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

you are reading things into peoples' reasoning that just isn't there.

I find that tends to happen a lot on these threads.

It is always interesting on these threads that people want to focus on the womens' behaviour, and not the behaviour of the men who go to these clubs. They are the ones spending their money in them, they're the ones paying for private dances, leering over the women, or at best (if Larry is to be believed) just treating semi naked women as background decoration.

Jo I cut and pasted you saying you wanted to see Sabrina condemn strippers. That is the quote that quotes you directly.

The line that begins 'I think the logic is....' is clearly not a quote, because it is introduced by my saying 'I think the logic is...' which should be a clue that it is not a direct quote.

When I said I had quoted you directly I was referring to the quote where I had quoted your exact words. I assumed this was obvious. Apologies for not being clearer if it was not.

'It is by not condemning, that sabrina shows that she despises strippers, because she thinks they are not even worthy of criticism.'

What a hilariously tortured piece of logic!

It is always interesting on these threads that people want to focus on the womens' behaviour, and not the behaviour of the men who go to these clubs.

pot.kettle.black.

I'd like to talk about the men and women's behaviour. I'd say the more radical elements want to focus on the men's behaviour 100% of the time on these threads. Personally I feel it's worth looking at the whole, not just one side.

Go ahead and talk about the men and women's behaviour then, Getall. But that doesn't have to include you and other posters badgering Sabrina into condemning the female dancers. It's clearly not something she was prepared to do.

runningforthebusinheels sigh. I'm not interested in hearing Sabrina condemning female dancers.

I am genuinely wanting to know why men who freely participate in activities that objectifies women are described in vile terms, when women who do so ( of their own freewill ) are placed beyond criticism.

So far there hasn't been a persuasive argument put forwards. I'll stop asking as there obviously isn't one.

And you (running) think that that is exactly quoted by: 'I want you to condemn women so I can find some evidence for my prejudice that feminists despise women who work in the sex industry.'?

We have very different understanding of what quote means. The words are definitely different, so it can't possibly be an exact quote. And the meaning is almost completely inverted. Changed from, condemn them to show you that you don't think they are beneath condemnation, to almost the opposite, condemn them to show you despise them.

If people were clear about their reasoning, I wouldn't misread it. The muted reasoning is that people consuming something which is deemed to be evil are 100% to blame, and those that meet the demand are 0% to blame. This makes no sense at all. None. I challenge you to find any other situation where freely consenting adults do some immoral business together, and the consumer is held entirely to blame.

GetAllTheThings. This what Grimbletart said on the subject:

poster grimbletart Thu 01-Nov-12 15:48:58
"I would never condemn those women from backgrounds that have made them vulnerable and who have low self-esteem that consequently causes them to think that their body is their only asset, but unlike some posters here I don't hesitate to wonder why non-abused, intelligent, well educated women do it when they could use their education and intelligence in more positive ways and in careers, which while not instantly paying a lot of money, have better long term prospects.

After all, even if lap dancers earn the healthy sums that some posters have mentioned (though none seem that particularly high earning to me) their careers in lap dancing will be relatively short. The punters will lose interest when gravity takes over and by that time these women's educated peers will be well advanced in proper careers with proper prospects.

My personal view is that these women don't actually care what message they are giving - being a feminist myself does not mean I support women come what may. Or maybe they have mistakenly fallen for the myth of empowerment and simply like parting idiots with more money then sense from their money. Or maybe they are exhibitionists looking for voyeurs to appreciate them. Who knows?

But LDC are like any other business insofar as they fail when demand dries up, not the supply. Take the tobacco industry (as a similar anti-social activity) as an example. The reason it turned to China, the East and Africa to hook new addicts was because the demand was falling in the West and the industry could no longer survive on Western European consumption - too little demand.

Take away the demand and the LPD would fail in the same way. Take away supply and punters would simply turn their attention to other areas of the sex trade and exploit other types of sex workers."

Oh FGS Jo.

When Running said I quoted you exactly she meant in the quote where I quoted you exactly. You know, the one where I cut and pasted.
No-one could be so stupid as to think someone would actually say 'I want you to find evidence for my prejudices.'

The only conclusion I can come to now is that you are misunderstanding deliberately in order to derail.

Thank goodness I have friends coming in an hour or two and will have to leave the thread.

