Are strippers almost always hookers if the money is good enough?

In My Humble Opinion
21

I danced for 7 years and never prostituted myself. Why would I? Most hookers make far less than strippers. Sure, I knew some women who had arrangements with their customers, but it wasn’t the majority. In fact, it was a fairly small percentage. Keep in mind that I’ve known a couple hundred strippers.

Usually, the skankier girls were the ones I suspected of hooking. Think about it, if you’re hot (and sometimes even if you’re not), you can sell a one song dance for $20. Most nights when I was not dancing on stage, I was doing private dances. Most guys bought at least 2 dances. From what I’m told, the average hooker charges $20 for a blow job. Unless a girl couldn’t convince men to get the dance, I cannot see why they would blow a guy for the same amount of money.

I was pretty pristine for a stripper. That was one thing that attracted the men to me. I didn’t look like I’d be a stripper. That, and I was one hell of an entertainer. I had several offers through the years to have arrangements, or do more, but I never felt the need or financial pressure to do such a thing. My .02.

22

I’m pissed. The hamsters ate my first post.

I’ve known a lot of dancers. I’ve lived with several. Some have occasionally dated a customer. Almost all that have (that I know about) have had serious drug problems. And even they don’t accept dates from anyone or even look for dates often. Dancers make too much money to screw around and get arrested. Most club owners that I’ve known have a rule about dancers dating customers, they aren’t allowed to.

I’ve known some dancers that could usually count on between $500.00 and $750.00 a night in tips. Are they going to do anything with some jerk for (as Indygrrl says above) $20? Doubtful…

23

FWIW, I do know of one girl who “dated” a regular. (Hardly a representative portion of course) She was rooming with a friend’s brother at the time.

She could be classed as extremely skanky. Almost boyish looking, very coarse personality and a crack addict. Nothing close to feature material, but apparently even girls such as these have their regulars.

I don’t know the details, of course, but the regular bought her a car. Just a K-car, granted, but still. My friend’s brother told us that she had offered to “date” him in exchange for rent. I have no idea if he took her up on it but she didn’t live there very long.

Kind of sad, really.

24

:eek: Did you know me??

25

Without question, one of the most dishearteningly cynical things I’ve ever read on the SDMB. :frowning:

Perhaps one day someone will enter your life who is able to convince you that a true marriage is about far more than either of these.

26

Well, barring the old “would you sleep with me for a Million $” question; I’d say no.

Most won’t do “private shows”. Some that do “private shows” will actually have sex- most won’t- but the show will usually be wilder than on stage, and things will occur that will skirt the edge of legality. In “lap dance” clubs, some girls will do “a little more” for more cash- which also will skirt the edge of legality. And, in my youthful days, I had several strippers come over for “private shows”- and after a while, if we got to know it other better, there was sometimes sex. But, it wasn’t sex for money, in actuality- they had sex with me because they liked me, and thought I was a “nice guy”. Sure, they still got paid for the “private show”- but they would have gotten that even if there had been no actual sex.

So- yes, maybe you can sleep with a stripper if you are a nice guy (good looks help- but not so much. What is important is being a “nice guy”, with a willingness to listen, and not be a “creep”. Be generous, but not TOO generous) who is also a big tipper. You can also sleep with some girls just because you took them out on a real expensive date. Make a straight “cash for sex” offer to either, however- and you won’t get any.

As for simply offering some stripper $200 or so for sex- not very likely you’ll get accepted. Only once in my some decade of going to strip clubs, dating strippers, getting private shows, etc was such offered to me. ( I said no, FYI)

If you want to say that some serious & “naughty” touching for a big tip is “sex for money”- then, yes, that isn’t too unlikely. Whatever the club allows, there is always about half the girls who will go a bit further.

