The Pink Board

BG, I haven't had time to read your whole post yet but I can answer your first question, since some time ago I had much the same experience as you recently did. The concept is quite simple: all dancers are wonderful and can do no wrong, all customers are assholes (except for the ones who post there telling the dancers how wonderful they are) and pathetic losers. If you agree with that you'll do just fine. But if you disagree you'll get slammed. And if someone asks for a customer opinion, rest assured that they don't want it unless it agrees with the preceeding. It's actually kinda funny once you understand. I used to make an occasional post just to raise some hell but I got tired of it.

The pink site has a duel concept 1. "we are dancers and we are hot" even though probably 30 to 40% of dancers at most clubs when in the real world w/o their 6 inch platforms heels and stage lighting would not turn a single head all day long. 2. "Nearly all our customers are either social misfits, perverts, total dorks, limp dick old fucks, fatties, baldies and an assortment of other depraved losers" unless they look like Brad Pitt and have millions in the bank

Look at that tirade on "neck kissing" when they lean back during the dance - on the pink site. What about when these chicks kiss US in the ear WITHOUT PERMISSION. I OFTEN FEEL VIOLATed and next time I call the police. By the way only time I've done that terrible dreaded "neck kissing" is with ATF situations.

ROFL. OK so the problem is ... women. Hunh.

Well, I had thought maybe some kind of "point of view" would help me to overcome the miscommunication (even if it meant losing an argument by somehow being nice but wrong, it would still mean I was making friends rather than enemies), and I had thought maybe that point of view might transfer to real life.

Too bad. Another avenue of investigation fails, another opportunity to figure out a little bit more about how to create meaningful relationships trickles away without me figuring out how to exploit it.

Story of my life. Humph.

Odd. The few times I've taken a look at the Pink board, they've seemed pretty cool to me. I've seen some (intentionally) funny posts, and on the whole, they're more articulate than posts here. However, I've never seen a thread where a customer (or anybody) chellenged their assumptions or stirred up shit. It's definitely intended to for strippers just like TUSCL is only for customers. And I once recommended the Pink site to a stripper friend who was considering a move to a new city, and she reported back that their bias against any club that allowed contact made it essentially useless.

Actually, wouldn't be funny if they welcomed customers with the same patronizing tone this board uses for strippers who post: "Welcome to the Pink Site, Book Guy. We're ALWAYS glad to hear ANYTHING from the customer's perspective! Is it OK if I ask you a few questions I've always been dying to ask? If you don't want to answer, that's fine, just PLEASE don't get offended and run away. First, have you ever REALLY liked a stripper for her personality, or are you just pretending?" [and so on...]

Consider that for millions of years the dominant Alpha male seed spreader was in effect a hard core prick - he screwed every fertile chick he could get away with, and killed nearly anyone else that got in his way. Point is he was not a "nice guy", he controlled women, lied to them and used them and dicarded them, the prefect male for many women today, one is perceived to increase their (genetic) long term survival odds. Chicks w/o any doubt are programmed via their DNA and evolutionary baggage to be attracted to and get the hots for hard core pricks, and consistent with this is the "nice guy" ass-kissers posting on the pink who may get the usual chick compliments, but actually generate zero respect.

David9999, You brought up this alpha male seed spreader model once before. I agree to an extent, the alpha male had to be agressive and strong to be able to have many, or at least the best women and to keep away rivals. You miss one important fact in your equating the alpha male with the stereotypical "bad boy" that many say women prefer. The alpha male had to also provide for and protect not only the women but the offspring to be successful. Casting aside a woman during pregnancy while she is vulnerable, or shortly after while the offspring is vulnerable isn't going to increase your chances of genetic survival much. It may work for lions where the mothers are also lethal and the cubs mature within a year or so to lethal killers, but we're talking about humans where the offspring are helpless for years and the mothers are not lethal predators. Genetically spreading a seed is fine, but since genetically pregancy and infancy aren't new abandoning offspring and the woman who is genetically predisposed to care for it does not strike me as a great survival strategy. This doesn't really fit with the hard core prick model. I'd say think Don Corleone. He'll gladly kill you for buisness reasons or for honor, but he won't really get mad about it unless you go after his family. The girlfriend on the side is one thing, but he still protects the wife and children.

I also think you overdo the genetic programming angle. I'm sure there is a lot, after all why do we like skinny waists, long legs, shiny hair, good skin, big boobs and youth? Duh. But, and here will be the controversy, most women will not put up with an asshole for a boyfriend. I've known too many who will dump the badboy because he treats them like dirt to believe the bad boy theory. I have three sisters for one thing, none of them put up with jerks, and there were plenty of jerks. Now among some women who had poor male role models or father figures there may be a stronger attraction to the type, that I'd believe, and that would be more social programming than genetics.

As for the pink board I think it operates a lot like high school. The cool popular girls talk about how great they are and how they can get their boyfriends to do anything and how everyone loves them and how gross all those other girls are and nobody dares disagree, lest they be social outcasts. For the crowd that fancies themselves feature dancers it's great reinforcement. For real strippers who spread their legs and grind for a living it is pretty much useless.

"The alpha male had to also provide for and protect not only the women but the offspring to be successful."

Pair bonding and heavy paternal-side parental investment is a late stage evolutionary device (of course it allowed today's civilization) however women's DNA obviously still retains this earlier and time-frame dominant primordially-based evolutionary baggage, and the record is very clear, (although unpolitically correct to admit this today) that raw high volume male nonmonogamy had overwhelming advantages to 1. keeping the species moving forward. 2. increasing that males genetic odds along with the genetic odds of his mating females. Note that a very high percentage of women died in child birth during man's evolutionary development, the genetic winners tended to spread their seed widely and move-on to the next fertile woman. Tribes did provide, that is true but it was not in the nature of one man/one woman marriage or cohabitation as we know it today,

Its no secret that young women in modern times (all things equal) tend to have an innate attraction (in a "chemistry" sense) toward highly nonmonogamous, controlling, and deceptive, and at times violent males, and the traditional "low self-esteem" explanation simply no longer works

"But, and here will be the controversy, most women will not put up with an asshole for a boyfriend. I've known too many who will dump the badboy because he treats them like dirt to believe the bad boy theory"

