A strip club savvy friend told me this years ago. It would seem to be a logical way for a dancer to size up the potential client and make (even more) money if the opportunity and interest presented itself. Based on some cop dramas I have seen and read the stripper to escort/hooker continuum seems to be what a lot of dancers engage in to make extra cash at some point. Is this observation true or not? Is there a bright red line between the two professions or is it more of a slippery slope?
I have no data (e.g. survey of arrest reports for soliciation and given employement.) I know a couple of former “dancers” however, and both were not prostitutes and didn’t know anyone who was. (Both managed to work for… a couple of years with a couple of long vacations.)
There is a lot of hooking up with sugar daddies. Anacdotally, I’d have to say that Anna Nicol Smith is one of the few to marry. The Sugar Daddy cases I know of went bad within a year or two, and the women had given all their money to stupid boyfriends who they were seeing not because they were heterosexual but because they needed a ready drug source.
My guess is that, given the general squeamishness about having hairy fat guys up close, most women don’t resort to turning tricks until they are too old and ugly to get a job in a decent strip club.
You believe everything you see and read in cop dramas? In that case, they cast of NYPD Blue have this bridge you should buy.
Seriously, though, although many dancers may engage in sex for money, it’s a hell of a leap to say that nearly all of them do. That’s like saying stay at home mothers are nearly always boring, child-obsessed twerps. Sure, some of them are, but quite a lot of them aren’t.
I don’t have any statistics to offer, but from my own personal acquaintance I can say that I’ve known strippers who did not hook. They can make plenty without hooking.
What percentage don’t? I have no idea - I’d guess it’s a minority.
why would you want to let a greasy man who can’t get a date touch you when you can just take his money with the protection of big bouncers that will throw his ass out if he touches you?
granted, i never understood why men wanted to throw their money away like that, but i for one was happy to make it through college with their help 
I’d guess that a higher perchentage of women in the sex industry (including strippers, porn stars/models, etc.) are prostitutes than, say, women in the steel industry. But I doubt they’re a majority.
Hey, them steelworkers are a buncha minxes!
I just saw a Playboy pictorial: Women of Bethlehem.
That Blessed Virgin Mary has quite a rack.
I know we have one stripper on the Boards, who I hope will pop in here to say a few things . . . I can’t remember which poster she is, so I won’t risk a social faux pas by mentioning her name . . .
Doesn’t stripping already pay pretty well? If it does, I would think most strippers wouldn’t resort to prositution unless they had a drug habit or were really greedy or something along those lines.
I’ve known several as friends who did not turn tricks, but they knew those who did, and it was a serious step down in their estimation. We have several former exotic dancers on the boards, too.
Keep in mind that when you say that you know a couple of strippers and they don’t turn tricks, you are really saying that they don’t turn tricks as far as you know. This is exactly the kind of information that she would keep secret from her friends. I am not saying that all strippers are turning tricks on the side, but if they were, you wouldn’t necessarily know.
Strippers are in general a crotch hair away from being hookers. I have known many in my day(from Mons Venus,2001 and the Doll House) and they always talked about guys they “dated”- which meant the guys that were tricks. They are ho’s, plain and simple. They usually are abused or molested girls and end up hooked on various pills etc. They have to get wasted to do their job. I think it works like this: phone sex worker->Hooter’s waitress->dancer->turning tricks on the side->porn “actress”.
I feel bad for many of them because they really think they are taking advantage of the guys that use them. Its sad. They are beautiful women and they just went wrong somewhere. As for them not being prostitutes unless they are addicts, not true, they look at it like what the hell- they think: “I am having sex with guys anyway for free, I might as well make an extra grand a week”.
The funniest part about strippers is that they have these yuppie middle age loser guys that fall in love with them going to the clubs and would do anything to be with them- meanwhile the stripper is living with their unemployed musician or gangsta boyfriend. I have seen this many times. They like to take care of people. Probably because no one took care of them. Who grows up wanting to be a stripper?!
How nice that Slippy has such a wonderful psych evaluation handle on these things that he can answer all questions on the topic so completely.:rolleyes:
How nice that Slippy has such a wonderful psych evaluation handle on these things that he can answer all questions on the topic so completely.:rolleyes:
I would assume (which i shouldn’t do, i suppose) that if they’re in it for the money for whatever reason they’d more likely be hooker as well, but they’re in it for shits and giggles more than the money they probably won’t.
I think a whole lotta women are hookers. The continuum of sex-for-money starts at the bottom with streetwalkers, strippers are a little higher up, but at the top you find wives. The terms of the contract can get quite elaborate and complicated, but the contract is still, at heart, sex for money. (Not all marriages, just the ones where he makes all the money, and I say that without disparagement of any kind. )
Perhaps your statement was poorly worded, or I was reading too much into it? Because if neither of these things apply, then I have just been called a whore. Our agreement (mine and hubby’s) is pretty traditional: he works outside the home, and I raise the kids, do the cleaning, shopping and cooking, etc. If our arrangement was sex for money, even in the complicated way you are describing, I certainly wouldn’t throw in household chores, child-rearing, etc. for free. He doesn’t make all that much, and I don’t work that cheap.
I think you just painted a whole bunch of women, including stay-at-home moms with a very broad brush.
Perhaps your statement was poorly worded, or I was reading too much into it? Because if neither of these things apply, then I have just been called a whore. Our agreement (mine and hubby’s) is pretty traditional: he works outside the home, and I raise the kids, do the cleaning, shopping and cooking, etc. If our arrangement was sex for money, even in the complicated way you are describing, I certainly wouldn’t throw in household chores, child-rearing, etc. for free. He doesn’t make all that much, and I don’t work that cheap.
I think you just painted a whole bunch of women, including stay-at-home moms with a very broad brush.
Well… using your interesting logic, how is the woman bringing home some cash if she is also a mommy, really going to substantially change this dynamic? Is there a whore o’ meter above the bed that goes back and forth depending on how much cash (or not) the wife/mommy/lover is bringing to the table that week? Is the man really going to be less expectant of sex (or the woman less willing to engage in it) if the wife is working full or part time vs being a full time mother.
As an intelligent young woman I would think you would have some sensitivity and appreciation for the value of being a good mother outside of the paycheck for sex exchange paradigm you seem enamored of.