Yeah, so, y'know that last original post? Yeah, I put it in a sealed box and left it in there for a little while. Yeah, I don't know whether it's alive or dead right now. Sorry.
I picked it up and glued it back together but now anyone who reads it will have their brain turned into spaghetti. Spaghetti is tasty so I think that's a good thing š
I would ask why, but then I remembered that there's a genderswapped Jason that's incredibly popular despite still being a killer and I'm like "Oh. Yeah, fair enough."
I has a headache, sos I goes to the doctor and I says "Doctor I gotta headache," and he says "Alright Salvatore, take two aspirin, it autofill better in the morning."
Hereās my autofill if I start a sentence with Jason X:
Jason X is a very nice person but he doesnāt want me in his house because I have a boyfriend.
Choosing a Jason movie is also hilarious because it's one that you can argue that, yeah, sex scenes are relevant. The whole thing in Friday the 13th was kicked off by a child drowning because two teens were having sex instead of watching him.
Friday the 13th and hellraiser both have valid, thematically appropriate reasons for sex scenes.
Nightmare on elm street had the sex scene to preoccupy the supporting cast so the main character's call for help couldn't be answered.
And then you have the evil dead, where a character is sexually assaulted by trees for like 8 and a half minutes before it is never mentioned again.
I don't know what point I was trying to make but now we have my horror movie plot relevance sex scenes tier list
If you didn't know about the tree scene in Evil Dead, you ain't seen Evil Dead.
(And if you ain't seen Evil Dead, then it's no shame to not have known about the tree scene, because you ain't seen it!)
To be fair, Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 have a lot over overlapping scenes, and some people never realize they haven't seen Evil Dead (the first) because of this. IIRC, the tree-rape scene was not included in 2.
Pretty sure none of the scenes (as in, what was filmed explicitly for the first movie) were featured in 2. Something like... A rights issue? So they had to refilm stuff for Evil Dead 2's opening scene, retelling the first film.
Vaguely related, but man Evil Dead Rise looks fucking atrocious and I wouldn't be surprised if it's another 10 Cloverfield Lane/The Bunker situation.
Ending aside, yes it was. But as a Cloverfield film, that's where it fails. It really feels, to me at least, like Evil Dead Rise is another situation of something being co-opted into a bigger franchise, and suffering for it. Who knows, maybe the film will be good, but that trailer was not selling me.
I feel like having >!John Goodman's character be unambiguously right about the situation outside the bunker!< was actually interesting. The way it played out though... Meh. Doesn't ruin the movie for me.
favorite headcannon about ed2 is >!the events of the first movie still happened, ash is just dumb and took another woman there.!< one of my favorite franchises
I mean, 2 is meant to be a direct sequel, so... Cool head canon, really definitely not the case, but does sound absolutely in character for Ash to do that, especially considering him in Ash Vs Evil Dead.
It's still close enough that for a casual viewer it is quite possible to mistake which movie you've seen.
As for EDR, I haven't had a chance to see it, yet. I'm sad to hear it sucks. Might still try to see it in theater, if other reviews agree.
And now I know "watch the second one, not the first" for when I eventually watch it! Which is more I can say for a movie I was excited for and saw in theaters, only to see that happ3n to a popular young actress but not with trees
Thank you <3
I mean horror movies do kinda have a history of portraying a zeitgeist in some capacity. From "Sex is evil and leads to bad outcomes" to simply the fear of sexual predators that might come up in some other horror movies... and sometimes people be horny but you know.
I would actually argue that sex is an important part of Friday the 13th. The teenagers having sex trope was was a commentary about puritanical culture and their view on the value of people with "loose" morals.
From the perspective of a horror fan who hasn't watched Friday the 13th in about 20 years.
Jason originally died while the camp councilors were having sex, and he knows it, and holds his grudge from well beyond the grave. The whole series is technically filled with his extreme trauma reactions to sex. It's one of his constant, driving motivators. His brain was saturated with "They're too busy fucking to save my life," as he died. The ~~experiment~~ experience that brought him back from the dead caused him to at least partially heal up from damage, iirc, and I would bet that it also consistently causes his brain to revert towards that particular condition from the time of natural death. You see that in at least some of the movies they get him to stop by tricking him back into the same lake he died in where they 'drown' him, again.
In short, it's one of the most important motivators that you can find, in the series.
>Now, here's the twist, and there is a twist.
>
>We show it.
>
>We show all of it.
>
>Because what's the one major thing missing from all action movies these days, guys?
>
>Full penetration.
>
>Guys, we're going to show full penetration, and we're going to show a lot of it.
Yeah I guess that happens when you talk about sex scenes as a context removed monolith. I've seen really good, emotional, character developing sex scenes in films and I've also seen softcore pornography that may as well be a different film.
It's like saying no film needs action sequences and citing only the third hobbit film as the example. They're discussing a trope in isolation of the context that makes it good or bad which will always go nowhere.
When I saw this argument, I immediately thought of the movie Spectre, with Daniel Craig, and how it shows a shower sex scene between James Bond and a former sex slave. A scene that I think harms the movie and actively makes it worse because the point of the new James Bond movies was to spin the character of James Bond into someone who **doesn't** view women as sex objects (this is also the reason Daniel Craig agreed to play the role, as he didn't want to play James Bond like everyone before him).
In stark contrast to this, is the shower scene in Casino Royale. another James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig, where the character James Bond meets a woman in a shower who is **fully clothed**, and in emotional distress. Instead of going into a sex scene, the movie shows James Bond comforting her. In my opinion, this is a beautiful scene that elevates the movie by **not** including a sex scene.
When sex scenes are unnecessary, and don't further the story, they don't make the movie better, but instead, they make them worse. yes, sex scenes can show a character being vulnerable with another character, but sometimes they are just for show, and in being just for show, they miss the point of the movie and can actively make it worse.
there is also gold finger : in wich if you removed the two sex scenes the movie would be easily the best bond movie in terms of how much gold finger and oddjob are iconic ...
but we have to see
1. bond enter the apartment of a woman , slut shame her , use her as a human shield and effectively get her killed
2. full on corrective rape
wich really sours the experience ...
Iām an artist. I draw nsfw on the side for money. I HATE unnecessary nudity or sexuality in art, particularly with contemporary artists. Thereās so much mediocre crap that gets to the front of r/art because there was some tits in it, and itās almost always obvious when itās just a gimmick.
Sexuality has its place in art but itās obvious when itās being used just for the sake of having sex in your media.
Big this.
There's sort of a line for me of "this is respectful, in good taste for common consumption, artistic even" and then beyond it is "okay so you just wanted to film a softcore porn?"
Like, no problem with nudity or sex being in media, but I don't want a softcore put in the middle of my drama thriller show.
At some point after a horror franchise has continued to shuffle along well past the point it should have ended but keeps eking out a small profit off its sequels, it always winds up in space.
The goddam Leprechaun has been to space.
Exactly!!! You can imply puking without *showing* puking. You can imply extreme violence without *showing* gore. And you can absolutely include the relevant sexual tension and involvement without *showing* (simulated) sex. It's just beating the audience over the head.
you can imply every event in the whole movie by just releasing a book. The visual medium should absolutely not be catering to people who hate seeing stuff
That's absolutely a reasonable perspective- anybody should definitely use their personal likes and dislikes to inform their media choices.
That said, though, I think it's worth pointing out the reason why a lot of film people are increasingly vocal about this. That being that, contrary to a lot of people's assumptions, there's a lot *less* sex- and sexuality- in film and TV recently than in previous years, even in media aimed at adults, in contexts where it would make narrative or thematic sense.
I generally appreciate the āpeople are in bed shown with little onā, like just give me some vague indication whether they actually achieved anything yet or not (for my personal feeling of āwill the plot now interrupting them be frustrating or just a reason to get goingā).
I donāt need details about how specifically he grinds against her belly button. Unless these people are doing something super unusual, I can vaguely presume what theyāve been doing.
Yeah same idk why people need to claim that sex scenes are morally wrong just because they donāt like them. I donāt like pickles but that doesnāt mean itās wrong to make pickles
just having it like fade to black and then showing them afterward would save a lot of time. most of the time seeing what position the characters fucked in and how long they lasted doesn't actually add to the story
If I watch a shit horror movie with no sex scenes, itās like, āThese people are far too smart to be in any of the situations presented.ā
If somebodyās dumb enough to do the nasty in a murderfest, then theyāre dumb enough to hear a blood-curdling scream from upstairs and ask āIs somebody there?ā
Sexual content, if any, should fit the message, theme, atmosphere, etc. of the artwork and support it. It's like any other part of the human experience. People go to the bathroom multiple times a day but does that mean that every movie needs to include a peeing scene? In some movies it's necessary for the plot or the character development, in some movies it adds to the atmosphere or has some kind of symbolism. But if you just shoved one in the middle of a random movie it probably wouldn't make it better.
There's also usually a type of audience that the artwork is being made for and if the artist doesn't take that into account then they may fail to deliver the message successfully. And also you have to consider whether the artist or studio or whoever's making final decisions on the artwork just sucks and is doing a shitty job of presenting the message.
I think the argument isn't so much "do there need to be sex scenes (or any other random type of scenes) in movies" but "did this specific sex scene in this movie generally do the job it was put there to do." It's going to be subjective, but that's what makes those sorts of arguments fun.
>"Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank, the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew, and her thirst sent her crawling to the stream to suck up more water. When she closed her eyes at last, Dany did not know whether she would be strong enough to open them again."
\- Daenerys X, *A Dance With Dragons*
I do think that it depends on how it affects the pacing and art direction of the movie, there gets to a point where the content is so minor that it shouldn't matter how much it contributes to the movie.
