Here's a paraphrase of something I posted on indiefilpino, in response to Alex Tioseco's post (his statements in quotes) about the lack of sex in Kubrick's films, and someone else's post about the lack of sex in Mike de Leon's films:
Sex--or the fear of it, is crucial to a film like Mike de Leon's "Kisapmata;" Mike is more like Hitchcock--it's what he's TRYING not to say that makes him so interesting.
You get the impression that (Kubrick)'s not just not afraid (of sex), he's not interested at all. Makes you wonder if his kids are adopted.
"judge him not on what he left out but what was included"
I don't know, I wouldn't do it on principle, it would depend on the film.
"Did you think any sex scenes should have been included in a specific film?"
Well, sensuality. Take the rape in (Kubrick's) "Clockwork Orange" vs. the one in (Sam Peckinpah's) "Straw Dogs." "Clockwork" has two of em, of radically different designs, and pretty much imaginatively staged; "Straw Dogs" only has one, but it's of such sensual power that I for one was turned on, and that is disturbing. I can see what the man is doing is wrong, but my getting a hardon in the process drives home the fact that the rapist may not feel the same sense of repulsion, but instead hunger. It's worse than what Kubrick does, which is to stand from a great height and put a magnifying glass on the scene; in Straw Dogs, you feel like you're sticking it in her yourself.
And as I've noted in "Eyes Wide Shut," the comedy is in Tom Cruise not getting any for most of the night; but it would be an even better comedy if there was anything that was actually tempting--the nude show Kubrick puts on is so inept it's laughable. He can't seem to stage a sexy moment to save his life (may be one reason why in "Lolita" the comedy is emphasized), and it's a serious weakness. Sex is a major part of life as we know it.