View Full Version : Houston crackdown
mr_punk
05-20-2007, 12:50 PM
my 2 cents is that, the dancers in houston let it get as bad as it did. not all of them, but the majority.now, now, they're just being real friendly. seriously, let's try to refrain from eyeball clawing down here. frankly, you girls can't take a dump without management's blessing. so, what makes you think this instance is any different?
evan_essence
05-20-2007, 04:39 PM
Something else to keep in mind - at least here, and likely the same in a lot of other places - that licensing fees are not really meant to be just a "purse" for the municipality. It's meant, in theory, to be directly related to the public order and good. Licensing fees should not, then, exceed the cost of administering the license. I personally object to being treated like a cash cow for the city, especially in the interest of an ancillary effect.Yeah, that sounds nice and libertarian on paper. Doesn't work that way in real life though, especially not in the lower 48. You can argue that it should work that way, but that's not going to change the reality of how it frequently does work. There are plenty of examples of these things being treated as sin tax, rather than traditional licensing, and becoming a purse for governments, which they love. It might not be fair, but it's politically palatable. In reality, it's a sin tax, not a license fee. It's arguable whether that's more unfair than any other tax, considering few taxes are applied with fairness for all in mind. It's meant to enrich government coffers. That is the actual political beauty of this. It appeals to government where they live, not out of some altruistic desire of bureaucrats to clean up the industry.
I get the effect you are looking for, but I don't think it is a viable route. Plus, I think another effect that plan has is to essentially penalize girls who ARE "qualified" (no matter how we've decided to define the qualifications).I don't see how that's so. If you got the money to pay the license fee, you got it. If you don't, you don't, or at least you're going to have to work awhile waiting tables to save for it. It's not going to discriminate on the basis of looks or your potential earnings in the club. If anything, it's a barrier to entry for anyone who doesn't believe the investment is worth it, including those who flit in temporarily and then flit out.
Nobody is out there saying that coca cola has to taste a certain way, or appeal to a certain number of consumers before it can be made and marketed.Neither is a high "license" fee. It's requiring merely that you plop down $200 (or whatever) up front. Doesn't matter who the f*ck you are, who you appeal to, or how the f*ck you're going to approach the job after you start.
If you want to move in a more mandated regulation, it is the same issue I was discussing before - you need a coherent and compelling argument (and "it will be advantageous to me and 6 other girls" is just NOT compelling, considering the balance) and reasoning to implement it.Hahaha. Is that how it works in Canada? I am not familiar with those strange customs. I think I heard of these lofty principles once in a government class. Meanwhile, here in the USofA, it's enough that it will benefit government coffers without opposition from the public. And in many jurisdictions, it won't be prohibited or overruled by some higher authority. That's all the coherent and compelling argument you need. Granted, that's a political argument, but I'm surmising on historical precedent that it would work beautifully.
And ya know, it really isn't regulation. There's no extra rules that need to be written or enforced. Again, a beauty of an idea. Government need do nothing to earn this. They like that, and actually, so should dancers because it doesn't translate into more regulations. In fact, government then becomes dependent on strippers for revenues and less likely to bust on the revenue source. It is, as I said in the other thread, in effect, legal bribery.
So far, all we've got is "it will be better for me" and not "me" as a representative dancer, but "me" as a tiny subset of dancers.That's at the heart of politics. If it's not better for you, get your political clout mustered up for battle. I think you're on the losing side though, especially if you're going to stick to an argument that it's not fair or that the free market ought to decide. Better to take a moral stance that government will be sanctioning evil by sucking at the stripper's teat.
-Ev
Bridgette
05-20-2007, 04:45 PM
Mia, you're truly just making assumptions that certain types of girls get asked for extras more than others.
You're making assumptions about what you *think* my quality standards would be; you're also making assumptions about whether or not lots of full wallets are walking out the door in Atlanta clubs - from what I saw WORKING there recently, there aren't any customers leaving because the girls aren't hot enough, because they're too busy bugging their eyes out at all the seriously hot eye candy :P
This has just gotten to be an argument for the sake of argument, it seems. I say we need fewer girls and better quality, MOST girls and customers agree, and you two girls just keep saying NO NO NO to everything I say, because clearly, you think I'm saying YOU wouldn't cut it and that is completely ridiculous. It is obvious that you two feel you personally would be pushed out or punished, and THAT is the overriding reason why you don't like the ideas. All your moralistic reasoning is just posturing.
Looking around I can see the dead horse has been beaten into total oblivion. I'm feeling the impending thread closure already.
Jenny
05-20-2007, 10:45 PM
This has just gotten to be an argument for the sake of argument, it seems. I say we need fewer girls and better quality, MOST girls and customers agree, and you two girls just keep saying NO NO NO to everything I say, because clearly, you think I'm saying YOU wouldn't cut it and that is completely ridiculous. It is obvious that you two feel you personally would be pushed out or punished, and THAT is the overriding reason why you don't like the ideas. All your moralistic reasoning is just posturing.
Looking around I can see the dead horse has been beaten into total oblivion. I'm feeling the impending thread closure already.
Well. Since we're wholesale dismissing what you say instead of addressing the weaknesses in what you say and we're not acknowledging where you might have reasonable points, while pointing out various fallacies, clearly that must be the case. I mean, that's what posturing usually looks like.
You brought up personal anecdotal experience; so did I. I just also mentioned a whole bunch of, you know, other stuff, that - I don't know - did you just... skip it? Maybe you just skimmed it or something. Oh well. No big.
Jenny
05-20-2007, 11:04 PM
Yeah, that sounds nice and libertarian on paper. Doesn't work that way in real life though, especially not in the lower 48. You can argue that it should work that way, but that's not going to change the reality of how it frequently does work. There are plenty of examples of these things being treated as sin tax, rather than traditional licensing, and becoming a purse for governments, which they love. It might not be fair, but it's politically palatable. In reality, it's a sin tax, not a license fee. It's arguable whether that's more unfair than any other tax, considering few taxes are applied with fairness for all in mind. It's meant to enrich government coffers. That is the actual political beauty of this. It appeals to government where they live, not out of some altruistic desire of bureaucrats to clean up the industry.
Okay... I don't really know how to put this... but because some municipalities levy license charges falsely doesn't make them "taxes". They cannot be treated like taxes just because you think that they share some characterizations, and further, I don't think that I would make any regulation based on the notion that "laws" and "principles" are just some kind of window dressing. Sorry Ev, but it seems wildly circular to answer an statement that licensing fees cannot be randomly increased to keep strippers out of the business because licensing fees are regimented with "but we all know that laws aren't followed; why bother, then, make laws consistent with other laws?" It just makes no sense. Further, the court of Appeal in Ontario recently upheld exactly that - licenses are not a purse for the city and should not exceed the cost of administering and policing the license. So the idea that courts might actually uphold these "laws" is not so crazy.
Hahaha. Is that how it works in Canada? I am not familiar with those strange customs. I think I heard of these lofty principles once in a government class. Meanwhile, here in the USofA, it's enough that it will benefit government coffers without opposition from the public.
Ah. More pointless cynicism - the blanket, yet useless and substance-less answer to every argument. Yes. That is how it works in Canada. We have this interesting thing called "rule of law." Not my fault if you guys are backwards.
That's at the heart of politics. If it's not better for you, get your political clout mustered up for battle. I think you're on the losing side though, especially if you're going to stick to an argument that it's not fair or that the free market ought to decide. Better to take a moral stance that government will be sanctioning evil by sucking at the stripper's teat.
-Ev
Okay - Ev, you're acting as if higher license fees were the only thing on the table. And, not for nothing, but here, including police clearance the license fee is more than double your hypothetical $200, without the desired effect (although we'll if anyone challenges it after the Windsor decision). The reasoning behind the license fee (although I think there are impediments to the plan itself) are exactly where I thought Bridgette and I had some shared ground. So that is not really wildly contentious.
Secondly - I'm not sure I'm on the losing side. I think the administrative argument is way stronger; and my whole point that revolutionizing an industry to benefit a teeny minority - well, that's not likely to garner a lot of support in the industry will it? So... on my side is fairly basic ideas behind licensing, probably some form of the Municipality Act, and large numbers of women who are potentially unemployed, and are likely not conveniently employable anywhere else and at least half of whom will subsequently be on social assistance... versus, like 12 strippers who think they ought to earn more money. I don't think that I'm having the problem, politically or legally.
evan_essence
05-21-2007, 08:49 AM
Okay... I don't really know how to put this... but because some municipalities levy license charges falsely doesn't make them "taxes".Okay, hun, tantamount to taxes. Is that semantically clearer? I'm saying there isn't an automatic legal basis to prohibit the taxing of stripping any more than there's a prohibition to tax any other luxury separately and higher. Fer instance, where I live, the tax on riverboat gambling is not limited to the cost of government regulating it. Under your mindset, what's the justification for that? Why should riverboat gambling carry any more taxes than, say, running a retail store? It's merely because the government has decided to tax certain luxuries at a higher rate to produce income for its unrelated services. Cigarette taxes existed here long before there was any argument that they should offset the state's cost of health care for afflicted smokers. In fact, in most places, cigarette taxes were never earmarked for that purpose. In fact, my state didn't even use the lawsuit settlement from suing cigarette manufacturers for that purpose, even though the state's case was built on the idea that smoking was costing the state money. It was just swept into the general revenue coffers and divided up for various unrelated programs because politicians saw it as "free money." I'm not hallucinating examples of taxes that were created because they were politically palatable and not successfully legally challenged.
