---

 

This writing was accepted for publication in the 108 page perfect-bound ISSN# / ISBN# issue/book... “Ancient Colors” Down in the Dirt, v148 (the August 2017 Issue) You can also order this 6"x9" issue as a paperback book:

Order this writing in the issue book Random Thoughts the Down in the Dirt July-Dec. 2016 collection book		get the 418 page May-August 2017 Down in the Dirt issue anthology 6" x 9" ISBN# paperback book:

Order this writing in the book On a Rainy Day (the 2017 poetry, longer prose & art collection anthology)		get the 298 page poem, longer prose & art collection anthology as a 6" x 9" ISBN# paperback book:

Up Against the Wall, Millennial Females:
The Changing Fashion in TV Sex

Dennis Vannatta

    It’s been over twenty years since Dennis Franz paraded his naked posterior on prime-time network television.^1* Twenty years is not so long in historical terms, of course. Indeed, the much ballyhooed sexual revolution of the ‘60s was slow to reach television. Not many years before the hippies began letting it all hang out, Lucile Ball and Desi Arnaz, a real-life married as well as sitcom couple, were forced by the TV mores of the day to sleep in separate beds. Today, TV couples in the throes of passion don’t even bother finding a bed. But more on that later.
    The increasingly realistic depiction of sexual acts on television mirrors the increasing popularity of cable TV stations. It began there, and network television followed, a bit gingerly. I refer, of course, to simulated sex on what we might call “standard” TV: the network channels, FX, AMC, TNT, and the like. Porno channels are there for those who want them. (Not me; my wife won’t let me.) Sex didn’t burst upon us in all its variety but began modestly, one might say almost demurely, and went from there. One curious aspect of this phenomenon is the way sexual activities have come in preferred styles or fashions that change over time. Once this was popular; then that; now the other. What’s next?
    If the first depictions of sexual intercourse now seem timid, almost innocent, one would do well to keep Luci and Desi in mind. The cultural chasm from a married couple sleeping (and only sleeping) in separate beds to a close-up (heads and upper torsos, rarely more) of a married or unmarried couple, lips locked, moaning in ecstasy is vastly greater than that from those early, minimally erotic, depictions of sex and today’s soft-core porn. The TV movers and shakers of the ‘50s wanted us to believe that couples did not have sex; by the 1980s they wanted us to believe it was happening right before our eyes. All the rest is just details—or let’s call it fashion.
    That first sex was close-focus: faces, mostly, necks, shoulders, maybe the bed sheet slipping down far enough to reveal the tops of the woman’s breasts. Nipples? Definitely not. We were religious folks back then, too; the missionary position was our fashion. Man on top, woman on the bottom, just like the Good Lord intended. But was that actually sex they were supposed to be having? We saw so little of what they were doing under the bed sheet that it was hard to tell. Whatever erotic feeling was communicated—and it wasn’t much—came almost entirely through their facial expressions, their sounds. But even their sounds came in a rather narrow range: murmurs, at the most deep-throated moans. No sweaty-faced panting. Dirty talk? Don’t be silly. Orgasmic scream? Mon dieu, non!^2*
    It would seem logical that if “conventional” sex (missionary), suggested more than acted out, represents the first stage of TV simulated sex, then the next stage would be missionary sex portrayed more completely and realistically. Interestingly enough, though, missionary sex has never been much in vogue on television. I’m certainly not saying that we never see man-on-top, full-view (head-to-toe) sex being simulated, but given that the position, I would assume, is the most commonly practiced in actuality, it’s curious that we see so relatively little of it on TV. When we do see it, it’s almost always side-viewed, rarely full length from the top. Even today the focus tends to be on the faces and upper torsos of the partners or, in an interesting variation, on the caves, ankles, and feet, the man’s between the woman’s, toes digging for purchase against the rumpled sheet.
    Why so little fully depicted missionary sex? I’ll offer two theories. One is economic. Coming so late to the sexual revolution, in competition for the entertainment dollar not only with movies, which had been doing so much more for so much longer, but also with other channels and networks, TV fashioners were soon impatient with the conventional stuff and raised the sexual ante. Missionary sex was old hat. Old hat doesn’t sell.
    My other theory is offered half in jest—but only half. Now, I enjoy sex as much as the next guy, and I’m not totally immune to the charm of watching comely actors and actresses engaged in simulating it. But is it just me, or is missionary sex a little, well, ungainly. A bit awkward-looking. Unless the man is gentleman enough to support at least part of his weight on his arms, the poor woman looks like she’d have trouble breathing. If he does support himself, it looks more like a workout for him than a love session. More PT, drill sergeant! In fact, I’m convinced that the reason directors almost never shoot missionary sex from above (or, egad, from behind) is that it’s not at all erotic; it’s comical.

