Dancer incomes getting hit

I can only speak for Michigan. Now it is the state with the highest unemployment rate of over 7% and the highest rate of home foreclosures. This situation does two things. First, just like you mentioned, reduces the spending by the patrons, and second, forces more girls into becoming dancers. As the result, the competition for the patrons increases and more girls are willing to take it OTC. A great market for the customer that is still willing and able to spent money. I'd be curious to see just how far the things will get. Economic recovery for Michigan is not "due" until 2009, by the most optimistic prognosis.

David: I think we are all taking a hit. I am in sales and most of my customers are complaing how bad business is. I am in NJ and the price of gasoline just went up another 20c a gallon. I am starting to curtail my spending at Gentleman Clubs as well. The dollar just doesn't go as far as it used to.

Yes, the downturn in the Detroit economy makes dancers more aggressive if not desperate. Club owners must bear some of the blame for increasing prices on everything while the market is shrinking. The end of auto exec expense accounts, layoffs and downsizing cuts recreational spending. What to do? Maybe take a leaf from Econ 101. Have at least one night a week with no cover and $10 laps and no tip out. The club will sell a lot of drinks and the dancers just might make some money. The dancers will have to work harder, but it will get the customers back.

Over at Angels they adopted the $5 dance over 5 years ago under that theory. The dancers were super pissed initially. The feeling was if we can't make money at $10 how in the world can we make money at $5? They didn't believe cutting the price could increase volume enough to make it work. It worked big time. Heck, they might be able to raise the price to $10 or $15 the club has become so popular. Some dancers are even looking down at the $5 not realizing how bad things were at the club just a few short years ago . . .

One other thing a lot of these dancers have totally forgotten how hard some of their customers work to earn that $5 and how much they look forward to that dance. Yeah, you got some guys rolling in cash--but, that's a whole different ballgame.

Yes we have taken a hit, but like you are all saying everyone is..
I have mentioned my "short bus" customers before, they work in jobs that pay little, but always save a little of that to come spend on me...jablake your right A $10 dance to them is a lot, in turn that $10 adds up at the end of a shift..
I don't see people spending as much as they did a few years ago, and thats affects how much I think they enjoy going out to a SC..The more they have to budget the less they can relax.. Part of why I am a low pressure dancer, your money should go where you want it to without dealing with attitides and whining...
I bartend at my club as well, I have been there 5 years, and since I have seen what I ring in the register drop about $500.00 to $700.00 a night..
I would run my ass off non stop all night, now I struggle to keep myself busy..I have just gone back to a regular bar I have worked at to bartend 2 shifts a week to make up for what is not coming in at the club anymore.

Same thing in the northwest.

Here in Miami, I don't know what is happening. It seems like those that have have more than ever and those who were doing ok or struggling are doing worse--a lot worse. So hopefully those that have more than ever will pump up the volume of cash with their spending and the government will print even more money but spread it more equitably.

In ancient times a dancer was complaining that I wasn't paying her enough. And, for what she was giving she was a 100% correct. I invited her to where I was living so she could see that I wasn't being stingy with her. She exclaims you NEED ME! I had to explain to her that it was WRONG for a woman to support a man financially unless she won the lottery or inherited extreme wealth. She just couldn't comprehend what was wrong with a woman supporting a man, no matter how many times I explained it. She gets an F- in reasoning. ;) On the positive side she understood that I did value her a lot. :) I was busting my balls and saving in the extreme to get pennies. Even now I consider myself to be poor, but some people consider me well off which is depressing-- An entire family was living with my neighbors in a tiny small one car garage. No beds, not even sealed in, and with leaks! They said they were just grateful to have a roof over their heads. The wife was smoking hot, but unfortunately believed that god had saved her for her husband only. I said god will understand pay for play and she is like no she and her family would have to starve first. Not even mini play available.

The first option for many of these girls is to cut the boyfriends loose, as most are a net drain on them anyways. However here's an actual unsolicited (she brought it up on her own) direct quote told to me within the last 5 days by a dancer I know.

"I think the only way I can get out of this relationship now is to show up DEAD" Yup, not surprising many of these girls are not only being physically abused, but some are being threatened with death should they ever try to exit the relationship, quite regularly. All of this (as many "women really want nice guy" types continue to disbelieve) can be(or was initially at least) quite a subconscious turn-on for many of these girls, and don't tell me these women didn't notice these guys had some major issues quite early-on when they first met.

The dancers I know and knew that is the LAST option to dump money draining boyfriend better to work 2 shifts. They're love junkies. A nice guy? It happens. Brings out the mothering instinct.

Over the past year, I have noticed a considerable drop in strip club patrons in the Northeast and Midsouth. You would think that strip clubs would lower cover charges and beverages prices or instiute or lengthen happy hours, to try and draw more customers. But, from what I've seen, these clubs are still to money hungry and I sincerely believe the owners would close their doors before lowering prices.

As far as dancers, if the strip clubs have no say so in dance prices, I believe some ladies are and have been lowering their table and lap dance prices, without trying to undercut other dancers, just to make a decent living.

Economy plays a big part in ALL businesses, so during hard times, strip clubs and dancers are just going to have to tighten their belts for a while and tough it out.

Now, as far as my Bugsy's ATF goes, when I visit (which will be soon), she'll know I'm cummin'..... oooops...... coming. If she can be at the club, fine. If not, I don't expect her to change her routine to cater to me and my visit.

I know at the clubs I visit, there is a smaller number of patrons than a year or two years ago, which presumably leads to less income for dancers. One club I regularly go to tore down its third stage since it was never used anymore, because not enough customers came in to necessitate its use. Then again, maybe natural selection is rearing its ugly head there, as there are now fewer dancers on a typical night than there used to be. And I can only assume that is because the customer base went away.

As for my favorite club, I do believe there are more dancers involved in the extras game than there used to be, which may mean they are harder up for money than they used to be, or it may mean dancers who do that stuff know to go there, as opposed to my second favorite club, where such stuff doesn't occur and guys get kicked out for exposing themselves to the dancers. But the dancers who don't do extras there haven't been crowded out yet, so some dancers there do suffer financially. Of course, the one thing I do wonder about there is a possible oversupply of dancers. Some nights, it's just right or perhaps an undersupply of dancers and other nights there is less than a 2:1 customer:dancer ratio, which seems very low. One thing I will say for certainty. My current favorite absolutely loves it when I show up on a slow night.

