Talk:Unsimulated sex/Archive 1

candice michelle
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.

Brown Bunny
New interviews about that film reveal that Chloë Sevigny was performing fellatio on a prop penis.Bigdatut (talk) 23:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

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

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)

In the Director's Commentary on the DVD release of this movie, Jane Campion clearly states that the actress in this scene was fellating a dildo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecher Lingam (talk • contribs) 07:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Yeah, this list has no mainstream films in it, despite your anti-American comment.138.163.0.44 (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Theatrical release might be a valid requirement for inclusion. As I recall a few of these were direct-to-video —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.136.116.163 (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

If theatrical release were a requirement for a film to be considered mainstream, then many sequels to mainstream theatrical releases would be disallowed because they were "straight to video," despite their being distrubuted by major studios. For example, The Land Before Time was released theatrically by Universal. Each of the twelve sequels was straight to video, but they were also released by Universal. Are they not mainstream productions? If not, then how would they be classified? They couldn't be considered underground or independent. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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)

Biographies of living people
This article is not exempt from our 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 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 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.


 * I've paged through the "No Original Research policy", I don't see anything that states that a film cannot be used as a source. If you can cite a book, why not a film?  If an unsimulated act is overtly on film (no edits, where the facts are all clear) then the film itself should be permitted as a source.  If it is unclear, as long as the article explains that is is unclear, those films should also permitted as sources. Rather than indiscriminately deleting things, maybe the article should be restructured, reworded and cited with films.


 * Many entries removed for this purpose could be reinstated simply by deleting references to the actors involved in the scene. Instead of saying "On several occasions, Joe Blow is seen sticking it to Jane Doe", why not say "The film contains several scenes of explicit, apparently unsimulated sexual activity". No named person, no problem. This also covers the use of body-doubles and prosthetics, and makes citing the visual evidence contained in the film less open to challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.114.72 (talk) 15:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * While it is true that deleting the name of the actor or actress involved would circumvent this point, it should not be deemed necessarry where there is a reliable source which provides unambiguous substantiation. If that were the case, it would necessitate using less accurate information when more accurate information was available, which seems to me to be very counterpoint to Wikipedia's goals.  As to the question of films as a reliable source, I too can find nothing in the core policies which would disallow this.  A film is a published third-party source, and, as in the case of "The Brown Bunny," can be completely unambiguous.  I also feel that this policy, if correctly interpreted by Uncle G, has been very unevenly enforced on this page.  Films like "Antares" have been removed in their entirety from the list (Surely the removal of the BLP data would suffice, rather than rendering an already incomplete list more incomplete.), while "The Brown Bunny," "In the Realm of the Senses," "The Image," and several others remain untouched.  But where the films themselves offer unambiguous evidence, those films should be accepted as reliable sources.  --Lecher Lingam (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Fallo!
Fallo!, as well as all other Tinto Brass' movies, replaces penises with prosthetics. No erect penis, in Brass' films, are real.--Gspinoza 21:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The movie does however contain a scene with a real penis, not yet fully erect, that is being fellated or nearly so. The actress involved even says in the "Making Of" documentary that she was the only actress on the set allowed to fellate a real penis.


 * In addition, I recall reading that a work of Brass' concerning WWII -- I believe it is Black Angel -- includes genuine fellatio scenes. Also, there is Caligula, but that is generally not credited to Brass with regard to the "genuine" scenes.


 * Jtnet 16:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is true that "Fallo" contains a scene of unsimulated fellatio on an actual (not prosthetic) penis. Federica Tommasi manually stimulates and then fellates Andrea Nobili.  Does this movie qualify for inclusion in this list?  Are Tinto Brass's movies considered mainstream?  --Lecher Lingam (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Road
What about Red Road from 2006? There's a sex scene where the man is performing cunnilingus on a woman and it is clearly Un-simulated. Not sure if the actual intercourse is un-simulated but a condom is placed on the mans erect penis. I didn't want to add it until I had other opinions.DingoateMyBabyyy 15:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

removals of unsourced material
I have removed a lot of unsourced material. Firms contain living and identifiable actors. Assertions about living people which are negative or controversial MUST be supported by cast iron reliable sources. Please see the policy on living people in this regard. Please DO NOT reinsert this material unless you can provide a reliable source to support the claim.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed material from that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the material removed in this way was hardly unsourced. As a concrete example:  I Am Curious (Yellow) was included in the list in the section of this article entitled "Films showing other sexual activity."  The description given of the sexual activity was "Features a scene where Lena Nyman briefly fondles and kisses the penis of Börje Ahlstedt."  This material can be seen in the 15:40 revision from 20th, November, 2009.  This material was removed because it was supposedly "unsourced" and in violation of WP:BLP.  However, this was done without regard to the fact that the page for this movie (see link above) gives the same information, with sources, and actually features a screencap from the movie showing the act in question.  Clearly, no trouble was taken to ascertain these facts.

