to think that burlesque is not 'empowering'

[bauhausfan]

...but just women having been brainwashed into thinking that being sexy (ie fitting into that male stereotype of frilly undies, sexual availability, coyness etc) is their choice when actually it is just brain washing by the patriarchy. Just like breast implants -'I'm doing it for myself' - well, no, you're not. You're doing it so you can feel happier because you now fit society's pre-conceived idea of sexy/attractive.

I feel really depressed by the number of intelligent women I know who are buying into this bullshit. If I'm going to celebrate feminine power, I'd rather it was through women who have worked their way into the top echelons of society - not someone called Kitty or Dita waving their baps around. I feel despair - what happened to the 70s feminist dream?

Skol, with all due respect, you're talking bollocks, given that your previous posts were championing burlesque as a source of female power and social change.

Not source of female power - source of inner confidence. Big difference.

So I guess we could say, if women doing burlesque empowers them, how does that empowerment manifest in positive outcomes for individual women or women as a group in society?

"Gay men and straight women also have preferences but those are not catered to in the mainstream media."

I don't understand this. Should my gay son or my gay friend not find the same people attractive as me because their preferences are somehow different?

(must remember to tell them this when we next perve over Starlord watch guardians of the galaxy together)

Mrsstarlord.... huh?

The whole idea of women being presented in a sexually appealing way is for the benefit of straight men.

If it were straight women or gay men to be appealed to, the subject matter would be sexually appealing men.

Do you think that the aesthetic around how women are presented in media all over the world is not to appeal to a straight male aesthetic? You think it is to appeal to everyone, including straight women and gay men, even though they'd rather a finely turned male thigh or buttock than a female breast?

Erm, OK. An unusual POV but interested to hear more.

So someone said on another thread I forget when, what's the problem with page 3, everyone likes to look at breasts.

Which I found bizarre.

Page 3 is for het men. The idea that some people think that page 3 is for everyone is an idea that I find baffling but apparently has some currency

"Erm no, the sexualisation of the female form throughout the aeons has been for the benefit of heterosexual men.

Gay men and straight women also have preferences but those are not catered to in the mainstream media.

The idea that it is an inevitable consequence of attraction that the female form be sexualised and objectified all over the place (while the male form is not) is bafflingly illogical.

Someone on a thread recently about topless something or other said, well everyone likes looking at breasts! And, um, well no they don't. Lots and lots of people find male bodies sexually appealing, not female ones."

I agree with your first comment, although I would add that the sexualisation of the male form has been for the benefit of heterosexual women largely.

I disagree that gay men and straight women have different preferences from heterosexual people (just men like men and women like women) - I don't understand what is confusing about this.

Unless you are suggesting that it is only women who are presented in a sexualised way in which case - nonsense!

Unless you are suggesting that it is only women who are presented in a sexualised way in which case - nonsense!

Why is it nonsense?

As a man, I find burlesque boring and dull - but, it's only a form of dance, it does not involve the dancer selling her body for sex and so I am at a loss to understand your argument. It's on a par with saying actresses shouldn't play sex scenes is serious drama because it's effectively porn.

"I agree with your first comment, although I would add that the sexualisation of the male form has been for the benefit of heterosexual women largely."

I'd disagree totally, and say that when the male form is sexualised in a manner that as extreme as the sexualisation of the female form, it is often for a gay male aesthetic.

"I disagree that gay men and straight women have different preferences from heterosexual people (just men like men and women like women) - I don't understand what is confusing about this."

Um, well yes they have different preferences in who they find attractive. So in a conversation about sexualising images of one sex or another, clearly this is quite key. Straight men generally like to look at women with their clothes off. Gay men generally like to look at men with their clothes off.

"Unless you are suggesting that it is only women who are presented in a sexualised way in which case - nonsense!"

In mainstream media and in the vast majority it is women who are presented as sex objects, and men who are presented as "doing stuff". The exceptions to this are so exceptional that people can generally name them / remember them if prompted. Meanwhile sexualised images of women are 2 a penny.

OK, but why the need to focus on the sexualisation of women? Its been quite some time since it became as acceptable for men to be the focus of sexual desire as women.

Mrsstarlord reading your post again, are you in support of the idea that "everyone likes looking at breasts" because if you are I don't think there is any room to meet in the middle really!

Perhaps going back in time those roles / perceptions were apparent in the media / society, far far less so now.

Perhaps its a perception thing? I genuinely don't see it, if you believe it's there you will - selective bias.

I never mentioned breasts!!!!

Sexualisation and sexual desire are not the same thing.

Sexual desire is something that most people have to a greater of lesser extent, for others that they find desirable.

Sexualisation is commodification and objectification in order to appeal to a subset of people.

Also sexual desire is something felt by the observer, sexualisation is something performed/done to or by the observed. They may well not be feeling any sexual desire themselves.

When I do my commute, the Metro is the free paper and it is full of pictures of scantily clad women doing nothing newsworthy, and men in suits doing stuff of import, or men doing sports.

The news, is generally about important men doing things, with other men commentating. The pictures of men show them either in suits looking serious, or in sports attire doing something active. The pictures of women are scattered throughout and feature young attractive women arriving at things, or leaving them, or laughing with their friends.

I don't read it any more

And sometimes I get the man next to me who likes to stare at page 3 for a good 5 minutes of a morning.

I think that it is absolutely reasonable to state that women are sexualised more than men in our society, and there have been many studies which have measured it in various ways.

Our country is majority run by men.

The women who are in positions of political power get endless comment about their attire and appearance.

There is a jokey website which talks about the men in the way the women are talked about, let me try to find it...

Somebody just confused empowering with entertaining. They just need dictionaries, that's all.

Would someone please explain what is supposed to be 'witty' about burlesque.

Is it the winking?

It might be empowering to the individual in the sense of building their own confidence to improve other areas of their life, but that's about as far as it goes. I think it is one of those choices that may benefit the individual but does nothing for women as a whole, in fact probably has a negative effect because it perpetuates the inequality arising due to women being judged on their appearance more than men.