Miss professor needs in 5 hours or less!!

Fat Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ufts20

Is There Really “More to Love”?:

Gender, Body, and Relationship Scripts in

Romance-Based Reality Television

Jennifer L. Graves a & Samantha Kwan a

a Department of Sociology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

Available online: 19 Jan 2012

To cite this article: Jennifer L. Graves & Samantha Kwan (2012): Is There Really “More to Love”?: Gender, Body, and Relationship Scripts in Romance-Based Reality Television, Fat Studies, 1:1, 47-60

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21604851.2012.627791

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Fat Studies, 1:47–60, 2012 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 2160-4851 print/2160-486X online DOI: 10.1080/21604851.2012.627791

Is There Really “More to Love”?: Gender, Body, and Relationship Scripts in Romance-Based Reality Television

JENNIFER L. GRAVES and SAMANTHA KWAN

Department of Sociology, University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA

More to Love, a romance-themed reality television program fea- turing an all-plus-sized cast, touts itself as a progressive portrayal of “real” women bordering on fat activism. A qualitative content analysis of the program, however, reveals a contradictory and more complex story about gender, body, and relationships. On the one hand, More to Love acknowledges the reality of size and works to debunk several myths about fat women and men. On the other hand, the show negatively depicts fat and also reinforces tradi- tional gender stereotypes along with the age-old fairy tale script that equates heterosexual partnership with happiness. An anal- ysis of these media depictions puts a new spin on an old story and reveals new theoretical understandings about gender, body equality, and romantic relations. Ultimately, the show conveys a superficial form of body equality where fat women too can be loved, but only if they are willing to overexaggerate their femininity and submit themselves to external validation via the objectifying male gaze.

KEYWORDS fat, body, gender scripts, relationships, media

The authors would like to thank Mary Nell Trautner and Nat Pyle for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. They would also like to thank the editor, Esther Rothblum, and three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments. Authors are listed alphabetically to denote equal authorship.

Address correspondence to Jennifer L. Graves, Department of Sociology, University of Houston, 450 Philip G. Hoffman Hall, Houston, TX 77204. E-mail: [email protected]

47

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

48 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan INTRODUCTION

Since the early 1990s, the media landscape has changed dramatically. Audiences are now regularly exposed to reality television, programming that supposedly presents unscripted situations, documents actual events, and features “ordinary people” rather than professional actors (Hill, 2005). One especially popular form is romance-based reality TV—dating competitions in which contestants vie for the love of a central figure of the opposite sex who ultimately chooses a partner by eliminating at least one contestant during each episode.

Reality television has large appeal for scholarly analysis because it blurs the line between everyday experiences and constructed media fictions. It reflects our social world by featuring “real” situations, but it also has a hand in shaping it by including carefully crafted and constructed scenes. These realities and constructions have the ability to shape normative under- standings of social life. This ability is especially potent because viewers may interpret reality TV portrayals as seemingly unscripted scenes played out by ordinary actors, complicating their ability to discern the extent to which observations are, in fact, media constructs. Reality TV thus has the potential to reify, in quite powerful ways, social scripts.

GENDER, RELATIONSHIP, AND BODY SCRIPTS

Scripts are mutually shared conventions that enable coherent interactions among actors (Gagnon and Simon, 1973). Gender scripts, specifically, are socially defined patterns of interactions that reflect cultural norms about gen- der, sexuality, and relationships (Schwartz and Rutter, 1998). These scripts are often part of a larger gender code dictating how individuals look, behave, and see themselves (Hochschild, 1990). Despite being culturally and histor- ically defined, gender codes typically reflect performances that adhere to hegemonic understandings of masculinity and femininity (e.g., Butler, 1990; West and Zimmerman, 1987).

Embedded in gender scripts are assumptions of heterosexual actors and heteronormativity that privilege opposite-sex relations (Warner, 1991). Social scripts dictate that men and women, playing relatively predictable social roles, will meet, court, and eventually marry. Also embedded in gender scripts are appearance norms about how men and women ought to look. Conventions of masculinity still valorize a strong, muscular physique for men, specifically, the Adonis Complex (Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia, 2000). Women too are held to a thin yet firm ideal (e.g., Bordo, 2003; Wolf, 1991). The underlying cultural message is that individuals who follow normative gender, relationship, and body scripts will achieve happiness.

