Lena Chen is mentioned in the article as the ultimate anti-virgin. She's a junior at Harvard and has a blog. She's also something of a sex-columnist-extraordinaire. Her blog ostensibly began so that she could write about her lush and prolific college sex career, but now it seems much consumed with dealing with the tractor beams the public eye seems to have locked upon her.
Last week, she posted this picture on her Tumblr, The Ch!cktionary. She's ruffled quite a few feathers with it because she is not, by any stretch, a porn actress. She's a 20-year-old sociology major at arguably the most prestigious university in the land. And yet that is a very... very... VERY dirty picture.
And what do I think of it? As if you really had to ask. Of course, I think it's probably the hottest thing I've ever seen. Oh, wait-- I mean, I think it's a beautiful expression of human sexuality.
Regardless, the photo fascinates me in that it's acquired an even more connotatively palimpsestic aspect than most photos ever could -- sexy or otherwise. She says that she never expected it to be controversial or incendiary at all... and yet she calls herself "a living, walking, subversive abomination" in a more recent post. The photo, in and of itself, is so simple-- just a close-up of her little urchin face. As she says, she's not even naked in it. And perhaps it's nothing more than the fact that her face is so very child-like that throws us all for a loop. But I (*wink*) doubt it.
The photo suggests so much. This is a debauched woman. A woman who is happily so. Look at her eyes. She looks like she's never been so turned on in her life. She's staring straight at the camera with all the defiance of the "Demoiselles D'Avignon". She owns that cum -- she caused it and she's proud of it and she looks like she could eat the guy behind the camera alive.
And yet it winds up on Gawker, being called an "overshare" and she tells us some concerned soul wrote a letter to her parents, advising them to find help for her. But then, Susannah Breslin, of Reverse Cowgirl fame says this: "The fact of the matter is that writing about sex isn't easy. Chen is a human being. And while I won't be posting photos of myself with a pop shot on my face anytime soon, you gotta respect the girls who have the balls to do it. Why? Because you don't."
So, folks, what is it? What is it about little Lena's face all smeared with seed that has some of us worried for her mental health and/or her immortal soul... and some of us cheering her as a feminist icon? In case you hadn't notice, I'm in Susannah's camp, of course. But more interesting than taking sides is figuring out why exactly the photo is controversial at all.
Is it because, deep down, we think porn-ishness should be left to its own arena? Is it because we think girls who are
Oh, I think she knew the photo would catch her some flack when she posted it. She had to have known. I mean, she'd just got done quoting Camus on The Ch!cktionary: "The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion." She's just owning her red harlot/"subversive abomination" nature, after all. She can hardly help it. My psychic once told me I've got a little bit of natural "fuck-you!" in my personality. Lena's got it in spades.
Truth be told, Lena seems to be having the college experience that I was far too big a kid to have had myself-- but always wanted. Yeah, I messed around with a few handfuls of boys-- and a couple girls. But, sadly, my sophomore year, I fell madly, nihilisticly in love with the boy who lived across the hall from me. He had a girlfriend, with whom he'd periodically break up and then come knocking on my door. But I always knew my white-hot, juicy love/lust for him was mostly unrequited. And when he finally told me (in so many words-- he was 19-- he basically just avoided me-- what else do 19-year-old boys do?) that there were no more hook-ups to come, I launched myself into a tortured three-year practice of brahmacharya. That's celibacy, for those of my readers not fluent in Sanskrit. Yep. It's true. Sexual bravado aside, I spent the latter two years of my college experience as an everything-but, re-virginized sad little mess. There was still kissing, of course, but I got called a cock-tease more than once.
Let this be a formal apology to all those boys I didn't fuck senior year in college-- I'm sorry! If I could go back and do it all again, I would have taken full advantage of every one of your sexual peaks. It's just that, at the time, my head was just too fucked for me to properly process being properly penetrated.
