discussion comment
16 years ago
I will candidly admit I am somewhat jealous and fascinated by guys whose wives allow them to have a somewhat open relationship.
I am curious: how did you get your wife to approve and/or participate in these activities? Did you already openly fool around when she first met you, so she had to accept it as part of the package? Or did you somehow gradually acclimate her to the idea over time, and she warmed up to it? Or what? I have talked with my wife several times in a half-serious half-joking way about fooling around as a couple, and sometimes she sounds game for the idea, but then she always falls back into thinking that it would cause jealousy, conflict, etc., and pulls away. I know there are couples out there who have open relationships and/or swing together, and I've always wondered how the guy got his wife into it. Any insight by the guys who have pulled this off would be appreciated (even though I doubt it will ever happen in my life).
discussion comment
16 years ago
People will be all over the map on this.
I am married, and I have sex with the strippers, both in the club and out. Last night I picked up one of my current favorite dancers from her club when she got off work, we went to a hotel and fucked for two hours. And no I do not tell my wife.
My wife and I have a good and regular sex life, but I accepted long, long ago that I need greater variety than just having sex with one woman my whole life. My wife is a wonderful person and very attractive, but she is not 20 years old like the girl I boinked last night. I would not suggest only fucking the 20 year olds, but it is nice (for me) to have sex with a range and variety of different types of women.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Since FONDL supposedly has me on his "ignore" list he will not see this response. But I find the sanctimony of his posts somewhat tiresome.
First, none of the current conflicts have anything to do with people picking on the guys who do not want to have sex. I think it is fair to state that those of us who do have sex are not bothered in the slightest by those of you who do not have sex. The current round of conflict, as far as I can tell, is between people who, on both sides of the debate, purport to get "extras" at strip clubs. So FONDL's concern that the "no sex" people are being picked on somehow is without any foundation.
Second, FONDL's claim that we should all be nice to each other (while high minded) is not consistent with his own behavior. FONDL himself elected to interject himself into more than one debate on the board -- which had nothing to do with him -- just so he could attack people. Also inconsistent with his bid for tolerance for all practices, FONDL himself has made posts attacking people who have sex in the clubs.
Third, the current dispute is actually the result of a long time poster basically trying to drive women (or at least one particular woman) off this site. To lay any blame at people who responded to that is absurd. We have a right to stick up for each other when we see someone trying to make another site member uncomfortable being here.
I think it is really revealing to see posters remain silent in the face of the original attack, yet rally to the attacker's defense and claim foul play when people reacted. FONDL talks about the unwritten rules of decorum. Do those rules include taking a private communication and sharing it with the entire site? Do they include calling someone a liar? Do they include sending people perverted and/or threatening emails? Those behaviors are being engaged in by long term members, not new people.
discussion comment
16 years ago
None of the instances cited actually involve sharing information, which is what the poster claimed. I cannot think of anything useful I have learned from posts extolling a single club in south carolina, for example. I do not mind people sharing their experiences or even their "feelings," although some of the posts on this site about some of the guys' lives are getting weirder and weirder in my estimation. I also don't mind people sharing little jokes or insights or whatever. But I find nothing informative in being subjected to Rush Limbaugh rants.
I think the real issue here is that some lonely folks live vicariously through the alleged exploits of a big-man-at-the-strip-club. And if someone has a large enough ego, he will certainly lap up the adulation. That's a little sad to me, but as John Lennon used to say, whatever gets you through the night. But even if you drank the kool aid and are a member in good standing of the fan club, you ought to have enough common sense (not to mention common decency) to call out a bully when you see one. And there is no other way to describe an attempt to drive women off this site.
The real problem, however, is not what is taking place on the discussion board. People here can handle that, even if it is obnoxious. The problem is what is occurring off the board.
Most guys on this site are simply not aware that the few women posters are subjected to a lot of emails from the guys -- some of those emails are fine; some of them are a little pushy; some of them are quite over the top; and some of them are psychotic and frightening. None of us would want our in boxes stuffed with that kind of crap every week. It is that behavior, probably more than anything, that will drive women off the site. And it all occurs under the radar. Not very brave or manly if you ask me.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Like what?
discussion comment
16 years ago
I think it is disgusting that there are guys (or perhaps a guy) on this site who would resort to sending harassing and threatening emails to someone. I bet it's possible to figure out the culprit(s).
discussion comment
16 years ago
No you should not.
