Log in

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



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

mr_punk
10-24-2006, 05:06 PM
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.it doesn't matter what she is wearing? oh, it's just as i thought. that's just a big fat" NO" on wearing the granny panties and flip-flops. obviously, it matters to YOU. obviously, it matters enough for you to sell all these lofty ideas you've been spewing for the entire thread down the river. in the end, when push comes to shove. you're making the calculated decision to squeeze your ass into a pair of booty shorts to help you whore for attention on the floor. it doesn't matter? please..ROTFLMAO...what are you going to tell me next? the next dance is better than the last. no wait..you really are a temple virgin. lol..oh, i'll give you credit for having a 99 lb brass sack, but you're still clueless.

which incidentally, happened once when I was in Guam. I did make money, funny storyanything can happen once, but when you do it over say, 1 year. you get back to me. let me know how that works out for you and how much it really doesn't matter. so, until that day. i'll file this under "stripper hot air and bravado".

xdamage
10-24-2006, 05:56 PM
obviously, it matters enough for you to sell all these lofty ideas you've been spewing for the entire thread down the river. in the end, when push comes to shove. you're making the calculated decision to squeeze your ass into a pair of booty shorts to help you whore for attention on the floor. it doesn't matter? please..ROTFLMAO...

Sure, well what's easier? This is a trick question, so think carefully...

Is it easier for a stripper to give up her income and wear granny slippers?

or

Is it easier for a stripper to wish that a large percentage of the population should change the way it thinks and behaves, while at the same time she continues to leverage every possible advantage to make $$s of that population?

Jenny
10-24-2006, 07:59 PM
it doesn't matter what she is wearing? oh, it's just as i thought. that's just a big fat" NO" on wearing the granny panties and flip-flops. obviously, it matters to YOU. obviously, it matters enough for you to sell all these lofty ideas you've been spewing for the entire thread down the river. in the end, when push comes to shove. you're making the calculated decision to squeeze your ass into a pair of booty shorts to help you whore for attention on the floor. it doesn't matter? ...and pointless punky blather...
What are you talking about? At no point have I said that I don't want guys, when I'm at work, to find me attractive. What does that have to do with anything? If I leave the house wearing lipgloss, do I lose my humanity? I mean, I am making my lips all shiny. Guys might notice my shiny lips and get turned on. I'm obviously making the choice to shiny up my lips to garner that attention. You know, the attention of guys who might think I'm pretty with my shiny shiny lips. Yet, you would not likely understand that action as forcing men to objectify me. I don't get the connection.


anything can happen once, but when you do it over say, 1 year. you get back to me. let me know how that works out for you and how much it really doesn't matter. so, until that day. i'll file this under "stripper hot air and bravado".Okay, what you quoted was an aside. Note the parenthesis. The response/question was: Out of curiosity - if I did go to work without the usual accroutrement of strippers 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? Now that my ass is appropriately tucked in, do I have standing?

Really. Does it actually matter what I wear? Is there something I can wear that would give me standing in this debate? Or is this whole clothing thing a red herring?

mr_punk
10-25-2006, 05:14 AM
What are you talking about? At no point have I said that I don't want guys, when I'm at work, to find me attractive. What does that have to do with anything?oh, don't worry your pretty little neck stump about it. it obvious that you need a little more self-motivation than a couple of drinks to make it through a shift. it's enough to know that when it comes time for you to actually put-up or shut-up. instead of showing it really doesn't matter. in the end, you turn into a "sad" stripper more than willing to objectify herself by choosing the booty shorts and four-inch platforms...not that there's anything wrong with that. after all, the reason why sc exist is because you ladies are willing to objectify yourselves. so, since you don't have a problem attention whoring for $20 by putting on the booty shorts. it seems no matter the variation. objectification in a sc really isn't so bad after all.

If I leave the house wearing lipgloss, do I lose my humanity?oh, get over it. no matter how much hot air you spew on radical feminism, deconstruction, marxism, etc. no matter how many times you conveniently ignore the context of the sc. no one is suggesting such a thing. right...now, get yer tits out. oh, don't worry...it's okay to say these things in a sc.

Jenny
10-25-2006, 06:34 AM
oh, get over it. no matter how much hot air you spew on radical feminism, deconstruction, marxism, etc. no matter how many times you conveniently ignore the context of the sc. no one is suggesting such a thing.
Thank god. I had my lip gloss balanced over the trash, just waiting for your okay. But you are focussing so heavily on what we wear - so you're saying that it is not what I wear, but my role in the strip club that is causing the issue (you know, like I suggested about 10 years ago? You could have just said okay. But I know it would pain you to agree or accede to me. More painful than baking cookies even).

right...now, get yer tits out. oh, don't worry...it's okay to say these things in a sc.
Okay then. Give me twenty bucks. No, really.

Because even in a strip club where you insist it is okay to be rude and degrading as long as you are paying - well, those are the operative words aren't they?

xdamage
10-25-2006, 07:56 AM
If I leave the house wearing lipgloss, do I lose my humanity? I mean, I am making my lips all shiny. Guys might notice my shiny lips and get turned on. I'm obviously making the choice to shiny up my lips to garner that attention. You know, the attention of guys who might think I'm pretty with my shiny shiny lips. Yet, you would not likely understand that action as forcing men to objectify me. I don't get the connection.


The action has to be considered in context. Without a context the question has no meaning.

If you gloss up your lips in a Muslim culture the general consensus might be that you're attempts to attract the opposite sex is a public distraction, or even a religious violation. Since freedom is not considered a right, you'd probably be stoned for violating the social norm. Choices would be to leave that culture, or live within it and fight (probably unsuccessfully, to the death) the cultural norm. Most women just adapt when faced with that choice.

If you gloss up your lips in our society, that would be considered socially acceptable and legally acceptable, and therefore also reasonable for you to expect not to be objectified. You may gloss up your lips for personal reasons, or to attract the opposite or same sex, as you like. Still, despite many freedoms, we still have to live with each other in society, so people have to agree on sets of boundaries. For example, there are still many laws that require women wear clothes, no matter how many men you might attract if you didn't wear clothes. Why? Pretty much the same reasons as the more restrictive Muslim cultures. It's considered disruptive, or violates a large percentage of people's religious beliefs, for a woman (or a man) to walk around expressing that degree of sexuality in public.

If you gloss up your lips in a strip club, you may not only wear lip gloss, but run around nearly naked, but ... and here is the important part... in theory you're not doing so to attract the opposite sex, and you're not doing so for personal reasons, you're doing so to make money. You're selling yourself to people you don't know for a fee. At that point you, to some degree, the context is no longer like that of attracting a mate in society, or doing it for yourself, but you've choosen to sell your self like a thing. If you choose to sell yourself as a thing, then to some degree it's also to be expected that buyers will see you as a thing. You don't have to like it, but you're not going to change it, no matter how much protest it. Because what is, and isn't considered acceptable degrees of objectifcation isn't entirely up to you. It's defined by the society as a whole, and it's a fuzzy definition. But even in our fairly free society, the majority will probably say, hey if you sell yourself as a thing, it's not unreasonable that to some degree you are going to be seen as a thing.

p.s. Note how I wrote "to some degree" Nobody is suggesting that customers should completely lose sight of the fact that you're also a person, but we've already covered this. It is possible, even normal, for customers to see you both as a thing and as a person at the same time, and so limit their thing-like behaviors, but not completely restrain them either.

The Snark
10-25-2006, 10:33 AM
Good lord, you've been a busy bunch in this thread. I just have a couple of comments:

1. I think Jenny's using the commonly understood academic definition of objectification--the structuralist idea that there's a binary opposition between subjects and objects. You can be a subject (a sentient being with feelings and intentions) or an object (an inert thing without feelings), but you can't be both. The problem is that this definition comes from Levi-Strauss, not God, and I don't think it's especially accurate. Things can be both subjects and objects depending on how they're used and seen--I really suggest that you read Bruno Latour, who demolishes the assumption that subject and object are polar opposites.

