The Crazy-Hot Matrix YouTube Video--Funny or Offensive?

"Hot Crazy Matrix: A Man's Guide To Women" is a virally popular YouTube video released in July of 2014 that has since been viewed over 10,000,000 times. The video features a man who outlines his "scientific" graph that he says is "everything a young man needs to know about women." The x-axis of the graph is entitled "Hotness," and the y-axis is entitled "Craziness"--apparently these are the only two factors that are important to men according to his model.

Below 5/10 Hotness
Dana McLendon begins his model by saying that anything below a 5/10 on the Hotness scale is an automatic "No-Go" because a man should not be interested in any woman that he does not think is at least decent looking. This promotes the idea that a woman is only desirable if she is physically and sexually attractive to the male, and no matter how great of a personality, intelligence level, caring spirit, etc. an "ugly" woman has that she is not worthy of a relationship.

Fun Zone
Between a 5 and 8 on the scale and below the Crazy Line is known as the "Fun Zone"--I interpret this as the "Hook-Up Zone." These girls have a basic level of attractiveness but are not overly crazy--making them perfect for sexual interaction. Because they are not too crazy, men can engage in no-strings-attached relationships with them without drama and repercussions. Because they are not the top level of hotness, they are not suitable for commitment because "hotness" is crucially important to relationships according to this model.

Danger Zone
Anyone with basic attractiveness but fall above the crazy line is what McLendon calls the "Danger Zone:" this is "redheads, strippers, anyone named Tiffany...hairdressers." McLendon cites examples such as cars getting keyed and pets being killed as results of interacting with a woman in the crazy zone. This plays on gender stereotypes of females being more attached in relationships, clingy, and emotionally volatile. Although these are extreme examples of girls gone crazy, they represent things that females are depicted doing in the media--he makes a Fatal Attraction reference of a woman boiling a bunny after finding her husband cheating on her.

Date Zone and Wife Zone
Girls above an 8/10 of Hotness and below the Crazy Line are, according to this model, suitable for relationships. An ideal wife will have above a 5 Crazy Level, but are less crazy than women in the Date Zone. This shows that the perfect woman is someone who has minimal amounts of crazy behavior and is very physically attractive.

Unicorns/Trannies
The "Wife Zone" falls above a 5 Crazy because McLendon believes that women cannot be below a 5 in Craziness, because that would make them either an exception (unicorn) or secretly a man. He says that if a man finds a woman who is "super hot" and "super chill," then it is too good to be true-he is talking to a transvestite. This also reinforces popular gender stereotypes that women are incapable of being emotionally stable, relaxed, laid-back, and worry-free.

Women's Matrix

McLendon later goes on to share his Crazy Hot matrix for women, which suggests women are only interested in men that have money.

Funny or Offensive?
Is this model offensive for women? Yes. Is it funny? Yes. As a woman watching this video, I find it hysterical and eerily accurate. Even though the video reinforces gender stereotypes that society is trying to get rid of, I thought this video did a good job of poking fun of these stereotypes as well. Obviously, there is much more to women than Craziness and Hotness, which is why this video is funny. If this matrix was taken seriously, then this video would not have been viral--the humor aspect makes it "okay;" Otherwise Dana McLendon is just a prick. This video is an example of the question surrounding the relationship between media and society. Does the media depict women as crazy and emotional because they have these characteristics, or do women adopt these characteristics because the media depicts them as being that way?

Viral Influences
The huge influence of funny yet offensive YouTube videos such as "The Crazy-Hot Matrix" is something that is important to think about. This video alone was watched over ten million times, and there are thousands of videos with content similar to this on YouTube as well--some of it including women making fun of women such as Jenna Marbles. With YouTube being one of the primary sources of media that young teens and children use, one of the potential issues with the use of this new media is that they "may receive information that misinforms them, or is misinterpreted by them, potentially to their detriment" (Brown, Keller, Stern). As a 21 year old female, I found "The Crazy-Hot Matrix" humorous, stereotypical, and yet somewhat true based on my life experiences. However, young children and teens viewing this video may not "get" the humor--its single-dimension view of women in relationships provides a negative model for young viewers without background and context. I don't dislike this video. I actually shared it with my friends and came up with people in our own lives who I thought fit into these fictitious categories. However, the gender stereotypes and depiction of women in relationships does pose a potential problem to future generations viewing videos like this on YouTube...does this put them in McLendon's "Danger Zone?"

