Log in

View Full Version : Do's and Dont's with Dancers



Pages : 1 [2] 3 4

xdamage
10-22-2006, 07:52 PM
One is not treated as an object and a human at the same time. In fact "objectification" invokes/requires a dichotomy between objects and humans. This is what objectification MEANS.


I don't think most people think in such extreme terms. They don't see others as objects-only or as humans-only, but some mix of both at the same time, and it's a line that moves back and forth depending on the situation. Look up the word Ambivalence. This is just another such case, where people can see others as humans and objects at the same time. It's only a state of dichotomy if you're uncomfortable with the ambivalence.

Jenny
10-22-2006, 08:18 PM
CO - I think we've explored this before, and I just kind of threw up my hands at your full-out wrongness. I just have no idea how to approach it.

X - I am aware of what ambivalence means. But thank you so much for attempting to educate me. I'm sure your efforts to extend my vocabulary will come in handy one day when I attempt to graduate from high school. Because, like most strippers, I dropped out of ninth grade to support the 4 crack addicted children I already had. In any event, it is obviously a dichotomy - and I meant in the linguistic sense. Look up the word Structuralism. One may feel ambivalent about it - because ambivalence is a feeling, not a state of being - and OF COURSE that is uncomfortable. That is - to a person of any normal sensibility - an uncomfortable ambivalence (for that matter, ambivalence is kind of uncomfortable by nature). Anyone who just comfortably and soporifically accepts that dichotomy and the ambivalence that comes with it (which sort of neutralizes ambivalence, when you think about it) has a remarkable lack of self-exploration. But hey. I'm just the high school drop out stripper living in a trailer with my plethora of illegitimate children. So what do I know.

Jenny
10-22-2006, 10:04 PM
My point: one can have an ass, and wear pretty much anything or nothing and still be a human being with all the rights and privileges attendant thereon - that is, strapping on a pair of heels (whether in or out of the club) doesn't rob me of personhood.

CO has a long history of insisting that the difference between "finding a woman sexually attractive" and "objectifying" her is mere semantics.

And really, now I'm a SW meeting veteran - between GenWar and "the girls" I have all sorts of confirmation that I exist, that I am female and that I am working. All y'all who were betting that I was a 50 year old chubby man living in his mother's basement who spent all his mornings watching cartoons and eating cereal out of the box are just WRONG. Take that.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 06:30 AM
because ambivalence is a feeling, not a state of being - and OF COURSE that is uncomfortable. That is - to a person of any normal sensibility - an uncomfortable ambivalence (for that matter, ambivalence is kind of uncomfortable by nature). Anyone who just comfortably and soporifically accepts that dichotomy and the ambivalence that comes with it (which sort of neutralizes ambivalence, when you think about it) has a remarkable lack of self-exploration

I don't think so. I'd say quite the opposite. That because ambivalence is uncomfortable, it's easy to find ways to avoid it and run from it, one way being to swing to one feeling or another to avoid the discomfort of having multiple competing feelings. Nope, I'd say quite the contrary. You're not self exploring by avoiding that ambivalence. It's part of the human condition. If you want to understand it you have to look at it head on (no matter how uncomfortable it makes you feel).

Jenny
10-23-2006, 06:39 AM
There is a difference between "looking at its head" and resting on the false laurels of awareness of it, and claiming that makes you immune from self or outside criticism. That is just mental lethargy. But, you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 07:15 AM
There is a difference between "looking at its head" and resting on the false laurels of awareness of it, and claiming that makes you immune from self or outside criticism. That is just mental lethargy. But, you know, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Sure, and a difference between looking at it head on, and being oblivous to your own human nature when it's convienent for you.

Like Mr. P wrote,

"you know, it's funny how a stripper can say something like, "i just want his (ie: the customer) money" or 'you go girl! take his money!" and no customer raises an eyebrow or stages a protest on SW. yet, if a customer says, "i just want her ass". you girls call the NOW hotline."

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone baby

xdamage
10-23-2006, 08:35 AM
Jenny, it comes down to this for me. While I admire the notion that dehumanization isn't good, it's easy to get riled up about dehumanization in ways that affect us personally. So on a scale of awareness, 1 to 4, I rank it like so:

1.) Don't care about anything.

2.) Disliking dehumanization that affects "me" - oblivious or don't really care about dehumanization that benefits me.

3.) A neutral awareness of my own nature, i.e., an awareness of my own nature (See #2) including being aware of my tendencies to be more concerned about what benefits me.

4.) A true concern for the matter, i.e., so much so that I'm willing to stand up for what I believe even if I have to lose out in tangible ways (e.g., the CEO of a cigarette manufacturing company that decides to give up his high paying job to make a statement)

When I'm talking about is neutral awareness, I'm talking about #3, not #1. On the other hand I'm seeing your comments coming across as #2, you care, it upsets you that females are objectified,, but you care about the easy half, the half that affects you negatively. I can cope with #3 as at least we can have a neutral objective discussion about our own natures. #4, probably not going to happen. Like Mr. P wrote, you just don't see anyone standing up and being overly concerned about objectification except to the degrees that they benefit.

Casual Observer
10-23-2006, 08:52 AM
My point: one can have an ass, and wear pretty much anything or nothing and still be a human being with all the rights and privileges attendant thereon - that is, strapping on a pair of heels (whether in or out of the club) doesn't rob me of personhood.

Nor does it preclude you from being a sexual object, which does not have an inherently negative quality. It's your insistence that somehow sexual objectification is intrinsically wrong and uniquely misogynistic that strips credibility from your position, especially considering your choice of profession. We're simply not going to agree on this because you see stripping as something entirely different vis a vis the view of seasoned SC veterans of all stripes, from Mr. P to JZ and all of us in between.

JZ, my point of contention with Jenny is that she seems to see SCs as some sort of social engineering aberration that defies conventional wisdom regarding customer service issues simply because SCs are part of the sex industry. If you read Jenny's posts, half the time you're left scratching your head as to whether or not she's talking about SCs or hair salons.


And really, now I'm a SW meeting veteran - between GenWar and "the girls" I have all sorts of confirmation that I exist, that I am female and that I am working. All y'all who were betting that I was a 50 year old chubby man living in his mother's basement who spent all his mornings watching cartoons and eating cereal out of the box are just WRONG. Take that.

But how do we know GenWar's real? He could be a creation of you and Cally... ;)

doc-catfish
10-23-2006, 09:47 AM
This whole intellecual word splitting argument over what exactly constitutes "objectification" is nice and all, but umm, do you really think most dancers give a shit whether their clients respect them? (At least beyond the requisite expression of cordiality that one should show to others in public?)

I just assumed most dancers would prefer their rent get paid for their work as opposed to hearing "I respect you as a human being" from the people they entertain. I mean respect is nice and all, but it doesn't put bread on the table.

And if a dancer is uncomfortable with her role in this biz, and can't stand the fact that she's making money appealing to men's prurient urges, well...she's always free to go do something else.

Jenny
10-23-2006, 09:50 AM
Sure, and a difference between looking at it head on, and being oblivous to your own human nature when it's convienent for you.

Like Mr. P wrote,

"you know, it's funny how a stripper can say something like, "i just want his (ie: the customer) money" or 'you go girl! take his money!" and no customer raises an eyebrow or stages a protest on SW. yet, if a customer says, "i just want her ass". you girls call the NOW hotline."

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone baby

I did read and respond to our own little punky brewster at the time; in case you missed, in a nutshell: if indeed one would concede (as, incidentally, I am not at this time willing to do) that commerical relationships are dehumanizing and objectifying by nature, men are not being objectified as men or as customers in a strip club, but as consumers and to the same degree that we are all consumers in this society. Unless you are a fairly rabid Marxist, it is hard to get worked up over that kind of generic, untargetted objectification (if such objectification there is). Strippers/women are, in this instance, not be objectified as providers of a service (ie. the same way you might consider me (if indeed, you would consider me, and are not just bolstering what is, to you, a normal behaviour you don't want to acknowledge - notice, I have my doubts about this, but I still respond to your point rather than just saying "Oh you don't mean that.")), but as strippers/women. It is that targetted and specific behaviour to which I object, because, well, I'm not a rabid Marxist, and don't think that every commercial relationship is inherently dehumanizing. I thus think it is perfectly possible to engage with a stripper (in whatever manner, contact-wise, one is accustomed to engaging) and not objectify/dehumanize her. I think certain people here choose not to do so.

Some time, just for fun - you know, to shake things up, maybe you should do credit to your condescending platitudes about my intelligence and actually read and engage with what I say, rather than insisting that I think what you think and just can't admit it. There is a possibility that MY thoughts and YOUR thoughts qualitatively differ, and that my expression thereof is a reflection of that, rather than poor self-reflection.

Or you know - whatever helps you sleep at night.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 10:12 AM
I thus think it is perfectly possible to engage with a stripper (in whatever manner, contact-wise, one is accustomed to engaging) and not objectify/dehumanize her. I think certain people here choose not to do so.


And you argued vehemently when in another thread when I suggested that it's possible for strippers to work with customers, and not despise them, to actually see them as humans that you benefit from, versus just seeing them as contemptable walking wallets worthy of nothing more than to be pruned of every last $$.

As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same, except in one case you're dishing it out, and in the other you're having to take it.

