|
To view current strip club news, click anywhere on this
page where you see the phrase, Strip
Club Wars.
HOUSTON TOPLESS DANCER SURVEY
Final Update
Up until now, I have updated this page from time to time
since it went on line in 1998. As of May 20, 2010,
I have decided to make no more updates to this particular
page. I would rather focus on other parts of this web site.
What you see below is a 2009 update followed by the original
Houston Topless Dancer survey from 1997.
Although the actual survey from 1997 makes fairly mild
reading, I think the long introduction and update is some
of the liveliest writing I have ever done.
But enough is enough. I am tired of having newspapers call
me up like they think I am a spokesman for the strip club
industry. I already get a enough attention in connection
with my radio site, and
I don't need more in connection with strip clubs.
Even though I will avoid any further writing for this page,
I am still providing current updates on the Strip
Club Wars page. That page automatically gathers news
stories about topless clubs from around the country. To
go there, simply click anywhere on this page where you see
the phrase, Strip Club Wars.
Most of the items are about things that happen out of state.
However, if you check the news stories carefully, you will
often find stories about strip clubs in the Houston area
and around Texas.
Many of the stories are tawdry tales about crimes allegedly
committed in connection with cabaret clubs. However, the
real purpose of the page is to keep you up to date on the
regulatory battles the clubs face in Texas and around the
nation.
If you check the Strip Club Wars
page regularly, you are sure to see items about the Texas
strip club door tax, the Houston Sexually Oriented Business
law, and other strip club issues for our area.
introduction
This site is news and information. It is mainly about government
efforts to legislate or regulate strips clubs out of existence.
It is designed to be a permanent resource for both sides
this debate.
This is not an X or R rated web site. It tries to remain
as family friendly as possible while still covering the
subject at hand.
This page also includes the ORIGINAL HOUSTON TOPLESS DANCER
SURVEY (1997).
The main current resource on this site is the Strip
Club Wars page. On any given day, there are usually
a few stories about strip club regulatory battles around
the nation.
You can access that page directly by going to
http://stripclubwars.com
That url is the
easiest way to direct people to this material.
© 1997-2O12. All Rights Reserved.
THE HOUSTON TOPLESS DANCER SURVEY
On the right side of this page, I include several quotes
from my favorite rock group, The Kinks. The Kinks songs
cover many aspects of everyday life, including alcoholism,
night clubs, strip clubs, and strippers.
In his song "No One Listen" on a recent
solo album, Kinks front man Ray Davies vents his frustration
with New Orleans police and the government after being seriously
injured by a mugger.
I can relate to that: About a year later, I was attacked,
robbed, and thrown into a hospital emergency room. The assault
occurred after the worst elements of New Orleans moved to
Houston and Houston crime statistics skyrocketed.
More about that later, but, for now, lets all wave good
bye to the celebrated cabaret night life of Houston. If
the mayor has her way, it will soon be as dead as the 80's
Oil Boom.
Whenever that happens — to paraphrase a certain movie
— you will find the Houston strip clubs only in the
history books...
Like the piers of Galveston after Hurricane Ike, they will
be gone with the wind—
"And the neon sign said:
'Welcome to Sleazy
Town!
Welcome to Sleazy Town,
Sleazy, Sleazy Town!'
"City Hall killed off that scene
Now Sleazy Town is just a dream"
—The Kinks, from the album "Think Visual"
(1986)
(Other Kinks songs are quoted in the article on Time
Management and on the Houston
Retro Radio album rock page.)
THE PERFECT STORM FORMS AND THREATENS TO CLOSE HOUSTON'S
CABARET CLUBS
A flurry of regulations, newly written or newly enforced,
are now aimed at Houston's strip clubs. Add them up, and
you have churned together the perfect storm to hurl against
the clubs.
After a dozen years of defending the ordinance in court,
this may be the year when the city hits the clubs with the
full force of the 1997 Sexually Oriented Business ordinance
(delicately abbreviated, "S.O.B.").
The city cannot simply order all topless clubs closed, but
it can and does try to police them out of existence. The power
to regulate is indeed the power to destroy.
The clubs are particularly vulnerable to the provisions
limiting the locations of the bars. Few commercially viable
locations can meet the requirements of the SOB law. If the
city's threats take hold, many clubs may be forced to close.
The Mayor has blatantly stated that there are "too many"
cabaret clubs. That means that club closure is on his agenda,
not mere regulation.
Thousands of jobs are in jeopardy. That is what this page
is all about.
For people who have followed this story for a long time,
the city's current campaign is the proverbial "Deja
Vu all over again." In 1997, the clubs also seemed
to face immediate closure. It didn't happen then, but it
may be happening now.
The survey below was taken over a decade ago. We believe
that the results still reflect the likely results of the
SOB law should it be fully implemented in the way it is
written.
To a degree, the clubs have brought this upon themselves.
Rarely will you meet a club owner or manager whose probity
is beyond doubt.
Once in a while, you hear of a manager encouraging or allowing
prostitution. Once in while, a manager is actively involved
in illegal drugs. A few managers have even allowed Marlboros
to be smoked in locked rest room stalls, locations just beyond
the reach of the long arm of the law.
