Comments by Book Guy (page 15)

Though I'm a Progressive (not necessarily a Democrat) I nevertheless can concur with a good deal of what Puddy_Tat just said. The Supreme Court is definitely not supposed to be the "tool" of either Left or Right, and I do see a LOT of left-leaning complaints that the court can no longer be relied on for their agenda. Well duh, and honestly that's a good thing. I want that agenda, but I want it legislated. Just trying to pipe up with cross-the-aisle style agreement whenever I can manage it. :)

Love the Lucy reference. My particular experience also included the dancer saying phrases like "Giggling Island" and "Island of Giggles" as she tried out a few names to see which one sounded right. Also, if she knew there was a Professor, then that fact suggests to me ... umm ... something? Google tells me that the original "Gilligan's Island" series aired from 1964 to 1967, a time when pretty much none of us was yet watching television, though I am familiar with the sit-com, so it would have to have been in re-runs that she (or I) would ever have encountered it. I also know the original series of "Star Trek" (with Shatner and Nimoy, of course) backwards and forwards, 1966 to 1969, but I was similarly too young to have seen it in any form other than re-run syndication.

@Manuellabore If your discussion wants to extend the envelope just a little bit, there are "rub and tug" (generally Asian) massage parlors all over the country, probably in every major city. Do these count as "extras clubs" (as per the original post title) or are they of a different category?

Doesn't this mostly depend on location? I personally would like to be able to say, "Yes, I'm generally expecting to find extras service when I go to a strip club," but that cannot be true where I live, since it's a strong rarity and highly expensive. So I can't truthfully say it, though I would hope for it. When I have gone on monger's trips to Pompano Beach, Toronto, Houston, I always could say quite definitely, "Yes, I'm expecting extras." If I hadn't found them, it would have been specific bad luck and probably not general lack of opportunity. When I stay at home I cannot say as much.

On the subject of abortion, I think the American Left got it wrong back in the 1970s when they attached it to privacy and personal bodily integrity rights. They could perhaps have done better long-term if they had, instead, presented abortion as a business opportunity for small doctor-led clinics nation-wide, and had somehow attached the right to making a profit off of small businesses to the right for a doctor to engage in a profitable medical practice in whatever manner he would choose, unfettered by over-reaching government influence. Make it more like cosmetic surgery for ethically questionable aims, where the perceived "wrong" of an act takes back seat to the potential profit from it.

Maybe it's prevalent on girls who don't strip regularly?

Anybody know if shares in DJT have made it into any managed funds (Money Market funds, etc.) yet? I don't know how to do that kind of investigation. I would like to know what kind of institutional investors are going after it. Not that I'm buying -- no frickin' way I'd put money in DJT, neither of the legal persons involved here, neither the corporation nor the human -- but I'm definitely curious.

I see so many false statements asserted as though they are fact that I am sure Fox News informs this thread. Please, recognize that the combination of "Fox" next to "News" is an oxymoron.

@skibum609 "my pay as an 25k a year in 1983" That amount approximates to $78,500 in 2024 (according to amortization.com). Current average ADA salary is $35,000 in my jurisdiction. Literally less than half what you made. Your own numbers prove your lack of insight.

@Muddy maybe the waitresses will start dancing -- yup good point. Also @Muddy your point about the White House. Yeah, although I vote Left (generally) I'm extremely disappointed in how the Biden administration continues to insist that the economy is doing well. OK OK, so excess corporate profits are indeed at record levels. Now can you please notice the fact that rent and food are literally unaffordable on a standard salary? And that people with two masters degrees are having to share apartments and moonlight? And that the American Dream of owning a home is gone for an entire generation? And that for all these crimes, your excess corporate profits ARE THE CULPRIT?

Toronto.

You're right, that these places are a cultural main-stay. People depend on the Applebee's-type setting for employment and for eating, the whole system is geared around it, the commute and the amount of time spent at work and when the after-school activities start and so forth. Waffle House and IHOP serve kids at a very low price and effectively are after-school baby-sitters in some locations. I wonder if individually owned places will arise to replace them when there is demand. The locally owed diner could make a comeback?

