- Jan 7, 2002
- 12,755
- 3
- 0
Paper exerpt:
http://www.wesh.com/education/13372948/detail.html
My interest in sexuality has inspired the following questions:
1. What is the relationship, socially and biologically, between gender and sexuality?
2. What are the social expectations/ obligations that accompany femininity?
3. What is the relationship between femininity and power? It is obvious that with femininity comes a more blatant association with sex and sexuality. This association, many times, is deemed oppressive by feminists' standards. However, my interest in sex work has led me to question this standard.
Furthering this preface, it must be noted that this paper serves as an ethnography (an historical and analytical account) of my experience as a sex worker. Originating in the summer of 2006, I embarked on this research project as an observer and quickly became a participant. I have maintained an obsessively detailed account of my experiences through journaling, participant observation and candid interviews.
Furthermore, I have learned that the question of agency and autonomy regarding sex work and power is more complicated than, say, Hegel?s ?master/ slave dialectic;? it is more complicated than merely submission and dominance. The power dynamics are situated in such a way that they are given, taken and distributed through several patterns of interaction, juxtaposed with the literal physical setting of the club.
The goal of the author's writing is to thus better understand the initial confusions between sex work and feminism. Ethnographically, this research offers a window into the seldom discussed gendered workspace of sex workers and their relationships to other participants with in this social structure.
It has been through my emersions that I have come to conclude sex work as never necessarily oppressive and in fact, in some cases, quite liberating. The following consists of a personal narrative of the author's past year as a stripper inside a strip club called "The 20s."
There are several terms specific to the world of sex work. First, "sex work" is often times used as a "politically correct" catch-all for any job associated with sex or eroticism. Exotic dancers, strippers, certain masseuses, prostitutes and call girls are all examples of (gendered) jobs that fall under the category of "sex work." In terms of my research, I refer to myself as a sex worker because of my job as a stripper.
There are "main participants" within this ethnography. This refers to those who work at The 20s strip club as well as the club's clients.
Inside The 20s, strippers refer to themselves as "dancers," which is the term I shall use this point forward. "Stage name," as the term suggests, refers to the name dancers have given themselves. It is a persona as well as a protection measure. Dancers will not offer their actual name unless they feel comfortable enough to do so.
1. Physical Structure
Spatial understanding is important for an understanding of power and the ways in which power negotiations take place.
The club is divided into two portions with respective bars, referred to as "Showgirl I" and "Showgirl II." ?Showgirl II? is comprised of one small stage, while ?Showgirl I," more commonly known among main participants as "The Main Bar," houses the DJ booth, the main bar, the main stage, and two supporting stages. The DJ booth overlooks ?Showgirl I,? including the main stage where individual dancers are introduced by their stage names and proceed to undress for the duration of a musical number. After dancing on the main stage, the dancer will move down the line to "stage two," again for the duration of a musical number, and then on to "stage three."
These arrangements are quite an alarming and stimulating experience for novices. Yet, this physical space dictates all power interactions. As a customer approaches a stage to tip a particular dancer, she is much less vulnerable than her client in the fact that she dictates and occupies much more space. Not only does she tower several feet above each customer because of the height of each stage, she dictates the individual interaction. For example, as my field notes express:
?there is one customer in particular-an older gentleman who only tips the extremely young looking girls- that attempts to place his hands on me each time he approached the stage. I have since refused his business.
The way dancers occupy a given space may also determine their projected income. For instance, as I write in February 2007:
Customers are able to determine whether a girl is new by the way she occupies her space on stage. New dancers have yet to discover ways of dictating space and many times appear fearful. Customers sense this immediately.
Furthermore, there is no place within the club where one is unseen. Though the physical space offers the illusion of intimacy, all actions are heavily screened by bouncers and management. Inside the club, this illusion perpetuates the mainstream mentality of sex as private, intimate and loving, while also opposing it by making the illusion itself a commodity.
