Go on, give us a smile!

Ever been told to cheer up or to smile by a random stranger? If you have, chances are you know how horrible this is. If you haven’t, you may not know that it even happens. It does. It happens a lot. And it’s horrible.

There are other variants too. I and people I know have also been told not to look so worried, miserable or scared. These things have been said by acquaintances, people we have just been introduced to, and by strangers passing by in the street. I have even had a man serving me at a supermarket checkout attempt to not hand me my shopping until I “gave him a smile”. As a grown woman. I wanted to make a formal complaint, but didn't in case the complaint was dealt with by the sort of person who says this kind of thing, and would therefore meet with the response that I was being a miserable cow and should lighten up. (Although probably not phrased like that unless their customer complaints department is really bad).

It seems pretty obvious to me that telling a random stranger to rearrange their face to suit you is really rude. I would not stop a guy on the street and tell him to get plastic surgery because he’s no oil painting, and this is the same thing; it’s telling someone that their face isn't currently good enough, and it should look more like you want it to look. This is obviously going to make the person feel pretty inadequate. Being told you are insulting people by having a face that looks that bad can really ruin your day. And you think it must be really bad for a total stranger to have gone out of their way to point it out. I'm so sorry. Should I wear a paper bag so you don’t have to look at this?

It’s particularly deflating when you are actually in a really good mood. Not everyone who is in a good mood wears a big smile all the time. Especially not while walking down a street or sitting in a park or a café or whatever on their own. In fact, grinning in these situations is liable to really freak people out. Ever done it by accident because you remember something really funny? You get stares. It’s not normal (although of course there’s nothing wrong with doing it – just weird to make it compulsory). If you can summon a particularly freaky-looking grin, that can be a good response to these requests for cheer. It’s hard to do on the spot though, and you can never be sure what reaction you will get.

Being told to cheer up when you’re already feeling good is like being told your happy isn't good enough. It’s worthless happy. Your joy is inadequate. Your good day is insufficient. For a stranger, of whose business it is none.

And don’t even get me started on how it feels to hear this when you really are upset or depressed. I strongly suspect that there are people who have been pushed to extreme acts by just this kind of thoughtless on-street bullying disguised as cheeriness. In fact, next time this happens to you, try telling the person that a friend or relative just died. (If you aren't comfortable with that, a dog or cat would do). This should make them feel really bad. It should. It might stop them putting anyone else through this. If it doesn't make them feel really bad, they’re a psychopath.

If it’s so obviously bad, why do people do it? I've heard “women look so much more attractive when they smile” before. Presumably the thought there is that women’s primary purpose is to look attractive for men, and we will be grateful to be informed that we aren't up to scratch so we can put it right at once. Nice.

But men get this kind of crap too. Not as often perhaps, but definitely sometimes, so that can’t be the whole story. The main other defence of it I've heard is that people are happier when they smile. That’s right; it’s for your own good! Someone is being rude to you in order to brighten your day! Of course! Makes sense now….No; actually, still confused.

I really don’t understand why people go around saying this to others. Believing that you have the right to control the facial expressions of others is egotism to the point of madness. If you really want someone to smile, don’t instruct them to do it. Be nice to them. Make the world better. But remember that sometimes the best way to make someone happy, particularly a random stranger on the street, is just to leave them alone to get on with their lives!

You’re a creep. And you’re a weirdo.

What’s the difference between a creep, and a friendly guy with poor social skills?

This is a question that women face on a regular basis. For every misguided approach, you have to decide whether the appropriate response is kindness and pity, or to protect yourself at all costs. And then afterwards, you either have to wonder about whether you did the right thing, or deal with the fall-out when it’s obvious that you didn't.

One side of this argument says that most men are decent but many of them are inept. Some of them have more serious problems: autism, learning difficulties, or other issues that might make the usual social rules very difficult for them to understand or act on. The best approach is to be friendly, assume the best of people, and not be too paranoid that people’s intentions are bad.

The other side of the argument says that you should never take the risk. Most men will interpret any friendliness (hell, even basic politeness) as an indication that you want to sleep with them, and they will act accordingly. Acting accordingly could be anything from groping, to stalking, to full-on assault. Forget being polite. Forget worrying about his feelings. Just get him away from you.

Most people would probably say that a position somewhere between these two is the appropriate one. I wouldn't. I think that the latter position is the only one we can take. It’s horrible, and society needs to change so that it is no longer the appropriate response, but as things stand, it is a reasonable way to think.

