View Full Version : Line between stripping and pros?
xdamage
09-25-2009, 03:03 PM
Well, I have to go with what most people in my society consider prostitution. That's having sex with someone in exchange for money. People who think strippers are whores, think that way because they believe that strippers have sex for money. They are wrong.
I'm sorry, but I'm just not evolved enough to not cast judgment on anyone ever. I don't know how I would make any decisions if I didn't judge on choice as worse than another. That said, I have nothing but respect for legitimate prostitutes. It's the ones who do it in my club that I don't like, and with good reason.
Understood, but people have looked at stripping as sin for a long time because it feeds into lust, often lust for a woman that is not one's wife, which is adultery in some religions. When it is compounded by significant sexual touching it just further leaves many people dismayed and disgusted. They aren't as concerned as you are suggesting that full on sex doesn't take place; in their minds LDs have already gone far too far. For others such as yourself whose limits are farther out, it is those other distinctions that matter to you. Their thinking is precisely equal to your own in this matter (and all of us who feel we must judge this).
But I think our key problem as a society is we are far too worried about what everyone else is doing with their bodies, what consenting adults are choosing in the area of sex. Even when their choices have no effect on us at all, we feel it is important to decide who is and isn't a whore. Why?
I think you should definitely lobby for your own limits in the SC setting since it affects your bottom line. I'm all for it. I just wish any debates about it remain about that and only that.
But the hard part is this. Just as I think you should lobby for limits in SCs, and I think you should lobby for the do-gooders to leave you alone and let you make your choices, I also think the same of prostitutes (however the law defines it). If they feel it is their body, their choice, then they should lobby for laws that are in their benefit. Then we let the best party win and we all hopefully benefit from laws that better protect our rights to do with our bodies what we choose.
Phil-W
09-25-2009, 03:11 PM
Too many people already assume that a dancer does everything a prostitute does anyway....It's insulting because it's not true, and because so many people feel entitled to make assumptions about what we do without even bothering to talk to us and learn that's not true by a long shot.
An unfortunate side effect of the great majority of dancers keeping their private and professional lives very separate.
There are many guys who been into strip venues, but very few who know dancers in the non-professional sense. That however, is no barrier to guys pontificating about what dancers are like at and outside of work.
Add into that equation how dancers are portrayed in the media (TV/Newspapers). Neither have any interest in portraying the realities of a dancers life - instead they concentrate on the aspects that sell TV programs or newspapers - so we get the stereotype of the coke snorting, dysfunctional stripper who does extras to pay for her pimp of a bf......
So the chance of a realistic perception of dancers is pretty small.
And what would happen to your money if the media portrayed you honestly? A few TV programs showing dancers saying "I'm primarily in it for the money" and "I forget all about my customers as soon as I leave the club" might well impact on dancers earnings in general.
The life of a stripper might be portrayed as a very negative stereotype, but would a more realistic perception actually help?
Phil.
Elvia
09-25-2009, 03:22 PM
so we get the stereotype of the coke snorting, dysfunctional stripper who does extras to pay for her pimp of a bf......
So the chance of a realistic perception of dancers is pretty small.
And what would happen to your money if the media portrayed you honestly? A few TV programs showing dancers saying "I'm primarily in it for the money" and "I forget all about my customers as soon as I leave the club" might well impact on dancers earnings in general.
The life of a stripper might be portrayed as a very negative stereotype, but would a more realistic perception actually help?
Phil.
I don't think the stereotype of the drug addled, dysfunctional, extras performing strippermakes me any more money either. In my experience, the people that come in with that perception aren't very good customers at all. Whereas most of the customers I have probably do understand that I'm there for the money, they just don't dwell on it.
xdamage
09-25-2009, 03:22 PM
^^^ (arrow was meant for Phils post)
Or how many guys are deluded and think they might really get layed if they keep spending, but there is a conflict of interest in fully revealing "hey, won't happen EVER no matter how much you spend". The mis-conceptions can be beneficial too in the club, but mis-understood outside. It's fairly hard to reveal the full truth without also popping the mystery/fantasy bubble that has some guys spending huge sums in hopes that they might one day get sex.
Elvia
09-25-2009, 03:26 PM
^^^ While there are plenty of guys that hope to eventually get you into bed if they spend a lot, I don't think they really think of that as prostitution.
xdamage
09-25-2009, 03:34 PM
^^^ While there are plenty of guys that hope to eventually get you into bed if they spend a lot, I don't think they really think of that as prostitution.
