Thoughts On My Mind: Jane Austen, Media Education Foundation, Rant

I love Jane Austen novels. As a woman, that may sound cliche. I think most women love Jane Austen novels or movies in some way shape or form. What do I love about her stories? The truth behind how silly love can be. How silly its boundaries are and how silly people in love can act. What I think I adore most about her writing is that there is a sexiness behind it without actually having sex... or much physical touch for that matter. Even in the movies, there is usually a kiss that signals the climax of the story. I also like the fact that so many people who don't read very much or even like to read, read Jane Austen. This in and of itself is a tribute to her story telling abilities and classical aura.

Let me take a moment to say that I love the Media Education Foundation. With that being said, I also am really disappointed in them. They make some of the most amazing movies on the planet. They are educational, interesting, and essential to helping dissect some growing social issues. Why are their DVD's so expensive? I mean I get that they have to make money and cover the cost of filming. Sadly educating the people costs people. I wish there was a way to make the information in their movies accesible to the public. What if they had a MEF app? How cool would that be? How about having viewings of their movies better advertised through bigger websites like Huffington Post and Feministing.com?

Look at the following image.
What do you think?



I see the following things. A man with very large arms and a nice butt. Wooptie doo. Why are we exploiting a mans body to sell jeans? Yes, he is a very nice looking man and is using his looks to make money but why does someone have to use their body to make money? Why is that the sign of success? A nice body makes money. I mean I know why. I studied this. But I still don't see why it matters. Why aren't we evolving? Is this man's nice body supposed to be make me want to buy Evan a pair of jeans? It doesn't. Advertisement fail. Just my opinion.

Conquistadora

I am currently reading the novel Conquistadora by Esmeralda Santiago. Beautifully written book that depicts women as a complete force of nature. Her character Ana travels to a new world, engages in lesbian sex, loves two brothers, has influence, and a determination to be free in all that she does. This character is not only intriguing but inspiring. Ana shows me that being a woman has no limits. As you read the story you will dislike some of her decisions but be cheering her on in some of her paths. It's refreshing to read a book where the woman character has a spirit that's accepted. A lot if novels showcase the pain or feeling of being different. This book embraces the differences of women. Check it out.

West Seattle

I love West Seattle. It has the feel of Bellingham but the Seattle urban element that spices it up a bit. West Seattle has some cool restaurants, coffee shops, and boutiques.
Evan and I were walking around the other night and we really felt like we could live over here one day.

Places to check out:
Husky Deli
The Matador
Thriftway
Amy's Nails

All I really wanted to say was... I love West Seattle!

RANT: Can-Am Roadster

** Thank you Rob for sending me this link.
Okay I will admit that this advertisement isn't super in your face crazy. The craziness, as I see it, is rather subtle. Notice how in the beginning of the commercial the man is putting on his helmet and the commentator is saying, "Of all the things you've ever ridden..." and then the image cuts to a young attractive brunette. To me that implies that among many things, this guy apparently "rides" this woman.
After this the advertisement goes on to sell the product. BUT really. Let's talk about this. "Of all the things you've ever ridden..." . Am I supposed to be impressed with this guy? Oh wow. Good job. You can "ride"! You can ride a Can-Am Roadster OR a woman. Talent.
When women are in commercials that involve cars, motorcycles, or some kind of moving vehicle, they can be extremely oversexed. I will give the director of this commercial credit- he/she doesn't sexualize the woman with her clothing or make her the center of the advertisement. Instead they make her an attractive accessory. This guy rides a hott woman, so therefore he is capable of riding the Spider Can-Am Roadster. And since he is the one driving the roadster, he is the dominant figure. Think about it. Thoughts?

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Okay. I actually saw this. Evan really wanted to see it, so we went. Let me just say this... It sucked. BUT it only sucked as a Pirates of the Caribbean movie. As a movie about Jack Sparrow, it was actually pretty funny. I would rename it, "The Adventures of Jack Sparrow." It was a rather long movie. If you love Johnny Depp, support him and see it. If you don't really care, netflix it!
OH! And Penelope Cruz. I wanted to like her character because I wish I was Penelope Cruz. She is gorgeous! But she was just okay. Granted, she was way more entertaining that Keira Knightly and her pouty lips that annoy the crap out of me. Tangent: I only really started to not like her when she got the role of Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride and Prejudice." She sucked as a Lizzy. AND then she got nominated for an Oscar for her acting? Yeah right.

