Sexualization - Blog Posts

Sexual Objectification of Male Characters and How it Impacts Women

Alright, this is something that has been on my mind for a while and I finally have the balls to write it down and make sure everyone can see it. This post is biased, and extremely emotional, as I am writing about my personal feelings on this subject. If there is any lack of clarification or incorrect use of a word/description, I will do my best to correct it.

Warning: Sexual abuse/assault/violence is mentioned.

So. I am a long time lurker on popular fan sites and platforms. So I have seen many of the nitty gritty, the truly toxic and beautiful, and utter sadism that people are capable of creating when it comes to characters we take a liking to. But the more recent stuff has really gotten under my skin, and I wanted to talk about it.

This has to do with two characters that have become extremely popular this year. Miguel O’Hara from Across the Spider-verse and Simon “Ghost” Riley from Call of Duty. I’ve seen depraved things happen when people like characters. I like these two for similar reasons. I find them attractive. Their stories are captivating. And the movie and game they take place in are some of my favorites. But the things I have seen being written about these two specifically make me very nauseous.

Both of these characters have become extremely popular on fan sites because of how sexually appealing they are. They are tall, muscular-built men with dark backstories and darker attitudes. And what infuriates me is the amount of sexual objectification is happening to them. Yes, they are fictional characters. Yes, they don’t exist. Therefore no harm is being done. Wrong.

I have been writing fan fiction for a long time, only a fraction of it actually posted publicly. And the thing about fan fiction that I take extreme pride in is the art of characterization. You are creating a story about a character that is not yours. They already existed, have their own lore and role within their story. So when one is writing fan fiction, I think its incredibly important to pay attention to the specific lore of the character. This helps you build on who they are and flesh them out as people. How would they react in this situation? What foods/drink do they like? What face would they make if you said this? What would they do if this specific thing happened to them? These are important questions you should know the answer to when writing your own material for any given character.

Yes, AUs exist for this reason, so that subversion of a character can take place to satisfy those that fantasize about a character that canonically would not play into their interests. That still still does not excuse some of the utter disrespect I have seen.

For the two specific characters above, I will summarize their VERY similar backstories. Both were heavily abused in their childhoods (by their fathers). Both have taken on an “anti-hero” role with a grisly attitude to accomplish good things, aka protecting the public/people they care about. Ghost was sexually assaulted, tortured, buried alive, and witnessed a close friend/colleague try to assault someone. Miguel was used and abused by his own company, leading to his abilities and hatred of his role as Spider-Man 2099. Horrible atrocities were committed to these men. And yet, I have seen nonstop fan fictions portraying these men as violent, perverted, sex-driven monsters for the satisfaction of readers. I think this is an affront to the very idea of fan fiction and an insult to these characters.

So with that said, I think it is absolutely disgusting how people have been writing the two characters above. And that is only the start of the problem. The over sexualization of male characters in media. For a long time, its was always female characters. People have spoken about the over-sexualization of women in media for years. And now with the internet at its height, male sexualization has also become extremely prominent, and yet I don’t see people raising enough concern about. Women have tried so hard to push back on male-centered media in order to protect themselves, with advertisements, games, movies, and entertainment media with female characters. The cliché roles of damsel-in-distress or female-warrior-love-interest to male main characters are still extremely prevalent.

And yet, it horrifies me that many women (and people in general) are now taking a lead in the sexualization of male characters in the near exact same way that men do. Only difference forms. Men sexualization through art: games, movies, p*rn, etc. Women do it through our own art, and especially writing. Now, I am not saying that there is anything wrong with writing smut and p*rn. The horror lies in the characters being portrayed and the acts they are committing. Between these two characters, I have seen more violent smut fan fiction than I have seen actual love for the characters themselves. I have lurked through the fandoms centered around these two characters since they first started gaining popularity, and it disgusts me how many writers portray them.

