unmuted

I often reminisce about a time when movies showed us the type of love that meant chasing someone through an airport. Now I get to enjoy Glen Powell’s butt cheeks in IMAX. The grand gesture has turned into obscene ones. In all seriousness, as a romantic myself, I have had enough of the pervasiveness of modern media seeping into my once beloved romcom genre. This shift raises the question of what these movies are actually teaching us about love. Is love actually…just sex? 

What is the “Modern Romcom” and why is it bad?

In the Journal Studies in Symbolic Interaction, Volume 37, Nicolette Caperello and Todd Migliacci explore how the media we consume about love/ intimacy impacts us differently based on our gender roles. While they specifically focus on women’s interactions with romcoms and how that affects their relationships, I would first like to delve into another insight offered about the opposite gender. While romcoms teach women about what to expect from men in romantic relationships, in the same vein, pornography 

“sets a standard for not only what women are assumed to look like but also who they are and how men should engage them” (Nelson, 1982, cit. in Caperello & Migliaccio, 197). 

While women have been watching romcoms and learning to expect a man professing their love for them with a boombox outside of their window, men are learning to expect women to be porn stars. 

The media seems to have found a solution for this disconnect by turning romantic comedies into sexualized narratives. I present you with what I call the “modern romcom.” Hollywood has created a new brand on romcom that attempts to appeal to both audiences, selling both romance and sexual fantasy. Yet, this combination is a tricky one. Consider the Romcom as a genre; it historically has a primarily female viewership, but by transforming the Romcom into an overtly sexualized form of content, it communicates to women that love and sex are mutually inclusive. With the already increasing sexual expectations of men and the era of casual relationships, the sexualization of the modern romcom is the final nail in the coffin of the traditional form of romance. 

Passive audiences = box-office success?

Caperello and Migliaccio report that

“Bachen and Illouz (1996) found 90% of viewers rely on movies to inform them about relationships” (Caperello and Migliaccio 198).

This statistic indicates that consumers of movies featuring romantic relationships are a more passive audience. These movies are not a hypodermic needle, but if such a large percentage of audiences look to movies to teach them about love, then the modern romcom’s hyper fixation with sex sends a clear message: sex not only sells at the box office but also in relationships. And it definitely sells in the box office… The recent rom-com “Anyone but You,” starring heartthrobs Glen Powell and Sydney Sweeney, was a significant success, grossing over $220 million worldwide. Let’s be honest, that movie did numbers because both lead actors are hot and potentially naked. 

BLT Communications, LLC. Movie poster for “Anyone But You.” Hulu, https://share.google/images/rYTGAnizeDY5f47Ut

Movie Poster for the 2023 Romantic Comedy “Anyone but You.” It depicts Sweeney and Powell loved-up in a beach setting. With promotional imaging like this, it makes sense why so many people watched the movie.

This film starts off with the two main characters hitting it off and then having a one-night stand that eventually leads to them falling in love. There is a positive aspect to showing women as agents of their own desires and capable of being sexual without shame. On the other hand, when looking at romantic comedies as a sort of societal guide to understanding relationships, the recent shift from classic romantic tones to more overtly sexual ones, while still labeling the film as “romantic,” reinforces the idea that sex and love are codependent, and, perhaps, interchangeable. However, “Anyone but You” is unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg. So, I take it and raise you 2011 hits “Friends with Benefits” and “No Strings Attached.” Both films center around the premise of casual sex evolving into love. To replace the classic meet-cute with the one-night stand or casual sex in a genre meant for women blatantly ignores the gender differences between the interconnectedness of sex and love. These gender differences make it problematic to promote the idea that sex naturally leads to love. 

ARSONAL (design), and Mark Seliger (photography). Friends with Benefits (Movie poster, ver. 2). 2011. IMP Awards, http://www.impawards.com/2011/friends_with_benefits_ver2.html.

Movie poster for 2011 rom-com “Friends With Benefits.” This imagery is very suggestive and pulls no punches. It definitely suits the film’s content.

is SEX AND LOVE THE SAME?

In the article “Emerging Perspectives on Distinctions between Romantic Love and Sexual Desire” by Lisa M. Diamond explains

“romantic love and sexual desire are governed by functionally independent social-behavioral systems that evolved for different reasons and that involve different neurochemical substrates. Furthermore, there are gender differences in the interrelationship between love and desire that may have both biological and cultural origins” (Diamond, 116).

This suggests not only that sex and love are distinct, but also that they are separated depending on gender. Diamond elaborates that for women relationships are a context for sexual desire, and we have been brought up to confine sexual feelings to emotional relationships. Whereas men may be more able to engage in sex without love and historically have enjoyed this freedom of casual relationships. So, by presenting women with the idea that sex leads to love or is necessary to be loved, it sells the idea that love can be earned in the bedroom. Yet,  Diamond shows in her article that this is not the case. This dichotomy of how the female gender is primed to associate sexual intimacy with emotional connection directly opposes the ideas presented in some of these modern romcoms.