Saturday, February 23, 2013

Sex like Tennis

Friends with Benefits, starring Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, is an amusing movie that examines how discourse on sex in changing in society. Dylan (Timberlake) and Jamie (Kunis) meet each other as Jamie is the headhunter who is trying to convince Dylan to take a new job opportunity. They quickly hit it off, but they have both met soon after breaking up with their own significant other. As the title suggests, these break-ups make them reluctant to get in a relationship soon after, so they decide to have sex as friends. They may an agreement that it is nothing more, and that they will stay friends afterwards. Soon Jamie wants to date again, so they stop hooking up but remain friends. However, her foray into the dating world goes poorly and as a friend Dylan invited her to his house. There, they hook up again but the relationship between them quickly gets rocky. Soon, in classic rom-com fashion, aided with advice of his sick father, Dylan reaches back out to Jamie and they get back together, this time romantically. The reason this film was chosen for this week and what separates it from a typical rom-com is the insight into a new “discourse”, as Foucault would say, that is emerging about sex. This comes through perhaps most clearly the first time when Dylan and Jamie decide to have sex without the stress of a relationship, merely as friends. Their business-like approach to it is amusing, but that is because it breaks many of our norms about sex. They say it will just be like playing tennis, a fun physical activity with two people. They can be perfectly honest about how they want each other to act in bed, as Jamie tells Dylan when he is doing something wrong. They don’t worry about hurting each other’s feelings and in the end they both have a better time because of it. This point gets reinforced when Dylan tries to hook up with another girl who just acts extremely odd, growling at him and smelling his armpit. Another person who helps emphasize this point is Tommy Bollinger (Woody Harrelson). Dylan’s openly gay co-worker, Tommy does not beat around the bush when asking if anyone is gay and informing Dylan where the best places to pick up men are. Again, his blunt and straightforward approach is funny because we are not used to that kind of open discussion and joking mannerisms about sexual orientation. In the first two parts of his The History of Sexuality, Foucault examines how discourse on sex has changed over the years. Foucault argues that sex used to not be such a subject of intense analysis. But in an attempt to repress sexuality, the bourgeoisie have intensified the discussion of sex but directed that discourse in ways that they wished it to be directed. Now sex is a matter of public knowledge and thought. Sex can no longer be something we could approach with amusement and genuine passion, but now had to be analyzed and controlled. Thus boys and girls are closely monitored in schools, and sexual deviants are studied. This is partially why the casual approach to sex in the movie breaks norms, getting translated into humor. Dylan and Jamie try to think of sex as just an object of pleasure, like playing tennis, and as Foucault would argue this was the view of sex in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. They can talk freely about sexual preferences, without feeling that taboo on sex that Foucault identifies. When Dylan and Jamie are merely friends with benefits they have to constantly struggle against society’s view of them, as society does not believe that to really be the case or views them as immature, referencing that they were acting they would be in college. Indeed the thesis of the film comes back around to the fact that Dylan and Jamie always should have been a relationship, since they get along so well. However, it does nothing to deny it’s earlier points of how their sexual openness was a benefit for them and strengthened their relationship. Part of what makes their relationship seems so emotionally stable is the fact that they are almost always bluntly honest with each other in situations where we do not always see such honesty. But obviously the film comes to the conclusion that such sex without a relationship does not really work, that emotional ties do come even to two people who try to prevent such ties from occurring. Dylan and Jamie cannot remain just friends with benefits, they do get in a relationship. Perhaps, however, they can still approach sex like two people in a relationship playing a game of tennis.

6 comments:

  1. I watched the film for the first time the other night, and I thought it did a cool job in showing how difficult it is for humans to separate something so fundamental as sex from emotions or any deeper relations. Foucault does tell us how times used to be different - how it was once the social norm to talk freely about sex. Whether it is the social norm to do so at any time, I believe that sexuality is not only inherently natural, but also that it is impossible to separate it from emotion or connection. Dylan and Jamie are trying to do something that just isn't possible. The feelings and emotions that they have for each other win in the end, despite their efforts to keep them separate from their work or each other. The two learn from each other - Jamie helps Dylan express himself more openly and to not be afraid to open up about his past, and Dylan helps Jamie with her own flaws. Each one of us develops relationships, and while we may try to make them strictly sexual, it seems there is always more that comes out of it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think both your review and Ian's point draw valid concerns. However, I am hesitant to speculate as to the 'supreme' nature of sex, in that it is impossible, when boiled down to its fundamentals, to separate sex from emotions and vice versa. As Ian points out, Foucault describes the older attitudes towards sex and the public openness with which it was spoken about. I suggest that perhaps the flow of Sex and it's taboo/non-taboo status over time could be represented more as a sine-curve (up and down along the axes). It is likely that most elderly individuals believe that the attitudes regarding sex today are much more lenient and relaxed than those of their generation and generations past. However, to our generation, our view on sex is much like Jamie and Dylan's--consensual, fun, and not necessarily anything more than that. It will be interesting to see if our generation has a similar culture shift towards an even more radical view on sex and sexuality. I sure do not want to be the father who yells at his children to dress and act decently due to my out-of-date attitudes...

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with Colin. I think that it is more of a social norm now to talk about sex than it was in the past and that society's feelings towards sex have become much more lenient than they have been in the past. While I do agree with your point Colin about our generation's views towards sex are similar to Jamie and Dylan's, I also agree with Ian in the sense that it is hard to separate sex from emotions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am still confused as to how over analyzing sex created a shift in the nature of how it works among humans, as per Foucault. I tend to agree with Colin's point-it seems similar to the idea that your parents will always think that your music sucks... that relationship has been occurring for years without any real substantiveness, it is simply a generation gap. Surely sex has always been fundamentally connected to emotion; I would like for you to back up your claim Maria! What evidence is there to show that sex can be separated from emotions successfully? Especially when considering the point of a movie like Friends with Benefits...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Colin's point about our generation being more open to talk about sex (the success of a film like "Friends with Benefits" being one indication of that), yet the relationship our society has with sex is still incredibly complicated. We're constantly bombarded with sexualized advertisements, "abstinence-only" education reigns supreme in many schools across the country, and the double standard between women who have sex a lot and men who have sex a lot is still kicking. I think our society is confused, perhaps because of the sexual repression Foucault wrote about, about how to express sexuality in a positive way. Our generation is becoming more open about sex, yet we still have a lot of issues to work through before our society gets a grip on healthy sexuality. I was thinking about the free love of the hippy era, and Colin this also leads me to agree with your sine-curve theory. It's like every time our society reaches either extremely conservative or extremely liberal views of sexuality, there's a backlash the opposite way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am not sure you can say that you cannot separate sex from emotions simply for the reason that you cannot separate emotions from any interaction between two or more people. Granted we are talking about romantic emotions, but it is important to be clear. I think it definitely merits further discussion whether or not romantic emotions are a byproduct of nurturing in our society or if it is in our nature to fall in love with those we have sex with on some level.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.