Trashy

"It's just so comical -- unleashing the sexual kitten inside flabby, overpermed suburban matrons -- that you (well, I) can barely work up the outrage." Wow. That made me really angry. I mean, really really REALLY angry. Are women supposed to stop being sexual when they hit forty? Could you have any more contempt here? I think I see your overall point (IE, the second paragraph), and I'm not all that sure you're wrong. But most of us will become slightly overweight middle aged people. I sure hope my partner does, in fact, still find me sexy then. I hope that after thirty years of marriage, we are, in fact, willing to try something a little 'out there' to keep ourselves excited about *each other* rather than looking outside of our relationship.

willing to try something a little 'out there' to keep ourselves excited about *each other* rather than looking outside of our relationship. I think this might be a key to the problem. We seem to have this sense that being constantly sexually stimulated, no matter how old and flabby and worn out we've become, is our metaphysical right. It's just absurd, and this belief leads to all manner of self-humiliation and inadvertent hilarity.

I suppose, as a woman, I'll always feel like I got the "raw deal" in the realm of sexual politics: when women have devolved to the point that they feel they must become willing participants in their sexual exploitation to feel "empowered", it becomes clear that we have a long long loooooong way to go. When my husband feels he has to meet with his buddies in their living room to fondle lotions and uncomfortable underclothes and practice moves sure to arouse ME, and keep me interested in the marriage bed, I'll *finally* feel like the playing field has been leveled. In the meantime, I'll pray that my marriage doesn't weaken to the point that the age old game of "whore and whoremaster" becomes a necessity (although I think I'd make a mighty fine whoremaster, my husband might not agree).

When you're not young and hot any more, there's a lot to be said for dignity. At our town celebration, we had two groups of dancers, one, women in their sixties and seventies doing a precision soft shoe routine - with grace and dignity, and the other, girls in their early teens doing a hip-thrusting booty-shaking crotch-spreading back-up dancer routine. Those older women were to be envied, I thought. They had and maybe still have their passions and desires, but they were never expected to simulate them for the world's eye. Kept private, those passions had more power to bind. A couple weeks ago I read about a professional basketball team planning to have an old woman cheerleader squad, in addition to the young. The picture showed a young cheerleader showing an 80 y.o. how to "shake it." It's a geek act - what ludicrous objects these old women will be. An old husband can still look at his old wife with desire - that's the beauty and grace of marriage, but it's plain silly to expect others to. And you can argue that these parties are to encourage or rekindle desire, but they're equivalent to just for for the evenings entertainment, telling your friends about what you do in bed with your spouse.

I really do think that modern feminism is in fact a Male Patriarchal Conspiracy...why else would we be told that it is "empowering" for us to behave like common sluts? What exactly is liberating about emulating women whose vocations consist of being leered at and fondled by strangers? Why is it all the rage now for female celebrities to be photographed receiving lap dances at strip clubs to the delight of their drunken and horny onlookers? Why is it considered "liberating" for drunken teenage girls to be filmed cavorting topless in videos that will be purchased by desperate men watching late night television? And why are loving marriages and family considered opressive instutitions that are best replaced by serial bed-hopping, hooking up, and casual encounters, followed by abortions as needed? Doesn't this sort of society sound a lot like a pimply adolescent male's fantasy world -- a porno movie come true?

A couple of weeks ago there was a report on NPR about the rise of pole dancing classes in China! I spit my coffee across the room laughing when I heard that the sales brochures for the class refered to pole dancing as a "top 10 folk dance in the world" which is "beloved by the American working classes".

"one thing that we could stand to recover about the Fifties -- aside from the great jazz -- was the expectation that grown-ups would act like grown-ups." Let's see, wouldn't this same socio-geographic stratus be the ones who were wife-swapping in the 50s? I'm troubled by the intent of many commentors to assign certain forms of sexuality only to certain age groups, based on some theory about what their like. I know a lot of women older than our esteemed blogmaster who would look pretty natural around a pole--but then they wouldn't be the "flabby, overpermed suburban matrons" (per RD)or "old and fat" (per Bugg) which seems to be the only kind of middle aged suburban women there are?!?!???. Geez, guys, **far** more men than women are overweight; it's comments like this that make you look misogynist. And now I'm confused, Rod: is your discomfort because these matrons are "flabby" or because they are "Botoxed, nipped, tucked, Viagra'd weirdo[s]"?