And as I have noted before, the fickle hand of fate is
unkind to clubs when it comes to fires. In other words,
the number of clubs which have burned down defies all statistical
probability. It is also statistically unlikely that so many
fires would happen at four or five in the morning.
In short, nothing which follows is intended to paint strip
clubs as an asset to the community. (Yet, let's give credit
where it is due: At least one writer has extolled them as
"Houston's only tourist attraction.")
This article is not about the morality of the situation: It
is about the effect on existing employment in a bad economy.
The key question for this material is the same now as it
was in 1997. Here is how the question was stated for the
original survey:
"What might happen to employment if an industry
that has already been allowed to thrive is suddenly destroyed
by a new set of laws?"
Although this article does have its own point of view,
every effort has been made to be fair to both sides of this
issue.
If this material seems to be supporting the clubs on certain
points, it will only be because their opponents have leaped
into hysteria or made assertions which defy common sense.
When that happens, the purpose will not be to support the
clubs, but to demand a more rational argument from those who
oppose them.
By way of example, club opponents often imply that children
play near clubs and need to be protected from the possibility
of entering one. The reality is that no club that wants
to stay in business would allow that to happen. They don't
make their money by pandering to children.
That theoretical possibility does not seem to justify the
proposed solution:Close down most of the clubs and put the
few which remain in isolated and dangerous industrial locations.
Club opponents use an even more specious argument to support
the pending $5.00 door tax. That statewide law has the potential
to shut down all marginally profitable clubs and to eliminate
slow shifts in every club.
The rational for the Texas door tax goes like this: Anybody
who enters a strip club as a customer is a potential date
rapist at best or a potential serial killer at worst. And
even if they aren't all rapists and serial killers, they
should be taxed anyway since they are exploiting women every
time they walk through the door of a strip club.
Oddly enough, you never hear proposals to tax dancers because
they exploit customers. I am sure that there have been cases
of manipulative strippers inducing customers to blow their
child support money on table dances. Since every cabaret
dancer is (potentially) a con lady, shouldn't they all be
made to pay?
I offer similar modest proposals later on this page. They
will all seem to stretch the outer limits of fairness. Not
one of them is a serious suggestion. However, they all make
just as much sense as the projected door tax on strip club
patrons.
TWELVE YEARS OF LIVING DANGEROUSLY
In addition to legal challenges, club owners have kept
enforcement at bay by having dancers cover their breasts
with latex. According to the clubs, this turns them into
bikini bars and places them outside the purview of the SOB
law. This means that the term, "topless dancer"
has become a bit of a misnomer.
The clubs make the latex available in gallon jars. It smells
like ammonia. You don't have to be a doctor to doubt that
it benefits a person's health. You wouldn't put it on your
children as a reward for being good.
Yet, it is the way the dancers of Houston have kept out
of jail. It is a daily fact of life for women placed under
the gun by the Houston SOB ordinance.
Now that the courts have given the city the green light
for full enforcement, most strippers now find themselves
working at clubs which can't qualify for the SOB license.
A dancer license is useless in an unlicensed location, and
the latex is a stop gap measure which allows them to keep
working. They must also wear bikini bottoms which reveal
far less than you will see at the beach.
And the SOB enforcement is not the only law to target cabaret
clubs. At the very same time, the clubs face two additional
intrusions into their operations:
(1) A $5.00 per customer door tax which goes to the state
of Texas. Purportedly, the funds will go toward the relief
of women who are victims of sexual assault.
This tax will inevitably discourage casual drop in visits
to clubs. It will particularly threaten small clubs with
few dancers and slow shifts in all clubs.
Until now, few small clubs have collected a cover charge
on day shifts and on slow nights such as Sunday and Monday.
Now those shifts will need someone at the door just to collect
money for the state.
That will be the case even if a club has just opened its doors
and no dancer is ready to go on stage.
In small clubs, it is not unusual for the first dancer
to go on stage an hour after the front door opens. (Since
dancers are independent contractors, no manager can be certain
of having any particular number of dancers at any given
time.) Customers will learn to take a hard look at the number
of cars in a club parking lot before they pay $5 for a peek
inside.
This is nothing less than a presumption of guilt and the
punishment of a large group for the crimes of a few.
This selective tax is the brainchild of State Rep. Ellen Cohen,
a Democrat and president of the Houston Area Women's Center.
The law is is aimed exclusively at sexually oriented businesses
that provide live entertainment. "Potential rapists"
whose sexual entertainment proclivities are limited to the
internet and DVD's won't be hassled by this one.
Cohen gushed, "I am simply thrilled that this bill
will help provide much-needed services for sexual assault
survivors." Cohen further trumpeted that "This
victory was in honor of the over 1.9 million sexual assault
survivors in Texas today and in memory of those who did
not survive."
Here is my reaction to that logic:
I have personally been the victim a life threatening robbery
and assault. The fact is that I would get more satisfaction
from knowing that the perpetrator had an appointment on
Death Row than I would from having a new tax passed in my
"honor" for having survived the attack or in my
"memory" if I had not.
If we are going use this kind of mentality to justify new
taxes, I have to ask: Why stop with strip clubs?
