discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi MIDancer,
There is definitely a problem with paying UPFRONT. If the woman is hot enough, then I'll take the risk. Sometimes I'll get burnt (too often) and sometimes it is WOW what a fantastic experience she was able to give me. This one dancer who was really smoking hot asked for money UPFRONT in a club (it is a club rule for dancers to demand payment UPFRONT, btw) where dancers in general never ask for money UPFRONT unless management is beating them up. My initial reaction was to tell her to F off because I'd had bad experiences with paying first and I really wanted to buy dances from her so I was angry about her demand. She was very special and it turned out to be an excellent deal for me. :) I later learned she had been ripped off earlier that same night! :( Some of these customers I see are really the low of the low.
It seems like for shadowcat if a dancer charges more or gives less than he thinks is appropriate than she is a ROB. :( Unfortunately, I think that is normal mentality and not only dancer related. Here in Florida we have auto insurance that is truly a rip off mandated by law. Those who can afford it are generally arrogant SOBs who don't give a damn about those who don't want to be ripped off or who can't afford to be ripped off. Boy, how these arrogant SOBs sing a different tune when they can no longer afford it. Then suddenly they understand that it is a rip off or is "unfair." Bottom line is that for too many people your a ROB if you don't meet their price and service demands----yet if you applied the same standards to them they would rightfully go ape sh*t.
A very long, but nice post MIDancer. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Sex can definitely change things for the worse. A dancer that I'd known a long time allowed me to bring her the big O. It really felt fantastic the way her body responded. The pounding heart. The wetness between her legs. The elongated nipples. It was wonderful for me.
That was pretty much the end of a friendly relationship. :( After the fact--next visit and thereafter--she definitely wasn't a happy camper even though she'd been paid and got off. Believe me, getting her off wasn't worth the fall out. :( Just a huge negative. If my thrill came from conversation, then the "sex" would have ruined everything. And, NO it isn't that easy to find women that I very much like interacting with AND who are attractive AND who aren't here one week and gone the next. And, NO sticking it in the hole isn't a top priority. I definitely need the contact and lots of it and I need the GFE (her ability to convince me that she is a girlfriend).
Anyway, different strokes for different folks. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi Boobyl,
Change your body and wallet to that of the "weirdos" and you might see the value in shelling out the "big bucks" just for conversation----with an attractive woman.
Believe it or not, I think intelligence comes into play more often than one would think. Imagine that you are so mentally sharp that people of ordinary intelligence seem like complete and total morons. So brain dead that the government needs to tell them what to think and when think and how to think. Imagine further that you have money to burn. Conversation with the right attractive woman might seem very appealing even at a "high" price because it is your brain that needs the work out more than your body.
Also, consider that your new body may be of the 15 second variety. A burst of pleasure followed by nothing, but tiredness. A real let down. An attractive woman skilled in presenting herself and entertaining might seem like a godsend. Sex might just be an anti-climax. :( I was watching a documentary on the Japanese and how they generally interact with their "hookers." Far more cerebral, if true, than how a typical American would do it.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi David9999,
Very interesting post as far as level of thought and could definitely be right on the money overall. It is really making my head spin. :)
Usually that is good, but it is just a little bit of an overload because like the "science" of economics it is making assumptions. The assumptions sound reasonable, but that doesn't make them correct.
For example, "long term the market itself determines the proper pricing," sounds very reasonable . . . But, I have a strong feeling it just isn't the case depending on how we break it down. What does "long term" mean? Ten years? Fifty years? What does "market" mean? Yeah, that should be obvious, but it ain't in that it depends on the legal or other structures of society. I'm *assuming* you're talking about the free market, which doesn't really exist in the "sex" trade here in the U.S. If not, then "market" depends on laws and enforcement capacity and willingness to enforce and "long term" really doesn't come into play that much----btw, doesn't seem like much of a "market" unless you considered the Soviets to have "markets," which to a limited very limited extent they did. "Proper pricing" that is a doozy. :)
I don't know if the above is clear. Let me try again. If the governments decided to leave the strip clubs alone completely, then that would be a very different market. If the governments decided to ban alcohol where there is a hint of nudity, then that would be a very different market. If the government decided to require some insane wildly expensive insurance (think $10 million in annual premiums and up), then that would be a very different market. With the changing "structure" long term really doesn't come into it because your mixing apples and oranges. One day Angels is allowed to make payoffs to the police in order to stay in business and the next day dancers and or customers could be being thrown in jail for any reason.
