Should I be cross if DH went to lap dancing club?

[ActingNormal]

...and spent £60 on private dances (we aren't poor and he doesn't spend money on much that is frivolous).

Other people seem to think I should be cross but I can't see it. Am I being a mug? Is it a sign of disrespect?

He got a bit of female attention outside the marriage. He was consenting. They were consenting. I knew he was going there. There doesn't seem like there is a risk of him forming a relationship with the women but if a woman behaved that way with him in a regular nightclub that seems more of a threat to me.

He came home horny as hell and seemed like he had a good break from the stress of his job.

Lizinthesticks: so there's never any inequality in same-sex relationships (whether or not one party is paying for it?). Are you coming from somewhere in the direction of the Dworkinite viewpoint that all heterosexual intercourse is really rape but women are too thick to know that until Dworkin explains it to them?

OBM: so do you think it's right or wrong for someone to have sex with a partner when that someone isn't really in the mood or finds the particular sex act a bit boring or unerotic, but wants to please the partner?

OBM: given that it is likely to be a lot more difficult for a sixty year old man to find a sexual partner who is availalbe and attracted to him, do you think that people over a certain age -such as 60, which isn't necessarily doddering on the edge of the grave you know - should simply resign themselves to a life without sex?

"OBM: given that it is likely to be a lot more difficult for a sixty year old man to find a sexual partner who is availalbe and attracted to him, do you think that people over a certain age -such as 60, which isn't necessarily doddering on the edge of the grave you know - should simply resign themselves to a life without sex?"

And the physically disabled, the cripplingly shy, the just-not-terribly-appealing,-really?

And all those married chaps who have not had sex with their wives for year after year after weary long year?

And it's not necessarily just sex, either - it's cuddles and kisses and being held, and having attention paid to you. Why is it ok to pay for a massage, as long as no erogenous zones are involved? What's so awful about those few inches of flesh that they must not be touched?

"so there's never any inequality in same-sex relationships (whether or not one party is paying for it?)."

I can't pretend to know, for better or worse. Perhaps you can speak to that.

"Are you coming from somewhere in the direction of the Dworkinite viewpoint that all heterosexual intercourse is really rape but women are too thick to know that until Dworkin explains it to them?"

You think a keen political awareness of the ways in which those with power and wealth retain it is something that everyone has had the good fortune, experience, acuity or study time to gain? You believe that strategies to tackle this shit aren't the product of collective analysis and discussion but merely pop into the heads of everyone as and when required?

Back to the bouncers arguement. I will accept that clubs and some pubs employ them to monitor all behaviour especially as alcohol is involved.

But if punters know the rules about no touching (potentially a sexual assault) what is stopping them from touching? Is it the rules and knowing that it is not allowed or is it the fact that clubs have to provide bouncers to protect the women because some men have the urge to touch as a result of being sexually aroused?

So again the dancers are not really empowered are they? They are not in control and cannot prevent being assaulted, it is the deterrent of the bouncers providing the protection. ( vunerable naked women protected by mainly physically large strong men).
So are some men really in control of their urges and see lap dancers as fair game for assault ( which is wrong) or is it because they don't want to be physically manhandled themselves.

So I will raise my points again, would the dancers perform if no bouncer was there to protect them from assault? Do lapdancing clubs recognise that some individuals will be aroused and unable to control their urges( which has been previously denied in this thread) and therefore provide bouncers to protect the women?

SGB - I will accept that employers do provide taxis to their workers, however I wonder if all the employees of these clubs are entitled to this such as the bouncers.

Punters know the rules but some people break rules. Some men are horrible and predatory. Just because a few break the rules and chance it doesn't mean the majority do.

I don't think it's the sexual arousal which gives them the urge but more a combination of alcohol and basically being a twat. Same reason some people push their hands through the bars at the zoo.(not that I am comparing lap-dancing to a zoo!!)

I am pretty sure that the dancers could push someone off, shout at them, etc - but if I was a dancer I would also want the bouncers to be there to stop it so I could carry on with my job.

I am sure ome men do see lap-dancers and other women as fair game, they are twats. They are wrong.

I personally would not want to perform or work in a nightclub of any kind unless there were bouncers there because of the effect alcohol has on people for a start. Even as a bar worker I would be happier to work with the knowledge that there was someone there to sort out trouble if it started.

plus - just because dancers have the security of bouncers, doesn't mean they are weak submissive women. All clubs have bouncers and as a punter drinking and dancing at a regular club I appreciate they are there for my safety but if someone had a go at me when out in a club I would attempt to defend myself also.

I am not sure why bouncers being there would in any way sugget that dancers are not in control or are fair game..

Lindenavery: I don't think it's a sign of being 'not empowered' for your employer to have protection (in the form of bouncers) in place to prevent you being assaulted by badly-behaved customers. Does it disempower bar staff or indeed the staff of something like a car-clamping company or the dole office if a minority of their clients behave badly enough for it to be thought necessary that bouncers are there during working hours.

And paying for staff to get a taxi home is fairly common in any good employer whose staff finish work late at night.

