discussion comment
5 years ago
![]()
Papi_ChuloMiami, FL (or the nearest big-booty club)
She seemed like a sweet, stable, and balanced girl who is never gratuitously insulting, and always sees things from multiple perspectives
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"Interesting, it's more common at night? I can understand why a club would perceive fewer "risks" during the day but seems like it wouldn't be any more difficult to scan during the day. Or is it a local legal thing?"
I'm speaking only about my particular area, could be different elsewhere. Yes, there are clubs here that don't scan during the day, but do scan at night. All I can do is guess:
- There are few problems during the day, so why even bother if there's no problem to be solved? Especially if you know your customers hate it -- and most assuredly, the clubs know we hate it -- there better be a good business purpose that makes it worth doing.
- Dayshift runs for more on regulars and return customers, than the typical nightshift which is often full of guys who will never be seen again... at least until their wives are out of town visiting their sisters in November,
- Dayshift around here is already incredibly slow. Doing yet another thing to make it even worse may not make sense.
As a counterbalance to the last point, the one dayshift club that does ID scanning, is also one of the slowest and deadest. You'd think they'd be the ones who would be MOST likely not to want to introduce ID scanning.
discussion comment
5 years ago
I think it's outrageous, but it's also the case that if all SCs adopted it and I didn't have a choice, I'd probably just deal rather than stop SCing, although I'm at a point in my life where I don't have huge downside risks here anyway. I do most of my SCing during the day, and luckily, it's not even an issue. It does become an issue at night, which is when most of the clubs switch to ID scanning; I only SC rarely at night, but when I do, I strongly bias towards clubs that don't ID scan.
discussion comment
5 years ago
I think someone up there has a good sense of humor.
First, He blesses us with the most awesome piece of clothing ever to grace the female form: yoga pants. And He makes them mainstream so everyone wears them without any stigma, even in public!
Then, He brings back high-waisted jeans -- basically, mom jeans for young women. And makes it so young women wear THOSE in public too. And just to make sure the punchline of that joke is strong enough: granny panties!
Maybe this is just the cosmic balance of yin and yang, good vs evil, etc. If high waisted jeans and granny panties are the price I have to pay for leggings and yoga pants, it's price I'll pay
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"For me, review should be dancer and cost centric. Not just regurgitate boilerplate club info, but things like do dancers give..."
Ya... and I think it's the dancer-centric part that's often missing. Any popular club has a zillion reviews that mention cost, so if a review is going to be missing something, I'd rather it miss cost than dancer information. I also prefer information about specific dancers, in a way that does not get her in trouble with law enforcement, management, and especially her co-workers. Shouldn't be hard -- what's she look like, what makes her awesome (minus details).
Part of my view here is probably from the previous forum I was on for over a decade, which was heavy on dancer info, with cost info being optional. Again, maybe guys on tuscl don't realize how awesome it is to go to a new club already armed with a list of 20 girls and at least a general idea of which are pleasing PLs and which are hustlers/ROBs/tip-requestors/song cutters, because no such thing can be put together from tuscl reviews. But I think if we got there, you'd see that maybe you don't need 25 reviews in a row mentioning the drinks are $8 after all, compared to knowing that April and Ruby are exactly your type and awesome enough to be several guys' CFs
discussion comment
5 years ago
I'm sorry you feel that way Papi. We are going to light a candle for you tonight at drum circle
:)
discussion comment
5 years ago
Paps, thanks, I think I read the guidelines years ago and have forgotten them since. You're right, guidelines say tell actual cost. But that isn't the minimum -- it shoudl also include club vibe and dancer vampiness, and whether you should or shouldn't return to the club. Should we be failing reviews that don't mention those things? Maybe! I've seen plenty of passed reviews that are like 8 sentences total, most on costs and club layout, and very little otherwise. If a review is going to leave something out from founder's 4 criteria, I'd rather they leave out price and instead go into club vibe, vampiness, and especially dancer details.