Interesting discussion. @Dolfan says," The fact that you went into that place I can't really see anyone caring about." Well, I am not too worried about it, but then again, I DON'T HAVE A WIFE. But then again, it is true that my basic info is already out there, as you say. Do you guys know about the porn copyright-trolls who were abusing the court system as a means to extort money? They'd figure out how to get a record of the people who were downloading a particular porn producer's content without paying. On behalf of the porn producer, they would simply contact the supposed perpetrators and let them know. "Hey, we have a record that you watched 'Big Tits Number 99' on the internet but you didn't pay us $5.99. We'll tell your wife unless you settle the lawsuit with us." Often they didn't even have to instigate a lawsuit, just threaten to do so, because usually the amount of porn (and maybe the type) was embarrassing enough that any John would want it kept secret. The initial threat usually included a link to an automated website where you could pay "to have your information removed without penalty" or similar. Well, anyway, I could see this kind of info getting out and being similarly used against the Joe's and John's who go to strip clubs. Wouldn't like it.

I'm a Progressive, and politically very anti-Trump. But, I would prefer that he not be found guilty in the current case (Marchand's courtroom NYC, campaign-finance hush-money cover-up payment to Stormy Daniels). And if he is found guilty, I would prefer that he not be sentenced to jail time. For the other cases, I have other preferences. But for this one, it seems too much a technicality. He did it, but was it illegal? He admits to almost everything required for the crime. It's not that he denies doing it. He paid Cohen. Cohen paid Daniels / Clifford. Pecker knew of the payment and got his own payment and agreed with Trump to kill the story. They all together did it for the benefit of the campaign, to increase Trump's likelihood of getting elected. All of this is pretty much undisputed. On the other hand, it's up-in-the-air whether it was truly a quid-pro-quo arrangement, and whether there's really anything wrong with him managing potentially bad press during a campaign. So, the question, mostly, isn't, "did he do it?" The question is, rather, "is what he did illegal?" It sounds to me like he needed a better Campaign Treasurer, who knew how to fill out the bank books more carefully. I personally think that yes, it was illegal (I didn't watch the whole trial) but I also personally think it's way too nigglety-pigglety a technicality, all about which line-item in which ledger matches which other line-item, to put someone in jail. And I'm speaking as a hardcore Left winger. I would probably vote Trotsky if you gave me a chance. Additionally, even if found guilty, I would prefer he not do jail time. I think doing "real hard time" for paperwork technicalities is generally an excessive punishment (except in cases like Madoff and other major swindlers who ruined lives). And I think former Presidents doing hard time for campaign finance fraud is simply a dangerous direction to go. For insurrection? Yes, full Federal prison. For treason? Of course, maybe even execution, depending. (I also don't think Trump's actions on January 6, 2021, rise to the level of treason, BTW.) But State campaign finance misdeeds? Too tenuous. I choose most of this so as not to demean the potential crimes and the potential sentences. A place like Riker's needs to be used only for something major. The punishment needs to fit the crime, and a lesser punishment needs to be levied so that greater punishments can be reserved for greater actions. Thus we don't combine all crimes into one big bucket of "bad," but rather we continue to distinguish among them intelligently. For this reason I'm similarly against Civil-Rights-violation enhancements to longstanding criminal statutes. For example, I don't think the act of killing A BLACK MAN should be punished more stringently than the act of killing ANY human. But some places manage to do the former, including the Federal crime books, by adding on a Civil Rights violation to the murder. Seems to me, this devalues the murder of non-Black people somehow. And remember, I say all this as a Left-wing voter. It's not that I'm apologizing for Trump. I hope that ultimately he gets what he deserves for his fomenting of an insurrection. That should be enough for twenty years in a Federal pen, IMO. I don't see that coming to pass, not in several decades but then again ... it would be nice to tie him up in litigation until he dies, too, now wouldn't it?

