Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism & neo-burlesque part 3

porn-industry1.jpg

Author's note: If you haven't already done so, please read part 1 and 2 of Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism & neo-burlesque!

porn-industry

porn-industry

The Porn Wars

Pornography is an issue that has dogged the feminist movement for decades, causing feminists to split into warring factions and ultimately weakening the impact that could be achieved through greater solidarity. Second wave feminists fought against pornography on the basis of what they believed to be harmful and objectifying treatment of women.  Today, many women who consider themselves sexually empowered are not only consuming pornography, they are emulating adult film stars in their clothing and behavior, and calling it freedom.

How can this one topic produce such opposite reactions among those whose shared ideals are women’s liberation and equality?  For one thing, not all sexually explicit material is created equal.

There is nothing necessarily misogynistic about sexually explicit content; if women are to be truly free to enjoy sex without guilt or judgment, they should feel free to participate in and consume this material if it appeals to them.  However, there is a great deal of pornography which does in fact exploit women by erasing their identities and using them as sexual objects, and much worse in some cases, violence and degradation being sold under the guise of entertainment and pleasure.

Our conflicted feelings about porn reflect part of the struggle of the Third Wave to find “a new approach to feminism that acknowledges women’s sexuality, and even the desire to be sexy, while at the same time remembering the fine line between sexiness and objectification” (Sarracino & Scott, 2008 p. 183).  Condemning all pornography will not do us any good.  Porn and its derivatives abound on the internet, television, and throughout popular culture, and would be nearly impossible to expunge.  Besides that, it can be downright unattractive for the feminist movement to present an excessively prudish or restrictive image if the goal is to have men and women self-identify as feminists and to contribute to the movement's goals.

A History of American Pornography

It is shocking to think that the most violent and degrading pornography today may have had its roots in a seemingly innocuous staple of childhood: the comic book.

During the 1940s and 1950s comic books were hugely popular, and were actually read primarily by adults, not children.  Roughly 30% of women and 40% of men were regular comic book readers (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 61).  Popular storylines featured patriotic themes, and the American male was the hero often sent to save the helpless “good girl” from the enemy ‘other’ (Nazi or Japanese soldiers were often the villains in these stories).

Rosie the Riveter

Rosie the Riveter

When American men returned from World War II, they found that ‘Rosie the Riveter’ had come along and changed society, reducing men’s economically dominant position.  Women in the workforce caused a “crisis of American masculinity” (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 67).

The resentment we can imagine these men experienced is exhibited in the comic books of the time.

The danger presented to female victims gradually took the place of the hero as the focal point in the typical comic book plot.   Sexual brutality toward women in comic book stories increased.

wonderwoman_large

wonderwoman_large

One very noteworthy exception was that of Wonder Woman, a comic book heroine who was created around this time by William Moulton Marston.  She was designed explicitly as a feminist superhero and never made into a sex object.)  In other comics though, for sins such as infidelity, maternal laxity, and choosing career over marriage, women were punished by such fates as stabbing, strangulation, decapitation, electrocution, and suffocation (Sarracino & Scott, 2008).

In 1954 the government cracked down with the Comics Code Authority to rid comic books of “sex, violence, gore, sadism, crime, and horror” (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 62).  Afterward, comic books fell out of favor with men, and were replaced by men’s adventure magazines, something of a mix between pulp fiction and a literary magazine.  For fifteen years, these popular magazines offered stories and illustrations, often featuring women in lingerie being menaced by various threats, and by 1960, the reader was no longer associating with the thrill of heroism, but with the sadism of the villain.

Women were often whipped bloody on the covers of these magazines, when they were not being dismembered, dipped in acid or molten metal, or beheaded (Sarracino & Scott, 2008).

Men’s adventure magazines, which sold “fear and anger” with stories like “The Homosexual Epidemic,” were the opposite of the glossy, hip, Playboy, which debuted in 1953, and sold “pleasure and joy” with advertisements for the latest stereo equipment and interviews with intellectuals and celebrities (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, pp. 13,72).  Another important figure of the nineteen-fifties was the famous Bettie Page, who appeared in many photos and short films involving themes of BDSM (bondage/domination/sadomasochism.)

bettie

bettie

Bettie Page's images were fairly harmless and playful, even tongue in cheek.  There was always a certain knowing smile and agency in her work.  She was “both an active participant, enjoying acting out the erotic scenario with other female actors, as well as blatantly communicating to her viewer the absurdity of the whole scenario” (Willson, p. 149).

Much of the burlesque and some porn of the mid-century showcased the women’s identities and relied on their performances; however, Playboy has always favored an uncomplicated and arguably vacant though decidedly non-violent portrayal of women.  As Playboy founder Hugh Hefner put it in a 1967 interview:

vintage playboy

vintage playboy

We are not interested in the mysterious, difficult woman, the femme fatale, who wears elegant underwear, with lace, and she is sad, and somehow mentally filthy.  The Playboy girl has no lace, no underwear, she is naked, well washed with soap and water, and she is happy (Hugh Hefner, as cited in Levy, 2005, p. 58).

This ‘girl next door’ image is still the one favored in the ever popular Playboy today.