These body scripts are part of a larger cultural climate that researchers have unequivocally described as “sizeist.” Fat people experience bias,

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

Is There Really “More to Love”? 49

prejudice, and discrimination because of western culture’s narrowly defined cultural beauty norms (Puhl and Brownell, 2004). The gendered nature of this sizeism has not gone unnoticed. Similar to the repercussions of deviating from gender scripts more broadly, women who fail to conform to cultural dictates of appearance experience greater social sanction than male body non-conformists (see Kwan and Trautner, 2009).

Fat activism developed, at least in part, in response to these body scripts and represents collective efforts to change societal attitudes about the body (Solovay and Rothblum, 2009; Cooper, 2010a). Fat activists empha- size body diversity and body acceptance (National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance [NAAFA], 2010) and work to debunk myths about fatness and fat people (see Kwan and Fackler, 2008). In particular, the myth that fat is shameful, unattractive, or unsexy has perpetuated a narrow definition of beauty and places undue pressure, particularly on women, to control their weight, negatively impacting women’s mental and physical health as well as their collective political power (Wolf, 1991). Thus, body scripts are an integral component of, and inseparable from, gender scripts and both affect women’s wellbeing. Thus, fat studies and feminism are inseparable (Cooper, 2010b).

SCRIPTS IN MAINSTREAM MEDIA

Although various social institutions are central in generating and maintaining social scripts, mainstream media play a key role. Through varying depictions of women and men, popular media create and reinforce gender scripts. Prior research has shown that mainstream media produce gender codes (Gill, 2007; Mendes and Carter, 2008) and a variety of gender scripts relating to how men and women should behave and appear. For example, mass media support the idea that men should be smart, rational, competitive, powerful, financially secure, tough, and aggressive (Wood, 1994). In contrast, main- stream media depict women as passive, dependent, helpless, incompetent, concerned with caretaking, and preoccupied with romance and relationships (Wood, 1994). Some of the most salient feminine gender scripts prevalent in today’s media relate to women’s physical appearance. The media typically present only young, thin women who are attractive (Davis, 1990; Holtzman, 2000). These depictions tend to objectify women and make it clear that their most important feature is conformity to beauty norms. Research on reality TV suggests that these programs, too, perpetuate traditional gender scripts (e.g., Fairclough, 2004; Yep and Camacho, 2004).

MORE TO LOVE

More to Love aired nationally on Fox Television Network in the fall of 2008. The brainchild of Mike Fleiss, who also created The Bachelor, the program

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

50 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan

features “plus-size” women competing for the love of a man. The show’s website describes More to Love as a “dating competition” that “follows one regular guy‘s search for love among a group of real women determined to prove that love comes in all shapes and sizes” (Fox Television Network, 2009). The guy is Luke Conley, a 6 foot 3 inch, 26-year-old subcontrac- tor and real-estate investor. He gets “the chance to find the woman of his dreams when 20 voluptuous ladies vie for his heart” (Fox Television Network, 2009). The show is hosted by Emme, a successful plus-sized model. The contestants are 21 to 37 years old, with an average age of 27 years. They are 5 feet 4 inches to 6 feet 2 inches, with an average height of just over 5 feet 7 inches. Their weights range from 170 to 279 pounds, averaging 207 pounds. Although it is not possible to discern accurately the contestants’ ethnic or racial background, similar to Luke, all of the contestants appear to be light or fairly light-skinned.1

More to Love touts itself as a progressive portrayal of “real” women, bordering on fat activism. The president of alternative entertainment at Fox Television Network, Mike Darnell, describes the show as “the first dating competition . . . that reflects what most real single men and women look like” (DeLeon, 2009). Echoing the voice of some feminists and fat activists on body esteem, he claims that More to Love is “a dating show that sends the right message about embracing and loving yourself no matter your shape or size” (DeLeon, 2009).

