Cycles

Women are women-- what you describe happens in civi life as well...You don't mention if you are paying for OTC time and if so how much but either way what you are describing is certainly not unique to dancers....nothing really complicated about it.

Driver, I agree with you. I guess my question is, why does a dancer throw away a good customer? Why does she stop treating him with courtesy and respect? I understand that most dancers don't want a customer to get too close and don't have any interest in an OTC relationship - so why do they tell you all kinds of personal stuff and why do they suggest getting together OTC? When all I'm looking for is a good club buddy, why do they take it way beyond that to the point where it crashes and burns?

I think the central issue here, is one of (an olde-tyme word) "constancy." We've generally lost that value, even knowing what the word MEANS has kind of trickled out of our popular consciousness, though it used to be one of the MAIN things that traditional upbringing was supposed to teach to young women. Men and women both were supposed to have this trait, and in particular women were highly valued if they were able to demonstrate it. They used to name girls Constance.

It doesn't really mean, "commitment" or "ability to commit." And it doesn't really mean "reliability," though there's a heavy dose of it. I think it's more along the lines of "sober" and "reliable" and "common-sensical" and "stable" and "balanced."

Most of us value it. It doesn't exist much any more. Even if it does, it's considered "boring" or certainly not desirable. Young women actively avoid seeming "constant" so they can seem "feminine" instead: frivolous, flighy, fly-by-night, whimsical, giggly, girlyl, idiotic, inept. Paris Hilton is the ideal, not Nancy Drew or Juliet Capulet. Certainly not Hildegard von Bingen.

I think all that's going on here, is that you want a person to be a little bit more "contant" than we currently tend to see in society, and certainly more than we ever see in strippers.

Since strippers are women (sort of), most will start acting that way even though it doesn't really make sense from a business perspective.

Basically I think it is very difficult to find someone you are deeply compatible with (does this sound like an EHarmony commercial?). If that isn't the case the relationship is phony to some extent. She will then get bored of you, and, maybe semi-consciously, think you are a chump for not recognizing this and having asymmetric feelings. Hence you are going to notice, at least at a low level, a certain vibe of contempt.

Hinting or even openly offering OTC meetings is a standard stripper tactic for milking customers. It's worked for them before so they will try it indiscriminately after that. (I've also noticed they will throw it out in desperation when everything else seems to be failing and the "relationship" has run its course.)

There isn't really a good solution here. This is just going to happen eventually barring the deep compatibility. You can delay it by making yourself more of challenge, playing on jealousy, or ignoring them when they are misbehaving (never even dream of having a calm, rational discussion with them about the problem!). However, that is only delaying what is, eventually, to come.

My favorite tactic is to pre-empt this all myself. Fuck them two or three times, and then move on before things start to go sour.

It's human nature to grow dissatisfied with a perfect situation and want to screw it up just for the hell of it. The story's as old as Adam and Eve. Strippers get bored with win-win and decide they'd like win-lose better, but what they wind up with is lose-lose.

FONDL - Goo topic, I don't ever recall seeing this topic before.

I believe this "cycle" is not uncommon, not only with ATFs, but dancers in general.

I'll even go as far as saying that "cycles" work the other way also. I've always been used to one particular dancer, a fave, as they are called. But, eventually, over a period of time, new talent is hired and the 'ole fave', well.... how can I put this.... becomes old stuff, doing the same things with me, etc. You can't change up 'rascally play' all that much in a VIP or booth, like you can at home. The new talent always catches my eye and I start thinking..... hmmm, a new challenge.

Book Guy, I think your point about "constancy" is right on. That's exactly what I expect from a regular.

Bones, I was never into the new challenge thing, but there have been instances when I really enjoyed an evening with a new dancer, then went back to see her and was disappointed. She didn't change, my perception of her did. The only times I've ever tired of a fave is when she stopped treating me the way she had been doing. That's happened to me 3 times. And I've only ever had 5 girls who I considered to be regulars.

Note on the pink site the consensus of the crowd seems to be 3 to 6 months as the average "shelf life" of a regular. They see it basically as a battle between "How long can I string him along"? vs "When will the stripper provide me sex or (for some) love"? In any case the shelf life is certainly limited and there are cyles within that total time period. They do admit some regs can last 3 yrs and some can last a month, but they see a fairly short average shelf life

As for the 4 parts of the cycle, those sound reasonable to me, and are paralleled in real life, however I believe people underestimate how dancers (and women in general) alternate on a 2 week basis between being attracted to to the seed spreading dick swinging Alpha males (Day 14 plus or minus 3 horny period) vs the the time around their real period when they focus on resource provider nice guy types - the later of course getting only the nice hug and not much else

This also explains why so they change their mind so much.