2. Cultural Structure
The cultural structure of the club refers to the ways in which power is negotiated and formed within the physical structure of The 20s. At the heart of power are the spoken and unspoken rules and mores and how they are diffused, accepted, perpetuated, and understood between main participants. Following is an analytical account of these folkways and mores.
My personal reasons for desiring a job inside a strip club are comparable to most dancers: curiosity, thrill, and monetary gain. Dancers, along with myself, are mutifacited and have ?day jobs,? class, husbands, children, boyfriends, and girlfriends, among several other potent aspects to their personalities, obligations, and passions.
Generally, one major way of gaining power within The 20s is through seniority alone. This is the single most important determinate of one's knowledge of the spoken and unspoken rules within the club. Proper knowledge of the culture of the club is epitomized in ?L?, the main waitress in the main bar who has worked for The 20s for over 20 years. The bold integration of new dancers into this culture is through interaction with ?L?. Take, for example, the following several uniformed rules I initially broke:
-No moving customers from one table to another.
-Always order a drink when with a customer.
-Never straddle both legs of a customer simultaneously while giving a lap dance.
-Always leave feet on the ground when giving a lap dance.
It is also a well-known unspoken rule that to leave with a customer will come with the reputation as a "whore." The power structure within The 20s is such that stigmatized sexual activity, such as whoring, is understood to be necessarily destitute. For example, I write in August 2006:
?K? went on and on about a nameless dancer who always steals her regular customers. "If you wanna be a whore," ?K? said, "go down to 24th street and leave me out of it! I'm tryin to do a job, here, ya know? Now, I'm not gunna get all freaky with these guys and grab their 'you-know-what,' because I'm not like that. But this whore, she does that ******."
The social grip on this terribly specific aspect of sex- that is, whoring- is most tightly regulated through verbiage and dialogue.
Moreover, power distribution among dancers is typically based the ability to acquire many customers without the use of stigmatized sexual behavior, such as outside sex work. This is not to say, however, that outside friendships (paid in some cases though typically not) do not occur frequently.
Furthermore, strength and violence, typical of patriarchies and masculine work, has occurred in this feminized social structure in terms of power acquisition. For example, when a new dancer, ?M?, successfully influenced the firing of a senior dancer, ?S?, the author gained power and respect by "sticking up" for the fired dancer and expressing potential for violence against ?M?. Even dancers on friendly terms may become violent toward one another and demand loyalty from other dancers.
Similar to the subtle balance of power through interaction with management is the negotiation of power between dancers and infrequent clientele. Infrequent clientele refers to customers who do not come into the club to see a specific dancer and are usually associated with batchelor or birthday parties. There are two observable hierarchies associated with this specific interaction, composed of the power negotiation between dancers competing for these customers and the power negotiation between individual dancers and the specific infrequent customer. A typical interaction between dancers and infrequent clientele is as follows:
A group of men, typically white middle/ upper class, will seat themselves at a table and order drinks. Available dancers will often times discuss among themselves whether to attend to the men. Once seated at a table with infrequent customers, the power negotiation between the dancer and the customer becomes dictated most often by monetary gain. Dancers will typically sit with a group of infrequent customers for the duration of her drink, and if by this time the men have not offered reimbursement (such as purchasing a lap dance, simply offering money, etc), the dancer will move to another table.
In this way, the mere presence of a dancer becomes a status symbol among customers throughout the club and, therefore, dancers recognize their actual physicality to be synonymous with power. This is not to suggest, however, that every dancer maintains power over every infrequent customer. For example, in August 2006 I write:
"T" lamented this evening that, "[The 20s] sucks. These ugly guys are like kids in a Baskin Robbins. They have their pick of 31 flavors."
This is similar in sediment to Diablo Cody's Candy Girl: A Year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper, where she asserts her dissatisfaction at "beautiful girls being turned away by loser guys who would, anywhere else, never have a shot with these women."
