Strippers and vicar unite to fight cleanup campaign
Still from Hands Off, a film by Winstan Whitter
This article titled “Strippers and vicar unite to fight cleanup campaign” was written by Alexandra Topping, for The Guardian on Friday 10th December 2010 21.01 UTCOutside Hackney town hall in east London a battle for the soul of Shoreditch is raging as an unlikely coalition of strippers, club owners and a vicar pit themselves against a range of women’s groups and disgruntled residents who are fighting to close down the area’s sex shops, strip bars and adult cinemas.
Today around 30 erotic dancers, plus bar workers and strip club owners, marched on the town hall to protest against the council’s proposal to operate a “nil policy” in the borough, which supporters argue could act as a catalyst for change throughout the city. The night before a dozen or so activists gathered 200 signatures supporting the ban.
Carrying a banner outside the town hall, Jennifer Richardson, a stripper at Browns, one of four clubs clustered around the Shoreditch area, said the clubs were a vital part of the borough’s heritage. “If we lose them, Hackney loses part of its character and its edge,” said the 28-year-old Oxford graduate. “These places are a seed bed for creativity in the area. Without them, it loses a lot of its individuality.”
But Object, a group which campaigns against the objectification of women, argues that the clubs create a “no-go” area for women and foster an atmosphere of aggression that many find intimidating.
Rebecca Mordan, a Hackney resident who runs cabaret nights in the area, said she did not think the creativity of the area would be affected by a ban. “As a resident I fully support the nil policy, because walking past these venues is terrifying. How can women feel safe in there when I can’t feel safe just walking past?”
One woman told the organisation that she had been grabbed by the waist and picked up as she walked past one of the clubs, while Amnesty International staff, who work at an office near one of the venues, regularly get taxis home after working late to avoid confrontation, said Anna van Heeswijk, campaigns manager.
“The nil policy would be an important step in combating the sexual exploitation that takes place in places like these,” she said. “They are not just a bit of fun. They are often sites of sexual exploitation. They make sexual harassment seem normal and they create no-go areas for women and children who feel unsafe walking past them at night.” Consultation closes on Monday and if the council goes ahead the ban will be implemented at the end of January.
Tensions between the two groups are running high. Edie, who did not want to jeopardise her day job by giving her real name, called Object a “fanatical fright group”. A stripper in Hackney for 12 years, she argued that she had felt more demeaned working as a PA in the City.
“This is about prohibition and curtailing the rights of adults to decide what they want to do,” she said. “I am an adult and I don’t want to have to justify myself to a bunch of childish hysterics on some kind of Victorian missionary quest to save the fallen. What about all the Hackney trannie bars and gay cabarets – will the moral police censure them?”
Object argues that lapdancing clubs normalise the idea of women as sexual objects, and pits women, who pay the clubs between £15-40 per night to dance, against each other, leading to competition to attract custom. The dancers are not paid by the clubs and earn money by passing a glass round the men who have watched them dance. They get paid separately for a private dance.
But the women protesting today were furious that they could be seen as victims. They insisted there was solidarity between the strippers at the four Hackney clubs, the dancing happened on stage and a no-touching policy was strictly enforced. Although men did sometimes offer to pay more for private sexual activities, they could be politely rebuffed, or ejected from the establishments, they said. Loretta Landon, 23, was pragmatic about her job. “Frankly, I think the men who come into the clubs are more objectified than we are,” she said. “Some of them might have these romantic fantasies about us, but to us they are just walking wallets.”
The strippers and their clubs have found support from an unusual quarter. The vicar of the local St Leonard’s church in Shoreditch has accused Hackney council of trying to impose a “moral code” on its residents, and argued that the area would be more dangerous if the clubs lost their licence. “I’ve been here for 27 years and I remember the struggle to get these places licensed in the first place,” he said. “They were run by criminals, they were squalid – now they are well-run and brilliantly controlled. Why would we lose control of something that we worked so hard to get under control? The consequences of that worry me deeply.”
Club owners argue that if the council pushes ahead, 400 jobs will be lost and girls women forced underground into more dangerous, unregulated situations.
guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010
Published via the Guardian News Feed plugin for WordPress.
