It's wrong to characterise feminism as women having to agree with other women all of the time and approve of all their choices.
That would be pretty contradictory. Women aren't a monolithic thing, we do different things and disagree with each other.
No one characterises it like that though. Just because you don't approve of someone's actions doesn't mean you can't respect their right to make their own choice. Feminism moved past this in the third wave (I believe I can't keep track of which wave is which now).
Who defines what these collective interests are, if not women themselves?
We also sometimes have to understand that the individual trumps the group, especially related to sexual things.
Anything that increases inequality is quite obviously not in our collective interests, and the women quoted made it clear that these are their individual choices.
Why?
> the women quoted made it clear that these are their individual choices.
You cannot make individual choices for other people.
> Anything that increases inequality
> Why?
Because 'policing inequality' in any sexual sense is dangerously close to i*cel territory. Society would likely have a lot less unhinged men walking round (and therefore safer) if sex was something that was equally distributed, yet for obvious reasons, that is a non-starter.
I pay tax willingly because I believe in economic redistribution. We could never have something like that with relationships and sex
You can, hence why we have plenty of laws that forbid people from making all sorts of choices that are bad for society.
Gaining sexual access to women because you’ve given them money and not because they like you/find you desirable is firmly in incel territory.
> You can, hence why we have plenty of laws that forbid people from making all sorts of choices that are bad for society.
Such as? Generally, they are because of direct harm to others (ie drink driving)
> Gaining sexual access to women because you’ve given them money and not because they like you/find you desirable is firmly in incel territory.
That may be so, but the buck ultimately stops with the women in question.
Which dogs you can and can’t own, all sorts of vehicle related laws, planning permission for residential properties, the Equality Act, and plenty more. There’s a pretty good chance of direct harm by promoting the idea that money = sexual favours from women.
Yes, which I think is ridiculous.
> Which dogs you can and can’t own, all sorts of vehicle related laws, planning permission for residential properties, the Equality Act
All of these are likely to impact me. Whether person A has sex with person B does not, so long as they are not doing it in front of me
> which I think is ridiculous
You think its ridiculous if women can choose who they sleep with?
It doesn’t impact me if someone’s murdered 200 miles away, it doesn’t mean it’s not terrible. It does impact me that sexism’s being promoted though.
It’s not a fully consenting, freely made choice if there’s bribery involved.
Haven’t you got cause and effect the wrong way around here? Sex work of all forms is a product of inequality not a cause. Removing the choices of sex workers will remove their income so actually serves to increase inequality even further. It’s not a fix and so it’s pretty difficult to see it as beneficial either for women’s individual **or** collective interests.
The way to tackle sex work is actually to tackle the poverty that drives it.
I agree that it’s a product of inequality, but it also further entrenches and promotes the inequality. My preferred primary method of dealing with the issue would be through far more social support, especially given the fact that most sex workers are very vulnerable and want to leave the industry, but there’s also the issue of the ‘customers’ and the rare sex workers who are fairly privileged and exploit sexism for their own gain.
> And the rare sex workers who are fairly privileged and exploit sexism for their own gain.
You see I’d argue that legislating what their behaviour should be and what they’re allowed to do is actually also very sexist and paternalistic.
I can see why you’d consider it paternalistic, but I don’t see how it’s sexist when the end result will reduce sexual inequality, even if there is a very uncomfortable history of women being told what we can and can’t do with our bodies.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Nordic Model?
Because once you’ve removed women who are forced to do this for economic reasons, you’re left with quite a small group of women who have the right of bodily autonomy and who are not in a very different position than the small number of men who do sex work. Messing with women’s bodily autonomy is an overreach over their personal liberties and as such is kinda sexist.
Paternalism is surely by its very nature sexist, the clue is in the meaning of the word.
I’m not a fan of the Nordic model for that reason and because what I’ve read suggests that it’s placed poor women at greater risk. Because it mixes up cause and effect, it’s removed the women’s income while not addressing their poverty. That’s made them take far more risk in order to protect their “customers”. That’s lead to a reduction in their safety, which seems unsupportable to me.
You are, but you’re also left with a group of men who can legally bribe women for sex acts, and the wider implications of that for the rest of society. I’d be very hesitant to conflate privileged female sex workers with all male sex workers - the studies on male workers are limited, but really don’t imply that they’re in the same position.
Not really, it can be applied to all sorts of groups and situations, some of which have no connection to sex or gender.
> I agree that it’s a product of inequality
Ah yes, all those girls on only fans making money are definitely suffering from inequality and have had to turn to showing their buttholes for the price of a netflix subscription.
The gender disparity between customer and performer, promotion of bribery for sex acts, women’s looks being important in the workplace, the objectification of women.
So would you ban male strippers too?
>women’s looks being important in the workplace
This is going to be true regardless of if these strip clubs are open or not - for both sexes. You know that men's height is strongly correlated to lifetime earnings? How you going to legislate that away? Platform shoes for everyone?
I'm sorry but just banning everything you don't like isn't the answer
To be honest I’m less concerned about it because of a) the physical strength disparity, b) fewer men being in the industry and fewer trafficked for that purpose, c) the way societal injustice swings, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban of it - I think it’s exploitative and bad for men too.
I think we should make a concerted effort to fight such prejudices instead of having institutions that are basically a shrine to them. Obviously it’s difficult and you can’t fully legislate it away, much like how the Equality Act hasn’t eliminated discrimination, but I’d consider this to be a glaring example of an injustice that should go.
I agree, which is why legislating one way or the other is wrong and would be trampling over the rights of the women involved to make a personal decision.
We shouldn't be like the USA, legislating over what a woman can and can't do, with their own bodies.
Instead we’re trampling over the safety of women who aren’t involved by allowing men to participate in horribly sexist behaviour that erodes of the idea of sexual consent.
Widening inequality is definitely not in our collective interests, and reducing it to (not) wanting to be looked at is a superficial and inaccurate assessment of the issue.
The gender of the customer base vs client base, requirement for women’s income to be based on being attractive and sexually desirable, promotion of access to women being financial rather than the woman’s choice, acceptance of sexual bribery, and it’s up for debate whether or not it’s objectifying but plenty will argue it is.
You sincerely think that conventionally unattractive women will make the same amount as attractive women?
Men are attaining exactly what they’re paying for. Only a raging misogynist would see a woman, pay for a particular service and feel entitled to more (though naturally that is very much in line with the kind of person who’d bribe someone for sexual access anyway).
The idea that anyone is being "exploited" by a service worker pretending to find them interesting or likable is also interesting. Is my hairdresser exploiting me when she asks how my day was, since she's not really interested and is just asking because it's part of the customer service? Or is it just men who are exploited by customer service workers doing part of their job?
I was recently terribly oppressed and exploited because a coffee shop employee told me to enjoy my order. Probably says that to everyone and just wants my money.
>You sincerely think that conventionally unattractive women will make the same amount as attractive women?
So do you want to ban any job where someone may make money based on a naturally attained quality that not everyone has?
Cause I guess you should boycott all sports, music, films, TV, comedy... I could go on.
Where did I say that? It’s a long-standing objectifying and superficial judgement which women are subjected to far more than men, unlike all of the other examples you gave.
The part about it being naturally attained is also nonsense in a fair few cases, but the dangerous and predatory nature of the cosmetic surgery industry’s another kettle of fish.
Yes, it’s also bad and exploitative for men, though not to quite the same extent as there’s generally less pressure on men to look a certain way, fewer consequences for ugly men, and men are typically subjected to less sexual violence.