And that is merely one concrete example. A very heavy handed and highly arbitrary approach has been brought to bear in this process. I believe that some editors are gaming the system. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want to make claims about living actors on this page, you need to have the sources on this page. The onus is on the person wanting the claim in to provide good sourcing, not on me to go looking for it on other articles. I don't understand what you mean by "gaming the system" this is the clear spirit and intention of the WP:BLP policy. I doubt you'll find many experienced users who will disagree with these removals.--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The source is sited. The source is the film itself.  Take the example of I Am Curious (Yellow) again.  In this instance we have a source which is published through a reliable publication process, and there is no question of the accuracy or the verifiability of the information stated.

Also, it is worth noting that, if the BLP policy was what was worrying you, and you are in fact not gaming the system, then there is a better way of solving the problem. It would be a simple matter to remove the names of the individuals in question without removing titles from this list. In that way, you could protect Wikipedia from liability without unduly truncating the article in question.

If you truly are not clear on what I mean by "gaming the system," I am referring to WP:GAME. I mean that an editor or editors are using an overly constraining interpretation of Wikipedia policies, taken from the "letter of the law," to undermine the general intent of Wikipedia and of this article in particular.

As to whether or not I will "find many experienced users who will disagree with these removals," that supposition, even if it turned out to be accurate, is not, I think, germaine to this discussion. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever. If you can provide reliable third-party sources, you may replace the claims.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, we seem to lack an agreement as to what constitutes a reliable source, so I suggest that we try to find a consensus of the editors. Even lacking a consensus, many of the movies, such as the Zodiac-films, should be reinserted into the list, as they did not include anything which could be construed, even by the wildest imagination, as a violation of the BLP policy.

Also, "Whatever," is difficult to interpret. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 04:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where any material is challenged (and I challenge this) the onus is on the person wishing to reinsert it to provide direct and reliable sourcing. This is moreso where there are BLP issues. You are welcome to replace any of the items, with a direct link to a solid source. There is nothing more to discuss now, you (or someone else) either chooses to do that, or does not. If what you say is correct, then it should not prove a problem.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is more to discuss. Firstly, there is still the matter of what constitutes a reliable source, BLP data aside.  Secondly, there is the matter of the heavy handed editing process whereby some people have been removing entries (including some entries, such as the Zodiac-films which did not include BLP data) in their entirety on the pretext of complying with WP:BLP, and thus unnecessarily truncating the article, when simply removing the names of the individuals would have sufficed.

You are quite right, however, about providing sources not being a problem. I will begin reinserting some of the titles next week, minus BLP data. Some time later I will go through again and reinsert the BLP data for which we have sources. I will, of course, refrain from simply reverting the page to an old edit. If anyone would like to assist me in this, I'd be glad of the help. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me be clear, you need a direct source for each entry. Removing the actors names will NOT remove this requirement, since you are still making a claim about the actors in the movie, and their names are available elsewhere. You must provide a reliable source for each entry, if the source names the actors, then you can name the actors, if the source only speaks of the film in general, then you follow that.In any case, you need a direct inline reference to a trustworthy source for each item. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source.--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:06, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Um, no. A film can certainly be a source for itself that specific events occurred, etc. We can't use it for novel synthesis but we certainly can use it as a source. I do agree with Scott MacDonald that independent sourcing is also helpful and shows that the content as we are using here is notable to be mentioned by RS's. -- Banj e  b oi   21:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do not feel like the removals were done entirely in good faith, I do recognize the need for proper citation for each film listed. A film cannot be a source for itself, as Benjiboi suggests, and neither can we use the narratives by editors themselves along the lines of "I saw the film, and saw these sex acts". Each listed film needs to have an external reference indicating that it really does meet inclusion criteria, not simply a statement that it is "obvious" or "well-known". In the cases where it really is obvious or well-known, finding a source that mentions it should not be difficult.

