New role for strip cubs?

[Wallace48 571]

What do you think of this?

 

 

 

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/01/12/a-strip-club-plan-for-one-stop-sex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe some of this is already going on such as playmate/sweet300

[Hector17 9215]

Been to many of these, many times, but sadly in Mexico.

You just buy a coupon from the guy or lady that "manages" them and go into the back, or you can upgrade if you feel "motivated" after a few Private Dances.

It's very casual.

I did have the occasion once to witness the "manager" berating the lady after I decided I wasn't "motivated" to go further than 3 dances, and did straighten him out by telling him I had an appt later with an SP outside the club and was just killing time and hanging out with my buddies....who did partake at the club.

It's a nice option, but does feel a bit seedy.

[dazedandconfused75 455]

I think,some of that is already happening for sure..not what I'm looking for. My worry is if the dancers wanted to be providers they would be....and many wonderful ladies I've met may stop dancing...

[Wallace48 571]

I think,some of that is already happening for sure..not what I'm looking for. My worry is if the dancers wanted to be providers they would be....and many wonderful ladies I've met may stop dancing...

 

Very good point. Certainly would not want to see dancers edged out or pressured out by management because they loved their current role.

[canuckhooker 19202]

This was how all the clubs in Germany were when I lived there many moons ago. Big cities had legal brothels, smaller places had strip bars. The girls danced, but were also available to go in the back room. The service depended on what drinks you ordered. You order a "cocktail" for her and a beer, and you would get a "HJ". A nice bottle of white wine, and BJ. If you ordered "Champagne", then you would get served a tray with a bottle of sparkling wine, two glasses and a condom.

 

I don't think this would chase away as many people as you think. A lot of it goes on now, so why not make it legal, for health and safety reasons if nothing else.

[dazedandconfused75 455]

Well im sure not all but many would go, sone of m'y favorite girls didn't have Nice thing to Say about providers ...

 

 

 

Still whatever makes the girls money and keeps both the girl and the client safe.

[igab 5629]

To me this is kind of like the question "Should the Beer Store and the Liquor Store be amalgamated into one store?" Of course they should it's the same industry. The answer to the strip club all services question is the same...yes please.

[Bridgette 10998]

I think strip clubs and brothels are two very different services that cater to two different experiences. While there may certainly be overlap between the clientele, there are different reasons for each experience. I just can't see all strip clubs turning into hybrid strip club/brothels.

 

In the GTA though, it seems that many strip clubs already sort of offer both services, so this pilot project seems like more of a formality than anything.

 

I'll be curious to see what happens a year from know when things are more clear over the Supreme Court ruling. I'm sure there will be some sort of licensing or zoning bylaws over the brothels. I'd just be very surprised to see strip clubs amalgamated with brothels overall.

[Old Dog 179138]

Lots of interesting angles to examine.

 

1. What happens to the girls working at the club who DON'T wish to partake in the extras?

 

2. What happens to the clubs that don't have the room to expand or renovate to accommodate the new services?

 

3. How does a club deal with a revenue generating client that one or more dancers/providers have had bad dealings with?

 

4. Would there be a higher DJ/locker/appearance fee for dancers regardless of the willingness to participate in extracurricular activities? Would the club take a cut of the "beyond the stage" dollars? Would there be a set price for services regardless of the provider?

 

5. Does a club expand the dancers roster to include "non-traditional" performers? Generally one finds very fit young women performing at venues; what about BBWs, Mature, transgendered etc?

 

6. If we were to use Ottawa/Gatineau as an example, would BareFax being in the very tourist driven market be excluded from providing extras where as Nuden, the Playmate, Silver Dollar etc would be allowed to proceed?

 

7. How does this impact non dancers? Would revenue decrease for the more private provider?

 

I'm sure there are many more concerns; this is just what popped into mind as I saw the article...

[Satai 1933]

Lots of interesting angles to examine.

 

1. What happens to the girls working at the club who DON'T wish to partake in the extras?

 

2. What happens to the clubs that don't have the room to expand or renovate to accommodate the new services?

 

3. How does a club deal with a revenue generating client that one or more dancers/providers have had bad dealings with?

 

4. Would there be a higher DJ/locker/appearance fee for dancers regardless of the willingness to participate in extracurricular activities? Would the club take a cut of the "beyond the stage" dollars? Would there be a set price for services regardless of the provider?