They cannot be treated like taxes just because you think that they share some characterizations, and further, I don't think that I would make any regulation based on the notion that "laws" and "principles" are just some kind of window dressing. Sorry Ev, but it seems wildly circular to answer an statement that licensing fees cannot be randomly increased to keep strippers out of the business because licensing fees are regimented with "but we all know that laws aren't followed; why bother, then, make laws consistent with other laws?" It just makes no sense.I didn't say it made sense from any perspective of ethical principles that are uniform for all. It makes sense politically. That's got nothing to do with ethical principles that are uniform for all. In fact, quite the opposite. It's a battle for advantage only marginally disguised as ethical principles that are uniform for all.
Further, the court of Appeal in Ontario recently upheld exactly that - licenses are not a purse for the city and should not exceed the cost of administering and policing the license. So the idea that courts might actually uphold these "laws" is not so crazy.That's why I distinguished the States from Canada. Although, I will note, the fee got established, didn't it? Curious that legislators didn't see it the right way in the first place, huh?
Ah. More pointless cynicism - the blanket, yet useless and substance-less answer to every argument. Yes. That is how it works in Canada. We have this interesting thing called "rule of law." Not my fault if you guys are backwards.You're right; it's not Canada's fault what's going on in the U.S. I want to further underscore that I'm not talking about Canada. As far as the U.S., I don't consider it cynicism when it's a description of what's actually taking place here. And even if it is, sweetie, my cynicism is nevah pointless.
Okay - Ev, you're acting as if higher license fees were the only thing on the table. And, not for nothing, but here, including police clearance the license fee is more than double your hypothetical $200, without the desired effect (although we'll if anyone challenges it after the Windsor decision).It hasn't cut down on the number of strippers? I doubt there's research supporting a hypothesis either way, but I don't understand how could it not. I guess we'll see once it's lowered to $25 or whatever. Unless, of course, government comes up with reasoning that the $400-plus fee is justified because it includes the cost of enforcement. (Now that is cynicism right there.)
The reasoning behind the license fee (although I think there are impediments to the plan itself) are exactly where I thought Bridgette and I had some shared ground. So that is not really wildly contentious.Yeah, I read that but I don't understand the basis of sharing common ground there. If you argue against the reasons for the fee, it would seem you're arguing against imposing the fee. Are you saying you support the fee for different reasons or only some of the same reasons?
Secondly - I'm not sure I'm on the losing side. I think the administrative argument is way stronger; and my whole point that revolutionizing an industry to benefit a teeny minority - well, that's not likely to garner a lot of support in the industry will it?Oh, I admit I was baiting you a bit there about the losing side. Okay, like the whole debate is prolly baiting. It's kinda like flirting with you but don't tell my girlfriend. Nevertheless, my counterpoint is that, in the face of what government wants, it doesn't matter what the industry wants unless it can muster enough political support to overcome what government wants.
Oh, um, btw, if no one's attempting politically to reduce the number of strippers in Canada, wtf is this about? I mean, I understand it reportedly addresses a sex trafficking problem from Europe, but if they truly care only about stopping that, couldn't they still allow work permits for any American stripper who has been living in the U.S. for a requisite number of years? Where's the NAFTA love, my sister?
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90645
-Ev
xdamage
05-21-2007, 10:41 AM
one can go to numerous clubs and observe that certain subsets of girls hear about extras MORE OFTEN than other subsets of girls. it is really, really, really easily observable, even as a customer if one chose to gather the data.
I don't know what the statistics are myself, but I am curious as to what you believe would contribute to the difference. I can think of two dynamics off hand:
1.) That customers perceive that the better looking dancers are less likely to have to ?stoop? to extras to make their $$s, and so less likely to ask for what they assume they won't get. The inverse of this is that the customers believe that the girls in the club that are less attractive (by whatever standards) must be or are more willing to do extras to make $$s because as compared with the better looking dancers, how else could they be competing? Perhaps it's sort of an extension of the outside world where guys believe that it is harder to get a good looking girl into bed then a less attractive one. Or you could say, guys feel less likely to be rejected around the less attractive girls and therefore braver.
2.) That customers believe that certain races of girls are more likely to do extras then others.
Or maybe some combination of, or some other reason? I'm not saying I have an opinion as to the why, just curious what you perceive is the reason(s) some girls are more likely to be approached about extras.
Jenny
05-21-2007, 12:59 PM
Okay, hun, tantamount to taxes. Is that semantically clearer? I'm saying there isn't an automatic legal basis to prohibit the taxing of stripping any more than there's a prohibition to tax any other luxury separately and higher. Fer instance, where I live, the tax on riverboat gambling is not limited to the cost of government regulating it. Under your mindset, what's the justification for that? Why should riverboat gambling carry any more taxes than, say, running a retail store?
Yah... but... this is not a tax. It's a licensing fee. And there are usually certain criteria under which the government is allowed to hand out licenses. If the acts under which municipalities are allowed to allocate licenses are being violated, that is a good reason to challenge them - not just say "well why bother with all these pesky laws." I mean - why bother getting licensed at all? Why not just bribe the next city official that comes into the bar to check my license?
I didn't say it made sense from any perspective of ethical principles that are uniform for all. It makes sense politically. That's got nothing to do with ethical principles that are uniform for all. In fact, quite the opposite. It's a battle for advantage only marginally disguised as ethical principles that are uniform for all.
Yeah, again. Why bother making a cohesive argument that actually conforms to the laws and regulations, when you can just roll your eyes and say "It's all political anyway"?
Although, I will note, the fee got established, didn't it? Curious that legislators didn't see it the right way in the first place, huh?
I don't see your point. Like are you saying that sometimes the Municipality Act needs to be adjudicated? That's not, like, a shock or surprise. I mean, we have this whole thing we call a judicial system in place to do exactly that. We've kind of anticipated the need to adjudicate these issues. Like, why bother having these stupid laws against murder when people are just going to do it anyway?
You're right; it's not Canada's fault what's going on in the U.S. I want to further underscore that I'm not talking about Canada. As far as the U.S., I don't consider it cynicism when it's a description of what's actually taking place here. And even if it is, sweetie, my cynicism is nevah pointless.
It is when you are using it to conflate different issues into one (e.g. licensing fees and taxes) and then simply dismissing your gelatinous concoction with the "it's politics" label. These distinctions actually mean something.
It hasn't cut down on the number of strippers? I doubt there's research supporting a hypothesis either way, but I don't understand how could it not. I guess we'll see once it's lowered to $25 or whatever. Unless, of course, government comes up with reasoning that the $400-plus fee is justified because it includes the cost of enforcement. (Now that is cynicism right there.)
Oh, that is cynicism I'll buy - it's perfectly obvious that you can inflate the cost of administering the license by "enforcement" - although, again, in the recent case in Ontario it was determined that enforcement only applied to the bylaw officials ensuring that dancers were licensed. It did notapply to general law enforcement. What I meant was it hasn't cut down on the number of strippers that Bridgette (and for that matter, the kind that I) find undesirable. Like - we still got us plenty.
Yeah, I read that but I don't understand the basis of sharing common ground there. If you argue against the reasons for the fee, it would seem you're arguing against imposing the fee. Are you saying you support the fee for different reasons or only some of the same reasons?
No. I'm saying that her reasoning (eliminating non-producers) makes a little more sense than her standing back and deciding who deserves to be a stripper based on who she thinks is pretty enough. It's performance based. My objections to the specific implementation were (in my opinion, glaring) problems with that particular solution.
Oh, I admit I was baiting you a bit there about the losing side. Okay, like the whole debate is prolly baiting. It's kinda like flirting with you but don't tell my girlfriend. Nevertheless, my counterpoint is that, in the face of what government wants, it doesn't matter what the industry wants unless it can muster enough political support to overcome what government wants.
