You must log in or register to comment.
Because the world shifted to the right a bunch more regarding sexual content… fucking websites now want you to show your ID in some states to view porn.
I think acclaimed director Paul Verhoeven put it best when he called our country a land full of gleefully violent prudes when people freaked out about his use of sexuality, nudity and people being comfortable naked around members of the opposite sex.
When nudity/sexuality is shown artistically or actually has some depth or place in the story being told, I enjoy it, but 90% of that hollywood shit is hot garbage and I think a lot of folks feel the same.
90% of that hollywood shit is hot garbage and I think a lot of folks feel the same.
And who HASN’T been in a situation, watching TV or movie with parents or other polite company, when a sex scene comes on (completely unnecessary to the plot), making everyone uncomfortable. I’d like to think that audience surveys have been taken into account to make Hollywood stop including sex scenes.
It’s only uncomfortable if you make it uncomfortable, but if you’re all adults it doesn’t have to be. Maybe it helps to grow up in a less puritanical country than the US though.
Everyone fucks. I don’t need to see the details about that aspect of most characters’ lives in order to understand the story being told about that character. I love sex scenes. I hate sex scenes that are gratuitous and don’t enhance my understanding of story or character. If it’s not needed for one of those things, it doesn’t belong in the story. (and that’s true for any kind of scene, not just sex scenes)
If the purpose of the sex scene is “you get to see this actress mostly naked” and no other purpose - then yeah, that feels cheap and gratuitous. Make a movie where her sex life matters if you want to show me that.
Drag was a teenager when drag saw Oblivion with drag’s dad. The underwater sex scene was not fun.
You deserve it for typing like that
That’s why I only watch shows like sex/life with my in laws the sex is crucial to the plot.
The disappearance of the sex scene in American cinema, the suppression of the body under the moral imperative of commodities in neoliberal capitalism, and Verhoeven as antagonizer.
Bro, you gotta stop reading shit like this. It’s bad for your brain. Not everything is capitalistic plot to suppress your whatever.
Why wouldn’t you be able to see it as “the viewers didn’t enjoy our cringe sex scenes, so we got rid of them, cuz we sure as hell couldn’t put real sex scenes into movies”. And no, not because of purity. But because even good porn is cringe and fake.
So maybe it’s really a decomcratic decision and it’s only possible because through capitalism there’s monetary pressure on the film industry to do the things people want.
Whichever it is, you gotta stop reading BS that starts with a conclusion in the first sentence, and no matter the subject it’s the same conclusion: capitalism oppressing the working class. You’d make Lenin cringe.
Yeah, I’m not discussing the article further after checking your post history.
Just one little tidbit of information for you: The sentences at the start on a rather lenghty article, usually set in a different typeset, is called “synopsis”. I know I know, I was like “wooaaah” when I learned that >30 years ago.
The world didn’t do shit.
It was as normal in Europe to be naked and talk about sex as it is now. Actually, it probably got even a bit more normal.
Your stupid Hollywood is somehow watched by everyone around the world while it’s produced to cater to your dumb average American. And they’re religious and prudent. And that has been the case since forever. Which is why having naked breasts in your cinema is something wild.
In the meantime french movies would casually have people full naked every second movie.
Am I really on a movies community?
–
Now, your dumb Hollywood realized their cringe sex scenes aren’t appreciated by about anyone, and so they cut them out. Big deal.
Definitely not the world shifting, and not even your moronic populace. Proportion of religious prudes is still dropping even in the dumbfuckistan. And yet no more sex in the movies. Go figure.
You use strong words for my taste, although I would agree that Americans are much more prudent than Europeans. But the graph we’re discussing here shows a decline in sex depiction in the movies. It shows there are less sex scenes than there used to be. The decline cannot be explained by the differences between the USA and Europe.
