Monday Morning Poll

[andrewducker]

[Poll #1609536]

context for question 1.
Question 2 needs no context.

Comments

[burkesworks.livejournal.com]

Burlesque; as empowering as a flat HP7 battery, and about as erotic as Ann Widdecombe. Discuss.

[goldrose.livejournal.com]

that... is a scary idea.

[neferet.livejournal.com]

I've been to some pretty bad burlesque shows, where I agree it doesn't feel much different to going to a themed strip club. But I have been to a lot of good (personal opinion) burlesque which has the dose of dark humour and/or undertow of social commentary which drew me to the performances in the first place. It's hard to consider it an oppresive tool of the patriarchy when in a show where the performers are making a subtle dig at said patriarchy :)

[ipslore.livejournal.com]

Nah, it's not that hard. Consider the following scenario: the digs are subtle enough that they don't actually hurt patriarchy, but they let people feel like they're doing something bold and subversive, which prevents them from getting pissed enough to actually go out and smash stuff.

[gonzo21.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that so long as the Burlesque performers themselves are telling me they feel empowered and liberated by what they do, I, as a straight white guy, have no place telling them otherwise.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I've not seen or read deeply enough to check it out thoroughly, but >from what I can gather, I'd fancy our chances against Twilight vamps more than any other challenge.

(Also, if we're allowed fantasy defences, like Slayers and movie-scientists, we'd almost certainly win, on the evidence we have.)

[andrewducker]

Vampires might be a threat, depending on how easy they find it to hide during the day, and their level of power. The higher-powered ones from the Vampire RPG would be really nasty, but the majority of the ones from TV/novels would be easy enough to take down.

Slow zombies would be wiped out nigh-instantly.

Werewolves would be trivial to take down, unless they were very well organised.

Fast zombies are the only ones that strike me as a big threat. If they hit mainland Europe, for instance, then evacuating to the USA and hoping that the Bering Straits could be held would be about our best bet.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

I think you're underestimating the motivation and ability of vamps and werewolves to hide among the population. (As does much fic.) Uncertainty about who is and isn't one would seriously undermine humanity's efforts.

On the zombies, most fix has a hopelessly unrealistic model of population dynamics. Am mobile atm so can't cite, but ISTR the literature backs mr up here - there's a chance but we have to hit hard and quickly. We'll never believe the threat in time.

[andrewducker]

Once people believed there _were_ Vampires/Werewolves they'd find it impossible to hide. We'd have mandatory registration and testing within days.

I shall look forward to your future comment about zombies - so far as I can see, the number of bodies which would be mobile are quite slim. They also move slowly and are reasonably easily disabled. Fast zombies/Infected are, of course, a different matter.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

In days a registration scheme set up? Ha ha ha ha ha! Two weeks is still optimistic. And testing is going to take a long, long time. And a foolproof scheme can't be done. Look at the TSA no-fly list, or CRB checks.

[despotliz.livejournal.com]

I once had a conversation in which we calculated the number of zombies needed to build a zombie bridge across the Channel, and IIRC it was most of the population of Europe depending on how they were stacked. So if we closed the ports in time we might be able to hide in the UK.

[andrewducker]

Unless, of course, it starts in London!

I'm sure I've seen something before which calculated the speed of Infected movement across Europe from the end of 28 Weeks Later, but I can't find it at the moment.

[captainlucy.livejournal.com]

I think that might have been one of mine.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Zombie birdssssss BRAINSsS brAAAAIINsssSssSS!

[cairmen.livejournal.com]

The Twilight vamps might sound a bit wussy because they're in a teen romance book, but actually they're amongst the higher-powered of the genre.

Skin as hard as stone, move to fast to see, all of them can throw trucks around, and they don't have any pesky problems with daylight, stakes, or garlic... (except for that sparkling thing)

And that's just the regular not-old ones.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

Ok, we're doomed by the Sparkly Ones.

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Since Vampires, Werewolves and Zombies are still technically human, Mankind will survive. Just maybe not in the state we're used to....

Although there is the Daybreakers scenario where, if you've turned all the normal humans into vampires, what do the vampires drink to stay alive? Then mankind might not survive.

[andrewducker]

I didn't see Daybreakers. Was it any good?

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

It wasn't bad. Nice premise, Sam Neill is excellent as ever, and Jo absolutely loved it. We both agreed the ending could have been slightly better though.

Worth a look on DVD if you've got an evening to kill.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I'm going to add my vote to Simon's assessment. Not omgawesome, but some nice ideas and solid performances throughout.

[broin.livejournal.com]

Or to put it another way, it was fucking awful.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

As you know, I have mixed feelings about burlesque.

Actually, that's not true, I have mostly negative feelings about burlesque.

