. . . because it's hot, and it's for ME.

[jlh]

I read two newspaper articles this weekend that fit together in my head, perhaps because I read them somewhat back to back. Both are features, both written by women who felt a level of discomfort about their subject, both about very specific ways in which women can express their own sexuality.

One was in the Guardian, and was about HP Slashers at Lumos.

One was in the LA Times, and was about the "Girls Gone Wild" videos.

I was talking to slytherincess the other day about the Guardian article and one of the things I said was that the active expression of sexuality by women that is not for the ultimate pleasure of men (like the videos are) or even in that context is incredibly frightening for—well, for lack of a better word, the patriarchy, because I don't mean just men, since there are plenty of men not threatened and plenty of women who are threatened. And it isn't just about slash; it's that entire stereotype of the middle-aged woman, either in a traditional marriage or single and living alone with a cat, who wants to escape through reading romance or erotica. Middle-aged, I think, because she would clearly be past the age of being attractive to men, and therefore has to find another channel for her sexuality—if single, she's doomed to spinsterhood; if married, she's doomed to her husband losing interest in her as he fantasizes about some 20-year-old actress. So this middle-aged woman reads romance novels (which have always had plenty of fairly explicit sex in them) or the superheated pulp of Jackie Collins et al, and it's this funny thing that your mother does that you don't think about too much.

And that's sort of cute, as long as she doesn't try to talk to her friends about it, or meet friends doing it, or take men and make them into sexual objects that aren't "hunks" easily dismissed by regular men. It's fine, even a bit of a joke, for the ladies to faint over vaguely feminized matinee idols that appeared in "pictures for women", like Rudolph Valentino or Rock Hudson, or to appropriately worship square-jawed heroes like Kirk. But put Kirk with Spock and you tap into an undercurrent of that infamous WriterCon report: "How dare you take my hero and make him into an object of your pleasure!" scream the old-line fanboys, which is just another way of saying, "You took my toy and got girl cooties all over it!" How dare we want boys to kiss other boys for our pleasure—never mind that the lesbian scene has been a standard of straight porn for aeons. How dare we, indeed, we middle aged women, openly proclaim that our sexuality is anything but adorable, and in the face of a culture that isn't giving us what we want, make it ourselves, with no apologies.

(I'm leaving the lesbians out, I know. So do they. Women having sex with other women who aren't hot girls playing with a dildo until the man comes along are so frightening as to have been kicked off the reservation entirely. Gay men are okay so long as they know their place (sort of); but they'd rather pretend that lesbians simply don't exist. I'm also leaving out the other insulting undercurrent in the Guardian article, which is that it doesn't "do" to think about things too much, which is another rant for another day.)

But women in their "sexual prime"? (And by that I mean, of course, their prime in terms of being conventionally attractive, because the irony is that it's the middle aged women who have the higher sex drive.) They express their sexuality by taking their clothes off or wearing little clothing to begin with. They are liberated because they can get drunk and fuck some guy they've never met over spring break and no one will call them a slut. Well, not as an insult, anyway. Go to the right party, flirt with the adorable cameraman, flash a nation of late-night television viewers. I mean, at least strippers get paid, and paid well, rather than having to beg for three pairs of low-quality cotton boyshorts after they've been date-raped out of their virginity by the king of soft core voyeur porn.

It's easy, and tempting, to dismiss these girls, and the wonder of the LA Times writer is that she doesn't. She doesn't say well, these are just loud-mouthed exhibitionists; she doesn't lay all the blame at the feet of MTV. She talks of Girls Gone Wild as merely exploiting an already-extant spring break culture. She doesn't even bother to make the "gee, maybe getting drunk and going into a van by yourself with men you don't know is a bad idea" argument because she knows we're already making it, as a way to make ourselves feel safe; instead, she brings us back to our essential solidarity with these girls, to our less-confident younger selves who either made ourselves into that girl that the boys liked, or didn't and faced those consequences. When you're nineteen, you're either that girl in "Hey Nineteen" that an older man is wooing with tequila and coke, or you're not, and maybe it isn't so great to be that girl after all.

The Guardian writer is threatened by these middle-aged women and uses the words of some of the Lumos attendees to humiliate them. The LA Times writer doesn't have to humiliate these young women for "expressing their sexuality"; the "Girls Gone Wild" producers have done it already.

