How Explicit should a TUSCL review be about services?
Book Guy
I write it like I mean it, but mostly they just want my money.
What are your opinions on how explicit a TUSCL review should or could be? Is it appropriate to include names, dates, places, services, extras? Should we say which dancers give sexual services, for what price? Is it reasonable to give as much detailed information as might help a fellow filthy-old-man monger-oriented John customer; or is it reasonable instead, to keep these reviews more cleaned-up, such that the TUSCL website or the clubs are not likely to get in trouble?
What are your opinions? I personally prefer to give a lot of info. I feel this is appropriate for several reasons.
One reason is, that I believe powers-that-be probably know more than TUSCL reviewers do, already. So, whatever is posted here isn't really likely to cause trouble, or, if it is, then it's merely a pointer for an on-the-scene investigation to get started, the sort of thing that would be pointed to by any of a number of signals in the "real world" as likely as by an internet post. The net is full of incriminating evidence.
Another reason is, that these statements are not really "verifiable" and therefore are unlikely to appear in official proceedings in any manner. Could you see a prosecuting attorney asking for a warrant to close a club because he'd read about shenanigans there through an anonymous website on the internet? "But honest, Your Honor, SmackerBacker posts on three occasions that the woman with 'huge gazungas' was seen ..." Not likely.
A good reason for keeping quiet about services, for me, is that the GIRLS might get skittish if they knew it was appearing on the 'net. But, for now, I haven't heard much negative repercussion from the ladies. Either, most of them aren't reading the 'net, or most aren't feeling threatened by it. I wouldn't want to post that so-and-so gives the type of service that I like and might choose to patronize in the future, only to find out that my very posting was exactly the thing which convinced her to cease offering that service for the future. But so far, that's far from the case. In fact, posting something positive about a girl's services -- even if it's explicit about sexually related services -- has only brought about improvement in her business and appreciation from her.
Generally, I feel like we're SUPPOSED to be explicit here. We're vaguely anonymous (though, of course, IP numbers can be traced, if the right authorities ask for them) and, basically, we have a presumption of privacy. I don't know the legal specifics, and I DON'T WANT to know. I am not trying to offer any legal advice at all. I just think, there wouldn't be much utility or raison d'etre for TUSCL, if there could be nothing more than white-bread "I really liked it" types of reviews. I come here in order to read specifics; consequently, when I write reviews, I write specifics.
And, let's keep in mind, that many of the supposedly "safe" reviews are actually reviewing illegal behavior. If someone had posted, back in November 2006, that he got very high-mileage lap dances from so-and-so at Memphis' Platinum Plus, he might have THOUGHT he wasn't contributing to a legal case against them because he didn't mention prostitution or drugs. But in fact, that jurisdiction had a ten-foot (or was it six?) ordinance, so even his supposedly innocuous statement was, actually, giving out incriminating details.
Are we going to ask that all reviews of all clubs in all jurisdictions start observing that location's rather strict clubbing rules, or are we actually going to continue what is going on now, which is, that the generally accepted "monger's rules" of what ought to happen in a lap-dance, are indeed what is rightly expected of any lap-dance regardless of jurisdiction? I think we all know what a "good" lapper is, and we rate a club low or high partly on the basis of high-contact full-straddle grindage, even if that's not technically allowed in a given location. It would be silly to mark down a club for failing to provide what it doesn't seek to provide; but we do just that. Thereby indicating, that we all have a "communal sense" of what we would want or not want, regardless of legal specifics. Can these "unspoken rules" include extras, sexual services? Or just lapper contact?
Your thoughts welcome.
(I post the new topic, rather than continuing in an old thread, because it's a thread that TUSCL's managers might wish to remove from their website. And quite reasonably, too. If this topic is a problem, I invite the webmasters to simply nuke it, no hard feelings and very sorry for the trouble.)
What are your opinions? I personally prefer to give a lot of info. I feel this is appropriate for several reasons.
One reason is, that I believe powers-that-be probably know more than TUSCL reviewers do, already. So, whatever is posted here isn't really likely to cause trouble, or, if it is, then it's merely a pointer for an on-the-scene investigation to get started, the sort of thing that would be pointed to by any of a number of signals in the "real world" as likely as by an internet post. The net is full of incriminating evidence.
Another reason is, that these statements are not really "verifiable" and therefore are unlikely to appear in official proceedings in any manner. Could you see a prosecuting attorney asking for a warrant to close a club because he'd read about shenanigans there through an anonymous website on the internet? "But honest, Your Honor, SmackerBacker posts on three occasions that the woman with 'huge gazungas' was seen ..." Not likely.
