Talk:Sex in film

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

Sexology and sexuality Mid‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Chintanpatel2634. Peer reviewers: Tmanyrath, Dfee2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

Isn't the 2nd paragraph (Some have called... extremely subjective ? 82.41.76.204 19:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The entire article is "extremely subjective". No one who knows anything about the history of the cinema would take it seriously.

OK, so this article says that Sex, lies, and videotape "almost ruined the careers of the stars that participated in it", and the article for that film says it "boosted the careers of Soderbergh and the four major cast members." One or both of these statements is wrong or POV. Tverbeek 14:03, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Partial list of films showing nude or underwear scenes

The partial list of films showing nude or underwear scenes does not belong here. Eroticism and nudity aren't the same thing.

In response to User:AntonioMartin's edit summary "put list back; a list is good because it can help parents choose which films to let their children watch or not": The list is (and always will be) woefully incomplete. This article is not the place for it anyway; if someone wants to know about the content of a film before their kids see it, and they are looking around Wikipedia for it, their first thought will not be to look for the article "Eroticism in film." If parents want to know if films are appropriate for their children or not, there are much better online sources, like Screen It, among others.

If anyone insists that this list should stay in Wikipedia, it should be split off into its own article. Tregoweth 15:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Tregoweth: Do you know what an encyclopedia is? It is an information way. That's why the list should be included in the article, which, by the way, is precisely about that. It IS a good way to maintain parents informed more or less of what is recommendable or not for children to watch. I have a six year old girl in my house and I appreciate any place where such a list is posted.

I want to kindly ask you that next time you have something to tell me, please post it at my talk page.

Thank you and God bless you.

Sincerely yours, "Antonio Max Martin"

The title of this article is "eroticism in film", not "films with erotic content" (and certainly not "films containing nudity"). That means its focus should be the eroticism, not the specific films. The only reasonable purpose of a list of films in an article of this sort is to provide examples to illustrate the content of the article. The fact that the person who started it labeled it a "partial list" suggests that he may have been thinking of it that way. Unfortunately the list is very haphazard, with little consistency in terms of which films are included or not, and in most cases little or no explanation of why. I think no list is better than a bad list, especially if people are going to try to use it as some kind of guide for parents, for which it's woefully inadequate and probably misleading.

If I were writing an article about, say, TV shows about police officers, I might list a bunch of noteworthy examples... but I wouldn't try to create a list of all shows that law enforcement officers appear in, so that it could be used by people who wanted to avoid seeing cops on TV. That would miss the point of the article. I also think it'd be doomed to failure (for that purpose). But if someone wants to create a list of that sort, they should go ahead and create list of TV Shows with Police Officers or list of Movies with Nude or Underwear Scenes, which would at least be objective, and wouldn't confuse "eroticism in film" with "nudity or underwear in film". Meanwhile, this article should focus on describing how eroticism is handled in cinema, citing examples only to the extent that they support the points made in the article. Tverbeek 23:39, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is this article for real? V V 13:19, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Is it encyclopedic? Is is a credit to Wikipedia? The article perhaps is if it is done NPOV characterizing the subject fairly including the important POV that the subject is a problem. That is to say, "eroticism in films is a problem." See WP:NPOV if in doubt. I doubt the list of films is important. Is is bound to be way too long, and it is questionable why a "partial" list is chosen. The idea of "maintain parents informed more or less of what is recommendable or not for children to watch" doesn't work if the list isn't complete. Parents should use other sources, like Focus on the Family's Plugged In or (gasp) the ratings system. In my family if it isn't ancient or rated G, it is suspect. Tom - Talk 17:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the list is worthless. It has only a tangential connection to the topic, in that eroticism may (or may not) involve nudity and nudity may (or may not) be erotic. And I can't discern any criteria regarding why certain movies were listed on there, other than those may just be the only films that the author had seen. Finally, I don't think it is at all a valid goal for wikipedia to try and construct a list that would "warn" parents of "inappropriate content," because the values involved are inherently POV and we simply don't have the responsibility to try and provide that service for parents. I think that the article (which is pretty lousy right now) should properly discuss the reaction of certain elements in society to eroticism in film, through criticism, censorship, boycotts, etc., but should not provide a guide of what films some parents may not want their children to see (because remember, breasts cause blindness). The day that wikipedia starts pandering to social conservatives based on some clumsy notion of "protecting" children is the day that I stop contributing. Postdlf 22:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"(a couple of panty scenes)" Mmm-hmm. That's encyclopædic, baby! [[User:MikeX|—MikeX (Talk)]] 15:50, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Very interesting articles. I say make another list for partial nudity. As well as 'eroticism' is highly vague, it should perhaps be called nudity, and another list for sexuality/'eroticism' with some films being in multiple categories. --ShaunMacPherson 02:16, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The list should go. Instead (if you really want something like this), make 'films with nudity' and 'films people in visible underwear' categories (though I doubt there'll be consensus for having that last category. But you can try). --fvw 01:37, 2004 Oct 15 (UTC)

Ick. I don't think we should have categories of either. List article of the nudity films, maybe. But categories? Nope. Postdlf 02:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Tom - Talk 02:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Feminism

"Many erotically charged films have been produced in the Philippines, much to the chagrin of feminists in that country."

"Many feminists view eroticism and/or sex in film as exploitive of women, because women are usually the ones that are shown erotically or as targets of erotic desire. This is similar to feminist critiques of western art throughout history—that it treats women as mere subjects of a male gaze. This is not a universal view, however; see sex-positive feminism."

Does this mean that a feminist either denounces all erotic/sexual content or discards the thought of "the male gaze"? This assumption seems problematic to me. The quotation on the subject on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex-positive_feminism is from 20 years ago and I'm doubtful that it's representative to all strains of feminism, not to mention all feminists, anyway.

Cinematoraphy and acting

Wouldn't this article be more relelvant and encyclopaedic if it included discussion of techniques used and challenges in acting, setting and filming sex scenes? Unfortunately I'm neither an actor or a film-maker so I can't provide any real input to this article, but I found it quite light and un-interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.207.167 (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of India

I don't get why there has to be a special mention about Indian movies. They don't have any sex , even remotely. Period. This article is not about attitudes of sex in films. I am removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.201.5 (talk) 09:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scream Reference (Sidney Prescott)

I am pretty certain that Sidney didn't have sex with Billy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.36.214.99 (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV section way outdated

It would appear the TV section relates to the state of television prior to about the year 2002. Anyone who has watched ABC, HBO, Netflix, etc. in recent years - and also soap operas - will know that the expression of sexuality has become more frequent and explicit in recent years, even in televised programming supposedly aimed at younger viewers and on mainstream television. Definitely needs an overhaul and updating. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]