The following post is going to be the last one dealing with sexuality of animals from my side. For that reason this time I chose a species that really does not seem to care about gender at all when it comes to pick a partner for sex. This is one of the reasons why they are considered as hippies, another reason is that they seem to use sexual practice to avoid or to solve conflicts. Therefore they are also called make-love-not-war-apes. The species I talk about is the Bonobo, one of the smaller representatives of the great apes. Bonobos break all rules about sexuality that were ever made. They do not only ignore gender, they also seem to ignore age, because even the young ones participate in sexual activities. Moreover they use different positions and practices like for example oral sex. Scientists often observed that bonobos started to have sex when conflicts arise. For example when two bonobos see something to eat, the conflict that they both want it for themselves is followed by sex between them and afterwards they share the food peacefully. In fact this can not be the only reason for them to have sex as they do it very often during the day. My first reaction to this theory was to think that it is another way to negate sexual activities among animals that are not heterosexual. But I think the difference is that in this theory the interaction is still seen as sexual even if it is said that it has another reason than reproduction. Bonobos seem to make clear that there are different reasons and different ways to have sex. German media seems to be kind of excited about the bonobos’ strategy to organise their social live. Us humans, we live in a reality that is totally different and seems to be not as good as the peaceful way of life bonobos share. For many of us it is an utopia to live that way instead of leading wars and exploit each other and the most exciting thing is that bonobos are one of the two species that are related the closest to humans. But coming back to reality it is obvious that we cannot just all start to have sex every time we have a conflict like bonobos do. Again we come to the border of seeking our natural behaviour by watching animals. We have our culture, our social rules which we should try to question and to improve as much as we can, but not by looking for the most natural thing because this is neither interesting from a moral point of view, nor even possible for us to discover. It is inviting to look at the bonobos and draw the conclusion that we are all born to have sex all day and be peaceful, but the second species that is as close related to us as the bonobos, the chimpanzees, is a very aggressive species that has a totally different social structure. We can surely choose one of the two for a role-model but we should be aware that this can only be for inspiration and does not reveal a deeper truth about our own nature.
The animal I want to talk about this time is a bird which has been seen as an icon for heterosexual monogamy. That was the image of the Laysan albatross until 2008. The reason for this image is that most of these birds nest with the same partner for their entire lives. Even the former first Lady Laura Bush praised their lifestyle in a speech about Oahu, an island of Hawaii, where a big colony of the birds live. Imaginable that Laura Bush was not amused when in 2008 an article of a team of scientists revealed that almost one third of the couples of albatross consist of two females, at least in this area. The reason why this has been undiscovered for such a long time is the fact that the sexes of albatrosses are very difficult to distinguish, paired with the heteronormative ideology of past scientists who did research on the albatross. Whenever two animals are seen together doing something that is linked to reproduction, it is automatically assumed that they are male and female. Considering the albatross a pair is defined by two individuals that incubate eggs and raise chicks together. The female-female pairs are able to do this because their eggs get fertilised by male individuals which are often themselves part of a pair. The fact that there are so many same-sex couples among these birds was however a bigger scandal than the infidelity of the paired males. Although one of the researchers said that they were very careful in their writing, which probably means that they tried to not make it a political pro homo article, it was on the one hand used to argue in favour of homosexuality and on the other hand attacked for being pro homo propaganda. When I read the article I thought that it actually lets the female-female pairs appear in a more unflattering light, using descriptions like „female–female pairing in the interim appears to make the best of a bad job“. Of course good and bad refers here to the reproductive success. But still negative judgemental words are used and the relationships between the birds are not euphemized at all. Nevertheless to me it seems like the scientists really tried to be neutral and to stay with biological terms. For example Lindsay Young who is cited and interviewed most often, refuses to call the female-female pairs lesbian and the male-female pairs heterosexual and insists that these terms have nothing to do with her researches. Unlikely that she manages to be totally neutral because we are all up to some point bound to our culutural ideology. This might be part of the answer to the question how we can stop imposing our cultural images on animals, which I posed in my first post. It seems not to be possible, even if a scientist does their best on being neutral, one never knows what the further usage and interpretation of results will be.