A good reason for keeping quiet about services, for me, is that the GIRLS might get skittish if they knew it was appearing on the 'net. But, for now, I haven't heard much negative repercussion from the ladies. Either, most of them aren't reading the 'net, or most aren't feeling threatened by it. I wouldn't want to post that so-and-so gives the type of service that I like and might choose to patronize in the future, only to find out that my very posting was exactly the thing which convinced her to cease offering that service for the future. But so far, that's far from the case. In fact, posting something positive about a girl's services -- even if it's explicit about sexually related services -- has only brought about improvement in her business and appreciation from her.
Generally, I feel like we're SUPPOSED to be explicit here. We're vaguely anonymous (though, of course, IP numbers can be traced, if the right authorities ask for them) and, basically, we have a presumption of privacy. I don't know the legal specifics, and I DON'T WANT to know. I am not trying to offer any legal advice at all. I just think, there wouldn't be much utility or raison d'etre for TUSCL, if there could be nothing more than white-bread "I really liked it" types of reviews. I come here in order to read specifics; consequently, when I write reviews, I write specifics.
And, let's keep in mind, that many of the supposedly "safe" reviews are actually reviewing illegal behavior. If someone had posted, back in November 2006, that he got very high-mileage lap dances from so-and-so at Memphis' Platinum Plus, he might have THOUGHT he wasn't contributing to a legal case against them because he didn't mention prostitution or drugs. But in fact, that jurisdiction had a ten-foot (or was it six?) ordinance, so even his supposedly innocuous statement was, actually, giving out incriminating details.
Are we going to ask that all reviews of all clubs in all jurisdictions start observing that location's rather strict clubbing rules, or are we actually going to continue what is going on now, which is, that the generally accepted "monger's rules" of what ought to happen in a lap-dance, are indeed what is rightly expected of any lap-dance regardless of jurisdiction? I think we all know what a "good" lapper is, and we rate a club low or high partly on the basis of high-contact full-straddle grindage, even if that's not technically allowed in a given location. It would be silly to mark down a club for failing to provide what it doesn't seek to provide; but we do just that. Thereby indicating, that we all have a "communal sense" of what we would want or not want, regardless of legal specifics. Can these "unspoken rules" include extras, sexual services? Or just lapper contact?
Your thoughts welcome.
(I post the new topic, rather than continuing in an old thread, because it's a thread that TUSCL's managers might wish to remove from their website. And quite reasonably, too. If this topic is a problem, I invite the webmasters to simply nuke it, no hard feelings and very sorry for the trouble.)
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
40 comments
Nevertheless, I go ahead and do it. I think two things are motivating me. One is a belief in my own (and other customers') right to "transparency of market" -- more info is better than less info. Remember the bad old days of the 1970s and before, when you had no idea where to go for sexual services, or how reliable they'd be when you got there? Well, thanks to the internet and reviewers like me, things are improving. :) No, seriously, it's the idea of a situation like that one, that motivates me in the opposite direction.
Now, my second notion is a much simpler concept. Who the hell does she think she is, to tell me what to write or not write? I think of it in a much more utilitarian way. If she has some certain desire for what I put on the internet, she needs to MOTIVATE me to acquiesce to her desires. Otherwise, I post what I want, because doing what SHE wants has nothing in it for me. It's a simple view of the world, informed largely by my experience that dancers come and go in my life, plenty of little girls with little minds and little attitudes who might grow into wonderful people or not but by then I won't know them. They are consistently transient. They're not going to be around long enough for me to care about how I mistreat them, if indeed it IS that (which I haven't addressed, and no I don't think it is). The one thing that isn't evanescent, passing through, is me.
And frankly, if there were a buck in it, they'd be just as mercenary about me. They already have been, in the locker room or by email among one another, most likely. "That dude with the pipe is a pretty decent customer. He's grabby, but he doesn't get wasted (any more) and he respects your rules. Good for a reasonable pay-for-play. And he's got a GREAT butt!"
Really, I fantasize ... :P ...
Nevertheless, I go ahead and do it. I think two things are motivating me. One is a belief in my own (and other customers') right to "transparency of market" -- more info is better than less info. Remember the bad old days of the 1970s and before, when you had no idea where to go for sexual services, or how reliable they'd be when you got there? Well, thanks to the internet and reviewers like me, things are improving. :) No, seriously, it's the idea of a situation like that one, that motivates me in the opposite direction.
