Gen Z wants less sex in movies

Tools    





It had a different name and context, though, didn't it? Used to be a shallow form of a relationship without a special name for it, I guess.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1632708/?ref_=ttfc_fc_tt

Made in 2011, meaning it was written/directed/starring people born in the 80s, a generation removed from Gen Z.

The point is if you ask somebody if they want to see more content with friendships, they might include friends with benefits in there, so that would mean they still want to see content with sex.
Friends and friends with benefits are different categories, and the study specifically talks about friendship and platonic relationships, which are non-sexual. I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that someone would interpret a question about friendship as also including a friends-with-benefits situation.

I mean, they gave a pretty broad definition of "romance" to the kids: "An ongoing relationship between partners involving expressions of affection and intimacy (which may or may not include sex)."



How is this a problem with the study? It is presented in a way that is super easy to read, they clearly mark places where there were statistically significant differences between groups, they show you the percentages, they provide a glossary of terms to understand how the young people were presented with the questions, and in many cases they include the actual wording of the question so that you can understand some of why the people might have responded this way.

The problem isn't with the study, the problem is with people trying to flatten the results into more-easily digestible pieces and not actually looking at what the results say.

For example, when given the statement "I want to see more content that focuses on friendships/platonic relationships", basically 50% agreed, 35% were neutral, and 15% disagreed. The study's headlines reflect what they found for majorities or near-majorities, but it doesn't in any way imply that this group is a monolith, and they explicitly say this in both the introduction and conclusion.

I find the pearl-clutching in this thread really silly.

STUDY: Hey, would you like to see more platonic/friendship based stories?
KIDS: Um, yeah, about half of us would and a third of us wouldn't mind it.
ADULTS: OMGGGG!!!!! THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL THE SEX!!! THIS CRAZY GENERATION IS GOING TO STRIP EVERY EROTIC BONE OUT OF CINEMA AS WE KNOW IT!!!
Yes---that would be a better way to put it. The study/methodology I am sure are fine, I was more trying to talk about the simplification that can happen at the level of results-interpretation.



Yes, it is inherently shallow. Who cares tho?
Well, your loaded question was confrontational, so I couldn't help but make my response confrontational, too. As to who cares, I think we all should care, since this very topic addresses a perceived change in what young people want from art. And the change has to be cultural because it cannot be any other kind of change, right? So why is it surprising that I'd talk about the modern culture?

Both sides engage it willingly and thatís on them. This wasnít your line. It was very much a criticism against the culture, which is usually what one rants about when it is t something they can appreciate.
My line was that the modern generation might have different definitions for things, and that could produce some issues. I'm reminded of an American girl who kept claiming she was a virgin only to admit she had oral sex with dozens of guys. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if some people saw friends with benefits as a subcategory of friends, especially since it has 'friends' in its name! And you can add nuance to the question, and pose exact definitions, but most people will ignore them anyway.

But I think this is a wider sign of our culture that is increasingly vague about the definitions of things and unwilling to stick to the original meanings of words. These days every second non-leftist is a fascist, every second crime against humanity is genocide, and every second person you disagree with is an incel. People forgo using words in their actual context, with their original meaning, thus making them meaningless.

I donít think youíre an incel, but more of a vocel (voluntarily celibate) but with the angst of an incel at times
I'm not sure what the idea of a vocel entails, though. If I don't want to have sex with the very next willing person, does it make me a vocel, or just a normal human being who isn't controlled by their urges?

I don't care about labels, though. I think nowadays people reduce themselves and others to just a bunch of labels, and that's terrible. I don't have any angst whatsoever. I just enjoy being facetious/frolicky on the internet.

Itís fine if youíre a Vocel, (and you donít need to confirm for privacy reasons) but thatís your decision, and responses like that come off as bitter for everyone who didnít follow the same decision.
Are people that sensitive? Surely if they made some willful decisions in their lives, they have a very good reason for them and can defend them, in which case they shouldn't get angry. And if they did some things they regret doing, then they should agree with somebody who criticizes them, too. I find that most people show anger when they do something, know it's bad, and regret it, but are unwilling to admit this is the case.

Your last line is spot on, but he reverse of that is also true of those who abstain
And the reverse would be what claim, exactly?