They don't but it is just another blurry matter though; you read about guys who got extras who heard the "but i don't do this for everyone" line... that's not really prostitution in their mind either, but... SCs have left a lot of people confused about what they are.
I really do think in the 80s it was clearer before all the touching and LDs and GFE stuff started. I mean my friend was still deluded, but then he was hopeless ;) But at least the lines were clearer. You didn't touch strippers, and they don't touch you. It was a show. It's all gotten confused now with so much contact, pretending to fall for customers (not all of which are super bright people), and then you add in the real extras girls and no wonder society is confused about what is (or should be) going on in the clubs.
Everyman
09-25-2009, 03:46 PM
Have you seen anything in this thread that you would consider the equivalent of such a statement? Because I just went over it again and I can't find anything. Most of the women on this site have shown time and time again that they have no problem with prostitutes (the exception being dancers who prostitute within the club, for reasons we all understand). It's more similar to this:
Guy A) You've gay. Why don't you just admit it?
Guy B) But I'm not gay.
A) Oh, so you have a problem with gay people?
B) No, I'm just not gay
A) If you didn't have a problem with gay people, you wouldn't have a problem with me labeling you as gay
B) I'm telling you I'm not gay.
A) why do you hate gay people?
See how frustrating that would be?
I have been in this situation a time or two, and if someone wants to insist I'm gay, I'll just say "ok, you're right, I'm gay."
Because (1) life is to short to argue with stupid people; (2) their opinion does not matter to me; and (3) the issue does not matter to me.
If someone wants to insist I'm black for whatever reason (I'm doughy-white), I'd probably agree with that too. It just doesn't matter.
Elvia
09-25-2009, 03:51 PM
Well, one can only hope that you are astute enough to understand why other people aren't so fond of it.
jack0177057
09-25-2009, 04:08 PM
Really we are only getting so frustrated because someone (a man no less) is trying to define what we are and what we do and when we corrected them, we were told that we are the ones mistaken and we actually are prostitutes.
Well, I agree with you that there is a major difference, but I don't think less of either one. I think the intent factor (intent to entertain/tease vs. intent to gratify), though not a perfect test, is a good way to distinguish the two.
You can turn the table on us and call us all "Johns" for going to SCs. Then, we'll get defensive on you and draw the distinctions - "I'm not a John, I just buy lap dances and I don't pay for sex."
jack0177057
09-25-2009, 04:22 PM
Have you seen anything in this thread that you would consider the equivalent of such a statement? Because I just went over it again and I can't find anything. Most of the women on this site have shown time and time again that they have no problem with prostitutes (the exception being dancers who prostitute within the club, for reasons we all understand). It's more similar to this:
Guy A) You've gay. Why don't you just admit it?
Guy B) But I'm not gay.
A) Oh, so you have a problem with gay people?
B) No, I'm just not gay
A) If you didn't have a problem with gay people, you wouldn't have a problem with me labeling you as gay
B) I'm telling you I'm not gay.
A) why do you hate gay people?
See how frustrating that would be?
It's only frustrating to me if its hurled as an insult. I really wouldn't waste my time arguing with anyone about this. If it was a guy saying it, I would just be, like, - whatever - you don't mind me watching your GF naked, then? If it was a girl saying, and she was good looking, I would say whatever was more likely to get me in the sack with her. Maybe she's into trying to flip gay guys.
Girl: You're gay.
Me: I'm not gay.
Girl: Yes, you're gay. Why don't you just admit it?
Me: You probably think you're so hot in bed, that you can turn any gay guy straight?
Girl: That's right, I can.
Me: Okay, I'm gay, let's see if it works.
SteveSmith
09-25-2009, 04:36 PM
And what would happen to your money if the media portrayed you honestly? A few TV programs showing dancers saying "I'm primarily in it for the money" and "I forget all about my customers as soon as I leave the club" might well impact on dancers earnings in general.
I don't think the stereotype of the drug addled, dysfunctional, extras performing strippermakes me any more money either. In my experience, the people that come in with that perception aren't very good customers at all. Whereas most of the customers I have probably do understand that I'm there for the money, they just don't dwell on it.
Phil-W wrote in a previous thread that he stopped going to SCs because the reality of the situation was too much for him to bear (that the dancers really didn't like him and that they're doing it for the money). Or as Phil-W referred to it as the "Peek Behind the Curtain."
I've always understood that they're doing it for the money, but I don't care why they do it as long as I'm having fun. :boobies:
chris91
09-25-2009, 04:40 PM
I have been in this situation a time or two, and if someone wants to insist I'm gay, I'll just say "ok, you're right, I'm gay."
