In your opinion, are sex scenes ever necessary in films and television?

Eh, they're really not.....they just enhance the film if the script or whatever calls for it. You can write a show or movie without having a sex scene.

Not particularly. In the argument about sex or violence in movies and TV I've said before a difference is that violence can be relevant to the story. Take for example Highlander, it can do fine without the sex scene in it but it can NOT do without the people cutting each other's heads off.

Supernova wrote:

Not particularly. In the argument about sex or violence in movies and TV I've said before a difference is that violence can be relevant to the story. Take for example Highlander, it can do fine without the sex scene in it but it can NOT do without the people cutting each other's heads off.

Guess it depends on the show...Now sex is very relevant in a show like Sex and The City.

Sex is a natural part of life so I have no issue with it in movies or tv.

heck yeah, sometimes its an important part of the story!

Some, yes, but not most of the time.

Sex scenes are mostly done for aesthetic purposes. Few stories do they "make or break".

Rarely is it really necessary to actually see it going on as detailed as it usually is. Let's be real: 99% of the time, it's done to be hot, and NOT to further the story. I am sure that rarely, it does serve the story. But hardly ever.

Well... when Reese and Sarah Conners had sex in Terminator, it was necessary to know that she was pregnant with John by the guy that was sent back in time. So yeah, sometimes it is important... but as FM said, it is usually not necessary. The old time movies showed people being killed and having sex "off screen". It worked for a couple decades. We are just a horny society now, and we want the graphics.

It's not "necessary" but it is realistic if a movie or TV show is purported to be happening in real life because in real life people have sex.

^^^^People also use the toilet in real life, and I honestly got no desire to see that onscreen.

wants2laugh wrote:

Well... when Reese and Sarah Conners had sex in Terminator, it was necessary to know that she was pregnant with John by the guy that was sent back in time. So yeah, sometimes it is important... but as FM said, it is usually not necessary. The old time movies showed people being killed and having sex "off screen". It worked for a couple decades. We are just a horny society now, and we want the graphics.

But another thing is that even if the actual act is necessary to the plot, is the actual scene necessary? As you said, it's very easily to imply sex without actually showing it onscreen. You're right, we are a graphic society. And IMO, it's to the detriment of cinematic integrity.

Sex is a natural act & not as graphic in most movies as people sometimes seem to think. But in movies like the one Shale mentioned, "Shortbus" & another "Pornography: A Thriller" (the name is misleading. It's NOT porn lol) but in both of those, sex is integral to the story.

Chris wrote:

In your opinion, are sex scenes ever necessary in films and television?

Nothing is "necessary" when it comes to a particular medium of entertainment. If you want to get technical about it, neither films nor TV are necessary.

However, when it comes to practical storytelling, you have to take that question on a case by case basis. IF the sex scene in question is gratuitous and does nothing to advance the plot of the story, then it is unnecessary. However, if the sex scene is important for the story, then it is. In the film "The Terminator", there is a sex scene between Kyle Reese and Sarah Connor. This sex scene is absolutely critical to the plot of the story because the climax of the film (and future films) establish that Kyle is the father of John Connor. Without the sex scene, the audience wouldn't get that and you end up with a plot hole. So that's one example where the sex scene advances the plot of the story.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^People also use the toilet in real life, and I honestly got no desire to see that onscreen.

Then YOU should avoid films that have such scenes in them. However, you can understand that sometimes (depending on the plot) showing someone using the toilet might be important. There is such a scene in the film "Crash", where one character has difficulty using the bathroom due to a medical condition. In the film "Waiting" one of the characters has a mental condition that causes him difficulty in using a public restroom. The point is, depending on the plot, sometimes scenes like this might be necessary (whether you want to see them or not).

Forgiveness Man wrote:

But another thing is that even if the actual act is necessary to the plot, is the actual scene necessary? As you said, it's very easily to imply sex without actually showing it onscreen. You're right, we are a graphic society. And IMO, it's to the detriment of cinematic integrity.

