‘sex’

“Glee:” The Most Confusing Show on Television

Praising Glee doesn’t come naturally to me, at least not anymore. Attaining cultural juggernaut status after its first nine darkly comedic episodes was the worst thing that could happen to Glee quality-wise, and it’s been an unfortunate mess of morals and misplaced “edginess” ever since. The worst thing about current Glee, though, is the fact that there are still some brilliant moments hidden amongst all the chaos…and they usually air right after I’ve said something along the lines of, “NEVER AGAIN!! ME AND GLEE ARE FINISHED!!!” Go figure.

But my love-hate relationship with Glee has never been tested more than with last week’s episode, “Sexy.” When I heard Gwyneth Paltrow’s Hip to Your Jive Holly Holliday would be back as a sex ed teacher to educate the glee club, I assumed the worst—and for the most part, I got it. There were a few well-played jokes about the horrific state of sex education in the U.S. today (the reactions to Brittany seeing a stork outside her window and assuming she was pregnant were priceless), but the actual “education” presented in the episode was…problematic.

Sexalicious Tumbleweed Holly and Pristine Virgin Guidance Counselor Emma spent the episode pitted against each other Black Swan style, each pushing forward their respective sex education agendas while managing to teach nothing at all. While Holly gave out condoms and writhed on chairs to the tune of Joan Jett, the writers decided that Emma needed to backslide into her first season intimacy issues. What’s more, the episode ends as Emma’s marriage does. In other words: what a frigid prude, ammirite?!

Any effectiveness Emma’s fear of sex and subsequent pressuring her students to abstain might have had was undermined by the fact that Glee decided instead to make her look completely foolish. Holly may have been onto something with her, “expecting teenagers not to have sex is unrealistic” stance, but the fumbled handling of Emma’s storyline was enough to muddle the overall message. By the episode’s end with all the glee kids sitting in Celibacy Club, I actually had no idea what the episode was trying to tell me about sex education. That it happens, unless it doesn’t? Who even knows.

BUT: the other half of “Sexy” was handled beautifully. Kurt’s dad gave his son a sex talk that was both compassionate and realistic, ending with this:

“Kurt, when you’re ready, I want you to be able to … do everything. But when you’re ready, I want you to use it as a way to connect to another person. Don’t throw yourself around like you don’t matter. ‘Cause you matter, Kurt.”

The inclusion of “I want you to be able to do everything” made this speech not one about discounting Kurt engaging in more casual hookups, but one about him assessing himself and what he wants. It was also refreshing to have a sex talk specifically about safe gay sex, which is usually only vaguely addressed. Sex talks on TV also tend to be depressingly black and white, so this kind of nuanced discussion was a pleasant surprise.

But the hands-down winner of “Sexy” was one Ms. Santana Lopez. Santana and her best friend Brittany’s physically intimate relationship has been played for laughs since day one. “They’re not attracted to each other,” the show seemed to be saying, “they’re just promiscuous.”  And that was true: Brittany and Santana were the male characters’ go-to hookups, and both girls seemed to readily accept these roles.

But something funny happened along the way: it became clear that Brittany and Santana’s friendship is perhaps the strongest, deepest one there is on Glee. I didn’t have high hopes for the show itself realizing this, since its creator Ryan Murphy told a reporter asking about the Brittany/Santana relationship that Glee wasn’t “that kind of show.” What kind of show was it, I thought, that Kurt’s storyline could be so prominent while a potential queer women storyline languished in the background? Disappointed, I moved on.

Enter Santana Lopez in “Sexy”. While Holly and Emma faced off as two-dimensional female tropes of sexuality, Santana came to the stunning realization that she was in love with her female best friend, and she tackled it head on. She absorbed it, she steeled herself, she went up to Brittany and she laid it all on the line:

What I’ve realized is why I’m such a bitch all the time—I’m a bitch because I’m angry. I’m angry because I have all of these feelings, feelings for you, that I’m afraid of dealing with…because I’m afraid of dealing with the consequences….I want to be with you. But I’m afraid of the talks, and the looks….I’m so afraid of what everyone will say behind my back. Still, I have to accept that I love you. I love you, and I don’t want Sam or Finn or any of those guys. I just want you. Please say you love me back.”

