Ok. This doesnt make sense.
Your not allowed to have a lapdance in Seattle.
But it might be legal to carry a concelead and loaded weapon to a bar in Arizona
Does that make sense?
I saw an article that a guy wants to allow guns and explosives into schools for PROTECTION in arizona. The article said it went through prelimanary OK from the house. Please tell me thats its a joke or something.
Originally posted by pr1983
So is that the fault of the business or the girl who's not willing to work in those establishments? If a business is going to make more money by offering lapdances, and the vast majority of their employess are willing, then why should the business make an exception for those few who arent? If a girl doesnt want to lapdance, and finds a job, the last thing she should expect is to earn the same money as a dancer who is willing to give lapdances imo...and i honestly think (sorry i didnt say this in my last post), that lapdancing is alot further from prostitution than some would believe...
yes, lap dancing isn't prostitution, but it looks more like it than stripping, as I descriped in my last post. I'm not trying to put the blame for the existance of lap dancing on anyone, just focusing on whether it should be considered 'stripping' or 'prostitution' and whether it should be expected of a person whose job it is to strip to also become phys铆cal with her customers.
backfire: the above's the reason why I'm critical of lap dancing now being a natural part of stripping - regardless of what it's been earlier on. yes, a woman can stop stripping if she doesn't want to lap dance, but I don't think she should have to lap dance in the first place at all. not when she's a stripper.
Now they're trying to ban lapdances in California! They need to just leave this shit alone.
Line: Lapdancing is where the girls make the VAST majority of their money. Also, keep in mind girls don't HAVE to give lap dances. When I go to a club I often see a girl who's just sitting down chatting with a guy, flirting, never dancing once. I also see girls who just go on stage, do the normal strip thing, then go in the back only comming back out to do another stage show. Strippers aren't forced to give lap dances, it's just how they make a massive amount of cash. Banning lap dances is completely assbackwards, it's always up to the girl to give the dance, they're almost always the one who initiate it "Hey, you want a dance?". If you ban lapdances you're pretty much destroying the strip club business. It's good, clean, exciting, mutually agreed upon fun. It harms no one, leave it be.
They need to let the girls decide fo themselves, and stop pushing your shit into the strip clubs.
Originally posted by BackFireLine: Lapdancing is where the girls make the VAST majority of their money. Also, keep in mind girls don't HAVE to give lap dances. When I go to a club I often see a girl who's just sitting down chatting with a guy, flirting, never dancing once. I also see girls who just go on stage, do the normal strip thing, then go in the back only comming back out to do another stage show. Strippers aren't forced to give lap dances, it's just how they make a massive amount of cash. Banning lap dances is completely assbackwards, it's always up to the girl to give the dance, they're almost always the one who initiate it "Hey, you want a dance?". If you ban lapdances you're pretty much destroying the strip club business. It's good, clean, exciting, mutually agreed upon fun. It harms no one, leave it be.
I don't see how that makes it less 'prostitution-like'? I still think the line between prostitution and stripping is being stretched, as the two areas start to share more common traits.
I've never been to a strip club and I don't know how things are in the clubs you visit. I can't say the strippers there don't feel just fine about lap dancing. my point is, though, that as soon as the contact gets physical, the dancer gets more vulnerable to physical harrasment/violence if the club's not that much into safety.
if banning lap dance will ruin the business, then it must be too much of an important part of strip tease to let a dancer choose not to want to do it. sure, some'll no doubt feel fine about it, but others will feel pressured into doing it.
Originally posted by Line
I don't see how that makes it less 'prostitution-like'? I still think the line between prostitution and stripping is being stretched, as the two areas start to share more common traits.I've never been to a strip club and I don't know how things are in the clubs you visit. I can't say the strippers there don't feel just fine about lap dancing. my point is, though, that as soon as the contact gets physical, the dancer gets more vulnerable to physical harrasment/violence if the club's not that much into safety.
if banning lap dance will ruin the business, then it must be too much of an important part of strip tease to let a dancer choose not to want to do it. sure, some'll no doubt feel fine about it, but others will feel pressured into doing it.
