TW: Mentions of rape/assault, misogyny, and racism
Every time I’ve logged onto Twitter recently (I know, I should stop), I see at least one tweet referencing what I’m calling The Great Sex Scene Debate. The debate started with a growing number of people expressing discomfort in sex scenes, with some calling for their removal (either in terms of censorship or just trying to make them less societally acceptable). The other side of the debate was quick to point out the dangers of censorship and a lack of sex scenes in modern film (a statement at odds with the previous group’s assertions). As a young asexual woman with both film and gender/sexuality studies backgrounds. . . I won’t say I am The Authority on the matter, but I do think I have some valuable insight. And, while it perhaps may sound like a boring and easy answer, the issue with modern attitudes towards sex in media comes down to clashing sexual ideologies present in today’s society. In other words, both sides are right and wrong.
I know, I know. That’s the most boring, seemingly spineless take in most contexts. But American society (and this is mainly going to pertain to American society) has both a misapplied sex obsession AND a religious-inspired view of sex as taboo (even “bad”). This is obviously a generalization (not every in America has an inherently unhealthy view of sex), but the dominant culture holds onto these two conflicting views of sex resulting in BOTH an absence of sexuality from media not explicitly “for adults” as well as an abundance of troubling sex scenes.
As mentioned, I’m asexual. I’ve explained it on here before, but it’s always helpful to have another quick crash course on what asexuality is (as it’s often unknown/misunderstood). Asexuality is the absence of sexual attraction. When paired with aromanticism, it means an individual does not desire a romantic/sexual relationship. On its own, it means a person does not desire a sexual relationship – but may still desire a romantic one. Like most things, it exists on a spectrum. Some asexual people are okay with participating in sexual acts, they just don’t desire them. Others are repulsed by them. What makes my asexual perspective potentially apt for the examination of sex scenes is that I tend to fall a bit more into the “repulsed” category. I very much do not want to participate in most sexual acts and don’t particularly enjoy watching them either. That’s right: I hate watching sex scenes. So, I do truly and wholly understand the rise of complaints about them as being “uncomfortable.” How, despite my discomfort, I don’t need (or even want) them to stop.
It’s true that I find great comfort in romantic relationships in media that aren’t explicitly sexual. I do very much experience romantic attraction and it’s undeniably isolating to be constantly confronted with sex as a “given,” even “vital” part of relationships. For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Joss Whedon, 1997 – 2003) (despite being one of my all-time favorite television shows that actually has quite powerful commentaries on sexuality) implies, in one of the show’s most iconic storylines, that “true happiness” is only achieved through sex. Obviously, I still love the show and will continue to rave about it until the day I die. But watching something quite explicitly label sex as the single most important experience is quite disheartening. This is why I call for more asexual representation all the time (both romantic and aromantic). But my “asexual agenda” isn’t to eradicate sex from the world and turn everyone into fellow asexuals. It’s simply to be seen and accepted.
Sex scenes themselves are not my enemy. I may not like watching them. I may think too many romantic relationships in media revolve around sex (either seen or implied). I may want more asexual representation. I may actively avoid watching things known for having a lot of sex (I simply would not like watching them, clearly). But I do not want to eradicate them.
However, many people who have followed my writings here or on Instagram may point out that I am often critical of sex scenes in media. I’ve been known to negatively analyze a few sex scenes in my time. But my issue is never “the characters are having sex and I don’t want to see it.” My issue is usually about the specific narrative and visuals we are given. For example, many sex scenes objectify women and not men (with women being completely naked and men still partially clothed). Many sex scenes occur under questionable circumstances with a lack of consent, gross displays of women as objects, and so on (for reference, several older James Bond films are textbook examples of the “women as objects with questionable understandings of consent” phenomenon – with several just fully including rape). Heteronormativity, misogyny, and racism often all play into sex scenes in media. The result of which is a perpetuation of those things in our society. Media is both a mirror and an informer of society and culture. What goes in, comes out, and goes back in again.
