A difference of kind...or merely degree

That "I have a special deal for YOU ONLY" line isn't just in the sales manual that goes with STRIPPING. Man, that IS the sales manual for ALL products and services ...

It's a bad idea to ever think that you are the "only" customer a dancer does something special for ITC. "I only do this for you" is one of the oldest sales lines in the stripping 101 manual. Just enjoy the experience for what it is and don't think too much about what she does with the next guy.

Then I guess you're her only client as a prostitute and she's a dancer for the rest. Feel special or suspicious as you desire.

OK, one last time, back on the original question. If a dancer claims she could never engage in prostitution then a few minutes later is grinding to consumation is she deluding herself that what she does is the same thing, just a matter of degree? We can argue our opinions or individual statutes and rules all over the country, but I think the stripper has a point that she isn't engaging in prostitution. At what point does it become just a matter of degree, in other words she is engaging in prostitution, just not to the point where she shows up at a hotel room, etc. etc.? I think realistically if the dick comes out that line has been crossed, and I think that'd be pretty easy to agree on for the vast majority of people, both customers and dancers. That's all I'm sayin.

Chandler: I agree with the last line of your post. Over the years I've seen dancers alter their boundaries well beyond their original comfort zones in order to continue to earn money in a changing industry. For these women dancing is a job, nothing more. It's a source of income and, just as in many other industries, sometimes you have to alter your approach in order to continue beign a good earner.

The Georgia Criminal Code, which I Googled a few weeks ago when Shadowcat posted about a massage parlor bust, makes a peculiar dinstinction between different acts we've been discussing. They define prostitution narrowly, as sexual intercourse for payment.

Then there's an offense they call Masturbation for Hire, in which the perp "erotically stimulates the genital organs of another, whether resulting in orgasm or not, by manual or other bodily contact". Sounds like that covers handjobs - inside, outside or through the pants - or pussy rubbing and fingering. I think it could cover a classic style of grinding lapdance, too.

And what about blow jobs, you ask? Well in Georgia, they're considered criminal sodomy, even between a husband and wife in their bedroom. Includes anal sex, too, of course. So blow jobs for money are termed Solicitation of Sodomy. Whether that includes only the customer or the provider, also, I'm not sure, since there is no Sodomy for Hire offense. Maybe that's a loophole.

BTW, AN, as a customer, I draw a line at having my dick taken out of my pants, but not because of any qualms about prostitution. So, I agree that it makes a big difference, although I don't see it as the one, big test that separates one kind of dancer from another.

A legal note here--it is considered prostitution to pay other people to engage in behavior intended for the sexual gratification of anyone...that includes, for example, the two dancers at an unnamed club who proposed to come to my hotel room for $1K and do each other while I got off (I respectfully declined). Even if they wouldn't really be sexually gratified, _I_ would have been...thus, prostitution.

Porno actors evade this through some incredible '70s court decisions holding that such persons are not engaging in sexual relations...they are _portraying characters_ engaged in sexual relations...

Oh, to have a 9" cock and the ability to fuck without cumming for two or three hours....It could change your life.

What LE consideres legal or illegal and what dancers may or may not be willing to do are two entirely different issues. The original question related to the second issue not the first one. Legality has little to do with a dancer's perception of what is OK or not.

I agree that who the customer is and how he treats her is very important to what the dancer is willing to do. If she likes him she's a lot less likely to consider any sex act to be prostitution even when money is exchanged. Unless a girl she doesn't like is the one doing it of course, then it's definately prostitution.

Yoda, you kind of reinforce my point. While laws and statutes vary, (and by the way, we don't define what is legal, we define what's illegal, that's what I love about this country, that which is not expressly forbidden is encouraged) and while some things are tolerated more some places and less others regardless of the laws there is a point at which virtually no locality or club could overlook the fact that prostitution was taking place. If the dancer has the customers dick out, it's pretty damn clear. That is why I think when dancers who don't free Whilly don't consider themselves prostitutes they are on pretty firm ground, philosophically speaking. We can parse and flog minor distinctions about sexual services for something of value, but at some point we have to at least recognize simple practical reality. Yes, perhaps in a very conservative area where pasties and g-strings must be worn any contact might be prosecuted, but even in San Francisco or Houston, even though they might be common, I really don't think that anyone would deny that a HJ constitutes enough sexual contact to entail prostitution. All I'm saying is that we can define one limit to how far our hair splitting can go. If a dancer is giving hand jobs, she's engaging in prostitution. Below that we can argue all we want, but it's always gonna be a matter of opinion. You can say you consider lapdancing a mild form of prostitution, that's your opinion but it doesn't make it so. But to say that there isn't any difference between that and pulling out the customers dick is just to deny reality.

I'm way too lazy to read every post on this thread but I'm wondering if you guys realize that lap dancing is not defined as legal anywhere in the US. Contact laws are not on the books as such, it's a simple matter of what local municipalities allow clubs and dancers to get away with. This of course gives local authorities the option of changing their mind about what they will allow as it suites their needs. In most jurisdictions sexual stimulation of either the male or female genitalia inside or outside of clothing is considered to be an act of prostitution. If you think willy has to be exposed for a sex act to occur you are sadly mistaken. That being said, the legal definition really has nothing much to do with the decision making process for most dancers. I know lots of ladies who rub a guy's dick with their asses or their leg until he cums and think that they are not angaged in prostitution. Good for them. Who really cares? If they don't why should we?

Lapping is illegal where I get it done -- Memphis. I go to Platinum Plus, she sits on my lap, she grinds, she gets topless, she breaks the six-foot ordinance. Is she a prostitute?

AN: I don't think we've been missing the legality, just looking beyond it. I find the question of what's illegal even less interesting than the real meaning of the term. BTW, lapdances are legally considered prostitution in some jurisdictions, and I believe handjobs through the pants would qualify in most places.

I think one very simple point is still being missed. Prostitution is sometimes very well defined because specific acts are illegal. The stripper who grinds a guy to completion can honestly say that she doesn't engage in prostitution because what she does IS LEGAL! Regardless of wether we consider it to be philosophically related or a matter of degree the lapdance is not prostitution. The girl who goes to the hotel room and fucks for cash is breaking the law. That is a very clear distinction. We can digress upon all the grey areas of "dates" with strippers and gifts and giving it up to a good looking guy after dinner and a movie, but there are some clear distinctions. When a stripper pulls the dick out that doesn't just cross some arbitrary personal boundry, it crosses a well defined legal one. That was the point I was trying to make. So yes, while lapping and fucking for money are similar in that they provide sexual release for money the difference in degree is enough to make them very different beasts. While I agree the philosophizing is interesting I think that ignoring the fact that a lot of very smart people have thought about this and already come up with a standard trivializes the argument. It is very clear to me why Chitown's and other dancers don't consider what they do prostitution, because what they do, while it occasionally pushes the bounds, is not sex for money as defined by law.

Hey, I thought it was fun to read, too. Sorry to be so critical. I think the point you were trying to illustrate is well taken.

OK OK, bad example. But fun to write up. :) The t-shirt spittoon is part of the point, however.

My suggestion was intended to be, that a girl will call it "prostitution" if it "feels" dirty. If the customer is a disgusting fellow and the setting is a disgusting one, she'll do less and expect to be paid more cash for it. If the setting and customer are closer to "ideal boyfriend," then even if it IS cash-for-services, she'll feel less like a "ho" and more like a "courtesan," and therefore more readily justify it to herself as "not prostitution" but instead a mutually agreeable arrangement between respectful parties in which each takes care of the other's needs.

I didn't mean to say, that I was defending this type of quadruple-standard waffly thinking. I was just pointing out the ways that dancers can rationalize for themselves.

Book Guy: I'm not so sure what your object lesson demonstrates. It would be less muddled if, among other things, your lap dance guy were also young and well groomed. It's no great shocker to learn that college-age girls find the idea icky of having sex with a smelly old dude who uses his T-shirt as a spittoon. I see repusiveness as her bigger issue with him rather than class.

And I definitely would put your yachting example in a gray area concerning prostitution. You describe several suspicious circumstances but leave out vast areas that could be crucial. For example, is she phyically attracted to him? Does she like his personality? Maybe she just thinks the dude's hot and wants to fuck him. You don't say one way or the other, as though, because he's rich we're supposed to assume she's not attracted to him. Nothing in your account says that compensation is decisive for her, except for your followup assertion, which seems more like your own characterization. Just cause you invented the story (I take it) doesn't mean you get to say how it should be interpreted. There could be plenty she is deluding herself about, but I'm not so sure it's what you claim.

To be clear, in my anecdote above, Juanita never considers making Obie her BOYfriend. She's not actually having sex with him for "love." It's for ... stuff ...

Yeah, what does the woman feel about the case. That's the thing that's interesting. I think a lot of it is a sliding scale. Herself, she isn't a prostitute, if she does what keeps in her comfortable zone; the other girl, she is a prostitute, even if what she does would be considered "less" by Johns or other dancers.

