Maybe it goes the other way.... The fact that there is a housing crisis is the direct result of unnecessary sex scenes in movies. If they didn't put those scenes in, there would be less people clamouring to move out of their parents house, thus lowering the demand for housing.
We need a politician to run on this platform!
It's a self regulating problem really if you think about it.
If filmmakers adjust the amount of unnecessary sex scenes depending on how many people live with their parents, then it's what ecologists would call a negative feedback loop.
Permanently Deleted
Sorry guys, could you do less sex scenes pls? Everytime i watch a movie, I'd like to have empathetic connection with the characters, and since I'm using arch btw, all the aformentioned scenes ruin all the immersion for me :(
How ArchLinux users can get to have sex:
-
Burn ArchLinux to a CD.
-
Fuck the center hole of the CD.
Wait... You're telling me all of those wallpapers with anime girls on them do not translate to an active sex life? I feel like I've been lied to!
-
Us arch users have started a group we meet up Friday nights
Latitude: -75.4321 Longitude: 123.4567
11.00pm UT
Bring gluten and lactose free vagen snack
If I get on the boat now I can be there in like 2 or 3 months.
Unless I'm specifically watching porn, I generally don't like sex scenes in movies. I always feel like I'm watching something I shouldn't be watching.
They're really useless in most movies. Last awesome sex scene I've seen was in Gone Girl - where Neil Patrick Harris gets well and truely fucked.
You clearly don't watch bridgerton then, for instance the last scene of episode 4 of season three had one of the characters getting finger blasted in the back of a coach before the dude got out and offer the women help down using the same hand he was just going to town on her lady bits with. This was scene was VITAL to the plot.
Hell ye. Great film!
Sex scenes can absolutely feed a narrative purpose, like in Game of Thrones where it's almost always a political motivation or has a greater meaning to it. However, if I wanted to watch two people have sex, I would go to a different site to watch it/wouldn't go to a movie theater for it.
People aren't upset about sex scenes, they're upset about unnecessary ones.
Well ok but is it necessary to show the fake, non explicit sex act? I.e. is the plot furthered by watching b list actress #537 show her boobs for 20 seconds while dry humping another b list actor, of course without actually showing anything explicit?
Implied sex, like the scene tastefully cutting out once they start undressing would work just as well.
Just to be clear, I'm sex positive, let me watch two semi famous people fuck on camera if I am supposed to get aroused while watching. Or make a movie that stands on its own without, that I can watch without ending up with an awkward boner.
I just think that the american, prudish softcore “nudity“ of showing some boobs for ratings is the worst of both worlds, can't watch it as a clean family movie or show but it also isnt explicit enough to make it worth watching when horny.
Hey, sorta related, have you ever been to a strip club? I went a single time with some friends when we were early twenties and I just could not understand the point. Exactly like you said here, it's not like I can do anything about it if I get horny, so why am I here? Me and another friend just left early and walked home.
Unnecessary romance plot is pushed into most movies. If i have to sit through the boring romance scenes, i would rather see some boobs as a reward.
Get rid of the unnecessary romance or let the sex scenes be.
I would go to a different site to watch it/wouldn’t go to a movie theater for it.
The internet really did change a lot of things away from how older generations view society. I think this point alone carries OP's post - T&A in a movie isn't exactly the draw it used to be. Even romantic content1 is easier to find on streaming than it was ever made popular on TV or movies.
1 - For "trashy" romantic content, Anime is doing the heavy lifting these days.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
Does this hit a little to close to (your parents’) home?
Y'all straight people who only just heard of this discourse should spend more time listening to asexuals
I'm genuinely wondering if it's chemicals in the water.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
When a sex scene is necessary, that means it is warranted by the plot and is the best way to achieve the effect the film is going for. I expect every scene in a movie to be thematically relevant.
I just finished season one of "The Boys" and they did a fantastic job of implementing "necessary" sex scenes and excluding or "cutting to black" on ones that aren't. Just a few examples:
spoiler
They only show the lead-up and follow-up of the oral-rape scene with The Deep and Starlight. We don't need to (or want to) watch the actual encounter because the important info is what led up to it and how Starlight reacted; the audience wouldn't gain anything additional by watching the actual act.
However they do show the scene where The Deep gets gill-raped, because it's weird enough that the act itself needs to be shown to be understood by the audience, and watching The Deep's reaction to what is happening while it's happening is important (the pain, the powerlessness, the confusion). Starlight realizes what is happening before the rape itself; The Deep only realizes while in the midst of it, because as a man/abuser he doesn't expect to be on the receiving end of what he's been remorselessly fishing out (autocorrect turned dishing into fishing and I'm leaving it).
The sex scenes between Stillwell and Homelander are weird and uncomfortable, but a respectable implementation of show-don't-tell of their complicated Oedipal relationship (as we learn that during intercourse Stillwell treats Homelander like her young child, presumably as a calculated way to control him and secure the loyalty of an incredibly dangerous loose cannon). Given the theme of a child raised without a mother, and Homelander's eventual murder of Stillwell, I accept the artistic decision to include scenes of their intimacy so that the audience better understands their bizarre relationship.
Generally the sex scenes aren't titillating and don't last longer than necessary to convey whatever plot/character development the writers want to reveal to the audience. This is another reason why I think their inclusion is highly calculated, and arguably "necessary."
Replace "sex scene" with "action sequence." There are plenty of movies where the action sequence is engaging, "thematically relevant" (as another commenter phrased it), and enhances the movie. Then there are Michael Bay-type movies, where the action sequence is over-the-top, gratuitous, and feels like filler that you have to get through before the actual movie can resume... in other words, an "unnecessary" action sequence. There's nothing wrong with movies with gratuitous action scenes existing; there is a place in cinema for Rambo and the MCU, just like there's a place for smut. But much like how I don't want to have to sit through a gratuitous CGI-heavy action sequence in the middle of a historical drama, I think it's legitimate to question the addition of sex scenes in movies/TV where you wouldn't expect it (or wouldn't expect it to be so long/graphic), especially if it doesn't feel like the scene added anything to the movie other than titillation.
On one hand, I think you’re broadly correct.
On the other hand, I think a lot more people would notice how often sex scenes actually are simply gratuitous and taking up air time that could be better spent elsewhere if they were all gay sex scenes. Because goddamn, seeing the same boring straight sex scene hamfisted into a bunch of movies gets old real fast if it’s not sexy to you.
spoiler
asdfasfasfasfas
"We've"? You may internalize whatever you'd like, but I don't think judging sex scenes by necessary or unnecessary is even a realistic metric at all. Movies are an art form. That's like saying, Renoir had to many extra people in his paintings, not all of them were necessary. I personally prefer more explicit sex scenes woven into movies about intimate relationships and I think watching something like a tiger disembowling someone is in my opinion less than necessary. Just show the tiger and then maybe a body bag or something. But that's completely just a personal preference, no we shit.
Sir this is a Wendy’s
They’re just being puritanical or shy with their movie watching company.
Or asexual and sex repulsed, or sexually traumatized. Why do you jump straight to calling people reactionaries when there are perfectly good legitimate reasons for their behaviour? It's almost like you don't believe in asexuals.
I watch movies alone or with my hot transbian gf 🥵 that I often have sex with during those movies (on pause and some music playing in the act though) and we still think those are unnecessary as fuck.
I think implied sex is okay if it's strongly needed by the plot, but otherwise if I wanted to see sex I'd either watch a porno or just actually have sex lol.
I feel like the only people who argue for ooga booga booba in movies and TV are boomer sex pests who probably used to jack off the the theatre and miss the community
