Maybe I am biased, but this is ridiculous

Have you seen this commercial? Yes, so have I. Just yesterday I was introduced into the new lows of LC from The Hills. Does she ever find a guy that's not a complete pig is what I want to know. Doesn't look like it. Does AT&T condone a man's "right" to look, and a woman's place to show dissatisfaction but not have it addressed or taken seriously?
The male obviously is not paying attention to what the woman is saying. While he not interested in the woman he is obviously with, he is interested in two women who are walking by the couple's table. These girls look no different from the one sitting before him, but they aren't talking, they are just gliding in an attractive manner. He then takes his phone, with a mirrored screen to watch these women walk away. Sleezy at best. When the woman he is with confronts his (LC) he just smirks and laughs it off as if her concern for is actions don't mean anything.
The male has the power in this commercial. He is white, attractive (according to some) and he shows those watching that listening to a woman (his girlfriend or date) is not important. He demonstrates his lack of attention by looking away from LC, looking toward the other woman, watching them as they walk away and then shrugging and smiling when he is caught by the woman he is sitting with.
LC is playing the typical woman. She is talking about something the male is obviously not interested in, applying lipgloss using her phone's handy mirrored face and then showing displeasure with his lack of attention to her and full attention to the other women through an abbreviated message.
Her message can hardly be taken as serious or really angry, the words aren't fully spelled out and regardless of if this is the norm in text messaging or not, it is still not professional or intelligent. The full importance of her message is not found because she can't even find the time to 1)speak to him directly and 2)write using real words. He then challenges her claim with a shrug and a smile to which she is defenseless so she rolls her eyes and continues on.
Is this how we are suppose to be communicating in relationships? What about the bigger problem?
Yes these two people have a back story but not everyone watching this commercial knows that and that's okay. Whether or not the audience know the characters (I refuse to call them people, they've been playing parts for years), they know they dynamic of that kind of relationship.

I find this commercial to go hand in hand with the klondike bar commericals where a man is talking with his wife and a pretty woman walks by and he doesn't look. The commercial then suggests giving the man a reward of a klondike bar because his attention didn't stray from his wife.



I am not the only one with something to say about this commercial.
Jessica from Feministing said: "Many of you have emailed us about this Klondike commercial. And I agree, it's atrocious. Not only does it feed into the sexist idea that men deserve a cookie for being halfway decent human beings, but it also denigrates men by suggesting that they're animals, unable to resist any ass that that happens to pass their way. Thumbs down."

I'll put more of my own reactions later.

Post Secret

Media is a Neglectful Parent

Cloistering ourselves away in a tiny, subterranean apartment a few steps off of the beaten path, we find a still-resonating cacophony of sexuality invading our respite via the pile of fashion/music magazines on the coffee table, the pop music cd cover art scattered throughout the entertainment cabinet, and the newspapers and TV guide on the back of the toilet.

Having already realized the inescapable nature of socially constructed approaches to sexual propriety (and impropriety) it spawned a conversation concerning what else in life could be said to be as ubiquitous as the media’s presentation of “sex et al.”

Perhaps social order, perhaps politics, perhaps even Christian morality. The discussion resulted in countless tangents and a multitude of experience-based examples but then, taking the entire consideration one step backward, we realized that sex, society, politics and religion are all constituent parts of worldview…something every single person possesses in a subjective manner. Everyone’s worldview is fundamentally singular, pertaining to the accumulation of their own, individual experiences and inspirations. The funny thing is that, while media influences the worldview by presenting profoundly partisan perspectives, parents have the capability of being equally formative with respect to a person’s worldview, only the partisanship is much more obvious.

What with the amount of time children spend with media, it takes on the role of the nanny; The supervisory assistant to which parents are able to surrender their offspring in order that their own lives might be a little freer and less hindering.

This is the case. It’s a commonly occurring method of child rearing.
And yet the question stands: is this a good thing?
With the recent influx of the media mommy/daddy method of parenting, how are children of this new age of maturation being ultimately affected?

Here’s an answer for you: children are learning more, experimenting more, and practicing more…sex.

And not safely.

