discussion comment
17 years ago
Book Guy -- Technically the more precise term is "steely dan," which is a metal dildo. My understanding of harrydave's excellent suggestion was that the dildo would be cast in bronze, hence a steely dan.
harrydave -- I am glad you made it out alive from Vics. But I feel sad that I was not aware you were in the hood. You were remarkably close to where I work and live. If something again causes you to be in NJ (or the NYC metro area for that matter), please oblige me by shooting me a pm beforehand, and we can meet up. I know NJ gets a good ribbing (and I don't mind that), but there are nicer places to go than Vics.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Yes a steely dan for nj I love it. Told you the clubs in Jersey were weird. You're a brave guy to go to Vics; I don't have the guts.
discussion comment
17 years ago
No satire? Ok, Delilah's Den in South Amboy is the best, and I note it is not just my experience, other reviewers have said the same thing. The bottom line is they have a private room, and management takes a "hands off" position, so rent the room and go have sex. There is a group of clubs in North Jersey run by "Johnny A" (I think he has like six or so clubs), and of those Players is the best. The LD room is disgusting and there's little or no privacy, but it does not matter, there is always (at least every time I've been there) at least one Brazilian that will fuck you anyway. They literally will just pull the strap to their bottoms to one side, and ride on your dick. VIP in Orange also has a private VIP room, my only complaint being that it is too pricey. But you can have sex there, and management will leave you alone (it all comes down to management, in my opinion). That's where I've had the best luck in North/Central Jersey so far. There are a number of places in the Newark and Irvington area that are well reviewed, but I am unwilling to chance it because I am familiar with the area, and I think it is just too dangerous -- too dangerous at least for a guy in a suit. I've had my car broken into outside a strip club once on Route 46 and that is a very hard thing to explain to the wife. I would avoid Hott 22 in Union which is way overrated. In South Jersey, I will put in a plug for the Playhouse, where I got laid, although you have to watch out for those cameras. All satire aside, I think NJ is a very strange place. There are a ton of strip clubs here, but the quality really varies. Some people have suggested that mileage hounds like me are willing to go to places that are a little seedier. I cannot disagree with that assessment, and there are certainly some pretty seedy spots in the Garden State. Does that answer your inquiry?
discussion comment
17 years ago
Ok, I hear what you're saying, but I am genuinely curious. If you live in or near Atlanta, there are a lot of great escorts there, some of the best in the country. (Plus there are a lot of great looking girls in Atlanta, but that's another story.) So even if the best clubs in Atlanta prohibit sex in the clubs (I'm taking your word on that), why not just get an escort? Wouldn't that be more satisfying to you?
discussion comment
17 years ago
Yes, I understand completely your approach to reviews. So when you wrote in your last review (and I quote):
"There were a fair amount of girls . . . but not one dancer came up to say
anything to me...even when I tipped at the railing! . . . It looked like
there might have been a fair amount of "activity" going on from what I
could see under the drapes though."
This was really code language for what you meant to say, which was:
"As soon as I walked in I was mobbed by about 5 girls, all 10s, ranging in
age from 18 to 19 years old. They tore off my clothes and raped me on the
spot."
Thanks for the clarification. And you're right, I'm not in your league. Guess I'll just have to keep clubbing in the seedy environs of Joisey. Sniff.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Ah, yeah, right, a guy who can't make it in 20+ strip club trips (who in one of his most recent trips can't even get the strippers to talk to him) is having three way sex (or "more way" sex, we're not sure) in "several states."
Apart from being consistent (yesterday you weren't sure whether you ever came in your pants in a club, and admitted to wearing shorts for better action) you've gotta come up with a more credible story line. How about this?
You're a highly trained medical specialist (both your B.A. and M.D. from Harvard). You're traveling back to the States from a trip to Nepal, where you were climbing Everest, and also helping to run a charity clinic for the poor little Nepalese children. You have a layover in Paris, and so you head into a bar for a drink, where there just happens to be a high school girls lacrosse team. Fortunately your French is fluent. You order your martini, shaken not stirred, and . . .
