Well, it might not. Depending upon whether you were sucked in by - for example - Sara's storyline or not. This might be unfair of me, but there's nothing you're going to be able to say that is going to change this as truth in my mind: the butt-shot in the shower is sleazy and it throws away everything they might have been trying to do with her character. Only the actress was working against this for most of the movie. I think good actors can rise above bad material and, because of her, the character becomes likable and suggests there's something interesting beneath the half-visible writing. Then, the shower scene comes up and it's all over. Period. She is made another notch on the movie's Bedpost of Sleaze, conforming to the same standards of degredation as the other characters. I don't see anyone else offering up any theories for exactly why sex is being portrayed so negatively in the film. If I'm wrong, it's going to come down to an actual artistic choice the filmmakers had for making the characters obsessed with sex to the point where they all become such aggressively unlikable people (except Trish again, Rob because his motive is revenge, and... Gordon). Or... since I've been bombarded with enough replies saying "I like the characters," to the point where they all become irritable, depressed, angry, or tense. This cannot be denied. You could have a great point- that the filmmakers feel the audience is by and large sexually frustrated, so the characters must be as well. That the audience will relate to people who take sex very, very seriously. Not that it has anything to do with that time in history or culture, or that it comments on the flack the films were getting (other than to become much more excessive), or that it's even aware of anything beyond the stuff it borrowed from Part 2 and their own problems. Not really. I mean, on the most base level- the movie's not against sex. But only in so far as the filmmakers want to derive enjoyment from drowning the characters in suffocatingly oppressive sleaze. They find it amusing to have the hitchhiker killed while fellating a banana. But, think about it. This isn't just a death, present for the gore, upping the bodycount, giving the audience what they paid for. This is insulting. Put all the elements I have detailed together: She's a woman, so of course she'll be fellating something. She's fat, so of course she'll be eating. She's introduced by way of being rejected (in her mind) and outright insulted by Ted (but remember, the movie put those words into his mouth). And, while killing her, Jason grunts in a highly sexual manner (as he does with almost every single murder in the film). This isn't subjective. It's Right There, in Front of You. The film is going beyond showing no respect, this is deeply disgusting. But is it an example of being anti-sex? It's certainly anti-woman and anti-this character. The problem is: the filmmakers will make it sexual to amuse themselves, but she pays the price for it with her integrity. Well, I've told you the film has a bad attitude toward sex. And, I have admitted where you've had a good point. But, how do you honestly expect me to take the movie's outlook on sex when scene after scene is a series of characters yelling because they're not getting laid, threatening each other with violence because they're not getting laid, whining because they're not getting laid, verbally insulting women, implying casual homophobia (I'm not ready to back down on that one completely yet), being sexually mutilated, turned into jealous shrews, and having their would-be storylines reduced to T&A shots? And, frankly- that's maybe only half of it. From beginning to end, this film is insulting to the characters. Beginning with bestiality for a joke that no one in the world found funny and ending with sexually frustrated Tommy being swapped for sexually frustrated Jason. A Jason who was, strangely enough, not portrayed this way in the earlier or later Paramount films. I'm giving it too much credit? Not really- I'm calling them as I see them. And there's a lot of bad stuff to see here. The difference between that sequel and this one being that Lana wasn't teasing anyone, she intended to give everything to Billy, she genuinely liked him (and wasn't taking him to another man's room to stir up trouble). She was a flightly girl but wanted to have fun and didn't fuck anyone over to get it. Her only crime? Taking too long in the bathroom. Billy was perverted (making passes at Pam) but... he didn't have a bad attitude when she wouldn't give him the time of day. And, if you remember, she was extremely cold to him. How did he react? He didn't. These characters don't weigh the film down with their sleaziness- they don't get aggressive when they're denied something. And the same is true of Every Single Character in the Film. Even Jake, who is rightly upset when Robin laughs at him and he thinks she's belittling him. And... what happens after that? She feels bad about upsetting him. And none of this is make-it-up-as-you-go-along like nearly everything you're suggesting is in Part IV. This stuff is actually right up front and center in Part V. The last thing I'm suggesting is that any nudity is sleazy. There is a way to suggest intimacy between a couple making love without being crude. Her butt pressed up against the glass was juvenile. A way of saying the movie gave up thinking of another way to be respectful of her relationship with Doug; at that moment, they were just bodies (especially her). Nothing more. Sex is treated positively with these two? Just because she broke character for one 2-minute scene to make him feel good doesn't mean the entire movie's direction changed. And his reaction is proof of that. The movie treats sex as the only important thing (until the characters stare death in the face and realize survival is probably better) and when they're getting it- it's