Article about strip clubs in the Guardian

Sabrina do you think it's the same with the beauty industry ?

It only exists because of the demand from women ?

No, it's not what I'm saying.

I'm just laying the blame at the door of the men that create the demand for the clubs. As has been already said - without the men going to these clubs you're just left with a load of half naked women sitting doing nothing in an empty club.

Sabrina - 'Briefly it's because it is the men creating the demand for these clubs - no demand, no clubs.'

So healthy, well-educated, uncoerced women are okay to do it because men want it? Is that what you are saying? What if men want them to do other things too - is that okay?

Yes, Larry, there is a plentiful supply of horsemeat - it is generally exported to Europe where horsemeat is considered acceptable for human consumption. There are some claims that it goes into petfood.

There would be nothing to stop people breeding horses for food just like cattle, but the demand for the meat for human consumption just isn't there in the UK. It's there in France - and, oh look, you can eat horsemeat in French restaurants.

Article here

It says Gordon Ramsay caused outrage by cooking horsemeat - the supply is there, just not the demand.

That's why I think the demand for lap dancing clubs is the important thing to look at here.

Is there a plentiful supply of horsemeat? Does it make more sense to raise horses for eating than riding? Frankly I doubt it. I have tried horse meat in France and it is not that great really tastewise.

I suspect if horses beat cows, sheep and pigs economically to eat, then someone would create demand by trying to change people's perceptions.

Having said the above, it is quite theoretical.

Contrast Iceland and Amsterdam. Which one do you think has the bigger trafficking problem?

I don't think you can really compare the two.

Iceland has a population of 320,000, which is about the same as the population of Birkenhead.

Holland has a population of 16.7 million people.

So are drug takers solely to blame for the drug trade? No demand, no drugs.

Larry - why isn't there a demand for roasted horsemeat in the UK then? There's a plentiful supply of horsemeat available - and it's quite acceptable to eat it in France.

If it is chicken and egg - why not roasted horsemeat restaurants?

If people started to demand horsemeat - you can bet your bottom dollar that horsemeat restaurants would be opening up.

Tunip, interesting that a country that is twice as small as Amsterdam and therefore much easier to police is always used as an example yet by its definition we cannot know about if/what and how much underground activity takes place in Iceland.

We see all the claims about trafficking in prostitution yet Pentameter 2 actually got no arrest from all the brothels and massage parlours and there were only 5 prosecutions during that time for trafficking (not related to Pentameter). So from that do we assume that no trafficking is taking place or the police find it hard to prosecute an illegal activity involved in an illegal business? If the later the lack of protection will see women as victims if LDCs go underground. If the former then all the arguments about trafficking for all the sex industries go right out the window.

Jothehot - it's been explained quite clearly upthread.

Briefly it's because it is the men creating the demand for these clubs - no demand, no clubs.

Sausage - having no lap dancing clubs is not asking anyone to 'turn their brains off.' That idea is laughable. There are plenty of ways men can express their sexual desires in life without having to pay a woman to wiggle at him (whilst bouncers look on

Doctrine,

One is supply and no demand. The other is demand (well, possibly :)) and no supply. As I said, it is chicken and egg, you need both to have a business. One without the other will not do.

Personally, I'm still hoping someone will explain why a stripper, who is psychologically healthy, is not criticised, but the bloke that pays her is. In any other situation I can think of, where freely consenting adults engage in something deemed to be immoral, both parties come in for criticism.

When one side of a debate consistently refuses to tackle a point, it starts to look like they can't without back-tracking.

Larry

A roasted dinosaur restaurant is clearly absurd, as there are no dinosaurs.

It would be perfectly possible to run a chain of roasted horse restaurants in the UK - there are plenty of horses potentially available. However, eating horse isn't widely socially acceptable in the uk, so the demand isn't there.

'no net objective evidence of patriarchy' Sure Larry.

Larry - re the beard thing - a bit of gentle ribbing about a beard (I must say I never came across that when I worked in banking) is not the same as the public dressing down by the media of Julia Roberts and Pixie Lot.

somerset you know we all , men and women , experience forms of un wanted social ridicule for not following social norms.

And I think it comes down to whether you want to be yourself or fit the norm for an easy life.

But saying you feel the patriarchy is forcing you to conform and become fearful forcing you into shaving your legs and wearing make seems to me a pretty weak position to take if you really would prefer not to wear make up and go hairy.

I work in the arts, and it is a very egalitarian environment full of fairly liberal minded 'arty' individuals who wouldn't give a hoot about women's hairy legs. I'd say at least 50% of my female colleages ( approx 150 ) and bosses wear no make up, most remaing simply eye liner, and I've no idea if they shave their legs as very few walk around with bare legs.

It's quite a eclectic bunch, and most I'm sure have in the past and present have to put up with random comments from idiots strangers because they look and behave outside of social norms.

There are of course a minority of women at work who do wear make up. These women also generally show a lot of cleavage and commonly wear short skirts and tight tops.

All their own choice. I've no criticism other than the distraction they can cause.

I can only speculate as to why they dress like that in a work environment that doesn't preasure to dress like that. Perhaps they enjoy the attention it innevitably garners, perhaps they have low self esteem, maybe both, maybe not.

I'd imagine a city trading firm is going to be way different in it's attidudes of course. Known to be a highly sexist environment. But as such I don't think it's the norm or a good example of the average work place.

And nor is mine.

