Log in

View Full Version : Double standard to the max.



Pages : 1 2 [3]

jack0177057
08-31-2009, 12:42 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. 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.

"Sexual activity" is not defined by subjective arousal. If my GF is not in the mood for sex (because she is tired, under stress, etc.), but I want sex badly, she gives me a handjob, blowjob or quickie... She is not aroused, so therefore, it is not a sexual activity for her?

I think what is really causing confusion here is that mutual exclusivity has both an emotional and a physical component. Arousal is related to emotional exclusivity. If my dancer GF is giving Jabba the Hut a lap dance, there is no emotional cheating, because I know that she is repulsed by him... However, if she is exposing herself to him, grinding on his junk, rubbing her breasts on his face, etc. (and assuming we characterize these activities as sexual, and not just entertainment)... then, she is not keeping true to her promise of physical exclusivity... She is sharing the physical aspects of her sexuality with another man.

I think the dancer objects to her SO getting a dance on the gounds that she thinks he will experiences both physical and emotional intimacy with the other dancer, while she (the dancer SO) is only providing (detached) physical intimacy to her custies. She puts all the value on the emotional component and ignores the physical component.

Also, she fails to grasp that the thrill that he feels from getting the lap dance from another dancer has no emotional depth,... it is also mostly physical (or perhaps a third component: sensual). He is not going to fall in love with her. He is just having some harmless little fun. Guys, generally, do not have trouble with emotional monogamy... It is the physical component that is the toughest for us, because, we are wired to seek variety and new thrills on a purely physical level (even while we are in love with only one woman)... So, the other dancer satisfies this craving for variety and new thrills, and is not emotionally taking anything away from his relationship with his GF.

xdamage
08-31-2009, 01:21 PM
"Sexual activity" is not defined by subjective arousal.


Interesting, you the lawyer see it so, and GR whose opinions are also enjoyable to read, an ex-cop, also sees it as such. But maybe part of the problem here is that you are both use to thinking in legal terms, and you are both right legally, but the problem is the laws can't measure our subjective arousal.

See to me we people create laws for us. We are not slaves to them though. Legal definitions do not define how we think or feel. Rather, laws are rough approximations of what we agree is generally right, for the majority, given that the law cannot perfectly account for all possible circumstances.

Just because the law is not able to measure our subjective arousal doesn't mean we can't be aware that subjective arousal exists in our brains, nor are we required to limit our views to what the law can define.

After all we've also had debates about the age of maturity and agreed that the law just cannot come up with a perfect definition that meets every circumstance, that takes into account everyone's exact life experience, so instead the law is a great a simplification of the full truth of how people really think/feel (i.e., 18 is the magic legal age because it very roughly covers the most common case pretty well).

It is the same with this as far as I am concerned. The legal definition is fine but people still may have views that go beyond the bounds of what the legal definition is because the legal definition is lacking in details, like the subjective arousal (emotional and physiological).



then, she is not keeping true to her promise of physical exclusivity... She is sharing the physical aspects of her sexuality with another man.


What promise? Most dancers S.O.s know they dance.

But I could see it being an issue if she started dancing after marriage but even in the state I live in, adultery requires some penetration of the sex organs. Apparently even oral sex is not adultery. Wow? Yes but it seems pretty clearly so. So what a dancer does in this state wouldn't meet the legal definition of adultery even if it met a legal definition of sexual activity.

jack0177057
09-01-2009, 08:53 AM
See to me we people create laws for us. We are not slaves to them though. Legal definitions do not define how we think or feel. Rather, laws are rough approximations of what we agree is generally right, for the majority, given that the law cannot perfectly account for all possible circumstances.

I am not talking about the law, I am talking about logical consistency and integrity.

QUESTION:
Is a woman's action of taking her clothes off, grinding on a guy, rubbing her breast on his face - entertainment or a sexual activity?

ANALYSIS:
True, there is no objective answer to this - some will say it is merely entertainment - a performance, just like an actress in steamy love scene. Others, will say it is a sexual activity because the activity is intended to be of a sexual nature and intended to arouse at least one of the two parties involved. But, whichever way you answer this question - you have to follow through on the logic and maintain logical consistency.

Your analysis has to be based on the physical actions, not on internal subjective arousal. As in my example, if my GF is not aroused at the time (due to being tired, stressed, etc.), but gives me a BJ as a quick sex fix, can you say she is not engaged in a sexual activity because she is not aroused? What about a prostitute -- not engaged in sex because she is not aroused? There are times when I am performing sexual acts principally for the arousal and pleasure of my GF (like when I go down on her or tease her clitoris), am I not engaged in a sexual act when I do this? I might do this after my climax, when I am no longer aroused, and do this only for her pleasure -- nontheless, it is a sexual act.

If the dancer answers the question and says she only provides entertainment. There is no reason for her to object to her BF also seeking entertainment - because, even though it is erotic,... it is just entertainment.

On the other hand, if the dancer answers this question and says she provides a sexual activity -- then, her BF or husband can either: (1) object to it, if he adheres to traditional notions of emotional and physical exclusivity (obviously, he cannot force her to quit, but she cannot force him to be okay with it), or (2) they could have a more liberal understanding of exclusivity (which they will have to create for themselves), in which case, she should not object to him getting LD from other dancers (as long as he meets all his financial responsibilities).

This analysis is from the POV of the dancer. Obviously, if the SO's POV clashes with hers, then that clash needs to be resolved. But, I'm principally concerned with the dancer's logical consistency here. I disagree with the argument that she can engage in physical acts that he can't, only because: (1) she is not aroused, and (2) she is making money. If you buy into this fallacy, then your wife can prostitute herself and make the same argument -- Wife to Husband: I sucked a guy off today darling, but it wasn't cheating because he was ugly and paid me $600! This agreement might work if the exclusivity that a couple promise each other had just an emotional component. But, there is also the physical component - the couple draw boundaries regarding physical exclusivity and such boundaries apply in every case. It is disingenuous to argue: Well, I wasn't aroused, so the physical boundaries we both agreed to do not apply.


What promise? Most dancers S.O.s know they dance.

We need to go back to the original post:


If a dancer's SO did what she does she get very upset and says she is only working. WTF she is still in a sexual situation with a person other than her SO. So why the big deal if he does the same?

This post is about a hypothetical in which the dancer feels "cheated" because her BF got a LD from another dancer.

If they were both accepting of her dancing and his buying dances,... all our arguments are moot... and more power to them.

But, if she feels "cheated", then we have to go through the question and analysis above... Her indignation (in the OP's hypothetical) implies that a promise of exclusivity exists.

xdamage
09-01-2009, 12:55 PM
ANALYSIS:
True, there is no objective answer to this - some will say it is merely entertainment - a performance, just like an actress in steamy love scene. Others, will say it is a sexual activity because the activity is intended to be of a sexual nature and intended to arouse at least one of the two parties involved. But, whichever way you answer this question - you have to follow through on the logic and maintain logical consistency.

Your analysis has to be based on the physical actions, not on internal subjective arousal.

See this is a common problem. You're insisting we must see this in a black and white way. That it is entertainment or sexual activity, but you can't fathom a gray area in the middle. And a lawyer may need to do so to make a law, but I don't personally need to do so. Nor do others.

You also demand I not consider internal subjective arousal, and I see no reason why you demand it. God didn't say "hey, stop considering people's internal states of mind when weighing their actions" so while you think that stipulation is required for you to make a logical ruling, you're reaching beyond your rights by demanding everyone ignore that aspect.

The problem is when you factor in states of mind and internal arousal it does become a messy gray matter. Suddenly it is tough. Like I told you. The law says an 18 year is an adult. But on a per person basis, I may very well weigh an 18 year old's internal state of mind, formed from his/her experiences, and in that light, say that not all 18 years olds are ready to be treated adults and some are more so then others.

But let me give yet another example (and I hope you at least consider it this time and not keep ignoring my examples):

Example 1: Brad Pitt must film a love scene with an actress. He is not at all aroused by this but goes through the motions. Angelina is not pissed.

Example 2: Brad Pitt must film a love scene with an actress. He is very aroused by this scene, physically and emotionally, and actually looked foward to this scene, one reason he agreed to the role. Angelina is pissed.

If an alien with no comprehension of human emotions watches this, the only visible variable to the alien would be that Angelina is pissed in one case and not the other. The alien could not comprehend the reason why. But you can't tell us to be as unaware as aliens and weigh the situation strictly based on what can be filmed with a camera and played back without factoring in the human motivations behind what took place. Your definition of entertainment vs sexual arousal doesn't matter to Angelina. You want that definition for you, or the law may need it to make a law, but for her the difference in the situation is crystal clear.

And I'll bet a very large percentage of common people would fully understand the difference here. That they absolutely would understand the concept of internal subjective arousal, and don't care that it cannot be measured with a machine.

