Bad Girls, Dirty Bodies

Sex, Performance and Safe Femininity

Gemma Commane

• Publisher: Bloomsbury Academic
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781350117341
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Feminism & Feminist Theory
• Index: Social Sciences

What makes a woman 'bad' is commonly linked to certain 'qualities' or behaviours seen as morally or socially corrosive, dirty and disgusting. In Bad Girls, Dirty Bodies, Gemma Commane critically explores the social, sexual and political significance of women who are labelled 'bad', sluts or dirty. Through a variety of case studies drawn from qualitative and original ethnographic research, she argues that 'Bad Girls' disrupt heterosexual normativity and contribute new embodied knowledge. From neo-burlesque, sex-positive and queer performance art, to explicit entertainment and areas of popular culture; Commane situates 'bad' women as sites of power, possibility and success. Through the combination of case studies (Ms T, Empress Stah and RubberDoll, Mouse and Doris La Trine), Gemma Commane offers a challenge to those who think that sexual, slutty, bad, and dirty women are not worth listening to. Significantly, she unpicks the issues generated by women who are complicit in the subjugation, policing and marginalization of 'other' women, both in popular culture and in sites of subcultural resistance.

1

Bad Girls, Dirty Bodies

I was interested in the rise and popularity of burlesque striptease, but also the ways in which women ‘expressed’ themselves within BDSM and fetish clubbing spaces. The research became an exploration of gender and sexuality within a range of subcultural, digital and clubbing spaces, with a specific focus on Bad Girls. Although the book mainly focuses on a UK context, where most of the case studies are drawn from (except RubberDoll, who mainly performs in America and lives there), it is important to highlight that digital platforms and technologies circulate and distribute performance content across borders. Bad Girls and their Dirty Bodies travel, which means that anyone having the ability to access these communities can have an opportunity to identify with them (although ‘access’ always depends on a variety of affordances). The circulation and popularity of burlesque also have gathered speed in the last decade or so, with mainstream success stemming from revivalist roots in alternative clubbing and performance spaces. Discussions of girl power, sexual confidence and independence were (and still are) common themes in popular culture, helping women recognize themselves and be recognized as sexually agentic. Sex-positive space and greater social/economic opportunities for women have enabled some women and young girls to refuse the feeling that they need to fall into demarcated roles because of their gender. However, having the opportunity or space to express yourself in ‘alternative’ or non-conforming ways is not always straightforward or as simple and easy for all.

So, what happens, then, when your identity goes beyond the sanctioned and safe form of that alternative, even within groups that are supposed to support and validate you? The acceptance of certain forms of alternative lifestyles and femininity in popular culture is not always a negative thing as the presence of ‘alternatives to’ in the mainstream allows people to identify and recognize themselves, and then seek out like-minded others in other spaces beyond mainstream depictions, spaces and approval. Although these forms might take aspects of behaviours, lifestyles and expressions that are more palatable, visibility can act as a vehicle into other areas that are not as socially approved by the mainstream.

Bad Girls: What is a Bad Girl?

What we understand to be Bad (i.e. Dirty and Other) manifests through a range of social and cultural conditions. This enables people to use language and meaning systems to identify with a group, as well as judge other people by. If we step back and observe our surroundings, we can see this manifestation in the media and in other cultural, social and political institutions that touch our everyday lives. The norms we identify with (i.e. if you are a Bad or good girl) circulate in what we consume (i.e. what we watch on streaming services, what we listen to on the radio and our engagement on social media platforms), or in our everyday interactions with friends, peers, family and colleagues. In everyday life, our social relationships help certain norms circulate and become accepted (see Foucault, Nietzsche and other philosophers from Plato to Butler too). Discourse plays a massive role in maintaining social equilibrium, where you can stray slightly, but only within the permissible edges of what is ‘normal’ (i.e. this applies to any social group). These permissible edges can change when consumer culture recognizes trends and profitability within areas of subculture or deviance. Styles, attitudes and musical sounds can become integrated within the mainstream (see Klein, 1999), making new alternatives to the ‘norm’ repackaged, made safe and available to consume within popular culture. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as individuals may relate to these alternatives and then seek a like-minded community, which may exist on the periphery of popular culture. We can also see popular culture to be a space where possibilities can happen (see Hall, 1997; Halberstam, 2011; etc.).

