Hear ye, hear ye -- I wrote to Ms. von Teese's webmaster to invite the lady herself to join the discussion (a long shot, I know) and got this response:


Here is an excerpt from one of many interviews Dita has done and has been asked about the feminist issue. Se has no interest in reading online opinions of people regarding what she does. It's an age old argument, no one ever wins it!


Some feminists would say it imprisons women, would you agree?
This is always such a boring argument, and it doesn't have much merit considering that in fact, the majority of my fans are women. Over 80 percent of my website members are women. My fan letters come from women that are happy to embrace the spirit of glamour and sensuality, and to comsider an alternative form of sexy. And I understand that feminism is about equality and the right to choose. When you tell someone like me that I shouldn't be allowed to do what I love, because it hurts women, well, that's not a feminist ideal, is it, because then I'm not free, and I lose my equality. And also, when they make mainstream films, you know, the bigwigs and lawyers work out what showing the lead actress's tits are worth, her ass is worth, etc, etc ... they put dollar amounts on everything. How is this different? Should all nudity in film be censored if it's a woman? The feminist argument has no limits and therefore, I say it has no true merit. And above all the feminist arguments, I care only about preserving the age-old art of the showgirl.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Thanks for coming out Asmo

In reply to this comment by Asmo:
Long time lurker, first time poster. This thread convince me to jump in and say something (because the comments are the things that make the sifts that much more enjoyable around here).

>> ^thepinky:
This woman is not engaging in a sexual act for her own pleasure and satisfaction. She is displaying her sexuality for the enjoyment of others. I don't see this as empowering her in any way, but some feminists would, yes.
Again, the Male Gaze. Men look, women are looked upon.


I think it's a stretch to call it either porn or art. I see a woman choosing to display her lovely (minus the implants) form to best advantage. The general consensus seems to be that her act is interesting and attractive to people of whatever gender or sexual persuasion. How is that not empowering to her both as a performer and as a person?

In reply to this comment by Asmo:
Long time lurker, ... doesn't making broad generalisations about us men kinda send everyone back to square one on the whole inequality of the sexes issue?... storm in a d-cup?

Clever poster de-cloaking off the port bow! Thanks for finally jumping in. Let me know if you need anything in terms of finding / posting videos, Asmo.

Looks like much of this hullaballoo stemmed from semantics, namely, the definition of "porn".

In 1964, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart tried to explain "hard-core" pornography, or what is obscene, by saying, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced . . . [b]ut I know it when I see it . . . "[ JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)]

Over fifty years later and we're still using the same broken metric. Our difficulty stems from the very nature of this metric - it's a moving target. It changes as society changes. We're not working with a rigid definition of porn and we're certainly not all on the same page with that definition.

Dag's definition is entirely personal when he asks, "am I aroused?" To add rigor to that definition is difficult: Dag's just never around when I want to talk about pron ;-) so that definition has to be tossed out as a generalized definition on the grounds that it's inconvenient. If we had portable Pikachu-dags, then maybe we're onto something.

Until then, though, perhaps looking at this from a different angle my be illustrative:

What's the border line between where dance becomes porn?

Dance is an appreciation of form at rest, form in motion, and the segueways between the two. In it's purest, we try to see the human body in it's most distilled essence. Typically, dancers wear tight clothing; leotards. It's rarer but not unknown to dance naked. That's the human body in it's purest form.

Let's come back to this video now: do you think the video is pornographic because of the movements she's making or the way she's dressed? Me, I don't see it as both. I think we can be clear and say it's the clothing she's wearing.

So what if Dita was wearing a leotard? Would that make it acceptable?

What if she started completely naked - that is - not wearing the pasties and panties? Would that be acceptable or unacceptable?

Reconsidering this dance from another light: what about bellydancing? They essentially wear sparkly undergarments out in public and dance in them. If we say that's the equivalent of porn, we'll end up with 10,000 angry bellydancers on the doorstep, so we ought to be really careful in answering that question.

Are these even the right questions to be asking? Would it simply be better to say, "whatever that guy did was wrong. I hope you're doing better now."

