Do you agree with this or not?

It probably depends on how you come across to the dancers. Female customers seem to fall into three categories: friends of dancers who are often off-duty dancers and who are there to talk to their working friends when they aren't busy; lesbians who are there for the same reason that guys are; and wives or girlfriends who are there with their guys and may or may not be thrilled about it. If you're in the third category you might find the dancers to be a little standoffish and you may have to make the first move. But that's often true for male customers too who are new to a club; until some of the girls get to know you they can be a little distant sometimes, especially when the club is busy and they know some of the suctomers. Dancers won't usually bother with strangers if there's someone they know there.

That is a shame...It can also explain why I wasn't approached for a dance, and my husband either...Hopefully, I'll be able to give out a different vibe next time..I was hoping we were on the right track as the club we visited was reviewed to be quite "couples friendly"!!! Oh well, we'll try another one..As if it's such a chore....

I like being the only regular female customer at my fave club. The place is a dive and no self respecting woman would set foot in there....except for me, of course. I've been to plenty of classier clubs, and the few times I have encountered other female customers in the club, they were being totally rude & disrespectful to the dancers, probably coz they were there just to keep an eye on their boyfriends or something. It was obvious that they didn't even really want to be there in the first place. Women like that can definitely change the atmosphere in a club, and not for the better.

I have been surrounded by female customers on occasion in two or three clubs here in South Carolina. Something about the atmosphere seemed to change though when there seems to be so many female customers in a gentlemen's club. I didn't mind though. It did seem strange to look around and see over a dozen girls and only two or 3 guys sitting near the tables next to me. I like it when some of the female customers go to tip the dancers on stage and go topless themselves. Some of them may have been going to support a friend who entered the amateur contest but maybe they just think it's a big party.

I agree that this venue of entertainment is "Primarily" geared to the male , however, females can have a good time as well, ...Your fantasies about some gorgeous thing dancing and grinding you may be quite similar to your GF's fantasy of, perhaps dancing that way for a perfect stranger...The thought that my husband might get off a bit watching someone show him all and let him touch her is quite erotic...

No. And don't let anyone tell me there gf doesn't like it blah blah blah.

Strip clubs are for men, primarily. They are for entertainment, enjoyment, fantasizing. Every time I "fall in love" w/ a stripper, it wears off by the time I'm home, except maybe for a spank or 2.

What my gf thinks of it does not matter.

Stripshopper, I agree with everything except your last sentence. I know it's fashionable to blame all the rules on the religious right, but the truth is that the so-called "liberal' left is just as opposed to personal freedom as is the right. And if you don't believe that, go to a Boston area strip club sometime. Both ends of the political spectrum want to limit freedoms and tell everyone else how to live. The only group that advocates in favor of expanding personal freedom is the Libertarians.

Hi TopGunGlen,

What you say may very well be true, but our successors may be even worse. I spent the good part of yesterday hanging out in the courtroom. Cases such as this were common: The accused faces 5 years in prison for an alleged drug violation and eagerly accepts a 60 day prison sentence. The accused, a tiny old man, faces 45 years for fondling a minor under 12 years of age and eagerly accepts 18 months in prison. The accused, a 17 year old female when she committed the alleged crimes, faces a 150 years and eagerly accepts a 364 day sentence where as part of the deal she accepts any illegality in sentencing that may be imposed in the future--in other words the State is seeking permission, not that it needs any, to break its own laws in the future. Anyway, I could get into a lot detail, but I think it could be argued that the Spanish Inquisition was less horrible than what is being accepted as civilized today. Yes, I realize that sounds crazy. :)

FONDL: That is a dilemma. I can only speak for myself here but my extra curicular activities involvong SC's or other ladies are not something I share with any other people in my life. My business is my business. Unfortunately, everyone is not able to do this. If you have people in your life that you really care about, their feelings will always be part of your thought process. Thats how it has to be.

The female vice cop in the example above sounds like one of those strippers scamming people out of money by not performing or stealing or cheating the customer by starting near the end of one song. However in this case she cost him a lot more than $20 or $30 dollars. Sounds like very crooked vice girls roaming the streets only concerned about getting a guy, any guy who talks to her. She's even more despicable than a stripper who routinely scams customers in a strip club in my opinion.