I have enjoyed the clubs for years, and have found the poorly thought out strategies amazing. I often have thought that if one opened a clean and fun club with fair prices, no upsell or hustle, and quality dancers that both the club and the dancers would make much more money than otherwise. I, and I am convinced most others, would much sooner drop 100 bucks on 10 or 20 enjoyable dances than on 2 or 4. In other words, I would spend more if I am having fun and feel I am getting a fair return, if I am feeling hustled I wont spend near the cash. They would make much more doing 100 4 minute dances at 10 bucks each than 20 two minute dances at 25 each. When expensive and cut short I may do one or maybe two, if reasonable and full songs I don't count the money I am spending, I am having fun and don't worry about it.

DandyDan has a valid point, I do believe. A lot of dancers I've known seem to be going "FURTHER?" in mileage than they normally would. I do believe it is because business is very slow. The dancers that still don't do 'extras' or meet the 'high' mileage scale, are those that are usually rated "dimes" and don't need to resort to that, because there are still a good portion of patrons who want BEAUTY before MILEAGE!

Glad to hear. There are a lot of dancers who prefer guys to throw money to them for free. One dancer prefers to sit with you and make her money without doing much dancing or provide mileage in VIP. Some guys do want a dancer to speak and simply enjoy talking to her. That's crazy. She should speak with you for free, especially, if he is a regular. Some dancers like to make bigger bucks in the VIP and provide no extra mileage. For example, Pink Pony does not allow girls to straddle. So, they are table dancing like they do on the floor. Some guys wise up and just have the girls dance on the floor at $10 per song. They have the girl at least 2 hours, because the guy would have her dance 3 song at a time and then chat with her and buy drinks. Plus, the table dance consists some flirtation ( some touching ). Granted, in the VIP, you could touch breast, but for the price of $200 or more for 30 minutes is too high. You be the judge, 30 min versus 2 hours. So, I would not take the girl to VIP without some extra mileage (true lapdancing (straddle), kissing, sex). Plus, you can find a club that would do friction dancing. So, some clubs do let the dancers charge too much, because they can get a bigger share of their earnings. So, guys be thrifty! Make these girls earn their money! Perhaps, they should do away with VIP all together. Some girls do promise extra mileage and then ask for the money up front. Then, they don't follow up with what they say they will do. Then you feel cheated. You can't complain. She just won't get repeat business by you. You can share with other customers that night, but she wins. I have met a few of these cons over the years. They don't last though.

I think dancer incomes have been declining for years. And I think the main reason is the way most clubs are managed - hiring too many dancers, raising prices and other things that chase away customers, when they should be doing the exact opposite. IMO the days of easy big money are over in most places.

I noticed some dancers told me last night, haven't seen you in a while. The economy at least from my perspective seems to be a lot busier now than it was a month ago. Last night I saw several guys raining money and tossing it around like leaves falling off a tree. Some of those guys looked young and college age so I don't expect to see them doing that too much. Could have been the one guys first time in a strip club the way he looked. He might have been in High School since I think he was under 21. I guess that's legal in a club where they don't sell beer. In another club, one of my favorites was dancing on stage and had guys from all over the place tipping her. Apparently she was too busy to get to me that night. The housing market never exploded here so maybe the economy is better here. The volume of sales at work is still down though.

One thing that I have noticed a lot over the last 2-3 months is that many of the girls who dance for me have hit me up for my number. Of course, when girls dance for me, they generally do 3-5 dances so I am a decent cash source. With the new Ohio laws, I thought the girls were just trying to have a way to reach me in case they moved on to another club. I probably have been given 8-10 numbers (I generally don't ask) of which a half-dozen or so will periodically text message me to let me know when/where they are working (away from the club I met them at). Only once have I been offered sex for money and although I may have considered it, she had a rather high opinion of the value of her services so I passed.

So. . . in short, I agree that dancers are making less money.

Depends on the city. New Orleans has a lot of contract and manual labor going on, and a lot of it is happening under the table, so there's more of a grey-market cash economy. Strippers seem to be doing well here, relative to any other times I can remember (either pre- or post-Katrina, for what that's worth). Maybe the gals from Kankakee and Boulder should make a road trip.

lots of changes in behavior, some of the (generally more attractive) girls who always used to just letting guys approach them - are now soliciting more often and this can tick off the soliciting types. There is a zero-sum element to this business often times, as one girls gain is another girls loss. Its going to get very nasty in these clubs

If more girls worked on their dancing skills and perhaps on their conversational abilities - it may not always be a zero-sum situation, they could actually increase patronage, if these patrons found it enjoyable enough

"I, and I am convinced most others, would much sooner drop 100 bucks on 10 or 20 enjoyable dances than on 2 or 4. In other words, I would spend more if I am having fun and feel I am getting a fair return, if I am feeling hustled I wont spend near the cash." I utterly agree. Examples follow:

When I lived in Canada a decade ago, at the old House of Lancaster I in Toronto, a one-song (uncut) lap dance was Cd$10. I would regularly spend $200 a night there whenever I went. At many of the clubs on Bourbon Street in New Orleans nowadays, a singe (often short-cut) song is US$50. I tend to spend almost nothing.

Sure, you get more for what you pay for, when the price is lower, thus implying that the performer must work more for whatever money she does make. But an extremely high price can be prohibitive of profit because it can actually reduce overall spending.

My guess is, that a given girl at the first scenario could take home $500 and be happily active and occupied for 2/3rds of the time in her evening. But in the second scenario she is likely to take home $200, be active only 1/3rd of the time, and sit around complaining for the other 2/3rds.

The model posited, of a nice decent clean club with no upsell and a reliable, though standardized, and rather cheaply priced, product, is a smart one. Mons Venus has this going on, roughly, with some mild rearrangements, for example. It doesn't pretend to be anything that it isn't. It's just a lapper haven -- as many as fast as possible, and it used to be at a roughly low standard rate (though that has now changed). I believe the market is there, and the women are probably also there for it, in larger cities.

The problem, in short, is owners and managers. They would rather kill the goose that lays golden eggs by ripping it open to get a few eggshells immediately, rather than taking care of it so that it lays for years to come.

I often wonder if strip clubs aren't somewhat tied to the construction cycle. The construction industry is among the most cyclical of all our major industries, and it employs a lot of younger guys and pays them fairly well. It wouldn't surprise me if it's a major source of stripper income in most areas. And right now it's in a major slump.

I can definitely see that dancers are harder up for money than they have been in the past. When I get dances from girls who are new to me, I am getting the OTC pitch probably 50% of the time. Friday, a dancer who, six months ago, took the pitch of, "I know what I am worth...I charge $1,000 to see a customer outside the club, but I'll see you for $750", now quoted me $500.00

Clubs can rejigger things, give better value and that might buy some time, but the overall trend cannot be stopped, and these girls thought the easy money days would last forever. The construction cycle definitely is connected to some extent, these guys are one of the core customer groups

I'd second the construction theory, except in tourist destinations like Miami, Tampa, LA, Las Vegas, where the stripper income is more likely tied to the economy as a whole rather than just the construction sector.