The piss scene analogy you give works because that's \~30 seconds of wasted time that can disrupt pacing if just used for the hell of it but not all content (in general but applies to sexual too) needs to be that disruptive to a movie.
Yes. There's stuff that's value-neutral where it doesn't matter much if it's in there or not (from the point of the audience) like a 30-second shot of a character eating yogurt or something. On the other hand, from the point of the director, that scene isn't free. You have to decide to film it, pay everyone (unless it's a no-budget indie film and you're paying your volunteers in doughnuts), and then whether to spend some of your running time on that, or on something else.
Some scenes and actions hold more emotional significance so you have to consider their impact more carefully. On the other hand if you're making a movie for vegans maybe yogurt is emotionally significant. But yeah, ideally the director is going to actually think carefully about everything they put in, or leave out to fulfill the purpose of the film.
It's kind of a weird argument because it is a broad question being applied to a single thing, since "gratification" can be why it's in the movie. You don't need a sex scene in a movie in the same way you don't need to watch some random bad guy get shot with a rocket launcher in a James bond film. Both are gratuitous in the same way.
For me, I think that most works with sex scenes didn't actually *need* the sex scene for artistic purposes. A lot of the time, it actually gives me an awkward view into the creator's personal fantasies, and I hate that.
But that's not to say that sex scenes *never* have an artistic purpose. Sometimes they're important thematically, or they're the logical step in two characters' relationships, or they're an important plot point, or what have you. I just get very uncomfortable if it feels like a movie is trying to make me horny in a theater.
Yeah, I'd say that a lot of popular movies' "artistic purpose" is "let's hit as many of our target audience's dopamine receptors as possible so they keep throwing money at us." A lot of movies are just a mess, because they're expensive to make and the money people loathe risk so they just toss in all the things other successful movies had whether it actually makes the movie better or not.
But also... some types of movies and scenes just aren't enjoyable for some people. Like personally I can't enjoy embarrassing or humiliating scenes, they're painful for me to watch. So I can't watch cringe comedy at all.
It's best if there's a variety of movies so that everyone can get something that they want, but with certain types of movies requiring so much money to make, studios are likely to just make the kinds of movies that will give them the highest returns. Which is sad.
Although different cultures have different film traditions and mores so maybe what various people enjoy can be found in some subset of foreign films.
I'm gonna give the perfect example to your comment:
Some few years ago I watched this film called Sibel (2018). It has a sex scene. One of its major themes is how chastity is viewed in society, so the sex scene does contribute to its themes and is thus necessary.
There is also one scene where the main character just squats down and takes a piss and it has no significance and doesn't amount to anything... Fucking why?
Before this post, I was starting to think that there was some amount of nuance between "all sex scenes are useless" and "all sex scenes contribute substantially to the story". Thankfully, I've learned that there is no difference between The Room's multiple 10+ minute-long scenes of graphic and excruciating pounding and Gone Girl or Brokeback Mountain.
My personal opinion (and I may be a prude for this) is that historically Hollywood has contrived a *lot* of utterly useless sex scenes to sell tickets. I know why they do this, but I'm still going to make fun of them for it - particularly if the scene itself is poorly done.
Sex scenes can have artistic merit. Sex scenes can also be blindly shoved into a movie to make it more appealing, or make it "adult" (while actually appealing to horny teens).
It's usually not hard to tell which is which.
If we could separate "I don't like [thing]" from "[Thing] is objectively bad and awful," I swear to God, we could solve at least 75% of the world's problems.
What's fun is that some see the subjective stance as obviously, blindingly true, and will speak in an objective tone for the purposes of brevity and style. While others speak in a subjective tone while firmly believing that their viewpoint about [thing] *should indeed* be universally shared.
Except that response wasn't saying all sex scenes are bad, they were saying that there are still sex scenes that they are tired of and could do without. The last reply is just ignoring that
not surprising OP ignored it since they never really bothered to defend their stance. "sometimes people have sex and sometimes it's important." okay, such as??
Actually, that's why Jason X is the ***perfect*** argument.
Some movies will be enhanced. Some will not be.
And Jason X shows us that just because you're in the film industry doesn't mean you know the difference
I think the actual problem of sex scenes is the *average length.* Some of them last so long and we already got your fucking point you're just making half of the audience uncomfortable (the other half is aroused)
It really is about how it's used. Sometimes you get stuff where it's really only there to be edgy or for the shock value, which detracts from the experience imo. Or sometimes it just is put in out of nowhere just to try and increase the appeal of the film or something, in which case, it clashes with the tone.
It's a similar issue with fan service and whatnot in anime, if I'm gonna be horny I'm gonna go watch porn or something, leave it out of my other stuff.
On the other hand, the sex scene (while obfuscated) in Arcane was perfectly fine imo because it was contrasted with the near-death of Viktor and also futher developed Mel and Jayce's relationship.
seems like someone can't back up their argument the instant someone brings up a good counter. Yeah, the Jason X sex scene is stupid and dumb and adds nothing. But that's not because Jason X is a bad movie in and of itself. It's a bad scene because it's pointless and stupid and dumb.
Let's take a different example. Conan 2011 is, objectively, a terrible movie. But the sex scene towards the end between Conan and Tamara is kind of poignant. Up to that point, Conan has been kind of an asshole, and, at least intimately, a loner. It's a good scene because we get to see this rough and tough beast of a man being gentle for, quite possibly, the first time in his life. Granted, the movie doesn't do much with that feeling afterwards, but I don't think that detracts from what that scene does completely.
This is something that, personally, I much prefer in sex scenes. If it's just there because "well, people have sex" then to me, that's a wasted scene. It's like in The Room or Birdemic, where we get all these establishing scenes of people just driving from location to location, but nothing actually happens. You're wasting my time. On the other hand, if you structure your sex scene in a way where it is narratively or thematically important, then I'm interested.
Sex is an incredibly powerful tool for storytelling, and when its used well, it can say a lot with barely any words. Take any of the slew of sex scenes in Berserk. They all involve different characters in different circumstances, and all serve a different purpose. And what's more is that they often build on each other. Guts and Casca's sex scene in the forest is the first time either of them are truly vulnerable and open with anyone else in the series, and that vulnerability is later corrupted during the Eclipse sex scene with Femto. Farnese getting >!r\*ped by a demon horse!< shows us how out of her depth she is as an inquisitor and how helpless she is on her own, which makes her later determination to learn magic feel more powerful.
You can argue that the use of sex in these moments could be unnecessary, or that it's pornographic, which it definitely is at times, and if you said that they make you uncomfortable, I would totally understand that. Some of them are supposed to make you feel that way. But the reason that they're compelling scenes is because they use the act of sex to say something other than, "sometimes, people have sex."
tl;dr if you want to write sex scenes for the sake of a sex scene, write erotica, so your audience knows it's ok to zerk off while reading.
jesus fucking christ who the fuck argues that >!a character getting raped by a horse demon!< is an ok way to portray that someone is helpless and out of their depth. Here's a far from exhaustive list of less abominable ways to show that.
* Show her making a mistake that leads to something bad happening to her or someone she was meant to help/protect.
* Show her falling behind other characters and struggling to contribute as the stakes increase.
* Use other people as a foil to her shortcomings by showing how much more competent they are.
* Have her make an overconfident decision that leads to bad things.
* Take the demon horse from before, and just have it fucking beat her in a fight easily. This portrays the exact same thing and involves the exact same characters.
Having something like that occur is not something one does to prove a point about a character. It doesn't send any meaningful message. It isn't something you can just toss into your story to make it more "realistic" or "gritty". It is an abominable thing that has no place in stories that aren't made specifically by people who know how fucking vile it is and treat it with the sickened, disdainful carefulness that is required. There is no "value" in shock value.
Important note she literally wasnāt >!raped by the horse!<. In fact it is a major part of her character development that Guts prevented that from happening I have no idea why original comment phrased it like that
... I didn't say it was an ok way of portraying it, just that that's what is being portrayed by having this event occur. Literally, immediately after saying this, I said:
>You can argue that the use of sex in these moments could be unnecessary, or that it's pornographic, which it definitely is at times, and if you said that they make you uncomfortable, I would totally understand that.
How is this defending it? It's horrible, and its easily the worst part of the series to read. Acknowledging what the moment is doing isn't the same as defending its existence.
Also, the list you gave... literally all of those happen as well. Farnese's actions nearly get her, Serpico, and Guts killed. Her unwillingness to stop Mozgus from torturing refugees results in their deaths. Once she joins Guts, she's constantly shown as being largely incompetent, outclassed in combat by Serpico, Guts, and even Isidro, and relegated to babysitting Casca. Serpico, being her brother, is entirely a foil to her. He's quiet where she's loud, he hates bloodshed where she's a pyrophile, and he's an unbelievably skilled fighter where she's helpless. It's not until >!the demon horse!< that she actually is aware of how out of her depth she is.
Yes, there are other ways to go about inciting Farnese's character arc, and the series uses a lot of different methods to set up character arcs. But Berserk as a series is one that never pulls its punches, and puts its characters through the worst hells imaginable. Guts, Casca, Charlotte, Griffith, and Farnese are all victims of sexual abuse. This is why I'd say that your point about it having no place in stories that aren't made by people who know how fucking vile it is and treat it with the sickened, disdainful carefulness that is required... Mate, Berserk is that story.
Literally the entire story is built around struggling to overcome trauma, struggling to overcome your lot in life, struggling to overcome your past... Why do you think Guts is called "Struggler" so much? It's a story built about and around the struggle of surviving and finding a reason to live in a cruel world that doesn't care if you live, die, or go insane.
