Follow my remarks and activities on Twitter:

Introduction revised October 17, 2009.

"CHIEFLY ABOUT HOUSTON STRIP CLUB WAR MATTERS"

With apologies to Nathaniel Hawthorne for the above title

Author's note: The Houston Topless Dancer survey is an academic paper written in 1997. I am not a spokesman for the cabaret club industry, and I am unlikely to have inside information about the operation or legal battles of any particular club.

I was phoned in connection with the recent hit piece on the Cooper Mansion cabaret in the Houston Press. I never got around to returning the call. I knew almost nothing about that club and had never been there.

The Cooper Mansion people may not be model citizens, but neither is the Houston Press a paragon of journalistic virtue. The Houston Press follows the typical style of modern journalism: a free pass for some very special groups, but a self righteous pose when dealing with those less favored.

Having worked as a reporter myself, I know objective journalism when I see it. I did not see it in the Press piece. From the very first lines, the tone is polemical and cliched and designed to play upon every existing prejudice in the reader.

Taken to its logical conclusion, the Press article would put practically every bartender and bar manager behind bars.

Personally, I would have no trouble living with total alcohol prohibition for the rest of my life. But we know that doesn't work very well in an otherwise free society.

For the record, I support the enforcement of the legal drinking age, whatever that age may be.

I am old enough to remember when both the drinking age and voting age were lowered to eighteen. Those decisions were just part of the fall out from the Vietnam War: "If a man is old enough to fight for his country, then he ought to be able to drink and vote."

Then, in 1986, President Reagan effectively raised the drinking age nationwide by tying it to federal highway funding. In effect, Reagan set aside his own long standing belief in states rights and put the entire decision in federal hands.

I think that the drinking and voting age should always be the same. If you are old enough to wreck the country in the voting booth, then you are should also be old enough to have a drink. However, rather then lower the drinking age, the better decision would be to raise the voting age.

Be forewarned that the Houston Press is an alternative style newspaper, and its choice of language is far less pristine than what appears on The Vasthead web site.

The Houston Press article

Since the essay below appeared, two new prospective strip club door taxes have emerged. One would reduce the door tax and use it only to assist victims of sex crimes.

The other bill would change the tax to a percentage of existing cover charges, but it would not require a cover charge where none already exists. That bill would eliminate the need to have someone work at the door just to collect the state tax, and it is the bill most acceptable to the club owners.

Check the Strip Club War News page for current items about the Texas strip club tax, the Houston Sexually Oriented Business law, and other strip club issues.

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 War News page. On any given day, there are usually a few stories about strip club regulatory battles around the nation.

Strip Club Wars is hosted as part of VASTHEAD.COM, a web site which has been on line since 1997. You can also access this page directly by going to

http://stripclubwars.com

That link will take you back to this page, and it is the easiest way to verbally direct people to this material.

THE HOUSTON TOPLESS DANCER SURVEY

A Revised Introduction
by Grady McAllister

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 his 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 page for top 40 and rock.)

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 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.

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.

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.")

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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm not an attorney or a legal historian, but this smells a lot like a Bill of Attainder. If it isn't the real thing, it is certainly its spiritual sister.

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?

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.

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.

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 AIicia 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.

It seems that the alliance between feminists and gays is made of sterner stuff 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?

— Grady McAllister, MS (Occupational Technology)

Note: The section about Gregg Easterbrook has moved to a separate page. My commentary responds to some misleading remarks Easterbrook made about the survey below. The material also gives additional information about why and how the dancer survey was developed.

Response to Gregg Easterbrook's remarks about the Houston Topless Dancer Survey.

The original survey material follows below.

CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE REGULATED KIND

By Grady McAllister

The research paper below was presented May 5, 1997.

— 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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 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:

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.

RESEARCH QUESTION NO. 2:
How will the law influence 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.

__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.

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.

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.

__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.

___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.

___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."

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

As of May 5, 1997, club attorneys had filed a barrage of lawsuits in an effort to hold back the ordinance.

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:

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 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

* 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.

The Vasthead is the professional web site of
Grady McAllister of Houston, Texas.

Take me to the Vasthead Headquarters!

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

Few dancers rush to get new permits for topless clubs. Houston Chronicle .

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.

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.