"I know what I am worth...I charge $1,000 to see a customer outside the club, but I'll see you for $750", now quoted me $500.00"

Note how dancers charge way way more than even some of the best pros. I am no expert but some in here are. and they can confirm that this is true. Some fairly major cities have top girls going full serv (with GFE) one hour for between $300 and $400 dollars, many at $250. Yet these strippers who often don't compare, often price higher. The reason I believe is so many strippers have been overpaid for years for what they do and so many patrons have for years been harassing them for "extras" - that full service ends up becoming this enormously valuable thing in their minds

The construction theory is right on.. In my area it is almost all blue collar.. We have a few car plants near us as well, when those do well, we do better. When the plants have there 2 week shut downs, we get alot of them in who end up spending a whole shift or day in there.. summer when the construction guys get done with a long hot day, they want beer and naked women, and will spend away on payday...

David999: another potential reason that strippers high-ball themselves in the pricing category for extras service, could be that they don't need to perform it. Their main income is in lap-dances, stage tips, all that stuff. If they're really desperate for income from extras, the price would drop. Whereas to the contrary, an internet-based service-provider who doesn't perform on stage (and, as with similar dancers, has no non-adult-oriented day job) likely has little income other than what she gets for the "extras" service.

New housing construction is probably the most cyclical major sector of our economy and until recently it was experiencing a very long boom period, largely due to record low long-term interest rates. And as a result until recently there were That period is over, and I doubt if any of us will ever see anything like that again in our lifetimes. Dancers better get used to it.

A lot of white-collar customers disappeared 15-20 years ago when IRS rules on business entertaining changed. Now a lot of blue collar customers are disappearing too. Management needs to either lower prices dramatically or get used to seeing empty clubs. The number of interested guys who can afford today's club prices is declining.

"largely due to record low long-term interest rates"

More precisely a credit bubble became the primary fuel for a massive real estate bubble. Consider the case of no-doc loans, which came into play about 10 to 12 years back, but were initially directed at self-employed or immigrant groups that dealt in cash, however note that the lenders usually wanted 30% down, and that huge downpayment became the safety valve.

Starting in the last 3 to 5 years as credit standards were lowered, they dropped the down payment amounts, to some cases near zero for no docs (lending the downpayment in effect or rolling 2 loans into one) and the same for conventional loans or some sub-primes

Add to this interest only and adjustable loans, by 2005 one could have a no doc/zero down/interest only/ARM - a classic recipe for disaster

It will take probably 5 to 10 years to unwind this mess, and for those that bought or owned luxury properties by the mid to late 90's and unloaded at the top around 04/05 and took (in some cases) 500k tax free gains - those people have a major windfall

Agree the real estate mess will definitely impact strip clubs

Talked and had some dances with a stripper earlier today in a small semi-upscale club, and although I've been in the club 6 or 7 times before, always early afternoons, I had never seen her before. Turns out she was working a double shift, and is normally on the night shift

I asked her why she was working 2 shifts. She said business in recent months was way down and last night (Tues night) business was "terrible" and she had made a total of "32 dollars" with "4 customers in the club all night and 9 dancers" "and nobody was spending"

I said "after tip-out"?

No, that was the total amount

Apparently that is pre-tipout and/or house fee and the club waived tipout and house fees or something

This girl is easily an 8 level (pretty, blonde, 5 ft 7, long legs, nice ass, slender) and there were at least five other 7 to 8 level plus girls she was competing with in the club on Wednesday, however the 4 to 5 other customer that were in the club when I was there, not one was spending money on either dances or at the tip rail

I also think there are two other factors at play here (no pun intended) - many clubs are very seasonal, busy at some times of the year but not others - and the seasonal pattern varies greatly by location. Some girls take advntage of that by traveling.

Secondly, I think there's a fairly common life cycle experience for a lot of dancers. When they're new and still fairly niave, they attract a lot of customers who want to try out the new girl. Then over time they may become somewhat jaded or gain wieght or develop an attitude, and they gradually lose their appeal. If they've managed to avoid those mistakes and build a stable of regulars their income may contine to grow for years. But those who make those mistakes see their incomes go into a slow steady decline. They're the ones who bitch about "the rotten economy."

FONDL-
I don't know if I agree with it being seasonal, as at the clubs I visit, they have good and bad days fairly randomly regardless of the season. But the one point I was going to make is sometimes it's event-driven. One thing I learned about my favorite club is I don't want to go there the day the town has their Popcorn Days festival, because that is the one day that club becomes severely overcrowded. And the clubs in Lincoln, Nebraska always have good crowds on Husker Gameday weekends, regardless of how bad the Huskers suck this year. I've been told the same thing about clubs in Lawrence, Kansas in regards to Jayhawk games. Dancers who travel to the appropriate places on the appropriate days can always make money.

I've got sources all over the country and I've never heard so much negativity in the business. (also, see recent thread about "Something Going On in Kokomo")

Here's the latest from my latest from a dancer at Treasures in LV;
"Good and bad news about work..business is slowly picking up at Treasures but still nowhere near what it was. Club got busted last Thurs Vice took 3 girls to jail for "having boobs too close to customers faces." It is also now a Misdemeanor (crime) to give anyone a back massage!

The Strip Club business is...going extinct, nobody can make a living at it anymore."

Probably just a coincidence that the club got busted 5 days before election day. Right?

Seems to me the gentlemenly thing to do is for us all to offer to help our favorite strippers in their time of need.

Cyclical patterns aside, I think the broader trend simply reflects what has happened economically in the nation at-large in recent decades, and increasingly in this decade. We're seeing the return of the Gilded Age that prevailed until the 1920s, with a small class of rich people, a vast population struggling with poverty, and a shrinking group in between with any disposable income for extravagances like lap dances. The large, prosperous middle class most of us grew up in now appears to have been a Post-War anomaly, so we're back to the norm of winner-take-all capitalism. Likewise, easy money for vast numbers of strippers was a short-lived thing, not the normal condition they thought would always be with us. From now on they're left to either hit the jackpot with the rare big spenders or fight over the scraps from the remaining middle and lower income clubbers. The cyclical patterns are sure to rebound at some point, but I think that will lead to false hopes. Long-term, strip club economics have changed and won't ever return to the way it was a few years ago.

By any realistic description poverty in America is virtually non-existant. The average "poor" person owns their house, a car, a color telivision, a DVD or VCR, has cable, a cell phone, and is overweight. I think most of the third world would jump at the chance to live in the kind of "poverty" we have in this country. In fact they do.