This isn’t even the main issue. The biggest issue has to be how this is still pushing toxic male fantasy. R*pe. Sexual violence. Sexual abuse. Verbal abuse. Mental and emotional abuse. Non-consensual acts. The romanticization of sexual violence and depravity. The amount of viral videos I have seen of men openly displaying their belief that women enjoy stalking, sexual harassment/assault, and sexual abuse, and all because there is media of it being portrayed that way. P*rn has portrayed women as sexual objects for men for years, giving men the idea that any and every woman in the world would enjoy being a victim of these acts. And now, writers are doing the same thing here. They are portraying women/people being abused by these characters, and enjoying every second of it. This is not healthy. It is sickening. (This also applies to everyone, not just those who do not identify as female. Anyone is capable of being a victim of abuse).

This is a horrible double standard that has been created by people: That sexual harassment is bad when committed by someone we are not attracted to, BUT okay when committed by someone we are attracted by. STOP. Right now. Sexual harassment/abuse is bad no matter who commits it. And flirting does not equal harassment. Flirting is an open, two-way communication between two consenting people. Harassment is the continuous disregard for someone’s personal space/preferences through sexual/verbal/physical actions that the victim does not reciprocate.

Let me clarify that I am not shaming anyone for their personal sexual preferences and kinks. BDSM is not abuse when it is between two consenting adults. Violence-play is not abuse between two consensual adults. But when the media about certain characters is specifically tailored to indicate that such acts are everyone’s fantasy, it is not okay. What pisses me off is that it is always fit to characters who would most likely never agree to such things. Continuously portraying toxic, manipulative, and abusive behaviors as romantic and normal is extremely unhealthy and can warp the way people view healthy relationships.

After researching the background of Miguel and Ghost, I am one thousand percent sure that these two characters are not/would never do what they are portrayed as in these writings. Both men experienced horrible abuse, and are shown to strive to be better than the ones who abused them. I, for one, believe they would be the exact opposite as they are portrayed sexually. They would not be violent verbally or physically. They would not be abusive in any capacity. There could/would be toxic and manipulative tendencies that come from growing up in an abusive and stressful environment. But when one goes through such things, they are the opposite of this when they acknowledge their wish to be better. Both characters would most likely fear committed relationships, out of the fear that they could turn into the people who hurt them and hurt the ones they love. The fear of losing everything they care about all over again (both lost their families in tragic ways). PTSD would shape the way they interact with people, especially significant others.

I can vouch for this characterization on a personal level. The beauty of writing characters is being able to take their lore and apply it to real human qualities and experiences. I often use my own in my writing. My personal experiences with abuse and harassment are what drive me to write this post and speak out on this surge of romanticized violence, as well as for these characters. People who have survived these experiences and who strive to better themselves often acknowledge that it was not these experiences that define them. It is who we choose to become afterwards, and how much we allow it to affect us. While Miguel and Ghost are people who will continue to be haunted by their pasts, they strive to be better in their own ways, even if not everyone agrees. And the over-sexualization and violent portrayal of their characters in many fictions completely contradicts their canonical characters.

I am not putting creators who have done this on blast. I just urge many of you writers/artists to think about what it is you are creating and who you are portraying. Is your content curated by your audience? Is it curated specifically for you? Or is it for the character you are writing about? Maybe its everything and more. I just want you to be aware of what you are writing and how it may affect others as well as the characterization of said character.

I feel as if I’ve only scratched the surface with vague explanations. So if anyone who sees this feels the same, and wants to add or feels like I missed something, please do. This needs to be talked about more.

start sexualizing q tips

Clothing choices

The Spell Fencer class in the game Bravely Default.

Question Squarenix:

Why not have the option to choose the type of clothing for this class? Why not having the option to choose between the attire that envelops the entire body and the sexy belly dancer outfit instead of having only one default setting for the female and male characters?

Everyone would be happy if we all had the choice between pragmatic-rational- and fanservice-sexy type of clothing, armour, etc., for playable female and male characters from the start in video games with no change in the stats.

I found this document called "The Asexual Manifesto" and thought it was interesting in how it addressed asexuality amongst women in some 1970s feminist groups:

The Asexual Manifesto (1972) was recently found by Caoimhe Harlock on Twitter.  It is available as a pdf.  I have transcribed it below for better accessibility.  The format mimics the original, except for the placement of the footnote on the first page. The Asexual Manifesto was also excerpted in Shere Hite’s book, Sexual Honesty (1974); I have separately transcribed the excerpt and noted what was left out.  Feel free to use this in any way.

