A consultation into a ban on lap-dancing in Tower Hamlets closes on Monday so locals have only a couple of days in which to express their views. If the ban goes through, the eleven lap-dancing establishments in the borough will have to close.
The difficulty that the borough, and campaigners who are against lap-dancing, face is that ”moral and equalities” reasons cannot legally be used to justify such restrictions. Under the rules, sex establishments can be curbed only on the basis of the locality being “unsuitable” and community support is required to institute a ban.
But isn’t morality one of the foremost drives against sexualized culture and similar businesses in general – not only in East London, but all around the world? And shouldn’t the issue of women’s objectification in these clubs be a strong enough basis for opposing such venues?
“Object”, a human-rights organisation dedicated to challenging ‘sex object culture’, supports the policy and is encouraging residents of Tower Hamlets to participate in the council’s consultation. But their motives go far beyond the ‘unsuitability of the locality’. They insist that the issue of women’s objectification in such clubs is not just an additional point in the ‘equalities’ debate. It is a critical issue because objectification causes women to suffer: if not physically, then verbally. The existence of strip clubs creates an environment where this abuse can be justified – all because it is paid for.
A few years ago, Guardian reporter Rachel Bell, interviewed a former lap-dancer who had worked in London strip clubs.
Elena (not her real name) talked about how the club management would take on more women than are needed in a night, creating a ‘dog eat dog’ environment. She was subjected to verbal abuse and dehumanisation. Men would be in complete control and pick the dancers they liked, verbally humiliating the ones they did not choose. Many men would try and persuade her to come back to their houses or book a room for sex.
The club she worked on maintained a “veneer of no touching”, yet touching was more standard than not, Elena said. If the rules were broken, more money was made. Hence, when one girl makes more money, pressure is on others to do the same.
Elena’s experience only confirms that the line between ‘harmless fun’, and providing sexual services for money, is very thin and blurred.
Many might object, saying it’s a woman’s choice to work in such establishments. Of course, they are not forced against their will, but the subject is far from being that straightforward. Research shows that majority of women become lap-dancers not because they have aspired to but because of poverty and lack of choice.
Pro-sex establishment groups then may ask: how will closing down of such venues affect the owners and the dancers? Isn’t putting an end to these clubs inconsiderate of people who have put much effort into establishing their businesses?
And that is when the other side of the issue comes in. Some define such venues as just another business with a high market value, a way to endure in a capitalist society. Isn’t the right to make profit applicable to all, they say? Yet when the majority of the community thinks otherwise, club owners will most likely have to rethink their ways of profit making and come up with a more widely supported and less exploitative business plan. And in terms of the women employees: if becoming a lap dancer wasn’t an option, women would find other jobs – and most likely less emotionally damaging ones.
These issues cannot be addressed by Tower Hamlets Council as reasons to close down sex establishments. If they could be, then the case would be clear and the end of their existence would be just a matter of time.
Lets pick yu up on a few points, considering first the choice of dancers. Most of the ones I have met have medium and long terms goals and use dancing to achieve those. These include purchasing a home that someone working at sainsburys can’t or establishing businesses for themsleves to retire to.
As to the morality issue take a look at http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2011/10/12/lap-dancing-and-morality where the writer is female and even she feels that she doesn’t want to side with council.
Finally and mostimprtant to any tax payer is the fact these clubs will all ask for a judicial review and if they win the council will have to pay costs. Remebering the so called council tax freeze? Well were would the money come from except from the reduction and loss of services.
Whilst i respect the opinions you have stated in your post, and the experiences of the dancer, you refer to might well be true of some establishments. They are certainly not a true representaion of all clubs and certainly not of the clubs that are well run and operate strictly within the current rules and terms of there license. I’m curious to know what research you have done that enables you to generalise about what happens in the majority of clubs. Hopefully you are not basing your opinions on one article published several years ago which relayed the views of one dancer’s experience. I have enjoyed visiting several well run clubs over the years and currently work part time behind the bar in one and can a assure you the managment enforce the no contact rule very strictly. The girls who dance at this club do so in a safe well monitored enviroment and work regular shifts agreed between themselves and the managment and your suggestion that the managment only allow the amount of women they need in a night is nonsense, there is no way of knowing how busy the club will be on any particular night. I’m sure men might well try and ask some of the dancers to go home with them but that is something that happens in any bar or night club. The difference being that an element of the terms and conditions all the dancers have to agree to in order to work , at the club i work at, Is that dancers must not leave the club with customers or accept business cards or phone numbers from customers. Any dancer found breaking these rules is dismissed. Also any customer abusing any of the dancers verbally or trying to to touch them whilst performing is made to leave the club.