Correct many young girls in-between and on the rebound from bad boy/cheater/abusers do often end up dating these sincere, monogamous, honest "nice guys" - who serve a useful function for the girls. However assuming they have not wised up, most of these "nice guys" end up in the junk heap after being given the standard "gee you are really such a nice guy BUT" speech. Don't confuse what women are ACTUALLY subconsciously attracted to and turned-on by and what they SAY they are attracted to and HOPE they are attracted to. Wishful thinking on their part will simply not change their innate desires, and in the end they will invariably follow their genetic programming (or whatever small percent social conditioning has instilled in them) - if they follow their natural "chemistry", the kind they crave like crack-cocaine

Book Guy: There is only one section on the pink side of SW where they actually encourage customer participation. The strip club junkie side Blue side) is for the customers. Yoda, among others is an active participant there. Tuscl, SCL, and SW all offer something for me, but no single board offers all. I like to read about my local scene , and none of the 3 offer a complete picture. Club Reviews here are pretty good, but I'm dissappointed with the reduction in club specific discussion. Sifting through the garbage of individual club posts on SCL provides an occasional nugget or laugh. Dancer's and Custy's from my backyard occasionally post on SW and occasionally there's a posted exchange, or PM, that makes for a better strip club plan for me. I thought that was you on SW a couple of weeks ago, and thought you were stirring things up for your own amusement. The biggest shit storm I started there was commenting on an outdated dancer's review of my local club in club chat. The currently out of state dancer hadn't been there in 2 years, but her sense of current club policies had to be better than any current customers. The specific mensa candidate has had 4 nicknames on SW because she's been banned 3 times by the mods for going off on dancers. Figuring out her next nickname and post is entertaining as well! Every other dancer who posts from my region has my respect, whether I agree with them or not. I do want to view the mensa dancer in action personally someday, so I can call Bull Shit!

I don't have the time or the interest to listen to you guys whine about your miss-adventures on Stripperweb. I will say only this. The site is not intended for male participation. Though it is obviously allowed the site exists primarily as a dancer support site. What you are reading on stripperweb is the interaction among strippers talking about the job, their customers and their problems. This is pretty much the intent of the site as outlined by the owner-a male by the way-and it is why dancers choose to participate there and not here or on SCL or other customer oriented sites. If you want to read it do so at your own risk. If you want to participate the same caveat applies. The ladies over their don't pull any punches and they are not really looking for your opinion.

I read and post over there and I happen to think it's a great site. If it's not your cup of tea then just stay away. Your bellyaching about it on this board just pretty much proves why Stripperweb needs to exist and needs to operate in exactly the manner that it does.

Sucking up to dancers on the pink and related blue site makes one very popular over there. No surprise such ass-kissing works. However I am happy to report I read nearly all of BookGuys posts last week over at that site before he re-emerged on this site, and I am glad to report at least HE wasn't kissing any clits.

D9999: Like I said, if you don't like what goes on over there don't read it. They won't miss you...

Frankly I don't understand why you guys are here on TUSCL bitching about another site. Are you that bored?

"The site is not intended for male participation... I read and post over there ..." I'm confused, I thought Yoda was a guy.

"The ladies over their (there)... are not really looking for your opinion." Then why is there a section entitled "customer conversation" where the ladies ask questions of customers? Why are they asking questions of customers if they don't want our opinions?

"I don't have the time or the interest to listen to you guys whine about your miss-adventures on Stripperweb." So why is he or she doing so?

"Pink site is now officially proclaimed to be out-of-bounds for discussion on Tuscl.com discussion board"

Signed

Mr Pussy-Whipped

Customer conversation is the only thread on the pink side intended for guys. The strip club junkie thread is the specific outlet designed for guys conversation. Men certainly post on the pink side, but if they offer to strong a view they usually get slammed. Getting slammed shouldn't necessarily stop one from communicating there. If there is some interest of yours in the column (and you contribute respectfully) you are usually tolerated. I don't look to stir things up there usually. I have received some good info there and on occasion stirred things up (without totally malicous intent) There are some great posters there, some of whom appear here as well. There is no one board that cover the strip club scene suop to nuts. SW has probably provided me more info than any other board, even though it's not the stated purpose of the board.

Note that even the Strip Club Junkie forums have a collection of dancer chicks that hoover over every single word posted by the guys - lest they offend the unwritten rule that: one must always suck-up to the ladies wherever possible

I agree and understand the pink site is intended for dancers to discuss amongst themselves, my question is that why then are there virtually no dancers who post there who allow two way contact, do heavy grinding and do extras? Now admitedly I haven't read it in a long time, but that is my recolection.

2 way contact and heavy grinding dancers are discussed on the pink site by many, and some of that depends upon the jurisdiction. As for extras, some do imply they do it at some level, however (just like in the real clubs) dancers who are involved in extras tend not to discuss this too much. Some dancers in regular clubs go to incredible lengths to deny any involvement in such activities. for example with certain (clean dance) patrons -yet these same girls are known to be involved or can sometimes be seen headed to the curtained booths(or equivalent) for these activities, even ones that proclaim they would never even enter such booths. Its simply too close to prostitution for most dancers to discuss. Women simply do not like to consider themselves whores

Seems to me that a major difference between here and there is that we all enjoy making fun of ourselves and each other and it's rare that anyone gets mad. There they take themselves way too seriously, don't allow poking fun at any one especially themselves, and don't have a sense of humor.

So what happened to Yoda, who put the bug up his ass? He and I used to have fun teasing each other. But he seems to have lost his sense of humor and, much like some people on the Pink site, is taking this stuff way too seriously. I personally thought Book Guy's opening post here was hilarious, one of the funniest things here in a long time. And the responses have been equally funny. Apparently he's the only one who didn't think so. I wonder why?

"Frankly I don't understand why you guys are here on TUSCL bitching about another site. Are you that bored?"

Yep, pretty much. I think we've covered most topics 3 or 4 times. I suppose we could do another post on where people like to sit, or how much they spend, or which costumes are their favorite, or Shadowcat could tell us how far he got with stripper X, Y, and Z this month, or we could go over what constitutes an extra one more time, but yep, I'd say I'm pretty bored.

I was even thinking of starting a discussion with David9999 about what women find attractive and why, with possibly some actual arguments and facts tossed in, but based on his posts here and on other threads it reminds me WAAAAYYYYY too much of the kind of arguments I used to have with another David on this board, and that prospect bores me.