--Siggy, 6/22/2019

I wrote an article explaining some of the context of the Manifesto. --Siggy, 8/9/2019

The Asexual Manifesto

Lisa Orlando, Asexual Caucus, NYRF *

* In September 1972, the Co-ordinating Council of New York Radical Feminists formed caucuses based on similarity of sexual orientation.  Each caucus was to explore its members' personal and political attitudes about their sexuality and communicate these views to the larger group.  Barbie Hunter Getz and I realized that we would not feel comfortable in any of the proposed caucuses (heterosexual, Lesbian, bisexual) and formed our own.  Out of this caucus came a paper of which the “Asexual Manifesto” is a revision.  That the paper’s plural form has been retained does not imply that all the views expressed in this final version necessarily reflect the views of both the original co-authors.

I. Origin and Definition.

Our experiences with sexuality have not been congruent with our feminist values.  As our consciousness became raised on this issue we began to see how sex had permeated our lives and the lives of others.  We categorized our relationships in terms of sex ----- either friends or lovers.  We engaged in a "sizing up" process, however subtle or subconscious, with each new person, accepting or rejecting her/him as a possible sexual partner even if we never intended to become sexually involved.  We arbitrarily rejected whole groups of people as unsuitable for intimate relationships because we assumed that such relationships, by definition, necessarily included sex.  Often we chose to spend time with people simply on the basis of their sexual availability (the “bar scene”).  As we became aware of this in ourselves, we became painfully aware of how we were being objectified by others.

Asexuality is an outgrowth of this consciousness.  It is a concept we have come to employ out of the wish to communicate ----- not merely through being but also through language ----- our struggle to rid ourselves of sexism in our personal lives.

In this paper we have used the terms “sex” and “sexual” to describe any activity one goal of which is genital excitation or orgasm.  Physical affection and sensuality (including kissing) are not, by this definition, sexual unless they are directed towards the goal of genital excitation.

We chose the term “asexual” to describe ourselves because both “celibate” and “anti-sexual” have connotations we wished to avoid: the first implies that one has sacrificed sexuality for some higher good, the second that sexuality is degrading or somehow inherently bad.  “Asexual”, as we use it, does not mean “without sex” but “relating sexually to no one”.  This does not, of course, exclude masturbation but implies that if one has sexual feelings they do not require another person for their expression.  Asexuality is, simply, self-contained sexuality.

II. Philosophy

Our philosophy of asexuality grew out of our personal ethics, which have been reshaped by our feminist consciousness.  To us, as to many other women, feminism means more than the fight against sexism.  It means "sisterhood" ----- a new way of relating, perhaps a new way of life.  Feminist morality, at this stage in history, can only be defined as antithetical to the oppressive values of our society (e.g., competition, objectification).  On a personal level, it is reflected in our beliefs that: we should attempt to relate to others in their totality as much as possible and not view them as objects existing for the gratification of our needs; we must not exploit others ----- that is, use them “unjustly or improperly” ----- nor allow ourselves to be exploited; we must not be dishonest with ourselves or those we respect.  In addition, we believe that we each have the responsibility for examining our behavior, determining how it has been affected by sexist conditioning, and changing it if it does not meet our standards.

As feminists we had decried the sexual exploitation of women by men without seeing that we too had used others “unjustly and improperly”.  Interpersonal sex is not an instinctive behavior pattern; it is behavior we have learned to use for the satisfaction of a need (for orgasm) which we can easily satisfy for ourselves.  We came to see this use of others as exploitative and realized that in allowing others to use us in this way we were acquiesing in our own exploitation.

In our attempt to be honest with ourselves, we tried to determine what our real needs are.  We saw that we have needs for affection, warmth, skin contact, which we had been taught to satisfy through interpersonal sex.  As we began to satisfy these needs in our "friendships," our need for and interest in sex diminished.  We also realized that we had a need for intimacy, a state we had always seen as "completed" by sex.  In retrospect, we realized that we, and others, had used sex as a means of self-deception, as a way of avoiding real closeness rather than achieving it.

