ࡱ> D;Root Entry Fi @1TablehVWordDocumentSummaryInformation( C  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~     &'()ABEFGjIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgiklmnoprstuvwxyz{|}~% [j@jNormal4d ) p@ P !$B*CJOJQJkH'mH <A@<Default Paragraph FontrOrquote.19d & p@ P !B*CJOJQJkH'mH B @BFooter#  p@ P $!&)@& Page Number0Y@"0 Document Map-D ( _ t w ;!*_+m1345D9 :k<@CGmHKM_NSW-]_Ogou9~>فXǜM*oe  N = I aRVLZ- !"p""##]%`'o''(()q**?+,f,,--.D..r111v224555     J n(25 M) )  z$z!!!!!!!!! ! ! ! ! $  $ T%!3FWOj|ȟca Gs_    :UVW{9 *F G m <)-q15H9?CDGGG&K/PU[_'dSgjjjpuyC:}َːug56UZ,-enient, legitimating plot device for sexual display. The relationship can be traced to their coincident emergence in the historical context of late nineteenth-century discourses of social reform. According to Annette Kuhn, as science challenged the hegemony of religion in sexual and moral matters, cinema and sexology emerged as new approaches to, and objects of, reform, in a culture in which the sexual body and the social body became assimilated to one another. Persisting links between the institutional practices of the cinema and sexology are accountable to what Lisa Cartwright describes as the technological interdependency of science and forms of popular culture, with the body at their point of intersection (Screening the Body: Tracing Medicines Visual Culture, Minneapolis: U. of MN. Press, 1995). Edward Muybridges serial photography, commonly acknowledged as the immediate progenitor of the cinema, was invested in a physiological exploration; specifically, of the mechanics of body movement. Modeled on the medical paradigm, early sexologists such as Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis emphasized the physiological basis of human sexuality and its perversions. Grounded in a Foucaultian understanding of social regulation, Cartwright contends that ...the cinematic apparatus can be considered as a cultural technology for the discipline and management of the human body, and that the long history of bodily analysis and surveillance in medicine and science is critically tied to the history of the development of the cinema as a popular cultural institution and a technological apparatus (3). In Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the Frenzy of the Visible (Berkeley: UC Press, 1989), Linda Williams argues that the desire to see and know more about the human body--especially the female body--not only underlies the very invention of the cinema, but also gives rise to narrative film form. According to Williams, What began as the scientific impulse to record the truth of the body quickly became a powerful fantasy that drove cinemas first rudimentary achievements of narrative diegesis and mise-en-scene (41). In her close analysis of Muybridges eleven-volume Animal Locomotion (1887/1979), Williams observes that men are shown going about their activities in a relatively straightforward manner. But in a futile attempt to naturalize them in relation to a male standard, womens activities are frequently embellished with superfluous props and narcissistic gestures which fetishize, eroticize, and narrativize their bodies. Mens naked bodies appear natural in action: they act and do; womens must be explained and situated: they act and appear in mini-dramas that perpetually circle about the question of their femininity (43). The investigation of femininity and female sexuality, as imbricated with gendered constructs of the natural--a narrative trope made explicit in Sex and the Single Girl--evokes an enduring theme of scientific inquiry, a structuring metaphor from which sexology has by no means been exempt. In Making Gender Visible, Evelyn Fox Keller positsthat modern science has met the threat or allure of natures secrets with a method for undoing them, for rendering the invisible visible. The ferreting out of natures secrets, understood as the illumination of a female interior, or the tearing of natures veil, may be seen as expressing one of the most unembarrassedly stereotypic impulses of the scientific project. This impulse has shaped the sexological model of sexuality from the beginning, when the disciplines founding fathers--including Havelock Ellis, in particular--set out to prove that there was a biological basis to the separate-and-unequal, gendered spheres which first -wave feminists were struggling to dismantle. In Disorders of Desire: Sex and Gender in Modern American Sexology (Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990), Janice M. Irvine observes that because sexologys categories of dysfunction have typically been defined as departures from a natural, universalized model for healthy human functioning based on the male sexual experience, an increasingly pathologized and eroticized female sexuality has been the central object of inquiry in sexual science (14). According to Mary Ann Doane, this trope is transposed onto the cinematic representation of women: It is thus as an aberration in relation to an unattainable norm that the woman becomes narratively interesting, the subject for a case history. A narrativization of the woman which might otherwise be fairly difficult...is facilitated by the association of women with the pathological. Sex and the Single Girls positing of a sexually-dysfunctional female practitioner of sexology--traditionally a male-dominated field--poses a fascinating collapse of subject and object. This collapse invokes the problematization of patriarchal constructs of gender and sexuality which lies at the crux of the Sexual Revolution. Premarital Coitus and Postwar Culture From the sexual anarchy associated with industrialization and immigration at the turn of the century, to the sexual wilderness associated with the economic and baby booms of the mid-twentieth century, conflicts over female sexual agency have been at the core of American anxieties about shifting definitions of gender and sexuality in times of cultural crisis. Although the condition of flux which characterizes these crises has opportuned the expansion of womens agency, such gains have typically been uneven. In Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (New York: Basic, 1988), Elaine Tyler May remarks that womens mass entry into the wartime labor force during World War II was not entirely liberatory. Because the family was considered the backbone of national defense, A curious phenomenon marked the war years: a widespread disruption of domestic life accompanied by a rush into marriage and parenthood(59). With Americans in the throes of patriotic passion, the marriage age dropped; the marriage rate accelerated; and the birthrate rose from 19.4 per thousand in 1940, to 24.5 in 1945. Single women came to be viewed as threats to family stability; and female sexuality became more and more associated with dangerously aggressive power. After the war, the figure of the sexually aggressive woman became a metaphor for the communist threat, just as the male homosexual came to stand for the nations vulnerability to that threat. These stereotypes were widely reinforced in entertainment venues, such as the popular, hard-boiled detective novels and the films noir they inspired. America became obsessed with all forms of nonmarital sexual behavior, which was widely believed to have gotten completely out of control. The Kinsey Reports appeared to lend scientific validity to this fear. May observes, In the face of Kinseys evidence, efforts to achieve sexual repression gave way to new strategies for sexual containment. Marriage was considered to be the appropriate container for the unwieldy American libido (101). Instead of calling for strict abstinence before marriage, authorities sought to prevent sexual experimentation from going beyond petting, holding women ultimately responsible for drawing the line. Does she or doesnt she? was already a pop cultural clich by the time the film adaptation of Sex and the Single Girl posed it. Though initially hesitant about the slogans double entendre, Clairol had been using it to sell Hair color so natural only her hairdresser knows for sure! since 1955, shortly after the sensational publication of the Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Of course, cultural conflicts around womens premarital sexual agency had by then fueled the narratives of countless exploitation and mainstream films. But the question had rarely, if ever, been asked as explicitly or answered as ambiguously as it was in the early years of the postwar Sexual Revolution--for example, in sex comedies such as the Doris Day vehicles, Pillow Talk (1959) and That Touch of Mink (1962); and in teenpics such as A Summer Place (1959) and Where the Boys Are (1960). Before Sex and the Single Girl, Natalie Wood had already starred in three dramatic films addressing the topic: All the Fine Young Cannibals (1960); Splendor in the Grass (1961); and Love With the Proper Stranger (1963). The question Does she or doesnt she? had taken on new dimensions of cultural significance when Kinsey reported that for about half of American women, the answer was Yes. Similar rates of female premarital coitus had been documented since the 1920s. But in the postwar context of increasingly frank and open discussion of sexual matters, the sensational publicity around Kinseys statistical documentation of the sexual habits and mores of American women brought unprecedented public attention to the issue. In his elaborate enumeration of the pros and cons of premarital sexual relations for women, Kinsey found no substantial justification for its prohibition. Noting that improved contraception and penicillin had greatly reduced the risks of pregnancy and venereal disease, he concluded that most women who had engaged in premarital sexual relations had no regrets, and that they were more likely to find sexual satisfaction in marriage than those without previous experience. Notwithstanding the fact that much of the reported previous coital experience had occurred with a fianc just prior to marriage, Kinsey proposed that the double standard was being resolved by the development of a single standard in which womens levels of premarital coitus were approaching those of men. Indeed, Kinsey--like Masters and Johnson after him--tended to emphasize the physiological or natural similarities between the sexes (except hormonal factors), suggesting that those differences which did exist were mainly attributable to psychological or cultural factors. In the context of emergent second-wave feminism, this perspective fueled mounting fears of gender and sexual inversion, as had Kinseys earlier revelation of the unexpectedly high incidence of male homosexual experience. Anxieties about womens growing independence were also exacerbated by Kinseys re-discovery of the clitoris as the primary site of female orgasm, with masturbation its most reliable technique--a revelation which, by the way, did not sit well with psychoanalysts, either. Kinseys premarital findings in particular became the controversial centerpiece of a media frenzy. The Male volume had encountered considerable difficulties with the press; but according to Wardell Pomeroy, Kinseys closest collaborator, nothing compared to the storm that broke over the publication of the Female volume; the story dominated both the legitimate press and tabloids for weeks. Pomeroy contends that public controversy over Sexual Behavior in the Human Female not only led to the loss of crucial funding from the Rockefeller Foundation, but ultimately contributed to Kinseys subsequent physical deterioration and death in 1955. We might make disclosures about men that were shocking to prevailing middle-class morality, but after all, they merely confirmed the conventional wisdom that men were no better than they should be. To talk of girls and women as sexual beings, however--that was too much. In his contemporaneous analysis of the books public reception, Donald Porter Geddes remarked, Never before in the history of publishing has a book received so good a press, or so bad a one. According to Geddes, the Female volume was called everything from the most important science news of 1953 to arrogant bunk. Psychologists complained that, like the Male volume, the Female volume neglected the emotional dimensions of sexual experience; lay critics who found it cold and clinical echoed that theme in the question What about love? Although they represented a