quote: Mormons are extremely sensitive about being associated with polygamy, and HBO is considering a prologue explaining that the Mormon Church disavowed the practice in 1890.
At least they're making noises like they're trying. It actually may be a decent show, but knowing that it'll be on HBO, it'll probably be laced with needless sex. No thanks.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
WIth three wives...needless sex is probably a given, although they also made a comment about focusing more on the interpersonal relationships amoung the couple(s).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aside from the purely Mormon side, depending on how they depict the polygamy, they have yet to hear the fury of Tapestry. Where LDS may grumble, these folks yell and sue.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I hafta admit, the shows I've watched lately on HBO (Rome, Sopranos, Deadwood) have not included much "needless sex"-within the story they're telling, that is.
The Sopranos is about a bunch of gangsters and their families living in the modern world. If you're going to actually tell that story, there's going to be frequent adultery. Deadwood is about a settlement far from "civilization" a long while back. Brothels played a substantial part in such towns, and thus such stories-telling such a story will include quite a bit of sex too. And Rome, well, it's difficult to say. It's been such a long time, so definitely there's a lot that's just made up, but on the other hand, in 12 episodes I can recall only a few times they ever showed sex.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:WIth three wives...needless sex is probably a given, although they also made a comment about focusing more on the interpersonal relationships amoung the couple(s).
I don't see how a show exploring a polygamous relationship (or set of relationships really) that focuses on interpersonal relationships could be possible without also exploring the sexual aspects of the situation. If the show didn't spend a large amount of time showing how each individual handles the sexual side, the show would be incomplete.
So unless the show is one big orgy, I don't see how any sex shown in this show could be "needless".
You know, Saints was very much the exploration of polygamous relationships, and you know what? Sex was an important part of that exploration. It wasn't described in graphic detail, but it was described, and the book would have been incomplete if it wasn't.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't see how a show exploring a polygamous relationship (or set of relationships really) that focuses on interpersonal relationships could be possible without also exploring the sexual aspects of the situation. If the show didn't spend a large amount of time showing how each individual handles the sexual side, the show would be incomplete
Exploring the sexual relationships does not mean that gratuitous sex scenes are needed.
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exploring the sexual relationships does not mean that gratuitous sex scenes are needed.
I would say that depends on whose definition of "gratuitous" you use, and what you mean by "needed".
I would hate for HBO to not show a sex scene which would have been important to advancement of the plot, or to a character's development.
I don't think there was any ever a sex scene in Rome, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, or Carnivale which I saw that was there for titilation and not for the purpose of story telling.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rome, The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Deadwood, or Carnivale
Hmmm...I'd have to agree
with you on Rome, Deadwood, and Carnivale. Six Feet Under meandered for a while with some plots that seemed pretty meaningless but nonetheless involved many sexual situations (not that I'm complaining, per se).
Posts: 1480 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I hafta admit, the shows I've watched lately on HBO (Rome, Sopranos, Deadwood) have not included much "needless sex"-within the story they're telling, that is.
Maybe she meant "needless sex" the way I would mean it -- more than I need to see.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hmmm...I'd have to agree with you on Rome, Deadwood, and Carnivale. Six Feet Under meandered for a while with some plots that seemed pretty meaningless but nonetheless involved many sexual situations
I can't argue with you there, because I only saw the first, and the second half of the last, seasons of Six Feet Under. So on that show, I speak largely out of ignorance.
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well that's a very different question, Porter. I know there's two different definitions-in terms of this discussion, that is. I wonder if it's because so much of the sex actually shown is adulterous? I mean, would it be a problem if the sex in those shows was shown between a married couple?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Sex is a part of life. They want their shows to be more realistic.
That reasoning is stupid. Using the toilet is a part of life, too. Should that be included in television as graphically as sex is?
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course it does. And that's a ligitimate reason to include sexual situations. "It's a part of life" is not.
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it shows graphic depictions of someone excreting for no other reason than that it's a part of their normal life, then I'm sure glad I haven't.
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
FWIW, I was shocked on several occasions by what I saw in OZ, pH. That didn't stop me from watching. I thought it was a powerful series about the hell of prison and the people inside, though I hope (not being able to speak from authority) that it didn't depict a typical prison.
On the other hand, I can believe that nearly everything in the show had a large bit of truth to it, though I bet you'd have to study prison life in every prison in the US to gather all the story elements together. (At least I hope so.)
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: How one approaches sex reveals a lot more about one's character than how one uses the toilet.
You really think so?
Yes. How could it not?
It's not as though one is REQUIRED, biologically, to have a certain amount of sex, first of all. Not to mention, there is another person directly involved.
I'd say that someone who doesn't use a condom is revealing a lot more about him- or herself than someone who doesn't always was his/her hands.
Edit: Or for a more direct comparison, condom use vs. whether or not one covers the seat with toilet paper.
quote: How one approaches sex reveals a lot more about one's character than how one uses the toilet.
You really think so?
Do you think otherwise? Seriously? I'd sooner buy a comparison between sexual habits and eating habits than between sexual habits and toilet habits, but that's just me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it depends on your toilet habits. *avoids saying anything else because NO ONE WANTS TO KNOW*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My friend had this to say about the show...
President and Mrs. Coolidge once visited a government farm, taking separate tours. Mrs. Coolidge expressed some interest in a prize rooster. The farmer told her that the rooster was able to perform the sex act several times a day. Mrs. Coolidge told the farmer "Tell that to Mr. Coolidge when he comes by."
When he got there, the farmer told him about it. Coolidge asked "Is it with the same hen every time?"
"No," the farmer said, "it's with a different hen each time."
Coolidge said "Be sure to tell that to Mrs. Coolidge."
I am not saying anything one way or the other about polygamy...or about the show...that would take too long with the very high probability of being misunderstood. I just found my friend's connection entertaining.
Posts: 45 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
