Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

subego · 12:44 PM

Here in Chicago, there's an ordinance where you can't sell alcohol around naked people.

The way clubs get around that is latex pasties and bikinis instead of thongs.

The one club here which tries to cope with that has been targeted by the city for years for not enough latex and thongs.

Supposedly, they stopped being a problem in 2006, but the city is still trying to close them down because of all the time they didn't follow the rules.

Can anyone justify any of this? I don't like strip clubs (they raise my feminist hackles rather than my junk), but this seems like a crazy waste of time and resources.

ShortcutToMoncton · Jul 19, 2011, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Can anyone justify any of this? I don't like strip clubs (they raise my feminist hackles rather than my junk), but this seems like a crazy waste of time and resources.

Smaller government!! Moar strip clubs!!
Couldn't resist. I'm an idiot

The Final Dakar · Jul 19, 2011, 01:01 PM

Think of the children!

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 01:31 PM

A somewhat related aside:

Apparently, it was once argued women needed to be protected from going on trains because the high speeds would tear their uteruses out.

The Final Dakar · Jul 19, 2011, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by subego

A somewhat related aside:

Apparently, it was once argued women needed to be protected from going on trains because the high speeds would tear their uteruses out.

You're a TWiT.

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 02:07 PM

Takes one to know one.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 19, 2011, 02:17 PM

Technically it would be large accelerations not high speeds that would do that if anything would have.

LegendaryPinkOx · Jul 19, 2011, 02:38 PM

I concur, lest the rate at which we hurtle around the sun be the death of us all.

smacintush · Jul 19, 2011, 02:38 PM

It's an example of where the right and the left agree that individual rights need to be ignored.

Strip clubs, as well as most any other instance the "sex industry" don't get much sympathy or attention because of their nature and the issue isn't taken seriously by most (as evidenced by the responses in this thread). To me it is a fundamental issue of rights and those who choose to be in the "sex industry" are treated unfairly.

No, there is no justification for government this, though I suspect that is based upon an evidence-less assumption that if men are around naked women and get drunk, they are gonna go rape or assault someone. You know, guilty until proven innocent just like most other regulations assume.

P.S. No, I don't like strip clubs either. (not for feminist reasons, I don't have any respect for feminist "ideals".)

OAW · Jul 19, 2011, 03:09 PM

You have stupid regulations like the OP describes because the local governments aren't able to shut the strip clubs down so they go to Plan B and try to impose severe restrictions to limit their appeal. It certainly has nothing to do with safety for the workers. In my neck of the woods the law is essentially the same. Totally nude dancers = No alcohol. For a while there were some clubs that tried the "juice bar" approach ... where the dancers could get naked but the clientele could only buy fruit juice and soft drinks. But it would appear that such an approach had limited appeal both to the clientele and more importantly to the club owners because the money is made selling alcohol. So most of those that even bother to run a strip club are doing the pasty thing with scantily clad but not completely nude dancers now. Of course, that too is a losing proposition when people can just cross the river into the next state and go to clubs that even put Vegas to shame in terms of their regulation.

OAW

Athens · Jul 19, 2011, 03:10 PM

We have a strip place here that serves no booze, side effect you can get inside at the age of 18 instead of 19 lol

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

(not for feminist reasons, I don't have any respect for feminist "ideals".)

Is there some authority which declares what those ideals are? Feminism has a pretty big tent.

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 05:40 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

We have a strip place here that serves no booze, side effect you can get inside at the age of 18 instead of 19 lol

We have plenty of those.

ShortcutToMoncton · Jul 19, 2011, 06:17 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Feminism has a pretty big tent.

Do I even want to touch this?
Settin em up...

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 06:27 PM

No touching!

Pervert.

ShortcutToMoncton · Jul 19, 2011, 06:40 PM

On that note, I've got a couple great stories about touching and strip clubs.

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 06:56 PM

I understand that for connoisseurs of such things, strip clubs in Canada are considered vastly superior to American ones, while Mexican ones supposedly top both.

I've only been to one strip club as a patron, and one across several days as a film electrician (we'd work all day there when it was closed, and afterwards, it was the closest place to get shit faced). The first experience wasn't any fun, and the second made me want to blow my brains out.

Now, I've been to a bunch of burlesque shows, and those were all awesome.

subego · Jul 19, 2011, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

(as evidenced by the responses in this thread).

I'm not sure that's fair. Sex is funny.

Overall though, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Athens · Jul 19, 2011, 09:31 PM

I've never found a US strip club yet, not that I have looked hard for one either. Next time im in Seattle im going to have to visit one just to see if its different.

smacintush · Jul 19, 2011, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Is there some authority which declares what those ideals are? Feminism has a pretty big tent.

You are correct, it is a broad field.

Shaddim · Jul 20, 2011, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by smacintush

You are correct, it is a broad field.

We go to strip clubs every now and then, there's a great one just outside the city limits that serves booze while still being full-nude. I'm not there to get my rocks off, just to laugh and have fun. I can't wait for the day when the idiots of this world realize that they're naked under their clothes, and if they take them off they're still the same person.

