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

Remove all ads!

To build off of Harbourboy's point, yes, it depends on what the couple agrees to. To use my other example, my wife doesn't have a problem if I go to a strip club during a friend's bachelor party, but she definitely would have a problem if I frequented such places on a regular basis. Also, she probably would have a problem if I went a got a lap dance at the bachelor party, but doesn't have a problem with me being there.

 

But is it OK if the groom-to-be has a lap dance (which he is almost certain to if his mates are organising any sort of GOOD stag night)?

 

That's not my call. That's for him to fight out with the bride-to-be. Although, yes, the intention is for him to not only get a lap dance but have three or four strippers get on top of him on the stage.

 

What point getting married then? Wonder what he would think about his bride giving a lap dance to another guy, as well.

 

Um, Chev, what exactly is it that you think happens on a hen's night then?

 

If I would ever marry a woman, my friends would be smart enough not to have a woman giving me a lapdance (unless the woman giving me a lapdance is the one I marry).

What is the point of giving someone a lapdance on his bachelor's party? One final chance to see an other sexy woman? Big deal! I don't care for that. I am about to marry then. I got my own woman.

 

Each to his own, of course. If you know your bride-to-be was going be upset by that sort of thing then I agree that it would be a bad idea. If she was more open-minded, then it would probably be harmless fun.

As I said before, each individual situation needs to be judged on its own merits.

 

That's right. But perhaps I might get upset myself if I see my friends are having a woman dancing on my lap. They can have their own, if they like (preferably not).

What others do is not my concern. I could pitty it, but there is little I can do about it. I respect the choices of others, though I might not 'respect' the act itself.

 

I agree with Master of Nuhn.

I really feel sorry for anyone that needs to have a stripper/lap dancer on their stag night.

 

&

A woman who gives lap dance to a stranger, let a lone a male prostitute, on her wedding's eve, doesn't need a husband. She has a professional career to consider.

[ June 02, 2005, 13:46: Message edited by: chevalier ]

 

...

Two words: Male strippers.

Yes, feel free to point the s at me...

 

I second Arabwel's opinion here. There are two primary differences here: Usually you have the male stripper come to your house, and you do it in the privacy of your own home. For female strippers, since men are generally over-sexed pigs anyway, you go there to see them in a more public setting. (Public in the sense that anyone over 18 can go in.) Men are obviously more interested in this type of thing, because any significantly sized city has a place (or in some cases multiple places) where there are female strippers performing, but I have never seen an establishment advertising male strippers. (I'm sure they exist, but they are far less common.)

@ Chev - Note that I have never seen a male stripper perform, but my wife has at some of the bachelorette parties that she has been to (bachelorette party is the term we use for what Harbourboy calls a "hen's night"). From what she has told me, the bride-to-be does nothing that would be considered a lap dance to the male stripper. First of all, the bride-to-be is fully clothed, whereas female strippers (by definition) are not when they give their lap dances to men. Secondly, in the case of male strippers, they typically aren't completely naked either. They are usually wearing a thong or a "banana hammock". So it's not like the stripper is waving his penis in the bride-to-be's face. Most women I know wouldn't find that attractive anyway. The point is that what the bride-to-be does with the male stripper is nothing like what the groom-to-be does with the female stripper. For the women they are usually just looking at some muscle-bound guy in a thong - and you can turn on ESPN at any time and see the same thing in a body building competition.

 

Hmm... how about double standard then?

Going to a strip joint or inviting strippers to come over is a great sign for the future of a marriage built on mutual commitment, respect and trust.

I guess the problem is more or less irrelevant in my case, as I doubt I would find myself one day away from marriage with a woman interested in that sort of thing, nor would I take a lap dance even from the bride-to-be herself. And don't get me started on thongs.

 

@ Aldeth - I agree with most of what you have said there but one interesting thing about the suburb where I live is that our only stripclub (at least the only one that I know of) has two seperate areas - one for male performers and one for female performers. Given that I have never been to either I really am in no position to compare and contrast the two.

As an amusing aside, from the street the signage is completely vague as to which entrance is which. For the life of me I don't know if the signs are supposed to indicate the gender of the performers or the clientele.

 

My guess is it would be the performers. I've never seen anything like that here in the states. Like I said, female strippers are FAR more common than males, and I have never even seen an establishment that advertises that they have male strippers performing. Having both in the same location I have never heard of either. That is, IMO, women are far less likely to go to male strip club than men are to go to a female strip club. I'm quite surprised that the male side of the house has many patrons at all.