We had struggled against our conditioning in many ways, especially in terms of roles, but we had avoided examining the basic conditioning which had shaped our sexuality.  It is difficult even to speculate on the nature of "ideal sexuality" (uninfluenced by sexism) but we are certain that it would not occupy as much of our lives as it does in this society.  We live in a culture of "fetish-worshippers" who regard sex with an extreme and irrational amount of attention.  Just as many of us were conditioned to direct our energy into the preparation of lavish meals, creating a fetish out of a simple need to avoid confrontation with the emptiness of our lives as women, so we were conditioned to seek sexual satisfaction in convoluted and circuitous ways.  Since our involvement with feminism, our lives have been increasingly meaningful and we no longer feel the need for fetishes.

In examining our experiences relative to our values, we have come to asexuality as a stand and a state of being concurrently.  Interpersonal sex is no longer important to us, no longer worth the distorted and often destructive role it has played in relationships.  It no longer defines our relationships or in any way constitutes our identities.  As asexual women, we do not (1) seek, initiate, or continue relationships in order to experience interpersonal sex, (2)use others for the satisfaction of our sexual needs or allow ourselves to be so used, (3) attempt to satisfy other needs (e.g. for affection, warmth, intimacy) through interpersonal sex, or (4) perceive others according to their potential, or lack of it, as sex partners.  In essence then, our asexuality reflects a rejection of interpersonal sex as long as it cannot meet our conditions: that it be both congruent with our values and totally incidental and unimportant to our relationship.

III Politics

Basic to the liberation of women is the destruction of sexism, one manifestation of which is the sexual exploitation of women by men.  Asexuality is a step towards achieving this goal at the personal level, as it eliminates one means by which men oppress us.  Through our asexuality, we have excluded sex as a goal and, essentially, even as a possibility in any relationships we may happen to have with men.

Because of the patriarchal culture which has resulted from institutionalized sexism, the exploitative behavior, standard in such a culture, has made it extremely difficult for women to realize their own independent, more humane style of relating.  Most women consequently reflect, in their relationships with each other, some of the exploitative behavior patterns characteristic of our male oppressors.  One area where the oppression of women by women may occur is, again, the sexual; this oppression too must end before we can be truly free. Through asexuality, we have rejected sex as a goal in our relationships with women, thus avoiding the sexual objectification, exploitation, and oppression of our sisters.  Here too, we reject any possibility of sex unless our conditions are met, and we thereby prevent ourselves from being sexually exploited and oppressed.

To destroy a particular culture’s basic myths is to undermine its very foundations.  Patriarchal culture, based as it is on sex differentiation, has constructed some of its strongest myths around sexuality.  We believe it is of prime importance that feminism direct itself to the exposure and destruction of the current patriarchal mythology which, through deception, reinforces our oppression.  Those myths most responsible for the distorted role sex plays in women's lives are:

Interpersonal sex is essential since the sex drive is a powerful force in human life and, if unsatisfied (through interpersonal sex), tends to produce unhappiness or possibly illness,

It is important that any sexual excitation always and/or immediately be satisfied,

Sex is essential for closeness in a relationship, no relationship being complete without it,

The ultimate closeness in a relationship occurs during sex and/or orgasm,

The needs for physical affection and sex are basically the same,

It is almost impossible satisfactorily to express affection physically without sexual excitation also occurring,

Women who have little interest in interpersonal sex, or who rarely if ever reach orgasm, are somehow inadequate.

While all these myths may not be credible to all women, some women believe some of them some of the time.

Finally, we see a conflict between, on the one hand, the time and energy necessary to our struggle as feminists, and, on the other hand, the time and energy necessary to develop and maintain relationships in which sex is a goal.  If we would use our energy efficiently, a choice seems indicated: to struggle against sexism or to struggle for satisfactory sex.  Although it may be said that to turn one’s back on a problem is not to solve it, we think the truth of this statement is relative to the importance one places on the problem.  If we saw interpersonal sex as important, asexuality would be a cop-out; since we do not, it is instead a means of withdrawing our energy from an area in which we feel it is being wasted.  

