Do you treat a stripper as a real person or as a sex object? Which do you prefer that she present herself as? Are you always sure about the difference?
It's curious that several replies equate a "sex object" approach with a mercenary or ATM treatment in return. I don't get that at all. I think that must be the result of the humorless, literal attitude. When both of us are aware that it's a role she's playing and have fun with the situation, it's all good.
Igiveup: I was just bein' silly. I didn't find your comments any more offensive than (I hope) mine were intended. All in good fun.
Chandler: indeed, "object" simply indicates that a verb has performed some action on the noun in question. "She is the object of my affections," or "the indirect object of my sentence."
Cf. Descartes, "The Subjectless Object": that which exists only for its own benefit. Otherwise known as Tony Robbins, or a trivia game.
"Don't objectify me!" cried the feminist. "Don't subject me to it!" cried the masculinist. "I strenuously object!" yelled the woman. "What's the subject?" asked the man.
Really what we need is the Ablative, or at least the Second Passive Periphrastic, in English.
I think it depends on how long you've known the girl. If I'm meeting a girl for the first time or nearly so, I like her to portray herself as somewhat of a sex object as long as she's not overly phoney about it. But after I've spent a lot of time with a girl and gotten to know her really well, I prefer her to lean more toward the real person apporach and treat me more like a friend - what I call a strip club buddy - while we're just talking and hanging out. But she's still should become the sex object when we head for the LD room, so it's kind of a split personality thing.
I'd describe my preferred first approach as somewhere between the two extremes that Chandler describes. I want her to be more playful than pure sex object, somewhat sexy but not overboard about it, otherwise it seems too phoney. Not very many girls are good at being playful, it requires more wit and intelligence than strippers usually possess.
BookGuy: I can remember when you emailed me about jobs in Atlanta. I told you that I didn't know because really I didn't know. Especially because I didn't know what you wanted or were qualified to do. You know who I am.
BTW, Book Guy: To go beyond your semantical point, what's really dumb about the PC term "sex object" is how it misconstrues the sense of "object". Surely, it's simply the target or focus or your sexual feelings, like "object of my affections", not like anything inanimate. However, the PCers were so hung up on seeing the word "object" as bad, they gladly bastardized it to serve their agenda of heartless men "objectifying" women like blow up dolls. They may have had a point - and some dumbasses do treat strippers that way - but the PCers' clumsy language bullying made them just look uneducated.
Nevertheless, "sex object" has become so widely understood by its bastardized PC meaning that I didn't think twice about it starting this topic.
After putting "Igiveup" on my ignore-list, I now answer ...
I guess at a strip club I definitely prefer the "sex object" approach. I want her to be someone who doesn't expect "normalcy" but rather displays that she knows how to both display her charms, and use them to please me. I don't want to be teased, I want to be pleased, and although I want her to interact as though I have a brain and as though I deserve her respect as much as she deserves mine, I would much prefer that she "go after" me via my wallet in the full awareness that I'm not going to call after her if her pet chihuahua gets sick.
It's a "business relationship" first and foremost, but the BEST businesswomen know that the customer is king. :)
Book Guy: What I have in mind are two opposite approaches for customer/dancer interaction. It might help to compare at what initially happens on the surface, without trying to look too deep into anyone's mind. In their extremes they might go as follows:
The "Real Person" Approach - Dancer presents herself as though she's fully clothed in a regular bar. Customer looks into her eyes, not at her body, definitely not at her naughty bits. They shake hands. She sits in a chair at arm's length from him. She might touch his hand as they talk, but nothing more at first. They talk about each other's backgrounds and interests, etc., as though they have met at a church social. He might compliment her on her smile or her pretty eyes. If he's feeling frisky, perhaps even her skin or her figure, but not in a suggestive way, and definitely not on her naughty bits. They talk about her dancing and the club in a polite, non-sexual manner. He likes her. She seems like a nice girl he'd like to get to know better. After chatting in this way for some time, she suggests a dance. He agrees. And so on...