Also, the modern world vilifies men (well, at least white heterosexual men) for pursuing sex.
I think this is an exaggeration, and I'm not willing to steer off-topic, but I think there's an obvious contradiction in how we're now told that all forms of sexual expression and sexual freedom are fine but at the same time that some forms of them are not fine. We're led to believe that sex is no longer dangerous and is a simple form of pleasure that we can separate from love and emotions. But we're also led to believe that sex is still extremely dangerous and that it's really easy to cross the line and make it a nightmare. But that's a contradiction. Either sex can get really serious and hazardous real quick or it can't. And if it can, then sex cannot be this casual, benign thing.

Made in 2011, meaning it was written/directed/starring people born in the 80s, a generation removed from Gen Z.
Sure, that's why I said "And that this was also the case way before Gen Z might very well be true". I think, however, that this thing is progressive (pun not intended) and gradual. It didn't start with Gen Z, but Gen Z might be the first generation where we can observe the results of the policies enforced on the previous generations. You know, people who did those things become parents and then they teach their children. Now it's interesting to analyze the children, less so to analyze the parents.

Friends and friends with benefits are different categories, and the study specifically talks about friendship and platonic relationships, which are non-sexual. I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that someone would interpret a question about friendship as also including a friends-with-benefits situation.
To say that about everyone in the study? Agree it'd be a stretch. But to say that some people can have different interpretations of the questions (even if the questions tried to be as unambiguous as possible) is not a stretch IMO. Many people claim certain things solely based on their own, subjective interpretations of some words, and closer scrutiny shows that they simply mean a different thing using the same words. Now, I'm not claiming this happened during this particular study. All I'm saying is what if it did?

I mean, they gave a pretty broad definition of "romance" to the kids: "An ongoing relationship between partners involving expressions of affection and intimacy (which may or may not include sex)."
I think friends with benefits could fit in there, or at least some forms of it could. It all boils down to how you define things like affection and intimacy.
__________________
Preserving the sanctity of cinema. Subtitles preferred, mainstream dismissed, and always in search of yet another film you have never heard of. I speak fluent French New Wave.



The trick is not minding
Well, your loaded question was confrontational, so I couldn't help but make my response confrontational, too. As to who cares, I think we all should care, since this very topic addresses a perceived change in what young people want from art. And the change has to be cultural because it cannot be any other kind of change, right? So why is it surprising that I'd talk about the modern culture?

My line was that the modern generation might have different definitions for things, and that could produce some issues. I'm reminded of an American girl who kept claiming she was a virgin only to admit she had oral sex with dozens of guys. Given that, I wouldn't be surprised if some people saw friends with benefits as a subcategory of friends, especially since it has 'friends' in its name! And you can add nuance to the question, and pose exact definitions, but most people will ignore them anyway.

But I think this is a wider sign of our culture that is increasingly vague about the definitions of things and unwilling to stick to the original meanings of words. These days every second non-leftist is a fascist, every second crime against humanity is genocide, and every second person you disagree with is an incel. People forgo using words in their actual context, with their original meaning, thus making them meaningless.

I'm not sure what the idea of a vocel entails, though. If I don't want to have sex with the very next willing person, does it make me a vocel, or just a normal human being who isn't controlled by their urges?

I don't care about labels, though. I think nowadays people reduce themselves and others to just a bunch of labels, and that's terrible. I don't have any angst whatsoever. I just enjoy being facetious/frolicky on the internet.

Are people that sensitive? Surely if they made some willful decisions in their lives, they have a very good reason for them and can defend them, in which case they shouldn't get angry. And if they did some things they regret doing, then they should agree with somebody who criticizes them, too. I find that most people show anger when they do something, know it's bad, and regret it, but are unwilling to admit this is the case.

And the reverse would be what claim, exactly? .
As Takoma pointed out already, everyone, including yourself, are overreacting to this Poll.

You can be a virgin while still giving oral sex, yes. By its very definition, the girl in your story would be correct. Iím not sure why one who think otherwise.

And yes, voluntarily not giving into your urges would make one a Vocel.

I used the term incel because of your perceived issue with people having casual sex, and it isnít the first time youíve mentioned it, as youíve made your disdain for ďhookup cultureĒ known. Your tone and criticism is exactly what I have come across from other incels Iíve known in real life. It comes off very much as a lonely guy on the internet ranting against everyone else having sex. Thatís the vibe you were, and have, given off.

You say you donít like labels? Thatís rather disingenuous, especially with how fond you are with referring to others as ďnormiesĒ.

Yes people are sensitive. I know I am, at least. In this case, though, I donít find sex, or casual sex, as bad, as youíre implying. Itís actually fun. It amuses me when people who arenít engaging in sex feel the need to criticize it. As if theyíre angry for their own decision that denies them an experience, but wonít blame themselves so take to the internet to openly express their disgust at those who have. It reeks of self loathing.