Now, my second notion is a much simpler concept. Who the hell does she think she is, to tell me what to write or not write? I think of it in a much more utilitarian way. If she has some certain desire for what I put on the internet, she needs to MOTIVATE me to acquiesce to her desires. Otherwise, I post what I want, because doing what SHE wants has nothing in it for me. It's a simple view of the world, informed largely by my experience that dancers come and go in my life, plenty of little girls with little minds and little attitudes who might grow into wonderful people or not but by then I won't know them. They are consistently transient. They're not going to be around long enough for me to care about how I mistreat them, if indeed it IS that (which I haven't addressed, and no I don't think it is). The one thing that isn't evanescent, passing through, is me.
And frankly, if there were a buck in it, they'd be just as mercenary about me. They already have been, in the locker room or by email among one another, most likely. "That dude with the pipe is a pretty decent customer. He's grabby, but he doesn't get wasted (any more) and he respects your rules. Good for a reasonable pay-for-play. And he's got a GREAT butt!"
Really, I fantasize ... :P ...
Nevertheless, I go ahead and do it. I think two things are motivating me. One is a belief in my own (and other customers') right to "transparency of market" -- more info is better than less info. Remember the bad old days of the 1970s and before, when you had no idea where to go for sexual services, or how reliable they'd be when you got there? Well, thanks to the internet and reviewers like me, things are improving. :) No, seriously, it's the idea of a situation like that one, that motivates me in the opposite direction.
Now, my second notion is a much simpler concept. Who the hell does she think she is, to tell me what to write or not write? I think of it in a much more utilitarian way. If she has some certain desire for what I put on the internet, she needs to MOTIVATE me to acquiesce to her desires. Otherwise, I post what I want, because doing what SHE wants has nothing in it for me. It's a simple view of the world, informed largely by my experience that dancers come and go in my life, plenty of little girls with little minds and little attitudes who might grow into wonderful people or not but by then I won't know them. They are consistently transient. They're not going to be around long enough for me to care about how I mistreat them, if indeed it IS that (which I haven't addressed, and no I don't think it is). The one thing that isn't evanescent, passing through, is me.
And frankly, if there were a buck in it, they'd be just as mercenary about me. They already have been, in the locker room or by email among one another, most likely. "That dude with the pipe is a pretty decent customer. He's grabby, but he doesn't get wasted (any more) and he respects your rules. Good for a reasonable pay-for-play. And he's got a GREAT butt!"
Really, I fantasize ... :P ...
There's a tendency to think that, because we're saying it on the internet, it doesn't have any real effect. We're insulated behind our nicknames, so none of it comes back to us in our real lives. We take it for granted that our circle of readers is the only audience we're engaged with, so they're all we need to be mindful of. We enjoy the chance to freely say things we would never say in person to a wide audience where the consequences would be obvious. However, the consequences to the strippers we post about are the same. The combination of their stage name and club is enough to ID them as much as if we posted our own real names and addresses. By doing so, you're effectively outing her. And doing it behind a mask of anonymity. That is not at all cool.
You ask what gives her the right to tell you what not to write. She doesn't have any rights. She's at our mercy. It's up to us to hold up our side of the bargain we enter into when we agree to a private dance. If you don't like the terms, fine. Tell her before the dance starts that you plan to post a detailed account on the internet including her stage name. See how you like those services. You say you believe in "transparency of market". Fine, just remember to apply it even-handedly.
There's another concept that applies to the sex trade which I think is more pertinent here. I'll quote from a post I wrote last summer when somebody else tried to make a similar case to yours:
>Without privacy and anonymity, strip clubs as we know them (and in fact the whole sex industry) could not exist. Strippers use stage names to keep customers from intruding on their private lives, and to help hide what they do from parents and neighbors. Customers conceal their habits from SOs and co-workers. We post here under aliases to keep our clubbing identities from being connected to our real names.
Although there's always some risk of exposure, if dancers and customers weren't reasonably assured of remaining anonymous, there would be a lot fewer strippers working, fewer guys paying, fewer reviews posted, and mileage would wither to nothing. Whether you recognize it or not, you benefit tremendously from everybody else's cooperation to preserve privacy. We all benefit. There are a few people who feel no need to hide their involvement as customers or dancers, and do away with the cloak of anonymity. However, the choice should be up to them. Outing another person, everybody agrees, is just not done.
