View Full Version : Double standard to the max.
SerenaSin
08-17-2009, 08:50 AM
I wouldn't care if my bf went to a SC just to try it out, but I wouldn't want my bf to go to strip clubs ALL the time, not because I'd be concerned about "extras" or having a girl dance on his lap, but because I deal with so many gross assholes at the club that I'd be afraid that somehow that asshole-vibe would rub off on my otherwise great guy :)
jack0177057
08-17-2009, 08:56 AM
I also don't think it would be a double standard if she's pissed that, unlike her, he's squandering money as a SC customer, rather than saving money, using that time to earn money, or spending that money on her. That's another difference between the roles.
This, I agree with... If she has to support him, because he spends most of his money on other dancers,... that is a problem... But, assume he contibutes as much money as she does to their shared expenses, he is entitled to spend his money on his choice of entertainment.
jack0177057
08-17-2009, 09:01 AM
From the customer's point of view, there may be an emotional bond or addiction to the sexual high for which he's paying money to fulfill.
This is the same "emotional bond or addiction to the sexual high" he gets when he is jerking off to a Jenna Jameson vid... No permanent harm will come of it...
If he is in a happy relationship, he may fantasize about the dancer, but he will not fall in love with her...
Also, why should a dancer be any more threatening to you than his hotty co-workers, neighbors, etc... If he has any inclination at all to form an "emotional bond" with someone else, not going to the SC will not prevent this from happening.
jack0177057
08-17-2009, 09:05 AM
I wouldn't care if my bf went to a SC just to try it out, but I wouldn't want my bf to go to strip clubs ALL the time, not because I'd be concerned about "extras" or having a girl dance on his lap, but because I deal with so many gross assholes at the club that I'd be afraid that somehow that asshole-vibe would rub off on my otherwise great guy :)
But, he could say the same thing about you associating with dancers... The dancers on this forum are intelligent and wonderful people,... but, I'm sure there are many dancers out there that are "gross assholes"... Even the dancers on this forum have alluded to the existence of such despicable creatures. So he could say, "You're a wonderful person SerenaSin, but I'm afraid you'll become a man-hating extras-galore stripper because working with girls like that, it will rub off on you..."
yoda57us
08-17-2009, 09:45 AM
For the most part that is true but some work not because they need the money but because they like it. So you are saying the guy should be glad she is making money and supporting him so it is OK for her to make the rules?
Now say the same thing about a man that makes the money being able to make the rules.
Dude, don't put words in my mouth. My point was simple. Money is NOT a non issue. The rest of the mental gymnastics comes after the fact that stripping is a job that women do for pay. Even if they enjoy it they still do it for pay. Again, they don't show up and get naked for free.
Spouses, BF's SO's or whatever have to decide for themselves if they are OK with it or not but you can't say that the money doesn't enter into it simply as a hypothetical.
xdamage
08-17-2009, 04:49 PM
Got to agree with yoda on this; the money is not a variable you can remove from how you view this. It is "the key".
p.s. And yes, SOs of dancers get to choose for themselves if they are okay with the deal or not.
xdamage
08-17-2009, 05:00 PM
Here is where a dancer and her custie SO are in identical positions - TRUST. The dancer's BF must TRUST her to only provide dances and not extras... The dancer must trust her SO to only buy dances and not extras... This is where I don't think the dancer trusts her BF as much as he is willing to trust her... TRUST is the double standard...
But again the key difference is one is doing it as a job to raise money (possibly to be put into a relationship) while the other is spending money that could be used by those in the relationship, ideally to strengthen the relationship, to seek sexual thrills with another for his own pleasure only.
They might both trust each other not to have full out sex with strangers but they are not equal situations.
Where the trust matter does come in is the BF (or S.O.) has to trust that of all the dancer's customers, that the dancer is not occasionally building emotional connections with customers, or occasionally having sex with them. The rare, OMFG moments when someone super hot or charming just happens to come along.
Basically trust that over many many opportunities that the dancer has vs the few he has, that it never happens. Where his initial intent is more clear, his opportunities to develop a connection or sexual one are less frequent (hopefully the rare SC trip).
OTOH again turn it around. She is usually adamant that it is JUST business, while he has already shown some interest seeking out sexual thrills (maybe a one night emotional bond?) with some random dancer.
So it is complicated... but also none of our business. It is between the couple and if they are content with it why angst over it?
Earl_the_Pearl
08-17-2009, 09:06 PM
Spouses, BF's SO's or whatever have to decide for themselves if they are OK with it or not but you can't say that the money doesn't enter into it simply as a hypothetical.
Money probably does enter into it for every dancer but no for ever SO; that is a fact.
xdamage
08-17-2009, 09:18 PM
Money probably does enter into it for every dancer but no for ever SO; that is a fact.
Probably but they can choose to end the relationship too.
Also FWIW, I suspect that there is plenty of true double standard going on with the customers ("You want to spend how much of our money every month? To do what? With some hunky young male dancer?").
london
08-17-2009, 09:50 PM
I wouldn't have a problem with my guy doing most any form of sex work. If he were doing xxx films sans protection on a very regular basis, though, I might not want to have unprotected sex in the interim. I see sex work as work and as long as he was a good boyfriend in other respects, I'd fully support and even encourage him!
jack0177057
08-18-2009, 10:31 AM
But again the key difference is one is doing it as a job to raise money (possibly to be put into a relationship) while the other is spending money that could be used by those in the relationship, ideally to strengthen the relationship, to seek sexual thrills with another for his own pleasure only.
