Lapdance of luxury

Yesterday, a friend and I drove by what is probably Toronto's landmark ''gentlemen's club'' and got into a debate over whether the financial meltdown is good or bad for the business. We've seen conflicting reports.

My theory is, a beer or two at a strip joint, especially those that offer cheap meals to bring in the customers, has got to be a lower-cost way of, um, getting that loving feeling than hitting the ''massage'' parlours or hiring ''escorts.''

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the sex trade, as long as sex workers have the right to ply their trade safely. Too many don't, risking rape, robbery, exploitation, eviction and worse. Of course, this is not exactly what I would like to see women doing but I can't deny that many are in the game because they actually enjoy it.If there's a market for it, and everybody involved is a consenting adult, well, why not?

Especially since this is an area where there is no gender pay gap.

But I digress.

Today frequent commenter MensRightsNow drew this story to my attention:

The tough job market is prompting a growing number of women across the country to dance in strip clubs, appear in adult movies or pose for magazines like Hustler.

Employers across the adult entertainment industry say they're seeing an influx of applications from women who, like Brown, are attracted by the promise of flexible schedules and fast cash. Many have college degrees and held white-collar jobs until the economy soured.

"You're seeing a lot more beautiful women who are eligible to do so many other things," said Gus Poulos, general manager of New York City's Sin City gentleman's club. He said he got 85 responses in just one day to a recent job posting on Craigslist.

It's too bad women who might otherwise never dream of going into a peeler palace feel they have to strip to make ends meet. But, since women are already poorly paid, and with so many in the tanking retail sector, I suppose they need to supplement their income in some way.

I just wonder how long the customers will have the cold hard cash to make it worthwhile.

 In this economy, "desperate measures are becoming far more acceptable," said Jonathan Alpert, a New York City-based psychotherapist who's had clients who worked in adult entertainment.

For some, dancing is temporary, a way to pay for college loans or other bills. Others say they've found their niche.

Dancers at the upscale Rick's Caberet clubs in New York City and Miami can make $100,000 to $300,000 a year – in cash – even with the economic downturn, club spokesman Allan Priaulx said.

Priaulx said 20 to 30 women a week are applying for jobs at the New York club, double the number of a year ago.

Still, analysts say, the industry isn't immune to the economic recession. Business is down an estimated 30 percent across all segments, including adult films, gentleman's clubs, magazines and novelty shops, said Paul Fishbein, president of AVN Media Network, an adult entertainment company that has a widely distributed trade publication and an award show.

"In the past, people have said this industry is recession-proof," said Eric Wold, director of research for financial services firm Merriman Curhan Ford. "I definitely don't see that; maybe recession-resistant."

Young women financing their education this way is not new.

What is new is the reported competition for these jobs.

Looks like a buyers' market.

Comments

[deBeauxOs]

And yet, this is what happened when this particular strip joint went looking for workers.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008900740_apoddstripclubjobfair.html

More men than women applied for jobs; the men were not going after jobs that required The Full Monty.

[Antonia]

You know what I noticed in both my link and yours?

The club owners had Greek names.

What's up with that?

[johnnykap]

"Especially since this is an area where there is no gender pay gap."

You continue to get the most basic facts wrong, Antonia. You fit in well with your journalistic brethren.

Female peelers make more than the men. Ergo, there is a gender pay gap.

Now that this has been pointed out to you, I'm sure you'll try to bring the situation to people's attention to correct the problem.

You know, on account of how you care about inequality and the like.

[MensRightsNow]

Antonia: Female porn stars are complaining about the lack of money in the biz nowadays. Why would a man rent a porno or go to a strip joint when he can turn on his computer and watch from the couch for free! What is sad is the depravity that these men and unfortunately women will go to to earn money in a saturated porn environment. The stuff "the boys" bounce back and forth on email is beyond the pale! Disgusting.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

"The club owners had Greek names.

What's up with that?"

