All Comments on 'Unsimulated Sex in Mainstream Film'

Right off the bat: I haven't seen "Shortbus". But your piece is as much philosophical as critical, so I'm only going to comment on the philosophy, and only on those points where I differ.

"I have to wonder...if we really do need to see explicit graphic sex shots in non-pornographic film" "This isn't just real sex between people, where all the emotions can bubble up and come through...and no matter what, they (the actors) are not their characters. Sook-Lin Yee is not pre-orgasmic. Paul Dawson...does not weep after orgasming from auto-fellatio".

Why shouldn't we need to see graphic sex shots, albeit with stunt cocks and cunts if necessary for squeamish actors? Do we really need to see graphic grief or outrage (for examples) portrayed on screen? Not really, but why shouldn't we? We think it normal for our emotions to be tugged by good actors on the screen, why shouldn't we be sexually stimulated as well? Isn't it just society's sexual inhibitions that frown on it? Why can't actors express the true emotions of the sex the script has them engaging in, just as well as they can express grief at (for example) a sudden loss of a loved partner according to a script? Sure, poor actors can't do it, but we're not talking about poor acting here.

As for "reality TV" being the only venue where characters might express the true emotions of the sex they're having, I would submit that, from what I've seen of so-called reality TV, that's the last place I'd look for true emotions.

ryeandgingerayle@yahoo.com

Sex is pretty dull to watch. I know porn fucking sells but watching some stranger's buttocks going up and down doesn't last a second as entertainment for me. Not sure how they arrange the lasting of erections; if I thrust that hard I'd shoot in seconds. For main stream film directors I suppose it has the advantage of filling time without requiring expensive sets. Porn actors don't get paid as well as strightones either.