Oh, and I disagree about the weekend at the Kennedy compound (to whomever demurred). Imagine the scenario. Juanita is an attractive young woman studying psychology at the University of South Florida, and she dances on weekends at Smackers, a bikini bar in north Tampa to fund extravagant shopping expeditions that most college girls could only dream of. She is the first of her family to attend college. Her dad, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic who now works as a yard service contractor, at first didn't want her to go to school at all (not a woman's place), and then, conceding that Juanity could not be put off getting the best American education that money could buy, he didn't want her to learn psychology, but rather to take something "more useful" like nursing or para-legal studies. His heavy hand has driven Juanita from the Catholic church which she was raised under. She is also the first in her family to lap-dance for anyone.

At Smackers, Juanita regularly grinds on the crotch of Denzell, a grizzled old stinky cracker who runs an air-boat tour service and drinks Michelob Light. Juanita knows that he is a great customer -- in his regular weekly visits, he can be relied on to over-tip; to buy six or eight songs' worth of dances but only expect grindage during every third song, or so; and to offer her small respectful gifts like teddy bears and rose bouquets. She is considering asking him to fund her upcoming dental work -- whitening, straightening, and a bridge over the gap in the top.

Her completely clad lappers cannot bring Denzell to completion because of his thick dungarees and her disinterest in excess closeness to his tobacco-stained t-shirt. Denzell finally summons his courage to ask what he has wanted to ask for as long as he has known that Juanita exists: he propositions her for outside-the-club activity. She is disgusted by his overture, and slaps him, and tells him that he has obviously drunk too much Mick Lite tonight and he should go sleep it off. She storms off in a huff.

Meanwhile, at a frat kegger on campus Juanita meets Brathwaite Oberon Abercrombie III, a distant relative of the Gores, the Vidals, the Forbes, and the Roosevelts. Obie invites her to Thah Vinyahd (Martha's Vinyard) for the weekend, buys her an airplane ticket to get her there, turns over to her for the day a corporate credit card from one of his family's shell accounts to allow her to pick up some nautical clothing (primarily Sperry Top-Siders) so that she can go sailing on the family yacht, and plies her with gin-and-tonics throughout Massachusetts sound. Three sheets and a roller-furling Genoa to the wind, Obie informs her that he has regularly seen her dance at Smackers and has been watching her from afar. He thinks she's beautiful, he wants her, he needs her. He can take her away from all of that. She thinks the stars are beautiful, his teeth are beautiful, his yacht is REALLY beautiful, oh why not. He might take her away from all that. She certainly wouldn't have to change her major to nursing like her dad wants, if she takes up with Obie.

She fucks Obie but not Denzell. She is paid more by Obie, in exchange products, than by Denzell. Obie's ol' John-Thomas came out and sniffed the night air, Denzell's did not. Yet in Juanita's mind, what she did with Obie (sex) is "clean" while what she did with Denzell (lap dancing) is "dirty" -- too dirty to be allowed to escalate. Good thing she took her birth-control pills along with her to the Vinyard!

To me, there's a type of "class hypocrisy" that many dancers mentally engage in. Meet a guy who isn't "a really nice guy" and extra-curricular activities seem all the more "dirty." Meet a "cool guy" who is also, somehow, not your typical strip club fare, and extra-curriculars are something that a dancer can easily rationalize away. But that's just it. It's ONLY a rationalization, not a fact.

I'd say, to contradict Juanita, that BOTH scenarios -- fucking Obie on the yacht; lappers for Denzell -- are a form of prostitution. Sexual services in exchange for material goods. And I'd say that Juanita is "deluding" herself, perhaps deliberately, perhaps even in a self-aware and fully knowledgeable manner. Maybe all women who fuck for material "security" are deluding themselves similarly. Lucky for me, I'm poor as a church mouse; I'm pretty much guaranteed that any woman who is willing to sex me, is either doing it for the price we agreed on (and yes, that would indeed be nothing short of prostitution) or is doing it out of a quest for love, not money. I don't have enough money to attract "real world" gold-diggers, not the way Obie would.

I don't think prostitution is the main issue here. I agree that it's harder to define than it once was. The explosion of the sex industry or adult entertainment, whatever you prefer to call it, has produced such an array of services that tinker with the edges of all-out prostitution. Technology keeps coming up with new ways to bypass a physical connection: phone sex, live video sex. At the same time, we're always seeing new ways to arrange a physical connection, targeted to both parties' preferences, and keep it all discreet.

As a result, for a woman to engage in prostitution no longer means certain and utter ruin. It's much more possible now for her to do it part-time on her own terms without getting her nose too dirty, and get out of it when her situation changes. The term, however, still carries the old stigma. It sounds pretty silly to say that all lap dancers are prostitutes, because they don't fit the image. (Well, many of them don't.) The arguments against calling all lap dancing prostitution, it seems to me, are put forward in order to avoid pinning the label of prostitute on all those cute strippers we adore so much. Hoewever, technically, they are prostitutes in the same way that we are all masturbators, or coke drinkers, what have you.

The main issue here, as I've said, is at what point does the stripper feel she would be selling out her dignity. That, I agree, is in the eye of the beholder.

FONDL, I didn't infer anything. My limitation was failing to infer that you meant something other than what you wrote.

I agree that there are a lot of gray areas on the services side of the question. I'm inclined to call all of them prostitution, since so many have been devised to provide a sexual service while staying within the law or giving the girls plausible deniabilty. For me, that doesn't pass the smell test. On the compensation side of the question, I don't see very many gray areas. It's almost always very clear. We've already argued that one to death, and I know you disagree.

Chandler, in my restatement I was not only referring to at what point physically an LD involves prostitution, I was also meant mentally, especially on the dancer's part. Your inference that I meant only physically was your limitation not mine.

My personal view is that prostitution is in the eyes of the beholder and we all, including dancers, have different views of what is or isn't. I think the term has largely become osbolete. Sure there are instances where we'd all agree that something is prostitution, and other instances where we'd all agree that it isn't, but I think most sexual encounters lie somewhere in between these two extremes. And that's especially true in strip club encounters.

AN: I understood that was what you and FONDL were saying. I appreciate that taking the guy's dick out can be considered a threshhold point. I see it, however, as one of many possible such points. I've always viewed lapdancing itself as a form of prostitution. A mild form, for sure, in order to fulfill commercial and legal demands.

That's how it was described to me by a lap dancer before I ever set foot in a club. And that's what every lap dancer who's ever discussed it candidly with me has called it: mild, safe prostitution. Not that theirs has to be the last word - and no doubt some lap dancers would disagree - but I feel it's a good default position. And nothing I've learned has ever convinced me that lap dancing is anything else, and doesn't become prostitution until something further happens.

As for Chitown's original question, I think a difference in kind from the stripper's perspective involves more than the physical act. Whether it's in the club or outside, how selective she is of customers, how much control she keeps or gives up and many other factors. Perhaps what they all bear on for her is the matter of making sacrifices to her dignity. At the risk of stirring up shit here all over again, one definition of a whore, the kind most strippers don't want to become, is a person who has sold out their dignity.

Token, a reasonable question. I'd have to say, with no evidence, doccumentation, or distinction other than my own prejudices that to me prostitution entails male release via the actions, or more directly the direct manipulations of female (or male, but we needn't get into that) person who accepts money for said service. It is legal in many places for a male to masturbate in a private booth while watching a woman dance on the other side of a window. What is virtually always illegal, and hence prostitution is the active and direct participation of the other in the consumation. Hiding the finger, while almost certainly illegal, does not constitute direct action which I seem to be adopting as my threshold. The "happy accident" while it fits this definition does entail plausable deniability and most definitely lacks provable intent. Discuss.

Have to confess, I skipped over alot of posts (even put one "winded" poster on ignore--too much). I do agree that once a "taste of open air" is realized, the stakes have changed. Now, cannot it be of the same rationale that once a simple game of "hide the finger" is allowed, the stakes too have changed? Some dancers allow 1 but not the other, some allow one and a partial response, some allow both. Decisions, decisions.

Book Guy, I think it's still pretty clear. There are some things only an academic could find ambiguous. If Kilroy comes out there is no doubt that what you are doing, for money, is intentional. In the pants it can still be considered a happy accident. Out of the pants it's pretty clear that prostitution is taking place (for the aformentioned legality standard). How a dancer chooses to rationalize it is her buisness, but I think once she starts handling penis it becomes rationalization. There are the oft discussed and excessively flogged grey areas, but I think freeing Whilly is a pretty good guideline overall.

Actually, here's the rub. (Ahem.) If (as I stated earlier in this thread) a member of the Kennedy clan had her over to Providence for the weekend, and Duke came out of the pants and into her hoochie koochie, and he gave her airfare and a thousand bucks and a credit card for the weekend, I can see how a lot of people might construe that NOT as prostitution, but instead as a "date" among "movers and shakers."

If the same thing happens but the man she meets is not widely known, is not attractive, does not have a home in Providence, and is not likely to be elected Senator, she feels dirtier and her catty friends might think of her as a prostitute.

So, at least by these juxtaposed examples, sometimes even the usually obvious litmus-test, of whether or not Duke comes out of the pants, is not necessarily determinate.