However, is the show actually a progressive portrayal of “real” fat women? If so, how is it progressive? For instance, does the show debunk myths and fight stereotypes? How does More to Love depict fat women? And what does the show convey about gender, body, and romantic relationships and how these three intersect? Previous research has yet to speak thoroughly about women, their bodies, and relationships, which are intimately inter- twined. That is, previous analyses fail to examine the intersection of gender and body scripts, specifically as they pertain to meanings about romantic relationships. We fill this gap by reporting on a qualitative content analysis of More to Love focusing mainly on the show’s portrayal of fat women.2

METHODS

As feminist researchers who critically examine western cultural body norms, we set out to address these questions by analyzing the entire first (and only) season of More to Love. Our discourse analysis involved a close examina- tion of the dialogue and interactions among the show’s contestants, along with the settings and props of the show. Discourse analysis has different interpretations for scholars in different fields; however, social scientists have turned to discourse analysis to study the structure of social interaction man- ifested in conversation and interaction (Brown and Yule, 1983). Blommaert

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

Is There Really “More to Love”? 51

(2005) claimed that discourse analysis offers a crucial understanding of wider aspects of power relations, noting that it can be an analysis of the effects of power; what power does to people, groups, and societies; and how this impact comes about. Our analysis thus attempts to understand the meanings conveyed about two visible status characteristics—gender and body size—by carefully examining the show’s contestants and the interactions among them. We also took a holistic approach and assessed the meanings of these interac- tions, dialogues, and other visuals (such as settings and props) as an entirety.

Our analysis took place in two stages. First, we separately viewed all eight episodes. During this initial viewing, we each made notes, paying special attention to key themes. We then compared notes and discussed the themes we independently identified (e.g., debunking various fat myths, self-acceptance, treating fat as deplorable, reinforcing gender stereotypes, humorous self-degradation). We found a remarkable degree of similarity in the themes we independently observed, often giving the themes the same label. This similarity indicates a high level of intercoder reliability on which to base our qualitative analysis.

From this comparison and discussion, we then developed a compre- hensive coding scheme (i.e., a list and description of the major themes). In the second stage, we extensively reanalyzed and coded the first three episodes. This involved closely viewing these three episodes, often stopping and backtracking to review various segments. We labeled conversations, interactions, settings, and props that illustrated a given theme, document- ing when appropriate the specific words of the characters.3 Our in-depth analysis of these episodes suggests that the major themes that surfaced dur- ing the entire season were prominent in these select episodes. Additionally, these first three episodes represent the widest range of contestant voices because few contestants had been eliminated. After independently cod- ing these episodes, we once again compared our observations and found an overwhelming degree of similarity. The data we present here, although focusing on these select episodes, came from the entire series.4

FINDINGS

Our analysis suggests that More to Love acknowledges the reality of size and works to debunk several myths about fat women. However, the show juxta- poses this progressive representation with negative depictions of fat women as seen in the contestants ongoing coveting of thinness, self-deprecation, and their treatment of the term “fat” as taboo. More to Love also reinforces tra- ditional feminine gender stereotypes along with the age-old fairy tale script that equates heterosexual partnership with happiness. Our analysis of these depictions puts a new spin on an old story and reveals new insights into gender, body equality, and romantic relations.

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

52 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan Acknowledging the Reality of Size

In Western cultures today, fat bodies are largely invisible and cultural images present a thin and firm ideal for women (Bordo, 2003). More to Love acknowledges this reality in a number of ways. First, each episode begins with images of thin women in bikinis followed by shots of the plus-size contestants in bathing suits, evening gowns, and cocktail wear. Alluding to the media’s perpetuation of size discrimination and the “beauty myth” (Wolf, 1991), the text accompanying these images reads: “The average woman on a dating show is a size 2. The average American woman is a size 14.” Indeed, More to Love’s basic premise gives fat women an on-screen presence.

The show also acknowledges the reality of size by openly exposing the daily struggles of fat people. There is longstanding and extensive evidence pointing to fat bias, prejudice, and discrimination (Puhl and Brownell, 2004). More to Love brings to light this negative treatment. For instance, in reference to another contestant who gained weight later in life, Kristian says:

[She] has no idea what it was like growing up being fat . . . She doesn’t understand what that’s like— not being able to fit in a desk, having to shop at a plus size woman’s store when you’re 15 years old, not having a guy even look at you because you’re too big to date, struggling to take a trip with your girlfriends because you can’t fit on the plane seats and the seatbelts don’t lock.

That fat bias limits opportunities is particularly evident when Heather con- verses with Luke about her career goals. As she expresses, she did not pursue a singing career “because of my size. To make it, you have to have the image as well as the talent.”

