What If Gardasil Was for Boys?

So you know back when Gardasil (the HPV vaccine) was approved and people wouldn't vaccinate their daughters because they thought it would promote promiscuity? That was a fun time. I never really understood this line of reasoning.

Apparently if a 10-year-old girl is given a vaccine that would help prevent cancer someone down the road, she will go out and have sex because there are no more worries! Not pregnancy, not STIs. The only worry that girls and teenagers have about sex is getting HPV. I don't mean to belittle the seriousness of HPV, but there are other risks to having sex than just HPV.

I got the Gardasil vaccine just this past year, but I know that if it had been around when I was younger, my mom would have had me vaccinated. Not because she thought I should have sex (she would have been supportive of that decision though...I think), but because she would want me to be protected against contracting HPV down the road.

At least from what I've been aware of, the drama over the Gardasil vaccine has calmed down. Now, the FDA is going to consider whether Gardasil should be approved for boys and young men. When I learned this, it made me wonder, would there have been such an uproar about it originally if Gardasil had been approved for boys as well.

As many of us know too well, boys (not all boys, but this is prevalent throughout society) are encouraged from a young age to view sex as a "conquest" and male teenagers and young men are seen as "studs", "playboys", etc. for sleeping with many women. Where as girls are encourage to "save" their virginity and purity for that special someone. These differing views of sexuality for boys and girls play right into the rigid gender norms of society.

So if Gardasil was approved for boys from the beginning, would it have been seen as promoting sex at a young age and promiscuity. Sadly, I don't think that it would have been seen that way.

This Week in Blogs: August 16-22

Happy Sunday! As you may have noticed, I have started posting some link love on Tuesdays and Thursdays as well as Sundays now. Sunday's link love posts will be slightly different now. I will include some of my favorite posts since Thursday, but I will also feature some of my favorite posts from the week overall, including posts that were already loved previously. Just a disclaimer: I have been kind of lazy about my reading this week, so the list is not as long as it normally is. I'm always looking for new posts and blogs to read, so don't forget to leave your links in the comments!

New link love:
The Girl on page 194 - Below the Belt
A look at how we judge women's bodies by examining the "real woman" picture in Sept's issue of Glamour magazine.

Sex is scary (at least to some journalists) - Clarissa's Blog
How our fear of sex is a result of the patriarchal culture.

But men aren't pretty - o filthy grandeur
Challenging gender norms through language.

Today's WTF: Fragoli - The Undomestic Goddess
About how lesbianism is portrayed in advertising

Thomas Jefferson: The Face of a Rapist - Womanist Musings
Thomas Jefferson was an integral part of the development of our country, but should we forget that he was also a rapist? Also posted at Feministe.

Weekly Link Love:
Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories - Feministing
"Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term "friend" with a description of that person's sexuality."

Michelle O.: "Intellectual Lightweight"? - Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama is not as smart as she thinks she is...

"Blinded by privilege": ableist language in critical discourse - Deeply Problematic
A reflection on how the language we use contributes to the oppression of others.

***********

There is a new blog on the block: Fiercly Independent
The blog is run by Leftunder Books and focuses on indie publishing, writing, reading, feminism, illustration, and some other stuff. Check it out!

Hollister Continues Sexualization of Teens

We've seen things like this before. But it's always shocking to see new t-shirts released with sexually explicit phrases on them. And some of these new Hollister ones take the cake:


Who wouldn't want to wear a sexually explicit message over their breasts?

I find all of these t-shirts offensive ("Girls just wanna have sun" is not as bad as the others though, but still...). Sexually explicit messages on t-shirts are just another way to further objectify women, and young women and teenagers at that.

According to Jezebel, Hollister calls these shirts "hot and funny."

I don't really see what's funny about "Legal-ish", "I [Heart] The Woody", and "The twins are quite a handful". Using a phrase like "Legal-ish" encourages the sexualization of teenagers through corporate male fantasies.

Hollister is marketed towards young teenagers. I do not think it is appropriate to market these sexually explicit shirts to teenagers. I think it's fine for teens to express their sexuality, but not through "corporate male fantasies." Because that's what these shirts are. They are not about teens expressing their sexuality in a responsible way. They are about corporations promoting the over sexualization of teenagers for their own purposes.

Breast Implications #10: A Note About Breastfeeding

It seems like breasts and breastfeeding have been a popular topic in the blogosphere recently. Or maybe I'm just paying more attention. Who knows. But I have been finding some great posts about breastfeeding form the perspective of mothers who chose whether or not to breastfeed and public reactions to it.

This has started me thinking more about breastfeeding. At my current state of affairs, breastfeeding a child is not in my plans. Maybe one days I'll have kids, but not anytime soon. So, right now, I can do my research on breastfeeding, read about experiences breastfeeding, etc. But right now, I cannot talk to breastfeeding from a personal perspective.

While I cannot personally speak to breastfeeding, I think it is an important choice for a mother to make. And that's exactly what it is: a choice. It is a personal choice about parenting and one's body. As long as it's an educated choice, no one should tell a mother that she should or should not breastfeed or where they can breastfeed.


Breastfeeding in public seems to be a much debated topic. I don't really understand why. A baby needs to be fed, it's a natural process, so what...

The oversexualization of breasts prevents many people from seeing the biological function of the working breast. As I quoted in the Societal Implications post, Cindy Stearns said,

"the sexual aspects of women and the maternal aspects of women are expected to be independent from each other...breasts are a scandal because they shatter the border between motherhood and sexuality."

Breastfeeding in public is so "offensive" to some people because it is a reminder of this shattering of the border between motherhood and sexuality.


I think it's important to raise awareness about the discrimination against breastfeeding mothers that happens despite the laws protecting them.

Here are some great posts that I recommend you read about the decision of whether or not to breastfeed and breastfeeding in public:
Let My Boobs Be Free! [Wired for Noise]
Boobs, Babies and Feeding [Soap Box]
Breastfeeding Bigots on Twitter (and the radio) [The Feminist Breeder]
Breasts: Ready to go Public? [The Undomestic Goddess]

Link Love

Due to the large amount of amazing posts that are written throughout the week, I have decided to change my "This Week in Blogs" feature from once a week to three times a week. It will now simply be called "Link Love" and will be posted on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. Sunday's will usually be a little longer because I will highlight my absolute favorite posts from throughout the week, including posts that might have already been highlighted in previous "Link Love" posts. I decided to do this to keep the lists shorter than they have been, because including too many links in one post can be a little overwhelming...at least for me.

