Despite being a connoisseur of brutality and depravity on a colossal scale, I have never been to a strip club. And in all fairness, nor would I really want to, in this brave new age when one can, in the words of the song, "just grab your dick and double click" on the little Mozilla Firefox icon and find an endless cavalcade of gratuitous nudity to download to the ole W:\ drive. If you know what I mean.
However, there are people that do like going to strip clubs, men and women. And there are people who like the idea of disrobing themselves and being admired by the opposite and/or same sex while a spot of Pantera or Buckcherry plays in the background, often while alcohol is served. The strip club provides a terrain, if you will, where people who might wish for this commercial meeting of minds can get together and do business.
Unfortunately there are those people, who tend to be either radical feminists or God Botherers, who object to this sort of thing. These people, who I will hereafter collectively refer to as "foamers," get somewhat bent out of shape by the idea that a woman might willingly undress herself for, or dance for, a paying man. They then engage in earth-shattering efforts to hound the strip club out of business with disingenuous assertions, tabloid journalism, and rabble-rousing, while paying no heed to the logical objections against their arguments because they see it for a good cause, the club as a bastion of evil, and the women who dance within as dupes, or worse, willing pawns of Satan / rape culture (delete as appropriate) and the fact that they do it for a wage, to put food on the table, put themselves through university, support their children, or even because they like their job, is immaterial.
I live in a certain London borough where there are four of these establishments - Browns, Ye Olde Axe, Rainbow Sports Bar, and Images - in very close proximity to each other. There's a fifth such place just over the border in Tower Hamlets named Metropolis. The Powers that Be in this borough are determined to flush these establishments out of business and to throw its employees, contractors, agents, servants, and otherwise onto the dole. Coincidentally, all five of these establishments are on the same bus route between our office and the Clerkenwell & Shoreditch County Court. However, in 2010 the local authority decided that this was not on, and set about getting rid of them. Other local authorities have followed suit. I know of one Council in the south of England which has recently been engaged a judicial review over its decision to pull the premises licence from the only strip club in its area, and is resolved that any expense will be justified to smash this particular club, grind its owner into the dust, and hear the lamentations of the women (That the ratepayers of this place have had to suffer further cuts in their services because of this money pit is something that they'd no doubt be interested to hear.) However, their reasons for such determination are, in short, as big a bag of bollox as my mate from Sciences Po reckoned his masters in political science was:
1. Strip clubs cause rape and sexual offences.
This is usually the first such argument deployed by the foamers, and usually it is presented without any evidence. Needless to say, when one overlays a map of the frequency of sexual offences per head of population with a map of the density of strip clubs per head of population, one finds that there more often than not no correlation. Or, where there is a correlation, it is because the strip club is usually found in areas where there are lots of pubs and clubs, and thus late night drunkenness, so any upsurge in rape can be explained as the result of alcohol, not boobies. Indeed, as anyone who's lived in a provincial British town can testify, the biggest entertainment / licenced-premises-related cause of violence, sexual offences, and anti-social behaviour is the Vertical Drinking Establishment.
The proponents of this then usually counter with some byzantine mumblings about "rape culture" and how strip clubs "legitimise" sexual abuse in a general kind of way. Whether it does or not is something that I, not being a sociologist, am qualified to comment on. However, if it did, one would expect to see, on a larger than merely local scale, a correlation between so-called "raunch culture" and acceptance thereof and sexual offences. One does not. Instead, one finds that on a national scale, the places with the biggest problems of rape and sexual abuse are places like Saudi Arabia and Iran and Dubai and, to a lesser extent, the Deep South. These are places where, firstly, the population ascribes to very conservative forms of religion, especially as regarding the role of women in society, and as a result of which, where women are often treated as various grade of second-class citizen. It is this, the idea that women are second class citizens, which legitimises rape and sexual abuse, because people think they can get away with it and/or that complainants of rape will not be believed, or social and/or legal fetters on women's activities prevent them from reporting it effectively.
Conversely, where the sex industry and stripping and similar is most tolerated, this is where sexual offences are less widespread. There is also a hypothesis, most famously proposed by Milton Diamond, that the sex industry actually acts as a pressure-release valve and acts to reduce the incidence of sexual crime.
2. Strip clubs are fronts for brothels/drug dealing/organised crime.
Some of them are, indubitably. However, by banning them it will play into the hands of organised crime.
The maisons closes of late-19th century France were instituted not because the French Third Republic was a hotbed of licentiousness but as a purely practical measure to bring out from the underground prostitution. By instituting in brothels compulsory regulation, medical examinations, and how the working girls therein were to be engaged, it had a measured effect on both organised crime, as it severely dented one of their income streams, and also on public health, as the State could take steps to prevent the spread of syphilis. Moreover, it meant that they could be taxed. Similarly, Prohibition was responsible almost solely for the rise of Al Capone as a major crime figure.
Moreover, there are pubs and clubs which are licenced and which are used as fronts for organised crime and drug-dealing. The fact that some pubs and clubs are known for having an in-house drug dealer, so to speak, is almost never used as an argument for Prohibition. Not by anyone sensible, anyhow. This is one of the reasons why we have premises licencing in the first place, so that these things can be monitored.
3. Strip clubs cause people to come nigh to fornication, which is contrary to God's law.
Yes. And?
Many religions, especially Abrahamic ones, teach that the world is full of sin and temptation, but this is the way things are. What merit is there in faith if it is never tested? If you have a religious obligation to women disrobing in public places, nobody is forcing you to go into those places. Similarly, if you do go in there, nobody is forcing you to try to force yourselves on the dancers. It is up to you to exercise such self-control as is necessary.
