Why I object to Object (and all the other prohibitionist groups)

Our striptease correspondent Edie Lamort takes on the anti-sex “feminists” who attack and want to censor what she does. Edie is now on Twitter and welcomes discussion and feedback.

We live in an increasingly puritanical age. The party of the Noughties is definitely over and times are tough. Words such as ‘objectification’, ‘hypersexualisation’ and ‘pornification’ are thrown around in an accusatory manner. Like a baying mob in a medieval court crying ‘Whore’ or ‘Witch’ creating an atmosphere of fear and guilt. This lexicon of fear is now frequently drawn upon by our media in a childish effort to explain all our social ills but it doesn’t quite work. There is something amiss, something that doesn’t quite fit.

I am a stripper and I am told that my work ‘objectifies’ me and, as a consequence, all other women, but I’m always puzzled by this denunciation. It seems to be an immature and one-dimensional way of describing human interaction. When I’m at work I interact with all kinds of people as a human being. Of course some groups of guys are drunk and immature but most aren’t, that is more to do with group mentality than what they really feel about us. In my job I meet many people from all ends of the social spectrum and people react in different ways. How you view something is based on your personality and your life experiences. On the whole the audiences in strip clubs are fun and as a performer I enjoy playing up to that. If I am viewed solely as an object then why do the customers want to talk to me? This does not indicate ‘objectification’. Yes they are visually stimulated but we all are and I regard it as one facet of communication and understanding. We’ve all heard the statistic that over 90% of communication is non verbal. Human interaction and discovery happen on many levels so that of course includes the visual level. In a split second we make a multitude of judgments and opinions.

A key word here is performer and one reason why it is so important to stand up to anti-sex ‘feminism’. I strip but I also do other things. I have always been in bands; playing guitar and singing. I have performed Burlesque and been a session singer. I have been on tours of the country and performed at festivals, been on TV and radio and I am once again viewed on many levels. I am hated by some and liked by some, depending on their personal triggers. Some like the music, some are just checking out my cleavage. Some of the girls tell me I’m inspiring, others hate me and won’t talk to me. It’s more about them than me. I find it strange to say one form of performance is so very different from the other.

Censorship is dangerous and it has gotten to the point where my job now feels like a feminist statement. Something necessary and important to maintain. Stripping and all the Erotic Industries are like the canary down the mine in terms of freedom. If we go, you’re next. We are like the first line of defence and it worries me where it will lead. These ‘feminists’ are winding back the decades and need to ask themselves ‘where does this end?’ It seems very strange that they want to encourage slut-shaming. If stripping is banned and even made illegal then what will be the next target in their sights? Burlesque and Pole dancing are the obvious next steps along with Page 3 and music videos. Then what will be attacked after that? Edgy theatrical performance such as many Matthew Bourne productions? After all, they are sexual. Then will we regress back to the days were a woman couldn’t walk down a street with a short skirt because she’d be called a ‘tart’? If we go, you’re next; the walls will close in around you too, to the point where the prohibitionists will eventually find themselves in the cross hairs. Censorship is a dangerous road.

I find these anti-sex ‘feminists’ quite fearful and paranoid, in stark contrast to my stripper friends who are bold, witty and strong. If you can strut your stuff on stage and captivate an audience you most definitely have an ego! I know I certainly do. We are told we must have low self-esteem but in fact I hold myself in quite high regard. I’m not fashion-model-perfect, I’m getting a bit of cellulite and I have a varicose vein developing on my lower left leg but I don’t care. I still think I’m sexy and I know how to work an audience. I spend time practicing on the pole and making costumes; I want to be looked at and for my efforts to be appreciated. New art forms begin in the ‘deviant’ subcultures and it is where boundaries will be tested and new ideas will develop. It worries me deeply that these groups feel it’s OK to attack a female art form. Pole and neo-Burlesque have evolved from the creativity of strippers.