Well, I agree. But again there are a few issues I have obviously not adequately separated here. Most of the time there are specific legal limits on the issuing of licenses. Cities do not generally just have a blank cheque to do it any way they want. Most of the time, the administration of licenses (for anything, not just dancing) is controlled by some law. I think that any proposed licensing fees should conform to that law, and frequently there is a requirement that licenses are not treated as a purse for the government. As for what the "industry" wants - we obviously have factions. My point was that Bridgette's proposition has serious administrative problems AS WELL as lacking widespread industry support. So really - I feel pretty safe.
Although I'm TOTALLY telling your girlfriend.
Oh, um, btw, if no one's attempting politically to reduce the number of strippers in Canada, wtf is this about? I mean, I understand it reportedly addresses a sex trafficking problem from Europe, but if they truly care only about stopping that, couldn't they still allow work permits for any American stripper who has been living in the U.S. for a requisite number of years? Where's the NAFTA love, my sister?
http://www.stripperweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=90645
-EvThey could. But as we've been saying there is no shortage of dancers, and no need to import and dancing is not a "profession"; and usually a work visa requires there to be an inadequate local labour supply, doesn't it? And again - the issue is not whether anyone is trying to politically reduce the number of strippers, but whether they can levy licensing fees to do it. And... you still need a visa under NAFTA; Chapter 16 of NAFTA makes it easier to enter for certain kinds of workers, it's not a general invitation for the low skilled, is it?
miabella
05-21-2007, 06:13 PM
while some people prefer to lalalala and pretend that western norms of beauty are not tailored to some kinds of women over others, i do not prefer to do so. as i've repeatedly mentioned in this thread (and hell, one can search on posts from black dancers, tattooed dancers, pierced dancers, etc), it is easy enough to discover that the norms of society that hold some groups of girls are just naturally 'dirtier' than others carry over into titty bars.
in a nutshell, whether she offers contact, extras or does not offer either, many many many more customers are going to assume that a black dancer will provide extras and at a cheaper price than dancers of other ethnicities. this is true to a lesser extent for 'alternative' looking white dancers, but for similar reasons.
for fucksakes, there are how many threads about the travails black dancers suffer compared to other dancers re: extras expectations? and about how they have to hustle harder to make the same money? and so on and so forth? now don't get me wrong, black dancers are not the only group of dancers where this is the case-- they are simply the most extreme end of the spectrum of harder work for less profit.
and unlike tattooed or pierced dancers, they can't really hide or cover their ethnicity to make more money. it's just a straight negative effect that can only be partially mediated through sheer effort.
my larger point is that customers will make assumptions about some categories of dancer over others, and this assumption that they are not as quality is a sub-issue of the whole 'standards are lower' thing. if you think all black dancers will offer extras or simply aren't 'classy', then letting them work is by definition lowering the standard. nevermind that plenty of individual black dancers are classy, low contact, etc. the social norms don't make allowance for individuals who deviate from the (negative) stereotypes.
how this plays out in atlanta is that black dancers there and NOWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA basically get to end-run around those prejudices entirely because atlanta is the only major city in america with a ton of black guys who will spend and spend big on low or no contact. so they don't even have to compete directly with the white girls or work in majority-white clubs to get access to the same earning potential. that's not true anywhere else in the nation.
as for the looks of dancers in atlanta, it is a high probability that the clubs there have at least some 'unattractive' dancers working in them even if many are conventionally or customer-friendly 'attractive'. and if there are some unattractive girls there, or girls unattractive to given customers, then there are some wallets walking out regularly for whatever reason. some of those 'icky non-spenders' just may find the girls in a given club not to their taste though all the other customers are 'drooling over eyecandy'. claiming that atlanta somehow has necessarily more attractive dancers per capita than anywhere is a pretty risky claim to make.
Bridgette
05-22-2007, 05:35 AM
No girl can ever know what custies are asking of other girls, so when they say they get asked for extras more than someone else, they are making wild assumptions. Simply assuming something is so, and listening to all the *assumptions* saying it's so, don't make it so. The girls who make that claim are projecting their OWN feelings about their (insert type again) onto the situation, hence they make wild assumptions about how much it does and does not happen to other girls, and find a silly excuse to feel sorry for themselves.
I get asked all the fucken time, but if I were to use this logic, I could say "hey, you (insert type here) girl! WTH do all these damn guys ask ME for this shit and not YOU??? They must think I'm a dirty whore because I'm (whatthefuckever)." You'd think I was an ass, wouldn't you? So then, WHY is this same statement more valid, simply because it comes from an ethnic or less-attractive girl??? That is retarded.
I realize your mind will never change on this issue mia, but ehh, I can't help pointing out the error in logic anyway.
Jenny, I wonder how many MORE strippers you'd have in Toronto if the license weren't so expensive. Maybe there are too many now, but you must admit that expense DOES present a decent barrier to entry for fly-by-nighters and those who are less self-confident, or those who just don't have the money. Not everyone can front that much money before they even get started. That's WHY so many industries lobby for tighter regulations, licensing and fees - to not only limit competition but also to maintain some image of quality and value. Strippers can do the same - we'd just have to sell it to the politicians differently, as has been discussed as nauseum.
Once again, I repeat that I believe yall are WAY misjudging my goals with these ideas. I would NOT want to push out all but some tiny number of girls - that's just absurd and a bad assumption. I think about 20%, as a general assessment, would be a good number to get rid of. The BOTTOM 20% obviously. You can't ever convince me that wouldn't be good for the remaining 80%, or that they wouldn't be damn supportive and happy about it, or that, at the end of the day, they'd give two shits about what happens to the other 20%. And while we're at it, you won't convince me that customers wouldn't be happy with it either, because it would cut out a whole lot of problems they currently complain about.
xdamage
05-22-2007, 06:03 AM
while some people prefer to lalalala and pretend that western norms of beauty are not tailored to some kinds of women over others, i do not prefer to do so. as i've repeatedly mentioned in this thread (and hell, one can search on posts from black dancers, tattooed dancers, pierced dancers, etc), it is easy enough to discover that the norms of society that hold some groups of girls are just naturally 'dirtier' than others carry over into titty bars.
Sure, there are a few jobs where beauty is required or key to success (e.g., modeling, stripping, dancing as a show girl) and whatever cultural norms of beauty apply. It is extremely doubtful that a society would have no standards, and so one way or another the standards will swing and some group will "benefit". Times change and a culture's idea of beauty changes.
As an aside, I still would note that there are many other jobs out there, and any of these beauty oriented jobs are temporary gigs. Beauty fades. I can understand how a black dancer would feel like she has a less of a chance, but just to add some perspective, stripping isn't an option for many women period (of all races) because of their appearance, and pretty much a non option for men. All of these other people need to work their way through school too, making a living, etc., and you could make the devils advocate argument that the world is unfair that the ugly girls and all of the men have to work in square jobs for non-stripper wages based on their ability to work hard, and other skills that they need to develop, but they can't rely on their beauty to help pay the bills. Just something to think about.
As for the increased requests for extras because of race, I'll leave that to you and Bridgette because I really don't know myself.
Bridgette
05-22-2007, 07:29 AM
As for the increased requests for extras because of race, I'll leave that to you and Bridgette because I really don't know myself.That's the point. No one can know. We can only know what happens to US, and anything else is nothing but assumption.
I know that I get asked for extras and prostitution, dates, wtfever all night, every night I work. So I ASSume every other girl gets the same. Just like we all hear all the other assorted crap guys spew in a stripclub. Seems most logical. I don't kid myself to think that guys are singling me out for extras and I think it's utterly ridiculous for any girl to think she deals with it more than anyone else. I know that when a guy asks me for that and not someone else, it's just because I'm the one who's there at the moment!!
xdamage
05-22-2007, 08:46 AM
That's the point. No one can know. We can only know what happens to US, and anything else is nothing but assumption.
Sure, this is one of those areas where people have their own personal experiences, but there isn't any real independent scientific research to back a conclusion. What you are saying is valid, from your experiences you get asked about extras a lot, and I'm guessing many girls do. It's possible Mia is even right, but in the overall scheme it sounds like all dancers have to deal with these requests to some degree. I guess it goes with the job, where you receive these requests a few times a day or many, dancers have to learn to cope with it and make their money regardless.
Jenny
05-22-2007, 10:50 AM
Jenny, I wonder how many MORE strippers you'd have in Toronto if the license weren't so expensive. Maybe there are too many now, but you must admit that expense DOES present a decent barrier to entry for fly-by-nighters and those who are less self-confident, or those who just don't have the money. Not everyone can front that much money before they even get started.
Maybe - but me, personally, I've gotten a license twice when I've been so broke I couldn't have bought gum. There are ways and ways. In case you're imagining anything untoward, the last time I got one, I required a police clearance, and the police station in the city requires like a week or something. I don't drive, and didn't want to wait a week. I went to a club, and agreed to "work off the expense" (work ten nights, full shifts at his club), and he drove me around, paid for everything, etc. Now, that time I had the money, and just found it easier to let him pay for it. I lost a little money that way, but it was no big deal. There is always someway to pay for something like that. So yes, it is an obstacle, but I don't think it is keeping the quality of dancers in Toronto high, compared to other cities. Although, by all means, ask around - guys who have been here.
