What in the hell is so offensive about sex?

1. 0

   Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years ago

   Okay, so here's the deal...
   
   We human beings don't seem to have much of a problem with violence in our entertainment. Books, Movies, Video Games, etc. all have featured violence, often lathered in bucket-loads of gore, and have done so without generating much hubbub about it.
   
   We have many films in which the protagonist is routinely, and without mercy, cutting swaths through hordes of living human beings. And not only does your average person not see the inherent problem with this, but they often cheer it on.
   
   Don't get me wrong. I love violence as much as the next voyeuristic asshole, and I accept that the violence portrayed in films is not actual violence. It's fantasy.
   
   However, if filmmakers instead choose to show two human beings engaged in a depiction of coitus (not "actual sex" but an artistic rendition of it)... well, MOTHERS OF AMERICA UNITE!!!
   
   I don't see what is so offensive about sex in films.
   
   (note: I am NOT talking about "actual sex" in films. I DO NOT want to see penetration in Movies. I don't want mainstream cinema to start making pornography.)
   
   Now, on to a separate point.
   
   As far as pornography is concerned:
   What the hell is wrong with two CONSENTING adults choosing to preform sex acts in front of a camera for profit? They aren't hurting anyone and are providing many sex deprived folks with a much needed sexual outlet. I disagree with people who say, "porn is evil," and only for "depraved people."
   
   Thoughts?

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Jane Bovaryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Probably nothing, except  that I've got this whacky theory that repression is sexy. Personally I wouldn't like to see people screwing for the camera become commonplace in mainstream films. We've got the porn industry for that.
      
      Part of the excitement of sex is that it is kept under wraps and personal.  I'd hate to see it  reduced to an ordinary function like brushing your teeth. Audiences have imaginations and a suggestion of sex can be more erotic than a blow by blow  visual(pardon the pun).
      
      Imagine how mindblowingly exciting it must have been to see a naked body in the days when showing an ankle was considered a sexual titillation?  Not that I'm suggesting for a second we return to that kind of extreme repression. Heaven forbid, but it does show that eroticism is a lot more complex than flashing a couple of naked butts. It also puts a burden on the actors...some of them anyway.
      
      But hey, I'm aware that's all just my view..there's prob'ly no real moral/philosophical justification for it. Maybe I'm just really hung-up and don't realise it.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         N.E. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you.  Oh, oh I must be hung up too. LOL.
         
         Still, I love her question.  I never thought about it.

         replyreport
      2. 0

         Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I'm not saying that mainstream films should have "full-on" sex scenes in them with penetration and all that. I don't think actors want to be filmed doing the no pants dance for real (most of them anyway), otherwise they would just do porn.
         
         All I'm saying is that SOME nudity or a "sex" scene in a film should not be considered a bad thing.
         
         The separate point I am making is that pornography shouldn't be viewed as something heinous and evil. 
         
         I agree that part of the excitement of sex is keeping it under wraps and that pornography can distort a young person's view on sex, but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            The degradation of society is caused by the onslaught of all the things you described, violence, sex, crime.  Academic deconstruction of all things wholesome has not made society better.  It has served to undo the innocence of humanity.  Though all this is part of the reality of life somewhere on the planet, it is not as common as it has been made to appear by the proliferation of media views.  There is 'some nudity or sex' in many films tastefully done but often not inherent to the story line.  The story can be as well told without blatant visual.  Creating a film is more difficult when the creator must force the audience to use their imagination.

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I believe that sexual repression (i.e. being ashamed of one's sexuality) is the cause of a lot of crimes that are sexual in nature. (Jeffery Dahmer is one example of this. He said himself that he had grown up to feel extremely ashamed of his sexuality, and that this severe self-repression lead to horrific outcomes.)
               
               I also don't think that we should place sex in the same category as Violence and Criminal behavior. That's part of the problem. There are people in our society who actively try to make others feel bad for something that is absolutely natural, and healthy.

               replyreport
            2. 0

               Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Also, deciding what is "wholesome" and what is "pure" is entirely subjective.
               
               Why is sex not wholesome? Why is it not pure?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  It is.  Or at least it can be.  Often it isn't.  It would depend on the circumstance.  But even though you are debating the issue, I would risk assuming you would not want to have sex in public.  There are things we just 'know'.  They don't need analysis.  We can just 'feel' what is the right way for something to be.  This is what I call wholesome.  But there is not necessarily a line to be drawn.  The subjectivity may be written with a broad stroke.  Still, the parameters are there for each of us.

                  replyreport
                  1. 0

                     Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     I agree wholeheartedly that nobody should be having sex in public.
                     