It is interisting to see how humans project their cultural formed concepts on animals. Of particular interest are cases when heteronormative and gender binary concepts are applied to animals which actually do not fit at all into this picture. A nice example is the movie „Finding Nemo“. For the few people who do not know the movie, it tells the story of a clownfish named Nemo who gets cought by a human, to be a birthday present for a child. Nemo’s father now has to pass many adventures to save his son from this fate. Everone knowlegable of this popular species of fish should already wonder about the terms „father“ and „son“. The reason is that these fishes are actually all born without any gender. This is until within their school of fishes the largest individual develops into a female and the second largest into a male in order to reproduce. I think the terms male and female are not sufficiant in this short discription, because it does not tell a lot about what actually happens here. Instead a gender binary and heterosexual picture is again applied to give an overly simplefied description. Back to the movie we can easily see that a father living together with his son is an impossible setting for clownfishes because if Nemo is to small to reproduce he has no gender. The other possible interpretation would be that if Nemo is old enough, his father would have changed into a female to produce descendants with Nemo. And this is in fact a discription you can find in some newspaper articles from people who found it a sensation worth writing about the fact that Nemo’s father might be transsexual. Two questions are evident here. Number one: what was going on in the heads of the people who wrote the script of „Finding Nemo“? Number two: how can we escape the trap of imposing our cultural pictures on animals? The discription of clownfishes changing their gender might be closer to the truth than the movie, but is still a discription in cultural terms imposed on an animal which does not have that culture. I will hopfully manage to approach to the second question in the next posts, while it is still some space her to have a short look at the first question. It is obvious that society does not see topics like transexuality siutable for children. Instead movies for children are only allowed to deal with settings that are completely „normal“ as far as it comes to gender and reproduction. The funny thing is, that we often assume that normal is what ever is natural. While society is most of the time convinced that normal and natural reproduction means a male and a female are having a child, and gender is something you have from the moment of your birth, the nature of a clownfish tells another story. So it comes that the movie stays quiet about nature, and spreads instead our normative opinion of what is natural. A colorful contradiction that shows how absurd the naturalisation of gender is.
When one thinks of a newspaper what does one think of? Politics? Political Cartons or the usual Calvin and Hobbes or Garfield comic strip that everyone knows and loves? Sometimes newspapers can form to be whatever they want to be whether it be good or bad. There’s a German newspaper called Bild. It’s been around since 1952 and went from being a newspaper that showed mostly pictures and sold around a million or so copies a day, to a newspaper that is not very well loved anymore around Germany because of the tenacious yet audacious way the paper has began to write. Now, I had the pleasure of reading an article the other day about an advertisement with a little boy playing with this new version of Barbie called Moschino Barbie. It was an article advertising these new Barbie dolls called Moschino Barbie dolls. The irony also hasn’t escaped me because Barbie was a doll created from the German Newspaper Bild. The doll was called Bild Lilli but the copyright materials, design and such were bought by an American woman in the mid 1950’s. The article wasn’t very long it simply stated how boys are now being advertised with Barbie dolls. I found this article very interesting because it’s starting to show the cracks in the social norms of what is shown in gender media. It showed how we are trying to take a step past the line that has been created by society that only girls can be advertised with Barbie dolls, and only boys can be advertised with race cars and/ or video games. Even though race cars in video games can be something that girls play with as well, as now as advertised in this Barbie commercial, now boys can play with Barbie dolls ,or dolls in general, as well. What I found a bit unpleasant was the way the Barbie was dressed. One of the aforementioned dolls had a leather skirt on and a see through net top with a bra on covered slightly by a leather jacket. The little boy mentioned “wie scharf” translated to how spicy, how hot this Barbie is. Now to imagine what message this would send to younger kids is what bothers me. The Barbie is dressed a bit scantily and the boy is already shown making remarks a child his age should not make. The idea of the Barbie is a great one and I am more than enthused that it is attempting to pass the gender norms of media and society but it makes one wonder to what expense and if they were made purposefully this way in order to point a blame on what happened to the youth of future generations. It is my hope that with this step further past the gender roles that have been created, that we step into more of a gender equality and neutralism in the future but maybe without the loopholes and I partially mean the ones in Moschino Barbies top as well.
After finding many stereotypes and controversials in my last analysis, I want to dedicate this post to some famous advertisements.
Do you think we can find sexism and stereotypes there, too? Of course we can….and we will!
These ads and movie posters are not exceptions at all. As the marketing professors Robert Peterson and Roger Kerin found out, there are rather major trends towards more nudity and eroticism and many advertisements still present women as simple-minded and male-dependent. 
What we can find on all ads above is sexualizing combined with the intensive use of sexual innuendos although none of these ads promotes anything on a sexual basis.
