On Jennifer Lawrence and Nude Images

The non-consensual sexualisation of young women is a growing epidemic in our society, from school dress codes stating that young girls cannot wear strappy tops in the summer to clothing choices being an excuse for the sexual violation of the female body, and, with nude photos like the one recently released of Jennifer Lawrence being taken ever more frequently, it is a problem which needs to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Before I say anything more, I would like to mention that I have not seen the photo and do not wish to see the photo, and the image will not be linked anywhere in this discussion. I do not want to take any part in the commodification of this or any other young woman’s body when their consent has not been fully ascertained, and I urge you to do the same. Please do not google Jennifer Lawrence nudes, do not give websites which publish this image the hit counts, do not buy media which distributes this, or any other non-consensual nude image. Thanks.

The prevalence of images like this exists off the back of paparazzi culture, and the thinking if you choose to step into the public, if you choose to open up any part of your life to the world, then you have to give up all parts of your life. This is, of course, a ridiculous thought process. Ultimately all humans have the right to privacy, whether or not they have chosen to allow the media or general public into a small aspect of their life, and this right should be respected. This is particularly true of young women, and it is young women whose right is most frequently disregarded.

I recently saw a series of facebook comments about the Jennifer Lawrence image, the first stating that Lawrence looks ‘banging’, and the second stating that if they were that good looking they would happily be naked all over the internet. Whilst that is perfectly valid choice, it is, in fact, a choice. Jennifer Lawrence had no choice over these images being released. She may have taken the images, but she didn't give her consent for them to be shared. This society has an awful tradition of taking non-consensual nude pictures of young women and excusing it because they are considered good looking. This mentality is damaging to women everywhere, not least Lawrence’s young fans. These fans see that the female body can be used (without the will or consent of the female) as a commodity to gain web hits or sell magazines.

However, this line of thought is even more disgusting when placed against the media criticism of people like Miley Cyrus. Cyrus has been exposed to media vitriol, perhaps because she has full power over her body and she actively chose to reveal it in her ‘Wrecking Ball’ video. The society which shrugs off the non-consensual nudes of Lawrence as a fact of celebrity life (and it’s okay because she’s ‘banging’) is the same society which condemns the nudity of Miley Cyrus – who reveals her body out of choice.

Yes, Jennifer Lawrence is a beautiful young women, but if she wanted to share her naked body with the world shouldn’t that be her choice? Answer: Yes. We need to protect the privacy of young women and we need to respect their power over their own bodies.

Paparazzi celebrity culture as a whole is dangerous and damaging, but this is one of its most damaging aspects. We as consumers need to stop the demand for these kinds of images, and speak out loudly against them. Once the media realise that this is not what people want to see, they will stop seeking out the images.

If you as a consumer do want to see naked women, there are plenty of consensual photos for you to look at.

This post has taken the place of my August Wrap-up and September TBR, which will now be the next post you’ll see. Thank you for taking the time to read this, and if you have any comments feel free to leave them below or tweet me @VickiMaitland.

Body Image

TW: Anorexia, Bulimia, Eating Disorders.

(side note, Laci Green expresses a lot of these views a lot better than I do on her YouTube channel, Sex+. A couple of really good videos can be found here and here)

'Tis the season for bikinis, and lately I've been thinking a lot about body image, societies relationship to body, and my own personal relationship to both food and my body.

Body image can mean a lot of things: the way your body looks, the way society views your body and the way your body looks to you. And although this might sound the same, these can often be vastly different. For example, a person may be 20 stone, feel beautiful and love their body. However, sadly society would perceive them as ugly and fat. Equally, a person may be 8 stone and hate their body, even though society would view them as having a perfect figure. These situations are specific to weight, but when you add proportions, age and gender into the mix, this becomes an even bigger mess of opinions and generalisations.

The way the human body is viewed has changed a lot over the course of history, particularly in regards to 'beauty' (ie, what we perceive to be the perfect body). I'm going to talk specifically about women in this post, not only because I am one so I understand society and its relationship to my body (as well as how my female friends and family feel about their body image), but also because what is considered beautiful in women is more exclusive (not only to each era but female perfect is an exclusive concept) and more widely discussed in the media (think tabloids, gossip mags and adverts etc).

