Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Flip

Original poster

Stand Proud at Beavers

17 replies

frankie4 · 15/06/2012 18:20

Ok this is my first thread in Feminism!

My local newspaper has a half page ad for Beavers strip club and bar. It has a huge photo of a line of 16 women in knickers and tight football tops that only cover their nipples and top part of their breasts. The ad says "Stand proud at Beavers. Now girls ... tops off when anyone scores. 241 dances b4 midnight"

I am horrified at the way this objectifies women.

However , the next page has another half page ad with 8 partly naked women. This ad is for a production of Calendar Girls. And this doesn't really bother me.

So what is the real difference? Is it that the Calendar Girls one is older women, who are liberated. And the Beavers are younger women lined up and being 'bought' by men. Or is there no real difference, both are women who are taking their clothes off, one to sell calendars and one to dance for men?

OP posts:

Beachcomber · 15/06/2012 18:26

Welcome to the section.

Yuck at the name 'Beavers'. The ad sounds hideous. Will have a think about the rest of your post.

thechairmanmeow · 15/06/2012 18:26

it is different...i cant articulate why, but it is.
i went to see calender girls with my OH, i was really suprised to see that i was one of about 10% of men there, thought there were more pervs like me out there !

thechairmanmeow · 15/06/2012 18:33

i have no issue with people taking there clothes off, i'm quite used to it, nudist beaches and saunas here in holland are mixed. i also dont really have a problem with erotica, if it's tasteful. bodies can be arousing and as long as no one is exploited i dont see the problem, the dutch have a way of presenting erotica that doesnt make it seedy , like beavers sounds like.
seems to me renassance art modles without pubic hair and barly any nipples was just an excuse for being able to see a womans body, as though it's something everyone wants to see so we have to create a setting where it's acceptable, like those poor african tribes in natonal geographic which were the vicorians dads porn.

even the leading role in panto allways being played by a woman ( dick wittington or robin hood etc) was an excuse to see a womans legs in tights in an age where you would normaly never see that.

RulersMakeBadLovers · 15/06/2012 18:33

Ugh.

and

Ugh.

Original poster

frankie4 · 15/06/2012 18:45

Thechairmanmeow - but to me the Beavers strip club does sound seedy! It is not like art which is available to all to look at in an art gallery, but it is real women being paraded in front of an audience of men, who can pay to have 'dances' with them. And then all the men will cheer when one of the women will take her top off if her 'team' scores. So it is not about the beauty of a woman's body but about the men having power over the women.

OP posts:

thechairmanmeow · 15/06/2012 18:54

agreed frankie

if you reread my post you will find i allways did.

GrimmaTheNome · 15/06/2012 19:12

The first is 100% objectification of young women.

The second is a film about a bunch of mature women raising money for a good cause in an unorthodox manner.

Choufleur · 15/06/2012 19:14

I thought you were talking about Beaver scouts from the title

thechairmanmeow · 15/06/2012 19:19

on second thoughts , i dont have an issue with the chippendales or the full monty, it's just women having fun.
if you condemn beavers you have to condemn male strippers too.
you cant have it both ways.

msrisotto · 15/06/2012 21:11

Lots of feminists condemn all forms of stripping, men and women.

Oh, and chairman - women were never allowed to act in plays. Women were played by men/young boys.

Beavers sounds bloody awful. The Calendar girls at least sounds a bit subversive. Nudey calendars are almost exclusively of young women so their twist made it different. Not any better.

RulersMakeBadLovers · 15/06/2012 21:15

mrsrisotto - subversive was the word that came to my mind too. And, actually, I think the Calendar Girls (the original ones and the play) were really aimed at women, not men.

I don't condemn female strippers, let alone male ones. I frown hard at the watchers, though.

GrimmaTheNome · 15/06/2012 21:31

Oh, and chairman - women were never allowed to act in plays. Women were played by men/young boys
pantos, not Elizabethan-era plays. The 'principle boy' always used to be played by a girl in tights and above-the-knee boots.

thechairmanmeow · 15/06/2012 22:41

thank you Grimma

msrisotto, yes all or nothing!

rosy71 · 15/06/2012 23:08

I thought you were talking about Beaver scouts from the title
Lol! I thought that too!

msrisotto · 16/06/2012 08:22

Um, I am no expert but I was under the impression that in Elizabethan era plays, women were not allowed to perform and a quick google does not disconfirm this.
www.globe-theatre.org.uk/globe-theatre-female-roles.htm

thechairmanmeow · 16/06/2012 08:33

msrisoto your missing the point, i made a point about panto, victorian era, and you replied about the elizabethan era.
no one said that women could act in the elizabethan era.

msrisotto · 16/06/2012 08:44

Lol Sorry! Nevermind, i've lost interest anyway.

Flip