Attention teen girls: you are required to take pregnancy tests in school if at any time you are suspected of being pregnant. Should you refuse to take this mandatory test, or turn out to actually be pregnant you will be forced to leave school. Actually, don’t worry. This will only apply to Delhi Charter School in Louisiana!

   Well now that all just sounds a little ridiculous (and illegal?) so it can’t really be true, right? But in fact, shockingly enough this really happening, and this Louisiana K-8 school has been receiving major heat in the media about their “student pregnancy policy. You can read a little more about here.

   Also, as another article points out here, Delhi Charter School’s “student pregnancy policy states that the school seeks to ensure that students ‘exhibit acceptable character traits’—and in order to do so, allows the school to force any ‘suspected student’ to take a pregnancy test.” The article also explains how, “The ACLU notes that this policy is a clear violation of Title IX–which, among many other wonderful things, explicitly protects pregnant and parenting teens’ right to education–and the equal protection clause of the constitution.” To me, this whole situation called to mind the Hurst, Brown, and L’Engle (2008) article we read on how “Boys Will Be Boys and Girls Better Be Prepared…”. The school’s tactics to promote an “acceptable” learning environment for their students evidently “ambiguously and/or inaccurately reinforce traditional gender stereotypes that males seek sex and females are responsible for protection against pregnancy.” (Hurst et al., 2008). Further, the boys in this school are plainly unaffected by this school policy. If they’re truly trying to justly promote an ideal learning environment for all students, shouldn’t they be equally subjecting boys to some kind of spontaneous DNA testing do determine in the words of Maury Povitch, “You Are/Are Not The Father!”? I guess not.

   But apparently this school thinks that blatantly imposing old school shaming tactics against pregnant/potentially pregnant/virtually any girl in the school is an appropriate and effective way to address sexually active teenagers (which by the way, obviously not all of these K-8 girls even are). Through their actions, this school seems to be perpetuating the notion that teen sexual activity is something incredibly taboo. But if some of them are sexually active, is this really anything new? As Hurst et al. (2008) points out, “The media are important sources of sexual information for adolescents…”. Hurst et al., (2008)’s explanation that, “Many parents, however, still find it difficult to talk with their children about sex, and schools are increasingly limited in what they may say about sex, as many have turned to abstinence-only education.” also sounds a lot like the Dehli Charter School’s position on things. But “…the media are important sources of sexual information as well as norms about inappropriate and appropriate behavior and what other teens are doing sexually (Brown, Halpern, & L’Engle, 2005; Brown, Steele, & Walsh-Childers, 2012).” (Hurst et al., 2008). 

Everyone's Favorite
Pregnant Cheerleader:
Glee's Quin Fabray

   By 2012 we have been able to watch plenty of popular shows and films that focus on teen pregnancy. Some of these examples include but are not limited to: MTV’s shows Teen Mom, Teen Mom 2, 16 and Pregnant, Fox’s show Glee and the popular movie Juno. All of these feature teenage mothers/mom’s-to-be as lead characters. Even if Delhi Charter School wants to sweep teenage pregnancy under the rug, the fact of the matter is that teen sexual activity and pregnancy have been and will continue to have multimedia coverage. While it is apparent that not all media coverage is realistic in their glamorized portrayals, this should serve as motivation to implement more primary prevention sexual health education among adolescents. The “media plays a major educational role” as Delgado and Austin (2007) point out in their research article, but “parents can play an important role in their children’s sex education” too (Delgado & Austin, 2007). It would be more advantageous for schools like Delhi to work with media resources to promote better sexual health for their students (therein promoting a healthier educational environment for girls and boys alike). We’ll just have to stay tuned to see if their recent negative media attention will promote change in a positive direction or not. Here’s to hoping!

Man, gonorrhea can be a bummer

Earlier today the Center for Disease Control held a press briefing to announce that the United States could soon face a gonorrhea epidemic.  The STI, which can cause damage to reproductive systems in both women and men and lead to infertility, has long been overshadowed by more difficult to treat sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS and herpes.  Every year, 64 million people contract gonorrhea, 700,000 of those in the United States.  However, over the past few decades, the bacteria causing gonorrhea have become more drug resistant, and now there is only a single antibiotic that effectively treats the disease.  Problematically, this antibiotic (ceftriaxone) is only effective when injected, meaning those infected must go to a doctor and get a shot rather than the easier oral treatments.

The CDC announced today it is only "a matter of time" before the disease becomes resistant to ceftriaxone as well.  And when gonorrhea remains untreated and enters the bloodstream, it becomes deadly.

It is difficult to say what impact this seriously concerning announcement will have on sexual attitudes in America.  The AIDS epidemic and ignorance about how HIV spread caused a moral panic in the 1980s that in some ways still persists today. (For example, sexually active gay men are still turned away from blood donations—even if they do not have HIV/AIDS.)  Though HPV is so common that half the sexually active population in America will contract a strain of it at least once in their lives, people still have qualms about the cancer-preventing vaccines.  Last year, Sen. Michele Bachmann baselessly made the claim that these vaccines cause mental retardation.  Clearly, sexually transmitted diseases present a unique public health dilemma because privacy and morality issues come into play.  Even if doctors could cure every disease, a large number of of sexually transmitted diseases would likely still go untreated because of ignorance or shame.

As essentially every study we've read this semester shows, the media does have a profound effect on a variety of sexual attitudes.  As Pinkleton et al. (2012) point out, the media can be an important and helpful educator on sexual health and can influence adolescents to make responsible sexual decisions.  Delgado and Austin (2007) found that sexual health messages were effective in a variety of mediums.  However, Hust, Brown, and L'Engle (2008) showed that so far, the media isn't doing as effective of a job as it could in this realms, choosing to mostly ignore sexual health messages despite the impact they could have.  There is no reasonable or ethical way to stop people from having sex, and there will always be people engaging in risky sexual behaviors that will cause these diseases to persist.  Healthy, educated attitudes about sex are more important than any vaccine when it comes to protecting sexual health.  In the coming years, the media should prioritize and normalize sexual health messages so that we don't have to worry about gonorrhea epidemics and other horrors.

