New Playboy Club Opened in London(Opposed by Feminist protesters)

[JRS]

So, there is a new Playboy club in London, that opened in London on Sunday..and there was lots of feminist protesters there to share their opinion:
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/865334-playboy-clubs-london-opening-targeted-by-feminist-protesters

Here is few better pics, including those of protesters:
http://www.iltalehti.fi/viihde/2011060513841116_vi.shtml

Now, I am all for equal pay, against human trade + sex slavery..and all that, But I am personally very confused of why these Feminists are so pissed off about the opening of the club?!?!?

(They are wearing sings and slogans like:
"This is how a Feminist looks like"
"Our bodies are not for sale"
"I am hopping mad"
"Women not sex objects"
"Feminists do it better")

Is it the Playboy bunnies maybe? Arent they just basicly waiters in the club, wearing funny bunny costumes and not prostitutes?( sorry If I am wrong)
Or is it the Playboy magazine, that has far less nudity than many other magazines?!?

Okay, I admit the sexual Sexual objectification is sometimes or even often a bad thing( it creates self-esteem issue to many young ppl..and so on)..but one has to admit that many people(men and women) can make tons of money because of it, I mean some glamour girl can make tons of money for just posing topless for a magazine.
There are lots of side to this issue..and it is difficult to say who is right and who is wrong.
It is also partly about biology, whatever we like it or not.

I am not against feminism, because it has brought lots of good and positive things to women..and also to men at the same time.
But I think it is also a womans right to pose naked or use her sexuality, even on a profession, if that is what she chooses to do. I do not see it degrading women in anyway.
These women are not anyway worse than those, who have a so called "proper jobs".

And for the sake of argument, I bet many of these feminists would go to see male striptease/dance show( with group called Hunks or something like that) If I would give them free tickets..just saying

I would like to say that I am sorry, if I offended any women or feminists of what I have written here.
I have personally huge respect towards women..and I have lot to thank for of their friendship(s) and such.

 

[Ethros]

Here is few better pics, including those of protesters:
http://www.iltalehti.fi/viihde/2011060513841116_vi.shtml

What pics of protesters?

 

[MacLeod]

Don't see a problem here. It's not like the are being forced to work there. Though I wonder if they would be up in arms if it was the other way around at it was men wearing chppendale costumes.

 

[marillion]

Are there no other "gentlemen's" clubs in London?

I'm actually surprised a new Playboy Club is opening, seeing as here in the States, most all of them were gone long ago...

But perhaps with the "Mad Men" era seeing a ressurgence, it's time to try again.

 

[MacLeod]

That begs the question why where they closed in the states.

 

[scotpens]

Feminists protesting a Playboy Club? What is this, 1970? It's deja vu all over again.

I'm actually surprised a new Playboy Club is opening, seeing as here in the States, most all of them were gone long ago...

But perhaps with the "Mad Men" era seeing a resurgence, it's time to try again.

That begs the question why where they closed in the states.

Because they were an idea whose time had come and gone. In an era of "gentlemen's clubs" featuring "live nude girls," VIP rooms and lap dances, the Playboy Clubs seemed positively quaint and old-fashioned.

As marillion pointed out, Playboy Enterprises is probably counting on the current wave of 1960s nostalgia to make the new club a success.

 

[captcalhoun]

feminazis. i said more or less the same to my mum, 'no one's forcing them to work there or go there, so what's the big issue?'

 

[MacLeod]

A question for the ladies on here then, do you think that sometimeswhat is classed as feminist can actually harm the feminism cause?

Personally I'm all for equal rights, people should get paid for doing the same job regardless of gender. I don't think we should have women only shortlists for things like MPs, I want the best person regardless of gender.

Lets have women racing drivers in the top flight, have women playing Premier league football etc..

 

[SiorX]

Okay, I admit the sexual Sexual objectification is sometimes or even often a bad thing( it creates self-esteem issue to many young ppl..and so on)..but one has to admit that many people(men and women) can make tons of money because of it, I mean some glamour girl can make tons of money for just posing topless for a magazine.

But I think it is also a womans right to pose naked or use her sexuality, even on a profession, if that is what she chooses to do. I do not see it degrading women in anyway.
These women are not anyway worse than those, who have a so called "proper jobs".

Such clubs aren't just about the staff using their sexuality to make money though. The other half of the transaction is that it creates a space for the clientele to ogle. The aesthetic being sold is of a space where the clientele are encouraged to regard the waiting staff in a particular way - as objects or ornaments. Since Playboy clubs code the experience the club is selling as male-clients and female-Bunnies, the implicit power imbalance is very culturally loaded.

The question to ask is what it means to have a recreational space set aside for this kind of experience. What does it represent to the clientele? What kind of use will it be put to? Stag nights? Business meetings? Lunchtime networking? Late-night drinking? That sort of thing will make a difference to how the women working their are viewed. It will also make a difference to how members of the club view their own interactions with those women.

