The Sex Myth

Links Roundup: 08 January

2012-01-08T05:23:00.000-08:00

Jane Fae writes about the Daily Mail getting themselves into a froth about Boots selling marital sex aids where children might see them. Way to go, Mail. As if you couldn't go into any Wal-Mart in America and get yourself a Hitachi Magic Wand. For, uh, "massaging".

Salon asks why are the US Republican presidential candidates so uptight about sex?

Let’s be honest, though: Religious conservatives aren’t the only ones who fall for the anti-sex rhetoric. [Marty] Klein points out how fear-driven American politics has become: “It’s a way of getting money — nobody gets public money if somebody is slightly annoyed. You have to be terrified.” And sex freaks people out like nothing else, regardless of political persuasion.

“It does remain a puzzle why it has been so hard for Americans loudly to defend sexual rights even if they definitely enjoy having them,” says [Dagmar] Herzog. “This creates an echo chamber in which the bullies get to set the terms of debate.”

Via SWAAY, a man who murdered two sex workers in 2008 because he "wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone" seeks early prison release because he just now realised that's wrong!

[Parole board member Robert] Yeates was unsure if the parole board would release him any earlier than 40 years. A decision is expected to come within the next month. "Your conduct was so vile, reprehensible and horrendous, it's hard for me to understand the mental health issues, understand the substance abuse, understand the anger management history," he said. "It's an incomprehensible crime."

Obscenity Trial ends

2012-01-06T05:09:00.000-08:00

(Also cross-posted at Freedom In a Puritan Age, which allows comments.)

Now that the obscenity trial against Michael Peacock is over [background], what have we learned? Apart from the fact that there are still people who get their porn from DVDs rather than the internet?

(Rather wonderfully, the jury came back with a verdict of Not Guilty, unanimously, on all counts after about a tea-break's worth of deliberation.)

It's that perhaps we are finally beginning to become comfortable with the idea of consent, the notion that one does not have to practice a particular sexual kink or orientation to not condemn it, and that people who approach an escort who goes by the handle "Sleazy Michael" and rent or buy DVDs from him are possibly, just possibly, not being blindsided by the nature of their content.

Which is probably a great relief to my publisher, given that I've written about more than a few of these so-called "obscene" acts (in chick-lit bestsellers no less). The law used to bring the charges against Michael, the Obscene Publications Act 1959, was the very same invoked in the Lady Chatterley's Lover trial.

The official guidance on OPA 1959 includes depiction of acts that are necessarily non-consensual (sex with animals). But the list also contains a fair number of acts which can be consensual, and crucially, it is those consensual acts that were on the DVDs Michael Peacock distributed. This failure to distinguish consensual and nonconsensual sex acts is something that must be addressed. Not only because is an important point as regards sex and kink, but also because making this point crystal clear in guidance on law would help to shape discussion of issues around sex in a way that is more reasonable and less anachronistic. The ethics of sex are entirely about consent. I can't say this often enough. The ethics of sex are entirely about consent. Anything else is hollow moralising.

It was only a couple of days ago that I realised the defendant, Michael Peacock, was someone I know. In my opinion he is a nice person who is genuinely enthusiastic about his work and his clients. In short, the best kind of escort. A really top bloke. And brave too. The thought that he corrupts or defiles anyone who doesn't want said treatment is frankly ridiculous. [Peacock interviewed by Drake Blaize]

But the notions that led to this trial even happening are part of a line of thinking that is all too pervasive when it comes to sex. The sexualisation debate for example is entirely built on the erroneous assumption that if suggestive material wasn't available, young people would never become curious about sex. The idea that sex (and especially sex where commerce is involved) is unique, and uniquely corrupting, is an unfortunate leitmotif in public discourse. Religious doctrine is certainly an influence. The feminist and post-feminist notions that paid sex and pornography constitute de facto abuse feed into this as well. In such an atmosphere, someone who distributes images of consenting adults engaging in perfectly legal acts is targeted arbitrarily, simply because it is Big Bad Sex.

It's this culturally pervasive context that made the verdict of not guilty on all counts all the sweeter. There's a strong element of 'what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander' about this outcome. After all, no one was disputing the legality of consenting to being fisted or punched in the balls. It was more the question of who might see it happening. The history of pornography is littered with such divides between who is corruptible and who is not. Private galleries of Pompeiian icons of Priapus and his giant penis were once fine for men of a certain class, but not suitable to be seen by the general adult public.

The case against Michael Peacock was in many ways trying to affirm the same: this is suitable for some but not for others. In this case, the medium is what enforces the class divide. It's perfectly okay for those who, in the privacy of their own homes, can afford it. It's not okay for the plebs to be looking at cheap DVDs or (presumably) downloads. Happily we can now say that that answer to the question "Is it a DVD you would wish your wife or servants to view?" is definitively, that's up to them and no one else's business.

So here's to Michael. Long may he continue on his personal and professional journey, hopefully buoyed by the knowledge that on this day at least, sanity reigned.

And now, an aside about a lot of well-meaning commentary I've been reading about the trial.

Is there an unwritten rule that when the topic is sex, even supportive and liberal commentators who identify as sex-positive must make it clear exactly where in this case their personal kinky line has been crossed? I lost count of the number of times either on blogs or on Twitter I read some variation of "Of course, I don't go in for these disgusting practices at all, but I fully support..." etc.

What's the problem here, you might ask? That of solidarity. You wouldn't begin a discussion on same-sex marriage with the sentence, "Of course, I am disgusted at the thought of being attracted to the same sex, but I fully support...", would you? You wouldn't start an article about trans people with "I am appalled at the idea of changing your born sex, but I fully support..." and so on.

