A while back I read (via Andrew Sullivan) about the Erin Andrews video. For those who aren’t up-to-the-minute on internet memes, Andrews is an attractive ESPN sportscaster who was illicitly filmed semi-nude in her hotel room via a hidden camera. The video went viral, there was much excitement and hand-wringing and hypocritical panting of various sorts by various news outlets. Jennie Yabroff at Newsweek had a pretty thoughtful comment about the brou-ha-ha in which she said:
Andrews has a nice body, but so do lots of other naked women you can find on the Internet, and in much higher-resolution pictures. In the video, she appears to be getting ready to go out: brushing her hair, looking in the mirror. It’s not super-racy stuff. The quality of the video is so poor, it’s hard to tell Andrews’s identity. In fact, the tape has been online for months, and generated interest only when ESPN’s lawyers confirmed Andrews’s identity as the woman in the hotel room.
Obviously, the fact that Andrews is a celebrity has a lot to do with it. The fact that we’ve seen her face before somehow makes her body more interesting. And certainly, the fascination with naked celebrities is nothing new. Playboy understood that when it put Marilyn Monroe on the cover of its inaugural issue. But it’s doubtful Andrews would have caused such a stir had she posed for the magazine. What’s really provocative about the Andrews tape, what makes it good copy for Fox et al. is not that she’s naked, but that she thinks she’s alone.
Privacy, it seems, is the new nudity (my italics) This is why, when Jennifer Aniston poses topless for the cover of GQ no one does more than shrug, but when paparazzi catch her sunbathing topless, it’s tabloid fodder for weeks. Same with Britney Spears. Same with Janet Jackson. It’s not so much a desire to see nudity as it is to see candor, to see what the person looks like when she’s unaware she’s being watched.
I think Yabroff is pretty spot on in her analysis for the most part. But she’s wrong when she says that privacy is the new nudity. Privacy and porn have been linked for a really long time. In fact, in her book about pornography, Hard Core, Linda Williams essentially argues that the whole point of pornography, the impetus behind it, is as much knowledge as lust. Why does so much porn look like a clinical gynecological exam? Clinical isn’t really especially sexy; if the point was prurience, surely you could find a more appealing way to do it.
Williams argues that the reason for the gynecology is that porn is obsessed, essentially, with obliterating privacy; with making visible women’s interiors, both literally and figuratively. There’s an essentially sadistic desire to know and possess the women’s private self; to consume or fill that private space, so that the woman is entirely obliterated by the observer. That’s the kink; to have everything visible, accessible, and controllable. The violation, of self and of privacy, is always part of the thrill.
As just one example of the long-established fetishization of privacy, take the work of Bill Ward. Ward was a fifties pin-up cartoonist, a contemporary of Jack Cole and Dan DeCarlo. Ward was extremely prolific, but among of his most famous schticks (according to editor and scholar Alex Chun) were the telephone girls. Here are a couple of examples, from Chun’s The Glamour Girls of Bill Ward.
As you can see, it’s a pretty simple idea: luscious, top-heavy girls lounge about the room in lingerie, delivering their gag line into a phone. The scenario is built around a winking violation of privacy; the girls, safe in their rooms, think they are unseen by their interlocutors and therefore are free to cavort in lacy underthings. The viewer is like the camera in Erin Andrews hotel room; they get to see What Women Get Up To When They Believe They Are Unobserved. (Though, obviously, Ward’s fantasy women get up to more exotic shenanigans, at least in terms of attire, than Ms. Andrews did.)
One of the odd things about the fetishization of privacy in Ward’s drawings is how entirely undifferentiated it is. You get to be a secret voyeur in the boudoir of bevies of bodacious beauties — and dang if all those bevies are bodacious and beautiful in just about exactly the same way. Alone and uninhibited, they all wear garters and stockings and ridiculous heels, lace and filigree and fetishy nothings. There’s a similarity here to traditional porn movies, where, as Williams says, the obsession is with revealing the hidden insides of women — and what that means, functionally, is the same ritual shots of genitalia over and over. The point of the fetish is not just to reveal the private self, but to reduce that self to a series of easily recognizable tropes; you want to both know everything about the individual and have that knowledge be utterly banal. Again, this is pretty much textbook sadism, with individuals compulsively and repetitively turned into interchangeable, collectible objects — the denial, and indeed, the defilement of personality functioning in itself as the fetish.