Three days after I moved to DC, I ran into the aforementioned heartbreaker. We hadn't really spoken since the opening reception for my senior art show-- he'd come up and clinked his beer bottle against mine. I didn't even know he lived in the area. It was the week before his wedding. He was still cute, though with far less hair (is it bad that I gloated a little that I hadn't gotten fat?). I was so glad to see him! In those first seconds of re-meeting, I felt a huge release of all the amorphous wistfulness I'd always felt every time he ambled into my head. His wife is lovely, by the way. I see them every now and again. He's a fantastic person-- and I recall so well why I was so enamored. But, blessedly, 10 years eroded the sexual charge and now we are free to be friends. Sometimes, it's good to be a grown-up.
Regardless, though, it's clear that my collegiate sexual education got derailed by the first of many boys who'd be destined to tell me that I'm cute,
What I mean to say here is that I'm obsessed with Lena Chen because she's yet another sex blogger whose life I envy. I'll be adding her to my blogroll because I think she represents a sort of logical outcropping of the type of feminism I've been espousing-- sex-positive, self-deprecating, funny and audacious. And heartfelt. I'm eager to watch as this woman develops a career for herself, post-Harvard. She says she's unmarketable. I think that's a crock of shite.
It would be tempting to think of her as a little sister of the spirit, but I have a hunch she's far more worldly-wise than I. Cum-faced or otherwise.
UPDATE: In strange six-degrees-of-separation news, a picture of Lena's current gray-area entanglement wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with the name of my own high school (which is tiny, single-gendered and located in Nashville) can be found here. ...Wonder from which former Harpeth Hellion he might've filched such a thing...?
10 comments:
I don't understand the fuss. I think it would have been a lot more intriguing without the caption.
This was originally intended for the previous posting (modern arse), but I believe it fits here as well:
That’s a hoot! Especially if anyone could think such absurdity is actually commercially viable, which, sadly, it may be. I cannot help but think of P.T. Barnum, credited with such keen observations as (most famously): “There’s a sucker born every minute.” (No pun intended.) And the lesser known: “No one ever went broke underestimating the tastes of the American public.”
Let us all hail the Pet Rock, Pokemon, TV and America’s unflagging dedication to all things banal and mundane.
However: “It is not necessary for the public to know whether I am joking or whether I am serious, just as it is not necessary for me to know it myself.” - Salvador Dali
Am I missing the point? Oh, well, that wouldn’t be the first time. All that notwithstanding, I hope you know that despite time, distance and irreconcilable differences I still love you, j
Re: comment #1-- I like the caption. I don't think it's particularly relevant to the picture, but I think what she says is interesting. The "fuss" happens because it always happens when girls are unapologetic and unabashed about their sexuality. If that strikes you as strange, I would venture to guess that that's only because you've never been a girl trying to be unapologetic and and unabashed about her sexuality in any kind of public forum. And that's why I felt like this tiny little internet dust-up is important enough for me to post about.
And re comment #2, Yeah, I do think you're missing the point. One can venture to say that ANY buttplug will find its market, regardless of decoration. I think the joke here isn't that "someone will buy anything" but that, depending on how you feel about the abstract expressionist movement, using said accoutrement could either be an homage or a statement. THAT'S where the joke is. Yes, it's an arch, pretentious, twittering-out-your-nostrils kind of joke, but it's still funny.
And I don't see how this comment relates at all to this current post, as that one was a silly one about clever little sex toy company and this one is a more serious one about my feeling kinship with these blogger girls who are out there fighting the good fight. If you think there's absurdity to be found there, I have most certainly missed the joke.
The "fuss" happens because it always happens when girls are unapologetic and unabashed about their sexuality. If that strikes you as strange, I would venture to guess that that's only because you've never been a girl trying to be unapologetic and and unabashed about her sexuality in any kind of public forum.
I understand that kind of fuss. I supposed I was thinking that those "public" forums are everywhere and pictures like that are everywhere. That forum is clearly one that is more public, and one I'm not familiar with. RE: caption, I tend to minimalism, so found the possibilities for imagination more open. Without the caption she's just been a little overly enthusiastic with the Alfredo. There was an element of the caption I found relative but I won't go into it here. Again, I can see your point.
You're right-- such pictures ARE ubiquitous. However, this one is contextualized very differently from most money shots. This girl put up this picture of herself-- she's controlling the outlet and the medium and the image of herself. Most other photos that might be imagistically similar lack that sort of autonomy on the part of their subject matter. And to me, this photo reads as nothing if not demonstrative of Ms. Chen's personal agency.