During the private lapper, I seek slow and sensual. Up close and personal. If, for example, you have a set of choreographed moves which involve rapid gyrations after X number of grinds or Y number of bends, then you're going to bore me and I'm going to see through your sterile act immediately. But if you warm me up, and then you (seem to) get warmed up with me, I will keep you around for repeat performances to the great benefit of your income. Mumble in my ear, lightly graze my arms or thighs with your fingernails, let me smell your perfume up close, treat me like I'm your boyfriend for three or four minutes. Do not show off the fact that you took Modern and Jazz when you were in Junior College. A kick-line? Jazz hands? A four-square? No thank you. Even amazing flexibility -- legs straight splits, f.e. --seems non-erotic to me, and rather athletic. It's great if you can do it, but it's not SEXY to me. Sexiness, please, not performer-ness. Whether the tops or bottoms come off during the private dance, is more a question of jurisdiction than anything else. In some places, you can't get away with that; in other places it's all but required. I personally probably wouldn't enjoy myself very much if I could not fondle titties and have her fully straddling me, since I have experienced those actions as a standard minimum for all of my lap-dance buying custom for all of my strip-club-attending life, but if that's utterly impossible in a given location I would understand those limitations and not hold a dancer's reticence against her. I just wouldn't buy a lot of dances in that location. During a stage set, I wish to see your body and how you operate it. If you keep clothing on, just because it's a hassle to remove it, then I will sensibly assume you are hiding something hideous underneath that clothing and I will lose interest. If instead you show your body but it turns out to be unappealing to me, you have lost nothing more than my interest which you would have lost in the first place. If you think you are large, you may be instead appealing and muscular. I like supple body types, even if they are mildly non-feminine. Other guys have other preferences. Pole tricks are OK, but not erotic, to me. If you have a great routine on stage, I will notice that you are putting energy into it, but I won't necessarily draw a conclusion that I wish for you to dance privately for me. I think the on-stage performance is mostly for me to simply assess whether or not your body-type is adequate to turn me on, and therefore adequate for me to want private dances. You could turn me off. For example, being utterly clumsy, or moving in a derogatory or excessively trashy way, may turn me off. Otherwise, as long as you manage a gentle gyration and perhaps some slinky or sultry demeanor, I don't really mind what you do on stage. Your outfit is almost entirely beside the point. Pick what flatters your body type best, and then wear six-inch platform heels along with it. It doesn't matter if the tops match the bottoms, if the ribbons match the shoes, if the purse is the right one for the outfit. A plain bikini and platforms is enough. No more effort is required. Any greater effort expended, is for you to compare yourself to the other girls in the club. The guys mostly won't notice at all. Is that a school-girl outfit or a bo-peep outfit or a manga-girl outfit? I don't know, I don't care, I can't see your tits if you keep that top on no matter what the outfit. Presuming your body passes muster, then it's up to your talk. Your conversation with me at table-side afterwards will determine whether or not I'm going to start to spend on private dances. If you've done poorly in school, please do not make stuff up about an education that you do not have. You will not fool most educated men, into thinking you're educated, if you're not. Being genuine, and seeing the humor in the situation, will be much more appealing. Furthermore, appealing is, nearly always, a LOT less body fat than most women tend to assume. To be "normal" or "big boned" or "athletic" or "strong" or ... ANYTHING other than rather small ... is to be "fat," which I find unappealing. Most men do. The discussion of "how fat is too fat" will go on long into the night. Rest assured, the cutoff point is MUCH LESS THAN YOU THINK IT IS.

I see corporate feed-o-raunts struggling but higher-end individual-chef restaurants here in touristy New Orleans are doing the same as ever, it seems. Tourism is down generally, but within the tourist sector, the restaurant sub-sector isn't doing particularly worse than any other sub-sector. I wouldn't shed much of a culinary tear if Applebee's went out of business, though I did condescend to a Boston Market once in a while. Part of what they could do to stave off their economic difficulties would be, to stop bilking their staff so miserably that they have such rapid turnover (since their business model seems universally to have assumed quite wrongly that table-waiting can be treated as a non-skilled entry-level position); and maybe after that mind-bending innovation, they could also start serving good food. But that's probably too much to ask.