To suggest that the dancers are dehumanised is laughable, the dancers are in controle of who they choose to talk to and there is no pressure for them to dance for or talk to any customer they choose not to. To be honest its not really an issue as most customers are polite and respectful towards the dancers as they come to the club for a drink and a chat whilst enjoying the girls performances on stage in a well run safe enviroment. The majority of customers are fully aware of the fact that the club provides voyaristic entertainment only. Occasionaly an overseas visitor may be under the impression that more is on offer, but they are soon made aware that this isnt the case by both the girls and managment.
Ovcourse the entertainment provided in a strip club does not appeal to everybody, but it does to a great many Men and Women and has done for decades. We thankfully live in a country that respects and embraces peoples freedom of choice. If people don’t like striptease I respect their feelings but they should not presume to curtail the enjoyment of it by people who do.
Live and Let Live please.
This is a more balanced article than some on the topic.
But the clubs in London are well-regulated, and despite the opinions of Object and their supporters, there is no evidence to suggest that dancers are exploited or that the clubs are doing any harm to the residents of Tower Hamlets.
The research I’ve seen suggests dancers are often well-educated and enjoy their work including the financial reward it can bring.
Also, It is surely unfair to arbitrarily close down long-established businesses which are basically harmless.
I would hope that the councillors of Tower Hamlets have better things to do than waste tax-payers money on lengthy and expensive legal battles which will surely result if they go ahead with the ‘nil’ policy.
Lets go over the full cost of closing this venues
1. Bar Staff, Door Staff and Dancers loss their jobs. Even while looking for other work they need Job Seekers and Housing Benefit (HB from the local tax payer)
2. Council Losses Revenue under the new laws the council would charge strip bars to operate so the council would be losing easily over £50k
3. Judical Reviews, all the bars could (and probably will) ask for a Judicail review, this means going to court and the losers will pay the bill for both parties. Now the council would point to the consultation if and only if it goes in their favour. However Hackney’s mess up created a platform to claim Grandfather rights which any good solicitor would be able to argue. And if the venues win 7 Judicals Reviews the council will be out of pocket by a lot. So with the council tax freezes where will the money come from? Probably from protecting the youth of Tower Hamlets. So if you do decide to fill in the consultation consider all that. And if you vote against the nil policy say no to question 4.
As I posted before, do we really want religious loonies telling the rest of us what we can or cannot do {moderated out incidentally}. If we do look lets forward to stoneing adulterers, banning booze, burning heretics etc etc as we had in the good old days of the 16th century. Like Iran say.
Bill – if you actually read the post rather than simply reacting to it you will see that the objection here is not religious. Feminists are not religious ‘loonies’ indeed religion is not in my experience part of their argument and they have as much a right to be heard as men who get off on watching women sell their bodies. My major objection to these places is that whatever you may or may not do in private, all the rest of us have to live in a culture in which female bodies are for sale. Some people really don’t like it. Think about that for a moment.
“…they have as much a right to be heard as men who get off on watching women SELL THEIR BODIES. My major objection to these places is that whatever you may or may not do in private, all the rest of us have to live in a culture in which FEMALE BODIES ARE FOR SALE…” (capitalisations are mine).
Once again, an opponent of striptease resorts to the groundless smear that strippers “sell their bodies”. What they are actually selling (quite freely, without coercion) is their LABOUR, just like every
Nice one, moderators: you’ve deleted two (perfectly reasonable) posts I made over the last couple of days, whilst approving a post which was clearly incomplete! Censorship, or incompetence?
Now, to continue the point I was making (see above post)…
Every adult of working age (unless unemployed, unable to participate in work for medical reasons, or independently wealthy) sells his or her labour in a capitalist economy. Why single out strippers?
“Feminists are not religious ‘loonies’ …”
Unfortuntely, many ‘feminists’ (e.g. the followers of the late Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon) take a quasi-religious stance on gender issues and refuse to engage in reasoned debate. And much of the impetus for a ‘nil’ policy in Tower Hamlets has come from groups with a conservative religious agenda.
Many genuine feminists disagree with Object’s rather hysterical campaign against striptease; unfortunately, their voices aren’t being heard enough in the mainstream media.
“Some people really don’t like it.”
And some people do like it, whilst some others are indifferent on the issue. What makes you imagine that the objectors ought to have their opinions given priority over those of everyone else?
Bit of a non-argument, isn’t it?
Odd that nearly all the “feminists” at the meeting had burkas etc on. The meeting was an unholy alliance of politically motivated liars like Object and local religious groups. My view is that what goes on between consenting adults behind closed doors is their own affair and what I really “object” to is people trying to enforce their views {be they religious or feminist} on the rest of us.
