Another thing ruined by Gen Z. ;)
https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/sex-on-screen-ucla-study-gen-z-teens-young-adults-1235768046/
wdym ruined?
So glad it isn’t us millennials ruining everything nowadays. Your turn, gen Z!
Sex scenes are goofy af
What bothers me more is that violence gets a PG rating here, sex gets an X rating. How in the world is it more inappropriate for kids to see people naked than for them to watch someone hack someone else to death? The graphic violence should get a more restricted rating than on screen sex.
When your nation always needs to be at war, it’s helps to repress sexuality and normalize violence. This isn’t so much a conspiracy theory, but an observation of an emergence behavior that reinforces itself.
I think you have a good point. It’s also a important part of the handmaid’s tail. Where sex is repressed for most of society. Especially soldiers (?!).
Another part maybe is sports, American society spend so much money in teaching sport to kids at a level that is pretty high. Compared to other nations.
How big is her tail?
Wait do video games cause violence after all?
Because the world shifted to the right a bunch more regarding sexual content… fucking websites now want you to show your ID in some states to view porn.
I think acclaimed director Paul Verhoeven put it best when he called our country a land full of gleefully violent prudes when people freaked out about his use of sexuality, nudity and people being comfortable naked around members of the opposite sex.
The disappearance of the sex scene in American cinema, the suppression of the body under the moral imperative of commodities in neoliberal capitalism, and Verhoeven as antagonizer.
Bro, you gotta stop reading shit like this. It’s bad for your brain. Not everything is capitalistic plot to suppress your whatever.
Why wouldn’t you be able to see it as “the viewers didn’t enjoy our cringe sex scenes, so we got rid of them, cuz we sure as hell couldn’t put real sex scenes into movies”. And no, not because of purity. But because even good porn is cringe and fake.
So maybe it’s really a decomcratic decision and it’s only possible because through capitalism there’s monetary pressure on the film industry to do the things people want.
Whichever it is, you gotta stop reading BS that starts with a conclusion in the first sentence, and no matter the subject it’s the same conclusion: capitalism oppressing the working class. You’d make Lenin cringe.
Yeah, I’m not discussing the article further after checking your post history.
Just one little tidbit of information for you: The sentences at the start on a rather lenghty article, usually set in a different typeset, is called “synopsis”. I know I know, I was like “wooaaah” when I learned that >30 years ago.
Only on-screen violence now though. If you dare protect yourself physically, you’ll go to prison and everyone will scorn you.
When nudity/sexuality is shown artistically or actually has some depth or place in the story being told, I enjoy it, but 90% of that hollywood shit is hot garbage and I think a lot of folks feel the same.
90% of that hollywood shit is hot garbage and I think a lot of folks feel the same.
And who HASN’T been in a situation, watching TV or movie with parents or other polite company, when a sex scene comes on (completely unnecessary to the plot), making everyone uncomfortable. I’d like to think that audience surveys have been taken into account to make Hollywood stop including sex scenes.
It’s only uncomfortable if you make it uncomfortable, but if you’re all adults it doesn’t have to be. Maybe it helps to grow up in a less puritanical country than the US though.
Drag was a teenager when drag saw Oblivion with drag’s dad. The underwater sex scene was not fun.
You deserve it for typing like that
Everyone fucks. I don’t need to see the details about that aspect of most characters’ lives in order to understand the story being told about that character. I love sex scenes. I hate sex scenes that are gratuitous and don’t enhance my understanding of story or character. If it’s not needed for one of those things, it doesn’t belong in the story. (and that’s true for any kind of scene, not just sex scenes)
If the purpose of the sex scene is “you get to see this actress mostly naked” and no other purpose - then yeah, that feels cheap and gratuitous. Make a movie where her sex life matters if you want to show me that.
The world didn’t do shit.
It was as normal in Europe to be naked and talk about sex as it is now. Actually, it probably got even a bit more normal.
Your stupid Hollywood is somehow watched by everyone around the world while it’s produced to cater to your dumb average American. And they’re religious and prudent. And that has been the case since forever. Which is why having naked breasts in your cinema is something wild.
In the meantime french movies would casually have people full naked every second movie.
Am I really on a movies community?
–
Now, your dumb Hollywood realized their cringe sex scenes aren’t appreciated by about anyone, and so they cut them out. Big deal.
Definitely not the world shifting, and not even your moronic populace. Proportion of religious prudes is still dropping even in the dumbfuckistan. And yet no more sex in the movies. Go figure.
You use strong words for my taste, although I would agree that Americans are much more prudent than Europeans. But the graph we’re discussing here shows a decline in sex depiction in the movies. It shows there are less sex scenes than there used to be. The decline cannot be explained by the differences between the USA and Europe.
You realize there is more than the US in the world right…? You’re really proving stereotypes by saying “the world” and then giving only US states as an example. A lot of the world haven’t shifted to the right. It’s pretty certain this graph was based on mostly American stuff anyway, so both the image, this whole post and you are all doing the classic 'Murican thing of thinking US specific things apply to the whole world.
deleted by creator
Let’s make a movie about the creator of the nuclear bomb! We can explore the moral implications, the political drama of communists in the USA during and after WW2, the creations of Los Alamos, the interesting science of…
Random corporate head: “Let’s have a sex scene! That will make things interesting!”