2. I suppose the opposite of objectification is empathy--we all want others to recognize and be considerate of our feelings, to place themselves in our shoes. I think everyone, with the exception of people who suffer from autism or other personality disorders, has empathy for others. But we dole it out in varying degrees according to the situation. I mean, when I used to work in a call centre, the customers I spoke to didn't really treat me as a full human being--as far as they were concerned, I was just a disembodied voice providing a service. And I was fine with that. I didn't really want them to know about my relationship with my parents or the troubles I was having with my girlfriend, and frankly I didn't care about their lives either. I think it's the same with strippers. How many times have I read here that strippers don't like to give the GFE? That they don't like it when customers pry into their personal lives? It's completely understandable--they want to be treated as an object. They only want to reveal their full selves--their subject-hood--to people who are close to them. If you ask me, there are many cases in which objectification is not only understandable, but downright necessary.

xdamage
10-25-2006, 05:23 PM
The problem is that this definition comes from Levi-Strauss, not God, and I don't think it's especially accurate. Things can be both subjects and objects depending on how they're used and seen--I really suggest that you read Bruno Latour, who demolishes the assumption that subject and object are polar opposites.


I agree with your point, although would add that words are tools, meant to serve us, not the other way around. No matter how rigid someone else's definitions may be, people need to think for themselves. In this case I personally find no proof or lengthy reasoning is needed. The only possible reason why a person can't see another as both object and a human at the same time is simply a limitation in their own head, nothing more. BUt then, even more important, nobody should let themselves be a slave to what other people think. Regardless of whether someone else sees me as a human, or an object, or a mix of, I know what I am and that's good enough for me.

mr_punk
10-29-2006, 05:47 AM
Thank god. I had my lip gloss balanced over the trash, just waiting for your okay. But you are focussing so heavily on what we wearthe reason why i focused on what you wear is because in typical feminist fashion. you insist on ripping out the context of the sc. context is the difference of being in on the joke and not being in on the joke. however, you equate the two environments. sorry, but putting on lip gloss to go the corner market isn't in the same ball park as wearing platform shoes and booty shorts to make money.

so you're saying that it is not what I wear, but my role in the strip club that is causing the issue (you know, like I suggested about 10 years ago? You could have just said okay. But I know it would pain you to agree or accede to me. More painful than baking cookies even).what you wear is part of your role as playing the sex object. tarting yourself up like an absurd streetwalker is part of your role. showing yourself off like a prized show pony is part of your role. it's bait. you won't hook any wallets without the bait, right? BTW, it doesn't pain me to agree with you. however, it seems that you prefer quaint euphemisms (among other things) to lessen the pain of the idea that you're objectifying yourself for the patriarchy.

Okay then. Give me twenty bucks. No, really.well, that's why i called you over. so, it's not a problem..really.

Because even in a strip club where you insist it is okay to be rude and degrading as long as you are paying - well, those are the operative words aren't they? there you go again ripping out the context. i'm not saying it okay to be rude and degrading. however, there is a difference between saying, "bend over and spread your ass cheeks" during a LD versus yelling it from a steel girder while you're walking past a construction site.

Jenny
10-29-2006, 06:08 AM
what you wear is part of your role as playing the sex object. tarting yourself up like an absurd streetwalker is part of your role. showing yourself off like a prized show pony is part of your role. it's bait. you won't hook any wallets without the bait, right? BTW, it doesn't pain me to agree with you. however, it seems that you prefer quaint euphemisms (among other things) to lessen the pain of the idea that you're objectifying yourself for the patriarchy.
Oh, it does. You know it. Whenever you agree with me a small part of your soul dies. In any event; say I don't "tart myself up" in a strip club. Say I wear streetclothes. Say I wear a big, giant fluffy robe. And bunny slippers. Say I wear fleecy froggy pyjamas with feet (I've done that too, btw). Does that matter in the slightest? Or am I still a sex object simply by being present/working in the club?


there you go again ripping out the context. i'm not saying it okay to be rude and degrading. however, there is a difference between saying, "bend over and spread your ass cheeks" during a LD versus yelling it from a steel girder while you're walking past a construction site.
Oooh.... so. Um. Does that mean I don't have to do it when people yell it at me from steel girders? Because... well... gosh, maybe I shouldn't get into this.

Phil-W
10-29-2006, 09:49 AM
Having read 8 pages of the dialogue of the deaf, I'll contribute my statements of the blindingly obvious.

(a) Any strip venue is a special environment, where many of the normal conventions go by the board and are replaced by another set of (tacitly agreed) conventions.

(b) We behave in a different way within this enviroment and can only really be judged by our behaviour within it. (There will be some carry over from our behaviour in the real world, but that degree of carry over will vary from person to person).

(c) Collectively, dancers will show a complete spectrum of SC behaviour ranging from extremely manipulative/money grabbing to genuinely nice/care about their customers. (Although individual dancers will have a distinct bias towards one type of behaviour).

(d) Customers likewise will show a spectrum of behaviour ranging from interested only in mileage to gentlemanly (or PL depending on your POV). Again, custys will have a predisposition towards one pattern of behaviour.

(e) There are an infinite number of possible interactions possible between dancers and customers. The initial stages of any encounter will depend on the individual dispositions of both dancer and customer - if they are too disimilar they'll both soon head off for pastures new.

In the long run I suspect like gravitates to like: customers interested in mileage gravitate towards the manipulative dancers because their attitudes have some similarity, and gentlemen/PL's gravitate towards the 'nice' dancers, again because of similarity of attitude.

(f) We all have our own prejudices and we are incapable of proving them right or wrong. Accordingly we lay more weight on information that tends to confirm those prejudices and less weight on things that contradict our hypothosises - we see what we want to see. This makes our encounters in SC's self fulfilling as far as our interpretation of behaviour and motives is concerned.

------------------------------------

For myself personally, I'll go more for the Jenny hypothosis, than the mr_p one, but that's because on my inbuilt bias. If I walk into a SC, I'll graviate toward a 'jenny' type dancer and congratulate myself on having my reasoning concerned.

I've no doubt were I to change my Weltanschungg, I'd soon find I gravitated towards the more commercially orientated "I'll give you mileage and you pay for it" type of dancer. In 6 months tme I'd probably end up supporting the mr_p POV.

What is comes down to is that we seek what we wish to find. And because we tend to find what we seek, we'll always have our inbuilt biases on the mechanisms by which SC's operate.

These is no single right answer to this - just our individual viewpoints that we each are convinced are right (just as we are convinced the other persons are wrong).

A SC's a bit like walking into a fairground hall of mirrors - you can find any image you like.

Phil.

xdamage
10-29-2006, 10:27 AM
Or am I still a sex object simply by being present/working in the club?

If you choose to sell yourself as a sexual thing when you're in the club, then yes simply by being present/working in the club you're "choosing" to participate in a degree of objectification.

That you "tart" yourself up is just secondary evidence that you enjoy complaining about being objectified more then you actually care about the $$s you earn while being objectifed.

In other words, if it increases your odds of making $20, you choose a set of actions that increases the odds of making money even if it also increases the odds that the customer sees you more as object.

Put yet another way, if wearing granny gowns and fluffy slippers decreases the odds that customers will objectify you, you wouldn't choose that choice because you know full well it would also cut into your odds of making $$s.

Conclusion: Jenny the stripper (when she is in the club) cares more about making $$ then she does about being objectified. Which leaves us most of feeling like yea, well it's just so much hot air and no real convinction. Maybe the rest of the world (aka so many men) will feel like changing how they think and behave when Jenny believes enough in what she says to change how she behaves. Somehow I expect neither is likely to happen.

mr_punk
10-31-2006, 07:44 PM
Oh, it does. You know it. Whenever you agree with me a small part of your soul dies.not true. i agreed with you in this thread and it only cost me a pint of blood.

In any event; say I don't "tart myself up" in a strip club. Say I wear streetclothes. Say I wear a big, giant fluffy robe. And bunny slippers. Say I wear fleecy froggy pyjamas with feet (I've done that too, btw). Does that matter in the slightest?matters to whom? me or your wallet? in any case, the answer is both.

Or am I still a sex object simply by being present/working in the club? if simply being present in the club turned a woman into a sex object. a waitress or even a female customer could fall into the same category. of course, it would also probably get their eyeballs clawed out by an angry stripper.