Because (1) life is to short to argue with stupid people; (2) their opinion does not matter to me; and (3) the issue does not matter to me.
If someone wants to insist I'm black for whatever reason (I'm doughy-white), I'd probably agree with that too. It just doesn't matter.
We'll see if you still don't care when you've got some gay guy trying to cram his tongue down your throat because he heard you were gay. Or when you get turned down for a loan/apartment/job because the banker/landlord/boss is homophobic.
princessjas
09-25-2009, 04:41 PM
Phil-W wrote in a previous thread that he stopped going to SCs because the reality of the situation was too much for him to bear (that the dancers really didn't like him and that they're doing it for the money). Or as Phil-W referred to as the "Peek Behind the Curtain."
I've always understood that they're doing it for the money, but I don't care why they do it as long as I'm having fun. :boobies:
And we will have more fun with a customer with this attitude. Might actually be able to relax and enjoy their company if they are a decent sort even. ;) The ones that really don't get that it is a job are super frustrating most of the time.
chris91
09-25-2009, 04:47 PM
Understood, but people have looked at stripping as sin for a long time because it feeds into lust, often lust for a woman that is not one's wife, which is adultery in some religions. When it is compounded by significant sexual touching it just further leaves many people dismayed and disgusted. They aren't as concerned as you are suggesting that full on sex doesn't take place; in their minds LDs have already gone far too far. For others such as yourself whose limits are farther out, it is those other distinctions that matter to you. Their thinking is precisely equal to your own in this matter (and all of us who feel we must judge this).
But I think our key problem as a society is we are far too worried about what everyone else is doing with their bodies, what consenting adults are choosing in the area of sex. Even when their choices have no effect on us at all, we feel it is important to decide who is and isn't a whore. Why?
I think you should definitely lobby for your own limits in the SC setting since it affects your bottom line. I'm all for it. I just wish any debates about it remain about that and only that.
But the hard part is this. Just as I think you should lobby for limits in SCs, and I think you should lobby for the do-gooders to leave you alone and let you make your choices, I also think the same of prostitutes (however the law defines it). If they feel it is their body, their choice, then they should lobby for laws that are in their benefit. Then we let the best party win and we all hopefully benefit from laws that better protect our rights to do with our bodies what we choose.
Thinking that lapdances go to far is different from lumping it in with prostitution.
I am not trying to decide who and who isn't a whore. I know who is a whore. People who have sex for money. I didn't make that definition up.
It doesn't matter how they define prostitution in other countries. I live and work in America, where prostitution is a exchange of sex for money. There is a reason that dancers don't want to be called prostitutes, and it's because everyone knows that prostitutes have sex for money, which is something that we don't do.
You can call lapdances prostitution if you want, but you will still be wrong, and I will correct you every time.
yoda57us
09-25-2009, 04:57 PM
^^^ While there are plenty of guys that hope to eventually get you into bed if they spend a lot, I don't think they really think of that as prostitution.
I agree. Guys who spend a lot hoping to get lucky are simply hoping to get lucky.
Guys who are willing to pay for sex will just ask the girl if she accepts money for sex or offer her money. To be fair, a lot of guys who do this may not think of it strictly as prostitution either but both parties know what it is even if the word doesn't get tossed around.
stressed
09-25-2009, 05:07 PM
We'll see if you still don't care when you've got some gay guy trying to cram his tongue down your throat because he heard you were gay. Or when you get turned down for a loan/apartment/job because the banker/landlord/boss is homophobic.
rotfl....this is so true and sad in so many ways
Phil-W
09-25-2009, 11:40 PM
Phil-W wrote in a previous thread that he stopped going to SCs because the reality of the situation was too much for him to bear (that the dancers really didn't like him and that they're doing it for the money). Or as Phil-W referred to it as the "Peek Behind the Curtain."
I've not looked up the original post but I don't think that's exactly what I wrote.
Basically, I've long been friends with several dancers outside of work - and two in particular. If I do go into work to give them a lift home, they don't really want me to take an interest in them dancing - and I would feel uncomfortable if I do.
The reason for that lies in psychology. When we like someone, we tend to act sub-consciously in a way we think will earn their approval.
So because I know they value me as a friend and not as a customer, my sub-conscious makes me feel uncomfortable if I pay attention - thus gaining their de facto approval by showing the opportunity to see them nude is not a factor in my friendship.
And similarly from their POV - because they've told me so many times "it's only a job - customers are just background noise to me" and "people look down on me if they know I'm a stripper", it makes them feel uncomfortable if they act like a dancer toward me. Their sub-conscious is making them de-emphasize their role as a dancer as far as I'm concerned - thus minimizing any perceived 'disapproval' from me because they're breaking social norms by stripping.