But Doc is right that what difference does it make? As long as you get paid. But hey, if you're going to try and take the high morale ground, what do you expect but for the guys to say hey, wait, that's fine, but you're going to have to take up both sides or your going be called on the glaring and obvious inequality in your arguments.

Jenny
10-23-2006, 10:26 AM
And you argued vehemently when in another thread when I suggested that it's possible for strippers to work with customers, and not despise them, to actually see them as humans that you benefit from, versus just seeing them as contemptable walking wallets worthy of nothing more than to be pruned of every last $$.
No I didn't. I argued that it was possible that the strippers in question actually just disliked their customers, and weren't just projecting their own self-hatred, and that perhaps you were in a poor position to understand our feelings or motivations and were only in a position to project your own agenda and issue-laden feelings. I have never posited or postulated that strippers cannot like their customers (which, as I have said a thousand times, I have customers who have become friends, boyfriends and people that I very much enjoy); I simply postulated that some of them DO not.


As far as I'm concerned it's exactly the same, except in one case you're dishing it out, and in the other you're having to take it.
Well you might see some nuance if you... were at all interested in what I was thinking or saying instead of simply insisting that you know what all people think, and any indication to the contrary is just posturing.


But Doc is right that what difference does it make? As long as you get paid. But hey, if you're going to try and take the high morale ground, what do you expect but for the guys to say hey, wait, that's fine, but you're going to have to take up both sides or your going be called on the glaring and obvious inequality in your arguments.
Doc has a point insofar as many people in many fields prefer payment from customers than to hear that they "respect them" and strippers are no different. But the fact that my waitress would rather be paid/tipped than told she was respected, does not seem to change her/his status as person. That is reserved just for us. But I would point out that I (and I would be willing to bet that in this limited point most dancers agree with me) have no interest in a guy SAYING he respects me; I would prefer if he did (small "r") respect me insofar as he respects/should respect every other human being.

In fact consider what it means that he (and you) posit this as a choice - that I can be paid, OR treated as a human being and consider what you think that says about how the average strip club customer sees us. By contrast, I am pretty sure that this is not necessary behaviour, and that it is wholly optional and that many customers DON'T behave in such a way. It seems, offhand, that I accord customers much more respect and Respect than you do.

Jenny
10-23-2006, 10:44 AM
Nor does it preclude you from being a sexual object, which does not have an inherently negative quality.
Well, no. As I said, objectification is acted upon one. Technically wearing sneakers doesn't preclude me from being a sexual object, if someone else is objectifying me. However, what is really at issue here, I suspect is that a) that would outside of what you normatively understand to be desirable and b) outside of what you would normatively understand to be complicitous with the objectification.


It's your insistence that somehow sexual objectification is intrinsically wrong and uniquely misogynistic that strips credibility from your position,
Again - you have a fundamental misconception about what objectification means. You are just wrong. Like wholly and completely. With no ambiguity or alternate position. Wrong. Like there is nothing to argue here; all I can do is tell you again that there is a qualitative difference between objectification and desirability, whether we are using a feminist OR Marxist deconstruction (that is whether we are referring to sex, labour or money) and encourage you... gosh, I don't know. If you were actually interested in the topic you would have, doubtless, read something already. So you probably won't do it now just to demonstrate your own wrongness. See what I mean? There is nothing to argue. I have no option except to throw up my hands.


especially considering your choice of profession.
Well, of course my profession lends a tension here. I'm perfectly aware of that. I'm the one who gets irritated on the pink side because of the insistence that there is no tension between commodification and feminism. That doesn't make me uncredible. It makes me observant. Further, you might think that I am in a fairly good position to know/understand/evaluate this position BECAUSE of my profession.


We're simply not going to agree on this because you see stripping as something entirely different vis a vis the view of seasoned SC veterans of all stripes, from Mr. P to JZ and all of us in between.
I have no idea what you mean here - but, again, of course I do. I'm a stripper. You're a customer. And unlike most other provider/consumer relationships, there is a socially standard divide between us. I'm going to have a different perspective. Again, I don't see that makes me wrong. Note - I'm not saying you are clearly wrong because you are a customer, but because you have fundamental misconception on the sociological definition of a word.


JZ, my point of contention with Jenny is that she seems to see SCs as some sort of social engineering aberration that defies conventional wisdom regarding customer service issues simply because SCs are part of the sex industry. If you read Jenny's posts, half the time you're left scratching your head as to whether or not she's talking about SCs or hair salons.
Well, I think for some illustrative purposes there are useful comparisons to hair salons and waitresses; for others there are useful comparisons to dominatrices and prostitutes; for still others to private business owners. Ultimately, though, I think it is a little naive to see any sex trade as being truly or exactly like a more conventional one. I do think the industry is unique and ultimately should be judged in reference to itself.



But how do we know GenWar's real? He could be a creation of you and Cally... ;)
Ahh... I hadn't thought. Clearly I have not thought this through. However, I still have Cally, Scarlett and Molly to back me up as a non-male, non-50 year old, non-chubby working stripping woman. Surely you don't think I made ALL of them up? Can we get an IP check? Actually has anyone ever checked to see if I'm Tigerlily?

xdamage
10-23-2006, 11:50 AM
No I didn't. I argued that it was possible that the strippers in question actually just disliked their customers, and weren't just projecting their own self-hatred, and that perhaps you were in a poor position to understand our feelings or motivations and were only in a position to project your own agenda and issue-laden feelings.


So let's just consider the equivalent of that then. In your words, just different actors...

So it's possible that some customers just see strippers as sex objects, and they aren't just projecting their own self-hatred, and perhaps being a woman and a dancer you're in a poor position to understand their feelings and motivations and you're only in a position to project your own agend and issue-laden feelings.

If that's your argument - it's as weak as that. A great way to dodge having to deal with a tough issue, but nothing more. Alternatively, if you think it's a valid argument, then all we can say is that customers have as much right and reason to perceive their fellow humans as objects as the dancers do. AKA, stop whining about it because they are exercising the same right to hate and despise as women have the right to do.




I have never posited or postulated that strippers cannot like their customers (which, as I have said a thousand times, I have customers who have become friends, boyfriends and people that I very much enjoy); I simply postulated that some of them DO not.


Nobody was ever talking about NEVER EVER, but we were talking about what is semi-common coping behavior, despising the majority of one's customers while profiting off them . As I said, raising an exception (e.g., you know a few that have become friends) doesn't give any insight into what is the norm, or the motivations behind common behavior.

Jenny
10-23-2006, 12:08 PM
So let's just consider the equivalent of that then. In your words, just different actors...

So it's possible that some customers just see strippers as sex objects, and they aren't just projecting their own self-hatred, and perhaps being a woman and a dancer you're in a poor position to understand their feelings and motivations and you're only in a position to project your own agend and issue-laden feelings.

If that's your argument - it's as weak as that. A great way to dodge having to deal with a tough issue, but nothing more.
Um... actually, that is precisely right. I'm not arguing that some customers don't "just see strippers as sex objects." I'm arguing that they do. I've also never claimed to have any understanding or perspective except my own. That is not dodging any issue. That IS the issue. That strippers, simply by virtue of being strippers, don't become objects, that it is an act by you guys (some of you guys). I'm not telling punky that he sees strippers as objects - he is telling me that. My argument is that it is not a cool thing to do, not that he feels some way that he claims he doesn't feel.

Although - if I may give another example of your logic:
The sky is blue.
The ball is red.
One obviously doesn't necessitate the other. You can't just take out some words, put in other words and proclaim the comparison binding.


Nobody was ever talking about NEVER EVER, but we were talking about what is semi-common coping behavior, despising the majority of one's customers while profiting off them . As I said, raising an exception (e.g., you know a few that have become friends) doesn't give any insight into what is the norm, or the motivations behind common behavior.
Um - so my subjective experience is not relevant because it might not be common, but YOUR subjective experience is....because it is likely to be very common? Dude, how much sense does that not make? Again - dude. Perhaps we, as individuals and a group, are in a better position to know and understand our feelings than you, and that your projections are just that. I could go through a bunch of side evidence about why it is not, in any way, an irrational decision for some dancers to dislike their customers - in terms of motivatios behind the common behaviour you might consider that the motivations are actually rational and reasoned rather than knee-jerking that you are, in fact, a nice guy and that anyone who doesn't like you is a hypocrite (agenda-laden).

xdamage
10-23-2006, 03:24 PM
Again - dude. Perhaps we, as individuals and a group, are in a better position to know and understand our feelings than you, and that your projections are just that.

To be fair to you, you of course have every right to think or feel as you do, and noone can fully understand that until they've walked in your shoes. I can't completely relate. Now whether or not one has a clearer picture being inside or outside of a situation, well that's debatable.

My main reason for responding is this. Not only do I not relate completely to your situation, I also don't completely relate to Mr. Ps. For one thing, I like my strippers with heads. ;)

But there is a big difference between the two of you. Mr. P doesn't slather himself in frosting and tell us all what a wonderful human being he is. I can relate to his views that strippers are there for the most part to use every possible advantage to make money, likewise customers are there to take every possible advantage of their $$.

You on the other hand seem quite literally emotionally disturbed by men who admit, yes, to some degree customers see dancers are sex objects. While on the other hand when we try to get you to acknowledge that strippers often view customers as things to be used to get money from, even despised in the process, you spend a lot of time trying to sugar coat your reply rather than just saying, well yea, there is some mutual using going on.

