# Magic or porn: Are you amused or is this offensive?



## .   1

Is the following offensive or amusing?
 
A woman struts out on stage at the Montreal Comedy festival last year dressed in a sharp grey business suit, hair severely tied back, glasses, skirt and jacket.
She flourishes a red hanky and stuffs it into her hand and poof the hanky is gone.
She then pulls it out of her jacket so the audience hoots and she slowly removes the jacket.
She stuffs the hanky in her hand and poof it is gone.
She pulls the hanky out of her skirt so the skirt is removed.
She then struts around the stage and stuffs the hanky back into her hand and it disappears.
Next the hanky is pulled from the bra so the bra is removed and she struts around in a G string.
She stuffs the hanky back into the hand and it is gone again.
With a knowing wink to the audience she sticks her hand down the front of her scanties and finds the red hanky.
The crowd goes wild as she strips down to a pair of high heels and does a pointed bump and grind dance for three seperate sections of the audience.
She is obviously highly excited at the prospect of performing and is enjoying herself immensely.
She stuffs the hanky back into her hand and with a wiggle of the fingers it is gone again.
You'll have to figure out how to find a working link to see where she pulls the hanky from as her finale but it is an impressive sleight of hand.
 
.,,


----------



## danielfranco

I have seen it, and it don't seem all that offensive to me. At least she could have been a stunningly nude woman, but instead she seemed to be five minutes past her prime. Her trick was also poorly executed, since by the second pass you could see her fake plastic finger sleeve where she "hid" the hanky. So, if any, the offensive part of the act is how poorly she performs her prestidigitation and how shabby her strip-tease "equipment" happens to be.
However, she gets full marks from me for pure cheek (sorry, flabby pun, but since flabby seems to be part of this act, well...)


----------



## mirx

I'd be amused and amazed.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> At least she could have been a stunningly nude woman, but instead she seemed to be five minutes past her prime.
> However, she gets full marks from me for pure cheek (sorry, flabby pun, but since flabby seems to be part of this act, well...)


I had never considered this aspect as from my view she appears to be in the prime of her life.  I saw nothing that jiggled or flabbed.  I thought that she was a bit on the thin side if anything.
Would larger breasts or smaller breasts or wider hips or narrower hips have made her more stunningly nude?

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

I guess I'm a regular oversexed Tex-Mex guy, but I expect a strip-tease act to be so spectacularly titillating that it would crack my glasses and fog up my corneas. 
I think cable television has warped my expectations of what a female performer ought to look like. Instead, the lady in question looks rather ordinary. I think this particular trick could have been turned by, let's say, a Vegas chorus girl who received a couple hours training on basic magic.
Like I said, and like you also said, she was very brave and seemed very happy to perform this particular interpretation of the trick.


----------



## .   1

danielfranco said:


> I guess I'm a regular oversexed Tex-Mex guy, but I expect a strip-tease act to be so spectacularly titillating that it would crack my glasses and fog up my corneas.


That's the point.
It wasn't a strip tease.
It would have been confusing if she had been sleazy or provocative.
There was nothing sexual at all about the matter.
I took it to be a clever take on the usual magician's trick of having a scantily clad assistant bobble around to take the eye.
This woman acted as her own assistant.
There is a very common maxim taught over and over again in the security industry.  It has saved many lives.
If you see tits don't look at them.
Look somewhere else because tits won't hurt you but the gun in her boyfriend's pocket will blow you away.
I think that this magic trick is a very clever psychological trick on so many levels.
I am deeply dissappointed that this is not more obvious to more people.

.,,


----------



## Benjy

But that's just it. Why would a performer to the masses create as trick with intention of teaching on many levels when the vast majority of people are going be "woooaaaaah she's naked!!" (note the double exclamation marks!!). Most likely she was thinking about trying an original take to an old trick and to be honest the easiest way to get attention is to remove your clothing.

I don't think she was trying to demonstrate anything other than her ability to hide the hanky even when there was "nowhere" for her to hide it with the double extra bonus of having everyone focusing on her jingling bits.

I think the fact that you saw all those extra meanings says alot more about you than the performer. But that's just me


----------



## Kajjo

mirx said:


> I'd be amused and amazed.


So would I. Nudism is nothing offensive in itself.

Kajjo


----------



## Kajjo

. said:


> If you see tits don't look at them.
> I think that this magic trick is a very clever psychological trick on so many levels.
> I am deeply dissappointed that this is not more obvious to more people.


