Burlesque is it grotesque?

I like Dita von teese. Why? She's sexy. Does that make me sexist?

I was appalled to see a Burlesque dance act on FRiday night prime time TV.

Burlesque is stripping for the middle class.

I am struck by the way that many MN threads about women "performing" for men in prostitution, pornography, lap dancing, pole dancing, stripping, burlesque etc. divide into two camps.

The "antis" take a "women are objectified for the benefit of men" viewpoint and the "pros" take the view that "the practices you are criticising are not representative of the real activity and you don't know enough about the real activity" e.g. the type of burlesque in the Daily Mail article isn't "real" burlesque. Well, whatever it is, it exists and is being called burlesque, and is therefore being commented upon.

By the law of averages alone, I don't think all of the "antis" can be, or are, so ill-informed or so unworldly that they apparently fail to see the big picture every single time.

And at the idea that it can't be exploitative because women run it...

I hate the DM, and have disagreed with both claig and dittany on other topics.

I have a lot of respect for them as they are two of the (very) few posters on MN who do not hold grudges and argue each thread/viewpoint on its merits. Very poor form to bring up other threads; it has no bearing on the topic in hand.

I have done my research.

I have a few friends who are burlesque performers, and often argue with them about it. I know the scene
(it bores the living shit out of me, tbh) and I think it's the biggest load of disingenuous bollocks around. Repackaging exploitation and selling it back to women as 'alternative' and 'empowering' is a simple trick, but one which people seem to have fallen for. It's a con.

It is not the fifties. Feminism has happened (is still happening). Burlesque performers now cannot cite the same reasons for performing as those in 'the glory days' did, as context is all. It is now an active rejection of feminist principles.

And it is a load of wank.

Despair, more than desperation - I've just engaged in a debate with someone who a) takes the Daily Mail seriously & b) is equally happy to reference a satirical blog which describes the DM as 'one particularly rotten ship putrefying in a sea of gradually sinking Titanics of hate'.

Without apparently being to distinguish between them, except as 'not the guardian'.

That's an hour of my life I'm never going to get back!

I know it's poor form to reference another thread.

But the OP apparently believes that this august organ is a citable source for her asrgument that Christmas is in imminent danger of being overwhelmed by Winterval.

I'm inclined to take her opinions less than seriously as a result. Call me picky...

Did you discover this through research?[hahahaha emoticon]

No, I am not so stupid as to make my mind up on the basis on one/any number of article(s) that has(have) appeared in any publication. I tend to explore any strong reactions within myself with as much research as I can be bothered to do. When I can't be bothered to do the research I remain ambivalent.

Unlike you.

But as I said Claig, that is your right. Read an article. Believe it. Knock yerself out.

'Are you so stupid uninformed as to base your opinion on a Daily Mail article'

Stupid enough not to know her Daily Mail from her Daily Quail, apparently!

Although I'm leaning towards it being all a nice seasonal wind up.

I am confused. While youtube is a current source of some information, I would take more care when forming an opinion. Are you so stupid uninformed as to base your opinion on a Daily Mail article and not follow the leads given here and actual history of a subject before you make up your mind?

Yes, I agree.

It sounds quite dreadful (& absolutely the sort of 'burlesque' night the DM would be advertising condemning.)

You can't form an intelligent opinion on the basis of a sneery misogynist article, the thrust of which was 'look at this, it's pervy & disgusting' - accompanied by pictures so the reader can drool a bit over its pervy disgustingness.

Burlesque may or may not be grotesque. The attitude of the DM's hack certainly is.

Instead of allowing the DM to make your mind up, you could always try a spot of research - someone else mentioned some well-known performers. You could at least google before you allow the DM total control of your brain.

If you make up your mind upon reading an article, that's your business. And your right. Go forward. Read whatever article is in front of you and make up your mind. You can do that. It is your right. But it doesn't make you right.

Erm, is anyone saying that questioning Burlesque is inflammatory? It's just that before questioning it, one should really do the research. And it is quite a history to research.

Try researching it Claig and then you can make up your own mind on whether it is grotesque or not.

I'm not a fan.

I'm quite neutral, really. I wouldn't be at all fussed if it disappeared, but equally, I don't agree with a blanklet dismissal of it whereby it's a subgenre of stripping, & stripping's all the same.

I have come across it as part of goth nights in the last 3-4 years. My impression is that some of it's clever/funny/entertaining; some of it's actually quite erotic; & some of it's a bit boring.

The atmosphere in the audience is very different to the atmosphere in a pub when someone's stag do/hen do stripper shows up; it's celebratory, not predatory.

It's all in the context.

I appreciate that there are other posters, whose views I respect, who will completely disagree, but I'm sticking to my guns here.