What is that statement? In the long term we are all dead. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
OK, parodyman. You know what to do!
BTW, 24play4ever, parodyman is a joke so if plays the fool just realize he doesn't mean anything. If you already knew that, then please excuse my post. :)
Parodyman apparently has some pscyhic powers or something because he claims that you there isn't any additional information about clubs available on this discussion board. And, that "tools" should know to look only in the review section. Like I said he is a joke. :) I try my best to be funny, ha ha, also . . .
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi David9999,
I don't think low volume necessarily means the services are currently priced beyond fair valuation. For example, if lap dances were priced at $1 per dance and customers were lined up to buy all the dances that were available does that in your opinion mean that the "fair valuation" of dances is $1?
I think what you are talking about is the optimal price, which is really a different issue.
Here is an example. In the used book business if I sell books at 10 cents a book (the books are donated, btw) I can keep the store crowded. And, I can make a profit because my other costs like rent are so cheap. So in your opinion that would be "fair valuation" for the books because my store is crowded and I'm making a profit?
I really don't care for crowds. One obnoxious SOB after another. I raise the average price to $3 per book. The crowded book store looks empty. :) You know what? In this particular example you make a lot more money. You won't get rich by any means, but that ain't the issue. :) Is $3 per book a "fair valuation"? I mean the store now appears to be dead compared to the crowds at 10 cents per book.
The basic point is that more volume or less volume of paying customers doesn't equate to "fair valuation." In the extreme it may make more sense to increase prices to $100,000 per dance even if that meant the number of paying customers was reduced by 99%.
This is truly an issue that deserves some thought, imo.
BTW, I'm huge fan of Milton Friedman. As genius as he is he did make what I consider to be huge errors in his book Free to Choose, which I loved--btw. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Excellent points casualguy. :) Most people don't really think, imo, but just follow whatever the media or government mandate.
discussion comment
17 years ago
ROB??? I always thought a Rip of Bitch was a dancer who promised more than she delivered or engaged in fraud such as over counting. Now it is being extended to include dancers who charge as much as the market will bear? What a freaking joke. :(
discussion comment
17 years ago
I think it is interesting also that it is *assumed* by some posters that the customer would prefer sex or lapping to conversation.
There was and probably is a wealthy old man that regularly brought hot young girls to the Club Diamonds. The purpose was to buy VIP dances for the hot young girl. He never had any interest in watching. The dancer or dancers would take the hot young woman to the VIP for who knows how many dances. Could it have been $500 per hour worth? Could definitely be more especially if you include the cost of the young girl he brought.
Is he stupid?
I guess to some people he has to be because not only isn't he getting to see the dancers and the hot young woman do whatever it is they're doing in the VIP, he isn't getting any contact! So essentially he is paying BIG bucks for conversation.
Surprise, surprise, but I don't think the wealthy old guy is stupid just because he doesn't have standard issue tastes. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
BTW, I think the prevailing attitude although I haven't taken a head count is very negative toward dancers on this board.
Of course, the numbers of "readers" whether zero or 500 million has nothing to do with the prevailing attitude. I also think, but haven't done any polling that the prevailing attitude of customers in general toward dancers is negative. Furthermore, imo, it is the customers who are generally "delusional" or "dumb." :) Yes, sireeee the expectation that a dancer is going to become your girlfriend is all too common and the "rage" that dancers charge too much for basically "partying" is also all too real, imo. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Another consideration when talking about the dancer who charges $500 per hour. It isn't like she is booked for 8 straight hours generally. Nor can she invent hours as attorneys are free to do. Furthermore, she really isn't an employee. More *like* self-employed.
As to chandler's point. Prevailing attitude has nothing to do with how many people are reading this board. I would think he just "misspoke." But, to clarify. 500 million people could be avidly reading every word of the posters. Or zero could be reading. It has absolutely nothing to with the prevailing attitude on the board. Zero. Zip. Nada Nothing. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
I've paid them upfront. Sometimes it has paid off big in my favor and other times I've been burnt!