I'm really super comfy with the fact that factoring in the subjective human arousal makes it messy to define what is sexual activity. Just because the law cannot factor this subtlety in does not make me illogical for factoring it in my mind. And besides one day sexual arousal may well be measurable with a tool somewhat like lie detectors can now measure lies. But even before lie detectors, people knew others lied from their own experiences with lying.

jack0177057
09-01-2009, 09:17 PM
See this is a common problem. You're insisting we must see this in a black and white way. That it is entertainment or sexual activity, but you can't fathom a gray area in the middle.

Again, the OP is talking about a hypothetical in which a dancer is "very upset" because her SO is getting LD from another dancer.

Generally, people don't get "very upset" over "gray areas"... she must see it as a black area to get "very upset" over it.


You also demand I not consider internal subjective arousal, and I see no reason why you demand it. God didn't say "hey, stop considering people's internal states of mind when weighing their actions" so while you think that stipulation is required for you to make a logical ruling, you're reaching beyond your rights by demanding everyone ignore that aspect.

Because we're talking about the mutual exclusivity of a serious relationship... It has both an emotional component and a physical component. So, while, its perfectly alright to consider "subjective arousal" when discussing emotional exclusivity... you cannot completely ignore physical exclusivity -- they are both required in a mutually exclusive relationship.


But let me give yet another example (and I hope you at least consider it this time and not keep ignoring my examples):

Example 1: Brad Pitt must film a love scene with an actress. He is not at all aroused by this but goes through the motions. Angelina is not pissed.

Be more specific about the "love scene"... Does Angelina regard this as "entertainment", "gray area" or a "sexual activity"... Again, the OP is about the dancer being "very upset"... If neither Brad nor Angeline is "very upset", there is no issue to discuss... more power to them.


Example 2: Brad Pitt must film a love scene with an actress. He is very aroused by this scene, physically and emotionally, and actually looked foward to this scene, one reason he agreed to the role. Angelina is pissed.

Okay, here we have a "very upset" person... Guys get aroused by other women merely by looking at the Sport's Illustrated swimsuit issue... Mere arousal, without physical activity is not enough to get a girl rationally "pissed"... Here, we have to look at both the subjective arousal and the physical action. Does Angelina regard this physical activity as "entertainment", "gray area" or a "sexual activity"... Whatever category she puts this under must apply equally to her (logical consistency)... Even if she is less thrilled about her own scene. Whatever physical exclusivity boundaries they have agreed to applies with equal force to both of them. She can't reasonably say -- "Brad, I don't want you holding hands with X in any scene, because I know you like her, but, I am going to get naked with Y and perform a steamy sex scene with him, because he does not arouse me." Brad would respond - "Yeah, fuck you!"


If an alien with no comprehension of human emotions watches this, the only visible variable to the alien would be that Angelina is pissed in one case and not the other. The alien could not comprehend the reason why.

But you can't tell us to be as unaware as aliens and weigh the situation strictly based on what can be filmed with a camera and played back without factoring in the human motivations behind what took place. Your definition of entertainment vs sexual arousal doesn't matter to Angelina. You want that definition for you, or the law may need it to make a law, but for her the difference in the situation is crystal clear.

From the POV of the "very upset" person... She must justify her opposition to what she is upset about and then apply that logic consistently. It cannot just be the subjective arousal that pisses someone off (us men cannot avoid this)... the physical action is what makes the difference... We have physical exclusivity in relationships... even, if each one of us defines it differently... we must agree to the terms and abide by them...


And I'll bet a very large percentage of common people would fully understand the difference here. That they absolutely would understand the concept of internal subjective arousal, and don't care that it cannot be measured with a machine.

Again, I am not saying that subjective arousal is insignificant... What I am saying is that there is also the other component - physical exclusivity.

Now its your turn to consider and respond to my examples:

1. Wife to Husband: I sucked a guy off today darling, but it wasn't cheating because he was ugly, I was not aroused, and he paid me $600!

2. Your SO really wants to buy very expensive shoes, but cannot afford them. The disgusting fat bastard that owns the store will give them to her for free (or for a huge discount) if she shows him her breasts and lets him fondle her. She does.

3. Your SO flirts with her disgusting boss and pretends to want to have sex with him. She takes him to a closet, takes her clothes off and rubs her naked body up against him, but, stops short of actual intercourse, in order to get a raise and promotion.

In all the examples above, the woman feels 0% attraction and 0% arousal... Would the husband or SO have any right to object?

xdamage
09-01-2009, 09:41 PM
Again, the OP is talking about a hypothetical in which a dancer is "very upset" because her SO is getting LD from another dancer.

Generally, people don't get "very upset" over "gray areas"... she must see it as a black area to get "very upset" over it.


Correct! Her extreme view given her job is inappropriate, agreed. But she can be a little upset he is doing it for pleasure, while she for work.


you cannot completely ignore physical exclusivity -- they are both required in a mutually exclusive relationship.


I did not. Again Jack, I am 100% with you. Physical matters to me, but not to everyone. What do you, or I, care if others can separate out the physical from the emotional or arousal factors?



Be more specific about the "love scene"


Nah no need. Think. Brad is PRETENDING TO HAVE SEX in one scene for pay. A robot could have done it. In the second he was aroused like someone actually having sex. I am not going to waste time spelling this out anymore. I hate lawyers for this shit. Don't try to BS us with Wookie defenses. We all see the difference. If you don't, well you are a tard (JOKE) but please don't waste my time or try to offend my intelligence. If 99% can see the difference and you cannot, then you need a reality check, I don't need to think like a lawyer ;)



Again, I am not saying that subjective arousal is insignificant... What I am saying is that there is also the other component - physical exclusivity.


Great, so some people do the math like so:

Physical activity * 5%
Emotional/Arousal activity * 95%

when they calculate how much their SOs were involved. Those people don't weight the physical involvement as such a major factor. See?



Now its your turn to consider and respond to my examples:



Sure



1. Wife to Husband: I sucked a guy off today darling, but it wasn't cheating because he was ugly, I was not aroused, and he paid me $600!


Dumb. Dancers and SOs do agree on this in advance.

It tends to go down like so:

A.) I suck guys off for $600, thought you should know before we start dating. Cool?

B.) I want to suck guys off for $600. Cool?

The guy decides, yes or no. No is an acceptable answer!




2. Your SO really wants to buy very expensive shoes, but cannot afford them. The disgusting fat bastard that owns the store will give them to her for free (or for a huge discount) if she shows him her breasts and lets him fondle her. She does.


Simple. If she is not a dancer, then of course the SO is like WTF. If she is a dancer then it is not on the job, and still the SO is like WTF?

But in any case, maybe she just flirts with fat bastard and gets them half off? My wife does that shit constantly. Do I care? NO.




3. Your SO flirts with her disgusting boss and pretends to want to have sex with him. She takes him to a closet, takes her clothes off and rubs her naked body up against him, but, stops short of actual intercourse, in order to get a raise and promotion.


For me? Personally? Not cool. But again, she is not going to a SC, where it is 100% clear that is how people behave to get money. If she is going into a Dentist office then most people don't do that to get ahead; my expectation is she doesn't.



In all the examples above, the woman feels 0% attraction and 0% arousal... Would the husband or SO have any right to object?

In 100% of your examples they are flawed because... of norms. No body expects that behavior in those settings. But if she goes to work, at a restaurant, where they serve food, then it is unreasonable of me to get pissed for her serving food too others (even if she does that for me too). But if she makes meals for other men in private, yep I might get pissed because I don't expect it. AKA - if I know she works at a SC when women pretend to like men, then I reasonably assume she will pretend to like men in that venue. It doesn't mean it's okay in others.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-02-2009, 02:49 AM
Correct! Her extreme view given her job is inappropriate, agreed. But she can be a little upset he is doing it for pleasure, while she for work.

Not really true; most dancers are out of the bar 5 minutes after their shift. This dancer hangs around and B.S. with the PLs for an hour or more. She doesn't get much money but she does consume mass quantities on their dime. She is no longer on my list of dancers I will pick up from work; drop off no problem. That is her hustle; just one of the boys but with breasts.

xdamage
09-02-2009, 07:18 AM
Not really true; most dancers are out of the bar 5 minutes after their shift. This dancer hangs around and B.S. with the PLs for an hour or more. She doesn't get much money but she does consume mass quantities on their dime. She is no longer on my list of dancers I will pick up from work; drop off no problem. That is her hustle; just one of the boys but with breasts.


You lost me there. What I meant by my comment more generally is that I think if someone is in the vice business, sells vice products (e.g., cigs, alcohol, gambling, sexual services) that I've said multiple times I find those with extreme views problematic.

For example, I can understand the casino owner not wanting his family to become addicted to gambling, as long as he is okay with them enjoying the vice sometimes in moderation for entertainment. If however he flipped out and called them morally weak and losers for any gambling at all, then yes I'd say he has moral quandary.

Basically if he really believes that people in society using his product are that harmed by it, to themselves or to their families then he has a moral responsibility (this is my personal definition of moral) to stop selling. This is the basic do unto others concept that is at the core of much of our human sense of what is right vs wrong.

