Do you pity tip?

Chandler, I agree it's still a pity tip in a dive, but that doesn't bother me nearly as much because I'm not paying the high prices that the fancier places charge and I expect to see fuglies in a dive. In fact I know dives where they're practically all fuglies. But that's different, customers don't go there to watch the dancers, they go to get HJs and BJs.

I would still consider it a pity tip at a dive. I don't do it unless they come around on a tip walk, which is often the case at the dives I go to. I don't think there's much doubt that more fuglies are allowed to strip in all kinds of clubs now that they rely on charging high stage fees for much of their intake. It puts us costomers in an awkward position between the fuglies and the club's expectation that they extract their fee from us.

I wasn't thinking about the tip walk in my original question, I do tip them all for that because as others have said it's sort of mandatory. I'd also like to add that there's nothing new about fuglies in strip clubs, they've always been there especiually in the dives, but maybe they have become more common in the more upscale places. So I expect to see them in dives and I do usually give them a buck for their efforts. My question was really directed at the more upscale clubs where I interpret the high prices to mean a high level of entertainment - that's where I find the fuglies to be offensive.

And to add to the political debate, I think that all politicians irrespective of their philosophical bent try to impose their views on others, that's why they ran for office, that's what government does. And that's why government keeps growing regardless of which party is in power - as I've said before I think that's the fatal flaw of democracy. And when praising FDR please don't forget that he expanded and stacked the Supreme Court so that they would allow his unconstitutional programs like Social Security to stand. Can you imagine if the Republicans tried to do that today? And I happen to like Paul Johnson, I think his writing is very good. And I think all historians include some fiction and a point of view in their works. They have no choice, they weren't there.

"I would also venture a guess that you may not have much interest in the conservative perspective or philosophy, in which case" [SNIP]

AN: You're right about one thing. I don't have much interest in that on this board. I'm interested in strip clubs and strippers. I regret ever posting a comment on some writer of historical polemics.

As usual, I'll forego responding to your other speculations about what I must believe.

Huge, the point is that all the administrations saw the solution to a crisis they perceived to be real (the depression, fascism, poverty, racial discrimination, environmental degredation, islamic terrorism) as a more powerful central government. You can argue about how real those threats were, I'd say the depression and poverty (Johnson's great society) didn't warrant as much power as they achieved, and I'd guess you'd disagree, but that's the nature of politics.

It'd be kind of hard to get Social Security without there being some sort of a federal registry to know who to send the $$$ to. As for centralisation of power in Washington as opposed to LBJ and Bush for the last four years of the Roosevelt admin (well 3.5) we were in a state of World War in which it was feared that a scourge of fascism or National Socialism would overtake the land or world. As opposed to future voluntary exercises which seemingly had only one or two raison d'etre.

hugevladfan "I am not sure why you would lump FDR into the same sentence as this current administration and even Johnson."

Because they all saw a need for and worked toward a greater centralization of power in Washington, or the executive in particular.
Those three administrations have seen more growth in and centralization of power than any others. I might also add Nixon.

Think about this fact. Before FDR the federal government had no direct record of the existence of the vast majority of US citizens. Now you are required by federal law to register with the federal government within two weeks of birth for a federal identification number you will have for life. Now try to think of what the federal government doesn't know about everyone. They know everyones age, sex, income, address, marital status, number of children, and net worth just to limit it to the IRS.

As for Bush being a liberal... perhaps not, but he's certainly not much of a conservative.

At the risk of getting back on topic I do tip on the tip walk if the tip walk is a common feature of the club, but I wouldn't consider that a pity tip since all the girls get that tip.

I also find it absolutely astounding that management allows some of the girls I've seen onstage to go onstage and get naked. Since they won't do their job (the manegment), I now make it a point to do my part to see that the market does its job.

Chandler, I'm not offended, just confused and a little dissapointed. I was very clear that Johnson had a definite political outlook in my recomendation, yet you seem to take it as a personal affront verging on fraud that he writes history books where he voices his opinions or viewpoint on the personalities and events. Johnson is by no means unique among historians.