Again I can respect the view that some people don’t like the fact that that some women choose to sell their bodies although to say a stripper sells her body is not really the case. By that definition the customer would own her body! Which ovcourse isn’t the case. A stripper chooses to allow people to look at her body and enjoy her performance and in so doing admire the beauty of the female form. I see no good reason why a woman should be prevented from some money for her performance if that is what she wishes to do. What’s next on the feminists, who frown on this, ban women from being models and arrest Gok Wan from encouraging women to ‘look good naked’ presumably they get paid in some way for appearing naked on his TV show! The whole argument has no validity. If a Woman is lucky enough to have been graced with a nice body no one has the right to say she can’t get up on stage to entertain an appreciative audience.
Better ban any nudity in the cinema and the theatre too while you’re at it ladies! Or maybe you should just accept the fact that there are things in life you are not happy about but respect the fact that many people have a different view. As I said in my previous post. Live and let live
@Bill: you’ve forgotten to mention the shadowy presence of the never-popular Socialist Workers Party (SWP), which has been meddling in the politics of Tower Hamlets for at least a decade.
@alistair000:
“Better ban any nudity in the cinema and the theatre too while you’re at it ladies!”
Who’s to say that Object and similar gender ‘feminists’ don’t have that kind of repressive censorship as one of their long-term goals?
your probably right, they will have to take there lead from lbth and create little local areas for all the uk which conveniently have cinemas, theatres,places of worship etc close to to cinemas, theatres and galleries that dare to show performances or images of the female form which people might pay to look
On the objectification thing, i have to say in all my years I have never looked at any female performer, be they strippers or actors, and thought of them as objects!
@The Great Smell of Brute: While it’s true that many genuine feminists disagree with Object, I don’t think you are representing their views fairly. I think you’d be hard pushed to find any feminist who would want to ban nudity at the cinema or theatre, regardless of her or his views on lapdancing clubs. The context is very clearly different, -aside from any views on lapdancing clubs- because it involves a *requirement* to take one’s clothes off. Ideally, visitors would be as respectful of the given boundaries as anyone seeing a naked actor on stage generally would be but they often aren’t and this creates specific workers’ rights issues.
Alistair2000: “If a Woman is lucky enough to have been graced with a nice body no one has the right to say she can’t get up on stage to entertain an appreciative audience.”
Yes but Elena’s story about management creating a ‘dog eat dog’ environment and having to deal with verbal abuse and dehumanisation is sadly not unusual. That isn’t to say all establishments tell the same story but even if this leads some feminists to conclude that bans are not the solution, it’s also perfectly understandable for some to conclude that they are. Let’s not pretend this is simply a matter of “personal choice” for the dancers when the matter is much more complex than that. Male entitlement (or the entitlement of people in privileged groups to get what they want) does not trump the rights of everyone to bodily autonomy and dignity. It is possible for a lapdancer to have both these things but insisting lapdancers do in order to preserve the status quo is disingenuous.
@Jean2011:
“Ideally, visitors [to striptease venues] would be as respectful of the given boundaries as anyone seeing a naked actor on stage generally would be but they often aren’t and this creates specific workers’ rights issues.”
I suspect that you aren’t as familiar with the behaviour the patrons of striptease venues as you’d have people believe; in my experience, the vast majority are respectful of those boundaries, and the small minority who are not are expelled from the premises if their behaviour becomes problematic.
However, I suggest that you don’t just take my word for it, but ask the strippers and ex-strippers themselves – and not just Elena, the ‘pet’ ex-stripper whom Object use for their campaign. Some have been very vocal in their opposition to Object, whilst also being active (via trades unions, etc.) on the subject of workers’ rights.
“The context is very clearly different…because it involves a *requirement* to take one’s clothes off.”
Certain theatre and film roles also require full nudity, and an actor who refused to strip wouldn’t be considered for the part. Many other roles require one to portray a character whose sexuality differs from one’s own, whose politics one personally finds offensive, etc.
The point you attempt to make here is weak, at very best.
“Male entitlement (or the entitlement of people in privileged groups to get what they want) does not trump the rights of everyone to bodily autonomy and dignity.”
Leaving aside the problematic term ‘male entitlement’, your statement implies an apparent belief that gender-based collectivism ought to be privileged over individual liberty and personal choice – hardly an acceptable attitude in a pluralist democracy.
And what authority do the self-appointed activists of Object have to speak on behalf of ALL women? Their maternalism in this respect (and de facto endorsement of the partnernalism of their allies) is more than a little ironic!
“I don’t think you are representing [Object’s] views fairly.”
In representing Object as I have done, I’ve taken into account the behaviour of similar gender ‘feminists’ in the USA – and the stated views of their public figurehead, Catherine MacKinnon – over the last three decades, particularly with regard to what they’d class as pornography.
@The Great Smell of Brute. I appreciate that plenty of strippers and ex-strippers are very vocal in their opposition to Object. (On the contrary to what you seem to believe, I don’t base my opinion on what Object say. My background as a feminist is not with them. I am more familiar with FAC and $pread.)
