"That's not entertainment"

24

Comments

  • I agree that an all-encompassing connection between porn and a loose grip on reality is problematic. But I do think that an exposure to lots of porn during adolescence can damage a man's sex life.
  • He's done with the books. He'll never write again Colin. It will be merchandise and miniseries from here on out. I note this song was published on you tube in 2012.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I agree that an all-encompassing connection between porn and a loose grip on reality is problematic. But I do think that an exposure to lots of porn during adolescence can damage a man's sex life.

    I think the easy availability of hard-core porn, along with all kinds of fetishes, via the internet has the potential to do far worse than that when foisted on adolescents and very young men. Just as one example, the INCEL phenomenon and its misogynist attitudes is partially a result of a porn industry which, perhaps mainly in the minds of those viewers, degrades women and emphasises a false idea of masculinity.

    The magazine porn I was exposed to as a late teen was Enid Blyton by contrast.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    He's done with the books. He'll never write again Colin. It will be merchandise and miniseries from here on out. I note this song was published on you tube in 2012.

    Annoyingly, I'm in a public library so the sound's off. Martin's glacial progress is legendary. But I imagine he has lots of notes so someone can finish it for him.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    I really enjoy Line of Duty. I find it entertaining. I look forward to each episode and I’ve joined the LoD Facebook group to chat about it.

    I enjoy the intrigue, the puzzles, the heart pounding action. I enjoy working out the psychology, trying to solve the crime - and nearly always getting it wrong!

    I definitely don’t like or enjoy the gore - I close my eyes for the gory bits.
    When John Corbett had his throat cut I could barely stand the sound, never mind the vision.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Kwesi wrote: »
    How about the idea that all television is entertainment, the news and documentaries included?

    Yes - I think it is, in a way.

    When things are happening (like the Notre Dame fire) and on 24/7 news I find it hard to watch - and hard not to watch. I want to know how it ‘ends’, I wanted to know if the building survived, for example - but watching is painful too. Much, much more so when peoples lives are damaged or lost - of course.

  • Man, I used to steal them from my Dad's newsagency, so my porn journey started when I could smuggle a mag out the back and then pick it up later when I rode my bike home. I think you're right. Its more widely available to kids much younger now via the computer, and the range of stuff is much broader. You don't have to rely on a father or an older brother for the goods. There used to be some pretty eye-popping stuff available in the 70's and 80's though, and it was all very misogynist I reckon. It is by its nature given our social structure. Plus when you hit 18 you could access all the theatres and porn shops you wanted if you wish to indulge the ugly side of your sexuality.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Man, I used to steal them from my Dad's newsagency, so my porn journey started when I could smuggle a mag out the back and then pick it up later when I rode my bike home. I think you're right. Its more widely available to kids much younger now via the computer, and the range of stuff is much broader. You don't have to rely on a father or an older brother for the goods. There used to be some pretty eye-popping stuff available in the 70's and 80's though, and it was all very misogynist I reckon. It is by its nature given our social structure. Plus when you hit 18 you could access all the theatres and porn shops you wanted if you wish to indulge the ugly side of your sexuality.

    The danger comes when it's exposed to people who are too young or stupid to understand that everyone in the scene is an actor and regardless of how it appears everyone is consenting to what happens. If you think porn is depicting real life or showing how real life should be then you are, metaphorically, screwed, and you will in all probability damage other people.
  • Meanwhile, this appeared in my Facebook: https://www.boredpanda.com/classical-art-book-nudity-censored-baptist-college/

    Obvs, not suggesting anyone here would agree with such idiocy but it does show the other extreme.
  • Another problem with porn is that not everyone is an actor. There is a lot of exploitation generally, not just revenge porn, which is so common as to be an offence but of the links between exploitation and sex trafficking (2019 article)

    And there are real problems with the prevalence and accessibility of porn (link to 2010 article):
    As a result of her research, Dines believes that pornography is driving men to commit particular acts of violence towards women. "I am not saying that a man reads porn and goes out to rape," she says, "but what I do know is that porn gives permission to its consumers to treat women as they are treated in porn." In a recent study, 80% of men said that the one sex act they would most like to perform is to ejaculate on a woman's face; in 2007, a comment stream on the website Jezebel.com included a number of women who said that, on a first date, they had, to their surprise, experienced their sexual partner ejaculating on their faces without asking.

