Before You Know It

‘Before You Know It’ is a documentary film directed by P. J. Raval that follows the lives of aging seniors as they combat their own insecurities of aging, while trying to sort out the complications that arise from being gay. It is a film that appeals to both young and old viewers because it is appreciated in different ways; from challenging the younger generation’s perspective of typically heterosexual male seniors, to sharing stories that many older gay men may relate to, but have been hesitant to share. The film shows us that being gay is represented well into the senior demographic; an area that may have been ignored in the past as being active in the gay community. These men were the first to come out and live openly as gay citizens. They became a force of political and social change in their communities; fighting through decades of ridicule and isolation from former friends, coworkers and family members to set homosexuality as an identity rather than an illness, or disease. As the film shows, not all gay seniors were actively “out” but rather forced by their own insecurities and expectations to live a heterosexual lifestyle for the majority of their lives. By interviewing three uniquely different men, it gives the audience a chance to form a much broader and well-rounded perspective on the differences seen between men in the gay community.

I found that there were three major areas within the film that stood out as the most important themes, or messages that the director was trying to send to the audience. Firstly, there are indeed differences seen between gay, senior men; they are not all lumped into the same category, but they each have their own stories to tell and their own uncertainties about their futures. Some men have been openly gay for decades, yet differ in how they show their affection in public towards other gay men, while others have only recently come out as gay and find it difficult to be accepted by younger gay men. The film also makes it clear that the healthcare system for aging seniors is lagging behind in equating the needs of gay seniors with their straight counterparts in terms of affordability of living in same-sex nursing homes, and the ignorance they receive from health care workers who are not culturally inclusive. Being able to speak up as a gay senior upon receiving discrimination from a health care worker can be very challenging because it requires a confidence and certainty that not all gay seniors have, as many have only recently come out as gay, or they simply do not want to jeopardize their potentially costly treatments; so they remain silent. Lastly, and probably the most worrying area for older, gay senior men is the growing feeling of isolation and loneliness both within society and the gay community. Although many aging seniors feel loneliness, homosexual seniors may be especially prone to a greater feeling of isolation as their social support systems have become much smaller over time. All of the men interviewed in the film show varying degrees of isolation, yet it is clear that they all have smaller social support systems than their heterosexual counterparts. Many of their friends had succumbed to the AIDS virus that ripped through America in the 1980s and 1990s, where some had lost upwards of 100 friends (1). All three men in the film were also estranged from most of their families upon coming out as gay, and end up finding most of their support from those within the LGBT community.

Ty is the most youthful-seeming and works actively within the LGBT community in Harlem, New York. He is eager to marry his long-term boyfriend, but once New York’s legislature passes to allow same-sex partners to marry, Ty’s boyfriend appears reluctant as ever to commit. Ty’s fairy-tale ending is stalled now by an unwilling boyfriend, rather than the law. While same-sex marriage was celebrated by Ty’s close friends, it only provided more problems in his relationship with his own boyfriend. The quiet, mature presence of Ty’s boyfriend leaves viewers wondering about his resistance to marry Ty. It seems to stem from his own insecurity of showing public affection to another man; fearing ridicule from public eyes that he is tired of facing. Ty’s boyfriend is still affected by public opinion and discrimination against gay men, and he may feel equally as vulnerable as Ty because he doesn’t want marriage to complicate his stable, comfortable, and sometimes ‘closeted’ relationship with Ty.

Robert however is a man of extravagance; owning one of the oldest gay bars in Galveston, Texas where he hosts drag shows and has befriended both guests and employees in the process. It is a safe haven where drag queens, cross-dressers, and all gays and lesbians can feel secure and comfortable. Robert’s serious side is seen as he battles through a legal case that could result in the closure of his bar, and the consequential loss of his surrogate family. As he stands to lose everything closest to him, he begins reminiscing about his boyfriend who had died many decades ago. Robert still struggles with the pains of his past and we now see him slowing down; appearing tired and less involved with the business he started with his deceased partner. As the camera pans out in one scene, Robert is shown as quite small, sitting on his front porch swing, as the audience takes in his purple house sandwiched between brown houses. I found this striking, as it emphasized that Robert is proud of his identity, of being exuberant, creative, hilarious, and gay. His spirit is not necessarily dampened by the stigma of being gay in a largely emphasized heterosexual society, but rather by the growing isolation he feels as a consequence of having a smaller support group.