Chandler, while FONDL does word things rather obliquily I think that he does allow that a lapdance, while in a technical sense is gratification for money it is not sex. I think, and I got from FONDL's post that Duke has to come out to play for it to be sex. This seems a reasonable standard, and realistic from both dancer and patron point of view since that clearly crosses a legal barrior anywhere in the nation outside a Nevada brothel, which I think we can agree is a place of prostitution. Chitown's original post was very specific about a grind, not EPA (extra-pants activity). While we can go in to the endless digression of is it prostitution if she only gives HJs to favorite customers and doesn't charge extra, etc, I think we can agree that wether Killroy pops out of the pants or not is not just a matter of degree, but a difference (sort of my original point).

FONDL that's pretty much what I said in the 5th post in this thread. What we see as a continuous range actually looks like two seperate things when you look at the end points and not all the stuff in the middle we talk about ad nauseum. Since (IMO) most of the stuff is at the two ends I think there is a good case to be made that even though both are sexual release for money they are very different animals to most people.

FONDL: I agree that the dancer's point of view is the key to the original question. It makes the issue more complex and interesting to consider. That was completely missing from your restatement, which made it pretty easy to answer. Within the range of activity that constitutes prostitution are differences of kind that probably mean a lot more to the women involved.

BG, I was trying to answer the first post. Is it possible to answer it without speculating on what the dancer may have been thinking? I don't think so. And I find it an interesting question because I've run into similar situations and they never made much sense to me either. Seems to me it's all based on dancer's perceptions of the importance of small differences.

The part of this discussion that I don't get, is this whole need to extrapolate from a person's answer a great deal of moral implications and other interpretetations of his (or, in the case of presumed dancers' thoughts, her) attitudes. Just stick with the answer and don't extrapolate, and nobody will have major disagreements.

For example, I think that a lap dance (as I've experienced it) is prostitution. I've said so. But I wouldn't use a statement like, "all lap dancers are prostitutes" (a statement that my opinion has been extrapolated into) except in a carefully circumscribed context, by which context I was assured that other people didn't mis-read that statement. Yes, if you take my initial opinion and extend it IN THE WAY THAT YOU WANT TO EXTEND IT then you can come to some extremes. And I might even TECHNICALLY agree with those extremes. But finding the extremes in my carefully mediated opinion? That's just asking for an argument. Why go about it in the first place?

I wouldn't say, "All lap dancers are prostitutes." I would say, "Well, I have to admit that I sense a real kinship between what most people think of as prostitution, and what lap dancing is. So, I guess, technically speaking, lap dancers are engaging in what is technically prostitution. And I don't mean that in a negative way! I think we're all of us too hung up on the definitions of ..." blah blah blah.

See, when I get to the "extreme" portion of the opinion, I want to ameliorate it with "de-extreme-ifying" (mollifying) language. This means, that although you CAN find extremeties, I don't WANT them. It's escaped my original intent. Sure sure it's rational, to make that extrapolation. But it ain't fair to what I wanted to express. It's nothing BUT rational, it's not SENSIBLE.

Chandler, I think my restatement goes right to the heart of whether you consider the difference to be a matter of degree or kind. If you think all LDs involve prostitution, then to you there's no difference, all girls giving LDs are prostitutes, some are just to a greater degree than others.

But look at it from a possible dancer's point of view. Dancer 1 thinks that dancer 2 is a prostitute because she gives an HJ to anyone who takes her into the LD room, and that's where dancer 1 draws the line. Dancer 1 may also be giving HJs to her favorite customers but to her that's a difference of kind, becuase she doesn't do it for everyone. To you or I that may seem a trivial difference, but to dancer 1 it makes all the difference in the world in how she preceives herself. I think this kind of thinking is pretty common among strippers and explains Chitown's encounter.

FONDL, I think your restatement greatly oversimplifies the question, from one of a stripper's personal identity to an abstract, black and white issue.

I agree with Book Guy that all lap dancing is prostitution, i.e., stimulating a man's dick.

Chitown: Perhaps they were glad to hear that when they enter the Kingdom of God, prostitutes will already be there for them.

To answer the original question -- at what point does a lap-dance cross the line into prostitution -- I'd say ...

... immediately. Lap-dancing is a form of sexual service rendered in exchange for money.

Just my opinion, don't go calling me someone who hates women or something. We already know that. :)

Since I can no longer figure out what is being debated here, would anyone mind if I got back to the original question? Let me restate it somewhat differently: at what point, if ever, do you think that an LD crosses the line into prostitution.

If we go back to the definition of "prostitution" that I stated earlier as "sex given in exchange for something of value," I think we all agree that an LD is normally given in exchange for somethin of value, so the question becomes, at what point does an LD involve sex?

Some would no doubt argue that all LDs involve some form of sex and therefore meet the definition of prostitution. Personally I disagree, IMO there has to be at least some extras involved and even a HJ is in the grey area. What do you all think?

Chandler, this had to grate on the ears of the religious authorities in first century Palestine:

Then Jesus explained his meaning: "I assure you, corrupt tax collectors and prostitutes will get into the Kingdom of God before you do. Matthew 21:31.

Thank you, Chandler. For my part, I'll say that although I continue to believe that your views in relation to the application of the word "whore" are both baseless and lacking in charity and compassion, I acknowledge that I could have made the point more effectively and justly by not resorting to such inflammatory words as "bigot" and "misogynistic." I apologize for any distress or anger that my word choice caused for you.

BTW, the biblical story you're probably trying remember is the adultress whom Jesus defended. She wasn't a prostitute. And she wasn't merely being disparaged. She was about to be stoned to death. Jesus was forgiving of repentant sinners, but not of any active prostitutes that I'm aware of.

Doc, I never meant to make this personal. It's true that I think most of what you've written in this thread in defense of your claims about prostitution and the word "whore" has been evasive bullshit to a point that quickly became futile to debate. However, I don't think that makes you a bad person or means that everything you post is bullshit. I assumed that if you could dish it out, you could take strong criticism, too. That's no excuse for me to go overboard. If I did, I'm sorry. I'll back off. No hard feelings.

Chandler: "long paragraphs of sheer bunk masquerading as thoughtful debate"

Here's a friendly suggestion, Chandler. Why not simply say, once and for all, "Everything Doc says is bullshit and I totally reject it all categorically?" That would save you a lot of time and effort and would cover anything that I might post in the future. Why not dispense with content altogether when what you really want is to go after the individual? The problem with trying to address individual issues is that you end up having to make a lot of lame assertions or just sounding petulant with the likes of "bullshit" or "if that's the best you can do" or "long paragraphs of sheer bunk" or weak efforts at sarcasm. What you really want is a good old-fashioned pissing contest, so have at it. I really don't mind if you want to use this thread to urinate in public, but at least try to hit the bowl now and then.

Driver01: "I dusted off my Bible and found the word "whore" is used almost 100 times in both the old and new testament. . . . I'm not gonna argue with the almighty"

I would enjoy a good argument with the Almighty, assuming He exists, because arguing is an effective way to learn (for some of us) and I would expect to learn a lot from Someone both all-knowing and infinitely patient. I feel certain that He would be pleased that one of his humble creations was using his God-given capacity for reason and learning. Unfortunately, God, if He exists, is silent, so we humans get inundated instead with the rants and claims of a bunch of competing institutions, men of the cloth, and religious adherents who have the temerity to claim that they speak for the Almighty, but who really only speak for a particular, very human, point of view. Such folks and institutions I am also happy to argue with, but typically get very little intelligent in return. It is interesting to consider religious institutions in the context of strip clubs because there are a couple of obvious parallels. Both institutions feature spokespersons that frequently offer more than they can deliver. Both institutions are in the business of creating fantasies and illusions that are gratifying or reassuring, but ultimately mostly fake.

I'm not very knowledgeable about Christianity (or any other religion), but I seem to recall a story about Jesus defending a prostitute -- Mary Magdalena, I believe -- against the disparagements levied by some of his followers. Correct me if I'm misremembering the story. I'm sure many of you know the story better than do I. I suppose that the model provided by Jesus ought to take some considerable precedence for those who call themselves Christians.

Convinced as I am that religions don't actually represent the word of God, I subscribe to a different kind of moral system-- humanism. It's fairly straightforward in theory, though not always in application. It's based on the most good for the most number of people. If a single man purchases sexual services from a sex-industry worker, the main impacts of the transaction fall on the two individuals involved. She has sexual appeal and needs money. He has money and wants sexual contact. If both individuals are entering into the arrangement with full understanding and without coercion, it's hard to argue that the transaction results in more harm than good. I suppose safety in relation to STDs would have to be considered as well. Such activities are typically referred to as victimless crimes precisely because the harm side of the equation is difficult to specify. Sex-for-money activities are mainly only illegal because of the influence of the historical equivalents of today's religious right -- Puritanism, for example, here in New England. We still have blue laws that govern what a married couple can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom.

I expect that the Almighty, if He existed, would rather enjoy a trip to a strip club, to check out some of his most curvaceous creations. I even heard it said, once or twice, that "His kingdom cums", though I've never really figured out what a universal orgasm would be like -- unless it was the Big Bang.

