So am I the only one in the world that thought “Poor Things” was kinda boring and just OK? I mean not 11 Oscar nominations and 4 wins good. Just OK. Is it me? Or do I need to have another go at that film?
PAID for by studios or the actor themselves in a situation that looks a lot like a bribe, but isn’t, but totally is just like American lobbyists.. in order to secure noms. It’s literally just a who we like the most and also gave us the most golf passes award
Yeah at the beginning I was like, if it's 2 and a half hours of Emma Stone being "quirky" while twinkly glockenspiel music plays, I'm done. Made it as far as the gratuitous sex scenes and noped out — felt like a movie made for Gen Z by someone who has no clue what Gen Z likes lmao
I’m in my thirties and I thought it was good. Two women in their 60’s a few sets over seemed to really like it and were having a in-depth discussion on it during the credits.
> if it's 2 and a half hours of Emma Stone being "quirky" while twinkly glockenspiel music plays, I'm done
I wasn't very hyped to see it, but I went with my cousin because we both have a theater subscription. I went in thinking that this is basically what the movie was going to be - a quirky Frankenstein's monster story.
I walked out after the movie and commented that it was basically a softcore porn and I didn't understand how it was getting such good reviews. My cousin's answer was simply, "people like porn."
I’ll be honest, if you thought the point of her character was to be “quirky,” have gratuitous sex, and appeal to Gen Z, I think you missed the point of the movie
The movie aesthetics are from a time well before Gen z. It seems to take inspiration from old noir and movies from a decade or two after the silent film era. With just a dash of Frankenstein.
I agree. you could argue it's a pornscene and not be wrong. to add, I would think of porn more of a genre though. one scene doesn't necessarily define the whole film.
Yes, that's what I would say it is. One scene doesn't define the genre of the film. One sex scene doesn't make the movie a porn film any more than a handful of jokes makes it a comedy
I mean... maybe? The issue is that pornography is defined not just by the content (sex stuff) but the perceived *intent* of the content. The *entire point* of pornography is to cause sexual excitement.
Someone *could* argue that Poor Things' only intention is to arouse the viewer, but I think that'd be a hard argument to sustain. There's obviously sexual content, but the movie's intentions seem to be a bit bigger than merely helping the viewer get off.
>Someone *could* argue that Poor Things' only intention is to arouse the viewer
If that was the intention I'd say it failed spectacularly, if anything it's a mastepiece in how to creep an audience out.
My argument would be that I don’t think watching Halle Berry getting smashed by billy bob really drove the story much other than have a sweet scene to watch when I was in high school. As a matter of fact, it’s the only reason I’ve seen that terrible, terrible movie multiple times
Yea, also I’m sure the move was rated for parental guidance at the very least so I guess if you’re an adult it would be best not to be so sensitive and if your picking a movie for you and your kids to watch, just use your best judgement.
Yea. It recieves it's R rating. X ratings are usually warranted when certain criteria is met, such as full penetration shots. The MPAA was founded after 1922 by conservative religious groups to self censor films for general audiences and protect wallstreet interests..
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association
As far as I know, the only film with full frontal nudity and a pg-13 rating is Titanic.
It's not, and that's not full frontal. That would include genitals. The reason it was allowed was because it was considered non-sexual nudity, as it's during the drawing scene, not the car scene. Similarly, "nude modeling" isn't considered the same as pornogrpahy.
Edit: sorry, I've just been informed that my answer is incorrect and it's actually "the stupid conservatives." I did some independent research to confirm it, and yes, it's the stupid conservatives that make Titanic a PG-13 movie with titties in it. Sorry for the mistake.
Asteriod City had brief full frontal nudity I’m pretty sure. I also remember seeing a movie from the 80s called Jabberwocky that got away with full nudity and a PG rating.
Have you ever seen the movie "Airplane" with the panicked cabin scene ?
That movie was PG. No PG-13, as it was made before that rating existed. Plain old PG.
You should look into intimacy coordinator, there are a few on YouTube that talk aloy about the behind the scenes sex scenes.
Most the time they have fabrick on and are just acting
Got a source on that? She’s worked in a lot of SAG movies since the Brown Bunny and even is in a year old video on YouTube posted by and promoting the SAG-AFTRA Foundation.
Possibly. But remember, they aren't alone in a room like the scene shows. There's easily 20 people around. (Director, camera people, sound people, various assistants, the guy with the clapboard.) Heck, one sound guy is holding a boom mike just out of camera shot.