Never in a million years did I think Glee would give this storyline this kind of gravity. I had accepted that Glee would continue to champion its gay boy storylines while its clearly queer women languished in Gimmickland, but wow, did this episode change things. I was especially surprised when Santana responded to Rachel applauding her and Brittany’s “sapphic” relationship by insisting on not having her sexuality labeled; there just aren’t that many TV characters who insist that they are neither gay nor straight, but just who they are. To have queerness addressed in a serious way on a show as high-profile as Glee is a huge deal.

So where does Glee stand? Honestly, I couldn’t tell you. Every week brings such a mixed bag of insightful and disappointing that predicting how the show will treat a storyline is to pretty much throw caution to the winds. I can only hope that Glee will remember its more effective, three-dimensional moments, and strive to repeat those rather than the shallow female stereotypes that almost made me quit.

(For a fantastic discussion of Santana and her queerness, check out Autostraddle’s recap of “Sexy” here.)

Badass-Activist Friday presents: DR LOGAN LEVKOFF, Sexologist, Relationship Expert, Author

It’s Friday, and we all know what that means! Interviews with your favorite badass feminists and activists. Whether social media queens and kings, creative artists, sex educators, or just kick-ass personalities, these people harness righteous anger, instigate movements and inspire culture change. We’re here to honor them and their work, but more importantly, to highlight how we can all get up, plug in, and Just Start Doing.

One quick note – if you haven’t checked out Nancy’s new film xoxosms, about digital intimacy and Love 2.0  – you should! Pledge support now!

So without further ado…

Here’s brainy and beautiful Dr. Logan Levkoff, sexuality educator, Sexologist, and author, committed to a future of sex-positive education and healthy relationships.

Dr. Levkoff encourages honest conversation about sexuality and the role it plays in American culture. She makes it clear that sex and sexuality are not “dirty” words; she works to create an environment where people feel comfortable asking (and getting answers to) their most personal questions. Dr Levkoff empowers children, adolescents, and adults to embrace their sexuality and challenge the impractical, and often unhealthy, messages that they are exposed to.

Dr. Levkoff is the author of Third Base Ain’t What it Used to Be: What Your Kids are Learning About Sex Today and How to Teach Them to Become Sexually Healthy Adults (NAL/Penguin, October 2007), which helps parents to understand the role sexuality plays in their children’s lives and empowers parents to become better at-home sexuality educators.

How did you first get involved in sex-education? Did it begin in college, or high school, and how did your personal experiences play into your decision?

I started as a peer hiv and AIDS educator in the 10th grade. My parents enrolled me in our town’s first program. So, technically, my foray into sex education wasn’t of my own doing, but it couldn’t have been a better fit for me. As a fifteen year old who hadsn’t had sex of any kind, it was easy for me to talk about sex and sexuality. When I finally did have “sex” for the first time, I was surprised that it was even easier for me to talk about sex. Instead of feeling insecure about my own decisions, I embraced them. By the time I got to college, though, I found myself and my girlfriends (smart, sophisticated women) making stupid decisions about sex. And I don’t mean not having safer sex. We were all using physical protection, but we weren’t emotionally protected. We were in these one-sided relationships where we weren’t getting pleasure, reciprocation and sex felt like a chore – a means of avoiding an argument rather than an act between mutually respectful partners. It was that fine line between emotional abuse and having a generally shitty partner. It was the that I knew I had a mission. I wanted to help women find their voice – to speak up for their emotional and physical pleasure and protection.

You’ve done a lot of work in accessible media, particularly television. That’s interesting to me considering the consistently poor representations of teen sexuality and fear-mongering about sex – is this part of your strategy to get a sex-positive message out? Can you talk a little bit more about how media is especially important to your work?