Rod, thanks for linking to your NRO piece. I don't think I've read that one before. Love the phrase "downtown freaky-deaks."

I gotta find me a set of those Chippendale's Cuffs with Collar. Then I'll be empowered too! But the question remains, "Boxers or thong?"

Rod's comments should be unnecessary; all anyone should have to do is take one look at the picture at the top of the article. I'd die of embarrassment if a picture of me doing that were in the New York Times. But I guess that's Rod's point. After the sheer cringiness of the whole thing, my practical mind thought: "Wouldn't that pole ruin my plaster ceiling -- or my wood floors?"

This is the same sort of thinking that makes some parents complain when schools enforce dress codes because "My kid has to be able to express herself" by wearing as little as possible. It's like it's wrong to expect children to cultivate real talents. Remember Cleopatra was no raving beauty. btw, I'm over 40 myself, but I don't dress like I'm under 20. I get a lot of flak from old fogey teens and twenty-somethings who are shocked that someone my age wears bright colors.

I think that it could be a fun exercise class. The woman in the picture isn't trying to be sexy. She's trying to work the pole. Look at the move: She has to pull herself up the pole. That takes a lot of arm strength. She has to pull her legs up and if she's really good, put them out in front of her. That takes incredible abdominal strenth. I would think that as the moves become more exotic, the body would need to be more flexible. This is really about strength training, flexibility, and having fun. I would feel a little embarrassed for these women if they were doing this scantily clothed and in front of a male audience. They aren't.

Men have been cheating since the beginning of time...a nice little piece of whore...I really think that it's a fantasy to think that sex with younger women all started 40 years ago. Sigh. This is another straw man argument. As you can read above, I never said anything about this fantasy land of men never cheating 40 years ago. What I said was that 60 years ago men were much less likely to dump their wives and families. This is simply factual. You can look it up. And a big reason, IMO, is indeed love - a woman you say is "home slaving over the hot stove after having scrubbed the floor on her hands and knees" for her family is far more likely to have her husband feel deep loyalty and yes, love for her. This will make him far more likely to treat her well for the love she shows him and his family...long after her looks are gone. Unless we are to believe men are generally scum no matter how loyal or loving their wives are to them. I mention this because it seems to be a pervailing opinion among many feminists these days. I don't buy it.

So where do I find the 20 something hottie???

And a big reason, IMO, is indeed love Women who work outside of the home are still working hard for the family, M_David. Unless we are to believe men are generally scum no matter how loyal or loving their wives are to them. I mention this because it seems to be a pervailing opinion among many feminists these days. I don't buy it. I don't believe that "in general." But I can come up with a few good real life examples of that being the case. I can think of a couple examples where the woman went outside of the marriage, too. I think that the difference is that, with feminism, both sexes are now the victims.

IMO, Rod and most of the commentators here need to be aware of the cultural biases they bring to this discussion - along with some incredibly dismissive stereotypes. Certainly, there's a case to be made regarding valid vs. invalid, appropriate vs. inappropriate, expressions of sexual nature in Western culture. But, we don't live in Western culture anymore, for good or for ill. We live in a melting pot of influences from Buddhist rock gardens to Peruvian blankets. My sense is that the vast majority of both the original article and Rod's analysis don't see the forest for the trees. These parties, these social gatherings, are not primarily about encouraging women to adopt a certain identity in how they relate to their husbands or sex partners. They are about the women. I think we'd all agree that men have many distinctively male ways of expressing their sexual natures that aren't primarily about sexual relations - the whole landscape of testosterone driven activities. Football, lifting weights, action movies, conveniently flexing a bicep after laps in the pool. What culturally we're not accustomed to is speaking publicly about equivalent female activities, particularly those influenced by non-Western tradition. IMO, again, you cannot even begin to understand the "pole dancing" phenomenon unless you understand the history and development of "solo dancing" or, as it is known in the West, "bellydancing". Read up on the anthropology of women gathering together and dancing in what men would consider a seductive way with only other women as an audience. The tradition is deep and complex, practiced in the midst of very ritualized cultures - the Muslim and Orthodox Christian regions. Then, take a deep breath, get away from what CS Lewis called the bigotry of defining all ideas and activities based on the past 50 years of human history, and see if this trend perhaps needs to be quietly nudged in the right direction rather than demonized from the rooftops. Bless, Doug

