Blindsiding our Freedom

I'm going out on a limb here and if you disagree with me that's fine: we're different people and, as a result, we're bound to have differences. Our society, generally speaking, is not pro-gay. I mean, if you go around asking people if they're okay with homosexuals, for the most part, they're going respond by saying that they have no problem with homosexuals. But, are they telling the truth or just telling you what they think you want to hear? We've gone through a lot of equality movements: end of slavery in America, women's equality, etc. Now we're approaching the movement for equality for gays. 

If someone asked me what I thought about gays, I'd probably respond with another question: something along the lines of, "why?" or "who's asking?" After that, I'd reply that I have no issue with gays. By that, I mean that I don't care about them, no more than I care about non-gays. Why should I worry about the sexual orientation/preference of another? I'm me and they're them. Furthermore, I'm in no position to judge them. How can I judge them? On what basis? We live in a country that promotes equality and freedom for ALL. Not freedom for Whites, Blacks, Asians, or Middle Easterners. Not freedom for Christians, Jews, Muslims, and Buddhists. Freedom for all. It's something that we seem to lose sight of. Actually, I'd argue that it's not so much that we lose sight of it, but rather that the media draws our attention away from it. 

In most media outlets, gays are suppressed. Think back to the things you've seen in life. How many gay ads have you seen? How many books about gays have made the bestseller list? For me, and for many people, the answer is close to none. I looked to see how many books that talk about the issues such as 'what homosexuals deal with on a regular basis just because they're gay' were popular or had made bestseller lists. I was surprised to find barely any. Truth be told, the only popular gay/lesbian books that I found were those of an erotic natures. 

In our society, similar to that seen in 1984 (just not to such an extent), our sexual urges are suppressed. Michael Warner talks about that concept (among others) in "The Trouble with Normal:  Sex, Politics, and The Ethics of Queer Life". In the text, Warner, talks about how in society our sexual urges are suppressed. 

Why is sex something that's shunned by society? Why is talking about our sexual urges something that's not approved by society? Well, to be honest, talking about sex isn't shunned per say, it's more of a taboo.  Why don't we like talking about sex? Why are people shamed about their sexual desires? Our sexual urges are biological in nature, something both homosexuals and heterosexuals share. The desire to connect on a deeper level with another and have sex. Honestly it's stupid to avoid talking about sex and treating it like it's taboo. If we can talk about doing things like eating and breathing, then we sure as hell can talk about sex. I mean, honestly, it's not that big of a deal. I love sex as much as the next person and I don't see why it's something that's not spoken of. In Warner's text, he talks about how the taboo, the shame in regards to sex, arose from decades and decades of sexual repression. Throughout history, men have usually been allowed to satisfy their sexual hunger and, for the most part, were not ostracized for their actions. However, women weren't allowed to go out and satiate these urges, which is an example of the double standards that exists in society. It wasn't until recently that women were allowed to really explore their sexuality. Men were allowed to do whatever the fuck they wanted and women we're expected to be meek objects, robots if you will, that did as society dictated. Although, men went out to quench their sexual thirst they didn't talk about it in front of women in an effort to preserve their innocence, an image that is associated with women as a result of media and society. As a result, sex wasn't something that was discussed often. Nowadays, people aren't as hesitant to talk about it, but it varies from person to person. I mean, most people still don't talk to their children about their sexuality and all that. Most of us have gone through 'the talk'. It was given so much hype but it really wasn't a big deal.

That's just how it is with homosexuality. What's the main difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals? C'mon, you guys know this. Heterosexuals are attracted to members or the opposite sex (hetero-different) and homosexuals are attracted to members of the same sex (homo-same). So what's that attraction mean? What it means is that gay men like having sex with each other and lesbians like having sex with each other. Great. Whoop-de-diddly-do. What's the big deal? Personally, girl on girl seems kind of hot to me, but that's probably because I'm a heterosexual male. 