Firstly, isn't this really paranoid? Well yes maybe. The vast majority of these types of encounters will mercifully lead to nothing more than an awkward conversation. That in itself shouldn't be underestimated. It might well leave you feeling horrible for a few days, and questioning what you did wrong in the longer term. But admittedly it’s not that bad. But it is also undeniable that occasionally something much worse happens. And if something worse does happen to you or one of your friends, then what? Then you are to blame. You are to blame for encouraging the helpless man, and you are to blame for not listening to your instincts in the first place and getting away. Or so says our victim-blaming society. And therefore so says everyone you know, and so says the voice in your head. So really, if you are wondering whether someone is a creep, I think it’s better to get yourself and your friends out of the situation by whatever means you can. Don’t wait to see which of you he follows home, and exactly what he does when he gets there, so that you can make an informed decision about how he really deserves to be dealt with. Just don’t take the risk.

What about the men? If a man really is unable to follow social rules in this respect, for whatever reason, he is going to face some pretty cruel treatment from women on a regular basis, and that will have a serious impact on his life. If he doesn't mean it, isn't it really unfair? I think this is a disservice to men. It’s a disservice to men who genuinely do have problems understanding social rules, but nonetheless work really hard to act in accordance with them. It’s also a disservice to the image of men within society, as puppets controlled entirely by their sexual urges and unable to engage in any social interactions not mediated by that. Nonetheless, with the best will in the world, nice guys trying hard will come across as creeps sometimes, and I am recommending hurting them. I don’t do so lightly, but I don’t think there’s much choice as things stand. You are risking worse than hurt feelings if you don’t.

Is there a way of making things better so that all this mess doesn't have to happen at all? Unsurprisingly, the solution is straightforward, but the execution of it is incredibly complex. We need widespread social change such that our public spaces are not seen by both genders as meat markets in which men hunt women. Change such that the social rules are not so complicated and contradictory, with one side telling you that you should respect women and treat them as people, and the other saying it’s expected of you to prey on them and see them as fair game who it’s a bit of a laugh to abuse. You should be a feminist. You should be a player. No wonder a lot of guys struggle to sort out how they should behave.

There will always be social interactions that don’t run smoothly. Many of these will result in bruised feelings. Some may result in unintended intimidation. But currently these things are institutionalised as standard incidents, like the ones you learned about in foreign language classes at school. The creepy chat-up is like asking the way to the train station, or booking a hotel room. It’s something you expect to deal with as standard. That’s what needs to change. Until then, protect yourselves, protect your friends, and don’t be ashamed of that. It’s not cowardice, it’s not cruelty, it’s not paranoia. It’s just the only sensible reaction to a bad situation in a world where change is long overdue.

Our survey says: Anyone but those guys!

Just a short post this time, and maybe a bit of a UK-centric one (sorry). This is about voting, given that we are going to vote in the European (and in some places local) elections in a few days time. Should you vote? Yes Why? See below.

It’s often thrown out there (particularly at younger women, or people from any other group that used to be denied the vote) that you should vote because someone fought for your right to do so. Suffragettes suffered so that you could put a cross on a bit of paper, and you can’t even be bothered to do that. My teenage response was always “well I didn't ask them to”. It’s horribly selfish, but there’s something to it. I think the someone-fought-for-your-vote argument is a bit of a red herring. But it’s close to something important.

What really is important is why anyone ever thought it was worth fighting for. What made them think it mattered so much? Quite simply because a vote is power. Individually, it’s not much, but collectively it is. That’s democracy.

Think about a world in which women (or any other group) didn't have the vote. How would that change politics? Well, with no fear of losing votes, government can implement policies that are unfavourable to women. Issues that women care about specifically just don’t even make it onto the table for discussion.

So what happens now, in a time when young people are particularly bored and/or disillusioned (understandably) with politics, and express that by not voting? They lose their voice. Issues that affect young people more than others are not even debated; policies that disadvantage young people can be implemented without fear. Your vote may not feel like much, but it’s the nearest thing you have to a gun to the head of the government. “Do/don’t do this, otherwise you’re finished.”

What about the argument that a single vote is too small to make a difference? Well that’s easily countered; other people vote as well! It only works if enough people vote, but all you can do is get out and vote yourself and trust that others will do the same. The more people that do it, the more others will follow; that’s how collective stuff works.

What about the argument that there’s no-one worth voting for? I sympathise with that one, I really do. I think everyone does. But look at it this way: some parties are more worth voting against than others. So vote for the least bad option, and see it as a vote against all the others. It sort of is. It’s a completely fair answer to “who do you want to win?” to say “anyone but those guys!”