I agree with sigaliris. Douglas sees the big picture. This really is about the women. It sounds silly, but I bet they have a lot of fun. There are many signs that our culture is in the toilet, but I don't think that this is a good example. And I don't think that this is similar to the lubrication parties or whatever the other party was that Rod shared with us.

Doug, that's such an interesting perspective. I think that women often keep their sensual selves in check because in mixed company it's pretty much asking for trouble and can make all parties uncomfortable (not saying it's a bad thing at all, just a reality). With our spouses, sensuality is almost inevitably connected to sexual activity. However, I'm willing to bet that many women would/do really enjoy sensuality simply for its own sake. I can totally see where women in the company of other women would enjoy having a safe, basically non-sexual outlet for their sensuality. Even if pole dancing classes would qualify as such, I would never in a million years want my class to show up in a newspaper, however. I also agree with watsy that this probably isn't quite the same thing as the sex toy article Rod linked to. I can see where pole dancing classes would be more about the women than about their sex lives. Interesting.

Thanks sigaliris and watsy; it does seem like we often form a trio of opinion on these threads. My wife is a bellydancer, and as a black woman grew up with a very different set of assumptions regarding appropriate behavior, and our frequent fun and sometimes heated discussions in the midst of raising three boys have definitely led to my spending a lot of time thinking about this stuff. She also works at a gym and is studying to be a personal trainer, and I can guarantee that dancing is one of the most effective forms of exercise there is. BTW, I find it interesting - and circumstantial evidence of the double-standard at play - that there is no word equivalent to "trashy" that can be used to denigrate the behavior of certain men (even when justified) the way "trashy" does to women. Trash? Garbage? Dirty? Lots of loaded connotations. The closest I could come up with was "creepy" or "lecherous", but those don't seem to be quite right as comparisons, and certainly aren't used as often as "trashy". Bless, Doug

BTW, does anyone here have thoughts about the influence of people like Josephine Baker and the "flappers" on the evolution of modern strip dancing? The thread seems to emerge in the mid-late 19th century and runs through the 60's, with the confluence of things like Wild West saloon shows, the early heavily African-influenced New Orleans Mardi Gras traditions, the can-can, Westernized cabaret-style bellydance, Josephine Baker and her fruit-and-feathers, the Rockettes, the Rat Pack Las Vegas casino scene, jazz dancing and Tina Turner in to modern "exotic dancing". Would be interesting to set the history itself alongside the journalistic reporting of that history, and the development of the vocabulary to describe it. Reminds me of the scene in Independence Day when the President's wife asks Will Smith's girlfriend what kind of dancing she does ("Ballet?"), and she answers "exotic"; and the first lady's initial gut reaction is to be mortified. But why the difference? As the original NYT article Rod analyzes says, all a pole is is a ballet bar turned vertical. Why do we think differently about "exotic dancing" then we do about "ballet dancing"? And once we examine them, do the reasons seem as valid or compelling? Bless, Doug

Interesting Rod, perhaps a regional linguistic difference. Growing up in the 70's and 80's in the NYC metro region it seems "trashy behavior" was something that only women engaged in. "White trash" were people, but only women were "trashy", I think. "Louts" or "Losers" or "Creeps" were present. There were men who were "piggish". But still, doesn't seem linguistically that there are universal male-directed equivalents to "trashy" or "slutty". "Sleazy" maybe? But it still seems like "trashy" is something a woman can be without realizing it, whereas "sleazy" is something much more conscious. Bless, Doug

Well, yes, jazz was once low-down, and now it's a high-bourgeois taste, pretty much.

Words escape me....