So- you want to sleep with a stripper? Be a regular of hers. Tip well (but not crazy)- and tip the other girls too when they are on stage (unless she has said she hates one of them). Offer to run an errand for her- maybe go out for fast food. If you get a lapdance, etc- try to get just a little more without getting too carried away or too “grabby”. Ask about a “private show”. If she says “yes”- assume that is all that it will be- maybe 1>2 steps naughtier than on stage/lap dance. Maybe offer to drive her sometime. Don’t be a "creep’- be a “nice guy”. Stay away from girls with boyfreinds who hang out at the club, or strippers that appear to be on hard drugs.

27

If I can venture a guess as to what Stoid was saying I might be able to clear things up.

What I believe was meant by Stoid’s paragraph was that many women (although not a majority of them) are willing to sleep with someone for materialistic gain, and not out of love or some other innocuous motive. His comment that this primarily occurs in the relationships where men make all the money might have been misunderstood: he may have meant that this is the primary type of relationship where it happens, but that doesn’t mean it has to happen in any relationship.

The definition of “prostitute” is “One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts” Therefore if a wife sleeps with her husband and the primary motive for the sex act is to garner money or some other desirable material they could in fact be accused of prostitution.

I think there are several problems with Stoid’s definition, starting with its being gender neutral: men have been guilty of the exact same behavior in the past. Also he is quick to make the jump from someone being guilty of performing a prostitute type act to being an actual prostitute. Unless the whole basis of the relationship is sex for money or some equivalent I don’t think that one can make the jump from a woman who occasionally gives into sexual demands from her husband for an extra twenty bucks to a streetwalker who supports herself or receives the majority of her money from economically driven sex.

However, I think that it’s fair to point out that to a certain degree Stoid is right. If, for example, Anna Nicole Smith did indeed marry a rich old guy just for his money and giving him sex was part of that goal she would indeed be guilty of prostitution according to a strict definition of the term, and I’m sure there plenty of not so high-profile relationships of that kind out there.

Of course I could be completely wrong and Stoid could be one of the most cynical human beings on the planet desperately in need of a hug.

28

Stoid is a woman Asylum.

29

Stoid’s female, not that that should have any bearing on how you digest her post.

I do think her statement:

is overly broad. Eons ago Gail Sheehy wrote a book on prostitution, IIRC Hustling, wherein she touched upon trophy wives and included them in the mix. But the wife in traditional marriages is more often than not much more a contributing member with gifts and responsibilities that go beyond concubine.

30

Y’know, I thought that Stoid was a woman, but the tone of her post made me start thinking that I was confused and by the time I was done I had convinced myself. Shoulda done a search or something.

31

I’m prepared to give Stoid the benefit of the doubt, since she DID say

Cynical? Yes. Offensive? Only if you’re looking for a reason to be offended. Stoid may be the single most liberal female on this board, thus she looks for reasons to be offended like any good liberal. :stuck_out_tongue:

Knowing that, I’d bet my left arm that she was merely being cynical.

32

Neither, really, just practical and honest. (by the way, I look for reasons to be offended? You must be thinking of some other stoid…I’m nearly offense-proof)

I knew some people were going to get their panties in a twist, but remember: I don’t think there is anything inherently wrong or bad with blatant prostitution, so why would I find subtler forms objectionable? Someone responded with “You’re calling me a whore!” like that’s some big deal. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being a whore, so it isn’t a nasty thing to say.

It is a fact, one that is becoming less true in our modern society, but irrefutably true in the past, that women were economically dependent on men. Marriage was a contract that boiled down to: She will have sex with him and bear his kids and keep his house, and he will provide her with the financial means to exist. As I said, the wifely version of sex-for-money can and usually does include a whole bunch of other things, but it doesn’t mean the sex-for-money part isn’t true.

33

I have a friend who is a stripper (no I didn’t meet her because she is a stripper) and I know she would never have sex for money. She is a stripper and that is her business, nothing else.

34

wait a minute here, Stoid.

You may not think that ‘whore’ as a term is derogatory, but you are in the minority. Just because you don’t take offense to it, doesn’t mean that it’s not a nasty thing to say.

