stripping: empowerment or just conformity

catefrances

so heres a question people...

when we say women have gained enough power that they can now choose to express the possession of their sexuality by stripping or being playboy bunnies, do you think this is true, or are they just conforming to the paradigm that our patriarchal society has deemed female sexuality?

OutOfBreath

I'd say a bit of both.
Society's gender structures allows women to profit from the look of their bodies. Beyond that, I think for some of the women involved it can be empowering,and there certainly are women who want to do this.
And of course, different motivations for different people. Some just love showing themselves off and get a kick out of the whole thing, while others are more reluctant and "last resort".

But yeah, a bit of both in my opinion.

Peace
Dan

Jeanwah

It's usually about the money they're making.

catefrances

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'd say a bit of both.
Society's gender structures allows women to profit from the look of their bodies...

allows women to profit from the look of their bodies????


.... by deciding the parameters of what constitutes 'that look'. we will tell you what is sexy and how to display that sexuality in a way that titllates us.

BinauralJam

Empowerment

tinkerbell

I used to have a roomate that was a stripper/working girl. She started stripping for the money then got hooked in speed then started turning tricks for the money to buy the speed and got totally dependant on it just to get her through each job. It was sad to watch. She was a full on exhibitionist who loved the attention but she had some serious daddy issues.
However I met some of the girls she worked with who did the job to further themselves. One girl bought a house in cash at the age of 23, then stopped. Unfortunately she was definitely not the norm. Most of the money that these girls make goes straight in a pipe or up their nose just so they can perform.

_

catefrances wrote:

so heres a question people...

when we say women have gained enough power that they can now choose to express the possession of their sexuality by stripping or being playboy bunnies, do you think this is true, or are they just conforming to the paradigm that our patriarchal society has deemed female sexuality?

The latter. We still have the same old virgin/whore dichotomy as always. Just because women now have the "power" to choose which role they want to play doesn't mean there's been any radical alteration to that patriarchal paradigm. To me, the greatest empowerment would come from choosing not to "perform" our sexuality at all, removing the consideration of what others find attractive.

catefrances

hmmm... so what do you think it says about a society where its 'ok' that such displays are used to 'further ones self'?

ive been thinking lately about what is deemed acceptable in terms of sexuality... what is seen as a perversion and how subjective it all is. how 2 girls seen together on screen is a guys wet dream but 2 guys is seen as repulsive. im not saying male homosexuality or male-male sex is repulsive, just that the collective view sees it as something society would rather not be exposed to. it seems weve taken the most private of acts and made it public in order to control it. you can have sex with this person or have sex this way and if you do it this other way... well... thats just immoral, gross or just plain wrong. and how its okay for a certain body type to strip because weve decided its ok, and were going to exclude who we dont deem acceptable.

JOEJOEJOE

catefrances wrote:

hmmm... so what do you think it says about a society where its 'ok' that such displays are used to 'further ones self'?

ive been thinking lately about what is deemed acceptable in terms of sexuality... what is seen as a perversion and how subjective it all is. how 2 girls seen together on screen is a guys wet dream but 2 guys is seen as repulsive. im not saying male homosexuality or male-male sex is repulsive, just that the collective view sees it as something society would rather not be exposed to. it seems weve taken the most private of acts and made it public in order to control it. you can have sex with this person or have sex this way and if you do it this other way... well... thats just immoral, gross or just plain wrong. and how its okay for a certain body type to strip because weve decided its ok, and were going to exclude who we dont deem acceptable.

As long is it isn't illegal or harmful to others, people should have the opportunity to further themselves as they please. Some people further themselves with natural talent or ability, while some further themselves via education, hard work or whatever was given to them by their family.

Anyone can strip, though there may not be a huge amount of demand for everyone. Same goes for most goods and services...people have preferences...some preferences are voluntary, and some are a result of advertising, media, etc.

tinkerbell

Society (men) are shallow and have this weird ideal about what beauty is - hairless, smooth, girls with big boobs. Real women do not look like this and I don't think that real men want these girls as girlfriends/wives it is more of a fantasy. I am certainly am not attracted to teenage boys.

puremagic

The latter. Women have been performing sexual dancing, long before it was called strip dancing, yet in all forms of sexual dancing, whether it was bellying dancing, the can can, the rockettees, or pole dancing, the pattern is an established one whereby women are doing it as a form of sexual entertainment. Even though the modern woman has a better payday and a better choice of work environments, the established pattern that women who dance as sexual entertainers are still viewed as targets. It doesn't matter that a women operates a legal gentleman's club, the perception of the women who work there hasn’t changed. An educated whore is still a whore and society hasn't really moved far away from that concept even with all the advances the modern woman has made.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I believe the answer you seek can only belong to those that actually do it.

