Log in

View Full Version : Giving a Tip for a Dance?



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

FBR
10-26-2007, 02:51 PM
And Phil would never think of spanking a bottom I guess cause he is British! ;) ) But we all know kinky and masochistic British men are. And Phil being said Brit and male, I suspect he often fantasizes his own bum getting soundly thrashed ;)

FBR

zxcire
10-26-2007, 02:57 PM
So any of you girls gonna press charges next time some guy grabs without permission?



Ha ha! I've thought about it!:D

Sophia_Starina
10-27-2007, 02:09 AM
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003975570_colacurcio26m.html

So any of you girls gonna press charges next time some guy grabs without permission?

Hah! That is so righteous. I really respect that the waitress followed though with the case (even though it took 3 years). That is very brave. I would like to give her some well deserved kudos.

mr_punk
10-27-2007, 07:02 AM
For some odd reason to I think u all are in agreement. just saying it in different ways.gee, ya think? LOL..again, for the third time, that's not really the point.

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?the fact that the state went after him hard over this penny ante case tells me it probably had more to do with his long history of being the target of numerous criminal investigations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Colacurcio%2C_Sr.) than concern over sexual harassment.

So any of you girls gonna press charges next time some guy grabs without permission?why? it's not like they're waitresses. sexual harassment..it's part of the job.

Lapaholic
10-27-2007, 08:05 AM
^^^ So what is the point - that they are all whores and painted clowns and that's what u do with whores and painted clowns - yeah forgot...

mr_punk
10-27-2007, 08:43 AM
no, that's not the point either, but if you pulled your head out of the deep, dark depths of jenny's virtual ass crack for just a sec. why, the answer will appear right before your eyes.

safado
10-27-2007, 09:03 AM
At the local club I sometimes get slapped on the ass by some of the dancers as they walk by. I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like it hurts. Or should I call the cops next time I get slapped on the ass by a stripper? I don't slap them back, but if they can slap my ass I should be able to slap some stripper ass.

Sophia_Starina
10-27-2007, 11:33 AM
At the local club I sometimes get slapped on the ass by some of the dancers as they walk by. I don't see what the big deal is, it's not like it hurts. Or should I call the cops next time I get slapped on the ass by a stripper? I don't slap them back, but if they can slap my ass I should be able to slap some stripper ass.


You have the worst logic of any human being...ever.

Sophia_Starina
10-27-2007, 11:38 AM
I don't think that I would call the cops if a customer slapped my ass. I would, however, tip the surliest bouncer I could find to toss out the offending customer in the harshest way possible.

safado
10-27-2007, 11:56 AM
You have the worst logic of any human being...ever.

I have a tip for you, I you dance for guys who wear sweatpants and guys who wear shorts you will increase your customer base and therefore make more money:).

Phil-W
10-27-2007, 12:57 PM
But we all know kinky and masochistic British men are. And Phil being said Brit and male, I suspect he often fantasizes his own bum getting soundly thrashed ;) FBR

Sorry FBR, but to like getting your bum thrashed, you needed to have gone to public school.

And the most kinky and masochistic person I know is female. I often joke that she does field research for the Oxford Dictionary of Perversions.

Phil.

Svelt
10-27-2007, 03:18 PM
the fact that the state went after him hard over this penny ante case tells me it probably had more to do with his long history of being the target of numerous than concern over sexual harassment.


I agree, I doubt anyone would take a dancer seriously if she did report this type of behavior.

However it does make Jenny's point about not asking for permission.
There can be consequences.

But if you examined all the interations in the sc, most would be actionable offences. So as participants in this sub world we agree to a seperate code of behavior, and that code is constantly evolving in each club.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 03:36 PM
But if you examined all the interations in the sc, most would be actionable offences. So as participants in this sub world we agree to a seperate code of behavior, and that code is constantly evolving in each club.Ugh. God I'm weak. I just said that I was going to not further this diversion any more. I'm pathetically argumentative.

Okay, the self-loathing is out of the way - onto the addiction. This is exactly the point. Some differences to the social norms apply. Not all social norms are kicked to the curb. So I would really, really, really like some articulation on why this particular social norm is being thrown out. Another poster said that it would be offensive to ask a woman on the street to do what I do for $20 in exchange for $20 (if you followed that sentence). Sure, yes - absolutely. And that assumption - that change in social normity - is integral to the working of a stripclub. The strip club could not work (at least in a present incarnation) without that difference to social "normity". The example I used with getting the customers drunk and then robbing them - that is not integral to the working of the strip club. The strip club can still function without that. Therefore that is not a norm that drops off the face of the planet when you walk into a strip club. I do not see what in the operation of a strip club necessitates touching me sexually without getting permission first. To the contrary - it seems like the environment is set up to make it easy and convenient to get my permission (You know - "Hey, Jenny - I would really like you to take off your top and let me smack you on the ass for $20." See how easy?) There are signs on the walls standardizing prices and there are little signs on the table telling you what is on offer. The whole system makes it easier to ask my permission - what about this system, in your opinion, makes it necessary to reduce my physical autonomy by not getting my permission first? Like, an actual, articulable reason - not just "Well, you're a stripper, so intuitively it just seems like touching you doesn't count." And unless there is a club in which the "ordering" process is being circumvented (thus, at least arguably, necessitating a different approach to the purchase of dances), I don't think this code is constantly evolving. I would say that there is a systematic violation of our physical autonomy

BTW - if you think the police are called every time a patron grabs a waitress's ass - you've got to be kidding. There are plenty of people who think waitresses are just as subhuman as we are.

mr_punk
10-27-2007, 03:39 PM
However it does make Jenny's point about not asking for permission.as it applies to an employer inappropriately touching his employee in the workplace? ok, but i didn't know strippers were the employees of customers or sc owners. at least, that's what they tell us.

But if you examined all the interations in the sc, most would be actionable offences. So as participants in this sub world we agree to a seperate code of behavior, and that code is constantly evolving in each club.shhh...don't tell jenny that. she's liable to give you a stern, 5 page lecture on your evil patriarchal thoughts.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 06:19 PM
This all seems way too complex for me, so let me break it down into simpler terms:

1) Case A - Customer thinks he is dealing with girls that "really" like him, ready to spend money. He wanders up, puts his arm around a girl, and asks for a dance. She bitch slaps him for not asking first. Sale lost.

2.) Case B -
Customer thinks he is dealing with girls that "really" like him, ready to spend money. He wanders up, puts his arm around a girl, and asks for a dance. She acts like she likes him and makes a sale.

It's fucking that simple. Case B makes more money, it's not quantum physics, most dancers know this, so they do B, which further encourages that customer (and others observing) to behave in that way.

I think the majority of the rest of the discussion is academic BS, nice, but irrelevant to the fact that dancers will tend to choose B because honestly, it's not the end of the world for them when customers put their arms around them; they aren't bruised in the morning; the rest of society doesn't give a damn; it's what makes the most money.

Therefore, dancers contribute to the notion that B is okay behavior, and so it goes on.

Pretty damn simple.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 06:34 PM
Well how about if we say that making money is my problem. Not your's and certainly not your hypothetical customer. So neither of you has to worry about it.

Now. Can you articulate why we're ditching that social norm?

