Your video, First Fully-Articulated 3D Printed Gown Feat. Dita Von Teese, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 26 Badge!

Ditas' got the clothes collection now, woman knows how to dress.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

As boner-inducing as this was, I had to downvote. I can see why an artful Dita Von Tease striptease video, or a video that displays the flexibility and poise involved in the choreography of pole dancing would get sifted.. but this, not so much.

Wow. That was remarkably sucky. Spoco's comment is perfect. Sharon Osbourne is a terrible host and Dita didn't say anything interesting. In fact, she didn't really even answer some of the questions that were asked. Sharon asked her, "What do you think is the fascination?" and she starts talking about her female fans and how she's not the classic American girl? She obviously feels the need to make her profession seem "lady friendly" even when she isn't being asked about it.

This is a little dated - Dita and Marilyn were divorced in 2007. :-(

This was a very shallow, contentless 'interview'. It was basically Sharon (who seems to be a terrible talk show host), showing off that she knows Dita and got her to perform for Ozzy.

Meh.

No substantial questions at all, nothing asking about whether Dita has seen a shift in public acceptance of Burlesque, the difference between burlesque and stripping, whether she's encountered negative reactions to her profession... etc. etc. etc.

Plus, it's kinda old, being that here she had just got married to MM.

Also, man, Dita has a fair overbite (which is a valid observation seeing as she makes her living on her body and appearance).

I'm home alone and have nothing better to do than respond to this thread, because a lot of the comments in here still bother me. So... here goes nothing.

>> ^MarineGunrock:
>> 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.


WRONG! There is absolutely nothing graceful or beautiful about that (or her, really). See my comment on the performance in a minute.


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.


You know why women love romance novels? Because we can imagine it's our significant other doing everything the protagonist in the novel is. Generally it's a scene that plays out in our minds with the characters, not us (women). But even if we were picturing ourselves in that mental scene, it would be with our significant other. Because really, the sex scenes in romance novels are a lot more exciting than ones in real life. If we got enough romance, we wouldn't need to read romance novels. There's nothing disgusting or objectifying about getting a little inspiration. It's erotica - not 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?


Burlesque is an art, but that's not burlesque. That's a terrible, terrible striptease. You haven't seen any of the great old burlesque. It originated as a sort of comedy show. Gypsy Rose Lee (who, by the way, the Warner Brothers movie "Gypsy" is about. I guarantee you Dita is not burlesque if Warner Bros. did a burlesque movie) and Sally Rand (not quite as good, I don't think, but still notable, and the woman who originated the fan dance). Do you see any comedy in Dita's "work?" I didn't think so. It used to be a complete one-act comedy show, not a two-minute, poorly-done dance where you end up in nothing but nipple pasties and a g-string. Look up some of the Bettie Page stuff on here.

P.S. "Even I can appreciate burlesque" means I like some, but not this [Dita]. For someone who admits they've only seen two clips of burlesque, how dare you confront me on something like that? Look up the history of burlesque. Maybe watch someone other than Dita von Teese. It's like someone saying they don't like a particular artist, or a particular period in art history. It doesn't mean I dislike every painting ever made, or that no one should look at art anymore because I decided I don't like it. Burlesque has never been about the ability to strip down from a dress to pasties and a g-string in less than 20 seconds. There's nothing burlesque about her act - it's a striptease, pure and simple.


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.


Oh please. You just admitted yourself you've only ever seen two instances of burlesque. How can you possibly go on about how graceful it is, and how it's such a glorious artform, when you've seen two "dances," both by the same woman?

>> ^MarineGunrock:
As I looked around, I saw (obviously) many women in bikinis. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about bikinis, but it got me thinking about the whole "objectification" thing. If women, as a whole, don't want to be objectified, why wear such a reveling swim suit when there are plenty of good looking alternatives? [edit] What I'm saying it that it opens them up to it.
And for that matter, why put make up on?


1) You've heard it before, but it obviously bears repeating - Women don't dress up for men. They dress up for other women. I shouldn't have to think every morning when I get dressed, "If I see someone with a penis today, will he say something lewd if I'm wearing this? Might someone possibly get excited?" I dress for other women. Would they think I'm attractive? Intimidating? Smart? Chic? If I wanted to dress to attract attention from men, I'd walk around in a bikini top and shorts. But I don't.

