Book Review

Because anything that purports to be a 'modern guide to feminism' is likely to be controversial, I'll try to keep my take on The Noughtie Girl's Guide To Feminism by Ellie Levenson to a 'I agreed with this/this made my head meet the desk' list, to avoid excessive ranting. No doubt it'll fail as soon as I get onto the latter part, but I'll try.

What I Liked/Agreed With

• Levenson comes down firmly on the 'Ms' side of things, and rightly points out how insane and archaic it is that anyone calls themselves Miss or Mrs any more. "At no point should my marital status have any impact upon how you treat me, therefore you have no need to know it." I've been trying to explain the logic of this one most of my life, but people still seem to assume that Mrs is such a badge of honour that you'd only call yourself Ms if you're hiding a shameful single status, or a messy divorce.
• She also takes on the accompanying ridiculousness of women still taking men's names in marriage, pondering if those who do really "hate themselves, their families and their identities... to want to destroy their identity and leave their name behind." I like the way she dispenses with the nauseating notion that one takes their husband's name to prove how much one loves him (so by that token, a husband doesn't love his wife, because he makes no change for her? Hmmm). She concludes "It's not that I don't love my husband enough to take his name, it's that I love myself enough not to." Quite right. Since when did love become synonymous with surrendering who you are?
• The spot-on identification of how the media struggles to deal with any woman who doesn't immediately live into a stereotype - "they forget that there is a category of people...who quite like sex...without being a sex fiend, without corrupting innocents or spreading disease, without being a prostitute, without making up for lack of self-worth and without trying to get a council flat or claim benefits". It's certainly a truth that the tabloids and their cousins The Express and The Mail seem keen to forget.
• The point that any attempt by the beauty industry to portray 'real women' in adverts is usually patronising and still amounts to the same thing - trying to get us to buy a moisturiser. Dove's Campaign For Real Beauty is a case in point - however many size 16 bodies or freckled faces it uses, it's still asking women to improve themselves via use of a product; there's no implication that anyone is fine as they are. "If Dove were really serious about raising self-esteem then it would be focusing on internal beauty such as acts of tolerance, kindness and understanding." Damn straight.

