Thread: The four styles of burlesque......?

Originally Posted by tempest devyne

Yes but the problem is that there are a lot of ladies (particularly of my generation) who have got to that certain age where they want to do something to help their self-esteem, to make them feel a little more glamorous, a little more sexy, and get out of the house and meet people again, perhaps after years of putting their kids first.......and what is there out there?

If there was a DECENT weekly class , that was purely a fitness class , and didn't pretend to be anything but, a bit of a get together, I might think about it, because I love burlesque and I do think there are some standard moves you could put into fitness routines to have a bit of fun.........but I'm afraid I'd be requiring an instructor of a LOT higher standard than poor Steph
....

I am one of those ladies of a certain age but don't feel I'm ready for the waltz and tango just yet. I attend a dance class each week advertised as a Burlesque /Cabaret class . This is in no way a fitness class and is purely about strutting your stuff and learning dance routines. Some are cabaret and some are more burlesque . We learn a set of routines and then put on a show firstly to family and friends (to give us confidence) and then to the general public. The last show was a sell out with over 200 tickets sold. The teacher is a burlesque performer in her own right. She also gives class members a chance to come up with thier own routines and audition to perform at the friends & family shows, which is great for those who want to.

I've been to a couple of burlesque workshops which were great, but they only last a day, and then what, where not all going to go on to perform. We need more good teachers to get out there and offer weekly, or at least monthly classes so that ladies like me can get their burlesque fix.

I don't know if the class I go to would suit you Tempest but if you want to join me one Wednesday to give it a go you're more than welcome.

Originally Posted by Calliope Cootch

It is unfair to pick on her (which i don't think is the point of this post) but at the same time it is unfair for the company to advertise classes to the paying public when they don't know the subject properly and how to teach it well and safely.

I agree, kind of, and I accept the fact that she is very young but, at the end of the day she is not just some random kid who's seen Moulin Rouge too many times getting trapped in front of camera. She's setting herself up as a Burlesque teacher. People who teach things are supposed to know about the things they teach and it's horribly evident that she not only hasn't got a clue about Burlesque but hasn't even bothered to find out about it before setting herself up as a teacher/spokeswoman for it in the press!

Given that, we have every right to be less than sympathetic to Steph - she chose to earn her money by "teaching" something she knows nothing about, she chose to make an utter fool of herself on camera and announce her ignorance for all to see. Those were her choices not ours and they have a negative effect on something we are passionate about (I cringe at the idea of someone watching the inept writhings on display in the video and thinking that that is what Burlesque is :yuk, so why are we the bad people for calling her out on it? How would a physicist feel about a school physics teacher who announced that the sun went around the earth - would they be mean for pointing out that such a person should not be teaching?

We're just oh so lucky up in Edinburgh to have the luxury of two of the best teachers - Gypsy and Viva - and for that we're all very thankful.

Agreed to th nth-degree! :excited:

Originally Posted by evildrneil

Anyway more seriously I'm afraid your seeing the tip of a fad iceberg here. As soon as something gets remotely popular there will be someone there trying to make a fast buck off it.

For a minute or so on Thursday, I was afraid we were going to be subjected to Jane Beale doing a burlesque routine on EastEnders ... now that may have been scary ...

Originally Posted by Lilly de Lure

How would a physicist feel about a school physics teacher who announced that the sun went around the earth - would they be mean for pointing out that such a person should not be teaching?

This is how I feel about Creationism being taught in schools instead of evolution ... by all means put it forward as an alternative, but don't disregard science which has some basis in fact and evidence supporting it!!

Originally Posted by Fleur du Mal

For a minute or so on Thursday, I was afraid we were going to be subjected to Jane Beale doing a burlesque routine on EastEnders ... now that may have been scary ...

Up untill that point I was enjoying my lunch - now I'm traumatised :yuk:

Originally Posted by Fleur du Mal

This is how I feel about Creationism being taught in schools instead of evolution ... by all means put it forward as an alternative, but don't disregard science which has some basis in fact and evidence supporting it!!

