Log in

View Full Version : Imagine your daughter is a dancer...



Pages : 1 [2] 3

xdamage
09-13-2005, 02:57 AM
This notion that there is greater intellectual capacity at younger ages is nonsense;


I think your confusing when people gain noteriety for make contributions in their life out of context of the point of the matter, which is when to get started.

As far as the hard sciences go, there is something to youth think more outside of the box, but its not simply that.

First basically your wrong that intellect and youth are not related. Psychologist are finding via testing (the scientific method vs the guessing method) that people take longer to learn to new concepts as they grow older.

And you know this from experience even though you may not have been awaare of it. You probably have "Granny" in your life (or whatever senior people you know) and you know he/she is slower (the older they are, generally the slower), but between 20s age and granny's age people's ability to learn new information slowly but surely changes. And think BELL CURVE here because like everything else, you will find there are exceptions on both ends, people who decline earlier, people who remain quite bright in life later, but most fall in the middle of the curve and show and average decline, but the decline is real.

And this is what's important - What happens to grannie doesn't just happen over night. And its not just due to senility. Grannie may be good at making cookies and other tasks she has done her whole life (her crystalline memory) but her ability to learn new concepts and the rate at which she learns them has declined since her youth.

This our genes at work again, our brains fade the same way our bodies lose their strength, flexability, color, etc.. Most people do see their bodies change slowly but surely. It's obvious to us because we see it happen. But its popular (and a wrong) myth that intelligence is not similarly affected. Okay well you can't see our brains change but the same slow but sure declining processes apply to the neural network that is your brain. Its not so much that brain cells die as it is that your brain is a neural network that learns by distributed adjusting of level input to the neurons. This (complex) process slows the same way your body slows down other processes as you age (e.g., your bodies ability to heal itself slows as you grow older). With enough focus and time granny can still learn a lot, but that doesn't mean she would be able to keep up with the pace set among students in their 20s or 30s.

So basically I think your belief that intellect abilities at youth are not greater is false, and isn't backed by the experiments I have read about. It is however a modern popular belief, but it doesn't jive with experiment or with our real world observations of how people behave as they grow older.

Probably equally important, people's ability to stay focused on mind grueling work for extended hours decreases. Older people report being mentally tired faster then younger people when put to tests in which they are required to focus and concentrate for extended periods of time. It's not just about the rate at which people learn, but about the duration over which they can maintain that level of learning (which also declines).

Also most physics students don't contribute that much to the field. Some do, some don't. Most make minimal contribution, proving or refining theories asked by others during their school years, possibly raising some new questions. And most do it under the guidance of senior people that have 10+ years on them, people with more experience (which is what is relevant in this conversation). A few students do make significant contributions. Some physics students tend to be the type that really love physics, an innate love that drives them and draws them into the field at an early age. They end up in the field at an early age because given a choice between doing so many other things (yes including a choice of stripping) they'd rather be working on physics. But research work is grueling and the older you get the harder it becomes to keep up. There is a level of exactingness required in the hard sciences that most people just don't have the right mindset or mental stamina to maintain.





which is why judges, lawyers, physicians, historians, philosophers, etc. make their best contributions later in life,


Well if you've read Hitchhikers guide you know that this group is mostly found on the B ark.

Nevertheless in context of this discussion what you say may be true but is irrelevant. These others contribute later in life because they need the many years of work and clout that comes with proving oneself before they are taken seriously. In the context of this discussion what's important is starting early, not that one can still make intelligent contributions at a later age.

Yes sure most physicians contribute new techniques later in their career. But that's probably not because they decide to spend their youth stripping, then decided maybe I'll be a physican and contribute something? More likely they have been in the field all along, and by the time they have 20 years of experience behind them they are taken seriously enough that their experimental procedures are viewed with something less the complete skeptism by their peers. In context of this discussion what matters is that they started young, not that they are gaining recognition when they are older.



while writers -- a related field -- risk a rapid flameout if they rise too quickly and cannot sustain their talent. Or, worse, they run out of things to write about. That will not happen to you. ;)


Writers vary and it depends on what you are writing about. The word "writer" doesn't really mean much without a context. Could be writing text books, or writing technical documents, or writing fiction, or writing porn stories, or writing an auto-biography, and so on.

But what is important is that a writer that develops his/her writing skills while young (crystalline memories) can focus more attenion on expressing ideas later, and less on the mechanics of writing. For fictional writers, the quality of those ideas is probably more a matter of artistic talent then it is a matter of intellect (i.e., the rate at which one learns new infomation).



As much as I really, really want to work with your thoroughbred analogy TOO, most of the dancers I've worked with have been closer related to the mule, and not the intelligent breed of mule either.


I also seemed to have missed this club. Just like every other walk of life, most strippers I've met are average intelligence, average talents like the rest of us. Infact most dancers are really just average looking if you took away the clothing, the boob job, the makeup, the exercise. Of course some are exceptionally bright, but then some quite dumb. Quite a few are exceptionally and naturally beautiful, but not necessarily any more bright or enjoyable to be around then anyone else (well other then its enjoyable to be around their hot bods).

evan_essence
09-13-2005, 06:23 AM
Well if you've read Hitchhikers guide you know that this group is mostly found on the B ark.A) You're aware that's satire, right? B) Even as satire, I don't think the group included physicians. I could be wrong because it's been awhile since I read it and I don't feel like digging it out to check, but it strikes me that medical personnel would not be on the spaceship full of unproductive professionals. HMO administrators, yes. Doctors, no.


I also seemed to have missed this club. Just like every other walk of life, most I've met are average intelligence, average talents like the rest of us.Well, reread the original post. It doesn't say otherwise. You qualified your statement with most. He qualified whom he was characterizing as certain dancers he's met. I thought it was understood we were speaking of those blessed with the mental capacity necessary to have and exercise options.


As much as I really, really want to work with your thoroughbred analogy TOO, most of the dancers I've worked with have been closer related to the mule, and not the intelligent breed of mule either.Okay, but present company excepted. Although I have been told I kick like a mule in my sleep.

Hee-hawww.

-Ev

xdamage
09-13-2005, 06:51 AM
A) You're aware that's satire, right? B) Even as satire, I don't think the group included physicians. I could be wrong because it's been awhile since I read it and I don't feel like digging it out to check, but it strikes me that medical personnel would not be on the spaceship full of unproductive professionals. HMO administrators, yes. Doctors, no.


Yes (pat on head) Evan, I am aware it is satire. That is very bright of you to point that out to me. The bindings on the books identify them as "Comedy" btw.

Anyway read again since you'll see I qualified the physican part. Here is the quick summary again.

1.) His point is irrelevant in the context of this discussion, which is that it's important to start early on a career in some fields.

