Immodesty Blaize certainly knows a thing or two about seduction and tease. The burlesque performer is up there with Dita von Teese on her side of the pond, guesting on popular TV shows like “Faking It” and “Britain’s Next Top Model.” She’s also teamed up with lingerie label Madame V to create the Showtime Collection.  I found this interview on Knickers, a lingerie blog, and thought that the performer had a few good explanations about the appeal of burlesque in our day. I mean, who can resist the aesthetics and ideals of something that oft gets described with words like “coquette,” “tease” and “opulence”?

From the Knickers interview:

You create your own performances, and work with a great deal of women to bring burlesque to the stage and screen – is this “new” burlesque an example of women reclaiming their own sexuality?

Not really, I think women have been reclaiming their sexuality for quite some time before the burlesque revival! I think my performances have an undeniable erotic content, but they are also pieces of very elaborate theatre, and they are conceived with as much detail of theme, costume, prop, music and set, as one would a theatricalpresentation. So for me there’s a lot involved. I think in this way, women are attracted to the glamour and opulence as well as the erotic content. I think they like the humour too, it’s cheeky, it’s teasing, it’s clever. I wonder if somehow it feels accessible to more women therefore, than with other forms of erotic entertainment.

For the uninitiated, can you describe burlesque for our readers, and tell us about how you came to be a burlesque performer?

Burlesque means literally ‘to parody’. Simply put, it is a form of ironic cabaret, which is to say it is very tongue in cheek. It is also
a genre known for having a strong erotic undertow. It started in London in the 1860s, but it was the Minsky Brothers in ‘30s New York who truly put the glamorous striptease in burlesque, which gave rise to legends such as Gypsy Rose Lee, Lili St.Cyr, and Dixie Evans who is still going strong today.

For me, becoming a burlesque showgirl was a natural progression. As well as being reared on old Busby Berkley musicals and camp old Hollywood classics, as a teenager I became a huge fan of pin-up queen Betty Page and through her I discovered the legendary burlesque star Tempest Storm. I, myself had blossomed into a classic hourglass shape which I have to say was not popular at the time – it was all super-waifs and heroin chic…so images of women like Tempest Storm with their beautiful powerful womanliness really spoke to me and I knew I wanted to make the most of my curves in the same way!

We love the burlesque style because it looks amazing on women of so many sizes – do you think part of burlesque’s popularity is because of this celebration of a woman’s curves?

Partly, yes, although I’d say there’s no right or wrong body shape for burlesque. Certainly the classic old bombshell look of Mae West and Marilyn Monroe was full of curves, and then the legendary performer Lili St.Cyr was tall and lithe with legs up to her armpits! So I think really it promotes the idea of character and individuality. It encourages women to find their own alter-ego! In addition, I think we are at a point where people are getting bored of grungy reality shows, and they want live entertainment; theatre, fantasy, and proper old music again. I also think women and men alike are loving the chance to take time to dress up. Certainly I’ve noticed more women enhancing their silhouettes by wearing foundation-wear again, so suspender belts, girdles, basques, retro-shaped bullet bras are around…great!

What essentials would you recommend for a woman who wants to try out the burlesque look herself?

I don’t think there is one ‘burlesque look’, since burlesque is a form of entertainment rather than a fashion style. It spans 150 years,
so it has lived through fashions as diverse as the corseted Victorian, the fringed flapper, and the 50s pinup. However I would always
recommend that the ladies experience the joys of a good pair of nipple tassels!

Ooh! Controversy. I love it! One of our readers posted this link in a comment saying that the vaginal orgasm is a myth. Let’s have a look, shall we?  I’ve excerpted some salient quotations for your debate.This 1970s article by feminist Anne Koedt explores the idea of the vaginal orgasm in term of the idea of women being “frigid,” aka “defined by men as the failure of women to have vaginal orgasms.”

Now, she goes on to say “Actually the vagina is not a highly sensitive area and is not constructed to achieve orgasm. It is the clitoris which is the center of sexual sensitivity and which is the female equivalent of the penis.”

However, I remember a particularly celibate summer where, with the lack of anything that vibrates (my sol-O of choice at the time), I kept my hands very busy, trying to achieve orgasm without direct clitoral stimulation. (I had ALOT of time in my hands and a job at a hot erotic publication and no, no, no man or woman was of any interest to me.)  And one day, poof. An orgasm that felt entirely different, not a G-spot thing, that welled up from the inside. To this day, I believe in 2 kinds of orgasm: vaginal and clitoral. If biology says this is impossible, maybe the definition of “vaginal O” needs to be changed to accommodate orgasms that produce distinctly different sensations [vag, anal, clit, intellectual ;)]. I have yet to find my G-spot, so I can’t comment on that, but I hear emphatic evidence that it exists.

Of course achieving the vaginal orgasm, I laughed, “Ah, Freud. Am I now a woman in your eyes?” (Here’s what Koedt writes)

“Freud contended that the clitoral orgasm was adolescent, and that upon puberty, when women began having intercourse with men, women should transfer the center of orgasm to the vagina. “

I believe Freud is wrong and often condescending from his naive-but-not-his-fault, fin de siecle Viennese perspective. One should read Freud like fiction, but thank him for introducing therapy in such an organized manner so that it can be continued to be improved upon for years to come. Anna does a fine job of breaking him down.

In the rest of the essay, she explores why we perpetuate the myth of the vaginal orgasm from various perspectives. Fine. It’s a feminist article from the 1970s. I get the context. And the finest point Koedt makes is this:

“We must discard the “normal” concepts of sex and create new guidelines which take into account mutual sexual enjoyment. “

However, and dear reader thank you for this article, is it really worthwhile to hold up an outdated article on the female sexual experience in a patriarchal context today? In some respects, yes, as we have not far beyond the limited perspectives of sex that were being challenged then, but this is a new time. In our permissive society, we need a new language for the liberation and expression of our sexual selves. Also, I can’t do generalization. It just doesn’t make sense. The sexual revolution is up to each woman to assert her boundaries, know herself and never, never let a man tell her how she should be feeling. We need to move towards mutuality. We need to move towards a oneness. We need a SEXUALLY SANE society. From that spring will bubble all the neurosis-free, mutual enjoyment one can keep their hands busy with.