I already acknowledged that the situations are not completely identical, but they are close enough... If dancing is mere entertainment, then being a provider or a user shouldn't make much of a difference (as long as the user is being responsible with his money)... It is just entertainment... Neither party should make a big deal of this... But, if the dancer makes a big deal and says its more than just entertainment, that it is "cheating", then, isn't she calling herself a mistress?
Also, change the scenario a little... If I take clients and potential clients out to the SC, then I can say I also do it to "raise money". Obviously, I have to join in the party and buy lap dances for myself so as not become a buzz kill...
jack0177057
08-18-2009, 10:41 AM
I wouldn't have a problem with my guy doing most any form of sex work. If he were doing xxx films sans protection on a very regular basis, though, I might not want to have unprotected sex in the interim. I see sex work as work and as long as he was a good boyfriend in other respects, I'd fully support and even encourage him!
So he can do anything, as long as he does it for money... But, what if he wanted to do something just for the simple thrill of it?
Is doing something for money okay,... but doing it for mere thrill - not okay? What if it was a combination of both? -- The chick was super hot and you know that he is going to love the sex, and would do it for free -- and getting paid is just an added bonus.
What if the motivation was 5% for the money and 95% for the thrill, or some other variation? Where do you draw the line?
xdamage
08-18-2009, 10:53 AM
I already acknowledged that the situations are not completely identical, but they are close enough... If dancing is mere entertainment, then being a provider or a user shouldn't make much of a difference (as long as the user is being responsible with his money)... It is just entertainment... Neither party should make a big deal of this... But, if the dancer makes a big deal and says its more than just entertainment, that it is "cheating", then, isn't she calling herself a mistress?
This is a valid argument and I will answer indirectly. In an earlier post I listed some of the different types of jobs people engage in, including the job of Vice sales. As I said there, there is a certain amount of logical inconsistency required to be a Vice sales person. I'm not sure I'd call it a double standard but yes there is logical inconsistency of sorts.
The essence of it is this:
'Someone wants something I disapprove of using personally, but I want to sell it because it is highly profitable for me to do so. I will encourage the other to buy more because I profit more, but likewise, because I disapprove of what is being bought, the more they buy, the more I disapprove of them.'
Not all Vice sellers see it this way. Some are proud of the product they sell, but realize that vices can be addictive and so while they don't completely disapprove of using their product, they disapprove of addiction (though still may encourage sales and wash their hands of worrying about if the buyer is an addict or under control).
You can see the same mindset in say the gambling business, where those making profits off it and encouraging it still may not approve of wasting money gambling, or addiction (that is to say a Casino owner may not want his loved ones wasting money on gambling, or worse becoming addicting and giving his money to anther Casino owner).
I think this logical inconsistency is precisely why we all are aware on some level that sales of certain services and goods (cigarettes, weapons, sex, drugs) are in fact not equivalent to selling other services and goods, why they are "vices".
Some people do want them. Some people are willing to pay a lot for them, even though they are expensive. They are expensive only because we have the laws making it hard to buy these things. The laws are in place because we know on some level that these services and goods have negative sides in extreme cases, in particular addiction as well as other negative impacts on people.
Bottom line is when even the seller of a product is having moral or personal quandaries about the thing they are selling, when there are negatives to it in their own mind, then chances are you have a Vice product at play.
On the flip side, Vice products only remain profitable because people want them. It is very symbiotic even if often the Vice seller and buyer are at odds with each other. Because often even Vice buyers disapprove of Vice sellers, even if they are users of the product.
Aren't people neat? It is called wanting to have our cake and eat it too. Aka, a form of ambivalence. Most of us are quite good at it in some form or another in our own life if we are open to looking for it.
yoda57us
08-18-2009, 11:18 AM
Money probably does enter into it for every dancer but no for ever SO; that is a fact.
Well again, it may or may not be a "fact". If they are cohabiting and sharing expenses then the SO has a vested interest in the lady's income. If they are financially independent then your supposition may be more logical but nothing is as black and white as you seem to think it should be. I don't see how you can assume that anything is fact or fiction when it comes to how other people live their lives. It simply is what it is.
jack0177057
08-18-2009, 01:50 PM
'Someone wants something I disapprove of using personally, but I want to sell it because it is highly profitable for me to do so. I will encourage the other to buy more because I profit more, but likewise, because I disapprove of what is being bought, the more they buy, the more I disapprove of them.'
Not all Vice sellers see it this way. Some are proud of the product they sell, but realize that vices can be addictive and so while they don't completely disapprove of using their product, they disapprove of addiction (though still may encourage sales and wash their hands of worrying about if the buyer is an addict or under control).
The problem with your "vice seller" analogy is that, my wife or GF's sale of drugs, guns, etc. to a third party is not offensive to our relationship and does not violate or threaten our mutual promise of sexual exclusivity... She is selling a product... not her sexuality... Conversely, my wife or GF's flirting with dozens of guys a night, exposing herself to them, rubbing her breasts on their faces and sitting on their junk... may violate our mutual promise of sexual exclusivity, depending on how we look at it ("entertainment" v. "sex").