Ever read Howard Zinn? Johnson's "A History of the American People" was a direct response to Zinn's "A Poeple's History of the United States". There are a slew of leftist historians pushing one interpretation or another to suit their personal and political biases all presenting themselves as scollars. Why Johnson in particular bothers you, I can only assume, is because you find his "partisan rants" and other opinions objectionable despite your claim to be neutral on the nature of his opinions. Johnson has a perspective, but to dismiss him as "A Tedious Crank Who Knows a Few Things" who writes "partisan rants in favor of his prejudices", seems to me to be an attempt to dismiss or delegitimize his opinions rather than to offer your opinion. I read Zinn's "Peoples History" and enjoyed it even though I didn't agree with much in it. If however someone asked me what books offered a liberal critique on the "accepted" history of the US, I'd certainly recomend Zinn. Zinn's work is widely and properly recognized as a legitimate piece of historical scolarship, as is much of Johnson's work. Having an opinion and expressing it does not negate scolarship.

I'm sorry you didn't enjoy what you've read of Johnson, but he didn't write to offend you any more than I meant to offend your sense of neutral scolarship when I recomended him as a conservative perspective for a curious reader.

I would also venture a guess that you may not have much interest in the conservative perspective or philosophy, in which case your opinion on who is worth reading or recomending to those who want to understand it would not be entirely constructive.

I am not sure why you would lump FDR into the same sentence as this current administration and even Johnson. Of course if you're trying to paint Bush as a liberal, all I can say is nice try since liberals you know have feelings and all.

Sadly I have even gotten pity dances and pity shots for dancers. The pity dance was the worst as the girl was about 6'3 and huge. It was her first night at Cheetahs and I was her first dance. Somewhat non-surprisingly I haven't seen her since, tho it may have been Thursday or Friday when I saw her and there are totally different shifts m-wed and thu-sat.

I think all this political crossfire trivializes the important question of whether or not to give a buck to a fat chick.

AN: That was far from a partisan rant, if you were referring to my initial question.

The current administration is no more conservative than Ted Kennedy. It is an expansionistic group that tries to buy political support with other people's money as much as FDR and LBJ ever did.

So if a central authority is one a conservative Republican would eschew because it doesn't fit into their governing philosophy how does one equate the government we currently have to the Republican mantel (please accept my apology if you have disavowed this leadership, which is anything but "conservative" as you describe it.

The last thing I as a liberal want to do is impose my moral beliefs upon anybody. If two guys want to get married and consummate their relationship in the privacy of their own abode than it isn't a govt's authority to prohibit two consenting adults who want to share their lives together. If a woman decides that her four week old fetus would be better off not entering this world than it's her right to make that decision for herself. I don't want to or need to know what she's doing with her body. Should the gov't have a right to restrict people from getting a tattoo if there is someone out there that may find said tattoo offensive?

AN: Now they have your opinion and mine (which is probably more than they care for by two). Sorry if that's a personal issue for you.

Chandler, Thanks for protecting the unwary from my opinion that Paul Johnson is worth a read if you're looking for a critique of liberalism and want to learn some background on the modern conservative movement. I can't imagine what I was thinking.

AN: Not unique, but he's got a slew of books to his name, all misleadingly presentated as informative general history. I bet he angers others like me who don't appreciate being taken for $15 and a couple hours out of my life. I don't give a fuck what political axe he's out to grind. I want to warn anybody seeing him recommended that Paul Johnson does not deliver what he appears to promise. That's all.

Greedy managers are to blame for the problem, of course. They used to fulfill their function of screening out fuglies and sending them on their way to seek real work. Now that clubs accept stage fees from anyone with a Y chromosome, it has fallen to customers to break the news to these eyesores, by voting with our dollars, that the easy money of stripping is simply not in the cards for everyone.

Chitown describes one situation where I will tip a fuglie, in a club where a tip walk is routine, and I have other reasons for staying around. However, it's not a pity tip. Perhaps it's enlightened self-interest or enlightened self-prevervation.

I go to a club (to which Chandler introduced me) which is characterized by its extreme lack of pretension. It is definitely not the "gentlemen's club" type of place. It is common for dancers to canvass the crowd at the end of their sets for tips of a single dollar. There is no refuge from this appeal, as they approach, from what I can see, every man in the house--those that had been sitting at their stage, obviously, but also those who were seated at the other stages, those seated at tables on the main floor,and those who sat at the bar gossiping with the bartender (for all I know, those men who drove close by the club, during the dancer's set, without actually getting out of their cars). I have always given the obligatory dollar. In those limited circumstances, where there is a minimal cover charge, drink prices are essentially identical to those in a "regular" tavern, and dance prices are relatively low, I just consider the dollar per dancer per set tariff to be part of the price of entertainment. The club can't accomodate large crowds, and doesn't get them anyway, so I can't imagine that total tips of $12-15 for a three song set every 90 minutes or so is going to induce anyone to keep doing anything they wouldn't be doing under any circumstances.