We see asexuality as an efficient "alternative life-style" for revolutionary women but we do not claim that “asexuality is revolution.”  We call ourselves “self-identified women” but we do not demand that all feminists adopt this title.  Our statement is simply this: as a result of examining the nature of our sexuality and reclaiming it from the sexist misconceptions surrounding it, we are able to form and maintain relationships in a way which both reflects our values and is effective in our liberation struggle.  For us, asexuality is a committment to defy and ultimately to destroy the baseless concepts, surrounding both sex and relationships, which support and perpetuate the patriarchy.

My gripe with Euphoria. Part 3:

The Mixed Melodies of Maddy

For some, Maddy's character may be hit or miss, for a multitude of reasons. My main reason was that I wasn't sure how to feel, at least on a larger scale.

Maddy Perez, played by Alexa Demie

Like some of the other female leads, we are meant to ogle her as a very sexual and "empowered" teenager. Her archetype is presented as the cheerleader to Nate's jock. Both are rude, tend to achieve what they want, and have their horrendously unstable relationship to wave around to others. There is something that Maddy lacks, however, and that is Nate's disregard for others. Maddy is shown to empathize, especially with her friends. I would almost say that she cares for them more than she does Nate, but that idea could be challenged. She is shown to be confident and straightforward, which are good qualities, until the writer's decide otherwise. The viewer is left wondering how much of these confidence is a facade after all, especially when coupled with Nate. It is interesting to see how Nate's demon dick impacts the girls he's with. When Maddy was with Nate, she had seemed to have a streak of violence and hostility with others. When this relationship broke off, it was as if she mellowed, taking on a laid-back persona similar to Lexi's. There is still much to critique about her character, both pre and post mellow. It helps to have some background for Maddy Perez. At a young age, she was subjected to the controversial industry that is pageantry. Her confidence and skill helped in her success, which was quickly tarnished when her mother removed her from this arena due to the prevalence of pedophiles. I feel like this was the opportunity to introduce something big for the show, possibly a critique on the sexualization of girls as young as 3 years old.....but no. That misshap was brushed aside in a manner of "it happens" as Maddy rushes toward other avenues. She comes to the conclusion that she would rather do "nothing", then switches to possibly doing something in order to attain the high value of the women who's nails her mother painted. This is all to avoid the trappings of being both impoverished and in a strained relationship like her parents.

When she meets Nate Jacobs, this is where more of her character gets called into question. We see her purposefully portray herself as the perfect girl to Nate Jacobs, who has an odd list of demands (likes girls hairless, slender, small noses, chokers, and other shallow things) that supposedly Maddy is able to meet. She even lies about having never had sex just to increase her appeal. She will then use this newfound sexual status with Nate to convince him into treating her like the rich women she aspired to be, having him buy her lavish presents. This rich woman status feels more like pr*stitution, to put it flatly. The show presents her using her body for currency as empowering and confident. She even analyzes p*rn so that she can carry on their "techniques". It is stated offhandedly, that she doesn’t derive pleasure from doing so. Her body is no longer hers. It is Nate's, which he feels free to use at his own discretion.

All this, and Maddy admits that she is afraid of him. She has reason to be, given his violent streak not only from the 1st season where he chokes her, but also in the 2nd where threatens her life, then claims it was all a joke. In spite of this, she says that she is still attracted to him, although it makes her "sick to her stomach". It's clear why, and I think teen dating violence is often overlooked in the media, or isn't given the nuance it deserves. The girl’s abusers are not framed as such. Instead, these are boys with a troubled past who need rehabilitation through her love and her love alone. Never mind the stalking, the yelling, or the inappropriate touching. He says he "loves her". Unfortunately, these girls feel like they love them back. It's saddening to see Maddy's usually confident nature fizzle under the gaze of Nate. She is willing to hide her bruises for him, wrongly accuse someone for him, and even beat her friend over him. I do not want to claim that her character isn't strong because she still loves her abuser. A lot of women unfortunately fall in love with those that hurt them. Perhaps it is the need to give back, even when a lot has already been snatched away from her. Nevertheless, the show sees Maddy as empowering because of this toxic love. She gets right back with Nate despite her weariness of him, and even some lingering hatred. Still, this hatred is not as aimed toward him as I would have liked.

