Strip clubs and the Current Legal Environment
docsavage
Indiana
I'll use as a concrete example three clubs on the east side of Indy on Pendleton Pike: Babes, PT'S and Harem House. As a comparison I'll take the local medium priced restaurant business. Strip clubs and medium priced restaurants both have a clientele with at least some money. Twenty years ago when these three clubs opened this was a fairly middle class part of town. On a Friday or Saturday night these three clubs were packed with local customers with money to spend. This opportunity to make money drew attractive dancers into the clubs to work. During this same period there were also several medium priced restaurants in the area that also were crowded on a Friday or Saturday night and made good profits.
Like most cities, over the ensuing twenty years middle class people slowly moved further out and were replaced in the area by poorer people. The business in the local restaurants slowly declined and they closed down, one by one. Only the cheap fast food places survived. While this happened, many new restaurants opened up a little further out of town where the customers were now living. The local strip clubs saw a decline in customers with money to spend too. Unlike the restaurants, though, they didn't shut down with new replacements opening up where the customers now were. A lot of their remaining business came from guys driving in from the suburbs. The numbers of these guys have declined over time. I used to live near these clubs. I moved further away but because of previously living near them and them being fairly good quality, I developed a strip club habit. A younger guy in a suburb now will be less likely to develop the strip club habit because there are no suburban clubs by him like there was for me twenty years ago. He'll have to make a longer drive. If he makes that drive to these three clubs, he'll see it's an area that isn't very safe. A lot of the customers in the club will be low class local hoodlum types he doesn't feel safe around. After being open for 20 years, the clubs will be a little run down. With fewer guys with money to spend, the clubs will attract less attractive dancers so the girls there won't look very good.
This doesn't create a very tempting environment that will draw in customers and get them to drive in. Now the question is, why didn't the clubs follow the restaurant example I mentioned above? Unlike restaurants, there have been increasing legal roadblocks set up to thwart new clubs opening. There hasn't been a new club open locally here for twenty years. The local government uses a combination of licensing laws and zoning laws to block new clubs. A new club tried to open in the suburban Castleton area. Zoning laws were used to shut it down. A local Mexican nightclub started having strippers to serve the growing Mexican immigrant population. It was raided by the police and shut down for not having a license. "We don't need no stinkin' license." Yes, you do. Can you get a license? No way Jose! The existing clubs are also being hit with more regulations. The pasties police are more on the prowl, ready to fine girls with exposed nipples. Politicians respond to their constituents and this oppressive legal environment is going along with what the public wants. We've gone through three periods over the last sixty years. Up to the 1960's, women were seen as someone to be protected in a paternalistic way, with their choices restricted to housewife or a conservative traditional female field like nursing or elementary school teacher. They were also encouraged to keep their sexuality subdued. They were to dress and act conservatively. Then, with the first wave of feminism, there was a belief that women should be free to make choices about what careers to follow. This allowed women who wanted to be strippers to go in that field. When conservatives tried to shut down clubs or prevent them from opening, they were met with resistance for the first time by liberals and feminists.
Now, though, I think we've entered a second and much different wave of feminism. The current wave of feminism thinks women should be more like men and go in male career fields. Stripping is mostly a female field so women wanting to do that don't get support. Movies are made about black women becoming NASA mathematicians and being portrayed as heroic but no movie will be made portraying any black woman going into stripping as doing something worthwhile. Just imagine, if all the strippers were men then everyone would be agitating to let women do it too but that's not the case. Some feminists have even gone further and are now actively hostile to strip clubs. They involve women trying to please men and you don't want that. They involve men looking at and treating women as sex objects and that's politically incorrect. So now when the local bible thumping conservatives try to prevent new strip clubs from opening, they find themselves with liberal feminists joining them. These strange bedfellows are combining to shut down the strip club industry and are slowly succeeding.
Want 4 weeks free VIP to tuscl?
