Log in

View Full Version : "I'm a stripper." Turn on or turn off?



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

aeternus
06-09-2009, 12:34 PM
When I meet someone for the very first time and I find out that the girl is a stripper, stripper is on and off. I would be like ECKKK and fascinated. Guys...mm...mm...ECKKK...facinated.

jack0177057
06-09-2009, 01:21 PM
They are to you because you're middle class.

I AM middle class: Houston TX attorney, $150k annual salary, home in an upscale suburb of Houston,TX, beach house, travel to Europe and/or South America about once a year to visit family and friends and often visit NYC (mom lives there), Charleston (dad lives there) and San Diego (college bud lives there).

But actually, your questions are silly because if you really understood the concept of "upper class", you would be asking better questions:

1. Where did you grow up? Where did you spend your summers growing up?
2. How many "summer homes" and "weekend retreats" did your family have and where?
3. What fortune 500 families did your family associate with?
6. How many debutante balls did you participate in? On which coast? In which country clubs?
7. What elementary school did you go to? What about prep school? Was this a boarding school or did you commute?
8. What rehab facilities have you stayed at? What is your favorite recreational drug?
9. What politicians does your family have in its pocket?
10. Do you have a trust? Who was the settlor? Who is the trustee?
11. Does your family have a family foundation? Who are the beneficiaries?
12. What U.S. university did you get your degree from? What foreign universities have you studied in?
13. Are there any dorms in your U.S. college named after your family? Are there any other building in that college named after your family? Are there any buildings or institutions ANYWHERE named after your family?
14. Have you ever dated a European aristocrat? From what country? What was her father's title of nobility? (I'm only asking this question because I did. She was the daughter of a Spanish Marquis.)
15. What is your current occupation and salary?
16. How many homes do you own and where?
17. What country clubs do you belong to? Who do you play golf with?
18. Do you fly in your private aircraft? What make and model and passenger capacity?
19. If you have your own businesses, how many people do you employ and in how many countries?
20. Do you have a Swiss bank account? Do you have a Lichtenstein foundation? In what other tax havens do you have bank accounts? (I promise not to thell the IRS.)
21. What hedge funds have you invested in?

How about you actually answer them - pick any seven. Tell all of us "middle class" people about your noble upbringing.

aeternus
06-09-2009, 01:26 PM
Class is in session.

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 03:46 PM
You make some interesting points, some I agree with, many of which I don't. The quoted one is just demonstrably wrong. Two of our last three Presidents (Clinton, Obama) have gone from the single-mom durn-near bottom of the ladder to the very top rung. In one lifetime.

Compare GHWBush, who went from the next-to-top rung to the top rung.

Paul Fussell addresses your point in Chapter Nine of his book as Class X -- The Class in which I dwell. I would submit that if you find my points interesting you will enjoy his book.

I think he would argue that The presidents you mention haven't moved up more than one rung in class. My interpretation of his book has lead me to that conclusion anyway.

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 04:01 PM
I AM middle class: Houston TX attorney, $150k annual salary, home in an upscale suburb of Houston,TX, beach house, travel to Europe and/or South America about once a year to visit family and friends and often visit NYC (mom lives there), Charleston (dad lives there) and San Diego (college bud lives there).

Jack, I don't care what you think I am. I'm not interested in divulging personal details. Which is why I'm bringing up a controversial subject on a basically anonymous forum. But thanks for confirming my suspicions about you. 8)

It's OK that we don't like each other Jack. Besides badgering the witness is unbecoming for a big city lawyer such as yourself. Like I told Everyman according to Paul, I'm Class X and if you read chapter nine it pretty much describes me to a T. LOL

Everyman
06-09-2009, 04:12 PM
Paul Fussell addresses your point in Chapter Nine of his book as Class X -- The Class in which I dwell. I would submit that if you find my points interesting you will enjoy his book.

I think he would argue that The presidents you mention haven't moved up more than one rung in class. My interpretation of his book has lead me to that conclusion anyway.

Arguing this point with you is like arguing religion with Bible nuts -- with no hard-and-fast verifiable definitions of "class" and "rungs" (just like no hard-and-fast verifiable definitions of "God" or "religion"), you're free to keep redefining the contours to meet whatever argument is raised, so the shape continues to fit your worldview.

Well good luck with that, but it's backwards from how empirical arguments really are built.

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 04:31 PM
And on topic - if anyone from any class view dancers as less than dating or marriageable material, so much the better! Less competition for those of us with less myopic views. ;)

In the abstract I agree with your sentiments. But they just don't hold up in reality. Ruby points out in her book [a framework for understanding poverty] that there are hidden rules amongst the classes which would hinder relationships between them. These are fundamental beliefs that aren't easily changed. Her book proclaims her as the leading US expert on this subject so I'll defer to her. 8)

So the 800lbs gorilla in that remains in room of dating a stripper is class.(He's actually in the room of all serious relationships.) If you have another reference, I'll be happy to read it.