                     And you are right to assume that I would agree with this sentiment.
                     
                     Also, I can appreciate what you're saying here, and I find that - after you've explained yourself further - I am in agreement with most of what you have to say.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        HOOOrah!

                        replyreport
         2. 84

            Jane Bovaryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Totally agree with you Jake...

            replyreport
            1. 0

               Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Then we are in agreement.

               replyreport
      3. 0

         Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Okay, I "fixed" the topic post.
         
         What I'm trying to say should be clearer.

         replyreport
   2. 71

      N.E. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I never thought of your question before.  Not in the way you asked it.
      
      I actually agree with Jane, but I respect your question.  Still, I think about the movies I saw as a child at the drive-in-movies when my parents thought we were asleep.  Foxy Brown. 
      
      I never asked my mother what Foxy -- Pam Grier -- was doing with her boyfriend on that sofa with their clothes off, because I knew I was suppose to be asleep.  LOL.
      
      I would never tell my parents that I wanted to be Pam Grier -- LOL -- that would have been too much for my mother to take.  My father would have locked me in my room forever.  LOL.
      
      I get ya, I do, but we have porn -- not easy for the kids to see -- and that is okay to me.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I agree with you and Jane.
         
         I don't think that "actual sex" should be in mainstream cinema. That wasn't the point I was making. I guess I'll have to be more concise in my original post.

         replyreport
2. 71

   Cagsilposted 13 years ago

   Religion prizes purity as though it is sacred?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Yeah, I would agree with that assessment. I think the only reason so many people have a problem with sex is because religion has convinced them that it is impure and evil (outside of wedlock).
      
      I think one of the biggest problems with humanity is that we paint sex as being something to be ashamed of.

      replyreport
      1. 71

         Cagsilposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         People in general are being told that they should be ashamed for this or that. It's absurd.
         
         Remember, 2/3 of the planet have some affiliation with religion or religious beliefs of a god. It's a god that has told these people all about sex and given them strict guidelines to work by.
         
         Will it change in the future? It most certainly will.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed.
            
            Humanity is moving closer towards non-belief. Many European nations are majority non-religious, and Japan is something like 63% Atheist.
            
            Here in the good 'ol US of A, atheism is on the rise. I read somewhere that if you considered atheism as a religion (which it is not) that it's the fastest growing religion in this Nations' history.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               Jake and Cags have two men's views.  Even without religion in the mix, sport-f-ing is for horny youths.  Men never give up on the idea, as is inherent in their makeup.  For women, discretion is the better part of lovemaking.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  I like how you turned this into, "men are pervs, therefore..."
                  
                  Firstly, what is actually wrong with so-called, "sport f-ing?" If the man and woman consent to having sex for fun then why is it wrong?
                  
                  Secondly, I find it amusing that you would say:
                  
                  "For women, discretion is the better part of lovemaking."
                  
                  You act as though you speak for all women. That every women shares your views and values. Which is (obviously) not the case. I have met plenty of women that just -simply put - enjoy sex. There's nothing wrong with that.
                  
                  I'm not trying to be rude or mean in my responses. I'm just pointing out - what I believe - are flaws in your logic.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     You don't seem like the rude type.  Honestly, I did not mean that.  Men have the drive for sex well beyond the years of capability.  It's necessary for the survival of the species.
                     
                     And dude, stop putting words into my mouth.  I didn't imply that women don't enjoy sex.  And maybe you'll never get this as a guy, but women don't and can't separate sex and love.  I don't care what they say at the moment.  Sure, there's always the anomaly, a woman who's hormones have gotten the better of her, but I can almost guarantee that most women will regret a lack of discretion if not immediately then sometime thereafter.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        Yet again. I can agree with much this post.
                        You're a very reasonable person, and I appreciate that.
                        
                        However, I didn't so much, "put words in your mouth," as I misinterpreted the meaning of them. Again, that's "my bad."

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           couturepopcafeposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           

                           replyreport
3. 0

   Home Girlposted 13 years ago

   Just wait couple of centures, we'll get there...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I'm sure you're right.

      replyreport
4. 67

   Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago

   When it comes to sex, I think you're better off being a participant rather than a spectator.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      
      
      Funny, but true.

      replyreport
5. 71

   Bill Manningposted 13 years ago

   I see nothing wrong with it. In fact I have several adult sites myself. They are not paysites, I don't make the movies.
   