I should mention here that I am informed of one local authority licencing hearing for a strip club where a local Imam said that he was terrified if his wife or daughter should walk past this establishment in case they were dragged in and pack-raped by customers who were too blinded by the doings of the Devil and caught up in such a sexual frenzy. I'm sorry, but this doesn't wash. If this happens it is because those customers did it, of their free will. There's also something slut-shaming about this particular position, as if it is somehow the woman's fault by dressing immodestly that a man sexually assaults her.
And let's be frank. God's law doesn't have a particularly good track record on the treatment of women, now, does it. As I have said above, the most religious societies on earth tend to also be the ones that treat women the worst. They then go into escape hatches about how this is for women's own protection that women are controlled and repressed in their society. Newsflash - The Handmaid's Tale is not a blueprint for a harmonious society.
4. They objectify women!!!
Probably. And?
Nobody is forcing the women in question to work there. If the women are being forced to work there, then quite rightly the management of such a place should be locked up. This is why we have premises licencing in the first place - to ensure that these places are being run properly and, like the maisons closes, to keep such racketeering at bay. If organised crime and human traffic is so widespread in strip clubs, then the answer is to actually enforce more vigorously licencing laws, not ban the clubs outright.
And here's another thing. Sometimes people, women and men both, like to be objectified. If this was not so, then the cosmetics and fashion trades would not be so colossal. I for one get on my Facebook page, for reasons I cannot fathom, adverts for Andrew Christian, a brand of underwear aimed mainly at gay men. These adverts consist of well-built buffed-up wallopers with just a hint of baby oil in said dunghampers, which are designed to push up and out one's bulge. If being objectified was a bad thing, then the marketing department at Andrew Christian are surely wasting their time. Objectification only becomes a problem when women are seen as only objects of desire rather than people in their own way. Anyone who's seen On The Buses will no doubt know what I mean here.
This is where the foamers start crowing about "false consciousness." I think the idea is that the women are somehow brainwashed into working there because if it wasn't for invisible and insidious misogynist forces they would spurn such employment. Maybe they are. Or maybe they realised that they were, by dint of being born with good looks and charm, or "firm tits and a tight fit" as memetic creephat Walder Frey put it, likely to be paid more in this form of employment than other jobs for which they may also be qualified. The false consciousness argument also allows the foamers to square within themselves that by campaigning against strip clubs, they are putting other women out of work in that the women who work there can be written off as willing pawns of the patriarchy and thus not worth a second thought.
5. They are hotbeds of anti-social behaviour
Not borne out by the evidence, I'm afraid. As I said above, the most likely correlation between licenced premises and crime and anti-social behaviour is drunkenness. In London, the City of Westminster, which covers the West End, Mayfair, Soho, and similar, statistically has the highest crime rate of all 33 London boroughs. However, when one digs deeper, one finds that this is mostly common assault, public order offences, and minor thefts. This is because although it contains Soho, which has many strip clubs (and also quite a few clip joints which are something altogether different and genuinely should be killed off), it also contains the highest concentration of clubs and bars and Vertical Drinking Establishments in the capital. There's also many tourists. So one begins to envisage what this high crime rate is caused by - people getting tanked up and brawling with each other.
6. Think of the children!
A valid argument...
...for not letting children go into them.
Most strip clubs, at least in Britain, often have licencing conditions imposed on them about not being near schools, and not being ostentatious about what goes on there. Now this varies by area to area - Metropolis in Bethnal Green has a big neon sign of an impossibly leggy girl gyrating round a pole above its door. However, during the daytime, it is switched off and it is not immediately apparent. At night, it is visible, yes, but if you let your children wander round Bethnal Green late at night, mayhap you ought to re-evaluate your skills as a parent?
7. All strip clubs are run for the profit of men, therefore they are inherently sexist.
Because every strip club is owned by an aged letch with bad hair, isn't it.
Newsflash - there are strip clubs that are run by women. Furthermore, a lot of dancers in such clubs are also technically independent contractors. They have an agreement with the club to perform n nights per week and they keep all takings, tips, and similar that customers may render to them. In return for this, the club gets a cut, either a percentage, or a fixed fee. Many dancers go and dance at multiple clubs in an area as well. The dancers themselves are responsible for their own taxes also. If anything, they're being far less exploited than people in traditional employment relationships, like myself, who earn the same monthly salary regardless of how many chargeable hours they pull in, and thus how much money they make for the firm.
I think that's enough for now, don't you?
Thing is, strip clubs are an easy target. They're very visible. As can be noted from the writeups above, they often are devoid of subtlety or taste or anything similar. I also can't help but feel that there's an element of snobbery in the way in which the foamers go after strip clubs, whereas they are a lot more silent about the recently burgeoning burlesque movement, possibly because burlesque is done by nice middle-class folks who are enlightened and empowered and who cater to the sorts of people who go to intellectual dinner parties in Hampstead, while writhing round a pole to "Cowboys From Hell" is the preserve of trashy working-class women who cater to sweaty Brummie businessmen and East End barrow boys who'll make do with a quick slap up binge from the local pie and mash shop. What both sets of foamers fail to see, though, is that simply not being to someone's tastes or offending someone's sensibilities is not a good reason to ban things. Homosexuality is not to everyone's taste and offends lots of peoples' sensibilities, but has been legal in Britain since 1969, because the Wolfenden Report noted that despite peoples' distaste and moral misgivings about it, there was no harm caused to individuals or society by it.
Similarly, in the absence of harm caused to the individuals or to society as a whole, why should people not be allowed to pay to watch each other remove their clothes to music?