Abstract: Are you looking at me? The tumblr generation’s ‘metrosexual gaze’

 

 Taxi Driver  was released in 1976, two years after ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative cinema, Laura Mulvey’s seminal paper was published (Mulvey 1974). The gaze, in particular the ‘male gaze’ has been scrutinised from many angles over the three decades since (Bristow, 1993; Augsburg and Gutfreud 2011, Evans  and Gamman 1995). And a ‘female gaze’ has been identified and championed by some, critiqued by others (Tams 2012).

The iconic scene in Scorsese’s film, where Robert De Niro’s character Travis Bickle stares at himself in the mirror/the camera, pointing a gun in his combat gear and asking nobody in particular ‘you talkin’ to me?’ is the starting point for this paper. Because I argue here that in 21^st century culture, which is dominated by social media platforms such as tumblr, youtube and facebook, rather than looking at and ‘objectifying’ women, young men are far more interested in examining and displaying their own and each other’s bodies. The ‘tumblr’ generation (Tams 2012) (including people of all gender identities) seems intent on looking, in both figurative and real mirrors, at itself. And it invariably likes what it sees. This paper uses masculinity in social media as a focal point in this context, because it is the ‘man as object’ of the gaze, especially the gazes of heterosexually-identified men, that is not acknowledged adequately in the literature or in common parlance (Tams 2011). Thus looking at Taxi Driver using the ‘metrosexual gaze’ we see a much more ‘passive’ and self-admiring Travis than before, demanding to know, not if we’re talking to him, but if we’re looking at him. This scene marks the early stages of a revolution in masculinity and mediated gender identities as a whole.

This is an abstract for a conference paper I will be giving in the Spring.

I Tumblr For Ya! #2 An Age of Dorians

‘We live in an age of Dorians, admiring themselves in webcams, phone cams and online profiles. If there’s a picture in the attic you can be sure it’s been photoshopped.’ – Mark Simpson

‘All that fascinates us is the spectacle of the brain and its workings. What we are wanting here is to see our thoughts unfolding before us – and this itself is a superstition.’   Jean Baudrillard

I am, I am, I am

I have already grieved for the Death Of The Reader . The tumblr generation is not interested in my loss though. It is too busy uploading photos of itself to post on its tumblr page. A photo of yourself taken in the mirror with your iphone says more than any 2,000 word blogpost can, anyway. If tumblr was a quote from Sylvia Plath (and there is in fact a tumblr of people with Sylvia Plath tattoos) it might be:

‘ I took a deep breath and listened to the old bray of my heart. I am. I am. I am.’

(From The Bell Jar)

In tumblr land, the individual self is paramount. ‘Neo-liberal individualism’,  the ethos which could be said to underpin contemporary economics and society, expresses itself poignantly and effectively via tumblr. It also goes back a long way, and is very complex. John Stuart Mill, for example, believed that the ‘sovereignty’ of the individual was vital to achieve social justice.

“Over himself, over his own mind and body, the individual is sovereign” — John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859), “Introductory”

Rather than going into the labrynth of the tensions between ‘collectivism’ and ‘individualism’, all I am saying here, is that if you browse tumblr for five minutes or more, you will have those words echoing in your ears, ‘I am, I am, I am….’ And that this says something about  our attitude to ‘the self’ in the contemporary world.

Branding The Self

The ‘individualism’ as the key philosophy of these Dorians, is summed up by a quote posted on a tumblr called No Secrets Between Sailors :

‘The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself.’

So the ‘self’ is reified as somehow bravely distinguishing itself from the ‘tribe’. The masses. Do the tumblr generation manage to distinguish themselves as individuals though? That is my next question.

Young, (usually white, often American) people are producing themselves as brands via the mixed media available in tumblr: Photos, text, video, audio. This is the entrepreneurial self, a la  Charles Leadbeater , ‘armed with a laptop, a modem and some contacts’. But tumblr entrepreneurs are also armed (as is Charlie if he’d only admit it) with something even more potent: a narcissism and a (metro)sexual ego, that up till now just did not have the means to show itself off effectively.

If you visit someone’s tumblr page, then, it is a bit like going round to their house. They present themselves as they want to be seen. And, just as the explosion of home décor as hobby and self-expression a few years ago, led to millions of people demonstrating their unique individual style and taste, in exactly the same way, so did tumblr help to create a world of virtual display cabinets, full of identikit mini-mes.

I am not saying these specimens don’t look very pretty, or that they don’t use the technology and its opportunities for self-branding creatively. Far from it. Venture into the maze of tumblr and you can find yourself lost among the beautiful artefacts for hours. But the overall effect, whether you are looking at porn (of which there is possibly an infinite supply, or men’s fashion ( a close second in terms of volume), or emo girls with tattoos who write poetry (may be in at number 3), is always the same. A blank, sexless, mediated gallery of Dorian Grays stare back at you.

As Mark Simpson put it, in a discussion under his piece about The Dorian Gray Age:

‘Narcissism is outside of tradition. It’s literally self-referential. So narcissism is both a product of and a helpmeet to rapid change – producing ‘individuals’ in identical loft apartments.’
http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2009/09/11/ours-is-the-dorian-gray-age/#comments

This ‘individual’ self-branding, that actually is just producing an army of postmodern image soldiers,  fits in and merges with how ‘branding’ occurs in capitalism. As Naomi Klein wrote in her best work, No Logo, once the individual self is marketed back to itself, it kind of loses its individuality. If everyone has to wear Nike trainers in order to avoid being ‘overwhelmed by the tribe’, then they have failed, but Nike has done very well out of the ‘myth’ of the individual expressing him/herself, thank you very much.

‘Since many of today’s best-known manufacturers no longer produce products and advertise them, but rather buy products and “brand” them, these companies are forever on the prowl for creative new ways to build and strengthen their brand images. Manufacturing products may require drills, furnaces, hammers and the like, but creating a brand calls for a completely different set of tools and materials. It requires an endless parade of brand extensions, continuously renewed imagery for marketing and, most of all, fresh new spaces to disseminate the brand’s idea of itself.’

Even more abstract was Absolut Vodka, which for some years now had been developing a marketing strategy in which its product disappeared and its brand was nothing but a blank bottle-shaped space that could be filled with whatever content a particular audience most wanted from its brands: intellectual in Harper’s, futuristic in Wired, alternative in Spin, loud and proud in Out and “Absolut Centerfold” in Playboy. The brand reinvented itself as a cultural sponge, soaking up and morphing to its surroundings.’

As the photo above demonstrates, tumblr really should be sponsored by Apple, because the amount of free advertising the company gets through all these iphone self-photos is phenomenal. I have said before, I will not be surprised if tumblr begins to include formal product placement and sponsorship, rather than this ‘accidental’ variety in the not-too-distant future. The word ‘branding’ seems so very apt to me. People are showing themselves to the world, via tumblr, literally ‘branded’ on their bodies by consumer corporations.

http://www.theapplecollection.com/Collection/objects/tattoo.shtml

London Preppy- Metro Entrepreneur

 London Preppy is an archetypal tumblr metrosexual entrepreneur of the self. He graduated to tumblr from the old, clapped out Blogger interface (which he still managed to emblazen with an image of his muscly torso).

He now has a new book due out, to go with his six pack. ‘Nihilistic 21st century urban stories’ does not really tell us anything, except that the author thinks he is leading the Zeitgeist. But in a way he is, because he is re-imagining how people (and the most successful at doing it are young, buff, pretty boys) sell themselves to the world as product. I look at him looking at us, looking at him, clutching his creative output to his shiny hyper-real form, and I wonder why I, a mere mortal, bother to create anything at all. He doesn’t seem to want you to read his book so much as admire how it sets off his abs so perfectly. And proves that he is ‘a creative’. Not just a pretty body. Though what a pretty body it is.

He admits, almost proudly, that when he does readings, he ‘speaks to the floor’, suggesting an endearing shyness beyond this brazen exhibitionistic exterior. Or maybe he is just looking down at his enormous cock.

http://london-preppy.tumblr.com/post/6659951561/unlike-the-others-id-do-anything-im-not-the

London Preppy is just one of thousands or maybe millions of bodies that look just like this, on tumblr, most of which are not accessorised with a novel, and many of which are actually butt naked. Because pornography, particularly the male variety, whether it is self-taken photos in mirrors, or actual man on man homosex, is probably the main output of tumblr. Even sites dedicated to ‘style’ or ‘books’ refer to the porno aspect of the platform: ‘bookshelf porn’, ‘cabin porn’, cupcake porn, everything on tumblr is aimed to arouse the viewer (or more likely the person showing off the porn on tumblr). And again, Baudrillard springs to mind:

‘At the heart of pornography is sexuality haunted by its own disappearance’- Baudrillard.

Because somewhere along the line, no matter how many oiled up pecs and abs are reblogged and photoshopped, tumblr takes the sex out of, well, everything.

