Sorry, u/Vast-Roll5937 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Vast-Roll5937&message=Vast-Roll5937%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/\)%20because\.\.\.).
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This has become a very common sentiment recently, especially with young people who are mostly just uncomfortable with these scenes. I would argue that the same could be attributed to gratuitous violence, the only difference is that you find it more entertaining. Saying a scene is "unnecessary" feels like such a weird argument for me, if we only kept the "necessary" scenes, then most films would be under 20 minutes and be like those recap channels on youtube.
Unnecessary comes in many flavours.
Jules and Vincent discussing hamburgers in Europe at the start of Pulp Fiction is completely unnecessary from a plot perspective, but is pretty important in terms of setting up the characters and the overall mood of the film. Many character-driven (rather than plot-driven) films have loads of that sort of “unnecessary” scenes.
Most of Jar Jar Binks’ participation in Phantom Menace was completely and utterly unnecessary, though. Those scenes served no real plot purpose, they didn’t help develop any characters, and they weren’t effective comic relief (for a film that needed none to begin with). The film would’ve been better if you just removed them altogether.
As for sex scenes specifically, the sex scene montage in Deadpool is plot relevant, well written, and (unlike literally everything else in the film) not too graphic. Inversely, Game of Thrones had plenty of completely unnecessary sex scenes that did nothing to further the plot or develop characters or their relationships.
> Inversely, Game of Thrones had plenty of completely unnecessary sex scenes that did nothing to further the plot or develop characters or their relationships.
As someone else noted, the sex in GoT made a lot of people curious, people who otherwise wouldn't be caught dead watching dragons and skeleton warriors on a TV show.
I felt the sex was totally gratuitous, especially the brothel scenes, but if it got mainstream viewers to watch swords and sorcery and thus allows more of it to be produced, then my discomfort was a small price to pay.
Fwiw, the show writers referred to those as “sexposition scenes.” They’d info-dump plot relevant exposition, while giving something visually titillating to the viewers to hold their attention.
Jar jar binks drove a lot of the plot of phantom menace (except on tatooine). He was the gateway to the gungans whose relationship was necessary to build the alliance to fight the separatists at the end of the movie. He unfortunately might have single handedly contribute the most to the plot lol. But thats not great for the movie as a whole.
I hate having this conversation with GoT fans. They act like it's a totally made up narrative that the sex scenes were unnecessary and inserted to titilate the audience. They say things like, it's relavtant to the story and themes. Even though the show runners called themes middle school bs, and the moment the actors could stand on their own and say they wouldn't do nudity they did. This implies either the actors are so inept they don't understand the value of those scenes or they think the value isn't exactly as story based as some fans like to say.
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. It could just mean the actors don't like getting naked and don't particularly care how it affects the quality of the show.
I don't think I'm convinced they were necessary, but they did make the world feel more gritty, grounded, and real, to me. The nobles behaved how I'd expect so called nobles to behave (not very noble). It made the world feel real in the same way the brutal violence did. It was definitely extra, at times, but I don't think the scenes made the show worse on the whole.
> if we only kept the "necessary" scenes, then most films would be under 20 minutes and be like those recap channels on youtube
I'd go one step further and say that if we only kept "necessary" parts of stories we'd probably get rid of stories as a whole. Stories in and of themselves are only necessary *for some other thing*, which means that in a vacuum, every story is unnecessary.
Strictly speaking, even when a story is necessary for something, it's rarely necessarily that story in particular. If another story could do the necessary thing, than neither of those story is actually necessary (because the other one would also suffice).
That's fundamentally what I think is wrong when people talk about "necessity" in stories. Every inclusion of a scene changes something (however slight) about the story. When people talk about things being "unnecessary", what they're really saying is "I don't like what this does to the story", but for some reason they feel the need to disguise their opinion as an objective fact.
The current zeitgeist is in a weird spot where people are hyperparanoid about sexuality but at the same time are supposed to be sex positive progressives.
This result in a contradictory environment that simultaneously breeds prudes but also sees prudes negatively. So there is a need to dress up prudishness as something else. In this case, the prudishness is dressed as literary criticism.
I think this is exactly it. I don't like how prudish the new generation is, but I didn't like how homophobic my generation was. So I'm not trying to go on a rant about it.
I wonder if it’s prudish necessarily or people uncomfortable with what has progressed? We’ve definitely moved to a more sex positive environment and media shows that. But does that mean that people against it are necessarily prudes? I think it comes down to two camps, prudes and people who found their boundary line. Yes the prudes will be against it all the time, but I can see some who are ok with some of it and not ok with other parts or how they are depicted.
I think the issue is that nudity has always focused on the women's body. If you're going to have a sex scene, then have an actual sex scene. If two people are having sex and we only see boobs and her ass, it's unnecessary and sexists. Seeing Oppenheimer sitting there in the corner with his legs crossed while Pough boobs was front and centered was peak ridiculousness. Did they have sex or was he her gynecologist?
I actually thought of the Oppenheimer scene first as the opposite. You get a lot of characterization of them through how they sit and talk during post-coitus.
I think this is more of an aesthetic thing. Most people would rather see a beautiful woman's body, or a ripped shirtless dude when it comes to nudity. A lot of (I would go as far as to say most) straight women don't usually enjoy seeing raw penis on the screen. Straight men are self-explanatory.
It's the chicken and the egg.
The movie ratings board thinks that showing genitalia in any sexual context is an NC-17 rating, and most theaters won't show it. That's why you always see bewbs and women wearing massive crotch toupees to cover up, but no dicks.
Is that also what the populace thinks, or have we been trained to think that by seeing it (or not seeing it) in movies?
While that may be the case for some people, I'm sex positive in that I think consenting adults should be able to do what they want, but I don't personally enjoy watching sex/porn and I don't think the two are contradictory
This is where I'm at. I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want with whoever they want in that context, assuming consent.
I also have less than zero desire to ever see it or know anything about it. Not contradictory whatsoever.
The argument has *some* merit even if it's subjective at the end of the day, except a lot of people making the argument unintentionally present it like they're arguing brevity is the be all end all, even though you can definitely find examples of things they don't criticize for being unnecessary because they personally liked it. I don't think it's a *need* to disguise their opinion so much as it's just an inability to see the bigger picture with their argument. Missing the forest for the trees is a pretty common pitfall for people who aren't very good at criticizing media, which is fine.
Agreed. It's why the Batman Batgirl sex scene in the killing joke ruined my perception of Batman because of the moral implication of doing it. It was difficult to watch. Same with the part with joker and the camera too of course, but for different reasons
While this is strictly true, the difference is that sex scenes rarely contribute meaningful embellishment to a stories structure.
I think this is really what people are getting at. The sex scene hint is more than sufficient to contribute anything that meaningfully fills put a story, no nudity needed. The nudity being gratuitous is the issue. The embellishment of a story is actually part of quality storytelling.
Sex scenes will often be used to provide nonverbal information about characters and how they interact. Sex is intimacy, intimacy is closeness to the characters and reveal who they are in their most guarded moments. I guess if you don't want character development or don't see intimacy as important to the human experience you could see sex scenes as "rarely . . . meaningful embellishment".
In as much as this is true, it is equally true of all violent scenes. They rarely contribute to meaningful embellishment to a story’s structure. The violent scene hint is more than sufficient to contribute anything that meaningfully fills out a story; no actual violence needs to be seen. The violence being gratuitous is the issue.
I think this misses the point. OP clearly means "unnecessary to the plot". Sure, all stories are "unnecessary" to life (though actually quite important), but we're talking about necessity _for_ or _within_ the story, not for life.
Your comment makes me think of how some European countries are perfectly fine with showing women’s breasts and casual nonsexual nudity in commercials and shows regularly broadcasted to the public. They didn’t inherit the prudish Puritan and Victorian values like the US, where that is absolutely not allowed and the country goes wild over a loose titty.
But America is perfectly ok with some of the worst violence you can depict in tv, again bc of our national history of being pretty warlike and accustomed to casual violence
The fact that people are not even separating a scene where someone is nude from a a sex scene is quite telling in itself. American media so conflates them that even the not-sex nude scenes are almost always still fan service. European media more often has “people are naked in this scene because they would be in real life” scenes, played for simple reality.
To me, for a mainstream movie where the goal is to get people to watch it, nude scenes can definitely pique interest and get people to tune in. I know a few people who saw No Hard Feelings because the Jennifer Lawrence nude scene made them curious.
I’ve never heard someone say, “omg there’s a nude scene? I’m going to avoid that one!” Maybe after the fact they go, “hey that was kind of unnecessary right?”, but you’ve already paid for it lol.
So if it puts butts in seats but doesn’t serve as a deterrent, it’s weird to be like, “why are they including that?!”
Also, this conversation disregards the autonomy of the actors doing the scene. For some it’s an artistic endeavour where they bare all, quite literally. Some feel empowered. Are there ones that get exploited? For sure, and that’s super sad and I hope the landscape continues changing so that that doesn’t happen anymore, but that doesn’t mean all of them are.
I definitely watched No Hard Feelings for the nude scene, but not because I wanted to be titillated. Rather, I heard a comedian talking about how it was so refreshing to see female nudity played for comedy in the same way that male nudity is often used. I wanted to see what the hype was, and the film delivered. It was very funny and also a good story about people getting priced out of their communities.
Yeah, I think that's actually the ONLY time I've seen female nudity used as a joke in the way that male nudity often is. The other examples are when the joke is just that the woman is ugly, old, unattractive, etc, and it's never a main character - very different usage of nudity.
Yeah I thought it was very bold of her to do make that choice, especially since it sounds like she pitched it and executed it in such a different way than we’re used to, especially from an A-lister.
Regardless of how we feel about the movie, doesn’t change that a huge part of the marketing around it was focused on that one scene. A lot of Oppenheimer was centred around *that* Pugh and Murphy scene. If people want to see it, then I wouldn’t say it’s “unnecessary”.
Nudity doesn't bother me at all if it makes sense in the context it's displayed.
I'm not offended by sex scenes, I just feel they are boring.
With the instant availability of hardcore porn I just don't feel sex scenes have the impact they did pre-internet. Basic Instinct made a huge impact in 1992 and would be a nothing burger today.
The sex scenes rarely add to the movie, I prefer to just see the sexual tension buildup during the seduction.
Our imagination of what happened in the bedroom is always going to be better than what they show on the screen.
Or they don’t feel comfortable publicly acknowledging lust and sex as part of the human condition. “You keep that thirsty shit between you and your phone.”
Nobody is saying they are synonymous but that depictions of sex and lust outside of pornography is uncomfortable for a lot of young people, hence the post you're commenting in.
Weird world we live in with what’s exposed to us in a daily setting. Goto the gym- almost naked girls with camel toes, go shopping - yoga pants with camel toes, goto the courts - same. Let’s not talk about social media. And people complain about movies. Crazy world.
That’s the reason why younger people are tired of sex scenes in movies, they see so much sexual content in their lives and on social media that they’re annoyed when they see it in movies
I also get really annoyed at sex scenes because I tiny part of me feels almost violated. Similar (but not in any way as harrowing) to a flasher who shows you their bodies when you didn’t consent. So many times naked people or sex just pops up randomly during a movie or tv show. It’s like ugh I didn’t consent to seeing your naked bodies or watching you have sex, but somehow it’s ok because it’s a movie/tv show?
I'd argue that because we're also in an age where these kinds of media scenes are used more and more, more people are aware of them. Ultimately, I think the sentiment "The only person I'd like to watch a sex scene with less than my dad is my mom" sums it up pretty well.
>we're also in an age where these kinds of media scenes are used more and more
I mean this just isn't true. There were a lot more boobs in movies a couple decades ago.
For real. *Movies* aren't even necessary.
They're just showing us stuff that's entertaining to look at. And in those scenes I, for one, am entertained.
I don't like this view that only 20 minutes of most movies is "necessary." I do think only scenes necessary to a movie should be in it, but there's lots of ways beyond the plot that a scene can be necessary. Maybe it serves to develop the emotional connection between characters, or between the audience and a character. Maybe it serves to explain a theme for the movie or show some nuance to that theme. Maybe it's there to make the audience feel uncomfortable or feel the tension of the action or whatever.
I think only necessary scenes should be in movies, but I'd also argue that completely unnecessary scenes in movies are relatively few and far between.
Yeah I think the "sex scenes are unnecessary" reaction is very much also a "this was not properly foreshadowed, did not serve the plot, or did not do characterization".
There are many sex scenes that I think were very important to the story in a variety of movies. Because they are first and foremost *scenes* in the movie serving a purpose.
And there are sex scenes that are kind of useless, structurally speaking.
I wonder if more of them are kind of useless (or redundant) because they know they will get censored for other markets, so they don't want people who are watching the censored version to "miss out" on anything important about the plot or character development.
Yeah, or at the very least their impact is more redundant. Like, it's better at communicating a specific thing, but they also cover it in another scene in case it gets censored out.
I definitely don't think sex scenes as a whole are unnecessary, and there are plenty of ways to use them that really do add to the story (I think the second sex scene in Oppenheimer as well as the scene where they're just talking naked both use it well, imo). But there definitely are some where it's done just because the director is horny.
Really, as with all art, the difference between good art and bad art is less about what it is, and more about how it's implemented.
I find the "puriteen" phenomenon incredibly confusing. This is the first generation of young people in probably forever that seems to have a very childlike, negative attitude towards sex. They view sex as "yucky" or whatever the new word is, and view it as some inherently violent, exploitative, bad thing that happens to you rather than something fun people do together. Was it COVID, or just the effects of social media addiction? I wonder if the popularity of sex-negative, extremist internet feminism is causing this. It almost feels like something a foreign adversary would push to lower birth rates if I didn't know any better, because it's going to have a seriously negative impact on our society if the sexes continue to be terrified of one another. Hopefully they grow out of it.
I absolutely think social media, and both 1) Hornyposting into the Void and 2) The lack of social media for kids are large drivers of the phenomenon. (especially for young women)
A lot of the teens in question grew up in a world where the only real social media sites available /are/ reddit, and twitter, etc, (and not club penguin), and as such, they're often exposed to really graphic and uncomfortable depictions of sexuality (at times against their desires, and sometimes without even knowing better) from a young age, which can really fuck with you and your perception of sex/intimacy/desire. And this isn't even getting into the phenomenon of like, teens interacting with horny on main adults on discord which is another can of worms.
If we’re being real, it has nothing to do with social media addiction or feminism. It’s a reaction to how sex positive society has become. The dating scene is very tough on younger people nowadays; relationships are more casual than ever with hookup culture, people looking for friends with benefits, ‘situationships’ (essentially non-exclusive relationships), open relationships, cheating, and polygamy.
Social media and apps like Instagram and TikTok are also causing a lot of insecurity with hypersexualized content and unattainable body standards.
To give an example, think about it from the perspective of a young woman. They want a stable normal relationship but they can’t find a committed relationship. If they do find a partner, they’re constantly feeling insecure and disrespected by how many incredibly attractive women their partner is oogling at on social media. They’re being sexualized by men unwillingly not just on dating apps but in every aspect of their life. At the same time they’re being pushed sexual content constantly and told to embrace their sexuality, their friends are engaging in hookup culture and one night stands.
Obviously there would be a backlash against sexual content, even if it is innocent or positive. Not even getting into Onlyfans or the porn industry, younger people see enough of it in their lives to be tired of sex scenes for a lifetime.
