there are places I don’t go in case the world ends, and one of them is you

I wrote a book recently, for the irrationally compelling Edward Saperia, mastermind and madman behind Clockwork Quartet and the impractical number of Original Content London projects:  it’s called Cryptofloricon, and was probably the most fun I’ve ever been paid for. Anyway, for possibly the first time ever, I was told off for being insufficiently emotional, and this is what happened.

Be warned. There are more where these came from.

You’re beautiful I can’t quite breathe with you near. Like you’re gravity, like you’re god, everything begins and ends with you. At the corner of my eye, at the centre of my attention, your every move an earthquake, I am lost when your eyes find me.*

Desire I’d forgotten. The sudden breathless boneless longing that drags you momentarily from street or shop and melts you into the press and slide of skin and bone and weight and warmth, muscle and fingers and mouth and leaves you breathless, blinking, beached on the bare boards of your life.


Longing 
The sunlight is sharp and it cuts me, slices through flesh to the space where you’re not and hollows an ache I plaster over daily with the silt of a thousand compromises. The curve of your jaw, the set of your shoulders, the turn of your head, they echo against my eyelids as I reach blindly for reason to pretend that anything else is enough.

If only There are places I don’t go in case the world ends, and one of them is you. Still, some nights I dream of waking with your taste on my tongue and your touch on my skin and your warmth at my back and I can’t get away from the knowledge that there’d be nothing left to want.


Regret 
I’ll never undo it, never unhear, never unsee and yet I close my eyes and wrench my head from the thousand, thousand insistent echoes of all the things I could have said, should have done, all the ways I could have saved us.


Fear 
It’s already begun. The little losses, the slipping away – an absence, a hurry, a forgotten gesture and a careless word and the gradual, gentle erosion of an island shifting incrementally from idyll to prison. One day soon I’ll turn and see only your shadow in an empty room as the door drifts shut behind you.


I need you 
It’s not that words don’t make sense with you gone, it’s that there seems no sense in reading them. Nobody hears me like you do, nobody sees what I see, and so the world fades into outlines, a blur of grey generalities without the insistent bite and beat of your body and the myriad mysteries of your mind. I am lost without you, lost within you, lost where you are not. Whenever you leave, part of me goes too, and I am adrift, ripped loose, shaken and bleeding and branded with wounds only your tongue can heal.


Sorrow 
It never leaves. When I wake in the morning, I drag its heavy aching weight to breakfast, its dull depths drumming slowly at the back of my eyes. Wherever I look or move it follows, echoes, lover, loss, limit, life. It’s been years, and yet it’s still there, the desert, the desertion, every hollow heartbeat a heartbeat behind.


Despair 
It’s cold. Nothing now except the blank page, the accusing eyes, the empty hands and the last door, closing. Every breath is a body blow. I sink, searching, freezing streets and jagged skylines closing around me as the last flicker of hope snuffs out.

*Nb. ‘At the corner of my eye / at the centre of my attention’ refers to a poem by the infinitely more talented obandsoller, a sharpened diamond to my emotional bludgeon. Given the amusingly marked distinction in our styles, however, and his kind permission, I felt the theft was justified.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Elsewhere on the web

…I ramble about sex, society and culture here:

http://lashingsofgb.blogspot.com/search/label/goblin

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Protected: The state of the goblin: ‘I’m not OK, I’m not OK….’

This post is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:

Posted in Uncategorized

It’s not what but who: the problems of desire

Nb: I’m aware that this is a post underscored by multiple privileges I have and bring to these issues. Eg, cis-privilege, racial privilege, often-heteronormative privilege, ‘pretty’privilege, or at least some version of being vaguely culturally assimilable as attractive, able-bodied privilege, etc. I’ve tried to write this without apologising every other word, because that just gets annoying, but do please call me on anything you find problematic.

There are two things underlying this post. The first is this brave and sensible article about ‘what do I want’ by the wonderful Holly Pervocracy (whose blog you should all read, on the offchance you don’t), and the second is Elizabeth Wurtzel, whose Bitch and Now, More, Again I read recently during my bedbound post-hospitalisation doze. I haven’t read Prozac Nation, but M,N,A expresses a sort of ruthless loathing self-excoriation I strongly identify with, for all that I’ve never snorted prescription drugs or gone on international TV fucked on coke. Particularly the way she talks about her body and her self.

