A Serious Coup

"Thailand's coup leaders have banned go-go dancers from performing for troops on the streets of Bangkok, fearing soldiers may be distracted."

According to the BBC story, dancing near tanks has been banned in order "to maintain the seriousness of the coup." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5384544.stm What do others make of this? I'm curious how these bodies are determined as inappropriate, as opposed to tourists taking photographs of the tanks, or residents bringing the soldiers flowers and food. Although I can never imagine a coup in the US, I wonder how this scenario might get played out in other countries or political situations.

This also raises the issue of control of the dancers' bodies, the bodies of the soldiers, as well as the bodies of the spectators (and media). In class we discussed the control of US male soldiers' bodies (from forbidding soldiers to have bowel movements while 'in the field' to placing chemicals in their food to prevent erections while serving) and yet the general sense of encouragement for male soldiers to 'unleash' and be uncontrolled when displaying their masculinity via their (hetero)sexuality.

Is the key issue in this story really that male soldiers will be distracted, or is it that the placement of sexually-coded bodies in relationship to the soldiers and tanks is somehow undermining the political cause both locally and internationally? Are politics always 'serious' (i.e., no go-go dancers) and in what ways do political causes benefit from the stereotypical display of the female body? I think this draws attention to the fact that the sexualized female body is exploited for practically everything else - why draw the line at a coup?

{photos from http://www.news24.com/News24/Backpage/Offbeat/0,,2-1343-1347_2004462,00.html and news.bbc.co.uk}