Works Cited
Brown, Keller, and Stern. "Sex, Sexuality, Sexting, and Sex Ed." 2009.

Do it For the Vine

When Roxanne was giving her presentation regarding YouTube culture she made some great points that I had never considered before. When I thought about it, I could totally see the sometimes problematic trend in YouTube videos in their representations of women. After her presentation, I was left wondering how these kind of trends could be found in other online video services. What about websites like Vimeo? Or what about those 7-second glimpses you see on Vines?

While I'm sure Vimeo would be an interesting place to examine, for the most part, I think of it as something of a weird corner of the internet that is usually reserved for an art student really trying to reach a certain audience with their newest film project. Vine, however, is much more like YouTube in it's sort of ubiquitous nature. I see Vines linked on Facebook. I see them on newscasts when one starts going viral. There are Vine-famous people just like there are YouTube-famous people. In a somewhat odd twist, I even see them uploaded on what some may consider its competition, YouTube.

Vine is slightly different from YouTube however, in that I think most of the viewers and creators of Vines tend to be fairly young, either teenagers or in their 20s. If I told my mom to 'Do it for the Vine', I'd most likely get the strange look of someone completely oblivious to the concept. She does love, however, to show me her favorite YouTube videos she gets through her email. It's pretty cute.

It's probably because of this younger demographic that I think considering the messages of Vine videos would be more interesting. We spend a lot of time talking about the media and messages about sex and gender, and most of that time is spent detailing the effects media has on teens. Vine is also much shorter than your typical YouTube video. While a YouTube video may take up to a minute or more showing you cute puppies, a Vine shows you a quick 7 second of video entitled "When girls play video games...". Because these videos are shorter, they also tend to rely on simpler messages or cultural stereotypes to get their comedy across. What's funny about girls playing video games? Well, it's common believe that they aren't good at video games, and because we only have 7-seconds to show you a joke, we're going to hope you understand and accept this belief in order to come across as funny.

(NSFW-ish, also turn your volume down)

From my position, though I do love quite a few Vines, it seems to me that there is an obvious trend of showcasing women either as sexual objects or highlighting their inferiority to men in some regard. I can't really pick out just one or two of these Vines, but there are hundreds I bet just of women being shown in one or both of these ways. When I search the terms 'women vine videos' the top two results are 'Hottest women of Vine' and a YouTube video of 'Top 80 vine girls'. While the YouTube shows a diverse number of Vines, a lot of them use gender stereotypes. Girls are overly jealous in these Vines, or they are constantly cat fighting. Some Vines aren't comedic, and those Vines are typically just of girls Twerking or making a pretty face.

While I totally think it's fine for people to post their own Vines with what they think is funny, and for girls to post a Vine when they think they look good, I wonder if some people are not getting the messages that these Vines are just jokes, and that women aren't just objects. Last year, Vine Star Curtis Lepore was accused of raping a fellow Vine star Jessi Smiles. During the case against Lepore, some of the most ardent support for him, and harshest criticism for Smiles, came from teenage girls.This is not okay. Smiles was targeted and often called a 'slut' by these girls.

Lepore's 'Love Salsa' Vine.

Again, I want to stress that I don't ever think that a single video can turn on a switch in any viewers head to make them into a misogynistic slut-shamer. But when the pervasive and overwhelming view of women on Vine seems to fall on harmful, stereotypic representation, you can't help but wonder if they help to make that switch just a bit easier to turn on.

YouTube kissing prank videos

The lecture on Thursday reminded me of some kissing pranks I saw before on YouTube. One of the most famous kissing prank channels is called Prankinvasion, where Chris the YouTuber plays different games with girls. If he wins, the girls have to kiss him. Although he always asks for “a really quick kiss,” most of the times his moves go way beyond that, and the girls seem to be fine with accepting what they did not sign up for. All the kissing videos in his original channel has been taken down now because of some problems he got into with YouTube, but most of them are still available in other people’s channels. I watched some of the videos and found that his moves are really sexual. He usually goes straight to grab the girl’ butt, touch her, and kiss her really hard. This seems really weird for two strangers in a public area.  What’s even weirder is that, most of the girls seem to enjoy the touching and kissing, and even make more moves voluntarily (of course he probably only put those who said yes in the video). In this following video, one of the girls even comes on to Chris before he can react. The other girls seem to enjoy the kiss as well, except for one girl who moves another guy’s hand from her butt to her back, but she does not stop kissing either.

