The film I chose for this
blog post is the 2011 movie Friends with
Benefits, which I had actually been dying to see. I’ve honestly always
wondered how people can just have sex and not end up with feelings for each
other. It’s not emotionless, otherwise it would quite literally be two people
flopping around on top of each other, which in all honesty is kind of weird.
Anyway, the title of the
movie itself captures what it’s all about. Everyone knows what friends with
benefits means, and if you don’t, then you probably don’t talk to many people
or have any form of social media. Having an FWB used to be seen as a taboo, it
just wasn’t right. Sex is supposed to be saved for the person you love, not
just thrown around willy-nilly. But I guess that’s what the movie is trying to
point out, especially the non-emotional aspect. The two main characters, Jamie
(Mila Kunis) and Dylan (Justin Timberlake), try to act as if they don’t have
feelings for each other, which in the beginning I don’t think they did, but as
they spend more and more time together they can’t find anyone else that clicks
just right with them anymore. Even their families automatically assume they’re
together, which in turn puts pressure on them when they have to explain that they
aren’t emotionally invested in each other and that they’re just having sex. In
any case, their families don’t buy it.
I tried to find a reading
(from the list) that summarized what sex used to be compared to what it is
today, but I’m not sure any of them really do. However, I think MacKinnon’s
work skirted around it a couple times. I struggled a little with that one, so I’m
citing page 133 from her work because she does bring up the points of taboo and
powerlessness, though I don’t think they exactly fit in the same context here.
I do want to bring up Woody
Harrelson’s character Tommy though. In my opinion, he was placed in this movie
as a sort of comic-relief sidekick. Any time Dylan makes a comment about his
sex life with or without Jamie, Tommy has this almost all-knowing aspect about
himself when it comes to women, even though he is extremely gay, which he
points out many times throughout the movie. However, Tommy doesn’t, for lack of
better terms, “act gay.” He’s a sports editor for GQ magazine, he owns a boat,
he plays intense basketball games with friends, he doesn’t wear feminine
clothes, but every chance he gets he lets anyone who will listen what his
romantic preferences are. He doesn’t hide it, which after watching But I’m a Cheerleader is kind of
refreshing in a sense. We don’t have to watch him struggle with who he is, he
just lives his life and doesn’t let stereotypes hold him back.
I think your post can also be applied to Foucault's "The Repressive Hypothesis." In the movie, the couple really doesn't want to discuss their relationship. They feel that they are "Friends with Benefits" and really have no desire to dive into what that entails or what it even means for them. The Repressive Hypothesis is the tendency to avoid discussion about sexual activity, and I think your post displays that it should not be something that is disregarded, as it can often hurt those involved. In this case, the couple's refusal to discuss what their relationship actually is harms both their feelings. I never really thought of Foucault's reading in this regard. I looked at it more of a progression through history of how sex used to be regarded as taboo and now discussion of it is more accepted. However, after reading your post, I can see that in refusing to discuss sexual activity, sometimes even couples can be harmed.
ReplyDeleteI tried to find it! I searched for it and all I could find were people discussing it. Thank you for applying this to it! I knew there had to be one at least one of the readings that pertained to this.
Delete