When did feminism make it OK to be a 'Satanic Slut'?
Well, heads have rolled at the BBC.
OK, to get this straight; I don't think for a moment that it's right for two grown men to leave puerile messages on another man's phone. It was schoolboy stuff, and I realise a lot of people are very annoyed about it (although some people seem to have mixed up respected comic performer Andrew Sachs, who had already agreed to be on the show knowing its tone and presumably had some idea of his family's professions with some doddery old man who thought he was on Gardener's Question Time). The majority has spoken: it was wrong.
Here's what upsets me, though: the girl. I think it's being a mum has done this to me. When I was younger, I thought that being a sex worker was a valid option, that it should be respected and protected. Which, to a point, it should of course.
But, while there's no suggestion she is a sex worker, when I see a gorgeous, educated girl like Georgina Baillie proudly call herself a 'Satanic Slut', I just shudder. I can't help it.
When, precisely, did feminism make this kind of nonsense OK? When did it become alright for those 'porn star in training' t-shirts, the 'hot stuff' printed on little girl's knickers; beautiful teen heroine Billie Piper playing the rich gorgeous prostitute Belle de Jour? Dita Von Teese is beautiful, and a fashion icon, but she's a stripper. Her job is to encourage male engorgement. The end.
I bloody hate it. I'm not saying for a minute that Bailie was 'asking for' what happened to her (and in fact- OF COURSE- she's now going to make plenty of money out of it), but would you like your daughters and granddaughters to have that as a job description? Is it OK?
That, more than any amount of stupidity from two overgrown schoolboys, has been what has upset and angered me about this whole affair. That we're just meant to sit back and say 'Satanic Slut'? Well done darling, and good luck to you' to our children and grandchildren. Am I totally alone in this?
Posted by Jenny Colgan
Picture from satanic-sluts.com


Barack Obama spoke in support of U.S. missile defense system in Eastern Europe. According to him, will not be eliminated until the Iranian threat, missile defense will be created. Earlier, Russian experts and politicians do not rule out that with the advent of Obama relevant to the issue of Washington's defense can change. <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg/225px-Offici
Posted by: emorsesut | 6 Apr 2009 17:52:15
Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnwoo/gGx5H2 The son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, he is the first African-American to ascend to the highest office in the land. He is also the first new president since terrorists attacked http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnwoo/gGx5Ht New York and Washington on, the first t
Posted by: BeRBriereeBah | 23 Mar 2009 17:37:21
Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnwoo/gGx5H2 The son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, he is the first African-American to ascend to the highest office in the land. He is also the first new president since terrorists attacked http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnwoo/gGx5Ht New York and Washington on, the first t
Posted by: BeRBriereeBah | 23 Mar 2009 17:35:47
Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as the 44th president of the United States on Jan. 20, 2009. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnwoo/gGx5H2 The son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas, he is the first African-American to ascend to the highest office in the land. He is also the first new president since terrorists attacked http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/johnwoo/gGx5Ht New York and Washington on, the first t
Posted by: BeRBriereeBah | 23 Mar 2009 17:32:43
"There's been a cultural trend since New Labour to conflate feminism with an old-fashioned anti-sex puritanism"
Indeed. Feminism to me (and I do not use the word often as it is misconstrued by so many people) means equal rights under the law and fairness at home in domestic relationships with a man. You can be a pretty feminine feminist. You can be a sexual and sexy feminist. You can be a sleep with anyone I meet feminist or a feminist who marries and is faithful for life.
Most men and women use their sexuality, looks, charm, flirting skills in life, in business, in finding a partner. It's how the human race manages to survive.
I just got back from Iran where I was on business this week and given special clothes to wear. I didn't feel they desexualised women at all. Many of them took so much trouble over make up that the clothing to cover their body became rather pointless. So I suppose only if they cover the whole face (and very few people I saw there did so) do you achieve the "freedom" of the dungaree clad flat shoe / short hair woman. It didn't feel free most of the time for me to be covered. I suspect a UK performer like the girl here or the gorgeous Ms van Teese are better role models that any housewife or covered / burkha clad Christian/Jewish/Muslim in terms of feminism and power and legal rights for women.