TopGunGlen,...Man you are so Right! Absolute bullshit!!! Consenting adults should have the right to do what they want as long as it is performed in the right environment and doesn't harm anyone. And then let those same adults be responsible for their actions.

Make that a Law and tell the "Right" to shove it!

I agree with Hugh Hefner: "People should be able to live their lives the way they want too." Government has no place in adult peoples private consentual sex lives.
On a recent COPS program, they showed vice stings on the street. One was an elderly man in his car. The undercover gal walked up to him, saying "Wanna date?" He shook his head no. She persisted, and he finally said "I haven't been able to get a hard on for 17 years." It was obvious this guy would never in a million years have picked this gal up on his own volition. She said, "No problem. So it's a date?" He never said yes. She starts yelling "It's a date!" So the cop cruisers and their video cameras swoop down on the poor fellow, while he looks confused. As he was put in the cop car while America watched, one of the male cops said "Poor old guy..." This bullshit makes me sick to my stomach. Why the hell are they doing this crap to people, yet the serial killers run wild, racking up dozens of victims over decades. Perhaps a century from now our descendants will shake their heads at us, the way we do at the Spanish Inquisition...:-(

Yoda, I agree with your philosophy, mine is pretty much the same. Unfortunately, though, I've found that "don't do anything to intentionally harm another person" and "I stopped worrying about what others think of me" I've found to sometimes be in conflict. When I say that I'm conflicted, that's what I'm talking about. People who are important to me don't agree with my (or your) philosophy, so if I stop worry about what they think I'm going to hurt them. For me that's a bit of a dilemma.

FONDL: I agree, most many people have two sets of morals: One for themselves and one for the rest of the world. I don't think that way and part of what helped me develop my thought process was getting to know women in various parts of the sex industry over a number of years. I can't accuse a woman of being immoral for doing what she needs to do to feed her kids or support her family or even just to support herself. I'm much more concerned about how one person treats another when it comes to morality then I am with what they do for a living. I'm not conflicted at all at this point. Treat people the way you would want to be treated and don't do anything to intentionaly harm another person. That's about it for me. I stopped worrying about what the rest of the world thinks a long time ago.

OKAY< since I'm a girl..boys listen..my husband went to bachelor party a few weeks ago..Dinner, then 2 strip clubs ..the first was totally nude...when he came home we joked about the amount of lap dances everyone had, including himself!! He told me what happened and I don't think I've ever been SO TURNED ON, and we've been married over 17 years.. He told me how the girls got so close to his face ..we talked about the piercings he saw, een what he smelled, I thought that might be a stretch, though.(yes boys..UP CLOSE & PERSONAL) , but it was all air..This place was in a Chicago Suburb, Diamonds, in West Chicago..Anyway, We've ahad sex at least 3 TIMES A DAY for the last 2 weeks, I've run out of sexy new garter belts and see-thru bikins..I'm going to have to go shopping. I signed on here to get information as to how to approach the couples thing..don't quite know what to expect. But, back to the THRUST of the topic..if your lady doesn't like it, try to find out why.. (it may not just be the typical jealousy thing..she may be uncomfortable with her looks, body legs. boobs, age, whatever.) If you know someone's wife or whatever who does like the idea, maybe a good open minded talk can help..a great sex life with your partner is nothing to take for granted. I've never loved my husband more...

Yoda, that was exactly my point, I agree with you completely, morality is very personal. I don't expect anyone to agree with my definition of rape, and in fact I dobt if anyone else here would, which was why I stated it. What I find especially interesting about morality is that people often hold others to a higher standard than they hold themselves. They will state their definitions of morality but will violate them regularly, then excuse their behavior (at least to themselves) by saying that this was a special circumstance. In reality I think a lot of people have two entirely different sets of morals: those they claim to believe in and hold everyone else to, and those that they themselves live by. And I think most people would vehemently deny that that's the case for them. That's partly why I think morality is such an interesting subject to discuss. There's so much hypocrisy about morality that it's hard to know what to believe or waht anyone else believes. Which is why I said earlier that I'm conflicted.

