What's on TV? Sex. What else? Nothing.

I really feel this way sometimes. The feeling is only more pronounced when I am watching TV with my parents or younger siblings - especially with my younger siblings. I wish that problem was restricted to stuff on cable that is free to be explicit, but even public television is plagued by an overuse of sexual references. For example, one night I'm chilling with my younger sister who is 8 years old. I think she is pretty mature. She goes to some elementary school for gifted children or something, and honestly, I think she is more able-minded than some of the people I have met at college. I'm browsing the channels, and I settle on ABC Family because I think the name of the channel will reflect its content. Apparently not, because it is sexy time on Pretty Little Liars and people are taking their clothes off. I steal a glance at my sister, who, like on cue, picks up the iPad and starts pushing buttons on it. I know her act of disinterest might not be genuine and maybe she just feels uncomfortable watching that kind of material with me, but I feel the same way. I switch to Disney Channel for the rest of the night. But there were a few times even on that channel that I felt my fingers inch towards the remote. I looked up ABC Family later, and apparently, they have shifted from pre-teen to older female teen audience now. They have shows like Gilmore Girls and Secret Life of the American Teenager on it now. At this point I feel like the only thing I can watch comfortably with my sister is PBS Kids, which really bothers me because some of those shows are for toddlers.

I feel this way with my parents too. It would be totally awesome to watch Game of Thrones or House of Cards with my parents but even when I am watching it myself, I am constantly questioning the use of nudity. Never before have I seen such gratuitous useless nudity. Well, that is what I thought until I watched Wolf of Wall Street, which is just ridiculous. So ridiculous that I thought it was crazy that people thought DiCaprio could win an Oscar for that meat showcase.

But what is important about this is am I supposed to feel this way? I know my sentiments are not unique, because of videos like the one I posted above. Awkwardness is actually seen as normal when watching sex scenes with family members. But is the alternative better? Should I really enjoy watching that with my parents? I know there are some people that do, but I have to cringe really hard in order to imagine me being in that position. The reading "Television, Sex, and Parental Meditation," discusses the how parental mediation through restriction seemed to lower the rate of sexual engagement through "reduced likelihood that a child had engaged in either oral or vaginal intercourse." Also, it seems parental mediation seems to negatively affect perceptions about sex, "leading to increased expectations that sexual intercourse would lead to negative health consequences." Personally, I think the reason this occurs is probably because parental supervision is negatively associated with sexual exploration. The media already portrays sex has something to be desired, so our parents play the alternate side, either limiting or warning us against it. I think in order for the alternative to be true, the parents would have to almost be promoting of sexual learning for their children. That way parental mediation might actually increase the rate of sexual engagement and make people think more positively about sex. But is that really the conclusion we want?



Fisher, D. A., Hill, D. L., Grube, J. W., Bersamin, M. M., Walker, S., & Gruber, E. L.
(2009). Televised sexual content and parental mediation: Influences on adolescent
sexuality. Media Psychology, 12(2), 121-147. doi: 10.1080/15213260902849901

Aiding AIDS Awareness

Is everyone benefitting equally from the Information Age? Probably not. A common belief exists that younger people absorb and consume more media than their older peers and while the idea may be a stretch, maybe this difference is contributing to the bipartisan issues that we see as "liberal vs conservative and Generation X vs Generation Y. Maybe those spoiled and lazy millenials are just watching more TV. The consumption of media makes up such a large chunk of young people's lives now, with about 6 to 9 hours of each day devoted to some sort of mass media (Roberts, 2000). With such a disparity in media use, of course a divide will exist in the two groups' ideals. But maybe this disparity is causing more than just differing ideals. When I saw how ignorance about AIDS still existed among older people, I thought that maybe the sexual health campaigns should shift their focus to encompass a larger audience.

For example, in this video, the series "What Would You Do," sets up a scenario where an actor plays a teen that is HIV-positive and another actor publicly expresses disgust by complaining that he doesn't want to catch HIV from him and moves away. Most people ignore the commotion and simply observe the situation. However, in one instance, a man sitting next to the actor pretending to be disgusted agrees that there is some logic in moving away because if the HIV actor sneezed in his coffee he could catch it. On another occasion shown, some older men sitting down come to the support of the HIV actor, saying that unless you made out with him, then you should not be worried about it. While I was happy that they came to the support of the HIV actor, what they said actually was not true either because HIV transfer through salivia exchange is impossible. 

As seen in Collins's study, media can be an effective way to spread knowledge about sexual health, but there needs to be more or more salient messages extending outside of trendy shows or trendy media programs on the internet. I think this is more important than ever right now because our media is very agenda-based. Fads like in fashion exist for the media, and right now it is not on AIDS. Ten years ago it was AIDS and now it is cancer. If somehow I were to be infected with HIV, I know for sure that there are people in my life that would be scared and wary of catching it from me. 

Collins, R.L.,Elliott,M. N.,Berry, S.H.,Kanouse, D.E.,&Hunter, S.B. (2003).
Entertainment television as a healthy sex educator: The impact of condom-efficacy
information in an episode of Friends. Pediatrics, 112(5), 1115-1121. doi:
10.1542/peds.112.5.1115

Roberts DF. Media and youth: access, exposure, and privatization. J

Adolesc Health 2000;27(2 Suppl.):8–14.

