Follow
my remarks and activities on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/VASTHEAD
May 20, 2010.
HOUSTON TOPLESS DANCER SURVEY
Final Update
Up untill 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.
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.
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.
Strip Club Wars is hosted as part
of VASTHEAD.COM, a web
site which has been on line since 1997. You can also access
these pages 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.
© 1997-2010. 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 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 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 restroom 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.
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?
How about a stiff tax on all sex
out of wedlock? How a 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 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.
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.
— Grady
McAllister, MS (Occupational Technology)
The original survey
material follows below.
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF
THE REGULATED KIND
By Grady McAllister
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.
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
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.
|
