Log in

View Full Version : Philosophical Discussion - split from OTC thread



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

Katrine
07-18-2005, 05:48 AM
That's more or less my reaction.

'If I engage in behavior X, stripper Y will like me more.' So sure, looking at her face vs her tits maybe even works to a degree but it still feels like a ploy to me to get a stripper to like you more, to be "special".


Boys, allow me to end this myth once and for all. Looking at my face versus tits is going to give you <= 0% chance of scoring with me or being my friend.

At least 50% of my custies try this little ingenious tidbit of horse manure on me in hopes that I care. Not a chance. Stare at them puppies, gaze longingly into the heiney you will never penetrate. But please, please, for dog's sake, don't stare piningly into my eyes at all costs, even when the concha is right in your face! Its beyond creepy and only works on girls in their first week of stripping, if even then.

SportsWriter2
07-18-2005, 05:57 AM
But please, please, for dog's sake, don't stare piningly into my eyes at all costs, even when the concha is right in your face! Its beyond creepy and only works on girls in their first week of stripping, if even then.
Excellent advice from Kat. This is why you have to connect on her first day stripping, or at least during the first week. :)

xdamage
07-18-2005, 06:57 AM
Boys, allow me to end this myth once and for all. Looking at my face versus tits is going to give you <= 0% chance of scoring with me or being my friend. At least 50% of my custies try this little ingenious tidbit of horse manure on me in hopes that I care. Not a chance.


And there we have it. Straight from the source. Another ploy that the dancers see right through. ;)



Stare at them puppies, gaze longingly into the heiney you will never penetrate. But please, please, for dog's sake, don't stare piningly into my eyes at all costs, even when the concha is right in your face! Its beyond creepy and only works on girls in their first week of stripping, if even then.

Creeeepppyyy??? You mean it's creepy to make it all personal and weird? :O

:D :D :D

mr_punk
07-18-2005, 07:21 AM
Boys, allow me to end this myth once and for all. Looking at my face versus tits is going to give you <= 0% chance of scoring with me or being my friend.true, but it'll never stop PLs from trying.

At least 50% of my custies try this little ingenious tidbit of horse manure on me in hopes that I care.sure, why even bother with that BS in a sc? why not talk to a strippers tits or bite or slap her on the ass and say, "hey stripper! ya got a great ass!".

But please, please, for dog's sake, don't stare piningly into my eyes at all costs, even when the concha is right in your face! Its beyond creepy and only works on girls in their first week of stripping, if even then.hell, i find it creepy myself and i'm not a stripper.

evan_essence
07-18-2005, 08:27 AM
Boys, allow me to end this myth once and for all. Looking at my face versus tits is going to give you <= 0% chance of scoring with me or being my friend.

At least 50% of my custies try this little ingenious tidbit of horse manure on me in hopes that I care. Not a chance.G*df**kingd*mmit, Katrine, do you have to give away all our secrets to the boys? Sh*t, is there no advantage to letting them argue over this??

j/k. sortof.

-Ev

xdamage
07-18-2005, 08:56 AM
G*df**kingd*mmit, Katrine, do you have to give away all our secrets to the boys? Sh*t, is there no advantage to letting them argue over this??

j/k. sortof.

-Ev

Kat and her secrets r belong to us now. She is an honorary blue ;)

Phil-W
07-18-2005, 11:45 AM
Boys, allow me to end this myth once and for all. Looking at my face versus tits is going to give you <= 0% chance of scoring with me or being my friend.

At least 50% of my custies try this little ingenious tidbit of horse manure on me in hopes that I care. Not a chance. Stare at them puppies, gaze longingly into the heiney you will never penetrate. But please, please, for dog's sake, don't stare piningly into my eyes at all costs, even when the concha is right in your face! Its beyond creepy and only works on girls in their first week of stripping, if even then.

OK, didn't make myself completely clear.

I live in the London area in the UK. I've become friendly with several dancers OTC. Once or twice a week one of them will ring up wanting a lift to/from work. If I've got to drive for an hour to get her there, and she's working a 4 hour shift, then there's not a lot of point in me going home, and coming back at the end of the shift. Accordingly, I park myself in a quiet corner of the venue.

My dancer friend will join me at fairly frequent intervals - i.e. when she's temporarily run out of steam on getting dances, etc. Cos there are only a limited number of dancers in London, quite a few know that the friendship between me and certain dancers extends well outside work. Accordingly, they feel free to come by and chat as well when things are quiet.

My circumstances are very different from about everyone else in the venue because there's a courtesy thing in the London area. If the other dancers on a shift know you've arrived with a particular dancer as her lift, they tend to not be too fussed about collecting tips from you or getting dances. Similarly, if you've driven a dancer and the other dancers on the shift are not collecting from you, you are expected to return the courtesy by not taking notice when they're dancing.

It's in those circumstances that I've found my behaviour influences the other dancers if they join us. "Stare at them puppies, gaze longingly into the heiney you will never penetrate", and I'll tend to get the stripper persona. Treat them as I would OTC, i.e. keep my eyes on their face, stay off dance related topics, etc., and I get the OTC persona.

I'd freely agree with Kat that normally "Looking at [Kat's] face versus tits is going to give [me] <= 0% chance of scoring with me or being my friend." However, the circumstances are not normal - the other dancers concerned know I'm not likely to buy dances, have been a friend of dancer "X" for quite some time, and have spent enough time behind the scenes to know all about SS and their opinions of the male of the species.

The dancers haven't got anything to lose by dropping the work mask - and often they find it quite relaxing to do so. After all, there's no point in trying their hustle on me, and similarly they know I'm not going to be after their phone numbers, asking stupid questions, etc. Suits them, suits me.

Phil.

Katrine
07-18-2005, 12:36 PM
I wonder how much each girl is saving on cabfare each night to and from the club from you Phil? Perhaps she can take the tube there, but not on the way back.....I've stayed in London, she is certainly saving enough to warrant cooking you a meal from time and time. That city is friggin expensive! I hope they give you fare for petrol....

And yes, you are an affable fellow, feel safe, and lack in creepiness. The relationship is mutually beneficial. But I wouldn't say you are different. You have found your niche. But I happen to be in the class that believes strippers don't have to dislike, or often mock, their customers.

xdamage
07-18-2005, 01:32 PM
But I happen to be in the class that believes strippers don't have to dislike, or often mock, their customers.

Works for us customers. I also think customers don't have to disklike strippers (nor do they have to fall in love with them or make the experience a personal conquest). Really there is no entertainment quite like it. It really only sucks when strippers and customers make more out of it then it is (or should be). Tits and ass for $$$s. What's wrong with that? Absolutely nothing.

Phil-W
07-18-2005, 03:45 PM
I wonder how much each girl is saving on cabfare each night to and from the club from you Phil? Perhaps she can take the tube there, but not on the way back.....I've stayed in London, she is certainly saving enough to warrant cooking you a meal from time and time. That city is friggin expensive! I hope they give you fare for petrol....

And yes, you are an affable fellow, feel safe, and lack in creepiness. The relationship is mutually beneficial. But I wouldn't say you are different. You have found your niche. But I happen to be in the class that believes strippers don't have to dislike, or often mock, their customers.

High marks for being perceptive, Katerine. I'd just comment that their saving is more time than financial - they can get back using the overground and night buses. It's just I get them back quicker and safer. Dropping them home doesn't take me far out of my way, so it doesn't inconvenience me.

As you say, the girls and I have found a mutually beneficial relationship and, although we don't live in each others pockets, we quite enjoy meeting up for a drink or a meal when they're not working anyway.

I didn't intend to get so autobiographcal, but a couple of interesting questions did crop up earlier in this thread.

