Future of Stripping in the US.

AN, I don't live in the DC area and never did, but I spent a lot of time in DC and kept an apartment in the area from time to time (one of which was in Montgomery County.)

Actually I think that the home smoking ban makes some sense if you're going to ban smoking anywhere (which I'm opposed to.) The people most vulnerable to second-hand smoke are children, and the place that they're exposed the most is at home. So if you're going to enact smoking bans on the basis of health concerns, the home ought to be the #1 target. But I'm not aware of any place that has done so, which ought to at the very least make you question the motives of the pro-ban people. Banning smoking in bars and restaurants, where people have a choice, makes no sense to me. And before everyone accuses me of going off topic again (which I would never do), the reason I followed up on this topic is that I've been wondering - in areas where smoking has been banned in some places, does the ban apply to strip clubs, including no-alcohol clubs? Has it hurt business any? Are smoking bans a threat to the future of strip clubs? (excluding the Carolinas of course.) Actually I predict that smoking bans have pretty much run their course, that just about every place that is going to enact a ban has already done so. So I don't see it as a threat to strip clubs but maybe someone disagrees.

CG, that isn't something unique to strip clubs by any stretch, and it happens on both sides of the political spectrum. Some Vermont residents are trying to outlaw Wal-Mart for crying out loud. As FONDL said, some counties in the greater DC region have no clubs, others do, but where I live (which may be same county as FONDL, Montgomery?) the local politicians have banned strip clubs. The politicians also banned all smoking in bars, and were trying to ban smoking in private residences under certain conditions (townhouses, apartments). The claim was that the second hand smoke should be controlled by the county, so even your own home could be declared non-smoking by the county. Now this county is probably one of the most liberal in the country, and the people in the county government aren't exactly known for their religious fervor, but that doesn't stop them from using public policy to outlaw or restrict behavior they don't approve of, be it strip clubs or smoking.

Someone mentioned strip clubs trying to lobby for their rights to exist or something like that. Well, in the carolinas many have contributed I believe to aid in their cause. Unfortunately, many people do not want to be seen publicly defending strip clubs so it doesn't take too many people to oppose a strip club and shut it down but I hope that is changing. The fact that even a place like Hooters is opposed bothers me. They have great hamburgers and I do not believe that a pretty waitress wearing shorts is immoral. However in the quest to avoid conflict and be seen as politically incorrect, some businesses may seek to avoid confrontation. We can all go about our business not bothering anyone and then some person on city council gets elected and wants to go on a crusade or something against anything immoral and then our favorite hobby can be buried with a few lies or exagerrations to the public and a public crackdown destroys our fun. I see it happening here and there but apparently many still do not.

CG, it does happen here and there. But those tend to be fairly isolated cases, and there are enough new clubs opening to offset them. I don't think it's gotten any worse over the years, in fact my sense is that there is less of that then there used to be. Maybe that's not true where you are but it's been many years since I've heard of any club being pressured into closing in the couple of states I'm most familiar with.

Sounds to me like there are great places for clubs in the South and other areas that are very restrictive. Just like any other part of the country. For example, there are no clubs in the county where I live, they were all shut down many years ago. But if I head over to the next county there are clubs everywhere, including some that are about as wide open as anywhere in the country. You just have to know where to go and where to avoid. It's always been like that and probably always will be.

Most people in Houston, being in Texas would say they are in the west, and as the old saying in FL. goes you have to go north to get south.

Casualguy....Thank You. You're probably the only one here that understands the impact religious groups have on society in the South. As you said...Even "Hooters"...is not safe here...(which to me, absolutely Drives me Nuts!!!)

AbbieNormal.... Lets agree to disagree... And I'll forgive you for calling me a "Godless Libertine".....I could have called you a Confused Right Winged Radical...but I didn't...I tried to address, Just your points (unfortunately at the expense of hijacking the Thread) . ....You still have merit for me in other discussions...So, for the sake of everybody else lets wait to the day we both can meet up at a Strip Club and buy each other a beer....You call me Liberal Bitch...And I call you a Right Wing Nazi....We then Shug our shoulders at each other...and focus our efforts to watching the Strippers. Agreed?