The reality of size also surfaces through contestants’ pervasive body- consciousness and the frequency with which they express how fat is a source of anguish. For example, Mel describes how she does not feel comfortable in her own skin: “I am the most self-conscious person ever, and I have, like, these huge legs and I’ve just always been self-conscious about my body.” Thus through contestants’ voices, More to Love calls attention to the prevalence of fat bias, confirming the literature that fat is a salient status characteristic that shapes interactions, opportunities, and sense of self.

Debunking Fat Myths, Fighting Stereotypes, and Promoting Acceptance

More to Love also challenges a number of fat myths, including the myth that fat people, but particularly fat women, are unattractive (Murray, 2004). Despite the work of historians and cultural analysts who illustrate that beauty is a culturally constructed fiction contingent on time and place, western

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

Is There Really “More to Love”? 53

culture today equates female physical attractiveness with thinness (Stearns, 1997). More to Love attacks this myth in a variety of ways. For example, Luke repeatedly points out how attractive the contestants are and how much he likes larger women. In his words, “Voluptuous, curvy women—that’s always been my thing.” Dialogue among contestants also helps debunk this myth. For instance, Michelle explains: “This is absolutely amazing to be part of . . . These beautiful women have come out to say, ‘you know what, we’re sexy and smart and attractive.’ And that is awesome.”

The physical appearance of contestants further debunks this misconcep- tion that fat is ugly. Throughout the series, contestants are consistently stylish and attractive in terms of their hair, makeup, and clothing and are often shown in revealing clothing such as bathing suits and cleavage-revealing cocktail wear. Accompanying these images are Luke’s ongoing reassurance that they are “beautiful,” “gorgeous,” and “sexy.” Together, these images and dialogue challenge the norm that fat can never be attractive.

More to Love also challenges the myth that fat individuals are not sex- ual. Despite authors such as Hanne Blank (2000) who have written openly about fat sexualities, there is widespread belief that sexuality is the domain of thin individuals and that fat is asexual (Thomas and Wilkerson, 2005). Challenging these ideas, More to Love portrays fat women not only as desir- able, but as desiring. For example, Kristian exclaims in frustration, “One guy, house full of ladies, kinda sexually frustrating!” The women also frequently fawn over Luke and relish in seeing him topless or dressed immaculately for formal events and dates. They refer to him as “hot” and “a hottie,” thereby constructing him as a desired object and themselves as desiring.

Mainstream society also assumes that fat people are not physically active. There is a pervasive misconception that fat individuals are fat because they lack control and the motivation to lead active lives (e.g., Brownell, 1992). In line with scholars and activists who refute these claims (Campos, 2003), More to Love depicts contestants engaging in a variety of active pastimes such as belly-dancing, horseback riding, and four-wheeling. The contestants themselves express how important it is to debunk this myth. For example, Magali explains, “It is time to show America that plus-size women could do it too” (scenes of dancing, swimming, and a helicopter ride accompany her words).

These progressive depictions appear hand-in-hand with various forms of acceptance. This theme surfaces in the dialogue between Luke and the contestants. For example, Luke promises the contestants that he will “open up [his] heart and accept [them] for who [they] are.” Nearly every episode has some version of this. Perhaps the best illustration of Luke’s acceptance is Kristian’s excited exclamation: “Luke loves me for every curve that I have, every drop of cellulite that’s in the leg, you know, he loves me for me— for me!” In addition to acceptance from others, the show also promotes self-acceptance. As Michelle states, “If you don’t love yourself, you won’t get

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

54 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan

anywhere.” Kristian makes a similar pronouncement: “I think I’m hot and I’m not gonna change myself for everybody. I’ve got junk in the trunk!” In this way, the show depicts an overt form of fat activism—promoting body- and self-acceptance despite a cultural climate that might encourage otherwise.

Fat Loathing

In contrast to these progressive depictions, More to Love reinforces fat loathing in several ways. First, contradicting statements about body- and self-acceptance, contestants openly covet thinness. As Christina boldly states, “I wish I were like 50 pounds lighter.” Contestants also admit to wearing compression garments in an effort to appear smaller.