I can cope fine with some mutual using. I don't hold against strippers for wanting to make money. That's what they do, and if I was them, living my life in their shoes, I'd be them and doing the same. But what I can't cope with is the boys are bad, girls are good spin.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 03:53 PM
Um... actually, that is precisely right. I'm not arguing that some customers don't "just see strippers as sex objects." I'm arguing that they do. I've also never claimed to have any understanding or perspective except my own. That is not dodging any issue. That IS the issue. That strippers, simply by virtue of being strippers, don't become objects, that it is an act by you guys (some of you guys). I'm not telling punky that he sees strippers as objects - he is telling me that. My argument is that it is not a cool thing to do, not that he feels some way that he claims he doesn't feel.


Actually I've read many of Mr. P's posts. He is made it fairly clear that when it comes to strippers, if they chose to say no he is fine with that. I can never tell if Mr. P is serious about the headless fetish, but in anycase...

But you say "it's not a cool thing to do" - and my point is, no more or less cool then when strippers treat customers as objects to be pruned for $$s. But yea, some of the things that happen in strip clubs are not cool, unless... Both parties accept that it's an artificial situation, where boundaries are pushed, and some objectification is going to happen, both directions.

But again, most customers, at least on these forums, perceive that strippers aren't objects, at least to a great degree. So I still object to this notion that objectification means that the customer isn't going to treat the stripper like a human being. Perhaps less so, but not completely so.

Still, let's not bury our heads in the sand and live in a fantasy world. Let's use a bad example to make a point...

If you have a pet, you know that pets instinctually like to eat. Pets are somewhat domesticated, but they are still partially animals. You know if you wave food in front of a wild animal there is a good chance it's going to attack you if it's hungry. If you do the same to a domesticated pet, there is a lesser chance, but still a chance. If you do the same to a hungry human, there's even a lesser chance, but still a chance. Now if you do something stupid like wave food in front of a wild animal, and it attacks, chances are at least some of the people are going to say, you know that was really stupid of you. Likewise if you go up to a hungry guy in alley and taunt him with food, and he attacks you to get the food, at least some of the people are going to say, that was really stupid of you.

You don't have to like it, but animals and humans are not black and white things. They are evolved things on a scale from very instinctual to partially instinctual.

Now if you decide to work in a strip club, and you wear sexually enticing clothes, and you act in sexually enticing ways, there is a chance that the humans in the crowd are going to act somewhat instinctually. You don't have to like it, and the law still requires humans control themselves, but you're being kind of stupid if you really don't expect them to act, in part, in ways that instinctual.

The sex drive is not completely rationale. It's very much instinctual. If you saw two animals acting on instinct, and irrationally having sex, it probably wouldn't occur to you that they aren't really thinking about each other's rights as "animals" at the moment. Humans are more evolved, but don't confuse objectification with billions of years of evolutionary instinct. The fact that guys don't have their mind completely on your humanity in the heat of the moment has nothing to do with you personally.

Jenny
10-23-2006, 04:24 PM
Actually I've read many of Mr. P's posts. He is made it fairly clear that when it comes to strippers, if they chose to say no he is fine with that. I can never tell if Mr. P is serious about the headless fetish, but in anycase...
I don't get what that has to do with anything. I never accused mr. p of sexually assaulting strippers, and honestly, I wouldn't think that he does. I think it is a little weird that it occurs to you.


But you say "it's not a cool thing to do" - and my point is, no more or less cool then when strippers treat customers as objects to be pruned for $s. But yea, some of the things that happen in strip clubs are not cool, unless... Both parties accept that it's an artificial situation, where boundaries are pushed, and some objectification is going to happen, both directions.
Okay. We have gone through 10 000 pages, and I've said at least 10 times a page - customers, if they are objectified at all, are objectified in a normal consumer relationship. That is, they are not objectified as men or a group but in the same way we are all objectified as consumers. So there is no "special treatment" as it were. I know you've read this. I'm pretty sure you understand what it means. I cannot help but notice that you haven't responded to it at all, but keep repeating the point that it is refuting.


But again, most customers, at least on these forums, perceive that strippers aren't objects, at least to a great degree. So I still object to this notion that objectification means that the customer isn't going to treat the stripper like a human being. Perhaps less so, but not completely so.
Okay. How is one treated like an object and a person at the same time?


Still, let's not bury our heads in the sand and live in a fantasy world. Let's use a bad example to make a point...
Oh, shall we not? What exactly makes my perceptions and experience of the world fantasy and your's real? I'm pretty sure that you are living in a warm fog of self-delusion.


If you have a pet, you know that pets instinctually like to eat. Pets are somewhat domesticated, but they are still partially animals.
I would say that they are wholly animals.


You don't have to like it, but animals and humans are not black and white things. They are evolved things on a scale from very instinctual to partially instinctual.

Now if you decide to work in a strip club, and you wear sexually enticing clothes, and you act in sexually enticing ways, there is a chance that the humans in the crowd are going to act somewhat instinctually. You don't have to like it, and the law still requires humans control themselves, but you're being kind of stupid if you really don't expect them to act, in part, in ways that instinctual.
Okay. You're right. This is a bad example. Because it is, I am sorry to say, stupid. It is not instinctual, in any sense, to objectify people. Objectification is on the opposite end of whatever instinct spectrum there is. It would be on the culture side of Culture.....Nature. It sounds like you are saying that people get sexually aroused... they can't help it, and I'm demanding that they don't. And frankly, the parallel you used make it sound that you are, to some degree, justifying sexual assault. I hope you weren't, but another reason you're example is bad. In any event, I'm not saying that men or customers are nasty and bad because they get turned on.


The sex drive is not completely rationale. It's very much instinctual.
It's sort of cute and extremely childish to act like these are the only two options. Like "if it's not rational, it's instinctive. Let's just accept our dark side and move on."


If you saw two animals acting on instinct, and irrationally having sex, it probably wouldn't occur to you that they aren't really thinking about each other's rights as "animals" at the moment.
No, I don't. And I don't characterize it as irrational, because "rationality" is not an appropriate measure or descriptor for animals.

And my roommate's dog would never get on a message board and type out that he really prefers his bitches without heads.


Humans are more evolved, but don't confuse objectification with billions of years of evolutionary instinct. The fact that guys don't have their mind completely on your humanity in the heat of the moment has nothing to do with you personally.
Well, gosh, thanks. Okay, I won't. See - there you go. I'm sitting here not confusing it. As I said - the issue is not that men get aroused. And I know it has nothing to do with me personally.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 04:32 PM
Okay. How is one treated like an object and a person at the same time?


If you have to ask, then I can't answer. Eventually I hope you understand it.



It's sort of cute and extremely childish to act like these are the only two options. Like "if it's not rational, it's instinctive. Let's just accept our dark side and move on."


I never said there were only two options. I thought I was being clear it's a grey scale.

In any case, I'm done. It's apparent you don't have the ability to see the middle ground. No matter what I write, you are going to see it as all or nothing, so this is a waste of time.

Jenny
10-23-2006, 04:35 PM
But there is a big difference between the two of you. Mr. P doesn't slather himself in frosting and tell us all what a wonderful human being he is.
I don't either. I think I'm a NORMAL human being. I think all y'all are just below average.


You on the other hand seem quite literally emotionally disturbed by men who admit, yes, to some degree customers see dancers are sex objects. While on the other hand when we try to get you to acknowledge that strippers often view customers as things to be used to get money from, even despised in the process, you spend a lot of time trying to sugar coat your reply rather than just saying, well yea, there is some mutual using going on.
Hmm. I don't understand. I think I wrote a rousing and lengthy diatribe on how strippers DO sometimes dislike or despise their customers. I don't think I sugar coated or denied that - I just denied that they were projected their own self-hatred onto the customers. And I've acknowledged a thousand times that customers are engaged in a consumer relationship (i.e. that strippers want their money); I'm just not entirely sure that the particular relationship differs from the way that we are objectified (if objectified we are) in EVERY consumer relationship and thus is different or separate from the normal human experience in consumer society. Like I said - I'm not a rabid Marxist (the fact that I'm Canadian notwithstanding). Although I have acknowledged a thousand times, in my trip reports if nowhere else, that strippers and customer frequently have mutual beneficial relationships; however I don't think that the two modes of "objectification" (if there are two different modes of objectification) are qualitatively the same, no. I don't think that is sugar coating, and I flatter myself that it is, at least on the face of it, a coherent and consistent position.


I can cope fine with some mutual using. I don't hold against strippers for wanting to make money. That's what they do, and if I was them, living my life in their shoes, I'd be them and doing the same. But what I can't cope with is the boys are bad, girls are good spin.
Well, of course you can't cope with that. You have a) an agenda and don't like that this "spin" may be making you culpable; and, really, I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge your own inherent prejudice and self-aggrandizement and b)that is a childish, half-read, wilfully misunderstood and grossly oversimplified summary.

doc-catfish
10-23-2006, 04:51 PM
I can never tell if Mr. P is serious about the headless fetish, but in anycase...
A little deductive reasoning would lead one to conclude Punkster's "headless" commentary is simply about shock value.

For example:

1. Mr. P has many times cited on here his mongering for BBBJ's from dancers.

2. BBBJ's are a little hard to get from a stripper without a head.

And if there is a way that a BBBJ and a headless stripper can be reconciled, well, I don't wanna know, esspecially with Halloween coming up next week.
:yikes:

Jenny
10-23-2006, 05:11 PM
A little deductive reasoning would lead one to conclude Punkster's "headless" commentary is simply about shock value.