‘I write books, I give lectures, I have good friends, I am a good listener and a better talker – I have an entire personality that is not entirely unappealing; but the only part of myself I really believe in, that I really think men care about, is my body.’

I read that, in More, Now, Again, and just thought ‘yes’. Unlike Elizabeth I certainly haven’t grown up knowing I was pretty; I was an ugly kid, blossomed a bit in late adolescence, but from ME at 18 onwards I spent the majority of my life starving and/or stressing about my fundamental undesirability (for which read unlovability and unacceptability, symbolised by what I felt – or feel, mood-dependent – to be my grotesque ugliness). Nevertheless, enough people over the last couple of years have made it clear that they consider me physically desirable for it to sink in, at least to the extent that Elizabeth’s statement above is very much where I live. At a pinch, now, I can consider myself a desirable object; my body as something with worth, not least because it conforms at least to a certain extent with contemporary cultural criteria for female attractiveness (smallish, boobs, proportionately long legs, long hair, etc). But this leaves me with two fundamental problems.

One, yes, I can see my body as an object of worth, but an object whose worth is ruthlessly, inexorably depreciating, with age, number of partners, and the number of times I sleep with any one person. You’ve had me once, why would you possibly want to again? I’m permanently waiting for lovers, potential and actual, to lose interest, to move on to someone new/else/better. (There is at least one possible exception to this, but frustratingly, in this instance the specific doesn’t seem to transfer to the general.) The fact that I look a good few years younger than I am bizarrely makes this worse: is whoever it is only interested because I look 23? Should I be careful not to talk too much in case I’m accidentally too mature? What if I’m having a fat day, or my IBS is bad, or I eat a lot? I warn people, obsessively and overanxiously, that I’m not good enough for them whatever they may think, just to offer them the chance to walk away before they decide to take it, to maintain some fragile illusion that maybe it doesn’t matter, maybe I don’t care. It must get really annoying.

And two, as per Elizabeth’s quote, I know how to be desired, but not how to desire, really. Desire fucks me up. I know how to be a desirable object, to respond to (mostly male, see later) desire, to be courteous and friendly where necessary. Well, not entirely: I still find others’ desire problematic, but I am at least familiar now with the concept of its existence, with how it feels. Saying ‘no’ is still difficult, especially when I care deeply about the person concerned, but even when that isn’t the case I’m aware that on some level I instinctively assume people deserve a yes just for deigning to want me, at the same time as I fiercely resent anyone who makes me feel they only want me for my body. I don’t, actually, have sex with that many people, and never have –  hitting on me has something like a >5-10% success rate – but I still, after all these years and all these feminist blogposts, angst whenever I turn someone down. As if just in case, if I’d put out, they would have been miraculously transformed into somebody I wanted. As if saying yes if I actually meant no would be reasonable or fair.

Far worse though, I have NO IDEA AT ALL, none whatsoever, how to cope with my own desire. None at all. So for me, Holly’s post is a bit offbeam. I’m mostly cheerfully open about *what* I want, the things I like doing in bed, my kinks and foibles. I can discuss *that* with strangers and friends as well as with lovers, although I too am susceptible to awkwardness in the heat of the, er, moment. But desire fucks me up. How to express wanting someone, even how to deal with those feelings and/or the possibility of rejection – I’m utterly lost.

