Debate on the word "explicit"

[mammos]

Hey all,

Since there seems to be a discrepancy on the use of the word "explicit" between members here and how and each and everyone of us interprets it, maybe it would be a good idea to talk about what does this word actually mean in regards to our community forum and how each one of us understands and/or expects to see when someone mentions the word "explicit".

Meriam-Webster defines "explicit" as: "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent".

Based on my understanding (by the way I am not a native English speaker but I feel pretty confident about my English), explicit means that what you see is what you get, no tricks whatsoever.

I will leave my opinion here to start-off the discussion.

In regards to this forum and nude celebrities, sex scenes etc, explicit can have a variety of meanings, from explicit nudity to explicit act. For example, if we take the definition of the word in its entirety, then in a scene where an actress shows bush with no merkin, or an actor is full-frontal, then the scene can be described as explicit.

But, at least for me and always in regards to sex and nude scenes in movies, I feel that the word "explicit" means more than just full-frontals. Rosario Dawson's full-frontal scene in Trance for example where everything is shown and since she is an A-list actress is considered explicit by some since she dared to do the scene, but for me it doesn't make the cut because that's just about it.

What I would take as explicit would be obviously real sex that you can see penetration, explicit blowjob/cunnilingus, explicit genital touches which again is questionable because if it's something very brief it doesn't count for me, explicit (shown) masturbation, explicit riding even if no penetration is shown at least showing that she is actually sitting on his junk and see it kind of moving, not just maybe his balls from a distance. Take Irene Azulea and Michelle Borth as an example, that is explicit in my books even if it doesn't completely satisfy me. The only thing that is a bit hard to categorize is a realistic blowjob on a prosthetic, especially by a known actress, for example Louisa Krause's blowjob was very realistic, but because I know that it is not on a real dick I'm a bit confused to how I feel and I lean towards the not-satisfied.

I would really love your input so that maybe we can all come to some sort of understanding!

 

[opium]

I agree with you. I have another objection, movies like glimpse, Erika Lust, is just porn movie and not some mainstream movie with explicit sex. Movie with explicit sex is Peitruss or starlet 2012. This staff of movies I’m talking about

 

[sowbb]

I agree with mammos. Allow me to suggest a more precise scale, the way I see it:

• No-nudity \ Sexy scene: kinda obvious. bikinis, lingerie, sexy outfits but no view of breasts, butts or genitals (neither male nor female).
• Tame scene: you get to see only breast and buns, nothing more. Fondling, licking breasts, pinching butts etc. are acceptable in this category, as long as it's something you could see in the movie theater or non-playboy TV (e.g. PG-13).
• Nude scene \ Full-Frontal scene: you get to see full-on nudity, either male or female, or at the very least you see genitals (penis or vagina). Merkins are acceptable in this category and also some light fondling, as long as it's not overly shocking.
• Graphic scene: this is the rightful home of the "explicit nudity" scene. It's full frontal with benefits: labia, erect penises, legs spreading, zoom-ins on genitals etc. This is still just nudity and not sex, other than the PG-13 \ softcore-style variety.
• Explicit scene: scenes that go beyond nudity and show convincing, but not necessary real, sex acts. BJs on prosthetic members (that try to look real, not obvious for-comedy dildos), sitting on a penis where penetration is not necessarily shown, lesbian sex scenes that don't necessarily show explicit vaginal penetrations or oral, etc. It doesn't have to be real, but it should at least make a decent effort to.
• Unsimulated scene: scenes where the sex action (and there needs to be sex action!) is unsimulated and visibly so. Penetrations by fingers, hands, objects \ dildos or penises, explicit oral sex where you see mouth-to-genitals contact, explicit masturbation, closeup genital rubbing or grinding to other genital (e.g. tribbing), cumshots, etc.
• Fetish scene: for completion, scenes where the sex act is less mainstream - pissing, female-to-male anal penetration (pegging), menstruation, gore-sex, etc. Doesn't have to be explicit but needs to be convincing enough to warrant cringes and a warning to potential viewers.

Of course, all these only apply to scenes from mainstream movies. Porn, Erica Lust, etc., as opium mentioned, are on a scale of their own...

What do you think?

 

[Cleopatra]

For me, an example is the film All About Anna and I take an example from it. But still, I really want to see a longer version of the blowjob from Gry Bay (if there is one, of course)

 

[SomeGuy]

As "explicit" is defined as "fully revealed", my take on what "explicit" includes would be unsimulated sex and also anything that fully shows everything, which would include closeup pussy, labia, and dick scenes.

 

[Friendlyfella]

@mammos, you continue to be a valuable member of this forum. Thank you for your thoughtful and exhaustive piece. I know that some of my postings irked some of our fellow horny members, but it wasn't meant to provoke. While I still believe there is validity to the distinction between explicit nudity, explicit sex and real sex, for the sake of greater quality, I will stick to the suggested terminology, Thanks @sowbb! Like you, I am not a native speaker of English, so I do my best

@opium, I agree with you. I hate when porn, even classy and well-done porn, is included in the mainstream category. To me, even if the actors are not famous, for a movie to be called mainstream, it must be made by regular legitimate directors or film school students. And even then, the use of a porn actress in a mainstream movie kills it for me. The erotic element of "genuine actors doing it" is what I am after.