FONDL: Stop talking about me like I'm not here. When something is funny I laugh. When someone has an obvious agenda that I don't agree with I take issue with it. That's what boards like this are about.

You got dismantled by the women on the pink site so I don't expect you to think much of Stripperweb but you, like many, miss the entire point of the site. It's not there for you, it's there for dancers. They don't log on to read your opinions about their problems with work and they are not really interested in the male perception in general of stripping. They already know what they now. Stripperweb is about helping them deal with it.

If one is interested in reading what real women who strip think about the job, the clubs, us, and many other interesting topics it's a great board. If on the other hand, you just want to tell them what they are doing wrong you should not expect much of a reception over there. Most male newbies don't last on SW, it's really not what they expected. The guys who post regularly have been there for years and are accepted even if not always agreed with by the ladies.

"what women find attractive and why"

"Men that cheat." "genetic survival"

Question asked and answered

Recently on another thread, I said that I had only once posted on the pink site and that I had made myself very unpopular. Once was enough. They have their site and we have ours. Enough said.

Many strippers, after years of the same thing, feel comtempt for men. A few newer ones like the interaction, whatever it is (e.g. turning a guy on, seeing a hard-on, displaying their pussy). Often those who contribute to blogs have pretenses to intellectuality.

Is there ANY trade that deals with the public where some groups, when they talk shop amongst themselves, don't like to endlessly bitch about what jerks customers are? I don't think so, but this might be the only one where customers take enough interest in it to take offense.

Various professions get together and can and do gripe about customers, but I think the level of venom displayed on the Pink site is unusually high and it applies to nearly all their customers for many dancers.

Consider this post today in Hustle Chat

(BEGIN QUOTE)

I FIRED MY REGULAR

My regular customer got all cheap on me and wasted my time last Friday and only spent $50 with me after a LONG lunch.

Also I found out he got dances from someone else when I wasn't there... not that he's my property but I waste a lot of time on his phone calls and shit...

I just told him I don't want to see him for lunches any more and not outside the club again.

Waiting for the fallout, I broke it off on Instant Messenger and disconnected before he replied. (after enduring his stunned silence for about 5 minutes)

Regulars are so annyoing! In the beginning he would spend $1000 like it's nothing, last week he hands me a $50 after I wasted all afternoon with him!!!! Ugh regulars suck totally."

(END QUOTE)

AN: Nothings really has changed on the pink side regarding contact and grinding. It just plain doesn't exist!

"FONDL: Stop talking about me like I'm not here." Yoda, you haven't been here in months, then out of nowhere you make one silly post that makes no sense, criticizing the rest of us. Yes I assume you're not here.

"You got dismantled by the women on the pink site so I don't expect you to think much of Stripperweb ..." Not true Yoda, the only person I had a real problem with over there was a guy, some silly ass DJ who thought his vast experience made him an expert on everything. The day I need advice from a loser strip club DJ I'll go kill myself.

"... but you, like many, miss the entire point of the site. It's not there for you, it's there for dancers." Again not true. I've probably gotten emails from more than a dozen different women on that site asking me for more information about one of my posts, and have had extensive exchanges with several of them who were looking for advice. I only post there when someone asks a question and I have information that I think will be useful to them. Many of them seem to agree that my information was helpful. I never bother reading the sections where they are just talking to each other.

Yoda, if you enjoy that site, by all means continue participating there. But don't come here with your facts all wrong and tell us we're whining about it when we poke fun at them. You're the only one I hear whining.

Interesting that this turned into a discussion of the merits and demerits of the alpha-male theory of evolutionary development.

AN: I'd like to ask about your sisters, when you say they "won't put up with jerks" or abusive behavior from their boyfriends, isn't it the case that they're likely to have been initially sexually attracted to those jerks -- and perhaps even initially sexually active with them -- before finally "wising up" and getting rid of them? For me, I'd rather be the guy who gets laid and dumped, than the guy who doesn't get laid at all. I think sometimes the advocates of non-alpha behavior forget that it's functional, perhaps not TOTALLY so, but at least it accomplishes SOME level of dick-into-pussy, which is more than I'm getting in real life without giving cash to a hooker.

Yoda seems to have gone off on a strange tangent in order to gratify his own need to demonstrate superior knowledge. His assertion that the pink site "is only for" a certain group may or may not be true; but it is beside the point of my initial complaint, most subsequent tangential discussion, and my clearly stated goal. It is also already addressed in several posts to which he claims to be responding. I'm sorry his portion of this thread got so off topic and so close to a flame-war. He doesn't seem to understand that I initiated this thread, and many are participating in it, in the primary interest of drawing parallels between SW web-board behavior and real-world behavior. Further, his insistence that only a portion of SW is germane to male opinions at all, may be true at SW in theory (they do vaguely imply that there are places where males ought not post) but is certainly not true in practice (they regularly solicit male opinions -- to slam them? -- and do attend to the more amenable of those opinions in all their threads and sub-boards). Finally, his strange attacks at the borders of issues hints at something about his own pet hobby-horse issues. Somewhere in there is a desire to control other people's internet use, and mostly to LIMIT it. Long posts offend him. His first comment, "I don't have the time," suggests not just "I'm busy" but also "Who the hell are you to demand my time thusly?" It's petulant, not just informative. I'd suggest that if he genuinely doesn't have the time to read this discussion, he might simply abandon it and let the rest of us enjoy it more thanks to his absence.

Well then, on to more of the discussion.

I'd appreciate further discussion of some other ideas. We've pretty much beat a horse dead about the alpha-male phenomenon and whether or not females can or will be attracted to it or to something different. What about other outgrowths of my (and others') experiences at SW? What about, for example, the fact that the participants there instantly devolve to "talking about the talk" rather than discussing the issue at hand. Example: "Them: Should I get a boob job? Me: I don't think you should get a boob job. Them: You can't talk to me that way. Me: But there are good reasons why you shouldn't. First reason is ... Them: Who the hell are you to offer your opinion? Me: I was asked my opinion. As I was saying, first reason is ... Them: Guys are so full of shit. Why do they keep asking for sex?" Note that in this example "Them" has never actually discussed the issue at hand. I think it is a fair representation.

