466
submitted 1 year 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
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

And also not necessary. You don't need to see two people fucking to know they're in love. I assume you don't need to see your friends fucking to understand that they met someone they're really into.

[-] zoostation@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

Nothing is strictly necessary, you can tell instead of show any aspect of a relationship. But if drama is going to show a representative cross section of what human relationships are like, sex will be a part of that like romance and friendship aspects are.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

It's not about how no drama should show sex. It's about how it is regularly getting shoehorned in at the expense of story, character development or run time.

And they don't show a representative cross-section. Almost all sex in mainstream films is heteronormative and done by beautiful people. There are exceptions, but they are few and far between.

When we see a proportionally accurate representation of queer sex screens on our scenes, I'll concede that they're at least showing a broad representation, even if it does ignore all sorts of sexual kinks that would also need to be represented.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 1 year ago

What if it's not about love? Sex can be about many things and for the sake of the story.

Saying it only happens as the result of a perfect romance story is puritan and not beneficial to demystifying sex as an act that humans do.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

And yet generally they're romance scenes and not scenes involving lust or rape.

I am not the one saying it. Hollywood is.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 0 points 1 year ago

No you are speaking from a specific point.

Poor things had lots of sex, not about love or romance.

Teeth, is rape.

Even Pretty Woman has a sex scene that is about the lust of the main character with no kissing to show it.
There are plenty of examples to prove you wrong as much as you have examples of your point.

You are the one saying it cause you are making a broad statement from your perspective ignoring all that doesn't fit into it. It doesnt make you right to selectively pick your examples because it's the ones you think of and have a problem with you try to apply to the rest of it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You listed two indie movies that were not made within the Hollywood system and one example from 1990.

Are you really going to use those to claim that most sex scenes in Hollywood movies and TVs are not about romance?

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 1 year ago

Poor Things I watched in an AMC, fuck off with that.

You provided no examples and I provided multiple that are big films that played for massive audiences that sex is used for multiple reasons and not singulary one and gratuitous.

I am not going to list 20 films cause you would deny them just as easily from your place of predetermined correctness.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago

Yes. Indie films get national and international distribution. I'm not sure why you're not aware of that. They are still not made within the Hollywood system.

And you're right, 20 films would not show evidence that most sex scenes in Hollywood films are about romance. I think you're being a little silly about this. Romance stories are one of the most popular types of stories and have been for pretty much all of human history. Stories about rape and lust less so.

[-] Krauerking@lemy.lol 1 points 1 year ago

Sex has reasons to exist and your issues with it are your own. It's not just about them being not always about romance but about the characters when done right. They are not just about showing love in romance movies.

You bring absolutely nothing to an argument other than your own sense of correct and force others to bring forward their points so you can ignore them. It's, as always, a waste to reply to you.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

When did I ever say it was always about romance?

This was the first comment that started the conversation which you then entered into:

The sex scenes that most mainstream dramas have traditionally had are brief and not explicit.

To which my response was:

And also not necessary. You don’t need to see two people fucking to know they’re in love. I assume you don’t need to see your friends fucking to understand that they met someone they’re really into.

We were talking about mainstream dramas.

That is why I also said:

And yet generally they’re romance scenes and not scenes involving lust or rape.

I am not the one saying it. Hollywood is.

And also why I said:

Are you really going to use those to claim that most sex scenes in Hollywood movies and TV are not about romance?

I mean I don't know how I could have been more clear that I wasn't talking about every case.

this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2024
466 points (94.6% liked)

News

36251 readers
496 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


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. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


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 2 years ago
MODERATORS