View Full Version : Getting Ready before a Dance
Elvia
09-01-2009, 02:38 PM
You get a visceral thrill but no money;I would worry about the guy dressed in black waiting for the employees to walk to their car. Maby not that night but at a time time of his choosing. You should thank the creator that PLs are PL and don't do that.
Once again, your logic confounds me. What do muggers have to do with this situation at all? If I'm being sexually assaulted I should just be glad I'm not being robbed? Again- WTF?
I wouldn't consider it a visceral thrill to fight off a sexual assault. I likely would not give a fuck about money if I've just been sexually assaulted. As much as you'd love to reduce us all to machines that have no motivation beyond getting money, we are people and when abused, we'll react like anyone else.
princessjas
09-01-2009, 03:10 PM
Once again, your logic confounds me. What do muggers have to do with this situation at all? If I'm being sexually assaulted I should just be glad I'm not being robbed? Again- WTF?
I wouldn't consider it a visceral thrill to fight off a sexual assault. I likely would not give a fuck about money if I've just been sexually assaulted. As much as you'd love to reduce us all to machines that have no motivation beyond getting money, we are people and when abused, we'll react like anyone else.
Oh, darn! You're not a sexy naked robot!?!? Here I was thinkin of buying me one just like you! }:D
Elvia
09-01-2009, 03:13 PM
^^^ lol!
Well, PJ, with an ass like that, I won't consider it assault if you wanna grab me :)
xdamage
09-01-2009, 03:23 PM
You get a visceral thrill but no money;I would worry about the guy dressed in black waiting for the employees to walk to their car. Maby not that night but at a time time of his choosing. You should thank the creator that PLs are PL and don't do that.
An analogous situation...
Your boss, or co-worker, or a customer comes in and goes ape shit crazy, perhaps just verbally, perhaps physically on some level. You're put in the position of choosing to allow it to go on, maybe escalate, or respond. For whatever reason you respond. You are fired, giving up the money you would have made had you sucked it up.
At your hearing about the matter the judge says, "Well Earl you chose the viceral thrill over your livelyhood. You should have been worried about the night prowler who breaks into your home at night and holds you at gunpoint. You should thank the maker that your boss/co-worker/customer is not that abusive."
Does this work, or do you feel like ... well yea, if it was me being abused I have limits that could outweigh my income? That the last thing you want to hear is why you should suck it up because there is worse?
The only way the Judge's statement would make sense is if we agreed that as an employee, you were suppose to know that what felt like abuse to you is clearly part of what you are being paid for. But if most of the employees agree that it is abuse and not part of the job, then what?
Blue_Dust_Bunny
09-01-2009, 04:23 PM
I don't understand this. Don't you know that the stripper, other strippers in the room, and other patrons are just sitting there think fuck this guys a nasty perve? Wouldn't you rather do it in the privacy of your bathroom, your car or your home?
because a lot of customers are under the impression that the strip club is just as appropriate as a bathroom, and they come to this conclusion because of the places where these sexual assault horror stories not only come from but are permitted because strippers "should suck it up".
Of course the right answer is to charge an inappropriate customer with sexual assault and file a civil suit against the club. I'm thankful that my management always sides with the dancer and told me when they hired me that they want a clean club. But If I was in a situation where I was told to "suck it up", I really don't know if I could go through the legal obstacles necessary to prove that a strip club is not a place "where rolling in the mud, blood, and beer" is allowed. Can you imagine what that scene would look like? Having an officer question you about the assailant in the dressing room of a strip club? Having girls mad at you for causing trouble and scaring away customers? Could I appear in front of a jury appointed in the state of conservative Texas and say "I want to press charges for sexual assault...oh, and by the way I'm a stripper." And then would I ever be employable in my area ever again?
I'm sure it doesn't help the matter, but it just seems like there is no better choice but the punch the jerk in the face and go tell management to fuck themselves. I think when dancers choose this line of work, there is the realization that these kind of situations will always be uphill battles and society is probably not going to be on the dancer's side.
I don't know what the answer the the problem is, but I think the idea that girls in these terrible situations should be ashamed for how they responded is very wrong.
slowpoke
09-07-2009, 02:31 PM
The entire post was meaningless.