Can dancers and customers be friends? In my case I'd answer yes, but then my relationship with the girls in question is no longer dancer/customer, although it started out that way.

Can you get the dancer to slip out of her work persona by focusing on her eyes and not her "puppies"? A qualified yes, because of the special conditions I outlined in an earlier post. In a dancer/customer situation, I'd have "<0% chance of scoring". As a known friend of a dancer, and with different motives, 'focussing on the eyes' tends to bring a sigh of relief and a heartfelt, "thank heavens I can relax for a few minutes".

I do joke about it to the dancers, but it's always been a slightly strange feeling talking to them in their real world personalities while they're working. I call it my bubble of reality in fantasy land.

With one girl in particular there's a marked personality change. When she's working she's brassy, self confident, calls a spade a spade, and generally comes over as a coarse character. Outside of work, I've got to know her as a softly spoken, polite and even shy girl. I much prefer her real personality, but she can move between the two with the abruptness of a switch being thrown. Strangely enough, she doesn't even like other dancers to find out about her sensitive side.

It's a strange work environment we both inhabit. "All the worlds a stage", as the Bard said.

Phil.

Clark
07-18-2005, 09:03 PM
I don't know. I think a great portion of the desire of clubs is based in the unknown. You'll never make it so easy unless you have everyone where a sign, and even then, its a dancers job to not only be competitive with other dancers but with your inhibitions. The quickest way to a man's wallet is right through the front of the pants. THE KEY is understanding that some people are equally turned on by an approach and interesting conversation as others are by slaming their nose in a chick's rectum. :D <Shameless Plug>

::Mast::

I suppose I wasn't refering to customers in general, but the ones who want to make friends with the dancers. The tit-grabbing drunk may piss some girls off, but no one one will feel guilty about not meeting his expectations.

mr_punk
07-18-2005, 10:18 PM
G*df**kingd*mmit, Katrine, do you have to give away all our secrets to the boys? Sh*t, is there no advantage to letting them argue over this?? j/k. sortof.true, but i wish more strippers would follow her example. in fact, you ladies should be ashamed of yourselves for encouraging and perpetuating that myth among those fucko half-wits upstairs. then again, it's not as if they're related to me or something. so...carry on.}:D

The Snark
07-18-2005, 10:23 PM
Anyway, I'm happy for ET that she's ruled out customers as potential boyfriends. Instead, she's opted to enjoy the kind of healthy, supportive relationships she describes in this post:

http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52292

Clark
07-18-2005, 10:30 PM
As for eyes, some guys like eyes, others like tits. Nothing wrong with looking at what you like. I must admit I have a tendency to do this, though I'll certainly look elsewhere.

And who's to say a guy doesn't actually prefer looking at eyes? I doubt even the guy doing it can really honestly tell the difference.

xdamage
07-19-2005, 02:32 AM
Anyway, I'm happy for ET that she's ruled out customers as potential boyfriends. Instead, she's opted to enjoy the kind of healthy, supportive relationships she describes in this post:

http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=52292

This is why they have therapy.

Susan Wayward
07-19-2005, 05:38 AM
Nice. Let's hear about all of your super-healthy relationships, shall we?

I was talking to a coworker yesterday who told me, "You know, I gave my number out to a few guys at work, but none of it worked out too well, so I stopped and just talked to guys I met when I was outside. But they were just exactly the same, so I was like, fuck it, I'll give my number out to a guy in the club if I like it if they're all gonna have the same chance of turning out to be a dick no matter what." So there ya go; she thinks all guys are dogs and isn't going to punish the SC customer for being one.

Also, yeah, chemisty's chemisty, and trying too hard is the kiss of death. But some guys look at my eyes the same way others look at my ass or breasts and you know, that's not creepy cause I know I'm still safely in object-land.

Of course, I have a perfect track record of not ever picking up a customer, but that is because I like Yankee Jewish intellectuals and you try finding one in a strip club in Texas. They tend to prefer calling hookers.

SportsWriter2
07-19-2005, 06:44 AM
Anyway, I'm happy for ET that she's ruled out customers as potential boyfriends. Instead, she's opted to enjoy the kind of healthy, supportive relationships she describes in this post:



"Last night me and my boyfriend got wasted..."

The "mayhem story" is a staple of strip club conversation. The genre usually revolves around "common couple violence" fueled by drugs/alcohol. It often includes property damage, several hours in jail, and a visible wound. The neighbors always call the cops, but these cases almost never go to court.

I've had a dancer pull down her white thigh-highs to show me a fresh 15-stitch knife wound in her inner thigh. Her drunk ex-BF came over and kicked in the front door because, in her words, "I was fucking a kid he hates."

Same stories, new faces. ::)

mr_punk
07-19-2005, 06:57 AM
Nice. Let's hear about all of your super-healthy relationships, shall we?hmmm...super-healthy relationships and me. that's a trick question, right?

<snip>I'll give my number out to a guy in the club if I like it if they're all gonna have the same chance of turning out to be a dick no matter what." So there ya go; she thinks all guys are dogs and isn't going to punish the SC customer for being one.so, give out her number. i got a feeling that i'm right up her alley. i'm pretty good at the dog dick thing.

But some guys look at my eyes the same way others look at my ass or breasts and you know, that's not creepy cause I know I'm still safely in object-land.yeah, but they think you don't know what they're doing.

As for eyes, some guys like eyes, others like tits. Nothing wrong with looking at what you like.and most of them are either making goo goo eyes (creepy) or pretending that he's more interested in the size of her pupils than her rack.

And who's to say a guy doesn't actually prefer looking at eyes?ok, let's have a show of hands. who here goes to a sc to indulge in their eyeball fetish?

evan_essence
07-19-2005, 06:58 AM
true, but i wish more strippers would follow her example. in fact, you ladies should be ashamed of yourselves for encouraging and perpetuating that myth among those fucko half-wits upstairs. then again, it's not as if they're related to me or something. so...carry on.}:DAshamed? Bah, there's a bunch of stuff that I'm ashamed of, like how I slackered my way thru college or how timid and anxiety-filled I truly am versus my stripper persona, but this wouldn't be anywhere near the top. Considering it's called Stripper Web, and the business model is based on perpetuating what you call "that myth," I hardly think it should come as a surprise to you that I support it and am somewhat adversarial - albeit with wit, humor and a disarming physical proximity to your member - to your position.

In a totally candid moment (or perhaps it's merely more SS; I'm not sure I can tell the difference anymore), she added... I even think the perpetuation of the whole battle of the sexes is good for bithneth.

-Ev

Malibu
07-19-2005, 07:07 AM
I can understand why a lot of SC patrons are not sexy and if I explain it (if it hasn't been done before) here is why...

We work in an overtly sexual establishment where men come to drink and to unwind. They are in fantasy land and a lot of the time, feel they have the right to behave completely different to how they normally would. Because of this, we encounter laddish behaviour, drunken stupors, abuse, shouting, touching, crude comments and such. This type of behaviour is not attractive and you can bet your ass that even if I met a guy like this outside of the SC, I would not consider dating him. I have seen good looking guys come into the club, but feelings about them do not come into play because of the type of people they become in that atmosphere.

Now, I am not going to overgeneralise because this is not always true. In fact, I tend to see more of the unattractive behaviour at night than during the day shift where people cannot engage in that sort of behaviour because they are only visiting on lunchbreak and have to stay in top form; they just want a bit of midday totty. It has been then that I've been able to imagine the guys as more suitable OTC company than at any other time.

Like any other job sales job, you normally don't think of your customers as sexy or go about hunting them down for a date, allthough there may be the odd one or two that you might consider. A lot of the women who work SCs feel the same. It's just life.

