Comments by AbbieNormal (page 3)

I had a favorite dancer at a nude club who would often go up on stage in nothing but an oversized mens dress shirt and heels. She always got a great response.

Any contract can include performance clauses and work requirements, but there is usually some base pay associated with a contract that includes such clauses. If a contractor is not paid at all by the other contracting entity I don't see these requirements as holding up as the contractor is really working for those that pay them. If they are really "renting dance space" and are really independent contractors then the club can not dictate hours, dress, or many aspects of conduct without the dancers being considered employees. As tipped employees the clubs can pay a lower minimum wage, as restaurants do with waiters, but they do have to cover their share of social security, medicare, etc and abide by federal and state law as it applies to employees. That said the only reason to work as a tipped employee has always been that you get pid largely in cash and can avoid a lot of taxes based on what you declare. With waiters you are taxed based on your sales and the tips you are assumed to have made as a percentage of those sales. Strippers may be tracked based on VIP room and logged dances at many clubs, but there is a whole lot more opportunity for making free untaxed cash. They should be careful what they wish for in some cases.

Yeah, but it has to be decent indecent conversation.

Erie, PA. Read reviews for Partner's Tavern.

Decent conversation is a must for me.

Stripclubs are a world of their own in the sense that they have their own unique culture, as I'm sure most here will attest. While the rules of that culture are connected in many ways to the real world culture (a quickly disappearing distinction with Halloween essentially becoming "dress like a stripper" day for women) the rules are both different enough from the real world to be distinct, and consistent enough across "Strip Club Nation" that I'd say there is a definite strip club culture that exists within the real world as a part of it.

I just started clubbing again recently. My first reaction to my old regular club was that they had finally done a good job of making sure all the girls, even the day girls, at least had good bodies (one exception on one dayshift). As for banished to the dayshift, that had long been one of my pet peeves at another of my regular clubs (now gone, burned to the ground). As mentioned the dayshift was the dumping ground, which had the effect not of getting the dancers to shape up and make some money, but of totally killing the dayshift.

For a stage show I like them, if the dancer knows how to dress and they look good as opposed to an obvious attempt to keep warm in a cold club (not that I don't sympathize, but you have to suffer for your art). For a LD I prefer the stockings come off, especially if I get to help.

Probably more. As far as I can remember my last visit to a club was well over a year ago. The idea of stopping off after work is crossing my mind a lot more lately, and my annual retreat to upstate NY where one of my favorite undiscovered gems is is only 3 months away.

Pretty basic stuff, mostly for the novice. We could probably come up with better ones for the dedicated clubber. Here would be at least a few of mine. NEVER run a tab, pay cash as you go. If for no other reason so you can leave in a hurry if necessary. Leave the credit cards and ATM cards in the car so you need to feel the cool night air while you walk to the car before that $300 cash advance that seems like a good idea right now can happen. There is rarely sex in the champagne room. Plan accordingly. If every dancer in the club is sitting with you, you're spending too much. If no dancer is willing to sit with you, you're spending too little. Thou shalt not sit on pervert row without tipping. You are not special.

"are you there to look or to get off?" Yes. Depending on my mood, and the dancer, and the club. I think if you are looking for a common denominator for what a customer wants it is most likely to be given by what the club is known for. Is it an air dance factory with perfect Barbie doll dancers? The average customer is probably there to look. Is it a club notorious for high milage grinding and dancers who offer extras? The average customer is probably there to at least touch, and depending on how his money holds out and the dancer he hooks up with, get off if possible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hii2PmqWhfc&fmt=18

45/13, although it may be more accurate to say 45/11-12 since I haven't been to a club for over a year, so I can't say I've been seriously clubbing lately.

BG, there is a difference between interpretation, based on text, precedent, common law, and legislative intent, and wholesale invention. The intent of Prop 22 could not have been more clear. Now prop 8 is part of the state constitution, and not subject to judicial review (assuming my understanding of California's process is correct). As for incompetent legislators I agree, as politicians they feel they can evade responsibility by being vague enough to require litigation to define exactly what the mess they wrote means, thus ceding their power to the courts, in which case why are we paying them?

I think the main point is that we are still a moderately right of center country, and that most Americans are getting more hostile to politicians. I think more than anything else the last two elections have been referendums on the party in power, rightly or wrongly viewed as the Republicans (obviously rightly in 2006 as far as the national government goes, arguable in 2008 since Democrats have held the legislature for several years now). In any case Obama was smart and did what Clinton did, ran as a centrist. As far as the ballot measures I've made this argument for years now, people will not accept social change dictated from a court. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973, so I guess that whole abortion argument is over now, right? In California especially the public had spoken clearly prior to this election. In the 2000 primary election, Proposition 22 was adopted by a 60-40 margin. That meant that the California law explicitly defined the union of a man and a woman as the only valid or recognizable form of marriage in the State of California. Yet the courts still felt it within their power to invalidate the statute and quite literally re-define marriage. What you saw was a reaction to a political (I include judges in this when they legislate outcomes from the bench) class that no longer sees itself bound by the rule of the people through democratic means. In the long run this is probably a good thing. I've often argued that it does the country no good for the Democrats to be pulled so far to the left and to engage in a demonization campaign against people who simply don't agree with their philosophy. Now the Democrats will actually have to take responsibility for running the government, and I think that the decisions they make will be nowhere near the rhetoric we've heard for the last few years. This is probably going to be good for the country in the long run. I do think however we're going to get some very bad short term decisions, and a few very bad long term decisions along with the re-centering of the Democrats.