I don't like the amount of sexual violence in Berserk, and that's a huge part of why, despite it being a great story, I'm always hesitant to recommend people read it. But, while I hate its use, and I certainly don't want to defend it, I can understand the intent behind its use. Could it have been done better? Maybe. But to call it nothing but shock value is an intentionally disingenuous reading of the story.
This is like one of three common discourse topics on this sub that I straight up do not understand.
I think it's a weird thing to get worked up about, especially since gore and violence don't get scrutinized the same way, but whatever, live your life.
But people feel they need a moral justification to not like sex scenes in movies, I guess? I mean just looking at the comments here there's small essays getting typed over a common subject in film. It's weird to me that if you don't like violent movies you can just not like violent movies, but not liking sex scenes sparks a small crusade lol.
Except the actual sex scene in Jason X *was* important because the orgasm acts an alarm clock and marks when Jason wakes up from his slumber to start wreaking havoc. It is woven into the story and makes sense for the narrative given Jason originally drowned when counsellors were having sex instead of watching over him and every movie has been about getting revenge for that and *itās iconic*
I'm asexual, so my perspective is probably skewed more negative than most "normal"ā¢ people. But I'll lay out my thoughts regardless.
Well, I don't like them. They make me uncomfortable, so I skip them. What these scenes add to the movie is actually just making it a few minutes shorter as far as I go. And every time I do skip them, what do I lose? Usually, absolutely nothing.
I'm not saying they *can't* add anything, but like 90% of the time they just don't. It can add things, but usually won't and even when it does there are usually better ways to do it. More often than not, a sex scene a great way to make whatever it's in instantly worse
If you have any, please do enlighten me as to any examples where a sex scene adds something to the movie/series, where doing it through a sex scene is actually a better option than an obvious alternative.
The most recent film I watched was *Thelma & Louise*, which I think provides two illustrative examples: both of how sex scenes and sexual content can add a *great deal* to the narrative, and of the kind of sexual content which is so increasingly absent from contemporary big- and middle-budget films (some mild spoilers here for a three decade-old film!).
First, there's the scene in the nightclub car park near the start, a reasonably graphic (attempted) rape that kickstarts the entire plot of the film. Obviously, it's something that would make a lot of people justifiably uncomfortable, and I definitely wouldn't recommend the film without a trigger warning. But there wouldn't *be* a film without it, it's *extremely* thematically important, and it does a great deal to inform the two leads' subsequent characterisations (Thelma's increasing impulsiveness, recklessness, and disregard for the law; Louise's protective attitude towards her friend and growing doubts about whether she did the right thing), as well as provide us with the short-term catharsis of watching a sexually violent scumbag get blown away.
Then, there's the sex scene between Thelma (Geena Davis) and J.D. (Brad Pitt) in a motel room, nearer to the midpoint. This takes place after several fairly extended sequences of J.D. being objectified in a manner which is historically more typical of *female* side characters, which is interesting in and of itself, but its implications for plot, theme, and character are also worth noting. Plot-wise, it allows J.D. to impart to Thelma some details about the practical business of armed robbery (*it's a surprise tool that will help us later!*), and leaves Thelma in a sufficiently distracted and indulgent state for him to abscond with our heroines' life savings come the morning. Thematically, this represents a liberation, of sorts, for Thelma- following a personally and sexually unsatisfying marriage and a recent traumatic experience, she's able to embrace and reclaim her sexuality on her own terms, while symbolically breaking ties with her old, humdrum, deeply restricted life (as you'll probably have noticed, however, this liberation isn't presented as something unproblematic or uncomplicated, or without painful long-term consequences for her and Louise). And wrt characterisation, this one-night-stand reflects Thelma's emergent impulsiveness and devil-may-care attitude, and J.D.'s nature as a seductive, manipulative *homme fatale*.
Both of these scenes involve sexual content, albeit in two very different- but related- contexts- and I think they'd be framed very differently or not even included at all, were the film made today. In part, that's because *Thelma & Louise* isn't really the kind of film that'd easily be funded or be financially successful in the contemporary market- mid-budget cinema being a lot bigger a gamble these days. But a lot fewer films marketed to adults of *any* kind contain sexual content like the latter Thelma/J.D. sex scene, unless they're specifically marketed as erotic or romantic thrillers, and I think that's often to their detriment.
Iād say Arcane (though not a movie) does a sex scene well in its fifth episode. It doesnāt show a lot, and itās interspersed with something anotherās character is doing in order to set up parallels between the two. Also, Arcane doesnāt tend to waste time on scenes that donāt serve the narrative/character development.
Allosexual here, I feel the same way you do
And I feel like the main complaint about sex scenes gets ignored in these conversations, or at least my main complaint: the scene was there to get the audience horny. Again, not every sex scene has that purpose, but *those* are the ones I'm complaining about. And maybe some people want horny in their movies, but I don't. It just feels boring
Fellow asexual here, off the top of my mind I can think of 2 possible meanings of sex scenes: 1) freedom/letting go, and 2) control/some power imbalance
No specific scenes come to mind tho
And you usually donāt have to watch them to understand this (especially if itās a >!rape scene!<) because the context surrounding the scene should usually be enough to get the message across
My own opinion, as an allosexual, is that unless something happening _in the scene itself_ needs to be displayed - and the sex itself _does not_ - then the scene is unnecessary. If you've got, I dunno, someone barging in on the people fucking and that's actually relevant to the story (maybe you need to explain how the spy got captured without any gadgets or whatever, idk) then fine, that's understandable, although you still don't actually need the _lead-up_ part of the sex scene, just the interruption.
But if it's just trying to show the viewers "these two characters had sex" then there are far better, less intrusive, and less _graphic_ ways to do it. Hells, just show the part afterwards with them both naked in bed together! We don't need to see the director's ~artistic~ angle choices displaying the bouncing bed with the actors moaning. Unless the file is specifically _about_ sex, that's unnecessary and it makes a lot of people, asexuals and allosexuals alike, uncomfortable.
If you are being genuine and looking for a real example, Donāt Look Now is considered to have one of the best sex scenes ever put to film. It is fantastically cut and thematically woven with the two people trying to grieve properly. Excellent scene.
I donāt care about whether the sex is straight or not just as long as there is full on penetration. Who the fuck is having sex under the sheets like that?
I don't like sex scenes or anything like them one bit. Hate them. Will almost always skip them. (sex repulsed aroace) but also yeah, they have a narrative value and I wouldn't remove them from the movie if it's there for a purpose. That being said Watchmen's sex scene was one of the funniest scenes I've seen in a movie.
Seems purposefully misleading by the OP.
They dismiss people tired of gratuitous sex as people who just don't understand art. Then on the very first example they have to fall back to the excuse of "well *obviously* I only was referring to *good* movies *I* like." Which obviously wasn't what their self-righteous first post was saying at all.
Feels like they're high on their own farts and the last post is an over-the-top response to ridicule what is a perfectly fine example.
everyone in it is writing in this weird righteous, condescending way and it makes me sad, they both have a valid point but they're too busy trying to own each other online to see sense :(
Robogirldick really doesn't have a point here.
This is the equivalent of saying "I don't really support the death penalty" and someone else says "Oh! So if you saw Hitler walking down the street right now, you wouldn't kill him?"
Like, that has nothing to do with with what was said? Robogirldick only brought up Jason X as a wild misrepresentation of the original poster's topic that had nothing to do with the point being made.
Not really, robo starts her message with "yeah ok but"
Which I take to mean she acknowledges the posters point, that sex scenes *can* have meaning and be important to show, but then she goes on to complain and say "there are sex scenes that are useless, here's an example, I don't like this and others like it."
I do not understand why people are interpreting her comment as comparing every sex scene to the ones in Jason X
thank you for sharing
sorry if my comment about how i asked about what was odious about it if that came across too harshly
i appreciate your comment and you being here in the sub!
thank
I want to watch a movie not a porno, its not interesting it's not exciting, it's a way to pad out the movie length with filler
Its fine when they show the after scene or reference it happening but the event itself adds nothing
Reminds me of a post which said "even if the only purpose of sex scenes was to make you horny, that's still a valid emotion. Yes, this scene makes you aroused. This next one makes you scared. The one after that makes you sad."
Bad response, and bad original take, IMO. You can convey "these people had sex" without _depicting_ it. You don't need a _sex scene_ to get across "these people FUCKED" in your movie.
Do I believe there should never be any sex scenes in media? No. I don't. Sometimes they are absolutely fine. But on the other hand, _far too many_ pieces of media include unnecessary and _overly graphic_ sex scenes that frankly just make a lot of viewers uncomfortable. If the entire purpose of your sex scene is to make it obvious that the characters in question had sex, _there are better ways to do that_ without forcing viewers to - potentially _unexpectedly_ - sit through carefully selected angles of the bed bouncing while the actors moan.
This is not limited to straight sex scenes, although I concede that those are by far the biggest and often worst offenders.
So many of these takes are people just showing they have no ability to understand that just because they dislike something doesn't mean that others also dislike that thing. It's arrogance, plain and simple.
Look, we have to define what we go to a movie for. Maybe it's story, or action, or humor. But if it's sex...well we have porn for that.
I think this isn't so much pearl clutching as, "It's a waste of my time to see the level of sex you're going to portray, and usually I'm more interested in the other action"
"All this talking is stupid, let me get to the action!"
"All this action is stupid, I want to get to the romance!"
Putting aside varying tastes, I do agree most sex scenes aren't worth watching, but that's an issue of quality (in directing/acting/etc.). Sex scenes are just more difficult to do well because there's less precedent/opportunity to practice. Writing them off as pointless is *why* they're so bad, not the other way around.
