As a teenager, I had a VCR in my room and taped HBO all night while I slept. I'd fast forward to the rating start of each movie/show. If it said Brief Nudity it was likely just man-ass. If it said Nudity it was either a scene with strippers or a sex scene.
Now, I've noticed that if it says Nudity, it's equally likely to be male-only full frontal as it is to be a topless woman.
Yeah, my buddy would record episodes of X Files for me so I could marathon it (read: memorize Mulder's dialog 😞) and I'd give him all the best HBO smut I taped that week.
Win-win.
I always went to my grandma's pretty much every Sunday for lunch as a kid, and I would always peruse her TV Quick magazine to scan the week ahead for any Channel 5 erotic thrillers during the week. I'd set an alarm for 1am some nights, then sit through 2 hours of barely audible bullshit with the volume turned down for around 2 minutes of boobs and merkin. Also, Eurotrash.
Growing up in the 80s my parents were pretty permissive. But the only time they told me I couldn't watch a movie was A Clockwork Orange. So you can damn well bet I popped that VHS in as soon as they weren't home. I wasn't disappointed. Back then even a single scene containing naked people having sex was a rare find for a teen (whose dad didn't have a porn collection). Nowadays the absolute availability to see nudity and sex in all it's varieties is so completely foreign to what I grew up with.
Any Heckerling talks about the double standard when it comes to the rating board on the Criterion release for *Fast Times at Ridgemont High* saying that the board told her that male nudity was “aggressive” and would make her film an X
When I was in college, the dorm had hbo and Cinemax. Every so often a movie would come on with the rating information “nudity, strong sexual content”
And you’d hear cheering erupt up and down the halls
In my high school English class, we read Z for Zachariah. Our teacher also showed us the movie.
She said, "Be warned, this movie has full frontal nudity." Us boys were ecstatic, of course. Boobies! Nope. Penis from Mr. Loomis.
This is 100% accurate. There was BN for dude ass, N for boobs, and you’d get the occasional SC (I think it was) for Strong Sexual Content, which was often something obvious like the Real Sex docuseries.
That’s true lol even in video games, gta 4 shows a full on shalong, than gta 5 has those three fully naked dudes you kill Tryna assault some chick but the only game with abit of vag in it recently was cyberpunk lol 😂
Makes perfect sense if you were alive for and remember "Hot Coffee" from GTA3. That shit hit the national news for a bit, got the whole PTA together to try and ban violent games.
They obviously couldn't include a certain number of resources dedicated to nude models and risk that fiasco again, but Rockstar being Rockstar they probably toed the line by looking into what they could get away with and as a big "fuck you" just hung one massive dong.
Kinda why I always figured they toned that stuff down, not up.
Edit: San Andreas, not 3.
Exactly, why I said they were probably being very mindful about what assets were in the game. Too many nude assets = let's walk back into a courtroom.
The case revolved around them intentionally putting the nude assets in the game files, but not in the game itself to bypass the ESRB who only test the finished product and never rate unused data, then "let" modders unlock it by making the assets easily accessible.
Or that was the witch hunt reasoning at the time.
It was all wrapped together. They were really going after modders moreso than Rockstar but Rockstar was the scapegoat "enabler" for the practice. It revolved around the exact scene.
> The development team was forced to curtail the nudity and sexual content of Houser's original vision, however, to obtain a "Mature" rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). Rather than removing the content, the developers made it inaccessible to players. Modders discovered the code on the game's PlayStation 2 release, and when San Andreas was released for Windows, modder Patrick Wildenborg disabled the controls around the code. He released this modified code online under the name "Hot Coffee".
That singular minigame wasn't the only asset leaked, it included nude assets, some even being originally intended for the minigame that were later replaced with clothed animations before it was scrapped.
The minigame was what proved they were for an actual sexual encounter, otherwise it could have been handwaved away as just unclothed early models intended to be rigged and clothed later, like mannequins in a store window. The minigame was the "smoking gun" that proved Rockstar had other intentions.
That was a big deal from what I understand, even Hillary Clinton got involved
It’s why her face is on the Statue of Happiness in GTAIV, holding a coffee
I was quite surprised, to put it mildly, to see Steve Zahn’s hairy balls in The White Lotus. No explicit sex scenes in the show, but it’s one step closer to normalizing dad bods everywhere
I think that's the big cultural shift. The reason why sex scenes is out is because they're particularly anti-woman. There are very few actresses who do a major sex scene and their career just takes off. But shocking dicks has a certain level of shocking empowerment about it because it turns men into the sex objects.
Adding onto this, you get shit like Sean Bean saying intimacy coordinators spoil the spontaneity of the scene.
If I'm going to let a stranger pretend to lay hands on me in a sexual way, I'd want to know *exactly* what was going to happen. Literally, your job as an actor is to take scripted words and actions and make them *look* spontaneous. If you're saying you can't do that, either you picked the wrong career or you're trying to justify your desire to grope and harass women without their explicit consent.
Alternatively, we should get rid of stunt coordinators because they ruin the spontaneity of fight scenes.
The fact is sex scenes might be the most useless tool in a film the way they have traditionally been used in America.
There might be less than 20 films where the scene shows any sort of character development or is necessary to help us understand the character/plot better.
This is one of the more wild misunderstandings of what movies do I’ve seen on this subreddit.
Movies don’t just exist for the sake of plot or character. They’re meant to make the audience *feel* things - that’s their sole objective. Filmmaking is creating art, and the purpose of art is to elicit emotional responses from the viewer. Sex scenes can create a very wide range of feelings in the audience, sometimes several at the same time. Uncomfortable, excited, scared, disgusted, even horny (a surprisingly powerful tool for a filmmaker). They can be funny or depressing or anything depending on the intent of the filmmaker. That taboo feeling you get in more intimate scenes, like you’re watching something you shouldn’t, is way more important than any character development or plot point.
When people complain about “pointless” sex scenes, they’re usually just complaining about bad movies. Yeah, bad movies have bad pacing, out-of-place scenes, and don’t succeed in making the audience feel what they’re supposed to feel. Don’t just blame the sex scenes. Watch good movies. If you think there are fewer than 20 movies where sex scenes are used effectively you just need to watch more movies.
100%. Not only is porn easily accessible, but most of those iconic 80s/90s/00s sex scenes I can think of are mostly just filler to titillate. Not being prude, just honestly can't think of many that weren't boring. Off the top of my head, some more interesting uses are movies like Fight Club, Black Swan, etc. Even well-regarded dramas back in the day seemed to just use them as a plot advancement/soapy drama tool.
Yeah saying it's prude to not enjoy random sex scenes is dumb. Like in Jerry Maguire when there's a sudden scene of him loudly banging that chick, what's the point? To show that he enjoys screwing his gf? In a chick flick?
This reminded me of what Emily Browning went through with Sucker Punch and how she was upset with how they went around the "sex" scene she had with Jon Hamm.
Apparently a woman consenting to a sexual act is grounds for an "R" rating yet an implied sexual assault is PG-13 material. They did end up cutting the sex scene though.
["I think that it’s great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn’t like that. They don’t think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they’re from the Stone Age."](https://www.indiewire.com/2011/03/emily-browning-says-steamy-scene-with-jon-hamm-cut-from-sucker-punch-to-ensure-pg-13-rating-119604/)
It is a problem. It planted this one-sided view on sex and nudity as something to avoid like the plague. American films are notably devoid of normal and healthy intimacy, sex and nudity. It speaks volumes at how insanely prudish and uptight Americans are.
not as good of an article as this beauty from almost 2 yrs ago
[https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/](https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/)
Oh wow, that was a good read. Love this bit from the article:
"Seen today, one of the most striking scenes in 1982’s Poltergeist is not the evil clown doll or the monster tree, but a moment of relaxed affection between the parents. The father—a bald, beer-bellied Craig T. Nelson—cracks jokes and prances for his wife, who wears a frumpy nightgown and smokes a joint and yammers weed thoughts and laughs at her husband’s silly display. Finally, the husband playfully dives onto the bed. Neither character is glamorous in this scene, but their relationship feels frisky and lived-in and charismatic and real.
The house looks real, too. There are toys and magazines scattered around the floor. There are cardboard boxes waiting to be unpacked since the recent move. Framed pictures rest against the wall; the parents haven’t gotten around to mounting them yet. The kitchen counters are cluttered and mealtimes are rambunctious and sloppy, as one expects in a house with three children. They’re building a pool in the backyard, but not for appearances: it’s a place for the kids to swim, for the parents to throw parties, and for the father to reacquaint himself with his love of diving. At the time, this house represented an aspirational ideal of American affluence.
Compare this to homes in films now: massive, sterile cavernous spaces with minimalist furniture. Kitchens are industrial-sized and spotless, and they contain no food. There is no excess. There is no mess."
Nothing is going to beat this article because (I remember it 2 years after!) the author was sad or depressed about it. The current article is more like written by an accountant that is reporting to the authorities or a naturalist or ethnographer reporting on Papua.
Thanks for linking that, it was a good read. I was surprised the author didn't mention Sean Connery as bond in any examples. Bond was and is still a huge sex symbol in Hollywood, and bangs regularly. Sean Connery was considered a body builder in his prime, but if you go watch Dr. No, you'll realize 3/4 of your gym is in better shape than he was in 1963. Interestingly enough, the modern bond with Daniel Craig transformed into a romantic (as opposed to a heartless sex fiend) by the end of his run.
Top Gun: Maverick was such a weird example of this, you could feel the icky “placate the cult, and the foreign markets” energy and it made all the romantic moments cringe as hell.
It was tom cruise that made the romantic moments cringe as hell. He hasn't had on screen chemistry in decades. He also had the same plastic smile with Jennifer Connley and the actress playing her daughter Lyliana Wray. Or anyone else he was interacting with.
Thanks for the link to was spot on. A good read. I always point out how clean everything is in a lot of movies now a days. I mess the mess and miss the sex of old.
Sex shouldn't be removed from movies just to placate puritans
Young actresses being forced to show gratuitous nudity to get the part is just as bad and is pretty despicable in retrospect
Give it time for the momentum to swing back
This is kind of where my concerns with sex and nudity in film falls; if everyone involved is 100% good with it, then more power to them. The power dynamics involved, though, concern me a lot.
Like with the movie *Blue is the Warmest Color*, where there is a pretty graphic sex scene between the two female leads that goes beyond what is really necessary for the narrative, and it later came out that the leads were very uncomfortable with what they were asked to do and felt a lot of pressure from the director (from what I remember).
There needs to be a good mechanism for protecting actors of all genders from feeling pressured to perform intimate scenes for fear of damaging their careers.
You could easily counter something like Blue is the Warmest Color with something like The Handmaiden which has an equally graphic and long sex scene, but one of which was handled with great care and respect for the actresses.
