Lifestyle
You know it when you see it: Here are some movies that got sex scenes right
It is a happy coincidence that our “What makes a good sex scene?” episode came out in the same week as Challengers, a film about a romance triangle in the tennis world starring Josh O’Connor, Zendaya and (not pictured) Mike Faist.
Niko Tavernise/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures
hide caption
toggle caption
Niko Tavernise/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures
It is a happy coincidence that our “What makes a good sex scene?” episode came out in the same week as Challengers, a film about a romance triangle in the tennis world starring Josh O’Connor, Zendaya and (not pictured) Mike Faist.
Niko Tavernise/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures
What makes a good sex scene? It can be easier spot bad sex, but Aisha Harris, Christina Tucker, Ronald Young, Jr. and I tried to focus on the good this week on Pop Culture Happy Hour. You can listen to our full conversation here. (We didn’t originally plan for this episode to run the same week as our episode about Challengers, which is out in theaters now, but it’s a happy coincidence, since that film has gotten a lot of attention — probably too much, relative to its other merits — for the sex scenes involving its three leads. It’s really very good.)
It’s often very obvious when a sex scene is bad, just like when a sex scene in a book is bad. It can get so uncomfortable to watch that you have to leave the room (and not in a way that feels true to the story). One of my personal tells for a bad sex scene is when all I can think about is how hard the actors are trying to persuade me that the characters are having a good time. For example, there has been much good discussion in recent years about Showgirls being a more interesting and competent project than it originally got credit for, but in that one pool scene (if you know it, you know it), all I can see is the effort.
It’s not always as clear which scenes are good. That’s partly because they serve so many different functions, all of which look different, and all of which can be effective. Furthermore, you don’t want to confuse whether a sex scene is used well in a film with whether it’s hot to you personally, despite the fact that there is overlap between those considerations.
Here’s what I mean: When Aisha talks about the sequence near the beginning of Magic Mike’s Last Dance, it’s not irrelevant that the scene is, to her (and to me), hot. But it also makes sense in the context of the film and the franchise, partly because of the way it sets up the power dynamic between Mike (Channing Tatum) and Max (Salma Hayek Pinault). Mike is older now, he knows more, and the way he approaches a lap dance is actually different than in earlier movies.
And not all good sex scenes are hot in the same ways. The one I mentioned in the episode, from the romantic drama Love & Basketball, is sexy, yes. But it’s also a scene between young adults (the talented basketball players Monica and Quincy, played by Sanaa Lathan and Omar Epps), and as such, it incorporates a tentativeness that’s not present in Magic Mike’s Last Dance, to say the least. As Ronald pointed out during our discussion, that sex scene is quite different from one that takes place later in Monica and Quincy’s relationship, when they’re older and know each other better. That certainly feels true to real life, but it’s not always reflected in Hollywood films, where I would tentatively estimate that 90% of on-screen sex is more idealized and thus less intimate than real-life sex, in part because it isn’t allowed to change over the course of a relationship.
Even further from the hotness of the lap dance scene is Ronald’s pick: the imagination of Kitty Oppenheimer (Emily Blunt) running wild in Oppenheimer. While her husband (Cillian Murphy) is being interrogated, she pictures him having sex with his mistress, Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh). It goes by quickly enough that it might seem like a Christopher Nolan flourish for flourish’s sake, but it serves the purpose of letting you feel her pain over her husband’s affair. Her relationship with Robert doesn’t look especially romantic in the film, let alone sexually charged; she finds herself consumed by the idea that he was having hot sex with this other woman, and she locks eyes with her vision of a naked Tatlock and finds herself tormented. It’s not really the intent of the scene to titillate the audience, just to give specificity to the shape of Kitty’s preoccupation with the affair.
Christina raised another really important point, which is that sex scenes also collide with viewers at very specific moments. Her example from Bound, and the scenes between Violet (Jennifer Tilly) and Corky (Gina Gershon), touches on (among other things) her own history. It’s an underappreciated aspect of the sex-in-movies discourse: representation matters in these scenes as much as anywhere else. I always wish I saw more sex scenes in movies that featured a broader variety of body types; it’s still really rare to see ones that feature anybody who is even average sized. This is one of the reasons I’m curious about the upcoming season of Bridgerton, which places its focus on the gorgeous and curvaceous Penelope (Nicola Coughlan).
Good sex scenes are like any other kind of good filmmaking, honestly: it comes down to execution with purpose and care, done relative to whatever the function of the scene might be.
Whether that’s spiciness or conflict or relationship growth or (as in the case of Bound) setting up a steamy neo-noir story that wouldn’t be the same if it weren’t hot as heck, form follows function, ideally.