What I Disliked/Disagreed With

• The insistence on watering down feminism until there's very little left to identify it by. Why are we so afraid of scaring the next generation of young women off feminism that we end up blanding out the definition of feminism til it means absolutely nothing? Levenson's insistence that 'noughtie girl feminism has room for you all', even if you spend your time bleating 'I'm not a feminist but...' reeks of pandering to the lowest common denominator. So does her completely disingenous insistence that her friend who goes pole dancing 'for the exercise' (ever heard of aerobics? the gym? going for a jog?) can call herself a feminist 'because noughtie girl feminism says what is most important is that we make our own choices." When is someone going to stand up and point out that this does not make every 'choice' (and I seriously question how much exercise based upon sex work is a choice in a society that increasingly encourages women to look and act like prostitutes in order to gain approval and self worth) is a feminist one? I own chinchillas, does that mean chinchilla-owning is an act of girl power? Please. This lazy, relativist idea that 'you can do what you want as long as it's not hurting anyone' fails to appreciate that no 'choice' occurs within a vacuum, and many so-called choices contribute to, or are part of, a culture that hates women. Feminists should not feel intimidated from standing up and saying so - I'm fed up with people trying to make the movement appear glossy and attractive by saying 'anything goes'. Not on my watch it doesn't, sista! That doesn't mean I'm interested in, or about to judge you for, what you get up to in the bedroom, whether you've had an abortion, or how many men you've slept with. But when you start standing up and telling me you're writhing round a pole 'entirely out of choice', I'm gonna have a few words to say.
• The same goes for the cringeworthy choice of female icons. Why anyone continues to pay attention to a clearly mentally ill woman who has reduced her body to that of a 12 year-old boy (albeit one with two fake breasts stuck to the front of it) is beyond me, but Victoria Beckham still manages to be held up as a style icon. I can deal with that, the fashion world being irretrievably twisted and misogynist as it is, but a feminist icon? Excuse me while I wipe the Um Bongo off my wall. Yet Levenson goes as far to say that women who dislike Victoria Beckham for being a disgrace to women 'are misogynists in feminist clothing'. Well, she may have a point insofar as a disproportionate amount of hatred seems to be directed at her for having married a famous footballer - when her husband was rumoured to have had an affair, a depressing amount of women clamoured to blame her for not having supported his career enough. I personally don't care about her marriage, family, singing ability or lack thereof, but I do bridle at someone who has no career except for flaunting the latest designer monstrosity over her jutting collarbones being heralded as a feminist icon. So she made a lot of money from being in a pop group? I'm sure the Monkees did too, but I've never seen them being held up as icons for men to emulate. The message 'Posh Spice' seems to send out is, you can never be too rich or too thin, it's important to get a big ring on your finger, get wed and take your husband's name, oh, and all that matters is what you wear and how much you pout. I don't think I'm a misogynist for not wanting such a person to be associated with the feminist movement.
• The rape jokes. Arrrgh. Levenson attempts to interject some level-headedness into a deeply emotive subject, but unfortunately she fails because of her inability to see the link between a culture where we laugh about rape, and a culture where we let rapists off left right and centre. She tells several jokes about rape and emphasises how hearing them from men made her feel 'more comfortable, not less', because it meant breaking the taboo that exists between men and women. Hmmm. I don't know what kind of men Levenson mixes with, but if I was alone with any man who began joking about rape, I'd hear some pretty loud alarm bells in my head. She does at least acknowledge that she's in a minority, and points out that most of her women friends failed to see the humour in the jokes - she also describes a night at a comedy club where the audience booed a rape joke - heartening to hear. However, what I can't believe is her failure to make the link. She points out that (of course) "Rape isn't funny, [right. so why joke about it?] but it's not the jokes about it that are the problem. The problem is our failure as a society to deal with rapists - that's the least funny thing of all." She also highlights the terrifying statistics about the rape conviction rate in this country, and the fact "thirty percent of people think a woman is partially or totally responsible for being raped if she was drunk." Yet Levenson sees no correlation between joking about rape, and a society that doesn't take rape seriously. I wonder what she thinks about racist and homophobic jokes? Does she see them as all just good fun, and in no way contributory to a bigoted and hateful society? I'll laugh at a rape joke when rape is such a distant memory in society that it's ridiculous to even imagine that such a thing went on. Til then, please stop claiming that laughing at rape jokes or telling them is in any way a feminist act.
• The hair issue. Like many issues in this book, Levenson really fails to go deeper when considering why women feel pressured to remove body hair. She makes a good start by saying "I am saddened that women have to spend so much time, money and effort removing their body hair". Yep, you and a few million other of us. Yet she ends the section in a complete cop-out, claiming she doesn't have the guts to let her body hair grow because 'even if I were comfortable with it, society wouldn't be." Riiight. Um, someone remind me what feminism is about again? Is it about making sure that society is 'comfortable' with our every action? About altering our actions, appearances and bodies to fit in with whatever is dictated to be 'acceptable'? Or is it about saying, screw those who try to make us conform to one narrow stereotype, and spend ridiculous amounts of time and money doing so, and look however you damn please? By this point in the book, I'm seriously questioning on what grounds Levenson can claim to have anything resembling a feminist agenda - here she just seems to be saying, shave your pits, pipe down, and get in line with what society wants.
• In the section on housework, Levenson reflects how housework is still seen as women's domain, as evidenced by the wealth of 'women-friendly' cleaning products on the market, then points out, "I tell you what would be women friendly cleaning - men bloody doing some of it." Yup, think we've all got our heads round that idea. Then she admits that, when she lived with a female friend, she allowed her friend to clean the loo for the whole four years they lived together, and that when she lived alone, she didn't do it herself for two and a half years. Um, when did living like a pig become a feminist act? When did leaving the cleaning for other women to do become an emancipatory gesture? Either make your man go halves on all cleaning, or show him the door - it's not that hard. I can't see what grounds Levenson has for bitching about men not pulling their weight when she admits to being so lazy and spoilt herself.
• The over-riding problem with the book though, is not just the various attempts to paint acts that are either anti-feminist or irrelevant to feminism as great strides for equality, although these come thick and fast. I think it's more the attempt to shoe-horn huge feminist issues such as rape, porn, work, childcare etc into tiny bite-size sections that don't even begin to scratch the surfaces of these vast topics. Levenson's book seems devoid of any real analysis or sociological examination of why we find ourselves in such a confused state, and instead falls prey to the media's favourite trick of portraying any act, from stripping to getting a nose job, as somehow promoting girl power. A wasted opportunity for a book on 'Noughties' feminism - for a more realistic take, try Nina Power's One Dimensional Woman instead.