 

[justsum]

I have always taken "Explicit" as Graphic unsimulated sex.

 

[tng]

I wish this forum would stick to its roots of unsimulated sex scenes. There are billions of other forums to post that "explicit nudity" crap, but we've always been one of the only good forums for the unsimulated stuff. The reality is, there's not a lot of unsimulated sex scenes, barely a couple every year and that's fine, there's no need to stretch the definition just to post more stuff when it's not relevant to the premise of this forum.

Just look at the first page of the "Explicit scenes in mainstream cinema", it's a fucking mess, but it used to be the only reason why so many people visited this place, now you guys also added so many sub-forums, nobody gives a shit about those.

 

[Slimmpy09]

Hi everybody
So first I have to say thats my English is not so good, I hope you have understandig,
then I wanted to first thank everyone who post great stuff here, whether it is Explicit scenes or not,
ultimately is must decide for themselves, how exactly he finds it explicit, contributions from
different countries are also classified differently, because you can get through each other,
nevertheless a heartfelt thanks to everyone.

 

[opium]

Hi everybody
So first I have to say thats my English is not so good, I hope you have understandig,
then I wanted to first thank everyone who post great stuff here, whether it is Explicit scenes or not,
ultimately is must decide for themselves, how exactly he finds it explicit, contributions from
different countries are also classified differently, because you can get through each other,
nevertheless a heartfelt thanks to everyone.

It’s simple:
1) explicit sex scene is the scene which have sex with some dick or pussy in action
2) explicit nude scene is only a man or woman with dick or pussy in bathroom

That’s an international thoughts I’m guess

 

[sowbb]

While I too prefer to only have the "explicit scene" or higher category, I am aware that not everyone agrees with me, and other people preferences are just as valid as mine. Therefore I don't think banning non-explicit content is a good idea. I do think that all content should be labeled correctly, in a manner that allow anyone to find his or her preferred type of content easily and swiftly. I get why some people get annoyed when they invest time and effort (not no mention hope) downloading something labeled as "explicit", only to find that by their definition it's a rather tame scene. All of this can be avoided, however, if we decide on a universal set of definitions and label each post correctly. This way everyone is happy: those who only want to view unsimulated scenes do not have to find the needles in a haystack, and those with more flexible tastes can get all the scenes they want.

As for the explicit vs. unsimulated distinction: the "did she or didn't she" debate is not going to go away. In many scenes you simply cannot tell if it's real sex or special effects. Think about "Blue is the Warmest Color": the actresses denied vehemently that the scenes were unsimulated, while we all raised an eyebrow and had our doubts. This is only going to get worse - with the advents in computer graphics and special effects, in a couple of years we could have fully CGI scenes of seemingly real penetration close-ups that are completely indistinguishable from the real thing. Look at "Nymphomaniac" by Lars von Trier - none of the actresses had done any of the explicit acts, and yet I dare anyone to tell the difference. Or did they? In "Love" by Gaspard Noe, in addition to the obviously unsimulated scenes, some scenes do not show the actual penetrations and the actors did say some of the sex was simulated (why would they lie?). And yet I feel that even those dubious scenes can be classified as explicit because they are convincing enough - we know that they could be because other scenes with the same actors are, they look explicit and we see no evidence to the contrary.

I think we can only catalog scenes by what we see. If it looks like an unsimulated scene, and inspires fapping like an unsimulated scene, for all intents and purposes it is an unsimulated scene. In the end it's all just tiny lamps (pixels) on a screen.

As for the porn stars debate: like I said, I don't consider Porn or Lust productions to be a part of this scale. The borders are sketchy though: "Debby does Dallas" is obviously porn, but what about "Schnik Schnuck Schnook"? Or "The Great Ephemeral Skin" - "Lana Sue" did do porn shorts for Erika Lust? In recent years, porn stars and porn films are becoming more mainstream: for example, you can now cast porn stars in big budget TV shows ("Game of Thrones"). Back in the 70's, when "Deep Throat" came out, it was shown in real movie theaters and reviewed by serious critics. IMHO this is a case of "playing it by ear": hardcore films that "feel" mainstream or mainstream films that their explicitness stems from porn stars should still be considered "mainstream", but a warning about their dubiousness should be provided ("This is borderline porn film" or "Nudity done by porn stars").

Sorry for the long rant...

 

[opium]

While I too prefer to only have the "explicit scene" or higher category, I am aware that not everyone agrees with me, and other people preferences are just as valid as mine. Therefore I don't think banning non-explicit content is a good idea. I do think that all content should be labeled correctly, in a manner that allow anyone to find his or her preferred type of content easily and swiftly. I get why some people get annoyed when they invest time and effort (not no mention hope) downloading something labeled as "explicit", only to find that by their definition it's a rather tame scene. All of this can be avoided, however, if we decide on a universal set of definitions and label each post correctly. This way everyone is happy: those who only want to view unsimulated scenes do not have to find the needles in a haystack, and those with more flexible tastes can get all the scenes they want.