Another longer question I have is, HOW TO GET WOMEN ANYWAY. If chicks are like this, and hot chicks are even more like this, and I want to get laid by hot chicks, then what do I need to do about this? See the syllogism? To me, my experiences at SW are a microcosm of a lifetime of frustration. I want to somehow twig their "oooh he's a GOOD one not a bad one" response -- which they DO have, for certain stimuli; though currently the best I can figure is that the valence of their responses, whether positive or negative, is entirely random. I'd like to learn a little more about the likelihood of the valence and discern a bit of order amid that randomness.

The following comment by AN is perhaps the most accurate description of what I've seen going on over there, and elsewhere in the real world: "As for the pink board I think it operates a lot like high school. The cool popular girls talk about how great they are and how they can get their boyfriends to do anything and how everyone loves them and how gross all those other girls are and nobody dares disagree, lest they be social outcasts. For the crowd that fancies themselves feature dancers it's great reinforcement. For real strippers who spread their legs and grind for a living it is pretty much useless."

Isn't that also the case with physically attractive women the world over, regardless of whether they're strippers or not? And HOW DO WE BEAT THAT in order to get what WE want? Seems to me that SW is a compendium of useful resources for sussing out the female mind and beating it at its own inane, circuitous traps and illogic.

Fondl and Book Guy: SW wants you when it works for them and dismiss you when it doesn't. How dare the customer seek equal voice and respect there! I still find info and entertainment over there. Book Guy: You are correct on the boob job discussion over there - it can't be a discussion without her starting it! Said initiator of that post has contributed on other topics in a more thoughtful and entertaining manner. Book Guy - Props to you for at least providing a new topic to agree, or disagree, on.

A few years back we had a regular poster on here. Posted almost daily. His nickname was German sounding. Fluffingvogel or something like that. I think that only Yoda or FONDL would remember him. Any how he left this discussion board to devote full time to interacting with the women on the pink site. His choice. I would rather do that in the clubs. I don't need or want my opinions raked over the coals or my personality dumped on. I'll stay here.

Hey guys, as a newbie to the discussion board, but not TUSCL, I want to tank you for your high degree of acceptance. I have yet to be trashed.

Last night, I sampled some threads on SW. I was interested in what you guys were discussing, and I had not visited SW. Ok, now I have, and I can say...you are right, that place is f***ked up.

The regular contributors seem to be part of a rather small "in crowd" (yeah, that High School thing, although I'm also visualizing a strip club dressing room). When an uncool person drops in, they obfuscate, ignore, deride, and otherwise make sure the uncool stays uncool.

This is not confined to asshole men (of which there appear to be many) but also applies to newbie/uncool women. In one thread on Phoenix clubs, a stripper from Montreal said she was moving to PHX, and could any of the more experienced girls give her some info on good vs bad clubs, tipouts, expected income, etc. Numerous replies later, she had almost nothing! Instead, she got lectures on how to use the board's search feature, and a litany of complaints about how Phoenix, and the business in general, sucks right now, etc., etc.

Now, just to complicate this discussion, and offer an alternative framework to that whole "alpha male" thing, maybe SW vs TUSCL differences come from differences in male vs female communication styles. Women prefer "talk about talk", context, and feelings. Men prefer talk about objectives and problem solving.

Anyway, after spending 30 minutes on SW, I wanted to commit suicide. Like, it was soooo annoying!

It's always tedious when strippers in the club hang around and bitch about their jobs. When I'm online, a website where they do that is about the last place I want to spend my time.

"Women prefer "talk about talk", context, and feelings. Men prefer talk about objectives and problem solving. " So you say.

To me, that's exactly and precisely equivalent to saying, "Women are incompetent while men seek competence." I don't really WANT to be a sexist, and I do believe plenty of human females are actually capable of moving beyond self-indulgence. Just haven't seen it at, for example, SW.

One thing that is interesting is the ignore / obfuscate phenomenon. I found on several occasions that people would accuse me of something I hadn't done, and I'd actually say "Where, WHERE? I DIDN'T SAY THAT! I don't think that! I'm not interested in that, I'm the OPPOSITE of that!" but it was too late. I'd already been Swiftboated, so to speak. I was accused of asking for sex in the VIP room, then it was too late, men are scum, all they want is sex, sex is gross, etc. So, they've managed to actually get angry WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO CAUSE THEM TO BE ANGRY. It's not JUST that they're annoyed at something minor, or at something they shouldn't be; it's also, that they're annoyed at, quite literally, nothing. Amazing.

I feel kind of sad for people like that. Out to pick false holes, desperate to find fault, needy oh so needy of "prove to me how perfect I am" and also "you're so loser because of ..." and usually the because is simply sex. "You want to fuck me? You must be evil. Now tell me how beautiful and sexy I am." It does make you want to commit mental hari-kari, the way you enter into a discussion with some reasonable expectations and then you eventually have to conclude, "Well, if the words which I say are actually counting as words which I didn't say, and the random possibilities are ... oh never mind."

Isn't there some kind of generalization or worthwhile lesson to be learned. How come some men just have this stuff wash off their backs like water off a duck's, and then promptly get invited into bed with these idiots? I wanna fuck idiots ... :( ...

Shadowcat: While I don't agree with your personal view of how, why, and where the former tuscl poster spends his time, my guess is you were referring to "Verfolgung". V and Yoda provided a lot of good info about the local lay of the land for this one time newbie. The Private Message aspect of SW allowed some of my questions to be answered privately. V generally doesn't post much anywhere on Strip Club matters. There are many people here and there who have provided entertainment or knowledge: Pinhead, Yoda, V, Fondl, AN, Genwar, Shadowcat, 411, Chandler, Ericin617, Book Guy, and even Gorilla Balls - in the once public club specifc area here. I don't want to be in GB's world, but it was and is entertainment missed from the keyboard

Is GB a reference to me (inadvertently reversed) or Gorilla Balls? If you don't want to be in my world, I won't complain, but what's so bad about it? If it's the other guy, then, sorry for the blather.

I think I've provided useful knowledge here, but more of it has come through my thorough reviewing than through my participation in the discussion threads. I guess I get "in a snit" about certain topics on the discussion threads and then I also feel free to bare my soul. This allows some to castigate me, others to find me weak. I don't usually get an answer to the question I'm asking.

Doesn't mean we haven't contributed. I think TUSCL is a great reference source, and I'm sorry I can't get something equally as straightforward but from the women's point of view. Doesn't seem women actually ever DO that among themselves. Humph. :(

rockie: You got the name right. I was not knocking him for his choice. I was just saying that it is not for me.