Fuck Yeah Menswear

Tumblr land is huge. There are masses of  ‘themes’ of tumblr sites: pornography, tattoos, mirror shots, emo girls, designer objects, ‘art’, cartoons, it goes on and on and on. And as I said above, in a way, it is all porn.  But the one word that keeps coming back to me if I do a kind of tumblr word-association, is menswear. Menswear, menswear, menswear. That is what tumblr seems to be about to me.

The sheer volume of men’s style tumblrs is indicated by this blogpost, which celebrates  Another 100 incredible tumblr blogs for men’s fashion ! Suggesting there are legions of the things.

Even sites which are not dedicated to men’s fashion, seem to be showcases for men’s fashion and style. This one sums up the ‘esprit’ I think, with its title ‘the pursuit aesthetic’. Men, and men’s fashion, are the contemporary visual ‘aesthetic’ de nos jours.
http://thepursuitaesthetic.tumblr.com/
 

So this rather lonely looking rack of  pastel shade shirts, is saying something to us about ‘identity’ and ‘image’ and ‘values’ in the post-modern tumblr generation. I think it is saying that metrosexuality is what makes the world go round, bitches.

New York Magazine puts it rather unkindly, when it says:

‘Witness the cultural burp known as metrosexuality. As the hipster ambles from the thrift store to a $100 haircut at Freemans Sporting Club, these aesthetics are assimilated—cannibalized—into a repertoire of meaninglessness, from which the hipster can construct an identity in the manner of a collage, or a shuffled playlist on an iPod.’

http://nymag.com/news/features/69129/index2.html

I think the article plays down the social/cultural  impact of metrosexuality (cultural burp? I don’t think so) and plays up ‘hipster’ culture. But the atmosphere it portrays seems to fit tumblr land. Here, the ‘self’ is the ‘product’ that is going to be uploaded onto tumblr, and then re-arranged, repackaged, and replayed, like ‘a shuffled playlist on an ipod’ over and over again.

The ‘aesthetic’ of men’s fashion that is being pursued on this and what seems like an interminable amount of tumblrs, is also an expression of the neo-liberal individual ‘free man’ of  Ayn Rand ‘s dreams.

Here he is, driving in a vintage convertible, the wind in his air, the open road at his feet:

And here is his loft apartment for when he wants to get back to city living. It is all so Patrick Bateman, isn’t it?

And indeed, this extract from American Psycho indicates the importance of menswear to the post-modern psychopath, I mean metrosexual man:

‘Oh wait guys, listen, I got a joke’. Preston rubs his hands together.

‘Preston’, Price says, ‘You are a joke. You do know you weren’t invited to dinner. By the way, nice jacket, non-matching but complementary’.

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/english/documents/innervate/08-09/0809lewisstylistics.pdf

Unhappy Hipsters

As I wrote in the last piece, on Death Of The Reader, the kids of tumblr land are post-ironic. They somehow manage to create internet memes and knowing winks about their own habits and identities, so that nobody else can critique them first. And, the ultimate knowing wink I have found on tumblr, is of course, called Fuck Yeah Menswear

On first glance, Fuck Yeah Menswear looks like the myriad of other men’s fashion and style blogs on tumblr. It probably takes its photos from those very sites. But it is in fact, a commentary on them, and on the ‘tumblr generation’ as a whole, with its obsession with metrosexual men’s imagery, and being admired and adored, via the reblog button. It is also poetic, as this stanza shows:

‘Head hung low.

Ashamed of sartorial tomfoolery.

These shades gon cost you.

This fade gon cost you.

Unfollowing ya boy gon cost you.

I get paid for reblogs fool.

Pocket square, bracelets, lapel tool.’

I remarked to Mark Simpson when I first saw the site: ‘Fuck Yeah Menswear is ‘a literate Mike The Situation Sorentino, transported from Jersey Shore to The Hamptons via Williamsburgh. This has really done my head in. He has subsumed everything into his steeze, bros’.

And Mark added, ominously: ‘Just to add to the scariness, it often sounds like FYM is channelling metrosexual murderer Patrick Bateman: ‘I am the style Lorax. I speak for the steez.’

As FYM does to men’s fashion tumblrs, Unhappy Hipsters does to the thousands of ‘architecture’ and ‘design’ and ‘lifestyle’ tumblr pages. Often these are intermingled anyway, so menswear and ‘lifestyle’ are showcased side by side. I mean, you need a sharp outfit if you are going to live in a place like this, right?

‘Letting her choose between the red and white quinoa was the first phase of her home-school lessons in self-construction, liberty, and spontaneous activity.’

Just like FYM, I suspect that Unhappy Hipsters get their photos from actual tumblrs, adding a further ‘internet will eat itself’ dimension to the (post) ironic satire. Everyone is an ‘architect’ now, if not of their actual self-build designer homes, then at least of themselves. Comparing tumblr, which I did above, to the craze for self-expression via ‘home décor’, makes sense then, because tumblr is full of actual home décor imagery.

Unhappy Hipsters, again in a similar way to FYM, manages to critique this obsession with ‘style’ as empty and pretentious and probably unfulfilling, whilst also reproducing the very imagery it is criticising. I wonder if the people behind UH are actually architects or interior designers themselves, just as I am pretty sure the person behind FYM works somehow in the men’s fashion industry. Basically, Fuck Yeah Menswear and Unhappy Hipsters are saying, ‘don’t even try to resist, because everything you do or say will get eaten up by this monster anyway’. There is nothing for it but to get yourself an iphone and a tumblr and join the party.

America 2.0

‘Baudrillard saw America as a glittering emptiness, a savage, empty non-culture, in short, as the purest symbol of the hyperreal culture of the postmodern age.’

http://publish.uwo.ca/~dmann/baudrillard1.htm

Tumblr is a Baurdrillardian dream/nightmare. It is like going on that journey with the French postmodern philosopher,  not in 1986, but in 2011, and not in antiquated RL, but in the comfort and splendour of the internet. Tumblr is Baudrillard’s America 2.0.

“The skylines lit up at dead of night, the air-conditioning systems cooling empty hotels in the desert, and artificial light in the middle of the day all have something both demented and admirable about them: the mindless luxury of a rich civilization”

-Jean Baudrillard, America (1986)

Whether it is via the romance of the American landscape shown in Cabin Porn, or nostalgia for the original authentic Wild West , or images of more modern American Pop Art, tumblr is selling America back to itself and reblogging it round the globe. Whilst I think Roland Barthes would be horrified at the way the tumblr generation has not only completely rejected even any notion of the ‘author’, but has also done away with the reader, and even meaning itself, I have a sneaking suspicion Baudrillard might quite enjoy tumblr. At the very least, he would be able to sit back in his comfy armchair in the sky, should someone bring him an i-pad and some reading glasses, and say, with well deserved satisfaction: ‘I. Told. You. So’.

————————————————————————————————–

Thanks to Mark Simpson for some tumblr links and for talking to me about this age of Dorians (and Patrick Batemans) we live in. I think like Barthes would be, Simpson is a bit horrified by tumblr (despite the pretty Dorians). But it is his work and his insights that have helped me get a grip on the tumblr generation.

Metrosexy by Mark Simpson is available on Amazon Kindle Here

Digital Dualism For Dummies: #1 Yo Dawg, I Herd U Like Theory…

This may come as a surprise to some, but it is not just metrosexuality that I spend my time thinking about. Recently I have been preoccupied by the ideas and theories currently being developed by Nathan Jurgenson and other writers at the brilliant cyborgology blog. One of the concepts put forward by Jurgenson and colleagues has particularly grabbed me. And I can’t explain the notion of  digital dualism better than the original theorist so here is Nathan himself on the topic:

‘The power of social media to burrow dramatically into our everyday lives as well as the near ubiquity of new technologies such as mobile phones has forced us all to conceptualize the digital and the physical; the on- and off-line.

And some have a bias to see the digital and the physical as separate; what I am calling digital dualism. Digital dualists believe that the digital world is “virtual” and the physical world “real.” This bias motivates many of the critiques of sites like Facebook and the rest of the social web and I fundamentally think this digital dualism is a fallacy. Instead, I want to argue that the digital and physical are increasingly meshed, and want to call this opposite perspective that implodes atoms and bits rather than holding them conceptually separate augmented reality.

Recently, I have critiqued “cyborg anthropologist” Amber Case for her use of Turkle’s outdated term “second self” to describe our online presence. My critique was that conceptually splitting so-called “first” and “second” selves creates a “false binary” because “people are enmeshing their physical and digital selves to the point where the distinction is becoming increasingly irrelevant.” [I'll offer my own take for what that digital presence should be called in a soon-to-come post.]