Benjamin Taylor - "Wicked Way"

I happened across the video for the song "Wicked Way" by Ben Taylor last week and I was really taken aback by the lyrics. The song is basically from the perspective of a horny and mildly predatory, albeit very honest, stereotypical male figure who laments about just wanting to have no-strings-attached sex with a beautiful woman who won't pester him the hassle of commitment, emotions, or conversation. The lyrics are listed below, read on and you'll see what I mean:

I just want to take you out and get you drunk

So I can have my wicked way with you

I'm just being honest 'cause I know the other guys

Are thinking just the same way too

And I'm not gonna lie and say

That I will take you out to dance, there's just no chance

'Cause I don't even like the same music you do

I just want to have my wicked way with you

Girl, don't you fight it

Don't knock it till you tried it

Just show me some skin, I might bite it

I want to have my wicked way with you

I'm not gonna come over and meet your mom and dad

They know that I was bad

I don't want to meet your friends

Oh, just pretend I like you

I don't want to talk about what happened

On your favorite TV show

I just want to get you close enough

So I can take off all your clothes

I don't want to make you cry or break your heart

Girl, we don't have the time

I'm just thinking of three hours or more

So I can have my wicked way with you

Now, don't you fight it

'Cause I know you're gonna like it

Show me some skin, I might bite it

I want to have my wicked way with you

I was definitely surprised upon hearing this the first time, and I initially thought that Ben was writing from his own perspective, because he prefaces the video by saying that he started writing this as a way to "express his freaky sexuality," whatever that means. He does say that the resulting song ended up becoming a joke, but in any case, there are some really interesting contradictions at work here. First of all, if you were to read the lyrics without hearing the song, you would probably assume that it's a really beat-heavy, overly-produced song that you might expect to hear in a seedy club. Surprisingly enough, it's actually a very simple, acoustic guitar-driven, folksy sort of song that seems to contradict the dirty lyrics with how sweet it sounds. And I think that's the point. 

If you were to listen to the song without paying attention to the lyrics, you might assume that it's a sincere love song that would likely follow the formula in the "Love Will Steer the Stars" Bader article. (Ben Taylor is, after all, the offspring of 1970s folk-rock icons James Taylor and Carly Simon.) However, the lyrics contrast the genre by flying in the face of the all of the characteristics of an idealized love song. Instead, lyrically, the song sounds more like a frank confessional by the type of guy we discussed before and after viewing Spin the Bottle: Sex, lies, and alcohol. That is, men who use alcohol as as strategy to lower women's inhibitions and make them more sexually permissive. Whether this is Ben's critique of that idea, an attempt to say "Hey, I'll be blunt if no one else will," or just a joke remains to be seen. But I'd encourage you to listen to at least part of the song, if for no other reason than because it's weird and because it's such a stark contradiction between words and music. 

"How 'Hottest Olympian' Did in London"

I really wish I was making that headline up, but unfortunately I'm not. That is one of the headlines on Yahoo. From time to time I'll go on Yahoo and read some of the stupid and pointless articles which they seem to call "news." They obviously have a much broader definition of news than I do. This is one of the headlines for one of their top stories, and I must say, this has to be a low point in journalism, even for Yahoo.

The 'Hottest Olympian' they're referring to is javelin thrower Leryn Franco of Paraguay and she didn't do very well in these Olympic games. In fact, she finished 18th in qualifying and didn't even make the finals in her respective event. I'll repeat that again... 18TH!!!!! Why on earth are we giving coverage to someone who didn't even do well in the qualifying event and who isn't American!? This feeds into the idea that women are valued for their physical appearance (Kim et al., 2007). This woman is very attractive, but she's competing in an environment based on athletic ability, not on physical attractiveness. I have no problem with a journalist mentioning that she's pretty, but I do have a problem with an article being written about her performance only because she is beautiful. Have you ever read an article about someone from another country coming in 18th place in a qualifying event? I know I haven't.

This sends the message to young girls that all that matters is your looks. It doesn't matter if you fail or succeed in what you do, as long as you look good doing it then you have value. The Olympics are supposed to be a time when the world joins together to watch athletes from all countries compete athletically. It's not about where you come from or what you look like. It's about striving to be the best athlete you can be and showing the world what you have trained your whole life for. To write stories based solely on the attractiveness of a female athlete isn't just sexist, it's lazy journalism.

The Intimacy of Masturbation

You watch Misfits right? You don't? Well you definitely should. Misfits is a British television show that centers around a group of delinquents. During some weird freaky storm they all get super powers along with a few other people. Only, not all these powers can be used to save the world. Here's a clip from the show below. ( I wish Youtube had better clips that tell you more about the show, but you can definitely check it out on Hulu)

Alicia is attractive ad portrayed as permiscuous. After the storm, she learns that any person that touches her will want to have sex with her and can't control themselves, let alone even remember it. IT may seem great that she can get any guy she wants but her story is a tragic one. This ruins her self-esteem. Her boyfriend can't even touch her without suddenly feeling the aggressive need to have sex with her and not even remember it happened. What do you do when you really care about someone but you can't touch each other, kiss each other or have sex with each other? Masturbation of course!

The show poses masturbation as an alternative to sex, something we discussed in class. Masturbating is definitely shown as a preventative measure here, although the circumstances are vary unusual. Wouldn't masturbation get boring after a while though? What if you want companionship. The show has the answer for that too. Alicia and her boyfriend Curtis masturbate in front of each other, sharing an intimate moment. Masturbation between the two characters is much more intimate than sex. If the two were to have sex, Alicia would be thought of nothing more than a sexual object, quickly forgotten about afterward.

Check out a clip here 

Delgado and Austin's (2007) study results on media intervention  suggests that popular television shows can promote recall of sexual health-related messages. Sexual health content in the media is rare; however, when present it is often humorous or humiliating (Hust, Brown, & Ladin L’engle, 2008). In this case of Misfits, the show's sexual content is definitely meant to be humorous. But this could be a method of attracting young viewers and interesting them. Rarely does a show present an alternative preventative aside from abstinence or condom use. Here is the rare case where masturbation is presented as a preventative measure for sex, rather than a precursor for sex.