The floodgates of pornography opened in 1972 with the unprecedented success of Deep Throat, the first Hollywood-like pornographic movie.  The ‘plot’ was based on the premise of a woman whose clitoris was located in her throat.  The film used humor to “tell us to lighten up, not to take it seriously” (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 15).  Linda Lovelace was its star (a.k.a. Susan Boreman, who later went on to join the feminist movement and described her experience in Deep Throat as riddled with hard drugs, spousal abuse, mobsters, and threats at gunpoint).  Another popular porn film followed, called Behind the Green Door which also featured a new star, Marilyn Chambers.  This film used hip music and made a celebrity of its leading lady to make people feel more comfortable.  These new, glamorous films helped open the door for pornography to work its way out of the fringes of American culture and move toward the mainstream (Sarracino & Scott, 2008).

Backlash Against Pornography

Pornography has always come under fire by patriarchal religious groups still espousing puritanical attitudes toward sex.  Ironically, these views of sex can still be found in modern porn – sex is ‘dirty’, ‘nasty’, the women who engage in the sex acts are often referred to as ‘sluts.’

In addition to religious groups, feminists too have taken issue with pornography since the 1970s, for its treatment of women as ‘sex objects,’ the questionable treatment and safety of its performers, and for the effect it may have on the society that consumes it.  However, for some years feminists were more concerned with issues like abortion, leading up to Roe v. Wade in 1972.  In 1975, when Susan Brownmiller wrote Against our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, she commented that “There can be no ‘equality’ in porn…[which,] like rape, is a male invention, designed to dehumanize women, to reduce the female to the object of sexual access, not to free sensuality from moralistic or parental inhibition” (Brownmiller, as cited in Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 173).  The movement at the time believed that violence was inherent to working in porn films, and they assumed that pornography represented rape.  Feminist groups, such as Women against Violence against Women, Women against Pornography, and Women against Violence in Pornography and Media rose up against this threat.

In 1983, feminists Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin led the anti-porn crusade.  They drafted an ordinance in the city of Minneapolis that would make porn a civil rights violation against women, arguing that pornography should not be protected under free speech, because it was not just speech, but an action carried out on female victims.  The ordinance was shot down, but the conservative politicians of Indianapolis soon asked for their help in cleaning up their own city.

Although these Reagan-era Republicans opposed abortion rights and the Equal Rights Amendment, feminist leaders Dworkin and MacKinnon aligned themselves with them on the pornography issue.

The ordinance was signed into law in 1984, but it was soon overturned by federal courts on the grounds that it was unconstitutional.  They had succeeded at raising awareness about the darker side of porn; unfortunately they had produced rancor and dissention within the feminist movement by getting into bed with the right-wingers.

The politics of Dworkin and MacKinnon were too severe for many feminists, even prompting the use of the term “MacDworkin extremism” (Sarracino & Scott, 2008 p. 179.).

dworkin

dworkin

The message in Dworkin’s book Intercourse, published in 1987 was widely interpreted as ‘all sex is rape,’ although Dworkin has said that her intent was to point out that domination is always an aspect of sex in an unequal society.

Below is an excerpt from Intercourse:

Intercourse occurs in a context of a power relation that is pervasive and incontrovertible.  The context in which the act takes place, whatever the meaning of the act in and of itself, is one in which men have social, economic, political, and physical power over women.  Some men do not have all those kinds of power over all women; but all men have some kinds of power over all women; and most men have controlling power over what they call their women – the women they fuck (Dworkin, 2006, p. 158-159).

Another harsh passage reads:

[W]omen feel the fuck… as possession; and feel possession as deeply erotic; and value annihilation of the self in sex as proof of the man’s desire or love, its awesome intensity….sex itself is an experience of diminishing self-possession, an erosion of self.  That loss of self is a physical reality, not just a psychic vampirism; and as a physical reality it is chilling and extreme, a literal erosion of the body’s integrity and its ability to function and to survive…  This sexual possession is a sensual state of being that borders on antibeing until it ends in death. (Dworkin, 2006, p. 84)

In her lifetime, Dworkin had been a sex-worker, as well as a feminist activist and academic, and suffered from a great deal of abuse in her life, much of it sexual abuse.  This wide range of experiences would lend credibility to her words, but they seem to describe what a person might feel regarding rape rather than consensual sex.  Applying these ideas to include all sex between men and women is to grossly overstate the point.  Given the irrational nature of her sweeping claims, it is hard to believe her words could have had as much impact as they did.

This kind of exaggeration not only contributes to a stereotype of hysterical and paranoid feminists, it would have been difficult for many women to relate to such statements.  Therefore, not only did this approach alienate those outside the movement, it also scared away existing sympathizers and cost the movement the loss of some potential new supporters.

Feminist conferences, such as the Barnard Conference of 1982 got ugly as factions formed (Comella & Queen, 2008).  Feminists who did not support the anti-porn movement felt they were “being denied space and credentials to speak for [them]selves” (Comella & Queen, 2008, p. 280).

They began using the term ‘sex-positive feminist’ to differentiate themselves from the anti-porn movement, despite the fact that anti-porn feminists were thus incorrectly categorized as ‘anti-sex’ by default.

Since this controversy, sometimes called the ‘sex wars’ or the ‘porn wars,’ feminism has never been as unified as it once was.  By the end of the 1980s, feminism was greatly dispersed. The anti-porn feminists who have carried on are still sometimes dogmatic and intolerant of others’ opinions, such as at a recent national conference where anyone not identified with the anti-porn stance was excluded (Sarracino & Scott, 2008 p. 181).