There’s a real danger at the moment that certain smaller, more extremist parties (who shall remain nameless) could have a real shot, given people’s disillusionment. Other people will be voting for them. You can’t stop that. All you can do is vote for someone else; that’s the power you have to neutralise their effect. Even if your vote is only damage limitation in that case, there’s nothing wrong or insignificant about that.

So get to the polls. You are very unlikely to regret it if you do, but you might well seriously regret it if you don’t.

Hideous kinky?

Talking about sex, in particular the eye-openingly wide variety of different things people enjoy, has never been so widely accepted. These days we are freer to express ourselves and indulge what we really want, largely free of prejudice and sanctimonious tutting. From Ann Summers parties, to the culturally ubiquitous Fifty Shades of Grey, we have never had so much freedom. Or so they tell us. But the real picture seems much more complicated than that. My particular concern is that society is now creating a pressure towards particular kinks that is just as pernicious as their earlier condemnation, if not more so. An unwillingness to discuss the topic seems at least partly to blame. I’ll get to that via a couple of other interesting things that seem to be happening at the moment.

The first interesting thing is the conversation in the media and elsewhere about pornography. In particular, there is a concern that young people feel under pressure to behave in the way that porn stars do, because this is their only (or at any rate most graphic) representation of what sex should be like. This is of particular concern in relation to pornography involving violence and humiliation. Feminists have stressed that a generation of young boys is reaching maturity with the belief that women like to be hurt and humiliated, and the conditioned response to be aroused by that happening because that’s the kind of porn they have been using, and it’s habit-forming. [See e.g. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/10441027/How-porn-is-rewiring-our-brains.html]

Another interesting thing is a parallel conversation about consent. This is a topic worthy of a whole other blog post (which I may write at some point) but from rape re-enactment porn [see e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22643862] to Robin Thicke singing “I know you want it”, there’s definitely some confusion around the idea.

The final thing to mention before I get to the main point is sex toys. By that I mean not just dildos and vibrators, but the full range of paraphernalia on sale, including various BDSM equipment. Apparently we are buying more of all this than we used to, suggesting perhaps that sex has got a whole lot more…creative…for want of a better word. It seems very likely that this is linked to the more widespread use of harder and more diverse kinds of porn, although I doubt it is as simple as the one causing the other.

So is any of this a problem? The standard liberal line, and one I have always supported, is that consenting adults can do whatever they like as long as it isn't hurting anyone else. However, I now think this is naïve. It is just another way of closing a door on a topic that some people just don’t want to think about. We have moved from “it’s all disgusting, let’s not talk about it” to “it’s all just a bit of fun, let’s not talk about it”. But we desperately need an honest open dialogue. For one thing, some practices can be dangerous (for example erotic asphyxiation, blood play etc.). For another thing, consent can be difficult to establish. Moral dilemmas abound here, as many people within niche groups like the BDSM community have known for a long time. If more extreme practices are becoming more mainstream, these things can’t be brushed under the carpet by the media and the general public.

But my main concern here is changing expectations, potentially resulting in people feeling coerced (not directly, but via social pressure) into trying things that really don’t interest them. Is this really happening? I think it is.

Our cultural stereotype of the ideal partner is usually described by phrases like “an absolute freak in the bedroom”, “likes it dirty”, “a real bad girl/boy” etc. Our image of what is sexy has become largely dominated (no pun intended) by kink. What does this do? Well it creates a standard to live up to, as these images always do.

What if someone (male or female) happens to really enjoy “vanilla” sex. Maybe they even favour the missionary position sometimes; then what? It seems that now we view that person as a prude, as sexually repressed, as stuck in the past, as inadequate, unerotic, in short really really boring. How will they ever attract a partner, let alone keep their interest? Do they even know how to use half the stuff on sale in the average sex shop? If not, do we view them as inadequate and worthy of ridicule? It very much feels like things are moving in that direction.

Worse, what about the kids growing up with this as their main image of what sex should be like? It would be nice to think that they could decide for themselves what they really like or want to try, and leave the rest, but I think the reality is that what you really want (certainly when you are younger, and for many people right through their lives) is to be normal. So people try to do what they think their partner will expect of them, and keep doing it until they like it, or at least get used to it.

What I would really like to know is, if we could somehow remove the influence of the media and peer pressure, what would people really want? It is likely that some would still really want to be tied up, whipped, etc etc, and, if they can find others who want to do that for/with them, that’s totally fine. But also many people would want something far simpler, and far more vanilla. And we seem to be in danger of forgetting that there’s nothing wrong with that either.