I think it's ridiculous that there are a handful of people who think they somehow "own" this site, and try to bully people into silence. If this site become the lame redoubt of a bunch of pathetic babies who can't bear to hear a contrary opinion or face a momentary challenge to their "manhood," then the people left behind on this site will truly be the losers.
discussion comment
16 years ago
I find the contributions of women on this site valuable and sometimes insightful.
I think a lot of guys here are pretty insecure about women, and are afraid to have any of their preconceptions challenged. I also think there are guys on this site who have hassled some of the women (e.g., propositioning them, and then being upset when they're turned down). That's too bad for them, but I don't think the guys should have any right to drive the women off the site.
I wonder if this thread is directed at any particular women on this site. I hope not. If so, it is in my opinion a really bullshit attempt to bully people -- cowardly on many levels.
At any rate, the sentiments expressed in some of the posts on this thread do not speak for all guys on this site. I am not wary of the women on this site, but I am wary of some of the guys. And the idea that a woman can be on this site only if she is willing to sell sex is just moronic.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Well of course people have weaknesses (I myself have a terrible weakness for pussy). But there is something very troubling about this particular weakness.
First, when someone preys on a person who is addicted to anything, I find that really appalling. A drug addict certainly has a weakness, and on some level you can't blame them for feeding their habit. Still, I find the drug dealer a pretty disgusting person -- essentially deliberately taking advantage of someone and scamming them. This woman sounds exactly like that. The fact that she has had a hard life, etc., really is not an excuse in my book. At some point we have to assign responsbility to people. So urging guys to stop being suckers for these women is no different than urging a drug addict to give up his/her drug of choice.
Second, this is a very special type of scam, even worse than the drug dealer scenario. Even the very worst addict knows he is being taken advantage of by his "dealer". But here the guy is completely delusional. This is more like the hucksters on TV who prey on old people by making appeals for money right after they get their social security checks. That level of deception is uniquely horrible. The fact that the scam artist is selling "love" (or like the televangelists, "God") makes it only worse.
Sorry if it sounds judgmental but it is depressing to always hear some of the lonely guys on this site getting their "friendship" for pay. I really do wish the best for them, and I really do believe they would be better off if they gave up that fantasy.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Honestly, what more proof do you people need?
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. I've heard countless stories -- from the deluded guys themselves -- about how they give away $$$ for the measliest little crumb. It's disgusting. Guys should have more self respect than that, and should refuse to dole out any money unless they are getting sex in a clear, above-board bargained for transaction.
(Oh, and apparently I have to make a special exception for you fetish guys who pay money to be able to treated like a child or engage in some other psychodrama. Weird and creepy shit to me, but who am I to judge, eh?)
But to finance some sugarbaby who is laughing at you behind your back -- c'mon man, don't let down the home team, put some starch in your backbone!
discussion comment
16 years ago
Now THAT was a generalization. And an unfair one. Not ALL people from the South engage in bestiality.
discussion comment
16 years ago
The quotes come from stripperweb.com (but there are other similar sites in the world; the tenor is always the same).
clubber, I thought I was on your ignore list. What's the problem?
No, I don't think the relationships are "all different." I think the striking uniformity of the women's comments show that the relationships are usually very much the same thing, over and over. If you pay money to your dentist I think that's fine. But if you think your dentist is your best pal because he chats it up with you while he's working on your teeth, I think that's delusional and a little creepy. This is no different. Anyone who thinks they have a genuine "friendship" or "relationship" or whatever with someone they are paying money to (in the form of cash, gifts, etc.) is just suffering from a massive delusion. To honestly think that a 22 year old hottie is going out to dinner with a 64 year old broken down old man (and that's not a criticism, I'll be there one day) because she needs a father figure is just the height of magical thinking. Read what these women actually have to say and face the truth. Even the "nice" ones are clear they are only doing it for the money. I do understand that folks with serious delusions will tend to cling to them rather aggressively, because they need them to help them make sense of a lonely and difficult world. But if folks living the ATF fantasy could ever break through those delusions, they would find they could have much more emotionally fulfilling relationships with real friends, than whatever plastic "companionship" they are getting from their ATFs. The only thing you don't normally do with a regular platonic friend is have sex, and most of these guys aren't doing that with their sugarbabies anyway. I say save the money and come out of your fantasy world.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Darn it, I hate it when I agree with MisterGuy. He's such an earnest fellow that he's a regular target of my mockery, but unfortunately his political views are usually correct.