First, is she selling sex or just "erotic entertainment"? If it is only entertainment and not sex, then why would she raise any objections to my pursuit of the same form of entertainment... (assuming I spend responsibly)?
On the other hand, if she calls it cheating when I do it, because she calls it a sexual activity, then she must admit to being a provider of same and a mistress...
Secondly, can she admit that it is a sexual activity, but rely on the fact that she makes money in the process, as a license to commit what would otherwise be a violation of our mutual promise of sexual exclusivity? Since when does the exchange of money grant a person immunity from the charge of infidelity? So, if I find a horny rich lady and service her like she's never been services before, and she buys me expensive gifts or pays me money, my GF or wife can't raise any objections?
The question is this -- Is dancing a form of entertainment or is it a sexual activity? If it is entertainment, then both parties can participate in their own way. If it is a sexual activity, then it is "cheating", whether you make money or spend money...
xdamage
08-18-2009, 02:50 PM
The problem with your "vice seller" analogy is that, my wife or GF's sale of drugs, guns, etc. to a third party is not offensive to our relationship and does not violate or threaten our mutual promise of sexual exclusivity... She is selling a product... not her sexuality...
And that is why this is a unique vice, because what is sold is bodies and not just a thing.
But one point... no it could be that you or her sell cigarettes, but don't smoke yourself and don't want the other to smoke. Happens. It is like that. But yes, because what is for sale is the human body then it has an additional twist.
The key issue for you an S.O. is "...does not violate or threaten our mutual promise of sexual exclusivity..."
And that is why it is probably not right for you, but if some other guy (or girl) is good with it, doesn't feel it threatens them (or not enough to leave the relationship) why should the rest of us be bothered by it? It has no effect on us.
Trust is after all entirely in our heads. And plenty of men and women cheat even though they are not stripping. Are the odds really higher that they will do so if they strip? I have no idea. And is the question about emotional cheating? Sexual intercourse? Flirting? Flirting with touching?
It's all just a big gray scale. Remember, for some guys they are going to flip out if a woman even flirts, or in the very worst cases people angst over "if you even think it in your hearts you are an adulterer" per the Bible.
Every one of us has the freedom to choose who we are with in this country so if the feeling that her touching other men in the context of a job violates your boundaries for sexual exclusivity then you don't need to justify it. That is all good. Your boundaries are yours. Just they aren't other peoples and don't forget too... if no woman would do this job then we wouldn't be here having this discussion. You are a beneficiary too of the very thing you are questioning.
jack0177057
08-18-2009, 04:27 PM
The key issue for you an S.O. is "...does not violate or threaten our mutual promise of sexual exclusivity..."
That is all good. Your boundaries are yours. Just they aren't other peoples and don't forget too... if no woman would do this job then we wouldn't be here having this discussion. You are a beneficiary too of the very thing you are questioning.
Just to leave things clear... The issue for me is whether she is selling "sex" or "entertainment". I believe that most dancers sell entertainment only and I would not have a personal issue with this (as long as she had no issue with my occasional & fiscally responsible pursuit of the same entertainment).
I've said it before that I could see myself having a LTR with a dancer, particularly, one that gives low-contact dances (I don't care if she was giving high-contact dances before becoming my LTR) and is using dancing as a means to something else (like a college degree or starting a small business) and not as an end or final destination point (i.e., she plans on dancing until she is forced to retire at 40).
Also, I don't have any moral objection to a woman that sells sex and I don't think society should criminalize this career choice, but our lifestyles and personal boundaries would not be compatible.
xdamage
08-18-2009, 04:39 PM
Just to leave things clear... The issue for me is whether she is selling "sex" or "entertainment". I believe that most dancers sell entertainment only and I would not have a personal issue with this (as long as she had no issue with my occasional & fiscally responsible pursuit of the same entertainment).
Well I think that is reasonable. And if you ever were in the situation then you should negotiate for that.
Besides I actually do think if someone sells a vice product it is reasonable for their S.O. to request them to be open to using the product on occasion (and I'm not talking about addictive behavior, just on occasion). I'd be worried about someone whose mind is so rigidly opposed that they have some issues with seeing anything but from their own narrow PoV. After all if it really seems detestable to the seller then it might be time to have a sit down and ask, hmm... is it really right that I profit from this then if it is that wrong to use what I am selling?
I can understand ambivalence... we all have mixed feelings about many things. It is the extremes that are worrisome.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-19-2009, 01:53 AM
. I don't see how you can assume that anything is fact or fiction when it comes to how other people live their lives. It simply is what it is.
It is how I live my life; I do not ass/u/me.
Golden_Rule
08-19-2009, 10:02 AM
I wouldn't care if my bf went to a SC just to try it out, but I wouldn't want my bf to go to strip clubs ALL the time, not because I'd be concerned about "extras" or having a girl dance on his lap, but because I deal with so many gross assholes at the club that I'd be afraid that somehow that asshole-vibe would rub off on my otherwise great guy :)
Ok, I wasn't going to jump in because this is old ground but this gives it a new twist.