Only if they promise not to come sit with me after their stage act lol I generally tip all the stage girls but with the ones I had an interest in I tend to invite them to sit with me. In lots of clubs all the girls, esp. on day shift will come by and give you a hug for the tip and of course ask for a dance so you get the hug from the pity tip girl too.

Chandler, that's not exactly unique to Johnson. He just seems to anger those on the left a lot more since he dares to question the motives and methods of Mao, Che, and Ho Chi Min. It's apparently fine to dismiss Columbus as a slave trader or the founding fathers as a bunch of priveleged white slave owners, but don't impugn Uncle Joe or Uncle Ho!

Funny that AN should cite Nietzsche in the conservative versus liberal debate as a liberal when Nietzsche was so explicitly apolitical. If anything he would probably have had somewhat more disdain for liberals.

More evidence, as if any were needed of what a quack AN is.

Keep bouncing around names and big words, AN, maybe some day you'll be able to convince someone you are actually an academic and not just a MERE BARTENDER.

My main complaint about Paul Johnson is that his books are given authoritative titles like "The History of Christianity" and sit on shelves next to legitimate history. They should be titled, "A Tedious Crank Who Knows a Few Things Reveals That Some Great Minds He Disagrees With Had Egos and Failings in Their Personal Lives" and filed accordingly.

The problem with Paul Johnson is that he is a Christian. Anyone who is a Christian in this day and age is a complete moron and cannot be trusted.

Chandler, Marx wrote nothing but egalitarian utopian fantasies, but you can't just dismiss someone's writings as partisan without refuting the arguments. I agree Jonhson is rather strident in his criticisms, but he is worth a read. This is one big difference I see between conservatives and modern liberals. I (and most well read conservatives I know) have read Marx and Neitche, et. al., but I rarely find a liberal who has read Kirk or Hayek, or Friedman.

To return to Milton Friedman and the pity tip, I think of dollars as votes - when I spend money I'm voting for more of that good or service to be produced. I don't want to vote for more fuglies.

And to return to the Republican party and conservatives, there are two very different types of conservatives - fiscal conservatives who are usually called moderates (and of which I am one) and moral conservatives (of which I am not.) It's the latter group that tries to impose their moralistic views on everyone else, just like liberals do. The former group wants things done in an efficient manner and believes in doing what works without much of an overriding philosophical bent. The moderates in the Democratic party believe pretty much the same thing - pity the two moderates can't get together in some third party, they'd be the majority.

Chitown -- thanks for the paraphrase. I can accept that premise, only in so far as self-interest isn't sometimes ameliorated by what Adam Smith referred to as "charity", the idea that craven and destructuve self-interest is often an evil rather than a good. And FONDL -- agreed. If the Republicans were indeed the party of NOT central authority, I'd like them. But in my experience, they want to tell me when to work, where to work, what kind of restrictions to put on my sexual activity, when to worship, which one God to worship, how to wear my socks ...

Just one off-topic comment: From what I've read of Paul Johnson about religion and modern intellectuals, he wrote nothing but partisan rants in favor of his prejudices and was not a writer to be taken seriously.

I have actual experience with the pity tip...a very bad one. I was at a club at the beginning of the night when the ugliest dancer I've ever seen came on the stage. I'm talking rolls of fat missing teeth... (shudder). Since I was sitting at the stage I, being soft hearted and not wanting to hurt her feelings, put up a single dollar pity tip. Huge mistake. I could not get rid of her the rest of the night and I ended up leaving the club rather quickly. Never pity tip. As Chitown alludes to (fine books by the way) the market may be merciless, but at least it is truthful. Sometimes charity hurts the recipient. With a complete makeover this woman could have made a fine Wal-Mart cashier, freeing up a spot on the stage for some hot looking single mom who needs it.

If you really want to understand modern conservatism you need to realize that at its roots it is classicaly liberal (libertarian) and really formed in the 1950's rather than having descended from some monarchichal or fascist tradition or being confined to a purely free market darwinism. Some other good books on conservatism are "The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Eliot" or "The Roots of American Order", both by Russell Kirk; "The Conservative Intellectual Movement in America" by George H. Nash, or if you're in the mood for a conservitive critique of liberalism in its various forms try "Modern Times" by Paul Johnson.

I suspect however it was a partisan rant rather than a serious question.

