I don't want to start a raging debate about this but I am hoping that some on here may be able to settle a difference in opinion between me and a friend.
She thinks (after seeing a belly dancer perform at a feminist arts event in Bristol) that it's anything but feminist and thinks it's not that different to lapdancing (titillating, revealing costumes etc).
I don't see it like that. I do Bollywood dancing (which is very hard!) and have come across belly dancers through my dancing but they were all older, larger ladies (am I allowed to say that?!) and, to me, the belly dancers I saw were celebrating their form, celebrating the dance and generally having fun.
Admittedly though I don't know much about it. Does anyone have any views/experience/knowledge that would help the debate?
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions
Belly dancing
JessinAvalon · 23/03/2011 23:55
I love a lot of the posts here. I've always wanted to learn bellydancing but haven't (yet). If I may pursue some strands of this thread in a wider sense: I still don't really understand why many feminists object to sensual dances on the grounds that men find them sexy.
All dancing is supposed to be sensual. It makes you aware of the workings of your body, in ways you don't normally notice. It involves moving rhythmically. Sensuality describes the dancer's experience; sexy describes the experience of some onlookers. Dunno about you, but I find Flamenco virtuoso extremely sexy when dancing. I picked the clip because [a] he keeps his clothes on - unusually 
- and [b] you can see how much he's enjoying it.
The fact that I love to watch him enjoying his body, and find it sexy, doesn't make me lecherous; doesn't make Flamenco pornographic; doesn't devalue the dance or the dancer. I feel the same way about other forms of dance. Even pole-dancing, when the dancer's working her body (dancing gymnastically) instead of just splaying her legs around the pole.
This keeps cropping up on here. I just don't get it. Disapproval of a dance itself because of how some people interpret it, or how some people sell it, smacks of prudery. Like the 19th-century killjoys who banned the waltz from public ballrooms as too rude! Dance is for the dancers and, if they're any good, the rest of us watch them with pleasure.
I used to be a very good Lambada dancer (too unfit now.) Lambada grew out of Brazilian peasant dances, but was itself a commercial invention. It's very wriggly. It gave me an awareness of core muscles I never knew I had, is huge fun to do, and mimics sex when danced by couples ... except it doesn't. It's not sex, it's a dance. In all the years I Lambada-ed, I was never once 'misunderstood' by a fellow dancer. But English and German men misread it all the time. This tends to confirm my view that interpreting dance moves as sexual invitation is an error of Germanic prurience, rather than reason.
I've gone a bit rambly here - sorry for splurging on such an excellent thread! I really would like to know more, though, about why so many feminists appear to look down on certain forms of dance but not others.
Have just noticed the phrase "using a biscuit on me" to denote an aggressive action.
Only on Mumsnet
oh, dittany, i think we've morphed. i was just going to repeat that.
quote of the week? please, please.
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
I actually don't think my problem (such as it is) with bd, isn't that it may or may not have been co-opted by men for titillation. It's more that it seems to reinforcing the 'feminine mystique' argument that so many women seem to think is part and parcel of feminism. Women are so different from men, that they have to have different forms of self-expression, ones that have to be focused on their wombs, or their ability to bake bread etc. I clearly remember taking part in feminist workshops back in the mid 80s when I was at university that involved tea and knitting and organic home-made flapjack 
. I kept thinking that it was more or less the same as the sort of thngs mum used to do when I was growing up but with fewer Tories.
I don't want to be defined by my womb and my breasts and all the things that are sex-exclusive. I want to be defined by my entire being, the things that make me human as well as the things that make me ME, Ormirian, that may or may not be to do with my sex.
If there is such a thing as true equality within the sexes , and a lack of psycotic or disordered personalities , mutual respect for another human being ,then there would be no call for feminism as we know it.
what the fuck does this mean? 
This reply has been deleted
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
^dittany Sat 26-Mar-11 15:45:32
I don't know GC.
There was someone on here who was being absolutely vile to me quite recently, continually picking away at me. And people were being nice to her! Even though she was coming out with some incredible anti-feminist tripe as well.^
^ madwomanintheattic Sat 26-Mar-11 16:31:28
people should be able to post forthright opinions. but there is no such thing as an identikit feminist. there just isn't. the louder and more strident the voices on the feminist board, the more 'the feminists are all a bunch of shouty nutters' opinion infiltrates the main boards. i hate the fact that it seems as though i want feminists to lower their voices - i don't really, i want them to moderate their tone so that more women are able to identify as 'feminists' instead of running screaming in the opposite direction.
it's not 'come to feminism and learn something', it's 'avoid feminism because unless you go in knowing what the party line is, they will slash and burn you'.^
This. LOVE this quote (says what I have been wanting to say for a while), and highly applicable to this thread, which has fascinated me. Hummmm, not quite sure where I stand on it as it is never something I have properly understood. For now, what with my choice based stance, I think it is feminist. But I AM thinking about it more, so thank you for an interesting thread OP!
ah but a petite size 12 (shortarse like me) is often more curvy than a taller size 12 .
A small frame 12 could be flabby and a large frame 12 could be actually quite toned/thin (but not skelatol).
Dress size is not really a good indicator on its own.....
You're idea of curvy is a lot different to mine - I'm a size 12 and would call myself thin.
When i started bellydancing i was a size 6-8 .... now im a size 10-12 ( im very short , so now have a lot to jiggle ) .I have found a huge difference in my shimmys now as to then ( but mabey its the years of practice ? )
When i was thinnner i prefered veils , it was more suited to my then bodyshape.Lots of lovely arm movements
Now i like a good deep shimmy , with perhaps a few camels thrown in for the fum of it.Gets the belt noisy.
Never got the hang of cymbals ...
Are you a size 0 , with hip bones jutting out ? 
.
If you have flesh , you can shimmy .
You actually shimmy with your legs and the jiggle travels up iykwim ? hard to explain without showing you. It defo works better if you are not a size 0. lol .
But thats`not to say if you are very thin , you couldnt learn to belly dance. Just that some of the "wobblier" moves would be harder for you iykwim.
Don’t want to miss threads like this?
Weekly
Sign up to our weekly round up and get all the best threads sent straight to your inbox!
Log in to update your newsletter preferences.
You've subscribed!
"You cant shimmy if your a size 0 . Its very anti -thin-like-a-twig."
What is feminist about excluding women of other bodyshapes? (I am quite thin btw and would not be able to bellydance - maybe that is my problem 
)
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.