View Full Version : Don't go to strip clubs....
Pages :
1
2
3
4
[
5]
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
yoda57us
10-11-2009, 04:52 PM
So you agreed with me then that this was rationalized behavior. I wasn't sure. For a minute there, I thought you were making excuses for those who do that sort of thing.
I make no excuses for any ones behavior BEM. It's not my problem.
If, by agreeing with you, I am agreeing that your grasp of the obvious is exceptional and your attempts to be clever laughable then yes, I agree with you completely...
xdamage
10-11-2009, 04:56 PM
Let me give an example to show why this matter is tough.
GR, I'll use your situation as an example, not to pick on you but because I know you can take examples that turn the tables and not take it personally ;D
So Cyril here says lap dances are exploitation, though some dancers say Cyril, don't speak for us, we are adults and choose. He also says prostitution is. In fact much of society agrees with Cyril. In fact many people think so is porn, strip clubs, and much more.
Now from their PoV you are exploiting young women by taking part in these "events", profiting from them, in whatever way. Like how do you know some of them aren't doing it because they feel they need the money today, but will hate themselves for it tomorrow? Intuition says at least some should.
Now if it was clear, crystal clear, say some guy brought in a young woman with Downs Syndrome and said she wants to make money, would it raise your intuitive flag to say no? Probably. But I'll comment on that later...
What about if a man with Downs Syndrome comes into a club and starts spending wildly on a dancer, seemingly deluded? Should she say "hey look man, can you really afford this?" Many people would say yep, that is the right thing to do.
But on the other hand society loves to argue that people with Developmental Disabilities should be treated no different then anyone else. So your both also offending yet another group by assuming they are incompetent in regards to their money and bodies.
In fact, and here is why it is complicated... if the laws ever changed such that prostitution was legalized or decriminalized, and a woman with Down's Syndrome was brought to your event with her BF, and wanted to make some money, if she had not been declared legally incompetent, you'd have no legal choice but to let her work, no matter how much it offended your sensibilities. Likewise for a man with the same syndrome to spend away his savings... because legally unless he has been declared incompetent he could not be refused service if he demanded it.
If at this point your head is spinning it should. It's the problem with edge cases, and everyone finger pointing at who is in violation of how they think they would act, if they were put in the same positions.
lydiastardust
10-11-2009, 06:23 PM
If a girl comes into a club with her boyfriend, who has to speak on her behalf, it is irrelivent what mental disability she has or does not have. It doesn't change the fact that if she's unable to converse about the job to the management herself, she in no way should be trying to do it. I would even go as far to say that girls coming in with their boyfriends looking for a job should be considered extremely unprofessional and shouldn't be hired. If you can't go in by yourself to audition, what are you going to do when you have to be there on your own to make money? Therefor, I would think to hire her despite this would be to treat her differently than "well-minded" individuals. As someone who does have a learning disability, I would be extremely offended if someone thought I shouldn't do something because I'm not in the "right mind" to make the decision, to dance for example...then again my disability is mild, so it's a different situation.
I honestly see no reason not to dance for a customer with downs syndrome. Chances are that he'll have someone there with him to conduct the actual business with. Even if he doesn't, I assume that if he has the cash he wants to spend it on pretty girls...especially considering that it's probably rather difficult for a guy with downs syndrome to have those sort of intimate experiences.
xdamage
10-11-2009, 06:33 PM
If a girl comes into a club with her boyfriend, who has to speak on her behalf, it is irrelivent what mental disability she has or does not have. It doesn't change the fact that if she's unable to converse about the job to the management herself, she in no way should be trying to do it. I would even go as far to say that girls coming in with their boyfriends looking for a job should be considered extremely unprofessional and shouldn't be hired. If you can't go in by yourself to audition, what are you going to do when you have to be there on your own to make money? Therefor, I would think to hire her despite this would be to treat her differently than "well-minded" individuals. As someone who does have a learning disability, I would be extremely offended if someone thought I shouldn't do something because I'm not in the "right mind" to make the decision, to dance for example...then again my disability is mild, so it's a different situation.
I honestly see no reason not to dance for a customer with downs syndrome. Chances are that he'll have someone there with him to conduct the actual business with. Even if he doesn't, I assume that if he has the cash he wants to spend it on pretty girls...especially considering that it's probably rather difficult for a guy with downs syndrome to have those sort of intimate experiences.
Remove the BF part... she speaks for herself and says I want to do this? Does it change your mind?
And replace Downs Syndrome with any other disability as you like... the point was not to nit and pick, but to make one think.
If it is making anyone feel nervous, then that is GOOD... since the point is to make people think about how we see things in terms that please us. Self interest is what we all do - we are masters at it ;)
Vyanka
10-11-2009, 06:49 PM
I feel like my thread got fucking jacked here to a whole different topic.
I will say this shit again...
If you're going to go to a strip club(to an upscale one especially) to tell every dancer you cannot aford a $20 dance bc of the recession.....stay out!! Seriously, stay the hell out. There are men who aren't even tipping the bartenders & waitresses too. Chugging away on their hot cheap beer.
It's not only strip clubs.... if you can't afford to go somewhere, don't go. It's that damn simple.