That's WHY so many industries lobby for tighter regulations, licensing and fees - to not only limit competition but also to maintain some image of quality and value. Strippers can do the same - we'd just have to sell it to the politicians differently, as has been discussed as nauseum.
Um, this could be a misunderstanding on my part, but I'm pretty sure using licensing to limit competition would violate anti-competition laws. That is DEFINITELY not what licensing should be used for.
As well, I don't think you are adequately appreciating the difference between a profession that is self-regulated and licensed (e.g. doctors) with a municipally licensed job (e.g. taxi driver). We are in the latter category, so the licensing has to conform with whatever statute enables the municipality to give out licenses. If we were in the former, there would have to be a statute enabling a regulatory body, and a regulatory body would be difficult to create and maintain in this industry - especially one with the aims you want it to have, and it would be difficult to explain why such a body was necessary. I mean, for doctors it is obvious - quality control is required for the health and well-being of the consumer, and it is a very specialized area in which they are going to be the best qualified to determine, you know, who is qualified. Stripping isn't like that. Consumers don't need protection. It's not like buildings will fall down, people will get hurt, or accidentally break the law while relying on us. Bodies won't float up in ditches because they are inadequately disposed of, and if taxes aren't paid, it has nothing to do with us. Nobody is really relying on us for anything. It'd be like a bunch of waitresses getting together and saying that there should be a licensing and regulatory body for waitresses, just to make sure that they keep themselves in high demand. While you can see why it might be desirable from their point of view, it's not likely to work. Like I said - I understand your reasoning here, I'm just trying to explain why this particular implementation may have problems.
Once again, I repeat that I believe yall are WAY misjudging my goals with these ideas. I would NOT want to push out all but some tiny number of girls - that's just absurd and a bad assumption. I think about 20%, as a general assessment, would be a good number to get rid of. The BOTTOM 20% obviously. You can't ever convince me that wouldn't be good for the remaining 80%, or that they wouldn't be damn supportive and happy about it, or that, at the end of the day, they'd give two shits about what happens to the other 20%. And while we're at it, you won't convince me that customers wouldn't be happy with it either, because it would cut out a whole lot of problems they currently complain about.
Okay. First I care about what happens to the bottom 20%. Sitting there telling me that, no I don't, is not going to change that because I'm in a better position to know than you. Paring down 20% of an industry is a big deal. That is a lot of people out of work so that you can make more money. So yes, I want to know what you are planning to do with that 20%. Do they get to be grandmothered in? Does this regulatory body help them find alternative employment? Retraining? Second - I don't think there is a bottom 20%. I think you'd have to go at least up to 40% before you see any appreciable difference in quality. Hey, I still care about what happens to them, I'm just being real here. And numbers aside - I already said that "the industry is glutted" is common ground. It's the elimination criteria that we are differing on right now.
dayzed
05-22-2007, 11:38 AM
In the unfortunate event that the present situation continues to deteriorate, I would, on behalf of the St. Louis-area PLs, like to extend an open invitation to all the high-mileage chicks of Houston. After all, our cities have much in common. Were it not for Houston -- the country's indisputable leader in the category -- St. Louis could well lay claim to title of Least Culturally Interesting Major Urban Center. More to the point, our fair clubbing districts are the very picture of tolerance -- you could continue to showcase your skills and behaviorisms without fear of censure or reprisal. Further, our hospitality is the stuff of legend -- after the closure of PP, we rolled up our sleeves and went to work accommodating the many refugees of Memphis. Indeed, we have everything except the dancers.
Seriously, not sure if other area PLs would agree, but all of this talk about "too many dancers" does not compute. Beyond my own personal preferences -- I like nothing more than for the club to be overflowing with dancers, ranging from the sublime to mundane -- I am perfectly capable of picking and choosing, thank you very much, and am realistic with regard to expectations as well as my own position in the scheme -- but beyond those preferences, we are definitely lacking dancers. I don't know what's going on but the ratio of dancer-to-customer is way off and it's been like that for several months, night and day, weekday and weekend shifts, at all my fave spots. Those threads about the reverse conditions of Phoenix are almost enough to make me pick up and move to the godforsaken desert.
So yeah, anyway, consider the Lou as an option, ladies of Houston.:)
doc-catfish
05-22-2007, 12:11 PM
Seriously, not sure if other area PLs would agree, but all of this talk about "too many dancers" does not compute. Beyond my own personal preferences -- I like nothing more than for the club to be overflowing with dancers, ranging from the sublime to mundane -- I am perfectly capable of picking and choosing, thank you very much, and am realistic with regard to expectations -- but beyond those preferences, we are definitely lacking dancers.
Agreed. It ain't how big or small the supermarket is, or how many items they have for stock, its just about having the one or two that I want. To hell with the rest. I'd say the number of undesirable dancers at my club has reached the 90% range. I still go to give my business to the other 10%.
I don't know what's going on but the ratio of dancer-to-customer is way off and it's been like that for several months, night and day, weekday and weekend shifts, at all my fave spots. Those threads about the reverse conditions of Phoenix are almost enough to make me pick up and move to the godforsaken desert.
That seems to be the trend here in most of the Midwest. The reason we have no dancers is because well...there's no consistent money to be made here since everyone's stripper money seems to be going into their vehicle(s) gas tank. Or maybe the dancers all moved to Arizona.
Someone start a rumor thread on pink about big money to be made out here in flyover country would you? That's all it takes anymore to get a gold rush going right?
:rotfl:
miabella
05-22-2007, 04:41 PM
it is pretty easy to empirically determine who gets asked for extras more, or who is considered unclassy and/or high contact by default. it's like a dancer can know what the earning potential of a club is, even if she cannot necessarily know much specific money she could make at that club each shift.
i worked primarily in smallish clubs (average of 10-20 girls a shift). i could easily hear customers asking other dancers for various things such as drugs and extras. that's one of the reasons i keep saying x groups of dancers get asked more re:extras. i saw and heard it happen night after night after night. many other dancers have reported similar circumstances. so it's not like it's 'impossible to determine'. it is dead easy to determine it. one can even be all scientific about it utilising some relatively simple criteria.
i kinda feel like handwaving the issue of what groups of dancers get asked more for extras as some kind of inherent unknowable is wilfully disingenous. plus, it disregards the fact that in houston, racist hiring is a norm that would certainly not change if most of the clubs were shut down.
to be bluntly on topic, what works in atlanta won't work in houston because there is no pool of well-off black guys to provide black dancers with equal or better earning potential to white dancers. they have to work primarily at majority-white clubs in houston to get a shot at high earnings. these things hold true to a somewhat lesser extent for pierced and tattooed and other non-conventional dancers.
and their ability to simply get in the door would plummet even further if houston were to go the atlanta route. and it is pretty unlikely houston would do so.
evan_essence
05-22-2007, 08:41 PM
I mean - why bother getting licensed at all? Why not just bribe the next city official that comes into the bar to check my license?Because you need plausible deniability, silly. You can't just go handing over a bribe like that. You have to make it seem like it's not a bribe through some sort of legalistic mechanism that hides its true intent. Duh.
I don't see your point. Like are you saying that sometimes the Municipality Act needs to be adjudicated?I'm saying there are politicians who think precisely in the terms I'm describing. They don't let arguments like yours stop them from testing taxes in many forms and under many names. And as far as I know, there is no equivalent to the prohibition you're describing from the Municipality Act where I am, and surely not everywhere.
It is when you are using it to conflate different issues into one (e.g. licensing fees and taxes) and then simply dismissing your gelatinous concoction with the "it's politics" label. These distinctions actually mean something.Like I said, I'm not sure they're delineated in every jurisdiction as clearly as you're describing them in your jurisdiction. And for your information, missy, any gelatinous concoction I whip up is solely for my perverse enjoyment in watching you slithering through it!
No. I'm saying that her reasoning (eliminating non-producers) makes a little more sense than her standing back and deciding who deserves to be a stripper based on who she thinks is pretty enough. It's performance based. My objections to the specific implementation were (in my opinion, glaring) problems with that particular solution.Well, I'm still a bit lost then. Any proposal she's espoused has not been based on standards of beauty. She's talked about that issue, but the actual mechanism she speaks of doesn't measure that criteria at all. It is, albeit somewhat indirectly, a measurement of production ability because it allegedly discourages dancers who don't think they can produce enough to make a higher fee worth the investment.
