A couple years ago I attended a performance at one of those trendy yet underground clubs on the Lower East Side. Normally, I wouldn't even be able to get into that place, but since my friend had recently started cocktail waitressing there, we were ushered past the long line and escorted to one of those exclusive tables that everyone outside would have killed to be seated at. Although it was a club where the performance was less of a focus and more of a backdrop, this particular place was known for some of the antics of their burlesque-type performers. I had heard that some of it was shocking, so I guess I shouldn't have been surprised when one of the dancers straddled herself over a champagne bottle, lowered herself onto it, then rolled backward to show the audience that all we could see was the bottom of it — the rest of the glass bottle was inside her. I was less shocked over what she had done than concerned that the bottle would break and her vagina would be ripped to shreds. I left that night not sure if I had just witnessed — art or pornography . My friend who worked there called it art, a friend who was with us defined it as porn, and I fell somewhere in the middle, but mostly that's because I was still fixated on the possible serious damage to her vagina one of these days if she continued to do this particular move. The debate of what constitutes art and what constitutes pornography is a discussion that no one can win. Each person has their own view on the subject, and similar to politics and religion, it's rare that you can persuade someone to see things as you do on the matter. More juicy content from YourTango: 7 Sex Positions Men Love Happy Ending Massage For Women How Do You Keep Sex Fresh? In a recent New York Times article, critic Alastair Macaulay also questioned exactly where that line was drawn . He recalled modern dance performances where everyone was on stage naked, a show where an artist had sat naked with a lard-covered groin, then proceeded to pull a needle and thread through his own scars on his skin, and more recently, a climatic moment in "Pâquerette," where the performers "inserted dildos up their backsides and kept them there for perhaps 10 minutes. The only dance moment of note occurred when, side by side, each held a balance on one foot while using the sole of the raised foot to hold the dildo in place." Well, how would you categorize this? Even if the performance started out as an innocent dance that just happened to be done in the nude, does the art that was happening just moments before the anal penetration immediately get negated and renamed pornography? Or can we just call it what is actually is: expressionism, and likely a political statement of sorts, which is meant to evoke emotion in the viewer? As modern dance evolves and continues to push boundaries, we can expect to see more nudity on stage as a means not only to evoke that emotion, but to also give praise to the beauty of the human body and pushing its limits. We've come a long way from our Puritan past, so instead of trying to categorize and pigeonhole it to have only one purpose, perhaps it's time to accept sexuality on stage as an expression and thought-provoking experience. Have you ever been to a burlesque or similar performance that blurs the boundaries between art and pornography?
