POLL: Would you mind your girlfriend/fiancee/wife being a scantily clad booth babe?

Remove all ads!

Thanks for beating me to the punch, Aldeth, and using your usual eloquent bluntness!

@ArtE: The point of this thread is for Chev to have yet another pulpit to spew his rigid morality at the rest of us unwashed heathens, and show us all how we are inherently hypocritical and sinful.

 

And that we are having more fun than...

Yes, so that more people would comment, think about it, and generally get more excited about it...take this thread as an example.

 

I find the huge variety of views on this topic to be very enlightening, whether or not I agree with them.

 

I agree, but we are all reading about, thinking about and writing about sex. And the topic? Well, that was SUPPOSED to be about "booth babes." They are something that most of us - with real sex lives - would never have even given a second thought about. Really, does anyone out here care about booth babes? If you do, then it's about time you got a life - or a good woman.

 

Oh gee, thanks for the gratuitous diagnosis but it was all but asked for.

The point is, where to put the border and what to trust on? To trust that if there's a lap dance there won't be sex? To trust that even if there will be sex, there will be no leaving for another?

@Aldeth:

Yeah, one needs some of it but for some people the amount of foreplay needed extends over time. My example involved in concreto a generation of people who experimented with foreplay a lot that didn't lead to sex, before they married. As a result, foreplay become so important to them that it started counting more than penetration. A healthy person has foreplay for sex but some people end up having sex for foreplay. All I was trying to say. But I admit I seem to have lost the connection between this and the original topic.

Errr? I was talking about a situation where foreplay became the big thing and sex was mostly accidental to it.

I have a large area of interests, so to say...

I believe I've already said that.

And now, if we could all come back to the topic, which is not booth babes and not even SUPPOSED to be booth babes, but the idea of someone's girlfriend, fiancee or wife doing the job, as suggested by the following opening phrase: "Would you mind your girlfriend/fiancee/wife being a scantily clad booth babe?" Thanks in advance.

 

Ya, big overserious knucklehead, do I have to put a " " next to every pun I post?

 

Really, I was speaking generally and only half-seriously. The remark was not directed at any one particular individual. As to what the topic is SUPPOSED to be about - you can try and backtrack and color this however you desire, but the essence is: Are booth babes moral or good enough to be my girlfriend/wife? Or anyone else's for that matter. It still remains a highly personal question of choice.

 

Time for my two-penneth worth on the current, rather than original, topic.

I've been to the Spearmint Rhino club in London, for a colleague’s stag party. Yes, I had a lap dance, and yes, I had full permission from the other half. SR once had the reputation for being slightly more than just dancing, but across Britain that sort of thing has been seriously clamped down on. The clubs make far too much money to face the possibility of being closed down therefore:

Is a reasonable assumption - in this country.

Hopefully this won’t be a too offensive account.
It was an... interesting experience and not one I wish to repeat. The original intention was to go in, have a meal, watch the floor show, and leave. However, from the moment you go in, the girls "pounce" on you. The music is so loud you can't talk amongst yourselves so you have to talk to the lass who's attached herself to you. You want a drink, and of course you feel obliged to buy the girl one, at exorbitant prices. She obviously summed me up immediately as a soft touch and so to put me at ease she gave me her whole life story - Hungarian, married, two children (6 and 8). Husband is fully OK with the job she does as he knows there is nothing else to it. There is huge amount of personal manipulation and emotional blackmail that they apply to get their hands on your money. They have to pay the club in order to work, so the only way they can make any money is by dancing for you. This is reiterated time and again (the place was fairly empty on a Monday lunch so if you don’t say yes she’ll lose money) and when all the other chaps have disappeared, the pressure to say yes becomes even greater. Especially when a lot of the girls aren’t stunners and it’s obvious that those that are, are much more popular. There were some lovely bitchy comments about some of the others stealing clients. All the dances take place in the same room, under the watchful eyes of a large burly chap. Hands must remain on your knees at all time. Yes, the girls are fully naked but it’s really not a sexual experience when surrounded by other blokes. You pay per song (something the girls may fail to disclose at the beginning, the groom got stung for a couple of hundred - I read the small print on the little table displays which was, albeit reluctantly, confirmed by the girl. It was most definitely a relief to get the dance over and done with. We never made it to the restaurant part (stinger in the tail being we then had to pay entry, which would have been free with the cheaper cost of a meal). I left, extremely glad to be out, and feeling definitely the victim of an artful con.