No good can come of watching the Virgin TV channel...

...but hey, sometimes a girl gets bored late at night and flicks over. And what do Virgin like to show at night? Programmes all about sex, loosely disguised in the form of documentaries. I knew I was probably heading for trouble selecting 'Why Men Watch Porn', but it wasn't as horrific as it could have been. The attitude was pretty predictable, starting from the perspective that porn is fine and groovy, with no discussion of its potential t harm women, and that consuming it is 'just something normal guys do'. It was even mildly interesting to watch the results of a study involving men of different age groups rating their interest in different types of porn - and somewhat heartening to see men from all the age groups stating their lack of interest in using it. The reaction of the men's (female) partners to what the study 'revealed' about their sexual tastes was a bit tiresome - the women seemed happy to make excuses for male consumption of porn viz arguments that 'men are just wired differently', that women can distract themselves with 'a bath or a book' or that when we 'get the horn', we're capable of waiting for satisfaction, whereas men have to be satisfied Right Now, Dammit. I thought the women's words were evidence of just how internalised the modern stance on porn has become - it's fine, men need it, we couldn't possibly understand because we're women, no point fighting. I also wondered if any of them had ever 'had the horn' to the point where a bath or a book just wouldn't do it, and only a date with Ms Right Hand would suffice - cos I know have!

What was probably most dismaying though, was the final throwaway 'stat', which was that 32% of men surveyed thought porn reduced sex crime. That's an argument I get reeeal tired of hearing, simply because it seems to rely on a fatal misunderstanding of what sex crime is, and why it's committed. However, it means acknowledging that the opposition to that argument (that porn increases sex crime), also comes from barking up the wrong tree, which is anathema to some anti-porn feminists. I just think that this simplistic view of male sexuality needs to be dispensed with. If you're sadistic and fucked up enough that you're actually considering raping someone, I doubt that any alternative form of outlet is going to be enough. Rape isn't just about 'needing to have sex really badly' (and please, can we stop saying prostitution is justified because it somehow 'stops rape'? Newsflash - prostitution and rape still continue side by side) or wanting to do something so kinky that no woman would put up with it. Wanting sex and not always getting it is part of life - normal men and women can put up with that. They may masturbate, use porn, or just distract themselves, but to suggest that people rape because they're just too randy, is to fatally misunderstand what rape is about. It's not about sex, or sexual release, or satisfaction. It's about power, humiliation, domination, and controlling another person's body. If that is what you truly desire, then watching porn isn't going to stop you from wanting to go out and get it. Unfortunately, I think too many people 'normalise' rapists as 'regular guys who just got carried away because damn women won't put out all the time'. As if there's never been a rapist who was already in a sexual relationship with a wife or a girlfriend, or who had access to stacks of porn, or who used prostitutes, and went out and raped anyway.

However, as I said, this means also acknowledging the limitations of porn when it comes to influencing men's sexual behaviour. Now, it's important not to make blanket statements about this. When I say I don't think porn causes rape, that's not to say I think it has no impact whatsoever on the sexual landscape. But, as I said above, since rape has very little to do with sex, it stands to reason that its connection with on-screen depictions of sex, will only ever be fleeting. Yes, a violent porn film might give you an idea of how to violate someone, but it's not going to make you go out and do it. The impulse for sexual violence needs to be there already. Porn doesn't turn ordinary men into rapists - it doesn't have the power. It may give men who are already raping or considering rape, some methods for terrorising their victims, but that's where the connection ends. However, that's not to say I don't see the connection with porn and rape culture - one where rape isn't taken seriously because our porned society has numbed us to sexual violence. If we're all exposed to, or able to easily access, porn that sends out the message that women love to be beaten and raped, then our understanding of rape as a crime is going to be affected - even if it's just subconsciously. How many times have we heard rapists defended on the basis that 'she just liked it rough, your honour'? Only this week five men were acquitted of the rape of a woman on the basis that she had had fantasies about group sex, clearly sending out the message that if a woman has a kinky fantasy, she should be prepared to enact it with any man, at all times, and has no right to say no. Something's clearly fucked up - but it's not porn causing the rapes directly. It's a society so numbed to sexual violence, partly by increasingly violent porn, that's allowing rapists to go free, and sending out the message to would-be rapists that they'll always get away with it.