Movie Posters: Are You Ready for Death/Love/Prison? - Bitch Flicks
Bitch Flicks continues to look at how movie posters reflect gender norms and women.

Privilege - Clarissa's Blog
A little old, but still good. A look at the overuse of the word "privilege."

Michelle O.: "Intellectual lightweight"? - Salon Broadsheet
Apparently Michelle Obama isn't as smart as she thinks she is...

Costco and the Lil' Monkey Doll - Womanist Musings
Looking at how black dolls and white dolls are marketed differently. Also posted at Feministe.

Is Faking an Orgasm Anti-Feminist? - BlogHer
Pretty self-explanatory -- Do your feminist beliefs align with faking orgasms? Does faking an orgasm do a dis-service to yourself and to other women?

The F Word - Clutch Magazine
I bet you can guess what "f word" they are talking about!

Kate Blatt required to give pictures of genitals as a condition of employment - Deeply Problematic
About how trans people are dehumanized on a daily basis.

Attn. Straight Women: Gay men are not your accessories - Feministing
"Perhaps the more subversive act today is to decline to preface the term "friend" with a description of that person's sexuality."

Where Did Teen's Sexuality Go?

Recently I have been thinking about teen's expressing their sexuality. I have been thinking about this ever since Miley Cyrus' performance at the Teen Choice Awards. I am not about to defend Miley Cyrus' pole-dancing performance as an expression of her sexuality, because I don't think it was. I think it was a ploy on the behalf of marketers to gain more fans. As Cara Lisa Berg Powers points out in the post "I Don't CareWhat Miley's Parents Thinks...":

It is difficult enough for women in today’s society to have control over their own sexuality. Imagine how much more challenging this is for girls, when corporate male fantasies make their way into performances by teenagers at awards shows created specifically FOR teenagers.

This pole-dancing routine that Miley did was a result of "corporate male fantasies" not from her expressing her sexuality.

But there is something to be said for teens expressing their sexuality when it is actually them doing the expressing and not marketers. In the same post, Powers also defends Britney Spears expressing her sexuality when her first album came out because she was over 18, therefore no longer a teenager. But what's so magic about the number 18? Why is ok for an 18-year-old to express their sexuality (even when it is still a marketing ploy in the case of Britney Spears) but not when it is a 16-year-old?

I think it's about time that people stop ignoring the fact that teenagers have a sexuality. It's not as if everybody wakes up on their 18th birthday with sexual desires that they never had before. Teens should be able to express their sexuality.

But there is something to say for teens expressing their sexuality out of their own desire and not the desire of others, especially not the desires of middle-aged corporate men. Teen stars like Miley Cyrus, who is old enough to know the consequences of her actions, should take responsibility for being a good role model to her fans. Cyrus' fans range in age from 8-years-old (or younger) to twentysomethings (or older). When I worked at a summer camp, our rule was to keep everything appropriate for the youngest camper. I think the same thing applies here. Miley Cyrus (and stars like her) should keep her expressions of sexuality appropriate for her youngest fans, which means not pole dancing.

Expression of sexuality, while completely appropirate, should be left to private relationships for teenagers, especially those in the spotlight that are role models for young children. And teens expression of their sexuality should come from themselves, not from others.

I don't think that stars who are over 18 should be let off the hook, either, for marketing their sexuality when their fans are pre-teens, in the case of early Britney Spears. Sexuality should be something that is expressed by oneself, not mandated by others, and should be expressed with responsibility. If you are old enough to have sexualtiy to express, you should be old enough to take responsibility for that sexuality and how it comes across to the public.

I Don't Want To Be a Hepburn or a Hilton

Yesterday I heard about the book How to be a Hepburn in a Hilton World by Jordan Christy. This book is all about how women nowadays are waaaay to accessible and that women should let men chase them instead of the other way around.

To me, this just sounds like the same old thing: the virgin/whore dichotomy. Men don't want women they can get too easily (aka "whores" or women that are too accessible); men want the pure virgin that they have to fight for. Yawn. How many times have I heard this? It's amazing that people still make money off of this tired thought

But what's really amazing is that people still think that women have to be one or the other, one of two extremes: the virgin or the whore. Women can't be anything but pure or dirty -- there is no in-between space. As soon as women do the tiniest little thing that isn't "pure," they are automatically labeled a "whore" or "slut."

This is no new thought. It's just a shame that it's still around. This unrealistic and oppressive dichotomy of virgin/whore is indoctrinated into women (and men) and functions to make women feel ashamed of themselves. If you are interested in learning more about this dichotomy, I suggest you read The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti.

Relationship advice books like How to be a Hepburn in a Hilton World, thrive off of the continuation of this dichotomy. Relationship books are meant to make women feel ashamed of themselves or that they are less than. This makes their sales go up, because after all it is all about sales. If women feel bad about themselves, they are going to buy more dating books.

Further Reading:
To snap a man, let him do the chasing [Today Show]

True Blood: Hoyt Redeems Himself

Last week I talked about how Jessica has become a "perma-virgin" on True Blood and how that comments on views of virginity. Hoyt's reaction to this was deeply disturbing (Hoyt being Jessica's love interest). Trying to comfort Jessica, Hoyt remarks that her regenerating hymen will make it so that every time they have sex will be their first time -- it'll be great! Jessica was not as thrilled.

Hoyt's reaction in last week's episode "Timebomb" just shows men's unrealistic expectations of virginity in women. Men want women to be "pure" (aka virgins) but as soon as then have sex with them, they are dirty. Jessica's regenerating hymen is a perfect situation for a man because it means they can have sex with a virgin all the time! And what a way to punish a woman for being sexual...make sex painful all the time!

After Hoyt's reaction to Jessica's regenerating hymen I was ready to hate him for a while. I was interested to see where they were going to go with this story line. Surprisingly, Hoyt redeemed himself in last night's episode "I Will Rise Up." In discussing the situation, Hoyt tells Jessica that there are more ways than intercourse to have sex. Redemption point #1. He seems to be genuinely supportive and wants to help Jessica either find a way to get rid of her hymen or find other ways that they can have sex.