The "Sex Object" Approach - Dancer presents herself in a frankly sexual manner. Customer leers over her body, makes no attempt to disguise his intentions as he checks out her ass, then looks into her eyes to catch her reaction. They begin stroking each other's bodies. She sits on his lap and throws her arm around him. They talk about their favorite sex positions, but hardly at all about each other in general. He tells her what he likes about her body, and all the ways he'd like to enjoy it. They talk frankly about her stripping and the club as a flesh game of ass shaking for horny guys. He thinks she's hot. She seems like she'd give a nasty lapdance. She can feel his boner, so she suggests a dance. He agrees. And so on...
I like to stay pretty close to the "sex object" approach. Every dancer is different, so it varies. Sometimes, the looking and talking is overt but the physical part doesn't heat up much until the dance begins. Other times, there's a lot of touching right away, but the conversation is mostly of the "real person" variety (despite my best efforts). There's always humor in it, because sexual encounters are inherently funny to me, especially when they go down as a transaction between strangers, and humor helps us both to relax and open up. It's all about opening up, right?
I bet most of us fall somewhere between the extremes, with the physical and conversational parts depending on the dynamics with each girl. I can't believe anyone here would be a "real person" extremist the way I portrayed it, although conversationally it seems like some guys are not far from it.
I agree with Yoda and Chandler. When I say I prefer to be treated as a real person, I mean as a girl would treat a real person in a strip club, not as she would treat a real person somewhere else. By that I mean I expect to be treated as a customer, but as one with a brain who appreciates playful banter and who understands and enjoys the game, not treated as a walking wallet without a brain. Trouble is many strippers don't have the intelligence or the will to pull that off. The good ones make the effort to provide the fantasy. The bad ones don't even know the meaning of "fantasy."
Chandler: indeed, we should have moved on from those backlashes. I wasn't directing my semantical anti-semantics at you personally at all. No hard feelings? (except when strippers are around)
Anyway, if I get the gist of the question, it seems to be asking something akin to the following: what's the relative weight t hat you place on physical sexiness of form and looks, on the one hand, as compared to other things such as character, personality, how you two click, whether or not she has a positive attitude, and other mental / emotional stuff on the other hand?
I'd have to say, I can't really distinguish. For me, if the woman isn't "hot enough" in a sort of specific way, then I don't give a danged rat's ass about whether or not she's nice to small animals (or to me), I STILL don't want to fuck her. And in my civilian non-strip-club life, I've only ever met ONE woman who was both super-hot, and concurrently such a bitch that I wouldn't have wanted to fuck her.
But to the real question at hand -- what is a stripper, (a) some fully-fledged human to get to know, or (b) someone whose physical appeal is the sole purpose of your intentions with her, and with whom the encounter is geared solely toward gratifying your male desires for her?
I can't answer. I don't understand the distinction. No, really, I'm not being semantic and persnickety. I don't know ANY way of interacting with people whom I might want "intimacy" with, that isn't based almost entirely on whether or not her looks give me a boner. I know, I'm shallow.
And on top of that, if you could look deep into my mind and also listen to the minds of strippers interacting with me, you wouldn't find a lot of sexism going on. I'm not thinking, "Gawd, gotta fuck her, the pretty little lump of flesh whose opinions don't matter, who doesn't deserve a real life because she's hot and female." I tend, to the contrary, to be quite sympathetic to the women I'm attracted to, and they tend to find me so; I tend to treat them "as real people deserve to be treated" and so forth. I don't think human females are "inferior" or without the same rights as males, and I don't denigrate or "use" them in any way that isn't consensual etc. And yet, they're "just" sexual beings to me, first and foremost.
So there's this odd thing in my head. I want 'em because of what they look like, period end of story. And that means I'm respectful of them as "real" people. Make sense? No, I guess not ... happy holidays anyway ...
Yoda, I don't know about smarter, but my approach does call for a kind of dry, satirical sense of humor. Somebody who doesn't get it can appear to be kind of slow. I can usually sense right away whether a stripper is tuned into it. They're probably not the same girls that a customer with a literal, denigrating attitude towards "sex objects" is looking for.