A nil policy for sex premises does smack of moral prurience. There is no reason that each application cannot be taken on its merits and approved or disapproved when seeking a licence and that there is somewhere in Hackney where the benefits of these establishments outweighs their negatives or where neighbours will not complain. Besides the one sex shop is in a very quiet non residential area and very discreet. It provides health promotion literature and materials and condoms and lubricant and other things to improve people’s sex lives. How does it make any sense to ban it outright? How are women scared in passing an unobtrusive door of a sex shop that caters largely to gay and bisexual men? There is no possible justification for a nil policy except a council which does not value sex or sexuality or the sexual health and well being of it’s residents but bows to the pressures of those who see only harms and cannot see the benefits and want everyone to behave as they do.
If the Amnesty women are going home via either Old Street tube or Liverpool Street then their route would take them in the other direction nowhere near the strip pubs which are 200 yards away and the other side of the railway viaduct. Perhaps they were making a detour, perhaps they are confusing the strip pubs punters with the general buzz of the area these days at night, or more likely Ms Van Heeswijk is adopting the usual Object strategy of making things up.
I feel that the article does not clearly state that that Anna van Heeswijk is a campaign manager for Object. Agreed she might work for Amnesty in her day job, but her comment was made with her Object hat on.
I agree with Bill about the location of premises and peoples walking routes. The only way they would even go near a venue would be if they were walking toward the Kingsland Road area, so lets face it there are other routes they could take. I have no doubt the resident Object supporters will argue that people should have the freedom to walk where they like. My response would be to agree with this view and remind them that people should also have the freedom to run any business that they like, as long as no laws are being broken.
Do you notice how there has been very little response from Object supporters with regard to this article…..I would have thought that they would have been all over it by now. Or could it be that have not received their posting orders from Ms van Heeswijk yet?
I must say that I do not know if Object makes things up or not. However I do believe that they are willing to throw any mud that they can find to win an argument and are happy to bend facts to make them fit the shape of their position.
I was very enouraged to see the GMB and Hackney TUC supports the dancers by opposing the Nil policy. Mr Kennedy and his colleagues on the Licensing Committee have opened a real can of worms here, one that will cost the council a great deal of money if it comes to court action. Which of course it will, as why should anyone lose a business because Hackney Council have decided to adopt a new set of moral values that have no basis in law, except of course for the laws that they chose to make up over a latte or two.
Rebecca Morden says.
“…….walking past these venues is terrifying. How can women feel safe in there when I can’t feel safe just walking past…..?”
Is this the same Rebecca Morden who is artistic director at Scary Little Girls, who is an actor, compere and presenter and who has conducted media and public speaking for corporations internationally as well as campaigning groups with challenging but vital issues to communicate such as CND, Abortion Rights and leading british feminist groups.
Is it the same Rebecca Morden who co-facilitated the “It’s easy out here for a pimp” anti-porn slide show.
So no bias there at all is there?
In answer to your question Rebecca, why not try and walk in one of the places you want closed down and ask one of the girls how it is they feel safe in there. They will explain and you will then have an opportunity to speak from direct experience and not from behind a shield of self imposed ignorance.
I commend Hackney Council for being the first local authority to take a stand against the commodification of women.
As an organisation of men [White Ribbon Campaign] which works to end male violence against women, we represent many men who feel sorry for any man who has so little self respect that they want to relate to women in this way. We also acknowledge that while the majority of women feel unsafe to walk the streets at night, closing down such clubs is a major step towards developing a culture of respect where women will feel safe to walk their own streets at night.
Hi Chris
While I agree that The White Ribbon campaign does a lot of good work and lets face it Cosmpolitan Magazine awarded you the “Ultimate Man of Year” award in 2007, however that does not mean that you can make veiled insults about customers and get away with it.
What is more important here, that women FEEL more safe walking their own streets at night or actually ARE more safe. There is no provable link between the prescence of clubs and sexual assault and I challenge you to name me the court case where the accused made the link.
Object and White Ribbon are selling the idea that if licensed clubs are closed, violence against women will cease. That is an argument that is naive and dangerous and quite frankly you should be ashamed. You are supporting a policy that will lead to the growth of unlicensed premises run by criminals that will absolutely expose women to a greater risk of abuse. Are you seriously telling me that you do not understand this?
