Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To be annoyed my DH had a naked private dance

371 replies

maybunny · 03/07/2011 22:03

OK my DH wasnt naked, but the stripper in the stripclub in Los Angeles was :-(
He went to LA on business (PR - so mostly socialising rather than what I consider 'work'!) last month, and he has only just told me that a colleague paid for him to have a private dance after they all went to a strip club. I was most annoyed because he had kept it a secret from me for a few weeks, and that he had put 'saving dace' in front of colleagues before my feelings.
He said he thought I would be a bit annoyed about it which was why he hadnt told me about it at the time (esp as I was having huge sleep problems with DD - ie surviving on 2 hours a night!)
I am so upset about this and apart from apologising (which he has done now he knows how I feel) I dont know wht he can do to make me feel better. I am realy struggling to forgive him.
:-(

OP posts:
larrygrylls · 07/07/2011 08:56

Herbex,

You still haven't confirmed whether you view patronising a bar where women are exploited by being paid sub minimum wage is acceptable to you?

FreudianSlipper · 07/07/2011 09:03

if it anything to do with empowerment the women would choose who they dance for, they would pick their customers but they don't

and their are lots of clubs where you get extras, its not an innocent fun night out its about the lowest form of business, trading bodies, this business ranges from slavery to prostitution with women being the main victims but as long as there are men willing to pay for women for their own pleasure there will sadly always be this business

fastweb · 07/07/2011 12:00

do you have any evidence to support the above?

Re the difficulty of retaining the belief that woman are NOT consumables

Set a side the enormous amount of data collated and analyzed by bodies such as WHO and UNICEF which allow us to pinpoint repeated trends the world over.

Set aside that most people's basic general knowledge allows them to see that typically countries with low social barriers for patronizing the sex trade also legislatively, economically, medically (see data re access to abortion) and socially view the entire female gender as nearer to chattel than equal citizens.

Specific to the UK, specific to the increase of lap dancing clubs, data has been collected by councils and local police forces which provides a comparison of the local area BEFORE and AFTER licensing was granted to a new club. The results show an increased incidence of behaviors typical of the commodification and objectification of women when new establishments are created and the geographical data links that behavior specifically to the clients of the club.

a) Reported sexual assaults in the area underwent a significant or dramatic increase. When you take on board that sexual assault is highly under reported, so the figures available for analysis do not represent the actual rate of assault, those findings are a major red flag.

b) The effective creation of "no go zones" for women NOT associated with the sex trade. The (non sex trade) women working or living in the vicinity of a lap dancing club report an extraordinary rise of sexual intimidation, sexually charged insults, harassment and generalized abuse to the extent that they have to limit\change their movements during the clubs opening hours. Again you have to bear in mind that most women DO NOT report incidences of intimidation or abuse, so as notable as the figures are, they do not represent the true level of incidence.

c) Where a license is granted for a lap dancing club the police find that the incidence of brothels and street prostitution in the vicinity rises in tandem. In order to cater for and feed off a newly created client base.

All this data is available through individual police forces and local councils. It hasn't been pull it together into a single body of work AFAIK.

most people's characters are fully formed by the time they go to this kind of establishment

As far as I as a non medical person am able to understand, it is almost impossible to make somebody into who they are not by the time they reach adulthood, but behaviors and attitudes within a fully formed character are plastic if you change the environment and encourage them to respond to that.

It works because a character or personality is a complex and contradictory thing. For the most part the visible nature somebody's behavior and thinking is only part of the picture, there will be the potential for behaviors and attitudes as yet unseen because they haven't been triggered. This is because we are to some extent prone to adapting to our social environment.

I do not think decent guys become unfaithful misogynists, nor do I feel the removal of lap dancing places would turn unfaithful misogynists into decent chaps

That is an overly "tidy" vision of the human condition and our inherent fallibility.

Normalization causes people to reassess their lines in the sand. If the social barrier taints sex trade users as "sad misogynist gits" and the sex workers as "exploited" then somebody who does not want to view himself as a misogynist, desperate or exploitative will find that barrier hard to step over and will likely abstain.

