If there were no laws governing what went on inside strip clubs, and there were clubs that offered anything that anyone wanted, what type of club would you go to? I think I'd still prefer a clean club without extras. And girls who are good girls.
If the laws allowed it, I think clubs would offer entertainment to fit the bill of the clients..sort of like when you want a simple meal, versus a five star restaurant. There is room for all types, depending on your appetite and your budget. I believe more clubs would flourish, and offer a greater variety of experience.
DandyDan, I disagree. I think that we'd end up with 2 entirely different type of clubs: the neighborhood bar that has a couple of strippers, and the big fancy places that would include some girls who provide full service. There are already clubs that provide full service while other ones don't and they seem to co-exist just fine. I think the biggest difference would be that the large well-financed operations would expand their level of services to make even more money. Some little clubs no doubt would too but a lot wouldnt. I also think there would be a real shortage of girls willing to provide full service because they could probably do better as independent escorts. It's sorta like the escort business is today - some girls provide everything but many don't and they seem to do very well.
Strip clubs as we know them wouldn't even exist. I don't think people would want to go to a club just to see a girl naked. They would go to some sex club where they can get laid. It'd probably be like Tijuana or something.
Yes, most legislators don't even bother reading what they're voting for and if they did bother it wouldn't make much difference. (The people should get to vote for lobbyists instead of representatives. ;) ) The courts can take even well written legislation and pervert it.
Criminal statutes are largely the same shit. The main beneficiaries besides certain criminals: attorneys, law enforcement, and the prison industry.
The citizens here in the State of Florida passed some referendums years ago to try and control the corrupt state supreme court. Predictably the court ruled the referendums were unconstitutional.
Kyle, as I'm sure you know, many regulations today have the sole purpose of some company gaining a competitive advantage over another. It's the primary function of many business lobbyists. For example, I was somewhat involved in developing energy efficiency standards for appliances. Bigger companies were for tighter standards because they could meet them fairly easily, but smaller companies couldn't. The whole effort had nothing to do with saving energy, although that was the stated purpose. It was all about putting smaller companies out of business by their larger competitors. That's the purpose of most business regulations, to gain competitive advantage.
Davids - actually, the crowds at the DV lead you to believe it's doing better business than it actually is. I'm sure they do OK on weekends due to overflow from Rick's, but on weeknights it's been pretty brutal there lately. I'll be going tonight, but have a feeling it will be my last time.
Oh, this division is *supposed* to have its records open to consumers like me. I ask for the records and I'm met with immediate NO, NO, NO. I show them the law it is still NO, NO, NO. I show them the portion of the law where I get $1,000 ***(from the individuals)*** if they knowingly refuse to give the records. Suddenly, some interest in obeying the law!
I'm also a little more cynical. I wonder if the stated purpose of the law was ever what was really intended.
There is this consumer protection division here in Miami-Dade County. According to the law it is there to protect consumers from fraud and shoddy repairs, etc. I was talking with a detective about how the division was just ignoring the law. He laughs at me and says their job is to make sure businesses have specified insurance coverage. I say NO the law is very clear and their first priority is supposed to be protecting consumers. So the detective laughs again and says they've never done that. It has always been about insurance. (All day long clerks are checking to make sure businesses have the specified insurance.) So he asks me to tell him what section of the law I'm looking at so he can show me where I'm wrong. After reading the law he was very surprised and admitted that I was correct. Anyway it is my understanding that right from the start the division was focused on pushing insurance. Insurance that apparently doesn't benefit consumers, but if anything injures consumers. So instead of insurance companies having to hit the pavement and sell their product they can have a division of government push their product for them off "an approved list." What a scam.
Oh, this division is *supposed* to have its records open to consumers like me. I ask for the records and I'm met with immediate NO, NO, NO. I show them the law it is still NO, NO, NO. I show them the portion of the law where I get $1,000 if they knowingly refuse to give the records. Suddenly, some interest in obeying the law!