In short, it's the "I have black friends" of kinky. It's patronising. Without doubt, there is something you do enjoy which other kinky (or not) people will find appalling. Trust me, it's true. I think scented candles and tickle teasing are dreadful but you probably don't; I find watersports more appealing than oral sex. Sexuality is not a hierarchy of extremity, with fisting, urine, and blood at its apex. Sexuality is not a linear progression from missionary-position, procreative, within-marriage, monogamous mating at one end and goatse at the other. Talk in public about what you think goes too far and you have undermined your support. You are, unwittingly, using the same 'line in the sand' argument that the prosecution pursued.

Setting yourself apart from other people whom you claim to support is very, very indicative of a way of thinking that I abhor. It reads of horror, it seethes with shame. It's the call girl who imagines laws that target sex work should apply to streetwalkers but not to her. It's the feminist who excludes trans women from women's spaces. "I may be socially unacceptable but at least I'm not that socially unacceptable" is the kind of talk that - to borrow the Diane Abbot tweet - divides and rules.

Bottom line, the question is about adult consent. Either we support it or we do not. Whatever our kinks are.

Links Roundup: 12 December

2011-12-12T02:45:00.000-08:00

Good counter to the hype surrounding the 'Muff March' last week, and the scare stats surrounding it.

It doesn’t say how many were transsexual women going in for their second stage labiaplasty, or how many were women coming in after having their vaginas cut during a birthing, and now need cosmetic corrections to reduce scarring. (Because scars lack enough nerve endings for proper tactile sensation and may hinder sexual function.) There is no assumption that some of these are for the right reasons.

Fiona Fox on What If There Were Rules for Science Journalism? (or indeed any stories throwing numbers around...)

Caution may simply mean putting these stories inside the paper rather than on the front page, ensuring that the voices of top scientists casting doubt on the findings are included, and following up stories with equally significant coverage if claims are refuted.

Bad Sex Award 2011 presented to David Guterson for Ed King.

[T]he novel contains several pages of explicit exposition. One goes into exhaustive detail about an erotic massage, where the protagonist "massaged, kneaded, stretched, rubbed, pinched, flicked, feathered, licked, kissed, and gently bit her shoulders". But judges said they were finally swayed by a passage that begins: "Ed stood with his hands at the back of his head, like someone just arrested, while she abused him with a bar of soap." The scene concludes: "Then they rinsed, dried, dressed, and went to an expensive restaurant for lunch."

Is British public life dominated by men?

2011-12-08T03:09:00.000-08:00

Today in the Guardian, features writer Kira Cochrane has produced a story that is already being widely quoted on the numbers (or lack thereof) of visible women in the media. "In a typical month, 78% of newspaper articles are written by men, 72% of Question Time contributors are men and 84% of reporters and guests on Radio 4's Today show are men. Where are all the women?"

On the one hand, this story is decently written and based on a sound idea. Not least because rather than write an article on lazy assumptions of representations, it goes to the bother of looking at whether the actual numbers match up with the perceptions of the author. This is a good place to start in any conversation about representation and is often overlooked in media or social commentary.

That said, there is a huge difference between "counting numbers" and "producing statistics". Or, indeed, evidence. My problem is not with the article per se, which after all is simply a feature for the Life & Style section of the Grauniad, but rather with the reception it's had on Twitter and elsewhere as if it is le dernier cri in proof. The article is an improvement on most other articles of its kind. But it is also at best a beginning of something that could, and should, be examined further in a way which is compatible with well-designed research.

But the widespread acclaim indicates there is a danger of not taking the piece any further, and adopting its conclusions wholesale as if it was a well-designed in-depth study. It's not (yet). It could be. For example, the article starts with "In a typical month" - to be unimpeachable, you must establish in what way the months selected were "typical".

Because the numbers match so closely with the author's a priori assumptions, care should be taken to assure the reader that the shows selected do not comprise a skewed sample. (Actually, this should be done anyway.) We need to know what the spread of shows on television and radio are that are considered topical, political, or sufficiently serious. Why was Question Time included, and Loose Women excluded? I don't think one is especially more in-depth or topical than the other. Why is Have I Got News For You considered, which is a comedy show, and Moral Maze not, which is a serious radio programme featuring many regular women panellists and guests? Or the Radio 4 News Quiz, hosted by Sandi Toksvig and featuring many women as guests? What about Women's Hour?

Size, as ever, matters. What are the audience sizes for the shows, since clearly that is important? So, too, does sampling. Since it's presumably not practical or useful to count all appearances on all media, there needs to be a way of assuring that the ones considered in such a study comprise a representative sample of media, audience types, and audience sizes. This is something almost no examination of media topics outside academia bother to do (and many inside don't do it either). But if the shows can not be shown to be representative, the stud's conclusions could be accused of being skewed, and the results not taken seriously.

The title of the article, with its unexplored "why?" also presents the danger of interpreting an outcome as if it is the same as the opportunity. Why, indeed, should there be more women on Question Time, when the percentage of female MPs is only 22%? This surely this is a problem that needs to be addressed at root level (why are there not more women in government, considered for such positions, or running for them?) and not by whingeing about token women on politics shows.

The reaction to women going on some of these shows can be extremely negative, which makes other women considering whether to appear think twice. Remember when Fern Britton appeared on Question Time, and the furore over her opening her mouth on topics other than what we thought she should talk about? I was asked to go on QT last year and turned it down because I expected much the same reaction. Would a similarly placed man in media have had the same dismissive reception as Britton, particularly from women like Amanda Platell perceiving them as "lightweight"?

Similarly, the format of the Today programme on Radio 4 is extremely off-putting. Would you like to be shouted at for two minutes first thing in the morning on a show that prides itself on manufacturing controversy, or have a reasonable discussion over on Women's Hour? That, incidentally, is the question more-or-less as it has been put to me by the PR folks at Orion in the past. Come on, it's not even a contest which most women (and men) would choose given the option.