You realize there is more than the US in the world right…? You’re really proving stereotypes by saying “the world” and then giving only US states as an example. A lot of the world haven’t shifted to the right. It’s pretty certain this graph was based on mostly American stuff anyway, so both the image, this whole post and you are all doing the classic 'Murican thing of thinking US specific things apply to the whole world.
Sorry - meant just “the world of media.” Obviously a majority of films marketed internationally seem to be from the US, but yeah it’s mostly a US issue. We’re violent sexually repressed religious prudes.
Only on-screen violence now though. If you dare protect yourself physically, you’ll go to prison and everyone will scorn you.
What bothers me more is that violence gets a PG rating here, sex gets an X rating. How in the world is it more inappropriate for kids to see people naked than for them to watch someone hack someone else to death? The graphic violence should get a more restricted rating than on screen sex.
When your nation always needs to be at war, it’s helps to repress sexuality and normalize violence. This isn’t so much a conspiracy theory, but an observation of an emergence behavior that reinforces itself.
I think you have a good point. It’s also a important part of the handmaid’s tail. Where sex is repressed for most of society. Especially soldiers (?!).
Another part maybe is sports, American society spend so much money in teaching sport to kids at a level that is pretty high. Compared to other nations.
Wait do video games cause violence after all?
i think it was prevalent before the interwebs because there was largely few places to get porn, and throwing it in a movie meant more eyeballs.
as porn became immediately available in other forms (mostly the internet), the unnecessary scenes could be eliminated as a waste of time and a detraction from plots. they ceased being a reason to draw eyeballs.
You telling me this wasn’t relevant to the plot?
What’s this?
Scary Movie
This is the first one.
What’s scary movie 2 got up its sleeve.
What the fuck movie is this?
Scary Movie
Bingo. This is 100% the reason, and it’s funny that people assume anything else. When you can just watch porn at any time with no effort, sex scenes are gratuitous and awkward distractions except in rare circumstances.
You can get gratuitous violence on the internet, too. Far more than the most violent slasher film. Availability isn’t the reason.
the desire for gratuitous violence is probably orders of magnitude less sought for than our sex drive.
sex is so much more of a psycho-social driver than violence as to make your assumption invalid.
e. i would also add slasher films are slasher films. they arent regular movies with slasher film parts thrown in to attract as many eyeballs as possible. they were written to attract people into that niche thing.
If it’s not as desirable, then why would it be so prevalent in movies?
it isnt. its your own confirmation bias.
gratuitous [unnecessary] sex scenes are/were in an incredibly larger number of movies than the violence i think youre referring to.
Uh, the graph in OP says otherwise. I guess it depends on your definition of “gratuitous”.
Is James Bond shooting his way through badies–without a drop of blood being shown–gratuitous? How does that compare to a flash of boobs on screen in another movie?
that why i mentioned it depends on the type of violence. it was mentioned ‘slasherfilms’ which i find is an entirely different level compared to james bond.
i dont think that level has changed much at all. movies that require action, still have that nonsense.
you dont see sites advertsing short form violence like pornhub. its apples/oranges.
Would you say that the conversion of TV from broadcast/cable to streaming has resulted in a lot more nudity? If so, why hasn’t Internet porn reduced it?
Here’s the point I’ve been circling around: the availability of Internet porn does not adequately explain why depictions of sex and nudity in movies have gone down. It’s the first idea that pops into peoples head, but it doesn’t quite fit. What does is the rating system. Somewhat with the introduction of PG-13, and more dramatically so with NC-17. “This Movie Is Not Yet Rated” goes into this in more detail, but I’ll lay out what it’s getting at.
If you go back to the 1970s and '80s, you have PG movies with nudity. “Airplane”, released 1980, had a quick flash of boobs along with an extended blowjob joke. “Superman”, released 1978, had Superman as a kid climbing naked out of that pod. Expressly non-sexual, but nudity none the less. Today, Airplane would go straight to an R rating for that flash of boobs unless it’s from a director like James Cameron, who gets to pull strings and do whatever they want. I don’t think you could do the Superman bit at all.