There is no question that media messages about sex and sexuality are often inaccurate, biased, or exploitative. But I have found that in my own small way, I try to make a difference in that medium. Yes, media is essential to my work. I am privileged to get the opportunity to be on television so I am committed to getting a sex-positive and sexually healthy message across no matter where I am appearing (and yes, I will play in the lion’s den – I love debating on Fox News. It is a thrill and a pleasure, albeit totally frustrating.) But the media is important for me because it allows me to educate far beyond my classroom. I chose this profession so that I could speak out for issues and people that don’t always have a voice. And because I have a certain set of credentials and I look a certain way (and you can’t see my tattoos on television), I get an opportunity to be in public eye. I’m not saying that it’s right, it’s pretty damn pathetic, but I would be lying if I didn’t acknowledge it. That being said, I will always use that privilege to do what’s right. And I will always take one for the team.

What do you think is the biggest misconception about young people and sex? Do you thing the sex panic of the older generation is legitimate? What do you think it stems from?

The biggest? Young people aren’t entitled to sex. Exploring your sexuality (regardless of whether or not you engage in any sex behaviors) is an essential part of adolescence. It’s as if adults have forgotten what that time was line. Sure, sex comes with responsibilities. But if you give teens the tools to make good decisions, they will use those tools.

Do you think there’s a connection between ‘hook-up’ culture and teen domestic/dating violence? How can this be remedied in a sex-positive way?

In my opinion, the sexual double standard and parent’s perpetuation of it (ie. suggesting that boys are only after one thing, omitting girl’s desire from the discussion, encouraging male experimentation but being overprotective of girls, suggesting to boys – again by omission- that they can’t be emotionally connected to someone else) creates an environment where girls believe that someone else “makes” them sexual – that they aren’t innately sexual. From there, it is easy to understand why there are so many unhealthy relationships. Girls are rarely taught to proudly own their decisions about sex, to speak up, or to have a voice regarding their sexuality. (They’ve never been told they even have a sexuality). If we don’t speak up, we don’t get the pleasure or protection we need and we certainly don’t get equality, respect and reciprocation in our relationships.

What are your hopes for Obama’s administration regarding attitudes towards sex-education? Where do you think it will go and what do you think are potential problems?

I am fearful still for the future of sex education. The house’s unconscionable vote to defund planned parenthood is a perfect example of how women’s health, sexuality and respect for all persons is not a priority for our government.

There’s been a lot of talk on our blog about sex-positivity being a mere ‘fantasy’ because of the intersections of sexuality with other oppressions such as race, motherhood etc, and the fact that sex seems so imbued in sexist views of male dominance and female submission. Can you talk a little bit about how you feel sex-positive activism is working, where it’s going and how effective it is?

Sex positivity isn’t a fantasy. For those of us who perpetuate it, it is very very real. That doesn’t mean that it is challenge-free, but nothing worth fighting for is. But we need to keep raising awareness, educating, challenging unequal message, and hopefully our youth will then feel empowered to challenge the beliefs of the generations before them. Look, I’m realistic. The battle isnt’ going to end any time soon. But while I’m here, I’m committed to fighting it.

Explicit Academics: Northwestern and Sexuality Studies

500_Ovaries

A constant frustration I have within sexuality studies is the lack of concrete substance it has in the classroom. I have taken classes such in topics such as queer performance, which dance around issues of pornography for example, without ever looking at these materials in fear of being too explicit. I think the most important thing to keep in mind here is, the study of sexuality involves sex. Proponents of sex positivity, and educators should not be silenced or censored when they are trying to discuss issues of sexuality no matter what their techniques may be as long as everyone involved is aware of the nature of the demonstrations.