My dislike, however, is motivated less by it being just another form of objectification of women excused/obfuscated by the costumes/atmosphere being 'vintage' (although I think that's exactly what it is on a mainstream level) than by the subculture revival of it mostly being overrun with talentless amateurs who couldn't carry a rhythm if you impanted a metronome in their pelvis and who moreover I would really rather didn't take their clothes off (in a 'sexy' way that is - I have no objection to naked people in general) in front of me.

Which is not to say I don't think they should take their clothes off and jiggle provocatively - if that makes them feel empowered or whatever that's lovely for them, but I sort of feel like it's ceased to be about the audience any more at that point and becomes solely about the performer - their experience, their empowerment, their sense of self.

That's great, but if I'm paying to watch you wander about aimlessly on stage throwing bits of clothing around as a celebration of your positive self-image, you might just as well stand on the street with a bucket and a sign reading "I FEEL GOOD ABOUT MY BODY: PLEASE GIVE GENEROUSLY".

[andrewducker]

Great rant!

I, also, have no interest in people just taking their clothes off at me.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

PS: I'm completely confident that we'd have a slow zombie threat neutralised in days - Erin and I were just discussing this the other day.

Vamps/werewolves it would really depend on the mythos. Buffy vampires: Probably - even without a slayer. Twlight/WoD vamps: less likely.

Werewolves that could only turn on a full moon: no problem. Werewolves who can turn whenever they like... more worrying. It would also depend whether their infectious bite worked only in wolf form or at all times, whether the fluid transfer had to be through a bite or if a simple injection of their aliva/blood was sufficient, and how organised they were about their infection attempts. It would also depend whether they were just ordinary wolves or if they had a WoD/Wolfman-style 'Crinos' form.

Fast zombies would eat us for breakfast. Literally.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a burlesque show where the performers enjoyed what they were doing and had actually chosen to be there. As long as someone makes a choice, more power to her and I hope she makes a lot of money doing it. I notice society often automatically equates removal of clothing with oppression and I think that's rather inaccurate and misleading.

[andrewducker]

I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a burlesque show where the performers enjoyed what they were doing and had actually chosen to be there.

Really? I know this is common with strip bars - the performers are largely just there for the cash, but the burlesque stuff I know of is largely populated by amateurs doing it either for fun, or small amounts of cash as a sideline.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

My best friend is a stripper and makes good money at it, but also loves doing it. Another friend does burlesque and I don't know how much she makes, but it's a decent amount, and she loves doing that, too. Just the stories I've been told from women doing it. I've never done this work so I can't offer my own experiences.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_yggdrasil/]

And you know? I don't want to be disengenous here and imply that what I've seen and heard means the shady oppressive stuff doesn't happen, because it does. But I do think there's a difference between burlesque, and stripping, and sex work, and so forth, though those worlds may intersect.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. There's a whole world of shades of grey there, and I don't have more than passing experience of any of it, other than what I've read, or heard from friends who are more closely involved in bits of it.

Threat Assessment...

[captainlucy.livejournal.com]

1) Traditional "Slow" Zombies: There are really 2 kinds here. (a) The "traditional" Romero-esque zombie, raised by something which can be described scientifically, limited to those infected before death, and which can be taken down with a good shot to the head, and (b) the mythological zombie, raised by supernatural means, includes those already dead (limited only by decomposition to the point where there is nothing left to animate - think Jason & The Argonauts fighting the skeletons), and which can only be stopped by massive damage, combatting with opposing supernatural forces, or satisfying whatever supernatural desires animate the zombie.
So, with that in mind:
1a: Defcon 4 - localised threat to small and isolated communities, no threat where there is an organised military/militia
1b: Defcon 1 - major worldwide threat, potentially overwhelming dependent on the speed/ferocity of the outbreak and whether suitable counter-measures can be employed in time

Fast Zombies/Infected: This would have to be contained almost instantly at source, otherwise you'd be looking at a mass nuclear strike within a very short space of time. More than a few hours and the outbreak would be unstoppable. Not so bad for the rest of the world if the outbreak is on an island (e.g. Britain, Ireland, Japan, Australia), a bit shit if it's somewhere on a continental land mass (excluding Antarctica for obvious reasons, it's already got the Thing and various Cthulhoid monstrosities to worry about).
Defcon 1: depending on the speed and scale of the response, it could be a world-killer

Vampires/werewolves: Hard to say. Depends on any number of variables, including but not limited to:
-what are their intentions for the rest of Humanity?
-how organised are they?
-what (if any) special powers do they possess?
-what are their limitations/weaknesses?
Depending on these, they could be anywhere from Defcon 4 to Defcon 1. If you're talking World of Darkness/New WoD, then I would put them at Defcon 2 - a major threat, combat with them would change the world as we knew it, casualties would be huge but not insurmountable