I don’t think the point you make about certain theatre and film roles really stands up. Yes, some roles also require full nudity and, of course, ghere are representations of sexuality that some actors may not wish to take on but not getting one job and being able to move onto the next audition is not the same as going out to work in one establishment and being mistreated. In a place where things are as they should be, more comparisons can be made but it’s often hard to see the wood for the trees here because people just see what they want to see according to their own agendas (including *some* people from places like Object and evidently including you). I stand by what I said: there are clearly unique workers rights issues and vulnerabilities for sex work that don’t generally exist in a day-to-day sense for acting in general. All I was saying was that, while I don’t necessarily agree with people who see shutting these places down or keeping them out as a solution, I can certainly see why they might come to that conclusion when behaviour towards lapdancers often fails to live up to the picture you paint.
My statement about bodily autonomy and dignity was not about “gender-based collectivism” being privileged over individual liberty and personal choice. As I agreed, people should be able to use their bodies for work in whatever way they please. I just think each person’s individual right to bodily autonomy and dignity trumps any perceived entitlement to be able to access such entertainment as a matter of course that some men seem to think they have. The solution doesn’t need to be as extreme as the one being proposed in this article but I think some of the reactions to such a solution speak volumes about the very thing you are claiming doesn’t exist.
This thread has got male entitlement written all over it. Even a person who doesn’t seem to agree with the op has been compelled to challenge it. Now someone calling himself The Great Smell of Brute of all things is hinting that the little lady may have spoken out of turn for daring to hint that men as a group might have _brace yourselves_ privilege or that some dudes think they have rights over women’s bodies. Just watch how this guy will attempt to dominate the thread and make it his own.
The right to kick back with the guys and look at boobs in public is clearly very important to some. Shout about “a woman’s right!” and gloat about lapdancers who genuinely want to do it all you like. They exist so it must be all about them after all, right? But no-one’s buying it that you really have any regard for them. ‘Same for feminists’ I expect you’ll retort but do you actually know any? Some have been sex workers themselves and have experienced shitty attitudes from stag parties etc firsthand.
And btw, Brute doesn’t smell great. It’s outdated. But then you know that really don’t you?
@Jean2011:
“I don’t think the point you make about certain theatre and film roles really stands up…but not getting one job and being able to move onto the next audition is not the same as going out to work in one establishment and being mistreated.”
I think you underestimate the chronic scarcity of work within the acting profession – actors often do unpaid work, in order to be seen to be working – and the close-knit nature of the world of casting directors and producers. You also don’t appear to have grasped the fact that strippers are almost always self-employed, with many working at several venues.
“In a place where things are as they should be, more comparisons can be made but it’s often hard to see the wood for the trees here because people just see what they want to see according to their own agendas…”
“…I think some of the reactions to such a solution speak volumes about the very thing you are claiming doesn’t exist.”
In my own case, I’ve done a certain amount of informal research (including speaking to strippers, some of whom are also activists) , which has included finding out about the business models found within the striptease industry.
Yes, there are issues with certain venues, which have to do mainly with excessive ‘house fees’ (a fixed sum which many venues charge to allow strippers to perform there) and the booking of too many girls for individual shifts; and in my experience, the clubs (usually, rather than pubs) which attempt to extract the maximum revenue from customers, whilst passing as little of it as possible onto the girls, usually have a very different atmosphere from the venues which treat both dancers and customers with more respect. It’s also important to note that the relevant trade unions (GMB and Equity) are aware of these issues and are taking active steps to deal with them.
“I can certainly see why they might come to that conclusion when behaviour towards lapdancers often fails to live up to the picture you paint.”
The problematic word in this sentence is ‘often’ – I suggest you cite some hard evidence to justify its use in this context.
“My statement about bodily autonomy and dignity was not about “gender-based collectivism” being privileged over individual liberty and personal choice. As I agreed, people should be able to use their bodies for work in whatever way they please.”
I’m glad that you’ve clarified your views, because your previous remarks on this particular point were extremely easy to misread.
“I just think each person’s individual right to bodily autonomy and dignity trumps any perceived entitlement to be able to access such entertainment as a matter of course that some men seem to think they have. ”
What specifically is the point that you’re trying to put across here?
@The Great Smell of Brute: While it’s true that many genuine feminists disagree with Object, I don’t think you are representing their views fairly. I think you’d be hard pushed to find any feminist who would want to ban nudity at the cinema or theatre, regardless of her or his views on lapdancing clubs
Give Object time, as well as lap dancing clubs Object currently wants to ban Page 3 girls, Lads Mags, scantily clad women in advertising, and Beauty Pagents. When all those plus lap dancing have been banned who knows what the next target will be, uncovered piano legs I’d imagine !
@Bill: it was Object and their gender ‘feminist’ (i.e. misandrist) fellow-travellers to whom I was referring, rather than feminists in general – I thought my comments made that pretty clear.