    My objections to porn are to do with the willingness of the consumers to buy into the myths of willing participants and turn a blind eye to the real issues of exploitation.
  • Another problem with porn is that not everyone is an actor. There is a lot of exploitation generally, not just revenge porn, which is so common as to be an offence but of the links between exploitation and sex trafficking (2019 article)

    And there are real problems with the prevalence and accessibility of porn (link to 2010 article):
    As a result of her research, Dines believes that pornography is driving men to commit particular acts of violence towards women. "I am not saying that a man reads porn and goes out to rape," she says, "but what I do know is that porn gives permission to its consumers to treat women as they are treated in porn." In a recent study, 80% of men said that the one sex act they would most like to perform is to ejaculate on a woman's face; in 2007, a comment stream on the website Jezebel.com included a number of women who said that, on a first date, they had, to their surprise, experienced their sexual partner ejaculating on their faces without asking.

    My objections to porn are to do with the willingness of the consumers to buy into the myths of willing participants and turn a blind eye to the real issues of exploitation.

    Do you object to alcoholic drink because some people suffer from alcoholism, get drunk, commit crimes because they are drunk, and so on?

    There are important problems with porn but I think we can deal with those problems without needing to object to it altogether.

    As for exploitation, that cuts across a whole range of employment
  • Yeah but exploitation in the porn industry is especially vile, particularly when it involves women in the third world or even women from eastern europe. I know that sex slavery is real, in that women are lured to my city under false pretenses and forced to work in legal and illegal brothels. How much easier would it be to access vulnerable women from Germany, or just go to somewhere poor in eastern europe and make your material there?

    We must not seek to minimise the suffering caused here.

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah but exploitation in the porn industry is especially vile, particularly when it involves women in the third world or even women from eastern europe. I know that sex slavery is real, in that women are lured to my city under false pretenses and forced to work in legal and illegal brothels. How much easier would it be to access vulnerable women from Germany, or just go to somewhere poor in eastern europe and make your material there?

    We must not seek to minimise the suffering caused here.

    Ah, prostitution is a whole other matter. Totally agree with everything you said.
  • I don't think governments know what to do about porn. Obviously, you could ban it, but that might make it more exciting, as well as freedom of speech arguments. The British govt seems to be trying to legislate for a restriction on commercial porn, but this also has problems, for example, commercial porn companies end up owning big lists of individuals with credit details, and so on, a hacker's paradise.

    Another issue difficult to resolve is who decides on what is porn? Kenneth Clark had a go in his book "The Nude", and it didn't work very well. It had the sub-title, "A study in ideal form", which is farcical in a way. Porn is for getting your rocks off, but art is on a higher level. OK, boss.

    Of course, there is tons of Victorian art with boobs galore, strictly for gentlemen, so that's alright.
  • I think the problem is that not only is this a gritty representation of reality, it is usingthe language of that reality (to an extent). And calling women "meat" or "livestock" or "bitches" seems to be even more of a problem than just gently hinting at stuff.

    I am also watching another Jed Mercurio series "Bodies" - even more unpleasant (although it is a comedic darkness) about a gyne ward. And yes, they show womens genitalia - because that is what the place is about.

    But it is shocking. Because mostly, these things are just hinted at in drama.

    Some anvils need to be dropped. And TV drama is a way of putting these issues front and centre and showing the banality of evil..
  • Of course, there is tons of Victorian art with boobs galore, strictly for gentlemen, so that's alright.

    I am reminded of the quote regarding wives and servants from the Lady Chatterley trial.
  • Another problem with porn is that not everyone is an actor. There is a lot of exploitation generally, not just revenge porn, which is so common as to be an offence but of the links between exploitation and sex trafficking (2019 article)

    And there are real problems with the prevalence and accessibility of porn (link to 2010 article):
    As a result of her research, Dines believes that pornography is driving men to commit particular acts of violence towards women. "I am not saying that a man reads porn and goes out to rape," she says, "but what I do know is that porn gives permission to its consumers to treat women as they are treated in porn." In a recent study, 80% of men said that the one sex act they would most like to perform is to ejaculate on a woman's face; in 2007, a comment stream on the website Jezebel.com included a number of women who said that, on a first date, they had, to their surprise, experienced their sexual partner ejaculating on their faces without asking.

    My objections to porn are to do with the willingness of the consumers to buy into the myths of willing participants and turn a blind eye to the real issues of exploitation.

    It is useful to read Brooke MAgnati's stuff (The Sex Myth) to counter Gail Dines; Dines talks over actual sex workers.

    Same as Autism $peak$ tries to talk over NAS or ASAN...