They attack those who are unrepresented as they are fearful of taking on real institutions of inequality. For example they tiptoe around tackling religion. Campaigning against a strip club is easy for a number of reasons. You have a lot of social prejudice on your side and many dancers also have other jobs, are studying or have family commitments. The stigma prevents them from speaking out, as they must maintain their cover. I know part-time strippers who are also doing office jobs, who are training as paramedics, who are working as nurses and in various other jobs. They are unable to ‘come out’ for fear of losing said other job. For this reason too there is a lot of ignorance about the dancers and the job, and it is easy for prohibitionists to prey on established fears and prejudices.

What groups such as Object do is polarize the debate and this again is very frustrating. It is thrown to either extreme of ‘ban everything’ or ‘save everything’. These groups have created an atmosphere where no one can raise any problems or ‘out’ any bad management due to the fact that it will be used as ammunition against all of us. This should be an issue of workers rights not a moral panic. If there are any problems, such as stage fees being too high, it should be treated as an employment issue. Fair working practices should be encouraged and enshrined in law, rather than a hysterical moralistic response, where the only solution given is an out right ban. I would encourage strippers to join a union such as Equity or GMB so the debate can be refocused on to workers rights.

Ironically their campaign reinforces an old and outdated view of women and if they succeed it will make things more dangerous. What can be achieved by censorship and winding back the decades? One of the most important social advances of recent decades has been the sexual emancipation of women and as a direct consequence of this; men, gay, lesbian and trans-gender people in our society. This is a very important step and one to be defended strongly against those who would take it away from us. Women’s sexuality and sexual expression is something that has always been feared and suppressed, and a woman challenging this is always derided. Remember Madonna in the 80s? She provoked outrage by being in command of her sexual self and expressing it.

This conservative view of women will drag us all back to a more uptight and dangerous society. One of the most dangerous things about the current crusade against strip clubs is the way that it perpetrates divisive ideology regarding women. Harking back to the days of women falling either into the category of ‘good woman’ or ‘fallen’, the Madonna or the whore, rather than many millions of individuals with a variety of needs and desires. This pseudo-morality makes life difficult and dangerous for those of us who are different and would fall into the ‘bad woman’ category. It also gives misogynists license to abuse and blame the existence of ‘bad’ women for their actions. The control of women’s sexual expression is at the heart of patriarchy and oppression, which is ironically what the prohibitionist ‘feminists’ want to do. If all strip clubs were banned tomorrow would that end rape? Definitely not. In fact it would be counter-productive as it would reinforce negative stereotypes and make sex more hidden and shameful. This is a social purity campaign dressed up as feminism.

In a recent article Kat Banyard of UK Feminista spoke in general about all the numerous things she disapproves of including the Dove commercials. The tone of her argument began more and more to sound like a condemnation of idolatry, the worship of images, with very religious tones. I think most people have more of a sense of balance than she gives them credit for. It ended up sounding like she’d prefer women to be covered or hidden, the thread of this thinking runs all the way back to religious controls, centuries back. This is not progress at all, this is a very old fashioned view.

There is also a very myopic obsession with females in the Erotic Industries and when you ask them about males they avoid the question. Difficult questions are always avoided by these groups. It is a moral panic that focuses only on women being looked at by men. What are their views on gay clubs that feature striptease? I have danced for gay women and there are male strippers. Why is this not attacked with the same vehemence? It seems to be very disproportionately aimed at keeping women ‘pure’ and a poorly concealed hatred towards heterosexual men.

The people who patronize us the most are in fact the ‘feminists’ who wish to outlaw us. If anyone objectifies us it is these people. Our opinions and decisions are not considered to be worth listening to. If any stripper, sex worker or adult film actress tries to explain the reasons they do their job they are told they are institutionalized, have Stockholm Syndrome or are too stupid to understand what they are saying.

When a small group of dancers went to parliament during the consultation of the Policing and Crime Act of 2009, that introduced the nil policy legislation, one of them tried to speak. She tried to explain to the panel that she enjoyed her job and was fine. She was displaying a contrary viewpoint that was incompatible with the ideology of the ‘debate’. This obviously riled the ‘feminists’ on the panel and they dismissed her opinions. Similarly on a radio show debate a dancer was dismissed with the comment, ‘Oh you must have been abused.’ If you do not parrot the correct ideology, you will be persecuted by these groups, and they can be very vicious.

