Talk:List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
List This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 January 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

It seems that a sex scene involving candice michelle in the movie "Hotel Erotica : Model Behavior" includes penetration. The male partner is very close and tight on to her, he is in a kneeled position and she lies back, at times she wraps her legs around his, he keeps very tight to her pelvis but moves back and forth a bit. On three ocassions his penis appears to be sliding in and out of her, two of those on frontal takes, one very visible. The third occassion is a side take which is dark.The frontal take shows an erect penis as the actor pulls back,which disappears as he returns forward, at an angle at which it can only disappear by going inside of her. This movie should be checked out for inclusion in the mainstream explicit sex category.

Contents 1 A Glass of Rage on the list??? 2 In The Cut fellatio scene 3 Confirmation needed 4 Softcore 5 I have trouble accepting 6 References tag 7 Rutger Hauer in Spetters 8 Princesas Fellatio 9 Biographies of living people 10 Cite needed removals 11 Don't think above contributor should have removed all of those films

[edit] A Glass of Rage on the list???

According to an IMDB user, the scene was faked. I can't confirm, but if it is true, then it's inclusion in this list is dubious. http://cruel.imdb.com/title/tt0192713/usercomments

[edit] In The Cut fellatio scene

I remember reading an interview with Jane Campion, the director of In the Cut in which she says that the fellatio scene was performed using some variety of prosthetic. This article would have been around the time In The Cut was first released in Australia. Can anyone find some evidence to confirm this? 61.69.205.211 23:59 28 April 2006 (AEST)

[edit] Confirmation needed

According to the forum at Rotten Tomatoes, a 1997 release called The Life of Jesus had an unsimulated sex scene in it, however when I try to Google the title you can imagine I get quite a different result. If anyone can confirm this release contained this content, please add it to the list. 68.145.252.62 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Softcore

Do softcore movies really count in this list? "The Key to Sex" is a softcore movie.

Although technically a softcore film, as indicated in this article the one scene involving Maria Ford is widely believed to have not been simulated, so, yes, if a softcore movie happens to cross the line then it counts. Play Time was another so-called softcore film with unsimulated elements, and the queen of all softcore films, the original Emmanuelle, still had a scene showing insertion of a cigarette. The key is the films should be listed under the appropriate category, which is why we have confirmed, rumored, and other sublists. 24.71.223.140 18:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have trouble accepting

I don't recognize half of these so-called "mainstream" films. Then again I have trouble accepting foreign films with poor advertisement and poor distribution in the American market to be mainstream. If I have to expand my experience range beyond average to know of its existence then it is not mainstream. --Blue Spider 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream does not mean films that have been released or produced in America. Mainstream basically means any film that isn't either a) privately made or b) marketed via the pornography industry (which also has its own "mainstream"). 23skidoo 03:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References tag

I moved the "Article does not cite references" tag to the Rumors section, as the films are their own primary sources, so therefore no further references are needed. The rumors could probably be cited if anyone can find magazine articles, etc. referring to the rumors. 23skidoo 15:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rutger Hauer in Spetters

Just to correct a recent edit summary by an anonymous editor, Rutger Hauer did indeed act in the film Spetters. He's listed in the credits of the film and also in the IMDb. Whether he participated in the scene in question is another matter. 23skidoo 02:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Princesas Fellatio

Is this scene confirmed as unsimulated? It seems to me that a prosthetic might have been used because the penis is not clearly visible at any point. 82.153.6.179 00.25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies of living people

This article is not exempt from our Wikipedia:Biographies of living people policy. It is not acceptable to state that "the films themselves are the sources" when claiming that actor X can be seen on screen performing unsimulated sex in film Y. All information in this article must be sourced, without exception. Information about named people that has no source has been immediately removed. All editors should work to not permit it to return anywhere in Wikipedia, per our policy, until it is accompanied by a good source. Uncle G 13:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

• I disagree. Often the films are the only sources and that is perfectly acceptable. If you feel otherwise please cite the appropriate line in the BLP policy. Anyway, now that the article is up for AFD it's dead as far as I'm concerned and Wikipedia's anti-adult film bias is about to be victorious again anyway. 23skidoo 14:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The film itself is not a source for a claim that actor X can be seen on screen performing unsimulated sex in film Y. That information cannot be determined from the film itself, as should be obvious. Please read our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Your claim about bias against adult films is a red herring. Wikipedia's bias is against unsourced potentially libellous information about real people that is being inserted by editors who erroneously think that "I watched the film and this is my conclusion." is in accordance with our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Uncle G 22:22, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Where something unambiguous can be seen--Vincent Gallo's penis sitting in Chloe Sevigny's mouth, say, in the Brown Bunny, it's a good deal less ambiguous than when all you can see is bouncing buttocks with the details hidden. That is the sort of thing that can be cited, lacking reasons to the contrary. However, most films have an explicit or implied disclaimer to the effect that "the events portrayed herein are fictional." True, that's really directed at the characters, and their actions, more than at the actors and their actions. But it means that everything on the screen could in principle have been made to appear so in any way at all.

The point is: It is surely alright to cite a scene from a documentary--or a news programme or "reality" show, for that matter, where the publication of the work contains a claim that it portrays the truth. Fiction films make no such claim.

[edit] Cite needed removals

Please note the removals made with this edit -- and replace the content as reliable sources are located. (jarbarf) 23:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know how to make a proper citation about a film for films are primary sources. My edit about Walerian Borowczyk film Les Héroïnes du mal is deleted. Even Le Diable au corps with Maruschka Detmers is deleted. OK, man, go delete them all! Behemoth 19:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Don't think above contributor should have removed all of those films

Most (if not all) of those films that were listed and consequently removed by jarbarf were 100% correct but simply didn't have citations. By removing them, you've greatly shortened the list and therefore (ironically) made the article LESS accurate. It's hard to find citations for these types of things. I really think you should have left it as is without the citations, but being a Wiki newbie, I'm reluctant to revert it because I don't know if what you did is 'standard' practice. 151.202.75.237 08:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right! It is nonserious to ask for secondary citations when the movies themselves are primal sources. -84.62.220.253 23:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)