You also have some R rated movies at the time showing extended closeups of the faces of women in sexual pleasure. This has almost entirely disappeared from all mainstream movies. Liv Taylor’s character in “Jersey Girl” (PG-13) talks about masturbating, and that was scandalous.
Then PG-13 shows up in 1984 in response to movies like “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” pushing PG too far. When that happens, PG becomes the older kids movie rating, and PG-13 is supposedly for teenagers. Except, now you can’t really do scenes like Temple of Doom did and still be PG-13, either. Too much blood. Plus, you can’t have nudity except maybe the odd butt (usually male), again with the exception of being James Cameron.
Also, you get one F-bomb in PG-13 movies. It has to be stated in anger (“fuck you”) and not in reference to sex (“Should we go home and fuck each others brains out”). This isn’t an official rule anywhere, but even people outside the industry have picked up on it.
So now you can have James Bond shooting up tons of baddies as long as you don’t show any blood. The same movie will also go to great lengths to carefully conceal the lead actresses’ nipples at all times.
This gets much worse when NC-17 comes along. This was an attempt to rebrand the X rating, which tended to be associated with outright porn. “XXX” was never an MPAA rating; the porn industry adopted that for itself, but the association got stuck. So hey, surrender that idea to porn, change X to NC-17, and now we can make “serious” movies with lots of sex.
Showgirls then completely bombs.
What happens next is that NC-17 is used as a bludgeon by the ratings board. Do what we say, or else we’ll rate you NC-17 and most of the theaters won’t even show your movie. There’s a bit of psychology going on here where the ratings board wants to feel like they have a say in the movie itself. This has sometimes resulted in directors deliberately putting in stuff they know will never pass, then it gets flagged by the ratings board, they drop it, and the ratings board gives it the OK.
You can’t always do that, though. Directors won’t bother shooting a scene at all when they think the ratings board will nix it. Nudity has become nearly absent from R rated movies altogether because of this, and it’s a very brief flash if it’s there at all. One exception being Wolf of Wallstreet. Directed by Martin Scorsese–another director who has enough pull to get whatever they want. Anybody less than an S-tier director doesn’t get to do that. That movie is now 11 years old, and I’d challenge you to find another R rated movie with that much nudity and sex that’s been produced since.
Violence in R rated movies hasn’t gone the same way, because the ratings board members don’t care as much. They’re largely Americans (as far as we know; they were when “This Movie Is Not Yet Rated” was produced), and American culture is stuck in a mindset that violence is less bad than nudity. Also, Showgirls was known for sex, not violence, and that’s the sack of bricks hanging over every R rated movie director.
So in a perverse way, the opening of PG-13 and NC-17 ratings have actually reduced artistic expression, not opened it up.
Streaming evolved in a totally different way, and isn’t subject to the same incentives.
I wish the graph went back another twenty years so we could see whether the timeframe matches your hypothesis.
That sex is even considered a vice on the same level as drugs and violence is fucking bonkers.
This graph alone gives legitimacy to this idea. Nudity and sex are completely normal (and necessary) things in life. That something that is needed for everyone reading this to exist being labeled as a vice like violence and drugs is actually disgusting IMHO.
You are thinking of it wrong… Why would these bitches be having sex when they could be working a corpo making daddy some mother fucking money?!
So is peeing and shitting. And yet somehow you don’t get a 5 minute scene of someone on a shitter and then the exact shot of their turds being flushed down.
Sex and nudity are normal. And yet I don’t wanna watch my friends have sex. Do you? Wierd huh?
So, why exactly is it so unbelievable that people just don’t wanna watch actors pretend to do the most intimate thing we all got?
Feels awkward, yes. Feels akward when it’s bad and feels even more awkward when it’s good. And it would be most akward if they actually properly showed the entire process and it was real.
Nice strawmen you got there. I never said anything actually about the use in film nor did I say anything about personal preference.
