Log in

View Full Version : Four large?



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

xdamage
03-20-2008, 05:39 AM
otoh, australia has legal brothels in many of its equivalent of states, and low/no contact stripclubs as the norm.

Yes, true. Also in Vegas. There are many factors that contribute to how people feel about using (or working as) a prostitute vs a stripper, as well as the pricing.

I think everyone should read at least one book on chaos theory and walk away with the one simple concept that in complex systems with many variables (like social systems), small changes can have large rippling effects, and they are very hard to predict. In fact, they are often unpredictable except through experimentation.

From a customers POV though, if you grow-up in the Netherlands and hear the message early on in life, there is nothing wrong with prostitution; the free market has brought prices way down; the women working as prostitutes are absolutely beautiful "10s"; well... it's not surprising that men use prostitutes since there is no shame in it, it is inexpensive, and the women working are as beautiful as the hottest strippers. I can't help but wonder though, if the Netherlands entirely decriminalizes prostitution if the prices for sex will erode even further.

xdamage
03-20-2008, 05:57 AM
Not every guy who goes into a strip club is looking for sex and not every woman who gets involved in the sex industry wants to be an escort. I still go to clubs on a regular basis. I don't turn my back on high contact or extras but they are not the reason I go either. I go to be entertained, to kill a few hours, and enjoy the show. Honestly I don't think the vast majority of guys are looking for a blow job when they go to a strip club though I'm sure the percentage varies from city to city and club to club.

True, that is a possible outcome, but we have real world evidence in only a very few places in the world, and as we see in the Netherlands the SCs have died, replaced by clubs where the women also perform live sex shows, dildo shows, often interactive with the audience shows.

So there are combinations of social and business factors that can lead to the demise of SCs as real world evidence shows.

The Netherlands also prides itself on it's liberalism... the concepts of sex is healthy and "prostitution is just a job" are being taught more strongly there then in the US or Australia. I imagine that has had something to do with the outcomes there as well. And the legal control over the prostitutes is very light handed. I really do wonder what would happen if it was fully decriminalized, would prices for sex (which are already very cheap) errode further?

By the way, you aren't obligated to buy sex. If all you want is 30 minutes just to touch and talk the prostitutes can do that too; no need for SCs if that's all men want from them. But I don't know if they would be hired in the remaining clubs if that's all they are willing to do for customers. See what I mean? Clubs that offer prostitution don't prevent customers from enjoying a SC experience, but they do filter out women who would like jobs as sex workers, but aren't willing to do it all. Customers win, but I'm not sure the women who want to maintain boundaries do.

mr_punk
03-20-2008, 06:08 AM
Another side effect... Strip clubs may well end up going the way they have in the Netherlands... bye bye, since there is no point. Sex is cheap because prostitutes are so common, and competition is very high.more gloom and doom? quite the contrary, the fallout from the ES drama indicates there isn't a major shift in cultural and societal mores coming our way in the foreseeable future.

Jenny
03-20-2008, 07:48 AM
Legalization would effect clubs for certain. I don't think it will cause their demise I actually think it will make them better especially for women who just want to dance.
Well prostitution is legal up here, technically it was decriminalized, although they are still de facto regulating it through the criminal law (i.e. there are still criminal laws regarding brothels, communication in public, procuring and pimping). We still have strip clubs. We still have high mileage as well. Whenever guys chat about how expensive we are compared to prostitutes, I point out very reasonably that we are not trying to be cheaper substitutes for prostitutes. They do what they do; we do what we do. You and your buddies can't go for a few beers in a massage parlour. Moreover - I think it is... ridiculous to suggest that a justification for a criminal law is to artificially keep prices high in the strip club industry. Like if prices dropped, etc., etc., would it be inconvenient for me? Sure. (although... around hereabout the "normal rate" seems to be about $200-$250 an hour, with the "elite" girls going up to $400 or $500 with a few hours minimum. Street workers are, of course, less expensive - what does that say to you in comparison to american prices?) However my inconvenience hardly justifies the imposition of a criminal law. That is a situation of "the chips will fall where they may"; of course up here there is a huge jurisdictional issue with using criminal law to regulate businesses. Only the federal government is empowered to pass criminal laws, and only the provincial government is empowered to legislate on issues of property and civil rights (which has been decisively interpreted to include business regulations, even veiled ones, in a case in which the federal government tried to criminalize margarine. Yes. Really. We call it "The Margarine Reference"). So there is a specific disconnect in the division of powers that makes it unnecessary to have rules and laws demanding that kind of transparency in criminal law; but surely your state legislatures have some obligation of transparency when passing criminal laws

bem401
03-20-2008, 08:18 AM
True, that is a possible outcome, but we have real world evidence in only a very few places in the world, and as we see in the Netherlands the SCs have died, replaced by clubs where the women also perform live sex shows, dildo shows, often interactive with the audience shows.

So there are combinations of social and business factors that can lead to the demise of SCs as real world evidence shows.

The Netherlands also prides itself on it's liberalism... the concepts of sex is healthy and "prostitution is just a job" are being taught more strongly there then in the US or Australia. I imagine that has had something to do with the outcomes there as well. And the legal control over the prostitutes is very light handed. I really do wonder what would happen if it was fully decriminalized, would prices for sex (which are already very cheap) errode further?

By the way, you aren't obligated to buy sex. If all you want is 30 minutes just to touch and talk the prostitutes can do that too; no need for SCs if that's all men want from them. But I don't know if they would be hired in the remaining clubs if that's all they are willing to do for customers. See what I mean? Clubs that offer prostitution don't prevent customers from enjoying a SC experience, but they do filter out women who would like jobs as sex workers, but aren't willing to do it all. Customers win, but I'm not sure the women who want to maintain boundaries do.