Book Guy: I was only trying to help explain the difference you said you didn't get, not state what the terms *should* mean. Sorry, I didn't realize that using the term "sex object" would still a hot button issue. I thought we had all moved beyond those PC/backlash semantics debates of the 1990s. I pretty much agree with your point, I'm just not very passionate about it anymore. I'd still be interested in your opinion on the main question, if you can set aside my insensitive choice of words.
Response to earlier discussion about semantics: No, "sex object" is an absolutely legitimate sub-category that only applies to humans. I reject the political-correct-ism that suggests that "sex object" must imply "only a sex object and not a human being." It doesn't. In fact (as I've said) I think "sex object" can ONLY be a human being, and therefore implies "normal human PLUS sexy human combined" and is thus an improvement over "only another human being."
Same idea as, if I say I am interested in having a hot-looking girlfriend. That doesn't mean I ONLY want her to be hot, and if she's hot-and-intelligent or hot-and-stupid doesn't matter to me. Further, it doesn't mean I value hotness OVER intelligence. It simply means the single statement. Extrapolating some kind of weird extremes from it in some unfounded manner suggests less about the statement, and more about the person who is drawing the extreme extrapolations.
That all having been said, however ... :) ... I do agree, that in GENERAL USAGE out there (and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for any member of this forum to assume that it's "standard" usage) quite often, people do idiotic things, such as, equating "sex object" with "only a sex-object and less than a human." Silly English ...
Chandler: I think your approach-which I favor as well-works just great as long as the dancer is intelligent enough and has the sense of humor to pull it off. Same goes for the customer. If you haven't figured what the game is you are much less likely to enjoy all of the benefits.
Yeah, it's a game whether we recognize it or not. What always seems to be missing from the adamant "real person" opinions is an appreciation of the playful, imaginative spirit that the "sex object" attitude can have. Those are exactly the qualities I look for in a stripper (along with hotness). I encourage her to keep it going for as long as possible. I have no complaints about the rapport we gain or the mileage that results. For me, it's a better way to get to know her than an earnest, reverent approach. I'm sure it's not for everyone, customers and dancers alike. And there must be some real bastards out there who take the "sex object" thing way too literally and humorlessly for it to always have such a bad rap. But then, of course, we all know that no customer who sits with a half-naked girl working in a strip club and talks solemnly to learn all about the real person in 15 minutes' time could be anything but pure of heart.
If I walk into a club expecting to treat the ladies as sex objects, then I expect to be treated like a walking ATM. If I treat them as human beings, then I get treated as such in return. It's whatever game you wanna play when you walk in the door. As long as you remember that it is a GAME, after all.
Doug: I'm merely pointing out that strippers know how to flatter their customers on everything they do. They're always telling me how much fun it is to play the sex object role for me, and how boring other guys can be. It could be the same girl finding genuine enjoyment in two different customers' styles. Or it could be pure BS that comes free with purchase.
It depends on the girl and how she treats me. In general if she treats me as a real person, I treat her as one too, which is what I prefer. If she treats me as a money object and I find her attractive anyway, I'll treat her as a sex object. But usually if she treats me as a money object, I treat her as someone I want to get rid of.
Chandler: Well... that brings us back to the beginning... is it just Stripper BS, or what? She said she liked the fact that I wasn't grabby like most of the guys, she said it was a nice change, and that she was lucky that she "found" me.
Yeah, I s'pose it could just be Stripper BS and that she was more happy that I was spending money on her.
Who knows?
[sitting back and enjoying the ride as long as it lasts and stopping the analyzation, while grabbing another beer]
Doug: I wonder if the fact that you're buying over 65 minutes worth of dances from her in two days accounts for your ATFs appreciation as much as laying off her tits.
I always attempt to treat them as a real person. In fact, the ones who are too overtly ready for sex don't get anything. They could be too much of a sex object, you could say.
Of course the first attraction is as a Sex Object... I spot a dancer that I want to play with, and get her attention (or wait for her to approach). Once that initial introduction is over, I revert to the Real Person mode.
I relate to her as a Real Person not to get increased mileage, but because I enjoy getting to know her, and in my opinion the dances are more enjoyable when I feel that we have established a rapport. Of course having established a rapport with a dancer usually has the added benefit of getting increased mileage.