"I would have been perfectly content to keep the relationship inside the club but they started talking OTC."

I've noticed (OTC of varying types) that now and then with its the DANCER bringing that up, even though it can and does produce problems later, and I believe it derives from several factors 1. boilerplate standard stripper shit. Out of habit, they always say it to patrons that are still with them at a certain point, as they think its expected 2. or they're horny when they say it, and are either less horny or afraid later on

"Why isn't a girl as nice to me on the 20th visit as she is on the first?"

She's believes she's got you on the leash, so you're treated like a dog

This (while of course a different situation) also is parallel to real life relationships, especially when the guy is perceived as fitting the "nice guy" mode. However in the real world the guy would have probably 9 in 10 times been already dumped at this point anyways, whereas with strippers the money flow keeps the "relationship" going.

So except with very very rare (mature ATF to be types) you will have to be the gentleman horndog women crave, she has to believe at all times (whether its true or not) that you basically consider her a commodity of sorts, just like the other 5 or 6 women you're hanging out with

It seems like I have had this happen a lot. I think about the clubs I visit, and it seems like there are always a certain set of girls I go to see, it seems like there is also a shifting in the set, where one falls out and another takes over, and it repeats itself a few weeks later. Some of its driven by departures, but some of it is just the fact they get old and they just aren't nearly as interesting as they were when they were new.

David, I think the expectation that a regular will last 3-6 moinths is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Seems to me they'd be better off thinking about how to make it last longer than assuming that it won't.

And "Why isn't a girl as nice to me ..." was a rhetorical question. My barber is still as nice to me, the dry-cleaning lady is still as nice to me, the bartender at my favorite restaurant ... etc. Why should a stripper be different, isn't it a commercial transaction like all the others, isn't a stripper running a business? (Those are also rhetorical questions - we all know that getting naked and sitting on our laps makes the stripper relationship different.)

Why wouldn't she? Yeah, I'm going to have to keep the barber and the dry-cleaning lady in mind from now on ...

What I find puzzling is that a lot of strippers do everything they can to make you believe that you're more than just a customer, that the relationship is as much personal as business. And then if you begin to actually believe that and act accordingly, they get annoyed. We all know better (or should) because we've been doing this regularly for years and understand the game. But there are plenty of customers out there who are relative newbies, who don't know the rules, and take it at face value. Why do strippers find that so annoying? (Rhetorical question but feel free to comment anyway.)

I find the whole stripper-customer relationship thing to be quite fascinating. Seems to me it's pretty unique. And I think the girls who make the most money at this game are the ones who can figure it out. Which most of them can't.

I do frequent one particular dry cleaner, and the
"dry cleaning lady" (and also owner) there has never said to me "Im in love with you", although her petite and shapely pretty blonde (20 something college grad type) daughter who recently started working there, I guess that would be kind of nice if she told me that

They seek it and then get annoyed when they get it. Hmm.

I think there are two or three things going on here. First is, we're just dealing with females. They aren't interested in ACTUALLY dealing with reality, only in dealing with the FANTASIES that they can create. Just like the college girl who doesn't want to fuck or even date the hot guy, she just wants to make sure she CAN make the hot guy WANT to fuck or date her; so too the stripper doesn't really want the customer to believe that she's interested in him "for real," she just wants to see if she can control him for a discrete period of time.

Another thing that's going on is the "oops" factor. They get into the act, really DO enjoy the guy's company more than some other guys' company (admit it: there are customers who are desirable for a stripper to engage with, and customers who are less enjoyable), but then later cooler heads prevail. She realizes, "Oh shit, I really went too far" and she wants to back off but doesn't actually know how to take responsibility for her own actions. A grown-up would simply say, "Hey, this is fantasy. We won't be doing that for real, you know!" but a stripper has to "act out" some method of "getting rid of" the guy rather than merely admitting reality. She has to try to "make him want to break up with me" more than merely doing the breaking up herself.

I also see this cycle constantly. I always expect simple ups & downs for the first 2-4 months of getting to know a dancer. Over this time period I like to keep David's approach, treat all dancers all the same, no favorites, and don't expect them to treat you different. Within 3 months the normal ones will appreciate your business and give you consistent performance.

The OTC issue creates a considerable amount of stress because it invites emotions, pressure, job & personal risk, and many other unknowns into the relationship. It takes a very strong relationship to pull it off, especially if it is a planned event, because the tendency is to cancel at the last minute. If it is spontaneous it is a lot easier to deal with the issues. Many months ago i wrote a string stating the OTC invite should only be attempted after 6-12 months of knowing each other, and I continue to feel it is the best method.