Let me give another example I've brought up before. At one point a few years ago there was a thread going about how disgusting it is guys buy dances from dancers who wear HS girl uniforms and those that do must be wicked pedophiles at heart. At the same time many of the dancers who felt it was pedophilia also wore the same uniforms because it increased their profits. How is that possible?

And of course it is easy. We all do it. Just the question is are we aware when we do it? Because it is easy to hold opposing views that essentially come down to views that are in conflict on some level, but are in our best interest on another level. For example, in the case of the HS garb thing, it is in the dancers best interest to discourage older men from chasing younger women, but also simultaneously to bank off the underlying fetish because that is what is in their own best interest as well.

But while we all have such conflicting views, it doesn't mean we wouldn't be mentally healthier if we faced our own conflicts of interest head on. Yes that was a double negative. We're better off if we face our conflicts of interest. Then we are able to laugh at ourselves for having them. It doesn't mean we necessarily change our stances but we tend to take them less seriously, more moderately.

See I'm fine with a dancer being moderately upset about her SO spending money to get LDs, and quite fine with her getting very upset if he spends huge amounts or has an obsession with one dancer. But I also agree there is a problem if her mind has so split the matter, that she banks off something she sees as vile human behavior, extreme black (ALL customers are ALL bad) and extreme white (herself, all good). It is not the split mind that bothers me. It is extreme, the complete inability to see her own conflict that is worrisome. Black and white thinking tends to be a strong sign of mental unhealth.

princessjas
09-02-2009, 08:35 AM
And of course it is easy. We all do it. Just the question is are we aware when we do it? Because it is easy to hold opposing views that essentially come down to views that are in conflict on some level, but are in our best interest on another level. For example, in the case of the HS garb thing, it is in the dancers best interest to discourage older men from chasing younger women, but also simultaneously to bank off the underlying fetish because that is what is in their own best interest as well.

I just have to point out again that a lot of the guys that like this getup are into it, not because it represents young girls, but because it represents a submissive girl. I'm not claiming this is the case all the time, but I think it's pretty common...sorta like submissive men often like women in a cop outfit, not because they are attracted to police officers, but because it represents a domme girl.


See I'm fine with a dancer being moderately upset about her SO spending money to get LDs, and quite fine with her getting very upset if he spends huge amounts or has an obsession with one dancer. But I also agree there is a problem if her mind has so split the matter, that she banks off something she sees as vile human behavior, extreme black (ALL customers are ALL bad) and extreme white (herself, all good). It is not the split mind that bothers me. It is extreme, the complete inability to see her own conflict that is worrisome. Black and white thinking tends to be a strong sign of mental unhealth.

I think this is how the majority of dancers feel about it. Also, some of the girls who have issues with the SO's getting lapdances don't really mind because of the actual dance, but because they have combined finances and they see it as working themselves to pay the other girls. It's a strange way to think of it, but I really can somewhat see their point. If you are exhausted and your feet are hurting, thinking of your SO handing over the money you just made to another girl that you compete with for cash all night, could be annoying. ;)

jack0177057
09-02-2009, 08:57 AM
I think this is how the majority of dancers feel about it. Also, some of the girls who have issues with the SO's getting lapdances don't really mind because of the actual dance, but because they have combined finances and they see it as working themselves to pay the other girls. It's a strange way to think of it, but I really can somewhat see their point. If you are exhausted and your feet are hurting, thinking of your SO handing over the money you just made to another girl that you compete with for cash all night, could be annoying. ;)

Now this, I can totally agree with. If "combined finances" means that the dancer is partly supporting her SO (let's face it, this happens a lot since it is very difficult for a young guy to match a dancer's income) - then the real issue is about him spending her hard-earned money... (no pun intended)

jack0177057
09-02-2009, 09:35 AM
In 100% of your examples they are flawed because... of norms. No body expects that behavior in those settings.

"Norms"? - Now, you're the one becoming legalistic... I don't care what the norms are and what everyone else is doing... If you look around carefully enough, you can convince yourself that "cheating" is the "norm" because nearly everyone does it in some form or another...

You can also argue that women will exploit their sexuality in whatever way they can, for money, for commodities, for career advancement, etc... It happens everyday everywhere. Female models, actresses and musicians are known to sleep their way to the top. That doesn't mean I have to accept that as the "norm" if I marry one. It also doesn't mean that other ambitious women are precluded from using their seductive prowess for financial and career advancement. There are all kinds of affairs that go on in the corporate world. (I had one with my paralegal after my divorce.)

Every guy I know goes to SCs, at least once in a while, so the dancer must accept that this is the "norm" and she cannot be upset about her SO doing it... Is giving a LD the "norm" for women?

To me, it's about the physical boundaries that my SO and myself agree to and I don't give a shit about the "norms"... We might choose to agree to boundaries that are more liberal than the "norm" or more conservative... We define for ourselves, what physical conduct is acceptable "flirting" and what is "cheating". If she is a dancer -- what physical conduct is acceptable "entertainment" vs. unacceptable "sexual activity".

Subjective arousal is important, but less so... If my SO gets aroused watching a really "hot" dude working out at the gym, but she honors our physical exclusivity and never acts on her arousal -- my pride might be hurt a little to learn of this, but I don't feel "cheated"... Same is true if I get a hard-on from the sexy little hair stylest that puts her boobs in front of my face while she cuts my hair... If I don't act on it, my SO cannot complain. We have little control over subjective arousal,... but full control over physical actions (unless a gun is pointed at us).

Again, your SO and you agree to the physical boundaries that apply to your mutual promise of exclusivity (assuming you have a pomise of mutual exclusivity)... and those boundaries apply regardless of what profits can be made by ignoring them. If Brad and Jolie agree that sexual love scenes with other people are permitted in their marriage, she cannot start bitching about it because he gets a hard-on in the middle of one. But, if they agree that neither will perform sexual love scenes with other people, then she cannot do it anyway and state as her defense that she was repulsed by it.

xdamage
09-02-2009, 09:47 AM
I just have to point out again that a lot of the guys that like this getup are into it, not because it represents young girls, but because it represents a submissive girl


Yea, and I'm fine with it, though don't buy from dancers wearing this outfit because it feels a bit creepy to me and I worry it does feed into pedophiles who don't understand the subtle difference. If it was up to me I wouldn't allow it in my SC because there are endless other outfits that are less likely to result in yet more pedophiles feeling their desires are socially acceptable. But that is my stance. Others have their own...

But the main point was it is an example of vice sellers who in one sentence argued that their buyers are pervs, but couldn't see that their own quandary by wearing the outfit in the first place. It was meant to show how humans are able to have such dramatic splits in their PoV that are at odds, but they benefit from by holding both PoVs at the same time, despite the conflict.



I think this is how the majority of dancers feel about it. Also, some of the girls who have issues with the SO's getting lapdances don't really mind because of the actual dance, but because they have combined finances and they see it as working themselves to pay the other girls. It's a strange way to think of it, but I really can somewhat see their point. If you are exhausted and your feet are hurting, thinking of your SO handing over the money you just made to another girl that you compete with for cash all night, could be annoying. ;)

I hope most have a moderate view about this. Like I said I also get the difference between an SO spending some money on occasion vs the extremes of addictive behavior, or obsessing over one dancer. Your example here about the money aspect is as good as any when it comes to showing a gray scale from spending nothing, to a little, to a lot.

The same can apply to how people can feel about going to SCs and contact levels (both when paid and when not). These are not absolutes, all or nothings, but ranges of frequency, intent, arousal, and degrees of physical contact. We individually weigh all of these and come up with our own arbitrary boundaries, dependent on the situations, and that is fine. Individually we don't need an absolute definition of entertainment vs sexual activity, or what is cheating. We can decide for ourselves what we can and cannot live with.

xdamage
09-02-2009, 10:05 AM
"Norms"? - Now, you're the one becoming legalistic... I don't care what the norms are and what everyone else is doing... If you look around carefully enough, you can convince yourself that "cheating" is the "norm" because nearly everyone does it in some form or another...


You lost me somewhat here. The concept of norms is that in our experience, we come use to accept certain behaviors as the most common on a bell curve where extremes also exist. I'm extremely doubtful that you or anyone else's thinking is not affected by your experiences with normal vs extremes.



You can also argue that women will exploit their sexuality in whatever way they can, for money, for commodities, for career advancement, etc... It happens everyday everywhere. Female models, actresses and musicians are known to sleep their way to the top. That doesn't mean I have to accept that as the "norm" if I marry one.


You keep repeating this and ignoring everyone. We've said it now a dozen times. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT IT! But you're not the only person on the planet. Your limits are yours and that is fine. What does that have to do with everyone else?



Every guy I know goes to SCs, at least once in a while, so the dancer must accept that this is the "norm" and she cannot be upset about her SO doing it... Is giving a LD the "norm" for women?


