There are a couple of elephants in the room we need to deal with before I take a look at how “accurate” the Not Buying It pdf is on the “sleaze”. Firstly is the statement made that Julie Bindel is an expert on striptease. The would be like saying I am an expert on Veganism while I stuff my face with a bacon butty. The report commissioned back in 2003 for Glasgow council saw Ms Bindel publish a book about striptease. The laughable thing about this is that when councils commission reports they nearly always tell the consultant the nd goal required and work backwards. How would I know this? I commissioned 6 IT project with consultants and every time I told them the end I wanted and they worked from there. Given Ms Bindel's stance on any for of sex work the result could have been written well before any research was actually done. So this claim of an expert may her been stretched a little and Ms Bindel's honesty about her study has been questioned about this before here and here. Ms Bindel's research has been criticized heavily on other work in the big brothel for the Poppy Project 27 academics and other researchers involved in research into prostitution, who complained that the study had been conducted without ethical approval or acknowledgement of existing sources, and had been co-written by a researcher with anti-prostitution views This was taken from wiki and immediately highlights the issue with her work.
Second elephant is the history of Not Buying It and their previous incarnation as Object Now Ltd. They had no issues either not telling the whole truth or giving the length of time they rammed Lilith down everyone's throat they they were quite happy uses resources that were not fact checked. We get the same in the previous blog entry where they identified two US venues as being in London. The sort of laziness brings everything they do into question. And we today look at the first screen shot which shows NBI busy talking about videoing by customers and state clearly they view it as revenge porn. Strange that they are busy denying that when challenge about their behaviour, at best it is two faced laziness and like many I view it as revenge porn unfortunately there is not enough money in NBIs bank to make it worthwhile pressing a claim.
|From the mouth of babes|
|Not sure how this has anything to do with clubs as the guy has obviously been to places where you can't touch which is what NBI want|
One thing I noticed was NBI try to paint the fantasy that a man holds as an issue with a strip venue. A man elects to hire a Working Girl and nothing is said about where and when but it is interesting to note that he clears states he wants to enact the situation at the club but to do what he would not be allowed to at the club by touching and more. Can anyone tell whart any club or dancer has done wrong at this point? It seems like a linkage by fantasy rather than any fact.
|Women assualted for doing what NBI want|
The fact that dancers refused customers any form of sexual contact and were assaulted for it is terrible, firstly that any customer has that level of entitlement and second NBI are busy blaming others for customers attitudes when the portrayal of venues by NBI increases the factors of entitlement and NBI are busy telling everyone clubs offer these services. It is obvious that at least 3 clubs don't and if NGOs stop portraying SEVs as bump and grind joints man would not feel the same level of entitlement.
|Really This is what club's fault?|
Now we see a guy asking for a recommendation of clubs that offer extras. The fact there was nothing else associated with the PunterNet request display indicates that no one recommended a venue with extras. You would think with the number of venues in London there would be plenty if the claims NBI make were anywhere near factual.
|I suspect this was from the defunct Flying Scotsman which operated in the old red light district of Kings Cross|
Now we look at the study from Ms Bindel where dancers were interviewed by who knows who without informing the dancer. So we get expectations that seem to marry up with the beliefs of NBI yet you can see by the answers that nothing extra is being offered and the expectation is set up by something else, quite possibly NGOs trying to shut strip venues. Perhaps if feminist stop the stigmatizing language the behaviour would minimise and stop affecting dancers.
Here we have something that is just pure assumption, it deny's the dancer any agency and more portrays the dancer as nothing more than a machine that cannot reason for themselves. One minute dancers are nothing more than tools of the patriarchy, then brain washed victims and also infantile humans who cannot recognise what is being done to them. All three would be labelled as objectification if done by a man yet not so it seems if other women do it.
|Minimal sample size and how many were just bigging it up after many beers?|
Now it is straight away clear that although knowing that the Flying Scotsman was a strip pub in the old red light area of Kings Cross it was often portrayed as a club with the same license conditions. The key thing that the linking to Bindel's report is a lot of the interviews were done by sight rather than questioning the interviewee so it becomes guess work by the people who did the interview rather than solid face. The concept that an interviewer could over loud music could guess what a man was asking a dancer seems ludicrous. We have no idea what interviewers asked male customers and did they deliberately select the most drunk men? The figures were never broken down so we cannot challenge the validity of them. Perhaps Ms Bindel could share the exact breakdown of the conduct of the research.
|The US scene is totally different to the UK but hey thats just a fact|
The fact that NBI are busy trying to make people view venues as the same as American explains why they are busy trying to use American figures and incidents as though they affect the UK in the same way they affect the USA. For me this is part of the NBI throw enough poop at things and something is bound to stick.
Now this is just one PDF and not even a full break down but I wanted to be as accurate as I can be. There are more documents and a lot more poorly thought out screen shots to entertain us. I call Ms Bindel's work for Glasgow a piece of fiction and if she wants to take me to court over my statements please do I have enough facts to feel that the claims made by Ms Bindel are not the truth and the report for Glasgow had an end result set out before the research even started.