American Porn Thrives

As the feminist movement lost momentum, porn gained it.  Since the boom in the seventies, pornography has crept further and further into the mainstream.

Today, porn is a ten to fourteen billion dollar a year industry (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 9).  Certain popular media have helped make porn seem more ordinary and acceptable, such as the sexed-up music videos featured on MTV.  Arguably, the pop culture icon who has had the most influence on sexual attitudes was Madonna.  Whether or not you are a fan of her music, her public persona, or her political antics, it is difficult to deny Madonna credit for all she did to shake up ideas about women’s sexuality during the heyday of her career in the 1980s and 1990s.  Madonna associated herself with the gay community before it was considered cool.  Gender-bending has been a popular theme in Madonna’s work.  “I think I have a dick in my brain.  I don’t need to have one between my legs,” she has said (Madonna, as cited in Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 96).  She brought highly sexualized images into mainstream culture through her music videos, live performances, films and books.  She created an image of empowered female sexuality, even domination.  In 1990, feminist dissenter Camille Paglia wrote “Madonna is the true feminist.  She exposes the Puritanism and suffocating ideology of American feminism, which is stuck in an adolescent whining mode” (Paglia, as cited in Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 94).

Madonna

Madonna

Madonna’s brand of feminism helped shape the attitudes of third wave feminists, prompting such proclamations as that of Elizabeth Wurtzel in her 1998 book Bitch, “These days putting out one’s pretty power, one’s pussy power, one’s sexual energy for popular consumption no longer makes you a bimbo.  It makes you smart” (Wurtzel, as cited in Baumgardner & Richards, 2000, p. 141).

Sarracino & Scott (2008) cite Madonna’s “Open Your Heart” video as a prime example of this sexual power, where she posed as a peep-show performer.

Yes, she seemed to be saying, you can view my performance, you can even thrill to my body, but in doing so you give me control over you…The audience…must pay to keep open the panels through which they gaze… The power…is completely unshared.  It is Madonna’s alone (p. 95).

Another strong media presence to push the sexual envelope was radio talk show host Howard Stern.  Stern’s show, which was nationally syndicated for many years and is still available on uncensored satellite radio, regularly featured adult film stars as guests.  It was Howard Stern who gave porn star Jenna Jameson the publicity that would eventually lead her to have the most successful career of any adult film star.

Jenna Jameson has become famous for ‘crossing over’ into mainstream pop culture, by appearing in guest spots on the E! Channel and in films like Howard Stern’s Private Parts (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 105).  Her industry peers laud her abilities as an actor (Morgan, 2006), and her autobiography was a bestseller in 2006 (Levy, 2005).  Her unique career has made her a much-discussed figure in the study of porn’s increased public acceptability.

One of the things that might make Jameson more likeable in the mainstream is that her work does not feature blatantly cruel treatment of women, and she typically looks like she is enjoying herself onscreen.  Surprisingly, her films also tend to contain themes of female self-empowerment (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 108).  In 2005, Jameson starred in a remake of The New Devil in Miss Jones where the main character’s damnation is based on her failure to take control of her personal, professional, and sexual life.  This theme is actually quite popular in high-end pornography, and would seem to suggest there is some progress being made in these areas (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 112).

Gays and lesbians have helped pave the way to changing the range of what is represented in porn.  LGBT activists have used pornography as an important tool in their activism as sexuality is central their politics.  Now feminist porn has emerged, and is growing with companies such as Candida Royalle’s Femme Productions.  Today, there are even Feminist Porn Awards.

Feminist porn is characterized by things like beautiful settings, attractive lighting, more seduction with less mechanical-looking close-ups of penetration, more real orgasms, and more average body types.

Of course, most importantly, feminist porn does not feature women being treated badly. A history of porn would lack integrity if it did not acknowledge the existence of a deplorable side to pornography.

Merriam Webster offers three definitions for pornography:

1:  the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

(Merriam Webster, 2009)

The 'dark porn' that falls under the third definition has little, if anything, to do with the first two definitions.  It is not sex that is being sold here, but the truly obscene: violence and degradation.  Dark porn actor Bill Margold offers this insight:

My whole reason for being in the Industry is to satisfy the desire of the men in the world who basically don’t much care for women and want to see the men in my Industry getting even with the women they couldn’t have when they were growing up… I believe this.  I’ve heard audiences cheer me when I do something foul on screen.  When I’ve strangled a person or sodomized a person, or brutalized a person, the audience is cheering my action, and then when I’ve fulfilled my warped desire, the audience applauds (Margold, as cited in Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 117-118).

Gory horror films sell the same brand of ‘pornography,’ even when explicit sexuality is not a factor.  If porn is becoming more mainstream, does this mean that the darkness of violent porn will follow suit?  One could say that it already has.

Going back to the comic books of the midcentury, we could follow the trail of sensationalized violence up through the ‘slasher movies’ that have been selling out box offices for decades.

The overall effect on society is difficult to measure; however no study has proven that porn causes increased violence toward women (Jensen, 2007). In fact, strangely, between 1993 and 2005, rates of reported sexual assault dropped anywhere from sixty to eighty-five percent, despite the increased availability of porn via the internet (Sarracino & Scott, 2008) (D’Amato, 2008).  It has even been suggested that this decrease in rape may be attributable to internet pornography (D’Amato, 2008), but no one has convincingly proven any correlation between the two.