@Kelly87:
“This thread has got male entitlement [sic] written all over it.”
Only to someone filtering its content through the distorting lens of dated, second-wave feminist ideology; to the rest of us, it’s an exercise in free debate.
“Now someone calling himself The Great Smell of Brute of all things is hinting that the little lady may have spoken out of turn for daring to hint that men as a group might have _brace yourselves_ privilege or that some dudes think they have rights over women’s bodies.”
I DO take exception to the term ‘male entitlement / privilege’, for reasons that would require a whole separate discussion to discuss in sufficient detail. And I’ve NEVER argued (or even IMPLIED) that men have any rights over women’s bodies; rather, it’s my view that individuals have sole rights over their own bodies.
I also reject the collectivist notion of “men as a group”, which betrays rather more about your own mentality than mine.
“But no-one’s buying it that you really have any regard for them”
Are you hoping that, if you repeat that oily little phrase often enough, people in general will begin to believe your groundless smears?
“…do you actually know any [feminists]?”
Speaking as a man who’s ‘been there, done that, baked the quiche’ with regard to feminism, I was knocking around with feminists when you were probably still in nappies!
Now, do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion, or are you simply going to keep throwing dirt in the hope that some of it will stick?
@Brute: My point was that our rights as individuals to dignity at work and bodily autonomy should always trump the service expected by the customer and the labour expected from the business. This means I think places shown to encourage or tolerate bad behaviour from customers should be penalised or shut down. Using those bad examples to close all lapdancing establishments or say they shouldn’t be allowed to open up in the first place is a leap but you can see why people with experience (sometimes directly) of the worst business practices and customer behaviour might take that view.
It also seemed clear that this debate was being dominated by voices that were against the original article but were not coming from the point of view of someone actually dancing in those environments. Admittedly, I don’t currently fit the criteria to directly address the latter but the lack of balance made me sympathise somewhat more with views I normally argue against.
For the record, I do “grasp” the fact that many strippers are self-employed and work at several venues. I assume you thought I didn’t because of my comment about treatment at work in one establishment. My point still stands though because, again, a person going out to work in several of those establishments (i.e. expecting to work at them) surely faces the same workers’ rights issues but many times over. I’d say agitating for these needs to be led by workers themselves, which is obviously a different point from the one being proposed in the article, but I do think businesses that don’t comply should be shut down. (The potential exploitation of actors is relevant here too but probably a topic for another thread!)
Re: people being able to use their bodies for work in whatever way they please. I don’t think my previous remarks on this particular point were easy to misread seeing as I said I think it is possible for a lapdancer to have both dignity and bodily autonomy at work. It’s just that those venues with “certain issues” (see your comment above) indicate the right to this is far from being a given. I think it should be and it doesn’t surprise me when some people take an abolitionist approach in response to the fact they aren’t.
…Or, rather, in response to the fact *it* isn’t.
@Jean2011:
“My point was that our rights as individuals to dignity at work and bodily autonomy should always trump the service expected by the customer and the labour expected from the business. This means I think places shown to encourage or tolerate bad behaviour from customers should be penalised or shut down.”
A point on which we’d both agree. And something which is already possible under the existing licencing regime.
“It also seemed clear that this debate was being dominated by voices that were against the original article but were not coming from the point of view of someone actually dancing in those environments. Admittedly, I don’t currently fit the criteria to directly address the latter but the lack of balance made me sympathise somewhat more with views I normally argue against.”
Personally, I’d like to see some strippers (particularly those with union connections) join this discussion, as they have done elsewhere, to add a very necessary dimension to it, and to clarify whether or not they consider potrayals of the industry in the mass media as accurate.
As for the comparisons between strippers and actors (and indeed, musicians): without attempting to start a separate discussion, there are many parallels to be drawn between the experiences of performers in different disciplines. The one major point of departure is that strippers are far more likely to make a living from their chosen occupation!
What was that “sic” all about? Throwing a bit of dirt of your own in the hope it’ll stick?
“I’ve NEVER argued (or even IMPLIED) that men have any rights over women’s bodies; rather, it’s my view that individuals have sole rights over their own bodies”
You can push this angle all you like but the implication IS there. It is obviously women who work at typical lapdancing establishments aimed at heterosexual men. And why do women end up doing this work where they use their bodies? Because of a demand from a section of men! If a number of men didn’t think they were entitled to go out with the guys and reinforce their status as men by looking at boobs in a traditional lapdancing establishment, the job wouldn’t exist. I don’t really think anyone being objectified is great but in my experience audiences watching burlesque or performances on stage clearly behave very differently. Even at hen parties where the behaviour starts to get a bit more leery and “hands on”, I’ve not seen male strippers having to put up with the crap I’ve seen female ones get.