Also I think there is some misunderstanding about how I feel about other classes. I don't look up to or down upon anyone. I just don't have anything in common with some classes. Which bars serious relationships.

That is the point I'm trying to make. If you don't have much in common with a stripper how are you going to have a relationship with her? At least your world views need to be the same and if you're from different classes they're gonna be vastly different. It may be a harsh fact, but there it is, all 800lbs of it. :)

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 04:39 PM
Arguing this point with you is like arguing religion with Bible nuts -- with no hard-and-fast verifiable definitions of "class" and "rungs" (just like no hard-and-fast verifiable definitions of "God" or "religion"), you're free to keep redefining the contours to meet whatever argument is raised, so the shape continues to fit your worldview.

Well good luck with that, but it's backwards from how empirical arguments really are built.

Oh now I take offense to comparing me to religious nuts, I'm agnostic! 8) As Ruby points out in her book the rules are hard, fast and verifiable. Chp. 3 Page 42&43 :) Paul also points them out in his. City of Women too, I mean I can go on and on with references but if you won't read at least the first one, I agree continuing to discuss the point is well, pointless.

jack0177057
06-09-2009, 04:50 PM
Jack, I don't care what you think I am. I'm not interested in divulging personal details. Which is why I'm bringing up a controversial subject on a basically anonymous forum. But thanks for confirming my suspicions about you. 8)

I'm a little disappointed, Commanderadama. You cannot even "divulge" whether a college dorm is named after your family? What about a park bench? Hey, even a middle class guy like myself has his family name permanently engraved in a building in his alma mater. (For my $1,000 donation, my name was engraved on a brick.)

I really wish you had answered my question about offshore banking. I'm working on setting up an offshore trust for a rich client and need to analyze the bank secrecy, asset protection and tax laws applicable to a Swiss bank account vs. a Lichtenstein foundation... Your insights on this would have been very helpful.


It's OK that we don't like each other Jack. Besides badgering the witness is unbecoming for a big city lawyer such as yourself. Like I told Everyman according to Paul, I'm Class X and if you read chapter nine it pretty much describes me to a T. LOL

I don't know why you think I don't like you,... not at all my friend, I think you're very funny. You're using a book to figure out what "class" you belong to? That is hysterical! It's like getting your family's coat of arms and history from a kiosk at the mall.

My purebreed dog (West Highland White Terrier) does nothing but sleep and lounge by the pool all day. I've taken him to Spain and South America. He loves parks and lakes, but he's never been inside a museum... Would Paul classify him as leisure class?... Is he class X or class Y?

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 04:59 PM
^^^^^
Ummm yes Jack books impart knowledge.

jack0177057
06-09-2009, 05:14 PM
^^^^^
Ummm yes Jack books impart knowledge.

Some do... others impart nonsense... Are you sure this Paul guy is not a comedian... Maybe you missed the punchline...

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 05:29 PM
^^^^^
You're related to Bush aren't you? Have you heard of the google? Type in Paul Fussell you'll get hits. LOL

jack0177057
06-09-2009, 06:10 PM
^^^^^
You're related to Bush aren't you? Have you heard of the google? Type in Paul Fussell you'll get hits. LOL

Screw Paul Fusell... I represent rich and "upper class" clients and their businesses, estates, trusts and family foundations... I don't need to read a book about "class"... I am in the "eye of the storm" so to speak...

Like I said before, I've seen first hand the dysfunctionality that is part of the "upper class"... If you've never been inside a $80k/mo drug-treatment facility (either for yourself or to visit your sister, your brother, your mother or your father, you are not "upper class".

If you've never been involved in a litigation against your sister, your brother, your mother or your father, you are not "upper class". Everybody sues everybody in a will contest. I am currently representing a trust fund baby that is suing her 90-year old mother over her administration of the trust.

I am the senior associate of a well-established Houston lawyer that has served the Houston elite in their business and personal matters for the past 20 years. I don't need Paul to tell me who they are... NO ONE knows them better than their lawyers... We are like the priests that they confess their sins to... We hide their assets, help them avoid taxation (not evade taxation, which is illegal), and we draft the trusts for their mistresses and illigitimate children.

When was the last time you confessed your sins to a lawyer? If you haven't done so within the past year... YOU ARE NOT UPPER CLASS, and I don't care what your pal Paul says... We consult with each one of our rich clients at least once a week on business and personal matters. They cannot take a shit without first talking to us about the potential liability and federal income tax consequences of taking a shit.

This Paul Fusell guy is probably just like you - a solidly middle class guy who is trying super hard to intellectualize his way into the "upper class". He is constructing a definition of "upper class" based on superficial notions of "refined tastes" and "leisure lifestyle" and all you wannabees and posers love this because you can tell all your friends that according to the Book of Paul (sounds like a Gospel), you are "upper class".

commanderadama
06-09-2009, 07:39 PM
^^^^
Jack you're funny. LOL


JayAtee,

I know you think I'm a jackass, so that filters everything you read by me. But I'm not saying there is anything wrong being whatever class you may be.