Fondl....This argument is your fault! :-) You old timers always draw me into this discussion. If you lived in the Areas I have...You'd understand that the world doesn't think like Catholics. (Just once go to a BackWoods Southern Revival)

To Everyone Else - My apologies for going on a Rant...Someday...just maybe there will be a stripclub in every city where like minded people can be left alone to enjoy watching a beautiful woman dance.....(or rub really good)

There's no question that in certain areas groups of religious people have had a negative impact on some clubs. But since the number of clubs continues to increase, they obviously haven't had much impact for the country as a whole. I think that will continue to be true.

And I don't think there's much correlation between religion and tolerance. Some religious people are tolerant, some aren't. Which is equally true for nonreligious people.

I think the greatest threat to the future of strip clubs is poor management within the industry, especially the high prices at some clubs. But we've had that discussion before.

I understand there are those who go for closing clubs based on their moral beliefs. The problem is that its their right if they can convince enough voters and their elected officials that it is a good idea. The problem is that it is easy for a politician, or even a private citizen, to come out publicly against clubs, but not many people want to publicly defend them. It's the kind of thing the ACLU used to do before they decided keeping Christmas trees out of courthouses or making sure POW's held outside the US got to sue in US courts was its top priority. Probably the industry should have some sort of lobying group, but given the character of most of the management and ownership I doubt they'd part with a cent to help defend someone elses club.

Obviously if you aren't familiar with the way the religious right or some groups of people have attacked strip clubs here in the south or the so called bible belt (actually I'm not sure which particular group it is so I just called them religious folks), then you would better understand what I mean. Many people who go to church etc are obviously tolerant. I actually am one of them. I get a bit upset when a group of these people suddenly have a conviction to close down all the strip clubs or impose severe restrictions on them even though they have been quietly operating for years. I know of one county that lost all of its strip clubs. I remember a few others that got closed down. I even remember some others being sued and they temporarily stayed opened by becoming bikini bars which made them go out of business. In the town I live in, I know of many people who go to strip clubs in the bigger cities but I heard even Hooters which has waitresses wearing shorts was strongly opposed by some of the religious folks here and that kept them away. More people seem to be thinking the way I do but the few who don't seem to be willing to go all out using courts etc. to enforce their own beliefs on me and everyone else. I suppose I feel a little bit of resentment towards someone who fights bitterly to enforce his or her moral beliefs on me no matter what. I don't have anything against religious folks in general especially since I may be one of them but I didn't have a better term for those who want to impose their beliefs on me and close down or severely restrict what I think is fun. Even though the majority may not even care one way or another about strip clubs, the few religious right or whatever you call them sometimes go on their crusades. I believe at the moment their crusades consist of fighting for prayer in schools, displaying the ten commandments, and trying to slow down the spread of gay marriage. My own belief is that strip clubs are like on a bottom burner for the moment on their list of crusades. If you imagine yourself to be a Kerry supporter and a few people managed to vote for Bush in your state and win, then you can get the idea of how it feels. I actually thought Bush would allow strip clubs to continue as is (they are a business) better than Kerry but I doubt they even care.

Actually this discussion is more relevant than many that we've had. The question was about the future of strip clubs. Some people think that religious groups will have a significant impact on that future. I disagree and tried to point out why. But I promise to stop now, I have to get ready for choir practice.

Strip club? Heavens no, I'm too busy with my revival meetings and Bible study.

And all because I said that I go to church regularly. Wow, guess I'll have to watch dropping that line in again.

But before leaving this thread (which I found very interesting by the way) I can't resist a couple of very brief observations. First I think there is very interesting phenomenon going on here, and that is that while more and more people are going to church, it seems to me that fewer and fewer are buying their churches' teachings hook, line and sinker. Many churchgoers are becoming more independent in their thinking. Which brings me to my second point, which is that Catholics are one of the largest and fastest growing groups but are about as far removed from the evangelical mold one as one can get. And Catholics perhaps more than any other group illustrate my point about independent thinking - many and perhaps most Catholics support abortion rights for example.

