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.

GIRLS just wanna have fun

It's honest. It's hilarious. It's a tiny bit too realistic when it comes to chasing guys and our parent's sex lives. Hit show Girls is back with stunning force, premiering on US channel HBO this week.

And it's certainly not a let down. Awkward sex scenes, drama fueled parties and run-in with exes all feature in the return of the programme every girl in her twenties should be watching.

Girls is the show we've all been waiting for. Following a group of young women trying to figure out their lives in modern-day New York, Girls is Sex and the City for a new generation. Avoiding a predictable sitcom based in glamour filled Manhattan, where the highly paid stars sip cocktails and shop at Prada, creator Lena Dunham is brutally and wonderfully honest about life for young women fresh out of college. Expect to hear all about the pains of unpaid internships, the bank of Mum and Dad and even STIs in a script which is as funny as it is heart wrenching.

Even better, the fantastic cast of actresses is refreshingly ordinary looking. Forget size eight glamour pusses, the Girls cast is made up of real looking women with very real looking scenes to compliment them. Never seen a TV show portray that awkward fumbling-for-a-condom moment? Now you can!

Perhaps the thing that makes Girls most appealing, however, is its starkly honest portrayal of relationships. From the often fraught, yet still touching, friendships of the central cast of girls, to their pursual of inappropriate men, the scenarios we all can't help but relate to are all sensitively and perfectly presented. When Marnie breaks up with her long term boyfriend do we see her sobbing over Haagen Daas before making a swift recovery? No. The break up is long, spanning most of an entire season, with the final ultimatum beautifully interspersed with scenes of the couple's first meeting. The recovery process is shaping up to be equally long, and full of Facebook stalking, inappropriate hook ups with strangers, and multiple awkward encounters. It's agonising, yet incredibly sensitive to the reality of break ups, just one example of Dunham's incredibly thoughtful scripting and characterisation.

However, it's not all heartbreak. Girls is intelligent, funny and uplifting. Bursting with quotable moments, its admission that life isn't all grand romances and wild parties is both refreshing and comforting.

So if you find yourself at a bit of a loss of what to do these cold winters nights, get your own girls together and give it a watch. You'll be giggling at disastrous drug experimentation, cringey bosses and the never-ending quest to 'find yourself' before you know it.