Sex in Film: Empowering or Exposing?

With the rise of sex-positive attitudes and the embracing of female bodies, the world faces a trifling debate: to sex or not to sex? Onscreen sex arose in an attempt to disprove puritan culture, and to empower women by presenting desire in a normalising light. However, has this attempt achieved its goals?

Films like Babygirl pop out of the woodwork to convince us that any portrayal of female desire is progressive - even when the desire is subjugation. Is the film a necessary appraisal of women’s desire being liberated, or does it turn female subjugation into a ‘progressive’ kink? It is possible for the film to be read in both lights, and nudity on screen is a personal preference - but the politics of it remain. Does it empower women to be seen naked by millions of people - thus presenting female sexuality as normal in a culture that often neglects it? Or does it commodify women in an exposing manner - allowing narratives of submission to be perpetrated?

Personally, these sorts of films would be much more gripping if they put women in positions of dominance and power - thus using sex to elevate women and centre their desire in a manner that escapes patriarchal assumptions of sexuality. Films like Oppenheimer can also be criticised for their use of sex, where incredible actors like Florence Pugh become a sexual footnote in the story of men’s lives. Implication of affairs is possible without nudity. However, on the topic of Pugh, films such as We Live in Time benefit from their romantic sexuality - the nudity and sex that occur in such films is authentic whilst benefiting the development of plot.

The issue of sex on screen then involves the issue of intimacy co-ordinators, which the Anora star, Mikey Madison, refused. Does the existence of an intimacy co-ordinator protect women from men like Justin Baldoni, or does it ruin the authenticity of the moment? Should reality in film overtake the protection of women in the film industry? Should it be a personal choice? Or, like most feminist issues, is the personal political?

The question arises of sex in queerness, which often normalises queer sexuality. The portrayal of lesbian (focusing on women, but also applies to gay men) sex can expose the population to lesbianism in a way that promotes acceptance, but how much lesbian film is produced by lesbians? A large majority of lesbian media is catered to men in a fetishist manner, so is it progressive or is it feeding the beast? Potentially, this is a dilemma that refuses to be answered. Maybe it depends on the portrayal of sex, the necessity of the scenes, if there are women in charge of the writing/directing, how the actor feels behind the scenes - maybe it will never be acceptable. Maybe it will always be a moral grey area.