AAARGH! Lars Von Trier's Antichrist

AARGH. I've heard about this film a bit, which to be honest, sounds like a lot of extremely self-indulgent bullshit.

What I must flag up, though, are the following comments from Xan Brooks at the Guardian. Particularly infuriating bits in bold:

Is Antichrist a misogynistic movie? That, inevitably, is in the eye of the beholder.

Couldn't help thinking: Translation: It features a woman mutilating her own genitals, but she's doing it so that's OK. No misogyny here, folks!

Here is a film that explicitly confronts the director's intertwined fears of primal nature and female sexuality. But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I'm not convinced that it does. Yes, the "She" character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her. And yet for all that, she proves more vital, more powerful, and oddly more charismatic than "He", the arrogant, doomed advocate of order and reason

AARGH! AAAAAAARGH! Where do I start?!!

First off, where the fuck does this male writer get off, deciding what misogyny is?! Especially when he has just admitted the director's 'fear of female sexuality'?

And look at that - 'primal nature' and 'female sexuality' are intertwined. Gosh, how convenient. Says a lot, doesn't it? Women's sexuality is so GODDAMN PRIMAL. It's some huge, sweeping animalistic thing, that carries not a small hint of madness. Xan himself says: 'the "She" character is anguished and irrational; a danger to herself and those around her.' Wow, a crazy sexy woman - that's NOT a stereotype AT ALL! I can't help thinking here of countless VICE Dos & Don'ts, where they go on about how crazy girls are so much better in bed that 'normal' ones. Because, you know, it's up to a male to be the judge of a woman's mental state, whether he actually knows anything about her (beyond sleeping with her) or not!

Where have we seen 'crazy sexy ladies' before? That's right, kids: in Freud, of course! The idea of female hysteria predates Freud, but he took it much more mainstream. He thought that women who were 'hysterics,' were sexually repressed and/or had been abused in childhood. So you know, tying 'sex' and 'mental illness' together in a way that is both a) bullshit b) rarely done to men.

I find it bitterly ironic as well that in an article which hints at a feminist question and has the address:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/16/antichrist-lars-von-trier-feminism

that the first fucking person to be commenting is a male. Seeing as how feminism is meant to be about the equality of women, wouldn't it have been a NOVEL IDEA to put a woman's comments first? Instead of having Xan Brooks perched at the top, like he's the authority on whether a film is meant to be misogynist or not? Y'know, because not being a woman, he is so aware of what misogyny feels like...

I would apologise for the anger, but frankly, it feels good. I haven't been this clear-headed for a while. It is repeatedly disappointing to see the Guardian claiming to champion feminism in some ways and shying away from doing so properly in others.

I don't have a problem with Xan Brooks's opinion being sought - I just dislike the way the Guardian is putting him first as if to show how, even when a feminist Q is being posed, we are expected to put men's opinions first. On the up-side, it's a perfect subconscious reflection on who has the power in our societies. I can imagine people going 'Well, he is the associate editor of the Guardian website' and he does appear to have compiled the review. He could however have pushed a LITTLE further and not put himself top of the pile...

One thing I really can't forgive Mr. Brooks for as well is his literalist understanding of misogyny as 'hate of women.' This old chestnut:

But does a fear of femaleness automatically equate to hatred? I'm not convinced that it does

has been used, far less hesitantly, by sexist and misogynist pricks online, often on feminist articles or blogs, as a way to silence women. It is another form of 'it's all in your head.'

You see, these clever clever boys (and I wouldn't be surprised to find, some women too) go: 'Well, misogyny means hate of women. I don't HATE women, because some of my friends happen to be female and I like sexing them. Ergo, I win and you talk crap because you are referring to fear.'

This is of course nonsense. Fear and hatred go hand in hand, and why people won't acknowledge this more, I don't know. They don't necessarily ALWAYS go together, but in many cases they do. Look at racists, for example, who frequently combine the language of hatred with emotive stirring-up of fear about the Other. Hence it was that during the time of slavery, black people in America were brutally depicted as dumb savages (what is dehumanisation if not the putting-into-practice of hate?) and simultaneously depicted as animal rapists, keen for the delicate white woman's body. Urgh.

