![[tmbchr]™](/journal/popocculture-blog-logo.jpg){kind=logo}
Scarlett Johansson Is NOT Sexually Available!!!
Okay, so yeah, I think Scarlett Johansson is hot. And that’s why I picked up my roomate’s copy of Allure magazine, and not to find out about what to do with my “stressed out skin” or those “new supplements for dryness, wrinkles and redness.”
And what I found inside was more or less what I was expecting out of a magazine of this caliber:
And hey, I have no problem with sexy pictures (here are the rest from that shoot, FYI). Everyone should have a healthy appreciation for beauty. But what I thought was utterly preposterous was the quotation in LARGE TEXT on the facing page, in which Johansson said:
“There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow…”
HMM! Gosh golly gee! I wonder why people think that? I can’t for the life of me figure out where that “mistaken belief” would come from!!!
I’m open to the possibility that this is just an accidentally vacuous statement or one taken out of context. But the fact that that statement was juxtaposed in GIANT LETTERS across from a page blatantly advertising her sexual availability suggests to me that clever magazine editors are playing games. They want their readers to subconsciously associate the two contradictory messages without ever assimilating the utter hypocrisy of what is being conveyed. It seems meant to be a depth charge designed to bypass the logical circuits of the linear mind, and burrow deep deep beneath the surface - mainly because if you only skim the magazine and/or don’t read the whole article, those are two of the things you’re going to come away from it with.
So what is it that is being pointed towards here? Though I am notoriously unable to penetrate the intricate depths of the female mind, I can give you my best guess as an outside observer what I think they are trying to say. First of all, celebrities in magazines are meant to be taken as role models. We’re supposed to project ourselves into them and live their fame and glamour vicariously, by way of sacramentally purchasing their products and ritually experiencing their media offerings. And this leads me to believe, then, that this particular statement was chosen by the magazine’s editors in order to facilitate that identification process.
In other words, what that means is that when Scarlett Johansson says, “There does seem to be a mistaken belief out there that I am sexually available somehow,” I imagine that on some level they are hoping to capture that part of their female audience’s psyche which experiences the ramifications of this same feeling. That is, that women in monogamous relationships are taught to be devoted to their partner. But at the same time, they seem to also receive under-handed messages through media and advertising that they ought to still maintain an aura of sexual availability to other potential partners as well. (This pattern is, of course, not restricted to women either, I realize…) The juxtaposition of this overtly sexual image with this quotation seems to give voice to this paradox, turning it into a supposedly coy sexy game for self-aggrandizement, instead of a morally contradictory quandary.
But that’s just me. Like I said, I don’t necessarily admit to understanding women or how they think, or are taught to think about these things…
I did spot someone else online reacting to this statement of Johansson’s, who points out that “doubting monogamy” seems to be some kind of catching celebrity fad:
I have a sinking feeling that monogamy is going to be the new celebrity pregnancy this coming year. All the pretty people were knocked up last year; this year they’re all going to be waxing philosophic on how we’re not cut out for monogamy ala Kate Hudson and Sienna Miller. […]
Here’s what I don’t get about this: It sounds like this whole monogamy doubt movement is being drummed up by a bunch of Hollywood reporters. Honestly, why should any of us care if Kate Hudson thinks humans are incapable of monogamy? Has she done extensive research (the scientific variety, not the naked variety with Owen Wilson)? Why should we care what Scarlett Johansson thinks about monogamy?
This may in fact turn out to be a bona fide fad after all. Remember that salacious Rolling Stone article on psychedelic author Daniel Pinchbeck which accused him of being little more than a mystical man-whore? Well, a major element of his online critical reaction against that article was that he should have expected a mainstream publication like Rolling Stone couldn’t have possibly understood his subtle and nuanced understanding of monogamous relationships. To his credit though, it’s certainly not an open-and-shut issue, and yes there certainly do need to be more (and more meaningful) cultural conversations about these types of things. Because let’s face it: life is complicated. And everyone is going to try and push you in a different direction. It can be difficult to know where and when to push back. And as a result marketers and magazine editors (same thing??) have a pretty much wide open door to swoop in and direct the conversation subconsciously, because not a lot of other people are even considering it. Should we be? What’s there to consider? What’s the point of monogamy anyway? Why should we even bother?
- Bishop Admits He Was Abused By Priest
- More insanity out of the UK
- Money Graham
- Deuce Bigalow & the Troubadors
- The Democratic Republic of Sex
- Prev: Positive Effects of Crystal Meth?
- Next: TALITHA CUMI
November 10th, 2006 at 6:01 pm
It seems like they want to make sure that these demigods are in a constant state of flux. They want them to be movers and shakers. They want them to do the shit that the rest of us can’t do. I think the more available they seem, the easier they are to sell. The second you can pin down exactly what one of these stars is “about”, it’s over. The mystery is gone. Marriage, and to an even greater extent, having kids, is the ultimate mystery killer for these people. (Unless you’re a major star that’s moved beyond demigod status and can be considered a full god, of course.)
