How Explicit should a TUSCL review be about services?

Book Guy: You wrote in the 'TUSCL Good Review' thread that you disagreed with the principle that private dance activity is confidential, yet nothing you've written here addresses that. While I agree with some of your points, none of it changes the fact that the main thing you're defending violates the understanding a dancer has when she "services" you in private. I still maintain that we should all be guided by a basic question: Would the dancer we're naming mind the degree of detail we're telling the rest of the world about?

Chandler: good point. I'm looking forward to others in this thread. I don't disagree with your assertion, that my statements don't address the confidentiality issue. I hadn't sought to discredit any notion of a lap dance being "private and confidential." I think it is, and I think it STILL is after I've written a very explicit review all about it, naming (by stage-name) the girl who did it, what she did, what the price was, and at what club. I certainly recognize that there are disadvantages to this point of view, not the least that it somehow "breaches an agreement" of confidentiality. Many a girl likely wouldn't want me doing that.

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 ...

Chandler: good point. I'm looking forward to others in this thread. I don't disagree with your assertion, that my statements don't address the confidentiality issue. I hadn't sought to discredit any notion of a lap dance being "private and confidential." I think it is, and I think it STILL is after I've written a very explicit review all about it, naming (by stage-name) the girl who did it, what she did, what the price was, and at what club. I certainly recognize that there are disadvantages to this point of view, not the least that it somehow "breaches an agreement" of confidentiality. Many a girl likely wouldn't want me doing that.

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 ...

Chandler: good point. I'm looking forward to others in this thread. I don't disagree with your assertion, that my statements don't address the confidentiality issue. I hadn't sought to discredit any notion of a lap dance being "private and confidential." I think it is, and I think it STILL is after I've written a very explicit review all about it, naming (by stage-name) the girl who did it, what she did, what the price was, and at what club. I certainly recognize that there are disadvantages to this point of view, not the least that it somehow "breaches an agreement" of confidentiality. Many a girl likely wouldn't want me doing that.

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 ...

It depends on what you are comfortable with. I'm not going to post something I think may incriminate me. If a girl I know from outside the club happens to get a bit frisky with me in the club, I'll keep quiet about that as well. If it weren't for laws, regulations, and club raids and crackdowns, I would say post away whatever you want. It may or may not be true but I would rather your club get investigated or shut down. On the other hand if a danger exists to other club patrons due to illegal activity, I would want to know about it.

I somehow doubt that all the guys visiting a club are going to keep quiet anyway.

Enough to convey what went on(down) without doing a blow by blow description.

Book Guy: In my opinion, you're way too cavalier about the risks a stripper faces when she is named online in connection with illicit activity. It can get them in trouble. Yes, it's one of many ways they can get in trouble. I think it's a mistake to conclude that that attenuates the risk enough to make it insignificant. This isn't an urban legend. It happens often. You can't be sure where or when it will happen, so the only responsible thing to do is to refrain from identifying her.

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.<

Chandler: actually, your point of view makes very much sense to me. I think I've been rather balls-to-the-wall about saying, that my THEORY of how reviews ought to go is, that they can be as explicit as possible. But if you look at how I tend to write reviews in actual PRACTICE, I believe you'll note (as I have just been surprised to find out) that I follow your notion of a good review more often than I follow my own.

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.

I'm lucky enough to have things just start happening sometimes when I visit a club. I would hate to think I might be starting a trend. Unless the trend is the dancers get hot and wild.

Book Guy: I'm relieved that you're more sensible about this than you at first appeared. I had wondered whether you could be serious, or if you were playing devil's advocate. Sometimes, in order to appreciate a common sense principle, it's necessary to adopt and test out the opposite position.

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 have always been very careful not to mention the name of a dancer that has gone the extra mile with me. I know that some dancers (and mgmt) do read these pages, etc. In fact, if "certain activities" happen, I usually won't even mention it in my reviews, although the review will probably be a glowing one.

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.

A few other things to add...

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"...

We all have personal reasons for the degree of the detail we include, which may be different from the general standards of propriety Book Guy and I were debating. Personally, I'm not much interested in comparing measures of high mileage, so I write more about the looks and sexiness of the girls and our flirtation and rapport. Sometimes I include her name just because it reads better that way. However when it's very intimate, even though it's not sexually explicit, I feel like I would sound immodest to name her.

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.

I don't see a problem with talking a bit more explicitly about encounters with dancers outside the club. Like does the stripper shit or lying ever really stop? I remember being told by a dancer that she had 3 orgasms already and I thought it was only around 15 minutes. I didn't know if she was bullshitting or not. If she was being truthful, it's no wonder she wanted to have sex all the time. I had a hunch it was more stripper shit though. I did wonder if a girl can have 3 orgasms that quickly though.

Speaking of pissing contests...

Short and sweet........ I once was way too explicit about an ATF..... and am now paying for my mistake of writing it in a review! However, if travelling, I'll write VERY explicit in my reviews, for I am much like DougS..... I love reading those type of reviews!

