The Vampire Diaries - Insensitive Aversion Therapy Irony, Writers?

Image Source

BACKGROUND INFO :

In case you did not know or could not tell, the above episode still is from the television series, "The Vampire Diaries" - which is, coincidentally, one of my most favorite shows. So imagine my displeasure when realizing that the writers seem to be quite insensitive to the gay community in their writing on two different occasions. Above, we see teenager Caroline Forbes with her father Bill Forbes, who is gay. On the show and in this scene, Caroline is a recently-turned vampire, one of the very undead creatures her father hates most and strives to rid Mystic Falls of, no matter what. More specifically, what you see above is Daddy Forbes trying to "fix" his daughter by associating pain with vampirism, forcing her to be "normal" again.

Now what could possibly be harshly ironic about this situation? 

Image Source

Image Source

 THE CONNECTION :
Just about everyone knows that in vampire mythology, vampires feel excruciating pain when they burn in the sun, but why exactly does this matter in this particular instance?
You see, Bill Forbes's character is using the same sort of torture therapy on his daughter that doctors once used on homosexuals. You may say, it's just a show, they don't mean anything behind it, but are the writers being creative with their irony or just plain insensitive? If it matters, Bill Forbes has yet to be called out on the show for his hypocritical actions. Aversion therapy is certainly no laughing matter and yet it seems to be exploited on here solely for an ironic storyline twist. 

 JESSICA SAYS :
Perhaps I am making a bigger deal out of this than others, but I truly think it's inappropriate to have a gay television character use aversion therapy on someone they view to be "different" or "broken" without there being some sort of revelation on how wrong, hypocritical, and unethical it is being relayed to the audience. It almost seems as though the writers are poking fun on such a once heavily-practiced torture therapy that scarred so many homosexuals. I think it's insensitive. And as I wrote up above, twice so far in the series has Bill used torture to "fix" another. One of the instances being the scene with his daughter Caroline, and the other, with Caroline's sired boyfriend, Tyler Lockwood. 
Vampire Diaries, I love you, but you gotta stop this behavior unless you plan on showing the audience how wrong it is, not how ironic it is.

Please note that I am not holding Jack Coleman, the actor who plays Bill, accountable for any of this.
Also, do NOT post homophobic rants in the comment section. It WILL be deleted immediately.

Image Source

TO THE READERS : 

• Do you think I'm looking too deeply into this specific part of the show or do you my rant here is warranted?
• Do you think the writers are trying to make Bill's character bring light to such a topic and educate the audience?
• Would there be as much of an impact on the audience if Bill's character was straight? Did people even notice this irony?

UPDATE :
As of February 3, 2012.

Image Source

Spoiler Alert, btw.
 In last night's heartbreaking family-based episode, Bill Forbes fell victim to an unknown murderer; however, because he died with vampire blood in his system, he gained consciousness and was "alive" as the thing he hated most: a vampire. But in TVD world, the rules are that he would die if he did not drink human blood.


Sadly, the writers didn't decide to take the show in the direction of Bill slowly accepting who he was. That would have been beautiful, but honestly, the writers have been lazy with this character's storyline. So instead, Bill Forbes could not separate himself from his convictions for the sake of his daughter and chose to die. 
But I feel the need to say something about this lazy storyline about TVD's only gay character. It's not fair. First they have him use aversion-like techniques of torture on his daughter and her boyfriend. Then in one episode before he leaves Mystic Falls, he basically said that he will never be able to accept his daughter for what she was. Now, they decided to kill him instead of let the character grow as a person and be able to accept himself as well as his daughter for what they unwillingly became.

But no. I think portraying Caroline's gay father as a hypocritical zealot is just downright offensive. Television today certainly does not have a fair percentage of gay characters in comparison to the percentage of gay people in real life. And it seems as though a number of shows have the gay character/s be presented as the villains, even now in 2012. What an unfair representation of the gay community on television. For shame, TVD.

~xxj

Legit Baby Daddy Drama or Desperate Attempt for Ratings?

Image Source

BACKGROUND INFO :

Most likely self-dubbed as the "Royal Family of America", the Kardashians have managed to engrave their existences into the minds of people everywhere all over the globe. Perhaps this is true because their faces and names are plastered upon almost every magazine or celebrity gossip internet article, but perhaps they're well-known and famous for something else. And yup you guessed it, for being famous. Regardless, just about everyone who is connected to the to the modern world at least knows of this family and their desperate attempts to remain relevant in society for the sake of being relevant. And rich. In case you don't know, they are one of the many people who are willing to sell their personal lives just to be on a scripted reality television show about themselves. This show is called "Keeping Up With the Kardashians".

(Aw, they know what alliteration is..)

Image Source

THE TWO SIDES : 
Ever since Kim Kardashian's suspicious marriage and quick divorce, sales and ratings have dropped for the Kardashian family's show. Conveniently, viewers of this reality television show are being thrown a few bones to keep their minds off of the possibility that the marriage was another public desperate attempt to get more money and attention, which, by the way, they did. These drama-laced bones are the following two additions to the Kardashian life television script: the spotlighted baby daddy drama with Khloe Kardashian and Kourtney Kardashian's well-timed pregnancy with her second child. I wonder if the next addition to the script will be what producers were accidentally recorded saying at Kim's wedding. Click on the link below if you're interested:
Producers Caught Already Scripting Kourtney and Scott's Future Wedding?