FWIW, I do agree with Scott MacDonald that whether the actors names are listed is not particularly relevant. Citations are needed in any case, not only if there is a direct WP:BLP concern. It is possible that some source will say "some actors had non-simulated sex" but not mention which specific actors. In that case, we should not go beyond what the source provides, even if it seems "obvious" which ones they are. LotLE × talk 00:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A lack of citation alone for a given film does not justify its removal from the list. While the removal of potentially libelous BLP data is strongly urged under Wikipedia policy, the same cannot be said for inadequately sourced, or even unsourced, information.  The standard practice has been to insert a tag at the head of an article, or inline with any information which requires additional citation or references.  This brings the matter to the attention of other editors who may be able to provide the needed data. --Lecher Lingam (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * While I agree, Lecher Lingam, that procedurally the removals were a bad approach, that's where we are now. The better thing would have been to have added {fact} tags by all the doubtful ones.  The WP:BLP question feels, frankly, like a red-herring to me.  However, I have reproduced the remove items in the below section for ease of editing.  At this point, let us just locate citations, and restore each listed film one-by-one (or several at a time) when we locate the relevant citations.
 * Just to clarify further that we really do need 3rd party citation though, I can tell one personal viewing experience. I have not seen very many of the films on the list, but I did see The Brown Bunny.  During the sex scene that caused it to be listed, I was curious but uncertain whether it was a genuine act of fellatio, or was simulated with the use of a realistic dildo.  Especially nowadays, a whole lot of very realistic things can be simulated, either with props or special effects.  This film is given external citation to show it belongs on this list, but my subjective guess that "it seemed real" would definitely not be enough to support the claim; that would be WP:OR. So let's just clean up all the cites, and get all the films properly copied back to the article.  LotLE × talk  08:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * LotLE, I agree that "that's where we are now," and that what needs to be done is to move forward with replacing the deleted entries and adding references and citations for them. My point in pursuing this discussion is to attempt to reach a consensus of the editors in the hope of avoiding a repeat of this unfortunate occurrence.  I will begin working on this after the holiday weedend.  I will probably start with the Zodiac-films and I Am Curious (Yellow).  (The latter seems to be missing from your entry below on what was removed.)  --Lecher Lingam (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a fairly good English-language source on the Zodiac-films: DVD Reviews: The Classic Danish Erotica Series. --Minutae (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeking references
A bunch of pretty good material was removed recently in an apparent attempt to make the article worse, in order to support the AfD nomination. This seems like WP:POINTy bad faith to me. In any case, even assuming good faith, here is the material for easier citation improvement. LotLE × talk 23:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From the body:

Films showing real object penetration
Another variation on this theme are mainstream films in which digital or object penetration of a vagina is shown. Several of the films listed above such as Romance show this act in addition to the other real content. Films that also show some sort of penetration (as the maximum explicit content) include:

Films showing other actual sexual activity
This category is for films that show sexual detail uncommon in mainstream films, but not necessarily to the explicit extent of the above. For the most part, this is the maximum extent of sexual explicitness for these films.

Showgirls
Anyone know if the sex scenes in Showgirls were unsimulated? The pool sex scene in particular looked pretty real to me. It was rated NC-17... TomCat4680 (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Previously removed listings that need sourcing
Please feel free to mark each as done when they are re-added. There have been so many deletions it's hard to tell which are already in the article or listed above:
 * Destricted (2006) - This series of short films includes scenes of unsimulated vaginal, anal and oral sex, male and female masturbation, sex with an inflatable doll, and objects inserted into an anus.
 * Inside Deep Throat (2005) - This documentary includes the infamous deep throat scene from the original Linda Lovelace motion picture.
 * Kärlekens språk 2000 (2004) - Swedish movie with several unsimulated sex scenes.
 * Georges Bataille's Story of the Eye (2004) - Contains several explicit sexual scenes, including male and female masturbation, male-male fellatio and intercourse, female-female cunnilingus and usage of a double-headed dildo, female-male fellatio and intercourse (intercourse is only visible from a distance in a mirror).
 * The Real Cancun (2003) - Several couples in this documentary are briefly shown from a distance and via night vision cameras having actual intercourse although nothing explicit is visible in the released version.
 * The Principles of Lust (2003) - Some unsimulated fellatio and penetration in orgy scene.
 * Rossa Venezia (2003) - This German sexploitation horror film includes several scenes of high voltage sexual content including unsimulated fellatio and penetration.
 * Fallo! (2003) - This Tinto Brass-directed film includes scenes of unsimulated fellatio and female genital fingering.
 * Bodysong (2003) - This documentary also includes 60 seconds of X-rated material, unsimulated fellatio and penetration.
 * La Chatte à deux têtes (2002 (English title: Porn Theater (USA)/Glowing Eyes (International: English title) Features unsimulated male/male fellatio in several scenes, a man ejaculating onto another and anal sex. (Although the latter is filmed at such an angle it is hard to tell if it was unsimulated or not.)
 * Le loup de la côte Ouest (2002) (English title: The Wolf of the West Coast) - Unknown actress performs unsimulated fellatio in an orgy club scene.
 * Irréversible (2002) - A few brief glimpses of unsimulated sex (homosexual activity at a club early in the movie, a second-worth of fellatio at a party later on). The central rape scene of the movie, however, is simulated.
 * La Pianiste (2001) (English title: The Piano Player) - 20 seconds of pornographic film in a film scene.
 * The Atrocity Exhibition (2000) - 30 seconds of X-rated material, unsimulated penetration.
 * O Fantasma (2000) - Portuguese film about a man who becomes obsessed with a licking and leather fetish. One scene of unsimulated fellatio.
 * Extension du domaine de la lutte (1999) (English title: Whatever) - 30 seconds of pornographic film in a film scene.
 * Seul contre tous (1998) (English title: I Stand Alone) - 40 seconds of pornographic film in a film scene.
 * Idioterne (1998) (English title: The Idiots) - Several unsimulated sex scenes, although director Lars von Trier has stated that body doubles were used for penetrative scenes (penetration censored by animated black boxes in most English-language releases).
 * Così fan tutte (1992) (English title: All Ladies Do It) - This Tinto Brass-directed film includes scenes of unsimulated fellatio and female genital fingering.
 * Emmanuelle V (1985) - Two versions of this film were released: an R-rated version and a hardcore version with several unsimulated sex scenes inserted (none of the added material feature the film's star, Monique Gabrielle).
 * L'Alcova (1984) - Shots of masturbating and some brief, unsimulated sex scenes (none of them involving Laura Gemser).
 * Caligola: La storia mai raccontata (1982) (Also Known As: Caligula II: The Untold Story) - Several unsimulated sex scenes, including penetration and fellatio.
 * Taxi zum Klo (1981) (English title: Taxi to the Toilet) - Contains unsimulated gay sex and a golden shower scene.
 * Cruising (1980) - This film features two seconds of unsimulated anal sex during the first murder scene. It is believed that the director's cut includes numerous scenes of unsimulated anal sex, anal fisting, and a golden shower.
 * Bare Behind Bars (1980) - This Brazilian women in prison film features unsimulated heterosexual sex (fellatio, penetration), as well as several lesbian scenes.
 * Spetters (1980) - Contains a brief scene of unsimulated male-to-male fellatio.
 * Immagini di un convento (1979) - Contains scenes of unsimulated sex.
 * La Svastica nel ventre (1977) - Unsimulated sex with some explicit shots.
 * Emanuelle in America (1977) - Several unsimulated sex scenes between extras (none involving Laura Gemser).
 * Through the Looking Glass (1976) - Contains scenes of unsimulated sex scenes including female masturbation, fellatio, and penetration.
 * Thriller - en grym film (1974) (English title: Thriller: A Cruel Picture) - Swedish film with several unsimulated sex scenes including an anal penetration.
 * Dom kallar oss mods (1968) (English title: They Call Us Misfits)