Since coming out in his 70’s, Dennis is the subject that may draw the most concern from viewers as he has lived a closeted lifestyle for most of his life, has suffered from depression, and has experienced suicidal thoughts. Dennis kept his longing to wear women’s clothing a secret while being married for decades. Once his wife passed, he moved into a LGBT retirement home in Portland, Oregon and went on a gay cruise; hoping to finally feel alive in his own skin, whether dressed in drag or not. Being the oldest person on the cruise, Dennis had trouble meeting new people. The encounters on the cruise ship end up being quite awkward and off-putting to other guests. Dennis nevertheless continues to muster the courage to approach other men, but he falls short in securing conversation. He is premature as a gay man, and so his inexperience is most obvious in social situations where someone his age may be expected to have more ‘finesse’ or time to have perfected the art of conversation. The passengers on the cruise seemed too young to take Dennis seriously; showing that age discrimination exists even within an ‘all-inclusive’ gay cruise. As he waited in drag for the cruise’s talent show, he heard the host say on stage that seniors should just “throw up the hat to drag”. This was a blow to both Dennis and the audience because of the blatant discrimination seen from both the host and the laughing crowd of younger, gay men.

Gay marriage, rowdy gay bars, and cross-dressing seniors are all stigmatized as abnormal and unnatural simply because they differ from standardized norms in society, such as being heterosexual and adhering to only male and female gender appropriations. Adding in age discrimination, gay seniors are perhaps the first significant ‘wave’ of gay people to enter into this age demographic and are consequently perceived to stick out even more as a social abnormality through the process of queercripping; that gay seniors are criticized on the basis of being disabled by age as they are no longer ‘sexy’, but are also defective by being gay (2, 3). The stigma of being gay weighs heavily on Ty’s boyfriend, who cannot seem to go through with a public declaration of marriage even after being in love with Ty for more than 30 years. Even as Robert seeks companionship with friends at his bar, he goes home every night to an empty home which echoes in isolation as he sits quietly, flipping through pictures of his deceased partner; no family, just lost friends through decades of fighting to be acknowledged as a regular citizen. Dennis was the oldest and the most affected by ageism; being kept in limbo because being gay and wearing drag is already stigmatized in society, while being old and wearing drag is discriminated by a large proportion of the gay community. He is neither accepted by society or the gay community; which seems to be made up of mostly younger men (below the age of 40) who may have ‘came out’ in a more tolerable time and with more social support services available to them.

Attending ‘Before You Know It’ at the Kingston Reelout festival was definitely a new experience for me. Since I’m not very involved in extracurricular activities at Queen’s, I initially found this outing was a bit forced, in that I saw it as school work and not an activity that I would normally engage in. However, the smaller theatre and comfortable seating made it feel more intimate and less crowded. I quickly found myself more involved with watching the film, than taking down notes.

I identify as straight, and I found that I felt more comfortable at the Reelout film festival than I usually do within the Queen’s community. Queen’s gender stereotypes remain quite rigid; in that they are still based on strict appearances, clothing, fashion choice, and money. It was good to get away from these expectations for a while. Students who identify differently from these gendered stereotypes, whether by being gay, lesbian, or genderqueer, may find it even more difficult to ‘fit in’ or be accepted by the Queen’s community. It’s an ongoing struggle found not only at Queen’s, but everywhere, where society is still unable to see and treat identity as belonging on a broad spectrum, where everyone just ‘fits in’, rather than always being targeted as different.

Citations:

1. Bahrampour, Tara. “Gay men, lesbians struggle to find caregivers and old-age facilities that don’t discriminate.” October 5, 2013. Accessed February 18, 2014. Web. The Washington Post. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/gays-and-lesbians-struggle-to-find-caregivers-and-old-age-facilities-that-dont-discriminate/2013/10/05/22d57d0c-2b00-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html&gt;.

2. Tolmie, Jane. “Queercripping” [pdf slide 3]. 2014. Retrieved from GNDS125 lecture notes online web site: <https://moodle.queensu.ca/2013-14/course/view.php?id=1145&gt;.