Posted by: supermother | 8 Nov 2008 11:22:00
What a remarkably prudish view of feminism you seem to have. Ms. Bailie obviously feels empowered enough to create her own identity without pandering to the approval of society. She should be free to choose that identity, regardless of her gender, yet you disapprove because she doesn't conform to your sadly limited ideas of what a woman should be. Instead of celebrating her ability to choose, you've retreated into sniffily complaining about someone who has happily reclaimed her sexuality from the very repressive society that feminists are trying to change. You can't campaign for women to be able to freely choose the path of their lives, then whine when they choose a life that you personally dislike.
Posted by: Chris H | 7 Nov 2008 11:57:13
I think it's being a slut. And satanic.
Posted by: Whimsey | 4 Nov 2008 17:28:35
A lot of veiled scorn in the article, but very light on what, precisely, in "not OK" about being a Satanic Slut.
Posted by: G Davies | 4 Nov 2008 01:54:39
I don't really feel sorry for her. You sleep with someone as immature as Brand and you expect them not to boast to their friends? Also if you didn't want to be thought of as a slag you probably shouldn't be in a group called 'Stanic Sluts' and you probably shouldn't engage in lesbian sex for an audience.
It's her grandfather I feel sorry for. And now thanks to her recent publicity everyone knows what she does for a living, plus she has pictures of herself chained up on her myspace page for the world to see. I'm sure most grandparents would be more than happy to never have to know a fact like that about their grandchildren (ignorance is bliss as they say).
Posted by: Ashley | 3 Nov 2008 22:22:33
Forgive me for seeking to be old-school gallant about the lady, but she didn't kiss and tell on Brand, he did on her. I suppose such a generous (dare I say 'engorged'?) remuneration package as his would lead one to feel certain obligations of a sensationalist sort, forgetting/ignoring the fact that real people, who did not court this level of publicity - and yes I think there's a question of degree in that - were involved here. Ross, Brand and the show's editors are the real media tarts, willing to offer any envelope-pushing thrill they think they can get away with.
Whimsey, with your charge of hypocrisy, you are likening speaking up for someone to paying for sexual activity with them – quite an ethical difference. The fact that someone may do something that would distress me if one of 'my women' did it does not mean that they cease to deserve my support - quite the opposite, I would have thought. Think otherwise and you may as well take part in a stoning.
Posted by: Paul | 3 Nov 2008 20:03:44
"Women beware women, it seems"
I don't think it's so much women beware women, as people beware people. Those who have lifestyles repellent to others, get dissed by such people - I don't think gender comes into it really. I'm sure there are plenty of males who think the likes of GH is pretty despicable. And plenty of women who think she isn't.
One thing I do say, though. If you are a male, and think sex working is fine and dandy - and that's it's, as was put earlier, a 'privilege' to be allowed to look at the likes of GB on camera - then you MUST agree that sex working is fine for those women important to you in your emotional life, your girlfriends, lovers, wives,daughters, mothers, sisters, aunts, grannies, and personal friends, etc. If you don't think that - if you think that sex working, whether it's stripping or whoring or 'glamour modelling' etc etc - is fine for 'other women' to do, (and for you to enjoy the fruits of...) but you would not want 'your women' to do it, then you are disgusting little hypcrites, aren't you?
Posted by: Whimsey | 3 Nov 2008 17:40:31
It seems ultra-defensive to say that free choice means that no-one else may criticise your choice; and it seems to me that there's much to criticise about Woss, Brand and Baillie.
When a woman decides that her path to fulfilment is through encouraging male engorgement, tumescence or whatever, it seems to me perilously close to becoming a latter-day Stepford Wife. Especially when her parents have brought her up in "porn star in training" t-shirts.
It's not big and it's not clever.
