Karen, actually preferring to be single on a bus.

If it's been a while since I've posted, it was probably sometime in the late Cretaceous period that I last posted about movies.  I used to consider myself a movie buff and would watch movies multiple times a week; now I rarely watch them.  I'm not entirely sure why this is.  While most of my all-time favorite movies revolve around straight white men, part of me was getting tired of this narrow range of stories.  Even when I attempted to watch films that centered on women, too often they involved the woman in question giving up everything for a man.  When I was challenged to come up with "feminist films" for a recent screening, I couldn't think of any at all.

However.  Of the movies I do watch, many of them are Spanish-language.  Since I'm always trying to improve my Spanish, I will watch any Spanish film that seems remotely interesting.  This led to me watching Karen Cries on the Bus, which is Colombian, and compared to other movies I've seen lately, refreshingly feminist.  I say this because it diverges from the narratives of "woman seeking man" and "woman doesn't think she needs a man, but she really does".  While it's not anti-feminist to seek men, I think the near-total ubiquity of these tropes means that showing other woman-centered stories can be a feminist act.

Karen Cries on the Bus lacks plot (it's like they know me), but shows the day-to-day life of Karen as she tries to cultivate an identity for herself after leaving a loveless marriage. At first, she doesn't really know how to do anything independently, and the film charts her successes and failures in building a new life.  There have been other movies on the same topic, but the ending was a total departure from anything Hollywood would have done.  **Major spoilers**  Instead of moving to Argentina with a new man she starts dating, Karen decides to stay in Colombia by herself.  While I can see how this might seem depressing to some viewers, personally I was thinking, "you go, Karen".  She had learned enough about herself to know that she was still susceptible to getting lost in her relationships with men, and she didn't want to go down that road again.  I don't know any other films where someone chooses to be single in a situation like Karen's.  **End spoilers for "Karen"**

I recommend it.  

[Haircuts always represent new beginnings--we get it!]

The other movie I've seen most recently was Albert Nobbs, which garnered some discussion on AVEN.  **Minor spoilers will follow**  Albert is a woman (or perhaps a genderqueer or trans person) who began presenting as male in order to get employment in 19th century Ireland.  What I found somewhat unique about the film was that there was another character, Hubert, who was also a woman presenting as male.  She "finds out" Albert, and then confides to him that she is also female (pronouns are tough here).  Albert seems to really admire Hubert, because he has a wife and just generally seems a lot happier and freer than Albert does.  While Albert's gender status seems to get in the way of relationships, Hubert doesn't seem to have a problem with his.  Albert does seem asexual in some ways, but I am not convinced that he is.  I think he just feels a much greater anxiety over his "secret" than Hubert does.  It also seems like years of isolation have greatly impaired his social functioning.

**Major spoilers will follow**

What's cliche about the movie is that Albert dies in the end.  This always seems to be a statement that gender-nonconforming people have no future and no place in this world (which, of course, makes me cringe).  However, Hubert lives, and seems to be thriving even after the death of his wife.  It seems like he'll be successful at wooing the woman who rejected Albert for being too stiff and unemotional.  Are we supposed to think that Hubert is somehow ambushing heterosexual women?  I don't know.  I wouldn't blame him, given his social climate, for staying in the closet.

**End spoilers**

To finally conclude, I think that Albert Nobbs, while it got mixed reviews, is a great film to discuss with folks who are interested in gender issues.  Make it a double-feature with Tomboy, which would also have some good discussion fodder.  Someone's going to fall asleep, though.

Road to Assault

***Trigger warning for sexual assault/rape***

"Yeah, go back to your cabin and shoot yourself, that way nobody'll get hurt."

--Bob Hope to Dorothy Lamour, "Road to Rio"

Yesterday, I saw the movie "Road to Rio" which was the top-grossing film of 1947. At the end of the movie, Bob Hope gets Dorothy Lamour to marry him by using hypnosis. Considering that Hope (and his buddy, Bing Crosby) had been trying to seduce Lamour for the entire film, I thought that sexual assault was heavily implied here. A hypnotized person can't possibly consent, can they? But we're supposed to go, "Ho ho, how funny!" (It's interesting to note that in "Road to Rio", women and their charms are seen as a constant, severe danger to Hope and Crosby. "Dames" need to be toughly subdued before they get a chance to wreak havoc on the mens' lives. The fact that Hope and Crosby are unable to--and please forgive my crudeness--keep their dicks in their pants is not seen as an issue.)

Anyway, fast forward to recent years. "Road to Rio" would probably not be written. Of course, the 40's were just more sexist times...right? However, today, we're expected to laugh at a man being raped (not to mention having his bodily integrity violated in countless other ways). Stuff like this has led some people to believe that feminism has gone too far, and now women are holding privilege over men. But I don't think these folks are aware of why we are supposed to find male rape funny. I think it's for the same reason that we're supposed to find men in dresses funny--being raped is feminizing, and therefore embarrassing. At the same time, men are so sex-crazed that being raped (at least, by a woman) is not a big deal to them emotionally. There are a few assumptions here:

1. Rape is a "woman thing".


2. Rape as a "woman thing" is totally mundane.


3. "Women things" are demoralizing.


4. Rape can be enjoyable*.


5. All men want sex all the time. If you don't, you're not manly.
   

So yes, I believe that bell hooks was very much correct. Patriarchy does hurt everyone. In a truly post-feminist world, Jonah Hill's friends in Get Him to the Greek wouldn't have laughed off his rape experience. He could have admitted that yeah, there were times when he didn't want sex, and the other men wouldn't have mocked him for that. And we, the audience, wouldn't be expected to laugh, either.

