Not necessarily. The tongue ring is also self-stimulating. They like the feel of anything foreign in their mouth. You will often notice that they "play with themselves" with their tongue ring. Don't expect too much. Sorry.
I think this is wishful thinking.
A tongue ring means the dancer is impressionable and likely to be led by current fads rather than establishing her own sense of fashion/style--or, in other words, is similar to 85% of women from the ages of 18-25.
Nothing more. Sorry.
F: Chris Rock is the back bone of any strip club CD. "Can a nigger get a table dance or there is no sex in the champagne room "are among my favorites.
My ATF said "I don't need one to give a guy a blow job".
Another favorite dancer removed hers the day she filed for divorce. I told her how much better she looked with out it. She asked me why I had never said anything before. Not my place.
To answer the question "NO"
chitownlawyer said:
"A tongue ring means the dancer is impressionable and likely to be led by current fads rather than establishing her own sense of fashion/style--or, in other words, is similar to 85% of women from the ages of 18-25."
Gist of this long answer: Hell yes, she'll suck your dick.
Gee, my understanding was that about 85% of general population (excluding the serious bible-thumpers and not even all of them) practiced oral sex.
The real question is then :
" If she has a tongue, is she into oral sex ?? "
or
" Are tongueless people celibate ? "
Just a bit of history - oral sex was brought to this country by GIs returning from France following WWII. But until the sexual revolution of the late 60s it was limited to prostitutes. Most people like me raised before the late 60s were brought up to think of oral sex as dirty and have had very little experience with it. Obviously some younger people, especially married women, also still feel that way.
Here's a relevant joke for you: A man and his bride-to-be arrive at the church early and decide to duck into the closet for a quicky. Later when the best man arrives he asks the groom why he's smiling, to which he replies that he just had the best blow job of his life. Meanwhile the maid-of-honor arrives and asks the bride why she is smiling. To which she replies, I just gave the last blow job of my life.
My guess is that some of you can relate to that joke, and that maybe it has something to do with why you go to strip clubs looking for blow jobs.
FONDL -
WWI or WWII ??? I have a hard (no pun intended) time believing that oral sex was not known in big US cities in the Roaring Twenties.. (marijuana sure was....)
When I was still in High School back in the late 50's,in Long Beach CA. Marijuana was rarely heard of and not used by any of my peers. Lenny Bruce and his use of heroine was highly known but again drug use among my peers was nil. BJ's were known but extremely hard to come by. In fact sex was hard to come by. I did not get laid the first time until I was 17. Heavy petting was the norm and if you tried to take it further, the girl would stop you. You damn near had to marry them for them to give it up. Getting pregnant was a girls worst nightmare. Abortions were unheard of unless you went to Mexico. They were called rubbers then and every guy carried one in his wallet. I wonder if they were still good after 2 years?
So I guess the general answer is 85 percent yes. However in a strip club you don't know if she's into that with a guy or with another girl or both. I like thinking if she has a tongue ring, she likes to use that on something.
Quimby, it was both world wars (I actually typed WWI first, then changed it.) But the point is that BJs didn't become common until the late 1960s. When I was in high school in the mid-1950s, BJs were unheard of except from a girl who everyone considered to be a whore (which was a much worse name to be called than it is today.) And I'd be willing to bet that fewer than half the girls I graduated with have ever given one, even to their husbands. My generation never got to experience that. The world was a very different place then.
I never even heard of marijuana until I was a senior in HS. Just to get a girl to touch your dick was an accomplishment, but then those were the "good ol' days", or maybe not. Personally, I think I prefer back then, as to now.
It is a tounge stud, not ring. And who gives a shit about the prehistoric days of the 50's? All the 50's produced were a bunch of bitter racists riddled with cancer from chain smoking and liver failure from drinking too much. Old foold pining away for a lost era that was hardly the golden age of innocence they remember it to be.
My only memory of the 50's is from watching Happy Days on tv with the Fonz. It would have been quite shocking in that time if Richie and his friends went down to a local strip club.
Ah, history! I guess it should be forgotten. I mean, "who gives a shit about the prehistoric days of the 50's?" No comment needed when something is so absurd. Forget a bout history. Yeah, forgitaboutit.
