I remember reading about the so-called vegan strip club here in Portland weeks ago. And the NYT is just now running a story on it. Way to be about two months late to a story, you old gray lady (if that even qualifies as news).
So, let’s just be clear about this. The fact that the menu happened to be vegan was never advertised (except in the flood of news articles about it). Also, no vegans actually went there, and the place is now up for sale. So, the attention given to this in the media-sphere has mostly been for naught.
The larger discussion of groups like PETA using sexuality to promote themselves is an interesting and worthwhile one, and I’m glad to see the NYT at least acknowledge the issue. I have nothing but derision and scorn for PETA, and I am always dismayed that the unwashed masses pretty much equate PETA with all vegans and vice versa.
Although I can’t help, when reading a news article largely about sex, but be reminded of a famous incident back in college where a bunch of us were sitting in the common area of our dorm, waiting for a floor meeting to start, and watching a TV ‘news’ special about pornography. One of my dorm-mates kept asking us to change the channel with an exhortation along the lines of, ‘Come on guys, can’t you see they’re just doing it for the ratings???’
Portland is certainly not a prudish town, and most vegans are not prudes, either. But if being a vegan means that you reject exploitation and objectification in all of its forms (turning an animal into an anonymous thing, turning a woman into an anonymous sex object), then the phrase “vegan strip club” would make about as much sense as the phrase “vegan slaughterhouse.”
4 Comments
If vegan strip club = vegan slaughterhouse, then doesn’t that imply that the women (and MEN!) that engage in pornography, like non-human animals led to slaughter, do not have control over their own bodies, actions etc? I know changing minds on this issue is unlikely, but I don’t understand why so many vegans can’t understand that none of the models are being forced into anything. In REAL pornography (let’s keep in mind we’re talking about scantily clad women in promotional materials and publicity stunts), the degree to which some actors and actesses have an actual choice is debatable, but I find the assertion that these PETA models, Suicide Girls and Vegan Vixens are not in control of their decisions to be laughable. For someone to get me to believe differently, I need some sort of evidence, not just the same old platitudes trotted out to denounce pornography.
I am a vegan, I am increasingly starting to identify as a feminist (as much as a man can be, anyway), I dislike PETA, the PETA models, Suicide Girls and Vegan Vixens et al, but only because it makes animal rights activists look silly, not because I find the use of female sexuality (or male sexuality, for that matter) to promote a cause inherently offensive. Since so many of the unwashed masses DO equate PETA with all vegans and vice versa, I think it hurts the cause by reducing veganism in most people’s minds to some faddish thing that only vapid, attractive young women do. But I’m a pragmaist. If I saw convincing evidence that this stuff works, I would be in favor of it.
I disagree with the notion that rejecting “exploitation and objectification in all of its forms” must necessarily include being opposed to all instances of people taking off some or all of their clothes. I think it’s incredibly patronizing to these women to assume that they don’t understand their own situation and their options and then conclude that they shouldn’t be taking off THEIR clothes for any reason they want. If they’re being coerced, even incredibly subtly, it’s a different story, but I see no reason to think that they are.
Oppose the practice on tactical grounds (as I do, currently) but to equate all instances of people taking off some or all of their clothes with “exploitation and objectification” is too simple-minded, too much like the zealotry I see in religious people. It has a moral black/white thing going on that does not take into account the motivation and circumstances of the people involved, their options, goals etc. But, like I said, I know changing minds on issues like this is not easy.
Hmm, where do I start?
I agree 100% that the vast majority of “sex workers” in this country are not compelled to be such in a technical sense (perhaps with the exception of enonomic situations/drug use/societal pressures, but those are all very vague things that don’t literally (or physically) compel women (or men) to work in the sex “industry.”) However, in other parts of the world the situation is considerably different, women are still bought and sold as sex slaves to work in brothels, and what remains of that industry in this country is (at least in my mind) akin to “happy meat,” yeah there is an element of “choice” and it’s a kinder, gentler form of exploitation, but it’s exploitation regardless.
I take issue with the idea that female sexuality is something to be bought and sold from the PG “modeling” industry to the pornography industry, both of which are mysogenistic at their very core. I think that the idea that changing peoples’ minds that the objectification of women isn’t actually wrong because women have the choice to take or not take off their clothes is frankly hilarious because the vast majority of people agree with you, Chauncey. Yes, the decision at the end of the line is with the individual, but there is a patriarchal cultural norm in place that justifies this as a valid “industrial tool.” And the idea that just because women do something that it cannot possibly be anti-feminist is really ridiculous, you don’t have to be a man to be a mysogynist.
I wasn’t very clear here, I’m sorry about that, I’m having an inarticulate day.
But in my mind veganism=feminism=anti-heterosexism=anti-racism because the creation of a heirarchy of wrongness is in and of itself a form of prejudice.
I thought I made it very clear that I do believe there are types of pornography that do, no doubt, objectify women (and men). But to jump from PETA models appearing scantily clad to “sex workers in this country” typifies my point from above: it’s a black/white dichotomy that equates one end of the spectrum (showing a little skin) to the opposite end of the spectrum (sex slavery).
The NYT story, Chris’ blog post and my comment were all about women that willingly take off some of their clothing in promotional materials and in publicity stunts. I’m genuinely confused by your talk of “sex workers.” If you want to talk about true pornography and true prostitution, these are valid topics of discussion, but I would suggest that it doesn’t belong in the comments section of this blog post (I’m obviously not trying to tell you what to do… it’s just an observation).
I also agree that a woman doing something doesn’t automatically put that action outside the scope of feminist criticism. This is clearly not the case. But, to suggest that any display of human skin (keep in mind, we’re talking about semi-nudity here) or (alas!) human nudity automatically equates to objectification, and therefore conclude that these women, even though (as far as I can tell) they are choosing to do what they do, are engaging in anti-feminist behavior, is dogmatic and I just don’t agree with it.
If you disagree, then do you also think that men that choose to appear semi-nude or nude are also doing it because of our patriarchal culture? Are they being objectified, and, if so, is it their fault for allowing it to happen, or our society’s? I guess the overall gist of my question to you is: are you opposed to all displays of human semi-nudity or nudity in public, print, media etc? Is human semi-nudity or nudity something that should only be for private situations? I’m not trying to badger you. I’m honestly curious about where you’re coming from.
Oh, no, it’s cool. I guess my point was that the reason that stunts like those pulled by Peta are effective is because it comes out of that whole “machine.” And, admittedly, I got a little carried away (I’d love to say that’s a rare thing for me). And what’s funny is that I totally agree about the “grey-ness” of this, I guess the motivations are what count, I’m not anti-nudity (hmm, that’s a really strange thing to say…) if it’s coming from a place of informed empowerment, but the use of women in this way to get attention is basically a nod to the objectification camp, because it doesn’t try to detach itself from “norm” of patriarchy.
And note to self: do not leave comments on blogs on three hours sleep when you’re abnormally rant-inclined. I could poke so many holes in my OWN arguement, I misunderstood some of what you were trying to say and was writing more about the “vegan strip club” nonsense than anything else. But honestly, I wish I could still understand what exactly I was trying to get at.
At any rate I’m not nearly as prudish as I came off, and I appriciate your being kind even though I wasn’t making a whole hell of a lot of sense. Wow.