Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Whatcha think about that?
Asda or Morrisons are far better.
that a pound shop for fatties would be right up your street?
She had a trolley full to the brim with pizzas and burgers. The girl serving on the checkout was nearly as fat but was also bright orange.
I don't go to Iceland anymore.
I mean. That's pretty special, right? :-)
I spent quite a lot of time on the thread title.
conjuring up unwanted images of karate dwarf Coleman, yet still drawing the reader into a psychedelic wail of interactive ennui by asking what you thought, my own opinion remaining hitherto unknown.
I think it's quite a good move tho, in all seriousness. Strip clubs are one of those businesses that are "only just" legal, and so all manner of wideboy and quasi-gangster are drawn to it.
yep - its pretty great in general. Although I wonder how that applies to burlesque - that's one area I know several friends of mine would be sad to see band, as they very much enjoy doing it.
like buying Nuts magazine when you really want a copy of Razzle. Pathetic.
but I meant the people who actually do the burlesque, rather than the people going to see it. Fetishism Lite or whatever.
in the pint glass except there's more velvet and tassles involved, paler skin and the pretension that it's art.
Strip clubs are invariably a hollow experience with a foetid atmosphere. Incredibly functional. ~ Razzle
Burlesque nights are normally funtimes with a cheeky atmosphere. Not, in themselves, a means to an end. ~Agent Provocateur catalogue.
Yer Nuts equivalent would be going down to the local Jumpin Jacks nightclub and letching at the WAG wannabes as they neck bottles of WKD. A complete farce, and not actually sexy.
I might start writing down stuff you say in case I need to get witty with anyone later.
would be generous. uninformed and inexperienced would be nearer the mark.
I just disagree. I think both conventional strip shows and burlesque nights are as hollow as each other and are very very similar apart from one knows what it is whilst the other one pretends it's something else.
same end product but one was full of suits and the other hipsters. To me there is no great difference between Dita Von Teese twatting about in a big glass to a stripper at Spearmint Rhino twirling around a pole.
is a reasonable example of all burlesque shows, which, frankly, is as absurd as your 'getting her bits out for a pound' comment from above, though a lot less obnoxious.
What we generally see as burlesque, these days, in the mainstream (as part of most tv coverage that it gets), is packaged up and made slick.
Yer actual burlesque contains all manner of comedy, daftness and general vaudeville-ery.
To put things simply, strip clubs often put the emphasis (predictably enough) on the strip, and little else.
Burlesque puts the tease in striptease.
I know that she's the postergirl for burlesque as much as the pigeon detectives are for indie music but it's just a name that came into my head first.
my overall point still stands though
I really don't think your overall point still stands at all. But there's clearly little room for further discussion, so I'll add my "cheers" to yours and bid you a good day.
a) Burlesque audiences appreciate the subtelties of the performance, would respect the dancers during the show, and would be able to lok the girls in the eye afterwards. Which is why so many girls do it as little more than a hobby that maybe pays a few quid here and there. And they include guys in the shows. And the club nights are attended by couples as a matter of course.
b) Strip joint audiences would have no qualms about objectifying the dancer, would just be in it for the show of quim (which invariably arrives, and arrives without any real build-up at all cos that doesn't generate profit in these places). And there will be no rapport with the audience, it's just a case of get 'em off cos here's your dosh. And where the audience is, as you say, 'suits'.
Gross generalisations, obviously, but tho say there's no distinction between the two is wrong. Or maybe you've been to crap burlesque shows and relatively decent strip joints.
that there are plenty of burlesque shows in which comedy and gender satire are the dominant elements rather than eroticism.
although good luck trying a chat up line ;-)
Marckee is about nine steps ahead of the rest of us.
"When, even though technically you fought for the choice, there was a horrendous slutty backlash based around WAGs and Jordan?"
Plenty have women have no grasp of the idea of equality.
Sure, there are some women who aren't 'active feminists' but subscribe to feminist principles.
But plenty of women call 'emselves feminists but aren't.
Furthermore, some don't understand the question, and aren't feminists.
Additionally, some women simply don't care cos 'they're alright Jack'*.
Sad but true.
not all are the more extreme sort, but you could argue that there are feminist principles behind any modern woman
But, sadly, there are women out there who don't care about having a job or her own money cos they're happy to bag a man and leave it to them. Their choice.
Deciding whether on not to have children or use birth control or have the freedom to choose who to be in a relationship with or have the choice of whether to get a higher education or not. More often that the first couple of points these will no doubt tend to be choices that women don't take advantage of in this country due to religion or imposed 'culture' etc. But these women do exist. The problem arises when it's not their choice. But there are no laws preventing women from doing any of these things.
The 'sex industry debate' ain't quite as clear cut as any of these examples. There are no doubt shady goings ons, but they probably(?) fall into the category of worker's rights or planning issues than issues of sexism.
The debate as to whether strip clubs should exist at all, or whether it should be "illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees" has not in any way been closed in the way that a the principles of a women's right to education or a job have been.