*There is also the misunderstanding that if a situation arouses someone, then they're enjoying it. People can be physically aroused during rape. I seem to remember that in the film "I'll Sleep When I'm Dead", this fact is one reason why a male rape victim commits suicide.

A few random observations brought to you by the movie "Singles"

• It's amazing how dated some visuals can get. And somewhat embarrassing to watch. Check out the short/sock/footwear situation on Matt Dillon here, for one:
  

• Related to that, what is more '90s (1992, to be exact) than people talking directly to the camera about their dating issues?
• I think that when you've been in The Wire, you will always be identified by your character from that show. (Prez! And attempting to watch Boardwalk Empire: Omar!)
• Grunge--> Oh yeah, I was supposed to get involved in an electrifying new musical movement...forgot about that. Or, maybe I didn't.
• "This is gonna be my night!" Extreme use of the "magic night" trope.
• Oh God, I'm planning a scene for my NaNoWriMo novel that uses the "magic night" trope. I finally think I understand why people keep using such cliche meet cutes. It's really hard to get two specific strangers to meet each other in fiction.
  
• People in movies don't really have abortions (at least, legal ones), so their pregnancies end in strange ways, like in car crashes.
• I realized that traditional romantic comedies, at least decent ones, all contain strong friendships, families, and/or communities. People have interesting jobs, live in nice places, and know who their neighbors are. The wish-fulfillment isn't just the romance, but the whole world of the story.

Now, back to my regularly scheduled noveling...

"Kid, We're Too Much": Sex and the City 2

I've written about Sex and the City a few times before, so it seems fitting for me to review its new movie. It was actually better than I thought it would be, however, that's not saying much. Based on the trailer, I thought it would be unwatchable (and I say this as a big fan of the show). And at least, it was moderately entertaining and had a plot, albeit a silly one. A lot of reviewers found it offensive, especially to Muslims (a large part of the movie happens, inexplicably, in the United Arab Emirates). But as someone who tends to be easily offended, both for myself and others, I couldn't really get riled up about it. It wasn't as if the visiting Americans were portrayed in a better light than the Muslim characters; everyone was over-the-top and unrealistic. I mean, look at the photo below; the characters were pretty much just something to hang clothes on. In the show, the main characters would learn and grow to some extent, but in the films, that doesn't happen. The characters stay pretty much where we left them, with the possible exception of Mr. Big. I think the movies missed a chance to be real movies in their own right, rather than just inferior extensions of the show.

I thought this part of Slate's review was apt: "...its complete disconnection from our current economic and geopolitical reality, by moments achieves a perverse Warholian profundity." I do find it interesting that this particular movie has been targeted as an example of pointless excess. Yes, it is full of pointless excess, but isn't almost every action movie evidence of the same thing? You don't usually hear people accusing Batman or James Bond of spending too much money. I'm not sure exactly what to make of that, but find it interesting. Now believe me, I'm not a fan of excess, on a personal level or in the film industry. But there must be a comment about gender in there somewhere. Women are supposed to spend tons of money on every useless thing (firming body lotion! prescription eyelash lengthener!) so I'm actually kind of surprised that there seems to be an upper limit. Do male characters just get a pass because they overspend on cooler things? Probably.


One minor thing I liked about the movie was that the "You mean you don't want KIDS?!?!?" people were made to look ridiculous. They're not bad people, but one scene in the movie shows how rude and intrusive their questioning can be. On a slightly related note, you know how so many romantic movies end with these montages, in which the woman is suddenly pregnant? I always thought that was a cop-out, a shorthand for "let's portray a long-lasting relationship", as if one thing magically flowed from the other. You never see the couple actually talk about kids or parenting. You never see the couple actively choosing to have kids, but isn't that a good place to be? I think this is the right trope...

Leap Year, and More

I found this article through a friend's Facebook page: Amy Adams' 'Leap Year': What Hollywood Gets Wrong About Women and Marriage, and I thought it was really funny and true. (I also saw the trailer, although I was mostly impressed by how over-the-top contrived the scenario was.) Why is there this idea in film that all women turn into maniacs around marriage? Age, life experience, and personality don't seem to matter-- show us a ring (not even a ring-- a ring box) and we go batshit crazy. What's the idea behind this portrayal? Like film portrayals of sex, I wonder how much life imitates "art" (if "Leap Year" can be considered art) in the arena of marriage as well. If we didn't frequently see it in movies, would women still be expected to squee, squee, and squee some more over every detail of our friends' wedding plans? Would there be so much pressure to plan intricate, expensive, and flawless weddings?

There's also this common idea in movies that the most attractive men are lurking in the most unlikely places. However, rural towns aren't exactly hotbeds of 30-something men.

Yeah Matthew Goode, grow a scruffy beard...you're not fooling anyone. In The Holiday, Jude Law was located in a small English town. And a helpful reader also suggested New In Town, Hope Floats, and Baby Boom as featuring undiscovered rural men right here in my home country (I guess Harry Connick Jr. isn't especially worried about getting typecast). I know there are exceptions, but there's a hefty chance that despite the attraction between them, an urban woman and a country guy (why is the man always the country one?) probably wouldn't have much in common in the real world. However, in films, we only see the beginnings of these relationships and rarely, if ever, how they progress over time. (There's also the question: Why is the only attractive man in town still single?)