Sorry, Doc. I can't resist poking fun at long paragraphs of sheer bunk masquerading as thoughtful debate. I just no longer see any need for addressing it point by silly point.

Look, Doc, I'm sure you're sincere about it all, but you should be aware that your windy attempts at patching over each successive contradiction and your interminable morality-parsing have lapsed into farce. I think we get your point, that terms like "whore" can be cruel. I think we'll just have to disagree on what should be taboo. And thanks all the same, but I think I can live with the anguish of being the recipient of your denigrating terms.

Chandler: "I think I'll find some other way to waste my time from here on."

That was your strongest idea so far, but I guess you were still smarting so badly that you had to return long enough to deliver some poorly rendered sarcasm! It's not easy being a chauvinistic bigot and being called on it, but why not just suck it up?

Objectification of women and denigration of women in relation to real or perceived promiscuity are two entirely different issues, though both are usually adverse to the interest of women in our society. I'm opposed to objectification of women in most societal venues, including businesses and universities, because it negatively impacts opportunity and comfort level for women, as they go about their business in our world. Strip clubs, however, are in the business of glorifying women as sex objects. Anyone entering a strip club, either as an employee or patron, understands that objectification of women is the primary reason the clubs exist. Patrons are invited to ogle and render judgments and dancers participate directly in the process when they ask, "Wanna dance?" So do D.J.'s when they refer to dancers as pussies. Many dancers are what I would call narcissistic self-objectifiers. I discovered that one evening by sitting directly in front of the mirror closest to center stage at Platinum Plus in Portland. I could readily see how much of the time dancers spend looking at their selves not only immediately before their set would begin but even while performing on stage. Clearly, objectification gets a pass at strip clubs (as well as in soft and hard core porn and many fashion magazines), in the same manner that sex-and-violence gets a pass when couples engage in consensual S-and-M activities. The key is that all of the participants effectively chose a situation in which it is understood that their will be an exception to the usual standards of "correct" behavior.

Is denigration of women in relation to promiscuity or soft limits also entitled to a pass in strip clubs? Actually, one might reasonably expect that places like strip clubs ought to be places with higher than typical tolerance for paid sexual activities, since their primary business is sexual fantasies and services. There is no presumption when one enters a strip club that one is going to be MORE than typically castigated for sexual activities, either as a patron or a performer. Since this message board is effectively an extension of the strip club environment, the same reasoning in relation to objectification vs. denigration ought to apply here. One might expect denigration to get a pass, hwoever, when spouted from a pulpit on Sunday morning.

I've heard lots of strippers refer, casually but in a friendly way, to one another has "you fucking whore!" Kind of like African-Americans using "nigger" about each other. *I* wouldn't be free to use either term, but evidently the rules are different for *THEM*.

The use of the word "whore" reminds me of an experience I had at my favorite club with a young dancer who possesses a splendid body, but is lacking in the personality department (known to some of the denizens of this board). On a very slow night, she had camped at my table, but was called to the stage. As she was walking toward the stage, she said to me, "Don't let any of these prostitutes come and sit with you while I am on stage." Under the circumstances, I thought that "prostitute" was an almost comically funny word to use.

Driver: How can Doc possibly be expected to exchange viewpoints with you if you ALTER THE WORDING of scenarios when you repeat them? First, you mention a DJ, then it's "a man with a microphone". This could be any man making the exact same "pussy" statement - a rapper, a politician, an auctioneer. First, Chitown describes a dancer differentiating herself from another she says is engaged in prostitution, then you say she calls her a "whore". How did that word get into the discussion? You know, aside from when Doc objected to it using DIFFERENT WORDING? Really, is such false representation worth it just so you can say wow? After all the typing we've done, this is SO disappointing.

I guess it's diferent strokes for different folks. I've been seeing an escort recently who also dances. I asked her which she prefered since, in her circumstances, the money is about the same. She told me she prefers escorting because both parties know exactly why they are there. Strip clubs are a game. Dancers want you to think they might go home with you but most of them never will.

LOL @ Doc's expostulation on feminine parts ... :)

I've forgotten why I'm supposed to care, but check the topic question, Doc. We're all supposedly debating a difference of kind, or merely degree. "Merely degree" or "shade" are interchangeable enough IN CONTRAST TO A DIFFERENCE OF KIND. The words are synonyms, for crying out loud. You can't seriously be claiming that your whole point hinges on such semantic hair splitting.

Okay, your second point: There are always transactional elements at work? These being looks, personality - apparently anything appealing about a person. Somehow these are akin to a cash payment? You've got to be joking. Like I said, this is an analytical sounding term in search of a concept. Since anything can be this critter, it describes nothing. "Yeah, I paid her to have sex with me. But what I did is only a degree different from a guy who gets laid using his chosen transactional elements, like his full set of teeth and his friendliness."

Sorry, Doc. If these are the kinds of arguments you're going to fall back on, I think I'll find some other way to waste my time from here on.

For AbbieNormal:

Tits are fun to look at, especially when bared and nicely accentuated by streaming colored lights and strobe effects. It also doesn't hurt if they're bouncing up and down just a bit. Sag, however, is a non-plus. I find the moment when a dancer first removes her top on stage to reveal her tits especially enticing. I always prefer to see an even number of tits over the course of an evening at a strip club, rather than an odd number. Fondling also works better when the number of available tits is even, except, of course, for those gentlemen who have an odd number of hands.

Tits come in many sizes. The designations for the first four cup sizes for bras are the standard A through D, but there seems to be two different methods in use for designating cup sizes larger than D, as best as I can figure out from my non-expert perspective. The next two sizes are sometimes called E and F and sometimes DD and DDD, I believe. Anyone who happens to have a grip on large breasts should feel free to clarify the issue, when they find they have a moment to spare.

My personal taste in tits runs from about B to D. I've never been able to decide if I prefer mid-sized breasts or small breasts, but I prefer either of those to breasts larger than D. I have noted, however, that some strip club patrons have tastes in tits that differ markedly from my own. I once saw a dancer with saggy A-cup breasts, which I had previously assumed to be impossible. It wasn't pretty! Then, of course, there are the issues of areola size and degree of nipple protrusion. Symmetry is clearly a plus from a purely aesthetic point of view. It is also desirable for the tit size to more or less correspond with the torso type (i.e., smallish tits for thin framed women and medium tits for more curvaceous women). Nowadays, for better or for worse, there's also the issue of enhancement, which, for me personally, is a turnoff when it comes time to fondle the breasts, though I do have to admit that enhanced breasts sometimes look good from a distance.

I once had a dancer tell me that I was touching her nipples with exactly the right degree of pressure. That comment provided me with a little extra jolt of satisfaction because it's always nice to feel, for even a moment, that you might have broken through the boredom and routine that the dancer must inevitably experience from the repetition of it all, to excite her just a smidgen. These dancers are pretty clever, however, and it could well be that she tossed out a random complement simply to play to my male vanity.

The choice between tits, pussy, and ass is a tough one. Fortunately, most ladies have all three.

Driver01: "So let me see if I understand you-- A man with a microphone referring to women with the statement "we've got the finest pussy in town" does NOT advance societal prejudices of women as nothing more than sex objects but a dancer telling you in a private conversation that another dancer will blow you in the vip for $100 and calls her a whore IS advancing societal prejudices??? Wow!"

I'm curious as to why you introduce your point with "Let me see if I understand you" and then proceed to compare two scenarios that have not previously been part of the discussion, implying that this contrast represents my point of view. If you are interested in what I think about the two scenarios, you could simply ask, but as you've approached the issue, you've simply made up something to represent falsely as my viewpoint so you can then say "Wow!! And all this time I thought you were actually interested in an exchange of viewpoints.

Doc-"I don't object to the word "whore" on grounds of either crassness or frankness. I only raised the issue of use of pejorative words to inflict pain and to advance/enforce societal prejudices."

So let me see if I understand you-- A man with a microphone referring to women with the statement "we've got the finest pussy in town" does NOT advance societal prejudices of women as nothing more than sex objects but a dancer telling you in a private conversation that another dancer will blow you in the vip for $100 and calls her a whore IS advancing societal prejudices??? Wow!

This sucks. I spend far too much time reading scolarly peer reviewed journals as is. I wanna talk about tits. I like tits. Write a few paragraphs on that.

Just last week I had a similar experience. I had been seeing this dancer once a week for about a month. By the last visit her comfort level with me was relaxed and we played hide the finger and I received a lot of very expressive stick shifting. Thinking the time was right (and I dont ask often but am usually right on target when I do ask), I asked if she would ever see a customer OTC. I got a quick "never." I quickly added, "good for you, I just had to ask" her response was "no problem." Thinking she might have a BF or GF or something....dunno. She did later refer to the vip as "business" so she has a clue.