minority, several well-known moralists launched a high-profile attack; Protestant fundamentalist Billy Graham declared, It is impossible to estimate the damage this book will do to the already deteriorating morals of America. But Geddes reported that most of the womens magazines emphasized Kinseys contribution to better marriage. Womans Home Companion asserted, It can help men and women make adjustments in marriage...The books writers defend the American family and predict that the changes they find taking place in family life today are helping to create more secure and happier families in this country (293). Colliers focussed on Kinseys assertion that males and females are basically alike, calling it perhaps the number one feminist book of 1953, because it gives Woman equal status with Man in a vital human relationship in which she generally has been considered the inferior (291). Although it was expensive ($8.00), lengthy (842 pages), and addressed to a professional audience, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, like the Male volume, quickly became a best seller. Moreover, no fewer than 50 books claiming to explain the Female report appeared soon after its publication. The legitimation of public discourse on sexuality--in which Kinsey played a key role--had opened a tremendous mass market for sexological publications. At their peak around 1960, marriage manuals attained annual sales of a million dollars. Until that time, most prescriptive literature had advised against premarital intercourse, in sympathy with cold war defense strategies to preserve the family. But this position became less and less tenable, as reflected in the work of Dr. Albert Ellis, perhaps the most widely read sexologist of the immediate post-Kinsey period. In Sex Without Guilt (1958) and The Art and Science of Love (1960), Ellis argued at length that, based on existing evidence, it was exceptionally difficult to understand why informed and intelligent men and women might not justifiably and guiltlessly have coitus before marriage [emphasis added]. After 1961, the widespread availability of oral contraceptives (the Pill) made it easier for women to say Yes--and more difficult for them to say No. Sexual liberalism became imbricated with the heightened levels of consumerism required to sustain the postwar economic boom. A kind of sex-acquisitiveness came to permeate the popular prescriptive literature, in which scientific sexological discourses commingled with those of tabloids, pulp fiction, and self-help manuals. Countless men and women became convinced that they needed more frequent, more intense, and more varied sexual experiences, as the marriage manual gave way to the sex manual. Sexual competencies and conquests were counted along with sports cars and deluxe refrigerators as status symbols in an upwardly mobile society. In Playboy, Hugh Hefner enumerated the material trappings now required for men to play the game of seduction. In Sex and the Single Girl, Helen Gurley Brown assured unmarried women that they, too, could play the game--and they could win. From Singular Best Seller to Duplicitous Screenplay In her 1962 runaway best seller, Brown declared, Nice, single girls do have affairs, and they do not necessarily die of them! Addressed primarily to the swelling ranks of single, urban, working women, Sex and the Single Girl linked financial independence and sexual liberation in a bourgeois life-style that presumably any sensible, unmarried woman could attain--provided she knew how to dress, home-decorate, and deport herself stylishly on a well-managed budget. In addition to instructions on conducting an affair, Brown offered advice on selecting the black dress, tips on bargain home accessories, and the recipes for three fabulous little dinners and one semi-fabulous brunch. These pointers--along with her suggestion that under certain circumstances, a woman might fake orgasm--made some feminists cringe. But whereas noted feminist Betty Freidan, in The Feminine Mystique (1963), would propose that satisfying the sex hunger of American women would require transforming the institution of marriage, Helen Gurley Brown asked, why wait? You may marry or you may not. In todays world that is no longer the big question for women. Brown also declared that a sexy woman is one who enjoys sex, and who accepts herself and all the parts and functions of her female body as worthy and lovable. She reminded her readers that frigidity was a curable state of mind, and asserted that there was no such thing as being genuinely oversexed. Although she thought the books title sounded like just another Kinsey report, she made it clear that her informal survey included only herself and her friends, mostly urban career women. In a recent interview, Mrs. Brown told me that although she did not identify herself with sexology, she had been told by psychiatrists, educators, and various other professionals, that her book had changed the way people thought about female sexuality. Regarding actual sexual practices, the book stopped just outside the bedroom door; but at its core was a celebration of female sexual agency as radical for its day as anything projected by the Kinsey reports. Sex and the Single Girl was an instant hit. It remained on the best seller list for seven months, elicited thousands of fan letters, and made Brown the darling of the talk show circuit. It was eventually translated into sixteen languages and sold in twenty-six countries. But of course, not everyone appreciated the book. In Browns home town, the Los Angeles Times published a biting review by critic Robert L. Kirsch, who thought it as tasteless a book as he had ever read. I detect a thorough contempt for men, who are the marionettes of this manipulation... She rushes breathlessly from punchy paragraph to compressed exposure, a creature of the advertising age, endorsing the phoniness and hard-soft subliminal sell which substitutes for individuality, candor, sincerity. What she describes as sex is not sex at all but a kind of utility. Perhaps futility would be a better word. Mrs. Brown told me that she had been criticized in a major way for promoting sex to young women; but she denied proselytizing. I said if youre having a sexual friendship, and youre not married, dont feel guilty--so is everybody else doing the same thing! ....What I was guilty of, or responsible for, was indicating that sex was pleasurable, and exciting, and delicious, and its something you might want to participate in. Though Brown said she was never accused of commercializing sex, several major film studios fought over the privilege to do just that with her book. Within two months of its publication, Warner Brothers snapped up the screen rights to Sex and the Single Girl for $200,000--the most Hollywood had ever spent on a work of non-fiction. Brown recalls Jack Warner, who was appalled by the price, commenting to one of his executives, My God! We bought a bunch of recipes, and how to fix up the apartment! Although the investment would eventually pay off, the studio faced an immediate dilemma. Not only did the book lack plot, characters, and dialogue, but its thesis violated the fundamental Hollywood dogma that all love must be licit by the time the final credits roll. Even in the context of relaxing industry standards, how could a movie based on a self-help manual for single, sexually-active women ever pass the Production Code Administration (PCA)? To a significant degree, the solution lay in transforming the character of real life ad copywriter Helen Gurley Brown into a scientific sexologist who preaches but does not practice premarital sex. This strategy would facilitate a critique of female sexual liberation, while preserving the commercial value of the books prurient appeal. The cinematic Helen would be a far cry from the actual Helen, who claimed to have enjoyed seventeen satisfying years as a sexually active single, before marrying David Brown (a former magazine editor turned movie studio executive). When I asked her how she felt about this discrepancy, Mrs. Brown replied emphatically that it did not bother her in the least: I thought the movie was absolutely adorable! By her own account, Brown was never consulted on any aspect of the film adaptation, nor did she expect or want to be. In search of a story for the pretested title they had bought, Warner Brothers turned instead to a previously acquired screenplay by Joseph Hoffman, called How to Make Love and Like It. Hoffmans romantic comedy chronicled the attempted seduction of Dr. Rhoda Eastman, a 32-year-old, cold but dedicated, unmarried marriage counselor, by news magazine book reviewer Bob Weston, who pans her popular love manual as unauthoritative, sensationalist trash. Saul David, film producer and friend of the Browns, was hired along with writers David R. Schwartz and (later) Joseph Heller (Catch 22), to transform How to Make Love and Like It into a script for Sex and the Single Girl which would remain faithful to the blithe spirit of the book...and yet make a reasonably acceptable movie. In a December 27, 1962, inter-office communication to studio executive Walter MacEwen, Saul David expressed concern about just how far to go in the direction of riveting this already excellent script to the sense and material of Sex and the Single Girl. He suggested that some covering play could be made of the fact that Dr. Rhoda Eastman-cum-Helen Brown is working both sides of the street by calling her an expert on Sex and Marriage, Before and After. This way, he continued, when Bob Weston questions her qualifications as an unmarried expert on marriage--he might very well question her qualifications on Sex, since she seems to prefer a computer to a rumble seat. (Indeed, in a dream sequence eventually dropped from the final script, Rhoda nearly does marry a robot.) Although he advised eliminating the gratuitous appearance of a computer in Hoffmans screenplay, David recommended, Id like some point made of her having used computer statistics in the writing of the book as well as in her marriage counseling. This would point directly to the lack of human emotion in Rhodas analyses and give voice to the question posed about the book: What about love? Two months later, David reported on the PCAs initial, negative reaction to the script. Code administrator Jack Vizzards chief objection had been that the moral question raised by the film was not adequately answered. Given that Helens book advocated unmarried promiscuity, the fact that she herself was not promiscuous would not be enough; Vizzard had stressed that the case against promiscuity and for love and marriage should be made unmistakably clear. To this end, David suggested that instead of Bob railing that its a dirty book, he would take the position that shes dispensing advice which, if followed, would make women the aggressors--in effect defeminize them. This would, in turn, play right into her use of computers and her scientific approach to compatibility [emphasis original]. As the language and logic of Davids remarks suggest, science is appropriated to the figure of Helen in a specifically gendered way. The terms scientific approach, computers, and statistics are clearly encoded as masculine, and linked to the attributes lack of human emotion/love, unmarried promiscuity, and aggression. The stakes are identified as love and marriage; but the ultimate criticism to be leveled at Helens research is that it threatens to defeminize women; it promotes gender inversion. The gravity of Helens offense in advocating premarital sexual agency for women, then, lies not only in its violation of the codes of culture (i.e., marital and anti-fornication laws), but also--and more importantly--in its violation of the laws of nature, based on the assumption that gender difference is a natural outcome of biological sexual difference. Sex and the Natural Woman Although a counter-discourse works to re-feminize Helen by depicting her as infantile, gullible, and insecure, she is narratively and visually coded as masculine in several ways. Indeed, Helen declares that she wrote the book because she wants the unmarried women in this country to stop behaving like mice and start behaving like men! Her education level and profession are culturally identified with masculinity; she is the only female member of the sex research institute. Calling upon widespread audience