I protest the idea of categorizing sex and nudity as vices at the same level as drugs and violence. That is something the graph presupposes by comparing to these and actually labeling sex as a vice.
Of course one could have a discussion on when and how sexuality in media should be depicted but not under the premise that sex is a vice.
Edit: Surely you would agree that defecating is not a vice? No one should tell someone they should not shit. Or you should be ashamed of shitting.
No one says shitting is on the same level as taking drugs or beating someone to death.
So why do people lump sex in with violence and drugs.
Shitting and peeing is not being cathegorized as a vice, unlike sex!
Sex scenes in movies are a combination of this weird shameful “I want to show I’m having sex but I can’t actually show it” and “It’s almost like porn if you removed all the porn.”
You’re really stuck in a pointless awkward middle ground that satisfies nobody. And 95% of the time it isn’t even plot relevant so you’re just wasting time. The decline basically just coincides with internet access to the masses.
I correlate it with the weird feelings that religion introduced about sex and let Al Pacino speak my feelings in Devil’s Advocate:
“let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He’s a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do? I swear, for His own amusement, His own private cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It’s the goof of all time. Look, but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t taste. Taste, don’t swallow.”
Not all religion. (I know, this reads funny.)
There are Christian societies where this kind of repression doesn’t exist. It’s treated as something very important, though, and you show such feelings (in social perception) towards the person you want to have kids with, but without this strange contradiction.
Though most kinds of European Christianity are like what you said.
And then I want to say one thing - this contradiction already existed in Greek and Roman pagan religions. We tend to imagine those folks as some olive and fish smelling libertines, always half-naked. But even getting drunk (on a party, where everyone drinks wine) was considered something really shameful and hedonistic. Sexual morale was considered pretty important. Prostitution and non-obligating contacts would happen, but there’s no society without such.
I want Dennis Reynolds to direct. That way any sex scenes will show full penetration and actually be worth having in.
To hell with bra-on sex, duvet covering the lower half of the bodies sex, very dark room sex. Depict it artistically with full nudity and penetration. Show the sex in a way that people actually have sex.
That would be refreshing in a mainstream movie.
how about marionette sex? cause the extended version of Team America World Police has like 3 minutes of uncensored doll sex and it is hilarious
It reminds me about the sex scene from Family Guy
Yes, but why? Sex is an important part of human life and relationships, it influences people’s behaviour and decisions, yet it’s being depicted less and less and often not in a satisfying way. So why doesn’t it get depicted in a meaningful and plot relevant way? A good recent example that it can be done is The Poor Things (sexuality is one of the main topics there and is depicted and talked about very openly).
You can show cute emotions of real people having a moment relevant to their arcs and the plot.
You won’t show anything of meaning in a mainstream movie, though.
My brain just go … when random awkward 30 second sex scene happens out of nowhere or they just start making out, kissing and moaning loudly then suddenly we are in the next scene and everything is back to normal. Why?
Unless the film is sexual in nature random full frontal nudity, stray tits, stray ass, visible privates always makes me so confused.
It’s purely in the film so producers can tell young actresses to get naked for the “job interview” cause it’s part of the film.
The fact that those useless sex scenes aren’t in films as often anymore is a good sign.Yes i am glad i am seeing less of those useless sex scenes. In my opinion implied sex is better than graphical sex scene most of the time. You don’t need to see them have sex to know that they did and it will get the point across just the same to the audience without all the awkward and cringey aspect that comes with two actors playing pretend.
Naked is okay. Sexual is unneeded. Normalize body.
I sound like some brainswashing machine from 80’ movie xD Anyway, I am more rolling my eyes hard at current trend to insert romance everywhere than occassional, non-sexual nudity.
You’ve exactly put my thoughts into words in your first couple sentences.
Okay, but what makes it “random” to you? It’s art. Nudity in art has been around since art began—took a few years off for puritanical reasons, sure, but we’re all human, we all share having a naked body in common. And sex is the most natural thing. So to include it in art is just as natural.