All the more so given that my sexuality – and my social circles – have shifted over the last few years, from being almost entirely het to being quite frequently attracted to those of genders other than male. Anybody I find powerfully attractive, whatever their gender, I fall apart around. I’m a complete idiot. It is a source of constant wonder to me that anybody whom I’m drawn to ever actually reciprocates interest. (When they do, I tend to attribute it to aforementioned ‘desirable object’ theory, regardless of how unfair this may be.) In some ways it’s easier when the person in question is male, cis or otherwise, because I have some vague template now of how to respond sexually to men, the aforementioned knowing how to be desired but not to desire notwithstanding; and nevertheless God knows I am enough of a fool around men that I find overwhelmingly attractive. But when the person concerned is female or one of many glorious flavours of genderqueer, that effect is magnified, because I haven’t been raised with or absorbed any social templates for this. I’m much more just a(n inadequate) person. I fall apart. I flail. I have absolutely no idea of how to express myself, let alone express attraction; as someone who cheerfully and intent-freely flirts with a lot of the people a lot of the time, sometimes the best way of telling who I find attractive is who I’m being careful not to flirt with (THEY MIGHT NOTICE I WANT THEM, AND THEN WHAT? o.0 ) Just sometimes, I manage to do the flirting thing with someone I actually want, and it works, and then I still fall apart, because WHAT IF THEY WERE MISLEAD INTO THINKING I WAS SOMEBODY WORTH HAVING? You can see the problems here, yes? Even if I’m not *actually* being a twat at any given time, I generally feel like I am, and that I’m secretly not worth having, and this can apply as much with established lovers as it does with new people. (Love, that complicated and messy concept, might make a difference here, but by and large I don’t believe in it for myself anymore, so the question fails to arise.[1]) There is a stage, once people are friends or – occasionally – lovers, and we know where we stand, when I relax again, but even then flirting can feel painfully loaded, given the poly/open seas in which I swim, and that nobody is my partner.

This is bigger than sex, too, although sex is probably both the most important area in which it, ah, comes up. I’m useless at wanting things, particularly at wanting things from people (and you don’t get more personal than someone’s self, really.) I want like a child – fiercely, irrationally, passionately. I chase my passions like they’re running away, and I’m falling over my own feet trying to catch up with them. I don’t know whether it’s a female thing, although Susie Orbach’s piece about the two great female taboos, expressing dependency needs and initiating, is floating around the back of my head somewhere – I suspect a lot of people find desire, particularly unmet desire, complicated on some level. But because so much of the process of my growing up was essentially that of learning *not* to want, to put others’ needs or desires first, even now I can recognise that maybe my (being allowed to) have desires is a Good Thing, my relationship with my desires is stuck somewhere between ID (childlike, animal, raw) and superego (socioculturally mediated, the self in relation to others, what do they want or need) almost without passing through the coherence of ego first.

Maybe that’s not quite true. My notorious inability to do anything by halves is implicated here, too – bear in mind that even attempting to resolve ‘being an acceptable person’ and ‘wanting things’ comes off the back of years of anorexia, which is basically refusing to acknowledge even basic desires and needs because they’re so overwhelming and it’s easier to block the lot than look at them head on. And I’m aware that part of how I’ve been going about resolving ‘other people’s needs are paramount’ with ‘I have needs and desires too!’ has been to problematically correlate ‘other people desire me’ = ‘I am a desirable object’ = ‘*therefore* maybe I’m allowed to need’, a process whose complications don’t even bear thinking about. The key to all this goes right back to Elizabeth Wurtzel above; goes right back to a childhood that taught me emotional sensitivity is bad and others’ needs should be prioritised; right back to a culture that teaches me my function and value as a woman is always somehow based on other people. Namely, for all Elizabeth’s sense that men want her body, she’s still convinced of her own inner unacceptability and unloveability, and needs others to affirm otherwise. I’m not quite as bad as she is, I hope, but I’m close. Although I now have the capacity to believe myself worthwhile – and manage to do so in certain areas much of the time – at the end of the day, I need other people to validate my core self, the emotional drives and sensitivities and needs. I need other people – each themselves mired in their own struggles with or connections to this stuff – to give the self I still feel is inadequate (because if you want, or need, you’re not self-sufficient, therefore insufficient, right?)the right to exist.  I need other people to reassure me not just that they want me but that I’m acceptable. And that’s not a fair thing to ask of anyone, even if they ask it of you in return.

In summary: man, we’re fucked up.


[1] So yes, the L-word: a note on personal history. My earlier adult relationships, after the adolescent disaster that fucked me up between the ages of 18 and 22, were basically formed outside any sense of personal desire. I fell for people because they fell for me, and luckily enough they were cute so physical desire came with; I never really dealt with desire outside love. That anyone could find my broken self not only acceptable but *needable* (is that a word?) was more than enough reason to love them. (Mysteriously, this doesn’t appear to’ve been that bad a filtration system; mad as they undoubtedly are, these gentlemen are thoroughly decent and charmingly eccentric chaps, and still friends.) Then there was the boy (I’m reverting to old nicknames again; if you don’t know who I’m on about, it doesn’t really matter), who just about blew every other concept or – sometimes it feels – possibility of love out of the water, simply by getting so thoroughly where I was coming from because we’d known each other so long. Devastating as the end of that was – ‘devastating’ being the best one-word summary of ‘it broke me for at least a couple of years and left me with scars that are still problematically apparent’ I have at my disposal – it left me with considerably more defences/barriers, a profound sense of what being loved could mean, the inability to trust anybody really (however close we are, I’m always really just waiting for you to walk away), and the firm conviction that I’d never really meet anybody I could love like that – or, more to the point, who would ever love *me* like that – again. These struggles are ongoing.
Posted in Culture, Hunger, kink, Love, Psychobabble, Sex, Uncategorized | 10 Comments