I'd go further than that. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Creationism is a fairy story, and has no place in a science class .

Evolution is evidence based, and changes as new discoveries come to light. Creationism is doctrine. Unchanging and rigid - absolutely nothing to do with science at all, and should be kept to an RE class if it's going to be mentioned at all.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. :eyebrows:

Did anyone else get the feeling that in that video, it was almost like the wee lass had been told by her boss that she was to be "the burlesque teacher" that week, and gave her a copy of Moulin Rouge to watch?

I'd go further than that. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Creationism is a fairy story, and has no place in a science class .

Now that's just unfair to fairy stories - they tend to have a vague reference to human behaviour .

Originally Posted by blitzgrrl

Now that's just unfair to fairy stories - they tend to have a vague reference to human behaviour .

Touche! Consider me thouroughly corrected on that point! :genius:

Originally Posted by Iolair

I'd go further than that. Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Creationism is a fairy story, and has no place in a science class .

Evolution is evidence based, and changes as new discoveries come to light. Creationism is doctrine. Unchanging and rigid - absolutely nothing to do with science at all, and should be kept to an RE class if it's going to be mentioned at all.

I completely agree - but I was trying to be sympathetic. I meant offer it as an alternative viewpoint that is believed by some people, if you're going to mention it at all. But I'd prefer it if not. Heck I went to a Catholic school and not once was Creationism mentioned as a serious theory - it was never presented as anything other than allegory. But it scares me that there are so many influential people in the world who not only subscribe to the view, but who want to make it a mandatory part of education ... but it would be hypocritical of me to completely disregard their beliefs, however ridiculous they may be ...

I probably should stay away from this argument - but that foot in mouth syndrome is gonna strike again! Strange as it may seem coming from my background I'm actually strongly in favour of creationism being taught. If you teach science as simply a block of knowledge then you are teaching dogma - and that is what we are rapidly sliding into. Science is a process of explaining the world to the best of our current understanding and knowledge, not a crystalline chunk of stuff we know. The history of our knowledge whether in terms of discarded scientific theories, philosophy or religion have a profound effect on our current understanding of the world and to disgard them entirely would further disconnect people from the process of learning and just stuffing them full of facts.

Erm sorry about the slight tangential rant ops:

Originally Posted by evildrneil

I probably should stay away from this argument - but that foot in mouth syndrome is gonna strike again! Strange as it may seem coming from my background I'm actually strongly in favour of creationism being taught. If you teach science as simply a block of knowledge then you are teaching dogma - and that is what we are rapidly sliding into. Science is a process of explaining the world to the best of our current understanding and knowledge, not a crystalline chunk of stuff we know. The history of our knowledge whether in terms of discarded scientific theories, philosophy or religion have a profound effect on our current understanding of the world and to disgard them entirely would further disconnect people from the process of learning and just stuffing them full of facts.

Erm sorry about the slight tangential rant ops:

No worries - I can see where you are coming from but I think you might have the wrong end of the stick. Of course children should be taught how science works, how we know what we know and what the uncertainty factors are - that is an essential part of science, the facts are just the products. The children should be taught this, along with how to think critically and how to evaluate evidence as a fundamental part of science classes - this is arguably the most important lesson kids take away from science classes , the body of facts is just the product of applying the scientific method to the natural world.

Unfortunately for the teaching of creationism/ ID /whatever-they'll-call-it-next-to-get-around-the-dover-trial is that it does not fall into this category. Creation is not testable, was not arrived at via the scientific method and not only has no evidence to support it but is flatly contradicted by many different strands of evidence. It is a religio-political proposition dressed up as science and arrived at as a result of people feeling uncomfortable with or insulted by the implications of evolution and because of this it has no place in a science class (unless it is possibly held up as an example of what science most definitely is not).