I’m clearly not Gen-Z but I never understood why sex scenes need to be in movies either. If one wants pornography, it’s easy to find and consume in ways that brings physiological relief. If you aren’t seeking this kind of relief, then I don’t understand why it’s interesting to stare at naked people.
The amount of pornography currently available is such that it’s puzzling what value anybody thinks yet another sex scene can bring to a movie.
I agree with less sex scenes in movies and TV, too many sexy scenes show that the writers ran out of ideas and added them to pas the running time or to titillate the audience. That’s why I couldn’t watch the Tudors series on Showtime because of all the nudity and sex scenes, even though I’m a big reader of English history.
I also couldn’t watch Game of Thrones for the same reason, I loved the books but the sheer amount of sex and violence was nauseating. The books do have some violent and sexual scenes, but it was a lot more subtle and I could visualize it. It’s one thing to read a description of an execution, but another to actually watch it with loads of gore and blood
I grew up in the 90s and I remember how my brother and his friends were obsessed with cheesy softcore films like Showgirls and Wild Orchids, both of which are dumb movies with copious nudity and lesbian kissing. Back in the 90s, the internet was just starting to become a thing and the only pornography was magazines and pay-per-view films on the scrambled channel 😂 But seriously, back then a show or film with nudity was a big deal and these sorts of films were hugely popular with young guys who couldn’t buy a porn magazine. Now since porn is so much easier to find, having sex scenes in a movie is a moot point
I am actually very pro sex in movies and books, especially in the face of currently relentless puritanical pressure from all sides (including Gen Z, who are turning out to be as buttoned-up as a Victorian spinster) to sanitize arts and media, lest everyone reach for the smelling salts. I abhor this pressure because I abhor all censorship.
Movie porn and written erotica are meant to get people off. They have their place, obviously. However, masturbation fodder is NOT the only role or even the primary role of sex in the arts and media. Sex is an important part of the human experience. Sex has a natural place in movies that are not porn and books that are not erotica because it is one of the key ways people relate to one another. Characters in fiction are revealed through sex; relationships are develop through sex. Depictions of realistic, messy sex are important and healthy. That doesn’t mean that sometimes directors don’t throw in sex scene as titillation pixie dust because they otherwise might have a boring movie, or that authors sometimes don’t write cringe-worthy sex scenes. But none of that is the sex’s fault.
Before anyone asks, no, I absolutely don’t mind seeing or reading about people using the toilet, washing themselves, picking their noses and scabs, etc. In fact, much of the backlash against sex is rooted in our growing collective disconnect from our bodies to the point of finding them summarily disgusting. None of it is healthy.
And please don’t get me started on “sex in movies isn’t necessary.” What is necessary? Movies themselves aren’t necessary. No fiction is necessary; no art is necessary. Should we all revert to plowing fields and milking cows because technically only activities that are directly related to people’s survival are necessary? (Fun twist: turns out that sex is totally freaking necessary in this sense.)
Anyway, I highly recommend this excellent essay on sex in media, “Everyone Is Beautiful and No One Is Horny.” It discusses the unhealthy retreat from the depiction of sex as inherent in rich, normal human relationships and its relegation into the realm of a gross nuisance, and how we’re all worse for it.
https://bloodknife.com/everyone-beautiful-no-one-horny/
LikeLike
“sex as inherent in rich, normal human relationships“
I very much agree with your point; the issue is what counts as “normal human relationships”. If you ask people who practice any sort of paraphiliac forms of sex they will tell you that it’s very normal for them.
The problem lies with the depiction of sex, which in post-modern times is generally gratuitous, often prurient and almost invariably superfluous when not irrelevant. Art succeeds by subtraction, suggestion and elision.
My take is that the overabundance of pornography and the banalisation of sex has desensitised younger generations to the sacredness of the sexual act; add to this the atomised society which is the only one Gen Z people have known, and you have a world where the most uninhibited forms of sexual expression co-exist with Victorian-age prudishness and an absence of healthy sexual lives.
“overabundance of pornography and the banalisation of sex has desensitised younger generations”
That’s a part of it, for sure. Nothing is less erotic than non-stop open no-holds-barred sexuality.
Transgression is hot, total acceptance is…. not.
I’ve read (not sure of the ultimate source) that now porn is so widespread it’s a case of the cart drawing the horse… people imitate prevailing fashions….
I’m not a prude and think some porn is necessary in a free society… but it shouldn’t be just a click away 24/7/52…
LikeLike
As liberal as I am, I am not gaga about sex work or porn because all data shows that it’s an industry rife with exploitation of both men and women, drugs, and mental-health dysfunction. The internet has indeed led to the proliferation of extremely misogynistic, violent, hardcore flavors of porn, the kinds that were nowhere near as widespread or as accessible when the Millennials or Gen X were young. I agree all of it is a huge problem.
