The most recent issue of my college alumni magazine has an article on the mayor of Las Vegas, who's an alumnus. It's an interesting article, but one of the photos (admittedly, a small one) is of him flanked by two showgirls in typical showgirl dress! The photo is like the one in the upper right corner of this page, except there's a girl on each side of the mayor, everyone is standing, and the photo is cropped at waist level (so you see no flesh below the waist, but a lot of flesh above the waist).
Now, even as a man I was mildly offended by this attempt (conscious or unconscious) to sex up my alumni magazine. And if I felt this way about the photo, how many women do you suppose were really offended by it? Surely my college wouldn't want any of its students to become a showgirl?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Omega, don't you know? Showgirls aren't real. They are just decoration, like a sculpture or Christmas lights - they exist to make what's around them look more impressive. In a picture of the mayor with two showgirls, the only human is the mayor. Therefore, the magazine couldn't possibly be promoting showgirlitude as a career choice.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
What's wrong with being a showgirl? Is dancing in Vegas not a respectable occupation?
Also, showgirl != stripper
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not sure they were trying to sex anything up. Showgirls are icons of Vegas.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Surely my college wouldn't want any of its students to become a showgirl?
Yeah, heaven forbid any alumnus chooses a useful occupation like stage performance. Let them all aspire to be a bimbo prostitute like the mayor.
Posted by Pam Tyler (Member # 10595) on :
Omega, please don't be too offended. Showgirls are a part of Las Vegas, and Oscar is always promoting Las Vegas. Showgirls are much more photogenic than say, slot machines. Also, although they might be scantily clad, showgirls are definately not strippers. And did you read your linked article? I'd much rather they used the showgirls and not Bombay Sapphire or some of his past associates.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Showgirls are much more photogenic than say, slot machines.
Exactly. They are used as scenery, props, decorations. Not people.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Much like soldiers in that regard.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Or most human image props, from schoolchildren to cubicle workers.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Exactly.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo:
quote:Showgirls are much more photogenic than say, slot machines.
Exactly. They are used as scenery, props, decorations. Not people.
Yeah, but they're supposed to be sexy props.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
I'm pretty sure we could find many examples of women with modern dance and ballet degreese being showgirls. Why not?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I'm pretty sure we could find many examples of people with degrees in [whatever] working as [whatever].
(edited to remove unintended harshness)
[ September 17, 2007, 01:50 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
quote:Surely my college wouldn't want any of its students to become a showgirl?
Why would they not? It is a valid, respectable career choice that many people aspire to attain. There is nothing seedy or disreputable about it. They often require extensive training and vocational education. It could be a good thing for any dance program to have a good percentage of it's alumns be showgirls in Las Vegas.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:There is nothing seedy or disreputable about it.
What makes something disreputable? People thinking it's disreputable.
And I think that there are many people who do think that working as a showgirl is somewhat disreputable.
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
Thank you Vonk.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
I thought showgirls' costumes were designed to arouse. Maybe I'm mistaken.
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
My boyfriend is on a month long trip around the U.S. right now. Next stop: Las Vegas -- So I told him to make sure to see some showgirls. They are a huge part of the Vegas charm I think. I can think of quite a few types of dance that incorporate tight fitting clothing in small amounts as their usual atire.
(info: He's from Germany, which is why I'm giving tips on what to see.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I thought showgirls' costumes were designed to arouse.
In addition to other functions, sure. But if all you want is to be aroused, there are far better ways to spend your time and money in Vegas.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Most people know that politicians are disreputable. Still doesn't stop them from being coverboys.
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
And I think the majority of the costumes are flesh-colored fabric rather than actually exposed skin. Perhaps to avoid a wardrobe malfunction?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I totally agree with you, Omega M. I wouldn't want my school represented thusly. I think it's not such a good job to be a showgirl, though I'm sure it's possible to be a good person while doing that job. It's just sort of like being a waitress at Hooters. It's being paid to be ogled, which is not so good.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And what the bloody heck do you think a suit is being paid for? Ya'd think that neckwearing a phallic symbol pointing toward the crotch 'd be some small hint.