Age is also part of the mix. As one twitter correspondent (@petehague) commented, "I think that the entire debate misses the point that experienced commentators represent past gender policies ... i.e. if you want to get a professor of economics on TV, your selection is influenced by undergraduate gender balance decades ago." And not only the undergrad balance, but especially the percentage making it through study to professorships. David Starkey and his ilk are still rocking up peddling their schtick because, well, the women with the best and most cogent arguments to counter him are not at his level of academic or media experience yet. This phenomenon is almost certainly at work outside the academia bubble as well. And given the continuation of the trend in which women for various reasons choose family or life balance over single-minded pursuit of their careers, it may well never happen.

Finally, we must ask why it is women in media, even ones like say, Laurie Penny, who seem committed to an ideal of being a political writer, end up doing pieces about dating and handbags. Is it because when such assignments are offered, writers would rather take the job than turn it down? And does this, over time, contribute to an impression that anyone who has done so is destined to "lack gravitas"? There is a pink ghetto even - no, especially - at the Guardian. Isn't it ironic that Cochrane's piece is in the Life & Style section, rather than, say, Comment Is Free? On the same day when a man's thoughts on his Movember 'tache does get a spot in CiF?

So in short, while I broadly agree with Cochrane's thesis that it would be nice to see more women on shows like Question Time and Have I Got News For You, I'm not sure the critical applause is warranted. Yet. And I don't think it constitutes "proof" much at all apart from being about those shows on those days. Interesting? Yes. Generalisable to all media at all times? No. The difference between anecdotes and sampling is subtle (perhaps too much so for most media) but crucial.

You may be wondering why this matters on an issue in which most people are in agreement. It matters because if an argument is seen to be slapdash or half-baked, it throws the conclusions into doubt regardless of how worthy they are. It matters because for there to be change it's important to know the real and not imagined extent of the problem. And it matters because if something is worth doing, it's worth doing right. There's a germ of an interesting idea in there. The real question is what is to be done with it?

Links Roundup: 30 November

2011-11-30T07:44:00.000-08:00

Newsweek's cover story on "sex addiction" gets a once-over by psychologist David Ley.

What cultural forces are bringing this to the fore right now?

I think it’s a perfect storm. It’s the media and the transparency of our society. All of these behaviors have been happening for millennium — people cheating, people having lots of sex, people viewing pornography. There’s nothing new about this. But all of a sudden we have this 24/7 media that is hungry for scandals. “Gotcha” journalism grabs an audience by putting out a sound bite, a meme, as quickly as possible, regardless of how true it is. The memes that grab the most are black-and-white, two-dimensional concepts. Rather than explaining that there are thousands of reasons a person might engage in infidelity, it’s easier to say: Sex addict.

A new study on migration and trafficking in the UK sex industry finds immigration and employment law, not trafficking, is the main factor in people staying in sex work.

Most migrants did not work in the sex industry before coming to the UK and decided to do so after a long string of work experiences in other sectors, which were seen as comparatively less rewarding both in terms of remuneration and of the working conditions offered. The majority of interviewees were introduced to the possibility of working in the sex industry through friends and colleagues they met in other settings and decided to take up the opportunity after they saw positive examples in their everyday lives, both when they were home and in the country of origin.

New study suggests men probably don't think about sex every few seconds. Surprise, surprise.

Overall, erotophilia was a better predictor of sexual cognition than was sex of participant. Taken as a whole, the results suggest that, although there may be a sex difference in sexual cognitions, it is smaller than is generally thought, and the reporting is likely influenced by sex role expectations.

Miss World and Mary Beard

2011-11-16T04:45:00.000-08:00

Following the recent Miss World competition (and associated protest) in London, I was surprised to find this gem of an article on the BBC website from none other than Mary Beard. Having reconsidered her 1970s objections to the beauty contest, she now writes:

[T]he less I see my own body as a positive asset, the less I have wanted to interfere with what other women choose to do with theirs. If they want to parade in bikinis or shroud themselves in burkas, then so be it. I can see the pleasure in both.

To accuse them - as I used to do - of being the victims of social or commercial or religious control now seems to me to be a fairly cheap hit. How we present ourselves to the world is never a free choice. For both women and men dress is always the subject of social constraints.

The question is how you make those constraints work for you. Take women's make-up for example. It can be the ultimate symbol of an oppressive culture that refuses to accept women's faces as they really are; it can also be celebratory, joyous and fun.

Mary Beard hits on a very interesting thought here. This includes an acknowledgement that acceptance of other women's choices regarding their bodies is partly to do with the level of comfort about your own.

My observation has been that people who are secure in their appearance - by which I mean fully connected to and accepting of their bodies, not necessarily those society labels the most attractive - tend to find little of interest in judging others' looks negatively. It seems an ironic but inevitable fact that the very people who pay the most lip service to how terrible it is of the patriarchy (or kyriarchy or whatever) to make demands on women's appearance are themselves very, very invested in judging those same women.

For example, from Ariel Levy's Female Chauvinist Pigs, when she says of anyone who has "their vaginas waxed ... their breasts enlarged" : "I wish them many blissful and lubricious loops around the pole."

In other words, Levy is fine with the idea that there are some women who get Brazilians – just as long as they are fine with the idea that she will judge them for that. Rather than imagining pole-dancing can co-exist with a brain Levy chooses to write off the some women for making aesthetic choices different from hers, for reasons she can only speculate since after all her insight into other people's heads is no better than any of ours.

Why the snide, judging tone? It's a puzzling one. Everyone is entitled to use their attributes and talents to their advantage. We can't all be Ivy League-educated middle-class middlebrow feminist authors, after all, just as we can't all be supermodels, scientists, or chefs. It's difficult to understand the problem some people have with others using their individual attributes in order to profit.

