I usually plan in advance which demonstrations I'm going to attend, so imagine what a pleasant surprise it was to find myself outside a lap-dancing club in central London last week congratulating a group of protestors from Object's Stripping the Illusion campaign.

I'd been in London for a meeting, and was making my way back to Liverpool Street station with some friends: walking along, chatting and minding our own business, we suddenly noticed a commotion going on on the other side of the road and stopped to see what it was. Obviously as soon as the penny dropped we made our way across the busy street to show our solidarity with the young women who'd given up their evening for the cause, and to join in for a while, to add our voices to the growing numbers of those who are opposed to the increasing prevalence of these places in towns and cities across Britain.

As Sandrine Levêque pointed out recently, thanks to a loophole in the Licensing Act 2003, for the past four years lap-dancing clubs and similar "adult-entertainment" venues have only been required to have the same premises license as pubs or cafes. Unsurprising, then, that during this time these clubs have proliferated: it's estimated that there are now over 300 of them operating in the UK.

But while I fully support the sterling work that both Object and the Fawcett Society have been doing in raising awareness of the problem, and in trying to persuade the government to reclassify these clubs as sex encounter establishments, for me the campaign simply doesn't go far enough.

There's something that doesn't quite fit right about feminist organisations campaigning for legal recognition for sexually exploitative activities that help to perpetuate discrimination against women, and that feed into a culture that objectifies both women and girls. There's an element of nimbyism about the arguments being put forward in this debate, and in the debate around prostitution, that I'm not entirely comfortable with. Instead of advocating stricter licensing, or complaining that it's not very nice to have to live near such insalubrious establishments, feminists should instead be campaigning to have these places shut down. Forget moving them somewhere else, out of sight and out of mind, or even reducing the numbers, how about getting rid of them completely?

When feminists argue that the sex industry has a detrimental effect on women living in close proximity, and that clubs and brothels should be moved out of residential areas, they're in effect saying that it's not OK for those women who are uninvolved in the industry to inadvertently get caught up in it, but bugger the consequences for those who are involved. On the one hand they're recognising some of the harms that result from sexual exploitation, but on the other they appear willing to sacrifice some of their own in order to keep themselves safe.

But that's not what feminism means to me.

Those who are desperate to justify prostitution often wheel out the argument that in countries where prostitution is legal and regulated, the incidences of rape and sexual violence are lower, and thus women in the general population are safer. We can argue until the cows come home about whether that's actually the case or not, but to be perfectly frank I really couldn't care less. My personal safety should never come at the expense of someone else's: I don't want any woman to be raped or sexually violated on my behalf, and let's face it, that's what prostitution is. Similarly, I don't accept that any other woman should be subjected to men's boorish behaviour in a strip club simply so that I can go about my business unmolested. As we say in the trade union movement: an injury to one is an injury to all.

And it's not as straightforward as that anyway. Lap-dancing, pole-dancing, peep-shows, strip clubs and prostitution don't just harm those women who are directly involved or those unfortunate enough to live nearby, but all of us. It makes no difference whether these establishments are set up in the house next door or whether they're confined to an industrial estate on the outskirts of town, the impact is still the same. The sex industry degrades all women: it helps to foster the attitude that women exist for men's sexual pleasure, it reinforces sexist stereotypes, and it perpetuates the commodification of women's bodies and the growing pornification of our society.

So while it's hats off to Object and Fawcett for the work they're doing on this (at least they're doing something), I'd also urge them to think about the messages they're giving out in this campaign, and the arguments they're using. Yes, stricter licensing should make the women working in the clubs safer, and it may well mean that local authorities will be more empowered to turn down applications, but ultimately this does nothing to tackle the underlying issues. The endemic sexual objectification of women and the gender violence and discrimination that is sustained by the existence of a sex industry will not be overcome by legally sanctioning it: ultimately the only valid feminist response is to argue for its complete eradication. It's a harder campaign to fight undoubtedly, but it's the right one nonetheless.