@ Mathis -- S'all good, that's why I gave you the friendly heads up.
As for my opinion on Rollin being intelligent and well-articulated...well, I'll give it a shot.
Generally speaking, the allure of graphic/un-simulated sex and graphic horror completely eludes me. I completely understand (even if I don't agree with) the notion that sex and death are connected, and I understand Rollin claims his films to be examinations of the co-existence of the two. But I think he doth protest too much, that he never intended to examine anything, and that he just wanted to see people having sex with guts and body parts lying about. Not to mention that his films are invariably cheap, lurid and exploitative, which pulls the rug out from under his "it's art" argument.
It's the same problem I have with stuff like Baise Moi or Thriller: A Cruel Picture, both of which I've seen, and both of which claim to use graphic sex as part of the "message" but the message is actually lost and cheapened by the very inclusion of said graphic sex.
Now, that's not to say that Rollins' are "message" films by any stretch, and I doubt even his staunchest supporters would ever dare to make that particular argument. But I think there's a time and place for porn, and there's a time and place for graphic horror, and it's not at the SAME time and place.
Now, I'm certainly not condemning fans of his films. Folks dig what they dig and more power to 'em. I'm sure plenty of folks would look at my unabashed love for no-budget, homemade SOV trash and wonder what I could possibly see in it, and it would be close to impossible for me to explain it in such a way that would make them completely understand. Same here. Try as anyone may, I will never understand the allure of Rollins (or D'Amato, or Le Bruce) and their particular brand of hardcore sex & horror.
Incidentally, I'd avoid the hardcore version of Virgin Among the Living Dead. That is, unless you actually enjoy the site of genital warts the size of Brooklyn.