3. Clare, Eli. “Excerpt from Sex, Celebration & Justice (from a keynote written for the Queerness and Disability Conference, 2002)”. 2002. Accessed February 24, 2014. Web. <http://eliclare.com/what-eli-offers/lectures/queer-disability&gt;.

Boi Oh Boi

February 8^th marked the day I attended Reelout Film Festival’s screening of Dear Lesbos with Love: 3 Films About Queer Women. To me, the most striking of the three films was Boi Oh Boi, a ten-minute experimental documentary starring and directed by Thirza Cuthand, a Cree filmmaker from Saskatchewan. The shortest of the featured films, the script of Boi Oh Boi is reflective of Cuthand’s most intimate thoughts regarding her experiences with romance, gender roles, mental illness and identity, reading as if it were a page extracted from her own journal. The delivery of Cuthand’s voice is soothing yet monotonous, and the display is mostly a video clip compilation of Cuthand performing mundane yet stereotypically masculine tasks such as changing the oil in her car, tying a tie, and modeling a pair of briefs. Boi Oh Boi explores Cuthand’s identity formation as a First Nations genderqueer woman in a straightforward and honest way, making it easily understandable and accessible to audiences who may not have shared experiences.     

With only her voice and the collection of short clips, Cuthand tells the story of her gender dysmorphia, specifically whether she wanted to continue self-identifying as a butch lesbian, or if she wanted to make the transition to being male. A large part of her narrative involves the reconciliation of her body to her gender, such as whether she wanted her breasts to be smaller, her clitoris to be bigger, her voice to be deeper and her experimentation with a makeshift packer. Another major theme in the short film was how Cuthand’s exploration of gender was complicated by mental illness and stigma – temporarily housed in a mental health group home with women unlike them, Cuthand was required to hide their gender identity at the time. After six months of presenting like a boy, Cuthand decided she was content with both her body and her identity as a butch lesbian, although she enjoys occasionally presenting and being regarded as a man.     

The intimacy of this short film is what makes it memorable. By telling a deeply personal story with no hints of censorship, Cuthand exposes how complicated gender fluidity can be, and how transitioning is heavily affected by not only one’s own feelings, but also societal expectations, interpersonal relationships, and stigma surrounding mental health topics. I found that Cuthand’s monotonous tone helps present the story as solely a recollection of her own experiences with little sensationalization, permitting the viewer to form their own ideas on gender fluidity and the obstacles one may face in the journey of transitioning. Complementary to the aural factor, the visuals are relevant yet ordinary and allow the audience to closely listen to Cuthand’s relaxing voice.    

I enjoyed how Cuthand presented her coming to terms with a gender alongside her acceptance of her body – although at times she strongly felt the desire to transition to male, she admitted that she loved her large breasts, and was unsure if she wanted to sacrifice that body part in order to be considered a man. As a cis-female, although I have felt unsatisfied with my body in the past, I have never felt discomfort to the point of considering the addition or removal of parts. In fact, watching Boi Oh Boi helped me realize that I feel extremely attached to my physical characteristics, and the idea of undergoing surgery in order to feel like oneself is foreign, yet very interesting to me. That being said, I also appreciated Cuthand speaking about how she occasionally enjoys packing. To me, there is something very admirable about a human body having a collection of gendered sex characteristics such as breasts, a vagina, and a penis – perhaps this fascination stems from my childhood love for Pokemon and it’s gotta-catch-‘em-all plotline.

In its final minutes, Cuthand provides the film with yet another layer of depth by introducing the speculation she experiences due to her cultural roots. As a First Nations person, she questions if she would have grown to take the role of being two-spirited in her tribe if colonization had ceased to happen. This is particularly interesting because although Cuthand regards herself as a masculine woman, masculinity in traditional two-spirited terms involves an air of warrior hood, incongruent with her disposition. Even in the film Cuthand says, “I think hunting and fighting would have been a very un-Thirza-like thing to do… But who knows?” That being said, on her web page Cuthand introduces herself as two-spirited, so it is possible that in the time between her final edit of the film (2012) and today, some aspect of her identity may or may not have changed.  The question Cuthand is asking caused me to speculate about the possibilities of my own positionality and personality if the colonization of Canada had not happened. I quickly realized that without colonization my Filipino mother and Jamaican father would not have immigrated to Calgary in the 1970’s, and I would thus have never been born, let alone be influenced by modern western thought.

