What Should Be Done About Erotic Dance?

[Sunstone]

Well the way I look at it. A woman dancing erotic is an issue because of

1. She shouldn't be showing her body like that and needs to respect her body (which implies that she doesn't, which may not be true).

2. This idea that she doesn't respect her body is reflected in people who believe because she is into erotic dancing means that any advances they make at her is justified because
A. Those who respect themselves would not put themselves in such a position.
B. She's asking for it.

Overall it becomes the person who is dancing who is responsible for making sure you do not act on your desires. Not yourself.

Thanks for the clarification! I see what you're saying now, and I agree with you that is most likely the attitude of at least some people -- and probably, in my opinion, quite a few people.

So, if I understand you, you would also say that a project to reduce or eliminate the audience's sexual objectification of the dancers would need to address blaming the victim, too, because blaming the victim supports and sustains sexual objectification? Is that something you'd say? Or am I off base here?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I'm just not sure that, no matter how hard it might be in practice to not objectify, that it is actually impossible to not objectify. You see, I think I myself am able to attend strip clubs without objectifying the women. But the problem with using myself as an example is that I'm both delusional and crazy, so I'm an unreliable witness.

As for the semantics of it, Kilgore: The responses in this thread that are ****** up for no better reason than semantics is both hilarious and enough to make a sane person despair of humanity. Thank goodness I'm not sane.

Meh - being sane by society's standards requires a lack of intelligence and creativity that I couldn't imagine being confined to.

I guess my whole problem with the concept of objectification, as it is usually presented, just seems far to simplistic to me, and doesn't accurately convey anything useful about human perception and interaction. Then again, I've often been accused of "thinking too much" and/or "making things too complicated." Apparently, verboten practices for regular, sane people.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Thanks for the clarification! I see what you're saying now, and I agree with you that is most likely the attitude of at least some people -- and probably, in my opinion, quite a few people.

So, if I understand you, you would also say that a project to reduce or eliminate the audience's sexual objectification of the dancers would need to address blaming the victim, too, because blaming the victim supports and sustains sexual objectification? Is that something you'd say? Or am I off base here?

Yup.



"I wouldn't have to do it if you didn't make me feel X or Y"

Feeling lust or whatever is one thing. Acting on it and how you treat people is another.

That's the power dynamic aspect. Once it is decided that the blame could just be put on the victim, then you can do whatever you want.

So I look at it as

1. Associate the persons actions with some form of weakness (evil, stupid, dumb)

2. Once that association is made accept that you are better than the person because you do not have that weakness.

3. Proceed to blame the person for whatever weakness you may have in reaction to their action.

4. Objectify the person to reduce your weakness.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Tis clear that the dancers are doing the best they can, so the greatest opportunity
for reform is in their audience. We need more caring & enlightened voyeurs.

I think that would help, too. Is it possible to encourage enlightened voyeurism by recreating the environment and infrastructure? Maybe hire professional and competitive pole dancers, belly dancers, and other exotic dancing professionals to be under the same roof?

Would that offer the audience a different experience, rather than simply hoping for a private lap dance at some point of the night?

 

[Me Myself]

This is by no means the first time you have done this. It is not even the second time you have done this. It is only the most recent time you have done this.

I'm pretty certain you are an intelligent enough person that you could, if you wanted to, start your own thread. And I'm even almost as certain that you are intelligent enough to come up with premises for that thread that you completely agree with. So it puzzles me (and it is beginning to anger me) that you always act as if you wish to derail my threads with childish whining about how much you disagree with their premises, etc, etc, etc.

I want you to stop doing that.

Well, I voted. I honestly didnt know you wanted an actual discussion of the such (on my view) extremely narow parameters beyond the vote.

I think the question about the line between normal sexual desire and "objectification" is a valid one and I didnt really find an answer in the OP.

I do consider myself an intelligent person, but many times it is guesswork for me to imagine when I am "off topic" and when I am not. When I make several posts and you just answer something in the lines of "nope thats not what I meant" you could also say "I think you will never get it and I am not interested on telling you, so please stop postin in here" if that is what you prefer.