Then Hoyt stands up to his overbearing mom both at home and in Merlotte's. Redemption point #2. He calls his mother out on all the hatred (sometimes irrational hatred) that she has and stands up for Jessica.

While Hoyt's initial reaction to Jessica's regenerating hymen was deeply disturbing, after he had time to think about the situation (as much as a fictional character can) he had a chance to redeem himself. I actually really like Hoyt after last nights episode.

In a note completely unrelated to Hoyt and Jessica's relationship...
Eric's coercion of Sookie to get her to drink his blood was kind of disturbing and a complete invasion of Sookie's person, but it did lead to a great dream scene about them in bed together and Eric being the sweet guy that I know (or hope) that he is...

Further Reading:
True Blood: I Will Rise Up [Womanist Musings]

Being a Virgin Forever

Ever since I saw the latest episode of True Blood on Monday, I have been thinking about how to approach the following issue. True Blood is one of my favorite shows on TV right now, but I'm sometimes confused about what message it intends to send on social issues, such as gay rights, racism, etc. So at the end of the latest episode, I wasn't quite sure what social commentary the show was trying to make with the situation between Jessica and Hoyt.

Here's what happened in case you don't follow True Blood as closely as I do: At the beginning of the episode, Hoyt and Jessica have sex for the first time (and it was both of their "first times" too since they were both "virgins"). At the end of the episode, Hoyt has taken Jessica back to Bon Temps as per Bill's orders. They start to have sex again, but Jessica makes him stop. It appears that because of vampire's regenerative qualities, her hymen regenerated since it was intact when she was made vampire. Jessica and Hoyt had very different reactions to the situation. Hoyt tried to soothe Jessica by saying that every time will be like their first time. To that, Jessica had this to say: "It'll hurt like hell! I'm a fucking deformity of nature. I'm going to be a virgin forever!"

I've beening trying to figure out for myself exactly what kind of commentary this plot line is intended to have (because I believe television, and especially shows like True Blood, is always consciously trying to make some form of commentary on society).

Jessica's "perma-virgin" status says a lot about how virginity is viewed. Virginity is a much more complex concept than just whether or not you've had sex, like many people believe (see the blog The American Virgin). As we can see with Jessica, who has had sex yet said that she'll "be a virgin forever" because her hymen will always re-grow, virginity is not a cut-and-dry issue.

Jessica Valenti wrote in her book The Purity Myth that "virginity" doesn't acutally exist. The idea of virginity can mean many things to different people. I think that Jessica's "perma-virgin" status is trying to bring light to this issue. And even if it wasn't intended, it does a good job at shedding light on it.

So does hymen = virginity? How do you define virginity?

Further Reading:
Born-Again Virgins, Vampire Style [The American Virgin]

Teen Choice Awards for Adults

I'm a couple years past my teen years, so why would I want to spend my Monday night watching the Teen Choice Awards? Well, I'm fascinated by pop culture, much of which revolves around teens and people who still wish they were teenagers. And when I head buzz around pole dancing and slut-shaming that took place at the Teen Choice Awards (which was filmed on Sunday), I had to watch it!

So I sat down on Monday night with my glass of wine ready to live-tweet the Teen Choice Awards 2009 (@ShelbyKnox came up with the hashtag #teenschoosewine for those of us live-tweeting the awards show under the influence of alcohol).

This year, the awards show was hosted by the Jonas Brothers. I was not terribly impressed and of course we had to listen to two performances from them. Watching the Teen Choice Awards (something I haven't done in a couple years) was an interesting experience. Even if you didn't know it was called the "Teen Choice Awards," you would definitely know who the demographic was. From the humor, the "Dare the Jonas Brothers" bits, and most of the things nominated, you can tell that it is marketed towards teens, especially teens that watch the Disney Channel.

The Teen Choice Awards seemed to basically be a showcase of the sexualization of teen girls and teens trying to be adults.

The main example of this? Miley Cyrus' performance of her song "Party in the USA." She came out wearing hot pants, heels, a racer-back shirt, and a mesh bra that could be seen from the sides and back. I highly doubt that most 16-year-olds' parents would let their kids out of the house dressed like that. What makes it worse: pole dancing. That's right. The 16-year-old "role model" was pole dancing at the Teen Choice Awards. In fact, with a pole that was attached to the top of an ice cream cart. As @ShelbyKnox said (tweeted): "I wish Miley didn't feel she has to sexualize herself in such a way to have fans. She could be such a role model." Miley Cyrus/Hannah Montana had a ton of fans before she started to sexualize herself. I don't care if she's trying to move away from Disney. This is not the way for a 16-year-old girl to do that.

Now don't get me wrong: I'm all for women expressing their sexuality. But when a 16-year-old girl is sexualized in order to sell records, there's problem. I don't see Miley Cyrus' performance as her expressing her own sexuality, I see it as a plot to attrach more fans. The sexualization of younger and younger women is what causes a lot of these body image issues that girls and women have. If they weren't trying to be this "perfect" sexual teenager, girls and women might be more happy to just be themselves.

Then there was the sexism that was in the categories. On instance that particularly stuck out to me was that there was an award for Choice Actor in an Action/Adventure movie, but no Choice Actress. Granted, the action/adventure genre is not heavily populated with women. But there are women in these movies, enough so that they could create a category for these women that "kick butt."

Then there was a new category: Choice Fab-u-lous. A category designed specifically for gay men in fashion. I think the important question to ask is if this category is honoring the contributions that these men have made to the world of fashion, or does it further the "othering" of them by creating a separate category specifically for gay men in fashion? I would probably say the latter, especially because of the title of the award and they way that it was said. But, in Miss J's acceptance speech (Miss J from America's Next Top Model) he shared his award with all the gay, lesbian, and trans people in the country and said that this award made them as fierce as he is. I thought that was a really good touch.

