Thread: Spin-off re: Dina article & "Seductive" costumes

Can I ask a burning question I've been confused about ever since I started dancing? It deals with this paragraph from the article posted by Norma in this thread:

Originally Posted by norma

According to Dina, who holds an master of arts in philosophy from Cairo University, the belly dancing outfits are the main cause of controversy in Egypt, rather than the dance itself.

“I think the problem some have with belly dancing here is the dancing costume; but it has always been seductive like this, we [our generation] didn’t invent it. Like ballet – can the ballerina dance with a different outfit? We too can’t dance with our bodies covered,” she said.

So, we want our "seductive" (Dina's word, not mine), "sexy", "hot" (words I've seen frequently in swap board posts) costumes, and in fact apparently cannot dance without them, but then we complain loudly when people think our dance is sexual in nature. Does this strike anyone else as incongruous?

And why can't we dance with our bodies covered, anyway? My understanding is that the modern costume is a fabrication of Hollywood harem fantasies, and really doesn't reflect what would have been traditionally worn by Middle Eastern dancers. Shem says on her website: "The original dance costume up to this time had either been a long, one piece dress with a sash tied around the hips, or a full skirt and sash with a vest and long shirt underneath."

I know, of course, that there are baladi dresses, etc, that cover more, but by and large, our costumes are quite revealing, and designed to be so, with cutouts, floating bras, etc. Is there something I'm missing about why "we can't dance with our bodies covered" and still feel professional and gorgeous? Wouldn't this help our desire to be taken more professionally, and put a wider gap in the public perception between MED and exotic dance, stripping, etc?

Now, my views are a bit slanted because I've always been more comfortable in less-revealing clothing, and (especially considering my wrinkly, saggy 2x C-section belly) tend to feel the same with regard to BD costumes, but I don't personally care what other people wear. I'm not even opposed to nudity in theory, but we all have cultural/societal norms we have to work within, and if we ourselves describe our costumes as seductive, hot, and sexy, why are we surprised when other people view us in those terms as well?

I've just always been a bit confused by the have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too attitude we often seem to have, and figured I should finally just ask. Awaiting your responses! I hope to be enlightened!

Well, I think that to be a top star in Cairo, as Dina is, you have to have revealing costumes and a stunning body.

If you are dancing at festivals and the like or at community shows which are produced by dancers or dance organizations, you can be less stunning and more covered and be absolutely beautiful as a dancer.

I am more comfortable being somewhat covered, I feel that I actually can move better and be less inhibited than when I feel too exposed. Even in my twenties, when I had the body, I preferred the more covered styles.

Some dancers can wear pretty revealing outfits but they exude charm and class rather than overt sexuality. It just depends on the dancer and her personality, I think. It's about the energy the dancer projects.

I don't think I answered your question, but those are my thoughts about the Dina quote. More erudite Bhuzzers will be along shortly, I imagine.

I think you could make the same argument about bellygrams that involve making the guest of honor "sultan for a day." It is nearly impossible to fight a stereotype by reinforcing it. Still, as long as a segment of the dance community is hesitant to give up the stereotype because it is perceived as crucial to business, nothing can change. Customers will continue to expect those things, and dancers will continue to do them, further reinforcing that they are a necessary part of our image.

There's another whole level to this conversation involving the irony of Dina making comments about sexy costumes being part of the dance's image problem....

How many fat ugly female entertainers of any kind can you name off the top of your head who are successful right now? And why would you think that dancers in Cairo today would want to wear what dancers in Cairo wore more than 100 years ago? Do you wear a bustle? A corset? Several layers of petticoats and a chemise?

The world is different! Beauty is desired in ALL entertainers, and sexiness particularly. And in Egypt dancers are, I think, thumbing their noses at the overriding conservatism there by being sexier and sexier. That may suck but it's a fact of life.

And the costuming is NOT NOT NOT a Hollywood invention. I swear to God, if there is ONE thing I want people to stop saying it's that. Is it *western*? Yes, possibly. Is it a product of colonial influences? Yes, definitely. Is it from Hollywood NO. Hollywood did not really exist yet when Maud Allan did her Salome dance in that proto-bedleh. It barely existed when Leon Bakst created the costume designs used by the Ballets Russes in orientalist ballets like Scheherezade. It certainly didn't exist when orientalist painters were producing images of dancers in Egypt or North Africa with two-piece outfits in what was probably actually underwear or a fantasy version thereof. It didn't exist when real-life ME and North African dancers appeared in the US dressed like this. And it didn't exist when Indian dancers, who might well be the inspiration for bedleh (though I'd also argue the outfit Farida is wearing is also pretty obviously a prototype) were dancing in cholis and full skirts to the delight of English colonists.

Sure, later Hollywood interpretations would undoubtedly have folded back onto what dancers in Golden Age movies wore. But Hollywood and the US did not *start* it or invent it.

