Comments by Pole_Doc (page 3)

@San_jose_guy: Oh, I forgot to add that this girl is no exception to the things I described, and you pointed out, about strippers.

@Bullwinkle: Good Points well made. @Shailynn: I forgot to say, your video is tooooooo stuuuuuppppppiiiiidd! I laughed my azz off!

Wow! Where do I even begin? Shailynn: "What they don't realize is they may do 100 $5 dances versus 10 $30 dances." I couldn't have used a better example myself. You described stripper psychology with much authenticity. Are you, by chance, a dancer? You seem to know them well (bells, whistles, and bright shiny new shit). I also like how you "genderized" your response. I hate to say it but I think a lot of the specious logic comes from them just being women. It's all about how it "feels" to them. It goes back to what jerikson said earlier today in another discussion we were a part of. It was so well written and thought out, I'll post it again here: Jerikson40 said, "I basically divide people into two categories. I call them the Hearts and the Minds. And I closely associate them with Female and Male tendencies. The Minds having "Male" tendencies, and the Hearts having "Female" tendencies. Now I realize a lot of people will go totally apeshit for even suggesting something so incredibly insensitive and gender biased and whatever else negative stuff they can call it. Well, sorry... In any case, I think people in general can be classified by whether they are driven mostly by their minds or their hearts. Some people clearly seem to be driven by their emotions, and their instincts. They trust their feelings and their intuition over all else, and they place more importance in those feelings and intuitions than in any rational, logical analysis. As a result, their positions on various issues is the result of their feelings and intuition. As a result, often their knowledge of the facts, as well as depth of analysis or understanding, is lacking. Because to them it's just not important. Others seem to be driven by their minds, and rational analysis. They tend to analyze situations, and trust their logic over their emotions and intuitions. They tend to think about things a lot and study issues in depth. And they seem to be totally devoid of any emotion or sympathy, which absolutely annoys the shit out of those who are driven by emotion. I'll never forget being on a jury once, and we were judging a guy who was so clearly guilty that nobody in their right mind would find otherwise. His criminal history, the facts of the case, even a videotape showing him commiting the crime. But there was one older women who wouldn't budge from her belief that he was innocent. Her reasoning? "Aww, but look at him, and those eyes. He just CAN'T have done something like that". To her, no amount of facts or analysis would ever be as good as her feelings and intuition. Anyway, I think what you see in online debates over issues is the Hearts vs the Minds. The Hearts tend to go for the emotional response. The Minds go for the analytical response. And since the Hearts get their beliefs from their intuition and feelings, they generally don't have a depth of knowledge about the facts associated with the issues. Because those aren't nearly as important as the emotional and intuitive aspect. You don't NEED a lot of rational analysis to know that "intolerance, insensitivity, and injustice" are wrong. Why? Because they hurt people's feelings. Which is what is really important. Emotions and feelings. So when pressed for any factual depth in an issue, they are often limited to just their emotional and intuitive perspective. And at some point they run out of anything objective to respond with, and they get emotional and frustrated and give up. If you can't understand what, to them, are the obvious emotional points, then there's nothing to argue. Because the facts don't really matter. The Minds, on the other hand, love to analyze and evaluate. When they discuss issues they feel more comfortable discussing those issues in great detail and depth. And that pisses the Hearts off immensely. It annoys the shit out of them because why the hell are these morons going into this great, boring detail on such an obvious issue?? You don't judge people, or be insensitive, because it will hurt their feelings !! Period !! What's to discuss?? So as a result, in discussions you'll see the Hearts give a response to an issue like "I think it's this way", with absolutely no supporting information whatsoever. Because it's not important. My intuition is important, all the rest of your ridiculous analysis is irrelevant. And when you press them, they get emotional and upset. Why? Because you're bugging them with this annoying analysis that is irrelevant, and they can't respond to. So after giving the debate a try, they soon get so angry and frustrated that they bail out. A completely emotional response. Ever notice that there are virtually NO liberal-based political analysis and discussion shows? But FOX News is filled with conservative discussions and analysis. There's tons of conservative political shows. But virtually nothing from the liberals. Why? Well, it's the battle of the Hearts and the Minds. The liberals (Hearts) are not interested in all this annoying analysis, because it's irrelevant. There's no market for it. The conservatives (Minds) love it, and spend their lives nitpicking and discussing in nauseating detail. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it..." I think he's on to something here. By the way, Shailynn, I forgot to mention. My CF typically arrives at her home club at 11p nightly. The club is supposed to close at 4AM but will usually shut down around 3:15-3:30AM. That's $300 made (on a bad night) in 4-5hrs. She's told me that when she dances out of town, she typically has $500 plus nights. She also says she usually arrives to work much earlier too (around 7-8PM). Go figure. San_jose_guy: I think you've hit on some very key points here. It is true that generally speaking, strippers are some of the most self-centered, insecure people walking God's green earth. Thank you for your insight. You've added a great deal to what I've got missing from my assessment of things. Jerikson40: Once again, we are in agreement...and don't worry about me pulling out a spreadsheet. She's a bit salty with me right now (it's reciprocal) and wouldn't listen anyway.

