View Full Version : Giving a Tip for a Dance?
Darcy Foxx
10-17-2007, 08:15 AM
I guess the reason I see it as being different is because punk said that he'd already had previous contact with this girl before, thus giving him the impression that it was okay to slap her on the ass. Whether it was an unspoken agreement or not, I think the implication was already there that in this particular situation, punk's actions were okay.
Without wanting to defend punk (because I think the world might actually implode and some kind of demon dimension would open, if I was to do that), I doubt that he walks into random strip clubs and slaps strange, unknown girls on the ass all the time without having any prior contact with them at all. Well, knowing mr_p, he might, but most likely not. In the lapdance room it's a different thing, I'm just talking about on the floor here. It'd be an entirely strange situation if a customer was to walk into a club, and approach a girl and say, "Excuse me, miss. Do you mind if I slap your ass playfully as I walk past in the hopes that you will join me at my table so I may purchase a dance?"
But once again, I'm talking about my point of view purely from this one particular situation involving mr_punk and the girl in question. I absolutely agree with you, Jenny, that in the lap dance room, consent should be given for any activities beyond the 'norm' for that particular club's standard dance. I also should mention, that just because customers are allowed to touch your boobs during a LD, I don't think it's okay for them to randomly slap your ass on the floor. I just don't see anything wrong with a customer slapping the ass of a girl with whom he has previously established some kind of connection with that made it seem okay.
I've got a few select regulars who spend lots of money on me whom I enjoy hanging out with when they come in. I've never explicity told them, "I give you permission to slap my butt whilst I am walking around, if the urge strikes you," but if they were to do it I'd just laugh it off because I joke around with them a lot and the idea is just kinda there that it's okay for them to do it. If some random customer whom I had never spoken with walked past and grabbed my ass, I'd tell him to fuck off and he'd probably get kicked out.
Jenny
10-17-2007, 09:30 AM
Without wanting to defend punk (because I think the world might actually implode and some kind of demon dimension would open, if I was to do that), I doubt that he walks into random strip clubs and slaps strange, unknown girls on the ass all the time without having any prior contact with them at all.
I think, perfectly seriously, based on what is posted here, that is a very strange thing to doubt. Some guys who post here are just like human beings; some however clearly do not place any premium of the rights and privileges of dancers to be free from unwanted contact or discourteous behaviour. I see no reason to assume any interest, knowledge or concern about whether or not such behaviour (the ass slap) was acceded to or agreed to on the part of the customer in this situation.
It'd be an entirely strange situation if a customer was to walk into a club, and approach a girl and say, "Excuse me, miss. Do you mind if I slap your ass playfully as I walk past in the hopes that you will join me at my table so I may purchase a dance?"
It would be a unusual approach, I agree. Still much preferable to doing it without my permission. And really - I would HAVE to say yes to that. Seriously. Imagine it for a second. Who could turn that down?
I've never explicity told them, "I give you permission to slap my butt whilst I am walking around, if the urge strikes you," but if they were to do it I'd just laugh it off because I joke around with them a lot and the idea is just kinda there that it's okay for them to do it.
Well, there you go. I'd be mad. Then again - I have given customers permission to slap me on the ass when I'm walking by. I might joke anyway - you know, because of the fiscal imperative. That doesn't mean that I've consented to it. And while I might jokingly tell them to cut it out, I would still tell them to cut it out. (Again, with the post hoc analysis. You see the problem with the post hoc analysis now? You'd be okay with it; I wouldn't. Now why do I get it anyway just because someone else might be okay with it? Now if we make an effort to determine beforehand those who are comfortable and desirous of such treatment and those who are not - you and I are both happy). To me a customer relationship is very specific; when customers enjoy (as so many guys here do) the easily negotiable element of the dancer/customer relationship I don't see, you know, actually negotiating things as such a hardship. This is not a date where you have to wonder where you stand. All you have to do with me is a) ask and b) pay (not necessarily in that order. Heh). Since the actual negotiation is so out there and so easy, honestly, I can get pretty ticked off when guys circumvent it - either because of innate toolishness or because they are trying to get a freebie.
Really, not many guys get my attention by smacking me on the ass. I don't really come across as someone you should smack on the ass. I'm very surly-looking.
Darcy Foxx
10-17-2007, 09:37 AM
It would be a unusual approach, I agree. Still much preferable to doing it without my permission. And really - I would HAVE to say yes to that. Seriously. Imagine it for a second. Who could turn that down?
Haha, yeah, even I'd probably have to say yes to that because I think I'd just find it so amusing.
Phil-W
10-17-2007, 12:24 PM
Some guys who post here are just like human beings; some however clearly do not place any premium of the rights and privileges of dancers to be free from unwanted contact or discourteous behaviour.
Strangely enough, I don't think dancers should be treated discourteously at work, and in an ideal world they wouldn't. However, we don't live in an ideal world. A substantial minority of men coming into a SC:
(a) Have misogynistic attitudes
(b) Compensate for the loss of esteem associated with paying for nudity by being rude to the dancer
(c) Are unable to see dancers as anything other than a fantasy figure and therefore don't realise or don't care that their behaviour causes offence.
If you stop men in these categories coming into the SC, or you throw them out when they step past the limits of normal politeness, there'd be a damned sight fewer customers for you to earn from.
Which is why dancers tacitly condone bad behaviour.
They obviously don't like rudeness, or inappropriate contact, or general pervyness or whatever, but they take a pragmatic decision that while working they will tolerate a standard of behaviour that they would not in the big wide world.
Even you, yourself, must take a pragmatic attitude to lack of courtesy when you're working. I bet you don't say to every crass customer "that's not an acceptable standard of behaviour". You take his $20 and call him a "fucktard" when he's out of earshot.
(Ditto me at work - I don't tell the boss a bit more politeness would be useful every time he gets in a strop. I adopt a pragmatic attitude and keep my mouth shut. Means he goes away and bothers someone else sooner. The only time I disagree with him is when I think i've got a good chance of winning ).
We all have to make some degree of compromise in life - and for a dancer that means putting up with anal retentives. In an ideal world, they would not have to, but this is not an ideal world.
I don't condone bad behaviour, but there is very little I can do as an individual to stop it. All I can do is be personally polite.
Really, not many guys get my attention by smacking me on the ass. I don't really come across as someone you should smack on the ass. I'm very surly-looking.
Jenny, the day I get a death wish is the day I will walk up and slap you on the ass!
Phil.
Jenny
10-17-2007, 01:03 PM
Strangely enough, I don't think dancers should be treated discourteously at work, and in an ideal world they wouldn't. However, we don't live in an ideal world. A substantial minority of men coming into a SC:
(a) Have misogynistic attitudes
(b) Compensate for the loss of esteem associated with paying for nudity by being rude to the dancer
(c) Are unable to see dancers as anything other than a fantasy figure and therefore don't realise or don't care that their behaviour causes offence.
Um. Yeah. That was my point. We agree on these facts. I just don't think I draw the same conclusions from those facts as you do. I'm not sure that I agree on the tacit condonation - any more than I think any other person working in any other field condones behaviour they have no choice (except to the leave their job) but to put up with. I think that the fact that dancers are marginalized is affecting your analysis more than you would care to admit; this was part of the thrust of some of the questions I asked you before. And while I agree that we all have to make compromises in life - I don't see that one of those compromises is agreeing that a customer has consent before sexually assaulting a dancer because she still takes his money afterwards. So I don't really see your point. Have I lost track of something? What are you getting at right now?