Comparing lap dancing in general to prostitution is quite a stretch. They're not having sex with the guys, just dancing in front of them. If there's some kind of penetration, then I'll accept your comparison, until then, it is invalid seeing as penetration does not happen. The most your allowed to do is touch the girls ass or something, and that's only if the girl allows it. Also, if you've never even been to a strip club then how can you even have a relevent opinion on the matter? No offense, but that just confirms that you probably don't know what you're talking about in the matter.
All clubs are into safety, they all have bouncers walking around at all times, and just one word from a stripper will get a customer thrown out/beaten up. They're perfectly safe, even while lap dancing in the somewhat private lap dancing areas of the club. A bouncer is always right outside waiting for a dancers signal for help.
Here's how it works. A dancer has to pay the club a certain amount of money every night she works. Let's say it's $150 or so. She has to pay this amount no matter what, everything else she get's to keep for herself. If she can make enough money by simply dancing on stage then it's possible that she may never give one lap dance the whole night, it IS her decision. Most strippers give lap dances as a quick and easy way to make lot's of money. Some guys drop hundreds of dollars to a girl in 15 minutes if she's a good lap dancer. If a girl is uncomfortable with lap dancing, then again, stripping probably isn't the right profession for her, no one's forcing her to be a stripper.
Banning lap dances will ruin the business. Most guys go to strip clubs for lap dances, they enjoy having sexy girls wiggling around on them and possibly touching them, it will cut down on the amount of people goign to the clubs by a large amount and will in turn really cut back on the amount of money the girls/clubs make. There's no victim, there's no real reason NOT to allow it. Everyone is happy, leave it be. There is a reason why most strippers are heavily opposed to lap dances becomming illegal.
Originally posted by BackFire
Now they're trying to ban lapdances in California! They need to just leave this shit alone.Line: Lapdancing is where the girls make the VAST majority of their money. Also, keep in mind girls don't HAVE to give lap dances. When I go to a club I often see a girl who's just sitting down chatting with a guy, flirting, never dancing once. I also see girls who just go on stage, do the normal strip thing, then go in the back only comming back out to do another stage show. Strippers aren't forced to give lap dances, it's just how they make a massive amount of cash. Banning lap dances is completely assbackwards, it's always up to the girl to give the dance, they're almost always the one who initiate it "Hey, you want a dance?". If you ban lapdances you're pretty much destroying the strip club business. It's good, clean, exciting, mutually agreed upon fun. It harms no one, leave it be.
They need to let the girls decide fo themselves, and stop pushing your shit into the strip clubs.
Yeah exactly. 馃拑
Originally posted by BackFire
Comparing lap dancing in general to prostitution is quite a stretch. They're not having sex with the guys, just dancing in front of them. If there's some kind of penetration, then I'll accept your comparison, until then, it is invalid seeing as penetration does not happen. The most your allowed to do is touch the girls ass or something, and that's only if the girl allows it. Also, if you've never even been to a strip club then how can you even have a relevent opinion on the matter? No offense, but that just confirms that you probably don't know what you're talking about in the matter.All clubs are into safety, they all have bouncers walking around at all times, and just one word from a stripper will get a customer thrown out/beaten up. They're perfectly safe, even while lap dancing in the somewhat private lap dancing areas of the club. A bouncer is always right outside waiting for a dancers signal for help.
Here's how it works. A dancer has to pay the club a certain amount of money every night she works. Let's say it's $150 or so. She has to pay this amount no matter what, everything else she get's to keep for herself. If she can make enough money by simply dancing on stage then it's possible that she may never give one lap dance the whole night, it IS her decision. Most strippers give lap dances as a quick and easy way to make lot's of money. Some guys drop hundreds of dollars to a girl in 15 minutes if she's a good lap dancer. If a girl is uncomfortable with lap dancing, then again, stripping probably isn't the right profession for her, no one's forcing her to be a stripper.
