burlesque clowning? (part 1)

"Burlesque is a literary, dramatic or musical work intended to cause laughter by caricaturing the manner or spirit of serious works, or by ludicrous treatment of their subjects." (wikipedia)


We are being told that we do "burlesque clowning."  But wait a minute; isn't that a tautology?  Sounds like the sweet sound of patriarchy to me!  
Don't they teach that clown is libidinal by nature?  Certainly.  Since their shamanic days, performers of the trickster archetype have adorned giant phalluses (phalli!), thrusted their hips, all the while being an integral part of  tribal sacred ceremonies!  Clowns have made sure to express the libidinal in humanity, in order to remind the people of the irremediable connection between earth and sky, matter and spirit, humans and gods.  
Clowns, like priests, have mostly been men.


So something has been going on; don't you think?  Women are clowning now, though the art form has undeniably changed.  (I'm not even talking about the "mass spectacle" of the circus clowns, although perhaps another day I will.)  I guess I am referring to the modern clown in [very] general.  I am talking about the stage, where ever since Shakespeare and Moliere clowns have grappled with other, perhaps more subtle and complex aspects of the Psyche.  Today, "clown work" involves sounding to the shadowy depths of our emotions and modern desires.  That's where the catharsis occurs, that's what we seek and reveal for others to remember.


So what happened to the sexual content?
You see, I spent six months training with six guys and one other woman who like me does not necessarily fully identlfy with all the expectations of the gender. (Let's note, right away, the words that chose to come out for me here.  "Guys" and "a woman".  Isn't that fascinating?  Doesn't it remind you of being in high school again?)  These men, when they played, so easily - and in fact incontrollably - seemed to revert to being boys again.  Their humor often was quite basic and lewd.  It was funny, and exasperating.  That's because I wanted to do "serious", "meaningful" work.  I wanted to work towards a message, to work in a context and give it thought and opinion.  Don't get me wrong, I know how absurd this is.  Clowns have the duty to shed those social layers, to drop the analyzing mind, and to strive for spontaneity.  Still, I couldn't (and still cannot) deny the drive in me, to make material which is grounded in an understanding of the times we live in. 
Now that I think of it...  Isn't it interesting that the boys had no problem expressing the libidinal, while I felt uncomfortable doing so?  I didn't feel there was room for it, or rather perhaps, no referential context for me to explore and express physical, sexual urges.  (I must say, however, that the program did not deliver half of what I expected from a clown training.)
It seemed natural for the boys.  I had to deal with layers upon layers of socialization and gender expectations.  I didn't know what to do with that.  It's a shame.
So tell me now, what is "burlesque clowning"?  It sounds to me like we've created a separate category for women who wish to unearth their sexuality in a performative context.  It sounds to me like we've been pushed to the periphery, somehow.  Or perhaps that's where we're budding, us women clowns and priestesses...