I'm just stating, with reference to established experts, that class would play a major role in the reaction a man would have to a dancer for a relationship. This goes for any relationship. I'm basically challenging the myth of the classless society in America, which is controversial.

Of course there are exceptions to the class rule (not many), I'm just stating the rule. But people like to kill the messenger. LOL

Cyril
06-09-2009, 09:21 PM
Do you have a Swiss bank account? Do you have a Lichtenstein foundation? In what other tax havens do you have bank accounts? (I promise not to thell the IRS.)

Jack,

- Is it legal to setup a Swiss bank account?
- Do you have to disclose your Swiss bank account during a divorce proceeding?
- Do you have to notify IRS about your income resulting from investment ventures in an another country?

(Admins, sorry for the off topic post.)

Otoki
06-09-2009, 10:47 PM
Holy shit. The amount of condescension in this thread is ridiculous.

1 vote for shutting down this trainwreck.

Almost Jaded
06-10-2009, 03:11 AM
Commander has stated that he is "Class X", so that puts him right by many of the people on this board, especially the custies (you'd better be approaching - if not well into - 6 figure territory to be able to support a regular SC habit, LMAO). So he's not aspiring or representing himself as being other than such - he's spouting off some crap from books he's read by authors who are either trying to find some weird justification for their lifestyle (I wonder how many of these books are printed by vanity presses or publishers related to the authors families or schools) or as Jack put it trying to "intellectualize their way" up the ladder.

Commander - my immediate family contains established attorneys, entrepreneurs, more than one published (by major presses) author and editor including a Pulitzer, world renown and recognition, and everything that goes along with it. They/we associate with names you would certainly recognize, and not just recent ones. Not one thing you describe applies in the least, to the point that it's comical. In fact, very few of Jack's questions would receive "acceptable" responses when filled out by my family, though a few are to some degree unavoidable.

My business partner also comes from very big, albeit more recent, money and power. Like so many other of the families that your precious books COMPLETELY overlook, they would in no way fit the various definitions put forth by either Jack or by said authors.

And on and on.

I know and associate and have associated with new money, old money, self made money, inherited money, responsible types and irresponsible types, and everything in all the betweens. Are there those that adhere to a "class" outlook? Of course! Is there a tenancy for those of dimilar means and/or backgrounds to "flock together" as it were? Hell yes! Do we live in not a "classless" society, but one of invisible classes and covert ones? NO. We do not. If we did, doors would be closed to people not fo those families and backgrounds, and "moving up a rung" would be nigh impossible - that's a class-based society, for which there are hundreds and even thousands of years worth of examples. I see here an obsession (far worse for those authors than for Commander) with defining that which doesn't exist in our society, to make a mold into which to fit this 800 lb gorilla that doesn't really exist. Do not confuse a certain amount of elitism and "cliqing" with social class; anyone in this country can make it there in 1 or 2 generations. Bill Gates children will have no trouble hobnobbing with the Rockafeller legacy.

As for Anna Nicole and moving up too many rungs... There are people born onto the top rung who are never comfortable there, and there are people in slums who would wear those hats better than anyone currently wearing them. How and where and when you're born doesn't define whether or not you are "classy"; only a person can make or break that. And being a stripper has a lot less to do with it than just about anything, lol. If a stripper goes on to buy the club she works in, franchise it, and become a billionaire - and makes her duaghters get their start by working on a pole, will they never be accepted? If a Kennedy marries a dancer and she turns out to be a brilliant socialite and businesswoman, will she never be accepted despite any track record she may establish because she danced before she "made it"? Tsk tsk. Wrong mind for the wrong time, my freind.

jack0177057
06-10-2009, 08:09 AM
Jack,

- Is it legal to setup a Swiss bank account?
- Do you have to disclose your Swiss bank account during a divorce proceeding?
- Do you have to notify IRS about your income resulting from investment ventures in an another country?

(Admins, sorry for the off topic post.)

Cyril, it is NOT illegal to setup up a Swiss bank account per se. But, IT IS illegal to do it FOR THE PURPOSE of defrauding U.S. government (i.e., the IRS) or your creditors (including a spouse in divorce proceedings). In most cases, you have to disclose your foreign bank account to the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=148849,00.html

Yes, he does have to disclose his Swiss bank account during a divorce, BUT ONLY if the account actually BELONGS to HIM (it could have been placed into a "non-grantor trust" which was structured in such a way that he DOES NOT OWN the account, although he receives distributions from it as a beneficiary). You can start by look at the tax returns, there is a place in the Form 1040 that asks about foreign bank accounts. If he checked this box, her attorney should issue discovery requests for production of documents relating to this interest in the account and should also request copies of the requisite IRS filings.

Actually, setting up a non-grantor foreign trust BEFORE MARRIAGE is a tool of the wealthy and it operates much more effectively than a pre-nuptial agreement.

