Comments by FONDL (page 28)

Jablake, I've never spent more than about $250 in a strip club in my life, and usually my visits cost me less than half that.

Jablake, I can't say from first hand knowledge, but I don't think it does in this case. There are actually 4 clubs in very close proximity - a super nice GC with medium contact, a total dump with extras as standard fare, plus the other two places I mentioned - a high milage LD factory and a place with no private dances at all. I haven't been to them all but from the reviews over the years it appears that the high milage LD factory draws the most attractive dancers, probably because the girls there make the most money - it's wildly popular (which is in part why I've never gone.) The extras place does the least business of the 4, judging from the parking lots when I go by, probably because they have by far the least attractive dancers (as in oink oink.)

There are two clubs on the outskirts of Baltimore about 5 minutes apart - one has very high milage LDs, the other has no private dances, just stage dancing. Both are quite popular.

I'm not a smoker and never have been, but the smoking bans bother me because I'm afraid of what the do-gooders might be outlawing next - drinking, lap dances? In my area most restaurants have smoking sections and no-smoking sections, and it seems to work fine. Even in the smoking sections (where I always sit because ther are fewer little kids, who bother me a hell of a lot more than does a little smoke) the ventilation systems work well enough that there's almost no detectable smoke. The problem with many strip clubs isn't that they allow smoking, it's that their ventilation systems are terrible. I have 2 other comments about smoking bans. (1) There has never been any good study which suggests that infrequent exposure to low levels of second-hand smoke is harmful. It's a basic law of toxicology that the dose makes the poison. All the studies on second-hand smoke are based on extrapolation from high levels of smoke, which is scientifically unsound. Smoking bans are based on bad science. (2) The population segment most at risk from second-hand smoke is children who live in homes where a parent smokes. The smoke levels in such homes is much higher than in restaurants because homes rarely have much of a ventilation system, and those children are exposed continuously, not just sporadically. So why has there been no effort to outlaw smoking in homes where children are present? And before you respond that the government can't regulate what goes on in your home, there are already many laws that do exactly that.

Different customers like different things. Also in most clubs you can go one time and there are a lot of girls who appeal to you, next time there aren't any. And places can be very different depending on when you go. Ratings will always vary widely. It's the description that counts.

My ATF almost always wears jeans (or shorts) regardless of where she's going. For Christmas GG wants perfume, flowers, jewelry. TB wants new jeans and a new pair of running shoes. GG wears frilly underwear, TB doesn't bother. GG sleeps in a frilly nightgown, TB sleeps in an old T-shirt (or less.) When the late-night beach party turns to skinny dipping, TB is the first girl in the water, GG wants to go home. When the guys start doing shots and beers, TB joins right in, GG wants to go home.

Shadowcat, if you aren't going to use that airline ticket, can I have it? I think I'd like MIDancer just fine (as long as we didn't talk politics - LOL.)

Chandler, I agree that TUSCL gives a widely exaggerated view of the number of clubs where extras are widely available. And let me add that I have no moral objection to extras, my objection is that it's illegal and I don't want to hang out anywhere were illegal activity is commonly taking place. I like high mileage as long as it doesn't cross the line where it becomes illegal, and I think that's hapening more and more. And ultimately it will lead to a backlash against all clubs if it continues. I think it's bad for the industry.

Book Guy, if it were only the poor who were being subsidized, that wouldn't bother me much either, but that's not how it works. Each department submits it's list of wants for the coming year - eg. maybe the football team needs some defensive backs and a couple huge offensive linemen; the baseball team needs some infielders; the basketball team needs a center; the music department needs some trombone players and violinists and a cello player or two; the thespian department needs a couple of minority actresses; the art department needs some sculptors; the language department needs a couple students fluent in Greek; and so it goes throughout the whole university. The concept is that the school doesn't especially want well-rounded students as we all thought, it wants a well-rounded student body, aka diversity. These quotas are the first slots filled, and the chosen ones are given scholarships to make sure they accept (smaller colleges typically aren't allowed to give athletic scholarships, but they can and do give need-based scholarships to athletes regardless of their actual need.) Then next come the racial quotas, who also get their scholarships. Then people from far away - foreign countries, far away states. The open slots that are left then get llocated based on some arcane formula that includes past attendance by parents, validictorians, highest marks on SATs, consistent grades in HS, etc. This last group of people, which is often fewer than half, all get to pay full price because by then all the scholarship money has been given away, which means that they subsidize eveyone else. In actual practice very few of the scholarships go to poor people, and many of them go to kids from well-to-do families who know how to game the system. It's outrageous, probably the biggest organized con game in the country. And it's standard practice. The actual average cost of educating a student is typically about half the full tuition price at many smaller prestigions schools.