You know that as much bad behavior that takes place from the male side of the equation in strip-clubs [and there is plenty to be sure] it is matched equally by a similar amount of bad behavior on the part of the females present.
So, having nothing to do with a sexual component, why wouldn't a guy not want his SO dancing in the club because he doesn't want her to be exposed to all that and turn into one of "those type of women" who think ill of men because she sees them at their worst at work all the time, responds to offenses made in her general direction by having a strong desire to stick a spiked heel in his eye, etc, etc, etc.
Always remember there is no such thing as a one sided coin.
====
Side note: In my world sauce for the goose is always sauce for the gander. I have no problem with my wife doing anything I'm doing as long as the same is true the other way round. I don't have a jealous bone in my body. In fact the only time jealousy has become an issue in any of my relationships was the curious situation of catching heat for NOT having any. For some reason some women get upset by that [go figure?].
yoda57us
08-19-2009, 11:01 AM
I don't have a jealous bone in my body. In fact the only time jealousy has become an issue in any of my relationships was the curious situation of catching heat for NOT having any. For some reason some women get upset by that [go figure?].
I've been down the same road. What it boils down to is ego GR...
Earl_the_Pearl
08-19-2009, 09:13 PM
So, having nothing to do with a sexual component, why wouldn't a guy not want his SO dancing in the club because he doesn't want her to be exposed to all that and turn into one of "those type of women" who think ill of men because she sees them at their worst at work all the time, responds to offenses made in her general direction by having a strong desire to stick a spiked heel in his eye, etc, etc, etc.
SO is one thing wife is another; I just packed all my stuff and moved out of my vacation place in East Orange and into my new recreation place in Paterson. No fuss, no muss, no police, no alimony and most of all no tears.
evan_essence
08-20-2009, 10:42 PM
First, is she selling sex or just "erotic entertainment"? If it is only entertainment and not sex, then why would she raise any objections to my pursuit of the same form of entertainment... (assuming I spend responsibly)?Because you're buying, not selling. The motive for selling dances in a strip club is to make money, not to create pleasure. The motive for buying dances is to create sexually-oriented pleasure for yourself. The problem with you boys is that you can't discern this difference. You think the effect is the same on both sides of the equation when it's not. You think we must be doing it to get off. You're the ones doing it to get off. We're doing it to get your f*^$ing money. I am not feeling what you're feeling in the exhange. Therefore, it is not the same experience for me as it is for you.
Just to leave things clear... The issue for me is whether she is selling "sex" or "entertainment".The issue for me is do I feel an emotional/sexual connection to my customer. And the answer is no. The exchange of money both reinforces and is a reflection of my lack of emotional/sexual connection. On the other hand, does my customer feel an emotional/sexual connection to me? I don't really care, but possibly yes. That's his issue. This is the difference. For me, it's business. For him, I'm not sure. Could be he judges it as harmless entertainment (based on what? love of dance as art?), could be he has an emotional attachment to a dancer, could be he's sexually excited. So that would be my question for my SO. What's your motive for buying dances and what's the effect? Obviously the motive is not to make money with the effect being no emotional connection. So, is the motive and effect to be entertained, emotionally connected or sexually excited? What would his answer be? I don't think it's a double standard if I object that he's taking something different from the experience that I'm not.
-Eva
jack0177057
08-21-2009, 11:47 AM
The motive for selling dances in a strip club is to make money, not to create pleasure. The motive for buying dances is to create sexually-oriented pleasure for yourself. The problem with you boys is that you can't discern this difference.
The motive does not change the objective truth of the nature of the activity. If an activity is a sexual activity, each person's motives for participating in that activity do not alter its objective reality.
If the activity constitutes infidelity (i.e., a sexual activity with a person outside the marriage or the LTR)... whether you do it for pleasure, for money or for an ice cream sunday makes no difference... The fact that you engaged in a sexual act with a third person on a voluntarily basis is all that matters.
But, again,... I don't consider erotic dancing or lap dances as a "sexual activity"... It is just pure entertainment... like watching porn,... but better.
jack0177057
08-21-2009, 11:58 AM
The exchange of money both reinforces and is a reflection of my lack of emotional/sexual connection. On the other hand, does my customer feel an emotional/sexual connection to me? I don't really care, but possibly yes. That's his issue. This is the difference. For me, it's business.
So any person in a marriage or LTR can have sex outside the marriage or LTR so long as the sex is for monetary reward? If your husband's boss is a horny older woman, he can service her (as often as necessary) as long as he gets a promotion and raise in the process? He can have sex with your neighbor, as long as she gives him tickets to a concert or some other gift of monetary value?
evan_essence
08-21-2009, 02:48 PM
The motive does not change the objective truth of the nature of the activity. If an activity is a sexual activity, each person's motives for participating in that activity do not alter its objective reality.Whose objective truth? It's a subjective experience on the part of the participants. Thus, the dancer and customer can and usually do experience totally different emotional reactions to the same interaction.
