In defence of porn - and feminism

And so, the censorship of the Internet begins. In a move to regulate online porn, rules have come into force governing what can and cannot be shown in paid-for online pornography – culminating in a list of banned acts that is vague, pointless and, frankly, sexist.

The idea behind the new laws is to protect children from viewing content that could be “disturbing” – but from a practical point of view, since the regulations only apply to paid-for porn, they are pointless. They have been introduced to safeguard the young - and yet, children aren’t going to be watching videos that they have to pay for when there is a wealth of porn out there on the internet for no cost at all, much of it containing far more explicit acts than those the government has banned.

The only people these new laws really affect are those making a living producing and directing erotic films. Banning sexual acts from films that people pay money to watch will direct them towards free porn sites that are not subject to the same restrictions – meaning the livelihood of anyone in the industry will take a serious, unwarranted hit.

The new “rules” state that whilst male ejaculation – over any female body part – is fine, female ejaculation apparently is not. Banning this sends out the message that a woman enjoying an orgasm is more “harmful” than a man  – and that idea, in itself, is dangerous. Alongside fisting and banning penetration with certain objects, both of which women can derive pleasure from, the clear message in this legislation that porn should not show women being pleasured – something that so many female directors have tried to change. Porn is renowned for being sexist, but recently there has been a surge of porn created by and aimed at women, encouraging them to embrace their sexuality. These laws will only limit that; sliding women back into a submissive position in porn that, in the long run, will be far more harmful to the future of equality than to children who watch it.

Most importantly, however, the new legislation ignores the fact that it is inherently normal for people to have sexual desires – and watching pornography is just a way of exploring and expressing them.  In censoring erotic videos, the government is telling people what it’s ok to like in the bedroom and what it isn’t – what’s considered normal, and what makes you violent, or weird, or a borderline rapist. In a country that is so well renowned for its freedom of expression, tolerance and openness about sexuality, controlling how people choose to express it can only be a step backwards.

I can’t pretend the porn industry doesn’t need to change, because it does. All too often it perpetrates a culture in which women are the submissive sex and men play out their violent, dominant fantasies upon them. But censorship of paid-for erotic films isn’t the way forward, to protect children or otherwise – it only signals a worrying downhill spiral for equality and freedom of expression. 

Originally written for Cub Magazine: http://cubmagazine.co.uk/2014/12/the-porn-wars/

Why Emma Watson is right to be standing up for feminism

Feminism. It's a hot topic right now. From Emma Watson's #HeForShe campaign to Elle's first 'feminism' issue, everyone is jumping on the bandwagon. With it becoming such a high-profile issue, why do some people refuse to admit it's important?

Legally, we're pretty much equal. Any employer discriminating against women can get slapped with a fat ass law case, the Equal Pay Act means we get the same pay as men and we can all do the same jobs. In the eyes of the law, we're the same. There seems to be a tendency to believe that the job is now done - any further takes us into the realms of the man-hating lesbian feminists from the 70s, screaming for single-sex communities.

When asked if I consider myself a feminist, I hesitated to say yes. We have equality. I don't feel marginalised on work experience for being a woman, or during seminars at uni. But when I thought further, I realised that any woman who wouldn't call themselves a feminist is lying. Or very stupid. Because the thing is, the law isn't really where the problem lies; in reality, to a teenage girl talk of unequal pay in top jobs, sexism in the workplace or breaking the glass ceiling means very little. What really affects me, and thousands of girls my age, is much closer to home.

For a second, imagine you've been raped. In order to send the bastard that did it to prison, you have to relive the experience in front of an entire court - and you're prepared to do it. What you're not prepared for, however, is to be questioned on your entire sexual history - when did you last have sex? How many sexual partners have you had? Do you like it rough? Is it true you were wearing a short dress and high heels? All questions designed to make you seem like a "slut" to the jury. Whilst sexual history evidence is technically not allowed to be shown to a jury, it finds its way in.
In a world where sexism didn't exist, these questions wouldn't need to be asked.
It shouldn't be relevant what clothes a girl was wearing before she was raped; she should have the freedom to wear whatever she likes without fearing that the men around her simply can't control themselves. Running through these questions is an age-old belief that women should be shamed for having sex frequently, or with more than one partner. Continuing to ask these questions in a public court upholds the belief that men aren't to be blamed - women who dress in revealing clothes are asking for it. The fact that this attitude is still so visible in our legal system today highlights exactly why feminism is still relevant.

If that's still a little hard to empathise with, let's try something a little more common; because really, what feminism means to me is to not be shouted at in the street every time I leave the house. I get comments from men about my body or my appearance so frequently that it's become a standard part of daily life; my friends and I will jokingly count up the horn honks on the walk from home into university. But this shouldn't be the case.
It angers me is that men feel they have the right to shout sexual remarks at a total stranger. We're women, we know we're hot, and we don't need an uneducated twat in a souped up Polo to confirm it for us. Thousands of men casually intimidate and harass young women every day simply because they believe that they can. And that's exactly why we still need feminism. Before men and women are truly equal, mental attitudes in the general public have to change; and that going to take a lot longer than it took to pass a few laws through Parliament.