Jackie's Friends

Have you read the most recent article in the Rolling Stone? By the time I finish writing this blog post, this may already be old news, especially with how quickly news moves these days, but I sincerely hope otherwise. This story has been kept under wraps for far too long already.

The story almost writes itself, revealing both the nightmares of college freshmen and the absolute worst side of college bureaucracy. The media has worked hard to make sure we know the infamous statistic, that 1 in 5 women will be sexually assaulted in college, to try to send the message that it can happen to anyone. But of course, there will always remain the people that have total faith in their practices, that falsely believe that a simple regimen of no drugs and no skimpy clothes can protect them from becoming a number in a statistic. I think this article completely blows those misconceptions out of the water, and brings some new insights to light. 

Jackie was a straight-A student at the University of Virginia and was not a drinker. She met Drew through a lifeguard job at the university pool, and agreed to go with him to dinner and a "date function" at the Phi Psi fraternity house afterward. At the party, Drew asked her if she wanted to go upstairs, where it was quieter. She agreed, and before she could fully comprehend the situation, she entered a dark room already filled with other fraternity brothers who have no good intentions. Very little of what happened can be attributed to Jackie. Yes, Jackie is guilty of being naive and ignorant, but does innocence really warrant this outcome? 

What happened next might be just as horrifying, if not more. When Jackie tried to confide in her "friends" for consolation, she met a surreal detachment from the issue at hand. Her "friends" could only think about their misfortune that this could jeopardize their admission to fraternity parties in the future. One said, " She's gonna be the girl who cried rape, and we'll never be allowed into any frat party again." If this is a real quote, humanity is amazing. 

That was two years ago, and it is only now that Jackie's story is finally made public. And yet the people responsible still have not been brought to justice and they probably never will. According to the article, many people, including UVA's dean, have discouraged Jackie from going public with the story, giving reasons like "Do you want to be the reason UVA gets painted in a bad light?" and when Jackie asked the UVA Dean why the rape statistics at the school were so hard to find, the reply was "Because no one wants to send their daughter to a rape school." 

Well, now that fear may very well become a reality for UVA. And there is no doubt that Jackie will feel responsible for "putting UVA in a bad light" and that students of UVA will doubt Jackie's loyalty to the wonderful school they attend. I've noticed that this sense of responsibility is a recurring impediment to the reporting of sexual assaults. In Jackie's case, she did not want to report the sexual assault because many "friends" had advised her not to as it would ruin the reputation of the school and of course, her own. According to the article, "Decades of awareness programming haven't budged the prevalence of campus rape," and "only about 12% (of sexual assault victims) report it to police." Could the problem stem from this constructed sense of responsibility? If so, maybe this is the actual problem that needs to be tackled rather than just general awareness of sexual assault. Sure, the "It's On Us" PSA promoted awareness of sexual assault, but messages like those can be contrived.

Even from the Joyce and Harwood study, we learned that the PSA was less effective than the viral video in advising against sexting (2014). Joyce and Harwood explain this by saying how "PSA's are expected to be pushier, with outsiders trying to enforce their opinion," and for this reason, "the PSA frame would lead to lower expectations of entertainment and those expectations would lead to reduced subjective message quality." The "It's On Us" PSA reflects these downsides perfectly. In an attempt to seem authoritative or mainstream, the campaign uses famous celebrities and even President Obama and Vice President Biden to promote awareness but this move only creates confusion and detachment. Personally, I couldn't feel any sympathy because I did not associate those celebrities as true advocates of stopping sexual assault. It seemed like they were just talking heads. And the addition of the Obama and Biden only furthered my detachment from the message because I could not help but think about the political ramifications of their appearance. And most importantly, I know the video is brief for viralness's sake, but it fails to tell anyone exactly what to do for victims of sexual assault. In the beginning, it tells viewers to "step in" and cursory preventative measures but those don't really suffice. Even on the website, it doesn't tell me much more, but it does ask me to make a neat profile photo as a pledge to put on my social media platforms. Honestly, if one of my friends were suddenly in a situation like Jackie's, while I promise that I would not react like Jackie's friends, I would struggle with the next move because I really would not know what is best. This is a problem.

Delgado and Austin's study is titled "Can media promote responsible sexual behaviors among adolescents and young adults?" Yes, of course it can. I've seen so many times that media can play a role in shaping thoughts and behaviors. And there needs to be more media that teaches correct course of action. How much grief and emotional torture could have been saved if Jackie's friends had been more aware of how to help Jackie? How much unhappiness could be suppressed by encouraging the reporting of these unreported sexual assaults because of this possible constructed sense of responsibility that burdens these victims? Prevention may be the best medicine, but when it is too late and past that point, the only thing that can help is actual medicine. And the media needs to provide it.