Our attitudes toward it have changed. Why, though? What makes you feel awkward about seeing sex or nudity
They’re American. Not comfortable around nudity
I get art. But there are alot of nudity in the mainstream films that are not that. If i want to watch sex there is porn. If i want nudity in art those exist too.
Don’t you feel awkward watching two actors play pretend? Or having your 5.1 audio system start moaning in a film when you are not expecting those type of content. Random naked body parts i don’t mind those but often time you can remove those and nothing of value will be lost. So my question is why?
Do I feel awkward watching two actors act? No. Do you?
My point is, what makes you guys so uncomfortable with sex? Doesn’t that strike you as a little odd? Watching a movie with superfluous sex scenes with, say, your family, is definitely weird. But not because of the sex, but because you’re watching sex with your family there and that is awkward.
Everyone keeps saying “if I want to see sex, I’ll watch porn.” But that’s…such a weird take, I think. It’s not about getting turned on by sex scenes or trying to get off. It’s just a portrayal of a pretty massive part of life that everyone seems scared of or something. I just don’t get that.
When it comes to surprise sex scene yes. The whole thing is just awkward. But when i am watching a film and i am expecting it to happen then no.
Uncomfortable with sex? No. My point was I don’t want to be watching an action movie and get a surprise sex scene that last too long and add nothing to the story. Maybe i am weird but clearly i am not the only one that appreciate a good film without those unnecessary sex scene. Otherwise we wouldn’t be seeing a steep decline of sex in films.
Well I dunno if people not liking it is the reason we’re seeing a steep decline. If that were the case, we’d be seeing a steep decline in shitty movies. And that line is trending the other way.
I personally think it’s more a sort of return to Puritanism—in some respects. People are, in fact, very touchy these days. I mean, the intention is good in those touchy people. We want to see less exploitation, see less offensive or unequal treatment of people. And that’s great. But I don’t think sex in film is inherently exploitative nor does it necessitate unequal treatment.
But you know what else we’re seeing? A steep decline in young people having sex. Millennials were the generation having the least sex, until gen Z came along. Now they’re the generation having the least sex (in adolescence/young adulthood). I personally think there’s a connection there, too. We are more wary of anything that might get people upset—well, I say “we” but really I mean the capitalists. They want your money and will be as inoffensive as they think is necessary to get it. So really, what we’re seeing is a capitalist response to a seemingly more sensitive consumer.
And that’s just shitty all around. Thanks once again, capitalism.
Maybe it does all come down to whether you think most sex scenes are randomly inserted to sell the movie, or are actually connected to the plot or character development. Clearly there are both, and which dominates might be related to what each of us watches
I watch all kind of films and I have no issues with the latter. It is a good thing we are getting less of those unnecessary sex scene that add nothing to the story, plot or character development.
It’s just a portrayal of a pretty massive part of life that everyone seems scared of or something. I just don’t get that.
Perhaps if it was included for character development between two individuals, you might have a point. But a lot of time its just shoehorned and out of place. Also, for the record, its not a major part of life for many people, which creates even more disconnect.
Um yea. Sex is a pretty major part of everyone’s life regardless of whether they have sex or have ever had sex.
perhaps if you exclude IVF babies.
The proportion of people conceived by ivf and asexual through their lives, with no romantic interests ever, and no other connections to sex has got to be vanishingly small … more power to you if you are, but you can’t claim that’s the mainstream experience
Sexual frustration is a massive part of peoples lives too. Only asexual people escape the influence of sex.
Nudity can be art if it’s not graphic. Sex scenes are graphic.
I mean, isn’t that a matter of opinion? Puritans thought bare shoulders and exposed knees were graphic. There’s definitely a discussion of what type of sex on film is exploitative. But “graphic?” Look to other culture’s cinema. Routinely showing full nudity, men and women—not glorifying it or exploiting it, literally just a naturalistic exposure of skin—makes the story grounded in reality. And has a way of not fixating on it or exploiting it, but rather depicting people and just exposing bodies.
