Real Sex in Cinema! (Not to be confused with porn)

Do you believe it's alright to use real sex footage in a non-pornographic film?

Yes.	60.5%	[ 69 ]
No.	28.1%	[ 32 ]
No opinion.	11.4%	[ 13 ]
Total Votes:			[ 114 ]

[That Foxy Martin]

It's fine.

[Green_Tyr]

pockybot

yeah ive noticed in a lot of newer indie and foreign films unsimulated oral and intercourse. It started with Brown Bunny, Bais Moi and Nine Lives, and now its rather ubiquitous.

Im more unsettled by the extreme new level of graphic brutal cinema coming out, like Serbian Film, Martyrs, etc.

Martyr's, that was damn near a snuff film.

[In Medias Res IV]

9 Songs is NOT art. It's Winterbottom being a pretentious director who happens to be friends with Michael Nyman and Franz Ferdinand. "Art House?" I think not.

Shortbus, on the other hand, is a good film.

Lars Von Trier's Antichrist also has real sex in it (and Charlotte Gainsbourg <3), though the film is excruciatingly boring.

[Jenny Talia]

In Medias Res IV

9 Songs is NOT art. It's Winterbottom being a pretentious director who happens to be friends with Michael Nyman and Franz Ferdinand. "Art House?" I think not.

Shortbus, on the other hand, is a good film.

Lars Von Trier's Antichrist also has real sex in it (and Charlotte Gainsbourg <3), though the film is excruciatingly boring.

Isn't art subective?
I don't think 9 Songs was particularly wonderful, but I did enjoy the portrayal of the characters relationship.

[Lyan De Silva]

It always depends on the movie

If it's a non-porn movie

I personally think that using a real sex footage

Won't be that bad 4laugh

[Green_Tyr]

9 Songs was such a awful movie. Terrible song-Sex scene-Terrible song-Sex scene. The entire ******** movie.

[De Kelley]

It's kind of hard for actors to fake sex and take it seriously. Like... usually they do end up rubbing on each other at least, even if real intercourse isn't going on on camera... but I also know there ARE rated R films that have real sex in them, just the sex isn't "shown" like it is in porn. Depends on the specific show/scene, really. You'd have to consult the filmmakers to find out if it was just rubbing or if there was real sex going on.

Now, as for sex scenes showing sex in movies, this does exist, it just bumps the rating up, and it will fall under the "adult" category, although not necessarily "porn." It's a gray area but it's still put out of the reach of kids (by the rating system). I feel rightfully so. I think ratings exist so that kids can't go out and buy whatever weird s**t, but instead have to consult their parents. It's not like I want to know what kind of s**t my kid's jacking off to, I just want to know he or she isn't buying some really ******** up s**t. Because if they were, I'd want them in therapy to work out why they like uh... I donno, something weird like porn involving fecal matter.

From an actor's point of view... I think "simulated sex" would be really hard to act. And I'd want to be actually more closely "experiencing" it, at least making some serious physical contact with the other actor. So they'd get at least some pushing and rubbing. If they're gonna be shy about feeling my junk, then we shouldn't be doing a sex scene together.

In b4 someone says I don't have "junk".

I think sex could be used usefully as a "device" in film. It can emphasize an emotion, enhance a situation. But it isn't like seeing a d**k will change the message much more than simulated sex. It simply makes it more intense, which might be what the filmmaker wants.

[a panacea]

Real sex in cinema is just like nudity in the Venus de Milo or the David. I am in fact for nudity/sex in cinema without calling either pornographic.

[De Kelley]

a panacea

Real sex in cinema is just like nudity in the Venus de Milo or the David. I am in fact for nudity/sex in cinema without calling either pornographic.

If I'm seeing someone guy's [lok]* going into some girl's [keshtan-ur]*, it's at least adult material and very likely intended to be sexually stimulating to the viewer, which would make it pornographic in nature. In order for intercourse to not be porn.... it would have to be scientific and informal in nature, without emotion/arousal involved.

(*Yes that is Vulcan for p***s and v****a.)

[a panacea]

De Kelley

a panacea

Real sex in cinema is just like nudity in the Venus de Milo or the David. I am in fact for nudity/sex in cinema without calling either pornographic.

If I'm seeing someone guy's [lok]* going into some girl's [keshtan-ur]*, it's at least adult material and very likely intended to be sexually stimulating to the viewer, which would make it pornographic in nature. In order for intercourse to not be porn.... it would have to be scientific and informal in nature, without emotion/arousal involved.