If she has an idea of when he created the account and/or the trust, his tax return for that year is very important to look at.

Obviously, he could be lying to her AND the IRS. She's got him by the balls, if she can show that he has failed to report a foreign bank account to the IRS. The civil and criminal penalties are very harsh (although there is currently pending an amnesty program for voluntary disclosures).

Generally, you do have to notify IRS about your income resulting from investment ventures in an another country. You are required to report your WORLDWIDE income to the IRS. However, again, you can structure an investment in such a way that it exists independently of you and does not "belong" to you anymore. For example, a non-grantor trust is set up so that you (the settlor) do not actually "own" it anymore, even though you receive periodic distributions from it. Lichtenstein foundations operate the same way, they are independent legal entities. There are also extremely complex rules that apply to "controlled foreign corporations".

This is a VERY complex area of the law and I would suggest hiring a VERY competent lawyer to represent you. If you have strong suspicion that there is a foreign bank account, you might need an international tax attorney (they are the most familiar with this) to assist your family law (divorce) attorney.

jack0177057
06-10-2009, 08:36 AM
Commander - my immediate family contains established attorneys, entrepreneurs, more than one published (by major presses) author and editor including a Pulitzer, world renown and recognition, and everything that goes along with it. They/we associate with names you would certainly recognize, and not just recent ones.

In the U.S. we don't have aristocrats like they do in Europe. In Europe, class is clearly demarcated by family name, coat of arms, titles of nobility, etc. Even if you're a broke underachiever, as long as your grandpapa held the title of Duke, Count, Marquis, etc., you would be considered "upper class" in Europe.

The U.S. is a capitalist system, we have no titles of nobility and for the most part only WEALTH determines "upper class". About 90% of Americans fit into the "middle class". It covers everything from a $30k/yr teacher's salary to a CEO of a small company with his personal net worth of $10 million. I would not consider a $1 million net worth to put you into the "upper class", any dancer or professional earning $100k/yr could achieve that if she was frugal in her spending and wise in her investments (real estate). I would argue that you need a net worth of at least $10 million to be "upper class" by U.S. standards. Even then, some would argue that you need to wait until the second or third generation to call such a family "upper class". Some would add that certain neighborhoods, schools and country clubs are also a prerequisite.

When you talk about "attorneys, entrepreneurs, more than one published (by major presses) author and editor including a Pulitzer" - I think you are talking about being ELITE, more than being "upper class".

Almost Jaded
06-10-2009, 11:03 AM
And you boiled my lengthy rant down to a very simple point, thank you, LMAO. That is precisely what I am talking about, and the point I was trying to make. Your whole post. There ARE truly class-based societies - "we" - meaning the U.S., where the vast majority of the posters on this forum reside - are not one of them, regardless of what some authors say.

I go on to overstate that "upper class" in a... I'll say "newer" definition... is a state of mind, not anything to do with money/power/titles/etc. That in response to his comments re moving up a rung or three.

And so the temptation to further overstate rears it's head. I stop typing now, Jack laid it out correctly and succinctly. :)

Athenathefabulous
06-10-2009, 11:25 AM
Oh now I take offense to comparing me to religious nuts, I'm agnostic! 8) As Ruby points out in her book the rules are hard, fast and verifiable. Chp. 3 Page 42&43 :) Paul also points them out in his. City of Women too, I mean I can go on and on with references but if you won't read at least the first one, I agree continuing to discuss the point is well, pointless.

This person might have pointed out hard and fast rules, but they are still subjective. I am also not sure what you mean by verifiable. If there was more objectivity to class, then perhaps they would be verifiable.

I could make my own hard and fast rules defining class. For instance i could put all all pretty ladies who wear >6 inch heels and charm men out of their money in class A (highest), overly opinionated misogynists with chimpanzee avatars in class C (lowest), and everyone else in class B (middle). Do these rules mean anything or have any relevance? No.

jack0177057
06-10-2009, 03:42 PM
This person might have pointed out hard and fast rules, but they are still subjective. I am also not sure what you mean by verifiable. If there was more objectivity to class, then perhaps they would be verifiable.

I could make my own hard and fast rules defining class. For instance i could put all all pretty ladies who wear >6 inch heels and charm men out of their money in class A (highest), overly opinionated misogynists with chimpanzee avatars in class C (lowest), and everyone else in class B (middle). Do these rules mean anything or have any relevance? No.

Your "hard and fast rule" is more sustainable than commanderadama's... and also, more grounded in reality.

Class A women: megamodels, actresses, divas, trophy wives... etc.

I would not be surprised to learn that many "trophy wives" are former dancers, and I don't mean that in a pejorative manner, as "trophy wife" can have various connotations...

A 1989 article in Fortune magazine is claimed to have introduced the phrase, describing a trophy wife as a woman who is a "decade or two younger than her husband, sometimes several inches taller, beautiful, and very often accomplished."

mediocrity
06-10-2009, 04:39 PM
This person might have pointed out hard and fast rules, but they are still subjective. I am also not sure what you mean by verifiable. If there was more objectivity to class, then perhaps they would be verifiable.