Within a club, there are varying degrees of public and private. The stage is lit up and wide open for all to see. Around the main room there may be darker corners and partly concealed booths. Higher mileage dances are done in the most private areas. You pay extra to get dances there, because what happens is known only to you and the dancer. Afterwards, neither of you would dream of telling the whole club in detail about ultra-high mileage. If you tried it, she would probably be furious. And, of course, none of the other dancers in the club would give you anything but an airdance - that is, if you somehow avoided being ejected. That's confidentiality. There's no explicit agreement, because it's so completely obvious nobody needs to be told. But violate it and you're sure to pay a price.
Sure, boys will be boys, and dancers realize that we will compare notes and exchange referrals on girls who break the rules. Dancers appreciate the advertising - to a point. I think the expectation is that we limit this to small circles of at least somewhat trusted fellow clubbers, not to proclaim it to total strangers.
So, what does all of this have to do with posting on TUSCL? Let's compare. Here, behind an alias, we're safely removed from being answerable for what we say. If the dancer we post about reads it, she probably cannot tell which customer is spilling the beans. The writer of an explicit review that raises a storm in the club could return the following week without any of the dancers knowing he's the one who blabbed.
The dancer who is named, on the other hand, is just as vulnerable as if you had announced it inside the club. In fact, she's put at greater risk. Instead of having her private activity disclosed to customers and co-workers only, it's broadcast to the world at-large - to anyone who reads about it on the internet. While your alias protects your identity, her club and stage name are enough to pinpoint the dancer. Your intention is only to share info with fellow clubbers, but in disseminating it so publicly, you attract the attention of other parties that can cause great damage to the dancer and the club. She could get fired, catch hell from other dancers or from her husband, or vice could investigate her and the club and arrest her or shut the place down. This isn't paranoia. It's real. These things happen as a result of the kind of internet postings we're discussing.
In some instances, none of it make much difference. With clubs that are commonly known as extras factories, such as Sundowner in Niagara Falls or Mitchell Brothers in San Francisco, the fact that a girl works there is enough to establish what she offers in private dances, so posting about it hardly blows her cover. Or in cities where LE is known to look the other way, the risk is minimal. I don't get the feeling the reviews you're talking about are of this kind.
In most instances, there is a great deal at stake. That's why most of us never connect a stripper's name and club with our accounts of extras, etc., even though we could get away with it. Refraining from doing so keeps from poisoning the well for everyone. If your aim is to spread tips that readers can use, the best solution most of us rely on is to offer more detail only in private email with reasonably trusted parties. Sure, it's not the most convenient method, but it has become necessary in order to play safe. I hope you can appreciate why, and make the effort to preserve the privacy that makes so much of our illicit fun possible.<
The "don't out someone" rule is a good one to stick to. I don't think I ever meant to advocate for all-points outing all the time (though I certainly have said things along those lines in these few posts). Now that you put it that way, I mostly agree with you.
For examples. I am one of the (many) people who has posted very explicitly about my experiences at Treasures, a Houston club where most people recognized that "extras" (meaning, sexual services above and beyond lap-dancing; zippers were unzipped) were readily available from many dancers. I read reviews, traveled to Houston, partook, then wrote reviews.
Funny thing is, I didn't actually name names of any of the girls. Whatever I put up here at TUSCL was mostly a confirmation of the "general opinion" that Treasures was (at the time of my visit) a place where, for a relatively high price, the extra service might be available. Of course, that was all "in my opinion" and "in my experience" and "on the night that I went" and "as far as I can tell" and "unless something changes" (which it has). But those caveats are really beside the point -- it's pretty much redundant, for someone to say, "In this review, I express my personal opinion."
What I'm getting at, here, is that I've ended up being a follower of trends in reviewing. I note the club's nature, the nature of the dancers' behavior and the nature of the ongoing internet reviews of the situation, and I try to let myself "slide in" to the middle of that experience.
For a second example, I have patronized Lipstixx in Tampa, where rather high-service backroom experiences are generally readily available. I don't really think of myself as somehow "outing" a girl, when I mention that a particular service was available to me there. Saying you might get nookie at Lipstixx from Tabitha is like saying Reggie Jackson might hit a home run at Yankee Stadium.
In that respect, we're in agreement, and I'll bet that if you click to my past reviews you'll see that I generally follow the spirit of your dictates more than of my own. Humm ... seems my eyes were bigger than my stomach.