There are alternative discourses and people can reject conditions imposed on them, because discourse is not static, and meaning is always negotiated in everyday contexts (i.e. the micro-layer). It is, however, important to highlight that value judgements and the use of stereotypes still fall back on age-old assumptions that have produced a heterocentric worldview. Shaking ourselves completely free from this can feel like an impossible task, as all roads through language come back to what is intelligible. Intelligibility and recognition can develop over time, as more identities become visible in positive ways and are seen to be valid. What is valid generally means what is accepted (to a greater extent) in mainstream culture and in legal terms (i.e. think of same-sex marriage, etc.), but there are spaces, personal relationships and social contexts, where identity can still be questioned, rejected and be seen as dirty. This is irrespective of legal rights and the visibility of, for example, women having sexual agency.

Bad Women, bad sexualities?

Bad Women are associated with certain forms of sexual behaviour and sexual practices. Whilst women consume and produce pornography (e.g. see the work of Susanna Paasonen, Danielle Lindemann and Katrien Jacobs), as well as being seen as sexual consumers who embrace pole exercise, hen dos at strip clubs and areas of sex work (e.g. see the work of Feona Attwood, Clarissa Smith, Samantha Holland and Debra Ferreday), Bad Girls continue to receive bad press despite there being many positive experiences in being Bad, which we will see in the case study chapters. Bisexuality, kink and other fluid forms of sexuality are themes which run through the case studies in this book so it is important to explore non-normative sexualities in relation to Bad Women.

Bisexuality and other non-normative identities, such as women who identify as kinky or into BDSM and fetish, are still associated with Bad Women. This builds onto wider beliefs that Bad Women are people to be suspicious of. In popular culture being bad is still taboo and dirty. It is a subject position that is looked at in particular ways (i.e. not to be taken seriously, a freak show) and is often seen as ‘strange’ (i.e. being too kinky). The line that separates perversity and profit/cleanliness may seem blurred in popular contemporary culture; however, value hierarchies within groups can still demonize and sully certain identities or expressions of femininity. For example, femmes can be rejected from lesbian spaces and bisexual women can be viewed by women and men as predatory or fence sitters.

Bad Girls generate a lot of money and have huge commercial appeal, especially Bad Girls who love other girls. One of the problems, however, facing bisexuality is its commercial visibility in popular culture as a temporary identity connoting risk and subversion even when there may be none, as opposed to stability in gay culture and identity (see Michael Warner (1993) on gay culture and patterns of consumption within music, adverting and clubs, and Attwood (2011a:86) on ‘gay lifestyle’ being ‘mainstreamed as a form of cosmopolitan leisure and conspicuous consumption’). It must be noted that we cannot read gay culture as one thing, as there are various invisibilities within gay culture and a rising resistance against assimilation and corporate brands capitalizing on aspects of gay culture (i.e. during Pride month, etc.). Assimilation and consumer culture are important areas to look at, especially when exploring how certain sexual orientations are used to reinforce stereotypes. If we look at girl-on-girl representation in popular culture, we can see a temporary visibility of same-sex desire and performativity (i.e. Madonna and Britney kiss at the VMAs in 2003; Rihanna Te Amo, 2010; Christina Aguilera Not Myself Tonight, 2010; Die Antwoord, Banana Brain, 2016; etc.). Gay or straight identity is presented by consumer culture as an active identity, whilst bisexuality is still visible as temporary and titillating, as social attitudes towards ‘two distinct orientations’ actively reduce the value of bisexuality as ‘merely a behaviour which is fairly common but does not have an identity to back it up’ (du Plessis, 1996:19). Even if bisexuality is seen to be visible, but only in threatening ways (Weeks, 1995; du Plessis, 1996), its perceived lack of exclusiveness allows heterosexual normativity to continually be elevated as the default.

Suspicion and lack of exclusiveness are something alluring and incredibly erotic. Bad Girls are sexy, no matter if they are bisexual, heteroflexible (see Lisa Diamond, 2008) or lesbian. Pop culture and the flirtation with girl-on-girl culture validate ‘heteroflexibility’, but this is a temporary thing (i.e. falling back into heterosexuality). Heteroflexibility is about experimentation and, in media texts in popular culture, there have been ‘numerous women hinting at or experimenting with same-sex sexuality, a phenomenon that has been called “heteroflexibility” (Essig, 2000)’ (Diamond, 2008:104). The aesthetic of girl-on-girl culture is still white, cis, good looking and desirable in terms of attraction and profits. In terms of profits, we can briefly turn to Naomi Klein (1999) who identifies that brands in the 1990s recognized the youth market (i.e. the MTV generation) and (this can also be applied to celebrities too) the need to resonate with youth culture. Subversion or counter-cultural elements are therefore assimilated within mainstream popular consumerism, which means that the visibility of ‘alternative to’ the normal is more about status and competition rather than progressive politics (Heath and Potter, 2006:69). Even lesbian representation cannot escape from commercialization (see Jackson and Gilbertson, 2009). Lesbian chic in popular culture is still pretty, slim, hot and standardized, thus heterosexualized and palatable. This is even the case within homonormativity because distancing and Othering of those outside the binary will always make certain positions exclusive and powerful. The process of recognition may be open to more identities, as culture allows it to be, but what this still relies on and is informed by is how culture (at large) deals with, understands and re-presents difference.