I could make my own hard and fast rules defining class. For instance i could put all all pretty ladies who wear >6 inch heels and charm men out of their money in class A (highest), overly opinionated misogynists with chimpanzee avatars in class C (lowest), and everyone else in class B (middle). Do these rules mean anything or have any relevance? No.

I just laughed my fucking face off. You're awesome.

JayATee
06-10-2009, 05:03 PM
JayAtee,

I know you think I'm a jackass, so that filters everything you read by me.


I don't think you are I know you are. If you would stop saying things that are designed to infuriate the people here you would stop having a problem. But since I know that behaving the way you do and watching everyone respond gets you off, you're not likely to take any advice given about shutting up...

gameover
06-10-2009, 06:44 PM
This person might have pointed out hard and fast rules, but they are still subjective. I am also not sure what you mean by verifiable. If there was more objectivity to class, then perhaps they would be verifiable.

I could make my own hard and fast rules defining class. For instance i could put all all pretty ladies who wear >6 inch heels and charm men out of their money in class A (highest), overly opinionated misogynists with chimpanzee avatars in class C (lowest), and everyone else in class B (middle). Do these rules mean anything or have any relevance? No.

:D

Well, if this stupid thread won't die, I hope you at least keep posting these great replies. Very few replies make me laugh out loud like that :)

commanderadama
06-10-2009, 06:59 PM
This person might have pointed out hard and fast rules, but they are still subjective. I am also not sure what you mean by verifiable. If there was more objectivity to class, then perhaps they would be verifiable.

I could make my own hard and fast rules defining class. For instance i could put all all pretty ladies who wear >6 inch heels and charm men out of their money in class A (highest), overly opinionated misogynists with chimpanzee avatars in class C (lowest), and everyone else in class B (middle). Do these rules mean anything or have any relevance? No.

What you've proposed is a taxonomy. Which was a very clever way to disparage me, so kudos, but Sociology is a science & social stratification is a sub-discipline of it. Thus there are volumes devoted to its study. I've reference several sources of my opinions (Books and Documentaries). My opponents have offered none for theirs. Therefore, their arguments fail and the discussion is over. :)

So I'll end with a quote:

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

--Bertrand Russell

jack0177057
06-10-2009, 08:24 PM
So I'll end with a quote:

The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.

--Bertrand Russell

You're a philosopher, too... I'm impressed... Let's have some more fun,... What do you think of Plato's philosopher king? How would you compare him to Nietzsche's superman? I studied philosophy in Teddy Hall, Oxford University, England (part of my middle class education). Where did you study philosophy, commanderadama?

Dirty Ernie
06-10-2009, 11:46 PM
I don't think commanderadama is claiming any social standing. Perusing through the reviews on amazon, category "X", which the author most closely identified with (and was the least critical of), would be the class that insists on not being in a class. Kind of a catch-22,isn't it? Besides the dude picked his handle from freakin' Battlestar Galactica ferchrissakes! That's a sure sign of poor breeding. ;D
http://www.amazon.com/Class-Through-American-Status-System/product-reviews/0671792253/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1


"Fussell mentions a class called "X" which is somewhat similar to bohemians. I think he thinks he is a part of this class and he likes this class because it is the category for people who are trying to escape the class jail. I thought it was a glorified description since escaping a class may just be an illusion and I think bohemians live on its margins of society as social outcasts. Bohos are often so idiosyncratic that can't get along with others in their category--so it's a lonely life."


"This is a pretty funny exercise in stereotyping, and Fussell's observations seem, for the most part, accurately drawn, but the last chapter on the Category X weakens the book by exposing the author's sympathies and, consequently, his shortsightedness. The type described in this chapter have not escaped the status system - in fact, they do care if you notice the odd sentiment expressed on their T-shirt or their idiosyncratic way of decorating the living room, and they do hope you find it novel that they like to watch corny old sitcoms, although they will act nonplussed if you actually comment on these things. (You are to assume they would never engage in so middle-class an endeavor as seeking approval from others. Of course they do seek approval from others, just not the same 'others' their middle-class counterparts seek approval from.) This type is especially common in academia - in fact it is probably the predominant 'class' group in that field, and it seems that Fussell is confusing the kind of status seeking peculiar to grad students, professors, and their ilk with a rejection of status seeking altogether. This leads the reader to infer that Fussell can turn his sharp wit on every group except the one to which he feels most closely aligned, and that's a shame, because the Category X group and their pretensions deserve to be mocked as vigorously as any other."

Athenathefabulous
06-11-2009, 01:00 AM
yes what i proposed is a taxonomy. Sociology may be a science, but definitions of classes are still loose and subjective. Admittedly I am not a sociology expert, but based on my knowledge of soft sciences in general, I assume that class is defined differently by different sociologists and there is no absolute consensus. The concept of class changes too much and is viewed too differently by different groups of people to have one absolute correct definition. So kudos on the name dropping, I see you are well read.... but what are your sociology credentials? (I dont mean this question to be entirely antagonizing.. Im actually curious what you do.)