Oh, and I for one vote we call it a draw and get back to Punani and pickled eggs.

SS, some good points, and some I'm not going to bother to respond to, but while hopefully not being dragged into a Bible study discussion let me hit a few.

The Bible suffers from a problem in that it was spoken and passed down in Hebrew and Aramaic, written in Hebrew and Greek, and translated into other languages with varying degrees of accuracy and success. That is why Biblical quotes are a tricky buisness. A good example is "thou shalt not kill". The actual Hebrew word used translates more accurately to "slay" or "murder". Clearly the comandment was not a prohibition against warfare or capital punishment as is often claimed, since both were practiced contemporaneously. In the same way, we confuse judgement with condemnation when it also means something akin to appraisal. Clearly we make judgements about people, and are right to do so, as did Jesus and all those other Jews in the bible. What we should not do is condemn others. In addition, had you continued the passage to the next part you'd see it actually endorses judgement. The following passage also expands on the hypocracy angle a bit;

" And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

So this is not a prohibition against judgement, it is really a prohibition against hypocracy. It clearly endorses some meddling in the affairs of others, once you have your own act together.

As for people "pushing" their ideas onto others, that is kind of the whole purpose of society, to restrain behaviors the larger group find to be destructive or objectionable. True we have a better method than most have had in the past, but that doesn't mean that we aren't still doing the very same thing. Disagreements about what the right things to encourage and discourage are as old as mankind.

As for judgement being reserved for the family and family responsibility, and family breakdown, some would contend that it is the degredation of social norms once widely accepted that has hindered parents from instilling in their children the values they should have. It is tough for a parent for instance to convince a child they shouldn't engage in pre-marital sex when the school is passing out free condoms and demonstrating their use in health class. You can argue that there are health concerns that society should rightly address, but it is clear that by taking on one bit of instruction on sexuality the schools (who are also seen as authorities by children) are weakening the parents authority on another. This leaves the parents with little recourse but to try to stop the schools from taking on those rules in the first place, or to try and make sure their message is given equal time.

Just to be clear, I don't agree with everything the more conservative evangelicals want or say, but I think they deserve to be heard and seriously considered rather than dismissed as meddling. Remember that as a society we are always meddling in other peoples lives, so saying that you don't tell them what to do is pure silliness. You tell them what to do and how to raise their children every time you vote.

So in the end, they are a bunch of bigoted right wing yokels bent on theocracy, and you are a godless libertine bent on destroying morality. Sounds fair to me.

FONDL, I agree that there is real honest-to-god hypocracy in the world that we should criticize, but it's like the people who bring up The Holocaust and Nazis for comparison to every politician or policy they don't like. If that resort in Cuba is comperable to the Holocaust or the Gulags, well that diminishes what the Holocaust and the Gulags really were. Let's save the title of hypocrite for those who deserve it.

To further hijack this thread, I think most people would be surprised to find that over 40% of Americans consider themselves to be "evangelical" christians. This comes from a regular survey, I think done by Princeton. The high mark was 47% in 1999, and it has fluctuated around that number in the following years. In addition the fastest growing churches are the more conservative evangelical denominations, while the old main-line protestant denominations are shrinking. I still consider this to be due to the aging of the boomers (people get more religious and conservative as they grow older) and also a push back. You are right however that the evangelicals are not as monolithically conservative on all issues as they are often portrayed. It is a big mistake to think Pat Robertson speaks for them. Where they are more conservative generally is in their consideration of topics that were once considered taboo. Things like openly discussing values and their importance, or the need to promote religion, or even the consideration of things like abortion and homosexuality as things that should be discouraged. They have tended to open the discussion into areas that just a few years ago were considered to un-PC to touch. The far left sees their shibboleth's being attacked, and they don't like it, hence the demonization of the religious right as inbred mouth breathing racist yokels bent on theocracy.

AbbieNormal, (forgive the length but you made many points that I wanted to comment on)

Here goes: (based on your points)

>It seems that the greatest sins (is that still an operative concept?) anyone can commit nowadays is to be judgmental, or a hypocrite.