I wouldn't call myself an anti-porn feminist though. I don't believe that repression of human sexuality is ever going to lead to anything good. I think that porn can be produced responsibly, and that porn which depicts violence/coercion can be framed in the language of choice and consent, as BDSM porn always has been. It's the mainstream porn which steals the acts of BDSM porn, whilst leaving out the crucial aspects of consent (and failing to emphasise, as many BDSM sites do, that the actors are just that, actors playing a part - This Is Not Real) which I believe does the most harm. It's how to keep the good and dispense with the swathes of bad which is troubling. It was also telling on the programme that many men described a scene of anal sex - which would have been viewed as shocking and explicit a few decades ago - as 'quite tame'. It seems that the more extreme porn is produced, the more bored we get. Perhaps this is a worrying sign of how people will go to further and further extremes to get satisfaction, or perhaps it's a heartening sign that people recognised porn's limitations and will start to turn away from it, maybe even back to real people and having real sexual relationships. I think we are all capable of learning, and the depiction of men as so deeply influenced by porn that they're unable to shake off its 'conditioning' is more than a tad insulting. In the early days of our relationship, my partner admitted to me that the porn he viewed in his younger days made him think that women's genitalia 'worked a lot easier than it really does'. Ha ha, no shit, I remember thinking, and I didn't feel ashamed or guilty about my complex, hard-to-please body, but rather pleased that he had encountered a real woman and learned a lesson.

Why am I not surprised...

...when a book that purports to have a feminist agenda, actually ends up promoting the opposite? For my recent birthday, I asked for the book "I'm with Stupid: One Man. One Woman. 10,000 Years of Misunderstanding Between the Sexes Cleared Right Up"
, under the misapprehension that because one of the writers was Gina Barreca, an (alleged) feminist writer and humourist, it'd be a cut above the average Mars/Venus reactionary bollocks. How wrong I was. All I got was 240 pages of teeth-grindingly predictable gender stereotypes which were eye-poppingly offensive to both sexes, and no new ground covered on the knotty topic of how the sexes might peacefully interact with each other.

By page 13, we've already heard Gene Weingarten, the male writer batting for his kind, assert that women 'cannot seem to parallel-park a car'. Wow. Like that one hasn't been trotted out about 30,000 times already. Then we've got Gina asserting that women 'care about the color of sheets and towels' (I don't), that 'the idea of two men having sex doesn't do a thing for a woman' (Oh, it does a LOT for me, missus - see my earlier post on Adam Lambert) and that men are 'frightened of menses' (most of them really don't care, get over it). Sigh. Even if this is supposed to be done in jest, it's just not funny - at best, it's tired. This kind of crap has been flung around for the 30 or so years since paranoid men decided that sexist jokes were the best response to the crazy assertion that women deserved equal treatment, and it's pretty depressing to see a writer who claims to be a feminist going along with it.

As if the book hadn't got off to a depressing enough start, we then hear from Gina that women's ideal shoe shop would be a twenty-acre palace (is anyone else bored of this stereotype that we're all shoe fetishists? for me it got tired round about the second series of SATC back in 1999). Gene also gets a nice bit of naked misogyny in by labelling Gina's feminist responses as 'shrill, self-pitying, phallophobic blame flinging' (bet the conservative right are wishing they'd copyrighted that phrase); and then trots out the oldest, most wearisome stereotype, namely that women use sex to get love, and men use love to get sex. Newsflash, my unenlightened brother and sister - some women actually like sex, even when unencumbered by love, and some men are actually pretty hung up on this love thing. Some of us even like the two happily cohabiting side by side in a functional relationship - the one thing that never seems to get a mention in this book, presumably because the idea that men and women can get along would make the existence/purchase of this book entirely unnecessary.