I use to drop by there and post some but like the rest of you I found some of the ladies to be rude. I occasionally read the post sometimes but never post anymore. There is one male poster over there that cracks me up because he speaks his mind and none of the dancers say anything negative to him. I guess he has been posting their so long that they have gotten use to him. I think his he goes by the name Doc.

Book Guy: I've enjoyed your posts. The reference to GB is definitely Gorilla Balls. GB's world and opinion is too extreme for me, but I do find it amusing from the sidelines. Shadowcat: I thought I knew who you were referring to, but wasn't quite sure where you were going with the conversation. The Pink board is certainly different!

Since I've already alluded to it a bit, let me describe my experience with SW. I actually discovered it here, someone made reference to it on TUSCL and I asked what it was. That was 3-4 years ago. I started reading it and subsequently became a regular contributor for a year or so.

Once the novelty wore off, I quickly lost ineterst in reading the complaints about customers and similar BS - as Chandler says, who wants to hear that? - and rarely posted in those kinds of threads once I discovered that most of my interest was in 2 other areas: club chat and customer conversation. I had extended private discussions with about a dozen different girls who were looking for info on specific clubs on club chat, which resulted in several of them moving to the club I was then frequenting and I even met one of them. But these were mostly newbies looking for help, not the regular contributors. I also sometimes gave opinions on questions asked on customer conversation.

And I did this for over a year without any prblems. Then one day I disagreed with the prevailing view on a general social issue that has nothing to do with strippers or stripping, and all hell broke lose. Specifically I posted a conservative view where the previous posters all had expressed the PC liberal view. Nobody disagreed with my logical arguments (and I doubt any of them were intelligent enought to do so) but they sure did attack me personally. And ever since then anything I posted anywhere on that site met with the same personal attacks, mostly from a male dj whose status I obviously threatened - he regards himself as the intellectual leader of that board, if you can imagine that. And since I was becoming bored with the site anyway, instead of arguing with this idiot I just stopped posting there. I've probably only visited that site once in the past year. And that was once too often.

What I find especially interesting about this entire episode is that we had the exact same social discussion here at about the same time, and I posted the exact same conservative comments following someone else's liberal views. And nobody attacked me personally. The level of discourse here remained courteous and intelligent.

And I think that points up the biggest difference between SW and TUSCL's discussion boards. People here are generally interesting, amusing, intelligent, respectful of each other, and tolerant of differences of opinion. I found none of that on stripper web. I won't be back.

I post occassionally on SW, and I disagree that the dancers who post there are entirely opposed to contact. I'm not sure how recent a thread, but there was a poll (under Stripping/Stripping General) that inquired as to which type of working environment was preferred; I was surprised to find that, the girls preferred minimal/limited two-way contact and no contact above all the other options (the poll also included one-way contact and full contact; neither of which were popular).

MIDancer, when guys here talk about contact, they typically mean fairly high contact, which is pretty common in a lot of clubs but, as you point out, frowned upon by most of the girls posting on SW. Which lead some of us to believe that the girls on SW aren't a representative sample of dancers in general. But if you say that there, as I once did, you will get strong disagreement.

A representative? Probably not. Posting on SW would require first that the dancer be intelligent enough to operate a computer and utilize the resources available to her on the web. ;)

As of late, there have been several discussions regarding contact. In particular, discussions have arose regarding the certain degree of seperation between mind and body that is required of some/many/most dancers to maximize one's income.

On a seperate note, I find it amusing that we have two seperate boards (SW and TUSCL), both participating in the same behavior: poking fun, and laughing at the "stupidity" of the opposite side (within the dancer/patron relationship). Could it be, perhaps, that we're all dysfunctional idiots? Or could it be that both sides refuse to recognize their own role in the game? It all comes down to a question that I'm sure has arose in each of our heads: who's playing who, here?

Probably at least one-fourth of all exotic dancers in the United States are recent immigrants generally having limited English skills - e.g Brazilian and Russians to cite 2 examples -and that group is certainly underrepresented on the Pink Site.

Now that said, I still believe the Pink Site reflects the basic attitude of a very signficant amount of dancers.

As I've posted before, the act of private dancing (w/o necessarily any overt sex acts) for a stranger in an intimate manner in either a low or high contact way is inherently repulsive for most women, meaning even if the guy looks like Tom Selleck's twin brother, is articulate, neatly dressed, clean, and in every way is a complete gentlemen, - its still inherently a problem for most women because money is changing hands and they are arguably providing (with all this touching) a low grade form of sexual service.

Point is men must always assume from the beginning that the dancer is repulsed, and then (if and when things get better) hope for the best if the woman for example becomes an ATF type down the road

MIDancer, of course we're all dysfunctional idiots, why else would we be here? But the thing that puzzles me about the views often expressed there are that many of the girls seem to agree that (1) all their customers are jerks, and (2) yet they wonder why they don't make more money. They never seem to realize that maybe these two things are related. And if you suggest such a thing (as I once did) they'll argue with you vehemently. Anyway, I think there's a lot of insight in your post, I hope you stick around, we need different points of view.

David, if you read the Pink site I think you'll find that most of the girls posting there work in larger fancier more upscale clubs. But it's my belief that most dancers work in places that aren't like that because there are many more downscale clubs than upscale ones. Which is why I think some of the views there aren't typical of dancers as a whole.

I don't see how TUSCL is any more tolerant, open minded or self-deprecating than other boards. There are plenty of sacred cows and no go zones here: "There is no point in dances without touching", "My ATF is an exception", "I am not a PL", for starters. To outsiders, I'm sure we appear as insular and humorless as other groups with a narrow interest. The reason we don't often gang up on dissenters is that not many bother to stir up shit here. A group of old patrons don't make quite as tempting a target as a group of strippers.

Chandler: actually, I do think that the sacred cows are treated a bit more competently here. If someone states something that differs with the general board, the response tends to be one of addressing the issue rather than the context. If I, for example, were to state at TUSCL that I don't believe any lap dancing should ever include contact (just to pick an obvious example), I suspect the response would be, "Hey, to each his own. You're not gonna find a lot of agreement." To arouse a type of response such as would occur in parallel at SW (something only barely related, and extrapolated to an extreme, such as "Who the hell are you to want sex from me! Don't you KNOW that Vegas is a dry county???"), one would have to post something much more THREATENING rather than merely DISAGREEING.