familiarity with popularized psychoanalytic concepts, the film accessorizes Helen with unmistakably phallic fetish items, including the sculptures in her office (an obelisk, a replica of the Eiffel Tower, and an archer with bow drawn), a long cigarette holder, and a black fur boa which she defiantly tosses over her shoulder. She claims she can easily get as much sex outside of marriage as she wants, just like a man. But the films best running gag has Helen furiously rubbing her eyeglasses with a handkerchief whenever she is confronted with her lack of sexual experience. Given that Freud and Breuer listed a disturbance of vision among the bodily manifestations of female hysteria, her frustrated, masturbatory frenzy may be read as a (patho)logical outcome--a symptom--of her gender confusion. Helens affliction consists in her inability to assume a proper position in relation to the naturalized, patriarchal dichotomy which poses masculine/aggressive/seeing in opposition to feminine/passive/seen. Helens frigidity--which maintains her chastity--positions her with respect to the dualistic nature of femininity in relation to culture, metaphorized most appropriately in this context as a dichotomy between virginity and promiscuity. Developing theories which reinforced existing social hierarchies, Enlightenment philosophers understood nature (represented as feminine) to be that upon which (masculine) human rationality acted, not only to intervene, but also to render it intelligible. L. J. Jordanova explains that this perception of nature included people and their societies. Such an interpretation of nature led to two distinct positions: nature could be taken to be that part of the world which human beings have understood, mastered, and made their own...But secondly, nature was also that which has not yet been penetrated (either literally or metaphorically), the wilderness and deserts, unmediated and dangerous nature. To these two positions correspond two senses in which women are nature. According to the first, they, as repositories of natural laws, can be revealed and understood...According to the second position it was womans emotions and uncontrollable passions which gave her special qualities. On the one hand, then, Woman is the bearer of culture, the keeper of the codes; she represents moral--and therefore, sexual--restraint. On the other, Woman is wild and threatening to culture; she represents unbridled sexuality. This dichotomy is expressed in contradictory constructs of female sexuality in the field of sexology, both diachronically and synchronically. Late nineteenth century sexologists mainly sought to demonstrate the diminished and passive nature of female sexuality, at the same time proclaiming sexual pleasure as natural and healthy for both men and women. Mid-twentieth century sexologists sought mainly to affirm and even glorify female sexual potential; at the same time, women were expected to enforce the cultural boundaries against premarital sexual intercourse. The resulting sexual tension is neatly expressed in Sex and the Single Girls satirical evocation of deviant postwar gender and sexual stereotypes believed threatening to the institutional stability of marriage. With her first book still selling like hotcakes, Helen has moved on to a study of the sexual habits of married men. Bob Weston is actually single playboy who has a sexually liberated girlfriend, a nightclub singer named Gretchen (Fran Jeffries). But to investigate his Does She or Doesnt She? expos for Stop, Bob poses as his married neighbor Frank, in order to become Helens patient and research subject. Frank Broderick (Henry Fonda) is a mild-mannered ladies hosiery manufacturer (Sexy Sox) who has an eye for pretty legs, and a jealous, domineering wife named Sylvia (Lauren Bacall). Improvising false symptoms based on the titles of some etchings on Helens office wall (i.e., Indecision, Repression, Inhibition), Bob-as-Frank asks her to cure the sexual inadequacy he experiences when his wife hollers on him. But it is really Helens frigidity that must be cured. According to contemporaneous film critic Alexander Walker, this standard narrative strategy, in which a man conceals his virility in order to seduce a sexually repressed career woman, was deployed with increasing candor in several sex comedies produced between the late fifties and mid-sixties. Notable examples included Pillow Talk (1959), Lover Come Back (1962), and A Very Special Favor (1965), the latter bearing the closest resemblance to the film under discussion, because it involves the sexual healing of a frigid psychiatrist (Leslie Caron). In the 1950s, frigidity emerged as a major national health problem. Physicians estimated that over half of American women fit the category, which included those who could not achieve orgasm, as well as those who were totally unresponsive. According to cultural historians Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess, and Gloria Jacobs, To the average female, frigidity was a judgement freighted with a variety of resentments: that American women dominated their men (an inexhaustible theme in popular magazines); that American men were being emasculated by everything from the corporate work world to the suburban barbecue (a major motif of fifties sociology)... Kinseys choice to objectively quantify sexual pleasure by counting orgasms had imbued the physiological phenomenon with new cultural significance. In his Female volume, he asserted that women were just as capable of orgasm as men, and that a womans failure to reach orgasm with a male partner could cause him to develop feelings of inferiority. Prescriptive literature of the period placed great emphasis on the importance of female sexual satisfaction in marriage, and the complicated task of achieving it. For example, in The Sexual Responsibility of Woman (New York: Permabooks, 1956/1959), Maxine Davis advised, A succession of stages of excitement in the woman, each increasingly pleasurable, which lead to the sex act are necessary if she is to share the climax. And it is of paramount importance that she does experience orgasm. This mutual satisfaction is the only criterion of happy marriage (96). Davis warned, A husbands inexpertness is unquestionably the cause of many domestic disasters, and his wife had a responsibility to help him learn (160). Now that womens sexual potential--including greater capacity for multiple orgasms--was well-established, not only were wives expected to be sexually responsive to their husbands, but husbands were admonished to keep their wives sexually satisfied in order to keep them at home. In 1964, the year the film Sex and the Single Girl was released, Drs. Phyllis and Eberhard Kronhausen wrote in their best seller, The Sexually Responsive Woman (New York: Ballentine, 259), What modern women seem to want is not just more sex, but better sex. Together with increased aggressiveness in mature women, there appears to be a trend toward demanding, and if necessary, seeking, better sexual performance from male partners. The pressure was on: In the vulgar vernacular of the times, could men rise to the occasion? With so much emphasis placed on female sexual potential, could women still be expected to defer its gratification until marriage? In the films most frequently cited scene, Helen decides to give Bob enough self-confidence to woo his (borrowed) wife Sylvia, while maintaining that she herself is not susceptible to seduction. Supposedly distraught over his impotence, Bob fakes an attempt at suicide by drowning, pulling Helen into the bay with him. This sets up a familiar scenario in which both must return to Helens apartment to slip out of those wet clothes, and into a few dry martinis. The lights are low, and the two are sitting close together on a sofa. Helen wears a long, virginal-white dressing gown--extremely low-cut at the neck and slit up to the thigh. Bob wears a borrowed, ruffled robe, and the obvious reference to Some Like It Hot is played to the hilt when he is repeatedly mistaken for Jack Lemmon. More inebriated and less inhibited, Helen takes Bobs hand and tells him, One of the many ways to control a woman is through the power of touch...Also, there are certain, erogenous areas of the body--the back and sides of the neck, for example. Momentarily, as Bob kisses her neck, Helens facial expression seems to contradict her slurred words, Do not get discouraged if you get no response from me--my neck is a dead area...However, its very much alive in over 90% of all woman--Ive made a statistical study. You make many statistical studies, dont you , Doctor? Oh yes, oh yes, I do, Helen responds, as Bob attends to her ear. Oh yes, kissing the ear is very helpful, too. Oh yes, I made up my mind very early that I was going to learn all I could about love and marriage before I made my mistakes. Now switch over to the other ear. By this time, in most cases, that other ear will be just begging for attention. No, sir, Im not going to gamble with my life--particularly when it comes to men. But, gambling can be--part of the fun--I mean--dont you ever go and experiment on your own, I mean, as a woman? Bob presses her. Or arent you that kind of a girl? What kind of a girl? That kind of a girl. What kind of a girl?! The kind of a girl that is that kind of a girl. Mr. Broderick! snaps Helen, angrily pulling away from him. Handily avoiding his question, she complains, Why is it that every time I begin interviewing you, you wind up interviewing me?! In this scene Helen appears to be no less indignant about the insinuation of her promiscuity, than she was in the earlier scene about the insinuation of her virginity. But a few moments later, she is once again in Bobs arms, and nearly succumbs to his charms--until his declaration of love suddenly sobers her. Frightened by the power of her own desire, she kicks Bob out, and then weeps uncontrollably on the phone to her mother. By juxtaposing these disparate aspects of Helens sexual disposition, the film works to recuperate what it ostensibly set out to repress--namely, unbridled female sexuality. Helens inability to practice what she preaches--her frigidity--is coded as unnatural vis-a-vis her over-investment in scientific discourse. In other words, her reliance upon sociological statistics for sexual knowledge--rather than lived experience--is held to account for artificially distancing her from her true nature as a sexual animal. In part, this critique reflects a humanist reaction against the predominantly authoritarian ideologies of the 1950s. During the sixties, professionalism and prescriptive expertise came increasingly under attack, giving rise to the self-actualization movement in which personal experience was considered the most authentic means of access to knowledge. A growing mistrust of cultural authority was also implicated in the periods popular revitalization of naturalism. Countering an extreme overemphasis on cultural determinism in the social sciences, a renewed privileging of the natural revived interest in biological explanations of human sexuality, especially in those proffered by primate studies. Monkeying Around with Nature In the postwar period, numerous scientific and popular publications posed monkeys and apes as the missing link in human evolution, the best known being Desmond Morris The Naked Ape (1967), which sold eight million copies worldwide. Nonhuman primates came to occupy a position like that held by tribal societies in nineteenth-century evolutionary schemas, as growing concsiousness of cultural relativism made it increasingly difficult to think of primitives as representing a protohuman past. By Donna Haraways account, With the progressive disappearance of primitives as legitimate objects of knowledge and colonial rule, and with the discrediting of pre-war eugenics, Western anthropologists had to rethink the meaning and processes of the formation of man. According to emergent theoretical tendencies that would eventually coalesce under the rubric of sociobiology, monkeys and apes were considered the ancestral progenitors of contemporary human behavior--virtually all of which was ultimately accountable to natural selection effected through heterosexual reproduction. From this perspective, marriage (the institutionalization of heterosexual bonding) and all other forms of sexual life were thought to be adaptations in the interest of