I’d personally prefer that if they aren’t allowed to show it they not bother. All this does is make watching with family uncomfortable or possibly if your aware of the scene beforehand prevent watching it with family at all.
Assuming i’m not trying to watch it with family I prefer my content uncensored, like they can say fuck if they want to or fuck if they want or actually be seen nude after a shower instead being censored in some form.
Even when I am watching things with family i’d prefer they just not did things they’d have to censor than taint it with censorship.
I want romance in my romance and rom-coms. I do not want it in my action, thriller, history, sci-fi, fantasy, comedy, or biographical movies. Unless, and this is key, unless it legitimately adds to the movie.
Gen x, i think, here. Sex alone does nothing for me. Nudity does nothing. I’m attracted more to people, subtlety, long, slow seductions.
Most sex I see in tv, movies, is ridiculous. Like, 2 people have been flirting for weeks. One day, chance meeting, they kiss. RIGHT THEN, right after the first kiss, they immediately start taking their clothes off.
Seriously, who does that?
Some of the best sex can be if you have your clothes on.
Also, too many fantasy TV shows have characters who can’t touch other people cuz demon in them, physically touching someone means they’ll lose control, whatever. So they go around miserable, horny, unrequited love and all that. Which to me shows failure of imagination. Sex can be imaginative, creative, so much variety, possibility. Phone sex, mutual self masturbation, why not work those options into the plot?
But no, in movies and TV, its almost always: kiss, clothes come right off, completely naked, always in a bed, orgasm in 5 minutes. Real life is way more complex than that.
Lots of people in here talking about how sex scenes suck, and they’re right. But I think we should also consider this: decades of focus on abstinence education and evolving parental and institutional surveillance has been successful at making young people have less sex. And now the olds, having achieved their mission, are confused about why the kids are having less sex and making less babies and the media they are creating and consuming is reflecting that.
I dont think the abstinence stuff is having sn effect, or is as prevalent as you think. Maybe in America, but the rest of the western world don’t really fuck with it I think>nk?
This is a good point! And in fairness, I didn’t actually read the article so I don’t know for sure it’s talking about the whole of western societies. It is the la times though, so that would lead me to believe it’s US-centric.
Regardless, I think you’re totally right. In America we’re continually getting hammered with the idea that having sex before marriage is abhorrent and anyone who does it should be punished for it with STDs or babies.
Germany keeps good statistics on it, the tl;dr is early loss of virginity peaked around the turn of the millennium, and has been steadily going down since then. The sexual revolution never got questioned in Germany once it was through (sadly, you can’t annoy reverends by kissing in front of their church, any more), no “abstinence only” sex “education” to be found anywhere. The by far overwhelming reason kids cited is “didn’t yet find the right one”, only exception being girls with immigrant background, there it’s “am still too young”, though that number is falling towards “didn’t yet find the right one”.
Not on that page but when being given a couple of choices saying “which of these things would be a calamity for you right now, and how bad” something like 99% of girls respond with “pregnancy would be the worst”. Teen abortion rates are still very low (at least for a country not caught up in Catholic morals) but that’s due to low pregnancy rates in the first place combined with extensive support thrown at teen couples.
The younger generation is having less sex despite abstinence only education, not because of it. We have multiple studies showing “abstinence only” education is one of the worst ways to prevent teen pregnancy, yet religious conservatives continue to push for this because they would rather control women than lower teen pregnancy.
You may still be right but this actually doesn’t prove what you’re saying. Abstinence only education having more pregnancies can’t be used alone to indicate if underlying rates of sexual encounters is higher or lower without also knowing other information like rates of condom useage. It can still be the case that rates are lower, but the encounters that are happening are less informed and more risky.
I can tell you haven’t researched this at all, because that’s one of the first data dimensions controlled for. Random first google result www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5690810/
That has nothing to do with less children. It’s a known thing in biology that animals are fully aware of critical mass and adjust their mating for the conditions.
Every single industrialized country has reduced birth rates because of child mortality, financial stability, and many other reasons that go with it.
There is no one that didn’t have a kid because of a movie. That’s just ludicrous.
As someone on the far older end of gen Z or the far younger end of millenial, depending on where you draw the line:
I hate sex scenes. I have some personal issues however that may affect my judgment. Trauma and such. Don’t wanna see sex unless I was fully mentally prepared for it, which I just can’t be if it’s shoved into some random movie, regardless of if you warn me in advance.
It might seem odd, but I wonder if the almost unavoidable overexposure to porn from a very young age elicits a similar response in a lot of younger people. The fact that for a lot of your life, sex is a forbidden thing you have to sneak around to indulge in, and which the one form you have exposure to, porn, carries the risk of addiction. It seems like it’d leave an impression on your mind that it’s a scary thing you have to hide, which I could see eliciting some kind of trauma response when suddenly it’s everywhere and you’re still stuck feeling like you have to hide it.
That’s right. If I wanna see that, there’s pornhub etc. In any other movie: skip button. One exception: “The Room”. Makes the cringe complete. Oh, never watch it sober. Of course.
