The People I’ve Slept With: Complications on Womanhood and Female Sexuality

The People I’ve Slept With:

Complications on Womanhood and Female Sexuality

For the third event paper for this course, I chose to attend a film showing at the Asian American Film Festival hosted at St. Anthony Main Theater in Minneapolis. The film I saw was called The People I’ve Slept With directed by Quentin Lee and followed the main character, Angela (played by Karin Anna Cheung), as she navigates her choices following an unplanned pregnancy. The film is set in modern day California, was filmed in English, and was advertised as a comedy. Overall, I felt that the film was ineffective at portraying female sexuality and undermined the weight of the decisions surrounding unplanned pregnancy.

The film opens with Angela videotaping herself explaining her life to her unborn child. She states, ‘Mommy likes sex. I have come to learn that being a slut just means that you are a woman with the morals of a man.’ In this exposition, we learn that Angela is promiscuous and does not know who the father of her child is. After hastily deciding to keep the baby, Angela sets off to secretly collect DNA samples from a subset of 5 possible candidates to do a paternity test and to pursue Mystery Man (a.k.a. Jefferson Lee played by Archie Kao) whom she hopes is the father and will marry her before her child is born.

For me, the equation that Angela is slut and that sluts are women with the morals of men is a very anti-woman sentiment that promotes gender inequality. Angela is shamed by her sexuality from the first moments of the film. First of all, slut is a term that is used to shame and degrade women, and even if she is self-labeling, her use of the term still implies that there is something wrong with her sexuality. Furthermore, saying that all men like having many sexual partners is also a stereotype and implies that it is ok for men to have ‘lax’ morals, but women are not supposed to like sex and are not supposed to sleep with many people. This statement at the outset of the film made it very difficult for me to relate to the female character because I felt that she became unbelievable, manipulated, and inauthentic.

During the opening and closing credits of the film, Angela is shown sleeping with several different men. The sex in these scenes can only be described as comedic and unrealistic. Angela describes herself as liking sex, but her character is written as an object of the male gaze—she is shown wearing complicated lingerie, not sweating or out of breath, and with perfect hair and make-up. The scenes change between several familiar pseudo-pornographic situations common to the male psyche—Angela as a nurse, Angela partaking in a threesome, Angela being spanked, etc. Additionally, in several flashbacks through out the film, Angela is shown drinking excessive amounts of alcohol and then engaging in high risk sexual activity with unfamiliar men (a random new neighbor, a man at the bar, a blind date). Not only are these situations unquestioned by Angela or anyone in the film, they promote the idea that men can assume that highly intoxicated women (Angela is shown being very hung over and having blacked out) can give active consent. Angela’s drinking is completely unacknowledged in the film in relation to her sexual practices and essentially becomes a dysfunctional way of portraying dysfunction. These images further undermined the believability of Angela’s character in my mind.

After learning she is pregnant, Angela calls her homosexual male friend Juliet (who also turns out to be a contender as the father). Juliet is not supportive, basically calls her stupid for her behavior, and advises (without asking what Angela wants to do), to get an abortion. Immediately following this scene, Angela’s conservative and nagging sister enters Angela’s apartment. The imagery in this scene is quite literally like a cartoon character with the devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other. Juilet sits on Angela’s left and advocates abortion and Angela’s sister sits on her right and advocates settling down and finding the father. Neither is supportive and neither asks how Angela feels. Angela quickly decides that the baby is going to save her from her “old ways” and she decides to find the father. Unfortunately, this decision also entails that Angela get married before the baby is born (because, god-forbid she become a single mother). So, she also begins planning her wedding so that she too can have the ‘picket fence, the car, and the house in the suburbs’ that Angela’s sister has and which is a common tenant of the American Dream.