(I haven't read much about this, and I'm not familiar with UK Feminista or Object, so I'm just spinning ideas as they come to me.)

And for the sake of argument, I bet many of these feminists would go to see male striptease/dance show( with group called Hunks or something like that) If I would give them free tickets..just saying

With due respect, I don't think you have any evidence to back that up. There's no info on any of the protesters' opinions on that.

A question for the ladies on here then, do you think that sometimeswhat is classed as feminist can actually harm the feminism cause?

Personally I'm all for equal rights, people should get paid for doing the same job regardless of gender. I don't think we should have women only shortlists for things like MPs, I want the best person regardless of gender.

Lets have women racing drivers in the top flight, have women playing Premier league football etc..

I think those questions are a whole 'nother thread, tbh.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Unfortunately, in our current age of political confusion, it has become a given that sexuality equals sexism. The contemporary wave of nuFeminists seems not to be aware that most Feminist movements throughout History have included demands for sexual equality and freedom, including the normalization of pornography and prostitution. It was only forty years ago that the Women's Lib movement was part of the Sexual Revolution, but we're living in a dark, conservative age now.

The Playboy Club is harmless fun. And the women are guaranteed to have big tips.

 

[SiorX]

Unfortunately, in our current age of political confusion, it has become a given that sexuality equals sexism. The contemporary wave of nuFeminists seems not to be aware that most Feminist movements throughout History have included demands for sexual equality and freedom, including the normalization of pornography and prostitution. It was only forty years ago that the Women's Lib movement was part of the Sexual Revolution, but we're living in a dark, conservative age now.

The Playboy Club is harmless fun. And the women are guaranteed to have big tips.

Conversely, there is a school of thought which holds that because feminism ought to be inclusive of sexuality, embracing sexuality is a feminist act regardless of the cultural narratives into which one is buying. This, I suggest, is bollocks.

As a feminist (and one who knows her Feminist History relatively well), I will defend any person's right to do with their body whatever they choose so long as it doesn't harm anybody else. But that doesn't mean that when a woman chooses to take her clothes off for money, or undergoes dangerous cosmetic surgery, she isn't participating in some age-old, fucked-up patriarchal systems. Those systems deserve to be examined and critiqued.

Out of interest - as a library-dwelling geek who can't see the least appeal of these kind of places anyway - are there people here who'd be up for joining a club like this if the membership weren't exorbitant? And if so, what exactly would the draw be? I'm just wondering what kind of fun the harmless fun is, exactly.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Socializing, relaxing and enjoying the view, I suppose. But, as a library-dwelling geek, it doesn't really appeal to me, either.

However, I hardly think that sexuality is an age-old, fucked-up patriarchal system-- it's a healthy aspect of our Humanity that's been suppressed by an age-old, fucked-up patriarchal religious system.

 

[Holdfast]

I think the idea could still be a winner in this era, if they do the concept right:

- pretty girls in bunny costumes (this is the easy bit)
- decent, vetted, basically professional clientele
- a dress code for the members and guests, to maintain some kind of standard in the place
- genuinely good drinks and food
- no cover charges, minimum drinks bill or any other nonsense like that
- reasonable membership fee
- only gentlemen can be members, but ladies can attend as guests, and this is something encouraged.
- treat it seriously, not a kitschy retro theme park

The benefits over a normal (traditional/gentleman's) club are a more relaxed, fun and accessible ambience. And prettier staff. Plus, the food and drink is surprisingly mediocre in most traditional clubs.

The benefit over a strip joint or similar is obviously that there's no stigma attached to going there, and you could invite most of your friends or colleagues of either gender there for a fun evening out that's a bit different from just going to yet another restaurant.

The benefit over a modern nightclub or bar would hopefully be a more controlled, slightly quieter, more pleasant atmosphere.

Basically, it could fill a niche between stodgy and sleazy. Obviously, not every town or city could support this model, but given the current cultural zeitgeist, I can see a market opportunity here. I could see the appeal. Whether the new London club follows any of the above criteria, I have no idea.

 

[SiorX]

However, I hardly think that sexuality is an age-old, fucked-up patriarchal system-- it's a healthy aspect of our Humanity that's been suppressed by an age-old, fucked-up patriarchal religious system.

Right. But the way in which it's been suppressed has created some really damaging, violent, and unequal narratives and practices around the way we express sexuality.

One of my pet-peeves, for instances, is the truism that 'sex sells'. That seems like an obvious truth, because most of us really do like sex rather a lot. Because good sex is awesome. But when you look at the times the phrase is used, it's almost always in conjunction with a very particular model of sexuality. One which assumes a dominant subjective onlooker, and a (usually female) object who is submissive and who fits a very narrow definition of sexiness.