*BARF*

Yet another reason why I don't like Dita.

Wow, thanks! This is the first comment that has been persuasive for me at all. I think you convinced me. Good job. That's difficult to do.

>> ^kronosposeidon:
Since there is no standard definition for pornography, I'll simply offer mine:
Pornography is more than just objectification and arousal, but it's also about exploitation. In most porn you see women being controlled by men, being nothing more than sex toys. Women's heads are pushed down onto the genitals so they'll give blowjobs, or men ejaculate onto their faces, butts, or breasts, or they are gangbanged, or they are depicted in subservient roles like maids or secretaries who are really there to please their bosses. So they are the inferiors to males, basically.
Obviously we don't see any exploitation aspect to this video, because firstly there are no men in her act, and secondly Dita is in control. She's not giving lap dances or hustling for dollar bills on a stage. She's doing the entire dance to her own choreography, and we're simply left to watch. Sure, she is arousing, and she's also allowing herself to be objectified, but she's not being exploited in any way. (In fact it is my understanding that Dita Von Teese has been careful to control the copyrights to most of her images, that way she'll make herself wealthy, and not some man.) All three conditions (objectification, arousal, exploitation) need to be met for me to call it porn. Instead I would label this as "erotica," which is a subtle but important distinction.
Just one man's opinion, and I'm not looking to sway anyone to my way of thinking.

This is not the best dita performance - but shes always entertaining

thepinky said
>> ^thepinky:
This is soft porn. Can somebody please do something about this? I come to videosift so that I don't have to deal with this type of disgusting objectification of women. Come on, guys.
And LadyDeath, WTF?!


Calling it softporn, she wanted it removed. she turned the comments into a debate about whether or not it was porn being poste

A debate, sure if its a hot topic - but on the video itself asking the clip be pulled and calling out WTF to the poster, thats just bullshit.


In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
Yeah, it is getting out of hand. And if you actually read, thepinky is not calling out your girlfriend. She's just saying she finds it offensive and wishes it wouldn't be there. If it was an attack as you claim, you wouldn't be the only one that said something along those lines. This is a debate over whether it is objectifying women, not whether it should've been posted.

As far as your girlfriend goes, that was the lowest possible blow she could've dealt. You and she may not care, but because of that, she will never have my respect, and I'm sure several people here agree.

In reply to this comment by Zonbie:
>> ^direpickle:
^LadyDeath:
Wow, that was really uncalled for.


This is getting outta hand

ThePinky - stop singling out LadyDeath for posting Burlesque - its not porn. I am getting sick of people objecting to art because its offensive. It's NSFW because some may find it inappropriate - erotica has existed for centuries - if you find it offensive then don't watch but singling out one user for posting it is not right.

Videosift is not policing its content because that would daage the sift, but individuals can block content if they wish.

Also, it's insulting to Dita to say she is being exploited; its her art and profession.
You could argue she exploits the carnal instincts of her audience - but thats a different story.

>> ^nazdorovia:
I don't think this counts as porn; I'm not voting it up because I wasn't really entertained.
Incidentally, the bubble dance has a long history in burlesque. It was originally developed by Sally Rand. You can look up a performance of it on youtube, though I'm going to sift it as soon as I post this comment. I think the original has a lot more grace to it, but it's also less of a strip show and more of a dance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_dance
LadyDeath, I downvoted your comment because it really was unnecessary for you to quote her comment, when she specifically requested you didn't, to make a comment of your own that neither addressed her comment, nor contributed to the general discussion.



I don't care what do you think.. This is getting out of the limits...she started a huge drama for one simple video....and Im tired of this...

Whatever Who are you to call me bitch??? oh Kids...
First of all this is NOT your business,so go and do your stuff and leave me the fuck alone...
like I said I dont post videos that you guys have to like..I dont owe no body an apology,so stop being so disrespectful or might have to talk to lucky about this,this is not a kinder garden...god Im tired of ignorants in this sift...
In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
Either you're blind, or you're a bitch. I'd like to think it's the former. Either way, you owe ThePinky an apology. That was absolutely uncalled for and the most childish, immature, appalling thing I've ever seen on here.

