371
submitted 20 hours ago by lousyd@lemmy.sdf.org to c/news@lemmy.world

I am not a teen.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 90 points 18 hours ago

I'm not a teen (far from it), but I'm with the kids on this one. The vast majority of sex scenes in movies are awful. They're awkward and totally unrealistic. It completely takes you out of the movie. Most sex scenes are not engrossing or engaging, they don't immerse you in the story, they push you out of it.

Most every sex scene feels like it was made by someone who's never had sex. Every angle is the right angle, every thrust is ecstasy, it's nonsense. It's like someone who thinks the covers of romance novels are depictions of real life.

There are a lot of intimate moments that can be portrayed convincingly enough on film, but sex is rarely one of them. And it's just not necessary. Let the audience infer, let us use our imaginations.

[-] JackbyDev@programming.dev 3 points 7 hours ago

I'm sorry, but this take feels out of touch. Every shot in a movie is at the right angle. Of course they're unrealistic. Movies are unrealistic. Sure, some try to take a more gritty, grounded approach but in general art is trying to capture the highest and lowest points of life. Obviously it's going to be unrealistic.

[-] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 hours ago

I think they're probably referring to films that were otherwise meant to be realistic, then there is this terrible, unrealistic sex scene that is just a distraction

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago

Fair enough, though calling this stuff art is a bit much. Most TV shows and movies are better described as visual junk food than art. I think a bare minimum standard is for the work to stick with you longer than 5 minutes after you finish watching it.

[-] TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Fair enough, but when you're trying to recreate something as intimate and vulnerable as sex, it just stands out more. Of course when I'm watching a movie I consciously know that what I'm seeing on the screen isn't real, but when it's done right I'm so immersed that that part of my brain turns off and I'm able to get completely lost in the story or spectacle. But more often than not, when there's a sex scene I get completely taken out of it and instead of seeing characters having sex, I see actors engaged in an awkward simulation.

[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

It's just boring, and defeats the purpose of good story telling IMO. It's either uninteresting showing very little, or it's like porn, and when I watch a movie, I'm generally not in the mood for porn.
If they had great sex, it may not mean the same to everybody. But if you show them at a later point, like breakfast or something, and they are glowing and smiling bigly to each other, we all know what happened, and how it went.

[-] lennybird@lemmy.world 17 points 16 hours ago

C'mon, didn't you wanna see Oppenheimer reach criticality?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 8 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

There's a really good BBC miniseries about Oppenheimer made back in the 80s with Sam Waterston in the lead role.

On the one hand, it doesn't have mind-blowing special effects.

On the other hand, there's no sex scenes in a show about the scientist who helped make the atom bomb because why would watch a TV show about him and hope to see him fucking?

I wouldn't even want sex scenes in a Feynman movie and he was fucking every woman who was willing. It's just not a necessary thing to tell his story. You can show he was a horndog and not show him fucking.

Anyway, here's the miniseries.

https://archive.org/details/oppenheimer1980

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 17 points 14 hours ago

~~Soft core~~

~~Hard core~~

Demon core

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world 19 points 16 hours ago

I agree, every sex scene looks like something that is not how people have sex. Except for the guy in office space https://youtu.be/JNVqMgCAHmk. That sex was real.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 20 points 16 hours ago

I have a friend who's dated a bit but has never really had a boyfriend. I think she gives up too soon because she expects a Hallmark movie where everything's perfect and every kiss is magical.

[-] idiomaddict@lemmy.world 0 points 3 hours ago

I don’t know if that’s necessarily a bad thing, I kind of wish my standards had been higher when I was younger. I dated a lot of people longer than I should have, thinking that that was as good as it got. The fact that she is going on dates is a good thing- it means she’s at least getting an idea of how she fits with different types of people and she’s socially active.

Obviously she might overdo it, but as long as she’s content alone as well, she’s not really hurting herself. I guess it’s a function of how regretful a person she is and her age.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago

She's 30 and has a physical disability that is obvious when she walks and requires her to use a wheelchair for longer distances. That makes dating difficult, so i hate to see her give up on people just because there's no magic on the first couple of dates.

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 15 points 16 hours ago

And no one is laughing or having a good time. It's always some serious ass business.

[-] HonoraryMancunian@lemmy.world 11 points 10 hours ago
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
371 points (94.7% liked)

News

23232 readers
4249 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.


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