2.) Physicians gain noteriety later in life because they need those year of experience to build their knowledge base and clout. His point about intellect is completely misleading if by which you think "people later in life can decide to make intellectual contributions later in life just because they want to" That's the bonus reward for starting early a career and working hard, not a goal you decide on later. Nobody said you become retarded at 40ish, but you can forget about being taken seriously as a physician at 40 if you start in your 30s, not unless you're an absolute brilliant genius (which for most of us is less likely then winning the lottery).



Well, reread the original post. It doesn't say otherwise. You qualified your statement with most. He qualified whom he was characterizing as certain dancers he's met. I thought it was understood we were speaking of those blessed with the mental capacity necessary to have and exercise options.

Okay, but present company excepted. Although I have been told I kick like a mule in my sleep.

Hee-hawww.

-Ev

BELL CURVE. Learn it, know it, love it. There are always exceptions on the end of the bell curve. You can prove nothing significant about what is typical human behavior, the general direction of it, what generally works, by trying to find truth in the exceptions and the extremes.

Nicolina probably can manage a second career, but even she admited she is now struggling with her BA and dancing has taken it's toll. She is also very intelligent. I also changed careers after 10 years, so I know it can be done, but I was overlapping study of my 2nd career during my 20s while working my first. Instead of sleeping, I was staying up all night studying surviving most nights for several years on 2-4hrs of sleep. It can be done but I don't necessarily recommend it. By my 30s I don't think I could have maintained that grueling pace of working, school, and personal study/consulting.

Still doesn't change that there are fields that I would say she would have been better of not dancing and using that time in the field. Even if she is lucky enough to be born with the capacity to do both, thats a big gamble. Most people think they do the same way most people think they might win the lottery, but when later comes they find they really don't have the capacity because they aren't the same person they were when they thought they would/could do both.

All Good Things
09-13-2005, 07:44 AM
As much as I really, really want to work with your thoroughbred analogy TOO, most of the dancers I've worked with have been closer related to the mule, and not the intelligent breed of mule either. ;)

I've heard that same objection from other smart dancers, so I've tried to refine the analogy a bit by limiting it to "intelligent, even brilliant, dancers," as above. I think it works well there.

I'm willing to admit that it's possible that I'm using intelligence as the gateway strictly due to personal preference, but that's the way it is. I can't be attracted to stupid people. Period. It's just never worked for me. It's like my genes take one look at gorgeous stupidity across the room and say, "don't even think about it."

evan_essence
09-13-2005, 08:54 AM
Yes (pat on head) Evan, I am aware it is satire. That is very bright of you to point that out to me. The bindings on the books identify them as "Comedy" btw.

Anyway read again since you'll see I qualified the physican part.Okay, I apparently didn't see the word mostly, or it didn't register on my aging stripper brain. It was an odd configuration - "mostly found" instead of "most of the group" - but I concede that's sufficient and it was my oversight.


BELL CURVE. Learn it, know it, love it. There are always exceptions on the end of the bell curve. You can prove nothing significant about what is typical human behavior, the general direction of it, what generally works, by trying to find truth in the exceptions and the extremes.Yes X (pat on the head - not the one that could get me busted) I am aware of the Bell Curve. But we're talking about the performance of the group on the upper intelligence level of the curve, like, I'm assuming, your daughter, not the people in the middle, so we don't need to prove anything about what's typical because typical is not relevant.


... Still doesn't change that there are fields that I would say she would have been better of not dancing and using that time in the field. Even if she is lucky enough to be born with the capacity to do both, thats a big gamble. Most people think they do the same way most people think they might win the lottery, but when later comes they find they really don't have the capacity because they aren't the same person they were when they thought they would/do/could do both.I understand. I just am not going to stress over it so much. We undoubtedly have different definitions of what "would have been better." You place more value on a certain type of journey relative to mental challenge and output, while I place value on a wider variety of possible journeys and internal growth. Possibly a gender thing - the difference between defining yourself by your job/accomplishments and by your emotional growth and relationships. Regardless of my mental capacity, I certainly wouldn't choose to be an engineer if I didn't love how it made me feel and who it put me in contact with.

Okay, um, now I've just given myself a big reason to have never gotten into stripping. F*ck! I hate it when I do that. Walk into the trap of my own reasoning. Dammit, epiphanies are usually supposed to be pleasant experiences. 'Scuse me while I go catch up on my sleep to gain a clearer mind.

-Ev

Nicolina
09-13-2005, 10:09 AM
[Continued]


Well, ok, maybe a dweeb with a great ass. }:D

;D

lol, I can live with that fate. :)

as for the rest of your post, I can only say....Wow. :blush: Thank you.

SportsWriter2
09-13-2005, 11:07 AM
I can't be attracted to stupid people. Period. It's just never worked for me. It's like my genes take one look at gorgeous stupidity across the room and say, "don't even think about it."
It's like my jeans take one look at a cute crash dummy across the room and say, "Whoa, inverted nipples. That could be fun once or twice." :P

You have to keep an open mind...

xdamage
09-13-2005, 11:36 AM
We undoubtedly have different definitions of what "would have been better." You place more value on a certain type of journey relative to mental challenge and output, while I place value on a wider variety of possible journeys and internal growth. Possibly a gender thing - the difference between defining yourself by your job/accomplishments and by your emotional growth and relationships. Regardless of my mental capacity, I certainly wouldn't choose to be an engineer if I didn't love how it made me feel and who it put me in contact with.


Well now I fully agree with you.

It is very possible (and I have strong suspicions probable) that there is some gender tendency that's in play. It does seem that males across so many cultures across so much history end up being somewhat less relationship oriented, somewhat less inner exploration oriented, and rather they tend to be somewhat more oriented on defining oneself via ones accomplishments in life. There are some good biological reasons offered up Dawkins and Pinker for this difference which I won't comment on here.

The thing about someone who loves Engineering or Physics or many sciences is (I'm going to make a generalization so take with grains of salt) is that the real lovers of it find great joy and childlike wonder in understanding how things work or making things work, far more so then they are concerned with ?boring? interactions with others. Others are actually fairly predicatable, few surprises after a while. These fields are very non person oriented and so not for everyone. Much of what is studied will have no benefits on your relationships, and little personal benefit beyond the joy of discovery or conquering difficult problems. But that can be very very very rewarding if you have that in you.

The only other thing I could add is that there are billions of people that have come before us, and many billions more will follow, and only a few leave any significant mark on the world, and fewer still leave some benefit for the future. Everyone leaves little marks, but some have a drive to leave a bigger mark, one that goes beyond the circle of people they meet and interact with face to face. Maybe it's motivated by the need to be immortal, but I think thats narrow sighted. I think Dawkins is right, it's a valuable genetic trait that some carry, and that benefits the species as a whole, that some devote more of their time alive to pursuits that are benficial to everyone yet have very little to do with personal relationships. It's a drive some have and some don't to leave a mark (not always for the good) before their time is up, and some marks require years and decades of work and learning before that mark can be left.



...like, I'm assuming, your daughter, not the people in the middle, so we don't need to prove anything about what's typical because typical is not relevant.