Oooh.... so. Um. Does that mean I don't have to do it when people yell it at me from steel girders? Because... well... gosh, maybe I shouldn't get into this.good move. don't even go there.

mr_punk
10-31-2006, 07:50 PM
(a) Any strip venue is a special environment, where many of the normal conventions go by the board and are replaced by another set of (tacitly agreed) conventions.which is my point. OTOH, jenny doesn't seem to think so. still, that's quite a strong statement coming from you, Phil.

(c) Collectively, dancers will show a complete spectrum of SC behaviour ranging from extremely manipulative/money grabbing to genuinely nice/care about their customers. (Although individual dancers will have a distinct bias towards one type of behaviour).oops, i spoke too soon. could you be any more PLish, Phil? manipulate? money grabbing? hell, why don't you just call them greedy biatches while you're at it. look, every stripper wants money. yes, even the ones who seem genuinely nice will objectify customers for their money. the question that remains is whether or not objectification is necessarily a bad thing.

For myself personally, I'll go more for the Jenny hypothosis, than the mr_p one, but that's because on my inbuilt bias.LOL.."bias"? is that what they call "brown-nosing" these days?

What is comes down to is that we seek what we wish to find. And because we tend to find what we seek, we'll always have our inbuilt biases on the mechanisms by which SC's operate.well, seeking to ingratiate oneself with a stripper is one thing. however, isn't really relevant to the question of whether or not a sc is a special environment.

A SC's a bit like walking into a fairground hall of mirrors - you can find any image you like.LOL..you can also show whatever image you like too. sheesh, with guys like you. it's no wonder strippers are like the emperor without clothes.

Jenny
10-31-2006, 08:21 PM
not true. i agreed with you in this thread and it only cost me a pint of blood.
Oh. Well, disappointing but better than nothing.


if simply being present in the club turned a woman into a sex object. a waitress or even a female customer could fall into the same category. of course, it would also probably get their eyeballs clawed out by an angry stripper.
Oh shucks. You got me. I think that the context of the rest of my posts, and everything I've ever posted on the subject, however, makes it kind of clear that I was referring to a ROLE in the club when I said "presence". If that is unclear, please accept this post as indicating that is what I will mean in the future barring any specific disclaimer.


which is my point. OTOH, jenny doesn't seem to think so. still, that's quite a strong statement coming from you, Phil.
Dude! It's like you don't understand me at all. I'm not arguing that a strip club doesn't have its own special conventions - I arguing about what those conventions are, and how they come about. I mean, it's a little glib just to say "Oh well, it's a strip club so it's different, isn't it?" Is asking to articulate the differences, and why they validate negative behaviour (if negative behaviour even exists) asking SO much? Geez. It's like you just don't care about my needs anymore.

Okay, that one was kind of gross. I'm going to leave it in though. Because I think I'm really funny.


every stripper wants money. yes, even the ones who seem genuinely nice will objectify customers for their money.
Interestingly I had a conversation with my roommate about this topic. She argues that, in fact, what you are talking about isn't objectification at all. She did run off to try to find the correct term - she suggests that it will be somewhere in Marxist studies, but that "objectification" is creating a nigh on impossible tension in the context. That is - the dancer isn't buying the customer in any way. The use she is making of him isn't a commodification. She says that you guys (and me, to a lesser degree. Yay for disclaimers!) are confusing "objectification" with normatively "using".

Katrine
10-31-2006, 09:45 PM
LOL..you can also show whatever image you like too. sheesh, with guys like you. it's no wonder strippers are like the emperor without clothes.

Hahahahahaha!! No shit man. Sure, denial is a comforting lover, but do some people really have ANY idea they aren't fooling someone witb more brain than gonad?

easy_e
10-31-2006, 10:13 PM
Interestingly I had a conversation with my roommate about this topic. She argues that, in fact, what you are talking about isn't objectification at all. She did run off to try to find the correct term - she suggests that it will be somewhere in Marxist studies, but that "objectification" is creating a nigh on impossible tension in the context. That is - the dancer isn't buying the customer in any way. The use she is making of him isn't a commodification. She says that you guys (and me, to a lesser degree. Yay for disclaimers!) are confusing "objectification" with normatively "using".
Using is defined as:
1. to employ for some purpose; put into service; make use of: to use a knife.
2. to avail oneself of; apply to one's own purposes: to use the facilities.
3. to expend or consume in use: We have used the money provided.
4. to treat or behave toward: He did not use his employees with much consideration.
5. to take unfair advantage of; exploit: to use people to gain one's own ends.

easy_e
10-31-2006, 10:14 PM
Objectification refers to behavior in which one person treats another person as an object and not as a fellow human being with feelings and consciousness of his or her own.

So I don't see how the meanings of these two words could be confusing at all.

Jenny
10-31-2006, 10:18 PM
because I specified the word "using" was in a normative context (that is, just the way people use the word) and the way I use "objectification" is a little more complicated and correct? Like, in a nutshell - the definition you find on dictionary.com is wrong? And that many posters here use the word "objectify" as a colloquial shorthand for a lot of other words, like "to find sexually attractive" and "to use"?

easy_e
10-31-2006, 11:06 PM
And that many posters here use the word "objectify" as a colloquial shorthand for a lot of other words, like "to find sexually attractive" and "to use"?
How do you know that someone is using one word to mean another? Thats just an assumption on your part. Words are defined by dictionary defintions - not people's individual concepts of what they mean. Otherwise, language becomes meaningless and intelligent discussion is impossible. Objectifying is treating a person as an object, whereas it is very possible to find someone sexually attractive without the least bit of objectification. I don't think the "colloquial shorthand" argument holds much water. It seems like you are saying that words mean whatever you want them to mean.

Jenny
11-01-2006, 06:03 AM
How do you know that someone is using one word to mean another? Thats just an assumption on your part. Words are defined by dictionary defintions - not people's individual concepts of what they mean.
Um, context? The same way one identifies malapropism and wrong usage from the thesaurus? (My favourite ever when I was TAing - Tess was a virile character. The thesaurus is not your friend, people). Comments like "the only thing women like less than being objectified is not being objectified" and "women say they don't like being objectified until they get old and unattractive and don't get objectified anymore" are pretty clear in their misusage; not to mention that at least one person here has said in the past that the difference between finding someone sexually attractive and objectifying them is mere semantics.

Dictionaries are, to use Snark's expression, not written by God and there are, on occasion terms that are a little too complicated to be given due credit in a couple of lines. Look up "post modern" in the dictionary - you get a definition, but it would not generally be considered an adequate one for any purpose EXCEPT the dictionary. Concepts, dude. It does not mean that there are not agreed upon meanings or agreed upon basises to create or understand meaning.


Otherwise, language becomes meaningless and intelligent discussion is impossible.
Well, reducing concepts to 2 lines from dictionary.com is not particularly conducive to intelligent conversation either. I mean, you could at least get a dictionary of sociological terms or something.


Objectifying is treating a person as an object, whereas it is very possible to find someone sexually attractive without the least bit of objectification.
I agree. I've said that repeatedly. Preaching to the choir. That was at least part of my point all along. Don't worry - this thread is stupidly repetitive and long. A normal person cannot be expected to actually read it.


I don't think the "colloquial shorthand" argument holds much water. It seems like you are saying that words mean whatever you want them to mean.
No. When I said people are using a colloquial shorthand I meant they are using a moderately common, collapsed, effect-based meaning - like "objectification" is commonly used in reference to the way that female sexuality is consumed by men, therefore objectification is simply finding women sexually attractive. I agree that is inaccurate. But if you were to actually read how "objectification" is used in reference to women and exotic dancers there is very little question that at least many posters are using it that way. I also stand by my comment that the dictionary.com definition is not a full or adequate one; objectification as a concept has an academic history and contains a lot of... reference (?). Claiming the supremacy of dictionary.com in this instance would the analogous to looking up "Pride and Prejudice" in the encyclopedia, and claiming the plot summary contained therein could be privileged over a critical work about it: "Well, Said is obviously mistaken. There is NOTHING about slavery in this encyclopedic summary of Mansfield Park."

easy_e
11-01-2006, 07:08 AM
Well, we are talking about words here, not novels, time periods or sociological textbooks so your examples are irrelevant. The online dictionary certainly is not the ultimate reference, however it is fairly accurate in the context of this thread. Accurate enough for us to agree that sexual attractiveness and objectification are not the same. If people (mistakenly) think they are, and use the terms interchangeably, you seem to be calling it colloquialism, whereas I just call it wrong.

xdamage
11-01-2006, 08:36 AM
Well, we are talking about words here, not novels, time periods or sociological textbooks so your examples are irrelevant.