enhancing the gene pool. As critical sexologist Lenore Teifer has so aptly observed, ...Sexuality defined as evolutionarily driven, that is, as fundamentally organized for species reproduction, does not usually lead to womens sexual autonomy or self-determination. The sexual division of labor at the core of the sociobiological model in primate studies seems to begin and end with the evolutionary characteristics of the ova and testes; history is elided, and patriarchal constructs of gendered, sexual behavior are effectively naturalized. Jeffrey Weeks explains the implications of this model for human sexual behavior : Because males have an almost infinite number of sperm, while women have a very restricted supply of ova, it is suggested that men have an evolutionary propulsion towards spreading their seed to ensure diversity and reproductive success, and hence toward promiscuity, while women have an equal interest in reserving energy, towards conservation, and hence towards monogamy. Sex and the Single Girl recapitulates this paradigm in a cunning scene in which the preeminence of culture over nature is debated, and the distinction between lower animals and humans is debunked. In order to discuss the authentic (meaning sexual) feelings they had experienced in the privacy of her apartment, Helen agrees to meet Bob at a public place--the zoo. Filmed through a wire mesh fence, by a camera placed inside the compound of the primate exhibit, it is they who appear to be the caged animals, with the monkeys in the foreground curiously looking on--and providing the film audiences point of view. Medium and close shots of the tame-looking monkeys are intercut with shots of Helen and Bob pacing wildly back and forth as if confined. During their discussion, these human animals pause occasionally to cling to the fence, hang on a branch, or scratch their heads in confusion. At one point, they even munch on peanuts the monkeys pass to them through the fence. Still posing as Frank, Bob pleads with Helen, Will you listen to me? Last night, something happened that was very real--something very few people ever get! Yeah, I know--drowned! Helen retorts. You know what I mean, admonishes Bob, his tone suggestive of their mutual desire. Youre not talking like a shy stocking manufacturer now! Helen, you mean more to me than an order from Kresges! She resists. This is insane, impossible--We must be civilized! He persists. But I am being civilized. No, youre not; you're talking like an animal. After all, youre a married man! Married, huh? Well Ive done a little research, and right from your own book, Usually, and I quote from memory, Married men tend to be generous and ardent to their girlfriends, and make ideal companions. Now, you wrote that! But that was an observation, not a recommendation. If you had read further you would see that I also say that man is not an ape. He has an opportunity, a challenge, and a responsibility to seek permanent marriage--which you have already done--and it is only in this way that we are morally superior to the lower animals! In this scene, the verbal discourse seeking to limit female sexual agency is effectively countered by the visual discourse seeking to liberate it; here, as elsewhere, the film works both sides of the street. Although Helens little lecture posits marriage as the cornerstone of civilization, the institution is treated less kindly in other contexts. The films only married couple, the real Frank and Sylvia are constantly bickering. At the gala celebration of their tenth anniversary, the cake is topped with a bride and groom in a boxing ring. Between bouts, the couple does wax romantic as they dance a cool twist to Gretchens hot rendition of The Wedding Song. But the film ridicules their momentary lapse into nuptial bliss, as every one at the party--including the entire Count Basie Orchestra--weeps sentimentally throughout the number. Afterward, a teary-eyed Gretchen confesses to Bob that anniversaries always leave her with a strange kind of longing. For marriage? he suggests. Oh no, honey, his thoroughly modern girlfriend replies. I wouldnt give up my career for marriage, kids, or happiness! It is Helen who must make that trade-off in the end; but some funny things happen on her way to the altar. Having discovered Bobs deception, Helen wants to get away before his expos is published in Stop. She asks her randy colleague, Rudy, to take her to the Figi Islands, where women are women, and men arent worms! But Bob has lost his job at the tabloid, for going soft on Helen. He looks for her at the sexological Institute, only to find it is being demolished to make way for a Hilton hotel. Meanwhile, Helen has convinced Sylvia that the real Frank has been faithful. Sylvia runs after him with reconciliation in mind, unaware that Frank has invited Gretchen to accompany him to Hawaii for a little monkey business, so to speak. They all head for the airport in a Sennett-style chase that has everybody swapping partners in a mad game of musical cars--a reference to the recent social phenomenon popularly described as wife swapping. Having caught up with Helen in the back seat of a cab, Bob almost convinces her to admit shes in love. But when he persists in ravenously kissing her neck, she calls him a sex fiend and slaps him, declaring, I wont be dominated by any man! Angered by Helens rejection, Bob withdraws to Gretchen, who, with tongue in cheek, proclaims, Id gladly be dominated by any man! Throughout the hijinks, a running gag has them all devouring hard pretzels plucked from a roadside stand--underscoring the base appetite at the heart of their pursuits. The freeway itself, shown still under construction, symbolizes the accelerating encroachment of civilization upon nature. Civil authority is mockingly represented in the comic figure of an inept, over-zealous highway patrolman (Larry Storch), who is eventually carted away to the mental hospital after literally trying to arrest everybody in sight. By maintaining conflicting constructs of the feminine as natural in this final sequence, the film manages to rehabilitate Helen and the institution of marriage, while at the same time effectively rewarding Gretchen for being a sexually aggressive single girl. At the airport, Frank patches things up with Sylvia, and buys new tickets for a second honeymoon in Figi--where their marriage can survive, he says, because the natives dont wear stockings. Finding themselves jilted at the gate, Rudy and Gretchen happily hook up for some casual hedonism in Hawaii, courtesy of Franks previous tickets. In the gift shop, while wistfully cradling a toy monkey in her arms, Helen has a revelation: I dont want to be a single girl--I want Bob Weston! Helen connects with her sexual self as defined by her biological role in reproduction, which presumably impels her toward a long-term, monogamous relationship. She wins Bob back with the oldest trick in the book of feminine wiles--she cries. Presumably transformed by the power of love, Helen will give up her sexological practice to marry Bob; and he will support her with his new job as the reformed editor of a highly respectable news magazine--after their immediate honeymoon in Figi. Then, leaving the constraints of civilization behind, they all depart for that primitive paradise, where they will undoubtedly do what comes naturally. Working Both Sides of the Street Notwithstanding the minor detail that Helen and Bob take their honeymoon before they take their wedding vows, were love and marriage sufficiently salvaged in the eyes of the Production Code Administration? PCA Director Geoffrey Shurlock had repeatedly complained that the films moral rebuttal of the notion that sexual freedom is quite acceptable for unmarried girls was weak and overpowered by the initial idea. He also objected to a number of items having been dragged in in an effort to make this story sensational. These included general references to premarital sex, and specifically to the bluntness of the question Does she or doesnt she? Targeted for their infringement on good taste were extramarital sex, nudity, intimate physical contact, and putting sex on the basis of eating. Shurlock emphasized, The story is rather risky enough in itself without creating the further impression that an effort is being made to sex it up. He warned that the film would meet opposition from the Legion of Decency and other religious and reviewing interests. After a year of script negotiations, he still doubted that the film could be approved, because the story was occupied and preoccupied with sex, to the point that it seems sniggering. Nevertheless, despite the fact that many of the PCAs suggestions were virtually ignored, the Code seal was eventually granted. While the film itself contrived an abivalent posture in the matter of single women having sex, the promotional campaign was anything but ambiguous, as the studio pressbook reveals. One print ad depicted Helen lying on top of Bob, with the come-on, Is it true what they say about Sex and the Single Girl? Yes! She plays the leader of the sexual revolution, touted another showing Helens and Bobs bodies intersecting at the groin to form a giant X. Many of the ads included a picture of the best-selling book; the jacket design was virtually identical to Browns original, substituting Natalie Woods photograph for hers. One of these showed Helen and Bob reading it, thinking to themselves, respectively: If he reads page 213 Im sunk! and It keeps getting better and better...The best is yet to come! Another described the film as the worlds greatest example of dedicated do-it-yourself, and appeared to show Bob actually mounting a joyful Helen on her psychiatric couch, but for the strategic arrangement of their legs. A theatrical trailer featured a rapid series of shots of all the principles saying the single word sex, as well as a clip of Helen demonstrating her erogenous zones. An exclusive press release to the Hollywood Reporter quipped: A new slanguage has developed on the set of a new WB picture. That overworked expression, sensational, has evolved into sexational. The numeral six has become sex. The doorman answers the telephone: Stage Sex. Instruments in Count Basies band were referred to as sexaphones. And when the feminine star emotes in a boudoir sexquence, director Richard Quine calls her Nightily Wood. The name of the picture--what else?--is Sex and the Single Girl. The salacious connotation of that best-selling title prompted a group of wealthy, suburban Milwaukee housewives to condemn the film, sight unseen; but many who did see it complained that the film--like its title character--was all talk and no action. A review in Commonweal said, The film tries to be so shocking about promiscuity that it isnt shocking at all, but just a limp, off-color joke. Life noted that considering most recent comedies had been leering giants of tasteless vulgarity...the one with the most leering and notorious title of them all...