On to the alternative version, which my other half experienced at a hen night. I got mightily confused how the subject was broached about the bride dancing for the stripper, and didn’t understand the relevance, - after all the men don’t take their clothes off in the strip club. Let us at least compare like for like. Anyway, in my partners experience, the men were fully naked, she was selected and had the somewhat dubious pleasure of the man encasing her head in his cloak and gyrating his penis inches from her face, and contact was actually made, unlike in my experience. I believe the main difference lies in the fact that the entirety of the ladies were in tears of laughter during the whole event, something I think unlikely to happen for a group of men – I’m not sure how a female stripper would feel about it either.

Absolute minimum. In the past, you’ve gone on about ensuring pleasure for your partner – and I recommend that it’s much better to do so before having your own (unless you think you will still be as attentive immediately afterwards, if so you’re in for a surprise). In case you were unaware, the main female erogenous zones are not located on the inside and simple penetration usually does little to stimulate them. Foreplay is certainly for her benefit, which obviously aids yours. Oral sex doesn't have to be instead of... unless you're a one shot wonder.

 

Thanks for clarifying your point. I think the problem here is one of cultural difference. I have never been to Poland, and I do not know anyone personally from Poland. Perhaps your statements are accurate when viewed in such a context. However, from my point of view, I don't know ANYONE like you describe. For myself personally, I can't think of a time since high school where my actions could have been construed as "foreplay" when it didn't later lead to sex. In fact, I cannot conceive of a real why someone would only want the foreplay part. In fact the innate definition of the word - depicts an action that is "before playing" for lack of a better term. In you aren't going to get to the playing part, then I don't think you can engage in foreplay.

This is another point that I forgot to bring up, but it furthers my distinction that going to a strip club can be an entertaining, but not necessarily an arousing experience.

 

Entertaining but not arousing? Sorry, that sounds delusional. Then why that form of entertainment but not another? What's the point of it? Male domination? Having women dance for you naked?

As for lap dance, it's a clear sexual tease and I don't understand any woman who would give it while having a partner or any man who would take it while having a partner, unless the explanation is the same as with prostitution.

I probably don't need to add that if my future bride had any sort of sexual contact (only consensual counts) with any man, hen night or not, she would need a different groom for her day.

@Aldeth: I wasn't speaking about Poland specifically, but about people who held to the idea that sex before marriage was not allowed but at the same time went for the face value of penetration and disconnected sex from sexual stimulation. So when they were told sex wasn't allowed and they wanted to abide, they had a lot of "equivalents" until oral sex replaced the real thing in their mind, becoming a replacement. This is just one example and I could come up with more. Some of those aren't even sexual in the most strict sense. But this is sort of off-topic, anyway.

 

Chev,

At the risk of sounding smug, do these words sound familiar?

There is one main reason for women doing it, money. Yes thats the same as prostitution, but also the same as any other job. I'm an engineer only because it was the best way for me to earn a wage. A second possible reason I've read in a newspaper article is the power it gives the woman over the men. Trust me, they have all the power (one reason I probably felt uncomfortable).

Men with partners?, some of it is going to be the believed thrill of seeing other women naked, I didn't experience that myself but others may. As Aldeth says, some of it is for the group bonding atmosphere. You asked why not other entertainment, I guess the key word is to have variety.

 

Gee you didn't seem to have too much of a problem with my previous statement - in which I gave my reasoning - which specifically said:

So for me and my friends, we can agree that they are attractive, and it can be entertaining to look upon something attractive. I cannot see why not finding that arousing is not logically consistent, or as you say, "delusional".