*returns*
I guess WRT Dina, she is in a bit of a bind. She was obviously ambitious to succeed. She would not have that success IMO in a galabeya. People hire a dancer on the basis of appealing looks, exciting costumes, great musicality and good band, I think. And in her case, now, people probably hire her because she is Dina and known to be expensive. It is so competitive there. A good dancer is not necessarily a pro dancer. You might be able to see a stunning heartfelt Enta Omri from your old aunty after dinner any time, and she might be the most amazing dancer ever but she is not a pro dancer, and also, that is not what you want to see when you hire entertainment. Entertainment is a package. Sex appeal is part of that package and, from what I've been told, always has been.

You don't get many genuinely ugly professional ballet dancers in quality companies either. Good looks help. And you don't get any ugly dancers on Broadway.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

How many fat ugly female entertainers of any kind can you name off the top of your head who are successful right now? And why would you think that dancers in Cairo today would want to wear what dancers in Cairo wore more than 100 years ago? Do you wear a bustle? A corset? Several layers of petticoats and a chemise?

I think you may mistake the point of my post. I have no quibble with your point that beauty, even sexiness, is necessary for success. This is not one of those posts lamenting the fact that "fat ugly female entertainers" can't make it big.

My point is that we seem to want two paradoxical things as belly dancers, at least if what I see people gripe about here on Bhuz is any indicator. 1) We want to be seen as separate from adult entertainment such as exotic dance, stripping, etc: Why, oh WHY do people keep thinking/saying things like that about us? 2) We want to wear embellished underwear that we ourselves think of as being seductive.

And I never did say that I or anyone else would/should want to wear what people wore 100 years ago, for dance or daily wear. I'm sure modern designers could come up with something up-to-date, glamorous, even sexy, but less revealing than a bedlah, that would allow us the respect of the general public we crave so much.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

And in Egypt dancers are, I think, thumbing their noses at the overriding conservatism there by being sexier and sexier.

This actually does help explain the trends in my mind, as I understand many of us seek to follow Egyptian BD fashion. But if we're wearing costumes that are designed to be provocative, why are we so surprised when they provoke? We are not really even making an attempt to match our costumes to what they would consider appropriate, even for an entertainer. We're just wearing what disgruntled Egyptian dancers wear.

Let me take this moment to reiterate that I don't personally have a problem with the costumes.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

And the costuming is NOT NOT NOT a Hollywood invention. I swear to God, if there is ONE thing I want people to stop saying it's that.
...
Sure, later Hollywood interpretations would undoubtedly have folded back onto what dancers in Golden Age movies wore. But Hollywood and the US did not *start* it or invent it.

Thanks for this detailed explanation! I know there is a lot of incorrect information that gets floated around about belly dance, so I'm always happy to be corrected on historical stuff.

I am going to do some hair splitting here. There is a difference between "Sexual" and "Sensual". For some, this dance is sexual in nature, others it is sensual. Either an be seductive, the difference is style. I think there is a tendency to look at something which is sexual in nature and judge it as dirty and amoral. It's not, but that is the general connotation which most people put on the word sexual.

I think that the biggest issue in this is that we, as dancers, cannot control the thoughts of our audience. Yes, we could perform this dance in a nuns habit. Except that our movements would be much more difficult to see. Yes, we could wear a galabaya or beledi dress. But have you seen some of those? The galabayas by Eman and many of the beledi dresses leave even less to the imagination than many two piece costumes out there.

So what do we do? First off, we make sure that our dancing is good, and classy. As Zum said, some of the best dancers aren't necessarily going to be the pros, but the friends and family members you see on the dance floor at any event. Learn from them. Then, make sure that you are comfortable in what ever costume you are wearing, because if a person feels uncomfortable in their clothing, this will show when they are performing.

And finally, there is a certain amount of acceptance necessary here. Much like in Ballet tights, leotard and a toe shoes are part and parcel of the gig, (various types of tutu's as well) for belly dancers, it's the bedlah or bra and skirt in one of it's many variations. How we individually choose to interrupt that is up to each and every one of us. We don't have to go as far as Dina does, but we also don't have to dress in a burka in order to be taken seriously.

{{{HUGS}}}

Originally Posted by Alexa

So, we want our "seductive" (Dina's word, not mine), "sexy", "hot" (words I've seen frequently in swap board posts) costumes, and in fact apparently cannot dance without them, but then we complain loudly when people think our dance is sexual in nature. Does this strike anyone else as incongruous?

Nope. Or at least not for me. There's certainly an element of that that we need to be aware of, but for me wearing bedlah in a known bellydance context is no more controversial that me wearing a figure-hugging skirt to work. I certainly feel I have the right in both contexts to complain if the ONLY thing someone chooses to see is the outfit or the body, and not the work - or who makes assumptions based on that outfit and then expects me to let those assumptions be pushed onto me unchallenged.

Is there something I'm missing about why "we can't dance with our bodies covered" and still feel professional and gorgeous? Wouldn't this help our desire to be taken more professionally, and put a wider gap in the public perception between MED and exotic dance, stripping, etc?

No, sadly not - because it's not enough. The costume isn't the ONLY thing that makes some people in the audience disrepect our art form in one way or another. There's a huge, multilayered thought process behind it - to do with everything from cultural associations with the exotic Orient, gender assumptions, social class issues, the whole shebang. Changing our costume is not going to address even half the issues that cause us to problems as artists.