Again, I've repeatedly said I agree. I also think dancers who totally freak about their SOs going ever have some moral quandaries they need to work out with themselves. But your key phrase here is "at least once in a while".. I'm guessing you'd agree once in a while is on one end of a spectrum; every day another... a dancer could be tolerant of one end and not the other and we would understand why.



To me, it's about the physical boundaries that my SO and myself agree to and I don't give a shit about the "norms"...


Sigh... and again Jack, that is fine. Set your boundaries however you like. Just don't require they be the same for ever other couple.



Subjective arousal is important, but less so...


To you. Are you really telling me that you are incapable of at least entertaining the notion that other people feel differently then you do about this? That no matter how strong your feelings are, that it as at least possible that there are other people who are less emotionally bothered by the physical contact and far more by the arousal levels or emotional involvement levels. I am beginning to think this is the problem. You really cannot fathom it and won't even at least ask the question, could it be others see it that way?



If my SO gets aroused watching a really "hot" dude working out at the gym, but she honors our physical exclusivity and never acts on her arousal -- my pride might be hurt a little to learn of this, but I don't feel "cheated"... Same is true if I get a hard-on from the sexy little hair stylest that puts her boobs in front of my face while she cuts my hair... If I don't act on it, my SO cannot complain. We have little control over subjective arousal,... but full control over physical actions (unless a gun is pointed at us).


I've already responded to this. This is just another arbitrary boundary. A generation or two ago people had terrible angst over even thinking such things. From their religious upbringing, to even think about it is as sinful as doing it. Again, try to put yourself in other people's shoes. It is not hard. Other people really do weigh these things differently then you do.



Again, your SO and you agree to the physical boundaries that apply to your mutual promise of exclusivity (assuming you have a pomise of mutual exclusivity)... and those boundaries apply regardless of what profits can be made by ignoring them.

Again, this is between a dancer and her SO. If the dancer's SO agrees that she can have physical contact with others while on the job, why does this bother you? That is between them.


As I said, I do get that if a woman wants to be a dancer AFTER a couple are together and the guy is not okay with it then that can be a big problem if they are married, but that legal hassle aside, she can choose to dance and he can choose to leave because the physical exclusivity is important to him. It is that simple. She has the power to use her body to make money. He has the power to take his income, body, life, support, whatever he brought into the relationship elsewhere.

But that said... I do agree with one notion.. that if a woman wants to dance after a couple is married, the guy has a reasonable argument that "hold unto him and only unto him" means that dancing violates his boundaries, a court should favor his request to divorce and favor his terms. That I agree is a reasonable interpretation of what people think they are entering into when they get married. But if he knows she is a dancer pre-marriage, then nope... he has already agreed it is okay.

princessjas
09-02-2009, 10:05 AM
Yea, and I'm fine with it, though don't buy from dancers wearing this outfit because it feels a bit creepy to me and I worry it does feed into pedophiles who don't understand the subtle difference. If it was up to me I wouldn't allow it in my SC because there are endless other outfits that are less likely to result in yet more pedophiles feeling their desires are socially acceptable. But that is my stance. Others have their own...

Well, I promise to never, ever force you to look at pics of me in my schoolgirl outfit. }:D



I hope most have a moderate view about this. Like I said I also get the difference between an SO spending some money on occasion vs the extremes of addictive behavior, or obsessing over one dancer. Your example here about the money aspect is as good as any when it comes to showing a gray scale from spending nothing, to a little, to a lot.


Yeah, a guy blowing all his cash on anything would be a problem for most women. It's not even that it's in a SC, it's that he is being irresponsible with money in a very big way. The obsessing over one dancer is the same deal. For example, most girls would have no issue if say there SO had an innocent crush on a co-worker. However if they became obsessive, even with no intent to act on it, that would be a major problem.

jack0177057
09-02-2009, 01:33 PM
You lost me somewhat here. The concept of norms is that in our experience, we come use to accept certain behaviors as the most common on a bell curve where extremes also exist. I'm extremely doubtful that you or anyone else's thinking is not affected by your experiences with normal vs extremes.

"Norms" is a legalistic concept... It is what our laws are based on, i.e. what is "normal" behavior and what is not... Since you were accusing me of being too legalistic, I'm surprised you bring up the "norms" standard.


You keep repeating this and ignoring everyone. We've said it now a dozen times. YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACCEPT IT! But you're not the only person on the planet. Your limits are yours and that is fine. What does that have to do with everyone else?

We're merely presenting two opposing points of views. I'm not trying to change your mind any more than you are trying to change mine. But, you're right, it is getting tiresome.


Sigh... and again Jack, that is fine. Set your boundaries however you like. Just don't require they be the same for ever other couple.

Again, not what I'm saying... I've said it over and over and over... each couple sets their own boundaries... My qualm is with the concept that making money gives a person the right to ignore those boundaries.


To you. Are you really telling me that you are incapable of at least entertaining the notion that other people feel differently then you do about this? That no matter how strong your feelings are, that it as at least possible that there are other people who are less emotionally bothered by the physical contact and far more by the arousal levels or emotional involvement levels.

If they are less bothered by the physical contact - than neither party gets "very upset" about it... For example, an "open marriage" or swinging couple. That's not the hypothetical we are dealing with here... I have no problem with couples that opt for "open marriage" or swinging... more power to them... This thread is about a dancer demanding that her SO stay away from other dancers... You need to remember this hypo because otherwise, everything I say is taken out of context.

Yes, people are bothered by the "arousal levels" -- but this is caused by pride, vanity and insecurity. So what, if my wife gets aroused by another man (as in my example of the "hot" dude at the gym) -- as long as she doesn't act on those feelings (i.e., physically), will ANYONE condemn her?... Will ANYONE, (other than a religious extremist), call her a cheater?

For me to prohibit her from feeling arousal towards another man is ridiculous... Nor can she prohibit my subjective arousal towards other women... THESE ARE BIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO STIMULI. I cannot control my subjective arousal levels the way I can control my physical actions.

I know that Christ said that even desire by itself constitutes adultery... But, you cannot (unless you live alone in the mountains without internet access) eliminate desire or "subjective arousal"... That's why Christians look to Christ (and not themselves) for salvation... Desire and lust is already implanted in us by our past "sins" and the "sins" of our society. Neither I nor you, nor anyone who lives in our society can be cleansed of it. Have you ever been in a party with a bunch of happily married men and then a hot single chick wearing something sexy and revealing shows up... Even the most faithful men start drooling. I'm sure the same thing goes on with women.

As long as my wife or SO is physically faithful to me (according to whatever physical boundaries we establish for us) -- she can have her subjective arousals and little fantasies, and... if I can put my ego and insecurity aside for a minute,... I can even get the benefit of it by playing a fantasy role for her. When we act out each other's fantasies (roleplaying) we are maintaining physical exclusivity, but, giving each other license to imagine being with other people. Also, when a couple watches porn together, they are getting aroused by the younger and better looking people on the screen.

So, while people may say that they care more about subjective arousal... I doubt they really mean it... In our society, they would have to remove their SO's eyeballs to prevent that from happening.

xdamage
09-02-2009, 03:02 PM
"Norms" is a legalistic concept... It is what our laws are based on, i.e. what is "normal" behavior and what is not... Since you were accusing me of being too legalistic, I'm surprised you bring up the "norms" standard.


I don't think it is strictly legal. It is a human concept we talked about psychology and social studies long ago for me in elementary school. That is also used in legal - again, not surprising. Laws are made by us humans, for us humans, and what is considered normal in a society has a big influence on the laws the society agrees on.




My qualm is with the concept that making money gives a person the right to ignore those boundaries.


In reality it always remains the couples choice. And thought about another way, for many women our going to a SC violates the marriage agreement - even if it is just "entertainment" because it is physically touching another woman. Yet men do so and might still get pissed if their wives paid men to touch them, or let men touch them for money. We probably argue it is not so bad because, well, it's not really cheating and it is just entertainment but again, really only the SO can say how they feel about it.



This thread is about a dancer demanding that her SO stay away from other dancers... You need to remember this hypo because otherwise, everything I say is taken out of context.


Well many of your points were about what you wanted, not what she wanted and for various reasons I felt we were discussing the matter in general, not specifically only one couple as this matter is obviously a point of tension between multiple couples.

But I do agree as I said that a vice seller who truly believes it is evil for her SO to buy her vice has some personal quandaries to sort out.



Yes, people are bothered by the "arousal levels" -- but this is caused by pride, vanity and insecurity.


Well off topic now. I thought the comparison was between two people, both acting physically, but one aroused emotionally or sexually, the other not.

It was about the difference between a customer touching a dancer, and a dancer touching a customer, and how much the physical vs arousal level was a factor to each other.

My point about the thinking=sinning was merely to stimulate thinking that while this doesn't bother you, it bothers some people, and to again highlight that not everyone has the same triggers in regards to what bothers them when it comes to sex and what their SO is thinking, feeling, doing.