The current left wing ‘feminist’ movement is something that dismays me and my experience of them has been shocking. Instead of being progressive and open-minded they have shown themselves to be infested with busybody, neurotic, hand-ringing, middle-aged, middle-class, academic ‘feminists’ who judge and prohibit. When was it that the left became so Victorian? How did that just creep up and where do you go from here? A few months ago I was speaking to a friend about this. She’s quite an extreme performance artist and she mused that there needs to be something new. ‘I don’t know’ she said, ‘something beyond what is now called feminism. I’m going to call myself a Femfuturist! Like a feminist but with out all the issues around sex.’

18 thoughts on “Why I object to Object (and all the other prohibitionist groups)”

  1. Oh lord, Object, sadly they block anyone who does not join the true faith, like Normas and others debate is the last thing they want.
    Having been encountering the antis for a while by the evil crime of being a literate sex worker i have reached one conclusion, it is a faith, it has all the criteria, including the belief in saving sinners, no need for evidence, anger towards heretitics and tenants that must be adhered too.

    AS for the left, it is sadly nothing new, remember it is the labour pary that introduced the Obscene Publications act, under vera bairds guidance (a great supporter of object). Consenting acts were criminilzed because OMG porn. The Stalinist left has always been a feature of this country, even as the RCP have died.

    There are sex positive pro sex work feminists though, I know them, I am one. They understand that without bodily autonomy feminism is nothing but people telling women what to do.

  2. Brilliant piece and I agree wholeheartedly. What angers me the most about groups like Object is that they are middle class women trying to put working class women out of a job because they dissaprove of what they do to make a living.
    They talk of male privilege but their class privilege puts them in a position where they can dictate what other women can and cannot so to make money.

  3. The article asks “When was it that the left became so Victorian?”, but if we look objectively at Gender feminism it has always drawn upon Victorian / Edwardian formal definitions of Women and Men. Women are always fundamentally noble pure vulnerable victims without whom society the family would fall apart. Men are dangerous drunken thugs who habitually return home each evening to beat and rape their wives and can only obtain nobility by sacrificing themselves (preferably in war or at sea) so that women may survive.
    Women who cavort about in a state of undress (partial or complete) for the amusement of heterosexual men are traitors that wittingly stir up those rapine lusts in men that are expended on innocent eternal virgin who guard the hearth against the fecklessness of the men they have had the misfortune to be bound to in marriage. While men are slaves to their bestial lusts, these women that incite them do so in the full knowledge of what they are doing and the fearful consequences for their sisters.
    It always seemed to me that Feminists were always extraordinarily articulate and rather bullying middle-class grammar school girls who were fundamentally frightened of engaging with men or the world, and whose world view was grounded in the Victorian rhyme “Sugar & spice and all things nice, that what’s little girls are made of” while boys were composed of “Slugs and snails, And puppy-dogs’ tails”. They arrogantly assumed that their perceptions were shared by every other “right thinking” women, and those that didn’t agree had been brainwashed by the “patriarchy”.
    As for the need for a new form of Feminism, I would disagree. What is needed is a movement that fairly represents the interests of men and women (regardless of class, race, region etc ) and that they share a common future. The last thing UK needs is another division among people.

  4. There is really good interview with Erin Pizzey, the woman who founded the first battered women’s refuge. Here is link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VUfr8Q2msI
    Erin has some very interesting things to say about these feminist who want to prohibit freedom for women. The threatened and actual violence directed towards her by feminists must surely frightened us all.
    But what I find heartening is that Erin has an alternative to a revised feminism, that is “humanism” that liberates and protects and promotes women and men and allows them to live the lives they want to meet their needs.

  5. In answer to your question, “If I am viewed solely as an object then why do the customers want to talk to me? “, the answer is simple: They want to fuck you. What you really need to do is repent.

    1. Actually the answer may be very different from your explanation. It is notable that professional sex workers (prostitutes) report from around the globe that many of their regular customers don’t want sex, but simply want human contact and will happily pay for a conversation. I first encountered this when I lived in Hamburg where prostitution is legal and regulated, and it was regarded as a well known phenomenon.

