The Sasha Grey Interview Experience
So, you know what opened this week? Pornactress-cum-actress Sasha Grey's movie, The Girlfriend Experience (it's her movie now, Steven!). Perhaps you've heard about it? She's doing a ton of publicity. Including Gawker! I know, I know, what Lux says is true (internal: do I have to nsfw tag fleshbot links?): It's totally difficult to come up with a fresh angle on Sasha Grey. Even before the movie hype-machine shifted another gear, Sasha was giving out a lot of interview. And now profiling the smart-alternative-philosophical-fuck-machine has become just another media gang-bang that offers nothing new or stimulating. But surely there are bigger and better questions to ask! Queries with more girth, if you will. Sasha's persona as it comes across through, uh, interviews is one of a straight-shooter who's not afraid of tough questions. Even better: She's deep. There's a feminist streak to her brand of self-possessed sexual liberation. So, myself an oversexed philosophy major, I was excited for thoughtful conversation with the candid Miss Cum Buckets #8. Alas, as Vanessa Grigoriadis wrote in her Rolling Stone profile, "there is something about Grey that is hard to reach, like talking to a woman behind glass." And I'm here to report: It's true! Even over e-mail! What follows is my interview with Sasha Grey. But instead of treating it like a straight Q&A we're going to deconstruct along the way, in search of answers, but perhaps finding only more questions.?.? TAN: Do you think you can be seduced via email interview? Sasha Grey (SG): No. TAN: I haven't seen any of your movies (Really! Well, except for The Girlfriend Experience which I just saw — ed: these Q's were sent beginning of May.) What am I — and others out there — missing from the purely-visceral-porn side of your oeuvre? Do you consider yourself as having an "oeuvre"? I did read about you being asked to get punched in the stomach, and everyone loving that: is that something recommended, or strictly for professionals? SG: That was sorely taken out of context; it never happened. ed: Google says otherwise? TAN: Everyone talks about how smart you are! It sort of feels like when Obama/black people are celebrated for being "clean and articulate." Are porn stars all idiots or something? SG: I don't believe so, unfortunately there are people that perpetuate the stereotype but it doesn't mean we all fit into that category. TAN: Are you familiar with the 10,000 hours theory, via Malcolm Gladwell and others? It suggests that masters/geniuses of their craft become so by somehow someway diligently working at their craft for 10,000 hours. Do you think you've hit the 10,000 hours mark for fucking? Are you a "fucking genius"? Are there masters of porn/geniuses of the craft of sex? Sexual "outliers." If one fucks for 10,000 hours will one be a genius? how would a layperson identify this sort of talent? SG: That's just a belittling question. I find this response telling *strokes chin*. I mean,... MORE >>
Even Men Are Asking Why, Double X, Why?