AN, I'm comparing the situation many Americans are in now to past decades in this country, not to third world countries. I realize we don't have mass starvation on our hands, but you can't deny that far fewer Americans can afford a healthy diet, health care or a college education than could 30 years ago, and the trend is acceleratingly worse. Do a subprime mortgage and a DVD player really make up for that? (That's a rhetorical question.) Regardless, my point wasn't to debate the definition of poverty - it was about how stripper economics both reflect this trend and are affected by it. I guess you could say they have it better than third world strippers, but I'd say that only reinforces how bad things have become.

No doubt, in america for most people even "poverty" as we define it, would be the envy of most people in the world. We hear constantly about "starving" kids in the inner city, supposedly hungry every day, yeah right, I've seen some of these kids with their gold chains waiting in line for lunch at McDonalds, and they ART starving: for their Big Mac, Coke, and fries.'

By the way the "can't afford a healthy diet" was a new mantra created by the POVERTY INDUSTRY crowd a few years back when people started asking the obvious question. "If kids so many kids are going hungry, why do we have so much obesity with many of these same kids?" So they invented this new fiction of the unaffordability of "healthy food". Actually kids eat what taste good, and junk food and processed food is often simply more enjoyable to eat than fruits and vegetables. However, saying that doesn't give the left the policital mileagage they need.

Wow. That's pretty sick, man. Look, I was just making an ordinary observation about trends in strip club economics, not trying to say that poor people are saints or to promote communism. No need to get all guilty about what you have.

Chandler, there is still no comparison, on every single issue you raised we are far better off than any previous generation, and we have DVD players and cell phones too. I know what you said is "common knowledge" or what passes for it nowadays, but it is exactly the opposite of the truth. Far more americans can afford a healthy diet, can access health care and insurance, and can attend college than ever before. In addition real household incomes are also higher than at any other time, with the exception of a brief period around 1998 when it was very slightly higher.

A healthy diet is cheaper than fast food and is easily affordable by almost anyone. Spending on food as a percentage of income is lower than ever before and continues to drop. From 1929 through 1950 food consumed about 20% of a family's disposable income. That number has dropped continuously since then and is now just under 10%. That includes eating out too. For those who can't afford food there are a myriad of programs such as food stamps and WIC they can turn to, let alone churches and charitable oganizations. As for a healthy diet, unless you want the food police who go around telling everyone how bad everything is for them to have actual enforcement powers then we'll have to be satisfied that a healthy diet is available to everyone, wether they choose it or not.

Health care is most certainly available to anyone (as opposed to health insurance, which too many people equate with health care), and as a matter of fact health insurance of some sort is more readily available than anyone will admit. For those who can't afford their own insurance and are under the poverty level in income there is medicaid and for those in the middle, well Bush just vetoed an expansion of SCHIP (State Children's Health Care Program) because it would have expanded to the point where the government was providing health care for children whose parents were making up to $83,000 for a family of four, as opposed to covering ONLY those who make up to double the poverty level, around $40,000. We are now at the point where the government is looking to expand subsidized health insurance and care into families earning well above the median income. Many people may go without health insurance for some period of time, but it is most certainly available, again not taking advantage of what is available is not the same as not being able to get it.

College attendance is also at an all time high. In 1950 about 5% of the population graduated from college. By 1970 that was about 15%, by 1990 it was up to about 20% and now nearly 28% of the population has at least a Bachelor's degree by the time they are 25 years old, and a further 27% either is attending or has attended college without earning a degree. That doesn't even count another 6% with associate degrees.

On every front, inflation adjusted income, costs of consumer goods, food prices, access to health care and insurance and government assistance on all of those, plus college attendance, we are better off than any other people in history, so I don't buy the argument that the last 5 or 10 years of decline in stripclubs is the result of people needing to save money. All the information cited above is available online from the Census Bureau.

My point wasn't to compare our poor with the third world, it was to point out that what was commonplace in the past, real poverty, real deprivation, in this country doesn't exist anymore. Even our poor have disposable income and can afford a house and car, so to say that strip clubs are declining because nobody has money to go there anymore is in my opinion balderdash. We are awash in money. True, $3/gallon gas doesn't help, but then if you drive 1,200 miles a month (assuming 25MPG as the average) the difference between $2/gallon gas and $3/gallon gas is about $50 in the monthly budget. That might be a stripclub visit for some people, so yeah, maybe there is a link to people having, or at least feeling they have less money to spend on strippers, but it isn't because they are being squeezed back into poverty.

As far as strippers? Yeah, I think the industry is way down. I do think it is a reflection of some overall societal trend, just not the one you think. I think a lot more is due to the pornification of the culture. What you had to go to a stripclub to see a few decades ago you can now see on TV. If you don't get cable you can rent porn. If you have a computer you basically have a lifetime supply. I think this is also why clubs are trending higher mileage. Some of those who are only interested in the visual part will now stay home and put in a DVD, leaving those who want more interaction more represented among the customers.

I agree with Chandler on one point - that the middle class is shrinking. But if you look at the data instead of listening to the biased rhetoric of those who try to spread discontent, you'll discover that the reason the middle class is shrinking is that large numbers of people previously considered to be middle class have become wealthy. That's the really important trend in our society and it's been going on for decades.

Other than that one point, I agree with everything that AN said. As usual he has his facts right. If you look at total income including government benefits, instead of just looking at earned income as the news media does in their efforts to create bad news, most of the poor in this country are those who are poor temporarily while they attend college or other school. Or they're retired like me. I have no earned income and could be classified as poor if that's the measure you use. But in reality I'm much closer to being rich than poor.

The real problem that strip clubs have is that they've become somewhat of an anachronism - in a society where sex is everywhere they've pretty much gone out of style. Fifty years ago they were just about the only place where horny guys could see naked women. Now all you have to do is turn on the TV or your computer or go to a movie or a massage parlor or call an escort or go to a local bar and pick someone up. So who needs strip clubs? The number of people to whom strip clubs appeal is shrinking because of all this increased competition and because strip clubs have become overpriced in comparison. It has little to do with the status of the overall economy.

I also think that, like many other sectors of the entertainment industry, stripping has become much more of a star system - the best are taking an increasing share of the total pot so incomes for everyone else are declining in relative terms. I'll bet that in almost every strip club where girls are complaining that there's no money anymore, that there's a few stars who are making a bundle. As prices have risen guys have become pickier.

"A healthy diet is cheaper than fast food and is easily affordable by almost anyone."

