Article about strip clubs in the Guardian

You do know that most women think that men ( especially those over the age of about 25) who go to strip clubs, are sad twats ?
Does it not bother you that they think men who pay for sexual services like lap dances are pathetic and inadequate?

Why do women persist in challenging men on speaking on behalf of women and yet every woman on this board assumes that they totally know every man's motivation, even to the extent of being entirely uninterested in their views. People might take that to be somewhat prejudiced.

This is so very true

That wasn't my point, I was just saying that LDC's are no different to any other place of work by imposing a dress code. Obviously this is going to depend on the nature of the work. If you work on the highway you can expect to wear high vis gear. If you work as a underwear model then it's underwear. etc However the clubs i have been to, the dress code was that the dancers had to wear evening dresses when they were on the floor and not walk around in just their underwear like they do on the stage.
Hardly seems like an unreasonable rule.

'There may be some house rules and sometimes a dress code, but how is this any different to any other place of work?'

If you really can't see how having to wear fancy underwear and heels to work is different from smart casual, then I fear there's no hope for you.

I don't care about strip clubs. Isn't the best way to get them shut down simply for women to withdraw their employment from the establishments? No women working in them = no business.

Sorry if this has been mentioned, but I don't fancy reading 14 pages of shouting.

Look it doesn't really matter, but every public consultation so far has been in favour of the clubs and the councils have acted against the wishes of the majority. Within a year I think things will change again and are likely to be for the clubs. Especially as the figures do back up the claims clubs don't case issues in the way night clubs do. Would say with Portsmouth 96% of respondents were in favour of the clubs after a campaign led by a board member of object. The fact that no clubs were closed is a victory as Object believe? I find it hard to believe how few people voted for the nil policy or actually I don't.

I must stopped getting dragged in but lets be clear the argument on objectification I could have done a better job of arguing for it. And I don't believe it is such a bad thing even martha nussbaum pointed out that objectification could be positive. Sexual desires exist in males and females and at some point we all have fantasies which deny the agency of an individual. I am leaving the discussion because I now believe that all the claims by people on here will have no impact in the real world.

larry - did you read the thread I posted? Did you?

Assuming you did(?) Do you think men have the same experience as women do, with regards to daily low/medium/high-level sexual assault and abuse?

Do you you think you can speak on behalf of women?

This bifurcation trope (someone is either a real human being OR a sex object) is one of the fundamental myths perpetrated on this board and used to label any normal male as dysfunctional and sexist.

"This is what i call assumed objectification. This is what your perceive the customer thinks. But you can't know for sure what they think because everyone is an individual. just because someone fancies someone, is turned on by them, then why would that automatically make them not regard the person for anything else than this? or even regard them as a lesser person?"

This is a really important point. Everyone "objectifies" people of the opposite sex (or sometimes same sex) for the purpose of sexual relations. That is what sex is. When you are having sex even with the most interesting person in the World, you are probably regrading them as a collection of holes or a glorified vibrator (at least sometimes). I defy even the most radical feminist on this board to claim that in the moment before orgasm they are excited by their partner's interesting take on Wittgenstein's "Tractatus".

The reality is that well adjusted people of both sexes can perceive a person as BOTH a "real" and interesting person and a sex object. It is only when someone is maladjusted or society overwhelmingly portrays one sex as ONLY an object that problems occur. In our society which is broadly sexually equal (at least compared to any point in history and 95% of the World) we can see women as mothers, in high positions at work, as authors, as academics and as lapdancers. Most men are not as stupid as a lot of posters assume them to be. We are able to see women as multidimensional but, of course, one dimension is as a sexual object. Which is exactly equivalent to the way women see men.

And Daddancer - you take a lot on yourself 'pointing out the flaws' in the English definition of 'sexual objectification'. How kind of you to point out these flaws in the English language to us.

Mind you, I'd expect nothing less than a punter to try and twist definitions like this - after all, you don't want to believe that you are are part of the culture that sexually objectifies women - so best deny that that is precisely what lap dancing clubs do.

My thanks also to Somerset, Sabrina and others who have clearly and accurately argued how lap dancing bars objectify women.

I wonder why sausage believes that the public consultation process is so pro-lap dancing clubs? In my experience the public opinion is always against the opening of such clubs in their town centres/ neighbourhoods.

After all, as Linerunner pointed out Portsmouth council have ruled that no more will get licenses - as have many London Boroughs- a strange decision considering sausage's assertion that they are so good for the prevention of sexual crime?

Except, that's right, they're not effective at preventing crime. Or at least Linerunner debunked the 'Wiggle opening in Portsmouth, crime fell by 95% assertion. And it would be disturbing indeed if they were - what would that say about men? That they need paid women performing sexual services for them otherwise they'll go out and commit sexual crimes against women?? A disturbing thought indeed.

