Why is Trudi Inslee, First Lady of Washington State, appearing on stage with – for lack of a more discreet term - ladies of the night?
Trudi Inslee, wife of Washington State Governor Jay Inslee, will join Miss Indigo Blue, Head Mistress of Academy of Burlesque and Reigning Queen of Burlesque 2012; and Inga Ingénue “The Little Blond Bomb,” winner of “Miss Viva Las Vegas, 2011” whose scantily-clad – and less – stage performances include “Immodesty Blaize’s ‘Burlesque Undressed Tour,’' Seattle; and “Nude Nite Exotic Art Festival,’ Orlando and Tampa, Florida.
Lindy West, writer for “Jezebel”, will also put in an appearance. “Jezebel,” a magazine that promotes “sex for women” includes a column on porn, the latest entitled “How I Became a Feminist Porn Star.”
Whatever your view of abortion, funds for which these ladies are joining forces to raise, there would appear to be, at minimum, a major conflict of interest between the sexual promiscuity – certainly explicit pornography – as paraded by Inslee’s costars whose revealing websites are all provided, and that of the stated interests of the Governor’s wife – whose website is linked as well, at which website Inslee declares herself to be in “support (of) social service programs and organizations that provide services for women and children who are victims of sexual assault.”
Does the end justify the means? Can Inslee, with integrity, trumpet her cause and speak honestly as an advocate to stop sex trafficking while at the same time align herself with those who perpetuate the very pain that the Governor’s wife would, from her position, lend her voice to stop? Would the Governor’s wife not have sent – and could she not still – a more powerful message from a far higher platform with multiplied greater impact by declining to participate? And is there something in all of this that has been lost?
To the first two questions, no. To the last two, yes.
Integrity, wrote Stephen L. Carter, the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of law at Yale University, in a book by that title, “comes from the same Latin root as integer (conveying) the sense of wholeness, undivided, completeness.”
In other words message, mannerisms, methods – and associations – must, if they are to reflect integrity at any rate, be consistent or integrity cannot be claimed.
Take the FBI for example - “which touts an agency motto of ‘fidelity, bravery, integrity’ – (and is) battling a sexting scandal.” ‘No more naked photos,’ is the message circulating throughout the agency. The reason being, of course, the position and the reputation of the FBI is at stake and pornography and employee association with attendant consequences are not befitting those who most certainly should know better.
Of course.
Goes without saying.
But they’re saying it anyway.
From our state’s First Lady to our nation’s First Lady - whose appearance at the just concluded Oscars has engendered much controversy, one critic calling her participation not only "tacky and tasteless" but one that cheapened the Presidency - principles have been trumped by party, not political party, just party.
As concerns the State of Washington’s Governor’s office, Trudi Inslee has done the same.
Burlesque isn't about being overtly sexualized, it's really about personal empowerment and there is a real camaraderie among women who do it. And as for Lindy West, she's done some great work for the Stranger. I honestly think you've missed the mark here, David. Burlesque celebrates the female form and, if you've ever been to an event like this, you would know it will mostly be attended by other women. I applaud Mrs. Inslee for being part of it.
It's all good, clean, sexy fun, and Ms Inslee should feel no more ashamed being associated with its practitioners than were she to appear onstage with female body builders, belly dancers, gymnasts, or any other physical performers. If you or anyone else has a problem with that - well then, it's YOUR problem, isn't it?
Also, I'm thoroughly confused by the FBI reference. "No more naked photos" implies that at one point naked photos were circulation through the FBI. Creepy, especially considering that NOT circulating naked photos is standard workplace practice. While ignorance, even if it is willful, as to what burlesque is can be forgiven, what I find most foul and least forgivable is how the author ignorantly associates prostitution and pornography and promiscuity with women's reproductive rights issues.. This is just a geriatric version of Rush Limbaugh's famous "slut" comment.
I can only ask the very moral David what Jesus said about associating with "ladies of the night". Go ahead David, tell us pagans what Jesus had to say about how we should treat these members of our community.
For example, check out his comments on this story about Lady Gaga: http://universityplace.patch.com/articles/university-place-s-peace-out-represent-youth-at-lady-gaga-show-tonight-in-tacoma Like other religious moralists, he is obsessed with sex. In his recent blog post about euthanasia, he couldn't even resist mentioning "obscene activity." I suspect he spends a lot of time thinking about it.
And the Patch is just an innocent bystander...
Also, some individual Patch editors might have higher aspirations, but patch.com probably benefits from the incitement of people's baser emotions. On the other hand, the polarizing nature of some of these "local voices" probably drives away moderates and limits the number of unique views. However, that's not what annoys me about patch.com. What annoys me is that I have to log in every single time! What does that checkbox on the login page actually do?
Give it a whirl, hell, you can not appear any more bigoted than your original statements. Give us more input on how we should treat the wifes of elected officials, and just who they should associate with.
