Disgusting Guinness Commercial

A facebook friend posted this video on his wall. He wrote "best. video. ever" next to the link. I strongly disagreed.



This ad is actually incredibly offensive. I'm all for sexy advertising but there's nothing sexy or appealing about a women being portrayed as a silent beer coasters while three men(?) drink off of her. I think what bothered me most, though was the text: "Share one with a friend"... seriously? That's such blatant objectification. It portrays women as no better than beer, serving the mere purpose of entertaining men as they bond while they fuck us. Eww. The supposed sex here bothers me, too. It's clearly not good sex (based on the woman's only slight movements) and portrays the woman as nothing more than a body for three others to fuck, which is disgusting and not sexually empowering whatsoever.

Sexism is alive and well in this ad. If nothing else we have to admit that advertisements serve to sell more than the product they are promoting. If that wasn't the case, why would they use hot, half naked women to get products noticed? Advertisements also sell concepts of normalcy, and in this case, create a culture where it's not only ok but sexy to objectify women, use them solely for the purpose of male bonding and beer drinking, and "share them" with their friends. Women (people in general) deserve better than this.

I objected to the link. I posted an explanation underneath it to which many people replied that i was being overly liberal, overly sensitive, and unable to take a joke. Then someone compared this commercial to this Calvin Kline ad of David Becham modeling underwear. The guy was clearly misunderstanding the definition of "objectification." The term is used to signify when a person is seen purely to serve a purpose and their attributes and appearance are separated from the rest of their worth to reduce that person to an instrument (or object) solely for the pleasure or use of another person. When men are photographed half naked (as in that ad) men aren't objectified in the same way women are everyday due to the social context. We live in a country where women are second class citizens and commercials like the Guinness one only serve to perpetuate and glamorize that status.

Research just this year found that men are more likely to think of women as objects if they viewed pictures of stereotypically sexy women beforehand. "Researchers used brain scans to show that when straight men looked at pictures of women in bikinis, areas of the brain that normally light up in anticipation of using tools, like spanners and screwdrivers, were activated. Scans of some of the men found that a part of the brain associated with empathy for other peoples' emotions and wishes shut down after looking at the pictures. Susan Fiske, a psychologist at Princeton University in New Jersey, said the changes in brain activity suggest sexy images can shift the way men perceive women, turning them from people to interact with, to objects to act upon."

Vulgar Email

I was waiting for an important email this morning, so when my computer beeped to indicate I had a new message, I naturally got excited. This wasn't the email I was hoping for, however. I opened the message, titled, "your friend recommended this article" (because it isn't abnormal for friends to send me articles to read and write about here). But that's not what it was...

The message read:

Enter her twat like a bull

Smart men prefer this solution for giving girls true satisfaction!

SERIOUSLY?!

There is so so much wrong with that. And I get it, spam emails aren't intended to be works of Jane Austen. But for some reason what bothered me most about this particular message was that "smart men prefer this solution for giving girls true satisfaction." Men really shouldn't be entering girls' "twats" like bulls (or in any other way, either...). Ew.

Platonic Friendship

Can men and women be (just) friends?

I first began thinking about this question years ago after watching the quirky and timeless classic, When Harry Met Sally. The movie revolves around the idea that men and women can never be just friends because "the sex part always gets in the way." They try to navigate through the conversation by setting obscure rules like they can only be friends if both are in committed relationships because then "the pressure of possible involvement is lifted."

Aside from being a heteronormative question, assuming that all men are attracted to women, it is also a question engrossed in strict gender roles and stereotypes. For these two reasons I hoped this would cease to be debated in 2009, when apparently we live in a post feminist society where men and women are equal and free thinking... (that was snark if you couldn't tell).

Fast forward to today as I engaged in my sleepy morning let's-get-the-day-started routine, pouring coffee and turning on the often trite Good Morning America. In the segment I linked they too discuss this "timeless question" of an impossible platonic friendship between men and women. The segment was an obvious scheme to promote Steve Harvey's new book, Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man (which i won't link because of the strict gender roles and stereotypes that even the title doesn't fail to perpetuate). For 'empirical evidence' GMA referenced a study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology that found that an opposite sex friendship can end in an affair 15% of the time. (emphasis mine.) What about the other 85% of the time? That sure doesn't seem like enough statistical evidence to back up the claim to me...