Write an article
23 comments
Latest
There are all kinds of feminists. Some are radical and anti-male, but most (like me) are just wanting things like equal opportunities in the workplace. Nobody is more of a feminist than me, but I defy anyone here to ever accuse me of trying to shut down a stripclub or marching against anything sex industry related. I am about as big a monger as they come, and I openly admit that I objectify women in clubs and during OTC P4P - during those encounters she is a sex object to me and I am sure that I am a big wallet (or purse, in my case). Bottom line is that there are many reasons why clubs are floundering and on the decline, and plenty of it has to do with economics more than a "new morality" which isn't new at all. Demonizing feminism and liberals is just an easy way to point fingers, when the real reason is much more complicated than that.
1. Some women (the archetype is over 40, unmarried, childless) resent the "competition" from the dancers or other sex workers. 2. The glass ceiling at the board room. What follows is (an unallowed, against TOS) cross-post from the pink site:
Melonie -->"There are many factors that play a part. First, the economy and people wanting more for their money. Second, most companies no longer have expense accounts (common when I danced). Third, back then in the 90's there wasn't as much porn online. I don't know if camming was around then but certainly not common like today. Then there is competition. Clubs are greedy and now often hire women who never would have been years ago. I've seen upscale dancers now who'd be rejected there and maybe even mid tier clubs years ago.
Indeed the exotic dancing industry has changed drastically in the past couple of decades. For example, today's 'Breastaurants' offer about the same basic content that strip clubs did 20 years ago ( not counting private dances / VIP rooms at extra cost to the customer, of course ) !
In regard to strip clubs now being taboo for business expense accounts, you can thank successful lawsuits by female stockbrokers and sales reps for that. Indeed, the aftermath of those lawsuits greatly decreased customer demand for the 'show' element ... and the resulting financial void greatly increased the importance of the 'contact' element.
Agreed that the average decline in inflation adjusted after-tax income levels, the average increases in costs of 'necessities', etc. for middle class customers has created an increasing mindset that their fewer remaining 'discretionary' spending dollars are now more 'valuable'. As such, those middle class customers increasingly expected more 'contact' for the same price.
And with clubowner income starting to depend far less on the 'show' element, and far more on the 'contact' element, those clubowners began to change their dancer hiring criteria accordingly. Similarly, stunningly beautiful but zero contact dancers saw their earnings levels drop, while somewhat beautiful dancers who were willing to deliver very high 'contact' levels saw their earnings levels rise ... which in combination with changing clubowner hiring criteria arguably caused a basic shift in club 'offerings'.
All of these changes are easily explainable via 'follow the money' analysis." END QUOTE Melonie
Melonie --> "In the early 90's, the 'glass ceiling' started to be regularly broken on Wall St. Thus 'professional' women were added to the ranks of stockbrokers, insurance agents, sales agents, and a host of similar occupations. Prior to this development, men working in those occupations would routinely entertain clients in strip clubs as part of their 'sales pitch'. This led to a lot of money being spent in strip clubs being charged to corporate expense accounts. This also led to a lot of strip club customers whose expectations were limited to looking and talking, as those using a strip club setting to float their 'sales pitch' to their own customer wanted to maintain a 'professional' level interchange ( with a few glaring exceptions ).
However, in the late 90's, some of those 'professional' women started making 'equal opportunity' complaints, and started to bring 'equal opportunity' based lawsuits, based on the premise that they were unable to utilize strip clubs to help 'sell' customers in the same way their male co-workers could. It was pointed out in court that 'professional' women couldn't feel comfortable in a strip club setting ... and as such, the spending of corporate funds in strip clubs by male co-workers to entertain / 'sell' customers constituted a form of 'sex discrimination'. The courts agreed. As a result, the spending of corporate funds in strip clubs was effectively banned for both male and female 'professionals'. Additionally, male 'professionals' were often warned by their corporate employers that continued use of strip clubs to entertain / 'sell' customers, even if the money used to do so came from sources other than corporate expense accounts, would be frowned upon because it still left the corporation exposed to potential future 'sex discrimination' complaints and lawsuits.
