A Lesbian Guide to TV and the Movies

After channel surfing past a lousy Stephen Baldwin movie (maybe this one or this one? Who can tell?), Julie and I had a debate about the growth of girl-on-girl action in mainstream television and film. She’s not objecting to genuine lesbian affection, just all of the male fantasy straight-girl-tries-out-for-the-other-team scenes that are inevitably implausible and sometimes goofy. I, on the other hand, argued that it’s a common male fantasy and, like many others, receives its share of airtime.

Read on for the whole shebang (wicked pun, don’t you think?), but my diatribe ends with this question: So, dear (female) readers, what common female fantasies aren’t we seeing on television or film? How can we even up the fantasy quotient?

This led to a discussion of how we could, in fairness, render women’s fantasies onscreen. I argued that shows like The Red Shoe Diaries and Chromium Blue were, sucessfully or not, targeted at that market, as was Sex in the City. I asked Julie what the most common female fantasy was, and she couldn’t really pinpoint one. She said that it was most likely the classic: wealthy or powerful man swoops in and takes care of all of a woman’s needs–sexual, financial and otherwise. See also Pretty Woman.

I’ve heard that the gay pr0n does it for some womenfolk, but mostly because the men are more attractive, less flabby and have fewer ponytails. We are seeing a greater instance of man-on-man action. It’ll be a while before we see two men making out on, say, Friends, but it’ll happen. Don’t believe me? How many people thought they’d never live to see an inter-racial kiss on television.

I mention all of this because I was recently purusing Progressive Boink’s Rating the Lesbians (safe for work if you’re a roadie for the Indigo Girls…just kidding, it’s pretty tame), which examines this very phenomenon from the perspective of two real, live lesbians. One of them makes Julie’s point very well when discussing the infamous Madonna/Britney lip-mushing:

Because this stunt was the absolute epitome of what’s wrong with almost every instance of girl-on-girl action; a sad, unconvincing vie for attention and eroticism. Britney is a hard-bodied robot, and Madonna is a turkey-necked woman of a certain age trying all too obviously to hold onto the image she cultivated 15 years ago. I would think that even people who find Britney to be some physical ideal of feminity should be bothered to see her mechanically kissing some over-yogaed, under-botoxed milf with her roots showing. But you weren’t bothered were you, internet? You didn’t turn away, did you? No, you all looked, and you all enjoyed it. Shame.

Hee, hee–turkey-necked, over-yogaed, under-botoxed milf. Hilarious. I also like how they rate the scenes with little Sapphos. I should note that they leave out a bathroom make-out session between the talentless Rebecca Romjin-Stamos and some Euro-model in the otherwise forgettable Femme Fatale. Maybe it’s because both women were bi(-curious?) in that movie. Then there’s also the quite good Canadian Better Than Chocolate which was made by and with actual lesbians, so maybe that doesn’t count.

So, dear (female) readers, what common female fantasies aren’t we seeing on television or film? How can we even up the fantasy quotient?

7 comments

  1. in my circles, the common female fantasy *IS* the girl-on-girl action. that’s most likely because i don’t know many straight women, though. ๐Ÿ™‚

  2. media plays to the highest common denominator, no?

    perhaps the people who go to the movies the most (or rent for those that go straight to video) are single horn-dog men with nothing more on their minds than to see Gina Gershon and Jennifer Tilly make out.

    even up the fantasy quotient in films? romance. most women (like what Julie pointed out to be the case) i feel want to see the happy ending. the man who knows exactly what you want without having to tell him.

    a bath, a footrub, chocolate and asking us, “so, baby… what do you wanna do tonight?”

  3. I have no use for guy on guy action. How is that benefitting me? I’m not a guy, so I can’t get involved in guy on guy action. girl on girl action… one of those girls COULD be me! woot!

    Of course, I don’t actually understand the male obsession with girl on girl action.

    But if the male fantasy is the one that’s played up to, why don’t we see more Princess Leia in the gold bikini?

  4. I think in order to find out what the range of women’s sexual fantasy’s are we need to see a greater range of women’s work- when more women are funding the projects and operating the camera’s (and not with a man standing behind them calling the shots, and with advertising dollars being dolled out by men exclusively) then we will start to see a broader range of fantasies. I can only speak for myself, and really, I’m not doing it here…but trust me, its not the “save me” fantasy ๐Ÿ™‚
    kudos on the “shebang” pun ๐Ÿ™‚

  5. why do i always make my best grammatical mix ups on sites owned by writers!!! grrr….”fantasy’s” ๐Ÿ™‚

  6. incidentally, if you want to know what women fantasize about… read anything by Nancy Friday. I use it as masturbation material. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  7. the knight in shining armor sure aint for me. Fantasy in my mind is ususally a rough randy quick and passionate romp, dripping with lust for the object of my affection, much the same as in real life, (lucky me). or watching him fuck another woman, but then , thats just me. when it comes right down to the actual act, money and storyline have nada to do with it.

Comments are closed.