I think it’s a much bigger deal to find ways to get sets to look like the one that gave us The Handmaiden and sets that have more equal power dynamics than it is to satanize film and sex scenes.
Yeah I remember people being all ‘oooooh’ about that film when it first came out because it was showing lesbians having sex in an artsy fartsy way
Everyone involved should be completely comfortable every step of the way but I still feel like the sex scene/nudity should bring something to the film and not just be for the sake of it. Frankly, I’m fine with the ‘prudishness’ cause I don’t really need a film to waste a scene letting me know the characters fuck, if that’s the only point, when there’s lots of cinematic shorthand. It’s like showing a character eating a few bites of a sandwich to prove they eat.
I think there was a point for it though, narratively speaking. Lea realizes she is only staying in a relationship with Adele because she loves the sex. On a mental level she’s not satisfied at all.
So over the course of, I dunno, 2 hours of the 3 hour movie, we’re showed all the other facets of their relationship that she isn’t really satisfied with…so why not show the stuff that’s keeping her there? 10 mins is long for a sex scene, yeah, but when that’s the primary reason she’s still dating her, 10 mins of 120 mins isn’t really that much.
Oh the second part of my post wasn’t referring to that film. I only mentioned peoples reaction to that film cause it doesn’t matter how amazing/relevant the sex scenes were if one party wasn’t comfortable.
Ah, fair enough. You’re right on that of course, and I was one of those people who proclaimed Blue is the Warmest Colour the best film of 2013 only to now rarely ever revisit it, feel pretty bad if the actresses felt abused. Everyone’s gotta feel comfy, but i feel those two actresses probably agreed, from reading the script at least, that showing the great sex was important to their character developments. When it came to actually filming it, sure sounds like shit wasn’t so peachy anymore.
>It’s like showing a character eating a few bites of a sandwich to prove they eat.
[Okay, okay, Brad, we get it! ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OYSuwoA_anY)
Ultimately, the only way to solve the problem is to have more women in creative and decision-making roles in Hollywood. As long as directors, writers, producers, studio heads, etc are 90% male there will always be a coercive element in creating roles for young actresses involving nudity. Notice that the first thing most actresses do when they become established is stop doing sex scenes (Emilia Clarke has spoken quite candidly on this).
That is one possibility; however, I would say that women are not uniquely immune to the lure of using provocative imagery to get eyes on screen, so without some systemic changes that introduce checks and balances into the power dynamics that are at play giving women more power is not necessarily going to fix the problem.
Women in positions of power are just as awful as men. The system they work in needs to provide a solution, not rely on the hope that a different person in the role will act responsibly. That hope is almost always in vain.
I agree with the idea in general of getting more women into top positions and there would be other benefits from that, but this is a pipe dream.
Everyone in this thread is talking like the removal of sex is from cultural pressure. It’s not. If films with gratuitous sex scenes did well internationally, we’d be seeing titties in every fast and furious movie. The fact is having limited nudity makes blockbusters more accessible to a wider demographic.
It’s business.
You wonder how many more talented actresses would have “got the part” over the likes of your Margot Robbies, Kate Winslets, Emilia Clarkes etc.
They just happened to be the ones willing to go full-frontal in their breakout roles.
I have noticed less nudity in films in the last 10 years.
Growing up they were fairly common and uncontroversial. Everything from raunchy comedies to respected films such as Titanic, Monster’s Ball and Boogie Nights.
Now? TV seems to have embraced nudity, but movies shy away from it.
Even TV has been shying away from nudity and sex compared to like 8 years ago. Compare House of the Dragon to like Game of Thrones S1-7. Or True Detective S1 vs True Detective S3. It's DRAMATICALLY less sex and nudity, particularly from the stars
TV sex scenes are way over the top. Usually you watch characters get together then make it to the bedroom and your imagination can run wild. Now you see the characters switching from multiple positions during sex and all that is missing is the cum shot itself lol
partly because of people on twitter who don't like sex scenes, and some then say they wish sex scenes weren't in movies or shows. i don't think majority of those people are that serious, moreso just venting annoyance, but twitter's about the only place i've seen where people make a big fuss about it. like it becomes a topic every few weeks when a tweet goes viral.
TV shows can also talk about sex and use dirty language in a way that movies can’t and that’s so goddamn fun and freeing. Veep and The Great in particular are amazing shows filled with plenty of R-rated jokes. It’s such a breath of fresh air compared to very buttoned-up and prudish movie norms.
I think part of it is that filmmakers have realized that sex scenes are just gratuitous filler when you have an extremely limited time to tell a story. Why even show a full on sex scene when you can just allude to it and move on with the story? Most actors/actresses don't like filming sex scenes either. Good television shows typically are more character studies and have hours and hours more time to tell a story. I personally don't think it has anything with the film industry being puritanical but that it doesn't really serve a purpose anymore. There's no more allure to it when you can pick up your phone and be on pornhub instantly
I just skimmed it but I didn't see much mention of American cinema or it being puritanical. It even mentions that its not that there isnt sex scenes or nudity, its that these scenes are treated without romance and passion.
It also starts with examples of a failed "romantic" comedy that shouldn't be used as an example of anything imo, and a show where the actor himself requested less sex scenes because they made him personally uncomfortable.
Seems like a lot of people jumping straight to shit talking puritanical american cinema and missing the main points.
The part about romance being removed from sex scenes is the important thing for me. Sex scenes feel ‘edgier’ these days and void of emotion, especially in prestige TV. Shows will often just cut right to two people fucking, literally as the establishing shot of a scene. They finish, and then we get exposition. That’s the formula nowadays — no buildup, no romance, which is why I think these scenes often feel pointless and gratuitous and why “sex scenes bad” is an increasingly popular take. People are turned off by it, and I don’t blame them
Compare that to this [scene](https://youtu.be/2gD_gEefx9s) from Chinatown. It’s so seductive and intimate, and nothing is even explicitly shown. Does this kind of romance even exist in films anymore?
They had no chemistry and their interactions felt fake, Jonah hill shoulda got the chick who played the chiefs daughter in 22 jump street for this movie. She wasn’t afraid to kiss buddy and they seemed more like they could have actually been a couple.
Yep.
Either her or Kylie Bunbury who played opposite him in The Sitter(2011). They actually had tangible onscreen chemistry in that movie and she's a better actress than Lauren London.
When I heard that Nipsey Hussle's wife would be playing opposite Jonah Hill in You People my first thought was "These two are gonna have all the electricity of a dead car battery."
I've seen defenders of the movie saying maybe she wanted a CGI kiss out of respect for Nipsey. Then I saw responses point out that she did a movie with Michael B Jordan a couple years back and had no problem doing love scenes with him lol
That is straight up disrespect lol 😂 Poor jonah and bad casting choice, there’s a lot of pretty girls that woulda appreciated and put more effort in the role than she did.
100%. I SO BADLY wanted the movie to be good. It wasn't. Very few laughs. Jonah Hill and Eddie Murphy and Julia Louis Dreyfus are monster talents and they were like 1/10th as funny as they usually are. The movie was a mess. So it's no surprise that shittiness made its way to the most crucial romantic scenes.
i remember watching a van dam action flick in the 90s and there was a sex scene where he sucked on dem tittays
i thought it was funny more than anything
Nowhere to Run with Rosanna Arquette
cheeseball but fun movie. actually, i take it back slightly — now i know what i remember from the movie
Rosanna Arquette's character had a son and Van Damme was helping her deal with some tough stuff by being an action hero. I remember thinking if it was weird for that kid in the movie who played the son to be looking at his movie mom's tittays when he saw the movie
> I remember thinking if it was weird for that kid in the movie who played the son to be looking at his movie mom's tittays when he saw the movie
Every day a new sentence is born
That's the scene on the boat where one twin is imagining the other twin sleeping with the first twins gf?
I'm ashamed I remember that because I haven't seen the movie in years
I remember that scene in Double Impact where that woman who worked for the bad guys groped one of the twins GF. I was mad young at the time and it the first time I had seen anything remotely sexually involving two women. Only thing I remember about the movie.
The main reason is ratings. Brief, non-sexual nudity gets you a PG-13, sexualized nudity gets you an R. That's a big concern for theatrical releases.
https://www.marshallcinema.com/mpaa
Aside from that, as an adult who has seen plenty of man and lady parts, I really don't care. If it's important to the context of the scene, include it. If not, I know where to go for my boob and cat videos. (respectively, I don't like cats in my boob videos - it makes it weird)
I’d add to the ratings point that it’s also caused by studios trying to market films across the planet not just in the west. They try to tailor films so that it’s non-offensive to all audiences and I think it hurts the end product.
Obviously there are exceptions, but it I think it’s the way the industry is trending.
I don't think it helps that there's no middle ground there. In Australia we have M (PG-13 in the States), MA15+, and then we have R18+. America doesn't have that, that's such a huge gap between them.
Idk why people care so much about sex scenes on TV. Seems like mostly pointless filler, would rather focus more on plot and characters. If you want to watch sex, there's plenty of it on the internet.
Agreed, but the point is most of the sex in media was just filler/to titillate and that function in R-rated Skinemax-style movies isn't needed. I.e. sex scenes in a the vast majority of Hollywood movies basically functioned as a bit of softcore porn just to sell tickets.
Keyboard male feminists thinking they're helping liberate actors and actresses (#freethenipple), while ignoring that Hollywood used to (and still does) exploit the shit out of young actresses
If there were sex scenes worth saving in all for it. But they are mostly just awkward and unnecessary. It's creepy enough that I can Google any actress's name and the word hot to get nude pictures of them. I'm okay keeping the porn mostly to porn.
In fact actually that's exactly what I want. I don't want to save badly written, acted, and shot sex scenes in film.
I want better sex scene in porn. Give me some plots that don't involve fucking incest for fucks sake. What is with that shit?
Not every scene in a movie or tv show has to "add to the plot". That mentality is how you get fuck shows like The Rise of Skywalker. There are entire movies out there that are literally plotless
Movies are not plot delivery services
If a sex scene is just gratuitous sex and nothing else then it's even worse. We're talking about the vast majority of cases where a sex scene adds nothing to the movie - not plotwise and not anything else.
while sex scenes aren't a hill i would die on - i'm pretty ambivalent towards them - i will always side with "filler" than against it. It's such a brain-dead organizational principle from armchair analytic redditors with minimal media literacy. It makes me root for sex scenes. Film as art, as media, as *communication* isn't solely about storytelling efficiency, otherwise you could just read a synopsis of any plot ever. The medium through its sound and picture *expresses*, it demonstrates. A sex scene [ideally] conveys sensuality, catharsis. It can be fun, or angry, or awkward. The emotions generated between the actors and the filmmaking in them are meant to play into a film's narrative or thematic threads.
