Comments by FONDL (page 27)

Have I ever considered (1) marrying a stripper - no; (2) becoming her Sugar Daddy - yes. Nuff said.

Bones, I assume that you aren't being sarcastic because I think it's wrong too. But I can't get too excited about it when there are lots of places around that are women only and don't allow men (eg. women only gyms.) Why is that? Why do we accept places that don't allow men but it's wrong to have places that don't allow women? I think that's the real discrimination.

AN, mind if I change your statement slightly? "Christianity, while admittedly a theory, not an established law or fact, still deserves to be mentioned at the very least, probably explained and taught as the dominant theory (in this country) ... yet there are those who seek to ban it from public education." Or maybe, "Global warming, including its causation by human activities, while admittedly a theory, not an established law or fact, is taught as if it were ..." My point is that we don't apply such criteria uniformly, we teach those things that have been judged by the educatinal establishment to be politically correct and not those things that aren't, regardless of merit. AN, you have hit on what I consider to be the fatal flaw of democracy - people who believe in government and want government to do more are much more likely to become involved in politics than are those whose views are the opposite, thus government always has a bias toward growing and doing more. Most middle-class families already are forced to give half their income to governments, and yet every time a politician speaks they say they need more money for this or that. We are already close to the point where more people are net receivers of government benefits than are net taxpayers, and the portion of society demanding more benefits is growing rapidly. At what point does the system collapse? I think you younger guys will se it in your lifetiems.

I'm going to keep my word and not comment further on the smoking issue, mainly because I've said everything I can and would just be repeating myself. But I do want to comment on Book Guys point about dogs. My chiropractor has a pit bull that's always in his office, and it's the sweetest and friendlyiest dog Ive ever seen. My ATF has a rotweiler and it's also a very nice dog (althouh I wouldn't want to enter her apartment uninvited, which is the whole point. I've also known a lot of dogs that were vicious and not to be trusted, but in every case it's because their owners were mean to them and trained them that way. IMO it isn't the breed of dog, it's the breed of owner that makes the difference between a friendly pet and a visious monster. Don't cut the balls off the dog, cut the balls off the asshole owner.

Book Guy, IMO ALL of your arguments are adequately addressed by (1) requiring separate smoking and no-smoking sections in bars and restaurants, and (2) setting ventilation standards for commercial buildings. Both of those things already exist in most places. Guys, let's be honest - the only real reason anyone here wants to ban smoking in public places is that they find it annoying. The health issue is a red herring, there is no health problem associated with occasional exposure to low levels of second-hand cigarette smoke. I sometimes find smoking annoying too, but I also find lots of other behaviors annoying. Does that give me the right to demand that all such behaviors be banned by the government? For example, should the government ban the use of cel phones in restaurants, which is much more annoying to me than someone smoking in the smoking section? I'm sure lots of women find lap dancing annoying too, does that give them the right to insist that the government ban it? Now if you want to argue that children are at risk, that may well be true. I'd favor banning children from strip clubs and bars. That makes a lot more sense than banning smoking. I'm amazed that so many otherwise intelligent people are being taken in by the phony science perpetrated by the do-gooders who are trying to remodel society to their liking by further limits on personal freedoms. We already have too much government interference in our lives. We need fewer laws and regulations, not more. I'll say this one more time and then I'm done with this topic - ANY RATIONALE THAT IS USED TO BAN SMOKING CAN JUST AS EASILY BE USED IN SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FORM TO BAN STRIP CLUBS. You ignore that truth at your own peril.

Good one Chandler. Except that my very limited experience* with "ladies" with heavy beards, deep voices, Adam's apples and large hands (you forgot large hands) is that they're usually GGs. *vacations in Key West - such "ladies" are a pretty common sight.

My favorite lie was always, "Sorry but I'm just about out of money."

Coffee and loud country music works for me. I enjoy driving late at night but I rarely get to do it since I retired. Which is probably a good thing since my night vision isn't as good as it used to be.

MIDancer says, "... so long as it's kept discreet, I don't really care what other dancers are doing." I'd agree with that, except that my experience is that dancers always talk, both with each other and with customers. So it's never discreet, everyone knows what's going on. Shadowcat, it may not be the same to you but I bet it is to a lot of dancers. Everyone wants a work environment where they feel comfortable, dancers are no different. When someone is engaging in illegal practices to increase their income, others are going to suffer. That's true anywhere.

Bones, thanks. It amazes me that people on a board such as this would support banning anyone else's pleasure. Isn't that exactly what we all complain about, others trying to ban our pleasure? People who live in glass houses ...

