While to some, Disney’s animated children movies may seem innocent and harmless, but when looked into, may not be so G-rated. Sharday Mosurinjohn states in his article “we constantly feed them narratives that give them a narrow sense of their options when it comes to forming social, romantic, and sexual attachments.” It is true that clever plot twists can keep us glued to the screen for hours. However, for impressionable young and adolescent viewers, these movies can send a message that heterosexual love is superior to all other types, as well as the norm in society. Surrounded with music, flowers, fireflies, and dancing, these movies can depict a heterosexual landscape fairly persuasively. Being that, in 2002, 97.84 percent of households in United States owned at least one television, and most Disney G-rated movies grossed over 100 million in U.S, one can say that these movies have the ability to mold many young minds.
Before this weeks reading, I never thought of asexuality as an actual sexual orientation. The first thing that came to my mind was whether or not asexuality is a biological phenomenon, or a social label. An environmental assault such as a traumatic childhood experience (e.g. rape) could be a possible reason for a transition to asexuality. Chromosomal mutations could also be a biological factor for the lack of sexual desire in an individual. There is a similar acquired vs. situational debate for other types of sexual orientation, such as homosexuality; the only difference is that homosexuality has a stronger presence in today’s society.
In Nicole Prause and Cynthia A. Graham’s study, they mention the pros and cons of asexuality based off questionnaires. The one advantage that drew my attention was the higher amount of free time. All I could think about when I read this was how much time people actually spend thinking about and chasing sexual desires. Dr. Brian Mustanski of Psychology today did a study on exactly that. She collected data by giving a tally counter to 283 students to click whenever they think about sex. The results were 34.2 for men, and 18.6 for women. The one problem with this study is the method and possibly audience. If someone were to tell me to click whenever I think about sex, I would think about sex more often. I would expect that an asexual would be far more productive than individuals with sexual desires, assuming the asexual individual isn’t lazy.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201112/how-often-do-men-and-women-think-about-sex
upluto: In your post you say “However, for impressionable young and adolescent viewers, these movies can send a message that heterosexual love is superior to all other types, as well as the norm in society.” Do you think that disney type movies show heterosexual love as superior or they ONLY show hetero love. To be superior you must be superior to something. Do we see any other types of love in these movies (if your answer is yes, can you give me some examples?)
Also, you talk about a study by Dr. Brian Mustanski (who you later refer to as “she”, was that a typo?). I agree with your questioning of the method (asking us to measure how much we think about something is likely to make us think about that something more), so how could you revise this study to avoid that? Can you think of an approach to measuring desire or attraction that wouldn’t increase it in the process?