Porn vs Reality or why "Hustler" Should Never Have Messed With "Girls."

Lena Dunham as Hannah with on/off onscreen partner Adam

News this week emerged that one of my favorite TV programmes, HBO's "Girls" is soon to be adapted into the raunchy porn film "This Ain't Girls XXX."

Word reached me via Girl's creator Lena Dunham's indignant tweet this morning.

"Okay, I wracked my brain to articulate why I can't just laugh off a porn parody of Girls and here are 3 reasons:" stated Dunham "1. Because Girls is, at its core, a feminist action while Hustler is a company that markets and monetizes a male's idea of female sexuality. 2. Because a big reason I engage in (simulated) onscreen sex is to counteract a skewed idea of that act created by the proliferation of porn. 3. Because it grosses me out. It's important to me to be honest about the complexities of having that out in the world. Love, Lena (porn name: Murray Broadway)"

Having already briefly discussed my views on porn here, the idea of what I consider to be a highly feminist and brilliant programme got me thinking. Admittedly, "Girls" showcases more than its fair share of risque scenes. In fact, in true porn style, a recent scene depicted one minor character being ordered to crawl around on the floor by her partner before showing a cringingly vivid cum-shot. It's perhaps this kind of action which caused "This Ain't Girls XXX" creators Hustler to comment that the often sexualised basis for the show made it easy to adapt into a porn film with apparently minimal changes.

But here's where the problem lies; adapting a mainstream TV show into a porn film involves one fairly major change: the eradication of "Girls"' feminist voice. Sex in "Girls" is as complicated as it is frequently filthy. The show's characters both assert control over their bodies and occasionally lose it, as they use sex to make sense of the confusing world of mid-twenties womanhood. In one episode, the increasingly purposeless central character Hannah engages in a twenty-four hour fling with a married doctor in a poignant parody of the stable life she craves as she descends into OCD. In another, best friend Marnie clearly doesn't enjoy her vividly depicted sex scene with an artist. Sex in the show is a complex female centered vision, sometimes engaged in with gusto by the show's women, and other times awkward, emotional or strikingly highlighting sexual imbalances.

For "Girls," graphic depiction of sex is a vision of female bodily control and reclamation. It dispels romanticised images of sex so frequently marketed by TV in favour of realism in all forms; brilliant and horrific.

Although I've stated many times in this blog that I don't have a problem with porn as a concept, I can't imagine Hustler's X-rated adaption holding anywhere near the same difficult intensity with which Girl's engages with sex. Converse to Dunham's starkly honest depiction of sex, porn canvases a vision of sex based purely on fantasy. And not just fantasy; this is an illusion rooted in magnified imaginations of male-centric power structures. A total opposition to the female empowered sex of "Girls," porn objectifies women using degrading images to create a microcosmic picture of the patriarchal thought that inherently pervades Western culture. Although shows like "Girls" show that feminism has come a long way, desires which emerge in pornography depict how deeply misogyny is embedded.

I don't necessarily think that the images and themes emerging in porn have to be problematic, and of course, I would never suggest that anyone who wants to should stop watching it. As far as I'm concerned, as long as everyone involved is a consenting adult, you have the freedom to completely make your own choices concerning what you do or watch. Furthermore, I'm fully aware that there's lots of porn out there that doesn't buy into this patriarchal imagination. However, what's important is that we recognise the damaging implications of many pornographic concepts, understand it as a lingering remnant of a misogynistic culture, and be sure to separate it from our real lives. After all, everyone's entitled to their own fantasy. It's just a case of knowing where that fantasy comes from, and when to stop.

However, the real problem here is the assumption of a show which is empowering for women, distorting it into a male-centric vision of control. As summarised by Hustler, the plot of "This Ain't Girls XXX" follows Hannah as she "decides to forsake men and boyfriend Adam (Richie Calhoun) to experiment with lesbianism. After a few satisfying jaunts she returns to Adam -- and mankind. Adam accepts her back into the fold, but, true to the original show, adds a dominant and quirky dimension to the scene."

Image from Hustler

Of course Hustler would totally reverse the idea of Adam and Hannah's strange dominance/submission style relationship. Whilst in the show, Hannah finds Adam's demands equally amusing and kinky, she submerges herself in the exercise as an exploration of her own sexual preferences, eventually turning the tables by assuming a mildly dominatrix position herself in a bizarre but fun scene.