So my lack of interest inside SC's is everything to do with the dynamics of the relationship I have with dancers outside of it - and nothing to do with "they're only doing it for the money".
And we will have more fun with a customer with this attitude... [Stevie Smith's I know it's about the money - so I just go in to have fun]... Might actually be able to relax and enjoy their company if they are a decent sort even.
A fair number of dancers know me well enough to chat to and relax without any expectation of getting a dance. I've noticed that they fall into two broad classes.
Some dancers in effect 'let their guard down' and have a perfectly normal 'outside of the club' conversation with me. That results in the above dynamics working: "don't feel comfortable dancing in front of you" / "feel uncomfortable looking".
Other dancers are perfectly friendly, but keep a greater emotional distance. I have noticed some find dancing in my general line of vision fun. As one put it "I get a buzz out of you seeing me naked, then knowing I can come over and you'll treat me no differently than someone who didn't know I did this job".
However, I've noticed this particular dynamic only works in the absence of the dancers I spend time with OTC - say if they're away asking for dances. If I'm talking to them, the "feel uncomfortable looking" vibe kicks in - and the other dancer also picks up the "Phil shouldn't be interested in you" vibe from my dancer friend and feels uncomfortable in her turn .
And the point of this somewhat meandering post is to say we're all driven by varying motivations - some of which are sub-conscious and we're barely aware of.
Phil.
Stripper Hacks
09-25-2009, 11:58 PM
There is an article in my local paper about some bikini baristas who are being charged with prostitution. I'm sure were not getting the full story but the reports say that they let the cops touch them and showed them their boobs.
WTF.
That is not prostitution at all.
Now if someone offers you sex for money and you agree, cop or customer that is prostitution.
IMO if it never gets whipped out, and nothing ever gets penetrated then no it should not be considered prostitution.
Not all extras are prostitution. It has to be a sex act. Not acting sexy.
xdamage
09-26-2009, 06:28 AM
There is an article in my local paper about some bikini baristas who are being charged with prostitution. I'm sure were not getting the full story but the reports say that they let the cops touch them and showed them their boobs.
WTF.
That is not prostitution at all.
Sadly Google dictionary definitions turns up lots of results suggesting not all laws or definitions are the same. I.e., the personal definition that it requires sex and the definition in the minds of the law makers (who were sometimes people from conservative backgrounds) are often far more general (i.e., any kind of sexual activity for money).
It's why I despise this threads premise because all it will do is leave people's feelings hurt. The reality is that many people really do feel that any kind of sexual activity for money (not just intercourse) = prostitution. Sucks but that is what is really in real people's minds including law writers.
xdamage
09-26-2009, 07:26 AM
I am not trying to decide who and who isn't a whore. I know who is a whore. People who have sex for money. I didn't make that definition up.
It doesn't matter how they define prostitution in other countries. I live and work in America, where prostitution is a exchange of sex for money. There is a reason that dancers don't want to be called prostitutes, and it's because everyone knows that prostitutes have sex for money, which is something that we don't do.
You can call lapdances prostitution if you want, but you will still be wrong, and I will correct you every time.
Chris, the problem is even in America there is no one agreed on definition. Go look up dictionary and legal laws. They vary dramatically state wide, town wide, dictionary wide! Many definitions DO NOT make this distinction you make in your mind.
The people who wrote their definitions, both law makers and those who compiled shorter dictionary versions are people just like you, who felt their understanding of what the line is, is absolute truth and the line.
But the real problem is they (and I think everyone here who is arguing for their line) make is they start with the assumption that a definition is needed, and that it is their business to decide who is and isn't a whore. It is a flawed assumption that may be human nature, but I believe we'd be better off if the government (and people in general) got out of the business of deciding what others can and cannot do with their bodies.
We don't need a legal definition of "whore". We do need definitions of sex, and definitions of public so we can define where sex can take place and not.* We do need legal definitions of human trafficking and force so we can stop that. We don't need a legal definition defining who is having sex for money and who is just having it because frankly it is none of the governments business nor anyone business regardless of how surely they think it is. And until we change people's minds and they see that, we are just going to have everyone from the most conservative/religious to even those in the dancing business, massage parlor business, etc. arguing vehemently that their own lines define the "whore" line.