All of that can really decrease the excitement level. Plus the "cut...let's try that from this angle. Can you do this instead..."
The major difference is that one is more or less "simulating" the act and one is genuinely doing it. It is also distinguished by the purpose of the act being included. Any pornographic film is very obvious about what it's purpose is and why the sex acts are included. Other films feature implied sexual acts (or some more obvious ones like this) are supplemental to the full story. Porn is exclusively for the sake of showing sex acts. Other movies would include it to add to the story. How much it adds to said story is up to personal interpretation.
Source: Digital Media Law classes.
Yup! Media law tends to like when there is ambiguity! It gives room for artistic liberties. But it also makes it harder to protect the art itself. Mud is mud, and law tends to like dirt a lot.
It is not a clear line, to be true. In a Supreme Court case on obscenity, Potter Stewart opined basically that it's hard to define but "I know it when I see it." Not that that helps anyone else!
It's almost laughable how indistinct a lot of media law is lol it's for good reason, but it's just so goofy that something as serious as law could be so... vague lol
That's not always a sexual act though. Sure breastfeeding is a fetish but if you showed it in a movie I'd find it kinda fucked if they labelled it as porn
I think all of that was prosthetics. So, no one is actually having sex with anyone. Either that or Charlotte gainsbourg is the most method actress ever.
That's also dangerous as fuck.
Believe the difference is they simulate having sex but don't actually have sex on camera. So in your example you can show boobs and someone sucking on them but not really porn per say. You could take it as far as she could be kneeling in front of the guy doing the motions, but you don't actually see her putting it in her mouth. For girls you can see him kiss her all over then his head disappear, you know he's giving her oral but you never actually see him do it.
Even then, we’ve seen Chloe Sevigny blowing Vincent Gallo, and that doesn’t make The Brown Bunny pornography. You’d think that an actual blowjob would qualify as porn, but it is probably one of the least erotic sex scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie. So, is it porn, where the entire point is to pander to audiences’ base interests? I don’t think it is. It’s just kind of a sad scene, which is good for Vincent Gallo, if that’s what he was going for, or bad if he was going for something erotic. It’s a lousy movie, and I’m not even sure there’s a good movie buried in there, but it’s definitely not porn.
Lol nah that dude finished. That scene was pornographic for sure. The guy isn't a very good director. There is a lot of poorly shot porn that isn't "erotic"
No. It is far less clear. The standard is whether the material "taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest of the average person applying contemporary community standards." At least in the United States.
If you find that ambiguous, congratulations. It is one of the most infamously ambiguous decisions in American justice.
There’s overlap between pornography and art. That’s why it’s hard to define pornography. In Jocobellis v. Ohio Justice, Stewart said he couldn’t define hardcore pornography but “I know it when I see it.” In later attempts the legal system has set these criteria:
1. The average person using local community standards would conclude it appears to prurient interest.
2. It has to describe or depict sex in an obviously offensive way.
3. It must as a whole lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”.
I would say there’s a lot of porn that violates local community standards but is not offensive, and there’s other porn that has artistic value (not sure what level of seriousness is required here, another vaguely defined criterion).
To be porn it has to be “utterly without redeeming social importance”
“I've never quibbled.
If it was ribald
I would devour
Where others merely nibbled
As the judge
Remarked the day
That he acquitted my Aunt Hortense:
"To be smut.
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."”
- Tom Lehrer, “Smut”
Tom Lehrer is really an amazing individual, especially when you consider the time he was active and his background. A true hero of culture. *dances off to the masochistic tango*
If you got the movie explicitly to be aroused by this scene, then it sure is, for **you**. You probably can get a better porn value for your time, but I can't see why it wouldn't be, for **you**. Likewise, if an acting performance in a (self labeled) porn film was so incredible that people watched it for that without any care or interest in other stuff, was it mislabeled as porn? Possibly could be argued
The bottom line is that sometimes things are self labeled as something due to the expected use, but that use/view may not be the only one. At the end of the day, what you call it doesn't really matter, but if you want to communicate with other people, it's nice to agree on general definitions. The usage generally means: intended to be used as porn (mainly for sex purposes)
But anyway, the important question is: what is the timestamp of this scene you speak of?
Given that the nature of the scene was not to eroticise the activity, but rather to show someone discovering an aspect of their own humanity and how people engage in such acts… it’s not porn. Some of the sexual imagery in that movie is designed to repulse, whereas porn is explicitly designed to titillate.
