« Gender & Ensemble… Plots? | Home | Through the Looking Glass: Male Characters & Sexuality »
Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby — Part. 2
By Corvus | August 8, 2008
This post is a continuation of a post from two days ago, which was a response to comments on a couple of previous posts. If you’re feeling a little lost, I hope you have fun following the bread crumbs back a week or so, because at some point I think it gets a bit pretentious to go linking back to all the references for a post. But, for a quick recap, we’re talking about strong female characters and sex appeal, sexuality, underwear, stripping, pole dancing, prostitution and all that naughty jazz. And now, I’ll pick up where I left off without any further acknowledgment of the the passing time…
A female character can absolutely be considered strong and have sex appeal. In fact, I rather expect those two things to go somewhat hand in hand. The key to this issue is that sex appeal is not wardrobe and it is not physical appearance. All too often female characters are excessively tarted up in order to increase their sex appeal. Push up bras, tight corsets, enormous lips, fishnet stockings, high heels, breathy voice–these are not the things that make a woman sexy. They may, may be an expression of her sexiness, or even her sexuality, but more often than not they are a reflection of some hypothetical male’s expectations of sexuality.
But what really “makes” a woman sexy? She does. What “makes” a strong woman sexy? Her strength.
The truly compelling strong female characters, the ones we remember and consider sexy, are sexy because they are strong female characters. They don’t need to pole dance. They don’t need to seduce a man on screen. They don’t have to go to any great lengths to convince us they are sexy. They simply are. They may strip down to rather utilitarian underwear in preparation for a long cryogenic sleep. They may wear tight pleather outfits as they leap from rooftop to rooftop. Ultimately it doesn’t matter how they dress, they simply are sexy.
Another fallacy I often see perpetuated is that men only consider a woman to be sexy if she’s submissive. All too often, as Jules pointed out yesterday, strong female characters fall in love and that act alone is their transformative moment, or their entire character development. This is strongly reminiscent of the romance novel plot line that feature a powerful and wild woman who can only be tamed by one man–the one man stronger than she is. It’s such a ridiculous conceit and I’m not sure how this male-ego-serving plot device ever gained such ground. Oh wait, yes I am, it’s a male dominated creative culture. And there we run into an odd dichotomy that I’m not exactly sure how to address…
I like strong women. I married one. Oh, she has vulnerable moments, insecurities, times when she turns to me for support and advice. But you know what–so do I and she’s always been there when I’ve needed her. Most of the men I know also like strong women, or profess to. But there are men out there who feel threatened by strong women. These are the men that use terms like “ball buster” and “bitch” to label women who intimidate them. These men want their women meek and doe eyed. These are men I don’t understand at all. I also think (hope, certainly) that they’re a dying breed and that the average modern male will soon want a strong woman that can stand her own and operate as a true partner, an equal.
But large corporations move slowly and are often a step or two behind the times. The combination of old money powering our media conglomerates (and an older generation of men in charge of approving those creative budgets), along with a purportedly ideal market of adolescent boys with escapist power fantasies… well, it doesn’t exactly create the most sane and balanced of arena in which to dance, does it?
Another element of a strong female character is how she expresses her sexuality. Female characters do not need to put on a big seduction act to prove their sexuality. Ripley’s flirtation with Corporal Hicks in Aliens is natural and fun and titillating. Even better, it’s based on Hick’s respect for Ripley’s strength and intelligence, and it’s made all the more poignant by the awareness that he’s probably going to die. On the other end of the scale–in Domino the titular character gives a lap dance to a drug dealer in order to defuse an imminent bloodbath, the sexuality of the scene is overwhelmed by a palpable sense of danger and overwhelming awareness of the imbalance of power in the room. it serves to highlight the discomfort I’ve sensed in every room I’ve ever been in with guys when a more traditional lap dance is shown on screen. And, by using her sexuality in this way, the character is made to seem vulnerable in the moment, but so much stronger during the rest of the movie.
So while I admit that the issue is complex, not the least because our society is complex and each of us as individuals (both male and female) are complex, I think the decision about what amount of sexuality is necessary for any given character comes down to whether or not her physical appearance, manner of dress, and behavior is present only to convince us that she’s sexy, or as an expression/symptom of her inherent sexiness.
Tagged:gender, sex, storytelling. |
August 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
My RSS reader kept suggesting this blog to me and I finally came around to actually reading this latest series of posts. As a person who studied gender in college, I thank you for these posts.
As for sex appeal? I find myself attracted (I use the term in terms of find them appealing) to women who exude a confidence whether or not they have the same command in their sexuality.
Real life examples include Shirley Manson, Anjelica Huston, Milla Jovovich, Deborah Dyer (aka Skin from Skunk Anansie) et cetera.
I do agree with your premise that sexuality cannot be dismissed. One of the problems is that we rarely see males use it because we seem to still be of the opinion (or at least the media would have us believe) that women are not as interested in sex as men are–therefore, sexuality is a tool women can use. Perhaps were we able to break from this trend we could see a broader use of sexuality to include men, whereby the use of a female’s sexuality would not seem so out of place.
August 8th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Welcome to Man Bytes Blog Denis! I’m glad you finally succumbed to the will of your feed reader. The computer is your friend and only wants what’s best for you, you know.