Btw - I think it's simple too. Although it is actually pretty interesting to watch the responses. mr._punk is completely unwilling to confirm what Phil said - namely that he had actual consent prior to the act - because that would imply that one actually does need consent before touching a dancer. Both you and Phil are completely unwilling to admit that you just really think dancers deserve less physical autonomy than real human beings, and admit the degree to which you see the choice to dance as the choice to make your body not only a commodity, but a free and public commodity. It's like the two of your are little monkeys sitting there with hands over your eyes, then hands over your ears, while punk is sitting opposite saying "Fuck all ya'all - I'll speak what I want." Like I said - to me it seems perfectly simple.

Just while we're at it - I'm interested. At what point does the post hoc mode of attaining consent lose viability in your view? Like - if it unnecessary to get my consent before slapping my ass, is it necessary before grabbing my breast? How about pinching my nipple? How about grabbing the back of head and shoving your tongue down my throat? How about biting me hard enough to leave teethmarks and bruise? How about burning me with a cigarette? Like at what point of contact does my body become non-public again?

xdamage
10-27-2007, 06:57 PM
Now. Can you articulate why we're ditching that social norm?


It's kind of funny in a way, but I guess fact, that women really don't seem to get this, even when they work in the industry, they just don't seem to get why it is that males pay for their services.

What can I say here, but if you were a guy, the appeal of having a good looking, younger woman, enjoy and even want you putting your arm around here would be absolutely clear without question. You would ask this no more then you would ask why it is that it seems good to breathe air or eat when you are hungry, and it would be transparently clear that what you desire, and what is allowed (which is not okay OTC is one of the draws ITC).

Put another way, the biological norm is guys want to touch women. The social norm is a good thing, but it's very much at odds with that, and why it is that many men spend so much in the SC to look at and touch women.

In other words, really, are you asking just to be difficult or do you really not understand?

Jenny
10-27-2007, 07:03 PM
What can I say here, but if you were a guy, the appeal of having a good looking, younger woman, enjoy and even want you putting your arm around here would be absolutely clear without question....
In other words, really, are you asking just to be difficult or do you really not understand?No, this is perfect. So what you're saying is that the social and legal conventions regarding my physical independence and autonomy are being thrown away because men don't like them. That the necessity of having my permission before touching me is unpleasant to men and therefore is going out the window. That is... so exactly what I thought you meant.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 07:31 PM
No, this is perfect. So what you're saying is that the social and legal conventions regarding my physical independence and autonomy are being thrown away because men don't like them. That the necessity of having my permission before touching me is unpleasant to men and therefore is going out the window. That is... so exactly what I thought you meant.

Human nature, and genetic drives preceed social conventions and human rights by several hundreds of millions of years. You don't have to like it, but pretending that the human rights you've known (living what, can I guess under 30 years, in Canada) simply don't reflect the long term history of human and our animal nature. That's not to say that humans shouldn't strive to be rise above their nature, but it is to say that it's very much a luxury, not a requirement to survival.

However, you did re-word what I said with a mysognistic spin - that part of it is the part you wanted to hear, and not what I said. I never said anything about being "unpleasant" for men for example.

What I said was much more akin to me saying for example, that dancers, given a choice between making money, and breaking a man's heart (for real) will often choose the former. It is actually possible to discuss that as it is without an emotional, woman-hating spin, believe it or not. People do tend to choose what they want. But you can see it for what it is, or you can see it as dancers are "good" and customers are "bad" which I think is basically nothing but your ego, need to feel perfect, rather then based on a realistic and objective understanding of what's going on. And yes, I know you work in the industry. That doesn't mean you are objective. It just means you are in the thick of it.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 07:46 PM
Human nature, and genetic drives preceed social conventions and human rights by several hundreds of millions of years. You don't have to like it, but pretending that the human rights you've known (living what, can I guess under 30 years, in Canada) simply don't reflect the long term history of human and our animal nature. That's not to say that humans shouldn't strive to be rise above their nature, but it is to say that it's very much a luxury, not a requirement to survival.
And yet, you would view respecting those rights and conventions as pretty damn important if someone were sexually assaulting your daughter. So you'll excuse me if I just disregard your "c'est la vie" attitude over my body. I think men are perfectly capable of asking my permission before touching me, and arguing that there is a genetic imperative against it is cheap, sexist and just plain absurd.


What I said was much more akin to me saying for example, that dancers, given a choice between making money, and breaking a man's heart (for real) will often choose the former. It is actually possible to discuss that as it is without an emotional, woman-hating spin, believe it or not.Well, I would say that men's hearts aren't really at issue here, and I don't think my bodily integrity should depend on how some other dancer have treated the guy's heart - much less should it depend on how some other dancer treated some other guy's heart. Second I would say that there is no social or legal convention against breaking hearts; and there is sexually touching women without permission.

Further, I would say that I didn't give a spin at all. I simply delivered the reality of what you said from my point of view rather than yours. Like if you think that men have the right to touch women without permission, the simple reality is that they will be touching at least some women who don't want it and wouldn't consent. And the simple fact is that you said they should be allowed to have this right because they want it. Therefore it seems pretty reasonable to infer that you think the desire that men have to touch women is more important than their desire (at least latent potential desire) to not be touched. Your are, essentially, giving men rights over women. If that is misogynist - look to your own heart, not my spin.

You never really answered my other question - at what point, in your opinion, do social conventions kick back in? Like, does this genetic imperative excuse a full out sexual assault (only in a stripclub though, because presumably outside the walls of a strip club, the genes don't exercise the same control)? Does the male genetic predisposition to violence mean it is okay for a customer to hit me? Is it okay for the same customer to hit you as long as you are in a strip club? After all. People have been hitting each other long before there were strip clubs or laws against hitting each other. Or before he obeys that evolutionary imperative to beat the hell out of you, is he expected to master it - you know, with the new fangled social conventions and all? So to what degree are we slaves to this "evolution" you speak of, and to what degree do we obey laws?


But you can see it for what it is, or you can see it as dancers are "good" and customers are "bad" which I think is basically nothing but your ego, need to feel perfect, rather then based on a realistic and objective understanding of what's going on.Again - you keep saying that. It doesn't make it true, you know. It's just projection.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 07:58 PM
Further, I would say that I didn't give a spin at all. I simply delivered the reality of what you said from my point of view rather than yours. Like if you think that men have the right to touch women without permission, ...
You never really answered my other question - at what point, in your opinion, do social conventions kick back in? Like, does this genetic imperative excuse a full out sexual assault ...

I don't want to discuss extremes. Extremes are extremes, and a duh to me. All I was ever discussing was the case of a customer who doesn't think before he puts his hand around the waist of a dancer. That's it. On a big grey scale, in a strip club, I can see how/why a guy might think that it's okay particularly if the dancers don't discourage it (or even encourage it by smiling and acting okay with it).

That's all. I don't want to talk about full out assault because my mind doesn't work in absolutes. For example, just because a dancer plays on some guys emotions in a club to make $20, I don't want to talk about is it okay to CON people for millions OTC. There is room in my mind for something between NEVER EVER NEVER touch without permission and RAPE. There is a big world in between, so raising extremes to argue away the minor case doesn't work for me. My brain just doesn't work like that.

As I've said many times, and I'll say it again, I'm completely in favor of women's rights to choose, but as I've said too many times now, choice doesn't mean to me that she can't choose to make exceptions in some environments, and as far as I can tell, the social norms in a SC are such that it's fairly normal that dancers touch customers and vice versa in SCs without verbal agreement first.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 08:06 PM
I think men are perfectly capable of asking my permission before touching me, and arguing that there is a genetic imperative against it is cheap, sexist and just plain absurd.

By the way, this means nothing to me. If it was as simple as that then we would have no need for laws and punishment when men do touch women against their wishes, yet they do, so that's the reality of human nature we face and that laws are put in place to fight against.