I lived in a rural town for a time, and I do miss a few things about it. The limited number of choices available was liberating in a way, as I wrote about here. However, would an urban woman, who is used to choosing between a panoply of options in every area of her life, really be content with a small town's one eligible man? Maybe these movies are speaking to the part of us that's tired of being overwhelmed with choices. I might be giving these movies more credit for depth than I should, but it's a thought.

(Addendum: After I wrote the second part of this post, I found that the author of the "Leap Year" article has also written about the Harry Connick Jr. phenomenon...here, if you're interested. It's a funny coincidence that we both thought to write about the idea independently, but we did.)

Part II...

Just starting off the new year with a little administrative notice...Rather than posting 2-3 times a week, I'm going to chill out a bit and start posting 1-2 times a week. I still have a lot to say, but I don't want to burn myself out! My "homies" list has been growing, and I don't think anyone is going to suffer from a lack of asexual reading material. Everyone is giving their opinions on the past decade (or remarking that it hasn't been a decade really), but since New Year's has always been my least favorite holiday, it seems appropriate to not go that route, but instead, to continue last year's train of thought, now delving into portrayals of masturbation in film. The following theories are all pretty casual, more of a "hey, does anyone else notice _____?" than something I've spent a ton of time examining. That said...

We all know that sex in movies used to be portrayed as dirty and illicit. In the past, censorship was a lot stronger, and it wasn't uncommon to see characters who'd had sex get "what they deserved" by being killed in the end (sometimes, this still happens). Today, masturbation is often censored out of films when explicit sex is allowed to stay. Contemporary sex educators (when they're allowed to) are forever telling us how good and healthy masturbation is. However, if you look at film portrayals of masturbation, it's seen as the dirty, illicit act sex used to be. In film, what generally seems to be the case is that well-adjusted characters have sex, and the more depraved characters masturbate. Masturbation is often used to illustrate that a person or situation is growing truly desperate. What effect these portrayals may or may not have on how everyday folks view masturbation, I really don't know.

I was expecting a trove of serious articles about these film portrayals, but a web seach turned up very little. The closest I got was this list from The Onion called "14 Tragic Movie Masturbation Scenes". Out of the films covered, I've only seen 3: American Beauty, The Squid and the Whale (a great film that more people should have seen), and Little Children. I could have sworn that I've also seen Mulholland Drive, but I can't remember anything about the plot. Kevin Spacey's now-iconic scene in American Beauty pretty much sums up the trope I'm talking about. The article says: "Masturbation sums up the death-like routine of his suburban life." A more current example is in the movie Precious. There, a character who is an abusive mother is shown masturbating, an activity we see her engaging in when she should be caring for her daughter. That we see this deranged character masturbating instead of, say, out cruising for sex, is supposed to show us how low she's fallen and how self-absorbed she is.

It seems as though in movies, sex is used to advance the plot (or to titillate viewers) and make some statement about the relationship between characters. However, masturbation is a solitary activity (unless you count the "Caught With Your Pants Down" trope). For that reason, it seems to only be used as a vehicle for a laugh or a means of showing what a loser a character is. I think that when you start to analyze movies in-depth, it really becomes apparent how dissimilar they are to real life situations. We all know movies are full of sex-- is this because everyone's really obsessed with sex, or because sex is a good shorthand for a filmmaker? And then, to what degree does life imitate art? All questions worth thinking about, perhaps, on your next movie night.

Humpday

Humpday (2009) is a movie about two male friends, both presumably straight, who decide to make a film together for an amateur pornography competition. However, unlike, say, Zach and Miri Make a Porno, Humpday isn't about making a porno so much as talking about making one. And I think that was probably a good choice. In Humpday, the porno, or the idea of it, is not just a porno, but an experience representing autonomy, manhood, and adventure. It's about these two young guys who are starting to settle into distinct paths in life-- one as an aimless hippie traveler, the other as a family man working 9-5. They're so uneasy about this that when the porn contest, Humpfest, is brought up, they jump on it immediately. It's not clear whether there's any attraction between them, but it is clear that they're longing for an out-of-character experience.



It's a common trope-- the quest for an out-of-character experience, and one that happens in real life, too. It's one reason why we sing karaoke, sky dive, or make out with random people in bars. It seems that for some of us, we long to show that what might seem bizarre and out of
character is actually a real part of ourselves that remains hidden most of the time. Whereas people usually view others in a limited or simplified form, we want to be accepted with all our contradictions included.

If you want to watch Humpday yourself and don't want to be told whether or not the porno actually gets made, read no further. I'll wait...

That said, the guys never actually have sex. Believe me, I wasn't thrilled about the prospect of watching them have sex, but in the end, there isn't much resolution to the story. They're in their hotel room, filming, and realize that they just can't do the act. Then the movie ends abruptly. I want to know if this experience will change the characters or their relationship, but we don't find out. One interesting thing about Humpday is that it's the only movie I can think of right now where sex is actually negotiated. The standard on film is for people to just fall into bed together after a few meaningful glances, and it's pretty sad that it takes a movie about two straight dudes in a porno to get people actually talking about sex. When the clothes came off and the guys were just sitting there waiting for some urge to take over, I couldn't help but be reminded of a possible asexual experience-- one of attempting to surmount orientation and get the impetus to jump the bones of someone you're not attracted to in that way.

Bromance Revisited

(Oh, prewar Oxford! No homework, ever, just champagne-drenched picnics involving linen suits and verdant rivers.)