Attending the Reelout Queer Film and Video Festival was an enjoyable activity for both my older sister (who was visiting Kingston) and I. After attending the screening we engaged in a casual discussion about gender fluidity and dysphoria, inspired by Boi Oh Boi. My sister revealed to me that when she was younger she used to question the necessity of labeling herself with a gender due to her disposition as a deep-voiced tomboy. As someone who also grew up as a tomboy, I agreed with occasionally having those thoughts.

In regards to attending Reelout in terms of my own personal activities at Queens, the festival was sponsored by CFRC 101.9fm, the campus radio station at which I am the Arts Coordinator. Because I enjoyed the Dear Lesbos with Love screening I invited the Festival Director/Programmer Matt Salton to my weekly show, Art Freak. He graciously agreed and we had an enjoyable interview about the history of Reelout and the necessity of representation in popular media. It was unsurprising to see that CFRC had sponsored the festival, as it is in their own mandate to “provide innovative and alternative radio programming that enriches and challenges the academic and cultural life of the University and Kingston community…”. I can easily state that due to CFRC’s values, I feel as if I have a small part of Queen’s where I can feel involved in a culture that is welcoming and notably diverse.

G.B.F.

With the rise of social media and keeping up with the latest trend; the three most popular girls in high school compete for the latest ‘accessory’ a G.B.F (gay best friend) in order to gain more popularity and thus become prom queen. Unfortunately for the girls there is only one openly gay male in the school, Tanner.

The movie G.B.F is a satire that is a continuation of the new queer cinema movement (Pearson, Hollinger, and Gordon iii). The film helps explore the absurd use of social media and reliance on it in the twenty first century. By examining the film we can see how race, gender, and popular culture are represented in todays culture in relation to the prom queens, Brent and Tanner, and Mrs. Van Camp.

The three up and running prom queens are highly satirical which makes the film entertaining. Fawcet is the most popular girl who has beautiful hair, incredible ‘style’ and is always keeping up with the latest trends, she acts unintelligent but inside she is incredibly smart and talented. ‘Shley is portrayed as a religious good-girl. With an ironic twist,  ‘Shley has a secretly gay Mormon boyfriend, who tries to have sex with every gay man in the film. And lastly there is Caprice who is head of the drama club and is presented to be very artistic, is also the only black person in the film. First I will focus on the prom queens and their roles in the film. One of my main criticisms is, that, all though this movie is satirical it still does not pass the gender special test or the race special test. This results in a very low intersectionality, which is disappointing for the film. The use of race and gender are constantly constrained to a position of minority and lack of rule. This becomes evident by the end of the film when the people who “win” are the white males. Although this movie is satirical of every ‘pop’ movie made, it did not have to follow the usual lack of intersectionalities accordingly.

The writers, actors and directors do a fantastic job at exaggerating the importance and stress social media and culture put on certain serotypes that young girls should fit into. By using a satirical strategy the message that G.B.F sends us is that forming to socially constructed roles and therefore relying on magazines and pop culture as a source of guidance is ridiculous, naïve and leads to unhappiness.  All three of the girls are holding back emotions, thoughts, and actions that would radically change who they are in order to fit a certain niche. This pertains to the overall theme of the film that is: be open and honest about who you are.

The three running prom queens are all unique characters, however, because they are seen as ‘normal’, and thus the audience is comfortable watching them, it automatically assumes the power and privilege with the three girls. In contrast to their power and privilege this enables Tanner and Brent’s characters as losers and their homosexuality turns into a disability creating an instant inequality in the relationships between the two groups. This contrast becomes exceedingly evident when Tanner is accidently outed as a gay man, he than becomes the object of desire for Fawcet, ‘Shely and Caprice. In order to win prom queen the girls believe that they need a G.B.F to increase their popularity ratings, thus creating Tanner as a mere accessory; a mean to their ends.

When the character of Tanner is outed to the school as gay and becomes the object of the Prom Queens attention, they quickly realize Tanner is not the stereotypical gay person that they see in pop culture (Hart). The queens add style, and flamboyance to Tanner in order to turn him into their perfect accessory. Because this is a satirical movie I think the way the directors addressed homonormativity in this context was well done. The film exaggerated and exploited what is constantly seen in social media of how a gay man should be.

