Talk:Unsimulated sex

"it was rare to see hardcore scenes in mainstream cinema"

Uh, it's still rare. Who wrote that stupid shit?

Pending changes

This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

Requested additions: The Band and Histoire de Sexes

There have been two notable mainstream films (both directed by women, as it happens) containing unsimulated sex that should be added to the list. "The Band" (2009, dir. Anna Brownfield) an Australian film released by Breaking Glass Pictures and available on DVD, contains at least two unsimulated coitus scenes, several male masturbation scenes, and a lesbian scene. The making-of featurette on the DVD goes into unusual detail in having the director and stars describe the process of shooting the film. Second film is the French release "Histoires de sexe(s)" (2009, dir. Ovide, US DVD title "Sex Stories"), also released by Breaking Glass Pictures. This one is an example of "mainstream pornography" in that it stars noted European porn stars in a number of sexual sequences, yet the film was apparently not made for porn audiences. That might be enough to make it a debatable addition. But definitely "The Band" fits the criteria for this list. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add "The Manson Family" as a film with unsimulated sex. here is a source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118840/trivia?tr0692530 24.118.57.193 (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What Defines "Porn"?

Many of the films listed here straddle (no pun intended) the line between "high art" and "pornography". What, exactly, is the criteria here? I added Cheeky! a while back, but it seems to have been removed. If 9 Songs and Caligula can be listed here, then why can't this film be listed (or, for that matter, the rest of Tinto Brass' films)? Is this list not supposed to include "skin flicks"? When most people think of "porn", they think of films that revolve entirely around actors having unsimulated sex with each other, not silly Italian sex comedies with a few scenes of sexual contact.--76.106.233.222 (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree this demonstrates a scope problem in this article. 9 Songs simply alternates music with lengthy explicit sex scenes comparable to those in porn movies. I reverted a recent addition of the big budget porn movie Pirates (which I haven't seen) in its softcore-edited release, something I felt isn't nothing novel or worth listing comprehensively. A content-based distinction between porn and not-porn is not possible, and distinctions based on production, distribution channels, or artistic intent are either arbitrary or subjective.

My suggestion would be instead of attempting to list films comprehensively, this article should be more about the subject of unsimulated sex in film. While this article is currently dominated by a list, there is enough prose content (albeit biased toward specifics about each film) to at least start a meaningful prose article. In well-written non-list article, a paragraph on Tinto Brass's ouvre would probably have a place, as would a short section on the history of filmed porn (with a {{Details}} link to Pornographic movies#History).

If someone else wishes to spin off a proper List of not really pornographic movies with unsimulated sex article, they can figure out how to draw the line there. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen all Zodiac-films myself, and I consider them to be porn, basically. There's a silly plot to them, but it's mainly an excuse to show the sex acts. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I don't think any of the mainstream actors in the series actually performed any sex acts themselves, but they were performed by close-up stand-ins. The star of the series, comedian Ole Søltoft, did never even perform nude, IIRC. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

As a belated response to the original post, Tinto Brass's films qualify as mainstream and should be included -- if they contain unsimulated sexual acts. Although Brass is very good at making it seem real (I've been fooled a few times), the majority of the films (if not all of them) contain only simulated sex (male organs represented by prosthetics, for example). Even Caligula, it has been reported elsewhere, had its hardcore sequences added by another party and not Brass. So if a Tinto Brass film legitimately qualifies (as does Caligula) and the source to confirm can be found, then include it. As to the other question "what is porn and what isn't" the use of the term "mainstream" means films made by studios other than those involved specifically in the production of hardcore sex films and videos. A Google search easily provides the distinction in most cases. Makers of so-called "Skinemax" films and TV series and the dozens of made-for-video erotic films of the 1990s were not porn producers, and in 99% of the cases the sex scenes depicted are simulated and would not qualify anyway. There are exceptions - several Vivid films, for example, have played movie festivals, and Cafe Flesh and several other porn films of the 1970s and 80s were circulated as mainstream films with the hardcore bits cut out (some of these films even recruited Hollywood actors like Cameron Mitchell to appear in non-sex roles). These, however, are rare enough to be considered on a case-by-case basis. If anyone is having difficult telling the difference, the easy thing to do is take a legitimately unsimulated mainstream film like Shortbus or All About Anna, and watch it alongside a film with confirmed simulation like Lie with Me, or for that matter a standard porn video. The difference should be obvious. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverted addition of Bedways

