I read the previous analysis posted and thought it was obviously one sided from the point of immediate gratification and linear plot-play which this show is NOT about.
Unlike the straight forward and unimaginative shows from Helpless-wood where the plots are so obviously linear and uninspired, the show tries to ask a deep question that has NO obvious answer -- what IS sexually inspiring and provocative? And what makes it strong enough to act on? If you are not involved by sensual TEASING and UNfulfilled sexual angst plays, then this series is NOT going to fulfill your desires. This series is meant to explore the contrasts between the desire of what you KNOW is good for you and what you secretly CRAVE, whether it would be good for you in the long run or merely fulfilling that immediate hunger you have in the pit of your stomach for immediate satisfaction -- like a one in the morning chocolate attack. Do you go with the flow or are you a person who can exert control each and every time? And more importantly, are you really HAPPY doing so? The idea of the show explores the sensual desires and impulses rather well under the premise of doing sexual research for a book publication.
The two primary researchers Dr. Kate Langford (played by Rachael Crawford) and Dr. Benjamin Chase (played by Adam Harrington) are dedicated to creating a serious sexual investigation of the matter for the book's publication. When their publisher (Alberta Watson) decides to rush up the date of publication demanding immediate results of the research's usable progression, the tensions between the two characters begins to show up in their analysis and their work and of course some of their tensions are sexual, although there are a LOT of other questions posed as well such as respect, dedication, honesty, commitment, open mindedness and self-fulfillment. And with Kate's boyfriend only occasionally available and OBVIOUSLY territorial, the question of personal fulfillment and loyalty are also thrown into the sexual question between Kate and Benjamin.
The question is front and center from the very beginning but NEVER given a straightforward answer, as in real life. And it is that constant shifting that makes the question so interesting. Do you do what is socially acceptable or what you REALLY want, even if that desire is ONLY real for that moment? As done in the first episode where Kate and her boyfriend David almost give into their passions and begin having sex on the office couch -- only to be reminded that they are in a public area when Dr. Benjamin Chase and Stella are looking in on them through an OPEN display window! Of course being the socially responsible individual, Kate immediately threw herself onto the floor pulling down her skirt. Was she embarrassed because she was shown giving into her desires? Or was she merely reacting to her social conditioning that sex is a private thing? You decide.
The primary angst is to show the contrast between the impulses of sexual desire and the REALITY of acceptable social order. Is sexual desire REALLY fulfilled by safe conditions that are socially instilled? Or are TRUE sexual relationships based on emotional desire fulfillment -- even if those things are taboo personally and socially? If so, is that enough to inspire a lasting relationship and would it be strong enough to last against social orders? Or are relationships based on emotional gratification and the continual fulfillment of those impulses? The answer is as varied and open as the people interviewed in the segments. And as far as the main characters getting together sexually -- does that REALLY matter? Should they or shouldn't they? Is there REALLY deep seated longing? Or is it only an immediate impulse? And should that impulse be acted on? That IS the question! And I think it is a pretty GOOD question to be asked. And this show asks that question in a FAIRLY good way without giving a quick pat response as THE answer.