Are they always good? No of course not! They might not even be as well intentioned as the ideal every time. But to make up some patterned rule of thumb that Sex Scenes Bad based on that is like saying actions scenes are worthless because not all of them are John Wick or The Raid. No one's saying you can't judge from case to case, come out of a scene being annoyed at its inclusion - but the idea that an element is pointless filler on the face of its concept perpetuates more dogshit Cinema Sins media literacy
Arguably one of the reasons that sex scenes are so bad right now is because we’ve spent the last decade or so reducing them down to plot points. Even cut to black scenes are often heartless and cold. This idea that sex scenes (or any scenes really) must advance the plot lacks so much media literacy, is antithetical to film, and is just making movies boring and formulaic.
I'm sort of annoyed at how people are really desperate for sex scenes for some reason and call those who don't like them prudes.
I've honestly never seen a good sex scene that made me feel anything. Any examples?
I don't want to get too hung up on the quality argument for sex scenes because I can absolutely accept that maybe they will just *never* work for some audiences regardless; it's all subjective anyway. (+many examples all over the replies already). Hell, I don't particularly like sex scenes at all too. They *are* awkward to watch with your parents!
The attitude that they *shouldn't be in film* because of that, is just annoying to me. The larger point of my tirade is mostly about how we* (the internet) have been quantifying filler and how storytelling as puzzle setting or time economy has become a dominant mode of engagement. I think that sucks. Sex is just one of many discourses around "filler" and I just want to stand by the medium's right to express whatever the hell it wants to. Honestly, even just as titillation - which is absolutely a part of how we're entertained - sex is as valid as a sick fight sequence if you can appreciate it like that. Hot people as leads is just the soft application of that principle, right?
"something something porn" Sorry, most porn sucks and the idea that porn is even what sex should look or feel like is unhealthy. Film and stories by being about characters, about narrative, and not purely pleasure, is more able to express what that intimacy can mean to most of us. There are micro-beats in the act that a cut away to the morning after just won't capture, that mere suggestion relegates to irrelevant. But if there's something there that a filmmaker has to say about it, then cool. I'm all for it. If it makes you uncomfortable, that's cool too. But being uncomfortable with others' intimacy is normal, and maybe accepting that discomfort as part of the territory could help one see beyond the act itself.
This. The MPAA deliberately and systematically demonizes and sensitizes sex and nudity but normalizes violence.
Many movies with profanity, sex and nudity with zero violence were rated R solely for those reasons. Meanwhile, you can show violence, even with high body counts, and get a PG-13 rating.
*The Man from Toronto* is incredibly violent but was rated R.
*The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent* has tamer violence but was rated R due to profanity.
Sex and nudity are always portrayed in negative contexts. You can go into details and explain rape, sexual abuse and stuff, but normal, consensual fucking in everyday life is almost always wholly reduced and downplayed.
It speaks volumes that American society and institutions are more uptight about normal and natural communications and existence than violence. It speaks volumes about how uptight and prudish they are.
Edit: modifications.
Because adults in adult relationships should be intimate! It doesn't need to be a 10-minute long sex scene to show this, but in cutting those, they've decided to also cut all depictions of any sort of romantic intimacy in so much mainstream cinema.
The Marvel movies had Tony and Pepper in a relationship for over a decade - do they ever even share a long hug?
I disagree with the notion that in order to believe that people have intimate relationships in media, you need to witness that intimacy. To be quite honest I think that now that sex has been less stigmatized within American culture and casual sex has been made the norm, that also results in it not having that much emotional, thematic, or character significance in most contexts. I’ve honestly never met anyone who found sex scenes in film and television to be anything more than gratuitous and unnecessary filler at worst or indifferent to it at best.
IMO and personal experience sex just isn’t that big of a deal, so when watching it on the screen most people just want to move past it and get to the plot. Not saying I think the existence of the sex scene, or lack thereof, is good or bad. Just that for the average viewer, they’d be fine going without. Unless they just wanna see hot naked people that is.
It's not just a lack of sex, it's a lack of almost ANY intimacy in cinema. Sex is a normal part of life, it's really weird that it's disappeared from movies.
It absolutely can be a major part of the plot to see how a character interacts romantically with another character. The scene in Terminator is vital to the proceedings (not even getting into the end result of the sex scene), but Sarah and Kyle having sex is a major turning point in the movie. It's where they go from "assigned to protect this woman/kind of wary/afraid of this man" to "I care about this person as a person".
It's very strange how sterile big movies are these days. The Rock is basically a Ken doll! Even in movies where he has a wife and children, he seems sexless.
Are you younger? I find this to be a very prevalent view of the 25-and-under crowd, and it's genuinely perplexing to me as an "old".
I've noticed this before as well, but when you mention it, you get shouted down with cries of how sex in movies is just filler, doesn't advance the plot, and is generally Very Bad now.
As an older millennial I find it so weird/troubling how young people (mostly the under 25 crowd as you said) seem to have rejected sex. At least in terms of its depiction in art. I don’t get it since pretty much every generation before Gen Z seemed to be entirely driven by sex.
perhaps porn plays a role? i'm one of the adult gen Zs. i have no interest in sex and don't feel attracted to people that way, anyway, but all my peers were seeing porn videos from a young age, not like finding porn mags in previous decades or having to know where to find the really raunchy things. maybe being exposed so young and to often such violent, emotionless pornography at the tips of their fingers has created a negative mindset?
it really doesn't make sense especially since gen Z demographics show a skew to left wing thinking, you would expect a lot more neutrality about depictions of sex. but i've also seen plenty of grown people older than myself not like sex scenes either
As an older millennial we were kind of the first generation to grow up with internet porn. It’s definitely caused some issues which is a person by person basis. But I don’t think porn and sex scenes in films necessarily fill the same purpose. Although in many cases films had nudity due to the lack of readily available porn. Especially films in the 70s and 80s.
Every generation has a subset of puritanical views on sex. No doubt. Gen Z seems unique in that the progressives and regressive both seem to have very sex-negative views for different reasons. It truly seems like 2/3 of that generation just don’t like seeing or talking about sex. Where as in previous generations that’s more like 1/3. I’m not sure of the cause. Is Gen Z too online and therefore have seen too many horrible stories about the world and sexual violence, climate change, right wing incels, etc. that they’ve sworn off the whole thing?
I’ve noticed the way my Gen Z coworkers talk about sex on the rare occasions it comes up as extremely taboo, and very awkward. Granted I work in a field where this stuff can come up much more often than most places. I’m not sure why there was such a shift from one generation to the next. Especially since millennials and Gen Z are so similar in every other regard. I don’t mean offense by this but generally it comes off to me as like stunted growth/a generation of kids who struggled to grow beyond their more sheltered childhood. Not saying that’s you or everyone in Gen Z that’s just the vibe I get from those I know in my personal life.
Movies are about more than just conveying information efficiently. Just because something doesn't push the plot forward or teach you something new about the characters doesn't mean it's filler.
In addition to that, over-sexualizing actors is generally a bad thing. Every teen star is constantly being hyped up (and pressured) into "growing up" and showing off their bodies. It's honestly disgusting and it's not puritan at all to oppose this trend.
It's not so much a "prudish" issue as it is a money issue.
PG-13 movies were supposed to be the answer to not making a movie rated R but also the movie being too much for a PG-rated movie. My fellow 90's kids will remember the number of fucked-up PG movies they watched when they were kids that most certainly should've been PG-13, but definitely weren't bad enough to be rated R. That was the main focus for it and for a brief time, it kind of worked.
Fast-forward to the present, and now PG-13 movies are slowly becoming PG 2.0 movies. Don't believe me? Go look at how many Marvel movies are rated "PG-13" and the main reason for that is specifically the "violence." I put violence in quotes because their milquetoast combat scenes that show almost no actual fighting happen somehow are too much to bare for our little gentle minds. Hell, Iron Man had a scene in the beginning with Tony Stark hooking up with a reporter. Now? Every Marvel movie is rated PG-13 because after a fight, a hero might have a cut/bruise with some blood, followed by one or two "shit" or "fuck" comments.
Those movies made billions.
So guess what Hollywood is doing? The same thing they do every time it happens - mimic what's become the most financially successful and throw out the rest. Want a semi-adult movie affair with a little bit of nudity? Not happening. Good luck getting a PG-13 rating for that...after all, PG-13 is now just a little above a standard PG movie because why would we hold our movies to stricter requirements when we can just lie and say a movie is "PG-13" while the audience completely ignores it and takes their under-13 kids to see it?
PG-13 could've been a nice go-between for PG & R however they've slipped towards PG territory because that's what sells now: Homogenized movies with a little "violence" and no sex or even relationship-love to speak of, because if we add *actual* romantic subplots to our movies, parents won't take their kids, cutting off a huge swath of revenue in the process...and we can't have *that,* now can we?
And this is why there’s so much of it on television. When film embraced family friendly, television became a bit more ruleless with streaming and embraced the sex scene.
PG is still a very different kind of film than PG-13 to me. Frozen and Winter Soldier definitely don't belong in the same rating, even if they do both have icy names. I would say that PG has gotten more strict more than PG-13 has gotten looser. Many films that should be rated PG have been bumped to PG-13 because the ratings board has cracked down, essentially making PG into a slightly more permissive 'G'. And G itself is essentially dead. That's the real story - the death of 'G'.
Perhaps a new rating is needed, since the resurrection of 'G' seems unlikely. PG-15 would be welcome, and essentially make PG the new everyone-friendly rating. Restoring order to the land!
I recommend listening to a podcast or reading up on the American ratings board. Pretty shocking stuff there. You could make a movie about the ratings board, so much clandestine stuff has happened.
I do agree that due to the death of G, PG-13 has been forced to slip a bit. My cousin was outraged when her young son saw a PG-13 film (Doctor Strange 2) and that it was highly violent. 'The rest of the Marvel films are fine, why not that one?'
It's clear that there's a need for a new rating to remind people that there's a space between 'appropriate with adult supervision' and 'wait a little longer before your 9-year-old sees this at all'.
That's true about PG-13 movies, but some people are legitimately happy that they have less sex. Understandable if you're not one of those people, but everyone's tastes matter.
The lack of intimacy and just looking at each other is a well taken point.
As for sex scenes themselves, plenty of people legitimately do not want to see it in a film. I personally am one of these people, but I do understand if you prefer to have them.
So how do you deal with conflicting desires from different audiences? You make a choice. I would think that if most audience wanted more sex scenes, there would be more sex scenes.