Here in RI, about 3 years ago, it was determined that there was a loophole in the law that meant only streetcorner solicitation was considered illegal. Escorting, AMP's, and stripclubs were technically no longer considered to be doing anything illegal under the law. Supposedly, maintaining a brothel is against the law but no one has ever been prosecuted for it. When this loophole became public knowledge, business in the clubs tailed off and the number of escorts adverising in the local adult classifieds tripled. Clubs began offering specials but business kept ( and keeps on ) declining. However a case could also be made that the decline in business is due to economic factors. In any event a lot of the clubs around here are in trouble, probably due to both factors. The net effect has been more extras in the club, but from an ever-decreasing quality of dancer.

It is also the general consensus around here that had ES been doing what he did in RI, he'd probably still be governor.

JoeUnCool
03-20-2008, 09:29 AM
Here in RI, about 3 years ago, it was determined that there was a loophole in the law that meant only streetcorner solicitation was considered illegal. Escorting, AMP's, and stripclubs were technically no longer considered to be doing anything illegal under the law. Supposedly, maintaining a brothel is against the law but no one has ever been prosecuted for it. When this loophole became public knowledge, business in the clubs tailed off and the number of escorts adverising in the local adult classifieds tripled. Clubs began offering specials but business kept ( and keeps on ) declining. However a case could also be made that the decline in business is due to economic factors. In any event a lot of the clubs around here are in trouble, probably due to both factors. The net effect has been more extras in the club, but from an ever-decreasing quality of dancer.

It is also the general consensus around here that had ES been doing what he did in RI, he'd probably still be governor.

** Makes mental note not to go to a SC or look at anything adult in RI. **

Joe

yoda57us
03-20-2008, 09:53 AM
Here in RI, about 3 years ago, it was determined that there was a loophole in the law that meant only streetcorner solicitation was considered illegal. Escorting, AMP's, and stripclubs were technically no longer considered to be doing anything illegal under the law.

All true and this puzzles me to no end...

When this news broke I would have thought that the high end indie touring girls and bigger agencies would all put RI on their touring list. It hasn't happened. Boston agencies try putting girls in RI and wind up pulling them out after a day or two because they are not making any money. Touring girls and even New England area indies don't go there. Yes, there are a ton of girls, including some local strippers, advertising on Craig List but that is pretty much the low priced spread. The act is legal but, just like the strip club customers, everyone seems to want stuff on the cheap.
The fact that the high earners would rather hit Boston and Hartford where it is illegal than Providence where it is not also drives home the fact that the smart girls who know how to operate discretely don't really worry too much about getting busted.


It is also the general consensus around here that had ES been doing what he did in RI, he'd probably still be governor.

Somehow I doubt this but even if it was the case , I would say that would be more of an indictment on the people of Rhode Island than a vindication for Spitzer...

Of course, we are talking about a state who's capitol city re-elected a convicted felon as mayor...

Smokeless
03-20-2008, 09:57 AM
It is also the general consensus around here that had ES been doing what he did in RI, he'd probably still be governor.

Can't see why that would be the case unless he had gone to an anonymous independent provider. What led to his demise was the apparent money laundering, together with the puritanical public outcry. He's not been charged with a crime yet, to my knowledge. May never be.

yoda57us
03-20-2008, 10:27 AM
Well prostitution is legal up here, technically it was decriminalized, although they are still de facto regulating it through the criminal law (i.e. there are still criminal laws regarding brothels, communication in public, procuring and pimping). We still have strip clubs. We still have high mileage as well. Whenever guys chat about how expensive we are compared to prostitutes, I point out very reasonably that we are not trying to be cheaper substitutes for prostitutes. They do what they do; we do what we do. You and your buddies can't go for a few beers in a massage parlour. Moreover - I think it is... ridiculous to suggest that a justification for a criminal law is to artificially keep prices high in the strip club industry.

So you are saying that Strip Club life goes on pretty much as it did before? This is pretty much what I think would happen in the US. Many of my dancer favs use those same words when guys complain that they can get an escort for less than what an hour in VIP costs. It's not about being cheaper, it's not the same type of service. The bottom line is they can watch porn on their computers for even less if all they want to do is get off.


... around hereabout the "normal rate" seems to be about $200-$250 an hour, with the "elite" girls going up to $400 or $500 with a few hours minimum. Street workers are, of course, less expensive - what does that say to you in comparison to american prices?)

$250 to $300 an hour around Boston with the vast majority at $300. Most guys expect "GFE" at that price part of which means unprotected oral sex.
Many guys talk about the prices being lower in Canada and travel north to take advantage of this. There are some ladies who operate in the $400 range and porn stars who get much more than that. Street walkers and Craig's list bottom feeders are of course much cheaper.

Most of the cities I travel to are comparable to Boston in price but all are not as escort friendly. Despite the events of last week the vice squads in major cities concentrate on street walkers and low hanging fruit from Craig's list. The discreet agencies and indies seldom get hassled. There simply isn't enough man power to go after them.

Jenny
03-20-2008, 10:50 AM
So you are saying that Strip Club life goes on pretty much as it did before?
I don't know, actually. Prostitution was legal in Canada long before I was working as a stripper. I do know that there were no contact table dance club while there was legal prostitution. Of course that was before Craigslist.


This is pretty much what I think would happen in the US. Many of my dancer favs use those same words when guys complain that they can get an escort for less than what an hour in VIP costs. It's not about being cheaper, it's not the same type of service. The bottom line is they can watch porn on their computers for even less if all they want to do is get off.
Indeed, masturbation is extremely cost effective. I don't know why we're all not on board with the illegality of sex toys. "Plastic vaginas are cutting into our business!" Ultimately I'm not concerned about it, but even if it is true there are appropriate regulatory venues for protecting industry and I just don't think the criminal law is it. I'm very Canadian that way. Goddam margarine.


$250 to $300 an hour around Boston with the vast majority at $300. Most guys expect "GFE" at that price part of which means unprotected oral sex.
Many guys talk about the prices being lower in Canada and travel north to take advantage of this. There are some ladies who operate in the $400 range and porn stars who get much more than that. Street walkers and Craig's list bottom feeders are of course much cheaper.
So. It seems like it is what? About a $50 difference, if I'm right? As well, ultimately, there are other, in my opinion, better ways than criminal illegality to keep a business from tanking from over-saturation.

xdamage
03-20-2008, 10:58 AM
,... Moreover - I think it is... ridiculous to suggest that a justification for a criminal law is to artificially keep prices high in the strip club industry.

