Hip to Strip? Or Is it Time for Men to Stop Watching?
Alternet recently published a piece on sex and relationships titled "Should You Try Stripping?"
The "you" in question is specifically female and author Lily Blau's suggestion that parading in the buff empowers women has rightfully ruffled the feminist blogosphere.
These days, says Blau, "sex appeal has attained a status that no other quality shares. So the thought of making money from stripping, especially in these tough economic times, "is increasingly appealing." What sexy girl wouldn't want reassurance that she's hot enough for cash, Blau seems to say. But the real question is not a supply-side issue. It's about the demand.
Yes, women go to strip clubs. We drink beer and eat wings at Hooters. We hire prancing men in Speedos for our bachelorette parties and Cardio Striptease is women's domain at the gym. But the primary market demand for stripping, lap dancing, and other forms of fleshertainment come from men.
So why are so many men paying women to take off their clothes?
This question is sure to elicit a Seth Rogen-esque snicker along the lines of, "Umm ... Cuz they're naked and we saw boobies."
The allegedly more thoughtful among us will argue that men are visual creatures, hardwired to become aroused at the mere site of female flesh. Besides the fact that this doesn't explain women's arousal, or why some men aren't turned on by watching women work a pole, this pseudo-scientific reasoning is just a lame excuse for "boys will be boys." As I explain in my new book, Men and Feminism, this lets men off the hook for their decisions to purchase or rent women's bodies.
In so many circles it's hip to strip. I count my friends among them. But as author and blogger Amanda Marcotte writes, we've got a "hipster culture that plays at men and women being equals, but still makes women tap dance and submit like performing monkeys begging for cookies." Let me add: makes women tap dance naked.
Others suggest that in a capitalist society women are free to choose stripping (or teasing or sucking or fucking) for cash. A simple case of contractual agreement, they might say. Yes, we all make choices. But some choices are more freely made than others. And that still doesn't answer the question why men choose to buy women's bodies and whether it's time for them to stop.
The thing is, this isn't just about stripping. Take away the pole, and we're still left with a host of problems and a crisis in masculinity: A culture that rewards men for being hyperaggressive and punishes those who can't or won't. We have pop culture films like I Love You, Man, which shows men bumbling through authentic interpersonal relationships. There's the Judd Apatow movie model that portrays guys as perpetual kidults who might not ever really grow up. Or Dito Montiel's new flick Fighting that suggests the way hard-bodied men stand tough is by kicking ass.
Yet with tons of mixed messages and no good roadmap, it's still crucial for guys to achieve successful masculinity. Failure is not an option because the stakes are really high.
In her April 2009 New York Times article, "Dude, You've Got Problems," journalist and author, Judith Warner, describes the recent suicides of two young men after being bullied at school, taunted, and called "gay."
The fast route for guys to "prove" they're not gay is to show that they're tough, that they're not weak, that they don't back down -- whether on the playground, the bedroom, or the boardroom. Warner states, "Being called a 'fag,' you see, actually has almost nothing to do with being gay. It's really about showing any perceived weakness or femininity... It's what being called a 'girl' used to be, a generation or two ago." Though the paradigm is shifting slightly, gender expectations for young boys and men are more heightened than ever.
As author Lindsay Beyerstein comments, "strip clubs are just a symptom of much larger inequities. If they were all eliminated tomorrow, the net effect on women's liberation would be approximately nil. It's not like men would suddenly respect women more." And it's not like men would instantly have masculinity figured out.
The real issue, then, is not whether men keep watching naked women parade around in Lucite heels. The real point is that it's time for men to expand their repertoire, pay attention, and start watching something new. Like their kids growing up. Or our shifting attitudes about gender, work, and home life. Men can head over to YouTube and check Def Jam poet Rafael Casal spit some righteous words about women, men, and relationships. More men can get involved with projects like A Call to Men's National Speak Out, a conference about ending male violence against women.
I'm not willing to tell men -- or anyone else -- to stop watching women strip. I'm not the G-string patrol. I refuse to bed-down with the conservative right. And censorship can only lead to trouble. I'm not going to debate whether women doing sex work is good, bad, sexy, or ugly.
