0
Did anybody mention "Monster's Ball"?
Sexuality is big part of the life of some people and a small or even absent part of the life of others. There is a spectrum of attitudes and behaviors.
The issue is how that spectrum is represented in art. For commercial film, every scene is evaluated by focus groups to evaluate the commercial impact of each image. There is pressure to exclude imagery that "prunes" the willingness of patrons to view the film. Thus, you get a generic representation of values in commercial films.
Independent film will use controversial imagery to attract a niche audience.
In terms of sexual identity, there are two basic types of people: The vast majority are Freudians. At the core of these people is that their sexual identity is linked to their destructive, animal sub-conscience and thus, sex is associated on some level with guilt and shame. This guilt and shame fuels sexual repression and the sex industries.
But there are some people who are sexually liberated where they have shed the guilt and shame and feel free to explore their sexual identity in a manner similar to the way they might do yoga, martial arts, work-out or learn to cook really good food. But this group is in a minority and they are threatening to the Freudians. Sexually liberated women are especially subject to scorn for the Freudians (especially Freudian women).
Sexually liberated people will view sexual imagery in film the same as they might in watching any other kind of human interaction. While the Freudians will experience guilt, shame and discomfort in the face of arousing imagery.
Commercial film are economically constrained by the Freudian majority. Sexuality seems to be progressively replaced with images of actors being sexually desirable without actually being sexually active. They "look" sexy but they are not sexual. Intimate relationships are replaced by expressions of power.
Another big question in this thread is whether there has been a drift in general attitude about sex in society at large in recent decades. As an older fart, this seems to be clearly yes, with Freudian attitudes dominating in the younger generations.
A film that deserves special mention here is the indie horror movie:
"It Follows."
The movie concerns a venereal curse (which is clever!) but the ceaselessly pursuing curse symbolizing the anxiety over sexual identity and of sexual acts in younger generations. Ultimately, sexual activity is viewed as dirty and dangerous. Sexual imagery is frequently linked to addictive vices like drug abuse, gangster culture, etc. Either way, intimacy is missing.
The real crux of the matter is the relationship between sexual activity and the difficulties of physical and emotional intimacy in the context of virtual realities replacing and displacing physical realities. Are real physical relationships bring replaced by virtual relationships, porn, auto-eroticism, etc.
In the end, sexual imagery in film will be met with a spectrum of responses by the audiences. Commercial film seldomly intentionally tries to make the audience feel uncomfortable. Since sex is an uncomfortable subject for such a wide swath of society, we will see less of if it in commercial film.
However, it is common for indie film to intentionally try to make the audience uncomfortable as a form of artistic expression. If we see less sexual imagery in independent film, then that trend might suggest a broad-based shrinking interest in sex in general among the film patrons, even in the art circles.
So, is sexual imagery (Sexually active characters) growing less common in current independent film?