It has been puzzling to me when I ask question sometimes long posts with honest inquiries about the premises and they are almost completely ignored. I wouldnt say it has come to anger, but to the least it has been stresful yes, specially because as you have put on another thread, sometimes you present lines of thought or frames of mind so different to mine I find interesting.

So, that.

Sure, I dont feel I am dumb, but the frames of mind may be so different I take it almost as guesswork when you feel I am off subject. Specially with almost no aid and tons of ignoring.

Its your call. Its a bit disappointing because I do think you are an intelligent person and that's why I had been interested in your answers and topics in the first place.

So, that.

 

[dawny0826]

So would promoting male strip dancing help? Since somehow if both sexes do something it doesn't "objectify" one anymore.

I think that erotic dancing in general, is a rather objectifying action, as one's action becomes a product of sorts.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that would help, too. Is it possible to encourage enlightened voyeurism by recreating the environment and infrastructure? Maybe hire professional and competitive pole dancers, belly dancers, and other exotic dancing professionals to be under the same roof?

Would that offer the audience a different experience, rather than simply hoping for a private lap dance at some point of the night?

I dunno.
I'll let the market sort out winners & losers.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I think that would help, too. Is it possible to encourage enlightened voyeurism by recreating the environment and infrastructure? Maybe hire professional and competitive pole dancers, belly dancers, and other exotic dancing professionals to be under the same roof?

Would that offer the audience a different experience, rather than simply hoping for a private lap dance at some point of the night?

Pole dancers with belly dancers...I don't know I doubt many professional belly dancers would be cool with that.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Pole dancers with belly dancers...I don't know I doubt many professional belly dancers would be cool with that.

Indeed, peoples' snobbery based on arbitrary distinctions can be quite amusing.

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps it would be fruitful here to raise the question of why people so often sexually objectify strippers?

I think there are many ways of answering such a question. Some of those ways are pretty straightforward. For instance, we live in a culture in which it is often deemed morally acceptable to sexually objectify people, especially if they are perceived to have loose sexual morals.

Beyond that, however, there is one reason that at the moment interests me the most: I think it's quite possible that many people sexually objectify strippers as a psychological defense against being intimidated by them.

In our culture, at least, people are frequently taught to avoid overt displays of their sexuality and the sexuality of others. Moreover, there may be reasons that people find such overt displays challenging. For instance, a man or woman (and I think especially a woman!) who is openly, frankly, or even blatantly sexual easily gives the impression that he or she is challenging conventional sexual morals. And that, I would suggest, is offensive to many of us.

But it might also be personally challenging to someone who believes in a male's privilege to dominate a woman's sexuality, to control and restrict it, and to exclusively possess her. In fact, I would submit it might be downright intimidating to some people.

If there is any truth to the above, then perhaps sexually objectifying strippers makes many people feel safer, less intimidated, and more secure in their privilege than they otherwise would feel while watching a stripper freely express her sexuality.

Does that make any sense?

 

[Poeticus]

Perhaps it would be fruitful here to raise the question of why people so often sexually objectify strippers?

Well, they are dead wrong, Sunstone.

The strippers can sexually objectify me!

Ya feel me!?!

 

[Sunstone]

Well, they are dead wrong, Sunstone.

The strippers can sexually objectify me!

Ya feel me!?!

I get your joke, but at the risk of being a bore, I'll mention that being objectified, including being sexually objectified, is something most of us resent when it happens to us. To be sure, M.V., most of us don't go around speaking of it as "objectification". That word is relatively rarely used, in my experience. But I wish I had a dollar for each time someone has complained to me of being objectified, even if they didn't use that word to describe what they meant!

 

[Me Myself]

Perhaps it would be fruitful here to raise the question of why people so often sexually objectify strippers?

I think there are many ways of answering such a question. Some of those ways are pretty straightforward. For instance, we live in a culture in which it is often deemed morally acceptable to sexually objectify people, especially if they are perceived to have loose sexual morals.

Beyond that, however, there is one reason that at the moment interests me the most: I think it's quite possible that many people sexually objectify strippers as a psychological defense against being intimidated by them.

In our culture, at least, people are frequently taught to avoid overt displays of their sexuality and the sexuality of others. Moreover, there may be reasons that people find such overt displays challenging. For instance, a man or woman (and I think especially a woman!) who is openly, frankly, or even blatantly sexual easily gives the impression that he or she is challenging conventional sexual morals. And that, I would suggest, is offensive to many of us.