Phil-W
10-18-2007, 03:10 PM
And while I agree that we all have to make compromises in life - I don't see that one of those compromises is agreeing that a customer has consent before sexually assaulting a dancer because she still takes his money afterwards. So I don't really see your point. Have I lost track of something? What are you getting at right now?
I think there are three broad classes of behaviour in a SC: well behaved, anal retentive and totally unacceptable. I think we agree in general, but disagree on where the boundaries for those classes of behaviour occur.
(And I'll say straight away, you may view this discussion a lot more personally than me. I'm just an observer, but you're a direct recipient of the unacceptable behaviour. So i'm talking from 2nd hand and you from 1st hand experience - there's a clear difference).
For example, I wouldn't view an unsolicited slap on the backside as sexual assault in a SC. Anally retentive behaviour for sure, and depending on the dancer, maybe unacceptable as well. Ditto when the dancer grabbed my family jewels - I viewed her as ill mannered, but I wouldn't class it as assualt. (Outside of the SC, I might have a different view).
Question is not whether slaps/grabs should happen - in an ideal world they wouldn't. It's where you set the boundaries from where anally retentive behaviour stops and unacceptable behaviour starts. My limits are probably different from yours.
Phil.
Jenny
10-18-2007, 06:58 PM
I think there are three broad classes of behaviour in a SC: well behaved, anal retentive and totally unacceptable. I think we agree in general, but disagree on where the boundaries for those classes of behaviour occur.
Well yes. I believe that there should be consent and negotiation before involving someone in physical intercourse. The framework of the exchange of money doesn't change that fact. You evidently think that consent is only needed sometimes when money is potentially being exchanged.
For example, I wouldn't view an unsolicited slap on the backside as sexual assault in a SC.
Is the same as a brutal rape? Of course not. However I don't have your flexible view of consent. I think you need it no matter where you are.
Anally retentive behaviour for sure, and depending on the dancer, maybe unacceptable as well. Ditto when the dancer grabbed my family jewels - I viewed her as ill mannered, but I wouldn't class it as assualt. (Outside of the SC, I might have a different view).
Well there you go. I don't think the fact that she wants your money means that you deserve less bodily integrity than if she didn't. I know. It's shocking and radical thinking.
Question is not whether slaps/grabs should happen - in an ideal world they wouldn't. It's where you set the boundaries from where anally retentive behaviour stops and unacceptable behaviour starts. My limits are probably different from yours.
Again - I don't get your point. I mean lots of things wouldn't happen in an ideal world. We don't. Like in an ideal world Pinto wouldn't have calculated the negligence damages of that exploding car, and would have simply recalled it. But we don't go and say "well this isn't a perfect world" shrug and say "no biggie." I mean "In an imperfect world, bad things happen" - and... what? How does this trite fact inform what we are talking about in your opinion? And yes. Although I've kind of set out some rational, articulable reasoning for my limits - although they are somewhat stricter than what you would like. You have not done anything similar. I'm sorry Phil, but your personal limits aren't all that relevant to someone else's body. In that situation it's THEIR limits that matter. And the only way of determining those limits before violating them is to ask. I'm not really positing anything that radical or that weird here. Ask a woman before you touch her sexually - even if you intend to pay for the privilege.
Phil.[/quote]
mr_punk
10-19-2007, 04:51 AM
In mr_p's case it seems that it was a behavior which had already in the past been deemed as appropriate by both him and the girl in question, so I don't see where the problem is.LOL...oh, but that's not the point, darcy. whether a problem actually exists is irrelevant. these girls can create drama out of thin effing air. why, look no further than jenny's side-tracking as an example.
I've got a few select regulars who spend lots of money on me whom I enjoy hanging out with when they come in. I've never explicity told them, "I give you permission to slap my butt whilst I am walking around, if the urge strikes you," but if they were to do it I'd just laugh it off because I joke around with them a lot and the idea is just kinda there that it's okay for them to do it. If some random customer whom I had never spoken with walked past and grabbed my ass, I'd tell him to fuck off and he'd probably get kicked out.YMMV? perish the thought, darcy. your admission is a betrayal of the sisterhood. no matter the circumstances, you can't allow the patriarchy to slap you on the ass without asking. now, i want you to go and find a bug to stick up your ass, young lady.
Phil-W
10-21-2007, 01:45 PM
Well yes. I believe that there should be consent and negotiation before involving someone in physical intercourse. The framework of the exchange of money doesn't change that fact. You evidently think that consent is only needed sometimes when money is potentially being exchanged.
Nope, I think consent is needed at all times. However, I take the view that a SC is a very different environment from the real world. And in their both dancers and customers alike operate using different standards from real life - and things get very blurred in consequence.
I'll give you an example. Time after time I see a guy go up to a dancer and put his arm round her waist while talking to her. Sometimes he'll let his hands slip down so his fingertips are resting on her backside.
Now strictly speaking that's assault. In the smoke and mirrors that's a SC the girl will probably privately think to herself "what a pr*ck", but she'll smile at him and say "hello, honey".
We live in the real world Jenny. I personally have never done anything like that, nor would I, but ultimately it's the dancer's choice. And in most cases the dancer's tacitly acquiesce to what's technically an assualt because to do otherwise would affect their earnings.
It isn't nice, but it goes on. All you or I can do is have our personal standards and stay within them.
I can't answer for other people's standards.
...I've kind of set out some rational, articulable reasoning for my limits - although they are somewhat stricter than what you would like. You have not done anything similar.
As I said in an earlier post, I'll treat a dancer inside the club just like I'd treat her outside of it. Outside in the real world, I treat women politely, don't try and make inappropriate contact, etc. I try and behave the same way ITC as well.
Phil.
Jenny
10-21-2007, 03:16 PM
Nope, I think consent is needed at all times. However, I take the view that a SC is a very different environment from the real world. And in their both dancers and customers alike operate using different standards from real life - and things get very blurred in consequence.
Well, no, in this case things aren't blurred. These things aren't "blurry." We just have people behaving badly and saying that other people don't deserve better treatment. I don't think you would think a stripper picking a guy's pocket was "blurry" behaviour because it was in a stripclub and she thinks customers are subhuman. The difference here is that there are means and ways of forcing dancers to tolerate bad behaviour. Not that the behaviour is less bad.
Now strictly speaking that's assault. In the smoke and mirrors that's a SC the girl will probably privately think to herself "what a pr*ck", but she'll smile at him and say "hello, honey". Well yes. I know. What with working in the industry and all. But as I've said 1001 times - the fact that she can be made to put up with non-consensual touching doesn't make it consensual. There are thousands of women in straight jobs who tolerate sexual harassment rather than quit their jobs. They are in the real world too. That doesn't mean that there is consent.
We live in the real world Jenny. I personally have never done anything like that, nor would I, but ultimately it's the dancer's choice. And in most cases the dancer's tacitly acquiesce to what's technically an assualt because to do otherwise would affect their earnings.
