Thread: What the heck is nude anyway- are we "Victorian" again?

when they're pretty much the same thing it becomes rather hard to understand what the fuss over one thing is about when there's not as much fuss over t'other.

Great point! I wonder what it is that makes some things more controversial than others, when they are really very similar? Is it because BGT features "real life" people, not distant, polished and unreachable celebrities? Is it because this breaks the fourth wall, and the girl herself broke the wall by going up and grinding on the Hoff? Interesting!

I think a lot of it is to do with the combination of factors.

1. She's not very talented
2. She's scantily clad
3. As Glorian said, she broke the fourth wall.

Lots of pretty untalented people go on shows like BGT and they don't cause complaints, because for many, laughing at the talentless folks is part of the draw of the show.

Lots of scantily clad folks (including women) have appeared on BGT including our very own, lovely Daiquiri Dusk and in this series, Tallulah Blue who did a fan dance wearing not much more than the Britney impersonator and, as far as I'm aware they didn't raise the same level of complaint (if any at all).

This leads me to believe that it's something to do with the performer in question being rather untalented AND nearly nude. I think, and again I agree with you Glorian that it's a very British thing, that a lot of people are really offended with a person's barefaced cheek of displaying themselves in that way - fairly untalented and naked. I think there's a feeling of resentment, especially among some women against other women, that someone DARES to get up there and make a show of themselves in that way. These people laugh at people who are clothed and talentless, and they forgive scantily clad but talented performers their nudity, perhaps because they believe that one justifies the other, or that, as others in this thread have mentioned they believe that talent plus nakedness equals artistic nudity. However they are THREATENED by someone who isn't talented and strips off. Because that performer (whether the performer really feels this way or not) appears like someone who doesn't have to worry about the same social constraints of modesty (both about their limited skills and their body) and has the freedom to get up there and make an exhibition of themselves in more ways than one.

Add to this the 'breaking the fourth wall' and being a 'mere mortal' daring to enter the arena of the 'real celebrities' and I think this causes a real offense to some people who believe the judges should be treated with more reverence.

This is my theory anyway, that at least some of the people complaining offense over her skimpy costume are using it as a smokescreen, in reality they are offended by her having the chutzpah to get up there and make a show of herself.

Personally, I didn't find her act particularly entertaining but I do respect her balls to get up and do it.

Originally Posted by Glorian Gray

In other interesting information, someone informed me it is only a union jack when on a pole at sea, apparently. lol.

Yup - this is true
The flag is called the Union Flag as it symbolises the administrative union of the three countries that make up the United Kingdom.
The term 'jack' actually refers to any flag that is flown from the bowspirit of a ship

As to the actual subject of the thread - it's an interesting one. I don't really have an opinion on it though, but I'm enjoying reading others!
xx

Originally Posted by Glorian Gray

One thing that has occurred to me recently is how cultural/British this fear of exposing children to sexuality is (and pretty Victorian too, they were panic stricken about it, all sorts of horror stories about children working in brothels and corrupted by things). I recently performed in Italy, and was mortified to see children in the audience, some as young as 5! Honestly, I was horrified! I asked someone who regularly goes to shows in Italy if it was normal and they said yes, it happens often. Afterwards, the little girl, about 6, who was the daughter of one the organisers, seemed so happy though, shyly playing with the performers and running round. It made me think. Later that weekend I was on a float themed Bollywood/Karma Sutra with images from the KS on it, and they had us throwing condoms out into the crowd, filled with families! Occasionally a child would go for the condom and the parent would pick it up and take it away (much to the annoyance of the kid). In the UK, I imagine there would have been all sorts of anger about this, maybe a Daily Mail/Yahoo news article "Burlesque dancers give condoms to small children". But everyone there just laughed! It has given me food for thought about different attitudes to this kind of thing.

Yes - we Brits are particularly uptight and there are some Mums at school who openly disapprove of the way I am raising my daughter. For example, they are horrified that - at six - she knows how babies are made (she knows because she asked and I have an honesty policy whereby if she asks a questions she'll always get a truthful answer - she doesn't need a diagram but I make sure she understands the fundamentals). She has also seem my costumes for burlesque (she loves a bit of bling just like her Mum!) and she knows that once a week I go "dancing".
We don't have MTV in our house - in fact we have 4 channels only and that's a conscious decision on my part. We have one TV and it's in the lounge - we only ever watch it together. I am open with her but I am careful too. I want her sexual development to be a healthy and happy one. I agree that we shouldn't be Victorian about our kids' development but I also think we have a responsibility to them - as do programme makers.
All humans are sexual creatures and I think we have a problems getting our heads round that sometimes. I personally wouldn't take my child to a burly show but I don't hide things from her either - I have the Burlesque Bible on the coffee table and she hasn't even noticed! If she does I know she'll just want to have a look at the shoes! She probably won't even notice that they are scantily clad - you couldn't ignore the "nakedness" of the girl on BGT, could you?

you couldn't ignore the "nakedness" of the girl on BGT, could you?

I don't actually think she was naked, her nipples were covered and she was wearing a thong- that was what puzzled me about the reaction to her act. However, my boyfriend (cos I asked him) apparently would judge that as naked (although the Policing & Crime Act would not). Its very interesting. What people judge as naked does seem to be contextual oftimes. It was also mentioned that if you walked down the street in a thong and pasties, you would be likely to get accused of nudity, but if a lap dancer wore that at work, she would get moaned at for NOT being naked enough! I might do a wee study where I get people to judge nakedness in different circumstances, to see what the influencing factors are (or find out if someone else has already done one).

It would certainly make for an interesting study - I wonder if men will view things differently to women. I was just reading Jo Boobs "Burlesque Handbook" and she has a pic at the beginning of Chapter 8 where the credit reads "Me wearing hairpeices, makeup, jewellery and body paint. You thought I was naked, didn't you?"

I had an ex boyfriend who had a thing about me being "totally naked" whereby he wanted me to take all my makeup AND my jewellery off when we were intimate. Clearly - for him - "naked" meant "as the day you were born"

Interesting

Will investigate and see if I can find any writing or research on it!

Apparently, this country IS going all Victorian. I am going to start a separate thread about it.

Update: I clicked on "start new thread" and something went wrong with the computer. So, here goes:

A male social-network friend has started on about how in an IDEAL world everyone could wear what they liked, but currently women have a duty to make the world a nicer place by not wearing things that "entrench" patriarchal and sexist attitudes. Apparently, anyone who disagrees is taking individualism too far.

I really cannot see what he means. I don't think I am taking individualism too far. I believe we owe lots of obligations to other people. I just don't think that dressing in a way someone else considers "challenging" is one of those obligations.

I don't see the logic of standing up for the right not to be judged on how we are dressed by means of always dressing "modestly".

This is such an interesting subject. I do feel we are going back to the Victorian times in terms of what is viewed as "decent" I currently on a massage course, and the most difficult aqspect of it for me is something called Towel Technique.

This is a technique that we use to ensure that all of the boder is covered during the massage. This would be fine, if it wasnt for the fact no one who actually practice massage seems to use it, and I've been told I'll lose a point if any part of the body (eg fingers or toes) is visible if its a part I'm working on.

Which leads to the bigger question of why people are starting feel like the naked human form is something that we should be ashamed, or the fact the showing a bit of flesh is somehow "undignified."