The insults to men contained in this book probably come even thicker and faster than those flung at women - men are portrayed as dumb, emotionally retarded, knuckle-dragging, beer-chugging nitwits, who only buy women presents 'when he has done something wrong and wants to have sex' and cheat because they are 'overlibidinous, snarfling horndogs'. You probably won't be surprised when I say that most of this book seems to consist of attempting to tackle sexism by levelling the playing field DOWN rather than up - levelling it down to the most insulting portrayal of humanity possible.

Maybe I am a humourless old harridan and I'm failing to see the fun that's supposedly woven into this tome, but if I were black and expected to laugh at a book at why whites and blacks can't get along, I don't think anyone would be pushing me to squeeze out a chortle. It's not funny because there's still far too much hatred and oppression acted out in the name of this supposedly cute 'battle of the sexes', and it's not even interesting because no new suggestions are made here, only old tired unfunny stereotypes trotted out. And I'm suspicious of stereotypes, especially gender based ones, because most of my life they have totally misled me. I'm a strong, smart, feminist woman who doesn't own pot-pourri, who can change her own spark-plugs, who likes porn more than her other half, who can read a map, calculate my tax bill and pass a shoe-shop window without drooling. And I fucking hate the film Pretty Woman. I hoped I might see some similar stereotype-smashing in this book, but all I found was the same old shite. Disappointing, but never surprising. Think before you next call yourself a feminist, Ms Barreca.

Pah.

A few weeks ago, I sent a complaint to the BBC after watching David Walliams on 'Never Mind The Buzzcocks' make a joke about the Chris Brown/Rihanna domestic violence situation. His words were "Unlucky things for Rihanna include black cats, walking under ladders, and burning Chris Brown's dinner" - a reference to the fact that earlier this year, Brown attacked Rihanna, biting and punching her in the face until her mouth filled with blood. Nice work, Mr Walliams. Not only have you made light of an issue that kills two women a week in this country, perpetuated gender stereotypes about female servitude and implied that domestic violence is the fault of some minor 'slight' on the part of the victim, but you managed to do it on International Stop Violence Against Women day. I don't care if he's an 'alternative comedian' with a reputation for 'edgy jokes'. I don't care if he spends most of his comedic career mocking or caricaturing the female form. But I do care when he thinks that taking the piss out of an issue that is already not taken seriously enough, is funny and OK. So I complained in the strongest terms.

Here's the response I received:

Dear Ms Scott

Thanks for your e-mail regarding 'Never Mind the Buzzcocks' broadcast on 25 November.

I understand you felt David Walliams made light of domestic violence, making a joke about Rihanna being assaulted by Chris Brown. I note you felt it was particularly wrong as it was broadcast on International Stop Violence Against Women day.

As a public service financed by the licence fee we must provide programmes which cater for the whole range of tastes in humour. We believe that there's no single set of standards in this area on which the whole of society can agree, and it's inevitable that programmes which are acceptable to some will occasionally strike others as distasteful. The only realistic and fair approach for us is to ensure that the range of comedy is broad enough for all viewers to feel that they're catered for at least some of the time.

Nevertheless I assure you that it was never our intention to case any offence and I regret any you may've been caused. With your complaint in mind I'd like to take this opportunity to assure you that I've recorded your comments onto our audience log. This is an internal daily report of audience feedback which is circulated to many BBC staff including senior management, producers and channel controllers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for contacting us with your thoughts.

Regards

Ciaran McConnell
BBC Complaints

So, apart from one tiny concession in the form of a vague promise that my comments might be seen by senior management and used to 'shape decisions about future programming', I get diddly squat in the way of actual redress. Had Walliams' comments been racist or homophobic, I can see them causing much more of a furore. When Anton Du Beke told Laila Rouass she 'looked like a Paki' on an episode of Strictly Come Dancing, the stink made the front page of several newspapers, and Du Beke was forced to make a statement apologising. There was no attempt by the BBC to defend Du Beke on the grounds that 'there's no single set of standards upon which society can agree' ergo racism is fine, no recourse to this disingenuous form of cultural relativism that the media resorts to in defence of misogyny time and again. Just because there'll always be a vile minority who thinks that racism, homophobia or misogyny are fine, does not absolve the rest of us from all responsibility from challenging them. Yes, the BNP had to be given a spot on Question Time if we really do consider ourselves to have a free press in this country, but that also meant they were thrown open to the powerful challenges, and sometimes outright abuse, that they deserved and so rightly got. Why, then, is a powerful and popular comedian, allowed to go unchallenged in his mockery of violence against women? Is being anti-misogyny not chic or 'edgy' enough for the BBC? Are they less afraid of being seen to be misogynist because feminists aren't likely to send a suicide bomber round their way, whereas racism and religious hatred has already been seen to generate plenty of extreme violence?