Really? I could be wrong, but just offhand sounds so completely idiotic it could have only be written by someone that actually has money. Let's see I was eating brown rice and that was very cheap. I was eating chicken and that was very reasonable except for the electric for the stove and the refrigerator was off to save on the electric. And, yes not having the refrigerator on or the hot water heater for that matter made a huge difference in my electric bill. The hot water being off saved about $15 per month and I don't remember exactly how much the the refrigerator saved, but I was down to about $25 a month electric. So the chicken is going to cost $2.50 (a half a chicken) plus let say 50 cents for the rice. So that is $3 for a day's worth of food without the fruits and vegetables, which are very expensive. Let's forget about fruits and vegetables and pretend poor people don't need that and can just survive on chicken and rice. So that is $3 a day times 30 days is $90 a month. Or, I can walk to Burger King and pick up a Whopper for 99 cents along with fries also 99 cents. That's just under $2 a day or $60 for the month. I'm saving $30 a month by eating the fast food. And, actually I can save even more money and get a lot fatter if I just buy the junk at Winn Dixie. One box of brown sugar a pound is 50 cents. The cheese doodles or some other off brand garbage is also 50 cents or if you want to go crazy on expensive junk food make it 99 cents. That's a $1.50 a day and I guarantee that you'll start putting on the blubber even if you work at a physical job. Anyway, that is $45 a month for garbage that will make you fat. I would much rather be eating tomatoes, melons, pears, grapes, nuts, etc. The problem is when you are watching pennies that adds up fast. Now a wealthy fuck wouldn't know anything about that.

So, if you can eat cheap and healthy that is wonderful. I think anybody that says that is either brain dead or completely full of shit.

Anyway if it is a fraud by the POVERTY INDUSTRY and it might be, then it should be fairly easy to refute. Perhaps the poor just need to learn how to do it. I know when I was watching pennies and eating junk--I definitely wanted the healthy food, instead. It usually was too expensive. A wealthy fuck usually wouldn't understand that. Doesn't matter how intelligent, if they're wealthy or have a decent income then they don't have any idea that it is cheaper and more fattening to eat junk food than to eat good food.


So, I don't mind being proven wrong. Just offhand in my experience eating fattening junk food is much cheaper. Again, I will repeat. Maybe I'm dead wrong and maybe the POVERTY INDUSTRY is pushing a fraud. But, if you can eat good foods as cheaply as junk food that is fantastic! :)

Hi FONDL,

That may be true about more people getting wealthy--I don't know if that is true or not. In some ways there is no doubt, imo. The internet, color tvs, computers, printers, etc. Housing? I don't think so unless you're impressed with rising prices. A single family slum house that should have been selling for around $30,000 was priced at $130,000. So the owners are wealthier? Of course, their taxes went thru the roof. But, the house is garbage. An older lady that I know was telling how she was wealthy now. Why? Because her home is worth $400,000. It didn't improve. It just takes a hell of a lot more dollars to buy it. She feels wealthy and that is the important thing for her. The insurance costs have been rising way past the inflation rate. My doctor was thank fully allowed to cancel his malpractice insurance under State law. It just got too expensive. Are cars cheaper as a percentage of income for most people? I don't know. They seem pricey to me. I'd rather by a junker. Medical care is cheaper as a percentage of income? Maybe if the government is paying for it.

I don't know. One trend I do like and can see is the increasing number of illegal immigrants that are in my area. That is good news depending on your viewpoint and needs. The Wall Street Journal had an excellent piece some years back comparing wealth today to wealth in 1950. It was real eye opener. However, perhaps a different piece would have painted a very different picture.

Another indication of wealth is the drug dealers. They seem to be doing a hell of a lot better. That in turn should mean people have more money to waste i.e. wealthier.

I was impressed NO end seeing $20s being spent like $1s. Just wow, this is truly fantastic that they have so much money. I'd like to get work shining their shoes, but they wear sneakers. :) Maybe polishing their guns? :) As long as it isn't too risky, then I'd like to get back to work with the way they throw money around. Who knows maybe attorneys spend as much or more and I just don't realize it. If the attorneys also spend money as recklessly, then damn I'd like to be shining their shoes. :)

It is just amazing how seeing $1 tips was rare and now it is $20 tips and there is hell of a lot more tipping. The biggest negative is just the club is so crowded and that is great for the dancers--their assorted fees to club have gone sky high. I'd rather have customers tipping $20s like that because I think the dancers do deserve a good income for the service they provide.

The question is how does one redistribute wealth (assuming that's the essence of the problem) - when already the top half of fed income tax filers are paying 94% of all federal income tax. The reality is the bottom half pays little if any federal income tax, so the payroll tax or basically the social security tax becomes the big hit for them. Howver the EITC or earned income tax credit in effect acts as a refund against SS taxes paid (even when zero fed taxes are paid) for millions of low income americans, many whom benefit from a huge amount of untaxed social programs. The net affect is that many end up with no stake in the tax system. Add to this the ever growing underground economy, and you end up with a relatively small group of honest taxpaying citizens pulling a very very large wagon

Hillary's socialist platform might win her the election should it occur (as it likely) in the middle of a recession, however such socialistic programs with their confiscatory rates invariably demotivate the most productive workers in a society, so you end up with a euro-style prolonged high unemployment quasi- recession, which long term doesn't even help groups that need help.

Once someone either accumulates wealth and/or high earnings, its very hard to go backwards, and this is what is happening with some strippers. For example one of the very young dancers (with no kids/boyfriend to support) soliciting me for a packaged OTC sex deal, even though she's claiming her earnings are down maybe 50% this year - still has as her goal getting a giant plasma TV, so there's alot of cushion with many of these girls, least those w/o the families etc. By the way when I most recently saw her and did a few dances with her in her club, her lastest sales pitch actually involved detailing to me her birth control method (the pill) -so I know where its headed next, basically one test away (on my part) from her offering it unprotected - quite an offer actually, however not very likely to be accepted by me, covered or uncovered. just too much risk overall

"Or, I can walk to Burger King and pick up a Whopper for 99 cents along with fries also 99 cents."

Sound like a sales price to me, however in any case these teens, many already obsese perhaps in-shape but athletes, are going to buy much more than PLUS they nearly always buy a large soft drink. Two buck won't do it, try more like 5 bucks

"Really? I could be wrong, but just offhand sounds so completely idiotic it could have only be written by someone that actually has money."

Well I do make a decent living, and I do eat well, but back when I was starting out I ate very healthy on $15 a week in 1986. That'd probably be about $25ish now. So, $25 can get you 5 Big Mac meals, or a week's worth of groceries.

I think the problem is that you confuse "healthy" with "health food" or organic. You can eat rice, beans, oatmeal, fresh vegtables, meat, fish, chicken, eggs, bread and all the rest and be very healthy on a budget.