Clubber, I agree with you, I'm not generally into nostalgia. The only point I was trying to make is that when you were born has a lot to do with the way you view oral sex. And a lot of other things about sex. And I too prefer to have been raised when things were much simpler. I can't imagine what high school dating must be like today but it doesn't sound like fun to me.
FONDL,
I wasn't speaking of nostalgia, rather just history. I think many of the problems we have today are a direct result of NOT learning (remembering) history.
Hi clubber,
Although I agree with your point, it seems to me at least that it is more complicated than that. What did we learn from Prohibition? I detest the governments' Drug Wars, however, despite all the costs and loss of freedoms it could be reasonably argued that that the governments' Drug Wars are a huge success in saving lives and further that people are just too stupid to decide such issues for themselves.
OTOH, I think we did learn price controls of gasoline are more than a little brain dead, but who knows perhaps government will decide to bring back the gas lines.
Clubber, you go ahead and sit around stroking yourself pining for the fifties. I don't care. I just don't see any value in that. I did not say history is unimportant, I just don't want to pretend I live there. The future is what I have my eye on. That is where hopefulness comes into the picture. You won't find me bitching and complaining things were better 58 years ago. That shit is dead and gone.
Clubber, I agree completely. Which is why I said "nostalgia" instead of "history." We ignore history at our own peril. And we're getting ready to do so again.
FONDL & clubber,
Nowhere did I say it was a good idea to ignore history. My problem is with people who are so enamored with the past that they sell the possibilities of the future short. The 50's were just as bad as present day. Events that would be viewed negitively weren't talked about. That didn't mean bad things didn't happen.
jablake,
That IS my point, we often do not learn from history.
FONDL,
I couldn't agree more. History will repeat, it seems. Some have their eye on the future, but to do so without reflection of the past, a formula for failure!
Hi clubber,
My point is the lesson learned can depend on one's viewpoint and values. What are the lessons of Prohibition?
If the government banned private gun ownership and gun homocide dropped 95% percent, then the lesson is??? For some people the lesson would be how wonderful the government was for banning private gun ownership. For other people the lesson would be that they have to live in fear. Etc. Etc. Etc.
In effect, people may have learned from the history: It just isn't the lesson that would seem obvious.
A tongue button, not ring, may suggest a desire to perform oral sex. What does a clit ring or button suggest? A dancer at a nude club in Windsor, Ontario showed me her clit ring and said, "Don't worry. It doesn't get in the way."
jablake,
I would say the lesson from prohibition is, that government can't regulate human behavior. Never could, never will.
The gun analogy, well, if you just count gun homicides, and concede that most are committed by people known by the victim, I do not think it is even close to realistic. Also, there is no evidence I know of to support it. If you speak of guns and crimes in general, then we do have evidence. See below.
Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
Crime Rate Plummets
[view link]
I agree that some do learn from history, but there are many that are blind to it. THAT is the problem.
"The United States leads the world's richest nations in gun deaths -- murders, suicides, and accidental deaths due to guns - according to a study published April 17, 1998 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the International Journal of Epidemiology.
The U.S. was first at 14.24 gun deaths per 100,000 people. . . . England and Wales 0.41." ----[view link] -----
For some people a potential huge reduction in deaths is good enough reason for the government to ban guns. I say if the gun deaths in America could be reduced to 0.41 guns deaths per 100,000 people, then is it desirable to ban guns? To many people the answer is an obvious YES!!!
Alcohol-Attributable Deaths for 2001 in the United States was estimated to be over 75,000 people. ----- [view link] ---- Look at the idiocy that took place under the excuse of 911 with just under 3,000 people killed. Saving 75,000 people per year sounds like a definitely excellent reason for some people to regret the government ending Prohibition.
I'm glad Prohibition is dead even though it means thousands of innocent people may, and probably do, die as a result. Other people would wish to create a whole government War on Alcohol modeled right along the lines of the government's War on Drugs. This is why in my opinion it can be so difficult to "learn from history" because people have different values. *If* banning guns would save 75,000 people per year, then would support a government gun ban? Some people would support it if it saved just under 3,000 people per year. It get down to values, imo, more than learning.
I did go to the link you supplied. That is a tiny community of only 13,000 people. Tallahassee, FL with more than 10 times the population had a murder rate of something like 12 people compared to 1 person for the tiny community.
jablake,
Again, go back to my previous post, "I would say the lesson from prohibition is, that government can't regulate human behavior. Never could, never will."