In another unfortunate scene of the movie, Angela and Juliet go to a Purity Ceremony to reclaim their virginity. Juliet decides to do it so that he can prove to jilted lover that he can be faithful, but this effaces the very real life reality of Christian extremism that attempts to cleanse individuals of their “homosexual tendencies.” Angela decides to attend the ceremony to increase her chances of finding a husband that will respect her. It is still unclear to me what the purpose of this scene is in relation to the storyline, other than furthering the theme of the film of undermining sexuality, regardless of orientation.

The climax of the movie comes when Angela reveals to her new quasi-boyfriend Jefferson Lee, a conservative politician, that she is pregnant; implying that it is his child and asking if he will ‘make an honest woman’ out of Angela. Lee responds that he is already engaged. Angela orders him to leave, but when Lee reappears later saying that he has called off his engagement and wants to marry Angela, Angela says yes without questioning the moral integrity of the man who quite incontrovertibly has had an affair. Angela’s father supports Lee’s decision to come back to Angela, but undermines Angela’s decision to marry Lee. This causes Angela to leave Lee at the altar, basically stating that her reasoning is because she is an unworthy, dishonest slut.

The conclusion comes with the birth of Angela’s child. Angela decides not to reveal who is the father of her child because she feels it no longer matters, she is now committed to raising the child on her own. There is little catharsis in this decision for the audience because it is the first time Angela’s character has actually made an independent decision in the film. Predictably, the film closes with Angela reintroducing herself to Jefferson Lee.

In conclusion, I felt that the film The People I’ve Slept With was a total blunder at dealing with modern day issues, portrayals of womanhood, and images of female sexuality. Angela is ineffectual and unrealistic; and the comedic tone of her story did nothing to lighten the message of the film. Overall, I felt that the film maintained antiquated stereotypes of femininity and made light of the lived experiences of many modern women without offering any sound advice or criticism.

Neo-Burlesque: Feminist Success or ‘Post-Feminist’ Tool of Subjugation?

Neo-Burlesque:

Feminist Success or ‘Post-Feminist’ Tool of Subjugation?

For my second event paper for this class, I attended a Lili’s Burlesque benefit show entitled Save Our Seas hosted by the Music Box Theater. The local burlesque troop had invited several out of state performers to construct a burlesque show to benefit those affected by the recent catastrophic BP oil spill. While initially hesitant on whether or not to consider a burlesque show a form of art, I believe for several reasons burlesque can be considered art. For one, these dancers possess a specific body knowledge that they have trained for and perfected, much like they way an artists possesses (in most cases, but not all) a unique, personal skill. Secondly, the show does elicit a reaction from the audience, even if that reaction is frequently arousal. Furthermore, the show not only featured burlesque performers but also live music, a lively host, and some comedy—giving the space for the show to be considered art in the sense that it is a larger piece constructed of smaller units to form a whole.

In analyzing the show from a feminist lens, there are several key points that I would like to discuss. The first of these points is the use of the word “virgin” by the show’s host to describe those who had never seen a burlesque show before. Secondly, I would like to discuss gender and representation in the show.

When I arrived at the Music Box Theater, I noticed that there crowd there was a very diverse mix. Local scene-sters, older couples, gay/lesbian couples, upper class people, non-white people, and their ages ranged from about 18 to 75. As we gathered in the theatre for the show to start, I felt that the crowd was buzzing with excitement for the upcoming ‘treat’ of burlesque, comedy, and striptease. The lights went down and Nadine DuBois entered the stage. Nadine DuBois was our host for the evening. She told us to leave our “Lutheran” upbringing out side the theater and to hoot and holler when we saw something she liked. I found the next thing she said very interesting: she asked the crowd if there were any ‘virgins’ in the theater. She defined virgin as someone who had never seen a Burlesque show before, but the underlying context was someone who had never seen a naked female body before. I, having never been to a burlesque show, was considered a ‘virgin’ in the theater and realized quickly that this term is used frequently throughout the community. This surprised me: are we not inundated with images of the female body on daily basis? What makes this situation so unique? Why has such an open community (at least from an outsider’s perspective) adopted such a heavily connoted word? Was I about to ‘lose something I could never retrieve’? I didn’t think so.