Delgado, H. M.,& Austin, S. B. (2007). Can media promote responsible sexual
behaviors among adolescents and young adults? Current Opinion in Pediatrics, 19(4),
405-410. doi: 10.1097/MOP.0b013e32823ed008

Joyce, N.,  & Harwood, J. (2014). Context and identification in persuasive mass communication. Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and Applications,
26(1), 50-57. doi: 10.1027/1864-1105/a000110

Ellen DeGenius

I have nothing against Ellen. Okay, actually I do. Every time I watch any of The Ellen Show, I am just constantly thinking about how this fits the bill perfectly for hypocrisy. Ellen undoubtedly is one of the biggest female icons on the air right now with a net worth of about $300 million and just based on the demographic of the audience members in the episodes, I think I can safely say that Ellen is very popular among women. And it is very easy to see why. I remember in one episode, Shemar Moore, much to the delight of the audience, was auctioned off for a makeout session on the show. The eager lucky winner was a woman who says herself right before the big lip-lock, "I'm so married...I'm so Christian..." But those half-hearted breaths of reluctance are quickly droned out by the consensual approval of the audience members, which manifests itself through uproarious applause and cheering.

I think if I asked a random person on the street if they thought having strippers on public television was acceptable, they would say no. I think I would get the same answer if I asked them if they thought it was okay for David Letterman or Jimmy Fallon to tell their female guests to remove their clothing. Then how come Ellen is still having male strippers dance on her show with their shirts off all the time? How come every male guest on Ellen is taking their shirts off? And most importantly, why is it being reinforced? There really is no argument to be made here. The hypocrisy is evident. If the lucky married woman that kissed Shemar Moore was instead a lucky husband making out with some attractive female celebrity, I bet that show would be ripped to shreds on social media. If David Letterman asked his female guests to take their tops off for his audience to ogle, Letterman himself would get ripped to shreds. I really wonder why this double standard exists. Shouldn't the women who are so bothered by the objectification of their own bodies understand best why not to do the same to others?

Don't get me wrong. My problem does not lie in the objectification of men. I don't care that Ellen gets her male guests to take their shirts off. I am only bothered by the fact that when the roles are reversed, people cry foul. I have observed this time and time again, with one incident being when Larry Summers, former president of Harvard University, hypothesized that because of differences in standard deviations between men and women pertaining to the STEM fields, men make up more of the top scientists/researchers etc... This created widespread controversy and all of the social media backlash can easily be found simply Googling "Larry Summers Men Women." However, when BBC frequently posts headlines like "Women better at multi-tasking than men," or when Michelle Obama literally says, "Women are smarter than men," things seem to be fine. I say this because Larry Summers had to apologize three times before people insisted he just keep apologizing, but the latter faced no such obstacles.

This is why I think Ellen is actually a genius for being able to target her audience in this way. While I highly dislike her methods, I have to commend her on her ability to cater so well to her demographic. While Ellen herself is gay and is a public advocate of gay rights, the majority of the action on her show is directed in a heteronormative context as explained in Kim's study. I am not saying this is wrong, but it does contradict her own identity and motivations to only provide eye candy for straight females on her show. And while I personally do not have gripes with the sole act of putting male strippers in your show to dance for married women, I do think that the existence of this kind of media content, and the reinforcement of it through Ellen's continued success (Emmy's, loud audience approval, peer approval) can cultivate double standard gender scripts. We teach children not to be racists, sexists, and bigots. Why would we teach them to be hypocrites?

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(2), 145-157. doi:

10.1080/00224490701263660

Coming Online

It always makes me really happy to see examples of social media benefiting humanity in some way because I think a lot of it offers very little besides ways to waste our precious time. The internet has offered a refuge for gay people, acting as a support group without biological ties. Coming out videos are now seen as more of a ritual rather than an innovation as more and more gay people document their big reveals through the internet for everyone to see. In a gradually more and more accepting and open-minded society, gay people are feeling more comfortable with their identities. Eventually, coming out may not even warrant making a video for. But as of now, gay people still struggle with a lot of homophobia, and when that homophobia exists even within their own homes, it can be difficult to find support and I think that social media has succeeded in filling this void.

The most memorable coming out videos have all the elements of and exude as much emotion as a Disney classic. But two months ago, a coming out video got released and went viral. It was memorable, for sure, but for all the wrong reasons.

In the video, Daniel, the son, has come out in front of family members including his mother, father, aunt and uncle. Initially, it seems as if it will go OK, but the conversation quickly turns very heated. The family is clearly displeased with what they believe is Daniel's choice, and they disown him. Daniel is very disappointed that his family, who has loved him until this day, could so easily abandon him and he tells them off for not being caring parents and that is when shit hits the fan.