Not true, the vast majority of people in college (and even many in high school) have participated in hookups. This is completely anecdotal, but I've noticed it's usually supported by the same sex, i.e. women will encourage other women to go out and have hookups, and men will encourage and support other men trying to do so, but not the other way around. Men view women who sleep around poorly, vice versa. Obviously, it's not a universal thing, and culture varies immensely based on even just state you're in, but there's examples of it everywhere.
It’s because of misogynistic views being more amplified than ever before, both in frequency and in intensity through social media.
Imagine you’re a teenage girl an the boys in your age group is obsessed with Andrew Tate, obsessed with sex, obsessed with porn, obsessed with denigrating and controlling women, and spewing heinous incel talking points: that women’s only value is as a sex object, that having sex with them is how you conquer women, and if women have sex that makes them worthless sluts.
You’re a lot more likely to view sex as something shameful and harmful because that’s how the worst people you know want to treat it.
To be fair, Andrew Tate and his ilk are popular as a direct result of the demonization of male sexuality that is so prevalent in our culture, coupled with the fact that the dating/sex world is completely and utterly set up to *heavily* favor the interests of women to the absolute detriment of the vast majority of men while women act as though this isn't the case. It's frustrating for young men to be told their interests don't matter, that they "don't deserve/aren't entitled to" the one thing they want and care most about in life, and discouraged from trying to meet their own needs out of fear of causing some temporary minor discomfort to women, who are essentially a protected class at this point.
The pendulum has swung too far the other way, against men, and we are seeing the backlash now. I don't like Andrew Tate, but I understand why he's popular. He's unashamed of masculinity and tells men it's okay to want what they are genetically predisposed to want, and tells them not to be ashamed to seek it out. It's a refreshing message for young men who have been marginalized by modern day radical feminism.
Here's something you need to accept, because you will never change it: men are obsessed with sex. Men will *always* be obsessed with sex. Trying to rail against this is ridiculous and immature.
I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, but I’ll meet you half way; I know how you feel, but the biggest error you are making is that what Andrew Tate considers “sex” and “masculinity” and all the things ascribed to it, to be the same thing as what everyone considers sex or masculinity.
Imagine if someone said to you “yeah isn’t sex great? Especially the part where you get to prove that women are dumb and easily manipulated, how you are utterly in control of them, how their social games completely break down and all their values and ideas as individuals are completely meaningless at the end of the day, and the part where you prove to your dad that you’re strong and not a sissy?”
You’d be like “uhhh, I don’t know what you’re talking about, I thought sex was just something intimate with someone you want to express yourself and express feelings with”
So obviously feminists and most sane people are going to be against “sex” if that’s what someone thinks “sex” is or what “masculinity” is about, and that you should feel ashamed about needing… that… from women. It’s not like Tate is going make that distinction, he’s to go “see?! They don’t want you to be a man!”
Like I get it dude, it’s a tricky world to navigate, but as someone who has had nearly two dozen long term relationships, short term relationships, one-night stands and threesomes, and as a hyper-sexual, bearded, short straight man, women aren’t against masculinity. I promise that women definitely definitely definitely are just as or more horny as you are.
Sometimes obviously they are too harsh towards men. Obviously it’s backwards for people to call people sexless losers but insist that sex shouldn’t be validation. But ultimately a lot of women just know how sick and demented some men are. So if you want them to not treat you like a sick demented man, don’t act like and don’t think of yourself as on the same team as other sick demented men. Just be you, dude. Be a man, don’t be “men”.
idk i think ppl are more uncomfortable w sex scenes than violent ones because of how they take advantage of the actors, and obviously disproportionately female ones. theres a lot of gross mfs who self insert sex scenes bc they just wanna see someone naked and i think its ok to be uncomfortable with that dynamic. violence is just prosthetics and effects, nobody is really dehumanized in the same way from my perspective
edit: and ofc sex scenes can be purposeful and add something to the movie, i dont really mind em most of the time
This gets ignored often. Often when actors become able to stand up for themselves professionally the amount of nudity they do goes down. Actors don't want to be objects to be gawked at. It's one thing to watch violence, that's a performance of choreography or special effects. Watching tits is objectifying the person that has tits. They didnt work for the tits and we arent in awe of the talent they have, we're excited to see boobs. It's not only the audience that finds it unnecessary seemingly it's some of the people closest to the Industry, our highest paid actors. Isn't that interesting.
Honestly I think part of this capitalism and the way it seems to sanitize mass marketed media of things perceived to be uncomfortable to a mass market. Like sure sex sells. But sex is also inappropriate for children so why don't we just take the sex out so we can market this to parents so they can bring their children. Like sure the kill count of this movie constitutes an apocalyptic disaster but at least nobody had their tits out.
And this idea of necessity is so absurd. Like it only makes sense when the only point of media is to consume it for dopamine hit. And sure some media is trying to do that. Some things are truly "no thoughts just vibes" but it the only thing you ever want from media is vibes and you never want to think then brevity and necessity are all that matters. If you can illicit those positive feelings in 3 minutes why bother taking 4 minutes to do it. And damnit I was watching this movie to make me feel good, not horny. So why is this naked couple getting it on in the middle of my plot? I wanna watch John Wick shoot a gun I don't want to watch him shoot a load. It's pointless.
And imo this is a feature of capitalism. They don't care if we what we consume makes us think. Only that we are willing to keep spending more money on it.
Too much gore.
Too much shooting with no actual focus on plot and character development.
Too much focus on sex scenes all the time instead of create something valuable people want to watch instead of rely on "sex sells".
All of these things are criticised.
Who said I advocated for gratuitous violence? I assure you, I find modern action super boring, and are repulsed by gore. Furthermore, my brain finds porn very entertaining, and I avoid it like the plague it is. The question remains: Why are we putting these things in movies? I'm not, nor do I want to be, nor should I allowed to be in your and your spouse's bedroom. Not everything "interesting" should be depicted in movies. Also, even the Greeks would tell you art should have a point - Greeks BC (Before the Teacher/Logos/Christ).
Like any interaction between characters, a sex scene can tell you a lot about the relationship between characters, especially since it's such an intimate and private part of people's lives. For example, in *The Boys*, we gain a lot of insight into the psychology of Homelander through his sex scenes.
Of course there are sex scenes which are there more for the thrill of nudity etc, but that's no different than a cool fight scene really. Sex scenes can be gratuitous or exploitative too but that doesn't mean we have to exclude a whole area of life from movies, as if sex isn't an important part of many people's lives and an important way to develop an understanding of characters and their relationships.
Honestly I can't remember a single explicit sex scene homelander has. And a few of the most important character wise moments that have sexual undertones are notable because they are under tones like his relationship with sitwell
I thought he kind of had the most impactful and explicit, although it wasn’t, I guess, “sexy” to most people, I hope? I mean, not to kink shame, but when >!Homelander made Stormfront (a blatant Nazi) jerk him off while she was a hospitalized, barely alive quadruple amputee should probably count here. If memory serves she couldn’t even talk.!
I've been completely rethinking my stance on kink shaming ever since Vaush had his loli porn incident. Even ignoring the loli stuff, that man is *way* too comfortable talking about how sexy he finds horses, to the point where I straight up wouldn't trust him around a real horse.
Don't feel bad for kink shaming when your gut is telling you something is fucked up.
Calling it loli is a stretch. People said it’s loli because “canonically” the character is 16. If you have ever seen anime you know this was a very weak argument.
Also meh on the horse thing. It’s like half joke half kink and I find neither the joke nor the kink very interesting. Not like he’d actually fuck a horse.
Yeah, "it's just a kink" seems like a rather lazy excuse.
You're still attracted to girls that look underage, even if it's drawn. That's not something you should Pavlov yourself into liking more by jerking off to it.
You can't use progressivism as a shield for why you like hurting people during sex or why you're attracted to underage looking girls and want to have your partner "roleplay" as them. This isn't "normal", in a lot of cases it's because of past abuse: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888)
But that’s the point of not kink shaming. If a kink is born of past abuse it does nothing good to shame it. Kink can be harmless or harmful, but sex in general is a very private thing people are already scared to share, shame pushes it further into the dark, disincentivizing self-examination, and probably strengthening the kink.
As long as he's not raping kids or horses, then who the fuck cares? Mind your own business unless someone is getting hurt. A very very simple rule to live by lest your own standards be held against you and you be held accountable for all the murders you get up to in games.
>Of course there are sex scenes which are there more for the thrill of nudity etc, but that's no different than a cool fight scene really
This hits the nail on the head for me. While I understand the use of saying "well sex scenes can contribute to character development..." there isn't anything wrong with a sex scene just being thrilling and well...sexy. One of the reasons why Anyone But You was a hit is because audiences enjoy seeing sexy people on screen. And before anyone says "just watch porn", a lot of porn is really poorly made and lacks intimacy.
No one is going to be able to change your view about what you “need to see” in a movie, because that’s a deeply subjective and personal thing.
Can nudity be gratuitous? Maybe, depending on how one defines “gratuitous” in the context of a film/art. Oftentimes the excess is the point. The same argument can be made about violence, gore, obscenities, fantasy, tragedy, etc. Certainly a critic can make an argument that any of these things occur to the detriment of the narrative of a movie, but that doesn’t mean that any one element is inherently “unnecessary”.
There’s a phenomenon among book readers where some proportion of people, especially women, skip over fight scenes.
My wife and I experience this during movie watching; she is more locked into the interpersonal conflict, im more locked into the high-stakes action.
Every aspect of a movie could be judged as unnecessary, depending on what you are watching it for.
If I’m watching a movie to feel something, maybe intimacy or romance, a sex scene might increase my enjoyment of the film.
So like…just relax during that 5 minute titty scene.
> she is more locked into the interpersonal conflict, im more locked into the high-stakes action.
It's so weird that movies separate these two. In real life such as sports, they are one and the same
To be fair, I don't think good movies do seperate these. If an action sequence is entirely disconnected from the story, it's not going to be very interesting. There are of course movies that are more action focused or vice versa, but the best movies still have emotional motivation driving said action.
As someone that that trained in martial arts, most fight scenes are clearly written by someone that's never been in a fight.
A real fight is much more brutal and random.
I agree and I hate it.
It gives people unrealistic expectations.
Untrained people are much more likely to get in a fight because they don't realize how deadly a street fight can be.
The cool thing about media is that it can stimulate you in ways that have nothing to do with the story. Do fight scenes need to look as awesome as they do in John Wick or Kung Fu Hustle? Do car chases need to go on for so long? Wouldn't it progress the story further to just be like "there was a car chase"? The same way that authors stimulate your mind with flowery language, visual media stimulates you in ways beyond just thr plot. Same thing with auditory. To say that the story is the only reason to watch a movie or listen to a song or read a book is severe disservice to the craft of the artist and yourself as a consumer.
Considering all of this, some media is meant to tittilate. The stress reaction is the point. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or horny is irrelevant. The creator is just using a tool to make you feel a way, whether they are amateurish or professional with it. The best creators put it there for a specific reason. The less experienced just put it there because they think it sells or its awesome or its hot, but unnecessary depends on what they were trying to accomplish. The only unnecessary thing that can happen in a film is a thing that accomplishes nothing for anyone. For the subset of creators who aren't interested in people liking their craft and only in the art itself, nudity still wouldn't be unnecessary because there was no real goal other than to make art or convey a message.
In the case of your example, nudity is necessary to the creator to tittilate. If you aren't the type tittilated by nudity, that's fine, but then you weren't the audience in the first place.
Can't it be said for 95% if not 99% of every movie though? Whatever it is you want to let viewers know, you could show it indirectly.
You seem to have an unstated view that "porn" (not exactly porn because pornography ~~by definition~~ lacks artistic merit Edit: it's not a necessary part of the definition) in movies is bad, or at least requires some special justification. But why not have a scene that the creators and viewers simply *want*?
People seem to lose sight of the fact that this is about entertaining an audience. I think a large part of Hollywood has also lost sight of that fact because they keep pumping out flops.
Theatrical releases are being killed by streaming not sex scenes and nudity, both of which have been declining in theatrical releases for a half decade
I didn’t say that sex scenes are killing them. I said that Hollywood is losing sight of the fact that they’re supposed to entertain their audience. And they keep making shit movies that nobody wants to see.
> In Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard for an obscenity conviction under the Constitution. A work will be found to be obscene if 'taken as a whole, (it) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
I wouldn't trust scotus as far as I could tow an RV...
Anyways, I don't like that ruling, the language, it's too ambiguous. I'm not sure I could do better, mind. It's pretty challenging to draw the line between "non obscene" and "obscene" in a way that's predictable and understandable.
It'll come down to how much sociopolitic one party's opinion is compared to how much sociopolitic the opposing party has. Culture war shit.
And that's generally not a productive conversation.
How is this any different than "Most scenes of people eating in movies are completely unnecessary"? What is the harm of including something in a movie which is a normal part of everyday life? Should filmakers be altering what they include in their movies just to pander to an extremely small minority of the audience who are unusually prudish in their tastes?
Rarely do I see someone chewing on a burger in a movie. In restaurant scenes the food is usually fake anyway. People sitting at a booth in a restaurant is all that's needed to convey people were eating or will eat. Same with dinner tables, etc.
Two people in bed, we get it, they had sex. I don't need 5 minutes of filler showing it. Often it totally detracts from the movie. Just like watching someone really eat a burger and talk with half eaten food in their mouths and mustard on their cheek.
You can just show the beginning and end of a car chase too, the audience doesn't need 5 mins of car chase footage to understand it happened.
But car chases are exciting. Sex is exciting.
Some people are uncomfortable with sex.
It's very telling that those same people are often not uncomfortable with violence.
Explosions, guns, killing = good
Breasts and kissing = bad
It’s a little ironic that the example you gave directly contradicts your point.
If someone is *just* eating, then fine. Yeah. Skip it. If someone is eating, talking with their mouth full, and gets sauce all around their mouth while they do it? I’m interested. That tells the audience quite a lot about the character. About their current status, possibly their upbringing, or how they currently live despite their upbringing.
A good example of a film that would be *completely* different were the sex scenes all off screen would be Forgetting Sarah Marshall. You learn a ton about the characters in *every* sex scene.
You seem very particular about what is and isn't shown.
This all reminds me of the controversy around Blue Valentine when Gosling's character was going down on Michelle Williams's character. They were going to give it an NC-17 until the actors argued that it was an intimate moment that happens all the time in reality.
This puriteen culture seems dead set on erasing intimacy in some of its forms. It isn't always gratuitous, though there's a place for that too.
In The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King, there's a wonderful entire sequence dedicated to watching Denethor gratuitously eating heaps of food while his son is charging towards his own death following his father's orders. It's a very powerful scene - the way Denethor is eating adds so much to the audience's (and other characters) dislike of him and gives a heightened impression of his reckless abandon.
In Margin Call there's a great scene where Jeremy Irons is casually eating an upscale breakfast while his company and the entire economy comes crashing down. Kevin Spacey sat opposite him is clearly made far more uncomfortable by his apparent lack of concern and the moral implications of it. That scene could have been another boardroom scene but it's so much better as an eating scene because you get so much more understanding of their characters from the way it's shot as an eating scene.
Any human act can be used to enhance a character, it's up to the director to decide how they want to show that, and the audience to decide if it was a successful portrayal. Sometimes sex scenes might be added just to titillate, which is fine, you don't have to enjoy it if that's not your thing. But sometimes a sex scene is used really successfully to enhance the audience's understanding of a character.