In a more recent remark, Cohen stated, "Sexually oriented
businesses should contribute to sexually oriented crime."
What she means in that clumsily worded remark is that people
who patronize cabaret clubs should pay for the sex crimes
committed by others.
Right, but why not go ahead and tax dubious sexually oriented
activities of EVERY kind?
How about a stiff tax on all sex out of wedlock? How about
huge fine for adulterous activates which bust up marriages?
I have always been amazed that the very same people who tolerate
those activities (mainly because they engage in them themselves)
are so quick put a "pervert" label on any man with
a Playboy magazine in a file cabinet.
And don't forget to tax every Close Encounter of the Homosexual
Kind.
If we are to surmise that cabaret club clientele are potential
rapists, we can all the more easily conclude that many a
case of AIDS has started from a meeting in a gay club. If
strip clubs must bear the onus of helping rape victims,
then, the gay nightclubs should charge patrons $5 a head
for treating the victims of AIDS.
This mentality can easily extend itself to many areas beyond
the realm of sex. Many modest proposals come to mind.
How about . . .
- A fat tax for all patrons of fast food restaurants.
They can be made to pay an extra $1 each time they drive
though even if all they buy is a small Coke. The presumption
here is that fast food customers will get fat and drive
up health care costs for all. The obese can also be made
to pay for the extra space they take up in a crowded room.
- A daily tax on each police officer to pay for the cost
of prosecuting cops who take bribes. The logic here is
that since some police take bribes, all cops should pay.
This is just as logical as making all club customers pay
for the few who might commit a sex crime.
- A special surtax for all types of businesses known
to benefit from the cheap labor of illegal aliens. The
funds would pay for the health and education costs of
illegal aliens and for beefed up border patrol.
No, I am not seriously suggesting these taxes. In any event,
they can never happen. The gay community, the restaurant
industry, law enforcement officers, and illegal alien advocates
all have considerable influence in the Texas legislature.
Strippers and cabaret club employees do not. They will
always be weakly represented due to their high turnover
and unwillingness to make their occupation publicly known.
And although many club patrons have wealth and influence,
few seek the kind of notoriety which comes from defending
strip bars.
(2) As of September 1, 2007, smoking is prohibited in
most Houston bars, including cabaret clubs.
Perhaps 80% of all dancers smoke. They now have one more
reason not to work in Houston. Also, most people who go
to topless bars to drink also happen to be smokers.
So far, the main effect of the law has been to move the
smoking from the tables to the restroom. I suspect that
a nonsmoker now gets a heavier dose of smoke in restrooms
than he ever got in the main area of a restaurant or bar.
Although the elimination of smoking is a worthy goal, some
might question this further use of the heavy hand of government.
For the strip clubs, it happens to be coming at a particularly
bad time.
Add these three laws together, and you have the cabaret
club equivalent to the Perfect Storm. Strip club opponents
could not have planned it better if they had tried.
BLOOD IN THE STREETS! MY BLOOD!
I will conclude this commentary with some personal remarks.
While it may seem that I am digressing wildly from the main
purpose of this page, I am doing this to make a point:
The city government and its police have their priorities
out of order.
While the City of Houston horses around with the three
foot rule, the 1500 foot rule, and the Smoke Police, the
city itself is falling apart at the seams. To compare Houston
to a jungle would be an insult to any self respecting rain
forest.
I will mention three recent experiences of my own:
- In March, 2006, I was the victim of a robbery which
included a violent assault. It was a sneak attack from
behind while I was attaching my bicycle to a rack on my
car.
The African American assailant demanded that I turn over
my money. Without giving me a chance to do so, he began
to pound my face furiously while continuing to yell for
money. I was so thoroughly stunned from the repeated blows
that it took me a long time to find my wallet and give
it to him.
He finally left me on the pavement bleeding. Minutes later,
he was at a gas station using one of my credit cards.
That gangsta thug attack led to nearly $6000 in medical
expenses. I have reason to believe that the thug was one
of the mayor's many guests from New Orleans.
- In October, 2006, someone broke the side window of
my vehicle, and stole a case of educational mp3 CD's (Sorry,
no rap) and a cell phone.
- In October, 2007, I was accosted by a Hispanic gang
at a gas station. They demanded that I hand over free
"gas money." They were loud and aggressive,
and there was an implied threat of violence.
The gang leader asked, "What's the matter? Don't
you like Mexicans?"
I may be a bit Old School, but I failed to understand
how his being a "Mexican" entitled him to my
money. At that point, I feared the worst. It was impossible
to misconceive the threat or to exaggerate the danger.
To avoid another emergency room visit. I made a mad dash
to my car, abandoning my gasoline purchase and dropping
the gasoline hose to the pavement.
As I pulled away, the gang leader punched a hole the size
of a quarter into my car trunk door. The self-described
"Mexican" and his Hispanic comrades then charged
over $20 in gasoline to my American Express card. (They
didn't have my card, but the charge was approved just
as the gang began to threaten me. They probably timed
it that way on purpose.)
I don't know if the gang leader was legally a Mexican
or if he just liked to call himself one. I do know that
Houston is virtually a sanctuary city for illegal aliens.
That fact comes at a price in quality of life for everyone
else.