The next interesting thing that happened was a male burlesque dancer. After several female performers, a member of the Stage Door Johnnies, an all male burlesque troop from Chicago, took the stage. The male was comedically stylized as an Italian baker. The show was meant to be more funny than sexy and ended with the dancer fully naked on stage with only a sign saying “Kiss the Cook” covering his penis. The addition of these male acts to the show complicated the experience for me. Men, who are constructed as being uncomfortable with viewing the male form for fear of accusations of being gay, were warned that there were going to be male dancers in the show before it started. Women were not warned that they must be comfortable with their sexuality in order to watch the female performers. As the show continued on, two more male performers preformed individually, one danced while a member of Lili’s sang, and then the Stage Door Johnnies preformed together. With each performance, the comedy of the male dancer was played down and his sexuality increased. All the shows dances ended with the reveal of either the breasts (with pasties over the nipples) or a completely naked man with something covering his penis and testicles. The men and the women were, thus, essentially equalized in the show. The ‘art’ of the show was undressing in a pleasing, clever, athletic, and unexpected way. The reveal, however, was always the same. The burlesque acts done by men compared to how they were done by women were structurally very similar, aside from the fact that the bodies of the women usually remained adorned in some way at the time of the reveal. Another difference was the fact that the male acts needed to warm the audience by using comedy first (and injecting comedy intermittently) in order to not alienate the audience—both men and women, who are not used to viewing the male form presented in such a way.

I kept wondering to myself: “What makes this different?” What makes burlesque different from porn or the images of the female body that are circulated in pop culture? Certainly, all of the dancer’s body shapes were different (there was no one approaching the “Kentucky Fried Chicken” performer, however), so it challenged the idea that all women in order to be sexy must be thin, white, and blonde. But, were they portraying an authentic form of sexuality? I didn’t think so. They all seemed to have the same coy expression, the same goal, and the same outcome from the audience. Furthermore, all the women used stage names, and while I don’t think this is a bad thing necessarily, it creates an abstraction from their actual selves. The collection of this burlesque show, while titillating and somewhat enjoyable, did not seem to advance the image of women or liberate women sexuality in the way that I would expect a feminist-informed sex-positive show to do. The women were still objects—the illusion of the show is that the performer is presenting an authentic sexuality. But it is, by definition, an abstraction from authentic sexuality. There is a disconnect from the real and from the act. It is hopeful to think that burlesque presents a revolution in the way women are represented, but I think that it is a post-feminist ideology more than anything that promotes this. The idea exists that because the dancer is in control of the show, that then they have control over their body. It is true that they have control over how they proceed with the show—their choices about the way the dress or undress. I think, however, that because the dancer’s shows were all similarly structured, toned, and presented the illusion of authentic sexuality is maintained but the act of the dance is still controlled by the viewer, and more specifically the male gaze. Furthermore, while the male dancers added flavor to the show, their sexuality and their bodies where essentially dealt with in the same way. They, too, were turned into objects. While this is equalizing, it certainly does not represent a liberated representation of human sexuality, which I feel is so central to freeing our culture from the control of the patriarchy.

I feel that a similarity can be drawn between José Esteabn Muñoz’s discussion of drag in The White to Be Angry. In this article, it is stated:

Commercial drag presents a sanitized and desexualized queer subject for mass consumption. Such drag represents a certain strand of integrationalist liberal pluralism. The sanitized queen is mean to be enjoyed as an entertainer who will hopefully lead to social understanding and tolerance. Unfortunately, this boom is filmic and televisual drag has had no impact on hate legislation put forth by the New Right or on homophobic violence on the nation’s streets. Indeed, this “boom” in drag helps no one understand that a liberal-pluralist mode of political strategizing only eventuates a certain absorption and nothing like a productive engagement with difference (221).