But the dualism keeps rolling in. There are the popular books that typically critique social media from the digital dualist perspective. Besides Turkle’s Alone Together, there is Carr’s The Shallows, Morozov’s The Net Delusion, Bauerlein’s The Dumbest Generation, Keen’s The Cult of the Amateur, Siegel’s Against the Machine, Lanier’s You Are Not a Gadget, and the list goes on (we can even include the implicit argument in the 2010 blockbuster movie The Social Network). All of these argue that the problem with social media is that people are trading the rich, physical and real nature of face-to face contact for the digital, virtual and trivial quality of Facebook. The critique stems from the systematic bias to see the digital and physical as separate; often as a zero-sum tradeoff where time and energy spent on one subtracts from the other.  This is digital dualism par excellence. And it is a fallacy’.

Jurgenson has convinced me that one of the key ways in which people approach this digital age we live in, is to try and split it into two easy pieces, the ‘online’ and the ‘offline’. And in presenting this simplistic binary, they often then use it to make heavy handed value judgements, which tend to come down hard and negative against the ‘online’ side of their symbolic coin. One question that I don’t think has been answered yet, is why do people do this? And I don’t think  I am going to try to answer it here. But I will leave that why? hanging, as I explore some other problems and loose ends I have come across when I wonder about this ‘digital dualist’ construct.

I shall start with this past week, and the events which gave me the impetus to write this. First, I read an interesting piece by one of the accomplished cyborgology authors, Jenny Davis.  Her post was entitled ‘Pure Digitalism and Pure Integration: An Empirical Typology’. Now, there was something about the wording of that title that caused me to pause. It sounded a bit… well… positivist. This description of positivism sums up my reaction to Jenny’s title:

When most people in our society think about science, they think about some guy in a white lab coat working at a lab bench mixing up chemicals. They think of science as boring, cut-and-dry, and they think of the scientist as narrow-minded and esoteric (the ultimate nerd — think of the humorous but nonetheless mad scientist in the Back to the Future movies, for instance). A lot of our stereotypes about science come from a period where science was dominated by a particular philosophy – positivism – that tended to support some of these views. Here, I want to suggest (no matter what the movie industry may think) that science has moved on in its thinkin into an era of post-positivism where many of those stereotypes of the scientist no longer hold up.

Let’s begin by considering what positivism is. In its broadest sense, positivism is a rejection of metaphysics (I leave it you to look up that term if you’re not familiar with it). It is a position that holds that the goal of knowledge is simply to describe the phenomena that we experience. The purpose of science is simply to stick to what we can observe and measure. Knowledge of anything beyond that, a positivist would hold, is impossible. When I think of positivism (and the related philosophy of logical positivism) I think of the behaviorists in mid-20th Century psychology. These were the mythical ‘rat runners’ who believed that psychology could only study what could be directly observed and measured. Since we can’t directly observe emotions, thoughts, etc. (although we may be able to measure some of the physical and physiological accompaniments), these were not legitimate topics for a scientific psychology’.

The key phrase in Jenny’s essay that caused me to picture a positivist scientist in a white coat was ‘empirical reality‘ I was surprised to see it used, because up until now, I had thought the work going on at cyborgology HQ was a direct challenge to positivist ‘science’ and its clinging to the notion that there is a ‘real’ world out there which can be studied, observed, measured and known. A world that is somehow separate from the process of studying, observing, measuring and knowing. I thought that the cyborgology writers agreed with a blog comment by JeremyAntley ( @jsantley ) :

‘the digital is not the only dualist position that can exist’.

Exactly! As I tried, and probably failed to say in some twitter conversations following Jenny’s post, I was first drawn to the work of Jurgenson and co, and in particular the concept of ‘digital dualism’, because it seemed to imply a challenge to  all forms of ‘dualism’, not just the digital type. I liked the notion of digital dualism because it echoed my previous adventures questioning dualisms such as, yes, the positivist binary of ‘reality’ v ‘theory/science’, but also the gender binary, the gay v straight binary, the atheism v religion binary, the dream v waking binary, the black  v white binary, the me v you binary. And many others besides.

So now I see that cyborgology theory and the study of digital dualism isn’t necessarily a rejection of dualisms in the plural. And once I have got over that sense of sea-sickness that comes with a destabilising of what I thought I knew I am going to argue, from my ‘digital dualism dummy’ position, why I think the critique of digital dualism should be a critique of all forms of dualism. Bear with me.

If I had to identify with any ‘ism’, and go so far as to call myself an ‘ist’, which I am glad I don’t have to do, in addition to identifying as  a silly-sounding ‘metrosexualist’, I think I’d also, reluctantly, call myself a post-structuralist.

The reason I am prepared to tie my flag to the post-structuralist mast, relates to epistemology. Simply expressed as ‘the philosophy of how we know what he know’ my engagement with epistemology has left me unable to agree with any other positions about those thorny subjects of ‘knowledge’, and ‘truth’ and ‘meaning’ as much as I agree with post-structuralist positions. Post-structuralism rejects a distinction between theory and ‘empirical reality‘. It cuts through the Either/Or dichotomy, and, in the words of one of the late, great, post-structuralist thinkers, Derrida, it ends up proclaiming, albeit quietly, and with plenty of provisos, but proclaiming all the same:

‘There is nothing outside the text!

Post-structuralist epistemology identifies and emphasises ‘the absence of a break between discourse and the objects of discourse. It implies that theory is not separate from reality nor is reality separate from theory’.

Sometimes critics of this perspective argue that it is ‘relativist’. That once we have taken the post-structuralist epistemology to heart, we may as well all pack up and go home. Because if there is ‘nothing outside the text’, our studies and investigations of ‘reality’ become nothing more than our individual subjective responses to words, language and representation. ‘Truth’ can be anything we want it to be! Well, as a fiction writer as well as some sort of social scientist, I might reply, ‘And?’ ‘So What?’ I could fill  more than one lifetime with the study of and the production and consumption of words and language and representation. But, I know what these critics mean.

And I have a better answer to them than ‘so what?’ Because if you read post-structuralist writers, you will realise that Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, Lacan and co did not abandon all belief in some sort of ‘reality’. It’s just they were very, very sceptical about making any claims about how exactly we can ‘know’ or understand, or analyse that reality. This is summed up by Derrida’s alternative to the phrase ‘there is nothing outside the text’. He said one might also say ‘there is nothing outside the context’. So rather than texts being empty vessels upon which we can impose any meaning we want, they (and ‘text’ is a loose term for various forms of representation) are actually full to bursting with all the ‘reality’ and ‘history’ and ‘truth’ that led to their existence, and that leads from their existence and ‘consumption’ or reading, or seeing.

A good example, in my view, of the value of poststructuralism for knowing something about ‘reality’, that also helps us shift our perception of what constitutes reality, I think, is the work of Judith Butler.

‘Doing Gender’ the phrase, is well known now. As is  its assertion that it is in the performance of gendered acts, the wearing of gendered costumes, and the construction of gendered identities that we make ourselves into what we think of as a ‘man’ or a ‘woman’ or an ‘other’. But maybe it is less well known that Butler’s approach to gender is also a general, post-structuralist approach to the concept of ‘reality’ and the epistemological question ‘how do we know what we know?’ Reading Butler’s Gender Trouble is an experience I will never forget. Because it contributed to my ‘sea sickness’ about what I thought I knew in a profound way. Going back to Jenny Davis’ post (which I haven’t done justice to here as I’ve picked on one small part of it, and she says some good stuff), using Butler’s ideas, where is the ‘empirical reality’ when it comes to gender identities? Is it in our bodies? Our minds? Our clothes? Our novels? Our blogs? Our theories? I’d say it is in all those things, because there is nothing outside the context.

Another good example – our maybe just another of my favourites – of the value of post-structuralism to enhancing our understanding of how we make the ‘real’ real, is of course, the work of Roland Barthes. And again, reading Barthes has had a profound effect on me. On my sense of self, and on my sense of how I make sense of the world. The book by Barthes I read the most recently, A Lover’s Discourse, makes language into flesh, asserts over and over again, the vitality and ‘empirical reality’ of not only the text, but also of our feelings, desires, thoughts. Which in Barthes’ book become the text. Bring it to life:

“Language is a skin: I rub my language against the other. It is as if I had words instead of fingers, or fingers at the tip of my words. My language trembles with desire. The emotion derives from a double contact: on the one hand, a whole activity of discourse discreetly, indirectly focuses upon a single signified, which is “I desire you,” and releases, nourishes, ramifies it to the point of explosion (language experiences orgasm upon touching itself); on the other hand, I enwrap the other in my words, I caress, brush against, talk up this contact, I extend myself to make the commentary to which I submit the relation endure. ”

I said at the beginning of this post, that I don’t just think about metrosexuality. I am not sure if that is entirely true. Because I now realise, from feeling uncomfortable about the terms ‘empirical reality’ and ‘digital dualism’ being mentioned in the same breath, that metrosexuality is another example of a critique of ‘dualism’. Just as metrosexuality is continuously blurring the lines between femininity and masculinity, ‘man’ and ‘woman’, ‘mediated’ and ‘real’ gender identities, so is the concept of ‘digital dualism’ and its implications blurring the lines between the ‘online’ and ‘offline’ world. And, in my way of seeing at least, it refers to a further blurring of the lines between what we think of as ‘reality’ and how we come to know it, using the imperfect and frustrating term, ‘theory’.