See, that's much more believable than the BS in your last post.
discussion comment
17 years ago
That's great MisterGuy, how much did it run you? What do you mean you had three way "or" more way sex? You can't remember? Don't you keep track of how many hookers you hire at a time? Is this kind of like not being sure whether you did or did not drop a load in your drawers? Whatever . . .
discussion comment
17 years ago
Well I won't continue to defend the honor of my sadly maligned adopted home state, except to note that the odds of getting mileage here appear to be better than MisterGuy reports on his Canada/RI reviews. I like Canada, by the way, especially Montreal. For all I know, Rhode Island is a lovely place too. I won't tell you that your home state "sucks." My invitation to club together stands, even if you do keep saying "NJ sucks." No hard feelings on my part. And if I am ever in your area without my wife, I'll look you up and we'll go clubbing together. You can take me to your best clubs. I'll have sex, and you'll enjoy chatting with the girls at the bar.
I do not begrudge anyone who does not want to have sex in the clubs. That's not my approach, obviously, but it does not bother me if someone prefers to spend their money just so that a young girl will talk to him.
But THIS thread (as the topic title indicates) is actually about cumming in your pants, for chrissake. The guys who are doing that are obviously looking for more than "friendship" or socializing -- they want to get their nut off. And from all the posts on this site, that is obviously not an accidental or incidental occurrence. You have guys putting on nylon shorts in the dead of winter; pulling their dicks out of their underwear; sticking paper towels down their pants; and going thru all sorts of elaborate measures so they can drop a load in their pants. It is this particular behavior that I am struggling hard to understand.
I feel genuine sympathy for someone who feels that is their only option. As a man myself, I feel bad seeing my fellow men engaging in behavior that must feel at least a little degrading, at least some of the time. Even some of the posters on this thread have talked about feeling "shame." So I feel bad for them, but I do not understand why they do it.
I guess the response is that cumming in your pants is the only thing available in some parts of the country. If true, respectfully, I would urge the cum-in-your-pants-crowd (to be distinguished from the no-sex-in-the-club-crowd) to go on strike. You obviously want sex if you are cumming in your pants. So insist on it. If the club bans it, stop going. I bet they will re-think their business strategy if they lose customers.
Meanwhile, why not save your time and money for real sex, either with a civilian or an escort? No matter where you live there must be some girls who are willing to fuck. But I would not let someone manipulate me into paying $$$$ for the pleasure of soiling myself. Cumming in your pants is not a substitute for sex.
Related to this, by the way (a topic for a completely different thread, I guess) is how many guys in clubs are just really awkward and uncomfortable around women, and so use strip clubs as a substitute for a regular romantic life. I have been getting sad stories about guys who are paying money for the most meager rewards -- a little feel of the boobs, a goodnight kiss with an ATF after dinner, etc. Again, I don't blame any girl for making a living the best way she can in this cruel world, but I feel pretty lousy for the guys if they are being used like that. If this represents a significant portion of the club going population, then that would go a long way to explaining why some guys are putting up with what otherwise should be obviously manipulative bullshit. I would urge those guys to stand up for themselves. You are entitled to a rich and full sex life, not a crummy substitute for one.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Only you can say, but if it's a business relationship, I think you're free to cut the cord whenever you want. If it's a friendship or romantic relationship, then I think you owe it to her to treat her the same way you would treat any other friend or girlfriend, and not just summarily dump her.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Dear MisterGuy
With regard to the original thread, no, I actually had no idea guys were cumming in their pants at strip clubs. The thought never occurred to me. I guess you guys are doing a pretty good job of hiding those wet spots on your nylon shorts. Kudos. Obviously, you're right, not everyone goes to clubs to have sex (some of the people on this site cannot have sex, sadly). But the guys who are cumming in their pants obviously want "something," and personally I am finding it difficult to understand why they don't get the real thing. Being a heterosexual guy, when I see a goodlooking nearly naked woman, my first thought is "I'd like to have sex with her." My first thought is not, "I'd like to bust a nut in my underwear." But as you say, different strokes for different folks (sorry for the pun).