  • Of course, there is tons of Victorian art with boobs galore, strictly for gentlemen, so that's alright.

    I am reminded of the quote regarding wives and servants from the Lady Chatterley trial.

    Yes, quite similar. There is a famous painting by John Waterhouse, "St Eulalia ", which shows the saint stretched out dead, and semi-naked. Sometimes labelled porn, often labelled a sublime painting. Who decides? Why you, of course. Shown at Tate Britain.
  • @stetson - you've chosen to be selective there, picking up on the Dines quotation, but not the more recent law changes to deal with revenge porn or the discussion about the links of porn to sex trafficking and exploitation. And I wasn't using Dines to point up problems with the sex trade, but with the normalisation of more extreme sexual acts.
  • [
    Ah, prostitution is a whole other matter. Totally agree with everything you said.

    I don’t see much to distinguish between the two.
  • [
    Ah, prostitution is a whole other matter. Totally agree with everything you said.

    I don’t see much to distinguish between the two.

    And I think they are completely different.
  • [
    Ah, prostitution is a whole other matter. Totally agree with everything you said.

    I don’t see much to distinguish between the two.

    And I think they are completely different.

    On what basis ? (excluding the trafficking issue which is strictly separate).
  • Porn and Pornography are not as different as porn users like to think. But it is useful to keep them separate. I find that taboos, once broken, can be difficult to stop breaking. If porn and prostitution is thought of as the same thing, my fear is that more blokes would give using the services of a prostitute a go. I don't know whether that's good or bad actually. You smell the personhood of a prostitute.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    (This is what I love about the Ship...topics that rarely enter my mind [I am a shockingly asexual creature most times...though the occasional hunk catches my eye] -- and may not be broached over a dinner table -- are raised and discussed, and I learn... Thank you)
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    So what makes groups like the Chippendales OK and just a laugh for a girls night out? There are posters on the tube for magic Mike Live. If the posters where of women they would be slammed.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    @stetson - you've chosen to be selective there, picking up on the Dines quotation, but not the more recent law changes to deal with revenge porn or the discussion about the links of porn to sex trafficking and exploitation. And I wasn't using Dines to point up problems with the sex trade, but with the normalisation of more extreme sexual acts.

    Curiosity:

    I think you might have the wrong poster? I don't believe I've contributed to any portion of the discussion involving Gail Dines.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Porn and Pornography are not as different as porn users like to think. But it is useful to keep them separate. I find that taboos, once broken, can be difficult to stop breaking. If porn and prostitution is thought of as the same thing, my fear is that more blokes would give using the services of a prostitute a go.

    Actually, for a long time(and still now, theoretically) prostitution in South Korea was considered quite acceptable, but any form of explicit pornography was strictly illegal. I'm not sure of the rationale for this double-standard, maybe something to do with prostiution being a private undertaking, but pornography being more accessible to the public, but that's just speculation on my part.

    A few caveats:

    Prostitution has for a long time been technically illegal, but allowed to continue, with the police collecting bribes from the local brothels, in a sort of unofficial taxation system, supplemented by occasional raids, just to keep up the appearance of disapproval. In one mass crackdown I read about, the local police units were sent into districts other than their own, so they'd be arresting people who HADN'T paid them bribes.

    Soft-core pornography does a fairly brisk trade, offering readers and viewers material that strictly eschews full-frontal nudity and in which all the sex is simulated. Interestingly enough, however, what I will euphemistically call "non-consensual sex" is a common motif in Korean porn, featured in 75% of the films I've watched. (In absolute numbers, four films in total.)

    And while I don't follow internet porn(my surfing is either at cybercafes or my office), my guess would be that it has made the laws against hardcore somewhat moot.


  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Prostitution is not illegal in the UK, but everything around it us
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    It is even
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Sorry...dense me. What does that mean? Prostitution in and of itself is not illegal, but being a pimp or paying for it is? How does that work? Or am I misreading "around it"?
  • stetson wrote: »
    @stetson - you've chosen to be selective there, picking up on the Dines quotation, but not the more recent law changes to deal with revenge porn or the discussion about the links of porn to sex trafficking and exploitation. And I wasn't using Dines to point up problems with the sex trade, but with the normalisation of more extreme sexual acts.

    Curiosity:

    I think you might have the wrong poster? I don't believe I've contributed to any portion of the discussion involving Gail Dines.

