Jump to content
ResolutionBlaze

What I's It With Sex And Horror?

Recommended Posts

Evolutionary psychology says otherwise. Almost EVERYTHING you feel is based on instinct.

 

If that is so I would love to ask when was the last time you went through with an action based purely on your instinct?

 

Clearly instinct is far from the only force there is.  As humans we are capable of choosing which instincts to obey or disobey through sheer will, and we do so because we have reason, and by extension from reason, we have morality.

 

You don't act on every sexual impulse or else you may become a rapist.  You don't act on every desire for food or you become a glutton.

 

"Absolute obedience for your impulse of self preservation is what we call 'cowardice'; for your acquisitive impulse, avarice.  Even sleep must be resisted if you're a sentry.  But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned, so long as the object aimed at is 'four bare legs in a bed'." ~CS Lewis

 

Clearly, we are influenced by instinct.  But it doesn't stop there.  How we choose one instinct over another, how we can grade each instinct based on situation and importance, based on what happens to others, based on what happens to us, based on our beliefs and our thoughts, is what we call morality.  When we study or think of this, it's called reason. Which is far more complex than simple instincts.  Instincts are merely the keys to an instrument; morality and reason is the sheet of music we must play.  There's no such thing as good or bad impulses, strictly speaking.  But there is such thing as right and wrong behavior.  Morality.

 

I rambled a bit but the point remains the same; we are far more than simply instincts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree about sex being part of horror movies purely for exploitation.

 

Of course, the sex scene, the slutty characters, etc... are all exploitation, or fan service, however sex is a huge part of horror even in the parts of the movie that aren't exploitation.

 

Why is the Final girl in horror movies often (not always) the «Virgin»? Why is the killer often sexually deviant/immature?

 

I think writing off the sexual aspect of horror movies and slashers in particular as purely exploitation is oversimplifying it a bit..

 

Name me one scene that was benefited or attributed anything to the story because of sex.  That the story would not be the same if the sex scene was removed and the plot derailed.

 

Any movie or literature or media that accomplishes that does sex right.  If sex isn't an important plot element it's just bait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name me one scene that was benefited or attributed anything to the story because of sex.  That the story would not be the same if the sex scene was removed and the plot derailed.

 

Any movie or literature or media that accomplishes that does sex right.  If sex isn't an important plot element it's just bait.

 well you went COMPLETELY besides my point. I said I agree sex scenes are exploitation, but sex is still a very important concept in horror movies, as can be seen in the often virtuous Final girl and the often deviant killer. Which is why I think that sex is a big part of horror and plays a much more complex role in those types of movies than simple exploitation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 well you went COMPLETELY besides my point. I said I agree sex scenes are exploitation, but sex is still a very important concept in horror movies, as can be seen in the often virtuous Final girl and the often deviant killer. Which is why I think that sex is a big part of horror and plays a much more complex role in those types of movies than simple exploitation

 

But you didn't go on to explain how they are important in concept...

 

Only that they play a big part because the killer is a deviant... of course he's a deviant, he's a killer.  But how does sex contribute to his character that dialogue doesn't already convey?  Or that their character or backstory doesn't convey?

 

Sex scenes are not important nor is sexualization unless explicitly important to the plot of the current story.  And you haven't given me any.  Which is a genuine question; again I'm not a slasher fan.

 

(please understand that often times I may sound angry but i'm not :D)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you didn't go on to explain how they are important in concept...

 

Only that they play a big part because the killer is a deviant... of course he's a deviant, he's a killer.  But how does sex contribute to his character that dialogue doesn't already convey?  Or that their character or backstory doesn't convey?

 

Sex scenes are not important nor is sexualization unless explicitly important to the plot of the current story.  And you haven't given me any.  Which is a genuine question; again I'm not a slasher fan.

 

(please understand that often times I may sound angry but i'm not :D)

 

No prob man haha :) first of all, disclaimer, this is all only my opinion

 

1) My point is that sex in slashers represents normalcy. Most characters are young horny kids being young horny kids wanting to have fun and hook up. Two characters are set apart from the normal « standard », the Final girl, who is often virtuous and is set apart by her lack of sexual interest or her resistance to being sexually active, and the killer who is sexually deviant. He is shown to not be normal by his sexual immaturity (Jason, norman bates, Leatherface in TCM 2 when his « chainsaw» «malfunctions» and he proceeds to rub it on the Final girl's crotch, etc...) or sexual depravity (freddy krueger, buffalo bill,  the killer from Black Christmas, etc...)