The aftermath of these court decisions effectively eliminated some 25% of former strip club customers, as well as some 25% of total customer dollars spent in strip clubs. Essentially, it converted a scenario of 2 'business' customers spending lots of corporate money on 'company time' into one 'business' customer spending their own money on their own time. As stated earlier, this situation created a financial 'void' for dancers, who in turn increased 'contact' levels to compensate for the reduced 'non-contact' earnings potential. Similarly, higher 'contact' levels becoming more generally available attracted a different type of strip club customer as a consequence." --> END QUOTE Melonie.
^^^ Melonie is right. I was there for the late '90s expense accounts. an overnight at giant sucking sound and some 25% or revenue disappeared almost overnight. Unintended feminist consequences. I'm sympathetic. But was it worth it? I dunno.
* online porn (a lot of it free)
* cam-sites where a girl does not have to leave her house, can set her own schedule, is not groped by pervs, and has access to theoretically millions of customers
* sugarbaby sites
* hookup sites
* etc
The political climate def seems mostly anti strip clubs these days - many arras that once had thriving SC scenes are now SC wastelands or not worth-it - and the current gentrification trends means SCs that had been around for years in a certain part of toen all of a sudden are treated as eye-sores to be done away with
And I def believe that as SCs have become high-mileage that this deters many of the good looking women that 20+ years ago could bank just from their looks but now would not be able to compete if they don't at least allow groping.
I don't think not having SCs in g
The suburbs nearby is that big of a deal - those that like SCs are willing to travel an hour or less for some good-pussy - it may affect married guys that can only get away for a short time but I don't think location is a huge factor.
I also think many people were permanently scared by the great recession of the late 2000s and although we've rebounded the economy has not been exactly red-hot rhus making people cautious about spending in strip clubs where to have a good-time oftem means spending a couple of hundred in one-shot.
Papi, you said, "Those that like SCs are willing to travel an hour or less for some good-pussy." You're describing dedicated "hobbyists" such as ourselves, but no business can survive entirely on regulars and semi-regulars, and it seems as though the random, seat-of-your-pants visits by otherwise-normal civilians have dropped off the chart. I am always on here complaining about how my desire to club far outpaces my resources, whereas my two closest male friends are the exact opposite. They're both well-employed (one is a dentist), and neither of them is highly religious, but they have zero interest in visiting a strip club, ever. To them it is a "dirty" waste of money. I guess being attractive and successful enough to get pussy for free is a factor in their reluctance to partake, but there must be a cultural element too, because I hardly ever see groups of under-40 bros out for a bachelor party or just a random night out anymore. It's mostly old PL's or pairs of business guys (not with clients). Clubs cannot live on PL's alone.
I'm quite certain most strip club regulations in the US today were started by women, or holly roller men...lol..
I lived in Dallas in the 2000s and that is where I became a strip-club PL - some-time in the mid-2000s the city all of a sudden decided to enforce a 6-ft rule that was apparently in the booke for a long time but not enforced - the enforcement only lasted a month or 2 if I remember correctly, I guess the clubs had to do some extra palm-greasing - anyway that was the only time I recall the 6-ft rule being enforced and just so happened there was a woman mayor at the tine.
Also back around 2013 Houston went after the clubs big-time and the clubs have not been the same since, and if I remember correctly it was qlso a woman mayor at the time.
I'm calling it here: In 10 years prostitution will be legalized across USA.
Strip clubs will become exchange marts - girls pay to get in, guys pay to get in and hook up - either ITC or OTC. Just like Brazil, Germany, Thailand.
One word: Viagra
20 years ago, In college I worked at a hospital and was surprised to learn sex life was over for majority of men over 40. Over 40!!!
There was no sex for politicians, clergy, and bible thumpers and they actually despised anybody enjoying sex.
While we all know what these new chemicals can do - apparently word is slow to get out. But soon enough, each of these damn politicians will see their dicks come back to life - and watch the way they craft bills after bills to bring recreational and therapeutic sex into legal zone. There will be taxes, permits, fees, medical testing, etc - but you can count of legal sex in near future.
Money will do the talking and politician with a working dick will do the walking.
And then who do you bust? Client, Hooker, Venue Operator.
So I hear that in Scandinavia they have taken things as far as possible that they bust the clients, and no one else.