This is terribly different from the power negotiation between dancers and their regular customers. Regulars are customers who frequent The 20s quite often, anywhere from once a week to daily. Regulars are always male, typically over the age of 30, white, and middle/upper class. They become attached to the company of a specific dancer; attraction influenced by physical attributes, personality, and/or status of particular dancers. Power is mutually distributed between regular customers and dancers, as regular customers understand obligatory monetary reimbursement for the company of a specific dancer. As with any labor exchange involving perpetual interaction, relationships between regular customers and dancers most often become friendships. For example, I have maintained several regular customers throughout the duration of my work have compiled a list of most frequent topics addressed:
-Divorces, children, jobs, marriages (failing and successful), family illnesses, addictions, childhood memories, school work, fetishes, and insecurities.
To expose one's honest self and potential vulnerability is to surrender power and extend friendship, which is more often than not at the heart of interactions between regulars and dancers.
Of constant concern to me is the way mainstream social mentalities of sex influence participants within sex work.
For instance, Foucault's History of Sexuality describes how social evolution has encouraged shifting perspectives on sex. Sex has become, through societal evolution, revered, private, and synonymous with expressions of love.
In capitalistic societies, members come to associate spaces of (corporate) power with masculinity and "oppressor." His "subordinates" are therefore oppressed and to throw sex in the midst makes for a seemingly horribly oppressive and abusive interaction.
Similarly, Gayle Rubin has composed a social sexual hierarchy to include monogamous, heterosexual couples at the top and commodified sex between partners as the least socially acceptable sexual interaction.
Conclusively, I in no way wish to endorse sex work as a great liberator. However, this ethnography expresses a much more complicated arrangement of power: one that is constantly negotiated and influenced by several factors. The social stigmatization associated with women in the industry is the true oppressor, as it forbids social respect and human rights. Through my work and experiences, it is evident that the question is not and should never be, ?Is this in line with feminism?? or, ?Is this oppressive?? Rather, the question should be ?How can we, as a society prided in human rights, make the women of sex work safer, happier and healthier?
http://www.wesh.com/education/13372948/detail.html
My interest in sexuality has inspired the following questions:
1. What is the relationship, socially and biologically, between gender and sexuality?
2. What are the social expectations/ obligations that accompany femininity?
3. What is the relationship between femininity and power? It is obvious that with femininity comes a more blatant association with sex and sexuality. This association, many times, is deemed oppressive by feminists' standards. However, my interest in sex work has led me to question this standard.
Furthering this preface, it must be noted that this paper serves as an ethnography (an historical and analytical account) of my experience as a sex worker. Originating in the summer of 2006, I embarked on this research project as an observer and quickly became a participant. I have maintained an obsessively detailed account of my experiences through journaling, participant observation and candid interviews.
Furthermore, I have learned that the question of agency and autonomy regarding sex work and power is more complicated than, say, Hegel?s ?master/ slave dialectic;? it is more complicated than merely submission and dominance. The power dynamics are situated in such a way that they are given, taken and distributed through several patterns of interaction, juxtaposed with the literal physical setting of the club.
The goal of the author's writing is to thus better understand the initial confusions between sex work and feminism. Ethnographically, this research offers a window into the seldom discussed gendered workspace of sex workers and their relationships to other participants with in this social structure.
It has been through my emersions that I have come to conclude sex work as never necessarily oppressive and in fact, in some cases, quite liberating. The following consists of a personal narrative of the author's past year as a stripper inside a strip club called "The 20s."
There are several terms specific to the world of sex work. First, "sex work" is often times used as a "politically correct" catch-all for any job associated with sex or eroticism. Exotic dancers, strippers, certain masseuses, prostitutes and call girls are all examples of (gendered) jobs that fall under the category of "sex work." In terms of my research, I refer to myself as a sex worker because of my job as a stripper.
There are "main participants" within this ethnography. This refers to those who work at The 20s strip club as well as the club's clients.