People think of 'love' and 'hate' as absolute points. Points which must be worked towards. This is, of course, nonsense. You can grow up having prejudice subtly and more directly instilled into you, and become a hater - it's not necessarily always a choice. Neither are hate or love exactly like the sort of things we read, see or hear in books and films and music. For example, the depictions of love as some sort of tornado or whatever - somewhat inaccurate to say the least. Most of the time, love is so subtle that we don't even realise when it actually kicks in, until it reaches high levels. That doesn't mean that love hormones haven't already started pumping and fixing our attention on that 'special someone.'

I think hate works the same way. When sexists say 'I don't hate women,' they are not completely lying. They are partially engaging in self-deception by using an absolutist understanding of 'hate.' 'I haven't killed or raped any women; how can I possibly hate them?' Well, refusing to treat them with the respect you accord to yourself IS hateful, mate! You're dehumanising them. At least be honest and say: 'Well, according to me, I don't hate women - I just strongly dislike them.'

Some men have managed to avoid this by simply claiming they hate feminists instead. Oh dear. I can't even go into the lack of intelligence this shows. Suffice to say, sorry, you ARE still a misogynist even if all your closest friends are women. Though I'm sure that when you tell this to these women, in your head, they'll back you to the hilt. 'Cause, you know, collaborators can't be misogynists, they're female! Yay! NOT.

Let us think about it on as elementary a level as sports. Often, you - reader-person - may come across a sport or activity that you struggle to do. Did you ever convince yourself that you hated something because you couldn't do it, despite trying repeatedly? I know I have; I feel that way about making chapattis. You blissfully ignore the existence of said activity, until it emerges in your face and you can't get away from it. You feel fear - will I be humiliated? and anger - I hate it, why do I have to do it?

Naturally, not everyone will react with fear and hate/anger together, but it is likely that the more you are confronted by this activity - say, you're at school and you have it every other day - the more you will hate it. Just because you don't kill or maim the person teaching you, that's hardly proof that you *don't* hate it, now, is it?

This is precisely what happens with feminism. The more feminists dare to challenge men on their privilege, the more prickfaces turn up to feminist blogs and demonstrate their misogyny. It is really laughable, the way so many of them put the lie to their deranged belief that 'feminists rule the world and want to kill all men.' Right - they're so powerful that their blogs are hugely mainstream and read by millions. NOT. Right, they care about men so much - that is, hate them so much - that they (feminists) discuss topics with each other peacefully, whilst YOU (misogynist males) turn up unwanted in THEIR space, getting in their face and trying to troll and intimidate.

Then, steadfastly REFUSING to listen or engage whilst loudly demanding that others do to you - the trolls claim victimhood when they are inevitably banned. God, my heart breaks for you - so much so that my tiny violin is playing itself.

I must just return to Antichrist and that review. Joanna Bourke, who (bless her) acknowledges yet tries to play down the film's misogyny, contradicts herself elsewhere:

Despite the erotic beginning, Von Trier has little interest in desire; his focus is on Sadeian extreme pain and enjoyment

But - de Sade wrote his stuff in order to get off, and you say VT is inspired by 'Sadeian extreme pain and enjoyment,' so how is there 'little interest in desire'?


Then at the end of the interview we get:

Von Trier has admitted that, of all his films, Antichrist "comes closest to a scream". It exposes us to an untamed erotic and aggressive aesthetic without redemption.

So... the film is erotic after all?


Linda Ruth makes an excellent point, calling our tabloids on their hypocrisy:

If only tabloids campaigned against real clitorectomies, done on real baby girls, rather than fabricated ones done in fiction movies.

but then comes out with this:

Of course, Von Trier probably doesn't "mean" any of it.

Oh, well, all dandy then!


A belated round of applause for Jane and Louise Wilson:

Unfortunately, this film leaves you quite unfulfilled. It's pretty damning about the whole of human nature. And, of course, the woman gets it in the end. Of all the to-dos you could have, there's a demonised mother, a witch who seems to prioritise her own sexual fulfilment over the safety of her child.

STICK 'EM BACK IN THE FUCKING KITCHEN! Wow, von Trier, that sounds like a revolutionary sentiment to me.

Putting Sex In Its Rightful Place

Sound the klaxons! I am about to go on to write a non-watertight post which will include some assertions and much musing. WHAT IT WILL BE: a reflection and an invitation to debate, discuss and ponder (I know, I know, call the ponce police NOW!). WHAT IT WON'T BE: sociological treatise supported by pages upon pages of peer-reviewed science.