It is similar with the spectacle and circus of the burlesque show. Under the guise of the palatable activism of raising money for the Gulf Coast, the strip tease is made available for here for consumption. However, it is clear by burlesque’s more general integration in pop culture (like Lady Marmalade as portrayed by Christina Aguilera, Pink, Mya, and Lil’ Kim) that burlesque in general is meant for larger mass consumption. It is the idea that female sexuality can be integrated in the heteronormative narrative without threatening the status quo. The burlesque performance does nothing, in this instance in particular, to present an authentic form of female sexuality. And, to further parallel Esteabn Muñoz, does nothing to politically and legally advance the placement of women in western society under the eyes of the law. The Equal Rights Amendment still has not passed and violence against women is still an all to frequent occurrence.

In conclusion, I had high hopes for Lili’s Burlesque Revue. I thought that the show would challenge frequent representations of women. It did not accomplish this and, overall, I felt that the praise that neo-burlesque hails from across the country only represents a ‘post-feminist’ sense of womanhood that betrays the reality of the positionality of female sexuality and our continued subjugation by the male gaze.

The Embarrassment of Riches

Written by: Puscifythis

For my first Critical Engagement paper I decided to see an exhibit at the Minneapolis Institute of Arts entitled The Embarrassment of Riches. The aim of this exhibit is to critically assess economic disparity and accumulation of wealth in the modern era from the perspective of upper class subjects (the designers of the exhibit explicitly stated that the use of a lower class perspective to assess this topic has, in other words, been over played). Overall, I felt that the exhibit did not meet my expectations, lacked effectiveness in terms of using art for social justice, and did not highlight or support feminist ideals.

As a Geography major, I have spent a lot of my academic career studying the history and effects of income disparity, wealth accumulation, and neoliberal capitalism on the global economy. This is a large part of why I chose to attend this exhibit, because while I don’t have a background in art, I do have a background in the alleged subject matter of the exhibit. The use of the word ‘embarrassment’ in the title of this exhibit led me to believe that the exhibit would feature photographs that highlight the hypocrisy, frequent cruelty, and malpractice that has come to characterize (in my mind) neoliberal capitalism as a global ideology under the hegemonic control of American politics and policies. Personally, I do find many things about excessive wealth accumulation very embarrassing. I think that western standards of living and measures of development are environmentally deleterious and undermine the ability of other nations to prosper and self-determine. This, to me, is a very embarrassing reality of our world. I expected to see my sense of these realities reflected in the exhibit. However, as I walked through the exhibit I began to feel more and more like I was watching a TV channel like Bravo, which preys upon the masses’ voyeuristic lust for the vicarious consumption the lifestyle of the upper class through passive ingestion of our popular culture and the subsequent repacking of the elusive ‘American Dream.’ For these reasons, I did not feel that the exhibit as a whole achieved its stated purpose.

Of the about 30 or so pieces of art featured in the exhibit there only a handful that I felt conveyed the message and embodied the spirit of a title such as “The Embarrassment of Riches.” One such of these pieces was a self-portrait done by a female artist named Cindy Sherman. The picture features a woman dressed so regally you might think that she is the Queen. The effectiveness of this piece is portrayed through the model’s eyes. She has a look in her face that betrays the thin veneer of satisfaction that materialism and wealth accumulation promise. Another piece that I felt was effective was picture entitled “Suzhou Creek, Putuo District, Shanghai” that juxtaposed dilapidated mansions in the foreground and the construction of monstrous high rises in the background. Most of the others, to me, seemed voyeuristic (like an image of a Chanel boutique changing room, several photographs of ornately decorated rooms, and several photographs of party-goers) or expected (like the photos of large piles of newly minted money, photographs of cars, and a photograph of an oil pipeline dominating the landscape in Russia). Several of the pieces that might have been effective undermined themselves through their stylistic temporal displacement harkening back to the 1970’s or the 1950’s deviating from the goal of presenting the modern day.