Such criticism has always seemed to be extremely selective in its targets. Whether it's having stereotypically feminine attributes, or being athletic, or really anything at all, a woman in the public eye will always be judged on her appearance. Often by other women. Often by other women who spend a lot of time telling all and sundry why women shouldn't be judged on their appearances.

Consider this week, when a large number of people have repeated frankly quite appalling and hateful things on Twitter and elsewhere about Fatima Whitbread's appearance. There is, thankfully, no shortage of folks willing to come forward and do battle on behalf of a strong woman from a troubled and disadvantaged background who used the greatest tool in her arsenal to break out of poverty and abuse. The irony for so many of her defenders is that Fatima used her body to accomplish this, something critics normally despise in other women.

Fatima has written about the punishment she put herself through to achieve her success: the endless training, the bizarre high-protein diets. She acknowledged that it affected her health and temporarily threatened her fertility. The fact that it was in the service of sport rather than, say, modelling does not change that she conformed to something many of us would consider unnatural in order to gain the result she wanted. She did so in order to submit herself to a process in which some were judged better than others based on physical attributes alone. She succeeded. And she is rightly considered a hero for doing this.

The fact that (as one of my Twitter correspondents pointed out) so many who rushed to the defence of the rather lovely Fatima are also people who dumped from a great height on Jodie Marsh's bodybuilding only last month is, sadly, as predictable as it is depressing. Yeah, it's not an Olympic medal. But I rather doubt people with actual achievements in any sport would be queuing up to put the boot in to Marsh in quite the same way as the keyboard- and columninch-warriors. People comfortable in their own skins and in their own achievements tend not to do that.

Being harsh about other women's bodies says more about the critic than it does about the target. Rather astoundingly, one of Marsh's critics from back in October who sneered it was "not a good look as far as I'm concerned" is singing the praises of weightlifting. Has Fatima's self-evident awesomeness made this selective approval of muscles trendy? If so, I genuinely hope these people take a long hard think over their motivations for trashing Marsh so recently. And also why they, or indeed anyone apart from Jodie Marsh herself, should be declared arbiter of what is "a good look" for her. She's a grownup and can present her body however she likes.

In a media world where there is so much to be gained from being catty about trivialities, it's heartening to see that with time and a bit of perspective even critics like Mary Beard can reconsider. It was brave of her to write what she did and I hope others sit up and take notice.

Links roundup: 14 November

2011-11-14T06:11:00.000-08:00

Interesting thoughts on whether sexting criminalises teenagers, and a case of a 17-year-old put on the Sex Offenders Register for possessing 'sexted' photos of people his age (including pictures of himself)

There’s the issue that often there is no clear distinction (in charging) between someone of the age of 17 possessing sexualised images of similar ages and a 50 year old man possessing images of the most horrible content imaginable involving very young children. It may reflect in the sentencing but ultimately the wording of the charges (Making/Possessing an indecent image of a child) may end up being the same with both persons being placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register. It also poses the question of how can it be, indeed if it should be, made clear that there is a difference between a 50 year old man in possession of 50,000 images of under 13 year olds and Peter possessing 500 images of 15-17 year olds when he was 16-17 himself?

Superb stuff from Furrygirl on parallels between the crack 'epidemic' and recent stories about sex trafficking

The crack "epidemic" was framed by politicians on both sides of the political spectrum as not a symptom of poverty, inequality, and larger social disparities, but as the cause of social problems in the first place ... Sex trafficking is also seen not as a response to social forces such as some countries having more wealth than others, the desire to go abroad to earn better money, few employment options for undocumented migrant workers, or the difficulties in legally entering a Western country if you're poor. No, sex trafficking is the social ill to be eliminated, and all that complex stuff about class, race, immigration, and gender gets neatly swept under the rug in favor of an explanation that lets people scapegoat manufactured omnipresent boogeymen while failing to address real social problems.

SF Weekly on the cold shoulder received by researchers discovering New York City teen sex workers are not predominantly girls and not predominantly controlled by pimps

Through interviews and analysis of public records, Village Voice Media has found that the federal government spends about $20 million a year on public awareness, victims' services and police work related to domestic human trafficking, with a considerable focus on combating the pimping of children. An additional $50 million-plus is spent annually on youth homeless shelters, and since 1996 taxpayers have contributed a total of $186 million to fund a separate program that provides street outreach to kids who may be at risk of commercial sexual exploitation.

That's at least $80 million doled out annually for law enforcement and social services that combine to rescue approximately 200 child prostitutes every year.

These agencies might improve upon their $400,000-per-rescued-child average if they joined in the effort to develop a clearer picture of the population they aim to aid. But there's no incentive for them to do so when they stand to rake in even more public money simply by staying the course.

Yaeba teeth and the sexual idealisation of youth

2011-11-12T13:24:00.000-08:00

In the last couple of days, stories have appeared in the press about dentists in Japan who, in a bid to attract business, are offering cosmetic procedures that simulate yaeba, or "double teeth". This is because among many people in Japan, it is considered attractive - especially in women - to have uneven teeth.

Rather astoundingly the preference for not-straight teeth has been speciously interpreted by no less than Jezebel and the Daily Wail as a desire to achieve a "sexy" "child-like" look. I scoffed when I read this choice quote:

Pace University's Dr Emilie Zaslow, assistant professor of communication studies, told the newspaper: 'The naturally occurring yaeba is because of delayed baby teeth, or a mouth that’s too small.

'It’s this kind of emphasis on youth and the sexualization of young girls.'

Because, of course, an assistant professor of a communication studies in an obscure college is a great source of knowledge on some, any, or all of the following: dentistry, biology, Japanese culture, sexuality? Erm, sounds a bit dodgy to me. Sounds like someone maybe has a piece of unsubstantiated research (perhaps based on the in-depth data collection method of having seen a Facebook group or two) and they've elected to promote it by press release rather than peer review.

