Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
I'm not cool enough to sit with the feminist crowd. ::)
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
cognitive dissonance in this thread is going to make my head explode.
I'll start with the weird blaming of the MRM for lost profits, for the most part the MRM has no problem with men choosing to pay for sex or lap dances, it's Alimony that pisses off MRAs, not honest sex work, so if your profits have dropped it's, not our fault.
Men who visit a strip club have the legal obligation to either buy a drink or pay an entrance fee if they plan on staying, nothing more.
If you want them to buy table or lapdances it's up to you to sell them on the idea, they don't that to you just because you dance on stage, that is between then stripclub owner and you, the club owner is the one who hired you, the patron is not require to hire your or any other strippers services if they are interested, men have as much right to reject the advances of a woman as you have to reject men's without explanation.
And the Patron is no more required to give money to the entertainment on stage if it happens to be strippers, then if it was a live band or a comedian, your deal is with the owner, not with the Patrons.
Complaining about men sexualizing you and then making money off it is hypocritical, it's like a professional athelete complaining about sports fans passion for his athletic prowess, except a professional athete has more right to complain about objectifcation because they literally get traded like cattle between teams, strip clubs don't do that.
And culture doesn't sexualize you, evolution did, and given your making a nice living off it, it seems to have done well by you and helped to give you a massive advantage.
And women in the pasted encouraged fathers and husbands to feel a sense of ownership of them in preindustrial times, paradoxically in order to claim ownership of the males in order to exploit access to resources and protection those males providers, because when pregnate or with young offspring in ancient times women where extremely vulnerable and usually unable both survive and take care off their offspring without male support, so creating a sense of ownership of the woman and children served to keep the man around and in service to her in providing food and protection, instead of running off and fucking whatever available females they could and serving only their own survival.
This is no longer needed in a technological society with a welfare state, so for good reason rejected the idea of men owning them (kinky role playing aside), but did not recepricate and still act like they own men personally and are entitled to that man's personal resources. The sense of ownership was always mutual, but the primary drivers of it have always been women, just as the main proponents of Female Gentitial Mutilation are women (most men in counties that practice it don't like it, but it's seen as women's business and it is conducted by women).
Just because men want to have sex with you doesn't mean they think they own you, they just want to get laid.
Also thank you for being honest and admitting feminism us about mysandry and not equality.
Do men expect for they're money? Yes, but you are not required to except such a deal, you have choice, but so do men who have as much right to reject what you offer if it's not what they are looking for.
And saying I'm not being taken advantage of, I'm taking advantage of them makes you sound worse, not better, so don't be surprised if you fail to improve someones view of your occupation. Next time tell them no one is taking advantage of anyone, that it's an equitable exchange of services for money.
I'm sorry if anyone is offended that this lowly male has an opinion, but the overwhelming mysandry and hatred for men is palpable and only plays to stereotypes that strippers are miserable and secretly hate men.
I mean holy shit, even most mainstream feminists know that Andrea Dworkins is a pure bigot and won't touch her with a tent foot pole, with many saying she's not a real feminists in the hopes of distancing themselves from her.
I can see an argument that a liberal feminists can make sense a stripper, I mean as long as they don't over endulge in rape culture none sense, but a active radical feminist stripper makes as much sense as a neonazi applying for a job with Black Lives Matter. WTF.
The contortions of logic the radical feminists strippers bend themselves into is mind boggling. Trying to absorb it is like a computer virus for the brain.
I mean most anti feminists don't even bother critizing Andrea Dwirkins, because even mainstream feminists can't stand her level of mysandry, and have critisized her, so attacking Andrea is redundant.
As far increasing the sense of taboo in the hopes of increasing profitability, that can be achieved via dirty talk and role playing.
And no I don't hate women, I like lots of women, heck I even like some feminists even when I disagree with them, but holy crap on a cracker that's a lot of man hate in thread and entitlement to ownership of men.
I've spent money sex workers and will do so again, I support laws that protect sex workers and former sex workers from discrimination in the work place, I acknowledge sex work is work, I think sex work is a job that deserves to be respected in society, so I'm not anti sex worker either it would be hypocritical of me to be, so please don't pretend I'm sex worker bashing, because I'm not.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tempest666
I'm not cool enough to sit with the feminist crowd. ::)
Then you are truely blessed and not losing out on anything.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Omegaphallic
Then you are truely blessed and not losing out on anything.
My views on feminism are quite apparent on my twitter feed. @LibertarianSlut. Check it out sometime.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
My state has nude one way contact lap dances. The no guys touching rule is enforced to different degrees based on the club. In one of the dive clubs I worked at the bouncers would tell off the guy for hugging you for too long with your clothes on. The dance rooms had see through curtains and the bouncers would walk past and tell of any guy who dared put his hands on your thighs. At the more upscale clubs where the private rooms were private girls could get away with more although it was still officially 'no touching'. It's one of the few places you can earn good money without allowing touching. We're also one of the states that doesn't have legal brothels. In other states they're more accepting of prostitution so the strip clubs have to offer more for less to compete.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tempest666
My views on feminism are quite apparent on my twitter feed. @LibertarianSlut. Check it out sometime.
Thank you I will.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Likethis
You seem upset and confused about many things, but I'll keep it short and only comment on this little bit by comparing sexualization to violence in different cultural and professional settings.