Furthermore, if the aim of the exhibit was to express the futility or lunacy of continuing the massive wealth accumulation that has characterized the early part of this century or even if the aim was just to hold a mirror up and show some sort of reflection of this life through the photographs the overall effectiveness of this exhibit was lost because it made no grander statement of the comparison of this lifestyle with the lives of those who, for example, live below the poverty line and it offered no prescription for what should be done in the future. I left the exhibit without feeling like any sub-facet of life had been revealed to me and without any sense of future action. For this exhibit to be effective from a social justice perspective, I feel, I should have achieved all or at least part of this.

To add to my frustrations with the exhibit, and in terms of the subject matter of our class, the exhibit lacked a feminist perspective, both implicitly and explicitly. If the exhibit were to have been explicitly feminist, there should have been greater female artist representation. If I were to guess, I would estimate that 1 in 5 of the artists represented in the exhibit were female. Even for the exhibit to be implicitly feminist, it should have challenged gender roles. None of the pieces did this. One would think that examination of consumption differences between upper class men and women would be a fairly easy topic to include under the heading ‘the Embarrassment of Riches.’ There was no such analysis. Quite antithetically, many of the pieces conveyed very traditional gender roles (more specifically, the woman as the sexual object and the woman as the mother). One piece that particularly appalled me in this aspect was a photograph of a private room at a polo match in Dubai. The photo pictured a wealthy Arab man in traditional grab standing next to his ‘trophy wife’ in western dress. Another photo display that conveyed these tradition gender roles was a set of 2 photos of a Chinese car showroom that depicted the common patriarchic equation of the woman and the car. These photos do, interestingly enough however, show the exportation of western ideals of gender roles around the world.

It is for these stated reasons that I do not feel like the M.I.A. exhibit The Embarrassment of Riches was effective from a social justice or from a feminist perspective. I hope that I have the opportunity soon to attend an art event in the near future that does.

Lawry's marinade sauce commercial: What's YOUR Flavor?

What's your flavor? More like, my personality is equivalent to various marinade flavors! I'm unique, just like this spicy BBQ sauce.

Dodge Challenger Freedom Commercial

CAN WE JUST?

