Uh...What do you say to this?

[3894]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

But I suspect you're going anthropological with this one, which also makes me curious as your comment to me suggests there are cultures where concepts of beauty and desire are not intertwined, or that cultures exist that where there is no objectification and my existentialist self doubts that to be the case.

This activity comes from Middle Eastern/Eastern Mediterranean cultures (esp. Turkey and Syria) and not from Greece. It's culturally inauthentic for a Greek restaurant to hire a belly dancer to go around from one table to another. So our discussion is not about the validity of Greek culture. It's about what this particular restaurant chooses to do to attract customers. This particular restaurant decided that a belly dancer going around to tables would probably increase their business.

We have an inauthetic quasi-Mediterranean practice that reminds Americans of something in their own culture, namely a striptease act where commodification of the body is clearly going on.

Are there cultures where the concept of beauty and desire are not intertwined? Probably not. That's not the question. If attractiveness brings about physical desire, that's one thing. Paying to see the commodification of the body is something else.

[3894]

Please add this to the above ...

Striptease joints are clearly delineated from other kinds of venues. It's too bad that this restaurant decided to combine this two somehow, even though children are being served.

I would have more patience for the bellydancing in the Greek restaurant if the woman had not gone from table to table encouraging tips put in her clothing.

[Alex]

I've never been at a place with bellydancing where you tipped the dancer directly by putting money into her clothing.

Now, I haven't been many places with bellydancing (live performance annoys me while I'm tryingn to have a nice meal since it makes socializing with my tablemates difficult) but this would have surprised me. Is it common?

That said, the appropriate reponse to his question would have been:

"Ask her, if she is fine with it then it is ok since the important thing is that all parties consent. Though if you end up with a disease the cost of the medicine is coming out of your future allowances."

Finally, I don't see what's wrong with objectifying people. It is the only way we can incorporate into our awareness people and things of whom we have no intimate (platonic, of course) personal knowledge. Sexual objectification is just a subsection of that. Of course, acting on objectification is where you run into issues.

It is very much a primal instinct, I'd say. And we do it to hundreds of people in hundreds of ways every day, male (see the Annie Leibowitz thread) or female.

[RStar]

I think the problem is when a society says it is ok to objectifying people, you are lowering their worth as a whole to some people. While that may be the exception for most people, it also says something about our society, don't you think?

The problems arise when people take strict classification of the objectiveness to the extreme. This is more dangerous in my mind with sexuallity, as it often envoles your own body along with someone elses, making it even more personal. This is mostly a problem when it envoles addictions. But this holds true with all addictions, and their inherant objectiveness. I took Oxycodine for my neck nerve pain before my surgery. I classifyed it as a needed medication. Some would call it a high and reclassify it. So, should it be sold legally in bars? No, because it may have an unhealthy response in our society.

If I'm not making much sinse, I opoligize, as I currently have a cold and I'm taking cold medicine.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Kevy Baby

Damnit it €

BTW, how do you make that "C"? I've been wondering that....

Also, Tracy, I hope this thread has helped, as it seems to have wondered into a slightly, though interesting, area.

[RStar]

Dang! I don't know why it won't let me edit sometimes. It just sits there with the circle going 'round after I hit enter like it's thinking about it but never does it!

I men't the "E", not C though it looks like a C with two lines in it....

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by RStar

Dang! I don't know why it won't let me edit sometimes. It just sits there with the circle going 'round after I hit enter like it's thinking about it but never does it!

I have had that same problem a few times. It is frustrating.

[Alex]

Yes, it is the same problem that happens with Quick Reply (there is a thread about it somewhere).

If it does hang, just click the Go Advanced button, remake your change and submit. That page (like the Advanced Post page) does not use Ajax and doesn't seem to have the same problem.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

If it does hang, just click the Go Advanced button, remake your change and submit. That page (like the Advanced Post page) does not use Ajax and doesn't seem to have the same problem.