There are often ads in which there are multiple women with one man, which tells the audience that it's okay for a man to have sex with more than one woman. That the person, the guy in the ad, is so attractive, that he has 2 or more women. These pieces of media, these ads, are not objected. Images such as these are shown from time to time and so they are not object. It's almost normal nowadays to see ads like these. The image under this on the right hand side could have been released under the pretense of an ad for cologne and the one on the left could be that for a dating site. In society, sexual desires are suppressed. However, with time, the extent to which it's suppressed has decreased. Now, that doesn't mean that sexual suppression is gone because it isn't. The blunt of the sexual oppression now however seems to be placed on homosexuals.

                               

There are often images like this on television and on various ads. However, those images are not ostracized. Why aren't they?

 Now take the following image as a counter example to the ones above: 

If we had the 4 images above and had them shown to a random group of people, such as the general public, what do you think their responses would be? The might say that the 1st one is a little too explicit (not much would really be said against it since most guys wouldn't mind seeing that). The 2nd and 3rd one would likewise not be objected. The final one however, would most definitely meet a critical audience that would be bothered by it. The 4th image features 4 guys; from the looks of it, it looks like 4, sexy, hot-blooded, gay guys. Now, that image would be oppressed for a variety of reasons. The main reason would be because it depicts 4 gay men. 

Although sexual urges and desires are oppressed for heterosexuals, homosexual urges and tendencies seem to be oppressed more than with heterosexuals.  This shows that there is double standards in the media and society in relationship to homosexuals just as there are for women. Our so-called "freedom" of speech, press, and liberty, are not really free since it only seems to be for those approved by society. The media is influenced by society and in our society, homosexual urges, desires, and tendencies are frowned upon. As a result, there are double standards in the media in relationship to homosexuals and the media is often twisted to reflect the view of society. 

No One Clear Message

The thing about media is that, although there is almost always an underlying message involved, it's open to interpretation. Many people will view, read, and hear things differently. Everyone's different and so we all perceive different things differently.  Due to that difference, we react to different things differently. In media outlets, such as ads, there are often subliminal messages incorporated into the ad. Take the following Victoria Secrets Ad for example. (Yes, I seem to spend a lot of time look up Victoria Secrets related ads. I'm a guy, sue me). 

The first thing people see, well the first thing I saw, was the red bra. After that, I noticed the largest text, the logo "Victoria's Secret", then the smaller texts: "Dress your boyfriend's floor" and "http://www.victoriassecret.com/ ".  The last thing I saw, well the last thing that I focused on, was the hand of the woman that's holding up the bra. So clearly it's an ad for lingerie by Victoria's Secrets. That's the first thing that most people, including I, pick up on. Then let's take the statement, "dress your boyfriend's floor". If you look at the hand holding the bra, you'll notice that it looks like the woman's about to drop the bra, so that was a neat move in my opinion giving a visual to the literal comment. That statement has many subliminal meanings/messages incorporated into it. Take a moment to think about what meanings could be hidden in that statement before going on to read how I interpreted the message. 

So, one thing that the ad is implying is that the main reason for bras is to 'dress your boyfriend's floor' in it. The lingerie is not for the woman, but rather for the man which goes to show the sexism that's prevalent in our society. The woman should strive to please her man. The main purpose of a bra is support for the woman. I mean, women also wear bras for aesthetic reasons. Usually, people don't go out of their way to wear comfortable clothes or clothes that make them look bad. We'll take that extra 10 minutes or pay that extra $10 so that we look good. Just so many woman who don't have breasts that give them reason to worry about back problems wear bras so that they look good. Due to the bra, their boobs won't sag, their nips aren't showing through their top, and their breasts are supported so that they look good/attractive. But, the main reason that woman wear them is for support. I asked a few of my friends (female of course, it'd be a little weird if my male friends wore bras) about their feelings on the matter and got some answers that were similar to the conclusions I made. However, I got a few response that were different. One of my friends told me that she like bras and other lingerie items because they make her feel sexy. She likes knowing that under her regular, everyday clothes, she's dressed extremely sexy and provocatively. Another friend of mine responded in a way that went right along with the Victoria's Secrets ad that's above. She said that she wears bras and other lingerie items from Victoria's Secret because her boyfriend likes them. She was telling me that, generally, she's more of a cotton girl, but her boyfriend likes to see her in lace and so she buys and wears lingerie. 