I have removed Bedways from the list. The general notability guidelines requires that additions to a list are notable in their own right and there is no existing article to establish a presumption of notability. Of the sources provided, one is borderline when it comes to WP:RS, the other clearly fails the RS standard. That is not enough to establish notability so the addition to the list fails WP:GNG, and does not appear to meet any WP:NF criteria. Additional problems include the only source that states the sex scenes are non-simulated does not specifically list one of the acts included in the list entry, and so has a verifiability issue; also note that there are no clearly defined criteria for inclusion of a film as main stream and none of the sources asserted this film was, but that seems to be more a problem with the article itself. Monty₈₄₅ 07:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion of films either falsely claimed, or debated

I think this article is incomplete without a discussion of films that, in mainstream media and numerous sources, have been the subject of debate, claims, and speculation as to whether the sex featured therein was unsimulated. Two films come to mind. Don't Look Now (dir. Nicholas Roeg) is discussed in a book by Peter Bart, a former editor for Variety, entitled Infamous Players, in which Bart claims, in print, that the scenes between Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie were unsimulated. (This in fact might in itself be enough to justify adding the film to the main list). Wild Orchid (dir. Zalman King) has long been the subject of discussion in mainstream media over whether its sex scenes were real, with the discussion reaching a head during the period when the merits of the then-proposed NC-17 rating were under debate. In addition, I have seen articles suggesting the sex in one of the Scandinavian Levottomat films was unsimulated. That last one is dubious, but there's certainly enough reputable sources (a print book in the first case, numerous articles easily found on Google for the latter) to justify at least a snapshot giving examples of notable films that have had the claim made - and there's enough reputable sources to I think satisfy WP:BLP issues. 70.64.177.79 (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Lust Caution

Could someone add a source (or a "fact" tag) to the listing for Lust, Caution? it's conspicuous by its absence. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 21:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Nymphomaniac

Major media including The Guardian and Huffington Post are reporting that an upcoming Lars Von Trier film, Nymphomaniac is to be released in hardcore and softcore versions. Not sure if this belongs on the list itself as that's for released films, and this one doesn't shoot till 2012, but as the topic of unsimulated sex in mainstream film is being discussed in non-trivial media, this might be worth adding somewhere. In addition, the Huffington Post source can also be used as additional source for verifying unsimulated sex in Antichrist. 68.146.71.145 (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• I'd say Not, for the time being. WP:CRYSTAL, as applied to films, doesn't allow for an article to be created about a film until it's started principal photography. I'd figure that it likewise oughn't be cited here before then.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  18:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Now and Later

Please add this Philippe Diaz's movie (2009, released in 2011) -- Spiessens 12:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiessens (talk • contribs)

Ken Park

The listing for Ken Park indicates the sex is simulated. Assuming the cited source confirms this (I haven't looked), then it probably no longer qualifies for this article and should be removed from the listing, unless the solo scene mentioned counts. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Novecento (also known as "1900")

Bernardo Bertolucci epic from 1976 includes a young boy (Roberto Maccanti, age approx 12) explicitly masturbating to a full erection. Also, a woman (not sure who) takes the penises of Robert DeNiro and Gerard Depardieu into her hands and explicitly fondles them.

Source: http://cndb.com/novecento-1976---t27084.html 70.60.179.74 (talk) 19:24, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• I believe the qualifications for inclusion on this list are unsimulated intercourse or oral sex, neither of which is described here. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Q

The new French film Q needs to be added. Media coverage is confirming unsimulated sex throughout this mainstream release. 68.146.80.110 (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Orgasm Diaries

I saw this on DVD at the Columbus Branch of the New York Public Library. Box blurbs compare 9 Songs negatively to it and imply that it, too, has unsimulated sex. IMDb says this film was titled BrilliantLove in its native UK.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Removed films

Some comments about the removed films "Nuda per satana" and "Les fruits de la passion". Nuda per satana appears to be a "hardcore insert" for pornographic cinemas, and thus not a mainstream release [1] while the generally softcore "Les fruits de la passion" possibly may qualify. (Link to MrSkin blog on blacklist) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wot about .....

I understand that there is a movie or possibly a video clip starring Madonna_(entertainer) where she is actually having sex with her male co-star. Old_Wombat (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)