Another issue, then, is the reactions towards sexual identities seen as Bad/Dirty. For example, Jeffrey Weeks (1995) explores how bisexuality signals a crisis in sexual certainty. Having a sexuality that has an aura of being ‘in-between’ actually destabilizes essentialist presumptions around sexuality (i.e. ‘homo’ and ‘hetero’ only). Despite Alfred Kinsey’s (1948, 1953) sex-positive attitude and his scale-disrupting binary assumptions, wider social, cultural and academic discourses can still fall back into heteronormative intelligibility. This is despite discussions in feminist discourse (i.e. the third and fourth ‘waves’) around how consumer culture, sexual/gendered freedoms and the internet/social media are opening new avenues and possibilities for women to network, collaborate and shout back at misogyny. Gender and sexuality are seen to be intertwined in such a way that assumptions around identity still gravitate towards something that ‘should be’ stable or fixed. Stable and fixed identity reinforces the idea that your gender expression and sexual identity will not change during your life-course, which has been disputed by a range of studies and life experiences (e.g. see the seminal work of Lisa Diamond, Meg-John Barker, Lisa Downing, Michael Foucault, Kath Browne, Yvette Taylor and Alfred Kinsey). Bad Women cannot win, especially when their self-identity is so obsessed over and subject to study. For example, psychiatry and other forms of popular psychology often see anything that is outside of ‘normal’ sexual behaviour as abnormal, in need of being cured or studied, and something that can become a measure to prop up the ‘normal’. If we cannot measure up to strict binaries, then surely, we are all dysfunctional. Prevailing (hetero)normative ideological systems will never adequately explain how the world comes to, or is interpreted/challenged by, the individual experiencing it.

We will see, through the case studies, that Bad Girls challenge heteronormativity as the default through highlighting that more femininities exist beyond the binary. Whilst the Bad is exciting to heteronormative visitors, embodying this subject position is something that is still dangerous (i.e. temporary badness is fun, but being constantly Bad is weird and dodgy). For Weeks (1995), the reason why sexualities, such as bisexuality, are rejected or seen as a threat is that its characteristics are viewed as changeable and not able to be predicted or measured.

For Surya Munro (2005) the issues facing bisexuality and its interpretations by feminism are varied. Although liberal feminists embrace bisexual and straight women, in the main, Munro (2005:104) argues that bisexual women are still marginalized specifically as they are viewed by some lesbian feminists as cop-outs and fence-sitters, undecided about their politics and sexuality. Munro (2005:104) states that ‘anti-bisexual feminist sentiment amongst the feminist and lesbian communities has contributed a great deal to the marginalisation of bisexual women within these communities’ and what this suggests is that credentials are still used to mediate the Dirt/cleanliness binary. Thus, bisexual identity and its associations (i.e. spreader of disease, fence sitting, predatory, greedy, etc.) make it appear to be untrustworthy and destabilizing. The threat of instability highlights the presumed value of ‘stability’ in heterosexual and homosexual exclusivity. ‘Lack’ in this instance is not exclusively tied to sexual desire or sexual preference, but to the closing of available (physical, social, embodied, etc.) space where place making, identification and belonging happen.

Potentiality and being in-between is vital in challenging restrictive norms (i.e. hetero/homonormativity, heterosexual and homosexual exclusivity, etc.) and to highlight that more sexualities and expressions of femininity exist, despite being excluded from wider struggles for recognition (i.e. homosexuality). As bisexuality falls outside of the binary into a grey area, there are presumed ‘lacks’ of connection to a ‘stable identity’, a visible community, a physical space where bisexuality can be recognized in its own terms (even when a person is dating someone of the opposite sex) and a linear identity narrative (i.e. dating, then marriage, falling back into exclusive homo/hetero, hiding the bi; and other forms of success measured by the binary). What the above outlines is that marginalized identities still have to continually justify their existence, their choices and their subject position. Heteronormativity, therefore, disregards the importance of contexts, biography and lived experience. Space and positive visibility within the social world and representation (Harris, 1997; du Plessis, 1996), therefore, are still needed. This is something that the main case studies in this book will demonstrate.

