Young People Fucking
Before I get started on this little rant, something I did in preparation for my lecture:
Really, heterosexuality manifests itself at school? No. Never, ever.
--
UBC FilmSoc is showing the movie this week and I've been hearing about it so we (me + a bunch of friends) went it to see it last night. Three things that I found particularly interesting about the movie (which is about, well, young people - four couples and a threesome - fucking), but I'm going to put that under a cut in case some of you don't want to be "spoiled" for the movie.
First thing is pretty obvious. Five couples, and they're all straight. Not even the hint of a bi character, they're all very, very straight (will come back to that in a second) and even the threesome, since one of the two guys is watching rather than participating, the storyline goes to extra length to dismiss any homoeroticism happening. I mean, this is Canada in 2008? All 5 couples could have been gay without changing the central message or meaning of their story. It just struck me as odd none of them would be.
Second thing. One of the couples is having trouble with their sexual life, they're pretty bored with sex with each other. One interesting thing is that, very early on in the portrayal of their relationship, it's clear that the girl has the more conventionally masculine traits (she's the horny one who wants sex) while the boy has the feminine traits (he doesn't feel like it, he's tired) - it's actually a recurring theme in the movie.
Anyway, after a while the girl suggests they do something she's clearly pretty excited about - she has a harness and dildo that she wants to try on him. He's - expectedly - pretty horrified at the idea at first, but they end up doing it and he mostly enjoys it. He's femininized again at the end because she just takes it and comes without paying attention to where he was at, what he felt like.
What was really interesting to me is that the movie showed something very subversive - I have not heard of many movies who have dared show hetero couples where the girl uses a dildo on the guy and the guy actually enjoys the experience - but through the gendered portrayals of the characters, the story ended up reinforcing the very heteronormativity that the sexual act was deconstructing: the guy being penetrated was constantly re-femininized so that the very act of penetration wasn't really destabilized in itself.
Third thing. The audience's reactions. First to the dildo thing. I find it fascinating that the moment the girl pulled out the dildo and it became clear what she had in mind, the whole audience did a mixture of laughter and generalized wincing. I find more interesting because I'm really not sure the reaction would have been as "universal" if it'd been a girl who was about to be fucked up the ass (pardon my, ah, French). It's also very strange to me that there would be such a strong association between anal sex and pain - as if the two were doomed to go together. Just after they've decided to go through with using the dildo, the girl asks 'should we keep kissing, or...?' and the guy goes, 'well, it's not going to make me any wetter'. Which, granted, it's not, but you can get a guy more relaxed which is pretty much the equivalent of that, and kissing/making out can very much help with that. I was a little put off by the fact that they would present this as the guy having no option but lying down and bam! he gets fucked. Um, bad idea. Don't try this at home, kids.
More generally, the audience systematically laughed/flinched at any hint of homoeroticized contact between two guys (there was no equivalent with two girls). I guess I shouldn't be surprised but it was almost all young adults, and yet the hint of "gay contact" could only be 1) weird and 2) a source of laughter, most of the time both at once. I just found it pretty bothersome in a way. Why should it be funny that a guy watching his girlfriend being fucked by another guy shouldn't touch that guy? Why do we laugh at that when we would expect it if the guy had been watching a girl doing his girlfriend?
It's 'funny' because I'm pretty sure I'm coming across as very critical; I actually enjoyed the movie a lot and I would absolutely recommend it. But especially since it's so much about sex, sexuality and relationships, it's just impossible for me to sit there and not reflect on the messages that the movie was perpetuating and the way in which the audience through its reactins was reifying very problematic messages about sexuality. What's acceptable, what's "normal", and in contrast, what is funny because it's unexpected/abnormal/unusual.
Pretty much I was sitting there and feeling like I was watching hegemony at work. Our messages change, evolve, but some dominant beliefs don't.
Real guys don't get fucked, y'know?
Really, heterosexuality manifests itself at school? No. Never, ever.
--
UBC FilmSoc is showing the movie this week and I've been hearing about it so we (me + a bunch of friends) went it to see it last night. Three things that I found particularly interesting about the movie (which is about, well, young people - four couples and a threesome - fucking), but I'm going to put that under a cut in case some of you don't want to be "spoiled" for the movie.
First thing is pretty obvious. Five couples, and they're all straight. Not even the hint of a bi character, they're all very, very straight (will come back to that in a second) and even the threesome, since one of the two guys is watching rather than participating, the storyline goes to extra length to dismiss any homoeroticism happening. I mean, this is Canada in 2008? All 5 couples could have been gay without changing the central message or meaning of their story. It just struck me as odd none of them would be.
Second thing. One of the couples is having trouble with their sexual life, they're pretty bored with sex with each other. One interesting thing is that, very early on in the portrayal of their relationship, it's clear that the girl has the more conventionally masculine traits (she's the horny one who wants sex) while the boy has the feminine traits (he doesn't feel like it, he's tired) - it's actually a recurring theme in the movie.
Anyway, after a while the girl suggests they do something she's clearly pretty excited about - she has a harness and dildo that she wants to try on him. He's - expectedly - pretty horrified at the idea at first, but they end up doing it and he mostly enjoys it. He's femininized again at the end because she just takes it and comes without paying attention to where he was at, what he felt like.
What was really interesting to me is that the movie showed something very subversive - I have not heard of many movies who have dared show hetero couples where the girl uses a dildo on the guy and the guy actually enjoys the experience - but through the gendered portrayals of the characters, the story ended up reinforcing the very heteronormativity that the sexual act was deconstructing: the guy being penetrated was constantly re-femininized so that the very act of penetration wasn't really destabilized in itself.
Third thing. The audience's reactions. First to the dildo thing. I find it fascinating that the moment the girl pulled out the dildo and it became clear what she had in mind, the whole audience did a mixture of laughter and generalized wincing. I find more interesting because I'm really not sure the reaction would have been as "universal" if it'd been a girl who was about to be fucked up the ass (pardon my, ah, French). It's also very strange to me that there would be such a strong association between anal sex and pain - as if the two were doomed to go together. Just after they've decided to go through with using the dildo, the girl asks 'should we keep kissing, or...?' and the guy goes, 'well, it's not going to make me any wetter'. Which, granted, it's not, but you can get a guy more relaxed which is pretty much the equivalent of that, and kissing/making out can very much help with that. I was a little put off by the fact that they would present this as the guy having no option but lying down and bam! he gets fucked. Um, bad idea. Don't try this at home, kids.
More generally, the audience systematically laughed/flinched at any hint of homoeroticized contact between two guys (there was no equivalent with two girls). I guess I shouldn't be surprised but it was almost all young adults, and yet the hint of "gay contact" could only be 1) weird and 2) a source of laughter, most of the time both at once. I just found it pretty bothersome in a way. Why should it be funny that a guy watching his girlfriend being fucked by another guy shouldn't touch that guy? Why do we laugh at that when we would expect it if the guy had been watching a girl doing his girlfriend?
It's 'funny' because I'm pretty sure I'm coming across as very critical; I actually enjoyed the movie a lot and I would absolutely recommend it. But especially since it's so much about sex, sexuality and relationships, it's just impossible for me to sit there and not reflect on the messages that the movie was perpetuating and the way in which the audience through its reactins was reifying very problematic messages about sexuality. What's acceptable, what's "normal", and in contrast, what is funny because it's unexpected/abnormal/unusual.
Pretty much I was sitting there and feeling like I was watching hegemony at work. Our messages change, evolve, but some dominant beliefs don't.
Real guys don't get fucked, y'know?