Because the show was filmed on Sunday, some events were leaked. I heard about an event involving Dane Cook on Shakesville in which he "slut-shamed" Vanessa Hudgens for the naked pictures she took a while ago for Zac Efron that were leaked onto the internet. As a result, the crowd boo-ed him. Sadly (kind of), this was not aired. I would have like to seen him boo-ed, but we don't need to broadcast to the country another instance of slut-shaming, so I guess it is good that it was cut out.

I have to say, I'm huge fan of awards shows, especially the Academy Awards. But the Teen Choice Awards was pretty painful to sit through. I hated to see all of the sexualization of teen girls and the stereotyping of numberous demographics (George Lopez on Latinos, for example). I also thought it was inappropriate that this award show was supposed to be run by votes from viewers (aka teens) and some of the things they were supposed to vote on were not appropriate for teens. There were rated R movies (such as Slumdog Millionaire) nominated along with True Blood (which is a great show, but I don't think is appropriate for the age demographic for the show). These things are especially seen for their inappropriateness when they are up against movies and shows from Disney. If parents want to let teens watch these movies and shows, that's their business. But the Teen Choice Awards should not be promoting these age-inappropriate movies and shows to their primary audience of teens.

But the Teen Choice Awards in a venue for teens to try to be adults, for the way they dress, to the way they dance, to the movies they vote for. But I do have to say I have a favorite moment. It would have to be when Ellen Degeneres won Choice Twit (yes, they now have awards for Twitter) and promised that she would give away $1000 to a follower next week. I was happy that Ellen, a proud lesbian, won the award as opposed to Kim Kardashian or Ashton Kutcher, who she was up against.

It's hard to fully summarize what was going on in my mind throughout the Teen Choice Awards because it was a two hour show and so many things happened. One minute I was impressed with a decision made by the show and the very next minute I was disgusted by what was going on on stage. But I guess that says a lot about the Teen Choice Awards. It tried to be a "progressive" but just ended up being a mess of stereotypes and sexualization. I think the awards show should just remember who their main demographic is and fix the show accordingly.

The Topless Double Standard

Being that it is summertime, I understand that people get exceedingly hot. I'm often walking or driving around on a particularly warm summer day and see numerous men walking or lounging around without a shirt on. I fully understand a man's right to do this, especially when it is very warm outside. But when a woman does it, it is indecent exposure.

I understand that breasts are sexual objects and sexual objects are a big no-no in society. But on a hot, sticky day, shirts can be awfully uncomfortable. Because of this, there are many days where I hate said shirt and wish I could shed it in public. While I often wish this, but I would never actually do it because it is not socially acceptable.

On a side note, there are many men who do not have shirts that have breasts, or at least what look like breasts. And I don't mean to be insensitive, but I don't always want to look at that. If men should have the pleasure of cooling off by shedding their tops, so should women...or no one should be able to. If people don't want to see women's breasts in public, then why should we have to see men's breasts?

Every time I see a guy walking around without a shirt on, I wonder to myself why it's acceptable for men while it's not acceptable for women (I know, basic answer is breasts are sexual objects and should be covered in public). I've brought this up to some people and I usually get the same answer: well, why don't you just walk around topless and demonstrate the double standard? Even if I wouldn't be arrested for doing this, in a cultural climate like this one, where women are told to feel ashamed about their bodies, I would not feel comfortable.

So it's not only laws that have to change, but culture's perception of female bodies entirely (but we all know that laws reflect cultural values). As long as women are made to feel ashamed about their bodies because they are not perfect (like anyone's is), we are not going to see any change. I have no inclination to believe that this will happen anytime soon because there is so much profit to be made, in almost every arena, on the objectification and deprecation of women's bodies, but a woman can hope, can't she?

And I'm not going to say that I'm completely comfortable with my body, because I'm not. I've struggled with my body image ever since I became aware that my body was not "perfect." As much as I try to tell myself that it doesn't matter what my body looks like, every time I go out anywhere, I see women whose bodies I envy and then feel ashamed about my own. And as much as I know that this is a product of societal values, it's hard (or impossible) to completely ignore 22 years of cultural indoctrination.

I think that it is just important for every woman to be constantly trying to love their body just a little bit more (and it is a constant struggle). Be conscious of the cultural images of women's bodies and the constant impression that your body will never be good enough. I'm not saying this is an easy thing, because it's not. And I'm not saying that just being conscious of it will make you 100% happy with your body, because it won't. I think that everyone just needs to be conscious of it and by doing that, it can be easier to fight these cultural images.

So in a post that started about men's shirtless-ness, I ended up discussing women's body image. But if men are comfortable enough with their imperfect bodies (not all men are) to walk around without shirt, why can't women? Or why can't women work towards being comfortable enough? Comparing the acceptablility of being topless for both men and women shows the double standard of men's and women's bodies. Women face more shame and criticism about their bodies than men do in the public arena.* Because of this, most women will never feel comfortable being shirtless or let alone showing a little more skin than normal on a hot day.

*Note: I do not want to say that men do not face any shame or criticism, and I cannot really speak to how much because I am not a man. I just believe that at least in the public arena, women face more criticism than men because there is the constant pressure on women (more than men, I think) to be skinny and have that "perfect" body.

Further reading:
Women should have the right to be shirtless [Daisy's Dead Air]

MTSS Goes Cable

I love the Midwest Teen Sex Show. I was introduced to it this past spring and the proceeded to watch every episode, some more than once. If you have never seen it, watch you can watch the episodes on their website (above).

It is a great way to counter abstinence-only education because it does not require reading a lot of research and information, it just requires watching an entertaining video. Many people watch it without abstinence-only just for the entertainment value.

From the MTSS website:

Teens and sex. It happens. Not every teen is having sex and not every teen is abstaining. We hope the Midwest Teen Sex Show will create a space for frank discussion of all things related to teen sexuality. Broadcast media shies away from any real exploration of the topic, and they forget that not all teens live in Orange County.

But MTSS does not pretend to be experts or a replacement proper sex education from parents or schools:

Is this sex education?

Sort of–we like to call it sex information. We’ll leave the formal education to classrooms and textbooks. Midwest Teen Sex Show is here to provide sex information in a clear and entertaining way. We won’t pretend to be experts, but hopefully a few of our own embarrassing experiences and insights will keep you out of trouble.