Esteemed and Beautiful Moderator,

Like your own surname, I think "Tsoumas" is actually of non-Greek origin (I don't have my authorities available).

Meanwhile, after an anecdote from a major city in Canada years ago, I'm in favour of those clubs. Feminists on the local council wanted to shut them down.

But one dancer, a single mother of a son aged 11-14 or so, told the local paper (quoted from memory) "I'm spending the money I make on sending my son to a really good school in England, to give him the chances I never had or chucked away, if they close down these clubs I'll be put on some stupid training programme at welfare rates, and I don't know what will happen to him ...."

I've never been able to condemn such clubs after that . . . . .

[Paul]

"Feminists on the local council wanted to shut them down."

Of course! They offend their Victorian sensibilities of what is proper for a woman.
--

BTW, Antonia, the gender pay gap which you frequently reference, is another feminist canard sold to you by their flacks. It's just a clumsy wide angle view comparing overall pay for women vs men, but not necessarily for doing the same job.

It does not take into account the differences in hours worked, and most importantly - the kind of work sought. Males have a higher tendency to seek out higher risk, low security jobs, which pay better. At the blue collar level, for example - you'll see mostly men working in high steel. At the white collar level, you'll see men gravitating in higher numbers towards commissioned sales. Overall, as in equity markets over the long run, the financial gains made from the risks compensate for the high rate of failure there as well (the higher rate of failure is also reflected in the higher rates of stress-related disease, homelessness, suicide addictions, and crime among men).

In homes like mine, decisions about who will be the primary caregiver for children are largely economic. While, of the two of us, I would probably rather care for the kids, my wife would not be able to support a whole family on her income. The result has a drastic impact on the jobs sought by the primary caregiver and the hours she can work, which has an amplification effect on the pay gap. What started as a smaller (though significant) gap between my wife's income and mine, becomes much wider as she must adjust the kinds of work she seeks to accomodate her role as primary caregiver. If she had sought out similar work to mine and gotten to a similar pay bracket (or at least enough to support our family), then we would trade places.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Paul,

It is now quite common for the wife to bring in THE wage, and for the husband to stay at home to raise the children, or at least earn the supplementary wage and put his career second to the house and family, as the earning power of women is matching or even surpassing the earning power of men, in many areas of the economy. Shifting trends and needs in the work world, and the failure of most men to evolve beyond the tunnel-visioned self-involved alpha-male, have made women the preferred employee.

While there is no doubt that the "exploitative and degrading well-paying work" conundrum is largely one for the women, men are not excluded. There are enough men working as strippers, gigolos/hustlers/escorts and phone-sex operators. Also, it is not uncommon for a straight man to be providing service to gay men, which makes such work more of a moral dilemma.

[MensRightsNow]

Women working and men staying home is a recipe for disaster. It is counter-evolutionary. Now before the radfems blow a gasket....it sucks for men and women. It sets women up to pay child support, and spousal support for when the man leaves for the nanny next door. For the man....well....women don't like manginas despite the crap in Cosmo, so it's only a matter of time until you're kicked to the curb.

[...pat.]

MRN, you've shown yourself to be not only one in favour of men's rights, but opposed to women's rights. As a woman, who had a stay-at-home husband, I'm the one who paid when he left. We accept it, because we are the ones who earned more.
This *crap* you're spewing about "manginas" and women kicking men to the curb is baseless, tasteless, and stupidly sexist. Equal rights are equal rights.

[Paul]

MRN, it's sexist garbage like that which makes my work that much harder, because any criticism of feminism ends up first being received as that brand of BS. You don't speak for me, and you do no service to the cause of equality for men or anyone else with that tirade.

[MensRightsNow]

pat...I'm not opposed to womens' rights, I am opposed to female supremacy. The stuff repeatedly espoused on this blog.