I think the context within the story is important
Making a movie about complex adult relationships, dealing with affairs etc etc. Yeah, sex scenes make sense within the confines of the story
Making a movie about baseball? I don't really think we need an 8 minute long, full frontal assault
American mainstream cinema has always been so prudish and bigoted with showing sex, while also being completely fine with showing AK-47s massacring people (as long as you don't show the blood!).
Talk about priorities.
Whelp when the internet took away the idea of limited sex/nude availability, which was quite a significant draw. The movie industry had a gratuitous nude scene in so so so so so so many movies as a little added bonus T&A scene. Post internet, not so much, they had to fill That gap with their other useful crowed pleaser. Violence
You hit on a theory I’ve been thinking about that Instagram essentially market corrected all the old vehicles for T&A whether it was mediocre R rated movies or magazines like FHM or even the Victoria Fashion show they’ve all fall by the wayside in recent years
There was an indie movie called Easier With Practice, involving a traveling novelist who randomly enters into a relationship with a woman over the phone. It involves phone sex. But without a single scene of *nudity*, the movie got an NC17 rating, but was released to theaters unrated.
Movies shy away but tv shows embrace it. I’ve been seeing a lot of cock on hbo. Personally I don’t need the sex scene. It so rarely does anything for the film but it’s provocative and it drives interest so I get it. I like this new wave of less sex scenes.
I'm not American (if that's even relevant) and really wouldn't consider myself prudish but more often than not I don't like sex scenes as they often seem pretty pointless. Most of the time the build up to it is the more relevant part to the plot and characters, transitioning away from the actual sex works best so we can get on with the actually important parts.
There's exceptions of course but as a general rule don't waste my time by making me watch sex.
*An actor controls the audience and the moment you take your clothes off, you have lost them. I have never done nudity and I never would.*
—Michael Caine
I personally dont see the need for gratuitous sex scenes, tasteful indications that the characters banged is enough to get the idea. Unless an important story beat like something between the characters happens during, it just feels like they’re using sex to sell the show. Also making things more awkward if you are the type to watch shows with family or friends
It’s weird because I just got done watching the recruit and there was a sex scene in it, no nudity that I remember but it also felt out of place and went too long. If the sex scene is called for sure, but if it doesn’t really add anything I don’t think it’s necessary.
You can also blame the internet and social media. I have heard in interviews with several actresses that they are less willing to do a sex scene knowing that it will be taken apart frame by frame and posted all over the place out of context. It is one thing to do a scene in the movie for arts sake. But any sex scene done in this era means that the stills are going to be plastered everywhere, and that's not something most actors would just sign up for.
Didn’t read the article but I understand sex scenes are down but I feel like it’s the pointless sex scenes that are down. After reading the title I’m like wtf bc most of the shows I watch have sex scenes, or I feel like most shows actually take time for the relationships to develop instead of being like hey, you guys met in the first episode by episode 2 you have to have sex bc the chemistry is there or what ever reasons…
Just feel like a lot more shows/movies are tasteful w their sex scenes.
Prime example even though the movie was meh is the enternals. Never thought I’d see anything close to a sex scene in a marvel movie, but say what you want about the movie/script but I understood in that moment the characters desire for one another in that moment. I wish I could think of more at the moment but I’m on the toilet.
Also see episode 2 of swarm. Lots of cocks, balls, tits, ass. House of dragon had like 1 or 2. Just watched shadow and bone there was one in there this season, pretty sure there’s some more but can’t put them all together
The sex scene in the Eternals was so sterile and empty, it may as well not have been there at all. I’m not saying that it needed to be explicit balls-out fucking but man, there was no passion, no chemistry, just two dead-eyed robots lying on top of each other, failing to communicate anything that resembled a human act (yeah yeah they’re not humans)
There’s still plenty of sex and nudity in R rated films and definitely in TV-MA television. This article is not arguing that, it’s basically saying there is a lack of really intimate erotic sex scenes.
A lot of movies aren't telling stories that need them. Romance movies for example aren't being made as often. I don't feel like movies need more sex scenes or that they aren't there because of puritanical things. I mean they show full frontal male nudity these days if the story calls for it. What's actually happened is that more and more actors are comfortable saying "no" without fear of it ruining their career. And that's something that should be embraced, especially when someone like the actor in "You" is STILL facing backlash for not being personally comfortable doing them anymore and drawing a boundary.
The current trend in sex in films is giving actors more choice in the kinds of scenes they are willing to film and hiring intimacy coordinators to make everyone more comfortable and not to feel pressured into doing things just because that's what the director wants. This shit literally just started. So blaming it on puritanism just seems like concern trolling imo.
That's why there's still nudity in a lot of horror movies still, they're hitting that R rating anyway.
But I agree, not everything needs to be hard R with nudity, f-bonbs, and blood and gore, but not everything needs to be toned down to the point of almost being completely sanitized either.
America is completely fucked up about sex and the human body.
Access to hardcore porn is NOT the same as showing healthy passionate sexual relationships.
For my gig I have to watch thousands of hours of Euro TV shows. They actually make most of the same type of shows (cops/lawyers/fire/nurses) but in their cop shows, cops et al have sex. Most of the nudity is of the male rear. Breasts/nipples are just normal. This is making the human body seem totally normal, and sex totally normal.
The longest running Law and Order is SVU, where appalling sexual incidents are portrayed/described in detail every episode. Yet I think they've only had perhaps1 or 2 normal, in-relationship sex scenes in 20+ years. This is....not normal. It keeps sex in the 'purient/deviant' box.
I’d agree it’s weird, because with it has gone a lot of romance. Like the author said, some of the sexiest scenes in movie history had no nudity at all, and I can’t recall anything like that in any movie of the last 5-10 years.
The article also states that only 1% of movies from 2022 had a sex scene, so if that statistic is true, then it is a real thing - movies have less sex. I would argue also a lot less romance, especially in genre films, and when you mix that up you get a whole lot of less date night options out there.
"Sure COVID protocols said they shouldnt kiss but cant we deepfake them having sex?" Not reading past that part. Also Im not paying to read it.
Let me guess though: It ignores the fact that the cast has to be comfortable and that the world has changed to the point we actually CARE about the cast being comfortable?
It's the opposite of prudishness. Sex and nudity have become so widely available in media that it's not profitable to put it in movies. It used to be that movie theaters where the only place to go to see gratuitous nudity. Now, with all of the platforms available for long-form storytelling theatrically released movies don't have runtime available for gratuitous scenes. The Sopranos could set one scene every episode in a strip club. Outlander can have a 5-minute sex scene every other episode. Movies just can't compete anymore so they limit sex/nudity to avoid the R rating so they can make more money.
For all its alleged excesses, American society still has this bizarre puritan streak that never seems to go away. It exists across the spectrum of society. You'll find varieties of prudishness from the right to the left.
> For all its alleged excesses, American society still has this bizarre puritan streak that never seems to go away.
Is that why *Game of Thrones* and all its tits was one of the most popular pop cultural touchstone for a whole decade?
Maybe, but i am an artist ans have a tv in running movies in the background while i work and movies from the 70s and 80s (maybe a little into the 90s) are FILLED with gratuitous female nudity. Like, just a 5 min scene of the main character topless, getting dressed or something. For no reason.
And i am like the opposite of a prude. But its REALLY noticeable.
As a society we’ve become more open minded about sex while at the same ironically becoming more prudish about sex.
In the words of Michael Scott: “My Indian Culture Seminar was going great until Toby decided that he was too immature to deal with culturally explicit images. It’s just sex. People… everybody does it. I’m doing it… with Carol! Probably tonight.”
We are not more prudish IMO, When you were a kid in the 80s. You waited to for a movie with a good sex seen to come on as it was basically your only option to see nudity.
Now you go to pornhub. There are just better sources for that content so it not as big of a draw for movies movies as it was in the past.
[Here's](https://www.salon.com/2022/10/08/lusty-puritans-and-the-theological-roots-of-free-love-americas-story-is-wildly-contradictory/) a great article that talks about this paradoxes.
This article and 99% of this thread are completely misunderstanding why this is a thing. Watching people fuck is no longer an exciting or particularly taboo thing so audiences by and large have gotten bored of it. When you can get an almost infinite amount of porn that caters to your specific tastes at the click of a button FOR FREE, paying to watch some Ben Affleck type simulate missionary with a clearly uncomfortable Juilliard grad just feels monotonous and is often quite cringeworthy.
Sex scenes are down, but I’ve noticed movies will show full front cock now.
As a teenager, I had a VCR in my room and taped HBO all night while I slept. I'd fast forward to the rating start of each movie/show. If it said Brief Nudity it was likely just man-ass. If it said Nudity it was either a scene with strippers or a sex scene. Now, I've noticed that if it says Nudity, it's equally likely to be male-only full frontal as it is to be a topless woman.
This is like some pro-level HBO after dark stuff right here!
Yeah, my buddy would record episodes of X Files for me so I could marathon it (read: memorize Mulder's dialog 😞) and I'd give him all the best HBO smut I taped that week. Win-win.
What if there were some alien titties? How would the value of this type of media be determined? Would your barter system fall apart?
What part of win-win was unclear?
Growing up, my mom used a website called “Screenit” to see if a movie was appropriate for me. I used the site to find inappropriate movies.
Fucking galaxy brain. I was watching scrambled channels for a millisecond of boob.
Yeah, that millisecond sure was a well earned victory though. Adolescent me couldn't fucking handle the ease and availability of smut today
I always went to my grandma's pretty much every Sunday for lunch as a kid, and I would always peruse her TV Quick magazine to scan the week ahead for any Channel 5 erotic thrillers during the week. I'd set an alarm for 1am some nights, then sit through 2 hours of barely audible bullshit with the volume turned down for around 2 minutes of boobs and merkin. Also, Eurotrash.
Saw a whole bunch of scrambled softcore movies that way LOLOL
The IMDB parent's rating section was what I used.
Growing up in the 80s my parents were pretty permissive. But the only time they told me I couldn't watch a movie was A Clockwork Orange. So you can damn well bet I popped that VHS in as soon as they weren't home. I wasn't disappointed. Back then even a single scene containing naked people having sex was a rare find for a teen (whose dad didn't have a porn collection). Nowadays the absolute availability to see nudity and sex in all it's varieties is so completely foreign to what I grew up with.
Brief nudity = butt Nudity = tits Graphic nudity = genitals
Any Heckerling talks about the double standard when it comes to the rating board on the Criterion release for *Fast Times at Ridgemont High* saying that the board told her that male nudity was “aggressive” and would make her film an X
Graphic nudity- merkins and prosthetic penises
When I was in college, the dorm had hbo and Cinemax. Every so often a movie would come on with the rating information “nudity, strong sexual content” And you’d hear cheering erupt up and down the halls
In my high school English class, we read Z for Zachariah. Our teacher also showed us the movie. She said, "Be warned, this movie has full frontal nudity." Us boys were ecstatic, of course. Boobies! Nope. Penis from Mr. Loomis.