November 10th, 2006 at 10:57 pm
we really shouldn`t care what media types think about anything if we want some sort of ongoing sanity. these people are rich spokespeople for products and services. one has to ask; what are they selling when they make statements (editorials…..) about anything. everything delivered by media is selling something. the cultural paradigm is being sold image by image on a daily basis. you become what you watch and what you buy.
November 10th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
and speaking of images, have you seen dead or alive extreme 2 is all about?
November 11th, 2006 at 1:45 am
What’s the point of monogamy???
You might as well ask….”WHat’s the point of having kids? What’s the point of of being a good dog owner? What’s the point of making your 5 yr old daughter eat her broccolli? What’s the point of taking your wife’s car to the mechanic for a tune up and alignment check? What’s the point in making a nice healthy dinner for you husband when he comes home from work?”
Have we really become so inhumane that we no longer understand the importance of responsibility to our loved ones?
November 11th, 2006 at 7:32 am
I believe media’s portrayal of women is not only unrealistic (see Dove’s campaign for real beauty, which has its flaws but more merits imo) but is also perpetrating a very dualistic and hypocrite view of women.
Women have to be sexy all times, but they can absolutely not act on that sexuality. A woman who does, is in most circles directly branded as a “slut” or a “mattress” or more such terms. This ties together with the idea that sexuality for women is connected to “staying young” (aka fertile). So you are creating some kind of women who are desperate to stay young and sexy, yet they can never express that sexuality, otherwise they lose their status.
Which is definitely dangerous. Because from that stems that women who act in a sexy way, who are flirting, who are teasing, then suddenly cannot go through with the so-called “promise” their image seems to give out. And then you come to issues such as rape and abuse, where “she sought it herself, Mr. Judge” because she was wearing a short skirt. Don’t get me wrong, I believe the rapist/abuser is absolutely at fault here, but you cannot deny that this entire image of women as purely sexual objects plays a role here, as men come to think of women as objects, and then can get angry because they don’t get to play (I’m broadly generalising here, I realise not all men are going to jump on every short-skirted woman out there).
So not only is this false idea of beauty spread by magazines a disaster for self-esteem and health, it is also endangering women if you ask me. Nothing wrong with being/feeling sexy, nothing wrong with sexuality, but as long as society dictates women must be pretty and shut up, must “please” but then impose a Victorian morale on them, the conflict resulting is doing much more harm than good.
And by now I totally strayed off topic I believe.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:13 am
I don’t know about the comments, but the picture is keeping me on topic.
Good god that woman’s delicious looking.
November 11th, 2006 at 10:50 am
I believe her left hand is supposed to be simulating something…
November 11th, 2006 at 3:25 pm
It’s called “The Tease.” Every woman at some point has been accused of being a tease. Many women deliberately go out of their way to tease men for sport.
And Maxim has made lots of money off of it. Since they can’t show you Scarlett Johansen completely buck naked, they’ll tantalize you instead. This will get you to buy the magazine or write about it in your blog.
I never liked Maxim, for the same reason I don’t like strip clubs: I don’t care for tantalization if there is no satisfying payoff. Plus, I was always a Playboy man– you can’t go wrong with complete nudity AND thoughtful articles.
Take away the allure of a celebrity who wouldn’t pose nude for Playboy getting semi-nude for Maxim, and what do you have left? A crap magazine, that’s what.
The Tease. It’s nothing new. Just ask Sheherezade.
November 11th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
No! That is exactly *on* topic!
Who exactly are you accusing of holding that inhumane viewpoint? Read carefully, as no one here is expressing that - only asking questions in order to engage people in conversations about what is *truly* important to us all.
November 11th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
How did I miss that!
Left hand path?
November 11th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
stimulating something?
November 12th, 2006 at 4:51 pm
whoa, you’re right:
simulation = stimulation
November 12th, 2006 at 8:02 pm
So what you’re saying is, that all us computer people are a bunch of wankers?
November 12th, 2006 at 8:12 pm
What?
November 12th, 2006 at 11:32 pm
Eh, loose association: simulation->computers, stimulation in the context of that picture->person masturbatin -> hence computer people wanking.
At least a dismissive “heh”?
I’ll go away now. At least I amused myself (Ha!? Ok, I’m leaving…).
November 13th, 2006 at 12:30 am
No need for that - I just didn’t understand what you meant!
November 22nd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
[…] Pop Occulture examines Scarlett Johansson’s sexual proclivities, or lack thereof. I’m reminded of… […]
April 19th, 2008 at 5:04 am
[…] Earlier this year the Jesus and Mary Chain performed together for the first time in 9 years, with the drummer from Ride, and little known chanteuse Scarlett Johansson on backing vocals. And, last year we had the excellent Leave Them All Behind compilation, celebrating the scene that celebrated itself, as well as a newly remastered re-released of Chapterhouse’s Whirlpool, one of the greatest shoegaze albums of all time. […]