As I said, I think you are being naive here having lived in a modern society, for maybe 30 years or so, you just don't grasp how badly people can behave and would behave if it was not for laws and punishment. It would be nice if it wasn't so, but it's not realistic, and it still comes back to what I said... you as a person contribute to what is and isn't allowed by either a.) saying NO, or b.) allowing or even encouraging behaviors. That's what it means to be equal in our society and to carry equal rights and responsibility.

It's up to you then to do your part, and if you don't, and you encourage what you argue is bad behavior in the club, then you have nobody to blaim but you... you are now a contributor, and society shaper as much as anyone else. Enjoy the beauty of freedom, and the burden of it.

So again, if you don't want customers touching you pre-sales, just say NO... that's your right and if you really truly believe this is an issue worth pages and pages of customers-suck, then it's your responsibility...

Unless the truth is you just want to sooth your own ego and feel guiltless and not responsible, do what makes the most money, and have no sense of reesponsibility for the negatives - in which case you get to join the billions of others who have done the same over and over through history who haven't taken responsibility for their contributions either.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 08:09 PM
I don't want to discuss extremes. Extremes are extremes, and a duh to me.
Unfortunately, that is not the way... you know, discourse, rationale and logical thought work. When your rationale can apply just as easily to an assault as an arm, you have to a) come up with a coherent difference and b) come up with a limitation on your "gray scale." Like, when, exactly on this "gray scale" in which you are dividing up my body, does it become wholly mine again? When you come up with a rationale, you kind of have to consider the uses to which it can be put. That is sort of what rational thought means.

All I was ever discussing was the case of a customer who doesn't think before he puts his hand around the waist of a dancer. That's it.
Technically we were discussing slapping a dancer on the ass.


That's all. I don't want to talk about full out assault because my mind doesn't work in absolutes. For example, just because a dancer plays on some guys emotions in a club to make $20, I don't want to talk about is it okay to CON people for millions OTC.
Sure. But if we were talking about conning someone inside the stripclub then conning them outside the stripclub might seem relevant. And I'm drawing your attention to the fact that while you are making my body public, you might not feel the same way about yours. And that this "society is new" crap is... you know, crap, and that you expect people to comport themselves with deference to society all the time.


There is room in my mind for something between NEVER EVER NEVER touch without permission and RAPE. There is a big world in between, so raising extremes to argue away the minor case doesn't work for me. My brain just doesn't work like that.
Well, maybe there is something wrong with your brain. There is a big different between slapping someone's ass and brutal rape - sure. That is why there are a million different charges and ways of dealing with it. It doesn't mean that touching without permission is just okay. And again - at what level of contact is touching bad again?


As I've said many times, and I'll say it again, I'm completely in favor of women's rights to choose, but as I've said too many times now, choice doesn't mean to me that she can't choose to make exceptions in some environments.Okay. Now how you differentiating between those women who are choosing to make an exception in a strip club and those who aren't?

Jenny
10-27-2007, 08:22 PM
Unless the truth is you just want to sooth your own ego and feel guiltless and not responsible, do what makes the most money, and have no sense of reesponsibility for the negatives - in which case you get to join the billions of others who have done the same over and over through history who haven't taken responsibility for their contributions either.
Again, you're talking nonsense. And I think it is really interesting how far you are reaching to justify men touching women without permission. I mean, this is what you are arguing. That men do not need permission to touch me because:
a) other dancers might not have raised an issue
b) men like to touch women
c) I'm a stripper and I don't really count
d) you think you're in a position to evaluate what consitutes a serious invasion of my personal integrity and what is not (even though you are unwilling to outline exactly what that is)

At no point in your analysis does the choice made by the customer come in. Now note - my analysis is about the post hoc analysis - that is the force or contact is applied BEFORE the dancer has any choice to make. Why then, are we lading her with the responsibility and divorcing it from the person who actually made the choice? I just think it shows an interesting approach to responsibility - you know. How women have it, but men are wholly driven by "evolution".

xdamage
10-27-2007, 08:23 PM
Unfortunately, that is not the way... you know, discourse, rationale and logical thought work. When your rationale can apply just as easily to an assault as an arm, you have to a) come up with a coherent difference and b) come up with a limitation on your "gray scale." Like, when, exactly on this "gray scale" in which you are dividing up my body, does it become wholly mine again? When you come up with a rationale, you kind of have to consider the uses to which it can be put. That is sort of what rational thought means.

Well, it's the way it works for me. I think the notion that logic and rationale are derived by trying to find some ultimate absolute truth through extremes is fundamentally flawed. I understand it, because I use to believe that, but I don't think that way anymore. I now see things very differently. I see that reality is much more about bell curves, extremes always exist, but what matters to me is the truths in the gray middle, where the most common cases lie.

And yes, it really is as complicated for me as we are individuals, true, but we are also genetic off springs of a long line of ancestors and parts of a much bigger genetic history. Exactly to what degree we have individual rights vs group responsibilities is a big grey area to me. When we interact with others, to some degree, our individuality takes second place to the groups wants. Where that line is drawn is open to debate, but it's not simple for me. I for example trade off some of my individual wants in a work environment for the group, for my employeers, for my co-workers, so I can be paid. You do too. I make these trades by choice, vs some cases where people are forced into it, but still, my individuality is not the end all most important thing in the universe. The group matters too, and long beyond that, the society, and species.

We are fortunate, you and I have a lot of choices in our individuality because we were born at a good time in history, but not everyone in the past or even today has enjoyed this same level of individuality... even so, just be aware, it's very very fragile. Our rights require constant renewal and nothing is really guaranteeing them except for mutual agreement. Many people grow up and barely experience the notion of individual rights. It's a great thing, but it's a luxury and not a mandate.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 08:29 PM
At no point in your analysis does the choice made by the customer come in.

I'm giving you a way to fix to your problem. That's all I can do. I can't make the rest of the world change. We could bitch about it together, but that really won't change anything. The customers that are going to touch are going to do so, and if you and I agree or commiserate, still they will do it. I'm just talking me to you, X to Jenny, trying to address what really can address.

The fix is, do something. Take action. Say NO. That's how my brain works. Do it, or don't do it. All I keep saying is that if you don't say NO, or your co-workers don't say NO, it shouldn't be hard to understand why customers keep on doing it. I'm sorry, but I'm just not good at simply leaving it as is...

However, under different circumstances, I imagine, face to face, I'd better relate to the emotional side of this you are feeling and most likely I'd be a lot more supportive. But it's the internet, and the blue side, and in that context, I'm really just talking to you like one of the guys, not really looking too much at the emotional impact of it, instead focusing on what you could actually do to make the problem better.

Maybe all you want is some support, and I understand that too, but in this context, under these circumstances, I'm just not very good at it - sorry.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 08:44 PM
Well, it's the way it works for me.
Well. I suppose it is a convenient way to avoid having to make sense. Simply subject everything to a post hoc intuitive analysis. Sort of like how we do in kindergarten. It wouldn't work for me.


I'm giving you a way to fix to your problem. That's all I can do. I can't make the rest of the world change. We could bitch about it together, but that really won't change anything. The customers that are going to touch are going to do so, and if you and I agree or commiserate, still they will do it. I'm just talking me to you, X to Jenny, trying to address what really can address.
Really? Because it sounded to me like you were justifying it and telling me that my consent was unnecessary. You know. All those times you said that consent wasn't necessary in a strip club, and how men really liked touching women and that my rights to physical integrity were imaginary. Out of curiosity - what in the world gave you the idea that I was asking for your help, as opposed to criticizing Phil's construction of what constitutes consent?

xdamage
10-27-2007, 08:52 PM
Well. I suppose it is a convenient way to avoid having to make sense. Simply subject everything to a post hoc intuitive analysis. Sort of like how we do in kindergarten. It wouldn't work for me.


