Gen Z is turned off by onscreen sex, a new study finds. Those born between 1997 and 2012 apparently prefer to see platonic relationships in film and TV.
Apparently I’m the only one that likes being titillated by movies. I don’t get the “it adds nothing to the plot” complaint. Tons of movies have action scenes and gratuitous violence that add nothing to the plot, yet i don’t see complaints about that. 90% of John Wick is gratuitous violence that added nothing to the plot, but I still love it.
I think this says more about American prudishness and people’s unhealthy attitudes towards sex than anything.
Bunch of unnecessary death? Cool and fun! An unnecessary titty? Awkward and gratuitous.
Fuck all of you. I want more nudity and sex in my movies and the comparative lack of it compared to the 80s and 90s feels like we’re going out of our way to exclude a huge part of life from art because it makes the prudes out there uncomfortable. But those same people are happy to watch nameless dudes get creatively and graphically killed for half a movie’s run time.
I want more gratuitous sex and less gratuitous moral pandering
After reading the article it looks like they aren’t being prude. They just wanted to see more healthier relationship spectrums. I think that’s a fair call. Not all story points have to be about sex.
Plus representation matters.
There are asexuals. And many other sexuality types in the world. Violence is not making a point on that so I don’t know where you’re going with that.
There is also echoing healthier relationships between men and women. I’ve known far too many people who cry friendzone and watch complete shit like friends and HIMYM and the various sitcoms that echo very dehumanizing, simplistic, unhealthy relationships between men and women where they stubbornly won’t relate to each other and sexuality is used as a tolerance or payoff of each other’s existence.
So whiile we could debate gratuitous violence has an impact, I think bad relationships and how they have been presented as a template has had a different impact they are trying to discuss.
I’m fine with asexuals and representation. But currently it feels like 99% of media is catering to either asexuals or homosexuals.
And I bring up violence to point out the double standard. When it comes to nudity people scrutinize if it’s relevant to the plot - but don’t tend to do that with violence or clunky moral preaching.
oh please you don’t need representation because you don’t want to have sex. that has been a thing for as long as can be and no one has a problem with it. the worst oppression you might face is family members asking you when you will be having a child
when did i say it takes anything away from me? I’m just saying it’s not particularly important every single minor facet of life needs to shoehorn representation for such a minor thing as not wanting to have sex.
With all due respect, have you read the article? Attributing this to prudishness misses a lot of what’s actually being said: that shoe-horning in romance or sex for no reason is the problem, as well as lack of attention being given to developing platonic relationships. Exploring non-romantic or sexual relationships better doesn’t necessarily mean cutting out sex and romance, and imo, would likely lead to better sex and romance in TV and movies.
But I agree with you also, that gratuitous sex and nudity can be used to great effect. Another user https://lemmy.world/comment/4888355 (don’t know how to link comments, hopefully this will work) posted a link to the article “Everyone is beautiful, no-one is horny” above, and this really highlights the problem on this side of things, in my view
Because one of John Wicks main reasons for existing is choreographed violence? And the violence is sort of character building in the way it shows John Wick’s skill as a killer. There is a case to be made here where sex is sort of superfluous, because unlike John Wick, choreographed sex generally does not contribute to story beats unless it’s a porno. And there’s nothing unhealthy about being uncomfortable watching an intimate moment unless your porn addled brain has made you desensitizes to sex.
I’m not saying I want a movie with non-stop sex, that would obviously just be porn. I’m saying the “it doesn’t progress the plot” complaint about sex in movies is bullshit when those same people watch other movies that are full of gratuitous shit that doesn’t move the plot (violence, action, contrived drama).
Movies have been all but stripped of sexuality other than clumsy attempts at pandering to lgbt people. I think some of it is an overcorrection from Weinstein and Me-Too, some of it is just America’s puritan cultural hangups that have always been there, and some of it is the effect of Gen-Z growing up with an abundance of porn and now they can’t associate sex/nudity on a screen as art (or even just fun).
Violence and action do drive plot. They can build character and be narratively cathartic. Sex in movies does not do that because sex is a subjective experience between two people.
violence is not the same as sex. it’s expected to see violence in an action movie. it would be expected to see sex in a porno. i’m not surprised people don’t want sex in their action movies
You’re right, it’s way worse. And it’s disturbing that we’re culturally encouraged to find fun in violence but sex needs to be cordoned off to a containment genre and excised from mainstream art. I’m not saying it needs to be in every action movie - but its been obvious for a while they’re going out of their way to avoid it even in places where it would make sense or be fun.
I don’t want porn. I want art to stop awkwardly excluding a major part of life.
