A Great Day for Prudery in Seattle, WA
An interesting story--it seems that, up until recently, there was a moratorium on development of new strip clubs in Seattle. This is, of course, illegal, and so when the law was challenged, it was overturned. However, in anticipation of losing this law, the Seattle City Council, or a small majority of it, at least, suddenly decided it was their moral duty to take action:
City Council approves tougher strip-club rules
The new rule will require clubs to keep dancers and patrons at least four feet apart, will require a 3-foot railing between the stage and the audience, and will outlaw direct tipping. There will also be a requirement for brighter lighting--the point of which is lost on me, since, if dancers and patrons are supposed to be four feet apart anyway, it's not like there's going to be any illegal hanky panky going on, is there?
There have already been accusations that the new law is designed to drive the clubs out of business. The owner who sued to invalidate the old moratorium has already stated he will likely cancel his plans to build a new club in the city. The new rules will be among the strictest among large cities in the U.S., and there is talk among the existing clubs of suing the city. My guess is they'll probably lose if they try it (I am ever the pessimist in these matters).
Four members of the nine-person council opposed the ordinance:
Personally, I take issue with both of these points. First, why is it that "everybody else is doing it" is considered a justifiable excuse whenever a city wants to enact a new, bullshit law? Any third grader can tell you how much weight that argument carries when the teachers or playground monitors crack down: none at all. But somehow it's perfectly okay for people, once they get themselves on a city council, to revert to a third-grade level of reasoning. Secondly, since when is the government supposed to be in the business of making things easy for the police? This is actually a rather complicated issue (in my opinion), and perhaps could be a topic for discussion on my politics blog. But, to put it very simply, the police exist to serve the law. The law does not exist to serve the police. Therefore, it strikes me as not at all right when governments go out of their way to craft the law to police specifications. Doing that is only one step away from having the police actually make the laws themselves.
As I've said, there have been accusations that this law is aimed at driving the clubs out of business, but what is really offensive is how this might actually happen: The dancers are the ones who are going to feel the pain. Clubs typically operate by charging a fee for each dancer who wants to perform in a certain shift. The dancers then need to recoup this expense through tips, along with additional tip money that they are then able to keep (to give a general description--I'm sure the details vary at different places). The dancers, then, are totally dependant on generating a lot of money through tips. The tips, I imagine, vary in proportion to how much the patron feels he's getting for the money. Thus, a tip for a lap dance is going to be larger than tips given to dancers on the stage, although in the latter situation, there will hopefully be more tips coming in at once.
However, if all the situations involving close proximity between dancers and patrons are eliminated, what is going to happen to the tips? Are people still going to be willing to give as much money as before? I sincerely doubt it. Maybe a few sympathetic patrons will try to be nice about it, but the average guy is going to see he's not getting as much as before, so he's not going to pay as much. This leads to less income for the dancers. How will the dancers respond to this? Might there be some of them who are no longer able to recoup their expenses, leading to a shortage of dancers (which could in turn lead to a downward spiral situation as fewer patrons visit the clubs)? Or, might some of the dancers have to resort to other means to maintain the income they used to have? The "other means" I'm talking about is prostitution. When word reaches the police that "prostitutes" (formerly known as dancers) are operating out of the strip clubs, how long are those clubs going to last? What is going to happen to these former dancers, once their clubs are shut down?
How might those five Seattle City Council members feel, knowing their precious new law might actually end up increasing the level of prostitution in their city? Of course, I don't feel there's anything fundamentally wrong with prostitution, but the fact is that it is illegal just about everywhere in the U.S., which means people who earn their living that way have absolutely zero protection. Unlike dancers, who typically have at least a bouncer looking out for them, if not the full protection of the law. Does the Seattle City Council even care about this? I sincerely doubt they ever thought about it, but, if they did, the answer is most likely "no". Because prudes never give a shit about what happens to people who violate their precious rules.
City Council approves tougher strip-club rules
The new rule will require clubs to keep dancers and patrons at least four feet apart, will require a 3-foot railing between the stage and the audience, and will outlaw direct tipping. There will also be a requirement for brighter lighting--the point of which is lost on me, since, if dancers and patrons are supposed to be four feet apart anyway, it's not like there's going to be any illegal hanky panky going on, is there?