"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." -Matthew 7:1-2

>On the hypocrisy, let me just say that if you live up to your ideals you've set your standards pretty low.

The rule I live by…Which is pretty hard: Do to others what you would have them do to you." The source of the famous "Golden Rule.". - Matthew 7:12.

>None of us are always who we want to be or who we should be, it's part of being human. Does that mean we can't ever speak about our ideals?

I never said any thing against open discussion, diplomacy, or democracy…just those that would forcefully “push” their own narrow views onto others.

>If you are a reformed drug addict can you never criticize junkies or drug users?

No I wouldn’t want to criticize!...especially if I had walked a mile in their shoes…. I’d empathize with their personal plight and try to help them have a better life. Then assist in “Logical” legislation that would be something other than…”Don’t Do That” and “Just say No”, which clearly hasn’t stopped drug abuse.

>How about if you drink on the weekends, does that preclude telling your kids they shouldn't?

I teach and set standards of “Good” living for my kids every day (including social standards)… Will I teach them how to drink responsibly and show them clear examples of what an alcoholic looks like and how they live… You can count on it. Will I dictate to you…how you should raise your kids….NO.(but I hope that society forces you take responsibility)

>The whole hypocrisy thing is a phony way to shut people up when you don't want to hear what they have to say.

I for one…always want to hear someone’s thoughts…ITS HOW WE LEARN FROM EACH OTHER. Unfortunately there are a those people in society who are “Weak” minded and easily lead by others ….who have their own agenda. (a dangerous combination)

>It essentially means that only a saint can ever disapprove of anything.

Without Disapproval there would never be any debate… Without Debate, There is no ability to understand all sides. “Truth lies in discovering the true essence of an issue!” “Then cohesively joining together to come to a Comprise or Solution”

>As for judgmental, I think we'd be better off if more people were more judgmental.

Judgment, belongs in the courts, voting booth, the confines of the family unit and things that directly affect you personally. Judging others outside these parameters has no benefit to society.

>Two of biggest indicators of poverty are dropping out of high school and having children out of wedlock. Neither are illegal, but both should be discouraged. How do we do things like that? By social censure?

Answer this…”Who has “Direct” responsibility for this example”. Think it out. (And this is only one line of thinking)

Example: Who has “direct” responsible for kids dropping out of school and early pregnancy?

Answer: The Parents.

Why are Parents not taking responsibility for making sure that this does not happen?

Answer: Erosion of the family unit, due to economical pressures for the two income family.

Question: How did this pressure come about?

Answer: Women transitioning out of the normal role of “mother” into the “workplace”…thus caused equilibrium of the one income family to erode (supply and demand theory)

Question: Can this situation be changed?

“OK…here’s where you come in”…..Do you want to point a finger here and “judge”….or do you want a “TRUE” solution?

>People being afraid of what others think of them used to be a powerful tool in instilling some sense of social responsibility into the next generation.

Hmmmm…..Burning of witches in Salem. That was a powerful tool!

>And for the record, tolerance does not mean approval.

Definition - Tolerance: The permissible range of variation of some characteristic from its nominal value. And “approval” has What to do with this?.... Humans are the Nominal value. We all have the basic requirements… We can choose to understand this and work together…or we can fight each other until we go extinct.

>I find that most of the "religious types" people complain about to be among the most tolerant people I know.

I agree, 60% – 75% of most religious types are very tolerant… it’s the remaining group that need to open their minds. Does it really matter if their Christian or Muslim…they’re the same beast that screws it up for the rest of us.

>They may not approve of homosexuals, strippers, porn, drug users or atheists, but they aren't out there strapping bombs to themselves. They may wish for people to change their ways, and try to convince them to do so, but that is their right as free citizens.

Hmmm…. There’s other ways to fuck society up besides bombs. Examples:

David Koresh (Weapons Stores and that whole mess)
Pat Roberts (suggests assassination of Venezuelan President)
Jerry Falwell (Quote:” AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals.")
Jim Jones (mass suicide)
Catholic Priests in General (Pedophile cover up)
ETC. ETC. ETC.