A sales tax is regressive to the core, as any economist will tell you. It's net impact will be to tax poorer and working class people at a higher effective tax rate. Unless you are Rush Limbaugh (and, yes, I know one of you probably IS Rush Limbaugh), you would have to agree it is idiotic to tax people with less money at a higher tax rate.
A sales tax is also bad economics, because it disrupts and skews economic choices made by consumers, and thus interferes with the proper working of the market. Even the most hardline neoclassical economist should agree that's a bad idea. The sales tax gets kudos from people on the right only because - well, precisely because -- it shifts the tax burden from the wealthy to the working class.
Unfortunately, as it is we already have a regressive tax structure in this country, because payroll taxes are regressive; we already have regressive sales taxes everywhere; property taxes are regressive (because they only tax one narrow form of wealth, that is, housing, which is commonly owned by ordinary people); and the income tax system is so riddled with holes that it is effectively flat.
There was a time in our history when we had a really progressive tax system. It was right after WWII, and it happened to be the period of greatest sustained economic growth with low inflation, and the greatest across the board increases in everyone's standard of living. The experience of my parents' generation -- where large segments of the population went from being poor to being very comfortably middle class -- is the proof that "liberal" economics work. We've had supply side economics since the 70s, and the effects have been disastrous. Slow/low growth rates; stagnant wages (for most working people, real wages have been frozen for 30 years, even with the large increase in two income households and many people working multiple jobs); and an entire economy (at the consumer, business and government levels) groaning under an enormous burden of debt. We have seen American businesses crushed, and American workers whipped. The only people who have benefited from this regime have been the super rich and, of course, banks, who have been raping our economy for decades while we all pay for this debt load.
A flat tax, or replacing the income tax with a sales tax, will only make matters worse. It will starve both workers and governments for cash (and thus will eventually harm businesses, because fewer consumer dollars will be in circulation), and force everyone to borrow more money. Once again banks and the super rich will be the only winners.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Well he has to have been out of Hazzard County, because he's had "three way sex" in "several states." Plus he's been to Canada.
discussion comment
16 years ago
MisterGuy, I really think you should invest your time working on your blog. We're all on pins and needles waiting to see how it turns out.
Damn it, there I go again, picking on the weak and stupid. I have to stop. Forgive me, Lord.
discussion comment
16 years ago
Hey! Stop picking on MisterGuy. The man has had three way sex (or more way?) in "several states." Plus he never cums in his pants. Not once. Honest. And the next time he goes to one of his favorite clubs, he's going to get one of those girls to talk to him, even if it takes all night!
On the other hand, MisterGuy, it's not very nice to beat up on a bunch of Civil War Vets. Shit, they can't be too racist -- they ended slavery didn't they?! And it's unfair to stereotype them as a bunch of Fat-Old-White-Buttless-Geezers-With-Limp-Dicks-From-Prostate-Surgery-Who-Would-Like-To-Fuck-Girls-Young-Enough-To-Be-Their-Daughters. Because the truth is some of them are Fat-Old-White-Buttless-Geezers-With-Limp-Dicks-From-Prostate-Surgery-Who-Would-Like-To-Fuck-Girls-Young-Enough-To-Be-Their-GRANDDaughters. And proud of it. In fact Shadowcat has that self-description etched into the rear window of his sports car.
You know I could make more old fart jokes, but instead I'll ask this poll question: how many of you guys pick up the remote when the phone rings? Aha, I thought so.
discussion comment
16 years ago
It appears Wondergrl's sarcasm has gone over everyone's head, but I found it pretty funny.