The only thing worse than a boring strip club is a boring review of a strip club. I like to be honest and detailed, but I don't like to turn my reviews in to graphic novels. All of us know the glossary and euphamisms. As a guy who travels, I rely on honest, detailed reviews to help me make my club choices.

ShotDisc: Are you saying that using glossary terms and euphemisms makes reviews less explicit? How is that so if everyone knows what they mean?

BTW, I think a strip club review in the form of a graphic novel could be fantastic.

But to get back to the original question, I used to work for a guy whose mantra was, "Never put anything in writing that you would mind seeing on the front page of the NY Times." Meaning that it is attributed to you, of course. Anonymity and privacy in our society are illusions, they no longer exist. Anything you write may someday appear anywhere, with your name on it. Something to keep in mind when you're writing a review.

Chandler...my point was what difference does it make. Reviews of carpet and drinks don't do anything for me. I am interested in the reviews that will lett me know where I will get the most fun for my money. To me an example of great reviews are those posted by the member formerly known as Shadowcat. If I hadn't already been a customer of the PP in Columbia, his reviews would have convinced me to make the trip. Hopefully over the years, my almost 150 reviews have been just as useful to others.

Count me among those who don't believe that a review should mention any activities that would generally be considered a form of prostitution. And I have two reasons for saying that. First, I don't want to attract LE attention to either the club or the girl or myself, and yes I do think LE reads this stuff (and in fact I was once contacted by LE after writing an explicit review here.)

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.

ShotDisc: Thanks for the compliment. I have written about 120 reviews. The first 20 or so were anonymous. The rest were written by shadowcat. Now I have 2 to my credit. I am going to be a wait and see what founder is coming out with. If I don't like it and (not because I don't like changes), I will still do them but will back it up on the club message boards and this discussion board.

FONDL: I understand your point of view, but I question a small sub-set of it. If you would prefer for a review to 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.

FONDL: I understand your point of view, but I question a small sub-set of it. If you would prefer for a review to

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.

eek

what happened to my post?

FONDL: I understand your point of view, but I question a small sub-set of it. If you would prefer for a review to 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.

There. That's better. Sorry about the wonky formatting. :(

FONDL: I know what you mean about leading potential customers to think they can get the same treatment you report on. Years ago on another board, I had a couple of posters complain that they didn't get the same mileage I described at clubs (which didn't necessarily include extras). Personally, I never take a review to mean that anybody can waltz in and expect to repeat the experience, but there are some amazingly literal-minded readers out there. Apparently they regard a lapdance to be as impersonal as an amusement park ride. I don't believe in dumbing down reviews to try to protect them from their condition.

Book Guy, we can't expect customers to know every quirky local ordinance. And I think we've discussed it enough that we all pretty much agree on what is or isn't an extra. When I write a review I usually indicate the level of contact that is readily available. But I don't think it's appropriate to mention extras unless that's the whole point of a particular club (and there clearly are such places and everyone including LE knows it,) and even then I'm likely to be fairly reticent.

FONDLE: "we all pretty much agree on what is or isn't an extra." Who is this "we", regular TUSCL users, regular TUSCL discussion-board posters, intermittent TUSCL readers, once-in-a-lifetime TUSCL reviewers?

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?

BG, I think we've agreed in many many past discussions that extras are HJs, BJs, and FS. You seem to be the only one here that questions that. A high contact LD in a town that doesn't allow any contact isn't an extra, it's simply a violation of some unusual local ordinance. Just like a fire code violation would hardly be considered an extra.

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.

FONDL: I don't question that. We agree, the definition of "extra" should be, handjob, blowjob, coitus, and a few other activities. I'm not questioning that at all.

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.

Pardon me if I lost track of what this is all about, but I disagree that there is some national standard for what's an extra, and I don't see that as a problem. One of the most interesting aspects of strip clubs is how each town and region is different with their own quirks, legal and otherwise. Uniformity is for bland food and interstates, not strip clubs.

Agreed, Chandler. There are a variety of contexts -- legal, geographically mediated -- within which strip clubs and strippers operate, and hence within which a given customer's experiences can be assessed.

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.

Book Guy: I'm not so troubled by overenthusiastic reviews by novices. I guess I take it for granted that reviews are useful for what they reveal about the club, not necessarily for what the reviewer says about it on face value. I never realized my approach to reviews was so atypical until recerntly.

Read some of Bones7599 reviews. There are a lot of them, but most are informative and give some detailed activities.

The point made in Fondl's last comment is really the key to it. The internet was never really anonymous, but it wasn't as easy as it is now to track traffic back to points of origin. It's probable that, right now, nobody who can do anyone harm is interested in what gets written here...if that should change, watch out...

I still maintain that the key to all of this is respect for others' privacy while spreading the news as much as possible. Anonymity and privacy are relative. Without a degree of both, there would be no strip clubs and no TUSCL - no news and no place to spread it.

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 like that: "respect others' privacy while spreading the news as much as possible." Indeed, the public has a RIGHT TO KNOW ... :)

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