Actually kindergartener's do the exact opposite. The want absolute truths. It's a hold over from childhood. And while it seems to make complete sense, and it's all one needs to get by, it's also why people are so confused about the vast majority of real phenomenon (including social phenomenon) that just doesn't fit into these simplistic belief systems. *


However I guess it does work in academic settings where the goal is to write papers to appease teachers, which themselves have also often not grown out of this childlike view of reality.



Really? Because it sounded to me like you were justifying it and telling me that my consent was unnecessary. You know. All those times you said that consent wasn't necessary in a strip club, and how men really liked touching women and that my rights to physical integrity were imaginary.


Well, you wanted to hear that your consent is "unnecessary". The truth as I see it as much more complex, and much more about by good fortune you live in a society where you are fortunate to have some degree of protection, but my point is as dancers you also often play with that right when it suits you to make more money, then after the fact complain as if you had no responsibility or say in the matter. Convienent for you, but also very transparent to the rest of us.




Out of curiosity - what in the world gave you the idea that I was asking for your help, as opposed to criticizing Phil's construction of what constitutes consent?

Nothing. It's the risk you take when you post in a public forum like this. On pink you get a lot more who will commiserate with you. On blue, it's a risk that at some point a poster (like me) will basically say a.) do something about it, or b.) stop complaining. If you only want to hear what you want to hear, pink is a better site for you.

*p.s. as an example, you only need to teach children something is "poison" or "food". They really don't need to understand the gray area where something they can eat can be a bit of both, or some more then the other. That's all complicated, and not what they need to make safe food choices, the one's that don't outright kill them. But eventually, later in life, they may still continue to believe that simplistic reality, except reality isn't simplistic, and things we are eat aren't absolutely food, or absolutely poison, but some mix and gray in the middle. But you don't need to understand that to get by, but it's often a sign when people take complex gray cases and want to reduce them to absolutes and extremes that they still haven't grown out of the childhood simplistic think. Therefore when I talk about putting my hand around a dancers waist, and you raise an extreme like rape, I'm assuming that you are still stuck in childhood logic. I don't and cannot talk about things like that - it's pointless.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 09:00 PM
Really - the little kids I know seem pretty well attuned to this "it's true when it suits me and there is no reason I can't just decide any given issue on the basis of what seems right at the time" logic you have going.

And ah yes. The C student's derision of school. Cute. Call me "booksmart" now, will you? That'll make it perfect. You crack me up x. Don't ever change.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 09:08 PM
Really - the little kids I know seem pretty well attuned to this "it's true when it suits me and there is no reason I can't just decide any given issue on the basis of what seems right at the time" logic you have going.

Yea, but unfortunately the "...I decide at the moment logic is what scares me" although it's what works and pretty much what animals do - decide in the moment what works for them. It works to get by of course, and honestly, nothing requires us to be logical to survive. In fact it's a luxury that we are "intelligent" at all. Many species never developed that trait, yet they survive fine. Survival doesn't require rights, logic, individuality, nada.. whatever works. The assumption that people are born logical is, as far as I can tell, a big mis-assumption, but then it's not like we have anyone to compare with but ourselves. The only warning is, just because an idea is popular, doesn't necessarily make it logical - it just means it works and is popular.

Lapaholic
10-27-2007, 09:24 PM
no, that's not the point either, but if you pulled your head out of the deep, dark depths of jenny's virtual ass crack for just a sec. why, the answer will appear right before your eyes.

Well crap punk, I didnt violate any social structure or code, right? ;)

Jenny
10-27-2007, 09:25 PM
Yea, but unfortunately the "...I decide at the moment logic is what scares me" although it's what works and pretty much what animals do - decide in the moment what works for them.
Now you lost me.


In fact it's a luxury that we are "intelligent" at all.
Yes, but it is a luxury we have - so it seems silly to sit around reminiscing about the times that we didn't.


Survival doesn't require rights, logic, individuality, nada.. whatever works.
And yet - we came up with the idea that we need them anyway. And work under that idea for pretty much all purposes in life. It's not like I just came up with this idea myself you know x. We pretty much apply it everywhere in our society - you know, that idea that our physical person is sacrosanct.


The assumption that people are born logical is, as far as I can tell, a big mis-assumption, but then it's not like we have anyone to compare with but ourselves.
Well, I didn't assume people were born logical. I assumed that they were born prepared to embrace self-serving, intuition-driven post-hoc analyses of human behaviour. You know. Like yours. And I realize that not every society base their rules on "logic", "rationality", "coherence or even "rights" as well. And I think that is a bad thing, and have this silly idea that I'm entitled to the same rights and privileges as everyone else in my society. In my society strange men are not allowed to sexually touch me without permission (even if they want to!) and I think one requires an articulable and coherent argument before stripping me of that right.


The only warning is, just because an idea is popular, doesn't necessarily make it logical - it just means it works and is popular.
Uh huh. And? Look. You want to take social issues and analyze them based sheerly on your intuition, after the face - and then you call it a "bell curve" and a "gray scale". That is a childish and useless way of understanding, let alone governing behaviour. Now if this is the understanding you want - fine. I like the idea of coherent rational distinction. Like for example - if it is okay for a guy to slap my ass without permission, but it is not okay to bite me - why not? What is the difference? You analysis has to account for that. You can legitimately argue that one is less bad, and the "badness" increases with the nature of the violation - but I don't see how you can argue that one is fine and the other is bad. You need an articulable difference. If some social norms are thrown out in the strip club but not others - why not? What's the difference between the two? You have to be able to account for these things in a more cohesive way than "it sounds good to me" if you want to... you know. Make sense.

ETA - my roommate just asked me to step into the bathroom and explain to the cat that touching should only follow specific consent. She doesn't like the way the cat insists on rubbing her ankles while she's in the bathroom. The cat shares your opinion that consent is not necessarily required and the requirement can be determined based on her intuition after the fact.

xdamage
10-27-2007, 09:44 PM
Well, I didn't assume people were born logical. I assumed that they were born prepared to embrace self-serving, intuition-driven post-hoc analyses of human behaviour. You know. Like yours.

This is the problem though Jenny. You seem to be entirely oblivious to the degree to which your logic comes across as self-serving, blind to human nature, choices made as it suits, being upset by whatever suits you.

I acknowledge mine, but so far I've yet to see any indication that you are aware of how oblivious you seem to be at times.

So again, the next time a guy slaps your ass, or puts his hand around your waste in a SC, tell him NO, and cope with the loss of income which comes with the territory of standing up for what you want. Why waste everyone's time with everything but just accepting that this is YOUR responsibility to choose what to do. Not ours, not the bad worlds, not mens, but yours.

You must choose, and you must accept that consequences (i.e., less sales then your peers). It all comes down to that simple thing. A choice. It's not about me, the guys, blue-ballers, the bad world, that you don't like male behavior, your rights, or anything else.

Do it (say NO) or don't. It's that simple. It's also a lot more difficult of course then complaining about the situation. But if you choose to say nothing, and put up with it to increase your sales, then you are in fact part of the problem, you are part of the cause... it's that simple for me. I really don't care about any of the rest of this. If you think you are logical, great, but it still comes down to you need to make a decision to allow or disallow a behavior, to profit from it or not.