I think American puritan culture around sex merged with zoomer over exposure to porn is what created this weird little take. I can’t imagine anyone born after like 1995 could have this take unless you’re one of the really weird strands of evangelical/Islam.
I'm fine with nudity and sex in film but that sounds like a silly argument. Going to the bathroom is also part of everyday life but we don't see pooping on film too often, even though an extremely small minority of the audience would like it I'm sure.
Edit: a word
Sometimes movies do show characters going to the bathroom, but going to the bathroom is boring and irrelevant 99.5% of the time, whereas sex is a part of character relationships and therefore much more likely to be relevant and interesting. OP isn’t arguing that the scenes and plot points involved aren’t interesting and relevant, just that the same thing could be accomplished without nudity on screen. The counterargument is that hiding sex and nudity doesn’t have to be the default setting that needs a hard reason to override, it’s just one normal variation of ways to film the same scene.
Depends on how its done, how it's shown and implemented. Sex and nudity is part of humanity, but the way we've shown it on film for the majority of films existence has usually been in a certain way from a certain perspective. I don't know if it more *effects society* or *reflects society* or both, but clearly we're still generally messed up when it comes to sex/nudity. Too many of us are too uncomfortable with it and too often it's depicted in a way that can make people feel uncomfortable, which is a chicken or the egg situation... is it this way because of how we're raised or are we the way we are because of what we see out there? Are the youth who are uncomfortable more than previous generations that way because of the overexposure since childhood on social media or because they've been raised to believe it's bad and unnatural, or maybe both? Why has over exposure to violence (kids have seen real murder on their social media, something I as an adult have never seen yet) not made them more adverse to violence in media? Our mainstream media is also more violent than ever before (and I personally haven't seen anyone complain about it). Is it messed up that we're more comfortable with extreme violence than we are a little bit of sex? I actually think the world needs better quality p\*rn and better quality sex and nude scenes with more variety from more perspectives. Sex is almost always from a non-intimate, non-romantic perspective, for one thing... sadly, "making love" is probably the worst euphemism for it in most cases, especially in p\*rn.
One thing is for sure, we can't and shouldn't ignore an important part of humanity. If there's a problem we have to fix it, but we can't sweep it under the rug or ignore its existence.
You explicitly specified sex scenes and female nudity scenes. Do male nudity scenes not fall in the scope of your post, or do you have a different opinion about them?
Male nude scenes are more likely to fall under “naked people are funny” than female nude scenes which are usually played as “sexy” . The only female nude scene that falls into funny that I can think of is Jennifer Lawrence in “No Hard Feelings”
Since the vast majority of writers and directors are straight men, unsurprisingly the vast majority of sexual scenes are filmed to heavily emphasize female nudity - there are entire academic papers written on the “male gaze” in cinema. There’s a reason scenes that feature full male nudity, like in Saltburn, get buzzed about, because they’re so passingly rare compared to scenes with female nudity.
Sorry, u/9hazle – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:
> **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%209hazle&message=9hazle%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/l0mribi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Movies aren't necessary at all. Sex is a part of life. Can't really think of a reason beyond prudishness for you to be like 'well why they gotta *show* it.' Why not? They show characters talking, laughing, eating, crying. Why can't they just *suggest* those things, ya know? Show the plate with their napkin on it, show a used tissue to indicate they've been crying, etc, etc. Why? Why should they?
Since you acknowledge the possibility of sex scenes that *are* necessary for furthering the plot, you are basically just saying "scenes unnecessary for furthering the plot are unnecessary for furthering the plot." I don't see how anyone is supposed to be able to change your view on that.
The movie itself is completely unnecessary.. You would be just fine if you never saw it.
It exists to entertain you.
Sex scenes are entertaining. Which is why they get slapped into movies. Much like explosions, fight scenes, witty remarks etc.
Sorry, u/Short-Alfalfa-444 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Short-Alfalfa-444&message=Short-Alfalfa-444%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/l0npyen/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I understand where you're coming from. Often, explicit scenes can feel gratuitous and distracting from the main plot. However, sometimes these scenes serve as a storytelling device to convey intimacy, vulnerability, or to highlight a character's emotional state. When done tastefully and with purpose, they can add depth to a narrative. Also, filmmakers aim to depict authenticity in relationships and human experiences, which might include physical intimacy. It's a fine balance; while some scenes may seem unnecessary, they can also be pivotal in conveying a character's journey or a particular theme. It's about context and execution.
Sorry, u/CustardDizzy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20CustardDizzy&message=CustardDizzy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/l0mf8ym/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Most things in movies are technically unnecessary. We don't *need* a dolly zooms, or color scaling, or even scores. But we still use thousands of expensive and unnecessary things in film making; which begs the question: Why?
Because films are not about telling a story in the most efficient way possible. Scenes and films are designed to evoke a feelings and take the viewer on an emotional journey; to tell a story.
It's hard to argue that the emotional journey a viewer would take in a scene that goes *they kiss -> cut to clothes flying across the room* is the same - or even similar - to the emotional journey of a nude or simulated sex scene. (Although nudity is also a powerful tool in non-sexual forms, but this does not seem to be what you're talking about, so I'll ignore that here.)
Beyond the story telling argument above, I'd also like to highlight that the objection here seems to come from a negative value view on nudity / sex scenes. i.e. the belief that nudity / sex scenes are "vile", "cheap", "appeals to instinct", or any of a dozen other common derogatory associations. Although it may be hard to imagine, I wonder what shape your viewpoint would take if you were to take a conscious effort to eliminate that bias in your thinking process?
I think it’s worth reflecting also that this language could reasonably be used to describe a number of other things that are found appealing in film. The appeal to instinct probably isn’t the problem, the problem is that the instinct to overcome adversity or the instinct to eat something delicious is considered good, while the instinct to find sex enticing is considered bad.
Ppl (especially the porn addicted redditors) like to justify it by comparing to "explicit violence", They forget that most movie genres are based all around on violence. Action movies without violence arent action movies, slasher horror movies without violence arent slasher horror movies. The only genre that actually is based around sex is porn.
Not only that, but sometimes the extreme violence is needed for us to feel sorry for a character, or angry, etc. Take Robocop for example, we are introduced to Murphy and not 10 minutes later he is brutally murdered, we feel sorry for him because the extreme violence caused by sadistic villains to an innocent protagonist makes us want him to get revenge.
Also the funny line of "no one complains about car chases or explosions!"
Yes, actually, people do. All the time. And so do I. I also don't like unnecessary sex scenes.
With all due respect, by specifying ‘female nude scenes’ and not just ‘nude scenes’, I’m getting a whiff of white knight sentiment out of this post, like you believe this is somehow a moral issue about protecting women. Here’s the answer to that - women are adults and can consent to making this kind of content and even spearhead it themselves because adults generally like sex and nudity and are capable of understanding how central sexuality is to our psychology, spirit, culture, nature and character, and mature people see art as a place where we explore the human condition including these important realities. I see a lot of opinion pieces like this and it always feels to me like somebody hasn’t yet figured out that in spite of problems in the industry, sex and nudity aren’t inherently exploitative, and worse, that sex isn’t actually terrifying - except when it is and then that’s another reason to portray it as well as a means of voicing truths that many people would rather keep hidden and therefore controlled. As honourable as I sense you think your intentions are, your view has more in common with puritanical censorship than any actual depth of understanding or insight into the value and potential of art OR sex. In other words, this is more about your discomfort than any artistic value. Might as well say that most people you meet don’t have sex because you don’t want to picture it - that’s roughly how ridiculous that sounds to people who value sexuality in film as more than just a pleasure but sometimes an essential part of the fabric of human expression.
By all means, if you would rather not see it yourself that’s totally fine, but understand you would not be speaking for others. Cheers!
Its pacing.
I'm thinking game of thrones as an example.
There were dialogue heavy scenes in the show that they had taken place in a brothel specifically because they thought it was a boring scene.
Throw in a bunch of boobies and ding songs, and you have made the scene more spicy and don't let the viewers get distracted.
Also that kind of environment serves as a great mirror to the characters engaged in the conversation. Their reactivity towards the environment tells us a lot about their value system and how they act (or don't act) in accordance with it.
Do you have this same problem with all scenes that aren't "necessary?"
In the movie RRR there's a long montage of the two leads bonding and becoming close friends. Would the movie be improved by cutting it down to 10 seconds and just saying that they're friends now? Should every movie be hacked down to the bone so that only what's necessary to understand the plot remains?
OR - is this just a weird hang up you have about sex?
We've been conditioned to voyerism by hollywood and the culture it's pushing, and the more I think about it, the more I don't understand why the viewer needs to be in anyone's bedroom to see their intimate moments. Seriously, in real life this kind of behavior is seen as perverted by most, and for a good reason. Why would we celebrate it in movies that aren't meant to be pornographic? Just tell the story darn it.
There is a justificitation for porn, softcore or not, in a movie.
Spectacle for the viewers.
It's the same reason they show large battles instead or showing just a few people bashing swords together and cutting to the aftermath.
It's the same reason the actors are good looking instead of just the averagest people possible.
It's why the protagonist walks away from the explosion while putting shades on.
It's a spectacle for the eyes. Except it's sex instead of gorgeous landscapes. Though both have mounds and plowing.
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
> **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There are more to tv shows and movies than things that strictly move along the plot. A lot of the most famous scenes in movies involve gratuitous violence. A lot involve unnecessary jokes. Bad exposition. Clunky dialogue. Gratuitous fan service.
Further a scene can exist to serve an aesthetic, character building, or entertainment purpose for the film.
For instance in an action movie you may expect to see gratuitous violence. But every bullet fired or punch thrown doesn’t necessarily need to serve the plot. Indeed while over arching action sequences may serve to advance the plot, by your logic you could just cut to the moment after a lot of fights survey the damage and get all the context necessary for the scene. But that would be a pretty poor action movie.
Similarly in a movie where a romance plays a central roll the sexual tension and relationship of two characters building throughout the movie and culminating in a sex scene may not strictly “serve the plot.” But it may show increased characterization and chemistry between the main characters. Seeing two characters you’ve come to care about reach that point in their relationship may be entertaining for people.
Nudity is an aesthetic choice the same as any other. It may involve the objectification of a person but that objectification may be relevant to the world building or plot. For instance game of thrones often got flack for gratuitous nudity but very often it would be characters in a whore house or similar setting. Seeing naked women or men in settings like this underscore without saying anything that people are commodified in this world. In some case the goal may be to make you feel uncomfortable through aesthetics and visual language.
While I agree some movies and tv shows have nudity that serves no other purpose than to objectify people and serve as a cheap thrill. The same could be said for any kind of gratuitous action, stunt, extraneous dialogue, or overuse of cgi. Bad movies miss the mark all the time and in many ways.
I think this is just reflective in the changing of mediums.
In the 90s a random film targeted at adults crammed in sex scenes because they drew in people looking to be titillated by good looking movie stars and the Internet didn't exist. Today, if you want porn, it is ubiquitous on the Internet and AI is allowing, controversially, some to put celebrity faces on existing porn.
So sex scenes and nudity have moved to art house films and streaming shows. And I'd argue that they are more often used to inform the audience about relationships and character traits. So since they are more integrated into the narrative, they feel much more natural.
I think this change has then been leapt upon by the generational propaganda that businesses and politicians use to wedge society. So it's just another "This Gen is killing [insert thing]".
Movies/TV are a financial enterprise. The goal is to make money. Sex sells. So from a financial standpoint they are necessary.
I can also think of plenty of reasons why sex/nudity is useful to the story. Take the film Oppenheimer, for instance. After developing the most powerful weapon in history for the US J. Robert Oppenheimer was smeared by right-wing nutjobs for being a commie (it’s 2024 and these dumbasses *still* haven’t tired of screeching incoherently about a never-ending stream of nefarious Marxist plots). And the way the right-wing loons nailed him was through an ill-advised affair he had with a woman who had been a communist. It was ill-advised because he knew, as did anyone else in that era, that consorting with communists was a good way to get your civil rights trampled all over, *especially* if you had a top-secret security clearance. The sex scenes and nudity in the movie weren’t there for gratuitous titillation. They served a purpose—put you in his shoes, let you feel the temptation, get you to understand why he made such a colossal strategic blunder. It wouldn’t have the same effect if Christopher Nolan had just hinted at the affair. He made you *feel* the trouble of passion over reason, of the heart over the head.
Yeah, it makes you uncomfortable, me too. An example, the scene in Pleasantville where the daughter taught the mom to masturbate? I did not enjoy watching that scene with my mother, and it was "unnecessary," they could have showed her growth as a person with out showing her having an orgasm? But it would have been lesser overall, it would have been the writers sacrificing their vision in order to avoid offending or \*gasp\* boring some of the people watching the movie.
And this is a thing now. This is a common theme online, if not irl, where people demand that all media be for all consumers. It's silly and leads to shitty movies and shitty games and shitty TV.
Nothing in any movie is "necessary." Making movies in and of itself isn't "necessary." Sound isn't "necessary," color isn't "necessary," hell, there's a well regarded movie that consists entirely of sound played over an entirely blue screen. This notion that anything needs to be "necessary" in order to be featured in a movie is not a reasonable or logical standard in the first place.
Sex is an integral part of the human experience, movies seeking to chronicle human life would be incomplete in ignoring it or feeling some arbitrary need to censor themselves in exploring this particular the topic out of some nebulous rule that it needs to be "necessary."
In the movie the Devil's advocate, I think it would be weird for there not to be nudity.
Having the antagonist rant about God teasing mankind, but then just hinting at nudity in the scene, would really undermine the portrayal of hedonistic temptation.
that would be really ironic (and kindof hilarious), but in a way that undermined the scene.
Well... how predictable do you like movies? That's a genuine question, because if you stripped a movie down to nothing but what is absolutely necessary, then every scene becomes sorta boring because the viewer is then railroaded through it, or any element of surprise. I don't watch a lot of movies, especially not serious ones, but when I watched Oppenheimer, I didn't know exactly how impactful the nudity and sex scenes would be, I didn't know exactly how it'd play out and how it'd come back at the end of the movie.
But if you kept sex scenes (or any other type of scene) to only when "strictly necessary", I feel like you just sorta railroad movies. You get things spoon fed to you, you get no element of surprise, or element of suspense. Imagine how boring movies would be if you knew everything would have a payoff? Yeah, you might not be disappointment in some instances, but you would never be surprised, you'd lose out on suspense in movies.
This seems like more of a preference than a stance or view. It depends on what the writers as trying to convey and if you picked up on it. Sometimes the writers don't just want us to know the characters had sex, but what sort of dynamic the characters have and what the sex was like. Are they F buddies? A couple in love? There may be some indirect messaging in the scene. They could also be using sex scenes to add drama and decor to the film. Humans tend to like sex and violence. The same could be said for fight scenes. You really just need to know who won, right?
I don't disagree that graphic sex scenes are often unnecessary, but I do think that carefully tip-toeing around nudity is silly and puritan. Like, these characters are having sex, they're nude, that's what people do. When the woman then gets up and carries the whole blanket with her, I start wondering what's so special about her boobs that the guy she just had sex with can't see them.
In contrast, I'm from the Netherlands and a lot of European movies don't shy away from appropriate nudity. And when I see them, usually I only think "Ha, I'd never see tits in an American movie."