 

My point is that the sexual relationships between characters tell us theyre normal. The lack of sexual relationship in the Final girl shows us she's special and the sexual immaturity/depravity of the killers tell us theyre evil, which is why SEX is an important concept. 

 

2) Notable sex scenes that actually advance the plot in horror movies : Sidney having sex with Billy in SCREAM who is taking her virginity to prevent her from being a Final girl, Leatherface's «chainsaw» «malfunction» and sexual rubbing in THC 2, Rosemary having sex with her husband who is actually impregnating her with Satan's spawn in Rosemary's baby, the cross masturbation scene in The Exorcist, the sex scene in It (book from Stephen King), the rape scenes in I spit on your grave and subsequent sex scene in the bath tub, any sex scene in It Follows, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is so I would love to ask when was the last time you went through with an action based purely on your instinct? 1

 

Clearly instinct is far from the only force there is.  As humans we are capable of choosing which instincts to obey or disobey through sheer will, and we do so because we have reason, and by extension from reason, we have morality. 2

 

You don't act on every sexual impulse or else you may become a rapist.  You don't act on every desire for food or you become a glutton. 3

 

"Absolute obedience for your impulse of self preservation is what we call 'cowardice'; for your acquisitive impulse, avarice.  Even sleep must be resisted if you're a sentry.  But every unkindness and breach of faith seems to be condoned, so long as the object aimed at is 'four bare legs in a bed'." ~CS Lewis 4

 

Clearly, we are influenced by instinct.  But it doesn't stop there.  How we choose one instinct over another, how we can grade each instinct based on situation and importance, based on what happens to others, based on what happens to us, based on our beliefs and our thoughts, is what we call morality.  When we study or think of this, it's called reason. Which is far more complex than simple instincts.  Instincts are merely the keys to an instrument; morality and reason is the sheet of music we must play.  There's no such thing as good or bad impulses, strictly speaking.  But there is such thing as right and wrong behavior.  Morality. 5

 

I rambled a bit but the point remains the same; we are far more than simply instincts. 6

 

1. I avoided confronting someone over their despicable actions because of self preservation.

 

2. "Reason" is an extension of our more complex instincts. Logic is also informed by instincts that encourage learning, all in the interest of self preservation.

 

3. You don't act on every sexual impulse because of self preservation, and moral reasons. Morality is just the human instinct to remain a healthy member of society. Ironically enough, the Golden Rule is something we instinctual understand. Rape is wrong, because if it wasn't, you would be far more likely to be a victim of it. From an evolutionary standpoint, it was in humanities best interest to consider things like rape and murder wrong. As for gluttony? That's simple self preservation. Your instincts tell you to avoid unhealthy behavior if you can. These drives can contradict each other, but it's all still instinct. That's why people with a back round of starvation tend to NOT moderate what they eat, regardless of their current station.

 

4. That's a good quote. Doesn't really contradict what I said though.

 

5. You're right. They can't be explained with simple instincts, but they can be explained with complicated instincts. Everything else you said here is just fluff.

 

6. Alright, let me see if I can show you an example of what I'm talking about.

I'll choose to discuss something many people consider decisive proof against the idea that humans are primarily driven by instinct. Self sacrifice.

If the entire point of instinct is self preservation and breeding why on earth would we evolve ANY level of such self defeating altruism. Well let's begin with how it would spread. If your a female, what is your objective from an instinctual point of view? Find an ideal mate, breed, and ensure the survival of as many of your children as you can. So let's say one of the males in your tribe is strong and greedy, but another is strong and willing to share. You'll pick the one who shares. He's more likely to provide for you and your children. So males with altruistic behaviors tended to breed more often. But what about self sacrifice? You can't breed if you're dead. Ask yourself this. How likely are you to be in a situation where you have to sacrifice your life to save another? Not often right? But even then, that can also be explained. Back when humanity had to fight to survive, a whole tribe could die overnight. Those that survived, were those that had value systems most conducive to surviving as a group. What behaviors benefit a group? Altruism, and sacrifice. And who got to breed the most? Those that lived up to these societal standards. This meant that altruistic humans had a serious advantage when it came to breeding. Sure, some people would die and never breed, but that just saved the tribe. When the only tribe's left were those that developed self sacrifice as a social value, it became the absolute norm. This is also a good example of how morality in general develops.

 

Boom! Butterfly Effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I avoided confronting someone over their despicable actions because of self preservation.