Still if Object get their way it could open the door for Jeremy Coutinho to be awarded “Ultimate Man of the Year” in 2011, in fact I bet he has already written his acceptance speech.
I just want to be clear. I am Edie from the article and all of my disparaging remarks are directed at Object and Object alone, not at Hackney Council. I consider Object to be dangerous to women, against freedom and more misogynistic and hateful than the men they fear.
This argument needs to be taken away from ‘feminism’, as all the strippers I know call themselves feminists, and expanded to the real debate which is about freedom.
I am so pleased to hear about this proposal. The vicar and other people who say this will push lap dancing underground are talking rubbish. Other local authorities such as Westminster have made it clear that they will not be proposing a nil policy, so if punters and people who can work in these places can keep go there. Westminster is hardly far!
I suggest that David, Bill, Chasmal and Edie read this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/mar/19/gender.uk/print.
I also suggest to Bill and Chasmal that they’re the ones “making things up” about Object!
If you want to have a discussion about “freedom”, what about women’s “freedom” to feel safe? And what about women’s “freedom” from sexual degradation and objectification?
Sarah Stone….What is your basis for saying the vicar is talking rubbish about underground venues?
Furthermore your contribution gives me the impression that your are ok about the ‘sexual objectification of women’ as long as it is not happening in Hackney.
Rhona….I read the article some time ago and the statistics are deeply shocking. Out of interest where did the assaults take place in Camden, in which ward? What was the relationship between the victim and the assailant, given the majority of perpetrators are known to their victims (Fawcett Society – Rape: The Facts). Are you saying that in the majority of cases the perpetrator was a customer in a club or that the presence of the club in the borough made the attacker more likely to commit an offence? Because if clubs actually are the trigger mechanism behind sexual assault, then I am with you and they should all be closed.
Recently I downloaded an excel spreadsheet with the numbers of rapes and other sexual assaults [link added by Editor 14/12/10] presented borough by borough, month by month over the past two years. I did this because I wanted to see what was going on for myself. I put the results in the form of a graph and I saw something that was very disturbing and that should be investigated.
Why in virtually every borough in London was there a spike in the number of assaults in March of this year….Anyones views would be welcome because I do not think it was because a load of new clubs opened everywhere, because I am not aware that they did.
Chasmal – in my opinion lap dancing clubs should not exist full stop. That is what I would like to see happen. I strongly believe that lap dancing clubs are harmful to society. However realistically I know that is not going to happen, and lap dancing clubs will continue to exist.
So my point is that, if Hackney goes ahead with the nil policy, this will not result in illegal unregulated clubs, as the vicar suggests, as anyone who wants to work or visit a lap dancing club can go to a place like Westminster. Hence the argument that it will result in illegal clubs is rubbish. For example, if I want to go to late night bar, and there is not one in my immediate vicinity, this will not result in illegal ones opening as there are legal ones not far away.
Sarah – I see what you are saying, but I have to disagree and this is why….
The existing clubs in Hackney are essentially pubs with strippers. Their business model is essentially that of any pub, in the sense of free entry and average pub prices, so if you want to spend money you can, but if you want to limit your budget and spend £30 for your night out, the option is there for you. There is a 30 year history of this in Hackney.
The Westminster venues are very different and are basically clones of Stringfellows. So the average customer with £30 to spend will find that most of that is spent after they have bought their entry and two bottles of beer. Therefore the average Hackney venue customer will not transfer their business to Westminster. Also you may not realise that most Hackney club customers actually dislike the idea of lapdancing clubs and I am among this group.
Therefore if the ‘Nil’ Policy is implemented and every Hackney club is closed, I guarantee to you that someone will open an illegal underground venue on the basis that the demand will be there. Things will return to the unregulated environment that existed years ago and the local vicar remembers this as he has been in the borough since the early 1980s.
With these kinds of venues will come a great deal of trouble that will blight Hackney. I have been visiting these venues in Hackney for 15 years and I understand the business model and customer dynamic very well. Finally, if you wonder if I would visit an illegal venue,……the answer is no, but there enough people out there to make the risk worth taking for the wrong kind of entrepreneur.
Let’s see if I follow Object’s argument correctly … if Hackney Council closes down all venues for gay men (a distinct possibility, were they to continue this “moral” crusade), then all homophobic attacks would cease in the borough.