That interrogation scene was so awful. It jumpscared me.
ok, now I’m torn. I am completely happy with less sex scenes and prefer it because it just isn’t trivial to the plot what-so-ever. But, then you had to bring Florence Pugh into it.
Now I am become death, the destroyer of… Ooo… titties!
Booties
Though admittedly IRL and not in jokes I like titties more too, hair and eyes even more so.
This is exactly what came to my mind. It was so unexpected.
Oh, wait, Fappenheimer the war criminal really has a sex scene? Lul
Jesus tap dancing christ.
WE HAVE PORN! INFINITE PORN!! 24/7 IN OUR POCKETS!!!
We used to find sex on film exciting, now if we get turned on we pause Netflix and hit the real stuff.
And that’s kids how you make an argument about capitalist suppression of sex. Netflix can probably get a 10% revenue boost if they just cut out all the “stimulating” sex scenes.
Three grey value lines is stupid.
Don’t be stupid.
It’s considered a good design practice if you want to draw attention to a particular metric
It’s about the red line. Don’t mind the grey noise.
F in chat.
…because it’s not in the movie.
i think it was prevalent before the interwebs because there was largely few places to get porn, and throwing it in a movie meant more eyeballs.
as porn became immediately available in other forms (mostly the internet), the unnecessary scenes could be eliminated as a waste of time and a detraction from plots. they ceased being a reason to draw eyeballs.
Bingo. This is 100% the reason, and it’s funny that people assume anything else. When you can just watch porn at any time with no effort, sex scenes are gratuitous and awkward distractions except in rare circumstances.
You telling me this wasn’t relevant to the plot?
What the fuck movie is this?
Scary Movie
What’s this?
Scary Movie
What’s scary movie 2 got up its sleeve.
This is the first one.
You can get gratuitous violence on the internet, too. Far more than the most violent slasher film. Availability isn’t the reason.
the desire for gratuitous violence is probably orders of magnitude less sought for than our sex drive.
sex is so much more of a psycho-social driver than violence as to make your assumption invalid.
e. i would also add slasher films are slasher films. they arent regular movies with slasher film parts thrown in to attract as many eyeballs as possible. they were written to attract people into that niche thing.
If it’s not as desirable, then why would it be so prevalent in movies?
it isnt. its your own confirmation bias.
gratuitous [unnecessary] sex scenes are/were in an incredibly larger number of movies than the violence i think youre referring to.
Uh, the graph in OP says otherwise. I guess it depends on your definition of “gratuitous”.
Is James Bond shooting his way through badies–without a drop of blood being shown–gratuitous? How does that compare to a flash of boobs on screen in another movie?
that why i mentioned it depends on the type of violence. it was mentioned ‘slasherfilms’ which i find is an entirely different level compared to james bond.
i dont think that level has changed much at all. movies that require action, still have that nonsense.
you dont see sites advertsing short form violence like pornhub. its apples/oranges.
Would you say that the conversion of TV from broadcast/cable to streaming has resulted in a lot more nudity? If so, why hasn’t Internet porn reduced it?
Here’s the point I’ve been circling around: the availability of Internet porn does not adequately explain why depictions of sex and nudity in movies have gone down. It’s the first idea that pops into peoples head, but it doesn’t quite fit. What does is the rating system. Somewhat with the introduction of PG-13, and more dramatically so with NC-17. “This Movie Is Not Yet Rated” goes into this in more detail, but I’ll lay out what it’s getting at.
If you go back to the 1970s and '80s, you have PG movies with nudity. “Airplane”, released 1980, had a quick flash of boobs along with an extended blowjob joke. “Superman”, released 1978, had Superman as a kid climbing naked out of that pod. Expressly non-sexual, but nudity none the less. Today, Airplane would go straight to an R rating for that flash of boobs unless it’s from a director like James Cameron, who gets to pull strings and do whatever they want. I don’t think you could do the Superman bit at all.
You also have some R rated movies at the time showing extended closeups of the faces of women in sexual pleasure. This has almost entirely disappeared from all mainstream movies. Liv Taylor’s character in “Jersey Girl” (PG-13) talks about masturbating, and that was scandalous.
Then PG-13 shows up in 1984 in response to movies like “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom” pushing PG too far. When that happens, PG becomes the older kids movie rating, and PG-13 is supposedly for teenagers. Except, now you can’t really do scenes like Temple of Doom did and still be PG-13, either. Too much blood. Plus, you can’t have nudity except maybe the odd butt (usually male), again with the exception of being James Cameron.
Also, you get one F-bomb in PG-13 movies. It has to be stated in anger (“fuck you”) and not in reference to sex (“Should we go home and fuck each others brains out”). This isn’t an official rule anywhere, but even people outside the industry have picked up on it.
So now you can have James Bond shooting up tons of baddies as long as you don’t show any blood. The same movie will also go to great lengths to carefully conceal the lead actresses’ nipples at all times.