 

2. "Reason" is an extension of our more complex instincts. Logic is also informed by instincts that encourage learning, all in the interest of self preservation.

 

3. You don't act on every sexual impulse because of self preservation, and moral reasons. Morality is just the human instinct to remain a healthy member of society. Ironically enough, the Golden Rule is something we instinctual understand. Rape is wrong, because if it wasn't, you would be far more likely to be a victim of it. From an evolutionary standpoint, it was in humanities best interest to consider things like rape and murder wrong. As for gluttony? That's simple self preservation. Your instincts tell you to avoid unhealthy behavior if you can. These drives can contradict each other, but it's all still instinct. That's why people with a back round of starvation tend to NOT moderate what they eat, regardless of their current station.

 

4. That's a good quote. Doesn't really contradict what I said though.

 

5. You're right. They can't be explained with simple instincts, but they can be explained with complicated instincts. Everything else you said here is just fluff.

 

6. Alright, let me see if I can show you an example of what I'm talking about.

I'll choose to discuss something many people consider decisive proof against the idea that humans are primarily driven by instinct. Self sacrifice.

If the entire point of instinct is self preservation and breeding why on earth would we evolve ANY level of such self defeating altruism. Well let's begin with how it would spread. If your a female, what is your objective from an instinctual point of view? Find an ideal mate, breed, and ensure the survival of as many of your children as you can. So let's say one of the males in your tribe is strong and greedy, but another is strong and willing to share. You'll pick the one who shares. He's more likely to provide for you and your children. So males with altruistic behaviors tended to breed more often. But what about self sacrifice? You can't breed if you're dead. Ask yourself this. How likely are you to be in a situation where you have to sacrifice your life to save another? Not often right? But even then, that can also be explained. Back when humanity had to fight to survive, a whole tribe could die overnight. Those that survived, were those that had value systems most conducive to surviving as a group. What behaviors benefit a group? Altruism, and sacrifice. And who got to breed the most? Those that lived up to these societal standards. This meant that altruistic humans had a serious advantage when it came to breeding. Sure, some people would die and never breed, but that just saved the tribe. When the only tribe's left were those that developed self sacrifice as a social value, it became the absolute norm. This is also a good example of how morality in general develops.

 

Boom! Butterfly Effect.

 

I never said that we weren't based on instincts.  We are simply far more complicated than just instincts.  Our instincts are influenced greatly by our ability to think and reason, as well as our morality.  Out of two instincts, morality is like the deciding factor on which one you ought to do.  It helps categorize and decide between instincts.

 

BUT only in a perfect world... let's face it, half of what you said isn't true anymore, at least in today's context.  People know they ought to act a certain way but don't.

 

But this is opening a whole new can of worms that I'd rather not get into right now, because I like sleep.  Sleep is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never said that we weren't based on instincts.  We are simply far more complicated than just instincts.  Our instincts are influenced greatly by our ability to think and reason, as well as our morality.  Out of two instincts, morality is like the deciding factor on which one you ought to do.  It helps categorize and decide between instincts.

 

BUT only in a perfect world... let's face it, half of what you said isn't true anymore, at least in today's context.  People know they ought to act a certain way but don't.

 

But this is opening a whole new can of worms that I'd rather not get into right now, because I like sleep.  Sleep is good.

Hardly. People were much worse a couple hundred years ago. Hell, you want a portrait of the past, look at the state of the middle east, or some parts of Africa. Humans are getting better, not worse. The problem? Humans are also becoming more cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly. People were much worse a couple hundred years ago. Hell, you want a portrait of the past, look at the state of the middle east, or some parts of Africa. Humans are getting better, not worse. The problem? Humans are also becoming more cynical.

But if morality is mere instincts then how can they change or get better? Instincts can't be better or worse. And if it was for species survival, then how come it became from worse or savage, to better or civilized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hardly. People were much worse a couple hundred years ago. Hell, you want a portrait of the past, look at the state of the middle east, or some parts of Africa. Humans are getting better, not worse. The problem? Humans are also becoming more cynical.

But if morality is mere instincts then how can they change or get better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if morality is mere instincts then how can they change or get better?

Simple. As life or death conflicts became more and more rare, the need for more brutal and savage behavior became less and less necessary. Being a brute became a liability rather than something to be prized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple. As life or death conflicts became more and more rare, the need for more brutal and savage behavior became less and less necessary. Being a brute became a liability rather than something to be prized.

I thought you said humanity naturally valued altruism to survive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought you said humanity naturally valued altruism to survive.