FONDL You answered your own question in a string several months ago, stating most dancers are very mature about some things and immature about others.

I never show negative emotions or anger to dancers, I find it scares them. I never send them negative text messages or emails. I NEVER judge them to their face or to coworkers. My attitude is this is all for fun and life is too short to be mad. If they dissapoint me, I simply smile and move on. They eventually learn their lesson without me making an emotion stand and they will eventually come back at a later date with a much improved and more consistent attitude.

One time by accident I disrespected a dancer, I realized it a week later, and I went back to the club the next week and apologized to her. She was so surprised I apologized I made her cry. To this day she treats me with the up-most respect.

Isn't it obvious why they get annoyed when newbies think it is real?

Because it troubles their conscience about whether what they are doing is ethical or not. (Of course it isn't and they know it.)

"Since strippers are women (sort of), most will start acting that way even though it doesn't really make sense from a business perspective"

"sort of" now that is funny but also true

These dancers generally have all typical young hot chick issues (most noticeably the bi-polar emotional monthly clock thing) alternatating between wanting (for hugs and chit-chat only) "nice guys" vs when they are in heat their cravings for the jerks and bad boys (for hot sex of course)

Plus they are in a profession with nearly every girl is at a minimum (except for those pink site air dancer types) by definition is going to grinding the cocks of least 1000 guys a year, and sometimes doing alot more in the nature of "extras"

And we in here wonder why some are messed up?

With a dancer one must always presume a bit of instability

Not only do I consider it ethical that is a major reason that I go to strip clubs. Unfortunately, too many dancers get beat down by brain dead customers who have no idea of adult fantasy fun. And, I mean brain dead . . . a smile could be too strong a positive signal for some of these customers. "She must be in love with me because she said I have a big dick. Or, it is true love because she says she loves seeing me or called me her favorite customer. Marriage is just around the corner if only I spend another $100 on her."

Dancers EARN their money big time and not for the sexual favors or looking super hot, but for all the nonsense coming from idiotic customers. Probably the best customers (from a dancer's pov) I've spoken with just want a handjob or FS and they don't want any fantasy. Just release.

So as a customer seeking fantasy, I get clobber on both ends. Pea brain customers who easily fall in love and believe any fantasy no matter how poorly served by a dancer or men who just want some basic rubbing or FS. Those customers, like me, who appreciate a great performance really aren't generally worth the extra work. :(

DEATH to the brain dead newbies!!! :) At least those who only need a hand or pussy aren't going into drama mode at slightest niceness by the dancer.

If the customers understands it is fantasy (as in your case) then it is fine to give him that. If not, then the dancers are behaving unethically. And yes, it does, rightfully, trouble their conscience, and harms their self-esteem over time. I think this is a big overlooked reason in the detrioration we see in most dancers over time. If it at the end of the day you have strong doubts about whether or not you are an ethical person, it wille at away at you over time. Then in the end, they end up as lifers.

What takes a toll on strippers - almost as much as all the sexual contact - is fake intimacy, which all customers demand. In most cases, strippers don't have any way of knowing to what degree the customer understands it's a fantasy. Sustaining the fantasy requires that both parties play along by pretending that it's not a fantasy. I know I'd lose interest if a stripper ruined it for me by interjecting that of course we're never going to actually have a romance or get together for sex. Often, neither party knows for sure which is fantasy or reality. It's ambiguous because we like it to be kept that way, and that makes the ethics ambiguous.

On the contrary, chandler:

Strippers often know quite well when the guy understands it's pretend and when he doesn't. In the latter case they will often laugh about the "dopes" with each or even other customers (like me). Often there is NO ethical ambiguity (unless you are one of those people who thinks there is no such thing as right and wrong).

Now that isn't always the case (that it is clear), but I am betting it is well over 80% of the time.

In my case I like to play the sucker, so I can quickly break away before they have a chance to get me first.

Bobby, every guy who comes in the door is considered a PL, so strippers calling some of us dopes is hardly damning proof of anything. All workers in all service businesses laugh at their customers that way.

Do they know what the guy understands as well as they think with their superior snickering? You're not the only one who likes to play the sucker, by a long shot. That was my point. Willful self-deception muddles the situation for both customers and strippers. Anybody who believes they have the answer to how fantasy/reality sorts out in black & white is every bit as gullible as the newbie dopes.

Hell, regulars on this board who are veteran clubbers will post that they "don't go for the fantasy" and then turn around and swear how they're sure they really have something going on with their ATFs. In fact, with more experience clubbing comes a longing for a more complex, "genuinely" intimate type of fantasy. Each time we think we've moved beyond the fantasy, we've only reached another, more insidious layer. So, no matter how often and how loudly clubs and strippers tell us "it's all just a fantasy", we find a way to ignore the disclaimer in order to make it what we wish for.