This piece also appeared in NPR’s Pop Culture Happy Hour newsletter. Sign up for the newsletter so you don’t miss the next one, plus get weekly recommendations about what’s making us happy.
Listen to Pop Culture Happy Hour on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
Lifestyle
Stephen Colbert takes his last bow in late night : Pop Culture Happy Hour
The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Monday May 18, 2026.
Scott Kowalchyk/CBS Broadcasting Inc.
hide caption
toggle caption
Scott Kowalchyk/CBS Broadcasting Inc.
The Late Show With Stephen Colbert comes to an end this week amid a lot of changes in the business and the country. Some of the sources of tension include the economics of late night, the approaching merger of Paramount and Warner Brothers, and President Donald Trump’s constant criticism of late-night hosts. But for Colbert’s fans, it’s the end of a friendly, funny, candid show. So we’re talking about the legacy of Stephen Colbert in late night.
Lifestyle
The Debrief | Inside The Swatch x Audemars Piguet Global Frenzy
Lifestyle
After the Kars4Kids ad is banned in California, we check in on nostalgic jingles past
Kars4Kids advertisements, like this TV commercial on a hot-pink set, feature children turning the charity’s phone number into a catchy jingle. But they do not disclose that most of the proceeds go to a Jewish nonprofit that supports programming for young adults.
Kars4Kids/Screenshot by NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
Kars4Kids/Screenshot by NPR
The “Kars4Kids” jingle — with its chipper melody and high-pitched, pre-tween singers — has been wedged firmly in many Americans’ heads for two decades. But it may soon go off the air in California after a judge banned it for being “deceptive.”
Judge Gassia Apkarian of the Orange County Superior Court ruled earlier this month that the ad violates California’s laws against unfair competition and false advertising because it does not disclose Kars4Kids’ religious affiliation.
The case has put the jingle — and the charity behind it — in the headlines. And it inspired us to check in on some other nostalgic favorites (more on that below).
The Kars4Kids case, explained
Kars4Kids says it gives most of its proceeds from used-car donations to Oorah, an Orthodox Jewish nonprofit based in New Jersey that provides opportunities like summer camps, adult matchmaking services and trips to Israel.
Kars4Kids makes the connection to its “sister nonprofit” clear on its website, though not in its infamous jingle: “1-877-Kars4Kids / K-A-R-S Kars for Kids / 1-877-Kars4Kids / Donate your car today.”
That omission prompted California resident Bruce Puterbaugh to sue Oorah in 2021.
According to the judge’s order, Puterbaugh testified that he donated a 2001 Volvo station wagon after hearing the Kars4Kids advertisement “over and over,” believing the money would benefit California kids in need. Puterbaugh, a self-described “not a computer person” in his 70s, said he never visited the charity’s website and only learned the truth from a casual conversation with his Lake County neighbor after the car was picked up.
“He testified that he felt ‘taken advantage of’ upon discovering — only after the donation — that the funds did not stay in California but supported a specific religious mission in the Northeast,” Apkarian wrote.
The neighbor, Neal Roberts, is a lawyer who went on to represent him in the case. Roberts told NPR that the ad — which has aired on the radio since the turn of the millennium and on TV since 2014 — is ubiquitous in California. But he said Apkarian, the judge in the case, doesn’t watch TV and hadn’t heard the jingle until it was played at the four-day trial in November.
“She heard it the first time, and then she heard it the second time, and then the rule in the court was, ‘Do not play that jingle again,’” he said with a laugh. “So I thought that gave us some idea that we might have a chance.”
According to the judge’s order, Kars4Kids’ Chief Operating Officer Esti Landau confirmed at trial that the charity’s primary function is not helping economically disadvantaged children but “Jewish kids and families throughout their lives.” She said the charity has “no functional programs in California beyond a ‘backpack giveaway’ characterized as a branding exercise,” the judge wrote.
Landau confirmed on the stand that in 2022 — among other expenditures — Oorah transferred $16,500,000 to North Africa and the Middle East, and spent $16.5 million to purchase a building in Israel. She testified that while the Kars4Kids ad features kids ages 8 to 10, the programs Oorah funds “often target young adults (17-18) and matchmaking as well as Jewish families.” And she conceded that a donor would “have to go to the website” for that information.
Neither Kars4Kids nor Oorah responded to NPR’s requests for comment. But in a lengthy statement on its website, Kars4Kids said the judge mischaracterized its work and its testimony at trial.
“Kars4Kids’ ads have one purpose: to remind listeners that Kars4Kids offers a quick and easy way to dispose of an unused vehicle,” it wrote. “The ads are targeted to vehicle owners, not specifically to people considering donating to charity.”