Back in this post from October, there was a bit of discussion about Brideshead Revisited, a novel that has spawned a few film adaptations. I'd had the 2008 film on my Netflix queue for a while, and it finally arrived this weekend. Disclaimer: I haven't read the book or seen the other films, so I can only talk about this particular film on its own merits. First of all, let me just say: I don't know if I've ever seen two more similar films than Brideshead and Maurice. Similar basics to the story, very similar look and feel. Like Maurice, Brideshead is about two young men attending Oxford at the beginning of the 20th century; one is wealthy and the other from modest means. They become involved in an intense, romantic friendship, but grow apart when one of them prioritizes a relationship with a women. As double-features go, it would be long, but might also inspire some good discussion (if you're not too tired to have it).

One of the more interesting scenes of Brideshead was when one of the leading men, Charles, goes to Venice with his aristocratic pal, Sebastian, and Sebastian's sister, Julia, who Charles later falls in love (or, I would argue, lust) with. An Italian woman advises Charles that their "English romantic friendships" can easily get out of hand, and that it would be a bad idea to let the friendship last too long. She says it's obvious that Sebastian is interested in Charles as something other than a friend. Charles seems to brush off the comment. It seems that Charles is more charmed by Sebastian's opulent and exotic life than by Sebastian himself.

While I couldn't read Sebastian as asexual by any stretch of the imagination, I think many asexuals would be able to relate to the frustration he feels. While Sebastian can have any material thing he wants, he can't seem to maintain the relationship he desires most. His bond with Charles is something that they're encouraged to "grow out of". Sebastian is very childlike in some ways, and his relationship with Charles doesn't seem all that multi-demensional. We see a lot of them drinking, running around the moors, and swimming naked in fountains, but not a lot of evidence that this is anything but the friendship equivalent of a summer fling. However, it's obvious that Sebastian envisioned it differently. When he discovers Charles and Julia kissing in an alleyway in Venice, I really felt for him. I saw it as a moment where Sebastian might have realized that the new world of adulthood was leaving him behind. While he'd always been a heavy drinker, it seemed like he turned further to alcohol to dull the pain of the disconnect between himself and those around him. An asexual of that time period would have been lucky to be in his situation: He wasn't being forced to marry. However, in a society providing a limited amount of social roles, he had no clear place.

What's odd about the film is that the storyline involving Sebastian is compeltely abandoned. True, Charles is the main character and the movie is about his development (or lack thereof). However, we leave Sebastian dealing with an illness, and we don't even know if he's still alive by the end of the movie. Rather than being about Sebastian and Charles's relationship, the movie seems to really be about Charles's impressionability, followed by his ruthlessness in getting what he wants. It's one of those stories that you know from the start just can't end well.

The Beauty Myth

I've been reading The Beauty Myth by Naomi Wolf. The book, according to its cover, is about "how images of beauty are used against women". It's very thought-provoking, and you'll never look at fashion magazines in the same way again. I'd definitely recommend it for anyone to read, whatever your gender. One main criticism I had was that I would have liked to know if the Beauty Myth had any different effects on queer women, but I suppose that'll have to be another book. Anyway, a lot of us have wondered if our society has different views of asexual women and men. Wolf's answer is a good one, even in a book that claims all women have an overwhelmingly sexual side just waiting to be unleashed when we can stop worrying about how we look. She says:

We see that, sanctioned by the culture, men's sexuality simply is. They do not have to earn it with their appearance. We see that men's desire [or lack thereof--ily] precedes contact with women. It does not lie dormant waiting to spring into being only in response to a woman's will. (156)

I completely agree with this analysis, and think that greater freedom for women to choose our own sexual destinies will result in greater freedom for all genders to do the same. Wolf's answer seems to apply to any orientation. Like I've said before, women's sexualities, or lack thereof, are entirely our own. Just like our identities are our own. However, the "world order", as Wolf calls it, doesn't make that fact obvious. As a kid, it was hard to find female role models and archetypes that were as fiercely independent as I was. It's still hard-- while I have to search, men's are what a co-worker calls "low-hanging fruit". I know there are lots of women like me out there; we're just not portrayed. If we could all find each other and band together, the world order would be going down...which of course, it doesn't want. Wolf ends her book with this missive:

Let's be shameless. Be greedy. Pursue pleasure. Avoid pain. Wear and touch and eat and drink what we feel like. Tolerate other women's choices. Seek out the sex we want and fight fiercely against the sex we do not want. Choose our own causes. And once we break through and change the rules so our sense of our own beauty cannot be shaken, sing that beauty and dress it up and flaunt it and revel in it: In a sensual politics, female is beautiful. (291)

Go girls, go!

(One more tangentially related thing: The Beauty Myth was written in 1991. Have we made any progress? Maybe a little...Wolf claims that women don't want men to love them "as they are", because we have so many imagined physical flaws. But, remember Colin Firth telling Renee Zellweger "I like you...just as you are" in the Bridget Jones movie, and suddenly every woman thought this was the sweetest, most romantic thing someone could possibly say? There may be no relation, but I just thought I'd mention it. Oh, Colin Firth...)

Confessions of a Shopaholic

So, how about that Slumdog Millionaire? Uh...how about Confessions of a Shopaholic? Yep, you've been warned...you're about to encounter some froth. Believe it or not, a few years ago I read the novel on which the movie is based and enjoyed it. Like I've said before, chick lit really is my sci-fi. In most chick lit stories, romance is the central theme. However, Shopaholic dealt with a major issue I could really relate to: Financial problems. I loved reading a book that dealt with financial problems in a funny way. And so, I was looking forward to seeing the movie. And even though it's totally predictable-- it's sort of like Sex and the City meets The Devil Wears Prada meets Legally Blonde-- that's not the point. I enjoyed it because not only is it pure escapism, but I found it oddly relatable.