This gets much worse when NC-17 comes along. This was an attempt to rebrand the X rating, which tended to be associated with outright porn. “XXX” was never an MPAA rating; the porn industry adopted that for itself, but the association got stuck. So hey, surrender that idea to porn, change X to NC-17, and now we can make “serious” movies with lots of sex.
Showgirls then completely bombs.
What happens next is that NC-17 is used as a bludgeon by the ratings board. Do what we say, or else we’ll rate you NC-17 and most of the theaters won’t even show your movie. There’s a bit of psychology going on here where the ratings board wants to feel like they have a say in the movie itself. This has sometimes resulted in directors deliberately putting in stuff they know will never pass, then it gets flagged by the ratings board, they drop it, and the ratings board gives it the OK.
You can’t always do that, though. Directors won’t bother shooting a scene at all when they think the ratings board will nix it. Nudity has become nearly absent from R rated movies altogether because of this, and it’s a very brief flash if it’s there at all. One exception being Wolf of Wallstreet. Directed by Martin Scorsese–another director who has enough pull to get whatever they want. Anybody less than an S-tier director doesn’t get to do that. That movie is now 11 years old, and I’d challenge you to find another R rated movie with that much nudity and sex that’s been produced since.
Violence in R rated movies hasn’t gone the same way, because the ratings board members don’t care as much. They’re largely Americans (as far as we know; they were when “This Movie Is Not Yet Rated” was produced), and American culture is stuck in a mindset that violence is less bad than nudity. Also, Showgirls was known for sex, not violence, and that’s the sack of bricks hanging over every R rated movie director.
So in a perverse way, the opening of PG-13 and NC-17 ratings have actually reduced artistic expression, not opened it up.
Streaming evolved in a totally different way, and isn’t subject to the same incentives.
It’s kind of a bummer as it’s nice to have a more artistic representation of sex outside of porn which is more of a commodity. Movies can connect the sexy scenes to the non-sexy scenes which potentially makes them more powerful. Also, movies can tie moral value to sex which is interesting to explore.
I am in favor of sex in movies making a comeback, as long as it doesn’t create problems for the actors.
Have you ever seen Original Sin. That’s the steamiest non-porn film I’ve ever seen, and it’s actually a really good movie.
I think a lot of times the scenes are still done heavily through a male gaze. You’ll see more frontal of her than you ever will of a man.
Sex in movies always felt awkward because usually it’s a plot device to push the male character’s story, a ‘reward’ for the male character… Or just one of many sexual assault scenes bestowed on nearly every female character ever because “DRAMA.”
Not all sex scenes are like this, but a LOT of sex scenes are like this.
You never get full frontal of dudes because many of even the most sex-positive people hold a double standard against penises. Any time a penis might have to be on screen, it’s vulgar to them and at most belongs in humor.
They do show them now, although a lot less frequently. What’s fucked up about it is that they use giant prosthetic penises, and the majority of men already have insecurities around that area, regardless of their size.
I remember seeing people complain that Game of Thrones has too many dicks swinging around. I can remember one specifically from the entirety of the show: towards the beginning of the show, possibly season 2 or 3, there was an assassination plot against Khaleesi and they left one of them alive so they could pull him with their horses while he was naked and bound. That’s the only one I remember seeing from that whole show.
And then in The Boys there’s only like two they’ve shown so far? Who is seeing all these dicks where there aren’t any?
I mean, The Boys isn’t a great example. It’s kinda rife with dicks. There’s guys hanging dong, there’s people going inside dicks, there’s exploding dicks, there’s self-elongating dicks, there’s (in the spin off) a person climbing a dick.
They’ve been showing full frontal male nudity over the last 10 or so years, which was never done before.
Not anyway near the same way they show women. It’s usually brief and then still spent more on her being the sexual one. He gets to be gruff and whatever.
I wanna see this extended back to at least 1980, which was around the peak for nudity and sex scenes in film; after porn was legalized but before internet porn.
Because it’s been done so many times and it’s mostly just cheesy stuff. There’s really no new way to show people having sex in movies/shows.
Sex in movies peaked in Team America. You know the one.
So sex is a vice now or just when its in a film?
It’s long been treated as a vice when practiced outside marriage. I disagree with that but it’s a thing
We need to go lower
Is the spike in the early 2000’s from the cinematic masterpiece The Room? Three sex scenes in the span of like 15 minutes, ooh la la.
Seriously though, as much of a horndog I can be, I like the decline of random sex scenes in movies. Very rarely added anything to the story for me. I’m not a fan of violence, but fortunately it’s not too hard to avoid.
spike in the early 2000s*
You’re tearing me apart, Lisa!
Every, every, every-day 🎶
Lovin’, touchin’, squeezin’
Yeah, my bet is that sex used to be this thing you rarely see, so seeing it in a movie was this interesting event. Now we have access to more porn than you could possibly ever consume at your fingertips. Sex in movies used to sell a movie. Now I don’t think anyone really cares.
Some people are seeing this and assuming sex has become more divisive so they stopped showing it. I’m almost certain it’s the opposite. No one cares anymore.
Three sex scenes using footage from only one lmao
That Tommy Wiseau was truly a visionary.