There have already been accusations that the new law is designed to drive the clubs out of business. The owner who sued to invalidate the old moratorium has already stated he will likely cancel his plans to build a new club in the city. The new rules will be among the strictest among large cities in the U.S., and there is talk among the existing clubs of suing the city. My guess is they'll probably lose if they try it (I am ever the pessimist in these matters).
Four members of the nine-person council opposed the ordinance:
A minority of the council, led by Councilman Nick Licata, argued that the public didn't want the city to be acting as morality police and tried to defang the new law by offering amendments deleting the 4-foot rule, lighting and railing requirements.Club owners would be held responsible for violations of the new rules. Councilman McIver defended them as being similar to those in neighboring cities, and easier for the police to enforce, compared to the old rules, which only restricted sexual touching, without any minimum distance requirement.
"Without being prudes, we can be prudent," Licata said.
But the council rejected those amendments on 5-4 votes, divided along the same lines as the overall ordinance.
Voting in favor of the new rules were council members Jan Drago, Richard McIver, Jim Compton, David Della and Richard Conlin. Opposed were Licata, Peter Steinbrueck, Jean Godden and Tom Rasmussen.
Personally, I take issue with both of these points. First, why is it that "everybody else is doing it" is considered a justifiable excuse whenever a city wants to enact a new, bullshit law? Any third grader can tell you how much weight that argument carries when the teachers or playground monitors crack down: none at all. But somehow it's perfectly okay for people, once they get themselves on a city council, to revert to a third-grade level of reasoning. Secondly, since when is the government supposed to be in the business of making things easy for the police? This is actually a rather complicated issue (in my opinion), and perhaps could be a topic for discussion on my politics blog. But, to put it very simply, the police exist to serve the law. The law does not exist to serve the police. Therefore, it strikes me as not at all right when governments go out of their way to craft the law to police specifications. Doing that is only one step away from having the police actually make the laws themselves.
As I've said, there have been accusations that this law is aimed at driving the clubs out of business, but what is really offensive is how this might actually happen: The dancers are the ones who are going to feel the pain. Clubs typically operate by charging a fee for each dancer who wants to perform in a certain shift. The dancers then need to recoup this expense through tips, along with additional tip money that they are then able to keep (to give a general description--I'm sure the details vary at different places). The dancers, then, are totally dependant on generating a lot of money through tips. The tips, I imagine, vary in proportion to how much the patron feels he's getting for the money. Thus, a tip for a lap dance is going to be larger than tips given to dancers on the stage, although in the latter situation, there will hopefully be more tips coming in at once.
However, if all the situations involving close proximity between dancers and patrons are eliminated, what is going to happen to the tips? Are people still going to be willing to give as much money as before? I sincerely doubt it. Maybe a few sympathetic patrons will try to be nice about it, but the average guy is going to see he's not getting as much as before, so he's not going to pay as much. This leads to less income for the dancers. How will the dancers respond to this? Might there be some of them who are no longer able to recoup their expenses, leading to a shortage of dancers (which could in turn lead to a downward spiral situation as fewer patrons visit the clubs)? Or, might some of the dancers have to resort to other means to maintain the income they used to have? The "other means" I'm talking about is prostitution. When word reaches the police that "prostitutes" (formerly known as dancers) are operating out of the strip clubs, how long are those clubs going to last? What is going to happen to these former dancers, once their clubs are shut down?
How might those five Seattle City Council members feel, knowing their precious new law might actually end up increasing the level of prostitution in their city? Of course, I don't feel there's anything fundamentally wrong with prostitution, but the fact is that it is illegal just about everywhere in the U.S., which means people who earn their living that way have absolutely zero protection. Unlike dancers, who typically have at least a bouncer looking out for them, if not the full protection of the law. Does the Seattle City Council even care about this? I sincerely doubt they ever thought about it, but, if they did, the answer is most likely "no". Because prudes never give a shit about what happens to people who violate their precious rules.
posted by cke at 9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home