True, people in Japan like crooked teeth. Drawing the line from that to, uh, sexy kids? Moral panic much? Sadly the response has been uncritical of an interpretation that fails on virtually every logic applied to it. Having brought up the topic on Twitter (and my general astounded-ness that anyone took this conclusion seriously at all), I found that it's being waved and nodded through the usual checks and passing straight into sexualisation lore.

What interests me is not teeth as such but rather the way in which something once stated, with very little reasoned thought, becomes seized upon as if it is important, revealing, and (perhaps most crucially) kinky. How teeth become some kind of evidence for a shaky notion of men, women, and sexuality that is spinning far out of control.

So for those who are interested, here is why that shock-horror interpretation of this utterly unremarkable story is so, so, so wrong:

1. There is no biological connection between yaeba-type teeth and childhood.

My first degree was in biological anthropology, and as a PhD student, I was especially interested in identification of human skeletal remains. This is a long-winded way of saying that I have looked at teeth, lots of teeth, for years. And can state with some confidence that there is no biological connection between yaeba-type teeth and someone being, or appearing to be, underage.

Crooked teeth, and in particular the prominent canines associated with yaeba, are almost certainly a signal of being post-puberty. After all you must have most or all of your adult teeth in for them to be so crowded. The last deciduous tooth is lost about age 11 or 12, the second molars come in around ages 14-16, and the third molars - your wisdom teeth - rather later, at about the mid 20s. For some people this timeline is even longer: at 36, my third molars are only now starting to erupt, which is making my teeth even more crowded than before. These changes cause the teeth already in your mouth to shift position, and is the reason we don't put braces on little kids.

Just for comparison's sake, here's a photo of yaeba teeth, and the teeth of a child. As you can see the difference between normal deciduous teeth and crooked adult ones is pretty obvious.

(Those are my teeth in the first photo, by the way. They've been much commented upon whenever I appear on telly. For the record I think straightened teeth look like dentures and wouldn't change a thing about mine.)

Simply by considering the pattern and timing of tooth eruption, we can see that yaeba is necessarily a feature of people in their teen years or later, and therefore the theory that it is related to finding children sexually attractive is not supported.

I first heard of yaeba a few years ago. My initial thought on why someone might find it attractive was because of the significant sexual dimorphism of the human skull. Certain features of adult women are so unlike men's, they can be used with reasonable certainty to determine the sex of the individual. The shape and size of jaws is one such feature. In people of Asian ancestry this tendency for women to have gracile features is especially pronounced. As you can imagine, if you have a small jaw as an adult, your teeth have less chance of erupting in a straight line. So it might be the case that crowded permanent teeth accentuate feminine and delicate features of adult women.

So the people attributing this preference to suppressed paedo desires might actually consider that there is a reasonable explanation why men could like crowded teeth on grownup women when you consider the phenomenon from the sexual selection angle. And that if that is the case, this is not something that is down to culture, conditioning, padded bras for 10-year-olds, or any of that rubbish. (Of course, it's just a theory. So I won't exactly be getting on the phone to the New York Times as if it were fact.)

2. The idea relies on a considerable stereotyping of Japanese culture in the West as aberrant and sexually deviant.

I've never lived in Japan and never been especially interested in the country. However, when I started dating my now-husband in 2008, he had just moved back from living in Tokyo. What was one of the first things he commented on about my appearance? My teeth. This was when I first heard about yaeba.

The preference in Japan for slightly uneven, natural-looking teeth has been going on for a long time. Cosmetic orthodontics are only a recent import there and still rather rare compared to the homogeneously artificial look preferred in the US (and, increasingly, in the UK too). So connecting yaeba to any imagined recent trends in sexual idealisation of childlike appearance is clearly incorrect.

But more interestingly the story seems to have found an audience because what little is reported in the West about Japan is almost exclusively focused on sex, crime, and sex crimes. In spite of the fact that Tokyo is an exceedingly safe city, the horrible murders of Lucie Blackman and Lindsay Hawker have left a deep impression of a nationwide deviancy that nothing else is able to balance. Combined with the usual other stories about Japanese culture that seem to focus exclusively on manga, a very negative picture emerges.

Their culture is foreign to us. So is ours to them. Characterising an entire nation as obsessed with childlike sexuality based on, what exactly? Sailor Moon cosplay? Weaksauce cultural stereotyping at its best. You might as well go whole hog and call them "inscrutable" or "a cruel race". Get a grip, people.

3. The people pushing the infantilisation/sexualisation agenda are desperate for any evidence to back up their increasingly panicked, and increasingly unsupported, claims.

So I guess if that's your agenda, it's totally okay to not even do some basic information-gathering about human biology. And it's also totally okay to stereotype a bunch of people whose culture you never seriously engage with. They probably don't read Jezebel anyway, amirite?

I've written before on the lack of reliable data in the sexualisation debate; it's a maelstrom of thin evidence being trumped up with illogical assumptions to produce staggeringly shaky results. This is one more example of that craze. The assumptions surrounding yaeba are simply conforming to a view of sexuality (and specifically, heterosexual men's sexual preferences) that demonises groups of people for things that turn out not to be true.

The biggest offender in this area is just about any discussion ever relating to (women's) pubic hair and the removal thereof. Sometimes a denuded vulva is just a cigar, you know? But similarly uninformed discussions take place endlessly about people who prefer small breasts to large ones, or slim bodies to heavier ones, or blondes to brunettes. Considering all of the mixed messages being transmitted as re: supposed sexual authenticity, nobody gets a free ride, ever. Stay the way you are? Judged as wrong. Change the way you look? Judged as wrong. You can't please all of the people all the time, and increasingly, none of the people any of the time.