As we've explored, asexuals are poor people, and I'm no different. Like Shopaholic's New York (and the book's London), living in San Francisco can be torturous when you don't have much money. You're constantly surrounded by "the trappings of wealth". Even my co-workers at Goodwill that make minimum wage have iPhones. The fact that your own wants are modest (I would kill to have a working clothes dryer) makes it all seem even worse. Some writers said the film was in poor taste, coming out during an economic crisis. But visit any of San Francisco's most affluent 'hoods and you'll see a lot more shopping than this one movie can convey. We all cope with these desire/lifestyle discrepancies in different ways. I pretty much became a socialist, and Becky, heroine of Shopaholic, shops. But it's all, perhaps, asexier than just the poverty connection.

In the first few minutes of the film, Becky says:

"You know when a cute guy smiles at you, and your heart goes all warm butter sliding down toast? That's how I feel when I see a store."

And I said to myself, as I am wont to do, "I am SO blogging about this!" Now, I don't love shopping any more than the average stylista, but that statement resonated with me. It was refreshing to see that something was more important than cute guys, even if it's something as dumb as shopping. But alongside with shopping, Becky is also passionate about her career in journalism. Her biggest dream is to get a job at a top fashion magazine. At the beginning of the movie, it was a job that Becky was seeking, not a boyfriend. When Becky does get her man in the end (which is so obvious I can't even call it a spoiler), I was pleased, because I felt like Becky had more going for her than just one guy. And even though Becky netted her ideal partner, her most enduring romance seems to be with a scarf.

At the conclusion of the film, when Becky is making out with Luke, the man in question, she's still distracted by shoes in a store window. That's either sad, or the expansion of romantic ideals that I've been pushing for. It's hard to really tell.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

Don't laugh at me-- I kind of wanted to see "Zack and Miri Make a Porno" (2008). What can I say, it sounded like it could be a funny concept. In this movie, two roommates who are broke try to make a porn movie to raise enough money to pay their rent. I think that in the right hands, it could be hilarious. You would think that Kevin Smith (of "Clerks") would have those hands, but alas, no. Not only was "Zack and Miri" not all that funny, but it had a lot of strange ideas about sex and love that you wouldn't expect from a movie about a porno.

Spoilers ahead!

Zack and Miri make a big deal about being "just friends" and never having slept together. However, they do have sex as part of their porn movie, and find that "it's actually making love" (When Seth Rogan said these lines, I thought he must have been being sarcastic...but he
wasn't). From the moment they have sex, they suddenly see each other in a new way, fall in love, and get married. For a movie that claimed that it had to advertise in stick figures, and that was banned from some theaters, it's ridiculously unsubversive. I've talked before about the media's inability to separate sex and love. But this movie ratchets that idea up to 11. Not only does sex magically create love, but sex IN A PORNO creates love. The weird thing was, Zack and Miri were already living together and for all intents and purposes, were spending their lives together. Even though they'd known each other since kindergarten, it had to take having sex in
front of cameras for them to realize they cared about each other? How dense could two people be?!

On My List

Recently, a loyal reader suggested that I make a page of every cultural thing I reference, with descriptions of what they are. This was more than I wanted to take on right now, so I said, "How about I just make a list of required reading/viewing?" And that seemed to be okay with him. So I thought about it. I've talked about a lot of movies, tv, music, books, and articles here. But when it came to those that I thought were truly essential-- that I thought you had to read or watch, few were left standing. For example, even though I like to write about music, that's so open to taste and interpretation that I can't think of anything (besides Fabuloid's one hit, that is) that you absolutely must hear. And there were very few things you must watch. For once, in order of importance, they are:

1) Shortland Street, a soap opera from New Zealand, which you can watch parts of here. Gerald is the first (and only) out asexual character in film or TV.
2) Withnail and I, a British cult classic film from the '80s, is, if I had to choose, the film where asexuality is the most implied.
3) Season One of Dexter, a series on Showtime. This is just because it seems to garner a lot of discussion among asexuals. Dexter may be a serial killer, but he is also not interested in sex in the first season. He is also a character that you greatly sympathize with. However, if you don't like to see blood and guts, don't watch this.

Links are to posts where I previously wrote about the item.
And here's what you have to read, not really in order:

1) The New Single Woman. Let's face it, whether it's intentional or not, most asexual people will probably be single. And finally, here's a book that actually treats singlehood as a viable life choice.
2) Surpassing the Love of Men, because I think it's important for aces to know about the history of different sorts of relationships. If we want to try new things, it's good to know what came before.
3) On Chesil Beach, a very short novel with very asexual subject matter.
4) Bitch Magazine's article "Do Not Want". A model for media.
5) "Asexual and Autoerotic Women", from a compliation called The Sexually Opressed. If you'll pardon me quoting myself: "Well, I have a 30-year-old article in my life, and it has finally given me ancestors of experience. Knowing that people like me were previously identified, albeit briefly, feels like I've gotten a message of encouragement. And that gives me strength."
6) That's Revolting: Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation. Yes, this is a very sexual book, but I have to keep up my "radical asexual blogger" reputation, ha ha. I think that as asexuals, the sooner we reject "normal" and "being like everyone else", the better. Unfortunately, the current mainstream gay movement isn't a very good role model for this. But the people in That's Revolting are.

Bonus: The Bone People. This book has an ace main character and author! I reccommend it, but the subject matter isn't directly asexual.

