Similarities Between 'Where The Boys Are And'

ere the Boys Are (Henry Levin, 1960) and Where the Boys Are ’84 (Hy Averback, 1984) are the same film. Both follow a group of four college girls as they experienced spring break at Fort Lauderdale and as they hunted for sex and romance. However, beyond superficial similarities, the films have widely different portrayals of how college age women do and should act, a result of changes in both societal and industry views on sex and dating in young women. Following the release of the 1960’s film, the sexual revolution lead to far reaching changes in the concept of dating and what was acceptable behavior for single young women. Additionally, the downfall of the Hayes code in the late 1960s and 70s and other changes in the economics and legal realities

of the film industry resulted in revolutionary shifts in the way sexual relationships was shown on film. This evolution of both how western society viewed the sexual behaviors of white young woman and how the film industry was allowed to show sex on screen is responsible for the differences between the two films.
Jennie, Laurie, Carole, and Sandra of Hy Averback’s Where the Boys Are ’84 have much in common with Merritt, Tuggle, Melanie, and Angie of Henry Levin’s Where the Boys Are.

Both groups are girls are college co-eds at a mid-tier Midwestern university who spent spring break in Fort Lauderdale in an attempt to be ‘where the boys are’. What they intended to do with those boys once they find them, however, differs greatly. In the 1960 film, the focus is on “romance with an eye toward marriage” while the women of the 1984 film are intent on “the pursuit of sex” (Conklin 2008). The differences in these goals is a reflection of American standards on the proper behavior of young women and the definition of dating and youth

relationships.
The narrative of Where the Boys Are reinforces the 1960s American concepts of proper sexual and romantic behavior for young women. Going steady was something of a social contract, a girl would get a guaranteed date who would pay her way and a boy would get the possibility of sexual activity (Duvall 1950). In the 1960s, premarital sex was considered one of the worst sins a young woman could commit, almost 90% of adults surveyed believed that teenage premarital sex always or almost always wrong (Thornton 1989). During the decade of Where the Boys Are’s release, the only a social acceptable attitude toward sex for young women was to be against it. Teenager’s views mirrored that of their parents, in the 1950s, 92% of teen said that it was only acceptable to have sex if the relationship was serious —four in five of those saying that serious meant married— and 94% that their parents would be not find it acceptable for them to have sex (Caron and Moskey 2002). The perceived consequences of violating these social expectations is shown by Melanie’s story in Where the Boys Are. Melanie “longs to meet, date, and marry an Ivy league man” (Peril 2006). Inspired by Merritt’s speech on how promiscuity guaranteed future dates, she had sex on the first date with boy claiming to go to Yale. She hoped that this action would lead to marriage. Unfortunately, Melanie is instead raped by the boy’s friends and barely survives an attempted suicide (Averback 1984). Melanie’s rape is shown as a clear consequence of her lack of chastity.
Fears about promiscuity and high value placed on chastity meant that strict rules prescribed acceptable behavior during dating, referred to as ‘going steady’. Going steady, as opposed the 1920s and 30s trend of ‘playing the field’ or ‘rating-and-dating, was a strictly monogamous relationship with strict definitions of propriety (Dorr 2008). The rules were often formally codified in handbooks and advice magazines (Bailey 2004). One girl’s advice handbook gave a detail outline of exactly should happen during the first date (Duvall 1950). Part of that definition of propriety the importance and responsibly of chastity for girls. One chapter heading of the handbook was “How to Stop: The Girl’s Responsibility” and ‘Mary’ is reminded not to linger at the door lest she “make John wonder what she expects him to do” (Duvall 1950). the progression of Tuggle and TV’s relationship, and on a subtler level, Merritt and Ryder’s, shows that support of Where the Boys Are for these conceptions of girl’s responsibility in sexual relationships. Tuggle was the most explicit in her goals, stating that “Girls like me…were made to have children. That’s my ambition, to be a walking, talking baby factory” (Levin 1960). Both boys constantly pressure the girls for sex, while the girls maintain their refusal. Supporting the dominant social perceptions of teen sexual behavior, the girls insist that sex is only allowable in the most serious relationships. Merritt told Ryder that only love justified sex, while he insisted that those attitudes are “old fangled”. Even more simplistically said, Tuggle stated that “[TV] keeps hinting at what he wants, I keep hinting at matrimony” (Levin 1960). Melanie who violates social acceptability to have premarital sex is punished severely by the narrative, while Merritt and Tuggle, who maintain their virginity and refuse the advances of their love interests, are rewarded with steady boyfriends.
The perception of dating and college relationship in the 1980s were worlds away from the strict formality of the 1960s.

There were no longer formalized rules of proprietary and attitudes to sexual behavior relaxed greatly (Bailey 2004). By the 1980s, 97% of surveyed college students said that felt that kissing was acceptable by the third dating —60% even said that no dates were necessary for it to be acceptable — and more than half said the premarital intercourse was acceptable after several dates (Knox and Wilson 1981). Additionally, between 1965 and 1986, the percentage of adults who viewed premarital sex as wrong or always wrong decreased by two-thirds (Thornton 1989). While teenager’s perceptions of parental attitudes toward premarital sex did not change much between 1950 and 1975, their perceptions of their peer views drastically changed. The number of teenagers who reported that their friends would be okay with them having sex increased 400% from the era of Where the Boys Are and Where the Boys are ’84 (Finer 2007). Teenage sex, even pre-marital sex, was no longer a cardinal sin for white teenagers in

America.
The increasingly liberal attitudes towards young women’s sexual behavior in the 1980s are reflected in the narrative of Where the Boys Are ’84. Laurie in particular was extremely blatant about her search for sex. In her own words, she came to Fort Lauderdale to “meet some total bonehead with the most gorgeous bod…I’m talking Conan the Barbarian. I’m going to wrap myself around him for one night of raw unbelievable, animal sex” (Averback 1984). Only one out of the four girls was even mentioned to have marriage as a goal, and even that mention was as a joke; “While everyone else was playing doctor, [Sandra] was trying to marry one” (Averback 1984). Furthermore, the other girls mock Sandra when she expressed opinions about the types of boys ¬—bankers, lawyers, and doctors— that are ‘acceptable’ to date. Even prudish Sandra has had sex half a dozen times (Averback 1984). Furthermore, the girls openly talk about their sexual experiences, even whether or not a boy has given them an orgasm, a topic that would have been verboten in the era of original Where the Boys Are.
However, despite the increase in sexual behavior and the acceptability of female sexuality, the narrative of Where the Boys Are ’84 still supports a more traditional view point. Despite all the talk about sex, only two of the girls end up sleeping with a boy during spring break. Laurie, the most promiscuous of the girls, is one of the ones who ends up having sex. However, after turning down sex with her ‘Conan’, the handsome male prostitute she finds on the beach, she slept with Camden, a wealthy intellectual, and is implied at the end of the film to be beginning a serious relationship (Averback 1984). So, while Laurie does ‘give up’ her chastity, she upholds social conventions by giving it to the right boy, someone who is marriageable material by the standards of white, middle-class America. Sandra ends up falling in love and slept with a married police officer. Her relationship ends badly, he stands her up for their date and tells her they can no longer see each other. While it’s not as severe as the rape and suicide attempt of the earlier film, Laurie turns down sex to an unacceptable man and ends up with a rich boyfriend while Sandra gives in and ends up with a broken heart. Similar to the 1960s version of the film, virginal behavior is rewarded and promiscuous behavior is punished by the narrative.