I'm 40. I'm in a relationship and I'm a huge fan of sex. I mean a REALLY big fan. I think it's quite common so I'm not going to pretend I'm unique here, but there are sections of our society, heavily sanctioned and covered by the media, that would have you believe that we women are not supposed to like it that much, that we will make excuses and do what we can to avoid it. With an element of guilt I will say that I sort of believed that hype for a lot of my adult life, but it turns out my not wanting sex very much was more to do with being unhappy and in an unhappy relationship, rather than me not liking sex. Since leaving that relationship at 36 I have learned that I am in fact a very sexual person and that this is a very important part of who I am.
It is for this reason that I somewhat laugh at those opposing voices to the No More Page 3 campaign who like to assume those of us fronting it to be, in some way anti sex or asexual, that we don't "get it", whatever "it" is, this human need for sex, for sexual imagery or titillation. This frankly ridiculous and completely unfounded allegation, you might be surprised to hear, comes interestingly, from both ends of the opposition - sexist men and anti-NMP3 feminists alike.
I'm not going to make any attempt here to answer the ridiculous cries of the misogynists who presume any woman to be jealous or "not getting any" if they oppose page , frankly why would I waste my time, but I will take a little look at the other naysayers, those who suggest that No More Page 3 is a) anti sex b) anti-sex worker and/or c) slut shaming
A. Page 3 and images like it, in no way represent my sexuality. Actually, I would also go as far as to say that they don't represent much of female sexuality as a whole certainly not that of any of the women I know, love and have had those kinds of talks with. But having grown up with this image, initially in my home and later more peripherally, I now realise that at least in some ways, I felt it was supposed to.
For a chunk of my adult life, at least part of me felt that this posed, pouting, availability, this overt sexual readiness, was what I was supposed to present, supposed to enjoy, or more importantly provide. Don't get me wrong, my confused sexual identity, just like everyone else's is complex and cannot be blamed on page 3 alone, but I do feel that, at least to some degree, these pictures lie at the root of my sometime inability to not only ask for what I wanted sexually, but to even consider I might want something at all. In contrast, so ingrained was the idea that sexuality meant being sexy that when my relationship was struggling and my soul crying out for sexual connection, I took up pole dancing (in women only classes), I watched YouTube videos of lap dancing and perfected it, thinking this would make me the perfect sexual being.
It didn't.
It's a lie.
Page 3 and its ilk lied to me about sex. They taught me that my job was to provide sexual entertainment. Sex is so much more than that. For me it is a visceral connection with myself and eventually with others that required me to know myself so much better. Sexy was and still is something I could turn on and off like a tap and whilst I have enjoyed that feeling at times, it has little or nothing to do with sex itself, which is a much bigger adventure, a journey I am still enjoying exploring.
B. Sex workers. In all honesty the issue of prostitution and how it should be handled by the law and state is an area of feminism I have taken care to view from a distance. I have avoided engaging on it, not because I don't care but because I felt that it was so contentious and so polarising an issue, which my lack of any knowledge and experience on the subject could add nothing to. To some extent I still feel this way. I am not for one moment going to sit here, from my cross working/middle class hybrid social position, with the privilege of never having been truly, scarily poor or unemployed, with my background of a loving family home and try to tell women who have or are working in the sex trade how their area of work or their abuse (depending on how they view or feel it) should be managed.
Having read what I've read and heard what I've heard on panels and at conferences it seems to me that every story is individual to every person. If a woman feels she was abused, coerced and raped then she was abused coerced and raped, but if she is standing in front of you telling you, with a look of total conviction, that she has chosen to do this, has given her consent to a financial transaction for sex, then who am I and who are you to take that bodily autonomy away from her. If we do that aren't we violating her ourselves? As I say, I'm not sure there are easy answers and I'm not going to debate it any further here. I will continue however to read, to listen and to learn. Some of what I mention from here on however, considers a position where sex work might be legalised.
I don't know where the "sex worker" label begins and ends, but much like any other label, it would seem to me it should only be bestowed by the person themselves. If a woman working on a telephone chat line identifies as a sex worker then I'm happy to consider her as such, but another, self-employed as an escort, or indeed a survivor, is not happy with that label and I'm certainly not going to give it to her.
Do page 3 models consider themselves sex-workers? Has anybody asked them?
Whatever laws may or may not be in place regarding prostitution and whatever we decide is the best way to manage it, I would never suggest sex workers be prosecuted for their part and likewise I would not suggest that glamour modelling, whether it is or isn't sex work, should be made illegal in any sense. NMP3 have been very clear about not directing the campaign at the models or suggesting glamour modelling is in itself inherently wrong.
