Suicide Girls Burlesque Show Review

I have had well over 100 hits since this afternoon from an online sex, etc. magazine that's somewhat similar to Nerve. The site in question is a review of the Suicide Girls' Burlesque Show, which is coming here to the Twin Cities--not sure whether or not I'm going, though. I feel compelled to respond because I don't want it to seem as though I've given my imprimatur to what the author is saying, especially here (my emphasis):

"Now,
it's exceedingly hard to change what turns you on," I said.
"But you can go one of two ways on it: You can agree with Catherine [sic]
MacKinnon and Andrea
Dworkin that what acts out and reinforced the power structure
is immoral, or you can take a lead from sex-and-gender researchers
like Gayle
Rubin and Patrick
Califia and just accept that eros is value-neutral."

So, were
a half-dozen or more nubile young things covering each other with
chocolate syrup and writhing around onstage burlesque? Perhaps not.
Was it demeaning to women? Possibly. Was it art? Maybe. Was it hot?
Uh-huh. It was damn hot, even if I know that I only think it was
hot because I've been programmed that way.

It's not that I want to be essentialist or determinist here (those are the most deadly academic sins!). I don't agree with most of Dworkin or MacKinnon. This author is a smart guy, and I can tell that he's trying to yank my chain with the juxtaposition of "eros is value-neutral" with the waggish "I've been programmed that way." Yeah, yeah. But at least Dworkin and MacKinnon are questioning and critiquing why what turns us on turns us on. That, in my opinion, is a valuable endeavor, which I have said before. I agree with what Susie Bright once said, that the erotic is all about taboo. Sure, if everyone were swinging BDSM renifleurists, the ultimate turnon would be two virgins on their wedding night, consummating their love through a hole in a sheet. However, I am all for studying taboos in their sociodiscursive context.