If you suggest a movie, GG will want to go to the latest chick-flick, TB will prefer an action-packed thriller.

Jablake, clubs like I described are common in smaller towns. There are also a lot of places like that in the older section (not downtown) in both Philly and Baltimore and probably a lot of other cities that I'm not familiar with. Book Guy makes a valid point about clubs in smaller towns being pretty similar, the ones I'm familiar with are mostly the no-private-dance type I described.

Chitown, I've read that in states and cities that have enacted no smoking laws, there's been virtually no impact on bars and restaurants. So I doubt if you'll see any impact on your local clubs. But the thing I'd worry about most is that you'll probably be able to see the girls better and that may not be a good thing. I don't think I've ever been in a strip club that didn't allow smoking, it would seem strange.

They not only can but often do. There are lots of strip club customers who never buy a private dance, either because it doesn't interest them or they can't (or aren't willing to) afford it. To them mileage is irrelevant, they just want to look at and talk to naked girls. Many neighborhood strip clubs don't even offer private dances even when they're allowed, and lots of girls prefer to work in such places. Most of us here probably never set foot in places like that but there are a large number of them.

Chandler, what makes you think I was being either touchy or serious? I am rarely either, and certainly not here. Of course I realize that to a young girl I'm an old guy, how could I possibly think otherwise? I am an old guy, and proud of it, and I'm not the least bit touchy on the subject. I just think that being a fit old guy is better than being a slob, because it's more fun. I especially enjoy doing things that young people don't think us old guys can do. Like beating people half my age running a 5k race - now that's fun.

I was just thinking of a way to have fun with this - let's try contrasting the two (girly-girl first, then tomboy) according to how they behave in different situations (it doesn't have to be true, just funny.) I'll go first - When they get hurt, GG cries, TM hits you. When they get mad, GG gives you the silent treatment, TB throws something at you. When you make love, GG is gentle, TB attacks you. When you go out somewhere nice, GG wears a pretty dress, TB wears jeans. When you watch football, GG is somewhere else, TB is yelling and screaming at the TV. When you go out for drinks, GG has something pink, TB has a beer.

Shadowcat, I'm sorry that I was so blunt, I had just responded to the post about college tuition, which is an extremely sore subject for me, so smoke was still coming out of my ears. Let me see if I can clarify what I meant without offending you further, which is not my intent. Seems to me that many of us have agreed on a number of points lately: (1) stripper quality is declining, (2) prices are going up, (3) customers are demanding more contact including extras, (4) increasingly girls and clubs are complying with that demand, and (5) the industry is in decline with fewer customers spending less money. I happen to think those 5 things are closely related and you probably do too. But we probably disagree on which are causes and which are effects. I think the demand for more contact including extras is chasing girls out of the business and allowing clubs to raise prices. My ATF, who was one of the top dancers in her club, quit the business for exactly that reason, customers demanding more contact and the club allowing it. And she wasn't an isolated case, in fact a lot of the best dancers in her club quit when the manager started allowing more contact. And shortly thereafter they raised prices - the higher contact enabled them to do so. The last few years that I was clubbing regularly I heard more dancers complaining about incresed contact than anything else. One of the main reasons I stopped going to strip clubs is because I was having more and more trouble finding girls who appealed to me. I think the demand for more contact, including extras, is causing dancer quality to decline, and I also think it has allowed clubs to raise prices, which in turn is accelerating the decline in the business. In the short term maybe extras are helping some clubs, but in the long term I think it's going to kill the industry. Guys have always gone to clubs looking for sex, I have no problem with that. But having sex inside the club is a relatively recent phenomenon and that's what I object to. When you meet a stripper at a motel, that's a private transaction between the two of you. But when it takes place in the club it's no longer a private act, it effects everyone in the club. Everyone in the place is subject to arrest. And the club atmosphere changes drastically. Personally I would find it highly offensive if I were in a VIP room and saw someone getting a blow job or more. ITC sex is ruining strip clubs for guys like me who aren't interested in that and never were, and I think it will eventually ruin it for everyone when the inevitable backlash occurs. Shadowcat, I'll be very surprised if your favorite club is still in business a couple years from now. As far as discussion on this board goes, seems to me the intent of this board is to talk about strippers and strip clubs, not prostitutes and brothels. And until recently that's what it's been. Personally I'd like to see it go back to that. And yes my wife does know all about my ATF, in fact they've become close friends.