If the activity constitutes infidelity (i.e., a sexual activity with a person outside the marriage or the LTR)... whether you do it for pleasure, for money or for an ice cream sunday makes no difference... The fact that you engaged in a sexual act with a third person on a voluntarily basis is all that matters.You're such a guy. The reason you do it (we're talking non-extra dances here, not sexual intercourse) makes all the difference in the world. What you feel about it is at the core of the nature of it. If I don't get a sexual thrill from dancing for you, but you do, then there's a fundamental difference in our experience and its subsequent effect on our relationships.
So any person in a marriage or LTR can have sex outside the marriage or LTR so long as the sex is for monetary reward? If your husband's boss is a horny older woman, he can service her (as often as necessary) as long as he gets a promotion and raise in the process? He can have sex with your neighbor, as long as she gives him tickets to a concert or some other gift of monetary value?No, I didn't say anything about having sexual intercourse. You specifically mentioned dancers who presumedly do no extras, thus I didn't think you were making sexual intercourse your focus either. I mentioned customers getting a sexual thrill from it, but I wasn't speaking of having sexual intercourse. I doubt I'd have a problem with it if hubby manipulated horny boss for money in a flirty, highly-sexually-charged way that fell short of having intercourse.
-Eva
Earl_the_Pearl
08-21-2009, 05:01 PM
You're such a guy. The reason you do it (we're talking non-extra dances here, not sexual intercourse) makes all the difference in the world.
We are talking about everything from fully clothe air dances to BBBJ/CFS and everything in between; one really doesn't know now does one.
AS the OP I no longer have a problem as I can and do as I please no matter what my roommate does. No women, no cry; remember money was not an issue with the OP, not incoming money any way.
jack0177057
08-21-2009, 09:26 PM
Whose objective truth? It's a subjective experience on the part of the participants. Thus, the dancer and customer can and usually do experience totally different emotional reactions to the same interaction.
The objective truth is the physical reality of the situation. If the physical act is a sexual act, the parties are engaging in a sexual act - and no subjective emotional reaction can change this objective truth.
No, I didn't say anything about having sexual intercourse. You specifically mentioned dancers who presumedly do no extras, thus I didn't think you were making sexual intercourse your focus either.
Eva, I qualified dancers who do not perform extras in the context of "entertainment"... because that's all a lap dance is to me --"entertainment",... and therefore not an actual "sexual activity" and not worth getting jealous over, whether you are the SO of a provider or consumer.
But, if you consider a LD as "sexual activity" which the wife/GF is free to offer other men for money, then, this logic doesn't end with just a LD, does it? The same logic can be extended to all "sexual activities," including extras and sexual intercourse. Why would one sexual activity be different from another?... Same rules apply across the board.
Again, a sexual activity is a sexual activity, is a sexual activity... If you engage in it voluntarily... you are commiting adultery or cheating, regardless of your motivation. Money is not a magical talisman that turns vice into virtue.
I disagree with you, but you are a good debater... I would enjoy meeting you in a club for debating and dances.:)
Golden_Rule
08-21-2009, 11:08 PM
You're such a guy. The reason you do it (we're talking non-extra dances here, not sexual intercourse) makes all the difference in the world. What you feel about it is at the core of the nature of it. If I don't get a sexual thrill from dancing for you, but you do, then there's a fundamental difference in our experience and its subsequent effect on our relationships.
That is not how most people deal with that reality. It might be how I deal with it but I have to recognize that because I [and apparently you] see something one way doesn't make it a social norm.
The norm would be to see the difference like this:
1) An assault for profit, like a mugging, verses an assault for personal defense.
BOTH are an assault. One of them may be justifiable.
So you can justify the sexual component of your job by the fact that you have to make a living and this is one way to do it, but that doesn't make it NOT a sexual act just because you get paid for it.
If you were to poll 100 people as to whether giving OR getting a lap dance is a sexual act the vast majority of people are going to state that it is on both the part of the dancer and the guy getting the dance.
Those of us who feel differently about it have to deal with that fact that we are in the minority in that regard.
xdamage
08-22-2009, 08:24 AM
The objective truth is the physical reality of the situation. If the physical act is a sexual act, the parties are engaging in a sexual act - and no subjective emotional reaction can change this objective truth.
:)
Since we are debating for fun.. suppose a device could be built that measured sexual arousal in an objective way? Would you think there is a difference between one case where there is sexual arousal, and another case where there is not?
Again, a sexual activity is a sexual activity, is a sexual activity... If you engage in it voluntarily... you are commiting adultery or cheating, regardless of your motivation. Money is not a magical talisman that turns vice into virtue.
FWIW in my state adultery is a complex definition, but dancing probably wouldn't meet it as it requires consenting intercourse (i.e. penetration).
The thing is cheating/Adultery is not an absolute truth, but whatever we people want to agree it is, both a legal definition for the community we live in, and between two people. So if a couple agrees that stripping/teasing for money is not adultery, I'm guessing my state's laws would agree, and of course between them they agree.
For you the physical act alone is enough to qualify as cheating. For many people they would agree, it crosses a line for them. And what is the problem? None. If that is the defintion you are comfortable with then perfect. There are endless women out there who feel the same so no problem with finding one who values this aspect of their lives the same as you. OTOH it is harmless to us if a couple has a different set of boundaries, for whom the money aspect changes the equation.
The one true double standard would be if a dancer has issues with her SO working in the industry as another dancer.