Note, I am not going to answer the original question "Imagine your daughter..." in some general way. I think it's one of those questions that most people will lie to themselves about until/if they are really in the situation. I'm really only going to answer it for how I specifically would react and why I'd want her to otherwise.

For everyone else, I actually don't care what they do. Both the daughters and the dads are going to do pretty much what they want anyway, and what's best for my daughter isn't the best choice for everyones daughter.

My points here are very much limited to what I think is best for her. Others may not have it in them, or maybe they can do both, I don't care since only time will tell for them. But in my case, my answer, for my daughter, I'm completely sure I'd rather she focus on school now and use her intellectual talents. Who knows later (or maybe even now) she might be dancing. Nothing I can do about that - its her life to do with what she will, but I can give her guidance based on what I honestly think is best for her in the long run. My interest is in protecting my daughter. I really don't care what everyone else does, they can choose for themselves and for their own daughters what they think works for them. But Ill say it again, I don't give much credence to the answers from guys who are answering the question in the hypothetical. Until/if they have a daughter in the position I don't think they can really understand how strong of an instinct it is to protect your baby girl (no matter how old she is).

Nicolina
09-13-2005, 01:01 PM
First basically your wrong that intellect and youth are not related. Psychologist are finding via testing (the scientific method vs the guessing method) that people take longer to learn to new concepts as they grow older.

.....So basically I think your belief that intellect abilities at youth are not greater is false, and isn't backed by the experiments I have read about. It is however a modern popular belief, but it doesn't jive with experiment or with our real world observations of how people behave as they grow older.

Well, I dunno, x. I think TOO made a pretty good case for his contention that it is actually the idea that intellect fades with age that is the popular myth here. (plus he made me feel about a billion times better about my own predicament....and I love him for it. :)) Really, though, I believe there is probably truth in both views.

In certain pursuits, it is well understood that youth gives advantage. A prime example is language acquisition. Linguists are well aware that the neuronal pathways that allow us to acquire our native tongue become far less plastic at around the age of 12. The evolutionary advantage of facile language acquisition between birth and puberty is obvious. It is equally apparent that, in most cases, the ability to learn a new language would become less crucial after puberty: Presumably, you have already acquired the grammar and vocabulary of your native language, and no further learning is necessary.

[There are rare cases of children who have been raised in abusive and extremely isolated environments (the classic example is the case of "Genie"), in which their exposure to any language at all was minimal. When Genie was found and rescued from her father, she was fourteen and completely without language. Despite intensive educational intervention, she was never able to gain a grasp of the basic rules of grammar, which most children have mastered by the time they are three or four. Interestingly, though, she was able to acquire new vocabulary at a much faster rate than toddlers do.]

What this means, of course, is that it is far more difficult to learn a second language after the onset of puberty. You can test this yourself. Ask anyone for whom English is a second language when they came to this country. If they have a noticeable accent and less-than-perfect grammar, they will likely say that they arrived in America at some time after the age of 12. If, OTOH, the person in question speaks English that is indistinguishable from that of a native speaker, she will likely tell you that she has been in this country since she was a young child.

Does this mean that is it impossible to learn a second language as an adult? Of course not. People do it all the time, but it takes considerably more effort, and the results will be slightly different in that they will most likely never sound exactly like a native speaker of the second language.

Biologists use the term "critical period." They have demonstrated the phenomenon repeatedly. In one rather greusome experiment that involved sewing shut the eyelids of newborn kittens (:O), they found that normal vision would never develop in an eye that had been deprived of normal stimulus during the first three months of a cat's life. Other experiments have determined that male white-crowned sparrows cannot learn the normal full song of their species (a skill that is crucial to procuring a mate later in life) unless they are exposed to it during the period from 10 to 50 days post-hatching.

But it can be argued that critical periods only exist for "biologically triggered behaviors,"--i.e. behaviors characterized by certain hallmarks that I will not here itemize for fear of further boring the pants off my fellow SWers...(some of whom, of course, I'd very much like to see without their pants. But that is a topic for another post.:))

I do believe that certain skills and abilities, many of which are closely related to language and perhaps utilize some of the same neuronal pathways, become more difficult to acquire as one ages. Musical and mathematical ability leap to mind here as examples, and they both seem to involve a similar "critical period" that ends around puberty.

But beyond this, for skills and abilities that are NOT related to "biologically triggered behaviors", I think that motivation and habit play a large role.

I do think it's possible that older people have a more difficult time acquiring new information or learning new skills (which are two different things, really, and I'd want to know exactly what kind of learning ability was being examined before I drew any broad conclusions about an age-related "decline in intellect," even if I do sometimes imagine that I feel it myself) simply because they are out of practice. I know that it has taken me awhile to get back into the swing of being a student, simply because I had forgotten some of the habits that served me well previously.

I'd love to see references to some of the studies to which you have referred, x. Because, while I'd like to believe TOO, I think that both points of view have some validity. But again, it's a big, complicated issue involving neurology, psychology, biology, and cultural ideas, so I don't think you can come to one broad, sweeping conclusion without a careful review of the work that has actually been done on the subject in all of these fields.

Nicolina
09-13-2005, 01:11 PM
And on the subject of writing:



Writers vary and it depends on what you are writing about. The word "writer" doesn't really mean much without a context. Could be writing text books, or writing technical documents, or writing fiction, or writing porn stories, or writing an auto-biography, and so on.
In the post to which TOO was replying, I used the term "real writer," and though I didn't clarify, I believe he understood exactly what I meant.



But what is important is that a writer that develops his/her writing skills while young (crystalline memories) can focus more attenion on expressing ideas later, and less on the mechanics of writing. For fictional writers, the quality of those ideas is probably more a matter of artistic talent then it is a matter of intellect (i.e., the rate at which one learns new infomation).

Writers write because they are writers. They write compulsively. They write because they have no choice. They write no matter what else they are doing. They write whether they work as coal miners or office temps or housewives or strippers. A writer "develops her writing skills" simply by writing, and in this case I don't think age is a factor. Good writers can produce good work at any age (though it's true that some very talented writers seem to have a limited number of things to say. Sometimes they say it when they're young, and their later work pales in comparison....but this is clearly not always the case.)

One point I tried to make in my original post is that, although the distractions of my stripping career may have hurt my potential career as a scientist, I don't believe that dancing was detrimental to my growth as a writer. In fact, I think the years I spent working in clubs, following the whims of my curiosity (intellectual and otherwise), and always, always writing were crucial to my development in this pursuit. I produced raw material, practiced craft, and gathered plenty of stranger-than-fiction experiences. Looking back, I really do believe that I had greater agency in shaping my emerging 'humanity' (as defined below) than I might have had if my source of livelihood did not afford me the kind of freedom that stripping did.