JJ – Indeed. ‘Expectations’ is included in the closure list because of its wares. Really quite amazing how the council is getting away with what amounts to homophobic discrimination.
I wonder what Objects view on this is? If it were a feminist bookshop earmarked for closure, Hackney Council would need close air support to survive. Still maybe the view is that in some battles there are casualties and in the bigger picture the sacrifice is worthwhile if it furthers their cause.
Chasmal – can you disclose your interest in this debate? It seems to go beyond the purely personal (which is fine) but given your skilful use of google to ‘expose’ facts about other posters above it would be interesting to know if you have a professional link to the industry or any other professional interest?
I can’t understand what JJ is talking about regarding gay venues. I don’t know anyone who is against gay venues, certainly not Object! A gay venue is is absolutely no way comparable to a lap dancing club.
As a member of Object I disagree with the large scale objectification of women in our society. If someone can go to a lapdancing club and pay to buy a sexual encounter with a woman – this contributes to the wide-ranging sexual objectification of women. In my opinion, women and women’s sexuality are not for sale. Men are not objectified and available to buy like this, so why women? It is this objectification that leads to increased sexual harassment that women experience.
Hi Sophie.
My interest is purely personal and accrued from years as a customer in Hackney clubs. I have no professional or indeed personal connection with the industry.
I am concerned about the legislation for two reasons, the first is the destruction of a subculture and the second is the potential for misuse of the legislation.
This has happened.
The Home Office guidance for SEVs makes absolutely no mention of sex shops. There is one sex shop in Hackney and it is Expectations, a bookshop and social resource for the local gay community.
Therefore it is hard not to reach the conclusion that Hackney Council are choosing to target Expectations and it also difficult not to reach the conclusion that the council are choosing to indulge in homophobic behaviour.
For Ms E, the issue is about lapdancing and the SEV legislation is a useful tool for achieving her views. However there are others with different views that will seek to further their own social vision, using the same legislation. Lapdancing and gay clubs are very different places if you look at it from a reasonable perspective. Others however are not reasonable and see the issue from maybe a religious perspective, as far as they are concerned, lapdancing and gay clubs are identical and a threat.
Welcome to the dark ages…..
I am not an expert on legislation – but my understanding is that the new legislation which covers lap dancing clubs does not include sex shops. I thought they were licensed by the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. I am wrong then?
I have read a number of these comments threads after various articles on this topic – I know there are many relevant issues and I assure you I am no prude but I do support the policy and I have responded to the consultation. It may be a bit of a blunt instrument but it is mainly aimed at dealing with the impact these establishments (be they lap dancing clubs or topless or naked bars) have on the local area, and cumulatively all over the country on society at large. It isn’t about imposing a moral view that women shouldn’t work in these places and it makes no difference to me that they are run by women.
I find it even more abhorrent that people on here are opposing the policy because the specific bars in Hackney are not lapdancing venues. Oh so it’s ok that women dance naked while men are ‘just having a beer’?? I can only object if the women writhe around in men’s laps? As a woman that is a vile prospect and is part of the normalisation of this kind of activity that women are protesting about – as was the appearance of the semi-naked Christina Aguilera and Rhianna and their dancers on X factor at the weekend. How can we address the increasing sexualisation of young girls if they walk down the street and see men going into these places and see adverts for them? A Spearmint Rhino employee lives near me and I have to see the posters on his ‘company car’ most days. There is also the impact on men’s view of women – increasingly expecting us to have boob jobs or shave ourselves to look like the girls who perform in these bars. I supported Object and the Fawcett Society’s licensing campaign earlier this year and I would also oppose any attempt by the Hooters chain to open in Hackney even though they claim to be a family restaurant.
Perhaps Hackney council have conflated several issues in their approach to this consultation but I do think they are responding to a general groundswell of opinion that in the twentyfirst century women should be treated as equals! I have to go past these bars in Shoreditch and I also pass bars in Farringdon on my way to work. I also went to Proud in Camden a few weeks ago and was confronted with writhing female pole dancers on the stage for some reason – I found that especially shocking as I thought I was just going to a latenight bar for a few drinks, not a sex encounter establishment. Surely I should at least be able to make an informed choice?