Ms. Inslee's tacit endorsement of these professions promotes the flawed idea that young girls/women have to be pretty, skinny, and sexy to matter. It says nothing about their accomplishments, intelligence, talents, and service to community. Further along the spectrum one finds: pornography, prostitution, and sex trafficking/slavery. Consequences of these include homeless teens, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, children born without a nuclear family, STDs, women being abused, infertility, child exploitation, and death, not to mention the costs associated with policing and prosecuting the associated crimes, housing criminals, and the impact to our medical system and insurance. All these activities contribute to the erosion and coarsening of society. I believe that David’s point was to say that the Governor’s wife has now associated herself with this industry. She could have chosen better. But given that the event was to promote pro-choice, perhaps her poor choice should be expected. To promote abortion is a poor choice as well. BTW, David did respond: Making My Case
Your mis-belief that burlesque "promotes the flawed idea that young girls/women have to be pretty, skinny and sexy to matter" clearly shows you've never been to a contemporary burlesque performance. Burlesque is a celebration of the female form in all its infinite diversity; it encourages women to delight in their uniqueness, and to take pride in their own femininity. In those regards, it's the exact OPPOSITE of objectification. Equating burlesque to "pornography, prostitution, & sex trafficing/slavery" is a gross insult to those who practice the art, whether professionally, or simply for their own sense of empowerment. Were you to actually get to know any of them, I think you'd find them to be far from the weak, helpless prisoners of a sordid lifestyle you seem to imagine - in point of fact, these are POWERFUL women!. But, perhaps that's what bothers you most - the idea that women can be POWERFUL, that they aren't beholden to anyone for permission to wield that power, and that they can refuse to conform to the outmoded stereotypes that have been used for millennia as a means of keeping them "in their place", and denying them control over their own minds and bodies. If that's what you consider a "poor choice" on their part, I shudder to imagine what sort of "choices" you would inflict on them in the name of your God.
I strongly support a woman's ability to be, as you call it, powerful. If you knew me and my career, you would be embarrassed for your statement that I thought to the contrary. Yet, I believe a woman's power is so much more than her sexuality, and to focus on only sexuality as a woman’s power source is to sell her short and in my view, buys into that negative stereotype of women being only sex objects. Lastly, I don't inflict choices upon others in the name of my God. Each person has a free will to follow God or not. The poor choices of which I spoke were Ms. Inslee’s choice to participate in this event and the choice to abort.
"Why is Trudi Inslee, First Lady of Washington State, appearing on stage with – for lack of a more discreet term - LADIES OF THE NIGHT? Lindy West, writer for “Jezebel”, will also put in an appearance. “Jezebel,” A MAGAZINE THAT PROMOTES "SEX FOR WOMEN"..." Whatever your view of abortion, funds for which these ladies are joining forces to raise, there would appear to be, at minimum, a major conflict of interest between THE SEXUAL PROMISCUITY – CERTAINLY EXPLICIT PORNOGRAPHY – AS PARADED BY INSLEE'S CO-STARS...” One can reasonably debate whether pornography has any redeeming social value, but Mr. Anderson's comments clearly show that he considers Burlesque as being indistinguishable from pornography, a point which he constantly reiterates. In doing so he, along with other like-minded commenters, reveal not only their complete ignorance of the form, its purpose and objectives, but display what can only be characterized as a virulent anti-sex bias, which historically has perpetuated the notion that sexuality in general, and female sexuality in particular, is something sordid, dirty, "immoral", and against certain chosen religious beliefs. They're welcome to hold those beliefs, but the rest of us are in no way bound to bow to their narrow, outdated, anachronistic and frankly, prejudicial viewpoints, nor are we under any compunction to remain silent when they express them.
As for “not inflicting choices on others in the name of (your) God”, you say, “Sex is a gift from God and is sacred between a husband and wife. Anything outside that intended purpose cheapens it”, demonstrating a strong religious objection to extra-marital non-procreative sex - why else bring it up? IME, I have yet to meet anyone holding such beliefs who would NOT inflict that choice on others, if given the opportunity; thankfully, it has not yet presented itself. I agree female empowerment IS about more than sexuality, but the tone of Mr. Anderson's post shows his extreme discomfort, even disgust, with the very concept. HE framed the argument in this context, therefore it's not unreasonable to stay within it when framing a response.
What we have here appears to be an example of Ms Inslee supporting an organization that promotes sexually-positive programs and practices for women, in the company of other women who are showing similar support. The only people who are objecting are those who already exhibit a strident, fundamental opposition to anything that promotes or endorses non-marital, non-procreative sex, or the right of women to sexual self-expression. As much as Mr. Anderson and others may appear to be clutching their collective pearls over some vague impropriety on Ms Inslee's part, let's not forget, that's just an excuse to cover their REAL objection, namely, her public support for women's choice.
IMO, those ARE extreme views that must be challenged on every occasion they're presented.