Frankly I wish President Obama the best. I hope he has a run of great luck and success in all his endeavors, especially if he governs the way he claimed he would in the campaign, as a centrist tax cutting strong on defense aggressive on the war on radical Islam bipartisan bridge building uniter. I just don't think either a successful or a centrist presidency are in the cards.

Well that pretty much answers my question, thanks.

Jablake, while I admit that I really don't bother to read your posts anymore I do have a question, and assuming you can answer it within the first paragraph of one post I might actually read it...Do you really need any of the rest of us here to cary on a dialog? Wouldn't a street corner with a few placards be more appropriate?

I pressed the touch-screen where indicated for the candidate of my choice, then "submit ballot".

Bobbyl, one of the problems modern marxists or socialists have is that they apply 18th century ideas of class to a 20th or 21st century economy. Socialists saw class as frozen unalterable conditions, and frankly much of the rhetoric from the left appears to still see it the same. In industrial, or post industrial, or more specifically in America this is not the case. Class, if understood as purely a matter of political power and income is anything but frozen into categories in the US. As far as income I started out as poor, I could have qualified for subsidized housing in my first job, and after 20 years of work I was too wealthy to get a check in the last stimulus package. In short I have gone from poor to upper middle class verging on rich in 20 years. If things go well and I work hard, I fully expect to be "rich" in the next few years. In addition I've invested prudently, and even with the recent problems, I expect to be able to retire pretty young, and comfortably. These were not conditions bestowed on me at birth, they are the result of my years of work. This is why liberals so often fail in economic arguments, they try to tell people that where you are today is where you will always be, unless the government helps you. Most Americans know from personal experience that that argument is absurd.

MrG, the mistake you make, as do many, is that you conflate "wrong track" or a desire for change with support for Obama and liberal policies. I am a conservative. If a pollster asked me if the country were on the wrong track I'd say yes, for a myriad of reasons. I'd guess you'd do the same, but I'd also venture that your reasons would not be mine.

I like Gumbo, and Paella. And Jambayla. Not crazy about smoking, unless it is me smoking a cigar. Lately I favor a LBV port with my cigar, not really available in most bars. Unheard of in strip clubs, sadly. I have a few good recipes lately for soups,, I'm into soups lately. Strippers? I'm kind of ... on a break? I haven't been to a titty bar for quite some time, and frankly haven't enjoyed a visit for well over a year, hence my lack of posting. Politics? It is the very definition of the fall of man.

Well Mr Guy is right. Aside from my dashed off analysis I did a little research upon being challenged. As election day nears undecideds tend to break for the challenger by about the margin I cited. My mistake was that I read few articles stating that the expectation was that undecideds would break for McCain, and a apparently incorrectly remembered statistic attributed it to breaking for the incumbent. However, upon re-reading a few things it is now apparent that what the writers were saying is that the election is a referendum on Obama (as opposed to an incumbent), and if they (the undecideds) haven't decided on trusting him by election day they can be expected to break more heavily toward McCain. I stand corrected on the statement I made, but my point remains. Expect a close finish. Oh, and as for BG, "I don't recall the Democrats "starting" the 2000 BS ..." That is a matter of historical record. Bush won by the election tally, and the automatic recount. Gore called for a recount, which under Florida law had to be of ALL ballots and done within the pre-decided period before the election was certified. Gore went to court to demand (and he got) a court order to prevent the election from being certified, and to order a recount of only certain votes (undervotes) in 3 counties. The election was decided, it was Gore who filed suit to stop the certification. That is a fact. I'm not really interested in debating further than that, because quite frankly people are immune to facts when it comes to the 2000 recount.

Actually BG, if I remember correctly one can win by having a plurality in 11 states, if they are the right 11, of course that means California and Texas, an unlikely combination I'll grant you. Under that scenario both of your contentions are theoretically possible, but very unlikely.

I'm not sure. It is gonna be a nail biter, but I will say one thing, you believe thee polls at your own peril. Here is a sample. go to Realclearpolitics.com and look at the polls and averages. 1) Obama is not ahead by 9% in PA, he is ahead by 9% of those who are decided and consented to be polled. 2) Undecides break about 60-70% toward the "incumbent" which in this case, as Obama himself has said is probably McCain. 3) Conservatives under-poll by about 3%. 4) As mentioned above the polling organizations weight based on voter self identification, ho many identify themselves as democrat or republican. That is a lot more volatile number than those who self identify as conservative, moderate, or liberal. That is almost unchanged for 20+ years. 5) Once again we may see record turnout, making turnout models tough to predict, a lot depends on those models. 6) Once again the pollsters, the media, etc are all counting on the youth vote tidal wave to happen. I've been hearing about this game changing youth vote since the mid 80's. It never happens. But they actually could be right one of these times. OK, a lot of points, the sum of those random snippets is this. If Obama wins PA it is not by any stretch of the imagination going to be by 9%. I wouldn't be surprised to see him lose. Apply to other battlegrounds, shake well, stay up late, 'cause it's gonna be a long night.