Here I think is the crux of the matter. The response at SW is not just disagreement, and certainly not respectful disagreement and an addressing of the issues rather than the people. Instead, it is one motivated partly by hysteria, fear, or just plain knee-jerk paranoia. To get that same response at TUSCL, you'd have to post, "I'm taking a poll for LA county police officers. Can you get a blowjob at Club Shee-Bee on Main Street in Cucamonga? How much does it usually cost? Which dancers do not offer this service? I need to know to help my superiors arrest people. Thank you."

I am surprised at the insularity of SW. They're happy about offending potential customers, for example; even about deliberately running off paying customers. "Who the hell is he, to expect me to give him what he pays for!?" seems to be the implication. We're not talking about two sides of the same coin. The men at TUSCL have a set of quirks, and disfunctions. Flame wars get started among us. General lack of supportive behavior takes place. But outsiders aren't treated as THREATS. There's seldom a post which states "Who the hell are you to offer your opinion?"

To me, that type of childish prank is representative of a LARGE degree of immaturity.

Further, it's valuable information. It leads us to a type of understanding we might not have. The question for me is, whether or not the info I'm gathering at SW is actually useful for real-life situations. Such as how to treat a flighty but physically attractive beginner stripper who is all full of herself, like most of SW's participants seem to be. She'll do porn, but she's not dirty. She'll lap-dance you for a fee, but she's not a provider of sexually related services for money. The hypocrisy keeps them on edge, and the fact that they're on edge means I inadvertently offend them (even if the offense is unwarranted, it's still DONE), and the offense means I don't get laid. A realm to which they, unfortunately, hold the keys.

You see where I'm going with this? If they wanted to know how to get more money out of us, or have a more mutually beneficial interaction, or merely get us to respect them more and beat them up less, they would do well to lurk here, post respectful questions, try to get involved in the discussion politely. Why isn't the converse also possible? Why couldn't we assume that, if we wanted to know how to stop offending ladies, we might check out what's going on over there? But so far it doesn't actually work. They'll take offense no matter what.

I think in the long run, some of the inequity in the parallels is simply fueled by inequity in the market. The male in these interactions wishes for as much service for as little money as possible, while the female wishes to provide as little service for as much money as possible. Our money is not intrinsic to our very natures, but they perceive the service to be intrinsic to theirs. (And ours, by the way, in the act of receiving it. It's dirty to get a lapper; dirtier to want a blowjob; but not dirty at all either to get cash or to give a lapper.) This posits, therefore, an unfortunate ADVERSARIAL relationship in their assumptions.

To put it simply, whereas we think they're just great and we wish we could get more of 'em into our lives, they think we're abysmal jerks and wish they could get less of us into their lives. Sad inference ...

FONDL: I agree with your assessment about the less "glam glam" strip clubs being more toward the norm in the USA, and yet also under-represented at the SW website.

Evolution designed males to be goal-centric and females to be relationship-centric meaning women often (not all women of course) have a far greater tendency than men to personalize issues - and this explains most of the differences between the style and nature of discussions and posts on SW vs TUSCL

I somehow missed this thread. I guess not much was happening here if you're talking about the pink site. About my only experience was visiting the site when this site was down. Created a username and then found out the name I created was the same name as an existing one except I didn't capitalize the name I had. Looked like a bunch of female stuff that didn't interest me. I guess it could be entertaining if you're bored.

I can understand a bunch of dancers grouping together and putting down dancers who break the rules and are nasty as I heard one dancer say in a club one time. However a number of guys like nasty girls. What she is doing could be illegal as well though so I don't think you'll find very much nasty girl club discussions except from one point of view. Knowing or thinking this leads one to believe that the web site discussion will only get input from those already who feel like them.

I might be curious what their idea of looking normal in a club might be when a dancer tells me this while the club is full of weirdos in her own words.

BG, I'll be brief (1,000 words or less) on my objections to the “bad boy” theory. I fully accept that women are more attracted to strong confident men, and that there is most likely a genetic component to this attraction. I also fully accept that many or most of these men fall into the "alpha male seed spreader" category and may be less genetically inclined to lead a monogamous life. I'll also even allow that some women may tolerate the infidelities of the alpha male since there is no genetic disadvantage to sharing a man with another woman as long as he protects and provides. I'll also stipulate that there may be no genetic predisposition towards monogamy in humans. I actually posted an interesting link about this a while back;

psychologytoday.com

Now, there are some points I object to. First is equating the alpha male with the stereotypical "bad boy". Most of these bad boys are losers. They are poorly educated, can't hold a job, and end up relying on their girlfriend to provide for them. I just don't buy the equation that the stereotypical bad boy = genetically successful alpha male.

My second objection is that I see nothing that really supports the old trope that all women (or most) are attracted to bad boys. I know it's a staple of movies, TV, and bodice ripper novels, but it is almost always in the context of good girl reforms bad boy or good girl learns to appreciate good boy. I'd allow that there may in some women be a period coinciding with the almost universal teen rebellion when they want to shock the parents with a bad boy boyfriend. But this too is a staple of pop culture. If the bad boy and his attraction is a product of genetics then we would expect to see the same exact phenomenon across all cultures, and for the phenomenon to be more pronounced the closer the culture is to the hunter-scavenger origins of humans. I'm not aware of any research to substantiate that phenomenon. In fact I think most anthropological research of primitive societies shows the exact opposite to be true, men who break the social norms, who do not support and protect their families, and who seek to obtain multiple wives or families are considered poor mates and have less chance to pass on their genes.