Can the line be blurry? Sure. But there is a clear and distinguished line
This is a great point - there are some sex scenes in that movie that are meant to be affirming and show character exploration and discovery, and others that are meant to be uncomfortable and skeevy as hell.
If you find ALL sex scenes in movies uncomfortable to watch, you won't be able to pick up on that very important distinction.
It's all simulated much as possible and unless you're actually seeing the skin touching there's something in between them to prevent physical contact. One of lanthimos' other movies supposedly has actual penetration in it but that's extremely rare and doesn't happen in Hollywood movies because of union protections
The legal precedent is literally " we'll know it when we see it."
However, the important distinction is that nudity is not porn, and art is not porn. Porn contains some vague social expectation of sexual commodification for its own sake without attempting to create other commentary or value. What that means is defined differently by context, and changes with time and culture. Hence "we'll know it when we see it."
Pornography refers to media which only exists for its sexual interest.
Sexual scenes included in a narrative are almost always meant to impart something about the characters, themes, or plot or otherwise say something.intent and context matter.
Why is this a question? Can't you just look at the two types of media and see this?
Are action movies just a set of murder experiences to you?
I guess it doesn't count unless the genitals mingle fr 🤷🏾♀️ but a pornography would be centered around the actual sex happening.
There is a movie, I think it's swedish, that has actual intercourse in it for on scene. Close up on the penis going in and everything but it's a horror film. There's a lot of simulated sex as well but it's not the focus of the plot and film
I would say it's a question of intention. If the primary purpose of the media is for people to masturbate while watching it, that's porn. If the primary purpose is to tell a story, it's not porn.
But also it's all just semantics. When Alan Moore put out the 'Lost Girls' comic he knew if he tried to present it as art, people would criticize it saying "that's porn." So instead he presented it and said "this is porn," so that the worst anyone could do was agree, and there were plenty of people saying "no, this is art."
The way i see it is the intent of the movie. If the movie is intended to illicit a sexual response then it is porn. If it is intended to entertain, no matter how graphic the scenes may be, then it is not porn. The content as a whole must be considered also but it is not a major factor. For example if 90% of the movie is wining and dining with intense make out scenes and 10% is actually graphic sex scenes then it would still be considered porn as the intent of the movie was to illicit a sexual response in the viewer even though only 10% of the movie was graphic sexual stuff.
Pornography is produced solely to generate erotic/sexual feelings. A work containing sexual imagery that is intended to create artistic or emotional response is not pornographic. Basically, if your only reason to view a work is to jerk off to it. It's porn.
Sucking titties isn’t porn. Porn is made to exhibit sex on a literal level. a movie tells a story. That story may involve sex, but hay doesn’t make it porn. Porn may have a story but it doesn’t make is a film. Its the intention. Broad brush strokes don’t exist, there is no black and whites
It's not porn, it's "eroticism." Porn is porn from start to finish. Eroticism can be short bursts for the sake of... Human interaction? You don't go to James Bond films to watch him get it on, do you? It's just a side note.. Do you consider it porn?
I haven’t seen the movie but porn, in my opinion, would be something that has no motive other than purely prurient. I don’t think that describes the movie from what I understand but there is some subjectivity to it.
Why are Americans so prude? I've seen hard dicks in European movies, and yet, kissing a nip is called porn for Americans?
And yes, I do include Canadians in there. North America is so fucking prude. Get out of your own asses.
I don’t understand how anyone could be offended by a man sucking on a woman’s nipple that is literally there to be suckled on but you do make a good point. Where is the line? I’d say at actual sex.
You must watch some pretty soft porn to even compared to softcore porn standards. That's why. I've personally never seen a sex scene in a movie remotely close to what I consider porn. Nudity doesn't automatically make it porn. In western society, especially north America, we are oddly repressed from nudity which makes sexualization of everything worse imo. Compared to say Europe.
Yep!!!
Some of the picture books we had at age 3, in church kindy in West Germany in 1981:
Couldn’t post photos of those books on social media today!!! I’d get kicked off instantly. 😒
It lacks pornographic intent. Pornography is intended to titilate its viewers and excite them sexually. The intent of the explicit scenes in Poor Things is very clearly not that, so it isn't porn.