In my opinion, sex shown onscreen isn't necessarily detrimental if it helps sell the realism of the story and advances the plot. Gratuitous, graphic sex shown for no reason is unnecessary, but not all sex scenes are like that. Lest we forget, film is a form of art, and in art sex and nudity can be portrayed tastefully.

^^^^And I do avoid 'em. (Just can't resist, eh? ) Like anything, just about everything can be argued to have a limited use in film, but like sex scenes, seeing somebody take a crap being necessary is very rare. MOST movies do not need to show their characters using the toilet, even if they all go. Same goes for sex. 99% of the time, sex scenes are completely unnecessary. The 1% of the time that they are doesn't make the rest of it somehow merited. Yes, film is art, but most of the time, filmmakers forget that. They think showing some skin is good television/film, and a horny public is all too happy to reward such endeavors. But for the most part, sex scenes on television are not to make it realistic and not to do it tastefully. It's to arouse the audience with a bunch of actors in various stages of undress simulating sex. It's that simple. It's completely unnecessary most of the time to show it, even if the act itself forwarded the plot. Heck, I'd argue that sex scenes ruin the plot much more often than they help it, as filmmakers seem to think seeing two characters do it is payoff. (especially for TV show couples)

Sex scenes on TV are just eye candy for a morally bankrupt public. Art and realism are the last things on their minds, and we all know it.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

^^^^And I do avoid 'em. (Just can't resist, eh? )

Evidently, neither can you.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

Yes, film is art, but most of the time, filmmakers forget that. They think showing some skin is good television/film, and a horny public is all too happy to reward such endeavors. But for the most part, sex scenes on television are not to make it realistic and not to do it tastefully. It's to arouse the audience with a bunch of actors in various stages of undress simulating sex. It's that simple. It's completely unnecessary most of the time to show it, even if the act itself forwarded the plot. Heck, I'd argue that sex scenes ruin the plot much more often than they help it, as filmmakers seem to think seeing two characters do it is payoff. (especially for TV show couples) Sex scenes on TV are just eye candy for a morally bankrupt public. Art and realism are the last things on their minds, and we all know it.

Well YOU would argue that, but I wouldn't be so presumptuious. The only point I am making is that sex scenes in an of themselves are fine as long as they work. I won't speculate on what most filmmakers "think" or what everyone else "knows".

Shale wrote:

The question was, are sex scenes necessary. How do we define necessary? Movies aren't necessary - they are entertainment, to draw us into an alternate reality for a couple of hours.

Now, I like watching ppl have sex so that enhances the entertainment value of a movie with a story of human intimacy.

Here's another thot. Are explosion/destruction scenes necessary in movies? Why not do them off camera, let ppl know that the Kremlin was blown up in MI:4 but do we really need to see it fall down? Or that LA fell into the sea in 2012. In fact take all those scenes of earth destruction out of that movie - it was just gratuitous fiction anyhow. fortunately that movie would be about 15 minutes run time.

So, yeah! Sex scenes are necessary for their entertainment value.

Excellent point!

Sometimes they're necessary to advance the plot and sometimes they're just gratuitous.

But you're supposed to be better than little ole me. (Not to mention you quoted me directly whereas I wasn't talking to you at all. )

I don't have to be presumptuous to see the evidence of what I said. Seeing the application of sex scenes, I can easily see how fruitless and pointless most of them are to the actual plot. Maybe being a writer makes me more sensitive to the trend of replacing relationships with sex onscreen. So I will be a much harsher critic of sex scenes dragging down a story than others would.

"God darnit, Mr. Lamarr, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore."

Forgiveness Man wrote:

But you're supposed to be better than little ole me.

No I'm not.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

(Not to mention you quoted me directly whereas I wasn't talking to you at all. )

Yes you were.

Forgiveness Man wrote:

I don't have to be presumptuous to see the evidence of what I said.

Yes you do, because the very nature of the comments depends on being presumptuious (unless of course you have telepathic powers).

I don't think they're necessary but they usually add layers to the character interaction in the story which IMO is a good thing.