The bottom line remains that the customer's actions, and thoughts as well as the stripper's actions and thoughts will be exactly THE SAME regardless of what set of words you end up agreeing (or disagreeing) best describe it. That's the reality of it, and the words are at best a secondary shadow, a tool to describe what is, no more.

So if you agree on a new set of words, does it really make any difference? Strippers will behave and think exactly the same way. Customers will behave and think exactly the same way. I'd say focus on that, figure out if it really bothers either party enough to stop buying or selling sex. If the answer is no, it doesn't change anything, then this ends up just being a "poor-me" session, but nothing will have actually changed.

easy_e
11-01-2006, 09:29 AM
The bottom line remains that the customer's actions, and thoughts as well as the stripper's actions and thoughts will be exactly THE SAME regardless of what set of words you end up agreeing (or disagreeing) best describe it. That's the reality of it, and the words are at best a secondary shadow, a tool to describe what is, no more .
Reality is determined by perception, which is a function of genetics and environment. No person's reality is exactly the same as another. Custies and dancers are individuals so their thoughts and actions are not THE SAME, although they tend to follow similar patterns. Every individual is unique, (kind of like snowflakes) whether you choose to stereotype or not.


So if you agree on a new set of words, does it really make any difference? Strippers will behave and think exactly the same way. Customers will behave and think exactly the same way. I'd say focus on that, figure out if it really bothers either party enough to stop buying or selling sex. If the answer is no, it doesn't change anything, then this ends up just being a "poor-me" session, but nothing will have actually changed.

Not agreeing on a new set of words, just trying to clarify the meanings of words already being used. Every stripper has a different SC experience and every custy has a different SC experience. I'm interested the diversity of viewpoints because it facilitates my understanding and perspective of the SC microcosom and life in general, not necessarily trying to change anything.

Jenny
11-01-2006, 10:25 AM
Well, we are talking about words here, not novels, time periods or sociological textbooks so your examples are irrelevant. The online dictionary certainly is not the ultimate reference, however it is fairly accurate in the context of this thread. Accurate enough for us to agree that sexual attractiveness and objectification are not the same. If people (mistakenly) think they are, and use the terms interchangeably, you seem to be calling it colloquialism, whereas I just call it wrong.
Well, the colloquialism is the particular kind of wrong. But we're agreeing, so I don't want to nitpick.
The novel was an analogy, which I agree doesn't prove anything but attempts to explicate a point by different example. My example was using over general references to collapse and make portable and easy long and complicated modes of thought. Insofar as that, I kind of that that novel:encyclopediac reference was as to philosophical/sociological loaded term:dictionary reference was pretty apt. If you're about to tell me it isn't, I swear you'll break my heart. And words represent ideas which are frequently not adequately represented in dictionaries. Hence my example of the word "post modern". It is in the dictionary, but the definition there will be inadeqate for any substantive purpose. But we're agreeing. So I think we should maybe try to focus on what unites us.

easy_e
11-01-2006, 10:43 AM
Fair enough, although I'm somewhat disconcerted that you're being so agreeable.
And I'll admit to being guilty of oversimplifying.

Jenny
11-01-2006, 12:11 PM
I know. Like Everyone Look! Jenny's being nice about something!

kdogg247
11-01-2006, 12:58 PM
^ The sky is falling!

xdamage
11-01-2006, 02:16 PM
Reality is determined by perception, which is a function of genetics and environment. No person's reality is exactly the same as another. Custies and dancers are individuals so their thoughts and actions are not THE SAME, although they tend to follow similar patterns. Every individual is unique, (kind of like snowflakes) whether you choose to stereotype or not.


Ah, I can't disagree with that, but then it's not exactly my point. Let me try to be more specific.

Let's suppose that you decide that proper word to use here is not objectification, but commodification.

Now, if tomorrow, having read all of this, you or a stripper who having read this goes into the club, armed with this new word, and you could stand back as a completely independent 3rd party observer, you would observe that the actions and thoughts of the other customers will be exactly as they were before. Likewise the actions and thoughts of the strippers who hadn't read this, no different at all.

If those thoughts and actions were objectionable before, they will remain exactly as they were before a new word was agreed on.

So my point is, if you decide on a new word, will it result in a real change in thoughts or actions on the part of the strippers or the customers? For me as a customer, the answer would be no, because regardless of the word agreed on, I've already made it clear that I think that the SC is an artificiall environment, and the normal rules of thought/action don't completely apply.

What about for the stripper? Does a new word really change anything? Does she dress or behave any differently? I would guess not. Does she think any differently as a result? Perhaps, perhaps she'll think the behavior and thought of customers is less heinous if the word commodification is agreed vs objectification.

But if so I find that odd. See the way my brain works is first I decide if I think something is objectionable, and secondarily I find a definition for it. In which case no matter what word you agree on, if I thought something was objectionable before, I'd think so after. This works a lot better for me because I think it's often true that people tend to be slaves to their own language, and particularly words with strong emotional connotation color their thinkiing, rather then (what I think) should be the other way around.

Phil-W
11-02-2006, 12:39 PM
Let's suppose that you decide that proper word to use here is not objectification, but commodification.

Now, if tomorrow, having read all of this, you or a stripper who having read this goes into the club, armed with this new word, and you could stand back as a completely independent 3rd party observer, you would observe that the actions and thoughts of the other customers will be exactly as they were before. Likewise the actions and thoughts of the strippers who hadn't read this, no different at all.

Surely, this assumes we blindly follow behavorial patterns and don't react to changing circumstances.

It's possible a dancer or customer, after reading this thread, could change their perspective on SC's and act in a different manner.

To give a simple example, I've sometimes been initially annoyed with people. However, when they've explained their motives, I've realised I've misunderstood them and seen them in a different light.


I've already made it clear that I think that the SC is an artificiall environment, and the normal rules of thought/action don't completely apply.

The normal rules might not apply, but that doesn't mean an absence of rules. We tend to obey an unwriten code when inside a SC and don't generally deviate from it.


What about for the stripper? Does a new word really change anything? Does she dress or behave any differently? I would guess not. Does she think any differently as a result? Perhaps, perhaps she'll think the behavior and thought of customers is less heinous if the word commodification is agreed vs objectification.

But words can change perceptions. People go on about "getting high mileage". An alternative discription is "I've paid for commercial sex". The two descriptions put an entirely different connotation on the same activity.

I'll bet it's more socially acceptable for customers (and probably dancers) to say "I gave/got high mileage" than to say "I got/sold commercial sex".

Similarly, a customer will react completely different to a dancer offering "high mileage" than to one who says bluntly "I do commercial sex".

Words do make a difference.

Phil.

mr_punk
11-02-2006, 05:51 PM
Oh shucks. You got me. I think that the context of the rest of my posts, and everything I've ever posted on the subject, however, makes it kind of clear that I was referring to a ROLE in the club when I said "presence". If that is unclear, please accept this post as indicating that is what I will mean in the future barring any specific disclaimer.okay, but my point still remains. it matters to all parties involved.

Dude! It's like you don't understand me at all. I'm not arguing that a strip club doesn't have its own special conventions - I arguing about what those conventions are, and how they come about. I mean, it's a little glib just to say "Oh well, it's a strip club so it's different, isn't it?"no, it isn't. oh, that's right...i'm not imposing political correctness upon an politically incorrect environment. but hey, i'm not a radical feminist who wants to politicize those conventions with empty deconstructive analysis based on preachy, politically correct, feminist, marxist, etc viewpoints.

Is asking to articulate the differences, and why they validate negative behaviour (if negative behaviour even exists) asking SO much? Geez. It's like you just don't care about my needs anymore.yes, it is asking a lot of me to care about your needs. after all, i abhor doing work in a sc, even on a MB about sc. i'm very lazy.

