I just watched it and was really excellent.
Also got me on a bit of a Oliver rabbit hole. His wife is very attractive and apparently a republican. But more importantly they named their first child “Hudson Oliver”. For those who don’t know Kate Hudson’s brother, also an actor, is Oliver Hudson. I respect the bit.
Yeah but what about when Sarah Shahi and tony soprano went at it?
Do you work with any millwright or machinists? They’ll know exactly what to do.
The notion that sexuality and sex shouldn’t be in film or tv is truly bizarre. It’s been a central focus of all art since art began. The first moving picture was 1888, the first nudity 1897.
My issue with it is the actress is often being exploited. They can’t get the part unless they are willing to be naked. I’m sure there are plenty that don’t have a problem with it. But what about those that do? Look at James Franco. There’s no way he’s not having sex with those women in his movies. And some are underage.
Romeo and Juliet having sex is one thing. A director hiring an actress and putting her in a sex scene for personal gain is quite another thing.
Don’t know the Franco thing?
As for exploitation, there is no doubt that has been a long and terrible history in Hollywood. I just finished both the recent #metoo books which document it well.
That being said, like everything with sex, consent is the magic ingredient.
Human sexuality is the engine of great art. Of course we want it explored on film. There are countless great examples. We don’t need less sex on film. We simply need more female voices and fewer awful men.
Trying to think of a sex scene where the movie would have suffered narratively or aesthetically if it weren’t included, or if it only suggested nudity without showing it. There probably is one - there’s an awful lot of movies - but nothing’s jumping out at me.
Point is, the overwhelmingly vast majority of sex and nudity scenes in movies didn’t need to be there. Obviously, filmmakers should have the freedom to include them as they see fit. But no-one needs to pretend that eg the unisex shower scene in Starship Troopers (as an example of nudity that did in fact make a narrative/thematic statement) couldn’t have been artfully blocked to simply not show Denise Richard’s nipples, without actually undermining what the scene conveys to us about the society the film depicts.
Blue is the Warmest Colour
Eyes Wide Shut
Bull Durham
Fast Times at Ridgemont High
Henry and June
Monsters Ball
Kids
Y Tu Mama Tambien
Moonlight
Mullholland Drive
I could go on for hours 
The whole idea of “didn’t need to be there” accepts the idea that sex is wrong or bad. There is nothing bad about including sex in film just like there is nothing bad about including dinner scenes.
I’ve seen Eyes Wide Shut and Mulholland Drive. Feel free to pick one of those and make your case.
Of the movies I’ve seen on this list (about half) I completely disagree that the actual nudity was important to any of them.
Like I said in my edited post above I don’t know what this even means. Nudity is needed the same way dinner scenes, funeral scenes, costumes, or car chases are needed.
It’s simply the puritanical notions of sex that drive this question.
No.
Please expand. Why else should it not be there, assuming consent of all parties, of course?
I said it didn’t need to be there. Not that it shouldn’t.
I don’t understand what that means either.
I mean that the vast majority of scenes involving nudity were included for reasons other than narrative or aesthetic necessity.