I did some research and found out it was revealed that one of the girls in Chris’ kissing videos turned out to be an actress. Some people say that he has been paying these girls and that is why YouTube had all his videos taken down. Chris himself only said in one of his vlogs that he needed to sort things out with YouTube, without further explanation. So there is no way we can know. He stopped making kissing videos for a while but earlier today, he posted another new kissing video. It is in the video that he has created a new channel only for kissing videos, and there will be one new video coming out every week. Apparently kissing “random” girls and making YouTube videos is his life right now. The new video is linked down below:

From this video we can see after being intervened by YouTube, Chris appears to be way less sexually active than before. He makes sure that his hands are above those girls’ waistline and seems to be very careful with touching them. On contrary, the girls appear to be way more active than him. If the reactions of girls in the past videos were due to his actions, in the new video, it seems that these girls want to be kissed by a stranger so bad that they make extra moves on him. The videos – no matter the old ones or the new one – are definitely offensive. They have represented girls like they are so sexually desiring that any random man could just go to them and ask for a make out. If the girls say yes, then they hardly do anything to stop what makes them feel uncomfortable (or they just feel comfortable with whatever the guy does to them). Even if they do show their uncomfortableness, like the blonde girl with sunglasses in the first video, they do not say no. In some of the videos, certain girls give Chris something way more sexual a kiss, although he only asks for “a quick kiss.” Of course in real life Chris must have been turned down by millions of girls making Prankinvasion videos, but the fact that he does not show the rejections makes these sexually available girls the norm, whether they are hired by him or not. Considering the gender double standard (If a guy is sexually available he is charming, but if a girl is sexually available she is a whore), I also looked for girl asking guys for kisses videos on YouTube, but did not find many. Even the ones I found were only showing “quick kisses,” not a full sexual make out.

One of the features of YouTube is that it allows everyone to post and spread self-produced contents. Prankinvasion videos were getting extremely famous and influential before YouTube started to intervene, and these videos were not even age restricted. There are already countless people who see Chris as their hero and adore his confidence and ability to get girls. Hypothetically, these videos could cause many people to think that they can feel free to kiss and touch girls without getting into any trouble. They might think as long as girls say yes in the first place, they can just ignore their reactions after – and girls might just enjoy whatever they do to them. I do not want to say these videos will cause less respect to women because I do not think girls have to be sexually passive in order to earn respect, but somehow these videos have made me think of date rape. Imagine a teenager boy who is affected by Prankinvasion videos and thinks girls never say no. So he would assume that girls are on board with everything once they agree to go out with him (remember in all of his videos he always say: “If…then I get a really really quick kiss”). Thoughts like that might now be as severe as date rape, but they will definitely cause trouble.

Question: Although all of the original Prankinvasion videos were deleted, most of them are reposted by other channels and thus still available. Chris is not forbidden to post kissing videos either. Did YouTube stopped his original channel because he was posting something unreal (by hiring actresses), or because of the gender-offensive content? How exactly does YouTube control/regulate the content of their videos?

Video Games (again), Online streaming

I guess this is kind of a part 2 to my previous post about sexualization in video games. This time I wanted to focus on a more recent phenomenon and that's online streaming. Many people have begun to record live streams of them playing video games. This has become extremely popular, with some streamers having tens of thousands of viewers online at watching at the same time. Because it has become so popular, some of the top streamers have made it their living. Through donations, deals with streaming sites, ad revenue, and subscribers, they can make upwards of a few thousand per week. 

However, when anything becomes monetized there are going to be people who try to take advantage of it for all it's worth. This is where some females gaming streamers come in. Instead of just using their commentary and video games to draw in audiences, they use sex appeal. The world of online gaming is mostly populated by males age 15-30 (rough estimate), this means that it's hard for females to enter that world without some kind of boost. They started wearing sexy outfits or acting a certain why to appeal to male fans and get more subscriptions on streaming sites like Twitch. It's become a serious issue among streamers and fans because they feel the stream should focus more on the games and that these women are just selling their bodies. 

