tits out for the girls: feminism and raunch culture

Kate Taylor's defence of raunch culture (and an attack on feminists who criticise it) seems to misunderstand most of the debate:

Instead of desperately longing for the right to be seen as human beings, today's girls are playing with the old-fashioned notion of being seen as sex objects.

This is not terrible news. In fact, to me, this is the ultimate feminist ideal, which Levy would realise if she stopped shouting at MTV for a moment and thought about it. She proclaims that boob jobs and crop tops "don't bring us any closer to the fundamental feminist project of allowing every woman to be her own, specific self". But what if a woman's "own, specific self" is a thong-wearing, Playboy-T-shirted specific self who thinks lap-dancing is a laugh and likes getting wolf-whistled at by builders?

The problem with raunch culture isn't that it encourages women to have boob-jobs and wear thongs for men but that it supports a very narrow version of female desirability and sexuality. An appeal to male desire isn't the intrinsic problem: it's the use of fairly narrow and fixed images of the female body. Certainly, the appeal to male desire can be problematic - not least because it fixates on women's identity as primarily reflective of male interest - but the larger problem is in the specific images it uses.

Regardless of its intentions, raunch culture also reproduces retrogressive images which have not yet been abandoned. Though Nuts and Zoo make a shaky claim to the ironic nude, the imagery of porn frequently reduces its subjects to available, passive and consenting objects. You'll rarely - if ever - see a feature in Loaded with a naked woman who talks about her body but says she has no interest in sex with men (unless, of course, a lesbian subtext can be found).

The problem is that the thong-wearing woman raunchy woman doesn't also exist in her own, specific universe - she particpates in the creation of body images that might indeed be tremendously liberating for some and but yet crushingly unfair for others. Should she stop wearing her thong? No. Should we expect thongs to emancipate all women? Rather more emphatically no.

Taylor's call to enjoy for 'true feminism' to enjoy femininity and 'feel wonderful to have been born a woman' wholly ignores the fixed terms and conditions of that enjoyment through raunch.

Similarly, Taylor grossly oversimplifies the link between autonomy, money and taking your clothes off:

Does Bell have any idea how much money women make when they take their clothes off? How much freedom and independence these girls can earn in an hour?

Abi Titmuss and the new breed of totty generally own the copyright to their naughtiest photos, so with each publication they rake it in. Look at lads' mags from a different perspective and you see that what's being exploited are men's sexual responses, to give money to women.

It's freedom and independence but only if you have - or are willing to sell - what the market of male desire is interested in. While big-name models like Titmuss and others might own the copyright for their pictures (which we should recognise as a relatively contemporary move) their value is only retained until the next hot young woman arrives. It's freedom and independence with a fairly short shelf-life - and a diversion away from meaningful change that will support all women, not merely those who feel comfortable in a public expression of their bodies and sexuality.

I'm sure there are people who think this kind of feminist critique is little more than reactionary prudity. To those people, I'd point out that the 'freedom and independence' gained by taking your clothes off means little if you find you can't acquire the same while keeping your clothes on - and that's what makes many feminists uncomfortable.