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.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 99 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people know that politicians are disreputable. Still doesn't stop them from being coverboys.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I think the majority of the costumes are flesh-colored fabric rather than actually exposed skin. Perhaps to avoid a wardrobe malfunction?
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
What aspectre is saying is that suit-wearing executives, with their phallic ties, are also figureheads meant largely to be ogled.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 99 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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).
posted
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 Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's going in circles. "They have to be female because the job says they have to be female."
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Showgirls" are female because males in the same costume and doing the same job are called "drag queens." It's a matter of terminology.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