Most of the time there are specific legal limits on the issuing of licenses. Cities do not generally just have a blank cheque to do it any way they want.I understand that's true in some places, and where it is, yes, it's less likely that it would be implemented because of the threat of it being overturned by a court. I agree with you about all that, where applicable. I'm just saying I don't think it's applicable as universally as you might think. I don't know of any cases or laws like that here, but since I haven't really done the extensive research, maybe I should STFU. Hell, I know of cases where the opposite is true. There's political pressure by, say, a builders group to keep the license fee BELOW the actual cost of administering the required city inspections, thus, taxpayers subsidize the process. There ought to be a higher law that prevents that, too, because once again, that's a product of political clout, not actual cost.
Although I'm TOTALLY telling your girlfriend.Bitch.
-Ev
Casual Observer
05-23-2007, 04:59 PM
I think about 20%, as a general assessment, would be a good number to get rid of. The BOTTOM 20% obviously.
I'd be happy if they got rid of the bottom 80%...there's just so damn much culling to be done.
Docido
05-23-2007, 07:57 PM
B's statement about men preferring more attractive women is so obvious I'm tempted to post pictures of the O RL'Y OWL. Come on Jenny, for someone so intelligent, you can be willfully obtuse at times. And evan is right, local governments don't care what the revenue stream is called, to them it's money in the city coffers. In addition, when the license fee is levied against a marginal group (strippers in this case) municipalities will charge high rates. Finally, judging what is a fair fee is next to impossible, since city hall or the county commissioners routinely add on administrative costs, indirect costs, enforcement costs, and processing fees to jack up the price.
Jenny
05-23-2007, 08:20 PM
B's statement about men preferring more attractive women is so obvious I'm tempted to post pictures of the O RL'Y OWL. Come on Jenny, for someone so intelligent, you can be willfully obtuse at times.
Dude - seriously. Like I care what either you or Bridgette think customers prefer. My point was simply that I have a job. I do it well. I have satisfied customers. I have money comparable to anyone else in my club. I don't see why either of you should get to take away my job because you might not think I'm cute enough and because she thinks she's entitled to my money. I think that seems ENTIRELY obvious, ENTIRELY intuitive and would meet most people's sense of fairness.
And evan is right, local governments don't care what the revenue stream is called, to them it's money in the city coffers.
What are you talking about? That is the exact reason that generally there is some law (in Ontario it is the municipality act) that controls how different fees are levied. I'm sure it is not called the municipality act everywhere, but I would be very, very surprised if there were many places in which there was no controlling legislation at all.
In addition, when the license fee is levied against a marginal group (strippers in this case) municipalities will charge high rates. Finally, judging what is a fair fee is next to impossible, since city hall or the county commissioners routinely add on administrative costs, indirect costs, enforcement costs, and processing fees to jack up the price.Again - what are you talking about? That is the exact reason that we have these lovely adjudicative systems. And seeing as one could not consistently find that indirect costs may be levied against one group and not another, chances are fairly good that wouldn't happen against a "marginal" group. As I mentioned to evan, this case was recently before the appeals court in Ontario. I am not just pulling this out of air. So how about if you don't fucking talk down to me unless you have something pretty fucking substantive to make me feel suitably chagrined OR you are paying me, say at a rate of $20 for 4 minutes. You know - unless you have either money or facts, you just don't get to.
Docido
05-23-2007, 10:02 PM
Jenny, we're talking at cross-purposes here. I don't know Canadian law, but in my state there isn't a controlling statue/body/agency that governs the fairness/amount of licensing fees. Instead, you have upwards of two dozen governmental, professional, or quasi-governmental groups that collect and administer licensing fees for architects, beauticians, massage therapists, social workers, real estate, etc., etc., etc. Sometimes the license fee is set by a state agency, legislative rule, or the professional organization. Also, the amount of those fees varies quite a bit according to the influence of the group affected, perceived need, or what the market will bare. There have been attempts to limit fees to costs of administration, but none of the legislation has been binding. So to answer your point, no, there isn't one law or regulation, but dozens upon dozens that apply to different professions with an enormous amount of variation. Sometimes fees are set low to encourage a particular group/activity or set excessively high to limit a group or activity. Nowhere in the legislation/regulation is fairness addressed. Fairness doesn't have as much to do with it as much as social engineering, but then every tax, fee, license etc. has an aspect of that. The system is not coherent or very logical. I also checked our state code. (Google is a wonderful thing.) Adjudicating the differences in direct/indirect costs between groups is not addressed anywhere at all, nor have there been any court cases addressing the issue. Bottom-line, if the state/county/city chooses to marginalize an activity by charging fees that seem excessive, they can get away with it.
Jenny, I can't see how my statement or B's implies taking customers away or money out of your own pocket. You make money at the club, by all reports are very attractive, and can hold your own in any conversation, so I'm left scratching my head over that remark.
Also, you seemed to go ballistic when I used the term “marginal,” I was no way was implying that you or argument was insignificant, just stating how the straight world sees your profession.
The Snark
05-23-2007, 10:47 PM
Suppose you're a single mother in your thirties. Maybe you've had some problems with drugs or alcohol, maybe you never finished high school, maybe you're a bit of a free spirit--whatever the case, the 9 to 5 world is not for you, and you rely on stripping to make ends meet. You've put on a few pounds and have a few wrinkles but still you make decent money. Sometimes you give a handjob or let guys finger your pussy, not because you're a slut, but because you need to pay your bills, or maybe you want piano lessons for your daughter, and you've got to offer something a little extra to compensate for your looks.
Now imagine that another dancer decides that you can't dance anymore because you're not pretty enough, or a customer banishes you from the club because you're an offense to his eyes. Now you're really fucked--you can't pay your bills, you can't take care of your children's needs, just because you don't meet some abstract standard of hotness. Is that really fair?
I think the point miabella and Jenny are trying to make is that the labour market for strippers doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's shaped by larger social trends, particularly the economic opportunities that exist for people without a university education or professional credentials.
I'm kind of reminded of Hal Rothman's observation that Las Vegas is the "last Detroit"--meaning that with the collapse of the manufacturing sector, Vegas is one of the last remaining places in America where unskilled and semi-skilled workers can still make a middle-class income. Stripping has more or less the same appeal--it's a job in which women without an education or training can make a wage high enough to support a family, buy a car and house, etc. And there really aren't a lot of jobs that have that same promise.
So if you're planning to reshape the labour market of strip clubs to meet some abstract aesthetic ideal of what a stripper should look like, it's going to hurt a lot of women who are teetering on the edge of poverty. Is that really what you want?
dayzed
05-24-2007, 04:33 PM
Once I get past the baseline requirement of (at least reasonably) high mileage, I often go for counterculture-y or grungy type gals, soul-looking women of color, and/or rough-looking biker redneck chicks. (Ever notice how redneck women always have the best asses?) That these types probably wouldn't socialize with (much less rub themselves all over) a guy like me in "real life" probably has something to do with it.
Often times these types are not in the club's top tier of conventional attractiveness. Hire as many as possible, I say. I don't want an imposed standard of beauty or "class" limiting my options -- particularly if it is the formulation of some lunkhead club manager. Those deserving will always make their (my) money. (I don't at all see how market principles fail to apply just because it's a SC.)
I'm very interested in what happens in Houston, if anyone has concrete info. I would hate to see this (seeming) war on high-mileage locales (first Memphis, now Houston) hit ESL.
doc-catfish
05-24-2007, 05:03 PM
Suppose you're a single mother in your thirties. Maybe you've had some problems with drugs or alcohol, maybe you never finished high school, maybe you're a bit of a free spirit--whatever the case, the 9 to 5 world is not for you, and you rely on stripping to make ends meet.
The thing is, some sort of financial hardship is usually the means by which the majority of dancers find their way into this line of work.
I can't say that I know of one dancer who set foot in this biz intending to do it for 5+ years, even if things eventually turned out that way. I mean, how many college aged women do you see out there dreaming of being a career stripper? I think some of the "A list" gals on pink seem to forget they are by and large the minority.
If we think about this logically, if a bombshell and a somewhat less attractive dancer (who perhaps is a better hustler) make the same money, than a high licensing fee would affect them both equally would it not? Therefore there's nothing "looks-ist" about it. The thing is, I fear such a license might deter a woman who has the potential of being a great dancer from trying it out, knowing that the only means of testing her market value as a dancer are to...