Posted by: Tim | 3 Nov 2008 17:37:15
There's been a cultural trend since New Labour to conflate feminism with an old-fashioned anti-sex puritanism. I don't think J Colgan's a feminist, in this instance, but a puritan, merely judging others by her own reservations, repressions and notions of taste.
Posted by: Paul | 3 Nov 2008 17:22:09
Thanks L, I was just suggesting it to avoid ambiguity:-)
I thought these guys were terribly puerile. She has a right to live how she wants without being fair game. And I don't see why prostitution is being mentioned here. She's a paid performer. Even if she was a dominatrix, there'd still be a difference.
Women beware women, it seems. I was disappointed by the judgemental snobbery to be found in someone who I'd previously thought of, if I'd thought of her at all, as a fun and light-hearted writer. But it seems that parochial narrow-mindedness and judgementalism still passes for opinion.
Posted by: Paul | 3 Nov 2008 17:14:24
Paul: engorgement can mean either. It also sounds better than tumescence
Posted by: L | 3 Nov 2008 15:10:41
Sam, I strongly suggest you do some research on women involved in prostitution. You're in danger of sounding a touch ignorant and foolish.
Posted by: Kate | 3 Nov 2008 14:42:01
"The majority has spoken:"
No - the majority has not spoken, a hysterical tabloid audience spoke - and that mostly because they are envious of Ross and Brandt for being paid more than they do. On Facebook there is a support group WITH MORE PEOPLE that those who complained to the BBC - yet the BBC feel compelled to censor that fact.
Posted by: PJ | 3 Nov 2008 13:15:16
Similarly, I wasn't aware that it was Dita von Teese's job to encourage men to eat. I think the word you want is 'tumescence'.
Posted by: Paul | 3 Nov 2008 11:36:31
A baffling and slightly shameful piece: as a gentleman I think we should be capable of telling fantasy from reality. Women can dress as scantily and behave as sluttily as they like, and it's our privilege if we're able to watch them - it doesn't confer a right to touch, take advantage, gossip about etc. I thought this was what feminists wanted? In direct answer to the question ‘when did feminism make it ok to be a Satanic Slut?’ I would say when Susan Sontag published ‘On Pornography’. Know your subject, Jenny Colgan.
Posted by: Paul | 3 Nov 2008 11:31:01
My own personal definition of a prostitute is someone who does something they don't believe in for money they don't need. This includes people who work in planet raping tesco when they could be on the dole.
Posted by: sam | 3 Nov 2008 11:07:01
My own personal definition of a prostitute is someone who does something they don't believe in for money they don't need. This includes people who work in planet raping tesco when they could be on the dole.
Posted by: sam | 3 Nov 2008 11:05:58
Mind you, even if GB and her sisters did it all for free, she'd still not be worthy of respect for what she does.
Posted by: Whimsey | 3 Nov 2008 10:17:02
Those who treat sex as a commercial commodity don't deserve respect. Respect isn't a 'right' - it's earned.
Of course someone who makes a living out of their sexuality is a sex worker.
Posted by: Whimsey | 3 Nov 2008 10:15:42
Dame Helen Mirren has got her kit off and shown her wares to far more people than Georgina Baillie and we think she is a national treasure. Emilia Fox simulated sex on prime time tv last night and she is considered a 'serious' actress. I think we are being a tad hypocritical about GB. She is straightforward about what she does, Brand and Ross are just grubby and SO old fashioned.
Posted by: annoyed of East London | 3 Nov 2008 08:58:34
we used to this, as we have seen the breakthrough made but the well known couple !! what a couple : 2 Girls 1 Cup ( copy of the trailer for Hungry Bitches) so no wonder when this civilization bring about such development in prostitution ,wake up sex wacky !!!ohh i wonder if sex earnings will help overlap world ecnomic crisis , or could it be the reason of all this who knows !!!!!!!????
Posted by: hichem kooper khenchela | 3 Nov 2008 07:24:28