You can tell me that lapdancing patrons don’t behave badly but I used to go and pick my friend up when she worked as a lapdancer and it was horrible. For her and for me. Stag parties trying to grope and grab and compare any women within 3 feet was something I had to endure several times.
@Kelly1987:
The ‘sic’ is there because you presented ‘male entitlement’ as a given, whereas it’s actually a highly contentious term (I also find the label ‘heterosexual men’ somewhat debatable – I prefer ‘straight men’, for several reasons – but I digress somewhat).
“If a number of men didn’t think they were ENTITLED to go out with the guys and REINFORCE THEIR STATUS as men…” (capitalisations are mine).
Inserting weasel words and emotially loaded terms into a sentence doesn’t prove anything about ‘male entitlement’. I’d contend that men (and a few women) are simply exercising their freedom to go and watch a form of entertainment which they enjoy – i.e. women performing a dance in which they remove their clothes – as part of an unwritten contract into which the performer and audience member enter freely; no special sense of entitlement or jockeying for status required.
The ‘argument’ you present is blatantly circular, demonstrating nothing beyond the simple law of demand and supply.
“Even at hen parties where the behaviour starts to get a bit more leery and “hands on”, I’ve not seen male strippers having to put up with the crap I’ve seen female ones get.”
For your information, the kind of rowdy, ‘grabby’ behaviour typical of drunken hen parties would result in the instant ejection of the offending parties from any reputable venue licenced for female striptease in London; a prohibition on touching or attempting to touch the strippers is one of the basic conditions of any striptease licence (some local authorities even stipulate a minimum distance between strippers and patrons). If an individual venue breaks the conditions of its licence repeatedly, the local authority which issued it has sufficient powers to close the venue in question, and ought to exercise them.
That you also qualify your remark with ‘even’ and ‘a bit more leery’ (in my own experience, hen parties are often already drunk, leery and obnoxious whilst merely queuing to watch male strippers) demonstrates your intention to mislead and to give your ‘observations’ a misandrist slant.
If anything, the behaviour of groups of women in that kind of context is usually far worse than that of men, if my own experiences, those of my friends (male and female), and television documentaries on the subject are anything to go by.
“You can tell me that lapdancing patrons don’t behave badly but I used to go and pick my friend up when she worked as a lapdancer and it was horrible…”
And how did the security staff at the venue in question deal with any attempts (and I note that you said “TRYING to grope and grab”, rather than succeeding to do so) to physically molest the strippers? My guess is somewhat robustly!
Oh, and as a performer, I may not have had anyone try to manhandle me, but I’ve certainly encountered all manner of stupid and boorish behaviours from audience members over the years, including:
* Leaving mobile ‘phones to ring / engaging in serial texting during a show;
* Taking flash photography without permission;
* Fiddling with parts of the set and, on one memorable occasion, even SITTING on part of it during an interval;
* Latecomers arguing with audience members who were already seated as to where they were going to sit;
* Latecomers attempting to walk on stage / into the dressing room, instead of to their seats;
* Running commentaries from people who clearly don’t understand the difference between theatre and television.
Not threatening perhaps, but certainly disrespectful and disruptive!
Oh give it a rest Brute. Please. You’re doing exactly the thing Kelly said you would and dominating the thread. Now you’ve managed to change the subject and make it all about you. Fine, so different types of performers have to put up with a lot of crap but this was a discussion about lapdancing clubs. You make some good points further up but why does it matter to you so much to have the last word here? What’s at stake?
@JamOnBass: the reason I addressed Kelly’s rather underargued-but-overemotive ‘points’ at all is because she was making an entry-level attempt to control both the parameters of the discussion and its vocabulary, using terms culled from a Gender Studies textbook. Does that answer your question?
Now, do YOU have an opinion on this topic you’d like to share?
I read this thread with interest and decided to respond as the view that is missing from the posts above is that of a lapdancer. I worked as a lapdancer for 10 years and, although I now live in south east London, I lived in Tower Hamlets for four years so I also responded to the recent consultation.
My experience as a dancer was a good one. During the 10 years I travelled extensively, working in Europe, South Africa and Australia (and had a good lifestyle while doing so!). I also put myself first through Access College then University, eventually resulting in my dream job, in which I have now been employed for three years. I can honestly say that as someone who left school at 16 with a few GCSEs that without lapdancing; the flexibility of the hours and the earnings, I would not be in the fortunate position I am today.
The ban on “sex establishments” as suggested by the council concerns me greatly. I believe that it would be an infringement of personal liberty, preventing people working in and frequenting legal establishments of their choice. It may surprise you to know that I consider myself to be a feminist, but part of this is that same belief in my freedom to work or to visit places of my choice and not have this decision made for me by someone else.
