X Factor too X-Rated?

I suppose this is exactly what I set this blog up for – to give me a soapbox on which to whinge about the accepted public opinion and the media at large. Earlier this week, the feminist wing of said public and media were in a moral panic about X Factor.

They reckon Saturday night’s final was too sexy. Christina Aguilera and Rihanna sang, and danced, in skimpy outfits, with provocative dancers. Cue a frenzy of disapproval: it sexualised women; it wasn’t suitable for screening pre-watershed; it will corrupt our children.

Dirrrty

But is it that bad? What’s the implication of such performances?

Have a look for yourself on this handy blog-site:

soulculture blog

So, what to make of it?

Sex sells. We know that. Should we shun that old mantra? Should men not be attracted to women any more? Should men look on scantily clad women with scorn? No, we shouldn’t.

It is largely seen as a triumph of modernity that men and women can both enjoy their sexuality, without fear of recrimination. And yet, if a famous girl dances exotically on TV, suddenly we want to censor ourselves back to the 19^th Century? Cover your ankles, ladies!

It’s not only overly sensitive, it’s hypocritical. Around twenty years ago, a feminist icon broke new ground by recording an album, filming several videos and even releasing a photographic diary, all of which exploited her sexuality. Madonna has since been hailed as a trail-blazer. But Rihanna and Christina perform what are actually less sexualised routines, to a supposedly more liberated audience, and we condemn them?

I realise that young girls may emulate what they see on the X Factor. But did they not emulate Madonna on Top of the Pops? Was that not shown before the watershed?

Trail-blazer?

I’m not saying Madonna was right. I’m not saying Christina and Rihanna are right. Maybe, if pop-culture was less sex-orientated, society would be better for it. I’m just saying there is a lack of consistency here.

And it’s not just a lack of consistency in how the censor-brigade treats women. It’s a lack of consistency in how they treat the two genders.

Why should we question the ethics of the two female guest stars’ performances and use them to condemn sexualisation of women when, three weeks ago, eventual winner Matt Cardle was thrown on stage in a vest to please the lady viewers?

A vest, you might say, is not quite the same as a bra and a pair of hot-pants. But I doubt girls would have been drooling over Mr Cardle quite so much if he had been wearing those items. Men and women are different, wear different clothes, and are attracted to different things. Just because a male performer has less flesh on display does not mean he is not being treated as a sex-object. And that’s not to say that there aren’t examples of male celebrities being ‘exploited’ semi-naked in the media – David Beckham’s package-displaying pants advert springs to mind.



Porn culture?



Ironically, in this series of X Factor, which stands accused of this most heinous crime of sexploitation, the most successful female contestants – Rebecca, Cher, Mary and Katie – were actually not sexualised at all. Katie’s mid-series restyling from blonde bombshell to cropped-haired brunette actually represented the exact opposite. The raunchier female acts were filtered out in the formative stages of the show.



On the other hand, the male contestants, Matt and One Direction, were raved about by female viewers purely for their looks. My female Facebook friends’ posts read “Matt Cardle – yes please!”, “One Direction – Cute, Cute, Cute!” and so on. Disgusting. Or, at least, it would be considered disgusting if it was directed at women, wouldn’t it? Or would it? Isn’t it just human nature to enjoy attractive members of the opposite sex?

I understand feminism as a cause, and I admire the principles of promoting the rights, interests and opinions of a group. But I wish that the pro-women’s rights argument could be contextualised better. For example, why must the sexualisation of women be viewed as an aggressive, vulgar male act while the sexualisation of men by women passes by unnoticed?

I do understand the argument that performances like Rihanna’s and Christina’s aren’t great viewing for our kids. I agree that ‘porn-culture’ is not a healthy contributor to society (for men or women).

But let’s face it - men are not solely at fault and women are not wholly innocent. Sex sells both ways.

How great would winning the Ashes in Australia be? No, really, how great would it be?

The 2010-2011 Ashes series always promised much for England and, so far, it is living up to the billing. After the elation of regaining the urn in 2005 – for the first time in a generation – only one question remained. Can we win it on Australian soil?

