sexuality

A post Marco wrote the other week over at Open Salon got primo real estate on the front page of Salon, but I’m just getting to it now.  In his May 7 post, “The Objectification of Emma Watson,” Marco takes issue with the sexification of the actress who plays Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter movies.  He writes:

Over and over the ritual is reenacted: Lisa Bonet, Drew Barrymore, Alyssa Milano, Scarlett Johansson. Early raves for a child’s or precociously young actor’s emotional range or resonance, then the steady drumbeat of questionable roles and/or increasingly suggestive magazine covers. Occasionally an actor navigates her sexuality with depth and an almost tactical creativity, as did Christina Ricci; she made smart choices so that her sexualized image always functioned as a shorthand for her unusual and challenging roles. But more typically, an uncompromising talent (i.e. Parker Posey) will fall by the wayside to be appreciated by ever smaller audiences for her efforts if she doesn’t “fall into line.”

It’s not too late for Watson, though. Interview is offbeat enough to be a blip in an actor’s career, and this issue is early enough in the season to be a vague memory by the time the next Potter is released. But the choices she makes now and in the immediate wake of the Potter series may very well determine whether she will be ultimately be known for her body of work, or just, well, her (toned/decrepit/buffed/doubled/ Photoshopped/objectified) body.

Nicely put, dude.

Photo: Shira Tarrant, Jessica Pauline, Michele Matheson, Stan Kent, Jillian Lauren

On May 13, Hustler Cafe in Hollywood hosted its monthly In the Flesh Reading Series: L.A.. Topic of the Month? Feminist Sex.

The awesome Jillian Lauren read from her forthcoming memoir, Some Girls and regaled listeners with stories about her experience in a Brunei harem. The amazing Michele Matheson read from her upcoming novel, The Failed Suicide of Cooper Tin. (Michele is a recovering child actor from such TV faves as Mr. Belvedere.) The wickedly funny Jessica Pauline read about working a pole (or a lap) at night and working Planned Parenthood by day, an excerpt from her book-in-progress. The groundbreaking Michelle Tea phoned it in from Florida with provocative portions from her queer, postpunk novel, Valencia.

I read from my new book Men and Feminism (Seal Press) along with my recent Huffington Post piece, Hip to Strip? Or Is it Time for Men to Stop Watching?

Question: Why Hustler?
Answer: Why not?

The event was a great opportunity to talk about women’s freedom to do sex work and to also ask questions about why men pay for it — and I stand behind both topics. Jillian Lauren described the subject of men and feminism as the only taboo left in that particular setting. So all the more reason to speak up. The Hustler event on May 13 left out the subject of what gets women hot. You know … things like sexual agency, pleasure, feminist ethical sluttiness … but that’s a question for another radical day.

Thanks to all who came out for this record-breaking event. Word has it this was the largest turn-out yet for the In the Flesh Reading Series: L.A. That’s really saying something! And much appreciation to Stan Kent for spinning some righteous tunes and for being an all-around gracious and organized host. See you next time.

<img class="size-medium wp-image-662" title="hustler-cafe-2" src="http://shiratarrant.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/hustler-cafe-2-300×239.jpg"

Crossposted at http://shiratarrant.com

In a Time magazine article about an Oregon school for troubled youth that is under scrutiny, journalist Maia Szalavitz (author of Help At Any Cost: How the Troubled-Teen Industry Cons Parents and Hurts Kids) deserves huge props for throwing the spotlight on it all.

Check this out: In required seminars that the school calls Lifesteps, students at Mount Bachelor Academy in Oregon say staff members of the residential program “have instructed girls, some of whom say they have been victims of rape or sexual abuse, to dress in provocative clothing — fishnet stockings, high heels and miniskirts — and perform lap dances for male students as therapy.” Think you can treat ADHD by making girls dress up as French maids? Think again.

Coverage at Jezebel, here.

Josh Coleman steps up to the mike and frames the conference by starting with how the women’s movement has made life better not only for women but for men.  Yet at the same time, and especially in this moment of recession, where men are being laid off in droves, women’s increased power is in some way a challenge to men’s identity.  The traditional markers of male identity–protector, provider–have been eroded.  As Michael Kimmel says, men are left with all of the empowerment and none of the power.  [??!!]  So there’s a crisis in masculinity out there.  (Ok, yes, reality check: women earn 80% what men do, etc etc.)

Questions the conference will ask:

How will recession affect relationships between men and women?

Will men express their masculinity by doing even less?

Is the gender revolution dead, or still evolving?

What’s going on with gender convergence in families and intimate relationships?

What’s going on with gender in the next generation?

