Celia M. Malm wrote:
> This is actually one of my pet peeves and one of the reasons that
> I choose to write out sex scenes more often than some writers here. I
> think we owe young people more *wisdom* (as opposed to "the facts")
> about sex than they usually get. Exposure to nothing but idealized
> portrayals of sex (even non-explicit idealized portrayals) sets young
> people up for so many problems, all the way from diving into pre-marital
> sex (because it's going to be so wonderful that, hey, it's worth
> commiting a little sin) to serious disillusionment (when one's
> inexperienced spouse turns out not to be a sex god).
I agree with you, but again, what does this have to do with the
discussion at hand? I'm beginning to realize that those of you who
piously avoid sex in the art you consume or create don't actually have
any idea what sorts of sex scenes do exist out there.
Sure, this idealized, exploitative kind of sex in art exists--we call it
"gratuitous." But it seems clear to me that people with an aversion to
the subject of sex think that all references to sex are of this
pornographic type. Whenever the subject come sup on AML-List, out come
descriptions of sex scenes that may be relevant to what gets published
in Hustler magazine, but have no relevance to the sort of exploration of
human sexuality that some of us are trying to talk about.
> I haven't seen any Dutcher movies (gasp), so I can't comment on whether
> or not a sex scene would have been appropriate in States of Grace. But
> my instinct is that a sex scene, handled *non-explicitly*, would be much
> more *honest*--how did Farrel manage, psychologically, to cross the line
> that night? how did he react, mentally, when he realized what he had
> done (not in the morning--the reaction right then)? You don't have to
> show naked bodies to show those things.
[Pulling hair out--gnashing teeth--crying out in frustration] That's
exactly the kind of scene Stephen was talking about wanting to see! It
was you and James who misinterpreted what he said into an orgy of
on-screen flashing skin. The actual act of sex would have been boring
boring boring compared to the drama of what brought those two to the
point of having it. This is definitely one time the sex should NOT have
been shown. It would have been anti-climactic. It would have destroyed
the poignancy of what came before it. It would have been GRATUITOUS.
NOBODY is wishing we could have watched Farrell and Holly humping each
other.
[And I'm the one tilting at windmills?]
--
D. Michael Martindale
dmichael@???
WORLDSMITHS IS BACK!
And better than ever, with a fully automated website.
Come join the online LDS writers group that helped produce such notable
LDS novels as "Brother Brigham" and "Kindred Spirits."
WorLDSmiths Online LDS Writers Group
http://worldsmiths.org