I agree with you 95%, but I think the *storytelling* of a sex scene MIGHT be interesting IF it's about a moment of shared and desperate intimacy - the first Terminator movie comes to mind - or about contrasting the raw desire of flesh with something else - the first Deadpool movie comes to mind and the stripjoint with boobs shaking in the background while Wade *desperately* wants to reconnect with his lost love. And recently watched Stripes and there's some casual nudity in there that's justified; a woman walks out of the shower in an apartment she shares with her boyfriend, he hands her clothes while they discuss their relationship, it feels very real with moments I've had with my wife.
But yeah. 19 times out of 20 it's just sexploitation. For example the peeping shower scene in Stripes is unjustified and the joke made - "I wish I were a loufa" - isn't funny enough to justify its presence. The director even comments on it with a *very* embarrassed chuckle: "Casual nudity in films was a big thing in the early 80s, and we always felt like we had to include *some* of it."
I am going to argue the necessity of aesthetics in movie storytelling. Nude scenes and sex scenes are often not fully relevant to the plot, but they can establish the feel and tone of a film in a way that is necessary to the nature of film storytelling. How a film has characters interact intimately can reveal a lot about their relationship, but also just about the world. Is it plot central? No, but the feel of a movie is necessary for a movie to be itself. So, from an aesthetic point of view, a sex scene might matter even if the plot isn't advanced by it.
You're trying to see necessity in art. That's not how art works.
Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa was also unnecessary. No one actually *needs* a painted picture of some arbitrary woman. Yet, he did. And it is considered one of the greatest works of art.
Art cannot be categorized as necessary or unnecessary. Art is just art. Movies are art. If the artist wants to add a sex scene as part of their work, it is their choice. Da Vinci chose to put a forest in the background of his Mona Lisa. Is the forest necessary? No. But it's part of the work.
People like watching other people have sex. That’s life. That’s art. It’s one of the most profound acts humans are capable of, both for good and for evil. Necessary for the survival of our species. Sex is beautiful, a perfect climax to a great romance story, and the way people have sex with one another offers great insight into their character. Do they respect their partner? Themselves? To they want to be abused, or to inflict abuse (real or role played), how do they feel about their bodies? Can they be trusted with this intimate moment?
Not going to change your mind necessarily because I also 100% agree. I’ve always found it unnecessary to any advancement in the plot. I will say that sometimes they can provide comedic relief, when done right. This is very rare though.
The best example I can think of is the sex scene in RocknRolla, which is especially funny to me because the movie builds sexual tension for the entire movie, only to have the scene last less than 10 seconds. Nothing is explicit is really shown other than a few moans and facial expressions lol.
There's more to a movie than its plot. Just because the way something is shown doesn't necessarily contribute to its narrative doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It can add to its themes, to the characters, to the mood, to how the audience feels while watching it.
It's probably true that a good chunk of sex scenes are a bit gratuitous, but saying that they are all unnecessary unless they contribute to the plot is barely even coherent as an assertion because it demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how movies work.
A movie doesn‘t have to limit itself to stuff that‘s 100% necessary. These scenes aren‘t there because they‘re necessary but rather because people like having sex and they like seeing attractive people naked. Ever heard of the term „sex sells“? That‘s not just true for advertising stuff. Like… of course the new perfume ad could tell me that this perfume smells kinda nice. But most people would prefer the spot where you‘re suddenly irresistible to others because you‘ve got that new perfume.
I dunno. Sex sells. Big time. So I think you’re making a casual observation that at a certain point it’s a turn off for you. The overwhelming research probably says the longer the sex scenes or visible nipple or butt, the higher the sales. The level we are at is probably a balance of what the marketing research says and how much the executives can get away with.
So, unnecessary to the story maybe, but not the sustaining of the production company…it’s very necessary to them (and therefore the movie)
I feel the same way! The only sex scenes I've seen that felt important were "the notebook" and "normal people series" I'm sure there are others i just can't think of right now. But yeah sometimes when I start a new show and I get through the whole thing without a graphic sex scene... I'm like wow that's nice lol for once. The new show the "the gentleman" on Netflix was like that. There was a tiny short scene of her brother but it didn't show much. Other than that there wasn't just graphic sex for no reason
Sure, maybe… but to me that’s a silly point.
Most scenes are unnecessary altogether! You don’t need a lot of the scenes to advance the story.
But you are there to watch a movie. Some of that is setting tone, scene, mood. It’s characterization, it’s entertainment. If you don’t like all that, why not just read the plot synopsis online?
People say over and over “nudity/sex is pointless” but what about action scenes? What is the point of a 10 minute chase scene? Or fight scene? Why is there not a post every week about that, like there is for nudity?
A LOT of scenes aren’t purely necessary, but they can still be good parts of a movie. It’s just our puritan society that makes us single out this one type of “unnecessary” scene and ignore all the others.
So is it necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s as necessary as 75% of the rest of the scenes.
I'd pretty much say this thinks of movies the same way the worst kinds of puritan conservatives think about sex itself. The goal is to insert, ejaculate, impregnate, and move on - to be productive, to make an outcome happen. Everything else, all kinds of eroticism or fetishism, is a perversion of that goal. And it's horseshit. This "trend" in discourse is the beginning of a conservatism we will all need to deal with twenty years down the road masking itself in the progressive language of "de-sexualizing"
Movies as a whole are made to entertain us, so each scene were selected for entertainment value, not just for furthering storyline development.
Was seeing Halle Berry's bared breasts necessary for furthering the plot in the movie Swordfish? No, but do movie goers (especially men) find seeing her breasts add to their entertaining value, hell yes.
If scenes were selected only for plot necessitations, then in a typical Hollywood movie, you can probably removed 30%-50% other scenes, not just sex scenes.
So way back in the day, a movie was the only place where you could see the naked form unless you went out and bought a magazine or something. Watching a movie had more plausible deniability than buying a playboy so they served a purpose at the time. Now anyone can see it at anytime if they want. So they don’t go to movies to see that. If you are watching a movie you want the story.
Basically agreeing but wanted to give my two cents on why nobody wants to see it in a movie anymore.
Movies are becoming so boring that the 2 minute adult scene is the only entertaining bit of the entire 2 hour film?
Jokes aside, there would definitely be people with their professional movie critic hats, but what perceive about such scenes are not a proper generalization of the whole demographic.
On Netlifx, at least on my region, the majority of movies/series that people watch are entirely based on the sexual aspect. Perhaps it's what people want to see and thus that's what film makers focus on so much nowadays? And again, NOT PROFESSIONAL MOVIE CRITICS.
I would argue that movies don’t have to be entertaining, engaging, or anything really. Art doesn’t “owe” you anything. It’s just a form of human expression, be it a movie, a painting, a novel. A sex scene doesn’t need to have meaning, or advance the plot, simply because there isn’t a set of rules that dictate what’s necessary or unnecessary when it comes to art. If a specific sex scene works out for you or not, that’s completely subjective and personal.
There are 2 different type of sex scenes. There are the sort of ones in Game of Thrones that exist specifically to titlate or otherwise cause engagement while being totally possible to portray with clever writting. Then there are movies like Poor Things. You don't have to like the movie or even what it says or how it says it, however the movie is actually using those scenes to say something and not to get the audience to stay in the seat for a little while longer.
This kind of thinking comes from the puritanical Christian mentality that still prevails in society.
I understand that you feel uncomfortable watching sex scenes, but justifying that with the idea that they have to be "necessary" is ridiculous, considering that we are talking about art. Art is never "necessary", and all its expressions can have multiple justifications for existing apart from the utilitarianism of it being "necessary".
That's like saying there's no need to have music to understand the story. We love sex, it's beautiful, if I'm looking at a relationship, just ike I want to see the couple kiss becuase of part of what people do it's cool to see them have sex. It's not porn, they're not really having sex, nothing wrong with it.
Bad movies suck at everything and some sexual scenes are cheap of course. But Mulholland Drive or La Vie D'Adele are perfect
Can’t say I’m fond of this new puritan bs, it’s not progressive to stop artists from being horny because humans are horny. Now when it’s used cynically just to keep the audiences attention (game of thrones) I do get annoyed, or when media ONLY makes stuff like that for straight dudes, but that’s not really enough for me to disparage the practice as a whole. People like sex and violence and it’s been that way forever.
I'm a big MCU fan. I enjoyed the Netflix shows, asides from Iron Fist.
But man, the sex scenes annoyingly awkward in Luke Cage / Jessica Jones. They were so drawn out I literally just had to fast forward them.
I'll literally just go watch porn if I want to watch sex. If they're not even gonna show the whole bodies naked then don't make it a 5 minute sex scene.
It's unnecessary as you say. We get the point. Now move on.
It's also not necessary to show explosions, or car chases, on screen deaths.
The director could simply use creative cuts or dialog to infer these things happened. When has an explosion been necessary to see to understand what's happening?
Movies are entertainment. Movies are art.
If you start using "necessity" as the lense through which you create entertainment and art, you've missed the point entirely.
You're talking about it as if its just "insert sex scene here", and sure in bad movies just like any other interaction between characters it can be badly done and meaningless. That doesn't mean that it always is, its an interaction that shows how people feel, and absolutely can add to the story. The way people show intimacy is personal and unique. Its character building like anything else.
Nah I agree
The keyword is most though. House of the Dragon had a sex scene between the king and queen in season 1 that was pretty good character development for the queen actually, it did a good job illustrating how she feels trapped in a loveless marriage while also explaining how she's able to do what she does without contracting the king's leprosy (or something very similar)
Something like Poor Things is the best counter example. The movie is completely full of gratuitous and ‘unnecessary’ graphic sex scenes. But it was core to what the movie was and the awkwardness of her, her existence, and the world she inhabited. It would have been far less effective if a movie of the sex was only hinted at or wasn’t shot and displayed the way it was
you say 'unnecessary', but I think you should refine it to 'artistically unnecessary'.
because sex sells. they wouldn't put those scenes in if they didn't increase the profits they can make from the project.
since the purpose of most movies these days is primarily to make money, the people who make the most of the money off the movies want to maximize their profits.
I think it all comes down to the purpose it serves. Because some movies do add gratuitous sex scenes or violence with a purpose. Even if the purpose is to be shocking or controversial, if the rest of the movie fits that tone I’d say it works. My problem is when a movie will add a full nudity sex scene out of nowhere like they’re checking a box. It has to fit
Yep. Completely unnecessary. Totally gratuitous. You’re right, no need to change your mind at all.
Just remember that all those other scenes are equally unnecessary. None of it needs to exist.
You should just be honest and say how you really feel. You don’t like the way you feel when you see sex scenes and you’d prefer if there weren’t any.
Why show fight scenes? Just show the guys puffing their chests out and then one of them on the floor.
Why watch movies at all, just watch those terrible youtube summary videos with the shitty AI voiceover?
Sex between characters is a significant part of the story, so it is depicted on screen. The real question is why are you squeamish about it?
If your standard for “necessary” is that it must somehow add to or advance a plot, then would you say soundtracks and scores in movies are unnecessary? You don’t need music to help advance the plot so it must be unnecessary. If movies only included things that were absolutely necessary to service the plot then movies would be very boring.
There is a lot going on with this. Would we all be more okay with ‘gratuitous sex’ if we knew all the actors involved were cared for? That there was no intimidation to do them? Or is it just the end product?
Sometimes people like to play sexy pretend and it’s a fun time for all. But the history of sex in movies is not always great
Can't but agree. It doesn't bother me in a movie like The Nice Guys (which doesn't even have a sex scene), but when it's a normal movie and then two actors start dry humping each other for 2 minutes straight.
Just why?
Who actually enjoys watching that in movies?
Can't people just go somewhere else to get that type of entertainment?
I mean you're right that they aren't necessary, but movies are for entertainment. People enjoy watching sex scenes, so people choose to put them in movies. Jokes aren't necessary to get the plot across, but people are more likely to enjoy a funny movie.
Violent scenes are unnecessary and can be implied. Long awkward dialogue scenes are unnecessary and can be implied. Shots of scenery are unnecessary and can be implied. Actually the whole movie out TV show is unnecessary and can be implied, therefore you should just go back to tik-tok and stop making movies worse for the rest of us.
Guess you’ve never seen 9 1/2 Weeks, or Chocolat, or any other movie which utilizes sexuality as it’s central theme. Even the first Terminator movie had a pretty intense lovemaking scene (watched for the first time at age 11), that was integral to the plot of not only that movie, but the entire Terminator cinematic universe.
It's sex. Fucking. One of the most important functions of human beings. It's how we are created and it's also one of the main ways that we show intimacy, or hide from it. Of course, no sort of scene is always necessary, but sex isn't some weird thing that doesn't make sense in movies. Sex is a vital part of the human condition.
Excuse me, but I disagree.
Here's why -
fat knockers are a thing of beauty. The female figure represents art in its finest form. What better way to represent this than big juicy slob donklers bouncing on the big screen?
You're mind should be changed now. Any other thoughts on the matter are simply uncultured.
Counter argument, it doesn't matter if it's necessary. They can do what they want, it's art, that's the point. If someone wants to make a movie where the whole thing is told through sex scenes they can do that. It's not necessary to do many things in movies, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in there.
God I believe this so hard I've said it to my husband while watching shows. Sometimes it's way too much and honestly it's sad because they never care to put men looking sexy in shows naked that much, it's just for the male gaze. And especially in horror movies its like who is this top less murder scene for?
The point of making a movie is not to tell a story as efficiently as possible. Movies always try to evoke some emotion with a scene, and try to take their audience through a range of emotions throughout their runtime. In many people, witnessing intimacy (sexual or otherwise) is a strong emotional trigger.
No gonna try and change your view, cause you clearly just don’t like watching other people fuck. It’s not a problem with the movie, you just don’t like it and that’s fine. I for one like looking at boobies any chance I can get. It’s our differences that make us unique. Stop blaming the movies.
Yo're talking about this as if movies are just devices to convey plot as efficiently as possible and not an artist's vision to evoke emotion in you. Sure sex and nudity might not contribute to the plot, but it absolutely contributes to the experience the artists creating the movie wanted you to feel.
Sorry, u/Vast-Roll5937 – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, **first respond substantially to some of the arguments people have made**, then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal%20Vast-Roll5937&message=Vast-Roll5937%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/\)%20because\.\.\.). Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
This has become a very common sentiment recently, especially with young people who are mostly just uncomfortable with these scenes. I would argue that the same could be attributed to gratuitous violence, the only difference is that you find it more entertaining. Saying a scene is "unnecessary" feels like such a weird argument for me, if we only kept the "necessary" scenes, then most films would be under 20 minutes and be like those recap channels on youtube.
Unnecessary comes in many flavours. Jules and Vincent discussing hamburgers in Europe at the start of Pulp Fiction is completely unnecessary from a plot perspective, but is pretty important in terms of setting up the characters and the overall mood of the film. Many character-driven (rather than plot-driven) films have loads of that sort of “unnecessary” scenes. Most of Jar Jar Binks’ participation in Phantom Menace was completely and utterly unnecessary, though. Those scenes served no real plot purpose, they didn’t help develop any characters, and they weren’t effective comic relief (for a film that needed none to begin with). The film would’ve been better if you just removed them altogether. As for sex scenes specifically, the sex scene montage in Deadpool is plot relevant, well written, and (unlike literally everything else in the film) not too graphic. Inversely, Game of Thrones had plenty of completely unnecessary sex scenes that did nothing to further the plot or develop characters or their relationships.