I'm disappointed, but in no way surprised. A cowardly response from a cowardly organisation, and an insult to women from a man who has, ironically, spent his career appropriating femininity and effeminate behaviour for his own ends.

With thanks to the London Feminist Network for passing this one on...

This was posted in response to the predictable yet still deeply jarring campaign telling women how to avoid being raped over the Christmas season:

"A lot has been said about how to prevent rape. Women should learn self-defence. Women should lock themselves in their houses after dark. Women shouldn't have long hair and women shouldn't wear short skirts. Women shouldn't leave drinks unattended. Fuck, they shouldn't dare to get drunk at all.

Instead of that bullshit, how about:

If a woman is drunk, don't rape her. If a woman is walking alone at night, don't rape her. If a women is drugged and unconscious, don't rape her. If a woman is wearing a short skirt, don't rape her. If a woman is jogging in a park at 5AM, don't rape her. If a woman looks like your ex-girlfriend you're still hung up on, don't rape her. If a woman is asleep in her bed, don't rape her. If a woman is asleep in your bed, don't rape her. If a woman is doing her laundry, don't rape her. If a woman is in a coma, don't rape her. If a woman changes her mind in the middle of or about a particular activity, don't rape her. If a woman has repeatedly refused a certain activity, don't rape her. If a woman is not yet a woman, but a child, don't rape her. If your girlfriend or wife is not in the mood, don't rape her. If your step-daughter is watching TV, don't rape her.

If you break into a house and find a woman there, don't rape her. If your friend thinks it's okay to rape someone, tell him it's not, and that he's not your friend. If your "friend" tells you he raped someone, report him to the police. If your frat-brother or another guy at the party tells you there's an unconscious woman upstairs and it's your turn, don't rape her, call the police and report him as a rapist.

Tell your sons, god-sons, nephews, grandsons, and sons of friends that it's not okay to rape someone.

Don't just tell your women friends how to be safe and avoid rape. Don't imply that she could have avoided it if she'd only done/not done x, y, or z. Don't imply that it's in any way her fault. Don't let silence imply agreement when someone tells you he "got some" with the drunk girl. Don't perpetuate a culture that tells you that you have no control over or responsibility for your actions. You can too help yourself. Rape is not about sex, it's about control and power, and what kind of power comes from taking advantage of others? No power anyone should ever desire.

If you agree, repost this. It's important."

Couldn't have put it better myself. Share with everyone you know - especially the men.

Being a gal who likes a bit of gender-bending filth...

I was grateful to Feministing for bringing this performance by US singer Adam Lambert to my attention. Apparently Mr Lambert's explicit onstage cavorting riled the ever-homophobic conservative element of the American media, and cost him an appearance on morning TV (because we all know that those gays have no sense of time and will hump anything, even at 8am). Personally, I loved it. Boys in eyeliner and feathers, man-on-man kissing, a celebration of S&M that didn't, for once, just focus on submissive females...what more could I want? The poster on Feministing echoed my thoughts, pointing out that the reaction to Lambert's performance highlighted the total hypocrisy of those who will let girl-on-girl kisses and sexually explicit performances by female artists go by in the blink of an eye. Why? Because girl-girl kisses are unthreatening since lesbianism was hijacked by patriarchy as 'just something you do to please men', and as the media gaze remains largely that of the male heterosexual, wimmin writhing around in stage and simulating sex acts is all fine and good. Make it a man pashing his male keyboardist or holding a male dancer's head to his crotch, and all hell breaks loose. I love Mr L for highlighting this alone. He himself pointed out that double standard when criticised for his performance - people stopped minding women rubbing their vulvas onstage in about 1992 (cheers, Madonna), but when it comes to being reminded that a man might want another man to administer oral sex or even just lay a stubbly kiss on his lips, we still screech 'think of the cheeeeldren!'.