To an extent, we do. That's why affection and empathy are a thing. Altruism doesn't mean being a great person. Hell, even rats have displayed altruism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To an extent, we do. That's why affection and empathy are a thing. Altruism doesn't mean being a great person. Hell, even rats have displayed altruism.

Then if altruism doesn't equate to being a good person how can altruism be related to good and evil? You were saying that morals are instincts and that altruism is needed to preserve the species thus it is morally good. But then you proceed to say that altruism doesn't equate to being a good person...

 

So how are you able to determine that altruism doesn't automatically mean good?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then if altruism doesn't equate to being a good person how can altruism be related to good and evil? You were saying that morals are instincts and that altruism is needed to preserve the species thus it is morally good. But then you proceed to say that altruism doesn't equate to being a good person...

 

So how are you able to determine that altruism doesn't automatically mean good?

"Good" is generally just a catch all term for altruistic behaviors and modes of though that benefit society as a whole. "Evil" is generally just a catch all term for extremely self interested behaviors that are destructive to society. Differences exist from culture to culture, with religion usually being the primary difference.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Good" is generally just a catch all term for altruistic behaviors and modes of though that benefit society as a whole. "Evil" is generally just a catch all term for extremely self interested behaviors that are destructive to society. Differences exist from culture to culture, with religion usually being the primary difference.

 

Differences of good and evil?

 

If that is what you are referring to I have to respectfully disagree there.  That would imply that people are capable of having different standards of good and evil... which is not necessarily true.  To paraphrase Dr. Jordan Peterson (amazing man and professor, stands up to oppression of free speech): People don't create values, they discover them.  At best they co-create them.

 

When you take a good look at cultures and religion in particular, there isn't much of a great difference in the general concept of morality and on the general standings of good and evil.  There are differences, sometimes even ignorance, but in the main morality has been consistent across all cultures.

 

Some cultures find it necessary to do one thing or go with an action more than another culture.  For example, one culture may jail a thief and another may cut off the thieve's hand, but the concept of justice and judgement remains stagnant throughout all cultures.  Murder is, across all cultures, a universally bad thing.  Except when justified by a particular society or religion.  That's the key.

 

Morality doesn't change.  People do.  People may find it more important to get rid of a certain class of people for the greater good of the nation and the people (Soviets - Concept of fairness and equality).  People may find it more important to exterminate a group they see as at fault for their problems and must be punished for their crimes (Nazi Germany - Concept of judgement/justice).  People may find it necessary to sacrifice their own people in the name of their deity in order to please them (Aztecs - Obeying authority in the sense of pleasing gods in order to avoid divine punishment).  All these things are considered grounds in which to justify evil, but that doesn't make these actions anymore good.

 

Likewise, good intentions can be demonized as well by nations or religion or other individuals.

 

But again, opening up a new can of worms which we were dishing out the past few posts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Differences of good and evil?

 

If that is what you are referring to I have to respectfully disagree there.  That would imply that people are capable of having different standards of good and evil... which is not necessarily true.  To paraphrase Dr. Jordan Peterson (amazing man and professor, stands up to oppression of free speech): People don't create values, they discover them.  At best they co-create them.

 

When you take a good look at cultures and religion in particular, there isn't much of a great difference in the general concept of morality and on the general standings of good and evil.  There are differences, sometimes even ignorance, but in the main morality has been consistent across all cultures.

 

Some cultures find it necessary to do one thing or go with an action more than another culture.  For example, one culture may jail a thief and another may cut off the thieve's hand, but the concept of justice and judgement remains stagnant throughout all cultures.  Murder is, across all cultures, a universally bad thing.  Except when justified by a particular society or religion.  That's the key.

 

Morality doesn't change.  People do.  People may find it more important to get rid of a certain class of people for the greater good of the nation and the people (Soviets - Concept of fairness and equality).  People may find it more important to exterminate a group they see as at fault for their problems and must be punished for their crimes (Nazi Germany - Concept of judgement/justice).  People may find it necessary to sacrifice their own people in the name of their deity in order to please them (Aztecs - Obeying authority in the sense of pleasing gods in order to avoid divine punishment).  All these things are considered grounds in which to justify evil, but that doesn't make these actions anymore good.

 

Likewise, good intentions can be demonized as well by nations or religion or other individuals.

 

But again, opening up a new can of worms which we were dishing out the past few posts.