Interestingly I had a conversation with my roommate about this topic. She argues that, in fact, what you are talking about isn't objectification at all. She did run off to try to find the correct term - she suggests that it will be somewhere in Marxist studies, but that "objectification" is creating a nigh on impossible tension in the context.That is - the dancer isn't buying the customer in any way. The use she is making of him isn't a commodification. She says that you guys (and me, to a lesser degree. Yay for disclaimers!) are confusing "objectification" with normatively "using".<mocking, lisping voice>ohhh..scary, scary. jenny's roommate is going to consult her feminist studies and deconstruct<end voice>. frankly, it's no wonder deconstruction is often accused by it's critics of being out of touch with reality. i say, "a stripper is objectifying herself". you deconstruct it into the PC, "making herself sexually desirable", in order not to cause offense or bloster the self-esteem of said attention whore. i say, "turn around, bend over and spread your ass cheeks". despite the fact that you're no stranger to grabbing your ankles and showing the holiest of holy to any tom, dick and harry with $20. in bizarre feminist fashion, you interpret the statement as a politically incorrect comment on patriarchal oppression and degradation of women. worst of all, you try to "correct" us. it seems you'll never learn that guys go to sc to relax and not to be potty trained like a lapdog.

mr_punk
11-02-2006, 05:53 PM
But words can change perceptions. People go on about "getting high mileage". An alternative discription is "I've paid for commercial sex". The two descriptions put an entirely different connotation on the same activity.I'll bet it's more socially acceptable for customers (and probably dancers) to say "I gave/got high mileage" than to say "I got/sold commercial sex".Similarly, a customer will react completely different to a dancer offering "high mileage" than to one who says bluntly "I do commercial sex". Words do make a difference.big deal....sugar-coated euphemisms and massive doses of kool-aid doesn't change the fact that sex is being paid for. it's more socially acceptable to say "entertainer" rather than "sex worker". however, PC rhetoric and volcabulary still doesn't change the substance of what she does like rubbing on my cock. hey, if a PL wants to stew in his own juices..fine. however, i don't have to stir his pot.

So I don't see how the meanings of these two words could be confusing at all.yeah, i'll keep that in mind for the next (he'll probably come along in the next five minutes) crybaby PL that shows up and whines about taking a break from sc because he was strung along by a so-called "greedy, wanna dance, cold-hearted, manipulative stripper" who treated him like a walking ATM.

xdamage
11-02-2006, 06:05 PM
Words do make a difference.
Phil.

I guess this depends on the person. I try to face/see/accept what-is first, and worry about the choice of words second. But I guess some people need euphemisms and carefully constructed sentences to help reality go down. In the end though we are still talking about cock grinding for $$s.



The normal rules might not apply, but that doesn't mean an absence of rules


Seriously, I don't know how many more times I can say this. We don't all suffer from all-or-nothing-think syndrome. Most of us don't have confusion about this at all. It's obvious to most of us that the rules are different in the SC, but nobody is suggesting that there is a complete lack of rules.

Jenny
11-02-2006, 06:34 PM
okay, but my point still remains. it matters to all parties involved.
Okay. That is actually a good point, once we can pry you away from an obsession with clothes. Although - not to belabour the point, but I must...- what the stripper/woman is wearing is a DIFFERENT point than whoever at some other post called special moral arenas - which is I think what you are getting at when you can stop hurling sexual insults around. I'm not sure, however, that, ultimately, the objectification is necessary as part of the strip club experience.


no, it isn't. oh, that's right...i'm not imposing political correctness upon an politically incorrect environment. blah, blah blah jenny is a feminist and therefore not to be taken seriously blah blah blah
Neither am I. None of this has anything to do with political correctness.


<mocking, lisping voice>ohhh..scary, scary. jenny's roommate is going to consult her feminist studies and deconstruct<end voice>.
Dude. You have no idea how scared you should be right now. This is a woman who has spent the better part of 3 years analysing how women kill men. Hey. Maybe SHE'S one of your ex wives?

Although don't you think it's interesting that rather than actually engage, even remotely, with what I, by proxy, said, you instead just sideline by taking the piss out of my roommate? And presumable me, by proxy. Geez dude. I mean, I'm pretty sure your position is ill considered and untenable, but you could at least try.


frankly, it's no wonder deconstruction is often accused by it's critics of being out of touch with reality. i say, "a stripper is objectifying herself". you deconstruct it into the PC, "making herself sexually desirable", in order not to cause offense or bloster the self-esteem of said attention whore.
Nothing to do with self-esteem. In fact I think we have it on good authority from this board that many women found what they call "self esteem" in being objectified. And I don't think asking you to correctly nuance and understand both the vocabulary and the ideas you are throwing around is particularly out of touch with reality.

Wait. Maybe it is.


in bizarre feminist fashion, you interpret the statement as a politically incorrect comment on patriarchal oppression and degradation of women.
Again. Nothing to do with political correctness. And I think the bizarreness here is YOU claiming that telling a woman to bend over and spread her ass cheeks is perfectly acceptable and need not be analysed at all rather than me taking exception.


worst of all, you try to "correct" us. it seems you'll never learn that guys go to sc to relax and not to be potty trained like a lapdog.
Well. You're not in a strip club. If you are coming to stripclubjunkies to "relax", meaning to have women shut the fuck up and spread their ass cheeks, I daresay you are in the wrong place and should take yourself to a stripclub, real or virtual, forthwith where at least the women are paid (maybe) for being subject to... well, you. In terms of what I will learn... will I ever learn to suck up to you guys so that maybe one of you will occasionally pat me on the head (virtually) and tell me I'm pretty? No. Because a) a pat on the head is not adequate recompense, b) I'm unlikely to get further recompense d) I don't want to objectify any of you. I respect you guys too much to condescend to you that way c) I have an inbox filled with emails from guys patting me and telling me I'm pretty based pretty much on what I'm doing here. So hey. Do you think that means that you're just WRONG and that guys DO go to stripclubs to be trained like a lapdog?

Phil-W
11-03-2006, 05:37 AM
I guess this depends on the person. I try to face/see/accept what-is first, and worry about the choice of words second. But I guess some people need euphemisms and carefully constructed sentences to help reality go down. In the end though we are still talking about cock grinding for $$s.


...Nothing to do with self-esteem. In fact I think we have it on good authority from this board that many women found what they call "self esteem" in being objectified. And I don't think asking you to correctly nuance and understand both the vocabulary and the ideas you are throwing around is particularly out of touch with reality.


big deal....sugar-coated euphemisms and massive doses of kool-aid doesn't change the fact that sex is being paid for. it's more socially acceptable to say "entertainer" rather than "sex worker". however, PC rhetoric and volcabulary still doesn't change the substance of what she does like rubbing on my cock.

But isn't this conversation all about esteem/self esteem?

We obviously like to see ourselves in the best possible light, so we each have a mental model of the situation that puts ourselves in the best perspective and people with opposing points of view in a worse one.

A dancer will say; "I'm an entertainer" because that's best for her self esteem.

Similarly, a customer after high mileage will say "she grinds on cocks for $$$'s" because seeing a dancer in that manner boosts his self esteem.

And if I'm going to hold a mirror up to myself, I say "I have dancers who are friends" because it boosts my self esteem.

There are some pretty incompatible viewpoints being expressed here, so I don't think there'll ever be any measure of agreeement - we can only score points at the expense of denting someone elses confidence/self esteem/Weltanschangg, call it what you will.

Phil.

xdamage
11-03-2006, 07:54 AM
But isn't this conversation all about esteem/self esteem?
We obviously like to see ourselves in the best possible light, so we each have a mental model of the situation that puts ourselves in the best perspective and people with opposing points of view in a worse one.
Phil.

Well, you are correct that self-esteem/esteem is a factor. OTOH, I don't completely agree that "We obviously like to see ourselves in the best possible light".


The need to twist our view of reality around to suit us is ofen symptom of black/white thinking, but I also don't think that's universal and adults often grow out of it.

Some people can only tolerate seeing themselves in the "best" possible light, and go to great mental efforts to do so, while others make an effort to balance better and see themselves in a not so positive light.



