Wednesday, March 14, 2007


these ladies make me think of a 1960s version of the pussycat dolls.


true newest guilty pleasure is "the search for the next doll."

a family debate was launched based on last night's episode during which mikey, the choreographer, chastised one of the girls for being too sexy/trashy/pole dancer-y.

nathaniel (yes, we watch with our 17 year old son) pointed out that the entire point of the pussycat dolls is the sexy dancing. how can something be too sexy? i get that something may be too raunchy, nasty and raw, but this girl's moves were no more slutty than any of the other performers, sometimes even less so.

note to readers: if you've tivo'd/taped this episode, spoiler alert (yea, like anybody but the wallaces are watching this show!)

for the elimination event the contestants performed dance/vocal routines in the pussycat doll lounge. and what is prominently featured on both sides of the stage in the club? you got it -- stripper poles. the girl who had been reprimanded numerous times for her go-go girl ways was eliminated. personally, i think they were just looking for an excuse to get rid of her.

but the much more interesting conversation we had was about those folks who hold the pussycat dolls out as role models for young girls -- women of empowerment -- women who take charge of their own sexuality -- women who do it on their own terms -- women who take back sexy dancing from the private realm of men and take it mainstream, putting it out there for everyone to see and enjoy in a non-threatening, "wholesome" way.

okay, admittedly, i'm biased as a former women's studies major, but really, can this be the angle the creator of the pussycat dolls is going to use to try to convince the american public that this group is anything more than what they are? the pussycat dolls used to be JUST a dance group. it's only been in the past few years that they've gone mainstream and added vocals to their repertoire. so perhaps the sheer act of legitimizing the sexy dancing genre is going to remove the "skank factor" and make it less porn and more pure entertainment. who knows? the trend seems to be to take it even more risque than less. of course, there's always the possibility that the course will self-correct, but i have yet to see any evidence of this happening. have you? it's like there are two diametrically opposed ends of the spectrum...the far christian right and the way out "more skin is better" camp. the middle ground seems to be shrinking.

does it sound like i'm sitting here typing this dressed in a high starched collar, long-sleeve blouse with a floor length skirt and button boots? i'm not. i don't 100% eschew sexuality, but i do cringe when it's used overtly (we could talk for hours about subliminal sexual messages -- i'm a self-proclaimed expert on that subject) to sell. in my opinion, it's a thin line between explicit sexuality used as a marketing tool and prostitution. i know, i know, that's a huge leap in logic, but the basic tenants of using sex to make an income are simple.

phew... i got dizzy when i climbed down from that high, high soap box.

anyway, nathaniel said that even if all of the above is true, that one would be hard pressed to find men who would say that they don't enjoy watching women dance suggestively. and it simply doesn't matter to men the motivations proclaimed by the women. sexy dancing with noble motives is still sexy dancing. and further, women will watch other women dance suggestively. therefore, the net can be cast much wider for an act with these talents and the appeal is greater. that's why the pussycat dolls are want to be with them; women want to be them.

you gotta love a teenage boy that can state it so succinctly.

1 comment:

MB Shaw said...

I love the fact you are having these discussions with Nathaniel, that you all t-a-l-k. That is totally cool.