Needless to say, this nets a broad swath of the population, and it is very unpopular.
In conservative jurisdictions, they tend to bust the hookers, painting them as a societal menace. Read the newspaper coverage from Greenville SC, and you'll see what I mean.
But if they did this in San Francisco, the newspapers would be rightly mocking the police.
So in more liberal jurisdictions they bust the venue operators, and try to portray the hookers as victims. And hence all the emphasis on 'trafficking', defined in the most broad terms possible.
So when Diane Feinstein tried to incarcerate Jim and Artie Mitchell, the prosecutor was calling them the 'corporate pimps'. But these kinds of convictions, proving that these venue owners are knowingly responsible, are the hardest to get. And because Jim and Artie would not cop a plea, we have contact strip clubs today.
SJG
.... it took me a while to get this sentence in my head.
I thought 3 different states - Sober, Drunk, Frisky
Frisky state - money was consistent $300-$1200
Sober state - $60/night
Then I'm goin - What about Drunk state? oh never mind she was too wasted to know.
Tara have you put on weight? or you still look the same
But the other issue is that the middle class has still been hit hard by the recession. I just don't think there's the discretionary income that was available before the crash. Everyone says that stocks are up and unemployment is below 5% but when you look at the labor force participation rate and the U-6 which includes the underemployed, we are still way down from where we were in 2007. Which is why mid-level restaurants are still hurting badly, just like strip clubs.
2. Police state making sure people don't have a good time. Monitoring, surveillance, restrictions even on victim less sins like prostitution and strip club.
3. Metrosexual man who likes to be indoor and browse or stream or play video games.
4. High cost again and less patrons made women look for other professions.
5. Zionists business culture has made sure more money in few pockets at the top. Middle or bottom workers are not paid that well anymore. No spare change to enjoy.
Back to the point I tire of the diatribe from the left and the "feminists" that a woman should be able to control her own body: UNLESS she wants to do something that does not subscribe to their narrow views!!
If she wants to keep the child-she is denounced: If she wants to have more than the PC requisite one child, she is denounced, If (GOD FORBID) wants to be a stay at home mom and put her career on hold for her children's sake; she is derided as a backward,evil and lazy . Motherhood is the worlds toughest and most important job. Feminists are ones who are evil, selfish and lazy. There are several "respected" feminists that want to outlaw stay at home mothers. They say that "it deprives society of that woman's talent, denies 'Society' (the state) the opportunity to input the children's upbringing, and (most important of all) the tax revenue generated by her working and raising the family's income bracket.
Women are not allowed to make the choice to be a stripper, despite the sexualization of every aspect of life. She would be an outcast of the feminists if she dares become and escort. But casual sex with strangers is ok as long as she pays her half of the date!
I know there are hypocrites everywhere but politicians and feminists are the worst.
Libertarian is the only way. All governments everywhere are in the business of promoting misery, if everyone is happy government has no job. If people are happy the government manufactures misery or strife (transgender bathrooms for example) to reinforce the reverence of "government controls".
I lived through the disappearing corporate expense accounts but never realized why it happened. Thanks for that info.
Fact is some women and some men prefer to operate in this underground P4P sex realm.
Some schools of feminism go along with the stigmatization, but not all. There are definitely pro sex schools of feminism.
Of course their leader would be Simone de Beauvoir. But you also have writers like
https://www.amazon.com/Love-Tender-Conte…
https://www.amazon.com/Love-Strange-Stor…
To understand the puritanical type of feminism, I suggest D. W. Griffith's Intolerance, 1916:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eo66cJqE…
SJG
She's A Lady
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReL9dmYD…
first page of sheet music
http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic/mtd…
complete guitar tabs
https://tabs.ultimate-guitar.com/t/tom_j…
This song looks to be entirely diatonic, and so much of it is sung over Em.
The bridge is all major triads, and seems to constitute a key change, likely to Bb.
I remember reading a discussion once of the transitions in popular music as being either 1. harmony changes, 2. mode changes, or 3. key changes. But as to what distinguishes one from the others, I am still not clear. And then I don't think that classical music lends itself to such analyses, as it is more varied.