FONDL: I think you are stretching things a bit thin here. If a woman sleeps with a guy and he turns ou to be a jerk it just means she slept with a jerk. Morality is, as I've said, a very personal issue and in many cases a very personal decision. I do agree with you that what's legal isn't always moral and what may not be immoral to you and me may not be legal in our judicial stystem.

Sorry, I guess I used a bad example. How about this one - I do consider it rape for a guy to convince a girl that he's in love with her in order to get sex from her if she wouldn't otherwise do so. It may be concentual, but the consent is based on deception. But I bet that's not a legal definition of rape anywhere, at least in the US. Plus it would probably be impossible to enforce. But I consider it rape. And to me it's highly immoral behavior. And commonly done.

I don't see any difference between this and some con artist convincing an old lady to invest her life savings in a worthless scam. They're both concentual based on deception. And in my view they're both immoral. But only one of them is illegal.

I think there's often very little relationship between legal-illegal and moral-immoral. They're two totally different concepts, sometimes related, often not.

What I find repugnant are those who use the law as some type of morality test i.e. if it's legal then it is ok. Yuck.

Generally, I find the judge sitting on the bench far more disgusting and revolting and morally bankrupt than the petty criminals that are subjected to the terror of law.

I remember this one attorney telling me that if I had the power then I would be just as bad or worse. He was shocked when I agreed with him. I think power usually corrupts and I sincerely doubt I'm of the very few who are capable of responsibly using unlimited power. And, yes it is basically unlimited power that a judge possesses because his fellow appellate judges are a poor to nonexistent check.

For example, I dont consider consentual sex between an 18 year old guy and his 17 year old girlfriend to be rape but the law does.

This is not necessarily true. In Illinois, the statutory rape laws only outlaw _consensual_ sex with an underage person if there is an age difference of greater than five years between the perpetrator and the victim, assuming that the victim is fourteen years or greater (sex with a person thirteen years of less is always a crime). Also, the age of consent in Illinois is sixteen. This obviously varies from state to state. I think in Mississippi or Louisiana (or both), the age of consent is fourteen.

Thus, an eighteen year old male who has sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend in Illinois cannot be charged with statutory rape. He can be charged with other lesser offenses, however, such as indecent liberties, disorderly conduct, or contributing to the deliquency of a minor. However, all of these carry far lighter penalities than aggravated sexual assault.

Yoda, I actuall think morality is an interesting topic of discussion, probably because I'm personally conflicted on the subject and don't really know what I believe anymore. I think that's due to the dramatic changes in our society during my lifetime. I used to think I knew what was right and wrong but now I'm not so sure. Even murder for example, is it always immoral? How about the state putting criminals to death? Or soldiers killing in combat? Or killing unborn babies? Or assisted suicide for elderly people in severe pain? Don't we make exceptions for convenience to all of our moral rules? I can think of very few things that I consider to be always immoral - rape comes to mind, but even there my definition of what is or isn't rape is very different from the common legal one. For example, I dont consider consentual sex between an 18 year old guy and his 17 year old girlfriend to be rape but the law does. Morality has changed over time and varies enormously from place to place. Yet an awful lot of people are absolutely convinced that their view is the only correct one. Interesting.

Shadowcat: Thats exactly my point. Philipinas are not Brazilians. Actualy, I beleive they are considered Asian.

I don't know where you live but Brazilians come to the US for one reason: Money. They grvitate to areas of the country that are strong economically. The Boston area is loaded with them but many of the girls drive to Providence to dance because the money is much better down there than in Boston area clubs. Most of the Brazilain girls are hustlers but they are not looking to rip you off-just get as many dances out of you as they can-that, after all, is the point of being a dancer. They generally offer a lot more bang for the buck in the contact department than American dancers and are always in a better mood!

