1. Answer to the age old question. (Why do some clubs not allow unescorted wome

That’s pure unadulterated bullshit, the cops will quickly figure out who works there and who doesn’t. That’s just plain stupid.

I was there for one raid by De Kalb county. It was in the afternoon. They had everyone remain seated while they rounded up all of the dancers and took them to the dressing room. Then they let all of the customers leave if they wanted to. They checked all of the dancers for permits and found no violations. Follies sued them in court and won.

No disrespect twentyfive, but it actually makes sense.

Clubs may be risk averse and not want to debate with the vice squad regarding the employment status of unaccompanied female patrons. I could see an owner saying "taking the risk = non-brilliant"

That said, I think the "no unaccompanied females" rule is enforced in areas without stripper licenses. I assume somebody here knows whether that is true (assuming you trust the knowledge of random weirdo perverts posting on an internet site for deviants). So there are likely multiple reasons clubs have that rule.

Many of those reasons are likely to be illogical. ;)

^ That’s bullshit so everyone in a doctors office who isn’t sick is practicing medicine w/o a license, or someone using the bathroom in Mickey Ds is shitting in the food that’s just a crock of shit, refusing service to a person based on their gender is a crime, last I looked.

I don't think they would say anything as corny as "taking the risk = non-brilliant".

25 that is a very good analogy.

I have always thought it was to avoid Wives or girlfriends coming in looking for their husbands/boyfriends.

AFAIK the two main-reasons for not allowing unescorted females:

1) working girls

2) an irate wife/gf looking for her S.O.

w/ #1 seeming to be the main-reason

Unescorted females in night clubs are illegal in many states but not enforces very often.

^ huh? How can it be illegal to not allow a woman into a non-private establishment - I doubt such a law exists

^ The states where unescorted females are illegal are places like Saudi’s Arabia, United Arab Emirates, AFAIK it is illegal to ban unescorted women in the United States.

It is typically to preclude prostitutes from coming there to look for customers.

In the United States, denying entry to a business based solely on gender is discriminatory, just like race, and actionable in court. The fact that clubs get away with it doesn’t change that. Several clubs around the I.S. have been found to be infringing and have been forced to change their policy.

^^What gmd said.

The only reason that this practice continues is because the clubs still doing it haven't been called on it.... yet. The clubs that have been called out on it have lost big time since it is such an obvious violation of discrimination laws. They have been forced to not only change the illegal policy, but they have had to cough up some good lap dance money for the winning ladies involved. Par-taaaay!!

One weekend afternoon I walked into Follies, paid the $5 cover, and the door girl said something to me, other than hello, and it caught me off guard. I asked her to repeat and she said more clearly, "Are they with you" and glanced behind me. I was very surprised to see two women had followed me in claiming to be with me. I didn't notice them whatsoever and told her No, to the disappointment of the women. The door girl didn't let them in. I asked what the hell just happened, and she said they don't allow unescorted women because of possible jealous wives/significant others.

It is to try to keep prostitution out of the club, as many people mentioned.
These girls will go in and offer their services to get the customers out of the club. I.e.:

“You could spend $100 on dances or for that price we can go to a hotel instead.”

If LE is in the club, or outside, this activity can get the club in trouble. Also where I live if a pros ticket is written, the manager on shift gets a ticket too...tickets here result in being suspended from working adult cabaret in the county for 30 days, so the rule makes sense when you consider the consequences, more people than just the dancers have something to lose.

A dancer I’ve known for a while said to me exactly what Nina and PinkSugarDoll said in this thread

"It is typically to preclude prostitutes from coming there to look for customers."

Isn't that restraint of trade?

"In the United States, denying entry to a business based solely on gender is discriminatory, just like race, and actionable in court."

Is that true? If only we had someone on the board with a law degree...

Wow, didn't expect this. but I think we can agree if a club does it, then it is trying to avoid drama. Wasn't thinking that this was the only reason. Just that there would be some explaining to do. Even more so if she has a record.

TwentyFive: We all know that if a cop wants to he can make things difficult. Wondering if officers get asshole awards sometimes.

haha I forget about the wife/GF thing. and I have seen it happen. chewing his ass in the parking lot as he is walking to the car with his head down. Then ending it with, "And we need to get gas in the car." Wait does this make my local stripclub a safe place?

There is always that working girl thing.

I don't understand why the customer doesn't tell the door person that she identifies as a male. Then take it to the media and become the poster child for the Democrats and libtards everywhere.

The two reasons I've heard are the two Papi listed. Those two seem to also make sense to me, as I've personally seen both occur. I've seen a pissed off wife calmly walk in in and then abruptly start punching her husband right at the bar without warning. I've also been propositioned for OTC by what I thought was just another customer who happened to be female.

What GMD said is also very true. However, there is an exception for situations where the its done to protect the well being/safety of either one of those classes or the remaining patrons. One could argue that the two justifications given actually apply to the well being of the other patrons. I'm not going to look it up, but it seems totally reasonable that some wife could come in and cause a ruckus resulting an a 3rd party being injured. If that happened somewhere, it would serve to support the theory. If the 3rd party sued for damages and won, even more so. Of course it starts to fall apart if you consider nontraditional relationships, but then you get into an even more subjective area.

Anyway, I can't see one of the reasons for keeping out unescorted females out having to do with licensing requirements. If enforcement isn't capable of distinguishing employees from patrons they're not capable of enforcing and any halfway decent lawyer would easily win and likely get their fee's covered by the state as well. But, I am not a lawyer or anything close.

What if it is against religious beliefs? A normal person doesn't have to bake a cake for a fag wedding.