The Dita Complex: or, why I think we should all stop worrying and love our tights

So, Dita Von Teese, right? I personally consider her a fairly good thing: even if you don’t find her attractive, and I don’t particularly, I think her styles are interesting, some of her outfits fantastic and her attidudes (‘I’m not really pretty, it’s all paint, posture and projection’, to paraphrase Burlesque/Fetish and the Art of the Teese) admirably egalitarian. I’m even, that cardinal statement of twenty-first-century approval, on her Twitter. (It’s mostly about her glamourous life and vintage clothing. Quelle surprise.) And then, the other day, she had a bit of a rant, about that incendiary sartorial sticking-point of contemporary culture, tights and jean shorts. On Parisienne girls, no less. This combination ‘puzzled’ Dita; ‘…is there someone that started it & it’s trickled down badly or is it street fashion? I need someone to blame, people!‘. And I just thought, what? Whilst I have all the time in the world for Dita’s vintage/couture/stockings-&-heels-at-all-times schtick as her personal choice and/or an option for everybody else, tights under

shorts strikes me as comfier and less hassle than any, let alone any combination of, corsetry, heels, suspender belts, tailored jackets, anything leather, anything lace next to the skin, latex…the list goes on, and Dita apparently wears these things every day. So, in the effort not to misquote her, I went back to her book, there to be confronted with:

‘I advocate glamour. Every day. Every minute. Glamour above all things. This is what I say. There was a time…when a lady dressed to the nines no matter what her destination. This great girl wore seamed stockings and garter belts every single day…She painted her lips a flushed, rich scarlet. Wherever the day took her, she wore high heels and satin gloves to her elbows, soaring cocque feathers and veils of the finest netting over her eyes….’

Which puts it somewhat more forcefully that I would ever have dreamed of paraphrasing her, so, y’know, thanks Dita. And as I say, I’m more than fine with that as her personal choice. I dress in an equivalent manner myself on a fairly regular basis, given my penchant for creative nghts out,  and I have friends who do likewise much more, and look immensely beautiful and entirely appropriate whilst doing it. But out of a choice whose existence is much more important than which way a person chooses. And the underlying ideologies make me distinctly queasy. Even in the First World (Dita silently elides the numerical vast majority of women across the world who even in the times indicated weren’t doing anything of the sort, or spent most of their time serving those who did) the financial and temporal resources to do so were only available to a minority, and a class-bound minority at that. Even today, the gear Dita advocates is frankly expensive, delicate and difficult to come by, whereas tights and jean shorts can be obtained for under a fiver (I tested this). So we should all aspire to things available only to a financially solvent and appropriately connected minority? Fuck that, to put it delicately. And the gender implications of ‘glamour every minute’, of ‘woman as [fetish] goddess’, as performer of a ‘magic’ instilled by her clothes, doesn’t even bear thinking about.