Picking out the film poster of “Dirty Grandpa”, age rating 12, one can see obvious sexual associations and female objectification. Emphasis is placed on the woman’s butt, the rest of her body as well as her face are unimportant. Robert DeNiro is looking at the back of the woman and what Zac Efron holds in his hands doesn’t just vaguely look like a penis. The headline strengthens this impression by saying “They’re hitting the road. And everything on it.”
The “Joop Homme” advertisement tackles a similar route by showing an almost naked woman spreading her legs and again emphasizing her legs and butt. The movie poster of “Magic Mike XXL” (what could the “XXL” perhaps stand for?!) is interesting because it is one of the rare sexualized ads for women. Telling the story of a stripper, the poster highlights the genital area of Channing Tatum and even strengthens this with his gesture. The announcement “COMING” finally takes it to extremes.
Other advertisements bring in a more extreme way of sexualizing by including relations of dominance and suppression. In the following “Dolce & Gabbana” ad, a woman is pressed to the ground and surrounded by several men which reminds of a gang rape. After being published, the ad was critically discussed and finally forbidden.
Even food advertisements are full of sexualizings and objectifications like the “Burger King” ad impressively shows. It promotes the u-u-unbelievable length of the burger which is so unbelievable that the woman with her mouth wide open seems shocked. I think I don´t need to explain what the words “It’ll blow your mind away” resemble.
However, I don’t want to reduce the logic of gender based advertisements to a subject-object-relationship. Since advertisers are not stupid, they often try to reach a bigger target group by including “mixed signals”. One famous approach is called gay window advertising in which heterosexual men promoting products for men are portrayed in a way that could also attract homosexual men. In this case, advertisers walk the thin line between addressing homosexuals and “frightening” heterosexuals.
As you can see, sometimes there is more than sexualizing and objectification underneath the surface – but the emphasis is on “sometimes”. Overall, less changed considering the fact that the findings of Peterson and Roger are from 1977!
I’m glad you liked my post so much that you want to read even more about stereotypes and generalizations….or will you come across some more surprising results? Let’s see.
First of all
What was quite interesting was the extent to which we are full of inscribed gender roles and expectations – even when buying a magazine. I had no problem standing in front of all the men magazines, but after 5 minutes combing through Cosmopolitan, Jolie and Voque I started feeling uncomfortable and somehow like the other people were watching me. For the first time, I noticed that there are many lifestyle magazines for women, but nearly none for men. Most of the men magazines are classified in subject areas like sport, music, science or technology. This is also what Heiko Motschenbacher from the Linguistic Department of the Goethe University in Frankfort observed when explaining that traditional men magazines tend to focus on cars, sports and erotica and not primarily on the male self-image.  This is the reason why I chose Men’s Health which seemed to be closest to a lifestyle magazine for men.
Now have fun with my observations in the following categories:
In Men’s Health there is relatively few advertising and nearly all existing advertisements can be classified in the category “technology and sport”. There are for example advertisements for sport gadgets like classy fitness watches or sport apps with exercises or recipes for more muscles and less fat, all aiming at an improvement in performance and body shape (which basically means getting more muscles). Moreover, there are ads that promote sport contests or supplements.
Cosmopolitan shows definitely more advertisements, but they are similarly limited in subject because they are focusing mostly on fashion and cosmetics. There are advertisements for shampoos, deep conditioners, body lotions, dresses and watches. Moreover, there is an ad for “Almased” , a shake to lose weight.
What becomes clear is the different function of the advertisements which in Men’s Health primarily have the function of being functional and improving performance whereas the promoted products in Cosmopolitan primarily have the function of making women look good.
Pictures Here I focused on pictures of the own and the other sex and not on pictures of things and products.
In Men’s Health, pictures of men are primarily used to demonstrate power and muscles. In order to do this, there are plenty pictures of men with nude upper body, training themselves or showing exercises, but none of them is portrayed in a pose that could be considered sexually. On the other hand, women are shown almost exclusively when it comes to sex which explains why they are half-naked or fully naked every time they are shown. Moreover, they are portrayed in more or less sexual gestures exposing their body and often directing their look at the (male) reader. Also interesting: When it comes to sexual presentations of women, you never see a man in the picture. I assume that Men’s Health avoids showing naked men in sexual contexts in order to avoid homosexual associations whereas they can show half-naked men doing weight training, because this is clearly connoted heterosexual.