But then, alas, you have to go and attack my adopted home state of New Jersey, a state that can proudly boast of Bruce Springsteen, Frank Sinatra and an ex-Governor who had three way sex with his wife and an aide (read today's paper). NJ sucks and Canada and RI rule, you say? Well, I've never been to SCs in Canada or RI, but you have, so let's look at your reviews (all quotes are your words; everything else is a fair summation of your words):
Satin Dolls (RI) -- the dancers wouldn't even talk to you
Chez Paree (Canada) -- "notoriously low contact"; no prolonged interaction
Super Sexe (Canada) -- "notoriously low contact"; you never got a dance
Gentleman's Choice (Canada) -- you didn't get a dance
Balloons (RI) -- $300 for 2 lapdances where you couldn't even touch the girls' breasts and you got a "dry HJ"
Studio 253 (RI) -- "self-service" only
Mickey's Valley View Pub (RI) -- you will "never find any extras at this place"
Desire (RI) -- $125 for a 15 minute dance and you got to touch the girl's pussy
Cadillac (RI) -- 1 dance; grinding only
Club L'Entre Neus (Canada) -- you gave this a "2" rating; the dancers are all "old" and "ugly"
Cheaters (RI) -- you did not get a dance
Les Belles De Nuit (Canada) -- you gave this a "1" rating; the dancers were "old, fat and homely"; extras were "not allowed"
Bar Le Gentleman (Canada) -- one of the few places you really liked; you said FS was $200; unclear if you partook
Desire (RI) -- you could rub your face on the dancer's breasts; you did not get a lapdance
Club Fantasies (RI) -- $130 in the VIP room could get you "full touching"
Satin Dolls (RI) -- you got 2 dances with "grinding" and you got to "peek inside their thongs"; but there were no extras
Sportsman Inn (RI) -- you gave this place a "1"; you said one girl flashed her breasts and her "box" at you
Chez Diane (Canada) -- this is another place you liked, but again it was not 100% clear what you got here. Your review said the lap dances were "full contact!" which suggests they were not "full service".
Bar Le Gentlemen (Canada) -- you say FS is available for $200, but it's unclear if you actually tried it
Club 35-10 (Canada) -- you were offered to lick a girl's nipples for $20 (you turned this offer down)
Club Downtown (Canada) -- another place you liked, but again it's unclear what is on the menu, if anything
Club Wandas (Canada) -- "NO CONTACT" dances
Club Super Contact (Canada) -- some contact is available here
Le Chateau due Sexe (Canada) -- the "contact" here does not include touching the pussy, which is prohibited
Cabaret Sex Appeal (Canada) -- same; you can't even touch the pussy
Hill Top (RI) -- FS is supposedly available (as usual, one can't tell if you actually tried it); during lapdances you can't touch the pussy
According to your own blog, in Montreal the strip clubs "won't tolerate" extras anymore.
Honestly, my friend, but the mileage appears to be pretty low in RI and Canada according to your reviews. Touching a girl's breasts or pussy don't count as "extras" in my book; that's called foreplay.
Dude, come on down to Jersey. Wondergrl and I will give you a tour of the high mileage clubs. And I promise you won't have to cum in your pants.
Your friend
njscfan
discussion comment
17 years ago
If you are dating a women (regardless of her occupation), then I think you would be a real cad to just dump her, even if you both know it is a non-exclusive relationship. I mean, if I pay the woman at the dry cleaner to clean my suits, but we also go out on a date every Saturday, then it's a dating relationship. I would be a shit to just stop calling her. I still can't tell whether you are really having a sexual relationship, or whether you are just going out to dinner together, but either way (that is, regardless of whether she is a lover or a friend) to just dump her would not be right. If on the other hand the reality is that she is only spending time with you because you are paying her money (in the form of excessive tips in the club, or expensive dinners and other "gifts"), then there's no point in kidding yourself, it's just a financial transaction, and I see nothing wrong with politely telling her that you've lost interest. If you're not sure which it is, there's an easy way to find out -- stop coming to the club, and see if she still returns your calls and goes out with you.
discussion comment
17 years ago
It's funny, because I never thought of my adopted home state of NJ as being a great place for sex. There are a lot of SCs here, but most of them are pretty crummy. Still, out of the 125 listed on TUSCL, it is possible to find at least a half dozen within driving distance that provide sex. It sounds like the strip club situation in your part of the country is even worse, and for that you have my sympathy. I know you are being sarcastic, but I also know you know I am able to have sex in strip clubs not because I am a "stud" but because I have $$$.