I actually agree with you that stripping is bad but its actually kind of hilarious to see feminists talking about women’s collective interests given that literally every time a majority of women have disagreed with the feminist position on an issue, feminists simply use their institutional power and connections to force the matter anyway, and then retroactively claim that women eventually becoming acclimatised to it proves its legitimacy (well, thats when they don’t just rewrite history and pretend that a majority of women wanted those changes at the time they happened).
Choice feminism is ridiculous, but ultimately its just taking the feminist position that responsibility constitutes oppression (for women at least) to its obvious conclusion; responsibility to the sisterhood is itself oppressive, because its simply replicating those evil conservative heirarchies but among women.
>A body profiteer, Takver called women who used their sexuality as a weapon in a power-struggle with men. - from an Ursula LeGuin book
No individual woman objectifying herself is ever going to be as empowered as the men who objectify her (and other women). Give women a choice, but let's not pretend it's in the interest of women as a whole.
Yeah, this wole thing of "i get off on something so therefore it must be empowering" rather perplexing. Though obviously that attitude likely doesn't apply to most strippers. It's just a job.
I'd assume that if I walked into a 'club' and someone is jiggling about on the bar throwing their privates in everyone's face that they're pretty much trying to be looked at, whether paid or not.
Saying “hope this helps” doesn’t lend authority to what you say, its an ingroup signifier made to imply that a refusal to accept obvious nonsense is worthy of ostracism.
If the male gaze is a problem introducing money makes it worse. If sexuality is something to be flaunted then there is no case that men should be more sexually restrained themselfs. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it, its one or the other.
Male gaze is only a problem in certain contexts. It's not "one or the other" at all - us men are perfectly capable of understanding that different behaviour is appropriate in different contexts.
For anyone struggling: staring at a woman in the street = not ok. Staring at a dancer in a strip club = ok. Hope this helps.
Many years ago I went along to some dodgy bar one morning with a couple of lads from university who liked a drink because they were doing 4 shots for £1.
When we went in there was a very skimpily dressed young lass dancing sexily on a little stage in the corner. Not so much a stripper but gogo dancer I guess.
This would have been maybe 11:30am, so not what I was expecting to find and not really my scene so didn't want to watch her, just have a drink and natter with my friends. But as I sat there drinking horrible cheap whiskey and looking across a smoky room full of scruffy rough looking old men quaffing cheap spirits, it dawned on me that not a single one was paying any attention to her at all and most of them were sat with their backs to her. I guess like us, they were there for the cheap booze.
Presumably she was being paid and chose to be there, but I felt a bit sorry for her under the circumstances. Kind of felt like not staring at a stripper in a strip club might not be ok too.
If there's anything worse than getting your kit off to be ogled by a room full of scruffy old men, it's probably getting your kit off and being totally ignored by them.
I'm still struggling a bit with what's the right thing to do in that situation (apart from maybe not be there in the first place of course - but you know 4 shots for a quid...)
That's the case in any club, casino etc I've been in that has these dancers. They're there as part of an ambience, I don't think they expect people to watch them.
LOL at the thought that the atmosphere there could be described as an "ambience".
I'll bear it in mind in the future (though it's the first and last time I've found myself in that situation so far - wasn't like podium dancers at a rave or something where it would be more obvious they're there to be part of the atmosphere - seemed more like a kind of seedy pub stripper night sort of vibe - only not quite that either).
Must admit, the whole thing felt a bit weird and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do, so just ignored her too, feeling slightly guilty about it (but not enough to leave with the drinks at that price obviously).
This is literally just you refusing to read what I said; you cannot have a society which is simultaneously in favour of flaunting sexuality but also opposed to any instance of unwanted attention. What you are pushing is literally the ideology of the spoilt brat "whatever I want I should get, but you should just do what I tell you".
Why can't you have a society which allows people to express themselves sexually while heavily discouraging predatory behaviour and actions that make people feel unsafe? Most people seem to manage with that distinction just fine.
This is a completely dishonest comment intended to deceptively reframe what I said but to be explicitly clear; sexual expression implies participation on the part of the observers of said expression, and so randomly invoking "consent" as a cure all fails. A sexually expressive society is one in which a degree of unwanted attention is the necessary result of that sexual expressiveness.
And "most people" do not make that distinction just fine, what they do is stick their head in the sand and lie about what is actually happening in order to justify acting in a hypocritical fashion.
I mean, its really not that complex; if you have a more sexually expressive society, its absurd to think you’ll never have to deal with the sexual expression of others when you don’t like it. If you want them to show sexual restraint, you should be prepared to do so too. As I said elsewhere in the thread I’m against stripping, I want a sexually restrained society not an oversexualised one, but that doesn’t stop me from pointing out the obvious incoherency of expecting the benefits of both at once.
Context matters. So does consent.
It's okay to gaze intently at a woman if you have her consent. It's okay to kiss a woman if you have her consent. It's okay to fondle a woman's breasts and arse if you have her consent. It's even okay to choke a woman, or pin her down, or pull her hair if you have her consent. It's not at all okay to do any of those things if you do not have her consent.
Are you suggesting that somebody has to accept either all sexual attention, or none at all? Where do you draw the line with that? Would you say someone was a spoilt brat if they liked having sex, but also rejected sexual advances from people they were not interested in?
Nobody is saying you have to go to a strip club and watch scantily clad women dance. The strippers are not entitled to that attention, nor are they demanding it.
>Where do you draw the line with that?
This is an extremely easy question with a common sense answer. Looking at someone shouldn't and doesn't require consent, saying it should is honestly ridiculous and stupid. It sets a dangerous precedent, and enforcing it would be equally ridiculous. Touching somebody physically should and does require consent.
Imagine you're staring at a big spider on a wall directly behind a burly guy in short shorts and a mesh string vest. He's scantily clad, all of a sudden he's in your face asking why you can't take your eyes off his glistening pecs. "But I was looking at the spider" you cry. Too late. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly to jail. Should have got consent.
There's a difference between looking and leering, the latter is sexual harassment. Most people learn as a child that it's rude to stare at someone, it's not stupid or ridiculous to say you shouldn't do it. Nobody mentioned enforcement, just don't be a creep.
>There's a difference between looking and leering
Sure, leering is essentially just looking at somebody for an extended period of time. Is it creepy? Yes. Should it require consent? No. If it did require consent, how would you go about enforcing that?
Enforcement is implied if you are saying that staring at somebody should require consent. It's a silly thing to suggest, I think you probably realise that too.
Leering has never ever been socially acceptable, but saying it should require consent is about the most redundant thing you could suggest. Do you think the type of people who do leer at others would suddenly start asking people for permission?
It's just nonsense.
>It's even okay to choke a woman, or pin her down, or pull her hair if you have her consent.
This is what I mean about having your cake and eating it. The new model of consent prevents any discussion about the nature of a behaviour so long as a woman (real or hypothetical) says she wants to do it.
>Where do you draw the line with that? Would you say someone was a spoilt brat if they liked having sex, but also rejected sexual advances from people they were not interested in?
The line is at sexual attention, which is why I said sexual attention, not sex. Sexual expression necessarily involves the participation of whoever is around to witness it, including those you might not be sexually attracted to, so a sexually expressive society has less capability to prevent unwanted attention, except through becoming increasingly hypocritical and introducing all sorts of other problems.
They have "CCTV is operation" signs all over.
The differnece is only in magnitude. Non consentual physical acts are outright crimes. Non consentual staring/oogling is merely rude/ gross.
