Ita O'Brien, it is fair to say, invented the role of "Intimacy Co-ordinator" on film and TV sets. You wouldn't expect an director to just shout "fight" at a pair of actors and expect them to know how to safely perform a complex action scene, would you? Fights need to be choreographed, the crew need to behave in a way that minimises the risk of harm to others, actors have to feel safe. Why should sex scenes be any different?

This is the strongest part of the book. It explains why Intimacy Co-ordination is necessary and how it is used to improve a show. At times it veers a little into a sale-pitch for her work, but it is balanced with just the right amount of celebrity name-dropping and impassioned reasoning to keep it interesting.

There are some brilliantly crafted exercises which are used to help actors feel comfortable working with each other. Working professionals need to be able to express clear boundaries to each other. Communication is key, but it relies on being able to be honest with each other. As O'Brien puts it:

being able to state your ‘no’, means that your ‘yes’ can be trusted.

The author takes great pains to tell us that she's not a sex therapist, yet a large part of the book is taken up with how non-actors can improve their intimacy with their lovers. Some of our modern hang-ups, she asserts, are directly a result of unrealistic expectations hammered home by the entertainment industry:

A couple meet and then it cuts to a sex scene, as if their physical relationship is separate from every other aspect of their lives. We’ve become accustomed to seeing portrayals of sex that are robotic, athletic, gratuitous. It’s rare to see the kind of relationships we’ve all experienced in real life: an expression of connection that is clumsy, awkward, funny and – hopefully – ultimately satisfying.

Again, this is all important and interesting stuff. But then things go a bit off the rails.

Lots of the exercises she presents for non-actors are simply about stretching and general body-work. Her background in Movement Studies dominates the page. I understand that being in touch with your physicality is a necessary part of exploring your sexual boundaries, but it feels like it overly focuses on one aspect of self-comfort.

Anyone who has worked with actors know that they're a weird and superstitious bunch. Visualisation techniques often ask you to imagine you're a tree, or that a bright light is shining out of you, or that you have extra-sensory perception. If you're not an actor, being thrown in to some of these routines can feel alienating and jarring. You thought you were here to get intimate? No! Pretend you have energy lines flowing through you!

Sadly, it all goes a bit "woo". There's nonsense about chakras, homeopathy, "how overtones have the power to affect consciousness and the cellular level", and pseudoscientific claptrap about walking barefoot so the "electrons transfer to your body, neutralising the positively charged free radicals".

I felt that it undermined the seriousness of her work. And it is serious. People working in the entertainment industry need to be protected from harm. People in relationships need to find ways to be free and intimate with each other.

There's a lot of great stuff in here, but you'll need to assert your boundaries and skip past the bits which aren't appropriate for you.

Leo Grande is the male equivalent of the Manic-Dream-Pixie-Girl trope. But that's exactly what his character is paid to be. He isn't merely a one-dimensional sex-object - the client needs more than that. So he performs the role of "perfect man". Even when she is probing him to make sure he hasn't been forced into prostitution, he gives the answers which she wants in order to satisfy her set of ethics.

Without giving away too much - there is a little bit of slightly forced drama. It provides a nice counterbalance to the fantasy world we see constructed. And it is a fantasy. Everything happens neatly and without much surprise. But, hey, that's what we watch movies for - right? This isn't a documentary - but it does explore something which is likely to resonate with lots of viewers.

It's tempting to imagine a gender-flipped version of this movie. Cast, say, Toby Jones as the sad-act and pair him up with some smart-talking bimbo or himbo. Would it still get rave reviews? What are the social power imbalances which move something from charming to predatory?

What are the power imbalances in this movie? Emma Thompson is an undoubtedly huge name in movies. Is it manipulative of her to promise stardom to a naïve young Black man wanting to get ahead in the industry?

In the wrong hands, this would have been a slapstick car-crash. I can already imagine the big-budget American remake with Hollywood glamour, wobbly-arse jokes, a pointless car-chase, and extensive product placement for Trojan condoms. I am so pleased that Sophie Hyde has created an intimate, subtle, and - dare I say it? - cosy experience.

I don't know whether the script started life as a play. It feels a bit like "Same Time Next Year" - which features a couple in a single hotel room over a period of time. If it transferred to the West End I have no doubt it would be a sensation there as well.

This is a laugh out loud comedy, with an astonishingly tender heart.

These are the facts: throughout history human beings have had sex. Sexual culture did not begin in the sixties. It has always been celebrated, needed, wanted and desired part of what it means to be human. So: what can learn by looking at the sexual lives of our ancestors? What does it tell us about our attitudes and worries today, and how can the past teach us a better way of looking forward?I

I'm not quite sure what to make of this book. It is exploration of how sex and sexual attitudes have changed over the years - but flits between being a bright-and-breezy pop-sci book an academic work.