I thought about trying that. Thanks Alex!

[tracilicious]

Originally Posted by 3894

Objectification of women is not a primal instinct. Your son has had an early lesson in the values of our society.

Hmmm. First of all, I want to say that I had never seen a live belly dancer before, so I assumed that putting money in clothing was some sort of traditional thing. Now that, I've read this thread, I'm a bit annoyed that that isn't the case yet they were encouraging it at this restaurant.

As for objectification, who was objectifying her? No one in the restaurant went to see her dance, people went to eat food and there happened to be dancing there. She was using her body in a sexual way. Does that make her an object? Does the fact that my nearly four year old son got turned on to whatever extent an young boy can when he saw a woman using her body in a mildly sexual way make him a product of our culture? He's never been exposed to anything like that before, so I'd say no. I call it human nature. Does the fact that people were tipping an entertainer make her an object? I certainly didn't give her three or four dollars because I thought she was hot, but because she was dancing for our entertainment.

Originally Posted by RStar

Which is to say that our society doens't always have the best intentions with their values, and I would discuss that with your son at times like this.

I think this may be above his head, but I'll keep that in mind for the future. For now we just want to model respect for everyone.

Originally Posted by RStar

That girl was just working, and tipping her was just like tipping a waitress, in a way. But the fact that her dancing was enough to make a small child want to see her nakid tells us what was wrong with it.

Does that make something wrong with it? She was belly dancing. Big deal. I think it just may be that Indi is experiencing the very earliest of sexual feelings. I don't think there is anything wrong with having feelings like that at any age. It's part of being human.

Originally Posted by RStar

I would be sure to let him know that it's an exotic part of another culture, but it can be taken two ways. The proper way is that it is an interesting dance. Just like the two ways the human body can be viewed. There's a "dirty" way, and a "clean" way (terms a pre-schooler may understand).

What is the dirty way? I don't want him thinking that his feelings were somehow "dirty" because he got mildly excited by a woman doing a sexy dance. I'm not sure how imposing my judgement of how a human body can be "dirty" or "clean" will give him a healthy view of the body and of sexuality.

The human body is a beautifull thing, a wonder in all it's atributes. The fact the we have our senses, can reproduce, and the differences between male and female (although he brought this up, it still may be a little soon for the birds and the bees, but you're the best judge of that) makes it a wonder to behold. And viewed that way in art, like the David sculpture, there is nothing wrong with it.

So it's only ok to view a body in a sterile medical or artistic way? Why is it not ok to view the human body in a sexual way?

Originally Posted by RStar

I also wonder why he said that to you in the first place. I'm sure he doesn't understand what sex is, so had he heard it somewhere before? Like with some older boys that looked at a girl and said "Wow, I'd like to see her nakid!" and so he thought it is what should have been said at the time? Or perhaps he was trying to be a "grown up"? However at his age I'm sure he most likely didn't know what he was saying, and I wouldn't worry too much about it as kids do repeat what they hear withought knowing it's meaning. And if things like this continue, I'd gently nudge him the right way with life lessons. That is our job as parents, to mold our children and guide them along the right path.

No, there is no possible way he had heard that before. We hang out with other families and our TV is limited to Playhouse Disney and PBS. Michael and I don't even watch TV. He was just telling me what he wanted. He said it in a very genuine, matter of fact way. I'm pretty sure it was just the earliest signs of human nature. And what is "the right way?" Supression of sexual feelings? I definitely want him to view sex as a very normal thing that all humans have, but it is best when shared by two people that feel a commitment to one another (my judgement, I know). But I also want him to know that it is ok to have whatever feelings he has.

Originally Posted by mousepod

I was absolutely satisfied with her answer. I knew where babies came from, but the concept of sexuality was foreign to me. I was less concerned with the specifics of what the older kid had told me than the fact that he was wrong.