For example:

1. Mr. P has many times cited on here his mongering for BBBJ's from dancers.

2. BBBJ's are a little hard to get from a stripper without a head.

And if there is a way that a BBBJ and a headless stripper can be reconciled, well, I don't wanna know, esspecially with Halloween coming up next week.
:yikes:
Well. There is that expression "throat fucking."
Hee hee. I'm gross.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 05:34 PM
A little deductive reasoning would lead one to conclude Punkster's "headless" commentary is simply about shock value.

For example:

1. Mr. P has many times cited on here his mongering for BBBJ's from dancers.

2. BBBJ's are a little hard to get from a stripper without a head.

And if there is a way that a BBBJ and a headless stripper can be reconciled, well, I don't wanna know, esspecially with Halloween coming up next week.
:yikes:

Damn, that actually made sense!

Katrine
10-23-2006, 08:37 PM
Ha! I think I've found what I'm going to be for Halloween this year! Yippee, a decapitated stripper. Now how am I going to walk in those heels without any ocular assistance?

mr_punk
10-23-2006, 08:44 PM
My point: one can have an ass, and wear pretty much anything or nothing and still be a human being with all the rights and privileges attendant thereon - that is, strapping on a pair of heels (whether in or out of the club) doesn't rob me of personhood.ROTFLMAO..oh, everyone knows your point. ironically, earlier in this thread there was a discussion about the notion of a "gentleman" in a sc. at one point, easy_e incorrectly assumed that xdamage was suggesting the antithesis of a "gentleman". IMO, you're making the same clueless error by assuming we're suggesting the antithesis of respect.

It's your insistence that somehow sexual objectification is intrinsically wrong and uniquely misogynistic that strips credibility from your position, especially considering your choice of profession.well, it's not surprising to me at all. can you say,"canadian, radical, feminist?".

anyway, since jenny's having trouble. here's the Dick and Jane version:

daddy, what does objectification in the sc mean?

one day, a woman dresses herself in her four-inch platforms and booty shorts. why does she dress like the neighborhood skank, you ask? well, boys and girls, she's a stripper. the four-inch platforms, booty shorts and three layers of make-up are like tools. you see, the shoes make her ass seem even rounder and the booty shorts display her ass for maximum attention and profit.

can you say,"cha-ching"? see? i knew you could. anyway, strippers love attention and displaying their naughty bits for strange men gets her lots of attention. most importantly, it also gets her money and strippers love money. which is why you often see them happily working the floor attention-whoring like a streetwalker at Hooker's Point.

you see, kids. when strippers dress up in their special costumes. she's sending out a special message to the strange men. she saying, "look at me! look at tits! give me $20 because my ass is hanging out!".

so, when the strange men see the stripper who is objectifying herself by dressing like a tart in order to get their attention and money. they, in turn, lustfully react by objectifying the stripper. which is the whole point of the exercise in the sc.


published and copyrighted by SCJ Media.

note: no stripper's human rights and privileges were denied during the writing of this book.

mr_punk
10-23-2006, 09:02 PM
And if there is a way that a BBBJ and a headless stripper can be reconciled, well, I don't wanna know, esspecially with Halloween coming up next week.oh, every day is Halloween for me.

Ha! I think I've found what I'm going to be for Halloween this year! Yippee, a decapitated stripper. Now how am I going to walk in those heels without any ocular assistance?simple..i can put your head in a plexiglass box filled with a nutritive fluid and you can carry it around with you. although, i haven't quite worked the bugs out of reattaching the head to the body.

xdamage
10-23-2006, 09:13 PM
IMO, you're making the same clueless error by assuming we're suggesting the antithesis of respect.

A-fucking-men.



anyway, since jenny's having trouble. here's the Dick and Jane version:

daddy, what does objectification in the sc mean?



ROFLAMO

Jenny
10-23-2006, 09:59 PM
ROTFLMAO..oh, everyone knows your point. ironically, earlier in this thread there was a discussion about the notion of a "gentleman" in a sc. at one point, easy_e incorrectly assumed that xdamage was suggesting the antithesis of a "gentleman". IMO, you're making the same clueless error by assuming we're suggesting the antithesis of respect.
Really? I actually think it is kind of interesting that in the passage you quoted the word "respect" doesn't even appear. But notwithstanding - I actually feel pretty safe in asserting that you do not treat strippers (or women) with respect simply based on what you post here. Look at your post and count the descriptors you use for stripper - skank, whore, streetwalker, hooker. And don't even bother trying to tell me that you were using the terms neutrally. I mean, you think you're funny and that you can post what you want. And you can. However, you can't claim after like 10 years of striving for more creative ways of calling strippers stupid cum buckets that you are within a catapult's throw of respect, or even anything but disrespectful. In fact, I'd be surprised if anyone would characterize the word "disrespect" as applied in this context as anything but restrained and accurate.


anyway, since jenny's having trouble. here's the Dick and Jane version:
And...blah, blah, blah. You say you get my point, but... okay this is what is happening:
- I say that strippers are people not objects, and you say but they are wearing high heels.
-I say that isn't the point, that a person can wear high heels and still not be an object and you say but they are wearing high heels.
-I say that I realize they are wearing high heels and they can wear high heels and be sexually attractive and still not be objects and you say but they are wearing high heels.

And you really mean to assert that I'm having trouble? Talking down to me is not going to make your point. For that you actually need a point. And, honestly, you hit more gross than funny on this anyway. Frankly you are doing a typical guy thing in which you want to normalize and neutralize the objectification by claiming that it is the same as desire, and so are pointing at stripper paraphanalia and crying out "no, no, it's her fault, it's her fault. Just look at how she's dressed."


note: no stripper's human rights and privileges were denied during the writing of this book.
Actually I think mine kind of were.

mr_punk
10-24-2006, 05:57 AM
Really? I actually think it is kind of interesting that in the passage you quoted the word "respect" doesn't even appear.oh, stop it. i even used small "r".

Look at your post and count the descriptors you use for stripper - skank, whore, streetwalker, hooker.hey, i restrained myself from using the word "donkey punch" (LOL..that word always cracks me up). perhaps, that's a small sign that i'm becoming a more feminized PL.

And...blah, blah, blah. You say you get my point, but... okay this is what is happening:<snipped clueless response>LOL..you can be "sexually desirable" to someone in a sc by rolling out of bed and putting on potato sack. granted, the guy probably has to be kinky, really horny or have his beer goggles on. still, i KNOW you don't wear such a get-up to the sc. no, you willingly skank it up and objectify yourself like the rest of the strippers....not that there's anything wrong with that. but hey, i could be wrong. tell me, how much money and attention do you get working the floor in flip-flops, granny panties and hair curlers?

Talking down to me is not going to make your point.please, i'm not talking down to you. in fact, i think you understand me perfectly well. however, i'm never going to meet the radical feminist/stripper idea of respect. which is a customer baking cookies and rolling over like a whipped PL when she cracks her whip.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 07:10 AM
hey, i restrained myself from using the word "donkey punch" (LOL..that word always cracks me up). perhaps, that's a small sign that i'm becoming a more feminized PL.
Oh, I didn't realize you were using restraint. Suddenly the word "skank" has very different connotations. Maybe I'll put it in my mother's birthday card. "Dear Mum. I love you. Happy Birthday, you big skank! xoxo"


LOL..you can be "sexually desirable" to someone in a sc by rolling out of bed and putting on potato sack. granted, the guy probably has to be kinky, really horny or have his beer goggles on. still, i KNOW you don't wear such a get-up to the sc. no, you willingly skank it up and objectify yourself like the rest of the strippers....not that there's anything wrong with that. but hey, i could be wrong. tell me, how much money and attention do you get working the floor in flip-flops, granny panties and hair curlers?
Okay, the snipped clueless response actually seems to be a pretty good descriptor here, because we just did another round. "But look at what she's wearing!" My entire point is that it doesn't MATTER what she is wearing, and that objectification is not synonymous with desire or arousal. Out of curiosity - if I did go to work in granny panties and hair curlers - or went to work without the usual accroutrement of strippers (which incidentally, happened once when I was in Guam. I did make money, funny story), and guys were still turned on, and I still made money - would I still be objectified? Would I then have position to object? How about if instead of the super high heels you are focussing on I wore kitten-heels? Or dansneakers (as one girl at my club does; there was some kind of car accident, she can't wear high heels)? Now that my ass is appropriately tucked in, do I have standing?