catefrances

puremagic wrote:

The latter. Women have been performing sexual dancing, long before it was called strip dancing, yet in all forms of sexual dancing, whether it was bellying dancing, the can can, the rockettees, or pole dancing, the pattern is an established one whereby women are doing it as a form of sexual entertainment. Even though the modern woman has a better payday and a better choice of work environments, the established pattern that women who dance as sexual entertainers are still viewed as targets. It doesn't matter that a women operates a legal gentleman's club, the perception of the women who work there hasn’t changed. An educated whore is still a whore and society hasn't really moved far away from that concept even with all the advances the modern woman has made.

i find cheerleading to be a dichotomy. its seen as somewhat wholesome and all american and yet a girl in a cheerleading outfit or 'naughty' school uniform(hi there britney!) is such a sexual turn on for guys so inclined.

catefrances

greaves wrote:

I believe the answer you seek can only belong to those that actually do it.

you mean like why suicide bombers do what they do?? i dont do it so i cant have an opinion? :think:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

that's not what I meant. I meant it could be either or, depending on the person performing it. it could be empowering to one, or could be self-loathing for another.

catefrances wrote:

greaves wrote:

I believe the answer you seek can only belong to those that actually do it.

you mean like why suicide bombers do what they do?? i dont do it so i cant have an opinion? :think:

Jeanwah

tinkerbell wrote:

Society (men) are shallow and have this weird ideal about what beauty is - hairless, smooth, girls with big boobs. Real women do not look like this and I don't think that real men want these girls as girlfriends/wives it is more of a fantasy. I am certainly am not attracted to teenage boys.

I know this is off topic, but the fad lately with teen boys (I have teenage nephews) is called 'manscaping'. They're shaving their entire bodies, and it's not for sport. It's because, and this is what my nephew tells me, 'the girls like it'. Teen girls really like clean shaven boys with no pubic hair! That's like being with a young boy! :shock:

Hugh Freaking Dillon

gross.

Jeanwah wrote:

I know this is off topic, but the fad lately with teen boys (I have teenage nephews) is called 'manscaping'. They're shaving their entire bodies, and it's not for sport. It's because, and this is what my nephew tells me, 'the girls like it'. Teen girls really like clean shaven boys with no pubic hair! That's like being with a young boy! :shock:

catefrances

Jeanwah wrote:

tinkerbell wrote:

Society (men) are shallow and have this weird ideal about what beauty is - hairless, smooth, girls with big boobs. Real women do not look like this and I don't think that real men want these girls as girlfriends/wives it is more of a fantasy. I am certainly am not attracted to teenage boys.

I know this is off topic, but the fad lately with teen boys (I have teenage nephews) is called 'manscaping'. They're shaving their entire bodies, and it's not for sport. It's because, and this is what my nephew tells me, 'the girls like it'. Teen girls really like clean shaven boys with no pubic hair! That's like being with a young boy! :shock:

where are girls getting this clean shaven thing from???

conversely, i read something not so long ago where it said that young guys are under the delusion that women have minmal body hair and if that they do come into contact with a woman who actually doesnt wax her bits, its a bit confronting for the poor loves. ah modern society.. you suck.


we had a discussion at school a few years back about the whole metrosexual thing. as you can imagine im not supportive of the beauty industry and one of the girls said she thought it was great that guys were into the whole beauty myth(my wordage). i said isnt it bad enough that women are sucked into it, now we gotta have the blokes conned as well. i asked her how is it a good thing. she looked at me like id bitten the head of her kitten. i didnt get an answer except the inferrence that girls do it so why not guys. :roll:

_

greaves wrote:

that's not what I meant. I meant it could be either or, depending on the person performing it. it could be empowering to one, or could be self-loathing for another.

catefrances wrote:

greaves wrote:

I believe the answer you seek can only belong to those that actually do it.

you mean like why suicide bombers do what they do?? i dont do it so i cant have an opinion? :think:

I don't know. I see your point. But I think just because an individual may FEEL empowered doesn't mean she's not still conforming to a patriarchal social paradigm - and then the question becomes about whether or not that's real power. To me, it's more about social structures than individual feelings of empowerment or self-loathing.

My research with strippers indicates that some/many of them may feel empowered because of an alternate definition of empowerment, but then may feel differently when presented with another perspective.