Aside from assertions and the ubiquity in entertainment I've never personally seen any real indication or evidence that women respond more to men who treat them poorly. I've certainly never seen any evidence that women are attracted to men who cheat on them. I would use as an example not just my sisters; I brought them up because I met many of their boyfriends. These guys were not my contemporaries but spanned a range from nearly a decade older to 5 years younger than me. Among them all was not a single "badboy". I would assume that if there is a strong genetic attraction that among the dozen or so boyfriends my sisters had at least one would match the badboy stereotype. I'll expand beyond my immediate family to my entire high school and college, and young professional experiences with dating. In high school the most prized boyfriends were the jocks, the tall, athletic, confident jocks. Gee, there's a shocker. And no, the jocks were not as a group more disposed to badboy behavior. The school's badboys never got dates with the most desirable women, the cheerleaders, dance squad, prom queen, etc. These women had their pick and they went with the jocks, then next the "cool" crowd of almost jocks and good looking college bound guys. The same was true in college, and again as a young professional. The most popular guys were tall and athletic and good looking (and after college had good jobs). The women I knew in high school, college, and as a young professional were not being swept off their feet by guys who slept around and manipulated them. Maybe I have led a sheltered life but I can't think of more than one or two cases where a good looking girl with a good background, a decent education and a promising future was used, manipulated, charmed by or slept with one of these stereotypical badboys. In the few cases I can think of the girl often had her own problems. Maybe I'm too well adjusted (I doubt it) or don't know enough people, or all my friends are part of some statistical quirk, but I've never seen this phenomenon as anything other than an aberration. Women like confident men, strong men, and attractive men, but they also want someone who can and will protect and provide. The classic badboy isn't in that category.

So why does the myth survive? It has all the self-flattering and fantasy aspects we love most. For a man longing for an attractive woman he can't have -- because she is taken by an alpha male -- his inclination isn't usually to say, well I guess he's just a better man than me. The inclination is to believe that he is in some way wrong for her but she just can't see it. He of course doesn't treat her right, the way you would. Why is it that she falls for his so obviously deceptive and insincere act? It must be how women are. A comforting thought. Also a comforting thought is that there is some sort of secret code that will unlock women's pants. All you need to do is figure out how they respond to genetic programming and tap into it and you can have any woman you want. That is the stuff of all the "Pick up any woman" books, sites, shows, and seminars. And what does the advice they give distill down to in the end? Be confident and aggressive. Unless confidence and aggressiveness are considered of themselves to define the bad boy, I don’t buy the myth. (998 words)

Don't write in MS Word apparently. I just stuck my text in to get the word count and the unrecognized quotes were ones I added while in Word.

AN -- great points. I have to agree with most of it. Women DON'T necessarily respond the way evo-psych would have us believe (and I'm often the first to decry evo-psych in other contexts). But I have to admit, I've also seen women respond poorly to men who treat them well. Almost as if, when you do something nice for them, they've ALREADY gotten what they need, and therefore they don't have to be nice back. If you want sex from a girl, the last thing in the world you should do is treat her like she's great from the get-go, because then she doesn't actually have to DO anything to get you to treat her great. At least, that's the current theory ...

I can't navigate all these come-here-go-away games. It's forward and backwards, like trying to second-guess a baseball pitcher. You think left, he thinks right. You go right because you think left, he knows you think he thinks left so he goes left, etc. Males want our female partners to have nubile bodies, and characters which are intelligent and friendly and emotionally balanced ENOUGH. Females? They don't know. We don't know. The only consistent thing to say is, they like lording it over males, it gives them a great feeling to be nasty, they enjoy hating on men.

I agree mostly on your preceding discussion about how the bad-boy myth is just a myth. I disagree that the distillation of positive points about that myth would basically boil down to confidence and aggression. I've been accused of having a super-abundance (and/or excess) of both, quite often in my life, by many independent observers, yet I do quite poorly with women. I don't really mind whether I AM or AM NOT confident, aggressive, or desirable. I don't mind whether your theory or distillation is true for all men, for some, for me alone, not for me alone. All I really want from this discussion, is success with women.

I concede, the Pink Site isn't the best starting point for investigation. But it's a part of a larger web of points to investigate. And I've been trying to unravel that web for quite a long time. "You think too much" maybe? Humph ...

BG, in the end I think we all get too caught up in trying to impose a single template on to others, and this isn't just about strippers and women. As humans it's what we do. The problem is that things are a lot more complicated now. Perhaps there was a time in the not too distant past when we all understood what was expected (perhaps not), but I think that the socialization taking place nowdays is disjointed, confused and often self contradictory.

"I've certainly never seen any evidence that women are attracted to men who cheat on them."

Not at the rational level of course, however "chemistry" the kind that women depend upon to "fall in love" operates at the subconscious level. Women don't in a volitional sense SELECT the men they fall in love with, its completely out of their control. At the genetic "decision level" (which is all that really matters), a male perceived to be monogamous in nature would actually present a high degree of risk of being less likely to carry that women's genes forward, because genes as a general rule simply don't recognize such modern constructs as pair bonding and offspring investment, instead for their success (i.e. long term survival) they invariably resort to the relative safety of the high volume seed spreading mode. Perceived monogamy in males is at some level boring for most women, precisely because it cannot offer the excitement and promise (all illusive of course) of genetic immortality.

Ok so the stereotypical "bad boy" can be quite different than the Alpha male seed spreader norm - however there is enough of an overlap of (for want of a better term) the primordial based "malignant" characteristics to keep many women extremely interested.

Think of it this way: males are attractive for females at two levels. One might think of the first level as "benign" characteristics that don't conflict with the generally accepted modern civilized rules of behavior and etiquette, such things (depending upon each woman's likes and dislikes) as appearance, height, strength, intelligence, earning power etc. Since women freely admit this, there is not much controversy here at all.

However success for the Alpha seed spreading male over the millions of years of man's development also required a certain set of characteristics that in a modern civilized context might be labeled (as mentioned above) as malignant, yet women via their evolutionary baggage carried forward and now operating at the subconscious level can find many (if not all) of these characteristics very attractive in males 1. a high degree of either perceived or actual nonmonogamy 2. patterns of deceptive behavior. 3. controlling behavior particularly as it concerns women. 4. a generalized disrepect for women 5. some element of insincerity 6. and for some significant minority of women a male presenting a personality suggesting a predisposition toward violence, either in substance or more typically held in restraint at most times.

As for the stereotypical (shiftless/lazy assed) type "bad boys" who endup the boyfriends that so many strippers seem to constantly shacked up with, I believe you will find many (if not most) also have these so-called maligant charactericis: most typically controlling behavior and a generalized disrespect for women and more precisely a disrespect for their girlfriends, often along with a tendency to not be monogamous.

"genes as a general rule simply don't recognize such modern constructs as pair bonding and offspring investment"

That's just plain silly. Many species mate for life and virtually all mamals invest significantly in their offspring.

Seems to me that dating bad boys is predominately a high school thing, that most girls outgrow that phase by their early 20s or so. It's a sign of maturity, the girls who don't outgrow it are the immature ones. Or they've put themselves in an environment where that's all they ever meet. Like a lot of strippers.