This kind of reminded me of the Youtube article we read, and how user generated content is becoming more and more prevalent. These streamers are usually also sponsored by different companies and they often have influence on what gaming products people should get. I thought that this is a good example of how user generated content is becoming more than a hobby for some people. They're turning it into a real profession. This is why it's dangerous for female streamers to use sex appeal to gain an audience. 

This particular streamer, Yuuie, makes donations almost like a competition for her subscribers. She rewards them by giving them different perks on her stream or by literally selling area on her body for their names. This could link back to when we talked about cultivation effects or social cognitive theory. People watch this and think that it's okay that these girls are selling themselves. It's not prostitution but it can be seen as something similar. It's possibly even more dangerous than just cultivation because the audience is active and participating in this too. They are promoting this kind of streaming, which will make other girls want to stream like this because it works and they make money off of it. It's a serious issue among the top streamers and it's still a hot debate among the online gaming community. 

#selfies and body image

Initially when we were told we had to take a selfie for class, I kind of started to freak out.  I thought, “where are we going to use these?.. is everyone going to see this?..” The thought of people seeing a selfie of mine and judging it really made me anxious.  Then I sat and thought, “I’ve been doing this since 2005 on Myspace, I’ll be fine.”   This idea of taking selfies is something so normalized and is now becoming fully integrated into all types of social media including Facebook, Instagram, twitter, etc.  However, I do not agree when The Guardian article claims, “To some, the selfie has become the ultimate symbol of the narcissistic age. Its instantaneous nature encourages superficiality – or so the argument goes. One of the possible side-effects has been that we care more than ever before about how we appear and, as a consequence, social acceptance comes only when the outside world accepts the way we look, rather than endorsing the work we do or the way we behave off-camera.”

I do not agree with much of what this article says, but I argue rather, that selfies aren’t merely a “thing” of the “narcissistic age”, but they can actually be a good, progressive thing.  I think people often think poorly of selfies, but I can see them as a positive outlet for many people.  Although the article points out that people have “a need for approval and self-affirmation”, I believe this is just a shallow way to look at selfies.  If you think about it, taking selfies doesn’t really hurt anyone.  If anything, I think selfies empower people.  What’s so wrong with someone taking a photo of themselves if “their lighting is on point” or they just got their make up done?  I think it’s great if people think they look beautiful so they want to share it with the world.  By getting likes or comments, I don’t see it as looking for “self-affirmation”, but rather people just boosting each other’s self love.  I think selfies are a great way that people can show that they love themselves and have positive body image.

Our society has entire industries that depend on the interiority complexes of women, whether that be fashion, make up, dieting, or wrinkle cream.  So, what is so wrong with a woman thinking, “Hey, I look great and feel beautiful, so I’m going to take a selfie and share it with the world.”  I do however agree when the article states that the selfie is “an extension of how we live and learn about each other".  We need to see pictures and selfies as a way to look at others and see them for the beautiful person they are and how they felt when they decided to take that picture.  I mean, the word “selfie” was the word of the year in 2013-2014 by the Oxford dictionary, so why not use it and see its positivity?

Day, E. (2013). How selfies became a global phenomenon. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/14/how-selfies-became-a-global-phenomenon

Selfie Nation

           We go through our daily routines without even stepping back and realizing the effects of technology on our culture. How did selfies become a national phenomenon and how did such a thing become so widely controversial through society? I find it interesting how attitudes about selfies can differ so dramatically between individuals. Are selfies a reflection of self-confidence and admiration? Or are they used because of low self-confidence and the need for social acceptance? It is interesting to look at how culture is changing from the new forms of technology and how culture is “normalizing” this idea of a selfie for women, but men are still not on the bandwagon.

            I have no strong opinions on selfies, but I do not post selfies of myself. The only selfie I have posted was one of me and a naked cat and I found it justifiable to post such a picture because I found it humorous and thought that others would as well. When I posted it on Instagram on Sunday, (selfie Sunday) I immediately thought that those who knew me would obviously take it as a joke but I also did not try to make myself look extremely bad. I did not have make up on, and I was smiling so I found it okay to post on my social media site, hoping that others would not judge me for taking a selfie. But after I posted the image I found myself constantly engaging in thoughts about myself. For example I hoped everyone would know it was a joke, I hope people don’t think I’m one of those “typical” girls who post selfies all the time, I even thought that if I did not get enough likes on the photo that I would never post a selfie again. So I sat back and realized that all this underneath emotional processing was definitely not a good thing, and it wasn’t as if I was embarrassed of myself, or thought I looked bad, or even that I wanted to promote how I looked, my main concern was that I would be judged as a “typical” girl. And I knew this was completely wrong of me. Who cares if I do one act that is typically known as a girly characteristic? And what if men were to take selfies and post them would they also be scared to be called feminine or would they be funny for doing so? I think it all depends on the content of the selfie. But my main concern is why this concept of a selfie is given so much thought, and does everyone who posts selfies ask themselves these questions about how they are being perceived? I think part of these questions is what our guest speaker was trying to explain.

