AlicetheKurious wrote:Iceland has just banned all strip clubs. Perhaps it's down to the lesbian prime minister, but this may just be the most female-friendly country on the planet
So it's female friendly to forbid women, in the depths of a major recession no less, to perform an entirely harmless act as respectable employment. Well, I'm sure they'll be glad they're no longer being exploited as they sign on in the dole queue, or beg for some much less well paid job.
Probably no surprise that I don't agree with feminists but women should be able to work in any field that doesn't harm anyone. Regulation is will make it safer, unlike criminalisation. And, of course, this legal prohibition will be no more effective that it is in any other developed nation. As the Daily Mash website said when the government recently criminalised methodrone, "Government to make thing slightly more expensive and much more dangerous".
blue wrote:Everyone seems to ignore the stats about why women do this work and the stats about how many women are raped, including a huge number of female soldiers raped by their "brothers in arms." And of course the answer is that WOMEN should take more courses on self-defense and WOMEN should NOT do certain things or dress certain ways.
Not quite sure how rape came up, but there's a simple reason women do the naked dancing work, it's well paid. I'm another straight-laced one, I certainly don't approve of all this public displayance of libidinitude. But the experience of "wage slavery" is hardly unique to women. Men tend to do more of it, and especially in those professions which involve the greatest risk of death. Now I'm against the wage slavery and the compulsion to work on the sufferance of others at a rate set by the manipulators of the labour market, but in simple material terms strippers have a relatively safe, untaxing and profitable line of work.
But I suppose if you've spent years trying to convince people women are uniquely disadvantaged in modern society this may be an inconvenient position.
Women and sex are treated far too especially. Feminists seem to think all women have the inherent right to a life akin to that of a privileged American university girl, and I suppose I don't need to point out the special position sex hold in society.
MacCruiskeen wrote:Translation: If a government can't immediately prevent any man from ever inviting any woman for a meal, or any husband from ever having more money than his wife, then it's hypocritical to introduce legal measures protecting all women from having to spend x hours a night rubbing themselves into the groins of random fat ugly wealthy drunken strangers in order to earn enough to pay the rent (and the pimp's fee) while being required by the pimp to pretend to look as if they're enjoying it.
Of course noone's been made to do anything, they've chosen to do it. This law will push them into the grasp of pimps who haven't hitherto been able to compete with the less sinister establishments, the law abiding ones who are now going to be shut down. If you make strip clubs illegal, only criminals will have strip clubs.
You might as well be saying "let's ban that mary-joanna so wes don't gets the reefer madness". Another unnecessary law, another unnecessary restriction on freedom, another attempt to ban something which is doomed to failure, another business driven into the hands of organised crime.
Blue wrote:A lesbian making a statement about women being treated as commodities is no where near the "War on Drugs" analogy, dude.
Sigh. It is so difficult to get yall to understand!
She isn't a Prude, she isn't Polite Society, she isn't taking away your dick, okay?
She's trying to change the thought patterns of her country. She wants to bust the Patriarchal world as she sees fit!
Why are you against this change?
Is it important that she's a lesbian. I mean, I'm sexually attracted to women too, as I imagine most of the customers of these strip clubs to be, but you don't seem to have the same rosy view of their position on the betterment of the position of women. And she is, in fact, polite society. A prime minister is pretty much the epitome of polite society, as is this policy. Obviously, there's no such thing as a patriarchal world. And I am very much against this change because it's bad for everyone. It's bad to have extra laws driving more work into the hands of scumbag lawyers, it's bad having more forbidden things given over to profiteering scumbag gangsters. It's bad to not be able to pay a naked woman to dance for you, and for that matter for women to be legally forbidden from "profiting from nudity".
AlicetheKurious wrote:The problem of women tricked with promises of decent work, then kidnapped and transported to other countries where they are kept against their will by way of threats, induced drug addiction and physical abuse, has grown out of control. Sex slavery of women is a global industry that is mostly run by the same people who traffic in little children, drugs, guns and god knows what else.
100 women a year, an unknown proportion of which are enthusiastic economic migrants rather than sex slaves, is hardly an epidemic. And prohibition is far more likely to increase than decrease that number.
As part of my research, I spent a couple of hours in the strip club where she worked, along with one of my best friends, Dave, who was there to take pictures for the article. That was the only time in my entire life I've been inside a strip club. I'll never forget it. The waitresses were all naked. The women on the stage were naked. I had stepped into a universe where all women, regardless of what they were outside, were dehumanized pieces of meat whose value depended solely on their physical attractiveness to the customers.
Advice: don't go to a naturist colony.
Blue wrote:When people point out the law students or pre-med women trying to work their way through school it's weird how they don't see how sexist that is. How many successful male lawyers, doctors, senators or hey, Presidents worked their way through college fucking in front of a camera or giving lap dances? Name one. Yet it's now supposed to be a "normal" career path for intelligent women.
Not being a feminist, I have a viewpoint not entirely biased towards the women-as-victim position. You don't see any, because they couldn't. If all else fails a woman who can't afford her degree can strip, at least if she something of a looker. For a man this isn't an option, the only option available to a man would be not getting an education. See that as a sign of oppression of women if you want.
While I'm sure many women enjoy getting paid to fuck or perform that doesn't mean they aren't commodities, objects to be used.
Yeah, sometimes people spend time doing things they don't like in exchange for monetary recompense. This is a shameful and despicable system, commonly known as "work". People are required, although this may be difficult for some to believe, to trade their bodily freedom and wellbeing for the necessaries of survival, trading the only commodity they have on hand, their bodily labours, for that medium of exchange which can be used to acquire goods and services.
The system (as Alice said much more eloquently than I) is dependent upon market demand and thinking that you are not part of the exploitation inherent in the system because you work "solo" is not being honest with yourself. Why does the market demand continue to push ALL girls and women into that sex class? Why is it absolutely necessary that women dress, groom, alter their body and behave in a pornified manner these days to get noticed?
I don't think it is. I mean, I'd be noticed too if I wore very little clothing and painted my face like a clown. Of course, unlike a woman, I'd probably be incarcerated rather than becoming the object of sexual desire. So if women want the sort of attention pimping themselves, to use what I believe to be the modern parlance, attracts then they can do so. If not, I suggest presenting yourself in a more restrained manner. I'm sure you'll object to not being able to go around in skimpy clothing without become a sex object, but if I went around in a posing pouch I'd have no complaints if people made sexual comments. But, you know, I don't. And as usual the world would be better if more people acted like me.
Why are designers stocking Walmart and Sears with little girl high heels, make-up and hot pants that say "juicy" on the bottom?
Well, I can only guess, but probably because they're paedos.
Yet at the same time when a conservative woman like Condoleezza Rice or Sarah Palin wears a black leather jacket or boots she's a whore! It's something to behold how outraged liberal men became when Sarah *winked* during the campaign! So did Bubba. I think Palin is a babbling Dominionist wacko, but she did not pose naked or make sex movies to garner votes.
It's the Madonna/Whore Complex where women can't win unless we play by the men's rules and it affects all women at home, in school and in the work place.
You see, I know lots of women whom I interact with on the bizarre and outlanding premise that they're basically humans like myself, albeit all the ones I know are somewhat objectionable in various ways. Still, we get along. Through familiarity I'm quite aware that women aren't of superior moral fibre, but there's more to them than sex, which really doesn't interest me.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
I think that's part of the appeal of the places, you can go in and not worry about that sort of thing, you can just openly ogle any of the girls, unlike in real life. You can also say something to a girl like "you are so gorgeous I can't stand it" and it's not inappropriate.
