Iceland Bans All Strip Clubs

Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."

guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/mar/25/iceland-most-feminist-country

Conservative values preserve society in the long run.

The degradation of moral values with the social epidemic of crime and sexual exploitation in the last five decades (1960-present) directly contribute to the progressive collapse of the society through the agenda of "freedom to choose" and radical toleration media propaganda.

The article is saying that this is a victory fought and won by feminism:

So how has Iceland managed it? To start with, it has a strong women’s movement and a high number of female politicans. Almost half the parliamentarians are female and it was ranked fourth out of 130 countries on the international gender gap index (behind Norway, Finland and Sweden). All four of these Scandinavian countries have, to some degree, criminalised the purchase of sex (legislation that the UK will adopt on 1 April). “Once you break past the glass ceiling and have more than one third of female politicians,” says Halldórsdóttir, “something changes. Feminist energy seems to permeate everything.”

Johanna Sigurðardottir is Iceland’s first female and the world’s first openly lesbian head of state. Guðrún Jónsdóttir of Stígamót, an organisation based in Reykjavik that campaigns against sexual violence, says she has enjoyed the support of Sigurðardottir for their campaigns against rape and domestic violence: “Johanna is a great feminist in that she challenges the men in her party and refuses to let them oppress her.”

Whether or not it’s a victory won by feminism, it isn’t a bad thing to eliminate venues where women are leered at and looked on solely as sexual objects.

[quote="Dwyer, post:1, topic:192424"]

Conservative values preserve society in the long run.

[/quote]

The degradation of women isn't in the liberal playbook either.

I say this is very unhealthy. They could catch a cold.:slight_smile:

Laws like the one in Iceland make me appreciate American freedom of expression.

Stopping the exploitation of women who were turned into sex objects to be leered at by men is a victory for human dignity.

Ever since some relabeler turned “stripper” into “exotic dancer,” it still changed nothing.

In the 1950s, stripping was promoted as an “art.” It never was such a thing. The lie has been exposed.

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

There is a difference between 1950s’ stripping that ended in a blackout and the show it all, do it all performances of today.

I don't agree with this.

No, it's not because I have a high respect for the profession. I look at it like prostitution, though. Here in the states, prostitution is illegal. The women get abused by pimps, regularly get STD's, get raped and murdered, and women are abducted by cartels to be sold into prostitution.

In Australia, where prostitution is legal and regulated, the women work under fair bosses at brothels, the men by law have to be checked for STD's and the women are not abused or abducted by pimps. They make their wage and live pretty normal lives.

By making it illegal all Iceland is assuring is that the show will be run by organized crime and pimps, just like prostitution is over here. I understand what Iceland is thinking. It thinks that by outlawing stripping, it will be eradicated. It's a moral gesture, absolutely. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States was a moral gesture also. Was it moral? Absolutely. Did it work? Of course not. When alcohol was prohibited, organized crime took over the operation underground and made quite a bit of money off of it.

I agree with the intent behind the law. Respectable women shouldn't be objectified in such a way. I don't agree with assuring that the two industries become the lifeblood of dangerous pimps and organized crime, though. That's more immoral than the industry it's self.

I agree that strip clubs are immoral and exploitative of women. And I agree with your concern that the exploitation will simply shift to outside the law.

Iceland will be an interesting test. If it goes well, I am not sure whether its success would be duplicated elsewhere. Its a small country with a homogeneous population and culture, and somewhat isolated from other countries (being an island in the middle of the ocean). But if what you fear does happen there, then I think we could expect similar failure elsewhere.

I wish Iceland the very best of success with this.

You raise a valid point. The US courts have repeatedly ruled that stripping is protected speech.

I dunno… I generally am supportive of broad protection of freedom of expression. But we do prohibit self-harmful behavior: drug use, suicide, street fights, etc. I think the Icelandic ban is motivated for concern about the harm which comes to the female performers.

If it proves to work just fine then I wouldn’t necessarily be opposed to outlawing it.

We’ve already seen the effects of outlawing prostitution and alcohol – Organized crime simply picks up the industry and treats everybody worse in the process.

I disagree. The "liberal playbook, first of all, uses euphemisms to deflect attention away from fact. Case-in-point: “pro-choice”. See, because they have to highlight the “good” things about abortion, namely, that it’s a woman’s “right to choose”, because they can’t call it “pro-willful-murder-of-your-own-baby”, or even “pro-abortion” for that matter, because it doesn’t “sound” good, and calls it exactly what it is. But, by golly, “pro-choice” sure sounds good. And that’s exactly why pro-life people are now refered to as being “anti-choice”. Big surprise. One after another, they have no choice but to continue employing more and more euphemisms.

Back to the topic at hand: The “liberal playbook” contains the ideas, not only for the degradation of women, but for the degradation of all society, turning it on its head, starting with the destruction of the family as the basic building block of society. Men don’t need to (and more often than not know how to) be men. Women don’t need to be women. Women can be men and men can be women. Children are a burden rather than a gift, and are “optional”. Men can “marry” men. Women can “marry” women, etc. The “liberal playbook” contains the idea that women and men are exactly alike (‘equal’, versus the right understanding of ‘equal but different’), and that women should “empower” themselves by whatever means necessary. “Empower” is another euphemism…The word being replaced is “degrade”. When you use a thing that is designed for something, and take away its chief usefulness by using it for a lesser end, that’s known as “degrading” it. You don’t “empower” and oar by trying to use it like a propeller in the air…That’s simply ridiculous. Would the oar (could it speak) say “check me out, I’m empowered, and now I don’t have to get wet!”? Negative…the oar has just become far less useful.