Sure, there are also plenty of flat-out cunts who are just out to defraud the biggest suckers, but I don't think that fits the type of cycle FONDL describes.

Re the "constancy" point which Book Guy brings up, strippers wouldn't be strippers if that was the value they lived by. A lack of constancy is one trait which leads them to turn to stripping in the first place. They thrive in a job that calls for them to get naked and sexually intimate with strangers at the drop of a hat and to pretend to be attracted to old fat guys - not behavior that a woman of constancy can typically pull off.

It's little wonder then that strippers are addicted to seducing guys and not so much to keeping up a steady-state relationship, profitable though it would be. Once a regular has been "conquered", their instinct is not to maintain him but to come up with new, greater levels of conquest to take him to. Counterproductive and irrational though it may be, they keep repeating the cycle, because they can't help themselves.

If the customer wants "fantasy" as many here admit they do, fine feed it to them; if it is ambiguous fine feed it to them. The only situation, but unfortunately, I think the most common one is leading on the clueless ones with lies and euphemizing/rationalizing this as "fantasy". Often it is very clear to the girls when it is fantasy to their customers and when it is not. And when it is not it, that is when it is wrong, when they know it is wrong, and when it starts to knaw away at their conscience.

I also think there's another factor at play here - I've found that many strippers, especially the young inexperienced ones who I prefer, are conflicted by the morality and ethics of the business. And that manifests in dislike and resentment of customers. In other words, if all the customers are assholes, then the dancer's unethical behavior is justified in her mind.

This causes problems for the customers who are nice guys, because we challenge the customer image that the dancer has carefully constructed. Her defense mechanism may be to deride us as PLs. It's a defense posture that can be impossible to break through. And can be a major cintributing factor in the cycle described earlier.

I suspect strippers might equate with seductive ability with a combination of their beauty and "intelligence". But, being women, they can never be complete secure about these things. So they, as chandler mentions, keep needing new conquests to prove to themselves that they still have it. Something more important to most than money even. (Those with good self-est

FONDL: Actually I think strippers just regard "nice guy" as a strategy for trying to fuck them. Just like how they sometimes act nice just to get what they want, when they really aren't nice. It's projective and unimaginative, true. But I don't think many can comprehend nice just for the sake of niceness.

And perhaps, as you may be saying (sorry to put words in your mouth if not), if they thought of customers as truly nice they won't be able to think of themsleves as above us.

FONDL: Excellent points about conflicted morality and strippers' defensive reactions. Customers undergo corresponding turmoil, too, which shows up in sweeping statements about strippers all over this board. My only quibble is that we indeed are PLs from the second we enter a strip club, which it pays to bear in mind.

Bobby has some good points, too. As for "niceness", as the old saying goes, it's the quiet ones you have to watch out for. I've always believed that women are more at ease with me because I make no secret of my desire to get inside their pants. Guys who profess not to want them for their bodies but to just appreciate their conversation and personality are regarded as sneaks or in denial.

I once had a relationship with a young woman who wasn't a stripper that went through the exact same cycles. My ATF asked me if I would help a friend of hers who I had never met. So I called this girl and we arranged to meet at a local bar. And she turned out to be really hot and I began helping her. At first it was just professional guidance and advice (she had just graduated from college and was looking for her first "real" job) but then she started to ask for financial help too. And thus began a relationship that was really a lot of fun until it blew up because she kept asking for more and more help and was willing to do less and less in return. I was sorry to see it end but she just got too greedy. It got to the point where she seemed to resent my help but kept asking for it as if it were her right. So I guess it's not only strippers who have these issues.

I agree that it's really hard to convince a stripper that you're a nice guy and interested in them as people. I'm a little like Chandler in that I don't pretend to be uninterested in them physically. But if I find a girl I really like I want to get to know them as real people, and that's a tough sell. I think part of the problem is that some of these girls have never known a nice guy, everyone they've ever known just wanted to take advantage of them, so that's what they expect. And they're suspicious of anyone who claims to be otherwise.

The only stripper relationship that didn't go through those cycles for me was my ATF - she treated me like a friend from the beginning and that never changed. I didn't do anything differently, she was just different.

I actually don't have much trouble convincing ("convincing"? it's all inside the club, I'll never know if it's REALLY reality) strippers that I am into them "as people." We talk about what they're studying, they think of me as the smart guy who knows the ropes about getting college degrees, I tell them I used to teach at various junior colleges so I know what you're going through if you have to take adult-ed classes and squeeze in a 4-year BA over 10 years, etc. etc. It's really pretty straightforward for most. There are some dancers who are dumb as bricks and have little interest in schooling; we never "click" anyway, whether or not I'm trying to get to know them "as people," so it's really hardly an issue.