Second, contestants frequently engage in humorous self-degradation. Challenging the stereotype that fat individuals are funny and self-deprecating can be a form of resistance and identity management (see Cordell and Ronai, 1999). However, this resistance is not evident among the contestants who engage in self-deprecating behavior. For example, in an attempt to get noticed, Danielle jumps into the pool fully clothed. She then remarks to the other contestants, “I must look like a beached whale!” Luke, too, often turns to humorous self-degradation. During a horseback outing, Heather says to Luke, “I shoulda worn my sports bra—geez!” Luke quickly responds with, “I know I have mine on!”

Finally, fat acceptance activists have worked to expose the arbitrary and negative meanings assigned to the term “fat,” to reject derogatory and demeaning medical terms such as “obese,” and to reclaim the term “fat” (Wann, 1998). In this new light, fat is not a “four-letter word” (NAAFA, 2010). However, despite the show’s purportedly progressive stance on women and their bodies, Luke and the contestants seem explicitly to avoid the use of the word “fat” in almost all situations opting instead for euphemisms such as “big,” “thick,” “chunky,” and “heavy.” As Malissa’s words illustrate: “I’ve never really thought of myself as being fat. Like the word fat? Not me. I would like to say big-boned.”

Reinforcing Feminine Gender Stereotypes

Accompanying this fat stigma and loathing is the reinforcement of a wide variety of feminine gender stereotypes. Specifically, More to Love emphasizes contestants’ caretaking and emotional qualities and frequently infantilizes the female contestants. For example, Bonnie says: “I want to bake a pie for a man and have him go ‘Wow! I’m really grateful that you used your wifey-mom skills.’” To emphasize emotionality, contestants are frequently shown in tears, and each episode starts with scenes of the contestants crying while the screen text reads “More Emotion.” These depictions of emotional women tie in to

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

Is There Really “More to Love”? 55

the frequent infantilization of the contestants in which they appear childlike and immature. For example, Luke refers to the fully grown women almost exclusively as “girls” and frequently uses immature, infantilizing words that feminists have criticized at length (e.g., Adams and Ware, 1979). As he says to Heather, “I think you’re a very special girl. There’s the sweetest [emphasis added] aura about you.” This infantilization also occurs in part via dialogue and demeanor. In one scene, as Luke feeds Kristian, she giggles and says, “I’m sorry. I can’t believe I get so giddy. I do, for some reason, around you, I get like . . . I feel like a little kid on the first day of school.”

Arguably the most central component of femininity is beauty, and More to Love is rife with examples of this centrality. For example, Christina is given explicit instructions in her note from Luke to “dress your best” for their date. There is also frequent footage of the women manipulating their appearance as they engage in various beauty-centered routines. One particularly illus- trative scene shows the contestants dressing in elegant ball gowns, doing their hair and makeup, and receiving manicures and pedicures in prepara- tion for their “second chance prom.”5 In these ways, More to Love emphasizes beauty as the most important feature of womanhood and presents fat women as sexual objects.

An Age-Old Fairy Tale: Marriage and Happiness

These stereotypical depictions play into larger heterosexual dating and mar- riage scripts. An age-old damsel-in-distress/knight-in-shining-armor fairy tale ultimately leading to a “happily ever after” life via marriage pervades main- stream media (Ingraham, 2008; Martin and Kazyak, 2009). More to Love is, quintessentially, a modern fairy tale, described by the network as featuring a “brawny prince” searching for “one curvy Cinderella to take on the roman- tic adventure of a lifetime” (Fox Television Network, 2009). The contestants reinforce this theme when, similar to Magali, they express that they “came here to find [their] Prince Charming.”

The show’s premise—20 women willing to give up their lives for an extended period of time and engage in a variety of somewhat uncomfortable and highly publicized activities in the quest for a relationship—cements the notion that all women desire a heterosexual relationship and, by extension, will find happiness in one. As Michelle explains, “I really wanna find love . . . I don’t want to be alone, I really, really, want to have that love story.” In fact, the contestants seem to feel that the show is their only chance for love. As Melissa articulates, “This is my one chance to actually feel like I can be loved.”

At the same time contestants seek love and a husband, they are not fully agentic actors in this pursuit. As the damsel in distress, the knight in shining armor must come to her rescue (i.e., Luke must choose her) and she must simply wait. Kristian’s words that Luke is the “man that [she’s] been dreaming

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

56 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan

of since [she] was a little girl” clearly signify that she waits, passively. This lack of agency is also apparent when contestants express how an external force (i.e., Luke) powerfully shapes their esteem and sense of self. Melissa says to Luke, “You changed my life, because now I feel like I really can be loved.”