And finally, to answer your last question, the culture that likes to symbolize virgins as some pure specimen but shame and criticize those who arenít.


Anyways, Iíll extend an apology for for the incel comment because of the suspicion youíre likely a Vocel. Which means if voluntary, itís a choice.



Let's back away from the broader culture war stuff, please, including any psychoanalysis of each other. The topic is sex in cinema, not sex in general.

And just generally, I'll say that any large group of people will, if taken as a whole, will seem to contradict themselves. Within the generation under question there are all manner of beliefs that cannot be aggregated and audited as if they were the ideology of a single person. They will disagree among themselves, sometimes a lot. And thank goodness for that.

Does Gen Z have some cognitive dissonance about sex? Probably! Most generations have weird tensions, and young people in particular tend to have weird ad-hoc beliefs that don't resolve into something coherent until much later, if they ever do.



You can be a virgin while still giving oral sex, yes. By its very definition, the girl in your story would be correct. Iím not sure why one who think otherwise.
This clearly can't be true. A virgin is somebody who never had sex. And oral sex is sex. So if you had oral sex, you're not a virgin anymore. There are many ways of having sex other than vagina-penetrative sex. If we make the definition of losing virginity so narrow that you'd only lose it if you penetrated a vagina, then gay men would be eternal virgins! But this is ridiculous.

And yes, voluntarily not giving into your urges would make one a Vocel.
But this makes no sense, as it assumes everybody is so desperate, that they jump at any given opportunity to just have sex, without weighing in the risks, consequences, etc. You may be sexually liberated but still choose not to have sex at a given point in time. Does this automatically make you a vocel? This is a weird interpretation of celibacy, too, which was originally the idea of monks, priests, and sages who assumed life-long abstinence for whatever reason. Simply having standards is not celibacy but common sense.

I used the term incel because of your perceived issue with people having casual sex, and it isnít the first time youíve mentioned it, as youíve made your disdain for ďhookup cultureĒ known.
I'd be hard-pressed to take seriously anybody who doesn't have a sort of disdain (or at least some reservations) for the hookup culture. As for the issue, I might have some issues with the thing, but mostly not with people who do it. It's a simple liberal "do whatever you want but don't pretend this is something good" thing.

Your tone and criticism is exactly what I have come across from other incels Iíve known in real life. It comes off very much as a lonely guy on the internet ranting against everyone else having sex. Thatís the vibe you were, and have, given off.
Or maybe as somebody who doesn't unanimously take an idea and instantly starts pretending it's a good idea without analyzing it. I've noticed that people are quite obsessed with sex (and yes, this is coming from me!) in a way that they see everything as sex-related. For example, I've had my ideas on love called a mere 'kink' in the past, as if they all stemmed from a weird sexual whim or fetish instead of careful consideration for the pros and cons of each position. I notice a big problem among my friends, my acquaintances, and random people on the internet, namely how they slowly push out the high values and replace them with the low values, instead of letting both high and low values coexist and complete each other. I see a few existing and a few potential dangers of doing so.

You say you donít like labels? Thatís rather disingenuous, especially with how fond you are with referring to others as ďnormiesĒ.
Oh, I refer to people in various ways, but this only makes me a jester at best and a hypocrite at worst. I still think that labeling everybody is a bad practice.

It amuses me when people who arenít engaging in sex feel the need to criticize it.
I'm not sure what's your take here, though. Do I have to take drugs to have an opinion that drugs are bad? Anyway, I did some things that were bad and then knew better. For example, I used to be a fatso and this led to some health complications. So now I lost a lot of weight and started working out. Does this mean I can criticize overeating because I indulged in it but cannot criticize casual sex merely because I never showed affection to somebody I didn't love?

As if theyíre angry for their own decision that denies them an experience, but wonít blame themselves so take to the internet to openly express their disgust at those who have. It reeks of self loathing.
I think you're making many assumptions without much information/proof. I know one of the features of English is that it takes serious words (friend, love, hate...) and uses them casually, but disgust is still a strong word, and I don't think that anything I said showed disgust. Calling skepticism/disagreement disgust is a stretch.

And finally, to answer your last question, the culture that likes to symbolize virgins as some pure specimen but shame and criticize those who arenít.
I don't think the current culture does any of these things. (And I don't think it ever did, more about that later.) If anything, I think the contrary is true. I think the current culture claims that virginity is meaningless or even something to be ashamed of and it portrays people who are virgins or reluctant to have casual sex as weirdos/incels. I think this is ESPECIALLY true for America where teenagers often feel peer-pressured to lose their virginity with whoever, however, as long as they lose it and finally have it behind them, as if virginity was something repellant you have to get rid of ASAP.

