My point is that there are films (like the ones adapted from the Reacher novels) that are action thrillers that could have sex scenes, but don't need them and I really don't mind the decision not to include them.
Again, when I look at the list of films I've seen from the 80s/90s, I really don't see that sexuality or sensuality is that much more present. I'm happy to concede that the Marvel-level films exist in a more sexually (and emotionally! And intellectually!) sterile space. But was Star Wars all that sensual? Or Jaws? Or Back to the Future?
There are stories where sexual interaction is a key part or even the key part of the relationship between the main characters. But there are also many stories where it isn't.
I guess? It might be relevant, but would it be necessary?
It's not about saying that there's something wrong with sex. We also don't get explicit pooping scenes. Pooping is as natural as brushing one's teeth. And I would argue that in many films the sex/nudity IS about titillation, which is why so many of them lean incredibly strongly into male gaze territory.
You are not wrong. But I see nothing wrong with titillation and I believe removing that is unnatural. Also I think sensuality and sexuality go together for the most part, at least this thread was/is about that.
There are stories where the sexual relationship between the characters is relevant, and even where the type of sexual relationship they have is relevant (as in Dear White People or The Handmaiden). Relevant to the plot or relevant to the character. For example, I think that it's really powerful to see the sex scene in Saint Maude for multiple reasons. But if it's not necessary to the story, why include it?
I think that depends on your definition of “necessary”. I’m not hiding behind semantics, but even romance as such is not necessarily crucial to the story; sex doesn’t even have to have anything to do with romance.
American History X, which is one of my favourite films, has a pretty graphic male rape scene. This falls more under “violence”, but aggressive sex/rape scenes are still sex scenes and I think that if there is rape in the story, it should be portrayed graphically (though not
Irreversible-style; that’s a bit much) because to most people, it is a “graphic” moment of their life that their mind likely won’t ever erase. I would instead interrogate why it supposedly
isn’t necessary. Why not give any screen time/attention to the characters’ sex life and instead choose to erase a huge chunk of the human experience?
The difference between that and defecation is that I doubt many people would actively object to sex scenes on the grounds of offensiveness, whereas defecation many find offensive (though I don’t). In the same vein as above in relation to bad sex/
Cat Person, I wonder why you would compare something people generally find unpleasant to think about (defecation) to something most humans would, one would hope, for now, at least, find generally pleasurable (sex).
Never thought I’d say that, but I’m beginning to get why my mother would get exasperated with me for watching all that incessant horror. She would say, “Why don’t you watch something
beautiful”, by which she meant aesthetically pleasing, visually attractive, in short, not blood and guts. I feel the same way here: what could possibly be the argument against showing a
titillating sex scene mid-film? Sex is beautiful and everyone has it. Why not reflect that? The argument against showing defecation is quite simply that people will find it off-putting, nothing more. But I don’t see why people are supposed to find a titillating sex scene where everyone enjoys sex and can get it up off-putting.
I love
The Handmaiden, but I don’t see how these sex scenes are any more necessary plot-wise than a hypothetical sex scene between Jack Reacher & whoever, Tony &Pepper (sorry, Stu, that has stuck!) or, indeed, James Bond & Vesper. We could have just as well seen that the two girls are in love via sideways glances, little handwritten notes and sighs, Romanticism-style. Again, I see an imbalance!
Why is a graphic sex scene between two LGBT women (I would readily agree that holding hands sex scene is one of the best ever made) deemed more necessary plot-wise than a graphic sex scene between Bond & Vesper, if we are to believe the man would leave the secret service he only just got into for this woman? Both stories are about “love that transcends circumstance”, broadly speaking.
By that logic, we need a pornographic rendition of
Romeo & Juliet with Adriana Chechik to explain why the whole thing is such a big deal that everyone would decide to die.
Either an explicit sex scene is due in both or it is not due in either. I don’t get the logic. If it’s two women, then women aren’t being objectified, but with men they are?
From the 80s and 90s, though? In films that would be considered mainstream? There's definitely more male nudity in films these days, but the disparity is still really huge. And male nudity is often not actually couched in sexual/sensual sequences. In fact, the first three that come to mind involve fight sequences where the point of the nudity is vulnerability. Viggo's body in Eastern Promises might be sexy, but I'd hardly describe the sequence as sensual or "explicitly sexual".
Women in Love (1969) - a homoerotic one at that.
Mr Ripley - lots of gorgeous homoerotic stuff there, including a naked Dickie in bath, full frontal, albeit brief.
Poison (1991) - Haynes.
In the Realm of the Senses (1976).
I think naked/semi-naked men fighting is always a sexual scene. Think about Ancient Rome etc. I would argue the
Casino Royale (2006) Bond torture scene is sexual as hell in a certain way; with a reference to scratching one’s balls too. Sexual, humorous, violent - pretty perfect to me.
Even if there are fewer naked men, why is that a problem? There’s the lesbian community too, I’m sure they enjoy the naked women - why rob them of the pleasure? Re: naked men: I would have liked a graphic Will/Hannibal sex scene in
Hannibal and think it would fit thematically, especially as we know Fuller knows how to make them “anatomically accurate”. The relative lack of naked men has little to do with the discussion of explicit sex scenes in general imo.
Also disclaimer: I guess I’m bad at judging “mainstream”. But I just found 46 titles tagged “male full frontal” in
1970 alone:
https://www.imdb.com/search/title/?k...year=1970,1970
Hermes Bird (1979), lots of Bertolucci,
Hi, Mom (1970 again), etc.
This is off the top of my head in no order.
Which is not to say there isn’t an imbalance, but I really don’t see a problem. I would still maintain without question that yes, there was much more sensuality/sexuality in the ‘80s & ‘90s.