But here is an example that pushes us to think...
Suppose a dancer's SO wanted to be a porn star? Yea, he will be having sex, orgasm, but no feelings and it is all just an entertainment for pay, so does the fact that he really does get physiologically stimulated by it count as cheating if it is done for MONEY?
My guess is the answers will cover the entire spectrum from don't care to absolutely no way in hell.
Actually having sex (which dancers don't) might cross a line for dancers.
Orgasm might cross a line for some (and hopefully the same applies to themselves).
Being physically stimulated with the planned intent of orgasm might cross a line.
And so on.... So it is more complex then "because it is for money". Money does not make anything okay between couples when it comes to their definitions of cheating/adultery.
In the end good luck because I think all you can say is everyone has their own boundaries and it is (semi) humour how important it is to us that we convince others that our personal boundaries are the absolute truth against which all others should be measured.
jack0177057
08-24-2009, 08:01 AM
The thing is cheating/Adultery is not an absolute truth, but whatever we people want to agree it is, both a legal definition for the community we live in, and between two people. So if a couple agrees that stripping/teasing for money is not adultery, I'm guessing my state's laws would agree, and of course between them they agree.
That's why I start my opinion, with this question: are lap dances "entertainment" or a "sexual activity"... If it is entertainment, neither the dancer nor the custie is cheating on their SO. If it is a "sexual activity", then both are cheating on their SO.
xdamage
08-24-2009, 08:44 AM
That's why I start my opinion, with this question: are lap dances "entertainment" or a "sexual activity"... If it is entertainment, neither the dancer nor the custie is cheating on their SO. If it is a "sexual activity", then both are cheating on their SO.
Right just again you have to decide for yourself if being the entertainer/provider for money vs the entertained/sexually-stimulated is a factor.
But where we don't seem to be seeing eye to eye is regarding cheating, which putting aside the legal definitions (that vary greatly depending on where and when - very different definitions depending on the society, and the time in history), is a matter in our heads.
For some people just thinking lustful thoughts for another is cheating.
For me, I surely wouldn't care if my S.O. wanted to go a male strip club review even if she got sexually turned on, as long as she wasn't crossing certain lines (e.g., actually touching his genitals, kissing him or actually orgasming herself). I'd see it as both entertainment and a sexual activity but not cheating because that is my arbitrary line in my head. However if she went back to see the same dancer over and over then it would cross into cheating for me.
Cheating is a not a black and white matter for me. It is a gray scale and on one end of that scale I don't expect her to be a pure angel with no lustful thoughts, but on the other end of my scale is having sex and then there is a bunch of stuff in the middle where it is murky how much it feels like cheating to me. That is my personal scale. Other people have their own scales and believe me when I tell you, for some of those people the fact that she is doing it for money IS a factor in how they weigh it. Lawyers looking for objective legal definitions may not like that fuzziness but that's the way it really is; the law just can't capture every person's individual subtleties.
bem401
08-25-2009, 07:26 AM
That's why I start my opinion, with this question: are lap dances "entertainment" or a "sexual activity"... If it is entertainment, neither the dancer nor the custie is cheating on their SO. If it is a "sexual activity", then both are cheating on their SO.
I think the decision as to whether or not lap dances are "entertainment" or "sexual activity" belongs to the SO. If the SO considers it sexual activity, good luck convincing them its not.
xdamage
08-25-2009, 09:48 AM
I think the decision as to whether or not lap dances are "entertainment" or "sexual activity" belongs to the SO. If the SO considers it sexual activity, good luck convincing them its not.
I agree, just I wish the phrases entertainment/sexual-activity were not co-mingled with cheating/adultery. They are separable matters.
For example, if I took my S.O. to a SC and she got a lappy from one of the other dancers and got turned on, that is both entertainment and a sexual activity, but not cheating to me. Where I draw the lines in my own mind I wouldn't feel cheated on because I was there and part of it. It was about us.
On the other hand if she went alone and excluded me I might have some mixed feelings about being exclude, but if it was once in a while I wouldn't feel cheated on. I can accept as a human (like I am human) it is normal to have some fantasies and wants that we don't necessarily act on, but still enjoy on some level with restrictions.
However if she went often, spent a lot of OUR money (that could be spent on us), and especially if she repeatedly saw the same dancer I probably would feel cheated on, especially if it felt like she was more turned on by the dancer then by me.
The sexual activity level might be the same in every case, but what is different is how much it is about us vs how much it is about her and someone else. But those are my arbitrary lines. Other people have their own lines.
jack0177057
08-26-2009, 11:14 AM
I agree, just I wish the phrases entertainment/sexual-activity were not co-mingled with cheating/adultery. They are separable matters.
You're right, I made the assumption that a sexual activity with someone other than your SO or spouse is cheating (infidelity),... but, there is one exception to this -- full and voluntary approval of the SO or spouse... (as in threesomes and swinging). I made my assumption based on the fact that most of the dancers on this thread do not seem inclined to grant such permission. (If the dancer and her SO were inclined to grant each other mutual consent, then, we wouldn't even have this debate, because the issue would be moot.)