I think MTSS is a great way to provide information and I'm glad that they don't present themselves as the end-all-be-all of sex education...they are just their to supplement proper sex education.

And now onto the really good news. Comedy Central has asked MTSS to make a pilot that could be picked up by the cable network as a regular, 30-minute show. From the Women's Media Center:

after expressing interest following its third episode, Comedy Central has invited MTSS to make a full-length pilot episode this summer that may leap the online favorite to cable television. The news comes shortly after MTSS videos and fan groups were pulled from YouTube, Facebook and MySpace, which contended that they conflicted with community guidelines.

I think that bringing MTSS to a cable network is a great step in the conversation about teen sexuality. This will bring it to a wider audience and continue to help combat the abstinence-only people.

I can't wait to see if Comedy Central picks up MTSS. I know I will be tuning in!

Further Reading:

MTSS goes CC [The F Bomb]

We Heart MTSS - And So Does Comedy Central [The American Virgin]

The Romanticization of Secret Life

Has anyone else seen Secret Life of the American Teenager on ABC Family? I first got hooked on this show last summer while working at a camp. The teenage girls would sit in the lounge and watch this, so I started watching it with them.

In case you are unfamiliar, here is the basic plot. Amy is a 15 year old girl who gets pregnant at band camp (yes, that one time at band camp). She's surprised she's pregnant because she didn't even know she was having sex until after it happened (abstinence-only at work?). She's not interested in dating the father, Ricky, and instead starts dating good guy Ben (who wants to marry her). Ricky is involved (as in they have sex but aren't really in a relationship) with Adrian, who befriends Grace, the resident Christian virgin, who is dating Jack. Grace and Jack get into many disagreements about having sex. Amy's parents are getting divorced. So, that's a very broad overview. There's obviously a lot more that goes on, but I think this overview should help you understand this post and the problems that I have with the show a little better.

This is by no means a good show. I have a problem of getting weirdly addicted to bad television, which is why I watch this show, as bad as it is. And just because I watch it doesn't mean that I don't have problems with it. When I started watching it with those teenage girls at summer camp, I asked them why they liked it so much. Their response: "It's so realistic!" Whoa there!

Now, into the second season of Secret Life, Amy has had the baby (John), her mom is pregnant (and it's unclear if it's her husband's or her boyfriend's), Grace and Jack have had sex, Grace's dad died and she thinks it's because she had sex (don't even get me started on that one!), Ricky is becoming responsible, and Ben is still dying to have sex.

While I think it is great that ABC Family has a show about teen pregnancy, it is not a realistic representation of this situation for a lot of people. In the most recent episode that aired on Monday, July 20, Amy (who has by now had her baby, John) complains to her mom about not being able to go to Italy with her boyfriend, Ben, for the summer. She claims that she is an adult now solely because she has a baby and can make decisions for herself. Mind you, she is still 15 (almost 16), does not have a passport, wants to go without her baby but doesn't have anyone she trusts (she wants her mom to do it) to watch the baby. A. What 15 year olds parents are going to let them go to Italy for the summer with her boyfriend who is going to stay with family and B. I bet a lot of single, teen parents wish their biggest problem was not being able to go to Italy for the summer.

When the teen girls told me they liked the show because it was so realistic, I asked them how many of their friends or people they knew were pregnant and had boyfriends who they were dating for a month who have pledged their love and desperately wanted to marry them (to the point of trying to get fake ids to elope)? Their answer: none. So, how is this realistic? While I'm sure this is the reality for some people out there, I really think that this show is romanticizing teen pregnancy.

When you look at the differences between Secret Life and something like 16 and Pregnant on MTV, you can plainly see the romanticization that happens in Secret Life. In 16 and Pregnant, the struggles of the teens are very clear (even though I wish they would show a little more of after the baby was born, maybe they'll go back to the same teens in a later episode...). Some of them deal with absent fathers, economic struggles, non-supportive or controlling parents, and social ostracism.

While Secret Life does show some struggles that Amy goes through, recently she just seems to be concerned with her social life and John, her baby, falls through the cracks, at least in her mind. Amy is just coming off, at least to me, as whiny and ungrateful. Her parents, especially her mother, are supporting her immensely through this and trying to help her take responsibility, but she won't have any of it. In the first season she was mad because she didn't want to give the baby up for adoption (which is completely reasonable) but was expecting her mother to provide free day care while she went on with life as normal. In the second season, she is heartbroken that she can't go to Grace's dad's funeral because she can't find a babysitting not because she wants to honor and say goodbye to her father, but because everyone else is going to be there. Seriously?

I don't mean to negate any experiences that teen parents might go through, even those similar to what happens on Secret Life. Maybe I have no place saying any of this because I was not a teen parent. But just because I wasn't a teen parent, doesn't mean I can't at least have an opinion about the show. Has anyone else seen this show? What do you think about it?

Harry's All About the Sexual Tension

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince came out last Wednesday and I have already seen it twice. I really liked the most recent installment. However, I have talked with some people who haven't read the books (gasp!) who didn't really care for it. I think that if you have read the books, you can better understand the pivotal points in relation to the Deathly Hollow (the 7th book and 7th and 8th movies). This movie doesn't do a great job at filling in people that have forgotten what has happened or hasn't read the books or seen the movies.

I thought that the movie was really good and pretty funny, at least more so that the other Harry Potter films. In this installment, the main characters discover the opposite sex. Harry and Ginny Weasley start to develop feelings for each other (which I was a little disappointed that they didn't develop this further as they did in the book), Ron starts dating Lavender Brown (which is where a good amount of the comedic relief comes from, that and the love potion Ron accidentally ingests), and Hermione is all about the teen angst when she sees Ron with Lavender.

But some controversy has come up over the sexualization of the characters. In the movie, the characters are entering their sixth year at Hogwarts, making them 16-years-old. This seems like a perfectly reasonable age to bring romantic relationships into the mix of the Harry Potter movies. But many don't think so...

An article on EW.com attacks the film for being too sexual, saying that's not what J.K. Rowling intended. Maybe the film did develop these relationships further than the book (it has been a while since I've read the book all the way through), but the book definitely had these relationships in them. The author, Jean Bentley, proclaims that, "Despite illusions to the contrary, teenagers don't actually have adult relationships."