*

    The truly erotic entered our TV virtual world when the missionary position gave way to female-superior sex. For cinematic purposes, it possesses almost every advantaged over the missionary position. Depending upon how the participants arrange themselves, the camera can close in on both faces together or either separately (difficult to do with the missionary position). Whereas the side view is the camera angle most often employed for the missionary position, the female-superior can be fetchingly filmed from side, front, back, or above. And one thing it never is is awkward or comical. Whereas the male superior partner tends to go at his task with all the elegance of a jackhammer, when the woman is in charge, she has her way slowly, gracefully, sensuously. (If she wants. She can turn up the heat, too, but her rhythms always seem attuned to the musical rather than the male’s mechanical. And, really, which would you rather watch?)
    It is tempting at this point to wax political and theorize that the ascendancy of the female-superior position on TV reflects the feminist consciousness that began to change society in the 1960’s and only intensified in the ‘70s and ‘80s—precisely when the female-superior position began to dominate sex simulation on TV. Were writers and directors making deliberate political “statements” in their sex scenes? Probably most of them would laugh at the notion. Still, there it is in front of us in living color: she’s on top, in charge, going just as fast or slowly as she wants, and we only have eyes for her. Half the time we don’t even see the man, who is only a tool for her pleasure.
    If this view is true, then we should expect male viewers to be turning off their sets all over America in protest, right? Ha. “Use me, baby, use me!” we shameless males shout. Indeed, as the camera focuses on the woman writhing in pleasure atop the man, who in the audience is getting more turned on? I wouldn’t hazard a guess as to whether more men prefer to be on the top or bottom during actual sex, but I’d bet a lot of money on more men preferring to watch female-superior sex.
    Maybe we should just say that with female-superior simulation, TV can have it both ways: feminists can enjoy the idea of the woman being in charge while the man can enjoy those lovely vistas when seen, or imagined, from below.

*

    If the triumph of the female-superior position (dating can’t be precise but let’s say over the last couple decades of the twentieth century) is in part at least emblematic of Woman’s assertion of her independence and power, the next new fashion might be seen as The Revenge of the Male. I refer to—let’s see, is there a polite term for this?—“doggy style.” Rear entry. Woman on her hands and knees, if not draped across a sofa back or table, man upright behind her, hands on her hips or waist pulling her to him as he . . . well, you know. As with all intercourse positions, this one comes with variations, depending upon what furniture is available.
    The first time I saw rear-entry sex, TV version, was, I’d guess, around 2000. I do not now recall the series although of course it was on a cable channel. I don’t recall all the particulars, either, but those I do are significant. A black man is carrying on a conversation with a white man. The black man, a criminal of some sort, is menacing, and the white man is appropriately intimidated, as he should be because he owes the black man money and has been unable to pay. Indeed, the black man is having a lot more fun in the scene because as he talks to the delinquent debtor, he’s in bed having rear-entry sex with a woman. The black man tells him, Pay up or I’m going to be doing this to your wife.
    Again, the specifics. The black man threatens not rape in general but rear-entry rape. That old lamentable male chauvinist canard—that if a woman is bound to be raped, she might as well relax and enjoy it—clearly does not apply here. The threatened rape is going to be even more excruciating for wife and husband because it’s the rear-entry variety. The atmosphere of the scene is one of violence, intimidation, power imposed—this despite the fact that for all we know, the woman in the scene may well be a willing participant. She hardly counts at all, though. (My memory could be faulty here, but I don’t recall even seeing her face—just as the male has as a difficult time seeing his partner’s face in this position.) Does she enjoy it? Hate it? Is she in love with her partner? Paid for sex? Forced into it? We don’t know and don’t really care. The emotions in the scene are entirely the males’—the black man’s sadistic, gleeful imposition of will, the husband’s feeling of helplessness and dread, heightened by our conjuring up his conjuring up the same scene except with his wife on the bed on her hands and knees. It’s a man’s world here, baby.3*
    Rear-entry sex has never dominated the airwaves to the degree that the female-superior position did for a number of years. It’s never been a staple of network TV, for instance, where it’s sometimes coyly referred to but rarely simulated. Still, I think it’s interesting that we’re seen it a lot on cable TV in the last decade or so. The question is, why?
    I doubt if politics has much to do with it. Whereas I truly believe that the rise of feminist consciousness plays at least some part in the ascendancy of the female-superior position on TV, I was mostly being facetious when I spoke earlier of The Revenge of the Male. No, I suspect that it has to do with a more predictable motivation: ratings. We won’t go out of our way to watch a program that promises just more of the same old thing. If, on the other hand . . . Omygod, can you believe they’re showing them doing that? . . . we’ll watch, all right. The problem with this strategy is the genetic flaw in the new: it will very soon become old. It seems to me that I’ve seen less rear-entry sex on TV in the last couple of years. Has anything come along to take its place?