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by tahiradancer

I am going to do some hair splitting here. There is a difference between "Sexual" and "Sensual". For some, this dance is sexual in nature, others it is sensual.

Hi Tahira,

I used to do the same hair splitting with this very same word.

Then I realised something.. I was kidding myself.

Sensual or sexual, it is always in the eye of the beholder, they will not sit their analysing their feeling towards to as eithe sexual, sensual... it will be do I like her or not?

I was once in an audience were some bloke thought Suraya Hilal was erotic for goodness sake. Now there was a women who went to lengths to produce art deviod of the two SS's!

How many clips are on the other thread featured in Egyptian movies seducing the husband?

As dancers, we live in this bubble thinking that if we believe it enough, if WILL be a sensual art.. then the reality strikes.. someone calls us a stripper or a hot babe and and tells you shake your tassels, an Arab guy makes a comment, an Arab woman leaves the room and so on.
I am not suggesting we put up with crap or do not make te effort to be respected, I just think we need to deal with the elephant in the room.

I think we should be a bit more realsitic about the underlying nature of the dance which is based on sexuality and sensuality and is frequently perceived as so within it's own culture AND worldwide.

It has been made into an artform which some recognise and others fail to.

Having said that, it can make very little difference to how you are dressed, it is often connected to who is your audience?

With regards to Dina..

Now here is a women who has made herself famous with 'spray on my bits' costumes, funny faces (usually pulled in private) and a cleavage like the grand canyon.

I dont think for a single second that if she wore a Samia style costume it would make one slightest bit of difference to how she is perceived.

Dina is a walking contradiction.

Originally Posted by Alexa

So, we want our "seductive" (Dina's word, not mine),

Well, it might not be Dina's word either--we don't know if she gave the interview in Arabic or English. So it might be a translator's word, or it might not have been the word she would have used if her English was stronger. I took a workshop with her in 2008, which I think would have been a bit after that article in the original thread was published, and while her English was quite good enough for teaching and general conversation, she did not have the facility of a native speaker with English vocabulary. It could even have been the word choice of a reporter interpreting his/her scribbles after the fact. Anybody who's done a press interview knows that the words that appear on the printed page are rarely quite what one actually said

Tango is sure as heck sexy and people nowadays don't think it is scandalous. The Burlesque movie has sexy dances in it and is pretty mainstream entertainment for today's audiences. Our dance is unique because we are usually solo female performers, perhaps. The cultural aspect of belly dance or raqs sharqi if you prefer, which I find fascinating and enriching, puts it beyond the comprehension of many people, I think.

It's hard to get tons of respect from artistic establishment types for an art form that is most often seen in restaurants. For the GP, it's mostly seen as a joke. Until they see a really masterful performance. Then they are blown away. If they have an open mind, that is.

For my entire 30+ year involvement in the dance I have thought that we need more stage performances and fewer restaurant performances. However, shows are expensive to produce and the audiences are still mostly friends and family of the performers.

Belly Dance Super Stars has not achieved the recognition of RiverDance, but perhaps they have elevated perceptions a little by appearing in first-class venues.

Nowadays I mostly just dance for other dancers or community events that have a progressive-leaning audience. I rarely encounter any negativity these days.

The younger generation seems to be less bothered by things that are "sexy" but see belly dancing as something their mothers do. At least at my house.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

How many fat ugly female entertainers of any kind can you name off the top of your head who are successful right now?

Exactly - and part of the "beauty" is the figure of the year and the clothes to display it. Dancers might appreciate wonderful dance in jeans and a jersey but the general public wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

And the costuming is NOT NOT NOT a Hollywood invention. I swear to God, if there is ONE thing I want people to stop saying it's that. Is it *western*? Yes, possibly. Is it a product of colonial influences? Yes, definitely. Is it from Hollywood NO. Hollywood did not really exist yet when Maud Allan did her Salome dance in that proto-bedleh. It barely existed when Leon Bakst created the costume designs used by the Ballets Russes in orientalist ballets like Scheherezade. It certainly didn't exist when orientalist painters were producing images of dancers in Egypt or North Africa with two-piece outfits in what was probably actually underwear or a fantasy version thereof. ...

Thank you.

Well this quote is from my teacher, Princess Madiha of Syria, from several years ago. Now understand, at the time, her English was not as good as it is now. I'm sure today, she'd express herself more succinctly. But, I think her statement conveys her sentiment. And for those of you who have seen some of my "sexy" costumes, she designed and made several of them. Her belief was that the costume was very important to the professional dancers image. She believed that no matter how good of a dancer you were, if you didn't have a great costumes you could never be a star. A great costume didn't need to be super expensive (although most of her designs would break the bank!) but the had to be unique, showy and figure flattering. They also should allow the audience to see you and your moves. So yes, you could wear a beledi dress, but it should be form fitting and allow you to move freely. She had no problem showing skin and legs.

http://bellydancelegacy.tribe.net/ph...2-9df6ff57b68a

________

Dancers do wear sexy costumes that are revealing. Is this part of the problem? (Why people look down on this dance.)