Comments

[annearchy.livejournal.com]

I read the Guardian story yesterday and was more upset that this reporter hadn't really read HP than that she didn't understand slashers. Why send someone who knows nothing about the subject to a con like this? She doesn't understand anything about the HP fandom, even the attraction of the series, so it doesn't surprise me at all that she doesn't get slashers.

As for the Girls Gone Wild stuff, well, IMO Joe Francis is pretty full of himself (that's putting it nicely). Our culture is currently so steeped in a "watch me" mentality that nothing really surprises me anymore.

[miafitz.livejournal.com]

she brings us back to our essential solidarity with these girls, to our less-confident younger selves who either made ourselves into that girl that the boys liked, or didn't and faced those consequences.

I can't put it into words any better. It was so much more worthwhile reading the second article as opposed to the first; the LA times writer took time to empathize with the girls in her subject matter and the writer from Guardian seemed ready to dismiss anyone who didn't quite measure up to her level of "normal" And as Anne already said, why send someone who knows nothing about the books and doesn't seem interested to learn about it all and is too lazy to effing research about her piece beforehand?

[titanic-days.livejournal.com]

Good points all. My hackles are always raised when I see articles about fandom and slash in particular because you know what angle they're going to take and it's going to be that one. I've been burned by it before, some journalists have no sense of style.

[chinawolf.livejournal.com]

I don't know what to say. The Guardian article angered me, but I gave up on someone writing an objective article on slash a long time ago. The LA Times article just leaves me feeling sick in the stomach.

But I think you're completely right about the majority of people deciding not to think of female sexuality outside of a specific context. It's sad that they - the huge majority - are unable to jump over their own shadow in the 21st century, and instead feel so very threatened. In addition, I hadn't thought of the threat of the Lesbians in this context before, but now I suddenly get it - because if they can't fuck us in exchange for protecting us and dragging the food into the cave, because we're busy having fun with each other, what is there left for them? Poor guys.

I keep fearing that somehow, they might find a way to stop the slashers, be it using copyright laws or moral laws. But as I guess as long as they want their own porn, and gender equality stays a constitutional right, we are allowed to go on, too.

[kaalee.livejournal.com]

So, I'd read the Guardian article and had been bothered a bit by the dismissal and some of the tone of it. I can't quite put it into words, but I also realize that everyone is always going to find something wrong with someone else's hobby/pasttime/etc... so I dismissed it mostly.

It was interesting that you linked both of these articles together, because honestly, I was wondering what connection you saw, and what might strike me as I read.

What stayed with me through all of this, was that they both had the overall tone of sexuality, a bit more blatant in the GGW article than the Lumos one. In the Lumos, there was definite judgment going on. In the GGW there was, from the journalist's perspective, more trying to understand, rather than judge, but I know that she's aware that her readers are going to be passing judgment as they read.

I think that anything related to sexuality has always and will always be something very loaded. Everyone has an opinion and everyone their own sexuality, but there are varying degrees of what one is allowed to like, share, or discuss. In someone's opinion, someone will always be crossing the line and someone will always be exploited. I don't think any of these are necessarily right, nor do I believe that there is an easy answer.

I guess what struck me between the two articles is that the GGW journalist was trying to understand, rather than dismiss, and the Guardian journalist was looking to dismiss, rather than try to understand.

I was also quite interested in the GGW article, including the study and examination that has been done from an academic/sociological perspective. It makes me curious to read such things... and to a strange extent, examine how it might impact me, if I was to be 14 or 16 or 18 now, rather than quite a bit older than that.

And, boo on women in their 20's no longer being sexy/desirable to their partners.

[ivyblossom.livejournal.com]

Awesome post, Clio. Fantastic.

[dramawench.livejournal.com]

I haven't had time to read the LA Times article yet, but I'm so disgusted by the Guardian piece that I just don't have the energy to deal with more right now.

It's interesting to me that The Guardian sent someone like her to the conference, when she obviously has such disdain for the material the conference is based on. She made so many of her decisions and opinions before she even arrived - Harry Potter is children's fiction and should be treated as such; women who like Harry Potter, write porn about it and go to conferences are unfulfilled in their lives and do this in a form of desperation.

This could have been a very interesting article - an outsider to fandom observing and reacting. Instead, disdain drips from every sentence of her article. If she had even a bit of an open mind, this article would be very different.

I'm so disgusted with this woman, it's hard for me to react to this article well. Good grief, what does she think romance novels are? I'd hate to see her opinions on those.

