I remember that, when the Diet Coke Break commercial came out in the 1980s (for those of you who missed it, I've linked it below), there was some talk about a double standard - that if this sort of commercial had been made with men playing the role that the women did, feminists would have been up in arms. Interestingly, some women have taken the perspective that it is their inalienable right to be depicted as sexual predators, because being a predator means power in our society, so being perceived as the sort of person who would leer and seduce shows that one isn't weak. That may be playing a small role in the popularity of media depictions such as you mention.

However, I think there's a second element going on here: Women who are attracted to boys are seen as harmless, not only because female sexuality is seen as less dangerous, but because male sexuality (i.e. the boy's) is seen as more dangerous.

I suspect (someone can correct me) that there's a difference between how female boylovers are regarded and how female girl-lovers are regarded. In the latter case, a woman ("weak" in gender, "strong" in age) is attracted to a girl ("weak" in gender and age). Conclusion reached: The woman is stronger than the girl; therefore she's a predator. But in the former case, a woman ("weak" in gender, "strong" in age) is attracted to a boy ("strong" in gender, "weak" in age). Conclusion reached: Who's the stronger person? It's not clear.

The fallacy in all this, of course, is assuming that gender and age are invariable determinants over who has power.





• ( http link ) Diet Coke Break
[Anonymouse]