The HORROR of SEX

Hey I'm all for seeing some tit, but sometimes for me it just slows down the story big time. There are exceptions though.

Because many horror films have been obviously geared toward a core demographic: adolescent boys.

That's especially true of the slasher flicks in the 80's.

Carl's right. It's nearly always been about exploitation and titillation since the late 60's. Some of the stuff in the past 25 years has just been shameless.

Well, I'm talking about American Horror. Overseas has a completely different sensibility regarding sex, for the most part. Obviously things like "Necromantik" and the like are...well, they're way beyond anything on the planet. If you dig that stuff, OK. Just don't come by me.
I'm refferring to the drive-in stuff of the 60's & 70's, the straight to video stuff of the 80s & 90s. Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of stuff that's great - I'm referring to the stuff with no passion, the stuff made to just make a quick buck. There's a whole lot more of it out there than the good stuff, unfortunately.
Clive Barker is one of the few, along with Cronenberg and maybe Argento ( a guy who's really messed up), who successfully inject sexuality and sexual politics into the genre...
Sean Cunningham, for example? No. That's just exploitation for exploitation's sake, IMHO.

We're in total agreement.
Its gotta be our mutual Chicago upbringing. wink

I don't think that sex and horror go 'hand in glove' for any one reason, and simply branding all movie sexuality as a blatant attempt to pander to adolescent hormones is probably a bit simplistic.

If it's a glossy high-budget picture aimed at the Joe Sixpacks of the world, then sex is part of the formula that is part of the expectations of that particular strain of viewer. Was the story really served in THE RING remake by a slow pan up Naomi Watts' body while she stood there in her underwear? Would the confusion and isolation Milla Jovovich was feeling at the end of RESIDENT EVIL have been less evident if we hadn't seen her labia? Would Eliza Dushku have seemed any less threatened when tied to the bed in WRONG TURN if, for the first time in the flick, her shirt hadn't been torn to show her bra underneath?

It's inclusion in other horror product I think is more because of the general "the gloves are off now" philosophy. If you're already going to show pain and tragedy, you might as well break some other taboos too.

Naturally, it would be remiss to at least mention the very simple "sex sells" idea. People like the chemical stuff that goes on in their brain (and their pants), which makes them more willing to open the wallet. Snuff said.

As has been pointed out recently, I am particularly sheeplike and stupid so I probably shouldn't try to dig into the whole idea of subverting something usually considered positive. But it probably figures in with some movies too (DAGON, Uxia, bed, breasts then gills then tentacles).

Baa.

edited: repetition is fun, and so is repetition.

When I saw the title to this thread, I thought "Great, a discussion of Cronenberg." I think Cronenberg takes the sex/horror thing to a whole -nother level, making sex actually the object of horror (which some would argue is an appropriate theme for those adolescent boys who fetishize horror films--nothing could be more frightening to them then the opposite sex). In a way, this is just a more clear invocation of the Michael Myers/Jason Voorhes figure, a personification of the consequences of sex, but what makes Cronenberg so unique is that his images are not exactly titillating in the traditional sense. In fact, they're quite disgusting to most people. Does any of this make sense? I know in my head what I mean, but I think I'm typing a bunch of gibberish. Anyway, if you're talking about the intersection of sex and horror films, you really have to talk about Woody Allen's Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex But Were Afraid To Ask. The Giant Tit sequence of that film could keep Freud busy writing for a month.

Bingo, Z-Man.
I mentioned Cronenberg in my earlier post. I never really thought about the Woddy allen thing...very funny.

I agree that the combination goes way beyond just exploitation flicks of the drive-in era. That was more sex/porn dressed up as horror films. And the horror came not from being scary in those films--but violent. And for many, sex goes hand in hand with violence as well.
But I think the main connection comes in on a gut/instinct level. Horror is a visceral genre. It works on a subconscious level and plays on our fears and hopes in ways dramas, comedies, etc don't. You may need to be somewhat intelligent to enjoy a Woody Allen film (not that only people who like them are intelligent--you know what I mean) but you can be very, very simple minded or a child and you know all about being scared of the dark and running from that man with the chainsaw. It's instinctual--fight or flight.
Sex is the same, it is in essence a primitive instinct to propogate the species. Attraction is not always at mind level. So sex can easliy be combined with horror--as can violence (cause not all horror movies are Old House spookies as we know) because they all spring from the same areas of the mind. And they can be used to explore each other as you guys have mentioned so well that Cronenberg does. It's probably also why so many horror movies, like Argento's etc can work on the level of dream logic rather than plot because a horror film is already working on the subconscious level as well as the conscious.