Again, I realize I'm out of step with everyone, just enjoying the debate
discussion comment
5 years ago
Paps, could be. I will note, though, that even I think a TR style review on just one girl, will often be borderline. I'd like to see descriptions of a few girls. But I think it's not just clubbing style, but how you pick a club in the first place. You guys will pass a review that contains not much more than prices and club layout, which makes me think that's how you choose clubs. Prices, as long as they don't pass some crazy threshold, are a side issue for me, compared to what the girls are like. And if I can walk into a new club already knowing the reputation of 15 of the girls, I should avoid these 7 and favor these 8, well, that is going to 1. be much more important than knowing the drinks are $8 (or, as the guys point out, prices sometimes change, so horror of horrors, the drinks are actually $10 now), 2. have a bigger impact on my club choice, than whether every single review repeats prices.
I just don't get how club prices are the overwhelming factor you read reviews for. But...
-->"Again, many on here know certain clubs inside out and may have been reading reviews of certain clubs for years, thus you get the "it's been mentioned a 100 times" - but the reality is good chance that info is not known to many readers for one reason or another."
Okay, but if the top review doesn't have prices, then if Dreamgirls is typical, the next review will. And the next. And the next. And the next. And the next. And the next. And the next. I didn't check further back than that, but I have a feeling I'd be typing "and the next" until my fingers bled. No one reads a single review to make their decision anyway, and as it is, you read just 2 or 3 reviews, you couldn't avoid seeing prices even if you wanted to. Granted, some clubs are slower as far as reviews
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->" I can see one of your frequent targets getting even with you by thumbs downing your reviews."
I thought of that also. In a forum with some sane level of moderation, this idea is workable. A little skeptical about it working here. Maybe worth a try, dunno
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"But a review with absolutely NOTHING other than a description of his interactions with a single girl and a passing reference to another that wasn't even there? C'mon now, are you guys trolling now?"
Keep up Rick, I've already conceded the initial review was light! lol ... seriously, you all convinced me, it was light. I'm less interested in defending that review, than the notion that every review -- even if filled with gold-standard awesome info about the girls -- needs to have the basic-bitch drink and dance cost as a minimum bar.
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"I disagree. It provides an incentive to provide more than just the minimum."
Describing the girls, differentiating the awesome from the hustlers, is not "the minimum" -- it's gold-standard info everyone new to a club should want to near. No argument that OP didn't do that!! But dismissing actual useful info on the girls, because it didn't repeat the dance prices ad nauseum, is crazy, man!
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"Anyone who doesn't like that idea is a fucking retard."
This is how I feel about all my brilliant ideas also.
discussion comment
5 years ago
25: ya, I realize I'm out-of-step with many people here -- or at least the most vocal on the forum -- in that I find endless re-iteration of cost and layout to be not very useful. Again, based on Dreamgirls, after the 5th in a row that mentions those things, how is a sixth, that adds nothing to information about the club except to repeat the same cost and layout info, additive about the club? Answer: it's absolutely not, IMO. Which is why I think this is a forum-imposed artificial and unneeded minimum bar that just serves as an excuse for the pedantic to downvote otherwise good info.
How does a newbie know what info is useful? I really don't think this should be physics-exam difficult. If you want to talk just about the girls -- awesome! Saying you were looking for Olivia but she wasn't in the place isn't very useful. Describing her, why makes her so great, etc., that's real useful information that I, as a newbie to the club, could use. If more reviewers describe the girls, and what makes them awesome or hustlers, we start building a picture strippers to seek out or avoid. Pretty useful info! Crazy to reject that info just because it doesn't repeat that drinks are $8. Just use common sense and give enough info to be useful, newbies!
discussion comment
5 years ago
rockie: 100% agree.
I do think it is very fair to point out that, even by TR standards, the initial review was super light. I personally find it very valuable to know two names -- Olivia and Secret -- who are evidently CF material rather than hustlers or ROBs. But just a little more effort, he could have described those girls and the rest of the lineup, etc. So, sure, maybe not enough details.