*

    In the opening episode (“Power”) of the recent Spike TV three-part series, Tut, the pharaoh’s wife is talking to her lover in an otherwise deserted hallway of the palace. Words give way to yearning glances; glances give way to an embrace, kisses. “Look out!” I say to my wife. “I hope they built walls strong back then.” Sure enough, the man backs the woman against the wall and, Wham bam, thank you, ma’am.
    Yes, trending now on your television screen is up-against-the-wall sex. I don’t claim that we see it to the exclusion of others. Rear-entry still has its adherents. Female-superior is still popular. The missionary position is still grudgingly indulged in. But up-against-the-wall sex appears with surprising and puzzling frequency. I mean, it can’t be that comfortable for the woman to be slammed against bricks, stone, wood-paneling, or drywall with shoulder-blade-cracking violence.^4* For the man, it just looks like way too much work. Generally filmed from the side and slightly behind with the woman’s face in full view, the man reaches down with his right hand and pulls the woman’s left leg up and holds her in place by her thigh. Or, requiring an even greater expenditure of energy, he lifts both her legs up and holds her to him as he pins her to the wall. Not infrequently, they don’t even make it to a wall but do the humpty-dance right there in the middle of the room. Keep that up, fella, and you’re in for a lifetime of chronic lower back pain.
    Haven’t they heard of beds?
    I suppose what the writers/directors are trying to suggest is that the couple’s passion is so great they can’t wait the extra five seconds it would take to find the bedroom. So be it, but, while I haven’t looked into The Kinsey Report for awhile, I can’t imagine that up-against-the-wall sex has ever been very popular and I’ll wager today is far less practiced in reality than simulated on TV. Maybe I’m naïve.
    Maybe I’m also cynical because the only explanation I can think of for the recent prevalence of up-against-the-wall sex on TV is, once again, ratings. You have to keep up with your competition; even better than keeping up is going them one better. Up-against-the-wall sex is better only in the sense that it is newer than the aforementioned varieties in terms of TV exposure. But the newer has a short shelf-life. Time for something different. What might that be?

*

    Oral sex? It’s been going on quite a while now on TV although generally rather tamely presented, more suggested than graphically simulated. The couple will be in bed, embracing, kissing, close-up on their faces. Then we see the man begin to work his way downward until he gets somewhere mid-torso, at which point the head descend on until it’s out of camera range. In a moment his partner might arch her back and moan in ecstasy, but it’s up to our imaginations to supply the details of what’s transpiring down there. Or, switch the sexes, the woman going down—same result. Oral sex on TV, then, tends to be just about as graphic as simulated missionary sex was when we first began to encounter it decades ago: focus primarily on the faces and upper torsos, the rest only suggested.
    There are exceptions, of course. In an episode of The Wire, Mayor Royce is blundered upon in his office as his secretary is taking dictation, as it were, on her knees. She springs back, and for an instant his penis is there for us to see in all its engorged glory (whether the actor’s actual member or a mock-up, I couldn’t say). Unless I’ve missed it (and if so tell me where it is so I can see for myself, purely for research purposes, of course), cunnilingus is never simulated as graphically as fellatio is in that <>IThe Wire episode. Indeed, the most famous instance of cunnilingus on TV may well be where that particular sex act is not present for viewing at all, nor even directed mentioned, but is only hinted at. I refer to the Seinfeld episode (“The Rye,” 1996) where Elaine’s fastidious, jazz-musician boyfriend finally decides to go that extra mile for her. (I use coy terms here because that’s exactly how it’s communicated in the episode; nothing is stated explicitly, nothing at all shown.) He goes to it with a will, indefatigably, but can’t quite ring that bell. Worse, when he attempts to play the saxophone before an important music producer later than day, he hits all the wrong notes, and we know why. It’s a priceless episode, hilarious, and just about as erotic as a whoopee cushion.
    No, TV oral sex is too old to be new and just isn’t handled very well on the small screen. We’ll have to look elsewhere for the next new thing.

*

    For the next big trend, surely the smart money would be on gay sex, especially in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision allowing for marriage between homosexuals. I don’t mean to imply that we haven’t already seen gay sex simulated on TV, but it’s seen less frequently than one might expect and has generally been rather tamely presented: close focus on faces, men kissing men, women kissing women. Not much else. Perhaps since oral sex is such an important facet of gay sex, we shouldn’t expect to see gay simulated sex arrive as a dominant trend until TV learns to deal more fully and imaginatively with oral sex than has heretofore been the case, at least from what I’ve seen.
    Since TV has indulged in the representation of rear-entry sex frequently enough that I’ve nominated it as a one-time New Big Trend, it’s puzzling that we so rarely see this variety in simulated sex between gay men. I can only conclude, if my own viewing experience is a reasonably accurate gauge of what appears on TV, that the issue is the homosexuality and not the difficulty of finding a way to present it on the small screen. I predict that this will change, though, and that there will soon be a Golden Age of simulated gay sex on TV; but it will be brief, after which gay sex will be portrayed only whenever it’s appropriate to the story. Just as, in an ideal TV world, sex in all its variations would appear.