    Apologies @stetson, I don't like these very similar avatars to read posters at speed. I was responding to and should have tagged @Alex Cockell in my response, and if I'd realised that I was answering Alex I would have been more scathing about the purveyors of toxic masculinity dissing feminists writing against porn.
  • Climacus wrote: »
    Sorry...dense me. What does that mean? Prostitution in and of itself is not illegal, but being a pimp or paying for it is? How does that work? Or am I misreading "around it"?

    Prostitution is legal as is the exchange of money. Pimping is illegal, as is running or managing a brothel and soliciting in public.
  • [
    Ah, prostitution is a whole other matter. Totally agree with everything you said.

    I don’t see much to distinguish between the two.

    And I think they are completely different.

    On what basis ? (excluding the trafficking issue which is strictly separate).

    Prostitution involves far more risks for the workers. Risk of disease. Risk of violence. Risk of being stolen from.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Anything outside of actual prostitution is illegal. So seeking clients, pimping etc is. It is to help protect the girl (and boys) but also to reduce stigma.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Anything outside of actual prostitution is illegal. So seeking clients, pimping etc is. It is to help protect the girl (and boys) but also to reduce stigma.

    And reducing the stigma isn't just some wishy-washy progressive liberalisation of morality, it will actually save lives, both in the sense of ending misery and saving actual lives.
  • Prostitution involves far more risks for the workers. Risk of disease. Risk of violence. Risk of being stolen from.

    That is largely contingent on the circumstances of both, and the difference is one of degree rather than kind. There's porn outside the US industry, and prostitution that isn't trafficked kerb crawling (see Eutychus' references to past members of congregation who have been prostitutes due to force of circumstance).
  • Alex CockellAlex Cockell Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    stetson wrote: »
    @stetson - you've chosen to be selective there, picking up on the Dines quotation, but not the more recent law changes to deal with revenge porn or the discussion about the links of porn to sex trafficking and exploitation. And I wasn't using Dines to point up problems with the sex trade, but with the normalisation of more extreme sexual acts.

    Curiosity:

    I think you might have the wrong poster? I don't believe I've contributed to any portion of the discussion involving Gail Dines.

    Apologies @stetson, I don't like these very similar avatars to read posters at speed. I was responding to and should have tagged @Alex Cockell in my response, and if I'd realised that I was answering Alex I would have been more scathing about the purveyors of toxic masculinity dissing feminists writing against porn.

    I'm confused.

    I hear of two factions "sex-positive" and "sex-negative". Apparently peopl elike Erika Lust are "sex-positive" and Gail Dines is "sex-negative". What sex am I allowed to maybe desire one day? I don't know this stuff..

    Am I allowed to maybe desire all the stuff that Whaty Wives want their Husbands to know abotu sex - which talks about stuff more than just procreation in Song of Songs...

    I repressed myself compeletely and suicidally ate..

    Is all hetero sex evil? I hear that from some...

    Am I allowed to desire to lose my virginity?

  • Hugal wrote: »
    So what makes groups like the Chippendales OK and just a laugh for a girls night out? There are posters on the tube for magic Mike Live. If the posters where of women they would be slammed.

    Historical issues? The acceptability of male strippers eg, as a hen night entertainment, is relatively new, and off the back of that movement of women 'reclaiming' the streets and the night etc. A safe way for women to enjoy sexy fun with their mates.

    Whereas, historically stripping has generally been of the female variety in twilit clubs, habited by the heavy-breathing, sad, solitary raincoat brigade. Even with the glamour of Playboy clubs and Stringfellows etc, it's never stopped looking sleazy and lecherous. And maybe there's something in the historical - and ongoing? - power-play between male and female that men leching over women, seems more sinister and threatening than women leching over men?Also issues of safety are differently situated? BROAD generalisation, but the two activities have different genesis and pathways.

    Where they are similar is in the detachment of sex and sexiness from relationship; an objectification of a special aspect of being human, which I think is unhealthy. But then I'm probably a prude.

    Personally, even though I find men attractive, I don't find anything the least bit attractive about the activity of male stripping. I feel it's a real backward step in our humanity when we objectify people like that, whether male or female. But I know it's a complex issue.




  • nice balanced post illustrating the struggle we are going through Anselmina.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    So what makes groups like the Chippendales OK and just a laugh for a girls night out? There are posters on the tube for magic Mike Live. If the posters where of women they would be slammed.

    I don't know, but there is a pattern like that.