The ideal future would be one that is more genuinely accepting of different tastes, rather than one where sexual desires are dictated by fashion. Particularly given fashion’s tendency to become progressively more extreme by a process of one-upmanship. So we need a real honest conversation about sex. Not just one where people are free to admit what they would like to try, but also one where they are free to admit that they wouldn't.

Baa baa black sheep, have you any succulent flesh for me to feast on?

As you might have guessed from the title, this is a post about vegetarianism. But it is also about the way of thinking that allows most people to go from “aww cute little lambies!” to “mmm, roast lamb” without missing a beat. It’s a way of thinking I believe I've seen elsewhere and no good comes of it, so it’s worth a closer look. Vegetarianism is just one example; an important one I think.

I became a vegetarian for environmental reasons (global warming, better energy efficiency of growing arable crops versus grazing animals etc). I didn't think there was actually anything wrong with killing and eating animals in principle, and I had no particular emotional reaction to the idea of eating meat; it just seemed rationally better not to.

I had always wondered why I wasn't repulsed by the idea of eating meat; why we all aren't. There must be a moment in childhood when you find out what meat is, and it seems like that should be pretty traumatic and put you off for life. Yet I remember no such moment, and other people I have talked to mostly don’t either. I wondered whether, when I stopped eating meat, I would develop an emotional disgust-response to the idea of it. And I did. It’s why I think that happened that’s interesting, so enough of the autobiographical wittering, and let’s look at that.

When we are doing something that isn't really right, I think the subconscious reasoning goes something like “I do this, and I'm not a bad/stupid/thoughtless person, so it can’t be a bad/stupid/thoughtless thing to do”. Sometimes you hear people say things like this out loud. I've met people who think “well I've always eaten meat” is a justification of some sort, and I'm sure you have too. Once you stop doing the thing (eating meat in this case), that line of thought is cut off. Then you can think about the thing itself, without your self-image getting in the way. If there’s one thing that clouds all of our judgement, it’s self-image.

I said this applies to things other than vegetarianism, so what do I have in mind? One example is abusive relationships. There’s a tendency to think something like “I wouldn't get taken advantage of because I'm a strong and smart person, so given that I'm in this relationship, it can’t be one in which I'm being taken advantage of”. And then you don’t leave. (Of course I'm not implying that strong and smart people don’t get into abusive relationships. Learning that they do sometimes can be the way to get out without destroying your self-image).

I have seen the same reasoning applied to drunk driving. An acquaintance off her face on chardonnay was giving a group of people a lift home. Someone suggested she was in no fit state, but she told us that she doesn't drink much because of her religion. Presumably the thinking was “I don’t drink much because I'm not that sort of person, so I can’t be drunk”. Again, self-image (and admittedly booze too in this case) gets in the way of seeing what is actually going wrong.

This thought pattern is a kind of what George Orwell called doublethink. You can learn to live with the tension between believing something to be wrong (or at least having a nagging half-conscious sense that it is) and explicitly denying it. In this case, the trick is pulled off because of the way self-image gets in the way. We don’t even need an Orwellian oppressive regime to tell us what to think; we can do doublethink all by ourselves. It seems possible that learning to think in this way could leave us open to manipulation by a regime that relies on such contradictions, à la 1984, but I’ll leave that thought as a vague suggestion here. The examples of self-manipulation in the cases of abusive relationships and drink driving should be enough to show that this way of thinking can be dangerous.

Is there a way to stop ourselves thinking this way? Probably not entirely, since it seems to be something we take to so naturally. But being aware of that fact by itself arms us against it to some extent. Knowledge is power (over yourself, as much as over others).

To close, I want to bring this back to vegetarianism. What I have said would make sense of the idea of initiatives that challenge people to go veggie for a month just to try it. You don’t just learn what other options you have to eat, you erode that image of yourself as a meat-eater, making it harder to think “I eat meat, so it can’t be bad”. Why not push yourself further? Try reflecting on the fact that you are munching on dead stuff – “mmm, tasty corpses!” – and see if your emotions towards meat change. And if they are changed so easily, why should your new thoughts be any less valid than the old? If you eat meat just because it doesn't feel like a bad thing to do, or because you've always done it, I dare you to try it and see what happens.

Then you can enjoy watching those spring lambs playing in the fields without getting hungry. If you look at them in the right way, they just aren't food!