I mean, they try for verisimilitude. When I have sex I of course spend hours under flowing white bed sheets running my hand along my partners body and kind of grinding at them, I mean who doesn’t? But it’s always unrealistic. You never even see the dude you’re paying $5.00 an hour to undulate the sheets, not the dude holding the sheets up so you can stare lovingly into your partners eyes.
I’m gen x and find that this transition started happening earlier. Once online smut was accessible in early 90’s, what little sex shown on the silver screen became less sought after and just became something we had to sit through awkwardly with family.
I think you are exaggerating a bit here. Rent levels are skyrocketing past wage growth, sure, but have you considered that used cars are also getting prohibitively expensive relative to the average income? Three of them would be roughly a zillion dollars if my math is correct
Ya can get a used early 2000s/late 90s saburban in my city for about $2000. Mind ya folks trade around cars here like a 1700s brothel traded the clap but still.
There are three things that should never be shown in media because it’s completely unnecessary and all three can be directly implied without showing any real detail of them.
These three things are: Sex, vomiting, going to the bathroom.
All three of these can be relayed to the viewer without actually showing them but it seems like they’re shown all the time and it’s infuriating.
I’m sure there’s some real person out there who would argue that a particular shitting scene is necessary because it shows the authors mindset on the constipation of the world in the sense of some kind of moral ambiguity or some bs like that
Most movie sex scenes are terrible. They fail as both pornography and as literary devices.
When you put a sex scene, or any other scene in a movie it has to serve some purpose. It can move the plot along, it can show the characters emotions or it can just be there for titillation. If it’s just there because someone thinks that the main characters are supposed to smash, it’s dumb.
I remember that when we rented “Basic Instinct” you knew how often people re-watched the interrogation scene because the old VHS tapes would get worn at that spot and you could see the screen artifacts.
Two things made that worth watching. The whole movie was about sex so it made sense, both in the movie and for the character. The way to get porn at the time was to walk into a store and buy a magazine. And Sharon Stone was hot, OK 3 reasons.
There absolutely are movies where the sex scenes make sense and are important. David Kronenberg’s “Crash” and Kimberly Peirce’s “Boys Don’t Cry”, would have been weird if they didn’t include the sex scenes or just left them implied.
The sex scene in, “Team America: World Police”, worked because it was a satire of sex scenes in movies.
Pornhub works because their scenes are very explicit.
When you have a boring, unironic, semi-artistic sex scene in a movie that’s not otherwise about sex, it’s just a distraction.
Some, but remember that the only way that get real porn was to go to a store and buy a physical thing. Aside from the convenience there was a stigma to buying porn and it’s illegal for kids to buy. For a horny kid in the 80’s, light on-screen T&A and a Victoria’s Secret Catalog was a pretty good substitute.
When you have a boring, unironic, semi-artistic sex scene in a movie that’s not otherwise about sex, it’s just a distraction.
I don’t disagree. But I do see room to expand the definition.
Recently, I’ve been introducing my partner to The Sopranos for the first time (we’re in s3). I think there are legitimate depictions of sex in the series. They only appear briefly to help illustrate what types of people the characters are. They’re quick and out of the way. Like, oh, that guy’s fucking her, now let’s move on to the dialog that happens after. It’s when we see that these are characters who have sex as opposed to seeing the sex that makes the difference, imo.
I feel that the title of the article is misleading, as the poll in the article shows that Gen Z are turned off by gratuitous sex scenes that are not relevant to the plot, and not Gen Z suddenly turning into evangelical prudes. What they wanted is not the unrealistic, lazy, paint-by-number relationships as commonly depicted to stir controversy to drive engagement(a very cynical approach, I might add), but a full spectrum of different types of relationships good and bad, authentic in their depiction and sincere in their on-screen expression.
Note that the sincerity of expression doesn’t mean that the relationship depicted has to be good, or even genuine. For example, the sex scenes in “The Wolf of Wall Street” (you’re welcome, by the way) are important because they highlight that between Jordan and Naomi, there is nothing between the two besides money and sex, it’s shallow, materialistic, two selfish, toxic people using the other to get what they want, without which they can’t stand each other, in stark contrast with the genuine parental love that Naomi felt for her children, and it is the resolution of said contradiction which contributed to Jordan Belfort’s downfall.
The person you responded to doesn’t understand statistics. As long as your sample is random and unbiased, you don’t need to sample the whole population.
Think of someone cooking. They just taste a little bit of the food to adjust the spices. If they mixed it up evenly, they don’t need to eat the whole thing to get an idea of how it tastes. That is the basis of random sampling.
There’s a weird online phenomena of people with no knowledge of statistics criticizing the sample size of studies they disagree with. Of course that criticism never comes up when it backs up their world view.
I’m just sick of hollywood shoehorning a romance into every story. Not every story needs a romance, and most of the romances in movies are cliche and unnecessary.
latimes.com
Hot