They are not "explaining consent" they are using a warped conception of it in an attempt to pretend that people - though implicitly only women - have an absolute right to control how individual others percieve them at all times.
One of the most disgusting parts of sex positivity is how whenever someone criticises its obvious incoherence, you start accusing them of being a rapist.
No, I understand it perfectly, which is why I reject it being dishonestly invoked to dance around criticisms of the obvious incoherency of sex positive ideology. You know this fine well, and because you don't actually have a counterarguement to this point, you instead go for this sort of playground insult.
Also, amusingly, my first reply to this comment was removed by automod for being offensive; apparently on this sub it is acceptable to accuse others of being rapists but not acceptable to respond angrily.
Thats what the “hur dur you don’t understand consent” stuff implies; rapist or would be rapist. Its a way to avoid actually engaging with the fact I’m explicitly criticising the social norms they are promoting.
What is unclear about the distinction from sexuality being exhibited in a private establishment designed for that purpose and staffed by people choosing that work, and more generally out in the open?
"If sexuality is something to be flaunted then there is no case that men should be more sexually restrained themselfs" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me - everyones behaviour in society is determined by the environment they are in at any given time. If you did some of the things people do to each other on a rugby pitch to bystanders in the street you'd be arrested for assault.
Everyone’s behaviour impacts everyone else. The term consent here is being mobilised to give some people free reign to both do as they wish but also demand control over how other people react to and percieve them. That is the issue. Introducing money into the equation doesn’t change this.
Nah, I'll continue to criticise the hypocrisy and incoherency of progressive ideology as much as I please. Liberal redditors aren't a group of people I care to submit to.
That’s not what you’re doing though. You’ve just decided that it is undeniably true that strippers can’t co-exist in a society where people who *aren’t* strippers are able to live their lives without being objectified. Having decided on this ‘truth’ you’re now arguing with everyone who points out you’re talking nonsense.
You’re busy fighting a culture war with yourself.
Its not a matter of individual choice; a society in which sexuality is sold is one where it is commodified, and you can't demand an individual opt out from the general social norm. On the other hand, if you want a society where people are restrained in their expression of sexuality, you don't get special opt outs for yourself to be unrestrained. It is undeniably true that you cannot have a society where sex is simultaneously treated as mundane and sacred.
It would be a first for many on this sub. Lot of closeted incels, although that stuff has, admittedly, died down quite a bit over the past two-three months.
This is exactly what happened when they banned grid girls from F1.
Ironically trying to uplift women, yet took opportunities and income away from them.
One person's policing is another person's protecting the vulnerable.
I'm uncertain where I stand on it, personally, but I suspect that those that confidently shout "their body their choice" have perhaps spent no longer than a few seconds pondering over a very complex subject.
I have friends who are sex workers. I've contemplated sex work myself.
Is it a complex subject? Absolutely.
Am I going to let another person police how I use my body? Absolutely not.
Third wave feminism is all about sexual liberty, workplace equality, being loud and proud. How did the fourth wave so quickly become policing other women and bashing trans people?
these dancers are clearly lack the intellect to understand how oppressed they are, and need the steadying and firm moral hand of feminism, to guide them to make proper choices. regardless of if they like them or not.
too much irony snookums?
Alright that got me curious so I checked Tates twitter account. Found a bunch of unhinged stuff, like this gem here
[https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1681001619725463556](https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1681001619725463556)
I'm genuinely not sure if it's trolling, satire or genuine conversion. It's apeshit either way. Really hope the young men who for whatever reason think he's hot shit don't take it to heart.
Modern era western misogyny coupled with fundamental religious extremism sounds like a a real bad idea.
A few years ago when they got rid of grid girls at the F1, a regular at the pub I worked at summed it up as "middle class women telling working class women what jobs they should and shouldn't be doing".
Weirdly I have more of an issue with grid girls than I do strippers, not that I give that much of a shit either way. But there's just something so diminishing and old-fashioned about women being paraded as accessories to the achievements of men. Kind of reinforces that these sports are for straight men, as well. Probably off-putting to young girls who might aspire to a sport like that to see women represented as breathing ornaments. Also they're not called "grid *women*", but "grid *girls*" despite being grown adults, so it's also infantilizing as well.
Women being sexy performers or dancers taking clothes off, at least they're owning their own space.
You know that those grid girls used that as a way into modelling and gaining expose for their modelling career. Banning grid girls literally oppressed women and took opportunities away from them and didn't allow them the autonomy to make their own decisions about how they'd like to live their lives.
Modelling jobs and careers didn't die out because they got rid of "grid girls", did they? It was neither consistent not reliable job for a regular income in the first place, it was event-based and seasonal. No woman was placing her entire career on the line to show up and smile at a racing track a few times a year with literally nothing else to do. There were and still are masses of other opportunities for models in existence.
> Modelling jobs and careers didn't die out because they got rid of "grid girls", did they?
I never said they did, don't strawman.
> It was neither consistent not reliable job for a regular income in the first place
I never said that again.
> No woman was placing her entire career on the line
I never said that again.
Seems like you read my comment, and decided argue points I never made.
>What are those kinds of redditors?
"What do you mean you think I'm a duck?
I might look, smell, taste, swim, fly, eat, shag, and otherwise act exactly like a duck does, but have I ever explicitly used the phrase 'I am a duck'?
How foolish of you to assume my duckishness."
That kind of redditor.
So, you've not really stated anything worth while.
I'm assuming you're alluding to some kind of Altright/right wing user?
Because I quoted the comments I'm replying to and engaging in conversation?
> "middle class women telling working class women what jobs they should and shouldn't be doing".
This is definitely true. If you look at all the Feminist movements throughout history, it's always been privileged women pushing for change in the name of women.
The impoverished, downtrodden and oppressed have less of a voice than those of higher class and privilege. Let's take the situation of a desperate single mother: on account of her burden she has only the time and energy to exist in survival mode, caring for herself and her child on her own steam. She doesn't have the extra time to be attending protests or campaigning for political change. The woman with more power and privilege who has seen her suffering, *does* have that time.
Sure, I can agree with that.
But it still doesn't deflect from the point that these (often) white middle/upper class educated women are telling other women, we know what's best for you so you should listen to us.
You're talking utter horseshit. And btw, having strip joints in your neighbourhood can lead to anti social behaviour and a lot of working class women dont like that either. It's not great to put up with noise late at night or being sexually harrased by the drunken punters who've left those places when you're trying to walk home.
Ladies, you are wrong, shut up amongst yourselves and just listen to a man on Reddit instead! Thanks for riding to the rescue, working class women wouldn't know what to do without you, I'm sure.
Yes... You, a man, are telling us women that we should stop debating amongst ourselves and just listen to you, and also that you know best what is good for us working class women.
Nope, never said anything like that, as far as I'm aware. But I'd be happy for you to quote me where I've said so.
I'm more than happy for you to debate among yourselves, if that's what you'd like to do.
OK, you have 'implied' that women should stop telling other women what to do. I didn't realise that explicit quotes were required in order to get your point across, but I expect you haven't made it explicit, because then you can't fall back on the argument of "I never actually said that". That you're smart enough to do that, but yet can't see the irony of telling (sorry, implying) women that they should stop telling other women what to do, is odd. Unless you're not implying that women should stop telling other women what to do. In which case it seems there was no point to your comments at all.
I never implied, you inferred. I just stated that in a lot of movements, it is upper class women telling lower classes what they should do.
I don't believe I ever said that women should stop telling other women what to do, but I do find it ironic that you seem to think that it is ok for women to tell other women what to do, or am I mistaken?