And also, we’re talking about nudity and sex being “graphic” while network television has us hacking up human bodies. That’s not thought of as too graphic but exposed breasts and genitalia somehow is? How backwards is that? That type of behavior, I think, creates your type of outlook, because it’s hidden away and thought of as “too much.” I’ve never cut open a body or shot someone, but I’ve definitely been naked and had sex. How do you square that?
i just want to watch a movie without uneasy scenes that ruin the entire experience
I’m okay with certain movies having them, I’ll just not watch those. But there are movies that you watch for other reasons that don’t need them at all, like the matrix for example.
And yet in The Matrix, Trinity’s devotion to Neo is central to the plot, the sharp distinction between the gritty real world and colorful virtual world is central to the plot. Sex fits. (Unless you mean the newest sequel, that I haven’t seen)
(And yes, I give Carrie-Ann Moss bonus credit for that)
I mean, I get what you’re saying but my whole point is how does sex “ruin the entire experience?”
I think many people feel uneasy because they were taught sex (and nudity!) is something naughty, shameful. It’s easy to feel that way when you grow up in certain culture and it’s a hard thing to break free of even when you’re adult and know better.
Wish it was more sex and less violence
We are all here because of sex. I think it’s outrageous that violence is glorified when there isn’t a single person here not made from sex. Ok maybe a few but it’s a really small percentage.
We never had a choice. I’m certainly not thankful for being born.
I’ve also been told here that I’m probably partly asexual, which I believe is unrelated. But it shows that some people just aren’t interested.
I really don’t see the reason for comparing it violence either. Drugs seem to be popular there too and they’re probably also a common reason for conception and I also don’t like seeing them.
Is there such a thing as fluff movies? (I’d probably give one of those a try.)
I remember a bunch of years ago talking about This Film Is Not Yet Rated, and how I thought it was absurd a scene where someone’s brains get shot out and they die is ok, but a non-graphic cunnilingus shot was unacceptable. The two people I was talking to, a woman older than me and someone my age, were both like “No that makes total sense. I’d watch a violent movie with my kid but not one with sex in it”
I was like, “You’d rather your kid run around fantasizing about murder than sex?” And they were like “yeah”
Personally I’d show neither to my kid. The thing with violent movies is that you know beforehand they will be violent. Sex scenes on the other hand, come out of nowhere, add nothing to the plot and only leave you in disgust. Happy to see those go away.
Sex scenes on the other hand, come out of nowhere, add nothing to the plot and only leave you in disgust
These are not universal truths
Drag also thinks it’s important for kids to know about murder. They should get to hear stories like Beowulf, the Iliad, and Star Wars. Children need to be taught that violence is a valid solution to certain types of problems. Otherwise you’ll raise a society of cowards who believe in following the law and keeping negative peace.
It bothers me that we’re at a place in society where all real violence is vehemently condemned. Mutual combat is prohibited in 46 of the 50 states, kids get expelled if they stick up to bullies, people are raised from birth to be complete victims if they’re ever in a physical confrontation, but then there’s all of this non-stop glorification of violence on-screen.
If Thanos tries to destroy the world, the Avengers cut off his head.
If Rupert Murdoch tries to destroy the world, you’re not even allowed to smash his windows. It’s not fair! Violence is good and TV taught drag why.
You do realise that every “normal” superhero or fantasy movie contains some sort of violence right?
Criticizing movies for violence is like saying people get violent because of video games.
I’m not saying any of that I just want to see sexy movies
porn movies exist
movies about sexual relations are fine, I just wish less movies about other things would contain random sex scenes that come out of nowhere
They’re talking about “ultraviolence” like The Boys or Dredd. Scenes that show incredibly detailed and gory violent acts like someone getting their skull crushed against a wall, or someone literally going “splat” against the concrete after falling a hundred stories.