    In the old days a man found naked in public was charged with indecent exposure/ offending public decency - a woman with behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

    In plays and films if a woman was exposed as scantily dressed or partially naked it was seen as sexually arousing or provocative - if Robertson Hare dropped his trousers the audience howled with laughter.

    But this is typical of the UK: the Westminster Council licensing committee could (and did) demand that the Tiller Girls' costumes be higher at the bodice, yet the same committee allowed girls to be totally naked at The Windmill so long as they didn't move. Weird :confused:
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Anselmina wrote: »
    Hugal wrote: »
    So what makes groups like the Chippendales OK and just a laugh for a girls night out? There are posters on the tube for magic Mike Live. If the posters where of women they would be slammed.

    Historical issues? The acceptability of male strippers eg, as a hen night entertainment, is relatively new, and off the back of that movement of women 'reclaiming' the streets and the night etc. A safe way for women to enjoy sexy fun with their mates.

    Whereas, historically stripping has generally been of the female variety in twilit clubs, habited by the heavy-breathing, sad, solitary raincoat brigade. Even with the glamour of Playboy clubs and Stringfellows etc, it's never stopped looking sleazy and lecherous. And maybe there's something in the historical - and ongoing? - power-play between male and female that men leching over women, seems more sinister and threatening than women leching over men?Also issues of safety are differently situated? BROAD generalisation, but the two activities have different genesis and pathways.

    The first time I ever heard about male-strippers in my hometown was in the late 1970s, when a club that regularly hosted female strippers started a ladies' night.

    So, on most nights, the club owner was disempowering women by selling their bodies to lecherous men, but on ladies' night, he was helping women reclaim the streets?

  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    Thanks for the UK prostitution laws information.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    In Canada, the laws until recently were similar to what's been described for the UK, ie. prostitution per se wasn't illegal, but you couldn't solicit customers in public(IOW no street prostitution), or use the same room twice(IOW no brothels) etc, all of which made the profession very difficult to practice legally.

    This all changed a few years back, when the Supreme Court struck down the laws, as violating the rights of the women involved. The government tried to get around this by passing a "Nordic Model" law, which criminalized the men who buy sex, but not the women who sell it. Thus, the government could claim to be respecting the rights of women(by treating them as victims to be protected from predatory men), while still keeping prostitution itself illegal.

    I believe this new law has yet to be tested in the courts. There is some debate over whether it actually benefits the women involved, or just does the bare minimum in preserving their right not to be arrested, while otherwise doing everything possible to squash their livelihood.
  • Amnesty is supporting sex workers themselves who are pushing for full decriminalisation, allowing it to be treated like any other job regarding workplace safety, rather than how the Nordic model, in the words of sex workers themselves, "infantilises them".

    Cf people like Charlotte Rose, Brooke Magnati, and others.
  • I'm confused.

    I hear of two factions "sex-positive" and "sex-negative". Apparently peopl elike Erika Lust are "sex-positive" and Gail Dines is "sex-negative". What sex am I allowed to maybe desire one day? I don't know this stuff..

    @Alex Cockell most of what you are asking is well beyond this thread and if you are confused, you really need to seek personal counselling, rather than internet advice, as there are are so many interpretations being used around the terms of sex-positive and sex-negative. The way you are using those terms link into something else that's being discussed in Hell - the Toxic Masculinity thread. Some of the more vociferous argument is against a change from objectification of women, by men who do not like the status quo being challenged, as they do not want to lose their power base. And I would suggest that What Wives Wish their Husbands Knew about Sex: A Guide for Christian Men fits squarely into male expressions of what women should do, again, and has nothing whatsoever to do with sex-positivity as it's all about what men should do according to the blurb.

    There are huge problems from the sexualisation of most entertainment and advertising, which is why movements like the sex positive movement develop. Sex-positivity is women, and men and different of expressions of gender and sexuality, trying to reclaim their sexualities. That means safe, consensual sex, which is not what is portrayed in a lot of porn. Not that any sexual act is acceptable. It is a push back against the normalisation of the more extreme acts which is being promulgated by porn.
    Amnesty is supporting sex workers themselves who are pushing for full decriminalisation, allowing it to be treated like any other job regarding workplace safety, rather than how the Nordic model, in the words of sex workers themselves, "infantilises them".

    Cf people like Charlotte Rose, Brooke Magnati, and others.

    I suggest you read what Amnesty International writes on their policy - link, rather than some male only take on "Amnesty are supporting sex workers":
    “Sex workers are at heightened risk of a whole host of human rights abuses including rape, violence, extortion and discrimination. Far too often they receive no, or very little, protection from the law or means for redress,” said Tawanda Mutasah, Amnesty International’s Senior Director for Law and Policy.