I think the show also debunks the myth that sex equates to intimacy. In the show, being desirable is worthless because that comes relatively easy. Any person Alicia touches will find her desirable and irresistable, moreover, she has no control over it- she can't turn her powers on and off. This speaks to the stereotype that all men want to have sex with an attractive woman and sex is all consuming. The show highlights that emotions are the gateway to forming a worthwhile connection. Any form of physical interaction is rendered meaningless in Alicia's case.

There's No Such Thing As A Dumb Question

Here's the yahoo answer post I mentioned in class. If you click on the paragraph below it'll redirect you to the original post with comments and all. 

Will I get pregnant if he ejaculated in me?

Well me and my boyfriend decided to have sex at my house since my parents are away. We were doing foreplay on for a good 15 minutes.. I was giving him head while he was lying down with his eyes closed. Then all of sudden, my 6.5 ft tall, 290 lbs Great Dane came over and stuck his penis in my vagina from behind. It was the one of the worse experience ever. My Great Dane started humping me and I was just yelling. My BF was just sitting there shocked. He tried to move the dog but the dog would not bulge. Suddenly I felt a sticky warm fluid in my vagina. My Great Dane finally came off and I realized he just finished breeding with me. I sat there shocked, crying and my boyfriend just hugged me. I was so disgusted. I think I may be pregnant and Im so scared. What if my babies have dog heads and human bodies? How do i explain that to my parents? So can I still get pregnant even if my dog camed in it?

Now if this isn't the media acting as a super peer, I don’t know what is. I'm pretty sure there's no one you could ask this question to without them laughing in your face and thinking you're an idiot. I wouldn't dare ask my friends this, no matter how experienced or smart i thought they were. It seems heterosexual adolescents and adolescents in the LGBT community use the Internet in similar ways when seeking information regarding sex.For LBGT individuals the media is used more frequently than any face-to-face interpersonal relationships as a source of information during the coming-out process (Bond et al., 2009). The majority of the participants in the Bond et al. study (2009) use the Internet in their information gathering, the majority of Internet users being younger. Similarly, adolescents in both these groups are using the Internet to gather information related to sex and relationships. 


The internet is truly a priceless resource when it comes to seeking information about sex. There is a myriad of sexual situations or information that can not be put into magazines, movies or on television because it would result in an uproar from viewers and supporting advertisers. The internet can allow for questions to be answered anonymously, by those who have the answers. I'm pretty sure if you asked some adults the above Yahoo question they would tell the girl no but start to wonder themselves if it is truly possible. The first place they'd head to find the answer is the internet. It's surprising how common ridiculous questions such as this are asked on the internet. But I'm sure we'd rather have those who don't know the answer ask. The anonymity the internet allows makes it safe to ask questions and learn about sex. Who needs television to teach you when you can type in any question you have about sex and have it answered?


 Being older and college educated, we may think this is a dumb question. But aren't we glad they asked? Can you imagine being an adolescent girl thinking you're going to give birth to a litter of puppies? Every itch you get you'd think it was fleas and begin to freak out more. There are many sex myths that people come up with and there are those that are widely held. The internet allows for those to be dispelled if someone is truly curious. Check out the link below for more odd, ridiculously hilarious sex questions. Some crazy questions are from adults as old as 30!

The Yahoo Answers Guide To Sex: 14 Idiotic Questions About Sexuality

"Safe Sex is Great Sex"

"...so you better wear a latex, cause you don't want that late text, the 'uh-oh I think I'm late' text." Lil Wayne's poignant, emotionally complex song "Lollipop" here addresses issues of safe sexual activity, making mention of the fact that unprotected sex can, and perhaps will, lead to surprise pregnancies and encourages his audience to "wrap it up." While this is perhaps surprisingly progressive in the rap genre, my intent for this post is not to discuss rappers and their proclivities towards "effing b's and getting g's," if you know what I mean, and whether or not they "wrap it up." Instead, I'd like to talk about safe sex, and our very own glaring beacon of safe sexual practices, the Safe Sex Store (S3).

S3 is kind of infamous in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area because it so proudly parades its intents to provide correct, consistent sexual health information (see the entire background of the store here). Not only does S3 deliver upon this goal, but takes it above and beyond sexual health information with a wide array of sex toys, condoms, lubricants, sex practices books, and even novelty items like a cake mold shaped like a penis (a practical addition to any college student's kitchen). S3 is unique because they encourage young people (well, all people, but this is a college town) to enjoy sex by doing it in a safe, healthy way--a far cry from the government-mandated abstinence-only teachings we received in middle and high school. Upon my first trip into the store about a month ago, I was greeted with a dizzying amount of vibrators, dildos, sexual fetish items, and a wall of condoms; needless to say, I was a bit overwhelmed and instinctively uncomfortable. As I browsed the condom wall and tried not to stare at the giant dildo inches from my face, I overheard the staff member (a former classmate of mine, actually), explaining to a customer the differences between the 50-or-so lubricants carried in the store. She was courteous, informed, and unabashed in her descriptions, and quite frankly, I was impressed. We chatted for a while, and she asked me if I needed help finding anything, etc etc--I won't go into it--but at first I found myself kind of embarrassed to talk to her. Then I thought, why? We're literally having a conversation in the middle of a sexual carnival and everyone else in that store wouldn't be there if they weren't seeking something as well.

