The Hays Code was Bad, Sex in Movies is Good

Don't Look Now (1973)

Will Hays, Who Knows About Sex

In 1930, former Republican politician and chair of the Motion Picture Association of America Will Hayes introduced a series of self-censorship guidelines for the movie industry in response to a mixture of celebrity scandals and lobbying from the Catholic Church against various ‘immoralities’ creating a perception of Hollywood as corrupt and indecent. The Hays Code, or the Motion Picture Production Code, was formally adopted in 1930, though not stringently enforced until 1934 under the auspices of Joseph Breen. It laid out a careful list of what was and wasn’t acceptable for a film expecting major distribution. It stipulated rules against profanity, the depiction of miscegenation, and offensive portrayals of the clergy, but a lot of it was based around sexual content: “sexual perversion” of any kind was disallowed, as were any opaquely textual or visual allusions to reproduction, and right near the top “No licentious or suggestive nudity -in fact or in silhouette, and any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by other characters”. Further down were severe restrictions imposed on allusions to sex itself, sex work, sexual assault, “excessive or lustful kissing”, and of course men and women in bed together.

Notorious (1946)

Once Breen took charge in cracking down on this Code it became the most powerful restraint on creativity and expression in Hollywood history, lasting for over thirty years. It is the reason why the vast majority of American movies from that period, great though some of them may be, might feel stifled, sometimes even homogeneous. There were limits on what movies could be, what they could say -and of course it’s also the reason several movies from that era don’t hold up well. Yes, the predominant values of the time in general were different, but it must be remembered they were not allowed to be challenged. Some figures did challenge them though, in small and subtle ways, Hitchcock perhaps most famously: filling Rope to the brim with prominent gay subtext and shooting a two and a half minute kiss in Notorious between Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman -getting around the censors by breaking it briefly at precise intervals. Still, the Code remained the law of the land through the remainder of the 1930s, the 1940s, and the 1950s, with its power only beginning to recede by the 1960s -vanishing entirely pretty much at the same time New Hollywood emerged. It was a breath of fresh air for artists and for artistry -which flourished with freedom in the subsequent decades. Certain racist, sexist practices could be put to rest, nuanced subjects and vices could be openly explored, and a key emotional, physical facet of human nature could be illustrated away from the glare of puritan taboo.

Dirty Dancing (1987)

And then somehow, here we are in 2023, and the Hays Code has been evoked in film discourse as a positive thing for its limitations on sexual content in movies. The sentiment behind what was essentially a handful of tweets is nothing new. It seems every few months some take goes viral by typically a Gen-Z-er complaining about sex scenes in movies and TV, sometimes even calling for their restriction or outright abolition. A stir is created, usually involving several intelligent people who cover the entertainment industry in some form coming in to explain and defend the depictions of sex in media. It’s exhausting in that usual Twitter way, but it does yield some good threads of thought, comforting notions that you’re not alone in the bafflement at such a position, and I believe it was the very first of these that spawned a terrific think-piece by Raquel S. Benedict called “Everyone is Beautiful and No One is Horny” on the sexless nature of modern Hollywood that I still turn to in these debates to support the “sex scenes are good actually” argument (I’m also quite fond of this essay by Christina Newland on the same topic).

But this is the first time to my knowledge one of these arguments has unironically broached the topic of recasting one of the most widely criticized trademarks of classic Hollywood as a net positive. And that is as sure a sign as any that we’ve lost the plot. So where did this come from? There’s a variety of answers. One is simply media illiteracy combined with just the general ignorance of youth. I’m sure the posters of such propositions aren’t aware of those elements to the Code that extend beyond just sexuality, or simply don’t consider the links between stifling sexual expression and sexual attraction, sexual identity, etc. Another is a result of a certain psychological cultural conditioning that they have been brought up with. The emergence of progressivism in youth in the last decade or so has for the most part been a good and hopeful thing, but there is a certain way in which leftist ideology can be misapplied. A thinking that the acknowledgement of something unpleasant or harmful or prejudicial can be bad enough. Where it concerns art, that comes up in equating depiction with endorsement. A movie or TV show thus is culpable for what happens within it, what its characters do. And when media can be subjectively uncomfortable, there’s a desire to attribute a sense of morality onto it. 