I must have missed who suggested that. People are simply making objective observations about potential consequence and side-effects, nothing more or less, not approval or disapproval. Although I could see why a sex worker might have interests in keeping the current laws as they are because of the impact on business, but for customers lower prices are a win.



Here in RI, about 3 years ago, it was determined that there was a loophole in the law that meant only streetcorner solicitation was considered illegal.


In the Netherlands prostitution is no loophole or double-talk looking the other way.

When you walk through the Redlight district, the POLICE have pamphlets for the public noting what they expect of visitors with regards to behaviors like public intoxication/smoking, and one point they make is (as best as I remember, this is roughly the quoted text) "We know what you are here for, we have heard it all, so don't be afraid to ask us where to find what you want. Also keep in mind not all of the ladies are ladies. Ask first."

You don't have to drive to Bumfuck to find a brothel, like you do in Las Vegas. In fact the Red Light district is a kind of outdoor Strip Club, with no entry fee, and no CR hustle. You can walk around and Window shop for your interest with no pressure to buy from a club owner or brothel owner. And the women working the district are mostly very young, many 9-10s, perfect bodies and faces, having arrived from all over the world to work.

"Suck and fuck" is around 50 Euros, or about $75 at the current exchange rate, or could negotiate a longer period of time, or if you are not into sex, negotiate talk and touch. Figure about 15 minutes though is what you are expected to finish in, so the price is comparable to an hourly rate around here if you want/need longer, but you don't need to buy an hour minimum. Many customers just buy the 15 minute quicky.

Plus there are many brothels and they are staffed by young hotties - the imagery of brothels staffed by less attractive women - forget it, it's mainstream here and the hottest girls work as prostitutes.

So what is the motivation for a guy to go to a SC in an environment like that?

Basically there isn't much of one, hence the SCs died off.

Flick6
03-20-2008, 03:03 PM
I've been reading this thread and not contributing, but I have finally been pushed over the edge... I don't eat it myself but what have Canadians got against margarine that they were going to criminalise it??? Sorry so off the topic, I was going to PM you Jenny but I didn't want you to think I'm a wierdo. Private messages pertaining to margarine and all.

hockeybobby
03-20-2008, 03:14 PM
I've been reading this thread and not contributing, but I have finally been pushed over the edge... I don't eat it myself but what have Canadians got against margarine that they were going to criminalise it??? Sorry so off the topic, I was going to PM you Jenny but I didn't want you to think I'm a wierdo. Private messages pertaining to margarine and all.

Flick: I believe Jenny was discussing the jurisdictional differences in Criminal/Regulatory law...but here is the story on margarine jurisprudence in Canada: Colour me Yellow (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/food/margarine.html)

Correct me if I'm wrong Jenny.

Jenny
03-20-2008, 03:32 PM
Well, Flick - it's disgusting. No, I'm kidding. Parliament used the criminal law to outlaw margarine to create a strong and vibrant dairy industry because in Canada only the provinces can regulate businesses. It was essentially a run around the constitution. (where it says "until 1948"). The recent coloured margarine argument was less about constitutional jurisdiction and more about trade regulations and agreements.

Golden_Rule
03-20-2008, 04:04 PM
Apparently the gov of NY thought she was worth it but I dunno. Miss D is better looking and now I feel like a cheap ass because I can only pay hundreds instead of thousands.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080313/ap_on_re_us/spitzer_call_girl

Would you guys P4P for this lady at that rate? Seems to me the NY governor gave the finger to the POP index.

FBR

I hear ya.

I come at this, personally, from a different angle though. I place the value of a commercial sexual encounter not on what I can afford, put against the cost of other things in the real world that are of entertainment/personal pleasure variety.

So, for example, a vacation is worth more to me than a commercial sexual encounter. So I'd spend more for a vacation as it has a higher value.

A very good meal is getting close to where I would place a commercial sexual encounter. Though I'd probably enjoy the latter a bit more. So I'd pay more for the sex than I would for a great meal.

Works out that the max I am willing to pay comes to about $300/hr.

I can afford more, but on my value scale it wouldn't be worth it to me. At that point I'd rather be using my money for something else I'd enjoy more.

Flick6
03-20-2008, 04:17 PM
Lol thanks!!! I just thought it was one of those wonderfully cute Canadian idiosyncrasies, something related to Maple Syrup perhaps. just boring old economics... sorry to get off topic! back to the prostitutes...

lestat1
03-20-2008, 06:21 PM
Heh, I chuckled at this thought: a brothel in Silicon Valley, CA. It's headquarters for horny single nerds with money to burn. What a goldmine. I don't think we'll see the US changing its views in our lifetimes either though.

xdamage
03-21-2008, 02:49 AM
So here is a hypothetical question -

Let's suppose prostitution was entirely decriminalized in the USA, allowed at the good old age of consent, say age 18. The only requirement is that sex workers must pay taxes on all income. Pretty simple so far, and very liberal.

So any places people might legally have sex now, they could legally have sex for an exchange of money. Private property - fine. Rented rooms and spaces likes motels - fine.

Many people have talked like Strip clubs and Brothels are somehow different places, which they are in some legalized settings, but in the new decriminalized world, for what purpose is a difference needed?

Let's suppose that the only requirement is that Brothels or SCs need to provide places of privacy, booths or rooms, really no different then when a couple of people rent a small motel room for an hour.

The sex-workers remain "independent contractors". The complaint that Extra Girls risk bringing LE down on everyone's head goes away. Let the individual contractors then decide their own limits just like today. Let the workers who are willing to do more compete for customer dollars right along side those who won't, because no laws are being broken.