I can't tell you the number of times I've walked past groups of freshman or high schoolers roaming South U and stopped in front of S3, peeking in the windows, giggling, and discussing in hushed tones how weird it is that Ann Arbor has a store devoted to sex. In light of the importance placed on sexual health education and its positive impacts on young people, as seen in the Delgado & Austin study, why are we so awkward and embarrassed when it comes to talking about sex? Isn't talking about sex, after all, the first step in sex ed? Delgado & Austin found that young people who had undergone a "media intervention" showed a "significant decrease in risk" and were more likely to use a condom than those who had no intervention (2007, p. 405-406). How are we supposed to get these results if we're too nervous or embarrassed to talk or to ask about it? Hust et al make perfectly clear that the media isn't taking responsibility for providing a healthy sexual education to young people, stating that a common theme throughout television programming is that "sexual health is humiliating and humorous" and citing Kunkel et al's finding that only about 10% of sexual scenes in popular television programs have a sexual precaution message (2008; 2005). If schools are teaching abstinence and media are teaching that sex is always risk-free as well as a humiliating subject, where are young people supposed to receive knowledge about the alternative?--that is, a healthy, precaution-driven sexual life. Organizations like S3 step up to the plate and provide a risk-free way to receive answers to questions about sex. There is an entire section of the website devoted to answering sexual health questions, how to use a condom, toy and vibrator information... it's the embarrassed college freshman's dream. S3 defies conventional attitudes towards sex and provides a safe, judgment-free place for people to learn about a natural part of human identity. While the role of the media is clearly extremely important in forming attitudes towards sex (see every article we've read for this class), I think that more credibility and attention needs to be given to organizations like S3 that attempt to change attitudes--perhaps S3 should be leading sexual health workshops in schools, though it would never happen. My point is that if we all regarded sex like S3, I honestly think our society would be much healthier, and much more satisfied, with their sexual lives. The next time you pass by S3, don't be shy to check it out--you might just learn something.

"Does this car make my penis look big?"

Ah, the proverbial vehicle-as-panty-dropper phenomenon. I'm gonna go ahead an chalk it up on the list of things I don't understand, right up there with economics and Mary-Louise Parker's strange ability to somehow evade aging. Mysteries, all. But I digress.

This BMW commercial was brought to my attention last week. In it, a boy picks up his date for prom, who I'm assuming they intended to look out of his league.
After performing typical "nice guy" actions (presenting her with a flower and opening the passenger door for her), he walks around the back of the car and does a quick celebratory victory-dance, involving outlining an imaginary "hourglass" female figure and spanking that imaginary figure. Once he gets in the car, he realizes his date, looking at him angrily, saw the whole thing on the car's rear-view camera. However, much to his surprise, she grabs his face and aggressively kisses him. Watch below:

Now, there are a variety of messages that could be presented by this girl's reaction. 

1. Catching this boy celebratory dance is embarrassing, and therefore endearing. (Possible, but I'm not buying it, if for no other reason than the fact that endearing, mildly nerdy teenagers don't sell $50,000 cars.)
2. His driving a BMW automatically makes him more attractive.
3. His driving a BMW makes her okay with being objectified.
4. His driving a BMW prompts her to unleash her sexually aggressive side before they even leave the driveway. 

There has been a long-standing idea in society that cars are symbols of power and, oftentimes, masculinity. Is it any wonder that in Holz-Ivory et al.'s study of gendered relationships on television, one of their coding categories for dominant acts was "drives a motor vehicle"? It would appear that, in this case, the BMW as a symbol of power and dominance certainly heightens this fellow's appeal.

This commercial is especially interesting in light of the in-class lists we created of traits in an "ideal" boyfriend and girlfriend. It seemed that the general consensus in these lists was that men look for physical attractiveness first, while women look for success.  In a matter of 30 seconds, BMW touches on the main qualities that are sought after by the stereotypical male and female; The boy is excited to go to the prom on the arm of a girl with a good body, while the girl is excited to go to the prom on the arm of a boy with a nice car.

In closing, I'll leave you with the top two YouTube comments on this video's page:

Telling. 

A Step In The Right Direction

   When it comes to making an effort to capture young audiences, none do a better job than music television. Channels like Music Television (MTV) and Black Entertainment Television (BET) are constantly changing in order to appeal to younger generations. Knowing that younger generations are constantly changing fads, attitudes, and styles, it is important for these two networks to keep up with current trends.

  Typically these networks only offer content related to pop culture such as music, popular syndicated television shows, and award shows featuring the latest styles and the hottest artist. Tied into the popular media that is presented through these networks are usually some form of sexual content. But are BET and MTV responsible for the amount of sexual media that is presented to youth? This has been a dilemma that has plagued each network during their existence. Whether MTV or BET is to blame, each network has made efforts to take a stand and present examples of positive sexual health.

Here is a commercial from BET's Rap-It-Up campaign (2007):

 

The TV spots used celebrities and TV personalities to honor 25 different citizens who were leading the fight against AIDS/HIV through protection and awareness. Also, the website http://www.rapituppresents.com/ was created with more information about HIV/AIDS and how to get tested. Their campaign used similar methods to connect with young people by using celebrities in their ads and TV spots. Young people would appear in these ads to create a personal connection with their targeted audience. Such campaigns as BET's Rap-It-Up are not only for show as they can inspire better sexual awareness.

MTV has started a foundation that is dedicated to HIV/AIDS research and prevention. The Staying Alive foundation promotes better choices when it comes to sexual health by stressing the message of condom use and being aware of myths related to sex. The foundation also rewards young people who are running HIV awareness programs in their communities with project grants. To put the icing on the cake, the foundation has even held concerts with celebrities who further stress the importance of sexual health. The efforts of BET and MTV are definitely a step in the right direction but their efforts may be few and far.


   According to studies done by Hust et al (2008) and Delgado and Austin (2007) there are not enough representations of sexual health messages in mass media. Another finding was that when these messages of sexual health do occur, they are humiliating and humorous (Hust et al., 2007). They are often not taken  seriously and they are not always encouraging people get involved. With such a small representation of 1% of media being related to sexual health messages (Hust et al., 2007), this content is rarely seen. But with the help of media powerhouses like MTV and BET, there is still hope for sexual awareness messages to have importance and longevity in the media.

   Striving to be pioneers in the battle against AIDS/HIV is an imperative decision by both networks. Not only do they get the opportunity to reach their targeted audience in young people, they also get to keep these messages relevant for a longer period of time. Offering multiple TV spots for messages of prevention, awareness, assistance for programs, and websites helps these networks fill a void expressed by Hust et al. (2008) and Delgado and Austin(2007) that could make the world a more sexually enlightened society.

Can't women be good at video gaming too?

Video gaming should be a hobby, either relaxing or competitive, in which the player is able to immerse himself or herself into a different world. But competitive gaming often prevents women and homosexuals from immersing themselves into the game because they face a constant barrage of violently sexist and homophobic remarks.