      Comparing men and women in “strip clubs” where there performances specific to each, men are far more controlled than women. Police reports identify that female audiences are far more likely (100% of perpetrators) to commit or seek to commit and aid & abet acts of gross indecency with the male performers.

      It doesn’t surprise me that the male audience might want to engage any of the female performers in conversation. which man doesn’t want to have a conversation with an attractive woman who isn’t engaged in a process of manipulation. This limited contact between the female performer and the male audience may be the only straight forward and honest dialogue the man has with a woman.
      As you may have noticed in this weekends press, mens lives are so great that suicide among them is up by 30%. But who cares about a silly thing like that.

      1. professional sex workers (prostitutes) are not credible as their opinions are biased, after all they are in their business for the money. if their clients really wanted conversation or human contact, there are plenty of other places to frequent for free or far less money.

        1. If you will not engage with those of us in sex work due to bias (and who does not have some form of bias about their chosen profession) then your opinions are not worth listening to as they are themselves biased conjecture, not based on facts.

          I suggest everyone stop talking to the silly man.

        2. Where might a man go to experience 1:2:1 dialogue with a woman who behaves respectfully towards him, and be certain of the outcome? The lonely male (married 35 -55 with dependents) isn’t a prospect for a single woman looking for a potential partner. It may be that the man doesn’t want for whatever reason to abandon the marriage etc, but wants some sense, even only illusory of intimacy. He may not want masculine company.
          Why men use prostitutes is complex and has far less to do with sex than I suspect most people assume. The largest identifiable group of consumers of sex services are married men with dependents, the same group that reports almost the lowest levels of emotional and physical intimacy in their lives.

        3. To engage or not to engage with a Troll?

          To even bother having a discussion with the likes of vaffanculo seems pointless. Someone simply saying ‘REPENT!’ like an old time witch hunter (see paragraph 1) is unlikely to listen to reason. Is unlikely to have an intelligent discussion and is clearly an angry person.

          Forse e meglio che tu va fan culo, Sr Vaffanculo.

          1. Yep, Signore Vaffanculo appears to be a trollissimo – in the interests of free speech, this blog welcomes even him. We all need a little light entertainment

      2. As for the suicide rate among men up 30%, you reap what you sow: Live a life with no hope, you die with no hope, the exception being those who are mentally ill. If one makes the assumption that they were all mentally ill as opposed to living a life without hope, then perhaps socialized medicine is partially at fault for not providing proper medical service.

        1. Unfortunately large numbers of men, who in all probability never attend any form of sexualised performance or use sex services, die prematurely. The figure is around 20%. The bulk of these deaths are avoidable, but it seems that our society does not offer very large numbers of men sufficient incentive to want to live. The definition of and the motivations for many men’s existence is characterised by responsibility and duty. We are very good at telling men what they should be, and not good at telling men that they can be whatever they wish to be. Just look at TV and try to find 1 advert where men’s personal quality of life improved in any of them. Compare advertising for women and men, and then analyse what it tells us about our society.
          There are, and there have seemingly been, very large numbers of lonely despairing unwanted men. When I was a kid these were the men whose minds and bodies had been ruined in any one of a succession of awful wars. & despite some claims today, they were rarely regarded as deserving care.
          As for the socialised health care you refer to in UK excluding gynecology, the allocation of funding between women and men is around 85%+ for females and -15% for males. If gynecology is factored in then well over 90% of all healthcare spend is on females. Men die for the want of basic health care that women receive. Everyone knows about it, there have been protests, but there’s no political will to transfer funding from women to men.
          The only time the govt & society has been motivated to concern itself about men’s health was in the laet 1990’s when it was realised that due to premature death men could not be taxed and their surviving dependents cost in welfare payments.

        2. Sure you haven’t skipped YOUR medication, ‘vaffanculo’? 😉

          Taking advice re mental health from a religious monomaniac troll is like taking dietary advice from a fast food chain!

Leave a Reply