I’m lucky enough to have the kind of body and face that can just about pull off the glamorous stuff, and/or many other carefully constructed combinations of clothing to send a particular, sexualised signal, if I want. Which is a privilege. But the crucial thing is, as Dita is quite open about, glamourous or fetishistic clothing are ‘magical charms’, to which (distinctly heteronormatively, *bad* Dita) men (or, in my experience, people regardless of gender) respond. To put this another way, people atracted to one dressed thus are by and large attracted to the signals, the charms, the look, the image, *not* the person underneath. If they know you, and you’re expressing a side of your personality they haven’t seen  before, or dressing specifically for them, it becomes something different and more personal, but I think it’s fair to say that I or anyone dolled up in corset & heels will attract attention simply for the outfit, the glamour. And I don’t want either my personal connections or my femininity to be defined by dressing thus, dammit. I don’t want to have to feel less of a woman if i’m not dressed up, or to put it another way, that acceptable feminnity is essentially constructed, and acceptance of my performance of it contingent on my significantly altering my natural state for the (ingrained, cultural) appreciation of others. I’m just as much of a woman – and, dammit, a PERSON – in PJs, or jeans, or my usual odd combination of garmentage, or tights and jean shorts, dammit, as I am becorseted and heeled. Dita may not like the look of tights and jean shorts, and that’s totally her prerogative. But a) she appears to be in a minority (the twitter responses were largely men commenting with some equivalent of ‘legs AND arse, what’s not to like?’, insert despair here) and b) everyone else has a right to dress for comfort if they prefer. I have many, many stockings, but I also wear tights a lot because *suspender belts are a hassle* (and holdups tend to roll down my skinnyish thighs, even now they almost touch, so they’re impractical). Which doesn’t make me less successful as woman or lover or anything else.

And, underneath this, is the concern: it’s much, much more important to me that my lovers and partners and friends appreciate the person underneath whatever i happen to be wearing than when I’m glammed up. People yelling things at me in the street if i’m in school uniform or corset and heels are yelling at the corset and heels, not the person. Dressing up, glamming up, are for me defensive, distancing acts. *I* am hiding behind cultural signals. Whereas some of the most significant relevancies I’ve been told by lovers are ‘wear anything, I love you in anything and anything on you’ and (when dressed up) ‘I’d find you just as attractive naked, to be honest’. (Both paraphrased slightly to hide identities/context/my bad memory.) I want attraction, and appeal, and all the things Dita discusses in her book, to be ultimately about all of me, not only the person I am when I choose to perform or dress a certain way, fun though doing so can be. And I *like* tights and jean shorts. They keep your legs warm.

Posted in Culture, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Things they don’t tell you about recovery, ii: The awesome power of ‘I just can’t be fucked’

This is either completely the wrong time to be writing this post, or an ironically appropriate one; I can’t decide. For entirely self-inflicted reasons (I ripped the scab off a barely-healed, still crippling wound, and really, *really* should have known better), I’m in a state as close to depression as I’ve been for a long time, and all the things that’ve developed meaning over the last two years have faded to grey; I feel like the guitar line from How Soon Is Now, and am dribbling words all over social networking sites to prove it. However. It’s pretty significant that despite a momentary gladness that I hadn’t just eaten, cos I’d feel sick, I did *not* do what I would have for a considerable proportion of te last decade, and push the pain away or avert the anguish by focusing on food, assuring myself that I’m hungry, planning what (not) to eat, etc. In one sense, it’s a bitch (see Things They Don’t Tell You About Recovery, i) but in another, it’s progress.

Speaking to a fellow recoverer having her own little crisis the other day, she mentioned in passing a few occasions when she just ‘couldn’t be bothered’ to engage in her previous dysfunctional behaviour. And I leapt on it, because that, for me, is actually the essence of this recovery lark. There’s no moment of epiphany, or wasn’t for me anyway; because if you’re even going to make a vague stab at ‘normal’ eating, or even if you’re not, hunger and/or the need for food and/or the desire to eat are a continuous, or at least several-times-a-day-ly, occurrence. Even if at breakfast you decide to eat a reasonable amount and/or not throw it up again, at lunchtime you’re gonna face precisely the same dilemma and options and decisions, and if you opted for the failsafe dysfunction at breakfast, possibly continually during the morning too. It’s never as easy as a moment of epiphany, a sudden relief and release n the triumphant realisation that you Don’t Need This Anymore, that you can Focus on the Feelings and live through them rather than displacing them with the much-more-manageable food, and a gradual yet speedy progression towards Health and Normality (whatever *they* may be in contemporary culture, especially for women; see rantage elsewhere, or comment and I’ll send you a 5-page list of relevant medical papers. I’m not kidding.)

Instead, it’s much more difficult, and complicated, and guilt-ridden. You realise one day that you don’t actually want to starve, throw up, whatever. Not right now, anyway. It’s a lovely day, you have things to do; you actually feel more like talking to someone, having sex, reading a book, cuddling, working, thinking, feeling, going for a walk, swimming, watching something, climbing trees, dancing naked in the rain, whatever floats your boat. You just can’t be fucked to do it right now. You *will*, of course; of course you will, because that’s who you are, that’s what you do, that’s how you know you’re OK and the world is all right, but just..not right now. Later, when this is done.