Any help appreciated. -- Banj e b oi   01:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Also La Vie de Jésus, most sources behind paywalls. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD oddness
There was a 2nd AfD on this article, with a confusing result.


 * 1) During the discussion, a large majority !voted Keep. See Articles for deletion/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex (2nd_nomination)
 * 2) The closing admin decided to delete anyway.
 * 3) I raised the issue on DRV: here (Nov 29 DRV)
 * 4) Apparently I did not have the timezone for WP servers right, or something, so someone moved it to: here (Nov 30 DRV).  It got a few more !votes/comments along the way.
 * 5) Admin User:MZMcBride closed the DRV with this revsion.
 * 6) MZMcBride's closing comment indicated that he was undeleting the article and moving it to userspace, at User talk:Benjiboi/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sex with the intention of improving sourcing of the article before it was moved back to article space.
 * 7) User:Benjiboi moved the article to Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/List of mainstream films with unsimulated sexual acts.

The status as of right now is highly confusing to me. As far as I know, the citation improvements necessary to assure strict compliance with WP:BLP and WP:RS have been made already during the course of the AfD. However, presuming some amount of further improvement is made to the article while at userspace, and it is then moved back to article space, I want to document here all the relevant diffs and admin page versions. I have a sinking feeling that all of this will come back in the future, with everyone involved telling a different version of the events and of what the final outcome was. LotLE × talk 08:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I'm concerned we should treat this as a no consensus keep but with the very real concerns expressed that we vet the material for BLP concerns - make sure sourcing covers statements for living people. And clean-up the lede and consider if a title change would be more NPOV. Since neither the AfD or DrV supported deletion I feel it can be relaunched but I suggest we work to do the clean-up first including clearing up all the items on the talkpage and then move it. -- Banj e  b oi   17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The admin who did the DRV "IAR" move-to-userspace, made some helpful comments to my question on his user talk page. I think they are worth copying over here:

"Hey Lulu. After looking over the article again, my opinion is that what's needed most is a fair bit of discussion about some of the points. The title talks about 'mainstream,' though there doesn't seem to be a strong definition of what constitutes this (and some of have suggested moving the article to a different title). I'm fairly sure we've stopped the practice of using 'notable' in most titles, so this might fit in well with that. The title also mentions 'films,' though the article devotes an entire section to television shows / series. The talk page currently lists a lot of titles that were gutted from the main article. It would be nice to see that list either re-incorporated back into the main article with proper citations or deleted from the talk page. I also think a discussion about anticipation of issues would be a good idea. If some of the references include images of the 'unsimulated sex,' should those citations still be used? Why or why not? (And somewhat more trivially, 'unsimulated' seems to be a largely made-up word.) The article lead is currently littered with [citation needed]. As for when the article will become acceptable, at the moment it's a matter of admin discretion, sort of. In order for the article to go live for the next month, it requires an admin putting their name on the dotted line, so to speak. Someone has to say that they've read and reviewed the article and it's acceptable. After a month, this decision will revert back to the general editorship, though I'm hoping that these issues can be resolved and rectified far more quickly. If they are, you shouldn't have a problem finding a willing admin at AN. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)"