Fuckin' A, shit. This shouldn't be so hard to grasp.
Earl_the_Pearl
10-11-2009, 07:10 PM
It's not only strip clubs.... if you can't afford to go somewhere, don't go. It's that damn simple.
Fuckin' A, shit. This shouldn't be so hard to grasp.
Well then why don't you post a sign on the front door saying so? Set the rules on how much each PL must spend on each dancer; it would make it so much easier.
Vyanka
10-11-2009, 07:21 PM
Well then why don't you post a sign on the front door saying so? Set the rules on how much each PL must spend on each dancer; it would make it so much easier.
If I could, I would! Along with another sign that says, "You're in a gentlemen's club, so please act like a gentleman". :)
Earl_the_Pearl
10-11-2009, 07:35 PM
If I could, I would! Along with another sign that says, "You're in a gentlemen's club, so please act like a gentleman". :)
A true gentleman would not look upon the nakedness of a women thus would NEVER enter such a place.
Vyanka
10-11-2009, 07:52 PM
A true gentleman would not look upon the nakedness of a women thus would NEVER enter such a place.
::) ....
Golden_Rule
10-11-2009, 09:19 PM
Yay! Another thread where GR tells the strippers to tell the customers how to spend their money!
Love the level of contribution, Perry. Keep up the good work. :)
[That was trying to be more funny than sarcastic]
Golden_Rule
10-11-2009, 09:58 PM
f they ALL did it then we'd still buy cars (or push harder for them to fix problems before selling them), but we'd look past the shiny paint and make more informed choice.
But of course it doesn't work that way. Even if I sleep a bit better for full disclosure, EtP is right that if one dancer doesn't sell them another will.
Less and less often that is the case.
The internet is the reason why. Its just too hard to keep people from sharing information. Of course that too can be misused.
I know of several sites where dancer info is exchanged and with the info regarding who deals squarely and who doesn't also travels with it on occasion info one who is vulnerable. It sucks. I comment when I see it, just as I do here. Even get some similar responses. Like I said, the equation is equally fucked up on both sides of the "=" sign.
I guess the bottom line is I don't see how anyone could object to the golden rule, but all too quickly people disagree about who is doing unto others fairly. For example, as you probably have already heard, some have objected to your managing these events, for various reasons. From their PoV they wouldn't and you've chosen to do unto others in a way they see as harmful on some level. So while I could never disagree with the premise of the GR, the specifics can still be debated endlessly.
The above misses one very important point [Perry missed it too :)]:
I am NOT attempting to tell people where that line is. Only that the line exists, which as you point out is hardly deniable [that they could argue against the GR].
I suggest that its not what *I*, or you, or Perry, Elvia, Chris, or anyone else tell someone about where that line is. Its simply taking the situation and flipping it than asking the single pertinent question: With the roles reversed would I want this done to me? Then all you have to do is be honest about the reply you give yourself and YOU tell YOU where the line is. :)
I ask myself that question all the time. I've asked it about the parties. There is nothing I do at those parties I would not want done to me, so I am OK with my actions.
The problem, as I note as it goes by for others to observe, is the posts by some present complaining about how they feel they are treated unfairly when juxtaposed to other posts documenting, sometimes with great relish, their unfair treatment of others.
That means people either aren't asking the "flip it" question of themselves or aren't being honest with themselves about the answer when they ask it.
Example: Guy kept me talking at a table for 15 minutes and didn't tip me so I spilled a drink in his lap as I left.
Why can't they see the two acts are related in BOTH directions. The customer thinks its OK to keep a dancer hanging about for 15 minutes without a tip for the precise same reason the dancer thinks its OK to spill a drink in his lap because he did so. These are not mutually exclusive events. They are symbiotic and both exist because of the other. If you want to get rid of one you have to deal with both.
Why is that so hard for some to understand?
Golden_Rule
10-11-2009, 10:20 PM
...but the two scenarios GR described are some guy not knowing to handle himself and truly if I didn't get him another girl would.
Flip it: So it would be OK for someone to mug you walking down an alley because if he didn't someone else would?
You see, if its wrong its doesn't become OK just because if you didn't do the harm someone else would.
Just ask yourself if YOU were the other person in the scenario would you want someone to do what you are thinking of doing to YOU. If the answer is no, than its no. Its not no, but if I don't do it to him someone else will.
That's the tigress saying if I don't eat this wounded elk some other tiger will. That is flat out the law of the jungle. The weak get eaten and its OK to be the hunter because if you don't kill another cat will and you have to eat.
You wouldn't want me in a club working under that set up. I know too much about how to get my way by manipulation [I did it quite successfully with bad guys for a very long time] and if that didn't work I'm rather imposing in other ways. So I guess its a good thing I don't operate that way. :)
There is a lot to be said for being civilized and giving a shit about your fellow travelers.
As for treating customers how I would a male friend?
Not what I said... Listen again.
The question is: IF you were the customer would YOU want to be treated that way?
The ethical conundrum at the core of that question is basic: If the answer is no, how do you justify doing to someone else the thing you wouldn't want done to you?
It truly is just that simple.
yoda57us
10-11-2009, 11:25 PM
Flip it: So it would be OK for someone to mug you walking down an alley because if he didn't someone else would?