A dancer/client told me that there is no such thing as a "relationship" with a dancer. "It's only about money." I learned from here that some dancers actually calculate how many times they can get regulars to take them to dinner as a way of reducing their own food budget. They will say whatever they have to say and let us believe whatever we want to believe in order to get gifts, shopping trips, lunches or dinners and concert tickets. When they guy starts to get a little too clingy, he gets dropped from the OTC rotation and a newbie fills his place. If he can't get the hint, then the dancer gets cold, indifferent and distant.

Because it starts out pleasant, we cannot believe that this is a calculated act. The whole thing is an act. Enjoy the fantasy, but don't believe that any of this is real or will lead to anything you will value.

..learned from her..
When the guy..

This is kind of interesting for a number of reasons. First of all I totally buy the 3-6 month shelf life of a regular. That's my experience. At my best I can maybe sustain interest in regular clubbing for 4 or 5 months at a time before needing a break. There are however exceptions. Sometimes a regular pops back up after a hiatus. On a very few occasions, say half a dozen, I've met a stripper I actually did care about as as person and wanted to keep in touch with, and whenever my clubbing breaks ended was glad to reacquaint myself with. A few of those relationships spanned years, if not continuously.

As for constancy, we've tried to convince ourselves, as a society, for the last 40 or so years that the greatest sin is to inhibit in any way the unbridled expression of "self". Hence the worst thing one can do is to consider the opinions of others in determining ones behavior. I blame Freud. Since self regard has been elevated to an admirable trait, regardless of any cause to regard oneself highly, I'm not much surprised by the rudeness or ignorance of young people anymore.

"Often, neither party knows for sure which is fantasy or reality."

At the ATF level at least where its lasted months, while the customer can sometimes be confused, the dancer generally knows, however since dancers at that point almost invariably become dependent upon the cash inflows, if its only a fantasy they will obviously not want to clarify matters.

Also, I believe experienced dancers (just for this type of situation and to live with their conscience) have managed to invent a hybrid fantasy/reality world or what I would call CLUB REALITY, which allows them to claim to be "in love" with a customer or claim when asked that "yes, what we have is real and is not fantasy" - meaning they might have feelings for the guy which are in fact exclusive of any other customer and can be (in some way) in the nature of being "in love", however they look upon the "relationship" as taking place only in the context of the club. In other words the customer becomes their "club boyfriend" (true dancer term) -sort of like falling "in love" in 5th grade where often everything occurs in the classroom or recess and at school

So it ends up a 3 tiered system:

1. REALITY
2. CLUB REALITY
3. FANTASY

If a dancer is explicitly stating the very powerful and universally understood "I am IN love with you" phrase to the customer - the last thing on their mind is worrying about cash from the customer. It just doesn't make sense that cash would be of any major concern if she actually is "in love" with a customer

"There are some dancers who are dumb as bricks"

Stereotypes generally are actually half TRUTHS. Apart from ATF deals, when I get dances from strippers, I tend to buy alot of dances so I tend to have very extensive conversations, and I've bought dances from many many strppers.

My conclusion: with some major exceptions like Melonie on the pink site, and even many other pink site posters, and the posters in here - IMHO I still believe the majority of dancers are in fact as dumb as rocks (or bricks)

AN, who you should blame isn't Freud, but corporate America and the gospel of continuous economic growth above all else that spends billions persuading everyone to continuously change their lives by changing products and buying unnecessary new products that will make them young and rebellious and when things get less comfortable to break all ties and pack up and move to the bigger boxes of the new exurban frontier where it's always morning in America and to make themselves over yet again...

Unless you're referring to some Freud who worked on Madison Avenue.

(And, please, AN, this is not a request for another round of partisan political crossfire.)

(And, please, AN, this is not a request for another round of partisan political crossfire.)

Considering the rest of your post, that is about the most hilarious thing you've posted on this board. To paraphrase, you want to push your ideology of blaming all ills on capitalism and corporate entities as somehow nonpartisan, pre-empt me from contesting it, and then blame me for being unreasonable if I choose not to accept your statements as fact. I call bullshit. If you want to post statements like that, fine, but you are then obliged to defend them, or admit you aren't willing to, in which case you have no business telling me not to go partisan.

You want a debate, I'm ready. My guess is you don't. So then don't post opinions and then tell me I'm not allowed to dispute them.

P.S. the "I blame Freud" line was a joke.

Actually, I blame the popular media for glorifying rude behavior. That's not a political statement, just an observation. But what the heck, let's make it political - the popular media is controlled by Liberal elitists who enjoy mocking traditional values and are too dumb to realize that they're destroying our society. Or maybe it's intentional.