Beyond that, she's not just any baby-faced slutty girl. She's a)a writer committed to telling her own story and therefore must face assassination attempts perpetrated against her literary reputation if she's going to post pictures like that-- misguided though they may be. And b) she's a co-ed at Harvard-- which is a thing at which many might scoff, given its connotative "elitism" and whatever other ideas we might have about Harvard itself, but a Harvard education, like it or not, still carries with it a significant helping of cultural capital.
So, when Lena Chen posts a picture like that, it's just DIFFERENT than when some nameless porn star does it. And that's why Susannah Breslin denotes her "balls."
Man, I wish there was a vernacular term for bravery that wasn't so inextricably linked with maleness. Oh, I lament the limitations of our language...
"She's staring straight at the camera with all the defiance of the 'Demoiselles D'Avignon'. She owns that cum -- she caused it and she's proud of it and she looks like she could eat the guy behind the camera alive."
Are we even seeing the same picture? Because I think you're just making things up, like the Gawker comments that claim she looks "ashamed," "unhappy," or "tired," when there's not much of anything there at all, just a fairly flat expression that, if anything, should be described as nonchalant. But people will see what they want to see.
Anyway, I don't see the value of sensationalizing her work when the supposed goal is greater openess towards sexuality. I doesn't make sense for it to be the focus if ideally it should be taken in stride. Obsessively sex-positive is better than obsessively sex-negative, but they're both sensationalizing the issue.
Now, it's undeniable that she must have a certain toughness to put up things like this, but the "look at me" aspect makes it ballsy in the same way as a daredevil stunt. It doesn't make me dislike her, but I do tend to roll my eyes. I'm skeptical of the idea that this is the result of internally motivated self-expression. Yes, she's intelligent and self-assured, but I doubt she would keep it up in a vacuum, despite her claims that she doesn't care about the attention or what anyone thinks.
Exhibitionists aren't doing anything noble, because their enjoyment depends on the very existence the taboo they're supposedly "subverting."
Why are we making celebrities out of people for doing things that shouldn't even be notable?
Uuuhhh... When have I EVER said that sensationalizing sex is BAD? It IS sensational. No way around that. I've never, ever said anything about sex being "no big deal." Really, my entire premise here is that it's a VERY big deal... which justifies why I obsessively think and write about sex. (Because if nonchalance is the thing to which I should be aspiring, well, uh, I should probably go ahead and close up this shop right now.)
My point with regard to sexual/gendered empowerment in this particular post, though, is that Lena Chen is controlling her own medium here. You can see it as a "stunt" if you want to, but I think it's more of a statement. Sure it's exhibitionistic-- that's also a thing that I own in my own personality and would never claim is, uh, what did you say, "noble"? But who cares? I'm more interested in the fact that we've got this giant internet forum wherein women of all stripes can publicly and flagrantly (or demurely and subtly) control their own images and own their sexualities. That's still new. It's novel for us girls. Publicly proclaiming that we're sluts and proud of it is something that came with an exorbitant social pricetag until very recently-- and plenty would argue that it's still not entirely kosher. Exhibitionism aside, this sort of self-ownership is NOT something that any of us can take for granted as of yet. For me, it's still a totally giddy-making prospect.
So, yes! Let's make a big fucking show of it. Let's post wild-eyed photos of ourselves post-bukkake. Right now, it's still a statement. Soon enough, sure, it'll become blase-- but it wouldn't have attracted so much attention in the first place if we were already there.
And I do there's a distinct expression on her face in that photo. She's meeting the gaze of the camera quite directly. She doesn't avert her eyes at all-- she makes eye contact with the photographer. And therefore any subsequent audience. That's not "tired" and it's CERTAINLY not "ashamed." And it's not nothing either.
Add to that those swollen, battered lips? I'm gonna call it "hot." You can call it whatever you like, though. You're obviously another sort of audience than I am. And if you're already bored with this variety of female expressivity, none of my argument here is gonna hold any water at all for you.
I left out a word.
