I grew up during the time when sex scenes on HBO and Cinemax were the closest thing to porn on tv. I can’t think of a worse sex scene than The Specialist, with Sly Stallone. It was silly and unnecessary. I even found it weird as a teen. That says a lot. There were many scenes like this in many films.
You can include sex without dramatizing / showcasing it. I don’t blame young people for finding these old tropes to be a digression. See my other comment about sex in The Sopranos to confirm that I’m not anti-sex in media.
It’s far lamer to shoehorn in a long sex scene that doesn’t make sense. See sex in Sopranos, as I mentioned. It’s not overdone. It happens and we move on.
Fuck that noise, I just don’t think we need smooching, sex and all that shit in every goddamn movie. Shit’s not needed, breaks the flow and is basically there only because everyone else does that. Fuck that noise. And no, these scenes do fuck all in most movies to fleshing out character, quite often they actually make it more shallow by being either uncharacteristic or feeling shoed in, dammit.
And if anything, from what I see around people are hella more open about sex. Thanks to overabundance of porn and all, sex became normalized. At least a lot more than when I was a child.
What a load of elitist bullshit. Being progressive does not mean one likes watching random people having sex, especially if it doesn’t fit the tone of the move/show and especially especially if it’s horribly directed, as they usually are.
Your comment is typical of a subset of progressives that have no acceptance for people who do not share the same values as them. Dare I say, that is not very progressive of you? What is wrong with having “puritanical conservative values” when it comes to relationships? Must one forcibly engage in orgies with strangers to be a “proper” progressive?
Lots of people in here talking about how sex scenes suck, and they’re right. But I think we should also consider this: decades of focus on abstinence education and evolving parental and institutional surveillance has been successful at making young people have less sex. And now the olds, having achieved their mission, are confused about why the kids are having less sex and making less babies and the media they are creating and consuming is reflecting that.
That has nothing to do with less children. It’s a known thing in biology that animals are fully aware of critical mass and adjust their mating for the conditions.
Every single industrialized country has reduced birth rates because of child mortality, financial stability, and many other reasons that go with it.
There is no one that didn’t have a kid because of a movie. That’s just ludicrous.
I dont think the abstinence stuff is having sn effect, or is as prevalent as you think. Maybe in America, but the rest of the western world don’t really fuck with it I think>nk?
This is a good point! And in fairness, I didn’t actually read the article so I don’t know for sure it’s talking about the whole of western societies. It is the la times though, so that would lead me to believe it’s US-centric.
Regardless, I think you’re totally right. In America we’re continually getting hammered with the idea that having sex before marriage is abhorrent and anyone who does it should be punished for it with STDs or babies.
Germany keeps good statistics on it, the tl;dr is early loss of virginity peaked around the turn of the millennium, and has been steadily going down since then. The sexual revolution never got questioned in Germany once it was through (sadly, you can’t annoy reverends by kissing in front of their church, any more), no “abstinence only” sex “education” to be found anywhere. The by far overwhelming reason kids cited is “didn’t yet find the right one”, only exception being girls with immigrant background, there it’s “am still too young”, though that number is falling towards “didn’t yet find the right one”.
Not on that page but when being given a couple of choices saying “which of these things would be a calamity for you right now, and how bad” something like 99% of girls respond with “pregnancy would be the worst”. Teen abortion rates are still very low (at least for a country not caught up in Catholic morals) but that’s due to low pregnancy rates in the first place combined with extensive support thrown at teen couples.
The younger generation is having less sex despite abstinence only education, not because of it. We have multiple studies showing “abstinence only” education is one of the worst ways to prevent teen pregnancy, yet religious conservatives continue to push for this because they would rather control women than lower teen pregnancy.
You may still be right but this actually doesn’t prove what you’re saying. Abstinence only education having more pregnancies can’t be used alone to indicate if underlying rates of sexual encounters is higher or lower without also knowing other information like rates of condom useage. It can still be the case that rates are lower, but the encounters that are happening are less informed and more risky.
I can tell you haven’t researched this at all, because that’s one of the first data dimensions controlled for. Random first google result https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690810/
Apparently I’m the only one that likes being titillated by movies. I don’t get the “it adds nothing to the plot” complaint. Tons of movies have action scenes and gratuitous violence that add nothing to the plot, yet i don’t see complaints about that. 90% of John Wick is gratuitous violence that added nothing to the plot, but I still love it.
I think this says more about American prudishness and people’s unhealthy attitudes towards sex than anything.
Bunch of unnecessary death? Cool and fun! An unnecessary titty? Awkward and gratuitous.
Fuck all of you. I want more nudity and sex in my movies and the comparative lack of it compared to the 80s and 90s feels like we’re going out of our way to exclude a huge part of life from art because it makes the prudes out there uncomfortable. But those same people are happy to watch nameless dudes get creatively and graphically killed for half a movie’s run time.
I want more gratuitous sex and less gratuitous moral pandering
Why are you booing him? He’s right.
Porn is super easy to access. There are more hours of porn recorded than there are hours of my life left.
R-rated sex scenes are literally competing with a host of just better options.
Not once has a fake sex scene in a movie not trigger cringe in me. It’s nice to see the actresses’ titties but that is it. Fade to black, imply they fucked and move on. Pornhub literally is a click away.