In comparison to how the prom queens act toward Tanner and his lack of homonormativity, another interesting person to look at is Brent Van Camps mother.  Brent (Tanners best friend) plays the stereotypical gay man as described by social media. He is flamboyant, loud, attractive, slender, well dressed and uses ‘feminine’ body language. It is therefore assumed the entire school thinks that Brent is gay but he is not officially open about his homosexuality. When Brent’s mom finds out that he is gay she has no objections, as it is implied that she already knew, but instead, is unsure about how to act toward her son. Instead of simply treating him the same way she begins to treat him like a G.B.F. Brent’s mother begins to treat her son the way she has seen gay men in social media. Ms. Van Camp believes her son would prefer being referred to as calling him “girl” (or as she puts it “guuurl”), asking him to go shopping with her, and suggesting they watch Brokeback Mountain together.  This shows us that there is a certain way gay men are treated in social media and pop culture. Because there is one dominant generalization for how gay men are to be treated (and therefore how they like to be treated) in society – this becomes the dominant way that the two openly gay men are addressed when they have interactions between the other main characters.

Overall I enjoyed the satirical stance that G.B.F took on the representation of homosexuality in western culture.

This was my first time ever attending Reelout and I enjoyed my experience. Choosing one movie to see was difficult, particularly because there were so many options that looked incredibly interesting. At Queens I have primarily joined clubs that revolve around politics (debating, Queens model parliament, Queens model united nations). In terms of my own personal educational and cultural activities at Queens I think that Reelout fits in perfectly with the Queens community. In all my courses and activities the issue of equality for everyone is such a major issue and often becomes the center of main debates, bills, essays, and general topics of discussion. I enjoyed Reelout because it took a social media perspective using cinephilia versus a political or development one.

Works Cited

1. Wendy Gay Pearson, Veronica Hollinger, and Joan Gordon, eds., Queer Universes: Sexualities in Science Fiction(Liverpool, England: University of Liverpool Press, 2008), iii, http://www.questia.com/read/119242542.

2. Kylo-Patrick R. Hart, “Representing Gay Men on American Television,” The Journal of Men’s Studies9, no. 1 (2000)

What’s In Your Pocket?

In early February I attended the Reelout film festival in Kingston, and watched ‘In Your Pocket: What’s Your Sex’ – a series of 17 short videos, submitted to answer the question: What is your sex? The films were all under 4 minutes, and presented a creative and innovative approach to the question posed, while demonstrating the growing movement of smart phone cinema. Curator Marcin Wisniewski praises this movement, believing that it is “particularly important to the LGBT community as it allowed us to take matters of OUR representation into OUR hands” (Wisniewski). The smart phone cinema movement seems to mirror the 1990s New Queer Cinema movement, which was made possible due to the handheld video camera, and which was praised for allowing queer people to feature themselves and their communities on film, in a time when popular cinema was not (“New Queer Cinema” 1). As the LGTB community continues to grow, they continue to need exposure with proper representation – smart phone technology allows people from these communities to create their own high quality films, and so they can present representations that they believe are accurate. Following this theme of accurate representation of this diverse community, the creator explained how they decided to feature every submission in order to stay true to the idea that all are welcome and accepted for their various answers. All the films worked together to create a mosaic of answers to the question “What’s your sex”, however three of the films in particular resonated with me due to their message and presentation.

One of the final videos shown was ‘Obsession’ by Ben Oliver, DJ Stiles and Marc Cormier. The film follows a young man during an average day, and shows his ‘interactions’ with people he encounters via a dating app. The film becomes a satire of recently popular ‘dating’ apps, in which the profiles of people who are physically close to you come up on your phone, and you can decide if you would like to chat with them or not. The film shows many different ‘profiles’, and the diversity among these people and their sexual interests. Some are straight, queer, looking for long-term relationships, casual hook ups etc. The range of sexualities is presented well, and the creators poke fun at what written descriptions are typically found on the profiles of people on these apps.  In their profiles, people box themselves into labels, such as “Twink”, to more easily describe their sexual preference.