Paul...sorry man.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Pat Pet, Saint Paul,

The stuff MRN's raising about "manginas" etc., is also related to a culturasl environment where Ghamil Gharbi had no problem in getting ALL the men to leave the class at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal at gunpoint, and then murdering the women they'd left behind. If just two or three of them had rushed him, as would have happened in any other time (maybe not place, cf. also the 2000 Wichita massacre), we would have had far fewer vicitms to mourn.

[Paul]

Not so fast Stygian. Groupthink dynamics in pressure cooker situations have proved time and time again that they can turn on a dime. Groups have social inertia, and often require leaders to provoke action. Without time or opportunity to create one, people tend to go with the flow. This is why people can get attacked or beaten in a mall and nobody does anything - until a leader tells someone specifically to take a specific action.

Interesting that the blame feminists heaped on those men for not rushing a gun, conveniently excused the women for their own inaction - even with their own lives threatened. How quickly men become expendible in their traditional roles as hero and protector of women when life is on the line. Had the men rushed, they had every reason to believe that they would force a violent resolution in which someone might be killed - and that hadn't happened yet. Had any person rushed and succeeded - man or woman - in delaying Gharbi - more would likely have followed.

I don't buy MRN's brand of "equality" because its lopsided advocacy is a carbon copy of the feminism he rightfully criticizes. The end of that road is a politic that assumes men are weak individuals who need extra help to get by. And if he's going to criticize effectively on a feminist blog, he's going to have to start with the assumption that feminists tolerate or celebrate social inequities that work to men's disadvantage - because they believe we deserve whatever payback we get for some historical inequity. He's going to have to show how feminism harms *women* (or people, which includes "women").

[MensRightsNow]

The Stygian.....there's the rub. Inherent in men is a desire to protect the females of our world. Feminism has made men second guess this specific role.

Any questioning of feminism is met with schoolyard shaming language (mysoginist, ad nauseum)...the irony is women are trying to bully men...I just happen to push back, this offends them. I don't care. This offends them more.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Manginas? Men's rights? Give me a break! It makes me wonder why some of you men are bothering with a feminist-leaning blog.

You guys criticize the ineffectual-ization of men, yet men like you - who either whine about how hard done by you are (oh those meanie feminists are emasculating meeee), or by your bullying approach to arguments, perpetuate the image of the emotionally-damaged over-compensating male - do nothing but damage to any "male cause". Sheesh, if I were a Lesbian and reading some of your posts, I would be so relieved I was gay.

[Sebastian Stoker]

Hey, here are some ways a man can be a MAN, and not offend the feminists:
1) Have integrity
2) Make the best of what life has to offer by changing what you can
3) Communicate properly (without always trying to push some personal agenda)
4) Stop the US-vs-THEM thinking with regards to just about every issue you come across
5) Make yourself a role model for younger men (many of whom are lost)

[MensRightsNow]

Paul: "I don't buy MRN's brand of "equality" because its lopsided advocacy is a carbon copy of the feminism he rightfully criticizes."

My criticisms are a counter-balance to feminism's lopsided take on equality. If my posts appear vicious, sardonic and offensive, I make no apologies because there can be no other response. Let them censor me, it's what feminists do.

And Sebastian, to suggest that anyone is damaging the "male cause" on a feminist blog is ridiculous. Antonia isn't the enemy, male politicians are.

[Paul]

Let's get something clear. Criticism of feminism should not be a de-facto endorsement of some idea of "men's rights". To do so is tantamount to reconstructing the politic you are criticizing, warts and all. This is where MRN consistently discredits his argument.

It should be enough to criticize feminism, or gender feminism - whatever you call it (some call me an equity feminist) as one would criticize any other biopolitically motivated group. If I criticize the KKK, it doesn't necessarily make me a black rights activist. Calling out sexism or racism where one sees it should be enough on its own. There's no need to make a scorecard where the bigger loser gets the moral authority to carte blanche entitlement. As I say, you can't tear down the master's house with the master's tools.