The other problem I have with your equation of sex-for-money part:
Had you specifically mentioned trophy wives I might be inclined to agree with you.
A woman that specifically gets married to someone she doesn’t love, knowing that she will be ‘kept’ is definately on par with being a whore.

The way you phrase it, ANY woman that stays at home is a whore.

You say that marriage was a contract where she will have sex and bear his children. You seem to imply that a woman would not want sex otherwise. You seem to imply that a man is impossing his will on his wife: you will have sex or be gone.

Funny, I always thought sex in marriage was a mutual, beautiful act and not a financial transaction. Silly me.

35

I’m sure a man’s capacity to reasonably provide for a family is foremost in many intelligent and prudent women’s minds (and well it should be) as a rational mate selection criteria, but distilling the complexity of the decision to marry and form a family by two individuals down into it’s essence as a money for sex equation makes for a very sloppy and imprecise categorization of the nature of the relationship, when the topic at hand has to do with a much more narrowly defined sex worker-client relationship.

It may be fun to see people get exercised about your characterization of a male-female “married with kids” relationship as prostitution, and it’s fairly obvious that you are doing this to prick the sensibilities of those that would make the judgement that prostitution is an undesirable lifestyle, but while this is amusing it is also contextually inaccurate. The “whole bunch of other things” in a married relationship you add on as an afterthought, are not tagalongs. They are the core of the relationship for emotionally and psychologically healthy men and women.

In a prostitute-client relationship there is typically no expectation of children-emotional sustenance-family building- etc etc ad infinitum. A prostitute-client relationship is normally boundaried by the expectation of sexual interaction and possibly an orgasm in exchange for cash. While this model can be used to merrily beat people who look askance at prostitution over the head for their hypocrisy it’s really sort of an empty game, because in the end we are talking about fundamentally different things.

36

There’s lots of people in lots of professions who would be hookers (sex-for-money) if the money was good enough.

37

Count me in the silly corner. I married my husband because I love hanging out with him. What a fool I’ve been.

38

Hee. Y’all are parodying this “Onion” article. Right? Right?

Please?

39

You assume that all acts of prostitution are interesting or pleasurable for the prostitute only because of the money, when that is not true. Many hookers enjoy the sex.

As for arguments that marriage is a completely unrelated thing…bull. Look at how you feel about “kept” women. One man, one woman. He pays all her bills, comes to her for sexual fun and companionship. Is she prostituting herself? If so, why? If not, why? Where is the dividing line? Does it stop being prostitution if she cares for him? If she loves him? If he loves her? If he’s the only man she is with? If he’s paying all her bills and coming to her for sex and companionship on Monday, but he marries her on Tuesday… what is the difference between Monday and Tuesday? Define that line for me.

Don’t forget, LOTS of prostitution involves a great deal more than a quick blowjob in the back of a car. That is the simplest form of it. Most prostitutes will tell you that they have regulars, and even one-timers, who aren’t all about the sex. They need some affection, someone to talk to, a feeling of connection. And often, the hookers form attachments to these customers.

Once more… prostitution is, at it’s essence, sex-for-money. But it can and does include many other things. Same goes for marriage. You can get all squinked about the labels you use, but it doesn’t change the equation.

40

Your logic doesn’t quite hold water, Stoid. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being homosexual, but I can see where someone who wasn’t might be upset if I kept insisting he/she was! When you define marriage as sex-for-money, you presume that if the woman becomes unable to have sex, her husband will leave her (happens sometimes, but nothing close to always). My mother was unable to have sex for the last two years of her life, but my father certainly didn’t divorce her! You also presume that if the husband becomes unable to support his family, his wife would leave him, or at the very least stop having sex with him! But in a stable marriage that is not like prostitution, more likely they would sit down, and say, OK, what do we do now? I agree that being a trophy wife is very much like being a hooker, and I’ve known women who have used sex in marriage to get what they want, and that’s being a hooker, too. But to assume that every woman who is financially supported by her husband is a hooker is way off base.

In short, I am not offended at the idea of being called a prostitute, so much as by your assumption that you know so much more about my marriage than I do.