Article about strip clubs in the Guardian

[SaskiaRembrandtVampireHunter]

Never read such a load of twaddle in my life:

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/19/strip-clubs-new-normal

"Is it good or bad that for young men, going to a strip club is the new normal? I'd venture that it's a good thing. It's a place where they can step outside the anxiety-fraught dating scene and talk to a woman who, as long as he keeps tipping, will give him the time of day. It's a world where women parade around nude or nearly so in which doing so doesn't get anybody arrested or elicit gasps. It's a private room wherein a lap dance is on the table and a man expressing his sexuality isn't going to be met with a sexual harassment lawsuit."

Oh yes, because thanks to the feminazis it's now illegal to talk to women

I understand after just a little light googling that there has been a decrease in crime in Portsmouth city centre following a series of initiatives reported publicly and widely, carried out and paid for by the Police, the Council, the NHS, the third sector (eg Street Pastors) and the pubs in the Best Bar None Scheme. These initiatives include a 'cumulative impact' policy.

There has been a number of license suspensions and closures of licensed premises.

There has been a specific campaign to halt drinking and violence, supported by a number of the pubs.

Interesting article here from the Wall ST Journal....

Seems like a good idea.

*The city of Houston is turning to an unusual source to help fund rape investigations: strip clubs.

The City Council passed an ordinance Wednesday that requires strip clubs to pay a $5-per-visitor fee to help pay for the analysis of biological evidence collected from rape victims in hopes of identifying their attackers.

Cash-strapped Houston is looking to an unusual source to finance rape investigations: strip clubs. The city council voted Wednesday to require strip clubs to pay $5 per visitor to help analyze biological evidence from rape victims.

Police in Houston, and in many other parts of the U.S., lack the money to promptly analyze evidence such as hair particles and blood specimens, gathered by investigators in packets known as rape kits. Houston estimates it has 6,000 rape kits that have yet to be scrutinized by crime laboratories*

That's really interesting, thank you for the link.

why do you see insulting someone in a discussion as objectification ?

As someone who has received the brunt of the insults it makes perfect sense to me, as i am a basically an object of ridicule to some people on here. (or just call me a human dart board ). As they don't like my views they consider me as a lesser person (eg. a neanderthal as 'halloween' implied earlier today) and this is real objectification not assumed objectification.

One of the main lines of argument from the antis is that lap dancing clubs objectify women. But how do they actually know this to be true? they just assume this is how people think, or even want to believe this is how people think. Making this assumption is itself real objectification, as they are implying that all customers of lap dancing clubs are lesser individuals who can't possibly have respect for the dancers and are unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality or see them as normal human beings. From my experience this assumption couldn't be further from the truth.

Sabrina -

OK, I googled too and totally take your point about the Guardian journalist. Not a massive basis for objectivity, I admit.

On money: the Leeds study mentions £232 as an average (nationwide, I presume). If that's for a 4-8 hour shift it's actually very good and much better than most casual work that doesn't require professional qualifications. Now, ANY work of that nature is going to be variable in profitability. I'm self-employed and I know exactly what that's like, earning shedloads one week and nothing the next. But I still tot everything up at the end of each month and end of each year (for the taxman), take an average and use that as a basis for my outgoings.

There's no point in dwelling on the fact that there will be some bad nights, because that's already accounted for in the average. That's what an average means, after all. If a lapdancer averages £232 per night, and there are some nights when she gets nothing, that means by definition there will be other nights when she gets £464 - or however it balances out. If the nationwide average is £232 per night and there are some lapdancers out there only averaging £100 or less, that means there must also be some earning £300 or £400 +.

Likewise, there's no point dwelling on the commission they have to pay to the club, since this is already accounted for (I presume) in the figure of their average earnings.

Is self-employment by commission a stressful way to earn your living? Sure it is. But no more stressful for a lapdancer than for a sales rep, freelance writer or plenty of other jobs, I suppose. It's a choice each person has to make, whether to stay in such a job working for fairly lucrative but uncertain returns, or take a job that is less lucrative overall but more assured. Some of that comes down to personality, some to what else the person has to consider in their life (whether they have children, a partner in a steady job etc.)

But after taking the stress of uncertainty into account, the only meaningful figure to be talking about is the average. If you're going to make a point of the minimum, then you need to equally take into account the maximum too.

Does anyone know of any studies regarding any effect on the behavioiur of people visiting LDCs with their partners/spouses?

I am not aware of any studies for this but as someone who has been to a club with my other half, i could be your first case study specimen? We didn't have a private dance together, just drinks and watched the pole dancing. Although our friends did. I think it's more common than a lot of people think..... hmmmm but is this because they genuinely enjoy it or is it a compromise so they can keep an eye on their fella. This i don't know

No thank you DD, I was enquiring as to published studies.