Jenny
10-27-2007, 10:07 PM
This is the problem though Jenny. You seem to be entirely oblivious to the degree to which your logic comes across as self-serving, blind to human nature, choices made as it suits, being upset by whatever suits you.
This is so cute. Like you don't even realize the massive assumption you are making - which of course, you probably don't. Here:

So again, the next time a guy slaps your ass, or puts his hand around your waste in a SC, tell him NO, and cope with the loss of income which comes with the territory of standing up for what you want.
I've refused to answer to this because I really don't think it is the point. But. What makes you think I don't do that? What makes you assume so completely that I say okay to it - outside of the fact that you are constantly desperate to declare all male/female interaction solely in the sphere of responsibility of the woman, I mean. And finally - my entire point this whole time has been that consent should be established before not after the contact - that is the the GUY has a RESPONSIBILITY to establish consent that PREDATES my RESPONSIBILITY to say "no." Now. Where does the guy's responsibility come into this? (This is one of the those "logic" things that you have to deal with.) I mean you chat so much about mine - you want me to take responsibility for the guy's behaviour before he does it, to take responsibility for every dancer he has ever met, to take responsibility for every dancer every other guy has met - where does his come in? So far as I can see, you are positing that he has none because "men really like to touch women." My "self-serving" logic has focused on (admittedly revolutionary) idea that men should have permission before touching a woman. It's actually... pretty funny that you really criticize my logic in this situation. This is why I seriously think that this is all a character.


I acknowledge mine, but so far I've yet to see any indication that you are aware of how oblivious you seem to be at times.
Well... maybe you should try actually refuting an actual position using actual rational thought rather than simply making characterizations based on what you think people like me think. (I mean you've said yourself that you just read my posts through the lens of "man hating" and that it doesn't matter what I actually say.) But if you read and respond to what I actually say, then I might have to acknowledge a point and incorporate it into my mode of thought. Try that now. Instead of just sloughing off the responsibility of guys to seek consent onto me to say "no" after they've touched me, actually give me a coherent reason that they don't need it. Let's pretend that men are actual adults capable of governing their own behaviour. You know. Just like I'm expected to. It'll be fun.


Why waste everyone's time with everything but just accepting that this is YOUR responsibility to choose what to do. Not ours, not the bad worlds, not mens, but yours.
Who's time am I wasting? Your's? Not for nothing, but you clearly have time on your hands - I mean, I'm addicted to conflict and even I get bored before you do. And again - I can hardly exercise any choice to not be touched if the guy does not seek permission before touching me. This is... fairly elementary. Like the entire reason I think guys should seek permission before touching me is so that I can say "no" (or "yes" if the guy is unusually cute). So how, exactly, does he bear no responsibility for that?

mr_punk
10-27-2007, 11:18 PM
Btw - I think it's simple too. Although it is actually pretty interesting to watch the responses. mr._punk is completely unwilling to confirm what Phil said - namely that he had actual consent prior to the act - because that would imply that one actually does need consent before touching a dancer. Both you and Phil are completely unwilling to admit that you just really think dancers deserve less physical autonomy than real human beings, and admit the degree to which you see the choice to dance as the choice to make your body not only a commodity, but a free and public commodity.LOL..mr_punk? first of all, why are you shrilly mentioning my name and attempting to shift blame, woman? sabbatical my ass. secondly, what does my confirmation or lack thereof have to do with your thread jacking? please, it's not like you ever needed a logical or reasonable excuse to do it in the first place. although, i'll admit it's entertaining to watch you blather uncontrollably like an empty-headed stripper with OCD, but me unwilling? the answer is out in the open for anyone who cares to take a look. of course, it's buried under the several hundred pages you created when you turned into Psycho Biatch. LOL..now, that's priceless.

Btw - I think it's simple too. Although it is actually pretty interesting to watch the responses.LOL...that's good because your response is the funniest of all.

mr_punk
10-27-2007, 11:19 PM
I think the majority of the rest of the discussion is academic BS, nice, but irrelevant to the fact that dancers will tend to choose B because honestly, it's not the end of the world for them when customers put their arms around them; they aren't bruised in the morning; the rest of society doesn't give a damn; it's what makes the most money.you can't say that, X. there just has to be a villian involved like a patriarchal cabal dedicated to oppressing strippers. besides, the notion would make these girls look as if they have feet of clay and we (re: Jenny) can't have that.

LapOfLuxury
10-28-2007, 01:33 AM
Whether inside a strip club or outside a strip club, a woman has a right to set whatever physical boundaries she chooses to have. It is a man's responsibility not to violate those boundaries. Ignorance is no excuse.

Whew! I'm glad I've settled that.

Phil-W
10-28-2007, 05:30 AM
Both you and Phil are completely unwilling to admit that you just really think dancers deserve less physical autonomy than real human beings, and admit the degree to which you see the choice to dance as the choice to make your body not only a commodity, but a free and public commodity.

No Jenny,

What I'm saying is that I personally have never and will never touched a dancer without her consent. I'm a boringly courteous person, and I don't see any reason to treat a dancer at work any differently than a woman outside of work.

What I have argued is that other strip club patrons do not have that attitude and will touch without consent. To my view (baring direct physical abuse) that's a matter for the dancers/security/management to deal with.

In the real world (and I'm not saying it's right) dancers will tolerate a degree of inappropriate contact because to do otherwise would cut into their earnings.

Let's take your case - every time a guy touches you inappropriately do you:

(a) Decide if the potential earnings outweigh the obnoxiousness.
(b) Call on security to throw him out.

I'm betting on many occasions you choose (a) because to do otherwise would significantly affect your earnings.

I'm not saying it's right, only it's the sort of compromise you have to make in the real world.

(If you dont want to compromise choose (b) and get everyone who touches you without consent thrown out).

It's a two way street. We as customers have a moral obligation to behave responsibly towards dancers while working. (And in my case I will).

And you as a dancer have a moral obligation to assist in maintaining the standards of behaviour you feel appropriate. Every time you compromise that those standards you are tacitly condoning inappropraite behaviour.

That's not to say I don't compromise my standards at work either. My CEO has a hot temper and will from time to time chew someone out when they don't deserve it. I don't stand up to him at the time cos that's counter productive (it may affect the pay rise for me he's about to decide on). Instead I'll (when he's in a good mood) tell him a story when I bollocked someone unneccessarily and it backfired - hoping that he takes the hint.

If you feel strongly about inappropriate contact, organise a DR meeting and suggest to all the other dancers that you form a pact to have security throw out any handsy customers the first time they cop a feel.

How long will that pact last?

Jenny, we all make compromises. Mine is not confronting my CEO too directly about his temper. Yours is accepting a degree of contact you feel inappropriate.

It's not pretty, but it's real life - *sigh*.

Phil.

xdamage
10-28-2007, 06:07 AM
you can't say that, X. there just has to be a villian involved like a patriarchal cabal dedicated to oppressing strippers.

Oh, sadly, I know. As long as there is a big bad villian, there is no need to take any responsibility for the part played in the situation.



Both you and Phil are completely unwilling to admit that you just really think dancers deserve less physical autonomy than real human beings,


No, but I do think this is what you want to want hear and believe (it would make us bad guys), and so really pretty much anything else we write, you are just not going to understand and will twist back around to this. I.E. "I'm just a victim, I have no responsibility in what happens, and customers are bad people."

Sigh.