Anyway if this has been covered already, ignore me. Just thought I'd add my opinion.

mr_punk
07-19-2005, 07:39 AM
Ashamed? Bah, there's a bunch of stuff that I'm ashamed of, like how I slackered my way thru college or how timid and anxiety-filled I truly am versus my stripper persona, but this wouldn't be anywhere near the top.so, you're not ashamed about picking on helpless half-wits? yeesh, what else do you do in your spare time? push old ladies into traffic..

I hardly think it should come as a surprise to you that I support it and am somewhat adversarial - albeit with wit, humor and a disarming physical proximity to your member <snip>no, i haven't forgotten about those bitchy, but charming ball breaking skills of yours, my precious little harpy. how could i ever live without them?

They are in fantasy land and a lot of the time, feel they have the right to behave completely different to how they normally would.i'm not a fantasy guy, but i thought that was the whole point.

Because of this, we encounter laddish behaviour, drunken stupors, abuse, shouting, touching, crude comments and such.no doubt, they act like a bunch of brutish pirates on shore leave. hold on..i like pirates. perhaps, this fantasy thing isn't so bad after all....argghhhh.

xdamage
07-19-2005, 10:08 AM
I was talking to a coworker yesterday who told me, "You know, I gave my number out to a few guys at work, but none of it worked out too well, so I stopped and just talked to guys I met when I was outside. But they were just exactly the same, so I was like, fuck it, I'll give my number out to a guy in the club if I like it if they're all gonna have the same chance of turning out to be a dick no matter what." So there ya go; she thinks all guys are dogs and isn't going to punish the SC customer for being one.


When I was younger I probably could have related to your co-worker friend. I had some pretty fucked up notions about how woman should be . How does that go again? Oh yea, all women suck and blah blah blah. It's bullshit though. Later when I grew up some (oh the silly things we buy into when we are younger) I realized women are people, imperfect yes, but they don't all suck, they just are a mix of good and bad traits. Woman have some bad traits? Heresy you say! But they do, yes really. But once I grew up some (school of hard knocks) and started taking responsibility, and stopped blaiming others, I realized I was chasing the ones that sucked (my problem), or I was testing them just trying to find the failures, and sure enough, I found the flaws.

Unfortuntely, women that have bought into the men suck, and men who have bought into the woman suck, victim belief system are often pretty much hopeless cases. Sometimes they grow out of it, but often they go their death bed believing their own BS. And you know whats great about blaiming all your relationship problems on the other sex? The great thing is that about HALF the people on the planet are in your camp, and many believe just like you do, absolute confirmation that you're right and the other HALF of the planet is wrong. ;)

Malibu
07-19-2005, 10:26 AM
Unfortuntely, women that have bought into the men suck, and men who have bought into the woman suck, victim belief system are often pretty much hopeless cases.

Hopeless cases? That is very harsh. Not hopeless, just need time to get over what issues they currently have. Not everyone who feels that way stays that way. Mostly, people who buy into that notion are going through a phase and that phase might be needed in order to spend time away from the opposite sex getting to know themselves better and also to prevent themselves running the same vicious cycle through a pattern of destructive relationships/encounters. Those who stay bitter in that sense (like, all their lives) are generally feminists or chauvinists (= more likely to be hopeless cases) and I gotta say, they are in the minority.


Sometimes they grow out of it, but often they go their death bed believing their own BS.

Hmmm...I guess I missed that part you typed. That's what I just elaborated on.


And you know whats great about blaming all your relationship problems on the other sex? The great thing is that about HALF the people on the planet are in your camp, and many believe just like you do, absolute confirmation that you're right and the other HALF of the planet is wrong. ;)

Well, isn't that what girls'-nights-in are all about? Sometimes you gotta have a little sisterhood to keep your spirits up ;)

xdamage
07-19-2005, 12:06 PM
Hopeless cases? That is very harsh. Not hopeless, just need time to get over what issues they currently have. Not everyone who feels that way stays that way. Mostly, people who buy into that notion are going through a phase and that phase might be needed in order to spend time away from the opposite sex getting to know themselves better and also to prevent themselves running the same vicious cycle through a pattern of destructive relationships/encounters. Those who stay bitter in that sense (like, all their lives) are generally feminists or chauvinists (= more likely to be hopeless cases) and I gotta say, they are in the minority.
;)

That was admittedly a little harsh ;)

What I meant to express was that it tends to be true that you can't do much to change their minds. If they are going to change, they change it when they are ready to (which often takes a very long time). Often the main problem being that people with a strong negative feelings about the other sex tend to find other people to hang out that feel the same way, reinforcing their feelings. What they really need is to hang out with people that push them to re-evaluate themselves, but it's just a lot easier to hang out with people that hold the same beliefs we do.

The Snark
07-19-2005, 03:59 PM
Nice. Let's hear about all of your super-healthy relationships, shall we?
Well, since you asked, no relationships are perfect, but mine are looking pretty good in light of the abovementioned post. For the record, I have never been in a relationship that has involved: (a) violence of any kind, (b) death threats, (c) visits from the police, or (d) trips to the psych ward.

Listen, I'm not judgmental about other people's relationships and I'm fully aware that le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaît pas, as we say in French. I have friends who are lesbian, gay, bi, swingers, in Boston marriages; not to mention a divorced couple that still lives in the same house and a transsexual couple with a platonic relationship. I pretty much accept them as they are, and expect them to return the favour.

There's the rub. I really don't give a shit what ET does in her private life, but when she states that an entire class of people are unattractive losers because of their aberrant behaviour, I think she should expect to have her own behaviour subject to examination. If she wants to live in a glass house, that's her business, but she really shouldn't be throwing stones.

xdamage
07-19-2005, 04:20 PM
Well, since you asked, no relationships are perfect, but mine are looking pretty good in light of the abovementioned post. For the record, I have never been in a relationship that has involved: (a) violence of any kind, (b) death threats, (c) visits from the police, or (d) trips to the psych ward.


What? You mean you don't totally lose it when you drink? You and I must be like the only two mother fuckers on the planet that don't beat our SOs or end up in jail when we get drunk. Why it's totally normal to scream, at the top of your lungs things like "I'M GOING TO KILL ALL OF YOU", and "YOU HATE WOMAN". I'm told this is totally normal drunken behavior. Check out documentaries like COPS and Jerry Springer if you need proof.

Jenny
07-19-2005, 04:39 PM
Well, since you asked, no relationships are perfect, but mine are looking pretty good in light of the abovementioned post. For the record, I have never been in a relationship that has involved: (a) violence of any kind, (b) death threats, (c) visits from the police, or (d) trips to the psych ward.
That's nice. But I think what was implied was that she posted it in an entirely separate thread asking for help and FULLY realizing that what she had done was bad, unhealthy and unlikely to be repeated. She was ashamed and repentent. And that as such, maybe it is inappropriate to paste it here so that everyone here can make fun of her and say mean things. When someone posted links from this site, specifically indicting certain bluies everyone discussed how unfair and how bitchy. If you guys find the pinkies SO tiresome and SO boring, stop linking to their goddam posts! Problem solved. Except, you know, the ones like me. Who just like to come down here. You know, and hang out. I just like you guys so much...

Susan Wayward
07-19-2005, 05:28 PM
Thanks, Jenny, that was exactly my point; while I roll my eyes at those posts, I don't feel the need to point and laugh, either.

And re: my coworker, well, fuck, man, you pick up potential partners in bars and you kind of deserve what you get, you know? She might complain they used her for sex, but who the hell are you looking for in a bar/club, the father of your children? Oh, god, don't answer that.