Titanic (1997)

Several of the complaints in this case seem to come from young people saying that sex scenes or nudity makes them uncomfortable, makes them feel like voyeurs to something they “didn’t consent to” -despite having supposedly watched in the knowledge of its media certificate (and there’s whole books on media theory related to voyeurism that come with more nuanced arguments). The idea goes that art that makes one uncomfortable is not good art -and perhaps therefore should not exist. And the cultural context behind this and Gen-Z in particular is complicated, factoring in the trends of media they’ve been exposed to growing up, the psychological ramifications of COVID-19 isolation, and a greater awareness of systemic inequities and injustices within western culture. But here specifically it seems to boil down to an intertwining of ideology and morality that comes dangerously close to an Overton window where leftism in an intense effort not to offend anybody becomes conservatism. Suggesting a return to the Hays Code is indicative of this -it still applies strict moral standards to media, just coming from a different place.

From Here to Eternity (1953)

And I don’t have to extol the validity and even importance of sex scenes in movies -plenty of smarter people than myself have already done so. Sex is a natural, inherent part of life that dictates so much of our sociological, cultural, philosophical, emotional existence; and it should be represented in art precisely for those reasons. It doesn’t always need to necessarily take the form of sex on screen, but sometimes it does -and either way it’s not something innately bad to see. Through film history in the days before, after, and (through implication) even during the Hays Code, sex in the movies has been vital and valuable. In From Here to Eternity (1953) that passionate embrace of Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr in the sand against cascading waves emphasizes the eroticism of their relationship against a paradise about to be attacked. Splendor in the Grass (1961) hinges on the emotions surrounding sexual intimacy -it is a highly implicit off-screen motivator, as it is in other movies from that time like Breakfast at Tiffany’s and The Apartment. Splendor’s star Natalie Wood explored sex again in a thematically significant way in 1969’s Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, a movie that tapped into with curiosity the then modern wave of sexual experimentation and swinging among young people. 

Bound (1996)

On the explicit side of things though, one of the most notable movies is Nicolas Roeg’s Don’t Look Now from 1973 with its famously controversial sex scene that convinced several viewers it was unsimulated (which is rare but not unheard of). Cut against scenes of Donald Sutherland and Julie Christie casually getting dressed and ready for dinner, it is a fundamental contrast that illustrates the needed reprieve from an outward repression the two feel they must keep up in the aftermath of their young daughter’s death -it encompasses both their desire and guilt. There’s Body Heat from 1981 in which heated sex scenes between William Hurt and Kathleen Turner are representative of a kind of power play between two lovers, one of whom is trying to manipulate the other. Jane Campion uses sex in The Piano (1993) as a means of opening up the shell of her protagonist; a show of intimate, personal love that means everything in the context of her communicative and psychological alienation. On a similar theme but more openly erotic, is something like Bound (1996) by the Wachowski sisters, with Jennifer Tilly and Gina Gershon’s sex scene a powerful punctuation of their commitment to each other in bringing down the abusive gangster one of them is married to. 

Y Tu Mamá También (2001)

Hell, I recently saw Titanic on the big screen for the first time and was reminded of its innate sensuality pervading the course of Jack and Rose’s relationship; culminating with a nude painting and beat of lovemaking that is coated in both physical and emotional liberation -for Rose especially. The lack of such intimacy seems to form a central tenet of Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut (1999) -the sexual activity that Tom Cruise bears witness to at the mysterious mansion is vital in accentuating the mundaneness of his relationship with Nicole Kidman -it makes that final line hit all the more sharply. And few sex scenes feel more momentous than the climax of Alfonso Cuarón’s Y Tu Mamá También, where the previously casually homophobic Diego Luna and Gael García Bernal, in the midst of a threesome with travelling companion Maribel Verdú, give in to suppressed urges and passionately lock lips in the ecstasy of the moment. This one in particular sticks out to me, because the American re-edit censored out most of the scene, leaving the resolution of awkward uncertainty between the two making no sense. Even in 2001, U.S. censors could still wield power to subvert art.

Eyes Wide Shut (1999)

These are just some of the examples that immediately come to mind. Instances of sex in movies that made an overall difference, that touched on something relevant and human, that conveyed a visceral sensation in a way chasteness could not. And this isn’t to say there’s such a value in all movies that depict sex and sexuality explicitly. There are no shortage of bad examples, and some would argue the mere existence of them as a point against sex scenes in movies overall. Several of these same Gen-Z users will cite exploitation as a mark against them -that all sex in movies is inherently exploitative. And while this isn’t true, a series of notable horror stories from movies like Last Tango in Paris or Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, certainly give the idea an appearance of validity. Sex in movies hasn’t always been comfortable for the people involved -women especially; there are cases of genuine exploitation and manipulation that has been used for their purposes, sometimes the camera and editing are such to betray a certain lascivious intent -all of which can hamper a sex scene’s ability to resonate. But rather than do away with the whole idea of sex in movies in response to this, what should instead be encouraged is greater oversight and safety measures. The rise in intimacy coordinators on movie sets should be a welcome thing, something that allows such scenes to be comforting for the actors involved. There should be greater equity too, and diversity in where sex scenes come from. It’s important to allow queer people for instance this kind of representation -sex is as big a part of their lives as it is for the straights, and it can be a doorway to enlightening voices and stories. And maybe as a thought, don’t make it so that women are disproportionately nude or sexualized compared to men. Put more dicks on screen! All of these are smart, considerate ways to allow sex to have more of a healthy presence in cinema, not less.