GG loves cats or cutesy little lap dogs. TB loves real dogs, big dogs.

I find it amusing that people here are bragging about having unprotected sex of one kind or another in strp clubs but worrying about second-hand smoke. Seems to me that's kinda like sky diving without a parachute and worrying about the air pollution on the way down.

Jablake, I've never had an open container of any alcoholic beverage in my car. That's a Florida thing.

"Why should they care what the others do?" Because it increases the pressure on them to do the same, which makes their working environment very uncomfortable, and it affects their reputation because people assume that all the girls who work there are doing the same things. Wouldn't you care if some of your fellow workers were engaging in illegal activities whiel at work, and your workplace acquired a reputation to that affect? "Are thay making less money because of it?" Probably yes.

The biggest problem I see with trying to make ratings more consistent is that ratings will always be relative, you compare a club with other clubs you've been to. So, for example, if a guy's only frame of reference is a city where most of the clubs have little contact, and then he goes to one that allows a little more, that's going to seem like high contact to him. Similarly if all his neighborhood clubs get $30 for a private dance, a place where dances cost $25 will seem like a bargain. I don't think there's any solution to that problem.

Edit to say "... could easily be used to justify PROHIBITING all drinking outside the home." Sorry about that and several spelling errors, I was interrupted before I had a chance to proofread.

"... a lot of girls that have become dancers (or escorts, etc.) have had experiences in their past that have influenced how they view sex, guys, and/or themselves." Isn't that true of everybody? I agree with Chitown 100%. Play it again, Sam (which in case anyone cares, is probably the best known line from the movie, even though it was never said.) Of all the strip clubs in all the world ...

ShotDisc and Book Guy, let me modify your comments slightly and ask if you still agree with them. (1) Drinking is a health hazard to those who do it and those around them. Especially kids. Restricting it in public is a no brainer ... (2) Drinking is a problem TO OTHER PEOPLE (people other than those who choose to drink) and therefore it is well within a government's right to rein in the drinking. Seems to me that those argumesnts are just as valid as the ones you both made against smoking in public place and could easily be used to justify all drinking outside of the home. In fact I think the argument is much stronger re drinking because the facts are quite clear that drinking has harmed many others, while I don't think there's any evidence that occasional exposure to second hnd smoke is harmful.

Imnum, I doubt if there is anyone who is totally GG or TB, they all have parts of each. GG has a dozen pairs of high heels, TB has one and hates when she has to wear them. GG has a dozen nice dresses, TB has one and hates to wear it. GG always wears stockings with a dress, TB doesn't own any stockings. GG goes to the spa to relax, TB goes to the gym.

Jablake, I'm not saying that's generally true, I don't know whether it is or isn't. But I think earnings potential may be as important a consideration for a girl deciding where to work as is mileage, and the places that provide the best earnings potential can probably be more selective in who they hire than the places that don't provide as much income opportunity.

The other perverse side of this whole issue is that many (perhaps most) of those poor kids who are subsidized to go to the most expensive and prestigious colleges never graduate. I remember once years ago one of DC's fancy hotels had a doorman who, with his top hat, was about 8 feet tall. Very impressive. Someone later told me that he had been a center at Georgetown. Do we really need to spend taxpayer money (or money taken from a middle-class family) to train hotel doormen?

Minnow, my last post is in past tense - "I have never" rather than "I never" and "visits cost" which can be either present or past tense. I try to be pretty careful about that. But thanks for reading my posts - you're probably one of the few here who still does (LOL).

No, I don't think dancers care. They're not there to find a BF, they're there to earn money, and married guys, especially older ones, often have more of it. Some girls may even prefer married guys because there are fewer complications, the married guys aren't usually looking to date the stripper where that's often all the single guys want. When I first read the heading I thought the question was going to be whether married dancers gave good mileage. I don't think there's any correlation there either - an awful lot of married strippers are having problems and are perenially pissed off at their worthless husbands.

It's not surprising if reviewers tend to have a positive bias in their ratings. Seems to me that most reviewers like strip clubs, otherwise they wouldn't be there. Even some of the bad clubs can be better than staying home and watching TV. To me a club has to be really bad to get less than a 5.

At least I doubt that Shadowcat's favorite club will have to worry about this any time soon. Can you imagine a politician in the Carolinas suggesting a ban on smoking? Now that would be fun to see. Philadelphia banned smoking in most public places. The governor tried to extend the ban to the rest of the state. The rest of the state told him what he could do with his ban. Some of our local restaurants have voluntarily banned smoking, while others haven't, meaning that customers hve a choice. IMO that's how things should work.