By what manner do we intend to apprehend our sexuality? This question is vital, for it has been observed that sexual stimuluses’ fluctuate significantly from differing atypical individuals. It is also evident that since the dawn of time, we have encountered within ourselves impulses that we only partially comprehend. As individuals we don’t completely cognize why specific stimuli “turn us on” and why other prompts yield minimal sexual stimulation, we just identify with the universal end product which induces a “feel good” effect.
This understanding of sexuality is best explained though a newly developed theory of human sexuality called the sex-script theory. This theory enunciates that we as humans, have all been embossed with explicit collections of fantasies, stories, scenarios and sex objects that we accumulate and hoard around with us in our heads, through cultural outlets. It is an imprinted fabrication of philosophies that we cannot learn from the observation of animals, thus vindicating why we are incapable of extracting erudition from the human sexuality of animals (Park, 2008).
Furthermore, these sex-scripts are not acquired in resemblance to learning how to ride a bike. We somehow enigmatically assimilate, through a specialized method, how we are to perform sexually. Even so, such edification does not give justification to our sexual responses themselves. Thus, the innumerable social conjectures of human sexuality are inchoate (Park, 2008). Nonetheless, sex-scripts eloquently convey the perception, that although we are genealogies of faunas, our sexuality is incapable of being regulated by genes and hormones.
We still exhibit identical impulsion that animals employ, but we differentiate in the sense that we are “awakened” by nonfigurative phantasmagorias, narratives and objects that juxtapose the hereditarily-ceded sexual responses of numerous animals. Human sexuality has become cultivated beyond the rudimentarily “hard wired” sexual comportments to a more counterintuitive portrayal of sexual imprinting, which originates during distinct epochs, namely the first two decades of life (Park, 2008).
This is an ostensibly subsequent solution on behalf of biological evolution, which insinuates that there is no purpose in cultivating “mature” sexuality for future existence. In today’s culture, as depicted in Gail Markle’s article “Can Women Have Sex Like a Man,” so much of what we ascertain and comprehend is a byproduct of cultural messages via informers like the media (sitcoms, tv shows) and publicized magazines (Cosmopolitan). These bounteous sources illustrate the cultural philosophies of our sexual conducts and aspirations.
This is highly perceptible in the series Sex and the city, which evolves sexual scripts through four fictitious heroines that demarcate which sexual roles, behaviors and acts of sexual countenance are personally proper and up to standard. For instance, when viewing the “Sex and the City” series, the four main characters: Carrie, Charlotte, Miranda and Samantha, at one point or another, attempt to contravene gendered sexual roles in their expedition to undertake “sex like a man. ” This would enmesh behaviors such as unemotional availability and having sex for pleasure without monogamy.
These characteristics, in turn, alter the audience’s interpretation on social fabrication of sexuality, reversing it from a once monogamous, dependent social characteristic to a propagated independent, female dominant role. Likewise, Samantha Jones is a perfect example of this newly reformed social construction of sexuality. Jones is a nymphomania narcissist sex kitten who is outspoken and a self-proclaimed “try-sexual,” (try anything at least once) who loves non-committed heterosexual relationships and inquisitively dabbles in homosexual relationships (Wiki, 2011).
Charlotte York, vastly inversed from Jones, is more conservative and traditional, placing prodigious accentuation on emotive love than lust and eternally combing for her “knight in shining armor. ” Additionally, Charlotte bestows a more direct assertiveness regarding relationships, customarily grounded on “the rules” of love and dating. Dissimilarly, Carrie Bradshaw is conspicuously directed by her sentiments. She pursues credence (a door key, bathroom cabinet space) from Mr. Big and others, and tends to operate in an egocentric conduct (ex. er adulterous affair) (Wiki 2, 2011).
The result is an imperfect, but relatable character that the audience can associate with. Lastly, Miranda the character of voice and reason has a susceptibility to conjure cynical attitudes about relationships and men. This is a result of her cynicism and antipathy towards men which over time softens, due mainly to her pregnancy (Wiki 3, 2011). In brief, all of these women effectively portray cultural messages of what society esteems as being acceptable for the representation of sexuality in contemporary American women.
The sexual scripts in this series composes ”blueprints” that illustrate the sexual demeanor within women by allocating when, where, and what sexual acts will be implemented and with whom and for what reasons (Markle, 2008). Furthermore, the audience’s manipulation by sexual scripts can be categorized into three distinct levels: cultural scenarios, interpersonal scripts and intrapsychic scripts. Cultural scenarios are directives for sexual conduct endowed by the societal norms and narratives (Markle, 2008).
Secondly, interpersonal scripts are customary to particular circumstances and transfigure conformist cultural contexts. At this manifestation, individuals develop competent methodologies for apprehension of their exclusive sexual yearnings. Then lastly, intrapsychic scripts embrace sexual fantasies, objects, and successions of comportments that nourish and sustain sexual incitement and conjoin individual covets to societal implications (Markle, 2008). Whether through media, periodical publications or constructions of our own experience, these sexual scripts are undoubtedly prominent in our society present-day.
We can presumably attribute this to our culture’s innovated inimitability when compared to our early ancestors. In early mockups used by our ancestors, they extricated simple sex-script for daily life, which is seemingly monotonous in today’s culture. Our society present-day, which transfigures from a more secretive and repressed perception on sexuality than most primitive cultures did, incorporated diminutive imprints on sexual scripts from the natural world (Park, 2008).
This in turn, prompted us to integrate more phantasmagorias and concepts from human nature. For instance, a typical script for women reflects a conservative approach, where women wait to be pursued by men; they’re sentimental and they “want” to please men. These kinds of ideologies are only observed within human nature through cultural outlets such as the media. Additionally, scripts can also be formed by individuals through subjective experiences and their erudition of others sexual endeavors (Frith, 2001).
For example, when watching the show “Happy Endings,” I gather the favored image of women as independent, dominant and occasionally unemotionally available. I view this as coveted ideals and incorporate this epitome into my sexuality by performing these culturally acceptable characteristics. Furthermore, it is key to note, that sex conduct can also be attained through the behaviors of persons in akin positions (like friends/family members) thus, contributing to the construction of sexuality in culture.
In conclusion, sex scripts like the Sex and the City series, effectively portrays cultural messages through influential sources. These messages portrayed reference the “ideal” feminine roles of sexuality by culture, that label what sex is, how to distinguish sexual settings and how to act through characterization portrayal. These sources of sexual scripting are an effectual depiction of women though which sexual identities and gender are instituted and fortified.