The fact that you only equate sex and nudity to porn shows the problem. Sex and nudity can be fun, dramatic, scary, or funny depending on the context. It wouldn’t be “competing” with porn.
I can’t suspend my disbelief when media pretends sexuality just doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant.
I don’t want porn. I want art to stop awkwardly excluding a major part of life.
“Everyone is beautiful and no one is horny.” It’s like movies these days are all set in this weird Twilight Zone world where sexuality just isn’t a thing. I find this far creepier than the gratuitous sex scenes of the 80s.
This is because some people aren’t on the spectrum and ignored. They deserve representation. If you find that weird this is more a problem with you because maybe you have been submerged into sexuality for far too long that anything lacking sex is weird. It’s like being addicted to a food taste and realizing there are other types of food and you think it’s weird that other types of food exist , well then : you’re the weird one.
After reading the article it looks like they aren’t being prude. They just wanted to see more healthier relationship spectrums. I think that’s a fair call. Not all story points have to be about sex.
Plus representation matters.
There are asexuals. And many other sexuality types in the world. Violence is not making a point on that so I don’t know where you’re going with that.
There is also echoing healthier relationships between men and women. I’ve known far too many people who cry friendzone and watch complete shit like friends and HIMYM and the various sitcoms that echo very dehumanizing, simplistic, unhealthy relationships between men and women where they stubbornly won’t relate to each other and sexuality is used as a tolerance or payoff of each other’s existence.
So whiile we could debate gratuitous violence has an impact, I think bad relationships and how they have been presented as a template has had a different impact they are trying to discuss.
oh please you don’t need representation because you don’t want to have sex. that has been a thing for as long as can be and no one has a problem with it. the worst oppression you might face is family members asking you when you will be having a child
You talk like anyone getting represented is taking away from you? That right there is what being a snowflake is.
Because one of John Wicks main reasons for existing is choreographed violence? And the violence is sort of character building in the way it shows John Wick’s skill as a killer. There is a case to be made here where sex is sort of superfluous, because unlike John Wick, choreographed sex generally does not contribute to story beats unless it’s a porno. And there’s nothing unhealthy about being uncomfortable watching an intimate moment unless your porn addled brain has made you desensitizes to sex.
I’m not saying I want a movie with non-stop sex, that would obviously just be porn. I’m saying the “it doesn’t progress the plot” complaint about sex in movies is bullshit when those same people watch other movies that are full of gratuitous shit that doesn’t move the plot (violence, action, contrived drama).
Movies have been all but stripped of sexuality other than clumsy attempts at pandering to lgbt people. I think some of it is an overcorrection from Weinstein and Me-Too, some of it is just America’s puritan cultural hangups that have always been there, and some of it is the effect of Gen-Z growing up with an abundance of porn and now they can’t associate sex/nudity on a screen as art (or even just fun).
Violence and action do drive plot. They can build character and be narratively cathartic. Sex in movies does not do that because sex is a subjective experience between two people.
violence is not the same as sex. it’s expected to see violence in an action movie. it would be expected to see sex in a porno. i’m not surprised people don’t want sex in their action movies
violence is not the same as sex
You’re right, it’s way worse. And it’s disturbing that we’re culturally encouraged to find fun in violence but sex needs to be cordoned off to a containment genre and excised from mainstream art. I’m not saying it needs to be in every action movie - but its been obvious for a while they’re going out of their way to avoid it even in places where it would make sense or be fun.
With all due respect, have you read the article? Attributing this to prudishness misses a lot of what’s actually being said: that shoe-horning in romance or sex for no reason is the problem, as well as lack of attention being given to developing platonic relationships. Exploring non-romantic or sexual relationships better doesn’t necessarily mean cutting out sex and romance, and imo, would likely lead to better sex and romance in TV and movies.
But I agree with you also, that gratuitous sex and nudity can be used to great effect. Another user https://lemmy.world/comment/4888355 (don’t know how to link comments, hopefully this will work) posted a link to the article “Everyone is beautiful, no-one is horny” above, and this really highlights the problem on this side of things, in my view
Y’all need to go fuck some more. Films like La La Land are really missing something without a sex scene, the chemistry feels really fake and the relationship isn’t believable.
Sex is normal. Sex is good. Sex in films is necessary to convey intensity which a pan from bed shot can never achieve.
Great example: Terminator. Without this scene the whole franchise fails. The film doesn’t have the gravitas when John does die without it. And it’s a highly charged emotional reaction to the harrowing events they have both just been through.
99% of sex on film is casual sex and to claim that “casual sex” is normal and good is not straightforward to me.
For example most of the time with a macho male protagonist, they will show him using women for sex like disposable condoms. Another worrying trend on the rise is plot lines that basically glorify cheating.
I am not bothered by the sex or the nudity per se, but Hollywood loves to glorify characters with very problematic characters.
Oppenheimer: A man intertwined with US nuclear policy, both when creating the first nuke, and during the cold war. Political intrigue mixed with science!
Execs: “What if it had a sex scene?”
Execs (apparently): What if we chose to explore his flaws by showing that he had an extramarital affair?"
Puritans: This biopic should really only show his other flaws. And political intrigue. Sex wouldn’t make sense in an R rated film.