To broaden the mind is to travel

The main argument of this blog post is that there is no need to physically travel anywhere in order to broaden your mind, or to “find yourself”. Those things can and should be done internally and, once you begin doing them, you should find that you have already travelled further than you could ever have imagined, all without moving a single step.

I’ll start with “finding yourself”, because that’s the least sensible idea. Broadening the mind has something going for it, so I’ll get to that later.

I assume that finding yourself is either learning about yourself, or learning to accept yourself. Both of these are important things to do; it’s just travel to far-flung destinations as the means that I want to question. To learn about yourself, the last thing you want to do is try to run away from yourself, and that is what travel so often amounts to. You need to confront yourself head on, with no distractions. The same goes for self-acceptance; you need to see yourself clearly to begin accepting what you see.

If you can’t find yourself alone in a quiet room, then the problem is not with your location, but with you. It’s a problem we all have at some point; many of us have it through most of our lives. We want to know ourselves, but we fear to. Self-reflection is hard, but it is the only way to ever truly find out who you are, and come to terms with what you find. Learn to meditate. It’s cheaper than flying halfway round the world, and it has a much lower carbon footprint.

Ok, that’s glib. I think there’s a lot of truth to it, but it leaves some things out. What if you want to find out who you are by seeing how you respond to new experiences? If you want unfamiliar situations, then sure, go to new places and meet new people, but most of us can do that by travelling less than 10 miles. Take up a new hobby; walk until you hit somewhere you don’t recognise then start exploring; ask a friend or acquaintance out for a drink and talk until dawn. All of these things are richer ways of exploring who you are than trying to rack up more air miles than whichever of your friends posts the most spiritually enlightened and deep travel photos in your Facebook feed.

Which brings me to broadening the mind. You might be able to learn to know and accept yourself without moving anywhere, but can you learn to know and accept other people in all their variety? I think you can, but it isn't as obvious because you are right there wherever you are, and other people are not.

For one thing the people you already know, and nearby people you could potentially meet, are almost certainly more varied than you have ever realised. Take the time to really talk to them and find out. Real learning comes from depth of communication, and that takes time, not a flying visit, brushing past a culture and gawping at it for a bit, then considering yourself to have come away enlightened.

Having said that, I think we do have an immense amount to learn from more distant cultures about ways a good life can be lived. Other people would balk at the things we take for granted, and in turn take for granted things that we find downright bizarre. Sometimes noting this can teach us ways to be better, or even just different. But all we really need in order to do this in most cases is the information about how they live and what they think. In an age where communication across the globe takes literally next to no time, and diverse reading material is freely available, there is usually no need to travel in order to learn. More than that, I think doing so does harm.

The most obvious harm it does is to the environment, because travel takes fuel and energy. Unnecessary air travel is morally dubious at best. Less obviously, it also does harm to our image of what a broad minded person is. We come to almost define it as being someone who has travelled. This is wrong in both directions – plenty of people have travelled to many exotic places and accrued no wisdom at all, and also plenty of people have barely left the town in which they were born and yet are tolerant, well educated, interested and interesting. We shouldn't judge someone by the number of stamps in their passport; it doesn't represent either breadth or depth of thinking or understanding of the world. A culture that thinks otherwise is one which pushes young people in particular into taking environmentally damaging and sometimes personally dangerous journeys to distant locations, purely for social acceptance. Gap year photos are easier and more gratifying to show off than being well-read and thoughtful.

What can we teach our young people instead? That people are complex and diverse. Talk properly to those you know, and you will learn this. That there are different ways of doing things that are just as valid as the ways we do them. Read widely and keep your eyes open as you move through daily life, and you will learn this. That you are a part of a wider world and that brings with it certain responsibilities. Watch the news, and you will learn this. That knowing and accepting yourself, without closing off opportunities for change in your life is of vital importance for your well-being. Reflect and meditate, and you will learn this.

The most enriching and satisfying journeys begin with a deep breath, a gentle unfolding of the mind, and the realisation that the only place to find yourself is right here.

Taking sexy back

This post is a defence of the “sexy” dance styles: pole dancing, burlesque, that kind of thing. First some disclaimers; that seems to be how I start my blog posts these days.

Firstly, I realise that these styles of dance are performed by both men and women. Men are underrepresented, and that is an interesting issue in itself, but it isn’t the issue I’m interested in here. Some of what I say here may be applicable to men, but this post is specifically about women dancers. Secondly, I realise that something like pole is not always sexy. Pole sports/pole fitness and the more artistic styles are often trotted out in defence of pole (“it’s not just strippers” etc.), and that’s just fine, but I’m trying to do something different. I am trying to say that, even when a routine is obvious in-your-face (so to speak) sexy, there is nothing wrong with that. In fact it’s quite important.