*

    Well, though, sex in all its variations? Sex with animals, for instance? I recall some comedy sketch (Saturday Night Live, perhaps?) from several years ago that offered a man and his paramour, a sheep. No sex simulation was involved, thankfully. I don’t recall seeing sex with animals more than jokingly alluded to on TV. Maybe I’ve just been lucky. No, sex with animals will never be a Big Thing on TV.
    Sex with children? No. We’re not going there. Pull the plug first.
    If we’re thinking about future trends, how about sex with machines (robots). It’s already been done on the AMC series, Humans. In the first instance, a comely robot hides from pursuers by working in a robot brothel. She is one of a group of robots humanized by their maker to a greater degree than allowed by the authorities, who are hunting them done. Her humanity, in fact, takes the form of a decidedly feminist orientation. The first time we see her servicing a customer, she’s being subjected to rear-entry sex. During the act she stares at the camera (at us) with eyes devoid of life, suggesting that for the woman rear-entry sex is dehumanizing, deadening. The next man who demands a dehumanizing act gets what radical feminists might say is just what he deserves: death at her hands. It’s an interesting thematic take on sex, but I have to say that man-robot sex is erotic only to the degree that the robot seems human, not a robot. I live in the South and can tell you that Southern boys love their pickups, but I’ve never heard of one having sex with his Ford 150. Man-machine sex a trend? Hardly.
    What’s left? You might now be saying, Oh, you callow lad. Man on top, woman on top, rear-entry, standing, oral—you think these are the only possibilities? Well, sure, we could go through the Kama Sutra page by page, position by position, and speculate on the likelihood of one or more showing up on the flat screen. But surely these would just be variations on the old, neither singly nor in toto likely to constitute some new trend.
    Similarly, we can safely predict (unless the Tea Partyers truly do take over) more nudity (full frontal on network TV), more graphic simulation of gay and oral sex. But would these manifest something new or just refinements of the old?
     I find myself perilously close to the position of the head of the US Patent Office who supposedly suggested in 1875 that they close the office because “there is nothing left to invent.”^5* In regard to sex, though, the truth is there are only so many things the human anatomy can be required to do in the bedroom (or on the kitchen table, up against the wall, etc.), and TV has already simulated a lot of them. Once we get all those variations and refinements, then what? Go back to the beginning? (“Honey, come quick, look at this! You’re not going to believe it, they’re showing this couple having sex, and the man is on top of the woman!”) Or maybe go farther back than that, even, to that much ballyhooed Golden Age of Television on the ‘50s when husbands and wives slept in separate beds and—hubba hubba!—blew kisses to one another.
    If that happens, I’m clutching my twenty-dollar bill in my sweaty palm and heading back to the movies.

 

    * NYPD Blue, “The Final Adjustment,” 1994. This wasn’t the first instance of primetime semi-nudity, but it was perhaps the most widely publicized and in some unaccountable way seemed the most ground-breaking. Maybe the feeling was that if they’d show Dennis Franz’s bare bottom on the air, they’d show anything.
    * By the time this hardly more than implied sex had reached the airwaves, Marlon Brando had long since brought the butter to his date in The Last Tango in Paris and Joe Buck had been gone down on by a teenage boy in Oscar-winning Midnight Cowboy. Isn’t it curious that what we’ve been allowed to watch in the privacy of our homes has been far more rigidly circumscribed that what we could view in public at our local cinema?
    * Here as everywhere throughout this essay, I generalize. Rear-entry sex isn’t always portrayed as violent, the woman the helpless object of the male’s will. Occasionally, the act is viewed from the front, the woman’s face dominating the screen, and sometimes, especially more recently, she seems to be enjoying herself, a most willing participant. Even so, I’d argue that the “architecture” of the act bespeaks male dominance.
    * Although these collisions of woman’s back with wall can indeed be violent, we almost never, at least from what I’ve seen, get the impression of the woman being subjected to something by a brutal male, as is often the case with rear-entry sex. In all the instances I can recall, the woman was an enthusiastic participant.
    * Frequently quoted but apparently an urban legend.

Copyright of written pieces remain with the author, who has allowed it to be shown through Scars Publications and Design.Web site © Scars Publications and Design. All rights reserved. No material may be reprinted without express permission from the author.

Problems with this page? Then deal with it...