Lizinthesticks: you'can't pretend to know' whether there's ever inequality in same-sex relationships. Is that because it's never occurred to you that people of different races, ages or positions of economic power might have a same-sex relationship or sexual encounter, or do you only percieve inequality in terms of gender or think that gender inequality as you percieve it surpasses every other kind of inequality.
Also, with all this stuff about the individual and the community, do you think that everyone considering any kind of sexual encounter should only ever be permitted to have sex with his/her 'equals'? Would you condemn or prohibit any relationship where there is an age gap (OK , yes, the younger partner should be an adult, let's not sidetrack onto kiddie-fiddling)? A significant difference in income? Diffrent races?
DOn't you think that in some circumstances a straightforward commercial transaction might be better for the partner who might be percieved to be at a 'disadvantage' than a long term 'relationship with someone who abuses the power of his/her higher social status/higher income/ being older.

SGB - does a straightforward commercial transaction prevent women being sexual abused? I was under the impression ( although may be wrong) that sex workers are at an increased risk of sexual abuse/ violent assault than someone not in the industry.

Beanie the fact that bouncers are there to protect the dancers (among other reasons) still suggests that dancers are vulnerable to assault from punters, not everybody is protected in their line of work when dealing with the general public.

"you'can't pretend to know' whether there's ever inequality in same-sex relationships. Is that because it's never occurred to you that people of different races, ages or positions of economic power might have a same-sex relationship or sexual encounter, or do you only percieve inequality in terms of gender or think that gender inequality as you percieve it surpasses every other kind of inequality."

Nice try. But as I understand it, this thread is addressing gender and economic inequalities. So, if I focus on those I fail to see how this equates to me denying there?s the potential for other inequalities to be present ? in either same sex or hetero contexts.

Which TV programme FioFio?

Back to male attitude re lapdancing. Lap dancing is a mixed message as I have mentioned before because it's one-on-one and invading personal space. If no money exchanged hands I believe women are doing it as a sexual signal and for selfexcitement and I believe men would become aroused and see it as a indication for sex - fine in consenting couples ( cash does not equal consent IMO).

That is not the intention in a club, it is an exchange for cash and nothing else. If protection (bouncers, security guards)were to be removed from a lap dancing club, a night club, a pub and a dole office which one would result in the most sexual assaults? (Difficult to answer I know - can only speculate). And this is NOT to do with the ones being assaulted but the attitudes of the ones doing the assault. What affects the attitudes?

Prostitution is clearer cut surely. You pay, you get what you want. Paying entry to a club to see strippers or burlesque on a stage means you will see naked women from a distance and not one-on-one, nothing more. Private lap dancing is not so defined.In European clubs the boundaries are even more blurred.

I can only comment on men's attitude towards dancers by being present at some interesting conversations and I do not think in general they have a respect for the dancers and almost find it laughable that for £20 they can have a woman gyrating naked in front of them.

You can only invade personal space if uninvited. The women who are dancing are allowing the men to get into their space and take money in exchange, the men who go are paying the women to come into their space. Alongside this there is a no touching rule in many (most) clubs.

The rules are: You can pay money to get this dance but you can't touch me.

I am not sure why you think this isn't clear cut.

If there is any misunderstanding then it's only on Some of the mens side and those men who do insist on breaking the rules are twats. i don't think the majority of men at these places break the rules and even if some of them want to I am sure most of them do excercise some self-control!

I work in the NHS.

We need "bouncers" on a Friday night in A+E.

There is nothing sexual about those attacks on NHS workers, it is alcohol/drugs-pure and simple. Women workers are targeted more than male because drunken twats tend to go for the easy target.

< as you were >

i have worked in lapdancing with no bouncers before there was normally just one bouncer on the door who could not see into the club.

the men tried touching more on a weekend than through the week, alcohol you see? maybe we should ban that too?

swift kick in the bollox?

"Beanie the fact that bouncers are there to protect the dancers (among other reasons) still suggests that dancers are vulnerable to assault from punters, not everybody is protected in their line of work when dealing with the general public."

It's now sadly common for police officers to be required to protect A&E staff, especially on a weekend. I've even heard of officers being allocated to schools. Should we close schools and A&E units because their staff are vulnerable to assault?

yes - I am not denying that dancers are vunerable. I think they are there to stop those men who do attempt to 'assault' them and for other reasons. However I think it would be wrong to assume that all men who go to these kinds of clubs would 'assult' the employees.

The bouncers are there for those who do.

they just didnt bother trying dittany, they werent there to grope they were there to have a dance. i presume they would have gone to a brothel if touching and groping was what they wanted.

there were 'no touching the dancers' signs everyhwere that was all we needed during the week. of course there was a call button behind the bar which alerted the bouncer if we needed him but it was rarely used.

'they just didnt bother trying dittany, they werent there to grope they were there to have a dance. i presume they would have gone to a brothel if touching and groping was what they wanted.'

ah,but maybe they didnt go to a brothel because it isnt yet socially acceptable,whereas for some reason going to a lap-dancing club is.maybe brothels are expencive,or maybe their thick as shit open-minded wives dont mind them going to LD clubs,but they would mind them going to a brothel