Banning lap dances will ruin the business. Most guys go to strip clubs for lap dances, they enjoy having sexy girls wiggling around on them and possibly touching them, it will cut down on the amount of people goign to the clubs by a large amount and will in turn really cut back on the amount of money the girls/clubs make. There's no victim, there's no real reason NOT to allow it. Everyone is happy, leave it be. There is a reason why most strippers are heavily opposed to lap dances becomming illegal.
I don't see prostitution as defined by whether or not penetration occurs. my defination of prostitution is that a sexual practice of some sort is being payed for. that's why I at some extend is willing to see strip tease as prostitution and the reason I see lap dancing, where the stripping gets physical, as even more so. strip tease is a kind of legal 'prostitution'. by making it allowed to get more and more physical traits of the 'real' prostitution gets legalized too. in other words, what I fear is a slide and a more commonly acceptance of traits from the physical prostitution. it's a stretch, but I don't think it's irrelevant.
I'm not approaching this subject from personal experience, so you're right; when it comes to figuring out exactly how the business's like in real life, I have absolutely no idea. I approach this from a theroretical stand point: the blending of legal and illegal kinds and types of prostitution. that's what I worry about. but yes, when I express concern about the strippers' safety, I can't base that concern in real life experiences. I can only make guesses that when physical contact occurs, the possibilities of harrasment and unpleasant situations happening gets more real. and I doubt security's top of the pop everywhere, but again, that's a guess.
what I fear is a slide and a more commonly acceptance of traits from the physical prostitution. it's a stretch, but I don't think it's irrelevant.
Well, it is, seeing as it's based off of the logical fallacy of "Slippery Slope". You can't base any relevent concerns off of something like that. It's not unlike the people who argue against gay marriage who say "Well if you allow gay people to be married, then marrying animals and kids could follow!". It's based on nothing but pure assumption of a worst case scenario happening.
The idea of strippers being comparable to real prostitutes, or stripping being considered prostitution is a stretch, IMO. They're not doing sexual acts, they're dancing naked. A lap dance doesn't generally include any real sex acts (unless you're REAL lucky 馃槢) and really doesn't fit with the main definition of prostitution. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Security is really a non-issue in the strip club business. The girls at the clubs are always looked after and protected. Numerous bouncers patrol the club looking for any problems. The girls at the clubs are safer then the men who frequent them.
But again, none of this really has to do with lap dances being banned. And again, from what I've seen there's no valid or sound reason to ban lap dances as a whole, seeing as it's been established that the dancers do lap dances under their own free will, and that if they don't like it, they're not forced to do it, and if they still have a problem with it then they don't need to be strippers.
Originally posted by BackFire
Well, it is, seeing as it's based off of the logical fallacy of "Slippery Slope". You can't base any relevent concerns off of something like that. It's not unlike the people who argue against gay marriage who say "Well if you allow gay people to be married, then marrying animals and kids could follow!". It's based on nothing but pure assumption of a worst case scenario happening.The idea of strippers being comparable to real prostitutes, or stripping being considered prostitution is a stretch, IMO. They're not doing sexual acts, they're dancing naked. A lap dance doesn't generally include any real sex acts (unless you're REAL lucky 馃槢) and really doesn't fit with the main definition of prostitution. But hey, whatever floats your boat.
Security is really a non-issue in the strip club business. The girls at the clubs are always looked after and protected. Numerous bouncers patrol the club looking for any problems. The girls at the clubs are safer then the men who frequent them.
But again, none of this really has to do with lap dances being banned. And again, from what I've seen there's no valid or sound reason to ban lap dances as a whole, seeing as it's been established that the dancers do lap dances under their own free will, and that if they don't like it, they're not forced to do it, and if they still have a problem with it then they don't need to be strippers.
true, you can see slides in everything, but I find this a bit different, though. as strip tease was becoming more popular and accepted the strip tease aesthetics was soon copied in the media. we're now used to watching people taking of their clothes on tv, be it on reality shows, films or music videos, in order to get our money. it's not called stripping, course it's not in a strip club, but the idea's the same.
the limits are pushed so that we accept more and more (and the media is dying to accept more, as long as it's sexual), and I don't think that's a terribly good idea as it makes us regard our bodies in a different and often not very realistic way.