Insults won't help your argument HH.

Frans, I don't really care. I have no expectation of winning any "argument". But I will have my say.

I am still wondering if Wiggle has Planning Permission yet. Would that be an actual, empirical fact?

DadDancer: One of the main lines of argument from the antis is that lap dancing clubs objectify women. But how do they actually know this to be true?

Well, if you're genuinely interested, take a look at this Mumsnet thread from a month or so ago...

Over 600 posts with practically every woman posting saying that she has been the victim of sexual abuse - ranging from mild to horrific.

Women as a gender experience this sort of assault and abuse almost on a daily basis in a way that most men will never be able to understand. And this happens as part and parcel of a culture which sexualises and objectifies women in a way it doesn't for men.

I challenge you to read the whole thread. I don't, however, expect you to understand. :) But, by all means, continue to argue for the right to pay women to strip for you.

Somerset my xh was emotionally controlling which is not as bad but gives me some idea of going through life with an evil bugger as a partner. It is why I am so anti religion as he was very religious and a woman's place is at the kitchen sink. The point here is do LDCs make men violent or not. Warning the link here is pro striptease but having swapped a quick set of mails with the author would point out 3 things. One the data is drawn from a public tool run by the police so can't be biased. Two violent crimes include sex crimes so we don't know if it is fights or sexual assault being recorded. Three he claims he has been harsh collecting the data and over included if things were very close to the boundaries he set.

Having read his report this morning it is simple but the figures obviously backed his argument. As it is easily checked I did a couple that are local (ish) to me and got similar results (practical no violent crime).

Line Runner thank you for that re Portsmouth, seems opening your bar at the right time can be a very clever ploy. Of course if clubs turned men into wild beasts crime would have rushed back into the area but that is just my simplistic view.

I have a theory, might not be liked by everyone but

Abusive men seem to have 1 need more than any other the need to control. The physical and emotional abuse is designed to make the target need him and do what he wants. I can't see LDCs offering abusive men that, their control would be too short term and the dancer never needs them for more than their wallet. An abusive man I just can't see him sitting their unable to touch and knowing that security is only feet away. Realistically there is just too little there for him. Not saying he wouldn't go there with his mates but he would not be a regular customer. Personal opinion and my X wouldn't have gone but he would have worried about his soul being damned.

One other thing there was a comment earlier in the thread about a dancer only earn £7 for 3 minutes work. When you remember that is over an hour's work to most people it just goes to show how relative earning power is.

It is why I am so anti religion as he was very religious and a woman's place is at the kitchen sink.

So your experience of one man led you to generalise and form a very strong opinion (irrespective of the facts about religion)?

Could it not be that the experiences of some of these posters of many men also led them to generalise and form a very strong opinion (irrespective of the facts about lap dancing)?

As I said I would not let my personal antipathy form a basis for banning, but I have to wonder.. if crimes actually fall in when lap dancing clubs open, what does that say about the men who frequent them - absolutely nothing as correlation does not equal causation or the possibility that it is the 'herding' of unsavoury characters into one place that makes a particular area safer?

I have no answer to these - only questions.

That's interesting sausage your theory may well be correct. I certainly think the idea that lapdancing automatically means a one-sided dynamic in which the dancer "only exists" to "service the man" is over-simplistic. I mean, she's providing a service, like anyone being paid for a service. But there is a clear behavioural brick wall which he cannot cross, which massively circumscribes what he can do about any sense of power or control he may feel anyway. In the process, he is spending large amounts of his money to make her richer, and not really getting anything for it except a bit of visual titillation. Who's power and who's control is that?

I'd say there's just as strong an argument that lapdancers are "objectifying" their customers - focusing on them as a source of money, doing everything they can to maximise their short-term profit out of them and not giving a toss about them as people - as there is the other way around. But then that's how capitalism, and to a large extent society in general, works anyway. Everyone objectifies everyone else within certain agreed limits.

The problem is that people get attached to singlular, one-size-fits-all models of thought and don't stop to check whether that's really what's happening, or whether it happens differently for different individuals. Human thought is infinitely more complicated and hard to pin down than that. That's why whatever we may feel personally about various activities, it's only justifiable to ban those which cause direct, demonstrable harm. Once you start making presumptions about how an activity engenders thoughts that you believe will cause harm somewhere else, hell you could make a case like that about practically anything.