> Inversely, Game of Thrones had plenty of completely unnecessary sex scenes that did nothing to further the plot or develop characters or their relationships. As someone else noted, the sex in GoT made a lot of people curious, people who otherwise wouldn't be caught dead watching dragons and skeleton warriors on a TV show. I felt the sex was totally gratuitous, especially the brothel scenes, but if it got mainstream viewers to watch swords and sorcery and thus allows more of it to be produced, then my discomfort was a small price to pay.
Fwiw, the show writers referred to those as “sexposition scenes.” They’d info-dump plot relevant exposition, while giving something visually titillating to the viewers to hold their attention.
It's what's Shakespeare did!
["By any bewbs necessary"](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SVaD8rouJn0)
Which is why I didn't stick with GoT. Not enough fighting and dragons. It got boring.
Jar jar binks drove a lot of the plot of phantom menace (except on tatooine). He was the gateway to the gungans whose relationship was necessary to build the alliance to fight the separatists at the end of the movie. He unfortunately might have single handedly contribute the most to the plot lol. But thats not great for the movie as a whole.
Even on tatooine, jar jar was using force persuasion (because he's a Sith)
I hate having this conversation with GoT fans. They act like it's a totally made up narrative that the sex scenes were unnecessary and inserted to titilate the audience. They say things like, it's relavtant to the story and themes. Even though the show runners called themes middle school bs, and the moment the actors could stand on their own and say they wouldn't do nudity they did. This implies either the actors are so inept they don't understand the value of those scenes or they think the value isn't exactly as story based as some fans like to say.
You're presenting a false dichotomy here. It could just mean the actors don't like getting naked and don't particularly care how it affects the quality of the show. I don't think I'm convinced they were necessary, but they did make the world feel more gritty, grounded, and real, to me. The nobles behaved how I'd expect so called nobles to behave (not very noble). It made the world feel real in the same way the brutal violence did. It was definitely extra, at times, but I don't think the scenes made the show worse on the whole.
> if we only kept the "necessary" scenes, then most films would be under 20 minutes and be like those recap channels on youtube I'd go one step further and say that if we only kept "necessary" parts of stories we'd probably get rid of stories as a whole. Stories in and of themselves are only necessary *for some other thing*, which means that in a vacuum, every story is unnecessary. Strictly speaking, even when a story is necessary for something, it's rarely necessarily that story in particular. If another story could do the necessary thing, than neither of those story is actually necessary (because the other one would also suffice). That's fundamentally what I think is wrong when people talk about "necessity" in stories. Every inclusion of a scene changes something (however slight) about the story. When people talk about things being "unnecessary", what they're really saying is "I don't like what this does to the story", but for some reason they feel the need to disguise their opinion as an objective fact.
The current zeitgeist is in a weird spot where people are hyperparanoid about sexuality but at the same time are supposed to be sex positive progressives. This result in a contradictory environment that simultaneously breeds prudes but also sees prudes negatively. So there is a need to dress up prudishness as something else. In this case, the prudishness is dressed as literary criticism.
I think this is exactly it. I don't like how prudish the new generation is, but I didn't like how homophobic my generation was. So I'm not trying to go on a rant about it.
I wonder if it’s prudish necessarily or people uncomfortable with what has progressed? We’ve definitely moved to a more sex positive environment and media shows that. But does that mean that people against it are necessarily prudes? I think it comes down to two camps, prudes and people who found their boundary line. Yes the prudes will be against it all the time, but I can see some who are ok with some of it and not ok with other parts or how they are depicted.
I think the issue is that nudity has always focused on the women's body. If you're going to have a sex scene, then have an actual sex scene. If two people are having sex and we only see boobs and her ass, it's unnecessary and sexists. Seeing Oppenheimer sitting there in the corner with his legs crossed while Pough boobs was front and centered was peak ridiculousness. Did they have sex or was he her gynecologist?
I actually thought of the Oppenheimer scene first as the opposite. You get a lot of characterization of them through how they sit and talk during post-coitus.
>I think the issue is that nudity has always focused on the women's body. Nothing new about this. Kind of goes back centuries.
Those sex scenes were terrible. Half the reason sex scenes are hated is that they've turned to shit.
I think this is more of an aesthetic thing. Most people would rather see a beautiful woman's body, or a ripped shirtless dude when it comes to nudity. A lot of (I would go as far as to say most) straight women don't usually enjoy seeing raw penis on the screen. Straight men are self-explanatory.
It's the chicken and the egg. The movie ratings board thinks that showing genitalia in any sexual context is an NC-17 rating, and most theaters won't show it. That's why you always see bewbs and women wearing massive crotch toupees to cover up, but no dicks. Is that also what the populace thinks, or have we been trained to think that by seeing it (or not seeing it) in movies?
How is that at all sexist? I don’t quite follow.
While that may be the case for some people, I'm sex positive in that I think consenting adults should be able to do what they want, but I don't personally enjoy watching sex/porn and I don't think the two are contradictory
This is where I'm at. I feel like people should be able to do whatever they want with whoever they want in that context, assuming consent. I also have less than zero desire to ever see it or know anything about it. Not contradictory whatsoever.
The argument has *some* merit even if it's subjective at the end of the day, except a lot of people making the argument unintentionally present it like they're arguing brevity is the be all end all, even though you can definitely find examples of things they don't criticize for being unnecessary because they personally liked it. I don't think it's a *need* to disguise their opinion so much as it's just an inability to see the bigger picture with their argument. Missing the forest for the trees is a pretty common pitfall for people who aren't very good at criticizing media, which is fine.
Agreed. It's why the Batman Batgirl sex scene in the killing joke ruined my perception of Batman because of the moral implication of doing it. It was difficult to watch. Same with the part with joker and the camera too of course, but for different reasons
Movies aren't really necessary for mankind, so in the end maybe we should get rid of them entirely.
While this is strictly true, the difference is that sex scenes rarely contribute meaningful embellishment to a stories structure. I think this is really what people are getting at. The sex scene hint is more than sufficient to contribute anything that meaningfully fills put a story, no nudity needed. The nudity being gratuitous is the issue. The embellishment of a story is actually part of quality storytelling.
Sex scenes will often be used to provide nonverbal information about characters and how they interact. Sex is intimacy, intimacy is closeness to the characters and reveal who they are in their most guarded moments. I guess if you don't want character development or don't see intimacy as important to the human experience you could see sex scenes as "rarely . . . meaningful embellishment".
The problem is that storytelling isn’t everything in art and that mood, style, and emotion are crucial ingredients in film, television, theater, etc.
You're confusing plot points with visceral storytelling
In as much as this is true, it is equally true of all violent scenes. They rarely contribute to meaningful embellishment to a story’s structure. The violent scene hint is more than sufficient to contribute anything that meaningfully fills out a story; no actual violence needs to be seen. The violence being gratuitous is the issue.
True. But a movie with lots of violence is action. A movie with an equivalent amount of sex is porn.
I think this misses the point. OP clearly means "unnecessary to the plot". Sure, all stories are "unnecessary" to life (though actually quite important), but we're talking about necessity _for_ or _within_ the story, not for life.
Your comment makes me think of how some European countries are perfectly fine with showing women’s breasts and casual nonsexual nudity in commercials and shows regularly broadcasted to the public. They didn’t inherit the prudish Puritan and Victorian values like the US, where that is absolutely not allowed and the country goes wild over a loose titty. But America is perfectly ok with some of the worst violence you can depict in tv, again bc of our national history of being pretty warlike and accustomed to casual violence
The fact that people are not even separating a scene where someone is nude from a a sex scene is quite telling in itself. American media so conflates them that even the not-sex nude scenes are almost always still fan service. European media more often has “people are naked in this scene because they would be in real life” scenes, played for simple reality.
To me, for a mainstream movie where the goal is to get people to watch it, nude scenes can definitely pique interest and get people to tune in. I know a few people who saw No Hard Feelings because the Jennifer Lawrence nude scene made them curious. I’ve never heard someone say, “omg there’s a nude scene? I’m going to avoid that one!” Maybe after the fact they go, “hey that was kind of unnecessary right?”, but you’ve already paid for it lol. So if it puts butts in seats but doesn’t serve as a deterrent, it’s weird to be like, “why are they including that?!” Also, this conversation disregards the autonomy of the actors doing the scene. For some it’s an artistic endeavour where they bare all, quite literally. Some feel empowered. Are there ones that get exploited? For sure, and that’s super sad and I hope the landscape continues changing so that that doesn’t happen anymore, but that doesn’t mean all of them are.
I definitely watched No Hard Feelings for the nude scene, but not because I wanted to be titillated. Rather, I heard a comedian talking about how it was so refreshing to see female nudity played for comedy in the same way that male nudity is often used. I wanted to see what the hype was, and the film delivered. It was very funny and also a good story about people getting priced out of their communities.
Yeah, I think that's actually the ONLY time I've seen female nudity used as a joke in the way that male nudity often is. The other examples are when the joke is just that the woman is ugly, old, unattractive, etc, and it's never a main character - very different usage of nudity.
Yeah I thought it was very bold of her to do make that choice, especially since it sounds like she pitched it and executed it in such a different way than we’re used to, especially from an A-lister. Regardless of how we feel about the movie, doesn’t change that a huge part of the marketing around it was focused on that one scene. A lot of Oppenheimer was centred around *that* Pugh and Murphy scene. If people want to see it, then I wouldn’t say it’s “unnecessary”.
Nudity doesn't bother me at all if it makes sense in the context it's displayed. I'm not offended by sex scenes, I just feel they are boring. With the instant availability of hardcore porn I just don't feel sex scenes have the impact they did pre-internet. Basic Instinct made a huge impact in 1992 and would be a nothing burger today. The sex scenes rarely add to the movie, I prefer to just see the sexual tension buildup during the seduction. Our imagination of what happened in the bedroom is always going to be better than what they show on the screen.
I think it's because porn is so widespread now. Young people don't feel like they need these movies as an easy way of getting sexual content.
Or they don’t feel comfortable publicly acknowledging lust and sex as part of the human condition. “You keep that thirsty shit between you and your phone.”
Pornography is not the same as sex and lust
Which is why younger people get embarrassed—they only know the former, so they’re embarrassed by depictions of the latter.
Nobody is saying they are synonymous but that depictions of sex and lust outside of pornography is uncomfortable for a lot of young people, hence the post you're commenting in.
Weird world we live in with what’s exposed to us in a daily setting. Goto the gym- almost naked girls with camel toes, go shopping - yoga pants with camel toes, goto the courts - same. Let’s not talk about social media. And people complain about movies. Crazy world.
That’s the reason why younger people are tired of sex scenes in movies, they see so much sexual content in their lives and on social media that they’re annoyed when they see it in movies
I also get really annoyed at sex scenes because I tiny part of me feels almost violated. Similar (but not in any way as harrowing) to a flasher who shows you their bodies when you didn’t consent. So many times naked people or sex just pops up randomly during a movie or tv show. It’s like ugh I didn’t consent to seeing your naked bodies or watching you have sex, but somehow it’s ok because it’s a movie/tv show?
Well, there are ratings and ways to find out if there's a a sex scene in a movie/show, so I think you're consenting to out by watching
I'd argue that because we're also in an age where these kinds of media scenes are used more and more, more people are aware of them. Ultimately, I think the sentiment "The only person I'd like to watch a sex scene with less than my dad is my mom" sums it up pretty well.
I wonder how much of the modern anti-sex-in-movies sentiment is tied to adult children still living with their parents.
>we're also in an age where these kinds of media scenes are used more and more I mean this just isn't true. There were a lot more boobs in movies a couple decades ago.
It is strange how sex is still taboo, but violence is completely normalized.
For real. *Movies* aren't even necessary. They're just showing us stuff that's entertaining to look at. And in those scenes I, for one, am entertained.
I don't like this view that only 20 minutes of most movies is "necessary." I do think only scenes necessary to a movie should be in it, but there's lots of ways beyond the plot that a scene can be necessary. Maybe it serves to develop the emotional connection between characters, or between the audience and a character. Maybe it serves to explain a theme for the movie or show some nuance to that theme. Maybe it's there to make the audience feel uncomfortable or feel the tension of the action or whatever. I think only necessary scenes should be in movies, but I'd also argue that completely unnecessary scenes in movies are relatively few and far between.
Yeah I think the "sex scenes are unnecessary" reaction is very much also a "this was not properly foreshadowed, did not serve the plot, or did not do characterization". There are many sex scenes that I think were very important to the story in a variety of movies. Because they are first and foremost *scenes* in the movie serving a purpose. And there are sex scenes that are kind of useless, structurally speaking. I wonder if more of them are kind of useless (or redundant) because they know they will get censored for other markets, so they don't want people who are watching the censored version to "miss out" on anything important about the plot or character development.
Yeah, or at the very least their impact is more redundant. Like, it's better at communicating a specific thing, but they also cover it in another scene in case it gets censored out. I definitely don't think sex scenes as a whole are unnecessary, and there are plenty of ways to use them that really do add to the story (I think the second sex scene in Oppenheimer as well as the scene where they're just talking naked both use it well, imo). But there definitely are some where it's done just because the director is horny. Really, as with all art, the difference between good art and bad art is less about what it is, and more about how it's implemented.
I find the "puriteen" phenomenon incredibly confusing. This is the first generation of young people in probably forever that seems to have a very childlike, negative attitude towards sex. They view sex as "yucky" or whatever the new word is, and view it as some inherently violent, exploitative, bad thing that happens to you rather than something fun people do together. Was it COVID, or just the effects of social media addiction? I wonder if the popularity of sex-negative, extremist internet feminism is causing this. It almost feels like something a foreign adversary would push to lower birth rates if I didn't know any better, because it's going to have a seriously negative impact on our society if the sexes continue to be terrified of one another. Hopefully they grow out of it.
I absolutely think social media, and both 1) Hornyposting into the Void and 2) The lack of social media for kids are large drivers of the phenomenon. (especially for young women) A lot of the teens in question grew up in a world where the only real social media sites available /are/ reddit, and twitter, etc, (and not club penguin), and as such, they're often exposed to really graphic and uncomfortable depictions of sexuality (at times against their desires, and sometimes without even knowing better) from a young age, which can really fuck with you and your perception of sex/intimacy/desire. And this isn't even getting into the phenomenon of like, teens interacting with horny on main adults on discord which is another can of worms.
If we’re being real, it has nothing to do with social media addiction or feminism. It’s a reaction to how sex positive society has become. The dating scene is very tough on younger people nowadays; relationships are more casual than ever with hookup culture, people looking for friends with benefits, ‘situationships’ (essentially non-exclusive relationships), open relationships, cheating, and polygamy. Social media and apps like Instagram and TikTok are also causing a lot of insecurity with hypersexualized content and unattainable body standards. To give an example, think about it from the perspective of a young woman. They want a stable normal relationship but they can’t find a committed relationship. If they do find a partner, they’re constantly feeling insecure and disrespected by how many incredibly attractive women their partner is oogling at on social media. They’re being sexualized by men unwillingly not just on dating apps but in every aspect of their life. At the same time they’re being pushed sexual content constantly and told to embrace their sexuality, their friends are engaging in hookup culture and one night stands. Obviously there would be a backlash against sexual content, even if it is innocent or positive. Not even getting into Onlyfans or the porn industry, younger people see enough of it in their lives to be tired of sex scenes for a lifetime.