I wonder if strippers post discussions about "Old overweight white customers who tip well." Oh, but that would be a stereotype. Nevermind.
discussion comment
17 years ago
She's not a jerk, because she did tell you she was HIV +. So I would not treat her as a pariah. However, I would refuse to have any sex with her, because I am married, I have unprotected sex with my wife all the time, and I could never forgive myself if I ever infected her (or anyone else) with HIV. Bobby is correct that the risk of transmission is relatively small, but since she does have HIV it is a risk I would just never take, with or without a condom. I realize you might not be in a "civilian" sexual relationship with someone right now, but that could change, and you don't ever want to explain to someone you care about that you have HIV. As for her being less than 100 percent honest with you, hello people, that's the whole point here, this is not a relationship for her, it's a job, so of course she is going to have more than one customer. Folks have to start getting real and stop pretending that these are girlfriend/boyfriend type relationships..
discussion comment
17 years ago
My answer to your first question is: who cares, it doesn't matter anyway.
My answer to your second question is: no.
I hate to be blunt, but obviously this woman is not interested in you (although you may have been interested in her). You should be honest with yourself and face reality that she only spent time with you in exchange for maintaining the financial relationship (and perhaps getting a good free meal; I've never met a sex worker who would turn down a free meal). She is providing a service; you are paying her money for it. It's a commercial transaction. There's nothing wrong with that, but you are not "friends" and certainly not "lovers". I have people I have commercial relationships with (clients who pay me money, or vendors to whom I pay money). We do all the things you and your ATF did -- exchange gifts, go out to dinner, socialize in non-work settings, etc. None of that makes us friends, however; it is still a commercial transaction (and if you are the person selling something, frankly, it's just good marketing, that's why I take my clients out to dinner). Is it theoretically possible that a purely commercial transaction could cross the line into a real friendship or a romantic relationship? Sure, but it doesn't happen very often. And when it does happen you'll know -- because money will completely stop changing hands (even in the form of free meals, "loans" etc.).
There is nothing wrong with enjoying the relationship with a customer or a provider, but there is something wrong with losing track of your boundaries. You may have thought there was something really special there, but she obviously saw you as just another customer.
I've seen a lot of guys on this site talk about their ATFs as if they were describing semi-romantic relationships. I'm sure it's a sore subject, but I think it is more than a little sad. I am not suggesting this is the case with your situation. It sounds like you are behaving normally, and are just a little sad that she moved away. When I've had a good provider who moved away, I was sorry too (because of the quality of the service provided). But there are certainly posts on this site about ATFs that reveal men who have trouble with maintaining boundaries -- who think a stripper is really their best friend, and then are shocked when she moves away without leaving a forwarding address. Respectfully, guys who talk about their ATFs as their soulmates are deluding themselves -- you don't pay money to a soulmate.
Strippers, escorts, massage parlor girls are all great people to go to for fun (of whatever variety is your pleasure) and some sexual release. But a paid for relationship is not a place to go if you're looking for love or romance. The girls, by the way, understand that very well, and see the relationship with their regulars as just a way to make money. Again, I am not suggesting you fall into this camp, but when I hear/see some of the lonely old guys on this site rhapsodizing about their ATFs to whom they pay $$$ in exchange for a goodnight kiss after dinner, it makes me cringe. If loneliness is your problem, that is no solution.
Shadowcat is right. If your very favorite dentist/doctor/lawyer/car repair guy/stripper moves away -- oh well, find a new one. As long as you have the cash, they'll be happy to have you as a customer.
discussion comment
17 years ago
I won't revisit the reasons why I don't cum in my pants. But the idea that this is about "keeping it legal" is silly.
First, it is not legal to be masturbated in exchange for money. In pretty much every jurisdiction, prostitution is paying for "sexual acts." Sexual acts, in turn, are very broadly defined, and almost always include masturbation. So, if you pay a girl to masturbate you -- even if it is through your pants -- it is prostitution, and you have violated the law. That's why it is just as illegal to get a handjob at an AMP as it is to get a blowjob. You do not need to have skin to skin contact. Nor does it matter whether you climax or not, by the way. I repeat: if you pay a girl to masturbate you, then you have violated your state's prohibition against prostitution. Thus, the cum-in-the-pants people (or even the rub-the-dick-through-the-pants people) are just as in violation of the law as the old fashioned let's-have-sex crowd. The only way to keep it legal in the club is to avoid all sexual activity, whether your dick is out or not. If FONDL just watches, then he's legal. But as soon as someone fondles FONDL's dick, then he has violated the law, same as when the girl who road Cleveland Tom's Johnson.