Conversely it seems that Hustler has taken this kooky relationship to allow Adam to 'accept' Hannah as she returns to 'mankind.' Because of course, it's the role of all-powerful men to decide whether a woman is allowed to choose heterosexuality. In a world where even female homosexuality is based around male pleasure, it is clear that the apparent degradation of a woman leaving a man must be counteracted with the sexual assertion of male dominance, putting the indomitable Hannah back in her place. It's a microcosmic image of the fear of female power and independence which hampered feminism for thousands of years. It's perhaps this which provoked Hustler to convert "Girls," a show focused on female agency and autonomy, into pornography; perhaps the only way they can react to strong women is to reduce them to two-dimensional paragons of male fantasy.

As far as I'm concerned, female objectification will continue to exist in pornography. However, Hustler should never have messed with "Girls." Women have had a rough time with feminism over the last century. We deserve to keep one of the few shows that buck the trend.

The Steubenville Rape case: A Shocking Picture of Modern Sexism

It seems sadly appropriate that no sooner had I published my last blog post, lamenting sites where women are objectified and dehumanised, that the disgustingly sexist coverage of the recent Steubenville rape case hit the headlines.

Sentenced to a mere one and two years respectively in a juvenile correction facility, Trent Mays and Ma'lik Richmond were found guilty of rape after performing sex acts on an intoxicated sixteen year old girl at and between a series of parties last August. Perhaps most disturbing was the ugly influence of social media, with images of the naked victim being circulated, a friend of the defendants tweeting "Song of the night is definitely 'Rape Me' by Nirvana," and Mays even texting "Yeah dude, she was like a dead body. I just needed some sexual attention."

The group mentality of the crime is truly frightening. At least three other teenagers, who provided eyewitness testimony, were present at the time of the assault, with a third party even filming the attack.

This event is just another worrying hint that the "lad" culture is going too far. Just earlier this week when discussing my latest blog, I was asked "Do you really think that people who joke about rape actually think it's OK?" Well apparently some of them do. The shockingly cavalier attitudes of the rapists and the friends who stood by and watched are a horrific indictment of a certain male culture, where drunkenness, promiscuity, or manner of dress make women acceptable targets for assault. Perhaps used to misogynistic attitudes particularly pervading in an internet driven world, the defendants saw no problem tweeting a photo of the passed out naked girl, or even posting a video where the friends joked about the attacks.

Worryingly, recent evidence suggests that even the defendants football coach knew about the rape, hiding information so that his 'star players' football careers weren't threatened. Apparently in this shockingly anti-woman case, the hobbies of two rapists were more important than protecting a minor. In fact, it seems a wide proportion of the Steubenville community were aware of the case via its mocking coverage through social-media, and were involved in a kind of cover-up; the case was not brought to court until blogging group Anonymous independently collected evidence and campaigned for justice for the victim. Before this, an apparent reverence for these local football heroes prevented any real progress getting them prosecuted.

These horrific attitudes have continued into national media, with CNN lamenting the threatened futures of the defendants in a recent broadcast, and pitying them for their inclusion on the Sex Offenders Register, a move which will help protect other women from becoming victims.

The Steubenville Rape case has become a tragic illustration of how dangerous modern sexist attitudes really can be. Just a glance at the YouTube comments section on this video says it all: "if you dress like a slut your chances of getting raped increase," asserts one user, whilst another suggests that the victim should have had better "personal accountability" by "not sexualising one's self by dressing in a mini skirt and inviting unecessary, unwanted, and uninvited attention." This assumption is in spite of all images of the victim, included her clothing, being heavily pixelated.

People may say that modern misogyny is harmless, and even a joke, but the Steubenville rape case has shown otherwise. As long as these attitudes exist, they have the ability to invade reality, and horrifically distort the reactions, and thus access to justice, of bystanders, the legal system and the media.

The F-Word

As readers of my blog will already know, I am a feminist with a capital F. I get angry about patriarchy, Vagenda is more or less my go-to guide for life, and woe betide anyone who dare suggest I should be doing anything in the kitchen that does involve a microwave or pasta.

However, although I'm the first to dive into a feminist scrap, I've noticed lately a certain wave of what I like to term 'judgmental feminism.'