 

5. Does a club expand the dancers roster to include "non-traditional" performers? Generally one finds very fit young women performing at venues; what about BBWs, Mature, transgendered etc?

 

6. If we were to use Ottawa/Gatineau as an example, would BareFax being in the very tourist driven market be excluded from providing extras where as Nuden, the Playmate, Silver Dollar etc would be allowed to proceed?

 

7. How does this impact non dancers? Would revenue decrease for the more private provider?

 

I'm sure there are many more concerns; this is just what popped into mind as I saw the article...

 

1. They most certainly should NOT be forced/expected to. After all, it is their body...

 

2. Stay as strip clubs. There is still a large market for them.

 

3. Ban the client and/or report them to the police. There are more than enough clients to make a profit...

 

4. Dancers should pay a dancer fee, others should pay a higher fee. The club should get their cut, but it should be a flate-rate (especially if they make the investment to expand). Prices should be what the provider sets, it is the customer's choice to pay them...

 

5. If there is a market for it, why not? Even if its a once-per-month thing...

 

6. It should be the same for every club. Heck - BF could make a mint from the tourists...

 

7. The more private providers already screen their clients. I think that with more competition, it would make things better for everybody.

[igab 5629]

Not every club need offer the brothel service option. If girls don't want to work the brothel end or offer only select services that is also something that should be accommodated.

 

I don't think it's that different from what's going on now. Some girls provide higher mileage than others. By offering some of this stuff in a more legal or mainstream way you're now making it so girls don't have to break the rules to give the mileage they want to give.

[scribbles 6031]

May I be so cynical as to suggest it isn't the mileage they *want* to give so much as it's the mileage they feel they *need* to give?

 

Honestly, I would love to think that a dancer giving me great mileage is doing so because "she's just that into me," but I have a feeling that it's more often about business. Dancers offering greater mileage most likely keep a guy back there for more songs, and possibly attract more business. I've heard the complaint from some dancers that it's tough to stay within the rules when others are breaking them and getting all the business.

 

If clubs were to offer expanded services, I think this "mileage inflation" would continue, only the pressure would now be legitimized by legality. Either dancers would do things they wouldn't normally, to make a living, or they would get out because they aren't willing to buckle to the pressure. I doubt that it would be something as obvious or opaque as management making demands. Economics (supply and demand) would do the trick.

[dazedandconfused75 455]

That's what I was thinking as well... Already you'll hear some dancers express frustration of what "that" girl does to keep the clients coming back over and over etc...

 

And think about it if the club is getting a kick back from dancers who are "providing" in their expanded area's ... say a single 1$ from each transaction that happened... who do you think the Club is going to want in working?

 

The girl who pays her "fee" to dance the day and takes clients back for 1$ to the club each time?

 

Or the girl who pays her "fee" to dance for the day and refuses provide "extra's" and just wants to strip as it is now???

 

I think its pretty obvious the club is there to make money too.

 

The girls would either be forced to clubs that don't offer these other services or they'd be forced to possible go a route they don't want to go, or leave the work.

[DocMyles 616]

I think we need to refrain from counting our chickens before they've hatched. It's pretty obvious, based on what various government officials are saying, that the Tories are going to do everything that they can to implement a "Nordic Model" policy that sees enforcement targeting clients instead of service providers. Instead of liberalizing prostitution laws like the Supreme Court intends, they'll just declare prostitution itself illegal.

 

The result is that girls will continue to engage in the same dangerous practices as they currently do in order to protect their clients from arrest. Anybody here with half a brain realizes that such a policy won't survive a court challenge, but that's not the concern of the Harper Tories. It will take another five years for any challenge to work its way through to the Supreme Court, and by then Harper will be long gone. The Nordic Model is simply NHP (Not Harper's Problem) Policy. It appeases the base, and requires no real action on the part of government (at any level) to do anything. Perfect stall tactic for a political party that would prefer not to have to deal with this issue.

[canuckhooker 19202]

I think we need to refrain from counting our chickens before they've hatched. It's pretty obvious, based on what various government officials are saying, that the Tories are going to do everything that they can to implement a "Nordic Model" policy that sees enforcement targeting clients instead of service providers. Instead of liberalizing prostitution laws like the Supreme Court intends, they'll just declare prostitution itself illegal.