Well there you go. Is "acquiescence" under standards such as you have outlined "consent" in any meaningful construction of that word? If you think it is - would you think that "consent" is similarly issued by my young friend of friend the nanny who "tacitly acquiesces" to being groped when she passes her boss in the hallway by not quitting her job over it? If you don't - why don't you? You're repeating yourself Phil, and you're not actually addressing anything I've asked you (unless I've been very stupid and missed it. If I have missed it, I would be very grateful if you could point out the post that addressed these issues). My entire contention, Phil, is that you think that we dancers live in a "special" real world in which infringements of one's personal space are to be excused and apologized for, and ultimately, we are evidently expected to take responsibility for it.
It isn't nice, but it goes on. All you or I can do is have our personal standards and stay within them.
I can't answer for other people's standards.
Well then. Why are you trying to?
As I said in an earlier post, I'll treat a dancer inside the club just like I'd treat her outside of it. Outside in the real world, I treat women politely, don't try and make inappropriate contact, etc. I try and behave the same way ITC as well.
Phil.But. Seeing as you don't think that other people are obliged by any convention to act similarly, you must think you are pretty great. You know. Treating us just like we are real people and all. When you evidently think there is a perfectly viable option to do otherwise. I'm just saying.
xdamage
10-21-2007, 03:38 PM
But as I've said 1001 times - the fact that she can be made to put up with non-consensual touching doesn't make it consensual.
In the end, I think it's up to people to define right and wrong; because nature just doesn't care. There is no inherent right or wrong but what we choose and agree on. Nature doesn't give a fuck. If something works and thrives, then it will continue, simple as that, both in the gene pool and in society.
So bottom line is there is no magic god or universal truth to fall back on. If women encourage and profit from a certain kind of bad behavior, then ultimately they are (in part) responsible for perpetuating it in the society and gene pool. And in that light, as a feminist you can no longer avoid responsibility for the outcome of the future. The future behavior of future humans is your responsibility as much as anyone elses. It's up to you to stop (or encourage) future human behavior, and if the bottom line is you encourage a behavior on the grounds that between the behavior, and the money, the money is more important to you, then you have no one to blaim but yourself for passing that on to the next generation of people.
Welcome to being an equal responsibility adult - your choices, even choosing between your own income, and what you believe is right/wrong, influences the future generations as surely as every other responsible adults.
p.s., I.e., it's not good enough to keep blaiming your choices in these matters on men. As women with free will, you are shaping society and future generations as surely as the men are.
p.s.s. by consenting to a certain kind of abuse for money, you effectively make it clear to society now and in the future that the abuse is worth less than $20 or thereabouts to you. If you think that accountings sucks, then it;s your responsibility to say NO, because there is no one else here. NO god, no higher power, to set a different standard. You set it by your choices.
Jenny
10-21-2007, 05:20 PM
In the end, I think it's up to people to define right and wrong; because nature just doesn't care. There is no inherent right or wrong but what we choose and agree on. Nature doesn't give a fuck. If something works and thrives, then it will continue, simple as that, both in the gene pool and in society.
Well fortunately, I'm speaking of a fairly positive law social construction viewpoint. So the issue on how men would behave towards strippers in a state of pure nature is not really at issue. But thanks for that enlightening viewpoint.
And in that light, as a feminist you can no longer avoid responsibility for the outcome of the future. The future behavior of future humans is your responsibility as much as anyone elses. It's up to you to stop (or encourage) future human behavior
Great. Tell it to mr._punk. Now my threadjacking is, like, ethically mandated. Consider yourselves all officially discouraged. For what good I'll do the future of the human race.
p.s.s. by consenting to a certain kind of abuse for money, you effectively make it clear to society now and in the future that the abuse is worth less than $20 or thereabouts to you. If you think that accountings sucks, then it;s your responsibility to say NO, because there is no one else here. NO god, no higher power, to set a different standard. You set it by your choices.
The issue here is not me personally. I just always find it interesting that when you start talking about responsibility it's always mine (oops, I mean women's, oops, I mean dancers - oh, whatever you mean). I'm responsible for the behaviour of male customers - what does that do to their responsibility for their own behaviour in your mind? Further - I'd be interested in your comparative analysis to other workplaces. Like are nannies and secretaries excused from this responsibility in an effort to keep their jobs and remain solvent? And what happens, then, to the responsibility of the people maltreating them? See I have this weird idea that being a "responsible adult" means I'm responsible for MY behaviour - not that behaviour of others I have no real choice in becomes my responsibility. I mean, when I was on the train today a kid started making some untoward commentary to me. Is this behaviour that I'm now responsible for too? Or does he get to shoulder that alone? After all - I wasn't in a strip club at the time. But, you know. I am a stripper. So maybe I am.
xdamage
10-21-2007, 05:42 PM
The issue here is not me personally. I just always find it interesting that when you start talking about responsibility it's always mine (oops, I mean women's, oops, I mean dancers - oh, whatever you mean). I'm responsible for the behaviour of male customers - what does that do to their responsibility for their own behaviour in your mind?
Actually... I feel it's a combination effort. When I wrote that I don't mean males are off the hook for their contribution to the future of society. What I mean is look at holistically. Both parties contribute equally. Now if you were forced into a state of servitude (and I don't mean as in the case of choosing work for $$s, but I mean in the sense of in fear of your life, vs say in fear of not making ends meet which men also deal with - as men we have the same basic fear, can we make enough to get by), then of course it's a different story.
So they are responsible for about 1/2 of how our future turns out, and likewise women are responsible for about 1/2. Either group may have the power to turn the tide, but if neither does, then in the long term history view they will both be held accountable by future generations.
xdamage
10-21-2007, 05:52 PM
...Now if you were forced into a state of servitude...
Just to be clear on this. There is no question in my mind that men have historically used their physical strength to bully women into a state of servitude (I'm making a generalization of course). But as our societies provide women with greater degrees of freedom and choice and protection from that type of bullying, they increasingly must take responsibility, and what I see is that they tend to act a lot like men, and often that means choosing their short term good over long term what they would argue is socially less then ideal. So for example, a woman might argue that a man touching her against her will in an SC is wrong, but when actually put in the situation, and forced to choose between $20 or the wrong behavior, behave no different then a man (aka human) would, and choose the short term gain for themselves over a belief in a social good.
All I want to see is women to take greater degrees of responsibility for how they contribute to society, because if they don't, they are basically setting themselves up to be hood-winked again the moment our societies have a crisis, falling back on their genetic tendencies to pair up with the strongest most aggressive (but not necessarily the fairest or most honest) males.
Jenny
10-21-2007, 05:56 PM
Well there you go. I think that when I do something I bear all the responsibility for it, not half. And that if other people are responsible, it is because of something they have done - not because they, have in some way, "received" my act. And it never occurs to me that people who have to tolerate me are equally responsible (you know all those guys you say who have no choice but to tolerate my posts? Do they bear a full half of the responsibility for them? Sucks being them). Similarly I cannot accept that it's my fault that guy's touch me without my permission because I may have to tolerate it. Even less can I accept that it's my fault that guys touch me without my permission because some dancer punk frequents tolerates it. I think that's kind of... you know. Sloughing off "responsibility" on a marginalized, segmented part of society and relying on stereotypes of what "women like me" are like. But you know. You say to-may-to.
Actually... I feel it's a combination effort. When I wrote that I don't mean males are off the hook for their contribution to the future of society. What I mean is look at holistically. Both parties contribute equally. Now if you were forced into a state of servitude (and I don't mean as in the case of choosing work for $$s, but I mean in the sense of in fear of your life, vs say in fear of not making ends meet which men also deal with - as men we have the same basic fear, can we make enough to get by), then of course it's a different story.