Let's address the things MZMcBride suggests (or other than come up soon), then get it back where it belongs on article space. LotLE × talk 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Article name
There seem to be a couple problems with the name. Thoughts? LotLE × talk 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The adjective unsimulated really is not a word.  That has bugged me.  An actual word compound is 'non-simulated', which seems like the best choice to me.  Anyone disagree?
 * 2) The term "mainstream" is indeed slightly fuzzy.  I don't think it is a problem necessarily, but we might be able to do better.  "Non-pornographic" might work.  There were some suggestions about going by the ratings in some jurisdictions as "sex films", but that seems hard to use, especially with various rating systems in different places.  The gist of what we want is "films where sex is only a minor element, but explicit sex acts are performed to portray that minor element"... but what is the short phrase?
 * 3) This article covers television along with theatrical films.  Is that a problem for the title "films"? TV shows really are "short films" in a literal sense.  Well, neither theatrical films nor TV is necessarily literally so anymore with DV.  But film is used to approximately the same degree whether in a theater or shown on a little box.  Should we make the title more generic somehow?
 * 4) Should this be a "List of", or simply a discussion of its topic that happens to use some lists as a formatting convenience?


 * All I can add is that I was talking with my mother yesterday, who is a journalist and film critic, who also highlighted the big problems with the definition of mainstream (I explained this AfD to her). (My 'keep' vote was conisderably waekaned after talking yesterday) I guess what is really meant is not pornographic, or films which have been rated. maybe the best thing is a refocus to Unsimulated sex on film as an article title, with a discussion and link to pornography, and then have a discussion on other films outside this realm to have featured sex in (as above). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Casliber has a good approach. There is not necessarily a bright line between the films that are "just about sex" and those that "use sex as a theme/topic/plot device".  We could use a title like "''Non-simulated sex in film production" (I sort of like the "production" to indicate that it's about the process of making a film, and the choices made there).
 * Our lead under such a title could have a paragraph or two about the early history and growth of the modern porn industry. Maybe a few words about the size and demographics of that industry.  Mention that there are whatever large number of films produced that are primarily representations of actual sex acts, with few other plot elements.  That could have appropriate citations and wikilinks to all the various existing porn articles.  Then we could have something along the lines of "Non-simulated representations of sex have also been used in films whose primary plot elements are not those sex acts themselves." Maybe a bit about the fact that some are general theatrical release, some are "underground" or "independent", etc. Obviously with citations and links.  Past the lead we could list and discuss individual films, as we have now.

Personally, I'm not a great fan of this, but trying to be constructive for a moment, I'd suggest that a departure from "list" in the title would be a good idea. The problem with lists is that they are binary, either something meets the inclusion criterion or it doesn't - and that decision is often POV. A non-list can find it easier to record matters around the subject in a more nuanced way. "there are some film including such sex scenes which might be regarded as mainstream, however...." - "according to the film critic xyz film 123 had such a scene, but this was not mentioned in the release information... ." This type of nuancing allows the information to be more neutral and sourced - with things attributed in the text - rather than making a (possibly opinionated) factual claim with a citation at the bottom of the page.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Pornographic film already has a lot of info on the history of porn films, which we don't really want or need to replicate here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking a look at possible parent articles which might contain a summary of this potential article, I note that Sex in film is tiny and could be considerably expanded before a separate article is considered. We also have the related Nudity in film. This category - Category:Sexuality and fiction and Category:Erotica might be good to review. I thought this might be related but I was wrong - I have never heard that term before. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * "Unsimulated sex" has 20,000+ Google hits, and is used in a lot of news articles, journal articles and books discussing sex in films. It's not some kind of Wikipedia invention. You can try "explicit sex" or "real sex" as synonyms. "Mainstream" is kind of "I'll know it when I see it", but a cinema or festival release in venues not dedicated to sex films would cut it. A journal article refers to "the recent trend toward unsimulated sexual acts in commercial narrative films", which also captures a nuance that a porn film is all about the sex, whereas these mainstream films are focused on a narrative. I wonder how mainstream those 70s Danish films really are, but the sourcing is a hell of a lot better than it was pre-AfD now the OR has been excised.
 * I like the idea of expanding Sex in film and discussing this topic not just as a list (I don't like list articles). There's some good material out there, like: "Although this was not the first time that ‘unsimulated’ sex had been shown on the art-house big screen, the other major examples were not entirely similar. Romance was wordy, arguably feminist, and a long way from mindless sex-because-they-like-it. Intimacy 's ‘sex scenes are explicit but totally non pornographic, they’re painful, needy, unsatisfying except on an orgasmic level’, according to Margaret Pomeranz, who reviewed the film for SBS. Baise-moi is different because, as Vigorito says, ‘please make no mistake that the two main characters in this film, the so-called French Thelma and Louise, certainly do want to fuck’." Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also find 23,500 Google hits on the phrase (in quotes), "unsimulated sex". This neologism is not an invention of Wikipedia editors.  However, I find 413,000 Google hists for "non-simulated sex".  The phrase that uses an actual word certainly appears to be a more common usage as well.  Obviously, just a raw hit count isn't a full analysis of the quality of the mentions or their context, but the 20:1 ratio (plus the argument of grammar) certainly suggests to me that "non-simulated" is the right approach.  That isn't specifically relevant to whether the phrase is in the article title at all, but at least it seems strong that we should use the grammatical version in the body.  LotLE × talk  00:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What does google book and google scholar offer? -- Banj e  b oi   04:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Books and Scholar do seem to favor "unsimulated" over "non-simulated" (9:39 and 5:18, respectively. I'm surprised by that, but still feel like the overall hits plus the not-a-neologism matter win out over those small samples.  However, given my surprise, I could be relatively easily persuaded to undue my change of adjective back... well, or at least not object, I'm not sure if I can bring myself to actually type the neologism myself :-).  LotLE × talk  04:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wrt "mainstream" I'd like to point out that there are other articles mentioning mainstream films or mainstream culture in general, and nobody seems to make a big deal out of it. Unfortunately for Wikipedia, you can never accurately define mainstream, it's a moving target. Marcus1979 (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