So, let’s start from a sort of beginning. Being on the larger side used to be attractive and considered beautiful. If you look at any old painting of a women you'll see she is larger stomached and smaller busted than a pin up today would be. (You can see images photoshopped to more modern standards next to the originals here). There is a very simple reason for this: women who were larger were not only wealthier (they could afford fattening foods) but were also healthier (again, because they had a better, wider, fuller diet). It all came down to reproduction: you wanted the best chance that when you get a women pregnant she will give birth to a healthy child who will grow up in a well-off family.

Then something shifted in our culture. People became wealthier as a society, so they stopped looking to women whose bodies could support a family. Instead, the fashion industry became the go to for information of body type and its relationship to beauty. Since the end of the second world war, this image has fluctuated between two distinct types - the ironing board and the hourglass.

The ironing board refers to women who are tall, slim, with small chests, waists and hips, so their body essentially goes straight up and down (think Kiera Knightly).

The hourglass refers to women who are tall, slim, with larger chests and hips than waists (think Marilyn Monroe or Christina Hendricks).

You'll notice that both associate beauty with being tall and slim - this is because fashion designers produce stock sizes for their models and want to show their clothes off so they look the best. They believe their clothes look good on taller, slimmer people.

Anyway, so society fluctuated between women of these two sizes between 1920 (ish) and the late 1990s (for example, 20s flappers = ironing boards, 50s pin ups = hourglass, 80-90s androgyny = ironing boards). Now, there is a pretty decent mix of the two, often combining in a woman who had a fuller bust but a flat stomach and tiny waist (Rosie Huntington-Whitley, Jourdan Dunn or Miley Cyrus spring to mind).

So all this is going on in society, with women with these figures being placed in the spotlight, whilst women of other figures are ridiculed. This is known as fat shaming - a phrase which commonly refers to when larger women are discriminated because of their size, but I am also going to use it to describe the same effect on women who are thinner. The former type is much more common, and images of women with these figures (in particular the ironing board figure which is arguably more coveted in the fashion industry) can often end up being a trigger for mental illnesses and eating disorders such as anorexia or bulimia. Women are told that they need to look a certain way and can feel a lot of pressure to conform to these standards of beauty.

Needless to say, this is wrong and bad. Not only that, but these perceptions of beauty and many of the arguments that support them (specifically health arguments) are often false. The most important thing is that you love your body, no matter what shape or size. For the UK the average dress size is 14-16. However, women still feel the need to conform the images shown in fashion magazines depicting 'size 0' (UK size 4) models.

The fashion industry are taking baby steps to acknowledge their role in the perception of beauty in society (there is a fabulous article by a 'plus size model' here, in which she discusses the pressures of being a model and the semantics around the term 'plus size'). But they are only baby steps.

Now, most of this post has been about beauty generally. I'm going to try and articulate something I have been coming to terms with recently: my own perception of my body image and my relationship with food.

Overall, I quiet like my body. I'm about 5ft 5" and weigh somewhere in the region of 8.5 stone. On BMI charts I sit around the 19-20 marl, which is healthy for a girl my age, height and weight. This doesn't mean I'm 100% happy with the way I look though.

I am a victim of the 'flat stomach' desire. I want a flatter stomach and I know I can get one. I feel 10 times bigger than I was last summer (despite the fact that the guy I'm seeing says I haven't changed and my mum thinks I look the same) and I know I'm a lot less healthy. I've been eating more and exercising less, it's really as simple as that.

I used to be able to brush off feelings of unhealthiness, go on health kicks and feel better about myself. But this time, I've really sunk into a rut, thinking that everybody around me is so much thinner and prettier. I shouldn't aspire to be thinner. I know I'm healthy, and I know a lot of people want my body type. I also know I'm unhappy in my skin, so I want to change that. However, this feeling of general unhealthiness as for the first time highlighted to me my own relationship with food. Which is by no means as healthy as I'd like it to be. I categorize foods into good and bad. I reward myself with food, as well as deny myself it. I count calories obsessively.