@mikeya02: $300 is what she make on a bad night (bare minimum). As for her being hot? Judge for yourself... 😍😍😍😍 Red hair, black boots, black thong that barely holds her meat: http://youtu.be/K6GnSpBTBno

@skibum609: See my response to JohnSmith69.

crsm27: Good points well made. shailyn: Thanks for your input. As for her attitude being specific to strippers, please see my response to JohnSmith69, to read my thoughts on that. I'm sure the things you’ve pointed out may very well be the reason behind the motivation but I'm not entirely sure that's actually the reality, at least not based on what I've observed. I posted something a few days ago, as a part of another discussion. I think it fits rather felicitously, in response to your last comment: “Some ATL girls go to these (other) cities, thinking the grass is going to be greener. For a while it appears that way. However, they end up right back in the ATL. You know why? It's a simple issue of math and economics. Atlanta has a steadier flow of Ballers. Besides, it doesn't matter where you go; every club in America goes through its share of ebb and flow. Some girls are slower to get it than others but then again, a lot of strippers tend not to be good at math anyway :). Ask yourself this ... If you have a choice to work in a club where there is a consistent flow of $5 dances coming all night, versus one where there is moderate patronage, the dances are $30, and at the end of the night all you got were 4 table dances, plus the $1 tips everyone's been stuffing in your panties all night, which choice would you make? I can tell you what most girls tend to choose: $30 dances! They also weigh in that they don't have to "do as much," because the girls in those clubs don't get completely nude. Why that would make any difference to a STRIPPER is totally beyond me. You're a stripper, not a librarian. Take it off, or don't. What difference does that make, as long as you're making that cash flow!? Strippers like bright, shiny, new shit (bells and whistles). The problem with this is so do children. Children are also attracted to, and DISTRACTED by, bright, shiny, new things. However, once they find out that everything glittering isn't gold, strippers like children (hopefully), discover how specious their logic is. Bottom line: I don't care how expensive a club makes their dances per song, ain't NOBODY making no money if NOBODY (or close to no one) comes in there to pay it. Do these clubs have their moments? Sure (ebb and flow); however, from a long term perspective, it makes more mathematical sense to work at the club where the cash flow is most consistent. It's based on the logic of the Tortoise and the Hare fable - "Slow and Steady Wins the Race." Far too often, it seems to me that some strippers tend to get caught up in that "Hare" mentality.”

Been there, (done that) do it all the time! At the end of the day, a stripper is still a woman. That is why, when it comes to strippers, every situation is different.

JohnSmith69: Yea, I see your point. However, most of us don't make retrograde moves that create expenses, when doing so. I can always use, and will accept, more money. However, when I get that raise in pay, you'd better believe it had better be worth it. I'm sure what Rockefeller was talking about didn't involve him compromising his quality of life, for what at best could be considered nominal gain (if any at all). Like I said; the math doesn't appear to add up.

