"Sexy/ Sleazy fire" - your opinions please

Keep it PG, please

The more performers, the more shades of fire and context in which fire performances are on display.

I tried to keep the poll itself unbiased - please excuse if you feel that it wasn't successful or if you think that I should have included this or give some more options there...

This is not as much about a "code of ethics for fire performers" and "morality" as it is about gathering some views on a common interest (fire performance - not sexuality)

so feel free to vote and comment - but please remember the PG status of this forum.

For me it certainly depends on the concept, setup and environment but there is a thin red line between a witty, erotic fire performance and a sleazy, sexual one. imo fire is erotic enough and doesn't need being "spiced up" with straightforward outfits or movements.

Everybody as they please. But I feel it's diminishing the art of fire performance and rather regard it a sleazy show, propped up with fire, than the other way round - but that might be the case because I haven't seen any tasteful performances in this context.

Further I am a bit worried that it might put female fire performers in a strange light altogether. I perceive women dancing with fire extremely sexy already and go along the lines of "less is more". A woman wearing something for me (in a performance environment especially) stimulates my fantasy lots more than plain naked flesh.

my

I didn't put in a vote with the second one (I didn't disapprove of anything so the third is irrelevant) because I don't think it had an option that reflected my reasons. I approve of such performances because A) I don't think sexuality is dirty or amoral in any way, and B) sexual content does not automatically make something trashy or sleazy. It goes that way too often because once you start making something sexy, people figure they can skimp on other artistic merits. But artistic is not mutually exclusive with sexy--hell, not even with pornographic.

So I approve simply because sex is not the opposite of art. It's the boring and the annoying that don't belong there, everything else is fair game.

Well said Sister Eleven! I think this is a poll based around Ms Vanity, I dont find anything wrong with it.

Flint - Ms. Vanity merely acted as an inspiration for me to finally bring this topic forward. It is not just about her.

For example we have had "erotic" photographies of a nude female poi performer (the link has been removed by the mods, so I won't repost it here). Ms. Vanity has posted her own performance videos and also one of a female performer dancing naked with fire in a strip club.

I'll repost these vids in the next post as the mods seem to have approved of them.

Basically it's quite alright with me, I myself performed twice in a BDSM environment and I know of a few members on the board who did similar performances (one of them definitely my favorite). Further Jen Steele is a hardcore porn actress who also performs fire - strange enough she seem not to have combined her talents (at least I've not heard of).

So no - it's not "a poll based around Ms. Vanity".

I tried to keep the poll as unbiased as possible (sorry if I didn't mention all possible outcomes - feel free to verbalize your choices if you can't find the option that suits your opinion).

Sister Eleven: I agree with you, that "sex is not the opposite of art". And it's exactly "the boring and the annoying" that I'm referring to.

Is Sex dirty? Yes - if done right "haha" and it definitely can be immoral (without consent for example).

@ all: Personally I'm not trying to alienate Ms. Vanity. If you have this idea you're completely off track. I'm merely scouting for opinions and mainly those of the female performers here on this board (we guys have a .... second amendment we instinctively follow and which causes poor blood circulation in our brains)...

Miko Mars



Ms. Vanity



an older vid of her



(Ms. Vanity - in case you read this: your vid is not available in Germany anymore due to audio content belonging to Sony Media)...

I find it hard to respond because for me it's all contextual. I think that something can be done in a very tastefully sensual way which I approve of, but can also done without a scrap of good taste and is purely for the sex and shock value. That I don't approve of. The location and the reason for the performance plays a big part in this.

It's like in movies - was the sex a part of the storyline and done accordingly? or was it just gratuitous?

For me, fire performances can be looked at in the same way.

Yea I guess that's everybodY#s problem here - and has been mine when making the poll... how to keep it short and still cover it?

I mean - not everybody on this board is even a fireplayer... there are people who only play with training toys and others who only do UV...

I remember the times when fireperformance was considered "dirty" by "real jugglers" on the conventions. A lot has changed since - but certainly there are still jugglers who think of fire as "cheap and tacky means to better an otherwise awful act".

So yes - I completely agree that it depends on context... one thing that is barely to be observed on demos - or vids shot by spectators.

Ok, In the polls at the top I went with "approve" of everything because you should be abe to do whatever you want...

THAT SAID...

I dislike A LOT of the burlesquey/strippy fire stuff that I have seen. I think they are using it as above - a new trick to improve their act but not using any skill...

If I went to see a "fire show" and there were naked/semi-naked chicks just dancing around with fire but with no real skill, I would think it was terrible. If it was marketted at a stripping/burlesque routine w fire, then that's different.

If there were two people spinning in the exactly the same way (i.e. poorly) I would respect the girl wearing normal clothes more than the one wearing less.
i don't think being naked/wearing less means you have more skill. i think it means you recognise you have LESS skill and are trying to make up for this.

Sure, fire spinners often wear suggestive clothing. We did a Vaudeville show last night and we wore corsets and puffy skirts, but that was a cute hoop routine, we weren't rolling around in jelly and licking each other...

I guess - "Dear strippers/burlesque performers, I won't step too much into your area without training if you don't step into my area without training as it degrades both our arts."

As this is kinda the area to ask (I meant to ask the burlesque performers last night but forgot) what's the line between burlesque and stripping? because I've seen a great suggestive/cheeky fan routine that was awesome and some terrible sleazy stripping performances that they called burlesque...???