A film named Pigeon Hole by Mark Pariselli, speaks against these sexual labels, particularly in the male, homosexual community. The film cleverly presents different pigeons, along with various labels, such as “Twink”, “Twunk”, “Bear”, and so on. As the labels are featured with pigeons, we see that these words are not proper descriptions, and that they are unnecessary names that cause people to generalize and stereotype others. The end of the film shows a large birdhouse with these labels at each ‘door’, and the birdhouse is burned. The message is clear – people should not be pigeon holed with meaningless labels. It speaks on a small level – homosexuals should not be categorized into different types of ‘gays’, but the message is applicable on a larger scale, as homosexuals should not be categorized on a larger sense, as feminine, sensitive etc.

The final video I will discuss is ‘You Are Not Your Genitals’ by Kiley May. Kiley May describes how the question can be interpreted in many ways, and asks “Do you mean sex or gender?” Kiley goes on to explain that sex and gender do not share meanings, and explains her distinctions between sexuality, gender and genitals. Kiley’s message is one that is gaining a lot of popularity recently, as people are beginning to understand that your sexuality is not based on your biological sex.

The films create a perspective into the wide spectrum of sexualities that exist, and these three in particular share messages of the same theme: we cannot make assumptions about individuals and their sexualities. Obsession and Pigeon Hole both feature the idea that people are put in, or allow themselves to be put into, different categories within their various sexualities. Pigeon Hole opposes this idea overtly, and it is true that creating labels allows people to make assumptions about your lifestyle, personality and identity without trying to get to know you. Fausto-Sterling argue that “there are no universal categories of sex, gender or sexuality that hold up over time and across cultures” (qtd. In Aulette and Witner 114). Aulette and Witner continue on to state that “The range of real people and their actual sexual experiences challenge the conventional categories” (114). The problem with labels is that they remove an individual’s identity, in terms of sexuality, but also in terms of race. It is not just queer labels that are dangerous, but also racial labels and the stereotypes that come with them. With racial stereotypes, people categorize those of a certain ethnicity or cultural background without learning about that person. Generalization is dangerous, especially when done by ignorant or hateful people. These racial labels can create and perpetuate racism and discrimination, as people do not try to get to know you, but instead lump you into a category with predetermined traits and features. Ethnic labelling is particularly harmful, as people can judge you immediately based on your appearance, (just as they may do with more ‘visible’ queer groups such as trans people). A homophobic person may not be able to immediately tell that an individual is gay, however a racist person may have an easier time determining that an individual is Asian, for example. That is not to say that people need confirmation of ethnicity or sexuality to discriminate, as some heterosexual people are attacked by homophobic people because they ‘seem’ queer, and another individual may be called a Chinese slur even though they are Cambodian. These labels aim to describe a single feature about people, however there are many times when people use these labels to generalize many aspects of the individual.

Although the films display a wide range of sexualities and individuals, I did notice that the people in the film were predominantly Caucasian. The films were submissions, and every submission was accepted so it was not as though they were purposefully excluding people based on their race, however in films that aim to feature the ‘diversity’ of sexualities, you hope they will show that there is not only an infinite number of sexualities, but everyone can be anything. Without this display of racial diversity, Asians or Middle Eastern people, for example, may feel left out of the queer community. At the same time, they are not fully immersed in their racial communities, because they are queer. We need to be mindful of this, and recognize that an individual may be queer despite the stereotype of people of their ethnicity being homophobic (once again, the dangers of stereotyping).

 

Works Cited

Aulette, Judy Root, and Judith Wittner. Gendered Worlds. 2nd. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. 114. Print.

“New Queer Cinema.” GLBTQ . GLBTQ Inc. . Web. 20 Feb 2014. <http://www.glbtq.com/arts/new_queer_cinema.html&gt;.

Wisniewski, Marcin. “In Your Pocket: What’s Your Sex? Shorts.” Reelout. N.p.. Web. 20 Feb 2014. <http://www.reelout.com/event/7pm-whats-your-sex-shorts/&gt;.