Jerikson40: "Pole_Doc.... I think your grammar/low self esteem suggestion is interesting to the point where you may have a point..." You seem to have an understandably, not so clear view of what I wrote. Although I see low self-esteem as a by product of what I was describing (a part of the "cycle" I mentioned), I do not necessarily see it as being the main cause. Remember, there were 2 groups in disagreement. One group made their opposition to the things voiced by you (myself as well) very clear, while they DID NOT hurl insults and vulgarities. The other group made their opposition clear, while they DID hurl insults and vulgarities. The former displayed a much better command of grammar than the latter. I enjoyed reading your "Hearts" and "Minds" analysis and find it rather agreeable. However, as you've already pointed out, our theories are coming from two slightly different angles. As I'm sure you'll agree, both of the groups I've mentioned, in the previous paragraph, would be classified in your "Hearts" category, whereas my analysis classifies them separately. Either way, I find both hypotheses equally interesting. By the way, as a member of the black male demographic, I find the FACT you presented to be on point. I stand here officially NOT OFFENDED! Now it's a valid point to be placed on the table for open and honest discussion (not saying we do that..I'm just making a point). Why couldn't those in this thread, who tucked and ran, do that? Learn to take your "feelings" out of it. Stand in there, like an adult, and have the debate! It's their loss. They missed an opportunity to educate and perhaps convert. I for one was looking forward to learning more about these other documented homosexual species, mentioned by Sclvr5005, said to be found in nature. Who knows, he could've gotten me to say, "Thank you for teaching me that. I stand corrected." Now, I guess we'll never know.

Concerning healthy debate (or the lack thereof), jerikson40, I have a "bit off topic" theory that may explain some of the insults we've been reading: I've noticed an apparent tendency, of some visiting this forum, to not realize the 3 respective, distinct, and differing meanings of the words "to," "too," and "two." There are other examples of infelicitous applications I could mention but this will do, for now. Interestingly enough, though, I've equally observed there seems to be a parallel between those who fall into the category of making these type of errors and a penchant for irascibly hurling insults and vulgarities at people expressing antithetical and, perhaps, unpopular views. This is often accompanied, or followed, by expressions of taking offense to something the intended target of the expletives said. As I've stated before, what we choose to take offense to is completely subjective. What one person finds offensive, someone else may see as funny. What brings about an elegiac feeling for one group, instills a sense of satisfaction for another. There's no way to really know. Obviously, the hurled insults, with the accompanied cursing, is a manifestation of the offense they've taken which, in turn, is a manifestation of some level of insecurity, or perhaps low self-esteem. This is definitely a recipe for the type of "thinned skinned," insulting and vulgar reactions we've witnessed. There have already been studies done to support the notion of a parallel existing between poor grammar usage and low self-esteem. Note that there have been those, however, who have expressed taking offense to certain things stated in this thread, and they've done so respectfully, without emoting, insulting, or the implementation of infantile cursing. In expressing their displeasure, they did so with a certain level of writing prowess, void of the egregious errors found in the things posted by the other group in question. Certainly they took offense, as expressed, but were nowhere near as expressively "thinned skinned" about it. Where am I going with this? In what may be my final post, on this thread, I wish to leave those who choose to accept it, a gift in two parts: The first part is in the form of a suggestion. If you're one of those who struggles with grammar (either speaking or writing), in an attempt to better yourself, find a way to procure a book on grammar that will help clear some things up for you. I advise getting a small one you can place in your pocket and take on the go. There are also websites you can visit. The truth is that society judges us by the way we speak and write (try going on a job interview). Unfortunately, the current culture of text messaging is part of the problem but what can you do, go back to the days prior to cell phones? I don't think so. The second part of the gift I wish to leave (which can serve well regardless of which group you happen to fall under) is in the form of a quote: "No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." - Eleanor Roosevelt. This is something I've taken with me through life and partially my reason for living boldly, as I do. As a result, I am rarely "offended" by anything. On those rare occasions when I am, it's usually by what people do, as opposed to what they say. Now, I've lived long enough to know and realize that people are different. I get it; everyone isn't going to react to things in the same way. However, when people react defensively, there's usually an underlying, highly sensitive charged, reason behind it. Often times that reason is accompanied by some form of insecurity, which is usually manifested emotionally. If they're emotional while writing, it shows and the reader often gets a true sense of who they are grammatically. The cycle continues and on, and on, and on it goes. Too deep for you? Am I reaching here; a bit of a stretch? Well, try applying the advice in the gift I left. See if your attitude about what you do, and do not find offensive doesn't change. If not, at the very least, the way you choose to respond to things certainly should. Don't believe me? Well, there's only one way to find out and you have nothing to lose, except for some of your insecurities and petulant nature, that is. If nothing else, in the end, you'll have improved your grammar. Good luck!