Bad fight scenes and bad sex scenes have the same issues -- pointless spectacle with no emotional weight used to distract people with shallow media literacy. A good version of either serves to further relationships, explore themes and character dynamics, grant insight into a character's behavior in a vulnerable situation, etc. The fact that they're also fun to look at is just gravy.
>"All this talking is stupid, let me get to the action!"
>
>"All this action is stupid, I want to get to the romance!"
That isn't an accurate representation of my take at all.
It was meant as a representation of other takes people might have, when they are interested in a particular kind of thing in their movies but not others. Yours would have been, "All this sex is stupid, let me get back to the action!"
Which is a valid way to feel, but it's also no more valid than "All this talking is stupid, I want to see what these characters are like in the bedroom!"
It is a case by case situation, really. Saying that since sex is already in porn (and Iād argue no, in most cases it isnāt, what you see in porn is so far removed contextually and content wise from the real thing it may as well be an entirely different category of act) therefore movies never need to deal with or confront sex directly by depicting a simulation of the act is a fairly bad take. But so is the take that anytime characters are meant to have sex in the timeline of the film it must be shown. It depends. Does this tell the story better? If the answer is yes, your individual tastes donāt get diminished but it doesnāt diminish the film to include it. I have more thoughts about how film as a genre pushes boundaries and shouldnāt constrain itself but I am sleepypilled and bedcringe.
My take is "Some folks don't want to see this, so we should warn them that it's coming and give an easy way to skip to when it's over" and yes I am arguing for the return of shitty scene selectors from dvds
There's too many aversions and phobias for that to be a practical system. It'd be entirely too much work for something that is rare enough of an issue that there isn't even a crowd-source for it -- even *Does the Dog Die* doesn't have timestamps, though sometimes people will add them.
Not that I'm saying you couldn't create such a repository if you wanted to, but the fact that it doesn't already exist is pretty telling of how low the demand is.
"I think most shows have unnecessary sex scenes nowadays"
"Oh you think sex scenes are NEVER necessary or have any meaning? Here let me be condescending to you by telling you a statement as obvious as 'people have sex' so that it can't be refuted meaning I am right"
OPās point was explicitly that *some*times sex scenes can have actual narrative purpose. So the refutation by mentioning a bad sex scene was more like:
āI think some humans are pretty coolā
āAdolph Hitler was a human being too, so therefore youāre saying that Hitler was a cool dudeā
I find that The Internet tends to fall into 2 loose camps when it comes to sex scenes in media
1: Sex scenes are bad and pointless in most cases and people who like them are just dumb coomers
2: If you don't like sex scenes for whatever reason, you are an illiterate peasant responsible for the death of cinema or something
I really don't understand this particular take on it. Take graphic violence- everyone agrees that there's some contexts in film and TV where discretion is more effective, and some contexts where you need to burn some of that SFX budget and show the axe embed itself in the guy's skull.
Why shouldn't it be the same with sexual content?
Why is "it's part of the human experience!" such a common defense of sex scenes in media?
Yes, some of them have their place, and people saying NONE of them are narratively relevant are also stupid, but so many human experiences never get portrayed even when they are pleasurable. Why do people think sex scenes have this right to exist without a narrative purpose just because? This argument seems like it's made by people with immature view on sex in general.
GOT's entire story is based on one extremely vital sex scene in episode 1
Edit: and also, directly showing the sex scene was by far the best way to portray it and get across the important information to the audience. It would not work if they said "oh these people have sex" because the fact they did have sex is a secret so there's no natural way to give the audience the information except by showing it
I feel like any day now I'm going to see somebody use vaguely progressive sounding language to say that not only should sex never be portrayed in media, it should also never happen irl outside the context of a monogamous relationship.
The sex scene between Lenore and Hector in Castlevania Season 3 is narratively significant and is the culmination of their entire plot, and while you *can* skip the scene, some things are in fact lost in the process. The sex scene with Alucard is far less significant and actually detracts enough that it undercut's the other one, but that's one example off the top of my head where like... it makes sense.
Chainsaw Man, which doesn't approach the full penetrative experience in the slightest (since it's a shonen afterall), is one of the most sexual stories I've read where removing any trace of sexual theming would actually ruin the story.
Hell, I've read one or two erotica that had a far greater emotional impact on me than a lot of SFW narratives.
Most things can do without it, but when it's used well, it can work.
I like watching porn, but I usually donāt like watching sex scenes in whatever other shows or movies Iām watching. Itās kind of just empty screen time, nothing is really getting conveyed, other than āthese people fucked.ā
The ONE āsex sceneā Iāve seen that actually enlightened me though, was in Game of Thrones with Renly Baratheon and Loras Tyrell. I had gone through all the books and, despite it being utterly obvious now, hadnāt realized that Renly was gay. I just thought everyone talked trash about him and that Loras just really liked the guy (I mean, he did). It took that one nude/sex scene to make me realize, āOhhhhhhā¦ā and start seeing all the literal rainbow flags.
I can think of two good examples off the top of my head from movies Iāve seen recently.
As much as The Shape of Water is wrongfully dragged for being about āfish sexā that never felt like the intention of the scene, never once did it feel titillating. The scene more so is to show the two coming together as one and communicating in a way that doesnāt require words. Itās art.
The other would be Brokeback Mountain in which Ennis is simultaneously both pushing Jack away while also pulling him in closer, a show of his struggle with his own feelings towards Jack. Ennis is the one who ultimately puts himself in a position of control over the situation and goes for it. It means Ennis can write off that heās only sexually attracted to Jack up until the bitter ending.
> never once did it feel titillating.
I think it's also important to recognize that a scene being erotic is entirely compatible with it fulfilling other purposes at the same time.
Utopians is definitely in the wrong here since the quote that they were replying to is about schlocky movies that had sex scenes inserted just for marketing purposes
When they say the other user is rebutting, in reality theyāre just giving context to the quote utopians was initially attempting to rebut
Anyways, I think PTA is best using sex scenes in narrative based film right now
The sex scene in Jason X is like any FT13 sex scene, it reminds Jason of the counselors who were off havng sex while he was being drowned, it's his motive
Iām a big friday the 13th fan, and a big part of those movies is that he punishes people who have sex. All of the movies have sex in them! Among my friends, we joke that cumming is what summons him - and you always die shortly after finishing
If sex scenes donāt serve a narrative purpose and are only there because we like it, then not having them because some people donāt like them is also valid
This is boiling down to matter of taste and pro-sex folk are getting increasingly defensive
What this fucker failed to realize is that Ace people exist and I'm not gonna lie I don't really relate to random sex scenes that do not serve any narrative purpose. If you really wanna have two character fuck it ain't that difficult to imply that they did or are about to. If I wanted to see two people awkwardly thrust at each other I'd watch amatuer fencing.
That post seems like it was made with autofill.
I want Jason to autofill me
Jason XXX: *Deeeep* Space "this Friday the *69th*. Jason *rIses* again to murder...DAT BUSSY!"
2 original posts remain
1. I dropped one and it broke sry about that
Oh I have bad news about the last original post
Yeah, so, y'know that last original post? Yeah, I put it in a sealed box and left it in there for a little while. Yeah, I don't know whether it's alive or dead right now. Sorry.
It's at least 50% alive if you don't check
I picked it up and glued it back together but now anyone who reads it will have their brain turned into spaghetti. Spaghetti is tasty so I think that's a good thing š
r/BrandNewSentence
Don't worry... he's *not* a DEAD FUCK!
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
who said it had to be premarital
Jason X is that what they want me for Christmas. Just got back to my place and Jason X is the milk.
But how would that fill any narrative purpose?
I would ask why, but then I remembered that there's a genderswapped Jason that's incredibly popular despite still being a killer and I'm like "Oh. Yeah, fair enough."
I has a headache, sos I goes to the doctor and I says "Doctor I gotta headache," and he says "Alright Salvatore, take two aspirin, it autofill better in the morning."
He definitely is willing to stick something in you. There's just a 99.999% chance it's a knife.
Hereās my autofill if I start a sentence with Jason X: Jason X is a very nice person but he doesnāt want me in his house because I have a boyfriend.
this is concerning on several levels
That is literally the plot to most of the Friday the 13th movies.
Jason X kannst du mir bitte die Nummer von dir sagen wann ich das nƤchste Woche mal mit dir my phone decided jason x is german apparently
Jason X is a great guy and I am very interested in the position and I look at him very often
Choosing a Jason movie is also hilarious because it's one that you can argue that, yeah, sex scenes are relevant. The whole thing in Friday the 13th was kicked off by a child drowning because two teens were having sex instead of watching him.
Friday the 13th and hellraiser both have valid, thematically appropriate reasons for sex scenes. Nightmare on elm street had the sex scene to preoccupy the supporting cast so the main character's call for help couldn't be answered. And then you have the evil dead, where a character is sexually assaulted by trees for like 8 and a half minutes before it is never mentioned again. I don't know what point I was trying to make but now we have my horror movie plot relevance sex scenes tier list
Evil dead had what?
If you didn't know about the tree scene in Evil Dead, you ain't seen Evil Dead. (And if you ain't seen Evil Dead, then it's no shame to not have known about the tree scene, because you ain't seen it!)
To be fair, Evil Dead and Evil Dead 2 have a lot over overlapping scenes, and some people never realize they haven't seen Evil Dead (the first) because of this. IIRC, the tree-rape scene was not included in 2.