What is interesting in Cosmopolitan is the fact that they also tend to show lightly dressed women. However these presentations seem to be connected to fashion or – like in Men’s Health – to sport. One can say that in both Men’s Health and Cosmopolitan there are presentations of the own sex in a way that attracts the other sex. In other words, women can be attracted by strong and muscular men and men can be attracted by slim and fit women. However, both magazines seem to avoid representations containing clear homosexual allusions.
One point that separates Cosmopolitan from Men’s Health is their portrayal of women and men in sexual contexts. While the former places emphasis on the objectification of women and the absence of men, the latter portrays women and men lying together in bed and in addition shows less of their naked bodies.
Topics Focus in Men’s Health is clearly on physical exercise. They offer several articles on that topic dealing with different exercises for different goals, training schedules and training methods. Sport often has a competitive character and the function of making men harder and perform better. The subject of nutrition and cooking is mostly connected to exercise and functions as an instrument to improve performance and body shape. In addition to that, nutrition is presented as lifestyle which can be seen in an article promoting modern and cool forms of fast-food. When it comes to fashion, Men’s Health focuses on trendy accessoires like watches and exclusive gadgets that make men (look) successful. Furthermore, personal hygiene is portrayed in a specific way that characterizes it as manly and connects it to the idea of “manly” body care. This can be illustrated by the promotion of products that are all on the basis of coal.
Here, Cosmo treads a different path. Personal hygiene is primarily concerned with cosmetics and outside appearance. This explains the several ads for lipstick, face powder and other cosmetics in the magazine. Other important topics are fashion, styling and trends. While these topics are represented by special and exclusive products in Men’s Health, Cosmo seems to prefer quantity and offers innumerable tips and products. The subject of sport is primarily discussed in terms of figure, skinniness and weight loss and also supported by exercises and receipts.
Word choice Looking at the section titles in both magazines, clear differences between Men’s Health and Cosmopolitan appear.
Consistent with their promotion of “manly cosmetics”, Men’s Health connects personal hygiene to the concept of being wild and animalistic by entitling this section “Style + Grooming”  (Grooming is also used in a zoological context and means “Fellpflege”). In an article that informs about testicular cancer, the word “steel balls”  is used to refer to testicles. In the field of sport, Men’s Health uses many technical terms referring to body parts and exercises. Talking about sexuality, there are less to none technical terms. Mostly, the used words can be considered colloquial like “Blowjob”  and “Doggy-Style” . In general, the word choice does not seem to be aggressive or primitive, but there are some exceptions like “juicy oral sex festival”  (saftiges Oralverkehr-Festival) and “banged”  (geknallt). Moreover, there are some sexual innuendos. In an article about foods that appear aphrodisiacal, one can see a woman only wearing a bra and a slip. She holds some kind of chocolate cake in front of her mouth, showing puckered lips and looking directly to the reader. In addition, the text below her butt says “Put it in!”  (Rein damit!).
Starting with the personal hygiene section in Cosmopolitan, a difference appears. Like their section title “beauty & body”  assumes, focus is on appearance and on products that make women look pretty. There are similar results in the subject of sport in which terms like weight loss, beach body and tight body are often used. The way in which Cosmo talks about sexuality is quite interesting. They choose a more direct and strong language that includes sentences like “boink him his short term memory away”  (ihm das Kurzzeitgedächtnis wegvögeln) and rather unfamiliar terms like “Gagging”  and “Queefing” . Such a word choice constitutes a clear contrast to the rather soft and playful pictures with a couple cuddling.
Conclusion: Constructions of male and female identities I tried not to go too much in detail, because most readers of such magazines won’t do an intensive and concentrated reading either. However, I found more interesting and confusing aspects than expected. Here is what we can conclude of the analysis above.
What both magazines have in common is the fact that they present unadorned stereotypes of both their own and the other sex. Men’s Health is full of muscular and strong men and Cosmopolitan portrays young and slim women on nearly every page. In this way, both magazines portray pictures that could be attractive to the other sex while both seem to avoid homosexual associations. Male identity is connected to muscularity and strength and the male body as well as the products men consume basically have to be functional and efficient. In this way, male identity is primarily concerned with rationality and similar to the findings of Donna Haraway , male body is connected to technology which can be illustrated by the term “steel balls” for testicles. Women and female traits are placed outside male identity which is highlighted by an article about yoga – a “typical” female sport. Men’s Health does not promote yoga because it allows men to do something non-typical or just something that is fun for both sexes. Rather it picks yoga and transforms it to a masculine sport by pointing out its functionality. Or in other words, men are allowed to do yoga because it can improve flexibility and coordination and thereby improve performance in masculine sports like weight training. On the other hand, Men’s Health offers advice to be more emotional and emphatic and to always respect the wishes of women. However, these things are not important because men want them or because they constitute a good men from the view of men, but because WOMEN want men to be like this and – put simply – because this is the way to get women in bed.