John Michael Bailey, a professor at Northwestern University, has recently and unexpectedly gained national medial attention because of a live sex demonstration in his human sexualities class. The lecture was about kinky sex, the female gspot and female ejaculation and included a 10 minute demonstration of Jim Marcus penetrating his fiance Faith Kroll with a “fucksaw,” essentially a power tool with a dildo on the end.

In a statement Bailey explained the circumstance,

I was talking about the female gspot and the phenomenon of female ejaculation, both of which are scientifically controversial.…Earlier that day in my lecture I had talked about the attempts to silence sex research, and how this largely reflected sex negativity, I did not wish, and I do not wish, to surrender to sex negativity and fear.

From this explanation, it is clear that Bailey was not trying to be controversial or playing out a personal fantasy. Bailey understandably finds the silencing of sex research and sexuality to be troubling, so he did not want this to happen within his own classroom. He is sex positive, and as acting an educator practicing what he preaches.

Most importantly, this lecture was entirely optional, held outside of regular class meetings prefaced with warnings about the explicit nature as indicated in an article in Salon. No student was forced to attend, or reprimanded for not doing so. In an interview Bailey also noted that the observers were students older than 18 who were “legally capable of voting, enlisting in the military, and consuming pornography.” In addition, the couple demonstrating volunteered to participate without coercion. After the lecture and demonstration, the class held a discussion about kinky sex and the female orgasm, making the actions academically relevant in the scope of their course.

This event was taken out of context by writers such as John Kass for the Chicago Tribune who brought up issues of Northwestern spending tuition money on this demonstration. He asks, “If this bizarre peep show can be offered up as higher education, then what’s the next “edgy” thing? How do you get any edgier?” The demonstration was not used for shock value or to be edgy, but was legitimately believed by the professor to be an educational tool and therefore use of university funding should support this action.

This leads to some questions of the place of explicit sexuality within academic settings. In a class about human sexuality, how can a real example of this become so controversial?

Badass-Activist Friday presents: COLIN ADAMO of Hooking Up and Staying Hooked

It’s Friday, and we all know what that means! Interviews with your favorite badass feminists and activists. Whether social media queens and kings, creative artists, sex educators, or just kick-ass personalities, these people harness righteous anger, instigate movements and inspire culture change. We’re here to honor them and their work, but more importantly, to highlight how we can all get up, plug in, and Just Start Doing.

So without further ado…

Here’s Colin Adamo, director of Yale sex week and founder of Hooking Up and Staying Hooked!

Adamo

As a recent graduate from Yale University, Colin Adamo helped coordinate a student group of health educators to teach sex-ed in local public schools, directed Sex Week at Yale, a biennial sex-ed summit, and authored a column on college relationships – and proves that young men are, should be seen as integral to the movement towards cultural change. He is currently working on developing the guide Hooking Up & Staying Hooked into graphic novel format and making his words of wisdom available to more and more young men.

1. Can you tell us a bit about how you start up the site Hookedupandstayinghooked.com? Did your experience as director of sex week at Yale inform your work after college? How?

I got to high school and was kind of desperate for any sort of advice when it came to girls, dating or sex. I found a lot of stuff in the bookstore but it always felt like it was for someone much older. After translating the info of these resources to fit my life, and a few years teaching health education to high school students while I was in college I figured I was in the perfect spot to put together the guide that I had always wanted when I was younger.

Through Sex Week I got to meet the most innovative and amazing people at the top of their fields be it specifically sex-ed, or adult entertainment, or even sex work. Being exposed to such brilliant minds and understanding their ambitions was a huge inspiration as well as a meaningful learning experience. It definitely gave me the courage to try new things with my work.

2. What is your target demographic, and what, typically, are their attitudes regarding consent, sex-positivity and boundaries? Why?

My hope is that every teenage guy across the country has the opportunity to sift through the content at H.U.S.H. as well as ask any questions they might be too afraid to ask their friends or parents. I write from what I know, so the advice is for straight guys 13-19, but I strongly advocate for education that is open to non-straight-identifying or questioning teens as well.

