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 :)
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.
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.)
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
(no subject)
no subject
no subject
(Also, if we're allowed fantasy defences, like Slayers and movie-scientists, we'd almost certainly win, on the evidence we have.)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
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".
(no subject)
no subject
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.
no subject
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
Threat Assessment...
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