[is] about as sexy as a wink. In the New York Herald Tribune, Judith Crist wrote, ...Sex and the Single Girl is enough to put one off sex, single girls and movies for the season. According to Time, based on the books title alone, the filmmakers had fabricated a silly little comedy starring Natalie Wood and other celebrities old enough to know better. Time said that, after a few rounds of parlor tag, the main characters are understandably eager to get out of town, and their impulse to flee provides the films first and only surge of audience identification. Although it was moderately successful at the box office, critical disappointment in the films failure to pay off on its prurient premise indicated increasingly sex-sophisticated and media-savvy audiences, to whom the crumbling PCA would have to make further concessions. Just three years later, it would be supplanted by the Classification and Rating System (CARA). Does she or doesnt she? was rapidly becoming a moot question. Americans were now marrying later in life, by which time they were more likely to have had sexual experience. Indeed, the incidence of premarital coitus among (white) females rose sharply from the mid-1960s onward. In the 1950s, hypocrisy notwithstanding, less than a quarter of Americans had endorsed premarital sex for women; the opposite would hold true by the 1970s, when even cohabitation would gain acceptance. As emergent second-wave feminism, and later the gay and lesbian movement, raised intellectual and public awareness of the inherently political nature of gender and sexuality, revamped attempts to naturalize existing social inequalities in scientific discourse would increasingly be challenged by the postmodern impetus toward de-naturalization. By appropriating sexology in its attempt to work both sides of the street, the screen adaptation of Sex and the Single Girl explicitly recapitulates the structural dichotomies through which female sexuality has traditionally been construed--in science and in popular culture. Today, essentializing biological explanations of gender and sexual difference once again dominate the field--despite the futility of such paradigms for understanding the complex interaction of nature and culture in the production of multiple and dynamic identities for both male and female subjects. To the extent that the competing discourses which shaped the Sexual Revolution remain in force, critical analysis of Sex and the Single Girl provides valuable insight on the continuing struggle for sexual liberation. __________________ A doctoral candidate in American Culture and Womens Studies at the University of Michigan, Charlotte Pagni holds an M.A. in Film from San Francisco State University. Last year she presented an overview of her dissertation, Hollywood Does Kinsey: Cinema, Sexology, and Sexual Regulation, at a solo session of the nations largest annual sexological conference (ASSECT/SSSS). Author of Sex Regulation on the Home Front: Safety Girl and the Crisis in Public Access Television (publication pending in Cultural Studies), Pagni has lectured in Film, American Culture, Communications Media, Art, English, and Sociology.  Geoffrey Sherlock, letter to J. L. Warner, 3 October 1963. This and all subsequently cited studio documents are held by The Jack Warner Collection, Warner Brothers Archives, University of Southern California.  The first major Hollywood film in which the word virgin was spoken was released in 1953, the year Kinseys Sexual Behavior in the Human Female was published. The film was Otto Premingers The Moon Is Blue (United Artists). It was also the first to be distributed without the Production Code Administrations seal of approval.  The Seven Year Itch (Fox, 1955) is structured around the Marilyn Monroe-inspired fantasies of the married editor of a psychological study on male infidelity. In College Confidential (Allen-Meadows/Universal, 1960), a sociology professor is accused of misconduct with a coed who participated in his sex survey. A female sociologist researches mens adolescent sexual fantasies in Boys Night Out (Metro Goldwyn Mayer/Kimko-Filmways, 1962). The Chapman Report (Warner Brothers, 1962) presents scientific case studies of the troubled sex lives of four suburban women. In Beach Party (American International Pictures, 1963), an anthropologist studies the primitive mating rituals of contemporary teenagers. The Esalen Institute, renowned for its radical Reichian and gestalt-based sex therapies, sets up the (in-)action in Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (Columbia/Frankovitch, 1969). The vignettes comprising Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask) (United Artists, 1972) purport to answer questions addressed in Dr. David Reubens popular sex handbook. In addition, amateur or layperson sexological pursuits shape the narratives of Where the Boys Are (Metro Goldwyn Mayer, 1960); Bachelor in Paradise (Metro Goldwyn Mayer/United Artists, 1961); and Under the Yum Yum Tree (Columbia, 1963).  See Eric Schaefer, The Sex Hygiene Exploitation Film: A Filmography and Genre Overview, thesis, U of Texas at Austin, 1987, and "Bold! Daring! Shocking! True!": A History of Exploitation Films, 1919-1959 (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1999); Annette Kuhn, Cinema, Censorship and Sexuality 1909-1925 (London and New York: Routledge, 1988); Robert Eberwein, Sex Ed: Film, Video, and the Framework of Desire (Piscataway: Rutgers University Press, 1999); and Eithne Johnson, The Coloscopic Film and the Beaver Film: Scientific and Pornographic Representations of Female Sexual Responsiveness, Swinging Single, eds. Hilary Radner and Moya Luckett (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, forthcoming).  See Marjorie Heins, Sex, Sin, and Blasphemy: A Guide to Americas Censorship Wars (New York: The New Press, 1993).  In addition to the films listed above, these include: Deep Throat (1972); The Devil in Miss Jones (1973); The Opening of Misty Beethoven (1976); The Man Who Loved Women (1983); Choose Me (1984); Body Chemistry I-IV (1990-95); Body of Influence I, II (1992, 1997); Sins of Desire (1993); The Dark Dancer (1995); Don Juan DeMarco (1995); Midnight Confessions (1995); Indecent Behavior (1995); Sexperiment (1997); Bliss (1997).  Kuhn 105.  Cinema and sexology are understood as components of what Michel Foucault describes as the scientia sexualis of modern Western cultures. Traditional and non-Western cultures have typically organized sexual knowledge around an ars erotica, or erotic art, to be passed from the experienced to the novice without specifying or classifying its details. The scientia sexualis, on the other hand, pursues an ever-expanding investigation and detailed classification of the measurable, confessable truths of a sexuality that governs bodies and their pleasures. Knowledge thus produced is enlisted in the service of social regulation, in a process Foucault describes as the deployment of sexuality. The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction (New York: Random House, 1978) 51-73.  Feminist Studies/Critical Studies, ed. Teresa de Lauretis (Bloomington: Indina University Press, 1986) 69.  Margaret Jackson, The Real Facts of Life: Feminism and the Politics of Sexuality c1850-1940 (London: Taylor & Francis, 1994) 121.  The Desire to Desire: The Womans Film of the 1940s (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) 38.  Women in the field of sexology have historically held the less prestigious and less powerful positions of educators, healthcare workers, and therapists; men have dominated the upper echelons of scientific sexology. Irvine145.  Elaine Showalter, Sexual Anarchy: Gender and Culture at the Fin de Siecle (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).  Vance Packard, Sexual Wilderness: The Contemporary Upheaval in Male-Female Relationships (New York: David McKay Company, Inc, 1968).  The campaign was designed by Shirley Polykoff of Foote, Cone, & Belding. Charles Goodrum and Helen Dalrymple report that the agency only reluctantly approved the campaign. The all-male managers of Life initially refused the ads, until a poll of the magazines female staff endorsed them. An American advertising classic, the campaign ran for 15 years. Charles Goodrum and Helen Dalrymple, Advertising in America: The First 200 Years (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1990), 133. In recent years, Clairol has promoted Herbal Essence shampoo with the slogan, A totally organic [sic] experience, in television ads featuring the supposed sound of a woman in the throes of orgasm. Celebrity sexologist Dr. Ruth Westheimer appeared in one such ad.  In addition to sources listed in note 4, see Janet Staiger, Bad Women: Regulating Sexuality in Early American Cinema (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995); and Lea Jacobs, The Wages of Sin: Censorship and the Fallen Woman Film, 1928-1942 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1991).  Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders Company, 1953) 316-30.  In spite of the widespread and oft-repeated emphasis on the supposed differences between female and male sexuality, we fail to find any anatomic or physiologic basis for such differences. Kinsey Female 641.  Kinseys findings on male homosexuality included the following: Nearly two out of every five men had at least one overt homosexual experience leading to orgasm; one third had at least some incidental homosexual experience or reactions over a three-year period. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia and London: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948) 650-51.  Kinsey Female 574-84. Freudian psychoanalytic theory contends that active, clitoral sexuality represents an immature refusal to accept the lack of a penis; and that normal, mature, female sexuality is marked by the passive achievement of vaginal orgasm. See Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1933) 161. For a feminist explication of this distinction, see Juliet Mitchell, Psychoanalysis and Feminism: Freud, Laing and Women (New York: Random House, 1974) 105-08. See also the 1970 classic text by Anne Koedt, The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm, in The Radical Therapist Collective, eds., The Radical Therapist (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974).  Wardell B. Pomeroy, Dr. Kinsey and the Institute for Sex Research, 2nd ed. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1986) 332.  The 20th of August, An Analysis of the Kinsey Reports on Sexual Behavior in the Human Male and Female, ed., Donald Porter Geddes (New York: The New American Library, 1954) 286.  Pomeroy 364.  For an insightful analysis of this phenomenon, see Stephen Heath, The Sexual Fix (London: The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1982).  Albert Ellis, Sex Without Guilt, (New York: Grove Press, Inc.; 1958, revised 1965); and The Art and Science of Love (New York: Lyle Stuart, Inc., 1960). The latter was, according to the jacket notes, the fastest selling love manual in America, with over 100,000 copies sold by 1964. That year he would borrow from Helen Gurley Brown for the title of his book Sex and the Single Man (New York: Lyle Stewart, Inc, 1964). Warner Brothers and Brown sued Ellis in fear that he would make a deal for an inferior movie, which would damage the market value of theirs; the suit was eventually dropped.  In our interview, Brown reported having shared a mutual friendship and respect with Hugh Hefner for many years. Hefner was thrilled about Sex and the Single Girl; finally a woman was telling other women that sex is good, whereas he had only addressed men. When she took the helm at Cosmopolitan, He couldnt have been more wonderful...He and his managing editor...treated me like a little baby sister.  Helen Gurley Brown, Sex and the Single Girl, (New York: Random House, 1962), 225.  Betty Feidan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Dell publishing Company, Inc., 1963).  Shana Alexander, Singular Girls Success, Life 1 March 1963: 66.  As editor of Cosmopolitan, Brown would oversee that magazines high-profile sex survey in 1980. With responses from over 106,000 readers, Cosmos was both the largest sex survey and the largest magazine survey of any kind to date.  Cited in Alexander 67.  Unable to find any scholarship on the adaptation of non-fiction books to narrative film, I raised the issue during a session titled The Cutting Edge: Film on the Border of the Other Arts at the April 1998 national conference of the Society for Cinema Studies. Neither James Naramore, who was coathoring a book on film adaptation, nor anyone else in the crowded room, was aware of any previous work on the subject.  Jack Warner Collection, Warner Brothers Archives, University of Southern California. When prepublicity did not credit Hoffman, he sued Warner Brothers in the amount of $300,000 for breach of contract and false and fraudulent advertising. Although the terms of the settlement are not clear, he was eventually given credit for having written the story. Reported in Variety (Scribe Hurls 300G Suit at WB over Sex), and in The Los Angeles Times (Writer Sues Film Concern for $300,000), March 21 March 1965.  Alexander 65.  Inter-office communication to Walter MacEwen, 1 March 1963.  Studies on Hysteria, trans. and ed. James Strachey (New York: Avon Books, 1966), 38.  Natural Facts: A Historical Perspective on Science and Sexuality, Nature, Culture and Gender, ed. Carol MacCormack and Marilyn Strathern (Cambridgeand New York: Cambridge Universtiy Press, 1980) 66.  Sex in the Movies: The Celluloid Sacrifice (Penguin Books: Baltimore, 1966) 239.  