I know its a trite question to pose but to those of you who admit to visiting these bars – would you be comfortable with your wife or any female friend or relative working in these places, knowing as you do why you visit them?
Ms E – No you are not wrong, If that is the case, why then is Expectations included in this issue?
Sophie – please forgive me because I am a little tired, but I would be comfortable with my wife or any female friend or relative working in these places.
As I have answered your question, let me pose one of my own….Why do I visit these places?
To end what in your terms is the objectification of women…..
1. Close all lapdancing and strip venues.
2. All Lads mags and other pornographic magazines to cease publication.
3. All stocks of the above to be seized and destroyed.
4. Possession and distribution of the above to be made illegal.
5. All sex shops to be closed, their stock seized and destroyed and private possession of such goods to be made illegal.
6. The production of images of naked and semi naked women to be made illegal. This would include marketing materials.
7. Public nudity or semi nudity to be made illegal. This would include theatres and similar venues and leisure areas such as beaches, although 1 piece swimsuits would be permitted as long as they were state approved.
8. All Uk based internet sites featuring naked or semi naked still or moving images of women to be closed.
9. Access to non UK based internet servers featuring the above to be curtailed by firewall technology.
10. Beauty pageants and similar to be made illegal
11.Elective cosmetic surgery to be made illegal
12. Television programmes and films featuring naked or semi naked women to be prohibited. Legacy recordings to be edited.
Please consider my list and tell me which one of these is going too far or if you wish, feel free to add to it.
Also Sophie, having read my response about why illegal venues are likely to spring up in Hackney…What are your views as your last contribution went off on a different tangent.
Ms.topping article doesnt mention the shooting or stabbing in hoxton that had occurred that week.This is what the real locals worry about,not the closure of two venues that have been in shoreditch for years,well before we were being told :hoxton is trendy:.I wish Ms.Topping had come to talk to us,the residents and tenants of Hoxton who have lived here our whole lives,so where do papers like the guardian find the people who must be intervied?There is a word being used:heterophobic or heterophobia.This is where straight people feel they are under attack much like gays use the word homophobia.
Chasmal yes please. If all your points were implemented, life for women and men would be more equal and the world would be a better place to live.
It’s also objectification (not to mention dehumanisation) to treat women as some sort of faceless homogenous group that needs to be protected because it can’t make decisions for itself. Women are individuals and have their own thoughts, opinions and feelings on issues (including this one).
I really don’t believe there is a “right” answer or opinion on this matter. But I also get irritated by people and groups who feel the need to cloak their self interests in the guise of “protecting” every member of some group or other. Even if they’ve never been asked to.
I don’t like lap dancing clubs or strip bars or peep shows or whatever. And I think that any good they do (helping pay for food, clothing, school, a roof, etc) is probably mitigated by the bad they do as well. I don’t want them in my neighbourhood, either.
But I’m not about to tell adults (including women) what they can and can’t do. I can deal with these clubs being closed down because the neighbours don’t like them and *maybe* because the Council wants to clean up the Borough in advance of the Olympics. But don’t try to whitewash that and act like it’s about doing right by women everywhere.
I’m reticent to see these clubs forced out of existence in the name of women’s rights. Whenever a woman comes up with a way to make money for herself, a man has to come along and either figure out how to co-opt it or drive her out of business.
A few points:
1.The Shoreditch pubs do NOT offer lap dancing and contact is NOT allowed during private dances. If staff notice touching, the girls are fined.
2. Many dancers think it is they who are exploiting men – not least by asking £10-20 to dance in front of them “privately” in a dimly-lit room. In fact the dances aren’t private because other couples are present.
3. The Shoreditch pubs are better regulated than many elsewhere.
4. Sarah: you’re the one talking nonsense when you say “The vicar and other people who say this will push lap dancing underground are talking rubbish.” It’s already happening in other parts of London.
5. The new regulations allow a venue to have 11 strip events a year by merely notifying the council. Close the Shoreditch Four, and there’s the opportunity for a rash of events all over the borough.
6. Does the Council have the staff-time and money to monitor such events – and to contest any legal action taken against it in the event of it refusing an existing venue a renewed licence?
Gordon
“it’s also objectification (not to mention dehumanisation) to treat women as some sort of faceless homogenous group that needs to be protected because it can’t make decisions for itself”.
Will Hackney Council be banning the Burka next?