The results of Bond's "Information Seeking and Coming Out" indicate "the same participants who are heavy users of the internet during the coming-out process were significantly less likely to communicate openly with their families later in life." This is very easily supported by the video and I can really see why that would be the case. In the video's description, it says a lot of people have asked for directions on how to donate and it provides a link for funding. At this time of struggle and almost certain homelessness, Daniel has found refuge in an Internet community that accepts him in a way his biological family failed to. It is almost natural to assume, then, that Daniel would just be more willing to communicate with this community than his actual family. I also believe that Daniel chose this method of coming out because of the community as well. The internet is now inundated with coming out videos and I have no doubt that Daniel watched many of them before deciding for himself to tell his family. Celebrities coming out have become a newsworthy spectacle and I believe that helped reinforce Daniel's decision as well. As this trend continues, I think both gay and straight people will become more comfortable about the coming out process and make it easier for gay people to overcome the pressures they feel from society. Because of this I believe social media has served a humanitarian purpose, giving valuable information to the gay people that need it because there is not a TV show titled "How to be Gay 101." Hopefully there will not be a need for that in the future, when gayness is seen as a trait just like red hair and brown eyes.


Bond, B. J., Hefner, V., & Drogos, K. L. (2009). Information-seeking practices during
the sexual development  of lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals: The influence and
effects of coming out in a mediated environment. Sexuality & Culture: An
Interdisciplinary Quarterly, 13(1), 32-50. doi: 10.1007/s12119-008-9041-y

Moving from Disinterest to Resistance, Step by Step.

The concepts in Brown's study "Disinterest, Intrigue, Resistance" illustrate a normal sequence of maturation in women in their receptiveness to sexual media content, from being disinterested to intrigued to resistant. I think a lot of people can identify with these stages of maturation, having experienced them in their own lives during puberty. However, I also find it interesting that these stages are so commonly seen in popular media especially extended longer content like TV series or movie octalogies. This opens up the possibility that these stages of maturation could also be a product of our media and that it may be socialized or that perhaps there is just a two-way relationship where biology and media work together to evolve how we approach puberty and sex.

In the TV Series Step by Step, Al Lambert embodies these transitions through the stages perfectly. In the first few seasons, Al is about eight to twelve years old, and is the pinpoint depiction of a tomboy, who plays many competitive sports against other boys and occasionally beats up on her physically inferior brothers. The show indirectly explains this by the lack of a mother figure in her life, and the uninhibited influence of her father's ideals. Al Lambert at this stage of her life would not be caught dead interested in boys and she frequently mocks her older sister Karen for being so caught up with how to attract boys.

http://gorillavid.in/4tb2gi876688

In episode 20 of season 2, Al comes home with a principal's demerit for cutting gym. She explains to her father that she needs her first bra. Frank, her father, knows this subject is out of his expertise and tells Carol that she should help Al with this step in her life. When Carol eventually talks to Al, she tells her that they should spend some time at the mall to buy what she needs and maybe buy a few dresses for her too to which Al quickly replies, "Whoa whoa wait a minute, I'll let you buy me a bra but if you try to dress me like Tinkerbell up there, you can kiss this mother daughter stuff goodbye!" Yes, Karen is Tinkerbell. However, this sentiment changes gradually and gracefully through the series.

http://gorillavid.in/9ba4z5bzgeay

In episode 7 of season 4, Al is really nervous about a first date and seeks out her older siblings, especially Karen, on how to act during a first date. Karen dresses up Al and teaches her the three magic phrases to say to a guy: That is a great idea, why didn't I think of that, and wow, you are so smart. In contrast to her earlier self, Al gladly dons a dress and even surprises her father who says, "Wow Al, I've never seen you so grown up!"

http://gorillavid.in/f1l3ytjsjgge

And in the final chapter of the three stages, episode 23 of season 4, Al, Karen and Dana all attend a college party. Al and Karen are both still naive and bring that innocent intrigue with them to the event. Al meets a very attractive guy at the party and they decide to dance and then take a walk around campus. Their tour eventually takes them to the guy's room. Karen and Dana are still at the party and overhear some of the fraternity brothers notice that the guy with Al is missing. They discuss how the guy will probably be missing the football game because he is with some girl. "He has it down to a science," they say, and they also note how he puts on some music while saying, "You are so easy to talk to, and then commenting on the girl's eyes. He's been to the promised land more times than Moses!" Dana and Karen are immediately run to save Al. Meanwhile Al is living through the planned experience but resists when the guy tries to progress past simply making out. At that moment Karen and Dana burst through the locked door and the guy runs for it. Al is clearly very hurt and starts tearing. She explains her feelings of betrayal, saying that she thought "he was a really nice guy, but before she knew it, he was trying to lay her down on the bed." Dana tells her, "It really isn't your fault. The guy was practically a professional and I was unsure of letting you come because you didn't understand guys this age." An experience like this will probably make Al more cynical of relationships and males in general and completes her transition from disinterested to resisting.

Al Lambert is far from an isolated case. Hermione Granger is also another person who undergoes a very similar sequence of stages. Could the commonness of these transitions support the argument that people are actually learning through the media how to progress in their perception of relationships throughout puberty? Would someone that is completely devoid of any media exposure go through these stages? And if they still did go through these stages, would it be because his/her partner was exposed to media and acted in a way that in a way contaminated the original person? What about in a closed society with no media exposure at all? Would those people then be free from this transition or would they still go through the stages?