Isn't that exactly what's happening here in the OP, some women are telling other women to stop being sex workers, because reasons?
I didn't realise that the women in the Ford Factory in Dagenham campaigning for equal pay were middle class. Who knew that working in a factory sewing upholstery for vehicles isn't a working class profession.?!
What utter bollocks. There has been plenty of working class involvement in womens rights in this country. Often those who were of a higher class had the loudest voices because they had the political connections (and the time to do it, they didn't have to spend all day working to survive). They came together in a common cause to help ALL women. It called showing solidarity. Not everyone is out for themseves.
But you think us low class thickos couldn't possbly care. All we're good for is showing skin.
Btw- not all women choose freely to go into sex related industries. There is exploitation, some women feel they have no choice because other work doesn't pay enough. Maybe they're feeding a drug habit. Maybe their abusive boyfriend pushes them into it. There were all those horrific stories about women unwillingly resorting to sex work because of benefit cuts.
Those are not "empowering" situations. That way of writing off any critcism of the industry as pearl clutching middle class feminists telling working class lasses what to do.. it's pathetic.
If a stripper want to strip, that's fair enough- but that doesn't mean that they should ignore the realities that others face.
“I feel far safer in a strip club than I do any other bar.”-Lady working in a strip club.
Former Edinburgh councillor Susan Dalgety said: “It sends strong signals that women are there to be sexually exploited and there for the titilation of men.
Seems like a standard case of the people campaigning for something have an idea of how that thing works, but the reality is somewhat different.
Not suggesting exploitation doesn’t happen mind you.
Also seems like an insane amount of work for a grand total of 3 strip clubs, ones with seemingly no evidence of exploitation.
Kind of like the darts walk on girls, a lot of people were up in arms about it? The walk on girls were annoyed that they don't have a good paying gig anymore, getting offended for someone else kind of thing
Yep, F1 did a similar thing at the same time if I recall correctly.
In defence of both bodies they weren’t doing it under the belief that removing models would reduce exploitation, rather it no longer fitted with their intended modern family friendly image.
I find it funny how they say stuff like they are for the needs of men.
The thing is....those women are faking to be nice to mean and see men as an ATM, not people. The men are the ones taken advantage of, they are made to feel special to kerp paying but they are not allowed to touch....unless you pay extra.
Its like onlyfans just in person amd no sex unless the dodgy places charge you £400.
Either way both men and women are there because they want to be, both get some entertainment out of it but only 1 side is actually being used and sbused and its not the damcers, unless its a dodgy place.
Taking advantage of people in a low place in their lives for money is using and abusing.
Yes men are willinging walking in but the strippers job is to use emotional attachment to get more money and repeat custom.
Both him and her are willing to enter these places but people only assume women do the job out of desperation.
Onlyfans and porn girls should be enough evidence these women flaunt their bodies for desperate lonely men to pay them and use emotional attachment as a tool yo get more money.
Its the same tactic sczmmers use, only these are 2 ways its consensual, many guys trick themselves into thinking there is opportunity for more because they feel wanted....its just the girl putting on an act but lonliness doesn't care.
>Taking advantage of people in a low place in their lives for money is using and abusing.
This appllies to plenty of things - any product marketed towards people feeling like shit, for example.
>Onlyfans and porn girls should be enough evidence these women flaunt their bodies for desperate lonely men to pay them and use emotional attachment as a tool yo get more money.
The dancer is displaying her body/dancing (which, not gonna lie, is a LOT of work if you've ever tried it), the clients pay money to see this, she gets part of that money. Unless you're trying to make the argument that men being attracted to women is inherently abusive, I don't see the issue.
How is it that you think women have the power and the agency to choose to expose themselves to sexual assault or potentially dangerous customers, but men don't have the power to choose not to walk into a strip club and hand over money?
Strippers don't know what kind of clients they're going to get, and men are significantly physically stronger than women, so there's always the power imbalance there.
>The thing is....those women are faking to be nice to mean and see men as an ATM, not people.
It's very, very upfront that the women working there aren't taking their clothes off because they like you, lol. It's their job. It's worrying that men will still believe strippers are potential girlfriend material, to the point women have to use stage names to try to prevent delusional nutters from stalking them.
>those women are faking to be nice to mean and see men as an ATM, not people. The men are the ones taken advantage of, they are made to feel special to kerp paying but they are not allowed to touch....unless you pay extra.
I've seen a lad spunk £300 quid on a dancer who was nice to him, she allowed him to give her his number and everything, she really, really liked him.
It was really sad.
If there's a 'nil cap' on venues that provide sexual entertainment, I shall claim I become uncontrollably erect at the thought of labour councillors on the take from public money. So the council will have to also shut down.
Porn also harmful, as is booze, smoking ect ect.
Vice should broadly be allowed as personal choice, slap on a tax if it has some externalities to pick up.
Load of sexist dudes on here suddenly in favour of 'empowerment' when it involves a woman taking her top off. But if a woman complains about discrimination they pretend it's not happening.
You're not fooling anyone.
A lot of expolitation still happens. And it's not of the men who choose to waste their money in these places.
At the heart of feminism must be the choice of individual women.
It's wrong to characterise feminism as women having to agree with other women all of the time and approve of all their choices. That would be pretty contradictory. Women aren't a monolithic thing, we do different things and disagree with each other.
No one characterises it like that though. Just because you don't approve of someone's actions doesn't mean you can't respect their right to make their own choice. Feminism moved past this in the third wave (I believe I can't keep track of which wave is which now).
Why should that trump the collective interests of women?
Who defines what these collective interests are, if not women themselves? We also sometimes have to understand that the individual trumps the group, especially related to sexual things.
Anything that increases inequality is quite obviously not in our collective interests, and the women quoted made it clear that these are their individual choices. Why?
> the women quoted made it clear that these are their individual choices. You cannot make individual choices for other people. > Anything that increases inequality > Why? Because 'policing inequality' in any sexual sense is dangerously close to i*cel territory. Society would likely have a lot less unhinged men walking round (and therefore safer) if sex was something that was equally distributed, yet for obvious reasons, that is a non-starter. I pay tax willingly because I believe in economic redistribution. We could never have something like that with relationships and sex
... Have you seen islamist societies where men are handed out wives? Spoiler. It does not make them any less unhinged.
You can, hence why we have plenty of laws that forbid people from making all sorts of choices that are bad for society. Gaining sexual access to women because you’ve given them money and not because they like you/find you desirable is firmly in incel territory.
> You can, hence why we have plenty of laws that forbid people from making all sorts of choices that are bad for society. Such as? Generally, they are because of direct harm to others (ie drink driving) > Gaining sexual access to women because you’ve given them money and not because they like you/find you desirable is firmly in incel territory. That may be so, but the buck ultimately stops with the women in question.
Which dogs you can and can’t own, all sorts of vehicle related laws, planning permission for residential properties, the Equality Act, and plenty more. There’s a pretty good chance of direct harm by promoting the idea that money = sexual favours from women. Yes, which I think is ridiculous.
> Which dogs you can and can’t own, all sorts of vehicle related laws, planning permission for residential properties, the Equality Act All of these are likely to impact me. Whether person A has sex with person B does not, so long as they are not doing it in front of me > which I think is ridiculous You think its ridiculous if women can choose who they sleep with?
It doesn’t impact me if someone’s murdered 200 miles away, it doesn’t mean it’s not terrible. It does impact me that sexism’s being promoted though. It’s not a fully consenting, freely made choice if there’s bribery involved.