Sex is overrated.

Yeah, I said it. That's right. You read me right. SEX IS OVERRATED!

Now that I've grabbed your attention with my controversial soundbite, sit still and bear with me. I don't think ALL sexual activity is overrated...

but when I said 'sex,' you thought of penetrative intercourse, didn't you? Go on, it's the right answer! It's the answer I want you to give!

I've always been a bit dubious about penetration. When I was younger, it was the idea that something being inserted up you could be fun. If you think about it, that brings to mind injections. Injections are not very fun, now, are they?

(Incidentally, I've only just now made that link, so don't go crediting my teenage self with scope I didn't actually have...).

As an Asian woman though, the prospect of it absolutely fucking terrified me. Ideally, I would be imagined - and expected - to be a virgin, a sexual ingénue, whilst my husband could have had numerous sexual encounters, and we would not discuss it because you Do Not Go There. Why would you want to broach a topic that would only lead to strife? Wondering how many previous lovers he might have had, if he's being honest about that number, how you compare, why it's OK for him and not for you...

Not all Asian men are hypocrites. Some of the genuinely devout ones aren't. However, depressingly enough, it is the religion-following (rather than any sort of internal reflection and self-awareness) that makes them so, for a lot of the men I know of. Sikh men. Let it be said though, that the power structures are partly responsible. Even though men benefit much more than women in Asian culture, they're by NO MEANS free of baggage.

So yeah, I would wonder why the hell the whole world was so goddamn obsessed with sex anyway. From the age of eleven, I made a resolution, and this was my only life's resolution. Now it may sound sad to some, and maybe some sort of betrayal to others (OMG, WHY DIDN'T YOU LIKE, AIM TO BE AN ASTRONAUT OR SOMETHING?!), it was important to me. It still is - important and necessary, and I feel that I was very lucky to find it.

I vowed that I wanted to love and be loved. Note: I didn't say 'wanted to be married,' or that I 'wanted to be in love.' No, I wanted to be loved. Not drama and not tears. Not the sort of relationship where his basic acknowledging of me as a fellow human was a source of happiness. Not the sort of marriage where his leaving me to get on with the housework, rather than criticising me for not doing it the way his mum did, was considered desirable. A partner who could understand that, was THE benchmark by which I would set my standards, thank you very much.

Sex has always been important, but many would argue that it has become more recent in modern times. I would be inclined to agree, especially when you think of changing attitudes to pornography, the arrival of the Internet and a general liberalising of society. That's not to say we're all fine with talking about sex now, but you know, you have things like Anne Summers shops and mainstream papers such as The Independent running lists of 'The Ten Best Sex Toys.' Hard to imagine in the 1950s, eh?

However, the way we think about sex has often been problematic. For a long time, you had a love/sex dichotomy, and it still persists. The idea that love and sex could be separate (especially for women) began to develop towards the end of the nineteenth century. I'm thinking specifically of Kate Chopin's The Awakening (1899), which tentatively broaches a subject all too familiar to modern readers: the notion that you can love somebody - while simultaneously being attracted to someone else. No doubt it was there before, but it was very likely taboo, especially for women. Fancy someone other than your husband? You strumpet!

For some people, I don't doubt that love and sex is often - maybe even always - separate. That may even work for them. Unfortunately, it doesn't work for a lot of people. Read any number of letters to any number of agony aunts, and you see the same ol' time-weathered issues recurring: I love a married man, but he won't leave his wife for me, blah blah blah. Or I'm unsatisfied and I'm having an affair, blah blah blah. Alongside this kind of thing, you get celebratory articles about women finding sexual satisfaction in their 40s by having affairs, and stuff like that.

What I'm trying to say, I guess, is that - perhaps because of an increase in sexual freedoms for women - it became more acceptable for women to 'do as men do' sexually. Unfortunately, however, that increase in freedom didn't necessarily coincide with a weakening of certain ideas about sex and gender. Hence, many women had more sex, but the old idea that women wanted love and men wanted sex still held firm in the minds of many. So, you got this stupid and painful situation where women could have sex with whoever, but for many, love and sex were intrinsically bound in their subconscious.