Also, the bra that's used in the ad is red. The color red is often associated with energy, war, danger, strength, power, determination, passion, desire, sex, and love. According to Color Wheel Pro, various shades of red reflect and are associated with different things. Light red represents joy, sexuality, passion, sensitivity, and love. Pink signifies romance, love, and friendship. It also denotes feminine qualities and passiveness. Dark red on the other hand is associated with vigor, willpower, rage, leadership, courage, longing, malice, hate, dark intent both sexual and non sexual, and many others. What I found to be extremely interesting was the use of various shades of red in the ad. According to Color Wheel Pro, red's also a color that prompts a quick response. Often times its used as an accent color to stimulate people to make a quick decision. In ads, red is often used to evoke erotic feelings (red lips, red nails, red bras, red-light districts, 'Lady in Red', etc). 

Another message that incorporated into the ad is that about what society sees to be an 'appropriate' relationship. It's something that might not hit you right off the bat, but it's there. Note the use of the word 'boyfriend' and the feminine hand by Victoria's Secrets, which is a company that sells items for woman. So, the ad is telling its audience that a couple should be comprised of a man and a woman, a woman and her 'boyfriend'. Along with lingerie for women, the ad's promoting couples to be heterosexual. 

What may have initially been seen as a generic ad for lingerie for woman turns out to be an image, a media outlet that has many meanings embedded in it. I stumbled across the image while I was looking for the 1999 Victoria's Secret Super Bowl commercial which is embedded in my last post. At first, I dismissed it. However, just when I was about to scroll past it, I stopped and look again and saw that it was a perfect example as to how there are many messages in a piece. 

I was amused to see a company for women use the phrase "dress your boyfriend's floor". Why? Well, mainly because women are fickle creatures that don't know what they want (that was a joke). I found it amusing because we're in the 21st century, a century in which women are "equal" to women. I still remember my time in 8th grade American history class at Olmsted. My class and I learned about how women struggled to show men, the world, and society that they can do just as men did just as well as they could, if not better. That they might be the weaker sex, generally speaking, but that doesn't mean that they were less than the men. The fought for equality. We live in a time period in which there are single mothers throughout the US who are doing a damn good job of raising their children alone, a period in which there are many ambitious women who are pursing high profile careers. Despite all that, a company that sells lingerie for WOMEN is making a sexist comment like the one above. How does something like that even happen? Capitalism. Capitalism makes it possible for there to be a plethora of contradictory messages in that one ad says one thing and another ad says another (this is true not just for ads but for most media outlets). The use of these contradictory messages is a part of what's confusing and problematic about modern life and what makes it difficult to be critical viewers of the media. It's as though the media does not want full comprehension of how it works and so it intentionally contradicts itself. Well played media, well played.

About the Blog

The phrase “Big Brother is Watching” originated from George Orwell’s novel 1984. For those who are unfamiliar with the book: the book takes place in Oceania, which is a totalitarian society that’s tyrannized by The Party. The Party inflicts it’s subjects with psychological stimuli designed to overwhelm the mind’s capacity for independent thought. As a result (for the most part) the subjects of Oceania would do what the Party wanted and nothing else.

There was a television in every citizen’s room that blasted a constant stream of propaganda designed to make the failures and shortcomings of the Party appear to be triumphant successes. Not only did the television promote the Party, the television also monitored the behaviors of the citizens, so everything they did was monitored, thus influencing just about everything they do. The Party also forced individuals to suppress their sexual desires, treating sex as merely a procreative duty whose end is the creation of new Party members. In 1984, the citizens acted a certain way due to the way difference was treated. They were all expected to act the way the Party dictated and we’re not allowed to do anything that the Part didn’t. If they did do something that the Party didn’t approve of the Party would eventually find out as, “Big Brother is Watching”. Ultimately those citizens would be punished. Often times, in 1984, those who rebelled were made examples of: they were either reformed into the perfect citizen or never heard from again. Now what happened in 1984 was extreme however the extremes allowed certain themes to thrive.  2 major themes in 1984 were: that difference wasn’t tolerated and the media has a huge influence on those who are subject to it.

The media acts as a proxy, an authority, for public opinion in relationship to homosexuals and homosexuality. We all know that the media influences just about everything but I had to focus my blog and so I decided to focus primarily on the effect of the media in relationship to homosexuals/homosexuality in America.