It reminds me of giving "choices" to children. When you give your little girl the option of wearing a pink dress or a blue dress, is she empowered? If she chooses the blue dress, has she radically deconstructed gender norms?

catefrances

my apologies for jumping on your lovely head.

greaves wrote:

that's not what I meant. I meant it could be either or, depending on the person performing it. it could be empowering to one, or could be self-loathing for another.

catefrances wrote:

greaves wrote:

I believe the answer you seek can only belong to those that actually do it.

you mean like why suicide bombers do what they do?? i dont do it so i cant have an opinion? :think:

catefrances

_ wrote:

...It reminds me of giving "choices" to children. When you give your little girl the option of wearing a pink dress or a blue dress, is she empowered? If she chooses the blue dress, has she radically decontructed gender norms?

no she hasnt.

but think about how its okay for girls to 'dress as boys'.. trousers shirt, tie whatever... and how not okay it is for boys to 'dress like girls'. why is that... is dressing like a girl degrading? is being a girl degrading?

tinkerbell

Jeanwah wrote:

tinkerbell wrote:

Society (men) are shallow and have this weird ideal about what beauty is - hairless, smooth, girls with big boobs. Real women do not look like this and I don't think that real men want these girls as girlfriends/wives it is more of a fantasy. I am certainly am not attracted to teenage boys.

I know this is off topic, but the fad lately with teen boys (I have teenage nephews) is called 'manscaping'. They're shaving their entire bodies, and it's not for sport. It's because, and this is what my nephew tells me, 'the girls like it'. Teen girls really like clean shaven boys with no pubic hair! That's like being with a young boy! :shock:

Ewwwwww!

Hugh Freaking Dillon

I think it's just as simple as most "boy" clothes being more unisex than anything else.

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

...It reminds me of giving "choices" to children. When you give your little girl the option of wearing a pink dress or a blue dress, is she empowered? If she chooses the blue dress, has she radically decontructed gender norms?

no she hasnt.

but think about how its okay for girls to 'dress as boys'.. trousers shirt, tie whatever... and how not okay it is for boys to 'dress like girls'. why is that... is dressing like a girl degrading? is being a girl degrading?

Hugh Freaking Dillon

and that's an interesting example, as this does not only apply in attitude towards the male sex, but also female. I don't know ONE female who would sit through a movie with two guys doing it, but are fine with it (albeit with an eye-roll I'm sure) when it's two girls. Why? it may sound cliche, but the female body is, as Elaine Benes put it "work of art", and a male's body is "like a Jeep, it's for getting around". I really don't think my hesitancy to watch two dudes has anything to do with societal norms, I think it's just that I don't like it. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

catefrances wrote:

hmmm... so what do you think it says about a society where its 'ok' that such displays are used to 'further ones self'?

ive been thinking lately about what is deemed acceptable in terms of sexuality... what is seen as a perversion and how subjective it all is. how 2 girls seen together on screen is a guys wet dream but 2 guys is seen as repulsive. im not saying male homosexuality or male-male sex is repulsive, just that the collective view sees it as something society would rather not be exposed to. it seems weve taken the most private of acts and made it public in order to control it. you can have sex with this person or have sex this way and if you do it this other way... well... thats just immoral, gross or just plain wrong. and how its okay for a certain body type to strip because weve decided its ok, and were going to exclude who we dont deem acceptable.

OutOfBreath

catefrances wrote:

OutOfBreath wrote:

I'd say a bit of both.
Society's gender structures allows women to profit from the look of their bodies...

allows women to profit from the look of their bodies????


.... by deciding the parameters of what constitutes 'that look'. we will tell you what is sexy and how to display that sexuality in a way that titllates us.

OK, bad wording on my part. English is my second language you know.

What I meant is more along the lines of the female body has always been regarded as something of a piece of art. (Patriarchal society and so forth, no doubt) So displaying it (in various ways) has been around since ever, and I think ever partly went away for a bit in puritan victorian times. (Which might be the spark of genesis for burlesque, striptease and porn in their modern forms, but i digress)

This in itself may be because females have generally been viewed as a piece of property whose attributes can be admired. Also probably a remnant of the female worship in connection with fertility religions and such that happened before patriarchy emerged as dominant. The more interesting reading of genesis is to be found in reading between the lines about the replacement of female divinites (who usually was complemented with male divinites) with the 1 god. Who happened to be regarded as a male.

And as regards to empowerment, that would depend on the individual. I will not be categorical about what that means for the performers, the same way i dont accept people claiming that women wearing a scarf is by definition oppressed. Empowerment is a pretty fuzzy term in itself, really, and it depends on what you put into it, and indeed what the different people put into it.

Anywho, my rambling ends here.

Peace
Dan

puremagic

catefrances wrote:

puremagic wrote:

The latter. Women have been performing sexual dancing, long before it was called strip dancing, yet in all forms of sexual dancing, whether it was bellying dancing, the can can, the rockettees, or pole dancing, the pattern is an established one whereby women are doing it as a form of sexual entertainment. Even though the modern woman has a better payday and a better choice of work environments, the established pattern that women who dance as sexual entertainers are still viewed as targets. It doesn't matter that a women operates a legal gentleman's club, the perception of the women who work there hasn’t changed. An educated whore is still a whore and society hasn't really moved far away from that concept even with all the advances the modern woman has made.

i find cheerleading to be a dichotomy. its seen as somewhat wholesome and all american and yet a girl in a cheerleading outfit or 'naughty' school uniform(hi there britney!) is such a sexual turn on for guys so inclined.