Hopefully I'll find a way to link to this post on the side somewhere, and update it as I discover more things that you must read and watch. Feel free to debate away! And remind me of anything I've missed.

Strangers in the Night

A new label has been added: Living situations. I think that where you live and with whom is important in terms of relationships, but unless those relationships are romantic (ie, how to combine your home decor with that of your spouse), living situations are rarely talked about past college roommate issues. So guess what I'm going to do? Yep, that's right, talk about them.

Up until last month, I lived with my 2 cats in a large (although decrepit and overpriced) studio apartment here in San Francisco. Then, the cats and I moved to a house on the other side of town. We now live with two people, a dog, and another cat. The reason for this move was mostly financial-- my rent is now a little more than half of what it was before. But I was also often lonely living by myself, and I thought living with other folks would be a nice change. It turns out that may or may not be true. Like many people in San Francisco, my housemates are from Craigslist, people who were complete strangers before I answered their ad seeking a housemate. I don't know if this is a common thing in your area, but here, it's not relegated to just the young and poor (although I happen to be both). Some of these random people do become good friends. But I think most people who meet in this way continue to lead very separate lives. And somehow, that's even lonelier than living by yourself.

I was surprised at the generally positive publicity that living with total strangers seems to get. I'm always told that living with friends destroys friendships, and that when you live with strangers, you're "on your best behavior". Well, I can finally compare the two situations from my own experience. In my senior year of college, I lived in a house with 3 good friends and one stranger. There was drama sometimes, and lots of it. But at the end of the year, I emerged still friends with my friends. If I wanted to be alone, I could go to my room or the usually-empty running track near the house. But if I wanted to see my friends, all I had to do was walk upstairs to the living room. Now, I have to take a bus to see them-- any of them. For me, living with people who were already friends is the clear win. But, awkwardly enough, I'm not sure how to go about achieving that. It's not like college where everyone changes their housing at the end of the year.

Also, totally unrelated: Per one of your suggestions, I watched A Home at the End of the World. You're right, I really liked the unconventional family in the movie. And parts of it ("Come on, we're all beautiful and lonely here") were really funny, although others were quite sad. But I totally didn't read Bobby as asexual. I can see why someone might, although if I had to choose, I would definitely call him bisexual.

The Trouble With Movies

Lately, I haven't written about as many movies as I'd like to. I've seen some good, bad, and bizarre movies, but none that really had anything to do with asexuality. And even that is very broad in my mind-- movies that relates somehow to an asexual experience, movies that talk about relationships in an uncommon way, and movies with possibly-ace characters are all relevant. While some movies about gay characters (The Celluloid Closet, Maurice) seem relevant, most don't. Even though the characters may be queer, the relationships portrayed are conventional. However, a film like Amelie, which is about straight people, seems oddly asexual, probably because Amelie's ways of going about relationships are so unusual.

And then you have the issue of an asexual film versus one that's just chaste or family-friendly. It would take a lot for me to call any movie with a G or PG rating asexual. Many people talk about asexual themes in WALL-E, but the movie is rated G and is about robots. How much sexual content could that film contain, under any circumstances? However, a movie like Withnail and I, which could contain overtly sexual content but does not, can be called wildly asexual.

I think it's the same reason why it can be harder to know you're ace than to know you're gay or straight. Noticing something that doesn't exist (in this case, your sex drive) isn't always easy. In the case of films, I'm looking for asexy content, and I still have a hard time finding it. I seem to write about a lot more books, because it seems like they can be more "out there" than movies and cover more obscure topics. I also never thought I'd say this, but it's easier for me to read a book (where I can read a page at a time whenever I have a minute) than to watch a movie these days. But, I still have a crazy love of movies, and the more plotless the better. It's sort of annoying to look for asexual themes in every movie I see, but I just can't help myself.

When Romantic Comedies Attack

From the blog Shapely Prose, I found out about a new study about romantic comedy films and relationships. (Read the article here.) The study, done at a university in Edinburgh (I love all things Scottish, which encouraged me to read on), found that fans of romantic comedies are more likely to have unrealistic expectations about relationships: That sex should always be perfect and that partners should be able to know what the other one is thinking. I guess this isn't very surprising, but I found it interesting because I do enjoy some romantic comedies. I find that we tend to enjoy parts of media that resonate with us, and ignore parts that conflict with our values. That's why we can listen to Ghostface rap about killing people (depending on our musical tastes, of course) and not be scarred for life. One of the films included in the study was While You Were Sleeping, which I remember as a favorite movie of mine as a child. I'm not sure why, as I was a very scientific and feminist child. But that just goes to show that romantic comedies have infiltrated most of our lives, regardless of our personalities and interests.

(On a side-note, the best comment on a movie I've ever read was "Black Lizard made me gay". This was an extremely bizarre old film about a murderous drag queen. I'd like to say, following this study, that While You Were Sleeping somehow made me asexual by hopelessly warping my ideals of sex and relationships, but this makes absolutely no sense. I think I do have a relatively healthy view of sex and relationships, despite all the movies I've seen.)

[This is where I'd usually include the poster from While You Were Sleeping, but it's just way too corny to bear repeating.]

I can't deny the fact that there are some really great romantic comedies: Kissing Jessica Stein (totally asexual), When Harry Met Sally (which I think is good mostly for the strength of its writing), and Moonstruck are a few that I can think of offhand. A movie like Muriel's Wedding, which might be billed as a rom-com, is actually about the importance of friendship. The writer of the aforementioned Shapely Prose entry makes a really interesting point about our relationship to media:

Because those of us for whom these unhealthy messages are going to resonate? We seek them out, because they represent existing beliefs and desires. Regardless of your opinions on nature and nurture, by the time we’re consciously consuming non-Teletubby media, young women are not empty vessels in danger of being filled with bad ideas. We already got the bad ideas, from the input we get every day, from years of media we might not even have paid attention to, from offhand comments that seemed innocent at the time.