So is everyone happy with this arrangement, and if so, why not?

p.s. Many argue that SCs are already brothels in disguise now, this just lifts the veil and makes what is already happening legal. So are strippers who dislike Extra Girls now happy? Or does their dislike run deeper then the legal reasoning? Are strippers comfortable working right along side sex workers who provide more when no laws are being broken?

A related hypothetical question - a club owners in the above scenerio is looking to fill a position for the day time. Two women apply for the job. Both about the same weight, age, same level of subjective attractiveness, and both have the same experience. However Woman A performs full service, while Woman B will not perform any of HJ, BJ, or FS. From the club owners point of view, he is better off hiring Woman A because she can do all the things Woman B can do, plus more for customers who want more. Is everyone okay then that Woman A gets the job, and Woman B does not?

Jenny
03-21-2008, 03:24 AM
Many people have talked like Strip clubs and Brothels are somehow different places, which they are in some legalized settings, but in the new decriminalized world, for what purpose is a difference needed?
Liquor licensing.

I know. I'm a pain. All this law. All these facts just ruining your hypothetical questions about what people like.

JoeUnCool
03-21-2008, 06:09 AM
Had ya' for a minute there huh....Warning unless you really want to be a monger or a perve these are both pretty much a waste of time for you...


Oh my gosh. I looked at those urls. That is sooooo gross. Its almost as bad as the "downward spiral" on rotten.com.

I guess I am just naive to believe that women and men should not get together like that. Honestly, who in their right mind would do such a thing?!? Now, I know that crazy people are everywhere and there are plenty of dirty people in the world, so I shouldn't be surprised. Heck, I am a big believe in capitalism, but the depths that this sinks to are so.......ugh. Yes, and I was the one that said that some forms of prostitution should be decriminalized. I may be changing my mind. Of course, I will always believe that what people do in private is their own business and shouldn't be judged as long as it doesn't effect others. I guess the problem is how to define the effects.

Perhaps I am arguing that I am astro-turf (http://larrymillerhumor.com/media/index.php)...... (that's a joke based on content in the link)

Joe

xdamage
03-21-2008, 07:20 AM
Liquor licensing.

I know. I'm a pain. All this law. All these facts just ruining your hypothetical questions about what people like.

Currently many all nude clubs in the USA are not permitted liquor licenses, no matter that the contact level could be lower then partial nude clubs.

But the law about no liquor in all nude strip clubs is archaic, and in a society that has just decriminalized sex, I'd bet easy enough to change that one too.

People create laws. People can change laws. In a society that suddenly accepts decriminalization of sex, my guess is that is the easiest of changes to make.

So the hypothetical question stands.

Your point is noted, but I would guess it is a very minor issue that would be changed soon.

bem401
03-21-2008, 07:30 AM
Of course, we are talking about a state who's capitol city re-elected a convicted felon as mayor...

And probably would re-elect him again if he could/would run. And I'm not sure his crime in the 80's was a felony. Most people can empathize with a guy who assaulted the person with whom his wife was having an affair. Not saying it was right, just saying it was understandable. His latest conviction and subsequent 5 years in federal prison are still puzzling to a lot of people. he was convicted of conspiracy but acquitted of all the underlying charges.

bem401
03-21-2008, 07:33 AM
Can't see why that would be the case unless he had gone to an anonymous independent provider. What led to his demise was the apparent money laundering, together with the puritanical public outcry. He's not been charged with a crime yet, to my knowledge. May never be.

My point was he wouldn't have had to do the laundering in the first place if the activity he was involved in was legal.

Golden_Rule
03-21-2008, 08:19 AM
I don't think we'll see the US changing its views in our lifetimes either though.

You won't see it change in the U.S. for two reason.

1) Where we got our start. Our forefathers were, basically, a group of individuals who left where they lived to come here because no one wanted to associate with them where they originally lived. Too hung up and always killed a party when ever they showed up.

Seriously.

2) Where we are now. Too many people make money off the fact that prostitution is illegal. They'd stop getting that money if it was legalized. Many of them are law makers. A small handful get it via corruption and graft. The majority of them get it in the form of donations [its still a kind of graft] from groups that support the ideas mentioned in #1 above. Either way, if they support the changing of these laws the money stops.

Since there are no groups with cash to support the legalization of prostitution to replace those lost to the politicians for keeping it illegal, illegal is how it will stay. No matter how much sense it makes to change the laws.

yoda57us
03-21-2008, 08:38 AM
And probably would re-elect him again if he could/would run. And I'm not sure his crime in the 80's was a felony. Most people can empathize with a guy who assaulted the person with whom his wife was having an affair. Not saying it was right, just saying it was understandable. His latest conviction and subsequent 5 years in federal prison are still puzzling to a lot of people. he was convicted of conspiracy but acquitted of all the underlying charges.

You're right BEM, the first conviction was not federal. I know he resigned but I don't think he even served any time for it. It was stupid though. It's one thing to punch a guy in the mouth if you catch him in bed with your wife, quite another to assault him "after the fact" (if it actually even happened) with among other things, a lit cigarette...
Most S&M chicks charge extra for that sort of thing but Uncle Buddy did it for free!

Still, I agree, if he ran tomorrow he would get re-elected

mr_punk
03-21-2008, 04:53 PM
So is everyone happy with this arrangement, and if so, why not?happy? LOL..probably not, they'll devise new ways to create drama. you'll have BBBJTCNQNS girls arguing with BBBJTCNQBS girls over the carbon footprint of their cocktail napkin use.

doc-catfish
03-21-2008, 05:23 PM
Many people have talked like Strip clubs and Brothels are somehow different places, which they are in some legalized settings, but in the new decriminalized world, for what purpose is a difference needed?

1. Strip clubs would still exist as a matter of spending scale. Not everyone can afford $200+ on a night of adult entertainment, which is what any respectable escort is going to run you, but can perhaps drop $60 for some drinks and lap dances. I suppose in this new environment there would be plenty of destitute types offering $60 sex, but I don't think the kind of guy who would want sex for that cheap would be a good SC spender in any environment.