I think the older culture championed virginity because it saw chastity as a sign of prudence and temperance, all of which are virtues. It did look up to virgins but I'd argue that it didn't always present them as pure specimens. And I don't think the old culture shamed or criticized non-virgins. If anything, it criticized promiscuity, but that's different. And I think you can see the championing of virginity in, say, the Virgin Mary (and the artistic representations of her), but also in many other ways across many cultures, like the Vestal Virgins in ancient Rome.

But I think the "real-life" culture and the "art" culture are two different things, often at odds with each other, just like I already mentioned in my previous posts. If our everyday culture is strict and stringent, we can hopefully find liberation in art that is extreme, transgressive, and forbidden. But if our everyday culture is already free and doesn't restrict us, we don't really need to flee to art to get liberated, so we don't need sex in art.

I believe that one of the most important skills is to compartmentalize different aspects of our lives and selves. In my daily interactions, I am courteous and calm. I prefer to be part of the crowd and not draw attention to myself. I have strong values and act on them when it matters, but I donít consider myself a rebel. I may have intense beliefs, but I express them gently.

However, when I escape from society into my hobbies like music or film, I enjoy things that are original and challenging. I like things that are hard to comprehend and that keep me intrigued and uneasy, extreme art for both cynical intellectuals and primitive barbarians. I want to experience art made by nerdy spiritualists, childish fantasists, basement-dwelling freaks, potential war criminals, communists, fascists, anarchists, perverts, psychos, addicts, and the occasional genuine visionaries. And a big part of that urge to experience all this is that I don't have any of that in my real life (and thank God I don't!).

Anyways, Iíll extend an apology for for the incel comment because of the suspicion youíre likely a Vocel. Which means if voluntary, itís a choice.
Whatever, man, you can call me an incel if you want. I don't see it as offensive. I think most incels are lost guys in need of help that deserve sympathy rather than scorn. I could think of many other epithets that would be more insulting than incel.



The trick is not minding
This clearly can't be true. A virgin is somebody who never had sex. And oral sex is sex. So if you had oral sex, you're not a virgin anymore. There are many ways of having sex other than vagina-penetrative sex. If we make the definition of losing virginity so narrow that you'd only lose it if you penetrated a vagina, then gay men would be eternal virgins! But this is ridiculous.

But this makes no sense, as it assumes everybody is so desperate, that they jump at any given opportunity to just have sex, without weighing in the risks, consequences, etc. You may be sexually liberated but still choose not to have sex at a given point in time. Does this automatically make you a vocel? This is a weird interpretation of celibacy, too, which was originally the idea of monks, priests, and sages who assumed life-long abstinence for whatever reason. Simply having standards is not celibacy but common sense.

I'd be hard-pressed to take seriously anybody who doesn't have a sort of disdain (or at least some reservations) for the hookup culture. As for the issue, I might have some issues with the thing, but mostly not with people who do it. It's a simple liberal "do whatever you want but don't pretend this is something good" thing.

Or maybe as somebody who doesn't unanimously take an idea and instantly starts pretending it's a good idea without analyzing it. I've noticed that people are quite obsessed with sex (and yes, this is coming from me!) in a way that they see everything as sex-related. For example, I've had my ideas on love called a mere 'kink' in the past, as if they all stemmed from a weird sexual whim or fetish instead of careful consideration for the pros and cons of each position. I notice a big problem among my friends, my acquaintances, and random people on the internet, namely how they slowly push out the high values and replace them with the low values, instead of letting both high and low values coexist and complete each other. I see a few existing and a few potential dangers of doing so.

Oh, I refer to people in various ways, but this only makes me a jester at best and a hypocrite at worst. I still think that labeling everybody is a bad practice.

I'm not sure what's your take here, though. Do I have to take drugs to have an opinion that drugs are bad? Anyway, I did some things that were bad and then knew better. For example, I used to be a fatso and this led to some health complications. So now I lost a lot of weight and started working out. Does this mean I can criticize overeating because I indulged in it but cannot criticize casual sex merely because I never showed affection to somebody I didn't love?

I think you're making many assumptions without much information/proof. I know one of the features of English is that it takes serious words (friend, love, hate...) and uses them casually, but disgust is still a strong word, and I don't think that anything I said showed disgust. Calling skepticism/disagreement disgust is a stretch.