Having said that, I strongly suspect even in your region you will be able to find decent escorts. I would suggest looking at TER, which has one of the best search engines you will ever find. If you are going to spend $440, even in the NYC area, you could get a 2 hour session with a very very attractive escort that would include every sex act imaginable, with the possible exception of greek (there it will depend on the escort). Frankly, I suspect prices are lower where you live, so for that kind of money you could get a session that would be really memorable. In the friendliest way possible, I am suggesting that that would be a much more satisfying experience.
Maybe we are just in a different place in life, but there was a thread about this a short while ago (why go to strip clubs), and I fell firmly into the "I do it for sex" camp. If the girls in the clubs stopped providing sex, I would stop going.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Ok I have to ask this question, based on what someone said to me in a recent email:
When you guys talk about your "ATFs," are you simply talking about your girlfriends, or are you talking about women to whom you regularly pay money? If the former, then I don't think it is particularly courteous to just dump them as some posters suggest. If the latter, then obviously there is no real relationship there anyway, and either person can stop the transaction whenever he/she wants. There's no reason why you can't see five different prostitutes in a week. No one will mind as long as you make payment each time. (P.S. If you ARE paying them $$$, I sure hope you're having sex, and not just cumming in your pants. Lol.)
discussion comment
17 years ago
Please do not take this as a criticism, but I cannot understand why the one and only time you came in a club is in your pants. That's just not right. You should be having sex, not a form of glorified masturbation that doesn't even rise to the level of a handjob. We all moved past this when we were in high school, yes? If this makes me unusual I guess I will just have to live with being unusual, but I am not cumming in my pants. Ever.
If the club won't let you have sex, then I would not remain in that club. I am willing to give a new place a try for a little bit (maybe 30 minutes or so max), but if it's not producing any mileage, forget it. 22 lapdances -- that's $440 minimum where I come from -- for nothing more than soiling my pants? Why? For $440 I better be having sex. And yes, that's going to require pulling down my pants. Honestly for $440 you can hire a very nice escort who will meet you in a hotel room and spend an hour or more with you boning in every possible way. I am not going to pick on someone who pays for sex, but I think it is ridiculous to pay for nothing. Don't you want to have sex with these girls? Then why don't you?
Sex is not available at every club, obviously, but you can usually figure out pretty quickly which ones provide it and which ones don't -- if not from a site like this, then certainly with a visit. Again, I think the picture is usually crystal clear within 30 minutes of arrival. Within a few minutes you'll be asked for a dance, and in the first couple dances you can find out what the dancers think the club rules are. If sex is banned, then leave (unless all you want is to look at girls dancing in their underwear).
If sex is available at the club, I think it is silly to suggest you need to get to know the girl well. You only need to know if she is providing extras for sale, or not. If so, the only thing she's going to want to know about you is whether you can pay the freight. When I have had sex with the girls in the clubs (which is most of the time, since I avoid clubs where it is banned), it has happened within 5 minutes of meeting the right girl. It is just a question of finding the right girl at the right club -- once you've found each other, there's no need for a lengthy courtship.
This thing about getting drained of cash at the ATM is especially weird to me. If the club is such a ripoff, then leave. Go to an escort or at least an AMP and just have sex. It won't cost any more and it will be way more satisfying. If you keep blowing your wad in your pants, apart from the laundry bills, you are going to render yourself sexually dysfunctional, because when you finally do have sex, you'll be a premature ejaculator.
All together now: Stop cumming in your pants! Start having sex!
discussion comment
17 years ago
Guys I am not understanding this post, or the responses for that matter. Are you actually saying some guys ejaculate in their pants? Ick. Don't you get cum all over your clothes? Why do you do that -- I don't get it? Perhaps it's because I am a slightly, ahem, more mature gentleman (i.e., past 40), but I don't think I would ever come close to orgasm by having a woman do a lap dance where I kept all my clothes on. Can you guys really cum that easily?
When I have an orgasm in the club, it is because I am engaging in some form of sexual activity -- a BJ or intercourse. And in that case, I am wearing a condom, for obvious reasons. So I am not cumming in my pants, thank god. Instead, I'm cumming in her mouth or in her pussy. And while I never thought of it this way before, I guess one of the added benefits of wearing a condom is that my cum stays in the condom and doesn't get on anyone's clothing. Again, ick.