Anyhow, I have decided that all of my customers are deliciously attractive ever since I decided that looking at $20s makes me really horny (regular guys in bars are still dogs, though).

xdamage
07-19-2005, 05:31 PM
That's nice. But I think what was implied was that she posted it in an entirely separate thread asking for help and FULLY realizing that what she had done was bad, unhealthy and unlikely to be repeated. She was ashamed and repentent. And that as such, maybe it is inappropriate to paste it here so that everyone here can make fun of her and say mean things.


You can ignore me. Strangely I treat women well, really well, maybe too well sometimes (<< kick the dumb ass) but I tend to expect the worst in people sometimes. All I saw were key words 'here is the key', 'alcohol made me do it', 'dont remember' and so on. This is why I'm NOT a fucking counselor. Too many years around a woman who exceled at finding every way possible to not take responsibility for anything that happenened to her. She was the kind of person that could slit someones throat with a sharp knife, and convince herself that it wasn't her responsibility, the knife manufacturer was at fault for developing a device that had such lethal potential and not warning the buyer (her) of such dangers.

p.s., although i do often believe that often the kindest people aren't the people that tell what you want to hear but the people that have the balls (or whatever the female equivalent is) to tell you want you need to hear.



If you guys find the pinkies SO tiresome and SO boring, stop linking to their goddam posts! Problem solved. Except, you know, the ones like me. Who just like to come down here. You know, and hang out. I just like you guys so much...

I would have missed the link had it not been posted here, however, you are the sh*t Jenny. We love you too. Nothing wrong with strong opinions, even if we don't all always agree. Got to love the people who don't puss out and give up or just say "screw you" everytime the convo doesn't go their way. That's what we (well I) love about this site. Plenty of interesting (although not always what I want to hear) feedback from the pinkies.

xdamage
07-19-2005, 05:46 PM
Thanks, Jenny, that was exactly my point; while I roll my eyes at those posts, I don't feel the need to point and laugh, either.


I've found there is a lot to be said for the good old 'you reap what you sow' biblical point of wisdom. If you cut others slack when they are less then perfect, they tend to do the same for you. If others aren't cutting you slack, it could be because others are being assholes, or it could be that it's just well deserved. For example, say Kat here had lost it? Well see Kat would get a lot of slack and support from the guys.



And re: my coworker, well, fuck, man, you pick up potential partners in bars and you kind of deserve what you get, you know? She might complain they used her for sex, but who the hell are you looking for in a bar/club, the father of your children? Oh, god, don't answer that.


Yea, well a lot of people don't take responsibility for their half in picking the other half of the relationship (or in this case, where they picked the other half).



Anyhow, I have decided that all of my customers are deliciously attractive ever since I decided that looking at $20s makes me really horny (regular guys in bars are still dogs, though).

I think maybe you're pulling our leg now? or our ... oh nevermind ;)

mr_punk
07-19-2005, 09:55 PM
And that as such, maybe it is inappropriate to paste it here so that everyone here can make fun of her and say mean things.har..har..har....now, that's rich. you know, i didn't even bother to read the link, but thanks to you and susan i have a pretty good idea. still, i don't care to read it because i couldn't care less about the content. however, to suggest that ET isn't an appropriate target for ridicule or derision is absurd. she's been coming down here and instigating crap for the longest. so, if someone wants to unload on her. well, i'm sure they have their reasons.

Clark
07-19-2005, 10:37 PM
So dancers don't want to know customers. Or a lot of them don't, anyway. Due to the mysterious nature of the strip club, customers can't really be expected to understand this and getting to know dancers (or trying) may be the only way to learn. Not an ideal situation.

amylynnej
07-19-2005, 11:09 PM
guys who claim to be dating dancers aren't. lets face facts. we only care about the benjamins.

mr_punk
07-19-2005, 11:25 PM
Due to the mysterious nature of the strip club,<snip>hold on...what's so mysterious about a sc?

customers can't really be expected to understand this and getting to know dancers (or trying) may be the only way to learn. Not an ideal situation.perhaps, you have a point. i suppose, it's not an ideal situation if a customer doesn't know that he's paying the stripper to sit on balls instead of making goo goo eyes.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 01:07 AM
So dancers don't want to know customers. Or a lot of them don't, anyway.

I'm good with that part. I wouldn't expect that they would (want to get to know customers). I'm not looking to get to know the dancers in the clubs. Its just money for self indulgence and I actually prefer to keep my real life and my occassional visits to the club well separated.

Outside the club though, say in a forum like this, you would think we could discuss things (yea even what happens in clubs) without it being us vs them, customer vs dancer, but it seems that (maybe i'm way off base here) that there is a lot of men vs woman anger/dislike getting in the way. Some of it of course is just done in good humor. Some of it is serious.

I'm very anti-social. I don't like a lot of people for various reasons, but I don't generally dislike women or men just because of their sex. I'm actually fine when a dancer says I don't date customers, I dont want to date customers, I just want the money. It's honest, and to the point, you got to respect that, and since I'm not looking to date one it has absolutely no negative effect on me.

But when it comes to opposite sex hate/dislike, well, there I tip my hat to nature, or evolution, or god, or whatever it is that you believe in, that has selected/resulted-in that there will be females and males on our planet. It's been that way for eons. Men behave as they do because it works. Women behave as they do because it works. Even if a 20 something, who has emotional problems, thinks the opposite sex generally sucks, we are different and generally are the way we are because it works.

So way off track... back on track. I don't care if strippers don't date customers. But in the forums it would be cool if we could drop some of the male/female hate/dislike/we-are-superior-to-your-sex think. But maybe that's just not going to happen.

mr_punk
07-20-2005, 07:13 AM
I'm actually fine when a dancer says I don't date customers, I dont want to date customers, I just want the money.you'd be surprised how many guys would actually be hurt by that comment.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 08:24 AM
But when it comes to opposite sex hate/dislike, well, there I tip my hat to nature, or evolution, or god, or whatever it is that you believe in, that has selected/resulted-in that there will be females and males on our planet. It's been that way for eons. Men behave as they do because it works. Women behave as they do because it works.

Okay. Could you not apply that incredibly fallacious logic to every cultural and social injustice? Under the Taliban men behaved that way because it "worked"? Women were denied voting privileges and personhood because "it worked"? Women are beaten and raped in huge numbers because "it works"? Evolution is not dictating social behaviour. That is kind of a ridiculous contention.



Even if a 20 something, who has emotional problems, thinks the opposite sex generally sucks, we are different and generally are the way we are because it works.
Again - just pointing out that saying you dislike CUSTOMERS is not the same as saying you dislike MEN.


So way off track... back on track. I don't care if strippers don't date customers. But in the forums it would be cool if we could drop some of the male/female hate/dislike/we-are-superior-to-your-sex think. But maybe that's just not going to happen.
Yeah. If you don't see why some women respond this way, look at the "Customer Wealth" thread. Is it funny? Debatable. Is it in good taste? Probably not. Is it constructing dancers as somehow "less" than those who are doing the construction? Well.... yeah, it seems to be. Read that from another point of view and then consider why some girls might feel the need to assert some of their own superiority.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 08:56 AM
Okay. Could you not apply that incredibly fallacious logic to every cultural and social injustice? Under the Taliban men behaved that way because it "worked"? Women were denied voting privileges and personhood because "it worked"? Women are beaten and raped in huge numbers because "it works"? Evolution is not dictating social behaviour. That is kind of a ridiculous contention.


I'm basically a believer looking to the past to understand the present, and big beleiver in evolutionary genetics. I can point you at books from the likes of dawkins, pinker, darwin, others who have written several books that explain modern human behavior in light of where we have come from. They would take several weeks or months to read and re-iterate, so the short response is:

1 - We can look at what is and understand that it's come about because it what worked without judging it. Thats the way to understand what is whether or not we like what that tells us about us, some of which pretty damn sobering (about both female and male traits).