Bad Girls, space and popular culture

Although popular cultural images of the Bad Girl might be playful, they do still hide a socially constructed history that enforces a gendered reality in which girls have to grow up good, even in contemporary Anglo-American contexts. This is perpetuated by the use of the Bad Girl in popular culture, with artists such as Christina Aguilera in Not Myself Tonight (2010), toying with the bad and the sexually adventurous woman (i.e. same-sex desire, group-sex, BDSM, latex fashion) who then, in the same narrative, falls back into linear heterosexual tropes, vanilla-sex and monogamy (thus the ‘good’). Being Bad can be OK if it does not last: you grow out of it, you ‘do it’ for one night only, you wear it for a hen do and a themed night-out. In the context of Not Myself Tonight, the product placement of Aguilera’s self-branded perfumes near the end of the music video demonstrates that feeling bad or embodying the ‘bad-ass’ can be packaged up and bottled: spray it on and then wash it off as you go to bed at night. Commodity culture, from the 1990s onwards, has used the ‘Bad Girl’ as a means to represent ‘girl power’ and female (sexual) empowerment. Although the Bad Girl in this form (i.e. connecting to the slut, active female sexuality and alternative femininities) is recognizable in popular culture, what needs to be explored are the ways in which this figure plays out in everyday contexts and through women’s experiences.

A range of alternative constructions of femininity are therefore explored throughout this book, alongside an examination of the extent to which these forms of femininity are progressive or contradictory. Included in this examination is understanding what forms and types are demarcated as dangerous and dirty dependent on who is performing, how they are performing, the spaces they are performing in and who is casting judgement on them. What ‘identity’ is and how we ‘read’ identity is dependent on how we interpret someone based on our own assessment of their social identity, sexual identity, cultural identity and so on. How we read identity is dependent on our own standing point and relationship with that person, as well as the group we feel we belong to. This means alternative constructions or even norms are based on social ideals that enable us to articulate our place within a social group, whilst using perceptions as leverage to confirm our status within the group we have affinity to. Leverage and cultural awareness can mean that one’s place in a group can be confirmed by rejecting what one is not. This can be through Othering women whose activities are similar to yours but you do not want to be associated with them (or their behaviour, style and politics) as your agency could be questioned (i.e. ‘what I do is burlesque: it is empowering as I am not stripping for men because that is “bad” and not feminist’).

It is interesting how tensions play out in spaces where alternative forms of self-expression, self-identity and femininity are supposed to be celebrated and supported. This is further complicated by the presence of these ‘alternatives’ in popular and consumer culture: enabling socially approved ways of articulating ‘alternative constructions’ of femininity. Socially approved ways of performing the alternative exist alongside the backdrop of third wave feminist politics, women being addressed as sexual consumers, and certain forms of sexual self-expression being perceived and celebrated as valid and empowering. History has a massive part to play here in relation to cultural and social memory around certain forms of self-expression that are considered harmful, dirty and questionable. History is obviously shaped by present perceptions and is, to various extents, conditioned by some ideological mores that remain unchanged. This is despite new openings and visibilities, developments in society, and tolerances around identities that were once subject to criminalization. New visibilities and tolerances emerge through popular culture as a space where debates can happen (i.e. the public sphere explored by Habermas (1962), but also see Stuart Hall’s work on popular culture) and where commodities – relating to various identities, lifestyles and beliefs – are accessible. These can become enabling tools for people to identify and put a name to who they are, and this is important when someone might feel they do not belong to the ‘mainstream’.

Conversely, non-mainstream and alternative lifestyles or beliefs can be an alluring ingredient when launching a new celebrity or artist, or even selling a new range of clothes, a book series or films. The commodification of non-mainstream identities and behaviours is not something new, but the presence of BDSM, fetish, burlesque and other forms of alternative lifestyles in popular culture is significant when we examine the extents to which sanctioned forms present temporary or long-term possibilities for women (i.e. do these forms give access to commodities that – when used in particular ways – become tools enabling new forms of knowledge that potentially transform socio-political, sexual and cultural landscapes?). The presence of these in music videos, self-help books and magazines, in the movies, and other areas of consumer culture and leisure-time pursuits may create a space of tolerance. However, we must assess what this tolerance extends to and to what extent it encompasses more radical ways of articulating femininity and sexual subjectivity. If someone toys with taboo or socially approved ways of doing the alternative, then this might only be a temporary location for that individual as the standardization and mass appeal of challenging the norm can still damage careers, social standing an...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Halftitle Page
• Title Page
• Dedication Page
• Contents 
• Series Editors’ Foreword
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Bad Girls, Dirty Bodies
• 2 Bad Girls happen to things
• 3 Magnification and the unknown
• 4 RubberDoll: Success and the significance of sexual otherness
• 5 Commodification of cult and ‘alternative’ femininities
• 6 The shadows of safe femininity
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index
• Imprint