Uhh, yeah OK, AN, I'll try not to do that. *shakes head*

Gentlemen, it is not the liberal media, or Freud or any of that. Truly, the most insidious force response for the destruction of our society is... HIP-HOP, and, in particular gansta rap. There needs to be an all war against it before it is too late!

ROFL

back dat ass up

At the risk of offending Chandler or going philosophical all of those things you guys quote are symptoms, not the disease. The disease is that we've come to view socialization as somehow misguided at best and evil and oppressive at worst. Seriously, socialization, the suppression of the worst and most destructive aspects of humanity, or the re-channeling of them into more beneficial expression is what society does. At some point the whole noble savage and Freudian memes got conflated with Marx and historical "progress" and the idea took hold that people are naturally good and a cooperative species who given the chance will create heaven on earth. All the bad stuff comes from a few unenlightened greedy folks who through some voodoo manage to convince everyone that DVDs and cell phones and iPods are neat and that they want one. Of course left alone, outside the oppressive imposition of capitalism we'd all live on cooperative self sustaining farms with low carbon footprints.

Evidence for this theory of humanity is lacking in my opinion.

At the risk of offending Chandler or going philosophical all of those things you guys quote are symptoms, not the disease. The disease is that we've come to view socialization as somehow misguided at best and evil and oppressive at worst. Seriously, socialization, the suppression of the worst and most destructive aspects of humanity, or the re-channeling of them into more beneficial expression is what society does. At some point the whole noble savage and Freudian memes got conflated with Marx and historical "progress" and the idea took hold that people are naturally good and a cooperative species who given the chance will create heaven on earth. All the bad stuff comes from a few unenlightened greedy folks who through some voodoo manage to convince everyone that DVDs and cell phones and iPods are neat and that they want one. Of course left alone, outside the oppressive imposition of capitalism we'd all live on cooperative self sustaining farms with low carbon footprints.

Evidence for this theory of humanity is lacking in my opinion.

At the risk of offending Chandler or going philosophical all of those things you guys quote are symptoms, not the disease. The disease is that we've come to view socialization as somehow misguided at best and evil and oppressive at worst. Seriously, socialization, the suppression of the worst and most destructive aspects of humanity, or the re-channeling of them into more beneficial expression is what society does. At some point the whole noble savage and Freudian memes got conflated with Marx and historical "progress" and the idea took hold that people are naturally good and a cooperative species who given the chance will create heaven on earth. All the bad stuff comes from a few unenlightened greedy folks who through some voodoo manage to convince everyone that DVDs and cell phones and iPods are neat and that they want one. Of course left alone, outside the oppressive imposition of capitalism we'd all live on cooperative self sustaining farms with low carbon footprints.

Evidence for this theory of humanity is lacking in my opinion.

Wow, that sucked. Sorry for belaboring the point.

Nice try at offending me, AN. It's not that your attacks bother my oh so delicate sensibilies in the least (as if). I just never see anything in them engaging enough to deserve comment. I'd rather talk about strip clubs.

>>>"IMHO I still believe the majority of dancers are in fact as dumb as rocks (or bricks)"<<<

It seems like the majority of people are dumb as rocks (or bricks), IMHO. :) Even bright people can be dumb as rocks in certain areas.


Is it "dumb" for a stripper to prefer a young man whose income prospects and non-incarceration hopes are bleak over a successful young attorney? Is it "dumb" for an attorney to prefer a young man whose income prospect and non-incarceration hopes are bleak over a successful young attorney?

My 2-cent answer to both questions is NO. To put it in better perspective: If a man loves 300 LB muscular women is he "dumb" for preferring that over women that most men drool over? Like Goofball related those rappers with all the money love BIG MOMMIES--a better place to hide from the police. ;) Perhaps those rappers are just more in love with $$$ and realize the BIG MOMMIES are generally less expensive than the HOTTIES.

I actually think that the decline in civility is our biggest problem as a society - it's a significant contributing factor for almost any other major problem you can identify, while at the same time it makes it more difficult to arrive at reasonable solutions which usually involve compromise of competing interests. And I do think the popular media are largely responsible.

Now back to your regularly scheduled strip club.

Lets cut out the bullshit... strippers are usually as dumb as ROCKS

Of course there are exceptions... "Melonie" on pink site...dancers on this site..... blah blah blah...

...and there are different kinds of "intelligence" blah blah blah

Personally I believe an ex-stripper some day will be piloting the space shuttle

Hi David9999,

That hasn't been my experience. Maybe the dancers at Angels have more smarts than the norm. :)

Let's say that strippers are usually as dumb as ROCKS. And, where does that take us? PLs are even dumber? Strippers don't need brains to make good money? ROCKS are capable of thinking up SS?