            I thought our guest speaker’s research was extremely interesting regarding the evolution of selfies and the uses of the selfies among individuals. Her research was engaging because I never thought of a selfie as a form of self-esteem/confidence. I have always thought that women who post selfies do so in order to promote their own beauty. But until I stepped back and thought about my own experience with a selfie did I realize how much thought is actually given to a single image. I found her research on narcissism and self-confidence extremely relevant to the lives of many individuals that surround me. I think the main take away that I got from her research was that individuals vastly differ when it comes to opinions and attitudes among social media and selfies are just another addition to the controversial lifestyle of media.

            After engaging in the lecture I started to think about how others view selfies. I find it most interesting how much variation there is on this topic between women. Some women post selfies multiple times a week, and some never do. Some women think selfies are self-promoting and embarrassing, and some think it is a great way to express yourself. What makes women feel so differently towards this and why does that matter? Does demographics have to do with it? Or maybe a male peers or boyfriends influence the way women perceive them? I know from personal experience that my boyfriend is not very fond of women posting selfies, so maybe that’s why I think a selfie is more acceptable if it has humor attached. But I also know that my peers from high school never really took selfies so maybe I have that instilled in my mind as well. I also think there is a large difference between selfies of just yourself and selfies of you with other individuals. Once other individuals are added to the picture I feel as if it is more of a community statement, then a focus on the self.

            Selfies and attitudes towards them is just another instance showing how much individuals differ, and how a single concept can have vast opinions associated with it. Just like many other social technological advantages, there is always going to be multiple opinions on a single subject, which is completely normal. But it is important to understand how these attitudes towards a concept effect the individuals engaging, because if there is a great amount of emotional distress over a topic such as the selfie, then it would be helpful to understand where the distress comes from and how to avoid those negative self-perceptions. I think our guest speaker is conducting the right research on selfies because instead of focusing on WHY individuals differ on this subject, she is discussing the effects and emotional ties within the subject, which I believe is the right research for the larger picture when talking about individuals’ social health. It is interesting how such a small social concept can turn into such a large controversial phenomenon. But seriously, who would want to be like Kim Kardashian and pay an individual thousands of dollars to be on standby for when you takes a selfie? (she actually does have an individual who does that for her, but where was he for this one)

 

Day, Elizabeth. (2013) How selfies became a Global Phenomenon. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/14/how-selfies-became-a-global-phenomenon. 

S&M is it new? Or just recently commercial profitable...

In class last week and this week we have continued a discussion about the normalcy or pathologising of BDSM culture within media. In the article Mainstreaming Kink, Weiss contends that S&M culture was virtually invisible in media prior to twenty years ago. Weiss does point out that S&M is ubiquitous today in mainstream media that “ SM can never really be mainstreamed, because there will always seem to be a bit that remains out there, just out of reach (2006, p. 126).  I also believe that SM will never truly be considered mainstream, because it is not a new phenomenon. Rather, it is only recently that it has become a commercial commodity and viewed as commercially viable. Upon doing a little research, I stumbled upon  a video by The Atlantic  entitled What Fifty Shades Left Out:  A Straightforward guide to BDSM. The is a short and sweet history lesson and informational session.

The authors give a breakdown about the history of BDSM, how your brain reacts when in engaging in BDSM and the various types of toys used ( homemade included) that can be used when engaging in fetish play. As the video mentions, the Kama Sutra, written between 400 BC-200 AD talks about sexual spanking, slapping and biting.  One could consider any of those acts kink. Sexual spanking is a form of SM, in which a dominant individual gives, the submissive the receiving individual punishment. I would argue that although the media is now more accepting of BDSM representation, it has always been around. The video also points out that the terms S&M did not exist until 300 years ago. Can we consider S&M a new phenomenon, if kink has existed for thousands of years? Unlike that of the selfie, which emerged as a result of technological advances, aspects of BDSM have been recorded for thousands of years.  