Cosmopolitan spreads a similar confusing picture of female identities. Promoting self-confidence, independence and satisfaction with the own body on the one hand, it contents dozens of make-up tips and ways to lose weight on the other hand. Thereby Cosmo emphasizes appearance and links it closely to satisfaction and self-confidence. Moreover, the subject of sexuality is presented in an ambiguous way by using direct and self-confident language but at the same time focusing on sexual problems and awkward situations for women. Other ambivalences occur in the presentation of male identities. On the one hand, Cosmo demands “emancipation”  of men and wants them to show their feelings and disengage from rigid gender roles, but only 9 pages after that it lets a complete stereotypical man answer questions from female readers. This of course leads to answers which basically argument that all men just like “women, soccer, drinks and women”  and that men’s “cock”  is responsible for their behavior.
Altogether, Men’s Health as well as Cosmopolitan convey male and female identities that are clearly separated from each other but at the same time full of contradictions in itself.
Info: The whole analysis refers to the German version of the March print issues of both magazines. All used pictures are taken from them.
 = Motschenbacher, Heiko (2009): Speaking the Gendered Body: The Performative Construction of Commercial Femininities and Masculinities via Body-Part Vocabulary. In: Language in Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, p. 8
 = Cosmopolitan, p. 117
 = Men´s Health, p. 8
 = ibid, p. 74
 = ibid, p. 102
 = ibid
 = ibid, p. 105
 = ibid
 = ibid, p. 26
 = Cosmopolitan, p. 10
 = ibid, p. 130
 = ibid
 = ibid
 = Haraway, Donna (1989): Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science, Routledge: New York and London
Reading an interesting article, claiming that women and men magazines convey a picture of women as passive object that wants to be „conquered“ and men as dominant and successful “conquerers”, I found myself generally agreeing to this thesis. But I was wondering how these magazines create and communicate such deterministic and separated gender identities. Sparing no efforts, I bought the current issues of Men’s Health and Cosmopolitan  to answer these questions: What language and ways of mediation do Men’s Health and Cosmopolitan use to create male and female identities? And what do they look like?
To meet the word limit, I will give you a summary of my results, but if you are interested in this topic, hereis a more elaborated and analytical version of this post.
In both magazines, body played a central role but in different ways. Men’s Health discusses male body mainly in terms of functionality which basically means that it needs to be efficient and strong and therefore muscular. A big part of the things surrounding the subject of male body are aimed at this goal. Nutrition and gadgets for sport have the function of improving athletic performance. Suitable for this representation, sport and male body are presented especially in terms of competitiveness.
And what route does Cosmo tackle? Pretty much the same but in a slightly different way. It also puts emphasis on body, but not in terms of functionality but aesthetics. This means that the female body should look slim and attractive which explains the intensive promotion of exercises and methods to lose weight. This focus on aesthetics is also illustrated by many advertisings for cosmetics and other beauty products.
Looking at the subject of sexuality, some interesting results appear. In contrast to Cosmopolitan which tends to use a quite direct word choice including terminology like “Gagging” and “Queefing” , Men’s Health acts more reserved. However, Cosmo presents soft and playful pictures of a couple cuddling in bed whereas Men’s Health focuses on half-naked women, the absence of men and sexual innuendos like “Put it in”  below the butt of a half-naked woman eating a cookie.
Pictures taken from Men’s Health (left, p. 103) and Cosmopolitan (right, p. 128/129)
At the same time, both magazines avoid homosexual associations and try to separate manhood and womanhood from each other. This can be illustrated by the different handling of personal hygiene which is called “Grooming”  (Fellpflege) in Men’s Health and “beauty”  in Cosmopolitan.
What to conclude out of this? What male and female identities do both magazines construct? Overall, I can agree to Heiko Motschenbacher, linguistic researcher, concluding that masculinity is primarily defined as heterosexual muscluarity  and that the male body literally has the function of being functional whereas the female body basically has the function of (just) being aesthetical. 
So both magazines present heterosexual stereotypes and thereby try to create male and female identities that are clearly separated from each other by assigning them a subject-object-relationship. However, these separated identities are in itself full of (often unnoticed) contradictions.