There really aren't a ton of women who have the looks, the skill, and the willingness to perform that I'm looking for. Oh before some moron says well you're only paying $5 so you get what you pay, I have been to Tootsies. That really doesn't have what I'm looking for. I have just as much or more chance hanging out at the $5 clubs. And, if Tootsies does have what I'm looking for then the prices I'm being quoted are $25 for 3 minutes. That is out of my budget. :(
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi David9999,
I think the NFL, although not a free market, provides repeated good examples. Kurt Warner was working as a bag boy for Publix. He kept trying and trying. Lucky for him the Rams had a couple key injuries at QB and suddenly he is the man. So was he worth hundreds of thousands that one NFL team was willing to pay or should he have been happy with any bag boy opportunity? A better example is Leslie Shepard of the Miami Dolphins. He had a fantastic year at receiver. He thought and his agent thought that he would get a nice contract offer from *some* team. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nothing. So instead of getting a nice contract or any contract he was out of football. Jay Fiedler out of football bouncing around and unemployed a good deal of time finally lands a lucrative contract with the Dolphins. Junior Seau for the Patriots. The story goes that Seau was being interviewed at his retirement and the reporter incorrectly stated that Seau didn't want to play anymore. Well, Seau corrected him and said that he and his agent were unable to find a team even willing to pay him league minimum. The coach of the Pats allegedly hears that and presto Seau has a new job with a Super Bowl caliber team.
The point being you don't have to be "world class" to command good compensation.
Another example is over at Angels there was a $5 dancer. I kept telling her The Trap. The Trap. The Trap. That is if she cared a lot about money, which she didn't. Finally, she goes to The Trap (I think she had a conflict at Angels) and BOOM suddenly she has a line of customers (inlcuding me) willing to pay her either $20 or $25 per dance. With the right customers she is gold. She 1) couldn't understand that and 2) you have to find the customers!
The point? Half the battle is finding the customers. Actually I think it is often 99% of the battle. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
A life sentence for both "crimes." :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Interesting way to look at it Book Guy. I just got done reading a newspaper story where a lady, age 21, had sex with a 5 year old boy. He is 16 years old now and doesn't even remember the act. Anyway, a judge has order a new trial supposedly because he feels the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Florida law supposedly mandated life behind bars without parole. Given that there is a huge surplus of prison cells that need to be filled it seems like a life sentence is the way to go. :)
I think the vast majority don't give a rat's ass what harm if any was caused when sex is involved. And, on other boards the prevailing opinion is that theft is theft and amount or harm is irrelevant. Supposedly under the common law harm was crucial to conviction or damages, but we have progressed. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
And, it was a funny joke indeed parodyman. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
imnumnutz: That is an interesting story. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
I still remember this fat tough biker who said any man who pays for a woman is a pussy. And, he is bragging that he gets sex on demand. I ask the obvious, imo, what does she look like? Suddenly big bad biker boy isn't so bitching. Yep, his woman was more disgusting than I had feared. I said look I'm thrilled to be able to pay for good looks and performance. And, of course he starts up with the nonsense that looks are irrelevant. Because he doesn't mind or likes blubber and open sores and missing teeth and tats, then everyone has to feel the same way. He also mentions he is no beauty queen---what an understatement, but he was more attractive than his woman. :(
It really comes down to the price of beauty or the price of fantasy. Those worthless paintings that I would put in the trash go for what? Millions? They're complete garbage. Who would hang that Mona Lisa (sp?) in their home? It is an eye sore. :( Yet, it is worth millions. If I couldn't profit from it, then I'd much rather spend millions on cute dancers. Who was the Clinton official, married btw, who was paying his mistress over $250,000 of his own money? I think he was in charge of housing. What little I saw of the man---the woman definitely was earning her money. He just seemed like garbage, imo.
Historically, I believe some hot consorts truly banked by todays standards, at least that is the view expressed in one book. :) If true, then maybe it was because beauty was even rarer?
discussion comment
17 years ago
"Agree, what confuses people is that while its always somehow in the end about the money,(I mean they ARE doing a job)"
There are RARE exceptions. Felicity at Diamonds actually took a financial beating to give me fantastic dances in the VIP. When I say financial beating, I don't mean she made less or didn't make money. I mean she *lost* money. If I had known at the time that she got charged $5 for each dance, then there is NO way I would have allowed that to happen.