I'm not saying it's all men; it clearly isn't. But it's still far too many. If you really believe sexism no longer exists, take a walk down the Mile End Road; because it's everywhere, in broad daylight.
It's a van driver telling me I've got great tits. It's hackers releasing naked photos of Jennifer Lawrence, for everyone to look at. It's the Daily Mail commenting on women's appearance instead of their actions, and it's TV producers sacking women over a certain age, whilst the men keep their jobs until retirement.

Yes, legally we may have equal rights; but in reality we still have a very long way to go.

Originally from my lifestyle blog:

 http://citybxtch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/10/why-emma-watson-is-right-to-be-standing.html

New laws mean social media "trolls" could spend up to two years in prison - is this fair?

One side of a debate - YES

As social media’s popularity has continued to rise, as have the cases of internet ‘trolling’ - and it’s increasingly clear that the current laws regulating online threats are outdated. In my opinion, any threats made online need to be taken far more seriously than they are now.

The current laws mean that the maximum sentence that can be given to internet trolls is six months. In the case of Frank Zimmerman, who sent threats to MP Louise Mensch saying that “one of her children would be killed, the sentence given was suspended – meaning it was unlikely he would actually go to prison at all. However, the maximum sentence that can be given for the crime of sending threats in real life – harassment – is five years. It seems irrelevant to me whether the threats are received online or through your letterbox – the psychological effects and terror caused are the same, and therefore the sentence for online trolling should be upped to reflect that.

Some argue that if there is too much policing online it will have a negative effect on freedom of speech. I think it is necessary to make a clear distinction between an opinion and a threat – whilst the comments may not always be nice, everyone has the right to tweet their thoughts on people’s weight, appearance or actions. This cannot be criminalized.  However, a direct threat is a crime and should be taken seriously. An account named @killcreasynow sent numerous death threats to MP Stella Creasy, threatening to rape her and “put the video all over”; more recently, TV presenter Chloe Madeley has received rape threats over her mother Judy Finnigan’s comments on Ched Evans.

There is a clear distinction between an opinion and a threat – just criminalizing online threats will not affect freedom of speech.

Lastly, in response to those that say two years seems “harsh” – I would argue that since internet trolling is on the rise the current sentence just isn’t harsh enough. Increasing the maximum sentence to two years may be what is needed for sufficient deterrence, and encourage trolls to think twice before acting. Furthermore – the judge in the case is still left with discretion. The sentence is ‘maximum’ two years – it could still be six months, depending on the severity of the case. I believe that, in cases of serious online harassment, it is much better to have the option to come down hard on internet trolls – and show that in our society threats of death and rape will not be tolerated.

Does "Orange is the New Black" signal a rise in bisexuality?

“I like hot girls. And I like hot boys. I like hot people; what can I say?”

This quote is from Netflix’s very popular series Orange is the New Black where the main character, Piper, is bisexual. Despite only being aired online, the hype surrounding the release of the second series was huge and everyone seems to love it: from straight girls, to lesbians, to all the editors of the women’s fashion magazines that have ran pieces on it. Women love Piper’s character so much that Taylor Schilling, the actress who plays her, won Glamour’s Woman of the Year. But for all its success, its main theme is still taboo. Why do women find it so hard to admit that they like other women?

Unlike many gay people, for me there was no light bulb moment or shining epiphany where I realised I liked women as much as men. There was no chance to see it coming. After a few too many drinks, a close friend and I just ended up in bed together. And that was that. Did I feel guilty when I woke up the next morning? Yes – for a second or two. Until I remembered that lesbian sex isn’t a crime – it doesn’t result in hanging or stoning anymore (at least, not in our democracy – but that’s another issue entirely). And besides, I enjoyed it.

Yet I still found it hard to admit, and it quickly became clear I wasn’t the only one. A friend of mine had her first lesbian fling, for want of a better word, with a much older woman – it was the first time I became aware that our generation is, on the whole, much more open and tolerant with sexuality than those only one or two previously. Being older, she found their relationship much harder to accept – after all, she’d only ever slept with men and had heterosexual relationships all her life. How could she be attracted to a woman? Did that make her a ‘lesbian’? She couldn’t find the answers to those questions, and eventually the guilt she felt ended their relationship. But why does it have to be so complicated?

I’m currently in an incredible relationship with another woman and since it’s become common knowledge, I’ve had a lot of interest. No, we don’t want a threesome. Yes, I still like men. No, I’m not a ‘dyke’. In most people’s eyes, you’re either straight or gay; bisexuality is a whole other grey area confined to pornographic clichés or girls so drunk they don’t mind who they shag.

As to why this, the only conclusion I can come to is that it’s the way we’re raised.

First, society expected everyone to be straight; now, it’s just about ok to be gay too. But what about those who don’t want to be boxed into either of those categories?

Secretly, I want to believe that’s why Orange is the New Black is so popular. Piper loves both men and women, and she’s relatively normal. Even Cameron Diaz has recently admitted to having been with a woman – maybe there’s a few other girls out there who are a little more curious than they’d like to admit. And since a study has just found lesbians are more likely to orgasm, who can blame them?

I can’t help but think society’s obsession with labelling everyone as either gay or straight makes us all very blinkered. Perhaps if we all focused not on what a person is, but who they are, love might be a little easier to find.

Originally written for Cub Magazine - link to published piece:

http://cubmagazine.co.uk/2014/10/orange-is-the-new-black-putting-bi-out-there/