Hackney lap dancing clubs....help in signing a petition!!

[TheFeministParent]

here

I don't think there is an inconsistency in my argument when it's applied to the non-coerced sex worker unless one clings to the idea of sex as a commodity women trade (for commitment or for money, and never willingly engage in) rather than a skill/hobby that a person might decide to earn money for doing.
If a person is a musician who is good at music and loves it, s/he might well perform for fun and for friends but also not mind taking on paid work as a musician even when this means performing music that the musician doesn't care for (such as the avant-garde classical pianist agreeing to play the piano for the X Factor final because the money's good).
I'm not remotely unaware of the problems of coercion and exploitation within the sex industry but, as with all the other industries where people are mistreated by employers or clients, the solution is better legal protection for the workers - and less stigmatization of their trade.

But we know that the gatekeeper idea that sociey clings onto is almost directly responsible for so many rapists getting away with it, which is why there would need to be emphasis on that collaborative model you were talking about.
As soon as cash is brought into the equation (and you can never eliminate the fact that women are poorer as a group ) then it is a commodity. If women were the dominant economic class, you would have a point: they would be having sex for kicks and kinks (and the cash transaction would be irrelevant) but because women are overwhelmingly poorer than men, sex then becomes a commodity that women trade in return for sustenance (rent/food/consumer goods)

IMVHO, "gatekeeper" is not an "idea that sociey clings onto", it's exclusively a radfem notion.

Which makes it a political analysis.

OldLadyKnowsNothing wrote - "IMVHO, "gatekeeper" is not an "idea that sociey clings onto", it's exclusively a radfem notion."

The "woman as gatekeeper of sex" puts the sole responsibility for preventing a man's sexual aggression onto the woman. Numerous rape cases spring to mind where the woman's gate-keeping conduct or lack of it is examined. It's not radfems doing that.

I think that is a patriarchal approach to sexual interaction, not a feminist notion, particularly not a radical feminist viewpoint.

On the contrary, the feminists I've come across want men to take responsibility for regulating their own sexual desires. Removing the woman as gatekeeper should not be replaced by an "anything goes" carte blanche for men.

yes, "gatekeeper" is not a radfem notion, it's a patriarchal notion that radfems (well, any feminist since the Victorian age) have been trying to get rid of

So how come I've only ever seen the term used by radfems?

Every time any thread that discusses the sex industry appears, there are always comparisons between having sex and cutting hair/playing music/writing a book/decorating cakes. It is ludicrous, because most of us are capable of understanding that while sex is often enjoyable, a great many women both in the UK and in the rest of the world have experienced traumatising and dangerous sexual situations.

Does anyone know of any satirical film or book about this issue? If there isn't one then really one should be written. This defence of the sex industry seems so increasingly common that we actually need a book in which musicians or cake decorators are trafficked/murdered/abused as children/assaulted/abducted as a consequence of their role in society as a musician/cake decorator.

It is possible to be positive about sex while still being aware that it has a very problematic dark side to it, which as a society we have a responsibility to do something about.

Might not be what you mean, but Oryx and Crake and Year of the Flood by Margaret Atwood includes lap dancing clubs. Great books. Scary.

OLKN - the gatekeeping thing is a feminist analysis of the world. So it might be fems that use the word, but it's to give an analysis of the world in general, rather than reflecting inwardly on feminism. Like any analytical concept. I'd agree its political, but then I think everything is political.

I love Greer's quote: "LEt this feminist say it again: no sex is better than bad sex"

IN Victorian England, before feminism really took hold, women weren't supposed to, or indeed allowed to enjoy sex. It's thanks to femininsts that they're now allowed to... so the "prude" argument that is constantly thrown at feminists is so ignorant.

But one thing that worries me about shutting down the sex industry is the sheer amount of extra poverty it will create among women. It will leave women with even fewer routes to financially independance. Patriarchy knows all this, of course...

Great post Milly

Yeah, women are allowed to enjoy sex, so long as it doesn't involve a little light spanking.

Or anything more serious, of course.

you sound like the patriarchy
Seriously, you do

I used "allowed" tongue in cheek to represent patriarchal language and values

It was feminists who insisted that women have a sexuality in their own right
Think about it: the clitoris is the only organ in the human body designed specifically for sexual pleasure
And yet men somehow managed to convince themselves, and some women, that women had to gatekeep sex That's some serious brainwashing

Sorry, Sakura, but it's been made quite clear on more than one thread that at least one radfem on MN does not approve of certain sexual practices which some women enjoy. Apparently orgasms aren't all that important.

"The patriarchy" might disapprove of sexual freedom for women, but it's quite clear that some feminists do too.

What's the difference?

The patriarchy most defintely does dissaprove of sexual freedom for women. It tolerates certain freedoms as long as they are in line with patriarchy's needs, (such as the sex industry).

Feminism OTOH doesn't disapprove of sexual freedom for women, but I guess some femininsts take the "no sex is better than bad sex" approach to their activism....

Sex is usually hit and miss- whether it's a one night stand or someone you know.
The chances of sex being great with someone you don't fancy, someone who has chosen you out of a line up, is going to be pretty low, that's obvious; especially when I hear that some punters say they'd feel ripped off if they thought the woman was getting pleasure herself out of a transaction. BUt worse than that are the ones who actually kid themselves that women do get pleasure out of being paid to be with a random balding man carrying an ego complex...