2. Strip clubs would still exist as a matter of safety. Some may conclude a big reason for the strip club boom in the late 80's/early 90's was the AIDS scare. There are people out there, oddly enough, for whom the potential downsides of paying a woman for sex still outweighs any latent curiosity they have about doing it. Legalization doesn't stop STD's or potential outrage from the wife, or public scorn from peers should their activities be found out. (Of course, many wives aren't comfy with their husbands visiting SC's as it is).

3. Strip clubs would still exist as a matter of providing a venue for a guys night out. You can take your buddies to a strip club and enjoy the experience as a group. A trip to the brothel? Not so much, unless you all intend to partake, and even then, you're still largely dealing with the providers on a 1-to-1 basis.

4. Strip clubs would still exist as a means of previewing the goods before one buys and allows them to do screening on the cheap. Yes, brothels as we know them do this, but you still gotta lay down a big chunk of change to play ball. Its a lot less painful to lose $20 on a bad lap dance than a far greater sum on a bad experience with a working girl. Who knows, perhaps the brothels would have mock SC's in their lounges where you could buy "lite" services like lap dances.

miabella
03-21-2008, 06:06 PM
some of the aussie girls mentioned that kind of deal in their SCs-- one of them was a stripclub on one floor and a brothel on the other floor. it seemed to work out decently enough for both kinds of sellers.

yoda57us
03-21-2008, 06:40 PM
A related hypothetical question - a club owners in the above scenerio is looking to fill a position for the day time. Two women apply for the job. Both about the same weight, age, same level of subjective attractiveness, and both have the same experience. However Woman A performs full service, while Woman B will not perform any of HJ, BJ, or FS. From the club owners point of view, he is better off hiring Woman A because she can do all the things Woman B can do, plus more for customers who want more. Is everyone okay then that Woman A gets the job, and Woman B does not?

Come on X, try and spend just a few minutes living in reality. First of all they are, according to you, independent contractors. He isn't going to 'hire" either one of them. What he IS going to do is allow both of them to come in and do whatever it is they do in exchange for paying him a house fee.

xdamage
03-21-2008, 07:35 PM
Come on X, try and spend just a few minutes living in reality. First of all they are, according to you, independent contractors. He isn't going to 'hire" either one of them. What he IS going to do is allow both of them to come in and do whatever it is they do in exchange for paying him a house fee.

Wow, just wow. I guess brain freeze is setting in.

Yoda, you need to start reading SW apparently. If you would do so, you would see that in fact the dancers almost invariably must interview for the available positions. Yes they are "independent contractors", which is not according to me, but according to the dancers on this web site, that is how they view themselves, but that s entirely independent of the fact that SC owners pick and choose which ICs they allow to work on their property. You can choose a different word then "hire" if you prefer, but the word is well understood by most. You do understand that even as an independent contractor, it is the club owner who owns the property, who maintains, it and gets to choose which independent contractors he allows to work with and on the club's property, right?

In addition it has been discussed here 10 billion times that SC owners should limit hiring so that there aren't too many dancers splitting the pie. So the notion that he picks one, not two, or every girl that applies should not be difficult to grasp, yet to you overlook the question, and say he hires both.

You seem to have completely overlooked the significance of the question though.

xdamage
03-21-2008, 07:38 PM
1. Strip clubs would still exist as a matter of spending scale. ...

Right, but forget about legalization for a minute, and think decriminalization. In other words, you don't need to work in a brothel to sell sex. Anyone can sell sex in any venue where they might have sex that is legal, or engage in sexual activities where it is legal. From the point of view of the new law, sex for money or sex not for money would be entirely equal except that for money requires taxes be paid, but no other differences.

So those extra girls in clubs now who are doing things that are illegal, well, assume it's not longer illegal. Perhaps at most it requires it be done in a rented booth, or private room in the club, but that is all; no different then renting a motel room, two adults in a private room can have sex in a SC for an exchange of money just like they can have simulated sex and partially clothed sex now in SCs for money.

Same exact things that are already happening today in SCs, but no longer any worry of Vice coming in and busting the strippers or customers.

And just like today, it is not necessary for you to buy sex if that is not what you want. The only difference is, the extras girls would be able to provide those extra, if you do want them, without fear of arrest.


In that light, does it change your answer any?

yoda57us
03-21-2008, 08:04 PM
You seem to have completely overlooked the significance of the question though.

X, I don't need to read anything other than your post in order to respond to it. I answered the question.

xdamage
03-21-2008, 08:18 PM
X, I don't need to read anything other than your post in order to respond to it. I answered the question.

Well great.

Then the next time a woman on the site does not get "hired" as an independent contractor, we can direct them to your post and tell them they are not living in reality.

We will tell them, per Yoda, in reality, the SC owners always hire all women who apply "to do whatever it is they do in exchange for paying him a house fee."

bem401
03-22-2008, 09:09 AM
You're right BEM, the first conviction was not federal. I know he resigned but I don't think he even served any time for it. It was stupid though. It's one thing to punch a guy in the mouth if you catch him in bed with your wife, quite another to assault him "after the fact" (if it actually even happened) with among other things, a lit cigarette...
Most S&M chicks charge extra for that sort of thing but Uncle Buddy did it for free!

Still, I agree, if he ran tomorrow he would get re-elected

No, he never served time for that first incident. He promptly got a radio show and ran the next time around. He got out of jail 6 or 8 months ago and he is back on the radio, bigger than ever. He bashes his successor every day of the week so who knows where this will lead him. BTW, his successor is the openly gay son of the one-time top mob lawyer in the state. Anyone who wants to explore what a warped place this is to live should take a look at "The Prince of Providence" by Mike Stanton. It would help put in perspective the things Yodas and I have mentioned. Or wait for the movie.... ( starring that guy from "Sideways" so I hear )

yoda57us
03-22-2008, 09:40 AM
Well great.

Then the next time a woman on the site does not get "hired" as an independent contractor, we can direct them to your post and tell them they are not living in reality.