But the issue there is not sex. The issue is society’s attitudes surrounding sex. If sex scenes make you uncomfortable, and you aren’t asexual/watching them in uncomfortable circumstances (with parents, etc.), the issue might be the ideology the sex scenes display/upholds. To stick with my previous James Bond example: Are you uncomfortable watching the sex scene in Goldfinger (Guy Hamilton, 1964) because it’s sex, or because Bond basically rapes a lesbian to turn her straight? Obviously, that’s an extreme example. But even a lot of modern films contain objectifying sex scenes – and that’s usually where the discomfort lies. This isn’t to say no one is uncomfortable just watching sex in general. I already stated I am. But that has more to do with personal triggers. I also don’t like watching people vomit in films and have trouble with flashing lights – but I definitely don’t think those things need to be removed from media altogether. What should be removed from cinema are these deeply disturbing and problematic understandings and portrayals of sex.
However, what do I mean by “remove?” Because a huge point of critique from The Other Side of the debate is that censorship is unacceptable – and I agree. If you read my article on rape scenes in media, you’ll know that I personally don’t think they should visually exist – but I also don’t think we should create censorship laws that outlaw them. I simply want to create dialogue to change society’s acceptance of them (like how it is, with obvious setbacks and exceptions, less acceptable in modern media to have a main character like James Bond fully rape a woman as a form of blackmail and portray it as a “cool” thing to do (this happens in Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965)). Perhaps I’m overly idealistic, but I thoroughly believe it’s possible to call for attitude changes without calling for drastic (and often dangerous) legal measures.
I say “dangerous” when referring to censorship because who sets/enforces the parameters for such things is, in fact, a slippery slope. America is currently dealing with an intense rise in anti-queer (especially anti-trans) legislature using the twisted logic that queer people’s lives are inherently sexual and thus “inappropriate.” There are proposed bans on talking about one’s queerness in school settings (meaning straight teachers can have framed photos of their partners on their deals but queer teachers cannot), drag shows (as if the raunchier late-night drag shows are somehow the same as the explicitly family-friendly friends and therefore “corrupting children”), gender-affirming care/surgery, and so on. It’s terrifying and inhumane, yet very real and pressing. Do we want these people to make/enforce the laws? Do we want biases around what counts as rape, how “sexual” something is, and so on to be involved in such censorship? Because they will. There is so much stopping that. Biases will seep in no matter what as these laws would be inherently interpretive. Who gets to interpret the laws and determine where we draw the line is not always ideal. In fact, it has the strong potential to be dangerous.
Instead of trying to legally ban sex scenes (and thus having to clearly define and interpret what a sex scene entails), we should focus our efforts on changing society’s twisted views of sex. For example, films like Bound (Lana and Lilly Wachowski, 1996) and The Handmaiden (Park Chan-wook, 2016) (even if I don’t think The Handmaiden is perfect) are great examples of sex scenes that counter common portrayals of lesbian sex and aim to remove the misogynist lesbophobia often displayed. Similarly, while not a film but a play, In the Next Room (or The Vibrator Play) (Sarah Ruhl, 2009) works to undo and explore attitudes around sexual pleasure and features a sex scene in which the male character is significantly more nude than the female character as a purposeful undoing of female objectification in sex scenes I previously discussed. These three pieces of media, while perhaps a bit uncomfortable to those who are uncomfortable around sex (like moi), are nonetheless extremely important in helping to undo and rebuild society’s attitudes and portrayals of sex. I would actually personally like to see many more sex scenes like these (even if I also don’t necessarily desire to physically watch them myself).
Similarly, there are numerous pieces of media where the sex scenes are either vital to the message or simply unproblematic in nature. Two characters engaging in consensual sex, even if not “necessary” to the plot is not at all a bad thing. Sex occurs. It’s natural and healthy. If such scenes still make you uncomfortable, that’s okay. I very clearly understand (and agree). But such media is often marketed as having sexual content (the American rating system for film always explains why the film has been given a certain rating, with sex and violence being the main indicators). Looking at ratings, a brief synopsis and trigger warning websites (such as doesthedogdie.com) are great resources to determine whether you might want to skip a film for any reason (sex or otherwise).
However, the danger of censorship is not the only criticism I’ve seen from The Other Side of The Great Sex Scene Debate. I’ve seen some excellent points regarding a lack of any sexual/sensual acknowledgment in modern “family movies.”