One of the things that I've often noticed is how very mature some strippers seem in some respects and how very immature they are in other respects. It's puzzling. It can also be very charming.

FONDL, I hinted at it but I think you nailed it. If there is a bad boy attraction I think it is in high school. What else happens in high school? Just about all adolescents decide they need to "rebel" for a lack of a better word, to assert their adulthood and/or growing independence. I think this is where the clearly innapropriate mate may be a thrill for some teenage girls.

Are women attracted to those who will cheat on them? Yes apparently. I don't think they do it on purpose. They see someone they like and aren't thinking, oh he's probably going to cheat on me. They listen and believe all the stuff he tells her. I remember encountering one dancer who wanted to sleep with me really bad the first time I remember meeting her. She claimed she knew me several years ago but I couldn't remember her at all. However she remembered details about my past. I met up with her. Didn't think too much about it. Then I got surprised in the club when I was talking and getting dances from another blonde dancer. Well when I left the lap dance room I found out the dancer I slept with was pissed. Apparently she had been keeping her eye on me and accused me of sleeping with another dancer. I don't know why she was thinking I was sleeping around or why she was so pissed off at me. I told her no but I liked getting lap dances from several dancers. Maybe she was crazy, she started calling me a player which is something no other dancer had done. However she seemed to like me even more. Not knowing what is going on in a dancers head makes it seem like they are crazy at times.

Some girls feel "bad boys" are fun. That's too simple for geeks to accept, so they resort to cartoon evolution to explain it.

Also, I find the high school dismissal a little ironic to read on a board devoted to old men's obsession with bad girls.

"Some girls feel "bad boys" are fun."

Perfectly reasonable statement.

Women are programmed at the genetic level to be attracted to men who cheat on them, manipulate them and deceive them? That is a slightly different matter

"Women are programmed at the genetic level to be attracted to men who cheat on them, manipulate them and deceive them" I like your wording on that one. I copying it down

"... old men's obsession with bad girls." Who me? We don't date these girls, nor do most of us want to. In fact I thought we had decided elsewhere that the whole point of strip clubs is that we could play with bad girls but not get personally involved with them. Plus my ATF is now a good girl, she grew up.

"Maybe she was crazy, she started calling me a player which is something no other dancer had done."

The ideal vibe for a single guy to present would be this sort of tinge of nonmonogamy, with the point being its the females's PERCEPTION that counts and the woman must strongly suspect or believe a particular man is either cheating or would cheat if given the slightest chance. Men do not have to actually cheat to attract women, being mere suspects is sufficient.

Chandler, by the way, I am not a geek nor have I ever come close to being a geek. You are confusing the fact that in recent years there has been a large number of geek style power dating seminars that supposedly teach men how to attract, date, and or screw attractive women - and some of these "systems" work off understanding and exploiting women's raw instinctive primordial urges.

In my case, I actually discovered some of this by accident years back in law school when time constraints forced made me to handle dating relationships in a very different way. I dropped the "nice guy" (take them to dinner/be a gentlemen/don't push for sex) approach, and began to adopt basically a "do not give a shi.t" attitude in regards to relationships and women. I was very surprised at the response at the time. Now later when connecting the dots, I did notice the connection to evolution

Any normal guy (i.e geeks excluded) that doesn't figure this out by lets say age 25 and is still doing the nice guy routine - is generally going to get clobbered in the dating world. Ok, he might get real lucky or even might eventually attract some woman to marry him, after she's gone through a dozen bad guys, however these same women will often still be yearning for some of that bad boy chemistry

FONDL: I read this site every day or so. When a topic of interest appears I respond to it...

I generally don't pry into the lives of my co-workers, so it would be difficult for me to properly assess how many of them are into "bad boys." That said, the girls who aren't dating "bad boys" generally aren't the ones crying in the dressing room because their boyfriend cheated on them or spending two hours in front of the mirror, trying to cover up the bruises from last night's spat. And while I have certainly witnessed plenty of that, I have not witnessed it to the extent that I would conclude that the women who like "bad boys" are in the majority. Personally, I don't have a thing for bad boys; in fact, their arrogance and general demeanor are a MAJOR turn-off for me. I avoid them in the club, and I avoid them moreso in my personal life. Life's rough enough; I don't need to come home to someone who doesn't respect me to top it all off at the end of the day.

David9999, the same type of explanation is popular with a lot of geeks, to whom most girls' concept of what's fun is completely alien. But I'm glad you recognized what I meant by "cartoon evolution".

AN: you had me convinced, but now David9999 is winning me over.

FONDL: great point about how strippers seem strangely mature in some ways and unreasonably immature in others. Theirs is an odd mix.

First there's the maturity. Strippers can be quite up-front and non-squeamish about sex, which is a welcome relief from the girly-girl act most civilian women feel compelled to put on (at least, that I've experience) in order to prove that they're "nice" girls who don't "do dirty" things. The honesty of strippers seems very mature. And strippers can be mature about supporting one another in times of crisis, taking care of the REALLY important emotional needs of their valued friends and family members. It's almost like, because they've seen a few crises, they're better at handling them.

But at the same time, they can be remarkably immature. The catty fights about such silly shit -- who gets the best spot in the dressing room; whether or not someone gave them $5 as five Ones or as a Fiver and how "hard" it is to "have to count"; whether or not they can go on stage, or have to run back to the dressing room to fix their make-up because they're worried their lipstick doesn't perfectly match the little mock belt buckle on the platform boots they're wearing for the first time ever on this night. Odd mixture.

Book Guy, my take on it is a little different. A lot of these girls have been on their own and self-supporting from a pretty early age, and are therefore more mature in a practical sense than the typical girl their age. But they also haven't been exposed to as broad a variety of experiences (eg. travel) and thus don't know about a lot of things that we often take for granted. That's the mix that I've always found both curious and charming.

Curious, charming, annoying, dysfunctional, they're all the same ... :o

No, seriously, that's a fair point, FONDL. The more I try to consider these things, the more you seem quite wise on this subject. I'm still trying to learn to get laid, that's my main interest. I need to stop spending the kind of money that I do (when I have it) on strippers, but there's just no access to the pleasant company of physically attractive (attractive ENOUGH) women elsewhere in my life. So I'm still knocking on doors. So far they're all locked. :(