What? I'm pretty sure if you talk to 16-year-olds, they are capable of romantic relationships, and even want them (oh no!). But apparently, according to Bentley, teenagers don't have relationships and don't have sex. While there is no sex in the Harry Potter movies (and I don't think there should be because it was technically started as a children's series, even though it's evolved into much more), there is definitely a lot of sexual tension and snogging (I love British lingo).

And what of the lovely actors who play the main characters. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, and Rupert Grint are now between the ages of 19 and 21. Oh no! They've grown up! This seems to be particularly treacherous for Emma Watson, the beloved Hermione Granger. As Salon points out, it is harder for Watson to transition into maturity and change her image from girl to woman than it was for her co-star Daniel Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter (or would be for most any male actor).

After discussing Watson's "Interview" cover, Joy Press (author of the Salon article) states...

Is this Hermione's get-out-of-child-stardom card, I wondered? Daniel Radcliffe had already plotted his escape route last year with a quick shortcut to instant adult status: full-frontal nudity. Since it was for a serious role in a serious play (Peter Shaffer's "Equus"), Radcliffe was feted for artistic credibility and bravery (especially after he talked in interviews about the shriveling effects of a live audience on the male member).
But shifting your image into a more mature gear has very different ramifications for a young woman than for a young guy. I doubt many people actually wanted to glimpse Harry Potter's wand, whereas at least one creepy Web site counting down the days till Watson's 18th birthday popped up back in 2004.

Yes, there was some controversy surrounding Radcliffe's appearance in Equus, but, like Press says, that was accepted once it was realized that it was a "serious role." But Watson's entrance into maturity is not as easily accepted because it involves her posing seductively on covers of magazines, not taking serious roles where you have to run around naked on stage. But she's 19. We only care because we still think of her as the 10-year-old from the first Harry Potter movie. And she can hold her own against the press (at least from what I've seen) and even describes herself as "a bit of a feminist."

And speaking of the movies again, can we talk about Watson's character, Hermione? She's amazing. She's smart, sexy, and kicks ass (much like I believe Emma Watson to be). One of my favorite scenes of the series (there are many) is from Prisoner of Azkaban when she punches Malfoy for laughing at the execution of Buckbeak the Hippogriff.

Overall, I really loved the Half-Blood Prince. I appreciated the sexual tension that was there, I thought it lightened the movie and gave some great comedic relief. And really, there wasn't a whole lot of it seeing as how the movie was still PG. But, granted, it would take a lot for me to not love the movie because I am pretty much obsessed with the series. I think people just need to get over the fact that teenagers have romantic relationships. It's really not a big deal.

Further Reading:
Half-Blood Prince Suffers From Lack of Action, Emma Watson's Hotness [Jezebel]
Our Little Wizards Are All Grown Up [RHRealityCheck]
Emma Watson Owes It To Her Public To Get Naked, Says Public [Jezebel]
Just Saw Harry Potter and... [F Bomb]

I'm Chaste, My iPhone Says So

For those of you that think that purity rings are too old fashioned, you can now take a purity pledge (complete with purity ring) on your iPhone!

The PurityRing App is a new way of both displaying this incredible committment but also a way of engaging and helping a new generation. The App is simple to use and will be a lasting digital reminder to all those that take the pledge. The App will simply ask you to take the vow, the user will then hear the Purity Pledge being read out and once the user has confirmed their acceptance, they will receive a timeless digital spinning Purity Ring to proudly display on their iPhone or iPod Touch.

The app, made by Island Wall Entertainment, at least has purity rings for men and women, instead of just focusing on women's sexuality. Not that it's a whole lot better though.

Even though purity pledges and purity balls are still sweeping the nation, evidence shows that these pledges don't work in keeping teens and unmarried people "virgins."

I can't say that I'm surprised by this new app. Many organizations, such as the Abstinence Clearinghouse and True Love Waits, are still powerful interests. Purity balls are still popular. But really, does this have to go into popular technology?

White Men's Objectivity

Why is it that white men think that they are the only ones that can be objective?

I must be honest, I haven't been watching the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, but I have been doing my blog reading about them. From what I have been reading, it is obvious that these hearings are not being as "objective" and respectful as they claim to be.

But one of the things that really bothers me is how they are focusing on her often misquoted "wise Latina" speech (which can be read here). In this speech she talks about the importance of embracing cultural differences in reaching decisions on court cases. Women and people of color have different experiences than white men and these different experience influence their court decisions.

Many far right wing-ers think that this shows her lack of objectivity and inability to reach "fair" decisions. But I'm right there with Judge Sotomayor. Realizing how one's experiences influence their decisions is important. For some reason, many white men think that they are the only ones who can be objective because their life experiences don't effect them. But they do.

Everyone's experiences effect the way they think and the way they approach an issue. White men's privilege effects them, even if they don't recognize it. On Feministing, Samhita says...

Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

When women or people of color (and especially women of color, it seems) use their experiences as a basis for their decisions they are emotional and biased, whereas white men reach the "truth" through their experiences.

I think what these men are delusional of is that there is actually something called objectivity. I don't think objectivity exists. Maybe you can try your hardest to be objective, but your experiences will always influence you. Only people who have the privilege of not noticing their privilege (white men) would believe that their experiences don't effect them because they can reach the "truth".

(Note: I just want to make a comment that this is not all white men. There are many white men who work towards realizing their privilege and how their experiences effect them and the people around them. But it is usually white men who make these assumptions about objectivity and bias because these white men do not realize their privilege.)

In addition to the idea of objectivity within the hearings, the media is still attacking and misrepresenting Sotomayor. I just read a post at Shakesville about The Colbert Report last night. Normally I appreciate Colbert's sarcasm and satire, but last night he went too far. In discussing Sotomayor's confirmation hearing, Colbert placed Sotomayor's head of the clip Sharon Stone from Basic Instinct where she flashes her "nethers" during an interrogation.

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Stephen's Sound Advice - How to Bork a Nominee
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Jeff Goldblum

This unnecessarily sexualizes Sotomayor and further demeans her to the point that she is seen as in a lesser standing than men. Why can't Sotomayor just be valued for her professional qualifications rather than focusing on her gender and race as some sort of "disability" to making effective court decisions.