Surely, if we could achieve that most elusive of feats then the redemption of English cricket would be complete. This breed of England stars would go down in history as the greatest in living memory – the team which might finally prove themselves to be, beyond doubt, better than their Aussie counterparts.

But something’s missing isn’t it?

I was discussing the matter with a fellow cricket enthusiast, and we both agreed that it was a good feeling, as an England fan, to see such misery on Ricky Ponting’s face. To see him arguing with Umpire Aleem Dar in last week's First Test over a catch-that-never-was decision was ugly. It was wrong. And, from an English point of view, it was immensely satisfying. Not a very sporting sentiment, I suppose, but true nevertheless.



Despondancy - Ponting lambasts Aleem Dar

There have been so few occasions during the Australian captain’s long reign in which his side has looked second-best that he has had little opportunity to hone that peculiar, but necessary, skill of being graceful in adversity. It’s almost possible to feel sorry for Ponting, until you remember the years of unbridled, remorseless glory he has had in the past. As top sportsmen go, perhaps no-one is more overdue a little patch of adversity.

For England there is no room for remorse or sympathy. There will quite possibly never be a better chance of victory, or a weaker Australian line up, in an away Ashes series than there is now. England should focus on the Australian failings, exploit them, and obliterate them. And they should take consummate pleasure in the process.

Unfortunately, if England do this, and go on and win this series it will always be a little bit tainted. The Australians aren’t up to it. The look on Ponting’s face isn’t just evidence of him being a bad loser. At times, in the early part of this series, it has appeared to be a look of despondency. As Ponting watches his bowlers spray loose balls for England’s in-form batsmen to nonchalantly dispatch, his stony grimace may even reflect resignation to the fact that his current team just isn’t very good. And that’s what is missing.

Without the excellence of the opposition, any victory will always be at least a touch on the hollow side and, unfortunately, that is what we have in Australia right now. Many of the key Australian institutions are gone. Their replacements are pale comparisons.

The new breed of bowlers have the most unenviable task of all. How do you follow Glenn McGrath, Brett Lee and Shane Warne? For Doug Bollinger, Ben Hilfenhaus and Xavier Doherty it’s just a challenge too far. They aren’t of the same class. Even Peter Siddle’s sensational hat-trick of wickets in the First Test has been swiftly forgotten. Instead, people will remember England’s unprecedented second innings score of 517-1, which has sharply focused Australian media attention on the short-comings of an impotent bowling attack. The Aussie selectors have been left red-faced, trying to re-jig the attack mid-series in a move that looks rather similar to blind panic.

In contrast, the 2005 series on English soil was truly exceptional – an England side in its pomp against an Australian side at its best, and England won! That will be forever remembered as a mesmerizing battle of excellence facing off against excellence. McGrath, Warne and Lee were all still playing and all still firing. As were non-bowling greats, like Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist. For England, the series made Kevin Pietersen and Andrew Flintoff in to genuine superstars of the game.

The squaring off of two great, and very similar, players – England's Flintoff and Australia’s Lee – epitomized the gladiatorial nature of the contest. Both bowled with blistering pace. Both contributed with the bat. Both inspired their team-mates with their pride, passion and patriotism.

True Greatness - Brett Lee is consoled by Andrew Flintoff in 2005

Throughout the series, they each bared their teeth at one another, like attack-dogs ready for the kill, thirsty for blood. But, in the ferocious heat of victory, the single most enduring image of the whole series was captured on film – Flintoff suddenly changed from growling warrior to humble sportsman, to console the beaten man.

There is no doubt that the 2005 series is the stuff of legends. It is an epic case-study of all that is great in sport – the greatness of individuals, the greatness of teams, the greatness of the moment and, crucially, the greatness of the contest.

The England players of 2010-2011 may well achieve a great landmark by winning the Ashes in Australia. To be honest, it would have to go down as a great failure if they don’t.

But could they have beaten the Australian side of 2005? The current England side does look good, with a host of in-form batsmen and a young but well-balanced bowling attack, so it’s not beyond belief. 

As it is though, this side has sadly been denied a chance to prove themselves against great opposition. As a result, unbelievably, even winning an Ashes series in Australia – as enjoyable and as momentous as that would be - is probably not enough for them to achieve true greatness for themselves.