Grayson Perry's Art Club' Exhibition

[BitMuch]

www.channel4.com/programmes/graysons-art-club. I really enjoyed watching this series during lockdown because the amateur artists are very diverse and it showcases some interesting work. In this week's episode, for the final exhibition of their work, Grayson Perry dressed up in a way he is open about being very sexually aroused by. He has these clothes specifically designed to hide an erection. He didn't dress this way in any of the previous episodes. I found this totally disrespectful of him, especially when he was talking to the amateur artists who travelled to Manchester for the event despite covid, including a 17 year old girl and a young man with autism. The programme was primarily about the members of the public and showcasing their art. It's a nice pre-watershed family-friendly programme that has children on it, like a young 12 year old boy who made a collage of his twin brother who passed away.

Why does Grayson act out his fetish in events he attends that are not remotely 'adult' in nature?

Grayson went to a a primary school event with the Duchess of Cambridge and decided to wear his fetish gear to that so I have no idea where he draws the line. This is so accepted by society at large but I cannot feel comfortable with it. He seems so Jekyll and Hyde. Would a man wearing a gimp suit be invited along with a royal to speak with children in a primary school?

Also, his wife Phillipa Perry was the joint presenter and she made art too so I don't know why her name was missing from the title. It would have been more accurate to be called 'Grayson and Phillipa's Art Club'.

When unaware and non-consenting others, including children FFS, are used to heighten a fetish - and it’s all smoothed over and indulged as delightfully eccentric - fucking grim.

@SparklingLime

When unaware and non-consenting others, including children FFS, are used to heighten a fetish - and it’s all smoothed over and indulged as delightfully eccentric - fucking grim.

Yup.

@SparklingLime

When unaware and non-consenting others, including children FFS, are used to heighten a fetish - and it’s all smoothed over and indulged as delightfully eccentric - fucking grim.

Exactly. Some people are determined to not discuss this. I wonder why.

@Buzzthedragon

Bowie was quite obsessed with the painter Balthus, (famously painted pre pubescent girls in inappropriate positions) and was known for sleeping with very young girls himself. I have never understood why we aren’t allowed to talk about this on mumsnet?

I'm confused, I first heard about this on MN, I've seen multiple posts and threads about it on MN. I'm not sure why you think we're not allowed to talk about it on MN?

Wrt the slightly odd turn the thread has taken, as far as I'm concerned, if someone says X is a fetish for them and they get off on people's reactions to it, then no, I don't think it's ok for them to take part in their fetish around unsuspecting and unconsenting strangers, especially children. I didn't think this would be a controversial take, but there we go.

If that X could also be not a fetish, then other people doing it without declaring it gave them a boner would get the benefit of the doubt that they were doing it for the non-creepy reason.

Is this really too complex to understand?

@nauticant

To me this thread is about wilfull blindness.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I suppose what's going on here is that some posters really love GP and don't want to acknowledge this rather unpleasant fact about him.

I used to think he was great too. And now I've changed my mind.

Perry says These are my fetish clothes.
Then he goes on to wear his fetish clothes at a childrens event.

Let's ask why.

It's not complicated.

Wrt the slightly odd turn the thread has taken, as far as I'm concerned, if someone says X is a fetish for them and they get off on people's reactions to it, then no, I don't think it's ok for them to take part in their fetish around unsuspecting and unconsenting strangers, especially children. I didn't think this would be a controversial take, but there we go.

If that X could also be not a fetish, then other people doing it without declaring it gave them a boner would get the benefit of the doubt that they were doing it for the non-creepy reason.

Is this really too complex to understand?

One would have thought not, but evidently the actual clothes seem to be an issue.

As though Perry saying he gets turned on by wearing a dress, is an indictment on the dress.

Is it the same with nappies, I wonder? If a man wanted to wear nappies to a primary school, because they turn him on, would that be okay?

Is it the same with nappies, I wonder? If a man wanted to wear nappies to a primary school, because they turn him on, would that be okay?

As long as it was presented as highlighting acceptance of diversity of sexual expression (or more woke phrase) then yes, I can see this being supported by some with influence. It doesn’t have the ‘exquisite dressmaking’ defence that seemingly works for many on this thread, but as long as it centres a man’s sexual desires, I’d say it’s got a chance.

I do realise that you were try to highlight the ridiculousness of GP’s stance, but we’re through the looking glass. Pushing safeguarding boundaries is clearly a fetish for some.

Oh, I see my message was deleted, presumably for alerting others to previous comments made by a poster on similar threads about 'gendered clothing'.
I'll just make a general comment as to not getting derailed!

Deacon I read your post. There was nothing wrong with it.

I read it and I'm not surprised it was deleted.

I'm not sure which part of my post it was, but I made the same points as others - to me, as a general point, if a male friend announced he got turned on when wearing blue jeans and it was part of a sexual fetish, then turned up to primary school wearing blue jeans, yeah I'd think that was not on.
It's the combination of the clothes and the announcement of the fetish that makes sure everyone is 'in on it'.