A very interesting and shocking NY Times article explores this in detail, but I'll summarize:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/02/us/sexual-harassment-in-online-gaming-stirs-anger.html
      The article first details the experience of a female gamer named Miranda Pakozdi who was training for a video gaming tournament, and she was the only woman on her team. Her own coach started to sexually harass her by asking what her bra size is and taunting her by getting close to her and repeatedly smelling her. Pakozdi had to drop out of the tournament.
       In May, a campaign was started by a woman named Anita Sarkeesian to document the portrayal of women in video games, and she received a barrage of hateful comments and violent threats. Someone even made an internet game where you can punch Sarkeesian's face, making it turn bloody and black-and-blue.
       More generally, sexual threats and propositions are common for female gamers, for many men see gaming as male territory and women as mere distractions or attention-seekers.
     Female gamers have even started their own blog http://fatuglyorslutty.com/ in which women post the sexist messages they receive from other gamers. Its name derives from the tendency for people to call them "fat," "ugly," or "slutty." Some examples of messages that were posted on the blog are: "go back to the kitchen slut," "bitches shouldn't play mw3 because your fuck horrible," and "I just watched you play Halo 4... and your CHEST is awesome! Nice Halo play too."

I thought this article was interesting and relevant because video gaming is an important form of media that we haven't talked about yet -- one that is classically male-dominated but is witnessing a growing number of female gamers. The violent sexism reveals the unease of men who feel like other people are invading their territory, as if the world of online gaming belongs to heterosexual men, and to heterosexual men only.
            The comments I wrote down above (that were on the fatuglyorslutty.com blog) show how even in the gaming world, women are solely valued for their appearance and are objectified by men. Their value is only seen so far as they are working in the home or kitchen, but God forbid they do something so manly as play video games! This is consistent with the heterosexual scripts outlined by Kim et. al (2007), where women are treated as sexual objects, and men are obsessed with sex and can't stop thinking about sex. This male script is evidenced by the high number of incidents where male gamers send sexually harassing messages to female gamers, in which they call attention to female appearances and body parts.
          More generally, I was happy to see this article in the NY Times, because that shows that these issues are being taken seriously. Last time I checked, there were about 300 responses to the article. Many of the responses were from male gamers, and many of these responses lambasted the article for shedding a negative light on the gaming community. Many guys had the same response: "Well, that's just the way the gaming community is. If you can't handle it then don't play."
        What do you guys think about that defense? Is it defensible to say that the sexually antagonizing behavior is okay because that's how the gaming community operates?

Growing-Up Is Awkward.

Just recently, MTV aired a new “coming of age in a not so typical way” themed high schooler-oriented show called Awkward. To give a synopsis of the show thus far, the show follows Jenna, a girl who was unseen to her peers until a rumor went around that she tried to kill herself. Throughout the process of the first season, Jenna ends up hooking-up with Mr. Popular of her school, Matty. Towards the end of the season, she also ends up dating Matty’s best friend, Jake. Upon first viewing this show, it really felt like I was watching just another teen show, like a Degrassi spinoff or something. Upon closer viewing, it struck me that this show deals with sex and all of the problems that come with it a lot more frequently and in more depth than many of the other “teen shows” on the market these days.

An example of sexual health content in Awkward.

It is quite unusual to flip on the television and see a show about high school kids not only talking about sex in an open forum with their peers, but actually having it as well. Not only does this show depict teens having real, in depth conversations about the consequences of sex, it actually has a few examples of pro-sexual health messages weaved organically into the plot. As Hust, Brown and L’Engle (2008) point out in their study on the depiction of sexual health content in popular adolescent media, depictions of real-life sexual health concerns, questions, and topics are often largely unseen. Hust, Brown and L’Engle (2008) also point out three major themes that show up when sexual health content is visible: puberty is humiliating and something to be mocked, boys are obsessed with sex, and girls are the ones responsible for contraception. While Awkward does introduce the topic of sexual health in a fairly believable way, it does also fall back on some of these themes. For example, the first episode of the second season (which you can watch here) opens up with a scene depicting Jenna and her current boyfriend Jake not only engaging in sexual activity, but talking about it to each other, which then segues into Jenna opening up Christmas gifts from her parents. Her dad gives her a box of condoms and says “this is something to remind you of how precious you are to me.” This example completely goes along with the theme found by Hust, Brown and L’Engle’s (2008) study: that girls are responsible for not only their own virtue, but for taking control of using contraceptives when they engage in sexual activity. Another overarching theme of the show is that puberty (or, “growing up”) is somewhat embarrassing or humiliating. The show as a whole details the “awkward” situations that Jenna and her friends go through when dealing with sexual partners, finding out who they are, and what their sexual virtues are. 

Although Awkward falls back on a few problematic themes found in Hust, Brown and L’Engle’s study (2008), I would argue that it is also contradicting a few themes and possibly doing the audience some sort of good at the same time. The other theme discussed, that boys are sex crazed, is somewhat contradicted. In the same episode mentioned before, Jenna and her friends are shown getting ready for a New Year’s Eve party, and Jenna’s friend Tianna, gives her advice on how to dress, saying she should be “sexified” because she would want that kind of attention. Also contradicting this theme is the character of Jake, Jenna’s boyfriend. In a later episode in the season, Jenna discusses with her friends whether or not she is ready to have sex with Jake, and Jake is the one to tell Jenna that she should not feel pressured into having sex with him if she is not ready. Not only does this go against the theme that boys are the ones who are sex-crazed, it also demonstrates a rare example of sexual health content. As Hust, Brown and L’Engle (2008) found, couples in the media actually discussing the consequences or their readiness to have sex is pretty rare. What this episode might demonstrate is the media’s acknowledgement that adolescents are going to have sex, and if they are going to have sex, they might as well be prepared for it. Not only this, but depicting the teen characters being able to discuss sex and relationships with their own peers and parents (Jenna often discusses sex with both her mom and dad), might make the idea of discussing sex with peers instead searching for answers in less credible and flawed sources more palatable. 