I do accept that these are issues where womens' basic freedoms are being suppressed. But some of these things are so fundamental as to be straight-up human rights issues.
Yes, if we're talking about worldwide issues rather than those in Iceland, the UK, or 'the west', then feminist issues are a massively big deal that need urgently addressing in many ways in many countries.
But in Iceland, the UK, or 'the west', supposedly feminist approaches are applied to a few areas where it's not as simple as being a gender suppression issue.
The blanket legislation about nudity that's mentioned in the article will not solve the problems related strip clubs etc. In fact, it has the potential to create unintedned side-effects worse than the problems that do exist.
You can't make something go away just by making it illegal for consenting adults.
I'm trying hard to get my point across without appearing to be dismissive of feminism as a concept. I hope that's apparent.
Now I know this is a very female-centric issue, but... on the cover of attitude magazine there's a nekkid lad draped over the knee of a be-suited guy.
Take a look: http://www.trojanpublishing.co.uk/images/magazines/large/attitude_190.jpg
At first glance, I thought it was a nekkid lass. Clearly not. It's "profit from the nudity of its employees". But there will never be an outcry about this sort of stuff cos there are no women involved. If it were a woman over the knee, it'd be SRS BSNSS and as labelled as sexist cos of the dominance thing. But it's not.
Anyway, I don't have a massive point to make here, other than that the exploitation of visible flesh ain't a feminist issue. See also: Diet Coke adverts.
And whilst we're talking adverts, there seems to be a really big ongoing trend for stuff that's based around the premise of 'Men, eh? Aren't they rubbish at loads of stuff?'
I think it's worth remembering that this issue (if it's an issue at all) isn't all one way traffic by any means.
But then maybe it's a case of 'you would say that, wouldn't you', because I'm a guy who isn't on the receiving end of so much of the prejudice and the 'sexism towards men' stuff is just the tip of an iceberg that, as a guy, I wouldn't see.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is this: Nudity is not automatically a sexism issue.
going to be easily killable with a piece of flint and some gasoline.
Also, the likes of that magazine cover are still a touch shocking because its something unexpected, but the fact that you *assumed it was a woman* in the first place says a lot about the current frame of mind regarding male/female balance.
So yes, both sexes can be exploited, but it's much, MUCH more prevalent on the other side. You know my points are solid, and now you've met me you can picture my smug face ;-)
...as I acknowledged.
Doesn't mean that it can't be critiqued. Two wrongs don't make a right, and all that. Or zero wrongs, depending on your standpoint.
"the current frame of mind regarding male/female balance" - Yup. And? Prevalence ain't a measure of right or wrong.
You've fleshed out the descriiption of the situation, but offered no opinion.
Is this about that lapdance I gave you?
What I'm saying is, I would see the attitude thing as an avant garde shock tactic, precisely because this isn't in any way a standard in culture. It's why it bothers me less - it's more about the taboo than the skin.
It's the norm, however, for women's flesh to be everywhere, so while of course two wrongs don't make a right, I'm glad they're dealing with this one first.
Just "because this isn't in any way a standard in culture", and in this case 'a man thing' amongst what are usually issues about issues affecting women, doesn't mean that it's absolved from being included in a debate about profit from nudity.
I'd say this kind of example brings into focus the fact that you can't make blanket legislation about nudity.
but they havent done that. They've shut down strip clubs and clamped down on trafficking, bro
toward women when 'they do it to men too and the media doesn't report it'.
Which is a valid statement to make IF you're doing something about it to change the fact, like actually taking it to the media and the public. If you're just saying it and doing nothing, you don't care about the cause in the first place, and therefore you're just trying to belittle a cause or goal with a counter point.
When people say MEN ARE ALSO USED FOR GRATIFICATION, like wza (sorry wes), I'd be interested to know if they have, or will ever, do anything about it. Because if not, it can't be that pressing a concern...
they have banned many male underwear ads on the grounds of sexual equality
it ends up being censorship of the human image, it's worrying as a cultural phenomenon
there's is clearly a difference between sexualising an actual person for profit and producing sexualised images for profit but the difference is not so easy to prescribe in law
but I'm saying: banning strip clubs is a good thing, and guys are prone to suddenly bringing up examples of sexism towards men whenever feminist principles are mentioned, without actually doing much but saying it for the sake of it. It's like the ultimate strawman.
than a blanket decree that nudity for profit is wrong
in fact it almost puts the blame onto the wicked females instead of onto the anti-social behaviour of males
This is what I mean about strawman!
I gracefully withdraw. And will lightly salt the egg on my face.
it's difficult to say without analysing the source text but as it is presented I think it's a bit dodgy
"the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing..."
The journo seems fairly unequivocal about it.
i can tell you that that doesn't verify anything either way.
but it's a spectacularly bad piece of journalism if it puts something as plainly as that, but doesn't mean it.
Which wouldn't be surprising, I suppose.
Let's all go to a strip club to celebr-
it takes a lot to make naked women seem depressing and soulless, but strip clubs generally manage it
But just because something's depressing and soulless, doesn't mean that it's ripe for banning.
"Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs."