DRV
There was absolutely no consensus at DRV to userfy this, or put this in an incubator instead of being a proper article. That's totally against the WP:CONSENSUS policy. Newman Luke (talk) 02:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. But here we are, so let's deal with the situation as it is now, and move forward. The better thing would indeed have been to simply change the AfD to Keep.  But collaboration on WP is imperfect.  So it goes.  LotLE × talk  07:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still here, we're working on it, and a better article will return to mainspace shortly. Have patience. Fences  &amp;  Windows  16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sex in TV
I removed this material, as it is about TV series and has nothing to do with real sex in films.

Television series with genuine sexual activity
Actual sexual activity is occasionally depicted on television programs. The rise of specialty cable networks in the 1980s resulted in a number of sexually explicit made-for-cable programs. The following list only includes programming made for non-pornographic broadcasters and therefore does not include programs such as Foursome and 7 Lives Exposed (Playboy Channel productions with non-simulated sexual activity).


 * Sexcetera (1998) - Playboy TV factual series, usually covering fetishes, sex expos or gatherings. In the UK, explicit scenes are blurred.
 * Marilyn (2000) - Danish review show hosted by film critic Nicolas Barbano, who showed and discussed uncensored clips from adult films.
 * HBO Real Sex (2000) - a sexually explicit video magazine which "explores sex '90s style" from the latest sexual fads to casual sex festivals and home production of pornographic movies.  The show typically explores three to four topics each episode.
 * Sin Cities (2000) - UK travelogue series, features footage of individuals (and occasionally the hosts) engaging in real (but not explicitly shown) sexual activity.
 * Sex with Strangers (2002) - documentary about several couples who are swingers. A few real orgy scenes are in the film, although no explicit sex acts are shown on screen.
 * Family Business (2003) - a Showtime reality series about a porn film producer, features footage of actual sexual acts, although scenes of penetration have been edited out.
 * Porno Valley (2004) - UK-produced reality series profiling the lives of actresses working for Vivid Video includes behind-the-scenes footage of the filming of pornographic films. Like Family Business, hardcore footage is either edited out or blurred.
 * Cathouse: The Series (2005) - HBO reality series set in a Nevada brothel, includes footage of real sexual activity with digital blurring obscuring any hardcore content.
 * A Girl's Guide to 21st Century Sex (2006) - An eight part documentary aired on Five in the United Kingdom includes uncensored scenes of non-simulated sex, erect penises and ejaculation.
 * Debbie Does Dallas Again (2007) - Showtime original series about the remaking of Debbie Does Dallas. Shooting of sex scenes was filmed for the series but no explicit footage was included.
 * Deeper Throat (year unknown) - Showtime original series about the remaking of Deep Throat. Shooting of sex scenes was filmed for the series but no explicit footage was included.
 * Everything You Wanted To Know About Gay Porn Stars (2008) - a here! original production that showed the filming of sex scenes with digital blurring.