Jenny
10-28-2007, 07:12 AM
No, but I do think this is what you want to want hear and believe (it would make us bad guys), and so really pretty much anything else we write, you are just not going to understand and will twist back around to this. I.E. "I'm just a victim, I have no responsibility in what happens, and customers are bad people."

Sigh.
Again. Just saying that doesn't make it true. Go on. Just refute a point. Just one actual point. Just for a change. It'll be fun. Like for example - outline where the customer's responsibility comes in, or why it doesn't. Come on. Seriously - making sense is not so hard once you get used to it.


LOL..mr_punk? first of all, why are you shrilly mentioning my name and attempting to shift blame, woman? sabbatical my ass.
I can't help it. I just like you. :)


I'm betting on many occasions you choose (a) because to do otherwise would significantly affect your earnings.
Why are you betting that? And why are you assuming that those are the only - or even viable options? Like, what makes you even think that every club would eject a patron for grabbing me? You're naive, Phil And how is it the point? Like I said - I hardly have the chance to exercise my right to say no if I'm not asked first? This is really not that complicated.

BTW Phil - this of course started because I critiqued your construction of "consent" as something that could be obtained post hoc. Now you seem to be focused on "well, it's an imperfect world Jenny, suck it up." Does that mean that you've changed your mind on the consent issue? That you now agree "consent" is something that should be determined beforehand, and that club customers who are not doing this do not have consent? I just want to make sure that I'm not still browbeating you after you've agreed with me.

xdamage
10-28-2007, 08:45 AM
Again. Just saying that doesn't make it true. Go on. Just refute a point. Just one actual point. Just for a change. It'll be fun. Like for example - outline where the customer's responsibility comes in, or why it doesn't. Come on. Seriously - making sense is not so hard once you get used to it.

There is nothing to refute though, other then you don't seem able to acknowledge that dancers are in part responsible for the expectations in the club.

Plus I've already said... I think it's fine that you don't want to be touched, and it's a very reasonable expectation OTC, although not just for women, but men also.

I think it's fine to expect customers to not do it, but the problem is, I've also spent enough time in SCs and it's very clear why some guys do it.

They do it because the dancers are constantly touching them (e.g., plop themselves down on their lap, come up behind them and hug them, etc.) without asking for approval and these aren't allowed behaviors OTC either.

They do it because they get caught up in the fantasy that you are all selling, and forget it's not real, which sometimes works to your benefit, and sometimes not.

They do it because it strokes their egos, and a lot of them are there for the ego strokes, and the dancers not only allow it, but reply with variations on "hey sweetie, lets go do a dance!" instead of "NO, don't touch me until after you've paid", thereby contributing to what customers feel is allowed behavior in the future.

I think the problem here remains... you want the customers to be responsible, but you don't seem to actually want the equal responsibility part. You have the POWER and ability to change your behavior and affect others, but I really don't see any other point to much of this other then wanting to, one again, point out customers suck, and you are guiltless.

Jenny
10-28-2007, 08:57 AM
I think where you are losing me is how I can be responsible for someone touching me if they haven't sought my consent first - in a nutshell why, insofar as my body is concerned, consent is being established after, not before the fact. This is really, really simple x. Like REALLY simple. The guy has a responsibility (you know how much you like responsibility) to establish consent before touching me. You have to establish (that is refute that contention) by explaining why, insofar as my body is concerned, consent becomes a post hoc analysis. This is not something you've done. Again - if you are taking consent out of my hands, and giving all men who walk through the doors of my strip club presumptive consent you have an onus to establish a) why and b) to what degree (and why). Now if you can do that - I'm interested. If all you can do is say "but it's your responsibility when men touch you" - well, you sound dumb, so I'm not.

Interesting - you want to give me responsibility for the fact that customers want to touch me without permission. That is - before seeking permission they touch me. You don't want the customers to have any responsibility for that, and you don't want to rationally establish exactly why I have that responsibility. Is this more of that "intelligent thought is immature" doctrine again? I mean geez, x. I'm actually torn right now between feeling like I'm picking on a bad natured, but earnestly trying retarded kid and feeling like you are just a very sophisticated performance artist who is not breaking character, and is kind of making a fool of me.

xdamage
10-28-2007, 09:09 AM
I think where you are losing me is how I can be responsible for someone touching me if they haven't sought my consent first - in a nutshell why, insofar as my body is concerned, consent is being established after, not before the fact. This is really, really simple x.

It's not you personally Jenny. It's the sum of a lot of people's behavior. Your choice specifically only has a minor affect, but if many or most dancers behave in a certain way, it has an affect on expectations in the club. Much like many women before you managed to improve women's rights by pushing back, no one person matters, but as a whole. you set a precedent for what is and isn't okay. That doesn't mean once written into law that no more effort is required. It's up to you to constantly maintain those boundaries.

Look, I keep saying, I'm 100% behind the idea that people should be able to say NO, and I understand why it's not okay, but I'm just saying, people learn from each other what is okay in various situations, and you work in an industry that, honestly, plays with fire at times when it comes to human nature and human emotions.

It's just not surprising to me at all that what with all the playing with customers hearts, and well practiced fantasy designed to extract more dollars from their wallets, that there is a downside, in this case, that some of the rules about what is okay OTC are blurred ITC. The SC does have a dark side, and I think most of us here see it. If you don't see the risks and dangers of it, I don't know what to say, but again, I don't know if you realize how fragile our rights are, and how brutal human nature can be without laws, law enforcement, and constant vigilance.

In the SC the rules about where our rights are drawn get pushed, and sometimes it works in your favor (i.e., more money) and sometimes it does not (i.e., customers do what comes biologically natural to them and touch without asking).

Jenny
10-28-2007, 09:48 AM
It's not you personally Jenny. It's the sum of a lot of people's behavior. Your choice specifically only has a minor affect, but if many or most dancers behave in a certain way, it has an affect on expectations in the club. Much like many women before you managed to improve women's rights by pushing back, no one person matters, but as a whole. you set a precedent for what is and isn't okay. That doesn't mean once written into law that no more effort is required. It's up to you to constantly maintain those boundaries.
Okay... this is a faulty premise. This is just not how we organize our society. We organize our society on the premise that each individual can decide who gets to touch her (or him) - it is not a majority rules thing. For example - because most men might like to fight, it doesn't make it okay for someone to punch you (until you say "stop"). You specifically - like specifically you - have to agree to the fight (and you have to agree BEFORE not AFTER you are hit). Stereotypes do not - like they SPECIFICALLY do not - work to deny one one's physical autonomy. If you want to change this for the purposes of strip clubs - okay, I haven't hung up yet. But you have to provide a REASON for it.

I have pointed out that not EVERY social convention in a strip club is void - all sorts - indeed MOST - social conventions still apply - so the argument that "social conventions are different" alone isn't particularly helpful. I have suggested that those that don't - e.g. the presumption that a woman will allow you to touch her in exchange to $20 - don't apply because they are integral and necessary to the operation of the strip club. I would also suggest that the further you get from the core operation of the strip club, the more "conventional" social convention applies. So I am interested in either a) how you construct my lack of consent as being necessary for the operation of the strip club - I have pointed out that the easy convenient nature of obtaining that consent would seem to make it MORE necessary, not less. Or b) if you have another way of understanding what conventions are left out of the strip club, I would be interested - but an analysis driven solely by your intuition is not particularly potent as an argument, nor is it a well-defended position.