I don't think the current culture does any of these things. (And I don't think it ever did, more about that later.) If anything, I think the contrary is true. I think the current culture claims that virginity is meaningless or even something to be ashamed of and it portrays people who are virgins or reluctant to have casual sex as weirdos/incels. I think this is ESPECIALLY true for America where teenagers often feel peer-pressured to lose their virginity with whoever, however, as long as they lose it and finally have it behind them, as if virginity was something repellant you have to get rid of ASAP.

I think the older culture championed virginity because it saw chastity as a sign of prudence and temperance, all of which are virtues. It did look up to virgins but I'd argue that it didn't always present them as pure specimens. And I don't think the old culture shamed or criticized non-virgins. If anything, it criticized promiscuity, but that's different. And I think you can see the championing of virginity in, say, the Virgin Mary (and the artistic representations of her), but also in many other ways across many cultures, like the Vestal Virgins in ancient Rome.

But I think the "real-life" culture and the "art" culture are two different things, often at odds with each other, just like I already mentioned in my previous posts. If our everyday culture is strict and stringent, we can hopefully find liberation in art that is extreme, transgressive, and forbidden. But if our everyday culture is already free and doesn't restrict us, we don't really need to flee to art to get liberated, so we don't need sex in art.

I believe that one of the most important skills is to compartmentalize different aspects of our lives and selves. In my daily interactions, I am courteous and calm. I prefer to be part of the crowd and not draw attention to myself. I have strong values and act on them when it matters, but I donít consider myself a rebel. I may have intense beliefs, but I express them gently.

However, when I escape from society into my hobbies like music or film, I enjoy things that are original and challenging. I like things that are hard to comprehend and that keep me intrigued and uneasy, extreme art for both cynical intellectuals and primitive barbarians. I want to experience art made by nerdy spiritualists, childish fantasists, basement-dwelling freaks, potential war criminals, communists, fascists, anarchists, perverts, psychos, addicts, and the occasional genuine visionaries. And a big part of that urge to experience all this is that I don't have any of that in my real life (and thank God I don't!).

Whatever, man, you can call me an incel if you want. I don't see it as offensive. I think most incels are lost guys in need of help that deserve sympathy rather than scorn. I could think of many other epithets that would be more insulting than incel.
Clearly you donít understand the term virgin, as it means to not have had intercourse. Oral sex isnít considered intercourse by any rational person.

As for hook up culture, disdain comes from those who are subconsciously jealous of it, mostly. Not so much the hooking up, part, but the fact people are having sex while they arenít. Thatís been my observation for a few decades with the incels Iíve dealt with over jealousy when Iíve dated a woman they were interested in but were rejected. You see a lot of men on the internet taking swipes at that as well. Itís usually the ďheís just going to use you and leave you.Ē Even if it isnít true.

Criticizing promiscuity is exactly what Iím talking about, but itís connected. Having sex and enjoying it are criticized as being an issue and thereís a double standard among men. But yes, promiscuity is such a nebulous term anyways, with no real set number on the number of partners, thatís its been applied to me simply because I date often. Which doesnít bother me even if it is off the mark.

This isnít just an American thing, either. Iíve known enough people from other countries (Poland, China, South Korea, Bangladesh, Russia, Phillipines, Japan, Germany) and itís amazing how many couldnít wait to lose their virginity in HS, and this includes women.

As for disgust being too strong a word? Iíd say it fits, giving your posts, especially when considering you canít separate oral and intercourse in your mind. The proof has been in your posts. Youíve made your disdain clear.

I somehow knew you would use drugs as a counter, and almost wrote ďin before you use drugs as a counterĒ.
Itís not the same thing. I would call drugs as far more harmful than casual sex, especially when itís being practiced safely. The need to compare the two shows how out of touch you are with society. Please donít try to compare the two, either.

Criticisms of this nature usually point to personal issues with the person, and not so much of a moral one. Repression, denial, failure to engage with the opposite sex and thus feels the need to criticize anyone who dares enjoy the act itselfÖ.I said it before and I guess it bears repeating, itís fine if the person wants to abstain from sex but by making that choice, you shouldnít be criticizing anyone who doesnít follow your example.

It reminds me of vegans. ďOh? You eat meat?Ē In a judgmental tone haha.



I think it should be obvious that how you define "sex" depends on the context. If you're married and your partner is asking if you've "had sex with anyone else," saying "no" because you never had "intercourse" is obviously a lie. But that's a perfectly fine definition if the context is establishing paternity or something.