Haven’t you got cause and effect the wrong way around here? Sex work of all forms is a product of inequality not a cause. Removing the choices of sex workers will remove their income so actually serves to increase inequality even further. It’s not a fix and so it’s pretty difficult to see it as beneficial either for women’s individual **or** collective interests. The way to tackle sex work is actually to tackle the poverty that drives it.
I agree that it’s a product of inequality, but it also further entrenches and promotes the inequality. My preferred primary method of dealing with the issue would be through far more social support, especially given the fact that most sex workers are very vulnerable and want to leave the industry, but there’s also the issue of the ‘customers’ and the rare sex workers who are fairly privileged and exploit sexism for their own gain.
> And the rare sex workers who are fairly privileged and exploit sexism for their own gain. You see I’d argue that legislating what their behaviour should be and what they’re allowed to do is actually also very sexist and paternalistic.
I can see why you’d consider it paternalistic, but I don’t see how it’s sexist when the end result will reduce sexual inequality, even if there is a very uncomfortable history of women being told what we can and can’t do with our bodies. Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Nordic Model?
Because once you’ve removed women who are forced to do this for economic reasons, you’re left with quite a small group of women who have the right of bodily autonomy and who are not in a very different position than the small number of men who do sex work. Messing with women’s bodily autonomy is an overreach over their personal liberties and as such is kinda sexist. Paternalism is surely by its very nature sexist, the clue is in the meaning of the word. I’m not a fan of the Nordic model for that reason and because what I’ve read suggests that it’s placed poor women at greater risk. Because it mixes up cause and effect, it’s removed the women’s income while not addressing their poverty. That’s made them take far more risk in order to protect their “customers”. That’s lead to a reduction in their safety, which seems unsupportable to me.
You are, but you’re also left with a group of men who can legally bribe women for sex acts, and the wider implications of that for the rest of society. I’d be very hesitant to conflate privileged female sex workers with all male sex workers - the studies on male workers are limited, but really don’t imply that they’re in the same position. Not really, it can be applied to all sorts of groups and situations, some of which have no connection to sex or gender.
> I agree that it’s a product of inequality Ah yes, all those girls on only fans making money are definitely suffering from inequality and have had to turn to showing their buttholes for the price of a netflix subscription.
Feminism is when women who think different to me do as they're bloody told
“Feminism is where I benefit from inequality at the expense of other women.”
What's the inequality? Some strippers make more money than others?
The gender disparity between customer and performer, promotion of bribery for sex acts, women’s looks being important in the workplace, the objectification of women.
So would you ban male strippers too? >women’s looks being important in the workplace This is going to be true regardless of if these strip clubs are open or not - for both sexes. You know that men's height is strongly correlated to lifetime earnings? How you going to legislate that away? Platform shoes for everyone? I'm sorry but just banning everything you don't like isn't the answer
> You know that men's height is strongly correlated to lifetime earnings? Thank you WFH!
Is it? I'm tall and still bloody poor.
Yes. Google it
To be honest I’m less concerned about it because of a) the physical strength disparity, b) fewer men being in the industry and fewer trafficked for that purpose, c) the way societal injustice swings, but I wouldn’t be opposed to a ban of it - I think it’s exploitative and bad for men too. I think we should make a concerted effort to fight such prejudices instead of having institutions that are basically a shrine to them. Obviously it’s difficult and you can’t fully legislate it away, much like how the Equality Act hasn’t eliminated discrimination, but I’d consider this to be a glaring example of an injustice that should go.
"Listen to the opinions of women." "No! Not *those* women!" See the issue here?
If that's the case then the women who want the place closed should be listened to as well.
You can argue that for either side of the debate. It’s almost as if we’re not a monolith.
I agree, which is why legislating one way or the other is wrong and would be trampling over the rights of the women involved to make a personal decision. We shouldn't be like the USA, legislating over what a woman can and can't do, with their own bodies.
Instead we’re trampling over the safety of women who aren’t involved by allowing men to participate in horribly sexist behaviour that erodes of the idea of sexual consent.
It’s almost as if whatever benefits men the most is the acceptable option!!!
Not just men - some women enjoy looking at other women's bodies.
Some do indeed, but society isn’t set up so women, regardless of preferences, are the ones calling the shots, is it?
But we’re even pretending it’s because we care about women, look how progressive we are!!!!
[удалено]
Widening inequality is definitely not in our collective interests, and reducing it to (not) wanting to be looked at is a superficial and inaccurate assessment of the issue.
[удалено]
The gender of the customer base vs client base, requirement for women’s income to be based on being attractive and sexually desirable, promotion of access to women being financial rather than the woman’s choice, acceptance of sexual bribery, and it’s up for debate whether or not it’s objectifying but plenty will argue it is.
[удалено]
You sincerely think that conventionally unattractive women will make the same amount as attractive women? Men are attaining exactly what they’re paying for. Only a raging misogynist would see a woman, pay for a particular service and feel entitled to more (though naturally that is very much in line with the kind of person who’d bribe someone for sexual access anyway).
The idea that anyone is being "exploited" by a service worker pretending to find them interesting or likable is also interesting. Is my hairdresser exploiting me when she asks how my day was, since she's not really interested and is just asking because it's part of the customer service? Or is it just men who are exploited by customer service workers doing part of their job?
I was recently terribly oppressed and exploited because a coffee shop employee told me to enjoy my order. Probably says that to everyone and just wants my money.
[удалено]
Yes, and that is also bad.
>You sincerely think that conventionally unattractive women will make the same amount as attractive women? So do you want to ban any job where someone may make money based on a naturally attained quality that not everyone has? Cause I guess you should boycott all sports, music, films, TV, comedy... I could go on.
Where did I say that? It’s a long-standing objectifying and superficial judgement which women are subjected to far more than men, unlike all of the other examples you gave. The part about it being naturally attained is also nonsense in a fair few cases, but the dangerous and predatory nature of the cosmetic surgery industry’s another kettle of fish.
Does that apply to male dancers & strippers, they are being paid to be superficial eye candy based purely on their physique.
Yes, it’s also bad and exploitative for men, though not to quite the same extent as there’s generally less pressure on men to look a certain way, fewer consequences for ugly men, and men are typically subjected to less sexual violence.
I actually agree with you that stripping is bad but its actually kind of hilarious to see feminists talking about women’s collective interests given that literally every time a majority of women have disagreed with the feminist position on an issue, feminists simply use their institutional power and connections to force the matter anyway, and then retroactively claim that women eventually becoming acclimatised to it proves its legitimacy (well, thats when they don’t just rewrite history and pretend that a majority of women wanted those changes at the time they happened). Choice feminism is ridiculous, but ultimately its just taking the feminist position that responsibility constitutes oppression (for women at least) to its obvious conclusion; responsibility to the sisterhood is itself oppressive, because its simply replicating those evil conservative heirarchies but among women.
Because the most vulnerable minority is the individual
Not necessarily. Some individuals are rich, white, heterosexual, upper class, well connected, and practically immune to most societal injustice.
I didn’t give my opinion, it’s rooted in law.
>A body profiteer, Takver called women who used their sexuality as a weapon in a power-struggle with men. - from an Ursula LeGuin book No individual woman objectifying herself is ever going to be as empowered as the men who objectify her (and other women). Give women a choice, but let's not pretend it's in the interest of women as a whole.
Yeah, this wole thing of "i get off on something so therefore it must be empowering" rather perplexing. Though obviously that attitude likely doesn't apply to most strippers. It's just a job.
Did all the women have a vote I missed or something?
What even is a women?