Now I know this is ridiculous. I know that if I acted on many of my food feelings I would end up becoming seriously unhealthy, and part of me worries that it's only because I've got my mum feeding me that I eat proper sized portions at all (too bigger portions in my eyes, but I eat them because she gives them to me).

This has been a huge realisation for me. I've started to do more exercise and eat more regularly (ie, cutting out snacks and eating larger meals). So that feels better. I've also started to go for walks more regularly, to get myself up out of my computer seat and into the fresh air, which always makes me feel healthier anyway. I'm going to try not to worry about my tummy in my bikini on holiday, and sort out any issues I have afterwards.

So, mostly I'm feeling good. However, society and its relationship to the female body is still hugely flawed. I might do another post this week on ownership of the female body, because as I've said it's something I've been thinking a lot about recently.

Best Wishes, 

xx

If you suffer from any of the issues mentioned, and would like to talk about it, you can visit your local doctor, visit http://www.youth2youth.org.uk/common-problems/self-image/ or http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Anorexia-nervosa/Pages/Getting-help.aspx

Review: The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid

People have been recommending Mohsin Hamid's work from all sides, so when I saw this in the library I thought I'd pick it up*. Let's just say the recommendations were wholly deserved - I really enjoyed this book.

* As an aside I have very conflicting views on libraries so hopefully I'll do a discussion post on that in the near future (along with all the other posts I've promised, sorry!).


1) It's premise really intrigued me - being addressed directly and so specifically was really interesting. This was particularly fascinating as I found I really did not like the person who was being addressed - and the uncomfortable situation this puts the reader is in just <emotivearmmovements> good. Really good.

2) The narrator is very eloquent yet very bare at the same time, which created just stunning reading. The book is written as a very one-sided conversation, and it really felt like you were sitting down listening to someone tell you about their life. This could be boring, but when the narrator has lived such a rich life it's very interesting.
3) It's surprisingly tension filled - the moment at the end (which I shall not reveal) may not be entirely shocking (due to the hints laid down in the novel) but is very very well executed.
4) I read it in two chunks (the first 3/4 in one sitting, and the last 1/4 this morning) but because of the style of the book I'd really recommend trying to read it in one sitting. It's only 200 pages long, so it really doesn't take that long to get though if you can set aside a couple of hours.

5) It picked up some very interesting points about how we (or specifically how Americans - although it applied to most Western nations) judge people based on appearance. And how (again Americans, but us Brits do it too) completely misinterpret situations when the issue of terrorism is brought up.

6) The love story in this raised some very interesting questions about what rape is and what an abusive relationship is. If you don't mind a spoiler I'm going to put a little discussion at the very end of the post, so don't scroll down if you don't want to know.

Yeah. So, I think that pretty much sums my feelings on this book up. Highly recommend it. I gave it four sunbeams.

Happy Reading!

xx

---------------------------- SPOILER ZONE ----------------------

There is a moment in this book where the narrator has sex with the girl he is in love with. She appears to have feeling for him too, but is definitely not an active participant in the intercourse. When the narrator realises that she isn't getting involved, he, albeit begrudgingly, stops. I found this very uncomfortable to read, as to me, this was clearly a rape. She did not want to have sex with him. However, as you see everything through the narrator's eyes, it became very muddled in my mind. There is a second sex scene, which to my mind is also rape, although the girl is an active participant. The narrator abuses her mental fragility in order to get what he wants. Which, as I've said, constitutes rape, or at the very least an abusive relationship. Once again, because we see everything through the narrator's eyes, we can see that he wants to make her happy. However, we can also see how much he is manipulating his own thoughts. His rationale may be her happiness, but his motive is very much his own fulfilment.

I just found this interesting. If you want to contribute to this discussion (particularly if you’ve read the book) please leave a comment!

Personal Issues with 'yourfaveisproblematic'

Yesterday, I was alerted to the prescience www.yourfaveisproblematic.tumblr.com. Now, on the face of this this website is nothing to worry about, and in fact should probably be encouraged. It's premise is to look at people in the public eye and point out 'problematic' things they have said/done and make 'reciepts' of them. As I said, on the face of it this should be encouraged - it's good to look critically on the people we admire to make sure what we like about them isn't clouding our judgement. However, after posting libelous things about John Green, I think we need to review some of the more 'problematic' aspects of this website. I would like to stress that this is by no means a comprehensive list, and if you find anything false about it I will more than happily put my hands up and say I got it wrong - I only looked at the website for about half an hour last night.