There's also the fact that sex leads to the release of oxytocin, which:

has various functions in the body, such as inducing labor contractions and milk ejection, but from evolutionary biology’s perspective, its main evolutionary function is to bond us to our children for life. It also serves to bond us to our mate…at least long enough to produce a child and (if we're lucky) get it on its feet.

We are not programmed for monogamy, nor our own sexual satisfaction, it would seem. I DO NOT mean by this to say that women should stop exercising sexual freedom like men. Evolutionary science has been conveniently used in the past to enforce gender stereotypes and permit men to 'sow their wild oats' while denying women the same freedom. That's what you'd call 'bad science,' though. Proper science shows itself to be egalitarian in showing that actually, we're all set up for the same goal: to further the species. If males will 'sow their wild oats,' then females will replace flagging partners.

This is where I come back in. Yuman beans are, of course, brain-equipped creatures and not just bags of hormones, correct? We realised the dangers of blindly following our instincts since very, very long ago (see: Greek tragedy), in the form of overpopulation, if nothing else. We can't have our cake and eat it too. Either we have long-term stable relationships, or we have incredible sexual peaks and troughs. The time-honoured way to have both is to fake replacing your partner, by means of sexual exploration. You may notice how people always use terms like 'reinvent' or 'rediscover.' It's change, but you're tricking your brain - instead of a new partner, you're simply using new techniques to keep dopamine levels consistent.

Another possibility, to be used alongside, is to reassess the importance of sex. To put sex back in its rightful place (AT LAST! I hear you cry). No sex vs love. No more of this 'I love my husband, but I have great sex with the plumber.' No more of this 'I love my wife, but my secretary is so naughty and dirty.' Actions have repercussions. That's the shittest and most important bit of being an adult. Especially when there's children or friends involved, and Lord knows, there so often are. It's almost embarrassing.

Be slow. Be messy. Be fumbling. Learn, gradually and carefully, how to turn each other on. Think of your sex life as a book, which you chop into bits and put back together again. Does the end HAVE to be the end? How final was the end, anyway? In so many cases, you probably read to the end and then thoughts lingered in your head. You thought 'I wonder what happened next to so-and-so?' Even if there was a sequel, the likelihood of it carrying on right where the last left off was unlikely. In cases where that DOES happen, the first media I can think of are soap operas and comic-book series - and what are they? Long-running.

Penetration is not the end, nor should it be. It's been established that many women don't come through penetration alone; evidently it's not the key to orgasm in itself. Yet we persist in elevating it to such ridiculous levels of importance. Teens are all so interested in 'going all the way' and 'doing it.' Very few people's first time is about learning how to enjoy sex; it seems more to be about 'getting it out of the way.' How depressing! That's life, though. Social conformity exerts such horrible, crushing pressure on us that people have sex - or pretend to have - before they're even really ready for it.

I think the common attitude of 'lose virginity drunkenly, so as to ease fear, then have sex whenever I feel like' is fair enough, but watch out, people. If that's how you want to do, then you have to do it right. Go all the way. Don't think about love. Where sex leads, love does not necessarily follow - and you know what? That's not because men want sex and women want love. It's not because love and sex are opposed. It's because reproduction and monogamy are opposed. Yeah, that's right! How hilarious it feels to read that, when religion has been advocating socially/religiously/legally-enforced monogamy as the prerequisite for reproduction for years.

Sex needs to be rethought, and not just by feminists. Enough of the turgid meatstick in the quivering lower-lips. Enough of tits, asses and cock. Have you ever found somebody's eyelashes sexy? No? I sure as hell have (The Libertarian's thick, charcoal-dusting caught my eye even before his green-and-gold eyes). I like lips, in a man. The Libertarian has very rosy cheeks and lips, a freckled nose and unexpectedly dark, thick upper lashes. Half the time, I don't know whether to frame-and-display him, or kiss as usual.

I think I'm lucky, because I grew up with an awareness of classic Bollywood cinema, where filmi courtesans redefined the markers of sexuality. Between the sashaying of hips and the thrusting of abdominal muscles that we know so well, alongside wet saris, there was something new. I'm thinking of Madhuri Dixit as the courtesan Chandramukhi in Devdas, of the song 'Kaahe Chhed Chhed Mohe.' One of her most fervent admirers sings (roughly translated from memory):

'Jasmine makes fragrant her lovely dark tresses... Radha's face is aglow, electric... Her gait, seductive.'