But I am going to insist that we keep asking hardcore questions about men's market demand for female flesh. We need more -- not fewer -- conversations about gender, sexuality, safety, pleasure, earning power, and choice. Because whatever we're watching, it's time we also time to start watching something new. Our culture needs it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have to wonder about the assumption of female strippers as the true victim in the stripper-stripper viewer relationship. Outside of those circumstances where woman are being forced or coerced into the profession by horrible husbands and boyfriends/girlfriends and even the vilest of all the pimp, I believe men are the true victims. Strip clubs are a shortcut. It enables a male essential emotional nutrient to be readily available for a price. I suggest you go and observe a strip joint and those who frequent it. You soon learn to pity the regulars who go there to purchase the "fantasy" of a woman feigning interest in them to the point they are willing to buy fake intimacy.
Intimacy is a male and female need. The intimacy purchased is not always sexual in nature, but there is always the element of purchasing the personal engagement of someone who is trained to seem interested and invest themselves in the "buyer." I am not saying this to vilify women. Men go into these establishments willingly with their eyes open. However "boys will be boys" culture surrounding these establishments enables all parties involved to feel free both work as a stripper and give money to strippers free of any guilt or negativity while in the confines of the stripping business paradigm.
The power in the establishment is yielded to the woman; the men who frequent the stripping establishment are the exploited and the least powerful entity in the stripping paradigm.
Great post.
There is a very simple rule I just wish the people who espouse any feminist theories would consider first....
What if the opposite were true? Ask the same question but switch the words men and women....
Maybe feminism should have an honest conversation about men's needs...WITHOUT judging those needs as morally inferior.
I just saw an advertisement on HuffPost for Cirque du Soleil's show "Zumanity: the Sensual Side of Cirque" which my wife and I saw in Vegas. In this conversation, why aren't we asking the audience of this show to stop watching? It has dancers, some nude, some not, on stage, being paid for their performance, with patrons there to pay to watch. Moreover, by its title it is intended to be *sensual*. What is the difference between this and a strip club? Does the fact that Zumanity's audience is male AND female make it somehow morally better? If so, what m:f ratio would the audience of a strip club need to make it *equal*?
Dr. Tarrant makes a connection between the demand for strippers with male aggression. It's an interesting connection but is not supported here (which I'd expect to see more of, particularly from a scholar) as an answer to why men want (and will pay) to see women naked. I"m not convinced of this. Are the men in the audience of Zumanity somehow less aggressive because they are there with their wives, girl/boyfriends, etc.? Personally, I'd like to hear more support for this argument before I can be convinced that it's plausible.
Were all the nude dancers female in the Cirque Du Soleil's show?
Hey Vickster,
You wrote this...."I've said it once and I'll say it again. If men had to put up with half of the bs women do for sex"...in another post.
Very interested in what you mean...I think most would agree its far easier for women to find sex?
No, they were male and female. And the show also covered homosexual and heterosexual themes.
Hi JayPL, I understand what you mean, but as a woman who doesnt allow my boyfriend to go to strip clubs or topless shows, Id like to tell you the difference between them. I happened to see Zumanity with my ex and I did not feel nearly as uncomfortable (seeing naked women with him) as I would feel in a strip club. In Zumanity, the women are not grinding or dancing erotically. They are not allowed to touch the men, talk to the men, or rub their naked body parts on the men. And after the show the men are not allowed to have "private time" with the Zumanity girls.
Two of my male friends, who saw Zumanity, hated it (they thought it was boring)... yet they would rant and rave about how much they love strip clubs and strippers. Stripping is not an "art", it is raunchy, wild, and in your face; that is why guys go to strip clubs with their buddies and Zumanity with their wives.
True enough. But the difference you mention is more a difference in personal taste . . . much like everyone's aesthetic tastes, there's a wide degree of variety. In both situations, there are naked women dancing and being paid for the performance. Your answer means that there are certain types of nude dancing that requires "hardcore questions about men's market demand for female flesh" as the blog author states, and certain types of nude dancing that do not require these questions. It's ok to be naked and dance THIS move, but being naked and dancing THAT move is a problem. Indeed, you even mention that the stripper's dance is not art . . . and that is a matter of aesthetic taste as well.
When my wife and I were shopping for a new art piece for a living room, I saw many artists who I felt were amateurish and not worth the prices they asked in the art galleries. However, I also recognize that this is a personal view . . . I would never put their work on my wall, but I also would not say that my dislike of their work warrants that we ask "hardcore questions about the demand for talentless art."
It's curious that you state "as I *would* feel in a strip club". This implies to me that you've never been to the strip club. No problem with that, but you might be basing what you think you *would* feel on what you've heard
Rather than seeing for yourself.
We continue to have this nonsense conversation because America as a society treats sexuality not sex....sexuality as something bad......