I completely disagree that the quality of a writer's ideas is more a matter of artistic talent than of intellect. The quality of a writer's ideas, I think, has mostly to do with the writer's humanity, for lack of a better word. What I mean by humanity here is, I guess, the sum total of the writer's experience, intellect, sensibility, empathy, and apprehension of what they call on the book jackets of classics 'the human condition.' Talent and craft determine how the writer conveys the ideas that originate from his humanity. Talent is inborn. Craft can be learned at any age, but it can only be mastered through dogged practice.

End of rant. Thanks for listening. :)

Jenny
09-13-2005, 01:23 PM
Nic - I think some of your ideas of writing may be a little romanticized, but if it makes you feel better, (or even better than TOO made you feel) George Eliot didn't start her writing career until she was 40. Iris Murdoch was in her 30's. There have been, literally, dozens of painters that began painting very late in life. Of course, some artists begin in their infancy - the Bronte sisters, JT Leroy, Picasso - but it doesn't necessarily make them better. Now, I bet you are all going to get into a heated debate on whether Charlotte Bronte or George Eliot was the pre-eminant Victorian woman writer. George Eliot, incidentally, is also an example of a woman who is not pretty - like at all - but was wildly popular with the boys.

Nicolina
09-13-2005, 03:16 PM
Nic - I think some of your ideas of writing may be a little romanticized

Like how, Jenny?

Maybe I got a little carried away in the presentation, but here are my basic points:

(1) "Being a writer" is generally an innate condition. (i.e., you either have an unusual facility with language combined with a desire to put words on paper and make them say what you mean, or you do not.)

(2) The only way to get really good at it is through practice.

(3) Given that you have some talent and a willingness to work hard, the quality of your writing will have something to do with the quality of your soul.

Do you disagree with any of these statements? Where is the overly romanticized part?

I am feeling a little defensive, it's true, but I'm asking because I respect your opinion and I really want to understand what you meant.

Now, I will fully admit to occasionally romanticizing stripping and waxing poetic about strippers (and it's possible that I did do a little of that in my last post), but writing is another story altogether. Writing, as I understand it, is just really fucking hard work. The fact that I love the work doesn't make it any less hard (it just compels me to do it.) I won't go into detail about where I am professionally on that front. Let's just say I've done a lot of work and have a lot of work yet to do.

(oh, and btw, Jenny, as far as I can tell, you yourself are clearly afflicted with the innate condition of being a writer.)

NVJosh
09-13-2005, 04:02 PM
Ooo! Ooo! Me got writer bug too!

All Good Things
09-13-2005, 04:11 PM
You have to keep an open mind...

I'm with you on the open mind. My problem is that I'm repelled by empty ones...

Jenny
09-13-2005, 05:17 PM
Like how, Jenny?

Well, I've talked and corresponded with some professional writer who do share your feelings about the matter - who feel that the greatest component of being writer is an absolute compulsion to write. But I've also corresponded with writers who feel very much the opposite - who feel that writing is a wrenching experience, that is incredibly difficult and some have described writing as something they actually have to force themselves to do. (Mary Gaitskill has interviewed a feeling quite similar to this - she said that she, like her character Justine, tended to spend up to a year just thinking about a short story, and could spend as long as 9 months writing one.) And of course, some, like George Eliot actually present as a little hobby she picked up and discovered she was pretty good at (I daresay she is somewhat understating, though)

But, my precious little Niccy, truly, there is no need to be defensive. I am certainly not deliberately being offensive to you, nor am I implying that your experience as a writer is any different than what you say. And - by the way, thank you very much.

And TOO - I actually agree with you. I don't tend to be attracted to people because they are pretty. Like not an a purely physical, I want you now sense, not anything. I actually think there is something kind of weird about people who are.

All Good Things
09-13-2005, 05:58 PM
So basically I think your belief that intellect abilities at
youth are not greater is false, and isn't backed by the experiments I have read about. It is however a modern popular belief, but it doesn't jive with experiment or with our real world observations of how people behave as they grow older.

I suppose we could beat the term "intelligence" to within a half-inch of its ever-lovin' life, like we did with "fantasy," and just get more frustrated and no closer to agreement.

Let's do this instead. Let's agree that there are several kinds of intelligence beyond the linguistic and mathematical/logical intelligence measured by IQ tests. A few possibilities: Spatial intelligence, bodily-kinesthetic intelligence, musical intelligence, emotional intelligence. Let's agree that young, hard-working physicists are generally spectacularly good at mathematical/logical, and, well, often challenged at bodily-kinesthetic. (BTW, isn't it great how dancers are just so fabulously talented with bodily-kinesthetic? Do you know how great this talent can be in other, uh, endeavors? Oh. My. God. But I digress).

Other challenging areas to our aspiring physicist: languages, since many can't write well in any language, and interpreting emotional states (assuming they actually leave the lab and encounter real, breathing, nose-picking humans). The sum of their intelligences begins to look a little bleak, no? Kind of a shock to people generally viewed -- and accepted by society -- as naturally intelligent.

But what about this raw, critical problem-solving intelligence they purportedly have in spades? How important is experience and the ability to adapt based on what you have learned in life? (from Bill Calvin's book, How Brains Think):

"Piaget used to say that intelligence is what you use when you don't know what to do. If you're good at finding the one right answer to life's multiple-choice questions, you're smart. But there's more to being intelligent -- a creative aspect, whereby you invent something new, 'on the fly.' This captures the element of novelty, the coping and groping ability needed when there is no 'right answer,' when business as usual isn't likely to suffice."

In a nutshell: Success in many professions, and in life in general, is driven by a constellation of interrelated intelligences. Add into this mix the importance of experience, of dealing with loss, overcoming emotional trauma, gaining wisdom and learning compassion. Balance. Humanity. These are the components that drive the creative universe of writers, philosophers, historians, judges, physicians, attorneys and other animals in the humanistic zoo. It's the combination of life experience and being gifted in the "other intelligences" that pushes their contributions into the later years.

Nicolina
09-13-2005, 06:10 PM
Well, I've talked and corresponded with some professional writer who do share your feelings about the matter - who feel that the greatest component of being writer is an absolute compulsion to write. But I've also corresponded with writers who feel very much the opposite - who feel that writing is a wrenching experience, that is incredibly difficult and some have described writing as something they actually have to force themselves to do. (Mary Gaitskill has interviewed a feeling quite similar to this - she said that she, like her character Justine, tended to spend up to a year just thinking about a short story, and could spend as long as 9 months writing one.) And of course, some, like George Eliot actually present as a little hobby she picked up and discovered she was pretty good at (I daresay she is somewhat understating, though)

Okay, I see what you're getting at. No, the reality, in my experience, is that BOTH of those things are true: I have always been compelled to write--like, literally, since I could hold a pen. But the writing that I did as a child, and the writing that I now do in order to maintain some semblance of sanity (and that includes what I do on this board) is total CRAP. The real work is different, and it is absolutely wrenching; I'm completely with Gaitskill on that. I often avoid it like the plague, and I've been known to work on a single short piece of writing for years. I'm elated when I get it right, but the whole process of making words say what I mean is definitely a love-hate thing.

