Dispatches : The Hidden World of Lap Dancing

[TheAnimus]

its also recession proof:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-with-art/?hp

I thought it was the rino that kicked off all the complaints against sleazey clubs because they gave an undercover reporter (from channel 4) a blowjob?

[Bazzlad]

its also recession proof:
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/20...e-with-art/?hp

I thought it was the rino that kicked off all the complaints against sleazey clubs because they gave an undercover reporter (from channel 4) a blowjob?

As I said, there are 2 variables - the club and the girl.
You can't control both.

As far as I'm aware Rhino's is the upmarket (if there is such a thing) choice.
That said, never been there, so could just be good PR

[G4Z]

Well, I have been in a couple of lapdancing places in Newcastle, Baz's description is bang on. Never seen anything like what was presented on the program but I think even if it was i wouldn't have a problem with it.

I do have a long time g/f, I wouldn't take up any offer and I think anybody who complains about temptation is just a seriously weak person.

[shaithis]

I've been to SR @ Tottenham Court road (as well as a few 'no name' establishments dotted around the country) and it seems to be at the highly professional end of the spectrum.

The girls reflect it, both in appearance and manor.......had I been offered sex in SR I would probably have jumped at it (even though paying for it is something I've never done, nor plan to do!), where as everywhere else I have been I would never entertain the idea.

These establishments vary wildly.

[kopite]

I never got offered extras in lapdancing clubs.

I usualy get asked by the bouncers to leave before they eject me

[fuddam]

Also for the record, if I had a daughter I would let her do nearly whatever career she wanted, porn, lapdancing whatever. I would draw the line at theologian though.

just like I thought. no children of your own. lmao to hear you talk like that.

[G4Z]

Heh, here is me waiting days for you to respond and that is all I get?

You have lost your touch mate, where are the 3 pages of 'scripture' to go alongside it and statements about love and compassion?

So, to sum up, you reckon because I have no kids I don't have a view as to what values I might instil in them if I was unlucky enough to be 'blessed' and that because you have some spawn you have some sort of new information that I don't. That somehow 'I just don't get it because I don't have it', sounds sort of similar to your pro religion arguments that. You're wrong of course, just because I have an emotional attachment to somebody does not mean I would interfere with their freedom.

[Bazzlad]

Heh, here is me waiting days for you to respond and that is all I get?

You have lost your touch mate, where are the 3 pages of 'scripture' to go alongside it and statements about love and compassion?

So, to sum up, you reckon because I have no kids I don't have a view as to what values I might instil in them if I was unlucky enough to be 'blessed' and that because you have some spawn you have some sort of new information that I don't. That somehow 'I just don't get it because I don't have it', sounds sort of similar to your pro religion arguments that. You're wrong of course, just because I have an emotional attachment to somebody does not mean I would interfere with their freedom.

I don't think I've read a more patronising post on hexus - even in the 10 + religious debates I've read.

Congrats.

[Splash]

just like I thought. no children of your own. lmao to hear you talk like that.

Why do these conversations always seem to boil down to children? This whole "You're wrong because I have kids and you'd never understand because you don't" attitude sucks, if I'm honest.

[G4Z]

I don't think I've read a more patronising post on hexus - even in the 10 + religious debates I've read.

Congrats.

haha!

I disagree to be honest, I think Fuddams 'bigger picture' posts are far more patronising.

[TheAnimus]

Why do these conversations always seem to boil down to children? This whole "You're wrong because I have kids and you'd never understand because you don't" attitude sucks, if I'm honest.

In fairness i'd like fuddam to prove that he dosen't have kids.

Until then, i'll continue to believe he does.

[0iD]

Well I have daughters, four daughters in fact & my eldest now 16 has expressed intentions of maybe doing it. Now whilst I find the idea abhorrent, she has to find her own path in life. Bars I have bben in here, the US & Canada, Germany etc have mostly been as 'respectable' as it gets I suppose. But she's still going to have to wait a few years till she's finished her studies.

[fuddam]

So, to sum up, you reckon because I have no kids I don't have a view as to what values I might instil in them if I was unlucky enough to be 'blessed' and that because you have some spawn you have some sort of new information that I don't. That somehow 'I just don't get it because I don't have it', sounds sort of similar to your pro religion arguments that. You're wrong of course, just because I have an emotional attachment to somebody does not mean I would interfere with their freedom.

'interfere with their freedom' - lol
you seriously think that all it boils down to is individual freedom? Don't you have any concept of responsibility, both to your (potential) children, and to society at large?

the problem with these clubs is the same as that with porn: it leads to people viewing others as a means to an end, rather than individuals, to fetishisation of body parts, to breakdown in relationship. Yep, relationship.

