The only thing this article gets right is the critique of capitalism. It certainly doesn't persuasively show that "erotic thrillers" or plentiful sex scenes are valuable in and of themselves, although it unintentionally highlights that most of the sex scenes in adult dramas were mostly for het male enjoyment in this vanished supposedly-golden age.
The most we get in terms of explaining why the sex scenes of yore were so special is an explanation that Crash is good bc the male protagonist is kinda ugly by IG standards and gets to have lots of sex. (whoopdeedoo, ugly men fuck on screen REGULARLY, then and now) Bruce Willis wasn't even that buff!! There is no mention of how these scenes centered a very narrow male-centered experience, nor any intimation that some adults might find them alienating and off-putting, not because they were anti-sex but because they were often so void of emotional intimacy.
While capitalism is certainly responsible for the impoverishment of the most accessible forms of culture, the real villain here is christofascism - to which the author never alludes, despite the title's focus on puritanism.
Look, I love sex and I like sex scenes. Sex is a normal part of human life and it's important to portray it as such, in all its iterations. However, this article is written from a very narrow perspective and blithely starts with the premises that sex scenes like those in Basic Instinct (!) are of unambiguously high cultural value, which I think is debatable, to say the very least.
One thing that seems clear to me is that many people now feel empowered to insist on their right to avoid exploitative, distressing, dehumanizing scenes of sexual exploitation and domination - which describes A LOT of the sex scenes that used to be so plentiful. And I think that's a good and necessary thing. Maybe one day, society will have figured out how to film sex scenes that aren't solely for the purpose of titillating one segment of the population and that honor the dignity of all participants.