 = The analysis refers to the German version of the March print issues of both magazines and all used pictures are taken from them.
 = Cosmopolitan, p. 130
 = Men´s Health, p. 26
 = ibid, p. 8
 = Cosmopolitan, p. 11
 = Motschenbacher, Heiko (2009): Speaking the Gendered Body: The Performative Construction of Commercial Femininities and Masculinities via Body-Part Vocabulary. In: Language in Society, Vol. 38, No. 1, p. 16
This is my last post and I would like to conclude my observations concerning sexuality, emotions and identity by writing about a nice American 2010 comedy: The kids are all right. In that way it is possible to refer to the example of the love betrayal again, in order to show definitely that love and sexuality are quite different fields that don’t communicate always each other. From a biological point of view, the most of us is capable to do everything with anyone, sexually speaking. Often people can fill sexual desire even though they are not in love.
In that movie, for instance, Jules cheats on her wife Nic with their sperm donor, Paul. After a few time Paul thinks he his probably falling in love with Jules and, as soon as Nic discovers the betrayal, he proposes Jules to stay with him and she answers: “I’m gay!”. That’s another clear demonstration of what I’ve affirmed in my lasts posts: our identity is not specifically a sexual one, rather an emotional one. Of course our desires can be guided by our feelings and, when it happens, it’s a proof of coherence and honesty, but what characterizes us the most is our way of loving people.
The mechanisms of love are the secret of the human being. When it comes to sexuality, Alfred Kinsey demonstrated clearly that it’s quite rear to find someone who is completely hetero/homo-sexual. The human pleasure depends on a lot of circumstances and we can fill attraction and desire for a lot of people of the both sexes. To analyse and to describe these circumstances is a scientific task. I think that, since we are used to speak about “sexual orientation” and “sexual identity”, there is an orientation in the sphere of desire and sexual imagination but I think that it is conditioned by our emotional experiences.
For that reasons, a girl who has always fallen in love with girls in her life will describe herself as a lesbian; a boy who has always fallen in love with girl, instead, will describe himself as a heterosexual and so on. But that has an emotional reason, not a sexual one. As I’ve already written, sexuality is a symbol, is the representation of our emotional identity. It’s as if our desires were unconsciously adapted to our feelings.
But now I have to stop: „When it comes to love, we’re all in the dark“.
Today I would like to confront each other two good movies about the problem I’ve started to introduce the last times: what does it mean that sexuality doesn’t cause a determination of our identity, but rather it is a consequence of our emotional identity? I will discuss this position by showing two different examples of love betrayal: the former is narrated in the beautiful 2002 drama Far from Heaven, the latter in the involving 2009 thriller Chloe.
Far form Heaven deals with the Withacker family in the Connecticut of ’50. Frank Withacker is an affirmed manager and Cathy is his perfect wife, mother of two children and charitable woman. But Frank dedicates himself more to his work than to his wife and Cathy is too blind to think that maybe the things could go better: only by listening the sexual confidences of her friends, she realizes that her sexual life is not satisfying and she becomes worried about the feelings of her husband. One day she decides to bring him the dinner to the office by surprise and she sees him kissing another man. After a first embarrassing time, they decide to go to a psychiatrist in order to nurse his “illness”. But after a few months Frank falls in love with a man and than he asks his wife the divorce.
Chloe, by its own side, deals with the Stewart family in the Toronto of our times. Catherine is a respected gynaecologist and David is a brilliant music professor. Their perfect synthesis of work and love inspires friends and fans because both of them are charming personalities but David in particular. Therefore Catherine is afraid that David has an affair with someone of his students and, after a strange meeting with a beautiful young girl, she asks her to flirt with her husband in order to see how he reacts. Chloe meets David and for a few times she tells Catherine the hot details of their meetings in order to provoke her unsure mind: she makes her giving up and she seduces her. Only after a discussion with David, Catherine realizes that Chloe was interested in her since the beginning and that all the stories about her and David were invented. Then it was clear that David was still in love with Catherine and, finally, the family starts with a new beginning.
I think that the first movie shows us clearly that sex is always possible: even though we don’t want to have it, we are able to do it (prostitutes are another example of that). So we are capable of having every kind of sexual act, but we can fall in love just with some people who have some peculiarities. In the second movie the problem is clearly an emotional one: Catherine was really seduced by Chloe, so in that moment she wanted to sleep with her but, at least, she could love just her husband. My conclusion is that our identity is not sexual-oriented rather it is emotional-oriented. What do you think about it? 🙂