Edit: just so you realize, my suspicion is that, no. I will not gain standing to object, nor will I be any less an object (you are simply assuming that I will be a less sexually desirable object). My suspicion is that it is my presence and role in the strip club that is the problem, not my clothing.


please, i'm not talking down to you. in fact, i think you understand me perfectly well. however, i'm never going to meet the radical feminist/stripper idea of respect. which is a customer baking cookies and rolling over like a whipped PL when she cracks her whip.
Dammit. I really wanted some cookies. You can't even make me just a few cookies? You don't even have to use the different kinds of chips. C'mon. I'll put on super-high heels.

easy_e
10-24-2006, 07:22 AM
ROTFLMAO..ironically, earlier in this thread there was a discussion about the notion of a "gentleman" in a sc. at one point, easy_e incorrectly assumed that xdamage was suggesting the antithesis of a "gentleman".
I never made that assumption, I was simply trying to make the point that I prefer to treat strippers as human beings. Of course they are soliciting and profiting from male attention, thats their job. So what? The two statements are not mutually exclusive.
Obviously, being a gentleman at the SC is different than being a gentleman at a church social or RL for that matter. For example, if I grab the cute waitresses ass at Chili's, I would most likely be arrested. If I grab a cute stripper's ass, she would correctly assume I want a dance and most likely not be offended. I would buy her a drink and converse like one person to another. Then I would enjoy my dances without partaking of anything not offered. That's being a gentleman in the SC.

xdamage
10-24-2006, 07:27 AM
LOL..you can be "sexually desirable" to someone in a sc by rolling out of bed and putting on potato sack. granted, the guy probably has to be kinky, really horny or have his beer goggles on. still, i KNOW you don't wear such a get-up to the sc. no, you willingly skank it up and objectify yourself like the rest of the strippers....not that there's anything wrong with that. but hey, i could be wrong. tell me, how much money and attention do you get working the floor in flip-flops, granny panties and hair curlers?


There is the old saying that the only thing more difficult for a stripper to deal with then "sexual objectification" is the days when she grows older, men stop looking, and treat her like a "human".



never made that assumption,


Perhaps poor wording on your part then. It came across as if a guy is not a "gentlemen" the alternative is being a "Mr. Hyde", like there is nothing else in between.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 07:38 AM
I dunno. I would suggest that easy's definition of "gentleman" is expansive and generous - I mean, treating her like a human being! - such that a reasonable person could define behaviour outside of it as Hydish. He is not defining "gentleman" in terms of strict etiquette or high standards of courtesy (at least so it seems to me).

xdamage
10-24-2006, 07:43 AM
Being expansive and generous is appropriate with a woman OTC.

ITC, where the woman sees the guy as a walking wallet, there is a fine line between what is being a gentlemen, and what is being a chump.

When the strippers confuse the two, that makes them the PL.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 07:45 AM
Being expansive and generous is appropriate with a woman OTC.

ITC, where the woman sees the guy as a walking wallet, there is a fine line between what is being a gentlemen, and what is being a chump.

When the strippers confuse the two, that makes them the PL.
You have misunderstood yet again. "Expansive and generous" modified the word "definition" not "gentleman." His definition was expansive and generous (meaning it encompassed a wide range of behaviour), not his idea of gentleman (about which he has said nothing regarding generosity).

xdamage
10-24-2006, 08:45 AM
I mean, treating her like a human being! - such that a reasonable person could define behaviour outside of it as Hydish.

Those same reasonable people wouldn't define a strippers behavior as lady like OTC, so I don't really care if those people are unable to grasp that what is considered normal behavior ITC isn't exactly the same as OTC.

If those people did define strippers behavior as lady-like, there'd be no reason for a guy to go into a club and pay for it. For example, it's not lady like for a woman to grind on a taken guys cock for $20. But if this was considered lady like behavior, I could find some lady at Starbucks to grind my cock for $20 over my morning shots of coffee. And she'd say thank you sir, you've been such a fine gentlemen for allowing me to grind on your cock over scones and java.

easy_e
10-24-2006, 09:07 AM
Perhaps poor wording on your part then. It came across as if a guy is not a "gentlemen" the alternative is being a "Mr. Hyde", like there is nothing else in between.
Of course there's a gray area. The Mr. Hyde analagy is that for some, a SC is like Jekyll's potion, turning man into beast with a built-in excuse. Not to say the inner-pirate (or pervert) is not going to come out in the SC, as I agreed in your earlier post.

If those people did define strippers behavior as lady-like, there'd be no reason for a guy to go into a club and pay for it. For example, it's not lady like for a woman to grind on a taken guys cock for $20.
Different venue, different rules. See my Chili's example above. I never said you have to treat strippers like the Virgin Mary, just like human beings. Just because they grind or whatever for a living does not make them children of a lesser god.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 09:31 AM
If those people did define strippers behavior as lady-like, there'd be no reason for a guy to go into a club and pay for it. For example, it's not lady like for a woman to grind on a taken guys cock for $20. But if this was considered lady like behavior, I could find some lady at Starbucks to grind my cock for $20 over my morning shots of coffee. And she'd say thank you sir, you've been such a fine gentlemen for allowing me to grind on your cock over scones and java.
Well, let's see - all the assumptions implicit in the above statement... cannot deconstruct... okay, I hope you're happy. My head just exploded.
A) You might consider that there is something more than "lady like" behaviour at work in people's decisions on what to do for a living or recreationally. Fixing cars isn't ladylike either. Some women still like to do it, and those that don't (like me) frequently have reasons that have nothing to do with its status as "ladylike".
B) What does being lady like have to do with treating her like a human being? For the life of me, I cannot figure out a rational connection between your post and what you quoted.
C) I think I already said that his definition of gentlemen seems to be expansive and generous enough that it encompassed pretty much all behaviour that was courteous and human. So if we apply a similarly expansive and generous to the term "ladylike" we are still left with a wide, wide behaviour that is contextually appropriate
D) When I'm not in the club I cross my legs at the knee. Not the ankle. And sometimes I just don't cross my legs at all. Or I cross them yoga style with my crotch just out there for anyone to look at (when I'm wearing pants. There are some depths to which even I will not go. Showing my underpants off in public is just too nasty). This is not ladylike behaviour. Is it now okay to treat me like a thing? If every person predicates decent behaviour and courtesy on the courtesy and standing of others (that is - other people have to do it first) however will we manage to co-exist? Fortunately people generally don't do that. They presume that a certain amount of courtesy, politeness and humanity is required in day to day interactions - except with us, of course. We don't count.

xdamage
10-24-2006, 09:33 AM
Of course there's a gray area. The Mr. Hyde analagy is that for some, a SC is like Jekyll's potion, turning man into beast with a built-in excuse. Not to say the inner-pirate (or pervert) is not going to come out in the SC, as I agreed in your earlier post.


/nod

I'll concede that you understand there is a large grey area here. So the wording was misleading.



Different venue, different rules. See my Chili's example above. I never said you have to treat strippers like the Virgin Mary, just like human beings. Just because they grind or whatever for a living does not make them children of a lesser god.


Sure.

Here is the thing. We've all been in stripclubs. I bet any of us can point out the creepy fuckers with 90% accuracy. These guys are creepy in or out of the club. ITC it's up to the strippers and bouncers to deal with the equation of "how badly do I want his money/how much creepy behavior can I put up with". But of course that's not what Mr. P or any customer here is talking about. Nobody is suggesting rape, or force, or even making the strippers uncomfortable. AFAIK, most of the customers on these forums have no issue at all with strippers setting their limits.

What J doesn't seem to grasp though (or just enjoys arguing about) is that customers can see strippers as both sex objects and as humans at the same time, that the strippers limits are still respected, while customers enjoy the sexual aspects of the entertainment. Just like I don't really give a fuck that my waiter or waitress at a restaurant is a human being, I just want him/her to do her job and serve my food on time with a smile, I also don't mistreat him/her as a human being or make him/her do anything she refuses to do. They don't have to like serving me, they just have to do it, or no ti. All of us have to work. None of us get to do everything we want when we work. Most of us have to suck it up sometimes and smile when we'd rather not. If a stripper can't cope with being thought of (in part) as a sex object, she is either:

o Naive

o In the wrong job

o Being a PL

o Or is a drama queen that thinks of her life like Star Wars where the strippers are the rebels, the male customers are the big bad Evil Empire, and she is the Star of a never ending Drama that revolves around her. What fun!

The SC is not a social experiment. It's a job. If you don't like being an entertainer, seen as an entertainer first, a human being second, do something else or learn to suck it up because it won't change.

xdamage
10-24-2006, 09:42 AM
Well, let's see - all the assumptions implicit in the above statement... cannot deconstruct... okay, I hope you're happy. My head just exploded.


Honestly Jenny, I just think you want to argue because you want to somehow the situation as:

You are good, and just a victim, and whatever is bad in the SC isn't your fault or responsibility.

On the flip side, men/customers suck.

Nice, simple, and polarized.

Okay, so fine, strippers are just victims, who are at the mercy of what males make them do and feel, and they have no control over their own destiny, choices or feelings, and you're right, those evil males objectifying women because they like to make women feel bad. There is no intertwinment with others in society. You should be able to do anything you want and if a male customer acts badly ITC, you're own actions are not all intertwined with that. That's his choice. Likewise, it's perfectly innocent to objectify male customers because it's a job, and the poor stripper doesn't have any other choices but to objectify men for $$s because she has to make $$ to eat. Also, males are bad, and women are good - that's so easy to get one's head around - it doesn't make anyone's brain explode.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 09:52 AM
/nod
What J doesn't seem to grasp though (or just enjoys arguing about) is that customers can see strippers as both sex objects and as humans at the same time, that the strippers limits are still respected, while customers enjoy the sexual aspects of the entertainment.
Again. Sex Object is not the same as Sexually Desirable Person. Okay. I'm giving up. This is the impasse, and you are just wrong. You have a fundamental misconception (which apparently you share with a lot of people) about what objectification means. This is not a matter of different perspectives, or male and female pov. You just don't know what this means, so you are applying a social-normative feeling about what it means (that being sexy is the same as being a sex object, and all the other ideas that stem from that) based, from what I can gather, on comedians from the early nineties. I mean, they are funny, in the context of a comedy show or stand up, but... you know, that doesn't make it accurate.