Now I'm undeniably a girly girl. I'm rarely seen in jeans, I love Made in Chelsea, and I've got enough barely-walkable-in heels to put Lady Gaga to shame. Does this mean I don't advocate sexual equality? Of course not. Yet more often than once I've had my Mum role her eyes at my occasionally questionable TV choices and ask 'I thought you were supposed to be a feminist...'

Here's the thing people seem to be missing: feminism is about choice and self respect. Yes, I quite enjoy watching Take Me Out, but it doesn't mean I'm planning to strap a light to me and bleat 'No Likey, No Lighty!' at unsuspecting men on nights out, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm going to judge way other women might want to seek a partner in a fun, albeit slightly questionable way.

This wouldn't be concerning me so much were it not for recent debate concerning wonderful advocate of women's rights Caitlin Moran.

The beauty of Moran's funny and intelligent book 'How to be a Woman' is that it does exactly the opposite of what it says on the tin. In the least judgmental way possible it doesn't tell you a thing about how to be a woman. It shares Moran's hilarious experiences of adulthood, with the message which I believe encapsulates feminism in its truest sense: being a woman is about being exactly who you want to be without feeling that society wants you to be any other way because of your gender. Want to have a baby? Do it. Don't want to? Then don't, and don't let anyone make you feel like you should. Never feel like having a bikini wax is normal and expected, but equally, never say no if it's what you want.

Although not exactly groundbreaking, Moran's bought her fundamental philosophy "a) Do you have a vagina? and b) Do you want to be in charge of it? If you said 'yes' to both, then congratulations! You're a feminist” to women scared off feminism by incredibly misplaced modern conceptions of feminists as quinoa munching, braless cat-ladies. Moran acknowledges that some of us need a gentle reminder that if you don't want to be "giving birth on the kitchen floor - biting down on a wooden spoon, so as not to disturb the men’s card game - before going back to quick-liming the dunny" you ARE a feminist.

However, unfortunately, there seems to be a great deal of judgmental feminism being angrily directed at Moran. Snobbily termed as a book rebranding feminism for the 'wag generation' by reviewers, How to be a Woman attracted a review which particularly drew my attention by Meghan Murphy.

http://rabble.ca/books/reviews/2013/01/trouble-me-me-me-feminism-review-vagina-and-how-be-woman

'It's not all about you!' Murphy smugly states before launching into a rant which, oddly, seems to be all about her. Slamming Moran's beliefs on pornography (pro, but needing changes in order to wipe out the often patriarchal nature of it) Murphy declares that this is an almost unbelievable oversimplification. Murphy seems to be pretty firm about her opinion that pornography is WRONG and that altered or not, it isn't something feminists should be enjoying.

Admittedly, I realise pornography can be a problematic area. Yes it can be partriarchal and yes some of it is anti-women. And of course I would never encourage anyone to support an industry which represents the objectification of women to be a normal thing. However, there is also pornography out there which does not do this, and if a woman enjoys something which allows her to explore her sexuality, and everyone involved is a consenting adult, what's the problem?

Unfortunately, Murphy seems to have missed the major point of Moran's opinions, and the bottom line of feminism in general. It's about the right to choose, and nobody (that includes you Murphy) has the right to tell a woman what she can and can't do when it comes to her body and her sexual choices. Would anyone be shocked if a male journalist said that they think pornography's OK? Of course not!

In fact, in a 2011 GQ article, a male writer admitted to loving female hating hardcore pornography made by a pornographer convicted of obscenity charges. Yes, he admitted to feeling shame at his pleasure, but also gleefully discusses pornography depicting men having sex with unconsenting sleeping women, adding: "Sleeping-girl porn was almost peaceful; she's having a nap. She's catching a few z's. Heck—she's Sleeping Beauty!"

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/mens-lives/201111/hardcore-porn-obsession-morality-shalom-auslander

Furthermore, despite his admission that he knew enjoying this type of porn warrants a slight notion of guilt, GQ failed to include this in their marketing of the piece, adding the by-line: "Threesomes, fishnets, dirty talk—those are the vanilla sorts of fantasies we admit to. Then there's the truly filthy porn we actually watch when we're alone. Shalom Auslander discovers that everyone has his guiltiest pleasure." Interesting that Murphy slams Moran yet has nothing to say about the male perspective. Feminism? I think not.