Very well explained. This forum is so educating.

Kajjo


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

I also see it as a statement of great courage.  Magicians live by their props, and this woman had it stripped down to the bare essentials.

It takes even more courage knowing that there are people like Daniel in the audience!


----------



## cuchuflete

Mildly amusing, in the way that Greek theatre is pleasing:  Very shortly after the performance begins,
we know exactly what is going to happen.  She will remove all of her clothes, and pull the handkerchief from
her ______?  We feel smart because it turns out exactly as we had predicted.  Of course she showed us
exactly what to expect, so we really aren't that smart at all.

The magician's appearance helps all of this work.  She is neither offensive to the eye nor especially captivating, so we follow the action more than the human prop.


----------



## Poetic Device

I'm sorry, but both of them are horrible, unecessary and in my opinion completely against GOD.


----------



## vachecow

It is obviously a magic trick, and it definately shouldn't be considered offensive.  Anyone who would go see this would obviously know what they were getting into


----------



## cuchuflete

Poetic Device said:


> I'm sorry, but *both of them* are horrible, unecessary and in my opinion completely against GOD.



Both of *What?


*Please try to leave god out of this thread.  God seems to be in every other thread around here lately.  Can't we have a nice Pulitickly Keerrect conversation that is all-inclusive enough to allow
the agnostics and indifferent folks to participate without having to beat that other topic
to death again?  

The hankie was *red*.  If we must go wildly off-topic, can't we at least focus on the symbolism of that?  Would the act have been more amusing if God had gone to lunch, and the hanky were
*light blue*?


----------



## maxiogee

It struck me when I saw it last year as being a one-off trick. Not something which can be a part of a 'real' stage magician's act.
It was a novelty item, like people who play 'music' on glasses filled with water - so neither magic nor porn, and neither amusing nor offensive. Too few choices for me to cast a valid vote, but who cares, eh?

I believe that it was part of the Montreal Comedy Festival — I'd say there was a case for a claim of misrepresentation.


----------



## cuchuflete

> ...like people who play 'music' on glasses filled with water



That's called a glass harmonica, _Glasharmonika, _or glass harp.  It can be more interesting than red hankies coming out of strange places.  It is rarely played by anyone doing a striptease.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> That's called a glass harmonica, _Glasharmonika, _or glass harp.  It can be more interesting than red hankies coming out of strange places.  It is rarely played by anyone doing a striptease.



It _can_ be anything, but all I said was that it is a novelty item.


----------



## .   1

Poetic Device said:


> I'm sorry, but both of them are horrible, unecessary and in my opinion completely against GOD.


Both of what are horrible?

.,,


----------



## Poetic Device

. said:


> Both of what are horrible?
> 
> .,,


 

See above.


----------



## geve

> Magic or porn: Are you amused or is this offensive?


If you don't mind me getting back to topic, I found this performance amusing, as an innovative way to reinvent what must be one of the oldest and most basic trick of magic, making it look even more magical not because of the size of the woman's breasts that has already been discussed by previous posters, but because it adds to the magic: if she's naked then you can't think she's hiding it in a sleeve.
I also want to add that I hate danielfranco, fo my eyesight is not as good as his and he ruined the magic by unveiling the trick.   

It isn't porn. Porn has explicit sex content. Her act was not sexual. She was clearly playing with the classic staging of both magic and strip-tease. Women are allowed to have creativity and a sense of humour, too.
Nudity in itself isn't responsible for violence and disturbed minds. If we didn't try to protect children and people in general from any potentially traumatizing sight they might not get so easily traumatized.


« Sylvia thought how all parents wanted an impossible life for their children – happy beginning, happy middle, happy ending. No plot of any kind. What uninteresting people would result if parents got their way. » Karen Joy Fowler, _The Jane Austen Book Club._​


----------



## cuchuflete

I am left wondering if all who have posted critiques here have done so on the basis of the fine, detailed description in post #1, or if a few people have seen the video clip.  If the sight of a human body is offensive to
some people, they will be offended by that.  There is nothing even remotely pornographic in the performance.  

If you would like to see what we are discussing, use a search engine to find the many links to copies of the clip, by typing

  "lady magician with nothing to hide"


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

I remember this show from Ursula Martinez. I loved this show, not because of the nudity of this performer (with a lot of humour), but because of the show of the audience. The camera often showed the audience: some people were laughing and some were really nervous watching their wife from time to time... Really amazing.


