(Warning, this is my libertarian side coming out.)
Seattle has had the most interesting political history with strippers lately. Last year there was "Strippergate" where strip-club owners paid lots of money to Seattle City Counsel members to overturn some zoning law that apparently restricted strip clubs.
Now there's a referendum on the ballot in Seattle to repeal the city's 4-foot rule for strippers (strippers can't come within four feet of a patron nor accept direct tips).
I've never understood how tolerant-of-most-any-deviation and painfully liberal cities such as Seattle are so intolerant of strippers. Maybe it's the feminist cant that strippers, like prostitutes, are exploited women (I think in both cases, there are those who are exploited--not willing participants and most of the money goes to someone else--and those that aren't, but probably a huge majority of prostitutes are exploited and a majority of strippers aren't in my opinion). The usual excuses are that strip clubs lead to drugs and prostitution. This is the same region where they like deny putting up tent cities for the homeless near residential neighborhoods doesn't increase crime. So that excuse doesn't ring true.
There's apparently a book out about exotic dancers that shows it's a tough job, according to this blog's review.
If I (still) lived in Seattle, I'd vote to eliminate the rule. What business is it of governments if some guy wants to tip a pretty mostly nude girl to dance close to him? If drug deals and prostitution occur, then arrest somebody.
Comments