At the beginning of our class readings, Brown’s article on Mass Media Influences on Sexuality discussed Cultivation theory in relation to television viewing and specifically cited an example involving high school students and how long-term media exposure resulted in a “shared set of conceptions and expectations about reality.”
In previous settings where media was not in as profuse availability as it is today, the idea of a shared mentality was a threatening and “Anti-American” issue (Communism, Nazism, etc).
And yet now it’s a fresh, lucrative market thirsty for youngsters and their cash.

However, business aside, there are larger, less finite consequences in store for the children whose parents have left them with the TV as a babysitter. Especially where sex is concerned.

It’s interesting how children are hailed for their avid curiosity and amazing learning abilities and yet we anticipate their innocence to remain intact no matter how many formats of sex-saturated media they’re allowed to indulge in on a consistent basis.

Parents’ expectations for their children’s asexuality are easy to see in such encouragements as virginity pledges and faith in the “sexual education” (or miseducation) of public academic institutions.


And yet look what kinds of influences these children are receiving…


Children see these kinds of examples as normal and then culture into themselves a necessity to assimilate.
And it’s because they’re not taught critical thinking skills by the parents who allowed and even encouraged them to intake more and more television, internet, and print.
It’s like sending a child to gather mushrooms without instructing them on how to pick the edible from the poisonous.

Media is crafted to suit its audience; it’s made to order where tweens and teens are concerned. Funny how the very domains created to allow the younger generation an outlet simultaneously provide the media moguls tools to craft even more directly impacting and infiltrating artifacts.


Enter Tila Tequila. Her fame stems from her explosive popularity on Myspace.com whose major membership is composed of elementary to high school age boys and girls. The fact is that these students had to click on the “approve friend request” icon after perusing the requested friend’s page. In that act alone they were doubtlessly exposed to a barrage of Tila’s images not to mention the images of her litany of lascivious friends.

Tila’s presence on such a site presents the youthful explorers with an inappropriate role model both for femininity and sexual action.
Tila is celebrated as a sexual pioneer and her reality turned dating and sexuality into a trend and game.

GOSSIP GIRL

Myspace has promoted this television show to an invasive degree. It’s seasonal appearance is hailed to every single subscriber with each login. It looked at first glance like any other teen soap opera. The difference came in the fact that it’s featured high school age characters are played by college age actors (much like shows like The OC) presenting the intended teen audience with not only an unrealistic physical example of what their bodies ought to look like but an equally implausible notion of the availability and frequency of sex without true emotional relevance and/or consequence.

When teenage boys and girls encounter these types of paradoxes the response, as noted above, is to struggle to become what they ought not and all because they truly don’t know the difference between television and reality other than soundtracks and unlimited costuming.

And with “reality shows” like The Hills to bridge the gap between scripted and unscripted television the idea of honest example is even more clouded. This makes way for even more confusion on the part of children who depend on the media with equivalence to gospel.

In consideration of the whole process of maturing from innocent child to sexually aware teen to independent adult, the primary examples for teens these days are the female pop idols whose entire lives are smattered across the covers of countless tabloids and music mags.



And now...

...the much anticipated Rolling Stone Downfall of Three Female Icons of Pop.

Britney Spears
"Make me a baby, one more time"


Miley Cyrus
"Nobody's Perfect...just naked"

Christina Aguilera
"I want your genie in my bottle"

These three divas have all gone through the same evolution from innocence to sexual extraversion and have done so entirely publicly. They set a precedent for young ladies of today which is the proverbial road map for arguably the hardest time period in young life: adolescence.



Then comes the final point of example where the ultimate goal of maturity is seen. Girls are shown by the images of magazines, specifically of the fashion and style nature, that they need to be marketable. They need to fulfill the desires of and be worth something monetary to affluent men.

No parent would instruct their child to goal themselves to be of higher sexual worth as a positive means of growth.

And yet here we are seeing example of upon example of girls-barely-women fulfilling the roles laid out by Brooks’ Centerfold Syndrome: voyeurism, objectification, validation, trophyism, and fear of true intimacy. Attwood and Krassas concur with their noting of the new view of sex where maturity is concerned; adulthood is hedonism and women are the sex that men do.

As far as parenting goes, leaving the role of protector and provider to what has been demonstrated as an incredibly destructive source, media would definitely earn itself the title of “neglectful.”

