Mad Cyril Likes Men

Afta a bit ov business went dahn, I fort I betta lie low for a bit, an nipped orf to France. Fer the sake of the insurance, I took in a coupla shows over there, keepin the profile on the low-dahn.

Fer the sake of the Wee Man, there's one abaht masculine identity. 

I doan have much truck wiv all this dance that is abaht being a man: I fink havin a willy is pretty much wat is all abaht. Still, it's Belgian innit, I'll give it a taste.

See, I reckon is the first fin that male dancers do when they get a bit of choreographic action. All them years gettin the piss extracted fer wearing tights, they jus gotta show orf that they're real men. So we get a bunch ov fancy acrobatics, bit ov angst, ow ard it is being a bloke. Neva mind the rest ov the world couldn't give a toss. Three fousand years of patriarchy has given us quite enuff of masculine featre (Amlet, Orestes, need I go on).

Still, it's Belgian, innit?

Is a bit ard workin aht wat Chicks Fer Money, Nothing Fer Free as to do wiv the Dire Straits' numba it mentions: it's five geezas avin a laff on stage, mostly. Sometimes they come orf the stage, like skidding in pools of beer an shavin foam, but when these geezas wanna rock, they go wiv the AC/DC, a bit ov propa rock'n'roll. And they do the showin orf, only, this ain't some tricks to impress the chicks. They have a propa go at each ovva, til one ov em ends up with a nasty kick in the nuts. They calm dahn afta that. 

See, what this piece does is take the worst aspects of the average geeza - the showin off in front of yer mates, the drinkin, the fightin, the husslin for position - and make it all charming, like. Five fellas havin a piss up and a slap up turns inta a bit of fun, and not so fuckin scary.

Even a geeza like me gets a bit worried when ee sees five saucy lads carryin on, but instead of em being all hardcore, they come across like kids. Playful, bit insecure, not keen on the old intimacy but able to do it if ya put em in a box first. 

That's the genius of this Belgian stuff. Is less predictable. 

And there were big laffs when the two ov em came out all in shaving foam and skidded into the audience, or when they bunged beer all over the shop... or as they put it





Zes jongens, mannen, komen samen in de Krakeling. Om hun verhaal te vertellen smijten ze hun lichaam in de strijd. Tegen elkaar en voor elkaar, tot het bittere einde. Ze hebben het over geld, seks en macht. Over jongensdromen en het echte leven.

Chicks is een oefening in geluk. Een zoektocht naar een ideale wereld waar alles kan en niets schijn lijkt. Danstheater, bewegingstheater of fysieke voorstelling, het is in elk geval een uitputtende veldslag waarin taal pas bovendrijft als de zes lichamen leeg zijn, moegestreden

The Pornographic is Political

Hang on, I've gone through the looking glass again. 

Most importantly, THESE OPINIONS ARE NOT VALID. THEY ARE IDEAS IN PROGRESS AND SINCE THEY CHALLENGE THE FEMINIST FOUNDATION OF THE PROTESTS AGAINST THE NEW PORNOGRAPHY LAWS, THEY ARE NOT TO BE USED TO FURTHER THE DEBATE. THEY ARE A BIT LIKE THOSE WHACKY IDEAS CULTS HAVE... A SUGGESTION.

There's an article in The Independent that insists that 'The new UK porn legislation will turn erotic film into boring, unrealistic male fantasy'. Forgive me for living in the 1950s, but isn't that exactly the situation already?

My attitude to freedom of speech is pretty hardline. I draw the line at people having sex on Sauchiehall Street, and respect the importance of a ratings system (protect the children and that). I am also against anything that films a criminal act - like child abuse - but believe that this is not a matter of censorship but criminal law. I am happy that Dapper Laughs isn't on TV, but not because he ought to be 'banned' (he's not funny). 

Let me try and follow this. Recently, Dapper was refused a second series - whether this was because of the campaign against him or just TV execs realising that his comedy was out of date and moronic is moot. There was a campaign to get him off the TV which, technically, isn't full censorship, since he would still be able to make DVDs or vines or whatever to get his mirthless antics out into the world. But the campaign was about preventing him using a particular media.

Attacking Dapper was framed as a feminist issue. Fair enough.

Now The Independent is worrying that new legislation about the subjects in pornography are an attack on freedom of speech (with the body as text, I guess). It has an article that insists that this legislation acts against representations of female desire. 

My favourite part is the complaint that the new laws are moralistic. Well, yes: that is the function of the law. 

I am not going to go over the list - anyone wanting their jollies can check The Independent, which has got all hot under the collar about it, and given loads of space for Erika Lust to advertise her movies under the guise of commentary. For the record, I don't actually know that much about face-sitting, but I tend towards being against any censorship. And I agree with the worry that this selection of activities does not discern the difference between consensual hanky-panky and non-consensual (aka sexual abuse).

But I am going to struggle with the idea that defending the rights of film-makers to produce content that features people pissing on each other is, in some way, a feminist battle.

First of all, other strands of feminism have always regarded pornography as intrinsically anti-feminist. I'm thinking Dworkin, radical feminism of the 1970s, the anti-page 3 campaigns (again, they might be about addressing material in a specific medium rather than simple anti-porn activist).

It's part of a wider problem that 'feminism' is seen as a monolithic entity, rather than a diverse series of responses, attitudes and activities. 

Then there is the actual content that is being banned. I know that fisting sounds more violent than it is, and that female ejaculation was a big hit on the internet in 2012, but I am not sure that the activities that are banned are acting specifically as a ban on female pleasure. 

It's a grab-bag of activities, some associated with violent sex, others simply outside of the 'mainstream' idea of sexuality. It doesn't seem consistent enough to betray a particular agenda - beyond the patriarchal agenda that all legislation subconsciously posits - but it includes some things that could be seen as violent 'unrealistic male fantasy.' 

Trying to pick out one or two items and shout that this represents an attack on representations of female desire... I don't think that is a strong response. I think it is an example of how leftist thinking tends to mix and match egotism and ideology.

However, at this point, I am going to be quiet. As a man, I don't get to tell feminism what it is, or what can be said in its name. 

See Me... here's my art

Mad Cyril loves his porno

Oy oy saveloy. Ahve been readin the new legislation baht porn. Not that it bovvers me: when we make a porno in the back room of the Dog and Fuckitt, it ain't exactly ova the counter action. Like the liberal press, I ad a good look at the new rules and fort to meself: whassit all abaht?

So, apparently, fem'nist porn is gonna get told. Ta be onest, I ain't sure wat facesittin is. Sahnds more like sumfin Ahd administer as a punishment fer a liberty-takin. Same fer spankin. Whateva. As long as I don't av to watch yer doin it, go fer yer life.

But ere's what gets me. Is all abaht the representation, not the means of production. If it ain't okay to av someone gettin pissed on if they gave their consent, but it is okay to av someone gettin spunked on even though they adn't been asked. It's a courtesy I always observe, to check that the bird's okay with gettin a face-full of Cyril's special sauce. But in a work environment, I reckon thas a helf and safety issue.

Wat I am tryin to say is: maybe legislation could ave a bit more wallop fer the working conditions of people in porn and that. Rarver than worryin about the dangers of people copyin female ejaculation (whateva that is - is it one of them fins fem'nists made up like the female orgasm. Ain't seen one of them, eva), ow about finkin abaht the exploitation that appens on set. I fink ya ought ta be able to show anyfin, long as all the people in it are awright abaht it and did it safe, like. 

As long as Ah don av to watch yer doin it, son. 

The Lego Movie as Capitalist Tract