Regarding film narratives dealing with psychiatry and pathologized female protagonists, see: Janet Walker, Couching Resistance: Women, Film, and Psychoanalytic Psychiatry (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993); and Krin Gabbard and Glen O. Gabbard, Psychiatry and the Cinema (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1987).  Re-Making Love: The Feminization of Sex (New York and London: Doubleday, 1986) 46.  Primate Visions: Gender, Race, and Nature in the World of Modern Science (New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall, 1989) 7.  In his founding text, Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,E. O. Wilson defines the term as the systematic study of the biological basis of all social behavior (Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1975).  Sex Is Not a Natural Act and Other Essays (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995) 107.  Sexuality and Its Discontents (London and New York: Routledge) 114.  See William and Jerrye Breedlove, Swap Clubs: A Study in Contemporary Sexual Mores (Los Angeles: Sherbourne Press, 1964). Five years later, Natalie Wood starred in Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (d. Paul Mazursky), in which two married couples explore the practice of exchanging sexual partners.  Letter to Jack Warner, 4 March 1963.  Shurlock 24 June 1963.  Letter to Jack Warner, 12 November 1963.  Archive Research and Study Center, UCLA Film and Television Archive, Los Angeles.  Forty-three attended a formal town meeting to discuss banning the film, though it had shown in similar, nearby communities without problem. A local rabbi who feared censorship of any kind noted that even parts of the Bible would be objectionable as family entertainment. Explaining that the film could not legally be banned, the city attorney added, A lot of people have damned this movie because of its title. I think a lot of [those] people havent seen it. It would be extremely difficult for any court to say the title arouses the prurient interest. The film opened in Fox Point as scheduled. Frank Aukofer, None of Objectors Had Seen Film, Reacted to Title Sex and the Single Girl, Variety 10 Feb. 1965: n.p..  Commonweal 12 February 1965, n.a., n.p.  Thomas Thomson, Non-Book Turns into a Fine Romp, Life 8 January 1965:n.p.  Excerpted in John Springer, The Fondas: The Films and Careers of Henry, Jane, and Peter Fonda, (New York: The Citadel Press, 1970), 209.  Career Girls Question, Time 1 January 1965: n.p.  In Varietys Big Rental Pictures of 1965 (5 January 1966), Sex and the Single Girl was listed with $4,000,000 in rental revenues since its release in December, 1964. This would have been considered relatively successful for that year, in which Walt Disneys top-grossing Mary Poppins showed revenues of $28,500,000. The total boxoffice for the 502 films released that year was $913,000,000, according to Gene Browns Movie Time, (New York: Macmillan, 1995), 277.  For an insiders view of this transition, see Stephen Farber, The Movie Rating Game (Washington, D. C.: Pubic Affairs Press, 1972).  John DEmilio and Estelle B. Freedman, Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, (New York: Harper and Rowe, Publishers, 1988), 333. )l  t b c yq*0E. 2 r x F"G"I"`"""""""##$$%$$$%%&&)*,--".OJQJjB*CJEHU6CJOJQJ CJOJQJY*s m###,049<BG9K:KnKNSY_.cg$d*s m###,049<BG9K:KnKNSY_.cgktnunnrtby[} Z`yݕU)*IS( Ҫ'c ^HhK̿ͿlnoF%&'()*O~Lo|b".#.$.../////// 004000000044g6n6777777 9 999{99G:M:::<<t=u===!>%>2>8>??N@d@pAzABCC CCCMDNDE FF1FFFGGKJRJJJ6K7K:KmKKKKK*CJOJQJjCJEHU CJOJQJ6CJOJQJXgktnunnrtby[} Z`yݕU)*IS דIPǕ˕>G_h*HOP&)FG&'*A~ǫԫݫ39txZem{ QUdz˳:?$7:Ϳ:@-.RdS]jB*CJEHUjCJEHU6CJOJQJ CJOJQJW( Ҫ'c ^HhK̿ͿlnoF%& Ц%aާ[CV-˻@:Aabv"#PQ?@KLcdTUXN\/r_bq!sAhFGtux y        $PS$$$PS$$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$$r$ -&$T$ -&$81$$$9$l$D)$$d$%'$x~"$,9$PS$$x$x~"$^&$($$l$$X$PS$$p%$$$&$Z$/$\$PS$ $PS$PS$PS$$$PS$, $l$PS$$L"$$d5 $PS$$<$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$$+$x $l$л-$PS$PS$$$$T!$PS$PS$3$\ $Q$PS$PS$x$PS$PS$$$PS$PS$+$!$$PS$ $PS$<$PS$$PS$PS$PS$ $!$$PS$<$!$$PS$PS$PS$$PS$<$PS$h$PS$$$$e$ $$e$e$$e$$X= $$$$$$$$$ $ _ $$$$$e$$$X= $$$e$e$$$PS$+$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$x$PS$$PS$$PS$<$PS$$PS$d5 $PS$<$PS$<:UVW{9 *F G m <)-q15H9?CDGGG&K/PU[_'dSgjjjpuyC:}َːug56UZ,-Ц%aާ[CV-˻@:Aabv"#PQ?@KLcdTUXN\/r_bq!sAhFGtux y         @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@Root Entry Fq@1Table`WordDocument~SummaryInformation(       !*&'()A+,-./0123456789:<=>?@BEFGjIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefgklmnoprstuvwxyz{|}~  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~v y =!*a+o1345F9 :m<@CGoHNpNSW>]_`gouJ~Oi؜^; v W  N = I aRVLZ- !"^"L#d#% ''V''w((*p**+,U,~----B.1F11 2V2*44A5E5     Zp*E5 s%  W ~$~!          $  o 3tFXjr~ܐ W F& 2 p  <WXY}; ,H I o >)-s15J9?EDGGG(K@PU \_8ddgjjjpuyTK$ܐБŒxFGfkǠ=>6rlTg>ܻQK"#Rrs34ab/0PQ\]tuef"#-i%_m@-q_w,i.#hiUV/0YZ3 4 i j = >   X $PS$PS$PS$$$PS$$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$d$r$v#$$ -&$Lz/$$$Td8$t $PS$t$$ -&$T!$X$PS$$$ $%$N($$l $PS$X$PS$$f% $PS$$%$ $/$\$PS$ $PS".Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)@ L 5kdF$dC$Eƀ0J b'bdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJfFdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ(dGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJNFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJpFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*OJQJmH OJQJ$FdGB*OJQJmH OJQJ!9:=TUVW[]^jlo94S11P]|7V) * y u v i Vu6U8|pxzXwMlm !!U"t"&#E##$$$E%c%&#&&&$'C'j'''(T(s())*`+a+,,-$.C.v//000224456787k7783888 : :m::N;l;;<l<<<==??? @?@A1AAA]B{BCCDDEEF8FFFG6GGnHIIJJKK/LPLoLLMMM`NaN?O^OPP!Q@QrQQ RDRcRS:SnS}SSS T)TTT7UVUVV,WKWWW9XXXXYYYaZcZ-[L[_\s\.]^;^``YaZab3b}bbtccadddeeeffgghhNiYijtkkl2llln'nenno"o-oopqqrrs!satttt v+vivvvwnwwwwxxy zozz{3{{|||}:~;~k25ځہRqł݃ń ( $'׈%3ۊjϋ 9ь֌ȍ:Yh(hx?O/[\ΓWv̖՗*ITU>'F 'YwYZNEd*+,-FUբ.z"/N79[k-vxƩ<[ɫ ? (ܭ2nˮ,.Tsư5ر&ϴ*I9o" ˻}pqٽݽn@\{ Sr4R0:}!@:Yf"#$PQR ?@AKLMcdeTUVYO]0s`cr"tBhiFGHtuvx y z              1$B0B1B1B0B0@0B1B1B1B1B1B1B1C0C0C1C0C1C1C1C1C0C0C0@1@0R@1T@ 1C1 @ 1D1 @ 1D1 @ 1PD1 @ 1RD1@ 1D1r@ 1D0@ 1D1@ 1E1@ 1LE1@ 1\E1j@ 1E0 @ 1E1@ 1E1@ 1F1h@ 1F1p @ 1ZF1F0!@ 1F1v&@ 1 G0p)@ 1HG12/@ 1G10@ 1G11@ 1G1v2@ 1H1D4@ 1:H05@ 1xH18@ 1zH19@ 1H1;@ 1>@ 1H1A@ 1H1rC@ 18I1D@ 1:I0 F@ 1xG@ 1BI1ZJ@ 1I1K@ 1I1.M@ 1I1N@ 1:J1@P@ 1xJ1rQ@ 1J1R@ 1J1"T@ 1K18U@ 1NK1U@ 1K1V@ 1K0W@ 1L18Z@ 1L\@ 1L1]@ 1 L0,`@ 1a@12L1Hc@1pL1e@1L0&g@1L1l@1L0o@1M1r@1>M1>u@1|M1u@1M1:w@1M0x@14N1z@18N1{@1vN1}@1N1~@1@1N1@1,O0@1jO1zO1@1O1l@1O1R@14P1@1rP1@1P0B@1P1|@1P1@1P1n@1:Q1@1xQ0n@1ܖ@1@1Q1@1Q0F@1@12R1l@1R1@1R1.@1*S1V@1hS1أ@1jS0ԥ@1S1@1S1@1@1$T18@1bT1@1T1@1T1 @1T1x@1T1|@1@ 1f1<@@ 1@@ 1f1C@ 1D@ 0D@ 1D@ 1F@ 1:g1H@ 1xg1^I@ 1g0g1dI@1LL@0NL@0g1PL@ 1g1L@ 1g1M@ 1h18O@ 1Rh1XP@ 1h10Q@ 1h1DR@ 1 i1bS@ 0T@ 1Ji0T@ 1i0XW@ 1i0xX@ 1i1X@ 1i0dZ@ 1j1Z@ 1 j0[@ 1Hj1^@ 1j1_@ 1j1`@ 1k1@k1a@ 1\k1jb@ 1k1c@ 1k1d@ 1Pl1re@ 1l0e@ 1l1g@ 1l1h@ 1l1i@ 1m1i@ 1Nm1j@ 1m1k@ 1m1m@ 1m1Tn@ 1 n1ro@ 1n1p@ 1&n1q@ 1dn0r@ 1n1v@ 1n14x@ 1o1^y@ 1z@ 1Po1{@ 1o1p|@ 1o0`~@ 1@ 1 p1@ 1Hp10@ 1Jp1 @ 1Rp1@@ 1Tp1n@ 1p1^@ 1p0ԉ@ 1؊@ 1p1D@ 1q1R@ 1Nq1v@ 1q1ҏ@ 1q1F@ 1r1 @ 1Dr1`@ 0Ȕ@ 1ޔ@ 0@0Fr1@ $PS$PS$$$PS$, $l$PS$$4#!$PS$PS$PS$$<$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$$+$x $l$&-$PS$PS$$L#$ $PS$PS$h$H$Q$PS$PS$x$PS$PS$$$PS$PS$+$!$$PS$ $PS$<$PS$$PS$PS$PS$ $!$$PS$<$!$$PS$PS$PS$$PS$<$PS$h$PS$$$$e$ $$e$e$$e$$X= $$$DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjX0TableHӘ $$$$ $ _ $$$$$e$$$X= $$$e$e$$$PS$+$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$x$PS$$PS$$PS$<$PS$$PS$d5 $PS$<$PS$<<WXY}; ,H I o >)-s15J9?EDGGG(K@PU \_8ddgjjjpuyTK$ܐБŒxFGfkǠ=>6rlTg>ܻQK"#Rrs34ab/0PQ\]tuef"#-i%_m@-q_w,i.#hiUV/0YZ3 4 i j = >   U X @@@@@ [j@jNormal4d ) p@ P !$B*CJOJQJkH'mH <A@<Default Paragraph FontrOrquote.19d & p@ P !B*CJOJQJkH'mH B @BFooter#  p@ P $!&)@& Page Number0Y@"0 Document Map-D ( ` u x    ^  $PS$$$PS$$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$$r$ -&$T$ -&$81$$$9$l$D)$$d$%'$x~"$,9$PS$$x$x~"$^&$($$l$$X$PS$$p%$$$&$Z$/$\$PS$ $PS$PS$PS$$$PS$, $l$PS$$L"$$d5 $PS$$<$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$$+$x $l$л-$PS$PS$$$$T!$PS$PS$3$\ $Q$PS$PS$x$PS$PS$$$І$X= $D&$l$e$|%$$ A$e$$e$І$e$$$n $e$e$ $$e$$$e$$X= $$$$$$$$$ $ $$$$$e$$$X= $$$e$e$$$X= $$$$$X$$$$$$$$$e$:UVW{9 +G H n =)-r15I9?DDGGG'K0PU[_(dTgjjjpuyD;~ڎ̐vh67V[-. Ѧ&bߧ \DW.̻A;Bbcw @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@".Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)@,,0,,5F$dC$Eƀ0J b'dbdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJfFdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ(dGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJNFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJjFGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ9:=TUVW[]^jlo94S11P]|7V) + z v w j Wv7V9}qy{YxNmn !!V"u"'#F##$$$F%d%&$&&&%'D'k'''(U(t())*a+b+,,-%.D.w//010224456797l7784888 : :n::O;m;;<m<<<==???!@@@A2AAA^B|BCCDDEEF9FFFG7GGoHIIJJKK0LQLpLLMMMaNbN@O_OPP"QAQsQQ RERdRS;SoS~SSS T*TTT8UWUVV-WLWWW:XYXXYYYbZdZ.[M[`\t\/]^<^``Za[ab4b~bbuccbdddeeeffgghhOiZijukkl3lll n(nfnno#o.oopqqrrs"sbtttt v,vjvvvwowwwwxxy zpzz{4{{|||};~<~l36ہ܁SrƂރƄ ) %(؈&4܊kЋ!:Ҍ׌ɍ;Zi)iy@P0\]ϓXw͖֗+JUV ?(G (ZxZ[OFe+,-.GV֢/{#0O8:\l.wyǩ=\ʫ!@ )ݭ3o̮-/Utǰ6ٱ 'д+J:p#¹ ̻~qrڽ޽oA]| Ts5S1;~"A;Zg _#    A$B@BABAB@B@@@BABABABABABABAC@C@CAC@CACACACAC@C@C@@A@@R@AT@ ACA @ ADA @ ADA @ APDA @ ARDA@ ADAr@ AD@@ ADA@ AEA@ ALEA@ A\EAj@ AE@ @ AEA@ AEA@ AFAh@ AFAp @ AZFAF@!@ AFAv&@ A G@p)@ AHGA2/@ AGA0@ AGA1@ AGAv2@ AHAD4@ A:H@5@ AxHA8@ AzHA9@ AHA;@ A>@ AHAA@ AHArC@ A8IAD@ A:I@ F@ AxG@ ABIAZJ@ AIAK@ AIA.M@ AIAN@ A:JA@P@ AxJArQ@ AJAR@ AJA"T@ AKA8U@ ANKAU@ AKAV@ AK@W@ ALA8Z@ AL\@ ALA]@ A L@,`@ Aa@A2LAHc@ApLAe@AL@&g@ALAl@AL@o@AMAr@A>MA>u@A|MAu@AMA:w@AM@x@A4NAz@A8NA{@AvNA}@ANA~@A@ANA@A,O@@AjOAzOA@AOAl@AOAR@A4PA@ArPA@AP@B@APA|@APA@APAn@A:QA@AxQ@n@Aܖ@A@AQA@AQ@F@A@A2RAl@ARA@ARA.@A*SAV@AhSAأ@AjS@ԥ@ASA@ASA@A@A$TA8@AbTA@ATA@ATA @ATAx@ATA|@A@ AfA<@@ A@@ AfAC@ AD@ @D@ AD@ AF@ A:gAH@ AxgA^I@ Ag@gAdI@ALL@@NL@@gAPL@ AgAL@ AgAM@ AhA8O@ ARhAXP@ AhA0Q@ AhADR@ A iAbS@ @T@ AJi@T@ Ai@XW@ Ai@xX@ AiAX@ Ai@dZ@ AjAZ@ A j@[@ AHjA^@ AjA_@ AjA`@ AkA@kAa@ A\kAjb@ AkAc@ AkAd@ APlAre@ Al@e@ AlAg@ AlAh@ AlAi@ AmAi@ ANmAj@ AmAk@ AmAm@ AmATn@ A nAro@ AnAp@ A&nAq@ Adn@r@ AnAv@ AnA4x@ AoA^y@ Az@ APoA{@ AoAp|@ Ao@`~@ A@ A pA@ AHpA0@ AJpA @ ARpA@@ ATpAn@ ApA^@ Ap@ԉ@ A؊@ ApAD@ AqAR@ ANqAv@ AqAҏ@ AqAF@ ArA @ ADrA`@ @Ȕ@ Aޔ@ @@@FrA@ A@ AHrA@ ArA@ ArAp@ ArAԟ@ @@ ArA@ AsA@ ADsAإ@ AsA@ As@F@ AsA4@ As@@ @6"@ A]_`gouJ~Oi؜^; v W  N = I aRVLZ- !"^"L#d#% ''V''w((*p**+,U,~----B.@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@".UnknownCharlotte Pagni !!Charlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save ofles of a million dollars. tegies to preserve the family. immediate post-Kinsey period. ain the postwar economic boom. nuals. al gave way to the sex manual. in an upwardly mobile society. to play the game of seduction. shly on a well-managed budget. and one semi-fabulous brunch. Gurley Brown asked, why wait?  You may marry or you may not. r the big question for women. le body as worthy and lovable. as being genuinely oversexed. hought about female sexuality. ling of the talk show circuit. sold in twenty-six countries. ss a book as he had ever read. nettes of this manipulation... ividuality, candor, sincerity. nd of utility. but she denied proselytizing. ody else doing the same thing! might want to participate in. pent on a work of non-fiction. how to fix up the apartment! io faced an immediate dilemma. e time the final credits roll. tion Code Administration (PCA)?premarital sex. l.urned movie studio executive). pect or want to be. tive,  sensationalist trash.  