IMO it's part of the breakdown of civil society. People haven't grown up with the notion that cooperation is a civic duty. Somehow they get the idea, instead, that because "it's a free country" that means they get to "do what I want" regardless of its impact on other people. Ask the woman who is blocking the checkout line while she stands around to talk on her phone, could she move over so the rest of us can get to the cash register, please, but she replies, "I know my rights" and doesn't budge. No, lady, you DON'T know your rights, that's just an expression you use for, "I intend to be selfish." This thread identifies the problem in terms of driving but I see it all over. I think Right and Left are equally guilty, in different ways -- MAGA idiots wanting to break the law and overturn the Constitution because it's "good for the country" to have a violent insurrection (what country? the one you eliminated in the name of improving it?) and Woke idiots wanting to command everyone to be just like them because it's "good for the country" to increase supposed-"tolerance" (what tolerance? of the people you were just now intolerant toward?). The social contract, abstractly speaking, gathers together the traditions of Western democracies into a simple idea. You can't engage in whatever action you want, if that action infringes on OTHER people's right to engage in whatever action THEY want. You have to COMPROMISE. Otherwise you don't get to live in civilized society. Often we have laws that lay out the specific preferred manner of compromise -- upholding your end of a contract, keeping right on the road when you're going slow, not shooting others in the head even though they may piss you off -- but even in the absence of explicit rules, it's still our duty to infer the implicit rules and abide by them. I remember being told all of this, in pretty clear terms, several times over, during the course of my schooling. I had grade-school religion class, which wasn't really about religion, it was about doing the right thing. I had junior-high level general history, and full-fledged US history in high school, in both of which we read smatterings of Locke and Rousseau and talked about this or that obvious concept. I had a Civics class, where we were supposed to be indoctrinated into the wonders of a Bicameral Legislature and of Separation of Powers, and a lot of that was all about civil society. It wasn't all that high-falutin', since I didn't really attend very good schools, mostly; they were just run-of-the-mill. My experience was typical, though -- everybody my age knows about this Social Contract thing. Not any more. Who let these idiots out of Middle School?

Depends on the context. Dancers in the city where I live definitely can differentiate themselves through conversation skill and negotiation tactics, and there aren't really a large number of women who are doing (what might be called) committed companionship (dancing and/or ITC, OTC, escorting, Sugar-Baby-ing, etc.) without any other source of income other than what their allure exacts from males for gratifying sexual desires of some level. Here, "just show up" tactics will get very low reward, to the point that it's probably more lucrative for any such dancer to leave right away and stop paying the club fees. They have to push harder than that. Other cities have other requirements. The OP's reviews indicate he probably hails from the Atlanta area. There are, as I understand it, a lot of spur-of-the-moment ITC arrangements in that city, so maybe if you calculate that most dancers are gaining income on that basis there, then perhaps "just show up" is really all they're doing. Thus the OP's theory perhaps holds true, that all they have to do is, be there, look good, make an exchange of dollars for services, consider that a day's work, and go home. And I disagree with the whole premise. It sounds to me like the OP is trying to put some moral higher or or lower status on certain types of market activity, and to use rather vague words ("hustler" in particular) in exactingly specific definitions, definitions he has come up with and intends for the rest of us to adhere to. People with complex skills who engage in long-term planning, somehow, according to him, are lesser or greater than people with nothing but appealing body types. And the ones we do or don't approve of, we must be careful to refer to only with his definition of the word "hustler." It's a strange top-down approach to observation of human nature, in which the OP feels there is somehow a right or wrong to sex-related work and the vocabulary that attends it. What would he do if I said I'm on the down low. But not that way. And she got some sugar but not babying. Dap dat. Does he approve or disapprove? Is it worth abiding by his ruling?

New Orleans has some extremely skinny girls, thin to the point of skinnier-than-a-spinner. They almost inevitably are of light-skinned probably European descent and seem to come from smaller country-town type locations. I do not speculate here as to the reason for their skinniness but I certainly have my theories.

Another point, can this be compared to boob-jobs? I personally am very turned off by "bolt-on" tits -- large fake breasts, designed to look perfectly spherical and fake-ish. I know that I don't like the look simply by looking, and thanks to negative experience at strip clubs I also know that I don't like the feel. I almost 100% require that any dancer I have a lapper from, will have natural tits, or at least if her tits are surgically enhanced, then I would insist that they be subtle to the point of "not seeming like fake tits" fake tits. I admit, there are some porn-starlets who pull off the fake-tit look and manage to please me, f.e. Rikki Sixx and Jessie Rogers, but I haven't yet hit on any club dancers that successfully cross that line for me. So, if I find bolt-ons unappealing, should I inform the dancer? Anyone have (as per original post) "how to subtly convey" my opinion that fake tits are inherently "fucking ugly as shit"? /sarcasm ... maybe

