大象传媒

By Mia Pelayo

In the eleventh week of GSWS 100 I really enjoyed reading Raquel S. Benedict鈥檚 article, 鈥淓veryone Is Beautiful and No One Is Horny.鈥� Benedict鈥檚 observations and analyses helped me connect the lack of realistic sensual pleasure in movies to earlier readings on the different perspectives on sex, knowledge, pleasure, and control.

The main premise that Benedict asserts in her article is that although the bodies of actors in superhero films are more chiseled than ever before, the sexuality of their characters are rarely expressed. These characters may be presented in sexually suggestive ways but are not shown having or talking about sex. For example, the author references the Starship Troopers group shower scene in which they ignore each other鈥檚 bodies and only discuss war and their careers. In Benedict鈥檚 words, these characters 鈥溾�are] only horny for war.鈥� Furthermore, Benedict points out how there is a cost that actors pay to achieve a certain appearance. They may undergo calorie restriction, intense workout plans, take steroids or hormonal supplements, and undergo facial enhancements. However, the highest price they may pay is a lower libido due to calorie restriction, which equals less desire for and enjoyment of sex.

Beyond cinema, the author presents how gym class curriculums and fitness programs are influenced by a nation鈥檚 paranoia around war. For example, after 9/11 students were taught to throw fake grenades in gym class and President Bush added the Adult Fitness Challenge to the Presidential Fitness Program. Today, fitness centres advertise bootcamp style training classes. In essence, American citizens were and are receiving indirect messaging that their bodies need to be ready for war. Their toned and agile bodies are not for pleasure, but to defeat an unknown enemy for the greater good of their country.

In contrast, this observation reminded me of the Marxist view on sex outlined in Seidman鈥檚 essay from week five of our course. Seidman explains that 鈥淚n a market economy, a repressed personality type is prominent. This kind of person is performance- and success-oriented and exercises tight internal controls over emotions and sensual desires鈥� (p. 7). In turn, this produced a sexual culture that was sexually repressed and only sought sex for reproductive purpose. As a result, sex and sexualities outside of that ideal were seen as deviant and unproductive to the needs of capitalism. Similarly, action heroes in movies are seen as noble and collective-oriented because they do not allow the hot bodies of their colleagues and their own sexual appetites to distract them from saving the world.

Likewise, the connection between physical fitness, aesthetics, war, and cinema are reminiscent of Foucault鈥檚 work that ponders how knowledge is used to exert control over others. Whether it is intentional of the creators of action hero movies or not, the beautiful bodies of Marvel superheroes and the positive character traits we associate with them work in tandem to romanticize war and violence.

Moreover, Benedict鈥檚 article made me wonder why it seems that we are generally more comfortable with violence in film compared to sex. Firstly, I think it is because we have been taught to become desensitized to war. For example, In Western Evangelical Christianity, the Bible has been taken out of context and weaponized to justify colonialism, racism, sexism, genocide, and more. Consequently, violence is sadly viewed by many as a justified means to an end for the 鈥済reater good鈥濃�or some.

Secondly, I think there is a moral panic around humans learning about their bodies. For a long time, sex education was either geared toward abstinence, towards heterosexual intercourse, and male pleasure. This excluded the pleasure of women and non-cis-gendered and heterosexual individuals. As a byproduct, this taught us to be uncomfortable in our own bodies and therefore seeing people having sex in movies may arouse sensations in our bodies that we have been told are taboo. I believe that when we are in touch with our bodies and what we are sensing we remember that we are autonomous beings that have a say, that we do not have to be at war with our bodies. When we discover what gives us pleasure, we realize that what was taught to us about sex and our bodies is not something we have to follow or abide by. As Foucault, Freud, and Rubins鈥� works all echo, different people will find pleasure in different things that may fall outside of the charmed circle. This challenges what is deemed 鈥渘ormal鈥� by self-proclaimed knowledge holders.

In summary, Benedict鈥檚 essay has helped me relate the lack of realistic sexual enjoyment depicted in cinema to larger issues of knowledge, control, and our bodily disconnection to pleasure. In movies, political discourse, and fitness trends alike, the response to violent world events are messages that idealize ripped bodies ready for war. Consequently, we as humans are taught to disassociate from our bodies and orient ourselves toward the interests of our nation. In terms of our desensitization to violence and our discomfort with sex, various factors such as false religious doctrines and sex education have and still contribute to this paradigm. Overall, the above readings mentioned have taught me to question what underlying messages about sex and bodies are being communicated to me through advertising, film, and all forms of media.