I agree that American society treats sexuality as something bad . . . but I fail to see how a conversation about sexuality, gender, pleasure, etc. is *nonsense*. While I may not agree with where Dr. Tarrant implies the answer should go for this, it is a very relevant conversation in the right direction to overcome the issue of how poorly sexuality is viewed in our society.
Silly men - when will we learn we are not supposed to be attracted to women, unless they want us to be? Men need to let women be empowered, by not finding them attractive, not wanting to sleep with them, but still be willing to work yourself to death to provide for them and take care of them. Only then will the sexes be 'equal'. Biology be darned, we need to learn to follow the vague rules of a handful of women, who will then blame us for not standing up to them!
Great comment.
I have seen many posts arguing this point, in some form or another...I'll quote from one...
"Here, you make a reasonable point that a "janitor who cleans up the strip club" may not be 'empowered' by that work - okay. But, again, I think what's MISSING from your point is any type of gendered analysis. From what you wrote, surely the janitor in question would be Male. Interesting... see, while work is VERY gendered, a man (assumably) who would be hired for such a position (janitor) isn't hired BECAUSE he is male-bodied, or more specificaly, because the employer is interested in trading on the body of this man"/janitor. Whereas, that *is* absolutely the case as presented in this article for sex workers."
Why must gender come into the analysis at all? (btw, how can you "surely" say the janitor would be male, but that gender plays no role in his occupation) But if you want to ask gender questions, ok...
There are plenty of jobs where males are hired for their bodies. My father was a flooring intstaller for 20 years. Do you know what that did to his male body?
More extreme...coal miners, roofers, road pavers, etc . These are men hired specifically for the expolitation of their bodies...and they die in their 50's and early 60's. That is not "trading" on their bodies?
Part 2--
We never talk about the moral implications of buying flooring or electricity and we don't have ethical issues getting the roof fixed or driving on roads.
What makes stripping different? It is our Puritanical view of sex.
I am tired of a the feminist movement using this one relic of Puritanism...our "shame" and "guilt" over sex...as a tool to further their agenda. I'm sure they won't go along with the rest of the man as master aspects of Puritanism, but they are happy to use America's confusion over sex to drive their agenda.
If they want to strip, I will watch if the view is good, but regardless my money stays in my pocket because only one naked woman gets my money!
And how does she feel about you watching others...or, for that matter, paying her?
I think he was coyly referring to his wife or girlfriend.
But, a quick question...what if she didn't like him looking at other women? Would it be ok for her to tell him not to?
Flip it around, what if he didn't like her talking to other men? Would it be ok for him to tell her not to?
Why does society accept one jealousy but not the other? Just curious.
BTW- Do you think when Dr. Tarrant wrote this article she thought it was going to be used to advertise www .flirtystripperpole. com?
Wow, this guy is driving me completely insane. In fact, I think it's an *abuse* of these boards to use this forum as a place to play out your own pathological issues about your daddy complex, your mommy hatred, and etc and etc. IT'S OLD.
I'm also so tired of people (your interpretation here) who feel it is their self-righteous duty to limit and stop the discourse becase THEY feel attacked, specifically when any idea is posited that doesn't fall in line with their version of the world.
Everyone else: great comments, even those that I think are funny or I don't agree with inherently. Continue the interesting conversation, y'all. It's important to keep talking about it.
Great article: Notice the response on these boards. Well done, Shira Tarrant!
As soon as I saw this headline, I knew I'd have a lot to say on this topic. I didn't realize how much...
Sorry to drive you insane, you were actually the first person to offer any kind of insightful reply.
My goal is also to discuss the main topic at hand...but I reject the idea that the article is unbiased (at great length below, actually) and I am infuriated by the "Men are pigs" trump card that gets used to try to invalidate any point made in their defense.
I don't think men are wrong for looking at women. Maybe, I'm wrong.
Why should men stop watching?
Follow up question, do women have the right to ask/tell us to stop watching?
I agree with you. "Men are pigs" is a trump cards that gets played all too often. I think it is probably said mostly out of frustration, and it's never productive. In Tarrant's defense, I don't think she was asking you to stop watching. She was asking you to ask yourself why you want to buy to opportunity to watch naked women?
I don't think Dr. Tarrant was asking anyone to stop watching. In fact, she ends the article with this: "I'm not willing to tell men -- or anyone else -- to stop watching women strip. I'm not the G-string patrol. I refuse to bed-down with the conservative right. And censorship can only lead to trouble. I'm not going to debate whether women doing sex work is good, bad, sexy, or ugly.