2 - #1 doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't strive to do better - it is a very common to mix these together when they shouldn't be mixed together.

3 - You've picked some of the extreme, worst of the worst cases (e.g., Talibanian government) but that's a common thing to do and very misleading way to make sense of human behavior. Infact here we are today and most men in a modern societies do oppose such extremes and violent treatment of women, and even among islamic cultures their behavior is seen as extreme. As a general rule peoples behavior falls on bell curves and while the extremes exist, and can always be pointed out to prove/disprove anything, we can't really understand the general trends and general truths about humans by studying the extremes.

p.s. you're correct that woman have historically been treated worse then men, but the reasons why have to do with their own behavior as much that of mens, and in that light, historically men have been learned that women are (more generally) attracted to aggressive, yes sometimes pirate type, of men. Strangely women get half the credit for half the people on the planet turning out the way they have (but again, I'm talking about general trends, there are always exceptions if you want find them that will allow you to prove or disprove anything).

It's been said that smart people accept that the world is complex, and try to find what is generally true by looking at the overall patterns. The average person is overwhelmed by the complexity and wants the world to be simple, so they look at the exceptions to try and find absolute truths.





Again - just pointing out that saying you dislike CUSTOMERS is not the same as saying you dislike MEN.


For some of you yea, for some I get the feeling the key agenda seems to be about disliking men in general. Maybe I'm just reading that in.



Yeah. If you don't see why some women respond this way, look at the "Customer Wealth" thread. Is it funny? Debatable. Is it in good taste? Probably not. Is it constructing dancers as somehow "less" than those who are doing the construction? Well.... yeah, it seems to be. Read that from another point of view and then consider why some girls might feel the need to assert some of their own superiority.

I'll look at it.

mr_punk
07-20-2005, 09:11 AM
But in the forums it would be cool if we could drop some of the male/female hate/dislike/we-are-superior-to-your-sex think. But maybe that's just not going to happen.it'll will never happen. you know why? IMO, there are male members that bring that "hey! i pay you biatches. so, you better be nice to me!" attitude from the club into the forum. in addition, you have female members who patronize the customers by nurturing the mindset. OTOH, there are female members who think that just because some half-wit fucko is paying her for convo and thinks she's the closest thing to Indira Gandhi in a g-string. every customer should start with the pedestal building as well.

Is it funny? Debatable.fair enough.

Is it in good taste? Probably not.has something changed recently? when has this forum ever been about good taste?

Is it constructing dancers as somehow "less" than those who are doing the construction? Well.... yeah, it seems to be.ok, but is it meant to be taken seriously?

Jenny
07-20-2005, 09:24 AM
I'm basically a believer looking to the past to understand the present, and big beleiver in evolutionary genetics. I can point you at books from the likes of dawkins, pinker, darwin, others who have written several books that explain modern human behavior in light of where we have come from. They would take several weeks or months to read and re-iterate, so the short response is:
Thank you, but I am familiar with the theory behind evolution, and genetic behaviour. I mean, not familiar the way a geneticist would be familiar. But familiar is a normal conversing kind of way. And I'm sure you are very aware that there are many reputable scientists who would tell you that evolution is not driving the urge of women to wear make up. That is a social construction.



3 - You've picked some of the extreme, worst of the worst cases (e.g., Talibanian government) but that's a common thing to do and very misleading way to make sense of human behavior.
Well yeah. I'm trying to make you agree with me. I'm not going to do that by bringing up mascara.



Infact here we are today and most men in a modern societies do oppose such extremes and violent treatment of women, and even among islamic cultures their behavior is seen as extreme. As a general rule peoples behavior falls on bell curves and while the extremes exist, and can always be pointed out to prove/disprove anything, we can't really understand the general trends and general truths about humans by studying the extremes.
No, but I think you could agree that women achieving what might loosely be called "equality" - and, by the way, tell me about it when there is a female president, or proportionate representation in the U.S. Senate - is a blip in human history. This doesn't make the opposite a genetic normal or just.



p.s. you're correct that woman have historically been treated worse then men, but the reasons why have to do with their own behavior as much that of mens,
Hmmm. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to agree with you here. If you are saying that sexual discrimination has been a SOCIAL problem that overarches a single sex, that I can agree with. However, I think we are all dreaming if we are imagining that men and women were equally disadvantaged under this.



and in that light, historically men have been learned that women are (more generally) attracted to aggressive, yes sometimes pirate type, of men.
That is ridiculous. You're talking about romance novels, not life. If you want to debate the social validity of romance novels, we can totally do that, but let us not confuse it with what "women" actually want. Has it occurred to you that A) women are in fact not more attracted to "pirate men" but that social construction exists as a fight for status among men? That these are traits MEN prize, and because women in these situations are seen as trophies, they are constructed to like this better? or that B) women have preferred "pirate men" because of a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION that is not of their own making? or that C) women just don't prefer "pirate men"?


It's been said that smart people accept that the world is complex, and try to find what is generally true by looking at the overall patterns. The average person is overwhelmed by the complexity and wants the world to be simple, so they look at the exceptions to try and find absolute truths.
Isn't it equally simplistic to simply label all behaviour as evolutionary necessity?


For some of you yea, for some I get the feeling the key agenda seems to be about disliking men in general. Maybe I'm just reading that in.
I think that might be specifically because you are a strip club customer. It's easier and more socially effective to label her as a man-hating bitch than a strip club customer-hating bitch. It just doesn't have the same ring.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 09:30 AM
has something changed recently? when has this forum ever been about good taste?
What's your point? Why do you think that whenever I use an example to illustrate something that I am demanding it be removed from the planet? You're like uber-defensive. Is this because your mother didn't hold you enough as a baby?

It's just an illustration of a point - that customer come here to demonstrate their dominance and superiority over dancers, and that dancers are responding to that - and (of course) vice versa.


ok, but is it meant to be taken seriously?
No. At least, I don't think so. But that doesn't change my point at all. Again - I am not arguing its right to exist or the right of the lot of you to guffaw heartily at it. I'm just pointing out - obviously constructing dancers as less than you guys.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 10:09 AM
Thank you, but I am familiar with the theory behind evolution, and genetic behaviour. I mean, not familiar the way a geneticist would be familiar.


I can recommend several amazing books, though they are long reads, but real eye openers. Difficult reads though. I find myself having to re-read Richard Dawkins several times to assimilate some of his brilliant insights.



But familiar is a normal conversing kind of way. And I'm sure you are very aware that there are many reputable scientists who would tell you that evolution is not driving the urge of women to wear make up. That is a social construction.


And they would be completely and utterly wrong ;) It's a straightforward sexual attraction tool, very biologically (and ultimately genetically) driven. Perfume and makeup is a long standing practice in history among those who could afford it, just historically most couldn't. There were little or no drug stores or malls let alone cars to get to them 100 years ago, or the millions of years that preceeded that. Pre-modern women didnt use these products because they didn't have access to them. Our society (and many others) have simply made it possible and easy for women to buy these goods, but they are buying them because they want them, not because men are evil mastermining society (like in the movies and feminist literature) and making them buy them. This is a straight forward and simple biological drive. The majority of heterosexual women want to attract men, hence they will buy products that enhance their attractiveness to men (clothing, makeovers, makeup, perfume, and so on).

And yes, you may find short periods in cultures where the natural, no-makeup look may become a fad. That's the exception, not the general trend. I've done a lot of travel in Europe, and Asia and they are people just like us. Woman (and men) buy products to attract the opposite sex. And I suspect if the women in burquas could choose to buy whatever they want, without fear of being beaten, they would (no surprise) choose to wear clothing, makeup, perfume to attract the opposite sex.