The show’s finale epitomizes the fairy tale script by showcasing Luke proposing to the “woman who is his perfect fit.” The show also idealizes marriage as the central goal of femininity by focusing on the “promise ring” that Luke gives each contestant in the first episode as a promise to “open up [his] heart” and “accept” the contestants for who they are. Contestants must surrender their promise rings before each “elimination ceremony” and the women Luke chooses have their rings returned. Tali, to whom Luke eventually proposes,6 reveals that “the ring represents the opportunity for a future.”

DISCUSSION: WHAT IS LOVE? GENDER, BODY EQUALITY, AND ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS

More to Love is a classic fairy tale in which damsels in distress seek hetero- sexual love by waiting for a knight in shining armor to rescue them so that they can eventually live “happily ever after.” More to Love expands this fairy tale opportunity for love and happiness to body non-conformists, making it evident that fat people, and specifically fat women, can also find love. This expansion of opportunity, in conjunction with its debunking of myths about fat women, makes the show seem progressive. However, More to Love’s def- inition of a “loveable” woman remains within narrow social boundaries, as the show makes it clear that it is only within the confines of traditional fem- ininity that fat women can be loved. More to Love depicts “marriage-worthy” fat women as emotional, childlike caretakers that are appearance-oriented and in search of a traditional fairy tale ending. The myth of “happily ever after” thus expands to female body non-conformists, but only if they are gender conformists. The underlying message about gender and body is thus clear: fat women, similar to their thin counterparts, can find love and can achieve happiness as long as they strictly abide by the unwritten rules of tra- ditional femininity in terms of their behavior and appearance. Notably too, although the show refers to Luke as a “regular guy,” he, too, is a fat man. Although this can be interpreted as fat positive insofar as that the contestants vie for the attention of a fat man (and not a thin man), it can also be inter- preted as fat phobic. That is, the fairy tale ending, however unreal, for fat women is qualified; he, too, must be fat.

But what is love? The show’s message is not only that women must find love to be fulfilled, but that love comes in a very specific form: male valida- tion via objectification. First, as we previously discussed, the contestant’s only

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

Is There Really “More to Love”? 57

goal is to be chosen by Luke. Second, under the guise of love, the contestants seek Luke’s attention and compliments about their physical appearance. Previously, we cited multiple instances of this shameless flattery; here we show how the dialogue, along with Luke’s gestures and intonation, epito- mize this objectification. The following occurs when Vanessa and Luke meet for the first time:

Vanessa: What kind of girl do you like? Luke: [He looks her up and down] I like this kind of girl!

More to Love is replete with nearly identical scenarios, reinforcing the notion that a central aspect of love is male objectification. Securing this heterosexual male gaze provides the contestants with a sense of worth and comfort that they can be loved despite their size. Thus, More to Love creates a gender and body script for carrying out romance that, like the fairy tale scripts offered to female body conformists, centers on physical attractiveness, objectification, and validation via the (heterosexual) male gaze.

CONCLUSION

Although More to Love appears progressive in the sense that it exposes some of the realities of being fat in the United States, debunks a handful of myths about fat women, and expands the opportunity for a “fairy tale ending” to body non-conformists, we argue that the show is not, in fact, a progressive portrayal of fat women. This is perhaps most evident in the fat loathing behavior showcased in the program. However, More to Love also fails to be truly progressive because, although the fat women on the show are offered a chance at love, it is offered to them only so long as they are willing to overexaggerate their femininity, including their caretak- ing, emotionality, childishness, desire for a romantic relationship, and—most importantly—their physical beauty. Additionally, the “love” up for grabs takes a very specific form: validation via objectification. Specifically, the contestants’ worth and happiness are determined by how desirable they are to men (in this case, Luke). Thus, the show ultimately sends a danger- ous message under the guise of fat activism in a culture in which violence against women is prevalent and inextricably connected to women’s objectifi- cation (Dworkin, 1989; Kilbourne, 1999). More to Love then fails to live up to its promise to be progressive by prominently featuring fat-loathing, reifying and reinforcing traditional gender scripts, and posing only superficial chal- lenges to body scripts that may ultimately be more harmful than helpful. Furthermore, the entire separate-but-equal premise of the show—in which fat people are given the opportunity to find love only in a segregated realm

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

58 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan

surrounded by other fat people—also undermines its allegedly progressive stance. In light of our findings, we encourage future scholars to give further attention to media depictions of body non-conformists of all types and to turn a critical eye toward depictions that are allegedly progressive to allow for a more nuanced understanding of the role media plays in construct- ing, perpetuating and potentially challenging gender, body, and relationship scripts.