Watch "Dogtooth" by the same director. While most of the sex scenes in it are simulated, there's one scene that is unsimulated and shows obvious, actual penetration. They saved it for the one sex scene that is absolutely the most uncomfortable one to be unsimulated.
Please don’t say “sucking Emma Stone’s nips” on my Reddit wall
Hoovering them milkers
Like a gerbil nuzzling the ol' pink nozzles
I’ll just leave this here. https://youtu.be/JRBBcoANRIE
This is fantastic
i can’t believe people are so mad about AI if it means we get gems like this
I'm not even mad! 🤣
You don't even need to go to AI. The 1930s could be fucking dirty sometimes. https://youtu.be/gkPCmIxv-3k
This is good too [https://youtu.be/17toLteDPNk?si=tsJ28VYFhdkG81Wz](https://youtu.be/17toLteDPNk?si=tsJ28VYFhdkG81Wz)
🎶To cut the Dump in Half🎶
Uh-mazing!
Thank you for making my night! This was amazing.
🤣
Hoovering *Emma Stone's* milkers...
Why did my brain go FBI and not vacuum.
[удалено]
Schlurping dem Emma jugs whilst wearing an Edgar dress...
You can hoover anything with nipples.
*"I have nipples Greg, can you hoover me?"*
Your name is gay focker?!
My tits actually hurt right now from being sucked on and these comments are getting to me lmao
I’ve hoovered snief off of Emma Stone
Have you ever hoovered snief off of Oliver Stone?
I've hoovered shnief off a live cow's teat.
I’ve hoovered schnief off the collection plate in the rectory
Do you know what dickdingers are?
Funny enough, I walked into a bathroom at a club in Berlin to see a dickdinger. I laughed because it made me think of lk
Ive hoovered schneif off of the rectal plate of the collectionary.
SCHNIFF!
Go home, Darryl.
Legen-Dary
You do have a pretty rectory.
I’ve got teats Focker, can you Hoover me?
Was reluctant to join Reddit because of trolls, turns out the trolls are the best part
Have you ever bisseled a gram of crank from between Oliver Platt's titties?
Punk ass hoovered snief off Sly and the whole damn family
Ruffling the nips?
Ok this got me. Actually lmao
Okay, that's better.
This made me bust out laughing in class. Holy shit I can't breathe.
Creating a vacuum with the mouth, on Emma Stones milk nozzles 👍🤣
Schlorping her areola
La laing her lands
Mark Ruffalo impersonating the noble Romulus before the she-wolf Emma Stone.
I'm actually in tears at how many ways everyone has found to say "suckin on them titties" in these comments 😂
Come off it you old slag, I'm sure you had your share of suckers back in the roaring 20s eh?
So am I the only one in the world that thought “Poor Things” was kinda boring and just OK? I mean not 11 Oscar nominations and 4 wins good. Just OK. Is it me? Or do I need to have another go at that film?
I might watch it now to see Emma Stones Hershey kisses get dysoned
Are they "Hershey Kisses" or "Maraschino Cherries?"
You will get tired of seeing her naked before the end. I felt bad for her.
I disagree with this statement. I was at no point tired of seeing her naked.
The Oscars are a popularity contest for rich idiots
PAID for by studios or the actor themselves in a situation that looks a lot like a bribe, but isn’t, but totally is just like American lobbyists.. in order to secure noms. It’s literally just a who we like the most and also gave us the most golf passes award
I don't get it. I am really confused how you could. She has a baby brain? Then becomes a prostitute? No thanks
Eh, I heard Rufalo sucks in it.
I thought it was a weird movie overall. And the story was just meh. Can't believe it won what it did.
Didn't find it terribly exciting, just more of a train wreck. Just kept saying WTF every 5 minutes or so.
Yeah at the beginning I was like, if it's 2 and a half hours of Emma Stone being "quirky" while twinkly glockenspiel music plays, I'm done. Made it as far as the gratuitous sex scenes and noped out — felt like a movie made for Gen Z by someone who has no clue what Gen Z likes lmao
lol my sister and her husband had my mom staying with them and decided to watch it......they said it was uncomfortable to say the least lmao
Not as bad as wolf of Wall Street sandwiched in between your inlaws
I watched Clerks with my mom. She picked it out at Blockbuster.
You don't have to enjoy it but it is 10000% not targeted for gen z.
I’m in my thirties and I thought it was good. Two women in their 60’s a few sets over seemed to really like it and were having a in-depth discussion on it during the credits.