I hope that the confirmation hearings will change in tone after the first day, but I'm not so sure that they will. Conservatives will continue to focus on her experiences as a Latina as a "disability" to her ability to be a Supreme Court justice and the media will continue to make jokes about her qualifications or straight out support the conservatives treatment of her during the hearings.


Note on the cartoon:
I'm sure many of you (if not all) have seen the cartoon that I chose to include in this post. While it is straight out racist, there is some truth in it considering the first day of the hearings. Conservatives are attacking Sotomayor because she is Latina, which I assume this cartoon is trying to say. While it is racist, it does portray how conservatives and the media are treating Sotomayor. But I'm not saying that I agree with the message that the cartoon sends.

Sacha Baron Cohen's Humor is Lost on Me

I never saw Borat. I thought it looked stupid. And now Bruno is coming out, Sacha Baron Cohen's new movie. I don't really understand why Sacha Baron Cohen (or SBC, as he will be referred to from now on) feels the need to assume the identity of the characters he plays. He's been travelling the globe dressed up as Bruno and demanding that people interview him as if he were Bruno. He wears ridiculous clothing and portrays a delusional international gay...fashion designer? I'm not quite sure.



I won't see Bruno, because a) it looks just as (if not more) stupid as Borat, b) it just looks "straight" out offensive to the gay community. I was surprised when I read an article on E! Online actually criticizing the movie. Ted Casablanca saw an early screening of the movie and had this to say...

we just couldn't get behind Cohen behaving as though being gay automatically makes you hilarious to watch. It doesn't...SBC's performance is a straight man's limited idea of what he thinks is stereotypically gay. It's unknowing, ignorant, offensive and guilty of the most heinous crime of all: It's just not funny. If he'd made us guffaw we could at least forgive him for giving us a politically incorrect good time.

If only other people could see it this way. Comments on this article range from "Bitter much?" and "It's a movie...Let it go!" to...

I think it's hilarious when people don't get the joke. That's what makes it even more funny for those of us who do. Don't know about anyone else but all of my homosexual friends think he's very funny. Then again, they have a sense of humor and aren't a bunch of whining wankers.

What exactly is the joke that you get and no one else seems to? I'm not sure. I also liked how a lot of the comments in defense of the movie often said something along the lines of, "I have gay friends and they think it's funny, so it must be." I feel like it's along the lines of the argument, "I have a black friend, so I'm not racist." Just because you have friends who are gay and like it does not mean that it is not offensive to the gay communtiy. Some of the comments on the article were in support of what Casablanca said, but most were just defending SBC's humor.

I know that I won't be going to see it. Supporting these stereotypical views of the gay community is just another way that gay people are objectified in our country. By having a homosexual character for the purpose of pleasing a largely heterosexual audience just further enforces the sexual hierarchy.

Song of the Day: "The Fear" by Lily Allen

While Lily Allen is no stranger to controversy, I think she's pretty great. I have been listening to her song "The Fear" all the time recently.



Her lyrics are usually pretty sarcastic and full of social commentary, but "The Fear" takes the cake. The song is all about how people get fame and riches. I see it as a social commentary on consumer culture, but not everyone sees it that way.

The Feministe post "I'm being taken over by the fear" quotes Mark K-Punk in reference to "The Fear"...

“All Allen can do is point to her own inertia and complicity but awareness can only reinforce the very condition she is talking about [. . .] The verses are unsure whether they want to be satire or not, unsure whether they want to mock consumer-nihilism or celebrate it , unsure because – after all – what’s the alternative, where can all this mocked from? [. . .] Celebrity culture and its critique are coterminous; the jeremiads about its superficiality as cliched and empty as the culture itself, both appearing on the same pages of LondonLite. Only the negative capability of the choruses, only the admission of The Fear, breaks out of this circuit.”

Sure, it is hypocritical to critique consumer culture and the celebrity lifestyle, yet still be complicit in it. But at least she is saying something about it.

The lyric that stuck out to me at first was "And I'll take my clothes off and it will be shameless/'Cuz everyone knows that's how you get famous." In today's sexualized culture, people are known for their sexuality and availability. The same Feministe article states...

When Lily sings that couplet about how everyone knows that taking your clothes off gets you famous, she’s pointing to the fact that media culture runs on a certain kind of manufactured prurience. I mean, at this point, is anyone really shocked by nudity? Sex tapes? Infidelity? Homosexuality? Is it even possible to be?

And yet, manufactured sex “scandals” co-exist side-by-side with advertisements using sex to advertise practically everything. One punishes, one rewards. Yet they’re two sides of the same coin, it’s not hard to go from one to the other (Paris Hilton), and then back again.

Commenting on the need to be sexual to be famous, Allen is pointing out the hypocritical nature of today's Hollywood culture.

I, personally, think this song is great. I will keep listening to it and enjoying it. And I will keep listening to Lily Allen.

More from Lily Allen:

"Smile"

"Alfie"

If Women Make Movies, is it Automatically Feminist?

A red band trailer for the movie "Jennifer's Body" was recently released and a lot of people are talking. This movie is written by Diablo Cody (yes, Juno fans, Diablo Cody), directed by Karyn Kusama, and the two leads are played by Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried (that's right, two female leads).



I have to admit, I can't stop watching this trailer. I'm really intrigued by it. Mainly because I can't decide how women are being portrayed. But also because in all stages of making the movie, amazing women were involved.

Now, I have some problems with Megan Fox and the characters she plays...and I'm not the only one. Her character in "Jennifer's Body" has some interesting implications. Basically, Jennifer (Fox) is high school cheerleader who is possessed by a demon and starts killing the guys in her high school, by what seems like sexually provoking them. This is an interesting concept to me. I can't decide if her killing of these guys is a commentary on the patriarchal view of female sexuality or if the movie is just going to play into the normal sexist horror movie format.

Sady at Tiger Beatdown comments that...

THE SUBVERSIVE CRITIQUE OF PATRIARCHAL SEXUALITY starts, in this trailer, right around the point when Naked Megan Fox, Professional Hot Lady, extends her mouth to about five times its natural size and eats a dude with it. Because: female sexual desirability is simultaneously prized and demonized. Female appetites, sexual or otherwise, are unilaterally feared and shamed.