So now you are comparing selling a lap dance to getting mugged? Priceless GR, truly priceless...
Stripper Hacks
10-11-2009, 11:35 PM
One of the more awesome viewpoints! It'd be nice if we saw more of this and less of the doom and gloom shit.
This would make me want to smack the piss out of them. WTF are they doing in a SC?!?! I really hate having to hear guys whine about having no money in the club...Really if you don't have that much cash, limit your visits so you can actually spend and not waste our time when you DO come in.
I'm in Seattle and the guys up hear are full of doom and gloom when it comes to strip clubs. They are finicky and cheap. If you can work it you can make bank! I know the competition in the work force is tough right now. Washington state is known to have the highest percentage highly educated people in the country.
Seriously you can't be lazy in a recession whether you work at Microsoft or a strip club. Step up or go home.
These same complainers are the ones who wont get a second job or take a pay cut or who continually chase women and complain how shallow women are. Step up to a woman (or stripper) and they wont be shallow. It's pretty simple.
"We can't help it if the economy has tanked. We haven't done a thing to cause it and history says it will correct itself."
Nice.
xdamage
10-12-2009, 01:20 AM
Its simply taking the situation and flipping it than asking the single pertinent question: With the roles reversed would I want this done to me? Then all you have to do is be honest about the reply you give yourself and YOU tell YOU where the line is. :)
I agree with this, one indication of sociopaths is they rarely do. Fundamentally it is easy to do but... it gets complicated is when another is involved, and I'm having to second guess their mind. I generally have to assume dancers are not being exploited by dancing, because if I really felt they were being, I would have a hard time living with myself going. In fact we had one girl here who went on and on that some of them go home and cry themselves to sleep at night after dancing, which had me stop going for over a year as I found it bothersome.
The point of the Downs Syndrome example was to get people to think about consent, our assumptions about consent, and a reminder that if you asked a 3rd party their opinions will vary. In fact I'm 99% sure that if either of these stories ever hit the local news it would sweep the nation as a news story:
Ricks Cabaret (or fill in any major SC name) BILKS Developmentally Disabled man out of Life Savings!
Local Prostitution Ring busted selling sex with Developmentally Disabled women!
lydiastardust mind above immediately went to work to figure out some way to protect the woman, but justify taking the man's money, but society as a whole probably would be appalled at both, not so much that prostitution had occurred (that story is barely interesting), but because the matter of who is giving informed consent is a tough one. It is argued in court endlessly, sometimes over weeks, to establish if consumers and victims are informed or exploited.
I do agree with you though that when I read stories about customers pushing dancers to do things they don't want to do, or strippers bragging about deluding a customer to keep the money flowing it does make my skin scrawl... and I do wonder how they'd feel if it was happening to a daughter, mother, brother or father. Such is life. It is not simple.
chris91
10-12-2009, 01:20 AM
Not what I said... Listen again.
The question is: IF you were the customer would YOU want to be treated that way?
The ethical conundrum at the core of that question is basic: If the answer is no, how do you justify doing to someone else the thing you wouldn't want done to you?
It truly is just that simple.
Nobody here is trying to justify doing something that they wouldn't want done to them. We're not even talking about doing things to someone. Selling a dance to someone who wants to buy one, regardless of his reasons, is not doing something to someone. It is also not comparable to mugging, raping, beating, stealing, or even wasting a dancers time.
If you truly are just trying to point out that the world would be a shinier happier place if people followed the golden rule, the I have to ask you why? Why do you feel it necessary to constantly make speeches on this board about how "people" need to act right? Your constant preaching implies that you believe at least some of us need to hear your shit, because we are not already acting in an ethical manner. Can you not see how rude and condescending that is? And then there's the classic spineless "nice guy" shit where you accuse "people on these very pages" of doing this or that, but refuse to provide any examples.
Did it ever occur to you that you might be aggravating the shit of everyone, or can you not see us from way up there on your soapbox?
How would you like it if I went over to the blue side and filled every thread with posts about how the world would be a better place if dudes stopped fucking strippers behind their wives backs?
Elvia
10-12-2009, 01:28 AM
^^^OMG, THANK YOU! There is not a thank you button bit enough to express my appreciation for and my agreement with this post!
I am so fucking sick of the condescending preachy attitude. ENOUGH already!
xdamage
10-12-2009, 08:30 AM
How would you like it if I went over to the blue side and filled every thread with posts about how the world would be a better place if dudes stopped fucking strippers behind their wives backs?
Valid point. In fact few would want to be reminded about the percentage of SOs that disapprove of them spending any money in SCs, even if they are not doing anything illegal (or so sexual as fucking). Everyone on blue is aware of this quandary but would of course become defensive if it was pointed out often. Such is us humans ;)
yoda57us
10-12-2009, 08:32 AM
A true gentleman would not look upon the nakedness of a women thus would NEVER enter such a place.
Chivalry ain't dead...it's just slumming in New Jersey....
princessjas
10-12-2009, 09:10 AM
Did it ever occur to you that you might be aggravating the shit of everyone, or can you not see us from way up there on your soapbox?
How would you like it if I went over to the blue side and filled every thread with posts about how the world would be a better place if dudes stopped fucking strippers behind their wives backs?