Then you said:

And I've already answered this objection too - in the very same post no less when I said:

Finallly, I still don't agree with this reasoning:

While I can accept that some people may opt for oral sex if they want to avoid a pregnancy, I cannot see why they would opt for oral sex over intercousre for upholding a religious principle. Here's an interesting case I heard on the news about a month ago:

They did a study on high schools across the country. They asked student to take "abstinence vows" which basically said they would wait until they were married before having sex. Naturally, not all the students took those vows. So they had two fairly large populations to compare. After five years, they checked in on the results. Surprisingly (or perhaps not in you anticipated this result) the percentage of virgins and the percentage of people with STDs of both groups were within one percentage point of each other.

Now, maybe we cannot conclude too much from a single study, but it seems reasonable that someone who was more religious would be more likely to take a vow of not having sex before they were married - in fact it is probably what they intend. But this study with over 1000 teenagers shows that whatever your views of premarital sex are in high school does not bear out in the results five years later.

That's why I have a hard time believing that many people go for the oral but not intercourse theory. Most people I know had sex before they were married, and had sex with people that they did not eventually marry. There is a much smaller portion of people who I know that did not have sex before marriage. Of those people who did not, they also didn't do anything sexual with their girlfriends beyond kissing. No oral sex, no petting, nothing beyond kissing. So I still contend that I don't know anyone like you describe.

 

@Carcaroth

I feel offended by the suggestion that my job is as good as prostitution. Lending the power of one's hands or mind is not the same as selling one's body. Offering sexual stimulation for money is not an honest, honourable work. Standing there and looking pretty would be an honourable work. But once sexual stuff chimes in, the thing stops being honourable. I realise that in many cases girls will think they are just looking pretty. But in some pictures, it's quite obvious they're conscious of what they're doing, showing etc. Sex vibes become part of the show. With regular strip joints, it's obvious they aren't even promoting a game with pretty girls but simply putting up a sexual show.

But the topic also demands that we should look on the material aspect. In fact, it isn't necessary for us to judge the girlfriend, fiancee or wife. Not exactly what I wanted. Whatever her reasons are, do you materially have no problem with it? Even if you consider her excused for whatever reason, can you feel comfortable with it? I know I surely wouldn't. Not just when with me, but even past things unless the woman has changed since back then.

Because you say it isn't connected with arousal but you also speak about them being attractive and then there's also the question why they are naked and not clothed and why they are making sexy moves instead of, let's say, posing still. It's not the same as renaissance art in a museum.

Because they think it doesn't count if there's no penetration or that it's less sinful than the full act or whatever rubbish (the correct theology is way different, but you don't want to get me started ). As one "taken" girl said to a guy (other than her SO) after giving a blow job to a stranger and not following through with vaginal intercourse, "I didn't want to cheat on him this much." Humans follow their mental tracks quite consistently, but those tracks are sometimes strange.

Yeah, it's hard to believe, but things like that happen. I've known of people who went for anal because they believed virginity was preserved that way as opposed to vaginal intercourse. The truth is that they practically always end up having full-on intercourse sooner or later.

It's a passed trend almost everywhere. The example I got was one generation of Catholics in the States, but we've got some such stuff here, as well. In fact, it's pretty common in certain social groups here. Still, it's not like many of them last until marriage without intercourse. It's too hard to resist when one has already started playing with it. Of course, one can use some willpower and stop it at the little things, but sooner or later the little things will then become a way of getting off, both stimulating and releasing tension and their function won't differ much from full-on intercourse, screwing up peoples ideas about sex. There were some studies that showed that girls who did a lot of heavy petting in their highschool times but eventually married someone needed a couple of times as much foreplay as those who either had the whole thing or nothing. They were also much more likely to become frigid lovers for the eventual partners. Probably one of the reasons for the nothing beyond kissing rule for people more skeptical about the precise distinction between attraction and desire or desire or lust etc. Sexual behaviours shape sexual needs and also affect personality in the long run. Not as a matter of mere preference (nothing wrong with that... we aren't animals just to get off and go) or psychological conditions but physiology and bodily responses. I would say the difference is like between having foreplay to have sex and having sex to have foreplay. Again, nothing wrong with some play, but I'm talking about hard-coded changes in people's physiology, not just long-term fixed preference.