[didi75.livejournal.com]

I've seen a lot of commentary on the Guardian article, and I tend to agree with almost all the criticism and some of the rationalizations. I was a little shocked and curious (albeit not indignant) when I first discovered slash. It took me a little while to get used to the idea - mostly because of the age issue, not the concept. In fact, when I got into fandom, the stories I read were all post-Hogwarts and considered gen. But as my mind opened and time passed, I found I enjoyed both het and slash, and the most important thing to me was that a story was well-written, witty, or in the case of PWP, just plain good.

All of that makes me wonder whether it's the slash that bothers people or the fact that it's slash about underage boys? Or turning Snape/Lupin/Sirius/etc. into card carrying members of NAMBLA? The Guardian article mentioned bestiality and rape as well, something that most fans don't get off on - but there are all corners of fandom. The cos play is strange to some too, especially when it's taken too far (the Malfoycest guys *ahem*). But generally costumes are a great way to express fandom interest, and it's mostly fun and entertaining, especially at these huge cons. Hell, every scifi/fantasy fandom engages in cos play, and to a much greater extent than HP fandom.

I was bothered by the tone of the article in regard to the middle-aged women thing. What's the big deal, you know? Is it less worthy because it's dominated by women? Is the scholarship not legit? That pissed me off greatly. I also agree with your take on the sexuality issue. It makes both men and women uncomfortable to see non-teeny boppers expressing sexuality or creating sexual situations, especially when they are non-conventional sexual situations. Brokeback Mountain, I believe, did a lot to break down some barriers, but it also brought the resisters out of the woodwork.

The LA Times article was very disturbing. I'm not that old, but you know, when I was an undergrad, this type of behavior was unacceptable. Any of my friends would have kicked my ass if I flashed a bunch of cameras, and I would have done the same. Guys were more respectful and girls were more innocent. I didn't have any girlfriends who kissed for the pleasure of boys. Maybe I hung around a conservative crowd, I don't know. But we partied a lot and messed around boys - we weren't virginal prudes. But there was always a time and place, and clear limits. Girls Gone Wild is seriously a disgrace and I hope that young girls go to Spring Break knowing NOT to get into the trailer of doom.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This is such an awesome post--thank you so much for drawing these articles together. I'd been avoiding the Guardian article because I figured it would just make me angry, but I think it was important to read in connection to the LA Times article. The first step towards looking at the problem is to not set yourself apart from the subject of the article--women/sexuality. Both writers were in very different places than the women being written about, but the one clearly saw herself as linked to them despite being the girl who didn't get in the TransAm club. As she should have, since unsurprisingly the minute she stepped out of line she was a cunt who had a crush on the guy.

It's funny because I came away with the impression that the LATimes writers was easily the stronger of the two women, and that her refusal to dismiss the girls in the videos was linked to her ability to stand up to a porn king and not let her own impressions be intimidated out of her. Despite how badly the women in the Lumos article come across, I know very well who they really were and that the reporter's words didn't change that. It's doubly strange that lesbians have been so left out since if there's one thing fandom shows it's that of the two, young girls are far better off getting their sexual education in fandom (even if it's primarily through talking) than in a Girls Gone Wild Van.

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

Fantastis post, and a great juxtaposition between a writer who was simply mocking women who have empowered themselves (and who are doing it without men watching or attempting to control it) and a writer who understands that the women in the GGW videos are simply women whose attempts at empowerment have been set upon by predators, by men who want to take advantage of their attempts to be real sexual beings. You're absolutely right that both sets of women are making their own decisions and taking charge of their own sexuality. And yes, how ironic that the one that's far more socially sanctioned is the one that is filtered through the perspective of men, thus thwarting the intention in the first place.

The Guardian writer is threatened by these middle-aged women and uses the words of some of the Lumos attendees to humiliate them.

Absolutely. She only has to take their words out of context, and women saying, "We're empowering ourselves by reclaiming porn and making it what we want it to be" becomes a parody of women's sexual empowerment. That is exactly what pissed me off about that article. It wasn't that she slammed fandom; it was that it was so inherently misogynistic.

This is probably the most interesting and intelligent post I've seen on the subject. Thank you!

[thalialunacy.livejournal.com]

Led here by emmagrant01--and am VERY glad! I applaud you. I've been steaming about this for a long time, but unable to get it into words, and you said it succinctly and eloquently than I ever could. Hope you don't mind if I lead my flist here, as well. :)

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Joe Francis is so unbelievably vile. It's really pathetic how he's using his money to court all these celebs and bold faced names. It's like the nerdy kid at school who drives people around in his cool car or whatever.

