Sexed’ Regulation and the Disregarded Worker: an Overview of the Impact of Sexual Entertainment Policy on LapDancing Club Workers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Lincoln Institutional Repository Social Policy and Society http://journals.cambridge.org/SPS Additional services for Social Policy and Society: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Over ‘Sexed’ Regulation and the Disregarded Worker: An Overview of the Impact of Sexual Entertainment Policy on LapDancing Club Workers Rachela Colosi Social Policy and Society / FirstView Article / January 2006, pp 1 12 DOI: 10.1017/S1474746412000462, Published online: Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1474746412000462 How to cite this article: Rachela Colosi Over ‘Sexed’ Regulation and the Disregarded Worker: An Overview of the Impact of Sexual Entertainment Policy on LapDancing Club Workers. Social Policy and Society, Available on CJO doi:10.1017/S1474746412000462 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/SPS, IP address: 82.9.217.212 on 07 Oct 2012 Social Policy & Society: page 1 of 12 C Cambridge University Press 2012 doi:10.1017/S1474746412000462 Over ‘Sexed’ Regulation and the Disregarded Worker: An Overview of the Impact of Sexual Entertainment Policy on Lap-Dancing Club Workers Rachela Colosi School of Social Sciences, University of Lincoln E-mail: [email protected] In England and Wales, with the introduction of Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, lap-dancing clubs can now be licensed as Sexual Entertainment Venues. This article considers such, offering a critique of Section 27, arguing that this legislation is not evidence-based, with lap-dancing policy, like other sex-work policies, often associated with crime, deviance and immorality. Furthermore, it is argued that sex-work policies are gradually being homogenised as well as increasingly criminalised. Other criticisms relate to various licensing loopholes which lead to some striptease venues remaining unlicensed and unregulated, potentially impacting on the welfare of erotic dancers. In addition, restrictions on the numbers of lap-dancing venues may exacerbate dancer unemployment, drawing these women into poverty. Finally, The Policing and Crime Act reflects how the political focus is being directed away from the exploitation of workers, on to issues relating to crime and deviance, despite limited evidence to support this focus. Keywords: Lap-dancing, Policing and Crime Act, criminalisation, morality. Introduction It was not until the mid-to-late 1990s that the first lap-dancing venues opened in the UK (Grandy, 2005; Jones et al., 2003); since then the industry has rapidly expanded. There are now estimated to be between 100 and 350 lap-dancing clubs (Colosi, 2010b); these venues are part of a wider Adult Entertainment (AE) industry estimated to be worth around £300 million (Adult Entertainment Working Group, 2006). It is suggested that: ‘sex- related businesses are now widely regarded as integral to urban economies’ (Hubbard et al., 2008: 396) and are increasingly seen as legitimate businesses (Attwood, 2006). As a result of this increased tolerance, along with the gentrification and commercialisation of night-time spaces (Chatterton and Hollands, 2003), lap-dancing, which is part of the sex industry, has become highly commercialised, with corporate investment leading to many lap-dancing clubs being represented by dominant chains such as For Your Eyes Only and Spearmint Rhino. As the commercialisation of the lap-dancing industry suggests, unlike other forms of sex-work, such as prostitution, it has to some extent been normalised, with attempts made by club operators to dissociate lap-dancing from the sex industry by rebranding it a ‘sexy’ leisure industry (Colosi, 2010b). Despite attempts to market lap- dancing clubs in this way, policy suggests otherwise, recognising these venues as part of the wider sex industry and not the leisure industry. In England and Wales, until recently, lap-dancing clubs were licensed in a similar way to other entertainment venues, under the 1 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 07 Oct 2012 IP address: 82.9.217.212 Rachela Colosi Licensing Act 2003 (Great Britain, 2003). Recent changes, following persistent lobbying from local communities and various pressure groups, which have challenged the role of lap-dancing within the leisure industry, along with political resistance, have brought about amendments to Schedule 3 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (Great Britain, 1982b), introducing a new category of sexual entertainment venue (SEV) (also referred to as sex establishment (SE)). Under the new amendments, which were laid out in Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 (Great Britain, 2009), lap-dancing clubs and other venues in which there is ‘any live display of nudity’ and where ‘there have not been more than eleven occasions on which relevant entertainment has been so provided which fall (wholly or partly) within the period of 12 months ending with that time’ (Section 27, schedule 2Ai, Policing