Before Fifty Shades, we had Rihanna, who in 2011,  shocked the world when she released her hit single “S&M”. Many countries banned or delayed the release of her music video because of the sexually explicit nature of the video. The song would however,  go on to become a huge commercial success topping the charts and going platinum in multiple countries. She did however also get sued for copyright infringement, from an artist that no one had even heard of. Although the video definitely helped to normalize S&M, nothing in Rihanna’s video introduced new aspects of BDSM, rather it offered a constrained, but insightful view into the world of BDSM.

Green, E. & Lay, J. (2015) What fifty shades left out: a straightforward guide to bdsm. The Atlantic. http://www.theatlantic.com/video/index/385317/a-straightforward-guide-to-bdsm/

 Weiss, M. D. (2006). Mainstreaming kink: The politics of BDSM representation in US popular media. Journal of homosexuality, 50(2-3), 103-132.

First, Let Me Take a #Selfie

When we were assigned to take a selfie for our class on Thursday, I actually slightly panicked for a minute. I realized that I have never once taken a serious selfie before. I have totally bought into the Snapchat phenomenon, and have plenty of screen-shotted evidence of my upward-facing double-chinned selfies stored on various friends' phones. I have taken lots of group selfies and even bought a selfie stick for Spring Break. These group shots have inevitably found their way into my Facebook albums, so I guess I can't claim I'm totally immune to taking photos of myself on my front-facing camera and sharing them. However, there is a huge distinction between these kinds of photos, and a serious, looking-pretty selfie. I consider myself a pretty goofy, awkward person, and can't take myself seriously at all. I look at myself in the mirror and make funny faces or crack up. I'm pretty self-conscious, and lack the confidence to even take a photo of myself, let alone consider it social media worthy. I have an Instagram, but I really don't think anyone wants to see a picture of just me, so I would never even consider posting one. What if no one liked it? What if my friends were like, "What is that picture of you hahaha"? I would die of embarrassment. I could definitely post a selfie if it was funny or ironic, but a true, pouty, doe-eyed selfie? NEVER.

That isn't to say that I don't think anyone should be posting selfies. I actually have major respect for people who do- they're putting themselves out there, risking social media rejection, and usually look great! People who post these selfies may be looking for affirmation, but simply posting one requires a certain level of self-confidence that I would love to possess. However, as someone who had never posted (or even taken) a selfie before I was assigned to do so, I've never understood the motivations for taking them, or why that matters. After reading the article about selfies on The Guardian and hearing about Chelsea's research, I have a deeper appreciation for these photos. Elizabeth Day's Guardian article mentions that selfies have become so widespread because of front-facing cameras, which of course makes sense, but that they have been in existence since 1839. Why have people held a fascination with taking pictures of themselves for as long as the technology has existed? Some argue that it is narcissistic human nature captured in an image, but for a lot of people, it's self-exploration. It can be a visual diary, or a way to get a buzz from positive peer response. Selfies are a way to show your social circle who you are, on your own terms. I totally understand this, and have a greater appreciation for selfies after learning about motivations behind them. Still, I probably won't be posting one of my own for the time being.

Let's take a #Selfie

Take a look at this picture. It was taken in 2010, before the invention of the termed "selfie stick," and made a laughing stock by a bunch of articles and stories on the Internet. Little did we know that this woman and her contraption would be revolutionary in the selfie taking world. Who knew that by attaching a camera phone to a rod that extends a few feet away could capture the perfect selfie; have the perfect angle to make your chin look just right, and your cheeks not too pudgy? 

When looking at the concept of the selfie, I can see both positives and negatives in its role in society and societal relationships.

On one end, the idea of a selfie has promoted a society where "social acceptance comes only when the outside world accepts the way we look, rather than endorsing the work we do or behave off-camera" (Day, 2013). I must admit, I've taken and posted a few selfies over the years, and I have edited every single one of them. Why? Why is it socially necessary to use applications and filters to create an image that society would accept?

