relationship between Cheryl and her husband?

Anee: Much of your post is immature.

The point is, the sex part is a tool used in therapy. If they really "fell in love" it would be very unprofessional of her and she couldn't do her job correctly. Still, you can see some lingering emotions when they engage in the fantasy later on and I'm sure the husband sees that as her getting to involved. I don't think it's designed as a substitute for "intimacy". It's two things. 1. He thinks it's as close to sex as he will ever get, so it's the next best thing. 2. From her perspective the goal is to uncover and work through his mental barriers so he can have actual "intimacy" with other people. Plus, plenty of people are having sex with no attachment or emotions as a technical exercise. The difference is this one has a purpose, provides afterthought and feedback. As a person with disability, although much less severe, I applaud her for taking this role. When you think about it she does nothing on screen beyond being naked, a pretty frequent feat in European cinema. What makes you uncomfortable is the context. She's middle aged, he's middle aged and disabled, the Western culture doesn't find people like that in sexual situations attractive, so they should just cover up. The movie is about needs and wants. Not love. And you rarely see people with disabilities presented in such a humane and honest way. You can check out my impressions of the movie here: http://blog.lawyeronwheels.org/2012/12/sessions-take-on-disability-and -human.html
As for the main topic. I believe that the husband recognizes Cheryl as a professional who's doing her job. She could just as well be a therapist, a nurse, a lab technician a garbage man. It is not personal and it's not about her. There are different types of relationships. There are careers many find gross or disturbing. There are swingers, open relationships, even porn stars and strippers get marry. Is it for every one? Probably not, but then, you don't marry just anyone. And you can see, the only time he steps in is when it dangerously tangos into the romance realm.

http://blog.lawyeronwheels.org We help! Disability, law and inspiration

Take a bow, you've spoken like a true ignorant American.

I think you make some very good points. It seems like, unless you're your Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Helen Mirren or Judi Dench, an actress over 45 or so has a very limited choice of roles in Hollywood. If she retains some degree of youthful beauty she may indeed become the aging stripper or sex worker; if not she becomes Grandma or the Funny Lady Next Door.:)If she needs to pay the bills, she does what she has to do.

The plastic surgery issue is tricky. If a woman dares to display her wrinkles on camera audience members scream, "She got old!" Gray hair and wrinkles are considered distinguished on a man in this culture, not on a woman. Yet if she undergoes surgery she'll be judged for looking fake or bizarre. There are a precious few actresses (Michelle Pfeiffer, Jane Seymour, Raquel Welch, Vanessa Williams) who just don't seem to age much, and they're the lucky few.

As far as this film, I caught myself thinking, "Would Hollywood ever do a reverse Sessions, with say an attractive middle-aged actor like Pierce Brosnan as the surrogate and a lady in the iron lung? Now that I'd pay to see.:)

Feminism is the "radical belief" that women are people, and should be paid and treated equally.

I know this was based on a true story, but it would have actually meant something to me emotionally if the protagonist and a woman had fallen in love and had consensual sex. Why was that so outside the sphere of possibility? That was the saddest part of all.

I'd like to respond to one of your questions: How did the surrogate's husband and son feel about her work? Is that career even remotely compatible with a marriage and family?

Obviously there are a great many men who could never accept having their wives act as professional sex surrogates. A career choice of this type is opposed by the entire ideology of our society, which insists that sexual exclusivity is essential to marriage, and that any other way of doing things is immoral.

But just as obviously, not everyone in our society buys into this view. Although they constitute a small percentage, there are marital partners who engage in free love, swinging, polyamory, or other forms of open relationships, and who are perfectly comfortable with their spouses doing likewise.

Cheryl's husband Josh was clearly among this group. He accepted Cheryl's work for what it was: A helping profession that did a lot of good for individuals who desperately needed it. When his wife received a romantic poem, he reacted with jealousy, threatened by a professional relationship that seemed to be escaping its bounds and intruding into a more personal domain; but prior to that, when Cheryl first told him about the young man, his response to her was, "You're a saint."

As for their son's view, this was an issue the movie did not explore, but it seems to me that most individuals' view on most matters is strongly influenced by those of their parents. If his parents felt there was nothing wrong with his mother having sex with other men in a therapeutic context, then it is at least a strong possibility that he would feel the same.

So yes, I would say that while it is not for everybody, a career as a sex surrogate can be compatible with marriage and family. And since this movie is based on a true story, that appears to have been the situation in this case.

The perspective expressed in their message was juvenile, judgmental and closed-minded. Of course, it's their opinion, but that doesn't make it immune from criticism.



"In your eyes, the light, the heat; in your eyes, I am complete"- Peter Gabriel