We hear it said that cabaret clubs "attract"
crime. You bet they do. So do gasoline stations and lots
of other places. In today's lawless Houston environment,
wherever a thug wants to be — there he is.
Crime hit me three times in nineteen months. Two of the
robberies involved the fraudulent use of credit cards at
gas pumps, locations likely to have a video record. Each
event was fully reported to police. None of these thug attacks
ever lead to an arrest. Not even close.
For very selfish reasons, I would rather see the police solving
these crimes than measuring the thickness of latex on breasts.
The reality is that the quality of pubic safety in Houston
is deteriorating fast. That is why we needed a curfew after
Hurricane Ike. Houston's fragile social fabric calls for
streets that are lit very, very brightly and for working
video cameras at every intersection.
I don't recall any Houston curfew after Hurricane Alicia
in 1983. I was without power for twice as long as after
Ike, and I slept in a first floor bedroom with a patio door
wide open and no fence. You wouldn't do that now.
Houston is not the benign place where I grew up. It is
a city with blood in the streets — my blood. Let's
start catching and punishing the real criminals, like the
big thug who left me bleeding on the pavement or the macho
man who punched a hole in my car.
In other words, let's focus on arresting people who roam
the streets to prey upon others. Is this so much to ask?
The article below was written in 1997. Since then, many
of the political players have changed, and one of them,
Geneva Kirk Brooks, is no longer alive. Ms Brooks was a
longtime crusader against both pornography and topless clubs.
I had met Ms Brooks years earlier while moderating a debate
on pornography for KIKK radio.
In 2002, State Representative Debra Danburg was voted out
of office. That was a result of a redistricting which made
it difficult to elect a feminist, liberal Democrat in favor
of gay marriage. Ironically, her seat was taken by Martha
Wong, a conservative Republican who had joined Danburg in
opposing Houston topless bars.
Cabaret clubs have a way of getting hit from both sides
of the political spectrum.
The longest quotation in the column to the right is from The
Closing of the American Mind. The late Allan Bloom (1930-1992)
addresses the unlikely alliance between feminists and conservatives
in fighting sexually oriented businesses.
It seems that the alliance between feminists and gays is
easier to understand than the one between feminists and
conservatives.
In spite of the subject matter, the research paper below
is not very exciting. It is a formal paper, and it had to
meet certain rigid criteria in both style and substance.
This page is not intended to promote a favorable view of
topless clubs, nude clubs, or cabaret clubs. The purpose
is neither to support nor to condemn topless bars as business
enterprises. This writer is not a spokesman for the cabaret
club industry.
The issues here are occupational, not sociological or moral.
The research on this page simply addresses this question:
What might happen to employment if an industry that has
already been allowed to thrive is suddenly destroyed by
a new set of laws?
If the city succeeds in its current campaign against the clubs,
that question will finally be answered.
The original survey material follows below.
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE REGULATED KIND
The research paper below was presented May 5, 1997.
"Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment,
the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way to the common
feelings of mankind."
— Edward Gibbon
THE PROBLEM
This study looks at a controversial industry as it prepares
to deal with an intensive new set of regulations. The industry
is topless clubs. More euphemistically, they are called
"cabaret clubs" or "gentleman's clubs." By whatever name,
they are an industry which has thrived in Houston since
the oil boom years of the 1970's.
This paper does not attempt to resolve the moral, social,
or legal issues which revolve around the clubs. It is concerned
exclusively with:
1. The perceived need for the new law.
2. The likely effect of the new law on the people who
work in the clubs.
BACKGROUND
On January 15, 1997, the City of Houston enacted sweeping
new regulations regarding so-called "Sexually Oriented Businesses."
The law, scheduled to take effect on May 15, 1997, affects
119 licensed businesses in Houston. The ordinance affects
several types of businesses, including topless clubs and
nude clubs.
When the ordinance becomes effective, most existing clubs
will no longer be legal. This is due to a doubling of the
distance that clubs must be from residences, churches, schools,
nursery schools, and parks.
There are currently 43 clubs operating in the Houston area,
most of them within the city limits. Only about five or
six are likely to meet the distance requirements of the
new law.
Because of the time and money that would be involved, none
of the existing clubs are expected to move before May 15.
Instead, many will be will be allowed to operate until they
have recouped their investment.
Eventually they will have to close.
Industry estimates are that between 10,000 and 20,000 people
are threatened with losing their jobs. Council member Helen
Huey disputes those estimates and accuses the industry of
"cooking their books."
Figures that high would probably have to include all people
who work at any kind of Sexually Oriented Business during
the course of a year. The Houston Chronicle has accepted
4,000 to 5,000 as the number of dancers currently working.
Politicians across the political spectrum have hailed
the new ordinance. Paradoxically, many of the supporters
find themselves on opposite sides of other sex-related issues
such as gay rights and abortion.
One highly visible proponent of the law was State Representative
Debra Danburg. She is a feminist, a gay rights advocate,
a champion of multiculturalism, and a promoter of "hate
crime" legislation.
Danburg entered the arena early when she opposed the licensing
of a new club in the Greenway Plaza area. That abortive
effort helped place a renewed onus on all the clubs and
a push for new regulation.