Please stay tuned to this blog for parts 4-6 of Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism and neo-burlesque. As always, thank you for reading!

References

Allen, R., (1991). Horrible prettiness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Baldwin, M., & Evans, D. (2004). Burlesque and the new bump-n-grind. Denver: Speck Press.

Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Bergner, Daniel (2009, January 22). What do women want?. The New York Times, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=2

Brumberg, J. (1998). Thebody project, an intimate history of American girls.  New York: Vintage Books.

Buszek, Maria. Pin-up grrrls. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.

Celizik, M. (2009) Her teen committed suicide over ‘sexting.’ Todayshow.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/

Clements, A. Power to the penis or viva la vulva? The Feminist Stripper, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.geocities.com/alysabethc/feministstripper.html

Comella L. & Queen, C. (2008). The necessary revolution: Sex-positive feminism in the post-Barnard era. The Communication Review, 11.

D'Amato, A. (2008). Porn up, rape down. Northwestern University school of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

Dworkin, A., (2006). Intercourse. New York: BasicBooks.

Ensler, E. (2004). The good body. New York: Random House, Inc.

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. The science of beauty. New York: Random House, Inc.

Fargo, E.L., (2008). The fantasy of real women. Master’s thesis, Ohio State University.

Goldwyn, L., & Augustyn, J. (2006). Pretty things. New York: Regan Books.

Hartley, N. (1997). In the flesh. Whores and other feminists. Nagle, J. New York: Routledge.

Jensen, R., (2007). Getting off. Boston: South End Press.

Levy, A., (2006). Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press.

Lykins, A.D., Meana, M., Strauss, G.P. (2008). Sex Differences in Visual Attention to Erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37(219-228).

Meana, M. (2009). Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire. Manuscript in preparation.

Merriam Webster Online. Definitions retrieved March 17, 2009. Web site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nagle, J. (1997). Introduction. Whores and other feminists. Nagle, J. New York: Routledge.

Nevid, J., a., S., & Greene, B. (2007). Abnormal Psychology in a Changing World. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rand, A. (1961). Pride. The Objectivist Ethics. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from Ayn Rand Lexicon Web site: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html

Sarracino, C., & Scott, K. (2008). The Porning of America. Boston: Beacon Press.

Siegel, D., (2007). Sisterhood Interrupted. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

Timmons, D. (Director). (2009). A wink and a smile [Documentary]. USA: First Run Features.

Tyler, C. (2009). Personal interview. See Appendix C of this document.

Urish, B. (2004).  Narrative striptease in the nightclub era. (Received via personal communication December 2, 2009.)

Willson, J., (2008). The Happy Stripper. London: I.B. Tauris.

Wolf, N. (1996). Thebeauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Doubleday

Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism & neo-burlesque part 2

backstage
backstage

Author's note: If you haven't already done so, please read part 1 of Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism & neo-burlesque!

Old and New Burlesque

The original period of burlesque occurred in America from about the 1890s to the 1950s.  In the irreverent, satirical tradition harkening back to fifteenth-century Italy’s commedia dell’arte, burlesque featured dancing, music, acting, and comedy that parodied high culture and society. In the early days, it was seen as essentially a more risqué version of vaudeville theatre.  In an effort to compete with high-quality vaudeville shows, burlesque incorporated striptease, something their “family-friendly” competitors could not offer (Fargo, 2008).  Even though striptease was not introduced until the second half of this burlesque period, by the end of the 1920s, stripping was the main draw of burlesque.  The rest – variety acts, comedy – were just filler (Baldwin 2004, p.9).

As burlesque became more salacious, it drew negative attention from the public, as well as the law.  The police frequently raided burlesque theatres throughout the 1930s.  When burlesque was outlawed in New York City in 1937, (ironically, New York City would later become a place of burlesque’s rebirth), it lived on throughout other major American cities and with national tours (Fargo, 2008).

Burlesque fizzled out in the 1950s and 1960s, possibly due to the increasing popularity of television.

One of the permutations of burlesque that did survive was go-go dancing in the 1960s, where women danced in cages or on stages, which eventually morphed into strip club dancing. Eventually, pornographic films and strip clubs offered full nudity, making the burlesque performances that had once caused a stir to appear quite innocent by comparison.  “By the early 1980s, the art of revealing a woman’s body had become more like a gynecological examination” than a sultry, suggestive entertainment.  Stripping was becoming “big business, not show business” (Fargo, 2008, no page number available).

The rediscovery of burlesque in the 1990s may have been due in part to the ‘cleaning up’ of Times Square by New York City officials, such as then-mayor Rudy Giuliani, who closed down the neighborhood’s sex shops and peep shows.  Burlesque shows, which seemed higher class, rose up in their place.

On the heels of the swing dancing craze, “retro-lovers” were drawn to burlesque’s classic aesthetic, and a tattoo-adorned subculture sprang up around its reinvention (Baldwin, 2004, p. 18)  In 2002, neo-burlesque even found its way into mainstream culture when its icon Dita Von Teese, who was married to rock star Marilyn Manson, graced the cover of Playboy.

Why Bring Back Burlesque?