[ September 17, 2007, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
Well said, aspectre.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have no idea what aspectre just said.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What aspectre is saying is that suit-wearing executives, with their phallic ties, are also figureheads meant largely to be ogled.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
But it's not the same at all. Let's see the suits go mostly naked. They wouldn't feel comfortable like that at all. It's not at all the same.
That's like pretending pro football players and pro football cheerleaders have equal status. Their pay is vastly unequal, to start with. And the girls are being paid to show their breasts and be leered at.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If aspectre is saying that the modern business suit is meant to be sexual/sexualizing in the same way that showgirl outfits are, I'm going to have to pick "disagree".
Posted by landybraine (Member # 10807) on :
I get that skimpy outfits are part of what a cheerleader is/does, but I still enjoy watching them dance, and yes- they do get me "pumped" up, which is what I think they are supposed to be doing.
Can't we all agree that women's bodies are beautiful, mainly when the body is shown in a way that it can be appreciated, i.e. scantily clad or at best, the way nature intended it...naked. What's so wrong with naked? I wouldn't be half as excited to see cheerleaders if they were dressed in their Sunday best.
(edited for minor clarification of point)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I personally think that one of the sexiest things a man can wear is a suit.
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
sexy != sexual/sexualizing
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I fail to see your distinction. Especially since any good-looking man gets an extra "Rawr" factor if he's wearing a suit, in my book.
-pH
Posted by Goody Scrivener (Member # 6742) on :
I gotta agree with pH on this one. A well cut suit.... major rawr. And good suit plus nice face - especially eyes - oh man I'm melting.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
To clarify, I'm more offended by the showgirls being in my alumni magazine than by showgirls in general. The magazine just doesn't seem something into which this sort of sexiness needs to be injected.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I see the difference porter is stating.
It's the difference between a double entendre and a single entendre. Between the out of context thread and the e-mails offering to maximize body parts.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
Because their costumes are designed, in part, to be stimulating does not reduce their entire profession to the object of men's desires. I mean really, how many guys think, "Man, I am so in the mood. Let's go watch Chicago!"
Being a showgirl is nothing like being a waitress at Hooters [edit: not that there's anything wrong with being a waitress at Hooter's, just that the two occupations are nothing alike]. The only similarity I can think of is the gender requirement.
[ September 18, 2007, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
ph: I'm not sure I understand either. I'm guessing the distinction is between "sexy" as being an unintentional by-product of some other action, as in a man wearing a suit happens to be sexy without that being his intent. Whereas "sexual" and "sexualized" implies intent, or at least a primary purpose of that.
However, I may be interpreting wrong since the distinction becomes very hazy since some guys do get suits simply because women like how it looks (and would not otherwise get it).
Clarification?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: I mean really, how many guys think, "Man, I am so in the mood. Let's go watch Chicago!"
...... Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Related anecdote: One time we let the girls pick a movie while in undergrad, they decided to drag everyone to Chicago. *shudder*
The horror of that was only surpassed by a trip to see My Sassy Girl. While I luckily managed to avoid that bloodbath, I heard that that movie is truly horrible Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: ph: I'm not sure I understand either. I'm guessing the distinction is between "sexy" as being an unintentional by-product of some other action, as in a man wearing a suit happens to be sexy without that being his intent. Whereas "sexual" and "sexualized" implies intent, or at least a primary purpose of that.
However, I may be interpreting wrong since the distinction becomes very hazy since some guys do get suits simply because women like how it looks (and would not otherwise get it).
Clarification?
Even then, though...I mean, women buy swimsuits in order to go swimming. Many men find swimsuits sexy, and women often buy swimsuits that they feel are flattering. Does that make swimsuits sexual? 'cause most of the men I know who own suits do worry about them being good-looking suits. When I buy my business attire, I want it to look flattering (and often am given a lot more attention than if I'm just wearing jeans and a t-shirt). I suspect many other women do the same. Does that make my business attire sexual/sexualized? What is the distinction?