My big point, with which you seem to agree, is: a review which focuses on the girls (without compromising them!) is more useful than the 10th review in a row which mentions drinks cost $8 and the stage is round and on the left. There has been a consensus building that there be some standard information required on club info (Papi alludes to it when he says "minimum requirement for club info"). That consensus is what I want to break to pieces. Insane to think the 10th review in a row that contains entry and drink prices, is better than one that omits those details but instead talks about which girls are awesome vs hustlers. No, every review should not be required to mention drink prices and lap dance prices or whatever. But yes, they should be required to have enough info to be useful.
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"2. For those that have switched, I have anecdotal reports from about 4 dancers at clubs that thier "take home" pay has dropped 30-60%."
Yeah, as this rolls through, the experiences are the same everywhere in the state. Note that the article cites that this movement to form a union is being driven out of southern California -- don't get fooled by the bleating that the destructive impact on the girls is limited to SF. Everywhere this rolls out, the reports from PLs and the girls are the same. It's been horrible for the girls. Someone who endorses beating the girls, and controlling them through drugs and emotional abuse, could certainly applaud this change; anyone who cares about the women in this business, not so much.
-->"The overall effect on PL's is that your total send may not change much, but more of that spend will go to the club. From that it's easy to predict that ITC extras will die and OTC will be much more available and preferred from a subset of dancers as a necessary risk to earn the same or better pay."
PLs will see a more practical impact as 1. many of the girls switch to stripping in other states, or leaving the business entirely, 2. the shifts get progressively smaller, since it's no longer in the club's interest to have lots of girls on shift (at least according to SC manager thinking). Reduction in talent and lineup sizes, reduces the number of PLs, raises the girls hustle level given lower takehome and smaller crowds, etc. The girls and PLs are in common cause here, bad all around
discussion comment
5 years ago
MW: ya, Rick seems to have gotten it backwards, but it's just as weird that she has a hotel room she rents. Or rather, not weird -- given that the girls you saw had an escort pricing model, maybe not surprising she also had escort-like logistics. You've been seeing high volume escorts pretending to be strippers. In the OTC most of us talk about, the whole point is that these artifacts of escorting business model don't exist -- no by-the-hour pricing, and it's not her primary job so she won't have her own hotel room that she's rented.
discussion comment
5 years ago
I think it's dougster too, he uses argument techniques dougster used a lot. Still, I'll take the win -- the article says directly that "stripper hoes" are NOT doing fine, they're doing so un-fine that some small subset is talking about unionizing. But whatevs. Winning team! lol
discussion comment
5 years ago
The article that you described as a "great article", says:
"Versions of this payment structure exist in clubs around the state. Ironically, it’s a product of what should be positive change in the industry. Thanks to a recent court ruling, exotic dancers in California are now recognized as employees, entitled to minimum wage and labor protections. But as a result, club owners are devising devious new ways to profit off their work."
As I have been confirming and you denying, the girls are worse off since the employee status ruling, and this effort to unionize is directly in reaction to that. In other words, the article confirms everything I've been saying, and directly contradicts everything you've been saying ... they got screwed so hard from the employee status, that they're trying to unionize (that's just some strippers -- others are trying to roll back the classification to employees entirely, which is likely the smarter move).
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"^ Not from what subraman is reporting"
Right. And what I'm reporting is 1. consistent with what others, customers and strippers, are reporting, 2. consistent with the article (where Icey's fantasy state is not). To wit: exactly as the article says, the girls are far worse off by having been transitioned to employees. This is a statement of fact -- all you need to do is run the numbers to see it's true, and that's before you factor in that they are limited in hours, doing doubles, etc. So, having been hit hard by the transition to employees, they're trying to respond to those changes. Some are responding by looking at unionizing; others are responding by trying to get the employee ruling to not apply to them. The point is: if the effect of the employee transition was anything other than a disaster, they wouldn't be doing these things. As someone who wants the best for the girls, I'm sorry that the employee verdict has impacted them so badly; I prefer they make out better, regardless of political theory.