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
>> ^thepinky:
PLEASE DON'T QUOTE THIS SO THAT IF I HAVE SECOND THOUGHTS ABOUT POSTING PERSONAL THINGS I CAN DELETE IT!!!



God You dont have to discuss your private life in here for "Simple Art Video"
This is Getting so Dramatic Again and Again...

>> ^viewer_999:
I don't even see this as NSFW, unless you work for a ministry. And anyway, why are you watching videos at work?


lunch break

>> ^LittleRed:

Honestly, I've got nothing. It already is a sausage fest. I am more than willing to give you a list of problems I have with the site, though.
1) The way of judging whether or not a video stays is if you, a MAN, get an erection after watching. When was the last time a woman's perspective was taken into consideration? Never. Chances are women either feel objectified or get irritated for whatever reason watching a video like the one that prompted this post.

I'd say the reason for the "wood test" is because 99.99999% of porn is made to arouse men.
Therefore, if (the majority, if not all of) men are not aroused, then I think that means it's not porn.

Someone mentioned elsewhere (I think it was Farhad) romance novels. I would say that if a woman would be upset by her boyfriend watching this, then her guy should be just as, if not more pissed about them reading dirty romance novels.
Those things can be on par with some nasty Penthouse Forum "letters".

The video in question (Dita) is an act of grace a beauty, not a vivid depiction of sex. The act is designed to be something that one merely watches, from which they are detached and it is forever that way. It is a solo act meant to please for the sake of a good show.

Dirty books, on the other hand, are of a couple's acts in the bedroom, written to suck the reader into the characters words and actions, even letting them place themselves into the character's shoes. The book is more about being a part of the act, making the reader imagine (through ample use of details and adjectives) every part of sex. It's porn you read, and not watch, though I will say it is not disgusting or objectifying as real porn.

My question to you is this: How can you tell the internet in one comment that "Even I can appreciate burlesque"

but in the next, tell the internet that it's not acceptable for men with significant others to watch it, if only for art of the performance?

I hold that burlesque is only that; an art. I personally don't get any arousal from it, not does it raise any carnal desires within myself. Hell, I've only seen two instances of it, both here on the sift. The female body, with all it's curves, is designed to flow like water in almost all directions. Combined with graceful movements and a dynamic act, it is a thing of grace and beauty.

The male body is usually ugly from an artistic standpoint. It has lots of hard edges, and is not visually streamlined with gentle curves. I believe that's why you don't see any form of male burlesque.

LittleRed and thepinky, an observation from a man, who sees expression of self and constancy, righteousness, and dignity as available to whomever will avail themselves of it-
The truth is, humans prey on other humans in the society we live in, it gets worse, as the breakdown of society becomes more glaringly apparent, relative to the leadership, and the complacency and dumbing-down of the subjects. People have always had free will, few exercise it or are capable. We are reaching another transition/Armageddon(figuratively speaking) stage in world societies, and these are some of the signs: Violence, self-servitude, Nihilism, self-abuse, and unconcern for one's fellow man, to the point of self-extinction(the folks who want the world to themselves, want it however they can get it)

I understand the phenom, that from one's process and exposure extant in any individual's life, through their unique filter, the world becomes what they want, or think it should be-There are talented women and men, who can make a living given the venue and the room to move-Some of these performers need a niche they can be secure in, without the abuse-Burlesque is in revival hon, and always is during and prior to, really hard times (i.E. wars, or collapse of infrastructure and economy..this being the fault, not necessarily of the people, but of the few who have orchestrated such a fall for their own selfish ends)

All for morality, decency, etc. if its the natural course of the human condition, which it is, and is un-manipulated or capitalized upon by the strong over the weak scenario....(taking advantage of it, for selfish gain) Just as I am for anything presented, that raises awareness and consciousness, in an individual.

Hope Dita Von Teese, the discussion that followed thepinky tirade here, and this message has done as much-Peace girl-frintz!!

Gratz! And all it took was a little bit of tits,
http://www.videosift.com/video/Dita-Von-Teese-New-Orleans-Burlesque-StripTease-Performance
that is.