We will tell them, per Yoda, in reality, the SC owners always hire all women who apply "to do whatever it is they do in exchange for paying him a house fee."

X, you can tell anybody whatever you want, I could care less. You are the one that posted that all dancers in your new world order would be independent contractors. I responded to your hypothetical with a reality based opinion. My opinion is based on:
A: What I see going on in clubs right now and
B: The fact that in MY hypothetical I don't see things changing all that much...at least not in my lifetime and my lifetime.

By the way, if you can't get past what the ladies in pink have to say on any given topic your problem not mine. I don't factor in what is said up in pink every time I respond to a post in blue. I don't honestly think the ladies care much for what you or I would tell them about who is gonna get "hired" and who isn't. We aren't dancers and we aren't club owners.

Listen, I've been to live sex shows. BORING! I don't see it taking the place of sitting at a table, flirting with a beautiful woman for an hour or two and then buying dances from her. There is a huge difference between sensuality and sex. Sure I see escorts but I don't go to brothels or AMPs.
I go to clubs to spend time with women in a relaxing and sensual manner. I don't go for a quick boink which, in my estimation, is what your strip club/brothels would be.
I just don't happen to believe that decriminalization of prostitution in the US is gonna turn us into the Netherlands in the near future if ever. You obviously like the model over there and thats fine for you. I don't care for it and thats fine for me.

Of course it's your hypothetical you can spin it any way you like. I just don't see it going the way you would like us to all think it will.

Katrine
03-22-2008, 01:35 PM
We will tell them, per Yoda, in reality, the SC owners always hire all women who apply "to do whatever it is they do in exchange for paying him a house fee."

Your last 3 posts have been arguing semantics rather than the point. Some clubs pay dancers as I.C. when they should be paying them as employees due to the requirements of the job. Using the word "hire" or "contractualize" doesn't matter, as so many clubs operate in a grey area anyway.

The owner or manager will hire a girl based on a number of factors, in this order:
1. How attractive he thinks she is
2. How hot he thinks she is
3. How sexy he thinks she is
4. How few customers her ugly ass will run out in exchange for her tips and housefees
5. Everything else.

Really, that's it.

Howie
03-26-2008, 07:16 PM
For those who believe in conspiracies, I found this on the web.

http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/03/23/the-assassination-of-eliot-spitzer/

Golden_Rule
03-27-2008, 10:57 PM
happy? LOL..probably not, they'll devise new ways to create drama. you'll have BBBJTCNQNS girls arguing with BBBJTCNQBS girls over the carbon footprint of their cocktail napkin use.

THAT was funny. :)

[probably true too]

xdamage
03-28-2008, 01:09 AM
The owner or manager will hire a girl based on a number of factors, in this order:

Actually the point of the question was truly missed, which is unfortunate, but I guess not unpredictable.

The point of the question was much simpler, and comes down to this...

Here is the setup - In a hypothetical "decriminalized" (not to be confused with "legalized") world where all manor of sexual activity legally is allowed in an SC scene between consenting adults....

Here is the question - All other things being equal (I was very clear in my original question about this), does a girl who will do more sexual things have a hiring advantage?

That was it. The question wasn't that complicated.

It was derailed completely by Yoda's argument that the SC owner will hire both and collect house fees, and has remained de-railed since by an irrelevant point that which was probably rooted in appealing to the common dancer argument that SC owners are slime for making money off dancers.. etc... a very beaten dead horse, that I don't care to re-beat.

xdamage
03-28-2008, 01:28 AM
B: The fact that in MY hypothetical I don't see things changing all that much...at least not in my lifetime and my lifetime.


Things in the SC have changed dramatically since when I was in my early 20s. Approximately 25 years later what was once a job few women would agree to do, has become many orders of magnitude more common. What was once a view only activity has become very high contact, and in many clubs, thin cover for a brothel. The amount of money guys spend on a GFE has increased dramatically.

25 years ago it is probable that there were people who couldn't imagine things changing so much in their life time. Those people would now be wrong. 25 years from now, you may well be surprised yourself. If I was gambling, I'd gamble on the side of be surprised.

I didn't pose the question on the premise that you could conceive of things changing so much in "your life time". I posed it as a way of learning something about how people really would feel about decriminalization (not to be confused with legalization) which some, including yourself, argued in favor of.

The reason scientists (yes, including social scientists) ask "what-if" questions in science to learn things. They are not always easy questions to answer.

One telling point though is that when a question raises strong emotions and avoidance of the question, in a sense the question is answered. In this case, the answer could be interpreted as yes, some people really aren't happy with the possibility that decriminalization of sex for money could have further negative consequences for strippers who won't do as much.

And really that shouldn't be a surprise to you since it is precisely what many dancers complain about now. Many have complained that extras girls and high contact dancers have ruined the business for "clean" dancers.

As hard as it is to conceive (although I don't know why it should be), it is possible that the decriminalization that you are in favor of would in fact make it harder still. Your argument is you don't believe it will happen is fine, but it could, and the changes in the last 25 years alone suggest to me that changes in sex-worker/customer expectations can change much faster then you might wish to believe. In fact, stir in some recession, so money is harder to come by, and I would gamble you are very wrong, decriminalization would dramatically change the business.

bem401
03-28-2008, 05:45 AM
Here is the question - All other things being equal (I was very clear in my original question about this), does a girl who will do more sexual things have a hiring advantage?

That was it. The question wasn't that complicated. .

A couple of points ( albeit from a guy who lives in Extras-ville ) .

I think Yoda makes a valid point when he says the club doesn't care. It seems sometimes they are willing to hiring any woman with a pulse, no compunctions about getting naked, and the house fee. They figure each guy is going to spend $X once they enter the club as long as their are enough girls there to provide the service.

