Should Feminists be encouraging women to be strippers?

[MysticSang'ha]

But the whole question is whether it is morally loaded or not in the first place. Should Feminism involve encouraging women to do things which cause men to regard them as sex objects or not?

If a woman wanted to put a sign around her neck saying "I am a sex object, so treat me as a sex object," anyone who sees her as a sex object is still responsible for seeing her as a sex object.

My feminism is against institutionalized and cultural indoctrination of exploitation. I place the perspective of objectification purely on the objectifier as well as the responsibility. Not the objectified.

And why the specification of men? First, feminism is not an adversary of men. And second, men are not the only people in the world who are attracted to women.

Or should Feminism be about somehow persuading men to not regard women who do such to be regarded as sex objects, and if so, how?

How about this: anyone who reduces a woman down to a sex object should stop doing that. It's as bad as reducing a man down to being nothing more than a "sperm-donor." And especially regarding him as just a sperm donor based on his career choice for himself.

What is your understanding of ****-shaming?

 

[Shermana]

It struck me as morally loaded due to the word choices which can be taken commonly as entailing immorality of the act. There is a difference between saying that it can or does contribute to women being viewed as sexual objects and between using words that have common connotations such as 'promiscuous'.

In my view, there's nothing inherently wrong about stripping, in any moral sense. I also don't think that it's inherently damaging, nor necessitating of sexually objectifying women. It could be, and i would assume that it is in some contexts, but i don't think that this necessarily goes with the territory.

So i would assume that a feminist would support a woman's choice in working as a stripper, as a general idea. Whether it's for making some cash temporarily, or because it's seen as a career. To me it's just another form of erotic art, at least ideally.

Due to some of the dangers such jobs may have in some contexts, i can also see how a feminist would not particularly encourage others to seek that as a career, and could even see why there might be some reservations based only on genuine caring for any possible damage that might occur, rather than some extension to the idea of ****-shaming.

Indeed, there are two camps of Feminism on this regard. There are those, the more "Classical" Feminists I would call it, who discourage all forms of display of female sexuality in the sense that it would encourage their objectification, in the understanding that men aren't exactly about to stop objectifying them no matter how much you tell them not to. These are those who were, at least in the past, against pornography and attached a moralistic connotation to "promiscuity".

The other camp is that there's really nothing wrong with "letting loose" and if it causes objectification, oh well, especially if they want to be objectified.

Now really, do men go to strip clubs for the "erotic art" value? How many people who pay to see strippers go for the artistic value?

However, if you have no problem with women being objectified and their sexuality being exploited for the sake of the libidos of paying men, then you would certainly have no problem encouraging women to take up a job that can earn them 3-4x the national mean salary.

We as men, though, should not really make a (public) judgment on whether women are being exploited or not through "sexual liberation" and "promiscuous behavior" if we ourselves are encouraging such because of our own desire for it.

 

[dgirl1986]

Indeed, there are two camps of Feminism on this regard. There are those, the more "Classical" Feminists I would call it, who discourage all forms of display of female sexuality in the sense that it would encourage their objectification, in the understanding that men aren't exactly about to stop objectifying them no matter how much you tell them not to. These are those who were, at least in the past, against pornography and attached a moralistic connotation to "promiscuity".

The other camp is that there's really nothing wrong with "letting loose" and if it causes objectification, oh well, especially if they want to be objectified.

Now really, do men go to strip clubs for the "erotic art" value? How many people who pay to see strippers go for the artistic value?

However, if you have no problem with women being objectified and their sexuality being exploited for the sake of the libidos of paying men, then you would certainly have no problem encouraging women to take up a job that can earn them 3-4x the national mean salary.

I am not sure what your purpose in relation to this thread is. You seem to swing from one end of the extreme to the other while ignoring the middle ground.

 

[Shermana]

If a woman wanted to put a sign around her neck saying "I am a sex object, so treat me as a sex object," anyone who sees her as a sex object is still responsible for seeing her as a sex object.

My feminism is against institutionalized and cultural indoctrination of exploitation. I place the perspective of objectification purely on the objectifier as well as the responsibility. Not the objectified.



How about this: anyone who reduces a woman down to a sex object should stop doing that. It's as bad as reducing a man down to being nothing more than a "sperm-donor." And especially regarding him as just a sperm donor based on his career choice for himself.

What is your understanding of ****-shaming?

"Should stop doing that". Okay, good luck convincing men to stop regarding women as sex objects. What's your plan on that, ask them nicely? Heck, men LOVE to be sexually objectified, and I'd place everything I own that the grand majority of men would be more than happy to be thought of as mainly an object of lusty desire by women. Why is there a double standard on that exactly? It's a lot more than just being a "Seed donor", more like a "Hunky beefcake" or other terms of endearment used by the female gender for those of us with muscles and good looks. If anything, I think women look at men in even more physical terms than men look at women!