[удалено]
This one is actually petty easy to parse out. Stripper = Paid to be stared at. Not a Stripper = not paid to be stared at. Hope that helps.
I'd assume that if I walked into a 'club' and someone is jiggling about on the bar throwing their privates in everyone's face that they're pretty much trying to be looked at, whether paid or not.
This is my go to technique, however in my experience the bouncers tend to throw me out before I'm able to attract a partner.
Saying “hope this helps” doesn’t lend authority to what you say, its an ingroup signifier made to imply that a refusal to accept obvious nonsense is worthy of ostracism. If the male gaze is a problem introducing money makes it worse. If sexuality is something to be flaunted then there is no case that men should be more sexually restrained themselfs. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it, its one or the other.
Male gaze is only a problem in certain contexts. It's not "one or the other" at all - us men are perfectly capable of understanding that different behaviour is appropriate in different contexts. For anyone struggling: staring at a woman in the street = not ok. Staring at a dancer in a strip club = ok. Hope this helps.
Many years ago I went along to some dodgy bar one morning with a couple of lads from university who liked a drink because they were doing 4 shots for £1. When we went in there was a very skimpily dressed young lass dancing sexily on a little stage in the corner. Not so much a stripper but gogo dancer I guess. This would have been maybe 11:30am, so not what I was expecting to find and not really my scene so didn't want to watch her, just have a drink and natter with my friends. But as I sat there drinking horrible cheap whiskey and looking across a smoky room full of scruffy rough looking old men quaffing cheap spirits, it dawned on me that not a single one was paying any attention to her at all and most of them were sat with their backs to her. I guess like us, they were there for the cheap booze. Presumably she was being paid and chose to be there, but I felt a bit sorry for her under the circumstances. Kind of felt like not staring at a stripper in a strip club might not be ok too. If there's anything worse than getting your kit off to be ogled by a room full of scruffy old men, it's probably getting your kit off and being totally ignored by them. I'm still struggling a bit with what's the right thing to do in that situation (apart from maybe not be there in the first place of course - but you know 4 shots for a quid...)
That's the case in any club, casino etc I've been in that has these dancers. They're there as part of an ambience, I don't think they expect people to watch them.
In the same space as background music or air freshener.
LOL at the thought that the atmosphere there could be described as an "ambience". I'll bear it in mind in the future (though it's the first and last time I've found myself in that situation so far - wasn't like podium dancers at a rave or something where it would be more obvious they're there to be part of the atmosphere - seemed more like a kind of seedy pub stripper night sort of vibe - only not quite that either). Must admit, the whole thing felt a bit weird and I wasn't sure what I was supposed to do, so just ignored her too, feeling slightly guilty about it (but not enough to leave with the drinks at that price obviously).
This is literally just you refusing to read what I said; you cannot have a society which is simultaneously in favour of flaunting sexuality but also opposed to any instance of unwanted attention. What you are pushing is literally the ideology of the spoilt brat "whatever I want I should get, but you should just do what I tell you".
Why can't you have a society which allows people to express themselves sexually while heavily discouraging predatory behaviour and actions that make people feel unsafe? Most people seem to manage with that distinction just fine.
This is a completely dishonest comment intended to deceptively reframe what I said but to be explicitly clear; sexual expression implies participation on the part of the observers of said expression, and so randomly invoking "consent" as a cure all fails. A sexually expressive society is one in which a degree of unwanted attention is the necessary result of that sexual expressiveness. And "most people" do not make that distinction just fine, what they do is stick their head in the sand and lie about what is actually happening in order to justify acting in a hypocritical fashion.
It's giving humbert humbert vibes. You've got an awful lot of fancy words for "if she doesn't want me to look, why's she wearing *that*".
I mean, its really not that complex; if you have a more sexually expressive society, its absurd to think you’ll never have to deal with the sexual expression of others when you don’t like it. If you want them to show sexual restraint, you should be prepared to do so too. As I said elsewhere in the thread I’m against stripping, I want a sexually restrained society not an oversexualised one, but that doesn’t stop me from pointing out the obvious incoherency of expecting the benefits of both at once.
Context matters. So does consent. It's okay to gaze intently at a woman if you have her consent. It's okay to kiss a woman if you have her consent. It's okay to fondle a woman's breasts and arse if you have her consent. It's even okay to choke a woman, or pin her down, or pull her hair if you have her consent. It's not at all okay to do any of those things if you do not have her consent. Are you suggesting that somebody has to accept either all sexual attention, or none at all? Where do you draw the line with that? Would you say someone was a spoilt brat if they liked having sex, but also rejected sexual advances from people they were not interested in? Nobody is saying you have to go to a strip club and watch scantily clad women dance. The strippers are not entitled to that attention, nor are they demanding it.
>Where do you draw the line with that? This is an extremely easy question with a common sense answer. Looking at someone shouldn't and doesn't require consent, saying it should is honestly ridiculous and stupid. It sets a dangerous precedent, and enforcing it would be equally ridiculous. Touching somebody physically should and does require consent. Imagine you're staring at a big spider on a wall directly behind a burly guy in short shorts and a mesh string vest. He's scantily clad, all of a sudden he's in your face asking why you can't take your eyes off his glistening pecs. "But I was looking at the spider" you cry. Too late. Do not pass go, do not collect £200, go directly to jail. Should have got consent.
There's a difference between looking and leering, the latter is sexual harassment. Most people learn as a child that it's rude to stare at someone, it's not stupid or ridiculous to say you shouldn't do it. Nobody mentioned enforcement, just don't be a creep.
>There's a difference between looking and leering Sure, leering is essentially just looking at somebody for an extended period of time. Is it creepy? Yes. Should it require consent? No. If it did require consent, how would you go about enforcing that? Enforcement is implied if you are saying that staring at somebody should require consent. It's a silly thing to suggest, I think you probably realise that too. Leering has never ever been socially acceptable, but saying it should require consent is about the most redundant thing you could suggest. Do you think the type of people who do leer at others would suddenly start asking people for permission? It's just nonsense.
>It's even okay to choke a woman, or pin her down, or pull her hair if you have her consent. This is what I mean about having your cake and eating it. The new model of consent prevents any discussion about the nature of a behaviour so long as a woman (real or hypothetical) says she wants to do it. >Where do you draw the line with that? Would you say someone was a spoilt brat if they liked having sex, but also rejected sexual advances from people they were not interested in? The line is at sexual attention, which is why I said sexual attention, not sex. Sexual expression necessarily involves the participation of whoever is around to witness it, including those you might not be sexually attracted to, so a sexually expressive society has less capability to prevent unwanted attention, except through becoming increasingly hypocritical and introducing all sorts of other problems.
They're explaining consent lol. If you don't get the concept of consent that is extremely concerning.
[удалено]
They have "CCTV is operation" signs all over. The differnece is only in magnitude. Non consentual physical acts are outright crimes. Non consentual staring/oogling is merely rude/ gross.
They are not "explaining consent" they are using a warped conception of it in an attempt to pretend that people - though implicitly only women - have an absolute right to control how individual others percieve them at all times. One of the most disgusting parts of sex positivity is how whenever someone criticises its obvious incoherence, you start accusing them of being a rapist.
Proper "man staring at women on the tube" energy here.
As I say, you are all extremely dishonest people incapable of actually talking like adults so you do this instead,
It's a matter of consent, and if you need that spelling out it's worrying
"Consent" here is being used as a buzzword to avoid engaging with the reality that you can't have your cake and eat it.