There's a great quote partway through the book:

Any form of gender or sexual identity that exists today, has existed throughout history. Our sexual landscape has always been a wild and untamed thing

But, as the book continues, it becomes clear that there is a constant drumbeat from those who want to suppress our natural proclivities. Frustratingly, it never really gets into the why. What causes such seemingly abrupt changes in sexual attitudes? Why do certain societies develop taboos which didn't trouble their ancestors?

There are lots of great anecdotes. It's also interesting to spot the "life hacks" which allowed members of the gentry to flout the rules and conventions of their time. There's also this amusing little diversion about Anne Lister:

Although she did not have the vote herself, she could instruct her male tenants how to vote

Outstanding!

It's a good overview of what has changed (and what hasn't) - and is probably a good introduction for the sort of pub-bores who go on about the moral degeneracy of today's youth.

When teaching people about safe sex, one topic bitterly divides people - whether abstinence is a suitable method. Simply refusing to engage in sexual activity will protect you from pregnancy, disease, and trauma. Abstinence is particularly promoted by religious zealots.

Similarly, whenever social media is discussed, privacy zealots proclaim that the only safe option is to jUSt dELeTE FaCEBooK!

The problem with teaching abstinence is that it is unrealistic and leaves people unprepared.

Thousands of years of evolution produce a strong sexual drive in humans. It is literally impossible to prevent hormone sozzled teens from engaging in genetically programmed activity. Refusing to teach about safe sex leads to an increase in pregnancy and sexually-transmitted infections.

Similarly, humans are hardwired to be social. We like talking to our friends, seeing their photos, and playing games with them. Asking people to become social pariahs is not healthy.

As The Age of Surveillance Capitalism points out - social networks need to be regulated. We need to punish their bad behaviour just as we punish sexual abuse. But banning bad behaviour, sadly, isn't enough. We also have to take responsible steps to protect ourselves.

How to practise safe-Facebook

This is what I do in order to protect myself when I engage in risky social activity - like visiting Facebook.

Use Firefox - I use FF as my main web browser. It has built in tracking protection for Facebook and other sites. To me, using Firefox is the equivalent of wearing an condom. A sensible precaution to prevent unfortunate accidents.

On my Android phone, I don't use the Facebook app. Instead, I use Face Slim. It's a stand-alone web browser with its own icon. It keeps your phone protected.

That's the technology - the equivalent of contraception. But in the UK, we don't just teach Sex Ed - we have Sex and Relationship Education. There's no point in addressing the mechanics of sex without also addressing the emotional risks and rewards.

Don't hang out with idiots and dangerous people. I prune my FB friends list. If you're constantly sharing stuff which angers me, or makes me upset, I'll unfollow you. Because you don't have a right to make be feel bad. If your sexual partner does stuff that makes you uncomfortable - and won't change - then you should leave them.

If you're generally nice, but are always sharing inflammatory articles from a specific newspaper, I'll block that site or app. Removing yourself from a dangerous situation is sensible.

I don't use Facebook to sign in to any other apps or websites. I don't want my partners to kiss-and-tell.

Different social networks give me different things. I'm not "going steady" with Facebook - I'm also in a relationship with Twitter, LinkedIn, and some cool new social network which goes to a different school, you haven't heard of them.

Most importantly, I educate myself and my friends. I encourage you to go forth and multiply do the same.

Right, I think I've exhausted this metaphor.

You see, being a heterosexual male, I'm biologically predisposed to be sexually stimulated by images and videos of women in various states of undress. When I'm sexually stimulated my penis has this tendency to experience a rush of blood, which makes the spongy tissues expand until the whole organ is fairly rigid. I have to say, it's awfully nice. Yes, it's nice to have an erection.

That's why, I assume, your demo videos are filled with nubile young women, your booth-babes are busty, and your hackathons come with beer dispensing wenches as a "perk".

An honest question - next time I'm confronted with one of your sexist selling attempts, do you want me to fling down my tousers and start beating one off?

No? But, you keep trying to give me an erection - I thought my priapic member was what you wanted. Why else treat women as mere sex objects?

If you're one of the tech companies who are trying to co-opt my schlong, I want you to take a long hard look at what you're trying to do.

When I'm at a technology show like MWC, or researching which API to use, I'm in "work mode". Having an erection is an unnecessary distraction. It doesn't make me feel professional. If nothing else, it's hard to think with eight-times the normal amount of blood swilling round my phallus.

I want to work - I don't want to be arroused. And - let's face it - if I did want to be aroused, they have porn on the Internet now! I can go off to Alta Vista, type in "boobies" and get me some high-quality, women demeaning, surround sound erotica. I don't need to glimpse half a centimetre of your model's left buttock - I can see all of a lady's naked behind without your glowing logo superimposed over it.