And then, maybe, one day, you forget. Maybe you do what I did, and find yourself in so much sheer mind-numbing agony every crawling second of every dragging pointless day that it seems a bit futile to be in any *more* pain because you’re hungry, and to try and use a wet kiddiplaster to staunch a metaphorical brain haemorrage. Maybe you find you just can’t be fucked to put in the effort when dealing with the pain takes everything you’ve got. Or maybe you’re luckier; maybe one day you’re with a friend or a lover or working on something you love and you just don’t think about it, you eat when they eat or when you’re hungry so you can get back to concentrating on what you were actually doing. Maybe it happens a few times.

But the thing is, maybe it happens a few times, and you notice. It’s there. You’ve put on weight, or the rigid structure that’s supported your days and your thoughts for as long as you can remember has shifted or stumbled, almost without you noticing. And you feel…awful. Guilty as fuck, for who will defend you, keep to your rules, protect you, if not yourself? Here you are, you had this pattern, it was safe, and you shattered it, almost without noticing. And yet….maybe you can’t be fucked to start it up again. Not all the time, anyway. Most days, yes, but maybe not all. But if that’s the case…who are you? Who is this ‘you’ of whom I speak so confidently? You’ve lost yourself, and worse, betrayed yourself, and all because of laziness. You just…couldn’t be fucked. Yes, this is healthier, mabe, you know that, but…is it you?

It is, you know. You find out. And ‘i can’t be fucked’ can be amazingly liberating. But still…you lose something. And I’d be lying if I said you never looked back.

Posted in Culture, Hunger, Psychobabble, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Millenium trilogy: Men Who Write About Men Who Hate Women

So, the Millenium trilogy. Like Laurie Penny, bless her fierce little heart, I avoided reading them for a while, ignored the films (which I still haven’t seen, but fully intend to in the nearish future; the following rant therefore should not be taken to apply to them) and eventually picked up Dragon Tattoo on Friday. All credit to Larsson, I’d practically finished it by that evening, which takes some doing since i joined jaded and cynical professional reviewing circles. Pacy and engaging, yes. Fascinating, well-drawn and aspirational heroine, yes. Women on boards of international companies as happy ending, fair enough. Gripping plot that did, yes, hinge in a simplistic sense on ‘Men who hate women’ (although the book’s original title never made it into the English translation – too confrontational, apparently). That such men could be neatly identified by the conveniently symbolic tendency to rape, torture and murder women rather that simply disrespecting or denigrating them in countless small and belittling ways is one thing. But the numerous other ways in which for all their ostentatious claims to feminist credentials, the book/s**  manage to perpetuate damaging tropes bothered me sufficiently to stay up far too late on a school night enumerating them. Viz:

1) Salander is repeatedly describe as ‘anorexic’ or ‘anorexically thin’ despite supposedly eating normally. Whilst this is theoretically possible, not only does it put her in the >0.5% of the population for whom such a body type is compatible with eating normally***, it implicitly reinforces the aspirational nature of thinness and that the exercise of female power is contingent on the possession of a body manifesting the outward signs of extreme self-denial.

2) She then gets a boob job, which made a ‘dramatic difference’ both to ‘her looks’ and ‘her self-confidence’. Because really, if you are a woman, even if you are a hyperintelligent, deadly, enigmatic uberhacker and security genius with a history of autonomous, successful and self-directed violence and chosen promiscuity, really your only source of confidence is your body, and the possession of assets stereotypically used in contemporary culture to attract heterosexual men. Heaven forbid that having miraculously possessing the skinniness and apparent fragility associated with aspirational femininity in contemporary culture, not to mention exceptional physical and mental capacities belying it, a woman might regard the possession of voluptuous breasts as unimportant and be satisfied with her body’s appearance and capabilities. Oh no, the boobs are the thing. Because a small-breasted woman can’t possibly be confident in her skin, any more than a non-skinny one can, so to be an effective aspirational heroine (and love interest for the Mary Sue hero Blomvist) Salander suddenly needs to acquire tits. Good-oh. Anorexically thin and now with extra mammary glandage. Because that bears *no* resemblance to the culturally projected ideal feminine body. God forbid any woman might be satisfied with a non-cartoonishly perfect form, whatever her other attributes (and apparent skills/priorities). Lara Croft here we come.