Chitown, that was very well said, you've learned your Milton Friedman well. But that's no longer a conservative Republican view, it's a Libertarian one, unfortunately Republicans gave up on that view a long time ago. (Which is why in my opinion they're gointg to get clobbered in the coming election.) I usually state essentially the same concept as: "The best government is that which governs least."

And to answer my own question, I never tip girls who I don't want to see take their clothes off, nor do I watch them do so. Every healthy young girl can have a decent body, all it takes is a little serious effort. If she isn't going to take her work seriously, why should I?

I have at times because every girl deserves something. I've seen it where the only tips a girl got were from me. If it makes them feel better, that's good. Yeah, they probably are in the wrong line of work, but even the absolutely best looking dancers aren't 10's.

Huge: First of all, the question was about a downright fuglie, not merely less than your ideal. As far as I'm concerned, they detract from a club's appeal rather than contributing anything. Pat yourself on the back if you like, but it's a not matter of being liberal or cheap, just discriminating. I'll spend the same amount either way, so anything a fuglie gets has to come out of the tips I give to girls who actually deserve to be there. I do my part to reward hotness.

By the way, my spending is solely an expression of my hedonistic aesthetic. I hope it pisses off all political camps.

Here's my summary: A society whose priorities are established by the independent choices of free individuals, acting in their self-interest, will be richer, fairer and more free for the vast majority of its members than a society in which decisions are made by a central authority and imposed on the members thereof.

Chitown: I'm not interested in reading all those words. Why don't you paraphrase for us? :)

If that is a serious question, rather than partisan rant, I suggest you read the following:

Free to Choose, Milton Friedman

The Conscience of a Conservative, Barry Goldwater

God and Man at Yale, William F. Buckley, Jr.

What is a conservative Republican nowadays anyway? A subscriber to the YOYO theory? A bystander in the race to the bottom sweepstakes?

Sometimes if a really hot girl is getting no dances and looks really glum I will give her a small (or perhaps even medium sized) tip.

komey: I'd tip her if I was attracted to her, but not out of pity. And I would consider it an opportunity that the other customers left an opening only if I thought she was hot to begin with.

No, for the reasons set out above. As a conservative Republican, I want to let the free market do its work. Some women should be running cash registers at Wal-Mart, not taking off their clothes for strangers. Pity tipping just distorts the market.

I don't think I would call it a pity tip per se. If I am not physically attracted to somebody but see an effort being made on stage to entertain the crowd I have no problem parting with one or two dollars. As a pretty liberal guy I don't cling to every last dollar like I'll never have another one. It's all about workrate for those that may not be fortuante enough to have an ideal shape.

Just say no to fuglies. Consider this situation for "pity tipping" though. The hottest girl is on stage and a lot of customers are at the tip rail. When she leaves, the customers go back to the bar or tables or wherever when out comes a decent looking, but more average girl comes out (say a 6 follows a 10). Will you tip her if most people go back? I've done that for some girls and they do seem to appreciate it.

Nope. If pity is what I feel I consider not tipping her to be the more humane act. The sooner she understands she's in the wrong line of work and gives up on it the better for everyone - patrons, other dancers and herself. If she were panhandling on the street I'd be more inclined to give her something, but a strip club is not a charity.

Absolutely-and I'm the cheapest-skate on the planet. Of course she's got no business in the business, and her ten minutes seems like an eternity (to everyone probably including her) but the fact is she's working it, giving it all she's got in heels on sore feet and WORKING for a living. Of course she's in the wrong line, but she'll realize that sooner or later. We aren't all born beautiful, and giving such a creature a buck is only humane and decent. Nobody in any line of menial work deserves total rejection and humiliation. You high-horses should choke on that buck.

Not on a bet, not if I'm the only guy in the place, not even if the dancer I'm sitting with gives me a dollar and tells me to tip her because she's new/having a bad night/her best friend. If I don't want to see her without clothes on I'll get up from the stage and move/visit the gents' or focus on the game on TV. Rude? Maybe, but I go to the SCs for my own entertainment -- I ignore crappy cover bands in pubs too and don't feel bad about that either.

Nope. Why encourage a train wreck? Next she'll sit down with you until she guilts you into a private dance.

No, no, no, no, and HELL no. I make a point of expressing my disgust (politely) to manager, bartender, or other staff. Just one little vote among many, but a vote that might count!

I do, but sometimes when the girls are just plain ugly I make a point of going to the lavatory.