If it was this part of my post that merited deletion then feel free to delete again MNHQ but please let me know - I do think it's a bit unfair to delete without specifying which bit broke the guidelines. I didn't lie about anything but posts that contain obvious untruths are allowed to stand.

I assume it was deleted because of what you said about another poster. No I didn't report it.

I'm not that bothered who reported it but I'd love to know why, or more accurately, why MN agreed it was deletionworthy. Just referring to another poster? Can't be that surely?

@Buzzthedragon

Bowie was quite obsessed with the painter Balthus, (famously painted pre pubescent girls in inappropriate positions) and was known for sleeping with very young girls himself. I have never understood why we aren’t allowed to talk about this on mumsnet?

I don't know if it's true or why it wouldn't be discussed here. Maybe someone could shed some light on that? Personally, I think he was massively miscast in Labyrinth. How can people not see how wrong and pervy it was to cast a middle aged male in this role given the fact that the female lead is in her mid teens and that his character is partly to do with her sexual awakening????? If I were an older male being cast for such a role, I'd be going 'No thanks - that's just going to be weird'.

@laudemio

I'm now wondering if OP is actually GP trying to drum up some shock so he can get some fetishism satisfaction again.

LOL. That would be interesting. It never a good sign when a man gets sexually excited by the disgust of others and it's even more problematic if it's the disgust or discomfort of women.

@Shedbuilder

I think part of the complication is that he's extremely engaging and so likeable that it's distracted from what's going on. In a way his openness about his fetish has shot him in the foot. If he hadn't mentioned it and had taken the more arty, intellectual performance-art-type line we wouldn't be wondering whether he was getting a hard-on every time he put on a frock. Once that was out the whole picture changed.

Very true.

@DeaconBoo

I'm not sure which part of my post it was, but I made the same points as others - to me, as a general point, if a male friend announced he got turned on when wearing blue jeans and it was part of a sexual fetish, then turned up to primary school wearing blue jeans, yeah I'd think that was not on. It's the combination of the clothes and the announcement of the fetish that makes sure everyone is 'in on it'.

If it was this part of my post that merited deletion then feel free to delete again MNHQ but please let me know - I do think it's a bit unfair to delete without specifying which bit broke the guidelines. I didn't lie about anything but posts that contain obvious untruths are allowed to stand.

I didn't see your post. Your comment about blue jeans far from convincing me makes the idea of policing clothing because of wrong think in the wearer's head even more absurd.

Jeans are commonly worn by many people; dresses are commonly worn by women and a small number of men. As long as the clothes cover up what is meant to be covered up I really couldn't care less what is going on in the wearer's head.

[quote Poorlykitten]@RozWatching This is a thread about a man getting off on wearing frocks...it’s the point of the thread. Isn’t it? Or have I missed something.[/quote]
It's about a man doing that in two specific inappropriate contexts. On a lovely family-friendly TV programme during in an exhibition which was primarily for the benefit of amateur artist members of the public, including children. And in a comprehensive primary school during events intended to help the children feel more inspired, confident and happy doing art.

Grayson Perry visited the children of that same primary school in 2014 and 2015. Both times Perry chose to dress this way when 'Perry is adamant that dressing up is not performance art. ‘It’s a fetish and being a tranny is enormous fun,' he said in a 2014 interview, which is linked in my second post on Page 4 of the thread along with decades of identical statements. Such as this in 2019 - 'Dressing up as Claire is still a turn-on, he insists, but the circumstances have changed. "I like dressing up. I’m a transvestite. So, I get excuses to dress up all the time. It’s fabulous.”

At the 2014 event photographed: 'Grayson met students from Barlby Primary School and Oxford Gardens Primary School and enjoyed time reading books that go on to inspire the art projects the children engage in.' The Clore Art Room being opened was funded by the Clore Duffield Foundation charity to offer 'therapeutic support' for these children, many of whom are from very disadvantaged backgrounds. www.artlyst.com/news/art-room-launches-new-ladbroke-grove-studio-with-patron-grayson-perry/.

I am going to email the Foundation on [email protected] politely enquiring about their vetting procedures before people who have donated to them are invited into their projects to interact closely with the schoolchildren they help, including relevant concerning statements from Grayson Perry. I will post any responses I receive from them or Channel 4.

Dido, I didn't mention anything about what a man "thinks" but what he does. I specifically referred to the combination of the actions - not thoughts - of "wearing" and "announcing". Please could you do me the courtesy of reading the words I post.

As long as the clothes cover up what is meant to be covered up I really couldn't care less what is going on in the wearer's head.

What about what's going on in their pants? Do you really think it's okay for him to be in a primary school interacting with children with an erection?

Do we know he had an erection during those particular instances? Is that a know fact? Are we now going to have to police every male who interacts with kids and double check they are not getting turned on? Should we engage some thought police?....🧐 hmmm that does sound vaguely familiar.