Looking at the apps available to the public today to create "perfection," Perfect365 is one that makes me laugh. Apparently if you use this app, you can be "perfect" 365 days of the year. On this app, you can completely transform your face: brighten your teeth and eyes, lift your cheeks, add makeup, soften your skin. You name it, the app probably has it. You can even add crazy hair styles if you want. I tried the app out myself and here is an example of the before and after images:

They are the same picture, the second one is just edited. The portrayal that people can display of themselves through an image is very powerful. It is thought that the better someone looks, the more "likes" that person will receive when posting it on social media. We fall into a trap of thinking digital "likes" are a representation of how many people like us. "Selfie users are seeking some kind of approval from their peers and the larger community, which thanks to the Internet is not effectively infinite" (Day, 2013). 

On a more positive side, Elizabeth Day talked to one woman found dwelling in her Instagram feed after her father died. It is a way to socially interact with other people. She said, "I couldn't bear the conversations but one way to prove that I was OK was to take a picture of myself. That revealed that one, I was still functioning and, two, that I was out doing stuff" (Day, 2013). I think it is cool that an image can express a thousand words, and selfies could be used in tough situations to help persevere and say the words you can't say.

Another positive in the selfie taking aspect is it is a way to express yourself. Similar to getting a haircut/dying your hair or trying a new makeup style, a selfie editing applications are a way to play around with different filters and portray yourself a certain way to the public. It's a way to explore sexuality and the image you want to display.

Overall, there are both positives and negatives in the progression and normalization of the selfie in society. It causes some people to be insecure and present a facade image of who they are not. On the other hand, it is a way to explore sexuality and image. The difference is the mindset you are in when taking, editing and posting the picture.

References:

Day, Elizabeth. (2013). How selfies became a Global Phenomenon. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/14/how-selfies-became-a-global-phenomenon.

"Would you want to have sex with me?"

After Roxanne's lecture about YouTube and Social Experiments today, I immediately recalled a series of videos I had seen a while back about people asking strangers for sex. There were two versions—one was a female asking men for sex, while the other was a male asking women for sex.

Here's the female version:



And the male version:



I found two main groups of insights from this video.

The first is the gendered reactions to a sexual encounter.

For the guys that agreed to the sex proposition, many had an attitude of not believing their luck. A lot of them also had a "why not?" kind of attitude, potentially because it's really uncommon that an attractive woman would go up to strangers asking for sex. On the flip side, no girls agreed to the sex proposition presented by the guy, which is pretty unsurprising. After all, guys are usually the ones coming after girls for sex, and can be extremely forward with their advances in everyday life. There are a lot of dimensions as to why a girl wouldn't want to have sex with a stranger that asks her for it—he could have diseases, he could be mentally unstable, he could be sexually violent, and it's really socially stigmatized for girls to sleep around with strangers.

We spoke earlier this semester about how important/unimportant someone's "number" is. For men, it's much more socially acceptable to have multiple partners, but women are expected to be more choosey about their partners (as sexual gatekeepers). Interestingly when looking from the perspective of the askers though, these perceptions are flipped; the guys agreeing to sex clearly don't care how many sexual partners the girl has had, some of them agreeing to sleep with her almost immediately after asking. For the guy propositioning sex, the girls may have rejected him on the basis of not knowing how many other women he's asked/had sex with.

Against my better judgement, I also read the comments on the first video. There were multiple comments slut-shaming the girl, despite the fact that the entire thing was a prank. Several commenters also called out this double standard (please excuse the language):

Roxanne spoke about the gendered representations of women in user generated content, but it's interesting that it's the attitude of people watching the videos that are gendered. These videos in and of themselves are pretty neutral; both are attractive people, both proposition sex using similar language, and both appear to approach strangers of all ages and races, and even those walking with significant others. It really comes down to the viewers' perceptions of what they're doing that become gendered and problematic.

Moving on, my second insight about this video is related the role of YouTube, as Roxanne spoke about in her lecture.

Does this video go too far, and is it the right place for this kind of social experiment? The "findings" were pretty predictable and in many ways it could be construed as sexual harassment, so calling it a social experiment to begin with seems pretty weak. I would consider this to be 100% a prank video; it has absolutely no research implications. In fact in subsequent videos, the actors explain that they're filming a prank video for YouTube. This statement is met with relief, and many of the prank victims start laughing, suddenly amused by the entire thing after finding out it wasn't a real proposition for sex. It's almost as if something's a prank, it's harmless. But does the fact that it's a set-up made for the Internet really excuse the inappropriate behavior?

