small package

suchislife2000, you're completely wrong about the so-called "gratuitous female nudity". Where is that in mainstream film??? That's just a B.S. feminist myth! Women usually only show their boobs, which is NON-GENITAL nudity. There are just as many movies made that show men's naked asses, which is also non-genital nudity.So non-genital nudity is about even for the male/female ratio.

The REAL double-standard comes to genital nudity. Women NEVER show their genital nudity in a mainstream movie! The most they will show is their pubic hair, which is rare. In real life most women are shaved down there but we almost never see that in a film; instead they use the bush to hide the woman's genitalia. Hollywood has even gone so far as to create a "merkin patch", which is a fake patch of pubic hair women can wear to appear nude while protecting their modesty. When a woman is actually bottomless great care is taken to avoid showing her pussy....they make sure her legs are together or the camera angle avoids showing her clitoris or labia. You never see any actual female genitalia meat in a mainstream film. This is a total double-standard because every part of the male sexual anatomy (pubic hair AND penis and testicles) is often shown. How come the penis can be shown in R-rated films but not the vagina? That's the real double-standard! Many men would like to see some anus or labia of the women....why not have the female actress in a position where HER entire anatomy can be seen too? Fair is fair. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Just as the women and homos lick to see cock, we heterosexual men would like to see some pussy. We men should be able to see a mainstream erotic movie that shows a major actress's full genitalia as well. Its only fair.

Eric Balfour didn't just show his cock and balls, he was also fully ERECT! That's like showing a woman spreading her pussy open! How come we don't get to see equally explicit FEMALE nudity? I would have loved to see a shot of Lauren Lee Smith's vulva and anus from behind. How come I didn't get any of that? I'm sick of idiots like you opening your dumb mouths about "all the gratuitous female nudity" and mindlessly parroting feminist dogma. Its crap. I can name 100 movies that were produced by Hollywood studios and given an R-rating by the MPAA that show full male genitalia (pubic hair, penis, and scrotum). Let's see you name just 5 movies that showed total female genitalia (pubic hair, clitoris, and labia) that were made by Hollywood and passed with an R-rating by the MPAA. That's the REAL sexist double standard! This film showed Eric Balfour's erect penis but no labia or anus of the female actress. Why don't the women have to show everything too?

... at first his physicality reminded me of the greek statues with their rippling muscular torsos and their apparently small penis and scrotum, somewhat accented by the lack of pubic hair, but then, in reality, it was very real, or should i say, very normal. most men in the flaccid state have very average to small looking packages (unless they're some african porn deity). it is when they have become engorged with blood that the whole appearance changes, and you will notice in the altogether brief glimpse of when she first goes down on him on the sofa that he is indeed a more averagely endowed man. anyhow, she doesn't have a huge bust, so why single him out?? on the contrary, i found them both to exude a wonderful carnal charisma, especially her! i hope she goes on to other choice roles (not necessarily nude ones), however she's set herself a benchmark which, no doubt, producers and directors will think, yes, we need to get her, she doesn't mind semi-actual sex!
it's curious that, yes, this film shows more than most other mainstream american/canadian features, yet it still shys from being as explicit as say the "commerical" euro/uk movies "9 songs" or "romance" (neither of which were any good anyway). "lie with me" shows lauren lee smith, apparently, performing fellatio, and, eric balfour, apparently, performing cunnilingus, but the director surruptiously doesn't give the audience quite enough visual infortmation to confirm this. thus, the film manages to skirt around being labelled hardcore ... it's kinda clever, kinda intriguing, because obviously the actors were getting their faces shoved in it, but were they putting their money where their mouths were, so to speak ...?
another question that begs to be answered; i wonder if either of the two lead actors were in external relationships during the making of the film. certainly if i was the partner i'd be very uncomfrtable with them performing such explicit scenes. they're not porn stars, so partners aren't prepared for what they do, yet the director/script/contract has required them to get their hands much "dirtier" than one would anticipate in a mainstream american (albeit canadian) film.


"Almost nobody dances sober, unless they happen to be insane."
H. P. Lovecraft

Only a man would make that comment. You guys have a very unrealistic outlook on what a real man should look like..I suppose all women should be size 0 with 40DD breasts.

Eric Balfour is just fine..his manhood makes for a fine display. The only person who might complain is another insecure man who would try the old fashion tactic of saying something bad about another man, to make himself look and feel better. You sound childish and foolish for this comment.

"Everything Is Porpaganda"