I do think that there was a time period clubs (especially higher end ones, that their debut in the early 90s, or so I heard) had a more specific look that was accepted as a dancer. Mostly being white and a “spinner” body type, where the main source of acceptable adipose is having tits (and on a small enough frame, the main way to even realistically achieve that is through a boob job).
At that time period women were actually concerned weather their butts (and not stuff like their stomach) were too big—which yes I’m sure you were already well aware but I felt like explaining that because it’s weird to remember that time period.
Thanks to popular culture pushing the other way as much (sometimes in a rather extreme way, like 2icee likes to troll this site with images of) for the past few years, I think a lot of complaining on this site is more reactionary just because they are tired of “thick” as a trend—which admittedly probably has been forced upon an aging group of customers a little bit too much when they would rather have clubs be a “fantasyland” away from what is more “pc” or “current”. Ditto on the complaining about tattoos.
And if we want to get really blunt, talking with the upper 30s/dancers in their 40s, it seemed like there was a lot less anger at the idea of having dancers as young as 15 working in clubs. Seems many OG strippers brag on that about that about themselves (while simultaneously decrying the legal-aged 18 year old strippers today for being too young) Idk when that became more taboo, maybe early 2000s? Not going to comment further on that...but wanted to point out that probably helped out keeping the roster of a certain body type + softer&firmer skin+ fresher faces out there back in the day...
If that 90s/early 2000s look is ones preference, then yes indeed standards are WAY down.
Plus also things like post 2008 and more clubs being “house fee mills” (clubs putting in more quantity of bodies in the store over quality) and the like don’t help.