If one allows that there is urgent need for contemporary feminism to accommodate sexual interests removed from the constraints of the family, marriage, coupledom and procreation, then one might argue that art which targets these cites of sexual oppression and pushes boundaries, is good revolutionary art. However, there is no empirical evidence to suggest that this account of female sexuality is correct. Furthermore, it seems that there is much to be gained by women rejecting this attitude towards sex. Historically, women have been sexually oppressed by the patriarchal institution of marriage and the sexual constraints and limitations, which accompany such an institution ie. Sex tied to procreation or possibility of it.
Striptease involves sexuality, which is removed from coitus.
Perhaps if stripping encourages women to explore alternative forms of sexual expression, then it could be considered revolutionary and capable of pushing and creating new tolerant liberated sexual boundaries. If one combines this ability of stripping with the account of art proposed by Marx, then there appear to be grounds for suggesting that stripping is not merely a legitimate form of artistic expression but one which warrants aesthetic applaud for its ability to bring about social change. I have argued that the female nude as she is represented in high art, is only rendered legitimate due to her framed nature. I have echoed the sentiments of Bourdieu and claimed that there is no objective basis on which to condemn objects of art or artistic expressions, which involve sensuous appeal. Part of my defence of striptease has been recognition of the activity as a legitimate form of artistic expression.