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 ]

[a panacea]

De Kelley

Sure it does. It falls under the genre of adult sexual content intending to incite arousal. That's all it takes for something to fall under pornography, regardless of actual conscious "intention". If it is an emotionally charged sexual scene with graphic sexual depiction, it's going to fall under porn.

That's absolutist. You don't recognize the difference between a moving audiovisual masterpiece with people moaning to express some emotion and something sometimes fetish but regardless only for the purpose of arousal?

Quote:

There actually really isn't much of a gray area here. Either it's porn or it's not. Intercourse shown is the vast majority of time shown in entertainment in order to incite arousal. That makes it porn.

"Porn in art films or indie films" are much briefer. Or if I may say, they take that small scene and make it seem more "realistic". Unlike in porn per se, there may be a tiny story line but at the end it is all sex, sex and sex. Is there really no big difference between the two?

Quote:

I've seen intercourse shown on a show for scientific purposes (a man and woman had sex under I believe PET scan, maybe a MRI, so that the internal function could be observed). This, though it may arouse people, was not porn, because the imagery was not emotionally charged or created to incite arousal. For instance, they removed any moaning sounds that may have been going on during said exchange.

Of course, documentaries are there to inform. Art/Indie films are there to express a message. Porn is there to elicit arousal.

[Jenny Talia]

Iggy The Balrog

I don't particularly relish the idea of watching actors having sex - if its to further the plot I'm okay with it being simulated but sex in the movies is boring as a** anyway. Its used pretty clumsily and gratuitously most of the time.

This is a weird topic - why do they have to be genuinely bumping uglies? You wouldn't be allowed to see anything graphic either way.

I suppose the actors don't need to be actually having sex for the scene, it's just something that we're seeing more of recently.
I, personally, think that it's a useful tool, when used correctly.

[De Kelley]

a panacea

De Kelley

Sure it does. It falls under the genre of adult sexual content intending to incite arousal. That's all it takes for something to fall under pornography, regardless of actual conscious "intention". If it is an emotionally charged sexual scene with graphic sexual depiction, it's going to fall under porn.

That's absolutist. You don't recognize the difference between a moving audiovisual masterpiece with people moaning to express some emotion and something sometimes fetish but regardless only for the purpose of arousal?

Irrelevant. And aboslutism is not always incorrect when we're talking about something either being a genre or not. There isn't the gray area where it's "kind of porn".

Quote:

Quote:

There actually really isn't much of a gray area here. Either it's porn or it's not. Intercourse shown is the vast majority of time shown in entertainment in order to incite arousal. That makes it porn.

"Porn in art films or indie films" are much briefer. Or if I may say, they take that small scene and make it seem more "realistic". Unlike in porn per se, there may be a tiny story line but at the end it is all sex, sex and sex. Is there really no big difference between the two?

Did I say anything about it being "long" porn? The time duration isn't exactly relevant. Now if it is a very small scene, arguably this could be adult elements in a film, making it's genre erotic rather than actual pornography. But it would still contain pornographic elements.

Quote:

Quote:

I've seen intercourse shown on a show for scientific purposes (a man and woman had sex under I believe PET scan, maybe a MRI, so that the internal function could be observed). This, though it may arouse people, was not porn, because the imagery was not emotionally charged or created to incite arousal. For instance, they removed any moaning sounds that may have been going on during said exchange.

Of course, documentaries are there to inform. Art/Indie films are there to express a message. Porn is there to elicit arousal.

Porn also sometimes expresses a message, and just because something is porn doesn't mean it's completely lacking in substance.

[a panacea]

De Kelley

Irrelevant. And aboslutism is not always incorrect when we're talking about something either being a genre or not. There isn't the gray area where it's "kind of porn".

Why irrelevant? You do not see a difference at all? Besides, there are sub genres of porn. If there are sub genres of porn, people recognize the gray areas between each kind of porn. Basically, it's more than just being porn and not being porn.

Quote:

Did I say anything about it being "long" porn? The time duration isn't exactly relevant. Now if it is a very small scene, arguably this could be adult elements in a film, making it's genre erotic rather than actual pornography. But it would still contain pornographic elements.