I'm right there with you. This movie very well could be commentary on the fear of female sexual empowerment in our society. But I'm still kind of weary. Honestly, mainly because it's Megan Fox and she's hyper-sexualized...again. Is this just another excuse to see her in skimpy clothes and even...gasp...naked? Or is she using her sexuality to prove a point about patriarchal society? (note: yes, I realize it is not actually Megan Fox making these decisions, it's the writer and director...it's just easier in the terms of this post to place the agency on the character Megan Fox plays.)

Bitch magazine, like me, is still a little torn, but it seems like they are leaning toward the anti-feminist side. In their anti-feminist column, they have:

- Appears to be a vehicle to allow Megan Fox to flash her bod and be ogled by horndogs
- Makes women look like either femme fatale crazy killers (Fox) or uber-nerds (sorry Amanda Seyfried, you are really great but the beanie and glasses indicate that your character is supposed to be a dork)
- According to the plot synopsis, looks like this might be another attempt by Hollywood to punish women for liking sex by turning them into demons, putting them in insane asylums, and murdering them

Also some good points.

I think that it's hard to determine exactly how this movie is going to turn out from one trailer. And it can be interpreted many ways by different people. As we can see, Tiger Beatdown and Bitch used Jennifer's killing of men by sexually provoking them as both a positive (commentary on fear of sexuality) and a negative (punishment for sex).

I love that Amanda Seyfried is playing the protagonist. Not only is it a woman protagonist in a horror movie (not unheard of, but pretty uncommon), but I can't wait to see her kick Megan Fox's ass (I'm just hoping this happens).

And can we just pause on the "I go both ways" comment at the end of the trailer for a moment? Seriously? I don't even know how to respond. I feel like this comment falls in the anti-feminist category. It's pretty much there to appeal to some men's lesbian fantasies. And it pokes fun at bi-sexualtiy and lesbianism. Not cool.

So what do you think? This movie is made by and stars great (eh, Megan Fox, maybe) women, but is that all it needs to be feminist? The jury seems to be out on how to interpret it. I guess we'll just have to wait for more trailers and until the movie comes out. I'm sure there will be more great commentary as we get closer to its release date.

And a couple of side notes that don't really pertain to this specific conversation:
-LOVE the music in the trailer!
-I'm really happy Adam Brody is in this movie. I love him and have missed his acting.
-I also really like how the poster for "Jennifer's Body" (see above) is eerily similar to the posters for "True Blood"
-The first time I watched the trailer I laughed out load at the "I'm killing boys" comment. Haven't decided how it fits into the feminism argument, but it was funny.

"Bloodsucking Is a Boys World"

What is America's obsession with vampires? I'll admit, I've fallen into this obsession. It all started with Buffy, which I only started watching earlier this year, and now I'm into True Blood as well. There's also Twilight, which I have a weird fascination with as I've talked about before. As much as I love these vampire shows (Buffy and True Blood, that is), why is America obsessed with them? And why am I obsessed with them? (My obsession might have something to do with my obsession with pop culture and TV shows in general, but maybe it's something more too since America seems obsessed with them as well.)

I loved Buffy because the character was a strong woman who saved the world on numerous occasions which is such a rare occurrence in media today. Even though Buffy had the help of many strong men, she was the one in charge and the one who ultimately would save the day. True Blood centers around a strong female character, Sookie Stackhouse, and her relationship with a vampire, Bill. While Sookie often needs rescuing, she can stand up for herself. My weird obsession with Twilight has more to do with my lack of understanding for the obsession with the phenomenon. Bella is not strong, cannot stand up for herself, and constantly needs to be saved by Edward. And Edward is basically a creepy stalker. I prefer Buffy and True Blood because of the strong female characters, where as Twilight is a feminist nightmare. But why does America like vampires?

In the New York Times article "A Trend With Teeth," Ruth La Ferla examines the appeal of vampires. She states,

The vampire’s attraction is “all about the titillation of imagining the monsters we could be if we just let ourselves go,” suggested Rick Owens, a fashion bellwether whose goth-tinged collections sometimes evoke the undead. “We’re all fascinated with corruption, the more glamorous the better” and, he added, with the idea of “devouring, consuming, possessing someone we desire.”

Dodai from Jezebel wrote a similar, yet feminist, article titled "Women Play Mostly Supporting Role Within Male-Dominated "Trend"". To explain America's fascination with vampires, she proposes,

But in a new interview with True Blood series creator Alan Ball, he says: "Vampires are sex. Vampires basically arose in our time as a metaphor for sex. I mean, vampires are sort of the ultimate Romantic rock star, bad boy or girl fantasy."

So, if vampires are all about sex, it's no surprise that America has an obsession with them. Especially with the 'abstinence porn' that is Twilight. This series is all about sexual control, in a very sexualized way.

But why do we always see male vampires? Buffy had Angel and Spike. Twilight has Edward. True Blood has Bill and Eric. One of the few exceptions is the newly made vampire Jessica in True Blood, who is a whiny teenager who is still learning to control her impulses. There is also Drusilla in Buffy who is very mentally disturbed.

Why is it always the men that embody sex, dominate women, and possess others? Why can't women be in these powerful roles? And why is it that when women are vampires, as in Jessica and Drusilla, they are in some way less than the male vampires, whether through age and experience or mental capability?

"Bloodsucking is a boys world," according to the Jezebel article. It then goes on to describe the online phenomenon that was the video of Buffy 'dusting' Edward.

Jonathan McIntosh, who created the clip, says: More than just a showdown between The Slayer and the Sparkly Vampire, it's also a humorous visualization of the metaphorical battle between two opposing visions of gender roles in the 21ist century […] In the end the only reasonable response was to have Buffy stake Edward – not because she didn't find him sexy, not because he was too sensitive or too eager to share his feelings – but simply because he was possessive, manipulative, and stalkery.

I guess that what we need to combat the male domination of the vampire world is digitally created video of two different shows mashed together.

I wonder if a show or movie centering around a female vampire will ever be as popular as Buffy, Twilight, or True Blood? Sure there are powerful female characters in two out of three of those, but they are not vampires. When will women be able to embody sex and sexuality like men as vampires?