If a stripper can't cope with being thought of (in part) as a sex object, she is either:

o a bunch of insulting and inaccurate stereotypes

Again. Thank you for taking complex feelings and reactions and reducing them to suit your agenda that strippers either like being objects or are stupid.


The SC is not a social experiment. It's a job. If you don't like being an entertainer, seen as an entertainer first, a human being second, do something else or learn to suck it up because it won't change.
Again, how naive. Everything is a social experiment insofar as you can use any institutionalized encounter to learn about the institution and those engaged therein. Although I don't think anything I, or for that matter anyone else, has said indicates that it is a controlled experiment.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 10:02 AM
Honestly Jenny, I just think you want to argue because you want to somehow the situation as:

You are good, and just a victim, and whatever is bad in the SC isn't your fault or responsibility.

On the flip side, men/customers suck.

Nice, simple, and polarized.
Wow. Based on everything I've posted both on this topic and in general, I think that perception would take some serious force of will on your part. Like I said - agenda, agenda, agenda. Maybe my argument and the way I see things is (I know, here I go again) more or less what I'm saying it is.

Okay, so fine, strippers are just blah, blah, blah.And again you exhibit perfectly that you have never actually read anything I've posted or, for that matter, anything about the subject matter of which we speak. I mean, I've responded to each and every one of those critiques (in particular I've pointed out the difference between objectification as a woman and as a consumer like 1000 times). You may not think I've responded adequately, but generally one would exhibit or comment on the inadequacy and discuss it rather than just repeating the point that was responded to. That means you should try to show (and these are not the only ways, I'm sure): why being objectified as a consumer is not as general as what I claim; why being objectified as a woman/stripper is not as specific as what I claim; why men in stripclubs are engaged in a different kind of consumer relationship (that strikes me as the winner, actually) that puts them in a special group. Not just say again "you objectify men as customers" again. That is ineffective, repetitive and will eventually bore even me (and I have a serious addiction to conflict).

xdamage
10-24-2006, 10:41 AM
Again. Sex Object is not the same as Sexually Desirable Person.


Strippers are sexually desirable entertainers, who go out of their way to emphasize the sexually desirable aspects. And like other people, in other jobs, they get treated somewhat more like the job they are employeed for then as "humans". Few of really care about the nit-picking of words about what is a sex object. It's a topic that feminists enjoy discussing, but often, like you, they have this mistaken notion that they are treated entirely like objects, or entirely like people, but can't seem to conceive that adult men don't think that way, just because they do think in such simplistic black or white terms. That's a very childlike way to think and frankly it's misguided, but understandable in that it's fun (in an immature way) to imagine oneself as the key figure in a worldwide conspiracy where men are evil, and women are good. But except for Borat in the movies, the truly stupid men among us, and the religious extremists, most men just don't think in simple she is an object, or she is a human terms. It's apparent that you really don't and apparently can't grasp that. That you had to ask me so how does one treat another like a person and an object at the same time is proof, you don't have the mind to get it. What's obvious to us is a major fallacy, you're still harping on about.

Still, the exact meaning of the term though has little relevance in terms of what is normal behavior ITC. When you go out of your way to play a role as a sexually desirable entertainer, it's to be expected that the audience is going to see the entertainer first, the person second. I think you're the only one that cares about the actual defiition of sexual objectification. And it doesn't change what is relevant or the behaviors people (strippers and customers) engage in ITC.




Again, how naive. Everything is a social experiment insofar as you can use any institutionalized encounter to learn about the institution and those engaged therein. Although I don't think anything I, or for that matter anyone else, has said indicates that it is a controlled experiment.

Life is what it is. If it makes you sleep better thinking of it as some kind of abstract experiment, enjoy.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 11:06 AM
Okay. You actually did respond to a point here, and I don't want to sound ungrateful. But, you know. I'm gonna.


Strippers are sexually desirable entertainers, who go out of their way to emphasize the sexually desirable aspects. And like other people, in other jobs, they get treated somewhat more like the job they are employeed for then as "humans".
You might say this is true; however one might argue that there is an issue of degree. As well one might say that this is the inherent difference between the feminist and Marxist deconstruction - as you say we are ALL treated as labourers. As labour-objects. That is not a special state, although to some people it is an objectionable one. Strippers are labour objects AND sex objects. The labour object is not the part I have issue with, not because I'm some kind of hypocrite but because I'm not really a Marxist.


Few of really care about the nit-picking of words about what is a sex object. It's a topic that feminists enjoy discussing, but often, like you, they have this mistaken notion that they are treated entirely like objects, or entirely like people,
Thank you for informing me that the entirety of academic feminism is wrong. I would say, again, however, that YOU have a mistaken notion of what "object" means in this context, and that the spectrum of which you speak runs in somewhat different directions.


but can't seem to conceive that adult men don't think that way, just because they do think in such simplistic black or white terms. That's a very childlike way to think and frankly it's misguided, but understandable in that it's fun (in an immature way) to imagine oneself as the key figure in a worldwide conspiracy where men are evil, and women are good.
Hmm. But you don't think that this is a somewhat childish and simplistic way to imagine both my argument, which (as I've repeated many times) precludes that, as well as the feminist movement (academic and otherwise?).


But except for Borat in the movies, the truly stupid men among us, and the religious extremists, most men just don't think in simple she is an object, or she is a human terms. It's apparent that you really don't and apparently can't grasp that. That you had to ask me so how does one treat another like a person and an object at the same time is proof, you don't have the mind to get it. What's obvious to us is a major fallacy, you're still harping on about.
Obvious to whom? Men? The people here? Just for fun, why don't you try to articulate your position that one can be treated as an object and a human simultaneously rather than declaring that my mind is at fault and not your mode of expression. Educate me.


Still, the exact meaning of the term though has little relevance in terms of what is normal behavior ITC. When you go out of your way to play a role as a sexually desirable entertainer, it's to be expected that the audience is going to see the entertainer first, the person second.
Okay. Hmm.
a) I never said it was unexpected. I said it wasn't neutral.
b) You're again mixing up a feminist and Marxist construction - that is labour and sex. I mean they obviously intersect in this industry, and perhaps cannot be disentangled; however that doesn't make them the same thing.
c) You're also collapsing our jobs a little. Imagine the mocking I would get if I described myself as an "entertainer." We're not ballerinas, 50 feet from the audience. We interact in a very personal way.


I think you're the only one that cares about the actual defiition of sexual objectification. And it doesn't change what is relevant or the behaviors people (strippers and customers) engage in ITC.
Yes. I am pesky like that. Wanting people to actually know what they are talking about, and know the meaning of the words that they use. When I misuse and mispronounce words (which I'm actually a little famous for, in small circles) I kind of "oops" and move on (and I usually accept the correction, because, well, I'm used to being wrong about it. There is actually a funny story about my pronunciation and a foreign language). I don't insist that that actual definition is irrelevant and nobody cares about it anyway. And words mean something. If we cannot agree on terms, we cannot understand each other. You didn't look up "structuralism" at all, did you? So the meaning of the terms doesn't change the behaviour we are discussing, but it does change the way we absorb it, understand it, deconstruct it and communicate about it.


Life is what it is. If it makes you sleep better thinking of it as some kind of abstract experiment, enjoy.
Oh, now you don't mean that. You mean life is what you say it is. I bet you read authors like Ayn Rand, don't you? All about the pointlessness of higher thought? You love the Fountainhead, don't you? You do... I can totally tell. There is another funny story about me going out one night and having a few too many drink and getting picked up by an objectivist cult. Good times.

xdamage
10-24-2006, 12:31 PM
You might say this is true; however one might argue that there is an issue of degree.


There is, but I think most customers would think the degree is appropriate in a SC (else they would act differently).



Thank you for informing me that the entirety of academic feminism is wrong.


Not the "entirety" (all), but many yes. Remember that discussion about Larry Summers... well for those women that heard "girls can't do math" versus what was really said, and threw a temper tantrum, - yes, those feminsists are nit-wits. Sometimes it even takes finatic beliefs to cause change, and I'm all for females having equal rights, even temporarily if that requires an overshoot, but as the rights increase, the value of extremism, and anti-male sentiment decreases. And at some point, it hurts your cause because nobody takes women seriously that think in extreme black and white terms.



Obvious to whom? Men? The people here? Just for fun, why don't you try to articulate your position that one can be treated as an object and a human simultaneously rather than declaring that my mind is at fault and not your mode of expression. Educate me.


Seriously I've already tried. The problem isn't with my ability to educate you. The problem is you're not able to see it, or you're arguing for the sake of it. However I pulled some references off the internet, and cut out any parts that the MODs may find offensive on the grounds that it implies diagnosis. No diagnosis is implied, but these concepts are important to understanding how it is that people can see others as an object and person at the same time, and why some femisists just don't get it....
"The world of a --, like that of a child, is split into heroes and villains. A child emotionally, the -- cannot tolerate human inconsistencies and ambiguities; he cannot reconcile anther is good and bad qualities into a constant coherent understanding of another person. At any particular moment, one is either Good or EVIL. There is no in-between; no gray area....people are idolized one day; totally devalued and dismissed the next. "

"Normal people are ambivalent and can experience two contradictory states atone time; --s shift back and forth, entirely unaware of one feeling state while in the other. "
(^^^this is key to understanding what I'm saying)

Splitting is intended to shield the -- from a barrage of contradictory feelings and images and from the anxiety of trying to reconcile those images. But splitting often achieves the opposite effect. The frays in the --'s personality become rips, and the sense of his own identity and the identity of others shifts even more dramatically and frequently.

