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.

Abercrombie & Fitch... Realistic?

During today’s reading about how the media, such as lad magazines, reinforce the importance of maintaining ones appearance, the following quote got me thinking about Abercrombie and Fitch models: “The male ideal appearance standard is more than just muscular; other cues, including clothes and grooming, might also affect men’s self-perception” (Aubrey & Taylor, 2009) 

These men are hot and are total eye candy, but what do these advertisements and pictures throughout the store and all over bags portray to men. These men are almost always half naked, perfectly groomed without a follicle of hair on their chest or stomachs and if there is a women in the picture as well she is lovin’ all over the sexy man. Therefore, “the idealized physical appearance of women might [also] affect the self-perceptions of men” (Aubrey & Taylor, 2009) I could totally see how the images of these models would put pressure on not only the men’s appearance but on to even wear this expensive clothing. Do you think this could limit the amount of male customers that purchase from the store? Do these images imply that this is the ideal appearance for a male who wears Abercrombie clothing? 

I don't know about any of you, but I have never seen a picture of an Abercrombie model that doesn't have 12 pacs! 

Realistic?... not so much!

Pretty Little Liars: Emily Fields

           

           Okay so, Pretty Little Liars! Yes, I may be a little late, but I just recently began watching the ABC Family TV series and love it. In fact I started it two weekends ago, from the beginning, and have already made it to season 3…I’m catching up. Anyways, after the class where we discussed the influence and effects of coming out in a mediated environment, I felt a scene and character in the show demonstrated exactly that. Emily, one of the main four girls in the television series identified herself as gay and was going through the difficult process of coming out to her parents. Click here to watch the actual coming-out moment to her Dad.

Emily (Shay Mitchell)

According to the Bond et al. article, media is what younger individuals turn to when it comings to gathering information during the coming-out process. With that being said, I believe that Pretty Little Liars does a great job at showing the insecurities about coming out as well as the process of completely going through it. As you saw, her father came into Emily’s room and asked why Emily had been acting so jumpy and that he and her mother were beginning to get worried. After thinking it was some boy who they felt she might be threatened by, she simply tells him, “I’m afraid of you and mom, because I’m not who you think I am.” This demonstrates the fear that comes along with the process of admitting one is gay. By telling her father, shows the first step in the attempt to open up to her parents providing a sense of family openness, which was described in the Bond et al. article (p.39). While such openness is hard to establish in the first place, this article makes it so obvious why, for even television shows are looked down upon for even having homosexual characters. 

            Having such characters such as Emily displayed on primetime television shows, provides these LGB youth who are looking at TV for information about the coming-out process, giving them a character to also relate to. A character to show that the process is possible, having such feelings towards the same sex is a real thing, and there is nothing to be ashamed of. However, while there are these shows that embraced openly gay characters, groups such as the Florida Family Association felt such portrayal was wrong. This association launched a campaign that I felt was very disappointing and straight up appalling. They launched an anti-gay campaign, and pulled their sponsor after seeing the shows romantic women on women relationship and felt as though it demonstrates, quote on quote, “irresponsible imagery.” While this statement, alone, disturbed me, they continue, saying:

“[They're] using salacious and glamorizing scenes portraying young, pretty women as lesbians, sends the wrong message to these young girls, a message that reinforces and legitimizes this homosexual lifestyle in a manner that could affect these young girls' sexual identity for a lifetime.”

How is this sending the wrong message to these young girls? When all it is doing is showing that they are accepted. It’s giving these LGB youths something to relate to, something to turn towards as support and information.  And, also, “portraying young, pretty women as lesbians”… What!?? Implying that lesbians aren’t identified as pretty? Wow, no wonder these individuals have such a hard time feeling okay about their sexual orientation.

Just Go With it, 2011 film co-produced by Kim et al.(2007)?