----------



## roxcyn

. said:


> Is the following offensive or amusing?
> 
> A woman struts out on stage at the Montreal Comedy festival last year dressed in a sharp grey business suit, hair severely tied back, glasses, skirt and jacket.
> She flourishes a red hanky and stuffs it into her hand and poof the hanky is gone.
> She then pulls it out of her jacket so the audience hoots and she slowly removes the jacket.
> She stuffs the hanky in her hand and poof it is gone.
> She pulls the hanky out of her skirt so the skirt is removed.
> She then struts around the stage and stuffs the hanky back into her hand and it disappears.
> Next the hanky is pulled from the bra so the bra is removed and she struts around in a G string.
> She stuffs the hanky back into the hand and it is gone again.
> With a knowing wink to the audience she sticks her hand down the front of her scanties and finds the red hanky.
> The crowd goes wild as she strips down to a pair of high heels and does a pointed bump and grind dance for three *separate* sections of the audience.
> She is obviously highly excited at the prospect of performing and is enjoying herself immensely.
> She stuffs the hanky back into her hand and with a wiggle of the fingers it is gone again.
> You'll have to figure out how to find a working link to see where she pulls the hanky from as her finale but it is an impressive sleight of hand.
> 
> .,,



Was this actually performed?  Well if there were children around then I think it would have been offensive.  I don't think parents want their children to see stuff like that.  However, if it was an adult crowd, I would say amused and surprised.


----------



## .   1

roxcyn said:


> Was this actually performed? Well if there were children around then I think it would have been offensive. I don't think parents want their children to see stuff like that. However, if it was an adult crowd, I would say amused and surprised.


Yup.  The Montreal Comedy Festival.  A very adult crowd.  No kids allowed.  I imagine taht it would have been 18 and up.

It is apparently quite famous.  Her name is Ursula Martinez.

If you would like to see what we are discussing, use a search engine to find the many links to copies of the clip, by typing

"lady magician with nothing to hide"

See ya

.,,


----------



## Kajjo

Having seen the video I can not  find anything offensive in it. It is a nude show. Certainly the people knwo what to expect that day. The artist is not exceedingly professional, but it is a nice and quite unique piece of a magicians trick. Not bad at all.

I wonder what there is to discuss about, actually.

Kajjo


----------



## Talant

I'll say it's not porn nor good magic. It's just entertaiment, and a good psychological trick.

In fact she doesn't need to hide the hanky. The male audience is not looking at her hands, the female audience is mainly laughing (either at the male audience's expense or at the situation).

Bye


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The one part which made me, as a woman, slightly queasy was her grand finale .... it was a little too reminiscent of changing a tampon, and then that red silk reminded me uncomfortably of some sort of discharge.  I'm assuming that it was intended to have that effect.


----------



## Kajjo

Chaska Ñawi said:


> The one part which made me, as a woman, slightly queasy was her grand finale .... it was a little too reminiscent of changing a tampon, and then that red silk reminded me uncomfortably of some sort of discharge.  I'm assuming that it was intended to have that effect.


I don't think it was intended to have the effect of discharge. It was just playing with the vagina as place _to hide _something (more a penis than a tampon would come to mind of the male audience, I bet). The grand finale is what makes this trick flow. A naked women hiding something somewhere -- that stimulates the phantasy!

Kajjo


----------



## Angel.Aura

Chaska Ñawi said:


> The one part which made me, as a woman, slightly queasy was her grand finale .... it was a little too reminiscent of changing a tampon, and then that red silk reminded me uncomfortably of some sort of discharge.  I'm assuming that it was intended to have that effect.


I agree with you... the tampon came to my mind. 
But I didn't feel offended by the show, I found it really amusing. To me it's not porn at all. And I liked the lady too, the way she performed, her body, the expression on her face...


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:


> The one part which made me, as a woman, slightly queasy was her grand finale .... it was a little too reminiscent of changing a tampon, and then that red silk reminded me uncomfortably of some sort of discharge. I'm assuming that it was intended to have that effect.


I am sorry that this made you queazy but I suspect that this says more of you than of the act portrayed which looks nothing like the insertion and removal of tampons that I have witnessed for the past twenty years.