Zipman68 and jerickson40, You have NO idea how refreshing it is to read healthy debate, without all of the acrimony (I'm not sure where all that DoctorPhil stuff came from though). You guys aren't agreeing but at least you're having the debate and you're not disrespecting one another - Kudos!

@jerikson: As far as the whole right and wrong thing goes, in regard to homosexuality, I'm not going there. I believe in live and let live. I get what you were trying to do with the parallel but I didn't care for the analogy much (too dangerously close - my opinion). It made me feel a bit uncomfortable (not offended though). I tend to agree with you about the whole "tolerance crusade." It does seem like everyone is all "fuzzy and warm inside" about it, until tolerating an opposing view to what they want tolerated is involved; I concur with you. Lopaw: I apologize for thinking your friend was female. Should you give a response, how old is he? He seems young and intemperate. Sorry you tucked and ran, especially seeing how you were one of those, last night, encouraging healthy discussion and debate. You disappoint me. Anyway, I tend to agree with you. This has gone on long enough. There isn't enough objectivity here for any good to come from it.

@jerikson40: I think you've made some very thought provoking comments. However, I'd like more clarity, concerning the apparent pedophilia/homosexual parallel. I'm not sure I follow you. You aren't comparing the two, are you? As for Sclvr5005, I wouldn't worry about her. You're "casting your pearls" there. I don't know her so I can't pass judgement (the way she has) but based on how she posts, she seems to be quite a passionate (emotional) person. It is rather challenging to reason with that type - very disrespectful of opposing views. You must not have been reading. I've been on her all day about how uncivil she's been (cursing, insulting, overreacting). She doesn't get it. She seems rather young (like my daughter - 23 yrs old and knows every damned thing).

@Sclvr5005: No, Sclvr5005, you don't get it. I'm neither trying to "offend" or "not offend." I'm merely attempting to make my meanings clear (don't give a fuck about attention). You're still rehashing shit I've already explained, everyone else has gotten, and has moved on from! As to whether or not my words offend is completely up to the reader. I have no control over that. I can only promise to 1) Respect the opinions of others and 2) Address them using the clearest language I can muster, in a respectful manner, as I present my own (something you obviously haven't learned). These are the only 2 things I have control over. Whether or not my comments offend others is completely subjective. That means there's no way for me to know what will, or will not, offend you. What one-person finds offensive, another may not. That is none of my business. I can only control the manner in which I address you and how I choose to react to the opinions you voice (respect). As for the support I'm getting (I'm not necessarily looking for any), you obviously haven't been reading. There seem to be some who have stated they support the notion of civil discussion. Whether or not that takes place remains to be seen. However, as long as I'm addressed respectfully, I will respond in kind. Curious, Sclvr5005, how old are you? I'm guessing 20s (Hell, IDK)? You just seem a rather acrimonious and defensive individual to me.

@jerikson40: You're correct. I did take the time to "school" you, because as I've said before, I have an affinity towards people and things misunderstood and pretermitted. I see you being in this category. I also "picked" on you, because I knew my words would be "heard". Also, I don't believe in "...casting my pearls before swine..." If you don't believe me, go back to the "hey lopaw" discussion and read how I defended you earlier! I could've dug in further but why?

I'm sorry, who are we talking about?

Frivolity

NEVER apologize for who you are! You can NEVER go wrong being yourself.