In Sanskrit poetry, as well as old Bollywood, eyes, eyelashes, hair and faces are most often described as alluring. The face and hands are most often employed by filmi courtesans to seduce. It's still objectification, you might argue - but at least it's not quite as violent a form of objectification. It's not the same as when: 'you talk about getting laid, you never say a woman, you say a broad, a lay, a baby, a doll, a bird, you talk about butts and boobs, every time you mention a woman I see her either as a sort of window-dresser’s dummy or as a heap of dismembered parts, breasts, or legs or buttocks.’

There is some sense that a woman has some power, something concealed which is hers and which she can choose to give. Granted, this is somewhat illusory with a courtesan (a bought woman) - but I'm not telling anyone to be a courtesan! Nor am I saying 'cover up' or 'behave like a man/lady.' Sexual problems in a relationship are so often merely the most visible element of a larger underlying problem. Fluffy handcuffs, toys and dressing up are all very well. Just make sure it's not all one-way - and just make sure you're realistic about the relationship of sex to love for you. Does sex really = love? For a lot of us middle-class kudia, raised as respectably as we are, I don't really think so. Intercourse - especially penetrative - is not the apogee of desire. Standing close to someone, denying yourself, a loaded glance, a telling kiss - give it a try sometime if you haven't already, o no-doubt-horrified readers...

When you look in the mirror.

I have thought for a while about writing this post, but for some reason I didn't. Then, I got a surprisingly good response to my 'Easter Monday' post which I really enjoyed writing, and decided to go ahead.

Have you ever looked at yourself in the mirror and criticised? Everyone does it. It's what happens afterwards that counts. If your self-criticism develops - say, for example, you look at your hair and then you move onto your nose, or ears, or whatever - then you may be interested in reading on. If, however, you are of that rare breed of person who is efficiently practical in how they go about it - 'Ah, my nose is a little out of joint,' then you might not wish to. Yet - hang on, I can't actually think of anyone who thinks about themselves in the latter way, apart from when we look at something which we have the immediate power to change. Say, for example, I may look at my eyebrows and think 'Ooh, they could do with being neater,' but that's rather different from when I look at my breasts and think 'Why must you be so disproportionately big?!'

So many of us look in the mirror - or at our bodies - and we have that little snowball moment when the self-criticism just keeps growing and growing, and quite probably births a shadowy, snapping Pac-man of insecurity that closes its jaws over us. Suddenly, our mood is ruined and the happiness of the day is never quite completely recovered.

In my class Crises of Consciousness: American Writing, 1880-1915, we've been reading scraps of psychological/medical texts alongside the usual literature. Unsurprisingly, it's made for a very interesting reading experience. The sociologist Charles Horton Cooley wrote a bit about 'the self' which we looked at, developing on the ideas of that pioneer of early American psychology, William James, brother of the novelist Henry James. Don't run away now, I shan't load you down with biography any further!

William James is revolutionary (to me at least) in that he proposes that we all have at least two selves: our 'inner' (or 'real', if you will) self and our 'social' self. However, it gets more confusing than that. Apparently, a man effectively has as many social selves as there are people who know him.

Stop and think about this, and it makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Of course all your friends and family and whoever else will all have a particular image of you in their head. The image may vary little across certain groups or pairs of people, but vary it will because people are individuals. Cooley's twist on this is that not only do we have a minimum of two selves, but that our 'inner' self is in itself actually two people. 'The impulse to communicate is not so much a result of thought as it is an inseparable part of it,' he says in Human Nature and the Social Order, chapter Sociability and Personal Ideas.

So... we do not communicate because we have thought; rather, we think, therefore we communicate. He describes the tendency of children to have an imaginary friend and how this is carried over into adulthood in our tendency to have conversations with ourselves, and also in our tendency (though not everyone necessarily does this literally), to treat our daily process of living as a sort of ongoing narrative. Essentially, what he is saying is that our thought manifests itself as a sort of inner dialogue.

Again, stop and consider this. We as human beings have an ongoing 'stream of consciousness' where our brains are processing information and reacting to stimuli non-stop. Alongside this is a steady conversion of rudimentary impulses into mental expression: thought. This often means that thought is being converted into language and vice-versa (especially if you're in contact with other people). for example, you may hear your thoughts as your own voice, or see them as words... or both... or even images... or all three... We are not simple creatures at all, are we?