.,,


----------



## geve

. said:


> I am sorry that this made you queazy but I suspect that this says more of you than of the act portrayed which looks nothing like the insertion and removal of tampons that I have witnessed for the past twenty years.


It came to my mind too. I don't think it says anything about Chaska, Angel.Aura or me. Simply, tampons are the inanimate thing that most women put there the most frequently.  (note the "most" - I wouldn't want to generalize!!)

It is actually the only part of the show where the performer didn't do what I expected (once she had started stripping I mean): I expected her to retrieve the hanky from the other hiding place. I wonder what that says about me!


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> I expected her to retrieve the hanky from the other hiding place. I wonder what that says about me!


My wife watched the same thing happen and was quite off put until I told her the joke and now she finds it hillarious and she just showed it to my 80 year old mum who was a little po faced but she seemed quite amused when she watched a rerun.

.,,
It is all perception


----------



## geve

. said:


> My wife watched the same thing happen and was quite off put until I told her the joke and now she finds it hillarious and she just showed it to my 80 year old mum who was a little po faced but she seemed quite amused when she watched a rerun.


I'm sorry, I don't understand your post  Your wife watched what? What joke did you tell her? 
Ursula Martinez' performance doesn't require any explanation, does it?


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> I'm sorry, I don't understand your post  Your wife watched what? What joke did you tell her?
> Ursula Martinez' performance doesn't require any explanation, does it?


"My wife watched the same thing happen"
This means that my wife sat beside me and watched the same performance of the magic trick.  All four of our eyes saw exactly the same thing at exactly the same time on exactly the same computer screen.  My wife and I have lived together full time for twenty years and shared all of our life experiences during that time.
I saw a woman appear to pull a red cloth out of her vagina and my wife saw the same woman pull the same red cloth out of her anus.  Some people have watched the same performance and associated it with menstruation but my wife's interpretation had nothing to do with menstruation.

I then explained that the impression was intended to be of pulling the cloth from the vagina or the woman would have reached around behind during the trick.
Then my wife found the joke of the performance and decided it was hillarious.

Yes it is apparent that this performance does require explanation.  I really doubt that the intention of the artist was to draw attention to menstruation.  How would that be funny?

Red was probably chosen because it is a dark colour that absorbs light and is close to skin colour.

.,,


----------



## geve

. said:


> Yes it is apparent that this performance does require explanation. I really doubt that the intention of the artist was to draw attention to menstruation. How would that be funny?


I still don't see how the whole performance requires explanation. The performance is funny because she plays with the scenery of magic and strip-tease and she does it in a cheeky way - or have I missed something? 
I didn't wait to see from where she would last remove the hanky to find it funny. The last part didn't make me think of _menstruation_ - but the idea of a tampon came to mind, when she removed something from her vagina. If she had removed the cloth with her little finger from her nose I would probably have thought of a booger, without it being crucial in my finding the performance funny or not.


----------



## .   1

geve said:


> If she had removed the cloth with her little finger from her nose I would probably have thought of a booger, without it being crucial in my finding the performance funny or not.


I reckon that it would have been much funnier if she had palmed a largish gold coin or some other culturally relevant item from the same region.
I was expecting something more than just more of the same.
It was such an attention arresting trick that I reckon she missed a huge opportunity.

.,,


----------



## danielfranco

Right!
I just thought of something:
What if...?
Let's get this lady together with Gallagher!!!!

Oh, yeah! Now we're talkin'!
Whoo! You go, girl!!

[I know, I know, it's obvious: I'm a troglodyte...]


----------



## cuchuflete

What does Gallagher have to do with either the magic act we are discussing or with porn?


----------



## danielfranco

.,, said, "I reckon that it would have been much funnier if she had palmed a largish gold coin or some other culturally relevant item from the same region."

And, naturally, because I'm such a cheeky bastard, I thought of Gallagher and his watermelons. Pulling a watermelon out might be a bit more porno than a mere hankie.

Maybe...


----------



## mirx

danielfranco said:


> .,, said, "I reckon that it would have been much funnier if she had palmed a largish gold coin or some other culturally relevant item from the same region."
> 
> And, naturally, because I'm such a cheeky bastard, I thought of Gallagher and his watermelons. Pulling a watermelon out might be a bit more porno than a mere hankie.
> 
> Maybe...


 
You are indeed.


----------



## danielfranco

What, no emoticons? Awwww...


----------