“Everyone is beautiful and no one is horny.” It’s like movies these days are all set in this weird Twilight Zone world where sexuality just isn’t a thing. I find this far creepier than the gratuitous sex scenes of the 80s.
This is because some people aren’t on the spectrum and ignored. They deserve representation. If you find that weird this is more a problem with you because maybe you have been submerged into sexuality for far too long that anything lacking sex is weird. It’s like being addicted to a food taste and realizing there are other types of food and you think it’s weird that other types of food exist , well then : you’re the weird one.
Porn is super easy to access. There are more hours of porn recorded than there are hours of my life left.
R-rated sex scenes are literally competing with a host of just better options.
Not once has a fake sex scene in a movie not trigger cringe in me. It’s nice to see the actresses’ titties but that is it. Fade to black, imply they fucked and move on. Pornhub literally is a click away.
The fact that you only equate sex and nudity to porn shows the problem. Sex and nudity can be fun, dramatic, scary, or funny depending on the context. It wouldn’t be “competing” with porn.
I can’t suspend my disbelief when media pretends sexuality just doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant.
It’s not 100%, someone else brought up Crank which has a hilarious sex scene that I wouldn’t cut and it’s vital to the plot.
Most sex scenes just have this feel of “the director wanted to see actresses’ naked and had the power of authority and money to make it happen”. It doesn’t feel fun it has an air of exploitation to it, which I’ll admit lots of porn does too, but not all. The best porn is when everyone involved likes it.
I think a sex scene in an otherwise not-pornographic film needs to be second guessed. Does cutting it ruin the plot? Could it just be implied and move on?
I just think they really need to justify it more than normally do.
I just think they really need to justify it more than normally do.
Why? Why can’t they just have it for fun like any other type of gratuitous scene in a movie? I agree it’s not usually done well, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be done.
99% of previous attempts have been, what I would call “weak shit”. It’s up to the writers/director/actors to bring their A game and prove themselves, because so far, I’ve yet to see one i wouldn’t mind being cut out entirely.
Apparently I’m the only one that likes being titillated by movies. I don’t get the “it adds nothing to the plot” complaint. Tons of movies have action scenes and gratuitous violence that add nothing to the plot, yet i don’t see complaints about that. 90% of John Wick is gratuitous violence that added nothing to the plot, but I still love it.
I think this says more about American prudishness and people’s unhealthy attitudes towards sex than anything.
Bunch of unnecessary death? Cool and fun! An unnecessary titty? Awkward and gratuitous.
Fuck all of you. I want more nudity and sex in my movies and the comparative lack of it compared to the 80s and 90s feels like we’re going out of our way to exclude a huge part of life from art because it makes the prudes out there uncomfortable. But those same people are happy to watch nameless dudes get creatively and graphically killed for half a movie’s run time.
I want more gratuitous sex and less gratuitous moral pandering
After reading the article it looks like they aren’t being prude. They just wanted to see more healthier relationship spectrums. I think that’s a fair call. Not all story points have to be about sex.
Plus representation matters.
There are asexuals. And many other sexuality types in the world. Violence is not making a point on that so I don’t know where you’re going with that.
There is also echoing healthier relationships between men and women. I’ve known far too many people who cry friendzone and watch complete shit like friends and HIMYM and the various sitcoms that echo very dehumanizing, simplistic, unhealthy relationships between men and women where they stubbornly won’t relate to each other and sexuality is used as a tolerance or payoff of each other’s existence.
So whiile we could debate gratuitous violence has an impact, I think bad relationships and how they have been presented as a template has had a different impact they are trying to discuss.
I’m fine with asexuals and representation. But currently it feels like 99% of media is catering to either asexuals or homosexuals.
And I bring up violence to point out the double standard. When it comes to nudity people scrutinize if it’s relevant to the plot - but don’t tend to do that with violence or clunky moral preaching.
Asexuals and homosexuals are just the tip of the ice berg.
Comparing to violence purposely misses the point.
oh please you don’t need representation because you don’t want to have sex. that has been a thing for as long as can be and no one has a problem with it. the worst oppression you might face is family members asking you when you will be having a child
You talk like anyone getting represented is taking away from you? That right there is what being a snowflake is.
when did i say it takes anything away from me? I’m just saying it’s not particularly important every single minor facet of life needs to shoehorn representation for such a minor thing as not wanting to have sex.
Yeah because you are perfectly exampling how a rational person who isn’t triggered by something that doesn’t specifically cater to them reacts. /s
who is triggered lol just posting my opinion on a discussion forum, take a chill pill
With all due respect, have you read the article? Attributing this to prudishness misses a lot of what’s actually being said: that shoe-horning in romance or sex for no reason is the problem, as well as lack of attention being given to developing platonic relationships. Exploring non-romantic or sexual relationships better doesn’t necessarily mean cutting out sex and romance, and imo, would likely lead to better sex and romance in TV and movies.