Look, I keep saying, I'm 100% behind the idea that people should be able to say NO, and I understand why it's not okay, but I'm just saying, people learn from each other what is okay in various situations, and you work in an industry that, honestly, plays with fire at times when it comes to human nature and human emotions.
Again - I do not regard my personal autonomy as something that can be "played with" or sacrificed by other women, let alone by other men. Thus my concern is not with them, what they allow, or what they are okay with. They can be okay with anything they want. However there is no reason that I can see that someone should be assuming that I, as a stripper, am okay with everything every other stripper does, any more than someone should be assuming that I, as a woman, am okay with everything every other woman does (or, to be honest, more likely that every other woman is okay with what I do); or that someone should be assuming that you consent to every mode of contact deemed to be stereotypical of men. It goes back to the whole "we don't determine autonomy by a group vote" thing. It's individual by nature. If you are taking my individualism away, again, it needs to be justified - which brings us back to the above point about strip clubs, special moral arenas and why certain conventions are excluded.


It's just not surprising to me at all that what with all the playing with customers hearts, and well practiced fantasy designed to extract more dollars from their wallets, that there is a downside, in this case, that some of the rules about what is okay OTC are blurred ITC.
Sure. Some things can be "blurred". I want to know why THIS particular thing is being blurred, especially considering that we are not assuming a situation in which the particular dancer is well known to the particular customer (well, okay, initially I guess that was the case - but we've been well diverted).

Further - I don't play with customer hearts. I don't cheat them, I don't lie to them (okay, I lie to them all the time, but not about anything material to their emotions, feelings or their enjoyment of my services. I lie like "yeah, I work during the day as a dental hygienist") and I don't lead them on. Moreover, if a customer grabs my ass/breasts/kisses me/bites me/burns me with a cigarette as I'm walking by - I've hardly had the opportunity to do anything to him. So why am I bearing the responsibility for this behaviour as opposed to the sentient human being who made the choice to touch/kiss/bite/burn me? Like I said - individuals are responsible for individual decisions. Just as you are not likely to take responsibility for every customer who has done something bad to me, I'm not going to accept responsibility for every stripper that may have behaved unethically.


The SC does have a dark side, and I think most of us here see it. If you don't see the risks and dangers of it, I don't know what to say, but again, I don't know if you realize how fragile our rights are, and how brutal human nature can be without laws, law enforcement, and constant vigilance.
Fortunately, the strip club is not Heart of Darkness, deep in a lawless jungle; nor does it exist independent of space and time and human society - so it is unnecessary and unelucidative to contemplate what it would be like if it was . And stop talking to me like you just stepped out prehistory and you know the true hearts of men. If my existence can be described as sheltered, your's is likely more so. Or seeing as we don't actually know each other we might consider projections and characterizations of each other's life experiences as being fairly useless and instead deal with the more substantive issues.

So, if I understand correctly, you want to throw out all - or at least some - of society's rules regarding individualism and individual responsibility, but only for the purpose of the strip club. Now we go back to ... why? What about a strip club demands this collective assessment rather than an individual one? And at what point does this analysis break down in your mind, and why? Like how do you determine at what point the customer does, in fact, have to ask? And this, incidentally, is not a side issue. If you are throwing out consent for some purposes, I think it is reasonable to have some forethought on what those purposes are. That is - if you are determining that my consent is not needed for some things, those things it is needed for is pretty damn important, both for me and the hypothetical customer.

FBR
10-28-2007, 11:34 AM
Sorry FBR, but to like getting your bum thrashed, you needed to have gone to public school.


Phil.

Really? But I saw this "History of Sex" special on the History Channel just the other night. It centered around the sexual activities of the upper class and aristocracy. They even had this lithograph of a British dude bare ass enjoying a bit of a whipping by a comely wench. I mean it was late 19th century which is a long time ago but I just assumed the predilection to be socially and perhaps even genetically ingrained.

I apologize for stereotyping you.

FBR

xdamage
10-28-2007, 02:31 PM
Okay... this is a faulty premise. This is just not how we organize our society. We organize our society on the premise that each individual can decide who gets to touch her (or him) - it is not a majority rules thing.


I think you are being naive now about human nature, societies, and rights. That's most likely due to not having enough experience with other societies where individual rights are tremendous luxuries.

By the way, please tell the pinkies then to stop touching customers without asking. It happens constantly and I don't see you being the least offended by that, although you should, if you really believed all that you are writing.





I have pointed out that not EVERY social convention in a strip club is void - all sorts - indeed MOST - social conventions still apply - so the argument that "social conventions are different" alone isn't particularly helpful.


Read what you just wrote. Yes MOST do, not all, and this is one that doesn't always. This is the reality we can observe.



Again - I do not regard my personal autonomy as something that can be "played with" or sacrificed by other women, let alone by other men.



They say "NO" - duh.




It goes back to the whole "we don't determine autonomy by a group vote" thing. It's individual by nature. If you are taking my individualism away, again, it needs to be justified


Your naive. You just don't understand how people really behave, and you have had the luxury of living in a very rare/short period of history where a patriarchal society has put in place laws and protections to protect your rights, but it's clear that you see them as unalienable rights vs what they are, fragile social constructs that require you as a person in society to assist in maintaining them.



Sure. Some things can be "blurred". I want to know why THIS particular thing is being blurred,


I guess you'd have to be a man or a customer to get it... which we keep saying you are neither. Sort of like you like to tell us we aren't dancers, you'll have to trust that we are the experts on the customer/man thing and it does make sense, even if it doesn't make sense to you. I've already tried to explain it, it's clear you are not going to listen so it's pointless to keep asking.



Further - I don't play with customer hearts.


That's great, except any of us who read pink can tell you we have ready of posts from girls who brag about doing so. The SC isn't just about you personally, but the whole environment is shaped by all dancers in total, including those who do play with customers hearts, play games, are less then honest, encourage men to touch, etc.

It's just not all about you personally - sorry.



Fortunately, the strip club is not Heart of Darkness, deep in a lawless jungle; nor does it exist independent of space and time and human society - so it is unnecessary and unelucidative to contemplate what it would be like if it was .


Okay, look again, your using extremes ... nobody said it was HELL... so stop with the nonesensical extremism. It's plain out ghey.



And stop talking to me like you just stepped out prehistory and you know the true hearts of men.



Bzzztttt... I'm going to pull a Jenny on you. Like when you tell us we don't have a clue because we aren't strippers and you are.... You aren't a man. You don't have our testosterone or genetic programming. You are also not a customer. And it's apparent that you are either clueless about why guys behave as they do in the club, or you just want to argue men suck.



So, if I understand correctly, you want to throw out all - or at least some - of society's rules regarding individualism and individual responsibility,

And ... NO NO NO. Your brain is mis-wired Jenny. You keep saying this and we keep saying NO. So the answer is, you are simply plain out wrong. Nobody said anything abotu throwing out ALL or MOST social rules.

And I'm sorry you can't cope with the notion that some of the social rules in SCs are already different then they are OTC, but that's the reality of it. Some of what is considered okay behavior in the club isn't exactly like it is outside the club. Are you really that oblivious to this???

Like for example, it's a reasonable individual responsibility that if someone seems to be delusional, it's considered good behavior not to prey upon them for personal gain. Yet It happens all the time in the S.C. Individual responsibility pushed aside because someone's excuse is, "it's my job" so that makes it alright.

It's also considered a personal responsibility that people are careful how they dress in public because beyond a certain point, overly sexual dress and behavior has impact on others. And amazingly, this is also a personal responsibility that is different in the SC.

Shall I go on?