A.) pay beaucoup bucks for the license (possibly only to find out later that she can't hack it)
B.) dance in another locale where a license isn't required (or is at least a cheaper investment)
C.) Work outside of the system (private dancing, escorting, etc.), which has its own list of drawbacks.
mr_punk
05-24-2007, 08:48 PM
I'm very interested in what happens in Houston, if anyone has concrete info. I would hate to see this (seeming) war on high-mileage locales (first Memphis, now Houston) hit ESL.there is a thread on the pink site that keeps up with daily developments. long story, short? the final chapter has not been written and the sc lawyers probably won't have to worry about alimony payments, expensive gifts for their mistresses, etc for the moment.
evan_essence
05-24-2007, 08:49 PM
Sometimes you give a handjob or let guys finger your pussy, not because you're a slut, but because you need to pay your bills, or maybe you want piano lessons for your daughter, and you've got to offer something a little extra to compensate for your looks.If the laws in most jurisdictions were enforced, she'd be barred from that choice anyway, so we can't really classify that as an offering within the concept of a free marketplace, in which laws prevent anyone from gaining the criminal advantage you're addressing. The fact that clubs aren't pressured to regulate themselves contributes to an overpopulation of staff who aren't qualified to make a living without resorting to behavior outside the law.
Now imagine that another dancer decides that you can't dance anymore because you're not pretty enough, or a customer banishes you from the club because you're an offense to his eyes. Now you're really fucked--you can't pay your bills, you can't take care of your children's needs, just because you don't meet some abstract standard of hotness.Management is within its purview to decide you can't dance because you're not attractive enough. Customers most certainly "banish" you from dancing when you're not attractive enough. The standard of "hotness" is relevant as it purtains to the customer's perceived value of the club's overall product/services. Ideally, a business determines the target customers it wants to serve and tries to match their perceptions. Many clubs have abandoned that business philosophy. That's why they sucketh and the industry is going to hell.
Is that really fair?Is it fair that a 90-year-old wrinkled granny who's overweight isn't offered a stripping job? (Is it fair that none of you guys would buy a dance from her?) Is it fair that an aging athlete can't continue to hold a pro football job? It's no less fair than not being able to hold any other job someone's not qualified for. Stripping is a business that's based on physical attraction. We've learned from federal cases involving Hooters and Playboy clubs that hiring judgments can be based on an element of sex appeal when that's an inherent part of the job. No different than an athlete's physical prowess being critical to a professional sports job.
I think the argument here is between those who are saying let 'em all in and let the customer sort 'em out vs. those who are arguing that the customer would find value in a business that had already filtered out the low quality product before he makes his pick.
... Stripping has more or less the same appeal--it's a job in which women without an education or training can make a wage high enough to support a family, buy a car and house, etc. And there really aren't a lot of jobs that have that same promise.I don't see education as a relevant factor to the issues we're discussing. The relevant issue is physical attraction as it relates to the ability to sell. A college graduate can either succeed or fail at it, and so can a high school dropout. In RealBusinessWorld, the most profit goes to the person who does the job the best. In BizarroStripperLand, this principle need not apply.
So if you're planning to reshape the labour market of strip clubs to meet some abstract aesthetic ideal of what a stripper should look like, it's going to hurt a lot of women who are teetering on the edge of poverty. Is that really what you want?If it means the business is run well, YES. If you've followed my neurosis in these forums at all, you know that's my primary mantra. I'm not convinced that running a business well is detrimental to society. In fact, if strip clubs were run like any other normally functioning business, there'd be a certain number of women not capable of making a living from the job who would save a bunch of house fees because the house would be honest and turn them away. The only businesses who "hire" "employees" who aren't qualified are make-money-fast scams. And that's EXACTLY what you have here. There's money for the clubs in hiring unqualified workers. If you know of a better way to reverse that trend than any of the hypotheticals we've discussed, feel free to propose it.
Someone noted earlier in this thread that good management turned some bad situation around. Yeah, that's the bottom line. That's what we're frequently missing, due to the fact that the economic model is topsy turvy. The clubs are making money from house fees, and possibly in some places, illegal activities such as :gasp: money laundering, drugs and tax evasion. I'll admit that any other solution being hypothetically proposed is a Rube Goldberg substitute that likely would be futile. Makes for interesting discussion though.
-Ev
mr_punk
05-24-2007, 09:06 PM
I think the argument here is between those who are saying let 'em all in and let the customer sort 'em out vs. those who are arguing that the customer would find value in a business that had already filtered out the low quality product before he makes his pick.i think the former has always been the case vs the latter. in the end, the customer is going to have to separate the wheat from the chaff. i think depending on the sc to do it for him is pure folly.
mr_punk
05-25-2007, 06:04 AM
only in the sense that a customer can always count on sc management to do the wrong thing.
Jenny
05-25-2007, 07:17 AM
If the laws in most jurisdictions were enforced, she'd be barred from that choice anyway, so we can't really classify that as an offering within the concept of a free marketplace, in which laws prevent anyone from gaining the criminal advantage you're addressing. The fact that clubs aren't pressured to regulate themselves contributes to an overpopulation of staff who aren't qualified to make a living without resorting to behavior outside the law.
While I agree with the criminal advantage part I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen older or less attractive dancers with a whackload of regulars.
Management is within its purview to decide you can't dance because you're not attractive enough.
Yes, and nobody is disputing that. We're disputing how management should have to make these decisions.
Customers most certainly "banish" you from dancing when you're not attractive enough.
No they can't. Individual customers can refuse to buy dances. They cannot say "You are ugly - get out of the club." You are perfectly free to go to the next customer and the customer after that. That is the free market.
The standard of "hotness" is relevant as it purtains to the customer's perceived value of the club's overall product/services. Ideally, a business determines the target customers it wants to serve and tries to match their perceptions. Many clubs have abandoned that business philosophy. That's why they sucketh and the industry is going to hell.
Or it means that the business is not regulating itself the way you think it ought to.
If it means the business is run well, YES. If you've followed my neurosis in these forums at all, you know that's my primary mantra. I'm not convinced that running a business well is detrimental to society. In fact, if strip clubs were run like any other normally functioning business, there'd be a certain number of women not capable of making a living from the job who would save a bunch of house fees because the house would be honest and turn them away. The only businesses who "hire" "employees" who aren't qualified are make-money-fast scams. And that's EXACTLY what you have here. There's money for the clubs in hiring unqualified workers. If you know of a better way to reverse that trend than any of the hypotheticals we've discussed, feel free to propose it.
And as has been discussed ad nauseum there are a myriad of reasons that less attractive girls outearn more attractive girls ALL THE TIME in every club. So basing "qualifications" on appearance rather than production isn't "running a business well", it's sheer elitism, and a small collection of girls trying to get a monopoly. So if we're going to say that reversing the trend is actually a viable option, I think we need a "good" way, before we look for a "better" way.
lunchbox
05-25-2007, 07:38 AM
So wow. I guess we're a little OT. I was hoping to read about Houston, this weekend will be my first time out since ~January, but I guess not...
Docido
05-25-2007, 10:07 PM
And as has been discussed ad nauseum there are a myriad of reasons that less attractive girls out earn more attractive girls ALL THE TIME in every club. So basing "qualifications" on appearance rather than production isn't "running a business well", it's sheer elitism, and a small collection of girls trying to get a monopoly. So if we're going to say that reversing the trend is actually a viable option, I think we need a "good" way, before we look for a "better" way.
I agree with you, but rating dancers based on production is another type of elitism with one big advantage. It is objective. A manager can look at the evening's dance tally sheet and see that on XX night, Misty consistently banks more than Bambi. Appearance is more subjective, since one man's 10 is another guy's 7. I don't think anyone's saying they only want Vivid models stripping in the clubs. I know I certainly don't, but a little quality control wouldn't hurt either. I can only speak from my limited experience, but in most clubs I've visited, the top earners do tend to be a combination of personality, hustle, and appearance. I've never seen a top earner by anyone's criteria be unattractive. Those dancers are out there though and I don't see how it hurts the industry for a manager to say to a potential stripper, "Sorry you're not what we're looking for." The disadvantage is you're leaving quality control to a bunch of guys who are easily swayed by blow jobs, greased palms, or drugs. Good managers are few and far between. So all things being equal, maybe production is the “good” way to go.
Higher license fees I don't think are an answer either. I don't see that dancers in areas where there are dance licenses or fees are better off than dancers from parts of the country where licenses are non-existent. Is there any difference is safety? Less extras? More money? Better management? It’s a question only the dancers on here can answer. I just don’t see how paying a license fee is beneficial to you in any way.
Katrine
05-26-2007, 02:48 PM
The thing is, I fear such a license might deter a woman who has the potential of being a great dancer from trying it out, knowing that the only means of testing her market value as a dancer are to...
A.) pay beaucoup bucks for the license (possibly only to find out later that she can't hack it)
Ok, I havn't gotten through this entire messofathread. But FYI, Doc and others, the Houston dancer license is cheap, like $50-80 or so. That's highly "beaucoup" bucks.
doc-catfish
05-26-2007, 03:09 PM
Ok, I havn't gotten through this entire messofathread. But FYI, Doc and others, the Houston dancer license is cheap, like $50-80 or so. That's highly "beaucoup" bucks.