Having had in-depth conversations with many dancers, in regards to how I treat them and how most other guys treat them, I've been told many times over that they appreciate being treated with respect. They are constantly having to deal with the "grabby" guys, and the guys that treat them like "whores". They find it "refreshing" when a guy doesn't go straight for the "goods" as soon as a dance starts.
My usual "routine" during the first dance session with a new dancer, is to sit back with my hands at my sides, even if the club is known to be a "high contact" club. I let her do her thing, without touching her. During the second song, I may stroke her back... play with her hair... and usually start talking with her and finding out about her. Depending on her reactions and positions, I may stroke her face, thighs, stomach... By this time, a lot of dancers will be placing my hands where they want them, which usually is her breasts... Sometimes I might ask to touch her breasts.
In the case of my ATF, the first dance session lasted about 45 min, and I never touched her breasts, even though I THINK she was giving me signs that she wanted me to touch them by the way she was placing her body. The next night, continuing where we left off, it was probably another 20 min or so before I lightly touched her breast, and with her reactions demonstrating that she was liking it, I of course obliged by continuing. Later during a "cooling off break", she said, "Do you realize how long you waited before you touched my breasts? I did, and it didn't go unnoticed... I liked that."
That single gesture set the tone for our relationship. I believe it's one of the reasons for where our relationship is currently.
A previous ATF once stated that when guys are "grabby" it automatically puts the dancer in "defense mode", and makes them concentrate on where his hands are and where they are heading, instead of concentrating on providing a pleasurable dance. She further said that she has many dance moves and positions that she would never do with a "grabby" guy, simply because she can't trust him not to touch her where she doesn't want touched.
I have found over the years, and as some of you know I am married to a now ex dancer, that you will get a lot farther with them if you treat them as a real person rather than a sex object. Try as best as you can to get to know who they are after you get through the BS as well as the "shell" they construct, and you will get much better dances as well as to have a better time.
Realize of course that this is not always the case, but more often than not it is.
Book Guy: The two terms are not meant to be precise. I chose them because they're common parlance. Think of them as different tendencies if the absence of an airtight either/or distinction troubles you.
"Sex object" implies "only a sex object", excluding other attributes of the person. Also, "sex object" is obviously not literal, but "like an ojbect", while still being a human being, not a piece of household furniture.
I think there is a certain amount of gray area involved. I may become friendly with a dancer but it always starts as a physical attraction, a conversation and then dances.
There are a few ladies that I have become very close to and stopped doing dances with. I don't think a strong confident woman has any problem with being appreciated for her sexuality.
I don't really get the difference between a "sex object" and a "real person." I (and most other heterosexual guys) only have truly sexual feelings for female humans; therefore, by definition, if I lust after a woman I am ENHANCING my appreciation for her as a "real person." I mean, I don't ever lust after a table, for example; if I DID, then I'd be treating the table more like a human than it would otherwise merit. Consequently, "sex object" is a subset of "real person." I CAN'T treat someone as a member of the former category without her also being a member of the latter.
Personally, I treat them as real persons. It seems to me that is what they prefer, most seem gratified that someone talks to them in a normal manner. And I prefer to deal with a real person, not some object.
They do seem to know that I prefer that they present themselves as such. But that could be because most are good at figuring out what the customer wants, and giving it to them. They watch you with other dancers, talk among themselves, and size you up from every interaction.
I like this question in general, but especially the third part. Am I sure about the difference, beyween the real person and the sex object? Hell no! That's what makes them such an enigma. You never know with a dancer where the bullshit ends and reality begins. (Say isn't that what most posts here are about?)
29 comments
Latest
Chandler: indeed, "object" simply indicates that a verb has performed some action on the noun in question. "She is the object of my affections," or "the indirect object of my sentence."
Cf. Descartes, "The Subjectless Object": that which exists only for its own benefit. Otherwise known as Tony Robbins, or a trivia game.
"Don't objectify me!" cried the feminist. "Don't subject me to it!" cried the masculinist. "I strenuously object!" yelled the woman. "What's the subject?" asked the man.