Some famous wit once said something to the effect, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member." For many men, that statement could be reworked to describe their dilemma in relation to sex partners: "I wouldn't want to make love with any woman who would be willing to make love to me for free." Janis Joplin weighed in on the issue as well when she recorded lyrics along the line of "Why is it that half the world is cryin' while the other half of the world is cryin' too." There are many lonely and/or sex-starved or companionship-starved people of both genders and at first glance it would seem simple to match the two groups up. The problem is that most people (possibly men more than women) have standards of physical attractiveness for their sex partners that cannot reasonably be met without resorting to payment. Most men will take little comfort from the thought that there might be plenty of unappealing women they might find who would make love with them for nothing. Now, I suppose one could argue that the reasonable answer to the problem would be for men (and women) to work on acquiring more realistic standards for their potential partners. Many men, however, will prefer another option (largely unavailable to sex-starved women) -- purchasing sexual or pseudo-sexual interactions with women who meet their standards of appeal (physical or otherwise). The main reason that the sex industry exists is because there aren't enough gorgeous, personable young women to go around for all the men who would like to be matched with one.

Well, Driver01, I think we're really arguing two entirely different points. I agree with you that (a) this message board is not polite society and there is no reason it should be; and (b) a strip club dressing room is not polite society either, nor should it be. I don't know where you got the idea that I might object to the word "pussy." I am not concerned with the crassness of language. I don't object to the word "whore" on grounds of either crassness or frankness. I only raised the issue of use of pejorative words to inflict pain and to advance/enforce societal prejudices. In a book about strip clubs that I recently read, the author relates an altercation that began in a strip club dressing room with one stripper calling another a whore. The event then escalated through a series of loaded appelations into a fight, which had to be broken up by the bouncer and a female club matron of some kind. A dancer could certainly say to another, "You're almost as much of a whore as I am," and it would be understood as a joke in relation to something being said in the conversation. A dancer who says, "Well, I'm certainly not a whore like you" is usually going to find that the recipient of the comment takes offense, one way or another, regardless of whether it escalates into physical confrontation.

Driver01: "I hope you also observe that they usually get the same pass when using that same language to describe others whilst in their sphere of influence. Dancers calling other dancers "whores" comes to mind..."

Doc- "When a dancer describes another dancer as a "whore" for the purpose of differentiating and distancing herself from that dancer's choices, I don't believe that the dancer either deserves or receives a "pass" on the use of the derogatory term"

Well, Doc maybe we live on two different planets. Perhaps you can enlighten me on exactly how a dancer does NOT get a pass when referring to a fellow dancer as a "whore" while in her sphere of influence(meaning with other dancers or within the confines of her club). This type of language is so common amongst dancers that I am amazed that you would suggest otherwise.

Additionally, there are a myriad of other words and phrases that are commonly spoken and acceptable inside the confines of a stripper's domain that are clearly unacceptable outside of it or within Fondl's so-called "polite company." We hear DJ's using the word PUSSY so often in clubs down here that the word has lost it's shock value. The girls do the mandatory all call to the stage and parade around preparing to offer the top of the hour special, a 3 for $50 in the VIP- the DJ is offering his encouragement to the crowd saying things like "we've got the finest pussy in town" or "come on guys, check out the pussy we've got lined up on stage." I have yet to hear anyone let alone a dancer raise an objection to this "demeaning and derogatory" terminology. In fact, most dancer's play to it. It's all about the $$$. Come on Doc, propriety has pretty much been thrown out the window inside a strip club. How many times have you or anyone else for that matter objected to that sort of language routinely used in the clubs. Even if YOU are uncomfortable hearing words like pussy or whore or fucken ey or whatever, inside a strip club they ROUTINELY GET A PASS for what in other places would be inappropriate.


BTW, I dusted off my Bible and found the word "whore" is used almost 100 times in both the old and new testament. Shakespeare used the word 75 times in his works.

I still maintain, an anonymous stripper message board does not qualify as "polite society." The language here is more in line with what one would hear inside of a club not what you'd hear in church-unless God is talking in which case WHORE is OK. I'm not gonna argue with the almighty--LOL.

Hi Bookguy. You said,

"we all agree that we're exchanging money for sexual services. Anyone who denies that . . . is in self-denial."

I agree. Then you added:

"Some people (myself included) hope (probably vainly) to create a human relation between HIMself and another human, one who happens to be a HERself, that DOES NOT involve the exchange of money."

You are right that the paid relationship can never be the same as an unpaid relationship. That does not mean, however, that the paid relationship is devoid of authenticity or devoid of genuine feelings. I am a paid professional of another kind -- a teacher. If my University stopped paying me (what are indirect payments from the students), I would stop teaching just as the dancer would no longer dance for me without payment. Nevertheless, as long as I am in the classroom or meeting with students for extra help, I experience a genuine concern for their learning opportunity. I sometimes come to care about especially those students with whom I have enough contact to differentiate from the general mass of students. The same point could be made about most any good professional who takes pride in his or her work. I believe that many of the dancers are professionals in the same positive sense. Many genuinely want to please their patrons (both to make more money and to feel competent), especially the ones who show appreciate verbally or by tipping generously. It is part of human nature to want to be a competent and caring professional. It is human nature to appreciate being appreciated. I have noted that the quality of the dances I receive from a dancer I return to regularly increases over time as the dancer becomes more aware of my preferences and more "devoted" to pleasing me. That is a kind of "caring" -- albeit based on being a good professional rather than a friend or lover.

My point is that while it is a self-deceit to believe that the dancer cares about you in the way that she cares about her friends, family, or lover, it is also false to declare that the relationship between a dancer and a strip club patron is devoid of any genuine sentiment.

"You wrote that it's all relative, implying that the difference is one merely of degree, or shade - take your pick."

Sorry, but "degree" and "shade" are not interchangeable. Whereas "shade" [your term] implies only a subtle difference, "degree" [also your term, not mine] is entirely open-ended as to the breadth of the difference. You introduced the term shade, giving what I said your own particular spin, and then vehemently disagreed basically with your own form of what I had said.

"Your attitude seems to be predicated on the belief that women don't enjoy sex, and therefore never agree to it without receiving something in exchange, be it money, drugs, an expensive dinner or the promise of marriage."

I don't know who you may have been addressing in the earlier thread, but I make no such assumption and know the contrary to be the case from my own experience. Women don't always or even typically have to be paid for sex, but even then there are transactional elements at work. Beautiful and personable women are most likely to choose handsome and peronable guys or, at least, a guy with a comparable level of marketable qualities of one type or anther. If a person (male or female) wishes to interact sexually or pseudo-sexually [as in a strip club] with another person of the opposite or same sex who is far hotter, nicer, or interesting than they could reasonably have access to on a purely non-monetary basis, one option for that person is to add a quantity of money into the conditions of the transaction. In short, I pay lovely, young dancers to dance for me so as to enjoy an interaction that would be unavailable to me at that particular level of quality in any other equally convenient way.

Book Guy & FONDL: You both bring intriguing new perspectives to all this. Although it's true that prostitution comes in a lot more forms now than it used to, I still agree with AN that it's usually clear cut and the existence of ambiguous cases does not remove the distinction.

Yoda: Sorry if I seemed to be speculating about the women you deal with. I guess I'm talking more about strippers in the position Chitown described, trying to understand why she would make such a big deal out of the difference between rubbing a guy's dick through the pants in the VIP, and meeting in a motel room so the guy can lay some pipe, as AN so colorfully put it. A woman who has crossed that threshhold has to habituate her thinking to it in order to cope.

The stripper who vows she could never do it sees that as a very big deal. When she differentiates herself from the woman who fucks in motels, maybe the harshness of her judgment says more about how close she has come to it, and how much she doesn't want to be the type who makes a small deal out of it. Maybe she's already ashamed at how easily she plays down her disgust with rubbing guys' dicks. The point is, there's a lot more to it than scales of mileage and terminology.

I think this discussion could benefit from a little historical prespective. Many years ago there were only 2 ways a guy could get laid, either with his wife or by going to the local whore house, and there was generally one in every town. And the girls who worked in them were commonly called whores. There were no grey areas, it was very black and white. You either engaged in prostitution or marriage.

Then along came the 1960's and all the old rules about sex went out the window. Suddenly sex was everywhere and all kinds of new arrangements became common. Things were no longer black and white, it was practically all grey. And that's still the case today.

Terms like "prostitution" and "whore" have largely become obsolete, they don't fit today's world very well. Today the word "whore" is used almost exclusively as a slur, it no longer has any other meaning. And arguing what is or isn't prostitution is a waste of time, almost nothing sexual clearly is or isn't anymore, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

"Prostitution" is commonly defined as "sex given in exchange for something of value." Are there any two of us here who can agree what is meant by "sex" or "in exchange for" or "something of value" in this context? I doubt it. The term no longer has any meaning.

I personally think the biggest issue raised here is the one we're all dancing around. Most folks on the thread are suggesting that interactions require essential dignity, but they express it in different terms. One side wants frank terminology and attitude, in order to avoid the perception of hypocrisy and avoidance that less direct discourse might bring; another wants mediated terminology and attitude, in order to avoid the perception of harshness and disrespect that more direct discourse might bring.

But we all agree that we're exchanging money for sexual services. Anyone who denies that, while also attending a club and paying money for a human female to get naked and perhaps use her bodily portions and movements to stimulate male eyes or nerves or other parts in any way, is in self-denial. Some people (myself included) hope (probably vainly) to create a human relation between HIMself and another human, one who happens to be a HERself, that DOES NOT involve the exchange of money.