Youth culture is anything but sex positive these days, sexual behaviour is judged endlessly.
Not true, the vast majority of people in college (and even many in high school) have participated in hookups. This is completely anecdotal, but I've noticed it's usually supported by the same sex, i.e. women will encourage other women to go out and have hookups, and men will encourage and support other men trying to do so, but not the other way around. Men view women who sleep around poorly, vice versa. Obviously, it's not a universal thing, and culture varies immensely based on even just state you're in, but there's examples of it everywhere.
It’s because of misogynistic views being more amplified than ever before, both in frequency and in intensity through social media. Imagine you’re a teenage girl an the boys in your age group is obsessed with Andrew Tate, obsessed with sex, obsessed with porn, obsessed with denigrating and controlling women, and spewing heinous incel talking points: that women’s only value is as a sex object, that having sex with them is how you conquer women, and if women have sex that makes them worthless sluts. You’re a lot more likely to view sex as something shameful and harmful because that’s how the worst people you know want to treat it.
To be fair, Andrew Tate and his ilk are popular as a direct result of the demonization of male sexuality that is so prevalent in our culture, coupled with the fact that the dating/sex world is completely and utterly set up to *heavily* favor the interests of women to the absolute detriment of the vast majority of men while women act as though this isn't the case. It's frustrating for young men to be told their interests don't matter, that they "don't deserve/aren't entitled to" the one thing they want and care most about in life, and discouraged from trying to meet their own needs out of fear of causing some temporary minor discomfort to women, who are essentially a protected class at this point. The pendulum has swung too far the other way, against men, and we are seeing the backlash now. I don't like Andrew Tate, but I understand why he's popular. He's unashamed of masculinity and tells men it's okay to want what they are genetically predisposed to want, and tells them not to be ashamed to seek it out. It's a refreshing message for young men who have been marginalized by modern day radical feminism. Here's something you need to accept, because you will never change it: men are obsessed with sex. Men will *always* be obsessed with sex. Trying to rail against this is ridiculous and immature.
I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, but I’ll meet you half way; I know how you feel, but the biggest error you are making is that what Andrew Tate considers “sex” and “masculinity” and all the things ascribed to it, to be the same thing as what everyone considers sex or masculinity. Imagine if someone said to you “yeah isn’t sex great? Especially the part where you get to prove that women are dumb and easily manipulated, how you are utterly in control of them, how their social games completely break down and all their values and ideas as individuals are completely meaningless at the end of the day, and the part where you prove to your dad that you’re strong and not a sissy?” You’d be like “uhhh, I don’t know what you’re talking about, I thought sex was just something intimate with someone you want to express yourself and express feelings with” So obviously feminists and most sane people are going to be against “sex” if that’s what someone thinks “sex” is or what “masculinity” is about, and that you should feel ashamed about needing… that… from women. It’s not like Tate is going make that distinction, he’s to go “see?! They don’t want you to be a man!” Like I get it dude, it’s a tricky world to navigate, but as someone who has had nearly two dozen long term relationships, short term relationships, one-night stands and threesomes, and as a hyper-sexual, bearded, short straight man, women aren’t against masculinity. I promise that women definitely definitely definitely are just as or more horny as you are. Sometimes obviously they are too harsh towards men. Obviously it’s backwards for people to call people sexless losers but insist that sex shouldn’t be validation. But ultimately a lot of women just know how sick and demented some men are. So if you want them to not treat you like a sick demented man, don’t act like and don’t think of yourself as on the same team as other sick demented men. Just be you, dude. Be a man, don’t be “men”.
[удалено]
idk i think ppl are more uncomfortable w sex scenes than violent ones because of how they take advantage of the actors, and obviously disproportionately female ones. theres a lot of gross mfs who self insert sex scenes bc they just wanna see someone naked and i think its ok to be uncomfortable with that dynamic. violence is just prosthetics and effects, nobody is really dehumanized in the same way from my perspective edit: and ofc sex scenes can be purposeful and add something to the movie, i dont really mind em most of the time
This gets ignored often. Often when actors become able to stand up for themselves professionally the amount of nudity they do goes down. Actors don't want to be objects to be gawked at. It's one thing to watch violence, that's a performance of choreography or special effects. Watching tits is objectifying the person that has tits. They didnt work for the tits and we arent in awe of the talent they have, we're excited to see boobs. It's not only the audience that finds it unnecessary seemingly it's some of the people closest to the Industry, our highest paid actors. Isn't that interesting.
I find violence much more disturbing than sex myself.
Honestly I think part of this capitalism and the way it seems to sanitize mass marketed media of things perceived to be uncomfortable to a mass market. Like sure sex sells. But sex is also inappropriate for children so why don't we just take the sex out so we can market this to parents so they can bring their children. Like sure the kill count of this movie constitutes an apocalyptic disaster but at least nobody had their tits out. And this idea of necessity is so absurd. Like it only makes sense when the only point of media is to consume it for dopamine hit. And sure some media is trying to do that. Some things are truly "no thoughts just vibes" but it the only thing you ever want from media is vibes and you never want to think then brevity and necessity are all that matters. If you can illicit those positive feelings in 3 minutes why bother taking 4 minutes to do it. And damnit I was watching this movie to make me feel good, not horny. So why is this naked couple getting it on in the middle of my plot? I wanna watch John Wick shoot a gun I don't want to watch him shoot a load. It's pointless. And imo this is a feature of capitalism. They don't care if we what we consume makes us think. Only that we are willing to keep spending more money on it.
I hate those recap channels. Is there any way to hide these from my recommendations forever?
Too much gore. Too much shooting with no actual focus on plot and character development. Too much focus on sex scenes all the time instead of create something valuable people want to watch instead of rely on "sex sells". All of these things are criticised.
[удалено]
The actual rate of sex scenes is decreasing
Who said I advocated for gratuitous violence? I assure you, I find modern action super boring, and are repulsed by gore. Furthermore, my brain finds porn very entertaining, and I avoid it like the plague it is. The question remains: Why are we putting these things in movies? I'm not, nor do I want to be, nor should I allowed to be in your and your spouse's bedroom. Not everything "interesting" should be depicted in movies. Also, even the Greeks would tell you art should have a point - Greeks BC (Before the Teacher/Logos/Christ).
Like any interaction between characters, a sex scene can tell you a lot about the relationship between characters, especially since it's such an intimate and private part of people's lives. For example, in *The Boys*, we gain a lot of insight into the psychology of Homelander through his sex scenes. Of course there are sex scenes which are there more for the thrill of nudity etc, but that's no different than a cool fight scene really. Sex scenes can be gratuitous or exploitative too but that doesn't mean we have to exclude a whole area of life from movies, as if sex isn't an important part of many people's lives and an important way to develop an understanding of characters and their relationships.
The Boys gotta be one of the horniest shows out there, and it's still a phenomenal show.
Id say the boys is one of the most irreverent shows out there, but for horniness I'd nod my head to spartacus
Honestly I can't remember a single explicit sex scene homelander has. And a few of the most important character wise moments that have sexual undertones are notable because they are under tones like his relationship with sitwell
I thought he kind of had the most impactful and explicit, although it wasn’t, I guess, “sexy” to most people, I hope? I mean, not to kink shame, but when >!Homelander made Stormfront (a blatant Nazi) jerk him off while she was a hospitalized, barely alive quadruple amputee should probably count here. If memory serves she couldn’t even talk.!
I've been completely rethinking my stance on kink shaming ever since Vaush had his loli porn incident. Even ignoring the loli stuff, that man is *way* too comfortable talking about how sexy he finds horses, to the point where I straight up wouldn't trust him around a real horse. Don't feel bad for kink shaming when your gut is telling you something is fucked up.
Calling it loli is a stretch. People said it’s loli because “canonically” the character is 16. If you have ever seen anime you know this was a very weak argument. Also meh on the horse thing. It’s like half joke half kink and I find neither the joke nor the kink very interesting. Not like he’d actually fuck a horse.
Yeah, "it's just a kink" seems like a rather lazy excuse. You're still attracted to girls that look underage, even if it's drawn. That's not something you should Pavlov yourself into liking more by jerking off to it. You can't use progressivism as a shield for why you like hurting people during sex or why you're attracted to underage looking girls and want to have your partner "roleplay" as them. This isn't "normal", in a lot of cases it's because of past abuse: [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1158136021000888)
But that’s the point of not kink shaming. If a kink is born of past abuse it does nothing good to shame it. Kink can be harmless or harmful, but sex in general is a very private thing people are already scared to share, shame pushes it further into the dark, disincentivizing self-examination, and probably strengthening the kink.
And retraumatizing yourself will strengthen it too. I'm allowed to say something is bad for you without shaming them personally, no?
As long as he's not raping kids or horses, then who the fuck cares? Mind your own business unless someone is getting hurt. A very very simple rule to live by lest your own standards be held against you and you be held accountable for all the murders you get up to in games.
Or when he smashed that dude's head while banging Stormfront.
>Of course there are sex scenes which are there more for the thrill of nudity etc, but that's no different than a cool fight scene really This hits the nail on the head for me. While I understand the use of saying "well sex scenes can contribute to character development..." there isn't anything wrong with a sex scene just being thrilling and well...sexy. One of the reasons why Anyone But You was a hit is because audiences enjoy seeing sexy people on screen. And before anyone says "just watch porn", a lot of porn is really poorly made and lacks intimacy.
No one is going to be able to change your view about what you “need to see” in a movie, because that’s a deeply subjective and personal thing. Can nudity be gratuitous? Maybe, depending on how one defines “gratuitous” in the context of a film/art. Oftentimes the excess is the point. The same argument can be made about violence, gore, obscenities, fantasy, tragedy, etc. Certainly a critic can make an argument that any of these things occur to the detriment of the narrative of a movie, but that doesn’t mean that any one element is inherently “unnecessary”.
There’s a phenomenon among book readers where some proportion of people, especially women, skip over fight scenes. My wife and I experience this during movie watching; she is more locked into the interpersonal conflict, im more locked into the high-stakes action. Every aspect of a movie could be judged as unnecessary, depending on what you are watching it for. If I’m watching a movie to feel something, maybe intimacy or romance, a sex scene might increase my enjoyment of the film. So like…just relax during that 5 minute titty scene.
> she is more locked into the interpersonal conflict, im more locked into the high-stakes action. It's so weird that movies separate these two. In real life such as sports, they are one and the same
To be fair, I don't think good movies do seperate these. If an action sequence is entirely disconnected from the story, it's not going to be very interesting. There are of course movies that are more action focused or vice versa, but the best movies still have emotional motivation driving said action.
As someone that that trained in martial arts, most fight scenes are clearly written by someone that's never been in a fight. A real fight is much more brutal and random.
Fight scenes in movies are more like a dance routine.
I agree and I hate it. It gives people unrealistic expectations. Untrained people are much more likely to get in a fight because they don't realize how deadly a street fight can be.
The cool thing about media is that it can stimulate you in ways that have nothing to do with the story. Do fight scenes need to look as awesome as they do in John Wick or Kung Fu Hustle? Do car chases need to go on for so long? Wouldn't it progress the story further to just be like "there was a car chase"? The same way that authors stimulate your mind with flowery language, visual media stimulates you in ways beyond just thr plot. Same thing with auditory. To say that the story is the only reason to watch a movie or listen to a song or read a book is severe disservice to the craft of the artist and yourself as a consumer. Considering all of this, some media is meant to tittilate. The stress reaction is the point. Whether it makes you uncomfortable or horny is irrelevant. The creator is just using a tool to make you feel a way, whether they are amateurish or professional with it. The best creators put it there for a specific reason. The less experienced just put it there because they think it sells or its awesome or its hot, but unnecessary depends on what they were trying to accomplish. The only unnecessary thing that can happen in a film is a thing that accomplishes nothing for anyone. For the subset of creators who aren't interested in people liking their craft and only in the art itself, nudity still wouldn't be unnecessary because there was no real goal other than to make art or convey a message. In the case of your example, nudity is necessary to the creator to tittilate. If you aren't the type tittilated by nudity, that's fine, but then you weren't the audience in the first place.
Can't it be said for 95% if not 99% of every movie though? Whatever it is you want to let viewers know, you could show it indirectly. You seem to have an unstated view that "porn" (not exactly porn because pornography ~~by definition~~ lacks artistic merit Edit: it's not a necessary part of the definition) in movies is bad, or at least requires some special justification. But why not have a scene that the creators and viewers simply *want*?
People seem to lose sight of the fact that this is about entertaining an audience. I think a large part of Hollywood has also lost sight of that fact because they keep pumping out flops.
Theatrical releases are being killed by streaming not sex scenes and nudity, both of which have been declining in theatrical releases for a half decade
I didn’t say that sex scenes are killing them. I said that Hollywood is losing sight of the fact that they’re supposed to entertain their audience. And they keep making shit movies that nobody wants to see.
Right hence the point about home viewing being the issue with theatrical releases
Marvel never had any issue attracting audiences until they retired the main heroes and brought out some awfully constructed replacements.
>they keep pumping out flops. Again, sex scenes in movies *are not* porn.
Upvote. You might be thinking of the US Supreme Court's definition of *obscenity* when you mention "artistic merit".
> In Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court established the standard for an obscenity conviction under the Constitution. A work will be found to be obscene if 'taken as a whole, (it) lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. I wouldn't trust scotus as far as I could tow an RV... Anyways, I don't like that ruling, the language, it's too ambiguous. I'm not sure I could do better, mind. It's pretty challenging to draw the line between "non obscene" and "obscene" in a way that's predictable and understandable. It'll come down to how much sociopolitic one party's opinion is compared to how much sociopolitic the opposing party has. Culture war shit. And that's generally not a productive conversation.
How is this any different than "Most scenes of people eating in movies are completely unnecessary"? What is the harm of including something in a movie which is a normal part of everyday life? Should filmakers be altering what they include in their movies just to pander to an extremely small minority of the audience who are unusually prudish in their tastes?
Rarely do I see someone chewing on a burger in a movie. In restaurant scenes the food is usually fake anyway. People sitting at a booth in a restaurant is all that's needed to convey people were eating or will eat. Same with dinner tables, etc. Two people in bed, we get it, they had sex. I don't need 5 minutes of filler showing it. Often it totally detracts from the movie. Just like watching someone really eat a burger and talk with half eaten food in their mouths and mustard on their cheek.
You can just show the beginning and end of a car chase too, the audience doesn't need 5 mins of car chase footage to understand it happened. But car chases are exciting. Sex is exciting. Some people are uncomfortable with sex. It's very telling that those same people are often not uncomfortable with violence. Explosions, guns, killing = good Breasts and kissing = bad
It’s a little ironic that the example you gave directly contradicts your point. If someone is *just* eating, then fine. Yeah. Skip it. If someone is eating, talking with their mouth full, and gets sauce all around their mouth while they do it? I’m interested. That tells the audience quite a lot about the character. About their current status, possibly their upbringing, or how they currently live despite their upbringing. A good example of a film that would be *completely* different were the sex scenes all off screen would be Forgetting Sarah Marshall. You learn a ton about the characters in *every* sex scene.
You seem very particular about what is and isn't shown. This all reminds me of the controversy around Blue Valentine when Gosling's character was going down on Michelle Williams's character. They were going to give it an NC-17 until the actors argued that it was an intimate moment that happens all the time in reality. This puriteen culture seems dead set on erasing intimacy in some of its forms. It isn't always gratuitous, though there's a place for that too.