My idea of ****-shaming is the same idea that myriads of women who do it every day considering it: Instilling feelings of shame and social rejection for engaging in such behavior that they feel demeans the gender and person itself, regardless if the person feels no shame from it. As I've said before, the biggest **** shamers, at least in my observations, are by far and large other women.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Okay, let's just take the word "Flagrant" out of the question then.

I'm still waiting to here about an example of "Empowering" Stripping.

I don't think it's about any particular activity in and of itself as much as the choice to participate in it being available to women. That is, as long as women aren't coerced into taking on any particular occupation or pushed into it due to pressure from other people, then I think it can be argued that the freedom of choice on its own could be considered a form of empowerment.

I believe that personal opinions as to whether or not said activity is "immoral," "inappropriate," etc., don't really have any bearing on whether or not the choice to participate in it would be empowering. Personally disagreeing with something doesn't necessitate denying others the freedom to do it.

 

[dgirl1986]

I believe that personal opinions as to whether or not said activity is "immoral," "inappropriate," etc., don't really have any bearing on whether or not the choice to participate in it would be empowering. Personally disagreeing with something doesn't necessitate denying others the freedom to do it.

This was kind of the point I was attempting to make earlier.

 

[Shermana]

I don't think it's about any particular activity in and of itself as much as the choice to participate in it being available to women. That is, as long as women aren't coerced into taking on any particular occupation or pushed into it due to pressure from other people, then I think it can be argued that the freedom of choice on its own could be considered a form of empowerment.

I believe that personal opinions as to whether or not said activity is "immoral," "inappropriate," etc., don't really have any bearing on whether or not the choice to participate in it would be empowering. Personally disagreeing with something doesn't necessitate denying others the freedom to do it.

So then, any kind of stripping, or engaging in X-rated media, or anything that involves being regarded as a sex object, as long as the woman is comfortable with it, is empowering?

 

[Debater Slayer]

So then, any kind of stripping, or engaging in X-rated media, or anything that involves being regarded as a sex object, as long as the woman is comfortable with it, is empowering?

I think freedom of choice is empowering, as I stated in my previous post.

Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to have any jobs that you personally don't think are "empowering"? Or does that only apply to certain ones and exclude others?

 

[Shermana]

I think freedom of choice is empowering, as I stated in my previous post.

Do you think that people shouldn't be allowed to have any jobs that you personally don't think are "empowering"? Or does that only apply to certain ones and excludes others?

Shouldn't be allowed? I'm not advocating banning such professions. I believe they should be free to make the choice if they want to be exploited as a sex object or not. So not at all. What I'm saying is that not all Feminists agree on what exactly is "empowering". Many will say that this kind of thing makes women "Feel dirty" or basically just "empowers" them to become glorified sex objects to men, and if anything pushes the Feminist movement back beyond the 1800s. I'd say men today view women as even more of a sex object than they did in the 1930s. If anyone's being empowered, perhaps it's the men even more so. It can be said that it merely reinforces the idea that women are there for our sexual pleasure, and concretely.

So really it's about relative definitions and what you think truly is in their best interest.

Now if we men want to state such things, we should be honest and say whether or not we have a particular interest in women exploiting their bodies for our enjoyment. If you do, then obviously that will have a factor in how to interpret your opinion.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"Should stop doing that". Okay, good luck convincing men to stop regarding women as sex objects.

What a low opinion you have of other men. Thankfully, my experience with the vast majority of men has shown me that they are not shallow.

What's your plan on that, ask them nicely?

When it comes to objectification, I don't ask nicely. I draw a clear line of what is acceptable and what isn't. Desire me, fine. Objectify me, and I won't give you the time of day. I don't need permission to have firm boundaries in place for what is respectful and what isn't.

Thankfully, feminism taught me I have a voice, and I use it.

Heck, men LOVE to be sexually objectified, and I'd place everything I own that the grand majority of men would be more than happy to be thought of as mainly an object of lusty desire by women. Why is there a double standard on that exactly?

Even as a domme who loves to take charge, I HATE the idea of objectifying a man or a woman sexually. I am turned on by actual people, conversation, and depth. So, anybody who is wanting from me to be thought of as nothing more than a blow-up doll is in for a real disappointment. Non-people are boring.

Therefore, for me and my experience, and for the many men I've known and loved (since we're focusing on the male gaze here), I have found men nearly all the time not only prefer a woman with a mind, but prefer to be loved and desired more than being one-dimensional (whether it's body or money).