Now, writers who say shit like George Eliot did are full of it, IMHO. Maybe it's just jealousy, but I really have a hard time believing that they are being truthful.



But, my precious little Niccy, truly, there is no need to be defensive. I am certainly not deliberately being offensive to you, nor am I implying that your experience as a writer is any different than what you say. And - by the way, thank you very much.
Oh, I know you weren't trying to hurt my feelings. :) I was just noting that the comment made me feel defensive (probably because I secretly worried that my own inference that, in fact, I know shit about writing might be true. ;) Claiming to be a 'writer' is like claiming to be an 'actress.' Never a good idea. Unless you're famous, most people translate it in their minds as 'pathetic loser.' But what the heck. At least here I'm in good company :P)

Oh, and you're welcome, of course.

SportsWriter2
09-13-2005, 07:16 PM
Jay, I don't like to sidetrack threads, and this one is about daughters, but I do think we could have an interesting thread about writing. And I would certainly comment on Nic's three basic points about writing.

To write is to think. Sometimes we write for ourselves, sometimes for others. All of my projects begin with words and diagrams on graph paper. Finding a logical structure and flow is much more difficult than writing words. :-\

All Good Things
09-13-2005, 09:17 PM
My interest is in protecting my daughter. I really don't care what everyone else does, they can choose for themselves and for their own daughters what they think works for them. But Ill say it again, I don't give much credence to the answers from guys who are answering the question in the hypothetical. Until/if they have a daughter in the position I don't think they can really understand how strong of an instinct it is to protect your baby girl (no matter how old she is).

My daughter is so beautiful that it actually worries me a bit. When she enters the room at school, all the boys run over and make a huge fuss over her. When I took her to a birthday party a few weeks ago, I was startled by a chorus of boys calling her name. She appears to know the power she has, and seems to enjoy it. She got the boys running around the room doing exactly what she told them to do. I just watched in awe.

She's four years old. She'll turn five in November.

I understand the instinct to protect a daughter, believe me. But honest to God, I fear for any guy who crosses my daughter when she is old enough to make a life-altering decision. This chick is nuclear power on wheels. She orders me around like discount slave labor. Plus, she hustles me far better than any dancer I've every seen in my entire life. Yeah, I know, I know, I'm toast when she becomes a teenager. But in the meantime, I'm enjoying the days right now when she will spontaneously tell me how much she loves me.

I guess my problem with the "protect her at any age" scenario is that it seems presumptuous and vaguely condescending to suggest that she might need my protection at an adult age. Do you feel that this "presumed helplessness" could be a little insulting? I admit that the reason behind my position is the visual image I have burned into my brain of her glaring at me in disgust some time in the distant future when I cross that invisible line. I will always worry about her, God knows, and frantically even. I'm just not sure I will ever let her know about it.

evan_essence
09-14-2005, 06:26 AM
She appears to know the power she has, and seems to enjoy it. She got the boys running around the room doing exactly what she told them to do. I just watched in awe.Oh, this sounds like my three-year-old goddaughter, aka Miss Thang. Her father was taking her to her older brother's wrestling matches last spring where she met this handsome 16-year-old boy in the stands whose younger brother also wrestled. She had this cute guy doting on her at every match! Just to be clear, this kid is sweet as the day is long, nothing inappropriate going on. One day near the concession stand, he was talking to this lovely 16-year-old girl when three-year-old Miss Thang comes up and says, "C'mon Jasey, it's time to eat pizza." Which he had promised to do. He says to the teen girl, "Sorry, I gotta go. I have a date," turns around and leaves her standing there in mild shock with her jaw dropping to the floor. Bwahahaha.

-Ev

yoda57us
09-14-2005, 06:17 PM
I understand the instinct to protect a daughter, believe me. But honest to God, I fear for any guy who crosses my daughter when she is old enough to make a life-altering decision. This chick is nuclear power on wheels. She orders me around like discount slave labor. Plus, she hustles me far better than any dancer I've every seen in my entire life. Yeah, I know, I know, I'm toast when she becomes a teenager. But in the meantime, I'm enjoying the days right now when she will spontaneously tell me how much she loves me.


Yup, mine is almost 18 and was just like your daughter at that age! You are going to shake your head in awe at some of what you will see in the next 12 or 13 years....



I guess my problem with the "protect her at any age" scenario is that it seems presumptuous and vaguely condescending to suggest that she might need my protection at an adult age. Do you feel that this "presumed helplessness" could be a little insulting?

Absolutely! Insulting and damaging. The instinct is always going to be there to protect your child. You can't. At various points in their lives you have to step back and let them make their own decisions. Sometimes you have to watch them get hurt. It kills you inside but that's part of growing up and becoming a fully functional human being.



I'm being slightly facetious here but, the alternative is a 23 year old stripper hugging a guy like Sporty and calling him "daddy" as he tries to convert her into one of his "little freaks". Remember this.:O

SportsWriter2
09-14-2005, 06:37 PM
I'm being slightly facetious here but, the alternative is a 23 year old stripper hugging a guy like Sporty and calling him "daddy" as he tries to convert her into one of his "little freaks". Remember this.:O

The alternative is an 18-22 stripper hugging a guy like Sporty, calling him "daddy" and confessing that she's secretly a little freak. And her BF won't pull her hair. It's sad when nothing else is there.

When I see a dad teaching his daughter the fundamentals of a sport, I envy both of them. :)

GiselleQ
09-14-2005, 06:57 PM
I will add this, for what ever it is worth.
Concerning intellectual ability and age.

Sir William Rowan Hamiltion, Irish mathematicain.
His generalizaion of Lagrangian Dynamics eventually lead to forumlation of
early quantum mechanics. All this he accomplished while he was in his twenties.

Domenico Scarlatti, musician for the Portugese Royal Family, did almost nothing until he was fifty. Then all of a sudden, he became very creative, and for the next twenty five years, produced good music.

I know, it is wrong for me to just generalize on two examples.
But the tendency is that, for me, there are just too many facts and variables to really decide on how age and inventiveness are related.

Some of it is just a fluke.

SportsWriter2
09-14-2005, 08:45 PM
Ah yes, Scarlatti's complete sonatas on harpsichord. :)

Two other examples: Gary Coleman and Dana Plato did their best acting work before 18 (on Diff'rent Strokes). Then they did drugs. Dana died. :(

xdamage
09-15-2005, 05:43 AM
Well, I dunno, x. I think TOO made a pretty good case for his contention that it is actually the idea that intellect fades with age that is the popular myth here. (plus he made me feel about a billion times better about my own predicament....and I love him for it. :)) Really, though, I believe there is probably truth in both views.


Again it's simply wrong to confuse those fields where people tend to work for decades before they receive credit for their work with the age at which their work begins. Just because some professions people end up being credited later in life does not mean that was the moment of intellectual awakening for them. It often means they needed decades of experience behind them to reach that point.

In the context of this thread what I think is important is can the individual afford to NOT work on their career during their most potent years.