Fences &amp;  Windows  16:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Raspberry Reich - mainstream?
The Raspberry Reich may have been shown at Sundance, but Variety had this to say about it: "Graphic sex acts will make an already marginal vid-shot item tough to place beyond gay fests, underground venues and specialized home-format sales." The director says of the film "the movie is a porno, which works fairly strictly within the conventions of pornography." is this really able to be considered to be a mainstream film? Fences &amp;  Windows  17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think "shown at Sundance" (or any of the major non-porn film festivals) is pleny sufficient condition for inclusion here. LotLE × talk  18:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Sex in film
An editor above had suggested this merge. I think it would be a good idea. The existing article sex in film is fairly thin, but it's topic seems to encompass everything discussed in this article, while avoiding the use of the word "mainstream" and the "List" title. Does anyone object to that approach. My understand is that if we move over the substantial bulk of the content here to that other article, there will be no need to restore this exact title to article space, since it would then be merely duplicative. LotLE × talk 18:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think its unnecessary, and doesn't solve the issue of 'mainstream' other than removing it from the title. If you want to expand this article to be more than a list, just rename it as "Unsimulated sex in film" and we can define it as being about mainstream cinema in the lead. At the moment this material would swamp the Sex in film article. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that this material would swamp what's now in Sex in film, but then that article is pretty stubby, so that doesn't take much. I think I like the non-list, avoiding "Mainstream" version that you propose even better than my above suggestion though.  This new Unsimulated sex in film and the implicit parent Sex in film could have appropriate links between them, but the main body could stay separate.  In fact, I can imagine that the parent article could someday have other children than this, even.  Maybe Technologies for simulating sex in film, or Metaphors about sex in film, or other along those lines, each pointed to with appropriate {see also} or {main} templates back and forth.
 * Would you object if I actually just created that Unsimulated sex in film, and started copying in the material that seemed solidly cited from this article (reformatting and so on, some rewording probably)? However, I won't do so before next Thursday, in any case, since I am too busy to try to shepherd a new article until then (travel, etc). LotLE × talk  07:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just move this article to Unsimulated sex in film? All the material is sourced. We can then expand it to be more than a list, and add a summary section in Sex in film. But... wait for some more comments, as I don't want to be too bold with this topic. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support moving to Unsimulated sex in film although we should keep in mind that it's still mainly a list so expanding the content and perhaps add an intro into each list subheading may help. -- Banj e  b oi   01:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

All About Anna...
... is no longer in the list, even though it's mentioned in the header, and surely among the less controversial inclusions here. Perhaps the information included before exceeded what would be ideal in an article such as this, but there is no question it belongs on the list. 24.78.210.79 (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to insist on a good source for All About Anna containing unsimulated sexual acts. And this might do: the website of the filmmakers states that "Without the sex scenes, the film’s drama would fall apart. This was a particular challenge to the film’s cast, who had to cope with the traditional social and human traumas associated with having real sex in front of a camera. Fortunately the film’s actors and actresses managed to extent their dramatic performances way beyond the norm and truly managed to push the envelope, achieving new means of dramatic expression. The sex scenes were carefully planned and rehearsed prior to shooting, allowing the actors to stay in character through every embrace and caress." No details about what acts or scenes were unsimulated and what actors were involved without a direct statement in a reliable source! There is a press page on their website here. Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * That would seem to be a pretty clear statement. Information from the commentary track and/or special features probably has some details, as this review indicates: "According to the producer's commentary, the director intentionally made her version a softcore film, even though she was specifically contracted to make a hardcore film. It seems she considers genitalia gross looking. Also, even though the sex requirements were carefully written into Gry Bay's contract, Gry decided not to allow the woman to penetrate her, and the director simply acceded to her demands." http://www.scoopy.com/allaboutanna.htm  The site has been used as a reference in a couple books and a paper (not regarding this movie), but as you say, one would prefer something strong for BLP reasons. Incidentally, I've long liked that site's interpretation of IMDb's ratings, "IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is." That has struck me as pretty accurate. Шизомби (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