But I am going to insist that we keep asking hardcore questions about men's market demand for female flesh. "
Looks to me like she wanted to get a conversation started, and was successful at that. The piece brings to mind Fugazi song lyrics: "Never mind what they're selling--it's what you're buying!"
I don't particularly care for going to watch women strip in public when it is relatively easy to have them do so in private. Having been paid as much as $125/hour for my "time", I find the supposed offense odd. So, men acting out on their evolutionary hardwiring is "wrong" while women acting on theirs is, somehow, "right"? So, who is the sexist in this?
Nach, what?
Please explain further what you meant by, 'women acting on theirs' etc. I followed the beginning part of your point, but then you lost us, I think....
P.S. I think, after quite a few posts on this board, we're trying to move the conversation further, beyond this idea of 'hard-wiring' etc etc. But, it seems to me you started with a point that interesting.
Why are we trying to move beyond the idea of 'hard-wiring'?
Because you have disproven it or dislike it?
I don't understand this article. It seems to be based completely on the premise that the idea men (male "creatures"-thanks for that) are visual is somehow "pseudo-scientific". No basis is given for this claim, and then this idea is extrapolated into a conclusion that this is somehow used to justify buying sex. I don't get it.
From a supply-side perspective, what is the fundatmental difference between a person who displays their body in a strip club, a person who displays their body as an "erotic food-art" exhibit at an erotic art festival, and a person who displays their body for school art classes? Is the pleasure/confidence, knowledge/expression of one's sexuality, gained from engaging in either of these activities more or less acceptable than the others?
From a demand-side perspective, are the motivations behind the strip club patron, the erotic art festival patron, and the art student appropriate grounds to judge either of these activities in greater or lesser need of conversation about gender, sexuality, etc? Is the pleasure and/or knowledge/expression of one's sexuality gained from paying for these activities more or less acceptable than the others?
As an artist who focuses on the human form, I have been on both sides of this equation. Though I cannot pretend to understand the particulars of a stripper's experience, I have spent many hours fully nude as a model in art classes and in front of my own camera (as has my wife). My wife and I enjoy creating erotic art, attending erotic art festivals, and occasional trips to the strip club. I can say from experience that objectification occurs in each of these scenarios on some level. It is aesthetic and sensual objectification . . . It is the nature of the nude human form as art, the body is both object and subject.
Excellent questions.
Perhaps, since you have participated in erotic art and strip clubs, your experience of modeling for art classes is different than mine--which was anything but "erotic", since I only chose to do it when I was pregnant and did not feel at all sexual about it.
Or perhaps your participation in art modeling has made your view of eroticism different than that of the standard Springfield Bubba with his Bud Lite after work at the mill--so that you can see the women at the strip club at a different level and appreciate their beauty and form.
Whether easy to define or not, there IS a profound difference, for example, between the strip club and the ballet stage--though both may very clearly use eroticism and both may give a powerful view of the human body.
Pure elitism.
What is wrong with Bubba appreciating the female form in his own way? Why are you judging him to be culturally or morally inferior to the guy at the erotic art show?
"Whether easy to define or not, there IS a profound difference, for example, between the strip club and the ballet stage--though both may very clearly use eroticism and both may give a powerful view of the human body."
This is certainly true and the fact that it is difficult to define the difference is what I was getting at with the questions. Though I posed the question to emphasize the similarities between these contexts there is *something* different. I don't mean to minimize the difference but to further the conversation. Your response focuses on the demand-side suggesting that it is the motivations of the patrons that make the context different. There is an irony though that a *profound* difference can also be difficult to pinpoint . . . it's similar to the "I know it when I see it" argument.
"your experience of modeling for art classes is different than mine--which was anything but "erotic"
To clarify my view: In the context of nude modeling for an art class, I use "erotic" very loosely . . . in that I believe that displaying or viewing a nude body CAN have an erotic element in the simple act of viewing and displaying. It also requires, I think, a positive view of one's own body and the human body in general. But this is not to say that I think it is of the same quality of eroticism that exists in a strip club in which the dance and movements are intended
"which was anything but "erotic", since I only chose to do it when I was pregnant and did not feel at all sexual about it."
I"m also not implying that *erotic* is ALWAYS *sexual* . . . though in most cases I would agree that these two are synonymous. Having a positive view of one's own body, I think, has an erotic element . . . at least, it certainly does for me. That is the element of eroticism that I think is present in an art school class. Further, I used the example of the specifically "erotic" art as a go-between with the strip club and the art school class because it connects the explicit eroticism of the club with the subtle eroticism of the class.