I am afraid I haven’t finished. But I will give the last word of this ‘fragment‘ of text to someone who was much better with words than me. Allen Ginsberg told us, quite a long time ago, before twitter, tumblr, facebook and ‘digital dualism’, that:

Reality is a question
of realizing how real
the world is already.

Elly Tams ‘Gets A Life’

‘Get a life’ is a common put-down, especially online. It is one I have received on a number of occasions. The suggestion is that you are a waster, a loser, and probably sat alone in a darkened room with only the internet for company. I have never liked the connotations of the phrase, or the way it is used maliciously. So I was struck by the tweet above, which succinctly sums up all my misgivings about the ‘get a life’ insult.

One of the problems with ‘get a life’ is it seems to reinforce the notion of digital dualism. As Nathan Jurgenson and colleagues have explained, ‘digital dualism’ is the way in which many people (maybe all of us at some point or other) present ‘online’ existence as a separate sphere from ‘RL’ (real life). So when people say ‘get a life’ they can be making out that those in need of getting a life, are spending too long online, and don’t have much else going on in their lives.  ’Get a life’ can be part of the set of narratives which constructs trolls, those ugly, sad creatures who have no friends and who get their kicks from ‘abusing’ people on the internet. There is sometimes an inference in people’s comments that ‘trolls’ don’t actually have ‘lives’ at all, like ‘normal’ people do. So you can’t hurt a troll’s feelings, because they don’t have any. And you can’t make a troll’s life difficult or unpleasant by what you say and do to them, because they don’t have one. They need to ‘get a life’ before they can be treated like full human beings.

Why does this kind of terminology bother me? Well, I think it may be because it touches a nerve. Sometimes the most hurtful taunts are those that have a ring of truth to them. And, in the last couple of years, there have been times when I didn’t have much of a ‘life’, and when I did indeed rely on online connections for most of my social interactions. Is that such a bad thing? I am not going to make a judgement on that now. But I will say that when people have called me a ‘troll’ in recent months, and when they have told me to ‘get a life’, this has chimed in with anxieties I have had about myself and my ‘RL’ situation.

To cut a long story short, and I will come back to this, I have recently done what we all have to do at certain points in our lives, and I have got my proverbial shit together. After being self-employed for a long time (and for some periods unemployed)  I have now got a ‘proper job’ working as a researcher for a UK university. I also have a book review that will be published in a forthcoming edition of this academic journal.

And I’ve been going to counselling and dealing with issues relating to my mental health and well being, including stress/grief/pain due to the death of my stepfather almost two years ago, and my Mum’s severe degenerative multiple sclerosis, that means she now lives in residential care. Recently which has boosted me a lot, I’ve got back in touch with a few very special longstanding friends, and made some equally special new ones.

But do all these things really mean I have ‘got a life’? Do they secure me as a ‘normal’, functioning, happy member of society?

I don’t see it like that. One reason is I have always struggled somewhat with the role work plays in my life. Without going into too much detail, I think I can sum up a lot of my ambivalence about career and paid work with the Philip Larkin poem, Toads:

Why should I let the toad work
Squat on my life?
Can’t I use my wit as a pitchfork
And drive the brute off?

Six days of the week it soils
With its sickening poison -
Just for paying a few bills!
That’s out of proportion.

In other words, ‘work’ can take over and become the bane of our lives, rather than something that makes us feel good about ourselves and our social status. And even when we get a lot out of work, sometimes the way it adds to or takes away from that social status is still problematic. You know that awful question at parties and social gatherings: ‘What do you do?’ and no answer seems good enough.

Also when I am working, especially full time (which this new job is), I sometimes resent not being able to do all the things I enjoy when I have enough spare time to do them! It is no coincidence that I wrote and published my novella last year, when I didn’t have much Work with a capital W on.

However, 42 years into my so called life, though I may not have discovered the  answer to life, the universe and everything, I think I am able to get work and other aspects of life into perspective. One other thing I have done this year that I consider a very valuable part of  my personal development is taking up tai chi. The martial art is backed up by thousands of years of philosophy, that indicates how life’s meaning and health is not to be found in ambitious pursuit of work and career, but in a much more holistic and ‘mindful’ discipline of mind, body and soul.

Again I turn to someone else who sums this sentiment up far better than I could. As the Flaming Lips put it, ‘all we have is now’.

I will remember that mantra when I am on holiday for two weeks, starting in the next few days. And  I will try and remember it when I am back and looking for ways to get through the working week without getting too strung out.

And, for those of you who are wondering if my ‘getting a life’ involves continuing my internet adventures, of course it does. But even online I will strive to remember that the moment is everything. And I can enjoy my moments any damn way I please!

Songs Of Innocence and Experience – Review of Gender and Education Journal

Songs Of Innocence And Experience: Review of Gender and Education Journal, Special Edition On ‘Sexualisation Debates’

Gender and education, Volume 4 No.3 May 2012 Special Issue: Making Sense of the Sexualisation Debates: Schools and Beyond. Guest editors: E Renold, M.J. Kehily and D. Epstein

The Bailey Report, subtitled ‘Letting Children Be Children’ was published over a year ago. This UK Government-commissioned ‘review’ of the ‘sexualisation’ of children through consumer culture, media, music and fashion received a mixed reception from parents, teachers, sex educators and academics at the time. Petra Boynton collected some of the more critical discussions of the report on her blog. The very concept of ‘sexualisation’ which implies an unwanted, premature ‘sexuality’ imposed upon children by various nefarious adult groups did not sit easy with me when I first heard about it. So I was very interested to see a whole edition of Gender and Education journal dedicated to the subject, sometime after the ‘controversy’ over the Bailey Report had died down.

Fragments, Findings, Feelings

The subject of ‘sexualisation’ is made complex, charged  and dense, by the fact it relates to sex and sexuality. Thankfully the editors at Gender and Education do not try to produce a comprehensive analysis of the subject. They wisely present their collection as a set of ‘fragments’ of research findings, discussion and analysis, about a very fragmented and wide-ranging topic.

The context and history of ‘sexual cultures’ is neatly introduced in the editors’ introduction (p249-254) with lines from the 1974 Philip Larkin poem Annus Mirabilis:

‘Sexual intercourse began

In nineteen sixty three

(which was rather late for me)-

Between the end of the Chatterley ban

And the Beatles’ first LP.’

Throughout the journal edition there is a careful consideration of tensions  between sexual ‘permissiveness’, as Larkin hints at by alluding to the contraceptive pill being made widely available in the 1960s, and sexual ‘conservatism’ which is illustrated in the poem by the reference to the banning of the novel, Lady Chatterley’s Lover. These tensions are explored in relation to policy, culture, consumerism, and the experiences of young people and children themselves. This edition of GEA provides something which was so blatantly missing from the initial reactions to the Bailey Report – interviews, discussions with and participant observation of children and teenagers in schools and social settings. MJ Kehily (p255-268) and J Ringrose and E Renold (p333-343) ‘fill in the gaps’ in discussions of sexualisation with rich and rigorous data and analysis.

In addition to articles based on empirical research in schools and other settings, and analyses of policy and culture, the editors include some more personal, reflexive pieces by researchers in the field of education, sex and gender. Of these I particularly enjoyed reading ‘What I heard about sexualisation: or conversations with my inner Barbie’ by Sara Bragg (p311-316). The author deftly intertwines an account of her research observing girls who attend ‘pampering parties’ at a hair salon, with her responses to sexualisation discussions in the media and academia, and her moving account of the ‘body image’ crisis she has had since suffering from a brain tumour that left her face sunken and slipped out of shape. Bragg’s writing reminded me that even though feminists often say ‘the personal is political’ it is still relatively rare for academic writers, even feminist ones, to reveal really personal and emotionally challenging experiences and the effects they have on their thinking. As an (important from my point of view) aside, I was also delighted to find this collection of essays very readable. Having been out of academia for a few years now, my tolerance for turgid academic prose is low. This journal edition kept me interested, and turning the pages!

Innocence Spoiled or Lolitas At Large?

One of the key tensions in the issue of ‘sexualisation’, particularly of girls, is between discourses of ‘innocent childhood’ and the idea that (girl) children can actively seek out sexual attention. This tension can turn into a contradiction. As the editors put it:

‘ girls’ heterosexual agency is simultaneously acknowledged, where girls’ sexual knowing, consuming, preforming and servicing is used as evidence of the [sexualisation] phenomenon, and denied, in the production of a passive girl subject whose innocence and experience of being sexual is understood as prematurely induced’.