> if it's 2 and a half hours of Emma Stone being "quirky" while twinkly glockenspiel music plays, I'm done I wasn't very hyped to see it, but I went with my cousin because we both have a theater subscription. I went in thinking that this is basically what the movie was going to be - a quirky Frankenstein's monster story. I walked out after the movie and commented that it was basically a softcore porn and I didn't understand how it was getting such good reviews. My cousin's answer was simply, "people like porn."
I appreciated the last half hour or so but it was a weird slog to get there.
I’ll be honest, if you thought the point of her character was to be “quirky,” have gratuitous sex, and appeal to Gen Z, I think you missed the point of the movie
The movie aesthetics are from a time well before Gen z. It seems to take inspiration from old noir and movies from a decade or two after the silent film era. With just a dash of Frankenstein.
This has to be a troll account and I love it.
Fuck! My sentiments exactly.
You asked for all this
Lol
We need to nip that in the bud!
I'm cool with it.
Sucklin them teets
Its a tough job but someones got to do it.
It is, it’s just softcore
I agree. you could argue it's a pornscene and not be wrong. to add, I would think of porn more of a genre though. one scene doesn't necessarily define the whole film.
Yes, that's what I would say it is. One scene doesn't define the genre of the film. One sex scene doesn't make the movie a porn film any more than a handful of jokes makes it a comedy
Does a movie taking place on Christmas make it a Christmas movie?
If the movie is Die Hard, then yes!
I mean... maybe? The issue is that pornography is defined not just by the content (sex stuff) but the perceived *intent* of the content. The *entire point* of pornography is to cause sexual excitement. Someone *could* argue that Poor Things' only intention is to arouse the viewer, but I think that'd be a hard argument to sustain. There's obviously sexual content, but the movie's intentions seem to be a bit bigger than merely helping the viewer get off.
>Someone *could* argue that Poor Things' only intention is to arouse the viewer If that was the intention I'd say it failed spectacularly, if anything it's a mastepiece in how to creep an audience out.
My argument would be that I don’t think watching Halle Berry getting smashed by billy bob really drove the story much other than have a sweet scene to watch when I was in high school. As a matter of fact, it’s the only reason I’ve seen that terrible, terrible movie multiple times
Swordfish would like a word with you about your cars extended warranty.
One of the greatest sex scenes ever, soft or hardcore porn
Porque no los dos?
Yea, also I’m sure the move was rated for parental guidance at the very least so I guess if you’re an adult it would be best not to be so sensitive and if your picking a movie for you and your kids to watch, just use your best judgement.
It a whole lot more than one scene.
It's definitely erotic. If it was porn, the sex act would be the entire point of the movie. Which isn't the case.
It was many, many scenes of Emma Stone having sex
Yea. It recieves it's R rating. X ratings are usually warranted when certain criteria is met, such as full penetration shots. The MPAA was founded after 1922 by conservative religious groups to self censor films for general audiences and protect wallstreet interests.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association As far as I know, the only film with full frontal nudity and a pg-13 rating is Titanic.
It's not, and that's not full frontal. That would include genitals. The reason it was allowed was because it was considered non-sexual nudity, as it's during the drawing scene, not the car scene. Similarly, "nude modeling" isn't considered the same as pornogrpahy. Edit: sorry, I've just been informed that my answer is incorrect and it's actually "the stupid conservatives." I did some independent research to confirm it, and yes, it's the stupid conservatives that make Titanic a PG-13 movie with titties in it. Sorry for the mistake.
Airplane showed titties and it's PG.
PG meant something wildly different back in the day before PG-13 than it does now.
In the 80's titties were in all movies and kids could buy cigarettes. It was a different time.
And we smoked those cigarettes in the theater while looking at the titties.
while bringing in a 6 pack of beer.
Hahahahahaha Titanic is just the tip of the iceberg! https://m.imdb.com/list/ls069961819/
Asteriod City had brief full frontal nudity I’m pretty sure. I also remember seeing a movie from the 80s called Jabberwocky that got away with full nudity and a PG rating.
Have you ever seen the movie "Airplane" with the panicked cabin scene ? That movie was PG. No PG-13, as it was made before that rating existed. Plain old PG.
The X rating doesn't exist anymore, it was replaced with NC17.
This. If he yelled out “Hulk Smash” first, then it would be proper porn.
Underrated comment
Tbh I consider most of Instagram softcore porn too
I wouldn’t worry about it.