So, while people may say that they care more about subjective arousal... I doubt they really mean it... In our society, they would have to remove their SO's eyeballs to prevent that from happening.

When I was younger I doubted that two men could feel lust towards each other; yet seemingly some men are so wired. At some point if I hear enough of a sub-group say something, even if I cannot relate personally, if a pattern develops I come to accept that maybe they are not just kidding themselves but there is something to it.

But there is a valid point in what you say, and it comes down to this simple matter:

If a dancer would in fact feel emotionally hurt seeing her S.O. dancing for other women for money, then yes, it may just be she wants her cake and eat it too, a true double standard. Also if she really cannot stomach seeing her S.O. touch another dancer for entertainment or sexual activity (however you want to see it) I would wonder if she really could handle seeing her SO doing it for money. That is a tough one because people often say things because it is easy to say, but they also know it will never happen.

My guess is you're going to find a wide mix of feelings about these matters.

xdamage
09-02-2009, 03:12 PM
Well, I promise to never, ever force you to look at pics of me in my schoolgirl outfit.

haha... well there are other sub outfits that are more adult oriented and equally as hot ;)

p.s. It is not that I worry about everyone. It is that there are a large group of people who seemingly feel that their actions are dramatically affected by "the media" including how they eat, smoking, violence, sexual objectification, and even this... pedophilia. I've worked with sex offenders and they seem to universally fall back on this victim think, society makes me... so I would just say, you only need to feed into a 1 mentally unstable persons mindset, resulting in a really bad day for some young little girl.

Sort of like McDonalds would rather advertise Big Macs}:D since they make more money, but maybe if they advertised more healthy foods and less crap, it would do some public good for those who apparently are weak willed and think entertainment/media is telling them x,y,z is okay. It's a choice, and given that there are so many hot adult oriented outfits, I'd like to see more clubs put a ban on the one that the weak minded pedophiles can't handle. If it saves one little girl from being molested it would be a public service.




Yeah, a guy blowing all his cash on anything would be a problem for most women. It's not even that it's in a SC, it's that he is being irresponsible with money in a very big way. The obsessing over one dancer is the same deal. For example, most girls would have no issue if say there SO had an innocent crush on a co-worker. However if they became obsessive, even with no intent to act on it, that would be a major problem.

Sure like gambling excessively.

But yea, a lot of guys do develop crushes on a dancer and go repeatedly .... it moves from a night out of entertainment to emotional involvement (and expensive!). Like I said if my SO wanted to see or even touch male dancers I say here is some money, GO... come back hot for me ;) But if she went often to see the same guy, or was getting off, or touching his dick, or kissing him, I'd have a problem. But just getting some dances and some body rubbing - couldn't care less.

jack0177057
09-02-2009, 06:08 PM
I just have to point out again that a lot of the guys that like this getup are into it, not because it represents young girls, but because it represents a submissive girl.

Submission could be part of it, as in a "bad" schoolgirl that needs to be "disciplined" by her teacher.

On the other hand, a "mean" schoolgirl can be dominant, e.g. a seductress or young dominatrix:
http://www.funkypair.com/rockschoolgirl.aspx
http://www.funkypair.com/558433punk-a-liciouscostume.aspx
http://www.funkypair.com/donnamatrixschoolgirl.aspx

The point at which a girl becomes a woman (legal age) is undisputably attractive and sexy. To regular guys, the schoolgirl outfit represents this,... not a 12-year old sexual assault victim,... but an 18-year old rebellious teenager with unabashed sexual curiousity and sexual power.

I also think that what is appealing about this "role" or "fantasy", at least to me, is that it takes me back to my high school experience (Catholic highschool with uniforms) when I experienced my awakening of burning lust for my female classmates (I thanked God for short skirts being required as part of the uniform) and started flirting and teasing with them.

I do however recognize that the schoolgirl costume, might, unintentionally, cater to pedophile tastes... So, even though I personally enjoy the costume and fantasy in private, I am somewhat mixed about its public use,... except for you, princessjas, you can dress up as a schoolgirl anytime.

Now, just to play devil's advocate here -- If the schoolgirl costume will cause the pedophile to experience his sick fantasies with an actual adult women (pretending to be a very young schoolgirl)... then, as sick as this might be,... isn't that a good thing?.. So long as it satisfies the sick appetite,... instead of intensifying it,... it is a good thing, no? I read a book about sex workers and one sex worker who catered to pedophile fantasies justified her work with this argument.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-02-2009, 07:00 PM
You lost me there.
I lost myself; of all the things I lost I miss my mind the most. Will that or betting on Bobby Riggs to beat Billie Jean King; I gave odds too. :banghead:

xdamage
09-02-2009, 07:57 PM
Now, just to play devil's advocate here -- If the schoolgirl costume will cause the pedophile to experience his sick fantasies with an actual adult women (pretending to be a very young schoolgirl)... then, as sick as this might be,... isn't that a good thing?.. So long as it satisfies the sick appetite,... instead of intensifying it,... it is a good thing, no? I read a book about sex workers and one sex worker who catered to pedophile fantasies justified her work with this argument.

It depends... but imagine you are in jail, a heterosexual... while you might accept stand-ins lacking any other choices, you are still craving women. The pedophile sadly craves youngsters. The stands in might suffice to keep it under control or it might intensify the craving for the real thing.

They know it is wrong intellectually to varying degrees, but how well they control this... varies. Some don't. Some mis-interpret things as validation that is okay to ahead. There is no easy answers.

Me, I love the sub thing, just a bit more mature age wise then a HS girl ;)

jack0177057
09-02-2009, 08:14 PM
The stands in might suffice to keep it under control or it might intensify the craving for the real thing.

That's the critical question... Roleplaying satisfies my craving for variety and to sleep with other women (so I don't cheat)... I don't know if it works the same way with pedophiles or just makes their hunger worst.


Me, I love the sub thing, just a bit more mature age wise then a HS girl ;)

I have a moral objection to a guy my age sleeping with an 18-year old HS girl... But, having the fantasy - of being seduced by a rebellious 18-year old teenager with unabashed sexual curiousity and sexual power - is just fun. (I guess it could become a problem if someone becomes obsessed with this fantasy, but not if it is only one of many different roleplaying fantasies...) When I was 18, half of my fantasies involved older women (MILF's) around my current age... so go figure...

evan_essence
09-02-2009, 08:24 PM
Ack. My head hurts. Look, guys, all I know is this. I would have far fewer problems with a boyfriend who wanted to be a dancer than one who wanted to be a regular customer, for a number of reasons. (And remember dammit, the original framework of the question was with no extras so I don't know why anyone's bringing up examples of B&HJ's because that wasn't a factor.)

As a dancer, he's more likely to be totally exhausted and bruised by it, not sexually stimulated. And he's earning money, not spending it. He's the hypnotizer, not the hypnotized. As customers, you guys spend your hard-earned cash to seek sexual gratification and are mez-mo-rized by women you pay to lie to you. I am not spending my hard-earned cash to seek sexual gratification and am not mez-mo-rized by customers. It's simply not a parallel situation and therefore cannot give rise to a double standard.

-Eva

Earl_the_Pearl
09-02-2009, 08:46 PM
(And remember dammit, the original framework of the question was with no extras so I don't know why anyone's bringing up examples of B&HJ's because that wasn't a factor.)


The original framework was with a denial of extras that the OP knows is not in accordance with the facts.

princessjas
09-03-2009, 03:26 AM
The original framework was with a denial of extras that the OP knows is not in accordance with the facts.

Maybe I'm half asleep here, but are you really trying to claim there are no clean dancers? That is as ridiculous as us trying to claim your nasty whores don't exist. ::)

xdamage
09-03-2009, 05:44 AM
That's the critical question... Roleplaying satisfies my craving for variety and to sleep with other women (so I don't cheat)... I don't know if it works the same way with pedophiles or just makes their hunger worst.


I have a moral objection to a guy my age sleeping with an 18-year old HS girl... But, having the fantasy - of being seduced by a rebellious 18-year old teenager with unabashed sexual curiousity and sexual power - is just fun. (I guess it could become a problem if someone becomes obsessed with this fantasy, but not if it is only one of many different roleplaying fantasies...) When I was 18, half of my fantasies involved older women (MILF's) around my current age... so go figure...

Let's just say a lot of rapists I worked with believed women tempted them to it by how they dress. They are weak minded people who seem to blame their choices on "society" and what they see around them. The ability for someone to clearly fantasy role play from reality requires a pretty well developed, mature mind. Don't know but I wouldn't give sexual predators the benefit of doubt.

Dancers are entertainers but not therapists so not really qualified to suggest that they are providing a safe outlet. They wear the costume because it makes them money, not to treat people with personality disorders or sexual issues. And that is fine, just...

