"I have a right not to see women bare-breasted, licking whipped cream off each other's breasts and private parts, and men standing up and watching it," said Kris McLeod.In other words: the "quiet enjoyment" of residents is at risk. In this case, that means not having one's delicate sensibilities offended. In other words, I don't think most of those involved in this moral panic are seriously considering the issue from the standpoint of objectification and the commodification of women's bodies. It's a moral, prescriptive issue that, I'll say it, I believe comes from a fear of sexuality.
"I do not walk around my house naked for my boy and their friends to see. And I do not, will not tolerate that in my neighborhood," said Jennifer Lindell.
"This is drifting into my home territory now. I don't want it. I want this to have stricter guidelines. Please protect our children, our neighborhoods," said Michelle Hills.
I'm used to seeing this sort of response to sex work, particularly street work. It's a kind of populist "not in my backyard" (NIMBYism) outrage that builds up in certain communities for particular reasons. The quotes in the article certainly make it sound like the residents are concerned about street sex work. You've even got the classic fears of johns (kerb crawlers) trolling the area: "A growing concern for neighbors is the possible presence of prostitution near their homes, and strange men hanging around the coffee stands."
Not to say that there isn't a certain amount of validity to the complaints residents sometimes have about street sex work. These concerns, in my opinion, are best resolved through mediated communication between residents and workers. But this isn't prostitution as the law defines it. Depending on your definition of sex work, it might be included under that umbrella, but it still strikes me as absurd to arrest women for prostitution here given the legal situation -- money has not changed hands in exchange for sexual services.
So what does Everett plan to do to combat this menace, aside from the newly-minted lewd behaviour ordinance?
The next step will target what the women wearing, or in some cases, not wearing. Pasties and G-strings could become illegal in a place of business, outside a actual strip club.With luck, these draconian measures will succeed in driving out this small espresso stand, and residents can go back to living their lives of quiet enjoyment -- until a neighbouring area enacts tougher ordinances on some vice, driving it back to Everett.
Oh dear. So the idea isn't "wow it is probably bad for those girls to be in that business" but "this is going to make my neighborhood look like a cesspool of DEBAUCHERY AND IMMORALITY"?
ReplyDeletemore info here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.heraldnet.com/article/20090923/NEWS01/909239969&news01ad=1
"Detectives also witnessed some of the women charge customers to touch their bare breasts and naked buttocks. Touching of that kind, for pay, falls under the city's definition of prostitution."
[...]
"The detective noted that stand is about 30 yards off the roadway and about 10 feet lower than the road level, making it easy to see into the business from the street. During the undercover operation, traffic was regularly stopped in front of the stand because of nearby construction, according to investigators."
Sounds like public prostitution as defined in that locality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOops, I wrote a comment without realizing this was about those topless coffee bars. :x Most of what I said didn't apply, lol. I do feel that those NIMBY people are mostly motivated by a need to not have "the talk" with their children (at least when they're mentioning the chidlren). I think the coffee bars could be a great way to talk about sexual freedom and have a sex positive discussion. It could also be a great way to start a conversation about misogyny in our culture as well. Since I thought I read somewhere they have topless dudes as well. I may be wrong. Of course it would be hard to remember since the only thing people talk about are the half naked "young ladies". 'Cause women are not allowed to express their sexuality so openly. Of course if it is pretty much just half naked women and no half naked men than there's a different discussion there (mostly about hetero normative male pleasure being a top priority blah blah blah women as a commodity blah blah). But seriously, don't shield your kids from these topics, people! Use it to educate your kids! Hell, there is so much sex in our culture out in the open these days it's kinda imperative these these discussions be had.
ReplyDelete'Cause women are not allowed to express their sexuality so openly
ReplyDeleteTheir sexuality? Or the trappings of men's fantasies that they adopt in order to be treated more humanly in a man's world for a few years? "women as a commodity blah blah" indeed.