I know you're not supposed to end a piece with a quote, so I'll remind any local folks (and interested others) that we have a meetup coming up on January 4th! 1PM at Crossroads Cafe.

Milk

I saw Milk this weekend. It was good, although it didn't contain much information I hadn't heard before. (I guess that's proof of how good The Times of Harvey Milk was.) But I enjoyed it, and it made me proud to consider Milk one of my heroes. It really reinforced how politically savvy and strategic he was, even though his political career only lasted a few years. A large part of the film centered around Proposition 6, which would have made it legal to fire gay teachers and teachers that supported them. Although 6 failed, it started out looking like it would pass by a large margin. Milk made the point that if people knew just one gay person, they would probably vote no, and encouraged everyone around him to come out.

Of course, I compared this to asexuals...although no one is trying to fire us simply because we're ace, I think coming out is just as important for us. At only 1% of the population (perhaps), it's less likely that someone will know at least one asexual. But if someone does, are they going to say that asexuals aren't human? Or are they going to think before saying something like that? Being gay and coming out in the '70s, you risked everything, perhaps even your life. So we can at least endure some rude comments and incredulity, can't we? That's not necessarily an easy question for me to answer. I don't want to see the world as it is, as an ignorant place, and I don't want to assume that people are going to be stupid and mean. When you come out, you see the best and worst in other people. It can be a lot to handle, and it's not something any of us asked for. But without coming out, where can we get as a movement?

Milk also got me thinking about movements in the pre-internet and internet-centric worlds. No matter where asexuality goes, it will always be a movement that started on the internet. And that will make it easier to (unfairly) discount. People will say things on the internet ("you're the only asexual in the world") that they probably wouldn't say to your face, and that they definitely wouldn't say to a group of people. What's more powerful: A group of 10 people hanging out in the Castro or a group of 1,000 on AVEN? And if gay rights hadn't been a matter of life and death at the time, would anyone, including the gay folks themselves, have cared? I guess you could call asexuality a matter of life and death, if you look at our elevated levels of depression, an illness that can be fatal. Maybe we should spin it that way, instead of being the happy asexuals who are fine with everything. To give people hope (one of Milk's big themes), you first have to aknowledge that some are hopeless, don't you?

Our Icon Returns

So, this is relevant: A new film of the Sherlock Holmes story (called, according to IMDB, Sherlock Holmes) is currently in production and is set to be released a year from now. Robert Downey Jr. is playing Holmes and Jude Law is playing Watson. Without having seen any of the movie, these seem like pretty bizarre casting choices...although I suppose both Downey Jr. and Holmes had drug problems? Anyway, I don't have high hopes for the potential asexuality of this film...unless Jude Law is sick of being typecast...
Thanks to Andy's Chinese Restaurant for providing me with the People Magazine necessary to glean this information.

Cupid's Footsoldiers

I wrote about the book Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, and then I saw the movie, which is in theaters now. One of my problems with the book was that it seemed too unrealistic, and this was actually improved upon in the movie, at least to my own eyes and ears. But what I really wanted to talk about was the phenomenon of queer characters acting as "cupid" figures for straight characters. In Nick and Norah, Nick plays in a "queercore" band in which he is the only straight member. In the book, the gay band members are fairly sexual and seem to have their own romantic agendas (however, there's a drag queen character that does seem to have a "cupid-style" role). In the movie, the gay characters' only purpose seems to be to bring Nick and Norah together. In a scene not appearing in the book, the gay guys give Norah a pep talk in their band's van and make her put on a push-up bra. While most of the secondary characters in the book have had their roles reduced in the film, the gay characters seemed to change most fundamentally. Instead of being rowdy kids in a rock band, they became Queer Eye-esque, in fact, one (rowdy) teenage boy in the theater yelled, "Are they going to give [Norah] a new wardrobe now?" Obviously, there are all sorts of fears, prejudices, and curiosities about homosexuality tied up in this sort of portrayal. I won't write a dissertation here...

But, if you look at presumably asexual characters, they never play this role, even though I would sort of expect them to. It would be hard for me to imagine any of them, even the always-perky Gerald, bringing two sexual people together in a romantic way. You could come up with theories as to why this is, but I haven't found an explanation that makes sense to me yet. For example, you could say it's because homosexuality is somehow scarier or more threatening to people than asexuality. However, in Shortland Street, Hunter is very threatened by Gerald. And people who are unaccapting of any sexuality tend to be motivated by their own fears. Perhaps there just aren't enough asexual characters to say, although goodness knows I try.

What's strange is that I saw myself as a "cupid" figure, even before I identified as asexual with certainty. I remember having an acquaintance who, infamously, had never been kissed*. However, after knowing me a short time, she did manage to kiss someone. At the time, I was wondering why everyone was having all these experiences that I wasn't-- while I didn't want to have the actual experiences, I wanted to be "like everyone else". So I reflected on this, and came to the conclusion that I must somehow be causing the romantic exploits of others. Perhaps I had some sort of...powers. This seemed to be the only fitting explanation as to why these experiences eluded me. No, it wasn't just a fact that as people got older, most tended to gain sexual experience. Nope, I can (unconsciously!) control what happens to other people. I know that's probably not the case, but still...I can't find much evidence that that's definitely not the case. Okay, we're traveling a little too far into the bizarre recesses of my mind now. I suppose I was just wondering if "asexual as cupid figure" would be our pop-culture future. I can only guess that it probably won't be. As we all know, our culture doesn't always see us as we may see ourselves...and our questionable magic powers. Bullseye!