>I think a lot of this is pushback after years of being told there is no place for religion in polite
public discourse.

Quote:

“The fact that ethical convictions are rooted in religious faith does not disqualify them from the political realm. However, they do not have secular validity merely because they are thought by their exponents to be religiously authorized. They must be argued for in appropriate social and political terms in harmony with national values. In both cases, we should be prepared to deal with complexities, ambiguities, and overlapping realms in which practical discernment must find workable principles to guide us that are as compatible with fundamental Constitutional imperatives as human reason can devise.”

>I'm sorry to say you'd better get used to it, because this country is getting more religious, not less.

THAT’S UNFORTUNATE….but that won’t stop me from making me people “think about their convictions” as it relates to the world and the rest of the human race.

AN, I agree with much of what you have to say. But I'm not sure that the country is becoming more religious. I'd say more spiritual, not more religious. By that I mean that a lot of people are becoming interested in alternative religious concepts which aren't endorsed by traditional churches. People are rejecting organized religions but still have strong religious beliefs. I count myself among such people. More people may be going to church than previously, but I find an awful lot of these people don't buy the church's views on a lot of issues. Plus churches are all over the map politically, some are very convservative and some aren't.

I agree with Yoda's comments that the religious right doesn't have nearly as much power and influence as they media woul dhave us believe. I think a lot of Republicans give them lip service to get their votes but don't really support their agenda. Just like Democrats pretend to care about poor people but don't support things that would help them. That's my idea of hypocrisy.

It seems that the greatest sins (is that still an operative concept?) anyone can comit nowdays is to be judgemental, or a hypocrit. On the hypocracy, let me just say that if you live up to your ideals you've set your standards pretty low. None of us are always who we want to be or who we should be, it's part of being human. Does that mean we can't ever speak about our ideals? If you are a reformed drug addict can you never criticize junkies or drug users? How about if you drink on the weekends, does that preclude telling your kids they shouldn't? The whole hypocracy thing is a phony way to shut people up when you don't want to hear what they have to say. It essentially means that only a saint can ever disaprove of anything. As for judgemental, I think we'd be better off if more people were more judgemental. Two of biggest indicators of poverty are dropping out of high school and having children out of wedlock. Neither are illegal, but bothg should be discouraged. How do we do things like that? By social censure. People being afraid of what others think of them used to be a powerful tool in instilling some sense of social responsibility into the next generation. And for the record, tolerance does not mean approval. I find that most of the "religious types" people complain about to be among the most tolerant people I know. They may not approve of homosexuals, strippers, porn, drug users or athiests, but they aren't out there strapping bombs to themselves. They may wish for people to change their ways, and try to convince them to do so, but that is their right as free citizens. I think a lot of this is pushback after years of being told there is no place for religion in polite public discourse. I'm sorry to say you'd better get used to it, because this country is getting more religious, not less.

FONDL: The foreign girls end up in all types of clubs. They are the ultimate "only in it for the money types" and will go wherever they can earn the most. I've spent quite a few afternoons and evenings driving my favs around to new clubs they wanted to check out. I've been to clubs in Philly, Denver and Southern California in the last year. Philly and Denver seem to be promarily American dancers while Southern California (San Diego, Oxnard) seem to be experiencing the same ethnic influx I see around my area.

As far as the religion/strip club thing goes I agree with you, It's a non-issue. The religious right gets a lot of press in this country but doesn't have nearly the effect on issues that they, and George Bush, would like.

FONDL,

As an example....a relative of mine just got "SAVED"...well, before the this "event" happened in his life and before he allowed others to tell him what to think...."he was really a great guy" ....Now, ....Well...let just say that he's a totally didn't person.....and the worst part...."He's judgemental of others, Especially the ones that don't "think" the way he does now" - Which of course is Hipocritical...

Unfortunately, these same types of people, can't take the good that comes from religion and leave others alone....but try to exert their influences on others "forcefully" by indirect means (not church related)... ie: Ordances,Police Harrassment, Direct Business Influences, protests, politics....