So what is really influencing what? Is it that humans are naturally wired to undergo these sorts of transitions and that media producers, who are also human, naturally portray their characters with these same biological wirings? Or is it greatly more complicated than this? If we assume that the stages are not biological, then why do they exist in this way? What is causing each of the stages? While the disinterested and intrigue stages can be attributed to mostly hormonal factors or just natural curiosity, a resisting stage would have to come about through some sort of bad experience with the opposite sex whether it be in real life or through the media. Simultaneously, those bad experiences may originate from, like in Al's case, a guy who may have learned from the media how to attract women and what to do with them. In the same way, the director of said media could have learned these archetypes from earlier media. I could continue, but it would go on forever, which describes the difficulty of finding out the answer to this question as to where really these archetypes and ideas are originating from.

References

Brown, J. D., White, A. B., & Nikopoulou, L. (1993). Disinterest, intrigue, resistance:

Early adolescent girls' use of sexual media content. In B. S. Greenberg, J. D. Brown &

N. Buerkel-Rothfuss (Eds.), Media, sex and the adolescent (pp. 177-195). Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton Press.

Liam Neeson tells you not to be like Amanda

The topic of whether rape victims who dress provocatively are somewhat at fault has always been an interesting subject for me. You would think that most of the people that believe so would be male but surprisingly there are also females that believe so as well.

http://www.care2.com/causes/she-asked-for-it-survey-finds-women-blame-victims-for-rape.html

Women in the survey felt that women who wore attention seeking clothing were partly to blame for becoming victims of sexual attack. This idea of a "promiscuous female stereotype" is discussed in Ferguson's study where the perceptions of female victims of sexual harassment are compared after watching a variety of depictions of "promiscuous females" on the Jerry Springer Show. The study found that when exposed to promiscuous behavior, viewers were more likely to perceive the harassment as less traumatizing and the victim more responsible for the incident.

I've found that this stereotype of promiscuous female behavior shows up very often in our media as a generally negative trait. One example is in the movie Taken, when Liam Neeson's daughter arrives in Paris with her friend Amanda and they meet Peter, a classically hot guy.

Amanda is clearly attracted to Peter's great looks and starts flirting and even accepts Peter's invitation to a party in the evening. Little does she know, Peter is malebait to lure girls into kidnapping. Later, when Amanda and Liam Neeson's daughter are alone, Amanda declares that she is going to sleep with Peter to which Ms. Neeson questions, "But you just met him." Amanda replies that Peter is hot and that French guys are supposed to be amazing in bed. This dialogue sets up Amanda's archetype as a promiscuous female perfectly. In contrast, Neeson girl plays the foil to Amanda by being more cautious. While she is dismissive of her father's concerns that Paris can be a dangerous place, she still questions Amanda's reckless choice to sleep with strangers. In a way, Neeson's daughter plays the nonpromiscuous female. Moments later, both Amanda and Neeson girl are kidnapped. While the audience may feel sympathy for both girls, there is definitely more emphasis on the innocence of Neeson's daughter especially because she quickly becomes apologetic and is eventually rescued by her loving father.

Amanda, on the other hand, is kind of "killed off" like an insignificant character. This is interesting because the movie plays off this sequence as if Amanda was deserving of her fate because she was more easygoing with her sexuality. This portrayal of promiscuousness as negative is overwhelmingly common, as seen in other studies such as "Virginity Narratives." This is an interesting perspective on female sexuality because if Amanda was just Aman, the incident would definitely not be portrayed as negative and may even be portrayed as very positive. Is the movie and the media at fault for perpetuating these stereotypes then? While I cannot say for sure that the media is the cause and origin of the stereotype, I think that viewers perhaps have defaulted to that type of thinking and perspective in that it is convenient to think a promiscuous girl is at fault for becoming a victim, and as an inherent consumer himself, the director of this film unconsciously portrays Amanda as the person you don't want to be. Certainly principle dictates that a person should be able to wear whatever he/she likes and behave however he/she likes and that rapists simply should not rape, and I do agree that films should sympathize with the "Amandas" more because otherwise they will just be forgotten and the idea that women that are more easygoing with their sexuality are bad and deserve their doom will be wrongfully perpetuated. However, I also disagree with people that argue that it is completely the fault of the rapist/sexual harasser because no matter how shallow or superficial it seems, there comes certain expectations with certain behaviors and types of clothing and Amanda may have averted her demise if she had played a safer hand.



Ferguson, T., Berlin, J., Noles, E., Johnson, J., Reed, W., & Spicer, C. V. (2005).
Variation in the application of the 'promiscuous female' stereotype and the nature of
the application domain: Influences on sexual harassment judgments after exposure
to the Jerry Springer Show. Sex Roles, 52(7-8), 477-487. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-
3713-y

Cycle of Expectations

Bleakley's study brings up an interesting alternative perspective on how being sexually active may encourage more consumption of sexual media. Usually the relationship is thought of as more causal with "exposure to sexual content" being the "precursor to sexual behavior," but what if the relationship was actually simultaneous and a two way street?