It seems like society wants to see these boys as positively-sexual – sex-obsessed and borderline dangerous in their pursuit to “ruin” the daughters of America with their uncontrollable hormonal lust. But I don’t think this is the case. I’ve met a lot of young dudes with questions, with insecurities, with the desire to find someone who they like and who really likes them back.

I think when you get down to it most young guys are open to feeling good and making their partners feel good. Unfortunately there is a lot of pressure to move at a pace that’s faster than they might like which often encourages them to push boundaries before they or their partners are actually ready and/or willing.

3. The attitude of most campus administrations regarding sexual assault and rape seems to focus on protection for women for which they are responsible – walking escorts, security etc. Do you think this is effective? What do you think are the problems of most of the violence education programs on campuses? What should change?

I think this attitude is totally whack and that is huge inspiration driving H.U.S.H. It seems like too often we’re looking for ways to “protect” girls from lascivious guys that are going to sexually assault them, get them pregnant or give them an STI.

It’s time we start talking to guys. Let’s quit treating them as potential assailants and instead address their desires and how to fulfill them respectfully and effectively.

Let’s ask guys what they want out of a sexual experience. Not many would say, “I want to get my rocks of regardless of whether or not I can find a partner who is willing.” Sure a lot of them might want to get laid, but most would probably want to do so in a way that makes them and their partners feel sexy, have fun, and get off. Giving them the tools to communicate with partners, give pleasure, and respect boundaries is the first step in creating healthier sexual environments on college campuses where heterosexual guys have sex (which is all of them).

4. How do you think activists can best involve and educate young men? What are the best ways to reach them?

My feelings are that activism is all about empathy, connecting to others on a person-to-person basis and discussing needs and concerns on both sides. It’s about reaching out and making allies, even if only one at a time, and having these guys accomplish your goals for you within their own community of friends and peers. Really supporting allies you acquire along the way might be the best method to bringing about change from within communities.

At the same time when educating or getting your message out you can’t write anyone off, paint any one person or group of people as the bad guy, or hand out any injunctions on how men have to act. You have to connect with them, see things from their perspective, and help guide them towards making the healthier decisions for themselves.

5. What is your favourite storyline/depiction of a relationship/sex/love for young people in the media? What makes it realistic?

I must admit my HUGE guilty pleasure addiction to Skins (I’m a loyalist to the UK version). It’s got teens hooking up in their bedrooms with their parents awkwardly milling about the house. It’s got teens getting messed up and hooking up when they shouldn’t. It’s got teens enjoying sex and intimacy and it’s got teens using sex as a tool or even a weapon. It has dramatically packed a ton of complicated feelings into a diverse cross-section of relationships.

Sure, I wish there was a little bit more depiction of them putting on condoms before going at it, and it normalizes drug use and rampant sex in a way I’m not completely comfortable with, but the roller coaster of feelings – the scariness, the desire, the hurt, the fun, the obsession, the excitement, the heartache, the ennui – capture a snapshot of adolescence in a way many have strived to, but ultimately failed. It’s completely unrealistic in its sensationalism but as real as ever in its portrayal of emotions that all seem so new as a teenager.

6. What frustrations have you encountered in your work? Or questions that you wish people would ask but don’t? Feel free to add anything else you’d like to say.

Too many people think young guys’ only concern is getting laid. It’s unfair. Few think that these guys need much in terms of guidance, or that they won’t seek out resources like H.U.S.H., or that they will only use it to get “what they want” out of girls. There is just generally an air of apathy or threatening desires that the rest of us assume young men have when few actually do.

I’d like to see more people asking, “what can we do for young guys?” I think it would make a big difference overall in the well-being of youth across the country.