Your statement: "Nobody cares unless the SC does something really stupid to call attention to itself."

When did the church become responsibile for setting everybody elses moral standards? (....remember the Chaos over the removal of the ten commandments)(and I'm only refering to the "Chaos"...not the ten commandments)

Fondl, I personally congratulate you on your ability to be part of this Disscussion Group and be a church goer....You don't know how much I wish that there were more open minded church goers like yourself. The world would be much better off.

My anger and disgust is not directed at people like you...but the 10-20% who are no better than any other religious Extremist. "Intolerance for each other will ultimately be our Demise on this earth"

What is this obsession that some of you guys have with religious types? I've been a regular church goer for 60 years and have never, not once, heard strip clubs discussed either in church or by my fellow attendees. Not one sermone ever mentioned them. They're way way down on the list of religious concerns. Nobody cares unless they an SC does something really stupid to call attention to itself.

I have no idea what strip clubs are going to be like in America in 25 years. People who haven't been born yet will be stripping at that point, for sure. The fact is, no one knows what the youth of tomorrow will be like. They might be the ones who decide to eliminate strip clubs.

Let's make everyone happy. Rapture occurs for all the religious folks and they get out of here. Then a strip club and bar opens up in every city where they had been banned. Blue laws are banned. Supreme Court overturns all of these strip club must be located at least 1000 feet away from laws since no one is going to church anymore. Then some new religious folks return telling us it is better to give than receive so we give more tips to strippers and keep wondering "when are the strippers going to start giving us what we want to receive?" :)

Yoda's right on the question of obscenity being regulated by the Courts. From 1955 to 1975, the Supreme Court took up about five obscenity cases a session, and went through all variety of tests for obscenity (my favorite being the limp d*ck/hard d*ck test that was used for about three weeks). They finally settled on "prevailing community standards," which was an elegant way of getting those cases the hell off of its docket. The Court has dealt with some dancing cases occasionally over the last thirty years, and the trend is to find that almost any kind of dancing is a protected First Amendment activity.

The Supreme Court, in its current incarnation, and all others reasonably foreseeable, is far too interested in bolstering the Tenth Amendment and gutting the Commerce Clause to concern itself with t*ts, p***sies or d*icks, limp or otherwise.

I think the one advantage we have is that most of us have been clubbing for 10+ years. We've seen the industry change and might have some perspective. You are right however that the demographic the clubs will be after won't be us. The problem I see is that regular dance clubs and fashion have come so close to strip clubs, it's going to be a tough sell to the younger crowd.

JC, If anyone had predicted 20 years ago the changes that have taken place, especially regarding the high levels of contact and extras that are so common today, I wouldn't have believed them. I think young people are bad at predictions (I know I was, maybe still am), they haven't had enough experience.

AN, I think the neighborhood titty bars already dominate the industry; I think they always have and I don't expect that to change. In fact, I think they're the least changed sector of the industry.

And Yoda, that's interesting about the continued growth of foreign girls in your area, I don't see that around here but maybe I don't go to the right places. What kind of clubs do they tend to congregate in?

We're the wrong people to ask. You'd have to ask young people what they think will happen to strip clubs in the next 25 years. I don't think any who posts here regularly is under the age of 35.

I think as porn and stripping are seen less and less as something from the redlight district it will lead to more "neighborhood" clubs, but I think the glitzy GC's will continue to limp along for those who are just occasional or casual participants in the culture. The GC are the "destination" clubs that people make an event out of going to, but I think gradually the neighborhood strip bar will dominate the industry as standards relax and the younger generations age. I also think that the next generation of girls raised on "Bratz" and all the other pre-pubescent sexualization are going to see stripping as something far more acceptable than we do now.

FONDL: I agree with you on 3.5 of your observations. It may be a regional anomaly but the increase in foreign dancers has not leveled off at all around Boston and Providence. South Americans, Asians and Eastern European girls are still increasing in number. About half the day shift in evry club I go to is from another part of the world. As you may have guessed, I have no problem with this. Sadly, the other numbers still increasing are the Wal-Mart reject chubby American girls who shouldn't be dancing.

