Friends who have been to stripclubs.

Ncg - in my view, the difficulty is that there isn't really a solid factual reason why sexual exploitation is worse than other exploitation. It's based on our emotional response (which can't be explained in a reasoned way) and personal preferences. And that's ok - it just makes it hard to break the argument down for those who want fact and logic to go with the philosophical debate.

We are looking, I suspect, at different aspects of 'exploitation'. You're reading it as economic exploitation; I'm thinking about the reduction of human beings to consumer objects - and the gross interpersonal exploitation inherent in that.

The market creates the jobs. If those groups of men went to restaurants instead of strip clubs, the dancers would be wait staff instead. Same if they went to ordinary bars. Men have created a market for young women to render themselves vulnerable; to objectify themselves. The women would not do it if there were enough other jobs with decent pay. So, each time any man or woman spends money in a strip club instead of at some other venue, they boost a trade that abuses women.

I'm going to re-post a contribution I made on a recent relationships thread.

I find it hard to explain to the [namechangeguys and wallabys] of this world why it's a problem. This isn't because there is no problem, it's that the argument is wide-ranging and complex. I'll have another go at compacting it.

Men who frequent strip clubs find it hard to grasp the concept of 'objectification'. You imagine what you think it would be like to show off your body for mass sexual admiration, and you imagine it would be okay. I have, now and again, taken part in reverse objectification exercises and, once, worked in a predominantly female place where a young man was sexually harassed. On all those occasions the men were hurt, indignant and upset.

The matters of objectification and harassment affect all women. It's unpleasant. For strippers it is a thousand times worse. I've sat next to groups of men treating their dancers like cuts of meat. If you can imagine standing naked in front of a pack of clothed drunks, on whom you depend for your wages, as they slag off the shape of your arse and the arrangement of your face, do so. Imagine having to apologise to them for the testicles god gave you, which they might deem too dangly, having to smile and to laugh ingratiatingly when they grab at your skin. Dancers go through it all the time.

Even if you are not such a boor, your very presence there - the mere fact you've paid for people to present their naked selves as consumables - endorses this trade. By paying money to a strip bar, you have objectified the women working in it ... and, by extension, all women. Because it's not possible to objectify women in location A, at X o'clock, and then not objectify them at location B, two hours later.

When a woman has 'esteem issues' related to a partner who uses strippers, she isn't suffering simple body envy. She is suffering the knowledge that her man, whom she loves, objectifies and judges women on the details of their bodies. She can't help but sense he judges her the same way. Thus, she misguidedly tries to be 'good enough' physically for him. The problem, of course, is that he doesn't see it as either/or: he does not consciously set his wife in competition with his dancers. But he has done so, all the same, because he's re-cast women as consumable objects, and she is a woman.

Basil, that is an interesting point. Why is sex fundamentally different to anything else, at least in the context of this debate, i.e. exploitation? It is a re-occurring theme, but never one I have seen fully explained.

Paying for sex isn't the same as paying for any other service. Having sex with someone isn't the same as giving them any other service. I think you either agree philosophically with that or you don't - there isn't really a midway point where you can agree that you can both compromise. I don't really see the point of flogging a dead horse on that, people just have to accept that there's a fundamental point of difference that can never be reconciled, but that they can agree with people on other, difference stuff where they don't have philosophical differences.

But do by all means feel free to come on and whinge about "it's just typical of this board that"... It makes debate and exchange of ideas so much fun and such a pleasure.

(As an aside, I just wonder why so many people who are so uncomfortable on this board and think it's such an appalling place, are so desperate to come here and engage with it and tell everyone what a dreadful place it is. Why do people do that? It seems such a petty, time-wasting thing to do. I am currently in the process of trying to unsubscribe from a really annoying blog that keeps on coming up in my e-mail feed - I've realised that it is just a farkin' PITA, the standard of debate is woesome and the amount of positive experience I could get from it by hanging around there, is too much outweighed by the irritation factor. So I'm trying to unsubscribe, but I can't, it's really annoying. I wouldn't dream of actively going on to engage in their idiotic debates, life's too short, I just want them off my feed. I can never understand the motivation of these people who come into the same place over and over again and find it's as annoying as they found it all the other 32,000 times. What is that about?)

Namechangeguy - no you are not the only one that sees the inconsistenty here. But it is typical of this board that you get told YOUR point is not valid for whatever reason but MINE is etc etc. Have yet to see a decent argument as to why your point isn't valid.

I read a great piece on why paying sex can be on a par as paying for any kind of work people do with their bodies. It argued the points well.

As for this 'stick to the point in the OP', please, give us a break! Ncg is taking about the OP. Sorry it's annoying you but tough shit.

May I respectfully suggest you read the OP? The poster seems clear on which form of exploitation she wanted to discuss.

So, is this just about sexual exploitation, as opposed to other forms of female exploitation, e.g. economic? In which case, I don't think there is much argument - men have far more opportunity to practice it.

I don't go to strip clubs myself, and I don't pay for prostitutes, so we are even. As for overall numbers, I know women who have been to see the Chippendales and similar acts. They used to be incredibly popular, so maybe the numbers of women who have paid for such acts are not that small. That is conjecture though, and I wouldn't equate it with the darker side of the sex industry. It is still titillation, though.