Making reference to the work of Valerie Walkerdine, MJ Kehily er, teases out some of this contradictory discourse. She writes that ‘Lolita’, the precocious young girl character in Nabokov’s novel is still a pertinent symbol of the conflict between perceptions of girls as sexually knowing and as innocent victims of a predatory adult sexuality. Lolita reminds us of the allure girls possess, particularly for older men. As Kehily observes, the ‘Daddy Girl’ dynamic can be understood from a Freudian perspective as ‘fetishistic, a desire that prompts and stands in for the act of intercourse.’ But also from a Foucauldian point of view, with ‘the regulation of sexuality as an adult domain bound by rules of age and consent creates the conditions for incitement and transgression, ways of talking and acting that proliferate and enlarge  the very things they seek to deny. Foucault considers the sexuality of children to be central to educational initiatives, having an impact upon pedagogic practice, the organisation of the student population, and the architecture of school buildings’. Kehily notes that ‘both theorists share a conceptualisation of childhood sexuality as present, active, and consequential in the temporal biography of young lives’ (p262-3).

I agree, but I think all the writers in this journal edition might have paid a little more attention to the ‘Daddy of psychoanalysis’ and his insights into childhood sexuality. Freud  argues that ‘infantile sexuality’ expresses itself very early in a child’s life, when it is about two or three years old. The essays in this collection only consider girls as ‘sexual beings’ from school age.  And one of the fascinating but also very difficult to explore aspects of Freudian analyses of childhood, is that the period Freud identifies as so crucial to a child’s sexual development, is one when children’s language and social functions are underdevolped.

It is also worth noting that  the authors in this journal edition are rightly somewhat critical of the notion, promoted by groups such as Mumsnet and their ‘Let Girls Be Girls’ campaign, and historically, by the ‘purity movement’ (p 269-284) that parents should limit the effects of ‘sexualisation’ on their children by controlling strictly what they watch, buy and think about. However they don’t clearly acknowledge Freud’s observation that actually it is parents who create and develop ‘childhood sexuality’ in the very first place, via the Oedipal Complex (or at least some form of parent/child psychodrama). My readings of Freud have led me to be pretty sure that the ‘family romance’, though, as Larkin has pointed out, it is likely to ‘fuck you up’, is the only route to ‘sexualisation’ in its most basic, and base terms.

Boys In The Shadows

In their introduction the editors tell us: ‘[Cindi] katz writes about the hegemonic figuration of the child ‘at risk’, a luminous discourse in the sexualisation debates that lights up the girl child, but leaves the boy child in the shadows’ (p251). I would have liked this edition of GAE to have ‘illuminated’ boys and their experiences and accounts more than it did, to have taken boys out of the ‘shadows’ that sexualisation debates put them in.

Two linked areas of study covered in this collection that would have benefitted from a much more careful consideration of where boys stand in the ‘discourse’, are ‘objectification’ and ‘sexual violence’. A dominant feminist ‘line’on objectification is that women are the ‘objects’ of a predatory, ‘male’ gaze. This gaze relates to sexual violence, many feminists argue, because the culture in which men are encouraged to see women as ‘sex objects’ justifies and reinforces attitudes and behaviours including sexual harassment and sexual violence by men against women. Though some of the authors here do criticise this feminist ‘line’, and overall the message from this edition of GEA is ‘it’s complicated’, they don’t go far enough for me!

My research and writing on metrosexual masculinity has shown that in contemporary visual culture, (young fit) men are ‘objectified’ just as much as women. As the journal editors write, we now live in ‘a heightened commercial climate in which all age groups are assessed in market terms as ‘segments’ presenting specific retail opportunities’. And the retail opportunities for men, whether it be in sports equipment, ‘grooming’ products and cosmetics, fashion or food, are huge as previously masculinity was an ‘untapped market’ in consumer capitalism. And so, if we acknowledge the objectification of men, we have to question our views about the predatory ‘male gaze’. The ‘gaze’ I have examined is not male or female, but ‘omnisexual’.

One of the ways I think boys and girls are ‘sexualised’differently by outside, adult forces is that even with the contradictory messages about girls’ ‘innocence’ versus ‘sexual knowingness’ there is a sense that girls are children who then become more sexually sophisticated teenagers and adults. The lack of discussion of sexualisation and its effects on boys, coupled with feminist concerns about men’s violence against women (e.g.M Garner p325-331), constructs boys as ‘little men’. It is as if their sexuality arrives fully formed and problematic. This idea is illustrated by the recent (and controversial) UK radfem conference 2012. There, girls and women of any age were allowed to attend but boys over the age of eleven were banned. So in that particular environment boys were treated as ‘men’ with all the baggage and suspicion that entails.

One Direction – teenage metrosexual sex symbols?

The piece in the journal by Jessica Ringrose and Emma Renold (p333-343) produces questions for me about how boys are portrayed in gender and education research. They interviewed and hosted discussions with groups of girls at a secondary school, and one of the points of discussion was the recent Slutwalks. This data is fascinating, but they did not pay so much attention to boys. The authors seemed a little impatient with the school where they conducted the research, who insisted on setting up a boys’ discussion group alongside the girls’ one they were studying. They presented this as a ‘what about the boys?’ discourse that does not acknowledge particular discrimination and sexism that girls face, and treats boys as equally deserving of attention with regards to gender issues. In ‘grown up’ feminism this is translated into the dismissive trope: whatabouttehmenz? Anyone asking questions about issues men face in gender cultures get that retort which often serves to shut them up. The two authors conclude their article saying:

‘we have to continue challenging the re-victimisation and re-shaming of young sexual girlhood and the ways in which the girl body returns again and again as the focal point of a patriarchal, moralising gaze and frequently as the only site of intervention for change. Furthermore, we argue this dynamic ends up making female sexual desires an invisible, discursive silence in school and beyond’.

I disagree with their conclusion. And I think feminist firebrand Camille Paglia would too. She was critical of the ‘victim feminism’ that underpinned the SlutWalks. Other women bloggers, myself included have also examined the SlutWalks from a critical angle and asked Does Slutwalk Shame Men? In the terms of the research conducted in schools, I’d then ask does Slutwalk shame boys? For boys tend not to have entered into the active sexual arena yet, but their reputation, as potential harassers and rapists, seems to go before them.

The articles in the journal could also be seen to be coming from quite a ‘heteronormative’ position, where boys and girls are two distinct groups, and their ‘sexuality’ is in relation to each other. This hides both trans and gender queer identities and same-sex sexuality. Although the editors say homosexuality is now ‘mainstream’ and accepted, I would suggest that for boys especially there are still situations in which masculinity is ‘tested’ using heteronormative ‘rules’.

A Thought-Provoking Starting Point

Overall I found this special edition of Gender and Education well-written, complex and thought-provoking. My criticisms of some of the perspectives and conclusions of the authors are quite strong ones. But I think their research and writing is robust enough to take my challenges. I hope this set of articles and think pieces forms a starting point for more in-depth and diverse debates about ‘sexualisation’ of children and the policy, media and social contexts in which it is produced. And I hope other researchers follow the example of these academics in placing children and their voices at the centre of the conversation.

———————————————

Gender and Education has a great Blog worth checking out!

You can access the Journal issues here.

Games Perverts Play – Oedipus Wrecks

I edit an online/self-published anthology entitled Games Perverts Play.

http://gamespervertsplay.wordpress.com/

The current edition is Oedipus Wrecks and the deadline is June 30th. Prose, poetry, art, video, anything goes!

http://gamespervertsplay.wordpress.com/2012/04/11/oedipus-wrecks/

Email me ellytams@gmail.com for more information!

 

We’ll Get ‘Em In Sequins by Max Davidson Review by Elly Tams

The subtitle of Max Davidson’s book, We’ll Get ‘Em In Sequins, reads: ‘Manliness, Yorkshire Cricket and The Century That Changed Everything’. Fans of Yorkshire cricket would be impressed by the detailed survey the author makes of the sport in the twentieth century. His portraits of Yorkshire cricket ‘greats’ including George Hirst, Fred Trueman, Geoff Boycott and Michael Vaughaun are insightful, informative and moving. But the book is about much, much more than cricket. This is a book about men, and what has happened to them since before the First World War, when being a ‘man’ seemed to be straightforward. Now it is definitely anything but.

The title of the book is a reference to a quote that is attributed (in folklore at least) to George Hirst. At a Test Match against Australia in 1902 he is reported to have turned to his fellow batsman Wilfred Rhodes and said : ‘We’ll Get ‘Em In Singles’. This referred to taking it one run at a time. Winning the contest slowly and steadily. And win they did. But, a century later, ‘sequins’ are the order of the day. Because sportsmen such as Darren Gough, who won the TV celebrity ballroom dancing competition Strictly Come Dancing in 2005, are a bit more showy now. A bit more experimental. A bit more, as Mark Simpson, originator of the term ‘metrosexual’ might say, tarty.