What's at the core of this, is the male-to-female relation. There's perceptions of imbalances, of one thing exchanged for another, of money having the power to "make" women do things, or of female sexuality having the power to "make" men do things.

The problem, at its root, is simply, the act of "making" other people do things. That's where it's all at, at least for me. Power. Which I lack. :( At least, that's how it feels, from the inside of MY behaviors. I "need" a woman to do certain things. Her sexuality "makes" me do things for her. She takes my money because, as I feel it, I "have to" give it to her for what I'm getting from her. If only I could get from her what I want, without "having to" also give her money, then I'd feel like I DID have power. Not so much, over HER, as over MY OWN SEXUAL DRIVES. Over myself.

So, this discussion of whether we should, or should not, use certain words, have certain responsibilities, behave in certain ways, hides a deeper issue, for me. Whether I should resist or not. Whether I CAN. Whether money is a just exchange for self-awareness and power over what I do and do not want for my own life.

Chandler: I uderstand your points but I'm honestly not in the habit of trying to talk anyone into anything they don't want to do. I've never asked a dancer for sex. When it has happened it has been offered willingly. I understand that there are women who feel trapped in the sex industry in general-whatever their participation level may be. I tend not to be drawn to women like that-no matter how good they look. A strong woman is a strong woman no matter what she is doing for money. I don't seem to have any trouble finding the ones who are handling the situation well. No, it doesn't mean they love their job but they know how to do it and keep a clear head.

Doc: You wrote that it's all relative, implying that the difference is one merely of degree, or shade - take your pick. Regardless, your transaction theory sounds all very studious and analytical. Sorry, I don't buy it. Your premise is false. Rather than take the time to refute it, I'll just lift from what I wrote in response to a similar argument in the 'OTC Opinions' thread:

"Your attitude seems to be predicated on the belief that women don't enjoy sex, and therefore never agree to it without receiving something in exchange, be it money, drugs, an expensive dinner or the promise of marriage. [...] Sex is something of value that women withhold from men, so anytime a man and a woman get together and have sex, anything of value that the man provides during the course of the night - drinks, dinner, movie tickets, gas for the car - must be viewed as payment in exchange for the sex she gives up, no different from handing over cash to a hooker. [...]

"The problem with this attitude is that a lot of women enjoy sex, believe it or not, including casual, meaningless sex. It's something a man and a women can both do willingly, purely for pleasure. To insist that there must be something else the woman gets in return is wrong, and pretty warped, in my opinion. It's like saying that anything else a couple does together can't possibly be done purely for mutual enjoyment, but must be entered into the ledger as to some degree a debit for one partner and a credit for the other. True perhaps of a hooker and her john, but their relationship, I humbly submit, is not simply a matter of playing different hand in the same game of cards."

Chandler: "I also think the line about buying your date's dinner being somehow only a shade different from paying to fuck a whore is bullshit. We've been through that before here, and the claim is bound to be repeated. Doesn't make it any less bullshit."

I never contended that money-for-sex relationships are only "a shade different" than dating or marriage relationships. I argued that there are transactions implicit in every kind of relationship, which is true, regardless of whether the transactions are buffered by the presence of long-term bonds. All relationships are transactional in nature, which is not to say that all relationships are equally explicit or straightforward in how the transactional elements of the relationship are handled. Money-for-sex relationships are an especially straightforward kind of transaction (as are most kinds of sales relationships) in which feelings and caring are generally not a significant element in the relationship. Friendships, romances, and marriages involve bonds between the participants that support transactions that are a good deal more nuanced and less subject to specific inventory. The participants act toward one another to a significant extent motivated by the accumulated bonds rather than mainly on a specific quid pro quo basis, but the development of the bonds, in the first place, was partly based on a history of successful transactions. There are both commonalities and differences between money-for-sex relationships and more complex relationships that involve bonds of friendship, love, or caring. The similarities are no more "bullshit" than are the differences. Dating relationships gradually become increasingly less like money-for-sex relationships as they develop a history.

Chandler: "I think many on this thread aren't making a bid enough deal of the difference between intercourse and less violative forms of sex, and the consequences of that for a stripper."

One can certainly fruitfully differentiate the characteristics of various kinds of sex acts (vaginal intercourse, anal intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, fingering, hand jobs, etc.). One point of distinction might be how "violative" each sex act is. The issue of penetration, for example, is often relevant in court cases involving sex crimes, as a basis for differentiating rape from the more general concept of sexual assault. Vaginal intercourse involves penetration, but so too do anal intercourse, fellatio, and fingering, and, sometimes, analingus or cunnilingus. I don't see a sense in which vaginal intercourse is necessarily more "violative" than anal intercourse or fellatio. Society is perhaps more urgently served by differentiating various sex acts on the basis of likelihood of propagating STDs or resulting in unintended pregnancy, but that's another issue altogether. Using one or another specific sex act as a threshold for applying denigrating terms to a woman is ludicrous, however. The issue of monetary payment for a sex act is a fairly definitive criterion for defining prostitution, but the relationship between which acts were performed and terms such as "whore" or "prostitute" is certainly unclear, as the posts in this thread make abundantly clear. In any case there is a big difference in the effect of saying that a particular woman engaged in an act of prostitution versus attaching the label "prostitute" or "whore" to that woman.

Driver01: "I hope you also observe that they usually get the same pass when using that same language to describe others whilst in their sphere of influence. Dancers calling other dancers "whores" comes to mind..."

When a dancer describes another dancer as a "whore" for the purpose of differentiating and distancing herself from that dancer's choices, I don't believe that the dancer either deserves or receives a "pass" on the use of the derogatory term. To describe others AND oneself using a derogatory term is one thing; to describe others using the term to distinguish them from yourself is entirely different. In fact, there is ample evidence on the message boards for various clubs that tension between dancers most often has to do with the intolerance that some dancers have toward others who have more liberal limits.

Yoda: I would expect that they couldn't make a big deal out or they wouldn't be able to get through their day. However, I think many on this thread aren't making a bid enough deal of the difference between intercourse and less violative forms of sex, and the consequences of that for a stripper.

You know, for somebody who is so vigilant about negative terms he finds dismissive of women in the sex trade, Doc is awfully quick to dismiss me as a "mysogynistic hypocrite" and a "self-righteous bigot", because of the way I take exception to my date being compared to a prostitute's trick. But that's okay. I can live with it, just like I'm sure strippers and prostitutes can fend for themselves without Doc coming to the rescue.

I am a little surprised to see that "stripper" finds a place in Doc's delicate vocabulary, since that word is often frowned upon for its negative connotations. In my opinion, however, it's not the connotations of these terms that society views as negative - it's the behavior they describe. Changing the words won't change that.

And, please, enough with the racial comparisons. The only place that has in this discussion is to illustrate what kind of a slur "whore" is NOT. Anything else is just self-serving, and pretty fucked up.

Chandler: I'm quite sure that they are out there but that wasn't really the point of my statement.

Fondl- "As we've discussed ad naseum before, there are a lot of nouns that are considered pejorative and not used in polite company..."

Exactly right! I guess it boils down to whether an anonymous stripper website message board is considered polite company. Is it? Is it really? I mean it is a STRIPPER WEBSITE! How many conversations do you have in "polite company" discussing even one-tenth of the subjects written about here on a daily basis. For most, the answer is obviously very few to none.

Doc, you said it best when talking about how various groups get a pass when they use perceived derogatory language to describe themselves. I hope you also observe that they usually get the same pass when using that same language to describe others whilst in their sphere of influence. Dancers calling other dancers "whores" comes to mind...

My point, I guess, is merely that we are not in "polite company" here. We are in our own tribe talking as men who enjoy strip clubs, strippers and PUSSY (hope I didn't offend anyone- don't use that word in "polite company, by the way-lol)

Good point, Driver01. I agree that one should anticipate that a message board of this kind would have a politically incorrect edge to its language and ideas. Part of the reason that I am participating on this board is precisely because I expect to find people here who have positive views about strip clubs and strippers, which right away distinguishes the company here from the general population of up-tight prudes. I say, "Three cheers to men who openly acknowledge that they enjoy the company of beautiful young women in scanty apparel." It is also not my intent to inhibit anyone's choice of words or free expression of their ideas. Certainly Chandler and others have expressed their views intelligently and clearly. I am merely countering with my own ideas. Generally speaking, however, I would expect that the way in which "politically incorrect" viewpoints would manifest on a board devoted to strip clubs would be in the direction of being supportive and appreciative of strippers and liberal contact limits among strippers rather than contributing to society's negative stereotypes about such activities by the recycling of its litany of pejorative concepts and terms.

When a person uses a derogatory word to describe themself, we all understand that much of the word's negative potential is dissipated. A heavy person can refer to himself as a "fatty" and we all laugh. The same point applies to an extent when a person uses a loaded racial slur in relation to another person in their own racial group. A black person can use the "n word" for another black person in a non-inflammatory way That in no way alters the fact that the same word carries a strong negative emotional load when used by someone outside the group to which the word is typically applied. I agree that it is merely cute and in no way harmful when a gal says to her lover, "I want to be your whore tonight," but that in no way alters the significance or effect of men putting down strippers or other sex-industry workers by dismissing them as whores.