Oh. Okay. So the nanny IS responsible for her employer sexually harassing her then? Well. Gosh. How very unreasonable of you, but I'll let her know.
So they are responsible for about 1/2 of how our future turns out, and likewise women are responsible for about 1/2. Either group may have the power to turn the tide, but if neither does, then in the long term history view they will both be held accountable by future generations.
Oh my gosh. This is just sad. This has nothing to do with men versus women in a gene pool. It has to do with customers who don't think that it is necessary to get consent before touching a woman because she is a dancer versus dancers. What is this obsession you have with feminism, x? I just want to talk about strippers.
xdamage
10-21-2007, 06:14 PM
Oh. Okay. So the nanny IS responsible for her employer sexually harassing her then? Well. Gosh. How very unreasonable of you, but I'll let her know.
You just made a very bad analogy. What I said was clear and correct. The nanny is not being hired for sexual contact. The stripper is. Comparing the two is like talking about a stripper getting pissed because a customer suggests she should shine the bookcase as a trial before hiring her for the real job.
Oh my gosh. This is just sad. This has nothing to do with men versus women in a gene pool. It has to do with customers who don't think that it is necessary to get consent before touching a woman because she is a dancer versus dancers. What is this obsession you have with feminism, x? I just want to talk about strippers.
It's not the same thing. Everyone here gets that. When a woman choose to sell herself as commodity in a SC there is a certain grey area of what is allowable that goes along with that. If a hundred customers here tell you that, eventually you can either accept that it's not clear in their mind, or that it's not clear in your what is really going on in the customer mind.
In addition, again I point out, there is no absolute right or wrong here. If you won't allow it, but some other dancer will, and she makes more money by allowing a customer to put her hand around her before paying $20 for more freedoms, you can only have a beef with customers to a certain degree. You really can't say then even that it's objectionable to women or strippers as compared with the chance to make $20. All we can say is it's objectionable some women/strippers, but not to all. And you may well find that you end up in the minority of women/strippers. In other words, your morale objection may well be no more interesting then say my grandfathers morale objection to women wearing bikinis on the beach. No matter how much it offended him, there was no absolute god given truth behind his objection. Society changes. Women of the future, eventually younger then you, will be strippers and shape what future societies consider right and wrong. To blaim their choices on men is fundamentally naive on every level. They, like men, do what they do, because it's what in their best interest, in the moment.
Jenny
10-21-2007, 07:10 PM
You just made a very bad analogy. What I said was clear and correct. The nanny is not being hired for sexual contact. The stripper is. Comparing the two is like talking about a stripper getting pissed because a customer suggests she should shine the bookcase as a trial before hiring her for the real job.
Well, technically x, nobody is getting hired for anything unless one party offers and the other accepts. I mean, technically everywhere else. I recognize that as a stripper I should just be a generalized public commodity and be grateful whenever any guys deign to pay me for it, but let's pretend for a second that I'm an actual human being. What I'm saying is that stripclub customers need consent before touching strippers. I don't think that the fact that I'm not a nanny means that contracts can be forced on me with me accepting them. I know. I'm so naive. And I also realize that women participated in the genetic make up that results in stripclub customers not honouring the contractual process in stripclubs. Oops.
It's not the same thing. Everyone here gets that. When a woman choose to sell herself as commodity in a SC there is a certain grey area of what is allowable that goes along with that.
X. That is EXACTLY my point. That everyone gets that. And that what everyone is getting is EXACTLY the idea that you don't need my consent before touching me because I'm a stripper. And that I think that is wrong. And that you need mine too. And that any customer who tells me that my consent is irrelevant is mistaken. Yes. Even 100 of them. Would be wrong.
In addition, again I point out, there is no absolute right or wrong here. If you won't allow it, but some other dancer will, and she makes more money by allowing a customer to put her hand around her before paying $20 for more freedoms, you can only have a beef with customers to a certain degree.
I disagree. I'm talking about social construction, convention and law. All of these things say that you should get a woman's permission before touching them. I don't care in the slightest - in a club or out - if someone else the guy knows let him do it in the past. Which is why you should my, my specific permission. And I hold the customer responsible for that, because whatever dancer he saw before didn't touch me, and it was his bad judgment that led him to believe that because touching one woman without permission led to no bad effects he should be free to do it with every woman.
You really can't say then even that it's objectionable to women or strippers as compared with the chance to make $20. All we can say is it's objectionable some women/strippers, but not to all.
Well, all women and strippers don't matter. The only one that matters is the one in question at the moment. Which is why you should have HER permission, as opposed to the permission of whatever stripper majority you're envision.
xdamage
10-22-2007, 03:38 AM
X. That is EXACTLY my point. That everyone gets that. And that what everyone is getting is EXACTLY the idea that you don't need my consent before touching me because I'm a stripper. And that I think that is wrong. And that you need mine too. And that any customer who tells me that my consent is irrelevant is mistaken. Yes. Even 100 of them. Would be wrong.
Jenny,
You do have the right to say NO if it makes you uncomfortable.
But if you don't say NO, you are making a choice, and in making that choice, in a very very very small way, you contribute to a future in which the behavior is further assumed to be okay in an SC.
Related to that, like I wrote earlier, I don't think it's about absolute right or wrongs so much as it's about social beliefs of what is right/wrong. One implies that it's always wrong in all cultures in all situations, while the other implies that we are talking about a behavior that is assumed to be acceptable in some settings. And I really see the putting one's arm around a stripper as a case of the later, much the same way I see it when a stripper just plops herself down on a customer's lap without asking or a stripper touches a customer without asking. Nobody is significantly physically harmed, but there is a degree of touching that occurs in the an SC that is done without pre-verbal consent. This is normal in the SC because of that environment.
The other thing is I don't think we have the right to speak for all strippers ever (past or future); only yourself, and strippers you know well now. Problem is while the current generation of strippers may not like a guy putting his arms around her waist, if they aren't saying NO either (i.e., because it's bad for business) it's probable that the behavior will occur more often and probable that the next generation of strippers will simply come to accept it as no more wrong (or meaningful) then how she feels about faking a smile in an SC. We just can't speak for the future generations feelings on this matter, but we can say that this generation, and in very very very tiny way you specifically as a stripper, are contributing to the future generations beliefs about what is okay and what is not okay in the SC.
xdamage
10-22-2007, 03:47 AM
I disagree. I'm talking about social construction, convention and law. All of these things say that you should get a woman's permission before touching them. I don't care in the slightest - in a club or out - if someone else the guy knows let him do it in the past.
I guess on this we will have to disagree. I'm 100% in agreement that women must have the rights to say when it is and isn't okay to touch them, but... I also do see the SC as being a place where the social norms and our sense of right and wrong just doesn't apply exactly the same way. I wouldn't presume that the average woman in an average situation is okay with my touching them, but likewise I also wouldn't presume they'd be okay with it for $20 outside of the club, and I wouldn't presume that if our eyes happen to make contact that she will be over in 3 seconds sitting on my lap without asking putting her arms around me offering me yet more touching for money. What is clear outside of the club just doesn't follow completely for me (and I think for the vast majority of the customers) inside of the club. And again the point is, what is allowed inside the club is being defined by the dancers as much as the customers.