What was more disappointing though, and less predictable, was how posters on Feministing joined in bashing the performance, but on different grounds. Commentators stated that the S&M-suggestive choreorography was still just the same ol' degrading hooey, whether it the submissives were male or female (oh, I forgot to mention - he also walked two men around on leashes onstage. You could almost hear right-wing heads exploding.) Quotes included "Adam Lambert's choreography came off as abusive and violent", and the even more extreme, "The fact that it involved a queerman doesn't lessen its contribution to Rape Culture". I guess it's no big news that many feminists have a BIG problem with any depiction of sex that is forceful/violent/coercive, but it still bugs me how quick they are to jump all over what I saw as one of the more positive representations of BDSM in the media. Yes, there is a problem with how the mainstream media and mainstream porn have co-opted elements of bondage and S&M without including the stringent rules and emphasis on consent that these cultures are built on. However, I think it's important as feminists to fight back and reclaim acts and images we find pleasurable instead of assuming they must be patriarchal and hence can't be touched. If we rejected every single sexual act or culture that has been used to oppress or beat down women, we'd all have to be celibate forever, face it. The majority of sexual violence takes place in arenas that are condoned as the sexual norm - nice, white picket fence, heterosexual marriages and couplings. The notion of active, enthusiastic consent from women is still relatively new in mainstream culture, where we're still too-often taught to be passive, dissembling, coy prick-teases who will always be blamed for sexual violence on the grounds 'well, she said no but she meant yes...'. Whereas consent, and getting it clearly before embarking upon any sexual act, is central to BDSM sex.

I suppose one poster put it best when they pointed out that we can't necessarily trust a mainstream audience to be sufficiently up on their BDSM background reading to get the message that if you're gonna whip/slap/gag/chain up someone, you need to ask first. Their concern was that all the performance really implied was that 'slaves are hot'. I dunno though, are we assuming everyone's that dumb and simplistic? Those of us analysing Mr Lambert's friskings to within an inch of their lives obviously aren't, so why do we distrust the rest of the public so badly? Yes, the religious right, and hardline conservatives in general, can't be trusted to understand any notion of sex beyond active men, passive females, baby making, and homosexuals burning in hell. But am I supposed to believe that other, more moderate folks, went away thinking 'oral rape's fine, gay men obviously can't control their sex drive, and I might just have to go put that foxy lad next door on a dog chain'? Personally, I went away thinking, 'that was rather hot, and it's about time gay male sexuality was explicitly celebrated, rather just camply hinted at'. Because I think it did take bravery for Adam Lambert to stand up and be counted as a randy, frisky gay man rather than just an emasculated camp caricature, which is what usually seems to be the 'acceptable' stereotype for gay men to live into. Put bluntly, by Boy George - 'people can handle gay when it's about being pink, fluffy and camp - what they can't handle is when it's about fucking people up the arse'. And I think that's what Lambert's performance proved more than anything - that whilst lesbianism may have been stripped of its potential to offend by some clever maneouvering, male homosexuality still makes a lot of people deeply uncomfortable. Especially when that gay male is obviously a sexual being, and is coming right at ya - pun so very intended.

Whilst I do get tired of being told that the constant sexualisation of women through lads' mags, page 3, music videos etck is some form of empowerment, I also tire of the flipside - that is, not being able to enjoy any clip of mildly diverting smut without a swathe of my sistas accusing me of conspiring with the patriarchy or rape culture (that last one really, really fucking offends me). This is where, sadly, I feel let down or left out in the cold by a lot of the sisterhood, insofar as many of them wish to dictate the ways in which I am allowed to be sexual, and seem to want to condemn many of the sexual acts and sexual cultures which I get great pleasure from. I don't want to have to sit up and make a speech about how enjoying x doesn't mean I'm brainwashed, before the sisterhood will permit me to have an orgasm. Wasn't that what the movement was about, or still is- the notion that we're tired of having our sexual behaviour dictated and limited, and told what is and what's not appropriate for a 'good girl'? If BDSM is the 'sexualisation of violence', which many commentators are claiming it is, then to participate in it is to be accused of participating in oppressing my fellow women. I just can't buy that from a movement that claims to defend my right to free expression and bodily autonomy. I also really don't buy that sexual violence comes from any one source as simple as media depictions of S&M lite. But I remain troubled over the issue.

Still love the performance though. ;)