Girls Gone Wild- Raunch Culture cont’d

In honour of this ridiculously long post- have put up my favourite sex-related songs- Dr Octagon’s (aka Kool Keith) Intro (plus the song the continues from it) from his ‘96 album, and Beck’s Debra because both amuse me greatly. Also- the following post is long and rambling so feel free to ignore most of it. Finally have a good weekend guys.

The whole ‘Girls Gone Wild’ phenomenon makes me quite uncomfortable in a way that other forms of female objectification such as porn and playboy/FHM/Ralph mags do not (or at least to a greater extent)- this is possibly because porn and men’s mags split themselves into questions of 1) Fantasy and 2) Industry- whereas GGW necessarily purports to be the reality of fantasy fulfilled, made into industry. The line where female objectification is drawn as simply being ‘fun’ (if there is one) thus gets blurred with the ‘everyday’ treatment of women. Although, in theory, it could be argued that girls who have “gone wild” are more empowered from their experience than say, a porn actress: they are purported to be privledged, well educated girls who have willingly entered a transparent exchange of raunch for brief notoriety, a ‘fun’ experience, and a t-shirt/cap.

In comparison, Ariel Levy’s book Female Chauvinist Pigs although not a favourite of mine, does report a fairly interesting account of her time with the GGW team, a picture that sees young women coerced, pushed and in some cases bullied into GGW behaviour. I don’t disagree with Levy that the party environment in which these girls participate are not exactly conducive to good judgement and logical thinking, but I think it is a mistake to portray these events as occurring completely without female complicity- i.e. they are unlikely to be innocent victims.

I don’t suggest they are ‘not victims’ to imply blame, “they deserved it” style- rather I think the apparent desireablility of a GGW t-shirt or cap as a bizzare trophy (here I’d like to ask- of what exactly?, think about it girls) is really an illustration of how Laura Mulvey’s oft cited ‘male gaze’ (don’t start yelling about the weaknesses of her argument- I know them, it doesn’t mean it can’t be an interesting theory sometimes, k?) operates within society to the extent that women themselves take on the ‘male’ point of view, gaining not only pleasure from gazing at other women, but also significantly- from their own objectification. Thus, the ogling of beautiful women is a pleasure that transcends the boundaries of gender and sexuality, in fact becomes its own pleasure.

On the other hand- I think there is an even better argument that has less to do with gender politics and more to do capitalism and commodity fetishism. Basically same old story- acquiring stuff, grooming etc. all as apparent trappings of projecting individuality etc. etc. Mulvey’s argument is also less potent because of the rise of male objectification- also arguably in line with the rise of ‘late’ multinational capitalism. Objectification of the male visage is not exactly recent, but certainly the openly admiring male gaze upon other males is possibly a more recent occurance in modern times- for example 300, and of course, the long tradition of muscle action films a la Van Damme and their ilk.

But I digress- the reason why I bring up notions of viewing pleasure and who is deriving pleasure etc. is because I think this is inherently tied to GGW’s basic appeal AND the reason why talking about the objectification of women in particular is such a difficult area to traverse. Here is my take on the GGW:

Girls Gone Wild presents its “girls” as sluts simply looking for an opportunity to display their true slutty natures, playing upon that trite “college girl sucks cock for money” narrative (although in this case, a t-shirt). However at the same time, the appeal of that narrative is underpined by the idea of virginity/innocence corrupted/trangressed- good girls gone bad. GGW is essentially a blatant example of why trying to fight for an assertive societally sanctioned femininity is so difficult. Namely, as much as we cite the rise of the strong, intelligent woman considered equal to men- the basis upon which intelligence, strength and sexiness is decided is constantly undermined by the tropes that hold up the GGW franchise; socially sanctioned innocent virginity vs transgressive sexiness. On the other hand, the transgressive nature of flashing one’s breasts is immediately undercut by the use of the female body as merely a thing. Neither feminine identity manages to hold any water within contemporary society, and when the two tropes are combined the ‘good’ aspects of both immediately cancel each other out in the world of GGW, to leave only the ultimate act of meaningless and helplessness under so-called patriarchal oppression.

This is also the problem of feminine identity at its core- irrespective of what feminine identity one aspires to- women are continually defined against whether they are ‘for’ or ‘against’ beauty as well as whether they are acceptably attractive or not. Even when the terms of femininity are not supposed to be based upon attractiveness (for men) i.e. being a lesbian- lesbians are nevertheless divided into categories of beauty: butch dykes vs lipstick lesbians. Thus even within the transgressive framework of lesbianism, lipstick lesbians trump butch dykes because they adhere to the rules, while ‘dykes’ are inherently dangerous because they apparently eschew the basis upon which they are supposed to be judged and valued.

Similary, the potentially empowering act of embracing one’s own promiscuous desires- i.e. being ’slutty’, exposing one’s body etc. is only powerful under the terms of agreement with patriarchal society under which being beautiful is the ultimate achievement. That is, the basis of feminine legitimacy (perhaps with the exception of matriarchal power) is founded on beauty and subsequently their viability as sexual partners.

Therefore, the whole Girl Power! movement, despite it’s best intentions is only available to those who society deem attractive enough. Girl power is predicated upon the notion of embracing one’s own individual beauty- but the real truth to such a statement is that ‘beauty’ is useless and meaningless unless it is socially sanctioned- something that the Charlie’s Angels films and The Pussycat Dolls are well aware. PCD for example, derives “female power” at the expense of the feminist history that has effectively given them the opportunity to cry “girl power” in fishnets and too much cleavage- not because they are beautiful, but because they cite beauty as an anathema to feminism, as if the two are mutually exclusive, and girl power is the answer to such a dilemma- i.e. “don’t cha wish your girl was hot like me”. Under such terms however, feminine power is only available to a select few- because let’s admit it, a stumpy fat girl clothed in PCD gear is not a symbol of power in the same way that a beautiful girl remains.

For me, this has nothing to do with bared mid drifts and booty shaking- this isn’t about prudery- if society’s notion of feminity was obesity and green hair the same problem would remain true- namely the issue with Raunch Culture is not overt sexuality, but rather that it promotes one kind of femaleness at the expense of others. Further, not only does it invalidate differing kinds of femininity- but the terms under which beautiful girls are afforded power are so limited they are near useless.

I read a really interesting article a few years ago that linked female hysteria in the early 1900’s, agoraphobia in the 1950’s and anorexia in the present as symptomatic of the feminine identity of their times. Women enmasse took to the extremes the very thing that defined them as women- a bizzare kind of destructive rebellion that railed against the boundaries of feminine identity. Of course tragically- these ‘rebellions’ are in effect, acts of self silencing. In a lot ways, I think we could argue the same thing for the GGW phenomenon- displays of overt sexuality and promiscuity are in effect extreme fulfilments of the contemporary feminine identity- except of course again, it can never become a statement of empowerment or a sufficient vindication of femininty, it can only be a meaningless act of adhering to the rules- and subsequently becomes an act of powerlessness.

Again- although this post may not sound like it- I am not trying to suggest all women are oppressed and presented merely as sex objects. I think there are still issues with female representation and notions of equality in the everyday sense of salary etc. but the focus here is not on those concerns, but rather on the polemic that is spouted about female power. Specifically the circulation of myths that surrounds feminism, and the hypocritical treatment of raunch culture as both the bane AND representation of contemporary girl power.

Ok, I still have more to say, but this is becoming a mammoth post. So I’ll stop.