Jenny
10-22-2007, 06:19 AM
Again with the post hoc analysis. That is not how consent works. Because SOME social norms don't apply in a strip club doesn't mean that NONE do. So the argument "oh well it's a strip club" doesn't seem particularly relevant unless there is something integral to the stripclubbiness of it. There is nothing about being in a stripclub that precludes negotiation BEFORE (not after) touching me. In fact (as I mentioned before) the fact that the stripclub is a place of clearly and explicitly negotiated sexual contact put a higher onus on the negotiation factor, not a lower one. You don't need to presume ANY woman ANYWHERE is okay with you touching them. It's not an either or. Darcy happens to feel that regular customers get a little touchy outside the negotiated relationship after it has been negotiated (your version - she is a stripper who is okay with being touched with the promise of $20 later on). I'm not. It's pisses me right off and I don't like it, and I'm a stickler for the negotiation process. And we can all be made happy simply by establishing consent BEFORE not AFTER the contact. I don't plan on speaking for all strippers everywhere, any more than laws regarding sexual contact that demand consent purport to "speak for all women everywhere" in regards to whether they would ever let a man touch them. The only woman that matter is the one at hand and whether or not SHE consents to it. And no. I will not go with a "well we'll agree to disagree on the issue that your body becomes a free and public commodity on which your consent has no meaning because you work in a stripclub". No. That is not something I'm willing to "agree to disagree" on. You're wrong. Honestly, I don't know what is wrong with you people who are arguing so vehemently for the perceived "right" to touch a woman without permission because she is a stripper. The fact that she will likely consent if you pay her $20 is a good reason to get her freaking consent and pay her $20, not just not do say "well she'll probably let me do xxx if I asked and paid her, so I'm just going to do it, without asking or paying and I'll see how she feels." Keep in mind what you are arguing right now - that you do not need a stripper's permission to touch her sexually. It's twisted.
Bob_Loblaw
10-22-2007, 07:36 AM
I'm too lazy to go back and read this thread. But what some fail to remember is that the girls are independent contractors and are not employed by the club. Because of this, it makes sense for dancers to be able to set their own ground rules, prices and boundaries (within the constraints of the club of course). So Dancer A will let you touch her and Dancer B wont? As a customer, if what you're looking for is a girl who allows touching, you don't have to spend your money on Dancer B if you don't want to. But just because A&W offers onion rings, doesn't mean that you should expect or demand McDonald's to.
xdamage
10-22-2007, 12:17 PM
That is not how consent works. ...." Keep in mind what you are arguing right now - that you do not need a stripper's permission to touch her sexually. It's twisted.
Actually I think the notion that people inherently have rights is twisted.
You're relatively speaking young in a historical sense and have had the luck of living in a culture that encourages a certain set of rights, and there is nothing wrong with that, but rights are luxuries we have evolved in part because our standard of living and time permits it. Throw out the social structures though and people rapidly revert to survival of the fittest, rights smites. And even in many cultures today, the notion that you have a right to consent first is not assumed.
The original point I made still stands. If many customers believe that it's okay to touch strippers in a strip club, it is a great deal due to the fact that strippers allow it and even encourage it. If you all really don't want it to happen, or not to you personally, then use your freedom to just say NO.
Basically, the victim mentality again doesn't work for me. Women and strippers are actively participating in what is considered to be socially acceptable. You can't change other people's behavior but you can change your own, so put simply, if a customer who has not paid is touching you and you don't like it, say NO. Of course it may affect your bottom line, but that's the way it is for all of us who exercise our rights. Sometimes we win our rights, and still lose out because someone else is willing to do the same job for less.
To me there is no God or higher power in my mind who cares if any of us have any rights. We just have them by mutual agreement, and while I think many of them are good things, they are not driven by some higher power and completely inflexible. If in some settings people are willing to give up or alter their sense of what is right (e.g., in exchange for a higher earning potential) then nothing is stopping them.
Now I do understand why you'd like to retain your right not to be touched before being paid, but what is acceptable isn't just about you. In the big picture, the rest of the men and women get to contribute too, and they may well decide that some non-negotiated touching is okay in the SC environment.
Jenny
10-22-2007, 12:47 PM
Throw out the social structures though and people rapidly revert to survival of the fittest, rights smites. And even in many cultures today, the notion that you have a right to consent first is not assumed.
Well, the fact that "social structures" dates back to the first time human beings gathered together in a cave for warmth nothwithstanding - I don't want to throw out social structures. I'm arguing from within social structures. My precise argument is that the law and current social structure demands that you have permission to touch a woman before you touch her. Stripclubs don't exist without social structures, so how human beings would interact if a stripclub grew out a tundra, absent all human intervention and social rules is a little... theoretical for me. You know. Since I'm just a stripper and all
The original point I made still stands. If many customers believe that it's okay to touch strippers in a strip club, it is a great deal due to the fact that strippers allow it and even encourage it. If you all really don't want it to happen, or not to you personally, then use your freedom to just say NO.
The original point you made was... besides the point. The issue is not whether or not I have the right to say "no". I never suggested I didn't (I did suggest that you cannot dismiss economic imperatives as conveniently as you would like to - and I didn't notice any coherent response on that. I mean you did say "non-strippers are just different". But that seems like a pretty sad little rationale to me). I suggested that consent could not be determined post hoc, and therefore you needed it before. (Imagine. "Well, officer, I met this strange woman and pushed her against a wall and shoved my penis into her - but I stopped as soon as she said no.") That is way we understand society. You do not walk up to someone, punch them, and then claim that absent the "no" they had consented to the contact. (Well, yeah, I punched that guy. But I stopped as soon as he said "no." What's the problem? I mean, since we determine consent after the fact and not before.)
Now I do understand why you'd like to retain your right not to be touched before being paid, but what is acceptable isn't just about you. In the big picture, the rest of the men and women get to contribute too, and they may well decide that some non-negotiated touching is okay in the SC environment.
Hmm. Well. This is what we call "the tyranny of the majority." (Well, it is what those of us familiar with John Stuart Mill call the "tyranny of the majority.") That is why we have legal rights. (Please note: I'm not discussing right in a state of pure individualized nature that probably never actually existed, and about which we have no knowledge anyway. I'm discussing legal rights as granted by supreme laws in North America. The British can fend for themselves - sorry Phil. You're out.) So that the majority doesn't get to vote on the rights and human dignities of minorities. So in THIS case - what is acceptable is ABSOLUTELY all about me (or whatever individual woman is at issue). And the rest of the men and women don't get any input at all. Because that is not how the social contract under which we all live works. The idea that "Yes but - if we had no laws, and no social conventions men could just do whatever they wanted to you and there is nothing you could do about it because you're just a girl" is, well... a little beyond the scope here. I mean, this argument you are making "All social behaviours exist and are therefore right by virtue of their existence" is... wait a minute. Are you being satirical? Are you poking fun at me right now? Because if you are - that was unexpectedly well done. Seriously - you totally got me.
Katrine
10-22-2007, 01:35 PM
Ugh, has this thread turned ugly again? I'm too lazy to read it, I tip what is appropriate for the venue.
Jenny
10-22-2007, 01:41 PM
Ugh, has this thread turned ugly again? I'm too lazy to read it, I tip what is appropriate for the venue.