How has it come to pass then, that a ‘manly’ sportsman such as Gough not only entered a ballroom dancing competition, on television, and not only won it, but also did not lose any face? He, to all his fans (well all but a curmudgeonly few) is still a man, even doing the Cha Cha Cha in a frilly shirt. In fact, maybe he is seen as more of a man as a result of his TV appearances and his dazzling on the dancefloor. This book goes some way to explaining how and why that change in perception has occurred.

Gender roles transformed in the 20th century for a number of reasons. Two world wars shook men and women to the core, and made specific demands on them. Women went into work whilst men were fighting abroad, and if and when they came home, they could not revert to the old ways entirely. Economic change meant men who had once relied on their jobs – mining, steel works, the railways – for their sense of ‘manliness’ could no longer do so. And then there was the contraceptive pill which gave women, and men, more sexual freedoms. Pop music and fashion, in the 1950s and 1960s allowed men to literally escape from their buttoned up suits and ties. And it was only a matter of time before they would be preening in the mirror without a second thought.

One thing I was very pleased to find in Davidson’s book was a very questioning and critical approach to the concept of ‘manliness’ from the start. Some narratives of social change look back to a ‘golden age’ when men were men, and women were women, and everyone knew their place. But Davidson explores that ‘golden age’ and shows it to maybe not have been as golden as it seemed. He also explores the idea of ‘manliness’ itself, and wonders if it is actually not just a ‘tautology’? If manliness means being ‘like a man’ then maybe it doesn’t really mean anything at all.

Whatever ‘manliness’ means, it is definitely something that has captured our imaginations over the years. Davidson looks at the perceived ‘manliness’ of film stars such as John Wayne, the daring play on masculinity of the late great Rudolph Valentino, and the ‘cartoon’ manliness of characters such as James Bond, Tarzan and Sherlock Holmes.

Of Valentino Davidson writes:

‘Valentino, soft-skinned, full-lipped, almost feminine in appearance apart from his trim sideburns, offered something quite new, something which conservative-minded men, on both sides of the Atlantic, found hard to comprehend. All right he was handsome, in a Mediterranean sort of way. But manly? No way, Jose. In fact, he probably batted for the other side in those poncy clothes. So why, oh why were so many women swooning over him?’

All the cricketers featured in the book identified as ‘straight’. But Davidson is not scared to wonder a little bit about the nature of sexual orientation in general, and to acknowledge the existence and increasing acceptance of bisexuality and homosexuality in men. He is not scared either to acknowledge the sex appeal of supposedly ‘unmanly’ men like Valentino. And how that has helped change what it means to be considered a man in the contemporary age.

My only criticism of the book is linked to one of its strengths. Unlike many discussions of men and masculinity, Davidson’s includes a word that is dear to my heart: metrosexuality. He rightly credits English author Mark Simpson with coining the concept back in 1994. And Davidson explores what it means for men to be more into their looks, more into buying cosmetics and ‘grooming’ products, and more into expressing their ‘feminine’ side than in previous eras. But what he doesn’t do is use Simpson’s large (ahem) body of work analysing metrosexuality over the last twenty years. Many of Davidson’s observations found me nodding in agreement, but also in recognition, as Simpson has covered a lot of the same ground in relation to late twentieth, early twenty first century masculinities.

Simpson’s latest book (2011) Metrosexy is subtitled ‘A Twenty First Century Self-Love Story’. So it is a fitting companion to We’ll Get ‘Em In Sequins, which looks at the century before, that led to this explosion of ballroom dancing, bodybuilding, mositurising men. Davidson has a unique voice and a unique perspective, coming as he does from the sporting milieu. So overall I loved We’ll Get ‘Em In Sequins and I would recommend it to anyone interested in cricket, Yorkshire, history, but most of all…men.

We’ll Get ‘Em In Sequins by Max Davidson

Metrosexy by Mark Simpson

A Spot Of Bother – A Critique Of A Sex Research Critique

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2012/04/26/a-spot-of-bother-a-critique-of-a-sex-research-critique/

According to Dr Petra Boynton, academic and ‘sexologist’, a recent study about the elusive g-spot (in women) is rubbish. This rubbish research has been reported in the media as truth. So she has critiqued the media reporting, based on her own knowledge of sex research and how it gets communicated to the public.

So far so ok. But I actually found her, and other ‘experts” acounts of this ‘g-spot’ story to be a) lacking at a factual and contextual level, and b) politically-motivated from a feminist perspective (and these two issues are linked as I will demonstrate). But because they are the ‘sceptics’ casting a beady eye on dodgy research and dodgy journalism, nobody challenges them! In her blogpost about the story Petra wrote:

‘Any journalist worth their salt should always ask questions about a study they are reporting on’.

Well here and at Graunwatch I am very diligent about asking questions! So here are a few questions for Dr Petra.

1) Why the arrogant feminist undercurrent?
Petra Boynton works in the ‘sex positive’ feminist arena of sex research. Her work is informed by and contributes to ‘feminist discourse’. Her critique of this g-spot study claims that it has ‘appropriated’ feminism for its own (what? Patriarchal?) ends. She writes:

‘Thirdly, appropriating a supposed feminist discourse the paper claims ‘The absence of the identification of the G-spot as an anatomic structure created considerable controversies and a biased interpretation of the scientific results worldwide, leading to a monolithic clitoral model of female sexual response. However, women have held the unwavering position that there are distict (sic) areas in the anterior vagina which are responsible for a sensation of great sexual pleasure’

We have been here before with researchers claiming there is a giant global Clitoral Conspiracy denying women information about vaginal pleasure and prioritizing the clit. In that research as with this one no empirical evidence is given to substantiate these claims. Which do not appear to fit with the mainstream media’s general obsession with vaginas. And most reputable sex educators and therapists who focus on people exploring what brings them pleasure rather than telling them what to enjoy. It remains the case that clitoral pleasure is vital to many women’s sexual experience – and it is disingenuous of practitioners to claim otherwise.’

Her fellow sexologist, AboutSexuality also picks up on this ‘faux feminism’ in the paper. He writes:

‘There’s nothing wrong with the slow and steady development of a body of knowledge. And in and of itself I’d like to say there’s nothing wrong with this paper. Only then I read the discussion. In it the author offers a framing for the “controversy” surrounding the g-spot. Have a read:

“The absence of the identification of the G-spot as an anatomic structure created considerable controversies and a biased interpretation of the scientific results worldwide, leading to a monolithic clitoral model of female sexual response. However, women have held the unwavering position that there are distinct areas in the anterior vagina which are responsible for a sensation of great sexual pleasure. “

So first, in case you missed it, what he’s describing, among other things, is the impact of the women’s movement on public discourse and personal experience of sexuality. When he says it it sounds a bit different. If I read this correctly his understanding of what’s happened is men and the media have been pushing some “monolithic clitoral model” while women have all along said that vaginal penetration is where it’s at.

It’s a great story. But it deserves a great big “What?!?” What monolithic clitoral model? Which unwavering women? I know that surgeons think they can do everything (and when they are operating on me I guess I’m grateful for their hubris), but maybe they should leave political, cultural, and historical analysis to folks with some context.

Again, there’s no reason this guy can’t cut up a body and make a case, but along with a handful of other white male researchers, it’s the undercurrent of aggression in the writing that gives me pause.’

So both experts here seem to be saying that surgeons should keep their scalpels out of politics and feminism and just do their jobs! This ignores the large, respected body of research in the History of Science discipline. Politics and culture cannot and should not be separated from scientific enquiry. In fact, I get the distinct impression that Boynton and co. are not so much annoyed that this study has a political agenda, but rather that it has the wrong one.

They are very quick to dismiss the idea that feminism may have led to an obsession with women’s orgasm via the clitoris, but they, lovers of evidence that they are, do not produce any evidence that this is not so. There is an assumption that ‘feminism is good’ and ‘sex-positive feminism is best’.  And AboutSexuality in particular is saying that this study is sexist against women because it, and most science, is run by ‘white men’. I am not so sure.

2) Whatabouttehmenz?
The study in question focuses on women (those women who have vaginas). Boynton is critical of the study’s interest in the vagina over the clitoris. But she does not acknowledge that there is also a large amount of dodgy sex science that focuses on men, and makes ridiculous claims about their (and their penises’) sexual responses. Petra justifies her bias towards women by saying:

‘Another approach might be to consider how this scenario would look if it were penises under the microscope. While there are undoubtedly distressing issues facing men around penis size and stamina the stereotype for men is they all experience pleasure from their dicks. If you talk to men you discover some get intense pleasure from testicle stimulation and are unable to orgasm without this. Some hate their balls touched. Some get a lot of pleasure if attention is paid to the shaft of the penis. Some find direct stimulation to the glans uncomfortable. Others experience more pleasure from anal stimulation.