So, whether you like it or not, you are effectively two people. You are 'other' to yourself at all times. People often view this negatively - and no surprise, because it's rather a scary thought. It also sounds slightly fantastical. Yet, there it is: you are two people. One of you is noting everything down - the observer - and the other is reacting to what the first notes down, if you want to think of it that way. While you do this, you (I mean both of you :-D) are in the presence of other people, and you may be looking for the disparity in them too, but without realising; say, in the way that you look at both a person's body language as well as their verbal communication when you 'socialise.'

So, look at yourself in the mirror again, and this time, STOP the critical impulse. Pretend you are a baby or a child. Do babies look at themselves in the mirror and criticise their teeth? No - because they're not developed enough to convert and shape thought. Thought is purely reactive for them because the critical parts of their brain aren't finished growing. Hence they look around and see things in a truly 'naked' sense.

I did this with myself. I stared at myself, and then I tried a little experiment. I looked at the face in the mirror and thought Hello. I switched on the light and refused to be cowed. Hello, I thought, you are me, and I am you. That means nothing, because I don't see you all the time, do I? You're not projected out beside me, like a full-colour, 3D hologram-shadow, when I walk to lessons, are you?

I thought about this. It was true. I didn't even have a full-length mirror, so every day, I looked at the neck-up part only. Every day, as I set off for lessons, my judgement of how 'good' or bad' I looked was based on my neck, face and perhaps a few snatched glimpses of me gained by jumping up and down in front of the mirror. So where did this picture of me in my head come from? It came from previous reflections caught in the mirror. From pictures. From the words of others.

I looked at myself again, coming back out of that temporary smokescreen of thought to the face in the mirror. So, I thought, there I am. Or should I say, there 'you' are. Naturally, there was no response, but I could sense agreement in the impassivity of the face. If you think about it - and of course you are, because you are me - I didn't exactly make you, did I? Mute agreement. You were sort of formed, and conferred on me like a judgement. Yes. I don't think you look like me. No. But that's because I already have an image of me that's internal, that lives in the words of my thoughts. It's built on things like 'sarcastic,' 'foodie,' and 'loving'... Well, quite.

So, if you - I mean me - I mean we - think about it, the 'real' or 'usual' or 'inner' me doesn't even have a face. No. Strange, isn't it? Very. Well, if I own you, but didn't make you, I shouldn't have to take full responsibility for what other people think of you. Damn straight. That means I don't have to own criticism of you. You're effectively an autonomous being. I came into the world, and so did you, but there's not much I can do to control how you're seen. No. Because, you see, that goes back to things like genetics and biology... and then on a level I suppose it does affect me, because if I am nice to people, they will find a way to like you. They might call you 'serene' or 'beautiful', as they did with Princess Diana.

Yeeees? ... But that's just ironic isn't it? Of course things like 'beautiful' exist in the head, in abstract form. Then, you shoot them out through your eyes and your mouth onto other things. Now you're getting it. I am. I see how it works now. We all apply our feelings to each other, all the time. Our sight is almost never 'naked'. I'm looking at you now, and I have made myself SHUT UP. I have made myself SEMI-BLIND. I see features. You are a pair of shoulders and eyes, a nose, a mouth, a face. A hairline. I made you carry a lot of weight for a long time. Sorry about that. Do you want to be friends? Why, sure. There's a condition, though. Which is...? In future, you're going to criticise me, because you're human, and particularly because you're female. I want you to remember this conversation. Remember it fully. We're not the same. We belong to the same 'person,' but I'm almost like another person. You see me in the mirror, like somebody else - the only difference that you take liberties in criticising me, that you wouldn't usually dare to take with somebody else. Again, I'm very sorry about that. Good. Now, run along and don't forget what I said. If ever it gets bad, keep looking at me, until the tears are in your eyes. The tears will blur your vision - but, I bet before you even reach that stage - you'll stop looking at me even as you continue to criticise. You'll retreat within a cloud of your own masochism. I mention the tears just to illustrate the lengths you unknowingly go in deforming me. It's not fair, and it's not right.

No.