Joseph Gordon Levitt plays the ultimate alpha male in Don Jon, which introduces Joseph at the club, hooking up with any attractive girl he wants. He is on a streak, going home with women that he and his friends have rated at least an 8 on a 1 to 10 scale on consecutive nights. He then is blown away by Scarlett, who he calls a "dime." Initially, his only goal is to have sex with her, but he realizes that the only way that that will happen is if he makes her his girlfriend and they go for the long haul. During this time, Joseph falls in love with Scarlett and they start dating genuinely, but after the first night of sex, Scarlett catches Joseph watching porn. She is not satisfied by Joseph's explanation of "reading emails" and immediately becomes very upset, calling it the "most disgusting thing she has ever seen." She starts packing her stuff to leave, but Joseph persuades her that it was a "joke that a dumbass buddy sent to him." He even says, "Do you really think I'm the type of guy that watches porn? Cause effin losers watch porn--guys that can't get laid." Scarlett reluctantly agrees, but is convinced when Joseph tells her "he loves her." He then promises to never watch again. But what is interesting is that he only watches more and more as the movie progresses. Every week Joseph goes to confession and he reports how many times he watched porn. In the following break up scene, Scarlett tells Joseph that she looked through his browser history and found 46 visits to porn sites. This is interesting because there does exist a stigma around porn and that it is reserved for people that cannot "get the real thing" but clearly, that stigma is contradicted by both Bleakley's study and Joseph's actions. As Joseph becomes more and more sexually active, he is only more drawn to the graphic content. He starts watching it whenever possible, even watching during class on his phone.

So why does he watch so much of it? According to Joseph, porn offers an escape. "Once in a while, you find a clip that's so good, it's effin depressing. You think to yourself, why can't real pussy be like this? You know I smash new girls all the effin time but they are never this effin good." Because women in real life do not perform sexually the way they do in porn, Joseph needs to use porn to satiate himself sexually. In a way, this supports Bleakley's application of the "uses and gratifications model" with Joseph using the sexual content to "gratify his needs." This also supports Bleakley's claim that this relationship creates a vicious cycle where Joseph's porn usage teaches him what to expect from sex, encouraging him to pursue sexual partners to experience what he sees in porn, but because reality never quite lives up to the choreography of porn, Joseph has to keep watching porn in order to satisfy himself. This cycle actually exists outside of the movie, and there has been a growing movement against pornography because many feel that its unrealistic portrayals of intercourse prevent real couples from having fulfilling sexual lives.

As technology and the internet become more prevalent parts of our society and education, I don't doubt that pornography will become even more pervasive. Pornhub is known to be very disruptive in its marketing campaigns and recently they announced that they would be advertising on a billboard in Times Square. Everyone knows that pornography is degrading for women, but what about the women that make ridiculous amounts of money starring in the films? Are they gaining or losing?




Bleakley, A., Hennessy, M., Fishbein, M., & Jordan, A. (2008). It works both ways: The
relationship between exposure to sexual  content in the media and adolescent sexual
behavior. Media Psychology, 11(4), 443-461. doi: 10.1080/15213260802491986

Beautiful Movies, Realistic TV

What makes a great film? I think as long as a film moves you emotionally and leaves you thinking, perhaps of new perspectives, it is a great film. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind does both really well and it is one of my favorites. When I read that 500 Days of Summer was one of the movies categorized as RTST movie exposure (Lippman, 2014), I immediately thought of Eternal Sunshine because I see many similarities in these two movies, one being that they both feature extremely normal characters experiencing extreme depths of emotion caused by changes in their relationships. In Eternal, Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet are both tired of life, but find novelty and love in each other. However, after the relationship lengthens and they begin to naturally tire of each other, they both opt to receive memory erasure in order to avoid any emotional pain associated with having to split up. However, even after the procedure, Jim and Kate's previous love for each other is so powerful that it transcends biology and like by "destiny," they are brought back together again. Watching this movie, it is very easy to see why it may promote the concept of "Love Finds a Way" because Love literally overcomes biological and physical barriers to reunite the two. Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet are so perfect for each other that even memory wiping fails to separate what would otherwise be two perfect strangers. The film is both beautiful and inspiring, giving hope to the audience through an artistic expression of the feeling of love. It is very reasonable for any viewer after watching a movie like Eternal to have a higher tendency to believe in "Love Finds a Way."

If I think about a lot of the romantic movies that I have watched, I have to agree that many of them employ the same optimistic romanticization of love that Eternal used. And if I think about television series, especially sitcoms, I do notice a trend that they tend not to reinforce the concepts of "Idealization" and "One and only" coded from Lippman's article. In How I Met Your Mother, Ted is still in love with Robin even after marrying the mother of his children. In The Big Bang Theory, Penny and Leoanrd foster a relationship only after an extended time being just friends. Clearly, there is not much conviction behind the "Idealization" or "Love at First Sight" concepts for these television shows.

The first reason for why this contrast exists is probably time. Movies are usually around two hours and simply may not have enough time to include multiple relationships to show the protagonist develop from each session of falling in love to the next. Also, films are usually meant to be packaged as artistic pieces that try to move the audience emotionally. It may be counteractive for films to downplay its use of love because it may take away from the ability of the film to be a riveting experience.