Lots of things people tell us make us feel better, but that doesn't mean they are truthful (as you well know). ;)



In certain pursuits, it is well understood that youth gives advantage. A prime example is language acquisition. Linguists are well aware that the neuronal pathways that allow us to acquire our native tongue become far less plastic at around the age of 12.


Sure, but as you basically said, language is actually a genetically learned skill (our brains our wired for it, and wired to learn it while we are very young when the skill is needed).



It's the learning of non genetically pre-programmed material that takes will and effort. But beyond this, for skills and abilities that are NOT related to "biologically triggered behaviors", I think that motivation and habit play a large role.


Agreed and that's the point. Assuming one has the motivation to be say a mathematician because one loves doing math as much you love writing, the best time to start enjoying that love is early as possible for two reasons:

1.) It's an innate talent you already enjoy doingl, so you're more likely to do it then to find some reason to go do something else (like party).

2.) Learning the right habits early is beneficial latter. Years later after you solve enough similar mathematical problems,; after you written enough software methods/sub-routines to solve variations of the same kind of problem over and over; after you have performed the same surgery many thousands of times; the habits will have become second nature freeing up more of your intellectual time for other pursuits. We see this for example in computer programming where the senior people tend to spend more time on solving design problems, while the junior people spend more of their time on the basic coding issues, and on dreaming up ideas that sound good but are impractical to make real.

Jenny
09-15-2005, 05:49 AM
In the context of this thread what I think is important is can the individual afford to NOT work on their career during their most potent years.
Just before my class starts - x, surely you realize that the contention here is what the most potent years (if, indeed, there are any between infancy and senility) are. What people are disagreeing with is precisely that the years between 20 and 30 are the most intellectually potent and necessary in one's career; not that, supposing they are, it is unimportant to work during them.

xdamage
09-15-2005, 06:04 AM
Writers write because they are writers. They write compulsively. They write because they have no choice. They write no matter what else they are doing. They write whether they work as coal miners or office temps or housewives or strippers. A writer "develops her writing skills" simply by writing, and in this case I don't think age is a factor.


Yes though as you know some people enter careers they don't really have an innate love for because they just want a career to make money. But yes, its also true of kids that find themselves loving math, physics, engineering, and so on, you find kids that love it and work on it while others are off partying or persuing relationships or work in the field because they need a job doing something.

And again in context thats the point. My daughter seems to have an innate love of engineering and so I encourage she start on it now. Which in the context of this thread explains my very specific answer about what I advise her to do. What the rest of everyone else thinks they will do when/if they have a daughter, I don't really care.



A writer "develops her writing skills" simply by writing, and in this case I don't think age is a factor.


May be true of writing. Its less true of some other fields like physics and medicine where individuals can't afford the time it would take to just learn b doing, and instead must learn by spending a great amount of time assimilating what others have learned before them.



Good writers can produce good work at any age (though it's true that some very talented writers seem to have a limited number of things to say. Sometimes they say it when they're young, and their later work pales in comparison....but this is clearly not always the case.)


Yes, but my daughter doesn't want to be a writer. Writers have a lot of freedom to be inexact (fictional writers, personal writing), But she wants to be an engineer, so I encourage her to start now and not bank on "Good engineers can produce good work at any age" for the same reasons I wouldn't encourage the would-be physician to just assume they can pick it up when the feel like doing it. Their is a level of exactingness required in these other fields, a bar that others will hold her work too that differs these fields from more creative ones.



I completely disagree that the quality of a writer's ideas is more a matter of artistic talent than of intellect. The quality of a writer's ideas, I think, has mostly to do with the writer's humanity, for lack of a better word.
End of rant. Thanks for listening. :)

Well you may have misunderstood me. I was talking intellect in the sense of how quickly one can assimilate new ideas into ones brain. But "Intellect" is a simple word for an immensly broad and complex set of ideas. And our brains don't assimilate all ideas equally. My point really was more that there is a world of difference between say the musician who has studied music and knows it intellectually, and musicians who also (or instead) have an innate talent.

However artists and musicians are not held to the same level of exactingness required of scientists so we should be careful to not entirely confuse the two. What may work for artists doesn't necessarily work for everyone in all careers.

Take examples you know to prove the point. We don't hold Danielle Steele significantly accountable if she flubs a line in one of her books. Compare that with the physician who flubs a cut that kills a patient, or the software engineer who screws up a line of code that causes a banks SQL server to corrupt the database, or the figher pilot whose angle of attack is off by 2 degrees when landing on a carrier crashing the plane, or the engineer who because of a screw calculating the stresses on the welds of a titanium fan blade results in the a multimillion dollar jet engine to explode destroying the engine and possibly the plane.

There are a lot of fields where frankly people can be real fuck ups and get away with it. Historians can be way off base and no big deal, nothing really happens as a result but another historian later corrects them. Lawyers and politicians can off be very wrong, and even screw up badly (e.g., convict innocent people, start long drawn out questionable wars, spend billions needlessly) and yet people in these fields often get away with it because these fields deal with things that are not very exacting to begin with.

But there are others fields where the level of exactingness, and responsibility for being incorrect, and where the demands on people to document their work, is a thousand fold greater because the cost associated with being wrong or even not quite right are high, and because the people already in these fields know that level of exactingness is what is required to make things work. People in these later fields often don't have the luxury of just picking it up when they feel like it because in practice their peers won't take them seriously, and in practice they are never ever at a point in their careers where they aren't busy repracticing and learning new habits that they need to have honed.

xdamage
09-15-2005, 10:02 AM
Just before my class starts - x, surely you realize that the contention here is what the most potent years (if, indeed, there are any between infancy and senility) are. What people are disagreeing with is precisely that the years between 20 and 30 are the most intellectually potent and necessary in one's career; not that, supposing they are, it is unimportant to work during them.

Not entirely correct. The mistake here is talking about "one's career" as if all careers are equal. The issue is more complex then the contention over the potency of those years. It is complicated significantly by what it is that you plan to do. There are fields where you can get away with starting late far more so then others. There are others where the later you start puts you at a significant disadvantage among your peers. If your "Career" goal is to work as a cashier in McDonalds sure start as late as you want. Skip school for that matter. If it's to be a physician start as early as you can. Not all careers are equally demanding. Physicians start earlier than McDonalds clerks because the intellectual demands are so much greater. Likewise a McDonalds clerk reaches the peak of his/her career much sooner then a Physician. It's true that Physicians are generally acknowledged for their efforts later in life. But it's not because their intellect peaked later in life, as if they could have just started later and it would work out the same. That's silly at best, confusing two facts and arriving at a ridiculous conclusion. Physicians are generally acknowledged later in life because it takes them that much longer to catch up with the work of others that preceeded them, and then to reach that point in their careers where they make their own new contributions.