Michelle Baldwin (2004) states eloquently, though not with complete historical accuracy, “In what can only be described as a moment of collective subconscious, these young women, whose mothers had burned their bras, discovered that they actually liked their bras and thought they might look lovely covered in sequins, taken off, and tossed into the stage lights” (p.47).  Despite the fact that the ‘bra-burning feminist’ is only a mythical caricature that popular memory has drawn of the second wave feminist, Baldwin makes an interesting point.  Historically, burlesque had catered to a working-class male audience, and to stereotypical male fantasy.

“If early twentieth-century burlesque was ‘everyman’s’ entertainment,” Baldwin (2004) argues, “then new burlesque is ‘everywoman’s’ entertainment.  Women come to burlesque looking for what they think is sexy and what can make them feel like they’re sexy too” (p. 129).

What prompted this generation of women to take an interest in reviving the lost art of burlesque?  Perhaps, growing up after the sexual revolution, this generation was looking to exercise their newfound sexual freedom.  “Within the striptease routine, the power oscillates between the audience and the performer.  The performer can feel the power that comes from manipulating the audience with her sexual energy as well as knowing that their voyeurism is only made possible through her willfulness” (Willson, 2008, p. 138).

Nina Hartley – porn star, sex educator, and registered nurse, lists the many positive qualities of sex work.  While the term “sex work” more commonly refers to prostitutes, porn stars, and others that engage in actual sexual contact in their work, many of these attributes would seem to apply to burlesque:  “Enhanced self-image, sexual variety, creating a platform for my ideas about sex and society, creative erotic expression, exhibitionism, fantasy fulfillment, and economic gain.” (Hartley, 1997, p. 58).  Similarly, many dancers consider their work in traditional strip clubs empowering.  In my former career as an exotic dancer, I recall feeling an enormous sense of economic empowerment, and a certain freedom in rebelling against the unwritten ‘rules’ of society.However, the typical strip club does not put the dancer in control.  To the average club’s management, dancers are a dime a dozen, and are to be regarded with indifference at best.

Perhaps what taints strip clubs the most is the emphasis on monetary exchange; the woman strips, the man tips.  Because of this structure, both the dancer and the patron have a certain advantage over the other, and there is a constant need for negotiation that often threatens the pride of both parties and keeps them fearful of being ‘had.’  While new burlesque rarely provides the same earning potential as ‘stripping,’ it does provide a platform for mature entertainment in a more respectful, positive environment.

Jacki Willson (2008) asserts that “burlesque utilizes the controlled act of veiling and unveiling to question stigma, to question shame, to question restrictive disempowering roles and sexual, gender and class relations in society” (p. 131).

The new burlesque has many advantages over the type of performance available in strip clubs.  It provides a place for sexual expression on a woman’s terms.  The costumes are better made, the acts more inventive.  The audience is generally a mix of diverse, respectful men and women, often encompassing a full spectrum of sexual orientation and gender identities.  The dancing is better choreographed and better performed.  The sets are more creative.  There are typically no greedy, pimpish managers.

Although for most new burlesque performers it will probably never pay the bills, without the emphasis on money the dancers are free to express themselves without compromising their self-expression.

Sex and the Modern Feminist

The term “postfeminist” has been used by some writers, implying that since the sexual revolution, feminism is no longer needed, and the generations that would follow would not identify themselves as feminists.  It was Rebecca Walker who wrote in 1992, “I am not a postfeminism feminist.  I am the Third Wave” (Walker, as cited in Buszek, p. 331).  Third wave feminists have grown up in a post-sexual revolution era, but there are still many of us dedicated to women’s freedom and equality.

Where does the Third Wave stand in terms of our sexuality?  For one thing, we are more vocally pro-sex; we don’t want to be denied access to our sexuality by social taboo or ignorance.  However, we struggle with the notion of ‘sexual empowerment’ and what it looks like in practice.  How public should our sexuality be?  How much attention do we want to pay to our appearances, and how much attention do we want to receive?

Our convictions here as a movement are fuzzy.  At a Women’s Studies Conference in 2007, Third wave feminist icons Jennifer Baumgardner and Amy Richards gave a talk addressing such questions as “Can feminists wear lipstick?” and their answer was essentially that feminists can do whatever they want, that the movement needs and wants as many people as possible to identify themselves as feminists.  There is no need for anyone to feel excluded simply because they are heterosexual, because they get their pubic hair removed through waxing, or even because they oppose abortion.  It is true that every woman should ultimately make her own informed choices.  However, as feminists have long pointed out, ‘the personal is political.’

The personal choices we make take place within the larger context of a shared society, and our struggles can and should be shared.

Objectification

pole dancer
pole dancer

The main criticism against sexualized displays of women’s bodies such as stripping and pornography is the ‘sexual objectification’ of women.  Anti-pornography scholar Robert Jensen (2007) provides a good definition of sexual objectification: “the way in which women’s full humanity is lost and they are reduced to the sum total of their body parts, and the sexual pleasure men get from that” (p. 112).  However, not everyone sees objectification as necessarily bad.  In the film A Wink and a Smile, burlesque performer Miss Indigo Blue states that as part of a process of “radical self-acceptance,” the burlesque performer “invites herself to be objectified” (Timmons, 2009).  Nina Hartley (1997) makes some interesting points in her essay “In the Flesh.”  She describes her process of entering sex work as an avid feminist, asking herself, “What were the gaps of logic in feminist criticisms of objectification and was objectification ever okay?… Could I defend my position with feminist philosophy and arguments?” (p. 57-58).  She explains how she came of age in the seventies, when “the received truth on sex was that men’s objectification of women was the root of all gender inequality… At the same time, other women suffered for never being the object of anyone’s desire” (Hartley, 1997, p. 63).  Hartley (1997) grapples with the problem of objectification reasoning that, “Since we can’t experience most people on deeper levels, everyone is, at least initially, an object to others.” (p. 64).