I don’t actually mean to say that I hate Ward’s work or anything. He’s a talented artist, and he’s certainly nowhere near as sadistic as, say, Tabico, a pornographer whose work I admire excessively. Still, when I compare him to DeCarlo or Jack Cole, I have to say I do find his work kind of numbing…and even a little disturbing. DeCarlo’s women always have definite personality. For Cole, on the other hand, personality always seems to be beside the point — he’s really much more interested in surface voluptuousness than in pretending that his confections have, or are meant to have, actual brains, which is maybe why he so often doesn’t even bother to show you his women’s eyes. For Ward, though, personality matters — it’s just the same frozen personality over and over and over. His women’s eyes often look weirdly painted on; it’s like an endless procession of mannequins, all dressed in the same more or less fetishy style, all with the same overblown proportions. Probably the effect wouldn’t be so stultifying if you saw just one or two of the cartoons in those old Humorama magazines as they were originally run, but when you see them all together in a collection, it does become a little oppressive. Eliminating privacy goes a long way towards eliminating difference; if you systematically obliterate mystery, all that you’re left with is the homogenous and mundane. That’s why so much porn is so aggressively boring and why, though I can admire Ward’s skill, looking at his drawings gets wearisome very quickly.
The "Gastro" shows imagined in Paul Pope's 100% are a vivid extension of the "hidden insides" idea.
I have to admit with some embarrassment that I haven't read much of Pope's work in general, and none of that one in particular. Could you explain a little more what you're talking about, for ignoramuses such as me?
No prob. There's a substantial explanation of the idea of "Gastro" in a narration starting on p.65 of the collected paperback and continuing for a number of pages (set against images of a girl preparing for just such a performance).
After tracing the historical evolution of titillation from "the flash of an ankle" to "televised battlefield rape" and "porn pills" (stimuli which have "all [gotten] boring", we're told, within the futuristic world of the comic), the narrator remarks that "then some charming gentleman asked himself, 'What's it look like inside a woman? …What do her insides look like when she gets off?'"
The dancing girl (whose on-stage persona is "Dollar Bill", by the way) is shown suiting up, so to speak, with "touchpads and wires…gluing on the instruments that will light up her insides for all to see…a girl and her human meat" …and entering "the lift that takes the girls up into the Gastro Cube."
The narration continues: "You know, Gastro. 'What's boiling in her stomach' and all that. 3-D projections of a girl's insides for all to see. Right now, it's the shaz, superspace…the new menu, the thing…next week, it'll be boring, too.
(The girl is shown dancing in a g-string and sneakers as holographic depictions of her internal organs float about the ceiling of the cube.)
"Mere nudity- where's the thrill? The thrill is in being touched…opened up…hiding in padlocked hallways in the dark. We want to touch…we just can't figure out how to do it. We lost the words for it. Then we forgot the question.
"And if we can't touch, we'll settle for being exposed. We'll take the girl and her meat in a see-thru box. Give us what's boiling inside her stomach. Pulsing and throbbing, wet and red…GASTRO. A girl, opened up for the whole world to see."
***
Apologies to Mr. Pope if I've quoted a bit excessively. "Gastro" is just one of the ideas floating around in the stew of 100%, but it's an extra spicy one to be sure- a strange but completely plausible scenario for the future of porn (if indeed that future isn't here already).
I think the whole Erin Andrews thing has more to do with the odd sports context than with "privacy as porn"
Thanks, Anon! That sounds like exactly what I'm talking about.
Hey Eric. I'm not sure what you think is especially kinky about the sports context. I think you'd probably get the same effect with any celebrity, sports or otherwise.
A couple of things…
1) There are nude pics of virtually any of most kinds of female celebs already–or at least scantily clad pics of actresses, pop stars, etc. These kinds of celebs are almost always unabashedly selling sex. Erin Andrews is never dressed sexy…and never undressed in most of her public appearances. She's dressed sexier than most of her competitors/peers, but since most of those are balding middle-aged men, it's not saying much…So, while ESPN is kind of selling sex with Andrews (I doubt she has the job if she's not attractive), they pretend that they are not.
2) All the hubba-hubba about Andrews in general is overblown because of the sports context. She's attractive enough…but she is not a bombshell with humongous ta-tas. In "regular celebrity" circles (actresses, pop stars), she wouldn't even make the grade as celebrity. All the sports-fan interest in Andrews' sexiness is on a curve-graded scale, again comparing her to other sporstcasters…most of which are (again) middle-aged balding men…with a few women, many of whom are ex-jocks and don't fit into this context.