Girl-on-girl Crime.

i-can-have-it-all-sandwich-day

I’ll admit that I live in a bit of a feminist bubble. Many of my close friends are self-identified, active feminists; I kill an absurd amount of time reading feminist blogs; I’ve interned and volunteered for organizations focused on women’s issues. Although it is a bit of a myopic perspective, I’ve come to see most issues as feminist vs. virulent misogynists; Gloria Steinem cited at press conference in November 2009 that “more women self-identify as feminist than Republican,” but I’ve encountered a shocking number of sexist females in the past few months abroad.

The worst part about this particular brand of sexism is that it isn’t sexism in the strictest and most dangerous sense of the word, but more of a self-defeating attitude and acceptance of rigid gender roles. I’ve heard comments ranging from “The skiers were really good, even the women” to “He should get the last piece, he’s a boy.” The most common anti-female attitudes from females, however, are about acceptable careers for men and women. My Belgian friend told me over coffee and quiche one day (Sweden is delicious) that she felt torn between male and female aspirations. “How so?” She responded that she loved “women things,” like cooking, cleaning, decorating, and, one day, raising a family, but was “like a man” in that she went to business school, studied hard every day in the library, and aspired to be a bigwig at a financial corporation one day. Her ambition was commendable, but did it have to be framed as a “man thing?” Can’t it just be a thing?

Her thoughts, however, are more likely to reflect a reaction to stereotypes than sexism; a bit of the response could have been lost in translation as well. More antagonistic to the aims of feminism is the “one of the boys” mentality. Being told that you’re “like a guy” is often used as a compliment, one that many women strive to receive. If masculinity is praised, where does that leave femininity? An article on Jezebel, “Dudeliness is Next to Godliness,” put it perfectly:

The disturbing implication of considering logic, being fun, and having a sense of humor to be in the realm of dude-dom is that what’s left for ladies is the dreary opposite. If men are logical, then women must be illogical. If men are carefree and exciting, then women must be boring. If men are hilarious, then women must be perennial wet blankets who hate laughing and fun. If having masculine qualities is a positive, then is possessing feminine qualities a negative, and is anyone who is acting wack therefore performing ladyhood? To make matters worse, I know more than one woman who wears her “I’m not like those other girls; I’m just like one of the guys!” badge with pride, who agrees with the public consensus that girls are just terrible and they’re ideal. They’re special and superior, like a man. They use the “I’m a dude” excuse to exempt themselves from any number of standards to which women are subjected- they use their guy-ness to avoid being slut-shamed, to explain why they aren’t overdramatic or overemotional.

While saying that one is following a “male” career path did create a gender dichotomy, it did so without claiming that one aspect is “good” while the other is “bad.” The pedestal upon which male qualities are placed as girls declare proudly that they “hate girls” and can hang with the bros, places a normative quality to the issue. Besides, what does it mean to be “one of the guys?” As Morning Gloria states in her article, “There are subsets of every population that are insufferable. Women aren’t insufferable as a population and neither are men; people are across-the-board flawed and collectively a pain in the ass. Bitches aren’t crazy; human beings are crazy.

This insidious, underlying yet ubiquitous female sexism raises several important obstacles in the struggle of shaking misogyny from society. First and foremost, there needs to be greater solidarity among women if we ever hope to make progress. If women themselves shirk away from feminism, vehemently declaring that they believe in equal rights, but that they aren’t- gasp!-feminists, how do we stand a chance in convincing more antagonistic groups that misogyny exists in today’s culture, and that it needs to be eradicated? As Tina Fey quips in Mean Girls, “You all have got to stop calling each other sluts and whores. It just makes it okay for guys to call you sluts and whores.” Claiming to “hate girls” and striving for masculinity only validates harmful attitudes towards women, particularly in the fight for issues of consent.

