Comments by knightwish (page 2)

Papi so mainly you are saying you have a boring stripper who likes to hang out. She may end up making some money for the hangout time but her take per hour is going to be low. I used to have a dancer I played with who was OK with like $30 / hr and drinking together but wasn't into giving LDs. I was OK with that.

I'm average men's height 5'10" Prefer average height. Would go with the top end of short more than I would go to tall.

@Wicked -- Here is my question. Strippers vary wildly on kink in clubs and rules. Some like to show off hitting customers (who want hat) some say it is absolutely against the rules. Some will do humiliation others say the manager won't let them... Mostly I suspect they have no idea. So... what are dancers actually told by management when it comes to kink and how much are they just making up fake rules?

@Rockstar666 Believe it or not still 13% don't approve of mix marriage, That's way down though from 96% in 1958: http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/bb8ic2qate-wa_cbgc2ifg.png Anyway I agree this issue goes away fast. The approval rating is skyrocketing. The approval numbers for gay marriage today in 2015 are already at the level that mixed marriage was in 1996 and by 1996 no one talked about going back to not having it be the law of the land even if they personally objected. As far as registering the marriage. Yes under this theory a clerk can refuse to issue a license for any marriage they disapprove of. I don't know that anyone wants clerks to not be able to record marriages since there is no sacrament / ordinance in recording a marriage after it has occurred. I don't know if states are going to want to open this can of worms, I think it is a bad idea. But its a bad idea and its not legally permissible are two different bars.

@rockstar666 No doubt government officials are obligated to uphold the law. But the law can be written to give them discretion which is what some of those states are doing. They are moving from licensing arrangements where the license is automatic to one where it isn't. This isn't about suing for religious freedom but whether the law can be constructed to allow for religious freedom exemptions. Most lawyers I've seen seem to believe they can be defending, providing the exemptions are wide open.

@crsm27 You can't "THROW RELIGION OUT THE WINDOW". Religious people aren't idiots. They aren't going to be like "oh they call that thing that the couples are doing 'civil unions' so marriage rules don't apply". The word marriage itself comes from a latin term for a sexual lover (maritus). Older literature has words which are variants on rulership. Christians were able to keep up with the change. Not calling something marriage doesn't cause religious definitions not to apply. It doesn't solve the argument, though I agree it might help a bit. Basically what I've asserted and tried to prove the vatican example is that any public rite involving a couple forming a longterm / lifetime sexual and financial bond is going to be a marriage and be governed as a marriage regardless of what you call it. You aren't able to duck the issue with just a simple word game. ________ -- Like I mentioned.... a pastor will still deny people the ceremony. You just wait and see. It will happen and people will cry discrimination because of this ruling So what? Religious organizations aren't subject to non-dicrimation. Title VII of the Civil Rights act specifically permits religious organizations to discriminate. Strong rules protecting church discipline from the state is why the pilgrims came here, it quite literally predates the US government entirely. Pastors can do what they want. There are no lawyers waiting in the wings to do anything to pastors. What you posted regarding Texas about is governmental employees refusing to issue licenses. Obviously this is going to need to go to court. But it appears many attorneys believes that if a state allows a clerk to refuse licenses for any religious reason (gay couple, interracial couple, one but not both Christian, been divorced...) then they are fine, that's not anti-gay discrimination. If they only allow this one type of discrimination on the part of the clerk, they will lose quickly.

@Sharkhunter -- Isis would be a nonissue of someone had kept a base in Iraq and a small fighting force with air support. 2003-6 we had a force and had al-Qaeda in Iraq along with Tawhid al-Jihad and the Mujahideen Shura Council, ISIS 3 grandparents all existed. 2006 on we had a force and Islamic State of Iraq existed which along with al-Nusera is ISIS parents. al-Nusera if fighting off hundreds of thousands of Syrian ground troops. So why exactly would are being there have made these people do what we want?

@crsm27 Problem with your analysis is that it is backwards. The church has always recognized the authority of the state (and the society in general) to marry. It may be sinful to marry outside the outside the supervision of the church but it doesn't invalidate the marriage. So calling marriage "civil union" or "widgets" doesn't cease to make it an issue, if it looks enough like marriage then the state is marrying people whom the church has declared can't be married. Now that's fine. Our state violates church doctrines on many issues. This isn't the first, this isn't the last. But the core issue regarding the definition of marriage doesn't disappear just because the state calls it something else. Though I do agree with you this might help a lot to diminish the tension. Were the state to acknowledge that marriage was a purely religious (sacrament, ordinance). And instead assert that all it was doing were civil contracts, especially as those contracts are terminatable through divorce, it could argue from a religious standpoint all it was doing was regulating concubinage and that the state doesn't perform marriage in the classic sense at all. Here is a good summary of the classic definition: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM a) A couple eligible to marry b) They engage in a public rite c) A public presentation of themselves as married (i.e. in a committed relationship) d) They sexually consummated A civil union or a widget is going to meet those criteria, its still a marriage. Unless you do a lot more to distinguish it from marriage it isn't going to solve the problem potentially. Still it could have helped. But that wasn't the way this worked out. There wasn't a desire to compromise so there wasn't one rather there was just a 180 degree shift over a decade. So let's just try and make equality work.