Some feel badly for Khloe because a personal issue as sensitive as paternity should be kept a situation to be dealt with behind the scenes and when the cameras don't role. Perhaps Kris Jenner, the selfish ringleader of this carnival act, was willing to sell out her daughter's private personal issue just to up the ratings of the show.

(Small side-note, though...it's not like you have to be biologically-related to your parents for them to still be your parents. Ignorant morons...cough.)

OR

Some feel as though this is just a publicity stunt that Khloe has agreed to be a part of, just for the sake of entertainment on the show and to bring the ratings back up. Everyone likes some good baby daddy drama, right?
Brings in all them singles, right, Kim?

Image Source

JESSICA SAYS :

I would hope that it's not true that this "baby daddy" drama is just a ploy to up the show's ratings ever since the shadiness behind the entirety of Kim Kardashian's wedding hit the family hard. It also seems that Kourtney Kardashian and her baby daddy Scott Disick chose a rather convenient time to get pregnant with their second child. Can anyone really think anything this family does is not just for money and fame? Anyway, so if this is in fact a publicity stunt to deter the American public minds off of the wedding situation, I do not feel any sympathy for Khloe's paternity drama going public and being scribbled all over the internet and magazines. That would mean that she agreed to let such a fragile situation become for show. And if this is true, what about the actual people who are legitimately going through heartbreaking paternity cases? Is it really fair to make such a mockery of a sensitive issue, just for entertainment?
But would it seriously surprise you if this was just for entertainment?

Just for the irony:

My thoughts, exactly, Maury.
Image Source

TO THE READERS :

• So, do you think it's fair that if this is just a publicity stunt, that this family is making a mock out of the seriousness of a paternity case and the negative psychological effects that tend to pursue? 
• Would you ever be willing to be a part of a fake baby dady drama just for the insane amount of money it may bring you?
• If this isn't a publicity stunt, do you really think it's fair that Khloe Kardashian has to deal with this situation in the public's eye? 

 

 

~xxj

 

High Fashion or High Risk?

Image Source

  BACKGROUND INFO : 

Meet Thylane Loubry Blondeau, a beautiful 10-year-old French model whose above feature appeared in French Vogue. Blondeau is no stranger to the modeling world, though. She's actually been modeling ever since she was 5-years-old.
(Perhaps that may explain the sultry, glossed look in her eyes.)
In this particular fashion spread, Blondeau sports high heels, bold lipstick, heavy eyeliner, and age-inappropriate dresses while seductively sprawling out on leopard print bed covers. 
So.

Is this art or is it premature sexualization?

Image Source

 THE CONTROVERSY :  

There is no denying that sex sells in the fashion industry, however, there is a fine line between exploitation and advertising in regards to child models. I have read many articles and opinions about this and people seem to have one of these two views:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this fashion spread and the model has not been photographed in any way that can be considered sexual. It's just an advertisement for fashion. Nothing more, nothing less.

OR.

This fashion spread only furthers both sexualization of girls and pedophilia. There is no need to have children photographed in seductive positions, wearing pounds of makeup, staring sensuously into the camera, and wearing age-inappropriate clothing and accessories. Sexualized images such as these also have a lasting effect on young girls who see them. An APA taskforce found that such a damaging influence by the media can severely affect how girls think about femininity and sexuality, promoting "appearance and physical attractiveness" as key values. Sexualization is also linked to low self-esteem, eating disorders, and depression.

Image Source

JESSICA SAYS :  

The sexualization of young girls is definitely a topic that will be seen again on this blog because I thoroughly believe that it is both disgusting and harmful. It is something that should be stopped and perhaps if enough attention is brought to it, something will finally be done about it. So I do my best to help.

Anyway, if it isn't obvious already, I agree with the second view written above. That fashion spread isn't selling fashion, it's selling sex.

(And what kind of mother would actually purchase these types of clothing and shoes for their 10-year-old anyway?)

Any creepy pedophile or child pornographer can plead that the spread is "artistic license". Bottom line: No 10-year-old should ever be victimized like this; however, judging by the fact that her mother pushed her into modeling at such a young age, Blondeau probably knows nothing else.  

Image Source

TO THE READERS :  

• Which view do you guys agree with: artistic and harmless or creepy and sexualized?
• Although this incident didn't happen in the US, there are many things in the media that promote premature female sexualization. Why do you think portions of society around the globe promote this?
• Do you think Blondeau's mother made a poor parenting decision to sell her daughter out to the fashion and modeling industry?

~xxj

Did Anyone Learn Anything From "The Truman Show" Movie?

Image Source

BACKGROUND INFO :
(You can skip this section if you've already seen this.)