"Adultery" is defined by Marrium Webster's dictionary as "voluntary sexual intercourse between a married man and someone other than his wife or between a married woman and someone other than her husband; also : an act of adultery"... Whether the SO or spouse consents is immaterial in this definition. However, it seems to only apply to sexual intercourse.
Earl_the_Pearl
08-26-2009, 05:35 PM
The sexual activity level might be the same in every case, but what is different is how much it is about us vs how much it is about her and someone else. But those are my arbitrary lines. Other people have their own lines.
That is how women view it;
xdamage
08-26-2009, 06:26 PM
That is how women view it;
Could be a lot see it that way, but I don't think there is any absolute truth about it either. Whatever boundaries people want is fine. Just means needing to find someone else with roughly similar beliefs.
Elvia
08-26-2009, 06:29 PM
^^^ Agreed. All that really matters is what the couple considers to be infidelity. Some people consider visiting an SC as cheating. Others don't and have no problem with their partners going to an SC and getting a dance.
evan_essence
08-29-2009, 10:39 PM
Since we are debating for fun.. suppose a device could be built that measured sexual arousal in an objective way? Would you think there is a difference between one case where there is sexual arousal, and another case where there is not?Thank you. This is exactly the point I was addressing which is being overlooked in the rush to say the interaction between dancer and customer is either sexual activity or it's not. If the meter judged me as a dancer to have no arousal, then it's not sexual activity for me. If the meter on the customer measured arousal, it's sexual activity for him. This is a distinction I think so many men can't grasp because you have it in your heads that dancers must feel some sexual buzz from you, as you do from her. Like I'm going to cum because you are.
Whether or not I was doing it for money is largely irrelevant to whether or not the interaction is sexual, that's true, but I stressed that component because doing it for money is consistent with emotional detachment. The thrill I got was from earning the money. The satisfaction for me came from choreographing the interaction to achieve financial gain. That clearly is not what's going on in the senses of the customer.
-Eva
goreantx
08-29-2009, 11:04 PM
Like I'm going to cum because you are.
.... I might cum if you hand me $5,000 in cash... just because.
;D
Earl_the_Pearl
08-30-2009, 03:23 AM
.... I might cum if you hand me $5,000 in cash... just because.
;D
I bought a long time OTC an air conditioner, on sale at Sears $160. She just moved into an new apartment and it was hot as heck. She was more impressed with my ability to install said air conditioner than the cost. The ability to lift 150 pounds makes one a god to a women. Women will love a god a long time; they will make the god do it again after he is spent. It was easier to lift and install the air conditioner. :-[
yoda57us
08-30-2009, 10:32 AM
Women will love a god a long time; they will make the god do it again after he is spent. It was easier to lift and install the air conditioner. :-[
Honestly I am laughing too hard to type anything but this....
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
evan_essence
08-30-2009, 10:34 PM
Free installation of a 150-pound $160 air conditioner vs. $5000 in cash. I'm so torn over which to have an orgasm over. ::)
-Eva
Golden_Rule
08-30-2009, 11:27 PM
Thank you. This is exactly the point I was addressing which is being overlooked in the rush to say the interaction between dancer and customer is either sexual activity or it's not. If the meter judged me as a dancer to have no arousal, then it's not sexual activity for me.
I am afraid that both you and Xdamage have this wrong and the reason is really quite simple. Its the definition of the word "sexual". It doesn't reference a level of arousal but whether the act is of the nature of sex. So, by way of example, it wouldn't matter if you weren't experiencing heightened arousal while giving someone a hand job for it to be a sexual act on both your parts, because the ACT is of a sexual nature which fits the definition of the term: sexual.
Golden_Rule
08-30-2009, 11:31 PM
Free installation of a 150-pound $160 air conditioner vs. $5000 in cash. I'm so torn over which to have an orgasm over. ::)
-Eva
Take the air conditioner if you really need it, because while you can purchase one even $5K ain't getting an AC installer out to your home to put it in this time of year. :)
Earl_the_Pearl
08-31-2009, 12:47 AM
Free installation of a 150-pound $160 air conditioner vs. $5000 in cash. I'm so torn over which to have an orgasm over. ::)
-Eva
To a women moving 150 pounds is difficult; to be able to carry it up and down stairs then to place it exactly as needed in a window and secure it so it does not fall in or out is beyond belief. The god like power is manifest when it all works and the once 90 degree room becomes a cool and dry 65 degrees. She loved me long time like never before. It was more than the money this time; it was this old fart still has something left. The new ambiance of her room had something to do with it too.
She wanted to have my children; she attempted to have me do it without a condom. I know the danger of that, 23 years of child support, so I reluctantly rolled on a Trojan Magnum. :shy:
Earl_the_Pearl
08-31-2009, 12:58 AM
Take the air conditioner if you really need it, because while you can purchase one even $5K ain't getting an AC installer out to your home to put it in this time of year.
Not in this section of Patterson anyway.It would take two technicians; one to install the unit and one to watch the truck. :lens:
I would tell you where she dances but it is a secrets. :shhh:
xdamage
08-31-2009, 05:43 AM
I am afraid that both you and Xdamage have this wrong and the reason is really quite simple. Its the definition of the word "sexual". It doesn't reference a level of arousal but whether the act is of the nature of sex. So, by way of example, it wouldn't matter if you weren't experiencing heightened arousal while giving someone a hand job for it to be a sexual act on both your parts, because the ACT is of a sexual nature which fits the definition of the term: sexual.