Let me repeat it again:
A guy who is armed with knife is not going to charge towards a guy who is armed with a gun then why did you have to shoot the guy? Why?
And how can you know this? Search for "Tueller Drill".
Almost Jaded
09-07-2009, 04:05 PM
Wow - that's fascinating. And I lived in the SLC area for years, lol. In any event - thanks for a post that backed my positon to some degree in that debacle, but my point is above and beyond that. Come into my house armed for violent crime, get shot. IDK why that's such a horrible concept to some. Frankly once the questions and crap were over, I wouldn't so much as lose any sleep over it. I value my life and those of my family over a strangers who has entered my home illegally and armed. Seems pretty straightforward to me. :shrug:
Earl_the_Pearl
09-09-2009, 12:04 AM
An analogous situation...
Your boss, or co-worker, or a customer comes in and goes ape shit crazy, perhaps just verbally, perhaps physically on some level. You're put in the position of choosing to allow it to go on, maybe escalate, or respond. For whatever reason you respond. You are fired, giving up the money you would have made had you sucked it up.
First of all the boss or co-worker would be sent home for being drunk as the cowboy should have been and not sold more services. Of course that is how SC operate. Second I would not have beat him up the hired goon would have so I don't see why I would have to go to court except as a whiteness perhaps.
SC do their best business from drunks and they encourage it so what do you expect to happen?
Earl_the_Pearl
09-09-2009, 12:14 AM
BTW tonight a drunk opened the door to my van with a dancer sitting inside. Am I pissed off at the drunk? No; I'm pissed at the bar that served an obviously intoxicated person. Not only that the lack of security is the worst I have ever seen.
The thrill is gone.
princessjas
09-09-2009, 06:27 AM
First of all the boss or co-worker would be sent home for being drunk as the cowboy should have been and not sold more services. Of course that is how SC operate. Second I would not have beat him up the hired goon would have so I don't see why I would have to go to court except as a whiteness perhaps.
SC do their best business from drunks and they encourage it so what do you expect to happen?
Being drunk is no excuse for assault. I've been pass-out drunk before and still didn't become a violent bitch who tries to physically assault those nearby. If you can't control your damn self, don't fucking drink!
(I didn't mean that towards you Earl, just towards the drunks your post somewhat excused.)
xdamage
09-09-2009, 08:14 AM
First of all the boss or co-worker would be sent home for being drunk as the cowboy should have been and not sold more services.
I am not sure how drunk got into it. I meant a verbally abusive boss, or customer, not necessarily drunk.
princessjas
09-09-2009, 08:22 AM
^^While I'll admit drunk plays a part in it part of the time. I'd say more than half of the times I've been assaulted (and there are too many times to count, say a couple times a month at least for 10+ years) the guys have been sober. IME, most guys may have a drink at the bar, but arent' really there for the alcohol.
Earl_the_Pearl
09-10-2009, 01:16 AM
I am not sure how drunk got into it. I meant a verbally abusive boss, or customer, not necessarily drunk.
This is the post we are talking about. The problem was because of a drunk PL encouraged by SC management. That is how SC work. I know this site exsist to massage the feelings of dancers but the facts are the truth.
Mediocrity - HOLY FUCK. The story above is about a "bed dance", in fact. *shudder* I had a REALLY drunk cowboy come in from the NFR, who pulled the same shit with me. I'm not a big girl - only about 5'2 and only about 100lbs at the time. (I've put on a BIT since then...). While I'm definitely not defenseless, the way he grabbed at me was just ... yeah. I had no chance no matter what. LUCKILY, the girl in the room across from me heard me freaking out, ran out of her dance and looked in my room, then ran out into the main room screaming for a bouncer. The guy got the shit kicked out of him.
xdamage
09-10-2009, 08:16 AM
This is the post we are talking about. The problem was because of a drunk PL encouraged by SC management. That is how SC work. I know this site exsist to massage the feelings of dancers but the facts are the truth.