   They are just affiliate sites, same as hubpages is for mainstream affiliates like Amazon and adsense.
   
   So no, I don't think there is a damn thing wrong with it, everyone wants it, everyone wants to see it, at least many do.
   
   If you don't want to see it, don't watch it. Simply as that.
   
   BTW, if anyone here thinks there is something wrong with porn, I hope your not making money off Amazon or adsense here.
   
   After all, Amazon DOES sell porn, both books and hardcore movies. Adult sites also uses adsense. Plus where would we find the best adult sites without good old Google search?
   
   So if you think there is anything wrong with it and you make money off Amazon and/or adsense, your a hypocrite.

   replyreport
6. 60

   spookyfoxposted 13 years ago

   I have thought of this before. Why is it alright to explicitelly display acts of violence -and you mentioned fantasy, but not only that, since violence takes a major % of newstime, while acts of love and passion are supposed to be shameful? I think it's related to the stigma of christianity as it was already mentioned, and repression; and also the fact that we can relate to it. I can watch someone stabbing a person to death knowing that I wouldn't do that. Whereas if they show that other kind of stabbing I'd probably feel desire.
   
   On the other hand, this is related to Jane's point about the excitement of hiding and insinuating: I understand that perfectly and I agree. However, Jake mentioned both sex and nudity, but then doesn't the repression make anything that shows a bit more skin than it should, sexualized? Why must the human of a naked human body generate sexual thoughts instantly in most cases?

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I think I get where you're coming from.
      
      The naked, human form doesn't always have to be viewed in a sexual manner. I agree with that statement. Think of the movie, The Shining. Think of the scene with the lady in the bathtub (you know the one). That is not sexual at all. In that scene they are using nudity to create a feeling of unease and disgust.
      
      There is also plenty of art work depicting nude humans that I personally don't find sexual in nature at all.
      
      There are countless examples of nudity as separate from sexuality.

      replyreport
   2. 84

      Jane Bovaryposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      You're right Spooky...last year we had a raging controversy in Australia around nudity and censorship involving an an art photographer and his portrait of a naked 13 year old girl. Some people saw the photo as sexualised...others didn't. It certainly wasn't intentionally sexualised.
      
      What struck me here was the hypocrisy. It's apparently okay for 7 year olds to parade about in adult-style bras and underwear and all sorts of sexualised frippery on prime tv..but when it comes to an honest portrait of a naked girl in an art gallery...that's not okay?

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         That's a good point, Jane.
         
         Although the artist might want to exercise more discretion in the future to avoid a similar fiasco (and really he should have expected this reaction in the first place), that doesn't mean that there is anything inherently wrong with what he did.
         
         It was art. Not pornography.

         replyreport
7. 59

   Beege215eposted 13 years ago

   there are a couple of things I don't like in movies. Gratuitous sex and gratuitous violence.  It has come to the point in the movies that sex or violence are used to make the movie longer. We don't have much of a story to tell, there is no plot or purpose to this movie so let's do the sex and violence things to waste time and give the audience something to do while we think up a new twist for the non existant plot. I don't care if two consenting adults want to have sex; that is their business, whether it is for fun, pleasure or (God forbid)love. Don't waste my time or expect me to watch. I would rather a great conversation, plot or intriguing story line in a movie than wasted pretend sex.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      I agree that "gratuitous" sex and violence in films is not a good thing (especially when it's being used to mask a horrible plot or absence of actual story).
      
      But what about when sex and violence enhance the story-telling experience?
      
      Think about the film Saving Private Ryan. It's very violent, but the violence is necessary to illustrate the horror of war in a realistic fashion.
      
      Or the film Monster which includes a sex scene that serves a very important role within the story.

      replyreport
8. 59

   Beege215eposted 13 years ago

   I suppose I should add that I like sex, I even like looking at really sexy men with lots of muscles. I have absolutely nothing against everyone having sex. I suppose also that if I wanted to watch a movie with sex acts, I could rent a porn flick. But when I go to the movie to see a good mystery flick, I don't need the sex scenes that fill the middle of it with nonsense. And as for the extraneous violence, if it is not directly relative to the subject , then I can do without it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Jake Gene Barnesposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      That's a reasonable position to take.
      
      Although I still think that there are times when a sex scene is warranted within the context of the story.
      
      Keep in mind, not all sex scenes have to be "sexy." They can be used to illicit all manner of emotions other than arousal.

      replyreport