Well FWIW I think Christians lost this one in the Victorian era. Up until the Victorian era marriage was still primarily about creating an unbreakable tie between a women's children and a man. Were marriage still that then one could argue that gays don't have natural products of marriage and thus... That would have been a non-disriminatory argument but it would have meant undoing the whole post Victorian Christian tie between sex & commitment and marriage. It was Victorian era there was a move towards a romantic ideal that women were what civilized men and thus it became primarily about the couple. What we have now is that this tie exists whether or not they marry (child support) and thus effectively we've removed consent from marriages with no distinction between a man's heirs and his bastard children. We don't have a legal regime at all that distinguishes between long term cohabiting couples (concubinage) and pairs of people having sex. We don't have a legal regime that distinguishes between a couple intermixing finances and not intermixing and so people have emulate this by writing weird prenups and having assets in their own but not in the couple's name. The whole thing is a mess. But it is a mess for heterosexuals. Given that marriage since the 1880s is about living together and engaging in sex acts and gay people can clearly do that, there is a good case to be made that laws not extending marital privileges to gays were simple discrimination. Gays in our current regime just become effectively like an infertile couple they don't change the structure. The court rightfully can't see any structural changes that gay marriage presents. As for states rights, states can discriminate but they need a compelling state interest to do so, and no one was able to come up with any compelling state interest. The best they could was fabricate a false history of marriage which made it an unchanging institution when the actual history is anything but. So the Christian lost. They should should lost. The states right defense doesn't work because they can't justify the discrimination. States could of course have refused to recognize one another's marriages and then this wouldn't be federal at all but then we'd have people who were: a) religiously married, married in state X but not in other states and not federal b) religiously married, married in state X, married federal but not in other states c) not religiously married, married in states X and Y but not federal .... Which the conservatives also didn't want. Given the choice between society creating that mess and gay people being able to marry conservatives took the (in their mind) lesser evil. BTW FWIW there are religious communities that have religious weddings and don't get the state involved at all for example some very religious Jews don't register their marriages with the secular authorities. But that creates no end of problems for them. Ironically a legal a situation very similar to what most gays have been living with since the 1970s where they were effectively but not legally married.

Well anyway figure we should close with some on topic confederate flags: http://rebel-goddess.tumblr.com/archive

Grew up in Philly suburbs and went into town a lot. There were peep shows everywhere, quarter video porn was starting and in some of the older movie theaters there were live girls having sex with patrons. So I was pretty acclimated by my young teens. There were titty bars but I didn't go in much. During college I had to pass through time square to get from Grand Central to Penn Station and so I just considered clubs as another form of adult entertainment and dropped in.

@Sharkhunter -- I was a bit surprised to find out there are still very strong supporters of the flag long after the 1860's. If you go to Israel the flag has a prominent symbol of the Davidic Kingdom. Under conventional dating that Kingdom died right after the Battle of Carchemish (so 605 BCE). Israel was founding in 1948, the flag that it adopted wasn't even suggested until 1897 CE. People remember being defeated and forced, they often don't "get over it" at least not for generations. And the signs of their moments of freedom live on. I don't know if there is going to be another North vs. South pressure but if there is I suspect the Battle Flag will likely make another appearance. I'm northern. But I totally understand why the white South resisted the Northern occupation after the war, and has pushed back repeatedly against Northern bullying. The problem is that the black South supported the war, supports the Northern bullying on many issues and opposes the resistance movement (the first Klan), the politics is racial. So the flag is a terrible choice for an inclusive symbol. The people of South Carolina are not progressive BTW. It is 36.4% White Evangelical and 28.7% Black Evangelical or almost 2/3rds evangelical. That's one of the highest overall scores in the USA.

@motorhead -- In an act that reeks of political correctness run amok, Apple has removed all war games from its iTunes store that have depictions of the "Confederate" flag. (note, as previously discussed, the Battle Flag of Northern Virginia or the "the Southern Cross" is NOT the flag of the CSA). Agreed that's stupid. Apple will likely reverse this. They probably are just quickly enforcing the rule and then will start handing out exceptions. That's typical Apple behavior when a problem is discovered ban fast and then slowly relax. They are sort of a "better that 3 innocent programs get blocked than that 1guilty one get through" kind of place.

@londonguy The verification stuff doesn't bother me much. But I will admit 300€ = $335 that's pretty good for that quality. Plus London is 2nd or 1st best dom city in the world. However you don't have FKK clubs yet so the continent still has you there... All told London is a nice place for your penis to live.