"Black and white' thinking doesn't just relate to relationships. --'s most easily see extremes in all things. "

"This leads to a really bizarre world view - everything is black or white and what was once black can become white, but you can't remember how it looked when it was black until it becomes black again, by which time you've forgotten what it was like when it was white. And that's hard going because the world jumps around all the time. "

"One of the terms for this extremism is splitting (Kernberg 1975), which is the failure to integrate positive and negative experiences. For example, most of us are capable of seeing ourselves and others as having both good and bad traits, but ------- cannot see themselves or others as a mix of anything. They believe people must be pure..."


Bottom line is it's normal to be able to look at someone and see them as an object, and as a human, shifting back and forth depending on the situation, because this is the way humans actually are (not just about this, but in general how they think about each other). All I can tell is you that with the exception of the mentally unwell, extremists, and the very stupid, most guys don't look at women as purely objects or purely as people, but varying degrees of both at the same time. If you can't see that, I can't educate you. Only you can.



Oh, now you don't mean that. You mean life is what you say it is. I bet you read authors like Ayn Rand, don't you? All about the pointlessness of higher thought? You love the Fountainhead, don't you? You do... I can totally tell. There is another funny story about me going out one night and having a few too many drink and getting picked up by an objectivist cult. Good times.


I have no idea what you're thinking here. However, as far as not thinking. As I've said plenty of times before, if you want to understand human behavior today, then the place to start is understanding human and animal behavior in the billions of years of evolution that preceeded our current society. There is a lot to be learned that you won't find in feminist journals that start with the misconception that people have blank slates for brains, and stuff is just all put there by evil society (aka men).

Jenny
10-24-2006, 01:01 PM
Not the "entirety" (all), but many yes. Remember that discussion about Larry Summers... well for those women that heard "girls can't do math" versus what was really said, and threw a temper tantrum, - yes, those feminsists are nit-wits.
Hmm. I read what was really said. And their response was not wrong. What was really said was that there were biological reasons girls didn't like math and something about his daughter endowing toy trucks with parental relations. And if I remember correctly you had charactertized it pretty much as the above without even knowing what had been said. Keeping in mind that his background is in economics and he wasn't delivering an academic paper that showed any biological findings - he was just engaging with stereotypes. But of course, you didn't even need to read his speech to come to the conclusion that it was just a bunch of women throwig temper-tantrums - just as you don't need to read critical theory or sociology to know about objectification, or feminist theory to know about feminism.


Sometimes it even takes finatic beliefs to cause change, and I'm all for females having equal rights, even temporarily if that requires an overshoot, but as the rights increase, the value of extremism, and anti-male sentiment decreases. And at some point, it hurts your cause because nobody takes women seriously that think in extreme black and white terms.
X, I have news for you. You think in black and white terms. If in nothing else but your refusal to acknowledge that some issues are not because people are thinking in black and white terms. You are the prince of categorization. Seriously dude - self-exploration.


Seriously I've already tried. The problem isn't with my ability to educate you. The problem is you're not able to see it, or you're arguing for the sake of it. However I pulled some references off the internet, and cut out any parts that the MODs may find offensive on the grounds that it implies diagnosis. No diagnosis is implied, but these concepts are important to understanding how it is that people can see others as an object and person at the same time, and why some femisists just don't get it....

"Normal people are ambivalent and can experience two contradictory states atone time; --s shift back and forth, entirely unaware of one feeling state while in the other. "
(^^^this is key to understanding what I'm saying)
Are you kidding me with this? Like, guess what Jenny, the concept of ambivalence exists? Again, you didn't look up structuralism at all. Dude. I really, really know what ambivalence means. However, as I said, ambivalence is a feeling, not a state of being, let alone is a state of treating someone else. Objectification (at least in the sense that we are discussing) involves acts; not just feelings. (gosh I remember typing this). What would be helpful to me in understanding your point is if you could effectively take these models and apply them in some way(rather than just informing me that an application might exist somewhere and giving me random theory and vocab lessons in a vaccum) that is applicable either to women or strip clubs. That is the only quotation is can see as being relevant to the process of objectifying strippers.


Bottom line is it's normal to be able to look at someone and see them as an object, and as a human, shifting back and forth depending on the situation, because this is the way humans actually are (not just about this, but in general how they think about each other). All I can tell is you that with the exception of the mentally unwell, extremists, and the very stupid, most guys don't look at women as purely objects or purely as people, but varying degrees of both at the same time. If you can't see that, I can't educate you. Only you can.
Okay.
A) shifting back and forth is, by definition, not simultaneous. (Dichotomy. You see?). It means you are doing/experience one, then the other.
B) The fact that humans behave in a certain way or feel a certain way sometimes does not, by any stretch of the imagination, amount humans feeling a certain way ALL the time. Ie. because ambivalence exists somewhere in the human condition does not mean that I experience it constantly. So arguing that ambivalence exists is a far cry from showing that it is active in this scenario.


As I've said plenty of times before, if you want to understand human behavior today, then the place to start is understanding human and animal behavior in the billions of years of evolution that preceeded our current society. There is a lot to be learned that you won't find in feminist journals that start with the misconception that people have blank slates for brains, and stuff is just all put there by evil society (aka men).
Again, thank you for informing me that entire academic disciplines are just wasting time, and for the delightfully absurd simplication of academic feminism (what is your feminist background, anyway X? I'm curious where you get these... ideas. I mean outside of Ayn Rand and stand up comics from 1991.) I think you have some fairly remarkable hybris happening in a) assuming that I have never read your fricking pet authors (I am familiar with the selfish gene, okay? I am a college graduate. I know how to read. And I maintain that Darwin is useful more as a historical piece than as science. I think the fact that you are using it as science is pretty... telling) and b) assuming that the reading that you find most comfortable (that you can make conform to you normative ideas on human relationships) are the only disciplines that have any value.

xdamage
10-24-2006, 01:36 PM
Hmm. I read what was really said. And their response was not wrong.


Bzzzt, the reactionary feminists were wrong, and you were one of those who said the guy who said "girls can't do math", and then secondarily you read it. On the other hand guess who Larry had come to his defense? Pinker, except I had long ago read Pinker years before Summer made the mistake of speaking fact, and have long before read many studies that showed that men and women don't score equally in all areas. If you don't like it, tough. I don't care.

I'm quite happy to go on thinking that the the reactionary women that just wanted to burn a witch were acting like primitives. I view them right up their with the so many other extremists groups who just want to be pissed off at someone. Not my kind of people.



X, I have news for you. You think in black and white terms. If in nothing else but your refusal to acknowledge that some issues are not because people are thinking in black and white terms. You are the prince of categorization. Seriously dude - self-exploration.


Weak, really weak. But good try. You're a master of word games, but predicatably you learned nothing by my trying to educate you, so I fell into a trap. I'll be sure not to do so again.




However, as I said, ambivalence is a feeling, not a state of being, let alone is a state of treating someone else.


I know, you like to play word games. Enjoy them, but I think the rest of us get that feelings, thoughts, and actions are all intertwined.




Okay.
A) shifting back and forth is, by definition, not simultaneous. (Dichotomy. You see?). It means you are doing/experience one, then the other.


That's what happens when you don't really understand something. I could have come up with 100 more quotes including those that made that clearer for you. If I had left the whole quote in, there you would have read, that it's the abnormal people, the people with the problem, that shift back and forth, not the normal people.

But you're grasping at straws, but no, it really really really means people have a simultaneous feelings (AND THOUGHTS) at the same time. Really. Remember Ambvialence? I guess you forgot it already.

Here is the whole quote again:

"Normal people are ambivalent and can experience two contradictory states at one time!!!


BPs shift back and forth, entirely unaware of one feeling state while in the other. "


You asked me to educate. I educated. I can't make it any clearer for you. Normal people can have contradictory states at the same time. People that split shift back and forth.

And notice how the psychologists use the word "contradictory states" here, they don't mean specifically feelings or thoughts or necessarily even actions; they mean the state of the whole person.

Why is this so difficult?




Again, thank you for informing me that entire academic disciplines are just wasting time, and for the delightfully absurd simplication of academic feminism (what is your feminist background, anyway X?

Bad news, people all through history have believed a lot of really stupid things, or had fairly twisted slants. Like religious fundamentalists that do believe women are objects. Just because a lot of them believe it and study it and the common man can get his head around the ideas, doesn't mean they are not misguided. I actually kind of like to study history where it doesn't start off with a bias focused on 1/2 of the species - isn't that a crazy idea.

Jenny
10-24-2006, 01:57 PM
Bzzzt, the reactionary feminists were wrong, and you were one of those who said the guy who said "girls can't do math", and then secondarily you read it. On the other hand guess who Larry had come to his defense? Pinker, except I had long ago read Pinker years before Summer made the mistake of speaking fact, and have long before read many studies that showed that men and women don't score equally in all areas. If you don't like it, tough. I don't care.
Yeah. a) not an accurate assessment. b) A lot of people came to his defence. Guess what? "Girls can't do math" is not an entirely unpopular position. Geez x. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.