Wow. What a reasonable point.
I suddenly feel very silly.
xdamage
10-22-2007, 01:57 PM
Jenny,
I do want to respond to this, but it's getting longish. I'll read it again tomorrow in a fresh light and do so then.
mr_punk
10-23-2007, 05:07 PM
And I really see the putting one's arm around a stripper as a case of the later, much the same way I see it when a stripper just plops herself down on a customer's lap without asking or a stripper touches a customer without asking.LOL..again, that's not the point, X. i mean, do you see her spending even a fraction of the time upstairs, side-tracking and lecturing the ploppers as much as she does the ploppees? no? well, there you go, you oppressive, patriarchial bastard.
Great. Tell it to mr._punk. Now my threadjacking is, like, ethically mandated.sigh..i guess this means the sabbatical is over. man, it was too quick even for my tastes. oh well, it was nice while it lasted.
It's pisses me right off and I don't like it, and I'm a stickler for the negotiation process. And we can all be made happy simply by establishing consent BEFORE not AFTER the contact.huh? did you say something? anyway, why the angry face, red? let's turn that frown upside down and give us a smile, baby.
Jenny
10-23-2007, 05:15 PM
Punk - you know I only smile for cash.
xdamage
10-23-2007, 07:32 PM
My precise argument is that the law and current social structure demands that you have permission to touch a woman before you touch her.
Jenny, I see the social norms as different in an SC. Like I said, I understand your not wanting to be touched pre-negotiation. Say NO if that happens.
But human behavior in and out of the SC is so significantly different that while you may find it simple to pick and choose what should carry over from one environment to another, I think you're confusing your own preferences with some type of absolute truth that others don't necessarily see or agree on.
The SCs are also places where customers can touch a woman for $20 or less, a place where a dancer can tell a customer all manor of things, even quite literally resulting in a very REAL broken heart, in order to make money. This type of behavior is generally not acceptable outside of the SC anymore then touching a woman is without her permission.
You may find the touching to be insensitive, but stand back far enough and the insensitivity and harm to other humans really does go both way at times. It's just that in one case you benefit and in another case you don't. And that's my concern here about your logic. Your very clear minded about what you want, but you don't seem to see the degree to which that biases your viewpoints. We all want what we want, that's human nature, but in the end, it comes down to nothing more then a lot of people wanting different things, and sometimes they collide and sometimes those wants cooperate.
It's the nature of the environment, predicated on fantasies, deception, sex for money, emotional acting for money, etc. None of that changes that you should say NO if you don't want to be touched, but personally I'm fine with the notion that the social rules about touching, sex, emotions, and female/male relationships are bent in the SC, as long as both parties agree. Yet even in agreement, as we've seen here many times, sometimes customers as well as dancers walk away thinking they are agreeing to one thing, only to leave off a little worse off for the experience.
xdamage
10-23-2007, 07:43 PM
By the way, I should have noted here, the women that like me actively touch me and want to be touched without needing verbal consent every time. Therein lies the problem for dancers who actively use fantasy/deception (depending on one's POV) to make money, yet aren't always happy when the customer confuses fantasy with reality. Many are okay with customer delusion to the degree they benefit (i.e., it increases their bottom line). One has only to read Pink to see plenty of examples of dancers bragging about playing with a customer's heart. But then sometimes that backfires too, and a customer who is deluded invades the dancer's life/space. Play with fire - sometimes you get burned. But there you go. You have guys in the SC, some even partially deluded, who confused the fantasy with reality and think it's okay to touch first without verbal permission. My point remains. They do that because dancers have actively cultivated that delusion because it improves their bottom line. And so to some degree, they have no one to blaim but themselves. Sometimes you just can't have your cake and eat it too, no matter how much you wish it was so.
Jenny
10-23-2007, 07:57 PM
Jenny, I see the social norms as different in an SC. Like I said, I understand your not wanting to be touched pre-negotiation. Say NO if that happens.
Well okay. If I come up to you in a strip club and punch you in the face, you just say "No" and don't feel like any wrong has been done to you. After all. We're in a strip club and different social norms apply, and your preferences on which norms do apply have no relevance to me which norms I think should apply. I mean since we don't need to provide any cohesive or coherent reasoning on why norms shouldn't apply, and since the norms that don't apply apparently don't need to be rationally connected to the existence of the strip club qua strip club, you can take it.
The SCs are also places where customers can touch a woman for $20 or less, a place where a dancer can tell a customer all manor of things, even quite literally resulting in a very REAL broken heart, in order to make money. This type of behavior is generally not acceptable outside of the SC anymore then touching a woman is without her permission.
Okay. Well next time a girl steals from a customer (as was the topic of such disgust here before) you can tell all these guys that different norms apply in a strip club, and that they shouldn't worry about it. Since "different social norms" apparently to you just means that parties can adopt whatever norms they want with no reference to logic, common sense, or the purpose to which social norms might be being "bent".
And that's my concern here about your logic. Your very clear minded about what you want, but you don't seem to see the degree to which that biases your viewpoints.
You keep saying that. It doesn't make it true, you know.
Jenny
10-23-2007, 08:01 PM
By the way, I should have noted here, the women that like me actively touch me and want to be touched without needing verbal consent every time. There you go. I'm not a woman who likes you. I'm a woman you pay to act like she likes you and to touch sexually. As I said - the fact that there is an actual framework in place for that negotiation makes it... you know. Easy and convenient to negotiate. I don't think it is intended to render negotiation un-necessary. You know. Since the framework is put in place for the purposes of that negotiation.
I seriously can't believe that you just said I lack logic, and then followed with this. Seriously - you're having me on, right? This is just, baiting, right? Like some kind of internet performance art? My roommate did this thing with a scanner in a bar. I get the whole digital performance art thing.
xdamage
10-23-2007, 08:09 PM
Jenny,
I honestly think the issue here is that you are only able to see this from the point of view of what is in your best interest, and simply not capable of seeing the other points of views because from those POVs your choices aren't angelic, right, or even particularly good.
Put another way, it makes you feel good to feel like a victim, and not good to feel like a contributor to the problem, so you eat up one POV and entirely reject the other. Yet the other exists... whether you have the stomach to face it or not, from a certain POV as a stripper you are a contributor to the SC environment, the GOOD, and the BAD of it.
If I'm right, then further discussion is utterly pointless. If you simply want to hear your POV is absolute truth, I'm just not the guy to talk with. Sorry.
Jenny
10-23-2007, 08:14 PM
If I'm right, then further discussion is utterly pointless. If you simply want to hear your POV is absolute truth, I'm just not the guy to talk with. Sorry.
Really? Because... meh. Nevermind. You're kind of the guy to talk to when one is spoiling for a fight. You know. As opposed to someone who has a viable contribution. Although I was briefly impressed when I thought this whole thing was an elaborate ruse. I mean - that would have been good.
xdamage
10-23-2007, 08:36 PM
Really? Because... meh. Nevermind. You're kind of the guy to talk to when one is spoiling for a fight. You know. As opposed to someone who has a viable contribution. Although I was briefly impressed when I thought this whole thing was an elaborate ruse. I mean - that would have been good.