Otto22 stated @ Pole_Doc: "You have the right to believe anything you wish but do not assume that choosing to claim lesbianism is not "natural" rather than not "normal" would be less offensive." My motive wasn't to "offend" or "less offend" but rather, to clarify. Pole_Doc stated @ lopaw: "I truly meant it, when I said I didn't mean to use "normal." I sincerely meant to use the word "natural." However, I didn't take back the word "normal," due to insensitivity issues. I took back the word, because I truly meant to say "natural."

@Otto22: You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and I respect it. It is obvious to me that you have not read ALL of the comments I've made in this thread. I suggest going back to do so, before continuing. Thanks for welcoming a HEALTHY, open discussion about it. Your comments, like those made by lopaw, I find refreshing. sclvr5005: I've attempted to "justify" nothing. All I've done is made an effort to clarify. I would, once again, suggest you go back and read through my comments but it is clear to me you won't. You are determined to twist my words and create your own fiction about what I'm conveying. Good luck with that (Reading is fundamental but COMPREHENSION is golden!). I welcome your comments, if you think you can, as Otto22 has said, "keep it civil."

SAY

@sclvr5005: I don't think that's what he (jerickson40) is saying at all. Reading is fundamental BUT comprehension is GOLDEN! Also, your name calling and insults help nothing. Expressing thought void of emotion is, by far, more efficacious than your current approach. You should try it ;). I must, however, I do appreciate your passion!

I want to make myself VERY clear. Nothing I have stated is intended to pass judgement of any kind. I made a cognizant effort to stay away from that. My intention is/was to share a personal experience I had (and opinions based on that experience), in response to what was already being discussed, in hopes it would stimulate HEALTHY discussion. My choice of words addresses the issue of what is natural from unnatural, for the purpose of HEALTHY discussion ONLY. Mother Nature herself is the only one in a position of judgement, to dictate what IS and IS NOT Natural. As I've already stated, the only thing the rest of us can do is voice opinions. I think Nature's LAWS speak loudly and clearly, on this front. As for the issue of morality, although I respect the comments made by jerikson40 and zipman68, I prefer to stay away from that. Aside from the very poignant points made by zipman68, concerning children and consent, I'm just not too sure members of a strip club forum are in a position of judgement, to discuss right from wrong. I'll be clear; I know I'm not. I'm pretty sure neither is anyone else. Lastly, for the record, I'm rather intrigued (and sometimes annoyed) by "feminine" homosexuality. However, nothing I have stated, to this point, should be misconstrued to conclude that I dislike lesbians (There is no hate in anything I've said). I want to be clear, and free of any possible tie to hypocrisy. I have been in several sexual situations, involving bi and/or lesbian women, and I've enjoyed every one of them! To those few of you who may undoubtedly think this statement contradictory to those I've previously made, I welcome your challenge to thwart my claims. However, be advised; I am prepared to vigorously defend my positions.