-pH
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The horror of that was only surpassed by a trip to see My Sassy Girl. While I luckily managed to avoid that bloodbath, I heard that that movie is truly horrible
Oddly enough, it's one of my favorites.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: Being a showgirl is nothing like being a waitress at Hooters [edit: not that there's anything wrong with being a waitress at Hooter's, just that the two occupations are nothing alike]. The only similarity I can think of is the gender requirement.
What, do you think, are the reasons for the gender requirements in those two professions?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:What, do you think, are the reasons for the gender requirements in those two professions?
Hooters - hooters. Showgirls - same reason there are only female ballerinas, I guess. Men are in many of the same shows, but their role is different. Many forms of dance have explicit male and female roles.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
That's going in circles. "They have to be female because the job says they have to be female."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Related anecdote: One time we let the girls pick a movie while in undergrad, they decided to drag everyone to Chicago. *shudder*
Chicago was a fantastic movie. It even won Best Picture....
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
I don't think it's coincidence that everyone I know that liked Chicago had either never seen the stage show or never been a part of live theater, and everyone I know who hated it had.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That's going in circles. "They have to be female because the job says they have to be female."
It may be circular, but that's how stuff like that often works. Why are baseballs white? Because that's just how tradition goes.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It glosses the real reasons - including the one for baseballs. There's a reason the tradition started.
For the showgirls, why they are female isn't an unanswerable mystery to be chalked up to the gods of tradition.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert Hugo: That's going in circles. "They have to be female because the job says they have to be female."
My tack here is just to recognize that showgirls are following the convention of dance in general and, supposing that there isn't a general disdain for dance, that showgirls should not be singled out as being more disreputable than other professional dancers.
BYU's ballroom dance team has women wear sexy outfits and uses flesh-colored fabric to present an illusion that even more skin is exposed. Perhaps someone in that organization has spoken out on why, given the church's stance on objectifying women, they don't believe that the disparity between the dress of men and women in their organization doesn't perpetuate that objectification.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
"Showgirls" are female because males in the same costume and doing the same job are called "drag queens." It's a matter of terminology.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
What Matt said [edit: several posts ago, I'm a little slow]. A showgirl is, by definition, a woman who dances in a chorus line or musical performance. There are also males that dance in chorus lines, but they are not called "showgirls". It's a female indicative name. Maybe we should change it to something like "Chorus Line Attendant," to be more PC.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: There are also males that dance in chorus lines, but they are not called "showgirls".
I wonder* why I've never seen these showguys in Las Vegas promotions.
(*not really)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Tresopax: So did Titanic and The English Patient More to the point, popular American opinion is not a very good determinant of what will be popular with a mostly male, mostly Asian, Canadian audience.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
I believe that has to to with what the PR and marketing companies decide is effective advertising based on consumer survey's, history, and the like. It says nothing about the performance or the performers. (depending on what ads you enjoy looking at. If you are looking at adult themed stage shows, well, that's to be expected. I'm actually trying to find an ad for Vegas that has a showgirl, with the expectation of also finding an ad that has a male dancer, but, alas, I can find neither. Lotsa tigers and people painted blue though.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: "Showgirls" are female because males in the same costume and doing the same job are called "drag queens." It's a matter of terminology.
dkw wins the thread!
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Well, if showgirls' costumes are as revealing as they are primarily to allow movement, they had me fooled. I know that most serious ballerinas and modern dancers wear tight and/or revealing clothing, but I don't recall seeing any dressed in the showgirl mode.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The feathers are apparently to help keep them aloft.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
No, no, the feathers are to turn on all the bird fetishers out there.
Posted by Loren (Member # 9539) on :
<chirp>
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: No, no, the feathers are to turn on all the bird fetishers out there.
Just like the Hooters outfits!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Are they honest? Are they competent in their jobs? Are they respected in their profession? Do they give to the community? If so, then why not be proud of them? They are performing a job you find distasteful, yes, but so what? Are they doing it well?
For that matter I'd rather see a showgirl on the cover than, say, the average televangelist or corporate lobbyist.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I swear, Chris, sometimes you really kick ***.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Only in tandem with 11 other commentors, to music.
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)