As for the explicit vs. unsimulated distinction: the "did she or didn't she" debate is not going to go away. In many scenes you simply cannot tell if it's real sex or special effects. Think about "Blue is the Warmest Color": the actresses denied vehemently that the scenes were unsimulated, while we all raised an eyebrow and had our doubts. This is only going to get worse - with the advents in computer graphics and special effects, in a couple of years we could have fully CGI scenes of seemingly real penetration close-ups that are completely indistinguishable from the real thing. Look at "Nymphomaniac" by Lars von Trier - none of the actresses had done any of the explicit acts, and yet I dare anyone to tell the difference. Or did they? In "Love" by Gaspard Noe, in addition to the obviously unsimulated scenes, some scenes do not show the actual penetrations and the actors did say some of the sex was simulated (why would they lie?). And yet I feel that even those dubious scenes can be classified as explicit because they are convincing enough - we know that they could be because other scenes with the same actors are, they look explicit and we see no evidence to the contrary.

I think we can only catalog scenes by what we see. If it looks like an unsimulated scene, and inspires fapping like an unsimulated scene, for all intents and purposes it is an unsimulated scene. In the end it's all just tiny lamps (pixels) on a screen.

As for the porn stars debate: like I said, I don't consider Porn or Lust productions to be a part of this scale. The borders are sketchy though: "Debby does Dallas" is obviously porn, but what about "Schnik Schnuck Schnook"? Or "The Great Ephemeral Skin" - "Lana Sue" did do porn shorts for Erika Lust? In recent years, porn stars and porn films are becoming more mainstream: for example, you can now cast porn stars in big budget TV shows ("Game of Thrones"). Back in the 70's, when "Deep Throat" came out, it was shown in real movie theaters and reviewed by serious critics. IMHO this is a case of "playing it by ear": hardcore films that "feel" mainstream or mainstream films that their explicitness stems from porn stars should still be considered "mainstream", but a warning about their dubiousness should be provided ("This is borderline porn film" or "Nudity done by porn stars").

Sorry for the long rant...

even if the scenes are not clear with some dark scene of penetration, the doubts excites you, but nakedness is not explicit, is nudity

 

[Warfighter02]

Native english speaker here.

My two cents. My view of the whole shebang is this;

Irene Azuela’s scene in Las Oscuras Primaveras is the gold standard for "explicit". Revealing full-frontal nudity from her (she spreads her legs) and the actor has an erection, but yet the sex is almost certainly simulated. This is how I define explicit. Another honorable mention would be Together Alone with hitherto unknown actress Toni Evangelista. Full frontal nudity and her co-star(s) sport erections but the sex simulated. Also the PBTV Latin America shows such as Presencias, Sexomnia or Secretos de una Obsesion contain explicit female nudity in practically every episode. The male-female sex however seem mostly simulated but contain explicit nudity from the actress and even the actor at times. This, in my opinion would constitute "explicit scenes in mainstream cinema".

Take Gry Bay in All About Anna or Margo Stilley in 9 Songs. Now in these two films you can obviously see everything. But to add to that the sex is clearly unsimulated. So if the scene contains sex which is clearly and irrefutably unsimulated, I would categorize that as "unsimulated sex scene".

On the other for your standard run of the mill Hollywood or European sex scene where nudity is present but there is no clear view of the actress’ privates ie; vulva/anus would be the standard "nude sex scene" in my books. Do note that many European sex scenes feature full-frontal nudity (bush/pubic area) by at least the actress and often include same nudity by the actor as well (ie; his flaccid penis). This is how I define "non-explicit scenes in mainstream cinema".

 

[mammos]

Dear @JohnsonJ , thank you for your update. However, I believe the majority of us do not count explicit female nudity as an explicit scene, meaning that when we mention explicit scene, actual intercourse or explicit act i.e. fingering, masturbation, blowjob etc. must be clearly seen or at the very least confirmed. Ok, if an actress shows a great full-frontal for example with her legs spread-eagle that you can see everything it it's glory, then that can be considered somewhat like a semi-explicit scene, at least in my eyes.

 

[JohnsonJ]

Dear @JohnsonJ , thank you for your update. However, I believe the majority of us do not count explicit female nudity as an explicit scene, meaning that when we mention explicit scene, actual intercourse or explicit act i.e. fingering, masturbation, blowjob etc. must be clearly seen or at the very least confirmed. Ok, if an actress shows a great full-frontal for example with her legs spread-eagle that you can see everything it it's glory, then that can be considered somewhat like a semi-explicit scene, at least in my eyes.

I 100% disagree with that, but I do see that is the general consensus around here and I don't want to make it a debate if that's what has already been concluded. In the future though, specifying the type of explicit scenes you mean helps(sex, masturbation, fingering, blowjob, etc, or a more general sexual acts). Saying explicit scene is too open for interpretation for me, that would includes what you mentioned above plus explicit nude scenes. I couldn't find a way to write that without it sounding dickish, but trust me I'm not.