From my point of view, as a life-long monger, I find that the "new" strip clubs are MUCH LESS enticing than the "old" ones. Used to be, I could just drop in to a bunch of seedy fun but relatively safe "neighborhood haunts" and, if I wished, I could examine the wares of many an attractive lady. Now it seems, I must make an entire outing of it, plan my travel itinerary, almost pre-book the room and maybe double-check competing clubs' schedules on line, spend a fortune, and get a lot less enjoyment. It's gone from cooking a quick meal to take care of a momentary hunger, to pre-planning the kitchen mess tent for an army of six hundred. And paying for it. BETTER BE HUNGRY!! :)
my complaint is not that we are getting more contact for more money, which seems to be one gist of the Melanie-and-others line of reasoning. My complaint is that, WHILE more and more types of women dancing, dancing women are becoming more and more visually unappealing and equally more and more unskilled at (or unwilling to try) being pleasing to men. It's getting less enjoyable, over all.
Yet, explain please, the prices are going UP. Less service, less of what the customer wants, potentially unlimited supply, that means cost-for-service should go DOWN, right? But prices are rising. Much faster than inflation. Every ten years or so, they hit a plateau and then DOUBLE. There's no gradual growth, just a sudden six-month transition to TWICE AS MUCH. WTF?
I wrote a long thought-piece about this and other ideas, submitted as an "article" here at TUSCL yesterday night, mostly in response to this thread. But I realize now (it hasn't yet been published, might not be?) that my article was WAY too long and meandering to really address the points. It will only give rise to a lot of "TLDR" type responses, I'm sad to say. If some day I manage to cogently summarize it, I will submit a shorter version again. :)
Partly, I said that selling the dancing and buying the dances are both about buying and selling self-esteem.
Partly, I said that the whole sex industry is rather self-referential, in a problematic way (I noted Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russel here, the set of all sets, that sort of thing, this is where it got wordy and meandering ...). The problem is, you don't know what you're buying. Are you buying time with the dancer, or the dancer's services, or the dancer's expert well-experienced trained services, or the dancer's innate desirability and therefore literally no expectation of expertise, or the dancer's approval, or ... what? Is she selling the same thing you're buying? Is your experience one of getting money for service (whichever service you thought you were buying, or whichever service she actually DID sell)? Or is it one of gaining confidence and puffing up your own self-worth? Is her experience one of gaining money? Of course, but is there not also a sense of self-worth inherent in every rejection? Being rejected for a private dance, especially when the rejectee is either financially needy or emotionally insecure or new t working strip clubs, hurts the dancer. Hurts her "self-esteem." And it probably hurts her self-esteem much more than the rejection of an automobile hurts the self-esteem of the salesman. Right? That seems to point to ... something. I didn't quite figure out WHAT.
Cheerio ...
If you are comparing ITC encounters with OTC, then of course OTC is better. And maybe some girls who do FS-ITC might not be interested in OTC.
If you mean that it is all more complicated because you are now traveling out of town, maybe so.
Buying dances is a chumps game. Pick your girl yourself and start feeding her money, and get a front room makeout session going. Then you invite her to the back room, and then take her home with you to continue.
SJG
I suppose VALUE (according to this idiotically backwards market) has gone UP because contact and services have gone up. In other words, BBBJTC can now be had whereas the presumption previously was that only CBJ could be had, and the market somehow considers that to be MORE SERVICE, therefore OF HIGHER VALUE, therefore worthy of higher price. But (1) I thought varieties of BJ were to be had at all dates, and IME they were; and (2) the decline in stripper-experience is profoundly detrimental (again, IMO, IME) to the overall enjoyment and VALUE. If the girl is (i.) ugly, or at least, uglier than they used to let her be; and (ii.) clueless about how to be "fake intimiate" and "fake nice" and "stripper-shit that the customer likes even though he knows it's stripper-shit" performance, then, at least for ME, the dance is LESS, not MORE, valuable.
Less value. But greater price. Sounds like Obamacare, as the Republicans would describe it.