The ability to explore your sexual freedom is a privilege that many people have but some may have to keep this exploration hidden. In society we view sex as something that is not highly talked about in certain cultures and it is considered extremely taboo, but in Selections from Hard to Get: Twenty-Something Women and the Paradox of Sexual Freedom by Leslie Bell (2013), Bell introduces the stories of two girls and how they use sex as a tool to rebel against their set social norms in order to sculpt their identities. These views contradict the framework of, Love 2.0: How Our Supreme Emotion Affects Everything We Feel, Think, Do, and Become by Barbara Fredrickson (2013), because as we discover the identities that each girl chose along with splitting
…show more content…
Fredrickson found that it was “time to upgrade our view of love.” (Fredrickson 108), but her mission of explaining the science of love is very difficult to pinpoint to each individual person. This is significant because as we contrast and compare both authors we see that framework of Fredrickson and the examples of Bell representing the case, it is evident that they both contradict each other because she explains to us that “when you redirect your eyes towards your body’s definition of love, a clear path emerges that cuts through that thicket and leads you to a better life.” (Fredrickson 108), but if you look at the stories of Jayanthi and Alicia their science behind their “love” it did not always lead them to a clear path to a better life. The importance of this quote is that it illustrates the imperfections of these relationships how how it does not always lead to love. Bell talks about how “The contradictions and uncertainties that characterize today's young women's lives lead a lot of them to systematically employ certain unconscious defenses to resolve their internal conflicts and anxiety, often to their detriment.” (Bell 28), and there are numerous factors in a woman’s life that can be considered detrimental and there are countless women in the world that cannot …show more content…
But they also contradict and complicate each other because when Fredrickson explains her research on our brain’s activity this cannot relate to everyone because like Jayanthi and Alicia the signs that our brain gives us does not always mean that it is a personal connection but then again sometimes it does. For Jayanthi, she made many relationships but not many resulted in something serious, she had those signs that her brain was giving her but in her circumstance, they did not all mean anything important. Overall Fredrickson and Bell’s perspective do compliment each other very well because of the different discussions that can arise from them, they both converse about love and what love does to one’s self, and the sexuality of two women and how their desire is affecting their lives and the decisions they’re making to find their identity. As we look through the framework of Fredrickson, Bell’s self-contradiction of sexual freedom brings out an eye-opening discussion about how our bodies work to find a common ground in breaking down our sexual freedom and
Fredrickson found that it was “time to upgrade our view of love.” (Fredrickson 108), but her mission of explaining the science of love is very difficult to pinpoint to each individual person. This is significant because as we contrast and compare both authors we see that framework of Fredrickson and the examples of Bell representing the case, it is evident that they both contradict each other because she explains to us that “when you redirect your eyes towards your body’s definition of love, a clear path emerges that cuts through that thicket and leads you to a better life.” (Fredrickson 108), but if you look at the stories of Jayanthi and Alicia their science behind their “love” it did not always lead them to a clear path to a better life. The importance of this quote is that it illustrates the imperfections of these relationships how how it does not always lead to love. Bell talks about how “The contradictions and uncertainties that characterize today's young women's lives lead a lot of them to systematically employ certain unconscious defenses to resolve their internal conflicts and anxiety, often to their detriment.” (Bell 28), and there are numerous factors in a woman’s life that can be considered detrimental and there are countless women in the world that cannot …show more content…
But they also contradict and complicate each other because when Fredrickson explains her research on our brain’s activity this cannot relate to everyone because like Jayanthi and Alicia the signs that our brain gives us does not always mean that it is a personal connection but then again sometimes it does. For Jayanthi, she made many relationships but not many resulted in something serious, she had those signs that her brain was giving her but in her circumstance, they did not all mean anything important. Overall Fredrickson and Bell’s perspective do compliment each other very well because of the different discussions that can arise from them, they both converse about love and what love does to one’s self, and the sexuality of two women and how their desire is affecting their lives and the decisions they’re making to find their identity. As we look through the framework of Fredrickson, Bell’s self-contradiction of sexual freedom brings out an eye-opening discussion about how our bodies work to find a common ground in breaking down our sexual freedom and