Weak, really weak. But good try. You're a master of word games, but predicatably you learned nothing by my trying to educate you, so I fell into a trap. I'll be sure not to do so again.
See, again. I think words MEAN something. Making a mistake is one thing, but insisting that the mistake is someone else's is something else. If that is not what you meant, just correct yourself and move on. It's not my fault if you can't say what you mean.



I know, you like to play word games. Enjoy them, but I think the rest of us get that feelings, thoughts, and actions are all intertwined.
That doesn't mean, however, that they are the same things. Saying a affects b doesn't mean that a can be analysed as if it were b, nor does it collapse a and b into each other. That is not even a word game. That is a meaning game.


That's what happens when you don't really understand something. I could have come up with 100 more quotes including those that made that clearer for you. If I had left the whole quote in, there you would have read, that it's the abnormal people, the people with the problem, that shift back and forth, not the normal people.
Um - did you read what I was quoting? Which was you, not one of your quotations? In which you said that it was normal human behavour to shift back and forth in one's treatment of others? You're right. I'm completely lost. I know what ambivalence means, however I maintain that it's existence in the human condition a) does not explain every facet of human behaviour (like you can't just trot out ambivalence for EVERYTHING) and b) does not mean that we are constantly experiencing it and c) is a feeling not an action. One can FEEL two things at once much more easily than one can ACT in two ways at once.


Bad news, people all through history have believed a lot of really stupid things, or had fairly twisted slants. Like religious fundamentalists that do believe women are objects. Just because a lot of them believe it and study it and the common man can get his head around the ideas, doesn't mean they are not misguided. I actually kind of like to study history where it doesn't start off with a bias focused on 1/2 of the species - isn't that a crazy idea.
Um, so? Just because people have been wrong about things in the past doesn't necessitate that you're right and I'm wrong now. I mean, I could just as easily say that to you. However, if you seriously believe that you are in a good position to entirely dismiss psychology, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, cultural studies, history, geography and, for that matter, comparative literature as misguided in favour of your amateur theories... I mean, whoa. That is some pretty serious hybris. Such that you have much bigger problems than arguing with me. So I'll let you get back to them. BTW - history that isn't started off with a bias focussed on 1/2 of the species? That's what women's studies is for.

xdamage
10-24-2006, 02:25 PM
Yeah. a) not an accurate assessment. b) A lot of people came to his defence. Guess what? "Girls can't do math" is not an entirely unpopular position. Geez x. Just because lots of people believe something doesn't make it true.


He never said girls can't do math so the rest of this is stoopid. The point was that on higher level math (far beyond anything you or I have likely studied) there was a like 4% advantage shown by males. This tied into to statistical evolutionary differences, and so on. Only nit-wits heard "girls can't do math"




See, again. I think words MEAN something. Making a mistake is one thing, but insisting that the mistake is someone else's is something else. If that is not what you meant, just correct yourself and move on. It's not my fault if you can't say what you mean.


I'm not a great stickler for words. There is another great book by Pinker called "Words and Rules" As one of the foremost experts on human language in the world, read it. I'm more interested in what people mean then the exact words they use.



Um - did you read what I was quoting? Which was you, not one of your quotations? In which you said that it was normal human behavour to shift back and forth in one's treatment of others? You're right. I'm completely lost. I know what ambivalence means, however I maintain that it's existence in the human condition a) does not explain every facet of human behaviour (like you can't just trot out ambivalence for EVERYTHING) and b) does not mean that we are constantly experiencing it and c) is a feeling not an action. One can FEEL two things at once much more easily than one can ACT in two ways at once.


1.) I never said that ambivalence explains "EVERY" facet of human behavior.

2.) Actually no, our human brains are more like a bunch of separate sub-brains working together. Ambivalence is the common state, although you're awareness of it varies.

3.) No, the psychologists that wrote that explination of splitting and black and white thinking clearly meant the state the whole person. They didn't mean just feelings when they used the word "ambivalence" to a great degree because what is feelings and what is thought are so deeply intertwinded as to not have any real good definition.

Regarding actions... you are kind of on to something but it's always going to be fuzzy. An extreme case is a man who beats you one second, then hugs you the next. This is what we call a nut-job. Sure, nut jobs swing from one extreme action to the next. But the much more common, normal case is that people have minor changes in their actions (e.g., facial expressions, how quickly they respond, how loving they are, etc.) based on their current feelings and thoughts. On the flip side, when a man touches you in a loving way, or erotic way, you may not know if he is thinking how much he loves you, imaging you are some other chick, thinking of you a fuck toy, or whatever wild examples we want to come up with. Actions don't always reveal what people are thinking or feeling.

The other problem with "objectification" is that it's a pretty wishy-washy definition, that depends on this other person and how they feel about it. So if the other person is a nut job, or just having a bad day and has her/his feelings hurt, he/she can claim an action was objectifying. In that light, it's a lot more about the receiver's state of mind then it is about what the do'er does. The do'er for instance must just be making a joke, while the receiver feels hurt like a non-person. Maybe women are more comfortable with believing objectification is a real thing, but I think it's a fairly fuzzy state of human interaction that most of us don't think about, except for those that often have their feelings hurt, and the extreme and obvious cases (e.g., really stupid men, religious extremists who are very clear they see women as things, etc.)



Um, so? Just because people have been wrong about things in the past doesn't necessitate that you're right and I'm wrong now. I mean, I could just as easily say that to you. However, if you seriously believe that you are in a good position to entirely dismiss psychology, sociology, linguistics, anthropology, cultural studies, history, geography and, for that matter, comparative literature as misguided in favour of your amateur theories... I mean, whoa. That is some pretty serious hybris. Such that you have much bigger problems than arguing with me. So I'll let you get back to them. BTW - history that isn't started off with a bias focussed on 1/2 of the species? That's what women's studies is for.


Not entirely wrong, just not entirely right - see GREY.

And no, I'm not dismissing any of the above as useless. Just a step along a path to a better understanding. But our views (I mean as a society) of these things are constantly changing. What is now becoming apparent to many socioligists, and psychologists is that there is very real differences (statistically) between men and women, and that those differences are deeply seated in billions of years of evolution, and we aren't going to understand our human nature until we start factoring that in. When we do, a lot of current human behavior stops being mysterious. But there are some downsides to this too.

See differences also means some degrees of inequalities. In reality these equalities tend to be fairly small statistically, a few percent usually, some cases more, some less, but they exist, and explain trends in human behavior that frankly, our society is not yet ready to stomach.

That's fine. There was a time when society couldn't stomach that the earth revolves around the sun, that man isn't at the center of the Universe, that evolution makes a lot of sense, and so on. Slowly things will change. But at the moment, our society is made up of people that are happier to believe that everyone is born entirely equal, and their brains (unlike animal brains) are just sponges*, waiting to be trained, there is nothing instinctually there already. It's nonesense, but no more so then believing other silly things like humans are the most important thing in the Universe. On the plus side it has served a useful purpose, since without that belief it's all too easy for nit-wits to justify mis-treating others. But there really is a better understanding possible where we treat all people well, and fairly, but also factor in their innate abiliies and drives. I know that seems impossible given what is PC in our society now, but assuming we don't do something stupid, that's where society is headed (and for the better even though its hard to see how so now).

For example, if you wanted to dance for a living vs say being a physicist or a lawyer or a docter, people would understand better that this is a normal want given our long evolution. No shame in doing so, no comparison to men who choose to do the later. But anyway, I digress. I could recommend some good books, but I doubt know if you'd find them agreeable since they aren't always female positive (but then they aren't always male positive either, so it's equal ;))

* What's really amazing is that people are faced with non-stop evidence that we aren't all born equally tall, equally strong, equally attractive, with equal singing voices, we know retarded people exist, we know that idiot savants exist, we know geniuses exist, we know that some are born with greater/lesser attention spans, and so on. And we know that despite these differences, we know that somehow our society has been able to treat people fair within reason. And yet, the notion that people's brains aren't born exactly equal, that they aren't just all empty blank sponges, or that there are some statistically measurable differences in human intelligence, is just so incredibly PC unacceptable at this point in history that it verges on comedy. So if a retarded guy learns to play the piano on his own, we applaud that and put him on the late show. But if a seemingly normal guy goes on to make great advances in physics, far beyond his peers, we write that off as "society", evil men who encourage men to be physicists but not women. Or like if a bunch of sociologist find that overall men tend to do slight better on higher level math, women slightly better on verbral expression, a few percent difference, let's break out the stakes and find outselves a man to burn.

Docido
10-24-2006, 05:03 PM
I’ve only skimmed through this thread. (Forgive me it’s my ADHD kicking in.) But aren’t you leaving the idea of consent out of the equation? When you put on your six inch heels and push-up bra aren’t you assuming a fetish role? It seems to me that you’re agreeing to become part of a sexual performance that necessitates objectification. I’m well aware that without consent (like say in a BSDM scenario) objectification or reification entails submission or humiliation. This, as you would say is a “bad thing.” But consent would be an ameliorating factor.

Keep in mind, Jenny that I’m not saying agreeing to strip gives customers a right to grope, grab, and gobble any of your body parts. On the contrary, just as you give an implied consent to objectification by taking on the social role of “Jenny the Stripper”, a customer takes on his own social role when he enters the club. The problem as I see it is that the social expectations for customers and strippers are fuzzy and ill-defined. That’s an inevitable part of being in a still somewhat taboo sub-culture.

So in answer to your question Jenny, strippers do have heads! I think?