Similarly, a customer after high mileage will say "she grinds on cocks for $$$'s" because seeing a dancer in that manner boosts his self esteem.
Phil.

Well this was meant as a point of balance, and I think a lot of the replies are just that, counter-balance points. I'm quite certain that if we were to remove the "bad customers are objectifying me while I rake in the $$s" viewpoint from the threads, you'd find a lot less counter-balancing going on. In other words, I think you are partially correct that self-esteem is the issue, but I also think that it goes beyond healthy self-esteem, and into the realm of unhealthy, and trying to prove yet-again, that the other half of the species are bad, women are good, viewpoint (how typical of a b&w thinker who needs to divide the world into villans and heroes).

Put another way, while you implicitly argue that all expressions of esteem/self-esteem are equal, I view it as degrees, some being normal/healthy, some of it being obsessive, rigid, and unhealthy.

Jenny
11-03-2006, 11:20 AM
But isn't this conversation all about esteem/self esteem?

We obviously like to see ourselves in the best possible light, so we each have a mental model of the situation that puts ourselves in the best perspective and people with opposing points of view in a worse one.

A dancer will say; "I'm an entertainer" because that's best for her self esteem.

Similarly, a customer after high mileage will say "she grinds on cocks for $$$'s" because seeing a dancer in that manner boosts his self esteem.

And if I'm going to hold a mirror up to myself, I say "I have dancers who are friends" because it boosts my self esteem.

There are some pretty incompatible viewpoints being expressed here, so I don't think there'll ever be any measure of agreeement - we can only score points at the expense of denting someone elses confidence/self esteem/Weltanschangg, call it what you will.

Phil.

Sorry Phil, but I feel bound to disagree with you. A) you are making a fairly broad assumption that my self-esteem relies on being an "entertainer" rather than a "cock grinder." I'm afraid that for me, this just isn't the case, and there is a fair representation of dancers who feel the same way. I think that there is also a collapsing of "self-esteem" and "vanity" or "ego" (in the colloquial way, not the freudian way - yes, easy e, there is a difference). Also not the same thing. Self esteem is not as simple as just "feeling good about yourself". B) I don't think that looking at why guys like punk think it is so perfectly acceptable to dehumanize dancers just because of the fact that they are dancers (or cock grinders, or whores or whatever other signifier you wish to use. We all know what an exotic dancer does; calling her a cock grinder is no less a euphemism, it just privileges a certain nastiness and, for that matter, a pre-disposition to dehumanize her. I mean, think about it - rather than defining her role in relation to herself (i.e. exotic dancer, prostitute, whatever), it is being defined in relation to your cock (cock grinder, cum dumpster etc.). So, in a nutshell, it is just a decision on WHAT euphemism to use), or for that matter, if their behaviour is even dehumanizing, and therefore what standards of behaviour are acceptable and normal in a strip club - which, ultimately, impacts on the social conception of the exotic dancer, is related to self-esteem. It is not, the minimizing arguments of the boys notwithstanding, about my precious and delicate sensibilities in regards to nomenclature.

That said, I mean, of course we all want to present ourselves in the best light; but there is a difference between that and having no sense of reality about yourself and there is a difference between acknowledging that and insisting that nobody's position can have any validity because of it.

lunchbox
11-03-2006, 12:24 PM
Just because the heat of the moment can be dehumanizing, does not mean I do not want to cuddle afterwards.

xdamage
11-03-2006, 12:39 PM
Regarding "calling her a cock grinder is no less a euphemism..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism

Euphemism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker.

When a phrase is used as a euphemism, it often becomes a metaphor whose literal meaning is dropped. Euphemisms are often used to hide unpleasant or disturbing ideas, even when the literal term for them is not necessarily offensive....

----

My interpretation of the term "cock grinder" was that it is intended to be the opposite of a euphemism, it is intended to be offensive, and disturbing, troubling to the listener, as a point of counter-balance.

It was not really intended to be flattering to the dancer or customer, more of a crude point of view that was meant to highlight that if you strip away the frosting from the cake, there is a view point that you are left with is a lot of guys paying $20 to have a strippers grind on their dicks, and a lot of strippers using every possible technique they can to convince guys to part with $20 in exchange for the grind.

The point here is that it can be a sign of a mentally adjusted individual who can see a situation from multiple points of view including the norms, the offensive sides, the economic sides, the PL sides, the humorous sides, and even the euphemist sides. And like I said, I think you're just seeing more than your normal amount of counter offensiveness here to try and balance the insistence that we "boys" must see everything through the same euphemistic glasses that the dancers tend to prefer. The big difference is that the boys have a lot less of a personal investment in dancing. We come and go when we want, it's just entertainment. The dancers on the other are involved multiple hours a day, tend to be judged more critically by society, are often put in a position of serving less then pleasant customers, etc. It's to be expected then that the dancers need a bit more frosting then the "boys" to swallow this cake. Still, being one of the boys, I really don't need a dancer telling me that I need to more frosting with my cake.

Jenny
11-03-2006, 01:08 PM
It was such a nice gift, for a little while....

Very well; once again, I have been gotten. Euphemism was not the perfect term. The perfect term was, in fact, Dysphemism. I could have saved myself this humiliation with a simple googling exercise. My point - that one term is not any more "accurate" than the other and that the term "cock grinder" has just as much of an agenda as "entertainer" still stands. I really don't see how the rest of this addresses anything I've said.


Regarding "calling her a cock grinder is no less a euphemism..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphemism

Euphemism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A euphemism is an expression intended by the speaker to be less offensive, disturbing, or troubling to the listener than the word or phrase it replaces, or in the case of doublespeak to make it less troublesome for the speaker.

When a phrase is used as a euphemism, it often becomes a metaphor whose literal meaning is dropped. Euphemisms are often used to hide unpleasant or disturbing ideas, even when the literal term for them is not necessarily offensive....

----

My interpretation of the term "cock grinder" was that it is intended to be the opposite of a euphemism, it is intended to be offensive, and disturbing, troubling to the listener, as a point of counter-balance.

It was not really intended to be flattering to the dancer or customer, more of a crude point of view that was meant to highlight that if you strip away the frosting from the cake, there is a view point that you are left with is a lot of guys paying $20 to have a strippers grind on their dicks, and a lot of strippers using every possible technique they can to convince guys to part with $20 in exchange for the grind.

The point here is that it can be a sign of a mentally adjusted individual who can see a situation from multiple points of view including the norms, the offensive sides, the economic sides, the PL sides, the humorous sides, and even the euphemist sides. And like I said, I think you're just seeing more than your normal amount of counter offensiveness here to try and balance the insistence that we "boys" must see everything through the same euphemistic glasses that the dancers tend to prefer. The big difference is that the boys have a lot less of a personal investment in dancing. We come and go when we want, it's just entertainment. The dancers on the other are involved multiple hours a day, tend to be judged more critically by society, are often put in a position of serving less then pleasant customers, etc. It's to be expected then that the dancers need a bit more frosting then the "boys" to swallow this cake. Still, being one of the boys, I really don't need a dancer telling me that I need to more frosting with my cake.

Jenny
11-03-2006, 01:10 PM
Just because the heat of the moment can be dehumanizing, does not mean I do not want to cuddle afterwards.

Oh. Well then. Just forget the whole thing. All I really wanted for someone to hold me.

mr_punk
11-03-2006, 09:37 PM
But isn't this conversation all about esteem/self esteem?not really. i only mentioned it because self-esteem is the one of the end objectives of PC.

We obviously like to see ourselves in the best possible light, so we each have a mental model of the situation that puts ourselves in the best perspective and people with opposing points of view in a worse one.so, it bolsters your self-esteem when you characterize one stripper as being "extremely manipulative/money grabbing" and another stripper as being "genuinely nice/care about their customers"? if that is the case, when you consider that both strippers equally want you for your money. frankly, i think it's ignorant and totally unaware. if anything, it should lower one's self-esteem for being so blind.