I had a daughter in HS not so long ago. 18 year olds are out of HS. It is more like dressing like 15-16 year old. I just find it a bit creepy that of all the possible costumes one could be attracted to it is pushing my limits a bit to see men choose the women dressed as minors might dress. In general though most are harmless. But if it was my club I'd want the dancers to choose any of hundreds of others of outfits that do not accidently feed into the message that sleeping with teenies is okay.

But again what was more interesting was some dancers who dressed like that believed their customers were filthy pervs for choosing to buy dances from them, yet continued to wear that very outfit. PJ had a different view, that it is safe so that is not the same. But the former is somewhat like selling guns while believing that everyone who buys guns is a killer. If you really feel that strongly about it then it is time to point the fingers back at oneself and see how what you are doing is contributing to a social problem, not continue to profit from it while holding yourself unaccountable for contributing.

princessjas
09-03-2009, 06:55 AM
But again what was more interesting was some dancers who dressed like that believed their customers were filthy pervs for choosing to buy dances from them, yet continued to wear that very outfit. PJ had a different view, that it is safe so that is not the same. But the former is somewhat like selling guns while believing that everyone who buys guns is a killer. If you really feel that strongly about it then it is time to point the fingers back at oneself and see how what you are doing is contributing to a social problem, not continue to profit from it while holding yourself unaccountable for contributing.

Just wanted to point out that one reason I don't think it's a threat is that at the clubs I worked at, which were admittedly pretty upscale, with businessmen and a more upscale clientele, amost none of the guys liked the 18 year olds dressed as a schoolgirl.

It freaked them out from what I was told. With 90% of the guys, it's the 30+ dancers that they like to see dressed this way. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that just makes me think that it is more the representation of a submissive female, combined with the cuteness of a little pleated skirt that is the attraction...or possibly the sheer naughtiness of breaking a social taboo (teacher/student).

xdamage
09-03-2009, 07:34 AM
...amost none of the guys liked the 18 year olds dressed as a schoolgirl.

It freaked them out from what I was told. With 90% of the guys, it's the 30+ dancers that they like to see dressed this way. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but that just makes me think that it is more the representation of a submissive female, combined with the cuteness of a little pleated skirt that is the attraction...or possibly the sheer naughtiness of breaking a social taboo (teacher/student).

Hey, I'm good with mature people who play games ;) Especially in the privacy of their homes, and I don't see anything wrong with them breaking social taboos as long as nobody is hurt.

It's just that in public settings we clearly see a large percentage of people who blame their choices on society, advertising, media messages, etc. The fact that there are so many people wandering around saying they are heavily influenced by these leaves me with the following conclusion: We have a lot of people who feel that their actions are, in part, the result of what messages they are exposed too, usually from venues that are profiting from the messages.

I think nobody would argue that no entity should profit off kiddie porn, even if it was just fantasy. But we seem to walk that gray line when it comes to how we feel about profiting off of teen porn. I really don't care at all about what people do in privacy as mature adults. But I guess I would prefer that none of the following venues would capitalize on teen porn (though some do):

o Porn (internet, movies, etc)

o Main stream movies (though again some do).

o Strip clubs

o Music


But of course they do and it reflects that our society is on the fence about how bad it is. Kiddie porn everyone is clear black on. Over 20 something porn, clearly white. It's the ages in the middle where there is a lot of debate. But basically if we lived in a society where really there was no interest at all then nobody would bother wearing the school girl uniform anymore then they would wear a toddler's uniform. There'd be no question in anyone's mind that profitting off people wearing a toddler's uniform is not worth the social damage (the messages to the weak minded) it is likely to cause. The school girls uniform is just more grey in people's minds, which is fine, just I'd be just as happy if it was a little less profitted from and the social messages clearer in regards to teenie sex.

princessjas
09-03-2009, 07:40 AM
^^ I have no interest in actual teeny porn btw. Remember, I'm the one that ripped into a bunch of guys over teens recently. ;) All sorts of fantasy play can be fun for adults though. As for having it in public, I dunno how I feel about it being exploited in movies and clubs. I see it as one of those real fuzzy grey areas. Not a big crusader either way on this one.

*The young teen fantasy stuff makes me sick though. (The stuff where the girls look prepubescent and are pretending to be 14-15 or even younger...YUCK! I need boobs and bodies that look like adults to let me know it's all fantasy.)

jack0177057
09-03-2009, 09:54 AM
Ack. My head hurts. Look, guys, all I know is this. I would have far fewer problems with a boyfriend who wanted to be a dancer than one who wanted to be a regular customer, for a number of reasons. (And remember dammit, the original framework of the question was with no extras so I don't know why anyone's bringing up examples of B&HJ's because that wasn't a factor.)

As a dancer, he's more likely to be totally exhausted and bruised by it, not sexually stimulated. And he's earning money, not spending it. He's the hypnotizer, not the hypnotized. As customers, you guys spend your hard-earned cash to seek sexual gratification and are you pay to lie to you. I am not spending my hard-earned cash to seek sexual gratification and am not mez-mo-rized by customers. It's simply not a parallel situation and therefore cannot give rise to a double standard.

-Eva

Eva, that's how you feel and I'll respect that and won't argue the same points again, but, I'll just say this - I agree it is not a parellel situation and I'm not even sure that it is a "double standard" -- I guess it depends how you define the "standard"... My argument has been about defining physical exclusivity boundaries (whatever terms the two parties agree to) and being bound by them (not as a prisoner, but as a person who has exchanged vows of exclusivity with her SO),... and not changing the rules when money enters the picture.

I concede the point about spending money... If two people live together and either person is spending unreasonable -- that gives the SO a legit reason to raise an objection... Whether it involves overspending on first-rate season tickets to sporting events, shopping at Saks Fifth Avenues or Neiman Marcos, spending money in a bar or SC, etc.

So, how would you respond to this from your SO: -- Look, we both met in a SC, I know you dance and accept that, you know I like to visit SCs with my buddies, and you should accept that, too... It's only entertainment to me and I've been going with my buddies once or twice a month for a long time before you and I met. I make good money, I limit my SC spending to a responsible amount and I pay my fair share of all our shared bills; plus I have money left over to surprise you with occasional gifts. I am a complete gentleman in the SC. (Assume all of this is true). I enjoy the music, the drinks, the comraderie with my friends and the sexy entertainment. You... taking this boys-night-out away from me might cause me to resent you a little; and my friends to resent you, too. Plus, we'll have to change the venue of the boys-night-out to a bar, where lots of drunk and horny chicks are looking for real hookups,... a lot of real temptation there... It safer to go to the SC where all you get is fantasy...

jack0177057
09-03-2009, 10:42 AM
Let's just say a lot of rapists I worked with believed women tempted them to it by how they dress. They are weak minded people who seem to blame their choices on "society" and what they see around them.

I don't think you can blame criminal conduct on society, but neither can you completely exonerate society -- We are surrounded and bombarded by sexual images, often involving depicting very young girls in sexy poses with revealing clothes. Here is but one example -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/02/asa-american-apparel-ad


The ability for someone to clearly fantasy role play from reality requires a pretty well developed, mature mind. Don't know but I wouldn't give sexual predators the benefit of doubt.

Agree... Should all schoolgirl adult costumes be banned?


Dancers are entertainers but not therapists so not really qualified to suggest that they are providing a safe outlet. They wear the costume because it makes them money, not to treat people with personality disorders or sexual issues. And that is fine, just...

I think in some ways, dancers are therapist... but, are they qualified? I don't even know if "qualified" therapists are qualified... I would argue that when it comes to male sexuality and psychology, a dancer or sex worker probably sees more, and therefore, learns more, than the "qualified" therapist.


I had a daughter in HS not so long ago. 18 year olds are out of HS.

At 18, you are graduating HS and starting college... Of course, this varies from person to person depending on the month of your birthday. It is this point of youth, "becoming a woman", independence, passion and sexual maturity that is sexually appealing... Also, it's not just men that are attracted to youth, show a 30+ woman the image of a tall, tan, athletic 18-year shirtless Ambercrombie & Fitch model and gauge her reaction.


It is more like dressing like 15-16 year old. I just find it a bit creepy that of all the possible costumes one could be attracted to it is pushing my limits a bit to see men choose the women dressed as minors might dress.

I can only speak about myself... My only schoolgirl fantasy (which I have no desire to actually realize) involves an 18-year old... the idea of sex involving 15-16 year-olds is repulsive to me.

The schoolgirl outfit is extremely popular and one of the most demanded roleplaying costumes. Are you suggesting that all the men that enjoy them are fantasizing about fucking 15-16 year old girls?


In general though most are harmless.

If a large part of the male population has pedophile fantasies, how could this reality be harmless?... It is alarming, if true...


But again what was more interesting was some dancers who dressed like that believed their customers were filthy pervs for choosing to buy dances from them, yet continued to wear that very outfit. PJ had a different view, that it is safe so that is not the same. But the former is somewhat like selling guns while believing that everyone who buys guns is a killer. If you really feel that strongly about it then it is time to point the fingers back at oneself and see how what you are doing is contributing to a social problem, not continue to profit from it while holding yourself unaccountable for contributing.