The whole "timeless question" leaves me more than prickly. It assumes that men can't think with their appropriate brain and that they are sexually attracted to every woman they meet. It also ascertains that women are 1) naive and 2) not sexually driven. This sort of thinking is damaging for men because it sets men up to be the ultimate perpetrators. They are always on the prowl and are singly sex minded. It promotes the idea that it's always a man's responsibility to get into a woman's pants and it's solely a woman's role to guard her virginity, pureness, sex, whatever.

For women it's a double whammy. Not only are women once again regarded as naive, helpless, and meek, doing whatever they can to protect their one and only precious commodity, but they are determined to not have the same sex drive that their male counterparts posses.

Continuing to think in the heteronormative way in which this question is presented, I think that mature and responsible men and women can absolutely have platonic relationships that don't deteriorate into a let's rip each other's clothes off and make passionate love in the bedroom situation. I think the dynamic between opposite sex friends has to be different, and that your partners have to be involved in the friendship (for example, it shouldn't be a secret friendship because that sets up a sketchy relationship from the beginning). But all in all, i think it is entirely possible for heterosexual men and women to have close friends of the opposite sex.

Readers, what do you think?

(cross-posted at feministing community where there is some discussion going on in the comments sections)

"I was going to ask you what's new, but I think I know"

Anyone watch American Idol? This is extremely disturbing to me on so, so many levels...

Oprah's "Why Women Are Leaving Men for Other Women"

I'm glad that my friends hold me accountable for blogging and send me various articles throughout the week that i should have read or should be reading. I swear, i'll get to them... i've been swamped with work and personal drama. A good friend, Heather, sent this article to me stating that she was a bit conflicted. I agree. I think the author meant well... but a few aspects of this piece read a bit off.

To me, Fischer's article seemed doused in stereotypes. Men never. Women always. The piece quotes a woman who states, "I enjoyed sex with men, but there was a lack of emotional intimacy with them." As a feminist woman committed to a feminist and gender bending male, i find it difficult to evaluate things in such black and white terms. I think it's important to highlight the uniqueness of lesbian relationships without devaluing heterosexual relationships and especially without exploiting mainstream lesbian stereotypes like the examples of media in the article:

"Actress Lindsay Lohan and DJ Samantha Ronson flaunted their relationship from New York to Dubai. Katy Perry's song "I Kissed a Girl" topped the charts. The L Word, Work Out, and Top Chef are featuring gay women on TV, and there's even talk of a lesbian reality show in the works. Certainly nothing is new about women having sex with women, but we've arrived at a moment in the popular culture when it all suddenly seems almost fashionable—or at least, acceptable."

Most of those examples barely make for genuine relationships. They are more a form of faux lesbianism that has been tolerated throughout the decades. I use "tolerated" purposefully because examples of straight men daring women to make out with each other and watching isn't genuine acceptance of same sex couples. And though these straight men reveling in faux lesbianism may be extreme and some would argue, outdated, Work Out, Katy Perry's pop hit, and reality TV shows come pretty damn close. They all feature hot, leggy, women and a sense of "trying it out" that doesn't really make for commitment. Either that or androgynous and "butch" women who are entirely open about their sexuality. But where are all the women in between, that don't fit either mainstream norm? Don't get me wrong, i think openly gay women on TV shows and radio is such a step in the right direction, i just wish it was more genuine and less forced into those stereotyped boxes that society and media has for gays and lesbians. Even Rachel Maddow, who i absolutely adore, has been discussed in terms of fitting into a standard of beauty that she may not be 100% comfortable representing off the screen.

But what makes me even more conflicted is, as feminist philosopher Susan Bordo, states for the article, "when a taboo is lifted or diminished, it's going to leave people freer to pursue things." So okay, whether or not media is exploiting lesbian relationships for ratings, just by showing same sex couples on the screen diminishes the taboo around these relationships and gives lesbian, bi, and questioning women and chance to feel comfortable in their sexuality and embrace alternative options. That is such an important step.