Really what we need is the Ablative, or at least the Second Passive Periphrastic, in English.
I'd describe my preferred first approach as somewhere between the two extremes that Chandler describes. I want her to be more playful than pure sex object, somewhat sexy but not overboard about it, otherwise it seems too phoney. Not very many girls are good at being playful, it requires more wit and intelligence than strippers usually possess.
Nevertheless, "sex object" has become so widely understood by its bastardized PC meaning that I didn't think twice about it starting this topic.
I guess at a strip club I definitely prefer the "sex object" approach. I want her to be someone who doesn't expect "normalcy" but rather displays that she knows how to both display her charms, and use them to please me. I don't want to be teased, I want to be pleased, and although I want her to interact as though I have a brain and as though I deserve her respect as much as she deserves mine, I would much prefer that she "go after" me via my wallet in the full awareness that I'm not going to call after her if her pet chihuahua gets sick.
It's a "business relationship" first and foremost, but the BEST businesswomen know that the customer is king. :)
The "Real Person" Approach - Dancer presents herself as though she's fully clothed in a regular bar. Customer looks into her eyes, not at her body, definitely not at her naughty bits. They shake hands. She sits in a chair at arm's length from him. She might touch his hand as they talk, but nothing more at first. They talk about each other's backgrounds and interests, etc., as though they have met at a church social. He might compliment her on her smile or her pretty eyes. If he's feeling frisky, perhaps even her skin or her figure, but not in a suggestive way, and definitely not on her naughty bits. They talk about her dancing and the club in a polite, non-sexual manner. He likes her. She seems like a nice girl he'd like to get to know better. After chatting in this way for some time, she suggests a dance. He agrees. And so on...
The "Sex Object" Approach - Dancer presents herself in a frankly sexual manner. Customer leers over her body, makes no attempt to disguise his intentions as he checks out her ass, then looks into her eyes to catch her reaction. They begin stroking each other's bodies. She sits on his lap and throws her arm around him. They talk about their favorite sex positions, but hardly at all about each other in general. He tells her what he likes about her body, and all the ways he'd like to enjoy it. They talk frankly about her stripping and the club as a flesh game of ass shaking for horny guys. He thinks she's hot. She seems like she'd give a nasty lapdance. She can feel his boner, so she suggests a dance. He agrees. And so on...
I like to stay pretty close to the "sex object" approach. Every dancer is different, so it varies. Sometimes, the looking and talking is overt but the physical part doesn't heat up much until the dance begins. Other times, there's a lot of touching right away, but the conversation is mostly of the "real person" variety (despite my best efforts). There's always humor in it, because sexual encounters are inherently funny to me, especially when they go down as a transaction between strangers, and humor helps us both to relax and open up. It's all about opening up, right?
I bet most of us fall somewhere between the extremes, with the physical and conversational parts depending on the dynamics with each girl. I can't believe anyone here would be a "real person" extremist the way I portrayed it, although conversationally it seems like some guys are not far from it.
Anyway, if I get the gist of the question, it seems to be asking something akin to the following: what's the relative weight t hat you place on physical sexiness of form and looks, on the one hand, as compared to other things such as character, personality, how you two click, whether or not she has a positive attitude, and other mental / emotional stuff on the other hand?
I'd have to say, I can't really distinguish. For me, if the woman isn't "hot enough" in a sort of specific way, then I don't give a danged rat's ass about whether or not she's nice to small animals (or to me), I STILL don't want to fuck her. And in my civilian non-strip-club life, I've only ever met ONE woman who was both super-hot, and concurrently such a bitch that I wouldn't have wanted to fuck her.
But to the real question at hand -- what is a stripper, (a) some fully-fledged human to get to know, or (b) someone whose physical appeal is the sole purpose of your intentions with her, and with whom the encounter is geared solely toward gratifying your male desires for her?
I can't answer. I don't understand the distinction. No, really, I'm not being semantic and persnickety. I don't know ANY way of interacting with people whom I might want "intimacy" with, that isn't based almost entirely on whether or not her looks give me a boner. I know, I'm shallow.