Well, casino's encourage people to drink because it lowers their inhibitions, which results in them gambling more. I get that there is a bit of conflict of interest between wanting people to behave as they "normally" do, inhibited by years of social training, and serving them drinks to get them to lose those inhibitions and spend more. That is to say to some degree there is some cake wanting and eating too in that alcohol lowers all inhibitions, not just the inhibitions a vice seller wants lowered.
But we still require adults who choose to engage in vices and drinking to be self-responsible for not over gambling, not being asses, not assaulting others, etc. There are some dram laws that hold bar owners semi responsible for how much they serve patrons, but that is responsibility in-addition to the responsibility held by the drinker, not in-lieu of. Those dram laws are intended to allow victims of drinkers to recover damages both from the drinker and from the server, not to remove responsibility from the drinker.
Cyril
09-10-2009, 08:08 PM
That is why I am switching to high grade chewing tobacco. I am finding that I like it better than alcohol. And, I can do it all day long as long as I have access to a place to spit.
Earl_the_Pearl
09-10-2009, 08:27 PM
Those dram laws are intended to allow victims of drinkers to recover damages both from the drinker and from the server, not to remove responsibility from the drinker.
We ass/u/me people who drink to a .08 to be impaired, look it up. If they are impaired they do not have control of their facilities. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining. You can have it one way or the other; not both at the same time.
xdamage
09-10-2009, 08:49 PM
We ass/u/me people who drink to a .08 to be impaired, look it up. If they are impaired they do not have control of their facilities. Don't piss on my leg and tell me it is raining. You can have it one way or the other; not both at the same time.
The word "impaired" is a single word for a broad range of matters.
Yes, too impaired to drive a vehicle and react to multiple other vehicles all traveling at various speeds from 0-65mph. Probably also too impaired to perform a brain surgery. Yet amazingly even people who have had far more manage to go to the bathroom, walk, recall basic social concepts like it's not okay to commit murder (and do you feel it coming?) ... most recall it is not okay to commit sexual assault.
It would be great to have a cheap/easy/safe test people have to take in bars after which they would not be served. Lacking that we depend on themselves to make a judgment about how much is too much, we hold them accountable if they over do it and commit crimes, and we can secondarily also hold the bar owners accountable for continuing to serve those who have had too much.
But the original decision to drink lies with the patron. The bar owner does not come to your home and force you to drink. You come to his bar, with money, knowing he serves drinks, and begin the ordering process while sober. You are an adult that knows if you drink too much it impairs your judgment. We as a society hold you responsible if you don't control yourself and drink too much.
Earl_the_Pearl
09-10-2009, 10:43 PM
That is why I am switching to high grade chewing tobacco. I am finding that I like it better than alcohol. And, I can do it all day long as long as I have access to a place to spit.
Go to
I have not been caught in over 4 year. Only customs will burn your cigars; the ATF and all 50 state attorneys general don't give a flying finger.
Earl_the_Pearl
09-10-2009, 10:47 PM
But the original decision to drink lies with the patron. The bar owner does not come to your home and force you to drink.
True but if one leaves one's home and attempts to purchase a drink in a bar it is up the bartender to say NO. Don't attempt to defend it otherwise as you will prove yourself a fool.
xdamage
09-11-2009, 05:49 AM
True but if one leaves one's home and attempts to purchase a drink in a bar it is up the bartender to say NO. Don't attempt to defend it otherwise as you will prove yourself a fool.
The BAR owners should say no. But that wasn't my point.
The dram laws vary significantly from state to state, but don't confuse the following:
In some states a drunk can hold a bar owner partially responsible for injury to themselves (not to others), but a jury would still be instructed to take the drunk person's own negligence into account.
In all dram laws I've read, an injured party can hold the drunk AND the bar owner responsible for their injuries.
Dram laws do not absolve drunk people of their responsibility in choosing to over drink. If you sexually assault someone while drunk, unless you can get a weasel of a lawyer to somehow prove you are the injured party, and live in a state that allows you to sue for injury to self, the people responsible are the drunk and bar owner (if you can prove they knew you were intoxicated, which is not always easy to prove). Even then the drunk's lawsuit with the bar owner is separate from the assaulted person's lawsuit with the drunk and bar owner.