Thanks for that example. The concept of sexuality is foreign to him too, though he is familiar with male and female anatomy and the very basics of reproduction (as in he knows that a sperm and an egg form a baby, but he hasn't asked how the sperm gets to the egg yet).

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Hmmm - I'd like to dig a bit deeper by what you mean here. The "objectification of women" is such a cliché phrase with a lot of negative connotations attached.

If I put my Existentialist hat on, all human interactions are a struggle between being subject and object - and when I'm one I can't be the other. Sure the woman is being an object, but so is the wait staff, the other patrons, and probably at least partly mom and dad.

But I suspect you're going anthropological with this one, which also makes me curious as your comment to me suggests there are cultures where concepts of beauty and desire are not intertwined, or that cultures exist that where there is no objectification and my existentialist self doubts that to be the case.

I really liked this response.

Originally Posted by 3894

This activity comes from Middle Eastern/Eastern Mediterranean cultures (esp. Turkey and Syria) and not from Greece. It's culturally inauthentic for a Greek restaurant to hire a belly dancer to go around from one table to another. So our discussion is not about the validity of Greek culture. It's about what this particular restaurant chooses to do to attract customers. This particular restaurant decided that a belly dancer going around to tables would probably increase their business.

I think it was more like they thought they would make a few bucks off the people already in the restaurant. It's a hole in the wall place. We had no idea there would be dancing there, and I'm pretty sure no one else did either. And thanks for validating that they don't belly dance in Greece. I was trying to make that point last night.

Originally Posted by 3894

We have an inauthetic quasi-Mediterranean practice that reminds Americans of something in their own culture, namely a striptease act where commodification of the body is clearly going on.

I don't see it that way. It's an interesting, and yes, sexy dance. I've tipped many entertainers, and if there had been a guy playing violin I would have tipped him too. I wasn't tipping her because I saw her body.

Originally Posted by 3894

Are there cultures where the concept of beauty and desire are not intertwined? Probably not. That's not the question. If attractiveness brings about physical desire, that's one thing. Paying to see the commodification of the body is something else.

Again, no one paid her to see her body. People were eating, she came out and danced, people tipped. I'm convinced that they would have done the same regardless of what she was wearing.

Originally Posted by 3894

Please add this to the above ...

Striptease joints are clearly delineated from other kinds of venues. It's too bad that this restaurant decided to combine this two somehow, even though children are being served.

I would have more patience for the bellydancing in the Greek restaurant if the woman had not gone from table to table encouraging tips put in her clothing.

This was nothing like a striptease. I've been to strip clubs, and this wasn't it. It was belly dancing. I could have taken him to a high school dance recital and seen more overtly sexual moves. And yes, the whole thing was pretty tacky.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

"Ask her, if she is fine with it then it is ok since the important thing is that all parties consent. Though if you end up with a disease the cost of the medicine is coming out of your future allowances."

Lol, I'll remember that for the future.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Finally, I don't see what's wrong with objectifying people. It is the only way we can incorporate into our awareness people and things of whom we have no intimate (platonic, of course) personal knowledge. Sexual objectification is just a subsection of that. Of course, acting on objectification is where you run into issues.

It is very much a primal instinct, I'd say. And we do it to hundreds of people in hundreds of ways every day, male (see the Annie Leibowitz thread) or female.

I'm going to mostly agree with this. I have no problem with strip joints as long as the women are voluntarily stripping and the men are voluntarily watching (and the audience is of age of course). Who's to say that the women aren't empowered by this?

Originally Posted by RStar

I think the problem is when a society says it is ok to objectifying people, you are lowering their worth as a whole to some people. While that may be the exception for most people, it also says something about our society, don't you think?

Who is this "society" and where can I find out everything they think and when it's ok to act against that? If some people think a person's worth is lowered by stripping, that sounds like their problem. If a stripper feels empowered by it then who's to say that she's now worth less because her job involves feeding others' lust? What's so bad about lust?