Yet we do not suggest because men can and do experience pleasure from different areas in their genitals that there are specific spots that guarantee male orgasm or that men are somehow deficient if they do not experience say, a left testicle orgasm. We don’t scan, survey, or perform autopsies on penises to establish the most sensitive parts. Nor do we have self help books, courses or sex toys designed to coach men into experiencing orgasm through stimulation to specific areas of their genitals.

Indeed suggesting this usually results in people laughing. Why would we do this? But we do seem to feel the need to continue to make women’s bodies and sexual responses seem complex and difficult. Actually that’s not quite true. One journal and the media appear preoccupied with this. Most people are not that bothered and certainly most sex researchers are not.’

 

But once again she does not produce any evidence of sex advice/sex research about men to back up her points (except for one post by her, about penis size). We have to take her word for it.

I have recently been doing some research into Men’s Health Magazine, the most popular men’s magazine. It has a whole section entitled Your Penis. Now I have not read enough to know if it also gives information and advice about ‘Your Balls’ or ‘Your erogenous zones’ but I expect Petra has not even glanced at the site or the magazine at all. And as we know, feminism tends to ignore and/or demonise men. This critique is just another example of that in my view.

One person who has written a lot about men, sex, and sex research is Mark Simpson. Petra Boynton has told me that she first encountered Simpson’s work ‘years ago’. But has she actually read it? He has told us a number of times how men are hooked up to penis ‘plesmographs’ to test their sexual response, and, often to find out if they are  gay, straight or lying. I recently heard a story about men asylum seekers fleeing homophobic regimes, being tested with these ‘peter meters’ to check they are ‘really gay’ and not lying about their orientation just to move country for the hell of it.

If I bring up how they ignore men’s experiences in their work, feminists often say to me ‘that’s different. You are complaining we are missing out something irrelevant to this particular issue. And if we talk about penguins one day, it doesn’t mean we can’t talk about otters another’. Well I think Simpson’s work on sex research into men IS relevant. And I don’t see Boynton et al actually talking about men’s experiences in any detail very often anyway. So there is a bit of contradiction here. Is it ‘sexist’ to focus on women, or is it ‘sexist’ to ignore men? And sexist against whom?

Boynton says ‘We don’t scan, survey, or perform autopsies on penises to establish the most sensitive parts.’ I don’t know if that is true. But even if it is, the fact that scientists DO ‘scan, survey and (probably) perform autopsies on penises’ for other reasons is worth noting.

3) whatabouttehasexualz?
This critique by Boynton and chums is very much written from a ‘sex positive’ point of view. It assumes we all (well women anyway) have sex, and want to gain pleasure from it. I have been looking into the growing phenomenon/identity of asexuality recently. And I have been finding that many people don’t, and/or can’t gain pleasure from sexual stimulation. I myself am currently ‘celibate’ by choice, so my interest in the ‘g-spot’ is minimal. (I suppose  I do self-pleasure but I think I know how to do that by now. I don’t really care what the science is!)

Boynton and colleagues also seem to assume that information about sex is good. But I know a number of people who do not believe sex education to be virtuous, whether it be from a religious or other perspective. My hero Foucault himself, questioned the inherent value of all this ‘discourse’ around sex and sexuality. He said it may have the potential to be oppressive. I agree.

4) Misandry Much?
Coming from a feminist position, and ignoring men’s experiences is one thing. But I found AboutSexuality ‘s piece on this g-spot study in particular, to veer into misandry. He wrote:

‘It reminds me a lot of those men’s groups that claim to be fighting for father’s rights when they really seem to be about eliminating mother’s rights. Some of those father’s are being discriminated against, for sure. And there may very well be an anatomical structure that can be called a g-spot. Why not. But it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Lots of fathers are actually trying to screw their exes out of spite. And even if there is some sac of purplish tissue on the superior surface of the dorsal perineal membrane, that doesn’t actually say much of anything about sexual pleasure (which is what ultimately this article and most of the others make claims about.’

This is incredibly emotive stuff, and I am not sure what father’s rights have to do with the g-spot anyway! He provides no evidence of fathers ‘trying to screw their exes’ it is merely his personal opinion. And Boynton does not pick up on this at all. She hails AboutSexuality ‘s critique as a good one. He is saying that this sex research is sexist against women, like many men are! Hmmm.

5) What No Comments?
Petra Boynton does not allow comments on her blog. She is very enthusiastic about people ‘sharing’ research and thoughts on twitter, but there is no way of responding to her blogposts, except, as I am doing, by blogging ourselves. This makes for a very one-sided conversation. And it feels very much as if she is our ‘teacher’ and we are her loyal pupils.

This particular pupil is currently on the naughty step. Petra blocks me on twitter and has told me not to email her again (with information and opinion that I am unable to post in the comments on her blog).  I find her approach dictatorial and critiquing the critic does not go down well!

6) Why so selective?
Boynton has chosen this particular study and its media coverage to critique. We all have to choose our battles. But she rarely blogs these days, and she is very selective about what she gives attention to. I have found she is very pally with some ‘sex researchers’ who I find particularly unethical. But they pass the Petra Boynton test and their dodgy work goes unchallenged.

I found it interesting she picked up on some ‘politicking’ from the author of the study. She tells us:

‘I think I would feel less anxious making these criticisms if I had not read Improbable Research’s blog. They have been investigating Dr Ostrzenski and in particular I would draw your attention to him bringing a lawsuit against a peer reviewer he disagreed with. This is sobering stuff.’

Well yes. But politicking in the realm of sex research is par for the course. If you google ‘Simon Le Vay’ or ‘Michael Bailey’ you will see what I mean. And look at my case where I was ‘outed’ online by people who do not like my critique of their sexual politics. They have threatened ‘legal action’ against me. And I think Petra used my current ‘shaming’ as an excuse for blocking me and silencing my critiques of her work. That worked then!

Mark Simpson, again has pointed out how men’s in particular voices are just erased from a lot of research and media coverage of the body and the ‘self’. His work is an amazing illumination of men, sex, identity, ‘self-love’. But he too is ignored by the feminist ‘sexology’ elite.

I said on twitter last night that I am a ‘META SCEPTIC’. I am fine with people criticising the media and science. I do it myself. But those people are not beyond critique themselves.

Metrosexuals Of The World, Unite And Bend Over

This is an interview by me, with  Mark Simpson  about his 2011 book, Metrosexy, that  I helped edit and publish. The interview originally appeared at Law and Sexuality  blog and was a very popular post with nearly 10,000 hits so far. But it has been taken down.  So here it is, for … posteriority.

1. What does metrosexuality mean for gay men? Is it good that straight men are looking and acting more and more ‘gay’?

MS: I think gay men are very ambivalent about metrosexuality. I know I am. It’s like a dream come true. And a living nightmare at the same time. All these fit, tarty straight men inviting – no, DEMANDING – the ‘gayze’. Pro athletes like  Beckham and Ronaldo oiled up on the side of buses offering us their lunch-packets, and Becks and Gavin Henson bickering over who has the most gay fans. Homoerotics, narcissism and the celebration of the male body are no longer gay copyright. Truth be told, a lot of straight men do these things much better than The Gays now. Which can be a tad confusing.

Maybe this is why so many of gays seem to have given up and retreated into the furry, fatty security of the bear mary look, which now dominates in most metropolitan gayborhoods. Perhaps because they have more to prove, or perhaps because of their perpetual flight from the feminine, gay men can be rather more uptight than straight men, who increasingly don’t care whether something looks ‘manly’ or not – just whether it’s hot or not.

Far too many bears rush to say bitchy things about Ronaldo’s shaped eyebrows or ‘twinky’ smoothness, as if they are the experts on manliness now that they’re body-hair fetishists with a dubious BMI index and a wardrobe full of plaid. Actually, these bears sound the way I imagine their dads did moaning about THEM when they were younger.

2. So you think gay men are threatened by pretty, pert, metro-man?

MS: Yes. The Gays, for all their denial, know better than anyone what metrosexuality means. The beginning of the end of the gay identity.  Straight men no longer need to project their own ‘gayness’ into gay bodies. They want it for their own, thank you very much. Gays no longer have to be gay for straights – so that straights can be straight. And however much gays may have reclaimed the dustbin identity of homosexual-queer-gay and fashioned something wonderful out of it, in the end it has outlived its point.

 3. What about women? Whilst men are becoming more and more like women, do you think the breakdown as you call it of the ‘division of bedroom and bathroom labour’ is making women resent modern men? 

MS: I’m not much of an expert on women, you won’t be surprised to hear. Guessing wildly, I’d say that women, like men, want to have their cake and eat it. So they welcome the idea of men who are buffed and clean and well-dressed and able to go shopping with them and cook up a storm and perhaps have something to talk about.

But at the same time, many are probably worried – rightly – that this means they’re no longer the eternal centre of men’s attention. Like those female contestants on Blind Date back in the 80s who always chose the male stripper, were besides themselves when the wall slid back and they saw his pectoral muscles. But then came back the following week complaining: ‘’e really loves ‘imself, that one!’