Despite ending things in season 1, we jump to season 2 with Maddy making the claim that she would like to get back together with Nate, and the two soon resume this rugged relationship. This was with Maddy's knowledge of Nate's secret tapes, mind you. Tapes exhibiting graphic material of Nate's father and other men, mind you. But they get back together, with Nate's undiclosed relationship with Cassie almost floating in the background ready to burst in the season's finale. It soon does, however, and Nate and Cassie's lies are both exposed. Nate has lied and physically assaulted Maddy, but Maddy's aggression is turned to the lesser crimes of her former friend. Sympathy isn't a requirement for these characters, but I think the direction taken in having Maddy beat her friend at this revelation is one that I find typical. Regardless of his crimes, Nate is allowed to retain his humanity in not getting humiliated. Lexi's parody of him and his fellow jocks did not single Nate out the way the portrayal of Cassie did. Cassie's misguided attempt at finding attention winds up giving her a kick so far down that I hardly see her getting back up in one piece. Maddy hits Cassie with her shoes, leaving her bleeding and forced to stand her crumbling ground against a girl not much different from her.

Obviously, Nate is stronger and far more aggressive than Cassie could ever be, but why would Maddy result to violence? Is it because it is easier to beat down on another girl than to directly confront the boy who caused you the most harm? I do not mean to excuse Cassie's actions, as they were harmful to do to a friend. Also, I can't suggest that Maddy would have gone behind Cassie's back the way she did to her, but the result of this conflict landed in a direction that was telling, to say the least. Nate gets to eject his father from his life and resume in the next steps toward his "redemption". Meanwhile, Maddy and Cassie while likely not recover from this conflict, or they will find a difficult way of doing so. These girls that the show loved to deem powerful and strong in their sexualities were ultimately thwarted by exactly that: their sexuality. They did not learn anything outside of not being able to trust eachother. The thought of looking collectively at how their view of themselves, how they have been used, and how they can rise from this does not occur in the narrative's conclusion. What lies in wait is what remains dormant in most stories. The male leaves the women to their squabble as he comes on top and better than ever. The women, in their frustration and miguidance, are confused into hating eachother.

My gripe with Euphoria. Part 1:

The Defamation of Kat and Cassie

So against my better judgment, I watched the darn show....

Both seasons.

It had your typical "teen" drama filled with drugs, sex, and depression, and it was exploitation at its finest.

This is not to say that teens don't experience these things. Far from it, but the way the show frames these experiences does not come off as genuine. We get the sexualization of teen girls and the exploration of how women view their feminity. By exploration, I mean it was some grown man's interpretation of what he feels a powerful and complex teenage girl should look like. That usually always deals with her sexuality. She should be sexually desirable, even when her mental health is at stake. This is shown drastically in characters like Kat and Cassie, two young girls who feel like they are "empowered" in their sexually escapades, and this is done at the expense of their childhood. Teens are practically still children. Legal age has nothing to do with the development of the brain. These characters were told that their value was rested in mainly their sexuality, especially since society saw them as expendable and useless. They tried to show Kat coming into how she views herself, but that storyline was quickly tossed and they left her character hollow.

Image of Kat Hernandez, played by Barbie Ferreira

She started off an actual lead in the story. We see her as the odd one out amongst her friends, Maddy and BB. This oddity, of course, is her virginity. The concept of losing virginity goes back into the idea of a woman's purity and social standing. I have grown to loathe these plot points in teen shows. They are never handled with care or consideration, especially as it relays the idea that a girl can't truly progress in life until she has been conquered, presumably by a man. The story remains even more tasteless when these girls enter a party and Kat is coerced into having sex with some boy from another school. This results in a video being spread, showing her engaging in this deed. I'm sure some laws were broken here, but nevertheless, Kat has to do some damage control in order to stay out of trouble. It is unfortunate to see the show almost enjoy displaying what was clearly her first experience with sex in such a degrading manner. For the sake of plot, I'm sure it suited her to not have her face shown. Still, it makes one wonder about the facelessness of women who are watched online from such humiliating videos. We don't even know if they consented to being video taped. Kat sure didn't.