NOTES

1. The show’s apparent racial and ethnic homogeneity and the intentional exclusion of race or ethnicity from contestants’ descriptions and online biographies is noteworthy and further underscores our ultimate assertion that the show is far from progressive and instead reinforces a variety of traditional stereotypes. We hope that future researchers turn to other data sources that enable a specific analysis of race and ethnicity.

2. Regrettably, our analysis does not include an in-depth look at the experiences of fat men, largely because with twenty women and a single man, there was insufficient data for a thorough analysis of the fat male experience.

3. In a separate sitting, Jennifer Graves transcribed these three episodes entirely to ensure we captured the dialogue accurately during the first two stages.

4. In our findings, we represent a range of contestant voices, but particularly those voices that exemplify a given theme. We do not represent contestant voices equally in part because not all contestants were given equal airtime.

5. This is a common practice among marginalized groups. For instance, LGBTQ communities often host proms to reclaim activities not possible during high school, and at the annual convention of the NAAFA a formal dance takes place. Participants dress up, groom themselves immaculately, and enjoy a formal affair in an effort to reclaim an event that they may not have previously participated in because of the wider fat-phobic community.

6. In contrast to the fairy tale ending promised by the show, Tali and Luke were never married. According to a statement on Luke Conley’s website, as of November 21, 2009, the couple had broken up (http://lukeconley.com/2009/11/announcement/).

REFERENCES

Adams, Karen L., and Norma C. Ware. 1979. Sexism and the English Language: The Linguistic Implications of Being a Woman. Pp. 487–504 in Women: A Feminist Perspective, 2nd ed., edited by Jo Freeman. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company.

Bernstein, Beth, and Matilda St. John. 2006. HAES/The Biggest Loser. Health at Every Size 20 (1): 25–29.

Blank, Hanne. 2000. Big, Big Love: A Sourcebook on Sex for People of Size and Those who Love Them. Eugene, OR: Greenery Press.

Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Bordo, Susan. 2003. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body.

Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge, MA:

Cambridge University Press. Brownell, Kelly D. 1992. Dieting and the Search for the Perfect Body: Where

Physiology and Culture Collide. Behavior Therapy 22 (1): 1–12.

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

Is There Really “More to Love”? 59

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble. New York: Taylor and Francis. Campos, Paul. 2003. Why Being Fat Isn’t Bad for You: Weighting Game. The New

Republic (January 13): 17–21. Cooper, Charlotte. 2010a. Fat Studies: Mapping the Field. Sociology Compass 4 (12):

1020–1034. Cooper, Charlotte. 2010b. Fat is a feminist issue, but whose feminism?

The Scavenger . http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a-pop-culture/fat-is-a-

feminist-issue-but-whose-feminism-90645.html (Accessed August 8, 2011). Cordell, Gina, and Carol Rambo Ronai. 1999. Identity Management among Overweight Women: Narrative Resistance to Stigma. Pp. 29–47 in Interpreting Weight: The Social Management of Fatness and Thinness, edited by Jeffrey Sobal

and Donna Maurer. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Davis, Donald M. 1990. Portrayals of Women in Prime-Time Network Television:

Some Demographic Characteristics. Sex Roles 23 (5–6): 325–332. DeLeon, Kris. 2009. ‘Bachelor’ Producer Brings FOX ‘More to Love’ on BuddyTV . http://www.buddytv.com/articles/the-bachelor/bachelor-producer-

brings-fox-m-27513.aspx (Accessed August 10, 2010). Dworkin, Andrea. 1989. Pornography. New York: Plume. Fairclough, Kirsty. 2004. Women’s Work? Wife Swap and the Reality Problem.

