it’s funny how much debate there is in regards to whether or not sex scenes “belong” in a story or if they’re necessary for the plot. let’s say they aren’t. the book/movie isn’t necessary either but we aren’t debating whether or not it “deserves” to exist. we understand that as a pointless distinction, the book exists whether or not it needs to because somebody wrote it and we will engage with it on those terms. what is stopping you from extending this perspective to the things the book contains? probably some form of puritan bs let’s be real. the inverse is just as ridiculous, let’s say a sex scene is plot relevant and very integral to the story, so what? that makes it “necessary”? you could just as easily posit that the plot shouldn’t be dependent on a sex scene in the first place, that it’s only necessary to the story because the author is a pervert or whatever. my point is that when you argue for or against the existence of something based on necessity alone, a concept culturally defined by whatever dominant power structure you currently exist in, you have already fallen into the trap of puritanical dogma. you agreed to the idea that the framework this conversation operates within is the correct one and in so doing forfeited your right to consume things on your own terms, your right to reject the premise in favor of a more productive conversation. most online discourse functions much the same way and it’s just exhausting.