Yoda: You must not be hearing from the ones who consider it a job from hell.

I like it when I tell a girl I wanna take her to bed, and she tells me, "I wanna be your whore tonight." Maybe I should act indignant and scold her for using a slur?

In their literal definitions prostitute, escort and whore all mean the same thing. It's not important what you call a woman, it's what she answers to that matters. Having spent a lot of time with women who accept money for sex over a number of years one thing is evident. We make a much bigger deal out of it than they do. It's just a job

Driver, I could agree with you if the word "whore" didn't have very negative connotations beyond it's strict meaning, but unfortunately it does. As we've discussed ad naseum before, there are a lot of nouns that are considered pejorative and not used in polite company, even though their usage would be correct according to the dictionary. If we aren't going to include "whore" on that list, I don't see much point in us observing such a list at all. We're the guys who are supposed to like strippers. Calling them degrading names accomplishes nothing other than to perpetuate a negative stereotype.

Well put, driver.

It was obvious that I used "whore" as a synonym for prostitute in its most narrow, specific meaning. Yeah, I know it's not neutral. It's a strong word. That's why I chose it. Prostitution is extreme behavior. Doc's claim that it's "all relative", like buying dinner on a date, I repeat is bullshit. Having intercourse for payment is not something a woman enters into lightly. When she honestly confesses what she does for a living, she doesn't say, "I am a complex human being, a lovely, congenial young woman who...". She says, "I am a whore."

It's is a slur when it's applied to a woman because she's a woman, or because she is promiscuous. When it's used because of the behavior of prostitution, to compare "whore" to racial slurs is ludicrous. When it's called for, I'll continue to call a whore a whore.

Doc says-- "I personally wouldn't dismiss any woman as a "whore" anymore than I'd routinely refer to some person as a "masturbator." Most people have masturbated at one time or another but it would be abusive to label a person such, based on one activity in which they engage."

Excuse me for pointing out the obvious, but let's look at this a little more. We're on a stripper message board- just a bunch of guys shooting the shit, so to speak. Where else is a more appropriate forum for politically incorrect commentary?? And, as I am sure you will concede, sometimes politically incorrect speech can be right on the money in it's analysis. A spade is a spade not a diamond, heart or club.

Secondly, the word whore is a noun that by definition means "a woman who practices promiscuous sexual activity for hire". Context is relevant here- Doc, if you drink a coke as part of your daily diet, YOU are a cola drinker. That is an accurate statement when in context. No one would suggest that saying DOC IS A COLA DRINKER captures the full essence of you as a man. Clearly, you are a bit more complex than that. But when determining if a person drinks cola or is a non-cola drinker, it is true that DOC IS A COLA DRINKER. Do you feel like you're being "abused"??

Likewise, using the word "whore" for a man/ woman/dancer/escort is entirely appropriate when in context, as it is here when describing a person who practices the definition of the word. Clearly, a "whore is a much more complex human being than any one word. But it would be disingenuous to suggest that a dancer giving you head in the Vip in return for $$ is not "whoring". Doesn't make her less of a human being, just means that part of her includes whoring.

You seem like a "glass is half full kind of guy"-- which is the kind of guy this world could use more of. Looking for the best in people and treating others with respect are admirable traits worthy of acknowledgement. People are complex beings and no one word or phrase captures them in their entirety. I hope my assumption of you is accurate but it is only an impression based on what you have written. And that is all I know about you. Is it wrong to make such a leap and categorizing you as I did?

Based on what little we know, you are also a "masturbator" and a "John". Welcome to the club-lol:)

Excellent post, Doc. I totally agree but couldn't have said it nearly as well.

Liked your post too, Chandler. LOL.

No rationalization for my activities at strip clubs is required. Obviously, the dancers spend time with me only so long as they are being paid. It is how they make their living. I happily pay them for their time and effort. Their efforts include a variety of interactions that range from flirting and conversation to creating sexual fantasy to outright sexual services. I don't see how I could be any more explicit in acknowledging that I pay dancers for services (including sexual ones) and am delighted to do so. I have no need to deny or rationalize those simple facts. I also have no need to treat dancers as less than complete and worthy human beings simply because they make their living selling a mixture of their personalities, talents, sexual qualities, and sexual contact. Many of the dancers with whom I've interacted I would rank among the finest young people I've ever met and my profession brings me into contact with hundreds every year. I have not observed any consistent correlation between the "limits" of a particular dancer and her other qualities of personality, beauty, talent, or interpersonal sensitivity. I see no basis for applying pejorative terms to women if their limits exceed some arbitrary standard.

It is obvious that the word "whore" is pejorative for most people. It is basically a "gender slur" similar in kind to words that we all recognize as ethnic or racial slurs. The reason that so many dancers invest time and effort in differentiating themselves from other dancers they view as "whores" or "prostitutes" is precisely because these terms carry a great deal of negative weight. To claim that such terms are neutral is disingenuous.

"When you're in a VIP room having fun with an attractive girl, does anyone really care whether someone else consideres it to be prostitution or not?"

I hope someone does, cause if they don't, it probably isn't a very good dance.

When you're in a VIP room having fun with an attractive girl, does anyone really care whether someone else consideres it to be prostitution or not? Have any of you ever stopped in the middle of a good lap dance to ask yourself the question?

Who cares what label someone else wants to put on it. We're each likely to have a different view of where to draw the "prostitution" line, just as each jurisdiction has a different view of where to draw it for legal purposes. As I've said before, it's a term that's impossible to define in any meaningful way. Even if we all could agree on a single dictionary definition, we're still going to disagree on what that definition means. Language is imprecise. Plus it's a cultural thing and our culture is changing rapidly.

Docerotica: I don't consider "whore" a pejorative term (nor "prostitute" nor "fuck") when it is straightforwardly applied, as I have done here in discussing OTC prostitution. It's only as offensive as you allow it to be. It is entirely your choice to read into my language a whole demeaning world of spite towards the strippers in your club. I find your reaction, frankly, rather morbid, but have it your way.

I dislike the word "Whore" but I have definitely met women who fit the description-some inside clubs and some out. Doc, you are doing a fine job of detailing your internal justification for paying women for sex but in reality that IS what you are doing if you pay them and they perform a sex act with you. Don't get me wrong. I pay dancers and escorts for sex all the time and I have no problem with it. We all need our own form of validation I guess.

Within the industry it is not simply a matter of semantics BTW, a whore is not perceived in the same manner as an escort by most customers or most women who engage in prostitution. The perception by people outside of the industry-meaning men and women who don't participate- may be somewhat different of course.

I couldn't care less about whether or not my interactions with dancers meet the legal definition of prostitution. I am delighted to have the opportunity to pay attractive young ladies for their attentions, some of which no doubt qualify as sexual services, in one degree or another. That may be a threshold concern for others but it is not for me.

The issue that I have raised is the basic dignity of human relations and how one views sex-industry workers who provide varying degrees of sexual services. The fact is that semantics are important in dealing with people. We all should understand by now that language can be emotive and is sometimes used for hateful purposes. Often the defense offered by people engaged in demeaning language is "candor" or "frankness."

Were I to follow the guidance provided by some participating on this message board as regards the nature of "whores", the following is how my conversations might proceed with young strip club workers in the future: "Hi Sasha, I'm Doc. I might be interested in a trip to the Champagne Room with you, but before discussing it further, I need to know if you are the complex human being that you appear to be or merely a prostitute or a whore. Apparently, from what I gather from the strip club message board, if you shake your ta-ta's in my face, rub your pussy across my nose and eyes or spread it out for a good look-see, provide me with a hand job or blow job, or let me finger your pussy you are likely a prostitute (from a legal point of view). Worse, if you sometimes allow a customer to slip his willie into your pussy, you have crossed the magic boundary into whoredom. If so, fucking is the essence of what you do and who you are and you no longer could conceivably understand the notion of "intimacy." So, are you the congenial, lovely, and personable young woman that you appear to be or are you a prostitute or,worse, one of Chandler's "whores" – which is to say, something akin to a barnyard animal?"

Speaking for myself I was thinking of how the dancer Chitown mentioned would likely see a big difference between what she did and prostitution OTC. I'd say the vast majority of customers see a great deal of difference between a good grind that achieves release and an hour alone in a hotel room with a dancer. OTC meetings can veer into the areas of ambiguity we've discussed ad nauseum when it isn't out and out prostitution, but I didn't think it was likely that either Chitown or his dancer were thinking along those lines.

Pick one-- a matter of semantics-- parsing of words -- Bill Clintonism-- whatever. It is what it is. If you pay a dancer money and then receive sexual services, legally you have engaged in prostitution.

Many a dancer has been busted and convicted of prostitution in the Tampa area withOUT engaging in "intercourse." The law does not make a distinction between a hand job or blow job or intercourse. One girl here even tried to use the defense that the compensation she received for her services were for the "lap dances" only. Told the judge she charged $25 per song and the undercover paid her $100. She lapped for 4 songs and gave the cop a hand job only because "he seemed like a nice guy, not because he gave her $100." For some strange reason, the judge was not persuaded and she was convicted.

