This post is inspired from Maribel4’s thread”Disgusted with celebrities...”.
That thread focused on the acceptance for betrayal in media provided the betrayal can be masked as “love”. An example is: ”The Bridges of Madison County”. And there are many others.

My focus differ: In these films I see married actors doing nude love scenes with other married actors. And they are not M to each other. When watching these films I am not able to see them only as the characters in the story. We may see characters, but in reality they are actors that afterwards will return home to their S and act as if noting happened. I have done quite a “research” on the internet, searching phrases like “married actor in love scene”, “actor in nude scene” and many other variants. There is lots of stuff out there on this topic.

The pages I found often were laying smoke screens to reduce the significance of what actually happened in the studio: The setup surrounding the scene, with camera-crew, directors, the heat of the lights, the embarrassment, all factors affecting the actors to make the scene weird and removing the sexual arousal and the emotional connection.
The other way to minimize the significance is to emphasize the professionalism of the actors. As such it is not the actor that acts. The actor gives credibility and life to the character. “They probably do not even like the other actor”.
Apparently journalists are fond of asking questions about the intimate scenes when the actors are interviewed. The answers are typical “it felt very weird” or something like that. Everyone seems eager to signal that it meant nothing. Nothing really happened…

But, we se time and again that these actors brake up from their previous M and end up with the OP (the other actor). And we have a famous statement from Alfred Hitchcock (The one with horror films) that these scenes very often later are followed up in the privacy of the trailers (in witch the actors live on location).
And despite all the talk about the professionalism, there seems to be very much tolerance in the industry towards non-professional behavior. This is apparently an industry that fully accepts infidelity from colleagues. And everyone seems to participate in laying smoke screens to reduce the impacts on the families affected. The terms “professionalism”, and “only acting” are frequently used.

To be fair, there are also actors that make the stand: “No more nude scenes for me”. (Brad Pitt).


I think that for a M’ed actor to engage in such scenes is infidelity. Presence or absence of emotions is in my opinion just a smoke screen. Whether or not there are emotions involved, the M wows is broken. There is no special M ceremony for actors. They like every one else have wowed to be totally exclusively with their S. No amount of professionalism can change that.

I also believe that such scenes are not an essential part of the films. It is possible to create a credible love story without the audience forcing themselves on to (or being forced into) the privacy of the bedroom. And we owe the actors not to be forced to pay this price in order to have a profession.

What would you think if your S were an actor?

Hi Frank,

Maribel here. Interesting topic. I think that I would feel very uncomfortable if my FWH were an actor and had to act in nude & graphic love scenes. I wouldn't want to watch him, nor would I want our kids or family to watch the film (if he made one). I would be embarrassed by it. But, I don't know if it would be more of a feeling of embarrassment or infidelity. I've never dated an actor, so I don't really know how I would react.

Well, we all know what happenned with Brad Pitt & A.Jolie when they filmed "Mr. & Mrs. Smith." Same thing with Richard Burton & Elizabeth Taylor in "Cleopatra," although E.Taylor was married to Eddie Fisher (she had an A with him, while he was married to Debbie Reynolds).

I believe that it's dangerous waters to place ourselves in those types of situations, even though it may be play acting. Acting is a little similar to fantasy. Sometimes people get too much into the role and develop feelings for their coactor.

I think that Pat Boone made it a role never to kiss his leading lady in any type of movie. The movie would show them about to kiss, but you never actually saw it. Am I correct? Maybe someone will know.

I am in agreement that such graphic & nude love scenes are not an essential part of the film. I think that we can let our imagination take over.

How many X's are in the film rating?

Try out Bollywood films - no kissing allowed.

(They do run 4+ hours though - better have some free time)

Didn't Brad dump Jen over the relationship he developed with Angie on the set? How can you be that close to someone in intimate situations and not have it affect you personally? In all honesty, I think the X actors are less likely to develop attachments. To them, I think it is just business.

And I don't care how many technicians, grips and gaffers are standing around - pelvic grinding is intimate.

(and what is a gaffer anyway?)

Did not bother me at all. He's not acting now, but he was acting when we married.





What about actors who murder on screen? Are they guilty of murder ? (My H was in Scarface.)
What about actors who portray slave owners on screen. Are they slave owners? (My H was a slave on a TV show)
What about actors who are alcoholics on screen. Are they alcoholics? (My H never played an alcoholic - but he IS an alcoholic)

Look - I am not arguing with your opinion. It's a valid opinion - I am simply answering your question and asking some similar questions.

PS:

What about movies where there is no on screen sex - but the characters are deeply in love with each other. Is this an EA?

Hello Pepp!


(Sorry for my spelling in this post, I have no spell checker on this PC, and English is my second language.)





When an actor murders someone on screen, is then anybody really killed? No! When an actor on screen acted the role of an alcoholic, is he then turned into an alcoholic? No!
When a M actor as part of a role squeezes the naked breast of his female co-star is he then within the boundaries defined by his M wows?



In the wows we promise to be emotionally and physically exclusive with our S. The exclusivity of the sexual act is very central to the M and the M wows. There is no exception taken in the wows for professional or detached acts. "It was only sex, it didn't mean anything" is an excuse that is usually not accepted.


If touching of intimate body parts should not be exclusive to the M couple. What is then left of the M? Then I would agree with those who say that the M is "just a legal paper".


There are situations where professionalism removes the sexual content of touching. Treatment from health workers is an obvious example. But there is a wide gulf between a health examination of a breast and what we may see in serious movies like "Matrix".


I agree with pioj.:


To the extent that the actors actually does what we see with no visual tricks involved, then I see no way to avoid the conclusion that the M wows are broken in many of these acts, also in serious movies.