In part two of our feminist bonfire, we cross the pond to find out if feminism means anything different for the Brits (fish and chips?). And ruin the gene pool with a dude. So. This "feminism" is a big broad issue. Almost makes me want to start a sister-gawker-weekend-offshoot to hit it from all angles. But in lieu of that bit of destimulation, I got the provocative Jess McCabe — who recently had her words manhandled by The Observer — to share her thoughts on the differences between the feminism scene here in the states, versus the UK. Jess edits The F Word and enjoys the shit out of punk rock and 18th century literature: First off, this is a really important to include: I'm just an individual. I get an overview of feminist activism in the UK to an extent, as editor of The F-Word, but I'm not in a position (as if anyone is) to make any definitive statements about what UK feminism is. As I said in my response to the Observer, it's inaccurate to talk about feminism as though it's this one specific ideology, it's a multitude of threads, of feminisms. That said, I do think there are differences between feminisms in the UK and feminisms in the US. Just as one example: rape conviction rate in England and Wales is about 6.5%, and in Scotland it's 2.9% - the lowest in the European Union and, as I understand it, much worse than the US, so trying to turn that around and advocating for reform of how the criminal justice system and police deal with sexual violence, and tackling myths about rape, is a high priority for many feminists here - I think that's one reason that feminists have rallied around Reclaim the Night marches and Million Women Rise. Another sort of difference: the controversy over the WAM! conference charging so much for entry seems strange from a UK perspective, given that feminist events and conferences here are either free or charge a few pounds entry at most. It doesn't result in the conferences being 100% accessible or perfect by any means, but I do think it points to a difference. In terms of feminist media, the biggest difference is just that there is so much more of it in the US. That's partly because the US is a much bigger country, I'm guessing, but in the US there's make/shift and Bitch magazine, and lots of very large feminist blogs, as well as a huge number of smaller blogs. We have Subtext Magazine, and a lot of feminist blogs, but still. I wouldn't call US feminist media superficial at all (ed note: I asked); Jezebel has more of an emphasis on celebrities, but I don't think that's true of wider US feminist media. Matt Ufford will serve as our shot of testosterone. His dudely credentials include being the founding editor of With Leather, and current writer of television blog Warming Glow: Here's the problem with Double X so far: it has yet to make feminism more inclusive. By adopting Slate's technique of dressing up illogical contrarian ideas in fancy words, it serves only to further cloud the goals of feminism, a... MORE >>
Credit-Crunched Times' Writer Edmund Andrews Responds To Sketchiness Allegations
New York Times economics reporter Edmund Andrews has responded to The Atlantic's Megan McArdle's takedown of him for glossing over important details in his "I'm broke!" Times piece. It's an ugly scene. Full recap: Edmund Andrews writes about economics for the Times and went broke. Because he's an NYT reporter, there's the rub! He wrote a book about the experience of going broke as a Rich White Guy Who Should Know Better and excerpted it in last week's New York Sunday Times Magazine. The Atlantic's Megan McArdle did some research and found that Andrews' second wife, with whom he experienced the fiscal woes, filed for bankruptcy not once, but twice, the second time after they were married. The bankruptcies aren't mentioned in the article (and most likely, the book), which makes Andrews' story slightly less "this happened to us" and slightly more "we did this to us," which still probably could've sold the book! But leaving this out is at best, sketchy, and at worst, a lie by omission. So what'd Andrews have to say to McArdle? NewsHour, who ran a segment on his book Thursday night, asked him for a quote on the kerfuffle. He cries innocence: It is hard to believe that anybody would accuse me of trying to airbrush a story in which I recount the cringe-inducing details of my calamitous plunge into junk mortgages. ..These bankruptcies did occur, but they had nothing to do with our mortgage woes. They were both tied to old debts from before we were married or bought a house. They had nothing to do with my ability to get a mortgage; nor did they have anything to do with our subsequent financial problems. ...None of this has any connection to our story. It had nothing to do with Patty being a spendthrift. It had no bearing on my ability to take out a mortgage, and it had nothing to do with our financial problems. Schwah? What? Old debt from previous marriages unresolved during a current marriage is still an issue when you're applying for a home loan. Let's assume Andrews got the seedy flex-loan money without his wife's name on it, without her history on it, without her having any association to the mortgage whatsoever. He would still have to consciously omit her from any attempt to get said home loan. And how is that - and her financial history at large - simply not relevant to the book he's writing on his family's financial issues? Maybe because the bankruptcies were kinda scandalous, and shady in their own right. Bankruptcy Number One came from an ex-husband who's apparently far sketchier than Andrews, five years previous to their marriage. Her ex-husband (a TV commercial producer, naturally) didn't file returns for five years. Since Patty was reporting them on their personal tax returns, she had to join him in the filing. Bankruptcy Number Two is a little more salacious: Patty's second bankruptcy stemmed from a loan she received from her sister, while Patty was still living in Los Angeles. At the time, she was caring for four children, working for very... MORE >>
Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Gawker: Top Stories" or change your subscription or subscribe
| Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 |
No comments:
Post a Comment