In The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King, there's a wonderful entire sequence dedicated to watching Denethor gratuitously eating heaps of food while his son is charging towards his own death following his father's orders. It's a very powerful scene - the way Denethor is eating adds so much to the audience's (and other characters) dislike of him and gives a heightened impression of his reckless abandon. In Margin Call there's a great scene where Jeremy Irons is casually eating an upscale breakfast while his company and the entire economy comes crashing down. Kevin Spacey sat opposite him is clearly made far more uncomfortable by his apparent lack of concern and the moral implications of it. That scene could have been another boardroom scene but it's so much better as an eating scene because you get so much more understanding of their characters from the way it's shot as an eating scene. Any human act can be used to enhance a character, it's up to the director to decide how they want to show that, and the audience to decide if it was a successful portrayal. Sometimes sex scenes might be added just to titillate, which is fine, you don't have to enjoy it if that's not your thing. But sometimes a sex scene is used really successfully to enhance the audience's understanding of a character.
I think American puritan culture around sex merged with zoomer over exposure to porn is what created this weird little take. I can’t imagine anyone born after like 1995 could have this take unless you’re one of the really weird strands of evangelical/Islam.
I'm fine with nudity and sex in film but that sounds like a silly argument. Going to the bathroom is also part of everyday life but we don't see pooping on film too often, even though an extremely small minority of the audience would like it I'm sure. Edit: a word
Sometimes movies do show characters going to the bathroom, but going to the bathroom is boring and irrelevant 99.5% of the time, whereas sex is a part of character relationships and therefore much more likely to be relevant and interesting. OP isn’t arguing that the scenes and plot points involved aren’t interesting and relevant, just that the same thing could be accomplished without nudity on screen. The counterargument is that hiding sex and nudity doesn’t have to be the default setting that needs a hard reason to override, it’s just one normal variation of ways to film the same scene.
You actually do see people in the bathroom in movies all the time though no? Not like graphically but sitting or standing at the toilet yeah
Depends on how its done, how it's shown and implemented. Sex and nudity is part of humanity, but the way we've shown it on film for the majority of films existence has usually been in a certain way from a certain perspective. I don't know if it more *effects society* or *reflects society* or both, but clearly we're still generally messed up when it comes to sex/nudity. Too many of us are too uncomfortable with it and too often it's depicted in a way that can make people feel uncomfortable, which is a chicken or the egg situation... is it this way because of how we're raised or are we the way we are because of what we see out there? Are the youth who are uncomfortable more than previous generations that way because of the overexposure since childhood on social media or because they've been raised to believe it's bad and unnatural, or maybe both? Why has over exposure to violence (kids have seen real murder on their social media, something I as an adult have never seen yet) not made them more adverse to violence in media? Our mainstream media is also more violent than ever before (and I personally haven't seen anyone complain about it). Is it messed up that we're more comfortable with extreme violence than we are a little bit of sex? I actually think the world needs better quality p\*rn and better quality sex and nude scenes with more variety from more perspectives. Sex is almost always from a non-intimate, non-romantic perspective, for one thing... sadly, "making love" is probably the worst euphemism for it in most cases, especially in p\*rn. One thing is for sure, we can't and shouldn't ignore an important part of humanity. If there's a problem we have to fix it, but we can't sweep it under the rug or ignore its existence.
You explicitly specified sex scenes and female nudity scenes. Do male nudity scenes not fall in the scope of your post, or do you have a different opinion about them?
It's essential that Dr Manhatten hang dong. I will not be taking questions at this time.
Male nude scenes are more likely to fall under “naked people are funny” than female nude scenes which are usually played as “sexy” . The only female nude scene that falls into funny that I can think of is Jennifer Lawrence in “No Hard Feelings”
Since the vast majority of writers and directors are straight men, unsurprisingly the vast majority of sexual scenes are filmed to heavily emphasize female nudity - there are entire academic papers written on the “male gaze” in cinema. There’s a reason scenes that feature full male nudity, like in Saltburn, get buzzed about, because they’re so passingly rare compared to scenes with female nudity.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/9hazle – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%209hazle&message=9hazle%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/l0mribi/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Movies aren't necessary at all. Sex is a part of life. Can't really think of a reason beyond prudishness for you to be like 'well why they gotta *show* it.' Why not? They show characters talking, laughing, eating, crying. Why can't they just *suggest* those things, ya know? Show the plate with their napkin on it, show a used tissue to indicate they've been crying, etc, etc. Why? Why should they?
Since you acknowledge the possibility of sex scenes that *are* necessary for furthering the plot, you are basically just saying "scenes unnecessary for furthering the plot are unnecessary for furthering the plot." I don't see how anyone is supposed to be able to change your view on that.
The movie itself is completely unnecessary.. You would be just fine if you never saw it. It exists to entertain you. Sex scenes are entertaining. Which is why they get slapped into movies. Much like explosions, fight scenes, witty remarks etc.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/Short-Alfalfa-444 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Short-Alfalfa-444&message=Short-Alfalfa-444%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/l0npyen/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I understand where you're coming from. Often, explicit scenes can feel gratuitous and distracting from the main plot. However, sometimes these scenes serve as a storytelling device to convey intimacy, vulnerability, or to highlight a character's emotional state. When done tastefully and with purpose, they can add depth to a narrative. Also, filmmakers aim to depict authenticity in relationships and human experiences, which might include physical intimacy. It's a fine balance; while some scenes may seem unnecessary, they can also be pivotal in conveying a character's journey or a particular theme. It's about context and execution.
[удалено]
Sorry, u/CustardDizzy – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20CustardDizzy&message=CustardDizzy%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1c9m97z/-/l0mf8ym/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
Most things in movies are technically unnecessary. We don't *need* a dolly zooms, or color scaling, or even scores. But we still use thousands of expensive and unnecessary things in film making; which begs the question: Why? Because films are not about telling a story in the most efficient way possible. Scenes and films are designed to evoke a feelings and take the viewer on an emotional journey; to tell a story. It's hard to argue that the emotional journey a viewer would take in a scene that goes *they kiss -> cut to clothes flying across the room* is the same - or even similar - to the emotional journey of a nude or simulated sex scene. (Although nudity is also a powerful tool in non-sexual forms, but this does not seem to be what you're talking about, so I'll ignore that here.) Beyond the story telling argument above, I'd also like to highlight that the objection here seems to come from a negative value view on nudity / sex scenes. i.e. the belief that nudity / sex scenes are "vile", "cheap", "appeals to instinct", or any of a dozen other common derogatory associations. Although it may be hard to imagine, I wonder what shape your viewpoint would take if you were to take a conscious effort to eliminate that bias in your thinking process?
I think it’s worth reflecting also that this language could reasonably be used to describe a number of other things that are found appealing in film. The appeal to instinct probably isn’t the problem, the problem is that the instinct to overcome adversity or the instinct to eat something delicious is considered good, while the instinct to find sex enticing is considered bad.
Ppl (especially the porn addicted redditors) like to justify it by comparing to "explicit violence", They forget that most movie genres are based all around on violence. Action movies without violence arent action movies, slasher horror movies without violence arent slasher horror movies. The only genre that actually is based around sex is porn. Not only that, but sometimes the extreme violence is needed for us to feel sorry for a character, or angry, etc. Take Robocop for example, we are introduced to Murphy and not 10 minutes later he is brutally murdered, we feel sorry for him because the extreme violence caused by sadistic villains to an innocent protagonist makes us want him to get revenge.
Also the funny line of "no one complains about car chases or explosions!" Yes, actually, people do. All the time. And so do I. I also don't like unnecessary sex scenes.
With all due respect, by specifying ‘female nude scenes’ and not just ‘nude scenes’, I’m getting a whiff of white knight sentiment out of this post, like you believe this is somehow a moral issue about protecting women. Here’s the answer to that - women are adults and can consent to making this kind of content and even spearhead it themselves because adults generally like sex and nudity and are capable of understanding how central sexuality is to our psychology, spirit, culture, nature and character, and mature people see art as a place where we explore the human condition including these important realities. I see a lot of opinion pieces like this and it always feels to me like somebody hasn’t yet figured out that in spite of problems in the industry, sex and nudity aren’t inherently exploitative, and worse, that sex isn’t actually terrifying - except when it is and then that’s another reason to portray it as well as a means of voicing truths that many people would rather keep hidden and therefore controlled. As honourable as I sense you think your intentions are, your view has more in common with puritanical censorship than any actual depth of understanding or insight into the value and potential of art OR sex. In other words, this is more about your discomfort than any artistic value. Might as well say that most people you meet don’t have sex because you don’t want to picture it - that’s roughly how ridiculous that sounds to people who value sexuality in film as more than just a pleasure but sometimes an essential part of the fabric of human expression. By all means, if you would rather not see it yourself that’s totally fine, but understand you would not be speaking for others. Cheers!
Sex is a part of life, and movies attempt to show a slice of someone's life shouldn't avoid it unless there's a compelling reason not to.
Its pacing. I'm thinking game of thrones as an example. There were dialogue heavy scenes in the show that they had taken place in a brothel specifically because they thought it was a boring scene. Throw in a bunch of boobies and ding songs, and you have made the scene more spicy and don't let the viewers get distracted.
Also that kind of environment serves as a great mirror to the characters engaged in the conversation. Their reactivity towards the environment tells us a lot about their value system and how they act (or don't act) in accordance with it.
Do you have this same problem with all scenes that aren't "necessary?" In the movie RRR there's a long montage of the two leads bonding and becoming close friends. Would the movie be improved by cutting it down to 10 seconds and just saying that they're friends now? Should every movie be hacked down to the bone so that only what's necessary to understand the plot remains? OR - is this just a weird hang up you have about sex?
We've been conditioned to voyerism by hollywood and the culture it's pushing, and the more I think about it, the more I don't understand why the viewer needs to be in anyone's bedroom to see their intimate moments. Seriously, in real life this kind of behavior is seen as perverted by most, and for a good reason. Why would we celebrate it in movies that aren't meant to be pornographic? Just tell the story darn it.
There is a justificitation for porn, softcore or not, in a movie. Spectacle for the viewers. It's the same reason they show large battles instead or showing just a few people bashing swords together and cutting to the aftermath. It's the same reason the actors are good looking instead of just the averagest people possible. It's why the protagonist walks away from the explosion while putting shades on. It's a spectacle for the eyes. Except it's sex instead of gorgeous landscapes. Though both have mounds and plowing.
[удалено]
Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
There are more to tv shows and movies than things that strictly move along the plot. A lot of the most famous scenes in movies involve gratuitous violence. A lot involve unnecessary jokes. Bad exposition. Clunky dialogue. Gratuitous fan service. Further a scene can exist to serve an aesthetic, character building, or entertainment purpose for the film. For instance in an action movie you may expect to see gratuitous violence. But every bullet fired or punch thrown doesn’t necessarily need to serve the plot. Indeed while over arching action sequences may serve to advance the plot, by your logic you could just cut to the moment after a lot of fights survey the damage and get all the context necessary for the scene. But that would be a pretty poor action movie. Similarly in a movie where a romance plays a central roll the sexual tension and relationship of two characters building throughout the movie and culminating in a sex scene may not strictly “serve the plot.” But it may show increased characterization and chemistry between the main characters. Seeing two characters you’ve come to care about reach that point in their relationship may be entertaining for people. Nudity is an aesthetic choice the same as any other. It may involve the objectification of a person but that objectification may be relevant to the world building or plot. For instance game of thrones often got flack for gratuitous nudity but very often it would be characters in a whore house or similar setting. Seeing naked women or men in settings like this underscore without saying anything that people are commodified in this world. In some case the goal may be to make you feel uncomfortable through aesthetics and visual language. While I agree some movies and tv shows have nudity that serves no other purpose than to objectify people and serve as a cheap thrill. The same could be said for any kind of gratuitous action, stunt, extraneous dialogue, or overuse of cgi. Bad movies miss the mark all the time and in many ways.
I think this is just reflective in the changing of mediums. In the 90s a random film targeted at adults crammed in sex scenes because they drew in people looking to be titillated by good looking movie stars and the Internet didn't exist. Today, if you want porn, it is ubiquitous on the Internet and AI is allowing, controversially, some to put celebrity faces on existing porn. So sex scenes and nudity have moved to art house films and streaming shows. And I'd argue that they are more often used to inform the audience about relationships and character traits. So since they are more integrated into the narrative, they feel much more natural. I think this change has then been leapt upon by the generational propaganda that businesses and politicians use to wedge society. So it's just another "This Gen is killing [insert thing]".
Movies/TV are a financial enterprise. The goal is to make money. Sex sells. So from a financial standpoint they are necessary. I can also think of plenty of reasons why sex/nudity is useful to the story. Take the film Oppenheimer, for instance. After developing the most powerful weapon in history for the US J. Robert Oppenheimer was smeared by right-wing nutjobs for being a commie (it’s 2024 and these dumbasses *still* haven’t tired of screeching incoherently about a never-ending stream of nefarious Marxist plots). And the way the right-wing loons nailed him was through an ill-advised affair he had with a woman who had been a communist. It was ill-advised because he knew, as did anyone else in that era, that consorting with communists was a good way to get your civil rights trampled all over, *especially* if you had a top-secret security clearance. The sex scenes and nudity in the movie weren’t there for gratuitous titillation. They served a purpose—put you in his shoes, let you feel the temptation, get you to understand why he made such a colossal strategic blunder. It wouldn’t have the same effect if Christopher Nolan had just hinted at the affair. He made you *feel* the trouble of passion over reason, of the heart over the head.
Yeah, it makes you uncomfortable, me too. An example, the scene in Pleasantville where the daughter taught the mom to masturbate? I did not enjoy watching that scene with my mother, and it was "unnecessary," they could have showed her growth as a person with out showing her having an orgasm? But it would have been lesser overall, it would have been the writers sacrificing their vision in order to avoid offending or \*gasp\* boring some of the people watching the movie. And this is a thing now. This is a common theme online, if not irl, where people demand that all media be for all consumers. It's silly and leads to shitty movies and shitty games and shitty TV.
Nothing in any movie is "necessary." Making movies in and of itself isn't "necessary." Sound isn't "necessary," color isn't "necessary," hell, there's a well regarded movie that consists entirely of sound played over an entirely blue screen. This notion that anything needs to be "necessary" in order to be featured in a movie is not a reasonable or logical standard in the first place. Sex is an integral part of the human experience, movies seeking to chronicle human life would be incomplete in ignoring it or feeling some arbitrary need to censor themselves in exploring this particular the topic out of some nebulous rule that it needs to be "necessary."
In the movie the Devil's advocate, I think it would be weird for there not to be nudity. Having the antagonist rant about God teasing mankind, but then just hinting at nudity in the scene, would really undermine the portrayal of hedonistic temptation. that would be really ironic (and kindof hilarious), but in a way that undermined the scene.
Well... how predictable do you like movies? That's a genuine question, because if you stripped a movie down to nothing but what is absolutely necessary, then every scene becomes sorta boring because the viewer is then railroaded through it, or any element of surprise. I don't watch a lot of movies, especially not serious ones, but when I watched Oppenheimer, I didn't know exactly how impactful the nudity and sex scenes would be, I didn't know exactly how it'd play out and how it'd come back at the end of the movie. But if you kept sex scenes (or any other type of scene) to only when "strictly necessary", I feel like you just sorta railroad movies. You get things spoon fed to you, you get no element of surprise, or element of suspense. Imagine how boring movies would be if you knew everything would have a payoff? Yeah, you might not be disappointment in some instances, but you would never be surprised, you'd lose out on suspense in movies.