There is a portion of a mens rights movement that does indeed want men to embrace traditional roles, and in that sense, they seem to have more in common with today's gender feminists than they do with anyone else, and I'm thinking of you here MRN. Certainly, the feminists' reaction to the male survivors of Ecole Polytechnique would indicate that they have a lot in common with the drum-beating men's rights Promise Keepers, who also think the dudes should have machoed up and charged like the light brigade into the guns. Any time you make political bedfellows like that, it's high time both sides look very closely at what you think you stand for.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

Stoker you Smoker

"5) Make yourself a role model for younger men (many of whom are lost)"

That one will "offend the feminists" for sure.

[...pat.]

MRN, when you say things like "Mangina" the subtext signals two things
1. Men who stay at home aren't men
2. Vaginas are inferior to penises

Neither of these can be even remotely be associated with equal rights.
As I've stated before, feminism is about equal rights, not about superiority.
I refuse to accept broad slanders about "counter-evolutionary" actions and "shaming language".

[Paul]

pat...feminism is about advocacy for women; not equality.

Feminism does not advocate for men in places where they are disadvantaged due to their gender. It's original iterations in the 1920's and in the '60's and 70's were more about equality. But then, those movements pre-dated the word "feminism" which came later once the politic subverted itself.

MRN's politic is ALSO about advocacy, for men, and as such, it is pretty much the same flavour. Goodbye old sexism, hello new sexism.

[Sebastian Stoker]

MRN, I do not support the idea of men's rights or men's causes, period. Men's Rights (as a counter to women's rights) is like The Retired WASP Male Worth $5 Million Anti-Defamation League.

I was arguing that you yourself were damaging your own so-called cause in the way you were approaching feminism. Your US-vs-THEM attitude is not serving any higher purpose.

Stygian, I fail to see how I should be concerned that saying younger men are lost offends feminists or women. First it is not their fault. Second, if they object to the idea of role-modeling, that is not our [men's] problem. Our bigger problem is that with each new generation males are more broken and dysfunctional (see stats on male vs female academic performance, visit a college cafeteria and watch and listen to often-quite-unacceptable male behavior).

I find it quite absurd that a group that has held power for so long consistently attempts to blame the oppressed group, and creates a smokescreen with endless mind-numbing references to petty conflicts, missteps or rhetoric. This MO is used often in the west, with discussions about Male-female, WASP-Ethnic, and straight-gay dynamics. No one buys the [The White Anglo-Saxon Middle-Class Corporate-Good-ol-Boy Heterosexual Male Just Can't Get a Break These Days] line.

[...pat.]

Paul, it's tiresome when you try to redefine the aims of feminism to suit your own goals.
You're wrong. It's as simple as that. Feminism is about equality.

[MensRightsNow]

Paul: You're posts are excellent and you certainly have a full grasp of the myths of feminist dogma. You understand feminists, but I am not sure you understand women.

Not matter what a women does, no matter how destructive it is, it is seen as empowering and liberating to women. Paul, you can't argue with that reasoning capacity. Whenever you discuss female wrongdoings, they simply turn the finger at you and the patriarchy. Paul, you target the system, not the cause. The cause is equalizing the state-sponsored system of female privilege.

[Sebastian Stoker]

MensRightsNow,

You are projecting male traits on women. While I would myself assert that individual women can be as selfish, arrogant and as likely to abuse power as men, and stand by my claims of female chauvinism, I cannot see the systemic female conspiracies you see.

In order for a group to be exert systemic control and influence - form old-school-tie networks, locking out the "others", promoting misinformation and discrimination - it has to have evolved while having controlled a system. Even if male paranoid claims that women have hijacked the modern western world are true, women have yet to log anywhere near the control-time in our society that men have.

Your claims are similar to those of white American racists (especially now that Obama is President), that African-Americans now control the United States. Such paranoia evokes images of McCarthy, the Inquisition, the witch hunts.