The Rose Petal Cottage Dilema: Little Girls=Housewives

        Anyone can go to a Toys R’ Us store and observe how children’s toys have remained the same for decades. Sure, the packaging and the product itself may look different than it did twenty years ago, but the idea behind the production of these toys has remained the same. Much of American society still seems to embrace and even encourage young children undergoing a process of genderization. Not too long ago, Hasbro released the Rose Petal Cottage; a toy targeted at very young girls that aims to provide them with a “place to entertain their imagination.” A pedophilic “Male gaze” is at play here imposing antiquated, idealized visions of femininity on young girls. Everything about this toy is appalling. From the way Hasbro marketed their product, to the way girls are ‘supposed’ to play with the product, to overall consumer reactions, the Rose Petal Cottage reproduces common misogynistic ideas of femininity and what it means to be a woman and imposes it on young children.
        The toy itself is a fabric-sectional standing house that includes a child-size plastic washer and dryer, a nursery, and a kitchen. All separate rooms include accessories, but it should be pointed out that the kitchen not only comes with a sink and oven, but it also comes with an apron, oven mitts, a muffin pan, and fake muffins that young girls can pretend to bake. Hasbro’s production of the nursery assumes that the child playing already has a toy infant; the infant is central to the Rose Petal Cottage, for the baking, laundry, and caretaking is all done for the well being of the toy infant.
        There are several commercials for this product, and each commercial is targeted at a different consumer base. It could be argued that the commercial that targets mothers and urges them to buy this product provides viewers with the best insight into popular American ideas of gender. This is because the product is being advertised to a group that has already fallen subject to a process of early childhood genderization, and whether or not it is a conscious decision, mothers that purchase this product for their children are choosing to re-implement this genderization process on their own children.
The commercial opens with a young girl opening the door to the Rose Petal Cottage and inviting viewers in. A soothing adult female voice plays over images of the young girl playing “house” in the cottage. The voice persuades viewers: “Now there’s a place, where her dreams have room to grow…a place of her very own where she can decorate…entertain her imagination, and a special friend or two.” There is a laughable moment when the narrator says, “entertain her imagination,” the young girl smiles and says, “let’s do laundry!” The cottage gives young girls a set amount of space, where they have a set amount of freedom to carry out activities that were predetermined by the creators of the toy. Thus, the cottage gives the young girl no room to grow, or imagine new ways of doing or thinking when everything has already been decided for her. She can cook, clean, take care of the baby, re-arrange the furniture, do laundry, and have guests over. The Rose Petal Cottage provides young girls with the idea that their contribution to society outside of the private sphere, or the home domain is limited; there is no aspect of ‘choice’ involved. If a young girl were to take the message behind the Rose Petal Cottage seriously, she might believe that her future rests in the quality of her homemaking. It is hard to say which particular individual is behind the production of this commercial; the creator hides behind the Hasbro label. The diverse American public is not represented in this advertisement; both the mother and daughter are Caucasian, and are shown in middle-class home setting. This could almost be seen as a form of heteronormative, hegemonic propaganda that attempts to reinforce the importance of women staying in the private sphere; it shows two women that are perfectly happy in their home setting.
        This toy is being marketed not only to young girls, but to their mothers as well. In this advertisement, Hasbro wants to persuade viewing mothers that purchasing this toy will provide an environment familiar to her where she can bond with her daughter. Hasbro is trying to convince mothers that they can purchase this product to ‘normalize’ their family interaction. In the commercial, the mother follows her daughter into the cottage, where she portrayed as being overjoyed by the transformation of the cottage interior; her daughter rearranged the furniture and made it her own! Thus, it could be argued that the way this product is marketed reimposes “white-supremacist, heteronormative, patriarchal” ideas of family and gender on mothers and their children. The Rose Petal Cottage is marketed to mothers as a play area that will help their children learn family values and morals; by teaching her how to pretend to clean, cook, do laundry, and take care of children she might be able to learn how to perform these tasks outside of the cottage. The production of this toy also plays into the thought process behind consuming as a way to reinforce concepts of motherhood, childhood, and femininity in general.
        By the time children are old enough to play in the Rose Petal Cottage, they are probably somewhat aware of their societal positioning. Most young boys probably know that they cannot play in the cottage without being ridiculed because it is an obviously genderized toy. Thus, the cottage is isolating, and puts limits not only on young boys, but all children; it implements ideas in young children of the “right way” to play. With the ‘choices’ available to women today, it is almost disturbing to know that a product like the Rose Petal Cottage exists. The mere fact that this toy is sold in stores proves that most young girls will not be able to go through our societal concept of “childhood” without feeling the limits of their own gender.

***LINKS***
Here is the advertisement that I focused on, it targets mothers.
Another advertisement targets young girls, which you can find here.

A concluding thought: While this advertisement may be a few years old, new products surface all the time that send messages similar to the one projected by Hasbro's Rose Petal Cottage. It is very difficult to understand American society in the sense that young girls are told that they can do what ever they set their minds to, but are subjected to messages such as these their entire 'childhood.' I guess my question is, then, despite the new opportunities available to younger generations of girls, will these girls be informed of their actual choices? When will American marketers stop clinging to idealized visions of a perfect past (ex. 1950s housewife, I Love Lucy...) to sell new products?

Really. Bad. Children.

Hi to the zero people reading this! ha ha? Well, both of us (posters) have finished school for the semester. We just have a summer of workin' our behinds off. This means that we'll start up with regular posts! (hopefully).