"Dancers do wear sexy costumes that are revealing. Is this part of the problem?
So? Ladies who go swimming and wear a bikini, are they no good? Bellydancing costumes are like a uniform. You are moving every part of your body. You can’t wear a large dress with long sleeves and be able to show the movement. You can’t judge a person by a dance costume. You are on the stage to entertain; you are supposed to look pretty. That doesn’t mean you are a “bad” woman."

My thesis supervisor who is Lebanese (as opposed to the one who is South African - there were two!) has always maintained that the professional dancer is For The Men. Part of her job is to be sexy and attractive. Of course women can enjoy her dance too and admire her costume and lovely figure, and I've never met a ME person yet who hasn't maintained that having the right kind of body is very important in a pro dancer, but it is an undeniable element of the dance and it's just the way it is. ALL professional dancers *turns on autopilot* are expected to look good and always HAVE been expected to look good. The only exception might be someone whose other qualities - comic abiliity, astounding dance skill, huge charisma, rampant inexplicable sex appeal, conversely a sense of the "spiritual" - are enough to overcome a plain face and ordinary body.

I think what has made it difficult for us in Western countries is the knowledge that the dance is double-sided - a sexy entertainment and also, a wholesome family activity. To me the sexuality and the wholesome family aspect cross over into both categories of belly dance, possibly most especially outside the ME. But it's hard to get our heads around the fact that all the by-women-for-women stories and the "dancers were once respected before evil colonialism" stories we've been circulating for the past 30 years are not strictly accurate.

Originally Posted by Zumarrad

My thesis supervisor who is Lebanese (as opposed to the one who is South African - there were two!) has always maintained that the professional dancer is For The Men. Part of her job is to be sexy and attractive. Of course women can enjoy her dance too and admire her costume and lovely figure, and I've never met a ME person yet who hasn't maintained that having the right kind of body is very important in a pro dancer, but it is an undeniable element of the dance and it's just the way it is. ALL professional dancers *turns on autopilot* are expected to look good and always HAVE been expected to look good. The only exception might be someone whose other qualities - comic abiliity, astounding dance skill, huge charisma, rampant inexplicable sex appeal, conversely a sense of the "spiritual" - are enough to overcome a plain face and ordinary body.

Yes, I think she echoes everything I have ever heard said in Egypt. Which forced me to face the reality.
One of the main factors is even today, is it is the men who have the money to spend and have the nights out. It is still cultural for men to go to nightclubs and women go to restaurants and cafes.

I think what has made it difficult for us in Western countries is the knowledge that the dance is double-sided - a sexy entertainment and also, a wholesome family activity. To me the sexuality and the wholesome family aspect cross over into both categories of belly dance, possibly most especially outside the ME.

yes again.. except the last bit?
I am not sure that just applies to outisde the ME and I am not sure I would use 'wholsesome', or do I misunderstand your point?

Dance is certainly not a part of every household in Egypt. I think we often create too much of a fairy tale or romantic image around this.

But it's hard to get our heads around the fact that all the by-women-for-women stories and the "dancers were once respected before evil colonialism" stories we've been circulating for the past 30 years are not strictly accurate.

Part of this scenario has been created by lumping all Arab cultures within the one pot.
Yemeni's for example still in gender groups as do many other groups around the Arab world.

It has very little to do with single 'gender bonding', and everything to do with the norms of that particular culture.

Peope did not have televisions years ago so dance naturally played a bigger part in peoples lives.

I am not sure I believe the 'colonialist theory'. I think it is an unsubstantiated theory with many holes.
I dont think there is a shred of evidence to indicate that dancers who performed for money were respected by anyone at any time. There has long been a love/hate relationship with dancing girls ad hiring them dos not equal respecting the.

Perhaps part of the cultural disconnect is just the difference in women's attitudes. In the West, a woman saying that she had a responsibility to dress nicely, wear makeup, fix her hair, etc. for her husband would be often viewed as retrograde and brainwashed by patriarchy. While only a few radical feminists would try to deny that there is a relationship between the intention to make yourself look pretty and attracting a mate, it's still a very ego-centric model. How you look is your personal right, and if you want to look like a frump, "You go, girl!", and if you want to dress to the nines, "You go, girl!", because it's all about you and what you want...well, maybe not too much on the frumpy thing, because you're hiding your light under a bushel basket in sweatpants and uncombed hair, and everyone should experience you living your life to the fullest because you are woman, hear you roar, blah, blah, blah.

I get the impression that most mothers in the ME would have no problem telling their daughters that dressing to meet the standards of the men in their family is an indisputable duty in life. What you want is secondary to what they want.

In my world...

Make up - dont leave home without it.

Originally Posted by dunyah

The younger generation seems to be less bothered by things that are "sexy" but see belly dancing as something their mothers do. At least at my house.

yep- something mothers do- spot on!