Though sexy media images, and even pornography are not necessarily bad, most popular sexualized representations of women strip away the woman’s personality, effectively reducing her to a pretty, but vacant body at best.

Alysabeth Clements (2009), author of the “Feminist Stripper” website, argues that it is acceptable for the woman to be invisible in a strip club because she is in the service industry.  However, such representations reinforcing in their male audience unhealthy beliefs about women; in the extreme they are likely to contribute to the incidence of violence and rape perpetrated by men who see women as less than human.

I do not propose that we rid our culture of sexual material, only that women be represented as whole, autonomous human beings.

Michelle Baldwin (2004) notes this distinction as well, commenting that “the burlesque performance is about sex and issues related to the body, but it’s not focused on the audience’s sexual gratification… it instead gets the audience members thinking about the entire woman and what she’s thinking, feeling, and creating, and the ideas around the act she’s doing” (p. 53).

Much of this gnashing of teeth over the issue of objectification could be avoided by observing a simple distinction: that to be the object of someone’s sexual desire and a sex-object are not one and the same.

When a woman is seen as a sex object, she has no agency, no voice.  She is not viewed as a whole person, which makes it easier for an abuser to excuse him or herself for mistreating her.  Alternatively, to be the object of sexual desire simply means that someone desires you, not that they devalue your other human qualities.  To make sure my point is clear: when a woman’s body is used for sex with no regard for her as a person, she is being objectified.  When someone is taken advantage of, or coerced into doing things she is not comfortable with, she is being exploited.  However, when someone looks at a woman and finds her sexually appealing, without losing sight of the fact that she is a real person and deserving of respect, she is simply being desired.

Writer Emily Layne Fargo points out that for the neo-burlesque performer:

sexual display is transformed from something ‘passive,’ where they offer their bodies up for visual consumption, into “a complicitous and reciprocal pleasure.”  The audience at a neo-burlesque show may enjoy looking at the performers; it may even turn them on. But the performers are looking right back, and deriving just as much pleasure from the experience. Neo- burlesque performers delight in “explor[ing] their very objectness,” putting into vital practice a statement made by Joanna Frueh in her book Erotic Faculties: “[a]s long as I am an erotic subject, I am not averse to being an erotic object.” (Fargo, 2008) (Frueh, as cited in Fargo, 2008).

Again, the use of the word “object” in this last sentence is not intended to refer to dehumanization of the “erotic object.”

Please check out parts 3-6 of Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism and neo-burlesque. As always, thank you for reading!

References

Allen, R., (1991). Horrible prettiness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Baldwin, M., & Evans, D. (2004). Burlesque and the new bump-n-grind. Denver: Speck Press.

Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Bergner, Daniel (2009, January 22). What do women want?. The New York Times, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=2

Brumberg, J. (1998). Thebody project, an intimate history of American girls.  New York: Vintage Books.

Buszek, Maria. Pin-up grrrls. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.

Celizik, M. (2009) Her teen committed suicide over ‘sexting.’ Todayshow.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/

Clements, A. Power to the penis or viva la vulva? The Feminist Stripper, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.geocities.com/alysabethc/feministstripper.html

Comella L. & Queen, C. (2008). The necessary revolution: Sex-positive feminism in the post-Barnard era. The Communication Review, 11.

D'Amato, A. (2008). Porn up, rape down. Northwestern University school of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

Dworkin, A., (2006). Intercourse. New York: BasicBooks.

Ensler, E. (2004). The good body. New York: Random House, Inc.

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. The science of beauty. New York: Random House, Inc.

Fargo, E.L., (2008). The fantasy of real women. Master’s thesis, Ohio State University.

Goldwyn, L., & Augustyn, J. (2006). Pretty things. New York: Regan Books.

Hartley, N. (1997). In the flesh. Whores and other feminists. Nagle, J. New York: Routledge.

Jensen, R., (2007). Getting off. Boston: South End Press.

Levy, A., (2006). Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press.

Lykins, A.D., Meana, M., Strauss, G.P. (2008). Sex Differences in Visual Attention to Erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37(219-228).

Meana, M. (2009). Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire. Manuscript in preparation.

Merriam Webster Online. Definitions retrieved March 17, 2009. Web site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nagle, J. (1997). Introduction. Whores and other feminists. Nagle, J. New York: Routledge.

Nevid, J., a., S., & Greene, B. (2007). Abnormal Psychology in a Changing World. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rand, A. (1961). Pride. The Objectivist Ethics. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from Ayn Rand Lexicon Web site: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html

Sarracino, C., & Scott, K. (2008). The Porning of America. Boston: Beacon Press.

Siegel, D., (2007). Sisterhood Interrupted. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

Timmons, D. (Director). (2009). A wink and a smile [Documentary]. USA: First Run Features.

Tyler, C. (2009). Personal interview. See Appendix C of this document.

Urish, B. (2004).  Narrative striptease in the nightclub era. (Received via personal communication December 2, 2009.)

Willson, J., (2008). The Happy Stripper. London: I.B. Tauris.