People are forgetting the true meaning of feminism. Distracted by angry feminist stereotypes or constructing an archetypal woman that anyone who defines themselves as feminists is supposed to be, Moran's critics are forgetting one very important thing: tell a woman how she should think and act and you're no better than the patriarchy that got us here in the first place.

So let's all take a leaf out of Moran's wonderful book. Be yourself, and don't let anyone, especially judgmental feminist, tell you any different.

Slutsgate

  Having spent the last few days stuffing myself with Quality Street and turkey sandwiches I thought it might be time to do something productive. However, I’m forsaking my pre-planned post-Christmas rapture about the wonders of festive Baileys and Yuletide TV for a bit of feminist reflection.

                Being an ardent feminist (although strictly not of the bra-burning type) I’ve always had more than a passing interest in the portrayal of women. I hammer on tables at the least mention of my potential sandwich making skills, and more than one of my University essays have descended into an impassioned rant about the objectification of my fellow females.

                This is why I was particularly interested when one of my friends got me researching the latest celebrity Twitter spat. http://www.hollyscoop.com/miley-cyrus/miley-cyrus-responds-taylor-swift-slut-comparisons.html brilliantly responded to on Noisey http://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/blog/heres-why-taylor-swift-will-never-be-called-a-whore

               

On top of the many points debated in the Noisey article, for me this raises an entire social question on the categorisation of women. Of course “Slut” is an entirely outdated, perhaps never fully relevant concept, but it’s still thrown around a lot, and apparently often with little cause.

Both in the limelight from a fairly young age, Swift and Cyrus have both had their maturation from fresh-faced teens to womanhood played out in front of the ever-critical public, making them prime targets to have their sexual antics picked apart with gleeful judgement. But what is it that sets up the unexpected virgin-whore dichotomy here? Is it simply that Miley belts out ‘Have to get my way, yep 24 hours a day ‘cause I’m hot like that’ whilst Taylor opts for the more modest and utterly non-sexualised declarations of teenage-like love, reminiscing about innocent dates with High School guys, and Romeo and Juliet type romance.

Or perhaps it’s their marketing. You only have to look at the album covers of the two stars in order to see that their selling points are clearly meant to be very different.

Whilst Miley flaunts her flesh in an outfit more suited to a dominatrix than a teen pop sensation, Taylor is demure in her virginal-white dress and minimal make up, a kind of little girls princess fantasy clutching a flower and surrounded by butterflies.

However, I’m loath to believe that the public are quite so willing to believe the blatant ploys of the record industry when labelling young women, and would suggest that the real reasons the word “slut” are thrown about go a lot deeper.

The cause, again, lies in the lyrics. However this time, for somewhat darker reasons. An early verse in Cyrus’ ‘Can’t be Tamed’ boasts ‘Every guy, everywhere/ Just gives me mad attention/ Like I’m under inspection/ I always get a ten ‘cause I’m built like that,’ presenting a threatening version of sexuality. Aren’t women supposed to be self-depreciating? Aren’t we meant to bemoan our muffin top? Our flabby thighs and wonky nose? Aren’t we supposed to wave away every compliment with a modest “Oh no not really. I’ve put on loads of weight lately anyway...”

Whilst Miley celebrates herself and her sexuality, Taylor plays it down massively. In her hit ‘You Belong With Me’ she compares herself to the man of her affections girlfriend, saying ‘she wears short skirts, I wear t-shirts/She’s cheer captain and I’m on the bleachers’ before asserting that thus ‘you belong with me.’ The song may be an attempt to take another girls boyfriend, but the non-sexualised version of femininity she presents makes her unthreatening, and very much unlike the sexually assertive female some of us just love to hate.

 It’s a sad fact that the main thing that constructs ‘sluttiness’ is the way that a woman’s sexual presentation and behaviour makes other people feel. Whether it’s feeling threatened by another woman’s presence around men or pure and simple jealousy that someone can have so much appreciation of themselves, it’s time that things changed. With so many self-esteem related issues flying around, maybe we should be celebrating women for having a bit of confidence instead of labelling them hussies.

Bring back the sisterhood and let’s be happy for how other women use, and feel about, their bodies. After all, we’ve had a few thousand years of being put down, and if anyone should be bringing women back up, it’s us.