Everything in this post is about consenting adults. If they ain't adults or they don't consent, it's an illegal act. The law exists for an overwhelmingly benign reason. In fact, I don't think children should be reading this.
My views about pornography are muddled. As a feminist, I am concerned about many exploitative and coercive aspects of the sex industry . However, the history of industrialisation and capitalism has been that of exploitation and coercion, but we fight those aspects rather than saying that industry is, ergo, wrong.
Many people say the worst aspect of pornography is the sexual objectification of women; that it normalises a widespread view that women are ever-ready always up for sex with anyone and it is always for the gratification of men. To some extent, that is true. But for me, the knowledge that R18 films exist graphically objectifying women worry me a lot less than the mainstream sexual objectification of women. I detest the Page 3-type stuff and I strongly object to the disgraceful way that Tesco prominently displays Nuts at eye-level. There was an advert a while ago for Oil of Olay which used the pornography clichéd imagery of the facial. To me, that belongs in classified and restricted porn films, not in glossy magazines.
I am a woman, I am sexual. I love sex, I love sexy thoughts, I love talking about sex. But always on my terms. I am not available to just anybody, and guess what, I'm not gagging for it, and especially not with the sort of Neanderthal who thinks I am. I think that makes me just like the majority of other women.
Although I am predominantly straight, and tend only to feel sexual frissons in the flesh with men, when it comes to looking at naked or semi-naked bodies, I generally prefer female bodies. I don't know if that's just my social conditioning, because I have grown up bombarded with media images of women as sexual objects. I suppose this is designed by male capitalism, and specifically patriarchal (misogynist?) Advertising to target men. I wonder if other women are like me. I've never gone for the 'male model' or the soft porn hunk, always preferring my pin-ups to be of men who do something, and do it with talent. Even though they may not have the perfect Advertising-Industry-Idealised body, their sexiness is fundamental and inherent. I believe that women's sexiness is also something from within, not something created by artifice and capitalism.
I never used to understand why men (some men - most men?) went for the passive pin-up, now I understand that it is because the passive always-available bimbo is never going to be a challenge to their self-image or their power. The thing is, I don't find anything erotic in those pictures.
I was delighted recently to discover Anna Span:
...Britain's first female porn director. She also understands the view some women - especially lesbians and bisexual women – have that porn is made to titillate straight men, with women's sexual pleasure coming a poor second. She says: "There is an awful lot of sexist, dreadful porn out there but women need to learn what it can be like."
When Anna, aged 35, was a teenager she was anti-porn. It was after going to Central Saint Martins College of Art and Design in London in 1995 to do a BA Honours in Fine Art (film and video) that her mind changed. "I realised that my anger at porn was jealously that men had their sexuality catered for in so many more ways than women." She wanted to make female-orientated films and wrote her dissertation on porn, called Towards a New Pornography.
and then her website Anna Span's Diary. From there, purely in the interests of research, I downloaded-on-demand some of her film scenes. Although the scenes tend to carry an R18, the DVDs are available from Ann Summers and seem to be 18s. I like her approach, but, in the end, I don't find them that entertaining.
Don't misunderstand me, I do enjoy watching them, I especially the explicit nature of them. What I don't like is the hammy acting (although I've seen worse on ITV) and the imperfection of the actors (oh hypocrite me!). I don't like the acne scars, the insect bites and the bruises. I really don't like the boob-job scars and - this is about my taste, not about being judgemental - I can't stand the tattoos. Is it too much to ask to gaze on a tat-free body? Tattoos have to be one of the biggest turn-offs for me.
I have read many books over the years, many of them bought from staid high street shops, that feature very explicit descriptions of sex. I don't get particularly hot reading them, but they are stored away in my head and used in the future. Perhaps if I read more slowly I would get more turned on. I am surprised that so few of these chick-lit best-sellers (see, it's not just me) don't get made into films or TV series. I think the problem is the sex. It is very difficult to be true to the book without pushing the boundaries of mainstream film/TV. Obviously, there may be difficulties in finding the actors; I don't see, say, Zoe Telford or Stephen Campbell Moore going for it with quite the verismo I demand.