Ok but at least you know beforehand that those movies will be violent. If you don’t like it, don’t watch it.
I’m not following your logic. I think there’s an unspoken leap being made
as an asexual person i find other people’s opinions on this interesting. the sex scenes do nothing for me and i’m usually just waiting for them to end but i understand my circumstances are not common. i can only assume that someone who is into sex gets something out of sex scenes, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.
what i don’t understand is the demonizing of sex scenes in movies. like does everyone only watch movies with their parents/kids? i don’t like sex scenes due to my asexuality and i’m glad that there are few of them because this cultural shift benefits me specifically (who has never been in the target demographic) in a roundabout way. but i wouldn’t say they are all gross/unnecessary/graphic/etc as a blanket statement like i see people in this thread and other places online say. art doesn’t need to be for everyone.
As a sexual person sex scenes do nothing to me either and feel like time lost for the actual plot.
As a don’t get any sex person sex scenes reminds me that I’m horny and makes me unconfortable and feel like a waste of time in a movie
Yea unless somone is getting killed or mugged in the middle of the sex, it usually adds nothing of value
HuH, I feel like I’m in a minority at least in this thread. I’m definitely interested in the sex scenes. It doesn’t matter how easy it is to find porn, because that’s not in universe nor even “how far” they go on screen since things can be implied. A movie with sexual tension, progressing toward sex is interesting, and external porn is irrelevant to that plot.
Of course that assumes it fits the movie somehow. I definitely agree some sex scenes were just inserted for the prurient interest and really shouldn’t be there. Then again, there are bad films saved only by random appearances of boobs
I’m with you, I like sex scenes, sometimes because they represent a satisfying conclusion to a narrative arc but also because sometimes they are just pleasing to look at. Personally I don’t buy the argument that hard-core pornography makes them irrelevant. Have people stopped taking photos of shirtless guys and women in bikinis? No, of course not. The internet is still chock-full of photos and art of this content.
It’s kind of a bummer as it’s nice to have a more artistic representation of sex outside of porn which is more of a commodity. Movies can connect the sexy scenes to the non-sexy scenes which potentially makes them more powerful. Also, movies can tie moral value to sex which is interesting to explore.
I am in favor of sex in movies making a comeback, as long as it doesn’t create problems for the actors.
I think a lot of times the scenes are still done heavily through a male gaze. You’ll see more frontal of her than you ever will of a man.
Sex in movies always felt awkward because usually it’s a plot device to push the male character’s story, a ‘reward’ for the male character… Or just one of many sexual assault scenes bestowed on nearly every female character ever because “DRAMA.”
Not all sex scenes are like this, but a LOT of sex scenes are like this.
You never get full frontal of dudes because many of even the most sex-positive people hold a double standard against penises. Any time a penis might have to be on screen, it’s vulgar to them and at most belongs in humor.
They do show them now, although a lot less frequently. What’s fucked up about it is that they use giant prosthetic penises, and the majority of men already have insecurities around that area, regardless of their size.
I remember seeing people complain that Game of Thrones has too many dicks swinging around. I can remember one specifically from the entirety of the show: towards the beginning of the show, possibly season 2 or 3, there was an assassination plot against Khaleesi and they left one of them alive so they could pull him with their horses while he was naked and bound. That’s the only one I remember seeing from that whole show.
And then in The Boys there’s only like two they’ve shown so far? Who is seeing all these dicks where there aren’t any?
I mean, The Boys isn’t a great example. It’s kinda rife with dicks. There’s guys hanging dong, there’s people going inside dicks, there’s exploding dicks, there’s self-elongating dicks, there’s (in the spin off) a person climbing a dick.
They’ve been showing full frontal male nudity over the last 10 or so years, which was never done before.
Not anyway near the same way they show women. It’s usually brief and then still spent more on her being the sexual one. He gets to be gruff and whatever.