1) Frequently de-contextualises comments. This includes comments that were obviously made in jest and by no means represent the speakers values, comments that have been taken out of their historical time frame, and comments that have been taken out of their chronology. I'll go into more detail with specifics later.

2) Calls out people on what does/does not constitute cultural appropriation (ie. when celebrities wear a bindi/Native American headdress etc) yet refuses to acknowledge that this makes it a source of information on what is/is not cultural appropriation. If you are stating that 'this is and this isn't', then be prepared to answer for what you're saying and attempt to explain to those who have queries (ie, why aren't corn-rows/ dreadlocks cultural appropriation yet the wearing of the bindi (what wikipedia - and I know it's not the most reliable source - states as worn as fashion for many women, even though the traditional bindi is preserved as a religious symbol) is?). It's not good enough for you to say 'I can't answer that as we are not an authority' when you repeatedly make judgements on other people.

3) Attributes what fictional characters say/do to their authors/the actors who portray them. This appears to only apply to those characters who say/do something considered racially or culturally offensive, not those characters who commit moral crimes/ things that are sexually offensive. The people who run the website can't seem to understand that things that characters say and do are more often than not the complete polar opposite of an authors opinions. This links into point (1), particularly about chronology and historical context. The examples I saw of this on the website: a) John Green wrote a Muslim character into one of his novels (this character was the second most important in the novel) who says a Muslim word which is offensive, but flips it so it is almost a term of endearment. It is a word that Green wouldn't/doesn't say in his life, and a word that is completely appropriate with context. b) A character in 'Mad Men' (I believe) did 'blackface' (where a white person wears black face paint to portray a different ethnicity). Whilst this is completely unacceptable in modern times, this show is set in the 1950s, where this sort of actively was a lot more common place and not frowned on to such a degree. Equally, just because a character did something relevant to its historical context, does not mean to actor who portrayed it agrees with it. As I said, they have not called out people like Tom Cruise, Matt Damon or Bruce Willis for advocating murder simply because they kill people in their films. Equally, they do not call out Jane Austen for portraying patriarchal views in her novels. This is a ridiculous double standard. This website needs to recognise that authors and actors do not represent the views of the characters they create.

4) (This one I am not 100% certain about, but it was my impression after last nights searching) They want their blog to be an open discussion, then close off the 'ask' box feature when they receive a high volume of criticism for the libelous comments made against John Green and get angry at those who find other ways to interact with them. Whilst I understand that the people on this blog were also receiving threats (including death threats) they still have a responsibility to engage with the polite discussion. Threatening people is never acceptable, but when a site is making these claims on people who they do not know then they have to allow themselves to be held accountable for their words - particularly when these words could seriously damage a persons career. Again I am not saying that things celebrities do/say shouldn't be called out on if it is offensive/distasteful, because it's great to look at things we admire critically, HOWEVER these need to be verified before being posted on the internet. It's a dangerous place.

5) Linking to (2) makes political statements yet refuses to acknowledge themselves as a source of information.

6) Linking to above and (2), asks their audience to accept what they are saying as fact, not always revealing the source of their information (although they are mostly good as showing the source) and removes the ability for their audience to directly question me further.


Now, as I've said, I have not comprehensively reviewed this tumblr. Some of what I have said is potentially incorrect, and if anyone who either follows the tumblr or those who run the tumblr would like to speak to me about this then please do so, either in the comments or by my email. I would prefer that any comments were made directly to me as there is a high possibility that I won't see them otherwise, and I would like to address any concerns people may have.

I would also like to stress that I support the premise of the site. But the people who run it need to be aware of the responsibilities that come with running a site like this. If this site gets any more publicity, I would be very surprised if celebrities don't start to sue over some of the claims made on the site. Equally, clearly I am very angry about point (3) as it is ridiculous if you believe that the things characters do/say are they things their creators believe.


Sorry about the long break and about the rant, but this really wound me up.

Best Wishes,

xx