Several people have pointed out that women dressing in revealing clothes is just a part of dance culture, as if that somehow reduces its potentially sexist nature. Sexism is a part of our culture, so pointing to something as, “just the way its done in that area,” hardly makes it not sexist.

If the way that women dress in ballroom isn’t sexist, then why is it that women are the ones who dress very revealingly and men are usually fully-clothed?

In other words, girls can just…

Oh, and let’s not get started on calling full-grown women “girls”. ;-) Hey, there’s another sexist thing that’s just “done” in our culture. Oh, but nobody expects women to ACTUALLY behave like children, so it must be okay. Except we all know that’s not entirely true. There are ways in which society infantilizes women, and calling them “girls” is a reflection of that. There are ways in which society views women as sex-objects, and the way they dress in ballroom dancing reflects that.

Now, same-gender couples usually only happen at collegiate competitions and there sometimes they’re only allowed below a certain level. Interestingly, at the lower levels girls tend to be better dancers than guys, so sometimes you’ll see girl-girl couples winning more stuff than mixed-gender couples – and this isn’t just in the midwest, I’ve seen it in other places and even at the national competition in Ohio.

As far as the ‘dynamic’, at these levels there’s almost no difference between ‘male’ and ‘female’ dance styles. The same motions and general ‘rules’ apply to both genders/roles for each dance. There’s a bit of a difference in the smooth/standard roles cause the leaders go forward and followers go back, but in the latin/rhythm dances both roles are doing the exact same basic steps, only they start on opposite feet and in opposite directions. The only differences are in the costume because the woman’s is meant to showcase her body, and sometimes in the hand placement/motions on the partners’ bodies. If you have the chance to go to a collegiate competition, watch the girl-girl couples (or the rare guy-guy couple) and you’ll see this – more often than not, the girl in the lead will be wearing ‘sexy’ clothes and looking just as ‘hot’ as her partner, since the ‘lead’ role is so similar to the ‘follower’ role.

Incidentally, everyone’s wondering about the objectification of women and the costumes, so let me throw in my two cents: When you’re at a ballroom competition, it’s socially acceptable to ‘flaunt’ your sexuality, dress up in ridiculously skimpy outfits, and so on, yet nobody expects you to actually be that sexual once you’re off the dance floor. In other words, girls can just express their sexuality to their heart’s content in a completely safe, fun, and socially acceptable way.

Huh. A folk dance I was taught had the same swapping of partners in it; however, with us it was explained in different terms. Dances played a big part in social occasions, and part of their allure was the sexual tension that they played with. Assuming that you are partnered with someone who is of romantic/sexual interest to you, these dances are very exciting. The dance enables you to get close enough to your partner to touch them, but any contact follows strict rules, making it a safe environment. You swap partners as you go, but the idea is that your initial partner is the focus of your attention, and there is a build up of tension and excitement as they get closer, until you meet up again and get a chance to touch- but just before you’re able to get comfortable,they’re whisked away again. It’s a cycle of raising and lowering of tensions.
The dance plays on the hyperawareness felt by young adults, particularly around romantic interests (crushes), and provided young people with a chance to explore their sexuality in a socially acceptable and very safe environment (there wouldn’t be many other times when fathers would consent to letting a man that close to their daughter)

Regarding the sex workers being in power or out of power – I guess it really depends on what era, what area, etc. you’re looking at, and I see your point on all angles there. One thing that I think we should all be able to agree on is forced sex labor – which, thank goodness, is being pulled more into the public eye as something that has to be stopped. Women who choose to become sex workers, on the other hand, are something of a conundrum to me, from a feminist perspective. Of course it’s a woman’s choice to do what she wants to do with her body, but what drives a woman to make that particular choice?
I would imagine that there is no universal answer to that question.

My definition of pornography is less about nudity, or even eroticism, and more about those two in conjunction with the portrayal of the subject as an object. Most classic male nudes glorify the beauty of masculinity, but place the figure in an active role that defines his status as subject – be it a hero, a god, a martyr, or so on. Classic female nudes, on the other hand, are nearly always in a passive role that exposes their body almost incidentally, such as bathing, or luxuriously reclining on a bed of silks in a bedroom style setting. Edward Lucie-Smith, an art historian, points out that these women’s faces are usually turned away from the viewer, because the paintings were intended to be voyeuristic, not confrontational, and many such female nudes were created as a direct response to commercial demands for eroticism. With that definition in mind, I would personally consider the many classic portrayals of Bathsheba as essentially pornographic, while the nudes of an artist like Gustave Klimt, while highly erotically charged and in various states of undress, retain a decidedly personal and active presence that make them only unabashedly erotic. I love anatomy and nudes, and without thinking much about it assumed that most classic nudes were about the anatomy, until I read Lucie-Smith say that, yes, they are very much what they appear to be, which is the admiration of beauty objects. Looking at them again, and how the nudes were gendered, I couldn’t disagree. (This isn’t to say that men as beauty objects don’t exist in classic art.)

I’ve never seen evidence to suggest that sex workers have ever been in any significant position of power. I recall a few rare incidents, such as a favored concubine’s sons being chosen to inherit a kingdom, but by and large I don’t think sex has ever been the powerful bargaining chip it is now portrayed as. One of the major problems with sex work, after all, is that it goes hand in hand with the attitudes that one’s body has little value, can be substituted easily, and taken by force, if desired, with no legal repercussion.

The line between objectification and sexual freedom is pretty blurry, isn’t it? I don’t think it needs to be, but in this society, it can’t be helped. It’s hard to believe that so many women would choose to go into sex work if they had better options, but at the same time, you can’t turn them into a victim, as you say. Personally, I try to support women’s actions while decreasing the inequality that leads to the degradation inherent in such practices. It’s a good question you raise about the liberation movement, and I wish I knew the answer. It’ll be on my mind. If the sexual liberation of women contributed to the pornification of society or not, though, the one thing I am certain of is that it’s been hegemonic masculinity that’s defined the direction of that pornography. Men have been sexually liberated all this time, and we don’t see them up for display nearly as often.