I have too many things to say so I'll get to posting those over the next few days. In the mean time, I have a somewhat unrelated issue to address briefly. Both of us (posters, let's just assume that's what I mean from now on) serve at restaurants. I've noticed, and this hasn't just been at work, that a lot of newer parents are for the most part spoiling their kids rotten, and letting them get away with whatever they want. What's behind this change, and what happened to hard-ass parenting? (Come on people, this is Americuh) Thoughts?

Christina's New Video

http://www.vevo.com/watch/playlist/vevo-video-playlist-christina-aguilera/139992#0

Lots of things going on here. Reminiscent of ohgeegolly's analysis of Britney's "3"
Check it out!

Britney Spears’ “3” Endorses “Post-Feminist” Ideas of ‘Liberated’ Women and "Raunch Culture"

        Presently, Americans are bombarded by popular images and messages that condone and propagate "raunch culture” more than ever before. In Feminism and Pop Culture, Andi Zeisler discusses feminist scholar Ariel Levy’s definition of “raunch culture”; Zeisler describes, “what [Levy] called ‘raunch culture’—strip aerobics classes, T-shirts printed with the words PORN STAR, [and] Girls Gone Wild…[have] been adopted by women themselves. But rather than leading to real freedom, women’s adoption of ‘raunch culture’ simply duplicated patterns of disdain for and objectification of women” (138). Within the last two decades, American society has embraced a new 'modern' view of the "independent woman” which reinforces “raunch culture’s” influence on society. What was once seen as "loose" or "risqué" feminine behavior less than a century ago has been embraced by American popular culture. Societal reinforcement of “raunch culture” affects all women, but more specifically younger generations that will shape future conceptions of sexuality and femininity (until society no longer recognizes gender difference) for generations to come.
         Reigning queen of pop Britney Spears' latest release, "3," exemplifies this mass projection of "raunch culture" in that it promotes sexual promiscuity, or exploration, but neglects to promote true sexual ‘liberation’ of women. Along the lines of “post-feminist” thought, if women are already ‘liberated’ and equal to men in the eyes of American society, they should have an equal right to experiment sexually. One could deduce that the “male gaze” wants to control how women choose to experiment. “3” illustrates how this “post-feminist” ideology that supports “raunch culture” has been adopted by the forces behind the “male gaze” to introduce this ‘new’ female sexual identity that encourages sexual promiscuity yet lacks intimacy and any emphasis on personal pleasure. Embracing the mentality behind “raunch culture,” “3” endorses the idea that increasing levels of female promiscuity are equivalent to feelings of self-liberation.
        In order to understand how “3” reinforces American societal endorsement of “raunch culture,” one must look at the visual and underlying messages or signs at work in the music video. In the opening lines of the song, Britney coos: "Merrier the more, triple fun that way, twister on the floor, what do you say?" Here, Britney equates threesomes to an actual family game and wants to project the idea that motivations behind such sexual acts are completely innocent. In the chorus Britney proclaims: “Livin’ in sin is the new thing.” Hardly. Threesomes have always been depicted as the mainstream ultimate male fantasy; this is nothing new. Britney and the “male gaze” want to make her hyper-sexualized behavior and image a common trend among her female audience. When the song reaches its climax, Britney sings: “What we do is innocent, just for fun and nothing meant, if you don’t like the company, let’s just do it you and me...or three, or four…on the floor.” Presumably under the direction of the “male gaze,” Britney is emulating a persona that she is sex-crazed or insatiable; one sex partner is not enough. “Peter, Paul, and Mary” is a somewhat surprising repeating line in the chorus of the song considering that it implies the intimate pairing of two men and one woman. This comes as a surprise because most mainstream references of threesomes involve the pairing of two women and one man. While this sexual grouping plays into the heterosexual "male gaze," there is no visual example of the socially 'normalized' two women for one man gender pairing in the video.