Unfortunately, the only thing about this story that is interesting - the fact that in Japan, their idea of what a beautiful woman looks like is a bit different to our ideal, and their cosmetic procedures reflect this difference - is buried in bad stereotyping and underinformed theorising. Like so much else to do with how sex is reported in the media by both the right and the left.

The thing about bullying

2011-11-05T06:04:00.001-07:00

There's been a lot of to-do in the UK blogosphere this week about the nature and extent of online bullying, particularly towards women. The fact that women online can find themselves on the receiving end of disgusting sexual and sexist abuse (and over the top threats in general) is not a new thing, but the particular focus on articles by and about feminist bloggers is attracting attention in a way it hasn't before.

And that is generally good for people to know about. We all know and talk about "trolls", of course, but rape and death threats are a whole 'nother level. The fact that this happens, has been happening to a lot of people for years, raises the question of just how (in an online culture that widely endorses freedom of speech) to handle these things.

I've had a lifetime of bullying. As someone who wore glasses, was two years younger than everyone in my year, had terrible acne, and was a nerd in a way that was not and will never be cool, I'm sure you can imagine. There was one particularly nasty little piece of work who told me (when I was about five) that his goal every day was to make me cry. This usually involved bodily knocking me over onto the ground, usually while I was carrying something. Even in photos from high school, I had skinned knees and elbows courtesy of this little thug. We were at school together for ten years. I knew the teachers knew, and no one ever said a word about it.

As an adult, because what I write about offends pretty much everyone, the cycle has renewed. What I write is controversial and I'd be an idiot not to think people will react. And when bullies react they always go for the low-hanging fruit: your sex, your appearance, your family. Religion, race, orientation. The hooker thing. Whatever they can get. Life is unfair. Anyone who tells you different is selling something.

There's a lot of crap online, some of which I've confronted people over, but the vast majority of which it would just be too time-consuming to care about. There is a reason I don't have blog comments, a well-publicised email address, or an easy-to-locate physical address. The internet thrives on communication and interaction; that's no reason to assume there should be unfettered, complete, and full intrusion at all times. Weirdly, there are people who are the targets of bullying who still seem to think that if they exercise their ability to block or ignore the haters, that "the trolls win". Um, no. The trolls won because they stole yet more of your time and energy. And managed to convince you that if you refuse to interact with them, you're the one who's in the wrong.

But it also means that because the bar is raised so significantly, the people who do manage to get in contact are considerably more worrying than, say, a random comment on a blog. There is, of course, a special moment that comes the first time you get a posted death threat, or the first time a package is delivered to your work from someone banged up in a foreign prison. (Pro tip: don't open it.)

As a for-instance, I was contacted this week by people who now live at an address where I resided in 2006. They received a package in the post addressed to me. It is bizarre to think someone is trawling places I have lived in order to pass on things I don't want and certainly don't need. I told them to throw it away, because seriously, what the hell? Even if it's well-intentioned and not a piece of human waste in a bag, the sender does not, repeat, DOES NOT have any business stalking people like that. It's intrusive, it's scary, and there are a surprising number of people who think they are entitled to interact with you at all costs and will suddenly turn weird and threatening when you don't happen to agree.

"Should" things be different? Yeah, but I live in the real world. It is horrible to be sitting in your own house afraid of a knock at the door. And it's just as horrible to be flinching at shadows. Block and ignore if it's a flamer or time-waster, and save real ire for the people who might actually try to do you harm. If sieving one group from the other is something you have trouble with, The Gift of Fear is highly recommended.

If you are someone who gets threats, online or in meatspace, there are resources available to help. Use them! Bristol, for instance, had a good team dealing with online threats (while I was living there, anyway) - I found the police very helpful. Scotland's harassment laws have finally been strengthened to include online harassment, not just physical confrontation. These are positive things that will hopefully become the norm everywhere someday. But not without the public knowing about, and using, them.

So the thing about bullying is, where you are in fear of someone attacking, for goodness' sake go to the police.

Where there are not resources for handling online threats, you should talk to the police, not just your 'safe spaces'. Not just social media. There's a line between catharsis and whingeing and I'm not sure it's even a particularly thin line. Twitter is useful for sharing some kinds of information, but it does not change the world. Blog comments can be an interesting source of opinions or moral support, but they do not change the world. If the police and law don't help you, use that to whip up public sentiment to pressure the people in power to make a change. Do what the online bullies can't do: get out from behind the computer. But don't not try. And don't tell me a hashtag is going to magically fix bullying.

And now the other thing about bullying. One of the often overlooked aspects of this discussion is that shit rolls downhill. In real life and online too. Very often, people who are themselves bullied can exercise less-than-great judgment of when they are also adopting the rhetoric and action of belittlement and abuse.

As hated as I was at school, there was someone who was hated more. You maybe recall me writing about a childhood friend with spina bifida? Yeah, we weren't friends to begin with. Owning up to the fact that I'd joined in when bigger, more threatening, more popular people taunted her simply because it took their attention off me was hard to do. And the excruciating moment when she acknowledged my apology? Well, I'd never felt so low in my life. Never felt so low since.

So I'm not trying to diminish what's happening in the feminist blogosphere. Real people are getting horrible things said to them. They are talking about it, which is good. This is an interesting conversation and one that needs to be had: when does disagreement become trolling, when does trolling become a threat, and when threats happen, what is the best thing to do about them? Hopefully that will lead to actually doing something about it.

But let's also remember that there are women and bloggers in that milieu whose attitude towards sex workers, trans people, female 'slebs - all of whom have been getting this treatment for yonks - perhaps could be considered to contribute to that atmosphere. Like the Burchill quote people seem to like so much about shooting prostitutes. Level-headed criticism of the sex trade it ain't. If you promote the jokey murder imagery, don't be alarmed if people are surprised when you call foul.