Jenny
10-28-2007, 04:01 PM
I think you are being naive now about human nature, societies, and rights. That's most likely due to not having enough experience with other societies where individual rights are tremendous luxuries.

By the way, please tell the pinkies then to stop touching customers without asking. It happens constantly and I don't see you being the least offended by that, although you should, if you really believed all that you are writing.





Read what you just wrote. Yes MOST do, not all, and this is one that doesn't always. This is the reality we can observe.




They say "NO" - duh.




Your naive. You just don't understand how people really behave, and you have had the luxury of living in a very rare/short period of history where a patriarchal society has put in place laws and protections to protect your rights, but it's clear that you see them as unalienable rights vs what they are, fragile social constructs that require you as a person in society to assist in maintaining them.



I guess you'd have to be a man or a customer to get it... which we keep saying you are neither. Sort of like you like to tell us we aren't dancers, you'll have to trust that we are the experts on the customer/man thing and it does make sense, even if it doesn't make sense to you. I've already tried to explain it, it's clear you are not going to listen so it's pointless to keep asking.



That's great, except any of us who read pink can tell you we have ready of posts from girls who brag about doing so. The SC isn't just about you personally, but the whole environment is shaped by all dancers in total, including those who do play with customers hearts, play games, are less then honest, encourage men to touch, etc.

It's just not all about you personally - sorry.



Okay, look again, your using extremes ... nobody said it was HELL... so stop with the nonesensical extremism. It's plain out ghey.




Bzzztttt... I'm going to pull a Jenny on you. Like when you tell us we don't have a clue because we aren't strippers and you are.... You aren't a man. You don't have our testosterone or genetic programming. You are also not a customer. And it's apparent that you are either clueless about why guys behave as they do in the club, or you just want to argue men suck.



And ... NO NO NO. Your brain is mis-wired Jenny. You keep saying this and we keep saying NO. So the answer is, you are simply plain out wrong. Nobody said anything abotu throwing out ALL or MOST social rules.

And I'm sorry you can't cope with the notion that some of the social rules in SCs are already different then they are OTC, but that's the reality of it. Some of what is considered okay behavior in the club isn't exactly like it is outside the club. Are you really that oblivious to this???

Like for example, it's a reasonable individual responsibility that if someone seems to be delusional, it's considered good behavior not to prey upon them for personal gain. Yet It happens all the time in the S.C. Individual responsibility pushed aside because someone's excuse is, "it's my job" so that makes it alright.

It's also considered a personal responsibility that people are careful how they dress in public because beyond a certain point, overly sexual dress and behavior has impact on others. And amazingly, this is also a personal responsibility that is different in the SC.

Shall I go on?
So. You're trying to say right now that you have nothing intelligent to say that addresses any of my points? Okay then. Really, you could have just said that at the beginning.

Phil-W
10-28-2007, 04:39 PM
BTW Phil - this of course started because I critiqued your construction of "consent" as something that could be obtained post hoc. Now you seem to be focused on "well, it's an imperfect world Jenny, suck it up." Does that mean that you've changed your mind on the consent issue? That you now agree "consent" is something that should be determined beforehand, and that club customers who are not doing this do not have consent? I just want to make sure that I'm not still browbeating you after you've agreed with me.

Still browbeating me? You always browbeat me. ;)

Nope, I don't say "it's an imperfect world Jenny, suck it up". I say:

(a) I personally won't do anything without your consent.
(b) In an ideal world all customers would have the same attitude.
(c) This ain't an ideal world.
(d) In this less than ideal world you have some responsibility yourself for enforcing standards.

You can't stop some customers being f*cktards and touching you in the first place (cos you're not a mind reader) but you could after the event have them ejected for inappropraite behaviour.

Which is where we get into the grey area of personal responsiblity.

The guy shouldn't have been handsy in the first place and in an ideal world Mr Bouncer comes over and says "I'll have to ask you to leave, Sir".

In this less than ideal world you take a value judgement as to the degree he's been handsy and the degree to which you think you can earn, and then you decide on whether to complain or acquiesce.

There's nothing unique about strip clubs as far as this is concerned. It goes on in conventional business as well. As I said in an earlier post, I take similar decisions to complain or acquiesce as far as my CEO is concerned.

In an ideal world you would not be touched without your consent, but we don't live in Utopia Jenny...

Phil.

Jenny
10-28-2007, 04:55 PM
Okay - so just so I understand where we are. You agree that consent should be attained before not after the fact to be consent. That "consent" by nature must precede the act, and not be determined post hoc (which contention started this mass derailment). Okay. It's nice. We agree. So evidently what we are disagreeing on is whether or not consent is needed; like whether you are an average, normal human being for declining to touch a dirty stripper without her permission, or whether you are a prince among men.

I'm not sure, however where this "responsibility" comes in. Like if I walked up to you in a strip club and squeezed your crotch to the point of pain, I don't think you can say that you are responsible for it, regardless of what you do next. You may be responsible for what happens next - that is, if you say "Gosh, I just love having my testicles crushed, do it again" you may be responsible for me doing it again. But I cannot see how that changes responsibility for the initial action. I think that would remain with me. Similarly if I walked up to a classmate and put a hand on her breast, I cannot see that my responsibility is altered in any way based on her reaction. Like I said - her reaction may change responsibility for what happens next... but this conversation is limited in scope to the first instance of contact. If a guy came up and punched you in the face - the responsibility for that act remains with him regardless of what you do next. I think you guys have a really weird way of evading responsibility for your actions if you just do things on the premise that you can determine your responsibility later on.

And no - trust me. If your boss walked out and put his hand on your penis, I think you would have a different analysis of the situation; and I don't think you would view it as a shared responsibility.

Finally - your contentions on an ideal world don't interest me Phil. I know it isn't an ideal world. I just don't see your point. Is that what you say every time something undesirable happens? Like, if my mother died would you respond "it's an imperfect world, people die"? If you are getting at something with this "non-ideal world" contention, please feel to articulate it. If not - we can let it drop.
Still browbeating me? You always browbeat me. ;)

Nope, I don't say "it's an imperfect world Jenny, suck it up". I say:

(a) I personally won't do anything without your consent.
(b) In an ideal world all customers would have the same attitude.
(c) This ain't an ideal world.
(d) In this less than ideal world you have some responsibility yourself for enforcing standards.

You can't stop some customers being f*cktards and touching you in the first place (cos you're not a mind reader) but you could after the event have them ejected for inappropraite behaviour.

Which is where we get into the grey area of personal responsiblity.

The guy shouldn't have been handsy in the first place and in an ideal world Mr Bouncer comes over and says "I'll have to ask you to leave, Sir".

In this less than ideal world you take a value judgement as to the degree he's been handsy and the degree to which you think you can earn, and then you decide on whether to complain or acquiesce.

There's nothing unique about strip clubs as far as this is concerned. It goes on in conventional business as well. As I said in an earlier post, I take similar decisions to complain or acquiesce as far as my CEO is concerned.

In an ideal world you would not be touched without your consent, but we don't live in Utopia Jenny...

Phil.

xdamage
10-28-2007, 06:53 PM
So. You're trying to say right now that you have nothing intelligent to say that addresses any of my points? Okay then. Really, you could have just said that at the beginning.

No, I just won't be trapped into what you want to hear, which is you are guiltless, with no responsibility for anything that happens, and men are bad. Fortunately, there are people who will tell you precisely what you want to hear, and you will stroke their egos and your own and tell them how wonderful they are. I keep avoiding your questions because they are bad questions to begin with, so can have no valid answers other then men are bad, dancers/women are good.