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 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.