In episode 2 of season 1, we continue her story with flashbacks of her childhood that show her struggling with her weight as well as the loss of her first boyfriend. Her fight with body image is inherent. Even more heart-rending, Kat finds this new spike in internet fame to be intriguing and goes on to upload more videos of herself to a p*rn site (faceless of course).

Her cam-girl status was simply to shock, not offer meaningful commentary on teen girls and the exposure of themselves to a world that despises them. I believe the actress herself even commented on not wanting another "fat girl" plot line. Of course, not much followed from that outside of her story being cast out.

Consequently, we see her character get more and more one note. Thankfully, she has quit her dominatrix job by season 2, but ber struggles with identity are still realistically persistent. The show refuses to expand on that past episode 3, however. She grows unsatsified with a boy, Ethan, who appears to really like her. The show tries to dispaly how her self-esteem could not be solved through sex, but they refuse to leave her with a shred of diginity. At this point, we can infer that she loathes her body, but is afraid to admit that to a world that will reject her admission. Instead, she fantasizes about getting with someone that views her as an object to be sexually assaulted (shown in a weird Game of Thrones where she is practically r*ped by a warrior). Again, a real life circumstance for some teen girls and women, but also one the show refuses to explore further. We see her then gaslight and berate Ethan in the 2nd season's last few episodes, presenting the idea that girls only want "bad boys" in the end. This is in refusal to address Kat's emerging belief in how she lacks confidence herself and how it was a facade. We don't get to see her feel devastated by her actions, despite being shown as a character very capable of sympathy for others. Her facade of care free sexual appeal is put to the fore-front, and we as the audience are meant to see her just as shallow as she portrays herself. It is also important to note that her counterpart from the 2012 Euphoria series, a character by the name of Noy, dealt with a little more plot wise. Noy's character is actually shown to face long-term consequences from her sexual exploration. Kat's edition of this is shown to be so careless and almost glorifying as a result. Sex of any kind came come with risks, and that should have been shown for her. We don't know much about the men she experiments with, both online and off, how old they are, or what they've done in their pasts. The plus-sized girl in this series is not given any more nuance than she is in most other media portrayals. Kat is still the promiscuous and plus-sized girl who is hard to love. We are no longer able to have her point of view. We are no longer able to sympathize with the girl in this seemingly female-centric show.

Image of Cassie Howard, played by Sydney Sweeney

Cassie is shown desperately clinging to any male figure in her life, carelessly placing her own friends on the back burner. This may be reminiscent of real life, but again, the show does not attempt to humanize her. We are somehow meant to objectify her, especially with the amount of times we've seen her topless. The camera seems to thoroughly enjoy scanning over her body. It matches the ominous and far from hidden attention that her body received upon reaching puberty. This attention, of course, was given by men, strangers and family members alike. Of course, she is naturally unaware of the male gaze as it strips her first of her awareness, hiding behind smiles and gentle gestures. As her body blossoms, the world decides when it would be best to attack. Much like Kat, this attack is confused for affection. With an absent father, much of any male attention can be taken as fickle. Subconsciously, it becomes her mission to keep them however she can. She lives in a world where keeping a boy means you must give much of yourself away to please him. As we know, this does not earn the male’s respect, but rather his denigration. Her character is humiliated and remains unaware, as we see boys talking crudely about her behind her back. To them, she is sexually starved. It is almost sadistic, and masochistic on her oart, how much we are shown her being desperate. Even as we see her get with the seemingly kinder Mckay, it wasn't long before she was being roughhoused by him in bed and gobbling goldfish for his college initiation. The actress, Sydney Sweeney, even explicitly came out and said she asked for less nudity in her role. This is not something that should have to be told, but I guess the director didn't see her for anything but eye candy. You shouldn't need nudity to enthrall and audience, especially at the expense of your actresses. Sam Levinson (writer, producer, director) appeared to have eased away from nudity, noticeably in the show's second season. That did little to polish the show, however. In the 2nd season's final moments, we see Cassie spiral into a fit of grief and righteous fury, feeling rightfully that the world is against her. Of course, this does not excuse her from her own selfish acts. She is decides to get with the ex-boyfriend of her best friend, Maddy, and hide this up until all is revealed by a character I will discuss later. We know the origin of Cassie's lust for love, but she is ultimately shown as shallow and in the wrong. We do not get to discuss how she can come to find more stability in her life, to love herself and love other women. She just simply exists as visual entertainment beside the near sociopathic Nate Jacobs. We see Nate pull her close and push her away, and she is willing to come back everytime. We are supposed to believe she is not allowed mercy, even as she struggles with her own hidden addiction. We see her character painfully go through an abortion, which surely contributed to her declining mental state. This is shown in episode 7 of season 1. It's a plot fleetingly introduced and would never be spoken of again. Shock value for you. We do not get to see her mourn over this loss, although we are aware that this teenager would not do well with a child at the moment. Still, we don't know how she feels about having kids. We do not know how she feels about sex (I mean truly feels, not in how she presents it in scenes with Mckay and Nate).