I am well aware that the time duration does not exactly have relevance but it does give time to express the significance of the scene. I do not mean that "the longer the scene the more significance" for that would be absurd. Your use of "pornographic elements" give an impression that you think anything with sex in it is porn-like. But we may well know that being porn-like does not essentially make you porn. Even if art/indie films are porn-like they are not essentially porn. Thus, you could not absolutely say that such is porn.

Quote:

Porn also sometimes expresses a message, and just because something is porn doesn't mean it's completely lacking in substance.

Allow me to be more specific. I have been vague on what type of message art/indie films express. Porn may have a message but again, it will remain as porn since its creators call it that. That is that. Whereas art/indie films express a message (i.e. on homosexuality, on some sort of pain of the society, or whatever) to a targeted audience (individuals that should be "moved" by the message). And porn is all about arousal regardless of the message it gives.

[De Kelley]

A subgenre of porn is still porn. It is not a "gray area" because it is still considered pornography.

You are misinterpreting my argument. I have never said that anything with sexual elements is porn. Simulated sex is not porn, because despite often the intention to arouse, there is no "adult" (that is, explicit sexual footage) content present, separating it from pornography and merely making it in the eyes of the film industry "sexual content" in a film that would likely be rated R, but not "adult".

A film can be very deep and meaningful and still be pornographic. You seem to be under the impression that all porn is garbage and this emotionally charges your argument. You will continue to push away from porn and defend your precious indie films if you continue to resemble all porn with cheap smut.

[Yoshpet]

The difference lies wholly in intention and is expressed through the nuances that come with either decision.

Even a simulated sex scene in a movie can incite arousal. But it isn't the arousal that defines what is porn and what is cinema, it is the intention in the directing.

[Severice]

Bring back the porn.

[Jenny Talia]

Yoshpet

The difference lies wholly in intention and is expressed through the nuances that come with either decision.

Even a simulated sex scene in a movie can incite arousal. But it isn't the arousal that defines what is porn and what is cinema, it is the intention in the directing.

l for one agree entirely with you. The primary difference between porn and "art house" is intentionbut you can't forget execution. l for one think that directors who can effectively utilize sex in a beautiful and charming way are simply incredible! I mean I anyone can make a! It takes areal artist to make sex important.

[_Morgane Fay_]

Where is my "other" poll option? I don't much care if the sex scenes on screen are "real" or not, I care about consent of the actors, pressure on set, protection against STD's and other safety & volition concerns.

[The20]

Jenny Talia

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

Art is subjective.

If porn is art me blowing my nose should be considered art, too.

[The Curse]

Can I take a rare moment, step out of my self-imposed modesty bubble to say just one thing, here..? While my under the influence of alcohol, anyway.

From a sales pitch point of view, it is far more hot if the sex is not simulated. If I were a director, and both my actors were cool with it, I'd ask them to not simulate it on the basis that I could make that common knowledge so people saw/bought my movie JUST TO SEE.

[Beached as Bro]

The Curse

it is far more hot if the sex is not simulated.

Homie nailed it.

[Archaical]

i think its a wonderful idea.
sex is a very powerful thing. and its actually very easy to make it tasteful i think, or not tasteful and gritty for the sake of conveying an emotion or idea.
its porn when shes plastic and faking and a terrible actress.
i mean few macro shots of the junk is ok, but as long as its not all hoohas and wangs in the screen all the time i think its brilliant.

[Jenny Talia]

The20

Jenny Talia

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

Art is subjective.

If porn is art me blowing my nose should be considered art, too.

Again it's subjective.
And you blowing your nose could be art like if you were using an American flag instead of a tissue.

[Jenny Talia]

xXxbekixXx

i think its a wonderful idea.
sex is a very powerful thing. and its actually very easy to make it tasteful i think, or not tasteful and gritty for the sake of conveying an emotion or idea.
its porn when shes plastic and faking and a terrible actress.
i mean few macro shots of the junk is ok, but as long as its not all hoohas and wangs in the screen all the time i think its brilliant.

I don't think that a bad actress with fake boobs makes a porn, I think it's more so the content of the sex scene.
If you're watching the penetration up close until the guy with a huge p***s finally gets off and cums all over our actresses face, that's porn, and I can't see it being tasteful.
but otherwise I agree that sex can be incredibly tasteful, and still gritty and raw!