It's not surprising that, in response to "we told them that our political theory states that making them employees would make things better, but made things 100x worse", the new line is "now we're telling them that unionizing we definitely make things better. This time we'll definitely be right" Plain and simple, the girls are looking at unionizing because they got fucked but people who had good intentions but completely lacked understanding.
In addition, the kind of person who makes the following statements about women, should go around telling everyone else that they're misogynists:
"Its in your best interest to take control of her drug use from the start. Make sure she does the minimum to get fucked up."
"Never ask her to do shit. Tell her to do it."
"Its about control."
"Don’t be afraid to discipline her. Eventually you’ll have to. Be manipulative with her feelings."
"She’s not happy with herself and never satisfied, she’s always looking for a quick fix and fast satisfaction."
"The number one thing you need to do to fulfill her needs is to make her dependent on you for as much as possible. You basically have to manage her life. Its what these bitches crave"
"If she fucks with your main bitch keys your car gets violent with you, then slap the shit out of her. "
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"IMO the review is borderline at best. I won't 100% reject a review because there are no prices, and/or no layout info. But this was simply "I had a good time with a dancer named Secret and she was the only one who I liked" That's not a review. A couple of things could have made it a good review:"
Totally fair -- as I've been acknowledging, this is awfully light even as a TR-style review. But the notion that every review has to repeat all the prices and club layout details that the previous 10 reviews all detailed is insane, as is the notion that information about which girls are awesome or hustlers isn't valuable enough for approval on its own. More discussion about other things, even if they remain TR-y rather than club facts, is a very fair constructive criticism. I'm sure there's lots of other interesting TR info beyond the fact that Olivia wasn't there (which she was, I just had her locked down, as Papi's dogged detective work revealed)
-->"Truth be told, if he resubmitted the same exact review he's got a 50% chance or better to get approved."
Yeah, I was going to post some examples of reviews of that club that did get approved, that had even less content than his. But with this kind of approval system, that's just the risk you take -- depends on who sees your review, which day.
discussion comment
5 years ago
Olivia is the real ninja. It turns out she was in the club all along
discussion comment
5 years ago
25: ya, agree, I said that up front -- as a practical matter, at this point an experienced reviewer should realize that this is a "dance cost and bar location" review forum, and he should consider including that stuff, regardless. But it's still a good opportunity to pimp the TR type reviews.
Wait, the Warriors lost? Will someone please check on Secret to see how she's taking this?
discussion comment
5 years ago
Rick: not arguing the review was light. Arguing this notion that every review has to include some standard lists of costs. I'd take a TR with good details on 3 girls in a heartbeat, given that the previous 6 reviews all probably have all the costs anyway (they do in the case of dreamgirls). In this particular review, the info on Olivia was not exactly useful (she wasn't there), and even on Secret it was a little light
discussion comment
5 years ago
AGain, I might agree that OP's TR was a little light, but if he added in a bit more about Secret -- when she usually works, etc. -- no brainer that's more useful than re-repeat the 6 (again, I counted them) previous reviews that all had prices, club layouts, etc. An artificial and unneeded minimum bar just serves as an excuse for the pedantic to downvote otherwise good info. Rejecting a review because it's light on info overall, I get. Because it hasn't repeated the info from the 6 previous reviews, but otherwise has interesting info on actual girls in the club? Doesn't make sense to me.
discussion comment
5 years ago
-->"then why not be sympathetic of the readers."
I am sympathetic of the readers. Which is why, if what they have time for is to read 5 reviews, instead of reading 5 reviews that all repeat the price of lapdances, the price of drinks, the cost of entrance, the location of the stage, the location of the bar, and the overall attractiveness of the girls -- which, by the way, is all fantastic information -- I think the reader could also use some specific g-2 on girls they might run into. It's exactly what the reader wants, and they shouldn't have to read 10 reviews that just repeat prices and stage & bar locations, to find out about the girls