The entire campaign was supported by a number of press articles that attempted to dehumanize dancers…
In March 2009, the delightful Caitlin Moran wrote “…..no strong woman is working at a strip club, full stop…..
At the same, Amanda Platell wrote and article in the Daily Mail entitled..
”…My sickening encounter with vermin in lap-dance clubs … their existence degrades us all…’
Suzanne Moore made the following contribution, stating that dancers “…do what they do plus the added ‘extras’ because they need the money. For drugs, for the rent, for the family…”
So what were these journalists trying to say? Sadly its obvious. If a dancers right to earn a living is compromised by the closure of a club, do not worry about it, its ok. They after all weak, thick, drug using, prostitute vermin and do not matter.
If any of the above articles had been written about a particular racial group it would be my guess that the writers would have been prosecuted for race hate crimes and be leaving prison just in time to see the first clubs closed.
I find it ironic that one the most insidious assaults on female liberty has been orchestrated by Object and its supports in the media.
Thank you ‘Woman’ for approving my list (21). It was refreshing to see a feminist be open and honest about the kind of society they want to see. However, for those of us more fully engaged in society………be afraid, very, very afraid.
Finally, a question. If someone writes a play about the strip plubs. In this play, an actress performs a fully nude pole dance.
Is it legal for this play to be performed in Hackney?
If it is legal – why? If not – why not?
Chasmal – Can you tell everyone why you enjoy going to these bars?
Hi Sophie
I am happy to answer you if you answer the question I posed in (20), reproduced below…..
“As I have answered your question, let me pose one of my own….Why do I visit these places?”
Actually Sophie….
Do not answer if you do not want to, I have better idea. I am involved with something at the moment and sadly cannot give this my full attention. I will respond by 5.00pm today.
I’ll leave Chasmal to reply for himself, but I started going to strip pubs because I like girls with nothing on. Then I found that most were very nice and honest – and interesting because they come from all over the world. I admire the way they are able to remain pleasant on a shift that can last eight hours or more, sometimes coping with very boring and inadequate men.
They compare very well indeed with some of the females I see in public, wearing very scanty clothes late at night, getting drunk and swearing – posing far more of a social problem than dancers. I seldom hear a dancer swear and most moderate their alcohol intake when working. What goes on in the four Hackney pubs is bland compared with pubs elsewhere and it’s regulated. There are some very real social problems evident on streets in many parts of Hackney for the council (and feminists) to tackle.
Gordon
I am asking you! I have ideas of course but I specifically didn’t speculate above as it would not be fair of me and of course you would shoot me down …
So care to explain so that we can understand why you would like these places to survive?
But I asked you first on December 15th. I might not shoot you down either, it depends upon your speculations. Nonetheless I will make you a genuine offer………
I will explain everything to you and you only. I will not disclose details on a public forum because I wish to maintain my privacy.
Therefore if you can engineer a mechanism by which this can be achieved, I am happy to co-operate with you and will entertain any suggestion you care to make.
I work at Browns as a bar maid and the establishments that Object are speaking about are nothing like the venue where I work. No abuse takes place there, sexual or otherwise. It is extremely well run, the owners care very much about the girls that work there, and every dancer there is a grown adult who is working there of their own volition. The idea that a well run establishment like Browns is a den of sleaze, exploitation and vice is just ludicrous. If Denise the owner got a whiff of any of the dancers doing drugs they would be sacked on the spot, and they only need to give the doorman a nod and any customer will be thrown out onto the street. Why on earth would a club like Browns need to employ trafficked women? Dancers are queueing up to work there as it is well known as the best place to dance in london. It has the best management, is the safest, the most friendly and the girls make the most money. The idea that it creates a no go area for women and children is insane, many of our customers are women, especially on a Saturday night. It is completely unobtrusive, many people come in accidentally because they think it is a restaurant, most walk out again but some, male and female stay and have a drink there. It is not just your area, it is mine too, I live and work in Hackney as do most of the staff and dancers. Browns has been there for 30 years. It is a disgrace when people move to an area and then set about trying to change it to suit them. The place of local government is not to censor what goes on legally between consenting adults. I hope so much that this unlawful policy is rejected as I love working at Browns and would hate for my dancer friends to move to other clubs which don’t respect and care for the girls in the way that Browns does.