So while I used to watch movies to simply watch movies, I now find myself unable to watch them without analyzing everything that is going on between characters. Now I always point out scenes in them out and say to myself “oh my goodness, this totally relates to everything we talk about in comm.” I still find it funny how all these movies that I have already seen before demonstrate so many of the coding schemes that we have talked about in class, yet I never noticed them before. This weekend, i just so happened to watch Just Go With It, and since nobody in class did their movie analysis on it, I thought I’d touch on the film and a scene that I found to be one of my favorite. 

First off, here is a brief summary for those who have not seen it. Just Go With It is about Danny Maccabee (Adam Sandler), a successful plastic surgeon in Los Angeles, who fakes unhappy marriages in order to get women, in other words, pretending he is some sensitive guy. Keep in mind Danny is a perfectly stereotyped male, fitting all categories of Kim et al.’s (2007) coding strategy of sex as masculinity. He is preoccupied with women’s bodies, constantly consumed by sexual thoughts, and occasionally talks openly about his sexual desires and experiences. Typical man right? The reason for these fake marriages is to simply avoid romantic commitment that may eventually lead to heartbreak. Funny how this also completely matches the masculine commitment coding strategies in the Kim et al. (2007) reading we did in class. (p.153). I'm beginning to think Kim et al.'s study were the co-producers of this film (haha). Anyways, the movie continues and, at a party Danny meets Palmer (Brooklyn Decker) a beautiful, skinny, tall blonde... basically everything you would expect media to make a “perfect” girl to look like (picture displayed below)

Picture Perfect Palmer

Anyways, he happened to not be wearing his wedding ring when they first met, and the next morning, after they had hit it off, Palmer finds the ring. Assuming that Danny is cheating on his wife with her, she refuses to date him. Instead of telling her the truth he presumes to tell her that he is getting divorced from a women named Devlin. Smooth move on his part, right? Well, it was until Palmer insists on meeting “Devlin” so she can tell him that this in fact isn’t a lie. Danny asks Katherine (Jennifer Aniston), his office manager, to pretend to be “Devlin.” This is where the movie gets awesome.  Katherine’s kids get involved, yada yada yada the movie goes on, watch the movie, its great, you’ll love it.

            Anyways, below I have included a clip from the film that I found hilarious. 

This is a clip of the first time Palmer meets “Devlin”. I think the thing I like best about it is that “Devlin” is totally demasculinizing Danny. She is coming up with fake statements about Danny to make him appear less sexually pleasing and attractive. These comments totally going against Kim et al.’s masculine courtship strategies of the fact that men use active and powerful strategies to win women’s affection and appear valued for their strength and power (p. 152-153).  The comments that were made were, “I’m just happy his thing-a-ding can still ring-a-ding” and “he has a serious small issue with ED (erectile dysfunction)” and "its like trying to throw darts and you just, all you got, is you're shooting with rubber cooked spaghetti." Danny becomes extremely defensive and begins making comments about Katherine to try and protect his shrinking masculinity. I love seeing a women take a stand and call a man out when he is a dishonest player, but that’s just my opinion.

Movie Analysis: This Means War

I chose to analyze the romantic comedy spy film This Means War. The film is based around two of the world’s deadliest CIA operatives FDR Foster (Chris Pine) and Tuck Hansen (Tom Hardy) who also happen to be inseparable partners and best friends. While FDR is a player with no desire to settle down, Tuck is the hopeless romantic who is in search for real love. Their friendship quickly turns into a competition when they both begin to fall for the same women, Lauren Scott (Reese Witherspoon). Trish (Chelsea Handler) is Lauren’s best friend who is the initiator of the relationship that begins between Lauren and Tuck. The majority of the movie is the two men competing against each other to win over Lauren, while at the same time Lauren is also playing the game and dating two men at once. While she has no idea the two men know each other, let alone are best friends, she slowly waits out her decision on which man to choose until the end of the film.

  

SCENE ONE (no clip):       

           The first scene I chose to analyze was when Trish made an online dating profile for Lauren. Lauren is to busy with her job to have time to date, so her friend Trish, who feels she needs to go out and find a man, decides she is going to help her out. This scene begins with Lauren walking into her office and all her men co-workers are making smirky looks after had seen her dating profile on the dating cite it'sfate.net. Lauren has no idea what was going on until she reaches her computer and sees the profile her friend made her filled with revealing pictures and false information about who she is.