 

The result is that girls will continue to engage in the same dangerous practices as they currently do in order to protect their clients from arrest. Anybody here with half a brain realizes that such a policy won't survive a court challenge, but that's not the concern of the Harper Tories. It will take another five years for any challenge to work its way through to the Supreme Court, and by then Harper will be long gone. The Nordic Model is simply NHP (Not Harper's Problem) Policy. It appeases the base, and requires no real action on the part of government (at any level) to do anything. Perfect stall tactic for a political party that would prefer not to have to deal with this issue.

 

There are so many leaps of logic here I don't know where to start. Firstly, I have said it time and again, stop blaming Harper and the Tories. This is not their issue, and I am more than certain they would wish it would just go away. There is a large portion of the conservative support that are libertarians and would rather leave this whole issue alone, and leave it up to consenting adults to decide. Not so the parties to the left. They love to meddle. And I suppose you didn't read the article by Warren Kinsella last week entitled, "It Isn't Sex- Its Bought Rape". Here is a link to his blog where it is reprinted http://warrenkinsella.com/page/2/

 

Kinsella is one of the biggest Liberal party apologists and partisans. And you will find just as many people in that party, the NDP even the Greens who see this as an extreme feminist issue in logic akin to the infamous Andrea Dworkin who basically sees all male-female relationships as rape. They support the same paternalistic illogical attitude that created the Nordic Model in the first place.

 

Sure people like MacKay are making comments on the harm of prostitution, but all politicians have to pander to all points of view unfortunately. What they do is what is important, not what they say.

 

They will not be stupid enough to try and implement the Nordic model, as it has the exact same flaws that the overturned laws had. They tried to make activities around an otherwise legal activity illegal, and thereby created unsafe conditions. Their only course of action in this regard would be to outlaw prostitution itself, and criminalize everyone, clients and providers. Then they no longer create the 'unsafe' situation. They don't have to worry about the safety issues of someone who is engaged in an "illegal" activity.

 

And make no mistake the Supreme Court did not intend to "liberalize" prostitution laws. They merely remedied an inconsistency in current laws that endangered citizens engaged in a legal activity. They clearly said in the judgment that the government has the right and power to regulate and legislate prostitution. The government is within its rights to criminalize prostitution as long as it does it in a fair and consistent manner. The laws that were stuck down, did not pass that test.

[igab 5629]

May I be so cynical as to suggest it isn't the mileage they *want* to give so much as it's the mileage they feel they *need* to give?

 

Yes it's what I meant actually but worded it badly. Of course no one is forced to give mileage they don't want to give...it's a business choice in the same way that SPs decide what services they will offer.

What I was trying to say is that girls can decide to offer extras without breaking rules. Perhaps if the business is evolving to more contact and extras then that is just natural evolution and some may find themselves in the wrong business.

As a consumer I like having choices.

[Guest pagypie]

i certainly acknowledge this idea of "mileage inflation" and the pressure on girls to do more to attract/hold customers. it's a possibility for sure and something that has been happening "behind the curtain" already to SCs with the advent of online listings of MAs and SP and in club extras.

 

having said that, even with a buffet of options and extras on the table, my ATF dancer would have absolutely nothing to worry about where my attention goes! :-)

[DocMyles 616]

I think you need to re-read my post again.

 

I'm not blaming the Harper Tories for anything here... The reality is that they are the current government, they are the ones that have to deal with the Supreme Court decision, and we BOTH agree that this is an issue that they would rather not have to deal with. I also agree with you that the Liberals are likely in the same boat (see Justin Trudeau's comments from yesterday).

 

Implementing the Nordic Model is about political expediency and stalling, rather than sound public policy.

 

I find it interesting that you disagree that the Supreme Court intends on liberalizing prostitution law, yet you agree with me that implementing the Nordic Model would likely not survive a court challenge. Lets look at the logic... If the only policy alternative that will survive a court challenge is one that incorporates liberalized prostitution policy (legalize/tax), then it must be fair to say that the intended outcome by the Supreme Court was liberalization of prostitution law. Lets face it, there aren't too many policy alternatives here.

 

What should Ottawa do? Legalize it, set up the federal taxation scheme for it, mandate the provinces to develop public health policy, and let the cities dictate where such activity can take place.