3) Salander’s weaknesses, like that of every woman (!), is sexuality and emotionality. She (inexplicably, conveniently, self-indulgently on the part of the author) falls for Blomvist/Larsson at the end of the first book, can’t deal with the strength of her feelings and so (implicitly endangering herself) blocks him out of her life; a development repeatedly described in terms of ‘love’ and her awareness of it as her ‘only weakness’. Welcome to millenia, hah, of literary troping, folks. Dido, Cleopatra, the female weakness is love. At least we (presumably) escape her suicide, but (equally presumably) at the expense of Salander eventually adopting Blomvist and acknowledged love for him as her weakness instead, and thus abandoning the selfhood she spent three books struggling to establish.

Further, like every other woman in the books, Salander’s sexuality is where her vulnerability lies. Blomvist aside, she – and they – are repeatedly sexually violated.  Although Salander deals with the first sexual assaults with which we are narratively presented in her own imitiable fashion, by returning the favour with a giant buttplug and tattooing ‘I AM A SADISTIC PIG, A PERVERT AND A RAPIST’ across her attacker’s torso, not only does he reappear later in the series in search of revenge, in the next books we get to see her imprisonment and violation by her father and brother. Joy.

4) These scenes of sexual violence increase in detail and voyeurism as we go through the books, as if the depraved and disgusting murders in the first weren’t enough. Once again, as per thousands of years of literary history, from Philomela and Lucretia to TS Eliot, we are presented with violation as some kind of female rite of passage (from which even our ubertough heroine isn’t exempt. In fact, given her defensiveness and passion or privacy, possibly Blomvist’s own attempts to ‘tell her story’ and the centrality of her sexual ictimisation to the stories ‘in the public eye’, it’s possible to figure Salander’s supposed salvation as a very special violation all its own).  In contrast, however, when Blomvist is trapped in the murderer’s lair in the first book, he is saved from rape in the nick of time by Salander herself. So it’s suitable for every woman in the book, possible exception of Berger, but heaven forbid a *man* might be similarly treated.

5) Worse, the series uses the prospect of misogynistic sexual violence as a hook, first to establish and develop Salander’s character and then to form the basis of the central mystery. And depictions of this violence are almost voyeuristic in their intensity. Possibly it’s unfair to blame Larsson for the effectiveness of his writing, but a little more attention to *male* sexual vulnerability wouldn’t come amiss.

6) I’m sure all writers see themselves in their characters to some extent. But Blomvist is so painfully obviously an idealised vesion of Larsson that it’s painful. Not only is he inexplicably irresitible to women (why? how? it doesn’t even fit with his character or behaviour as it is show to us) but from a position of effective inferiority to a powerful and vengeful Salander in the first book, by the last it is he and his writing, not her skills and qualities, that save her from wrongful conviction and imprisonment. Salander’s dynamic, genius, unscrupulous and often almost superhuman, but she still needs Blomvist, both as a companion and as a saviour. She’s ultimately more physically, socially and culturally vulnerable than he is, so he gets to save her. Ultimately, women get raped, even Salander; men get to save them, even Salander.

Social truths, maybe. But to recreate some of the most damaging tropes that have created a culture where ‘men hate women’ in supposed denunciation of it is just lazy. If all men who damaged women did it by raping and murdering them, we could all hate, denounce, fear and revile them. But unfortunately, much of the time the damage is far more insidious – it’s in presenting women’s violation as inevitable (a rite of passage marked by a tattoo ‘as a reminder’?), their subjugation as unavoidable, and their bodies as the only place from which they can properly draw ‘confidence’. It’s in declaring that all men who hate women kill them. It’s in telling women they’ll ultimately need ‘good’ men to be safe from the bad ones.

**I’m only halfway through the 3d, I’ll update should its conclusion miraculously resolve my concerns.
***Deb Burgard, ‘Developing Body Trust: A Body-Positive Approach to Treating Eating Disorders’, Margo Maine, ed. Effective Clinical Practice in the Treatment of Eating Disorders: the Heart of the Matter, Ch.4, p.49.
Posted in Culture, Psychobabble, Sex, Uncategorized | 7 Comments