"OMG, it's a naked person, throw your hands up in the air and run around in a panic!"

subego · Jul 20, 2011, 03:11 PM

Or that there's no problem when someone takes a handful of 00 buck to the chest on TV, but let the Lord smite down those who dare showeth a boob.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 20, 2011, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Or that there's no problem when someone takes a handful of 00 buck to the chest on TV, but let the Lord smite down those who dare showeth a boob.

Its stupid right? In the UK, put sex in a film and it gets an 18 rating yet the age of consent is 16. Presumably the BBFC thinks that 16 and 17 year olds should only ever get busy wearing blindfolds.

Shaddim · Jul 20, 2011, 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Its stupid right? In the UK, put sex in a film and it gets an 18 rating yet the age of consent is 16. Presumably the BBFC thinks that 16 and 17 year olds should only ever get busy wearing blindfolds.

It's even more ridiculous there because tabloids show breasts on the front page, but the BBC still believes that it's 1957.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 20, 2011, 07:42 PM

Originally Posted by Shaddim

It's even more ridiculous there because tabloids show breasts on the front page, but the BBC still believes that it's 1957.

While you aren't wrong, I think you'll find there is more nudity on (mainstream) TV over here than over there.
The BBC is bound by unwritten rules of taste and decency in the same way that Disney is but to a much lesser extent. They still have more nudity and swearing than most US networks as far as I know. HBO being the exception of course.

Shaddim · Jul 20, 2011, 07:55 PM

Honestly, I wouldn't know, I don't watch commercial TV. The only channels I watch now are HBO and Showtime, and they're both rather relaxed when it comes to boobies and language.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 20, 2011, 08:12 PM

Ah yes. I don't think I watch anything on Showtime but I see plenty from Fox, ABC, USA and one or two others and they are all pretty wholesome compared to a lot of UKTV.

subego · Jul 20, 2011, 08:27 PM

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep

Ah yes. I don't think I watch anything on Showtime but I see plenty from Fox, ABC, USA and one or two others and they are all pretty wholesome compared to a lot of UKTV.

I'd imagine it's in the other direction WRT violence.

ebuddy · Jul 20, 2011, 08:31 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Is there some authority which declares what those ideals are? Feminism has a pretty big tent.

Feminism may have a big tent, but its most politically-active are decidedly quiet when it comes to the treatment of conservative women. It's often okay to straight, marginalize them for ideological expedience. This suggests their ideals may not need a big tent. Although to your question, I still can't tell you what authority actually makes the declaration.

ebuddy · Jul 20, 2011, 08:41 PM

re: the OP

First they came for your cigarettes...

subego · Jul 20, 2011, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Feminism may have a big tent, but its most politically-active are decidedly quiet when it comes to the treatment of conservative women. It's often okay to straight, marginalize them for ideological expedience. This suggests their ideals may not need a big tent. Although to your question, I still can't tell you what authority actually makes the declaration.

Can you elaborate on this marginalization?

Note, I don't doubt you for a second, but I'm blanking on anything specific which would demonstrate that.

subego · Jul 20, 2011, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

re: the OP

First they came for your cigarettes...

Pot. I think you mean pot.

ebuddy · Jul 21, 2011, 07:30 AM

Originally Posted by subego

Can you elaborate on this marginalization?

The infatuation with Sarah Palin's breasts and the speculation that she got a boob job perpetuated by female editor of Wonkette. Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair speaking of the Republican women who won their primaries (lest we forget one of the core tenets of true feminism) as "wingnuts" and a "blow to feminism". Having won elections against men in their field should not be a "blow to feminism" unless the ideals behind it are decidedly small-tent. Jessica Valenti of feministing.org has made it her life's work at this point to discredit and marginalize Palin, but remarkably silent when leftist champions such as Mark Morford refer to Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and Michele Bachmann as a hydra-headed hellbeast of pseudo-women. Recent commentary on Bill Maher's show in reference to Michelle Bachmann was sick enough to make highschool sophomores blush, yet nary a word from the champions of women's dignity.

It is clear, at least to me, that your ideology must fall in lock-step with a small order of leftist causes not only qualifying a suitable feminist, but womanhood itself.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 21, 2011, 08:05 AM

I think the vast majority of criticism of Palin and Bachmann has nothing whatsoever to do with their gender and rightly so. I also cannot fault any feminist who has let this slide when there are more than a few who will defend or attack all sorts of people on issues which are not really related to sexism.

Anyone who saw that weird exchange between Rebecca Watson and Richard Dawkins will know what I mean. He was out of line to say anything at all, it was none of his business but the number of people who called him sexist for comments that were passionately railing against the sexist, degrading and violent treatment of muslim women was shocking and frankly they made themselves look stupid IMO.

I notice no-one is criticising feminists for failing to defend Casey Anthony.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 21, 2011, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by subego

I'd imagine it's in the other direction WRT violence.

Yes and no. It depends on the channel/network.

For example Sky Atlantic cut Game of Thrones down to an hour (including ads) for its 9pm primetime slot. I didn't compare so I don't know if they cut it for gore or nudity or both but the showing later on around midnight was 15 minutes longer.
Not sure many people over here noticed that actually.

