Wow. Today's reading was really confusing, yet really interesting. I found it difficult to wrap my head around these "gazes" that we've focused on this week. The Presentation on Monday was particularly interesting mainly because It opened my eyes to something I hadn't recognized before. This "male gaze" that we focused on is such a prominent theme in today's media texts. I can't think of one show where cameras don't structure in on women's beauty or sexuality. Because we see so much of this, Halberstrom makes a statement that women automatically key into a "transgender" gaze. This, i found to be very confusing. To me, I felt that this meant that women apply the concept of heteronormatism to the scene, and feel uncomfortable. It's kind of weird that these contexts appear to be so uncomfortable and forbidden since now, we live in a world where transgenderism, heterosexuality, and bisexuality is widely accepted in specific parts of the world. Going back to Mulvey's piece, this "look" or to be looked at is such a descriptive way to analyze media texts. Many of the tv shows today promote voyeurism, and i think its pretty widespread. Finding fantasy amoungst looking at someone, and finding pleasure in it just makes me think of "peeping toms". I really wonder if this is something that we invented, and exacerbated throughout the media world. For example, I've been thinking about whether or not this type of fetishism would exist if we didn't showcase the "male gaze" so prominently. The "male gaze" is sexy. The camera's focus on women's bodies, lips, hands, chests, and suddenly, people in our society find all of these attributes on women sexual. Also, I think that this camera tactic has made it appear that all women are this sexy all the time, and now this is how women are looked at in real life. Not that people didn't find these attributes sexy in the first place, but it's like the camera is showing people where to look on bodies. I find these ideas of gaze really interesting, yet hard to understand.