466
Teens Want Less Sex in Movies and TV Shows, Study Finds
(variety.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
466 points (94.6% liked)
News
23367 readers
2530 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If it does not serve a purpose for the plot, then it’s not needed. Simple as that.
As I said here:
The point of John Wick is the gratuitous violence. The plot of John Wick is in service to delivering gratuitous violence. The name for a movie whose plot is in service to delivering gratuitous sex is "pornography." Tasteful, artistic nudity is one thing. Even sex, in service to the plot or purpose of the movie, is another thing. But sex just to sell the movie or check a box is not a thing: we're now talking smut. Cheap, common, vulgar smut.
"Everyone is ugly and everyone is fucking" is just real life. If you want "Everyone is beautiful and everyone is fucking," good news- that's called porn already, and there's so much of it. I like smut, and porn. Which is why I can recognize softcore in movies when I see it. Stop me if you've heard this one before, but if I wanted to watch porn I'd go home and masturbate.
I congratulate you on your personal sexual liberation. Please keep your jollies to yourself- in private- while we pitiful repressed twilight zone voyeurs awkwardly exclude sex from our public lives.
I'm not saying I want movies that have as much sex as John Wick has violence - obviously that would just be porn. My point is: why does sex have this obligation to move the plot forward when we give a pass to other gratuitous scenes (action, drama, violence, etc)?
The fact that you only equate sex/nudity to porn reveals the problem. Seems like many young people today can’t associate sex/nudity on a screen as art, or even just fun, anymore - because in their minds sex/nudity is inextricably tied to porn. The reality is sex/nudity can be fun, dramatic, scary, or funny depending on the context. It can have a place in many kinds of stories, and comparing it to porn is like saying “we have war documentaries so we don’t need war movies.” They are completely different things!!
Who said it has to be part of your "public life"? I'm not saying we should all want to watch Wild Things with our parents, but not every movie needs to be a 'family movie' that you'd want to watch in polite company. Some movies are best watched with rowdy friends or an intimate partner - and I'm sad that those types of movies have been in decline. The younger generations seem far more prudish than I ever expected.
I took the trouble to delineate tasteful nudity, or sex that actually serves a purpose in the plot (your fine examples of drama or fear are great suggestions, though I worry about the encroachment of porn with a "fun sex scene") from common smut.
As for public life: the theater is a public place, my thought goes no further than that.
Thinking back now, I can even empathize with some of your feelings here. In the abu dhabi branch of the louvre, there is an ancient marble statue of a man that stands twice my height if my memory serves. Its genitals have been roughly gouged out with chisels in stark contrast to the smooth curve of skin and cloth for the entire rest of the statue. It's nauseating and disrespectful not just to the creator's work and vision but to human dignity. I think me seeing that statue and feeling what I felt is something comparable to how you now feel. I'm not afraid of or ashamed of the human form or human sexuality, but these things have a time and a place and a respect due that is often not granted or even considered.
So maybe im just watching the wrong movies. what not-porn movie are you watching that treats sex with the dignity and respect it deserves?
Its very simple. Sex is boring to look at. Even porn. Whats the longest you watched a porn movie? 5 minutes? 15? Let's top it off at 30 minutes. Just to be safe.
Violence is not boring. Stuff like John Wick grabs you by the ass and puts you on a roller coaster.
Want proof? Look at gaming. How big are the dating sims? Now compare that with call of duty/etc.
So, me? Yeah, stop with the xxl steamy sex scenes in movies. Very rarely do they add anything more then an interlude. A time to get coffee. To look at your notifications. At best.
To be clear: I love sex. My sex.
I always watch through the entire porn movie. For the story.
Sometimes there's a bit to much sexy times so if they could tone it down a bit that'd be pretty nice.
Character development? It might not directly impact the plot or move the story forward, but how a character relates to sex can tell us (the audience) a lot about them.
Exactly this. A lot of media is atrocious about shoehorning in things even if they are jarring and dont make sense. Token characters (race, sexuality), token ideologies (veganism, feminism, religion, etc), stereotypes, you name it.
Edit: and famous celebrities for no apparent reason. Surprise! Your favorite character from the book this movie is based on is now played by Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson.
Yeah because everyone in media needs to be straight, white, and Christian. 🙄
Representation matters.
Sure, but I get what they mean. Sometimes you have a minority character that doesn't very much seem to interact with the plot, nor has many discernable personality trait beyond being part of a minority.
Representation matters, but it should be done in a way that makes the characters actual people, not just a tick in a checkbox.
And there is definitely a tokenism issue in Hollywood. There's a reason why the "gay best friend" is a Hollywood stereotype.
They're saying that characters irrelevant to the plot having diverse roles feels forced. Wouldn't you agree diverse roles should be in meaningful roles like leads?
No, I don’t think I would agree. If I walk down the street, I’m going to see people of all types. Why should including people of all types in media be any different? Having more diversity in lead roles is preferable, yes, but I don’t see what feels “forced” about more diversity across all roles. If anything, it seems like that would be more realistic.
People downvoting as a reactionary for making them feel bad, but I agree.
Having a stereotype as a character for the sake of "representation" is not representing anything good and is not doing justice to anyone who would be more than a single note character.
I'm tired of bad writing and gimmicks to get people to have a reaction to an otherwise bad story, but that doesn't mean I want movies with none of the topics in it, I just want it to mean something when it's there.
Exactly.
(Natural/Organic storytelling) The Boys: Maeve, Kimiko, and Starlight, beating the shit out of Stormfront
Vs
(Forced/jarring) That scene in Avengers Endgame, where every female character from across a massive battlefield appeared next to each other. As opposed to the scene in Infinity War with Proxima Midnight which felt fairly natural.
Or even better, movies actually dedicated to telling stories about underrepresented cultures such as The Woman King
I remember seeing trailers about that, completely forgot to actually go watch it. I'll add it to my watch list (someday I'll start watching things on the list)