According to Danburg, one purpose of the law is to cost
the clubs money. Danburg stated in a television interview,
"If nothing else, we can cost them a few hundred thousand
dollars in attorney's fees."
The ordinance is also supported by conservatives such as
Republican Council member Martha Wong.
City Council candidate Karen Christopher equates topless
bars with pornography. During a City Council hearing last
January she stated:
I am asking you to take a hard stand. You have
few people here to oppose this ordinance except for males
who attend topless bars to satisfy their addiction to pornography.
Longtime anti-pornography crusader Geneva Kirk Brooks echoes
the comparison. She also compares the clubs to prostitution.
Brooks wants to see all forms of Sexually Oriented Businesses
put in a single "red light" district in an industrial area.
Her proposal would place the clubs alongside legalized houses
of prostitution.
So far, no one on City Council is willing to go that far.
In the meantime, club owners are fighting the new ordinance
and are expected to seek a temporary restraining order against
its enforcement.
One organization which represents the clubs, the Greater
Houston Entertainment Association, is urging each dancer
to contribute one dollar during each shift toward attorney
fees.
Speaking for club owners, lead counsel Joe W. Meyer stated,
"I think that whatever decision is made by the trial and
appellate courts…this case is going to influence peoples'
lives all over the US. It will define the limits by which
we are governed, and define what is in excess of those limits
and what is not."
In addition to the distance requirement, the law contains
two other provisions that would have a significant impact
on the industry:
1. A requirement that a dancer obtain a license to work.
To apply for the license, a dancer must pay $29.00, submit
fingerprints and two photographs, and undergo a background
check.
After May 15, 1997, anyone caught dancing topless without
a license could be jailed for up to two years and fined
$2000.
Proponents of licensing say it will screen out dancers who
have been convicted of certain criminal activity. The offenses
listed include sexual assault, prostitution, and possession
of child pornography.
If an application is approved, a dancer's license will
be posted at the club where she works. She will be required
to wear a badge with her stage name and an identification
number.
The licensing information will be public due to the state
open records law. A dancer's real name will be available
to anyone who submits her badge number under an open records
request. Her address will be available as part of the public
record. The Houston Police Department will maintain the
records and keep a log of persons who access the information.
Critics of the provision say that it is an invasion of
privacy and an open invitation to stalkers. They say that
a Police log is not enough to restrain many potential troublemakers.
Another objection is that licensing creates a permanent
record. The permanency of the record may discourage many
from ever entering the occupation.
2. Dancers will have to remain at least three feet away from
a customer while performing a table dance.
Proponents of the rule say that the distance is necessary
to prevent physical contact between customers and entertainers.
Critics say the rule will make a customer less likely
to pay for a table dance. Also, you would have to reduce
the number of tables to keep that much space around every
customer.
S.O.B. ORDINANCE: PROBLEM OR SOLUTION?
For many feminists and cultural conservatives the law is
a quick solution to a long standing problem. Council Member
Helen Huey, one of the most visible proponents of the ordinance,
extolled it as a new layer of protection for children:
I think this gives us the tool to fight awesomely,
definitively --the intrusion of these businesses and the
harm they do…They will not be able to do it to the
detriment of our children and our neighborhoods.
Critics of the ordinance say that the clubs already keep children
out. They say that the clubs are already well away from child-related
areas. They say that the purpose of the law is not to regulate
the businesses but to destroy them. Referring to City Council,
Bob Furey, president of the Colorado Bar and Grill, stated,
"They have absolutely no respect for the individuals who make
their living in these establishments."
Although the ordinance passed by a unanimous vote, some
Council Members felt it went too far. "We have in effect,
with this legislation, put this business out of business,"
said Councilman John Castillo.
Backers like Helen Huey state that they are only trying
to install new regulations: That the law is not an effort
to decimate the industry.
PURPOSE OF STUDY
Last year, a number of dancers appeared before the Houston
City Council and spoke against the ordinance. However, there
has been no known effort to systematically ascertain their
views. The material which follows is a survey of dancer
opinion regarding the new law.
This study gauges their opinions in these four areas:
1. What do the dancers think of the justification for
the law?
2. How will the law influence willingness to work in clubs?
3. How will the law affect future employment in the industry?
4. How will the law affect future earnings in the industry?
IMPORTANCE OF ISSUES
In addition the practical concerns of the dancers, the
survey will seek insight into one larger issue:
- What is the effect when people in a controversial
occupation are suddenly placed under intensive public
scrutiny?
This leads to the following secondary issues:
1. How much does this discourage people from staying in
the industry?
2. How much does this discourage new people from entering
the industry?
The clubs only exist only to the extent that women are
willing to work in them. If the law reduces the number of
women willing to work in a topless bar, the law will reduce
the size of the industry. On the other hand, if the law
makes no difference to the dancers, then it is, in fact,
just a new set of regulations.
This study seeks to uncover the true nature of the law
as it is seen by the people whom it will most affect.
DEFINITION OF TERMS
For the purposes of this study only a few specialized
terms are necessary. Some of the following terms are common
words; they are specialized in that they are applied in
a specific, limited context.
