A biography can be depicted without showing people having sex, even though we know he did so. A biography can be depicted without showing the subject using the toilet, even though we know he or she must have done so several times a day. Showing sex scenes is a choice to titillate the audience, not to be “historically accurate.”
A lot of people like to watch handsome actors simulating sex, so there’s no mystery, from the producers’ point of view, about why that’s chosen over showing them pooping or delousing or having an enema.
Non-graphic and short 'sex/nudity' scenes but yes made to be colorful as with the rest of the show.
As was the brief torture and execution scenes. They happened in real life and were added to make it realistic. I like Band of Brothers for similar reasons.
If that is not to your taste then watch what is.
A few Sundays ago I saw a movie Child Star The Shirley Temple Story in Inspiration Network. I never could sit through 5 minutes of a corny Temple movie but I really enjoyed seeing the dramatic biography : a story of a famous child star who wasn't screwed up. Nice to see a happy ending.
Thank you for pointing that out. I really have no interest in watching other people have sex. And I think perhaps those of us who really aren’t that interested in viewing it aren’t the weird ones. We just have it shoved in our faces constantly, and the public, afraid that they will be deemed “prudes” refuse to stand up and say, “Enough!” It’s one thing to act like no one ever has sex. It’s entirely different to have to show the graphic details.