Like I said, as a dancer you should lobby for clarity and laws that describe specifically what is and isn't allowed in strip clubs (specify the acts) so that you can compete fairly up to your own limit. Likewise those who want to set the limits higher should lobby. Then you battle it out and society accepts whatever the decision is. We still don't need a definition of whore; just the acts that are legal or not in SCs.
* p.s. that is because what people do in public affects each other, so it is not just about government sticking their nose into our business, laws about public sex are valid because laws about how people are directly affecting each other are valid. What the do in private rooms and places though? None of the governments or other peoples business as far as Im concerned.
Djoser
09-26-2009, 07:34 AM
I think prostitution begins the moment the girl's hand goes into the guy's pants.
Reason; intent seems directly there to satisfy a sexual need which is prostitution to me.
What they call 'stick shifting' a sort of handjobish treatment outside the pants, would probably fall into that category as well.
I personally would define it as deliberately trying to get the guy off. But legally it's way, way less than that in so many states' laws! Taking a tip the wrong way can be legally defined as prostitution in lots of cities.
As I have said elsewhere, I have worked in clubs that were basically whorehouses. Many, many clubs in many, many areas are HJ and BJ factories. Houston, Miami, Detroit, Tampa, etc. You'll find some clean clubs, but most have some of that going on for sure.
Doesn't mean all of the dancers in those clubs are prostitutes, though.
chris91
09-26-2009, 09:40 AM
Chris, the problem is even in America there is no one agreed on definition. Go look up dictionary and legal laws. They vary dramatically state wide, town wide, dictionary wide! Many definitions DO NOT make this distinction you make in your mind.
There is a definition. Like I said before, when you say prostitute, people think "She has sex for money." not "She dances around and sits on guys laps". That's the definition that I'm concerned with.
The people who wrote their definitions, both law makers and those who compiled shorter dictionary versions are people just like you, who felt their understanding of what the line is, is absolute truth and the line.
But the real problem is they (and I think everyone here who is arguing for their line) make is they start with the assumption that a definition is needed, and that it is their business to decide who is and isn't a whore. It is a flawed assumption that may be human nature, but I believe we'd be better off if the government (and people in general) got out of the business of deciding what others can and cannot do with their bodies.
A definition is needed as long as people are using the word. We would be better off is the government didn't tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies, but that wouldn't change the fact that prostitutes have sex for money.
We don't need a legal definition of "whore". We do need definitions of sex, and definitions of public so we can define where sex can take place and not.* We do need legal definitions of human trafficking and force so we can stop that. We don't need a legal definition defining who is having sex for money and who is just having it because frankly it is none of the governments business nor anyone business regardless of how surely they think it is. And until we change people's minds and they see that, we are just going to have everyone from the most conservative/religious to even those in the dancing business, massage parlor business, etc. arguing vehemently that their own lines define the "whore" line.
Of course we need to define who is having sex for money and who is having it for fun. Even if prostitution were legal, you would need some word to put on tax forms and apartment applications that would describe what you do.
Like I said, as a dancer you should lobby for clarity and laws that describe specifically what is and isn't allowed in strip clubs (specify the acts) so that you can compete fairly up to your own limit. Likewise those who want to set the limits higher should lobby. Then you battle it out and society accepts whatever the decision is. We still don't need a definition of whore; just the acts that are legal or not in SCs.
We already have laws. They're just not being enforced. Anyway, it's not and either/or situation where I have to choose between lobbying for different laws and correcting people when they call me a whore. I can do both.
* p.s. that is because what people do in public affects each other, so it is not just about government sticking their nose into our business, laws about public sex are valid because laws about how people are directly affecting each other are valid. What the do in private rooms and places though? None of the governments or other peoples business as far as Im concerned.
If they are making money doing stuff in private, then it is the governments business. The IRS more specifically. Of course, I don't think they shoudl be telling us how we can and can't make money.
All that is irrelevant to my argument though, which is that prostitution is sex for money.
xdamage
09-26-2009, 10:15 AM
A definition is needed as long as people are using the word. We would be better off is the government didn't tell us what we can and can't do with our bodies, but that wouldn't change the fact that prostitutes have sex for money.
Of course we need to define who is having sex for money and who is having it for fun. Even if prostitution were legal, you would need some word to put on tax forms and apartment applications that would describe what you do.
Here is they key problem for me.
If person A has intercourse with person B for dinner, just cause, love, whatever reasons, some people will have an opinion about it, and some would even like to outlaw it if they are not married, but most of us agree it is NONE of our business.
If person A rubs her boobies against person B, they pet, make out, etc, but says that is enough for now, no intercourse, for dinner, just cause, love, whatever reasons, some people will have an opinion about it, and some would even like to outlaw it if they are not married, but most of us agree it is NONE of our business.