*The passive language with which most sexual/romantic rites of passage are discussed merit further exploration.

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: 2

I just read a really interesting movie review. It's for "Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants: 2", a movie I recently saw that's currently in theaters. I enjoyed the first "Sisterhood" movie, but I didn't like the second one as much. Always one to harp on a detail, I was aggravated by the fact that the characters weren't able to voice the words "condom", "period", or, God-forbid, "emergency contraception". It also seemed more unrealistic and choppy than the first film. But Jessica Reaves of the Chicago Tribune says:

In the current popular culture, female friendships—at any age—are generally considered secondary to life's "important" relationships, the romantic bonds between men and women. Nowhere is this depressing trend more evident than in Hollywood, where story lines putatively about women's friendships tend toward the saccharine ("Mona Lisa Smile"), the malicious ("Mean Girls") or the boy-crazy (take your pick). Which is why it's such a pleasure (and a relief) to encounter movies such as " The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2." Like the first "Pants" movie, it presents its heroines' relationships as complicated, challenging and particularly rewarding, and not simply as a vehicle for finding the perfect boyfriend.

and:

Nothing about this movie feels revolutionary, but don't let its easy charm fool you. Like its predecessor, "Sisterhood 2" is based on two radical ideas: namely, that young women's stories are about more than the pursuit of men, and that happiness isn't something someone else gives you—it's something you have to find for yourself.

I find it immensely sad that this is a "radical" idea. I wish I could say with certainty that it's only radical at the box office, but I'm not sure if that's the case. And how radical was it really, when 3 out of the 4 characters have life-changing experiences involving men? In Carmen [America Ferrara]'s storyline, a handsome British boy appears out of the wings of a theater and inspires her to achieve her true potential. As usual, women are steadfast companions, but men are catalysts for change. And that's an old chestnut. Can't we please be radical once we've started being radical?

I remember quoting another blog in my post on buddy movies. The author said that we should go see "Baby Mama", even if we think we'll hate the movie, because we need to show Hollywood that female-fronted films can make money. But I'm conflicted about the idea of sacrificing $10.50 for a movie I may not enjoy, or telling others to do so. I want to see more movies like "Sisterhood", but if a movie doesn't "feel revolutionary", is anyone (besides chronic overthinkers) going to get that it is?

And in other pseudo-news, happy belated birthday to Asexy Beast! I started this blog on August 11th, 2007. Thank you all so much for coming this far with me...you keep reading, and I'll keep writing! (And of course, it works the other way, too. I'm nothing short of thrilled to be reading so many fellow asexy blogs. Keep writing!)

Maurice: Your Fangirl is Here

Maurice is a 1987 film about two young men, Maurice and Clive (played by James Wilby and Hugh Grant, respectively), who fall in love with each other at Cambridge in 1909. The directions their lives take after this is charted in typically sweeping Merchant-Ivory fashion.

I always find myself relating strongly to tales of forbidden gay love. Asexuality may have never been a jailing (or hell, hanging!) offense, but the flak some of us get from friends, family, lovers and even strangers can make solitary confinement seem welcome on bad days. Just look at this dialogue from the movie, in which Maurice sees a doctor, desperately seeking a cure for his homosexuality (occurs around 1:15):

Doctor: What put all this into your head?
Maurice: You've never guessed? I'm like Lord Risley [old school chum; convicted homosexual]. I'm an unspeakable, of the Oscar Wilde sort.
Dr: Rubbish. Rubbish.
M: Dr. Barry, I can't have explained...
Dr: Now listen to me, Maurice. Never let that evil hallucination, that temptation from the devil, occur to you again. Now, who put that lie into your head? You, whom I see and know to be a decent fellow.
M: Dr. Barry, I want--
Dr: No sir, I'll not discuss! The worst thing I could do for you is to discuss!
M: It's not rubbish to me.
Dr: Rubbish!
M: I've been like this ever since I can remember, without knowing why. Am I diseased? If I am, I want to be cured.
Dr: Find yourself a pretty young woman. She'll soon cure you. It's unspeakable.

With some slight tweaks, this could, sadly, be an asexual experience. It sounds so melodramatic, but it's really happened to some of us. True, there are some deeply sad things about Maurice, but it doesn't quite make it onto my "Most Depressing Movies of All Time" list, in which fellow M&I flick The Remains of the Day earns my #3 spot. I think part of what made me sad was the fact that if I, too, had a huge country estate where I could just ride horses and "preside" all day, I could handle a little forbidden love. Sigh. And come to mention it, that is what Maurice will make you do. Sigh. A lot.

Interestingly, I've never found Hugh Grant to be very attractive. He's seemed a little...jowly lately. But 21 years ago? He was freakin' adorable! I couldn't find a picture that adequately captured him, but here he is brooding a little, which I always find appealing:

I think I just have a crush on this whole movie. M&I excels at creating atmospheres, and in Maurice, they've created an atmosphere that is my particular fantasy: Discussing arcane topics in old stone buildings with exceedingly erudite and witty men wearing tweed. (I totally love Lord Risley too, in one of the first scenes. He kind of reminds me of a gay, sober Withnail.) Sigh, sigh, SIGH!