Monday, December 12, 2011

Homosexuality and Public Acceptance Based on Sex

In today's day and age, people have become more accepting of homosexuality.  Now as a Christian myself, I have my own views about homosexuality, but that's another topic for another day.  This is more of an observation that I've been noticing.

About a year ago, I was watching an episode of ABC's What Would You Do on a Friday.  There was a segment dealing with homosexual couples and the public response to them openly showing affection for one another. 

In one scenario, two gay men were showing off public displays of affection (or PDA) for one another while sitting on a public bench out in the open.  While onlookers looked on, the couple snuggled, kissed, held hands, etc., etc.  Nothing graphic.  However many people looked on in disgust.  One woman even called the police, and an officer came on to the scene and calmly told the couple to refrain from displaying any PDA.  It turns out though, that the officer was aware of the scenario being for a show and was in on the whole thing.  With all this happening to a gay male couple minding their own business, one would think that the same thing would happen to a lesbian couple.  Not so fast....

In the scenario of the lesbian couple, while there were still people who looked on in disgust at their PDA, there were also men who looked on in interest.  The segment even showed men approaching the couple and starting a conversation.  In a few instances, the conversation leaned on the flirtatious side.  Now let it be said that with the gay couple, they were also approached by a few women, but the conversation didn't appear to be flirtatious in any instance (unless women just have a different way of going about it).  In fact, in one example, a woman seemed to be striking up a more supportive conversation, if you will.  Something I didn't witness with the lesbian couple.

These differences in the interaction with couples such as these is the main point of this post, which is the observation of how society treats gay couples vs. lesbian couples.

All you have to do is to look at TV and movies to see how vastly different gays and lesbians are treated and viewed by society based on their sex. A lesbian couple is more often shown on TV, movies, music videos, etc. compared to gay couples.  If one wants to incorporate sex into something and attract a male audience, then either a hot lesbian couple or simply how chicks making out. However, with a gay couple, showing them in media is seen as something more controversial than hot.  Sometimes it seems almost like pulling teeth to simply show two guys kissing.

Take the kiss between Madonna and Britney Spears, then with Christine Aguilera on one of the past MTV awards.  The media considered it hot.  But with Adam Lambert kissing one the members of his band during a performance on TV, it was considered offensive, and too much.  Why???  

A common attribute that I notice is that these views and receptions seem to be "male-based", as in, beautiful looking lesbians or women making out are many times seen as hot to men, thus they are seen often in the media compared to handsome looking gays or men making out.  Two men kissing are not seen as hot to men, hence you don't see those images often.

Now....why are the opinions and sexual turn-ons of the male audience the foremost concern?  Do they believe that women aren't turned on by two men kissing (fanfiction and the internet in general disproves that idea lol)?  Why is the media quick to show two beautiful women making out?

Here are bullets of other observations on this subject:
  • Why do guys get seemingly "squeamish" when it come to gays, or go out there way in voicing how grossed out they are by it?  I rarely see this reaction when it comes to women and lesbians.  Is it because gayness is related to "weakness" and strength (or different forms of strength) is a known characteristic of masculinity ("be a man")?  
  • Why do people wonder about the sexuality of an actor who plays a homosexual in a movie, or on TV, but people aren't that concerned when it comes to actresses who play lesbians? 

Thursday, December 8, 2011

Thoughts to Ponder.....

  • HPV vaccine regarding girls and boys. 
Back when there was controversy surrounding possible mandatory vaccinations of girls, I found myself thinking, "Ok this is a good idea, early prevention and all that...". So when I read some of the reactions of parents and officials, was rather confused and annoyed.  It's one thing to have concerns about the safety of vaccinations (that's understandable), but to not agree with mandatory HPV vaccinations because you're not comfortable with the thought of your daughter loosing her virginity and having sex is ridiculous.  Looking back I remember reading comments from parents and people in position saying something like how they'll be teaching their daughters abstinence and how they were too young getting vaccinated against something related to sexual activity.

I wanted to tell these parents to GET A GRIP!

Don't get me wrong.  I'm a Christian and all for abstinence.  But I'm also realistic

A parent can teach their child how they should save themselves until marriage until they're blue in the face, and that child may still decide to have premarital sex.  Not to mention that a woman can wait to have sex until marriage and STILL catch HPV because her husband had engaged in casual sex before or adultery during marriage.  A girl receiving the HPV vaccine will not in and of itself encourage her to have casual sex.

Interesting thing though.  I remember reading a long time ago about the HPV vaccine possibly being made for boys.  Recently CNN has had articles saying that HPV vaccine was effective in males and that vaccination of boys is encouraged and even urged*.  It seemed that the main concern in this case was potential health risks for the boys.  NO mention of possible repercussions toward their sexual activity.  Hmmm......But that was when it was first being considered, a few years ago.  Maybe today people are as concerned with their supposed potential sexual activity as well.  Seriously though, what's wrong with taking precautions if the vaccine's proven to be safe???

Speaking of sexual activity.....

  • Plan B
As you all know (if you've been watching the news), Plan B was pretty close to being available over-the-counter for females of all ages.   However, it didn't happen:
For the first time ever, the Health and Human Services secretary publicly overruled the Food and Drug Administration, refusing Wednesday to allow emergency contraceptives to be sold over the counter, including to young teenagers. The decision avoided what could have been a bruising political battle over parental control and contraception during a presidential election season..... 
I have to say, I was kind of disappointed with the decision.  Again, I am a Christian but I am also realistic.  If there was a chance that a young girl can avoid an unplanned pregnancy with this pill being widely available then that's a good thing.  I mean, you have condoms being available for boys of all ages.  Why not have the pill be widely accessible for girls of all ages if it proves to be safe to use?

Of course there is the question of when life actually starts.  I don't know, but personally I don't really believe it starts right at conception.  Maybe it's the biology major-side of me....Anyway, while I think abstinence is the best way to go, there are young people that will choose to have sex.  And I would rather a girl use Plan B than have an abortion.

I might make a post of this by itself so I can expand on this more.

  • Trigger warnings
From the website Objectify This - What is a Trigger Warning:     
Anyone who reads feminist blogs has come across “trigger warnings” before graphic images or descriptions of rape or violence to women.  The intent of a trigger warning is to advertise the potentially emotionally triggering content of a piece, which might revive memories of rape or sexual assault for survivors.  Survivors of sexual assault are especially sensitive to such images because they are traumatized, and like other traumatized people, this may affect their whole world-view. Some survivors experience post-traumatic stress disorder.............The trigger warning also implicitly validates survivors of sexual assault, by recognizing their existence and their potential needs and offering them control over some of what they process.
I understand the need for trigger warnings.  The consideration for victims is noble.  However, why are trigger warnings exclusive to mainly rape and sexual assault victims?  Not to mention where does one draw the line?  If there are trigger warnings for rape and sexual assault, what about overall abuse (I have indeed seen warnings for domestic abuse), murder, physical assault....violence in general?  Like I said, it's noble to be considerate of victims of sexual assault and rape, but I do wonder if it's leaning closer to coddling.  I know, that sounds mean, and I'm really trying to explain my point in such a way that I don't come across as a b*tch.

What I'm saying is, this world is violent and will pretty much remain violent until Judgement Day.  I guess what rubs me the wrong way is this idea that victims of rape and sexual assault - most of which are women - need to be sheltered and protected as if they're these weak, helpless beings, something that for thousands of years have been associated with women. 

I don't know...I still don't think I really expressed what I was thinking on this point that well :-/