But it might also be personally challenging to someone who believes in a male's privilege to dominate a woman's sexuality, to control and restrict it, and to exclusively possess her. In fact, I would submit it might be downright intimidating to some people.

If there is any truth to the above, then perhaps sexually objectifying strippers makes many people feel safer, less intimidated, and more secure in their privilege than they otherwise would feel while watching a stripper freely express her sexuality.

Does that make any sense?

It sounds interesting.

I wonder which are the behavioral ques you use to determine objectification takes place often with strippers. This may hint us a lot into answering your question I believe.

 

[Sunstone]

It sounds interesting.

I wonder which are the behavioral ques you use to determine objectification takes place often with strippers. This may hint us a lot into answering your question I believe.

Penumbra recently described what happened when a group of her guy friends in college went to see a strip show. She said they were all very nice, decent men. But after they came back from the show, they were describing the women they'd seen in terms that had been uncharacteristic for them. Such as describing them exclusively in terms of their body parts and then being very critical of those parts.

I imagine Penumbra meant she heard from them comments like, "Did you see that one woman? Her breasts were downright ugly! They sagged way too much! I wouldn't have sex with her if she paid me to." I've heard such comments myself from men, and the key is often the tone of voice in which they are said. That's something that cannot be easily conveyed here. Think, though, of someone saying those words contemptuously.

I believe the thing that most struck Penumbra was the contrast in the men's attitudes towards women before and after they'd been to the strip show. Before, they had been generally respectful of women. Afterwards, they were speaking in grossly disrespectful terms about the women they'd seen.

 

[Me Myself]

Penumbra recently described what happened when a group of her guy friends in college went to see a strip show. She said they were all very nice, decent men. But after they came back from the show, they were describing the women they'd seen in terms that had been uncharacteristic for them. Such as describing them exclusively in terms of their body parts and then being very critical of those parts.

I imagine Penumbra meant she heard from them comments like, "Did you see that one woman? Her breasts were downright ugly! They sagged way too much! I wouldn't have sex with her if she paid me to." I've heard such comments myself from men, and the key is often the tone of voice in which they are said. That's something that cannot be easily conveyed here. Think, though, of someone saying those words contemptuously.

correct me if I am wrng, but wouldnt that be analoguos to critisizing an actor's performance after a movie or a clowns inability to entertein kids or a magicians obvious tricks?

Woudl you say such things are also forms of objectification? (if at any point I sound off topic, tell me and if you may I would love to discuss this on my thread, so I can just move the quotes )

 

[Poeticus]

I get your joke, but at the risk of being a bore, I'll mention that being objectified, including being sexually objectified, is something most of us resent when it happens to us. To be sure, M.V., most of us don't go around speaking of it as "objectification". That word is relatively rarely used, in my experience. But I wish I had a dollar for each time someone has complained to me of being objectified, even if they didn't use that word to describe what they meant!

Hey, at least you got my weird joke and fantasy. It would have flown over other people's heads. Muahahaha!

 

[Sunstone]

correct me if I am wrng, but wouldnt that be analoguos to critisizing an actor's performance after a movie or a clowns inability to entertein kids or a magicians obvious tricks?

Not necessarily! I think you are very likely drawing a false equivalence between those things you've mentioned and what I was talking about.

I wasn't present to hear the men Penumbra describes, of course, but I believe I understand the sort of thing she was referring to. And I believe I've encountered very similar behavior in my own life. If so, then there is a clear distinction between merely criticizing an actor's performance, and reducing that actor to an object. One can criticize an actor's performance without at all implying the actor is no more than an object.

(if at any point I sound off topic, tell me and if you may I would love to discuss this on my thread, so I can just move the quotes )

Go ahead and move the quotes, if you wish.

 

[Me Myself]

Not necessarily! I think you are very likely drawing a false equivalence between those things you've mentioned and what I was talking about.