Your welcome to your POV Jenny. I just rarely agree with it is all. Often times it seems to be motivated by your emotions; if it makes you feel good and paints you in a positive light you agree, and if not, you reject. I understand the motivation behind that too, but I just don't think people are all that wonderful, not even you, not me, not any of us. I view people differently, and I see most of us as basically picking and choosing our social norms and wants as it suits our specific wants. That system works fine, but there is a bigger picture.
Therefore I can say the following quite comfortably (as an example):
1.) Many guys in SCs feel it's okay to touch because dancers cultivate that belief, because doing so improves their bottom line.
2.) It's heinous to some dancers when a customers touches them pre-negotiation.
3.) It's heinous (i.e., emotionally painful) to some customers when they have their heart toyed with by a stripper.
4.) People outside the SCs often see both dancer behavior and customer behavior as heinous.
I'm fine with saying sometimes I do what I do because it's in my best interest, even at the expense of others. I believe anyone, including you, who tries to tell me they never do, is basically living with their head in a hole and is incapable of facing reality or responsibility for their choices.
So sue me. There you go.
xdamage
10-23-2007, 08:49 PM
There you go. I'm not a woman who likes you. I'm a woman you pay to act like she likes you and to touch sexually. As I said - the fact that there is an actual framework in place for that negotiation makes it... you know. Easy and convenient to negotiate. I don't think it is intended to render negotiation un-necessary. You know. Since the framework is put in place for the purposes of that negotiation.
Just say NO until the customer has paid you. It's so simple. Just don't complain when your co-workers don't say no and make more money then you because they don't outright leave customers feeling rejected. And if you can't cope with the reality that your co-workers are contributing to a social expectation that it's okay to touch during and before the negotiations, I simply cannot and will not tell you that dancers are not responsible for contributing to that expectation. Because that would be an utter falsehood, and while it would make you feel better about your own contribution, those of us with truly strong egos vs faked strong egos are able to acknowledge our own contributions, even when they are not entirely positive.
But for you, just say NO if you don't want a customer touching you. It's really that simple and that's how you can effect the future trends. Others will choose their own choice, and time will tell what becomes acceptable in and out of the club independent of our personal choices in the matter.
Jenny
10-23-2007, 09:05 PM
Just say NO until the customer has paid you. It's so simple. Just don't complain when your co-workers don't say no and make more money then you because they don't outright leave customers feeling rejected.
This is what is making me think that you are toying with me. Like honestly - you have some pretty good "thick" cred with me by now, and I'm really having trouble believing this. Like there is no possible way you could have read what I wrote and still missed the point this completely. Now seriously. Level with me. This whole "xdamage" thing has been a joke, right? You're actually some college student sitting in a dorm, giggling, saying "look, look - I'm totally going to make her type like 40 pages now." You totally got me. Well done.
xdamage
10-23-2007, 09:26 PM
This is what is making me think that you are toying with me. Like honestly - you have some pretty good "thick" cred with me by now,
Holy fuck! Almost a compliment? I'll take what I can get. "cred" is good. Really, I'm actually a very reasonable, totally sweet dude, REALLY!!! I swear it.
I guess we just have some major trouble here communicating, and there are too many points - easy to lose track of them all.
I however don't toy with people, and being the internet, of course it's easy to only have half of a conversation. The other half, the more important half, the emotional person-to-person half, well I need to be eye to eye for that. I'm just trying to talk with you here like a guy-to-guy, non-emotional, view of the situation. As if neither of us was involved in the SC scene. In that light, I just see a lot of people contributing to a set of behaviors that differs from what is considered acceptable OTC.
I however don't toy with people, and being the internet, of course it's easy to only have half of a conversation. The other half, the more important half, the emotional person-to-person half, well I need to be eye to eye for that. I'm just trying to talk with you here like a guy-to-guy, non-emotional, view of the situation. As if neither of us was involved in the SC scene. In that light, I just see a lot of people contributing to a set of behaviors that differs from what is considered acceptable OTC.
Well, it's about time one of you made the first move. I mean, suggesting a mano e mano meet to work things out. So where's it gonna be? PA or CA? Or maybe a more neutral place?
FBR :)
xdamage
10-24-2007, 07:00 PM
Well, it's about time one of you made the first move. I mean, suggesting a mano e mano meet to work things out. So where's it gonna be? PA or CA? Or maybe a more neutral place?
FBR :)
I have enough trouble this month :-X
One great thing about guy to guy convo, life is so simple. Even in disagreement, at the end of the day (or week) we shake hands, have a drink, and everyone is buddies.
Phil-W
10-25-2007, 02:18 PM
Well, the fact that "social structures" dates back to the first time human beings gathered together in a cave for warmth nothwithstanding - I don't want to throw out social structures.
I'm discussing legal rights as granted by supreme laws in North America. The British can fend for themselves - sorry Phil. You're out.)
Well you bloody Yanks threw out our social structures and laws the moment you started tipping tea into Boston harbour.
Jenny, you must believe in free will.
I of my free will, will behave politely in a SC. In the unlikely event we ever meet, you will be treated with good old fashioned British courtesy. I would not have the slightest intention of touching you without your consent - it's not within my nature.
Similarly, you of your own free will have set boundaries for your behaviour in a strip club. They are different from other dancers in that you allow a specific degree of contact with your consent. (Other dancers offer less and other dancers offer more contact - their choice).
We must allow others to have free will as well. If another dancer is touched inappropriately, it's her choice whether to accept it (unwillingly or otherwise) or complain.
Similarly, I cannot control other customers behaviour in a SC - I would hope they stay within commonly accepted bounds, but I cannot force them to.
Within the confines of a SC, I assume that the management has provided adequte security for the dancers, and would intervene if a dancer complained. Under normal circumstances, I would not expect to intervene - it's up to the dancers to control their customers (with the aid of security if necessary).
The only time I would expect to intervene would be if a dancer was being physically assualted (or being severely insulted) and security was absent.
Phil.
PS: Outside of the SC, I have intervened on occasion. The last significant time was 18 months ago when I helped a security guard subdue a shoplifter in a supermarket. (What I didn't realise till I pitched in was that the shoplifter was trying to get a knife out).
It turned into a violent struggle which other able bodied guys stood around and watched. (The Store Manager even got out a broom to sweep up the stuff being smashed while we were struggling to subdue the shoplifter - instead of helping us!)
So much for individuals taking social responsibility.
Jenny
10-25-2007, 02:43 PM
Well you bloody Yanks threw out our social structures and laws the moment you started tipping tea into Boston harbour.
Phil. I'm Canadian.
Jenny, you must believe in free will.
Yeah... and...
I of my free will, will behave politely in a SC. In the unlikely event we ever meet, you will be treated with good old fashioned British courtesy. I would not have the slightest intention of touching you without your consent - it's not within my nature.
Well I do lots of things of my own free will. Like, for example, not going on bloody murdering sprees. It doesn't mean that it's a neutral act for those who, of their free will, do. Not that I think grabbing my ass and killing people is remotely or conceptually the same - I just don't see what the exercise of free will has to do with this. Like I never said the people grabbing me weren't exercising their free will. And I can hardly exercise mine not be grabbed unless they ask first, can I? Which was, pretty much, my point.
Similarly, you of your own free will have set boundaries for your behaviour in a strip club. They are different from other dancers in that you allow a specific degree of contact with your consent. (Other dancers offer less and other dancers offer more contact - their choice).