I do think there is also a problem with the patriarchy of the film/TV industry. My perception of the world of books from high literature to Mills and Boon is that it is surprisingly pro-women. There seem to be few rules about sexual description. nor does there seem to be any bar on women being portrayed as being powerful, in control and even predatory.
I sense that there's almost this feeling that it's okay to have that in books, because anyone who reads a book is by definition an intellectual (and probably a closet lezza, too) but start putting it in films or on TV and Ordinary Women might start getting Ideas. If they do portray powerful women who know their own minds, one feels that it is a decision made by Big FilmTV reluctantly to pay lip-service to a demographic group that has purchasing power, rather than as something that reflects their world-view. Most of the time, the woman portrayed as powerful or in control is unhappy or flakey or gets her come-uppance. Rather than 'merely' having autonomy and contentment.
I have often wondered about the purpose of the Obscenity Laws that for years have forbidden or severely restricted the portrayal of sexual intercourse, ejaculation and erections in films and on TV. I fully accept that some people might not want to watch it, but there's loads of stuff I don't want to watch on the telly, so I don't. Some people say it's offensive. I think they just want to be offended, want to parade their...whatever. I mean, compared to the fact that over a billion children are living in poverty, or that the Amazon Ranforest is being destroyed, I don't think that it's worth getting worked up about a stiffy on the telly.
I have always suspected that it's a male plot. These laws were made by men, who, I suspect, were petrified their own honourable members would not stand up to scrutiny. How many women (like me), on their first time, had the thought 'Oh. My. God. It looks like that...! And it's going...where?". Maybe, if we had seen a bit more on the telly we wouldn't have had the screaming ad-dabs. Surely, these ridiculous laws weren't to protect women. They can't have been - shouldn't have been - to protect children, because we already have 18 certificates, watersheds, PIN protection and that thing called 'parental supervision' to protect children.It's just so that men can avoid having to unfavourably compare their bodies to a professional actor. Well, hello, that's what women have to do constantly. Believe me, we get over it.
I have come to the conclusion that visual porn is not for me. Either because it is,literally, not for me, because I am not a man. Or it's laughingly badly acted (so yeah, I applaud what Anna Span is doing, but why should I demand less from my porn than I do from my pre-watershed comfy viewing). Or it simply isn't graphic enough.
Over the years I have read more than my fair share of erotic fiction on the net. I have come to the conclusion that it's not worth it. Occasionally one can find some real gems, some beautiful writing that has me howling with desire. So much of the rest is poorly written. I spend so much time wanting to correct the grammar, the syntax, the dialogue, the scenarios, the back-story, the woeful characterisation. And even when it's well-enough written in those respects, ultimately, much of it is just a narrative of a sexual act, which very soon gets very boring.
So, I decided, with free erotica you get what you pay for; if I want enjoyable stuff, I will have to pay for it. This isn't just about me enjoying porn for the obvious reasons, but it's a sort of research. If I am going to write a book, I have to get a better idea of what is marketable. But I am going to have to read a lot, and a variery, because otherwise I might be unduly influenced by one or two voices which will affect my own style, to the detriment of my own writing. I will also have to read some vanilla middle-brow fiction and some great works of literature, in addition to my usual fare of history and politics, in order to flood myself with good writing and cleanse my palette of the instantaneous unedited internet stuff. No offence to anybody, I am as guilty as anyone of not reviewing, of lacking brutality in the edit, of using slang and colloquialisms, clumsy phrases and poorly chosen vocabulary. Internet writng is a craft, novel writing is an art.
And, because I have a blog I might as well share a few thoughts about the books as I read them.
Just be warned, Wetlands arrived in the post this morning.