Have you ever seen Original Sin. That’s the steamiest non-porn film I’ve ever seen, and it’s actually a really good movie.
Three grey value lines is stupid.
Don’t be stupid.
It’s considered a good design practice if you want to draw attention to a particular metric
It’s about the red line. Don’t mind the grey noise.
what, you want 47 more shades of grey? that’ll kinda contradict the OP, though.
Let’s make a movie about the creator of the nuclear bomb! We can explore the moral implications, the political drama of communists in the USA during and after WW2, the creations of Los Alamos, the interesting science of…
Random corporate head: “Let’s have a sex scene! That will make things interesting!”
Now I am become death, the destroyer of… Ooo… titties!
Booties
Though admittedly IRL and not in jokes I like titties more too, hair and eyes even more so.
This is exactly what came to my mind. It was so unexpected.
Oh, wait, Fappenheimer the war criminal really has a sex scene? Lul
That interrogation scene was so awful. It jumpscared me.
ok, now I’m torn. I am completely happy with less sex scenes and prefer it because it just isn’t trivial to the plot what-so-ever. But, then you had to bring Florence Pugh into it.
Ok I understand the comments here where people are saying they dislike sex scenes that don’t advance the plot. However there are certain movies where sex scenes are essential to the plot such as Boogie Nights. I can also think of examples like The Name Of The Rose where a sex scene is thematically improving the film (in my opinion).
Sex scenes in film/tv are hard to get right but I’d prefer if directors worked harder to capture/deploy them properly rather than a large facet of human experience disappearing during script interventions by producers and studios.
Boogie nights was high art.
I think we’re on the same page, but you gotta look at the data a little differently. The way I see it, if we’re cutting down on sex scenes that are unnecessary to the plot, then the number at the end is what’s left. That’s the number of scenes that do advance the plot, and the number isn’t 0.
I agree, but the downward trend is from the 00s when directors would just hamfist sex scenes into movies and shows regardless of whether they’re relevant to the plot. I like to think we’re trending back to normality where sex scenes actually serve a purpose instead of being there just for the sake of being there.
The number is going down, it is not going to zero.
So, how about out of 20 movies, 18 cut the crap, and the other two put some fuckin effort into their sex scenes.
rather than a large facet of human experience disappearing during script interventions by producers and studios.
If sex is a facet of human experience then so is video games. Why don’t movies often show people playing video games? Perhaps we should treat the lack of gaming in movies as a serious issue too. /s
Something about How To Plan An Orgy In A Small Town?
I know you said /s but I’ve thought similar things. I think it’s because unless it’s two characters playing couch co-op, then it’s not really social or character building. Even eating lunch together gives the characters so much more “business” to work with.
Drag was making a point about how not everyone likes sex, and calling it a “facet of human experience” is a little grandiose from that point of view. Drag used the video game equivalence to illustrate that point to heterosexual non-gamers. Drag likes to fuck dragons, but drag respects asexuals and thinks about how allonormaty affects them. It’s asexual awareness week.
This makes no sense to me. What else would be worthy of being called grandiosely a facet of human experience if not sex? Sex has it’s olace among the importan experiences of human life - it’s how human life starts. It’s an important driving force, it influences people’s life, decisions, relationships, even lack of sex and the resulting frustration influences human behaviour. Asexuality is actually very interesting for the same reason - it’s a lack of something that most people experience. I wpuldn’t mind more films woth openly asexual characters. Falling in love is depicted very often even though there are aromantic people who don’t experience it.
What else would be worthy of being called grandiosely a facet of human experience if not sex?
Death. The reaper man comes for us all.
Incline if use of shades of greys in diagrams instead of easily identifiable colours: up 500%
46 Shades of Grey Short
Rise of sex in TV series 📈
The effect porn on portable devices had on how much people need to make deposits in the spank bank
Tv shows took the sex thing
They have enough time to develop a plot where the sex actually makes sense instead of forced in