3) So, sports (at least men's sports) is one of those weird arenas of celebrity that doesn't focus so much on selling women's sexiness overtly…although it does so covertly all the time–in the homosocial locker-room context of both fans and athletes. When men get together in the locker room (or on sports talk radio) there is always a lot of objectifying talk about women (just "rating" them on scales of hotness/sexiness, etc.), but this supposedly has nothing to actually do with the sports themselves. Cheerleader talk is a break from the "real business" of sports and sports talk.
Women's sports are discussed in terms of "sexy" (Serena Williams…or women's voleyball), but Andrews is not a female athlete–and her primary beat is (I think) major league baseball–the major sport most removed from sexuality of any kind…
So I think interest in Andrews herself…and the case of the hotel video… has a lot to do with how Andrews is obviously a "sex object" for ESPN and its viewers…but how that is never overtly admitted by ESPN. The _interest_ in the Andrews video is spawned by the context (she's a sex object and she isn't one…she's sexy in the context of sideline reporters, but not so much in other contexts)…and by the strangeness of the revelation. If Andrews did a Playboy spread (or similar online porn), she would be fired…as opposed to helping her career (as would be the case for most other celebs).
Andrews, supposedly, is a "sports journalist". The video allows everyone to have their cake and eat it too. They can express outrage about the invasion of privacy, while going online and viewing the pics for themselves. The same occurs in sportstalk venues. Blowhards go on the air and talk about how horrible the people who did this are…and then proceed to "rate" Andrews' body.
There's more to the case than just "invasion of privacy" or "privacy" in general. The Paris Hilton sex video for instance can't hurt Hilton's "career" or "image" even if it invades her privacy.
For Andrews and her employers it's either a double-edged sword or a convenient means of achieving the same publicity while supposedly holding the "moral high ground" and expressing outrage.
One could imagine similar interest/concern if Katie Couric were videotaped…but not pop stars or actresses, for which all of this is now part of the game. Obviously, the line between celebrity and journalism is frayed (and to call Andrews a journalist is stretching the term)…but the line does exist
That all seems reasonable enough…but none of it contradicts the idea that the fetish is privacy. Basically the point you're making is simply that she's got more of a private life, or more of an expectation of certain kinds of privacy (especially around sex) than certain other kinds of celebrities. Thus her nudity is more exciting.
Even so, I'm not sure you're right in saying that this is more of a big deal than it would be for other kinds of celebrities. Illicit sex tapes for other celebrities (Paris Hilton, Pamela Anderson) have created huge media firestorms…even though you can pretty much see Pamela Anderson nude whenever you'd like, and with much better production values than in some crappy home video.
I don't think it's as simple as privacy. Andrews is a female in a male-dominated space. My gut reaction is that the kink in this is not just privacy, but putting a woman in her place. This is confirmed by her usual image as not-particularly-sexual (she'd have to be, to survive in a boy's world and be taken seriously). Taking non-consensual nudity pictures and passing them around is as classic as making her fetch coffee to get a view of her legs.
If I had to guess, the non-consensual aspect is enormous. The women in the drawings are seen, but they're not aware of being seen–that's more simple privacy as porn (which I think you're right has a degree of sadism in the 'all the sameness').
But voyeurism (invasion of privacy) is always about the non-consensual aspect, isn't it? It's less icky in a fantasy setting like Ward's, obviously, but I think the non-consensual aspect is still definitely part of the thrill.
The fact that Andrews isn't usually sexualized, and therefore that her sexuality is more private, may give the video an extra oomph — but really, any illicit celebrity sex video tends to go nuclear, as far as I can tell, and the extent to which it does seems to be more or less related to the fame of the celebrity. Remember, Paris Hilton wasn't actually all that big a deal before that sex video hit; it sort of made her (uber) famous, rather than the other way around.
I agree with Vom to some degree-but the question of "who" is putting Andrews in her place is tricky. Certainly, in the other examples Vom cites, the idea would be that the other people in the office (or workplace) put the woman in her place. Here, it's not her co-workers (or not directly), but other people in the predominantly male sports community. "Fans" take the video and thus get to turn her into a sexual object, placing "women" in their "appropriate" place. ESPN, etc., can plausibly argue that they are certainly NOT putting Andrews in her place.