If we truly embraced sexuality then there are all kinds of bodies and acts we could be emblazoning all over billboards. Straight, gay, fat, thin, old, May-December, conventionally hot men with conventionally less-attractive women, whatever. In reality, sexuality is varied in it's expression and desires. Yet one narrow paradigm dominates advertising, entertainment and much of the media. It aggressively assumes a particular kind of active heterosexual male desire and values or vilifies women's bodies depending on how well they conform to a ridiculously rare set of criteria.

That's the part that's fucked up.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I guess this is where it comes in handy to be such a stodgy prude like myself. Because I can honestly say I am not perpetuating this system that you people are discussing. See? I'm doing my part.

 

[scotpens]

. . . And for the sake of argument, I bet many of these feminists would go to see male striptease/dance show( with group called Hunks or something like that) If I would give them free tickets..just saying

Do any of those male-stripper clubs still exist? I thought they were a fad of the 1980s. You know, the decade when businesswomen wore power suits with big shoulder pads. When women thought that, in order to succeed in a male-dominated business culture, they had to act like men — which apparently included having a “girls’ night out” with female friends and associates to ogle hunky young guys stripping down to their jockstraps. Except that women don’t generally view men as purely physical sex objects.

 

[JRS]

Personally I'm all for equal rights, people should get paid for doing the same job regardless of gender. I don't think we should have women only shortlists for things like MPs, I want the best person regardless of gender.

I think we need these kind of shortlists in some countries.
Now, I am from Finland where we have female President and Prime minister..plus about half of out parliament consists of women. So we have things very well considering gender equality, in most areas.
However, in many countries( even here in Czech) the power structure is very much male dominated( as far as I know)
I think these shortlists are useful in some fashion of helping women to get more opportunities.
It is sad that we need them though.

With due respect, I don't think you have any evidence to back that up. There's no info on any of the protesters' opinions on that.

I stand corrected

If we truly embraced sexuality then there are all kinds of bodies and acts we could be emblazoning all over billboards. Straight, gay, fat, thin, old, May-December, conventionally hot men with conventionally less-attractive women, whatever. In reality, sexuality is varied in it's expression and desires. Yet one narrow paradigm dominates advertising, entertainment and much of the media.
That's the part that's fucked up.

I very much agree with you on this
I have never liked the fact of the fashion models look like(all skins and bones) and when some more curvier models are considered fat
I mean these models do not even represent to average figure of people who buy clothes!
And it is very shocking to see that many people these days, particulary in the internet seem to think that many people( applys to many celebs) who have normal healthy weight are considered being fat and should "loose weight"..sigh

 

[RJDiogenes]

- only gentlemen can be members, but ladies can attend as guests, and this is something encouraged.

I don't see the point of this part. It's rather discriminatory against Lesbians and bi women; not to mention women who are simply mature enough to not be intimidated by the place and want to make use of it for social gatherings, business shmoozing, et cetera.

However, I hardly think that sexuality is an age-old, fucked-up patriarchal system-- it's a healthy aspect of our Humanity that's been suppressed by an age-old, fucked-up patriarchal religious system.

Right. But the way in which it's been suppressed has created some really damaging, violent, and unequal narratives and practices around the way we express sexuality.

One of my pet-peeves, for instances, is the truism that 'sex sells'. That seems like an obvious truth, because most of us really do like sex rather a lot. Because good sex is awesome. But when you look at the times the phrase is used, it's almost always in conjunction with a very particular model of sexuality. One which assumes a dominant subjective onlooker, and a (usually female) object who is submissive and who fits a very narrow definition of sexiness.

If we truly embraced sexuality then there are all kinds of bodies and acts we could be emblazoning all over billboards. Straight, gay, fat, thin, old, May-December, conventionally hot men with conventionally less-attractive women, whatever. In reality, sexuality is varied in it's expression and desires. Yet one narrow paradigm dominates advertising, entertainment and much of the media. It aggressively assumes a particular kind of active heterosexual male desire and values or vilifies women's bodies depending on how well they conform to a ridiculously rare set of criteria.

That's the part that's fucked up.

True, but the narrow paradigm is part of the traditional repression. Allow society to open and all that goes away, and everybody's happy.

Do any of those male-stripper clubs still exist? I thought they were a fad of the 1980s. You know, the decade when businesswomen wore power suits with big shoulder pads. When women thought that, in order to succeed in a male-dominated business culture, they had to act like men — which apparently included having a “girls’ night out” with female friends and associates to ogle hunky young guys stripping down to their jockstraps. Except that women don’t generally view men as purely physical sex objects.

Of course they do, and male strip clubs still exist. Women are just as sexual as men. The myth that they don't is part of that traditional repression paradigm mentioned above.