a computer to a rumble seat. da nearly does marry a robot.) as in her marriage counseling. gative reaction to the script. m was not adequately answered. be made unmistakably clear. them.n a specifically gendered way. romiscuity, and  aggression. inversion. as masculine in several ways. and start behaving like men! f the sex research institute. ntly tosses over her shoulder. as she wants, just like a man. sexual experience. Given that ptom--of her gender confusion. een virginity and promiscuity. lso to render it intelligible. ed people and their societies. mediated and dangerous nature. ses in which women are nature. d therefore, sexual--restraint.epresents unbridled sexuality. hronically and synchronically. ive nature of female sexuality,althy for both men and women. premarital sexual intercourse. sexual habits of married men. amed Gretchen (Fran Jeffries). patient and research subject. hen his wife  hollers on him. frigidity that must be cured. major national health problem. e. ith new cultural significance. t as capable of orgasm as men, mplicated task of achieving it. if she is to share the climax.at she does experience orgasm. bility to help him learn (160). in order to keep them at home. rformance from male partners. the occasion? gratification until marriage? g Helen into the bay with him. , and into a few dry martinis. ting close together on a sofa. nd slit up to the thigh. edly mistaken for Jack Lemmon. inebriated and less inhibited, des of the neck, for example. ds, as Bob attends to her ear. g the ear is very helpful, too. I made my mistakes. the other ear. for attention. Bob presses her.ily pulling away from him..n of love suddenly sobers her. ty.stment in scientific discourse.ue nature as a sexual animal. arian ideologies of the 1950s. c means of access to knowledge. revitalization of naturalism. eight million copies worldwide.representing a protohuman past.pologists had to rethink the ough heterosexual reproduction.r are effectively naturalized. del for human sexual behavior recapitulates nimals and humans is debunked. ob at a public place--the zoo. appear to be the caged animals,film audience s point of view. back and forth as if confined. atch their heads in confusion. Helen,  Will you listen to me? She resists. .  Married, huh? s, and make ideal companions. . so say that man is not an ape. rks both sides of the street. less kindly in other contexts.lvia are constantly bickering. de and groom in a boxing ring. Between bouts,endition of  The Wedding Song. entally throughout the number. with a strange kind of longing.  For marriage? he suggests.ghly modern girlfriend replies.marriage, kids, or happiness! .! id, for  going soft on Helen. to make way for a Hilton hotel.real Frank has been faithful. monkey business, so to speak. es her to admit she s in love. man! man! t the heart of their pursuits. t of civilization upon nature. ually aggressive  single girl. es don t wear stockings. y of Frank s previous tickets. -term, monogamous relationship. of feminine wiles--she cries. r immediate honeymoon in F Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard D%qisk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)@L5kddF$dC$Eƀ0J b'bdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJfFdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJdCJOJQJdOJQJdC$EƀOJQJb'(dGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ(dGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJNFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJNFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJpFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJpFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*OJQJmH OJQJ$FdGB*OJQJmH OJQJ$;<?VWXY]_`lnq;6U33R_~9X* + , a b { v w x k Xw8W:~ryz|ZyOno =!>!!!W"v"(#G##$$$G%e%&%&&&&'E'l'''(V(u())***a+b+c+,,-&.E.x//020o1p1223344567:7m7785888F9G9 : ::o::P;n;;<m<n<<<==???"@A@@@A3AAA_B}BCCCDDEEF:FFFG8GGGGoHpHIIJJmK}KKL@LaLLMMMMNNpNqNrNPOoOPP2QQQQQRURtR,SKSSSSSST:TTTHUgUVV=W\WWWWWJXiXY YYYrZtZ>[][p\\>]?].^L^__``jaka%bDbbbccrdddeefff`gaggghh_ijijkk$lCllln8nvnn o3o>oooopqqrrs2srttttuuvWf ?3@_HJl|>שMlګ1Pά9έCܮʯ˯=?eװ'Fʱ!07;Z+J 3ҹ%ܻQmdEc AK!"#"vw 2Q )Kjw 345abc/01PQR\]^tuvefg"#$.j&`nA-.r`x-ij./#$hijUVW/01YZ[3 4 5 i j k = > ?    T U V W 0z0z1$B0B1B1B0B0@0B1B1B1B1B1B1B1C0C0C1C0C1C1C1C1C0C0C0@1@0R@ 1T@ 1C1 @ 1D1 @ 1D1 @ 1 @ 1PD1 @ 1RD1@ 1l@1D1r@ 1D0@ 1D1@ 1E1@ 1LE1@ 1\E1j@ 1E0 @ 1@ 1E1@ 1@ 1@ 16@ 18@ 1E1@ 1b@ 1F1h@ 1F1p @ 1ZF1F1!@ 1#@ 0#@ 1F1v&@ 1 G1p)@ 1)@ 0)@ 1HG12/@ 1G10@ 1G11@ 1G1v2@ 1H1D4@ 1:H05@ 1xH18@ 1zH19@ 1;@ 1H1;@ 1>@ 1>@ 1H1A@ 1H1rC@ 1D@ 18I1D@ 1E@ 1E@ 1:I0 F@ 1xG@ 1HH@ 1JH@ 1I@ 1I@ 1BI1ZJ@ 1I1K@ 1I1.M@ 1I1N@ 1:J1@P@ 1xJ1rQ@ 1J1R@ 1J1"T@ 1K18U@ 1NK1U@ 1K1V@ 1K0W@ 1L18Z@ 1F\@ 1H\@ 1L\@ 1z]@ 1L1]@ 1 L0,`@ 1a@12L1Hc@1pL1e@1L1&g@1i@0i@1L1l@12n@14n@1L0o@1M1r@1>M1>u@1|M1u@1M1:w@1M1x@1^y@0`y@1z@14N1z@18N1{@1vN1}@1N1~@1@1@1N1@1,O0@1jO1zO1@1O1l@1@1@1O1R@14P1@1rP1@1<@1P0B@1P1|@1P1@1P1n@1:Q1@1xQ1n@1l@0n@1ܖ@1ܗ@1@1Q1@1Q0F@1z1ޝ@1@12R1l@1R1@1R1.@1*S1V@1@1@1ң@1hS1أ@1jS0ԥ@1S1@1S1@1@1$T18@1bT1@1T1@1T1 @1r@1T1x@1T1|@1@1f1<@@1@@1@@1~A@1A@1f1C@1D@0D@ 1D@1F@1F@1:g1H@1xg1^I@1g0g1dI@1LL@!0NL@0g1PL@1g1L@1g1M@1h18O@1Rh1XP@1h10Q@1h1DR@1 i1bS@0T@ 1Ji0T@ 1i0XW@ 1i0xX@ 1i1X@ 1i0dZ@ 1j1Z@ 1 j0[@ 1Hj1^@ 1j1_@ 1j1`@ 1k1@k1a@ 1\k1jb@ 1k1c@ 1k1d@ 1Pl1re@ 1l0e@ 1l1g@ 1l1h@ 1l1i@ 1m1i@ 1Nm1j@ 1m1k@ 1|m@ 1m1m@ 1m1Tn@ 1 n1ro@ 1n1p@ 1&n1q@ 1dn0r@ 1n1v@ 1n14x@ 1o1^y@ 1z@ 1Po1{@ 1o1p|@ 1o0`~@ 1@ 1 p1@ 1*@ 1Hp10@ 1Jp1 @ 1:@ 1Rp1@@ 1Tp1n@ 1p1^@ 1Ή@ 1p0ԉ@ 1؊@ 1p1D@ 1q1R@ 1Nq1v@ 1q1ҏ@ 1q1F@ 1r1 @ 1Z@ 1Dr1`@ 0Ȕ@ 1ޔ@0@#0Fr1@1@1@1Hr1@1@1r1@18@1:@1h@1r1p@1r1ԟ@1z@1|@0@ 1@ 1@ 1r1@ 1j@ 1l@ 1s1@ 1Ds1إ@ 1s1@ 1@@ 1s0F@ 1s14@ 1s0@ 06"@ 1v1@0@0@v1@0@0Bv1@0@0Dv1@0@0Fv1@0@0Hv1@0@1@0@0@0d@0:@0@0@02@0R@0L@0@12@08@0@0@0@0@02@0|@0@0@1 @0&@0@0p@0 @0 @1j @0p @0f @1@0@1@0@0Jv1D@1J@0@0Lv1@0@0Nv1@0@0Pv1"@0(@0Rv1z@0@0Tv1$@0*@0Vv1@0@0Xv10@06@0Zv1@0@0\v1@0@0^v1V@0\@0`v1 @0 @0bv1!@1!@02"@04"@06"@ GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times5 Geneva!B#:&#:&#:&2ZzD#0d9aCharlotte Pagni  B B >?     [j@jNormal4d ) p@ P !$B*CJOJQJkH'mH <A@<Default Paragraph FontrOrquote.19d & p@ P !B*CJOJQJkH'mH b F$ #**033 58t9;M@C6GGnK{MM9SyW\)_fIo^u~ OF&-45  #R C P i]-n,jzQ !B"""##%'''<( )])* ++\,,, .J.e...11;2224[555     o ".5 ~,T  \ B$B                 $  $  vM,6^@IS]ofnxY>U 5nc'''' H a    T@".Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)@05 @@GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times5 Geneva!B#:&D#:&hZzD#0d=Charlotte Pagnisid&&{00020424-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}rPrTypeLib&&{2DF8D04C-5BFA-101B-BDE5-00AA0044DE52}Version2.0^Q^&&{000C030A-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}CommandBarPopup\R\ProxyStubClsid&&{00020424-0000-0000-C000-000000000046}rSrdeur. Adding insult to injury, the review goes on to discredit Helens thesis on the grounds that she lacks personal experience. In a scene the Production Code Administration had warned would never be approved, Helen vents her indignation to her lab-coated, male colleagues at the International Institute of Advanced Marital and Pre-Marital Studies. The nerve--the gall--to call me, Doctor Helen Gurley Brown, a 23-yr-old--virgin! Meanwhile, Stops slimiest sleaze-monger, Bob Weston (Tony Curtis), h1F11 2V2*44A5E5     Zp*E5 s%  W $!          $  o 3tFXjr~ܐ W F& 2 p  <WXY}; ,H I o >)-s15J9?EDGGG(K@PU \_8ddgjjjpuyTK$ܐБŒxFGfkǠ=>6rlTg>ܻQK"#Rrs34ab/0PQ\]tuef"#-i%_m@-q_w,i.#hiUV/0YZ3 4 i j = >   X $PS$PS$PS$$PS$PS$$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$d$r$v#$$ -&$Lz/$$$Td8$t $PS$J$$ -&$T!$X$PS$$$ $%$N($$l $PS$X$PS$$f% $PS$$%$ $/$\$PS$ $PS$PS$PS$$$PS$, $l$PS$$4#!$PS$PS$PS$$<$PS$PS$PS$PS$$$$+$x $l$&-$PS$PS$$L#$ $PS$PS$h$H$Q$PS$PS$x$PS$PS$$$PS$PS$+$!$$PS$ $PS$<$PS$$PS$PS$PS$ $!$$PS$<$!$$PS$PS$PS$$PS$<$PS$h$PS$$$$e$ $$e$e$$e$$X= $$$$$$$ $ _ $$$$$e$$$X= $$$e$e$$$PS$+$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$PS$x$PS$$PS$$PS$<$PS$$PS$d5 $PS$<$PS$<<WXY}; ,H I o >)-s15J9?EDGGG(K@PU \_8ddgjjjpuyTK$ܐБŒxFGfkǠ=>6rlTg>ܻQK"#Rrs34ab/0PQ\]tuef"#-i%_m@-q_w,i.#hiUV/0YZ3 4 i j = >   U X @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@45EI56 !ln>U%,-qNOPRe $"Si}~PKLMc 6OJQJOJQJCJ6CJOJQJ CJOJQJjB*CJEHUU&'()*+,O~Lo|IY/Xdxx$d&/MVmv )2CLW`fnop{|}al9ob'HIJ\^< CJOJQJjB*CJEHUCJ 6OJQJOJQJVIY/X#}n h55"L v      g  +0XYZ#)./08YK~"7WXYoI"#$4F|}~ "0Hmno ( CJOJQJCJ 6OJQJOJQJjCJEHUY#}n h55"L v   xxdx,3i~&ghi4568b6 4568!"#K L M u v w                  jB*CJEHUCJjCJEHU CJOJQJ 6OJQJOJQJU    g  +BBBCCCCCggHrTtltnt.v&`#$d$dx".UnknownCharlotte Pagni !!Charlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni9Hard Disk:Temporary Items:AutoRecovery save of Does She OCharlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)Charlotte Pagni,Hard Disk:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 2Charlotte Pagni>Hard Disk:Desktop Folder:Documents:Does She Oct 99 (Converted)@L5kOJQJdOJQJdOJQJF$dC$Eƀ0J OJQJb'bdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJfFdG6B*CJOJQJmH GB*OJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH 6CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJdCJOJQJdC$EƀOJQJb'(dGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ(dGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJNFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJNFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJpFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJpFdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJ,FdGB*CJOJQJmH CJOJQJGB*OJQJmH OJQJ$FdGB*OJQJmH OJQJ$;<?VWXY]_`lnq;6U33R_~9X* + , a b { v w x k Xw8W:~ryz|ZyOno =!>!!!W"v"(#G##$$$G%e%&%&&&&'E'l'''(V(u())***a+b+c+,,-&.E.x//020o1p1223344567:7m7785888F9G9 : ::o::P;n;;<m<n<<<==???"@A@@@A3AAA_B}BCCCDDEEF:FFFG8GGGGoHpHIIJJmK}KKL@LaLLMMMMNNpNqNrNPOoOPP2QQQQQRURtR,SKSSSSSST:TTTHUgUVV=W\WWWWWJXiXY YYYrZtZ>[][p\\>]?].^L^__``jaka%bDbbbccrdddeefff`gaggghh_ijijkk$lCllln8nvnn o3o>oooopqqrrs2srttttuuvv1@'0@'0@v1@'0@'0Bv1@'0@'0Dv1@'0@'0Fv1@'0@'0Hv1@'0@'1@0@0@0d@0:@0@0@02@0R@0L@0@12@08@1@0@0@0@02@0|@0@0@1 @0&@0@0p@0 @1 @0 @1j @0p @0f @1@0@1@0@0Jv1D@%1J@%0@'0Lv1@'0@'0Nv1@'0@'0Pv1"@'0(@'0Rv1z@'0@'0Tv1$@'0*@'0Vv1@'0@'0Xv10@'06@'0Zv1@'0@'0\v1@'0@'0^v1V@'0\@'0`v1 @'0 @'0bv1!@'1!@'02"@'04"@06"@ GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times5 Geneva!B#:&1$:&#:&?ZzD#0daCharlotte PagniThomson, Non-Book Turns into a Fine Romp, Life 8 January 1965:n.p. Excerpted in John Springer, The Fondas: The Films and Careers of Henry, Jane, and Peter Fonda, (New York: The Citadel Press, 1970), 209. Career Girls Question, Time 1 January 1965: n.p. In Varietys Big Rental Pictures ofDocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjX0TableHӘD#0dUaCharlotte Pagni [j@jNormal4d ) p@ P !$B*CJOJQJkH'mH <A@<Default Paragraph FontrOrquote.19d & p@ P !B*CJOJQJkH'mH B @BFooter#  p@ P $!&)@& Page Number0Y"0 Document Map-D * a  FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8o regrets, and that they were more likel ՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp  'University of Michigan1zZ:  Title 6> _PID_GUID'AN{F0890300-7A5B-11D3-9540-A216E1D3BE22} dimensions of sexual experience; lay cr Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`'ososososNormalfCharlotte Pagni6arMicrosoft Word 8.0d@7@:1@:,@b?qual status with Man in a vital human relationship in which she generally has been considered the inferior (291). Although it was expensive ($8.00), lengthy (842 pages), and addressed to a professional audience, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, like the Male volume, quickly became a best seller. Moreover, no fewer than 50 books claiming to explain the Female report appeared soon after its publication. The legitimation of public discourse on sexuality--in which Kinsey playedfvzzzd $d "00 / =!"#$(%|HHHV,(hh hd'0F  >   Z>  `Z [>  I; >   >   >c 4jbjbSS ~11C5]BCCqGqGqGH$ ccc8cL3dDSw dd(ddddddjjjjjjj,H kj*qGddddd kdCTAEddd6ddddqGdqGdjG)HCC)FFdjddjqGqGjwdbScdj Cinema, Sexology, and Female Sexuality In the opening sequence of Warner Brothers screen adaptation of Sex and the Single Girl, directed by veteran Richard Quine, the character of Helen Gurley Brown (Natalie Wood) is introduced as a research and clinical psychologist, who has recently written a best seller advocating sexual freedom for unmarried women. A review in a trashy tabloid called Stop pans the book for being a contemptible, lamentable hoax, filling feminine minds with dirty delusions of grandeur. Adding insult to injury, the review goes on to discredit Helens thesis on the grounds that she lacks personal experience. In a scene the Production Code Administration had warned would never be approved, Helen vents her indignation to her lab-coated, male colleagues at the International Institute of Advanced Marital and Pre-Marital Studies. The nerve--the gall--to call me, Doctor Helen Gurley Brown, a 23-yr-old--virgin! Meanwhile, Stops slimiest sleaze-monger, Bob Weston (Tony Curtis), hatches an idea for an investigative follow-up that will blow every other magazine off the newsstands: A personal expos right from her own lips: Does She, or Doesnt She? In this 1964 romantic comedy, she doesnt, of course. But the films textual contradictions, as well as its sexploitative promotional strategies, tended to undermine its ostensibly reactionary plot resolution. Such discursive conflicts were attached to a critique of sexology--the multidisciplinary, scientific study of sex and sexuality. Sexology had become a significant arbiter of the proliferating public discourse on sexual matters in the wake of the Kinsey Reports on human sexual behavior (1948, 1953). Though widely associated with the ascendancy of sexual liberalism, the field of sexology had in part developed along conservative lines, often in the interests of securing professional legitimacy and research funding. This article explores the contradictory meanings attached to female sexuality in the film adaptation of Sex and the Single Girl, through a consideration of its appropriation of popular reconstructions of scientific sexology. Sex and the Single Girl is one of several, highly visible American films premised on the narrative representation of sexology between the mid-fifties and early seventies, the period identified with the post-World War II Sexual Revolution. Although sexology and sexologists had been represented in many sex hygiene exploitation and propaganda films since 1919, the topic per se did not appear in mainstream cinema until after World War II, when critical economic and cultural shifts facilitated a general legitimation--as well as legal deregulation--of sexual discourse and its commercial appropriation. Popular reconstructions of sexology--including sex research, education, and therapy--have since been integral to the narratives of numerous theatrical and direct-to-video releases, including soft and hard core features. But there is more to the liaison between the cinema and sexology than a conv   N S f g h      *+,18k@LAVBBBC|MMtJtLtPtRtTtVtbtdthtjtltnt,v.v0v:vv@vdvfvzzzz࿼0JmH0J j0JU6CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ 6OJQJOJQJjB*CJEHUCJF"00 / =!"