I wasn't present to hear the men Penumbra describes, of course, but I believe I understand the sort of thing she was referring to. And I believe I've encountered very similar behavior in my own life. If so, then a distinction between merely criticizing an actor's performance, and reducing that actor to an object, is that one can criticize an actor's performance without at all implying the actor is no more than an object.

but supposing the remarks where similar to what you say, they have not said anything that talks against her personhood. They have spoken about her being sexually undesirable.

Unless they value her personhood in terms of sexual desirability the remarks you put as an example (that we are both aware may be or may not be the likes of what penumba is talking about) do not need at all to be comenting on her personhood.

I mean I make jokes about people's jobs or occupations here and there with group of friends, is no biggy "that actor is so bad I wouldnt trust him acting his actual emotions out" or "He is so bad he shouldnt be acting" or "should be payed to not act" is not diminishing his personhood at all. It is of course destrying him verbally as an actor, but it has nothing to do with who he is as a person, and honestly such remarks said in group of friends can go there without it being serious.

They can get pretty rough if the person where in the room and if we are talking sbout delibertely hurting the person's feelings because they didnt satisfy you then I would agree that is morally wrong (though of course, actively trying to damage the person validates her feelings and as such her personhood (so you can make her hurt which is horrible, but still. One rarely actively wants to psychologically destroy objects) ) but that does not mean they are pretending the strippers were not humans.

Such remarks seem to only talk about their relevance in the strip club.

Go ahead and move the quotes, if you wish.

to me it depends on what you prefer

Just speak up if you do prefer so please

 

[Sunstone]

but supposing the remarks where similar to what you say, they have not said anything that talks against her personhood. They have spoken about her being sexually undesirable.

Unless they value her personhood in terms of sexual desirability the remarks you put as an example (that we are both aware may be or may not be the likes of what penumba is talking about) do not need at all to be comenting on her personhood.

I mean I make jokes about people's jobs or occupations here and there with group of friends, is no biggy "that actor is so bad I wouldnt trust him acting his actual emotions out" or "He is so bad he shouldnt be acting" or "should be payed to not act" is not diminishing his personhood at all. It is of course destrying him verbally as an actor, but it has nothing to do with who he is as a person, and honestly such remarks said in group of friends can go there without it being serious.

They can get pretty rough if the person where in the room and if we are talking sbout delibertely hurting the person's feelings because they didnt satisfy you then I would agree that is morally wrong (though of course, actively trying to damage the person validates her feelings and as such her personhood (so you can make her hurt which is horrible, but still. One rarely actively wants to psychologically destroy objects) ) but that does not mean they are pretending the strippers were not humans.

Such remarks seem to only talk about their relevance in the strip club.

If that's how it seems to you, so be it. I'll stick with Penumbra's interpretation of what took place, however, because I believe her to be a usually competent observer.

to me it depends on what you prefer

Just speak up if you do prefer so please

Go ahead.

 

[Me Myself]

Penumbra recently described what happened when a group of her guy friends in college went to see a strip show. She said they were all very nice, decent men. But after they came back from the show, they were describing the women they'd seen in terms that had been uncharacteristic for them. Such as describing them exclusively in terms of their body parts and then being very critical of those parts.

I imagine Penumbra meant she heard from them comments like, "Did you see that one woman? Her breasts were downright ugly! They sagged way too much! I wouldn't have sex with her if she paid me to." I've heard such comments myself from men, and the key is often the tone of voice in which they are said. That's something that cannot be easily conveyed here. Think, though, of someone saying those words contemptuously.

I believe the thing that most struck Penumbra was the contrast in the men's attitudes towards women before and after they'd been to the strip show. Before, they had been generally respectful of women. Afterwards, they were speaking in grossly disrespectful terms about the women they'd seen.

Not necessarily! I think you are very likely drawing a false equivalence between those things you've mentioned and what I was talking about.

I wasn't present to hear the men Penumbra describes, of course, but I believe I understand the sort of thing she was referring to. And I believe I've encountered very similar behavior in my own life. If so, then there is a clear distinction between merely criticizing an actor's performance, and reducing that actor to an object. One can criticize an actor's performance without at all implying the actor is no more than an object.

Go ahead and move the quotes, if you wish.

If that's how it seems to you, so be it. I'll stick with Penumbra's interpretation of what took place, however, because I believe her to be a usually competent observer.







Go ahead.

done.