‘I Want Your Sex’ Is a Brisk, Freeing, Imperfect Romp 69%

By Jason Shawhan77%

7/29/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Halo Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,639 faulty-reasoning hits from 704 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.3% and a BS Rank of 69% (8,582 of 27,607 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.90% of the article peer group.

Can Gen Z and Gen X make it work together, sexually? 
Don’t millennials get to play as well? 
Is it possible to find a common starting point to build something  if not enduring, then something rewarding? 
Is this an evolution of Prince’s “U Got The Look” and its “boy versus girl in the World Series of love”? 
Sort of. 
I Want Your Sex is a film about power dynamics and hornitude and the questions we don’t often ask one another in a public forum, and thankfully, it’s a Gregg Araki film (along with co-writer Karley Sciortino), so it’s briskly paced, not afraid to deploy the groceries, and happy to plant some seeds in the lesser-traveled parts of the brain. 
Olivia Wilde and Cooper Hoffman are along for the ride, broadening the canvas and leaving furniture to be professionally cleaned. 
I Want Your Sex 
R, 90 minutes 
Opening Friday, July 31, at the Belcourt and Regal and AMC locations 
This is a film with a lot on its plate, aiming to mellow out Gen Z about sexual indecision but also making a point that Gen X talks a great game about being free and experimental even when there’s no coherent philosophy operating behind the scenes. 
There’s no big horny eureka here (not like in Araki’s 2010 film Kaboom, at least)  just a lot of ribald skirmishes that leave the viewer to keep score and figure out how they’ve been conducting themselves in the boudoir (or leatherette couch, or pool, or modern workplace). 
Plus one midcredits scene that raises the ante for interrogating the Gen X perspective on matrimony with a jaw-dropping flourish. 
Wilde is very good as the artist Erika, a button-pusher quickly running out of buttons. 
We get the ongoing battle she’s fighting against the exterior world and its constant disdain for women who ford their own path, but we also understand the internal uncertainty that is eating her alive, trying to wring relevance out of a naughty reputation. 
(In a way, this is like a more naked version of The Christophers, which was released earlier this year) It’s a gutsy performance that makes the audience work for it, just as effective as what Hoffman is doing but coming from a completely different cultural space. 
There’s something mercenary about Erika, both sexually and as a businessperson, and Wilde never softens the edges to make things easier for the audience. 
Hoffman is a revelation here, a cubby golden retriever of a sub who has boundless enthusiasm and a willingness to fling open doors and doff his drawers to figure out what sparks his joy. 
Nashville’s Historic Sites Reckon With Their History of Slavery 
Cover Story 
As Nashville’s traditional farming community shrinks, a new urban agriculture network expands 
Taking structural signposts equally from Sunset Boulevard and 9 ½ Weeks, this is very much in Araki’s wheelhouse. 
It’s a spicy ride that offers a lot to think about, as well as providing a continuum with which to evaluate one’s own sexual ways and means. 
Each of the supporting characters could star in their own film, with Mason Gooding vivisecting the kind of gay stereotypes that only gay people deploy, Araki/Catherine Breillat all-star Roxane Mesquida giving all the French business, and Charli XCX in another finely tuned but tiny (possibly ace) role that keeps the viewer wondering when she’s going to turn up again. 
It’s not a home run, though, with some clangy moments that feel like they could have been dropped in mistakenly from a Bill Maher writers’ room. 
The same goes for a Roisin Murphy needle-drop. 
(Granted, her song “Something More” predates her virulent transphobic turn by almost three years, but it still breaks the mood.) 
Even in a plasticine adult fairy-tale land, there are still the little indications of the emotional brick wall of a world we live in. 
The fact that we’re never going to get a second season of the series Now Apocalypse is already cruel enough, one might think. 
But in the deeply repressed and unhappy moment we’re all stuck in, there is something genuinely freeing in this film, and it could very well do quite a bit of good. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.8%Jason Shawhan: 0.7%Nashville Scene: 1.3%Confirmation Bias2.8%This article: 12.1%Jason Shawhan: 3.0%Nashville Scene: 0.7%Anchoring Bias12.1%This article: 8.4%Jason Shawhan: 2.1%Nashville Scene: 2.2%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 8.4%Jason Shawhan: 7.2%Nashville Scene: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Jason Shawhan: 2.0%Nashville Scene: 3.8%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 3.3%Jason Shawhan: 0.8%Nashville Scene: 0.1%Loss Aversion3.3%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.8%Jason Shawhan: 6.4%Nashville Scene: 2.3%Optimism Bias16.8%This article: 3.4%Jason Shawhan: 0.9%Nashville Scene: 0.5%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 21.0%Jason Shawhan: 7.6%Nashville Scene: 3.4%Negativity Bias21.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Jason Shawhan: 2.4%Nashville Scene: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Jason Shawhan: 1.9%Nashville Scene: 0.5%In-Group Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 2.1%Nashville Scene: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.9%Jason Shawhan: 10.2%Nashville Scene: 3.4%Halo Effect16.9%This article: 8.5%Jason Shawhan: 3.0%Nashville Scene: 0.2%Horn Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Jason Shawhan: 0.7%Nashville Scene: 1.0%Recency Bias2.8%This article: 6.8%Jason Shawhan: 1.7%Nashville Scene: 0.6%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.9%Nashville Scene: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.1%Jason Shawhan: 6.3%Nashville Scene: 1.5%Appeal to Authority14.1%This article: 7.5%Jason Shawhan: 1.9%Nashville Scene: 0.7%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.9%Jason Shawhan: 10.8%Nashville Scene: 4.1%Hasty Generalization14.9%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.4%Jason Shawhan: 3.0%Nashville Scene: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.8%Jason Shawhan: 0.7%Nashville Scene: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.5%Jason Shawhan: 3.6%Nashville Scene: 1.6%Anecdotal14.5%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.2%Jason Shawhan: 5.0%Nashville Scene: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.2%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.7%Jason Shawhan: 0.7%Nashville Scene: 0.2%Middle Ground2.7%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 2.8%Jason Shawhan: 2.1%Nashville Scene: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy2.8%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.1%Jason Shawhan: 28.2%Nashville Scene: 7.4%Biased Writer Voice16.1%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 1.1%Nashville Scene: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jason Shawhan: 0.0%Nashville Scene: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

704 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.