So it soons becomes seemingly apparent why they didn't want to give me the records: Shame. They claimed to have only 1 other complaint on file and they failed to protect the consumer. He ended up having to sue (he won in court), which was totally unnecessary because that is what the division is supposedly there for. I didn't want to sue (it is cheaper to be ripped off) because the law specifies reasonable attorneys' fees. In a case in Broward that meant well over $30,000 for a dispute over a $3,000 repair bill. And, the consumer was the one that was going to have to pay the $30,000 in "reasonable attorneys' fees," but the appellate court came to the rescue of the consumer. (Very surprising.) So now the business has to pay all these "reasonable attorneys' fees" plus refund the $3,000 plus pay damages.
I'd bet that if Philly severly limited the clubs, then unfortunately the clean ones would die. I remember the club in Dothan, Alabama was startling because it was an entirely different product. I could spend the whole night there night after night. The girls weren't making any $ that I could see, but seemed to be having a fantastic time.
Kyle, I totally agree with you. Laws and egulations usually have an intended purpose when first enacted, but over time that purpose can become totally distorted and the regulations continue to exist for entirely other reasons. Our drug policies and our prohibitions against prostitution are obvious examples. Everyone knows that these laws and regulations don't work but no one is willing to take on the interests that pretend otherwise.
Personally I think that low-contact clubs would continue to prosper without laws. Take Philly as an example - there are lots of low contact clubs doing well even though there are lots of very high contact clubs nearby. They obviously appeal to different types of customers.
Regulations can be very lucrative. Whether they achieve alleged purposes may or may not be important.
Prisons are big business. Not only do prisons help secure the power of the state, but tidy sums can be amassed on both sides of the law e.g. drugs lords are well compensated for risking prison time, and lawyers are well paid prosecuting or defending said drug lords and drug users. Then you have judges, prison guards, lobbyists, etc. I had a nice little chat with a former police officer who was buying a $340,000 home with the intention of spending another $200,000 to fix it up. My buddy who was selling the property was complaining that instead of listening to army recruiters he should have tried to become a police officer. There was a story in The Miami Herald where police sergeants were supposedly getting a pension of $100,000 plus other benefits for 20 years of service.
You've all pointed out something interesting that I've thought for years. And that is that regulations often have the exact opposite effect of what was intended. Simple example - CAFE standards for autos resulted in the SUV. The net result is that gasoline consumption increased, not decreased. You'd think that people who propose regulations would figure this out someday.
No doubt that tamer clubs would survive. Deja Vu is just 2 miles from Rick's in Seattle and does OK business even though it is oddles tamer. Big mystery to me why someone would choose the former over the later if they are getting LDs, but whatever. (I guess I can see some patrons only wanting to watch the stage shows and not touch be touched by the dancers at all in which case DV is the better deal.)
And, the increased consumption was NOT beer and wine, but alcohol products which supposedly are the most harmful.
There is plenty of room for bikini type clubs, but payoffs need to be made (makes very little difference if you're following the law or not) and the artificially limited resource (the clubs) will cater to the more hardcare aficionados to maximize their mini-monopoly. Less government will equal lower prices and more variety as was the case with alcohol. I don't need to have extreme mileage, but the more I pay the more I expect. So a super cheap clean bikini club might be what I and other customers would like, but the government has decided to stack the deck against this type of club.
And, the increased consumption was NOT beer and wine, but alcohol products which supposedly is the most harmful.
There is plenty of room for bikini type clubs, but payoffs need to be made (makes very little difference if you're following the law or not) and the artificially limited resource (the clubs) will cater to the more hardcare aficionados to maximize their mini-monopoly. Less government will equal lower prices and more variety as was the case with alcohol. I don't need to have extreme mileage, but the more I pay the more I expect. So a super cheap clean bikini club might be what I and other customers would like, but the government has decided to stack the deck against this type of club.
Alcohol consumption actually increased during prohibiton, at least according to a history channel program I saw... But I think that the number of SC patrons would increase if the laws eased up. There would be a greater variety, and bigger number of clubs, offering "mild" to "wild", and their prices would also be more competitive. I for one believe that California's fiscal deficit would be eased up considerably if the sex police were put out of business, and consentual private adult behavior was decriminalized. Hundred of years of teetollers and prudes trying to keep us from having fun haven't changed human behavior one iota. And never will. I do think that clubs and other adult themed entertainment should be kept away from schools and churches, but otherwise, party on!