It's all part and parcel of labelling other women as unwomen. Sure, call out rape culture... but don't be unaware of a parallel hate culture you may unwittingly be contributing to.

Does that excuse the people who make rape threats or post others' addresses online in an attempt to frighten and harass? It does not. Obviously, people who do that have gone far beyond common or garden trolling. But have they perhaps been egged on a bit? Have we perhaps played our own part in blurring the line so such people think what they're doing has no consequences? I think on some level we all have. It doesn't mitigate the criminality of actual physical threats, but it does make it hard - very hard - to play the sympathy card.

Am I above all this? Am I fuck. Like I said, I have been bullied. I also have been the thoughtless asshole saying nasty stuff about people who probably didn't deserve it. It is a hard thing to admit to, much less understand why anyone does it. People and their reasons for doing anything? Pretty complicated. But maybe part of the motivation is to distance ourselves from people even more reviled, even more unlikeable. To cushion the difficulty other people have with us by pointing to the freakier freaks. To keep that shit rolling downhill.

The internet is not "other people online" independent of our own contributions. It is made of us, and what we do online.

Wag the Dog

2011-10-11T02:20:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Something hoist something petard.

2011-10-03T07:46:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

SWAAY billboard now over halfway funded...

2011-08-07T08:29:00.000-07:00

Let's take it over the top, everyone! Click to donate.

Tell L.A. sex work is not trafficking...

2011-07-28T04:40:00.000-07:00

...by helping to fund the outdoor billboard campaign, SWAAY's Sex Work Definition Billboard on Epicstep!

When Celebrities Attack

2011-07-06T01:37:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Porn by the Numbers 5: On feminist porn

2011-06-29T04:56:00.001-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Porn by the Numbers 4: Is porn taking over the internet?

2011-06-28T06:10:00.001-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Porn by the Numbers 3: Does porn make men see women differently?

2011-06-24T05:20:00.001-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

News in Briefs: Venus of Willendorf

2011-06-23T03:05:00.000-07:00

Porn by the Numbers 2: Is pornography violent?

2011-06-22T09:13:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Porn by the Numbers 1: Does porn objectify women?

2011-06-21T11:46:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

The Sexy Bits: Thursday Roundup 16/6

2011-06-16T07:40:00.000-07:00

Slut-shamer Tina Fey's biography deconstructed on Tits and Sass.

I keep thinking something really terrible have happened in her childhood, to make her hate hookers so much. Was she abused? Did Daddy not hug her enough? Sure, women like Fey say it's their free choice. But I don't believe anyone ever really chooses to be a bile-spewing comedienne.
My take on the absence of Page 3 from the Bailey review, with mildly amusing results. Kind of NSFW.
Heresy Corner on a new all-trafficking-equals-sex-trafficking report on its way.

This time, a neo-charismatic evangelical church is taking the reins.

News in Briefs: Not A 'Family' Blog

2011-06-16T06:04:00.001-07:00

Bailey Review II: Defining terms

2011-06-13T06:56:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

To Slutwalk or not To Slutwalk?

2011-06-08T03:59:00.001-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Bailey Report on Sexualisation: A first look

2011-06-06T07:41:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Sexualisation Reports: Same Old, Same Old? (new copy)

2011-06-04T09:08:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Pimping Kids? Really?

2011-06-04T08:18:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

The Sexy Bits: Thursday Roundup

2011-05-12T07:42:00.000-07:00

Criminalisation of sex work affects non-sex workers too [blog]

The sister of a sex worker's struggle with massage therapy work when 'Happy Ending' parlours are closed down in her town.

"How Abolitionist Feminists Hurt Sex Workers" [article]

"I want the same thing for sex workers that I want for all workers: the right to choose the job they do; the freedom to work in an environment that is safe, dignified and protected by law; legal recourse for any injustice done; and the ability to leave whenever they want. Sex work a labor rights issue, and sex worker’s rights are human rights."

Back when exotic dancing came with exotic outfits! Brilliant photos. [blog]
Why prostitution should be legal in the US [article]

Whose agenda is it anyway?

2011-05-04T06:12:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

The Sexy Bits: Wednesday Roundup 27/4

2011-04-27T05:52:00.000-07:00

Commentary on last week's 'men worried about porn use' survey and headlines [blog]

A timely reminder that how you select participants for your survey - and how the questions are worded - can drastically affect outcome. I've contacted the researchers who worked on the survey asking to see their questionnaire, sampling methods and raw data; no reply yet.

Free Porn Lowers Rape Rates? [blog]

Data suggest the rate of rape is declining hand-in-hand with the increase of broadband access and porn access in the US. Correlation is not causation, but in all the sexualisation hoo-ha it's an interesting topic to ponder.

Russians never had sex in space [news]

Strange Bedfellows

2011-04-26T02:53:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Sexual Ability

2011-04-20T05:20:00.000-07:00

One of the more common questions I am asked as an ex-sex worker is "what sort of a man uses prostitutes"? The answer, if I'm feeling flippant? "All of them."

The reality is that while sex workers can (and we certainly do) have a laugh among ourselves about certain annoying client 'types', it's really no different from a group of friends laughing about non-paid dates. Sex work literally does take all kinds.

One of the most frustrating stereotypes is that of the faceless, nameless, conscience-less "John" who is somehow both ubiquitous (he'd have to be, to be supporting the fictional 80,000-woman-a-year forced sex trade) and at the same time, not a person anyone will admit to having met. Because we'd hate to think people we know bought sex, wouldn't we? And yet, of course they do!

Anyway. One of the best tools to challenging this assumption is asking those who stereotype clients: what about disabled people?

There are all kinds of disabilities, and these have all kind of effects on the sexual lives of people. Some people experience varying degrees of difficulty; others make use of mating-and-dating resources on the internet. Some blog about the ups and downs with sensitivity and eloquence. There are great how-to guides about the mechanics of wheelchair sex on the web. There's all manner of great stuff at Outsiders. And of course there is the legendary Bob Flanagan.