A quick scan for a 2500 calorie diet comes up with (for example) 3 slices of bread, 1 cup oatmeal, 1 cup pasta, 1 cup rice, 2 cups of veggies or 1 cup lettuce (or leafy greens) and 1 cup of veggies, 2 pieces of fruit, 1 cup of fruit juice, 1 cup milk, 1 cup yogurt, 2 oz cheese and 8 ounces of meat, OR 2 eggs, OR 1 cup of beans. Everyone interested, get out a cup. When was the last time you ate only a cup of pasta. Weigh out 8oz of meat. That is about 1 chicken thigh or one small chicken breast. I could do the diet recommended above for less than $25/week, and that is the diet recommended for a full grown man.

Now, compare that with the local McDonalds where as mentioned, each meal can come in at $2 for a burger and fries, assuming a breakfast equivalent of burger and fries, this also assumes no drink. Sorry, you can not live on a $1 burger and a $1 fries per day for a month. Try it if you don't believe me. In my experience a breakfast runs abour $3 and a lunch/dinner about $5, but for argument sake call it $2. That comes to $42/week, well over the $25 it costs to eat healthy. A more realistic fast food number is nearer $90/week, a $3 breakfast and a $5 lunch and dinner.

Just for the heck of it I pulled out my local grocery circular. I planned a more extravagant American diet, tilting perhaps a little toward the healthy side, but with lots of luxury items like steak and salmon, no hamburger, and plenty of fresh fruit and veggies. Breakfast is 1 cup oatmeal, 1 cup yogurt, 1 cup OJ, 1 slice toast and one piece of fruit. Lunch is soup and salad or a sandwich with either a glass of milk or a cup of yogurt. Dinner is 1 pound of meat, a salad, a steamed veggie, and either rice, pasta, or potatoes. This is closer to what I eat, and is well over 3000 calories a day, which is over the 2800 recommended for active duty soldiers, which means I have to hit the gym, hard, on a regular basis. So a breakdown.

Meat, $17 which includes 1 pound each of pork, lamb, ham, chicken, chicken breast, NY strip, salmon, turkey, and a dozen eggs. Note that this is almost three times the meat recommended in the pyramid, I'm talking luxury diet. Add 1 bag of dried beans (which is about 4 cups cooked, for $1 and $18 gets you an overabundance of protein. One pound each of broccoli, carrots, asparagus, squash, sweet potatoes, russets, and cauliflower, plus 2 lbs of lettuce comes to more than enough servings, and about $12. Bananas, blueberries, apples, pineapple, enough for a week, $14. OJ for a week, another $3 if you buy concentrate. Oatmeal, rice, bread, pasta, a weeks supply is well under $8. Add in canned soup for lunch at about $5, yogurt and milk, and cheese, plus condiments,and odds and ends and groceries for a luxury diet that includes steak, salmon, asparagus, and prepared ham and turkey can be had for about $70, and will last for far more than a week when you consider leftovers and the fact that there is about 3 times the meat/beans/eggs needed. Eating healthy, even overeating healthy, is far cheaper than junk/fast food. I spend less than $200/month on groceries, and I eat extremely well (see above), but I never eat out.

"Sorry, you can not live on a $1 burger and a $1 fries per day for a month."

I have tried. It wasn't fun for me. That is when you are really down and out, imo. (Also, that was a long time ago so maybe I "cheated" with extras, but if so it was probably brown sugar or cheese doodles.) The secret is in the ketchup, imo. Use about 6 packets. The burger is a Whopper. The 99 cents does sound like a sales price and depending on the area that is true (when I was buying long ago I think it was 49 cents and better quality, but who knows maybe it was still 99 cents and poor quality). Some places here in Miami, I think the price is $1.99 or even more. If the poor are eating $1.99 burgers regularly, then I would think they could afford better food.

I watched a "poor" girl spend $6 on a regular sandwich. I was stunned. She was surprised that I was surprised. She agreed $6 was very expensive, but what choice did she have? Walking all the way to Burger King for her wasn't a real choice, imo. The more I learned the more I understood where she was coming from, but it was still a waste of money, imo. A big problem for her was transportation and that she didn't have any idea how to cook even eggs. I said but, your mom cooked. She looked at me like I was crazy. Most of her food was junk and not healthy. Now, she wasn't fat . . . but at the rate she was eating the junk food it was only a matter time.

"can be had for about $70, and will last for far more than a week when you consider leftovers and the fact that there is about 3 times the meat/beans/eggs needed. Eating healthy, even overeating healthy, is far cheaper than junk/fast food. I spend less than $200/month on groceries, and I eat extremely well (see above), but I never eat out."

Excellent breakdown on what you spend. Thanks. :) OK, so I buy a pound of chicken for $1.99. A single large tomato will cost $1. Brown rice is 50 cents. So I should be able to eat for $3.50 a day. I don't know how much the electric costs, but I do watch it and it adds up quickly. So we are talking about $105 a month roughly ($3.50 X 30) not including electric. The Whopper and fries are $60 a month roughly ($1.99 X 30). You're talking about a difference of about $500 a year ($45 X 12). That is a lot of money to some poor people.

What I was living on and you can live on it is the chicken and rice and tomato paste. That isn't too bad--the Whopper and fries is bad, imo, but you can live on it and depending on your body you can get fat on it. I was fairly lucky in that respect. I could eat a lot of garbage without a lot of weight gain until I got older. Of course, that is perception also--some people considered me overweight when I was younger. Other people eat anything like a Whopper or fries and they seem to put on the blubber.

One other point and it probable isn't too common (I'm not sure), but you can get free junk food at Burger King. The girls behind the counter seem to be from a poverty background also and if you need a whopper and fries, then when I tried it wasn't a problem. OK, I looked down and out. That probably helped a lot. But, they were more than friendly and the hardest thing was just the asking part. That is bad. Also, I don't know how they would have reacted if I became a daily pest. I was feeling bad just asking once in a blue moon. I wouldn't make a practice of it.


Hey, you're doing construction work and there is a down turn in your local area things can get bad real quick for a short period of time. Usually, there is some reasonable work at a fair wage. The hardest thing is finding it and getting hired. I'm talking about work nearby. The farther you are willing to travel the more opportunity there is. I wasn't willing to travel too far. Better to rough it for a little while.

I find it interesting that there's a direct correlation between health and wealth. Some of it is probably due to better medical care for the wealthy. But I think most of it is due to 2 other factors: (1) education - the wealthy have a better understanding of what it takes to be healthy, and (2) time horizon - the wealthy are more willing to do things whose benefit is long term (which is partly how they got to be wealthy in the first place) while poorer people are more interested in instant gratification. Like eating Big Macs and fries.