Let me give a slightly skewed analogy. Killing someone else can include:
1) Pure accident (aka man slaughter)
2) Not planned but emotions were out of control in the spur of the moment due to circumstances.
3) Planned.
4) Planned with intent to make it as painful as possible.
Technically it is all killing for sure, but our courts (and even the common person's mind) sees a difference because even if someone dies in every case, there is a difference in the intent (and emotional involvement) of the mind of the killer.
From your PoV of the killed (just before you died) or a loved one left in the wake of the act, it might not matter much to you; you may feel exactly the same, and that fine, but there are people who see the intent and emotional involvement as being a key factor when weighing the act.
Now of course the same applies to an S.O. of a dancer. He (or she) may well look on their partner as all acts are equal and intent doesn't matter; but then again he/she may also look on the intent, the emotional involvement, see that there is a dramatic difference between an act done with no intent to be aroused and one that is.
Side/related point. Most of us probably would see a difference between a male actor shooting a love scene in a movie with a female star he is not aroused by, and going through the same motions with a woman who he actively sought out for the arousal. Even society as a whole would see a dramatic difference in the one (the act) and the later even if the physical actions are the same.
In fact just try to imagine that. Trying to act out a love scene with a a woman whose image really grosses you out (imagine bad teeth, bad breathe, over weight, smelly, whatever turns you off). No erection. Just the motions. Now is that really the same to you as going through the same motions with a hottie you are getting aroused by? Would you really want your S.O. to call your first act cheating?
princessjas
08-31-2009, 09:37 AM
I am afraid that both you and Xdamage have this wrong and the reason is really quite simple. Its the definition of the word "sexual". It doesn't reference a level of arousal but whether the act is of the nature of sex. So, by way of example, it wouldn't matter if you weren't experiencing heightened arousal while giving someone a hand job for it to be a sexual act on both your parts, because the ACT is of a sexual nature which fits the definition of the term: sexual.
Well, if my boob brushes against someone as I walk through a crowd it is non-sexual contact right? But if I brush by breast against a lovers chest would that not be considered sexual contact?
I dunno, but I think your being a bit too literal about it. If a couple does not define it as such why go all Merriam Webster on them? :shrug:
xdamage
08-31-2009, 10:31 AM
Well, if my boob brushes against someone as I walk through a crowd it is non-sexual contact right? But if I brush by breast against a lovers chest would that not be considered sexual contact?
I dunno, but I think your being a bit too literal about it. If a couple does not define it as such why go all Merriam Webster on them? :shrug:
The boob brushing example seems like a good one as any to illustrate a difference, but ...
I think part of it may be that when it comes to sex, most of us people have some pretty deep feelings about sex. So I think it must be not something everyone can separate in their minds. And this applies to myself as well.
For example:
Suppose it is a sex worker providing a BJ or FS to a customer. Now if she (or he) was someone I don't know or have feelings for I can be very objective about it. I can see the difference between doing it for money and doing it for personal pleasure.
But if it was done by someone I care about, my brain's arbitrary boundaries would say "Yep, that was sex!" "You fucked him and it hurts" Even if I knew intellectually that she was not aroused, it would still trigger pretty much the very same emotions that it would if it was done for pleasure.
Does that make sense that I have that arbitrary boundary or that I can't see the situation intellectually the same way? Intellectualy no, but also to some degree we feel what we feel and can only make so many apologies or worry about it so much.
And part of the confusion here is that all sexual activity is not equal in our minds. It is not so black and while as a single word "sexual". Like my guess is a lot of dancers would have issue with their S.O.s having intercourse for money. "Hey honey, I'm off to work to bang 3 new girls and a guy. Should pay me $1000. Let's celebrate tonight". Like I'm 100% sure that at least a few dancers would not be cool with that, that the money wouldn't make it okay, and the reason is, it's not just that dancers engage in "sexual" stimulation for money. It is that she is "dancing" (i.e., teasing, acting, but not doing) for money. She is not having full out sex for money.
But maybe one reason why so many of the guys are having doubts is because of what they experience in the SCs (and here in SW). First, that a good act is good enough to leave us thinking that many of the dancers really do get turned on. Second, that extras are now so commonly offered that it begins to look like SCs are effectively underground brothels. Third, that we read occasional stories about the dancer who unexpectedly does get turned on (rare but it happens) by a customer and seemingly enjoys those moments, in some cases stories of things going farther. Especially the 3rd case kind of leaves EtPs question an open one, does enjoying this perk on occasion change the dynamics of the situation?
And the fourth matter... that male bodies react to sexual stimulation. Even if it an unattractive woman, because hey, that is how we are wired. We might not love seek out liasons with someone we find unattractive, but if we are stimulated enough to get erection we would face that our bodies are reacting sexually. Is that sexual stimulation or is that just reactions? Like the reaction a doctor seeks when checking our knees? And if some dancer's bodies react similarly, see that is a gray area that is harder to judge between no physical arousal at all vs some physical arousal but little or no emotional arousal. Exactly how people see that depends on the person.