Well found out there isn't any need to debate here, the decision over clubs won't be made by consultation. Which is a shame as the clubs have been winning the consultations so far but as it no longer has an relevance to the future of the clubs and peoples input has no real relevance not going to spend time commenting [hgrin] I haven't read the comments since I last come on so say what you want.

Excellent point, well made.

"KRITIQ Tue 30-Oct-12 11:53:11
Happy, I wouldn't go so far as to say posting on these threads or on this board is pointless, even when they are densely populated with members who hold anti-feminist or even just plain old misogynist views. I don't think there is alot of point getting into a textual set to with them. But, there are lots and lots of folks who lurk here - who read but don't contribute. Many a time I've seen posts from people who have said they have learned alot and their views have expanded or changed because of what they have read here. We can't assume that the only people "here" are just the ones who are posting.

Never know when something you post might lead to a light bulb moment for someone!"

^ This.

They have to dress in a particular way and behave to the customers in a particular way.

There may be some house rules and sometimes a dress code, but how is this any different to any other place of work?

The women are being sexually objectified by the manner of their employment by the club - they are being employed to take their tops off and wiggle suggestively on demand. They are being treated as sexual playthings by the club and by the clientele of the club.

but they aren't sexual play things they are nude performers and entertainers (and you'll probably laugh and say they're the same things). but in the case of 'play things' this would imply that the customer can choose what they can do with them but the reality is the customer has no say in how they preform at all, it is entirely the choice of the dancer. You sit and watch the show much like you would any other live performance and in the same way you can't control it.

I've seen some interesting semantic arguments on MN in my time - but the twisting of the definition of sexual objectification here really takes the
it's not twisting the definition, it's exposing it's flaws and demonstrating how it is so open to interpretation. sexual objectification states a disregard for a persons personality and sentience but in the case of LDC's you really can't know this to be the case, which is why it all falls down. And you probably don't realise the majority of time spent in an LDC is chatting to the dancers rather than the dancing. So personality is a very big part of the job.

I can only assume you have never visited a lap dancing club otherwise you wouldn't be guessing/ making assumptions about these things?

runningfor the bus I completely agree with you and was trying to make the same point a few pages ago. Another point is the fallacy of, it must be OK because it's so well paid!

I can't think of a way to explain better the points which so many have made on here so well and yet it's all to no avail, sausages and others just cannot seem to grasp what we are saying (and it's more than disagreeing, there seems a genuine inability to understand the argument.) Another point that got lost in the mix-up was when sausages worried about how all the female lawyers and doctors were going to fund their degrees if they lost their lapdancing jobs? I almost wanted to cry at that point. How are all the male lawyers and doctors funding their degrees?? At that point, I really felt the pro-argument had reached ludicrous proportions.

I can't post on here any more without losing the will to live but I'd like to say two things. 1) Thankyou for all who have posted so interestingly and intelligently and thoughtfully on this subject as I have had a few lightbulb moments and 2) If lapdancing is so great and so well paid and so not about objectifying women then why isn't there a proper career structure and wages and international recognition like there are for other forms of dancing and why aren't we encouraging our daughters to train for this? And why aren't more women going to lapdancing clubs to view this really great form of dancing?

DadDancer the whole structure of the club objectifies the women.
It is you paying money to spend time with them, not sometimes the other way round.
They have to dress in a particular way and behave to the customers in a particular way.

DD - so a man goes to a club and to quote you "fancies someone, is turned on by them". I would actually call that "the most basic primal level of thought".

I am not a banner by nature but I am really struggling here to see how lap dancing appeals to anything but "the most basic primal level of thought".

Objectification isn't necessarily down to one individual's perception though, Daddancer.

The women are being sexually objectified by the manner of their employment by the club - they are being employed to take their tops off and wiggle suggestively on demand. They are being treated as sexual playthings by the club and by the clientele of the club.

It matters not that an individual visiting the club claims not to see them as an object - it has already been done by the very nature of of their employment. It matters not whether the women are doing the job through choice - they are just complicit in their own objectification.

I've seen some interesting semantic arguments on MN in my time - but the twisting of the definition of sexual objectification here really takes the

Sabrina

When people are speaking out against lap dancing clubs for reasons of them objectifying women, they are talking about sexual objectification . They are talking about women being seen as a pair of tits, a fuck toy, and nothing else. This is pretty much what lap dancing clubs do to the women who work there - regardless of the fact that some men say they go to 'buy drinks' and 'chat' to women.

This is what i call assumed objectification. This is what your perceive the customer thinks. But you can't know for sure what they think because everyone is an individual. just because someone fancies someone, is turned on by them, then why would that automatically make them not regard the person for anything else than this? or even regard them as a lesser person?

So this version of objectification is a one size fits all which assumes the person has the most basic primal level of thought. Therefore by making that sweeping statement you are regarding the customer as a lesser person and hence could regard them as an object

Thank you Somerset and Sabrina for lucid explanations re objectification.