The problem is when they exchange money for it. If we follow your concern above then BOTH should pay taxes. If taxes is really what we are worried about here. I don't see how you can argue with this. I think my logic is sound. If that is your definition of prostitution then in both cases above it occurred.
But I think that is not really the issue. I think the real issue is that because there is a direct exchange of money people feel it is their business to go EWWW... and write laws telling these people what they can do with their bodies.
You're magic line has you going EWWW to the first scenario but not the second. Someone else' magic line has them going EWWW to both.
And my feeling is that ironically Strip Clubs only exist because of the fact that people are walking around feeling like it is their right to regulate what others are doing.
That if they really didn't care what others did with their bodies even if it was for money, that we wouldn't have laws preventing sex or teasing in private for money, brothels for money or preventing strip clubs for money.
We have laws preventing both for the same fundamental reason. People are judging what others are doing with their bodies for money. That is the continuum problem that both makes SCs possible today, and potentially they may not exist in the future as eventually laws will probably no longer protect the boundaries.
I still think you should lobby for what you want, which is reasonable. If I was in your shoes I'd want it too. But in the end I can't disagree with those who lobby for less government control over how much touching people engage in for money either including sex and whatever else they agree on.
chris91
09-26-2009, 11:51 AM
The problem is when they exchange money for it. If we follow your concern above then BOTH should pay taxes. If taxes is really what we are worried about here. I don't see how you can argue with this. I think my logic is sound. If that is your definition of prostitution then in both cases above it occurred.
Well, If a hooker is having sex in exchange for dinner, then she should pay taxes on it. That's already a rule.
I don't know how you pay taxes on love or "just cause". The IRS doesn't consider those things income, and neither do I.
But I think that is not really the issue. I think the real issue is that because there is a direct exchange of money people feel it is their business to go EWWW... and write laws telling these people what they can do with their bodies.
You're magic line has you going EWWW to the first scenario but not the second. Someone else' magic line has them going EWWW to both.
I am not going EWWW to anything. I have no problem with people selling sex outside of my club. How many times do I have to say this?
I have a problem with people calling me a hooker, not because I have some moral issue with prostitution, but because it leads to people thinking that I fuck for money. Then, I have to deal with all the added stigma of a profession that I'm not even involved in, and I have to deal with dudes expecting me to fuck them for money.
This is like the third time I've said this in this thread, so I don't really know how you haven't gotten it yet. Didn't you see that whole analogy about calling straight guys gay? Should we also throw out any word that defines a persons sexual orientation? Maybe we should get rid of any word that describes any profession, and then you can open the phone book and just try to guess which number you should call to find a plumber. Of course, that would be ridiculous. We need labels, so that we can communicate with each other.
There is no inherent negative connotation to the word prostitute. It's only bad when used in that context, which is not what I'm doing.
xdamage
09-26-2009, 11:51 AM
...It's more similar to this:
Guy A) You've gay. Why don't you just admit it?
Guy B) But I'm not gay.
A) Oh, so you have a problem with gay people?
B) No, I'm just not gay
A) If you didn't have a problem with gay people, you wouldn't have a problem with me labeling you as gay
B) I'm telling you I'm not gay.
A) why do you hate gay people?
See how frustrating that would be?
I think the problem for me is that (while I do get this analogy) in as little as 30 years of being someone who could be sexually active, and growing up in SoCal, a fairly liberal part of CA, I've seen social attitudes change dramatically about the following:
Having casual sex (about the time I was a teenage casual petting was seen as pretty nasty by our parents, and actually having sex still VERY questionable to do pre-marriage, but the fact is people were doing it).
Being a stripper (and I mean stripping, not touching anyone).
Porn (which existed, but was questionable to view, fairly mild by today's standards, and there was far more stigma about actually doing it).
If I rewind back just as little as 30 years and watch how dramatically popular opinion has changed about just these points I would observe:
A lot of people do have casual sex now and really feel no guilt and really feel it is NONE of anyone else' business.
Not only are a lot of women stripping but they are engaging in levels of contact that would have appalled dancers in the early 80s.
Porn - even those of us who would never do it watch it, almost main stream, there is so much of it you almost have to wonder wtf?
And of course all along there were people having sex for money too even if it wasn't talked about much.