We should actually do this if they keep up this condescending shit!! >:( Seriously, it's gotten WAAAYY outta hand these last few months, and we basically leave their little playground alone. If we speak up though we are told it's an open forum and they have a right to say what they please. Soooo I think, it's reasonable to conclude that we also have a right to say what we please over there if some guys don't knock it the fuck off. I'll admit I post there occasionally, but always keep in mind my audience...something I wish some of the blues would learn to do over here.
^^^OMG, THANK YOU! There is not a thank you button bit enough to express my appreciation for and my agreement with this post!
I am so fucking sick of the condescending preachy attitude. ENOUGH already! Me too! Arguing is pointless though, I've tried it. It's like trying to argue with my 5 year old....he just knows he's right because he's right and can go round and round for hours without making a new point. :P
ETA - BTW blues, this is not directed at 90% of you. Just those few who act so f'in superior constantly. I actually like most of you, even if I don't always agree with your views.
dangerousdiva
10-12-2009, 02:50 PM
OMG, I am seriously LOLing over comparing a dancer trying to get to a target before another girl drains him as a mugging!
I don't want to be beat a dead horse but as I explained in almost every post I've made in this thread. I want to get to him before another girls does. Just like I want to get to any guy with $$$ in a SC.
Seriously if I went by their rules I would be starving. All the customers at my club are drunk guys with CC's!
*Sorry Vyanka back on topic*
I recently heard it reiterated on some sit-com that strippers/bars/prostitutes thrive in a shitty economy.
Maybe that's all these broke jack asses come in? They think we are thriving! Which couldn't be farther from the truth. Luxury items are like VIP's are the first thing to go.
I want to know where this thoroughly wrong idea came from?
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 02:56 PM
So now you are comparing selling a lap dance to getting mugged? Priceless GR, truly priceless...
Yoda... I am NOT comparing selling a lap dance to getting mugged, but you are smart enough to know that already, so why go there?
I'm comparing two different harms to make a point about doing harm, not about selling lap dances which, in and of its own self, does no harm to anyone. Though I'd bet you knew that too. ;D
Now don't be cute and make a hole in the logic of the statement at the end of that same post..
...IF YOU CAN.
Not what I said... Listen again.
The question is: IF you were the customer would YOU want to be treated that way?
The ethical conundrum at the core of that question is basic: If the answer is no, how do you justify doing to someone else the thing you wouldn't want done to you?
It truly is just that simple.
Elvia
10-12-2009, 03:01 PM
When I was apprenticing under a Dominatrix, she told me once about her experience on 9/11. She was, of course, as horrified as everyone else. She spent the day in tears and it wasn't until she was in bed that night that she woke up with a fright thinking "Oh God...my business will go under."
That's not to say the BDSM industry would never recover, but she had some major expenses in her life then and a month of little to no business might have put her over the edge.
Of course, we now know that just the opposite happened. Much of the sex industry experienced a crazy boom after 9/11. And so did she, she said she had never had a better month for business before or since.
The conclusion she came to, and which I think is a wise one, is this: Bouts of short term, immediate stress is good for business. Slow, prolonged periods of stress is bad for this industry (and most industries, I would think).
Elvia
10-12-2009, 03:04 PM
Not what I said... Listen again.
The question is: IF you were the customer would YOU want to be treated that way?
The ethical conundrum at the core of that question is basic: If the answer is no, how do you justify doing to someone else the thing you wouldn't want done to you?
It truly is just that simple.
OH MY GOD. We fucking heard you the first gazillion times. It's the relevancy that's in question. Please tell me you're not going to ask us to "listen again." Stitch it on a fucking pillow already, then get a clue and realize your attitude is not welcome here. :banghead:
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 03:10 PM
OMG, I am seriously LOLing over comparing a dancer trying to get to a target before another girl drains him as a mugging!
See the post to Yoda above. NO ONE is comparing the selling of a dance to being mugged. Selling a dance does no harm to anyone.
I don't want to be beat a dead horse but as I explained in almost every post I've made in this thread. I want to get to him before another girls does. Just like I want to get to any guy with $$$ in a SC.
"Welcome to the jungle. We got fun and games."
Just understand the flip side of that same coin is where bad customers justify doing shitty things to you. They're thinking the same way you are above when they try to touch you were you don't want to be touched, act cheap, hound you for extras you don't want to give, ect. Its the customer version of the exact same mind set.
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 03:16 PM
In fact much of society agrees with Cyril.
Now from their PoV you are exploiting young women by taking part in these "events", profiting from them, in whatever way. Like how do you know some of them aren't doing it because they feel they need the money today, but will hate themselves for it tomorrow? Intuition says at least some should.
...it gets complicated is when another is involved, and I'm having to second guess their mind.
You are missing that same point again. :)
In what I am saying one doesn't need to address what society thinks, or the mind of another either. Only what one, themselves, think.
The "flip it" question asks only the one asking it of themselves for the answer.
So it comes back to the most basic philosophical conundrum I posited twice above:
How do you justify doing to someone else that which, when you asked the "flip it" question, you had to admit to yourself you wouldn't want done to you?