Strip clubs demand is not exactly needs-based (it can feel like it) but rather wants-based (hierarchy of needs would put several things before strip-clubbing, f.e., food and shelter and then other false-necessities of typical urban living living like car insurance and attractive shoes etc.). Nevertheless the bad sales tactics of strippers often surprise me. On the subjects of garlic breath, dirty fingernails, torn or merely casual clothing, ratty shoes, being sick and sneezing all over the place, smelling heavily of the weed they're toking in the dressing room, being so stoned or high they can't connect sentences, smelling of farts and other body odor, I just want to ask, "are you so frickin' clueless?" I think some guys put tattoos and piercings in that same category. I personally think tattoos and piercings are not necessarily in the same clueless-idiot category but I can see why some guys have that kind of reaction to them. Maybe it's from her civilian life. If she sports a great deal of piercings or tattoos, she probably made the decisions to get those things at a time when she was not thinking about maximizing her stripper income. Similar with shaved-head looks, f.e. the half-side-shave and the butch-but-dangly looks if you can guess what I mean. Those choices (and many related others) of style preference, are decisions generally made without considering the potential impact on stripping income. So I figure there really are two categories to talk about, when you're talking about strippers' stylistic choices. One group, are dancers who choose to appear the way that will increase stripper income. Another group, are those who choose on the basis of a large portion of their life that is not stripping -- girls who want to look edgy (or whatever other crazy idea crops up in their purdy li'l haids) so they get a lot of tattoos and piercings and head shaves, and THEN later also add onto their life the fact that they strip at a club. With this second group, the look isn't designed for maximizing stripper success, but rather, it's chosen for getting a certain appeal in OTHER parts of their life. You can sometimes see an edge-girl trying to become a demure-girl, wearing bo-peep or schoolgirl outfits (the juxtaposition can be sexy, depending on how she pulls it off and what a given customer's preferences are) even though their hairstyle really doesn't make sense with that outfit. Other edge-girls don't try to be demure girls. It might be interesting to try to watch a transition over say a six-month period as f.e. a girl leaves home for the first time, at first with all the piercings and shavings baggage that got her in with the cool boys at her high school or junior college, getting a job dancing, but then slowly figuring out and trying to implement a new hairstyle and some other accoutrement adjustments. Or maybe not figuring it out ... A dancer who really does choose to maximize her income, and makes some longer-term planning decisions based on that, will start observing the men in her target market and figuring out how to cater to us. If she really is making her most money from men who prefer the edgy look, then it's a smart choice on her part, to cultivate the edgy look. However, my guess is, there aren't a lot of guys in the edgy-crowd who are spending well on strippers. The spenders are other guys, men who have disposable income and a certain shall-we-say libertarian (small-L) bent. Depending on the city and the night of the week and so forth, the money is probably coming from the 40 to 50 something solo males with professional office-bound corporate jobs (or job-settings). The looks of the dancer need to be what THAT GUY wants. Same probably applies to the music choices as well, although personally I don't often decide on whether or not I prefer a dancer on the basis of what noise is going on in the context around her. If there's any type of pop or rock music that I would like to listen to, it's certainly not what I'm hearing at strip clubs. The clubs are playing something that I guess is crunk or rap or hard-ass or butch-bang or something else I don't know how to name. The music choices are probably made by the DJ and management on the basis of what they think their customers most prefer, and (highly important) buy drinks during. If the music can match the sound of a good lap-dancing song as well, that's probably just good luck, an added unintended benefit after the decision was made.

Book Guy -- asks what he thinks is a legitimate question. Conservatives -- respond by calling Book Guy stupid and then hollering about how everything is obvious, without stating clear or obvious things, and listing several other things that piss them off that aren't germane to the original question. Liberals -- respond by calling the conservatives stupid and then listing tons of stuff that begin to seem both clear and obvious. Book Guy -- starts to realize the real answer to his question ...

whoops interesting the at-sign-text-dot makes an unwanted link doh

@Call.Me.Ishmael Thanks for that clarification. I suspected as much but didn't know it was as explicit and cynical as that. Makes more sense now.

Pics and videos or it didn't happen.