I just went through a fire storm last summer. changing dynamics in our church, comments made to my business partner's father, of all people, and my husband being hypersensitive about how people percieve me/us (he is a very private person with regards to anything, so he doesn't get performing in the first place and hates having attention drawn to him/us)
I have changed my costuming because of all this. My husband supports my dancing and will defend it (& me!) but he asked me to change my costuming in public venues basically saying "right now, the issue is your costuming. let's change that so the issue doesn't become your dance." We believe there is NOTHING wrong with me dancing, even dancing publicly as long as we are careful of the context (which I am anyway.) If someone argues about that, I am willing to argue dance as a separate issue. for us, the more revealing costuming does have the potential of dragging the conversation down. I still wear my beloved bedlah in appropriate events, where belly dancing is advertised and the folks attending (presumably, tho I know that's a lot to presume!) know what they are in for, but for any public events, I've covered up quite a bit.

On the other hand, I live in Alaska- parkas & bunny boots prevail 7 months out of the year. One spring, as I stood on the bus, I heard the blokes behind me say, murmured a bit loudly, of course, "boy after 7 months of snow boots, a little bit of ankle looks d**n sexy." Seriously? I am NOT giving up my spring sandals "to avoid even the appearance of evil." At some point, folks who have issues with sensuality need to evaluate why THEY chose to go to a belly dance show... I came to dance because I love to dance. MY motives are not in question here.

Originally Posted by Lara L

At some point, folks who have issues with sensuality need to evaluate why THEY chose to go to a belly dance show... I came to dance because I love to dance. MY motives are not in question here.

But sometimes the student's motives are part of the discussion. A new student might show up to her first class hoping to learn something physically challenging, or she might be looking for a new style of musical movement, or she could even be interested in belly dance because she has a companion interest in another aspect of ME culture, but she is just as likely to come into the classroom thinking that this dance is going to help her "bring sexy back." We are in competition for students with pole dancing and burlesque, but not because those disciplines are raking in students with deep, academic interests in Chinese aerial acrobatics and the empowerment of women in the entertainment industry during the Vaudeville era. It's because new students in our classes are just as likely to answer the question of why they signed up with the same "..because it looked kind of sexy and fun" answer as those other classes hear.

Other than the possible exception of husbands who are henpecked into taking ballroom dancing, most students who volunteer for a dance class do so because they enjoy dancing as a concept. The question is why do they pick belly dancing over clogging or country line dancing or some other style? We do attract some students because we don't require a partner, and some because they like the mostly-all-women aspect, but how many are there because they hope it will improve their sex appeal?

this is a very interesting topic, and I have the exact same question, but I also have the naive answer to it.

I think when "we" go for sexy costumes with cut outs, high slits in the skirt, lots of cleavage, etc, we're asking to be looked at, complimented, told we're beautiful and that we dance beautifully, etc. We'd be asking for the same thing if we wore a galabaya. But because dancing in a galabaya all night would not be appropriate nor bring in the dough (show me a restaurant or venue owner who wants to hire a belly dancer that wears that instead of a bedlah).

Hmmm I'm not saying this correctly.....

Belly dance is sexy. yes. its sensual, yes. Its lovely, yes. It's an art, yes. It's everything we could think of, and yet we hope that most people will idealize it as we do and hope that it can be respected WHILE being beautiful.

plus everyone's version of sexy is different. I'm a younger generation dancer, but I do NOT want to go on stage and give off the sexy vibe. I want to go on stage and be impressive (if I look good, then great!).

I think we should also make sure to note that sexy has a lot of connotations.

I've seen some of the sexiest costumes (super minimal, like the floating sahars) and never once thought of how sexy it was because watching the dancer was what drew my attention, which might be another reason that these costumes are becoming minimal: it really draws attention to the dance, not the bling.

I'm all over the place, sorry I just woke up from a nap.

Originally Posted by theothershimmytwin

I've seen some of the sexiest costumes (super minimal, like the floating sahars) and never once thought of how sexy it was because watching the dancer was what drew my attention, which might be another reason that these costumes are becoming minimal: it really draws attention to the dance, not the bling.

We've also had threads where people have debated whether those minimalist costumes create the opposite result--audiences who have stopped paying attention to the dancing and are now thinking about the dancer's body, the mechanics of how the costume is staying on, and whether a costume malfunction is imminent. There's another thread running now where folks have (jokingly?) hypothesized that Dina's had her nipples removed so that she can wear some of those daring bras of hers. That's not drawing attention to the dance--and Dina is certainly good enough that there are plenty of reasons why her dancing should dominate the audience's interest.

I find I can see my movements best when I can see my body, so I would say yes, form-fitting is somewhat necessary (at least in my stage of dancing). I can get by in class with full-length yoga pants and a very snug long-sleeved t-shirt (which is good, because the studio is usually freezing!) Sure, it's more impressive to see my ab muscles moving (guys, I am still amused by this, lol), but it's not necessary to get the point of the dance. But no, I don't think we all need to dress like Dina, we don't need our boobs falling out and pushed to astronomical cleavage heights, or skirts slit so high that we need to get creative with our underwear, etc.