I find it difficult to come up with a clear answer as to what kinds of video are appropriate and which ones aren't. It may seem like splitting hairs, but I think if these are called "prank videos", they're more acceptable than if called "social experiments". At the same time, any type of video that could be grounds for sexual harassment are definitely pushing it, regardless of how harmless they may seem.

So now, what are the potential effects of a young adolescent watching videos like this on YouTube? In the Brown, Keller, & Stern article, they bring up concerns that "user-generated sexual content may also increase the pressure virginal teens feel to become sexually active". It could also present the idea that it's socially acceptable to proposition sex from strangers, leading to potentially risky sexual behavior. Even if it's a prank, just viewing the reactions within each video could potentially influence viewers' understandings of the gendered attitudes towards sex.


Reading:

Brown, J.D., Keller, S., & Stern, S. (2009). Sex, sexuality, sexting, and sexed: Adolescents and the media. The Prevention Researcher, 16(4), 12-16.

Own Your #Selfie!

After reading The Guardian's "How selfies became a Global Phenomenon," it was reported that using a survey of more than 800 teenagers by the Pew Research Center, 91% posted photos of themselves online – up from 79% in 2006 (Day, 2013).  Now, we didn't really need this stat to realize that the selfie has completely consumed our culture. This selfie revolution has become so large that "selfie sticks" have actually been invented to become more inclusive. 

After reading the article, I disagree with several points it makes. First of all, it desribes selfie-sharing as "a high school popularity contest on digital steroids" (Day, 2013). While I see how the author could think this, I see selfie-taking as a more inclusive practice opposed to one that excludes others as the "unpopular" ones. For example, the selfie-stick pictured above was invented in order to include more people in a selfie, thus becoming a group selfie. I have friends who would never take a selfie alone, but enjoy taking selfies with a group. So, I think selfie-taking is a more inclusive practice rather than one that excludes others. 

I also disagree with the following concern: "young women posing for selfies in a state of undress is a potentially worrying issue" (Day, 2013).  The article then used the example of model Cara Delevinge instagramming a picture of her nipples poking through a black lace top. While we have spoken repeatedly about the objectification of women in the media, I actually see Cara's post as encouraging young women to own their sexuality because she herself is posting it. To me, her choice to post this photo sends a strong message to her fans that she is totally comfortable with herself as a women. Cara constatly posts sexually forward photos to her instagram, and she is actually idolized by young women for it.  In fact, my roommates were talking just the other day about how they wished they were Cara.  

Why? Why do young women idolize Cara? In my opinion, it's because she owns her sexuality and doesn't give a s*%# about what people think of her.  As we've discussed, men are able to freely discuss their sexual desires because they are "sex-obsessed" creatures, but what about women's sexual desires? Women in the media are never portrayed as sexual beings, and if they are they are deemed "crazy." Well news flash, women want sex just as much as men do.  Cara's instagram account highlights this very fact, and I think this is why she is the epitome of cool for college-aged women today.  In addition, she is an advocate for this social movement called "Free the Nipple," which suggests that since men are able to show their nipples in public, women should to.  While I don't think I'll be participating in this movement, I do think it's a very cool "girl-power" movement. 

So, while her more sexually suggestive pictures receive more likes as the article states, who cares?! Delevinge actually is doing quite the opposite of objectifying women, but rather advocating for gender equality.  In addition, she let's young women know it's okay to be sexually forward like a man. Her efforts should be applauded, not repromanded. 

While I understand why there are critics of selfies, I challenge young women to own their selfies as a practice of self-love.  If someone wants to post a picture of themselves, either alone or with a group, I see it as an opportunity to love yourself for who you are and how you look. If you want to post a sexually suggestive picture of yourself like Cara Delevinge, look at it as a chance to show you're comfortable in your own skin, and as we mentioned in class no one has ever gotten pregnant or a STD from posting a photo. We as women are taught to conceal our sexuality, but I say this is 2015 and women should be able to broadcast their sexuality without being considered a "slut." I realize this is a tall order, but I really do admire Delevinge's efforts. 

So, I hope Cara's instagram inspires young women to be more comfortable with expressing their sexuality to the world.  In addition, I hope women own their selfies as way to show they love themselves! 

Work Cited

Day, Elizabeth. (2013) How selfies became a Global Phenomenon. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/14/how-selfies-became-a-global-phenomenon.