Okay, again. Alright. Know what? Seeing as everyone is missing my point, there is clearly something wrong with how I'm expressing it. So let me try again. Yes, I can set my own boundaries. Yes other dancers (let's take Darcy, since she is a an obliging contrast), so Darcy can set her own boundaries. Those boundaries may differ and customer as well as actual people (kidding, kidding) are entitled to prefer one set to the other . Thus far we all agree. My point has nothing to do with different boundaries. Merely the obligation of one party (in this case the customer) to ascertain those boundaries BEFORE not AFTER testing them - just like you would with real, actual human beings.
Similarly, I cannot control other customers behaviour in a SC - I would hope they stay within commonly accepted bounds, but I cannot force them to.
Well no. And I can't force other people to not go on murdering sprees. It doesn't meant that I sit back and say "well they're exercising their free will" when they do. I'm still not sure where free will is coming into this. I mean, people do things freely - that doesn't speak, in and of itself, to the ethical, moral or social neutrality of those free choices.
Within the confines of a SC, I assume that the management has provided adequte security for the dancers, and would intervene if a dancer complained.
I don't think you need to intervene at all. Customer intervention is definitely not on my agenda here.
It turned into a violent struggle which other able bodied guys stood around and watched. (The Store Manager even got out a broom to sweep up the stuff being smashed while we were struggling to subdue the shoplifter - instead of helping us!)
Yes but did any of them say "well you could have made the choice to let him get away" or "he's just exercising his free will. It's not how I choose to exercise mine, but, you know, whatever" or "Well, Phil, it's an imperfect world. People steal things. So?"
doc-catfish
10-25-2007, 03:11 PM
"Passengers certain to die!"
"Airline negligent!"
"There's a sale at Penney's!!" (http://www.tigersweat.com/movies/airplane/air07.wav)
Completely off topic, but hell, so have the last three pages of this thread.
:shrug:
Jenny
10-25-2007, 03:22 PM
You're right - I'm sorry. I see these constructions and I get all worked up. I also bite my nails. It's an impulse control disorder thing.
SportsWriter2
10-25-2007, 08:10 PM
Okay, again. Alright. Know what? Seeing as everyone is missing my point, there is clearly something wrong with how I'm expressing it. So let me try again. Yes, I can set my own boundaries. Yes other dancers (let's take Darcy, since she is a an obliging contrast), so Darcy can set her own boundaries. Those boundaries may differ and customer as well as actual people (kidding, kidding) are entitled to prefer one set to the other . Thus far we all agree. My point has nothing to do with different boundaries. Merely the obligation of one party (in this case the customer) to ascertain those boundaries BEFORE not AFTER testing them - just like you would with real, actual human beings.
What I see in your piecemeal oeuvre is academic potential in the anthropology of law, perhaps with a strip club as your thesis tribe. Among other things, you could explore how ascertaining boundaries and obtaining consent changes within the No Shame zone. And you could still come here for stimulation from Mr P.
xdamage
10-25-2007, 09:22 PM
Okay, again. Alright. Know what? Seeing as everyone is missing my point, there is clearly something wrong with how I'm expressing it. So let me try again. Yes, I can set my own boundaries. Yes other dancers (let's take Darcy, since she is a an obliging contrast), so Darcy can set her own boundaries. Those boundaries may differ and customer as well as actual people (kidding, kidding) are entitled to prefer one set to the other . Thus far we all agree. My point has nothing to do with different boundaries. Merely the obligation of one party (in this case the customer) to ascertain those boundaries BEFORE not AFTER testing them - just like you would with real, actual human beings.
Nice idea, but I think it's more wishful thinking than based on people's real nature. Rights are earned by CONSTANT effort to set and maintain the boundaries. They aren't God given, mandatory, or unalienable. This is a problem when you make your money in a field that blurs reality and fantasy. While it is a good way to make money because it takes advantage of human nature (i.e., a lot of customers spend well because the reality is blurry for them and they spend more under the belief that the actors are behaving in a real way), it also comes at a cost that the rights you expect of other human beings are blurred too. It would be nice if it wasn't so, but this is human nature and wishing they were different won't make it so.
Again, it's wanting one's cake and to eat it too. I'd say the majority of people outside the club understand this is one of the risks with pretending to like something/people for $$s. While some customers are clear minded enough to separate the two, the common person doesn't (yet it's often because they don't, that they spend so much money). Like I said, ultimately dancers are contributors to what happens in the club, and the expectations because they choose to benefit by accepting $$s for behavior that would not be appropriate OTC. Such is human nature. Human nature that you want your cake and eat it too, and human nature that when people play mind games with others for $$s (even when it's consenual) that sometimes the play-ees don't always behave exactly as the player might wish.
Phil-W
10-26-2007, 11:21 AM
Phil. I'm Canadian.
Hello, oh colonial cousin.
My point has nothing to do with different boundaries. Merely the obligation of one party (in this case the customer) to ascertain those boundaries BEFORE not AFTER testing them - just like you would with real, actual human beings.
We can agree on that it would be nice if the more handsy customers of this world asked before grabbing. Unfortunately, that's taking a utopian view of the situation. In the real world there will be predatory customers, ignorant customers, misogynous customers, etc. I think you're being highly optomistic if you think they're going to respect your boundaries.
I'm still not sure where free will is coming into this.
Only in that before you get grabbed, someone has to make a conscious decision to do so. He's not compelled to grab you - i.e. he's acting of his own free will. Unfortunately, he's not well enough mannered to see you want your boundaries respected.
I don't think you need to intervene at all. Customer intervention is definitely not on my agenda here.
On the rare occasions I've tried to explain to someone behaving like an idiot that dancers are perfectly normal individuals outside of work, they look at me in disbelief. Seems their neaderthal brain can't grasp the concept.
Yes but did any of them say "well you could have made the choice to let him get away" or "he's just exercising his free will.
Exercising free will does not absolve anyone from making the morally correct choice. Helping restrain said shoplifter was the morally correct choice, so I duly helped. Shoplifting is morally wrong, so I exercise my free will and don't do it.
It's not how I choose to exercise mine...
And your solution to people not respecting boundaries...
I'm going to conduct a thought experiment and put you in charge of a task force for improving behaviour in strip venues.
What do you recommend?
Phil.
Lapaholic
10-26-2007, 11:28 AM
So Jenny, what is the fair market value of spanking your tush? I mean ... all this talk has made me curious! ;) I have never negotiated a spanking so in case it comes up when i go to a club, Id like to know.
( For some odd reason to I think u all are in agreement. just saying it in different ways. ie.. It's OK to spank a bottom if u had established that behavior from prior visits - Darcy, Jenny, P, and X... BUT dont spank me buttocks unless I give u permission first - Jenny, X. And Phil would never think of spanking a bottom I guess cause he is British! ;) )
Svelt
10-26-2007, 11:46 AM
So reading the Seattle Times I run accross this
Frank is in trouble again for behavior Jenny is telling us we can't do.
Here is an example of a guy submerged in the sc culture for how many years? And as management?
I bet he was just as suprised to have charges pressed on him as we would be.
So any of you girls gonna press charges next time some guy grabs without permission?
Lapaholic
10-26-2007, 11:52 AM
^^^ Man if I was 90 and still grabbing booty a SC, hell i'd take the law suit and run ( well, hobble ) back to the nursing home to show all my friends...