If you skip 20s, why not skip 30s? Or 40s through 50s? When you look at it like it that its pretty apparent that you can't start indefinitely late and hope to make a big contribution as a physician, but is also somewhat cultural that you believe 20s-30s are skippable. In another culture I could argue you already had play years during teens to 20. So by 20s you should be on track. There is obviously a need to start at some point. And if you think about it you'll realize its not indefinitely late in life. There are obviously slowly disadvantages to postponment at some point along the way. You're hoping 30s is the optimal point, but that's just a number picked out of thin air. I think for some careers that's questionably late on the scale of time you have available to you. If you could start earlier then your 20s you should if you could (and infact many physicians start studying their field in high school).

Whether or not you buy the argument that the earlier years are your most potent intellectual years as the reason for doing so, I don't care too much because there will be no final proof/agreement here. But I'll trust my belief that not all careers are equally as intellectually demanding and in some you are better off starting as early as possible. Use whatever beliefs you want when advising your daughter(s) and son(s).

CallMeSky
09-30-2005, 01:26 PM
I`d tell her to stay away from the DJ...wish I`d gotten this advice, but I love my babygirl so it`s all good :)

But seriously, I couldn`t be too harsh on her, considering I did it, too. But I would try and help her out with money if that`s what she needed, and prefer she didn`t hide it from me like I have to with my parents. I`d like her to be able to talk to me about any problems she has at work.

JadeLondon
10-03-2005, 12:11 AM
This has probably been asked before, but it's been one of my main concerns so I'll ask:

How many girls are afraid of running into their dads in a strip club? Or actually have? And guys, vice versa?

My stepfather is a comedian that is pretty popular in the area my club is, I'm always afraid he or some of his friends might stop by after a show. But it's the most convenient club for me to work at, and he travels out of state most of the time, so I've been risking it...

SportsWriter2
10-03-2005, 07:29 AM
A daughter, no. But whenever I get a cute waitress in a local restaurant, I'm on best behavior and tip her extra, knowing I might see her dancing someday soon. :)

FL Dancer
10-17-2005, 11:45 PM
Hmm, I was expecting a little more in the way of "No way, not my kid" on this one because several ( not all by any means though) of you guys here sound as if you treat dancers very poorly.

I have a hard time believeing that so few would have a problem with someone treating your daughter in the same manner as you treat dancers or see them treated.

Very interesting topic though. I can't say I have ever seen it on a stripping related message board before

xdamage
10-18-2005, 07:09 PM
Hmm, I was expecting a little more in the way of "No way, not my kid" on this one because several ( not all by any means though) of you guys here sound as if you treat dancers very poorly.

I have a hard time believeing that so few would have a problem with someone treating your daughter in the same manner as you treat dancers or see them treated.

Very interesting topic though. I can't say I have ever seen it on a stripping related message board before

There is often a world of difference between what people think they will do and what they really do when they are actually in the situation. When it comes down to reality, when your real daughter is in the situation, well you do everything in your power to protect your baby girl from harm and everything you can to make sure she is safe.

FL Dancer
10-18-2005, 09:36 PM
^ that is more of what I was expecting to read.

Katrine
10-19-2005, 03:55 AM
Check out this link:

http://www.aspd.net/showthread.php?threadid=138762&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

I would have loved to respond to it, but not only are females not allowed to post in that jock itch locker room, I had my account disabled because of the horrible pieces of shit that moderate that site. Still, interesting extention of this thread.....

SportsWriter2
10-19-2005, 04:58 AM
I would have loved to respond to it.....

You should write your response here. Do you think he made it up? Is it a marketing tool for Privacy Guardian? Why is he going back to see his daughter?

yoda57us
10-19-2005, 07:19 AM
Do you think he made it up? Is it a marketing tool for Privacy Guardian? Why is he going back to see his daughter?

The chances are his kid was dancing before she saw any of what was on his computer. If her opinion of him changed it was BECAUSE she was dancing and had already formed an opinion about guys who go to clubs.

Why the fuck did he buy a disguise and go in there looking for her? If I found out my kid was dancing I wouldn't be thrilled but I sure as hell wouldn't be blaming myself OR going down to check out the show. What a fuckin loser.

ASPD is a strange place.

xdamage
10-20-2005, 05:51 PM
Check out this link:

http://www.aspd.net/showthread.php?threadid=138762&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

I would have loved to respond to it, but not only are females not allowed to post in that jock itch locker room, I had my account disabled because of the horrible pieces of shit that moderate that site. Still, interesting extention of this thread.....

In the end people do what they want, even our kids, and you know what? shock aside, inconsistencies in ourselves aside, you still always love your own kids (you get over it, whatever it is)

threlayer
10-21-2005, 06:43 AM
No. I don't like the environment of clubs and their management; gives a person a bad start in business. It is not a long term career; seems to me workers don't learn much to help in the long term, except some people (and maybe money) skills. The whole thing about selling their sexuality, instead of exchanging their care and love, can easily mess up their attitudes. I do like the sometimes apparent confidence-building skills and how to take care of themselves (independence health and appearance), but that can be had in other careers.

But what do I know really? I have no progeny. I just have an ex-dancer GF.

xdamage
10-21-2005, 01:28 PM
First off, I don't have any kids.


That makes all the difference. For all the things you might think you will feel, it's not until you hold your baby girl for the first time, or take care of her for years that the parental instincts really make sense.



I hope not. That would be pretty hypocritical of me, wouldn't it?

Hypocracy isn't the worst of human traits except to the kiddies with bpd like minds who can't accept that adults don't have simple all or nothing, black or white, on or off, feelings and thoughts. Personally I think self deception is a much worse (and unfortunately much more common) trait.

Its far more important to understand how you real feel and think, seeing the conflicting feelings and thoughts, than it is to build up false images of yourself because of fear of seeing yourself (or having others see you) as a hypocrit. As with most emotionally charged things (and believe me, when it comes to your own kids your sense of protectiveness runs far deeper than what you rationally think you will feel) it's normal to have mixed feelings about things.

If it was me I wouldn't be happy about it, and I'd worry about her physical safety and mental well being, but it also wouldn't change that I love her because of it.

dlabtot
10-21-2005, 02:37 PM
^^^ perhaps hypocritical was the wrong word. I certainly did not mean to imply that I give a fuck what other people think of me. What I mean is that I do respect some of the dancers I know, and I don't think they have anything to be ashamed of. (There are some who are not in that category, as well, of course.) Therefore, if my hypothetical daughter, (who of course would be the nicest, smartest, sanest girl on the Earth, lol), were dancing, I don't think she'd have anything to be ashamed of either.

The original poster asked: What if she were not only a dancer, but one who gives as much mileage as you're personally used to looking for from a dancer? What would you think of her then? How much mileage would she have to give to change your opinion of her?

And that's what I addressed in my post. I'm not really looking for 'mileage' from a dancer because in the clubs I go to, there really is no 'mileage'. But yes, I would be disappointed to learn that my daughter were an 'extras girl'.

mr_punk
10-21-2005, 07:51 PM
Check out this link: http://www.aspd.net/showthread.php?...15&pagenumber=1i don't know...something about that post rings false to me. the disguise, the notion that ASPD turned his daughter into a stripper, the hard life lesson and repentance at the end, etc. his tale seems a little too convenient and pat to me.