I think of dancers as belonging to 3 age groups rather than 2 - the young ones (18-24), experienced pros (25-32) and older dancers (33+), age ranges being very approximate of course. Kind of funny when you think about it, me calling a 33 yo older when I'm more than twice that. But I'm not taking my clothes off on a stage, and you should all be thankful for that. So given my age breakdown, I usually prefer young and inexperienced especially those around 20-21 but I've had some nice times with some older dancers too. It's the ones in between who I avoid - the dancers roughly between 25 and 32 or so who most often think of themselves as experienced pros and who have those annoying attitudes (of course they're not all like that but I've run into way too many who are.) The young ones haven't gotten the attitude yet, and the older ones who are still dancing have usually outgrown it and have become more comfortable with who they are. And I agree with Yoda, the older ones are often the most comfortable with physical intimacy, maybe because they've been through several marriages.

Shadowcat, I can't believe that you're giving "Song of the South" to children. Don't you know that's one of the most politically-incorrect movies ever made? Are you trying to corrupt those poor kids? (I saw it in the theater - first time around no less - and look how I turned out.)

When I met my ATF I was a regular with another girl at the same club - a very feminine girly-girl. My ATF was the exact opposite. When the wheels fell off with the girly-girl I immediately grabbed (both figuratively and literally) my ATF, who I'd gotten to know a bit by then. And as they say, the rest is history. Sure there are lots of other variables but in general I much prefer the Tomboy. Waaaaay less maintenance for one. Do you need a second reason?

Book Guy, if you're heading for Philly send me an email and I'll tell you what I know. Some of it isn't appropriate for here.

That's always been one of my big no-nos for a club, for me it's a deal breaker. I enjoy the conversation, it's a big part of the attraction. If I can't hold a conversation I find another club. If a girl won't sit and talk I find another girl. Most of the clubs I've frequented don't even have DJs.

"Younger strippers in general seem to care about age!" Jablake, I agree - as soon as they learn the ropes they prefer older guys, because we treat them better and have more money. All the younger strippers I've ever known avoided guys their own age. We've talked about that here before.

BG, I understand your general point and agree with it to some extent, especially if you're talking about dancers who work in clubs where there's high customer turnover. But when you talk about "most" dancers, IMO most dancers work in the hundreds of small neighborhood clubs were they see the same customers day after day and everybody is a regular. Any girl who tried to pull any crap in a place like that would be ostracized by both dancers and customers - she'd be slitting her own throat. It's a big reason why I prefer such places. And why I prefer to be a regular.

I agree Chipitin but it's actually worse than that because when the guy can only get 3 LDs instead of 9 with his $90 he doesn't have as much fun so he won't be back as soon or as often. And personally I think it's the best dancers who are leaving the business because customers are increasingly demanding extras for the higher prices. The second-rate girls stay and suck it up (no pun intended.) Book Guy, the concept of public and private colleges is a myth perpetuated by the once-private schools. They're all heavily supported by taxpayer dollars today. If they were truly private I wouldn't care about their tuition or their admission policies, it would be their own business. But they're using tax dollars to perpetuate their deceptive practives. We often talk about dancers and deception but dancers have nothing on college admissions officers. I once heard an ex-admissions officer explain how the process works - it made me want to throw up.

Book Guy, with all due respect, anyone who is dumb enough to fall for such a line of stripper shit in a strip club deserves what he gets. MIDancer, your line "Sex for money? Fuck that!" has got to be the funniest thing I've ever read here. I'm glad there are lots of dancers with your attatiude toward the job. My ATF was one of them. I think guys who go to strip clubs expecting ITC sex and the girls who accomodate them are ruining the industry.