(*Yes that is Vulcan for p***s and v****a.)

Scientific? Surely. Informal? I do not exactly know what you mean by that. If you are talking about no arousal or emotion involved, mind explaining to me the instances when viewers get an erection with just seeing something implicitly sexually related? Of course that is plain human nature. The material being watched could not be judged as pornographic by its viewers.

I believe that a document could only be named pornographic by its creators. If an artist wants the creation to be artistic, it is artistic --ergo indie films, art films, etc. Same goes for pornography directors. I mean, if a Venus de Milo or a world-renowned painting inspires an erection, shame on the guy for thinking such a masterpiece is porn. xd

[De Kelley]

a panacea

De Kelley

a panacea

Real sex in cinema is just like nudity in the Venus de Milo or the David. I am in fact for nudity/sex in cinema without calling either pornographic.

If I'm seeing someone guy's [lok]* going into some girl's [keshtan-ur]*, it's at least adult material and very likely intended to be sexually stimulating to the viewer, which would make it pornographic in nature. In order for intercourse to not be porn.... it would have to be scientific and informal in nature, without emotion/arousal involved.

(*Yes that is Vulcan for p***s and v****a.)

Scientific? Surely. Informal? I do not exactly know what you mean by that. If you are talking about no arousal or emotion involved, mind explaining to me the instances when viewers get an erection with just seeing something implicitly sexually related? Of course that is plain human nature. The material being watched could not be judged as pornographic by its viewers because the viewers do not know the whole purpose behind it.

I believe that a document could only be named pornographic by its creators. If an artist wants the creation to be artistic, it is artistic --ergo indie films, art films, etc. Same goes for pornography directors. I mean, if a Venus de Milo or a world-renowned painting inspires an erection, shame on the guy for thinking such a masterpiece is porn. xd

Whoops. I meant informational. That's what I get for being tired.

Thing is, porn is something that is designed to arouse someone. Most of these sex scenes are going to involve that. Acting is about getting the audience to relate to the actor, and share that experience with them, so that personal quality to a sex scene would arouse audience members. Non-pornographic sex scenes exist, only because they are not adult material. Once them material is "adult" in nature (that is, we're visually seeing genitals and intercourse), it reaches a pornographic level. What separates artistic nudity from porn is that artistic nudity is not intending to arouse. But I'd be a liar if I said I've never seen artistic nudity that turned me on.

Porn is a genre. So if I make a western drama film, I can't call it a sci-fi comedy unless it's got sci-fi elements in the story and comedic material. I don't just get to change the genre willy-nilly. Genres a re based on content.

[a panacea]

De Kelley

Whoops. I meant informational. That's what I get for being tired.

Thing is, porn is something that is designed to arouse someone. Most of these sex scenes are going to involve that. Acting is about getting the audience to relate to the actor, and share that experience with them, so that personal quality to a sex scene would arouse audience members. Non-pornographic sex scenes exist, only because they are not adult material. Once them material is "adult" in nature (that is, we're visually seeing genitals and intercourse), it reaches a pornographic level. What separates artistic nudity from porn is that artistic nudity is not intending to arouse. But I'd be a liar if I said I've never seen artistic nudity that turned me on.

Porn is a genre. So if I make a western drama film, I can't call it a sci-fi comedy unless it's got sci-fi elements in the story and comedic material. I don't just get to change the genre willy-nilly. Genres a re based on content.

But what people seem to miss is that an arousing sex on screen itself --the whole seed being seeded, if you know what i mean neutral -- does not always mean pornography. People see things in black and white with nothing in between. "If there is hot sex, that's porn!" I should add that artists add subtle and non-subtle meaning in it. The gray area is what meaning the artist adds; thus putting it above just being "porn"-like. As for genres, well, they are too black and white. I do not think there's a genre that I know of for artistic non-pornographic explicit sex scenes.

[Clarissa Pleasures]

I think is an American thing... Sex is every where all over the world, but when you're in any other country... you'll find sex in more films, commercials and even daytime TV has hints.

[The20]

Jenny Talia

Can a director and cast film sex without crossing the pornography line? And is this still art?

Didn't you hear? Porn is art.

...
Bwahahaha! rofl

[The Sky Calls To Us]

Clarissa Pleasures

I think is an American thing... Sex is every where all over the world, but when you're in any other country... you'll find sex in more films, commercials and even daytime TV has hints.

America has this weird issue with sex. It's truly bizarre.