what happened to
i checked this article a few weeks ago it was great it had sections for suspected real sex and for real sex in tv can you guys put it back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.3.30 (talk) 21:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was nominated for deletion, and heavily edited to only include properly sourced material. "Suspected real sex" is speculation, and the TV section wasn't relevant to the article, it's about film. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Red Road (2)
does not have "unsimulated cunnilingus". It is a fairly graphic scene but it is shot from such an angle that you can't tell if it is simulated. and there are no confirmed reports that he actually performed the act. love from elton 118.90.104.17 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * An article in The Age states that "In Red Road, a late sex scene shows all of the lead actress, Kate Dickie, as she receives oral stimulation." Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung says "In „Red Road“, dem Wettbewerbsbeitrag von Andrea Arnold, gibt es eine „real life“ Cunnilingus-Szene" (In "Red Road", the competition entry by Andrea Arnold, there is a "real life" cunnilingus scene") Hollywood Reporter says: "Another film getting genunine interest from buyers, Andrea Arnold's "Red Road," climaxes with authentic cunnilingus." But this contrasts with the director's evasion of the question. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not real. I can't give an actual reference but the lead actor has confirmed this in a newspaper article. They even used a ripe peach, apparently, for the sound. Also the condom shot involves a dildo. 90.217.29.81 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering the doubt over this, I've removed it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Found the interview: "In a festival noteworthy for its abundance of explicit sex scenes, Arnold’s film still raised eyebrows with an erotically charged encounter between Dickie and a male co-star that seems unusually, viscerally, authentic. Some Cannes critics concluded that they were genuinely having sex. “No, we weren’t, but part of me is tempted to say, what do you think?” Dickie says. “I’ve been asked that quite a lot. I was probably quite naive when I did it, but I didn’t expect it to garner as much attention as it did. Now I just think, well, we did a great job, then.”". Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that seems to have cleared that up. Not the article I read, but a similarly unequivocal denial. 90.217.29.81 (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ken Park
Why is this movie not included. It has a number of unsimulated sex scenes which has resulted in this movie being banned in dozens of countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Measl (talk • contribs) 05:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Source? Fences  &amp;  Windows  02:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It got banned in Australia: "In banning the film, the OFLC said Ken Park's treatment of sexual matters did not meet "the standards of morality, decency and propriety generally accepted by reasonable adults". Upholding the ban, a review board said it contained scenes of "child sexual abuse, actual sex by people depicted as minors and sexualised violence". Clark, who co-directed the movie with Ed Lachman, says the sex is simulated rather than real, with the exception of one scene showing a youth masturbating. And all the actors were over 18." We can include it, but it does only have one unsimulated sexual act. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Guardami (1999)
In this movie, there is a scene with a fellatio by Elisabetta Cavallotti. The scene (with a picture to source that) can be found at Celebrity movie archive here. --Tirkka (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We would need a text source. The photos are certainly convincing, yet inconclusive - body doubles/dildos could have been used, and the last picture is very ambiguous (is it vaginal or anal intercourse? Simulated or not?). — what a crazy random happenstance 10:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Use of a body double would not make it simulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk) 07:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Y Tu Mama Tambien
The scene in the motel would certainly seem to be a candidate here. The camera angle in the final frames does not show what it otherwise would; also a few moments earlier the actor undergoes conclusive but involuntary twitchings which, in my experience, are impossible to fake -- even by a Method actor. Check it out.

This does raise a question about the extent to which sourcing is required for what we see onscreen. Many scenes featuring an alleged penis, for example, could just as well be performed with a prosthesis and would need to be sourced. But the physical response in the above scene cannot be attained any other way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frazierdp (talk • contribs) 22:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The unsigned opinion of an anonymous editor is not of too much value here. If that anon, or some other editor, can provide an external citation to the purported fact, that could certainly motivate inclusion of this film.  Merely having a subjecting judgment of what one is sure one sees on film is no good here, since that is WP:OR.  LotLE × talk  07:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Antichrist
I have read nothing that indicates this contains unsimulated sex, in fact if you read the Wikipedia article they mention " Plaster casts were made of Willem Dafoe's leg and the female "porno double's" sexual organ.". This film should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation given, and others that I have read, state explicitly that there was unsimulated sex in the film (although by body doubles, not by the lead actors). If the anon can find some other source that contradicts those provided, we should look at the different sources.  But as of right now, 3rd parties seem consistent in the statement, and hence for inclusion here.  LotLE × talk  07:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The 'reference' is a movie review which is speculation. The actual article about the film on Wikipedia says no such thing, and in fact has the quote I pasted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.132.165 (talk) 07:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

More complete List
There's a more complete list available at: http://en.allexperts.com/e/l/li/list_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex.htm

I can confirm quite some of the entries that are on this list (but not on Wikipedia), as I have seen the particular movies.

--188.22.174.91 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's nothing more than a mirror of one of the earlier, inadequately sourced, version of this article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Lie With Me
This movie from 2005 should be added. I'm not sure about every graphic sex scene in the movie but the final scene (vaginal intercourse) is clearly unsimulated. More proof is the Dvd's commentary where the actress says that they tried to do it simulated but couldn't get it the way the director wanted it to look. So the two actors had a talk and just went for it unsimulated. I would just add it myself but the article seems to be locked and I don't know how to get around that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoateMyBabyyy (talk • contribs)


 * The article is only semi-protected. Your account is over four days old and you have over 10 edits to Wikipedia so you should be able to edit the article. Check the article again and see if you notice the "edit this page" button at the top of the article. If it's there, edit as usual. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

OK I added "Lie with Me" Again The proof that it's unsimulated in on the DVD commentary. The actors talk about it. DingoateMyBabyyy 18:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DingoateMyBabyyy (talk • contribs)

Lust, Caution
Does anyone have a source about the scenes in Lust, Caution? I have only read that the actors would not confirm or deny. Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 02:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)