As I said to you. SCs are indeed playing with a bit of fire by serving alcohol in hopes that people will loosen and up and spend more. When people lose their inhibitions all manner of suppressed behaviors are loosened, the good and the bad. But it simply cannot work to free them of their responsibility. If we allowed adults to completely pass responsibility to the bar owners the end result would be everyone will just close their bars, or charge $50-$100 a drink so they can bank enough to pay off the lawyers and huge non-stop settlements that would be the result.
princessjas
09-11-2009, 07:59 AM
Earl seriously, be fucking realistic. Unless you are too damn drunk to stand up you know good and fucking well that assaulting someone is wrong. Culpability shouldn't even be brought into it. The bartenders frequently drink and I've never been assaulted by one. Same with the managers and 1000's of other men over the years. They manage to control themselves, so can everyfuckingbody else.
Time to find your balls and take some personal responsibility.
Elvia
09-11-2009, 04:35 PM
True but if one leaves one's home and attempts to purchase a drink in a bar it is up the bartender to say NO. Don't attempt to defend it otherwise as you will prove yourself a fool.
And, apparently, if they do make a mistake and over-serve you, that gives you a free pass to commit sexual assault?
Earl_the_Pearl
09-11-2009, 11:29 PM
And, apparently, if they do make a mistake and over-serve you, that gives you a free pass to commit sexual assault?
Like in most situations where an injury is involved a percent of fault is assigned by the jury.
Even the McDonald burn lady was held to be 20% responsible. SC are not civilized and that is the way they get a PL to blow 5k in a few hours. A SC doesn’t want to get involved in the ways of civilization; it would kill the business plan.
Phil-W
09-12-2009, 02:11 AM
^^^
Eh.... Earl, why have you got a fly crawling about in your signature?
Just curious.....
Phil.
JayATee
09-12-2009, 02:29 AM
^^^
Eh.... Earl, why have you got a fly crawling about in your signature?
Just curious.....
Phil.
Because he does everything in his power to prove how obnoxious he really is??
slowpoke
09-15-2009, 06:19 PM
There are some dram laws that hold bar owners semi responsible for how much they serve patrons, but that is responsibility in-addition to the responsibility held by the drinker, not in-lieu of. Those dram laws are intended to allow victims of drinkers to recover damages both from the drinker and from the server, not to remove responsibility from the drinker.
In the absence of a dramshop law the tavern owner/operator is not liable for the torts of drunken customers. A dramshop law imposes liability. The purpose of dram shop laws is to make money for plaintiffs lawyers.
Earl_the_Pearl
09-17-2009, 02:40 PM
Earl seriously, be fucking realistic. Unless you are too damn drunk to stand up you know good and fucking well that assaulting someone is wrong. Culpability shouldn't even be brought into it. The bartenders frequently drink and I've never been assaulted by one. Same with the managers and 1000's of other men over the years. They manage to control themselves, so can everyfuckingbody else.
Time to find your balls and take some personal responsibility.
I sat on a jury; the trial was about a bar fight. A younger man hit an older man in the face with a table shuffleboard weight. The older man lost an eye and was suing the younger man and the bar owner.
All twelve of us assigned 80% responsibility to the bar owner for not running an orderly house. The consensus was if one makes money selling alcohol she is held to a standard.
So as you can see a time may come when Earl the Pearl and eleven other good people decide what the law says.
Earl_the_Pearl
09-17-2009, 02:45 PM
^^^
Eh.... Earl, why have you got a fly crawling about in your signature?
Just curious.....
Phil.
I can't get it out; I think it is on the inside. :sorry:
Cyril
09-19-2009, 07:55 AM
I sat on a jury; the trial was about a bar fight. A younger man hit an older man in the face with a table shuffleboard weight. The older man lost an eye and was suing the younger man and the bar owner.
All twelve of us assigned 80% responsibility to the bar owner for not running an orderly house. The consensus was if one makes money selling alcohol she is held to a standard.
So as you can see a time may come when Earl the Pearl and eleven other good people decide what the law says.