Secondly, this form of sexism creates a paradox in which women are held to certain gender roles- the aforementioned cooking, homemaking, etc.- while they are simultaneously expected to pursue a certain level of masculinity, to be “one of the guys.” Worst of all, this ideal is often perpetuated by women themselves. Invoking the genius of Tina Fey once again, the situation reminds of me the 30 Rock episode “Sandwich Day,” in which Liz Lemon, chasing her ex-boyfriend through an airport in hopes of emotional closure and perhaps romantic reconnection, is stopped at security, and can only pass if she throws away her sandwich, a sandwich she has been waiting all day, and year, to enjoy. She frantically shoves the sandwich into her mouth, explaining whilst maniacally chewing that, “I can do it! I can have it all!” When forced to choose between traditional feminine and masculine goals, the boyfriend and the sandwich, a symbol for her career and personal fulfillment, she opts for both. How many times have we found ourselves at this hypothetical airport? I know I have scarfed down the proverbial sandwich many times. But can we have it all? Can we follow dreams that have traditionally been reserved for men while retaining our femininity, whatever that means to us personally? Can we shatter the glass ceiling with a pair of stilettos? I think so. It will just take a bit of solidarity.

another kind of coercion.

P1170548

If a boy doesn’t respect me for recovering from anorexia, and instead uses my insecurities in his game, he’s crossed my line!

The thing is, finding a guy who respects me for the person I am today – a recovered anorexic – and who is proud of everything I have achieved, is really hard to come by.

I’ll be the first to admit that anorexia is an illness that is very difficult to comprehend. I would understand why a guy couldn’t deal with an anorexic girlfriend – but recovery is something I’m proud of. I was discharged from outpatient care in 2009; I have been an ambassador for Beat (the national charity in the UK for eating disorders) since September 2005. I speak about my eating disorder as honestly as I can in order to raise awareness of eating disorders as a symptom of unachievable standards of female sexuality and beauty. So my question is if I am not ashamed of my anorexia, why are other people?

I’ve been with a boy, only to find out he had joked about my anorexia behind my back to his friends.

I’ve had boys I’ve dated tell me they think they can be the one to ‘change’ me.

But most of all, I have had boyfriends – guys I have trusted, even one I was even in love with – play on the insecurities I still have and use them to their advantage. By refusing me compliments and speaking instead of all the other girls who were sexually interested in him, my ex began to chip away at my self esteem until I did everything he wanted – I didn’t like saying no to him; I didn’t want to lose him. To emotionally manipulate me because of these insecurities around body image was simply his way of coercing consent.

Never again will I waste my time on a guy who plays on my insecurities to his advantage or a guy who thinks anorexia is a big joke. These boys crossed my line and no one’s ever going to do it again.

In Praise of (Non)Imaginary Skins

MTV’s Skins has drummed up some serious controversy thanks to a wildly popular UK predecessor, an eye-catching advertising campaign and consciously salacious storylines. The Parents’ Television Council  and reviewers alike are up in arms about the more explicit nature of the series, which airs on a channel that daily attracts millions of impressionable teen viewers. Advertisers have already pulled out of Skins, in fact, for fear that underage actors engaging in simulated sex and drinking in just about every episode could be construed as child pornography.

As with any movie or series that depicts sex, there is also always that conversation about whether it’s gratuitous or not. In regards to the UK Skins, Feministing’s “7 feminist reasons” is worth checking out to understand how the show successfully toed that line:

6. Teen sex is portrayed with nuance and respect and without hand-wringing and slut-shaming. The lack of moralizing extends to sex as well. And there’s a lot of it in Skins. Some sex is between couples, some is between friends, some is between strangers. Some is emotionally fulfilling, some isn’t. Some is physically satisfying, some isn’t. The girls are just as likely to have casual sex as the guys, and the guys are just as likely to want a relationship as the girls. (Suffice it to say, Skins doesn’t buy into any myths about oxytocin.) Perhaps even more importantly, in Skins, characters of both genders have both committed and casual sex at different times. Kinda like in real life! And because neither guys or girls are defined by their sexual behavior, that’s not at all strange. Skins recognizes that a girl who’s been having lots of emotionally meaningless sex can still get chills when she touches the hand of the boy she’s falling for. As Samhita wrote yesterday, “We all have feelings and we all like to fuck…Deal with it.” And Skins deals with it quite nicely.