So ESPN employer busily disavows any of this…insisting that they DO take Andrews seriously…that she is NOT a sexual object, etc.
The interesting part of all this is the hypocrisy on almost everyone's part (except MAYBE Andrews herself). There is little doubt that ESPN sees Andrews as a useful piece of their corporate machinery precisely because she is so telegenic. Then they express (feign?) dismay when she is "objectified" in this fashion.
Finally, yes people are interested in seeing the Anderson/Hilton sex videos–but it has no effect on their image or their careers…and that interest is more linked to their direct image as sex symbols. The interest in Andrews is less in her physical attractiveness and her sex symbol status than in the anomalous nature of those things in her particular millieu.
Would anyone care about seeing Paris Hilton or Pamela Anderson walking around naked in their hotel room (as opposed to having explicit sex?) I'm not so sure.
I haven't actually seen any of these videos btw, making me one few hetero men in the world (if you believe the sports talk stations)
Sure, non-con is always there in voyeurism. More or less apparent at times.
I was trying to get my head around the dynamic I was trying to explain, because it was still squashy in my brain. (What would the pictorial equivalent be, if not Ward?)
Have you ever seen An American Girl In Italy picture? That's the dynamic I'm thinking of.
http://www.travelitalytravel.com/american_woman_in_italy_1951.jpg
I'm not sure your point about the celebrity level creating the video popularity works, since it worked the opposite way for Paris. (I candidly admit I did not know there was a sex video of Paris Hilton. I find her horribly unattractive, so maybe I just blocked it out of my mind in an Ewwwwww way.)
"yes people are interested in seeing the Anderson/Hilton sex videos–but it has no effect on their image or their careers"
I don't think that's true; as I said, the video was a huge boost to Hilton's career.
"I'm not sure your point about the celebrity level creating the video popularity works, since it worked the opposite way for Paris."
I think there's a back and forth. I had heard of neither Andrews nor Hilton before their respective videos came out.
Right…bad wording by me. Not "no effect"–rather a positive effect for Hilton/Anderson…and a negative effect (even from a mental health p-o-v from what I understand) on Andrews.
I'm not so sure non-consensuality is necessary for porn. Isn't there plenty of porn based on the object staring straight at the camera and saying "come on and fuck me, you big stud" (or the equivalent). Where's the non-consensuality there? Sometimes people get off on non-con, sometimes not…
There isn't always non-con in heterosexual porn — but there often is. And I think non-con is always more or less part of a voyeurism fetish.
Read the Tabico link, and it was indeed, science fiction, pornography and horror. It reminds me that the loss of identity is at the heart of horror, as well as pornography.
Glad you enjoyed it; I love that story. If you want to read my ridiculously long essay about Tabico and horror, it's here.
Anon wrote: (snip)
"…'Gastro' is just one of the ideas floating around in the stew of 100%, but it's an extra spicy one to be sure- a strange but completely plausible scenario for the future of porn (if indeed that future isn't here already)…
Almost exactly a decade ago, a bunch of local hipsters I worked with were touting something similar: a short film of a man and a woman having sex, but they were filmed in infra-red (with a thermal camera).
FWIW.
— cleome45
If you ever wanted to expand this concept, look into phone and cam Ignore Lines. It’s framed as domming, as you’re not important enough for me to interact with, but I think some of the clients must certainly be voyeurs. Indeed, I’d bet a significant swath if not most.
There’s an ignore line? That’s sort of brilliant…
Yes. And it’s a skill, to boot. Either the PSO/CM has to be totally entranced in what they’re doing and/or have a busy life they don’t mind exposing/sharing, or they’ve got to be great at faking it. Complete silence doesn’t make for a good ignore call. You have to be doing something else, and only acknowledge the caller from to time to tell him how lame it is he’s still listening/watching; he must be such a pitiful loser. Sometimes it’s presented as a drain line (FinDom).
I suck at ignore calls. I’m not extroverted enough. Some SWs are known for them.
I’m telling you, the sex industry is a hotbed for human creativity and ingenuity. One might not think that at first blush because we only recognize certain types of creativity (art!), but I think, strictly speaking, there’s probably more creativity in the sex industry than the art world. And where would the art world be without the sex industry? In the shitter, that’s where. (But that’s just like my opinion, man.)