Re-frame entry level sex trade as "perfectly normal, reasonable, innocent fun that nobody other than an uncool, suburban, cardigan wearing, old fashioned, sexually repressed kill joy would object to" and re-frame the sex workers as "empowered by your custom" and the same man may well find that the social barrier is now low enough to step over and dive right in.

Which is why the sex industry makes normalization their primary tool in terms of PR and marketing. Cos its a numbers game. It is the engine that drives growth. All they need to do is normalize entry level venues in the mainstream cos they can rely on the micro-society within the venues to normalize the next step up and so on and so. As a strategy it makes good business sense and has shown itself to work very well indeed.

In addition, I don't think people generalize from lapdancers to all women any more than they would from telling a random woman to clean for them because they employ a cleaner at home

In a UK context a cleaner role lacks the service+servility aspect of a lap dancer.

In parts of Asia for example a cleaner DOES offer service+servility. Walking around in a bowed position when passing Sir or Madam, to keep the head lower than theirs. Kneeling at the feet of Sir or Madam to hand them something. That sort of thing.

Where you take somebody out of their normal environment and plonk them in that reality you quickly find that many people's principles and standards demonstrate great flexibility in the face of being proffered service+servility.

It's terryfiying how fast some expat ladies who lunch can descend into viewing all people of a specific class or colour as consumables, less than fully human. To the point where they become unrecognizable as the person they were at arrival and morph into a bad imitation of Lady Muck in the last days of the Raj.

To my mind that is basically what happens when you lower social barriers to the consumption of women in the sex trade. It is not the tits or vagina that define the process. Sex is only relevant because as an "intimate act on demand" (showing your private parts or using your private parts to stimulate on the clients' terms) it brings the servility to the service+servility equation.

And it is the servility that impacts the clients self image and their perception of those they associate with being servile.

Interviews conducted with men who participate as clients at entry level demonstrate a tendency to become resentful of the the sensitivities they are required to show towards women in general. In the home, in the work place, in public. Part of what they come to value in the clubs is the "traditional" role of male authority offered to himself and the presence of females who are submissive\respectful of his male authority. Expressions of increasing anger and a growing intolerance of female expectations in the home and the workplace NOT to be required to take part in outdated power balances, were a notable feature of interviews.

So no, a man won't go to a lap dancing clubs\hire a cleaner and then demand some random woman gyrate\clean for him.What happens is more subtle but no less insidious and is not confined to internal changes in the single guy. It affects all the women around him.

HerBeX · 07/07/2011 13:04

Another excellent post fastweb.

Larry you didn't ask that question directly of me and I asked my question first, but I've no problem answering your's: of course it's not acceptable to have workers paid below the minimum wage and anyone who thinks that an establishment might be doing that, shouldn't patronise it.

Now are you going to answer mine? Do you genuinely believe that handing over money to a low paid worker for a drink, is in the same class as handing over money to a person who will then put on a sexual display for you and turn you on?

solospud · 07/07/2011 13:18

They normally pay for a bit extra up to you to forgive hunny

VelvetSnow · 07/07/2011 13:52

My DP is going to Amsterdam next month, on his own, he's going for a smoke (because I don't allow it in the house or anywhere near DD) so once a year is not a problem for me, and he's going to see his favourite band I Am Kloot in a very nice venue.

He is going for 2 nights. The gig is one evening.

Now, I am aware that DP could possibly visit a prostitute and pay for sexual favours or have a lapdance etc etc, but the key thing here is I trust him and I have been advised by him that he wouldn't be interested.

Where I have to agree with Maurice is the "I just do not know" factor, it's all down to respect and trust - and I believe that DP respects and trusts me enough not to visit a prostitute or enjoy a lapdance. And he also has some respect for himself not to bother with such shite! going for a smoke is a side issue of course Grin

Relationship security is a very nice thing, I think I have it as do a lot of other women on this thread.

BUT, we cannot deny that there are people who also have partners and families who have admitted that given the chance they would actually cheat/lapdance/strip club/ Although the image they portray to partners would be totally different.

Can you imagine if the partners of these men/women were us, who believed they had total relationship security.

The fact is - we can never fully know what a person might do under circumstances unless said circumstance is presented.

I'd go as far to say that my DP wouldn't, and I'd bet my life on it but if I was to bet dd's life on it, then I would not be prepared to take the same bet IYSWIM.