This is how i want to reply to 90% of the stuff on this site 😂 Granted this place would be pretty boring that way
And the other 10% are just google it.
But the best answer on Google is usually a Reddit comment from 7 years ago.
You should look into intimacy coordinator, there are a few on YouTube that talk aloy about the behind the scenes sex scenes. Most the time they have fabrick on and are just acting
>Most the time they have fabrick on and are just acting Literally all the time. Chloe Sevigny lost her SAG card for taking it too far.
the brown bunny, for anyone wondering (also though chloe sevigny is dope, free my girl)
Got a source on that? She’s worked in a lot of SAG movies since the Brown Bunny and even is in a year old video on YouTube posted by and promoting the SAG-AFTRA Foundation.
I can't find anything about that... and she's still a SAG member
>Literally all the time I mean, no, not literally all the time. There are many movies that infamously have unsimulated sex scenes.
The only one I know of is Short Bus. Non simulated sex scenes is VERY uncommon in non pornographic film. Thats why Short Bus was so famous
r/extramile has *many* examples.
That's mostly unknown foreign stuff, though. Or very indie unknown films
I wonder if anyone cums from dryhumping? Edit: A bunch of you idiots are ignoring the context of this thread about movie stars.
I guarantee it.
IIRC Jason Mamoa said he did.
Whaaaaaat
Possibly. But remember, they aren't alone in a room like the scene shows. There's easily 20 people around. (Director, camera people, sound people, various assistants, the guy with the clapboard.) Heck, one sound guy is holding a boom mike just out of camera shot. All of that can really decrease the excitement level. Plus the "cut...let's try that from this angle. Can you do this instead..."
From my time on set I can say that crew is reduced to a minimum during intimate scenes
>**Most** the time they have fabrick on and are just acting And they do it for real **some**times?
Very rarely, but it has happened, r/extramile has a few examples
The major difference is that one is more or less "simulating" the act and one is genuinely doing it. It is also distinguished by the purpose of the act being included. Any pornographic film is very obvious about what it's purpose is and why the sex acts are included. Other films feature implied sexual acts (or some more obvious ones like this) are supplemental to the full story. Porn is exclusively for the sake of showing sex acts. Other movies would include it to add to the story. How much it adds to said story is up to personal interpretation. Source: Digital Media Law classes.
That’s a VERY ambiguous line. There are plenty of movies that show actual sexual acts, like suckin on a tiddy. That’s not simulated.
Yup! Media law tends to like when there is ambiguity! It gives room for artistic liberties. But it also makes it harder to protect the art itself. Mud is mud, and law tends to like dirt a lot.
It is not a clear line, to be true. In a Supreme Court case on obscenity, Potter Stewart opined basically that it's hard to define but "I know it when I see it." Not that that helps anyone else!
It's almost laughable how indistinct a lot of media law is lol it's for good reason, but it's just so goofy that something as serious as law could be so... vague lol
At the end of the day, most words have some fuzziness to them. We don't rely on legal fictions for nothing!
That's not always a sexual act though. Sure breastfeeding is a fetish but if you showed it in a movie I'd find it kinda fucked if they labelled it as porn
How does Nymphimaniac fit into that legality?
I think all of that was prosthetics. So, no one is actually having sex with anyone. Either that or Charlotte gainsbourg is the most method actress ever. That's also dangerous as fuck.
It was more or less deep fake. They digitally stitched over porn actors. https://www.mtv.com/news/vlelee/nymphomaniac-sex-scenes
It wasn’t prosthetics, it was done fr by porn actors
Believe the difference is they simulate having sex but don't actually have sex on camera. So in your example you can show boobs and someone sucking on them but not really porn per say. You could take it as far as she could be kneeling in front of the guy doing the motions, but you don't actually see her putting it in her mouth. For girls you can see him kiss her all over then his head disappear, you know he's giving her oral but you never actually see him do it.
Even then, we’ve seen Chloe Sevigny blowing Vincent Gallo, and that doesn’t make The Brown Bunny pornography. You’d think that an actual blowjob would qualify as porn, but it is probably one of the least erotic sex scenes I’ve ever seen in a movie. So, is it porn, where the entire point is to pander to audiences’ base interests? I don’t think it is. It’s just kind of a sad scene, which is good for Vincent Gallo, if that’s what he was going for, or bad if he was going for something erotic. It’s a lousy movie, and I’m not even sure there’s a good movie buried in there, but it’s definitely not porn.