and Crime Act 2009) are now included as SEs. Although this licensing is not mandatory for local authorities (LAs), there has so far been an indication that this is a popular regime. In light of such changes this article will consider the policy background of lap-dancing clubs in the UK, offering a general critique of the recent changes in licensing in England and Wales. In the first instance, attention will be drawn to existing research which explores wider sex-work policies. This broader discussion is necessary for two reasons: firstly, the literature exploring lap-dancing policies is limited, as until recently this industry was fairly invisible in policy terms; secondly, as is suggested in the sex-work policy literature, increasingly all sex-work is subjected to similar political treatment and is increasingly subjected to criminalisation. This broader focus will therefore not only highlight the apparent move toward criminalisation, but also the gradual homogenisation of sex-work in policy terms. Following an examination of this literature, the article will explore the policy background of lap-dancing club regulation, and look closely at why recent changes in legislation have occurred. This involves considering the role of various action groups, such as Object, who lead the campaign (‘Stripping the Illusion’) against the proliferation of lap-dancing clubs, which played a key role in bringing about Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009. The consideration of lap-dancing under the Policing and Crime Act will reflect how it shifts political focus away from workers’ rights and issues of worker exploitation (see Sanders and Hardy, 2011), but also illustrates the process of criminalisation and homogenisation as outlined in the broader literature. Finally, this article will discuss some of the anticipated problems with Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009; for instance it will contend that the amendment to Schedule 3, as has been argued with other sex-work1 legislation (see Phoenix, 2009), is not sufficiently evidence-based. In critiquing new legislation it will be further highlighted how loopholes in Section 27 may lead to more informal erotic dance venues, such as strip-pubs, escaping regulation. Furthermore, the increased powers of LAs to contain the numbers of SEs, along with the additional licensing costs, may lead to the unemployment of lap-dancers as lap-dancing venues close down. In drawing attention to these problems, it will be argued that overall the worker, who should not be put in jeopardy by legislation, is in fact subjected to further risks and marginalisation as a result of Section 27. It is this which makes this not just a public policy issue, but inevitably a matter for social policy analysts, as their welfare is brought into question. Problematising sex-work policies Most of the research relating to lap-dancing has been produced within an American context (for key studies see Frank 2002; Barton 2006; Egan 2006), with the exception 2 http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 07 Oct 2012 IP address: 82.9.217.212 Over ‘Sexed’ Regulation and the Disregarded Worker of Colosi (2010a, b, c) and Sanders and Hardy (2011). Both Colosi (2010b) and Sanders and Hardy (2011) offer some analysis of Section 27 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009, suggesting it does not address the needs of the workers. The majority of the literature which discusses sex-work policy in the UK has focussed on prostitution, with lap-dancing remaining under explored. In the context of prostitution laws in the UK, there has been a notable academic resistance to the ways in which policies have developed throughout history. It has been argued that policies are unrealistic (Sagar and Croxall, 2011) and problematic for the workers (Phoenix, 2009). Furthermore, it is suggested that there is little acknowledgment of the sex-workers’ narratives in existing policies (O’Neill, 2007). Rather, policies serve to further marginalise and stigmatise sex-workers (Brents and Sanders, 2010), which is part of a ‘process of creating binary distinctions between sex-workers and others (that is, “normal” women, children and so on)’ (Phoenix, 2009: 13). The stigmatisation associated with sex-work is something sex-workers are cognisant of, as reflected in the narratives of, for example, lap-dancers (Colosi, 2010b; Scott, 1996), prostitutes (Sanders, 2004), and even their clients (Sanders, 2008). The spaces in which prostitutes’ work is restricted (Sagar and Croxall, 2011), with the visibility of street workers controlled by various laws; for instance, it is illegal to solicit or loiter in a public place. Such restrictions are not limited to the UK, and zones of tolerance and intolerance can be identified in other countries (Hubbard, 2004). Furthermore, the marginalisation of sex-work is also evident in the physical location of sex-related businesses, which tend to be situated in marginal urban areas (Hubbard, 2004). This sometimes includes lap- dancing clubs (Colosi, 2010b) and other SEs, such as peep shows, sex shops, saunas etc.