You practically sodomized it in front of its family.
Toh-may-toh, Toh-mah-toh, I guess.

http://bitmaelstrom.blogspot.com/
Fight the storm.

I wouldn't say I dragged it as much as I romantically carried it over the threshold.

I used to love boxingbut I watched it for the strategies and tactics, not the violence. A couple of matches where they started seriously injuring each other (which really isn't supposed to be the point) and I had to stop.
In any case, that's not what chilledmail was referencing. He was just dragging out the old "sex is so much better than violence" rhetoric.
Duh.
That's why it's so dangerous.

http://bitmaelstrom.blogspot.com/
Fight the storm.

Really? You suppose the OP regularly and happily watches films with (un-simulated) violence and murder? Are there a lot of those? Are there any? (The "Faces of Death" videos are largely faked.)
NO, BUT THERE ARE A HELL OF A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WATCH BOXING, WHICH WE COULD TECHNICALLY CALL "UNSIMULATED ASSAULT".
I, for one, welcome a nice penis inserted into a film.

I don't assume anyone anywhere watches many feature films with unsimulated anything, I leave those kind of assumptions to the idiots of the realm.

Really? You suppose the OP regularly and happily watches films with (un-simulated) violence and murder? Are there a lot of those? Are there any? (The "Faces of Death" videos are largely faked.)

http://bitmaelstrom.blogspot.com/
Fight the storm.

The OP will happily watch Films/TV with violence and murder, but that's a no to sex.
What a sicko!

This message has been deleted.

I have no problem at all with non-simulated sex on mainstream films, in fact there should be more.

I agree tboll. Absolutely unnecessary.
Once it is established what she does for a living, there was no need to show explicit sex scenes, however brief. I know what a pop shot is, everyone understands what's going on, now move on.
The interesting stuff was happening behind the camera. The graphic bits only served to turn a decent indie into something semi-exploitative and slightly grubby.

From what I've read on this bulletin board, netflix had been showing an edited version but recently switched to un-edited version. I'm amazed that the movie only made $88,000 but maybe it is partially due to the explicitness of some of the scenes and had this been rated it might have gotten an NC-17 (or maybe not I don't really know what the "standards" are anymore).

I'd be great if they came out with an edited version of the film that omitted that sequence.

I agree. I really liked the movie and thought I would recommend it to family and even "grandma", but the graphicness of those scenes did make feel me feel like we were watching clips from a porno film. I think they could have conveyed what line of work she was in without showing so much detail.

It's not about "what you want to see," but what the film makers want you to see, and feel. That was the whole point of the scene. To make you uncomfortable and conflicted about what she does and who she is, to provoke a deeper reflection.

At the risk of being called a prude, the sex scene kind of ruined the atmosphere for me too. I know it's what she does but, the movie had a feel-good energy up to that point, even with some of the darker scenes. Not everyone wants to see smut.

This message has been deleted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_double

It bothers me the way we set the bar higher for scenes that are shocking or unconventional. Why is it that no one is demanding justification for the scene where she feeds her dog? Every scene, whether shocking or mundane, serves the purpose of drawing the story arc and developing the characters. In fact, I would argue that it is because it is both shocking and mundane (shocking for us & mundane for the characters) that makes the sex scene so important.
That being said, I really wonder why Dree Hemingway would agree to do something like this. Can you imagine going to work and having to have sex with one of your coworkers? She must have really believed in this movie. I also wonder how they found a guy who was able to do it. I learned in one of my Human Sexuality classes that about 90 percent of guys who audition for adult movies turn out to be incapable of getting an erection on cue. And that's without having to factor in whether they can actually act!
EDIT: Okay, I just realized that they used a body double. Now it makes more sense.

It just seemed like a put on too me it was made crytal clear before that,that.She was in the adult film industry .Everyone knows what pornography is and what it looks like on screen.We aren't stupid in sean bakers mind we are maybe he does it to make himself feel better or smarter;just seems like he's overcompensating for something.
You see things; and you say,But I dream things that never were; and I say Why not?

I'm American and I did not find it gratuitous at all; in fact, I thought it was necessary. If you're gonna show someone working in the porn industry, don't shy away from it. [This is why I could not take
Boogie Nights
seriously.] As someone else mentioned, it's not like they just showed nudity for nudity's sake. It was important to the story because it really shows us what's Jane's professions. It doesn't really tell us early on. At first, I thought she might work at a temp agency. Then, that she was a model. But when they actually showed you what she did, it was like literally walking in on someone naked. I was like, "whoa!" It was a bit jarring because I was not expecting that, especially someone as sweet and considerate as Jane working in that industry. Not that porn stars can't be sweet and considerate, but you don't really picture people like Jane doing that kind of stuff. But I quickly got over it and applaud the director for giving us a raw glimpse of the porn business and not obstruct genitalia with random objects or weird camera angles. I think juxtaposed against Sadie's lonely world, it was such a contrast and showed how vastly different from each other these women were.
.

POSSIBLE SPOILERS
I just watched this on Netflix and I don't believe there are two different versions. The sex scenes are brief flashes due to editing and camera angles, but if you hit pause, rewind and play a few times you will see actual cunnilingus, fellatio and vaginal penetration from different angles performed by "Jane" and her co-star (it appears to be a body-double for Jane for the most graphic parts). If you allow the movie to play through at normal speed, these scenes flash by very quickly. I would call them explicit, but not "extensive."
For Americans, this is a more explicit portrayal of sex than we are used to seeing in non-pornographic or even soft-core porn movies. The sex is not simulated, and that will bother some. I can appreciate that. I can also appreciate the irony that violence at almost any level is considered acceptable, while sex and nudity are considered too shocking to view.
Was the scene gratuitous? I think the filmmaker was trying to inject a level of realism not typically portrayed in "mainstream" films. The scene was a bit jarring, considering what had preceded it. But it was the point of the filmmaker to jar the viewer into seeing these characters as real people, warts and all.
Most sex scenes in movies are not portrayed the way real people have sex, in my opinion. They almost always seem obligatory, predictable, over-choreographed and boring. In the case of Starlet, the sex scene does serve to show the "real" Jane, who was a porn actress. I give the benefit of the doubt to the filmmaker.

I think there must be more than one version of this film out there. The version I saw on Netflix was very brief and literally showed only a few frames of the actual sex acts so not at all extensive.
I think it was necessary to graphically show how she earns a living to be able to understand her as basically a nice person looking for connection.

the scene was not 'extensive' at all. It's ridiculous how conservative these American viewers are. In European arthouse movies there is a lot more nakedness. This movie was also about a woman who's job was working in the porn industry so it makes perfect sense that there is a scene about this in the movie but it wasn't very explicit since most of it was blur and the scenes were very very short. Americans have absolutely no problem with violence or gore in movies but when a vagina or tits or shown for a fraction of a second they completely freak out. That is very odd to me. Anyway: fantastic movie, great direction.

Then tell em they are dumb puritans, sex is part of life, it happens, like em or not, and their kids watch porno and have sex before 18 no matter they do or chain em, so tell em welcome to 21s century or beep off.