Really, I couldn’t have said it better. Yes, Skins can be graphic, but its inclusion of sex and drugs often feel like realistic developments for these teen characters rather than gratuitousness displays of wanton behavior. There seems to be something about showing teens engaging in risque acts that immediately makes it unacceptable, even if it’s realistic and complex.

Much criticism surrounding MTV’s Skins, ironically, is that it is gratuitous even after MTV watered it down from the original UK version. Ms. Magazine‘s blog, in fact, calls the first episode out as sexist. But the beauty of television is that the story and characters don’t stop at the first episode: if MTV plays its cards right, it could follow in the steps of the UK version and create a nuanced, layered world that actually goes in-depth on teen issues rather than stigmatize sex a la Secret Life of the American Teenager.

…OR it could be a massive disappointment and make no strides whatsoever. But only time will tell.

MPAA & Blue Valentine.

When Blue Valentine managed to get its NC-17 rating reduced to an R-rating, everyone breathed a sigh of relief. For a second it seemed as though the MPAA realized that its ratings system, which routinely awards violent films PG-13 ratings, but slapped Blue Valentine with an NC-17 rating for a single scene depicting a woman receiving oral sex, is highly hypocritical. But the rating was reduced and so all is well!

…but it’s not, really, is it? As sexologist Dr. Logan Levkoff points out, we live in a culture in which violence, and especially violence towards women, is tolerated to the point that it becomes white noise. Meanwhile, sex remains a taboo topic.

A quick survey of the MPAA film rating system confirms that any nudity or swearing used in a “sexually oriented” manner immediately bumps a film’s rating to R, and it’s sex that bumps it to NC-17 nine times out of ten. As Twitter user @nevpierce put it, “Saw 3D has a woman bisected by buzzsaw. Blue Valentine has a woman orgasm by oral sex. Guess which the US censor will allow teens to see…”

So while the triumph of Blue Valentine’s reduced rating is certainly a victory (and we found a new feminist hero in Ryan Gosling as he publicly slammed the NC-17 rating), the fact that it needed to be reduced at all is indicative of a dangerous double standard in our media. A woman enjoying oral sex received an NC-17 rating while we constantly see men enjoying the same in R or even PG-13 rated movies. And while Black Swan also includes a woman receiving oral sex, the scene (SPOILER) is presented as the product of a fragmented mind. The fact that it was also a woman-on-woman scene perhaps sensationalized it to the point that the MPAA could pretend it wasn’t as “realistic” (…how ratings treat homosexuality could be a post all its own).

What it comes down to is this: media’s representation of people enjoying sex is so skewed towards men that it’s immediately considered problematic when women are portrayed as sexual beings. A woman’s naked body gives a film an R-rating, but a woman (even clothed) enjoying sex can land a film in the no man’s land that is NC-17.

Further, it’s this kind of sexist, terrified-of-women-enjoying-sex stigma that can lead to sexual assault. When we are fetishized as objects but not allowed to enjoy our sexuality in media, we feel the ramifications in our daily lives. It’s high time our media reflects reality, and allows women to be fully-fleshed, sexual beings instead of the sexualized object the MPAA clearly prefers.

Full-On Participipation!

When I say, “my line is all about me, myself, and I!” I mean it. I mean that my line starts right where I begin to doubt whether or not I want to do something. My line is all about what makes me feel comfortable, because as much as I may want to make my partner happy, I should never have to do something I do not want to do. My perfect sexual encounter involves never having to feel like I have to sacrifice my wants for the needs of another. In order to fully enjoy myself, I have to be able to stop when I need to. In order to be a full on participant, and not just “let it happen”, I have to be able to stop when I need to. That’s why, when it comes to my line, it’s all about me.

I, the undersigned female…

via boingboing.net

via boingboing.net

All Posts Tagged ‘sex’