The big difference is that the boys have a lot less of a personal investment in dancing. We come and go when we want, it's just entertainment.sure, and that's what jenny doesn't understand. we're all free agents when we step into a sc. it's not a contract signed in blood or any other form of commitment. a sc isn't a democracy. for example, a dancer can set any mileage she wants. conversley, a customer (unless, he's the whipped type) decides how his tiproll is spent. so, jenny telling customers they have to say, such and such in this way, is wasting her breath. a customer can always get another girl, go to another club or take a walk. most of the guys down here have been going to sc long enough. they're going to keep doing whatever they've have been doing all along.

Very well; once again, I have been gotten. Euphemism was not the perfect term. The perfect term was, in fact, Dysphemism. I could have saved myself this humiliation with a simple googling exercise. My point - that one term is not any more "accurate" than the other and that the term "cock grinder" has just as much of an agenda as "entertainer" still stands. I really don't see how the rest of this addresses anything I've said.so, if you called me a "pervert" or "walking ATM" rather than a "customer". your agenda is to what? embarrass, humiliate, or insult me? ROTFLMAO. if that's your intent. i must say you're doing a piss poor job of it considering the surroundings. then again, i'm not PC. more importantly, i'm not looking to protect anything when i step into a sc. besides, dirty talk turns me on. seriously, you're better off trying it on one of those CC types. hell, they probably softly weep and run out of the sc never to return.

mr_punk
11-03-2006, 10:07 PM
Okay. That is actually a good point, once we can pry you away from an obsession with clothes. Although - not to belabour the point, but I must...- what the stripper/woman is wearing is a DIFFERENT point than whoever at some other post called special moral arenas a good point? really? oh, thank you. now, why am i feeling like someone is patting me on the head and cooing, "good doggie". anyway, i guess i screwed myself out of a scooby snack because my point hasn't changed since the beginning. special moral arenas? what the hell is that? frankly, your morals were never at issue. secondly, you're the party that likes to ignore the context of the sc. obviously, you assumed that i thought a sc is equivalent to the corner market...LOL. lastly, the act of objectifying yourself to make money is perfectly fine with me. after all, i do like a nice ass in a pair of booty shorts. however, when you're dressed like a tv streetwalker and you turn around and tell me that you're not objectifying yourself, but making yourself "sexually desirable". well, i'm compelled to drop to the floor and roll around in uncontrollable laughter.

Neither am I. None of this has anything to do with political correctness.hold on, first you politicize the issue. now, you're telling me it was all for show? now, that's one hell of a deconstruction.

Nothing to do with self-esteem. In fact I think we have it on good authority from this board that many women found what they call "self esteem" in being objectified. And I don't think asking you to correctly nuance and understand both the vocabulary and the ideas you are throwing around is particularly out of touch with reality.perhaps or perhaps not, but there are striking similarities between what you're arguing and PC. the PC rationale begins with an strong emphasis on non-offensive, neutral language and vocabulary with respect to gender, race, etc. according to PC theory, the bolstering of self-esteem is one of the natural end products. for example, little kevin doesn't get a "F" (ie: failure) in math. instead, he receives the non-offensive grade of "deferred success" thereby allowing him to maintain a healthy self-esteem. so what if he thinks 2+2=5. he still has a bright future as an CPA.

Again. Nothing to do with political correctness. And I think the bizarreness here is YOU claiming that telling a woman to bend over and spread her ass cheeks is perfectly acceptable and need not be analysed at all rather than me taking exception.yeah, you keep telling me you're not a duck, but you start quacking at the mention of asscheek spreading. anyway, are you trying to implying that such a request makes me a pervert? now, i am offended. why, i'll have you know that i'm a super-pervert. but hey, it's a sc. which makes it acceptable and it doesn't need to be analyzed or politicized. furthermore, i don't need to analyze or politicize the acceptability of said stripper spreading her asscheeks. again, it's a sc.

Well. You're not in a strip club. If you are coming to stripclubjunkies to "relax", meaning to have women shut the fuck up and spread their ass cheeks, I daresay you are in the wrong place and should take yourself to a stripclub, real or virtual, forthwith where at least the women are paid (maybe) for being subject to... well, you.<snipped jenny's tale of oppression by the patriarchy>no, that's not what i meant. although, the spreading of asscheeks is music to my ears. i'm not asking you to suck up to me either. bootlickers get nothing in return from me. others may get their egos stroked or see it as a sign of respect by having their asses kissed, but i don't. oh yeah, i'm not wrong. it just means they want you to send them some nude pics.

xdamage
11-03-2006, 11:36 PM
It was such a nice gift, for a little while....

Very well; once again, I have been gotten. Euphemism was not the perfect term. The perfect term was, in fact, Dysphemism.

Well, since you're being gracious, and I like this side of you, I'll be gracious too. I think I did understand your point regardless of the word used (I'm really not such a big stickler for finding the right word anyway). You have reasonable cause to be hyper-sensitive to customers degrading dancers just because (e.g., because they have a deep seated need to degrade women) And that's not an unreasonable interpretation of "griding cock for $20."

OTOH, at least I don't take the SC all that seriously. It's a hardly the place to figure out how men treat women in general, or the reverse, how women treat men in general. Oh of course you're bound to come across people that behave and think the same inside and out, but personally I'm very comfortable behavior and even thinking ITC is somewhat different from OTC.

Jenny
11-04-2006, 08:04 AM
a good point? really? oh, thank you. now, why am i feeling like someone is patting me on the head and cooing, "good doggie". I don't know that I would have gone so far as to say "good". I might have said "Alright doggie" or, more likely, "Doggie that is now only slightly below average" and remind you that I can take you to the pound if you don't behave yourself. And that nobody else is likely to want a bad dog, so they'll probably have to euthanize you. But my training methods are not at issue here.

Phil-W
11-05-2006, 11:54 AM
Sorry Phil, but I feel bound to disagree with you. A) you are making a fairly broad assumption that my self-esteem relies on being an "entertainer" rather than a "cock grinder." I'm afraid that for me, this just isn't the case, and there is a fair representation of dancers who feel the same way.

Ok, but your self estem does depend on being treated with a degree of respect. Irrespective of the degree of contact you permit (or are comfortable with) your self esteem (pride, ego - call it what you will) must surely take a knock if you are faced with a continual sucession of customers treating you in a derogatory way.

Conversely, a succession of customers treating you on the terms you want to be treated must have the converse effect.


B) I don't think that looking at why guys like punk think it is so perfectly acceptable to dehumanize dancers just because of the fact that they are dancers (or cock grinders, or whores or whatever other signifier you wish to use. We all know what an exotic dancer does; calling her a cock grinder is no less a euphemism, it just privileges a certain nastiness and, for that matter, a pre-disposition to dehumanize her.

Dehumanising it might be, but does the urge to do so come from a subconscious need to compensate for the feeling that the need to have a high contact lap dance (as opposed to having that degree of sexual contact in a non-"pay for play" environment) somehow diminishes our self esteem?

Not all impulses have conscious origins - in which case we might not be aware of what prompted them.


That said, I mean, of course we all want to present ourselves in the best light; but there is a difference between that and having no sense of reality about yourself and there is a difference between acknowledging that and insisting that nobody's position can have any validity because of it.

My 'reality' about the SC environment is that it's a little bubble of fantasy where we all behave in a way different from what we normally do. I accept that the dancers I see in that environment often behave very differently from the real world. But just because they behave differently, doesn't mean that courtesy (from both sides) has to go by the board.

The problem with all this theorising about the meaning of the SC environment is that there's no absolute standard of what's right and what's wrong. In that sense any position has validity, because there's no way of disproving it.

You could strap everyone who's contributed to this thread to a lie detector and they'd all pass - because everyone is expressing their particular Weltanschungg and is automatically set to place less weight on any viewpointsthat contradict theirs.

Phil.

Phil-W
11-05-2006, 12:22 PM
so, it bolsters your self-esteem when you characterize one stripper as being "extremely manipulative/money grabbing" and another stripper as being "genuinely nice/care about their customers"? if that is the case, when you consider that both strippers equally want you for your money. frankly, i think it's ignorant and totally unaware. if anything, it should lower one's self-esteem for being so blind.

I accept that thare are a wide variety of motivations for dancers doing what they do, and a wide variety of methods for achieving those objectives. Within that spectrum you will get "extremely manipulative/money grabbing" dancers as well as "genuinely nice/care about their customers" dancers.