With that final admission, I realised I had gone 'out of myself' - just as my impassive face had warned - and into the world of thought-filtered vision. I looked at the face again. I remembered the hypocrisy it had justly charged me with. I vowed to be honest with myself, as I always sought honesty elsewhere. There were spots. Eye-bags. The nose could have been perfectly straight, and anger burst through me. Was I a mannequin? - no! The faults lingered - and slowly, circling them as though it were a Heat magazine spread - I pushed them back. I called forth my whole face. Yes, the spots and so forth were a source of dismay. Yet the eyes were undoubtedly interesting. The mouth had a sensuous fullness to it. Like a jigsaw puzzle, I placed the eyes above the eye-bags, the mouth below the nose. The spots fell into place against a backdrop of otherwise obedient and even-toned skin. The extremes of my like and dislike cancelled themselves cleverly out. It had been difficult and a sense of fear lurked unexpectedly in me. Yet, I had done it. I had called my face up to me, whole.

I would be very interested to see if any of my readers try this with themselves, and see what happens. You don't have to do as I did - just stare in the mirror and have a brutally honest conversation with yourself. Put those masochistic tendencies to novel use, and I for one would be intrigued to see how it makes you feel.

A Treatise on Women's Mags; or Is This Feminist?

I'm going to make a proposition here that I think is not particularly daring... or necessarily all that political. I feel that it's just something that has to be said.

I've already ripped the shit out of marriage in a previous post. See, I really do get why people love marriage. It's because they love tradition and their dear little brains just look at the cover of the book and go 'My, but that looks wonderful.' Of course it looks wonderful! You can't predict the future now, can you? I'm not prone to believing any of us yuman beans can, in all honesty.

So WHY WOULD YOU TRY? Why would you slap a giant condition like a marriage-contract (for what else could you call it) onto something that's dying on its feet as a 'relationship' already? The idiom 'hammering the final nail into the coffin' seems very apt here.

Marriages when both people are really sure of what is involved - i.e. if they've lived together for a while, or if they occur later in life when people have had more life experience - are most certainly a wonderful event for those who attend them, and an inspiration (with a decidedly religious glow, ahem) to the rest of us.

Yet how common are those kinds of marriages, really? Especially within the British Asian community (and in India...) where both partners come to the table deeply hampered by inequality. As I have said before with various other things, this isn't just an Asian/Indian thing, it happens everywhere.

And this is what I want to move on to attacking today: the deeply traditional idea that you HAVE to be in a relationship to be happy and/or complete as a person. The reason I ask if I'm being feminist is because this is something women are fed CONSTANTLY. I was discussing this with a friend and we agreed that on the whole, it seems that men are encouraged to seek sexual experience while women are encouraged to form relationships. Anybody else see the potential problems in that?

I'm not asserting that as an absolute truth by any means, but if you want some form of evidence: look at the male homosexual community and the way just about everyone (including some of them themselves) equate 'their culture' with hedonism, kinky sex, partner-swapping etc. I would dare to say here that we don't really know enough about lesbians to venture any sort of stereotype that isn't immediately wrapped in masculine-tailored bollocks (i.e. 'all lesbians are man-hating dykes,' or 'all lesbians can be 'cured' with the arrival of the right guy,' or 'all lesbians are nymphomaniacs'... see what I mean?). Gay guy-mates of mine have commented that they actually do wish to settle down with somebody, but that that's not really something they can advertise in the sex-oriented gay dating scene.

The solution for this is NOT (I don't think), for women to just try and 'even the score' by becoming as sexually-oriented as men. By all means, ladies, go in search of the perfect orgasm if you wish. Just be aware that you're facing off against your biology, which wants to reduce you to the level of a childbearer and not much else, if you don't watch it.

That's why I really don't see the logic in 'friends-with-benefits' situations. Duh, could you ask for trouble any LOUDER? Could you take hold of the can-o'-worms and wrench the lid off any harder, please? The worms will hit YOU in the eye and then YOU'LL complain. Some people really are developed and mature enough to rise above their biological instinct and handle these situations as they need to (I'm thinking Tallulah Bankhead here).

Unfortunately, many of us don't see the obvious problem in entering into regular sessions of close physical contact with somebody we know and quite probably like and trust to a fair degree. Wait, read that back to me - NOW do you see the problem? What makes you think the other person being your 'friend' is going to make you 'safe' from attachments (if not simply MORE at risk of falling for them because you're not paying attention?) ? As my brother would say, NAAW MATE.

