certainly does not imply what you are saying. That is, it says "intended to cause sexual excitement", not "SOLELY intended to cause sexual excitement." So, in a strict sense, it doesn't matter if conveys the story or not.

Nor does it, however, allow for 90% of what we don't call pornography. "Erotic behavior" from a behavioral/sociological/psychological point of view is found in many commercials, TV shows, G-rated movies. Erotic doesn't mean naked grunting and groaning - many would argue that most porn has sex but not eros. A good tango is pure erotic behavior. So are certain glances.

Now Yas, it's not clear exactly what you're asking... "OK" meaning legal? Moral? Acceptable within a relationship? All these have different answers. And, more importantly, every person has different answers.

I'm not an actor. But an actor (well, perhaps I mean a good actor?) must put themselves in all sorts of positions and mental states that may be distasteful. Is a sex scene worse than torture, or murder?
Click to expand...

I got this definition from Merriam-Webster's website. Now if you examine the definition again you will notice that it says "intended" to cause sexual excitement not causes sexual excitement but if it's intention was to cause it then it's classified as pornography. I'm not saying I follow this definition but it's what the Webster's dictionary stated.
 
Right. I'm just saying that definition is pretty useless in either direction.

Anyway, are you against porn? I mean, are you wondering what's legal, or what's tasteful, or what's marketable, or what to let your ladyfriend do, or what?

I'd say, for you, personally - if it seems like the right thing to do, do it. If not, don't. Only you can calibrate your own porn-o-meter.
 
Hey i don't give a **** if any other actress kisses or shows her kit off etc. Just not MY actress. If that's the case then she might as well ave an affair, it would be no different. but ai ni corrida guys, watch that film for some serious disturbing pleasure.
 
Yas, dude, as John says, if she's going to get anywhere as a serious actress, you might have a problem. Your call, though.
 
This is actually an interesting thread.

Personally, I have no problem with a sex scene in a film as long as it serves the plot. Even if it doesn't serve the plot or story progression as long as it contributes to the film I'm OK with it. Basic Instinct is a great example of sex serving the plot. I also think that a sex scene can be useful as an attention grabber. Not for shameless self promotion or anything, but if you looked at my sci fi entry I started it off with a sex scene. Why did I do this? Because I didn't think that my film was strong and I wanted something to grab the audiences attention right off the bat. Did it work? Some people liked it, some people hated it. As the filmmaker, I liked it and don't regret the choice.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with seeing two people (or three dozen people) roll around nude. I don't think that constitutes pornography and dances that fine. I think once you get into penetration and sex on film (rather than acted sex on film) that is where the line gets crossed.

As others have said though, that is a personal opinion. It is really hard for me to be offended by anything other than religious ignorance so I could see an entire movie that would be offensive to someone else and it doesn't bother me one bit.

Eh, just my opinion.

-Jeremy
 
To paraphrash Bill Hicks "Supreme Court says pornography is anything without artistic merit that causes sexual thoughts, that's their definition, essentially. No artistic merit, causes sexual thoughts. Hmm... Sounds like...every commercial on television, doesn't it?
 
True, true.

Personally I just don't get the fixation. If your film NEEDS sex to work, then...well you must not have a very good story. If the argument is that the story is erotic, I submit, that does not necessarily entail nudity.

For example, in Sideways when Miles enters the hotel room, and Jack is having sex, why show it? Were they unsure that we would know what was happening? I think that Miles reaction (which was great) and the off-screen "not now, not now!" would have been even more effective than seeing THC's hairy ass. And don't get me started on the overly long shots of the waitress and her husband...I had watched that film right after dinner...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top