I think some feminists take issue with male and female sexuality in the sense of how patriarchal society has affected sexual relations and expression.

For example you may have a feminist who has an issue with practice Y - she has an issue with this practice not because women (or men) enjoy the practice but because she feels that it is a practice which replicates the domination/submission dynamic of male female relations within male dominated society.

If you like, this is not a feminist taking issue with the practice but with the power dynamic it expresses. Feminists with this view point feel that female sexuality in particular has been distorted by the influences of patriarchal society.

I don't know a whole lot about this but it is an area that interests me. Certainly we are influenced in our sexuality by our environment so the argument seems a logical one.

Great post Milly, ITA. I find it really strange when people compare selling sexual acts to cutting hair or whatever. As you say, I don't know of any trafficking of hairdressers .

I do remember a feminist saying on a thread on MN that orgasms aren't very important.

IIRC the poster was saying that in the context of a discussion about prostitution or possibly porn. I think what she was saying is that orgasms are nice but they aren't so important as to justify a whole industry which does so much harm and damage to so many.

I totally agreed with her.

People liking getting off does not justify the terrible harm done due to the commodification of sex. In fact when you think about it in those terms it is utterly obscene that some people think they are entitled to masturbate into/onto/to pictures of the bodies of others, just because they fancy coming and have some cash in their pockets. Where is the humanity?

The most recent thread where a woman was told she shouldn't engage in her chosen sexual practice was not commercial sex in any way, it was BDSM. I've seen several discussions on the topic, and yes, the talk is about replicating power structures and so on.

However, analysing the politics behind it doesn't makes the desires go away.

When you have a couple who are involved in a long-term, loving and affectionate relationship, where there are no serious power-imbalances, what's wrong with a little spanking or hair-pulling - or even more extreme practices, if that's what they both enjoy?

I don't remember that thread so I don't have an opinion on it. I also don't have much of an opinion on BDSM - you would have to ask the poster in question what their analysis is of BDSM.

While musicians and cake decorators may not be trafficked or enslaved or beaten up, domestic workers frequently are. So are people working in the catering and food production industries (remember the Chinese cockle pickers?). And the clothing industry often depends on slave labour.
Does this make it wrong for a person to wish to earn his/her living making clothes, or cooking, or harvesting food?

No of course it doesn't. I'm not really getting the connection with the commodification of sex however.

Sexual acts are different to cooking or making clothes because they involve intimacy - I remember this conversation coming up before on a thread.

I might cook a meal to thank my neighbours for something, I could knit a jumper for a friend as a present. I wouldn't have sex with them in either of those situations however.

Having sex/indulging in sexual acts is neither a right nor a necessity - there is no justification for the existence of a sex industry other than - some people think they have the right to buy/sell access to another person in order to get off. There are always going to be people who will fill this demand, many of them because they have few other options (or no choice at all).

The existence of the 'happy hooker/lap dancer/porn star' does not justify the damage done to others in the sex industry nor does it justify the damage the sex industry does to gender equality IMO.

I do agree with Sakura's point about how shutting down the sex industry could leave many women poorer/in financial difficulty. I think that is a pretty sad state of affairs for a so called civilised society TBH.

We've covered all these points before too.

I don't think it is wrong for a woman to work in a lapdancing club. I think it is wrong to be a customer in a lapdancing club.

There are huge ethical issues with the food and clothing industries. But...

1. We have to eat and clothe ourselves (although we don't have to over-consume). We don't have to have women gyrating on our laps.

1. A tiny proportion of UK clothing and food industry workers are victims of harassment or other criminal behaviour. The same is not true of the proportion of women in the sex industry.

1. There are huge ethical issues with food production in some countries. Chocolate production often involves child slavery. We can choose to buy fair trade and we can campaign against slavery. People cannot choose to ethically traffic women or ethically sexually exploit children.

1. Sometimes we all buy essentials that we cannot know for sure have not been produced by an exploited individual. That is really bad for that individual. However, we are buying in ignorance. If my socks came with a video image of a woman being treated in a physically punishing manner in order to produce those socks, I couldn't buy the socks, let alone orgasm to such an image. The consequences of viewing exploitation have an impact on both the exploited worker and the person viewing them.

On a separate point, I find it astounding that people are mentioning that men who grope lapdancers are thrown out of the club, as if that shows how safe/respectful/professional the working environment is. If I was groped at work, I wouldn't want the person simply thrown out, I would want the police called and criminal charges made. But it seems the belief on this thread is that lapdancers shouldn't have an expectation that the law will apply to men who harass them.

Thing is, all this bleating about how sex-for-money is bad because sex involves 'intimacy', well it might be the case for you that sex has to involve intimacy, but not eveyrone feels the same. Sex is simply no big deal to some people, it's fun, that's all.
But where the radfem and patriarchal agendas collied again is this idea that people should not be able to have as much sex as they want, that there is something scary and bad about the idea of people having lots of sex, even with willing partners.

Does anyone know when we're likely to know what Hackney have decided?