Gimble if you read a lot of the incidences on here about partner abuse, control seems to be the one commonality. I may see it more than it occurs as it affected me but when reading about targets (I refuse to be a victim or ever name another as one) the one thing I could predict before finishing the thread is he either wanted to control her physically or emotionally and quite often both. Control seems to be his need, his fix and the way clubs work just would not fit that. Too short a period of time and too little control of the environment. I could see a prostitute being a much more likely target as the external factors do not exist in the way a club does.

Emotional dynamics are charged at the best of times and I maybe fitting a type to the pattern rather than the pattern to the type as I have blinkers like any human being.

FastLois - thanks for conceding my point about the Guardian writer.

I was making the point that money was mentioned in both the advantages and disadvantages of lapdancing - as cited by the dancers themselves. Since the 'average' of £200 odd is not brought back by every dancer on every shift, and since 70% of dancers report making a loss - it isn't so great as some might think. Especially when one hears the glittering stories of great money - like sausages anecdotal neighbour - pro-LDC people never say 'oh the girls make great money and are really happy - even on the nights that they actually make a loss '.

One could argue that higher earnings on other nights make it worthwhile - but I can only think how demoralising it must be to get yourself all dressed up for work and actually end up making a loss.

Plus, the study does not actually state that this is figure takes the club's fees into account or not - it is very ambiguous on that.

I think THIS was linked to earlier up thread, but I think it's worth having a read of if you are tempted into thinking that lap dancing is a glittering career and easy money. From the sounds of it you need to have a very thick skin and a bottle of wine before work :(

Sabrina,

I think you need to at least honestly report the Leeds study. It stated that "70% of dancers reported losing money at some point by going to work". That is completely different to "70% of dancers report making a loss". It is the same as saying that Selfridges makes a loss because on a wet January Thursday post its annual sale, on that specific day, it made a loss. If you are self employed you will occasionally have loss making periods, whatever profession that you are in.

And it also stated that dancers took home an average of £232/shift after commissions and fees. Based on working 2-4 shifts/week that gave them an average income after costs of £24k to £48k/annum.

Fair enough to have opinions. Not fair to distort research to support them.

Larry - I didn't mean to imply that 70% of dancers make a loss all the time - I just wanted to express my surprise that 70% of dancers reported losing money at work which is, I think, a shocking statistic.

I quoted the Leeds study word for word.

Sabrina - I can only imagine you've never been self employed and don't know how it works. I can't honestly think of a single self-employed profession in which people don't make a loss over some short periods. A loss just means that your outgoings (in this case, primarily the club's fee) are greater than your earnings for that period.

Plumbers make a loss on a specific day when they only have a single job that day, but have to spend £500 getting their van fixed. A salesman makes a loss when he buys petrol to go see a potential buyer and doesn't end up making a sale. It's a normal and inevitable part of any commission or fee-per-job based work. The only thing that's meaningful is how things balance out once you've taken the rough with the smooth.

In fact the only thing that surprises me about your statistic is that 30% of lapdancers manage to NEVER make a loss on ANY individual shift. That is truly remarkable.

Sabrina, I don't know if you have watched wicked tuna on National Geographic at all but every captain has made a loss at one point or another so that would read 100% of Tuna boat captains report losses. Why do they go out if that is the case? Well the payday when they do earn more than makes up for the losses. 2 shifts a week and the dancers make in those 2 shifts more than I do per month with my part time job. Thinking about it men are like tuna in a lot of cases easy to catch with the right bait.

Sausage, FastLois - what you say may well be true about tuna fisherman and the like.

I was just countering the 'glittering career' posts that always come out on these threads - including the one about sausage's neighbour owning 3 properties from lapdancing. It is not necessarily reliable work - and combined with the stories that come out from the ex-dancers, the earnings may well go towards alcohol and drugs in order to get through their shift, rather than investment properties.

Depends on the person I guess, there are going to be those who plan and work their way through it and those who get a taste for drink. Guess we shouldn't assume it is all good or all bad. Like any job there are different ends of the scale. Wondering if those who reported being highly satisfied with their job if they are the drinkers or the savers?

Mmm, who knows, sausage. Certainly, the ex-dancer who talked to Guardian said she never did a shift sober, and didn't know a single dancer who did - many using drink and drugs to get through their shift.

Still, I have no beef with the dancers themselves - I'm not jealous of them, I don't think they're stupid, uneducated, or nasty. However, I dislike the fact that we live in a society where it is deemed acceptable, by certain people, that women are paid to wiggle their bits at men, or to just be half-naked 'background decoration' in clubs. It makes me despair tbh.

Like I said way upthread, it is in the club-owners interest to keep up the illusion of the women being happy and well-paid, and it all being a bit of fun. I don't think anyone can deny that the reality is often far removed from this.