FONDL: What i'm saying is that, in this example, where we are questioning weather buying a lap dance is cheating on your SO, the guy buying the dance is the only one with any moral culpability to his SO. I don't think LDs are immoral either. In fact, I don't think prostitution is immoral evenif it is illegal. Morals are very much a personal issue in my book. I don't judge a woman who makes a living in the sex industry by how far she is willing to go to earn a living. Legalities aside, all I want is an honest business relationship wen it comes to these sort of things. Since I consider murder to be an immoral act and lap dancing not to be, I'll pass on your comparison of the two.

Shadowcat: Brazilian women (my favorite) are not Latino, they are South American. Trust me, there is a huge difference.

I've worked with guys who spent time in Amsterdam and Bangkok. The US is way behind the times. Unfortunately, I don't see it changing in the near future.

Yoda, I'm glad you realized that my questions were rhetorical ones. But something you said confused me a little. Are you suggesting that being paid to do your job absolves you from any moral concerns about what you are doing? That doesn't make much sense to me. For example, if I hire a hit man to kill someone, seems to me that we are equally culpable in a moral sense (as well as a alegal one.) And so it follows (at least to me) that if you consider lap dancing to be immoral (which I don't necessarily but lots of other people do) then both parties are equally guilty of immoral behavior.

No. I don't agree with the original statement. I don't consider a lap dance to be sex. Some women get some crazy ideas. If I saw a girl getting a lap dance, I certainly wouldn't say that she was having sex. I think some people are prudes and I certainly wouldn't want to be married to someone who thought you were having sex just because you were thinking about it.

FONDL: Life and society are screwed up. A hot South American woman on my lap helps me forget....

It wasn't a whole article, it was just a short blurb and I didn't leave anything of substance out. And no I wasn't trying to be moralistic, in fact morality in this country is one of those subjects that I find very puzzling. For example, why is it OK to show people killing each other on TV and nobody seems to mind their children watching it, but nudity or people making love on TV? Horrors! And why does someone who embezzles millions from a pension fund, or worse yet destroys a pension fund along with the lives of hundreds of people, get 6 months in a minimum-security camp in the former case and a big bonus from his board in the latter, while someone who steals $89 from a 7-11 get 5 years in a hard-core prison, or why do we fill our prisons and destroy foreign countries over marijuana but glorify a family like the Kennedy's who made their fortune on bootleg liquor, or or or ... Yoda I really don't understand this stuff. Have I gotten too old?

Gee, that was too easy. Of course the dancer and the customer are engaging in the same behavior. The difference is the dancer is getting paid and the customer is buying a service. I guess my confusion lies in the fact that I can't quite figure out if you are implying some sort of moralistic responsibility on the customer, the dancer, neither, or both. Just to cut to the chase, my personal opinion is that, if you are PAYING for "it" whatever it is, the dancer is only doing her job. The customer, if he has an SO, is the one who should be concerned about how that SO would feel about what he is doing with other women. For what it's worth, I think the author of the original quote takes a bit too much of a leap comparing a "sex act" to "sex" but I would have to read the entire article(something I'm really ot interested in doing)before I made a final assesment.

Yoda, I not trying to "lay blame" on anybody. I'm just indicating that usually the customer and the dancer are both engaging in the same behavior, whatever it is. I don't see much difference between giving a lap dance or getting one, in both cases you're engaged in a lap dance. Please, let's not have one of those word picky thingys again, I'm still worn out from the last one. Whatever your point is, I concede, you win.

FONDL: What does "it takes two to play" imply then if you are not using it to lay blame (equal or otherwise) on the two involved parties?

My wife knows I look and doesn't mind, just like it's okay with me when she and her friends have an occasional male stripper at one of their parties. But I know she is not banging the guy after the party. Trust works both ways. It's normal to look. Having an affair is another matter.

Yoda, I'm not trying to blame anyone. I was just trying to disagree with the original quote. I have a lot of respect for some dancers. Some of them.

FONDL: I know this topic has been covered before here but, the fact is, in many states, any form of sexual stimulation that includes physical contact is considered prostitution. I don't really care what anyone classifies as one thing or another. I agree with you that most dancers don't consider themselves to be prostitutes. That being said, I still don't think the "it takes two to tango" argument holds up here. Regardless of the act, we as customers are paying these women to perform it. If you take a dancer home and have sex with her for free- because you both like each other that's one thing. If you are paying her to do her job it's not really fair to try to pin blame on her for your actions.