I think that when talking about sex, we shouldn't limit the conversation to just "T&A" or symbolism ...

Sex, eroticism, and the desire to feel impowered or dominated are very closely related to the emotions involved in violence, assault, even murder ... Identity ( or a lack of ) and control issues are both very relevant when it comes to both ...

For example, the act of rape is not one of sex, but of control and anger ...

Sex has an extremely important role in horror, whether it be PSYCHO, AUDITION, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, THE EXORCIST, PEEPING TOM, TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE or THE WICKER MAN ... In all of these films, sex plays a huge role, and not the stereotypical "T&A" role either ... In TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE, Leatherface's transformation was subtley horrifing, and the fact that he fell into the "female" role as the film progressed was highly disturbing ...

From very early on in childhood, we have conflicts regarding sex: sons competing with their fathers for the love and attention of their mothers, daughters trying to balance the love for mom with the transition to feelings for their first male love interest ( dad ), etc etc .... Psychology is never a simple thing, and from early on, sex and identity play a big role in the development of a person ...

I think that most people are curious, if not fasciniated, with serial killers, and this shows the natural emotional ties we have to both sex and violence .. After all, it is all about control ...

... on the other hand, I cannot deny the fact that I will purchase WRONG TURN immediately upon its release - not because it is some sort of classic, but because Eliza Dushku was totally hot and looked great in those tight jeans

Something else we also need to remember is another reason why sex was made consequential in 80s horror films. AIDS. Once Aids became a serious epidemic, the thought of having sex with another person could mean death for you. So to use it in a horror film, is just a symbolic way of adhering to the fears of the teens at the time. Nowadays, its just become standard.

I do believe that many of the straight to video horror films that are harmless fluff. Decapitions AND silicone are both expected and are part of a formula that producers feel sell to a demographic. Still...

Great points throught your entire post, Vitus.

Anyone who thinks that I Spit On Your Grave is truly "The Day of the Woman", as it once was titled, needs to take their member out of their hands and think about what they are watching.

As we watch these films we'll see that even exploitation has different levels to it. The nudity in Slumber Party Massacre is far different then Kruger tormenting the teenage girls in Last House On The Left (albeit both are exploitative). In many of these films sex = violence and for some people that is titilating, while for others it is disturbing.

I agree that horror is a taboo breaking genre as far as violence goes, so breaching other taboos is an assumed fit.

May, is a film where the sexual tone of the film is important to the development of the lead character and to the themes of the film. Hitchcock's Psycho (with Bates looking through the peephole and the murder in the shower) falls snugly into this category as well.

And finally:

Is this a trick question? Milla uses her labia and breasts like other classically trained actors use their eyes and facial expressions. She nailed the role of "stock video game character" and Anderson was a good enough director to "nail it" himself.

Good thread.

While I think this is a valid theory now, don't forget that AIDS wasn't even known to 99% percent of the population until Rock Hudson discussed it prior to his death in 1985. I don't remember when he announced what his affliction was but I believe it was late 1984 (correct me if I am wrong). I doubt it influenced any horror films until a couple years after that.

By late 1984, slasher films had already patented their look, content, and prevalent running themes (sex and drugs = death).

On that note (HUGE thread derailment), which writers and directors have said that their horror films are thematically dealing with the reality of AIDS (or other STDs) in the past 17 years or so? I bet their are a few but I can't think of them off hand.

Probably not, I think he just does what he does, but I think it reflects on that. When you look at how sex is usually presented in horror movies, particularly in the slasher genre, it's very much attempting to appeal to that male adolescent audience, and I think Cronenberg just does much more complex things than that. It's sort of like, when you think about what most men find sexy, these airbrushed pictures of models, allways in certain specific poses, it's very much a fantasy version of sex, very removed from the reality of sex. Whereas if you were to show them an ultra-cloeseup photograph of a woman's vulva, it's not the most sexy visual. That's how I think of Cronenberg's aproach to sex.