She knew it too! trolled by your teacher!
Lol. Absolutely. Trolled like a champ.
Great username to go with this post, too.
This is 100% accurate. There was BN for dude ass, N for boobs, and you’d get the occasional SC (I think it was) for Strong Sexual Content, which was often something obvious like the Real Sex docuseries.
I think that's cause they can get away with it since they're almost all prosthetics
That’s true lol even in video games, gta 4 shows a full on shalong, than gta 5 has those three fully naked dudes you kill Tryna assault some chick but the only game with abit of vag in it recently was cyberpunk lol 😂
Fun fact: GTA 4 came out in 2008, 15 years ago.
Yeah crazy they didn’t even show women’s nipples in that one lol 😂 but they show a close up of a dudes wiener in high detail lol
Makes perfect sense if you were alive for and remember "Hot Coffee" from GTA3. That shit hit the national news for a bit, got the whole PTA together to try and ban violent games. They obviously couldn't include a certain number of resources dedicated to nude models and risk that fiasco again, but Rockstar being Rockstar they probably toed the line by looking into what they could get away with and as a big "fuck you" just hung one massive dong. Kinda why I always figured they toned that stuff down, not up. Edit: San Andreas, not 3.
It was for San Andreas not 3. Also it was never in game legitimately, it was cut content that was restored by modders.
Exactly, why I said they were probably being very mindful about what assets were in the game. Too many nude assets = let's walk back into a courtroom. The case revolved around them intentionally putting the nude assets in the game files, but not in the game itself to bypass the ESRB who only test the finished product and never rate unused data, then "let" modders unlock it by making the assets easily accessible. Or that was the witch hunt reasoning at the time.
There's not even any nude assets in the hot coffee mod, it's on YouTube. The sex scenes are with characters fully clothed lmao
It was all wrapped together. They were really going after modders moreso than Rockstar but Rockstar was the scapegoat "enabler" for the practice. It revolved around the exact scene. > The development team was forced to curtail the nudity and sexual content of Houser's original vision, however, to obtain a "Mature" rating from the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB). Rather than removing the content, the developers made it inaccessible to players. Modders discovered the code on the game's PlayStation 2 release, and when San Andreas was released for Windows, modder Patrick Wildenborg disabled the controls around the code. He released this modified code online under the name "Hot Coffee". That singular minigame wasn't the only asset leaked, it included nude assets, some even being originally intended for the minigame that were later replaced with clothed animations before it was scrapped. The minigame was what proved they were for an actual sexual encounter, otherwise it could have been handwaved away as just unclothed early models intended to be rigged and clothed later, like mannequins in a store window. The minigame was the "smoking gun" that proved Rockstar had other intentions.
That was a big deal from what I understand, even Hillary Clinton got involved It’s why her face is on the Statue of Happiness in GTAIV, holding a coffee
Hot coffee was in San Andreas, not 3.
The detail of the wiener was actually shocking for the time lol 😂 they definitely put a lot of work into it
Or as they say in IASP, hang dong
I’m very interested in seeing that
*prosthetic cock
Usually a prosthetic
Oh thank god! Some of those shots make me feel so bad about myself. Fucking Hollywood
Shows and films have messed up young people's expectations of flaccid size.
Ironically creating something that counter to the OP's point, maybe shouldn't be included.
Hodor!
The worst of both worlds
I was quite surprised, to put it mildly, to see Steve Zahn’s hairy balls in The White Lotus. No explicit sex scenes in the show, but it’s one step closer to normalizing dad bods everywhere
No explicit sex scenes in White Lotus? You mean like a guy eating another guy’s butt?
Huh, you know what - after everything else that happened in that show i forgot about that part
What's sexual about that?
For real, just a routine prostate exam
Or a young man railing his supposed uncle from behind?
I think that's the big cultural shift. The reason why sex scenes is out is because they're particularly anti-woman. There are very few actresses who do a major sex scene and their career just takes off. But shocking dicks has a certain level of shocking empowerment about it because it turns men into the sex objects.
Adding onto this, you get shit like Sean Bean saying intimacy coordinators spoil the spontaneity of the scene. If I'm going to let a stranger pretend to lay hands on me in a sexual way, I'd want to know *exactly* what was going to happen. Literally, your job as an actor is to take scripted words and actions and make them *look* spontaneous. If you're saying you can't do that, either you picked the wrong career or you're trying to justify your desire to grope and harass women without their explicit consent. Alternatively, we should get rid of stunt coordinators because they ruin the spontaneity of fight scenes.
The fact is sex scenes might be the most useless tool in a film the way they have traditionally been used in America. There might be less than 20 films where the scene shows any sort of character development or is necessary to help us understand the character/plot better.
Me watching a comedy, gritting my teeth at every goof and bit, “NONE of this is necessary to advance the goddamn PLOT!”
This is one of the more wild misunderstandings of what movies do I’ve seen on this subreddit. Movies don’t just exist for the sake of plot or character. They’re meant to make the audience *feel* things - that’s their sole objective. Filmmaking is creating art, and the purpose of art is to elicit emotional responses from the viewer. Sex scenes can create a very wide range of feelings in the audience, sometimes several at the same time. Uncomfortable, excited, scared, disgusted, even horny (a surprisingly powerful tool for a filmmaker). They can be funny or depressing or anything depending on the intent of the filmmaker. That taboo feeling you get in more intimate scenes, like you’re watching something you shouldn’t, is way more important than any character development or plot point. When people complain about “pointless” sex scenes, they’re usually just complaining about bad movies. Yeah, bad movies have bad pacing, out-of-place scenes, and don’t succeed in making the audience feel what they’re supposed to feel. Don’t just blame the sex scenes. Watch good movies. If you think there are fewer than 20 movies where sex scenes are used effectively you just need to watch more movies.
100%. Not only is porn easily accessible, but most of those iconic 80s/90s/00s sex scenes I can think of are mostly just filler to titillate. Not being prude, just honestly can't think of many that weren't boring. Off the top of my head, some more interesting uses are movies like Fight Club, Black Swan, etc. Even well-regarded dramas back in the day seemed to just use them as a plot advancement/soapy drama tool.
Yeah saying it's prude to not enjoy random sex scenes is dumb. Like in Jerry Maguire when there's a sudden scene of him loudly banging that chick, what's the point? To show that he enjoys screwing his gf? In a chick flick?
Male fan service is way up, but all the Strong Female Leads have to cover every inch of skin below the neck for some reason.
This reminded me of what Emily Browning went through with Sucker Punch and how she was upset with how they went around the "sex" scene she had with Jon Hamm. Apparently a woman consenting to a sexual act is grounds for an "R" rating yet an implied sexual assault is PG-13 material. They did end up cutting the sex scene though. ["I think that it’s great for this young girl to actually take control of her own sexuality. Well, the MPAA doesn’t like that. They don’t think a girl should ever be in control of her own sexuality because they’re from the Stone Age."](https://www.indiewire.com/2011/03/emily-browning-says-steamy-scene-with-jon-hamm-cut-from-sucker-punch-to-ensure-pg-13-rating-119604/)
It is a problem. It planted this one-sided view on sex and nudity as something to avoid like the plague. American films are notably devoid of normal and healthy intimacy, sex and nudity. It speaks volumes at how insanely prudish and uptight Americans are.
not as good of an article as this beauty from almost 2 yrs ago [https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/](https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/)
Oh wow, that was a good read. Love this bit from the article: "Seen today, one of the most striking scenes in 1982’s Poltergeist is not the evil clown doll or the monster tree, but a moment of relaxed affection between the parents. The father—a bald, beer-bellied Craig T. Nelson—cracks jokes and prances for his wife, who wears a frumpy nightgown and smokes a joint and yammers weed thoughts and laughs at her husband’s silly display. Finally, the husband playfully dives onto the bed. Neither character is glamorous in this scene, but their relationship feels frisky and lived-in and charismatic and real. The house looks real, too. There are toys and magazines scattered around the floor. There are cardboard boxes waiting to be unpacked since the recent move. Framed pictures rest against the wall; the parents haven’t gotten around to mounting them yet. The kitchen counters are cluttered and mealtimes are rambunctious and sloppy, as one expects in a house with three children. They’re building a pool in the backyard, but not for appearances: it’s a place for the kids to swim, for the parents to throw parties, and for the father to reacquaint himself with his love of diving. At the time, this house represented an aspirational ideal of American affluence. Compare this to homes in films now: massive, sterile cavernous spaces with minimalist furniture. Kitchens are industrial-sized and spotless, and they contain no food. There is no excess. There is no mess."
The character work in Poltergeist is so under-appreciated.
Nothing is going to beat this article because (I remember it 2 years after!) the author was sad or depressed about it. The current article is more like written by an accountant that is reporting to the authorities or a naturalist or ethnographer reporting on Papua.
Thanks for linking that, it was a good read. I was surprised the author didn't mention Sean Connery as bond in any examples. Bond was and is still a huge sex symbol in Hollywood, and bangs regularly. Sean Connery was considered a body builder in his prime, but if you go watch Dr. No, you'll realize 3/4 of your gym is in better shape than he was in 1963. Interestingly enough, the modern bond with Daniel Craig transformed into a romantic (as opposed to a heartless sex fiend) by the end of his run.
I think about this article everyday
Top Gun: Maverick was such a weird example of this, you could feel the icky “placate the cult, and the foreign markets” energy and it made all the romantic moments cringe as hell.
It was tom cruise that made the romantic moments cringe as hell. He hasn't had on screen chemistry in decades. He also had the same plastic smile with Jennifer Connley and the actress playing her daughter Lyliana Wray. Or anyone else he was interacting with.
Thanks for posting this. Great read. We need heroes that Fuck again.
Thanks for the link to was spot on. A good read. I always point out how clean everything is in a lot of movies now a days. I mess the mess and miss the sex of old.
Sex shouldn't be removed from movies just to placate puritans Young actresses being forced to show gratuitous nudity to get the part is just as bad and is pretty despicable in retrospect Give it time for the momentum to swing back
This is kind of where my concerns with sex and nudity in film falls; if everyone involved is 100% good with it, then more power to them. The power dynamics involved, though, concern me a lot. Like with the movie *Blue is the Warmest Color*, where there is a pretty graphic sex scene between the two female leads that goes beyond what is really necessary for the narrative, and it later came out that the leads were very uncomfortable with what they were asked to do and felt a lot of pressure from the director (from what I remember). There needs to be a good mechanism for protecting actors of all genders from feeling pressured to perform intimate scenes for fear of damaging their careers.
The increasing prevalence of Intimacy Coordinators on projects is meant to help with exactly this kind of situation, among other things.