Now, if we WANT to dress that way, then fine, but it's still simply a fashion preference, not a requirement for the dance (and yes, ballerinas could get by wearing leggings just as well as tutus). If it was a requirement to let it all hang out, no one would ever wear Saidi dresses and such, would they? It's not my personal style (perhaps that's because I have no boobs to speak of and don't feel like "showing off" my pretty-flat chest), but a lot of people rock it. But, there will always be someone who takes exception to it, which is why a lot of the time we all may choose different costumes for different venues.

I do understand why people see the more revealing costumes as sexual. Revealing = sexual in the U.S. culture and most others, so I do think it's natural that people see a sexual-looking costume and think it's a sexual-type dance. People judge based on clothing, and I've never understood why it's okay to make assumptions about me if I'm dressed goth, or preppy, or sloppy, but not if I'm dressed revealingly (but that's an entirely different can of worms).

However, sex sells! So it works.

Of course, what is "frumpy"? It's kinda subjective. Some people think if you're in jeans and a t-shirt, you're frumpy. Or if it's comfortable, you're frumpy. I don't I have a responsibility to other people to be attractive for them...as long as I'm clean, tidy, and presentable, that's all strangers have a right to, sorry. If I want to wear a sweatshirt and don't look like a sex kitten...oh well!

(I'll try to dress nice for my man BUT he also has to try to dress nice for me. I'm not going to spend hours dressing nice, doing makeup, etc. just to have him throw on jeans and a wrinkled polo and say "mmkay, let's go." Nope)

plus everyone's version of sexy is different. I'm a younger generation dancer, but I do NOT want to go on stage and give off the sexy vibe. I want to go on stage and be impressive (if I look good, then great!).

I think we should also make sure to note that sexy has a lot of connotations.

This! I'm a big believer in being able to be beautiful--and yes, sexy-- without showing a lot. I think I can look great without everything hanging out (and in my case--and a lot of peoples' too--less IS more, if for no other reason than the unattractive stuff needs to be covered up and smoothed over; my butt looks a lot better in yoga pants than it would hanging out all over if I were naked with my newly-forming cellulite in everyone's face). But then I tend to think a PERSON is sexy, and the clothes are secondary (regardless of sex and/or gender). I know some people who'd look sexy in sweatpants, and other people who might have a good body in next-to-nothing, but the person themself is such a turn-off that they just aren't attractive.

We've also had threads where people have debated whether those minimalist costumes create the opposite result--audiences who have stopped paying attention to the dancing and are now thinking about the dancer's body, the mechanics of how the costume is staying on, and whether a costume malfunction is imminent. There's another thread running now where folks have (jokingly?) hypothesized that Dina's had her nipples removed so that she can wear some of those daring bras of hers. That's not drawing attention to the dance--and Dina is certainly good enough that there are plenty of reasons why her dancing should dominate the audience's interest.

I've wondered about this too. As you all know, I'm a Highland dancer, and competitive Highland dance has a pretty strict dress code, which is designed (at least in part; the other reason is probably to try to preserve tradition at least a bit) to try to eliminate blingy posturing (you can't wear shiny fabrics, they're quite strict with which embellishments you're allowed, etc). It's often contrasted with Irish dance, where it seems more and more popular to have dresses for competitions in neon colors with lame and holographic fabrics, wild prints, etc., and this is because these dancers want the judges to "notice" them. The sad thing is that it's doubtful these are a bunch of horrible dancers who NEED to be noticed for their clothing only because their dancing just doesn't cut it. For some of them, perhaps indeed some of their dancing is missed BECAUSE the judge is hunting for his/her sunglasses because of a shiny, day-glo costume. So you have to wonder if the same thing is true for some belly dancers as well.

I'd far rather see an awesome dancer in leggings and a choli than a horrible one encrusted in diamonds with an impressive rack!

Originally Posted by Tourbeau

But sometimes the student's motives are part of the discussion... new students in our classes are just as likely to answer the question of why they signed up with the same "..because it looked kind of sexy and fun" answer as those other classes hear... how many are there because they hope it will improve their sex appeal?

This can be an issue. A lot of other things can be an issue- the question for me is whether I can do anything about it or not. Maybe it's just the time of year, or current number of kids in the house, but I'm too exhausted to worry about what I can't really influence. I welcome any student who comes to me, but most of the students who come to me are looking for other aspects as well- I won't say instead of, because I don't know all the complex reasons why someone shows up in class or not. I started dancing when I was 12 & it wasn't part of MY motivation, but I went thru puberty as a belly dancer too...

The I wanna look hot for my hubby when he gets back from tour (we're in a military town) absolutely show up, one or two of them even stick around, and one of them stayed long enough to learn a custom choreography. Most of the time, the "I wanna learn because it's so sexy" crowd either disappear after 1 or 2 classes, or find another reason to actually keep them dancing. I have found that "I want to look sexy" while it can certainly be motivation, can not be the ONLY motivation to keep someone actually in this discipline. At least the way I teach, ymmv.

On the other hand, we talk about motivation & backstory when we perform, trying to get that sparkly attitude that wows the crowd- who on earth doesn't want to look their best when getting out on stage?