My idea of ****-shaming is the same idea that myriads of women who do it every day considering it: Instilling feelings of shame and social rejection for engaging in such behavior that they feel demeans the gender and person itself, regardless if the person feels no shame from it. As I've said before, the biggest **** shamers, at least in my observations, are by far and large other women.

IMO, they are more frequently ****-shamers for much of the same reasons that women are by and large the majority players in committing and perpetuating Female Genital Mutilation in third world countries. In highly socially stratified cultures, and specifically in patriarchal cultures, women will create sub-cultures of self-stratification to decide what is more "acceptable" womanly behavior in order to advance their own status as much as possible.

 

[Shermana]

I am not sure what your purpose in relation to this thread is. You seem to swing from one end of the extreme to the other while ignoring the middle ground.

Explain. What middle ground are we talking about? Why is it NOT about extremes?

 

[Shermana]

What a low opinion you have of other men. Thankfully, my experience with the vast majority of men has shown me that they are not shallow.

Perhaps there's a generation gap or a huge difference in California and New York from wherever you're at. Well let's keep our discussion focused on the men who are going to Strip Clubs and are paying for "adult services", not to mention those in the party/hookup circuit (i.e. who go to bars and clubs and parties looking for hookups). Heck, let's go into why men tend to choose their girlfriends on looks mainly. There's studies to prove this if your experience says differently. Let's look at how a lot of these millionaires and celebrities act once they're capable of having what they want.

And let's hammer out what exactly "objectifying" means.

 

[dgirl1986]

Explain. What middle ground are we talking about? Why is it NOT about extremes?

The middle ground that has been mentioned by several people in this thread. Saying yeah I dont agree with it or I personally wouldnt go into it or wouldnt recommend it but I respect the right for any woman to choose whether it is something she wants to do or not. I am sure others have other comments that would fit into the middle ground.

 

[Badran]

Indeed, there are two camps of Feminism on this regard. There are those, the more "Classical" Feminists I would call it, who discourage all forms of display of female sexuality in the sense that it would encourage their objectification, in the understanding that men aren't exactly about to stop objectifying them no matter how much you tell them not to. These are those who were, at least in the past, against pornography and attached a moralistic connotation to "promiscuity".

The other camp is that there's really nothing wrong with "letting loose" and if it causes objectification, oh well, especially if they want to be objectified.

Objectification of women can be addressed in many ways. One unhealthy way of attempting to do is to suppress women or shame them rather than address the core of the issue, which is with people's perception. Note that i used "attempting", exactly because i wouldn't consider that an approach that can ever work.

Now really, do men go to strip clubs for the "erotic art" value? How many people who pay to see strippers go for the artistic value?

Numbers are not necessarily a good indicative when we're addressing the concept of what is being done, as an act. It's not inherently encouraging of sexually objectifying women, which was my point. Other social phenomenons are at work. If i can see it as an erotic art, and other people can, then it's not necessarily or inherently objectifying of women. Rather, i could say that this is caused precisely because of the ****-shaming approach you seem to be taking, among other reasons.

Erotic art is precisely the invoking or arousal of senses, to give a simple definition, and at least in my understanding of it. As such, most people would probably describe it as art had it not been for these other social forces that influence their views to irrationally associate supposed inherent negative connotations with the act.

However, if you have no problem with women being objectified and their sexuality being exploited for the sake of the libidos of paying men, then you would certainly have no problem encouraging women to take up a job that can earn them 3-4x the national mean salary.

That was neither stated nor implied in what i said.

I have a big problem with objectification and exploitation, and i think that eliminating or fighting the idea of ****-shaming would be an ideal approach to start with.

We as men, though, should not really make a (public) judgment on whether women are being exploited or not through "sexual liberation" and "promiscuous behavior" if we ourselves are encouraging such because of our own desire for it.

Please speak for your self.

 

[Shermana]

The middle ground that has been mentioned by several people in this thread. Saying yeah I dont agree with it or I personally wouldnt go into it or wouldnt recommend it but I respect the right for any woman to choose whether it is something she wants to do or not. I am sure others have other comments that would fit into the middle ground.

But that's the thing, I'm saying that this "middle ground" is not really "middle ground" at all. It's just basically a contradiction. If you don't agree with it, but you respect the right for a woman to choose, you still don't agree with it. That's what matters. I respect their right too! But do I respect the choice to do so? That's another question. Do you respect the choice regardless of the right? If you do, then you obviously don't disagree with it.

 

[dgirl1986]

Erotic art is precisely the invoking or arousal of senses, to give a simple definition, and at least in my understanding of it.

Erotic art, in my understanding, suggests in a subtle and slightly more than subtle way without it being in your face and that kind of thing. Leaves more to the imagination.