If you want to stop wearing make up and have hairy legs you should do it and ignore any ignorant comments you might get, or try and find a more enlightened working environment.

'So do people think banning them will be the end of this or will it go underground? We can assume it would go underground at which point it is really run by the criminals, would be likely to have trafficked women and much more likely abuse would happen.'

Nope. Bigger legal sex industry leads to bigger illegal sex industry, end to legal sex industry makes it easier to stamp out the illegal.
Contrast Iceland and Amsterdam. Which one do you think has the bigger trafficking problem?

"A guy can't have a beard if they work in banking Larry? Who knew?"

Sure they can, but they often get teased for it. And even then it has to be neatly groomed. Never seen a man with a full long beard and tache on a trading floor. Have you?

Somerset,

Nope, no matriarchy but, last I looked, no net objective evidence of a patriarchy in UK either.

You cannot state something as a fact which is open for debate and use it to buttress an argument. It is self referencing yourself as omniscient. I know you may believe it but, sorry, I don't.

If she were in sales, she would have had to present a pretty face. If in trading or research, no one would have given a shit. That was one of the few really good things about banking. People were judged on results rather than appearance

Yes, of course. Before you (men) all buggered off to a SEV after a hard day's trading.

And no one is citing that as evidence of a matriarchy.

Well, no. Since there isn't one.

Lets pick up again on objectification, firstly we know from martha nussbaum not all objectification is bad. In fact sexual desires are completely natural every man and woman will have them in their life. So realistically we want people to turn their brains off? So do people think banning them will be the end of this or will it go underground? We can assume it would go underground at which point it is really run by the criminals, would be likely to have trafficked women and much more likely abuse would happen. But thats ok because it makes some peoples morals feel so much better because it is illegal. Nevermind the loss of jobs, cost to the economy, increases in council tax to cover the loss of council income. We are happy because we have made women victims because the law can't protect the ones that end up working underground but we can then happily point out look trafficking and it would be accurate. So while LDCs operate there are legal options to protect people but we want women to become victims.

Ahhh lets cover money as rosa brought it up, the dancers are admitting to £48k a year for working 4 shifts a week, this being a cash business and that tax men read research how many do you think admitted their full earnings. Or even those just earning £48k for 4 shifts, what happens if they do 5 shifts (£60k). Now most of the dancers interviewed were working northern venues. So what would happen to that average wage if more dancers were interviewed further south.

And when you get right down to it closing LDCs would be bolting the barn door after the horse has escaped. Children are exposed to sexualisation and objectification long before they are old enough to be able to enter these places.

Well I really most stop doing this but people's logic sometimes just infuriates me.

A guy can't have a beard if they work in banking Larry? Who knew?

Thanks Rosabud - excellent post. I don't think I need to read the article Daddancer posted now

I can't believe she forgot to mention interior decorators as well, utterly hilarious!

I know. I mean, the decor of those places... It's 'mind-blowing' stuff...

"However. You're wilfully missing the point. You work (worked?) in banking? Are you honestly telling me that if one of your women colleagues came in every day with zero make-up, a mono-brow and hairy legs, she wouldn't have had the pissed completely ripped out of her and been the butt of a huge number of jokes? You're telling me that your LDC-frequenting mates and you would have taken her at face-value and not blinked an eye at her state of being....? Right..."

If she were in sales, she would have had to present a pretty face. If in trading or research, no one would have given a shit. That was one of the few really good things about banking. People were judged on results rather than appearance.

And they certainly would have had less jokes than a guy who never ever shaved, for instance. And no one is citing that as evidence of a matriarchy.

Ah, I miss the Metro for a bit of commuter-friendly, mindless, utter drivel!

Thanks Sabrina - point beautifully made. Gotta love how they suggest Pixie mustn't have had a shower, because of course hairy women necessarily = dirty and unclean. [rolls eyes to high heaven emoticon] Is it any wonder most of us don't have the guts not to de-fuzz?

Thankyou for posting the link to that story, Daddancer, I think it sums up neatly everything that most on here have said about the way lapdancing objectifies women and mythologisies the sex industry as something that is good for women and normal for men.

Firstly the dancer begins by saying that it was discussed with her partner and he said it was OK and she was allowed to do it - wow what an empowered woman - I wonder how many shelf-stackers have felt the need to ask their partners if it's OK to do their job? We then get the myth that it is all OK because she is doing it for her family (thank heavens she is not one of those strumpet women who just likes making an exhibition of herself!), that she is earning a fortune (investing in properties no less, yet oddly not enough money to avoid her partner doing night shift with baby and full-time job - why doesn't he give up work if they have money to invest in proeprty, oh could it be that his is the main income or that he is in the "serious" long, term career??), that she is not ashamed but, of course can't tell her children about her job, understood why her dad was ashamed and won't give her real name for the article. I love the detail about how if her daughter did it, then both parents would "support her" - how many shelf stackers require emotional support, I wonder? I notice she couldn't understand the concept of objectification (like many on here) but simply turned the idea around and thought about how it must feel for men who can't get a girlfriend. Lastly, in an attempt to find something good about lapdancing she felt it may be beneficial for local hairdressers.......I can't believe she forgot to mention interior decorators as well, utterly hilarious!

And the final proof that lapdancing is all about objectifying women; despite the article concentrating on her role as a Mum and the whole thing about the benefits for her family, do we get a picture of a Mum playing with her kids? No, we get a picture of a woman in lingerie in a sexually provocative pose.........but noone here is being objectified!!