I am a sexual being. That inevitably comes out, just like my sense of humor & other aspects tend to come out when I dance. All I can really, honestly control is being aware of my own motivation. I am careful of how costume influences that portrayal, but I realize I am NOT in control of how others choose to portray their own version of this dance. I want to look good- I also measure in at a 34G right now, and there is no way of hiding those puppies no matter what I wear. I stopped wearing the wet-look fabrics, but I still wear sparkles, and even in a turtle neck, eyes creep in that direction. Just try to find a costume bra that is going to reduce a 34G- covering 'em at all is a pain. Even my conservative dresses make 'em obvious. This is what I am talking about when I say all I can really concern myself with is my OWN motivation. I do my best to keep the focus on my dance. I teach my style & discuss my own preferences with my students, but I can not control them, or the audience, and I refuse to give up dancing for the sake of people who are going out of their way to find offense.

Personally, I find the costuming that shows the most shoulder and arm, the most bosom, the most midriff and the most leg all in one costume to be the least appealing and attractive of styles. I find this to be the case in general fashion, also.

Although some designers don't seem to follow the "rules," which, of course, makes them avant garde and really cool and stuff, most folks who dress real people advise their clients to "show off" or highlight one body area at a time when dressing themselves.

For example, I think a form-fitting mini dress with some sort of sleeve (length doesn't matter) or covered shoulder is so much sexier than a deep v-neck mini dress hanging from spaghetti straps and featuring an open midriff. Too much showing all at once. Along those same lines, a plunging neckline on a strapless dress with minimal or no leg showing is classy and sexy, but a dress made from two pieces of fabric that meet somewhere around the belly button, but is nearly completely open at the sides looks . . . well, not classy and not sexy.

So, to be blunt, I find many of Dina's costumes to be . . . well, not classy and not sexy. Too much skin and not enough mystery.

I grew up with belly dancing from childhood and became a a practitioner in my teens. As a woman of a certain age, many of the cabaret-style dancers I saw from the early 1970s and onward were wearing skirts with double slits up to *there;* although many skirts were full, some of those costumes were no more than two narrow panels front and back. Arms were very bare, maybe a bangle or two on the wrist or one of those snake-y upper arm things. (I got mine from my mom.)

So, we're wearing essentially a bikini top and bottom, with some fabric hanging from our hips showing lots of leg and only limited jewelry overall. Kinda bare.

/ note: I am aware that there are many dancers, some of whom are fellow Bhuzzers, who would describe their own or someone else's costuming from that time period differently. The description above is a general impression I have from that era. now back to the main point /

I am sooo glad that the cabaret fashion has changed somewhat.

It's now common for there to be something on the arms (gauntlet-type things of all lengths or arm bands with fabric drapes or more substantial wrist ornamentation than a bangle or two). A bit less leg shows overall now, it seems. Although we have cut-outs now, many of them look great because the cut-outs aren't competing with wide leg slits and bare arms.

In other words, the costuming looks more complete, as in a costume that has parts that are worn together to create a cohesive whole. Legs and midriff showing? Not a problem. Got something substantial on the arms with those legs and that midriff? Wonderful. It just looks good.

So that leaves Dina's costuming out.

In my opinion.

Deborah

I think bellydance is a very oldfashioned concept of sexiness here in the West. You look at Pussycat Dolls videoclips or clips by Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyoncé or Shakira, there are a lot more drastical approaches in terms of hotness, using iconography that directly reminds of pornography or cheapest titillation - but also moves that are African dance moves rendered more extreme by hip hop and it's latin brother, reggaetón. But ok, in a video, a lot has to happen to be yet of interest to the tv generation.

Bellydance is a dance form that is more gentle, softer, more feminine, in short: prettier.
The twopiece offers to see the beauty of the moving navel and the soft undulating belly, a very beautiful sight highlighting the specific movement style. But it's not just the costume - because there's a lot of revealing costuming going on - comfortable for the sweating dancers and also not hiding the beauty of the movement. You can dance in a twopiece and be all ladylike and almost asexual in attitude, while Dina...she is so raw. She is like a soul-exhibitionist and her body is exhibited correspondingly. She seems to open up, keep no reserves, no holding back, totally abandoning herself to the moment, so in this moment audiences get that strong feeling of intimacy with her. That is unsettling and I think also the reason why she is criticised so much (even though the logical argument brought up against her focuses on the dress) - only children or "fools" give themselves away in such a way, grown ups have learned and are expected to wear their social shell and a woman with a body like Dina, can she claim the same innocence as a kid? Fact is, she exposes herself in a way that appears "unsuitable".

In my opinion, it's the soft, feminine side of the way of moving that makes bellydancers appear something so intimate, so approachable plus the fact that you have them dancing much closer to you - in cafés, lounges, small stages... You can keep audiences in check by hyperactivity, by speed, power, an almost aggressive energy output, literally smacking them around. But bellydance is sweet, soft, feminine, charming, the attitude of the dancer is very friendly. That is speaking in general terms, also bellydancers can be more sporty, more aggressive... but there is a gesture language - think of all those hand gestures around the face, they are so cute...

Bellydance is seductive. Not aggressively sexual but feminine in a more oldfashioned sense.