And on top of that, if you could look deep into my mind and also listen to the minds of strippers interacting with me, you wouldn't find a lot of sexism going on. I'm not thinking, "Gawd, gotta fuck her, the pretty little lump of flesh whose opinions don't matter, who doesn't deserve a real life because she's hot and female." I tend, to the contrary, to be quite sympathetic to the women I'm attracted to, and they tend to find me so; I tend to treat them "as real people deserve to be treated" and so forth. I don't think human females are "inferior" or without the same rights as males, and I don't denigrate or "use" them in any way that isn't consensual etc. And yet, they're "just" sexual beings to me, first and foremost.
So there's this odd thing in my head. I want 'em because of what they look like, period end of story. And that means I'm respectful of them as "real" people. Make sense? No, I guess not ... happy holidays anyway ...
Same idea as, if I say I am interested in having a hot-looking girlfriend. That doesn't mean I ONLY want her to be hot, and if she's hot-and-intelligent or hot-and-stupid doesn't matter to me. Further, it doesn't mean I value hotness OVER intelligence. It simply means the single statement. Extrapolating some kind of weird extremes from it in some unfounded manner suggests less about the statement, and more about the person who is drawing the extreme extrapolations.
That all having been said, however ... :) ... I do agree, that in GENERAL USAGE out there (and therefore it's perfectly reasonable for any member of this forum to assume that it's "standard" usage) quite often, people do idiotic things, such as, equating "sex object" with "only a sex-object and less than a human." Silly English ...
Yeah, I s'pose it could just be Stripper BS and that she was more happy that I was spending money on her.
Who knows?
[sitting back and enjoying the ride as long as it lasts and stopping the analyzation, while grabbing another beer]
I relate to her as a Real Person not to get increased mileage, but because I enjoy getting to know her, and in my opinion the dances are more enjoyable when I feel that we have established a rapport. Of course having established a rapport with a dancer usually has the added benefit of getting increased mileage.
Having had in-depth conversations with many dancers, in regards to how I treat them and how most other guys treat them, I've been told many times over that they appreciate being treated with respect. They are constantly having to deal with the "grabby" guys, and the guys that treat them like "whores". They find it "refreshing" when a guy doesn't go straight for the "goods" as soon as a dance starts.
My usual "routine" during the first dance session with a new dancer, is to sit back with my hands at my sides, even if the club is known to be a "high contact" club. I let her do her thing, without touching her. During the second song, I may stroke her back... play with her hair... and usually start talking with her and finding out about her. Depending on her reactions and positions, I may stroke her face, thighs, stomach... By this time, a lot of dancers will be placing my hands where they want them, which usually is her breasts... Sometimes I might ask to touch her breasts.
In the case of my ATF, the first dance session lasted about 45 min, and I never touched her breasts, even though I THINK she was giving me signs that she wanted me to touch them by the way she was placing her body. The next night, continuing where we left off, it was probably another 20 min or so before I lightly touched her breast, and with her reactions demonstrating that she was liking it, I of course obliged by continuing. Later during a "cooling off break", she said, "Do you realize how long you waited before you touched my breasts? I did, and it didn't go unnoticed... I liked that."
That single gesture set the tone for our relationship. I believe it's one of the reasons for where our relationship is currently.
A previous ATF once stated that when guys are "grabby" it automatically puts the dancer in "defense mode", and makes them concentrate on where his hands are and where they are heading, instead of concentrating on providing a pleasurable dance. She further said that she has many dance moves and positions that she would never do with a "grabby" guy, simply because she can't trust him not to touch her where she doesn't want touched.
Realize of course that this is not always the case, but more often than not it is.
There are a few ladies that I have become very close to and stopped doing dances with. I don't think a strong confident woman has any problem with being appreciated for her sexuality.
They do seem to know that I prefer that they present themselves as such. But that could be because most are good at figuring out what the customer wants, and giving it to them. They watch you with other dancers, talk among themselves, and size you up from every interaction.
I like this question in general, but especially the third part. Am I sure about the difference, beyween the real person and the sex object? Hell no! That's what makes them such an enigma. You never know with a dancer where the bullshit ends and reality begins. (Say isn't that what most posts here are about?)