 

Chev,

I wasn't comparing your job to that of a prostitute, I was simply giving an explanation to:

The answer for doing the job is pure and simply, money. The same reason as doing any other job. You seem to imply that there may be another one for prostitution, I confess, there is not one that I can think of.
Of course it is a fairly long standing comedy joke that lawyers are on about the same moral level as prostitutes. This of course applys to the "no win no fee" brigade and not young idealisting conscietious ones such as yourself.

I love your use of "lending" your mind/hands compared to "selling" your body. Beautiful use of the English language proclaiming an altruistic approach in the "lending" as opposed to the contemptuous activity of "selling", (harkening back to when such activity was beneath the nobility and still having connotations of something dirty.) Let us say that in both cases, services are hired, not bought or borrowed.

Where we differ, is where we are defining something as being purely for sexual stimulation. i.e. you are implying that booth babes and strippers are on the same level as prostitutes.
Let me try and put this another way, in some Islamic countries, a woman is not allowed to show her face. As I understand it, and I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, this is because the sight of an unguarded face may be sexually stimulating to men. Put simply, they have a different sexual threshold to what is or isn't arousing. In our decadent western world, where images of semi-clad wowen are bombarded at us night and day, simple nudity is no longer arousing by itself. Yes, it's pleasing to the eye but we're not necessarily going to get off on it - otherwise we'd never have a moments respite!

To answer your actual question: No I would not have a problem with my partner wearing the majority of the outfits shown in the links you supplied, in public or at one of these events. I would have issues with her being a stripper/lap dancer, but as pointed out, we have gone off topic. I think (or I'd like to think) that a lot of those issues would be because that would mean a complete change in her personality.

[ June 06, 2005, 15:37: Message edited by: Carcaroth ]

 

This is the exact point I was trying to make - this is what I meant when I said that I and my friends find strippers entertaining but not arousing. It's good to see I'm not alone.

 

I still don't see honest work, even how mundane and below my hopes, as beneath me. But prostitution and anything related is surely beneath not merely anyone with pretences, but below human dignity. It's not the same kind of services. The former is just work, the latter is still some kind of work but also sex for money. Selling your works or lending your work, you give away your time and efforts and your living blood but not yourself.

Not exactly the same, but the difference is more in the degree of it than the nature. A stripper isn't necessarily into the whole thing but she already whores herself with men's eyes. A booth babe isn't even showing her private parts naked, but she's in the same kind of business as a stripper -- just with a milder face. Sure, some of them will probably think they just look pretty and some will actually just look pretty or even sexy but without giving away.

As you see, my thoughts are fixed on giving away. I believe that someone who sells his or her sexuality gives something away. Therefore, a guy's girlfriend who allows others to pose to photos with her half-naked and put their gluey arms round her chest, she gives something away. Similarly, an actress who has a husband but strips naked for a movie scene, she gives something away. But if she were using her sexual charms to get better prices in the grocery shop, that would be the same. Wearing a monstruous cleavage so that males could take a downblouse look and reward her favourably. Rubbing against them so they would get excited and show it in a material way. I could multiply such examples ad infinitum and it's not just booth babes who do it.

I would have to say I would have a huge problem if my partner used her sexuality in any way to score anything with anyone. And no, dressing nicely, looking great and smiling at people doesn't count as sexuality.

I meant an abstract question, nothing remotely related to any real partner. But thanks for the answer. What if we go into more detail... How would you react to butt close-ups, cleavage close-ups and posing with guys' hands on her?

 

Well, I spent the weekend in Atlantic City for a bachelor party, went to a strip club with my friends, and amazingly didn't cheat on my wife. I freely admit that it was kind of a sleezy place - even by strip club standards - so it wasn't arousing at all, although definitely entertaining.

It wasn't nearly as entertaining though as the walk TO the strip club. The names have been changed to protect the guilty.