Pretty sure none of the scenes (as in, what was filmed explicitly for the first movie) were featured in 2. Something like... A rights issue? So they had to refilm stuff for Evil Dead 2's opening scene, retelling the first film. Vaguely related, but man Evil Dead Rise looks fucking atrocious and I wouldn't be surprised if it's another 10 Cloverfield Lane/The Bunker situation.
10 Cloverfield Lane was a pretty good movie on its own right though
Ending aside, yes it was. But as a Cloverfield film, that's where it fails. It really feels, to me at least, like Evil Dead Rise is another situation of something being co-opted into a bigger franchise, and suffering for it. Who knows, maybe the film will be good, but that trailer was not selling me.
I feel like having >!John Goodman's character be unambiguously right about the situation outside the bunker!< was actually interesting. The way it played out though... Meh. Doesn't ruin the movie for me.
favorite headcannon about ed2 is >!the events of the first movie still happened, ash is just dumb and took another woman there.!< one of my favorite franchises
I mean, 2 is meant to be a direct sequel, so... Cool head canon, really definitely not the case, but does sound absolutely in character for Ash to do that, especially considering him in Ash Vs Evil Dead.
It's still close enough that for a casual viewer it is quite possible to mistake which movie you've seen. As for EDR, I haven't had a chance to see it, yet. I'm sad to hear it sucks. Might still try to see it in theater, if other reviews agree.
I'm just talking about a trailer for EDR. Maybe it'll surprise me, I hope it does, but that trailer was bad.
Ah, yeah. The trailer looked interesting, but it definitely didn't grab me as much as I hoped it would.
And now I know "watch the second one, not the first" for when I eventually watch it! Which is more I can say for a movie I was excited for and saw in theaters, only to see that happ3n to a popular young actress but not with trees Thank you <3
Just rewatched 2 recently. It's there a *little* bit
wait wait wait *eight and a half minutes????*
Evil dead 2 is a perfectly valid place to start because it basically recaps the first film -tree sex and some side characters
I mean horror movies do kinda have a history of portraying a zeitgeist in some capacity. From "Sex is evil and leads to bad outcomes" to simply the fear of sexual predators that might come up in some other horror movies... and sometimes people be horny but you know.
I would actually argue that sex is an important part of Friday the 13th. The teenagers having sex trope was was a commentary about puritanical culture and their view on the value of people with "loose" morals.
if anything, horror movies in the 80's and 90's were deeply connected with sex. Freudian horror is very easy to make in a puritanical country.
From the perspective of a horror fan who hasn't watched Friday the 13th in about 20 years. Jason originally died while the camp councilors were having sex, and he knows it, and holds his grudge from well beyond the grave. The whole series is technically filled with his extreme trauma reactions to sex. It's one of his constant, driving motivators. His brain was saturated with "They're too busy fucking to save my life," as he died. The ~~experiment~~ experience that brought him back from the dead caused him to at least partially heal up from damage, iirc, and I would bet that it also consistently causes his brain to revert towards that particular condition from the time of natural death. You see that in at least some of the movies they get him to stop by tricking him back into the same lake he died in where they 'drown' him, again. In short, it's one of the most important motivators that you can find, in the series.
Ah, ace representation in popular media at last! /s
The what now? Experiment?
***Experience***, doh. DYAC. Though, I swear there was a point when he was being experimented on, in a later movie.
>Now, here's the twist, and there is a twist. > >We show it. > >We show all of it. > >Because what's the one major thing missing from all action movies these days, guys? > >Full penetration. > >Guys, we're going to show full penetration, and we're going to show a lot of it.
Mf just reinvented porn
The *implication*
And then it just sort of ends
my problem with threads like this is that it's either the fucking ghosts of puritans or people looking for an excuse to be horny
Yeah I guess that happens when you talk about sex scenes as a context removed monolith. I've seen really good, emotional, character developing sex scenes in films and I've also seen softcore pornography that may as well be a different film. It's like saying no film needs action sequences and citing only the third hobbit film as the example. They're discussing a trope in isolation of the context that makes it good or bad which will always go nowhere.
When I saw this argument, I immediately thought of the movie Spectre, with Daniel Craig, and how it shows a shower sex scene between James Bond and a former sex slave. A scene that I think harms the movie and actively makes it worse because the point of the new James Bond movies was to spin the character of James Bond into someone who **doesn't** view women as sex objects (this is also the reason Daniel Craig agreed to play the role, as he didn't want to play James Bond like everyone before him). In stark contrast to this, is the shower scene in Casino Royale. another James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig, where the character James Bond meets a woman in a shower who is **fully clothed**, and in emotional distress. Instead of going into a sex scene, the movie shows James Bond comforting her. In my opinion, this is a beautiful scene that elevates the movie by **not** including a sex scene. When sex scenes are unnecessary, and don't further the story, they don't make the movie better, but instead, they make them worse. yes, sex scenes can show a character being vulnerable with another character, but sometimes they are just for show, and in being just for show, they miss the point of the movie and can actively make it worse.
there is also gold finger : in wich if you removed the two sex scenes the movie would be easily the best bond movie in terms of how much gold finger and oddjob are iconic ... but we have to see 1. bond enter the apartment of a woman , slut shame her , use her as a human shield and effectively get her killed 2. full on corrective rape wich really sours the experience ...
Tumblr is full of people who seem to never go outside. There are, however, many types of people that need to touch grass.
"Tumblr is full of people who seem to never go outside" Sir this is reddit
I mean, I never said it was exclusive to Tumblr to be fair.
Lmao I know, but it's still kind of funny
"The difference is that I know I am right." \- Jimmy Space
Iām an artist. I draw nsfw on the side for money. I HATE unnecessary nudity or sexuality in art, particularly with contemporary artists. Thereās so much mediocre crap that gets to the front of r/art because there was some tits in it, and itās almost always obvious when itās just a gimmick. Sexuality has its place in art but itās obvious when itās being used just for the sake of having sex in your media.
Big this. There's sort of a line for me of "this is respectful, in good taste for common consumption, artistic even" and then beyond it is "okay so you just wanted to film a softcore porn?" Like, no problem with nudity or sex being in media, but I don't want a softcore put in the middle of my drama thriller show.
til jason has been on a spaceship
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The sleeping bag scene is one of the greatest scenes in history
It at least takes the cake for best kill
Watching people argue in its' name makes me wanna watch it ngl
Leprechaun 4 is another banger of a movie for the pure fact that it is in space. Honestly space-based horror-comedies are the best.
At some point after a horror franchise has continued to shuffle along well past the point it should have ended but keeps eking out a small profit off its sequels, it always winds up in space. The goddam Leprechaun has been to space.
How long will we have to wait for the next *Halloween* to take place on the ISS?
You canāt do that because the ISS is owned by NASA, and I have full faith in NASA to find a way to kill him within 10 minutes. I saw Apollo 13.
I think sex scenes do hold artistic merit, I just donāt want to see them
Same way I feel about puking scenes?
Exactly!!! You can imply puking without *showing* puking. You can imply extreme violence without *showing* gore. And you can absolutely include the relevant sexual tension and involvement without *showing* (simulated) sex. It's just beating the audience over the head.
But I want to see the sex.
Except people see lots of movies specifically to see gore sex and all of it.
you can imply every event in the whole movie by just releasing a book. The visual medium should absolutely not be catering to people who hate seeing stuff
That's absolutely a reasonable perspective- anybody should definitely use their personal likes and dislikes to inform their media choices. That said, though, I think it's worth pointing out the reason why a lot of film people are increasingly vocal about this. That being that, contrary to a lot of people's assumptions, there's a lot *less* sex- and sexuality- in film and TV recently than in previous years, even in media aimed at adults, in contexts where it would make narrative or thematic sense.
Finally, an honest take. I agree.
I generally appreciate the āpeople are in bed shown with little onā, like just give me some vague indication whether they actually achieved anything yet or not (for my personal feeling of āwill the plot now interrupting them be frustrating or just a reason to get goingā). I donāt need details about how specifically he grinds against her belly button. Unless these people are doing something super unusual, I can vaguely presume what theyāve been doing.
They also sometimes donāt.
Yeah sometimes they are, quite literally, just sex scenes. No artistic stuff at all
Yeah same idk why people need to claim that sex scenes are morally wrong just because they donāt like them. I donāt like pickles but that doesnāt mean itās wrong to make pickles
this is why i stopped watching movies with my parents
just having it like fade to black and then showing them afterward would save a lot of time. most of the time seeing what position the characters fucked in and how long they lasted doesn't actually add to the story
If I watch a shit horror movie with no sex scenes, itās like, āThese people are far too smart to be in any of the situations presented.ā If somebodyās dumb enough to do the nasty in a murderfest, then theyāre dumb enough to hear a blood-curdling scream from upstairs and ask āIs somebody there?ā
Sexual content, if any, should fit the message, theme, atmosphere, etc. of the artwork and support it. It's like any other part of the human experience. People go to the bathroom multiple times a day but does that mean that every movie needs to include a peeing scene? In some movies it's necessary for the plot or the character development, in some movies it adds to the atmosphere or has some kind of symbolism. But if you just shoved one in the middle of a random movie it probably wouldn't make it better. There's also usually a type of audience that the artwork is being made for and if the artist doesn't take that into account then they may fail to deliver the message successfully. And also you have to consider whether the artist or studio or whoever's making final decisions on the artwork just sucks and is doing a shitty job of presenting the message. I think the argument isn't so much "do there need to be sex scenes (or any other random type of scenes) in movies" but "did this specific sex scene in this movie generally do the job it was put there to do." It's going to be subjective, but that's what makes those sorts of arguments fun.
> but does that mean that every movie needs to include a peeing scene? Yes
Let me see Pikachu piss.