There are BIG differences batween
a) profit from nudity (do we really want to ban this)
b) profit from sex (it's a grey area, and deserving debate)
c) profit from sex trafficing (surely no room for a defence of this?)
"a) profit from nudity (do we really want to ban this)"
i understand what you're saying, but what i'm saying is: where did anyone takl about entirely banning nudity anyway? It's not come up anywhere has it?
"the law, which was passed with no votes against and only two abstentions, will make it illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees."
But i stand by the fact that whenever this sort of issue comes up, when suddenly add the 'men get it too' counter point, almost as if its a revelation. And it just clouds/diminishes the original issue
but it's not a revelation. You can't justify one thing by saying 'it happens to other people too'. It's not an argument, but it frequently appears in anything feminism related.
It was more an observation of that than further arguments. Men in subjects like this are often compelled to always add the second wrong, to make it right
And I tried my best not to simply say "It's the same for men. The End."
But the 'obscurity' of the example still stands as a pointer to why the line shouldn't necessarily be drawn where many would have us believe it should be.
You see what happens when people really want to debate, DiS? Things get cool.
I simply meant to throw light on the difficulties of a wider interpretation of the letter of a law such as this one
but I'm pretty sceptical of puritanical crusades
this kind of cultural imposition does as much to sexualise the body as anything else
if nudity is going to always be related to sex and female nudity to be related to exploitation and victimisation then I think that is a shame
I also don't think that it's the State's business to control the body
Selling nudity, live, printed or otherwise, is different to selling actual sex.
Strip clubs (the ones that don't 'do extras round the back') sell 'the idea of sex'. See also: Anschul's "censorship of the human image" re: Beckham. It's a fairly big difference.
And even the places that do 'do extras round the back' are always gonna exist. There will always be someone offering someone else money in return for sex.
This set of laws in Iceland is not gonna address any of the issues of exploitation or sexism by making it "illegal for any business to profit from the nudity of its employees".
It looks mostly like political PR
I mean, I'm all for heads of state steering their populace toward a more enlightened path but Government imposing moral regulations on the adult citizenship smells bad - and ultimately gives fuel to the opposition
The (apparent) legislation we're discussing does not address issues of sexism, or equality, or human rights in any meaningful way when compared to the clearly noble aim of clamping down on sex traffiing.
The two things are entirley different, but it appears that they're being rolled up into the same group of disussions, almost as if one promotes the other. Yes, there will be a link of some kind cos they're both related to the 'sex industry'. But we're getting back to that age old chestnut of correlation != causation.
As you say, it's a purely moral judgement on the nudity issue.
And as I've said up ^there, "You can't make something go away just by making it illegal for consenting adults."
Big Whoop. There aren't any strip clubs in Azerbaijan either. Trust me, I've looked.
did anyone watch the third part of 'Women' on the BBC the other night?
They were focussing on the modern wave of feminist activism amongst young women in Britain.
There's been a fair amount of press attention on various mid 20's - mid 30's women who have become involved in an array of feminist causes over the past few years.
It was very London-centric though and without exception, they were all middle class, university educated and from comfortable backgrounds. However, the overwhelming majority of feminists (at least in the developing world) have always been from such backgrounds.
Quite a good response in the Guardian the other day though in which the (female) journalist was arguing that feminism in this form is very much the preserve of the privileged who have little to worry about themselves and so attach themselves to fringe issues. They all seemed to be wrapped up in the campaign against lap dancing clubs, pornography when these are by no means the most serious issues around.
Several other young women (middle class, educated, etc etc) who were investigating these groups (Object and London Feminist Network) seemed unable to relate to them and explained that they didn't necessarily have a problem with some of the things that they were campaigning about.
There seemed to be a general failure to understand that they (the activists) were only speaking for their fringe groups and not for their gender as a whole.
Stereotypes were confirmed left, right and centre by some of the leading lights of these groups....they WERE lesbians, they WERE vegetarian, they WERE CND and one of them was even wearing a tee shirt with Hugo Chavez on it.
Interesting viewing all the same and a few of these young women were quite inspiring, but others seemed utterly confused, but desperate to be part of something. Anything.
And I agree with all the points you've made here.
It was toe curlingly cringeworthy.
So many of the issues were a dead end in terms of femenism. They were almost uniformly issues about human rights or whatever rather than issues about one sex vs the other.
The one thing where I had to pause for thought was with the 'reclaim the night' thing. I said to my gf that safety on the streets at night was a general issue and that violence on the streets was statistically more likely to be perpetrated against males (by males, obv).
My gf pointed out that whe doesn't feel safe walking along 'Street A' at night, but I /do/ walk home along that street. Whilst I do walk home along that street, I'm not massively comfortable about it. Although (due to my male bravado?) I prefer to play the percentage game and choose to walk home along that street in knowledge of the fairly low statistical likelihood that there will be any problem, and a defiance that I'm not gonna fall into the trap of living in tabloid fear.
But having said all this, it was still a shame that there seemed to be a gender divide on this particular issue. Which is a real shame/problem.
That's all I know.