Feminist Media Studies 4 (3): 344–347. Fox Television Network. 2009. More to Love. http://www.fox.com/moretolove/

(Accessed December 10, 2009). Gagnon, John H., and William Simon. 1973. Sexual Conduct. Chicago: Aldine. Gill, Ros. 2007. Gender and the Media. Cambridge, England: Polity Press. Hill, Annette. 2005. Reality TV: Factual entertainment and television audiences. New

York: Routledge. Hochschild, Arlie. 1990. Gender codes in women’s advice books. Pp. 227–294

in Beyond Goffman: Studies in Communication, Institution, and Social

Interaction, edited by S.H. Riggins. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Holtzman, Linda. 2000. Media Messages. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Ingraham, Chris. 2008. White Wedding: Romancing Heterosexualtiy in Popular

Culture. New York: Taylor and Francis. Kilbourne, Jean. 1999. Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We

Think and Feel. New York: Touchstone. Kwan, Samantha, and Jennifer Fackler. 2008. Women and Body (Fat Studies)

Fact Sheet. Published in the Sociologists for Women in Society (SWS) Spring 2008 Newsletter. http://www.socwomen.org/web/images/stories/resources/ fact_sheets/fact_04–2008-wom-size.pdf (Accessed July 6, 2011).

Kwan, Samantha, and Mary Nell Trautner. 2009. Beauty Work: Individual and Institutional Rewards, the Reproduction of Gender, and Questions of Agency. Sociology Compass 3 (1): 49–71.

Martin, Karen A., and Emily Kazyak. 2009. Hetero-Romantic Love and Heterosexiness in Children’s G-rated films. Gender and Society 23 (3): 315–336

Mendes, Kaitlynn, and Cynthia Carter. 2008. Feminist and gender media studies: A critical overview. Sociology Compass 2 (6): 1701–1718.

Murray, Samantha. 2004. Locating Aesthetics: Sexing the Fat Woman. Social Semiotics 14: 3.

Downloaded by [Jennifer Graves] at 08:49 19 January 2012

60 J. L. Graves and S. Kwan

National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance. 2010. NAAFA. http://www. naafaonline.com/dev2/ (Accessed August 10, 2010).

Pope, Harrison G., Jr., Katharine A. Phillips, and Roberto Olivardia. 2000. The Adonis Complex: The Secret Crisis of Male Body Obsession. New York: The Free Press.

Puhl, Rebecca, and Kelly D. Brownell. 2004. Bias, Prejudice, Discrimination, and Obesity. Pp. 69–74 in Handbook of Obesity: Clinical Applications. 2nd ed., edited by George A. Bray and Claude Bouchard. New York: Marcel Dekker.

Schwartz, Pepper, and Virginia Rutter. 1998. The Gender of Sexuality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Solovay, Sandra, and Esther Rothblum. 2009. The Fat Studies Reader. New York: New York University Press.

Stearns, Peter N. 1997. Fat History: Bodies and Beauty in the Modern West. London: New York University Press.

Thomas, Pattie, and Carl Wilkerson. 2005. Taking Up Space: How Eating Well and Exercising Regularly Changed My Life. Nashville, TN: Pearlsong Press.

Wann, Marilyn. 1998. Fat! So? Because You Don’t Have to Apologize for Your Size. Berkeley, CA: Ten Speed Press.

Warner, Michael. 1991. Introduction: Fear of a Queer Planet. Social Text 29: 3–17. West, Candace, and Don Zimmerman. 1987. Doing Gender. Gender and Society 1

(2): 125–151. Wolf, Naomi. 1991. The Beauty Myth. Harpsewell, ME: Anchor. Wood, Julia T. 1994. Gendered Media: The Influence of Media on Views of Gender.

Chapter 9 in Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender and Culture, by Julia T.

Wood. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Yep, Gust, and Adriana Ochoa Camacho. 2004. The Normalization of

Heterogendered Relations in the Bachelor. Feminist Media Studies 4 (3): 338–341.

CONTRIBUTORS

Jennifer L. Graves is a full-time Professor of Sociology at Houston Community College and a part-time Sociology instructor at the University of Houston. Her research is focused on sociology of body, fat studies, social problems, and gender.

Samantha Kwan is an Assistant Professor of Sociology at the University of Houston. She is co-editor of Embodied Resistance: Challenging the Norms, Breaking the Rules (Vanderbilt University Press, 2011).