Orbinator · 07/07/2011 13:58

I think the main problem women have with their partners doing this is the fact that the man has taken it upon himself to give up hard earned cash to get what his partner is willing to give him free and in a far more intimate manner. That is why partners get upset IMO. Your DH/DP, especially when you have children, is supposed to be respecting you as a woman. Why would he pay a stranger when he won't pay his partner who he supposedly loves to perform something that is meant to be personal and intimate? If you take the personal and intimacy out of sex it demeans it to the equivalent of fast food and no one wins at the end of the day.

larrygrylls · 07/07/2011 14:07

Fastweb,

Thanks for the reply, well framed and certainly something to think about.

HerBex,

You believe yourself something of a barrister, trying to trap someone into an extreme version of their actual position by aggressively asking "yes or no" questions. It is not that clever really.

In response to your question, I believe that where both transactions represent a willing exchange between the seller and the buyer, and neither have in any way been coerced into their position, they are equivalent.

Now that you have responded to my question, would it be reasonable for the partner of someone who has drunkenly frequented a bar exploiting women in this way (underpaying them) to term it a "deal breaker" within a relationship?

mauricetinkler · 07/07/2011 15:12

Orbinator Why would he pay a stranger when he won't pay his partner who he supposedly loves to perform something that is meant to be personal and intimate?
Because he's pissed and he's off the lead.

Orbinator · 07/07/2011 15:22

I've never used a lead...unless you mean trust? Some men think breaking trust is "sticking it to the man" or woman in this case. I have to disagree and think that is a silly excuse for something they haven't actually thought through. Yes, being pissed won't help them imagine what damage they are doing to their relationship, but, as other people have said earlier on, it's not a huge secret that most women would be upset about their partner doing this.

aliceliddell · 07/07/2011 15:32

larry - a perfect statement of the inadequacy of libertarian liberalism. The assumption of equality depends entirely on ignoring what happened for the 25+ years before they entered the club. Which wasn't one of egalitarian nirvana.

larrygrylls · 07/07/2011 15:40

Alice,

If you take any other view, you are assuming that, in the case where someone does something entirely of their free will, that they should be forbidden to do so and, thus, infantilised. A grown up woman, regardless of what happened in the last 25 years, should be allowed to make whatever decision she wants with respect to her own time and her own body.

Whenever I read comments like yours, I perceive shades of Animal Farm, with the patriarchy (not a term I love or wholly accept but let's leave it for now) replaced with a cadre of self appointed females telling other females how they should or should not behave.

Malificence · 07/07/2011 15:47

"off the lead" - is that how you see marriage Maurice?
A method of control that a woman uses to stop her husband having fun ? What a depressing view of married life you have.

If a man wants a life of porn and lap dancing, then he shouldn't marry a woman who has absolute objections to such things, it's not rocket science, it's common sense.

My DH has been "off the lead" as you put it, many times, often for months at a time, you see he was in the forces for the first half of our marriage , our marriage wouldn't have survived without mutual trust - he had no idea what I could have been up to either, don't forget. Wink

fastweb · 07/07/2011 15:47

Now that you have responded to my question, would it be reasonable for the partner of someone who has drunkenly frequented a bar exploiting women in this way (underpaying them) to term it a "deal breaker" within a relationship?

About this bar...

Does is its PR and marketing focused on highlighting its flagrant underpaying and economic exploitation of the bar staff ?

In the sense of the underpayment being "for your pleasure sir, look how s\he changes a barrel for a mere x quid an hour, does that not titillate and delight"?

With specials of the "For an extra 15 quid you can go to private area to watch him\her polish glasses while s\he recites from her last tax return and lists how many bills s\he has been unable to pay this month" variety.

I'm going to say probably not.