    “Our policy outlines how governments must do more to protect people who do sex work from violations and abuse. Our research highlights their testimony and the daily issues they face.”

    The reason Amnesty are asking for decriminalisation is to make sex workers safer, to allow the law to protect them.
    Laws on sex work should focus on protecting people from exploitation and abuse, rather than trying to ban all sex work and penalize sex workers.
    backing up my earlier point that there are huge issues in sex working of exploitation and abuse.
  • stetson wrote: »
    The first time I ever heard about male-strippers in my hometown was in the late 1970s, when a club that regularly hosted female strippers started a ladies' night.

    So, on most nights, the club owner was disempowering women by selling their bodies to lecherous men, but on ladies' night, he was helping women reclaim the streets?

    Haha! No! Though some people may have seen it that way, I suppose. As I said in my post - the part you omitted - in my opinion such objectification devalues everyone. I'm guessing the club owner was just trying to earn his living and didn't much care either way who was empowered or being leched over!

    But I'm saying it's worth noting the timing of when this all started becoming popular; when various strains of feminism, or at least reactions to sexism and misogyny, were beginning to kick in; women becoming confident sexually, less inclined to hide at home, or be restricted to the 'ladies' part of the local bar. A bit like the later 'ladette' behaviour of the 1980's.

    If men are allowed to go out, get trollied at 3 in the morning, and slobber over naked members of the opposite sex, why can't the girls do the same. It's - again in my opinion - one of the less desirable off-shoots of that movement where women were encouraged to 'empower' themselves by adopting some of the worst excesses of their male counterparts. And I'm speaking as a feminist myself.

    So these two strands of women stripping for men, and men stripping for women come from different places, generated by different social and sexual norms, as culture eg, changes. Which maybe explains why they're not mirror images of each other, or 'equals' in terms of what's necessarily going on. And why society may have some difficulty in regarding female stripping as entirely innocent fun, or male stripping as entirely exploitative.
  • I suppose where i come from is related to the whole "cure or empower" debate in autism - where the watchword is "nothing about us without us". And sex workers have experienced the same issue with being talked over as some of us on the spectrum.

    Hence the pushback against Gail Dines etc (who are often based by sex-negative bodies who also fought against the #repealthe8th stuff in Ireland) who talks over sex workers in the same way as Autism Speaks tried to speak over NAS= and both are still talking over autistic folks...

    So I've kinda allied down that path...
  • Alex CockellAlex Cockell Shipmate
    edited April 2019
    Anselmina wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    The first time I ever heard about male-strippers in my hometown was in the late 1970s, when a club that regularly hosted female strippers started a ladies' night.

    So, on most nights, the club owner was disempowering women by selling their bodies to lecherous men, but on ladies' night, he was helping women reclaim the streets?

    Haha! No! Though some people may have seen it that way, I suppose. As I said in my post - the part you omitted - in my opinion such objectification devalues everyone. I'm guessing the club owner was just trying to earn his living and didn't much care either way who was empowered or being leched over!

    But I'm saying it's worth noting the timing of when this all started becoming popular; when various strains of feminism, or at least reactions to sexism and misogyny, were beginning to kick in; women becoming confident sexually, less inclined to hide at home, or be restricted to the 'ladies' part of the local bar. A bit like the later 'ladette' behaviour of the 1980's.

    If men are allowed to go out, get trollied at 3 in the morning, and slobber over naked members of the opposite sex, why can't the girls do the same. It's - again in my opinion - one of the less desirable off-shoots of that movement where women were encouraged to 'empower' themselves by adopting some of the worst excesses of their male counterparts. And I'm speaking as a feminist myself.

    So these two strands of women stripping for men, and men stripping for women come from different places, generated by different social and sexual norms, as culture eg, changes. Which maybe explains why they're not mirror images of each other, or 'equals' in terms of what's necessarily going on. And why society may have some difficulty in regarding female stripping as entirely innocent fun, or male stripping as entirely exploitative.

    And i remember covering college ball duties like that back in the 90s - so it was all work memories for me...

    And this fight between two strands of feminism - is the fight between Camille PAglia and Gloria Steinem - https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=paglia+steimen
  • Without wishing to comment further it is a very very good idea to listen to sex workers and those who support them when designing a legal framework for sex work.
Sign In or Register to comment.