Hi clubber,
I wouldn't have learned that lesson. Seems like the government overall does a pretty impressive job of regulating human behavior. Remember the opposition to giving children Social Security numbers? First make it voluntary if they wish to receive a tax break. Once the vast majority is voluntarily complying, then make it mandatory. Another example is marriage. Give an economic benefit to get rid of hubby and poof he is GONE. I'm thinking about at the lower end of the economic scale where a low wage male isn't worth the benefits that government can provide. The governments' anti-smoking crusade seems like it is very successful also, btw.
Yes, there will be those who fight back----a minority. It just seems like generally, imo, human behaviour is like puddy in the hands of government.
"The nation's alcohol-related traffic death rate has dropped by more than half during the past 20 years, a government study shows." ----- [view link] -----
I would tend to see this a proof that government can regulate human behaviour. More draconian drinking laws combined with fewer freedoms e.g. check points, pee in a cup, etc. and a healthy dose of government propaganda and boom people are changing their behaviours out of fear or genuine belief.
Think how much more the government could regulate human behaviour if police were authorized to execute drunk drivers on the spot and DID. That would surely help regulate most human behaviour against drinking and driving.
jablake,
I think you are confusing regulation with behavior. Regulating human behavior is not changing it, otherwise, in your example, there would be zero "...alcohol-related traffic..." deaths.
If police were authorized to execute people on the spot based on their own judgement, we would suddenly be in a mad max world. I would arm myself and get trained and be prepared to use it because I would never know when a lunatic police officer wanted to shoot me because he had the power to get away with whatever he wanted. I believe most other men in my state would feel the same way. Society would not be safer. If you make guns illegal, only illegals will have guns.
Having the right to have a gun was met to protect the people from an oppressive government. You have a democracy if the government fears having all their citizens angry at them. You have a monarchy or tyrant if the people are in fear of their government.
Back on subject, a clit stud might imply her pussy is tight. At least that's what one dancer kept telling me all the time. She wanted to get a tongue stud too but I talked her out of it at the time.
Hi clubber,
Zero? No, I don't think 100% of the people are government cattle. Maybe 80 to 90 percent, which still means the government can get a lot done by passing one law after another along with "appropriate" penalties.
Even if only 20% of the cattle or those fearful of government punishment obeyed that, imo, is still changing human behaviour to a significant extent. When I was growing up, I always heard the olds state that government "can't legislate love, etc." which wasn't the issue . . . the issue was can the government change the playing field and rules of the game so crops of new people will think differently.
Hi casualguy,
I think Mister Guy and a whole lot people don't even think you have a Constitutional right to gun. And, DEFINITELY not for use against the government.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hopefully make it clear if there is a right to bear arms. It is such a sleazy court that I'd be surprised if an actual decision was made and if it is made then deciding that there is no right to bear arms shouldn't come as too much of a surprise.
jablake,
Anyone that can read and comprehends what they read, knows that we have the right. Simple as that. What is scary to me, that the court "reads" the 2nd amendment as they "read" the first!
ClevelandTom,
Sorry, but IMHO, "...tongue piercings and the willingness to give oral sex.", is hardly a scintillating topic. However, I agree, there should be know here other than something SC related. Sorry!
"Also, there is no evidence I know of to support it."
Take your head out of ass and maybe you'll see some. Or, you could just continue to cling to your guns cuz you think that they will save you from the big, bad, govt....silly old man...
Basing public policy on "city" with a population of around 13,000...priceless...ah, if only we could all live in the South where all the minorities & women know not to step out of line for fear that they might be shot. Oh wait, what about all those communities that have a lower crime rate than this redneck backwater with NO manditory firearm ownership? I bet you won't see any stories about those places on a Right-wing website like FreeRepublic. So much for being against Big Brother telling us all what to own BTW...
Yea, we'll see pretty soon if the U.S. Supreme Court can "read" as poorly as clubber can...LOL! Buckle it up...
Misterguy posts...
I know infants that can not read, and middle aged illiterates that can not write, also old fools who can no longer think straight. Right now, I am trying to guess your age.
No need to waste more of my time.
Once again old fool, my age is irrelevant to this topic...keep clinging to those guns though...no one will be coming to try & take them away from you, ever.
45 comments