Lippman, J. R., Ward, L. M., & Seabrook, R. C. (2014). Isn’t it romantic? Differential
associations between romantic screen media genres and romantic beliefs.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 3(3), 128-140. doi: 10.1037/ppm0000034

Movie Analysis: Blue Valentine

I have always disliked movies that oversimplify issues like war and love, both of which are actually extremely complicated in reality. I think that is why I like Blue Valentine so much, because it explores the issue of marriage and relationships from multiple perspectives, and focuses on all the small details, giving unusual depth and gravity to an otherwise fairly straightforward film. Michelle Williams and Ryan Gosling have been married five years already. Their marriage, not so much a product of love than it is life, has been rocky. The audience can tell that the relationship is beginning to become very one-sided with Ryan's feelings for Michelle a lot stronger than it is the other way around. Already we can see that the movie includes topics like pregnancy and protection as the consequences of sex, a trait that runs counter to a lot of the mainstream media (Ward, 2003). In fact, because the movie encompasses two central plotlines, one of the past and one of the present, the movie in a way constantly counters itself, contrasting the Michelle and Ryan before they were married to the post-marriage Michelle and Ryan.

In the first scene, Michelle and her grandmother return home, to the surprise of her mother, who audibly exclaims that she thought it was her husband. Michelle then asks her grandmother about "what it felt like to be in love," to which her grandmother answers "I never knew." Michelle is clearly surprised by this answer, as if it was one she least expected. In a way, its an answer nobody expects from a film, although it is very realistic opinion. This also contradicts the idea that for women, the road to happiness is attracting males for a successful heterosexual lifestyle (Ward, 2003). In this scene, the road to happiness is through love not attraction. Her grandmother tells Michelle that it is important to fall in love with the right person, a person that will care for you, and show regard for you through the relationship. Michelle responds that she never wants to be in a relationship like her parents, where they show almost no compassion for each other at all. All of these messages seem to complement each other to advise against marrying on impulse and making sure the one you fall in love with is someone that you can have a healthy relationship with. In this scene, it never advises to marry for wealth or status and it is clear that the key component in a working relationship, in the eyes of the characters present, is love.

A similar scene occurs with Ryan Gosling on his first day of work for a moving company. He asks an older co-worker how he meets girls, to which the co-worker simply replies, "I just talk to them." Ryan starts saying how men are actually way more romantic than woman, which by itself contradicts many other sources of media, which usually portray the male as sexually insatiable and always wanting sex, e.g. urgency script (Kelly, 2010). He says that "when we get married, we marry like one girl. We're resistant, the whole way, until we meet one girl and we think I'd be an idiot if I didn't marry this girl, she's so great. But it seems like girls get to a place and they just pick the best option. They spend their whole life looking for prince charming and then they just pick the guy with a good job and will stick around." Like the previous excerpt, the characters are expressing only love when assessing romantic partners. There is no sexual objectification of women by the men and there are no references to how a woman must look attractive to be in a successful heterosexual relationship.

In these two symmetrical scenes, the audience is told what are supposed to be benevolent messages concerning romance. The girl is being told by her wiser grandmother that she needs to fall in love with the right person who cares for you, and the guy is expressing how he wants to marry the girl that he goes head over heels over. While neither perspective is necessarily perfect, the reasons go beyond shallow qualifications like status or aesthetics. In a way the movie reinforces that these ideals are benevolent especially because they come from wiser and more experienced sources in the grandmother and the co-worker. Compared to the more traditional messages found in Ward (2003), these are distinctly contrasting. There are none of the "recreational overtones" and men are not commenting on female's physical appearance. In fact Michelle is always dressed extremely plainly throughout the film.

In the third scene, Ryan Gosling and Michelle are eating. They are supposed to be using this time to have fun away from their daughter but there is obvious tension. Michelle asks Ryan why he won't "do something." She is clearly unsatisfied with the way the marriage is working out and also unsatisfied with Ryan's apparent lack of ambition. Ryan is offended and asks why he needs to be doing something when all he wants is to be able to be a great father. This is interesting because in terms of status, the gender roles are contradictory to the traditional male breadwinner and female housewife concepts. Michelle is a nurse while Ryan is a painter. Michelle even says that "she wishes he did something where he didn't have to drink in the morning to do."

This scene is a little different from the previous two scenes because although the audience can see that Michelle wishes Ryan had a better job, the audience also understands that this kind of dynamic is not desirable. This can be an application of Bandura's Social Learning Theory, where audience members learn what is good or bad behavior based on the consequences of each. Because the scene shows the couple being unhappy as a result from Michelle being unsatisfied with Ryan's status and voicing her concerns, the viewer may learn that a loving partner should not question her partner's career status. This goes hand in hand with what was said earlier by the grandmother because they both resemble marriage virtues related to having a regard for your partner and loving them for what they are. However, a contradictory message that a viewer may extract is that it is important for Ryan to have a "better job" so that there are no feelings of dissatisfaction about financial situations. These contradictory messages make up the theme of the entire movie both for the viewers and the characters. Both the characters before they were married had learned how to pursue romance from the wiser and more experienced. The grandmother had told Michelle to marry someone who would have regard for you. Both the viewer and Michelle had taken this genuine advice to heart. Michelle married Ryan, who would do anything for Michelle. Ryan married Michelle who was the girl of his dreams. Both of them followed what was supposed to be benevolent messages, yet they are in this unhappy state. Michelle had least wanted the type of relationship her parents had and she thought following her grandmother's advice would keep her from that path, but unfortunately, it had not. Her relationship with Dean was just as strained.