By definition, neglectful parenting involves carelessness and a lacking in respect and attention. The parents who remain aloof on the topic of sex in expectation of their children learning from the available media are being careless and lacking in attention. The media itself is intended for mass ingestion and therefore does not pay particular attention to respecting the receivers who are under its care.

It would seem appropriate to close with a question: What must change in order to allow young women to see sexuality and maturity as explorations independent of a mass presented advertisement?

In offering of a few starting options, quit attempting the all or nothing approach to sexuality. Children will find sex in the media, whether prohibited or encouraged. However the likelihood of that exposure being comprehensive and clear enough to provide any sense of holistic truth or absolute is veritably nil without the assistance of influence from a non-mediated example: parents, real life role models, older siblings, teachers, the list goes on.

The media’s presentation of sex is not necessarily inherently and totally bad, it’s just that there’s little to no framing assistance for the children who see it. They must be given the tools with which to unpackage the truth behind the photo shoots, the camera angles, and catchy lyrics.

It’s not just parents who are skipping the beat, it’s any and all of us involved in this commercial environment.

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?

What is feminine, what is masculine?

It was much easier to find examples for sexualized femininity than sexualized masculinity. Images A, B, C and D all have women in them. A is an example of sexualized femininity because the girl is completely made up, almost looking like a doll. Her mouth is open, almost inviting and her eyes are looking straight at the viewer welcoming them in. I picked the picture because when I was flipping through the magazine I couldn't tell if the girl was real or not. She looks like a Barbie doll, totally unrealistic. 

Image B is both an example of sexualized femininity and masculinity. It is not overtly sexual, like that of image C, but they photographer was still looking to capture a certain image. The woman has a pink dress on, the sleeves and the ruffles make the dress seem like it a longer one but then if you look at her legs you realize the skirt is not really that long. This kind of look is common in women's magazines. The models are dressed in cute clothing that could have come from their youth, but there is often a twist, the hemline is higher, the make up the model is wearing makes her face look a little older, but not too much and her posture usually is open and inviting. The women in the photo also looks like she is being pulled by the dog. She doesn't have full control of the situation, she is just a prop being carried around. The male in the photo however, seems to have full control of the dog. He is holding the leash with both hands, one hand close to the collar which ensures maximum control possible over the dog. He is not just a prop in this photo. He also is looking toward the camera, and is brushing something out of his face with his hand. The male in the photograph is also well dress, sexualized masculinity is usually shown with well dressed men. His collar is unbuttoned at the top showing that he is laid back even in nice clothes. He, unlike the women, is not smiling. He is dominant and in control of the situation while the woman is being led and is happy about it.

In image C the girl is quite obviously offering herself to the viewer. She is holding a purse to her chest, almost looking as if she is going to slink off somewhere soon and have her way with the little red clutch. She is in a position that gives her little room to move fast. Another example, though more obvious of passive sexuality. While her face shows strength, her body positioning shows she is waiting for someone to come to her. Her legs, while not completely open do show an entrance to her skirt, keeping her accessible even if her clothes are skin tight and probably really hard to move in. 

The women in image D are quite like the one in image C. Each one has an open posture, all have on revealing clothing and all are in a position of showing off some part of their body. Their femininity is shown in either their clothing (or lack there of), their make up or their hair. The man in the ad is in a position of power even if he is being chased or fought over. He is the only one with the look of authority. He is holding one of the women, asserting his power without looking at her because he doesn't need to be bothered with that. He is also dressed in a lab coat which is a sign of sexualized masculinity because those in power and in high places or jobs of important are seen as attractive. He isn't wearing form fitting clothing, his body is not being highlighted, only his hair is, but that's because the ad is for hair products.

Lastly is image E. Like the men in images B and D, the men in image E are all dressed nice and look to be in positions of power. Like previously said, power is a big part of sexualized masculinity. If the suits and the sharp looks of the men don't convince you that they are powerful, maybe what they are standing on will. They are standing on an image of the world, signifying that these men are on top of the world, always powerful, always wanted. And if that didn't convince the viewer then maybe the names of the men in the picture would. I myself do not know who each person is but I recognize the middle one, Tiger Woods.