I hope it isn't headed to the dancers are overpaid argument . . . what are some paintings worth? 1 million, 10 million, 100 million? IOWs, value is in the eye of the beholder. Some of my friends can't comprehend that I value good looking women far more than ugly women----again and again I hear that a hole is a hole or just turn out the lights or that's "superficial" or etc.

100% true conversation summarized below:

(Clean, no extras, but super super hot) Dancer says "I might be moving to the chicken ranch in Nevada"

PL "Why, why would you want to do that"?

Dancer "This woman I know says I can make very good money"

PL: "doing what"?

Dancer: "Well, of course it must be dancing"

PL "you know what the chicken ranch is, right"?

Dancer "no"

PL "its a whorehouse"

Dancer "I didnt know that, I guess that woman wasn't being honest with me, and gee I thought she was just trying to help me"

****At the time he agreed to represent Joe Blake in his case against Public Storage, George Garcia himself had already shot and killed a man. During a home-invasion robbery of his uncle's house in 1994, Garcia shot two intruders, killing one of them. Miami police deemed the shooting justified, and no charges were filed against Garcia.

The cranky old lawyer-hater and the attorney unafraid to defend himself with lethal force quickly found themselves at loggerheads. After a particularly frustrating court date on January 23, 1996, Blake hopped in his beat-up 1986 Cadillac Cimarron and followed Garcia back to his office. When he got there, he says, he told Garcia he was firing him and demanded that Garcia return his case file.

Garcia's office is a tiny, two-room affair, including a small reception area. Blake says he hovered over Garcia for some 40 minutes, moving between the two rooms as Garcia worked on other things without giving Blake the file. Finally, Blake says, he confronted the younger man in his office. Garcia was behind his desk, Blake in front of it. "I pounded the desk and said, 'Damn it, George, I want my goddamn file and I want it now.'"

Garcia then reached into his desk drawer and pulled out not Blake's file but the Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol for which he had a concealed-weapon permit. It was loaded. Glocks do not have a safety.

Blake claims Garcia pointed the gun at him and ordered him out of the office. "I said, 'Go ahead and shoot, George, but I'm not leaving without my file,'" Blake recalls. Garcia then put the gun back in the drawer, gathered up Blake's file, and gave it to him. Blake says he went to a nearby gas station, took a good twenty minutes to calm himself down, then called Miami police.

Two patrol officers accompanied Blake back to Garcia's office and called for a detective. According to the cops' sworn depositions in the case, Garcia admitted pulling out the gun and said he felt threatened by Blake. "No matter how nasty he can get, you can see [Blake] is a feeble old man who has a lot of health problems," patrolman Brendan Monroe stated in his deposition. "There's no way a young, vital male is going to be threatened by him."

Garcia also denied pointing the gun directly at Blake. Even so, the officers and the detective (ironically, a detective who had worked on the home-invasion homicide case in which Garcia had been cleared a year before) reached the same conclusion: It still sounded like aggravated assault. They arrested Garcia. Blake has not seen his former attorney since that day. But two months after the aggravated assault charge was filed, the case took a turn for the weird.

During those two months, Garcia's attorney worked feverishly to get the charges dropped, or at least reduced to a misdemeanor. By March 1996 it was clear that the State Attorney's Office was ready to proceed.

On March 25 Garcia called police to complain that a client of his, a homeless crack addict named Rafael Hernandez Palacios, had assaulted him in his office and was trying to extort money from him. He told police where to find Hernandez.

Hernandez told police a different story: Garcia had given him $400, telling him to hire someone to kill "the old man." In a 330-page deposition, Hernandez said the same thing, that Garcia had talked to him about the aggravated assault charge Blake had filed. "If his case was not dropped, something must be done to that man," Hernandez stated. "He began to tell me it was an elderly person, that he was about 80 years old, and that person had charged him with something, and that he did not want to lose his license [to practice law]."

Hernandez goes on to say that Garcia was hoping the assault charge would go away because of Blake's criminal record: "But if the case were not dropped, he needed my help. I asked him what kind of help. He said, 'Any kind of help. I don't care if I have to kill him, as long as I do not lose my license.'"

Police looked up the pending assault charge against Garcia. Particularly telling was that Hernandez, who lived on the streets of downtown Miami, knew where Blake lived in North Miami -- though he didn't know Blake's name. (Garcia later told police that Hernandez must have seen Blake's case file in his office.) In his deposition, Hernandez maintains that he never intended to kill "the old man" or to hire anyone to do it. He just pocketed the money Garcia gave him and spent it, mostly on crack.