But that begs a second question. If I'm following a trend, what about the guy who first posts about a new trend. Say a club is trundling along in a middle-of-the-road status. Then one dancer, or one customer, begins something that is more licentious. Then the dancers figure out that this is the club to go to, for getting more money if they are willing to offer more sexual services. Then customers follow where the market is offered.
Eventually someone is going to write about this new trend on TUSCL. Is he outing a dancer, or a club? Or is he following the trend? Do we blame the first reviewer, or the first customer, or the first dancer? I know that in my experience I've almost NEVER been the "first" of any of these. I click to TUSCL precisely IN ORDER to be able to follow a trend, figure out where the services are, and then go there. That, by definition, makes me a follower rather than an initiator.
In fact, the fellow who gets "special" service from a "special" girl even when her club, and she herself, don't generally give out those services in other circumstances, is the guy breaking the trend. If he doesn't post anything on TUSCL about it, then it doesn't largely matter to this particular discussion here at TUSCL. But it does matter, to the "trend initiation" phase of development at the club, or with that one dancer.
I think so far, in this thread, I've learned more about myself than I have about what ought to happen at TUSCL. I've found out, that I would like to advocate for no censorship, but then I go and largely censor myself.
Regarding the question of explicitness, when in doubt I favor spelling it all out in blunt Anglo-Saxon language (assuming you aren't "outing" a dancer or a club). Conveying by suggestion is great when it's done well, but few people have the creativity for that, and when it's done poorly, it's usually hackneyed and annoying. I guess that's mainly an aesthetic issue, but I also believe that it doesn't serve any purpose to disguise your meaning in coded slang or abbreviations. It certainly doesn't fool anybody. Like I wrote in a recent thread about terms, if anything, "BBBJ" draws more attention than just writing "blow job", and it reads a lot nerdier. Another dodge that screams "Check this out, Officer" is writing about dancer A**** instead of Amber. Fuck that shit.
I feel that if a dancer gives me more attention than what the local rules allow, she is doing me a favor (of course she is earning more money, too). In my gratitude, I'm not going to say that Jane stroked me until I came... but I'd probably say that Jane gave a very good dance.
Another aspect that throttles what I say is my "stingyness". If I happen to run across a dancer that is extremely good, I might mention her in a review of the club. If go back to that club and continue to have good times with her, I'm most likely going to clam up about her and probably will never mention her name again. Sorry guys, I guess being an only child, I didn't learn how to share.
Being a dirty old man (well, middle aged), I DO enjoy reading the explicit details, dripping with sexual content. I'm also not opposed to bragging of exploits (unless it involves one of my faves or ATF).
I agree that discussion of with the details to the degree that "speaks to my darker side" should probably not find it's way on the pages of TUSCL.
Perhaps a few of the TUSCLers should create an email distribution list, for the exchange of "ideas"...
Then, there's a whole different set of considerations for this Discussion Board. I like how we usually don't identify what clubs we're talking about, which allows us to be a lot more frank. We can usually tell which club each other means, but I can't imagine an outsider going to the trouble of lurking here for specific info like they would in the reiview section. Still, I'm not inclined to post mileage claims here simply because they're often hardly more than pissing contests.
BTW, I think a strip club review in the form of a graphic novel could be fantastic.
But I also think my second reason is at least as valid. I think the purpose of a review should be to give a potential customer some idea of what he might expect if he visits the place. And leading someone to believe that extras are common in a club when in fact they are the exception, which is usually the case, is misleading. If extras are commonly availble to all customers that's one thing. But if you happen to get something extra that isn't generally available, bragging about it serves no purpose other than to inflate your ego. And chances are nobody believes you anyway. So keep it to yourself.
Interesting problem. And, really, I think EVERYWHERE has this problem. It's not just Tampa. "We all know" what is or is not supposed to go on; but then, we all differ on what we know; and the reviews will reflect that difference; and the jurisdictions may be hypocritical, or standardized, or honestly respectful, or honestly and straightforwardly totally against, any of a number of degrees of contact.
For example, in Toronto for a while, you could get any form of lapper contact you wanted, including blowjobs and so forth, from any of a number of girls at any of a number of clubs. But only if they carried around a towel and sat on IT instead of on your lap.
never mention something that might border on prostitution, what would you do about reviewing Mons Venus in Tampa?