You guys crack me up-- "Your Honor, I DID NOT HAVE SEXUAL RELATIONS WITH THAT WOMAN, THE NAKED DANCER in the VIP." Good luck- that defense may make YOU FEEL better about what you're doing, but you have definetly engaged the services of a prostitute and that makes you a JOHN-- not that there's anything wrong with that--lol.

The women that I interact with work in clubs as dancers. They provide degrees of sexual services that vary from one gal to another and, perhaps, from day to day or customer to customer. I can't say for sure, since my sample is limited. None of them wear T-shirts declaring "I am a whore." I interact with each one of them as a human being working in a strip club who might or might not have limits well-matched to my personal desires. Regardless of what her limits might be, I don't view her as a "whore." It is not the frankness of the language that is at issue; it's the demeaning reduction of a person to a pejorative term.

In talking with dancers who have suggested a trip to the Champage Room, I often say something to the effect that I'd like as much intimacy as she is comfortable sharing, as a prelude to asking the lady about her touch limits. None of the ladies that I've spoken to in that way have any difficulty understanding the concept of "intimacy." The possibility of "fucking" has never been part of the conversations I've had because (a) it's not feasible in most (all but one) of the clubs I frequent, and (b) I would not agree to it even if the dancer suggested it. I can't speak for what is or is not the essence of your relationships with the women you call "whores" but your view of women who provide varying degrees of sexual services bears no relationship whatsoever to my personal experiences.

Book Guy: Because having to resort to such a desperate, unconvincing argument makes the case for prostitution look weak. No argument at all is better than a weak one. Rather than trying to drag down dating and marriage, why not simply declare without apology that prostitution a consensual private transaction that you choose and enjoy, and leave it at that?

I agree that it's absurd, to reduce marriage to mere economic exchange (although there will always be SOME, perhaps small, element of that in ANY human interaction). But I don't see how that reduction serves to make the concept of prostitution more degrading? Could you enlighten me as to the logical path by which you are led to that conclusion? I'm not following.

By the way, to let you know where I'm coming from, I don't actually find prostitution, itself, a degrading institution; but I do admit many ancillaries are quite degrading, generally to the women much more so than the men. I'm not a prosty-basher at all. I'm just not following the reasoning in this case.

To me, one of the institutions that DOES often degrade both participants is TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. This whole "woman can't function without man" is about as idiotic, to me, as the other "sex is better in a committed relationship" and the "make a promise when you're young before you have yourself or your emotions figured out" ideas. I'm lucky to have avoided that pitfall -- though I recall many a time when I bemoaned my outcast state, now I realize I'm at least not hampered with what many men find to be their regular day, and what's EXPECTED of them to have as a regular day.

Dancers who perform sex acts ITC or OTC have their own special set of rules to justify their actions and get through the day - just as married men who buy lap dances and see escorts have THEIR set of rules and justifucations for doing what they do.

I understand that in some cases wether a woman is engaging in prostitution is sort of ambiguous. It usually isn't. It's usually very clear cut. There are the fringe cases, but they don't remove the distinction.

I personally wouldn't dismiss any woman as a "whore" anymore than I'd routinely refer to some person as a "masturbator." Most people have masturbated at one time or another but it would be abusive to label a person such, based on one activity in which they engage. I haven't paid a woman for (full) sex since I was nineteen (more than forty years ago). When I pay a dancer for looking and/or touching (certainly I hope the touching will be sexual in nature), I view her as a young woman sharing her beauty and her intimate being with me in exchange for payment, in order for her to make a living. I don't view the payment to her as license to disparage her with insulting labels. I would have the same view if I were paying her for full sex. The essence of the relationship is what the two individuals make of it. If you choose to reduce paid sexual or semi-sexual relationships to "paying to fuck a whore" then that's probably what you experience, but it bears no meaningful resemblance to any experiences I've had with strip club dancers or other women.

DocErotica: Whatever. I thought paying to fuck a whore is what you were talking about. Does it need to carry that whole trainload of disparagements? It's a businness transaction. You exploit her need for money, and she exploits your desire for sex. I don't see the problem.

DG: I'll bump the thread I had in mind. It was titled 'OTC Opinions' started by AbbieNormal in May. It's long. There have been others. Remember, you asked for it.

I'd like to see that thread.
Anyone got it archived?


DG

...that was re chandler's 'We've been through that before here, and the claim is bound to be repeated. Doesn't make it any less bullshit.'

Thanks,
DG

Yeh, well any guy who buys sexual services from women (from viewing strippers up to full service sex or variants) and then turns around and disparages the woman selling such services is a misogynistic hypocrite, in my opinion. Any woman I pay for such activities gets both my respect and gratitude. If I didn't respect her (for any reason), I wouldn't hire her in the first place. Prostitution that entails exploitation of one party or another is wrong – not because it's prostitution but because it's exploitive. All of the rest of the bullshit about prostitution is just simple-minded, pious moralism. I'll take a "whore" over a self-righteous bigot any day of the week.

AN: I agree completely, only I wasn't sure that was the distinction Chitown's girl was making. What threw me was the bachelor party bit. I've never thought of them as big fornicating events.

I also think the line about buying your date's dinner being somehow only a shade different from paying to fuck a whore is bullshit. We've been through that before here, and the claim is bound to be repeated. Doesn't make it any less bullshit.

God this is ridiculous. We all want to be so sophisticated. Sorry, there is a huge difference between a hard grind on the lap and laying down spread eagled on a motel bed so a guy can lay some pipe to orgasm. Sexual release for the guy is really the only thing they have in common.

As we all know, most every dancer is in it for the money. They don't care what we think. I know, there are exceptions. I've had one myself. If any case, I don't care what the average dancer thinks or why she might think that. As long as she provides what I wish to have, she can call it whatever she wishes.

Outside the club it's prostitution.
Inside the club its 'artistic expression'.

*almost typed that with a straight face*

DG

Great comment DG...lol.

I don't see the distinction myself, except with the exeption of the safety issue. I'm sure there are guys out there who will mind their manners inside the club, but can be psycho when they get inside their hotel room. I sure want to work on getting more experience in these activities so I may better contribute to the discussion.

Chitown: Her way of thinking may best be described by what Freud called the "narcissism of small differences". People tend to view difference of degree between themselves and others as differences of kind in order to condemn others' similar behavior and feel better about their own. Customers do it, too.

magicrat: You want to gain experience with extras and OTCs for the sake of the discussion board? Wow, that's dedication!

Chitown, a difference in degree can make for a difference of kind. Certainly what she did was to supply you with sexual release for money. In that sense there is no difference. Prostitution in the usual understanding of the word means sexual intercourse. Our former president's parsings aside, depending on how she rubbed the associate she may not consider it sex. There is a big difference between showing up at a hotel room, collecting cash, getting naked and allowing you to penetrate her and a vigorous rubbing through the pants. Even outside the pants I wouldn't call it hair splitting.

IMO, terms like "prostitute," "whore," and "slut," are just nasty pejoratives by which society tries to suppress behavior of which it doesn't generally approve. In reality it's all relative. A guy who pays for his date's dinner at a fancy restaurant may be hoping for a payoff at the end of the evening. A gold-digger who marries an aging millionaire has another kind of payoff in mind. Even the most sincerely loving married couple exchanges services and there's sometimes a disparity in earning potential vs. caretaking contributions between the two. One would think that erotic dancers would understand the hurt caused by application of pejorative terms better than most people and would avoid applying them to fellow sex-industry workers who happen to have more liberal limits than their own, but the cultural imperative and the power of the terms are so pervasive that even those who have been damaged by them fall into the habit of damaging others with them, in a vain effort to differentiate themselves from the bad girls. You had a good time and she earned some good money, so my advice is to let it go at that and give her the benefit of not applying any of society's unfriendly terms to what was basically just a mutually beneficial and congenial exchange.

I think dancers think more in terms of social class, than in terms of services for money. If one were invited to go on a long weekend to St. Moritz with a member of the Kennedy family, she would acquiesce no matter the potential extra cash profit. The same girl would reject visiting the local Waffle House and then banging in the back seat of a Crown Vic for $10,000.oo. It's about how she can "perceive herself" as someone who is "going places" and is "selective about people." They work very hard, in their little convolute secretive minds, making sure it isn't about cash for services. That way they can congratulate themselves, and thereby manage to live with the stresses that their profession inevitably applies.

DocErotica: If you proposition a woman (who works as a whore) to "share her intimate being with you", I doubt if you'd get an agreement to have sex, or anything more than a quizzical look. You may not consider paying to fuck the "essense of the relationship", but I'm afraid that's what distinguishes it. Sorry you're so offended by frank language.

You're the one who chose to reduce relationships to sex for compensation when you described dating and marriage as that. In my humble opinion, the absurdity of that rationalization only serves to make prostitution appear more dishonorable, not less.

I agree with Yoda. What appear to be very small differences to someone else can be crucial to the person involved. I also think that what someone says and what they actually do is often quite different at times. Few people are consistent. Life is messy.