On the one hand, I agree with you... on the other hand... you are unfairly putting too much moral responsibility on dancers... What about married men, should they stay away from married men because they feel strongly that adultery is bad and that married men who come to the SC have a disposition to be adulterers which will be intensified with a lap dance? Are dancers supposed to examine every guy that walks in the door and determine whether a lap dance is going to intensify their desire to commit "sin" or cause someone emotional anguish. A dancer is an entertainer,... you said so yourself that she is not a therapist. She cannot be expected to do any kind of psychological profile of her custies for purposes of tailoring her services to their particular mental health.

Now, what if she dresses up as a maid, instead of as a schoolgirl. What if, that night, one of her custies rapes his maid? Is she responsible for intensifying his desire to force his maid into sexual submission?

xdamage
09-03-2009, 10:47 AM
Eva, that's how you feel and I'll respect that and won't argue the same points again, but, I'll just say this - I agree it is not a parellel situation and I'm not even sure that it is a "double standard"

I do want to give you a point here because you fought fair and raised some good perspectives. The situation is not equivalent. Eva is right about that.

But as I said in a post above, it is indeed possible that if a dancer found herself in a position where her SO actually was going to dance like her, was having a lot of contact with other women, and some occasionally cute/hotties mixed, that she might actually be surprised at her own feelings about it.

And I don't mean all dancers, but it is possible some would be surprised how strong their emotions are if the shoes were on the other feet.

It is very easy to say "such and such doesn't matter" when people know it will never happen to them, but until people are actually in a situation they often don't know how deep feelings like those we harbor about sex will really feel.

It could in fact be that there is some intellectualizing going on and that just as it raise some feelings of jealousy?anger?what? seeing an SO getting a dance, those same emotional responses would arise if he was doing it for the occasional cute/hot girl for a living. That the physical contact is a fairly big trigger and that the situational difference, while important, is not going to change a biological rush of emotions that occur seeing your S.O. having high levels of physical contact with another (regardless of the situation).

xdamage
09-03-2009, 11:06 AM
I don't think you can blame criminal conduct on society, but neither can you completely exonerate society -- We are surrounded and bombarded by sexual images, often involving depicting very young girls in sexy poses with revealing clothes. Here is but one example -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/sep/02/asa-american-apparel-ad


Agree... Should all schoolgirl adult costumes be banned?


I'm not an extremist so no.



I think in some ways, dancers are therapist... but, are they qualified?


Bartendars are too then, and so are mom's who give medical advice, but I mean they are not trained professionals or doctors. That is not their job. Their job is entertainment. I just don't want to buy into an argument that they are wearing the outfit out of some altruistic public good. They are doing it because they bank. Just like McDonalds glamorizes junk food because they bank. We don't need junk food. We don't need women dressed in school girl outfits. It is entertainment. Entertainment is fine.

But ... we can still ask are people in our culture too immature to handle it? Because when it is convienent for them they will gladly blame their choice to eat junk food on McDonalds. Pedophiles on social images as well. We're just very selective to believe whatever is in our own best interest. Our consistency is crappy, but we can still ask the following:

If McDonalds could make 90% of its income selling somewhat healthier food, should they?

If Strip Clubs can make 90% of their income without feeding into a teenage sex fantasy, should they?



I don't even know if "qualified" therapists are qualified... I would argue that when it comes to male sexuality and psychology, a dancer or sex worker probably sees more, and therefore, learns more, than the "qualified" therapist.


McDonalds sees far more people then dieticians. That doesn't mean McDonalds has anyone's best interest at heart other then their own bottomline. Please don't try to convince me that SCs are in it for altruistically trying to help people with sex problems. They are not.



At 18, you are graduating HS and starting college...


How many 18 year olds wear short plaid skirts, white dress shirts and carry suckers? I've seen this at SCs. It is creepy.



The schoolgirl outfit is extremely popular and one of the most demanded roleplaying costumes. Are you suggesting that all the men that enjoy them are fantasizing about fucking 15-16 year old girls?


I'm saying that if a man has a choice between someone who dresses like a 20 something adult wearing lingerie or leatherwear or whatever, and his biggest turn on is she wears something that 14-16 year olds might wear, then I am allowed to wonder why? I really don't want to hear the answer though and there is reason why I don't.

The reason is why I we don't ask people to sort themselves into secured and not secured people at the airport. Those who are thinking so simply would never admit it. There is no point in asking for a public admission because if it was so they'd be run up the flag pole so they won't. It still leaves me wondering why.



On the one hand, I agree with you... on the other hand... you are unfairly putting too much moral responsibility on dancers...

I'm not. We have every right to constantly question if the media, and entertainment industry are going to far, not far enough in promoting the public good. They will surely fight back. They always do. McDonalds is sure they are covered under freedom of speech, and provides a safe product if used responsibily. They will surely argue you are holding them overly responsible for profitting from their product and advertising. Likewise society can question if they're profitting at the expense of a general social disservice. Then the two sides battle it out, and a middle ground is found. Yes I can see it from their PoV as well but not all matters are black and white. There are areas, like banking off teenie sexual imagery which I find worrisome. If others are happy with the balance as it is now, great. I can continue to have my concerns.

jack0177057
09-03-2009, 02:49 PM
And I don't mean all dancers, but it is possible some would be surprised how strong their emotions are if the shoes were on the other feet.

It is very easy to say "such and such doesn't matter" when people know it will never happen to them, but until people are actually in a situation they often don't know how deep feelings like those we harbor about sex will really feel.

Some female dancers would argue this... Its not the same... I hate dancing and I only do it only for the money... But, he is a guy and all guys are sex-craving maniacs. When a hot girl goes to grab his dick, I'm sure he will be aroused by it, and he'll probably end up having sex with her or letting her give him a BJ. Guys are just like that. I know he will enjoy the attention... Maybe not so with the ugly fat girls, but he'll love the attention he gets from the hot women... Also, most of my custies in the SC behave, they know they're not supposed to touch and don't... But, the girls that go to male reviews are wild and feel no sense of limitations to what they can do to the male dancers. So, it can never be the same.

xdamage
09-03-2009, 03:32 PM
Some female dancers would argue this... Its not the same... I hate dancing and I only do it only for the money... But, he is a guy and all guys are sex-craving maniacs. When a hot girl goes to grab his dick, I'm sure he will be aroused by it, and he'll probably end up having sex with her or letting her give him a BJ. Guys are just like that. I know he will enjoy the attention...
...So, it can never be the same.

Yes they would. They might be right too. At least statically there may be some truth to it. If you read Robin Baker's Sperm Wars (or other more scientific evolutionary psychology) there is a lot of evidence to back that the two sexes are different, across all cultures. But on the flip side, Baker argues that women cheat too, they are just less likely to get caught and hide it better. An interesting premise for a book.

But then it comes down to the very matter that makes it difficult.

Essentially the question is would she trust him not to do that; not to be aroused, not to have sex, even if a hottie walked through the door and paid him well for private time? But that might be difficult since the norm of the job might be to walk around with an erection. Is he aroused or not? He can't hide that.

But on the flip side... a female dancer is also requiring their BFs trust them that over multiple encounters multiple times a day, that it never happens that they never get sexual thrills out of the job.

It's kind of interesting though how adamant many dancers are, at least in public, that they are never turned on. That as soon as a customer walks through the door he is immediately filed into the "never" category. Of course it happens, dancer falls for customer but it may well be that statistically the odds of the women being aroused are less then the guys.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-03-2009, 11:05 PM
Maybe I'm half asleep here, but are you really trying to claim there are no clean dancers? That is as ridiculous as us trying to claim your nasty whores don't exist. ::)
Let us ass/u/me that this dancer is the typical Paterson/Irvington type. Let us ass/u/me the SO, for want of a better word, has knowledge of this behavior. The SO is OK with it. It is the dancer that has a problem with the SO doing the same thing; not necessarily in the club.

The SO gets NO money from said dancer.

princessjas
09-04-2009, 05:22 AM
Let us ass/u/me that this dancer is the typical Paterson/Irvington type. Let us ass/u/me the SO, for want of a better word, has knowledge of this behavior. The SO is OK with it. It is the dancer that has a problem with the SO doing the same thing; not necessarily in the club.

The SO gets NO money from said dancer.

Umm, just pointing out...I worked, very, very briefly in Patterson and those dancers are NOT the norm. Even at one of the better clubs (and I say better with a chuckle) well, it was basically a whore house with girls that were so fugly a few ask me why I didn't go work someplace better. Never had another dancer tell me I was too good-looking to work at a club anyplace other than Patterson. I had one girl ask me for a condom, then assumed when I didn't have any that I was nasty and fucking barebacked for money! :O It was MUCH worse than Gogo-Rama! Moved to Lace in Wayne after the condom question.

xdamage
09-04-2009, 08:59 AM
Let us ass/u/me that this dancer is the typical Paterson/Irvington type. Let us ass/u/me the SO, for want of a better word, has knowledge of this behavior. The SO is OK with it. It is the dancer that has a problem with the SO doing the same thing; not necessarily in the club.