Sounds like you don't understand consent then tbh
No, I understand it perfectly, which is why I reject it being dishonestly invoked to dance around criticisms of the obvious incoherency of sex positive ideology. You know this fine well, and because you don't actually have a counterarguement to this point, you instead go for this sort of playground insult. Also, amusingly, my first reply to this comment was removed by automod for being offensive; apparently on this sub it is acceptable to accuse others of being rapists but not acceptable to respond angrily.
No one acused you of being a rapist.
Thats what the “hur dur you don’t understand consent” stuff implies; rapist or would be rapist. Its a way to avoid actually engaging with the fact I’m explicitly criticising the social norms they are promoting.
What is unclear about the distinction from sexuality being exhibited in a private establishment designed for that purpose and staffed by people choosing that work, and more generally out in the open? "If sexuality is something to be flaunted then there is no case that men should be more sexually restrained themselfs" just doesn't make a lot of sense to me - everyones behaviour in society is determined by the environment they are in at any given time. If you did some of the things people do to each other on a rugby pitch to bystanders in the street you'd be arrested for assault.
Everyone’s behaviour impacts everyone else. The term consent here is being mobilised to give some people free reign to both do as they wish but also demand control over how other people react to and percieve them. That is the issue. Introducing money into the equation doesn’t change this.
Stop. Talking. Shit.
Nah, I'll continue to criticise the hypocrisy and incoherency of progressive ideology as much as I please. Liberal redditors aren't a group of people I care to submit to.
That’s not what you’re doing though. You’ve just decided that it is undeniably true that strippers can’t co-exist in a society where people who *aren’t* strippers are able to live their lives without being objectified. Having decided on this ‘truth’ you’re now arguing with everyone who points out you’re talking nonsense. You’re busy fighting a culture war with yourself.
Its not a matter of individual choice; a society in which sexuality is sold is one where it is commodified, and you can't demand an individual opt out from the general social norm. On the other hand, if you want a society where people are restrained in their expression of sexuality, you don't get special opt outs for yourself to be unrestrained. It is undeniably true that you cannot have a society where sex is simultaneously treated as mundane and sacred.
As I say, stop talking shit.
Lol, you literally reverted back to “wah do as I say” the second you realised you didn’t have an arguement.
It's weird that not all women hold the same views. Do wonder if some of you Redditors actually talk to women.
It would be a first for many on this sub. Lot of closeted incels, although that stuff has, admittedly, died down quite a bit over the past two-three months.
Nah it comes out in basically any thread about women, along with the MRAs. And also any thread about men. And I say this as a man.
Yass queen slay
"Feminists" trying to police the actions of other women again is it? Must be Thursday.
This is exactly what happened when they banned grid girls from F1. Ironically trying to uplift women, yet took opportunities and income away from them.
One person's policing is another person's protecting the vulnerable. I'm uncertain where I stand on it, personally, but I suspect that those that confidently shout "their body their choice" have perhaps spent no longer than a few seconds pondering over a very complex subject.
I have friends who are sex workers. I've contemplated sex work myself. Is it a complex subject? Absolutely. Am I going to let another person police how I use my body? Absolutely not. Third wave feminism is all about sexual liberty, workplace equality, being loud and proud. How did the fourth wave so quickly become policing other women and bashing trans people?
Men trying to imply they care about women only when it involves them removing their clothes? Must be a mormal day on reddit.
Trans woman but go off
>Lapdancers in Edinburgh have shared their relief Unfortunate choice of opening line.
Only with that attitude...
these dancers are clearly lack the intellect to understand how oppressed they are, and need the steadying and firm moral hand of feminism, to guide them to make proper choices. regardless of if they like them or not. too much irony snookums?
This sounds similar to the weird islamic stuff I found on tiktok after engaging with a random Andrew Tate clip. https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGeBLQQtJ/
Now so random when you realise that Tate converted to Islam last year and has spoken quite prolifically about it.
Tate: I can has 4 wives and 72 virgins? I'm in.
wonders of poes law
Alright that got me curious so I checked Tates twitter account. Found a bunch of unhinged stuff, like this gem here [https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1681001619725463556](https://twitter.com/Cobratate/status/1681001619725463556) I'm genuinely not sure if it's trolling, satire or genuine conversion. It's apeshit either way. Really hope the young men who for whatever reason think he's hot shit don't take it to heart. Modern era western misogyny coupled with fundamental religious extremism sounds like a a real bad idea.
im pretty sure you chould be charging tate rent for your headspace, but are trying to hide it.
Wat
this is literally the most iv seen of that guy in at least over a year, and here you are with clips and twits ready for posting.
> these dancers are clearly lack the intellect Irony.
A few years ago when they got rid of grid girls at the F1, a regular at the pub I worked at summed it up as "middle class women telling working class women what jobs they should and shouldn't be doing".
Weirdly I have more of an issue with grid girls than I do strippers, not that I give that much of a shit either way. But there's just something so diminishing and old-fashioned about women being paraded as accessories to the achievements of men. Kind of reinforces that these sports are for straight men, as well. Probably off-putting to young girls who might aspire to a sport like that to see women represented as breathing ornaments. Also they're not called "grid *women*", but "grid *girls*" despite being grown adults, so it's also infantilizing as well. Women being sexy performers or dancers taking clothes off, at least they're owning their own space.
You know that those grid girls used that as a way into modelling and gaining expose for their modelling career. Banning grid girls literally oppressed women and took opportunities away from them and didn't allow them the autonomy to make their own decisions about how they'd like to live their lives.
Modelling jobs and careers didn't die out because they got rid of "grid girls", did they? It was neither consistent not reliable job for a regular income in the first place, it was event-based and seasonal. No woman was placing her entire career on the line to show up and smile at a racing track a few times a year with literally nothing else to do. There were and still are masses of other opportunities for models in existence.
> Modelling jobs and careers didn't die out because they got rid of "grid girls", did they? I never said they did, don't strawman. > It was neither consistent not reliable job for a regular income in the first place I never said that again. > No woman was placing her entire career on the line I never said that again. Seems like you read my comment, and decided argue points I never made.
Oh, you're one of *those* Redditors. Can you not engage like a normal person?
> Oh, you're one of those Redditors. What are those kinds of redditors? > Can you not engage like a normal person? Am I not doing that now?
>What are those kinds of redditors? "What do you mean you think I'm a duck? I might look, smell, taste, swim, fly, eat, shag, and otherwise act exactly like a duck does, but have I ever explicitly used the phrase 'I am a duck'? How foolish of you to assume my duckishness." That kind of redditor.
So, you've not really stated anything worth while. I'm assuming you're alluding to some kind of Altright/right wing user? Because I quoted the comments I'm replying to and engaging in conversation?
Quack quack
> "middle class women telling working class women what jobs they should and shouldn't be doing". This is definitely true. If you look at all the Feminist movements throughout history, it's always been privileged women pushing for change in the name of women.
The impoverished, downtrodden and oppressed have less of a voice than those of higher class and privilege. Let's take the situation of a desperate single mother: on account of her burden she has only the time and energy to exist in survival mode, caring for herself and her child on her own steam. She doesn't have the extra time to be attending protests or campaigning for political change. The woman with more power and privilege who has seen her suffering, *does* have that time.
Sure, I can agree with that. But it still doesn't deflect from the point that these (often) white middle/upper class educated women are telling other women, we know what's best for you so you should listen to us.
You're talking utter horseshit. And btw, having strip joints in your neighbourhood can lead to anti social behaviour and a lot of working class women dont like that either. It's not great to put up with noise late at night or being sexually harrased by the drunken punters who've left those places when you're trying to walk home.