I don't have to quote scripture to substantiate these ideas, but it's all there in black & white, if required.

Lotta people on this thread act as if there's no negative consequence to going to these clubs. Sorry, WRONG.

Quick Q: does it lead to better behaviour or worse? No middle ground now, no pretending there's no impact on the participants (otherwise they wouldn't go in the first place).

The viewer: He (or mebbe she) is doing something while watching. He is full of lust & desire for the dancer. Fact. He is imagining getting down 'n dirty with the dancer. He may not be touching the dancer at all, but in his mind, the complete opposite. This has an impact on him. And it doesn't lead anywhere that is healthy for relationship to his wife / GF / society. He doesn't see the dancer as a person but simply as an object for gratification of his (frustrated) desires. Show me where that kind of attitude has been healthy for society, please.

The dancer: she (or he) is encouraging this perception & treatment of individuals as objects, with disregard for feeling, emotion, respect in favour of simple physical lust. That doesn't lead anywhere good. It dehumanises the dancer. Note: I am not talking about her self-perception, since that can follow a whole range of feelings, from negative to positive, which is not my focus at the moment (e.g. if a dancer feels empowered by being the object of desire etc, which in itself is fraught with negative issues).

These clubs follow a similar line of thinking in many sex advice columns, notably that it's fine to fantasize about anything one likes, since it remains in the mind. Well, that's bollocks too.

What is in your HEART defines who you are. NOT your actions. (the scriptural stuff refers to how God looks at your heart rather than your behaviour for the true you).

eg: would you consider it ok to have a paedophile-in-mind looking after your children, even though all his (her) imaginings are just imaginings? Or to marry someone who outwardly shows all the right affections but inwardly hates/resents/does not love you? Or to have sex with someone who is only thinking about other people, not you? Or, quite simply, someone who masquerades as your friend but inwardly sees you as no more than a stepping stone to their own ends?

As a parent, one has the RESPONSIBILITY to teach one's kids that treating others as objects is negative; as a member of society, to inhibit practices that lead to negative social impact, and that freedoms are coupled with that responsibility. Big Picture.

oh, and FWIW, I never said or implied you don't have a view due to your lack of children, just that your views are THEORY until you have those children, and we all know how theory measures up in the practical world. lol.

[Bazzlad]

Not a bad post mate, you're right on most points too.


Don't get me wrong, you'll be ripped to pieces by pedantic posts, gleefully dancing around the main points, whilst picking up minor errors, but chin up - I quite liked it


It's the same as the drug legalisation in my eyes. The rules are strict and overly harsh at times, but if keeping it illegal stops just one extra person throwing their life away it's worth it - hell enough people throw their life away with Alcohol - imagine if there were more, stronger drugs available - and don't give me the cannabis isn't as bad as beer argument - I've seen what that drug can do to someone in small but consistent doses, maybe he was unlucky, but it messed him up royally. Sometimes, no matter how wrong it seems, the moral high ground is the right place to stand.

[G4Z]

Ok, first off, thanks for the post Fuddam, I appreciate you clearing up your point of view for me. I still think you're wrong though although at least you have based your post on something than your religious dogma.

'interfere with their freedom' - lol
you seriously think that all it boils down to is individual freedom? Don't you have any concept of responsibility, both to your (potential) children, and to society at large?

Yes, it does boil down to individual freedom I think. Freedom is not without consequences however, for example my girlfriend has taken a course in pole dancing mainly for the fun and fitness aspect of it and I am sure she feels quite sexy while she does it as well. Now, I would never stop her from becoming a lapdancer or poledancer however there would be consequences, for example while I am not possessive I wouldn't like other blokes looking at my missus and I might be unhappy about it. So she has to make a decision there about what is more important and she is free to make that choice herself, I certainly wouldn't lay down the law and that would go just the same for any children I may have in future.

the problem with these clubs is the same as that with porn: it leads to people viewing others as a means to an end, rather than individuals, to fetishisation of body parts, to breakdown in relationship. Yep, relationship.

Firstly, you make an assumption that it leads to 'seeing people as a means to an end' which I don't accept is always the case (or even often, whenever I have been to a lapdancing club half the fun is talking to them and kidding yourself you are in with a chance) and secondly what makes you think that this isn't exactly how society works anyway? you don't build relationships with everybody for the sheer fun of it, some relationships you cultivate because it gives you some sort of advantage (for example, you might get friendly with your boss for an easier life, or you might be super friendly to the salesperson in Dixons because you want a good discount and free delivery) and in my eyes is exactly the same thing and totally normal.