GetAll, as far as I can see, it is because one of the tenets of radical feminism is that all women's actions have to be seen within the context of the patriarchy, and their victimisation/diminished status within that construct. Rad fems see women as disempowered within our society, whereas men of equal social standing are fully aware of their superior status, and choose to use that superiority to keep women 'in their place'.

So a man can be an uncaring letch who uses strippers for his own gratification, always in the full knowledge that they may well be stripping against their will. Women, even those stripping of their own free will, may not be aware that their fellow strippers are under coercion, or they may choose to turn a blind eye (in an 'I'm alright, Jack,' fashion). Either way, to criticise their behaviour is, in the mind of rad fems, moving part of the blame away from the bogeyman, i.e. the patriarchy. So, radical feminism seeks to portray women as victims, regardless of their circumstances and their actions, even if their actions harm other women, and even if they are aware of this harm.

It's pretty neat.

I actually very much agree with this - I don't think grimbletart's post is condemning the dancers - it is perhaps showing an inability to understand why a well educated woman would choose to lap dance, when other lucrative and probably more longer lasting careers are open to her - but it is not condemning her.

Likewise - I would not condemn the dancers themselves, or lay the responsibility for the presence of lap dancing clubs at their door. I just don't believe that these dancers are responsible for the demand for lap dancing clubs.

As I've said before, I think the responsibility for the existence of lap dancing clubs lays with the men who go to them - they are the ones who spend their money on private dances and to leer at women. They and they alone are the ones creating the demand.

Jo - I copied and pasted your post. The whole post - in it's entirety. The italics went wrong, but that was your whole post. How can you say that's a misquote?

xposted with namechangeguy there - when I said 'I agree with this' I meant grimbletart's post.

GetAllTheThings. This what Grimbletart said on the subject:

Well, yes, except for the fact she's saying she would criticise women if she felt they warranted it. I'm interested in why some women refuse to criticise other women point blanc in regards to objectification.

You ( amoungst others ) are saying women are beyond criticism and indeed go on to interpret Gimbletart's post to fit your view.

namechangeguy Yes, I can see that.

Well, getall - I think we'll just have to agree to differ - since nothing I say will satisfy you. I didn't read grimbletarts post as condemning the dancers, as I said above.

Firstly, she begins the post 'I wouldn't condemn the women..." and secondly she says "I don't hesitate to wonder why non abused, well educated women do it." Wondering why a woman would choose lap dancing as a career is not the same as condemning them.

She goes onto say that she doesn't support women come what may - again - absolutely not the same as 'condemning' them.

Finally, read the conclusion of her post - she lays the blame at the door of the men who create the demand for these places, too.

Running, does that mean that you disagree with my post?

I'm not sure I do Namechangeguy - I agree with certain aspects of it, but it seems an over simplification to me. It's like 'radfem in a nutshell'.

I don't actually identify as a radical feminist - just a feminist. I don't see all women as disempowered, or as victims - far from it.

However, I do think that lap dancing bars sexually objectify women, and I believe that LDC's only exist because we live in a sexist society that tolerates men buying sexual services from women.

But you can put radical feminism into a nutshell, simply because it is so simple and uncomplicated in it's analysis of everything.

Is there a demand for LDC's? Absolutely, otherwise they would not make money. Will there be women working in them who don't want to? I suspect so (I think it is almost certain, but I have no evidence either way). But do they also cater for women who want to work there? Again, I am pretty certain, but have no evidence.

Do they contribute to the sexual objectification of women? They must do, since they are all about displaying the body and sexual simulation. But what I don't know is what you can do about it if some women want to be employed there, or want to run them, i.e. there is no direct exploitation of a person. If it is a transaction between two consenting adults, then I don't know what you can do about them in practical terms. Make them illegal? Monitor them more closely? A phrase like 'remove the demand' doesn't make any sense to me.

*running"

What she says is this

"I would never condemn those women from backgrounds that have made them vulnerable and who have low self-esteem that consequently causes them to think that their body is their only asset,

Well I agree with her, you've truncated her sentence to 'I wouldn't condemn the women..." . Different meaning as she put a qualifier in that you've removed, also by your changing 'those' to 'the' changes the meaning.

She goes on...

but unlike some posters here I don't hesitate to wonder why non-abused, intelligent, well educated women do it when they could use their education and intelligence in more positive ways and in careers, which while not instantly paying a lot of money, have better long term prospects.

