43

5 comments

[–] Jade 5 points (+5|-0)

As someone who's worked as a stripper in no-touch clubs, I absolutely agree. I could never defend that "SWIW" when my "SW" was merely theoretical. When I would tell myself (and still do) that "FSSW" (full-service) was beyond my boundaries, when I would tell new girls (especially young girls, 19-20 year olds) to never, ever exchange phone number with a customer even if her intention was only to "have a regular" (read: a regular customer who always come to meet her at the club and that's it), let alone if her intention was to actually meet outside the club. Some women would talk about "sugarbabeing", and that "it's just dinner", that she'd charge him what she would make in a good night at the club, and I was always puzzled and horrified. Puzzled because it makes no sense that a man would just want to "have dinner" in "good company" and that's it. And terrified because when a woman in out in the wilderness, who's looking after her? In the club we had cameras every 5 inches of ceiling, and not only the management was actually pushing for strictly no touch (simply because if the Council saw touch the club would lose its license, but still), and because back in the day, security was 100% on our side. Men could be kicked out for any complain from the strippers, from racist remarks to groping to actual attempts at violence. Also, it's worth mentioning, yes we paid £1,000/ month of "house fee", but no extra commission was taken and tipping staff was absolutely forbidden, and waiters and strippers were fired for breaking this rule. Ethics of the practice of "stripping" aside, I felt safe there, and kept repeating that I would never do anything outside of the club. Unfortunately this was a white-elephant exception and it changed overnight one day, when some new floor security would hear us complain about a customer and just tell us "well, you gotta let them do something, otherwise they won't come back", like mate, what the fck, like the place is yours or you're making any money from it? No, it was pure sadism, I'm sure he / they enjoyed it. And the time when a new manager (can't remember if it was the owner's son or another guy) called me in and made me give back the money from one customer (it was £100 for 30min of VIP lounge) because "he wasn't happy". That had never, ever happened in 2 years working there and it was the most degrading experience ever. He said he looked at the camera, and since I had only "danced" twice, he would allow me to keep £40. That he knows that in the VIP lounge where the guy is just paying for your time that you don't have to "dance" for 30min-1h non-stop, "but you know how it is, work with me here, it's so hard nowadays, that we all must make the effort to make customers happy and willing to return, and avoid bad Google reviews. I said there's no way he would "be happy and return" just because he managed to away with his, that he only got angry because he kept insisting I "touch myself" and "sit on him", which by the way is also forbidden in the club, and that I did what I could to control the situation, and he said "well, in this case if you see the guy is being difficult just give back the money and leave the lounge". Then everyone, other girls, "house mum", etc, just kept saying "babes, babes, it sucks, but it's only £60, just go home, have a good night sleep and tomorrow will be another day".

I would love to see any libfem who watched Hustlers and posted "OMG so feminist, so empowering, woo, you go gurrrl, SWIW, woo-hoo" without ever having worked as a stripper to have her boss say "hey, the clients weren't too happy with your work this month, I mean, they called at 11pm on a Saturday wanting you to review that contract and cook the numbers on the invoice which you're right, it's against the rules, but they complained about you, so we're taking 60% of your salary to give back to them because we as a company should do everything in our means to keep the clients happy, hey, smile, tomorrow is another day" and just shrug it off.

[–] cookiefacegirl1 2 points (+2|-0)

Also the movie hustlers if a good example why glamorizing doing things you don't want to is bad. Most if the women in the movie did it for desperation and got hooked on the lifestyle and did any and everything to get it. They had children to feed and when they quit and normal jobs they couldn't even accommodate them in times of energy so they went back to the old lifestyle. In the end they all ended up going to jail. Cardi b got a lot of backlash for it too

[–] Jade 1 points (+1|-0)

hated that movie. As a stripper, because it was quite boring (many other women who worked with me, and in online forums, agreed - one even proposed “screw Hustlers, the real fun and insight into how stripclubs work would be a The Office-like series with cameras exclusively in the dressing room, management’s office and male restrooms”. - let me specify here for Ovarit that she meant “dressing room” for the drama, etc, not for peeping)

and as a woman, because no one could satisfactorily answer me why / in which way was this movie “feminist / female empowering”.

Granted, it was good to see a movie where the “charming con artits” happen to be women (and are women for once), but it defeats all the purpose when their con-artistry is all about sex. You don’t see any “charismatic young rascal” dude pretending he’s a sexual object to other dudes (or to women, for that matter) to be able to pull the con / the scam. Even Brad Pitt in Thelma & Louise wasn’t pretending to be a gigolo, he was just pretending to have interest in the woman. The con men are always charming, skilled, intellectually above average. Their targets are challenging. The con women in this case are, ehm, overtly sexual? Their targets are drunk. And if you think about it, already willing to burn money anyway. Zero challenge, zero high skills required, If you compare them to Ocean’s 7 and the like.

[–] cookiefacegirl1 2 points (+2|-0)

How would he feel if he had to dance to make money and then give it back.

Did he ever get fired?

[–] [Deleted] 4 points (+4|-0)

One way I've actually gotten through to some men, that sex work is rape, is by saying consent isn't just saying "yes." If a woman says "yes" and gives you compliant sex because you have a knife to her throat, is that consent? (They all agree that it's not.) If a woman says "yes" and gives you compliant sex because you've threatened to beat up her child if she doesn't, is that consent? (They all agree that it's not.) So if a woman says "yes" and gives you compliant sex because otherwise she can't feed her kid, is that consent? (Here they start to say "but it's not my fault she can't feed her kid/how am I supposed to know that's her motivation," but if I refocus it as "is she saying yes because she really wants sex, or is she saying yes to protect her child from harm?" they start to get it.)

The only true consent occurs when a woman desires sex. If she is willing to do it because it's the lesser evil compared to a pimp beating her, a child going hungry, or a knife to the throat, that's not consent. Saying "yes" and not physically resisting isn't sufficient, and if you are literally handing over cash for sex, she's not doing it out of desire; if she were, if you are just that hot, and she were truly that interested, she'd do it for free in her spare time, like the rest of us have consensual sex, not for pay at work.