Comments by DocErotica (page 2)

Chandler: "I also think the line about buying your date's dinner being somehow only a shade different from paying to fuck a whore is bullshit. We've been through that before here, and the claim is bound to be repeated. Doesn't make it any less bullshit." I never contended that money-for-sex relationships are only "a shade different" than dating or marriage relationships. I argued that there are transactions implicit in every kind of relationship, which is true, regardless of whether the transactions are buffered by the presence of long-term bonds. All relationships are transactional in nature, which is not to say that all relationships are equally explicit or straightforward in how the transactional elements of the relationship are handled. Money-for-sex relationships are an especially straightforward kind of transaction (as are most kinds of sales relationships) in which feelings and caring are generally not a significant element in the relationship. Friendships, romances, and marriages involve bonds between the participants that support transactions that are a good deal more nuanced and less subject to specific inventory. The participants act toward one another to a significant extent motivated by the accumulated bonds rather than mainly on a specific quid pro quo basis, but the development of the bonds, in the first place, was partly based on a history of successful transactions. There are both commonalities and differences between money-for-sex relationships and more complex relationships that involve bonds of friendship, love, or caring. The similarities are no more "bullshit" than are the differences. Dating relationships gradually become increasingly less like money-for-sex relationships as they develop a history.

"You wrote that it's all relative, implying that the difference is one merely of degree, or shade - take your pick." Sorry, but "degree" and "shade" are not interchangeable. Whereas "shade" [your term] implies only a subtle difference, "degree" [also your term, not mine] is entirely open-ended as to the breadth of the difference. You introduced the term shade, giving what I said your own particular spin, and then vehemently disagreed basically with your own form of what I had said. "Your attitude seems to be predicated on the belief that women don't enjoy sex, and therefore never agree to it without receiving something in exchange, be it money, drugs, an expensive dinner or the promise of marriage." I don't know who you may have been addressing in the earlier thread, but I make no such assumption and know the contrary to be the case from my own experience. Women don't always or even typically have to be paid for sex, but even then there are transactional elements at work. Beautiful and personable women are most likely to choose handsome and peronable guys or, at least, a guy with a comparable level of marketable qualities of one type or anther. If a person (male or female) wishes to interact sexually or pseudo-sexually [as in a strip club] with another person of the opposite or same sex who is far hotter, nicer, or interesting than they could reasonably have access to on a purely non-monetary basis, one option for that person is to add a quantity of money into the conditions of the transaction. In short, I pay lovely, young dancers to dance for me so as to enjoy an interaction that would be unavailable to me at that particular level of quality in any other equally convenient way.

Hi Bookguy. You said, "we all agree that we're exchanging money for sexual services. Anyone who denies that . . . is in self-denial." I agree. Then you added: "Some people (myself included) hope (probably vainly) to create a human relation between HIMself and another human, one who happens to be a HERself, that DOES NOT involve the exchange of money." You are right that the paid relationship can never be the same as an unpaid relationship. That does not mean, however, that the paid relationship is devoid of authenticity or devoid of genuine feelings. I am a paid professional of another kind -- a teacher. If my University stopped paying me (what are indirect payments from the students), I would stop teaching just as the dancer would no longer dance for me without payment. Nevertheless, as long as I am in the classroom or meeting with students for extra help, I experience a genuine concern for their learning opportunity. I sometimes come to care about especially those students with whom I have enough contact to differentiate from the general mass of students. The same point could be made about most any good professional who takes pride in his or her work. I believe that many of the dancers are professionals in the same positive sense. Many genuinely want to please their patrons (both to make more money and to feel competent), especially the ones who show appreciate verbally or by tipping generously. It is part of human nature to want to be a competent and caring professional. It is human nature to appreciate being appreciated. I have noted that the quality of the dances I receive from a dancer I return to regularly increases over time as the dancer becomes more aware of my preferences and more "devoted" to pleasing me. That is a kind of "caring" -- albeit based on being a good professional rather than a friend or lover. My point is that while it is a self-deceit to believe that the dancer cares about you in the way that she cares about her friends, family, or lover, it is also false to declare that the relationship between a dancer and a strip club patron is devoid of any genuine sentiment.

Well, Driver01, I think we're really arguing two entirely different points. I agree with you that (a) this message board is not polite society and there is no reason it should be; and (b) a strip club dressing room is not polite society either, nor should it be. I don't know where you got the idea that I might object to the word "pussy." I am not concerned with the crassness of language. I don't object to the word "whore" on grounds of either crassness or frankness. I only raised the issue of use of pejorative words to inflict pain and to advance/enforce societal prejudices. In a book about strip clubs that I recently read, the author relates an altercation that began in a strip club dressing room with one stripper calling another a whore. The event then escalated through a series of loaded appelations into a fight, which had to be broken up by the bouncer and a female club matron of some kind. A dancer could certainly say to another, "You're almost as much of a whore as I am," and it would be understood as a joke in relation to something being said in the conversation. A dancer who says, "Well, I'm certainly not a whore like you" is usually going to find that the recipient of the comment takes offense, one way or another, regardless of whether it escalates into physical confrontation.