Wolf, N. (1996). Thebeauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Doubleday

Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism & neo-burlesque part 1

slutcracker2009
slutcracker2009

Honey Suckle Duvet and other performers in Boston's Holiday Burlesque show: The Slutcracker.

Dear Readers,

I wrote this piece and took the accompanying photos for a research project while completing my degree in Women's Studies in 2009-2010, therefore some of the research is out of date. I've been wanting to share it and decided to do so here on my blog.

I've abridged the piece slightly and broken it up into sections to make it a little more digestible.  I've got a short version of "Why I love Burlesque" planned, but in the meantime -- here's the long version!

I hope this sparks your curiosity about burlesque - if it does, be on the lookout for a burlesque workshop series with yours truly coming SOON!!

Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism and neo-burlesque

Most people would not make any distinction between the neo-burlesque movement that is gaining popularity all over America and the type of performance done at a typical strip club, perhaps imagining slightly better-made or more retro-inspired costumes.  You might be surprised to learn that today's burlesque is closer to ‘fringe theater’ than it is to stripping.  In fact striptease, though often a part of burlesque, is not all there is to the art form.  Historically, burlesque has encompassed many types of performance.  It was originally a more adult version of vaudeville, and the many traditions used included music, dance, acrobatics, pantomime, drama, comedy, clowning, and more.  This tradition carries on to this day, making burlesque difficult to define, but it is characterized by the use of comedy and political satire, sometimes with racy content, and often including striptease.

Many performers and fans of new burlesque find these performances empowering, even feminist, because they allow women to publicly express themselves sexually, on their own terms, and often in ways that subvert popular expectations.

In twenty-first century America women struggle with cultural expectations that are evolving, and at times confusing.  Compared to women in previous generations, we have overcome many obstacles that traditionally kept women from experiencing independence and equality; however, as double standards loosen, as women gain autonomy and freedom, our society still reflects lingering discomfort with women’s sexuality in general.  Sadly, sexually empowered women seem easier for society to deal with when they are treated as objects (less than human), than when they are given a voice and social power.

A few years ago, 18-year-old Jesse Logan took her own life after being labeled a ‘slut’ and a ‘whore’ when she used her cell phone to send her boyfriend a topless photo of herself, which he later distributed to other students at their school.  Though her parents and the media blamed the tragedy of Jesse’s death on the problem of ‘sexting,’ (a word used to describe erotic text or picture messaging via mobile phone), her suicide was probably more directly caused by the problems of bullying and shaming (Celezik, 2009).  Jesse was bullied for acting on perfectly natural sexual desires.  Teenage sex is nothing new.  Unfortunately, the considerably pronounced mistreatment of teenage girls who act on these desires is nothing new either.  Since the days of the Puritans, our culture has punished 'sluts.'

Feminists may espouse differing opinions on specific issues, but most would agree that feminism is an ideology defined by its support for the fair treatment of women in society.  If this is so, why doesn’t everyone, especially women, proudly call themselves feminists?

Some would chalk it up to apathy.  Although modern feminists do seem more personally motivated and less politically oriented than feminists of previous generations, there are other reasons for the unpopularity of the feminist label.

One of these barriers lies in feminist stereotypes that many find unattractive.

The feminists of the late sixties and early seventies had a colossal task trying to create new possibilities for women outside the traditional role that Betty Friedan referred to as ‘happy housewife.’  These radical women questioned the status quo and rejected institutions that did not serve their interests.  Sometimes they rejected the things associated with traditional femininity to help promote radical social change.

The image of the unfeminine feminist persists, and it can scare away women who wish to be identified with traditionally feminine gender traits.

Today, the essence of porn shows up everywhere in American culture, and women’s willing participation in this trend of sexualization has prompted some critics such as Female Chauvinist Pigs author Ariel Levy (2006) to conclude that women would currently rather exploit themselves than admit defeat at the hands of an ever-dominant patriarchy, (a word used to describe a male-dominated social system).  These critics say that today’s young women are selling out rather than fighting for their rights the way past generations did.  However, it is not necessarily the culture or media that have caused these women to embrace seeming self-objectification; it may instead be the new-found sexual freedom, the waning of Puritanical values that causes these women to choose sexual self-expression.

In addition, we may need to revisit the concept of objectification and stop using this as our rote response to all things sexual in our culture.  Rather than continuing to condemn sexually explicit media, we might embrace opportunities to publicly honor our sexuality, and the re-emergence of burlesque seems to provide an outlet for this.

Others disenchanted with traditional second wave feminist politics are those who espouse ‘sex-positive’ or ‘pro-sex’ feminist values.  Carol Queen defines sex positivity as the recognition of sex as “a potentially positive force” in people’s lives (Comella & Queen, 2008, p. 278).  Sex-positive feminists are generally seen as “Less academic and less theoretical than the anti-pornography group,” drawing their convictions on the premise that they do not wish to be censored or have their sexual behaviors proscribed for them (Sarracino & Scott, 2008, p. 179).

I embarked on this research to find out why I, and many other educated feminists were not only un-offended by burlesque, but in fact attracted to it.  My attraction to burlesque left me conflicted.

As a ‘classically trained’ feminist scholar, I felt there was something hypocritical about being drawn to something that on the surface seemed un-feminist.  However, my previous experiences working in strip clubs, the work of burlesque performers I had seen and read, and my collaborations with burlesque performance troupe Iron Heart Circus left me wondering if feminists were mistaken about the issue of objectification.