Given that at this point it feels impossible to feed, clothe or entertain my family without somebody somewhere being seriously underpaid (unless I win the lottery) I'd only be tightly focused on the staffs' wages aspect if it would appear their economic disadvantage was what attracted my husband. We try to consume less in general (although not sure that helps really, my grasp on how economics works is not brill), but no, given that there are no bars in town where one could be even relatively certain the staff were been paid properly, I wouldn't make a big deal about it.

mauricetinkler · 07/07/2011 15:54

It was just an expression Malificence. It is one myself and friends use in a tonge in cheek way. I appreciate what you are saying about mutual trust - which is great and I like to think I have it - however as somebody said up thread, you can never truly be sure. And nothing wrong with that.

wrongdecade · 07/07/2011 15:55

yanbu to me this would be a deal breaker

Orbinator · 07/07/2011 15:56

Had a slightly sinister thought as I put the kettle on just now. Hear me out and then flame me if you feel it is needed:

  1. Company takes group of men out to impress them
  2. Lapdances happen
  3. Assuming some men are married, there is a compliance that this won't be talked of, ever. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas attitude.
  4. Therefore company has ensured loyalty through these men to the extend that they win out even over their families.

Is this how it is supposed to impress the corporate world? I really can't see any other excuse.

fastweb · 07/07/2011 16:03

Orbinator

That has has shades of the Japanese corporate mentality of around 20 years ago about it. So you might be on to something there.

HerBeX · 07/07/2011 16:15

Larry, I'd thank you not to tell me what I believe, please. I think I'm probably better placed to say what I believe, than you are.

Viz your dealbreaker question, ROFL at fastweb's characterisation of that particular bar. Grin Of course it's reasonable for someone to have that as a dealbreaker, it's reasonable for anyone to have any dealbreakers they like. Some women will never, ever data a man called Wayne, for instance, or a smoker, or a Republican or a vegetarian, or someone over 5ft 10 or under 5ft 8 - people have all sorts of dealbreakers about things which other people wouldn't even notice, that's up to them.

I think you are quite eccentric in finding your wife deliberately paying another man to turn her on, and her handing over money for a drink in a bar to a worker she doesn't know is low paid, the same thing, but hey, if you think it's the same good luck to you, i think the majority of men would disagree with you.

BerylStreep · 07/07/2011 16:19

Haven't read the whole thread, but it amazes me that anyone finds the sex industry acceptable. Last year we stayed with friends of my DH, and the husband of the couple was openly boasting of his plans to go to strip clubs with his father the following week! Shock His wife just accepted it.

When I said I thought the sex industry was degrading to women and in many cases was modern day slavery I was made to feel like a complete dungaree wearing feminist loon. (It's the dungarees I object to, not the feminist part).

My DH had another friend working in Amsterdam, and he invited DH to visit him. DH couldn't see why I objected to him going, as I knew they would end up visiting sex shows - well he understood, but didn't like it.

So OP, YNBU.

larrygrylls · 07/07/2011 16:21

HerBex,

I don't think lapdancing is a turn on. It is titillation in company. If some guy gyrated in front of my wife and her mates, why should I care (apart from her lack of taste)? I am just not that insecure.

You keep conflating arguments. The low paid bar worker is all about those who say a man should not attend a lapdancing joint because the women might be exploited. On that basis, and that basis alone, the low paid bar worker and lapdancer are equivalent. They both may be being exploited.

mauricetinkler · 07/07/2011 16:34

So, Larry, you would be happy for your wife to have a private dance with some bloke where he stripped down and flashed his knob in her face? Really? I suspect you are the exception rather than the rule.

smallwhitecat · 07/07/2011 16:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

HerBeX · 07/07/2011 16:40

Oh and I've just noticed that you've answered my question by focusing on the "choices" of the low paid worker and the half-nekkid titillating dancer. I was actually asking you to focus on the behaviour of the client, in all this. Do you think she would perceive the transactions to be exactly the same, with the same effect on her and therefore would be perfectly within her rights to expect her partner to respond in exactly the same way to the re-telling about each transaction?

Not many women become wet with desire in the act of handing over money for a drink but many would become so if they had an erotic private dance with a well oiled buff young man, if it were a socially acceptable thing to do and the embarrassment/ not-wishing-to-be-thought-a-sad-skank barrier were no longer there. Do you genuinely not see that the effect of these two transactions on the client, is different and therefore in re-telling her story of her trip later on, the response of her partner, might reasonably be expected to be at least slightly different for the two events?

HerBeX · 07/07/2011 16:43

I am not conflating any arguments Larry, I am specifically asking you to focus on the reaction of the person who is paying the low paid bar worker/ lapdancer/ oiled cock-dancer or whatever they're called....