Maddy confronting Cassie in season 2 episode 8

We do not get to see her discover that love does not exist solely in connection to a man. It should have existed in the love for her sister, possibly even in her flawed mother, or in Maddy and Kat. Primarily, that love should have been for herself, even if it took a long time to find. I highly doubt the upcoming 3rd season will give her that level of complexity and growth. She is just a dramatic plot point. Someone to be put in her place when she breaks under societal pressures. Obviously, self love is not everyone's conclusion, but Cassie, like Kat, is young and very impressionable. It is difficult to tell if the show sees them as such. Girls are told to act like mature adults, and are shamed if they don't achieve this in a way that leaves them both f*ckable and manageable. There is still time for them to learn, but where is their help? Or their conclusions?

My gripe with Euphoria.

Introduction

I remember my initial decision to cower away from this show. I discovered through review videos and articles that this was far from teen-friendly, despite having a teen-centric cast of characters. This show opposes my morals immensely, but I think I was only intrigued by the main plot of drug addiction, which is a slippery slope to take in the media. I had seen that the main show writer, Sam Levinson, also struggled with addiction, so I figured there would truth to this fictionalized tale.

Euphoria's (2019) concept is not particularly new, however. It is based on a 2012 Israeli show by the same name, directed by Ron Leshem. The original had some of the same elements: a troubled group of generation Z teens, somone with a drug addiction, a girl with weight issues, a drug dealer and his brother, etc.).

Cast of Israeli "Euphoria"

I don't know much about the Israeli version outside of that, especially without access to the show. I have heard that it takes on a bit of a more sympathetic approach to its characters. Levinson's adaptation seems to take on a different approach in the form of HBO style exploitation. As someone who is part of Generation Z and is aware of our statistics, I find it peculiar that a lot of these teen-centric shows portray us as hyper-sexual alcoholics who wouldn't give it a second thought to try drugs on the side. It's bee documented recently (in the years 1995-2015) that the opposite has been occurring. Of course, our world is being adapted from the mind of a thirty-four year old man. Older men, young teens, and sex seem to be a reoccurring theme. We see how female characters are treated versus the males. There is even the inclusion of a trans identified male character in the midst, who I found myself weary of throughout both seasons for reasons I will explain in later posts.

It is easy to see where Sam includes himself in the drug addiction plot. The other plots, however, are just as telling on the psyche of male directors and writers and how they view the women and girls that they construct in their narratives. His co-writers are Zendaya and Drake. Notably, Drake has been shown to have his own immoral actions on full display, so his influence is one to take heed to just as much. Zendaya's ideas of feminism are also warped, as she believes in males deserving the rights to be in female spaces. Someone who can simultaneously compare a man's mental illness to a women of color's biological status already sets me up to critique the debased "feminism" of this story.

It is no longer a matter of these female (and even male) characters being complex when we are simultaneously told they are empowered by their flawed actions. Or, on the opposite side of things, we are told that they should be discarded accordingly when it suits the narrative.

I will dive into this mess of glitter and shine and tear away this show's esthetics as I navigate my thoughts throughout my viewing of both seasons. I will explore the female (and one female presenting trans) characters and analyze what I see fit based off of what I took away from them.