That being said how would the clubowners ( or maybe even the girl ) know what she will or will not eventually be willing to do at the interview or point of hire. I'm sure they make a point of coming across strict initially about extras and then conveniently ignore whatever they can ignore. It's called plausible deniability and covers the club's ass somewhat.

xdamage
03-28-2008, 06:36 AM
A couple of points ( albeit from a guy who lives in Extras-ville ) .

I think Yoda makes a valid point when he says the club doesn't care. It seems sometimes they are willing to hiring any woman with a pulse, no compunctions about getting naked, and the house fee. They figure each guy is going to spend $X once they enter the club as long as their are enough girls there to provide the service.


That's why the question started with "a club owner looking to hire 1 girl to fill an opening." to separate out an utter distraction from the key question.

I don't know why that part is difficult given the vast number of strippers who have posted here that they have to interview for positions, and not all of them are hired. It's not really important anyway, but this notion that clubs sign up any girl with a pulse and house fees is just doesn't jive with reality.



That being said how would the clubowners ( or maybe even the girl ) know what she will or will not eventually be willing to do at the interview or point of hire. I'm sure they make a point of coming across strict initially about extras and then conveniently ignore whatever they can ignore. It's called plausible deniability and covers the club's ass somewhat.


I guess you also missed the question then. Let me recap.

1) A few people argued in favor of decriminalizing prostitution.

2) They argued there would be no side effects. I'm arguing there would be side effects.

3) There is a difference between decriminalization and legalization. You can look it up if it's not clear which is which. I am assuming everyone knows the difference between decriminalization versus legalization, because if not, then few of us are discussing the same topic.

4) The question was about "what if prostitution was decriminalized.", not legalized, and not illegal like it is today.


Now you mentioned "plausible deniability".

In a decriminalized world, asking a sex worker if they perform sex for pay is likely akin to asking a plumber if he plumbs. What is there to deny about? The thing is a strip club owner might already ask of a stripper questions like:

o Do you strip?

o Demonstrate your pole work.

o Do you lap dance?

o Demonstrate your lap dance.

These are legal things a stripper may perform in a SC, and must minimally be willing and able to to as they are relevant to the job. It's a fairly tiny and minor slope then in a decriminalized world for an SC owner to ask if they engage in other, completely legal, sex work. Or alternatively, it is easy enough for the dancers themselves to mention it as extra skills that may be relevant to the job, since we are talking about activities that are legal. So it's not much a stretch to see it factoring into an SC owners variables when choosing.

Lunarobverse
03-28-2008, 07:25 AM
If I may, xdamage, I think what you were trying to do was to lead the discussion in a specific direction. You had thought about it, had come to a conclusion (that decriminalizing prostitution would negatively impact strippers), and then tried to outline the thought process that led you to your conclusion through hypothetical questions.

I don't think the discussion was "derailed" as much as it just wandered because others didn't agree with you and seemed uninterested in reaching your conclusion. No offense meant, just calling it as I see it.

You may find discussion on the interwebz less frustrating if you just state your conclusions up front and not try to guide others. It shouldn't surprise you that other folks don't think like you and many folks resist being led, especially on the 'net.

xdamage
03-28-2008, 07:55 AM
If I may, xdamage, I think what you were trying to do was to lead the discussion in a specific direction. You had thought about it, had come to a conclusion (that decriminalizing prostitution would negatively impact strippers), and then tried to outline the thought process that led you to your conclusion through hypothetical questions.

I don't think the discussion was "derailed" as much as it just wandered because others didn't agree with you and seemed uninterested in reaching your conclusion. No offense meant, just calling it as I see it.

You may find discussion on the interwebz less frustrating if you just state your conclusions up front and not try to guide others. It shouldn't surprise you that other folks don't think like you and many folks resist being led, especially on the 'net.

Agreed, and it wasn't unexpected, but my goal is not the same as yours.

For example, it wasn't that long ago on this site (a few years) that I argued that the de-stigmatization of stripping would result in more dancers entering the market, the pie being cut much thinner among them, lowered prices. I asked some similar leading questions, and received similar avoidance by some (including some significant deconstructive efforts to avoid the hard question and conclusion).

But more recently we saw a significant number of dancers who today argue the very same point I made back then. I chuckled a bit reading posts from dancers here who argued that point many years back, but now ackowledge it like it is their own idea.

Now I could have said to myself all viewpoints are equal, or I could have stuck to my guns (which I did) and looked the issue head on, even if the conclusion was not a positive one for strippers.

To me this issue is entirely equivalent. The logical conclusion is not pleasant for strippers, and so human nature is to avoid facing it as a very real possibility.

The primary purpose for me is not just to come to agreement the majority or dancers or even necessarily to be liked. In this case I'm quite sure that the impact of decriminalization (not legalization) would dramatically hurt strippers. That is not a pleasant thought for some, I understand, but so far I'm not hearing good arguments against that. What I am hearing is derailing comments that avoid that painful possibility.

By the way, had you read back further, even the J indirectly acknowledged that decriminalization very well could harm strippers (you've indicated some tendency to agree with her in the past, so it might be of interest to you).

Lunarobverse
03-28-2008, 08:20 AM
The primary purpose for me is not just to come to agreement the majority or dancers or even necessarily to be liked. In this case I'm quite sure that the impact of decriminalization (not legalization) would dramatically hurt strippers. That is not a pleasant thought for some, I understand, but so far I'm not hearing good arguments against that. What I am hearing is derailing comments that avoid that painful possibility.

So the counter-examples of strip clubs existing side-by-each with brothels in Australia or Amsterdam or Vegas aren't "good arguments"? You've dismissed those examples for what seem to me to be frivolous reasons just to hold on to your argument.

Just because some dancers agree with you doesn't lend any more or less weight to your argument. I believe my point in my last post was "different people think differently" - that includes the idea that some may agree with you and some may not. You've got your reasons to believe what you do, and if people don't pay attention, that's not "derailing", it's just a matter of interest and time and personal feelings.