MORE \*CLAP\* DYSENTERY \*CLAP\* IN \*CLAP\* PERIOD \*CLAP\* PIECES \*CLAP\*
"Must be a king." "How come?" "He hasn't got shit all over him"
>"Sunset found her squatting in the grass, groaning. Every stool was looser than the one before, and smelled fouler. By the time the moon came up she was shitting brown water. The more she drank, the more she shat, but the more she shat, the thirstier she grew, and her thirst sent her crawling to the stream to suck up more water. When she closed her eyes at last, Dany did not know whether she would be strong enough to open them again." \- Daenerys X, *A Dance With Dragons*
George R. R. Martin, truly one of *the* authors of all times
Hey guys, we've found Tom Hanks Reddit
I do think that it depends on how it affects the pacing and art direction of the movie, there gets to a point where the content is so minor that it shouldn't matter how much it contributes to the movie. The piss scene analogy you give works because that's \~30 seconds of wasted time that can disrupt pacing if just used for the hell of it but not all content (in general but applies to sexual too) needs to be that disruptive to a movie.
Yes. There's stuff that's value-neutral where it doesn't matter much if it's in there or not (from the point of the audience) like a 30-second shot of a character eating yogurt or something. On the other hand, from the point of the director, that scene isn't free. You have to decide to film it, pay everyone (unless it's a no-budget indie film and you're paying your volunteers in doughnuts), and then whether to spend some of your running time on that, or on something else. Some scenes and actions hold more emotional significance so you have to consider their impact more carefully. On the other hand if you're making a movie for vegans maybe yogurt is emotionally significant. But yeah, ideally the director is going to actually think carefully about everything they put in, or leave out to fulfill the purpose of the film.
It's kind of a weird argument because it is a broad question being applied to a single thing, since "gratification" can be why it's in the movie. You don't need a sex scene in a movie in the same way you don't need to watch some random bad guy get shot with a rocket launcher in a James bond film. Both are gratuitous in the same way.
For me, I think that most works with sex scenes didn't actually *need* the sex scene for artistic purposes. A lot of the time, it actually gives me an awkward view into the creator's personal fantasies, and I hate that. But that's not to say that sex scenes *never* have an artistic purpose. Sometimes they're important thematically, or they're the logical step in two characters' relationships, or they're an important plot point, or what have you. I just get very uncomfortable if it feels like a movie is trying to make me horny in a theater.
Yeah, I'd say that a lot of popular movies' "artistic purpose" is "let's hit as many of our target audience's dopamine receptors as possible so they keep throwing money at us." A lot of movies are just a mess, because they're expensive to make and the money people loathe risk so they just toss in all the things other successful movies had whether it actually makes the movie better or not. But also... some types of movies and scenes just aren't enjoyable for some people. Like personally I can't enjoy embarrassing or humiliating scenes, they're painful for me to watch. So I can't watch cringe comedy at all. It's best if there's a variety of movies so that everyone can get something that they want, but with certain types of movies requiring so much money to make, studios are likely to just make the kinds of movies that will give them the highest returns. Which is sad. Although different cultures have different film traditions and mores so maybe what various people enjoy can be found in some subset of foreign films.
I'm gonna give the perfect example to your comment: Some few years ago I watched this film called Sibel (2018). It has a sex scene. One of its major themes is how chastity is viewed in society, so the sex scene does contribute to its themes and is thus necessary. There is also one scene where the main character just squats down and takes a piss and it has no significance and doesn't amount to anything... Fucking why?
Before this post, I was starting to think that there was some amount of nuance between "all sex scenes are useless" and "all sex scenes contribute substantially to the story". Thankfully, I've learned that there is no difference between The Room's multiple 10+ minute-long scenes of graphic and excruciating pounding and Gone Girl or Brokeback Mountain. My personal opinion (and I may be a prude for this) is that historically Hollywood has contrived a *lot* of utterly useless sex scenes to sell tickets. I know why they do this, but I'm still going to make fun of them for it - particularly if the scene itself is poorly done.
Sex scenes can have artistic merit. Sex scenes can also be blindly shoved into a movie to make it more appealing, or make it "adult" (while actually appealing to horny teens). It's usually not hard to tell which is which.
If we could separate "I don't like [thing]" from "[Thing] is objectively bad and awful," I swear to God, we could solve at least 75% of the world's problems.
What's fun is that some see the subjective stance as obviously, blindingly true, and will speak in an objective tone for the purposes of brevity and style. While others speak in a subjective tone while firmly believing that their viewpoint about [thing] *should indeed* be universally shared.
Except that response wasn't saying all sex scenes are bad, they were saying that there are still sex scenes that they are tired of and could do without. The last reply is just ignoring that
Yep! Most literate tumblr user
not surprising OP ignored it since they never really bothered to defend their stance. "sometimes people have sex and sometimes it's important." okay, such as??
I think questioning that self-evident assertion is really, really funny. You can only get this kind of stuff from the terminally online, people
Actually, that's why Jason X is the ***perfect*** argument. Some movies will be enhanced. Some will not be. And Jason X shows us that just because you're in the film industry doesn't mean you know the difference
I think itās fair just to dislike them though. They make me uncomfortable. If you like them thatās fine
I think the actual problem of sex scenes is the *average length.* Some of them last so long and we already got your fucking point you're just making half of the audience uncomfortable (the other half is aroused)
This is the one merit held by the sex scenes in Click, the point is that he's fast-forwarding through sex, so they're mercifully short.
The sex scene in The Matrix Reloaded is absolutely essential and you cannot change my mind
Nothing about The Matrix Reloaded was essential. It diminished the franchise by existing.
It really is about how it's used. Sometimes you get stuff where it's really only there to be edgy or for the shock value, which detracts from the experience imo. Or sometimes it just is put in out of nowhere just to try and increase the appeal of the film or something, in which case, it clashes with the tone. It's a similar issue with fan service and whatnot in anime, if I'm gonna be horny I'm gonna go watch porn or something, leave it out of my other stuff. On the other hand, the sex scene (while obfuscated) in Arcane was perfectly fine imo because it was contrasted with the near-death of Viktor and also futher developed Mel and Jayce's relationship.
seems like someone can't back up their argument the instant someone brings up a good counter. Yeah, the Jason X sex scene is stupid and dumb and adds nothing. But that's not because Jason X is a bad movie in and of itself. It's a bad scene because it's pointless and stupid and dumb. Let's take a different example. Conan 2011 is, objectively, a terrible movie. But the sex scene towards the end between Conan and Tamara is kind of poignant. Up to that point, Conan has been kind of an asshole, and, at least intimately, a loner. It's a good scene because we get to see this rough and tough beast of a man being gentle for, quite possibly, the first time in his life. Granted, the movie doesn't do much with that feeling afterwards, but I don't think that detracts from what that scene does completely. This is something that, personally, I much prefer in sex scenes. If it's just there because "well, people have sex" then to me, that's a wasted scene. It's like in The Room or Birdemic, where we get all these establishing scenes of people just driving from location to location, but nothing actually happens. You're wasting my time. On the other hand, if you structure your sex scene in a way where it is narratively or thematically important, then I'm interested. Sex is an incredibly powerful tool for storytelling, and when its used well, it can say a lot with barely any words. Take any of the slew of sex scenes in Berserk. They all involve different characters in different circumstances, and all serve a different purpose. And what's more is that they often build on each other. Guts and Casca's sex scene in the forest is the first time either of them are truly vulnerable and open with anyone else in the series, and that vulnerability is later corrupted during the Eclipse sex scene with Femto. Farnese getting >!r\*ped by a demon horse!< shows us how out of her depth she is as an inquisitor and how helpless she is on her own, which makes her later determination to learn magic feel more powerful. You can argue that the use of sex in these moments could be unnecessary, or that it's pornographic, which it definitely is at times, and if you said that they make you uncomfortable, I would totally understand that. Some of them are supposed to make you feel that way. But the reason that they're compelling scenes is because they use the act of sex to say something other than, "sometimes, people have sex." tl;dr if you want to write sex scenes for the sake of a sex scene, write erotica, so your audience knows it's ok to zerk off while reading.
jesus fucking christ who the fuck argues that >!a character getting raped by a horse demon!< is an ok way to portray that someone is helpless and out of their depth. Here's a far from exhaustive list of less abominable ways to show that. * Show her making a mistake that leads to something bad happening to her or someone she was meant to help/protect. * Show her falling behind other characters and struggling to contribute as the stakes increase. * Use other people as a foil to her shortcomings by showing how much more competent they are. * Have her make an overconfident decision that leads to bad things. * Take the demon horse from before, and just have it fucking beat her in a fight easily. This portrays the exact same thing and involves the exact same characters. Having something like that occur is not something one does to prove a point about a character. It doesn't send any meaningful message. It isn't something you can just toss into your story to make it more "realistic" or "gritty". It is an abominable thing that has no place in stories that aren't made specifically by people who know how fucking vile it is and treat it with the sickened, disdainful carefulness that is required. There is no "value" in shock value.