This show may be flawed in its nod toward gendered sexual scripts, but it is not all bad. It does sort of challenge a few of these scripts, and depicts teens in a seemingly real scenario being responsible for their sexual health. Compared to the less than 1% or sexual health content found on television (Hust, Brown and L’Engle, 2008), this could be considered a step-up. At the very least, it shows that the media is slightly more willing to depict sexual responsibility in a way that does not stigmatize teens for wanting to have sex, unlike the much more prevalent PSAs that play during the commercial breaks.

The New Normal

 

Apart from the P&G commercials that have frequently aired during the Olympic coverage, it has been hard to miss that NBC is pushing to promote its new show The New Normal. Perhaps this show caught my eye because I spent an entire day in my communication class focused on LGBT representation in the media discussing the word ‘normal’ or perhaps it’s because as a huge fan of Modern Family any show that seems to break the standard conventions of what a family is grabs my attention. Regardless, I decided to do some further investigating and found some startling controversy that this show has generated...mind you before it has even aired! For any one who has somehow missed the promos for the show during the Olympics watch the short trailer.

According to various articles, concerned mothers across the United States are joining together to protest the show, which is centered around a gay couple that hire a surrogate mother to carry their child, and thus emerges the new normal family in America. The article quotes the pro-family organization One Million Moms, which is a ministry of the American Family Association, arguing that the show is “attempting to desensitize America and our children. It is the opposite of how families are designed and created. You cannot recreate the biological wheel.” The group is encouraging its members to contact NBC to alert them of their serious concerns about the show as well as the sponsors of the show. One Million Moms believes that The New Normal threatens to damage and de-sensitize Americans to homosexuality in attempts to redefine marriage.

What I find most interesting about the group’s comments is not their homophobic nature, but rather their clear acknowledgement of the enormous power that the media has to influence the public. According to cultivation theory, viewers develop information from television by integrating it into their perceptions of the real world (Ferguson, Berlin, Noles, Johnson, Reed, &Spicer, 2005). Therefore I will not argue that One Million Moms is out of line in their fears or understanding of the power television has to influence its audience. However, I don’t think that trying to limit television shows to ones that reinforce heterosexual relationships and censor shows that challenge that norm is by any means progressive for our society. What I find even more amusing about this group’s efforts to protest and cancel the show is that they have not even seen it yet. The creator of Glee, Ryan Murphy said, “ Every person and group has a right to protest something. I find it to be interesting that they would take a position before they’ve seen it.” Interestingly enough apparently the show isn’t necessarily entirely pro-gay, the mother of the surrogate, played by Ellen Barkin, is a member of an anti-gay group. Rather than promote their own agenda it seems that perhaps the creators are attempting to give everyone a voice in their new show.

From the time I was five years old I can remember staring at the television in awe as I watched my favorite Disney Princess being carried away by her handsome prince charming. The media, specifically television has done so much to promote and normalize gendered images of men and women in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ivory, Gibson, & Ivory, 2009). It is so refreshing and in my eyes progressive to see television shows like Glee and Modern Family that offer positive representations of non-traditional family units and sexual relationships. On NBC’s website they noted that “These days, families come in all forms - single dads, double moms, sperm donors, egg donors, one-night-stand donors,” proclaims the description. “It's 2012 and anything goes.” The trailer features pro-gay representations such as the surrogate mother explaining that she doesn’t mind carrying the child of a gay couple because “love is love” however it also features many anti-gay comments from the surrogate’s mother. It seems that NBC really is trying to represent a variety of families and beliefs in their new show. Regardless, I for one am excited to see the pilot. In case you are interested the show premieres September 11^th at 9:30 p.m. on NBC.

The beefcakes, hunks, and hotties of Magic Mike: Men empowered through objectification

We began to touch on the subject of objectifying men in last Thursday’s class. Is it ok to objectify men? Do women objectify men in the same way? Are men asking for it? In that same sense, are women asking for it?

The idea of objectifying men is of much less concern for our society than the objectification of women. While women get a lot of support for their efforts to stop the objectification, men do not. Why is this? We’ve already seen in Mike’s last post that men get photo-shopped just as much females and we’ve read in ­­­­Aubrey and Taylor's (2009) study that this does affect male self-consciousness and sexual confidence. So where is and why is there a difference between the male and female objectification? 

 

Most recently, the film Magic Mike hit it big in the box offices. Women of all ages ran to the movie theater to get their fill of abs, dancing, and pure sexiness. I read various articles, tweets, and posts that said how it was about time that women got the opportunity to stare at men just like men get to stare at women. Forget the quality of acting or the emotional plot line -  this movie was novel because it allowed women to stare at men’s bodies for an hour and a half – and that’s it! The value of this movie was  nearly 100% based on the men’s bodies in it. 

While many movies focus on the bodies of women and their attractiveness, I do not think that female objectification is taken to the same degree that this movie took it with men. Could you imagine if a movie about 5 female strippers came out? How would people react if men were lining up outside the theater to drool all over 5 female bodies??

Because there is clearly a difference here, I started wondering why. I read an interesting article about Magic Mike and why it is more tolerable to objectify men – and why objectifying men really isn’t even the same as objectifying women.

The article strives to claim that both male and female objectification are degrading. However, while female objectification reduces a woman’s power in Hollywood movies, male objectification actually strengthens and worships the male. How can this be?? The article shows how this might just be plausible…

• Women’s sexuality is highlighted in movies to help make their seemingly powerful personalities seem less strong or worthy

o   For ex; Anne Hathaway in Love and Other Drugs is naked for most of the movie. While she is a strong, tough female, she appears to be very weak because she is butt-naked more often than not.

• To make women relatable, you have to show their weaknesses and strip them of their dignity- says Anna Faris

o   This is often done by focusing on their bodies

• Male objectification does not strip men of their power, but actually gives them more power

o   Men with great bodies are seen as powerful, successful, and highly admired – case in point with Mike from Magic Mike who always has tons of screaming girls around him.

o   He also exerts power over the women as he is stripping- taking the lead, telling them what to do, etc.