Inside The 20s, strippers refer to themselves as "dancers," which is the term I shall use this point forward. "Stage name," as the term suggests, refers to the name dancers have given themselves. It is a persona as well as a protection measure. Dancers will not offer their actual name unless they feel comfortable enough to do so.
1. Physical Structure
Spatial understanding is important for an understanding of power and the ways in which power negotiations take place.
The club is divided into two portions with respective bars, referred to as "Showgirl I" and "Showgirl II." ?Showgirl II? is comprised of one small stage, while ?Showgirl I," more commonly known among main participants as "The Main Bar," houses the DJ booth, the main bar, the main stage, and two supporting stages. The DJ booth overlooks ?Showgirl I,? including the main stage where individual dancers are introduced by their stage names and proceed to undress for the duration of a musical number. After dancing on the main stage, the dancer will move down the line to "stage two," again for the duration of a musical number, and then on to "stage three."
These arrangements are quite an alarming and stimulating experience for novices. Yet, this physical space dictates all power interactions. As a customer approaches a stage to tip a particular dancer, she is much less vulnerable than her client in the fact that she dictates and occupies much more space. Not only does she tower several feet above each customer because of the height of each stage, she dictates the individual interaction. For example, as my field notes express:
?there is one customer in particular-an older gentleman who only tips the extremely young looking girls- that attempts to place his hands on me each time he approached the stage. I have since refused his business.
The way dancers occupy a given space may also determine their projected income. For instance, as I write in February 2007:
Customers are able to determine whether a girl is new by the way she occupies her space on stage. New dancers have yet to discover ways of dictating space and many times appear fearful. Customers sense this immediately.
Furthermore, there is no place within the club where one is unseen. Though the physical space offers the illusion of intimacy, all actions are heavily screened by bouncers and management. Inside the club, this illusion perpetuates the mainstream mentality of sex as private, intimate and loving, while also opposing it by making the illusion itself a commodity.
2. Cultural Structure
The cultural structure of the club refers to the ways in which power is negotiated and formed within the physical structure of The 20s. At the heart of power are the spoken and unspoken rules and mores and how they are diffused, accepted, perpetuated, and understood between main participants. Following is an analytical account of these folkways and mores.
My personal reasons for desiring a job inside a strip club are comparable to most dancers: curiosity, thrill, and monetary gain. Dancers, along with myself, are mutifacited and have ?day jobs,? class, husbands, children, boyfriends, and girlfriends, among several other potent aspects to their personalities, obligations, and passions.
Generally, one major way of gaining power within The 20s is through seniority alone. This is the single most important determinate of one's knowledge of the spoken and unspoken rules within the club. Proper knowledge of the culture of the club is epitomized in ?L?, the main waitress in the main bar who has worked for The 20s for over 20 years. The bold integration of new dancers into this culture is through interaction with ?L?. Take, for example, the following several uniformed rules I initially broke:
-No moving customers from one table to another.
-Always order a drink when with a customer.
-Never straddle both legs of a customer simultaneously while giving a lap dance.
-Always leave feet on the ground when giving a lap dance.
It is also a well-known unspoken rule that to leave with a customer will come with the reputation as a "whore." The power structure within The 20s is such that stigmatized sexual activity, such as whoring, is understood to be necessarily destitute. For example, I write in August 2006:
?K? went on and on about a nameless dancer who always steals her regular customers. "If you wanna be a whore," ?K? said, "go down to 24th street and leave me out of it! I'm tryin to do a job, here, ya know? Now, I'm not gunna get all freaky with these guys and grab their 'you-know-what,' because I'm not like that. But this whore, she does that ******."
The social grip on this terribly specific aspect of sex- that is, whoring- is most tightly regulated through verbiage and dialogue.
Moreover, power distribution among dancers is typically based the ability to acquire many customers without the use of stigmatized sexual behavior, such as outside sex work. This is not to say, however, that outside friendships (paid in some cases though typically not) do not occur frequently.