Thats about what it is around here. Its not enough to keep the "end of the month" fly by nighters away.
B was proposing license fees be considerably higher (i.e. Atlanta) to weed these gals out. The whole discussion started upstairs and somehow grew legs down here. Hence the back and forth between her, Jenny and Miabella.
Katrine
05-26-2007, 05:48 PM
I agree with you, but rating dancers based on production is another type of elitism with one big advantage. It is objective. A manager can look at the evening's dance tally sheet and see that on XX night.
If we put the focus back on Houston, there is no dance tally sheet at clubs there. Dancers in Htown are much closer to the proper IC model than in, say, California or many east coast cities. If the dancer is willing to pay the appropriate housefee for the time she comes in, she can work. They almost NEVER cap the number of girls, much to the early bird's chagrin. Sure, they want the girls to "ask" for a pass to go, but that's more of an issue of personal liability than of management treating the girls like employees. If the girl has signed in to work, she needs to be accounted for if she leaves. The "asking permission" part is simply a formality. Even if management tells her to stay, they can't force her to stay, and they seldomly fire an attractive entertainer because she wants to leave early for a cocaine and lesbian sex fueled party at the 4 Seasons for $2,000. }:D
So, Punkarooni, strippers DO NOT necessarily have to ask management to take a crap. Perhaps that's what they are telling you so they can get away. :-\
But I digress........Meh, I tried to follow the thread, but as usual, its just like all of the other SCJ threads.
I don't know what's going to happen to Houston. I do like the model of having "stripclubs" and "sexclubs" that cater to the particular demands of the client. But "sexclubs" are illegal, so we have to make due.
If I know Houston, and you can bet your asses that I do, being around that scene for 10 years, its business and blowjobs as usual, as we speak.
Katrine
05-26-2007, 05:52 PM
B was proposing license fees be considerably higher (i.e. Atlanta) to weed these gals out. The whole discussion started upstairs and somehow grew legs down here. Hence the back and forth between her, Jenny and Miabella.
Even a less attractive girl, or a prostitute can technically afford a $300 license if it means being able to work in the club, or as prospecting grounds for OTC activity. Strippers/hookers aren't that stupid. Even an average entertainer can make more than $300 on a decent night.
Atlanta didn't change simply through enstating expensive licenses, the clubs themselves decided they were going to enforce the rules. Now B and I have discussed this, but it has to do with the laws holding the clubs themselves liable for illegal activity, not just villifying the dancers. But B knows more detail than I do.
I just don't see Houston going to Atlanta levels, although it would be nice.
mr_punk
05-26-2007, 06:27 PM
So wow. I guess we're a little OT. I was hoping to read about Houston, this weekend will be my first time out since ~January, but I guess not...go. for the moment, the coast is clear due to a court stay (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4837795.html), but who knows how long the liars..er...lawyers can drag it out. in the meantime, grab a friendly dancer and whip it out.
I can't say that I know of one dancer who set foot in this biz intending to do it for 5+ years, even if things eventually turned out that way. I mean, how many college aged women do you see out there dreaming of being a career stripper? I think some of the "A list" gals on pink seem to forget they are by and large the minority.which is a good thing, IMO. fruit turns rancid, cars depreciate in value and dim lighting and layers of make-up only go so far. i don't reminisce about the good old days because there is a steady supply of fresh talent coming into the biz daily. of course, not all of them meet my standard, but there are enough to give me trouble keeping my plate from overflowing.
I can only speak from my limited experience, but in most clubs I've visited, the top earners do tend to be a combination of personality, hustle, and appearance. I've never seen a top earner by anyone's criteria be unattractive.really? how does a customer know a particular stripper is what she says she is? i mean, i've never sat around in a sc for hours and watched a stripper hustle like a suitcase pimp. Or, does it work the same way it does around here? you know, every stripper is the hottest, most skilled or the top earner.
Those dancers are out there though and I don't see how it hurts the industry for a manager to say to a potential stripper, "Sorry you're not what we're looking for."because it's not hurting the industry for a manager to say to a potential stripper, "you're hired! can you pay your stage fee now?". sure, it might hurt a stripper's or customer's botttom line (ie: too many girls), but it isn't necessarily same as management's bottom line.
The disadvantage is you're leaving quality control to a bunch of guys who are easily swayed by blow jobs, greased palms, or drugs. Good managers are few and far between. true, in the case of the former, but in the case of the latter. there are so few because eventually they're being driven insane by strippers.
So, Punkarooni, strippers DO NOT necessarily have to ask management to take a crap. Perhaps that's what they are telling you so they can get away.well, i wasn't referring to anything specific. in any event, formality or not, you still have to ask for their blessing. furthermore, i don't see why they would want a stripper to stay. i mean, they already have her stage fee and tons of girls to take her place. hell, if i were a sc manager. i'll let them leave as well, but the biatch betta have my money..
miabella
05-26-2007, 08:00 PM
what is interesting about atlanta and apparently handwaved by girls squealing about how it is suparclean and megamoney is that there remain 'dirty' clubs which offer to pay for one's dance licence and yet this fact is not exactly mentioned with the same frequency as 'atlanta is skrippa heaven!'.
i mean, it would appear that even when you do put the onus on the clubs AND raise the cost of entry for the girls AND management caps the girls per shift, you still have clubs where 'that sort of thing' goes on and they don't get shut down ala gold club. they just offer to pay licence fees and get girls in regardless of looks that way. so there's simply no real way to ensure that girls stripper Q approves of are the only kinds of strippers hired even though for many (most?) clubs in atlanta, the entry costs and club burden do result in overall lower contact and higher earnings.
Katrine
05-26-2007, 08:01 PM
i wasn't referring to anything specific. in any event, formality or not, you still have to ask for their blessing. furthermore, i don't see why they would want a stripper to stay. i mean, they already have her stage fee and tons of girls to take her place. hell, if i were a sc manager. i'll let them leave as well, but the biatch betta have my money..
Hmmmm, I didn't mind. Any I've also gotten out of house fees on slow nights. And I've had managers ask me to stay because they knew my money would better. And invariably it would. Not all management has their heads up their asses all the time. Although more than they should.
But then again, you are a customer. I don't give a shit how long you've been fingering strippers, until you get your crochety old ass into a thong and strut, you still don't know jackshit.
mr_punk
05-26-2007, 10:19 PM
Not all management has their heads up their asses all the time. Although more than they should.well, you girls seem to be willing to put up with it. so, there you go.
But then again, you are a customer. I don't give a shit how long you've been fingering strippers, until you get your crochety old ass into a thong and strut, you still don't know jackshit.hey, you broads diverted this thread and if was up to me. i would nuke all of these stripper related posts. anyway, i wouldn't want to be a part of your industry. so, i'll gladly leave you girls to dealing with the suitcase pimps...uh..management. after all, i don't have to work for them.
liberator
05-27-2007, 04:42 AM
Keep in mind Atlanta is totally nude with alcohol sales. This is why they are lower contact than many cities where the dancers are forced to wear a stitch or two where alcohol is sold.
gameover
05-27-2007, 06:40 AM
Hmmmm, I didn't mind. Any I've also gotten out of house fees on slow nights. And I've had managers ask me to stay because they knew my money would better. And invariably it would. Not all management has their heads up their asses all the time. Although more than they should.
But then again, you are a customer. I don't give a shit how long you've been fingering strippers, until you get your crochety old ass into a thong and strut, you still don't know jackshit.
well, kat, many strippers will let you finger them, and these are not ugly strippers :)
Docido
05-27-2007, 08:48 AM
because it's not hurting the industry for a manager to say to a potential stripper, "you're hired! can you pay your stage fee now?". sure, it might hurt a stripper's or customer's botttom line (ie: too many girls), but it isn't necessarily same as management's bottom line.
Some strip club managers may be knuckle walking pinheads, but they've got an almost foolproof business model since it doesn't matter who they hire. They will make money. There is no downside for screwing up.
Katrine
05-27-2007, 11:23 AM
well, kat, many strippers will let you finger them, and these are not ugly strippers :)
What's your fucking point? I'm not talking about this at all, just making a comment towards punk. I'm sure lots of attractive strippers will let you finger them, but that's another thread. >:(
Katrine
05-27-2007, 11:29 AM
well, you girls seem to be willing to put up with it. so, there you go.
hey, you broads diverted this thread and if was up to me. i would nuke all of these stripper related posts. anyway, i wouldn't want to be a part of your industry. so, i'll gladly leave you girls to dealing with the suitcase pimps...uh..management. after all, i don't have to work for them.