I completely agree that it would indeed be horrible if a couple was basing their marriage on the events that take place that night. When we are talking about bachelor/bachelorette parties, it's not like its purpose is a night of wild sex or anything. It's more like a male/female bonding experience - almost like a rite of passage to use a gender neutral term.

IMHO, the bachelor party (since that's the only kind I'm familiar with) is more for the friends of the groom-to-be than the groom himself. This is especially true if you are the first one of your group of friends to get married. It's an opportunity to have some fun with your friend one last time before he has the committments of marriage to contend with. It's not like you're never going to see your friend again (well if his wife is real shrew you may not), but it is acknowledging that his wife will now have to come first in his life, and his friends - while still important - are now secondary.

Plus, it's not like all bachelor parties involve involve heavy drinking and going to strip clubs. I remember my own quite well, and while I did drink a bit too much, the main event of the evening was going to a baseball game. Bachelorette parties don't always involve a stripper either. For example, my wife is attending a bachelorette party this Saturday. The days activities include the following: Going to a day spa, getting a facial, going out for dinner and a couple of drinks, and finally, having a slumber party type sleep over that night. The oly problem I have with the entire agenda, is that the last item - the slumber party - is scheduled to take place at my house. I've really no desire to be around a bunch of women with all their "girl talk". On the bright side, I'll probably be able to play computer games all night because they won't want me around either.

 

You know, Aldeth... I used to think like that. Everything in moderation, what's not forbidden is allowed, cheating what defined as such, little things no big deal... But this has changed.

Where does the border lie if the nature of something remains the same? The allowance for the little thing while the big thing is forbidden, what does it stand for, except maybe a concession towards weakness? Moderation in everything (including moderation itself) is a good old Roman rule. But when the accent shifts towards moderation in moderation, something goes amiss. The little things take the place of the big thing just because it's the only thing allowed.

Taking the good old Catholic upbringing as an example, sex was prohibited and the whole talk was banned. The reason was a whole damn grey area where people exercised more experiments than restraint and healthy moderation, the result being that for some oral sex replaced penetration or foreplay became the big thing in sex, as a long term evolutional change based on people's habits. Through all the "innocent" petting and oral fun, they got at the stage where they couldn't have normal sex without at least half an hour of foreplay. Then also the many techniques taking spontaneity away and killing the biggest fun of it and all the many temptations one needs to face (adverts, offers, omnipresent sex in movies, books, whatever people do, say or wear) or even concessions one thinks one needs to make (guys pushing it forward because talking to a lady isn't worth the time if there's no nookie - heck, even hadcore Catholics are like that and they think it's OK, the fact one can't get decent ladies clothes in a shop, the way practically all women are sexually taxed one way or another by the environment etc)... People would be happier if we had morality back in place.

 

Chev - you're going to have to connect the dots for me. I don't get what you're saying. I mentioned that bachelor/bachelorette parties are not all about sex and strippers, that they are a bonding experience, a celebration of your friendship with someone that acknowledges while your friendship is not ending it is going to be changing. Then you mention this - and maybe this is where I lose you:

As I interpreted this, you mean the "little thing" is going to a strip club, while the "big thing" is either sex, or infedility with your partner. The only problem I have with that comparison is that watching a stripper is probably not going to lead to you having sex with the stripper, and it's definitely not going to cause you to go out and cheat on your wife with some other woman. In fact, it may even have some type of cathartic effect.

And this is definitely where I'm missing something:

All I can say is I think my wife would slap me if I didn't engage in some type of foreplay before sex. And I don't see anything wrong with that either. No, we don't have oral sex, but some type of hugging, kissing, rubbing the back is necessary to create the mood. You don't just lay down in bed and start right at it. Believe me - I've tried it - and met with less than favorable results. Women need some time for the mood to be set - some extra time to percolate to use a coffee analogy - you don't just jump on and have at it.

 

A significant portion of the folks who watch male strippers are...male.

Homosexuality, y'know?

 

I had a load of stuff I was going to write, but really Aldeth has covered it all for me.

But to hark back to Chev's point:

I still say that if both the man and the woman think it is OK, then they ARE showing that they trust each other. If they went behind each other's backs and did stuff that they knew the other wouldn't like, THEN I agree that you have no mutual trust.

 

Wrong...

without foreplay, there is no, "big thing."

As a guy who professes to abstain from all this bad stuff, how come you think you know so much about it?

Who's, "they?"

Tell me professor, when exactly *did* foreplay (??) and oral replace penetration?

What the hell was this thread about again?

[ June 03, 2005, 03:19: Message edited by: ArtEChoke ]