But porn (actual on-screen sex for the purpose of masturbation and overwhelmingly geared toward men’s tastes) is very different from depicting sex, usually in the context of character or story development, in mainstream movies and TV. The latter is simulated sex, with no genital contact, and in the last decade or so always choreographed and shot with heavy involvement of intimacy coordinators. In contrast to porn, sex scenes in mainstream movies these days are being shot much the same as how action scenes are being shot: practice of choreography in regular clothes, discussion and adjustment, then only necessary disrobement with lots of new tools and that help avoid genital contact and similar while actually shooting. My concerns about sex in mainstream movies/TV used to largely center around exploitation of actors, but these have been significantly assuaged with the widespread use of intimacy coordinators and various safeguards.
I strongly believe depictions of healthy, realistic sex in mainstream media is important. I would go as far as to say that we need MORE of sex that is similar to real-life sex, usually between people who have feelings for each other, who have histories together, people who are not toned or douched or bleached or plucked to within an inch of their lives, normal people having everyday sex, we need MORE of that in media in order to counter the overwhelming and arguably destructive influence of the widespread extremely hardcore porn.
Please, let’s stop putting porn in the same category as sex in mainstream media. They are not the same.
LikeLike
And please don’t get me started on “sex in movies isn’t necessary.” What is necessary? Movies themselves aren’t necessary. No fiction is necessary; no art is necessary.
I was just about to make this point, but you’ve saved me the typing.
As far as sex scenes that are actually integral to the story, my nomination would be a scene near the end of The Wings of The Dove. These 2 characters have spent most of the movie in a scheme to get money so they can afford to be together, becoming manipulative scumbags in the process. And now that they finally have what they wanted it turns to ashes in their mouths. I wouldn’t necessarily call it an unsexy sex scene, but certainly a bitter one for the 2 characters involved.
(commenter formerly known as AcademicLurker)
Does the brief scene in The Godfather between Michael and the woman he marries in Sicily count as a sex scene? The most you see is her topless.
LikeLike
“never understood why sex scenes need to be in movies”
My take on sex scenes in movies is pretty much like anything else in movies… what does it say about the work/characters that can’t be done in a different, less intrusive, way? If it serves the story then okay of it doesn’t… don’t waste my time.
What I absolutely despise is the kind of cable porn ‘love scene’ that used to be de rigueur in 80s and some 90s movies. An especially egregious offering was the first Terminator movie where a late 20 something male virgin engages in ‘beautiful’ prolonged lurvemaking with the woman of his dreams ending in simultaneous O…. yeah…… right…. I thought this was sci-fi and not unhinged fantasy…
The sex scene in the French Lieutenant’s Woman on the other hand was a lot more realistic.. very brief and excruciatingly awkward….
Since someone mentioned Showgirls… I can’t help but think of the movie as a giant parody of sex in movies… I really can’t imagine any human being finding any of it genuinely hot… hilarious? yes! sexy? god no…. the directors’ Dutch movies (like Spetters and de vierde man) had a lot more… frisson, both in straight and gay scenes.
I can think of sex scenes that were unnecessary and ones that weren’t
I have no problem conceptually with the idea of non-porn meant to…. stimulate audiences but very few that actually do and even then usually only a scene or two.
LikeLike
“I have no problem conceptually with the idea of non-porn meant to…. stimulate audiences “
Sex in mainstream movies isn’t meant to seriously stimulate anyone; titillate at best. And sometimes what titillates isn’t even sex (think Princess Leia as Jabba the Hut’s prisoner in the gold bikini top, who did a number on a whole generation of boys).
The scene in Terminator 1 between Sarah Connor and Kyle Reese (John Connor’s dad) you mention above. It is brief and it is a natural part of their relationship development after they spent 3/4 of the movie running for their lives, and Kyle had spent most of his life in love with Sarah, whom he’d only known from a photograph. That alone would be enough of a justification for them to have sex on screen, but if that’s not enough, the sex act is the actual conception of John Connor who’s the central character in the whole franchise. Frankly, NOT having Sarah and Kyle have sex on screen in a movie with so much action and violence would feel really disingenuous. I don’t remember it as particularly cringe. If anything, it was tame, showing a little breast, otherwise very emotion filled and germane to the plot.
LikeLike
“That alone would be enough of a justification for them to have sex on screen”
Agreed…. my problem was the way it was shown… human males are designed by god or evolution or some combination thereof… (whatever fits your metaphysics) to…. not take too long…. if you get my drift… (wink wink nudge nudge)… especially inexperienced guys in the throws of strong emotions. A few frantic moments (over before Linda Hamiltons’ character had even really gotten her groove started) would have been a lot more realistic. Or…. (disengage now if you’re squeamish)….
…
…
…
if he had desenstized himself from too much self… attention he might not be able to… finish as god (or evolution) designed.
The scene in Forrest Gump (a movie I mostly despise) where Forrest… finishes before he can even get started is more based in reality and needed to be in the movie.
For me, apart from cable porn… sex scenes in movies need to be necessary for the story _and_ be relatively realistic given human biological realities.
LOL Can you imagine Sarah Connor with Two-Pump-Chump Kyle, going, “Already?! Seriously, dude?” 😂 But yeah, I agree, realistic sex on screen would often be awkward and hilarious. There should be more of it on screen. Maybe then people would relax and not think they have to perform like porn stars.
A conservative literary critic and college professor
Clarissa's Blog 
Leave a comment