The police found Hernandez's statements convincing enough to arrest Garcia for solicitation of first-degree murder. The State Attorney's Office is still pressing that charge, along with the aggravated assault. Because the alleged assault involved a firearm, that charge carries a mandatory minimum sentence of three years in prison. The maximum sentence for the solicitation charge is also three years. ***

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1998-06-18/…






This lawyer was truly *brain dead*. BTW, he ended up getting 7 years probation with adjudication withheld. The judge that presided over the case was also *brain dead*. Anyway, yes there are strippers who are as dumb as ROCKS. And, there are lawyers that are as dumb as ROCKS.

The sentenced lawyer was complaining to his defense lawyer about being "forced" to give $1,500 to some disabled childrens charity. That $1,500 "donation" was repeatedly praised to high heaven by the presiding judge, which was the whole point of the "donation." Also, though the New Times doesn't mention it, I believe the sentenced lawyer also killed--gunned down--a second man in Ohio a few years before he killing--gunning down--a man in Coral Gables . . .

As a basic rule one can safely assume that the average lawyer is more intelligent than the average stripper.

Now obviously if one's reasoning process works something like this: "I know a 4 ft man and 6 ft woman -therefore most women are taller than most men" - well, then nothing will convince them anyways.

Hi David9999,

I use to meet lawyers all the time. Heck, probably met more lawyers than strippers at stretches. :( I think you'd be surprised how many lawyers here aren't that sharp----maybe it's the South Florida heat or arrogance. :)

Anyway, you're changing the argument. :) You said "strippers are usually as dumb as ROCKS." You later posted a "true conversation" to show a dumb as ROCKS stripper. I posted a portion of a story from the Miami New Times to show a dumb as ROCKS lawyer.

*I do think the average lawyer is more intelligent than average U.S. citizen.* But, that ain't saying much!!! :)


Anyway, the strippers that I meet generally aren't as dumb as ROCKS. Who knows maybe my perception is off or this is just a strange club. Could be anything. Most people, imo, are dumber than ROCKS at least in certain areas.

Well Chandler I wasn't trying to offend you, I was risking it. I dare-say if I wanted to offend you I could probably do it without much effort, not that I find you over-sensitive, just that I think after years of posting I know a few hot buttons for most of the posters here, as I'm sure you do. But then to hit those hot buttons and then, say mock the poster for responding would be a low blow, wouldn't it?

AN, when are you going to accept that, unlike you, I don't view everything in terms an ideological battle? I can't help it if you go into hysterics at the suggestion that modern market forces and advertising messages might have influenced behavior such as "constancy" as much as permissive ideas have. Maybe I shouldn't have added that parenthetical request, but I honestly hoped you might find some humor at the thought that you'd find my post a volley in the "constancy" battle of the culture war. Well, I guess not.

Chandler, I don't see everything as an ideological battle, I only see arguments about ideology as ideological. Yes, I suppose I was silly to take your post as a serious argument. So rest assured that the next time you post about capitalism a a malign influence on society I won't see it as ideological in the least.

Then again you could have replied to the other half of that post that dealt with strippers rather than the part that dealt with a marginally political topic that FONDL and I like to talk about at great length, but you didn't... Odd that a guy who repeatedly claims only to want to talk about strippers and often dismisses discussions about all else chose the marginally political part of my message for a reply. You chose to reply to the one part of my message that could be seen as ideological, to "refute" it by telling me I was wrong, it was Madison avenue execs pushing consumerism who were responsible, then tell me not to argue about it, but that wasn't ideological in the least. Silly me.

So from now on, when you reply to any message of mine that is mildly political or philosophical I'll understand that no matter what your post actually says, you aren't interested in political discussion, you just want to make a statement (which no matter how closely it can be identified with a specific political philosophy IS NOT a political or partisan argument), it's just friendly banter, and the request not to make it a political argument just came out of nowhere, 'cause after all you didn't see it that way.

>To paraphrase, you want to push your ideology of blaming all ills on capitalism and corporate...<

Just how the fuck do you expect me to want to carry on a discussion from that "mildly political" message of yours??

Please cut the coy bullshit.

OK, I admit it, AN. You've outed me. I'm a diehard communist agitator. I just pretend to like strip clubs. I post about them as a cover for my political posts. It's about 1,000 strip club posts to every communistic post because that's how dedicated I am to subverting capatalism. Of course, I avoid debating politics with you because you're such a master of defending liberty and constancy and all those other true blue values that make this country so disgustingly strong. Well, now you know. I hope you're happy, you....you Yankee patriot.

So then you both agree that relationships with strippers often go through fairly predictable cycles, regardless of our political views?