 "The Truman Show" is a 1998 movie that focuses on the fake life of an originally-unaware man named Truman Burbank. The world in which he lives in and believes to be real is actually a tremendous studio with hidden cameras everywhere. Also, all of the people around him are actually actors who are just just playing roles on what only they know to be the world's most popular television series, "The Truman Show". In the movie, Truman has been the star of the show ever since his birth, however, he never chose to be a star in the first place. Everything changes, though, when he accidentally bumps into a catering area backstage and becomes severely suspicious of what his life really is. This movie takes you through the journey of the sickening reality of reality television. 

(It's also a really good movie.)

If you would like to read more about this movie, click

Here.

Image Source

 IN RELATION TO REALITY TELEVISION TODAY : 

There is no doubt that reality television has become a highly popular and glorified genre of television in American entertainment today. But did anyone learn anything from the message of this movie? The concept is certainly not new, but has the concept grow to become more socially acceptable now in 2012 than back in 1998 when the movie was first released?

Reality television is defined as the supposedly unscripted documentation of the lives of those willing to have their lives filmed; however, some don't seem to realize that reality television is almost entirely scripted. But as this movie attempts to illustrate, it is unnatural for one's life to be documented solely for the entertainment of an audience. 

So why do people do it?

Image Source

 JESSICA SAYS :

Reality television is one of the many topics I like to give my honest opinion about, especially since I greatly disapprove of the concept. You can and should expect to later see posts about specific reality television shows currently very popular in American entertainment, especially since I never truly understood why and how people are so willing to sell their privacy and script their lives solely for money, fame, and self-promotion. I also never quite understood how people willingly choose to sit on their couch and watch the "lives" of others instead of living their own.

I am not saying that these audience members are mindless sheep, but I don't understand the interest in such a form of entertainment that is created for the sickening self-chosen exploitation of personal lives. How exactly is that entertaining? And yet, such exploitations are obsessed about and desired by the American public, still.

Image Source

TO THE READERS:

• Do any of you religiously watch certain reality television shows and if so, which ones do you watch and why? 
• Why do you think those who "star" on reality TV are so willing to sell their privacy and freewill?  
• Can you really put a price on the value of your freedom? 
• What do you think those from other countries assume about American culture, knowing that reality television is glorified here?

~xxj

Raised Without Gender Stereotypes or Raised Without Gender?

Image Source

BACKGROUND INFO :
(You can skip this section if you've already read about this.)

Five years ago, a couple willing chose to keep their newborn's gender concealed from the rest of the world for the seemingly-pure purpose to protect their child from society's gender stereotypes; however, since he recently started public school, they figured it would be best to personally inform the media of his gender now rather than later. Although the mothers Beck Laxton and Kieran Cooper originally chose to confide the child's gender to few close friends, they did release their child's gender-neutral name right from the start. It has been said that ever since his birth, his mothers have called him "the infant" instead of gender-assigned pronouns such as "him" or "he." And the name they chose was Sasha.

The original article sparked a lot of controversy all over the internet and only until recently did the mothers finally release the gender of their child.

And he is a boy.

However, the question that has buried itself into the minds of society is:
Is Sasha a social experiment gone too far?

Image Source

HYPOCRITICAL or LOGICAL? : 
Although the attempt to rid of gender stereotypes is admirable and probably insanely overdue, the couple also revealed a few peculiar rules that Sasha is to live by. Sasha is supposedly free to dress however he pleases, whether it be a hand-me-down from his sister or his brother; however, even though one would assume that the mothers would fairly allow Sasha  to wear anything that catches his eyes and liking, they do not allow him to wear anything that can be considered "hyper-masculine" - like skull-print shirts and cargo pants. They do, however, allow him to wear a shiny pink girl's swimsuit because they believe that all children enjoy sparkly articles of clothing (aren't shiny pink girls' swimsuits objectively considered "hyper-feminine"? And I've seen plenty of skull shirts marketed towards female children, too...Where has this family been?).
 

I digress.

So is this odd way of raising a child logical or hypocritical because it seems as though the mothers are denying Sasha anything that can be considered  too masculine, but are completely fine with him wearing anything that can be considered feminine or possibly even too feminine.
One may wonder:
Are they really trying to fight gender stereotypes or are they trying to force their son to be a girl?

Image Source

JESSICA SAYS:

This is my first blog post ever, so perhaps it is slightly lengthy for blogging standards, but I hope you all enjoyed it, regardless. Do let me know if it should be shortened.

ANYWAY.

I do admire the intention, however, I cannot help but feel as though this child will need a severe amount of counseling later in life when he realizes he has identity issues thanks to being a publicly-displayed social experiment considered an "it" all his life. Also, I find it hypocritical that these women forbid clothing that can be viewed as masculine, but happily allow their son to wear clothing smothered in hues of pinks and purples - something that I would assume most view as being feminine. How is this his free choice? What if HE wanted to wear the skull shirt? Either he can wear everything he wants to or he can't. There shouldn't be any gray areas.

TO THE READERS:

• So, what do you think? Is it right to raise a child to be neither a boy nor girl, but instead, an "it"?
• What do you think will happen when Sasha goes through grade-school and realizes how different he is compared to his peers?
• Even though this is a couple from the UK, what do you think would happen if couples in the US decided to start raising their kids this way? 

Also, please refrain from expressing any opinions that can be insulting or cruel to the gay community.

~xxj