Some famous wit once said something to the effect, "I wouldn't want to belong to any club that would have me as a member." For many men, that statement could be reworked to describe their dilemma in relation to sex partners: "I wouldn't want to make love with any woman who would be willing to make love to me for free." Janis Joplin weighed in on the issue as well when she recorded lyrics along the line of "Why is it that half the world is cryin' while the other half of the world is cryin' too." There are many lonely and/or sex-starved or companionship-starved people of both genders and at first glance it would seem simple to match the two groups up. The problem is that most people (possibly men more than women) have standards of physical attractiveness for their sex partners that cannot reasonably be met without resorting to payment. Most men will take little comfort from the thought that there might be plenty of unappealing women they might find who would make love with them for nothing. Now, I suppose one could argue that the reasonable answer to the problem would be for men (and women) to work on acquiring more realistic standards for their potential partners. Many men, however, will prefer another option (largely unavailable to sex-starved women) -- purchasing sexual or pseudo-sexual interactions with women who meet their standards of appeal (physical or otherwise). The main reason that the sex industry exists is because there aren't enough gorgeous, personable young women to go around for all the men who would like to be matched with one.

Driver01: "So let me see if I understand you-- A man with a microphone referring to women with the statement "we've got the finest pussy in town" does NOT advance societal prejudices of women as nothing more than sex objects but a dancer telling you in a private conversation that another dancer will blow you in the vip for $100 and calls her a whore IS advancing societal prejudices??? Wow!" I'm curious as to why you introduce your point with "Let me see if I understand you" and then proceed to compare two scenarios that have not previously been part of the discussion, implying that this contrast represents my point of view. If you are interested in what I think about the two scenarios, you could simply ask, but as you've approached the issue, you've simply made up something to represent falsely as my viewpoint so you can then say "Wow!! And all this time I thought you were actually interested in an exchange of viewpoints.

For AbbieNormal: Tits are fun to look at, especially when bared and nicely accentuated by streaming colored lights and strobe effects. It also doesn't hurt if they're bouncing up and down just a bit. Sag, however, is a non-plus. I find the moment when a dancer first removes her top on stage to reveal her tits especially enticing. I always prefer to see an even number of tits over the course of an evening at a strip club, rather than an odd number. Fondling also works better when the number of available tits is even, except, of course, for those gentlemen who have an odd number of hands. Tits come in many sizes. The designations for the first four cup sizes for bras are the standard A through D, but there seems to be two different methods in use for designating cup sizes larger than D, as best as I can figure out from my non-expert perspective. The next two sizes are sometimes called E and F and sometimes DD and DDD, I believe. Anyone who happens to have a grip on large breasts should feel free to clarify the issue, when they find they have a moment to spare. My personal taste in tits runs from about B to D. I've never been able to decide if I prefer mid-sized breasts or small breasts, but I prefer either of those to breasts larger than D. I have noted, however, that some strip club patrons have tastes in tits that differ markedly from my own. I once saw a dancer with saggy A-cup breasts, which I had previously assumed to be impossible. It wasn't pretty! Then, of course, there are the issues of areola size and degree of nipple protrusion. Symmetry is clearly a plus from a purely aesthetic point of view. It is also desirable for the tit size to more or less correspond with the torso type (i.e., smallish tits for thin framed women and medium tits for more curvaceous women). Nowadays, for better or for worse, there's also the issue of enhancement, which, for me personally, is a turnoff when it comes time to fondle the breasts, though I do have to admit that enhanced breasts sometimes look good from a distance. I once had a dancer tell me that I was touching her nipples with exactly the right degree of pressure. That comment provided me with a little extra jolt of satisfaction because it's always nice to feel, for even a moment, that you might have broken through the boredom and routine that the dancer must inevitably experience from the repetition of it all, to excite her just a smidgen. These dancers are pretty clever, however, and it could well be that she tossed out a random complement simply to play to my male vanity. The choice between tits, pussy, and ass is a tough one. Fortunately, most ladies have all three.