I like it in Nevada where brothels are legal but there are health regulations. That's the way to go. Strip clubs suck because there are no health regulation so sex would be scary there. The fact that sex isn't a given gives the girls an oppurtunity to play the dumb games they do. Brothels are much moralller places than strip clubs I think because they are so straight forward and more satisfying (unless you are into risking your health, I guess).
Clean clubs cannot compete because of the way the game has been stacked. Let people freely open bars and I think the market will provide G rated fun to XXX rated fun.
When the government starts to impose restrictions the market may taken some unexpected turns. When the number of "nude" type bars is limited there is a pressure to maximize profits by going for what customers are willing to pay the most for. So you end up with high mileage clubs seeming to be the real deal. Now, if it was easy to open these businesses like it is to open a bookstore, then you will start see different niches being filled at lower prices.
Can you imagine if the government limited the number of restaurants to no more than the number of strip clubs operating locally? Would meals cost $500? Would the real deal seem like a famous chef at your table side is a requirement? How would the restrictions affect the menu of the restaurants? Would there be a $100 cover?
I think small relaxed inexpensive clubs would have a very large market. When the government limits supply the game changes . . . think pre-War on Alcohol and post-War on Alcohol.
There are clubs right now that offer whatever you want! Legal or not...But seriously... The industry would be very different if that where the case. I think it would be a lot easier to draw the lines between strip clubs and brothels and clubs would be cleaner. When I want to hang out with beautiful women for a few hours I go to a strip club. Extras are not the reason I go. I have nothing against extras girls but I find that they are much less fun to chat with before and after the extras occur.
If there were no restrictions on the opening of clubs, then I'd prefer a clean club.
If there there is going to be little monopolies as is the case now, then I prefer hardcore.
It sorta like the situation with prohibition I believe. If my history is correct, then during the heyday of the War on Alcohol very little wine and beer was being sold. It was the hardstuff the freedom fighters/criminals were peddling.
22 comments
Latest
Yes, most legislators don't even bother reading what they're voting for and if they did bother it wouldn't make much difference. (The people should get to vote for lobbyists instead of representatives. ;) ) The courts can take even well written legislation and pervert it.
Criminal statutes are largely the same shit. The main beneficiaries besides certain criminals: attorneys, law enforcement, and the prison industry.
The citizens here in the State of Florida passed some referendums years ago to try and control the corrupt state supreme court. Predictably the court ruled the referendums were unconstitutional.
Oh, this division is *supposed* to have its records open to consumers like me. I ask for the records and I'm met with immediate NO, NO, NO. I show them the law it is still NO, NO, NO. I show them the portion of the law where I get $1,000 ***(from the individuals)*** if they knowingly refuse to give the records. Suddenly, some interest in obeying the law!
I'm also a little more cynical. I wonder if the stated purpose of the law was ever what was really intended.
There is this consumer protection division here in Miami-Dade County. According to the law it is there to protect consumers from fraud and shoddy repairs, etc. I was talking with a detective about how the division was just ignoring the law. He laughs at me and says their job is to make sure businesses have specified insurance coverage. I say NO the law is very clear and their first priority is supposed to be protecting consumers. So the detective laughs again and says they've never done that. It has always been about insurance. (All day long clerks are checking to make sure businesses have the specified insurance.) So he asks me to tell him what section of the law I'm looking at so he can show me where I'm wrong. After reading the law he was very surprised and admitted that I was correct. Anyway it is my understanding that right from the start the division was focused on pushing insurance. Insurance that apparently doesn't benefit consumers, but if anything injures consumers. So instead of insurance companies having to hit the pavement and sell their product they can have a division of government push their product for them off "an approved list." What a scam.
