To wonder why, if pole dancing and lap dancing and being a bunny girl are so empowering, Tony Blair, Pope Bendict, David Cameron, Sarkozy etc., don't do it?(70 Posts)
Because they are powerful men, are they not?
Why aren't they being further empowerfulised by shaking their arses and stroking their bollocks against poles?
It occurs to me, that Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Mary Robinson, Angela Merkel - all powerful women - didn't lapdance either. How much more powerful would they have been, if they had?
Seriously, how much of a dumb fuck do you have to be, to buy this empowerfulising argument? You know what empowers women? Power. Angela Merkel is powerful. Theresa May is powerful. Hilary Clinton is powerful. Even Kate Middleton has some power, or will have when she is queen consort. None of those women got power, by dressing up in suspenders and rubbing their genitals up and down the laps of men who got a power rush from handing over money for that performance. If you think that gives a woman power, you are in deep, deep denial and simply comforting yourself about women's lack of real power. In that situation, it is the man handing over the money to reward the woman for her sexual display, who has the power, not the woman putting on that sexual display. If she were doing it for her lover, to titillate and turn him on, that might be empowering - but doing it for a punter? Do you honestly not see the difference between doing it for fun, and doing it for money?
Off to bed now, I hope some of the MRA activists around wank themselves to death tonight.
[[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOQIMOcEVc4 Empowerfulisation in action]
err because WHO wants to see them do that??
Now had you said " brad Pitt Leonardo and Gary LeVox" I would have understood...
to put it in short because no one would employ them to do so
I think they all auditioned but couldn't get a job.
David Cameron's vital statistics were wrong and Pope Benedict has no sense of rhythm.
Prince Charles, however, actually works as a prostitute in the afternoons for illicit thrills because he is so bored sitting around waiting to be king. He spends the money he makes on clothes but really he does it because he loves sex with ugly inconsiderate women.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
YABVVU providing an image of David Cameron et al shaking their arses and stroking <shudder> their <wince> bollocks.
But I agree.
Very, very true.
Not much else to add, succinct & unarguable I'd say.
I'd wondered about the red light over the doorbell of Clarence House, Sybil. Of course it makes perfect sense now you've explained that the heir to the throne offers his services as a
geriatric rent boy. At least he's putting his riding gear to good use.
Even if that particular bunch had used a gallon of Willy Wash and sprinkled copious amounts of Dick Dust over their bits, I'd turn into a Ms Bobbit before they got within a
naked country mile of me, and as for kissing the Pope's ring - nope, ain't gonna go there....
Because i would rather eat my own vomit than see that? ALso don't see the pope ever approving of pole dancing
I think that Tony Blair has got himself a new job
I suspect that the previous Pope JohnPaulGeorge&Ringo approved of poles dancing, Lola.
The present Pope BennyHill does seem a tad po-faced in public, but maybe he has an entirely different persona when the Leaping Nuns of St Beryl put on a show.
Link to the Order of St Beryl: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GV_A7YeOhfs&feature=related
In all fairness and a spirit of pure flippancy - because it's unlikely anyone would pay to see them do it; no economic benefit = no job.
Why choose men in power? What about choosing women in power? Or is that beside the point, rather?
Wy choose men in power?
I rather think the point is to compare what men view as powerful (running their country) with what women are meant to view as powerful (getting naked and titillating men).
Men know full well that the getting naked thing is not powerful in the slightest, so they go for the real thing: actual power.
Women, on the other hand, are fed some load of total bull that turning men on is somehow meant to empower us. And worse still - some actually buy it.
OP - YANBU
I'm not being very coherent - and probably still won't be, or I'm being too simplistic - I meant that, by choosing men in power, it invited too-obvious responses. But choosing women in power would have demonstrated the OP's point more, I suppose, that sexploitation is NOT empowering (a point I fully agree with) or the powerful women would be doing it too.
And who on earth came up with empowerfulising? Can't you just use empowering? it's like a Dubya-ism - or was that the point as well?
Thumbwitch, the OP says It occurs to me, that Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Mary Robinson, Angela Merkel - all powerful women - didn't lapdance either. How much more powerful would they have been, if they had? and You know what empowers women? Power. Angela Merkel is powerful. Theresa May is powerful. Hilary Clinton is powerful. Even Kate Middleton has some power, or will have when she is queen consort. None of those women got power, by dressing up in suspenders and rubbing their genitals up and down the laps of men who got a power rush from handing over money for that performance.
In fact, she spends a lot more of the OP talking about powerful women than powerful men, so I don't really understand your point?
And yes, empowerfulising is a deliberate play.
Great post and perfectly illustrated.
However it's 3.40 am and I cannot get image of Cameron's balls, unchecked and hairy, flopping around that pole.
My point was, I guess, that it would have made more sense TO ME and invited more serious debate if she had put powerful women in the title - rather than discussing them in the op - because the obvious response to the title is to make fun, rather than debate, as has been shown by the majority of the responses, my first one included.
If it was meant to be a lighthearted thread, then fair play - but if it was meant to be a serious discussion then, IMO, a better starting point would have been powerful women rather than men.
I've had lunch now, do I make more sense?
Several pretend protests about Tony and Dave's balls.
Not a peep about Sarkozy I notice.
Hmm - so unless talking about leadership at a national or international level, than the word "empower" shouldn't be used? It doesn't exist in any relative way? You couldn't for example empower children in schools - because they have no real "power", certainly by this leadership definition, nor by extension because the teachers hold the actual power.
The women employed in these clubs are receiving money. Some would say that money is power - certainly to be in poverty is to be in a place with no real power over anything at all. Obviously this isn't part of OP - I would certainly think it is worth considering the role of income in this, especially compared to what the individuals were otherwise earning. Would they have more choices on the higher wage, or even a similar amount but earned herself? Independence on a small level doesn't bring national leadership, but is it a start? <opens different can of worms about money flows>
I have different issues with the normalisation of sexual entertainment, but won't divert the thread further.
In addition, why doesn't Usain Bolt get fitter by doing pole-dancing classes?
Meditrina, my objection to the use of the word empower, is because too often it is used to justify the same old sexist shit being dressed up as power and to divert attention from the fact that women by and large, still don't have real power like men do. It seems to me to be adding insult to injury, to be calling wiggling your arse for money, empowerment, when it is so patently a symptom of lack of power. If women had real power, either they wouldn't wiggle their arses for money, or men would do it in roughly the same numbers for roughly the same pay and their femal clients would react with roughly the same amount of sexual arousal as the current male ones do, as there would be no disproportionate power relationship between the sexes.
It also strikes me as embrrassing that there are so many women out there who are so deep in denial about our powerlessness, that they eagerly embrace this patronising narrative of power coming out our our tassles and arses (funny how for men, it comes out of the barrel of a gun). If men told us that vacuuming their houses and cleaning skid marks off their underpants was empowering, would these dumb fucks buy that argument too? What substitute for power, that men try to sell us, is just too preposterous for women to buy?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.