This blog is proving to be interesting. The last post didn’t really contain an image to discuss (other than a cute one of me and my husband) but talked more about the issues around making or not making art a certain kind of art. I was quite surprised as to how many people clicked the “like” button on the post on Facebook and who found it on WordPress. This post also follows in a similar vein and also draws its inspiration from a news article that I found.
Here’s a link to the news article that was on Pink News, a web site in the UK that follows LGBTQ news issues in the UK. Basically we have here a show that invites people to have sex, in a box, on TV. The people who have sex then get to talk about with others on the TV show including Mariella Frostrup from the Observer Newspaper, a panel of experts including relationship adviser Tracey Cox, sex columnist Dan Savage and the author Phillip Hodson. Not for the faint of heart it seems. It’s part of Channel Four in England’s “Real Sex” series and is all about reclaiming sex from pornography. Here is a link to the Channel Four website about the show. So why is this showing up in my visual culture and politics blog? Well, there are a number of key points here to think about.
It’s on television to start with so that makes it about images and video. It’s about something we either do, want to do. think about doing, and is about something that shows up in other aspects of visual culture. Sex is in adverts, in magazines, in films, books, and in music too, So sex is very much about the visual culture of today in my mind. One only has to think of the flap around Miley Cyrus a few weeks ago at the MTV awards to see that sex and the visual portrayal of it is something that gets people all hot and bothered, even if they dress it up as being about someone’s singing ability instead.
Returning to the TV program then. The part of the article that originally caught my eye was the fact that the show, naughtily called “Sex Box”, will feature three couples, one of which is a gay male couple. This did surprise me, We’ve only just got to the point where we can show same-sex couples having a kiss on TV, let alone discuss the fact that they might “do it”. So this is quite a big step. Not that anyone is going to see anything anyway. When the couples enter the “Sex Box”, which is an opaque box in the studio, the TV cameras will be turned off for 20 minutes while the couples “have it off” as it were. Then, when they exit the box, the cameras start-up again and they engage in a period of conversation with the panel and the TV audience. Who knows what they will talk about. For that I guess we will have to wait and see the show itself. But the idea is that they will talk about the ins and outs of their sex lives (pardon the pun).
Now I am a liberal-minded chap and am into all sorts of telly, when I get time to watch it. But I’m having a hard time understanding the value of having the box in the studio and then people actually having sex in the box during the recording of the show. If the conversation was to be about the sex they JUST had, that would be one thing. But it doesn’t seem to be the case. The mission is about reclaiming sex from pornography, something that this seems to be skating very close toward. It’s probably the closest any TV show has come to bringing actual real sex to the audience on a mainstream, free to air channel. You don’t get to SEE it, but you can bet the tension of it will be in the air, either real or imagined, both in the studio and in the viewers homes. That’s an interesting new twist on sex and visual imagery, don’t you think? The ultimate in suggestion, perhaps. Almost hidden sex.