I do define stripping as a sexual act. it's not so much about nudity, as it's about arousing the audience sexually for money. a lap dance even more so, because the physical part of it makes it resemble 'real' sex more ( dancing strippers do try to 'resemble' a woman having sex too, but without the touching.)
right now it's being discussed in quite a few countries whether prostitution and visiting prostitutes should be illegal or legal. the more we're willing to accept some sort of sexual act (again, I see stripping and lap dancing as sexual act) being payed for, the more we're willing to accept prostitution. it's a stretch, agreed, and it's a slide proclaiming the worst scene scenario, yes, but we've seen quite a sexual revolution and a fascination with sexuality in the media and the like which, IMO, is out of proportion and not that healthy. we are, in other words, more than happy to accept when boundaries for sexuality are being stretched. that's why I think a slide, when it comes to subjects like these, is more realistic.
but hell. we don't define neither prostitution nor stripping the same way, so we'll probably never come to any sort of agreement at all.
Yeah.
You're not the only one who thinks what they do is comparable to prostitution, a friend of mine thinks the same thing. Though I hesitate to agree, because as you said, what they do resembles sex it isn't actually sex. Clothes stay on, and while they may sexually arouse men that doesn't mean what they do is a real sex act. It takes more then arousal to make something prostitution.
Hell, some hollywood movies arouse men, that doesn't mean the actresses are prostitutes or anything.
Even if your worst case scenario could happen, I wouldn't really have a problem with it, I'm a strong supporter for legal prostitution regaurdless, I think it's stupid to have it be a criminal offense.
Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah.You're not the only one who thinks what they do is comparable to prostitution, a friend of mine thinks the same thing. Though I hesitate to agree, because as you said, what they do resembles sex it isn't actually sex. Clothes stay on, and while they may sexually arouse men that doesn't mean what they do is a real sex act. It takes more then arousal to make something prostitution.
Hell, some hollywood movies arouse men, that doesn't mean the actresses are prostitutes or anything.
Even if your worst case scenario could happen, I wouldn't really have a problem with it, I'm a strong supporter for legal prostitution regaurdless, I think it's stupid to have it be a criminal offense.
no, actresses who arouse men aren't called prostitutes ( because we choose not to call them so and define them as such), but they use the aesthetics from the sex-industri, whether it be pornography or strip tease. in that sense they, IMO, actually do 'prostitute' themselves because they do sexual acts (well, we disagree on this, but it's my opinion) in order to earn money. ( this doesn't include actresses who arouse men while drinking coffee because they're so damn hot-my defination only involves people who deliberately use the aesthetics of the sex industry in order to earn money.)
that our defination of prostitution strictly evolves around physical sex is, IMO, a choice we've made and one that should be discussed now that the boundaries between the sex-industries and main stream entertainment are being pushed, as well as various sexual services such as lap dances (again, we defer in our defination) are being allowed.
I don't know whether I think legal prostitution is such a great idea, just as I don't know whether it should be at all legal to buy the services of a prostitute (in this case, services meaning 'actual' physical sex). one day the experts thinks legalizing prostitution is bad for the prostitutes, the other day they don't. I don't have enogh knowledge on the subject to have a die hard opinion on the matter. it's necessary to discuss, though.
Originally posted by justdecent
Yay! another vote for prositution then, right?
lol no definetly not. I dont like strippers or prostitues, and thank god neither does my fiance. hes not having his bachelor party with strippers and neither am i having my bachlorette part with them. Honestly we both agree, why throw $1 bills at someone to take their clothes off, when we have someone who will do it for free lol.