In your defense, battlestar galactica is pretty sweet :P; at least the new one is, never seen the old one. I hated the finale though. Also, off topic, if your name is taken from the new not old BSG, I am surprised you would like it so much considering in general you seem fairly anti-feminism. The society in the new BSG has more gender equality than in most fictional societies on TV....

Almost Jaded
06-11-2009, 10:43 AM
Athenathefabulous is rapidly becoming my favorite person in the whole interweb, lol.


I've reference several sources of my opinions (Books and Documentaries). My opponents have offered none for theirs. Therefore, their arguments fail and the discussion is over.

Interperetation:

"I have stated my opinion and found a few authors whose views support mine and quoted them. You have stated your opinions but not troubled yourselves to quote authors who support them. Therefor I am right and you are wrong, and I'm going to proclaim this discussion over as if it was within my power to do so, regardless of whether others continue with it."

Once, there was this president guy, and he declared victory in this little war in this country in the middle east somewhere, but the other guys kept fighting even though he said they lost, and so the Presidents guys had to keep fighting even though he said they already won... :rolleyes:

commanderadama
06-11-2009, 03:31 PM
^^^^^
Perfect example of a Non sequitur argument. There was Empirical evidence refuting that presidents claim. My opponents have no such evidence to support theirs, just common myths and irrelevant diversions.

commanderadama
06-11-2009, 04:35 PM
yes what i proposed is a taxonomy. Sociology may be a science, but definitions of classes are still loose and subjective. Admittedly I am not a sociology expert, but based on my knowledge of soft sciences in general, I assume that class is defined differently by different sociologists and there is no absolute consensus. The concept of class changes too much and is viewed too differently by different groups of people to have one absolute correct definition. So kudos on the name dropping, I see you are well read.... but what are your sociology credentials? (I dont mean this question to be entirely antagonizing.. Im actually curious what you do.)

In your defense, battlestar galactica is pretty sweet :P; at least the new one is, never seen the old one. I hated the finale though. Also, off topic, if your name is taken from the new not old BSG, I am surprised you would like it so much considering in general you seem fairly anti-feminism. The society in the new BSG has more gender equality than in most fictional societies on TV....

I'm not a sociologist either (I am a Scientist, and since you asked, it's taken from the Old BSG. Lorne Greene's Adama) and you are correct that there is no absolute consensus. But that is true of any science, that is the beauty of the method, when new evidence is obtained, we change the model. 8)

Some quotes from Sociology, The Core by James Zanden (A Book Written in 1986) should shed some light. For example, Sociologists may disagree regarding the sources of social stratification. However they agree that social inequality is a structured aspect of contemporary life... Later under the subtitle of The American Class System, he goes on to state Few aspects of social life affect so strongly the way people behave and think as does social class. (my emphasis added)

Note Paul's book was written in 1983, James Book in 1986, Ruby's Book in 1996, but I think the book of most interest to Stippers would be City of Women, subtitled Sex and Class in New York 1789-1860 I note these dates to show that even though our technologies have changed, our class system has not.

I feel that I should mention that authors I reference do not write their books in a vacuum. They reference other texts, thus other authors, again and again. The books I quote are not fiction. So I'm not referencing a few authors, as Jaded suggests, I'm referencing the entire body of work produced by sociologists.

Yes Dirty Ernie you are correct that I didn't claim any social status until the end of this discussion. My opponents don't understand that they have reacted just as my books have predicted they would, thus validating them. The Science is sound. 8)

And the critiques you quote make honest points, but they don't challenge the underlying science, Only his methods, which is how science works.

mediocrity
06-11-2009, 05:54 PM
^^ Jesus Christ. Are you like this in real life?

Cyril
06-11-2009, 08:35 PM
A stripper is a tabooed subject there is no doubt about it. Most of us will not be able to date or marry one in real life. But....

It is hard to turn down the love regardless of its source. Especially, when your options are limited. Life can be very cruel at times. Will you be able to turn down the shelter offered by a stripper? Will you not accept the offer just to catch a break from the storm?

JayATee
06-11-2009, 09:08 PM
1 vote for shutting down this trainwreck.

I second this, it's gone way past ridiculous at this point.

Bystander
06-11-2009, 10:02 PM
I know this is for customers asking dancers questions but I have a question for the customers. When you meet some1 for the very 1st time & you find out the girl is a stripper, is that a turn on or turn off? I know some people are all like ECKKK but others are fascinated. How you guys feel?

