NEW UNDERBELLY

As you prepare to watch this upcoming season of Underbelly you might want to reflect on thia comment from the ASSERTSA newsletter No 3 from July 2009:

Underbelly “Uncut”

By Abby English

I recently took some time out to watch the recent TV programme “Underbelly, Uncut” on DVD. I was curious about all the media hype surrounding the series and the alleged “glorification” of criminal activity in Melbourne’s “underworld”. I would agree that the series was riddled with violence and perhaps glorified to some extent, however, I was more interested in the portrayal of sex throughout the series.

Now, before I go any further, I will add that overall and with an air of suspended disbelief, the series was generally enjoyable. As a TV show to entertain, (loosely) based on real events, it wasn’t too difficult to watch. The use of attractive actors to portray actual people (criminals, most of whom are now dead or in prison) as interesting, colourful, fearless and shameless is enough to maintain interest. However, I found there was another level to my viewing that stemmed from my professional life that had me critiquing the sexual/relationship content of the series.

Many TV shows use sex as a selling point, and let’s face it, sex is a part of life, so sex scenes come as no surprise. But the role of sex in this series grabbed my attention. It seemed that when a gang member had been out either killing or maiming, he (and it was mostly “he”) went to a place where there would be women not only willing but impatiently waiting to be noticed and engaged by “him”, before heading off for energetic long lasting loud and orgasmic sex.

The scenes were many and the women mostly willing. Interestingly enough, the most explicit scenes were mostly with characters portraying sex workers or strippers or other women working in the sex industry, usually with female nudity and/or naked breasts exposed. Male nudity on the other hand, was much more discreet. The men seeking sex with these women were mostly married with children and the scenes portraying intimacy with their wives were more tender, subtle and often ended before intercourse or nudity began.

By the time I was half way through the series, I was getting the impression that the “gangsters” thrived on crime and sex, those who had families and partners still had sex with other women, seemingly without guilt, shame or morality (because of the “type” of women they were having sex with outside their relationships?). The women they had sex with appeared always willing and moaned and screamed and writhed like something out of a pornographic movie.

In one episode, a very attractive female character is picked up by one of the “gangsters” at a Casino, they spend some time there, he takes her back to a hotel room where they kiss passionately, she begins to undress and initiate sex, however, he resists, leaving the hotel room, promising to return later. She goes to bed and goes to sleep. He then goes and kills someone, returning later to have sex with the woman in the hotel room, she demonstrates a willingness that indicates familiarity, knowledge of a person that brings trust and safety rather than a stranger whom she met the night before.

After this episode, the woman does not appear in the series again. I was unsure what her role was, to fill 25 minutes of an episode with sex, to provide an alibi for the gangster? It was never made clear, but the message about women, men and sex subtly came along for the ride, she, always willing, always horny, but only a bit player to be used and cast aside when no longer needed.

By the time I was three quarters of the way through the series I was thinking about the unrealistic portrayal of not only sex, but relationships. I wondered what the Australian public might be thinking about these characters and their lifestyles. Were men asking themselves why they can’t have that kind of sex with their partners? Why weren’t their partners so willing and horny? Or how great the freedom of the portrayed lifestyles would be?

Were women feeling inadequate for not feeling so hot and horny on demand like the women in the series? Or might they be thinking how nice it would be to have men/partners lavish them with diamonds and cars, like some of the female characters in the series? Why can’t their partners be more generous in the gift giving department, then maybe they might feel like that kind of sex?

One female character, after “teasing” and “flirting” but refusing to have sex with a “gangster” boyfriend while being lavished with gifts by him is eventually raped by him, as he “waited long enough” and expected sex in return for the gifts. This female character then ends her relationship with the rapist and takes up with another “gangster”, who again lavishes her with gifts, with the promise of more to come.

Again, this female character didn’t seem to have much more of a role, I was unsure what her role was to the overall series or the purpose of this particular storyline. Was she there as a demonstration of the lifestyle? As an object for gratuitous sex? From memory, I believe it was the only rape scene in the series. Was this the purpose? For the second time, it wasn’t made clear.

I wondered if perhaps the two women and storylines mentioned above are related to real events in Melbourne so were included for this purpose, but there was no clear evidence of this. Or perhaps they were there to support one male character who stated that women are a “life support system for a vagina”. What was most notable was the connection to sex of both characters.

Of course my mental meanderings may well just be speculation and opinion, but there was a definite sense of intrigue and desirability in relation to the sex, if not the lifestyle, (might end up dead, most of the male characters did!) that may have captured and held the attention of many viewers. The way sex, and “horny” sex (you know, the bump and grind, loud, tear up the bedroom kind of sex) is used to draw people’s attention to products, TV shows, movies, etc., it is no wonder people may doubt that what they are doing sexually in their own bedrooms is inadequate. Or perhaps their partner is inadequate. Or perhaps they are inadequate. After all, “those” people on TV are mostly “gorgeous” as well. To quote a line from another well known storyline, viewers might have been thinking “I’ll have what she/he’s having!”

Now, I don’t doubt for a minute that in the “real” world, (when many of Melbourne’s criminal underworld figures were being murdered regularly) that strip clubs, brothels, prostitution and drugs formed a large part of the Melbourne underworld that the series is based on. And I don’t doubt that many of the “gangsters” had lots of sex with women working in these industries and that the women may well have been willing participants as a means to an end, to be the “moll” or the “favourite” of certain gangsters might have had its rewards for such women.

What caught my attention is that sex is instant, orgasmic, needs no intimacy and is always “bang bang bang”, rather than slow, sensual and intimate. And the portrayal indicated that this is how it was and maybe still is. Relationships are minimised in lieu of intercourse type sex, foreplay is non-existent and most of the pleasure activities seem to be focused on male satisfaction. And in a subtle, but always present way, there seems to be the understanding that this is good, real and normal and demonstrates the height of sexual pleasure. I found this sad.

Is it any wonder industries like the Australian Medical Institute are so popular?