And stop demeaning me! Just because I'm a geek- it doesn't mean I'm a long haired, spotty nerd, who spends every hour coding and is thus unlikely to meet a girl - let alone woo her.

As it happens, I am that long haired, spotty nerd and I've been happily married for nearly five years.

I know... I know... It's "ironic". You just love women! It's all just "banter". We're all friends. It's just, you know, a bit of a laugh.

Guess what? It's really difficult to tell the difference between an ironic erection and the real deal.

Oh, and while we're at it, stop being so hetero-normative. There are plenty of gay geeks. Now, I may not know an awful lot about what turns on homosexual men - but I've got a sneaking suspicious it isn't silicone enhanced breasts, high heels, and a bikini. I suppose what I'm saying is - if you have to resort to sex to sell your stuff - throw some beefcake in there for the guys and girls who like that sort of thing too. In fact, if you're a male CEO - how about we see you strut your stuff covered with baby-oil and dressed simply in a diamanté thong? After all, it's not demeaning, is it?

That's not really the corporate image you want, I suppose.

If your product can't stand proud independently - don't get my cock to do the heavy lifting for you.

This Is What A Feminist Looks Like (AKA spot the odd one out)

The conference was inspiring, depressing, uplifting and infuriating in equal measures. That's probably a good thing. I'll briefly discuss some of the sessions I attended and also what I think the organisers could do better next year.

The Conference

Kate Smurthwaite expertly chaired proceedings and kept the event running to time.  Not an easy task with several hundred people to shepherd.  I found the talks by Beatrix Campbell and Susie Orbach very inspiring but was very conscious of the fact that many of the aspects of feminism they addressed did not directly affect me. There was no doubting the passion and ire that the speakers felt and they held the audience spell-bound. A few interesting titbits I picked up...

• Labiaplasty is being "aggressively" marketed to young women.  That's the surgical mutilation of the sex organs for cosmetic reasons.
• Plastic surgery in general is specifically targeting young women and girls.
• The rise of photoshopping models is creating a idealised body image which is literally impossible.
• In 2006 the US spent $56 billion on education - it spent $100 billion on diet industry.
• If dieting worked - you'd only have to do it once and the industry would go bankrupt.
• For more discussion on body-image issues - visit AnyBody.

At the back of the hall were a pictures of amusing subvertising - that is sexist adverts which had been defaced.

Somewhat Strident has a set of stickers that you can use to "accessorise" any sexist material you find.  Zazzle sell a "This is offensive to women" sticker which can be stuck on to any poster you find offensive.

"It's easy out here for a pimp" anti-porn slideshow

This was simple a slide show with a commentary - no time for Q&A.  It was also quite US focused.  The material was from Stop Porn Culture.

The first half was about the pornification of society - especially that targeted at children.  There were audible gasps of horror at the "Hooters Girl (In Training)" t-shirt.

Is this suitable for kids?

Then there was the superb juxtaposition of these album covers.  One from Tiffany the other from Shakira.  Both aiming at similar demographics but separated by 20 years.

Tiffany Album from 1987

Shakira Album Cover

The essential point was that children are being groomed to believe that they are merely sexual objects.  That the only way to happiness is hyper-masculinity - guns, girls, bling - for boys, or hyper femininity - guys, stripping, submissiveness - for girls.

The porn aspect - as in the deliberate watching of sex acts - only covered a small portion of the talk.  It covered contemporary attitudes to pornography among young people, such as

"From what you've said, it sounds like your relationship is fulfilling otherwise, so it might be best to keep his porn-watching in perspective and to try deal with the feelings that come up as a result of your recent discovery." Gurl.com  answer to "My Boyfriend's Into Porn"

And the way that pornography producers don't just try to feature younger and younger models - they also seek to attract a younger audience.

"[Playboy] knew that this would really appeal to the 20-something crowd," said Playboy spokeswoman Theresa Hennessey.

Given my former involvement with the porn industry, you will be unsurprised that I didn't agree with all the sentiments presented.  However, it's very clear from watching modern music videos that women are usually presented as little more than sex-objects and men as all-powerful beings who can control women.

It may even be said that groups like the Pussycat Dolls are little more that strippers marketed at children.

I don't think that we need to protect children from their own sexuality - nor should we seek to regulate consenting adults' sexual urges.  But I do find it very worrying how highly sexualised images are being used in the most mundane and inappropriate places.

What's Wrong With Prostitution?

I've never visited a prostitute.  I've never known anyone who has gone - or admitted going - to a prostitute.  My knowledge is, essentially, from Belle de Jour and Band of Gold.  Presented by Rebecca Mott, Anna Travers and Denise Marshall of the Poppy Project.  What I heard was distressing, uncomfortable and yet, somehow, filled with hope and optimism.

I've linked to their sites so you can read their words rather than my interpretation of them - but I'll summarise some of the points which came out of the Q&A.