There should be a "think" in between "do and "there's" in the first sentence of the second to last paragraph.
I didn't mean that sex itself is no big deal or that people should treat it as such--that's another issue. I hope you would agree, though, that ideally people could post all sorts of naughtiness without fear of backlash. It would be "no big deal" in terms of background checks, job applications, political careers, etc.
To this aim, I think Ms. Chen's existence is a good thing. I like her comment, "I’m going to keep pretending like this society is sexually open, as if none of my antics are 'controversial,' as if people care about things bigger than sex..." but it's also:
1) strange, because you don't make something public unless you care what other people think, and
2) contrary to the celebrity status that you and other commenters are bestowing upon her.
In short: let's not go overboard in gushing about a fairly run-of-the-mill picture of something that countless people do every day. I understand that it's important because of who she is and the public space she put it in. I'm glad Ms. Chen can do that and not be destroyed. What I'm criticizing is the addition of extra content. If I was wrong to call it "flat" or "nonchalant," it was only to balance you comparing it to Picasso, for Christ's sake! Let's not make icons out of people that, even in a super-openly sexual society, will still be fringe--not for the content of their acts, but for their desire to shine a spotlight on them.
OK, I see all those points. I do.
But, for the record, I wasn't comparing HER to Picasso, but rather to his subject matter. When that painting had its first salon showing, it created an uproar for two reasons: a) it fractured space and it was pretty much the first time anyone had had the idea to do away with the concept of classical perspective since the very inception of that concept. And b) it shows prostitutes staring back, unapologetically, un-demurely, at the viewer. The painting granted its subject matter a certain kind of agency that had been absent up to that point. I mean, if you compare it to more traditional "odalisque" paintings, the women smile coyly or they look away or they cover their privates with their hands or they look over their shoulders. Or, as in the case of that Courbet painting that I posted in my write-up of the movie Teeth, the head is completely omitted from the image.
In other words, though whores have always been popular images at which we look, there STILL aren't that many in which the subject matter owns the image. Chen didn't take that picture-- her lover did. And I'm not really comparing HIM to Picasso either. But I do think she looks very much like those girls in the painting, showing themselves off to any who dare to look. And she also owns its avenue of release. She chose to share that with us. What I'm saying is that I think this is nto just an issue of her testing boundaries of propriety, but it's an issue of her freedom of choice and expression, too-- and that's still not a thing very many of us feel we can take for granted.
I also think you're missing a little of my point when you say that conferring "celebrity status" upon the women who are posting this kind of stuff is counterproductive. We're not yet at a point wherein any old somebody "could post all sorts of naughtiness without fear of backlash." We're NOT there yet. Therefore, the people who ARE doing it are still the renegades. They're still on the vanguard. Chen's image in and of itself may well be commonplace, but her story-- that which can't help but contextualize the image-- isn't. She's seeking to be taken seriously BOTH as a sexual entity and as a thoughtful writerly personage. Am I wrong when I think that's still a relatively new development? When we're still trying to unpack the idea of "man-hating" from the word "feminist"? When words like "slut" are still percieved as negative counterparts to words like "stud"? We DON'T live in a "super-openly sexual society." Not by a long shot.
And for that reason, I DO think that people who are pushing those envelopes are worthy of discussion. I would like to point out that I'm not, by any means, idolizing Chen here (as "bestowing celebrity status" might imply)--that's not my intention at all. It's just that I do think that these people deserve credit for doing something brave and transgressive-- and yes, it's still brave and trangressive ONLY because not everyone feels comfortable doing it yet.
That's really all I'm trying to do with this post-- appreciate fellow bloggers who I think are fighting the good fight. I hope I didn't inadvertently advocate her apotheosis to Internet Sex-Literati Goddess, International Woman of Esteem. I think she's an interesting figure (due mostly to the fact that part of what she's doing is subverting the Ivy image, whether or not that image is actually accurate) -- and a smart writer-- and I appreciate all that as valid work.
And besides-- this blog isn't so much a spotlight as it is a yellowing flashlight with nearly spent batteries. If people came here for up-to-the-minute internet gossip and commentary, I think my readership would be SIGNIFICANTLY more impressive. Alas.
Post a Comment