As for dancers being mistreated – Ema Globyte, @kelly1987, @angelaphilips, forgive me if I am mistaken but you sound as if you have never set foot inside a lapdancing club. If you feel so strongly about this issue I would recommend that you do so. Talk to the women who work there. There are strict rules that need to be adhered to, any customer found breaking them is asked to leave the premises. But this is extremely rare. Most customers are polite and respectful. In fact many spend (quite a lot of) money on the dancers just to sit down and chat with them.
The dancers and workers in licensed clubs are not trafficked; they work there of their own volition and comply with club rules that ensure that no laws are breeched. I believe that closure of these clubs would not prevent stripping from taking place but drive it underground, resulting in criminalization of the industry. If the council is truly concerned about the welfare of women it should invest in more support for victims of domestic violence.
As for clubs that cross the line, I didn’t work at any. You hear on the grapevine about what a club is like, and you can tell as soon as you walk in whether you will be comfortable. Dancers are self employed- they can go where they like. If they don’t like a particular club for any reason they can vote with their feet.
What has not been mentioned anywhere (that I have seen) in the article or in this thread is that the ban also affects some of the gay clubs in Tower Hamlets. It worries me that despite morality or religion not being sufficient reson to ban the clubs that this ban affects “women who uncover their bodies” and gay men. Is this really not about religion?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100095271/lutfur-rahman-cabinet-member-shares-platform-with-bigot/
@Kelly1987 “Even at hen parties where the behaviour starts to get a bit more leery and “hands on”, I’ve not seen male strippers having to put up with the crap I’ve seen female ones get.”
Sorry Kelly but I disagree entirely. I enjoy looking at the opposite sex and have been to many male strip nights. I’ve also worked alongside male strippers. I have seen some women behave in a far worse way than I have ever seen men behave; being disrespectful, intimidating, grabbing, scratching, throwing food and worse, and getting away with it because of their sex.
With regards to objectification- is it not natural to enjoy looking at the opposite (or same) sex? Is is not possible to do so AND appreciate the individual as a whole person?
Ash makes very good points and also reveals the hidden agenda being pursued by certain parties in Tower Hamlets Council. The ruling will affect gay clubs and that is the key issue that no one wishes to consider. Last year in Hackney it almost went unnoticed that Expectations (a gay bookshop) was to be included in their moralistic crackdown.
This Ema, is the reason that morality can and must never be used as an excuse to close venues that you or anyone else may disagree with. Once a precedent has been set, it will be abused.
I remain deeply concerned that the results of the consultation have yet to be revealed, despite the fact that the exercise was completed over a week ago. Given that the council elected to use an on line service, the results should have been clear by the following morning. Of course there might be many paper consultations that need to be counted, but if the borough can process election night results in hours, why is the consultation result taking days (and days) to reveal. Could it be that things have not gone to plan and that fall back positions are being drawn up?
When the clubs are threatened with closure they will take legal action, something the council is well aware of. I wonder what budget will be cut to pay for the court action that Tower Hamlets will lose?
@Chasmal: there are clear parallels between the measures taken against gay pubs and clubs by certain local authorities back in the eighties, and the position being taken by Tower Hamlets regarding striptease pubs and clubs.
Let’s not forget too that the Shoreditch / Spitalfields / Whitechapel area was plastered with Islamist-inspired stickers declaring a ‘Gay-Free Zone’ earlier this year, following on from a series of homophobic incidents locally.
The campaign for a ‘nil’ policy would have the general public believe that they’re well-informed radicals, taking a stand for human rights; in reality, they’re bigotted reactionaries, who have no respect for human difference. That the council is delaying the publication of the consultation results comes as no surprise, given the widespread use of disinformation by their political allies.
Just another point…when Hackney undertook their consultation, they clearly stated which were the venues of concern. All Tower Hamlets seem to be doing is quoting a number…..is it 9 clubs or is it 11?
Lets see…..
Oops, Whites, Nags Head, Images, Metropolis, Mahjingos……I make that six in Tower Hamlets….what places have I missed? How many of these missing places cater to the gay community?
Hey I just answered my own question….at least one of the clubs that Tower Hamlets wants to close does cater to the gay community….That’s why Tower Hamlets council have not published a list, they do not want to be accused of homophobia.
@Chasmal: by my reckoning, there’s one more venue with female strippers – Secrets East Smithfield. And the White Swan has male strippers, dancing for gay men (which is the one to which I expect you’re referring).
That still only makes eight striptease venues (unless there are some other gay ones I haven’t heard of) in Tower Hamlets, rather than the eleven ‘lapdancing clubs’ Object and the Say ‘NO’ campaign kept banging on about.
I went to a focus group about this, and I’ve bee to many down the years, this time it was different, I’ve never been to one so manipulated to get the desired.