What I would like to see is one of the "sexy" shows with fire, but the spinner has a skill comparable to Nick or Thomas. That would be pretty sick

Also I agree with Rouge's comment

I don't mind the idea of a "sexy" show as long as the performer is good, the naked girls draw the everyday jerk off but I want to see skill, as if I care if a woman is naked or clothed I just want her to be good at what she's doing

**EDIT** But do please keep the kids at home for the more risque shows eh?

I haven't seen a highly skilled performer doin it nakid... but then again I haven't seen many nakid performances so far. So there might not be a connection between the two fact.

Thanks for participating in the discussion, everybody.

I bet if the naked performance were more common you'd get some good ones. I mean really, I've seen pictures and videos of people at the Detroit Fire Guild doing ridiculous things. I mean if a skilled performer wants to hang themselves from the ceiling by hooks going through their skin, I'm sure they would have no problem doing a naked fire show.

i cannot help but wondering if we have our standards to high...

i mean, we are exposed to the best of the best in this community - so ask too much that every performance wows us tecnically.

ive seen some fantastic cabaret strip fire shows. Did i see the spinning standards that i see at Uberoz events? hell no - the skill level was pretty low, but they were great performers and the crowd loved it.

that being said, most of the stripping ive seen with fire has probably been at commonground and uberoz events....

#1) You can't use the naked fire show vid as aything against her, you posted this lke a "Look what she's been posting around" kind of thing. She used that video to prove a point that she's not a fire stripper. In fact she was trying to prove the pont to YOU.

#2) If you yourself are fine with it and realy dont care seeing as how you've done the BDSM thing before, then why persue ths topic so fiercely? I believe your trying to make an example.

#3) I think the general consenses here is that nobody really cares and thinks that everyone should be able to do their own thing.

Flint:

1) give me other vids I could use as examples I'll be happy to use *them* I don't use the strip show or her own videos "against her"... you got the wrong picture.

2) fiercely?
2.1) I did a durbs and didn't find the topic been up before. Show me a thread discussing it earlier, I'll be happy to merge the threads and replies.

3) You draw your own conclusions - I already said that generally I don't mind either. "It's a free country..."

As I read the graph on top - the harder the core, the lower the approval.

Also in the future I would like to see the tolerance in the spinning/ performing arts scene which we seen so far. It's been general consensus that a good performance is a good performance, sexual connotations or not.

hst - this thread is rather intended as a motivator for performers in that particular field (and it's extremely small compared to the total number of performers) - it's rather intended informal and as a motivator to improve technical and performance skills, than aimed to isolate.

Dentrassi: links please

Although not CG or Uber...

The two are not interchangeable, and while they can be combined they are exclusive.

Strip-Tease is taking off clothes in an artful fashion with the point to seduce and allure. Obviously that definition has become more fluid over the years as concept of art and tease have broadened., but that it was it originally was intended. At Strip-Tease competitions, artistry is still the focal point.

Burlesque actually dates back to the 1800's, before stripping (it is often considered the grandmother of stripping, however).
Burlesque is literally a satire. It is meant to make fun of things using sexual limits to present them. It was the very first art form completely governed over by women (until PT Barnum got his hands on it- he's the one who turned it into stripping, btw).
Shows like Bend-Her based on Ben-Hur and The Seven Sister, an original show about Greek statues come to life to playfully seduce men to sin, were original hits. Clothes were risque for the era, but they were worn and left on.
It's cheeky, often silly and meant to be fun.

"Neo-Burlesque" is the latest incarnation. It involves stripping from costumes, often times with a point or story behind the entire presentation. It's still meant to be fun and silly and is definitely more than just stripping. Artists go down to pasties and bottoms, so there is a certain amount of coverage to the important bits (same as you would see on a Brazilian bikini).
These are often in cabaret shows sponsored by their own companies.

Someone who comes out in a costume, does sexy anything. Not Burlesque.
Someone who comes out in a costume and strips, not Burlesque.
Burlesque requires a story and satire.

I've been teaching and performing traditional vaudeville/cabaret burlesque for 8 years, btw.

My own opinion on this topic, I don't find sex and fire to be artistic. It was addressed years ago in the article Douse It: The Exhausted Art Of Fire Dancing where they mentioned that semi-clothed people rolling around and wiggling with fire really is over-done, and I agreed with the article.
One of the things I learned as a performer and I teach people is that sex and violence are the lowest common denominators, what you go to when you have nothing else.
Shakespeare did that to appeal to the poor who watched his shows. It's an age old gimmick that even the most basic performance classes teach to stay away from unless it has a point in the story/presentation (without being the point).
True artistry doesn't rely on either.

HOWEVER, I will never tell anyone that isn't what they should do and I think it's extremely petty and very presumptuous to do so. There is a place in current society for every act, and an audience for it as well.
Don't like it? Don't do it and don't watch. Easy solution.

I voted and don't really sway either way because there is something for everyone and all audiences have different preferences. I would never be involved in such because it just isn't my nature or my goal (very much not a part of my personality in general which is okay IMO), but by no means am I threatened or upset by those who are because they're catering to a different demographic and motives.

I have a uncharted territory where I want to take fire performance and others have theirs so it's all good.