And as far as me being some fantastic customer of hers where she could afford to take an occasional loss---not really the case. Most of my visits she would just ignore me because she knew that I wanted GFE and she told me flat out she wouldn't do GFE when her relationship with her loser boyfriend was ok. Extras, not a problem at all. Conversation, not a problem at all. Lap dances, not a problem at all. GFE, big problem as long as her boyfriend isn't being a total piece of sh*t. Not only that, I later learned Felicity was an in demand dancer. This is a girl that also worked at a $5 club and it wasn't for the money. LOL! Sorry, but Felicity just didn't need $5 a dance when Diamonds (an expensive club) was eager to have her work especially full time.
Once in a blue moon, a dancer and customer will just hit it off. It is rare. I strongly prefer to keep some compensation in place--most dancers won't do that. A couple will say well that is your problem if want to continue paying and the relationship can continue. I can't repeat often enough that I believe these are exceptions. More likely with me, imo, because often it seems like the dancer and I share a poverty background.
discussion comment
17 years ago
How much is the typical non-star NFL football player worth if he has to work at Walmart? Assuming Walmart will even hire him.
It is funny how it seems like pro-capitalists object when a dancer who may not have any real value at Walmart does have value in other areas of life. Looks, imo, are extremely valuable and worth paying for. If they ain't valuable, then it is NO problemo because there are plenty of ugly women available.
How much do some of these super models make? Millions? For what? Looking good. What do some sports stars make? Millions? For what? Entertainment. So a cute young woman who might not have any value at Walmart or Burger King wants $1,000 for 2 hours of conversation. Big deal. If the buyer doesn't feel it is a fair value, then there are other avenues of entertainment. A bunch. If it is just sex, then plenty of escorts are available.
Is an attorney worth $1,000 for 2 hours. Definitely if he can win. I think the cute young women is a better gamble. :)
One thing I do disagree with MIDancer about on this compensation issue is that it isn't just TIME. It is SKILL even if that means keeping your mouth shut or conversely giving a good fantasy via conversation. How much was the phone sex charging? $6 a minute? I don't know, but I remember it seemed expensive. So at $6 a minute that would be $720 for 2 hours. I'd rather have a hot woman in person for the extra $280 and in fact that seems like a steal in comparison.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Sounds like a good idea to me, which means it is definitely a bad idea. :)
discussion comment
17 years ago
TEST POST.
discussion comment
17 years ago
TEST POST.
It doesn't sound like a customer relationship at all really. But, as I said even if there was a long time business relationship once the money stops flowing the ballgame changes especially where the relationship continues for years after the money stops.
discussion comment
17 years ago
MIDancer hit the nail on the head with her second paragraph. The customer doesn't want to pay for the dancer's TIME, then he needs to find a different dancer or escort or other form of entertainment.
I did have a much longer post, but it didn't post. Essentially, how much is an attorney worth working on a roof or dancing or playing football? Really how much are they worth as attorneys? Does it make any difference if it isn't a free market? In my experience it is just an extortion racket.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Hi David9999,
The way I'm looking at it is TIME and SKILL. A good portion of the women that I know in the business would want to charge the same for freaky hot sex or conversation. It just doesn't make much difference to them and in fact the sex might be perferable because it is easier. Yes, sex can be easier than holding an interesting conversation for hours or pretending to be in love. Also, one complaint that I have with dancers is for most it is difficult for them to keep up the act. You want hardcore action--easy. You want a GFE that isn't so easy apparently. I've found women who seem to have no problem with that, but those women are rare. And, I'm eager to do business with them and they don't lack in clients from what I can see. Worse, they tend to burn out or move on quicker generally.
The Walmart example doesn't hold up if you think about it a little more. How much is an attorney worth fixing roofs? Most of those guys I'd probable end up throwing off the roof. How much is an attorney worth as a dancer? Generally, they just don't got the body. $3 per hour would be too much for some of these attorneys unless they promised to keep their clothing on.
One point MIDancer raises is why should the dancer go to all the trouble of OTC if the client doesn't want to pay? Is she sort on business? Is the work easier? Read MIDancer's second paragraph it makes a lot of sense, imo.
Finally, for the man who just wants the sex from the hot dancer that really shouldn't be a problem so don't waste your money paying for something you don't value as highly i.e. conversation.
The other issue is what does the client value? Believe it or not for some clients especially old farts the value of the sex act is fairly low. They may want romance or a trophy or who knows what. If the woman wants to charge $2,000 per hour for conversation and it meets some clients needs, then it might be a good deal for both parties. How much are these football players worth? What the market will bear? Does it make any difference that it isn't a free market?