On the other hand, there was an infamous scene a few years back in a spy drama called Spooks on BBC1 at 9pm where a pretty blonde agent got her face shoved into a deep fat fryer. That got quite a few complaints though.

Then there was an ITV1 edit of Robocop which was just over an hour long. With ads. I wouldn't buy that for a dollar.

andi*pandi · Jul 21, 2011, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Having won elections against men in their field should not be a "blow to feminism" unless the ideals behind it are decidedly small-tent. ....

It is clear, at least to me, that your ideology must fall in lock-step with a small order of leftist causes not only qualifying a suitable feminist, but womanhood itself.

Snide comments aren't limited to the left. I recall a goodly amount of conservative snickering over Clinton's cankles, Ferrara's butchness, etc.

It would be nice if both sides could leave off the name calling and just judge a person based on his/her merits. Unfortunately, we live in a video world where what people look like matters. And if you trade on that, and capitalize on that (beauty queen, magazine centerfold) then that becomes your "merit".

It doesn't help Palin's "feminist" cred when she denies funding for rape victims, etc. I'd say that's a pretty minimum standard for feminism, advocating for women's safety.

Anyway, this isn't a Palin thread, it's a strip club thread. Unless you have some video to share linking the two?

Waragainstsleep · Jul 21, 2011, 11:51 AM

Can't decide whether to laugh or thrown a little in my mouth.

Waragainstsleep · Jul 21, 2011, 11:52 AM

I keep seeing "Strip Clubs" and "...race to the bottom" next to each other and can't help but think one might be a good tagline for the other.

subego · Jul 21, 2011, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The infatuation with Sarah Palin's breasts and the speculation that she got a boob job perpetuated by female editor of Wonkette. Tina Brown, former editor of Vanity Fair speaking of the Republican women who won their primaries (lest we forget one of the core tenets of true feminism) as "wingnuts" and a "blow to feminism". Having won elections against men in their field should not be a "blow to feminism" unless the ideals behind it are decidedly small-tent. Jessica Valenti of feministing.org has made it her life's work at this point to discredit and marginalize Palin, but remarkably silent when leftist champions such as Mark Morford refer to Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and Michele Bachmann as a hydra-headed hellbeast of pseudo-women. Recent commentary on Bill Maher's show in reference to Michelle Bachmann was sick enough to make highschool sophomores blush, yet nary a word from the champions of women's dignity.

All good examples. You can add Ann Coulter to the list. TBH, since I'm no longer with my ex, who was horribly guilty of this despite (because of?) having a masters in women's studies, I've forgotten about this prevalence.

I've also got to single out Maher. What a disgusting pig. Regrettably, I used to consider myself a fan back in the day. Again, something I've forgotten because I simply stopped watching him.

Originally Posted by ebuddy

It is clear, at least to me, that your ideology must fall in lock-step with a small order of leftist causes not only qualifying a suitable feminist, but womanhood itself.

Whut

subego · Jul 21, 2011, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

Snide comments aren't limited to the left. I recall a goodly amount of conservative snickering over Clinton's cankles, Ferrara's butchness, etc.

This rings hollow. The conservatives don't claim to care about this issue in nearly the same way, so it really shouldn't be a surprise with them. It is with liberals because it's an issue in which they consider themselves crusaders.

It's the same hollow ring when a Republican gets caught in a sex scandal and they point out Democratic sex scandals in defense. Democrats don't go around preaching strict sexual morality, so saying they exhibit loose sexual morals is hardly damning.

andi*pandi · Jul 21, 2011, 03:47 PM

I'm not defending the jerks on either side. I think it shouldn't matter if someone has a boob job or won a beauty pageant... unless it reveals some dishonesty or hypocrisy.

subego · Jul 21, 2011, 04:27 PM

I didn't think you were. I'm saying their actions should by judged in the context of their policy. An action by one party can be abhorrent, while the same action by the other party might even be expected.

Edit: the hypocrisy thing.

ebuddy · Jul 21, 2011, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by andi*pandi

It doesn't help Palin's "feminist" cred when she denies funding for rape victims, etc.

This sounds ghastly no doubt. Do you have a link for this? Not the "etc.", the denial of funding for rape victims.

Anyway, this isn't a Palin thread, it's a strip club thread. Unless you have some video to share linking the two?

If I did, this forum would be the last to know because I'd be busy assuming ownership of it and everyone here.

ebuddy · Jul 21, 2011, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by subego

Whut

To be clear, I meant "you" rhetorically, not you specifically. My point was that to be considered a proper feminist, there are very specific ideals you must espouse. In some cases as provided in the examples, you're not even a woman, let alone a feminist.

subego · Jul 21, 2011, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by ebuddy

To be clear, I meant "you" rhetorically, not you specifically. My point was that to be considered a proper feminist, there are very specific ideals you must espouse. In some cases as provided in the examples, you're not even a woman, let alone a feminist.

Ahh...

You are absolutely right. It's a one-two gut shot of irony and hypocrisy.