To quote Elvia... "You didn't answer the question." :)
Elvia
10-12-2009, 03:21 PM
Is there any dancer here, who, if she were a customer, would like dancers to refuse to sell you dances because they don't believe you can actually afford it? Anyone?
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 03:23 PM
OH MY GOD. We fucking heard you the first gazillion times. It's the relevancy that's in question. Please tell me you're not going to ask us to "listen again." Stitch it on a fucking pillow already, then get a clue and realize your attitude is not welcome here. :banghead:
That is a very weak retort. It is becoming readily apparent that you operate under one set of rules for yourself and another for others. You demanded I answer your question. I did. You answer mine, please.
Refute the logic of the statement IF YOU CAN.
The question is: IF you were the customer would YOU want to be treated that way?
The ethical conundrum at the core of that question is basic: If the answer is no, how do you justify doing to someone else the thing you wouldn't want done to you?
It truly is just that simple.
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 03:27 PM
Is there any dancer here, who, if she were a customer, would like dancers to refuse to sell you dances because they don't believe you can actually afford it? Anyone?
Not what I asked, but you know that.
You pushed this. I was willing to drop it quite some time ago.
Answer the question as stated above or consider that I might have a legitimate point.
Elvia
10-12-2009, 03:27 PM
It's not a retort. I'm simply asking you to stop wasting space by posting the same exact thing time and time again. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it irritating. It's a pretty trollish thing to do.
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 03:30 PM
It's not a retort. I'm simply asking you to stop wasting space by posting the same exact thing time and time again. I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds it irritating. It's a pretty trollish thing to do.
Fine. Please stop ducking the question. :)
And don't say what question... {broadest congenial smile} [I do like people, even those who can find reasons to say disparaging things about me for no good particular reason... but that doesn't mean I will let you get away with being intellectually disingenuous... a question has been put to you. It awaits an honest reply.]
Elvia
10-12-2009, 03:31 PM
Not what I asked, but you know that.
You pushed this. I was willing to drop it quite some time ago.
Answer the question as stated above or consider that I might have a legitimate point.
No, what you want to do is ignore the concept of relevancy and make your argument so incredibly vague that no one can argue with you, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on otherwise. Sure, everyone believes in the golden rule. But what does it have to do with, say, the examples you gave earlier?
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 03:39 PM
No, what you want to do is ignore the concept of relevancy and make your argument so incredibly vague that no one can argue with you, because you know you don't have a leg to stand on otherwise. Sure, everyone believes in the golden rule. But what does it have to do with, say, the examples you gave earlier?
Its not vague at all. The question is as precise as a laser.
And if it isn't relative than none of the writings of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Kierkegaard, etc, etc, etc are relevant.
It is the most basic question at the core of all human interaction and relevant to EVERYTHING. So answer it.
If you flip it and get a "NO" response to yourself: How does one justify doing something to someone they've admitted to themselves they wouldn't want done to them?
mediocrity
10-12-2009, 03:51 PM
I feel like my thread got fucking jacked here to a whole different topic.
I will say this shit again...
If you're going to go to a strip club(to an upscale one especially) to tell every dancer you cannot aford a $20 dance bc of the recession.....stay out!! Seriously, stay the hell out. There are men who aren't even tipping the bartenders & waitresses too. Chugging away on their hot cheap beer.
It's not only strip clubs.... if you can't afford to go somewhere, don't go. It's that damn simple.
Fuckin' A, shit. This shouldn't be so hard to grasp.
I personally believe there should be a two dance minimum.
Hell, I went to a male strip club last night and sat at the bar drinking for about 90 minutes. But I bought a dance. Why? I'm in a strip club and those dudes are paying their bills. I dont want to be the doucher who goes and doesn't buy dances!
http://juliebenzparker.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/captain_obvious5.jpg
Elvia
10-12-2009, 04:23 PM
Me too! Arguing is pointless though, I've tried it. It's like trying to argue with my 5 year old....he just knows he's right because he's right and can go round and round for hours without making a new point. :P
I think you're right PJ. In fact, I know you're right. Since Gr is just going to argue around in circles and keep repeating the same old shit and annoying everyone, I think it's best to just ignore it.
Elvia
10-12-2009, 04:25 PM
I personally believe there should be a two dance minimum.
http://www.crashonmyhead.com/captain_obvious.jpg
with the exception of stage based clubs (in area where girls actually do make money on stage) I agree. I'm a fan of a suggestion that's been brought up here before- make the guys buy a dance ticket or two as part of the entry fee.
xdamage
10-12-2009, 04:38 PM
You are missing that same point again. :)
In what I am saying one doesn't need to address what society thinks, or the mind of another either. Only what one, themselves, think.
The "flip it" question asks only the one asking it of themselves for the answer.
So it comes back to the most basic philosophical conundrum I posited twice above:
How do you justify doing to someone else that which, when you asked the "flip it" question, you had to admit to yourself you wouldn't want done to you?
To quote Elvia... "You didn't answer the question." :)
I actually did answer it, but you didn't like my answer and we get stuck at a fundamental problem we humans have.*
Here is the analogy. GR says to Elvia, Elvia, I know about people who have been taken advantage of... Elvia (I'm just using her name as a placeholder, sorry Elvia) says, Ive thought about it, and see no problem. GR says... but did you consider X, Y, Z.