On the walk to the strip club there were five of us - the groom-to-be and the four of us accompanying him. Now it should be noted that the groom-to-be, his best friend, and one of his other friends are completely drunk - like having difficulty walking drunk. As for myself and other friend, we each had a couple of beers, but we certainly weren't drunk. In fact, we were probably both below the legal limit of being allowed to drive.

So on the way to the strip club, as we stagger down the street, myself and the other non-drunk friend pass a pair of women who are obviously prostitutes by the way they are dressed. The three drunk louts are following a couple of steps behind. As soon as we pass the women, I hear one of them say: "Looks like a bachelor party!" At that very moment I knew - this wasn't going to end well. The following exchange takes place:

Groom-to-be: Hell yeah! I'm the groom and we're on the way to the strip club!
Prostitute #1: Well, you can take one of us back to your hotel and we'd give you a strip show like you wouldn't believe for $150.
Prostitute: Or you could have us both for $300.

Now, there were some ground rules set before the trip. The bride-to-be knew we would likely be going to a strip club, and she was OK with it. While it hadn't been specifically discussed, I'm pretty sure she wouldn't be OK with us picking up a couple of prostitutes and taking them back to our hotel rooms.

Of course, I felt all of this was moot. I had known the groom for years. He had never cheated on his wife-to-be. He had also never hired the services of a prostitute, even during his single days when he wasn't dating anybody. Surely, there was no possible way he'd ever accept this offer. Unless of course ... he was too drunk to realize he was talking to a prostitute...

Groom-to-be: Well, geez, it's a $20 cover charge just to get into the strip club, so that's $100 right there for the five of us, and between us we'll probably spend another $100 while we're there. So for $100 more, you'll both come back with us, and we'll have you all to ourselves! Sweet!
Best Friend: Whatever the groom wants! (ASIDE: This was his response to every suggestion the groom had during the evening no matter how asinine.
Other Drunk: Whatever.

At this point myself and my other non-drunk friend are staring at our three friends, our mouths agape, with a collective look of, "ARE YOU INSANE!?!?" on our faces.

Me (to the groom): A word with you for a moment. (Groom walks over.)
Me: Do you realize who you're talking to?
Groom: Yeah, a couple of girls who want to come back to our rooms and strip for us.
Me: Yes, but do you realize the occupation of those women?
Groom: I don't know - they're probably show girls or something. After all $300 is pretty steep considering they are just going to be stripping.
Me: (then collecting myself) Ummm.... no. They aren't show girls. In fact, they aren't even strippers. They're prostitutes.
Groom: No way! They said they were going to strip for us that's it!
Sober Friend: Didn't you just say that you thought $300 was pretty steep for *just* stripping?
Groom: Well yeah, that's why they must be professional show girls or something!
Me: They're prostitutes.
Sober Friend: I don't think the wife would approve of this. Besides, (dead-panning the entire thing which makes it really funny) I'm not exactly comfortable taking a couple of prostitutes back to the Taj. It's certainly is questionable judgement, and it's probably illegal even if there is no sex involved.
Groom (reality finally setting in, and a look of horror on his face): Oh my god. My wife would absolutely *kill* me if I ever hired a prostitute. There's no way we can do this. In fact, we can't even tell me wife this happened!
Me: Well, the "I didn't know they were prostitutes" excuse works if you just talk to them and walk away. That excuse *won't* work if you take them back to your hotel room.

So we finally left - but the walk over was definitely more entertaining than the strip club itself.

 

Classic story, Aldeth.

 

Well, I still don't see why hiring prostitutes would be bad while hiring strippers would be OK and the fact I'm drunk at this moment is not relevant. Look: whatever the girls are, their purpose is stripping. Does it matter if she has worked as a stripper if I'm hiring her as a cleaner? Not really. Who cares. So how does it matter if she's a stripper or a prostitute if someone's hiring her just for the stripping? The offer was a strip show, so unless the groom would have been willing to have some paid sex afterwards... Otherwise, I don't see much difference.

 

Chevalier - I've said it once and I'll say it again. There's a difference if SHE (i.e. the bride-to-be) says there's a difference. So there's no point in us males trying to theorise any further.