My reason for mentioning it was that this need to demonise men for exploitation, whilst ignoring other forms that many if not all of the posters on here will be currently taking part in, whiffs of hypocrisy. Someone said that she dressed her kids in cheap clothes because they were more affordable. Let's hope the factory supplying her doesn't collapse or catch fire.

• women's bodies, obv

Chinese manufacturing and the British sex trades are different issues, NCG, unless you can demonstrate that one form of exploitative consumerism inevitably leads to all the others.

I have never purchased/rented a man's body for my sexual gratification or titillation. I think most British women can say the same. Most British men, however, have treated women's body as sexual consumer goods.

What's the reason?

I see the point at 20:56. As for taking the focus away from men exploiting women - not at all. Men should not buy clothes and goods that exploit third world workers either.

But I suppose that having to think about exploitation that ALL of us might be taking part in, sat here in our Matalan pants, typing on our Chinese keyboards - well, that's just too close to home, and too uncomfortable, so let's just call it derailing, shall we, and point the finger at the nasty menz.

SO, Basil, do you mean you think it's wrong for anyone to have a cleaner, or eat at a restaurant? Or just wrong if the customer is male and the cleaner/waiter/chef female? Is it objectifying and disrespectful to hire anyone to do 'low-status' work like cooking and cleaning rather than doing whatever it is yourself? Even if you treat them with great courtesy and pay them a fair wage? Or is it only wrong when some form of sexual pleasure is experienced by the paying customer?

I would hope that a man who was going to something like this for a stag do would see it as a bit of fun, a chance to see something he's not experienced before and have fun with mates etc. Tongue in cheek.

How many lapdancing clubs have you been to, Banners?

Could you please elaborate on what form you expect this tongue-in-cheek enjoyment of strange women's naked bodies to take? Will the lads - fully clothed, grouped and just a few inches away from their naked servant - laugh at her, tongue-in-cheek? Or what?

No, there are probably lots of other people who can't separate the two issues either. Plus, there will be some employing that argument to take the focus off of objectifying and disrespecting women, as scallops has already explained to you at 20:56

Some interesting viewpoints. I, as a man, am frowned upon if I exploit women by paying them to strip. You, as a woman, feel entitled to dress your children in clothes made by women exploited by multinational companies. It is possible to buy clothes and goods made by ethical companies, though obviously they cost more.

Whilst I appreciate that the OP was specifically about strippers, the wider subject of exploitation of women is relevant here. Am I the only one who sees the inconsistency?

MadBanners, regarding appreciating it as art...

If your DP bumped into a woman in the street and she said she had a business of photographing gardens, or painting pictures of houses and he said "great, come round and I'll pay you to do that at our house", I assume all would be well as that's art.

If he invited a woman round so he could pay to watch her take her clothes off and dance naked for him, I'm guessing you wouldn't see that as art.

There are so many layers to this discussion! It's difficult for me to remain completely open minded to all the views as these issues are not just black and white as someone said upthread.
Good discussion, but I'm out as I'm off to bed!

It would depend on his attitude to that and his values, MadBanners.

That was girly mags, stupid autocorrect!

Agree it's about objectification more than exploitation for me. I feel the same way about girls mags, I don't care if the women are b list slebs who are paid handsomely to strip for a magazine, if my DP wanted to look at them I'd think less of him.

If I knew he had looked at them in the past but didn't any more and wouldn't in future because a) he doesn't want to and b) he knows it would bother me, I'm not going to dump him because that makes him a 'certain kind' of person. I'm going to accept that we have all done things when we were young that we may not do now.

Would you not date a man who had a female cleaner Basil?

I see what you are saying joyful and I suppose if you can avoid something you don't agree with, then you will. Simple!
It seems as if you are making all these women who work in strip clubs out to be people that can't make their own decisions. Many of them choose the job and enjoy it. They like providing an experience that is a one off and sometimes a bit of an eye opener. Like I said, not any different to a dancer.
Yes, they are gyrating for men, and many women to please them, the whole point of any entertainment is to please their audience.
I would hope that a man who was going to something like this for a stag do would see it as a bit of fun, a chance to see something he's not experienced before and have fun with mates etc. Tongue in cheek.
It's almost like we don't like the idea of women being independent and it's easier to think that they're being exploited than making their own informed choices.
I'm aware that my view is in the minority and maybe I'll look back on the way thought and shake my head in disgust, who knows?

Well, yeah, I don't like those blokes either SGB.

Can't think why I'm single.

OK, so what about women who pay to go and see (for instance) Robbie Williams/The Wanted and get sexually excited by seeing them take their shirts off? This specifically for the people who say it's irrelevant whether or not the performers in a strip club are exploited but wrong for the customers to pay money to get their jollies. Is it just immoral when someone's genitals are on display?

Or, if it's wrong for a man to go to a strip club because men-as-a-class see women-as-a-class as subordinate sexually and there for their pleasure, what about the man who pays to have his meals cooked or his house cleaned by women? Given that men-as-a-class see women as there to service them domestically...

Pretty much agree with Basil. The whole "you can't object to strip clubs if you don't object to cheap clothing" is just an MRE tactic to take the focus off the problem - men exploiting, objectifying and disrespecting women.