Article about strip clubs in the Guardian

Actually, I'm still waiting to hear why the women on here defending LDC's are doing so?

You could try reading what they've written.

The harm Jo - an unnecessary job that causes a third of it's workers to lose all faith in men is harmful.

That's not a moral judgement a la the Catholic church - that is a comment on the documented harm done to lap dancers by the very nature of the job. It's taken from a document heralded by the pro-brigade as 'proving lap dancers are happy' and it only forms a very small part of the overall arguments made by posters on this thread. I'm just using it as an example.

No, you're just stating that LDC's are, by your standards, immoral. End of. Nothing more, nothing less. It's a position uncannily similar to the catholic church, among others.

And I'd argue that over 30% of current dancers saying they have lost faith in all men as a result of their job is pretty harmful.

And that's not even getting started on overall effects of sexual objectification of all women as a result of lap dancing clubs.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why people who create an immoral demand shoulder all the blame, and those that supply it are blameless. That's why I brought up drugs and dealers btw, not because I thought punters in LDC's try to roll women up in £50 notes and snort them, or any other bizarre misunderstanding of the comparison being made.

Lap dancing clubs are not needed, and harmful to women, Jothehot, that is the argument being made.

*chocolate/disney dresses analogies.

Why in fuck's name would I want to think of reasons to ban chocolate. Do you really not grasp the point that chocolate was only used to illustrate the point that LDC's being unnecessary is irrelevant; neither a reason to ban them nor to keep them? Nothing else. Just that. All other aspects of chocolate are irrelevant, and have been raised by the antis.

I think, tbh, that the strange chocolate/disney dresses are made when the pro-brigade reaching are desperation point.

JotheHot

the other thing that happens in these debates when analogies spring up ( that aren't understood ) is that you then get told to go and start a thread about it if you feel so strongly about it.

Some gives 'not necissary' as a reason to ban LDC

Someone points out chocolate isn't needed either, responding to above point.

Outrage at chocolate comparison ensue.

You pick them up on it, and then somehow they have the impression you really just want to talk about chocolate, are derailing the thread, and should jolly well start a thread about chocolate if you feel so strongly about chocolate..... or Disney dresses in my case.

It's bonkers.

Well, Jothehot - why don't you, in that case make the argument for the ban of chocolate. I'm sure there are some - not least the argument for fair trade chocolate. Then the thread can be completely derailed as we talk about chocolate.

Someone saying 'what about chocolate?' is completely irrelevant, since it ignores all the arguments many, many posters have taken the time to to make about the problems with lap dancing clubs.

And yes, lap dancing clubs create a problem for women her and now - all women not just the dancers. If someone can show me that chocolate creates the same problems as lap dancing clubs then we can talk about banning it.

I'm trying to look at the legal licensing aspects.

I've noticed that too joTheHot. It happens a fair bit on these threads.

I agree with your conclusion.

I don't understand why the antis on here keep pretending to have such difficulty understanding analogies. Well I do really, it's to avoid debating the point being raised.

As part of her case, an anti tries to justify getting rid of LDC's on the grounds they aren't necessary. Someone else retorts chocolate isn't necessary either, shall we ban it? Then the antis queue up to observe chocolate is different to LDC's. As if anyone thought otherwise.

I and others have repeatedly had the same problem throughout the thread. Some burk said I was comparing cocaine to women, when I was doing nothing of a sort. It's the whole bleeding point of an analogy that the 2 things being compared are different, except of course with respect to the idea being analysed.

Oh yes, because eating chocolate is exactly like treating an adult as a sex-toy.

Actually, I'm still waiting to hear why the women on here defending LDC's are doing so?

Not sure chocolate is a true and equal comparison to lap dancing clubs.

No, chocolate can stay.

"Nobody needs lap dancing clubs."

Noone needs chocolate either. Shall we ban chocolate?

Sausage: 'I was also interested to find out today that when Object was set up it was to help the dancers amongst other things and only over the last 6 years has it's mission statement changed to closing all the clubs."

Good.

Sausage - no I don't agree with what you said about sexual objectification. Can you tell?

What's more - I'm not even sure Nussbaum would agree with you? She wrote that the objectification in pornography is negative.

The club owners are the only winners now imo. Nobody needs lap dancing clubs.

I still don't understand what potential court cases you are referring to, Sausage. Are you able to elaborate? I'm very interested in your thoughts on this.

Poledancing kits for kids exist, GetAll. That's bad enough.

Running you haven't really read what I have said about objectification, if you ignore my point of view then I don't see the point of answering questions referring to it. Any business can be run well or run badly, but if the councils push for nil policies when they lose in court (and can you really see a council beating these clubs?) they will lose control. Its a shame that people can't get their head around the concept because the only winners in the long run will be the club owners.

I was also interested to find out today that when Object was set up it was to help the dancers amongst other things and only over the last 6 years has it's mission statement changed to closing all the clubs.

GetAll - you worry about disney dresses then - why not start a separate thread about it if it's of concern to you

I'm just answering your constant questioning about why I mentioned Disney dresses Sabrina as you're having trouble understanding why I mentioned it. If you stop asking me about it I might stop mentioning it in answering you.