It sounds like you guys are saying that instead of having sex, you are cumming by having the girl rub you through your clothes. To which I have a simple question: WTF?!?!? Why don't you just have sex like a normal person?
Help me out people I am really perplexed by this. Please don't tell me you are going to strip clubs so the girls can get you off through your clothing. I don't think I've cum that way since high school. Someone please throw me a bone (no pun intended).
discussion comment
17 years ago
I forgot to add that no one should feel too terribly sorry for Eleanor Roosevelt. She had affairs with both a woman and a man, and so was not denied an active sex life. This was after she knew about FDR's Lucy Mercer affair, and their marriage was completely sexless by that point.
discussion comment
17 years ago
In response to the history question:
In the 20th century, it is now beyond dispute that FDR, Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Clinton all cheated on their wives, in various ways, while they were elected officials, and with the possible exception of Johnson, while they were in the White House. Reagan may have also cheated on his first wife, but before he became an elected official. Lots of other politicians of various stripes have cheated on their wives of course, but those are probably the only WWII and post-WWII presidents to do so. Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Bush II probably did not cheat on their wives, and certainly not while in the White House. There have been a lot of persistent rumors about Bush I cheating on his wife, but no solid evidence, and at any rate, probably not while in the White House.
Significantly, there is not much correlation between being a good president and being a faithful husband. Most people (except right wing ideologues) would probably rank FDR as a good to excellent president (personally, I would rank him near the top, second only to Lincoln), but he was notoriously unfaithful throughout his marriage. Nixon and Carter were incredible prudes, on the other hand, and both typically rank near the bottom of any list in terms of the success of their White House years.
Prior to WWII, it is very difficult to get a clear historical record on whether Presidents cheated or not -- this is partly due to the distance of time, and partly because infidelity was not as openly discussed as it is today. (Kennedy, for example, actually had prostitutes in the white house, and this was well known to reporters at the time. But few people talked about this publicly until long after he was dead.) Jefferson probably slept around considerably, and he certainly fathered children out of wedlock. But he probably did not cheat on his wife (who died quite young). Grover Cleveland is somewhat famous for having fathered a child out of wedlock (and this WAS well known at the time, but did not prevent him from being elected President). However, he also did not cheat on his wife, because he was a bachelor until he became president. He then married a woman only 22 years old, when President Cleveland was nearly 50! There are some rumors -- never confirmed -- that Washington slept around. Ben Franklin clearly slept around a lot, and probably had children out of wedlock, but he was never president.
With regard to FDR, he did not literally die in the "arms" of his mistress. However, he did carry on a life long affair with Lucy Mercer, and she was with him when he died of a cerebral hemorrhage; however, they were both fully dressed, so it's not like he died in bed or anything like that. (There was a staff person present when he died as well.) Roosevelt's adult daughter actually helped her Dad carry on the affair with Mercer while he was in the White House, by helping him to arrange meetings with Mercer and also to keep it a secret from Eleanor. Eleanor knew about the Mercer affair before FDR became President (and they nearly divorced over it), but believed mistakenly that he discontinued it. She did not find out that he had maintained the affair while in the White House until after he died, and she found out that Mercer was with him at the time of his death.
In sum, it is probably unlikely that "most" presidents had affairs while actually serving as president, but a significant minority have done so since WWII, and it is certainly possible that other presidents carried on affairs at other times in their lives.
P.S. As to the myth that Lincoln was gay, it is just that, a myth. Lincoln probably had one of the saddest sexual and romantic lives of anyone. He was almost certainly a virgin until he married Mary Todd. She was brilliant and charming, but also an incredible insufferable bitch, who went completely bonkers shortly after Lincoln was elected president. He probably had one of the most miserable marriages in history, but suffered through the whole ordeal without complaint, right up to the day he was killed.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Well, don't be coy, what are you saying?
