The Myth of the Celebrity Sex Tape

Since the latest celebrity scandal hit the internets this month, this time with former Playmate and Hugh Hefner ex-girlfriend Kendra Wilkinson in the eye of the storm, debate has ignited on blogs about the vexed issue of consent; what constitutes consent, how the politics of consent play out in the sexual arena and also how we can move into a post-consent world in which the issue of “no means maybe” ceases to exist for young women. Mia Freedman and Rachel Hills have already written very eloquently .

So, I am going to discuss an issue surrounding the release of this tape focussing on one vital piece of the puzzle that frankly, can not be ignored in a discussion of sexual politics and the commodification of women’s beauty and sexuality. In other words, I am going to talk about sex for sale.

First, some back-story:

“It’s illegal [for anyone to sell her sex tape] without her consent,” Los Angeles-based lawyer Anthony Kornarens tells HollywoodLife.com May 6. “They cannot do that. It violates her rights of privacy. Even if she consented to the creation of it, it doesn’t mean they can use it.”

In the United States, it is illegal for a sex tape to be released to the public without the express consent of all parties involved in the tape. So basically, the process of a sex tape hitting the internets goes a little like this:

• couple film video
• couple break up
• less-famous partner wants to cash in, calls in lawyers
• lawyers approach more famous party with two options: either sign off on the release of the tape, negotiating a cut of the profits and royalties, or don’t, and sue for damages if the other party tries to proceed with distribution of the tape.

So, what do Pamela Anderson, Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton and Kendra Wilkinson have in common? That’s right, they were all actively involved in the sale, distribution and marketing of their home videos, pocketing a hefty ongoing sum for their troubles.

But, the recent case of Kendra Wilkinson’s tape demonstrates a celebrity wanting to take the commodification of her sexuality one step further:

“RadarOnline.com broke the bombshell news that Kendra secretly planned to shop her own sex tape, and now we’ve discovered that there was more than one tape made by the reality TV star.

“Furthermore, we’ve discovered that she consulted a top Los Angeles law firm and set up a company to sell the tape, a company called Home Run Productions LLC.

“Documents from 2008, obtained exclusively by RadarOnline.com, map out a secret agreement between Wilkinson and her team about shopping the intimate footage. And the documents referenced the explicit video material in plural terms, confirming that more than one tape was created. Multiple references in the document refer to “the Tapes.”

“The address listed for Kendra’s Home Run Productions is 10236 Charing Cross Road- which is the famous location of the Playboy Mansion. The purpose for the business was listed as “entertainment production.””

 What this situation flags is the mainstreaming of pornography into our understandings of sexuality and into our sexual relationships with others. When the Pamela Anderson tape hit the web in the late 90′s, the concept of a sex tape was still subversive. It was an underground phenomenon.

Fast forward 10 or so years and, partly thanks to the rise of female raunch culture which is bolstered by the ease of communication through mobile and social networking technology, and we have a burgeoning generation of young women aggressively marketing their sexuality as a commodity.

Let’s turn now to Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian. In 2004 Paris was a young Hollywood scenester who, depending on who you talk to, was either a vacuous heiress or a savvy business-woman with a number of projects including a reality TV show and various design projects. Ditto Kim Kardashian, a Hollywood socialite with a reality-TV career in the works on the back of a successful styling and retail career. Both had sex tapes released by porn distribution companies- Red Light District Video and Vivid respectively.

But neither Paris nor Kim were porn stars. Far from it- their images have splashed across thousands of magazines consumed by young women, complete with one overwhelming accompanying message that these are women to aspire to. These women, who we see on TV hanging out with their families and going on dates with their boyfriends and fighting with their sisters, are Just Like Us.

I spoke to Amy* and Sarah*, 17-year-old students, about the way this mainstreaming of pornography is manifesting itself in young peoples’ lives.

“There is an expectation now at a really young age that girls will make themselves available not just to have sex but also to send images and videos of themselves on the internet or on mobile phone,” Amy said.

“I think it is a combination of low self-esteem and guys’ expectations as well as thinking it is really normal to tape yourself having sex that is making more young girls feel they have to do it,” she said.

Sarah agreed, saying it was common for teenage girls to post photos of themselves near-naked or in sexually suggestive poses on Facebook and MySpace accounts.

The clear common message from these women so adored by gen x, y and even z, is that it is not enough for women to be smart, funny, beautiful and unique anymore. It is not enough to be a brilliant business mind or an entrepeneur or an artist or whatever you may choose to be. What is important is to be complicit in the aggressive marketing and commodification of your own sexuality; to fit with the mainstreaming of pornography and the sale of women’s sexuality in the most bleak and conformist .