Club. A nightclub which features dancing for the purpose
of entertaining the clientele who visit the nightclub. There
are many other terms for topless bars and nude bars, many
of which are pejorative. However, "club" is the term generally
used among the dancers and their clientele following.
Dancer. A person who works as an entertainer in a club.
In the context of a topless bar the terms "dancer" and "entertainer"
can be used interchangeably most of the time.
Law. Unless otherwise noted, the word "law" refers to
the Houston Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance as passed
by the Houston City Council on January 15, 1997.
Law. Unless otherwise noted, the word "law" refers to
the Houston Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance as passed
by the Houston City Council on January 15, 1997.
Sexually Oriented Business. Any business which the City
of Houston has labeled "sexually oriented" within the text
of the Sexually Oriented Business ordinance.
Table dance. A dance performed at a customer's table.
The text of the Houston Sexually Oriented Business law
defines a number of specialized terms. Many of the definitions
are rather graphic. However, it is not necessary to include
them in this study. The text of the ordinance is added as
an appendix.
SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
This study will be completed before the Sexually Oriented
Business law goes into effect. Accordingly, it is limited
to current opinion about the law and to current opinion
about future outcomes. It can not tell us what opinion will
be if, and when, the law goes into full effect.
Also, the survey can not determine the actual long-term
results of the law. It may, however, suggest areas for a
future longitudinal study.
This survey is limited to conventional, legally licensed
topless bars featuring female dancers.
This study specifically does NOT address:
- The managers of topless bars who would be licensed
under the new ordinance.
- Totally nude bars. The results of this survey may not
be equally valid for totally nude clubs. That type of
bar differs significantly from topless bars. They sell
no alcohol and pay no alcoholic beverage taxes. They are
usually considered more controversial than topless bars,
even among people in the club industry.
- Business enterprises featuring male dancers.
- Any other form of Sexually Oriented Business besides
topless bars.
Click here only if your are interested
in reading the Review of Literature and Methodology.
These are sections commonly included in academic papers.
However, the material may contain more detail than you would
like.
OTHERWISE, CONTINUE READING ON THIS PAGE. THE ACTUAL FINDINGS
OF THE SURVEY FOLLOW BELOW.
FINDINGS
This section presents the findings of the dancer study.
There are eleven questions on the survey form. Each of the
questions relates to one of the original research questions.
Here, again, are the four research questions:
1. What do the dancers think of the justification for the
law?
2. How will the law influence willingness to work in clubs?
3. How will the law affect future employment in the industry?
4. How will the law affect future earnings in the industry?
RESEARCH QUESTION NO. 1: What do the dancers think of
the justification for the law?
The first three questions on the survey form support this
research question. The dancers are asked to evaluate the
law in a very general way.
These three questions make no reference to dancers and
people working in clubs. The participants are encouraged
to respond as citizens, rather than as people with a stake
in the industry.
1. According to the preamble of the new law, clubs have
a "dehumanizing influences on churches, schools, and day
care centers."
Do you agree that clubs create problems for churches,
schools, and day care centers?
__Strongly agree
__Somewhat agree
__Somewhat disagree
__Strongly disagree
2. Another reason given for the new law is that clubs
encourage crime. Do you agree with the idea that clubs encourage
criminal activity?
___Strongly agree
___Somewhat agree
___Somewhat disagree
___Strongly disagree
3. The new law doubles the distance that clubs must be
from schools, day care centers, churches, and residences.
Many businesses will have to close down or move.
Do you agree that it is a good idea to shut down those
businesses?
__ Strongly agree
__ Somewhat agree
__ Somewhat disagree
__ Strongly disagree
As expected, the dancers gave no great endorsement of the
law.
On the other hand, their support for the clubs was less
than monolithic.
The weakest level of support came on the "family-oriented"
question, "Do you agree that clubs create problems for churches,
schools, and day care centers?" Only 62 % checked "strongly
disagree." However, when the "somewhat disagree" responses
are added in the pro-club answers rise to 92%.
The dancers responded more emphatically on the question,
"Do you agree with the idea that clubs encourage criminal
activity?" A full 81% answered "strongly disagree." By adding
in the "somewhat disagree" respondents, the pro-club answers
again rise to 92%.
For the question, "Do you agree that it is a good idea
to shut down those businesses?" 73% strongly disagreed and
22 % somewhat disagreed. The remaining 5% selected "somewhat
agree."
The reader might wonder why any dancer would respond in
a way unfavorable to the clubs. After all, her own livelihood
is at stake. Here are some explanations that could be considered:
- These first three questions quote the law directly
and present the city's rational for the law. No countervailing
opinion is expressed in the questions. This may have
biased some responses in favor of the ordinance.
- These first three questions cover aspects of the
law that seek to "protect the children." Some people
may have a "knee-jerk" response in favor of interventions
which draw upon "the children" for justification. Other
recent examples include efforts to censor the Internet
and proposals to curb cigarette advertising.
- A particular dancer may not interpret a question
in its intended context.
For example, she may not know that existing law already keeps
clubs some distance from churches, schools, and day care centers.
Also, she might think that any business encourages crime if
it is open to the public late at night.
- She may be in a cognitive dissonance mode. That is,
she may feel a conflict between her role in clubs and
her perception of community standards.