Even if there are examples of lapdancing clubs breaking up realtionships (I am sure there are some) I don't get what the big deal is. Some people break up because of world of warcraft addiction, should we ban that as well?

I don't have to quote scripture to substantiate these ideas, but it's all there in black & white, if required.

Lotta people on this thread act as if there's no negative consequence to going to these clubs. Sorry, WRONG.

Quick Q: does it lead to better behaviour or worse? No middle ground now, no pretending there's no impact on the participants (otherwise they wouldn't go in the first place).

Saying there is no middle ground does not make it the case, my answer would be that there is probably no difference in behaviour. I certainly don't feel my behaviour has been affected and I can't say I know of anybodies who has.

The viewer: He (or mebbe she) is doing something while watching. He is full of lust & desire for the dancer. Fact. He is imagining getting down 'n dirty with the dancer. He may not be touching the dancer at all, but in his mind, the complete opposite. This has an impact on him. And it doesn't lead anywhere that is healthy for relationship to his wife / GF / society. He doesn't see the dancer as a person but simply as an object for gratification of his (frustrated) desires. Show me where that kind of attitude has been healthy for society, please.

Sounds a lot like you want to ban thought crime to me there. Fact is, so what if somebody wants to fantasise?

I think that suppressing your instinctual sexual urges will only lead to bad places, you seem to think the opposite. I don't suppose there are many studies on this but I would be interested to read about it. As far as I am aware there is no evidence to suggest that rape and lapdancing are linked and unless you can come up with one then this line of reasoning is pure speculation.

Also, if you can describe exactly how its bad for society I would be interested, just saying 'it would be bad' doesn't make it so.

The dancer: she (or he) is encouraging this perception & treatment of individuals as objects, with disregard for feeling, emotion, respect in favour of simple physical lust. That doesn't lead anywhere good. It dehumanises the dancer. Note: I am not talking about her self-perception, since that can follow a whole range of feelings, from negative to positive, which is not my focus at the moment (e.g. if a dancer feels empowered by being the object of desire etc, which in itself is fraught with negative issues).

I just don't understand this object argument, we are all objects, and object is a thing. I am a thing, you are a thing everything is a thing or object. In object orientated programming terms everything in the world fits under the super class of 'object'. I just do not understand what you are saying here please clarify, what exactly is wrong with thinking of yourself as attractive and how is a woman selling her physical attributes any different to somebody else selling mental or physical attributes at work for money? How is any different to modelling? would you ban modelling as well? Its selling yourself as an object you know.

These clubs follow a similar line of thinking in many sex advice columns, notably that it's fine to fantasize about anything one likes, since it remains in the mind. Well, that's bollocks too.

What is in your HEART defines who you are. NOT your actions. (the scriptural stuff refers to how God looks at your heart rather than your behaviour for the true you).

eg: would you consider it ok to have a paedophile-in-mind looking after your children, even though all his (her) imaginings are just imaginings? Or to marry someone who outwardly shows all the right affections but inwardly hates/resents/does not love you? Or to have sex with someone who is only thinking about other people, not you? Or, quite simply, someone who masquerades as your friend but inwardly sees you as no more than a stepping stone to their own ends?

I did cover this one in the Gary Glitter thread a while back but I dunno if you saw that so...

THOUGHT CRIME IS NOT AND SHOULD NOT BE A CRIME

I mean, for example, I might look at my mates girlfriend and think she is hot, does that make me as much of a git as if I slept with her? because I might have imagined it? please.

As a parent, one has the RESPONSIBILITY to teach one's kids that treating others as objects is negative; as a member of society, to inhibit practices that lead to negative social impact, and that freedoms are coupled with that responsibility. Big Picture.

I disagree to be honest with you, I think that its the responsibility of a parent to teach critical thinking so that they can work out for themselves exactly what is or is not good for society. That way they are much more likely to actually abide by their own conclusions. You still have not really given me a good reason why exactly any of this is negative, even if we were all raving perverts can you explain to me why exactly that is negative because I don't understand it. I think its perfectly normal to be honest with you, I think its unnatural to repress it. The only rule as far as I am concerned is so long as no harm comes to anybody else that doesn't consent to it.

oh, and FWIW, I never said or implied you don't have a view due to your lack of children, just that your views are THEORY until you have those children, and we all know how theory measures up in the practical world. lol.

What...?

Just no, if anything the fact that I have no children makes me more objective about the subject matter than you because you have an emotional bias.

[Andy3536]

I've thought about killing my boss, does that make me a criminal?