I’ll admit I have some mixed feelings here. As an asexual person who hardly ever sees themselves represented on screen, especially in a prominent role with a romantic storyline, I do sometimes find a great sense of peace and relief in the lack of acknowledgment of sexuality in media meant for children. Before I even knew what asexuality was (aka, when I thought I was “wrong” or “behind”) I was much happier watching Captain America lightly flirt with Peggy Carter in Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston, 2011) (their big moment revolving around a romantic dance) than I was watching the one sex scene in Iron Man (Jon Favreau, 2008). I enjoyed watching romance without sex because it represented me. Later, it annoyed me to no end when Riverdale (Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, 2017 -), despite hinting behind-the-scenes at the potential of making Jughead asexual (as the character has been represented as an aromatic asexual person in the comics in recent years), decided to make the character heterosexual (with multiple sex scenes). The logic there can only be understood as “sex sells” – a common phrase in American media.
Similarly, I’ve seen many jokes over the years about the High School Musical series (Kenny Ortega, 2006, 2007, 2008) being unrealistic because Troy and Gabriela don’t kiss until much later in their relationship (with a lot of build-ups). Except that isn’t unrealistic at all. Obviously, as an asexual person, it wasn’t unrealistic for me. It also wasn’t unrealistic for about half of my friends – who were not asexual. The understanding that “everybody is fucking/wants to fuck” is simply not true and often adds strange pressure onto teenagers.
However, this isn’t to say people complaining about a lack of sex in media are entirely wrong either. The Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) very clearly demonstrates the strange American mentality that sex is dirty and to be hidden away from children. . . but violence is okay. The MCU is an action franchise containing brutal action scenes and murders – but its only sexual mentions were much earlier in the franchise, as it was still finding its footing and not marketed directly to children. It is absolutely bizarre how violence is deemed okay for children, but sexual education is determined by each state and often immensely underfunded and inaccurate. In my own high school, my friend had to correct the gym teacher (who was also the sex ed teacher by default) on anatomy as he had labeled it wrong. Obviously, I don’t think elementary school children should be watching pornography, but having an appropriate understanding of sex, sexuality, healthy relations, and so on is somehow frowned upon in American society. “Don’t you dare tell my child what sex is before high school, but I will bring my 6-year-old to the theater to see superheroes, straight-up murder people.” Add this mentality to the queerphobia I previously discussed and you’re left with vast misunderstandings of sexuality due to a lack of education – which turns into a vicious cycle. (I could also go off about how introducing sexual education earlier actually creates less traumatic sexual experiences for teenagers and also helps create healthy boundaries and understandings of relationships, or how the first time someone threatened to rape me I was 9 years old and only understood what was happening and dealt with it appropriately because my mom was a sex educator who helped me gain knowledge and establish boundaries from a young age, but all that is for a different article. . . )
American society has a lot of Christian/Puritanical influences that twists views of sex and establish them as taboos. That’s why slut-shaming exists. This may seem at odds with my previous assertions that “sex sells.” It’s not. Well. . . it is. . . but both exist. There’s shame around both the sexually active and the sexually inactive (for lack of better terms).
American society is simultaneously sex-obsessed and neo-Puritanical. There are a lot of religious ideologies that seep into the supposed non-religious collective conscious relating to pre-marital sex and sex as taboo (that clearly affects women more, in the form of slut-shaming, but can still affect all genders). But there’s also a sexual obsession (that is also often misogynist). With these attitudes come misogyny, queerphobia, racism, etc. It’s a hot mess of often conflicting ideals and understandings of sex that results in a lot of disturbing sexual content (that perpetuates heteronormativity, misogyny, racism, and so on), a lack of sexual education, and an understanding of sex as a taboo. All of these things are true at once and neither removing nor adding sex scenes as a base rule is going to fix the problem. The Great Sex Scene Debate is not easily solved by one side or the other. We need to do the tough work of trying to undo both of the problematic and conflicting ideologies until sex is no longer taboo or damaging and all forms of relationships are able to be healthily portrayed on screen. Don’t eradicate sex scenes, eradicate misogyny, racism, queerphobia, heteronormativity, and so on. Don’t just throw sex scenes in more media, but make sure sex is no longer a taboo and something that can be discussed openly and healthily. Obviously, this is easier said than done, but it is the solution to the debate. American society has some troubling and conflicting views of sex. Let’s work on changing them.