But I agree with you also, that gratuitous sex and nudity can be used to great effect. Another user https://lemmy.world/comment/4888355 (don’t know how to link comments, hopefully this will work) posted a link to the article “Everyone is beautiful, no-one is horny” above, and this really highlights the problem on this side of things, in my view
Personally, my problem with sex in shows and movies is that it’s blatantly not titillating. Hollywood sex scenes are just awfully done/acted/shot.
Because one of John Wicks main reasons for existing is choreographed violence? And the violence is sort of character building in the way it shows John Wick’s skill as a killer. There is a case to be made here where sex is sort of superfluous, because unlike John Wick, choreographed sex generally does not contribute to story beats unless it’s a porno. And there’s nothing unhealthy about being uncomfortable watching an intimate moment unless your porn addled brain has made you desensitizes to sex.
I’m not saying I want a movie with non-stop sex, that would obviously just be porn. I’m saying the “it doesn’t progress the plot” complaint about sex in movies is bullshit when those same people watch other movies that are full of gratuitous shit that doesn’t move the plot (violence, action, contrived drama).
Movies have been all but stripped of sexuality other than clumsy attempts at pandering to lgbt people. I think some of it is an overcorrection from Weinstein and Me-Too, some of it is just America’s puritan cultural hangups that have always been there, and some of it is the effect of Gen-Z growing up with an abundance of porn and now they can’t associate sex/nudity on a screen as art (or even just fun).
Violence and action do drive plot. They can build character and be narratively cathartic. Sex in movies does not do that because sex is a subjective experience between two people.
As a fan of Greek mythology - if you don’t think sex can drive a plot you need to read more stories.
Valid. Though it’s more the effect of sex that drives the plot, not the performance itself.
violence is not the same as sex. it’s expected to see violence in an action movie. it would be expected to see sex in a porno. i’m not surprised people don’t want sex in their action movies
You’re right, it’s way worse. And it’s disturbing that we’re culturally encouraged to find fun in violence but sex needs to be cordoned off to a containment genre and excised from mainstream art. I’m not saying it needs to be in every action movie - but its been obvious for a while they’re going out of their way to avoid it even in places where it would make sense or be fun.
A lot of people like sex to be a private thing. This is not unique to western culture either.
Oh please there’s a difference between porn a movie. People watch porn to jack off, not to enjoy the story.
Pornhub is somewhere over there ——>
I don’t want porn. I want art to stop awkwardly excluding a major part of life.
“Everyone is beautiful and no one is horny.” It’s like movies these days are all set in this weird Twilight Zone world where sexuality just isn’t a thing. I find this far creepier than the gratuitous sex scenes of the 80s.
This is because some people aren’t on the spectrum and ignored. They deserve representation. If you find that weird this is more a problem with you because maybe you have been submerged into sexuality for far too long that anything lacking sex is weird. It’s like being addicted to a food taste and realizing there are other types of food and you think it’s weird that other types of food exist , well then : you’re the weird one.
Why are you booing him? He’s right.
Porn is super easy to access. There are more hours of porn recorded than there are hours of my life left.
R-rated sex scenes are literally competing with a host of just better options.
Not once has a fake sex scene in a movie not trigger cringe in me. It’s nice to see the actresses’ titties but that is it. Fade to black, imply they fucked and move on. Pornhub literally is a click away.
The fact that you only equate sex and nudity to porn shows the problem. Sex and nudity can be fun, dramatic, scary, or funny depending on the context. It wouldn’t be “competing” with porn.
I can’t suspend my disbelief when media pretends sexuality just doesn’t exist or isn’t relevant.
It’s not 100%, someone else brought up Crank which has a hilarious sex scene that I wouldn’t cut and it’s vital to the plot.
Most sex scenes just have this feel of “the director wanted to see actresses’ naked and had the power of authority and money to make it happen”. It doesn’t feel fun it has an air of exploitation to it, which I’ll admit lots of porn does too, but not all. The best porn is when everyone involved likes it.
I think a sex scene in an otherwise not-pornographic film needs to be second guessed. Does cutting it ruin the plot? Could it just be implied and move on?
I just think they really need to justify it more than normally do.
Why? Why can’t they just have it for fun like any other type of gratuitous scene in a movie? I agree it’s not usually done well, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be done.
99% of previous attempts have been, what I would call “weak shit”. It’s up to the writers/director/actors to bring their A game and prove themselves, because so far, I’ve yet to see one i wouldn’t mind being cut out entirely.
In short, it’s a skill issue.