It seems to me the crux here though, in both cases, would be context. Be it glamour or sex work, surely there has to be some sensibility about where this exchange happens? Whether it is the consensual exchange of sex acts for money or the consensual display of sexy pictures I would suggest both should be private affairs. Whatever changes were implemented, if we were to legalise brothels then surely we would never tolerate their being advertised in news media or in the middle of the
There are many trades with which we set limits for many reasons, limits about when and where they should take place (the selling of alcoholic drinks and gambling to name two examples) and it would seem a fairly distinct line that sexual images and services, like sex itself, remain largely private. The alternative exposes those not wishing to consume these services whether they liked it or not and makes it impossible to protect children from the overt sexualisation that we know to be damaging. Not being clear about this line perpetuates the notion that all women are open to sexual comment or are sexually available and puts other women at risk. Blurring this line in media risks trivialising serious and at times horrific news with titillating images that undermine the seriousness.
So all of this brings me to C - slut shaming. I am going to assume that this stems from the notion, backed up by research, which shows that exposure to sexualised images can change the attitude of men towards women, can lead to them viewing women as objects rather than people and that this can then in turn, lead to them treating women as less than human.
In terms of "objectification" Page 3 has special significance. Whilst sexualised images of women may, as we have acknowledged, have a place (such as adult, top shelf publications or specialist websites) having them in a newspaper changes the context and meaning completely. Instead of having to seek out an image for sexual titillation because that is what you want, it is placed in a news media as though the provision of a woman for sexual titillation is a given, akin to a crossword, it is a normal thing to expect to have with your news, your breakfast, in a café, on a bus etc. and a normal thing to expect those around you to accept and accommodate no matter where you chose to open that page.
As a consequence for many people our exposure to page 3 occurs often at work, as children or teens in our own homes and in other public places. It is such a potent image that it also gets used to bully women, as a tool for sexual harassment and can lead young girls to see the glamour industry as the easiest path to success and fame.
In terms of the connection between Page 3 and rape and sexual assault, this is not a direct connection and the campaign has never made any claims that it is. There is no suggestion that Page 3 models or Page 3 pictures cause the rape of other women. Page three does not cause rape; rapists cause rape, they and they alone. Sexual images of women in mainstream media however, are a contributing factor to a society which allows women to be yelled at and harassed on the street, assaulted in bars and clubs and raped and assaulted as often as they are.
One of the major stumbling blocks to understanding this connection is the misapprehension that rape is committed by men with twisted, dark minds who are psychopathic strangers lurking in alleyways. These select "others" are evil and have no connection to the people we know. Sadly the truth is that rape, in most cases, occurs within relationships. In 90% of rapes the rapist is known to the victim/survivor.
If we accept rape as exactly what it is - sexual acts committed without consent then it is easier to see that it is a crime which doesn't necessarily require a psychopathic mind, all it requires is the ability to dismiss the choice and voice of the woman (or indeed the man) and to exercise the control that some men may feel is their right. This right is reinforced daily by images of women in our environment that paint them as passive sex objects, voiceless, penetrable, and defenceless and ready for you to act upon. Unless there is a firm message elsewhere in a man's upbringing, peer group etc. this message may have a profound affect for some.
Very few men would name themselves as a rapist but ask the right question and you some will admit to rape accidentally.
I absolutely understand why so many take issue with any connection between Page 3 and rape and why so many cling to the concept of a daemon rapist. The reason we still see public campaigns directed at women, suggesting they change their behaviour, the reason we ask what she was wearing, is because it is somehow far easier to attribute some blame to the victim than to think so many men could commit such an unthinkable act. When so few of us know such a daemon how can this happen? Very few of us, men or women would admit to having a friend who could be a rapist but if you consider more pointed questions - "Have you ever witnessed a friend approach a woman for sex because he knew she was really drunk/under the influence of some substance", "have you ever had a friend tell you they got into bed with or had sexual relations with a woman who was sleeping or passed out", "Have you ever witnessed a friend deliberately try to get a woman drunk in order to have sex with her", "Have you ever seen a friend touch a woman in a sexual way after she has asked him not to or without invitation" how many would say yes?
I hope that for the majority the answer would still be no but I know some men and women, for whom, when thinking of friends they've had it would be yes.
Some time ago I wrote this blog about the response some men felt comfortable, not just verbalising but committing to type on the Star's page 3 page. The comments were all removed in the same week the blog came out and the ability to comment was disabled. I realise all that was written there was words, but these words illustrate very clearly a sense of ownership, of privilege over women's bodies that is being reinforced and supported for some, by the accessibility if these images in such a mainstream way.
The No More Page 3 campaign is about the way women are seen, the way they are portrayed, day-to-day, in the most prolific and mainstream media outlets, in the most mainstream shops and supermarkets. The campaign seeks to level the playing field of media coverage for women by starting with a tiny but significant bit. The ripples of the campaign reach into many areas of feminism and beyond. They have never sought to affect women identifying as sex workers or as models but no doubt they do to some degree as they seek to remove one of the most prolific and obvious springboards for glamour models. This particular springboard however, should never have been provided in the first place. This was never the right place to present women for consumption. There may well be a time and a place for everything but this isn't and never was it.
No comments:
Post a Comment