Oh, this division is *supposed* to have its records open to consumers like me. I ask for the records and I'm met with immediate NO, NO, NO. I show them the law it is still NO, NO, NO. I show them the portion of the law where I get $1,000 if they knowingly refuse to give the records. Suddenly, some interest in obeying the law!
So it soons becomes seemingly apparent why they didn't want to give me the records: Shame. They claimed to have only 1 other complaint on file and they failed to protect the consumer. He ended up having to sue (he won in court), which was totally unnecessary because that is what the division is supposedly there for. I didn't want to sue (it is cheaper to be ripped off) because the law specifies reasonable attorneys' fees. In a case in Broward that meant well over $30,000 for a dispute over a $3,000 repair bill. And, the consumer was the one that was going to have to pay the $30,000 in "reasonable attorneys' fees," but the appellate court came to the rescue of the consumer. (Very surprising.) So now the business has to pay all these "reasonable attorneys' fees" plus refund the $3,000 plus pay damages.
I'd bet that if Philly severly limited the clubs, then unfortunately the clean ones would die. I remember the club in Dothan, Alabama was startling because it was an entirely different product. I could spend the whole night there night after night. The girls weren't making any $ that I could see, but seemed to be having a fantastic time.
Personally I think that low-contact clubs would continue to prosper without laws. Take Philly as an example - there are lots of low contact clubs doing well even though there are lots of very high contact clubs nearby. They obviously appeal to different types of customers.
Regulations can be very lucrative. Whether they achieve alleged purposes may or may not be important.
Prisons are big business. Not only do prisons help secure the power of the state, but tidy sums can be amassed on both sides of the law e.g. drugs lords are well compensated for risking prison time, and lawyers are well paid prosecuting or defending said drug lords and drug users. Then you have judges, prison guards, lobbyists, etc. I had a nice little chat with a former police officer who was buying a $340,000 home with the intention of spending another $200,000 to fix it up. My buddy who was selling the property was complaining that instead of listening to army recruiters he should have tried to become a police officer. There was a story in The Miami Herald where police sergeants were supposedly getting a pension of $100,000 plus other benefits for 20 years of service.
There is plenty of room for bikini type clubs, but payoffs need to be made (makes very little difference if you're following the law or not) and the artificially limited resource (the clubs) will cater to the more hardcare aficionados to maximize their mini-monopoly. Less government will equal lower prices and more variety as was the case with alcohol. I don't need to have extreme mileage, but the more I pay the more I expect. So a super cheap clean bikini club might be what I and other customers would like, but the government has decided to stack the deck against this type of club.
And, the increased consumption was NOT beer and wine, but alcohol products which supposedly is the most harmful.
There is plenty of room for bikini type clubs, but payoffs need to be made (makes very little difference if you're following the law or not) and the artificially limited resource (the clubs) will cater to the more hardcare aficionados to maximize their mini-monopoly. Less government will equal lower prices and more variety as was the case with alcohol. I don't need to have extreme mileage, but the more I pay the more I expect. So a super cheap clean bikini club might be what I and other customers would like, but the government has decided to stack the deck against this type of club.
When the government starts to impose restrictions the market may taken some unexpected turns. When the number of "nude" type bars is limited there is a pressure to maximize profits by going for what customers are willing to pay the most for. So you end up with high mileage clubs seeming to be the real deal. Now, if it was easy to open these businesses like it is to open a bookstore, then you will start see different niches being filled at lower prices.
Can you imagine if the government limited the number of restaurants to no more than the number of strip clubs operating locally? Would meals cost $500? Would the real deal seem like a famous chef at your table side is a requirement? How would the restrictions affect the menu of the restaurants? Would there be a $100 cover?
I think small relaxed inexpensive clubs would have a very large market. When the government limits supply the game changes . . . think pre-War on Alcohol and post-War on Alcohol.
If there were no restrictions on the opening of clubs, then I'd prefer a clean club.
If there there is going to be little monopolies as is the case now, then I prefer hardcore.
It sorta like the situation with prohibition I believe. If my history is correct, then during the heyday of the War on Alcohol very little wine and beer was being sold. It was the hardstuff the freedom fighters/criminals were peddling.