Likewise the self-maintenance of metrosexuals is a double-edged sword. Retrosexuals were famously unable to operate a washing machine or cooker or buy their own underwear. This meant a life of drudgery for women, which many of course are glad to be shot of. But I suspect some also miss the reassurance that their man was helpless without them. And by the way, all the developments that have made women’s lives less of a chore – washing machines, fridges, microwaves, ready meals, the pill – have made it much easier for men to live without women. And more do now than ever before.

4. How has metrosexuality changed how gay men do sex? ‘Gaydar’ can’t work as well as it used to when most straight men look and act at least as ‘gay’ as gay men. How do gay men negotiate sexual relationships in this confusing metrosexual world?

MS: I’m not sure I can answer this one as I became a provincial lesbian some years ago when I leftLondon.

But from what I hear gay cruising has become increasingly privatised. It happens in sex clubs or on Grindr. In public spaces I think the codes of ‘gay looking’ are very mixed up now. Not just in the sense that lots of straight men look ‘gay’ but in the sense that lots of straight men LOOK. Metrosexuality involves a certain cruisiness – checking out who is checking you out, as well as what jeans they’re wearing and whether they have bigger biceps than you.

5. What does metrosexuality do to challenge preconceived ideas about ‘tops and bottoms’? Even now, and even within gay circles, there remains a prejudice that tops are somehow more ‘manly’ than bottoms, and even less ‘gay’. But looking at photos of men in advertising and fashion, it seems as if they are always saying ‘do me’.

MS: Metrosexuality, particularly in its spornographic incarnation – those footballers and rugby players with their arses out – is about literally asking to be fucked. Becks, Henson, Ronaldo, Ljunberg, the Du Stade rugby team – they’re all straight power bottoms. That’s what exhibitionism means. In psychoanalytical terms it’s ‘passivity’. Which is supposed to be feminine. This is precisely why this kind of male tartiness was taboo for so long. But now male ‘passivity’ – or bottomness – is definitely being masculinised or valorised by these images. In these ads ‘Jocks’ are saying to the world in general and probably gay men in particular ‘do me’.

Nor is this just something that only exists in the virtual world of advertising. Straight men are increasingly exploring their anality, via their female partner’s vibrator or strap-on Or in some cases by trying out the ‘real’ thing with other men.

But I don’t know what effect this is having on gay men’s sexual economy of tops and bottoms. If straight men are becoming increasingly versatile, gay men seem increasingly attached to the idea of ‘100% tops’. Lots of bottoms reject tops if they find out they like to be a cock jockey sometimes.

I myself think the whole tops and bottoms thing absurd, but I’m completely complicit in it. So I describe myself as a ‘top’, but I don’t kid myself that I’m ever the one who’s in control.

6. I know you are ambivalent about ‘the gays’. As author of Anti-Gay, can I ask if you ever actually ‘came out’ as gay? Have you come out as metro?

MS: I don’t think I ever really needed to come out. And while I’m certainly vain enough to be metro, my sportswear fetish means I’m more lesbosexual.

7. Who is the most metrosexual gay man you can think of? Do you find him attractive?

MS: Tom Ford. After all, he’s sort of who David Beckham wants to be, isn’t he?

Tom didn’t exactly invent that adorable, impeccable designer stubble that pretty much all metros wear these days, but he probably did more than anyone to help make it de rigeur.

And no, sorry. Not my cup of tea, love. I’m sure he’s a top….

Metrosexy is available on Amazon Kindle Amazon.com

 

Mark Simpson blogs at www.marksimpson.com

English author and journalist Mark Simpson is credited/blamed for coining the word ‘metrosexual‘ in an essay titled ‘Here come the mirror men’ in the UK’s Independentnewspaper in 1994. Simpson is the author of several books including: Saint Morrissey,Male Impersonators, It’s a Queer World, Anti-Gay (Ed.), The Queen Is Dead, and Sex Terror

This interview also appears at Graunwatch: 
http://graunwatch.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/metrosexuals-of-the-world-unite-and-bend-over/

My Three Favourite Back Room Girls

This article originally appeared at For Books’ Sake

‘Shakespeare’s Sister’ has become an infamous, mythical figure that has influenced feminist thought and activism, not to mention many a Smiths fan.

As Virginia Woolf pointed out so eloquently in her ground-breaking treatise, A Room Of One’s Own:

‘It would have been impossible, completely and entirely, for any woman to have written the plays of Shakespeare in the age of Shakespeare.’

Cultural history has been littered with the ghosts of women who, whilst they may have been equally as talented as their male counterparts, if not more so, have lived their lives as ‘back room girls’.

They may have been supporters of their more successful husbands, lesser characters in stories and artworks, or simply lost artists whose work never came to see the light of day.

I have written a novel based on the idea that Michel Foucault, the French homosexual philosopher, had a daughter. This idea seems preposterous not only due to Foucault’s homosexuality, but also because his work must have been all-consuming. How could he have had time to devote to a wife and child? And how would that wife and daughter feel, living in the shadow of a Great Man of History?

Foucault’s Daughter is an alienated, lost child. Her parents break up when she is little, and her father disappears into the role of philosopher, away from the role of father. ‘The Girl Who Wasn’t There’ struggles to find her voice, amidst the cacophony of Queer Theorist men who dominate her life.

And she in the end, can only make herself heard above the din, by taking their words, and twisting them and bending them to make them say something of her own. Something about being locked out of a room, of a history, of a life.

Carol Ann Duffy takes the concept of the back-room girl and turns it into a collection of poems. The World’s Wife tells the stories of women who might have been married to some formidable figures from literature and mythology.

Mrs Midas is my favourite of these. I think being married to the man who was granted the wish to be able to turn everything he touched to gold, might win the prize for Worst Luck Ever.

The poem starts with her in wonder at his newfound talent:

He came into the house. The doorknobs gleamed.
He drew the blinds. You know the mind; I thought of
the Field of the Cloth of Gold and of Miss Macready.

But the downside of The Midas Touch soon becomes clear:

I served up the meal. For starters, corn on the cob.
Within seconds he was spitting out the teeth of the rich…

And the horror of Mrs Midas’ situation sinks in:

It was then that I started to scream. He sank to his knees.

Mrs Midas’ plight could represent: the woman married to a talented man, whose talent and ambition becomes destructive of their relationship. Or the basic idea that ‘one man’s heaven is another (wo)man’s hell’. The horrific imagery of a world turned gold reminds me of another wife: The Bride of Frankenstein, and its origins in Mary Shelley’s famous book.

As Elise Moore has written: ‘what could be more horrifying than a woman’s imagination?’ After all, it is a woman, Carol Ann Duffy, who has thought up this golden nightmare. Is the poem asking if women can be trusted to create at all?

Feminists may prefer to respond to the poem with an exasperated cry of ‘MEN!’ quoting the lines:

What gets me now is not the idiocy or greed
but lack of thought for me. Pure selfishness.

But I like Mrs Midas because it shows how being ‘gifted’ may not always lead to happiness. And that is a universal message for writers, artists and their loved-ones throughout history. Indeed, ‘be careful what you wish for’ is a universal message full stop.

June Carter-Cash was the wife of the country singer Johnny Cash. She sang with him sometimes, but her main role in his life was most definitely ‘wifey’. As the biopic of the couple – Walk The Line – shows, partly thanks to a luminous performance by Reese Witherspoon , she kept him afloat and helped him face up to his demons, including alcoholism, enabling him to survive and thrive as an amazing artist.

Cash reminds me of Bill Hicks, the late great comedian, in some ways. They both turned a very astute and critical eye on ‘America’ and they both were troubled men. But Hicks didn’t have a June. He had a girlfriend towards the end of his life, but she wasn’t a back-room girl in the way June Carter Cash was. And we know his story ended in tragedy.

‘Behind every great man is a woman with penis envy and a kitchen knife’ I remarked, not so long ago, in relation to my most recent role as a back-room girl. It does tend to stir in me a kind of resentful rage. But, I don’t regret one single thing I have done to support the creative endeavours of a friend or a lover.

Foucault’s Daughter is evidence that back-room girls can also produce their own art. Often there is a symbiotic relationship between two people supporting each other and creating. It’s rarely an equal one. But what relationship is?

I think we could do well to celebrate the creative value of back-room girls (and boys), rather than always presenting them as neglected, long-suffering victims of Great Men’s ambition and selfishness. And I think June Carter-Cash might have agreed with me.

This was a guest feature by Quiet Riot Girl. Quiet Riot Girl writes on the sidelines of pornography, and lives on the sidelines of puritanical perfection. She edits the anthology Games Perverts Play. Her début novel, Scribbling On Foucault’s Walls is a mix of philosophy, autobiography and homosexual activity.