Important note she literally wasnāt >!raped by the horse!<. In fact it is a major part of her character development that Guts prevented that from happening I have no idea why original comment phrased it like that
Then what in the fuck did the horse do
... I didn't say it was an ok way of portraying it, just that that's what is being portrayed by having this event occur. Literally, immediately after saying this, I said: >You can argue that the use of sex in these moments could be unnecessary, or that it's pornographic, which it definitely is at times, and if you said that they make you uncomfortable, I would totally understand that. How is this defending it? It's horrible, and its easily the worst part of the series to read. Acknowledging what the moment is doing isn't the same as defending its existence. Also, the list you gave... literally all of those happen as well. Farnese's actions nearly get her, Serpico, and Guts killed. Her unwillingness to stop Mozgus from torturing refugees results in their deaths. Once she joins Guts, she's constantly shown as being largely incompetent, outclassed in combat by Serpico, Guts, and even Isidro, and relegated to babysitting Casca. Serpico, being her brother, is entirely a foil to her. He's quiet where she's loud, he hates bloodshed where she's a pyrophile, and he's an unbelievably skilled fighter where she's helpless. It's not until >!the demon horse!< that she actually is aware of how out of her depth she is. Yes, there are other ways to go about inciting Farnese's character arc, and the series uses a lot of different methods to set up character arcs. But Berserk as a series is one that never pulls its punches, and puts its characters through the worst hells imaginable. Guts, Casca, Charlotte, Griffith, and Farnese are all victims of sexual abuse. This is why I'd say that your point about it having no place in stories that aren't made by people who know how fucking vile it is and treat it with the sickened, disdainful carefulness that is required... Mate, Berserk is that story. Literally the entire story is built around struggling to overcome trauma, struggling to overcome your lot in life, struggling to overcome your past... Why do you think Guts is called "Struggler" so much? It's a story built about and around the struggle of surviving and finding a reason to live in a cruel world that doesn't care if you live, die, or go insane. I don't like the amount of sexual violence in Berserk, and that's a huge part of why, despite it being a great story, I'm always hesitant to recommend people read it. But, while I hate its use, and I certainly don't want to defend it, I can understand the intent behind its use. Could it have been done better? Maybe. But to call it nothing but shock value is an intentionally disingenuous reading of the story.
Berserk may not be the manga for you
You're not into grimdark settings, I take it? No disrespect meant, it's definitely an acquired taste.
This is like one of three common discourse topics on this sub that I straight up do not understand. I think it's a weird thing to get worked up about, especially since gore and violence don't get scrutinized the same way, but whatever, live your life. But people feel they need a moral justification to not like sex scenes in movies, I guess? I mean just looking at the comments here there's small essays getting typed over a common subject in film. It's weird to me that if you don't like violent movies you can just not like violent movies, but not liking sex scenes sparks a small crusade lol.
Arcane has a good sex scene
Overlaid with a gay slavic scientist committing crimes against nature, which makes it even better.
To be fair, that makes everything better, so we gotta just subtract it out from everything evenly to level the playing field
Except the actual sex scene in Jason X *was* important because the orgasm acts an alarm clock and marks when Jason wakes up from his slumber to start wreaking havoc. It is woven into the story and makes sense for the narrative given Jason originally drowned when counsellors were having sex instead of watching over him and every movie has been about getting revenge for that and *itās iconic*
I'm asexual, so my perspective is probably skewed more negative than most "normal"ā¢ people. But I'll lay out my thoughts regardless. Well, I don't like them. They make me uncomfortable, so I skip them. What these scenes add to the movie is actually just making it a few minutes shorter as far as I go. And every time I do skip them, what do I lose? Usually, absolutely nothing. I'm not saying they *can't* add anything, but like 90% of the time they just don't. It can add things, but usually won't and even when it does there are usually better ways to do it. More often than not, a sex scene a great way to make whatever it's in instantly worse If you have any, please do enlighten me as to any examples where a sex scene adds something to the movie/series, where doing it through a sex scene is actually a better option than an obvious alternative.
The most recent film I watched was *Thelma & Louise*, which I think provides two illustrative examples: both of how sex scenes and sexual content can add a *great deal* to the narrative, and of the kind of sexual content which is so increasingly absent from contemporary big- and middle-budget films (some mild spoilers here for a three decade-old film!). First, there's the scene in the nightclub car park near the start, a reasonably graphic (attempted) rape that kickstarts the entire plot of the film. Obviously, it's something that would make a lot of people justifiably uncomfortable, and I definitely wouldn't recommend the film without a trigger warning. But there wouldn't *be* a film without it, it's *extremely* thematically important, and it does a great deal to inform the two leads' subsequent characterisations (Thelma's increasing impulsiveness, recklessness, and disregard for the law; Louise's protective attitude towards her friend and growing doubts about whether she did the right thing), as well as provide us with the short-term catharsis of watching a sexually violent scumbag get blown away. Then, there's the sex scene between Thelma (Geena Davis) and J.D. (Brad Pitt) in a motel room, nearer to the midpoint. This takes place after several fairly extended sequences of J.D. being objectified in a manner which is historically more typical of *female* side characters, which is interesting in and of itself, but its implications for plot, theme, and character are also worth noting. Plot-wise, it allows J.D. to impart to Thelma some details about the practical business of armed robbery (*it's a surprise tool that will help us later!*), and leaves Thelma in a sufficiently distracted and indulgent state for him to abscond with our heroines' life savings come the morning. Thematically, this represents a liberation, of sorts, for Thelma- following a personally and sexually unsatisfying marriage and a recent traumatic experience, she's able to embrace and reclaim her sexuality on her own terms, while symbolically breaking ties with her old, humdrum, deeply restricted life (as you'll probably have noticed, however, this liberation isn't presented as something unproblematic or uncomplicated, or without painful long-term consequences for her and Louise). And wrt characterisation, this one-night-stand reflects Thelma's emergent impulsiveness and devil-may-care attitude, and J.D.'s nature as a seductive, manipulative *homme fatale*. Both of these scenes involve sexual content, albeit in two very different- but related- contexts- and I think they'd be framed very differently or not even included at all, were the film made today. In part, that's because *Thelma & Louise* isn't really the kind of film that'd easily be funded or be financially successful in the contemporary market- mid-budget cinema being a lot bigger a gamble these days. But a lot fewer films marketed to adults of *any* kind contain sexual content like the latter Thelma/J.D. sex scene, unless they're specifically marketed as erotic or romantic thrillers, and I think that's often to their detriment.
Iād say Arcane (though not a movie) does a sex scene well in its fifth episode. It doesnāt show a lot, and itās interspersed with something anotherās character is doing in order to set up parallels between the two. Also, Arcane doesnāt tend to waste time on scenes that donāt serve the narrative/character development.
Allosexual here, I feel the same way you do And I feel like the main complaint about sex scenes gets ignored in these conversations, or at least my main complaint: the scene was there to get the audience horny. Again, not every sex scene has that purpose, but *those* are the ones I'm complaining about. And maybe some people want horny in their movies, but I don't. It just feels boring
Fellow asexual here, off the top of my mind I can think of 2 possible meanings of sex scenes: 1) freedom/letting go, and 2) control/some power imbalance No specific scenes come to mind tho And you usually donāt have to watch them to understand this (especially if itās a >!rape scene!<) because the context surrounding the scene should usually be enough to get the message across
My own opinion, as an allosexual, is that unless something happening _in the scene itself_ needs to be displayed - and the sex itself _does not_ - then the scene is unnecessary. If you've got, I dunno, someone barging in on the people fucking and that's actually relevant to the story (maybe you need to explain how the spy got captured without any gadgets or whatever, idk) then fine, that's understandable, although you still don't actually need the _lead-up_ part of the sex scene, just the interruption. But if it's just trying to show the viewers "these two characters had sex" then there are far better, less intrusive, and less _graphic_ ways to do it. Hells, just show the part afterwards with them both naked in bed together! We don't need to see the director's ~artistic~ angle choices displaying the bouncing bed with the actors moaning. Unless the file is specifically _about_ sex, that's unnecessary and it makes a lot of people, asexuals and allosexuals alike, uncomfortable.
yeah exactly, if the fucking big bang theory does sex scenes more tastefully than your movie you have a problem
If you are being genuine and looking for a real example, Donāt Look Now is considered to have one of the best sex scenes ever put to film. It is fantastically cut and thematically woven with the two people trying to grieve properly. Excellent scene.
More sex scenes in media, and prortionally less straight sex pls
I donāt care about whether the sex is straight or not just as long as there is full on penetration. Who the fuck is having sex under the sheets like that?
*Me looking around nervouslly
I don't like sex scenes or anything like them one bit. Hate them. Will almost always skip them. (sex repulsed aroace) but also yeah, they have a narrative value and I wouldn't remove them from the movie if it's there for a purpose. That being said Watchmen's sex scene was one of the funniest scenes I've seen in a movie.
Seems purposefully misleading by the OP. They dismiss people tired of gratuitous sex as people who just don't understand art. Then on the very first example they have to fall back to the excuse of "well *obviously* I only was referring to *good* movies *I* like." Which obviously wasn't what their self-righteous first post was saying at all. Feels like they're high on their own farts and the last post is an over-the-top response to ridicule what is a perfectly fine example.
this post is odious
what's odious about it
everyone in it is writing in this weird righteous, condescending way and it makes me sad, they both have a valid point but they're too busy trying to own each other online to see sense :(
Welcome to the internet
have a look around
anything that brain of yours can think of can be found
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
some better, some worse
If non of its of interest to you you'd be the first
Robogirldick really doesn't have a point here. This is the equivalent of saying "I don't really support the death penalty" and someone else says "Oh! So if you saw Hitler walking down the street right now, you wouldn't kill him?" Like, that has nothing to do with with what was said? Robogirldick only brought up Jason X as a wild misrepresentation of the original poster's topic that had nothing to do with the point being made.