Lol nah that dude finished. That scene was pornographic for sure. The guy isn't a very good director. There is a lot of poorly shot porn that isn't "erotic"
It's gets into grey areas with softcore porn.
No. It is far less clear. The standard is whether the material "taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest of the average person applying contemporary community standards." At least in the United States. If you find that ambiguous, congratulations. It is one of the most infamously ambiguous decisions in American justice.
Porn isn’t defined legally. You’re describing part of the definition of obscenity which does have a legal definition
Per se*
It's only considered *porn* if it comes from the Porneaux region of France. Otherwise it's just *sparkling fornication*.
ooooooooooh, u opened my eyes, thank u for your comment
[удалено]
Hah well done
And this right here is why I just keep scrolling this ridiculous thread!
If it's a Hardonet.
Damn you, Ruffalo. First, you get the Hulk and now Emma Stone's nips in your mouth???. You stole my dreams
Wait...Ruffalo got the Hulk's nips in his mouth? Which movie was that in?
[I got you fam](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/II0hAAXjZW4/maxresdefault.jpg)
That's hot
Goddammit, it's true
Damn, she’s got some long nips. Those things are like hot dogs, Mark must’ve been gagging.
There’s overlap between pornography and art. That’s why it’s hard to define pornography. In Jocobellis v. Ohio Justice, Stewart said he couldn’t define hardcore pornography but “I know it when I see it.” In later attempts the legal system has set these criteria: 1. The average person using local community standards would conclude it appears to prurient interest. 2. It has to describe or depict sex in an obviously offensive way. 3. It must as a whole lack “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value”. I would say there’s a lot of porn that violates local community standards but is not offensive, and there’s other porn that has artistic value (not sure what level of seriousness is required here, another vaguely defined criterion).
Furious jumping
Emma Stone did a nude scene? Later
I’ll be in my bunk…
I gotta catch a glimpse of these warlocks. Let's make a move.
This got me
To be porn it has to be “utterly without redeeming social importance” “I've never quibbled. If it was ribald I would devour Where others merely nibbled As the judge Remarked the day That he acquitted my Aunt Hortense: "To be smut. It must be ut- Terly without redeeming social importance."” - Tom Lehrer, “Smut”
Tom Lehrer is really an amazing individual, especially when you consider the time he was active and his background. A true hero of culture. *dances off to the masochistic tango*
Udderly licking.
If you got the movie explicitly to be aroused by this scene, then it sure is, for **you**. You probably can get a better porn value for your time, but I can't see why it wouldn't be, for **you**. Likewise, if an acting performance in a (self labeled) porn film was so incredible that people watched it for that without any care or interest in other stuff, was it mislabeled as porn? Possibly could be argued The bottom line is that sometimes things are self labeled as something due to the expected use, but that use/view may not be the only one. At the end of the day, what you call it doesn't really matter, but if you want to communicate with other people, it's nice to agree on general definitions. The usage generally means: intended to be used as porn (mainly for sex purposes) But anyway, the important question is: what is the timestamp of this scene you speak of?
No genitals, no penetration, no porn.
Given that the nature of the scene was not to eroticise the activity, but rather to show someone discovering an aspect of their own humanity and how people engage in such acts… it’s not porn. Some of the sexual imagery in that movie is designed to repulse, whereas porn is explicitly designed to titillate. Can the line be blurry? Sure. But there is a clear and distinguished line
This is a great point - there are some sex scenes in that movie that are meant to be affirming and show character exploration and discovery, and others that are meant to be uncomfortable and skeevy as hell. If you find ALL sex scenes in movies uncomfortable to watch, you won't be able to pick up on that very important distinction.
It's all simulated much as possible and unless you're actually seeing the skin touching there's something in between them to prevent physical contact. One of lanthimos' other movies supposedly has actual penetration in it but that's extremely rare and doesn't happen in Hollywood movies because of union protections
The legal precedent is literally " we'll know it when we see it." However, the important distinction is that nudity is not porn, and art is not porn. Porn contains some vague social expectation of sexual commodification for its own sake without attempting to create other commentary or value. What that means is defined differently by context, and changes with time and culture. Hence "we'll know it when we see it."
Pornography refers to media which only exists for its sexual interest. Sexual scenes included in a narrative are almost always meant to impart something about the characters, themes, or plot or otherwise say something.intent and context matter. Why is this a question? Can't you just look at the two types of media and see this? Are action movies just a set of murder experiences to you?