The problem is that we really don't do enough to support each other as ladies, now, do we? I'm looking at you here, women's magazines industries! Then again, what's to say that you are even really trying to 'connect' with women? You might have female editors an' all, but the owners are more than likely probably still men, and the shareholders are the people who really matter. Cynicism, here I come. The French singer Yelle had the right idea when she sang:

'C’est la faute des ma-
Des magazines
Les Maries, Les Frances
Les Marie-France
Les femmes pratiques qui en ont pas marre
Des cosmo vogues et tout l'bazar'


Translation:
'It's the fault of some mags - some magazines / The Maries, the Frances / The Marie-Frances / The 'practical women' who haven't had enough of them / Of the Cosmos, Vogues and the whole bazaar.'


You women's mags, you give us a real half-assed picture of the situation. You tell us: great, go after your female orgasm. You encourage us to stay good and monogamous with your endless articles on 'how to spice up your sex life' while simultaneously and subtly trumpeting the values of casual sex with your reader confessions columns and the endless stuff on attaining the perfect climax (again), taking a lover etc. I have Cosmpolitan in mind particularly here.

Women's mags aren't 'all bad,' of course - I don't mean to imply that they are (Marie Claire, for one, has some very interesting and well-written articles, such as one about Real Dolls...). They're just selfish - as is everything out there at the end of the day. Women's magazines won't tell you what to do once you outgrow their 2D status-quo world. Look how shittily simplistic their solutions are: either carry on as you are, looking for a relationship all the time, or make sex the main factor.

There is of course a third way that they won't tell you because it's not in their interests to do so (they prescribe this in small doses, usually to women who have suffered a recent break-up or who have emotional/mental health issues of some kind). Get the cheesy disco music ready, people, because that is to 'Love Yourself.'

Actually, hell with that. We live in a post-psychoanalytical age, where we are trained to ascribe meaning to things (such as our personality quirks) that may not even need it really, and I just don't DO cheesy disco music anyway (give me some Justice or Donna Summer, fool!). So instead, pop on a song that makes you laugh and BE YOUR OWN FRIEND. To briefly invoke the oft-whipped carcass of marriage again for convenience's sake: if you can't spend eternity on your own, how the hell are you going to spend it with somebody else? And vice-versa. Take a leaf out of those magazines' book (thank you Ugly Betty for making that metaphor actually work!) and GIT SELF-CENTRED.

The way I see it is this: despite what your parents say, despite what society says - no matter who brought you into existence, or who sees you out of it - you are born alone (unless of course, you are a twin, or one of triplets etc. etc., but even then you won't all be leaving yer mum's tummy at once!). Does that not make loneness the most natural state in the world to inhabit? There is something glorious I find - dunno about y'all - in gracefully accepting that.

No-one says you have to be misanthropic (not all the time, anyway). No-one says you musn't value your friends or relatives, or your partner (or whatever the fuck you call them). It is rush-of-blood-to-head LIBERATING though, when you realise, that you shouldn't have to be defined and existent entirely in terms of others. I have come to value the bond of friendship - REAL friendship - as quite possibly the highest human connection there is. However, there's a lot to be said for enjoying one's OWN company from time to time. And if you're somebody whose mental tank always seems to be running overloaded-full (comme moi), then find a way to go and birth your thoughts into the world.

In his Essays, Francis Bacon essentially said that men could choose between children and creative endeavour, which was why the greatest artists had been childless men. A very wise and interesting observation, I think you'll agree, and then I hope you'll join me in saying '... but Bakey, now the wimminz can do that too. Relationships, marriage, and kids (in order of seriousness of impact upon one's life and future) are not the sole feckin' purpose of our existence.'

So fuck you, biology! Here's a chance for us all to be equal. And hey, if there's less stupid people falling into these binds, hopefully that means a smaller influx of idiots turning towards extremely conservative/religious/overall fundamentalist viewpoints - or falling victim to them.

Own yourselves. No-one wants to be another Bristol Palin, regardless of whatever their age is (just look at that poor girl's eyes in the picture... I can imagine how she will look once being a 'mommy' takes its toll on her). Own yourselves and RECLAIM YOURSELVES!