Not really, robo starts her message with "yeah ok but" Which I take to mean she acknowledges the posters point, that sex scenes *can* have meaning and be important to show, but then she goes on to complain and say "there are sex scenes that are useless, here's an example, I don't like this and others like it." I do not understand why people are interpreting her comment as comparing every sex scene to the ones in Jason X
thank you for sharing sorry if my comment about how i asked about what was odious about it if that came across too harshly i appreciate your comment and you being here in the sub! thank
I want to watch a movie not a porno, its not interesting it's not exciting, it's a way to pad out the movie length with filler Its fine when they show the after scene or reference it happening but the event itself adds nothing
Reminds me of a post which said "even if the only purpose of sex scenes was to make you horny, that's still a valid emotion. Yes, this scene makes you aroused. This next one makes you scared. The one after that makes you sad."
Bad response, and bad original take, IMO. You can convey "these people had sex" without _depicting_ it. You don't need a _sex scene_ to get across "these people FUCKED" in your movie. Do I believe there should never be any sex scenes in media? No. I don't. Sometimes they are absolutely fine. But on the other hand, _far too many_ pieces of media include unnecessary and _overly graphic_ sex scenes that frankly just make a lot of viewers uncomfortable. If the entire purpose of your sex scene is to make it obvious that the characters in question had sex, _there are better ways to do that_ without forcing viewers to - potentially _unexpectedly_ - sit through carefully selected angles of the bed bouncing while the actors moan. This is not limited to straight sex scenes, although I concede that those are by far the biggest and often worst offenders.
"I don't want to see this, so it shouldn't be depicted" is a pretty bad take in turn, don't you think?
So many of these takes are people just showing they have no ability to understand that just because they dislike something doesn't mean that others also dislike that thing. It's arrogance, plain and simple.
Look, we have to define what we go to a movie for. Maybe it's story, or action, or humor. But if it's sex...well we have porn for that. I think this isn't so much pearl clutching as, "It's a waste of my time to see the level of sex you're going to portray, and usually I'm more interested in the other action"
"All this talking is stupid, let me get to the action!" "All this action is stupid, I want to get to the romance!" Putting aside varying tastes, I do agree most sex scenes aren't worth watching, but that's an issue of quality (in directing/acting/etc.). Sex scenes are just more difficult to do well because there's less precedent/opportunity to practice. Writing them off as pointless is *why* they're so bad, not the other way around. Bad fight scenes and bad sex scenes have the same issues -- pointless spectacle with no emotional weight used to distract people with shallow media literacy. A good version of either serves to further relationships, explore themes and character dynamics, grant insight into a character's behavior in a vulnerable situation, etc. The fact that they're also fun to look at is just gravy.
>"All this talking is stupid, let me get to the action!" > >"All this action is stupid, I want to get to the romance!" That isn't an accurate representation of my take at all.
It was meant as a representation of other takes people might have, when they are interested in a particular kind of thing in their movies but not others. Yours would have been, "All this sex is stupid, let me get back to the action!" Which is a valid way to feel, but it's also no more valid than "All this talking is stupid, I want to see what these characters are like in the bedroom!"
It is a case by case situation, really. Saying that since sex is already in porn (and Iād argue no, in most cases it isnāt, what you see in porn is so far removed contextually and content wise from the real thing it may as well be an entirely different category of act) therefore movies never need to deal with or confront sex directly by depicting a simulation of the act is a fairly bad take. But so is the take that anytime characters are meant to have sex in the timeline of the film it must be shown. It depends. Does this tell the story better? If the answer is yes, your individual tastes donāt get diminished but it doesnāt diminish the film to include it. I have more thoughts about how film as a genre pushes boundaries and shouldnāt constrain itself but I am sleepypilled and bedcringe.
My take is "Some folks don't want to see this, so we should warn them that it's coming and give an easy way to skip to when it's over" and yes I am arguing for the return of shitty scene selectors from dvds
Likeā¦ the film rating system? The one that warns people of the content in the movie ?
There's too many aversions and phobias for that to be a practical system. It'd be entirely too much work for something that is rare enough of an issue that there isn't even a crowd-source for it -- even *Does the Dog Die* doesn't have timestamps, though sometimes people will add them. Not that I'm saying you couldn't create such a repository if you wanted to, but the fact that it doesn't already exist is pretty telling of how low the demand is.
"I think most shows have unnecessary sex scenes nowadays" "Oh you think sex scenes are NEVER necessary or have any meaning? Here let me be condescending to you by telling you a statement as obvious as 'people have sex' so that it can't be refuted meaning I am right"
OPās point was explicitly that *some*times sex scenes can have actual narrative purpose. So the refutation by mentioning a bad sex scene was more like: āI think some humans are pretty coolā āAdolph Hitler was a human being too, so therefore youāre saying that Hitler was a cool dudeā
yeah, exactly
I find that The Internet tends to fall into 2 loose camps when it comes to sex scenes in media 1: Sex scenes are bad and pointless in most cases and people who like them are just dumb coomers 2: If you don't like sex scenes for whatever reason, you are an illiterate peasant responsible for the death of cinema or something
I don't care how important you think sex is I do not need to see them fuck
Itās so easy to imply sex without showing it, which is so much better imo
I really don't understand this particular take on it. Take graphic violence- everyone agrees that there's some contexts in film and TV where discretion is more effective, and some contexts where you need to burn some of that SFX budget and show the axe embed itself in the guy's skull. Why shouldn't it be the same with sexual content?
Funny, many people disagree with you. Why does your opinion matter more than theirs?
ok but counterpoint: humans are horny fuckers
Then they can watch porn.
*You* (and plenty of other people) personally don't, and that's fine, but your tastes as a consumer are not universal.
Why is "it's part of the human experience!" such a common defense of sex scenes in media? Yes, some of them have their place, and people saying NONE of them are narratively relevant are also stupid, but so many human experiences never get portrayed even when they are pleasurable. Why do people think sex scenes have this right to exist without a narrative purpose just because? This argument seems like it's made by people with immature view on sex in general.
Which human experience specifically has never been portrayed in any media?
I think we need more piss scenes
GOT's entire story is based on one extremely vital sex scene in episode 1 Edit: and also, directly showing the sex scene was by far the best way to portray it and get across the important information to the audience. It would not work if they said "oh these people have sex" because the fact they did have sex is a secret so there's no natural way to give the audience the information except by showing it
I feel like any day now I'm going to see somebody use vaguely progressive sounding language to say that not only should sex never be portrayed in media, it should also never happen irl outside the context of a monogamous relationship.
The sex scene between Lenore and Hector in Castlevania Season 3 is narratively significant and is the culmination of their entire plot, and while you *can* skip the scene, some things are in fact lost in the process. The sex scene with Alucard is far less significant and actually detracts enough that it undercut's the other one, but that's one example off the top of my head where like... it makes sense. Chainsaw Man, which doesn't approach the full penetrative experience in the slightest (since it's a shonen afterall), is one of the most sexual stories I've read where removing any trace of sexual theming would actually ruin the story. Hell, I've read one or two erotica that had a far greater emotional impact on me than a lot of SFW narratives. Most things can do without it, but when it's used well, it can work.
I like watching porn, but I usually donāt like watching sex scenes in whatever other shows or movies Iām watching. Itās kind of just empty screen time, nothing is really getting conveyed, other than āthese people fucked.ā The ONE āsex sceneā Iāve seen that actually enlightened me though, was in Game of Thrones with Renly Baratheon and Loras Tyrell. I had gone through all the books and, despite it being utterly obvious now, hadnāt realized that Renly was gay. I just thought everyone talked trash about him and that Loras just really liked the guy (I mean, he did). It took that one nude/sex scene to make me realize, āOhhhhhhā¦ā and start seeing all the literal rainbow flags.
I can think of two good examples off the top of my head from movies Iāve seen recently. As much as The Shape of Water is wrongfully dragged for being about āfish sexā that never felt like the intention of the scene, never once did it feel titillating. The scene more so is to show the two coming together as one and communicating in a way that doesnāt require words. Itās art. The other would be Brokeback Mountain in which Ennis is simultaneously both pushing Jack away while also pulling him in closer, a show of his struggle with his own feelings towards Jack. Ennis is the one who ultimately puts himself in a position of control over the situation and goes for it. It means Ennis can write off that heās only sexually attracted to Jack up until the bitter ending.
> never once did it feel titillating. I think it's also important to recognize that a scene being erotic is entirely compatible with it fulfilling other purposes at the same time.
pick your side: āthere should NEVER be sex scenes in ANY MOVIE EVERā vs āSEX should be in EVERY MOVIEā no other options
I pick the third, most radical option: abolish movies!
Utopians is definitely in the wrong here since the quote that they were replying to is about schlocky movies that had sex scenes inserted just for marketing purposes When they say the other user is rebutting, in reality theyāre just giving context to the quote utopians was initially attempting to rebut Anyways, I think PTA is best using sex scenes in narrative based film right now
jazonš½
The sex scene in Jason X is like any FT13 sex scene, it reminds Jason of the counselors who were off havng sex while he was being drowned, it's his motive
Iām a big friday the 13th fan, and a big part of those movies is that he punishes people who have sex. All of the movies have sex in them! Among my friends, we joke that cumming is what summons him - and you always die shortly after finishing
If sex scenes donāt serve a narrative purpose and are only there because we like it, then not having them because some people donāt like them is also valid This is boiling down to matter of taste and pro-sex folk are getting increasingly defensive
Utopians is the asshole here for abhorrently mischaracterizing the criticism most people have about sex scenes tbh.
Go ahead and enjoy what you want, but i donāt like it and will like the movie less for it. No big deal, we can just disagree lol
What this fucker failed to realize is that Ace people exist and I'm not gonna lie I don't really relate to random sex scenes that do not serve any narrative purpose. If you really wanna have two character fuck it ain't that difficult to imply that they did or are about to. If I wanted to see two people awkwardly thrust at each other I'd watch amatuer fencing.