Is our culture of individualism make marriages today more happy and resilient or more fragile?

What kind of work/family policies make families more resilient and what makes them more stressed?

What does the recent election tell about gender today?

Stay tuned….

Another incredibly resource-rich guest post by domestic violence expert and friend of GWP Madeline Wheeler.  You can read Madeline’s previous posts here and here.  -Deborah

As we all know, by the end of National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week, Rihanna and Chris Brown made national attention with their violent altercation that had media moguls drooling, dropping the ethical bar, and sensationalizing a human health crisis. Is she pregnant?  Are they married? Whoopi tried to quell the hype on The View stating she doesn’t even know if it’s real—a girl may have hit Rihanna.  Oprah warned on Friday that “He will hit you again!” No intro could keep up with this media carousel.

My go round? Chris Brown is still a teenager! You may recall Deborah’s call for research on Teen Dating Violence (TDV) in Quick Stats: Teen Dating Abuse at the year’s start.   People may be getting the message that 1 out of 3 women around the world has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused, but what is not as widely known is that 1 in 5 teens in a relationship report being hit, slapped, or pushed by a partner.

more...

This review comes to GWP courtesy of Jenny Block, author of Open: Love, Sex and Life in an Open Marriage.  You can read more about Jenny’s work at www.jennyonthepage.com

My Little Red Book
Edited by Rachel Kauder Nalebuff
Twelve (Feb. 2009)

I wanted to like this book. I really did. I love the idea of it, women sharing stories about something that we’re not “supposed to” share stories about. The problem is that without stories from every corner of the globe, every generation, every rung of the socioeconomic ladder, and so on, what you end up with is redundancy.

And that is precisely the problem with Rachel Kauder Nalebuff’s My Little Red Book, I’m afraid. The material would certainly be terrific for an article, preferably written by a remarkable writer gifted with profound insight. And there certainly are a few pieces that were wonderful, like Patty Marx’s curt “Can I Just Skip This Period?” and Ellen Devine’s raw and humorous “Hot Dog on a String.” But for the most part, the pieces were generally the same.

more...

No way!

“Over 40 and Over Men?” reads a headline gracing the cover of this month’s MORE magazine.  I’m intrigued.  I look inside and read: “More and more women are living the ultimate do-over: falling for another female.  Meet the gay and grey generation.”

That’s me.

While not feeling particularly grey, my family and I have been living “the ultimate do-over.” I buy the magazine and bring it home, compelled to devour every word of this narrative – a narrative that my family and I are living out, that is just now beginning to make its way into the cultural conversation.

“A normal part of coming out as an adult is the feeling of being an adolescent on fire, caught in the body of a 40 to 50 year old,” says my friend and colleague Joanne Fleisher, author of Living Two Lives: Married to a Man and In Love with a Woman.  Ah, the memories…I was that adolescent on fire (my friends will attest!) in my mid-40’s.

AND married. Just like the women profiled in MORE.

more...

Naked women. What’s not to love, right?
Well…Let’s talk about Frank Cordelle.

Cordelle is a photographer with a long-running exhibit he calls The Century Project. It’s a collection of pics — nude girls and women ages birth through 100. (Get it? One hundred years of naked women = The Century Project.) The line-up for 2009 includes shows at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, Rhodes College in Memphis, and the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, VA.

The pics are supposedly a celebration of the naked female body in a variety of shapes, sizes, races, and ages. Each photo comes with a little story about the featured female. Many of these “moving personal statements,” as Cordelle calls them, are first-person blurbs about overcoming abuse, eating disorders, etc.

Cordelle’s Mission Statement describes his exhibit as a project that “aims more generally to stimulate thought and discussion about subjects that are often taboo in our culture, or otherwise too personal, too painful.” An 8-year-old girl certainly has lots to tell us. But why does she have to do it in the nude?

Visual artist Karen Henninger comments, “if men REALLY got the issues, they would refrain — as in take a break — from female nudity. There is NO need for men to do female nudity — unless it SERVES them. It’s pretty much a mainstream art thing. Female nudity is acceptable and will get you attention. So much for art being a place of ‘creativity,’” Henninger says. Check out the Met. Or any other museum. As the Guerrilla Girls have noted for years, themes of female nudity melded with rape or sexual assault — regardless of how the art is intended — have been a constant theme in art history. Think Rubens’ Rape of Europa or Hayez’s Susannah at her Bath. Depicting women naked, vulnerable, or linked in some way to abuse has been “a constant way for women to be portrayed” in the art world Henninger comments.

But back to Cordelle.