The problem is when you see so much change in attitudes in such a short time it is hard to get very emotionally excited about the various differences of exactly where people draw their lines of what they do sexually, and what they will do for money that is sexual in nature. And it is not that we don't see a difference between intercourse and not, just that given the social trends it's hard to get very emotionally involved when chances are in the not too distant future sex for money will increasingly become legal, and likewise just as people look back on sex of the 70s as quaint, they will be looking back on the limits in SCs today as quaint.
xdamage
09-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Well, If a hooker is having sex in exchange for dinner, then she should pay taxes on it. That's already a rule.
I don't know how you pay taxes on love or "just cause". The IRS doesn't consider those things income, and neither do I.
I don't think you understand my comparison. Read it again.
The point was that even if a woman is just making out, rubbing her breasts on the guy, whatever, for money, she should pay taxes. Just as masseuses should pay taxes if they give a backrub in private, just as plumbers should if they come to your home and provide a service. Therefore it is not relevant to why people draw their lines as they do in their heads. They are not thinking about taxes. They are thinking EWW it's sexual, for money!
Your sense of it is just different but fundamentally the same in terms of what motivates it.
I am not going EWWW to anything. I have no problem with people selling sex outside of my club. How many times do I have to say this?
It's the use of the word "whore" - it suggests stronger emotions then pure objectivity.
I have a problem with people calling me a hooker, not because I have some moral issue with prostitution, but because it leads to people thinking that I fuck for money. Then, I have to deal with all the added stigma of a profession that I'm not even involved in, and I have to deal with dudes expecting me to fuck them for money.
That part I understand. I'm fine with the word prostitute though the legal definition and that of the common person is not as clear cut as your personal definition.
But the problem is when people throw around the word "whore" it is often like how they throw around the word "fag"; it has tremendous negative connotation and usually there is a lot of negative emotion behind it. Usually too they deny it if confronted cause it's not PC to admit anymore, but still it leaves people wondering. If you don't want to leave doubt, prostitute definitely carries less negative connotation (even if the definition remains a matter of legal and personal debate).
Cyril
09-26-2009, 12:05 PM
If I dance around sexily in front of the guy, trail my hair over his face, run my nails down his neck, then sit on his lap, not even grinding or straddling him and he comes...WTF have I done to cause it?? Very little...inspired a fantasy basically, it was all in his own mind.
Any stance no matter how immoral it is can be defended and similarly any stance no matter how moral it is can be attacked. The excerpt above exemplifies it.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 12:08 PM
See, this is what you guys don't understand...To us, it is not on that continuum. We are providing a show. ACTING, not participating in foreplay.
As soon as you sit on someone's lap for money, you are no longer an actress.
JayATee
09-26-2009, 12:17 PM
Any stance no matter how immoral it is can be defended and similarly any stance no matter how moral it is can be attacked. The excerpt above exemplifies it.
It is a personal opinion as to what is or is not moral.
As soon as you sit on someone's lap for money, you are no longer an actress.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Cyril
09-26-2009, 12:22 PM
if you've been paying attention to this thread at all, you should have noticed that most of us do not equate lapdancing with prostitution
Lap dancing is where prostitution begins.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 12:24 PM
It is a personal opinion as to what is or is not moral.
:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Unless of course you are playing the role of a stripper in a drama. Then you are still an actress even though you are getting paid to sit on someone's lap. :)
WiseGuy_TX
09-26-2009, 12:33 PM
Any stance no matter how immoral it is can be defended and similarly any stance no matter how moral it is can be attacked. The excerpt above exemplifies it....and the above excerpt represents the injustice of shady lawyers and shady cops.
As soon as you sit on someone's lap for money, you are no longer an actress....that's right, she becomes a goddess.
Phil-W
09-26-2009, 03:08 PM
Any stance no matter how immoral it is can be defended and similarly any stance no matter how moral it is can be attacked.
Cyril,
You will be a great loss to this board when you take up your professorship of philosophy.
Phil.
xdamage
09-26-2009, 03:12 PM
Any stance no matter how immoral it is can be defended and similarly any stance no matter how moral it is can be attacked. The excerpt above exemplifies it.
Likewise, if people have decided it is their business to worry about what two consenting adults are doing, and for what reasons, they will go to tremendous mental lengths to justify why they have the right too and should, pointing the finger outward, rather then inward where they would have to look at what is really behind it.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 03:21 PM
Likewise, if people have decided it is their business to worry about what two consenting adults are doing, and for what reasons, they will go to tremendous mental lengths to justify why they have the right too and should, pointing the finger outward, rather then inward where they would have to look at what is really behind it.
You seem to subscribe to a school of thought that people's individual actions have no effect on the society as a whole. I disagree. And, I think that our individual actions such as engaging in prostitution does have a collective effect on the society, negative one in this case.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 03:22 PM
Cyril,
You will be a great loss to this board when you take up your professorship of philosophy.