Yes I'm aware of all that. There are minor differences from culture to culture, but the general theme is present throughout. Your point is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I'm aware of all that. There are minor differences from culture to culture, but the general theme is present throughout. Your point is?

 

I said if that was what you were referring to.  I wasn't sure to what extent you thought differences were so I typed that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said if that was what you were referring to.  I wasn't sure to what extent you thought differences were so I typed that up.

Gottcha. But anywho, yes. It's entirely possible that the subconscious connection to fear and sex is why sex is so popular in horror movies. Also, you asked to point out an example where sex was a necessary part of the story? I've got two.

 

It Follows.

 

Hellraiser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people have the wrong idea. Most seem to think that there is sexual content to draw in viewers. However, I think it has the opposite effect.

 

Western culture is, comparatively, very prudish. When we see someone naked, we tend to get uncomfortable more often than not. That's why some of the scariest horror monsters involve sexuality. The Xenomorph is covered in symbolic penises and vaginas, Buffalo Bill and Angela from Sleepaway Camp play with our ideas of gender/sex, and my personal scariest thing ever remains Eddie Gluskin from Outlast: Whistleblower.

 

Having nudity takes people off guard. While we veterans of the horror gerne may be used to and expect it at this point, to fresh viewers it comes out of nowhere and surprises them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think many people have the wrong idea. Most seem to think that there is sexual content to draw in viewers. However, I think it has the opposite effect.

 

Western culture is, comparatively, very prudish. When we see someone naked, we tend to get uncomfortable more often than not. That's why some of the scariest horror monsters involve sexuality. The Xenomorph is covered in symbolic penises and vaginas, Buffalo Bill and Angela from Sleepaway Camp play with our ideas of gender/sex, and my personal scariest thing ever remains Eddie Gluskin from Outlast: Whistleblower.

 

Having nudity takes people off guard. While we veterans of the horror gerne may be used to and expect it at this point, to fresh viewers it comes out of nowhere and surprises them.

I don't think I agree... I think on nudity you are correct, but not sexual content. Watching people have sex in shows and movies, whether it shows anything or not, is pretty normal. Nudity, however, is not.

 

That's because we are all talk but no bite. WE can watch two people do it in a bed... so long as their parts are hidden. We can be okay with inappropriate touching... except when they're naked.

 

Honestly I think it's a natural side effect of sex being chattered up so much, rather than the opposite. WE aren't starved of sex, we are full of it left and right... nudity on the other hand...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is weird, are two points completly differents, but I think sex is demonized but at the same time the society is hypersexualizing everything. People be curious but hide his pleasure or his fantasies because talk about sex is weird or a bad thing. Society needs sex education, or something.

 

P.S: Sorry for my bad English

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is weird, are two points completly differents, but I think sex is demonized but at the same time the society is hypersexualizing everything. People be curious but hide his pleasure or his fantasies because talk about sex is weird or a bad thing. Society needs sex education, or something.

 

P.S: Sorry for my bad English

I agree. Horror is already taboo, why not also add some taboo sexy stuff.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Horror is already taboo, why not also add some taboo sexy stuff.

 

Because, on the one hand society is hypersexualizing everything and on the other hand, censure and demonized. Look horror movies: if you have sex, you die. The natural interpretation of this is think sex is immoral. I hate taboos. Sorry, I'm an intense hahahaha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is weird, are two points completly differents, but I think sex is demonized but at the same time the society is hypersexualizing everything. People be curious but hide his pleasure or his fantasies because talk about sex is weird or a bad thing. Society needs sex education, or something.

 

P.S: Sorry for my bad English

 

Why would society needs to not only hypersexualize, but also normalize sex itself?  That would make sex into more of a mess than it already is in.

 

Sex is far from being demonized.  In fact, sex has been justified and made casual over the past several centuries (hell, look at Fifty Shades of Grey).  Sex hasn't been hushed up; it's been chatted up all day, and yet it is still a mess.  Sex has lost its value as an intimate thing, as a special thing, and as a romantic thing.  It's turned from that into just a thing.  A feel good.  To those who still hold traditional values on sex, there is hope, but otherwise we are in a sexual mess as a species.  No standards, no lines, no morals on sexual behavior.  We are like addicts to a drug.

 

And you know, I don't care what a company does with sex (this thread was mostly out of curiosity) but I don't have to like it, and if it begins to affect the culture and people I live with in this world then I have concerns.

 

 

Animals have sex to reproduce.

 

Humans with values have sex to grow closer to the one they truly love.

 

Humans have sex to feel good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...