Explicit sex scenes in mainstream movies.

Tools    





Did anyone know that there was a film from 1938 that got under the Hays Code of Conduct for cinema? I told Cricket about this. The film is Child Bride and how the director got away with it, is saying its a documentary. Its about underage marriage in the Appalachian and Ozark Mountain ranges. For the 1930's, this had a lot of violence to it but the other content was a bit out there.



I wouldn't know about all that...I prefer to watch Doris Day sing or Fred and Ginger dance.
I know you do.. and I understand how you feel.. but this is what sets us apart and gives us great conversation topics.



Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.

Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting.

The only film the cast and crew ofMystery Science Theater 3000 (1988) refused to satirize after watching. During an interview, hostMichael J. Nelson revealed that the crew considered the film "disturbing."



Registered User
Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.

Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting.
I looked it up, what's interesting is that it was a 1938 film meant to draw attention to the lack of laws banning child marriages in many states at the time.

What's interesting is that as we've become more lax with censorship of explicit sex, we've become more proactive at preventing actual sexual abuse - while the reverse was true in more prudish times - similar to what goes on in Islamic countries today.



Thanks MG, I support your freedom to watch or like what you ever want.

Child Bride...never heard of it but it sounds interesting.
What's interesting is that as we've become more lax with censorship of explicit sex, we've become more proactive at preventing actual sexual abuse - while the reverse was true in more prudish times - similar to what goes on in Islamic countries today.
What? I really don't know what your driving at with this. Could you explain further?

This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography.



I looked it up, what's interesting is that it was a 1938 film meant to draw attention to the lack of laws banning child marriages in many states at the time.

What's interesting is that as we've become more lax with censorship of explicit sex, we've become more proactive at preventing actual sexual abuse - while the reverse was true in more prudish times - similar to what goes on in Islamic countries today.
Actually what is disturbing.. is that it has a 11 yr old girl nude in a swimming scene...

I seen it on youtube and it was pixelated bad.



Registered User
What? I really don't know what your driving at with this. Could you explain further?

This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography.
I'd say if I could choose I'd prefer more lenience in R rated films regarding consensual adult sex, and stricter attitudes towards violence if anything.

As it stands any film with explicit sex will most likely be too graphic for a R-rating, yet all manner of torture and violence can get by.

Why should two people making passionate love on their honeymoon be considered too inappropriate for mainstream theaters than people being dismembered alive in a film like Saw or Hostel?



Registered User
Actually what is disturbing.. is that it has a 11 yr old girl nude in a swimming scene...

I seen it on youtube and it was pixelated bad.
The FBI is coming for you as we speak



The FBI is coming for you as we speak
that should have happened long ago....if it was due to my film watching.. but thats the only one I seen with underage people..... I just seen some really weird ****...



What? I really don't know what your driving at with this. Could you explain further?

This conversation really has no focus, which is fine. However if people think we need to be more lenient about what we alliw in film I'm confused. As far as I can tell the only thing off limits anymore is child pornography.
I'd say if I could choose I'd prefer more lenience in R rated films regarding consensual adult sex, and stricter attitudes towards violence if anything.

As it stands any film with explicit sex will most likely be too graphic for a R-rating, yet all manner of torture and violence can get by.
Ok, two questions. Do you think the fact that violence is fake and gratuitous sex and nudity is not has anything to do with this at all?

What do you mean when you say we have become more proactive about preventing sexual abuse similar to Islamic countries?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
An unrated film is simply a film that was never submitted to the MPAA. If it's direct to video, there's really no reason to submit it (it costs money) except that it won't be sold by some chain stores and rented by certain outlets in the U.S. There is nothing "stronger" than an NC-17 since if you'll accept that rating, your film doesn't need to edit anything. It's just that if it's made and meant to be primarily shown outside of the U.S., it's going to be unrated as far as the U.S. is concerned.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Heres something I brought up earlier, is there one movie with an explicit sex scene thats worth a fiddlers damn? Even one?! I dont know of any.
Three things I'd like to say to this. Firstly, it depends on what you'd call explicit. Secondly, no, because Drew hasn't done one yet and, lastly, wouldn't The Fiddler's Damn be a great name for a pub?
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.



Why should two people making passionate love on their honeymoon be considered too inappropriate for mainstream theaters than people being dismembered alive in a film like Saw or Hostel?
Well, first off, it usually isn't: lots of films with passionate love making scenes have R ratings. The ones that are rated NC-17 are usually far more explicit and/or not the kind of wholesome hypothetical you're asking about.

But beyond that, there are lots of reasons:
1) Violence is faked. Nudity can't be. You can pretend to be killed, but you can't pretend to be naked.

2) Ratings are based on the effect on the viewer, not just the moral properties of the act being simulated. If that were the standard, an image of a mushroom cloud would be considered more gruesome than any horror film.

