Why is this exploiting women?

Campaigners against strip clubs say this was not an anomaly and is representative of behaviour that occurs in such clubs across the UK.

The claims come amid a split in the feminist movement about attitudes to sex-related work. Some, often older, campaigners argue that strip clubs objectify women and should be closed, while their opponents, predominantly younger, say that taking work away from women by shutting such venues is not feminist. This report will be seized upon by the former as a sign of the exploitation they say is inherent in the industry.

The investigators allege that the dancers sat on their laps, rubbed their genitals through clothing, simulated oral sex, and put their breasts in the men’s mouths. They also claim that dancers touched each other intimately in defiance of club rules. One dancer told the men that the “no touching” rule did not apply to her or her colleague.

Sounds like an excellent method of vacuuming the money out of those men’s wallets. Which would rather men the exploitation is running the other way….

That split between older and younger feminists is fun too, isn’t it? Rather, maybe, between those who could still so exploit men and those who couldn’t?

16 comments on “Why is this exploiting women?

  1. I recall the sex workers representative pointing out years ago that feminism meant replacing women being told what to do by a bunch of po-faced old men by women being told what to do by a bunch of po-faced old women. Pretty much nailed it.

    Nobody is being exploited, it’s consensual economic activity. Kindly copulate elsewhere.

  2. “They also claim that dancers touched each other intimately in defiance of club rules.”

    Wait, there are rules against LGBT displays of affection? Has Stonewall been asked to comment on this blatant homophobia?

  3. “…..dancers touched each other intimately ….”.
    Who do these dancers think they are, 2 of the Spice Girls?

  4. Meant to add this to my last.
    “…..strip clubs objectify woman and should be closed…”.
    My local theatre recently showed a troop of buffed up, oiled and tanned, young men, taking their clothes off.
    The place was packed with women (and a few men, but that’s probably another story), so much so that bought tickets were changing hands for profit. Another case of women being objectified, I suppose?

  5. Much like the battle against the F1 pit lane girls. These raddled old ‘feminists’ hate young attractive women far more than they hate men.

  6. Look at a few photos of feminists and you will find few of the young ones who are able to personally exploit men’s desires.

    In a crew where the bug-eyed harpy AOC is supposedly a looker the femmi-hags had best stick to letting other women exploit men’s urges. They should be grateful for such urges. Without that push the vast majority of women would have very tough lives indeed.

  7. Which would rather men the exploitation is running the other way….

    Nice little typo there…. 🙂

  8. ‘Campaigners against strip clubs say this was not an anomaly and is representative of behaviour that occurs in such clubs across the UK.’

    WHAH! WHAH! WHAH!

    ‘An anonymous women’s rights campaigner . . . paid to send the men undercover for two nights at the Spearmint Rhino club in Sheffield earlier this year.’

    She was exploited by the men.

    WAFS . . . they investigated S. Rhino, then make the sweeping claim it ‘occurs in such clubs across the UK.’

    Rather hasty generalization there.

    ‘Campaigners against strip clubs’ are an odd lot: they represent neither the owners nor the employees. “Who the fvck are you?” is the best response.

  9. Roue,

    “I recall the sex workers representative pointing out years ago that feminism meant replacing women being told what to do by a bunch of po-faced old men by women being told what to do by a bunch of po-faced old women. Pretty much nailed it.”

    But po-faced old women have always done this. They were the people trying to close down sex shops in the 80s, not men. All that changed was the organisations. They moved from the banner of the nanny church to the nanny feminists when the former lost its power.

  10. Terrible this exploiting women thing. One of our girls has got a Skandi businessman flies down & exploits the hell out of her for a weekend, every month. Normally runs to a couple of thousand but by last night she’d already hit him for three grand & his flight out’s not till this evening. Disgusting isn’t it?

  11. I’d say these campaigners are as bad as some of the clients. They really do not understand it’s a job. Our Skandi guy’s one of them. He’s formed an emotional attachment to the girl. Sends her photos of his kids FFS!
    It’s like wanting to ban music venues because there’s musicians playing there for money rather than strumming for their own amusement. Are you only supposed to sing love songs to people you’re actually in love with?

  12. I’m not convinced at all that there’s a split in the Feminist movement over this, older/younger or otherwise. All their hate outlets are still spouting the Objectification nonsense with the usual vitriol. As a movement it’s always got its most active supporters from women who resent more attractive women benefitting from being more attractive and that is unlikely to change. Hence the Wear A Hijab Days which they hope to extend to 365 days a year*.

    Feminism remains a puritan movement and post-1950s feminism remains a vicious reaction against the sexual libertinism which erupted in the later 1960s and without that driving force they haven’t got a movement.

    ———————–
    *366 in leap years.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.