How is this different then xdamage says to GR, GR, I heard about prostitutes who cried themselves to sleep at night after doing business... GR says, I've thought about it and see no problem with what I'm doing. xdamage, but did you consider that not everyone else is so sure?
What your saying basically requires us to assume that Elvia has looked deep in her soul and knows she is doing wrong but not admitting, while you've looked deep and found no harm; that when you tell us that you don't believe your doing anything wrong you really believe but she not. And that while it is okay for you to try to influence her thinking about her business between herself and a customer (you being a 3rd party), that if others were to interject in your business your reply to us would be, more or less, "but I've made peace with my choice and don't need a 3rd party opinion about what me and the people I'm doing business with feel".
I know GR you'll at least consider what I wrote above objectively and not take it personally, so maybe I didn't reveal anything new, or maybe I did, but here is the key thing...
*Everyone's behavior makes 100% crystal clear sense to me when I accepted that we people are essentially independent entities, each trying to work out the best deal we can for ourselves in life. Even when we follow the GR, it is because we're hoping for society to change in ways that could benefit us. Even grouping, laws, and agreements are strategies to improve our own outcomes.
And I believe we are masters of adjusting our own logic to match whatever we want, and rather then just acknowledge we all make choices that sometimes put ourselves ahead of others (yep even harm others), we come up with intricate explanations that invariable end with pointing our finger outward.. look what they are doing wrong. That it's often a red-flag for own self-interest that we dodge, and hide from, because? Because of the same self-interest. It's not an ego stroke to see our own flaws. We want to feel good about us.
In that light, everything that happens in the SCs between club owners, dancers, patrons, the SOs, and the community is pretty simple and predictable.
chris91
10-12-2009, 04:39 PM
That is a very weak retort. It is becoming readily apparent that you operate under one set of rules for yourself and another for others. You demanded I answer your question. I did. You answer mine, please.
Refute the logic of the statement IF YOU CAN.
The question is: IF you were the customer would YOU want to be treated that way?
The ethical conundrum at the core of that question is basic: If the answer is no, how do you justify doing to someone else the thing you wouldn't want done to you?
It truly is just that simple.
I believe that everyone here has already answered your question. We don't have to justify doing shit to someone else that we wouldn't want done to us, because that is NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING.
Now, I have a question for you.Refute the logic of this IF YOU CAN.
Would you like it if we went over to the blue side and filled your threads with preachy bullshit about how the world would be better if dudes didn't fuck strippers behind their wives back? Or better yet, maybe I'll make a zillion posts about how the world would be better off if dirty cops (some of whom have posted "on these very pages") would stop running underground fuck fests. How about if we kept on doing it forever and ever even after you told us twenty times that it's annoying?
If the answer is no, then how do you justify doing the same to us here?
I asked it before, and you ignored it. I assume because answering it would mean admitting that you are being a HUGE asshole right now. And, you are being a huge asshole. It truly is that simple.
xdamage
10-12-2009, 04:40 PM
I personally believe there should be a two dance minimum.
Seems like a simple solution, just as many have a two drink minimum. I guess on occasion it would drive a customer away who would otherwise make an impulse buy once in the club, and on occasion management would have to deal with bitching that no dancer interests the customer, but all in all I think a 2 dance minimum would weed out people who plan to spend nothing on tips or dances.
chris91
10-12-2009, 04:44 PM
They're thinking the same way you are above when they try to touch you were you don't want to be touched, act cheap, hound you for extras you don't want to give, ect. Its the customer version of the exact same mind set.
They are not thinking the same way. When we sell a dance to a drunk/poor guy, we ask for money and he willingly hands it over. When a guy tries to finger my ass, he doesn't ask for anything, and I certainly don't willingly hand it over. He just jams that shit in there. Get it?
We are asking for something, and the guy is just taking. That's like saying that a homeless person who asks for a dime is the same as a mugger who hits you with a pipe and takes your wallet. Those two things are not the same. Seriously, what is wrong with you?
Elvia
10-12-2009, 04:47 PM
on occasion management would have to deal with bitching that no dancer interests the customer, but all in all I think a 2 dance minimum would weed out people who plan to spend nothing on tips or dances.
This is why I like the dance ticket idea. The guy would have to do it upfront, so even if there is bitching that he doesn't see anyone he likes, well, at least the clubs already got the money. And I imagine a lot of guys who would try the argument of " well, I don't like any of the girls that are here" would really just be too cheap and would use that as a convenient excuse to not buy dances. I think a lot of guys, once they'd already paid, would be able to find someone they like enough to cash in those tickets with. If he really didn't, he could just keep the tickets and use them another time.
xdamage
10-12-2009, 04:57 PM
They are not thinking the same way. When we sell a dance to a drunk/poor guy, we ask for money and he willingly hands it over.
What I think GR is trying to say is, and what he is bothered by, is that some customers are deluded. That they really believe (not sort of kind of, but really) that the dancers love/like them and so they are handing over the money applying rules of life that would make sense elsewhere, but not in clubs, and that they really do get their hearts broken, it really does hurt them deeply, and that the SC industry has not yet been forced to (but probably should) disclose that what is sold is a fantasy and not real.