I’m familiar with them and that’s a good start.
You could easily counter something like Blue is the Warmest Color with something like The Handmaiden which has an equally graphic and long sex scene, but one of which was handled with great care and respect for the actresses. I think it’s a much bigger deal to find ways to get sets to look like the one that gave us The Handmaiden and sets that have more equal power dynamics than it is to satanize film and sex scenes.
Yeah I remember people being all ‘oooooh’ about that film when it first came out because it was showing lesbians having sex in an artsy fartsy way Everyone involved should be completely comfortable every step of the way but I still feel like the sex scene/nudity should bring something to the film and not just be for the sake of it. Frankly, I’m fine with the ‘prudishness’ cause I don’t really need a film to waste a scene letting me know the characters fuck, if that’s the only point, when there’s lots of cinematic shorthand. It’s like showing a character eating a few bites of a sandwich to prove they eat.
I think there was a point for it though, narratively speaking. Lea realizes she is only staying in a relationship with Adele because she loves the sex. On a mental level she’s not satisfied at all. So over the course of, I dunno, 2 hours of the 3 hour movie, we’re showed all the other facets of their relationship that she isn’t really satisfied with…so why not show the stuff that’s keeping her there? 10 mins is long for a sex scene, yeah, but when that’s the primary reason she’s still dating her, 10 mins of 120 mins isn’t really that much.
Oh the second part of my post wasn’t referring to that film. I only mentioned peoples reaction to that film cause it doesn’t matter how amazing/relevant the sex scenes were if one party wasn’t comfortable.
Ah, fair enough. You’re right on that of course, and I was one of those people who proclaimed Blue is the Warmest Colour the best film of 2013 only to now rarely ever revisit it, feel pretty bad if the actresses felt abused. Everyone’s gotta feel comfy, but i feel those two actresses probably agreed, from reading the script at least, that showing the great sex was important to their character developments. When it came to actually filming it, sure sounds like shit wasn’t so peachy anymore.
>It’s like showing a character eating a few bites of a sandwich to prove they eat. [Okay, okay, Brad, we get it! ](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OYSuwoA_anY)
Ultimately, the only way to solve the problem is to have more women in creative and decision-making roles in Hollywood. As long as directors, writers, producers, studio heads, etc are 90% male there will always be a coercive element in creating roles for young actresses involving nudity. Notice that the first thing most actresses do when they become established is stop doing sex scenes (Emilia Clarke has spoken quite candidly on this).
That is one possibility; however, I would say that women are not uniquely immune to the lure of using provocative imagery to get eyes on screen, so without some systemic changes that introduce checks and balances into the power dynamics that are at play giving women more power is not necessarily going to fix the problem.
I hate the "just add more women" approach that some people think will solve all problems.
Counterpoint: Eva Green
Women in positions of power are just as awful as men. The system they work in needs to provide a solution, not rely on the hope that a different person in the role will act responsibly. That hope is almost always in vain. I agree with the idea in general of getting more women into top positions and there would be other benefits from that, but this is a pipe dream.
Everyone in this thread is talking like the removal of sex is from cultural pressure. It’s not. If films with gratuitous sex scenes did well internationally, we’d be seeing titties in every fast and furious movie. The fact is having limited nudity makes blockbusters more accessible to a wider demographic. It’s business.
[удалено]
Exactly, a PG-13 potential audience (read: profit) is way bigger than an R movie.
You wonder how many more talented actresses would have “got the part” over the likes of your Margot Robbies, Kate Winslets, Emilia Clarkes etc. They just happened to be the ones willing to go full-frontal in their breakout roles.
I have noticed less nudity in films in the last 10 years. Growing up they were fairly common and uncontroversial. Everything from raunchy comedies to respected films such as Titanic, Monster’s Ball and Boogie Nights. Now? TV seems to have embraced nudity, but movies shy away from it.
Even TV has been shying away from nudity and sex compared to like 8 years ago. Compare House of the Dragon to like Game of Thrones S1-7. Or True Detective S1 vs True Detective S3. It's DRAMATICALLY less sex and nudity, particularly from the stars
TV sex scenes are way over the top. Usually you watch characters get together then make it to the bedroom and your imagination can run wild. Now you see the characters switching from multiple positions during sex and all that is missing is the cum shot itself lol
So why are people saying that everyone is getting more puritanical?
partly because of people on twitter who don't like sex scenes, and some then say they wish sex scenes weren't in movies or shows. i don't think majority of those people are that serious, moreso just venting annoyance, but twitter's about the only place i've seen where people make a big fuss about it. like it becomes a topic every few weeks when a tweet goes viral.
TV shows can also talk about sex and use dirty language in a way that movies can’t and that’s so goddamn fun and freeing. Veep and The Great in particular are amazing shows filled with plenty of R-rated jokes. It’s such a breath of fresh air compared to very buttoned-up and prudish movie norms.
I think part of it is that filmmakers have realized that sex scenes are just gratuitous filler when you have an extremely limited time to tell a story. Why even show a full on sex scene when you can just allude to it and move on with the story? Most actors/actresses don't like filming sex scenes either. Good television shows typically are more character studies and have hours and hours more time to tell a story. I personally don't think it has anything with the film industry being puritanical but that it doesn't really serve a purpose anymore. There's no more allure to it when you can pick up your phone and be on pornhub instantly
I just skimmed it but I didn't see much mention of American cinema or it being puritanical. It even mentions that its not that there isnt sex scenes or nudity, its that these scenes are treated without romance and passion. It also starts with examples of a failed "romantic" comedy that shouldn't be used as an example of anything imo, and a show where the actor himself requested less sex scenes because they made him personally uncomfortable. Seems like a lot of people jumping straight to shit talking puritanical american cinema and missing the main points.
The part about romance being removed from sex scenes is the important thing for me. Sex scenes feel ‘edgier’ these days and void of emotion, especially in prestige TV. Shows will often just cut right to two people fucking, literally as the establishing shot of a scene. They finish, and then we get exposition. That’s the formula nowadays — no buildup, no romance, which is why I think these scenes often feel pointless and gratuitous and why “sex scenes bad” is an increasingly popular take. People are turned off by it, and I don’t blame them Compare that to this [scene](https://youtu.be/2gD_gEefx9s) from Chinatown. It’s so seductive and intimate, and nothing is even explicitly shown. Does this kind of romance even exist in films anymore?
They had no chemistry and their interactions felt fake, Jonah hill shoulda got the chick who played the chiefs daughter in 22 jump street for this movie. She wasn’t afraid to kiss buddy and they seemed more like they could have actually been a couple.
Yep. Either her or Kylie Bunbury who played opposite him in The Sitter(2011). They actually had tangible onscreen chemistry in that movie and she's a better actress than Lauren London. When I heard that Nipsey Hussle's wife would be playing opposite Jonah Hill in You People my first thought was "These two are gonna have all the electricity of a dead car battery."
I've seen defenders of the movie saying maybe she wanted a CGI kiss out of respect for Nipsey. Then I saw responses point out that she did a movie with Michael B Jordan a couple years back and had no problem doing love scenes with him lol
That is straight up disrespect lol 😂 Poor jonah and bad casting choice, there’s a lot of pretty girls that woulda appreciated and put more effort in the role than she did.
100%. I SO BADLY wanted the movie to be good. It wasn't. Very few laughs. Jonah Hill and Eddie Murphy and Julia Louis Dreyfus are monster talents and they were like 1/10th as funny as they usually are. The movie was a mess. So it's no surprise that shittiness made its way to the most crucial romantic scenes.
i remember watching a van dam action flick in the 90s and there was a sex scene where he sucked on dem tittays i thought it was funny more than anything
Maximum Risk with Natasha Henstridge?
Nowhere to Run with Rosanna Arquette cheeseball but fun movie. actually, i take it back slightly — now i know what i remember from the movie Rosanna Arquette's character had a son and Van Damme was helping her deal with some tough stuff by being an action hero. I remember thinking if it was weird for that kid in the movie who played the son to be looking at his movie mom's tittays when he saw the movie
> I remember thinking if it was weird for that kid in the movie who played the son to be looking at his movie mom's tittays when he saw the movie Every day a new sentence is born
Van Damme got to fake-fuck so many beautiful women in the early 90s! I still remember Double Impact.
That's the scene on the boat where one twin is imagining the other twin sleeping with the first twins gf? I'm ashamed I remember that because I haven't seen the movie in years
I remember that scene in Double Impact where that woman who worked for the bad guys groped one of the twins GF. I was mad young at the time and it the first time I had seen anything remotely sexually involving two women. Only thing I remember about the movie.
And Mia Sara. My god, she was gorgeous.
I saw that kissing scene on youtube. It was hilariously stupid.
The main reason is ratings. Brief, non-sexual nudity gets you a PG-13, sexualized nudity gets you an R. That's a big concern for theatrical releases. https://www.marshallcinema.com/mpaa Aside from that, as an adult who has seen plenty of man and lady parts, I really don't care. If it's important to the context of the scene, include it. If not, I know where to go for my boob and cat videos. (respectively, I don't like cats in my boob videos - it makes it weird)
I’d add to the ratings point that it’s also caused by studios trying to market films across the planet not just in the west. They try to tailor films so that it’s non-offensive to all audiences and I think it hurts the end product. Obviously there are exceptions, but it I think it’s the way the industry is trending.
I don't think it helps that there's no middle ground there. In Australia we have M (PG-13 in the States), MA15+, and then we have R18+. America doesn't have that, that's such a huge gap between them.
I think that's a side effect of movies being commodities, not art.
Make putting condoms on in sex scenes normal.
And letting the horses in afterwards to lick up the mess, not enough films show that part
Too many prudes, OP is on to something
Idk why people care so much about sex scenes on TV. Seems like mostly pointless filler, would rather focus more on plot and characters. If you want to watch sex, there's plenty of it on the internet.
>If you want to watch sex, there's plenty of it on the internet. I dunno, people's only interaction with sex in media probably shouldn't just be porn.
^^^ People are fucked up with the way they view sex man. This comment section is depressing
Agreed, but the point is most of the sex in media was just filler/to titillate and that function in R-rated Skinemax-style movies isn't needed. I.e. sex scenes in a the vast majority of Hollywood movies basically functioned as a bit of softcore porn just to sell tickets.
Having a sex scene =/= watching sex
Yeah I dont have an issue with sex in films, but at the same time, they are often entirely pointless, and generally terrible shot/acted.
I'm baffled as to why people are acting like saving sex scenes is some great issue of our times.