You've a right to your opinion but accusing everyone else of "derailing" your argument when it's clear they just don't agree or don't care strikes me as stubborn.

mr_punk
03-28-2008, 01:13 PM
For those who believe in conspiracies, I found this on the web. LOL..well, there's one item which isn't so far-fetched. depending on which side of the aisle you talk to, Roger Stone has a long history of being a hatchet man or party saint. in any event, his involvement in the ES story hardly requires a stretch of the imagination.

yoda57us
03-28-2008, 09:43 PM
Actually the point of the question was truly missed, which is unfortunate, but I guess not unpredictable.

The point of the question was much simpler, and comes down to this...

Here is the setup - In a hypothetical "decriminalized" (not to be confused with "legalized") world where all manor of sexual activity legally is allowed in an SC scene between consenting adults....

Here is the question - All other things being equal (I was very clear in my original question about this), does a girl who will do more sexual things have a hiring advantage?

That was it. The question wasn't that complicated.

It was derailed completely by Yoda's argument that the SC owner will hire both and collect house fees, and has remained de-railed since by an irrelevant point that which was probably rooted in appealing to the common dancer argument that SC owners are slime for making money off dancers.. etc... a very beaten dead horse, that I don't care to re-beat.

X, I was not confused, I didn't miss the point. In fact, I waded through your hypothetical and new exactly where you were going with it. I simply chose not to help you get there. Please stop confusing disagreement with confusion.

As far as putting words in my mouth you are not very good at that either. I don't think you will find any post from me anywhere calling strip club owners slime or claiming that they should not be allowed to make money or charge house fees.

Golden_Rule
03-31-2008, 04:58 PM
Things in the SC have changed dramatically since when I was in my early 20s. .... delated to save bandwidth.....

As hard as it is to conceive (although I don't know why it should be), it is possible that the decriminalization that you are in favor of would in fact make it harder still. Your argument is you don't believe it will happen is fine, but it could, and the changes in the last 25 years alone suggest to me that changes in sex-worker/customer expectations can change much faster then you might wish to believe. In fact, stir in some recession, so money is harder to come by, and I would gamble you are very wrong, decriminalization would dramatically change the business.

A very well thought out and well presented argument.

I wish more folks around here would speak from the head and not the heart. Might make it a bit easier go for folks like me and far less heated.

More light, less heat. :)

I agree that the S-C scene has changed immensely in the last 25 years. So much so that it looks nothing today like it did in 1983. Nothing at all.

I don't agree with you entirely though, as I think [though I could be wrong] that you have failed to allow for the possibility of snap-back.

All social experiments have the possibility of causing progressive outcomes or a backlash that causes snap-back. A leaning toward decriminalization may just be the match to the fuse that causes society to force S-Cs back to a time when all dancing was "clean", if not eradicate S-Cs altogether. Much as most decriminalized brothels were done away with in the western provinces and territories of the U.S. and Canada upon "civilized" folk creating cities and towns where once were outposts and boom towns. [British Columbia being an exception, perhaps... though I'd need someone more familar with BC to clear that up for me to be sure.]

Just a thought.

Golden_Rule
03-31-2008, 05:06 PM
A couple of points ( albeit from a guy who lives in Extras-ville ) .

I think Yoda makes a valid point when he says the club doesn't care. It seems sometimes they are willing to hiring any woman with a pulse, no compunctions about getting naked, and the house fee. They figure each guy is going to spend $X once they enter the club as long as their are enough girls there to provide the service.

I think many short-sighted club owners work that way. More dancers means more tip-ins and that means more money for the club.

The problem is that when dancers don't make money they leave and go work someplace else. Frequently the best dancers leave first. That lowers the quality of the club for the customers who then stop coming themselves. [perhaps in more ways than one]

So, its a pennywise/pound foolish management style.

You want to keep the amount of dancers at a point where there is enough women of various types to keep the guys happy but not so many that when you divide their number into the amount of available money on the floor at any given time you "maximum earning potential" reduced below an acceptable level for the best dancers in the house. [You can't do anything for the gals who don't know their trade very well]


That being said how would the club owners ( or maybe even the girl ) know what she will or will not eventually be willing to do at the interview or point of hire. I'm sure they make a point of coming across strict initially about extras and then conveniently ignore whatever they can ignore. It's called plausible tenability and covers the club's ass somewhat.

Some clubs, especially ones that don't serve alcohol, work that way. In bigger cities the ownership of a liquor licences is such a valuable commodity, literally worth 10s of thousands of dollars, and so difficult to get that no club owner is going to risk losing it. I mean, not without a payout on the other end that makes it SOOO profitable [and having extras available in your club doesn't make the long green necessary to match the long term profitablity of owning a liquor license] as to make it worth while.

Golden_Rule
03-31-2008, 05:16 PM
These are legal things a stripper may perform in a SC, and must minimally be willing and able to to as they are relevant to the job. It's a fairly tiny and minor slope then in a decriminalized world for an SC owner to ask if they engage in other, completely legal, sex work. Or alternatively, it is easy enough for the dancers themselves to mention it as extra skills that may be relevant to the job, since we are talking about activities that are legal. So it's not much a stretch to see it factoring into an SC owners variables when choosing.

There is a precedent already in effect that might make your point for you.

While it is not decriminalized the down-low/underground scene in NYC has "club" owners asking precisely that.

It tends to work like this:

Promoters running parties want to have the right amount of women working and with the right variables in play. That means adequate choices in types of women and types of services. So promoters will look for dancers of different body types, races, AND ask about services performed.

What you usually wind up with is a group of women who, in their own minds mind you as it is the dancers themselves setting their limits here, as they decrease in their perception of their beauty increase the level of their 'extras".

That doesn't mean you don't have some very pretty women offering extras, as some very attractive women have low senses of self-esteem. The reverse is true as well. Again, strictly as relating to the views of the dancers themselves.

Anyway, the point is that you have a system where precisely what you suggests takes place. Since extras are relevant to what goes on, because the underground is underground because it is illegal, the promoters/club operators, do pretty close to what you explain might occur. Select at least some of their dancers [though I would point out not ALL of them] based on what sex acts they will perform.