When considering sex from a moral or ethical perspective of some kind, obviously it's more of an umbrella term.



You can be a virgin while still giving oral sex, yes.




Yeah, let's get a fig leaf of on-topicness. I'd settle for some good faith speculation about how all the discussed sexual norms relate to the survey results or something.



Trouble with a capital "T"
Good it's back on topic. I really haven't much to add but I do have a question:
Does anybody know the exact wording that was used in the Gen Z poll question? I'd say how the question was worded could greatly change how Gen Z participants responded.



Good it's back on topic. I really haven't much to add but I do have a question:
Does anybody know the exact wording that was used in the Gen Z poll question? I'd say how the question was worded could greatly change how Gen Z participants responded.
Well, if we go this route, we'll end up talking about the replication crisis, p-hacking, and flat out manufacturing of data (the more embarrassing examples coming from "experts" publishing in the field of deception).

I am, however, willing to tentatively accept the poll's conclusions until counter-evidence is produced. Posing critical questions is not the same thing as offering refutation. Moreover, the poll fits with other data about this generation (i.e., this does not appear to be an extraordinary claim).



And just generally, I'll say that any large group of people will, if taken as a whole, will seem to contradict themselves. Within the generation under question there are all manner of beliefs that cannot be aggregated and audited as if they were the ideology of a single person. They will disagree among themselves, sometimes a lot. And thank goodness for that.
Right, and even within what was possibly a slightly self-selecting group (I didn't see mentioned in the survey how they accessed their respondents), you see that variation. While about 50% of respondents agreed with the statement about wanting to see more aromantic relationships, 15% disagreed and 30% were neutral.

This age bracket represents a group of people who consume a lot of media, but for the most part don't have a lot of power in actually producing/shaping that media. It's just people expressing their opinions. As with any survey/study/focus group the point isn't to entirely reshape the landscape, but rather to consider what needs might not be currently met. I don't think the lesson is "Don't make movies about romance!". I think the lesson is "Hey, if you want to make that movie about friendship, there could be a pretty significant audience for it." And for some filmmaker/writer being pressured to shoehorn in a romance, this could be a place to point to say, actually, maybe we don't need to do that.



Tastes and customs are always changing, nothing wrong with Gen Z having different sensibilities.



Well, I saw a page from a newspaper today with the tagline to the effect of "Porn on Smartphones is out of Control in Public Areas" . What I take from that is Gen Z is being bombarded by porn through the internet and if not on their own phones then around them in public areas, likely contributing to their disdain for sex scenes in movies. Most people are turned off by sex in public places so its no wonder they arent liking it too much.

So the question is should the kinks and perversions of the few rule over the tastes and sensibilities of the many?



It does, but I'd say the demand for that is pretty small now. There was probably more demand for it as a more accessible (and socially acceptable) substitute for pornography.
Really. At this moment in time, all you have to do is to go to one of those sites, click where it says you're 21 and you're off to the races. You can fill the entire evening with it without even giving up a card number.

Aside from whatever puritanical trend there may be at any moment in time, I think the good thing about "those" sites is that it can give you what you want without having to insert it in mainstream movies. I've seen some of those mainstream "sensational" movies from years back that featured some action any they generally are disappointing in that they are not good movies or "good" porn.

It's not worth wasting your time on whatever vestige of plot and dialog the movie has, but on the other hand, you have to spend all that time on bad dialog and action before you hit the real target. Most "real" actors don't want to touch that stuff so, what you get ends up being the actors that don't mind that line of work and have the physical attributes, as well as cheesy writers who know they're only there to fill up run time.



This made me wonder when the last time it was that I saw much sex in a mainstream movie and it really has been quite a while. There's talk of course, and occasional brief moments, but really, compared to where things seemed to be going in previous decades, not much to see. I don't look for movies like that, but I do see most of what's mainstream sooner or later, and it really has been a while since I saw very much more that what shows in TV.

I'd be interested to see the backroom discussion among producers, writers and directors on how far to go, etc. I can't help but think that sex in movies just doesn't work all that well, marketing wise.

As for phone porn, the idea of sitting in a restaurant, park or train station doing THAT, is real low on my list.



This made me wonder when the last time it was that I saw much sex in a mainstream movie and it really has been quite a while.
What are your metrics for "mainstream"? (Genuinely curious, not being snarky).

For example, I was pretty surprised at how sexually explicit Ammonite was. Like . . . that was about 700% more explicit sex than I was expecting in a movie about a geologist.