There was a lot of anti-ban sentiment yet at the end the Muslim man leading the group insisted it was obvious we supported a ban, but wouldn’t allow the show of hands I requested, he pretended not to hear my requests…it’s clear he feared the result wouldn’t be what he wanted if I’m to be asked. Looking at this campaign I’m more than satisfied it’s driven by Islam.
Most of the dancers in Tower Hamlets work in nice little pubs, not lap dancing establishments, They should be free to work at whatever they like so long as it is legal, and Britain has always allowed sex work to exist. It’s a pity the so-called feminists who disapprove don’t offer them female solidarity and the respect to do as they choose.
@Dr Owens: I suspect that many of the Say ‘NO’ campaigners are almost as hostile to traditional pubs as they are to striptease…
But the really interesting thing about all of this, is a building that is not even a lap dancing club…….its at 21 Whitechapel Road and has an interesting owner…
The real question here is how many of his friends knew?
Sorry to be obtuse, but people on both sides of the argument can have fun working out what I learned today….
@Chasmal: very interesting indeed! Do you reckon his involvement with the Say ‘NO’ campaign could possibly – just possibly – have anything to do with property prices and/or Tower Hamlets Council’s long-term development agenda for the area? 😉
Also interesting to note that it’s been a month since the consultation closed, yet I can’t find the results published anywhere online…
CAPE – Campaign Against People Exploitation or Campaign to Augment Property Earnings?
I possess a copy of the deeds, which I downloaded from the Land Registry and Tower Hamlets own website contains the history of planning applications for 21 WHITECHAPEL ROAD. Given that his home address is given as somewhere in Kingston upon Thames, it makes me wonder what he thinks of The Robert Peel…..Oh dear he’ll need to launch CAPE Kingston now, because these places ‘evil trade’ must be stopped. Unless they are only ‘evil’ in Tower Hamlets.
I find it strange that he never mentioned in his various press releases that he OWNS THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO THE NAGS HEAD….
Consultation.
No results yet?
What a surprise…
Must be really interesting OWNING THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO THE NAGS HEAD, I mean it must have been great TO HAVE BOUGHT THE FREEHOLD IN 2001 and then CONVERTING THREE FLOORS INTO FLATS.
If anyone owning a club sees our man wandering in and out of next door with an estate agent, then I advise to you close up now because ITS OVER, your evil days are done.
By the way did I mention that HE OWNS THE BUILDING WITH THE SHOP AND FLATS ABOVE, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO THE NAGS HEAD.
I wonder how many people knew about this when the campaign started…I mean anyone even remotely connected to Tower Hamlets council must know, because the details CAN BE FOUND ON THEIR WEBSITE.
But listen to me now when I tell you, this has nothing to do with property values, its about the evil trade must be stopped in Tower Hamlets and our man is so concerned that even living in Kingston, he gets involved. Maybe he bought 21 WHITECHAPEL ROAD so he could experience the evil directly and empathise with the residents more effectively.
I mean if he bought a freehold property next to a strip pub, only to spend the last five years trying to get the club closed down, it makes me wonder what else he’s capable of….
Can we expect Private Eye to do a Rotten Boroughs feature on Tower Hamlets before very long?
I had in mind something a little more radical……
Hmm…conflicts of interests never play well with the general public, and therefore ought to be exposed! 😉
Trust me, the details are being spread far and wide and hopefully they will fall on worthwhile ground…this is so not over yet.
Looking forward to the new place opening soon as well, as I am sure you must know about it. Not in Tower Hamlets obviously…..
Apparently, Tower Hamlets Council is delaying the results of the consultation due to ‘irregularities’ with the data, and is hiring in an outside ‘Forensic Data Company’ to reanalyse the results.
Hmm – it that the whiff of Old Billingsgate Market I can smell…? 😉
Oh what a surprise…..Forensic data analysis?
Desperation is what you can smell…..
Wow…check this out….
Leading anti club campaigner Rania Khan appears in the Daily Telegraph….
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/andrewgilligan/100125368/lutfur-rahman-cabinet-member-i-luv-my-weapons/
Bet you anything you like that she denies that its anything to do with her…
Go to the Daily Telegraph and see the latest blog posting by Andrew Gilligan, which contains interesting news about leading anti club campaigner, Rania Khan….
Gotta admit, that Rania Khan’s a class act – a true credit to local democracy! 😉
On a more general note, an interesting and well-informed article about Object:
http://moronwatch.net/2012/01/feminists-or-fascists.html
And a thought-provoking article which discusses the situation surrounding striptease in Tower Hamlets from a more academic perspective:
http://anthropologyworks.com/index.php/2011/12/28/lap-dancing-and-moralities-in-a-global-world/
The consultation closed six months ago on Tuesday, yet still no results published to date…
Well, well, well: today is the first anniversary of consultation closing and the official results STILL haven’t been announced by Tower Hamlets Council!