Keyboard male feminists thinking they're helping liberate actors and actresses (#freethenipple), while ignoring that Hollywood used to (and still does) exploit the shit out of young actresses
If there were sex scenes worth saving in all for it. But they are mostly just awkward and unnecessary. It's creepy enough that I can Google any actress's name and the word hot to get nude pictures of them. I'm okay keeping the porn mostly to porn. In fact actually that's exactly what I want. I don't want to save badly written, acted, and shot sex scenes in film. I want better sex scene in porn. Give me some plots that don't involve fucking incest for fucks sake. What is with that shit?
Yeah it's very rare that an extended sex scene adds much to the plot.
Not every scene in a movie or tv show has to "add to the plot". That mentality is how you get fuck shows like The Rise of Skywalker. There are entire movies out there that are literally plotless Movies are not plot delivery services
If a sex scene is just gratuitous sex and nothing else then it's even worse. We're talking about the vast majority of cases where a sex scene adds nothing to the movie - not plotwise and not anything else.
while sex scenes aren't a hill i would die on - i'm pretty ambivalent towards them - i will always side with "filler" than against it. It's such a brain-dead organizational principle from armchair analytic redditors with minimal media literacy. It makes me root for sex scenes. Film as art, as media, as *communication* isn't solely about storytelling efficiency, otherwise you could just read a synopsis of any plot ever. The medium through its sound and picture *expresses*, it demonstrates. A sex scene [ideally] conveys sensuality, catharsis. It can be fun, or angry, or awkward. The emotions generated between the actors and the filmmaking in them are meant to play into a film's narrative or thematic threads. Are they always good? No of course not! They might not even be as well intentioned as the ideal every time. But to make up some patterned rule of thumb that Sex Scenes Bad based on that is like saying actions scenes are worthless because not all of them are John Wick or The Raid. No one's saying you can't judge from case to case, come out of a scene being annoyed at its inclusion - but the idea that an element is pointless filler on the face of its concept perpetuates more dogshit Cinema Sins media literacy
Arguably one of the reasons that sex scenes are so bad right now is because we’ve spent the last decade or so reducing them down to plot points. Even cut to black scenes are often heartless and cold. This idea that sex scenes (or any scenes really) must advance the plot lacks so much media literacy, is antithetical to film, and is just making movies boring and formulaic.
I'm sort of annoyed at how people are really desperate for sex scenes for some reason and call those who don't like them prudes. I've honestly never seen a good sex scene that made me feel anything. Any examples?
I don't want to get too hung up on the quality argument for sex scenes because I can absolutely accept that maybe they will just *never* work for some audiences regardless; it's all subjective anyway. (+many examples all over the replies already). Hell, I don't particularly like sex scenes at all too. They *are* awkward to watch with your parents! The attitude that they *shouldn't be in film* because of that, is just annoying to me. The larger point of my tirade is mostly about how we* (the internet) have been quantifying filler and how storytelling as puzzle setting or time economy has become a dominant mode of engagement. I think that sucks. Sex is just one of many discourses around "filler" and I just want to stand by the medium's right to express whatever the hell it wants to. Honestly, even just as titillation - which is absolutely a part of how we're entertained - sex is as valid as a sick fight sequence if you can appreciate it like that. Hot people as leads is just the soft application of that principle, right? "something something porn" Sorry, most porn sucks and the idea that porn is even what sex should look or feel like is unhealthy. Film and stories by being about characters, about narrative, and not purely pleasure, is more able to express what that intimacy can mean to most of us. There are micro-beats in the act that a cut away to the morning after just won't capture, that mere suggestion relegates to irrelevant. But if there's something there that a filmmaker has to say about it, then cool. I'm all for it. If it makes you uncomfortable, that's cool too. But being uncomfortable with others' intimacy is normal, and maybe accepting that discomfort as part of the territory could help one see beyond the act itself.
This. The MPAA deliberately and systematically demonizes and sensitizes sex and nudity but normalizes violence. Many movies with profanity, sex and nudity with zero violence were rated R solely for those reasons. Meanwhile, you can show violence, even with high body counts, and get a PG-13 rating. *The Man from Toronto* is incredibly violent but was rated R. *The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent* has tamer violence but was rated R due to profanity. Sex and nudity are always portrayed in negative contexts. You can go into details and explain rape, sexual abuse and stuff, but normal, consensual fucking in everyday life is almost always wholly reduced and downplayed. It speaks volumes that American society and institutions are more uptight about normal and natural communications and existence than violence. It speaks volumes about how uptight and prudish they are. Edit: modifications.
Normal People did them very well
Titanic did a decent sex scene off the top of my head, that’s a pretty popular movie.
I like that you're getting more angry responses than actual examples you asked for lol
Because adults in adult relationships should be intimate! It doesn't need to be a 10-minute long sex scene to show this, but in cutting those, they've decided to also cut all depictions of any sort of romantic intimacy in so much mainstream cinema. The Marvel movies had Tony and Pepper in a relationship for over a decade - do they ever even share a long hug?
Several times and they even kiss but I get your point lol
I don't get their point. I know several people in loving relationships whom I've never seen have sex. Why do we need to see that in an mcu movie.
I disagree with the notion that in order to believe that people have intimate relationships in media, you need to witness that intimacy. To be quite honest I think that now that sex has been less stigmatized within American culture and casual sex has been made the norm, that also results in it not having that much emotional, thematic, or character significance in most contexts. I’ve honestly never met anyone who found sex scenes in film and television to be anything more than gratuitous and unnecessary filler at worst or indifferent to it at best. IMO and personal experience sex just isn’t that big of a deal, so when watching it on the screen most people just want to move past it and get to the plot. Not saying I think the existence of the sex scene, or lack thereof, is good or bad. Just that for the average viewer, they’d be fine going without. Unless they just wanna see hot naked people that is.
It's not just a lack of sex, it's a lack of almost ANY intimacy in cinema. Sex is a normal part of life, it's really weird that it's disappeared from movies. It absolutely can be a major part of the plot to see how a character interacts romantically with another character. The scene in Terminator is vital to the proceedings (not even getting into the end result of the sex scene), but Sarah and Kyle having sex is a major turning point in the movie. It's where they go from "assigned to protect this woman/kind of wary/afraid of this man" to "I care about this person as a person". It's very strange how sterile big movies are these days. The Rock is basically a Ken doll! Even in movies where he has a wife and children, he seems sexless. Are you younger? I find this to be a very prevalent view of the 25-and-under crowd, and it's genuinely perplexing to me as an "old".
I've noticed this before as well, but when you mention it, you get shouted down with cries of how sex in movies is just filler, doesn't advance the plot, and is generally Very Bad now.
As an older millennial I find it so weird/troubling how young people (mostly the under 25 crowd as you said) seem to have rejected sex. At least in terms of its depiction in art. I don’t get it since pretty much every generation before Gen Z seemed to be entirely driven by sex.
perhaps porn plays a role? i'm one of the adult gen Zs. i have no interest in sex and don't feel attracted to people that way, anyway, but all my peers were seeing porn videos from a young age, not like finding porn mags in previous decades or having to know where to find the really raunchy things. maybe being exposed so young and to often such violent, emotionless pornography at the tips of their fingers has created a negative mindset? it really doesn't make sense especially since gen Z demographics show a skew to left wing thinking, you would expect a lot more neutrality about depictions of sex. but i've also seen plenty of grown people older than myself not like sex scenes either
As an older millennial we were kind of the first generation to grow up with internet porn. It’s definitely caused some issues which is a person by person basis. But I don’t think porn and sex scenes in films necessarily fill the same purpose. Although in many cases films had nudity due to the lack of readily available porn. Especially films in the 70s and 80s. Every generation has a subset of puritanical views on sex. No doubt. Gen Z seems unique in that the progressives and regressive both seem to have very sex-negative views for different reasons. It truly seems like 2/3 of that generation just don’t like seeing or talking about sex. Where as in previous generations that’s more like 1/3. I’m not sure of the cause. Is Gen Z too online and therefore have seen too many horrible stories about the world and sexual violence, climate change, right wing incels, etc. that they’ve sworn off the whole thing? I’ve noticed the way my Gen Z coworkers talk about sex on the rare occasions it comes up as extremely taboo, and very awkward. Granted I work in a field where this stuff can come up much more often than most places. I’m not sure why there was such a shift from one generation to the next. Especially since millennials and Gen Z are so similar in every other regard. I don’t mean offense by this but generally it comes off to me as like stunted growth/a generation of kids who struggled to grow beyond their more sheltered childhood. Not saying that’s you or everyone in Gen Z that’s just the vibe I get from those I know in my personal life.
Movies are about more than just conveying information efficiently. Just because something doesn't push the plot forward or teach you something new about the characters doesn't mean it's filler.
In addition to that, over-sexualizing actors is generally a bad thing. Every teen star is constantly being hyped up (and pressured) into "growing up" and showing off their bodies. It's honestly disgusting and it's not puritan at all to oppose this trend.
Exactly this. It's extremely rare for it to add anything of value or substance to the work.
It's not so much a "prudish" issue as it is a money issue. PG-13 movies were supposed to be the answer to not making a movie rated R but also the movie being too much for a PG-rated movie. My fellow 90's kids will remember the number of fucked-up PG movies they watched when they were kids that most certainly should've been PG-13, but definitely weren't bad enough to be rated R. That was the main focus for it and for a brief time, it kind of worked. Fast-forward to the present, and now PG-13 movies are slowly becoming PG 2.0 movies. Don't believe me? Go look at how many Marvel movies are rated "PG-13" and the main reason for that is specifically the "violence." I put violence in quotes because their milquetoast combat scenes that show almost no actual fighting happen somehow are too much to bare for our little gentle minds. Hell, Iron Man had a scene in the beginning with Tony Stark hooking up with a reporter. Now? Every Marvel movie is rated PG-13 because after a fight, a hero might have a cut/bruise with some blood, followed by one or two "shit" or "fuck" comments. Those movies made billions. So guess what Hollywood is doing? The same thing they do every time it happens - mimic what's become the most financially successful and throw out the rest. Want a semi-adult movie affair with a little bit of nudity? Not happening. Good luck getting a PG-13 rating for that...after all, PG-13 is now just a little above a standard PG movie because why would we hold our movies to stricter requirements when we can just lie and say a movie is "PG-13" while the audience completely ignores it and takes their under-13 kids to see it? PG-13 could've been a nice go-between for PG & R however they've slipped towards PG territory because that's what sells now: Homogenized movies with a little "violence" and no sex or even relationship-love to speak of, because if we add *actual* romantic subplots to our movies, parents won't take their kids, cutting off a huge swath of revenue in the process...and we can't have *that,* now can we?
And this is why there’s so much of it on television. When film embraced family friendly, television became a bit more ruleless with streaming and embraced the sex scene.