•  Men that are objectified in movies are still given personalities – usually hidden tenderness, thoughtfulness, and lovingness.

o   Females that are objectified rarely have personalities or any redeeming qualities

• Finally, the way men and women admire the opposite sex is different

o   Women scream, drool, and go crazy for sexy men

o   Men seem to sit back and take in the view of the sexy woman as if it’s her job to please him 

After our discussion on Thursday, I think this article about Magic Mike sheds light on why we think it’s more acceptable to objectify men than women. While women are reduced by objectification, men are empowered. Clearly objectification is not the same for each gender. As one commenter on the article said…“let’s all objectify each other! That’s equality, right?!” … well, I’m not so sure now. 

Swong, S. (n.d.). Magic Mike Matthew McConaughey Strip Scene: How Modern Movies Objectify Men. PolicyMic. Retrieved August 7, 2012, from http://www.policymic.com/articles/9592/magic-mike-matthew-mcconaughey-strip-scene-how-modern-movies-objectify-men

She kissed a girl, but did she really like it?

 After having taken my share of communications courses at Michigan analyzing media that challenges social norms becomes something that is sort of second nature. Although finding success while challenging norms is always an achievement I am fascinated by television shows and celebrities that have found success by both challenging as well as conforming to social norms. With the new release of her movie Katy Perry has been on the forefront of a vast amount of media directed toward adolescents. Katy Perry in my opinion is a celebrity that has built a career off challenging certain social norms but has maintained success by abiding to other norms. 

Her career skyrocketed from the national attention her hit single “I Kissed a Girl” generated. In case you're a little rusty on the hits of 2008 here is a link to the music video. 

Interestingly enough there isn't actually any girl girl kissing in the music video. Perhaps Ms. Perry wanted her lyrics to do the talking, my guess however, is in order to balance out the lyrics that defy social norms it was decided to keep the video relatively low key. This reinforces my point that Katy Perry is kind of the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to sexuality. I am all about challenging social norms especially when it comes to sexuality but because Katy does not identify as homosexual the song that shot her to A-list status in which she proudly talks about kissing a girl and liking it seems to be simply utilizing the notoriety generated from homosexual themes to gain success rather than actually making any sort of stance for equality. And if that is the case, I am completely turned off by any celebrity that uses homosexuality as a tool to gain fame. 

Katy attributed the songs enormous success to the fact that it is ‘catchy’ stating, “I think that it’s one of those subject matters that is, you know, like ‘Oh m God I can’t believe she said that, that someone came out and said it…everyone kind of perks up” (Talking Shop: Katy Perry, BBC News).  The media is often considered largely responsible for promoting normalized gendered images of men and women in heterosexual romantic relationships (Ivory, Gibson, & Ivory, 2009). Therefore the enormous success of her hit song filled with themes of homosexuality seems to be a refreshing challenge to the dominant representation of sexuality within mainstream music.

Katy appears to have been defying common gender norms in her hit song however; her personal lifestyle doesn’t resonate with her performance personality but rather conforms to social heterosexual norms. She was married to male actor Russell Brand and identifies as heterosexual, and don't be fooled by his long hair Katy isn't kissing any girl. I wonder then, what kind of effect does Katy’s contradictory messages have on adolescents who are perhaps in their own coming out process? Understanding one’s own sexuality can be extremely challenging particularly when that sexuality does not conform to societal norms (Bond, Hefner, & Drogos, 2009). Therefore, perhaps Katy’s themes of homosexuality within her songs and heterosexuality within her daily life may function as a positive source of identify for adolescents who are bi-sexual. While the song at face value seems to challenge sexual orientation norms, pushing the boundaries by addressing lesbian and bisexuality the lyrics seems to conform to norms. Lyrics referring to same-sex kissing as, “not what good girls do” suggests that woman who identify as queer are inherently ‘bad.’ She also states in the song, “just wanna try you on,” proposing that being queer can be a temporary experiment, this also seems to establish Katy as a ‘good’ girl who is simply trying out queer life and therefore her actions can be excused.  The song functions as an example of something that challenges social norms within terms that white, straight hegemony society finds acceptable. 

Since  “I kissed a Girl” Katy’s performances have grown increasingly more outrageous. In her music video for “California Girls” Katy at one point shoots whip cream from two cans attached to her breasts. From her constantly changing hair color to her ‘camp’ like outfits Katy has consistently challenged the norms of pop artists. In fact, she arguably has made a career out of defying Hollywood norms. Her flashy outfits and colorful hair have gained her attention and placed Katy in the pop star spot light. However, while her outrageous outfits and performances have gained Katy notoriety she has held onto certain celebrity norms, such as marrying a fellow musician, maintaining a thin body, and most importantly remaining extremely sexual. It seems that in today’s society in order to remain in the spotlight as a celebrity one is required to challenge certain norms in order to receive attention, however, those challenges must be balanced by norms that the celebrity accepts in order to remain well received by the public. 

International Accomplishment? Or Perpetuated Sexism?

   

   Recently I came across a couple articles about Bollywood actress Sherlyn Chopra being featured in Playboy magazine. The reason her photo shoot is getting so much hype is because Sherlyn will be the first Indian woman to pose nude for the magazine. Playboy will undoubtedly be using the ‘historic event’ angle to promote this November issue, and Chopra herself has been quoted as calling it an “international accomplishment”. It is kind of a big deal due to the fact that printed copies of Playboy are illegal in India. However, Chopra has since become the subject for a lot of criticism, particularly from the Indian community.

Hugh Hefner & Sherlyn Chopra
pictured in the Playboy Mansion

   In general, women’s relationship with Playboy is already complicated, but this is where it gets precarious. It’s true that Playboy has contributed to increasing visibility for a variety of women’s sexualities and sexual expressions while simultaneously opening up an arena for discourse surrounding these traditionally taboo topics. However, it is definitely worth noting that unlike many other magazines, Playboy blatantly perpetuates the absurd standards of beauty for and objectification of women’s bodies in a sexist market. In a nutshell, men like Hugh Hefner can make a ton of money off of selling pictures of what society considers women’s greatest assets, under the guise of promoting women’s “empowerment” regarding their bodies.