Perhaps some types of bodily display could be feminist and empowering.

Jacki Willson took on the issue of objectification versus empowerment in the new burlesque movement in her book The Happy Stripper, but was ultimately unable to resolve the debate.  “This is a tricky issue… The system both empowers and exploits,” Willson (2008) writes in her conclusion (p. 174).  It seemed that this movement needed a more definitive stance than this.  Willson’s (2008)problem with burlesque is that “Without being coupled with an ironical, critical or reflective questioning of sexual power, erotic display risks falling immediately back into unchallenging, stereotypical ‘off the shelf’ readings of female sexuality – vulnerable, silent and fake” (p. 148).  When I began this research, I feared that despite my fondness for burlesque, this was probably the case – that it did tread too close to the line between sexual freedom and perpetuating stereotypical notions of women as sex objects.  Having researched the matter, I have now put these fears to rest.

Research Methods

To get to the root of burlesque’s potential as a political art form, I thought it best to speak directly with performers about their personal politics.  First and foremost, why did they choose to perform burlesque?  Did these women self-identify as feminists?  Did their personal politics, feminist or otherwise, inform their work?  Was exploitation or objectification ever a problem for them as performers?  Did they see burlesque as empowering or dis-empowering, and could they convincingly defend their positions?

I conducted qualitative interviews with five neo-burlesque performers: Boston solo artist Honey Suckle Duvet, Carrie Tyler and Crissy Trayner, co-founders of New Hampshire’s Iron Heart Circus, and UnAmerika's Sweetheart Karin Webb and Jill Gibson, burlesque and drag perfomers, and co-creators of Axe to Ice Productions, a Boston-based company which puts on cabaret and burlesque variety shows.

My other research included participating in rehearsals and performances and writing new material with Iron Heart Circus.  I also attended and photographed numerous burlesque performances by various artists, and informally interviewed burlesque fans and performers including members of the Boston Babydolls and the cast of Boston’s “Holiday Zeitgeist Spectacular,” The Slutcracker.

Please check out parts 2-6 of Fleshing it out: sex-positive feminism and neo-burlesque. As always, thank you for reading!

References

Allen, R., (1991). Horrible prettiness. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Baldwin, M., & Evans, D. (2004). Burlesque and the new bump-n-grind. Denver: Speck Press.

Baumgardner, J., & Richards, A. (2000). Manifesta. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Bergner, Daniel (2009, January 22). What do women want?. The New York Times, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?_r=2

Brumberg, J. (1998). Thebody project, an intimate history of American girls.  New York: Vintage Books.

Buszek, Maria. Pin-up grrrls. Durham: Duke University Press, 2006.

Celizik, M. (2009) Her teen committed suicide over ‘sexting.’ Todayshow.com http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29546030/

Clements, A. Power to the penis or viva la vulva? The Feminist Stripper, Retrieved May 14, 2009, from http://www.geocities.com/alysabethc/feministstripper.html

Comella L. & Queen, C. (2008). The necessary revolution: Sex-positive feminism in the post-Barnard era. The Communication Review, 11.

D'Amato, A. (2008). Porn up, rape down. Northwestern University school of Law, Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913013

Dworkin, A., (2006). Intercourse. New York: BasicBooks.

Ensler, E. (2004). The good body. New York: Random House, Inc.

Etcoff, N. (1999). Survival of the prettiest. The science of beauty. New York: Random House, Inc.

Fargo, E.L., (2008). The fantasy of real women. Master’s thesis, Ohio State University.

Goldwyn, L., & Augustyn, J. (2006). Pretty things. New York: Regan Books.

Hartley, N. (1997). In the flesh. Whores and other feminists. Nagle, J. New York: Routledge.

Jensen, R., (2007). Getting off. Boston: South End Press.

Levy, A., (2006). Female Chauvinist Pigs. New York: Free Press.

Lykins, A.D., Meana, M., Strauss, G.P. (2008). Sex Differences in Visual Attention to Erotic and non-erotic stimuli. Archives of Sexual Behavior 37(219-228).

Meana, M. (2009). Elucidating women’s (hetero)sexual desire. Manuscript in preparation.

Merriam Webster Online. Definitions retrieved March 17, 2009. Web site: http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Nagle, J. (1997). Introduction. Whores and other feminists. Nagle, J. New York: Routledge.

Nevid, J., a., S., & Greene, B. (2007). Abnormal Psychology in a Changing World. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

Rand, A. (1961). Pride. The Objectivist Ethics. Retrieved March 17, 2009, from Ayn Rand Lexicon Web site: http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pride.html

Sarracino, C., & Scott, K. (2008). The Porning of America. Boston: Beacon Press.

Siegel, D., (2007). Sisterhood Interrupted. New York: Palgrave MacMillan

Timmons, D. (Director). (2009). A wink and a smile [Documentary]. USA: First Run Features.

Tyler, C. (2009). Personal interview. See Appendix C of this document.

Urish, B. (2004).  Narrative striptease in the nightclub era. (Received via personal communication December 2, 2009.)

Willson, J., (2008). The Happy Stripper. London: I.B. Tauris.

Wolf, N. (1996). Thebeauty myth: How images of beauty are used against women. New York: Doubleday

Follow my blog with Bloglovin