Oh, and the dry boring traditional texts that suddenly throw you a sexual curveball. One Malay history takes a moment out of its recension of wars, lineages and diplomatic missions to tell us how one sultan had a wet daydream and then ordered a wife to consume the fallen semen. After that, the diligent manuscript writer informs us of a variant version where the sultan dies with an erection, creating a lot of consternation among the ministers. It is finally decided that he died while lusting after that same wife, and she is brought to fulfil her duty to her husband one last time. Ooh, necrophilia! I nearly choked on my cappucino when I came across that one!

Remember, kids — reading can be fun!

Why is it that character development seems to be mutually exclusive with hot sex? Is this some bizarre extension of the doctrine of separation of church and state? Can we not enjoy fully fleshed out descriptions of a character’s thoughts, motivations and background, and yet still enjoy the internal monologue that accompanies the onset of rapturous “O” bliss?

On some level I can comprehend why there isn’t an explosive sex scene in Great Expectations or other famous literary works. However, the paucity of thorough character profiling and development in porn seems strange in its absence.

The 70s classics–Deep Throat, Behind the Green Door, Taboo, etc.–seem to come the closest, but their portrayals are still rather shallow. They explore the characters only enough to justify their licentious behavior.

The modern day titles that fall outside of the scope of the gonzo porn explosion, e.g. action/porn titles like “Rush” from Digital Playground and Private’s sweeping epics like their Russian cinderella story “Tatiana”, are moderately better with character development, but not much. More than character development, it seems these titles are tending to situational development to set up the sex scenes, and giving less attention to the development of the characters that their 70s predecessors. I suppose though that the effort shown by such films should be commended since the majority of adult titles today are just wall-to-wall sex.

Is it just a question of time availability? Is it possible to have a movie with complete characters AND hot sex scenes? Is it possible to devote the time needed to address both tasks without venturing into the territory of 4.5 hour, bloated pseudo-porn like Caligula? Has any director or porn studio ever attempted such a project since Guccione et al failed so miserably at it?

Admittedly, I am not a film aficionado, so maybe I have just not seen the right films, pornographic or otherwise. However, it would seem that there is an unexploited niche for a genre of film that can deliver the goods on both the sexual and character development sides.

The other thought that Judah’s article brought to mind is far more fanciful. The idea of a young horn dog named Jesus, someone who–according to the New Testament–could work miracles, made me wonder about the early years of others with expansive powers.

What kind of trouble could a young Superman get in to? He could use his super speed to power impregnate unsuspecting Smallville girls and spawn an army of super bastards. Even beyond the sexual dalliance, the untold riches that a Metropolis newspaper reporter named Clark Kent could harvest on Deal or No Deal with his X-ray vision could be staggering.

What would the results be if Obi Wan Kenobi was a dirty old man? Might the Jedi mind trick work something like this in cantinas, “I am the man you seek, and you want to hide my fleshy light saber. It extends quite a bit you know.” It would seem like that would have been an easy way to increase the number of Jedi needed to combat the Empire, no?

All fanciful and blasphemous musings aside, Judah’s point remains. Where readers encounter strong, well rounded characters, the sex seems to fall short. Where consumers find good sex, there are, at best, moderately developed characters. Perhaps Judah, our favorite erotic philosopher, will become a porn mogul and fill this void in the industry.