But more importantly, FONDL's argument is disingenuous. We all know perfectly well that people are not cumming in their pants because of a legal analysis. They are doing it because they feel it is the best they can get, for whatever reason. No one on this site who is busting a nut in his shorts would turn down a handjob, blowjob or full service if it were offered.
discussion comment
17 years ago
I have not lived in Washington, D.C. since 1987, so I cannot account for what the situation is like there today (or for that matter, what the situation has been like for the last 20 years). However, I can account for what the situation was like in the mid-1980s, because I lived there and went to clubs. You are just mistaken. Sex flowed rather freely in D.C. in the mid-80s, not just in the clubs but in the streets -- streetwalkers were common in the heart of downtown D.C., and it was not only possible to take them to a hotel, but it was also possible to have sex with them in rather more public venues, and I did so. Whatever the name of the club you and I are both referring to, sex was quite readily available there. In fact, the club had annexed to it a brothel, with private rooms (and jacuzzis no less). It was possible to take a dancer up to the brothel; I know so because I did so.
Rather than attack you personally (even though you have basically just called me a liar, twice now), I will simply point out to you that it is possible I am having different experiences in the clubs than you are. I think you might consider the possibility that your experience is not the same as that of every other man. You believe, for example, that you know I am lying about the sex available in clubs in NJ, even though you have never lived in NJ (and even though there are some 125 clubs listed in NJ just for tuscl alone). But somehow you know what is happening on every night in every club in the entire state. You also believe this even though there are other reviews on this very site by other patrons stating they had sex in the same clubs; I guess they're lying too. You also believe that you know what happened to every patron in every club on every night in Washington, D.C. over 20 years ago -- and that absolutely no one's experience could be any different than your experience. I think merely to state the proposition reveals how arrogant the underlying conceit is. Just because you're not having sex does not mean that no one else is.
As for your ATF, I believe you have described her as being in her 20s or 30s, so I think that would disqualify her from having any knowledge about what was or was not happening in the clubs in the mid-1980s, since she would not have been an adult at the time. Like I said, I am biting my tongue in this response, so I won't comment further about your repeated references to your ATF. But it takes a certain amount of hubris to think that because you know some dancers you therefore know what has happened to every patron in every club over a period of years. Honestly, has it ever occurred to you that perhaps -- just perhaps -- the dancers you think are your "friends" (but to whom you have to give $$$ so they will spend time with you) are actually just telling you what they think you want to hear? Did it ever occur to you that a girl you pay money to in a strip club just might not be telling you about everything she does with other customers?
It seems you take especial offense at people who use the clubs as a venue for sex. You have, in various posts, suggested that it is only possible in "seedy" environs, that there is something wrong with having sex with "strangers," and of course that anyone who claims to be having sex (when you're not) must be lying. I think it is odd that on a site like this of all places we would find people who are judgmental about having sex with strippers. Personally I would not use a strip club as a social life, and would not delude myself into thinking that I am "friends" with people who use me as an ATM. But it doesn't bother me if that's the satisfaction some guys get out of going to clubs; life can be lonely, after all, and who am I to judge someone who needs companionship, however procured. By the same token, I don't see why you are judgmental about guys who like to have sex with lots of different girls, and who use strip clubs as a convenient venue for achieving that goal.