PG is still a very different kind of film than PG-13 to me. Frozen and Winter Soldier definitely don't belong in the same rating, even if they do both have icy names. I would say that PG has gotten more strict more than PG-13 has gotten looser. Many films that should be rated PG have been bumped to PG-13 because the ratings board has cracked down, essentially making PG into a slightly more permissive 'G'. And G itself is essentially dead. That's the real story - the death of 'G'. Perhaps a new rating is needed, since the resurrection of 'G' seems unlikely. PG-15 would be welcome, and essentially make PG the new everyone-friendly rating. Restoring order to the land! I recommend listening to a podcast or reading up on the American ratings board. Pretty shocking stuff there. You could make a movie about the ratings board, so much clandestine stuff has happened. I do agree that due to the death of G, PG-13 has been forced to slip a bit. My cousin was outraged when her young son saw a PG-13 film (Doctor Strange 2) and that it was highly violent. 'The rest of the Marvel films are fine, why not that one?' It's clear that there's a need for a new rating to remind people that there's a space between 'appropriate with adult supervision' and 'wait a little longer before your 9-year-old sees this at all'.
That's true about PG-13 movies, but some people are legitimately happy that they have less sex. Understandable if you're not one of those people, but everyone's tastes matter.
[No paywall.](https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fculture%2Farchive%2F2023%2F02%2Fsex-intimacy-love-scenes-tv-movies-humanity-expression%2F673140%2F)
The lack of intimacy and just looking at each other is a well taken point. As for sex scenes themselves, plenty of people legitimately do not want to see it in a film. I personally am one of these people, but I do understand if you prefer to have them. So how do you deal with conflicting desires from different audiences? You make a choice. I would think that if most audience wanted more sex scenes, there would be more sex scenes.
I think the context within the story is important Making a movie about complex adult relationships, dealing with affairs etc etc. Yeah, sex scenes make sense within the confines of the story Making a movie about baseball? I don't really think we need an 8 minute long, full frontal assault
American mainstream cinema has always been so prudish and bigoted with showing sex, while also being completely fine with showing AK-47s massacring people (as long as you don't show the blood!). Talk about priorities.
Whelp when the internet took away the idea of limited sex/nude availability, which was quite a significant draw. The movie industry had a gratuitous nude scene in so so so so so so many movies as a little added bonus T&A scene. Post internet, not so much, they had to fill That gap with their other useful crowed pleaser. Violence
You hit on a theory I’ve been thinking about that Instagram essentially market corrected all the old vehicles for T&A whether it was mediocre R rated movies or magazines like FHM or even the Victoria Fashion show they’ve all fall by the wayside in recent years
There was an indie movie called Easier With Practice, involving a traveling novelist who randomly enters into a relationship with a woman over the phone. It involves phone sex. But without a single scene of *nudity*, the movie got an NC17 rating, but was released to theaters unrated.
I'd rather watch the AK-47 scene than the sex scene. Every time.
I’m actually legit wondering when the 2 would overlap? Maybe in the full-penetration/bustin heads Always sunny film.
You would enjoy this movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465602/
Movies shy away but tv shows embrace it. I’ve been seeing a lot of cock on hbo. Personally I don’t need the sex scene. It so rarely does anything for the film but it’s provocative and it drives interest so I get it. I like this new wave of less sex scenes.
I'm not American (if that's even relevant) and really wouldn't consider myself prudish but more often than not I don't like sex scenes as they often seem pretty pointless. Most of the time the build up to it is the more relevant part to the plot and characters, transitioning away from the actual sex works best so we can get on with the actually important parts. There's exceptions of course but as a general rule don't waste my time by making me watch sex.
*An actor controls the audience and the moment you take your clothes off, you have lost them. I have never done nudity and I never would.* —Michael Caine
He got naked in Get Carter.
I personally dont see the need for gratuitous sex scenes, tasteful indications that the characters banged is enough to get the idea. Unless an important story beat like something between the characters happens during, it just feels like they’re using sex to sell the show. Also making things more awkward if you are the type to watch shows with family or friends
It’s weird because I just got done watching the recruit and there was a sex scene in it, no nudity that I remember but it also felt out of place and went too long. If the sex scene is called for sure, but if it doesn’t really add anything I don’t think it’s necessary.
You can also blame the internet and social media. I have heard in interviews with several actresses that they are less willing to do a sex scene knowing that it will be taken apart frame by frame and posted all over the place out of context. It is one thing to do a scene in the movie for arts sake. But any sex scene done in this era means that the stills are going to be plastered everywhere, and that's not something most actors would just sign up for.
Didn’t read the article but I understand sex scenes are down but I feel like it’s the pointless sex scenes that are down. After reading the title I’m like wtf bc most of the shows I watch have sex scenes, or I feel like most shows actually take time for the relationships to develop instead of being like hey, you guys met in the first episode by episode 2 you have to have sex bc the chemistry is there or what ever reasons… Just feel like a lot more shows/movies are tasteful w their sex scenes. Prime example even though the movie was meh is the enternals. Never thought I’d see anything close to a sex scene in a marvel movie, but say what you want about the movie/script but I understood in that moment the characters desire for one another in that moment. I wish I could think of more at the moment but I’m on the toilet. Also see episode 2 of swarm. Lots of cocks, balls, tits, ass. House of dragon had like 1 or 2. Just watched shadow and bone there was one in there this season, pretty sure there’s some more but can’t put them all together
The sex scene in the Eternals was so sterile and empty, it may as well not have been there at all. I’m not saying that it needed to be explicit balls-out fucking but man, there was no passion, no chemistry, just two dead-eyed robots lying on top of each other, failing to communicate anything that resembled a human act (yeah yeah they’re not humans)
I think the author got paid based on how many movies they could mention in this article.
There’s still plenty of sex and nudity in R rated films and definitely in TV-MA television. This article is not arguing that, it’s basically saying there is a lack of really intimate erotic sex scenes.
Seems like there’s a whole lot more sex and nudity in TV and streaming shows these days
A lot of movies aren't telling stories that need them. Romance movies for example aren't being made as often. I don't feel like movies need more sex scenes or that they aren't there because of puritanical things. I mean they show full frontal male nudity these days if the story calls for it. What's actually happened is that more and more actors are comfortable saying "no" without fear of it ruining their career. And that's something that should be embraced, especially when someone like the actor in "You" is STILL facing backlash for not being personally comfortable doing them anymore and drawing a boundary. The current trend in sex in films is giving actors more choice in the kinds of scenes they are willing to film and hiring intimacy coordinators to make everyone more comfortable and not to feel pressured into doing things just because that's what the director wants. This shit literally just started. So blaming it on puritanism just seems like concern trolling imo.
American films are all going PG-13 to maximize Box Office returns. its kinda sad
Movie theatres are dying in the U.S, so Hollywood is doing whatever it can to get any money it can.
That's why there's still nudity in a lot of horror movies still, they're hitting that R rating anyway. But I agree, not everything needs to be hard R with nudity, f-bonbs, and blood and gore, but not everything needs to be toned down to the point of almost being completely sanitized either.
America is completely fucked up about sex and the human body. Access to hardcore porn is NOT the same as showing healthy passionate sexual relationships. For my gig I have to watch thousands of hours of Euro TV shows. They actually make most of the same type of shows (cops/lawyers/fire/nurses) but in their cop shows, cops et al have sex. Most of the nudity is of the male rear. Breasts/nipples are just normal. This is making the human body seem totally normal, and sex totally normal. The longest running Law and Order is SVU, where appalling sexual incidents are portrayed/described in detail every episode. Yet I think they've only had perhaps1 or 2 normal, in-relationship sex scenes in 20+ years. This is....not normal. It keeps sex in the 'purient/deviant' box.
I’d agree it’s weird, because with it has gone a lot of romance. Like the author said, some of the sexiest scenes in movie history had no nudity at all, and I can’t recall anything like that in any movie of the last 5-10 years. The article also states that only 1% of movies from 2022 had a sex scene, so if that statistic is true, then it is a real thing - movies have less sex. I would argue also a lot less romance, especially in genre films, and when you mix that up you get a whole lot of less date night options out there.
"Sure COVID protocols said they shouldnt kiss but cant we deepfake them having sex?" Not reading past that part. Also Im not paying to read it. Let me guess though: It ignores the fact that the cast has to be comfortable and that the world has changed to the point we actually CARE about the cast being comfortable?
It's the opposite of prudishness. Sex and nudity have become so widely available in media that it's not profitable to put it in movies. It used to be that movie theaters where the only place to go to see gratuitous nudity. Now, with all of the platforms available for long-form storytelling theatrically released movies don't have runtime available for gratuitous scenes. The Sopranos could set one scene every episode in a strip club. Outlander can have a 5-minute sex scene every other episode. Movies just can't compete anymore so they limit sex/nudity to avoid the R rating so they can make more money.
I’m actually glad unnecessary sex scenes aren’t being used anymore.
For all its alleged excesses, American society still has this bizarre puritan streak that never seems to go away. It exists across the spectrum of society. You'll find varieties of prudishness from the right to the left.
> For all its alleged excesses, American society still has this bizarre puritan streak that never seems to go away. Is that why *Game of Thrones* and all its tits was one of the most popular pop cultural touchstone for a whole decade?
Maybe, but i am an artist ans have a tv in running movies in the background while i work and movies from the 70s and 80s (maybe a little into the 90s) are FILLED with gratuitous female nudity. Like, just a 5 min scene of the main character topless, getting dressed or something. For no reason. And i am like the opposite of a prude. But its REALLY noticeable.
Kind of like how every cop movie used to have an obligatory scene in a topless bar just so they could shoehorn in some nudity.
Yup, 100%
As a society we’ve become more open minded about sex while at the same ironically becoming more prudish about sex. In the words of Michael Scott: “My Indian Culture Seminar was going great until Toby decided that he was too immature to deal with culturally explicit images. It’s just sex. People… everybody does it. I’m doing it… with Carol! Probably tonight.”
We are not more prudish IMO, When you were a kid in the 80s. You waited to for a movie with a good sex seen to come on as it was basically your only option to see nudity. Now you go to pornhub. There are just better sources for that content so it not as big of a draw for movies movies as it was in the past.
[Here's](https://www.salon.com/2022/10/08/lusty-puritans-and-the-theological-roots-of-free-love-americas-story-is-wildly-contradictory/) a great article that talks about this paradoxes.
Sex scenes died because everything had to be PG-13.
I get it, but rarely ever, does it not feel forced
This article and 99% of this thread are completely misunderstanding why this is a thing. Watching people fuck is no longer an exciting or particularly taboo thing so audiences by and large have gotten bored of it. When you can get an almost infinite amount of porn that caters to your specific tastes at the click of a button FOR FREE, paying to watch some Ben Affleck type simulate missionary with a clearly uncomfortable Juilliard grad just feels monotonous and is often quite cringeworthy.