It's like Casinos or the Lottery. Your odds of winning are crappy. It is in the Casino's interest to promote the belief your odds of winning big are good. Likewise it is in the SCs industries best interest to have customers who believe their odds of finding love are good.
So it is a bit more complex then to say that all customers are handing over money willingly. Like if someone sold you a car and convinced you it was safest car in the world, then later you found it wasn't, and they said "well that part was just fantasy and you should have known that", you'd rightfully be pissed.
But the solution to that is greater disclosure of the truth, require it of vice industries, even if it mildly hurts business, just like if Casinos lose some of the business of the gambling addicted, too bad.
But just like I don't expect the push for greater disclosure to come from within the industries, I don't expect SCs to inform customers. But I do think it is fine that customers inform customers, and I know they do, and increasingly I'm predicting younger customers will be aware.
That said there are always going to be the deluded and compulsive and they pretty much are just going to learn the hard-way because there really is not objective way to know who they are without violating their rights as consumers.
xdamage
10-12-2009, 04:58 PM
This is why I like the dance ticket idea... clipped out solid reasoning...
I agree. Hey even Disneyland use to sell people ticket books to get them to commit to spending money before they entered the premises.
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 04:59 PM
I think you're right PJ. In fact, I know you're right. Since Gr is just going to argue around in circles and keep repeating the same old shit and annoying everyone, I think it's best to just ignore it.
Fine. Its not like not answering isn't answering too.
Trying to push this on to me like I'm doing something wrong does a disservice to both of us. It makes you appear desperate to avoid answering the question as it simultaneously suggests I'm some how picking on you in some way.
Its not like there isn't over 2000 years of philosophical writings proving that this question has been approached from every angle possible.
For the record there is only one legit answer to the question I posited.
That answer is when you reduce the equation to matter of surviving or not surviving. At that point it is instinctual but you give up all pretense of society and civil behavior. It is eat or be eaten. That is the law of the jungle.
Once again I'm noting the impasse and our totally different ways of viewing the world. I am willing to let this drop unless you come back with something requiring an answer. Just let it go.
Elvia
10-12-2009, 05:08 PM
What I think GR is trying to say is, and what he is bothered by, is that some customers are deluded. That they really believe (not sort of kind of, but really) that the dancers love/like them and so they are handing over the money applying rules of life that would make sense elsewhere, but not in clubs, and that they really do get their hearts broken, it really does hurt them deeply, and that the SC industry has not yet been forced to (but probably should) disclose that what is sold is a fantasy and not real.
This is a good idea, but I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. Especially since the fact is, while is it very rare, some dancers do occasionally end up dating a customeror even finding a SO in the club. I imagine there have probably been guys who have lurked on this site, gathered that that has been the case with some dancers and that some even found lasting love with guys in the club and thought "so it does happen! That could be me!"
Also, I have to ad that some of these guys who are obsessive in that way (and it's not ALWAY apparent from the first meeting, some of these guys just start out requesting dances like any other patron before you realize they've developed hopes) really just will not hear it when you tell them you don't see customers outside of the club. I know it's happened to me plenty of times when I've told someone it was never going to happen, that I was not available or interested in dating, and they nod along like they understand, only to bring it up again at another time.
xdamage
10-12-2009, 05:14 PM
This is a good idea, but I'm not sure how you'd go about doing that. Especially since the fact is, while is it very rare, some dancers do occasionally end up dating a customeror even finding a SO in the club.
I don't know either, so in reality it comes down to word of mouth, which is fine. And on occasion yes, a love connection does happen, and maybe like the extremely rare multi-millionaire jackpot that happens in Casinos it's good for the industry that it does.
The reality is SCs are an unusual business. We all keep saying it, and GR and I have disagreed on this matter before. I think most customers WANT to have their boundaries pushed, like buying drugs, we want our drugs to really get us high and alter our reality for a time. It is a vacation away from ourselves. But like drugs, some get lost in them. Some likewise get lost in the fantasy sold in SCs. But also like drugs we at least warn people before they get involved there is a chance it will leave them addicted, altered, possibly even harmed. Same with gambling as well. People who lose themselves in it end up broke and hurt. I absolutely don't want my government preventing the sales of vices, but I'm completely fine with people being educated about the risks. And after that, to take responsibility for their choices.
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 05:20 PM
I actually did answer it, but you didn't like my answer and we get stuck at a fundamental problem we humans have.*
*Everyone's behavior makes 100% crystal clear sense to me when I accepted that we people are essentially independent entities, each trying to work out the best deal we can for ourselves in life. Even when we follow the GR, it is because we're hoping for society to change in ways that could benefit us. Even grouping, laws, and agreements are strategies to improve our own outcomes.
It wasn't that I didn't like the answer. I didn't see it.
Now that you rephrase it above I do. Are you stating that even we people are civil the only reason they are is for their own benefit?
While I will agree that there is a quid pro quo in the "I'll treat you right if I can count on you doing the same for me" theory and that is a motivational factor are you discounting totally the "right for rights sake" motivation?
For the record I fully admit I usually do right by others because I fully understand I can't ask for something I am unwilling to give. While it is rare I do think there are those of us who do, at least some of the time, right simply because it is right.