According to the Kim at el.’s (2007) female courtship strategies, Trish seems to agree with them all. First, that women should objectify themselves, for example when she makes Laurens dating profile, she lists that Lauren is bi-curious and includes a picture of her in dolphin shorts because the “men will respond to that camel toe”. This also displays the male courtship strategy that women are valued primarily for their physical appearance (Kim et al. (2007) p. 151) and stereotyping men as being preoccupied with women’s bodies (Kim et al. (2007) p.150). Therefore, implying that if she looks physically appealing (sexually) that men will want to date her/ she will have a better chance with them. Kim et al.’s (2007) paper also touched on the courtship strategy that men are constantly consumed by sexual thoughts. This was displayed in the scene when Trish also states, “Guys want to know that you’re flexible and good at gymnastics.” This entire scene implies that all men do is look for a women based on their appearance and look for qualities that would imply they are good at sex. 

                                                       SCENE TWO:

The second excerpt I chose was a scene in the middle of the movie when Lauren and Trish are sitting down in the kitchen talking about getting into the “making decisions mode”. While Lauren is telling her about how perfect the two guys, Trish simply implies that it is impossible that there is nothing bad about either of them and forces her to pick out their flaws. This emphasizes on the stereotype that men cannot be perfect especially when it comes to a relationship.

Lauren says that FDR has “tiny girl hands, like little T-rex hands”. I feel this crosses over into the a bit into the male stereotype. While males are the ones to be portrayed to pick a girl based on physical appearance, in this being portrayed in this scene as the opposite and through a female character. This scene emphasized that in a relationship, females also look for physical qualities and follow the female sexual role that females are attracted to specific types (Ward (2005)). In this specific case, FDR is having one of his physical qualities, his hands,  compared to a girl. While having FDR in the scene to hear this, it is obvious that it puts a damper on his masculinity. This quality makes him seem less manly and can be interpreted as weak, where as men are suppose to be strong with bold features.  This brings up the Kim et al. (2007) male courtship codes of men are valued for their strength, wealth, and power (p. 153).

                                                    SCENE THREE:

            The final scene I looked at was in the middle of the film when the two men begin to get a little more competitive and fall out of their friendship. While trying to win her over after they find out they have only one more week to impress her and “win her over”, they proceed to the next step, to “acquire Intel”. I found this scene to be one of my favorites because it shows the extreme lengths men would go to simply just win. While in the beginning it was about getting the relationship, it now just becomes more of competition between the two men. As you will see in the clip, both men are getting their team involved to find out everything about Lauren; what she likes, what she hates, what makes her cry, etc. This displays the negative male stereotype about their inability to, for example, remember important dates, and lack the commitment it takes to really get to know a woman. This male commitment was talking about in Kim et al. (2007) as well (p.153).

            According to Ward (1995), this scene also displays recreational orientation relationship. Within this orientation, Ward quoted “the most common theme was that sexual relations are a competition” and “this category perpetuate a “battle-of-the-sexes” attitude, with men and women as competitors who strategize about and manipulate each other (p. 607-608).” 

This friendly comical competition was displayed while FDR was in the attempt to impress her with his “fake” knowledge about art, Tuck decides to trick him into saying some weird and dirty comments while trying to describe the history of a painting. There are many scenes where this competition is portrayed, however, I felt this one showed it directly. Ward (1995) also discussed the male sexual roles when it came to relationships and sexuality. It was said that men are deviant and will play tricks in order to win that final prize. This whole scene is displaying that the men are doing whatever it takes to win Lauren over. They are pretending to know and be something they are not. This directly correlates by to Kim et al. (2007) male courtship strategy that men use active and powerful strategies to win a women’s affection (p.152). Both the men were very assertive about the romantic interests of Lauren.