I thought the article was incredibly anti-female, really. It was ucky.

[adjudicated.livejournal.com]

That was a really interesting conversation we had, yes, and I really appreciate that you showed me a different POV through our convo that ended up being really illuminating for me, and gave me new food for thought.

I have a quibble, though, with middle-aged women being no longer attractive. I think today, more than every before, women have so many different stages of sexiness and beauty.

[letmypidgeonsgo.livejournal.com]

you can't see me, but i'm nodding so hard i think i may have hurt my neck!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

The Guardian piece was lazy on so many levels, and even more so since I'd just read the LA Times piece.

Thanks so much Mia! It's nice to see you around tons.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

You so have. And it's done to death, the "look at these quirky people!" It's lazy. Find an new angle, sheesh.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

You're so scary! I mean, the gay boys, they're understandable, but sex without a phallus?

Yeah, I mean, I'd be really surprised if they found a way to do it that didn't also fuck them in the ass, so to speak.

[letmypidgeonsgo.livejournal.com]

(here via emmagrant01

Overall, excellent thoughts - certainly one of the better-written meta-ish things on the subject of the Guardian article.

However, I feel the need to point out that the women in their sexual prime you refer to (I happen to be one of them) being represented by GGW is about as accurate a comparison as middle-aged women being represented by the Lumos contingent. Actually, most females, regardless of age, look down on that behavior (and we do, very often, use 'slut' as a negative term for easy girls like that). Even though they're the same age as me, I feel no solidarity whatsoever with these girls, and I don't think anyone should pity them - their behavior is genuinely disgraceful, to both their gender and their age group. That said, though, showing some skin is fine: if you got it, flaunt it...just don't sleep around.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

I was absolutely hugely overstating the middle aged thing to make a point, but you know, it's called "Barely Legal" for a reason. ITA with you on that.

The Guardian piece, I have to admit, I was surprised to see it was written by a woman. She certainly isn't a very sensitive one. That LA Times piece, though, was superb, and I feel it should win awards, and I'm glad it's being linked all over the place. As you mention, I really loved that she was trying to understand these girls, because that helped me to understand them, and I don't think they deserve to be dismissed.

The link came by accident—I think I got the LA Times link off Defamer, which I have as a feed here on LJ, and the Guardian was all over the place of course. I just happened to read them one after the other.

Thanks so much for your thoughtful comments!

[emmagrant01.livejournal.com]

No offense, but isn't the whole point that one journalist was able to be sympathetic with the GGW women while the other completely disregarded slashers in the same way you've just disregarded the women who elect to be in the GGW videos?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Wow, thank you so much!

[jlh.livejournal.com]

No, the LA TImes article will make you feel better. Trust me. It's superb. It's presented as a contrast, a piece by a journalist who was actually trying to understand her subject. It's a long weekend feature but my god is it good.

I think this woman thinks small, unfortunately.

[letmypidgeonsgo.livejournal.com]

none taken - perhaps all of that didn't come out quite as eloquently as i'd hoped.

i happen to know girls who have been in those videos. doing so doesn't make each & every one a bad person. what i was trying to say was that it would be unfair to hold them up as the example of our age group (though admittedly, it is the one with which others are most familiar), because, in fact, they represent only a small fraction.

there seemed to be a little bit of, i dunno, resentment? that college-age girls get to do whatever we wish with our sexuality while women over a certain age can't, and that's just not true.

i don't think the Lumos reporter should have been more sympathetic, nor do i think the GGW one should have been less so: they both should have simply portrayed the relevant facts. but maybe i'm too much of an idealist when it comes to journalism

[karadin.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much for this post, mind if I rec?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

The part that really pissed me off was all that anti-academia stuff and the quotes from that stupid book about academia going too far, as though it isn't "done" to think about things too much. Which is why the end, when she says something about being swotty, is so bizarre.

I think there's a generally higher level of performative EVERYTHING these days, and also a willingness to be voyeurs. When I see one of those "My Super Sweet Sixteen" shows I always wonder at the hoardes of schoolmates who are willing to idolize these girls. I don't know, maybe it was because I went to a small school, but while there were definitely girls who were cooler than others, or more popular, they weren't idolized, just very well liked by pretty much everyone, and envied by some.