• "Prostitution isn't the oldest profession - agriculture is."  Prostitution hasn't been going on for ever - it is not inevitable.
• "Do a privileged minority of women prostitute oppress the vast majority who don't want to be involved?"  There are a few, well educated women for whom prostitution is a choice.  But their voices tend to drown out the vast minority for whom it is abuse.  The case for prostitution is often skewed towards the minority at the incalculable expense of the majority.
• Prostitution is rape. It is rape on an industrial scale. Too many left leaning / liberal groups ignore the mental, physical & sexual abuse of prostitutes.  Instead they concentrate on the "liberty" to sell oneself.
• The GMB have a union section specifically for sex workers.  However, they allow pimps, brothel-keepers and other "abusers" to be member.
• "Prostitutes don't need a union because prostitution isn't a job - it's abuse"
• Prostitutes shouldn't be criminalised - paying for sex workers should be.
• When Sweden criminalised paying for sex, their was a massive drop off in prostitute numbers.
• New Zealand's legalised brothels have lead to a massive increase in trafficked women.

It's fair to say that this session did change my opinion.  I'd previously been fairly blasé about sex workers.  I'd assumed that it was a person's right to sell their body if they wished.  But the reality of the massive scale of abuse has lifted the scales from my eyes somewhat.

As Rebecca Mott said (and I paraphrase) "You can't say that women choose prostitution. If you'd asked me, I would have told you I entered prostitution as a free choice and that I really enjoyed it. It was only after I was free that I realised what terrible abuse I had been through."

Poverty and motherhood: How society undervalues women's work🔗

I'm not a mother and I have no intention of being one.  That didn't stop the final two sessions of the day being inspiring.

• Abi Moore from Pink Stinks was hugely entertaining and moving on the needs to prevent "pinkification" of women's culture.  You can hear her on Woman's Hour.
• "Early Learning Centre - teaching girls their place since 1974."  Specifically in relation to their stifling lack of choice in girls' fancy dress.
• The average age of a single mother giving birth is 31. Not, as the tabloids would have you believe, 14.
• Less than 2% of new single mothers are teenagers.
• "Women's rights do not come cheap - neither do women"
• "Liberation does not look like Gok Wan!"

A full list of all speeches is available.  The event was also videoed and, I hope, will be available later.

So, on to the inevitable critique of the day...

Organisation

This was one of the most well organised conferences that I've attended. Sessions ran to time, everyone was given a handout showing where and when each workshop would be, the PA was loud enough so everyone could hear. However, there were some traps that they - and many other organisers - fell into.

Queues

It's the nature of events that there will be queues - but there are actions you can take to mitigate your patrons' annoyance.

• Tell people which queue is which.  It's incredibly frustrating to get to the front of one queue only to be told you were in the wrong one and have to go to the back of another.
• A simple sign or a few volunteers is enough to ensure people know where they are supposed to be.
• Get everything done in one queue if possible.  Rather than queue for a meal ticket and then queue for lunch, consider integrating the two queues or selling tickets directly to those standing around.

Dissent

There was a noticeable lack of dissenting opinion.  I'm not talking about getting Richard Littlejohn in to abuse people, but having someone from Red Thread or the English Collective of Prostitutes in the prostitution section may have been interesting.

However, it wasn't billed as a debate - so it's a fairly minor quibble.

Audio Visual

I've never been to a conference where the AV equipment has worked flawlessly.  FiL was better than most in that not too long was spent fiddling with microphones.

• Make sure you have enough mics. If you don't, make sure your cables are long enough to reach all participants.
• Do a dry run so you know your slides work.
• Don't position anything between a projector and its screen unless you want to make shadow puppets.

Microphone Shadow

Payment

I was surprised that this was a paid-for event.  After attending several free conferences / BarCamps, it's temping to think that every event should be free.  Given that the hall was full to busting, it's obvious that a sub £5 ticket isn't a barrier for entry.

The event was sponsored by The Maypole Fund - although there was no overt sponsorship.  No schwag, banners, leaflets etc.  I wonder if getting a few more organisations to sponsor the even could have lowered the cost further or paid for lunch.

There were several stalls - such as those from The Fawcett Society and Pink Stinks - who were selling membership, books, giving out fliers.  I'm not suggesting that they should be charged for exhibiting - but I wonder if, say, a Fair Trade chocolate stall would have been able to help fund the event.

Conclusion

Feminism isn't dead.  It's not even resting.  It is a living force with thousands of millions of women and men pushing forward for equality.  We're in a better position than we were, but are a long way from where we want to be.

This is not what a post-feminist society looks like. Not yet.

Further Reading

• The F Word - Charlotte Cooper reports back from the capital's second Feminism in London conference
• Subtext Magazine - Laura from Subtext also reviews the event