I am not a teen.
And also not necessary. You don’t need to see two people fucking to know they’re in love. I assume you don’t need to see your friends fucking to understand that they met someone they’re really into.
Nothing is strictly necessary, you can tell instead of show any aspect of a relationship. But if drama is going to show a representative cross section of what human relationships are like, sex will be a part of that like romance and friendship aspects are.
It’s not about how no drama should show sex. It’s about how it is regularly getting shoehorned in at the expense of story, character development or run time.
And they don’t show a representative cross-section. Almost all sex in mainstream films is heteronormative and done by beautiful people. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.
When we see a proportionally accurate representation of queer sex screens on our scenes, I’ll concede that they’re at least showing a broad representation, even if it does ignore all sorts of sexual kinks that would also need to be represented.
What if it’s not about love? Sex can be about many things and for the sake of the story.
Saying it only happens as the result of a perfect romance story is puritan and not beneficial to demystifying sex as an act that humans do.
And yet generally they’re romance scenes and not scenes involving lust or rape.
I am not the one saying it. Hollywood is.
No you are speaking from a specific point.
Poor things had lots of sex, not about love or romance.
Teeth, is rape.
Even Pretty Woman has a sex scene that is about the lust of the main character with no kissing to show it.
There are plenty of examples to prove you wrong as much as you have examples of your point.
You are the one saying it cause you are making a broad statement from your perspective ignoring all that doesn’t fit into it. It doesnt make you right to selectively pick your examples because it’s the ones you think of and have a problem with you try to apply to the rest of it.