For years they've been flouting the six-foot rule that the city council has supposedly imposed as a "standard of
decency." Their sign says "Still lapping" even though, technically, a clothed-contact lap dance can be a criminal
offense of engaging in a form of prostitution, according to Tampa's definition of those terms. Sure, "we all know"
that it goes on there all the time; and sure, "we all know" that what you MEAN by "prostitution" isn't
clothed-contact lap-dancing, but actual willie-to-coochie-contact grinding. But still, the reviews are stating
"great close lappers" as though that activity is OK and therefore the review is not reporting on something illegal,
which would endanger the club relative to the cops, or the girls relative to the club management.
Interesting problem. And, really, I think EVERYWHERE has this problem. It's not just Tampa. "We all know" what is or
is not supposed to go on; but then, we all differ on what we know; and the reviews will reflect that difference; and
the jurisdictions may be hypocritical, or standardized, or honestly respectful, or honestly and straightforwardly
totally against, any of a number of degrees of contact.
For example, in Toronto for a while, you could get any form of lapper contact you wanted, including blowjobs and so
forth, from any of a number of girls at any of a number of clubs. But only if they carried around a towel and sat on
IT instead of on your lap.
what happened to my post?
Interesting problem. And, really, I think EVERYWHERE has this problem. It's not just Tampa. "We all know" what is or is not supposed to go on; but then, we all differ on what we know; and the reviews will reflect that difference; and the jurisdictions may be hypocritical, or standardized, or honestly respectful, or honestly and straightforwardly totally against, any of a number of degrees of contact.
For example, in Toronto for a while, you could get any form of lapper contact you wanted, including blowjobs and so forth, from any of a number of girls at any of a number of clubs. But only if they carried around a towel and sat on IT instead of on your lap.
I think the "we all ... agree" IS the issue. When you suggest that it alleviates the issue, you engage in circular thinking.
Now, that having been said, I DO think that you and I probably DO agree on what counts as (a) an extra or (b) typical levels of lap-dance non-extra behavior, in one or another certain given location. In Tampa, a girl who gives me non-Tampa-style lappers gets negatively written up (though perhaps not by name) as a low-contact experience; in New Orleans, the Tampa-style experience gets positively written up as something above the city's norms. And if my willie exits my zipper at any time, then I know I'm beyond the standards of a lap dance, of course; but if it happens at a club that does or does not function basically as a brothel, I'll still be negative or positive depending on the contextual expectations.
All these differing contextual expectations mean, that different strip-club-experiences will have different standards by which "normal" levels of service are assessed. Frnakly, I'd be pissed off if I went to Lipstixx in Tampa and didn't get what I went there for; or Mons Venus in Tampa (and I'd be there for something different); or Penthouse in New Orleans (again, for something different).
The job of the reviewer is, not only, to explain what he got and how much he liked or disliked it, but also to make these judgments within the context of what would have been right or wrong to have expected in that given location at that given time.
But with novice reviewers, this knowledge is missing. How many "wow, she was naked! and shaved! I give this club a 10!!" (even though she was 90 feet away from him, and his drink was $20) reviews are out there in the database?
And I'm not concerned about novices who don't understand the game, any more than I would be concerned about someone who doesn't know the rules saying dumb things about a football game. That's their problem not mine.
But OTHER dudes might, dudes whom you might call "novices." And here's the good reason to be concerned about those novices: they write reviews at TUSCL.
The problem isn't, what IS defined as appropriate or sexual or what-not; rather, the problem is, that a variety of people have a variety of perceptions of those definitions. And that variety leads to misunderstandings.
And I do think that this variety of contexts causes some problems for determining the appropriate level of explicitness for a TUSCL review. If I get a blowjob in Kansas and name the girl and the club, I'm a jerk for outing her. On the opposite extreme, if I get a full-straddle full-grind "typical" lap-dance in Tampa and then review the club as a 10 because of that experience, then I'm a moron for thinking it was something out of the ordinary.
Live your life in anticipation of a coming dystopia if you wish. Never say or do anything you wouldn't want broadcast on YouTube. Never think anything you wouldn't want scanned by tomorrow's thought police. My attitude is if it ever comes to that state, some ribald stories I've shared will be the least of my worries. So party on.
I think the internet gives a "persona of anonymity." All of us COULD be tracked by IP number, and maybe the thought-police are out there doing that right now. But meanwhile, we "feel" like we can talk as though it won't get back to haunt us. So, we share intimate secrets. It's kind of like those late-night bull-sessions in college, when you get stoned on the concept of honesty and bare your soul; then tomorrow morning you realize you've really made an ass of yourself, saying stuff like, "I can't love a girl if I don't think she's hot" or "Omigoood we could all of us just be tiny little atoms on a giant's fingernail." :P