It depends on what she looks like. . .8) Just being a stripper isn't an automatic turn-on, there are a lot of ugly strippers out there. (just saying)

Almost Jaded
06-11-2009, 11:27 PM
Commander - my statements re the authors and your rebuttal re writing in a vacuum are both valid. I propose that the evidence you claim to have provided is nothing of the sort. By virtue of my family, I have been exposed to academia and science (two different things, and yet not) in many forms for most of my life, both 'hard' and 'soft'. I am very familiar with how various studies and researches are conducted, and how they are (sorry, painfully true) manipulated. Politics and other agendas play a BIG role in most. The few that are relatively 'clean' - well, I've never seen one, lol. Even in the 'hard' sciences, most people would be shocked out of their minds at how much perfectly valid information is completely disregarded if it invalidates a pet theory or interferes with another project in some way. I wouldn't believe it myself if not for witnessing it first hand. Frankly, i could conduct a study on any topic you like and make it come out any way I wanted to, period. And so can - and they do - anyone else.

:shrug:

As a result, I take just about everything with a tremendous amount of salt as it were. Observation and opinion are every bit as valid as any doctorates research if based on something solid, because they likely have about the same amount of BS built in. There are exceptions, but certainly NOT in realm of social science, philosophy, psychology, and the like. In fact, I'll go ahead and lump medical science in there too.

Otoki
06-12-2009, 08:17 AM
^^ Jesus Christ. Are you like this in real life?
It's like he's channeling TFoK in the Feminism Group all over again.::)

jack0177057
06-12-2009, 08:27 AM
A stripper is a tabooed subject there is no doubt about it. Most of us will not be able to date or marry one in real life.

You're leaving out the fact the she will not be a stripper forever... In a few years, she might be a entrepenuer, musician, artist, actress, journalist, teacher, college professor, doctor, lawyer, academy award winner, etc. The decision not to date a dancer based exclusively on her current occupation is extremely short-sighted... I would look at the big picture...

The hardest thing for me, being a professional, assertive, competitive and confident "alpha male", would be accepting the fact that other guys are pawing MY GIRL... I would probably attempt to expedite her transition into doing something else... With my salary, I could support her, while she went to school, etc... If she refused to be "supported" because of her strong sense of "independence", I might try a compromise - like her moving to a no-contact SC...

Athenathefabulous
06-12-2009, 08:53 AM
You're leaving out the fact the she will not be a stripper forever... In a few years, she might be a entrepenuer, musician, artist, actress, journalist, teacher, college professor, doctor, lawyer, academy award winner, etc. The decision not to date a dancer based exclusively on her current occupation is extremely short-sighted... I would look at the big picture...

The hardest thing for me, being a professional, assertive, competitive and confident "alpha male", would be accepting the fact that other guys are pawing MY GIRL... I would probably attempt to expedite her transition into doing something else... With my salary, I could support her, while she went to school, etc... If she refused to be "supported" because of her strong sense of "independence", I might try a compromise - like her moving to a no-contact SC...

she also might not want to just be supported because she wants to save money. I would never quit dancing for someone to support me because maybe here and now it would get me what i want and i could be lazy, but it wouldnt help my savings account. Unless they wanted to throw me an additional 30% on top of what was required to 'support me' that i could save for when the relationship ended...

that and aside from the principle of independence,... you have a lot more freedom to do as you please with money when its your money that you make as opposed to money from someone elses hard work.

YodaLady.com
06-12-2009, 09:17 AM
(this will most likely be an unpopular post but please read)

Most guys are turned on by a girl being a stripper in theory, but when put in practice they will usually get jealous and will not be trusting of what goes on in the "Private" booths at the clubs or any number of things. So yeah, the job is a turn on for a good two week fling, but difficult to maintain a healthy & giving relationship. But for the most part it isn't & shouldn't be the job that defines you. Your personality, character and personal beliefs define you. Most guys will look look at who you are and not what you do. So the question is; Are you a Stripper? Pole Dancer? Exotic Dancer? Adult Entertainer? Porn Star? etc.. or do you just happen to be doing the job for the moment? For the most part guys don't mind a girl who puts her self through school by dancing. A lot even admire the determination.

But the girls who worked the clubs for 8 or 10 years, or they're (my best friend tried to make it work with a girl like this) 32 w/ 3 kids, 2 different baby's daddy's, one of which is about to get out of jail for drugs and for the most part is a bit insane... Yeah, scratch her... Sorry but guys don't want the extra baggage.

I look at normal well adjusted strippers the same way i look at non-stripping normal well adjusted ladies. (perhaps i favor the strippers a little)

But i look at crazy, insecure, poor decision making strippers the same way i look at non-stripping crazy, insecure, poor decision making ladies. (In my rear view mirror as I speed away in a hurry!!!)

:o)

jack0177057
06-12-2009, 10:56 AM
she also might not want to just be supported because she wants to save money. I would never quit dancing for someone to support me because maybe here and now it would get me what i want and i could be lazy, but it wouldnt help my savings account. Unless they wanted to throw me an additional 30% on top of what was required to 'support me' that i could save for when the relationship ended...

that and aside from the principle of independence,... you have a lot more freedom to do as you please with money when its your money that you make as opposed to money from someone elses hard work.