Well yeah. I'm trying to make you agree with me. I'm not going to do that by bringing up mascara.


Hehe well I'll end doing the same and we know that will end in a downward spiral of fighting and name calling. As long as there is good makeup sex in the end though it will have been worth it :D

Seriously though I believe social constructs exist because of who and what we are. Society isn't constructed by an mastermind or just by men, it is constructed by us people, both women and men. We do what we do socially because of what and who we are.



No, but I think you could agree that women achieving what might loosely be called "equality" - and, by the way, tell me about it when there is a female president, or proportionate representation in the U.S. Senate - is a blip in human history. This doesn't make the opposite a genetic normal or just.


Yes its just a blip in history. Exactly! Hold that thought! I'll comment on it below.

I do think though that assuming we don't something stupid that causes us to revert to a simpler non-modern society, presumably men and women will slowly but surely become more alike. But if we revert and the law of the old west becomes the norm, then I expect men and women will rapidly fall back into their pre modern society roles.




That is ridiculous. You're talking about romance novels, not life. If you want to debate the social validity of romance novels, we can totally do that, but let us not confuse it with what "women" actually want. Has it occurred to you that A) women are in fact not more attracted to "pirate men" but that social construction exists as a fight for status among men? That these are traits MEN prize, and because women in these situations are seen as trophies, they are constructed to like this better? or that B) women have preferred "pirate men" because of a SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION that is not of their own making? or that C) women just don't prefer "pirate men"?


This is a fairly common point of disagreement. You don't have to agree, but here is the deal in a nutshell.

1 - The reason you don't see it is that you were born and raised in a modern society, and you have available to you many forms of legal protection, and you're view on what you want in a man is in the context of a modern society.

2 - For women that live in pre-modern societies, where we don't have policemen driving around in patrol cars, and where there are few checks and balances on men in positions of power (and power is abused), often a persons only real protection is their immediate family members. A strong, aggressive, even brutish man is a significant asset in a pre modern world. It's only very recently that there has been a great demand for intellectual men. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of the world spent their time performing physical labor, no electricity, no cars, no significant medicine, no tvs, none of the things that have recently driven up the demand for intellectual men.

3 - Your genes have been developing over millions of years, in a pre-modern world.

Bottom line? What women want from men in a modern world, what they want intellectually, often doesn't completely jive with what turns them on emotionaly, biologically, and genetically. Brutish aggressive use to dominate the world. It's a somewhat recent event in history, really just a blip on the big time scale, that intellectual men (yes even the weak wimpy socially nice) ones are valued so highly.

A lot of guys in modern society eventually know this intuitively (that women seem to be attracted to aggressive, brutish types of men) even if they can't explain why (it doesn't jive with what they've been told women want). What may be true is that modern women will (often) choose a man that meets her modern society definition of what she wants in a man for a long term mate. That's actually a good, sane choice. But until they mature and reach that point of seriously looking for a long term mate, some women end up chasing after the aggressive, often brutish, types of guys.




Isn't it equally simplistic to simply label all behaviour as evolutionary necessity?


See my comment above. Society is the product of us people, not some mastermind construct that exists independent of us people. The evolution is there whether we include it in our understanding of human behavior or not. I prefer explinations that include it as I find them to be generally more correct than explinations about human behavior that ultimately end with some mysterious force of society made it happen. It's really a no explination to me because it doesn't answer why the behavior/belief exists in the society.



I think that might be specifically because you are a strip club customer. It's easier and more socially effective to label her as a man-hating bitch than a strip club customer-hating bitch. It just doesn't have the same ring.

Could be.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 10:40 AM
I do think though that assuming we don't something stupid that causes us to revert to a simpler non-modern society, presumably men and women will slowly but surely become more alike. But if we revert and the law of the old west becomes the norm, then I expect men and women will rapidly fall back into their pre modern society roles.
Problem being, that I think you have the same misconceptions about those "pre-modern" (how exactly are you defining "modern" anyway? Technically, "Modern" is everything that comes after the fall of the Roman Empire - is that what we are talking about?) sex roles as many other people (including many scientists). Did you know, for example, that women in contemperary foraging societies, suffer nearly no domestic abuse? That domestic abuse that does occur just as frequently involves a male victim as a female? Why, you might ask, might this be? My theory - well, not strictly speaking mine. Or, really, in any other mode of speaking. But a theory that makes sense to me? In foraging societies women are responsible for most of the food production. In a society in which food is the main currency, this translates into them making more money. There is a myth of cavemen dragging women around by the hair, but no real reason to believe that defined relations between men and women - other than Victorian projection. In higher primates there are a variety of rules and rituals surrounding courtship, very few of which involve assault or burly relatives looking out for a young lady's chastity. Except for those bastard chimpanzees.



1 - The reason you don't see it is that you were born and raised in a modern society, and you have available to you many forms of legal protection, and you're view on what you want in a man is in the context of a modern society
Well, yes. But conversely, so were you, and for that matter all the scientists who are dead set on proving that mascara is biologically, not socially driven.


2 - For women that live in pre-modern societies, where we don't have policemen driving around in patrol cars, and where there are few checks and balances on men in positions of power (and power is abused), often a persons only real protection is their immediate family members. A strong, aggressive, even brutish man is a significant asset in a pre modern world. It's only very recently that there has been a great demand for intellectual men. It wasn't that long ago that the vast majority of the world spent their time performing physical labor, no electricity, no cars, no significant medicine, no tvs, none of the things that have recently driven up the demand for intellectual men Interestingly enough, the first "job" in existence - the first position in a foraging society that exempted one from foraging due to his or her expertise or gift is that of the priest/artist. No - not prostitutes, no matter what the saying is. So it seems to me that "intellectual" men have always been pretty valuable. Art, religion (in a very pure sense) and thought have always driven society, and to assume that because people spent their days at basic physical labour rather than pecking at a keyboard they had no ipseity, no thought, no tenderness or emotion and not esoteric questions is condescending in the extreme, and actually very fitting with the Victorian inspired ideas surrounding evolution.



Bottom line? What women want from men in a modern world, what they want intellectually, often doesn't completely jive with what turns them on emotionaly, biologically, and genetically. Brutish aggressive use to dominate the world. It's a somewhat recent event in history, really just a blip on the big time scale, that intellectual men (yes even the weak wimpy socially nice) ones are valued so highly.
Again, I think that is a complete misreading of history, based on self-serving projections. And a woman liking rough or athletic sex, liking strong (physically) men, and... I don't know, blue eyes has nothing to do with a "misread" between her intellect and biology, because one doesn't preclude the other, any more than a guy liking rough, athletic sex is necessarily dying to, in fact, pound the hell out of the woman he is fucking.



See my comment above. Society is the product of us people, not some mastermind construct that exists independent of us people.
Of course. That is what I said. On the other hand, I think that it is a little naive and whitewash-y to pretend that certain groups have not directly advantaged at the expense of other groups. Simply pretending that power relation doesn't exist, or that it is completely neutral, since it is a social problem and members of that group are part of society (on some level).



The evolution is there whether we include it in our understanding of human behavior or not. I prefer explinations that include it as I find them to be generally more correct than explinations about human behavior that ultimately end with some mysterious force of society made it happen. It's really a no explination to me because it doesn't answer why the behavior/belief exists in the society.
It's not generally considered particularly mysterious. I just find reducing all social behaviour to genetic predisposition to be a little - well, reductionist, and frankly, very frequently inaccurate.

mr_punk
07-20-2005, 10:43 AM
What's your point?isn't it obvious? my point is that this forum has never been about good taste or bad taste for that matter.