To parents their daughters are just participating in a school activity or their girls are adhering to a school dress code policy.

Who makes it a dichotomy? Is it the outfit or the person wearing the outfit or is it the person who has attached their “forbidden fruit” sexual fantasies to the outfit? Cheerleaders are viewed as the hot, popular girls, who get everything they want and need to be brought down a notch, where as girls in school uniforms are perceived with ‘purity’, yet viewed with a hidden ‘dirty’ girl side.

You used the word ‘naughty’, but, I would guess that surely every girl, who is a cheerleader or wears a school uniform, is not a turn on. You could apply this to countless other women professions, nurses, teachers, CEOs, tennis players, etc. etc., yet the fantasy exists. So who makes it a dichotomy?

_

catefrances wrote:

_ wrote:

...It reminds me of giving "choices" to children. When you give your little girl the option of wearing a pink dress or a blue dress, is she empowered? If she chooses the blue dress, has she radically decontructed gender norms?

no she hasnt.

but think about how its okay for girls to 'dress as boys'.. trousers shirt, tie whatever... and how not okay it is for boys to 'dress like girls'. why is that... is dressing like a girl degrading? is being a girl degrading?

Yes, I agree.

Electric_Delta

tinkerbell wrote:

Society (men) are shallow and have this weird ideal about what beauty is - hairless, smooth, girls with big boobs. Real women do not look like this and I don't think that real men want these girls as girlfriends/wives it is more of a fantasy. I am certainly am not attracted to teenage boys.

I don't think the average man is as shallow as you suggest. These aren't qualities I go for. A woman could be all those things but if there is no intelligence, I'm not interested.

JonnyPistachio

Electric_Delta wrote:

tinkerbell wrote:

Society (men) are shallow and have this weird ideal about what beauty is - hairless, smooth, girls with big boobs. Real women do not look like this and I don't think that real men want these girls as girlfriends/wives it is more of a fantasy. I am certainly am not attracted to teenage boys.

I don't think the average man is as shallow as you suggest. These aren't qualities I go for. A woman could be all those things but if there is no intelligence, I'm not interested.

Yeah, that was a pretty bad generalization.

But who wouldnt love a hairy, bumpy, flat-chested girl?

I agree with you ElectricD... we're not all dogs.. I will want to be able to carry on an intelligent conversation with my lady everyday until we're both wrinkly and saggy.

catefrances

puremagic wrote:

catefrances wrote:

i find cheerleading to be a dichotomy. its seen as somewhat wholesome and all american and yet a girl in a cheerleading outfit or 'naughty' school uniform(hi there britney!) is such a sexual turn on for guys so inclined.

To parents their daughters are just participating in a school activity or their girls are adhering to a school dress code policy.

Who makes it a dichotomy? Is it the outfit or the person wearing the outfit or is it the person who has attached their “forbidden fruit” sexual fantasies to the outfit? Cheerleaders are viewed as the hot, popular girls, who get everything they want and need to be brought down a notch, where as girls in school uniforms are perceived with ‘purity’, yet viewed with a hidden ‘dirty’ girl side.

You used the word ‘naughty’, but, I would guess that surely every girl, who is a cheerleader or wears a school uniform, is not a turn on. You could apply this to countless other women professions, nurses, teachers, CEOs, tennis players, etc. etc., yet the fantasy exists. So who makes it a dichotomy?

i used the example of the cheerleader and the schoolgirl because they are children. and yes i understand that in everyday life these girls are adhering to uniform policy. and yes i was speaking in generalities. you are correct when you mention nurses and teachers. and you will notice that when these types become 'naughty' their hemlines rise skyhigh and the neckline lowers considerably, so by your own guess, it is not all nurses, teachers etc...

puremagic

catefrances -
but think about how its okay for girls to 'dress as boys'.. trousers shirt, tie whatever... and how not okay it is for boys to 'dress like girls'. why is that... is dressing like a girl degrading? is being a girl degrading?

The church and society degrades and stigmatizes men who wear women’s clothing, not women. You could go back to your outfit and uniform scenario, there are male cheerleaders and boys in school uniforms; for the better part, they are not viewed as sexual objects, in fact, often when a person gets pissed at them they are degraded by being called out as a homosexual.

There is nothing about being a female that is degrading, it’s the ‘she was asking for it, look at her outfit, look at her job, look how she carries herself’ rational that is associated with all females in order to justify a person’s actions that is degrading.