Now watch me try and get through the rest of the post without saying these styles of dance are “empowering”. I’m claiming something like that, but the word is so overused these days that it’s become almost meaningless, so everyone is claiming something like that. I’ll try to be a bit more precise about what I mean and steer clear of such clichés. I’ll try.

The main thrust (honestly no pun intended) of the argument is that women have a right to express their sexiness or sexuality if they want to, and in our society, up on a stage in front of an audience is often the safest place they can do that. Sounds mad? Let’s see.

First, let’s think about why pole and burlesque are so popular. Show audiences are often full of straight women, and many of those women will have tried out classes in one of these styles, or at least thought about doing so. Clearly there’s an appeal. Something is being provided here that isn’t being provided by other aspects of women’s roles in our society: A different means to be sexy.

I don’t want to provide a lengthy defence of being sexy. Birds, bees, educated fleas, etc. Even if you think modern culture is too obsessed with sex, you can’t deny its importance for many people’s human experience. And women are of course human people. So let’s just take for granted that it’s inevitable and quite alright (even healthy) for women to express their sexiness or sexuality in some place, and get on to talking about the alternatives available for doing so.

In everyday public life it’s tricky to be sexy, even when you feel it’s appropriate. Dressed up for a night out, flirting with a guy in a bar, all of these things take a lot of confidence and can get you into situations you don’t want to be in. Victim blaming, amongst other things, makes the public sphere generally a difficult place to be sexy.

What about in your private life? I’m guessing this would be most opponents’ preferred suggestion: Keep it at home for your husband or boyfriend. It’ll make him feel special, and the rest of the world won’t think you’re a slut. Well. Many women don’t have husbands or boyfriends and some of them, believe it or not, don’t really have an interest in finding one either. There are also plenty of women in relationships where expressing sexiness is difficult or impossible.

This is the part that’s hard truth. Many relationships are not safe spaces for sexual expression. I’m sure there are lots that are, and many congratulations to those women, but they are not the only women with a right to sexuality, and those who are not lucky enough to be in that situation have done nothing wrong to end up where they have.

Even in happy relationships, sometimes a woman might want to be sexy without it constituting a promise to have sex. If you go out for dinner, maybe you want to wear stockings under your dress because they make you feel good, and you want the person you are having dinner with to know that too, because that also makes you feel good. But you don’t necessarily want that to mean you are obliged to have sex with them when you get home, because you might no longer want it by then. But if you don’t, doesn’t it feel a bit like you’re reneging on a deal? Especially if, last time this happened, you said you had a headache.

Feeling like you’re running out of excuses not to put out is not sexy. If you are spending more time thinking about how to avoid having sex with your partner than about actually doing it, that’s going to damage your relationship. But if you can’t predict whether you will want sex later that evening, that means you sometimes feel that you can’t do anything to suggest it now. So you don’t wear stockings. You don’t wear anything sexy, and you don’t say anything flirty, unless you actually definitely want sex right now. But where’s the anticipation in that? Where’s the tease? Tease is important. We’ll be coming back to tease.

So a relationship is often not a safe space to express sexiness or sexuality, particularly if that expression for you often involves dressing sexy, talking sexy, moving sexy, and then not always actually having sex. That’s a bit of a stereotype of female sexuality, and it may be one that some women don’t even recognise. But definitely for a lot of women at least some of the time, that’s the kind of sexuality you have and want to express.

So why up on stage? Well no-one can touch you (assuming you’re not performing in a sleazy dive with a brothel out the back, but I’m not defending that here). Like all performance, the audience can fall in love with you – eyes only – then applaud and go home without ever exchanging a word, let alone a grope. And those are the rules, so you can get as sexy as you want, knowing that no-one is going to expect you to live up to the expectations you create by doing so. In fact, it’s part of the magic that you don’t. And that’s tease.

In a culture of instant gratification, we have forgotten the importance of tease. Of anticipation. In burlesque in particular, tease is an integral part of the performance, and surely of the appeal. It’s a type of sexy that other aspects of modern life just doesn’t leave room for.

So sexy performance dance provides a safe space for tease without promises. A space where the performer isn’t giving away a promise about what sort of girl she is, or what she’ll do for you later. However many times she has given away those things in the past, this is a space where she can take them back, and have ownership of her own sexiness for a change.