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

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?

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.

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

I agree with your conclusion.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

*chocolate/disney dresses analogies.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Running -

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.

OTOH it would only be semi-facetious to observe that probably at least 30% of women generally have lost faith in all men (possibly more), so the statistic needs to be taken against that benchmark.

Yes, I wonder if 30% of, say, doctors, or dentists cite 'losing all faith in men' as a negative aspect of their job.

You could use that as your benchmark.

beat me to it FastLoris was going to say a similar thing regarding the 30% stat. It would be interesting to hear what the reasons were behind this too.
We do a job satisfaction survey every year where i work (public sector) and believe me the figures are far worse than the Leeds study. So 74% of dancers rated their job between 7 and 10 out of 10 and zero % rated their job between 0 and 2. I'd say that's pretty decent job satisfaction. Also 72.5% say that it combines fun and work. How many people can say that about their jobs?

The recommendations to the study seem very sensible too:

-Clearly displayed council rules in a number
of places in the club:
toilets, changing rooms etc
-Offer a receipt for fines and fees ? make
sure fines and fees go through the books
-Offer a receipt for dances where
commission is taken
-Monthly meetings to discuss rules,
changes, get dancers? input
-Tighter regulation on the location and type
of private booths to achieve a balance
between privacy and security
-Insurance information for the dancers
-Limiting the number of dancers per
capacity of clubs

Maybe organisations like Object should work together with the dancers to achieve these things rather than trying to make them redundant.

Running...
And yes, lap dancing clubs create a problem for women her and now - all women not just the dancers.
Speaking for all women again are we? No I think you are speaking for yourself, and a small minority of persons who object to LDC's. If people think they are such a problem as you assume then why are there so few objections to them when they re-apply for their SEV's?
The objections I have read for my local clubs were typically nimby type reasons from prudish residents and religious moralists who use things like the clubs proximity to a place of worship. Only a handful were from so called feminists using the tiresome objectification argument.

What reasons are behind the 30% stat, Daddancer? Perhaps it's men like you? Men who go to the clubs to pay them to wiggle their tits in their faces. Or the men who try to barter down the prices, try to touch them? Or the men who abuse them, tell them their tits aren't big enough etc? You say you don't insult and abuse these women - but I wonder - would any punter actually own up to abusive behaviour? MN forums are full of punters who argue that they respect the dancers - but some of you are being abusive - because the dancers themselves say so.

You argue for better conditions - but that is in the club owners hands now isn't it? The club owners could enforce their so-called rules and introduce more. But they don't. All they want is paying punters through the door. Rather than saying Object should improve conditions - why not say the club owners should?

The clubs won't limit the number of dancers in a club - because they want to maximise the choice of girls available to the punters. Make it like a sweetie shop for them - a type of woman to satisfy any man's taste, including yours. And you can buy her to wiggle for you. Nice.

I worked in HR. My last company had around an 80% job satisfaction in surveys - consistently. And absolutely nobody complained that they had lost all faith in men as a result of working there.

Ohhh, so not wanting women to be treated as pieces of meat is prudish is it?

You'll be calling frigid/lesbians/in need of a shag next.

Saying that I think lap dancing clubs are damaging to all women is an opinion - it is not speaking for all women. They are two different things.

And call me a prude if that makes you happy - it's a common enough insult to feminists who speak out against the sex industry. Why women speaking out against punters paying women for sexual services has any bearing on her attitude on towards other sexual relationships, I'll never know.

I happen to think that all punters abuse women.

I think Jo, what you're failing to understand that LDCs are part of a wider societal, the sexualisation and commodification of women.

The reason why feminists don't like to blame the women involved IMO is because they are just operating as best they can in the society they were given. The men creating the demand are the ones that can look at their actions and make a real change.

"Some burk..."

What exactly is your problem JoTheHot?

Is the idea of women taking issue with the part LCDs play in terms of the objectification of women so abhorrent to you? Is women speaking up for all women so awful, that you have to stoop to insults?

Is the idea that threatening to you? Do you go into the pet forum and tell the chicken-keepers they're all 'burks' as well?

You come onto a feminist forum, where people examine the world through a feminist lens and look at issues from a feminist angle, and insult those people?

I really admire your tenacity. Good on you for coming back time and again, posting, lurking, what-have-you - in the face of us idiots and our ludicrous opinions. One might think you'd have better things to do with your time, but no, here you are, reminding us of our inherent 'burk-ness'. So good of you. Here's your medal:

And sausage - maybe best to stop saying you're leaving at the end of every post. There's no need to keep saying it. We know you have no intention of leaving. You'll start to lose credibilty, if you're not careful.

"...so called feminists using the tiresome objectification argument"

Another one apparently bored, and yet just can't stay away, either... I asked you question a few posts back now, DadDancer, but I'm guessing you missed it. Are you white?