"Bang"

I have a big question for all of you. What is it with perfume/cologne ads and sex? Seriously. I wear perfume all the time. When I put on my Vera Wang perfume I don’t do it so that I can end the day with the bottle between my legs. I mean come on. I wear it so that I smell yummy. Yummy doesn’t always have to mean sex.

Marc Jacobs, a noted fashion designer, has named his new fragrance for men “Bang.” His advertisements for “Bang” features him lying naked with a big bottle of cologne between his legs. Let me just put it out there- “Bang” is in between his legs so that you can… well…. Bang!

Cologne advertisements (for those of you who are uneducated in the toiletry of men, cologne is essentially perfume for men) are usually always hyper-sexual. Perfume advertisements make me think of soft-core porn. I mean you may not see the deed itself but you certainly get the point. I know that smell is supposed to heighten and arouse certain senses- but those senses don’t always have to be the desire to have hot and dirty sex. There is such a thing as intimacy without sex. Every man that I have dated has always loved how I smell. After they say this they normally kiss me or rub my face or something really sweet. They don’t pounce on me with the anticipation of having sex.

I think that these kinds of advertisements limit what it means to be either male or female. If you are a male you are a sex starved and perfume addict pervert. If you are a woman you are a slave to your senses and expect sex to accompany your scent. I mean don’t get me wrong- I think scent can be incredibly sexy. Duh. BUT that’s not all it is.

Alright let’s focus on the Marc Jacobs advertisement for “Bang.” First off- the name. The name itself is conjures sexual and violent feelings. Bang. The sound of a gun. Bang. An adjective for sex. Bang. Secondly, the fragrance is for men. Since we associate men with stereotypical masculine characteristics, it seems like a fitting name. A real man wears “Bang.” Right?

This advertisement is meant to shock people. And it does. I was flipping through Elle when I saw this. I definitely stopped. And then I wondered why this was in a woman’s fashion magazine. Are we supposed to think that if we buy the men in our lives “ Bang” that our sex lives will improve? I guess women can have it all. Great fashion and great sex- thanks to “Bang.”

If men look at this advertisement they might feel a little repulsed because Marc Jacobs is gay and they don’t want to be associated with it. At the same time they probably trust him. After all, women love Marc Jacobs. We trust him. We will buy his products for ourselves and the guys in our lives. I am going out on a complete limb here but bear with me. I am basing this off of what men in my life have said or implied. They probably feel less threatened by designers like Marc Jacobs because they are gay. They probably assume that they identify with women and therefore have some kind of insight to what women want. SO women must want what Marc Jacobs is advertising right? “Bang.” Women want lots of sex and violence in their lives. Yes please.

I haven’t blogged in a LONG time so I understand that this is probably not that amazing. These are just my thoughts.

Rolling Stones: True Blood

Really?
I have only watched on season of “True Blood.” That was season 1 and I can tell you that was enough for me. Don’t get me wrong; the show definitely has an element of sex that is intriguing and captivating. All in all- that was sort of it. The storyline was somewhat interesting but also a little too much like “Twilight”, only raunchier.

This cover reminds me of pornography. It is much like a fetish. The splattering of blood, nudity, and touching of intimate body parts suggests that this is sexy. This may indeed be the case for some people. My problem with this cover is that it IS the cover. It is available to the massive amounts of people that read magazines. Rolling Stones being the popular cultural dictator that it is is essentially telling people that this kind of image is a cultural norm. This is not a societal norm. The undertone of sexual violence is scary. It is not normal. Rolling Stones is telling people that the idea of sexual violence is alluring and desirable.

Why is nudity such a commodity? I agree that we should embrace our bodies and not be ashamed of loving who we are made to be, but I do think that there is a limit to parading nudity around in the public sphere. I particularly feel this way in regards to children. Children might see this image and begin to think that this is normal and acceptable. This could translate into how men treat women and women treat men. People could think violence is sexy and want to act in a way that fulfills this kind of longing.

I would like to clarify that this is my opinion. I may be totally out of place. What do you think?