So with all these conflicting messages, what is the viewer supposed to make of the film? What is the right path to a fulfilling and happy marriage? Although Blue Valentine presents perspectives, it never presents clear answers. And maybe that is the film's answer, its version of "who knows?" There isn't one answer. There will be couples that are happy even if they live a textbook marriage with traditional sex roles and there will be couples that live very unhappily in considerate and loving marriages. Every relationship has its unique qualities and traits that require its own path. Michelle and Ryan tried too hard to fit their relationship into the archetypes presented earlier in the film, and as a result, even though they loved each other very much, they were unhappy. And by that reasoning, Blue Valentine actually imparts an important lesson to its viewers: love will not be the butterflies and fairies of the story books, no matter what path you take.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Kelly, M. (2010). Virginity loss narratives in "teen drama" television programs. Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 479-489.

Ward, L.M. (2003). Understanding the role of entertainment media in the sexual socialization of American youth: A review of empirical research. Developmental Review, 23 (3), 347-388

Carrie

Bader's writing made me instantly remember Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats," a music video I had watched a long time ago and still harbored unsettling feelings about. It's like they couldn't even wait for the music to start before the gender bashing. But then the real bashing begins, with Carrie baseball batting her boyfriend's car from hood to trunk with anger fueled by her thoughts about her boyfriend flirting with another girl. "Maybe next time he will think before he cheats," she says. "Yes he will think of how much a psycho his ex was," I think. While the song comes to a close, I am filled with so many questions. Why does this song exist? Why is this song so popular? Oh my god, this song won a Grammy. I had always thought of the Grammys as an insignificant trophy factory where someone not getting a Grammy would be the real surprise, but this has disappointed me further. I scroll through the comments and I see many, not a majority,thankfully, basically saying that men should beware if they cheat and that getting their car broken is the least of their worries. A song like this does not need to be reinforced in any way. People should not be validated when they think of doing awful things to a cheating partner. And Study Question 1 brings up a good point. A song showing a man destroying a women's possessions would probably face industry wide backlash. 

But the nightmare only started there. One of the comments had a link to another Carrie Underwood song, "Two Black Cadillacs." Again, the song centered around an adulterous man who had just died. The preacher and brother both paid their respects at the funeral saying, "he was a good man." But the two women who had been cheated on "didn't bother to cry." Apparently, they also didn't bother to brake before committing homicide on the cheating man by running him over with Cadillacs. I couldn't believe it. How had this song escaped any form of media coverage criticizing its ridiculous ethical fallacies and reinforcement of psychotic behavior? Why did this song have so many likes? If Study Question 1 applied well to the first song, it must have been created for this song because there is no way any music video of a man murdering any women for any reason is being released without that record company immediately becoming an industry leper. In a society of political correctness and carefully polished media messages, how was a music video like this able to emerge unscathed? And even if the obvious male outrage is suppressed, aren't there women that should be protesting against the release of these toxic messages? Of course, of course, I understand that this is only a song and it cannot be taken seriously, but is that really a sufficient response? Younger and younger children are tuning into these sources of entertainment, and surely you would not want Little Tom or Sally to think that their future feelings of jealousy and rage should be vented through homicide or any sort of violence? I see a lot of comments saying how the Carrie's songs describe their lives perfectly and I don't doubt that those same people extract scripts from the songs to learn how to live their own lives. Apparently Carrie Underwood has more of these ridiculous songs like "Blown Away" where she basically indirectly kills her father by not waking him up before a tornado hits, and "Good Girl," where she tells girls they should leave their boyfriend now even if it is going well to ensure that the relationship can't turn sour. And the worst thing about all of this is that she is ALWAYS portrayed as the victim. Yes even when she is murdering someone. 

As Bader says, "Some messages in popular songs are not necessarily healthy ones for youth who are in the process of trying to sort out sex, love, and romance," and these songs are wildly popular. Cultivation theory, social learning theory, and scripting theory would also all argue that continued and consistent exposure to this kind of media would have a very real influence on its viewers most notably big Carrie fans and the people commenting on how Carrie's songs describe their lives perfectly. Carrie is also a very popular singer with all of the mentioned songs exceeding 10 million views on Youtube with one winning a Grammy. Maybe our society, in an attempt to become too politically correct, has swayed too far and allowed for the traditionally "minority voice" too much leeway. 

Bader, A. (2007). "Love will steer the stars" and other improbable feats: Media

myths in popular love songs. In M.-L. Galician & D. L. Merskin (Eds.), Critical thinking

about sex, love, and romance in the mass media (pp. 141-160). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum.

Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman(Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Growing up with television: Cultivation processes. In J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Ed.s.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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(2), 145-157. doi:

10.1080/00224490701263660