You are a rational person. Therefore any accused who finds you on his jury should thank his stars. Just imagine the kind of idiots who can and do make it to the jury duty on a daily basis.
xdamage
09-19-2009, 09:25 AM
I'm good with whatever laws our societies want in regards to bars and serving alcohol in public, but I wish people would form their opinions thinking more then one move ahead.
Societies, economics, complex systems in general work in the ways they do because of give and take. If you want someone else to give you more of something, there is bound to be some taking too, some way in which some one else pays for it.
btw before continuing... the bars may close and put everyone out of work too:
http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/213672-counterclaim-filed-bars-closed-following-dram-shop-suit-against-crockett-street
Many have argued that while individually large settlement health care lawsuits have had no impact, that collectively we are all paying for them in the form of higher health care insurance. Also some specialists working with low probability procedures and high risks (e.g., child birth) increasingly are changing specialties, leaving the remainder to charge much higher fees.
This is the way economics works. Someone receives and someone pays, even if it just means insurance companies laying people off work to cover lost profits due to paying out settlements.
There are always gives and takes and looking ahead a move or two is not super hard. Just ask, if this becomes a trend, what are the long term possible outcomes of dram shop laws and settlements that make bar owners increasingly responsible?
Maybe that they can't serve more then one well metered drink every hour. Want a second? Tough. Law says no, even if you are not driving, because you MIGHT act like an ass later, hurt someone, and the bar owner is 80% responsible if you do. Neato.
Maybe we will see fewer stand-alone a bars because none can afford the risk of just serving drinks at the rate they need to serve to be profitable. A trend I've already seen, bars exist within other venues (restaurants, strip clubs, casinos) and drinks become supplemental income rather then the main source of income.
Maybe bars start charging 2x-3x as much for a drink to pay for insurance plans to cover lawsuits?
Maybe that more restaurants just stop serving alcohol since the risk of an expensive lawsuit isn't worth it? So those of us who drank responsibly in public find it more difficult or costly. Etc.
We refuse to believe such patterns because we want what we want in the moment, but trends start out small and gain a life of their own for reasons. For example, should it become significantly profitable to file lawsuits against bar owners, win, for whatever mis-deeds an individual commits, you can bet that the lawyers will swoop in and do everything they can to encourage lawsuits. And you can bet should that become increasingly the trend, we will all feel some impact, including some we may end up not liking.
Maybe the end result is positive. There is a reasonable argument that alcohol is just a recreational drug, we don't need it to survive, and it does as much harm as good. I'm fine with that, just as long as those in favor of more punishing dram shop laws don't want their cake and eat it too (i.e., if you are over drinking in public then STOP it for everyone's benefit).
slowpoke
04-11-2010, 06:09 PM
I'm good with whatever laws our societies want in regards to bars and serving alcohol in public, but I wish people would form their opinions thinking more then one move ahead.
Societies, economics, complex systems in general work in the ways they do because of give and take. If you want someone else to give you more of something, there is bound to be some taking too, some way in which some one else pays for it.
btw before continuing... the bars may close and put everyone out of work too:
http://www.setexasrecord.com/news/213672-counterclaim-filed-bars-closed-following-dram-shop-suit-against-crockett-street
Many have argued that while individually large settlement health care lawsuits have had no impact, that collectively we are all paying for them in the form of higher health care insurance. Also some specialists working with low probability procedures and high risks (e.g., child birth) increasingly are changing specialties, leaving the remainder to charge much higher fees.
This is the way economics works. Someone receives and someone pays, even if it just means insurance companies laying people off work to cover lost profits due to paying out settlements.
There are always gives and takes and looking ahead a move or two is not super hard. Just ask, if this becomes a trend, what are the long term possible outcomes of dram shop laws and settlements that make bar owners increasingly responsible?
Maybe bars start charging 2x-3x as much for a drink to pay for insurance plans to cover lawsuits?
Maybe the end result is positive. There is a reasonable argument that alcohol is just a recreational drug, we don't need it to survive, and it does as much harm as good. I'm fine with that, just as long as those in favor of more punishing dram shop laws don't want their cake and eat it too (i.e., if you are over drinking in public then STOP it for everyone's benefit).
Insurance companies don’t lay people off and they don’t loose profits. They raise their rates, and everyone pays more for everything.