@Lopaw: Thank you for keeping your comments void of emotion. It makes no sense to me when people get angry over other people's right to different and varying opinions. They're not weapons; they're just opinions and everyone's entitled to at least one. Now, let's dissect your comments: "Sexual orientation and gender identity are very complex issues that befuddles even us gay folk. Alot of your presumptions are a stretch at best." I'm not sure what "presumptions" you are speaking of. I didn't "presume" anything. As I attempted to show in my response to sclvr5005, I made it clear in my comments that I DON'T understand this type of sexuality, which therefore infers that I concur with your assessment, concerning its complexities. That is why I posed a QUESTION in my comments, as I admitted to my lack of knowledge. I can not make a "stretch" on a presumption that doesn't exist. Reading is truly fundamental BUT comprehension is golden! All you have to do is go back and read the words I chose to use. They speak for themselves. Here's your next comment: "... because a lesbian likes penetration (anywhere) does not mean that she secretly likes men or she should 'just be with a man' ..." Again, go back and read the words I carefully took the time to choose. I said NOTHING about lesbians (I didn't even use the word "lesbian") secretly liking men, based on their enjoyment of penetration! Again, I didn't PRESUME anything. What I posed was a QUESTION based on the LOGIC of being attracted to masculinity. Again, I NEVER claimed to know ANYTHING about the issue, thus the reason for the QUESTION. If anything, it was inferred that someone make sense of it for me. Your next comments: "...If it were that simple I'm sure that she would be with a man. But then she'd be a terrible lesbian, right?" As you've already stated (and I pointed out in my story), she's more bi than gay. She really shouldn't be calling herself gay. However, she's gotta figure that one out for herself. To answer your question, Yes, she does make a terrible lesbian. From what I hear, she and the girlfriend have recently broken up. I would guess she's probably in the midst of an identity crisis, right about now. Who knows, she may end up with a man next. BTW, sclvr5005, this in no way means "I have a shot," or I want one. The girl lacks honor and I'm no longer interested. Your next comments: "It may sound convoluted to you and me, but it makes sense to her. And that's all that really matters to her & her partner. Often logic is out the window when the heart (and genitals) want what they want." This is where I say, "I don't understand that and I ain't tryna understand it." Thanks for admitting that LOGIC is tossed to the wind here. That's the most sensible thing I've read all night. Your final comments I will address in this response: "Thank you for realizing that using the phrasing "not normal" was insensitive. But changing that to "unnatural" wasn't much better." This is where we may bump heads and have to agree to disagree. I truly meant it, when I said I didn't mean to use "normal." I sincerely meant to use the word "natural." However, I didn't take back the word "normal," due to insensitivity issues. I took back the word, because I truly meant to say "natural." It is not my intent to offend. However, I have no control over what people CHOOSE to be offended by. I stand by my comments, as an incontrovertible fact of NATURE. That is why I chose the examples I used, when referencing sclvr5005's comments concerning "the little sexual world that I know." I intentionally mentioned various species of NATURE to stress a point and to show that "sexual world" mentioned by sclvr5005, isn't so "little" after all. Only NATURE can dictate what is natural and what is not. All the rest of us can do is voice opinions. I think NATURE speaks for itself. Now, please DO NOT take my words and twist them to mean that I'm "intolerant" or I'm filled with "hate" or that I'm "judgmental." That simply would not be true (Hell, I just told you about a lesbian I dated). However, I can no more call your lifestyle natural than I can say the sky is red! It doesn't mean I have a problem with the sky. All it means is that facts dictate the sky is blue and facts are stubborn things. I hope this doesn't hinder our ability to converse and debate, Lopaw. I rather enjoy you. This debate, by far, has proven to be more edifying than any I've had tonight. I find you rather stimulating. Please don't be offended by my positions. I mean it when I say there's careful thought and compassion behind each word I choose. Please know and understand this.

@sclvr5005: You are falsely accusing me of things I haven't said. Take a deep breath.... Get your emotions in check... Okay? Here's a review: You said I stated: "For one if all lesbians who like penetration really liked dick, there would be no demand for strap ons." What I actually stated: "... if you're a woman who achieves orgasm via penetration (especially in the ass), and you are attracted to masculinity, why not just be with a man?" NOTICE THE QUESTION MARK? Also, the word "DICK" is nowhere to be found in my statement. Let's continue... You stated: "Your logic is typical of a guy who doesn't have a clue about this ... Well its obvious that you don't know dick about it." When I've already stated: "Now, I'm not trying to say that's how it's supposed to go between gay women. I don't understand that and ain't tryna understand it." No need for redundancy. Admittedly I don't know "dick" about it, thus my QUESTION in the previous example. Let's continue... You said: "... you have come to a conclusion based on the little sexual world that you know, hence you stating that it is not 'normal''..." Here's where you've got me! I DID wrongfully use the word "normal." For that, I sincerely apologize. I did not mean to use that word. What I meant to say is that shit ain't "natural." I base my logic on "the little sexual world that I know," that cats know, that dogs know, that birds know, that fish know, that reptiles know, that insects know, that flowers know, etc, etc, etc... Now calm down... Take a deep breath. I am NOT passing judgement. I'm merely basing my comments upon the laws of nature, that's all. I do appreciate HEALTHY debate. Let's try to remain calm, okay? Also, make sure you read my comments correctly before firing upon them. Thanks!