Ballet isn't. If you see a ballet dancer from close, she's all muscle and ligament and the maximum tension gives her face an expression of enlightened suffering bliss - a martyr. Not sexy at all, really, but it isn't meant to be neither.

Originally Posted by casbahdance

Personally, I find the costuming that shows the most shoulder and arm, the most bosom, the most midriff and the most leg all in one costume to be the least appealing and attractive of styles. I find this to be the case in general fashion, also.

You mean like how the Fug Girls at GFY always call Blake Lively "Boobs Legsly"? We're sort of the opposite of Coco Chanel's "take one thing off" rule. We're "cover one thing back up."

Along those same lines, a plunging neckline on a strapless dress with minimal or no leg showing is classy and sexy, but a dress made from two pieces of fabric that meet somewhere around the belly button, but is nearly completely open at the sides looks . . . well, not classy and not sexy.

Personally, I've got more tolerance for "open at the sides" than that Turkish "belly-button porthole" style of dress. I can't ever recall seeing one of those that impressed me as elegant, no matter how opulent the fabric and decorations.

So, we're wearing essentially a bikini top and bottom...

The cut and fit of the pieces are a lot of what separates "sexy in a mature, feminine way" from "trashy," and I think that is part of the issue with Dina. A vintage costume built on a Playtex Cross Your Heart and a modern Sahar floating bra are both bras, but they don't create the same impression. A bra that has confidence-inspiring construction and cups that contain the majority of the wearer's breast tissue is going to give the audience a different impression than a bra that looks like it's being held on with magic and the wearer's breasts are spilling out of the tops and sides. Per Nouria's comments about the beauty of exposing the body for dance, I'd add that there's an element to "trashy" that has to do with not knowing what looks good on one's body and failing to avoid the costumes that don't. Fit is a big part of this, but at the end of the day, not every style looks good on everyone, and unflattering clothes are not sexy in a good way.

It's now common for there to be something on the arms (gauntlet-type things of all lengths or arm bands with fabric drapes or more substantial wrist ornamentation than a bangle or two).[...] Although we have cut-outs now, many of them look great because the cut-outs aren't competing with wide leg slits and bare arms.

The lack of gauntlets doesn't really bother me. Sometimes a costume looks incomplete without them, but I'm not sure I'd say it was in a pruriently sexy way--just kind of unfinished, like wearing a costume with no makeup. I find the cutouts on average to be more disconcerting, especially when they are large and placed in ways that encourage the audience to question whether you have underwear on. No amount of arm coverage can compensate for looking like you might give the audience a free look at your lady bits.

Originally Posted by dunyah

Tango is sure as heck sexy and people nowadays don't think it is scandalous.

Is it? Maybe what is going on between the dance partners, but watching it - I don't find it all too sexy. It's dramatized eroticism.

Originally Posted by Nouria

I think bellydance is a very oldfashioned concept of sexiness here in the West. You look at Pussycat Dolls videoclips or clips by Lady Gaga, Rihanna, Beyoncé or Shakira, there are a lot more drastical approaches in terms of hotness, using iconography that directly reminds of pornography or cheapest titillation - but also moves that are African dance moves rendered more extreme by hip hop and it's latin brother, reggaetón. But ok, in a video, a lot has to happen to be yet of interest to the tv generation.

Bellydance is a dance form that is more gentle, softer, more feminine, in short: prettier.
The twopiece offers to see the beauty of the moving navel and the soft undulating belly, a very beautiful sight highlighting the specific movement style. But it's not just the costume - because there's a lot of revealing costuming going on - comfortable for the sweating dancers and also not hiding the beauty of the movement. You can dance in a twopiece and be all ladylike and almost asexual in attitude, while Dina...she is so raw. She is like a soul-exhibitionist and her body is exhibited correspondingly. She seems to open up, keep no reserves, no holding back, totally abandoning herself to the moment, so in this moment audiences get that strong feeling of intimacy with her. That is unsettling and I think also the reason why she is criticised so much (even though the logical argument brought up against her focuses on the dress) - only children or "fools" give themselves away in such a way, grown ups have learned and are expected to wear their social shell and a woman with a body like Dina, can she claim the same innocence as a kid? Fact is, she exposes herself in a way that appears "unsuitable".

In my opinion, it's the soft, feminine side of the way of moving that makes bellydancers appear something so intimate, so approachable plus the fact that you have them dancing much closer to you - in cafés, lounges, small stages... You can keep audiences in check by hyperactivity, by speed, power, an almost aggressive energy output, literally smacking them around. But bellydance is sweet, soft, feminine, charming, the attitude of the dancer is very friendly. That is speaking in general terms, also bellydancers can be more sporty, more aggressive... but there is a gesture language - think of all those hand gestures around the face, they are so cute...

Bellydance is seductive. Not aggressively sexual but feminine in a more oldfashioned sense.

Ballet isn't. If you see a ballet dancer from close, she's all muscle and ligament and the maximum tension gives her face an expression of enlightened suffering bliss - a martyr. Not sexy at all, really, but it isn't meant to be neither.

Lots of good food for thought here.