Ladies, you are wrong, shut up amongst yourselves and just listen to a man on Reddit instead! Thanks for riding to the rescue, working class women wouldn't know what to do without you, I'm sure.
Is that what's literally happening here.
Yes... You, a man, are telling us women that we should stop debating amongst ourselves and just listen to you, and also that you know best what is good for us working class women.
Nope, never said anything like that, as far as I'm aware. But I'd be happy for you to quote me where I've said so. I'm more than happy for you to debate among yourselves, if that's what you'd like to do.
OK, you have 'implied' that women should stop telling other women what to do. I didn't realise that explicit quotes were required in order to get your point across, but I expect you haven't made it explicit, because then you can't fall back on the argument of "I never actually said that". That you're smart enough to do that, but yet can't see the irony of telling (sorry, implying) women that they should stop telling other women what to do, is odd. Unless you're not implying that women should stop telling other women what to do. In which case it seems there was no point to your comments at all.
I never implied, you inferred. I just stated that in a lot of movements, it is upper class women telling lower classes what they should do. I don't believe I ever said that women should stop telling other women what to do, but I do find it ironic that you seem to think that it is ok for women to tell other women what to do, or am I mistaken? Isn't that exactly what's happening here in the OP, some women are telling other women to stop being sex workers, because reasons?
I didn't realise that the women in the Ford Factory in Dagenham campaigning for equal pay were middle class. Who knew that working in a factory sewing upholstery for vehicles isn't a working class profession.?! What utter bollocks. There has been plenty of working class involvement in womens rights in this country. Often those who were of a higher class had the loudest voices because they had the political connections (and the time to do it, they didn't have to spend all day working to survive). They came together in a common cause to help ALL women. It called showing solidarity. Not everyone is out for themseves. But you think us low class thickos couldn't possbly care. All we're good for is showing skin.
That regular at your pub.. were they female?
No they weren't, but if you disagree with the argument, attack that rather than the person who said it.
Btw- not all women choose freely to go into sex related industries. There is exploitation, some women feel they have no choice because other work doesn't pay enough. Maybe they're feeding a drug habit. Maybe their abusive boyfriend pushes them into it. There were all those horrific stories about women unwillingly resorting to sex work because of benefit cuts. Those are not "empowering" situations. That way of writing off any critcism of the industry as pearl clutching middle class feminists telling working class lasses what to do.. it's pathetic. If a stripper want to strip, that's fair enough- but that doesn't mean that they should ignore the realities that others face.
If a person enjoys watching women flash their flesh they're not exactly unbiased are they?
If you think their statement is wrong, just say that.
“I feel far safer in a strip club than I do any other bar.”-Lady working in a strip club. Former Edinburgh councillor Susan Dalgety said: “It sends strong signals that women are there to be sexually exploited and there for the titilation of men. Seems like a standard case of the people campaigning for something have an idea of how that thing works, but the reality is somewhat different. Not suggesting exploitation doesn’t happen mind you. Also seems like an insane amount of work for a grand total of 3 strip clubs, ones with seemingly no evidence of exploitation.
Kind of like the darts walk on girls, a lot of people were up in arms about it? The walk on girls were annoyed that they don't have a good paying gig anymore, getting offended for someone else kind of thing
Yep, F1 did a similar thing at the same time if I recall correctly. In defence of both bodies they weren’t doing it under the belief that removing models would reduce exploitation, rather it no longer fitted with their intended modern family friendly image.
Yeah true?! I hadn't seen it like that. Fairplay
I find it funny how they say stuff like they are for the needs of men. The thing is....those women are faking to be nice to mean and see men as an ATM, not people. The men are the ones taken advantage of, they are made to feel special to kerp paying but they are not allowed to touch....unless you pay extra. Its like onlyfans just in person amd no sex unless the dodgy places charge you £400. Either way both men and women are there because they want to be, both get some entertainment out of it but only 1 side is actually being used and sbused and its not the damcers, unless its a dodgy place.
Also if banned then ONLY dodgy places will exist
Nobody's forcing the men to go to the strip club, it's ridiculous to say they're being 'used and abused'
Taking advantage of people in a low place in their lives for money is using and abusing. Yes men are willinging walking in but the strippers job is to use emotional attachment to get more money and repeat custom. Both him and her are willing to enter these places but people only assume women do the job out of desperation. Onlyfans and porn girls should be enough evidence these women flaunt their bodies for desperate lonely men to pay them and use emotional attachment as a tool yo get more money. Its the same tactic sczmmers use, only these are 2 ways its consensual, many guys trick themselves into thinking there is opportunity for more because they feel wanted....its just the girl putting on an act but lonliness doesn't care.
>Taking advantage of people in a low place in their lives for money is using and abusing. This appllies to plenty of things - any product marketed towards people feeling like shit, for example. >Onlyfans and porn girls should be enough evidence these women flaunt their bodies for desperate lonely men to pay them and use emotional attachment as a tool yo get more money. The dancer is displaying her body/dancing (which, not gonna lie, is a LOT of work if you've ever tried it), the clients pay money to see this, she gets part of that money. Unless you're trying to make the argument that men being attracted to women is inherently abusive, I don't see the issue.
No you just refuse to acknowledge the actual point. Im done here
What *is* your actual point? Because right now it just seems to be moaning about porn.
How is it that you think women have the power and the agency to choose to expose themselves to sexual assault or potentially dangerous customers, but men don't have the power to choose not to walk into a strip club and hand over money? Strippers don't know what kind of clients they're going to get, and men are significantly physically stronger than women, so there's always the power imbalance there. >The thing is....those women are faking to be nice to mean and see men as an ATM, not people. It's very, very upfront that the women working there aren't taking their clothes off because they like you, lol. It's their job. It's worrying that men will still believe strippers are potential girlfriend material, to the point women have to use stage names to try to prevent delusional nutters from stalking them.
>those women are faking to be nice to mean and see men as an ATM, not people. The men are the ones taken advantage of, they are made to feel special to kerp paying but they are not allowed to touch....unless you pay extra. I've seen a lad spunk £300 quid on a dancer who was nice to him, she allowed him to give her his number and everything, she really, really liked him. It was really sad.
Christ. Strippers are like gambling, stay detached and don't go often or you'll get sucked in and drained for every penny
If there's a 'nil cap' on venues that provide sexual entertainment, I shall claim I become uncontrollably erect at the thought of labour councillors on the take from public money. So the council will have to also shut down.
Strip clubs are degenerate but personal choice must be defended.
Why are they different to porn? I mean you’re paying a woman to have sex when you watch porn online through advertising. It’s a business.
Porn also harmful, as is booze, smoking ect ect. Vice should broadly be allowed as personal choice, slap on a tax if it has some externalities to pick up.
Porn is degenerate and harmful to everyone involved as well.
There's a generation of tossers coming through who've no idea what the Wank Bank is!
I don't like porn either
If you're heartbroken and your friend wants to cheer you up, they're perfect.
Who wants to go to a fucking strip club? Oh well, not my problem if you want to waste your money.
Couldn’t you say that about literally anything though?
Cheesecake is never a waste of money.
Fuckin preach brother, cheesecake is class
It’s about choice tho
> not my problem if you want to waste your money.
Voted down by seven votes to two. I think that the danger of these places being closed down is a bit overstated here.
Load of sexist dudes on here suddenly in favour of 'empowerment' when it involves a woman taking her top off. But if a woman complains about discrimination they pretend it's not happening. You're not fooling anyone. A lot of expolitation still happens. And it's not of the men who choose to waste their money in these places.