The problem is not female nudity or female sexuality. The problem is that The Century Project uses naked female bodies, eating disorders, and abuse in ways that promote voyeuristic interest. While childhood nudity should be free and joyful, in our culture that’s a big challenge because girls are already hypersexualized at younger and younger ages. As a result we — as a culture — often don’t know how to see a naked female body (regardless of age) other than in sexualized terms. Is she available? Arousing? Sexually interesting? Or not?

I am anti-censorship. I’m a huge fan of feel-good sexual exploration and the freedom to accept our own bodies on our own terms.

The Century Project is not it.

It’s the same old-same old: girls’ and women’s naked bodies on display. I saw the exhibit and talked to the photographer. For the most part, the “moving personal statements” moved me to want to vomit. The exhibit visually exploited women and put their stories on display for no apparent productive end.

Check the photographer’s website and see what he has to say under the FAQ “Why Women?” I remain unconvinced that he gets the issues. Cordelle’s explanation for exhibiting naked female bodies reinforces assumptions about women as different and needing special attention or unique protection. There’s something really off about it. He puts girls and women on display while claiming concern for our well being. Really, Frank: Don’t.

And P.S., Therese Shechter (Trixie Films) has continued this convo over at the blog American Virgin. Drop by and take a look!

Just saw this over at Feministing and wanted to spread word:

On Monday, Yes Means Yes co-editors Jessica Valenti and Jaclyn Friedman will be livechatting on Feministing with contributors Miriam, Samhita and Cara from the Curvature and Feministe about the book.

The chat begins at 3 pm EST, here and, as all things Feministing, promises to be lively!

Buy the book, here.

And if a GWP reader would like to review it, please do email me, here: deborah (at) girlwpen (dot) com .

Well someone is paying attention at last. Judith Warner, who writes the Domestic Disturbances column for the New York Times, has a column today that delves into the question I asked two days ago: Why is NO ONE interested in the fact that studies have shown that teens as a group aren’t actually promiscuous?

Warner first describes how Linda Perlstein, the author of Not Much Just Chillin’: The Hidden Lives of Middle Schoolers, kept being called during the media frenzy over the “oral sex epidemics”:

“I’d say, ‘No one is doing that,’” she told me when I called her this week to refresh my memory of her story. “Even the sluttiest kids I knew, when I told them about that said, ‘Ewww. No one does that.’ This really prurient stuff was being way overblown.

“Believe me, I wanted to be on ‘Oprah.’ I had a book to sell. I’d say, ‘There’s lots of stuff to talk about. Stuff that really should be talked about, that’s more nuanced and complex.’ They were like ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’”

Warner has a theory well worth considering as to why society and parents insist on oversimplifying issues that relate to children’s loss of innocence:

All the examples of child myth-making that I’ve mentioned here have to do, at base, with the perceived corruption of childhood, the loss of some kind of “natural” innocence. When they depart from kernels of reality to rise to the level of myth, they are, I believe, largely projections that enable adults to evade things. Specifically, the overblown focus on messed-up kids affords parents the possibility of avoiding looking inward and taking responsibility for the highly complex problems of everyday life. [my emphasis]

In the case of the allegedly lascivious Lolitas, Kefalas sees this flight from reality very clearly: “People don’t want to hear about the economic context, the social context” to young teen sexual activity and teen pregnancy, she told me. “For a 14-year-old to be having sex it’s usually a symptom of a kid who’s really broken and really hurt. Those who are having sex without contraception are a distinct set: they’re poor, from single-parent households, doing poorly in school, have low self-esteem. Teen pregnancy is so high in America compared to other places not just because of access to contraception but because we have a lot of poverty. But Americans don’t want to see themselves as a poor society. They want to make a moral argument: if only teens had better values.” [my emphasis again]

It does seem rather fantastical to me that articles and authors group “teenagers” as a whole into one category, and then encourage parents to practice parenting based on a grossly oversimplified and sensationalized definition of what it is that teens do. It should be the responsibility of these authors and talk shows, particularly if they purport to care about teens’ lives and futures, to ignore the ratings and the talk show invites, to report fairly and with an eye to the specifics, both differences and overlaps, between groups of teens–and with an eye to root causes, far beyond and much more relative than “morality”, as to why some teens do engage in promiscuous behavior.

I teach a persuasive essay writing class to high school sophomores and every time a student hands in an essay draft, I inevitably hand it back with a big circle drawn around the intro: “You need to push this thesis–make it more complex, more sophisticated, more specific. Tell me how and why and in what way,” I write. We, as readers, as [future] parents, as once-teens-ourselves, have the responsibility to do the same for those who report on contemporary teenage behavior.

–Kristen Loveland