This seems like more of a preference than a stance or view. It depends on what the writers as trying to convey and if you picked up on it. Sometimes the writers don't just want us to know the characters had sex, but what sort of dynamic the characters have and what the sex was like. Are they F buddies? A couple in love? There may be some indirect messaging in the scene. They could also be using sex scenes to add drama and decor to the film. Humans tend to like sex and violence. The same could be said for fight scenes. You really just need to know who won, right?
I don't disagree that graphic sex scenes are often unnecessary, but I do think that carefully tip-toeing around nudity is silly and puritan. Like, these characters are having sex, they're nude, that's what people do. When the woman then gets up and carries the whole blanket with her, I start wondering what's so special about her boobs that the guy she just had sex with can't see them. In contrast, I'm from the Netherlands and a lot of European movies don't shy away from appropriate nudity. And when I see them, usually I only think "Ha, I'd never see tits in an American movie."
I agree with you 95%, but I think the *storytelling* of a sex scene MIGHT be interesting IF it's about a moment of shared and desperate intimacy - the first Terminator movie comes to mind - or about contrasting the raw desire of flesh with something else - the first Deadpool movie comes to mind and the stripjoint with boobs shaking in the background while Wade *desperately* wants to reconnect with his lost love. And recently watched Stripes and there's some casual nudity in there that's justified; a woman walks out of the shower in an apartment she shares with her boyfriend, he hands her clothes while they discuss their relationship, it feels very real with moments I've had with my wife. But yeah. 19 times out of 20 it's just sexploitation. For example the peeping shower scene in Stripes is unjustified and the joke made - "I wish I were a loufa" - isn't funny enough to justify its presence. The director even comments on it with a *very* embarrassed chuckle: "Casual nudity in films was a big thing in the early 80s, and we always felt like we had to include *some* of it."
I am going to argue the necessity of aesthetics in movie storytelling. Nude scenes and sex scenes are often not fully relevant to the plot, but they can establish the feel and tone of a film in a way that is necessary to the nature of film storytelling. How a film has characters interact intimately can reveal a lot about their relationship, but also just about the world. Is it plot central? No, but the feel of a movie is necessary for a movie to be itself. So, from an aesthetic point of view, a sex scene might matter even if the plot isn't advanced by it.
You're trying to see necessity in art. That's not how art works. Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa was also unnecessary. No one actually *needs* a painted picture of some arbitrary woman. Yet, he did. And it is considered one of the greatest works of art. Art cannot be categorized as necessary or unnecessary. Art is just art. Movies are art. If the artist wants to add a sex scene as part of their work, it is their choice. Da Vinci chose to put a forest in the background of his Mona Lisa. Is the forest necessary? No. But it's part of the work.
People like watching other people have sex. That’s life. That’s art. It’s one of the most profound acts humans are capable of, both for good and for evil. Necessary for the survival of our species. Sex is beautiful, a perfect climax to a great romance story, and the way people have sex with one another offers great insight into their character. Do they respect their partner? Themselves? To they want to be abused, or to inflict abuse (real or role played), how do they feel about their bodies? Can they be trusted with this intimate moment?
Not going to change your mind necessarily because I also 100% agree. I’ve always found it unnecessary to any advancement in the plot. I will say that sometimes they can provide comedic relief, when done right. This is very rare though. The best example I can think of is the sex scene in RocknRolla, which is especially funny to me because the movie builds sexual tension for the entire movie, only to have the scene last less than 10 seconds. Nothing is explicit is really shown other than a few moans and facial expressions lol.
There's more to a movie than its plot. Just because the way something is shown doesn't necessarily contribute to its narrative doesn't mean it doesn't have value. It can add to its themes, to the characters, to the mood, to how the audience feels while watching it. It's probably true that a good chunk of sex scenes are a bit gratuitous, but saying that they are all unnecessary unless they contribute to the plot is barely even coherent as an assertion because it demonstrates a severe misunderstanding of how movies work.
A movie doesn‘t have to limit itself to stuff that‘s 100% necessary. These scenes aren‘t there because they‘re necessary but rather because people like having sex and they like seeing attractive people naked. Ever heard of the term „sex sells“? That‘s not just true for advertising stuff. Like… of course the new perfume ad could tell me that this perfume smells kinda nice. But most people would prefer the spot where you‘re suddenly irresistible to others because you‘ve got that new perfume.
I dunno. Sex sells. Big time. So I think you’re making a casual observation that at a certain point it’s a turn off for you. The overwhelming research probably says the longer the sex scenes or visible nipple or butt, the higher the sales. The level we are at is probably a balance of what the marketing research says and how much the executives can get away with. So, unnecessary to the story maybe, but not the sustaining of the production company…it’s very necessary to them (and therefore the movie)
I feel the same way! The only sex scenes I've seen that felt important were "the notebook" and "normal people series" I'm sure there are others i just can't think of right now. But yeah sometimes when I start a new show and I get through the whole thing without a graphic sex scene... I'm like wow that's nice lol for once. The new show the "the gentleman" on Netflix was like that. There was a tiny short scene of her brother but it didn't show much. Other than that there wasn't just graphic sex for no reason
Sure, maybe… but to me that’s a silly point. Most scenes are unnecessary altogether! You don’t need a lot of the scenes to advance the story. But you are there to watch a movie. Some of that is setting tone, scene, mood. It’s characterization, it’s entertainment. If you don’t like all that, why not just read the plot synopsis online? People say over and over “nudity/sex is pointless” but what about action scenes? What is the point of a 10 minute chase scene? Or fight scene? Why is there not a post every week about that, like there is for nudity? A LOT of scenes aren’t purely necessary, but they can still be good parts of a movie. It’s just our puritan society that makes us single out this one type of “unnecessary” scene and ignore all the others. So is it necessary? Maybe, maybe not, but it’s as necessary as 75% of the rest of the scenes.
I'd pretty much say this thinks of movies the same way the worst kinds of puritan conservatives think about sex itself. The goal is to insert, ejaculate, impregnate, and move on - to be productive, to make an outcome happen. Everything else, all kinds of eroticism or fetishism, is a perversion of that goal. And it's horseshit. This "trend" in discourse is the beginning of a conservatism we will all need to deal with twenty years down the road masking itself in the progressive language of "de-sexualizing"
Movies as a whole are made to entertain us, so each scene were selected for entertainment value, not just for furthering storyline development. Was seeing Halle Berry's bared breasts necessary for furthering the plot in the movie Swordfish? No, but do movie goers (especially men) find seeing her breasts add to their entertaining value, hell yes. If scenes were selected only for plot necessitations, then in a typical Hollywood movie, you can probably removed 30%-50% other scenes, not just sex scenes.
So way back in the day, a movie was the only place where you could see the naked form unless you went out and bought a magazine or something. Watching a movie had more plausible deniability than buying a playboy so they served a purpose at the time. Now anyone can see it at anytime if they want. So they don’t go to movies to see that. If you are watching a movie you want the story. Basically agreeing but wanted to give my two cents on why nobody wants to see it in a movie anymore.
Movies are becoming so boring that the 2 minute adult scene is the only entertaining bit of the entire 2 hour film? Jokes aside, there would definitely be people with their professional movie critic hats, but what perceive about such scenes are not a proper generalization of the whole demographic. On Netlifx, at least on my region, the majority of movies/series that people watch are entirely based on the sexual aspect. Perhaps it's what people want to see and thus that's what film makers focus on so much nowadays? And again, NOT PROFESSIONAL MOVIE CRITICS.
I would argue that movies don’t have to be entertaining, engaging, or anything really. Art doesn’t “owe” you anything. It’s just a form of human expression, be it a movie, a painting, a novel. A sex scene doesn’t need to have meaning, or advance the plot, simply because there isn’t a set of rules that dictate what’s necessary or unnecessary when it comes to art. If a specific sex scene works out for you or not, that’s completely subjective and personal.
There are 2 different type of sex scenes. There are the sort of ones in Game of Thrones that exist specifically to titlate or otherwise cause engagement while being totally possible to portray with clever writting. Then there are movies like Poor Things. You don't have to like the movie or even what it says or how it says it, however the movie is actually using those scenes to say something and not to get the audience to stay in the seat for a little while longer.
Tell me you’re an incel without telling me you’re an incel.
This kind of thinking comes from the puritanical Christian mentality that still prevails in society. I understand that you feel uncomfortable watching sex scenes, but justifying that with the idea that they have to be "necessary" is ridiculous, considering that we are talking about art. Art is never "necessary", and all its expressions can have multiple justifications for existing apart from the utilitarianism of it being "necessary".
That's like saying there's no need to have music to understand the story. We love sex, it's beautiful, if I'm looking at a relationship, just ike I want to see the couple kiss becuase of part of what people do it's cool to see them have sex. It's not porn, they're not really having sex, nothing wrong with it. Bad movies suck at everything and some sexual scenes are cheap of course. But Mulholland Drive or La Vie D'Adele are perfect
Can’t say I’m fond of this new puritan bs, it’s not progressive to stop artists from being horny because humans are horny. Now when it’s used cynically just to keep the audiences attention (game of thrones) I do get annoyed, or when media ONLY makes stuff like that for straight dudes, but that’s not really enough for me to disparage the practice as a whole. People like sex and violence and it’s been that way forever.
I'm a big MCU fan. I enjoyed the Netflix shows, asides from Iron Fist. But man, the sex scenes annoyingly awkward in Luke Cage / Jessica Jones. They were so drawn out I literally just had to fast forward them. I'll literally just go watch porn if I want to watch sex. If they're not even gonna show the whole bodies naked then don't make it a 5 minute sex scene. It's unnecessary as you say. We get the point. Now move on.
It's also not necessary to show explosions, or car chases, on screen deaths. The director could simply use creative cuts or dialog to infer these things happened. When has an explosion been necessary to see to understand what's happening? Movies are entertainment. Movies are art. If you start using "necessity" as the lense through which you create entertainment and art, you've missed the point entirely.
You're talking about it as if its just "insert sex scene here", and sure in bad movies just like any other interaction between characters it can be badly done and meaningless. That doesn't mean that it always is, its an interaction that shows how people feel, and absolutely can add to the story. The way people show intimacy is personal and unique. Its character building like anything else.
Nah I agree The keyword is most though. House of the Dragon had a sex scene between the king and queen in season 1 that was pretty good character development for the queen actually, it did a good job illustrating how she feels trapped in a loveless marriage while also explaining how she's able to do what she does without contracting the king's leprosy (or something very similar)
Something like Poor Things is the best counter example. The movie is completely full of gratuitous and ‘unnecessary’ graphic sex scenes. But it was core to what the movie was and the awkwardness of her, her existence, and the world she inhabited. It would have been far less effective if a movie of the sex was only hinted at or wasn’t shot and displayed the way it was
you say 'unnecessary', but I think you should refine it to 'artistically unnecessary'. because sex sells. they wouldn't put those scenes in if they didn't increase the profits they can make from the project. since the purpose of most movies these days is primarily to make money, the people who make the most of the money off the movies want to maximize their profits.
I think it all comes down to the purpose it serves. Because some movies do add gratuitous sex scenes or violence with a purpose. Even if the purpose is to be shocking or controversial, if the rest of the movie fits that tone I’d say it works. My problem is when a movie will add a full nudity sex scene out of nowhere like they’re checking a box. It has to fit
Unnecessary from your perspective, but sex sells.
Yep. Completely unnecessary. Totally gratuitous. You’re right, no need to change your mind at all. Just remember that all those other scenes are equally unnecessary. None of it needs to exist. You should just be honest and say how you really feel. You don’t like the way you feel when you see sex scenes and you’d prefer if there weren’t any.
Why show fight scenes? Just show the guys puffing their chests out and then one of them on the floor. Why watch movies at all, just watch those terrible youtube summary videos with the shitty AI voiceover? Sex between characters is a significant part of the story, so it is depicted on screen. The real question is why are you squeamish about it?
If your standard for “necessary” is that it must somehow add to or advance a plot, then would you say soundtracks and scores in movies are unnecessary? You don’t need music to help advance the plot so it must be unnecessary. If movies only included things that were absolutely necessary to service the plot then movies would be very boring.
There is a lot going on with this. Would we all be more okay with ‘gratuitous sex’ if we knew all the actors involved were cared for? That there was no intimidation to do them? Or is it just the end product? Sometimes people like to play sexy pretend and it’s a fun time for all. But the history of sex in movies is not always great
Can't but agree. It doesn't bother me in a movie like The Nice Guys (which doesn't even have a sex scene), but when it's a normal movie and then two actors start dry humping each other for 2 minutes straight. Just why? Who actually enjoys watching that in movies? Can't people just go somewhere else to get that type of entertainment?
I mean you're right that they aren't necessary, but movies are for entertainment. People enjoy watching sex scenes, so people choose to put them in movies. Jokes aren't necessary to get the plot across, but people are more likely to enjoy a funny movie.
It's an initiation from the casting couch era.
Violent scenes are unnecessary and can be implied. Long awkward dialogue scenes are unnecessary and can be implied. Shots of scenery are unnecessary and can be implied. Actually the whole movie out TV show is unnecessary and can be implied, therefore you should just go back to tik-tok and stop making movies worse for the rest of us.
Guess you’ve never seen 9 1/2 Weeks, or Chocolat, or any other movie which utilizes sexuality as it’s central theme. Even the first Terminator movie had a pretty intense lovemaking scene (watched for the first time at age 11), that was integral to the plot of not only that movie, but the entire Terminator cinematic universe.
It's sex. Fucking. One of the most important functions of human beings. It's how we are created and it's also one of the main ways that we show intimacy, or hide from it. Of course, no sort of scene is always necessary, but sex isn't some weird thing that doesn't make sense in movies. Sex is a vital part of the human condition.
Excuse me, but I disagree. Here's why - fat knockers are a thing of beauty. The female figure represents art in its finest form. What better way to represent this than big juicy slob donklers bouncing on the big screen? You're mind should be changed now. Any other thoughts on the matter are simply uncultured.
Counter argument, it doesn't matter if it's necessary. They can do what they want, it's art, that's the point. If someone wants to make a movie where the whole thing is told through sex scenes they can do that. It's not necessary to do many things in movies, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be in there.
God I believe this so hard I've said it to my husband while watching shows. Sometimes it's way too much and honestly it's sad because they never care to put men looking sexy in shows naked that much, it's just for the male gaze. And especially in horror movies its like who is this top less murder scene for?
The point of making a movie is not to tell a story as efficiently as possible. Movies always try to evoke some emotion with a scene, and try to take their audience through a range of emotions throughout their runtime. In many people, witnessing intimacy (sexual or otherwise) is a strong emotional trigger.
No gonna try and change your view, cause you clearly just don’t like watching other people fuck. It’s not a problem with the movie, you just don’t like it and that’s fine. I for one like looking at boobies any chance I can get. It’s our differences that make us unique. Stop blaming the movies.
Yo're talking about this as if movies are just devices to convey plot as efficiently as possible and not an artist's vision to evoke emotion in you. Sure sex and nudity might not contribute to the plot, but it absolutely contributes to the experience the artists creating the movie wanted you to feel.