            I feel the overall narrative of the film This Means War contradicts an appropriate female behavior as well as reversing some sexual roles as well as the courtship strategies that are described by Kim et al (2007). The film is communicating that it is acceptable for women to be promiscuous when it has to do with finding what she really wants in loves and in a relationship. Lauren is accepting her sexuality and being the one to control outcome of her relationships between the two men. Also by going out and exploring options, finding out what she is attracted to and discovering what she isn't. The film doesn't show all the female emotions that is stereotyped to come along with a relationship, however, it does emphasis on the stereotype that women need boyfriends to feel as if their life is complete.  While in the end of the movie when it came down to making a decision, sex was the final tiebreaker. Therefore, portraying that sex is what it comes down to and what “makes” the relationship for both sexes not just males as it is stereotyped to be. As a final analysis, while sweet, safe, and charming are qualities that one would assume to define the perfect man, in the end, as many of the readings emphasize, the more aggressive man wins.

Work Cited

Kim, J. L., Sorsoli, C. L., Collins, K., Zylbergold, B. A., Schooler, D.,  & Tolman, D. L. (2007). From Sex to Sexuality: Exposing the Heterosexual Script on Primetime Network Television. Journal of Sex Research, 44, 145-157.

Ward, L. M. (1995). Talking About Sex: Common Themes About Sexuality in the Prime-Time Television Programs Children and Adolescents View Most. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 595-614.

Kinberg, S., Lassiter, J., Simonds, R., Smith, W. (Producers) & McG. (Director). (2012). This Means War [Motion picture]. United States: Wonderland Films.

The Bachelorette- Who is the Aggressor, Emily or the Men?

I don’t know if any of you are into the Bachelorette this season, but I am obsessed. I have not missed one episode and definitely think Emily made a horrible decision in sending home Shawn. Jef is such a little kid and Arie is pretty phony, but that’s just my opinion. Okay, I’ll slow down a bit. For those of you who don’t know much about the show or have no idea what it is and what I am talking about, I’ll provide you with a brief description. If you’d like, you can actually go to the following link and watch the first episode to get a basic idea: http://abc.go.com/watch/the-bachelorette/SH5556990/VD55201748/week-1 .

Anyways, the Bachelorette is a spin-off of the original American competitive reality shows the Bachelor. This season features a gorgeous lady named Emily who hopes and believes she will find her new soul mate out of the 25 fortunate men that were chosen. While Emily is doing what “every” women is portrayed to do – be in a relationship and find love – she is also portraying something that would be considered inappropriate for  her gender norms.

I feel I could relate this show to Ward’s (1995) article Talking About Sex: Common Themes About Sexuality in the Prime-Time Television Programs. I would briefly like to focus on how Ward depicted male and female sexual roles:

-                    The Men – male sexual roles: I feel like the male roles that are depicted in the film – males as the aggressor – are fairly accurate with Ward. The men are the ones who are competing and trying to win Emily over; therefore, she is the ultimate prize (“trophy wife” as Ryan, one of the contestants, described her as). This shows the male gender role of being the sexual actors and initiators. They are aggressive in such ways as to make the best first impression and seem better than the other men.

-                    Emily – female sexual roles: Ward (1995) stated, “A women’s virtue is enhanced by not being sexual.” Going along with Ward, I wouldn't say Emily is necessarily following what is appropriate for her gender role. She swaps spit with multiple of the men like it is her job. For a woman, this is portrayed as promiscuous. A female's sexual role is to also be more passive and set sexual limits. Emily doesn’t really have limits. She basically treats each man like he’s her one and only and seems to be all about the physical. In one episode, she is complaining about how Jef, another contestant, hasn’t kissed her yet and how she is, in a way, disappointed. In another, she also talked about how she can’t keep her hands off of Arie, and all she wants to do is kiss him… kiss him… and kiss him. In its own way, this almost seems as if Emily is being the sexual aggressor in the show.

While the male role, according to Ward, is consistent, it is obvious that the female role… is not so much. However, with that said, while promiscuousness would be seen as acceptable if the tables were turned, I feel the Bachelorette is a nice twist! It is actually nice to see a women having the power, being promiscuous, expressing her sexuality, and taking on what is portrayed as a male role.