The short version is don't refuse the drink. It's hard to think of many situation where it makes sense to not buy the girl alcohol when she wants it, piss her off and then have to come up with enough of a tip to prove you aren't a cheap ass and worth her time. Think of the drink as coming from her tip money, and don't worry about it. You are likely saving money with buying drinks. Best I think you need to know the rules of the club. Many times dancers are either having or being encouraged to buy or sell drinks. If they aren't selling enough drinks the owner / manager gets mad. Try and make sure the dancer isn't thinking about not hitting her drink quota (official or unofficial). Though it might be that number matters or dollar value matters or .... just ask the dancers who work there. If there is no rule then the dancer wants a drink and buy the drink. If it is a dancer approaching you buy me a drink" may be a way of them talking to you but making sure you aren't a cheapskate. Just ask them if they really want the drink, to be tipped for time or both. Often they really want the alcohol. If you hate drinking or whatever then just tell them you are a teetotaler and then suggest an immediate lap dance instead. That way you pass the "not a waste of time" test. But you still have to offer something non-alcoholic. Basically if you are doing this to be cheap. The girls will know you are doing this to be cheap. You will come off as cheap and that's going to hurt your fun.

Lopaw Since you are on this thread .... Congrats! I am really happy for you all and so glad this stage is behind us as a nation! The celebration is well warranted a big victory, hard won with a lot of grace given what you all were fighting.

@Tiredtraveler I don't know what planet you live on. California contributes the most to the Federal government. The core of the North East: NY, NJ, PA, MA are 3,6,8,9 respectively in terms of their contributions. Per capita: DC (yes home of the evil government), DE, Conn, NJ, Mass with only Minnesota at #3 breaking the streak. So no, you in flyover don't pay all the taxes. Moreover you are high in spending. Excluding North Dakota which is off the charts on net spending, for obvious reasons the states who pull the greatest percentage of federal revenue over their receipts are: South Carolina, Kentucky, Alabama, Indiana, New Mexico, Mississippi, West Virginia in that order. Finally in the civil war. I don't know that people in the North in 1861 would have had a problem with states wanting to leave the union had in been done in an orderly fashion. I think they had a real problem with states wanting to leave the union so they could continue to terrorize 1/3rd of their population enough to get them to be property. And the way it was done was the least constructive possible.

@londonguy -- Wow does that agency have a lot of 10s! Nice.

-- Why is Nazi gear, and merchandise with Nazi emblems readily availible? Nazi stuff is readily available though speciality shops and speciality sites. They aren't mainstream. What's happening potentially is Confederate stuff is not going to be mainstream anymore, treated similarly. You will still be able to buy it openly, legally and easily.

@footballguy I have to agree with Penny Flame. She stars in one of my favorite porn movies (Darkside: sample http://www.xvideos.com/video7264541/alicia_alighatti_ashley_long_dillan_lauren_hillary_scott_and_penny_flame_-_darkside_orgy ) two of my all time favorite shoots: http://www.kink.com/shoot/4891 http://www.kink.com/shoot/4986 Yummy. She is badly missed.

Before TUSCL there was ZBone (current website is just using the name but is not remotely the same) and other regional stripclub sites. There are dozens of these web 2.0 stripclub sites today but they don't get quality reviews because this place and a few others do. The regionals would combine. The other sides would have take the place of TUSCL ... the outcome was inevitable. The pink side OTOH and the cross-over between this and that site, the relationship isn't inevitable. The pink has a lot to do with specific personalities and policies. They have created a community. An often dysfunctional destructive silly superficial and ultimately harmful community in place of what could be a more rational one achieving far more but a real online community none the less. Theoretically the customer oriented site and the provider oriented site could have been the same thing. For example the prodom sites are more amorphous but aim to mix: prodoms, prodom customers, other people in the industry (dungeon managers), and some people in the lifestyle. There isn't the hostility towards customers. The hostility is mainly outwardly directed.

Stripclubs demand a lot of money per minute for entertainment. Selling that is hard frustrating work. I get frustrated and angry selling stuff and I can almost always save the customer money and improve their service levels at the same time. They have a much harder sale.

I find I get better dances from the small breasted girls. I'm last few years playing mostly with the athletic small breasted dancers. I used to be quite the breast man and ignore them. As we get older we learn.

@DG I've rated dancers a 10 before. They don't have to be perfect. Just striking. They have to go beyond gorgeous and in some way be overwhelmingly beautiful.

I'm a little more liberal than that article. 10 = model / playboy centerfold ... material. Top .5% or so of women. 9 = typical gorgeous next 2.5% 8 = great looking. No major flaws. Not blown away but unquestionably hot. next 8% 7 = hot but some serious problems Next 14% 6 = cute, next 25% 5 = cute minus. Like cut but serious problems. next 25% 4 = a few good features next 14% 3 = not appealing at all next 8% 2 = wow is she ugly Next 2.5% 1 = Horror movie. Repulsive, generally seriously deformed. next .5%