I think it's clear that whilst she may well not be explicitly condemning those educated women who have other choices, she certainly questions it ( which I do too, that's the point ! ) and doesn't simply defend them based purely on their gender which is what you appear to be doing.

OK - as posters are discussing my posts (no problem with that) let me clarify if it is unclear.

My attitude to strippers who are forced into through any type of abuse or lack of self esteem is one of compassion. It is extremely sad to see any woman believe her body is her only or even best 'asset' - and an asset with a short shelf life too. What then for these women?

My attitude to non-abused, supposedly highly intelligent strippers is one of bafflement. It makes no logical or economic sense to throw away the chance of a life-long, potentially high earning career for a (necessarily) short term job, where the earnings are low (at worst) and medium (at best) and leave you a decade or so behind your peers when you have to start again as gravity takes over and the dances dry up.

As to their rationale, who knows? I have no idea because, as I said, it makes no logical or economic sense beyond the very short-term. I could only make one or two suggestions of possible motives in my previous post.

I am a feminist and have been one since I was a little girl in the late 1940s and early 1950s, way before the women's lib of the late 60s/early 70s. My belief is that there is undoubtedly a patriarchy within which many women make compromises - consciously or sub-consciously - in order to get along day to day.

However, as a feminist, the past half century or so has shown me that the way to defeat the patriarchy is to put two fingers up to it, not to pander to it.

I will not defend women just because they are women. Equality means taking personal responsibility for your actions if you have the intellectual and emotional capacity to do so.

So I would ask these apparently intelligent and educated women - what is your logic, what is your rationale? And, depending on the answers I may very well be highly critical of them.

None of which stops me from thoroughly disliking LPDs and the attitudes of men who patronise them and laying by far the most blame on them. Being bored, feeling randy or wanting a night out with the lads is no excuse for for supporting an industry that contains within it the abuse of women.

Finally, may I ask the male supporters of LPDs here what they would do if they were in an LPD, asked for a dance and found that it was their own daughter who turned up in front of them?

Running,

I don't think anyone can deny that LDC sexually objectify women. However, my point is that in a society where a man can see women as bosses, academics, mothers, the fact that some are lap dancers is in no sense going to change men's opinion of womankind, which is surely the problem with "objectification".

And, as I have also posted, and not received an adequate reply to, all men and women objectify the other sex when it comes to any form of sexual relations, to eyeing up an attractive person in the street to having sex with one's spouse. That is part of our animal selves (laugh if you will) which will never, thankfully, disappear. It is rather essential for the survival of the species.

In that sense, as we get more equality, instead of things like lapdancing clubs disappearing, we are getting women buying more at more sexual services such as escorts, Gambian holidays etc. If you google male strippers for hen parties, you will find plenty available and plenty on the menu which is far from the good wholesome laugh people like to pretend it is when it comes to women using the sex industry.

The whole subject is, IMO, far subtler than people want to paint it. There is nothing wrong with sexual "objectification" as long as it is not used to define an entire sex or even one's entire relationship with one person. Lapdancers are definitely selling themselves as a form of sexual object but that does not stop some men from marrying lapdancers that they have met in LDCs (I know of one who did in Tokyo, which is more of an expat scene). So, he clearly perceived her as a sexual object and a potential life partner. The bifurcation of sex object/real person that certain feminists would like to believe just does not exist in most people's minds. Most people are capable of seeing any other individual as multi faceted, but one facet is their physical body.

grimbletart That is a great post.

Equality means taking personal responsibility for your actions if you have the intellectual and emotional capacity to do so

I agree with that 100%.

Not that I go to LDCs, but I shall ponder your question whilst I go grab a coffee........

Very clear grimble, thanks. It answers the question that so many others have danced around or ignored.

Thanks for the post, grimbletart. Apologies for picking over the details of your post - I am basically in agreement with you. I do not 'condemn' the dancers - I don't see how that is the slightest bit helpful. It doesn't stop me questioning why they would choose to do it - and sadly the answers aren't always straightforward, and do often involve things like low self esteem, needing validation from male attention and the like.

However, as I keep on saying I don't lay the blame on the women dancers for LDC's - I will not criticise them for being responsible for the existence of lap dancing clubs, because I don't think they are - that is to be laid squarely at the door of the men that go to them. And the club owners of course - who are profiting from men wanting to have naked girls draped around them for cash.

Larry - I think that's the first time I've ever seen you admit that LDC's objectify women! So well done for that.... I couldn't disagree with the rest of your post more though.