Sorry to comment again, but some of the responses above have made me quite annoyed.
Why is it wrong for a woman to decide that she doesn’t want to struggle on a waitresses wage, or as an office temp? Why is it wrong for a grown up to decide that she wants to do a masters, or study in UK from abroad, or buy a house, or support her children, by taking off her clothes and dancing 3 feet away from a man? Not all women have wealthy families, or wealthy partners, and not all women can be doctors and lawyers. So why are middle class feminists (which I would consider myself as, but I think that being a feminist means you have a right to choose how you live your own life, not have someone else choose for you) telling dancers that no, they can’t earn £50k a year for their studies or their families by taking their clothes off. They have to wash dishes, clean houses, answer phones and do the photocopying for a fraction of what they are earning now, because naked dancing is immoral.
Its just nakedness! Its just dancing! How on earth is it hurting you?
Just a point the Camden rape stats quoted by Object are total rubbish as they well know but continually repeat, the real numbers are,
Rapes Strip venues
1999 46 2
2000 83 4
2001 79 5
2002 69 6
2003 47 6
2004 51 5
2005 72 5
2006 70 5
2007 42 5
as anybody can see there is absolutley no correlation. Object know this but prefer to lie.
In Post 16 Ms E wrote
“In my opinion, women and women’s sexuality are not for sale. Men are not objectified and available to buy like this, so why women? It is this objectification that leads to increased sexual harassment that women experience. ”
MS E do you live on the same planet as the rest of us? What about the Dream boys etc? Do you truly believe there are no male strippers who dance for women? Do male escorts not exist ?(I’m not saying I approve of this incidentally). Or do you not like to admit that any of your” Sisters”are capable of treating men as sex objects ? if you were to attend a venue where women are watching male strippers -you’d find it to be a scary experience -seeing women in a pack behave as they do in such a sitiuation. Men watching girls stripping are surprisingly, if not shockingly, passive by comparison, but you’ll never know if you don’t research it first hand.
Bill is right in that the rapes that occurred in Camden were not associated with striptease venues but in fact associated with Night Clubs. In which case surely Hackney Council would do better to start closing ev ery Night Club.
The dancers I have met, in general, are intelligent and using this career choice to fund longer term plans be they family orientated or business. Some just love being on stage. It is the choice of an adult selecting the career path they want.
Both Rebecca Mordan and Anna van Heeswijk have connections with Object, in fact Ms van Heeswijk works for them when she is not working for Amnesty. This does sort of suggest that there is a bias on their statements.
So why do I go to these sorts of venues? I use to go for the eroticism when I was younger as it excited me but it also helped me remain loyal to my wife as I could look but not touch. Nowdays being in a wheelchair I find that it is somewhere I can go and be treated like any other person, I am not pitied or ignored as I have been in other normal bars.
I could go on but other people here are putting forward the valid reasons I will just add that events put on via TENs are not covered by the council and can only be stopped by the police with a valid legal reason. The council have absolutely no power to reject a TENs notice.
To back up Tony’s point, I’ve seen dancers being especially kind to their less-able customers, and I don’t meant how they dance for them but how they treat them generally. It’s really nice to see.
The girls don’t appreciate groups like Object interfering on their behalf and they can look after themselves. To reinforce one of my own points, I wish the feminists of this world would do something about their silly little “sisters” who go around at night with skirts 10 inches above their knees, ending up drunk. That does embarrass me, especially when a couple of them sit opposite me on a train using the f word twice a minute. The other night I saw three such girls parading through a station concourse attracting looks from the guys hanging around.
Now that is OBJECTionable. At least dancers can look after themselves and work in a controlled environment with peer support.
Nearly all other councils with existing strip and lap-dancing venues are allowing them to continue rather than waste their ratepayers’ money. Word has it that if Hackney persists with its draft policy it will face a judicial review – which means more public money being spent on legal fees. And as I’ve said, displays of female nudity will persist in Hackney – in venues here, there and everywhere in the borough. And it won’t be so safe for the girls. I know of “private” functions in other parts of London where there have been problems recently because of guys wandering in to the insecure room where the girls leave their handbags and going through them, and the other day a drunk got very unpleasant and the girls had no “security” present as at licensed venues.