I'll state my position very plainly and clearly: bareback sex with strangers is always a bad idea, and hobbyists should always, always wear condoms. Focusing on faux "statistics" misses the forest for the trees. Is sex ever risk free? No. Neither is driving your car. But sex is certainly much riskier without a condom. Just like driving a car is much riskier without a seatbelt. And I see no downside to wearing a condom, just like I see no downside to wearing a seatbelt. I don't want to give up driving a car, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a seatbelt when I do so. I don't want to give up hobbying, but I will take the sensible precaution of wearing a condom when I do so. And I think any guy who hobbies without wearing a condom is flat out crazy -- needlessly increasing the risk to his own health and the health of others.
If you agree with that, then we certainly have no disagreement. But then why don't you just say so?
And if you agree that, then why did you go off on a what certainly appears to be an argument for downplaying the risks of unprotected sex, and downplaying the benefits of wearing a condom? If at the end of the day you agree we should all be wearing condoms all the time when we hobby, what are you arguing about?
****************************************************************************
You know, after I wrote the foregoing, I went back and re-examined your posts. You clearly state that you have had experience in engaging in bareback sex with prostitutes. That is idiotic and dangerous behavior. For no reason whatsoever, you are increasing the risk to your health, and you are also endangering the health of others (whether it's your wife, girlfriend or other ASPs you have sex with). I can't even describe your decision to bareback as selfish -- it's beyond that in a realm that is inexplicable.
I find equally amazing your blithe attitude to getting AIDS. You must not read the papers very frequently, nor know well anyone who has AIDS. The current class of drugs do not work on all patients. Plus the virus is always mutating, so the drugs are always failing. Plus the side effects of the drugs are severe. A recent NYT article pointed out that HIV patients on the drugs wind up with a host of health problems that make them look like they're in their 70s and 80s when they are really in their 40s and 50s. Your bland attitude to such a deadly disease is chilling.
Regardless of what you now state your position is, your actions speak louder than words. By your actions you are clearly stating that the increased risk of exposure to disease is worth it to avoid the "burden" of wearing a condom. I think you are wrong. Dead wrong.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Bobby's posts on this are mystifying. Surely he does not deny that unprotected sex increases the likelihood of getting a disease beyond the risk associated with wearing a condom. Surely he does not argue that getting a disease is a good thing. Of course you can have unprotected sex and have no untoward consequences -- sometimes. But you can also drive down the highway at 90 miles per hour with no seatbelt and have no consequences -- sometimes. And other times -- as NJ's Governor Corzine would tell you -- driving down the highway at 90 mph with no seatbelt can turn out to be a very, very bad idea. What exactly is the downside of wearing a condom?
We could, if you will, put the shoe on the other foot. Would Bobby be willing to be on the receiving end of another guy's dick without a condom? Probably not, I hope. So why should the women take analogous risks?
Of course, none of these posts mention the other risky aspect of Spitzer's bizzare behavior. Bareback sex also involves the risk that he would get the escort pregnant. What was he going to do if that happened?
My bet is that if Bobby were not a pseudonym, he would be reluctant to make these statements, for fear of winding up like Spitzer -- a dick no woman will want to touch.
But we can thank NY's gov for helping to coin a new term for going bareback -- "the Spritzer."
discussion comment
17 years ago
It would be difficult to catalog all the Rules of Hobbying he violated, but for starters:
*He left a nice clear paper trail for anyone to follow by making payments by switching money around accounts (instead of just paying in cash). The money movement is what got him in trouble -- it drew the attention of the banks, who in turn reported the transactions to the feds.
*He used an agency on the theory it provided greater discetion, when any fool should know the opposite is true. Agencies involve lots of people, and so there's a better chance some person will tattle. Here, an ex-escort gave the feds enough information to justify wire taps on the agency's cell phones. If he had used an independent (and there are many in NY and WDC) he would have avoided that.
*He way overpaid. $4300? WTF?!? Some of the best providers in the world are on the east coast and don't charge anything like that. He doesn't even have the excuse of losing his head in the moment -- he planned the whole thing out well in advance.
*He paid for 4 hours, and not surprisingly used less than 2. What fool would hire for a 4 hour date?
*He disrespected the girls. It appears Spitzer had a reputation for being "difficult," and apparently liked to bareback. That kind of behavior would have caught up with him eventually one day, even if the feds hadn't. This really was a violation of several rules at once: always practice safe sex; always comply with the provider's limits, whatever they are; always respect the provider. Apart from losing his office and marriage, he's also going to be blacklisted on the provider boards, and then he'll really be sorry.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Too bad that an attempt to foster mutual respect degenerated into more name-calling. Perhaps I am naive about the human condition.