Phil.
Thank you kindly sir!
xdamage
09-26-2009, 03:29 PM
Lap dancing is where prostitution begins.
Well before lap dancing there was porn, watching others do it for money, so why not claim it started there? Also stripping (view only stripping), people spending money to watch naked and semi-naked women, so why not claim it begins there? There were also people having casual sex in exchange for meals, gifts, allowances, why not claim it started there? There were even people just having sex for money before there were SCs in the USA that had lap dances, so why not claim it started there?
Your also just confusing your own person limits with absolute truth, and again it gets back to why do you care what other people choose to do with their bodies, yes even sexually, yes even sometimes for direct money? How are they actually harming you?
xdamage
09-26-2009, 03:42 PM
You seem to subscribe to a school of thought that people's individual actions have no effect on the society as a whole. I disagree. And, I think that our individual actions such as engaging in prostitution does have a collective effect on the society, negative one in this case.
No, I do not. I am fully aware that everything we do has some impact on others even if just in subtle ways including even when you buy a product someone may have been helped, someone mildly hurt. But it is not all or nothing. I also weigh degrees of impact and because I accept that there is no way to entirely avoid negative impacts, I ask, is it significant as compared with say, the loss of human rights and freedoms?
The prostitution matter (and likewise stripping) raises in many people the same general concern of exploitation; but since most dancers here don't feel exploited and since the prostitutes who have sex are probably not going to be well represented on this forum, let's ask -
So explain to me please then the following:
Random Girl A and Random Boy B decide to go into a locked room. Like Shrodingers cat in the box, we have no idea what exactly occurred or for how much (could be nothing but talking, could be sex, could be foreplay, could be for $0, could be every dollar one or the other had).
When they walk out, how exactly are you harmed? How can you tell any difference between whether or not they did it for money or for personal reasons? Or even what they did?
Imagine even so that we did not care if money was exchanged. Really didn't care. Like if anyone brought it up everyone else said "STFU that is none of your business to ask about that" just like it is not our business to ask what they did in the room, it is private.
So you could never find out what they did, or for how much.
Explain to me how you, Cyril, have been harmed.
Djoser
09-26-2009, 03:44 PM
As soon as you sit on someone's lap for money, you are no longer an actress.
You don't know how wrong you are. Oscar winning actresses could not match the performances some of these women put on every night they work.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Explain to me how you, Cyril, have been harmed.
Before I answer your question. I want to explain the premise of my belief to avoid any confusion. It is correct that I believe that the prostitution is wrong. I also may advocate that it should remain illegal. But I am also not too fond of imposing my views on others. So, I keep my enthusiasm for anti prostitution in check.
Coming back to your question:
My mind is not impressionable. So, my chances of getting harmed is very unlikely. But what about some teenagers who are in the process of self discovery?
Elvia
09-26-2009, 05:58 PM
^^^ how were they harmed by the couple in the room?
Cyril
09-26-2009, 06:01 PM
You don't know how wrong you are. Oscar winning actresses could not match the performances some of these women put on every night they work.
Actually, the concept of acting is very misunderstood on this forum. When you deceive others, it is not called acting. It is called deception. Actual acting is a very difficult craft. Once you really give it a try, only then you realize how difficult it is. That also lets you know why some movie stars make millions.
It is unfortunate to even compare the art of deception with the art of acting.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 06:04 PM
...
...that's right, she becomes a goddess.
She is a goddess as long as she is on the stage.
WiseGuy_TX
09-26-2009, 06:11 PM
It is unfortunate to even compare the art of deception with the art of acting....all based on your knowledge of strippers in hollywood movies.
She is a goddess as long as she is on the stage....i actually find this an interesting perspective of yours. It says any form of reality is unacceptable.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 06:17 PM
...i actually find this an interesting perspective of yours. It says any form of reality is unacceptable.
Some realities need to be changed. Would you not agree?
Elvia
09-26-2009, 06:19 PM
says the man who "loves strippers" but knows none.
WiseGuy_TX
09-26-2009, 06:24 PM
Some realities need to be changed. Would you not agree?...no more weed for Cyril tonight.
Cyril
09-26-2009, 06:28 PM
says the man who "loves strippers" but knows none.
I am trying to.
Elvia
09-26-2009, 06:31 PM
I though that would compromise your precious social standing?
Cyril
09-26-2009, 06:36 PM
I though that would compromise your precious social standing?
One can always keep it discreet.