But to return to the original topic, the past 20 years have been the strongest economic expansion period in our history. The unemployment rate is at an all-time low, in fact it is lower than what economists used to consider to be full employment. True not everyone has benefitted equally - the expansion has largely occurred because of new technology and most of the good jobs created have required a higher level of education. So the income gap between educated and uneducated workers has widened. Which gives the impression that our poverty problem is getting worse, when in fact there are far more highly educated workers and far fewer uneducated ones (which is why illegal immigrants have no trouble getting jobs, but that's another issue.) IMO the relatively uneducated well paid workers have historically have been the the largest customer group for strip clubs, but their numbers are declining.

In spite of the record economic growth, I can't ever remember a time during the past 20 years when strippers weren't complaining about the economy. I think the complaints result from two things: (1) the industry is declining (in relative terms); and (2) in most clubs a few girls make most of the money while the rest don't do very well. I think that's always been true although it may be becoming truer as the industry hires more and more marginal dancers.

Not just that the industry is "declining" it's also becoming "mainstreamized" (meaning, it's no longer JUST for wealthy-ish businessmen on layovers during business trips, or people in Vegas or New Orleans; college kids, couples, retirees all partake and aren't embarrassed about it). Like when restaurants went wide-spread by a change from something like five-star French dining in big cities to something like McDonald's on the highway, the level of accoutrements and service declined and the business model changed from one of luxury service to one of volume production. There are more dancers with more customers in more locations but with less high-end appeal.

(I always liked a dancer with a high and appealing end ...)

Hi Book Guy,

I think it started out for low lifes. At least that is what I've read and seen. Both could be wrong overall.

So Tootsies was a total dive for lower class people. It went on to become a place for those with money. Angels was and is a dive, but now money is flowing in for some reason. The other clubs on W. Dixie Hwy. were like Tootsies--dives for lower class people and also low end tourists, but thanks to the government those clubs were shut down.

This gentleman club development is a turn off for me, but that might be just because it is out of my price range. If I had the right budget, then I might say it is the greatest. Or, I might still have low class tastes. It is difficult to know without having the experience. $25 for a 3 minute dance? Not appealing in the least. But, if you're making $400 or $500 an hour it shouldn't be that big a deal.

BookGuy, I guess it depends on how far back you want to go. But it seems to me that, except maybe for a few select places in a couple of big cities, the fancy upscale clubs are a relatively new phenomenon. I'm old enough to remember when all strip clubs were low-class dives. In fact that was a big part of their appeal. I wonder what was the first true gentlemen's club as we now know them.

Jablake, you raise an interesting point that I never really thought about. I don't much care for GC's either, but if I had a gazillion bucks would I feel differently? I'm not sure I can answer that. But I think I'd still find all the djs, bouncers, etc. pretty annoying. Plus I'm a small-town boy at heart and all the GCs seem to be in inner cities. I don't generally do inner cities.

From poster "DollyRocker" on the pink site thread the other day:

BEGIN QUOTE

Theres waaay fewer customers, period. Namely fewer spending customers. I'm also noticing that customers who DO spend are spending much less $ (I'm lucky to get a 2nd dance!), and spending less time in the club. At the same time, theres an increase in cheap losers who hang out for HOURS without spending a dime. And I'm not even counting the losers who cling to the bar for dear life, I'm talking about guys who cling to the tip rail like a barnacle and enjoy hours worth of free shows. Guys intently watching for free. They're seriously too cheap to tip even $1.00 during stage shows... and my club doesn't charge an admission fee! One guy said he refuses to tip because 'the margaritas are $4.75!!'

Doesn't the law say they have to buy 2 drinks and buy at least 2 dances, otherwise they're considered loiterers?!?!?!? I wish clubs would enforce that.

It doesn't matter what lifestyle they live. My club always has a mix of customers - young, old, white collar, blue collar, students, retirees, etc. alike. They're all in hiding right now.

While this is happening, the dancer count at my club has doubled (if not tripled), and no one is banking. Whats scary is I've always been a top earner at my club, so I'm actually one of the luckier ones. I know for a fact that most of my coworkers are regularly walking with less than $50.00, or working more than 8 hours straight to barely make $100.00. It's all I hear about in the dressing room. Today when I went in at 3, a girl who'd been there since 11 told me shes only made $3.00! Clubs have been more lax about waiving house fees for girls having a bad night, but are stricter on collecting tip outs, which are getting harder to make.

END QUOTE

This is consistent with what I'm being told by many dancers, and as someone suggested it could be real estate related. Whatever it is, something is happening to upset the business, with more than just typical seasonal variations occuring

To: dudes who want to say that clubs started out low-life and that fancy-schmancy clubs are a new development.

I can see where that might be the case. Doesn't really matter to my general argument, which was based on pointing out the "mainstreamization" and not necessarily the up-scale-ization or down-scale-ization of strip clubbing. The argument hinged on the fact that there is much more volume of low-paying customers because of the greater general public's acceptance of strip clubbing (whether or not it's a low-life or high-life phenomenon).

Book Guy, you've made that argument before about the "mainstreamization" of strip clubs, and I don't see it. Maybe there's greater acceptance among young people, but IMO there's always been acceptance among young people. The one difference is that some young women are curious enough to visit clubs now and then, you rarely saw that years ago. But you also see more women on the golf course or sitting in bars today. So that's really the "mainstreamization" of women not strip clubs.

On the other hand, corporate America has become a lot less accepting. My early visits to strip clubs were almost always business related. In my early working years it was very common for business people to take customers or visitors to strip clubs. You almost never see that today, and in many companies you'd get fired for doing that. Seems to me that corporate America, and maybe older people in general, are a lot less tolerant today, not more.

And to answeer my earlier question, if I had a zillion dollars I probably wouldn't visit strip clubs at all, I'd be hiring massage therapists and other girls to entertain me privately. And I think that's one of the problems that strip clubs are having, guys with money are spending more of it on escorts and massage girls and less of it in strip clubs. The number of massage parlors seems to be increasing much more rapidly than the number of strip clubs, and escort advertisements are increasingly common. Strip clubs appear to be getting a declining share of the sex dollar.

I think the older folks are generally a lot less tolerant, now. It amazed me how conservative some of the older people I knew were in conducting their affairs and yet they basically had a live and let live attitude among their own people. It was the old grasshopper and ant story. Sure play play play, but at your own peril. Don't expect that you will be rescued if you've been acting irresponsible--you might get rescued or you might meet the fate of the grasshopper!

An example of compassion, imo, *were* the drug laws . . . some people believe and like that garbage and if not with drugs then with some other pet evil e.g. stripclubs, prostitution, homosexuality, etc.

