Comments on: Tell Me You Love Me: Does It Matter If They Did It?

By: agata

agata — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 09:22:03 +0000

What? Series about sex? Boring! It's time to shock the audience with same-sex relationships zoomed on the screen! People, Let's fall!

signature: "Nothing makes you forget about love like adult toys"

By: Anonymous2

Anonymous2 — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:25:25 +0000

Fcobento,

I'd say that your descriptions of porn don't really fit for today, not in the impossible shaved physical stds. of the new millenium. Especially for female porn, which does have a sizeable plot. (Think Zalmon king.) I think I'd respect Tell Me You Love Me and its makers if it weren't pretending to be more, unlike something like Zalmon King. Porn stars are picked for their bodies and looks-a food line seems like a very unpleasant kind of a crap shoot for a producer. Porn stars at the least are auditioned. Moreover, given all the fetishes out there, any material is potentially mastrubatory. When an actor gives up their privacy and boundaries on film they put themselves out there to be used in such a way.

In this case, the actors in TMYLM are selling themselves for the plot line, for the "art," and, in the case of the older actors in agist Hollywood, for work.

By: Francesca

Francesca — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:02:24 +0000

Please, if it wasn't for the very real looking and graphic sex in "Tell Me You Love Me" there would be little interest in the show. It certainly wouldn't be considered "revolutionary" or special. On the other hand showing married people having sex, I suppose that could be revolutionary. BTW if we didn't have the "bourgeois" boundaries of not showing porn (soft core {which doesn't depend financially upon the "money shot"} or otherwise) on network TV, "the shock the bourgeoisie" delinquents wouldn't be giddy with self-absorbed glee over this new show. So saying that the sex (including its questionable reality) doesn't matter to a show whose whole existence depends upon it, is a really tedious game. BTW WHAT a strange world we live in, when it is most likely someone's job to construct plastic genitalia so other people can pay to watch others pretend to have sex? HOW f'd up a culture are we.

By: Fcobento

Fcobento — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 13:52:48 +0000

L.A., i think it depends on what do you think it´s porn. Personally, I think that porn is something you watch to get off or as a prop for sexual arousement.In porn there´s no story. In porn the cast were picked up on the line for food for the homeless. In porn, the movie is shot in one single day. Therefor, this not porn. it´s a fantastic tv show with an incredible story, incredible cast and beautifully directed.
The fact you mentioned that the actors are really doing it... well, I actually praise them for such commitment witht the project and i´m pretty sure they were not asked to do it in front of the cameras since the actual penetration is never shown. Maybe some of them decided to go on with it while others didnt... or else there would be a lot of trials having HBO as defendant.
BTW, sorry for the lousy english.

By: L.A. Actress

L.A. Actress — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 20:58:16 +0000

I'm an actor in L.A. and know through other actor friends who have first-hand knowledge about what goes on in the sex scenes for this show and I can tell you the honest truth about it -- IT IS TOTALLY REAL. There are no props, and no digitalizing. Matter of fact, the female lead for this show thinks it is her talent to be able to "turn on" the other fellow actor -- and she feels insulted for anyone to think what they are doing is not real.

In the room where I heard all of this, you should have heard the gasps from the other actors. Why gasps? Because to those of us who are not porn actors, it is hardly imaginable that you can call yourself anything but a porn actor when you A) really do the sex in the scene and B) enjoy turning on the other actor. Bottom line: This is porn.

By: Erin

Erin — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:57:17 +0000

The series finale just aired on Sunday, and I watched every episode multiple times. The nudity and sex scenes, while graphic, are really intregal to the story lines, and I must admit (being a person in lots of therapy at the present time....) that watching this show was like having an additional therapy session every week. In a good way. I haven't seen a dramatic show with writing this good since I can't remember. and yeah, I was a huge Sopranos fan, still am, but it's like comparing apples and oranges. This is entirely different and isn't meant to be a replacement for Sopranos at all. God willing there will be many more seasons to come for this show.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 05:44:38 +0000

I have yet to see a movie where they show female genitals. Even though a lot of the female population shaves this area there is always a bush strategically in the way. It is not an even trade. Breasts are not genitals. They provide nourishment for newborns and a stimulous for intercourse much in the same way brawd shoulder and chisled abs on a man stimulate women.
I am tired of seeing graphic sexual content on TV. The only good thing on TV is live sports. GO YANKS!!!!!!

By: kasey

kasey — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 14:04:29 +0000

In response to Amanda: Contrary to popular belief, there is nothing wrong with men viewing women as objects, sexual or otherwise. As human beings we objectify each other all the time. The most common and accepted way is by paying someone to do a job. Just about all forms of general labor reduce a person to little more than a robot. Hence why in todays modern society many people lose their jobs to robots. Additionally, it is the modern woman that practises the most extreme form of sexual objectification. So much so that she doesn't even need the entire man, just 2 AA batteries. Thats right, vibrators and even dildos. At least when men sexually objectify women, we objectify the entire woman. Women wouldn't even give us men the courtesy of including the testicles in these obivous forms of male sexual objectification; they are only interested in the MEAT of the matter. Pun intended.

By: kasey

kasey — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 13:34:52 +0000

In response to Gena: Althoug nude women have always been generally on display in the MAINSTREAM entertainment media, there has always been a seldomly crossed line when it comes to showing female genitals (ie vulva). The main venue for complete female nudity has always been some form of pornograhy. My comment about 'sticking to hardcore porno' was meant to be facetious. I find most hardcore porno sad, distrubing and hard to watch. However, if one enjoys viewing the nude female form in its entirety then hardcore porn is the primary venue. I wish that wasn't the case.

By: kasey

kasey — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 12:23:05 +0000

Everyone here seems to have missed the point that myself, and I think Bill, tried to make. That being, though there is nothing wrong about a penis, there is nothing wrong with showing a penis, and there is certainly nothing wrong with liking penises or with being gay; as a heterosexual male the only penis that interests me is my own. The complaint I have is that it is becoming all too common to see penises being showcased by various entertainment media. I believe that my feelings about penises are representative of a vast majority of heterosexual men, and since we make up a very large segment of the viewing public, our complaints carry weight. Futhermore, visiual depictions of sexuality have historically been used to appeal primarily to heterosexual men. So as a consumer, what myself and other like me are saying is: "We're not buying what you are selling." My complaint is not a comment on homosexuality, nor is it meant to deny anyone equal access to male nudity. It is simple a statement about what I (a heterosexual man) like to see and what I don't like to see. I like to see hot naked women. But not just boobs or butts and certainly not just pubic hair. To put it plainly; I LOVE P***Y.

p.s. The show sucks