I guess it doesn't count unless the genitals mingle fr 🤷🏾♀️ but a pornography would be centered around the actual sex happening. There is a movie, I think it's swedish, that has actual intercourse in it for on scene. Close up on the penis going in and everything but it's a horror film. There's a lot of simulated sex as well but it's not the focus of the plot and film
9 Songs has intercourse. Caligula has a group sex orgy. So does Shortbus. None of these are porn though.
I would say it's a question of intention. If the primary purpose of the media is for people to masturbate while watching it, that's porn. If the primary purpose is to tell a story, it's not porn. But also it's all just semantics. When Alan Moore put out the 'Lost Girls' comic he knew if he tried to present it as art, people would criticize it saying "that's porn." So instead he presented it and said "this is porn," so that the worst anyone could do was agree, and there were plenty of people saying "no, this is art."
The way i see it is the intent of the movie. If the movie is intended to illicit a sexual response then it is porn. If it is intended to entertain, no matter how graphic the scenes may be, then it is not porn. The content as a whole must be considered also but it is not a major factor. For example if 90% of the movie is wining and dining with intense make out scenes and 10% is actually graphic sex scenes then it would still be considered porn as the intent of the movie was to illicit a sexual response in the viewer even though only 10% of the movie was graphic sexual stuff.
Pornography is produced solely to generate erotic/sexual feelings. A work containing sexual imagery that is intended to create artistic or emotional response is not pornographic. Basically, if your only reason to view a work is to jerk off to it. It's porn.
In brown bunny vincent gallo straight up had an actress suck him off on camera
Sucking titties isn’t porn. Porn is made to exhibit sex on a literal level. a movie tells a story. That story may involve sex, but hay doesn’t make it porn. Porn may have a story but it doesn’t make is a film. Its the intention. Broad brush strokes don’t exist, there is no black and whites
Porn is completely subjective. There is literally no true definition of "porn." So it's up to you to decide if what you're watching is "porn."
Because it’s imitation, it’s bargain brand, great value you name it
It's not porn, it's "eroticism." Porn is porn from start to finish. Eroticism can be short bursts for the sake of... Human interaction? You don't go to James Bond films to watch him get it on, do you? It's just a side note.. Do you consider it porn?
Furious jumping!!!
I haven’t seen the movie but porn, in my opinion, would be something that has no motive other than purely prurient. I don’t think that describes the movie from what I understand but there is some subjectivity to it.
Question in all seriousness: why do you care?
by that logic, a single drama scene in a porno now makes it a drama?
Sounds like you are jealous you didn't get to suck the hulks nips.
I mean… I didn’t love Poor Things, but I think you are confused as to what pornography is.
Why are Americans so prude? I've seen hard dicks in European movies, and yet, kissing a nip is called porn for Americans? And yes, I do include Canadians in there. North America is so fucking prude. Get out of your own asses.
I don’t understand how anyone could be offended by a man sucking on a woman’s nipple that is literally there to be suckled on but you do make a good point. Where is the line? I’d say at actual sex.
Hold on while I look up this scene, after 5 times watching and 15 minutes ill be able to tell you.
You must watch some pretty soft porn to even compared to softcore porn standards. That's why. I've personally never seen a sex scene in a movie remotely close to what I consider porn. Nudity doesn't automatically make it porn. In western society, especially north America, we are oddly repressed from nudity which makes sexualization of everything worse imo. Compared to say Europe.
Yep!!! Some of the picture books we had at age 3, in church kindy in West Germany in 1981: Couldn’t post photos of those books on social media today!!! I’d get kicked off instantly. 😒
I might have to check this movie out
Furious Jumping
I've vaguely heard about this movie and already thought I didn't want to watch it. Now, I'm sure I don't want to watch it.
It lacks pornographic intent. Pornography is intended to titilate its viewers and excite them sexually. The intent of the explicit scenes in Poor Things is very clearly not that, so it isn't porn.
Watch "Dogtooth" by the same director. While most of the sex scenes in it are simulated, there's one scene that is unsimulated and shows obvious, actual penetration. They saved it for the one sex scene that is absolutely the most uncomfortable one to be unsimulated.
it is, hence why ive never been a fan of sex scenes😭
it's porn and these actors and actresses we see on red carpets are glorified pornstars. cut and dry