The SO gets NO money from said dancer.

I didn't know what a Paterson type is until jas explained. Okay again... I agree the "it is just a job" mindset does not mean that people feel anything goes, but there are still differences between the following:

case #1:

She : I'm going to work to dance, it's my job, so it has to be okay with you or I'm out of here.

He : I'm going to the strip club today to spend some of the money I earned for me to have a good time. I believe in this business and want to support it because it is some other human's job, it is legit work, so you can't object to it anymore then me going out and spending a little on a dinner and movie, or I am out of here.

case #2:

She : I'm going to work to dance, it's my job, so it has to be okay with you or I'm out of here.

He : I'm going to work to dance, it's my job, so it has to be okay with you or I'm out of here.

case #3:

She : I'm going to work to dance, it's my job, so it has to be okay with you or I'm out of here.

He : I'm going to work to shoot some new porn scenes today, it's my job, so it has to be okay with you or I'm out of here.


In these he and she can be as head strong as they want about what they want, and that is fine. It is a choice in life how flexible we are about various aspects of our lives.

In these he and she may well find that "it's a job" is the most important factor in their decision, or either can decide that what the other is doing sexually is not okay with them despite it being "just a job".

Either may find that the "it's a job" reason fails the ultimate test if the situation is altered in some way that has their SO engaging in high levels of physical contact with others.

But that is people. We tend to look at things from whatever PoV benefits us most and add layers of logic on top to justify it; then we may consider other PoVs, and we still may decide we simply don't care about other people's PoVs and want what we want. Hey, nothing new right? It applies to endless matters people and couples contest over.

mediocrity
09-06-2009, 05:52 PM
Umm, just pointing out...I worked, very, very briefly in Patterson and those dancers are NOT the norm. Even at one of the better clubs (and I say better with a chuckle) well, it was basically a whore house with girls that were so fugly a few ask me why I didn't go work someplace better. Never had another dancer tell me I was too good-looking to work at a club anyplace other than Patterson. I had one girl ask me for a condom, then assumed when I didn't have any that I was nasty and fucking barebacked for money! :O It was MUCH worse than Gogo-Rama! Moved to Lace in Wayne after the condom question.

Yeah, I kind of feel like the question should be about hooking, not dancing, from what I have read here.

Elvia
09-06-2009, 06:40 PM
^^^Even then...i still don't get it. In my last relationship, these were the parameters: I dance naked for other men because that's my job. I do it for money, SO knows this, not threatened. There came a time when he was considering working in the sex industry. I had no problem with that. Basically, we could both work in the sex industry, and that was cool. Having sexual interaction with another outside of the sex industry- not cool. So, where is the double standard?

xdamage
09-06-2009, 09:12 PM
^^^ Of course in the end none of it matters too much. Even if it was a double standard, if the couple is good with the arrangement then it's between them (likewise if not).

Bob_Loblaw
09-06-2009, 10:13 PM
This thread seems to keep going round and round in circles, most likely because Earl's opening post was very vague. I seem to be in agreement with mediocrity's last post... when you boil it down, it seems Earl is asking about a double standard between a woman who is a prostitute and a man who is a john. IMO, the fact that the prostitute in question works in a strip club should be irrelevant in this discussion as it just distracts from what Earl is trying to get at... I think?

Earl_the_Pearl
09-08-2009, 09:02 AM
Umm, just pointing out...I worked, very, very briefly in Patterson and those dancers are NOT the norm. Even at one of the better clubs (and I say better with a chuckle) well, it was basically a whore house with girls that were so fugly a few ask me why I didn't go work someplace better.
The only difference in Patterson and "gentleman's" clubs is the cost of the act.


Scores West loses liquor license for allowing prostitution on premises



Read more:

Earl_the_Pearl
09-08-2009, 09:06 AM
This thread seems to keep going round and round in circles, most likely because Earl's opening post was very vague. I seem to be in agreement with mediocrity's last post... when you boil it down, it seems Earl is asking about a double standard between a woman who is a prostitute and a man who is a john. IMO, the fact that the prostitute in question works in a strip club should be irrelevant in this discussion as it just distracts from what Earl is trying to get at... I think?

Just about except for the plausible deniability aspect of a SC.

Golden_Rule
09-10-2009, 01:59 AM
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?

But it would appear to me that you aren't using the proper language if your desire is to measure intent.

You are simply asking the question: Is it sexual?

As I pointed out, by the strict definition of the term it most certainly is.

Golden_Rule
09-10-2009, 02:06 AM
Interesting, you the lawyer see it so, and GR whose opinions are also enjoyable to read, an ex-cop, also sees it as such.


Possibly because both lawyers and cops deal in the law, where specifics are rigidly defined by language, which has to mean something exact and be precise or else ambiguity is the result.


See to me we people create laws for us. We are not slaves to them though. Legal definitions do not define how we think or feel. Rather, laws are rough approximations of what we agree is generally right, for the majority, given that the law cannot perfectly account for all possible circumstances.

Laws can't be approximations. They are standards and if standards are approximate they leave too much room for interpretation and they aren't standards anymore.

In our system laws can be eliminated or altered, and that is where you account for changes, but while they exist they are explicit guidelines for comportment, as they must be or you leave too much room for anarchy.

xdamage
09-15-2009, 09:10 PM
Possibly because both lawyers and cops deal in the law, where specifics are rigidly defined by language, which has to mean something exact and be precise or else ambiguity is the result.

Laws can't be approximations. They are standards and if standards are approximate they leave too much room for interpretation and they aren't standards anymore.

In our system laws can be eliminated or altered, and that is where you account for changes, but while they exist they are explicit guidelines for comportment, as they must be or you leave too much room for anarchy.

But laws change, all the time, we people decide to change them. It is because what we really think and feel is not bound by laws. People who enforce laws need an exact interpretation but the rest of us just need laws that approximately align with what the majority agrees is a good compromise. As the majority opinion changes, we expect the laws (which are simplifications) to be altered to catch up. Our thinking need not be limited by laws.

Golden_Rule
09-16-2009, 02:35 PM
But laws change, all the time, we people decide to change them. It is because what we really think and feel is not bound by laws. People who enforce laws need an exact interpretation but the rest of us just need laws that approximately align with what the majority agrees is a good compromise. As the majority opinion changes, we expect the laws (which are simplifications) to be altered to catch up. Our thinking need not be limited by laws.

Sure laws change but that isn't what I was referencing.

I was talking about laws while they hold the status of law. At that point their language is exact, and if you were are ever to be charged with the violation of one you would glad of that because it holds the court to a rigid standard necessary to convict you.

xdamage
09-17-2009, 05:22 AM
Sure laws change but that isn't what I was referencing.

I was talking about laws while they hold the status of law. At that point their language is exact, and if you were are ever to be charged with the violation of one you would glad of that because it holds the court to a rigid standard necessary to convict you.

I can't argue with this, but I think some of the confusion was that matters of cheating/adultery and entertainment/sexual-activity got intertwined; also the OPs original matter, is a double standard in play.

Here a point to ponder:

The adultery laws vary in state to state. In PA a summary version:

http://www.divorcelawinfo.com/PA/padivexpln.htm#Adultery

Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the spouse. In Pennsylvania, neither cunnilingus nor fellatio, which the law defines as sodomy, is a ground for divorce and generally neither is considered adultery. The sexual intercourse must involve some penetration of the female organ by the male organ, but a "completion" of the sexual intercourse is not required.


I'm betting there are people who would not agree with the people who wrote this law, and would find the following scenario far more disturbing then visiting a SC:

Wife catches man getting a BJ in their master bedroom from the neighbor : "Hi Honey. Don't worry. She is just a giving me BJ, it's not adultery!"


Most adultery cases are proven by circumstantial evidence, which means that you have to establish that your spouse had the disposition and opportunity to commit adultery.
Public displays of affection, such as hand-holding, kissing, and hugging, between the guilty spouse and the paramour are generally sufficient evidence to indicate an adulterous disposition. Opportunity may be proven by showing that your spouse was seen entering the paramour's apartment at 11 P.M. and not coming out until 8 A.M. the following morning and that they were alone. If you can only prove disposition but not opportunity, the courts may not allow your divorce because the court may reason that it is just mere speculation. The same is true if you only show that there was opportunity, but cannot prove disposition.

This is pretty clear. You might find your wife giving a lap dance in a private room in a SC, allowing her opportunity to commit adultery, but that doesn't mean she has a disposition to commit adultery with the customer. Disposition is about what is going on subjectively, inside of the person, even if it cannot be easily measured objectively, it is a factor accounted for in some of our laws. It is relevant to our laws, and how people really feel about their relationships.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-17-2009, 02:05 PM
But she is a prostitute as are 99% of the bikini club go-go dancers in NJ. :O