Heard of boxing? Martial arts? Assault? Murder? They are all examples of violence.
Violence just like sexualization exists in many different places and there are many different kinds of violence as one can participate willingly or unwillingly. The same goes for objectification where women in strip clubs can be considered willing participants in sexualization of the female body while women who have not actively agreed to being viewed this way (this could also be the off duty stripper being sexualized and objectified on the street and other places than the strip club) are in a completely different situation as they are not willing participants.
Would you walk up to someone who has just been beaten up, assaulted, and say that since that person happens to be a professional boxer and make a lot of money on it, that person should be thankful for the existence of all violence instead of being a hypocrite who complains about it?
Can you see what I'm trying to explain here?
Of course strippers and sex workers can complain about objectification and sexualization in general. We make money on sexualization yes, on a more constructive version of it, but it is something else entirely to be sexualized against your will, and just like strippers and sex workers can talk about the negative aspects of sexualization of women in society, people in MMA and so on can complain about the negative aspects of violence in society despite making money on a more constructive version of it.
Please define what you mean by sexualization, is it acts of actively doing something sexual with or too someone, is it checking some one out, is it thinking of someone in a sexual way, is it hitting on someone, does it include fantasizing about someone?
Because random acts of violence inflicted on people unconsentual do not compare to random acts of being sexual attracted to people, because actions upon people require consent or a reasonable expectation of it, but thoughts and feelings and requests or even looking at people do not.
If I see someone on the street and think nice tits, I have ever right to think that, just as she can do the same with Brad Pitt, that doesn't require consent. I can share my fantasies with a friend as well, that does not require consent. Its okay to even check her ass out as I have the right to angle my eyes in any direction I want and revoking that right would be to bring back the days when peasant we're not allowed to gaze upon the nobility or look them in the eyes.
However I can't just go and grab her ass for no fucking reason without a reasonable expectation that she will be open to it is wrong.
To compare that to violence, if someone acts like a jerk to me it's okay to fantasize about punching them in the face. It's okay to talk with people about how I wanted to hit him in the face, but that I wouldn't do it. I can even give them an angry glaze. I can challenge them to a boxing match over their rude behavior.
What I can't do is actually go and punch them out or random people either.
A person mind is their domain.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tempest666
My views on feminism are quite apparent on my twitter feed. @LibertarianSlut. Check it out sometime.
I liked what I saw from brief look, I suspect you might be to my right on many issues and I support reasonable gun control laws (but not banning guns outright, I know it's culturally important to many people), but you have an interesting perspective, I likely agree with you on a vast array of social issues and I will follow you on twitter.
You are also hot as fuck.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
I found the way she was using sexualization to be unclear, so to clarify what I meant by sexualization I was referring to acting like men are doing something bad because they are sexually attracted to you and make a pass at you, or express that attraction in a none violent way.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Likethis
Wow, it's amazing how you claim sex workers can't complain about sexualization without being hypocrites when you yourself don't know what sexualization means.
You don't know what they discuss here yet you are quick to call them hypocrites when they see some problems with sexualization and objectification?
Sexualization is a huge subject so I won't explain the whole concept because that would be going even more off topic than we already are. If you want to know more about sexualization and objectification there are plenty of resources out there to learn from. But to give some examples it could mean being judged by sexual attractiveness instead of skill (talking about jobs outside of the sex industry where skill should be the only relevant thing), it could mean verbal or physical harassment, it could mean people disregarding your personal wants and needs in various ways because you are viewed simply as a sexual object and so on. The list goes on and on when it comes to negative aspects of sexualization and to understand all the consequences of it you probably have to make an effort that goes beyond reading this short reply.
Like I said, of course sex workers are allowed to be critical of the negative aspects of sexualization in society even though we make money from a more constructive version of it.
Since this is slightly off topic this is my final post on the subject here but I wish you luck in widening your horizon. :)
Wow I just wanted more clarity on how she was using it, not looking for a degree in women's studies.
Re: Modesty, taboos, and strip club profitability: what makes a difference?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexualization
"Sexualization (or sexualisation) is to make something sexual in character or quality, or to become aware of sexuality, especially in relation to men and women."
Yeah basically what I thought it was, I stand by my position.
People, male, female, intersex, trans, anything I missed are entitled to sexualized whatever they want without consent because that is an internal process (one which everyone who isn't asexual does if they are honest), however there are rules for acting on it physical, such as no raping people, as long as it continues to be an intermal process or shared verbally only (freedom of expression) and no force or blackmail is used to force physical compliance its find. Anything else would invovle society controlling peoples fantasies, and society does not have that right.
All this is really about is demonizing an hetrosexual male sexuality that doesn't benifit you and that is just as wrong as men or women demonizing a women for having sexual desires that don't benifit them.
Don't get me wrong you have zero obligation to actively particapate, you can reject any advance you choice for your own reason, just as men have that same right (Sadly to many women refuse to believe said right isn't exclusive to the female gender).
But men and women have the right to have their own sexual fantasies, to make sexual advances (which can be rejected), and to share said fantasies, because to remove those rights is to create an authoritarian society, to say men's sexuality belongs to women and that it can only exist with their permission, and I reject that. I need your consent, verbal, none verbal, or reasonably contextual (example a lover waking you up with kisses, he knows you well enough to be okay with this), but we do not need consent to desire you sexually or vis versa.