Confidence is a huge turn on for me as well.
I am surprised to see Milla’s name in a list with Anjelica Huston as I have a very visceral and negative reaction to Ms. Jovovich. My perception has always been that she is a vapid model who only made a break into acting because she allowed Luc Besson into her pants.
As far as my opinion of Luc Besson and his treatment of female characters–well, let’s just say that I feel his perspective is exemplified by Fifth Element’s ridiculously-named so-called perfect being, Leeloo, whose only qualification for the designation of perfect appeared to have been inspiring love in over-the-hill cab drivers and wearing strategically placed ace bandages.
The message there seems to be that women are powerful because they inspire us to love. How… empowering, Mr. Besson.
Anyway… I would be thrilled if you could point me to any interviews or articles that showed me evidence of more depth in Milla.
But I’m not sure I agree that we see male characters use their sexuality less. I think we simply see them use it differently and less manipulatively than female characters. Male characters are frequently portrayed as having such extreme sexual potency that no woman can resist them. Now that you bring that up, I think I feel a post coming on, so I’ll save the rest of the rebuttal for next week!
Again, I’m glad you visited and commented. Please accept my arguments as an attempt to continue the conversation, not shut it down.
August 8th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
It should be noted that my impressions of Milla Jovavich is horribly tainted by my impression of Luc Besson, which is hardly fair. I also recognize that my casting aspersions on her qualifications as an actress are unnecessarily hinged upon her personal relationship with Luc Besson.
To be less inappropriately disparaging, let me say that the only performance of hers that didn’t annoy me unduly was her performance in Zoolander. Although… come to think of it (well, notice it on IMDb), she was also in The Million Dollar Hotel, which I remember liking and didn’t realize she was in.
August 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Milla wasn’t too bad in the Joan of Arc movies, though I remember disliking the overall message of the movie somehow. (Though I prefer Franka Potente, from Run Lola Run, over her any day)
I couldn’t agree more on the strength as a factor of sexiness and the conglomerate power-that-be feeding off of a shallow notion of sexuality, but, perhaps more frustrating than old men and adolescent boys is that allot of women tend to accept it too. Think of all those “chick flicks” where a woman has a successful career but an empty personal life and spends her time chasing after prince charming. They are essentially a masculine view but catered to women (sometimes being written by women too).
But anyway, you mentioned male characters too but I’ll wait for your post before I comment on that.
August 9th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
It’s been a while since I watched it, but wasn’t the overall message of the Joan of Arc movie (written and directed by Luc Besson, by the by) that Joan was a not terribly bright woman with visions who was manipulated into martyrdom by men?
Anyway, I really like Franka Potente too.
I hesitate, as a man, to write about women who buy into the male dominated system. It’s a hot bed topic, no matter how you approach it and I don’t know that I’m qualified to try and address it.
I think my male sexuality post will happen on Monday while I collect my accumulated thoughts on the list!
August 9th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I think you cut nicely to the point that the question that needs to be asked about female characters with sexuality of note is “To what end?”
If it’s something added to give a character additional, as kind of a tacked on aspect, then I think we can all agree it’s something we can generally do without.
I’m reminded of Time Enough for Love, where Heinlein has a number of particularly sexual female characters (He IS just kind of a dirty old man…), but instead of the over-sexed, servile type, they’re people for whom sex is a natural extension of love, who merely have hearts large enough to love virtually everyone. Tamara and Dora ARE sex-pots (depending on your definition of the term, I suppose), but I’m not sure it’s possible to generate a LESS sexist version of a sex-pot than Heinlein does. It’s not a kick-ass kind of strength, but it’s undeniably there.
August 9th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Oh, and I loved “The Fifth Element”, but as for standing up to any sort of serious examination, especially regarding gender roles… well… not so hot, clearly.
August 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
I’m afraid my perception of Milla is more hinged on her seeming confidence in herself, rather than to any great acting credits (Million Dollar Hotel being the only movie for which I feel no shame in admitting I like it).
Shall go off to read your male sexuality post. I suppose instead of saying rarely see men use sexuality, I should have better phrased it that we rarely see them use it in a manipulative way, as you suggest. I think it is quite clear that sexuality seems a very potent, potent weapon in any character’s arsenal.
August 11th, 2008 at 10:18 am
I feel her choice of roles and films belies any seeming confidence in herself. I was wrong, by the way, about Luc Besson being her introduction into acting. Her first movie was Zalman King’s Two Moon Junction and that, of course, fails to raise her in my esteem at all.
Now, if you were to add Carrie Ann Moss or Peaches to your list. There, I’d have no argument.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
I do enjoy Peaches, though I find her to a broken record at times (or maybe I’m tired of the ’sex shock rock’ that most clubs seem to play ad nauseam). It’s useful to mix her up with Chicks On Speed and personalities like Amanda Palmer.
August 11th, 2008 at 11:24 am
I just discovered Amanda Palmer via Neil Gaiman’s blog and I’ve been enjoying her music as well. I’m also going to be tracking down more Skunk Anansie, thanks to your recommendation.
August 11th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Ah yes, then you know of Amanda Palmer’s I Google You. I’d also recommend YouTubing her song Guitar Hero, which will be releasing next month on her solo album.