Ugh, there's no talking to you. I'll tell you right now, I've never had a manager act as a goddam "suitcase pimp" for me. I found my own customers, and they new to stay out of my way. Girls in this industry aren't out to reinvent the wheel. They are trying to make their money and go as quickly as possible. And not all managers/bouncers are out to pimp out the girls, just face it. You don't know everything, and the stories that stick out to you are the sensational ones, about managers and VIP hosts overstepping their bounds. Its not always as such. But I've been retired for well over a year, so I'll close out.
mr_punk
05-27-2007, 04:08 PM
Ugh, there's no talking to you. I'll tell you right now, I've never had a manager act as a goddam "suitcase pimp" for me.what??? i don't mean suitcase pimp in the literal sense. i mean it in the metaphorical sense. case in point, you girls talk about high stage fees, the large cut of money some of these clubs takes from your pocket, paying the salary of their staff, etc. IOW, they're "pimping" you in that sense.
Girls in this industry aren't out to reinvent the wheel. They are trying to make their money and go as quickly as possible.perhaps, that's part of their problem, but it all goes back to what miabella said earlier. but hey, if you girls rather continue with this short-sighted behavior by clawing at each other eyeballs and rolling over faster than Gene Upshaw after Roger Goodell snaps his fingers. i have no problem with it. after all, it's not my problem. i don't have to work in your industry. i don't claim to be an expert on your industry. in fact, i want nothing to do with your industry other than be a customer. so, the only question left is why are you girls bringing your sh#t down here? what? you think we like dealing with your drama. HA!
mr_punk
05-27-2007, 04:32 PM
Some strip club managers may be knuckle walking pinheads, but they've got an almost foolproof business model since it doesn't matter who they hire. They will make money. There is no downside for screwing up.sure, there is no downside because many customers are willing to settle, but that's typical of the sex industry as a whole. look, as a customer, the best way to send a message these will people understand is to collectively starve them of cash.
evan_essence
05-27-2007, 09:09 PM
While I agree with the criminal advantage part I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen older or less attractive dancers with a whackload of regulars.I'm sorry, what? That doesn't even relate to the point I was making.
Yes, and nobody is disputing that. We're disputing how management should have to make these decisions.Erm, I think he was disputing that. Or at least, that's the way I interpreted it. He was giving a sob story about employees who'd be out of a job if management imposed standards, as if management had some social duty to base its decisions on altruism.
No they can't. Individual customers can refuse to buy dances. They cannot say "You are ugly - get out of the club." You are perfectly free to go to the next customer and the customer after that. That is the free market.Jenny, honey, did you see the quotation marks around banish? That denotes a figurative or metaphorical use of the word. Sheesh, has the entire forum lowered its reading comprehension lately? My point was, if enough customers find there are enough fugly girls (egad, I'm hanging out too much in the pickup forums), using whatever standards customers use (which I guess business is incapable of figuring out customer preferences ahead of time under your free marketplace model), they will "banish" with their feet.
Or it means that the business is not regulating itself the way you think it ought to.Yuppers. Same thang imho. Who's thinking would you prefer I use? Punky's? I'm quite comfortable with my thinking actually. Y'all probably noticed.
And as has been discussed ad nauseum there are a myriad of reasons that less attractive girls outearn more attractive girls ALL THE TIME in every club. So basing "qualifications" on appearance rather than production isn't "running a business well", it's sheer elitism, and a small collection of girls trying to get a monopoly. So if we're going to say that reversing the trend is actually a viable option, I think we need a "good" way, before we look for a "better" way.Sigh. First, your response makes it sound like I took that exact position when I didn't. Second, I expect punk in his rebuttals to ignore the main points I make, but you approached his level on that near non-sequitir. I thought my main point in the quoted paragraph was pretty clear. That in some venues, strip clubs are fast approaching pyramid schemes on their lack of standards of who they will let pay to work. Jesus, perhaps I'm ready to embrace anything that approximates standards at this point, as opposed to nearly non-existent. Not that wishing it makes it so anyway. Do you think letting anyone in who has the house fee is a wise business practice? Is there no value to be added to the business with some form of quality or at least quantity control? Is business incapable of gauging customer preferences? If you're saying, in whole or in part, that this business is incapable of executing a concept like this properly, I'll buy that.
-Ev
evan_essence
05-27-2007, 09:19 PM
so, the only question left is why are you girls bringing your sh#t down here? what? you think we like dealing with your drama. HA!Well, if men had started the same vigorous business discussion, I hardly think you'd characterize it as "sh#t" and "drama," but regardless. Truth is, we're doing it precisely because it bothers you. Similar, I'm speculating, to the motivation that spurs your ex's in some of their behavior.
-Ev
Bridgette
05-28-2007, 04:51 AM
because it's not hurting the industry for a manager to say to a potential stripper, "you're hired! can you pay your stage fee now?". sure, it might hurt a stripper's or customer's botttom line (ie: too many girls), but it isn't necessarily same as management's bottom line. Oh but it does hurt the industry. Every time a guy walks into a stripclub and is, at best, unimpressed by the talent and then walks back out without spending his money, it hurts us all. Including the club - lost bar sales, VIP and dance cuts = lost money. And yeah, they can just hire another girl to pay housefees, but that's not gonna make up for what that customer (and everyone he tells about the club) would've been worth to the club.
I really wish you people would stop trying to argue "fairness" here. It's really not about fairness or caring about all the individuals. It's about business. But to answer previously posted questions: I've said before and I say again - I really don't give a rat's ass what happens to the non-producers who get cut by a high license fee, etc. I really really don't. They are a huge part of the problems with this industry, and as far as I'm concerned they can figure out what to do for themselves. Does anyone think I'm not saying that *I* should have to do the same thing at some point? Because I am - whenever I reach that point I should have to figure out wtf to do besides dance. But I'm smart - I'm planning ahead :P
As for the question of the girls who "might have" made great dancers were they not discouraged by an expensive license. My answer to that is, if they can't figure out how to get the money, or if they aren't confident enough to try, then they won't be very good strippers. We don't need them.
Furthermore, I feel that saying they "should" be allowed the opportunity is somehow implying they are more deserving than those of us who are actually qualified and producing. No. Why should anyone be given special concessions just because they want it or think it's the only way they can make a living? Why should the qualified people have to share their potential with those less qualified? How is that fair?? This is a business - in no other business are less-qualified people given any special concession, precisely BECAUSE they are less-qualified. The bottom line of what I'm trying to say, is that this business should be run properly, like any other business. That includes maintaining quality product to attract and keep paying customers, AND not oversupplying.
Of course some guys love an oversupply. Great for you, not so hot for the girls trying to make a living. Balance is necessary.
Jenny, I'm really tired of you saying that I'm trying to push you out because I don't think you're cute enough. That's absurd (and a little immature) for one thing, and for another, it's ignoring most of my point.
Next, you have pointed out a few times that *other* people who don't have the luxury of being able to strip have to figure out how to make a living in other ways. So can the girls who would get cut by expensive licensing, etc.
I think your municipality act is a Canadian thing. I have never heard of such a thing in the US, so license fees can be set pretty much however. Docido is right.
As for Atlanta, the clubs just didn't decide to clean it up on their own. That was a result of the Gold Club shutdown AS WELL AS local regulations holding clubs (not just strippers) responsible for what goes on inside their facilities. (The reason this didn't work in Houston 10 years ago is because they never enforced the laws on the CLUBS, only the girls, and 2nd because the distance regulations are ridiculous.) The expensive license just serves as a decent barrier to entry to help limit massive influxes of girls so that all the girls working have better and more stable earnings potential, AND it helps keep out low-producers who would wind up turning to illegal activities to compete. There's also the fact that all those expensive licenses (not just the strippers have to get licensed, but everyone who works in the club, and clubowners pay high fees as well) basically equates to legal bribery as Evan has pointed out - the city likes having all that money so they are less-inclined to institute retarded new ordinances against stripclubs. It has created a nice little symbiosis that everyone is happy with. Also, the city draws alot of convention business because of their unique stripclub situations - other cities could do something similar, if they'd get their heads out of their asses.
Just to disspell the rumour that Houston's club situation is unique in any part due to club saturation, here are some stats: Houston's 2005 population - over 2mil. Atlanta's 2005 population - under 500k. Houston's population is more than 4 times Atlanta's, yet they don't even have twice as many stripclubs. Houston club count: 66, ATL club count: 38. This means ATLANTA is twice as saturated with clubs, yet they still manage to make more money MUCH more cleanly. IMAGINE that :O
An expensive license is just one piece of the puzzle. I know damn well that wouldn't cure all the problems we have. But we have to start somewhere, and that would be the easiest thing to tackle first, and the easiest way to start seeing some fast results. One step at a time.
Well, if men had started the same vigorous business discussion, I hardly think you'd characterize it as "sh#t" and "drama," No shit. If men/customers do it, it's serious business. If we do it, it's shit and drama ::)