You must log in or register to comment.
No wonder, American puritanism is at a record high.
I wonder how much of this correlates with the rise of intimacy coordinators. I’m sure there are productions that think it’s not worth the investment so they just scrap the scene and have it take place off camera etc.
And perhaps a rise in actors not wanting to have their stuff on the internet forever now (even more so with the rise of AI training)
I think it correlates more strongly to the prevalence of pornography. Mainstream movie scenes look fake and contrived, because they are. As unrealistic as pornography is, that is actually a dick, and it is actually going in a vagina.
When your mainstream movie sex scene is going to be compared (unfavorably) to a scene of two people actually fucking, why bother even shooting it?
Still got a pretty good body count, though. Can’t have a sex scene, but films of virtually non -stop violence is cool.
So sex is a vice now or just when its in a film?
Let’s make a movie about the creator of the nuclear bomb! We can explore the moral implications, the political drama of communists in the USA during and after WW2, the creations of Los Alamos, the interesting science of…
Random corporate head: “Let’s have a sex scene! That will make things interesting!”
Now I am become death, the destroyer of… Ooo… titties!
That interrogation scene was so awful. It jumpscared me.
This is exactly what came to my mind. It was so unexpected.
Oh, wait, Fappenheimer the war criminal really has a sex scene? Lul
Early 2000s were full of horny teen films.
Oh, lol, good explanation actually.
They NEVER add to the story. Sex scenes are what perverted assholes like Harvey Weinstein wanted.
Yes how could such a core aspect of the human experience possibly have any effect on any story ever
Guillermo Del Toro’s “At The Mountains Of Madness” got rejected because there’s no love interest. Sex scenes rarely if ever add to a movie plot unless that IS the plot
Counter point the orgy in Caligula. Or atleast that one is simply historically accurate, actually I think they may have toned it down.
Sarah Conner banged a time traveller in Terminator and it actually applied to the plot by creating a paradox. It’s one of the very few times that I wasn’t sitting their thinking “WHY THE FUCK IS THIS HAPPENING?? WTF DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING??”
So basically in the
distant future year ofyear 2000 movies mostly had it all?Like fast food (chains) - products topped with sugar, fats, and salt, so there is no need for actual quality?
I’d argue that it’s more that pornography is easily accessible and there’s simply not a need or market to titillate audiences like that. You’re just alienating potential audience members who might have gone to see it with their kids, because obviously it’s okay that they see a city destroyed or people shot in the head fifty times, but who won’t buy a ticket because somebody is briefly showing boob.
I’m curious about what, exactly, counts as violence and drugs for this graph though. Is it extreme gore? Any violence at all? Any weed use at all? Drinking?
What bothers me more is that violence gets a PG rating here, sex gets an X rating. How in the world is it more inappropriate for kids to see people naked than for them to watch someone hack someone else to death? The graphic violence should get a more restricted rating than on screen sex.
When your nation always needs to be at war, it’s helps to repress sexuality and normalize violence. This isn’t so much a conspiracy theory, but an observation of an emergence behavior that reinforces itself.
It’s due to easier accessibility to porn. It both reduces demand for the relatively timid sex scenes in films and also reduces their edginess/shock value.
Sex scenes in movies are a combination of this weird shameful “I want to show I’m having sex but I can’t actually show it” and “It’s almost like porn if you removed all the porn.”
You’re really stuck in a pointless awkward middle ground that satisfies nobody. And 95% of the time it isn’t even plot relevant so you’re just wasting time. The decline basically just coincides with internet access to the masses.
I correlate it with the weird feelings that religion introduced about sex and let Al Pacino speak my feelings in Devil’s Advocate:
“let me give you a little inside information about God. God likes to watch. He’s a prankster. Think about it. He gives man instincts. He gives you this extraordinary gift, and then what does He do? I swear, for His own amusement, His own private cosmic gag reel, He sets the rules in opposition. It’s the goof of all time. Look, but don’t touch. Touch, but don’t taste. Taste, don’t swallow.”
Sex scenes were usually forced in by people screaming sex sells. These days there are different ways to see breasts than going to a cinema.
as an asexual person i find other people’s opinions on this interesting. the sex scenes do nothing for me and i’m usually just waiting for them to end but i understand my circumstances are not common. i can only assume that someone who is into sex gets something out of sex scenes, otherwise they wouldn’t exist.
what i don’t understand is the demonizing of sex scenes in movies. like does everyone only watch movies with their parents/kids? i don’t like sex scenes due to my asexuality and i’m glad that there are few of them because this cultural shift benefits me specifically (who has never been in the target demographic) in a roundabout way. but i wouldn’t say they are all gross/unnecessary/graphic/etc as a blanket statement like i see people in this thread and other places online say. art doesn’t need to be for everyone.
As a sexual person sex scenes do nothing to me either and feel like time lost for the actual plot.
As a don’t get any sex person sex scenes reminds me that I’m horny and makes me unconfortable and feel like a waste of time in a movie
Yea unless somone is getting killed or mugged in the middle of the sex, it usually adds nothing of value
That sex is even considered a vice on the same level as drugs and violence is fucking bonkers.
This graph alone gives legitimacy to this idea. Nudity and sex are completely normal (and necessary) things in life. That something that is needed for everyone reading this to exist being labeled as a vice like violence and drugs is actually disgusting IMHO.
So is peeing and shitting. And yet somehow you don’t get a 5 minute scene of someone on a shitter and then the exact shot of their turds being flushed down.
Sex and nudity are normal. And yet I don’t wanna watch my friends have sex. Do you? Wierd huh?
So, why exactly is it so unbelievable that people just don’t wanna watch actors pretend to do the most intimate thing we all got?
Feels awkward, yes. Feels akward when it’s bad and feels even more awkward when it’s good. And it would be most akward if they actually properly showed the entire process and it was real.
Nice strawmen you got there. I never said anything actually about the use in film nor did I say anything about personal preference.
I protest the idea of categorizing sex and nudity as vices at the same level as drugs and violence. That is something the graph presupposes by comparing to these and actually labeling sex as a vice.
Of course one could have a discussion on when and how sexuality in media should be depicted but not under the premise that sex is a vice.
Edit: Surely you would agree that defecating is not a vice? No one should tell someone they should not shit. Or you should be ashamed of shitting.
No one says shitting is on the same level as taking drugs or beating someone to death.
So why do people lump sex in with violence and drugs.
You are thinking of it wrong… Why would these bitches be having sex when they could be working a corpo making daddy some mother fucking money?!
Roughly correlates with the rate of decrease in people 18-30 having sex. I’m not sure of the order of influence there, or if there even is one, but it’s possible the declining presence of sex in media is a result of it being less relatable for something like 30% more young people than previous generations.