Good point about the savings and I do expect that most dancers have a very strong sense of independence...

Would you be willing to compromise by changing SCs to a non-contact SC where you'll make less money? Assume you are "in love" and the relationship has a lot of potential...

Athenathefabulous
06-12-2009, 01:51 PM
::shrugs:: that is dependent on a lot of factors

a. what is non-contact considered? Higher mileage stuff yes i would give up. If i worked at a 2 way contact club, i would probably stop customers from touching me anyway if i was in a serious relatonship. I can also understand not wanting your woman to grind her crotch and butt on a guys dick through a couple layers of fabric all night. However, light one way contact is ridiculous to give up. I can give a sexy dance with only light sensual touching on places like the shoulder or face occasionally. Would i sacrifice giving these very light contact dances to work at a place that was strictly air with less money wehre i would get yelled at for shaking a guys hand? No, fuck that.

b. depends on what city i was in. Every city has different levels of contact etc. You have been on SW enough to know about this.

Even if a girl stays at her current club, for the most part the boundaries are set by the girl. I suppose there are a few clubs where management requires the girls to let customers touch them... ive never worked at one of these and i probably never will. In every place ive worked at, if i wanted to suddenly switch to lower mileage dances, it would be totally up to me. might hurt my money a bit, but then again ive worked at places where my money was hurt because i was unwilling to let guys treat me like a blow up doll. Thats just part of the business.

this is purely hypothetical. To be perfectly honest, i couldnt see myself falling in love with or entering a relationship with someone who would want me to leave dancing and not trust me anyway. I like a lot of space in relationships and i give my partner a lot of space in return. Ive never been cheated (to my knowledge) on so im fairly trusting. Since i am very low maintenance and low anger, im not big on compromise. I rarely ask my partner to change their lifestyle and i expect the same. Giving up dancing would be giving up too much of myself at the moment, and not just financially. Chances are the type of person who I would fall in love with and see a lot of relationship potential with would be very laid back and not paranoid or posessive... but heck, you never know. sometimes emotions play strange tricks...

jack0177057
06-12-2009, 03:16 PM
this is purely hypothetical. To be perfectly honest, i couldnt see myself falling in love with or entering a relationship with someone who would want me to leave dancing and not trust me anyway. I like a lot of space in relationships and i give my partner a lot of space in return. Ive never been cheated (to my knowledge) on so im fairly trusting. Since i am very low maintenance and low anger, im not big on compromise. I rarely ask my partner to change their lifestyle and i expect the same. Giving up dancing would be giving up too much of myself at the moment, and not just financially. Chances are the type of person who I would fall in love with and see a lot of relationship potential with would be very laid back and not paranoid or posessive... but heck, you never know. sometimes emotions play strange tricks...

I respect that "hypothetically" you are willing to compromise a little and I would compromise, too,...

You should not assume that my distaste for guys pawing my girl has anything to do with "trust"... I can trust my girl 100% and still find the idea of other guys pawing her distasteful to me...

It also has a LOT to do with short-term vs. long-term mating goals. In a casual dating situation, the fact that she is a stripper would be exciting and I would not ask her to change. The fact that other guys are lusting for her, but only I can have her, would be a thrill... At this stage, I would be okay with just about anything, because the relationship is mostly a thrill-seeking one...

However, if there is a transition to a long-term relationship situation and possibly marriage, my attitude would shift somewhat. Regardless of my trust, I would not want other guys touching my girl (my potential future wife and mother of my children) in a sexual manner... I guess I could live with "light contact"... But, I would probably try to expedite her transition into her next career...

commanderadama
06-12-2009, 04:25 PM
^^^^^
Jack is it because you consider your girl property like a dog?

commanderadama
06-12-2009, 04:28 PM
^^ Jesus Christ. Are you like this in real life?

Like what? Wanting to get a full understanding of a situation? Yes.

jack0177057
06-12-2009, 05:27 PM
^^^^^
Jack is it because you consider your girl property like a dog?

This silly comment is coming from a guy who thinks he is too "upper class" to ever date a dancer?

My girl (or "woman", to be PC) is not my property... she is my "better half"... she "completes me".

commanderadama
06-12-2009, 05:56 PM
^^^^^
Where did I say that? Quote Please.

Cyril
06-12-2009, 07:21 PM
I personally would not mind dating a stripper if I were single but my main fear is what if I run into my boss's family or my uncle or my aunt; things like that. It seems like a risky proposition to me. It is unfortunate but true that most people I know do not patronize strip clubs.

Almost Jaded
06-12-2009, 10:23 PM
So again, to repeat what it came down to pages ago - it's about societies issues and the man in question's insecurities and trust issues. Plain and simple.

And Athena - you sound a lot like my current. I'm pretty sure I would go to ridiculous lengths to get to know you if I weren't already with someone who fits the bill, lol. I hope you have a guy (if you want a guy) who appreciates all these things about you I really do. :)