Why do you think that whenever I use an example to illustrate something that I am demanding it be removed from the planet?now, that's funny. why are you inferring that i think you are demanding it removed? frankly, the thought never crossed my mind. however, if you must know. i'm wondering why you're acting so sensitive about it. it's just seems so out of character. then again, i keep forgetting you're a radical feminist.

You're like uber-defensive. Is this because your mother didn't hold you enough as a baby?LOL...now, was that comment made in good taste? oh, and my mother didn't hold my enough as a baby or breast feed me. although, i'm trying to correct that oversight whenever i go to the sc.

It's just an illustration of a point - that customer come here to demonstrate their dominance and superiority over dancers, and that dancers are responding to that - and (of course) vice versa.and you're doing a pretty good job of it if i may say so. oh no, the evil patriarchy can't hold you radical feminists down.

No. At least, I don't think so.you sound ambivalent. perhaps, you're reading too much into it. sometimes, jenny. a joke (in good or poor taste) is just a joke and nothing more. sweet jiminy christmas, i didn't know canadians were so serious. how could a country that gave us martin short turn out to be this way?

I'm just pointing out - obviously constructing dancers as less than you guys.well, i don't disagree with the content just the intent.

IACali
07-20-2005, 10:53 AM
There's the rub. I really don't give a shit what ET does in her private life, but when she states that an entire class of people are unattractive losers because of their aberrant behaviour, I think she should expect to have her own behaviour subject to examination. If she wants to live in a glass house, that's her business, but she really shouldn't be throwing stones.

I'm just catching up on this thread, but wanted to give a big ole :thumbsup: to The Snark for this one. I agree.

I'm the type, actually, to laugh and point at ET's post, primarily bc of all the holier-than-thou bullshit she tosses around.

Hmph.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 11:05 AM
Problem being, that I think you have the same misconceptions about those "pre-modern" (how exactly are you defining "modern" anyway? Technically, "Modern" is everything that comes after the fall of the Roman Empire - is that what we are talking about?) sex roles as many other people (including many scientists).


Modern is not a single point in time. It's an ever changing scale. But the last 100 years or so modern society has changed more dramatically then it has is many years before it. For the first time in history you have:

near instant global communication

a few hours travel to anywhere from anywhere

a huge array of time saving and entertainment devices because of advances in electronics

road ways

electricity

medicine

lights at night

cheap and easy access to all manner of goods, food, and entertainment 24hrs a day.

It's not the same world as the Roman Empire at all, even though the Roman Empire was a step in the same overall direction.



Interestingly enough, the first "job" in existence - the first position in a foraging society that exempted one from foraging due to his or her expertise or gift is that of the priest/artist. No - not prostitutes, no


Well survival first but okay understood.



Of course. That is what I said. On the other hand, I think that it is a little naive and whitewash-y to pretend that certain groups have not directly advantaged at the expense of other groups. Simply pretending that power relation doesn't exist, or that it is completely neutral, since it is a social problem and members of that group are part of society (on some level).


I never said men and women are entirely the same. Being the child bearing half of the species is a big difference, the "difference", and I agree women have gotten the short end of the stick overall.



It's not generally considered particularly mysterious. I just find reducing all social behaviour to genetic predisposition to be a little - well, reductionist, and frankly, very frequently inaccurate.

Not quite what I was saying but lets not get stuck on it.


The problem I have with modernist understanding is that it ignores the millions of years of history that preceeded it. The problem I have with feminisism and chauvinism is that it's one-sided, victimism, it's all the other half's fault.

What is hard to accept about an evolutionary view of men and women is that women don't come out smelling like roses anymore than men. How so? In effect, women are as much as fault for men being aggressive as men are. Why? Because women generally (pre-modern society) have choosen men that acted as strong defenders of their children and home and of them, but also men who are aggressive and push and increase their net worth. Feminists like to believe that it's just men that are aggressive because that leaves the women feeling blaimless. But in the equal and not so lopsided view, while it is men who may do the direct killing and fighting, they've had women behind them who also benefited and encourage the behavior because the women benefit too.

That's not a popular view with feminist because it doesn't leave the women entirely victims, entirely blaimless for the way men are. But whether one is on the front line, or standing on the side-lines cheering the aggression on, both are responsible.

What is probably true is women don't want their men to be aggressive to them or their children, but when it comes to being aggressive towards perceived enemies? That's another matter. Then women are very attracted to men they perceive will use aggression to defend them.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 11:51 AM
Modern is not a single point in time. It's an ever changing scale. But the last 100 years or so modern society has changed more dramatically then it has is many years before it. For the first time in history you have:
Yeah, but... I find it hard to take seriously evolutionary change we are claiming took place over the past hundred years. That's not a lot of time for evolutionary change to take place. One might say nigh on too damn little.


Well survival first but okay understood.
Absolutely - survival first, etc. However, I think we're relying a little too heavily on generalized assumptions when we talk about how aggressive men (by which I think we really mean violent and borderline abusvie) are more genetically and evolutionarily desirable, and socially valuable. This doesn't seem to be the case. This is assumption, one that has fairly universal understanding, but very little actual fact.

I never said men and women are entirely the same. Being the child bearing half of the species is a big difference, the "difference", and I agree women have gotten the short end of the stick overall.
I never said men and women were different.


The problem I have with modernist understanding is that it ignores the millions of years of history that preceeded it.
Aren't you kind of doing that? Focusing on the last hundred years? Going back millions of years there is no evidence that any of your contentions are true, and most of the "ideas" that people have are based on 1) Victorian relations between men and women (because that was the time that this mode of thought became en vogue, and the assumptions that were made have largely prevailed) 2) selectively watching other higher primates - I say selectively because many relations were simply discounted or ignored. Female chimpanzees, for example routinely choose the least aggressive males (much good it does them, the chimp bastards). In other primates the women take turns being the most desirable. But no - we must only validate those that give us the results we've already decided are "natural" for humans amd 3) watching contemperary foraging societies. All of these have huge gaps and problems, and the beginning of literacy (and hence history) really does only a little to mitigate it.

The problem I have with feminisism and chauvinism is that it's one-sided, victimism, it's all the other half's fault.
Makes me wonder what you've been reading. Because everything I have read about "feminism" has always approached it as a social problem - from Friedan to Wolf. Besides that , almost all contemperary feminism is all about critiquing other kinds of feminism, so it has nothing to do with the other half at all.

Why? Because women generally (pre-modern society) have choosen men that acted as strong defenders of their children and home and of them, but also men who are aggressive and push and increase their net worth.
Again, I think you have a faulty reading of history, and are operating on unproven, and for that matter, unprovable assumptions.

Feminists like to believe that it's just men that are aggressive because that leaves the women feeling blaimless.
Okay, again, I don't know what you've been reading that argues that only men are aggressive. Radical Feminist! Rah! for the aggressive woman! Once more: Rah! I'd be interested in how this little paradigm works in specific situations like poor little Shannon Faulkner who insisted that she was just as tough and aggressive as men - and every man at West Point turned around and said "That's impossible. Only men are tough and aggressive enough. Watch us prove it by sexually assaulting you and threatening your family with violence!"

But in the equal and not so lopsided view, while it is men who may do the direct killing and fighting, they've had women behind them who also benefited and encourage the behavior because the women benefit too.
I would question how much women have benefitted as a class from these things - like not women of certain nationalities, but women as a whole.

That's not a popular view with feminist because it doesn't leave the women entirely victims, entirely blaimless for the way men are. But whether one is on the front line, or standing on the side-lines cheering the aggression on, both are responsible.
As I said - social issue. Overarching the sexes. However - Still. It is naive and whitewashy to say that one sex (i.e. men) have not benefitted at the expense of the other (i.e. women).

