• bionicjoey@lemmy.ca
    921·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • CheesyFox@lemmy.sdf.org
    452·
    6 months ago

    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 :(

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    192·
    6 months ago

    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.

  • THCDenton@lemmy.world
    151·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • evidences@lemmy.world
      5·
      6 months ago

      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.

  • RealFknNito@lemmy.worldEnglish
    144·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
      111·
      6 months ago

      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.

      • Worx@lemmynsfw.comEnglish
        9·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
          11·
          6 months ago

          That is actually the epitome of this dumb ass logic (and why I haven’t ever been). A place filled with women, specifically designed to make you super horny.

          But fucking isnt part of the deal, usually you dont even get to touch anything unless you also want to be touched, by the bouncers.

          Just come by, spend a lot of money, and go home alone. No idea how this concept stays afloat

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            6 months ago

            yup. never really got it myself; when I was in the army, people would be like “we’ll go meet women at the strip club” nah, bro, you’re gonna go dump a chunk of your earnings on looking at tits you will never touch man. and if you’re lucky enough to date a stripper, well, that’s kind of it’s own reward in my experience.

            at least in a casino you have some possibility (however minute) of going home with satisfaction…

      • oldfart@lemm.eeEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • dejected_warp_core@lemmy.world
      3·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
      481·
      6 months ago

      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.

        • sanpedropeddler@sh.itjust.works
          14·
          6 months ago

          There’s a reason I chose the term thematically relevant. The creator of that movie gets to decide what those themes are. Different things will work in that movie depending on what kind of movie you want to make. I don’t like or dislike sex in movies. I just want it to be there or not be there for a good reason.

      • fireweed@lemmy.world
        15·
        6 months ago

        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.”

    • fireweed@lemmy.world
      271·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      72·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
      42·
      6 months ago

      “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.

        • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
          21·
          6 months ago

          I disagree that a lot of society has “internalized this”. Perhaps Lemmy and other social media bubbles may lead you to believe this, but the sample sizes are ridiculously skewed. It’s like saying a lot of people love Arch Linux. Well, yeah, on Lemmy they do! But that’s not the real world. I just think we statements broadcast to a bunch of strangers on the internet are a bad idea in general.

    • exocrinous@startrek.websiteEnglish
      43·
      6 months ago

      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.

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      22·
      6 months ago

      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

    • stebo02@sopuli.xyz
      38·
      6 months ago

      Is any sex scene necessary? No.

      Exactly. That’s why movies don’t need them.

            • Mesophar@lemm.ee
              21·
              6 months ago

              Some action scenes are absolutely unnecessary to the story being told. Some sex scenes are unnecessary to the story being told. Some dialogs are unnecessary, redundant, or ruin the impact of a movie.

              It depends on what the story is, the context of the rest of the movie, and the way everything is portrayed. And where exactly the line on the spectrum is will largely be up to personal taste and preference, but there are absolutely two sides of the spectrum.