The Human Body, Society’s Canvas

The manner in which people expose, modify, and conduct their bodies is undeniably influenced by the societal norms perpetuated within their experienced time period and culture. Ideas surrounding good health, monetary wealth, beauty, as well as social status and influence, often operate as factors that people utilize to determine how they should present their physical selves in ways that reflect on how they want to be perceived by others. While the “free will” to engage in body modification may exist in the sense of the pure physical ability to alter appearances, I believe that the grand majority of social human beings present their bodies while taking into consideration the opinions of their peers and the society they must confront on a daily basis.

By late childhood or, at latest, the early stages of adolescence, a person who regularly encounters others should be able to identify several visible societal norms. This may be in the form of fashionable and appropriate clothing, popular hairstyles, and forms of body modification such as piercing or tattooing. In fact, it might even be more accurate to say that a person of this young age should be able to identify what is “unusual”, or what defies societal norms. The point is, ideas of what can be considered “acceptable” are experienced on a daily basis and are generally easily distinguishable. Human-to-human contact can perpetuate these cultural norms through visual presentation and word of mouth, but media presence in a person’s life can also dictate social conventions. For those living in capitalist societies, it should come as no surprise that corporations far too often define acceptable modes of living.

In the example linked in the writing prompt (http://gothamist.com/2014/01/16/american_apparel_mannequin.php), there is an image of American Apparel mannequins donning large patches of pubic hair underneath their see-through underwear. Disregarding for now how you personally choose to groom your body hair and how you came to that decision, consider the transformation of the mannequin as a dictation of what clothes we should wear to a dictation of how our bodies should look. Even mannequins, humanoid clothes racks, are undergoing further modification from the factory in order to present a brand image the corporation has chosen to project. Whether or not American Apparel’s body hair initiative had positive intentions (perhaps an attempt to convey that pubic hair, often categorized as an “unacceptable” form of hair, is ok to grow out), to the consumer and every day pedestrian, this advertisement subconsciously affiliates dense pubic hair to the brand. This effect can also be observed in some mannequins spotted in Valencia, Venezula: a storeowner altered his mannequins to match cultural ideas reflecting on ideal women’s body shapes.

Photo: New York Times

Those who defy cultural norms regarding bodily treatment do so at risk of social discrimination. For example, people hoping to lead professions in health care are discouraged from having visible tattoos and piercings beyond the ear lobes. A person denying these rules would likely face discrimination even by the stage of med school interviews. Some people actively choose to style their bodies in ways that break social expectations. However, can this truly be seen as an act of free will? Consciously choosing to engage in body modifications that are considered unusual or unacceptable would still be done with societal standards in mind. In this context, free will would entail that a person chooses to change their body based on their own aesthetic ideals, but is it even possible to form these ideals without the consultation of others? I think one could even go as far as saying that there may be social norms for anti-conformism.

For the great majority of people who lead their lives seeking acceptance and approval by their peers, body presentation is influenced by norms formed by the small groups (e.g. A group of friends who embrace tattooing) and big groups (e.g. Fitness companies who present thin, muscular models in their advertising) that form our culture. Because culture is fluid, these norms can change over the course of time, in accordance with the evolution of dominant ideologies. This effect can be witnessed in the 2002 naturalistic experiment by Anne Becker, where (relatively media-naïve) Fijian adolescent girls were exposed to American television. After three years, questionnaires and observations indicated behaviours of disordered eating and negative ideologies towards their own culture.

Free will in body presentation assumes that a person identifies as detached from cultural meanings and expectations assigned to particular bodily alterations. It also assumes that a person would choose to portray their physical character without taking social acceptance into consideration, as well as denying any ideological influence imposed on them by friends, family, the general public, or the media. Thus, I believe it is very unlikely that a person can truly exercise free will when it comes to body modification. From the patterns of pubic hair seen in pornography, to the types of hairstyles donned by influential celebrities, and even to the latest piercing the most popular girl in school has obtained, personal body presentation is largely influenced by what we perceive in our surrounding environment.

Sources:

American Apparel Mannequins (http://gothamist.com/2014/01/16/american_apparel_mannequin.php)

Venezuelan Mannequins (http://www.smh.com.au/world/venezuelan-mannequins-shape-fantasies-20131108-2x6rk.html)

Anne Becker’s Study on exposure to American TV (http://corcom130-sp10-advertising.wikispaces.umb.edu/file/view/Fiji.pdf)