You get the same thing in any number of other walks of life. You can get double glazing salesmen who are manipulative and money grabbing and will sell overpriced sub standard goods, or you can get a salesman working for a reputable double glazing form who'll sell a product that's value for money.

It's not a case of being blind - it's a case of being realistic. I do not know of any dancer who'll strip for other than financial reward (money, drugs or whatever). It's why they do the job in the first place. Within those limits it's perfectly possible to find dancers who're in the 'nicer' categorisation.

I know a dancer who's become very wealthy by treating her customers well and building up a clientelle of men pleased to come back time and time again to buy dances.

Does this make them PL's? Nope, because the boundaries are very clearly set by the dancer - they know there's no prospect of seeing her OTC, but she does say she values their company at work and will treat them as well as she knows how while they're there. They pay cos she's fun to be with and genuinely likes them as a person. Both sides seem happy with the transaction and i don't think there are any illusions either side.

I could also name you a very manipulative dancer who's taken a high powered businessman for £160,000 (say $230,000) over the last three years. He's bright enough to have got very wealthy, but not bright enough to see he's bering taken for a ride. I do know this dancer (on a casual basis) outside of work, and there she's nice as pie. But put her into a SC environment and she's just fixated on removing the maximum amount of money from her customers by any means, be it fair or foul.

Yes, dancers see customers primarily as a source of income, but the way they extract that income can vary considerably.

Caveat Emptor - as in any walk of life there are nice and there are nasty dancers.

Phil.

mr_punk
11-05-2006, 04:48 PM
You get the same thing in any number of other walks of life. You can get double glazing salesmen who are manipulative and money grabbing and will sell overpriced sub standard goods, or you can get a salesman working for a reputable double glazing form who'll sell a product that's value for money.hold on, Phil. we're not talking about a stripper ripping a customer off. at least, i'm not talking about a ROB.

I know a dancer who's become very wealthy by treating her customers well and building up a clientelle of men pleased to come back time and time again to buy dances.<snip>okay, but why does this make her a temple virgin?

I could also name you a very manipulative dancer who's taken a high powered businessman for £160,000 (say $230,000) over the last three years.<snip>LOL..are you kidding me? a stripper in a sc stringing along some whipped PL makes her "manipulative"? frankly, he deserves every piano payment coming his way.

It's not a case of being blind - it's a case of being realistic. I do not know of any dancer who'll strip for other than financial reward (money, drugs or whatever). It's why they do the job in the first place. Within those limits it's perfectly possible to find dancers who're in the 'nicer' categorisation."nicer"? WTF does that mean? does it mean she didn't say "wanna dance"? does she act as if you're Hugh Grant? does she make you feel that you're "different"? if that's the case. it's not so much a case of her being "nicer", but a case of her stroking your ego. IOW, she's just doing her job, which is getting your money, just like the "greedy" stripper who asks "wanna dance", but in a different way. realistically, this doesn't make one stripper a "girl scout" and the other a "gold digger". it's a mischaracterization created by your own ego-stroked or ego-deflated mind. of course, one doesn't have to purchase the services of the "money grabbing" stripper. still, i don't think a customer should be offended because she didn't assume the genuflection position when she approached him.


Yes, dancers see customers primarily as a source of income, but the way they extract that income can vary considerably.true. however, it seems you take exception by the method of extraction rather than by the dancer actually doing something wrong. you know, it's not the first time i've seen this sort of reaction from some of the customers around here.

I accept that thare are a wide variety of motivations for dancers doing what they do, and a wide variety of methods for achieving those objectives.it sure doesn't seem like it, Phil.

xdamage
11-06-2006, 07:36 AM
Yes, dancers see customers primarily as a source of income, but the way they extract that income can vary considerably.




The thing is Phil, I don't really care what a dancer thinks or how she extracts the $$s ITC. I don't view human's as being all that altruistic to begin with; quite the opposite, I find people do what they do because it benefits them in some way(s), or in the case of their own children because it's largely instinctual. And while altruism exists, I certainly don't expect to find it in the club. It's also human nature to tell ourselves how wonderful we are, and often advantangeous to really believe it, I could recommend some really good books, but I digress...

Bottom line is the SC is entertainment for me, nothing more. While the strippers may have a need to convince themselves they are altruistic, or victims, or that men are villans, or whatever other stereotypical issues they need to work through or believe so they can feel good about themselves, we (well at least I) don't need them to come to the blue side and teach me how to think. Keep it on the pink side where they can find plenty of others of the same cult/sub-group who will agree with them. OTOH if you bring it to the blue side then OF COURSE some of the guys are going to hold up a the mirrors and say "hey, look at yourself"

Sure, different dancers use different techniques to extract $$s, but if you want to read altruism or goodness or kindness or whatever into that, well enjoy it, but I just view it as "what works" for them. Put another way, they may even believe it (the best actors are the ones who can't separate reality from the act), but all we really know for sure is that the behavior attracts guys like you to spend more money, and the vast majority of those guys are going to go home alone, no different then the guys who spend their money on the other women. So really, what difference does it make what he stripper or customer is thinking? Who cares? It's still $20 for a lapdance.

Phil-W
11-06-2006, 02:10 PM
okay, but why does this make her a temple virgin?

Nope, just a very astute businesswoman who knows shes got a superb figure, pretty face and nice personality.

She set out to make sure she was financially secure for life by the time she stops dancing - and to do that she needs a regular income stream. So, she's carefully developed a series of relatively wealthy and generous regulars that she treats as well as she knows how inside the SC environment. Neither does she mislead them about her intentions - they know she won't meet them OTC.

She's already got a fair bit of money invested. As I said, a very astute businesswoman who has an unconventional line of work, yet has manged to earn that money with a minimum of manipulation and cynicism.


"nicer"? WTF does that mean? does it mean she didn't say "wanna dance"? ...does she make you feel that you're "different"? if that's the case. it's not so much a case of her being "nicer", but a case of her stroking your ego. IOW, she's just doing her job, which is getting your money, just like the "greedy" stripper who asks "wanna dance", but in a different way. realistically, this doesn't make one stripper a "girl scout" and the other a "gold digger". it's a mischaracterization created by your own ego-stroked or ego-deflated mind. of course, one doesn't have to purchase the services of the "money grabbing" stripper. still, i don't think a customer should be offended because she didn't assume the genuflection position when she approached him.

Ii've never made any bones about a dancer's motivation being primarily financial. However, there are different ways of earning the same level of financial reward. You can earn it (like the dancer mentioned above) by treating your customers as well as you know how, or you can take the more cynical, manipulative approach.

(I'm also of the opinion, that this business often turns dancers cynical - dealing with some of the clientelle they have to does not develop the kindest of opinions about the male of the species).

As I've said in the past, watching a dancer is just a bit of light hearted escapism for me. I don't take it seriously, and it's generally nice to find a dancer with a parallel lack of seriousness towards what she does. I don't have any great desire to have my ego stroked - I'm fully aware that she's wouldn't be naked unless I was paying her. I'm quite happy to regard her purely as an entertainer who'll put a smile on my face for a few minutes - why be more serious than that?


true. however, it seems you take exception by the method of extraction rather than by the dancer actually doing something wrong. you know, it's not the first time i've seen this sort of reaction from some of the customers around here.

An extreme example I know, but I could attempt to make $1M by setting up my own company and selling a prodcut of genuine value or I could attempt to con an old lady out of her life savings. Which is the 'nicer' way of earning?

The dancer is doing nothing legally wrong - she's just found a wealthy guy who's commonsense is obstructed by his gonads. As I often say, Caveat Emptor.

As I said in an earlier post, I do know this dancer a little outside of work - and find her a perfectly pleasant person to talk to. However, we have very different ethical standards, so I have no desire for anything more than casual friendliness when we meet (via a mutual friend).

It's nothing to do with her being a dancer - it's a standard I apply to anyone I know.

To give another example - I have a friend of long standing who's a small time drug dealer. He sells to mature adults who use cannabis or the like for recreation from time to time. If he started selling to schoolkids or the emotionally vulnerable I'd rapidly revise my opinion of him.

(OK, I'm presumtuous enough to have my own standards as to what's right and wrong - but that's another debate.)

Phil.