How is this different then xdamage says to GR, GR, I heard about prostitutes who cried themselves to sleep at night after doing business... GR says, I've thought about it and see no problem with what I'm doing. xdamage, but did you consider that not everyone else is so sure?
Again, that is because we can't see the damage done and thus don't attribute it to ourselves. [The waitress feeding the fat guy as discussed before] Maybe we are wrong about that but its hard to tell. A reasonable person has room to decide that there is just cause not to presume that any damage is of their making.
I thought I was being very clear that I'm discussing the bartender feeding booze to the obviously drunk guy because s/he's offered him/her a profit for not cutting them off. A situation were a reasonable person has to conclude that damage is very likely, if not imminent.
What your saying basically requires us to assume that Elvia has looked deep in her soul ...
Whoa... "X"... :)
How deep does anyone have to look into their soul to ask the very easy question I put forth. It is simplicity itself to ponder, "How would I feel if this were being doing to me." It takes seconds. You either would like it or you wouldn't. If you wouldn't than how do you justify doing it to someone else?
Very, very, simple stuff. It is the basis of the "Reasonable Man Standard" in civil law. When you move it from a philosophical to a legal argument what we are basically discussing here is how does one establish negligence.
Golden_Rule
10-12-2009, 05:34 PM
Nobody here is trying to justify doing something that they wouldn't want done to them. We're not even talking about doing things to someone. Selling a dance to someone who wants to buy one, regardless of his reasons, is not doing something to someone. It is also not comparable to mugging, raping, beating, stealing, or even wasting a dancers time.
I wasn't responding to the question of just selling a dance, which is fine but you know that.
It was that old "special ethical arena" argument that popped up and I RESPONDED to.
As I pointed out again and again I am not comparing apples to oranges. Not selling a dance to rap, beating, stealing, etc. ONLY when harm is obviously being done. I am comparing harm to harm and pointing out that the justifications used by dancers who do the occasional harm is the same as the customers who do occasional harm. Then suggesting that you don't deal with any given coin unless you deal with both sides of it at the same time. There is no such thing as a one sided coin.
Did it ever occur to you that you might be aggravating the shit of everyone, or can you not see us from way up there on your soapbox?
I can soapbox but that isn't the case this time around. I was in a regular old convo and made a valid point. Two people, now three, said I was wrong and I came back with why I thought I was right, which is what one usually does in intellectual conversations, and they got intense about it. I offered to drop it because its obvious we have very different views, I got indirectly called a "douche".
I'm not going to let this get personal from my side of it. You want to get angry, fine. I'm just a guy talking about a POV. One most people would probably agree with if it were tossed to the general public, I would think.
How would you like it if I went over to the blue side and filled every thread with posts about how the world would be a better place if dudes stopped fucking strippers behind their wives backs?
What, that doesn't happen. I'm not claiming its you doing it but it happens all the time. How do I deal with it. IF it is a topic that interests me I engage the person in honest dialog. If not I simply ignore it. I don't get testy about it. I don't write "You're full of shit" posts or "Why do you come around here and say stuff we don't want to hear." posts. I either engage or ignore.
Again, simple. You folks are the ones making this more dramatic than it has to be. :)
xdamage
10-12-2009, 05:38 PM
It wasn't that I didn't like the answer. I didn't see it.
Now that you rephrase it above I do. Are you stating that even we people are civil the only reason they are is for their own benefit?
Essentially yes I am.
Though I've spent many years chewing on the idea, I didn't accept it until several authors (who I admire for multiple reasons for their writings in the areas of evolution and evolutionary psychology) have come to the same conclusion, that morality, the golden rule, grouping, our increased likely-hood to favor those genetically close to us, our special protection of our mates... are not altruism, but done out of self-interest. Actually out of long term genetic interests, which you and I and everyone else share to 99.9%. We are all effectively part of the same genes that are both competing and cooperating.
Also it seems we all have the same basic tendency to want to see ourselves in the best possible light. We literally all walk around with a massive blind spot in our brains, a place we fear looking, as it means seeing ourselves without the sugar coated frosting self-view. But that too is a survival strategy that apparently works, even if it leave us debating a lot.
It bothered me a little until likewise the same authors came to the same conclusion I did. Absolutely NOTHING changes if so. We still arrive at the same moral choices because no man (or woman) is an island; those who group are stronger for it, and our laws and morality fall out of compromises that work well for me and for you when we work together. That even animals work together in packs, schools, that they favor their own genetic offspring over others, and their own genetic kind over less similar creatures, and so on.
But not to fear. Sociopaths remain unlivable because they put their own interests BEFORE others always, to extremes. That is a strategy that just doesn't work long term. It trades short term gain for multiple others long term harm, so the rest of us feel a (valuable) need to stomp it out. But likewise we all are masters of blocking out matters where our benefits do harm others.
Elvia
10-12-2009, 05:40 PM
As I pointed out again and again I am not comparing apples to oranges. Not selling a dance to rap, beating, stealing, etc. ONLY when harm is obviously being done.
You know, like when a guy is drinking. In a bar. Spending more money than a man dressed casually has any right to. ;D