great. But after it's over, and this is driven home with the fact that Jimmy gets mad to the point of cursing over nothing more than a corkscrew, people are shown to have either become worse people (Doug) or to not have changed at all. Um... you think Tommy would run and tell his mother that he was ogling over naked women after the bedroom scene where he pretended to be asleep the second he knew she was about to come in his room while he was watching Sam undress? Even Trish was well-aware of the fact that Tommy would choose to keep this to himself. The movie viewed her as a buzzkill. And, if you thought it was responsible to try to keep a straight boy from looking at naked women no matter what age, the movie would call you a buzzkill too. The issue here is that the movie doesn't need to shackle these characters together to bond them at the end. Especially not if your argument is they're each other's "flesh and blood." It is not natural to force over 90% of her chances for sexual freedom away from her family to be shared by her brother. It's stupid, it leads the brother to say sleazy things to her because the mother or Trish are such freaks, the boy is not allowed any friends to be able to do the Stand by Me routine with. The movie started this crap and doesn't even have the balls to deal with it. She can't get away for 2 seconds. Then she meets a man and... Tommy wants him for himself. And Rob kisses her...only for the movie to then turn their entire relationship into: I'm Here for Jason, not you. Everything in this story is a dead end. A bad, sleazy dead end with no brains before it crashes. What is she to do? Well, she isn't real. It's the filmmakers who should have actually thought about this when they wrote and filmed it. I've already dealt with Sara. Her sweetness and all that might have been worth something were the shower scene more respectful of her character. As for Doug, you are not considering his tone while he's saying these lines. He chose to be extremely aggressive while saying this, suspected a guy was in the bathroom with him, and even though he knows every guy in the house with him, he believes one of them is trying to invade his space. He has no reason to suspect this. Again, he knows every guy in the house. None of the characters are established pranksters. None of them are gay. Yet, with their bad attitudes and the hostility they've shown over the night, the only way this wouldn't be [at the very least conjuring a very distasteful image: of prison sex- a form of rape, which I bring up because that's the way a lot of straight guys saw gay sex back then, as something scary] is if the movie had woven in a thread of the people in the house hating each other for arbitrary reasons and wanting to hurt or piss each other off. This has to be established, you can't argue that "Doug would suspect someone of planning a prank" if the movie never shows us that this is in anyone's nature. It isn't. But the entire movie is about sex and death. You're giving me these mini-speeches about family bonding extending further than just 2 short scenes before the teens arrive which aren't supported by the film. Because, when the teens arrive- the entire family is taken over by sex. Because that's what the movie's about, it can't get its' mind out of the gutter. Same with all these bonds between Sam and Sara or Jim and Ted that you're suggesting. The movie may set them up, I'm not arguing it isn't. But it does not follow through with them. If anything, the film shows us that everything that could be healthy is corrupted by sex. When, really, the writer and director are the ones with the bad attitudes and want to infect the characters with them. Really? You want the characters to follow through on their set-ups. So much that you're willing to overlook the nasty taint on them in the examples I've described. But, again, it's the movie that chose to go in this direction. I can't respond to something that isn't there. I hold horror to a far higher standard than action films. Very few action directors are aware of art or how to make action more than pandering (not that I really care; I typically don't watch action films). I come to horror for variety of themes, intelligence, the creepiness, and the art. This isn't really about any other genre. That's because you're using your own theories instead of being subjective. You can be subjective and still not agree with me. But you can't honestly be subjective and come to the conclusion that this film develops its' characters. Because you only seem capable of looking at the film and characters through what you've made up in your own mind. Just observe how many times you've poked right through the film's framework to bring in things that are so far away from the real story: cat fights, characters playing pranks on a guy in the shower, Tommy telling his mother about naked women. I'm sure there are other examples but you're taking all of this from an ultra-filmsy story. I'm taking my arguments from things the filmmakers have actually admitted on the DVD (listen to Barney Cohen, in particular). That's not what I said. I said she's not given a choice over who gets to watch her even though she is certainly portrayed as being very in-control about who she sleeps with. And it was the filmmakers' decision to leave the curtain open, blinds up. Because they don't care if they're being respectful of the characters or not. Is that how you would react if a girl were looking at you while you undressed? (I of course am leaving out the guy thing because, frankly, that only happens in porn. In reality, it's more likely to be an older, lecherous man looking at a teenage boy undressing like that.) Either way, you're not taking into account the fact that the characters did not choose to leave the curtains open: the filmmakers did. It's the same as hidden cameras being set up in motel rooms and apartments by perving landlords.