3) Sex and violence are not equally imitable. Watching violence does not generally make people want to commit violence. Watching sex does generally arouse people. You'll notice nudity in blatantly non-sexual circumstances is often treated differently, IE: documentaries about African tribes, or Schindler's List being broadcast without restrictions on network television. People don't freak out at any display of the human body.

4) The kind of violence you describe is already universally seen as abhorrent, so most people don't consider its depiction as an endorsement. Sex, however, is the subject of all sorts of cultural debate, particularly debate about how publicly visible it should be, so depicting it is essentially taking a side in that debate. And the depictions are rarely of the kind you describe. If they were, I imagine people's reactions would be different.
There are other reasons, too. The main point is that the trite old "oh we can watch a guy's head get blown off but we freak out over a nipple?" pseudo-argument is pretty facile when you actually consider it. It's a false equivalence between two dramatically different things.



matt72582's Avatar
Please Quote/Tag Or I'll Miss Your Responses
The only thing more beautiful than a woman, is two of them. But really, I love seeing a pair of boobs, and a chick's butt, but, when it's redundant, doing it for "mental junk food" - stimulating us to make us think we're enjoying the "film" when we're enjoying ourselves.

I am for complete freedom, but some discretion and good taste would be best.



Registered User
Well, first off, it usually isn't: lots of films with passionate love making scenes have R ratings. The ones that are rated NC-17 are usually far more explicit and/or not the kind of wholesome hypothetical you're asking about.

But beyond that, there are lots of reasons:
1) Violence is faked. Nudity can't be. You can pretend to be killed, but you can't pretend to be naked.

2) Ratings are based on the effect on the viewer, not just the moral properties of the act being simulated. If that were the standard, an image of a mushroom cloud would be considered more gruesome than any horror film.

3) Sex and violence are not equally imitable. Watching violence does not generally make people want to commit violence. Watching sex does generally arouse people. You'll notice nudity in blatantly non-sexual circumstances is often treated differently, IE: documentaries about African tribes, or Schindler's List being broadcast without restrictions on network television. People don't freak out at any display of the human body.

4) The kind of violence you describe is already universally seen as abhorrent, so most people don't consider its depiction as an endorsement. Sex, however, is the subject of all sorts of cultural debate, particularly debate about how publicly visible it should be, so depicting it is essentially taking a side in that debate. And the depictions are rarely of the kind you describe. If they were, I imagine people's reactions would be different.
There are other reasons, too. The main point is that the trite old "oh we can watch a guy's head get blown off but we freak out over a nipple?" pseudo-argument is pretty facile when you actually consider it. It's a false equivalence between two dramatically different things.
While I agree that young people exposed to sexual content might try to experiment sexually at too young an age, and that this is a more realistic possibility than a kid 'becoming a serial killer' from seeing a horror film - I don't fully agree that there's not a double standard. (And on the flip side, I think a kid seeing a graphic horror film at a young age where their mind can't totally understand the difference between fantasy and reality might be more scarred than simply seeing a nude or sex scene).

For example, most films, video games, etc with graphic sex acts would receive an NC-17 rating or equivalent and wouldn't even be allowed to be sold in most mainstream theaters or store chains - even when they're clearly intended for adults, not children (horror films on the other hand are clearly not intended for kids either but manage to slip by with an R rating; they typically don't generate nearly as much controversy in the media).

I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational; cultures have been known to be decidedly irrational about many things (just 50 years ago, interrational relationships were considered 'damaging to society' for example).



While I agree that young people exposed to sexual content might try to experiment sexually at too young an age, and that this is a more realistic possibility than a kid 'becoming a serial killer' from seeing a horror film - I don't fully agree that there's not a double standard.
The argument is not only about imitating the behavior "at too young an age"--I actually think that's a relatively small concern--but rather about shaping their attitude towards sex in general. Growing up in a society where casual sex is depicted often (and depicted as relatively harmless) is going to result in a very different set of preconceptions than one where it isn't.

Remember, the rating is not about what can literally be shown--it's about what can be shown without parental consent. Since parents have an understandable interest in the kinds of preconceptions their children grow up with, the ratings reflect the general parental belief that depictions of sex are more likely to meaningfully influence their children than depictions of violence.

I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational
Oh, I don't think anything we do is completely rational. I just don't think it's at all hypocritical or unusual to have very different standards for two very different things. And whatever the blind spots of this particular culture, sex has been treated as important throughout history, across widely disparate times and places. That gives me a pretty high degree of confidence that that particular sentiment is correct.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
I think you have too much faith that culture's standards on things are completely rational; cultures have been known to be decidedly irrational about many things (just 50 years ago, interrational relationships were considered 'damaging to society' for example).
I believe you meant to type interracial - I don't believe interrational is a word, although it could possibly describe some of what goes on around here.



A while ago I watched "The Brown Bunny" with Vincent Gallo. This film he drives around alot and feels sorry for himself looking for his lost love. At the end of the film is this very explicit sceen where he receives oral from his lost love. Since Vincent Gallo both wrote and directed this film, I felt the only reason he showed this sceen was to show the world his genitalia. Very distasteful