   But this is not the reason for all the opposition to Chopra’s nude Playboy photo shoot. On the contrary, the biggest critique against her is that many people think she’s damaging the “modest and pure” image of Indian women. Because of the increasing expression of concern over this, Chopra’s photo shoot went from being a personal and professional business move to, pinning her as being responsible for representing the image of Indian women worldwide. The criticism means that her display of sexual expression is not only a bad thing for her to do as a woman, but is bad for the integrity of Indian women everywhere.

   The disapproval is remarkably over the fact Chopra isn’t portraying what was referred to as the “Good Girl” code in the Kim et al. study. Through this representation, “Women are judged by their sexual conduct” and “A woman’s clothing, or often, lack thereof also provided clues to her virtue as a person.” (Kim et al. 2007). Also relevant are the Feminine Courtship Strategies. It explains that “Women can/do/should objectify themselves. Exploiting their bodies and looks was portrayed as important, if not necessary”. (Kim et al. 2007). The FCS also describe how “Women are valued primarily for their physical appearance” as media representations of women (such as a Playboy spread) “remind that their physical appearance [is] more important than their intelligence, personality, and other attributes.” (Kim et al. 2007). Chopra’s biggest critiques right now are judging her on her revealing physical appearance, and making assumptions for what it reveals about her moral character (instead of equal consideration for her intelligence as a career woman in the entertainment industry).

   Why is it so common that when a woman does something to publically express her sexuality in a way that she feels comfortable with she’s bombarded with a “slut shaming” backlash? Why is it that over and over one of the biggest critiques of individual women is how they’re negatively representing all women? Sure as a figure in the public eye they should be prepared to experience accolades and harsh criticism simultaneously. And it is true that the crimes against women in India are at an epidemic level (regarding sexual assault, forced marriages, domestic abuse, sex slavery etc.) in a patriarchal society that’s obsessed with controlling women’s bodies, sexuality, and freedom. However, it is completely unrealistic to expect one individual with their own unique qualities, experiences, beliefs, privileges and disadvantages to be able to sufficiently represent an entire ethnic population by their every move. That notion is insane.

   The fact is that Playboy’s perpetuation of unrealistic standards of sexuality for women parallels with the unrealistic standards of purity for women. In their different ways, both are equally sexist because they assign fault to any women who is not able to live up to these erroneous standards. As one of the articles quoted, this is “a particularly toxic brand of nationalism –the idea that a woman’s purity and modesty is the core of her identity as it relates to her culture… It limits the visions women can have for themselves, their self-expression and control over their own bodies and sexuality.” Obviously not all women can and will go running to pose nude in Playboy. But it is incorrect to assume that one woman’s actions set the standard for all women’s actions and/or reflect the values, attitudes, and ideas of other women. In this case, Chopra’s decision was one she personally made thinking it to be advantageous for her self-promotion within her career field.

   The whole situation makes me wonder how it would be unfold for a man in Chopra’s position. If I had to guess, there definitely would be critique along similar lines of an image setting unrealistic standards for men to live up to. However, I think that overall there would be more acceptance of the image as an ideal vision to live up to rather than a negative representation of masculinity. Because of the scrutiny over her actions, Chopra not only has to consistently defend her decision but the means to her achieving this "international accomplishment". In one of the articles she quotes, "I did not sleep with Mr. Hefner. No one at the [Playboy] mansion has till date made an indecent proposal to me. I love my naked skin. Felt quite comfortable displaying my nakedness... that is all." The fact is that because of the sexism rooted in our patriarchal society it is women’s sexual expression that is constantly weighed down with the questioning of her modesty/purity, and that is the reason for most of Chopra’s critique. 

Knocked up

            

           After watching the film in class on Wednesday as well as talk about sex and alcohol, it got me thinking about the movie Knocked Up, one of the very few movies that gives a realistic portrayal of what can happen under the influence of alcohol and the consequences of having unprotected sex. As we’ve talked about before, media doesn’t usually show the use of condoms in such situations. Isn't this basically promoting unprotected sex? If we are trying to prevent this, wouldn't the use of condoms be displayed more in the media? While Knocked Up did attempt to take precautions, due to being under the influence of alcohol it didn't pull through. 

It all began with Alison (Katherine Heigl) meeting Ben (Seth Rogen) at a bar one night. It was obvious that Alison was not interested after their first encounter, however after some drinking and getting a little lose they began connecting more and next thing you know they end up going back to her place and hooking up. In this scene, Alison is being very impatient while Ben is getting out the condom and tells him to “just do it already”, therefore, Ben says forget the condom and “just does it already”. 

This whole scene demonstrates how the use of alcohol caused Alison to feel more “into” Ben and not take the precautions before having sex with him. Ben was also influenced by also not fully going through with the protection and condom use.

I feel this answered quite a few of the questions that were asked on the Alcohol quiz we took in class last week. The ones if feel relate most to the film were:

• Less likely to use birth control
• Less likely to take precautions before having sex
• Less likely to talk with a sex partner about whether s/he has a sexually transmitted disease, like AIDS or gonorrhea.
• Less likely to use, or ask a partner to use, a condom.
• Have sex with people whom I wouldn’t have sex with if I were sober
• More sexually responsive

Now switching directions a little bit, I found this movie also go against what was talked about in the Segrin and Nabi reading on “Does Television Viewing Cultivate Unrealistic Expectations About Marriage?” In the reading it states “media may be cultivating unrealistic beliefs about what marriage should be like” and “by “idealized images of marriage” we mean portrayals that include, for example, a great deal of romance, physical intimacy, passion, celebration, happiness, “love at first sight”, physical beauty, empathy, and open communication” (Sergin&Nabi, 2002, p. 249). Throughout this film, the relationship between Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann) does not make marriage up to be a beautiful thing like this reading suggests. In fact their physical/sexual/romance drive is nonexistent in the earlier part of the film, happiness isn’t expressed between the couple and there is a horrible lack of open communication. The following clip shows a little bit of this "unfunny, tense version of Everyone Loves Raymond. That doesn't last 22 minutes...it lasts forever": 

Overall, I thought this film was a good mix of showing the realistic-ness of life and relationships as well as the realistic consequences of drinking alcohol and unprotected sex.