http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1596980559?ie=UTF8&tag=wwwviolentkicom&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1596980559

www.healthysexedu.blogspot.com

trojan.com

youtube.com

There is quite a contradiction between what we say we want people to know about sex and what people know about sex. Where do we learn what we do? How are some things common knowledge to certain people and hidden knowledge to others? Where do we learn about sex and when do we learn about sex?

The simple answer would be to say that we, and kids now, learn about sex from their parents and sex ed classes. Parents would like to think that the only things their kids know about sex is what they tell them or what the school tells them. But we know, as media literacy students, that this is far from true. 

Kids are learning about sex from their friends, the internet, television and other media. Some boys find porn, some get the magazines or videos from the internet or older guy friends. Girls are taught through magazine, tv show and teen movies to be easy, but not too easy. They learn that they need to keep a man and shouldn't do anything to embarrass him too bad. 

So where does sexual health come in? How do we talk about things that we aren't exposed to on a daily basis? Where are the talks about condoms to go along with the hot sex scenes in Gossip Girl? Moving away from the teen drama's, what about the movies featuring adults having sex, very few talk about the risks, pregnancy, std or otherwise.

We've come to a time where kids are able to talk about sexual acts but they don't have the inner strength and knowledge to talk about the consequences of such actions. Sure getting head might be nice, but what happens to the girl when the guy talks about it at school, and doesn't have any intention of getting into a relationship? Did the girl think about it before hand? 

Some companies are starting to talk about the health risks. MTV often shows trojan commericals, and trojan has started a campaign for sexual health awareness. But they also have something to gain from this. If people start thinking of sexual health because of them, they will most likely buy trojan condoms. Buying and using trojan condoms only is better than buy and using no condoms, yes, but what happens when other companies come up with something better. What happens when the people getting the information from trojan don't go out looking for more information, more options, the best way to keep themselves and their partner(s) safe.

Innocence Lost

Vice Magazine UK Edition

Vice Magazine UK Edition

I find myself shocked and surprised at media geared at young people from time to time. Take for instance, the preview for Gossip Girls, while I understand that The OC had quite a bit of sex in it's programing I don't remember it being advertised with the same intensity as the recent Gossip Girl ads. I don't want to feel like I am getting old and appalled at what they will show on tv. My sister watches this stuff with amazing levels of interest and while I'm sure at her age I was aware of similar programming (MTV's Undressed) it was not as easy to find. Or maybe I was just sheltered. 

Gossip Girl has caught my attention from the beginning. I read one of the books years ago and while I remember it being drama filled I don't remember the characters to be such sexualized creatures. While there is nothing wrong with programming that addresses and discusses the sexuality of high school students, I have to wonder if the way in which it is packaged is damaging. 

A problem with the depiction of young adult sex life in current media is this:  The characters are not yet 18 in the show but the women who play them are. This creates and unrealistic image of maturity in the characters that isn't always there in real high school students. The actors are just working, they don't have to deal with the consequences that the characters do. Whatever happens or doesn't in the show stops when the actors leave the set. This is not so in real life and that isn't addressed when many young adults watch the programming.

There are many issues that can come with the age differences between the actor and the character the actor is playing. First, those watching the show who are the same age as the character is suppose to be can look up to these characters and get caught in the idea that, at this age, the actions the characters are partaking in are normal actions of the age range. In Gossip Girl some of these actions are promiscuous sex, cocaine use, blackmail, and sabotage just to name a few. Looking back to my high school years I can safely say that while some of the students were getting into these kinds of things, it wasn't as prevalent as the show makes it seem. In tv shows about high school these events and actions have become norms. I'm not saying it would be a good idea to ignore the fact that these events do sometimes occur in high school, more in some groups than others, but showing it without talking about it creates an unsafe reality for real teens to watch. 

A major part of porn's influence on pop culture is the obsession with young but sexually ready and willing young women. There is an abundance of fashion spreads with women looking at the camera like little girls, wide eyed with wonder and fascination. They are clothed in dresses and positioned with feet pointed inward. In one of my examples, the girl is eating a banana in a little pink dress, hair a little messy and her bangs falling on her forehead like they would a child. While she looks young in dress and hair, she doesn't look too young to be completely innocent. Because of her make up, and where the dress falls on her leg, one can assume that she is at least consenting age, if not older. 

Sexualized minorities, "sexual otherness" and heterosexism in media

A sexual minority in the media is anyone who doesn't stay within the typical, heterosexual, same race/ethnicity relationship. Even more than that, a sexual minority is anyone who is in a marital relationship or older than 40 years old. Unless of course you are Lucille in Arrested Development. In this week's readings Shugart talks about how the media is reinventing the gay male with the same privileges if not more privileges to a woman's body than the hetero male. As I was reading this article I realize how many points made sense because with the gay male touching the woman and dressing her and looking at her there is no perceived threat like there could be with a heterosexual lame friend. As I was reading through this I was wondering why these relationships are presented in this way. Is this an example of how heterosexual males can't have intimacy with a woman without having it be a sexual relationship but gay males can? In society and in the media it seems as if men aren't allowed to have women as friends without having some sort of sexual benefit to add on to the relationship. Two women can have a close friendship, two men can have a close friendship but as soon as gender is put into the mix sex has to become a part of it. In the position of the gay male in media however, this issue is taken away for one of the two characters. The presentation of power shifts in these gay male, straight female friendships. Where females are usually ignoring or sidestepping advances of their male friends, now males are sidestepping or denying female advances.
The article also made some good points about how the media shows many women wanting or "needing" a gay male best friend. One that keeps her in line. Is there are different reason though why straight females might want these male gay friends? Security and companionship without the dramatics and emotion associated with a sexual relationship may be a couple reasons.

When I was in San Diego I picked up a Reader which is like their version of the Mercury and I happened upon an ad for Lips the restaurant. While a few movies have used the idea of crossdressing and transvestites as comedy there have been few that include these type of characters in as normal. The media says that these type of preferences are not normal.

The porn article talks about some people that are not part of the norms for two reasons, one the stars are of different racial backgrounds and two because they are pierced and tattooed which of course is a deviation from the norm still.

The Glu article is a really interesting one that highlights issues of lesbianism and how many magazines were still catering to either the male fantasy or the butch preferences. The creator of Glu talks about how she knows many famous people who are presenting themselves as heterosexual in the public eye but are really lesbian or gay. It raises the question, "why do these people still feel the need to identify as heterosexual?" Are these stars or people in high places fearful of losing their audience because their sexual preferences off screen are different than they play on screen? And is the U.S. ready to watch heterosexual males and females play true homosexual characters and vice versa. We have started integrating the straight male playing homosexual males in Brokeback Mountain but public opinion was really divided on the movie. And while many straight women have done sex scenes with other women have they played parts where they had no interest in men what so ever and the relationship between them and another female was based on real relationships and not male fantasy?