If you want to predict the future, it's sometimes helpful to look at the past. I think there have been 4 major trends in the SC industry over the past 20 years or so: (1) the growth of upscale clubs, (2) a different type of dancer (eg. more upscale and more foreign girls), (3) more nudity and contact, and (4) extras moving from outside the club to inside the club.

I think trends (1) and (2) have pretty much run their course, but (3) and (4) are likely to continue because of increased competition both from too many clubs and other forms of adult entertainment. I think clubs will increasingly come to resemble brothels and that the number of clean clubs will continue to decline. Prostitution has always been a part of the SC industry, it's just more open and aboveboard today, takes place more frequently within the club instead of only outside as in the past, and is probably more readily available too. I expect those trends to continue.

I almost agree with Chitown, except I think that the mechanism will be that enforcement efforts on what happens between consenting adults will continue to decline. The result will be the same.

The Supreme court has bigger fish to fry than local strip club ordinances. State and local authorities determine what hapens to clubs and, as previously mentioned, it's largely an ellection year issue. I know of a couple of clubs in my area that where closed do to adverse public opinion but the vast majority are sold by owners to real estate developers for tons of cash or taken over by eminent domain for road projects and/or redevelopment purposes.

I'm not too worried.

Damn! That is a Bold Prediction.

I thought for sure you would say..."total crack down" by society. Especially with the changes that will happen in the supreme court going more conservative.

Now personally, I totally agree with your logic...but whoever said that the US residents were logical in their thinking.

and you regular OLD Farts are still here! (You guys never stop!) LOL

I know. Isn't amazing how they never seem to tire of it!

In any event, the "crackdowns" on SC's, either by LE or the actions of deliberative bodies, seem to be largely reactive to election cycles, and not indicative of any long-term trend. The long term-trend in society seems to be an increasing desensitization to matters sexual ("In days of old, a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking."--Cole Porter, who came from Peru, IN, within spitting distance of the Hip Hugger). This is primarily a result of the Internet, but also a result of relaxed sexual standards that started with the Beatniks in the late 50s. As a result, sexual titilation will require increasingly bold and aggressive forms of stimuli, and I think that this will carry over into increasing availability of extras.

BOLD SOCIAL PREDICTION--In the next 10-15 years, a few jurisdictions will regulate/decriminalize prostitution, and prositution will spread like legal gambling did in the 80s and 90s. THis will actually start to get extras out of strip clubs, but also greatly decrease the volume of clientele. I hope that I still care by then.

SS: I don't know where you live but in both Providence and Boston area clubs themileage is going up up up. Providence has one club with private booths where FS/BJ are openly offered by many of the dancers. Massachusetts is a no contact state and yet many of the clubs are now allowing one way contact-with the right girl it can be an explosive experience.

I don't know where clubs will be in 25 years and I don't care. I'll be in my 70's by then and I plan to spend my later years with a couple of hot South American strippers who will be retired by then. Both have promised to service my every need, leave me wanting for nothing and begging for more.....

SS, the godless libertine thing was meant to be ironical. Ask Shadow and Fondl, or just about anyone else... I just like to argue, but I never take it personal, all in good fun. I know there are people bent on shutting down our hobby, but seriously, what do you do? Tell them they don't have the right to participate in politics because we don't like their outlook? I think we should all get together in Columbia some day, and hoist a glass to the old timers. Then we can sue the club owners and the state for interfering with our right to free commerce and contracts.

SS, you talk about restrictions in the the South but you're obviously overstating things. Sounds to me like the place Shadowcat loves is in the South. As are all the great clubs in Florida. As are all the higly rated clubs in Houston. I've also enjoyed many clubs in the South. So what you're talking about is obviously quite limited. That's probably true in every part of the country. But for every area that's restrictive, there's another area not far away that's not.

Cardi B

My God, I miss civil discussions like this 15 year old one where people could share ideas without name calling.🤯

16/25 years in...and this comment stands out the most IMO

—>“I think the greatest threat to the future of strip clubs is poor management within the industry, especially the high prices at some clubs. But we've had that discussion before”