#$(%"Does She or Doesn't She?" Sexology and Female Sexuality in Sex and the Single Girl Spectator: The University of Southern California Journal of Film and Television Criticism Charlotte Pagni October 4, 1999 l freedom for unmarried women. eur. e lacks  personal experience. rital and Pre-Marital Studies. nger, Bob Weston (Tony Curtis),omedy, she doesn t, of course. y reactionary plot resolution. uality. sexual behavior (1948, 1953). gitimacy and research funding. its commercial appropriation. lot device for sexual display. y discourses of social reform. According to Annette Kuhn,polis: U. of MN. Press, 1995). xuality and its  perversions. s rise to narrative film form. gesis and mise-en-scene (41). (1887/1979),tively straightforward manner. their bodies. ion of their femininity (43). ndering the invisible visible. nquiry in sexual science (14). he subject for a case history. ct. y in times of cultural crisis. ns have typically been uneven. I was not entirely liberatory. marriage and parenthood (59). sand in 1940, to 24.5 in 1945. dangerously aggressive power. vulnerability to that threat. they inspired. ten completely out of control. entific validity to this fear. tegies for sexual containment. wieldy American libido (101). posed it. (1960). n women, the answer was  Yes. public attention to the issue. ification for its prohibition. of men. centerpiece of a media frenzy. press and tabloids for weeks. al Behavior in the Human Femaleterioration and death in 1955.no better than they should be. s of 1953 to  arrogant bunk. e question  What about love? talist Billy Graham declared, ntribution to better marriage. milies in this country (293). volume, quickly became a best seller. ed soon after its publication. al saigi. roduction Code Administration? l. is being made to  sex it up.  gious and reviewing interests. s the studio pressbook reveals.x and the Single Girl ? Yes! he groin to form a giant  X. ie Wood s photograph for hers. er...The best is yet to come! gic arrangement of their legs. -was  all talk and no action. es old enough to know better. e to make further concessions. pidly becoming a moot question.to have had sexual experience. ly from the mid-1960s onward. science and in popular culture. both male and female subjects.PAGE 16 PAGE 17 "00 / =!"#$(%1617 .v0v2v4v6v8v:vv@vBvDvFvHvJvLvNvPvRvTvVvXvZv\v^v`vbvdvfvd"00 / =!"#$(%|HHHV,(hh hd'0F  New York: Dell, Kins1415 <=>Wf ?3@_HJl|>שMlګ1Pά9έCܮʯ˯=?eװ'Fʱ!07;Z+J 3ҹ%ܻQmdEc AK!"#"vw 2Q )Kjw 345abc/01PQR\]^tuvefg"#$.j&`nA-.r`x-ij./#$hijUVW/01YZ[3 4 5 i j k = > ?    T U V W 0z0z1$B0B1B1B0B0@0B1B1B1B1B1B1B1C0C0C1C0C1C1C1C1C0C0C0@1@ 0R@ 1T@ 1C1 @ 1D1 @ 1D1 @ 1 @1PD1 @ 1RD1@ 1l@1D1r@ 1D0@ 1D1@ 1E1@ 1LE1@ 1\E1j@ 1E0 @ 1@1E1@ 1@1@ 16@18@ 1E1@ 1b@1F1h@ 1F1p @ 1ZF1F1!@ 1#@0#@ 1F1v&@ 1 G1p)@ 1)@0)@ 1HG12/@ 1G10@ 1G11@ 1G1v2@ 1H1D4@ 1:H05@ 1xH18@ 1zH19@ 1;@1H1;@ 1>@1>@ 1H1A@ 1H1rC@ 1D@18I1D@ 1E@1E@ 1:I0 F@ 1xG@ 1HH@1JH@ 1I@1I@ 1BI1ZJ@ 1I1K@ 1I1.M@ 1I1N@ 1:J1@P@ 1xJ1rQ@ 1J1R@ 1J1"T@ 1K18U@ 1NK1U@ 1K1V@ 1K0W@ 1L18Z@ 1F\@1H\@ 1L\@ 1z]@1L1]@ 1 L0,`@ 1a@12L1Hc@1pL1e@1L1&g@1i@0i@1L1l@12n@14n@1L0o@1M1r@1>M1>u@1|M1u@1M1:w@1M1x@1^y@0`y@1z@14N1z@18N1{@1vN1}@1N1~@1@1@1N1@1,O0@1jO1zO1@1O1l@1@1@1O1R@14P1@1rP1@1<@1P0B@1P1|@1P1@1P1n@1:Q1@1xQ1n@1l@0n@1ܖ@1ܗ@1@1Q1@1Q0F@1z1ޝ@1@12R1l@1R1@1R1.@1*S1V@1@1@1ң@1hS1أ@1jS0ԥ@1S1@1S1@1@1$T18@1bT1@1T1@1T1 @1r@1T1x@1T1|@1@1f1<@@1@@1@@1~A@1A@1f1C@1D@0D@ 1D@1F@1F@1:g1H@1xg1^I@1g0g1dI@1LL@!0NL@0g1PL@1g1L@1g1M@1h18O@1Rh1XP@1h10Q@1h1DR@1 i1bS@0T@ 1Ji0T@ 1i0XW@ 1i0xX@ 1i1X@ 1i0dZ@ 1j1Z@ 1 j0[@ 1Hj1^@ 1j1_@ 1j1`@ 1k1@k1a@ 1\k1jb@ 1k1c@ 1k1d@ 1Pl1re@ 1l0e@ 1l1g@ 1l1h@ 1l1i@ 1m1i@ 1Nm1j@ 1m1k@ 1|m@1m1m@ 1m1Tn@ 1 n1ro@ 1n1p@ 1&n1q@ 1dn0r@ 1n1v@ 1n14x@ 1o1^y@ 1z@ 1Po1{@ 1o1p|@ 1o0`~@ 1@ 1 p1@ 1*@1Hp10@ 1Jp1 @ 1:@1Rp1@@ 1Tp1n@ 1p1^@ 1Ή@1p0ԉ@ 1؊@ 1p1D@ 1q1R@ 1Nq1v@ 1q1ҏ@ 1q1F@ 1r1 @ 1Z@1Dr1`@ 0Ȕ@ 1ޔ@0@#0Fr1@1@1@1Hr1@1@1r1@18@1:@1h@1r1p@1r1ԟ@1z@1|@0@ 1@1@ 1r1@ 1j@1l@ 1s1@ 1Ds1إ@ 1s1@ 1@@1s0F@ 1s14@ 1s0@ 06"@ 1v1@'0@'0@v1@'0@'0Bv1@'0@'0Dv1@'0@'0Fv1@'0@'0Hv1@'0@'1@0@0@0d@0:@0@0@02@0R@0L@0@12@08@1@0@0@0@02@0|@0@0@1 @0&@0@0p@0 @1 @0 @1j @0p @0f @1@0@1@0@0Jv1D@%1J@%0@'0Lv1@'0@'0Nv1@'0@'0Pv1"@'0(@'0Rv1z@'0@'0Tv1$@'0*@'0Vv1@'0@'0Xv10@'06@'0Zv1@'0@'0\v1@'0@'0^v1V@'0\@'0`v1 @'0 @'0bv1!@'1!@'02"@'04"@06"@ GTimes New Roman5Symbol3 Arial3Times5 Geneva!B#:&H$:&8$:&?Zz!0daCharlotte PagniHnormalH%%quote.1   Chapter s ma n FMicrosoft Word DocumentNB6WWord.Document.8o regrets, and that they were more likel ՜.+,D՜.+,@ hp  'University of Michigan1zZ:  Title 6> _PID_GUID'AN{F0890300-7A5B-11D3-9540-A216E1D3BE22} dimensions of sexual experience; lay cr Oh+'0h   $ 0 <HPX`'ososososNormalfCharlotte Pagni7arMicrosoft Word 8.0d@@ܪ@:,@8?qual status with Man in a vital human relationship in which she generally has been considered the inferior (291). Although it was expensive ($8.00), lengthy (842 pages), and addressed to a professional audience, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, like the Male volume, quickly became a best seller. Moreover, no fewer than 50 books claiming to explain the Female report appeared soon after its publication. The legitimation of public discourse on sexuality--in which Kinsey played"00 / =!"#$(%|HHHV,(hh hd'0F                                  c DjbjbSS 11C5]nnn$ !!!8!L0"DvS ""(""""""(((((((,TVH(|*n"""""("T>"""6""""n"n"(&&"(""(nn(t"!"( Cinema, Sexology, and Female Sexuality In the opening sequence of Warner Brothers screen adaptation of Sex and the Single Girl, directed by veteran Richard Quine, the character of Helen Gurley Brown (Natalie Wood) is introduced as a research and clinical psychologist, who has recently written a best seller advocating sexual freedom for unmarried women. A review in a trashy tabloid called Stop pans the book for being a contemptible, lamentable hoax, filling feminine minds with dirty delusions of grand     qeur. Adding insult to injury, the review goes on to discredit Helens thesis on the grounds that she lacks personal experience. In a scene the Production Code Administration had warned would never be approved, Helen vents her indignation to her lab-coated, male colleagues at the International Institute of Advanced Marital and Pre-Marital Studies. The nerve--the gall--to call me, Doctor Helen Gurley Brown, a 23-yr-old--virgin! Meanwhile, Stops slimiest sleaze-monger, Bob Weston (Tony Curtis), hatches an idea for an investigative follow-up that will blow every other magazine off the newsstands: A personal expos right from her own lips: Does She, or Doesnt She? In this 1964 romantic comedy, she doesnt, of course. But the films textual contradictions, as well as its sexploitative promotional strategies, tended to undermine its ostensibly reactionary plot resolution. Such discursive conflicts were attached to a critique of sexology--the multidisciplinary, scientific study of sex and sexuality. Sexology had become a significant arbiter of the proliferating public discourse on sexual matters in the wake of the Kinsey Reports on human sexual behavior (1948, 1953). Though widely associated with the ascendancy of sexual liberalism, the field of sexology had in part developed along conservative lines, often in the interests of securing professional legitimacy and research funding. This article explores the contradictory meanings attached to female sexuality in the film adaptation of Sex and the Single Girl, through a consideration of its appropriation of popular reconstructions of scientific sexology. Sex and the Single Girl is one of several, highly visible American films premised on the narrative representation of sexology between the mid-fifties and early seventies, the period identified with the post-World War II Sexual Revolution. Although sexology and sexologists had been represented in many sex hygiene exploitation and propaganda films since 1919, the topic per se did not appear in mainstream cinema until after World War II, when critical economic and cultural shifts facilitated a general legitimation--as well as legal deregulation--of sexual discourse and its commercial appropriation. Popular reconstructions of sexology--including sex research, education, and therapy--have since been integral to the narratives of numerous theatrical and direct-to-video releases, including soft and hard core features. But there is more to the liaison between the cinema and sexology than a conv   N S f g h      *+,18k@LAVBBBC|MMtJtLtPtRtTtVtbtdthtjtltnt,v.v0v:vv@vdvfvzzzz~~࿼0JmH0J j0JU6CJOJQJ56CJOJQJ5CJOJQJ CJOJQJ 6OJQJOJQJjB*CJEHUCJH"00 / =!"#$(%"Does She or Doesn't She?" Sexology and Female Sexuality in Sex and the Single Girl Spectator: The University of Southern California Journal of Film and Television Criticism Charlotte Pagni October 4, 1999 l freedom for unmarried women. eur. e lacks  personal experience. rital and Pre-Marital Studies. nger, Bob Weston (Tony Curtis),omedy, she doesn t, of course. y reactionary plot resolution. uality. sexual behavior (1948, 1953). gitimacy and research funding. its commercial appropriation. lot device for sexual display. y discourses of social reform. According to Annette Kuhn,polis: U. of MN. Press, 1995). xuality and its  perversions. s rise to narrative film form. gesis and mise-en-scene (41). (1887/1979),tively straightforward manner. their bodies. ion of their femininity (43). ndering the invisible visible. nquiry in sexual science (14). he subject for a case history. ct. y in times of cultural crisis. ns have typically been uneven. I was not entirely liberatory. marriage and parenthood (59). sand in 1940, to 24.5 in 1945. dangerously aggressive power. vulnerability to that threat. they inspired. ten completely out of control. entific validity to this fear. tegies for sexual containment. wieldy American libido (101). posed it. (1960). n women, the answer was  Yes. public attention to the issue. ification for its prohibition. of men. centerpiece of a media frenzy. press and tabloids for weeks. al Behavior in the Human Femaleterioration and death in 1955.no better than they should be. s of 1953 to  arrogant bunk. e question  What about love? talist Billy Graham declared, ntribution to better marriage. milies in this country (293). volume, quickly became a best seller. ed soon after its publication. al saigi. roduction Code Administration? l. is being made to  sex it up.  gious and reviewing interests. s the studio pressbook reveals.x and the Single Girl ? Yes! he groin to form a giant  X. ie Wood s photograph for hers. er...The best is yet to come! gic arrangement of their legs. -was  all talk and no action. es old enough to know better. e to make further concessions. pidly becoming a moot question.to have had sexual experience. ly from the mid-1960s onward. science and in popular culture. both male and female subjects.PAGE 16 PAGE 17 "00 / =!"#$(%1617 .v0v2v4v6v8v:vv@vBvDvFvHvJvLvNvPvRvTvVvXvZv\v^v`vbvdvfvd"00 / =!"#$(%|HHHV,(hh hd'0F  New York: Dell, Kins1415 fvzzz~d $d "00 / =!"#$(%|HHHV,(hh hd'0F 1615