Clearly, a lot women think that lap dancing is simulated sex and is cheating, without actual penetration. My SO uses the threat, "How would you like it if some strange naked guy was rubbing all over me?" She didn't think it was funny when I asked if I could watch.

Yoda, I was referring to the quote in the original post. The lady writing the column says lap dancing is having sex. I don't agree.

FONDL: Who said anything about having sex? My exact point here is that, to many women, the act of going to a strip club, flirting with, and buying dances from a beautiful naked women would be cheating on her. Regardless, the issue isn't weather the woman you engage in these activities with is a dancer or a prostitute or both. You are paying her for her services-dancing or screwing. The "it takes two to tango argument doesn't apply here.

True, Yoda! Very true.

The problem I have with this line of thinking is that it takes 2 to play (at least in the SC context.) So if the guy is having sex with the girl, she is also having sex with him. Which means that she's having sex for money. Which by definition makes her a prostitute. And I don't consider most strippers to be prostitutes. Nor do they.

BTW, I agree with Quicksand's post by Ayn Rand but I doubt if most women would.

If you have a spouse or SO, what you think is irrelevant. If she thinks it's cheating, and you get caught, as far as she is concerned, you are cheating.

I forgot to mention that the man should also not engage in activities that endanger the physical or mental health of himself, his SO or anyone else.

A man and a woman can have two types of sex.

One type amounts to pure hedonism and lasts only as long as the act of intercourse -- a momentary physical bond only.

The other type includes elements of bonding at the spiritual, emotional and mental levels. This type of sex is what we normally associate with a traditional, textbook romantic relationship.

When all four elements are synergizing between man and woman 100% -- spiritual, emotional, mental and physical -- such a powerful bond forms that neither party has much incentive to look elsewhere for the physical elements.

That said, we do not live in a perfect world, and few relationships ever synergize on all four levels at 100% all the time.

A woman in a marriage or LTR should not concern herself with her man's physical distractions at a strip club, even if he busts a nut there -- unless he starts attempting to bond in deeper ways with another woman. What really matters in a LTR are those deeper levels of bonding. If he spends inordinate amounts of time, money or emotional energy on those distractions at the expense of enhancing the quality of the LTR and other worthy values, then that "cheats" the woman out of rational values.

Conversely, a highly jealous and possessive woman who refuses to allow her man to enjoy his physical self even when she makes no attempts to help him to do so "cheats" him out of *his* values. The man, if he respects himself, will need to re-evaluate the value of that relationship in enhancing his enjoyment of his own precious life.

For more insight into this philosophy of rational egoism, read THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS by a woman named Ayn Rand. To learn more about her ideas, visit

http://www.solohq.com

It all depends on what your woman thinks. If she's ok with you going to strip clubs, it isn't cheating if you do. If she's ok with you getting lap dances, it isn't cheating if you do. If she's ok with you having sex with another woman, then it isn't cheating and you're one lucky son of a bitch. ;)

Hi SuperDude,

A buddy's wife is like that. To her, he is the best thing in the world and she is very aggressive and possessive concerning him. He's a happy camper and they've been married over 20 years.

"My current SO says looking is cheating and lap dancing is definately out."

I can understand a wife not wanting you to get a lapdance (I don't agree but I understand), to say no looking even is just silly IMO. I am sure your SO is not in the minority with that attitude thought.

Some women say they don't care, maybe because they believe raising a fuss about going to a SC is futile. Guys will go anyway. Most equate lap dancing with cheating because some woman is rubbing against a man in a sexually intimate way. My ex-wife cited this as her main reason for the divorce 10 years ago. My current SO says looking is cheating and lap dancing is definately out.

NO.

But if Mr. Jimmy comes out, or you spill,....then it's cheating.

NO.

I wouldn't consider paid full service cheating and some people wouldn't consider sex to be cheating. It depends on the individual.

A lap dance is more akin to a raunchy movie than sex and I guess some people could consider an adult movie to be cheating.