[scribbles 6031]

I don't think the courts really think too much about policy, in terms of what should be done. They just worry about the current policy and whether it stands constitutional scrutiny. Their decision almost definitely had nothing to do with an intended policy outcome.

 

And, I *do* blame the Tories for what is to come. They may not have wanted the fight, but they're going to have it anyways. Peter MacKay aside, let's not forget the Conservative position on prostitution coming out of their recent convention: selling of sex is essentially paid rape/slavery, is almost always trafficking, and will be opposed by the Conservative party with great prejudice. Contrast that with the recent young Liberal convention position that sex work should be treated the same as any other form of labour, and you start to see partisan differences that are very telling.

 

I'm not saying the ultimate outcome will be this or that, but if the party position leans heavily in one direction...

[canuckhooker 19202]

I think you need to re-read my post again.

 

I'm not blaming the Harper Tories for anything here... The reality is that they are the current government, they are the ones that have to deal with the Supreme Court decision, and we BOTH agree that this is an issue that they would rather not have to deal with. I also agree with you that the Liberals are likely in the same boat (see Justin Trudeau's comments from yesterday).

 

Implementing the Nordic Model is about political expediency and stalling, rather than sound public policy.

 

I find it interesting that you disagree that the Supreme Court intends on liberalizing prostitution law, yet you agree with me that implementing the Nordic Model would likely not survive a court challenge. Lets look at the logic... If the only policy alternative that will survive a court challenge is one that incorporates liberalized prostitution policy (legalize/tax), then it must be fair to say that the intended outcome by the Supreme Court was liberalization of prostitution law. Lets face it, there aren't too many policy alternatives here.

 

What should Ottawa do? Legalize it, set up the federal taxation scheme for it, mandate the provinces to develop public health policy, and let the cities dictate where such activity can take place.

 

Let me clarify my logic. The supreme court struck down three sections of the Criminal code because they were inconsistent and violated the human rights of a certain segment of society. The effect may have been to liberalize prostitution laws, but that was not the reason, nor the intent of the decision. They did it because those sections endangered individuals practicing a "legal" activity. Prostitution is not currently illegal. However they clearly said that prostitution was a complicated issue, and that the government had the right to regulate or legislate.

 

If the government criminalizes prostitution, and all those who participate in it, (both clients and providers) then the fact they struck down those provisions becomes irrelevant. The judgement is only relevant when prostitution is not prohibited by law.

 

The reason they will not implement the Nordic model is that in that model prostitution will remain legal, but the three laws that were struck down, are intrinsic to how the model is supposed to work. (Bawdy house, solicitation, and living off the avails) They are not stupid enough to take a second run at a solid brick wall, knowing that the basic laws of physics are not going to change.

 

Even if they were stupid enough to implement it, nobody would ever be successfully prosecuted. No judge in their right mind would convict someone knowing that based on the Bedford decision the conviction certainly would be overturned on appeal.

 

So what are their choices? They will not overlook the issue completely, they will have to do something. Their choices will be outright criminalization like in the US and other countries, or some type of regulation. I think we will see more regulation.

[Jenna 100]

wow! The second this happens. I'm out.

[Guest Ni**t*****t]

wow! The second this happens. I'm out.

 

I don't think anything will "happen", at least for a while. I also believe that many girls dance and won't do more. There will be a place for them. Many guys go to clubs to have fun, look at many lovely girls, get some CR dances and leave it at that. I don't think it's the majority of guys that will ask a girl to cross that line.

 

I may be wrong, but I don't think lovely dancers who are just that, dancers, will disappear.

[Jenna 100]

Your probably right. :)

 

Mabee clubs that already allows extra will continue with that and others clubs will stay as they are now.

 

I said that comment because I was shocked. I feel better now ;)

[Guest Ni**t*****t]

Your probably right. :)

 

Mabee clubs that already allows extra will continue with that and others clubs will stay as they are now.

 

I said that comment because I was shocked. I feel better now ;)

 

I understand it may be shocking if you are not into this extras world but please consider that many of us do like a simple, close encounter in the CR... there will always be a place for lovely girls that want to dance without anything more... for now anyway :)

[Rubs 1373]

Isn't this essentialy Playmate is doing already? I haven't been there but from what I've read it sure sounds like it.