         Let us now focus on the interplay between scenes involving Britney with men and others involving Britney with women. Genders remain segregated throughout the entire music video with Britney being the exception; Britney bounces back and forth from surrounding herself with only men to only women. The first scene that does not strictly focus on Britney involves female dancers. Britney stands in the center surrounded by two women on each side; excluding Britney, all four women have their backs to the camera, are protruding their butts in the air behind them, and have their hands linked around a stripper-like pole above them. These women hold a submissive stance that is reminiscent of something one might see in an S&M flick. If we took this visual message to the extreme, it implies that all women who enjoy sex or sexual experimentation are sex workers or enjoy acting like sex workers. Britney is dressed in a white leotard while the women surrounding her are wearing contrasting black leotards and sunglasses. Britney is the center of attention, the women surrounding her are there to be seen, to be sexy, and to reinforce Britney’s playful bisexual image; this is the “male gaze” in play. The minds behind the “male gaze” portray heterosexual women having sex with each other as non-threatening or ‘unreal’ sex. There is no emotional connection between the women if it is all for harmless fun, thus this ‘unreal’ sex poses no threat to monogamous normative heterosexual relationships. Scenes switch and Britney is in a dark room illuminated by a spotlight and surrounded by a group of men, but they are all in the shadows. The shadows leave everything to the imagination whereas Britney’s scenes with women clearly project conceptions of female sexuality that include compulsory bisexual tendencies. In her scenes with men, Britney’s attire is black and more revealing than her white leotard. The contrast between black and white can be interpreted as a visual demarcation of behavioral extremes where white designates purity and innocence, and black signifies defiance and sin.
        Is Britney's acceptance of the male gaze supposed to teach women in her target audience to desire each other? If so, the message that this video projects is one that women should simply stop seeking their own pleasure and accept male fantasy as their own. This introduces an underlying element of societal expectation of compulsory bisexuality in women; this is likely a result of popular culture’s support for “raunch culture.” Society expects heterosexual women to pretend to enjoy porn or “naughty” things that their male partners associate with intimacy, yet ultimately it is only about his pleasure. There is a particular screen shot where two men fondle Britney and look up to her for approval. If Britney’s appearance in all black suggests defiance and sin, she would be defying cultural norms by participating in a male homosexual act with these two men. Interestingly enough, while bisexual behavior is an expectation of heterosexual women, the same expectations do not fall upon heterosexual men. The participation of heterosexual men in any homosexual act is still considered taboo by American mainstream society. Why? Because forces behind the “male gaze” and mainstream media production do not want men to have to encounter this same cultural pressure of compulsory bisexuality that they impose on women. This is clearly a double standard.
      “Raunch culture” was introduced into popular culture through male perversions (the “male gaze”), and the predominately male controlled media. “Raunch culture” was not introduced through subcultures of those that live ‘alternative’ sexual lifestyles and pursue this kind of sexual activity for their own pleasure. For “3,” Britney worked with producer Max Martin, who was responsible for Katy Perry’s rendition of “I Kissed a Girl.” With the production of “3,” Max Martin is a male avidly reinforcing male fantasy through songs that equate heterosexual female bisexuality to non-detrimental fun and games.
      While some might interpret the visual messages and subtexts of this music video to be sexually liberating, it is anything but. Britney is not owning her sexuality or describing what she finds pleasurable. If society had really undergone a “post-feminist” transition in terms of gender equality, Britney would have focused on these attributes of participation in group sex. Unfortunately, Britney’s “post-feminist” portrayal of sexual ‘liberation’ does nothing to create positive ideas of equality and societal openness concerning female sexuality. Britney’s lyrics merely advocate threesomes or group sex for the sake of it; she is only advocating these sexual acts because it is risqué, and it is what the directing “male gaze” expects of her.

Link to Britney's "3" video: (here)

Little Diddy (Introduction)

Hello fun internet world. I don't think that this needs an introduction. With luck, people will take from this what they will. Whether you analyze the world around you, or choose to avidly avoid it, there is no way to completely shut out the cultural images we see each day. That's where we come in. Hope you enjoy.