So... according to unconvincingly coiffeured Peter Stringfellow at the Commons culture committee yesterday, his lap-dancing clubs are:
- not lap-dancing clubs but are 'gentlemen's clubs'
- they offer 'entertainment' not near naked ladies jiggling their bits for money
- exempt from the costly 'sex encounter' licence and planning requirements Westminster council would like to apply
- do not offer sex encounters and it's entirely incidental if customers find themselves enjoying one
So... what was he hoping to achieve by denying his customers think they are going to have a sex encounter in his clubs? He may hope to avoid the high cost of a sex encounter licence but he is shooting himself in the foot by denouncing the 'gentlemen' who turn up expecting a sexy good time at his place. We're quite sure Stringy is right and that you won't find anything remotely sexy or stimulating in his clubs, but we're assuming that wasn't his point in his speech to the Culture committee.
So... perhaps his point is that he shouldn't be forced to pay the licence and instead be allowed to pursue his true aim in opening these 'gentlemen's clubs' which is to bring together influential and affluent men who wish to see the equal and respectful treatment of women, giving them the space and environments conducive to effective social change in a relaxed but stimulating setting. Then once the funds have been raised through membership and entry fees, Mr Stringfellow will be able gather his brethren in equal treatment campaigning to finally launch his chain of women's refuges with plenty of studio space for esteem-building dance workshops and training for jobs in the hospitality industry.
So... we're confused. And aroused. Just the right frame of mind to pop out for some champagne and enlightened debate at one of Peter's clubs, eh?