How does the “liberal playbook” go about “empowering” (degrading) women? By spurning their God-given gifts of bearing children (a greater vocation than even being in Pelosi’s high position) and loving and nurturing them as a mother is made to, and only a mother can. Newsflash: all men (meaning our species) are created equal, but that doesn’t mean the sexes are the same. Obviously they are different…God made them male and female.

We can clearly see that the more “progressive” our country becomes, the more we slide into moral decay. “Empowerment” means “women disregarding and moving away from their God-given gifts, oftentimes using their sexuality to prove and promote their ‘empowerment’”. That’s why women who willingly and lovingly perform “traditional” roles are nevertheless pitied and looked down upon (oh, she’s not empowered, she’s a slave to her husband and children), while women who burn their uteruses in order to selfishly lead the kind of life they want to lead, without the unwanted “burden” of children, are said to be “empowered.”

A truly empowered woman would be one who, alongside her husband, lovingly raises all the children that God sends to them, and teaches them to know, love, and serve the Lord in this life, and hopefully to enjoy everlasting blessedness with Him in the next.

[quote="Rich_Olszewski, post:8, topic:192424"]
There is a difference between 1950s' stripping that ended in a blackout and the show it all, do it all performances of today.

[/quote]

It still didn't prevent one prominent stripper from ending up in court. There was more concern for human dignity and human decency then.

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

[quote="AJTheMan, post:9, topic:192424"]
I don't agree with this.

No, it's not because I have a high respect for the profession. I look at it like prostitution, though. Here in the states, prostitution is illegal. The women get abused by pimps, regularly get STD's, get raped and murdered, and women are abducted by cartels to be sold into prostitution.

In Australia, where prostitution is legal and regulated, the women work under fair bosses at brothels, the men by law have to be checked for STD's and the women are not abused or abducted by pimps. They make their wage and live pretty normal lives.

By making it illegal all Iceland is assuring is that the show will be run by organized crime and pimps, just like prostitution is over here. I understand what Iceland is thinking. It thinks that by outlawing stripping, it will be eradicated. It's a moral gesture, absolutely. Prohibition of alcohol in the United States was a moral gesture also. Was it moral? Absolutely. Did it work? Of course not. When alcohol was prohibited, organized crime took over the operation underground and made quite a bit of money off of it.

I agree with the intent behind the law. Respectable women shouldn't be objectified in such a way. I don't agree with assuring that the two industries become the lifeblood of dangerous pimps and organized crime, though. That's more immoral than the industry it's self.

[/quote]

Two immorals don't make a right. The police should then turn their attention to organized crime. It's as simple as that. And if it goes underground, if a citizen can find out, so can a cop.

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

Oh please. And the “speech” part is what?

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

We’re not talking about abortion here. Read the Title. The liberal playbook doesn’t have anything in it about women being exploited by pimps or bar managers, etc.

The “liberal playbook” contains the idea that women and men are exactly alike

Wrong. Women and men have equal opportunity and access.

You don’t “empower” and oar by trying to use it like a propeller in the air…That’s simply ridiculous. Would the oar (could it speak) say “check me out, I’m empowered, and now I don’t have to get wet!”? Negative…the oar has just become far less useful.

What on earth are you talking about??

We can clearly see that the more “progressive” our country becomes, the more we slide into moral decay.

You can believe that if you want. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, too.

she’s a slave to her husband and children)

That’s a conservative ideal. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, and obedient to their Lord and Master.

[quote="edwest2, post:16, topic:192424"]
Oh please. And the "speech" part is what?

[/quote]

Hey, I can't defend it. I just remember being surprised by the rulings. But, it seems the US Supreme Court ruled in 1991 that a state can ban nude dancing.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=501&invol=560

Okay, so I am 20 years behind the times. :blush: This is not a topic I've paid much attention to.

However, the history of prior court decisions is the reason it had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.

That last one is completely false. I was born in the 1950s. The average number of kids in my neighborhood? Two – That’s T W O.

God bless,
Ed


Choose Jesus.

I used that as an example of a symptom of a larger issue that ***you ***raised…Which I went into…In great detail. Way to cherry-pick my post and obfuscate in order not to have to actually gasp deal with it honestly.

Wrong. Women and men have equal opportunity and access.

Which, as far as I can tell, they do. In applying for every job I’ve ever had the application was quite clear to state that applicants couldn’t be discriminated against. Where I currently work females have the majority of the positions in management and administration.

If that’s all it was, why is there also a huge push for other liberal agendas such as the idea of “civil rights” for gays to “marry”???

What on earth are you talking about??

I was commenting on the “liberal playbook” you mentioned. Reading comprehension is obviously overrated here, eh, Mr. O?

You can believe that if you want. You can believe the moon is made of green cheese, too.

But it’s exactly the opposite! You’re the one who’s unwilling to consider the moon as anything other than cheese. You are the one who has willfully blinded yourself to a very obvious truth. Open your eyes and look around. Even in the context of today versus 60 years ago, probably around the time when you were a kid, you can clearly see the rot that has developed.

That’s a conservative ideal. Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, and obedient to their Lord and Master.

No, that’s a slanderous liberal spin on a conservative ideal. Keep in mind what I said before about euphemisms. “Barefoot and pregnant” is a derogatory euphemism for a good, normal, beneficial practice (aka “housewife”). That’s how liberals describe it because the natural benefit and goodness of a stay-at-home mom is contrary to the “progressive” ideal of being “empowered” (which includes birth “control”, and may include limiting family size in the future as in China, or free abortions, as in Russia etc. a direction that can easily be argued that the liberals may be taking us). Always for liberals it’s about how to make the other side look bad while trying to make themselves look good. That’s why the liberal media murdered Bush, but will do no harm to Obama. Bush is no more an idiot than Obama…The only difference is the media coverage…Obama has already had tons of “Bush-sized” goofs, but they are never mentioned because Obama’s a liberal and so are they.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.