 

[Badran]

Heck, men LOVE to be sexually objectified, and I'd place everything I own that the grand majority of men would be more than happy to be thought of as mainly an object of lusty desire by women.

Again, please speak for yourself. There is a difference between wanting to be perceived as sexually desirable, including being viewed as physically attractive, and between wanting to be objectified.

 

[dgirl1986]

But that's the thing, I'm saying that this "middle ground" is not really "middle ground" at all. It's just basically a contradiction. If you don't agree with it, but you respect the right for a woman to choose, you still don't agree with it. That's what matters. I respect their right too! But do I respect the choice to do so? That's another question. Do you respect the choice regardless of the right? If you do, then you obviously don't disagree with it.

It is not a condradiction. The simple fact is just because I do not agree with something or support a certian act does not give me the right to force other people to agree with me or not act according to what I think if that makes sense. Every woman has to choose for themself, I cannot choose for them.

I am not sure what you are referring to as "the right".

 

[Shermana]

Objectification of women can be addressed in many ways. One unhealthy way of attempting to do is to suppress women or shame them rather than address the core of the issue, which is with people's perception. Note that i used "attempting", exactly because i wouldn't consider that an approach that can ever work.

Okay, name a healthy of way of addressing objectification of women. What is this "Core" of the issue and how can we "address" it in a way which promotes a better situation?

Numbers are not necessarily a good indicative when we're addressing the concept of what is being done, as an act. It's not inherently encouraging of sexually objectifying women, which was my point. Other social phenomenons are at work. If i can see it as an erotic art, and other people can, then it's not necessarily or inherently objectifying of women. Rather, i could say that this is caused precisely because of the ****-shaming approach you seem to be taking, among other reasons.

So what is "erotic art" then? Does it involve you viewing the woman in a way which you find sexually pleasing? What is "art" in this case? So if one person views it as "erotic art" and 100 other guys view it as "BOOBIES!!!" then it's not objectifying because at least a tiny minority doesn't see it like that? If you honestly think men are going to strip clubs for the "art" value, well, let's just agree to disagree.

Erotic art is precisely the invoking or arousal of senses, to give a simple definition, and at least in my understanding of it. As such, most people would probably describe it as art had it not been for these other social forces that influence their views to irrationally associate supposed inherent negative connotations with the act.

Oh okay, so basically you're saying that "Erotic art" is essentially the same thing as "going to get your rocks off". So technically EVERYONE goes to the Strip club for the "Erotic Art" value. Okay, well that brings up another question: Is "Erotic Art" now a form of sexual exploitation? How is calling it "Erotic Art" not just a euphimism for what is otherwise "Erotic Exploitation"? What is the difference between a person going to a Strip club for the "Erotic Art" and Al Bundy and his "No M'aam" crew going to the Strip Club?

That was neither stated nor implied in what i said.

I'm not sure if you interpreted what I said correctly.

I have a big problem with objectification and exploitation, and i think that eliminating or fighting the idea of ****-shaming would be an ideal approach to start with.

How do you plan on fighting the idea of ****-shaming? As I said, by far and large, the **** shamers tend to be other women.

Please speak for your self.

Why? I think it's quite a fair statement that we men should be upright and honest in saying that we have a personal interest in this "sexual liberation" to be registered in how to interpret our opinions. For instance, if you find personal pleasure through this "erotic art" that a "classical Feminist" would still think is nothing more than just a fancy way of saying "Erotic enjoyment", then that's obviously a factor.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Perhaps there's a generation gap or a huge difference in California and New York from wherever you're at. Well let's keep our discussion focused on the men who are going to Strip Clubs and are paying for "adult services".

Hmmm....

1) I'm 40 and have lived in various parts of the U.S. from the midwest to up and down the East Coast. From the heart of Manhattan, to rural midwest and Bible Belt countryside, to the Florida Keys. People are people.

2) My husband and I enjoy going to strip clubs together and pay for lap dances. Therefore, *I* am also a patron of "adult services" as well as my husband. So, I think I am qualified to give an informed opinion here.

And let's hammer out what exactly "objectifying" means.

I define it as reducing a person down to a sum of body parts that only serves to sexually please another person.

Also, plenty of men (again with the insistence of only wanting to talk from the male gaze) go to strippers and enjoy talking with strippers and having attention given to them. I've noticed that the tables and poles are there as the platform for strippers who engage with her audience. And the ones who gets the most dollar bills aren't the ones who just show up with the T&A, but the ones who make the effort to connect with her patrons.

I have no idea what your experience has been like in strip clubs, but dancers actually do a lot more talking with patrons than they do dancing. It's a means of securing private dances where a lot of money is made.