I like watching my girlfriend strip, why would it be any different for me to enjoy watching a girl that's not my girlfriend strip?
I have, in the past, been a frequenter of strip clubs (thought not in about four years now), but I'll play devil's advocate here:
The difference is that your girlfriend is doing it because she wants to, whereas the girl at the strip club may be doing it because she feels she has to.
When you go to a restaurant the waitress may not be bringing you your food and drinks because she wants to, but rather because she feels that she has to.
When you stay at a hotel, the maid might not want to make the bed but she might feel like she has to.
The coal miner, the janitor, the busboy, the shoe store clerk, the one hour photo guy, the roofer, the bus driver, etc etc etc.
Why are strippers the only ones we devote so much time to saving? Why not have the same concern for these other economically oppressed occupations?
Why is it different?
Just to play Devil's Advocate....
The more accurate question, following your logic, would be, "Why would it be any different for OTHER MEN to enjoy watching YOUR GIRL strip."
Although, since it doesn't bother YOU to watch a 'girl' who's not your girlfriend strip, it follows that YOU wouldn't be bothered with other men watching YOUR 'girl' strip.
Fair is, after all, fair.
Jealousy between people in a relationship is a seperate issue from whether or not stripping is immoral.
If a girl isn't jealous of her man looking at other women, is she wrong?
As long as both partners in a relationship have an understanding, should your or anyone else's morality trump theirs?
So are you arguing that there is a percentage of the population who have terrible attitudes about gender but are decent fellows otherwise? I think you're missing the forest for the trees. What we are talking about here are stupid, insecure, and self-absorbed people. There's no cure for that.
WHY is it time for men to stop watching?
The idea of the article and of this stream of thinking is why are men looking? It is a bizarre question. On the internet are thousands of girls posing naked. Ninety percent of them have the girl looking at the camera so that if anyone knew her they would recognize her. Half the time I doubt they are getting paid anything. Why are they doing this?? Men are looking because why not? The girls are there and they want to be looked at.
it's access to power, when their isn't much of a legitimate access to power, you take what you can get
Bravo for opening up this loaded topic. As a sex-positive feminist who has done her time on a pole, I know first hand that there are no easy answers to the sticky questions that arise when men pay women for their role as sexual objects. Yes, women should absolutely have the right to do whatever they please with their bodies. I, too, believe in the decriminalization of prostitution. I even patronize the occasional strip club. However, there is a dangerous Playboy- inspired homogeneity in the sexual imagery of women in our culture that is absolutely damaging and oppressive. And the power dynamic that makes the commercialization of women's sexuality so prevalent needs to be examined with a critical eye- like Dr. Tarrant's.
Women have a free will and a free mind. They are sentient beings who get to make their own choices.
Just because Playboy or any else in society tell you to do something...you don't have to do it...
Just FYI.
Malkin,
Thanks so much for enlightening us all... "Just FYI" men also have a "Free Will" and a "Free Mind" ... but according to yours and many other posts from readers here, one wouldn't necessarily believe that... It's 'oh, the women are THERE so why wouldn't we look' and 'oh not everything is supposed to be empowering.' ... blah blah blah.
Perhaps if some of you would re-read the article above, and attempt to think MORE DEEPLY before responding, we could actually generate a reasonable level of thought-provoking discussing. Right now, it just seems to me 90% of these are knee-jerk reactionary comments from people that "just don't like" what this article has to say.
Too bad. That's not the point.
Malkin,
I'm not sure that anyone has ever told me I absolutely must wear makeup, be a certain size, shave my legs, et cetera, but the messages that women and young girls are bombarded with constantly from media, entertainment, peers and the fashion/pornography industries areclear: be hot, be hypersexual, be accessible to men.
Choice exists as a technicality. Many women never think about *not* attempting to adhere to certain standards because those standards are ingrained into our daily lives almost from birth. Many people are not objective (or intelligent) enough to realize that their goals and desires are strongly influenced if not entirely fabricated by commercial messages.
No opportunity to make a conscious choice regarding gender is ever presented to most people. As we grow up as females (or as males) in a capitalist, male-dominated culture, we do not weigh the pros and cons for most aspects of our social lives. The simple fact that a "choice" to defy the norm exists is not an answer to any argument that sexism is rampant in our society and that females and males are oppressed by it.
Free will is a nice idea, but unfortunately one would need to exist in a social vacuum for it to be a reality.
Thank you so much for this. It is right on the money
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