2) Just because women wear revealing clothing doesn't mean they're inviting you to look. I lost 20 pounds and bought myself a bikini, because I felt good about my body again. I regained so much self-confidence just by owning it, and that I was no longer embarrassed or felt fat walking around in one. That doesn't mean I wear it just to attract attention, or in the hopes that guys compliment me. I wouldn't take a compliment seriously if I was wearing a bikini anyway - I know my boobs are all you were looking at.

Maybe I wear makeup because I want to feel pretty, or I got a pimple this morning, or I have a sunburn and my skin tone is uneven. Why should it matter?

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

Dita is ever so forgiving. Man, what a gal.

how come this video is not almost the same controversy as my dita one lol..where is the pinky opinion here???
funny video...

It's just an attempt to help balance in a way all the attention videos get if they draw attention to the beauty of the female form, even if it's not the primary reason the video is notable.

It's of course different in a number of ways, but St. Pierre's aesthetic style is part of why he's one of the more visible celebrities in his sport.

In the meantime, try not to support the destruction of humanity's moral fabric too much.

Seriously?

Your comments tell me that you haven't really listened to a the people have been saying in the Dita and Femma threads. I think you just possess what all religious people possess, a conviction that others are living their lives in a improper fashion that you find immoral, you don't like it so you seek to change it.

Porn, murder, rape, pedophilia, violence, sexual abuse, drug use, alcohol abuse, war. None of that will ever change, because we are human beings are creatures of chaos born within a system of chaos. There are no angels, there are no demons. There is just people.

>> ^thepinky:
And what of the problems of our society? What DO they stem from? Are we supposed to completely refrain from assigning blame to any of our own practices? Are we supposed to allow our society to deteriorate because we can't get to the root causes of our problems and fix them? There is a general trend on the Sift toward the attitude that the fewer controls and restraints on behavior, the better. That nothing matters except pleasure and freedom. I just don't agree with that philosophy. Sometimes your freedoms hurt other people, and in order to be moral, people have to sacrifice a few freedoms. Porn doesn't help, it hurts.


A very one sided view of the situation.

Sex crime existed before widely distributed pornography. Except in the past, it was often accepted (such as nobles predilections for young boys or assaulting the cleaning staff as the whim took them)if not tacitly encouraged. That is not to say pornographic texts did not exist, just the ability to lay hands on them has never been so easy.

Then you have sexual deviancy/molestation in absentia of pornography. People who have had their sexuality repressed often have it manifest in unhealthy fashions. The Catholic church is a great example. Priests and "bad Catholic schoolgirls" come to mind.

Lastly, what about the millions of people world wide who enjoy sex without love, sex with themselves, sex with porn or just enjoy watching it for the compelling storyline (bwahahaha) who never actually commit a sex crime?

Isn't it far more likely that a person with certain proclivities or perversions (or just a rapist/molester) collects pornography because it is what they are interested in? Similar to violent people enjoying violent media (rather than the contention that violent media makes people violent...). Porn may desensitise a person but I honestly believe it doesn't create monsters, the monster is already in the person.

>> ^thepinky:
Porn distorts our view of sex. Porn separates sex from love and emotion.

Have you considered that there was never a connection to begin with? Sex with someone you love is a very different experience than sex alone, yes, but it's a big jump from that to saying that sex with love is right and sex without is wrong.

We wonder "Why-oh-why is child molestation increasing? Oh what can we do about it? Oh, no, porn couldn't make any difference, because I view porn! There's no way that there is anything bad about it! I get sexual release! If anything else, it KEEPS them from doing bad things!" and on and on and on. Porn DOES NOT decrease the need for sexual release, it increases it. The more you look at porn, the more often you want to, the more interesting you want it to be, and some people take it too far. Just because you don' doesn't mean that it isn't a disgusting an unnatural thing. Do you think sex crimes develop because a person's sexuality was kept under good regulation?

I've never wondered that, no, not least of all because I'm not aware of any such trend. Do you have statistics to back up that claim?

I'm not a fan of porn. It doesn't offend me or disgust me, I'm just not into it. Just because it offends and disgusts you doesn't make it an unnatural thing. Most of nature is offensive and disgusting. If you doubt, just look at the hagfish.

Regulating sexuality (your words) should be far more offensive and disgusting to you than anything consenting adults do behind closed doors with a director, camera (wo)man, stage hands and lighting specialists watching.