What is probably true is women don't want their men to be aggressive to them or their children, but when it comes to being aggressive towards perceived enemies? That's another matter. Then women are very attracted to men they perceive will use aggression to defend them.
See again, where are we tracing this back to? Foragers? Because according to pretty much all sources women spent the vast majority of their time sans men. They defended themselves and their children perfectly ably. Or they didn't and they died. Either way, natural selection was not working in the way that you claim. The wild, wild west? Same thing. While the men were out doing manly things - including squatting on stakeholds, etc., women were plowing themselves and defending themselves. The facts are that the only time women rely on men to protect them is when society constructs that "protection" and makes the women live in it.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 12:34 PM
Yeah, but... I find it hard to take seriously evolutionary change we are claiming took place over the past hundred years. That's not a lot of time for evolutionary change to take place. One might say nigh on too damn little.


That's the point, you and I haven't changed that much, we are still primitive people at heart.



I never said men and women were different.


But they are, and genetisicst don't mince happy words like equality in here. Being the child bearer is a huge difference.



Makes me wonder what you've been reading.


Read Richard Dawkins, S. Pinker, and C. Darwin, for some deeper insights into this point of view.



Again, I think you have a faulty reading of history, and are operating on unproven, and for that matter, unprovable assumptions.


People smarter than I and with a lot more time and passion to do so can argue the evolutionary point of view better than I.



Okay, again, I don't know what you've been reading that argues that only men are aggressive.


I never said only women were aggressive. Quite the contrary, woman like aggression, they encourage in their men and engage in plenty of it themselves. My point was simply that women have historically been attracted to brutish, aggressive men, I explained why, and so we have men that act brutish and aggressive. And I explained that in that light women get half the credit for men having evolved as they are.



Radical Feminist! Rah! for the aggressive woman! Once more: Rah!


I don't care about feminism or chauvinism. They are both equally misguided to me.



I'd be interested in how this little paradigm works in specific situations like poor little Shannon Faulkner who insisted that she was just as tough and aggressive as men - and every man at West Point turned around and said "That's impossible.


As I said, falling back on exceptional cases can always be used to prove or disprove anything, and learn nothing about the general trends of human behavior.



The facts are that the only time women rely on men to protect them is when society constructs that "protection" and makes the women live in it.

The facts are what has actually transpired in history. You can embrace it, accept it, or ignore it, and come up with theories about how things might have been, but in the end, the fact is that what has really transpired is women and men have found their places and shaped their behaviors over millions of years, over trillions of people over tens of thousands of cultures.

Personally I don't hold men or women in particularly high regard just because they are men or women. And I think the feminists and chauvinists are both equally wrong for the same reasons. While I'll grant you that woman have gotten the short end of the stick in some ways being the child bearing half of the species, I also think a world entirely of child bearing species would suck even worse than the what we have. Fortunately, evolution knows better than the individuals what works best over the long run.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 01:01 PM
That's the point, you and I haven't changed that much, we are still primitive people at heart.
Well, then why are we using the last hundred years as some sort of indicator of the human condition - I mean, I know why I do it. But it seems to not work to well with your ideas.



Read Richard Dawkins, S. Pinker, and C. Darwin, for some deeper insights into this point of view.
Yeah, I meant more what you've been reading about feminism and chauvinism - I think you have a flawed understanding of that too.
But about our Darwin et al - Darwin was a genius. As was Freud. And Tycho Brahe for that matter. But that doesn't mean that their theories all hold true - it doesn't mean that people haven't found flaws in their theories. Like any 12th grader today knows more math than Issac Newton. This is the benefit of hindsight.



People smarter than I and with a lot more time and passion to do so can argue the evolutionary point of view better than I.
And people smarter than you and with the same amount of time and passion also argue against it.



I never said only women were aggressive. Quite the contrary, woman like aggression, they encourage in their men and engage in plenty of it themselves. My point was simply that women have historically been attracted to brutish, aggressive men, I explained why, and so we have men that act brutish and aggressive. And I explained that in that light women get half the credit for men having evolved as they are.
No. I was responding to your contention that feminists constructed women as passive victims. Not according to my readings or experience (Rah! agressive women). You claim this history, but it lacks validity. There is no reason to believe that human beings, in a primal state matched up in the way that you (or your historians) claim. And the beginnings of history (literacy) would show something very, very different as well. I think that actually SHOWING rather than merely CLAIMING that brutishness is an attractive quality, is a little challenging - the claim only requires common misconception.



I don't care about feminism or chauvinism. They are both equally misguided to me.
Yes. Equality of women. So misguided.



As I said, falling back on exceptional cases can always be used to prove or disprove anything, and learn nothing about the general trends of human behavior.
You think this is exceptional? You think this is unusual in our society? When women want to take on traditionally male roles, you think generally they are welcomed? On the contrary, I think this is STANDARD.


The facts are what has actually transpired in history.
What facts are we referring to here? Because all I've seen is a lot of fairly weak contention.


You can embrace it, accept it, or ignore it, and come up with theories about how things might have been, but in the end, the fact is that what has really transpired is women and men have found their places and shaped their behaviors over millions of years, over trillions of people over tens of thousands of cultures.
Again - this is far from proven, even amongst your experts. Although this is a delightful conversational device "Look - if you don't accept my version of right you are denying reality". I remember hearing something similar when a girlfriend and I were having a meal with a few guys, and one of them starting bitching about female firefighters, not realizing that she was one. He was arguing that women couldn't possibly be firefighters, and the fact that there were in fact female firefighers did nothing to detract from his position. He also contended that there couldn't be female mechanics. The fact that there were female mechanics did nothing to detract from his position. He finished with "There is just no convincing her of reality." Of course the fact that in reality that are female firefighters and there are female mechanics mean nothing to him. Point being - you can't simply assert a contentious issue and then claim that I am ignoring history if I disagree. You have to present a rational argument. I produced rational statements - now you would dissent (rationally, not just by saying Nuh-uh).


Personally I don't hold men or women in particularly high regard just because they are men or women. And I think the feminists and chauvinists are both equally wrong for the same reasons.
Okay - the feminist is not equal and opposite to the chauvinist.


Fortunately, evolution knows better than the individuals what works best over the long run.
Whitewashing.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 01:28 PM
Like any 12th grader today knows more math than Issac Newton.

LOL, no the average 12th grader doesn't learn jack about calculus today, let alone have the mental facilities needed to invent such a brilliant mathematical tool on their own, let alone even have the ability to grasp why it is that Newton needed the tool. Newton makes the average 12th grader look about as smart as my cat seems to me.

Unfortunately therein lies the problem. Anyone can be a chauvinist or feminist. It's easy, like believing in religious extremism, it appeals to emotions first, study second.

I really am talking reading some brilliant people, along the lines of Newton in their own fields who are the leaders in the field of studying evolution. Who have spent their whole lives in a topic of study that few of us would have the drive or brilliance to discover on our own.

These are not pissed off people who are are trying to prove men are better than woman or vice versy, they are too busy to do so, but I was suggesting you read them for a lot of eye opening in questions into the nature of female/male behaviors, both in the animal world and human world.



Okay - the feminist is not equal and opposite to the chauvinist.


Which takes us full circle and back to why I think the pinkie and blue sites are as they are. It's the feminism/chauvinism that's getting in the way, and the feminists and chauvinists that are looking for things to fight about. Plus throw in the fundamental belief that (both sides strongly hold) that the war of the sexes is not equal, that the other sex really is somehow more screwed up then they, and here we are and will likely remain.