Magic Mike's Last Dance (2023)

Because the thing is, these complaints that stem from the idea that there is too much sex in movies and TV don’t hold water. Movies, certainly in the American mainstream, and TV outside of a few cable exceptions, are in an era of abject sexlessness. The Hays Code is for all intents and purposes, already back. Looking at current movie listings in my province, only one first-run film is playing that has even a little bit of sex appeal: Magic Mike’s Last Dance. Sex is a taboo as far as modern American studio filmmaking is concerned -at most it might be alluded to in four-quadrant blockbusters, but it never manifests in a plot, character, or thematic sense. Sensuality, nudity -they have been scrubbed clean as well, and it all has to do with the fact that the Hollywood mainstream gravitates around juvenilia. Safe, unambitious, homogeneous movies geared towards youth sensibilities have been manufactured to be just about the only films to make money in an over-saturated, stagnant industry. And because it is so entrenched a status quo, even adult audiences have been dulled by it, conditioned not to expect or accept more. But that's a rant for another day.

Princess Cyd (2017)

What's important is that adult subject matter, including sex scenes and sexuality, does not "sell" right now, and so very rarely shows up outside of occasional limited release auteur-driven, independent, or international movies -cinematic cultures like France still have lucrative adult markets where openly sexual movies can flourish. It is out there but not in the kinds of movies general audiences would see.  So it’s absurd to hear these statements talking about sex scenes being inescapable. And as critic Matt Zoller Seitz pointed out, there are more ways than ever to police your own media and avoid movies that engage in sexual topics. The MPAA, for it’s many many flaws does accurately provide warning of stuff like that, there are parental controls on most televisions, whole websites dedicated to determining appropriate content for families and such. Maybe these folks, if they consider themselves adults, just don’t want to pay attention to content-related outlets or warnings, which come with the implication they are there for the sake of children. But then if they choose to engage with adult media they shouldn’t be surprised if it illustrates one of the most adult experiences.

Morocco (1930)

I think back to the Hays Code and how its enforcers shared much of the same view as these online posters passing judgments: that movies should be exclusively a family friendly affair, that sex was something to be ashamed of -an unmentionable to be hidden away. And this casual talk of the Code being a good thing, toying with the idea of it being formally brought back is concerning. Censorship has a habit of expanding -it doesn’t take much to go from restricting sex scenes to intimacy in general to any expression of sexuality deemed “uncomfortable”. The leftist bent of this whole thing fails to take into account how conservative such ideas are, that it would be playing into the very hand of the figures and institutions they ostensibly hate.

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969)

Sex and sexuality are good and healthy things to explore in media, and you can’t do that authentically without sometimes portraying it openly. There’s nothing wrong with movies depicting sex between consenting adults. There’s nothing wrong with overt sexiness or eroticism in movies as well -film is an art form meant to make us feel after all and these are normal human feelings. To view sex scenes entirely as lascivious, exploitative, or “pointless” (as if anything not strictly attached to plotting isn’t) is ignorant and irresponsible, and it does movies AND sex a disservice to reduce them to such simple terms.

Atonement (2007)

The outcry here at least for now doesn’t seem to have serious influence, though its recurring emergence is in a small way worrisome. But the backlash that customarily follows this discourse, and from prominent voices in the typically left-leaning film intelligentsia space, is comforting …and more often than not, educating. It really all comes back to media literacy, and why it is so important a thing to learn in this age where media is such a constant in our lives. On this particular topic there are more than enough great resources. Letterboxd user Justin LaLiberty began a list of a “canon” of interesting, influential or important sex scenes, and video essayist Maggie Mae Fish is launching a series on the Nebula streaming service exploring the history of sex and sexuality in cinema. For the moment, there doesn’t seem to be an immediate danger of a blanket censorship movement come to make abstinent what corners of the industry still make space for sex -Yorgos Lanthimos’ next movie sounds like it’s going to be wonderfully sexual. But it is important to take stock when these arguments come up that insist conditions should be imposed on movies. Movies should be allowed to be free, ambitious, experimental, open, challenging -and in all of these respects should have the right to be sexy.

If Beale Street Could Talk (2017)

Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/JordanBosch

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/Jordan_D_Bosch

Letterboxd: https://letterboxd.com/jbosch/