100 Treatises

Iceland Bans Strip Clubs in the False Name of Freedom

A glowing piece in the Guardian reports recently that Iceland (“the world’s most feminist country”) has banned strip clubs. The move is just the most recent in a line of measures taken to snuff out the sex trade. According to the author:

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons. Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: “It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold.”

This is a foolish and wrongheaded notion. People who are slaves are “a product to be sold”—perhaps the Icelandic parliament should have chosen to help the many people around the world living in modern day slavery, if they are so concerned with people being bought and sold? For the decrease in economic activity caused by this ban, they could probably give hundreds of thousands of dollars to that cause. Their concern for human welfare is “impressive,” indeed. The article also says:

Jónsdóttir [of a group that fights sexual violence] says the ban could mean the death of the sex industry. “Last year we passed a law against the purchase of sex, recently introduced an action plan on trafficking of women, and now we have shut down the strip clubs. The Nordic countries are leading the way on women’s equality, recognising women as equal citizens rather than commodities for sale… I guess the men of Iceland will just have to get used to the idea that women are not for sale.”

Another cockeyed way of thinking. A woman is not “for sale” if she is freely choosing to do something. The fact that there is so much talk of “women for sale” or “people for sale,” even though they are not actually for sale indicates that the women of Iceland desire to outlaw this activity because they object to it emotionally. It simply bothers them to see a woman being paid for taking her clothes off for men’s entertainment. Visually, they see a man or men in control of a woman and using her for their pleasure. (From a man’s perspective, the power in the relationship might be seen very differently, but that’s another issue.) The image is objectionable to them on a subjective level, and therefore they want to do away with it, while couching their effort in the explosive terms of “ending the commodification of women.” Who would not be against the commodification of women?

A frequent canard used by those fighting the sex industry is the conflation of willing, freely-chosen participation in the sex industry with forced participation or, even worse, the forced participation of children. And the legal action taken in Iceland against human trafficking is very positive and laudable. The exploitation of any human being, female or otherwise, is fundamentally wrong. But what if that person chooses to exploit themselves?

If a government can forbid one woman from using her body to her financial advantage, why can it not forbid another woman from using her brain to her advantage? Are not both the body and the brain the sole property of the person themselves? If the state should ban the selling of sexual services, why should it not ban the selling of massage services? Do not both confer physical pleasure to the customer for a price? If nude dancing should be outlawed, why not clothed dancing? Do not both provide visual stimulation to a customer? Is not the ballet patron exploiting his or her “power” over the performer for the sake of visual enjoyment?

None of this is to argue that prostitution, pornography, stripping or other related activities support the empowerment of females. But they do not hurt the empowerment of females, anymore than a man stripping and being treated as a sex object in a bachelorette party diminishes my empowerment as a male. The point is that allowing them to occur, with adequate controls and regulations, supports the empowerment of human beings insofar as it supports freedom.

Freedom is not about doing what is “morally” right. Except for certain fundamental rules such as causing harm to others, or limiting others’ freedom, in a truly free society one should be free to do as they wish—whether I or anyone else “approve” of it or not. That does not mean behavior cannot be regulated; it would be ridiculous for zoning laws to allow brothels next to elementary schools. But there is a huge leap from regulating, controlling or directing human activity and illegalizing that activity altogether.

What will be the consequences of a stripper-less Iceland? They will probably not be very severe on the surface. Several hundred people will be out of work, to be sure. But in time they will probably find new jobs. Enterprising former strippers can start dance studios or pole dancing fitness centers that have become popular recently. The real consequences of such action are more serious, though radical feminists would refuse to hear it: that the state further constrains and restricts human activity, making human life just a bit more bland and homogenous, limiting diversity of lifestyle and the freedom of choice that make life worth living.

MORE ARTICLES:

Demon Dubai