discussion comment
17 years ago
LOL
discussion comment
17 years ago
I would suggest that to say having a woman rub your dick through your shorts is "like having sex," is rather akin to saying that driving the bumper cars at the amusement park is "like driving a car." It's true, I guess, but only if your options are limited to driving bumper cars.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Define "terrible." There are a number of clubs in NJ that are pretty seedy (I think that's your word, actually), and you would not want to go to them for a "gentlemen's club" experience. But the sex is still available. The "nicer" clubs (fancier decor, classier patrons, more upper class) frequently have pretty low mileage, at least the ones I've been to. And it takes some effort to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are a lot of clubs in NJ given the size of the state, but many of them are rip offs of one form or another. And things do change, so a visit one day may be different than a visit the next. I went to one club where I had sex in the VIP room a month ago, and there was an actual cop just sitting there in the club, in full uniform. Don't know what that was all about, but I guess it would impact mileage a little bit. But, no, I am not shitting you. As I recall you have lived in the WDC area, correct? The best thing I can compare it to is some of the places that existed when I last lived in DC, which was in the 80s when Marion Barry was mayor. Then there were some pretty slimy places on 14th street, and one I remember in particular a little north of Dupont Circle (I think it was called the Eldorado or something like that). Skanky, but the sex was available. The Eldorado (if that was its name) had an actual brothel attached to it. I remember one of the places on 14th street had the girls dancing in the windows facing the sidewalk, sort of one display. I do not suggest NJ is like that. Sex in the reign of Mayor Barry was pretty open and out there. Today in NJ, it has to be covert because of LE concerns. But it is still there. My experience is not unique; the places I found I found in part due to the reviews on tuscl, which do indicate where miileage can be found.
discussion comment
17 years ago
Initially, I think it is important to compare apples to apples, not apples to oranges. Comparing yourself to other clubgoers who are engaged in fundamentally different activities is just meaningless. Some guys are going to SCs just to hang out, look at the girls, and get a few lap dances, and they are going infrequently. Obviously, they're not spending much money, maybe a couple hundred a month. For some guys, it is terribly important to be a "regular" and a BMOC at their favorite club. They're going all the time, and spending a couple hundred every visit, even though no sex is involved. They don't really want the sex, they just like feeling important and hanging out with their "friends." They could be racking up thousands of dollars a year. For me, I am using the clubs primarily as an alternative to escorts. I go infrequently, but when I go I am willing to spend $300 or so for full service. That's a fair deal compared to high quality escorts in my area, particularly given the convenience of the clubs. Then the cost basically comes down to how often I hobby a month. A guy who hobbies twice a month can easily start to spend thousands per year. I've had some hobbyists tell me they spend tens of thousands per year. Just look at my good buddy Eliot Spitzer.
In your case, it sounds like you basically have used the clubs as a portal to have a regular sex-for-money relationship with a particular dancer. It also sounds like she might be pressuring you for more money. Whether you have an unreasonably good gig or not depends somewhat on the frequency and nature of the sex, IMHO. If you are getting essentially vanilla sex (intercourse, blow job, maybe DATY) once per week, and get to cum once, then I think $300 per week is pretty fair, depending on where you live. Do some escorts charge more (or less) per session? Sure, but you are both benefiting from the convenience of the deal. She is getting a reliable, regular customer, and you are getting a reliable, regular provider.
On the other hand, if for your $300 per week you are banging her 2 or 3 times per week, and/or you are getting higher range activity (anal, ATM, bdsm, roleplay, cumming on her face, etc., etc., you can use your imagination), then you are clearly getting a fantastic deal, and I can understand why she wants more money. I am not suggesting that you should spend more money. I am simply pointing out that in most locales (unless you have unbelievably good fortune), you are not going to get multiple sessions per week (or very high level sessions) for a mere $300 from a provider.
On the flip side, there are certainly women who will use their "relationship" to jack up the cost to ridiculous levels. I have heard of women who rake in thousands per month for a "sugar daddy" gig, where the guy is at most getting sex 2 or 3 times per month. That's ridiculous, and any guy in that kind of gig is getting ripped off (and he is probably being manipulated into thinking the relationship is a real one). You should go look at the "pink site" and read some of their threads on these types of ATF relationships -- they are pretty mercenary (e.g., bragging that they get paid $$$$ just to be arm candy, and that they won't even give the guy anything more than a peck on the cheek at the end of the date). Any guy spending that kind of money is clearly getting robbed blind. Again, I don't criticize the women for making a living any way they can, and a fool and his money are soon parted. But there's no reason to sign up to be a sucker.
Bottom line, I guess, is that I would increase the payments to her only if (a) you can easily afford it; and (b) you feel comfortable spending the money, i.e., you're getting good service and not just being ripped off; and (c) you don't think you can get a better or similar deal elsewhere. But I think if she's pressuring you for more money, you probably won't continue to get good service in the long run anyway, so it may be time to call it quits with her.