The other part of the article that left me wondering was a paragraph about a 2004 landmark study in sexual orientation:

"During the experiment, the female subjects became sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. This was true for both gay and straight women. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were turned on only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men. "We found that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time," says the study's senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, PhD. "These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains."

But how much of this too is socially driven and impacted by media exposure and the diminished taboo surrounding lesbian relationships? I would argue that even arousal in the confines of a home, let alone when being observed and evaluated by a researcher, is mediated by shame and the participant's ideas of normatively. Being called gay or "fag" is so much more a perceived threat for men than it is for women in our culture. My thoughts are that fear and shame surrounding stereotypes and homophobia impact men's arousal much more than they impact women's. "Lesbian" for women isn't used in the same negative connotation or to the same degree as "gay" is for men.

I think a lot of Oprah's article is valid. Definitely great to get the message out separating sex, from gender, and then especially from sexual orientation. I also think there's a lot of importance to putting a face on same sex relationships, as this article has done, to tell people's stories as apposed to always talking in terms of research and data. Putting a face to the literature always helps readers feel connected. But i do think the article could have done a better job assessing stereotypes rather than exploiting them.

If you have a few minutes, check out the article and let me know what you think :)

Sexist or Sexually Empowering?

This started as a response to comments on the Just Do It post but ended up way too long for the comment box so i thought i'd make an entry out of it.

The postcard text reads: "When I jog by men I breathe heavily and moan, so they imagine fucking me as I trot past"

I gave this postcard a lot of thought before putting it up, especially in regards to Female Desire Week, but decided that it made the cut, here's why:

Although i agree it's difficult to separate agency from systemization we also (unfortunately) can't go back and ask the author of the post card to explain what s/he meant.* I am going to imagine the person who wrote this was female (it may very well have been a male) and analyze it from a female sexuality perspective.

To me, the postcard represents a woman having the power to manipulate other's wants and thoughts based on her choice of action. She is taking the control and power of her sexuality to make him imagine her in the way she wants to be imagined and wants to be seen. And if this turns her on, by all means...

I realize a lot of people have a hard time with women claiming power through sexuality because, way too often, sexual power is the only type of power women are said to have. However, i also think it's empowering for this particular woman to have chosen to take back her power in this way and reclaim the power of her own sexuality. She is making a conscious choice, outside of the stereotypical norms set for sexuality, especially female sexuality.

In that respect, this IS celebrating female agency because it's not socially acceptable for women to assert themselves in that sort of sexual way and by doing so they are taking that power back. In contemporary society it is acceptable for women to act subtly sexual and it is expected that their sexuality is elusive and non-apparent. In this case acting overtly sexual by complete choice is acting as an agent outside of the system in place.

Also, thinking through norms of sexuality, women are taught from a young age to use their sexuality as their main asset, especially for personal gain (example: the DQ commercial i wrote about a while back - little girl acting sexy to get ice cream). However, to act this way completely for themselves and not to acquire something, to me, is totally different. If causing a guy to imagine that he is fucking her turns this girl on and the knowledge of that is what she is "getting" out of the situation, i do not see anything wrong with that. Female sexuality that isn't of the social norm (such as purposefully breathing heavily and moaning), as in almost "deviant" sexual behavior, that is decisively deviant and made freely - outside the norm of sexuality, outside the system, and outside female expectations of sexuality - is empowering. To me, this reclaims female power and agency and is a perfect example of female desire and female sexual freedom.

Also, i'm incredibly new to thinking about sexuality and female power through sexuality from a feminist perspective so i would love the feedback of sex-positive bloggers who know their stuff much more so than i currently do :)

Anyone else have thoughts on this?


*If you are the author of this postcard and somehow happened to come upon this blog, PLEASE chime in, we'd love to hear from your perspective! :)

Just Do It...

In honor of Female Desire Week: This postcard via postsecret.com