- Because the questions are general, she may not think
a question applies to the place where she works. That
is, she may think that only other clubs threaten schools
or deserve to be shut down.
- She may believe that the law will hurt other dancers,
but will not affect her. Fewer dancers would mean less
competition.
I mention these possibilities based on what I have learned
about the industry and some of the comments heard while
conducting the survey. None is offered as a hard and fast
explanation.
There is, no doubt, a complicated psychology involved whenever
people express opinions that go against their apparent self-interest.
The answer is beyond the scope of this paper, and the issue
is best studied by people who are fully engaged in the behavior
sciences.
RESEARCH QUESTION NO. 2:
How will the law influence willingness to work in clubs?
The following survey questions refer to aspects of the law
which may affect a woman's willingness to work in clubs:
4. The new law requires that all persons who become dancers
undergo a background check and pay $29 for a license application.
They must also provide photographs and fingerprints.
What do you think of the following statement? The licensing
process will discourage women from becoming dancers--even
if they have nothing to hide.
__Strongly agree
__Somewhat agree
__Somewhat disagree
__Strongly disagree
Forty-five per cent strongly agreed and 14% somewhat agreed
that the law will discourage women from becoming dancers.
However, the results are bimodal. A surprisingly high number
(27%) picked the response that was least favorable to the
clubs and said that they "strongly disagreed" with the statement.
This may be partly explained by a sudden change in the
pattern of the questions. For the first three questions,
"strongly disagree" was the answer most favorable to the
clubs while for questions 4 it is the least favorable.
It is also worth noting that four of the participants who
eventually choose "strongly agree" or "somewhat agree" had
first marked "strongly disagree." They apparently corrected
their answers when they decided they meant the opposite
of their original choice.
The question will be reworked for any future surveys.
5. According to a televised police statement (KHOU-TV,
2/25/97), when a dancer receives a license, her real name
and address will become available to the public. This is
due to the Texas open records law.
How high is the risk that a dancer will be vulnerable to stalkers
and other people she wants to avoid?
__Very high
__High
__Low
__Very Low
95% agreed that licensing will lead to a "high" or "very
high" risk that a dancer will be vulnerable to stalkers
and other people she wants to avoid.
6. Estimate the percentage of current dancers who will quit
working because of the licensing requirement:
___More than 50%
___20 to 50 %
___10 to 20%
___1 to 10%
___Less than 1%
81% of the dancers responded that at least 20% of dancers
will quit work because of the licensing requirement; 46%
predicted that more than 50% will quit.
7. What are the chances that you will quit working in clubs
if the new law goes into effect?
___Very high
___High
___Low
___Very Low
When asked to predict their own behavior, slightly under
one half predicted that they would quit working if the new
law goes into effect: 19% answer "high" and 30% answered
"very high."
RESEARCH QUESTION NO. 3:How will the law affect future employment
in the industry?
This research question overlaps somewhat with research
question no. 2. However, the previous survey items emphasized
the possibility that a woman might avoid or quit the business
as a result of the licensing requirement.
The following questions look at the possibility that she
might be thrown out of work because either
(1) no job at all is available or
(2) a job is available but it pays so little that she decides
to quit.
Survey questions:
8. If you were to quit working in clubs as a result of
the law what would be the main reason?
___There will be so few clubs left that it will be hard
to find a job.
___The jobs will be available, but it will be hard to earn
a living
___I don't want to go though the licensing process.
___Other (Please describe.)
Only 19% agreed that there would be so few clubs left it
would be hard to find a job. However, 56% checked the statement,
"The jobs will be available, but it will be hard to earn
a living."
This was the only question which allowed the possibility
of an open-ended response. For those who wrote their own
answers at the "other" box the responses were revealing:
-- "I wouldn't want everyone knowing my address."
--"I have other experience."
-- "The clubs would be too far away."
--"I don't think our addresses should be public access."
9. If the expected number of clubs close, how high will
unemployment get for the people who now work in them?
___Very high
___High
___Moderate
___Low
___Very low
87% of the respondents agreed the unemployment for club
people will get "high" or "very high."
RESEARCH QUESTION NO. 4: How will the law affect future
earnings in the industry?
The final two survey questions address directly the issue
of income:
10. The new law requires that dancers stay three or more
feet from a customer during a table dance. By staying three
feet away, a dancer will…(Check one)
___Increase her income
___Decrease her income
___See no difference in her income
86% of the respondents indicated that the three-foot rule
will decrease their income.
11. To what extent will the law make it harder for you
to earn a living?
___Much harder
___Somewhat harder
___No effect
89% believed that the law will make it "somewhat harder"
or "much harder" to earn a living. A preponderance of 54%
fell into the "much harder" column.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS
On January 15, 1997, the City of Houston passed a new ordinance
to regulate Sexually Oriented Businesses. This paper addresses
the parts of the law aimed at topless clubs and the dancers
who work in them. It studies three main issues:
- The law closes all clubs that are within 1,500 feet
of churches, schools, day care centers, and parks. That
includes most existing clubs. The law replaces a previous
requirement of 750 feet.