Objectification of women and denigration of women in relation to real or perceived promiscuity are two entirely different issues, though both are usually adverse to the interest of women in our society. I'm opposed to objectification of women in most societal venues, including businesses and universities, because it negatively impacts opportunity and comfort level for women, as they go about their business in our world. Strip clubs, however, are in the business of glorifying women as sex objects. Anyone entering a strip club, either as an employee or patron, understands that objectification of women is the primary reason the clubs exist. Patrons are invited to ogle and render judgments and dancers participate directly in the process when they ask, "Wanna dance?" So do D.J.'s when they refer to dancers as pussies. Many dancers are what I would call narcissistic self-objectifiers. I discovered that one evening by sitting directly in front of the mirror closest to center stage at Platinum Plus in Portland. I could readily see how much of the time dancers spend looking at their selves not only immediately before their set would begin but even while performing on stage. Clearly, objectification gets a pass at strip clubs (as well as in soft and hard core porn and many fashion magazines), in the same manner that sex-and-violence gets a pass when couples engage in consensual S-and-M activities. The key is that all of the participants effectively chose a situation in which it is understood that their will be an exception to the usual standards of "correct" behavior. Is denigration of women in relation to promiscuity or soft limits also entitled to a pass in strip clubs? Actually, one might reasonably expect that places like strip clubs ought to be places with higher than typical tolerance for paid sexual activities, since their primary business is sexual fantasies and services. There is no presumption when one enters a strip club that one is going to be MORE than typically castigated for sexual activities, either as a patron or a performer. Since this message board is effectively an extension of the strip club environment, the same reasoning in relation to objectification vs. denigration ought to apply here. One might expect denigration to get a pass, hwoever, when spouted from a pulpit on Sunday morning.

Chandler: "I think I'll find some other way to waste my time from here on." That was your strongest idea so far, but I guess you were still smarting so badly that you had to return long enough to deliver some poorly rendered sarcasm! It's not easy being a chauvinistic bigot and being called on it, but why not just suck it up?

Driver01: "I dusted off my Bible and found the word "whore" is used almost 100 times in both the old and new testament. . . . I'm not gonna argue with the almighty" I would enjoy a good argument with the Almighty, assuming He exists, because arguing is an effective way to learn (for some of us) and I would expect to learn a lot from Someone both all-knowing and infinitely patient. I feel certain that He would be pleased that one of his humble creations was using his God-given capacity for reason and learning. Unfortunately, God, if He exists, is silent, so we humans get inundated instead with the rants and claims of a bunch of competing institutions, men of the cloth, and religious adherents who have the temerity to claim that they speak for the Almighty, but who really only speak for a particular, very human, point of view. Such folks and institutions I am also happy to argue with, but typically get very little intelligent in return. It is interesting to consider religious institutions in the context of strip clubs because there are a couple of obvious parallels. Both institutions feature spokespersons that frequently offer more than they can deliver. Both institutions are in the business of creating fantasies and illusions that are gratifying or reassuring, but ultimately mostly fake. I'm not very knowledgeable about Christianity (or any other religion), but I seem to recall a story about Jesus defending a prostitute -- Mary Magdalena, I believe -- against the disparagements levied by some of his followers. Correct me if I'm misremembering the story. I'm sure many of you know the story better than do I. I suppose that the model provided by Jesus ought to take some considerable precedence for those who call themselves Christians. Convinced as I am that religions don't actually represent the word of God, I subscribe to a different kind of moral system-- humanism. It's fairly straightforward in theory, though not always in application. It's based on the most good for the most number of people. If a single man purchases sexual services from a sex-industry worker, the main impacts of the transaction fall on the two individuals involved. She has sexual appeal and needs money. He has money and wants sexual contact. If both individuals are entering into the arrangement with full understanding and without coercion, it's hard to argue that the transaction results in more harm than good. I suppose safety in relation to STDs would have to be considered as well. Such activities are typically referred to as victimless crimes precisely because the harm side of the equation is difficult to specify. Sex-for-money activities are mainly only illegal because of the influence of the historical equivalents of today's religious right -- Puritanism, for example, here in New England. We still have blue laws that govern what a married couple can and cannot do in the privacy of their own bedroom. I expect that the Almighty, if He existed, would rather enjoy a trip to a strip club, to check out some of his most curvaceous creations. I even heard it said, once or twice, that "His kingdom cums", though I've never really figured out what a universal orgasm would be like -- unless it was the Big Bang.

Chandler: "long paragraphs of sheer bunk masquerading as thoughtful debate" Here's a friendly suggestion, Chandler. Why not simply say, once and for all, "Everything Doc says is bullshit and I totally reject it all categorically?" That would save you a lot of time and effort and would cover anything that I might post in the future. Why not dispense with content altogether when what you really want is to go after the individual? The problem with trying to address individual issues is that you end up having to make a lot of lame assertions or just sounding petulant with the likes of "bullshit" or "if that's the best you can do" or "long paragraphs of sheer bunk" or weak efforts at sarcasm. What you really want is a good old-fashioned pissing contest, so have at it. I really don't mind if you want to use this thread to urinate in public, but at least try to hit the bowl now and then.

Thank you, Chandler. For my part, I'll say that although I continue to believe that your views in relation to the application of the word "whore" are both baseless and lacking in charity and compassion, I acknowledge that I could have made the point more effectively and justly by not resorting to such inflammatory words as "bigot" and "misogynistic." I apologize for any distress or anger that my word choice caused for you.