Editor’s note: This article includes a mention of rape that may be disturbing to some readers.

There is nothing wrong with an actor baring it all to win an Oscar – but that doesn’t mean it should always happen.

The past two years, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has awarded the Academy Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role to actresses who appeared nude in a sex-forward comedy – namely, Emma Stone in “Poor Things” and Mikey Madison in “Anora.” By comparison, the past two winners of Best Actor in a Leading Role – Cillian Murphy in “Oppenheimer” and Adrien Brody in “The Brutalist” – appeared in dramatic historical epics. While all four of these stars delivered compelling performances in their respective films, these victories reveal a profound disparity between how the Academy responds to actors and actresses in sexual roles – an inequity that harms performers of all genders.

To be clear, the attitudes toward sex in “Poor Things” and “Anora” are not the issue at hand, as both films seek to present sex as a form of strength or pleasure for their female protagonists. In “Poor Things,” Stone plays Bella Baxter, a Victorian era woman whose child brain was transplanted into the body of her resurrected mother. Gallivanting across Europe, Bella engages in a variety of sexual acts – including working at a brothel – as she explores her sexuality and discovers ways that sex can be enjoyable, empowering and at times, transactional. The nature of sex as a commodity is explored at greater length in “Anora” where Madison plays the titular character, a Russian American sex worker in Brooklyn who takes no shame in her work, but almost exclusively engages in sex to please a client rather than herself.

Despite the murky ethics surrounding some of the depictions in both of these films, “Poor Things” and “Anora” arguably each portray their lead characters with a level of empathy that helps remind audiences of the value of a female-centered perspective in sex. By humanizing Bella and Anora, both films seek to spark more conversations in the mainstream about personal autonomy in sex while reducing shame around the act itself. On an awards level, recognizing these roles at the Oscars is extremely exciting, as both Bella and Anora represent characters who are arguably far more creative, dynamic and unpredictable than the mundane biopic roles and sappy dramatic turns that the Academy tends to award.

[Related: Oscars 2025: ‘Anora’ takes home 5 awards, including Best Picture, at 97th annual ceremony]

The problem with Stone and Madison’s triumphs is the implication these victories have on the film industry’s attitudes toward actresses. Neither win is the first time an actress has won an Oscar for a role where she appeared nude, as has happened so far this century for stars such as Halle Berry in “Monster’s Ball” and Kate Winslet in “The Reader.” However, an actress’ decision to appear nude on screen often comes with the social perception that she is displaying a new level of vulnerability – that she is willing to sacrifice her own privacy in commitment to her craft – which creates an unhealthy stigma surrounding female sexuality on screen.

The assertion at hand is not to imply that Stone and Madison did not deserve to win for their performances or “sold out” by appearing nude. Both stars commanded their films with a raw humanity and a visceral range of emotions that connected with audiences. After all, some stories – including “Poor Things” and “Anora” – would arguably not achieve the same emotional impact or social commentary if they lacked open depictions of sex.

However, the film industry must be careful in how it moves forward with creating future awards season contenders. It could easily be misinterpreted that a fast track to an Oscar can be achieved by placing an actress in a sexually explicit role, but the victories for Stone and Madison do not indicate that female-led films have to be sexually explicit in order to be deserving of awards attention. Although it is a step forward for actresses to be lauded rather than lambasted in these roles, there should not be an expectation that nudity is required to give an actress’ performance gravity or meaning.

In the extended race for Oscars every year – with film festivals, press tours, marketing campaigns and precursor award shows building up to the Academy Awards for months – film studios naturally want to throw their support behind films with high odds to win. For films to resonate with audiences as “Poor Things” and “Anora” have, there must be substance to accompany their narratives. Depicting sex on screen without corresponding emotional depth will not create quality cinema, so film studios would be wise to portray sex in stories where it is integral to the plot, essential to the characters and thought-provoking for viewers.

[Related: Oscars 2024: Christopher Nolan’s ‘Oppenheimer’ wins Best Picture, night’s most awarded film]

But the Academy’s new pattern of lauding actresses in sexual roles does not reap similar flexibility for actors in comparable performances. For instance, Daniel Craig was considered to be a likely nominee for Best Actor this year for his performance in Luca Guadagnino’s “Queer,” which features multiple explicit sex scenes. Despite substantial acclaim from film critics and precursor nominations at the Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards, Craig was left out of this year’s slate of first-time Oscar nominees. Craig’s snub suggests a hesitation by the Academy to recognize actors in roles featuring explicit sex scenes, perhaps because they are looked down upon and considered less serious than the male-led historical dramas that tend to prevail.

Admittedly, both Murphy and Brody appear in sex scenes in their respective roles in “Oppenheimer” and “The Brutalist.” The fundamental difference is that these sex scenes – barring a rape scene in “The Brutalist” – are never in direct service of the plot, and appear with a few short clips that concentrate on the nudity of their female partners and do not display full-frontal nudity by the actors. By awarding these films, the Oscars send a message that serious acting for male actors does not directly involve sex, or at best, shuffles it off to the side. It would be immensely beneficial for the Academy to award a sex-forward male performance in the near future to reduce shame about depicting male sexuality on screen.

As a whole, the wins for Stone and Madison – and Murphy and Brody – remain worth celebrating, as each represents the recognition of an evocative, ambitious performance. However, the Oscars and other awards hold limited value without making an effort to assess their broader implications. As thrilling as it is to see female-centered sexual narratives receiving wider attention and acclaim, future films must maintain a level of respect for their protagonists without obligatory or exploitative nudity. And for male actors, the Academy would be better off opening its mind to the full scope of possible performances, even if they include sex more prominently.

If the last two awards seasons reveal any lessons about the state of cinema, it should be that sexual autonomy be respected for all actors, regardless of gender.