- The law requires that dancers apply for a license
to perform in a topless bar. The licensing process involves
photographs, fingerprints, and a background check. The
dancers would have to wear badges with a license number
while working. Under the state open records law, personal
information about dancers will be available to the public.
- The law requires that dancers remain three feet away
during table dances. Clubs may have to reduce seating
capacity to maintain that distance.
As of May 5, 1997, club attorneys had filed a barrage of
lawsuits in an effort to hold back the ordinance.
Mike DeFeurin, an attorney representing several of the clubs,
says he will appear before a state district judge at a hearing
on May 13. He will ask the judge to prevent the city from
enforcing the provisions of the ordinance. In the lawsuit,
DeFeurin outlines his position:
Without expressly banning topless dancing, the City of
Houston has in effect done just that--regulating a lawful
and constitutionally protected business out of business.
Joe W. Meyer an attorney representing another group of
clubs, has asked a federal judge to block enforcement of
the three-foot rule and the licensing of dancers. As of
May 5, only 10% of the Houston dancers had applied for the
license.
This paper looks at the Sexually Oriented Business ordinance
from the dancer's point of view. It asks for opinions on
the likely results of the law.
Specifically, this paper has these four Research Questions:
1. What do the dancers think of the justification for the
law?
2. How will the law influence willingness to work in clubs?
3. How will the law affect future employment in the industry?
4. How will the law affect future earnings in the industry?
The survey involves 37 dancers working in a medium-sized club.
Most of the entertainers who worked during a four-week period
in March and April completed the survey.
The questionnaire asks eleven multiple-choice questions
that relate to the four Research Questions.
The results are summarized below:
1) 92% disagreed with the city's claim that clubs create
problems for churches, schools, and day care centers.
2) 92% disagreed with the city's claim that clubs encourage
criminal activity.
3) 95% disagreed with the city's claim that clubs must
be closed in order to protect schools, day care centers,
churches, and residences.
4) 59% agreed that the licensing process will discourage
women from becoming dancers.
5) 95% agreed that the licensing process will make dancers
vulnerable to stalkers and other people they want to avoid.
6) 81% estimated that more than 20% of all dancers will
quit because of the licensing requirement…46% estimated
that more than 50% will quit.
7) 49% stated there was a high probability that they would
personally quit because of the law.
8) "It will be hard to earn a living" was given as the
most likely reason for quitting.
9) 87% predicted high unemployment for people now working
in clubs.
10) 86% predicted a decrease in income because of the three-foot
rule.
11) 89% predicted that it will be harder to earn a living
as a result of the law.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings just listed seem to support the following
conclusions:
1. Most of the dancers do not accept the city's rationale
for the new law.
2. The law will discourage new women from becoming dancers.
The public nature of the licensing will discourage many
current dancers from remaining in the occupation.
3. The main concerns about the licensing are the loss of
privacy and the permanent nature of the record. (Two dancers
planning to enter the legal and teaching professions were
most worried about future background checks.)
4. Dancers who continue to work see a danger of reduced
income or involuntary unemployment.
5. Current dancers expect a decrease in the total number
of dancers and the total number of clubs.
6. Dancers have an overall belief that the law will make
it hard for them to earn a living.
RECOMMENDATIONS
*An expanded survey should be conducted at the major clubs.
However, the survey should not include any clubs whose locations
are unaffected by the new distance requirements.
* A follow-up study should be conducted if the total number
of clubs is reduced by ten or more.
* If the law is fully implemented and enforced as it was
written, an increase in unemployment will result. Appropriate
city, county, and state agencies should prepare for an increased
demand for public assistance and welfare.
* The city should prepare for a decrease in its share of
state liquor taxes.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
City of Houston Ordinance No. 97-75, Section 1. (1997,
January 15).
Cook Report on the internet: The dark side in Washington
State. (1997, January 8.) The Cook Report. Available: http://cookreport.com
Dyer, R.A. (1997, April 14).
Few dancers rush to get new permits for topless clubs.
Houston Chronicle .
Dyer, R.A. (1997, February 16)
Retreat to pragmatism: Morals activist calls for a local
red-light area. Houston Chronicle .
Getter, John. (Broadcast recorded January 31, 1997) Money,
Sex and Power, Part One. KHOU-TV.
Jennings, Lane. (May-June, 1995). Should parents be licensed?
(Review of Licensing parents: Can we prevent child abuse
and neglect? by Jack C. Westman) The Futurist. 48-49.
Linowes, David F. (1989) Privacy in America: Is your private
live in the public eye? Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
9.
Mason, Julie (1997, January 15). City council votes to
limit sexually oriented clubs. Houston Chronicle .
Mason, Julie. (1997. February 11). Group set to fight sexually
oriented business statute. Houston Chronicle.
Mason, Julie. (1997. January 6). City's proposal on sex
firms denounced by UH professor. Houston Chronicle.
Nock, Steven L. (1993) The costs of privacy: Surveillance
and reputation in America. Aldine de Gruyter. 149.
Struening, Karen. (September, 1996).
Privacy and sexuality in a society divided over moral culture.
Political Research Quarterly. 510.
Villafranca, Armando. (1997, January 18.) Adult club battle
may get fierce. Houston Chronicle.
|