I wrote of NO compassion and in a way that was positive because it also came with indifference i.e./e.g. live and let live. Someone wants to drink themselves to death, well why should you care even if they're immediate family? BTW, I did care and that was consider weak and abnormal, which was true for them.

FONDL: maybe our differing perspectives are ones o f differing locations. My experience seeing New Orleans in the 1970s and 1980s was, that the strip clubs were all rather seedy fronts for prostitution, and only sailors and furtive businessmen could be seen sneaking in and out of the front doors of those places. In my assessment, no man would tell his mother or his wife EVER that he'd been to a strip club. It might be presumed, for certain business trips to certain locations, but it was expected to be SILENT.

Nowadays a place like Mons Venus can exist front and center on a main city thoroughfare, major sports celebrities can drop wads of cash and hold official parties at those locations, and girls actually publicly announce, "I'm an exotic dancer" as though it were a profession to be proud of. Guys admit to taking a bachelor out to a strip club regularly. This isn't, exactly, "mainstreamization" of the club itself, but of the general social acceptance of the fact that it goes on.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, that maybe the actual practices haven't changed that much, or maybe they have; but overall people are more willing to talk honestly and publicly about it than they used to be.

Your point about official corporate acceptance declining is definitely the case. Back in the 70s you could take $200 out of a bank account and spend it and get a tax-write-off as a business expense for "entertaining clients." Now you'd have to get a credit card receipt, and if your company comptroller saw that it registered "Rachel's Hoo Hoo Ta Ta Palace and Drunk Lapper Emporium" you'd be canned. So you're definitely right on that account.

Also, I notice that the notion of a club is expanding to America's residential areas and "upscale" suburbs. They all used to be located in a city's two main "grit" zones -- either in the dilapidated downtown core, next to seedy adult bookshops and dollar shoe stores; or in a light- to medium-heavy industrial zone out in a surrounding area that technically is a "suburb" but more accurately is a factory district, next to truck parking lots, lumber supply yards, and small engine repair shops. But nowadays, they're out in a mall close to a Piccadilly or a Bennigans and across the street from a family drug store or a waffle house.

To me, this change indicates that there's less "disgust" in practice, on the part of non-attending America, about people who DO attend strip clubs (clients and workers).

But I may be all wrong about this. It might simply be, that I didn't happen to spend a lot of time in the suburbs back in the 80s because I wasn't driving around on my own. Or maybe it's all part of a pendulum swing this way and that, and different parts of the country swing different directions at the same time, such that one region's era of mainstream-ization is another's era of ghetto-ization and putting-under-wraps.

The internet has a lot to do with this. There are few "adult bookstores" and video-rental (I guess it's DVDs now) places left. Those joints with "marital aids" in the back corner are probably doing poorly in most cities as much because of an increase in Puritanism among the idiot unwashed, as because of strictly economic factors.

If my mainstream-ization theory is correct (and I've by no means proven it; I'm happy to hear it disproven) then there's a further discrepancy, that America is largely understood on other subjects to be turning farther away from sexual licentiousness over the last ten or fifteen years. I wonder how that works out.

Well, for me, having a chat in 1988 and telling a girl in college that I spent the evening in a strip club would have been unheard of. How embarrassed I would have been! It would be like whipping out a boner and saying, "Snerk snerk, you make me horneee ..." in my best Beavis 'n' Butthead impersonation! But now, in 2007, it would sound a bit lonely, but not half as embarrassing. It's more like saying I had a beer and watched a football game. Am I surrounded by an attitude that is opening up toward strip clubs, or is it just that I, personally, have gotten over the embarrassment. Or become a dirty old man who doesn't give a damn if he offends a college girl with his snerky boner? :P

Book Guy, I live on the cusp between suburbia and rural. When I moved here 30+ years ago it was mostly rural and there were 3 strip clubs nearby. Now it's mostly suburban and there are none. And none of the closings were the result of religious zealots, it was largely the business community - as the area became more upscale strip clubs were no longer welcome. Plus economics clearly played a role, two of the sites became upscale restaurants and the third the site of a hotel.

But I agree with you on one point, the Internet has had a dramatic impact on strip clubs. But I think it has largely been negative because it's made the competition (escorts, erotic massage) much more readily available. If you want to argue that those alternates have become more mainstream-ized, I might agree with you.

I think the only customer group that is increasing in number is old farts - retired men like me. And that growth will probably increase dramatically as the huge group of baby boomers begin to retire. But that isn't particualrly good news for strippers - most of the retireees I see in strip clubs don't seem to have a lot of money (the rich ones are all in Florida playing golf) and don't spend much, they just sit and watch and drink, which is a cheap form of entertainment. Large numbers of Old Farts in clubs will probably chase away younger guys. I'm interested to see if Shadowcat and Bones' spending habits change when they retire. Assuming they ever do.

To me the most interesting subject is what impact, if any, has the changing roles of women in society had on strip clubs? I can think of dozens of ways, some positive, some negative. Maybe I'll start a new topic.

FONDL: if your perception (non-mainstream-ization) is true over mine, here's an explanation for maybe what happened with my own perceptions. As I grew up, I experienced (seeing, mostly from the outside) extremely seedy prostitution-front strip-clubs in the Bourbon Street area in the 1970s. I didn't actually have access to many suburban areas -- New Orleans is surrounded by swamp, much to our benefit and detriment -- and only when I'd returned to America in the 1990s did I regularly drive the wide-lane suburban by-ways of America. Sure, I'd been there, but I hadn't actually FOCUSED on there as a "place." The French Quarter got cleaned up (several times), and the vice trade moved "indoors" to the internet.

From that perspective, I'm perhaps seeing a change from urban to suburban in my own life and the consumer life of the sex industry in America, as a mistaken impression of change from secretive to public. What I'm arguing for, the more PUBLIC version of discussion, is certainly going on. But maybe the DISCUSSION doesn't actually prove an existence of business that are, themselves, operating more publicly.

In which case, is it simply ever greater hypocrisy? As a culture, Puritanical "typical" Americans talk more about strip clubs, and dislike them even more?

Book Guy, I think it's difficult to make generalizations about this point because there are too many variables. For example, among some groups of people perhaps a mainstreaization has occurred. But among other groups perhaps the opposite is true. In addition, talk about all aspects of sexuality was once taboo, now it's wide open thanks to TV and movies. But the fact that people are more willing to talk about something doesn't mean greater acceptance. I think the fact that a lot of clubs have become less seedy is a reflection that everything in our society has become less seedy, that seems to be what consumers expect, and strip clubs are trying to meet that demand. But that doesn't mean that a larger share of the population accepts them.