But -- in response to Dick Johnson -- I fail to see why it is obvious that strippers have bad morals. I guess it depends on your definition of "morals." My definition would relate to being honest, kind, treating others with respect, helping people when they're down, etc. The strippers and ASPs I've known have usually had pretty high moral standards according to that definition. Are there exceptions? Yes, but from what I can tell, no more so than in any other occupation.
It seems that you define "good morals" as adhering to a particular definition of sexual behavior. Of course, some of the line drawing that you seem to engage in seems a little precious to me. It's ok to sleep around, but not with strippers? It's ok to get a lap dance, but not a handjob? It's ok to get your dick rubbed through your pants, but not a blow job? It's ok to look at naked girls and put $$ in their garters, but not touch them? All these distinctions strike me as artificial. And, as we are daily reminded, when some self-righteous prig claims to be a white knight, we often find out he is keeping little dark secrets.
Personally, I have never understood why consensual sexual activity between adults can ever count as "immoral." But if that is what you believe, then I do not understand why you go to strip clubs, or spend any time on this site. It occurs to me you should be more concerned about hypocrisy and less concerned about sexual propriety. Until you address that problem, I think you should be reluctant to post judgments about other people's "morals".
discussion comment
17 years ago
The governor issued a press release on the subject. Here it is:
"Consider this my unofficial statement.
"First of all, to say there was literally a ring of prostitutes for me to sample like an endless buffet, is absurd. It was never more than two or three girls at a time. So by my calculations that makes it, at most, a prostitution prism.
"But more importantly this isn’t my fault; it’s just another example of the Republican Party doing whatever they can to discredit me, the Democratic Party and my reforms on government. They knew that I like to have sex with dirty whores and guess what, when I had one of my infamous dirty whore cravings, magically many of them were available in an elaborate online network.
"The report mentioned a specific encounter I had with a woman on the evening of February 13th. As many of you know out there, this is a day officially referred to as Cheaters Day — when men take out their mistresses for Valentine’s Day, because on the 14th they have to be with their boring wives. Well doesn’t that tell you that I at least treated this whore well? It implies a degree of amour, of thinking of this woman of the night as more than a few lady holes."
discussion comment
17 years ago
Generally I agree with Chitownlawyer on this. Some of the VIP rooms are rip offs, and in some you get "everything." I try to use the reviews from this place (or other sources) to sound out in advance as much as possible what is genuinely on the menu. And sometimes you can get a really direct answer to a really direct question. But I will admit I have also sometimes just gone with my gut -- in doing so, I'd say two out of three times I have not been disappointed (and my mileage standards are very high). I would never touch a VIP room again if all I was getting was a HJ or a heavy make out session. On the flip side, I also think some VIP rooms can be very overpriced. If a 30 minute session is going to cost $600, I might as well make arrangements with an escort and get a longer and usually higher quality session. But then sometimes I am guilty of letting the pecker do the thinking.
discussion comment
17 years ago
harrydave: as usual, you're right. I concede the "argument" by default, because one of the first rules of psychology is that you don't argue with a mentally ill person about his delusions. It was my mistake to treat David as someone who could be reached with logic or common sense (or humor). I feel bad for him, he seems like a PL occupying a bizarre fantasy life. I promise not to respond to his posts again, no matter how provocatively stupid. It would only be cruel to engage him in debate when the poor man is coping with the demons of his illness.
discussion comment
17 years ago
See, wondergrl, you're just a "slave to your chemistry." If you met David you'd find him irresistable. And even if you didn't, that would only be due to the fact that you would be lying to yourself. On your animalistic subconscious level you'd find David's alpha horndog so hot, because in your subconscious mind you'd be back in the cave days, imagining him porking all the other cavewomen (which, for some reason, you would find would satisfy some deep genetic need that you don't even understand, you silly girl). And if you believe all that, then there is a really marvelous bridge over the East River I'd like to sell you. We all have to accept it. David is just to sexy for his seed spreader.
David, remind me, why are you paying for sex when you have more "top shelf" women than you can handle?