Furthermore, strength and violence, typical of patriarchies and masculine work, has occurred in this feminized social structure in terms of power acquisition. For example, when a new dancer, ?M?, successfully influenced the firing of a senior dancer, ?S?, the author gained power and respect by "sticking up" for the fired dancer and expressing potential for violence against ?M?. Even dancers on friendly terms may become violent toward one another and demand loyalty from other dancers.
Similar to the subtle balance of power through interaction with management is the negotiation of power between dancers and infrequent clientele. Infrequent clientele refers to customers who do not come into the club to see a specific dancer and are usually associated with batchelor or birthday parties. There are two observable hierarchies associated with this specific interaction, composed of the power negotiation between dancers competing for these customers and the power negotiation between individual dancers and the specific infrequent customer. A typical interaction between dancers and infrequent clientele is as follows:
A group of men, typically white middle/ upper class, will seat themselves at a table and order drinks. Available dancers will often times discuss among themselves whether to attend to the men. Once seated at a table with infrequent customers, the power negotiation between the dancer and the customer becomes dictated most often by monetary gain. Dancers will typically sit with a group of infrequent customers for the duration of her drink, and if by this time the men have not offered reimbursement (such as purchasing a lap dance, simply offering money, etc), the dancer will move to another table.
In this way, the mere presence of a dancer becomes a status symbol among customers throughout the club and, therefore, dancers recognize their actual physicality to be synonymous with power. This is not to suggest, however, that every dancer maintains power over every infrequent customer. For example, in August 2006 I write:
"T" lamented this evening that, "[The 20s] sucks. These ugly guys are like kids in a Baskin Robbins. They have their pick of 31 flavors."
This is similar in sediment to Diablo Cody's Candy Girl: A Year in the Life of an Unlikely Stripper, where she asserts her dissatisfaction at "beautiful girls being turned away by loser guys who would, anywhere else, never have a shot with these women."
This is terribly different from the power negotiation between dancers and their regular customers. Regulars are customers who frequent The 20s quite often, anywhere from once a week to daily. Regulars are always male, typically over the age of 30, white, and middle/upper class. They become attached to the company of a specific dancer; attraction influenced by physical attributes, personality, and/or status of particular dancers. Power is mutually distributed between regular customers and dancers, as regular customers understand obligatory monetary reimbursement for the company of a specific dancer. As with any labor exchange involving perpetual interaction, relationships between regular customers and dancers most often become friendships. For example, I have maintained several regular customers throughout the duration of my work have compiled a list of most frequent topics addressed:
-Divorces, children, jobs, marriages (failing and successful), family illnesses, addictions, childhood memories, school work, fetishes, and insecurities.
To expose one's honest self and potential vulnerability is to surrender power and extend friendship, which is more often than not at the heart of interactions between regulars and dancers.
Of constant concern to me is the way mainstream social mentalities of sex influence participants within sex work.
For instance, Foucault's History of Sexuality describes how social evolution has encouraged shifting perspectives on sex. Sex has become, through societal evolution, revered, private, and synonymous with expressions of love.
In capitalistic societies, members come to associate spaces of (corporate) power with masculinity and "oppressor." His "subordinates" are therefore oppressed and to throw sex in the midst makes for a seemingly horribly oppressive and abusive interaction.
Similarly, Gayle Rubin has composed a social sexual hierarchy to include monogamous, heterosexual couples at the top and commodified sex between partners as the least socially acceptable sexual interaction.
Conclusively, I in no way wish to endorse sex work as a great liberator. However, this ethnography expresses a much more complicated arrangement of power: one that is constantly negotiated and influenced by several factors. The social stigmatization associated with women in the industry is the true oppressor, as it forbids social respect and human rights. Through my work and experiences, it is evident that the question is not and should never be, ?Is this in line with feminism?? or, ?Is this oppressive?? Rather, the question should be ?How can we, as a society prided in human rights, make the women of sex work safer, happier and healthier?
Facebook
Twitter