But the truth is, even with help, guidance, and guides, it's just not always easy. And so disabled clients are a significant part of the client base for sex workers. If you have been a sex worker for any length of time, you have had a disabled client. And they have probably made you see things somewhat differently. Now, disabled people are not the majority of most sex workers' clients, but they're a significant group.

Secret Diary season 2, episode 5: client with spina bifida,
brought to appointment by his father.

It's well-known what the effects of denying human touch are to babies and children, but few people consider the effects on adults. In my opinion, touch is a basic human need... so basic, it might as well be at the base of Maslow's hierarchy alongside sleep, food, and all the other physiological needs.

The environment in which most of us operate is almost callously unable to provide this need to those who don't easily fit in physically. Added to which, many adults with disabilities live at home with family members, which can make it difficult to be seen as a sexual adult. Even if you're not the most touchy-feely person, you can probably appreciate how even little things like being a different height to everyone else would have a knock-on result to, say, getting hugs. People who like hugs can usually get them. If they're standing face-to-face with others. Or if their limbs are fully mobile. Or if they have all their limbs.

And for people whose mobility is seriously limited, the most intense touch they might get in a day could be a carer or nurse changing their clothes. That is just not on. Restrictive, sense-deprived environments create knock-on effects for physical and psychological well-being. Here's a 1957 article describing early experiment in limiting senses and mobility, and the effects.

Over time, I came to see sex work as a kind of social service; many others do too. Because access to touch, to pleasure and yes - to sex - is something we regard as natural and accessible to everyone. Even to those without money, without jobs, without rights. And yet there are people in our rich, employed, democratic society who struggle to scratch this basic itch. Fulfilling this need as a paid sex worker is not about pity - it's about providing a basic service. Groups like TLC Trust openly acknowledge this reality.

With constant challenges to legal sex work in the UK (especially in Scotland, where I live), I can't help but wonder if the trendy Swedish model of criminalising clients would actually have a knock-on effect of targeting disabled clients. Law enforcement shows a disinclination to pursue difficult criminals in favour of nabbing easy ones. It feels inevitable that someone is going to start "juking the stats"* to make it look like "sex criminals" are being rounded up in unprecedented numbers. Who are those people going to be? The ones who are easiest to find and catch, of course.

A lot of folks point to the Swedish laws that criminalise clients as if they are some sort of panacaea, in spite of criticism of their actual effectiveness. And they defend them using ideology alone: invoking a world in which all who pay for sex are able-bodied, wealthy, and male. A world in which all sex workers are disadvantaged, poor, and female.

The myths perpetrated by opponents of sex work assume that men always have more power than women, and that only cisgender, heterosexual people are involved. It's not true.

It's not a realistic view of the diversity of what goes on between sex workers and clients. Passing laws based on the narrowest and most stereotypical of assumptions will surely become just one more example of bad law.

* - Don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of statistics. But I'm also a fan of transparency in statistics... making it clear exactly what collection and analysis methodology has been used to draw which conclusions. Part of the point of the scientific method is to put it all out there so the accuracy of your results can be tested.

This post actually came from a Twitter discussion with another blogger about something else entirely - will get to writing about prostate massage another time!

How the Anti-Sex Lobby Profits

2011-04-15T03:36:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

The Sexy Bits: Wednesday Roundup

2011-04-13T04:55:00.000-07:00

Dr Petra Boynton on why we are not a nation 'addicted' to porn [blog]

Insight on how recent 'porn panic' articles in the media solicit information from experts, then ignore it.

Dr Teela Sanders on her ESRC-funded research on lap dancers [video]

Good summary of her group's findings, and touches on some issues of how to collect and curate relevant, representative, and ethical data. More about the project.

Gentleman's club in Hexham gets the thumbs-up as site was used as a "bawdy house" since the 19th century [article]

How trafficking is counted

2011-04-11T06:30:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Preaching to the Coverted

2011-04-08T04:57:00.001-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

What Women Want...

2011-04-06T06:02:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Sex + Sport = Trafficking Hype

2011-04-04T05:00:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Happy hookers: myth or reality?

2011-04-02T10:14:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

So, why this blog?

2011-04-01T10:19:00.000-07:00

First off, I'd like to assure you I won't always be writing about rape. Hopefully I'll also be writing about lighter stuff (that is also interesting).

I've been working on the Camden/rape reanalysis stats for a while, so it seemed fitting to post them here as an opener. You can also see it as a green paper at Scribd, and it has been covered at International Union of Sex Workers, the Camden New Journal, Women's Views on News, the Grauniad, and Hackney Citizen.

Part of what interests me about these topics is how entrenched the debate is in ideological and emotional reactions. Rape is but one example. Even writing about rape in a scientific manner, taking almost an epidemiological viewpoint, is a hot potato. It's a terrible thing, and tough to handle both effectively and sensitively.

But then, so is cancer. We gain little by sugarcoating it - better to tackle the hard stuff head-on. Just like all of you I would like rape to end. I happen to believe the best way to do it is to attack the problem with our methodical hats on. There are a lot of people doing exactly that: unfortunately, their work doesn't get much press.

I sincerely hope you'll keep reading. There's much more to come.

Lap dancing and rape in Camden: part 5

2011-04-01T09:04:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Lap dancing and rape in Camden: part 4

2011-04-01T07:38:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Lap dancing and rape in Camden: part 3

2011-04-01T04:10:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Lap dancing and rape in Camden: part 2

2011-04-01T03:52:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.

Lap dancing and rape in Camden: part 1

2011-04-01T03:14:00.000-07:00

This post has been removed. Curious to read what it's all about? You can now order the book at Amazon.