I would have loved to respond to it, but not only are females not allowed to post in that jock itch locker room, I had my account disabled because of the horrible pieces of shit that moderate that site.sigh..what did you do this time, kat? j/k..

xdamage
10-22-2005, 11:51 AM
^^^ perhaps hypocritical was the wrong word. I certainly did not mean to imply that I give a fuck what other people think of me. What I mean is that I do respect some of the dancers I know, and I don't think they have anything to be ashamed of. (There are some who are not in that category, as well, of course.) Therefore, if my hypothetical daughter, (who of course would be the nicest, smartest, sanest girl on the Earth, lol), were dancing, I don't think she'd have anything to be ashamed of either.

The original poster asked: What if she were not only a dancer, but one who gives as much mileage as you're personally used to looking for from a dancer? What would you think of her then? How much mileage would she have to give to change your opinion of her?

And that's what I addressed in my post. I'm not really looking for 'mileage' from a dancer because in the clubs I go to, there really is no 'mileage'. But yes, I would be disappointed to learn that my daughter were an 'extras girl'.

There are 7 billion people on the planet. Of those 2 are our parents, and a few are our kids. We tend to see our kids and our parents differently then we see others. The hypocricy if any in terms of how we see these few out of 7 billion is sort of irrelevant to me. On the other hand if you generally didnt approve of women that were strippers (or vice versa, strippers that dont approve of people who are customers) I'd find that more interesting to discuss. Our kids though or our parents? No big deal to me that we hold those few people in our lives to a somewhat different standard (at least in part).

dlabtot
10-22-2005, 12:05 PM
There are 7 billion people on the planet. Of those 2 are our parents, and a few are our kids. We tend to see our kids and our parents differently then we see others. The hypocricy if any in terms of how we see these few out of 7 billion is sort of irrelevant to me. On the other hand if you generally didnt approve of women that were strippers (or vice versa, strippers that dont approve of people who are customers) I'd find that more interesting to discuss. Our kids though or our parents? No big deal to me that we hold those few people in our lives to a somewhat different standard (at least in part).

I have no idea in what way this is related to the post of mine that you quoted.

xdamage
10-22-2005, 04:55 PM
I have no idea in what way this is related to the post of mine that you quoted.

The question is loaded because our daughters, and how we feel about them, is not the same to us as the other 3.5 billion women on the planet. Until/if a guy has one and raised one, I think they are kidding themselves that it comes down to if she is doing extras or not (they way they might think about this if the question applied to for every other woman on the planet). Likewise a stripper will have somewhat different feelings about seeing her own son, or father spending hundreds or thousands on VIP grind sessions, or if her son became a stripper, then she would for the thousands of other men she sees monthly. But until she is actually in a situation like that, she might not realize how she is really going to feel in the situation.

xdamage
10-23-2005, 03:50 AM
There were no stripclubs in Soviet Union. As far as my parents understanding, girls who strip are whores and am embarassment to the family. They were ok with me being a waitress in a strip club though after lots of arguement and debate. But that's an entirely different job.....

I wanted to comment on this but forgot too. I guess you already know that as badly as your parents handled this (your dad I assume far worse than your mom) when it comes to dads, well when it comes to our daughter we don't always know what to say, or do. Scratch that. We know, but feelings can outweigh thoughts, and when it comes to our daugthers I know I can be almost irrationally over protective. What can I say? You can look at it as a bad thing or a good thing. There are plenty of men who will go out of their way to take advantage of you, but only one dad who will do anything for you to see to it that you are safe, have a bright future. Sometimes we fuck up and over react.

blonddarlin
11-01-2005, 06:31 PM
If my situation counts, the biggest encouragement for me to strip has come from a 61 y/o man I drag race for, and he's also my neighbor. He's basically my second dad-- we talk about everything, from strippers to me getting breast augmentation to a new motor in my truck. He considers himself "a professional stripper watcher." He knew I was interested in it from the questions I asked when he'd tell his wild stories. When I finally admitted that I might want to, he told me I'd be perfect for it. Now that I'm seriously looking into it, he's thrilled, and has been offering me advice on the clubs in my area (granted, he hasn't frequented them as much as in earlier years).
He does have a son, and we've never talked about high contact or mileage. He's not a sicko, his wife knows about it (I basically consider, and even call her, my stepmom too). I know he worries about men coming after me, as this has happened when I worked in a gas station, and now that I'm at college, he's advised me to carry pepper spray.
He just has a great appreciation for strippers, as women and not just as sex objects. He considers (in a non-immediately-sexual way) me to be a very good looking girl that likes to play with men. He's even asked me to do a sexy (but not nude) photo shoot with my truck, to go along with the stripper-on-bikes pictures he has in his shop.
Just my situation. *shrug* Oh, and my real father does NOT know, and I have a great relationship with my real parents.

Katrine
11-02-2005, 05:31 PM
I wanted to comment on this but forgot too. I guess you already know that as badly as your parents handled this (your dad I assume far worse than your mom) when it comes to dads, well when it comes to our daughter we don't always know what to say, or do.

1. When I got hired as a cocktail waitress in an SC, my mom freaked out about the idea of me working in such a horrible place. But my dad was trill with it, and convinced my mom to let me take the job. So the environment itself wasn't his problem.

2. BUT, when he found my friend's rhinestone velvet thong on the dryer and then encountered us in the bathroom applying fake eyelashes, he fucking flipped!! I denied dancing topless, so he assumed I was a prostitute because of the eye makeup. I've been performing professionally in non-sexual dance/theatre for years, but of course he's never seen the bells and whistles it takes to perform onstage, including the whorishly heavy makeup required for the bright lights.

This time, my mom calmed him down and convinced him that his wonderful little daddy's girl would NEVER lower herself to being a stripper or a whore. She convinced him of this over the phone, thousands of miles away in Moscow. If she was there that day....the situation might have been different.


I don't want to have children......ever.

JC2006
11-02-2005, 08:39 PM
I've been performing professionally in non-sexual dance/theatre for years, but of course he's never seen the bells and whistles it takes to perform onstage, including the whorishly heavy makeup required for the bright lights.
Why is heavy makeup required for dance and theater performance? From what I understand, men are required to wear lots of makeup as well when performing. Do people without makeup really look that bad under the bright lights of the stage?

I'm thinking back to the live performances I've seen, including countless visits to strip clubs. All I can think when I see that much makeup is how obvious the makeup was and that it didn't really enhance the performer's appearance. Or is it not about appearance enhancement at all but just part of the stylistic expression of the costume?

blonddarlin
11-02-2005, 08:56 PM
So that you can see their features and expressions (aka "facials") from that far away. In competitive team dance, you're counted off for not having enough makeup.