The charity said “helping children often means engaging parents and families as well,” and stressed that its mission and religious affiliation are prominently stated on its website.
But the judge ultimately sided with Puterbaugh, writing that “a reasonable consumer is not required to be ‘computer savvy.’” She gave the charity 30 days to stop airing the ad in California unless it is updated to include an “audible disclosure of its religious affiliation and the geographic location of its primary beneficiaries and the age of the beneficiaries.”
The judge also ordered the charity to pay Puterbaugh $250, the value of the car he donated, though acknowledged that “money cannot ‘un-donate’ a car or restore the donor’s belief that they were helping a local, needy child.”
Kars4Kids says on its website that it plans to appeal the ruling, which it said is “deeply flawed, ignores and misrepresents the facts that were presented at trial, and misapplies the law.”
The charity also called the case as “a lawyer-driven attempt to siphon off charitable funds for their own gain.” Roberts dismissed that accusation, saying the only money his client stands to gain is the $250 for the car and lawyers’ fees. The bigger win, he said, is putting Kar4Kids — and potentially other charities nationwide — on notice about the consequences of false advertising.
“I think anyone who knows the facts would think that there was wool being pulled over people’s eyes,” Roberts said.
Where are they now?
J.G. Wentworth’s catchy “Viking Opera” commercial, featuring elaborately costumed, structured settlement-winning opera singers in need of cash, has been airing on and off since 2008.
J.G. Wentworth/Screenshot by NPR
hide caption
toggle caption
J.G. Wentworth/Screenshot by NPR
This story sent us down a head-bopping rabbit hole of nostalgic jingles, confirming they never truly leave the depths of your brain. And it turns out, some of them are — in a sense — new again.
Remember Zoo Pals, the early-aughts, dipping sauce-friendly paper plates shaped like animals (pig, bee, frog, duck) that, per their peppy theme song, “make eating fun!”? Hefty discontinued the onetime birthday-party staple in 2014, but brought the plates back in 2023 — and has also introduced disposable cups and plastic bags in the years since. No word yet on whether the commercial might make a comeback too.
Folgers, the coffee brand, has had people humming “The best part of wakin’ up / is Folgers in your cup” since the cozy jingle first aired in 1984. Its various iterations have managed to hold viewers’ attention in the years since (the 2009 sibling version inspired a slew of parodies and fan fiction). In 2021, public performance royalties for the song — which is actually titled “Real Snowy Morning” — were auctioned off online. The winning bidder, identified as “Josh C.,” paid $90,500.
And earlier this year, the brand released remixed versions of the ad, fusing the original jingle with several popular wake-up songs spanning genres and generations (including the Everly Brothers’ “Wake Up Little Susie” and “Bring Me to Life” by Evanescence).
Just this week, comedian John Oliver parodied JG Wentworth’s Viking opera (“877-cash-now”) jingle for an episode examining the structured settlement factoring industry. Oliver’s version, warning people to be skeptical of such companies, features stars like singer Megan Hilty, actor Victor Garber and Larry David, in a nod to the original earworm’s prominent cameo in the final season of Curb Your Enthusiasm.
Sometimes a jingle outlives the very thing it’s advertising. Consider: “I’m a Toys R Us Kid,” the toy store ditty belted enthusiastically by generations of trike-riding kiddos since the 1980s. The franchise shuttered due to bankruptcy in 2018, though it has since been partially revived through a partnership with Macy’s. The jingle has staying power — much to the delight of prolific thriller author James Patterson, who helped write the lyrics in his early career in advertising.
“That’s a big moment in my life,” Patterson said when asked about it in a 2024 appearance on Live with Kelly and Mark. “That’s a fun one, and kids obviously loved it. And we do remember it, which is great.”
-
California3 minutes agoThey used to battle in CA elections. Now, they back the same candidate
-
Colorado9 minutes agoColorado residents who switch to heat pumps can expect more rebates this summer
-
Connecticut15 minutes agoEversource seeks 11% rate hike for Connecticut residents by next summer
-
Delaware21 minutes agoMike Purzycki was enough for Wilmington. We’ll miss him | Opinion
-
Florida27 minutes agoMan who stabbed woman, her daughter to death in Coral Springs to be executed
-
Georgia33 minutes agoWhat channel is Tennessee softball vs Georgia on today? Time, TV schedule to watch Knoxville Super Regional Game 1
-
Hawaii39 minutes agoGeneral plan bill advances in County Council – West Hawaii Today
-
Idaho45 minutes agoMontana Tech, Idaho National Laboratory sign partnership agreement