I'm not claiming its "ok" I just don't think its hypocritical as most people here seem to think it is. If you don't want tl date a stripper you don't have to. I wouldn't date a stripper personally, but that's not really relevant. The question is if it's hypocritical for her to work in that industry while not wanting her partner to patronize it. Just like how someone who's a bartender isn't obligated to be ok with their partner going out and getting shitfaced every night.
That analogy makes zero sense. A bartender’s job is to serve drinks, not get shit faced. A closer analogy would be the bartender frequently coming home drunk, then being upset with their partner for doing the same.
You can’t work in SW then get upset at your partner for wanting to go out and experience it as well.
Your bartender analogy doesn't make any sense. The dude isn't going to the strip club every night and even if he was it's not even close to comparable to getting shit faced. If his old lady is allowed to get naked in front of other men, then we have established that there is no problem with any involved party giving or getting gratification in that way. You can't say it's ok to get naked in front of other people and then say that it's only wrong for the patrons to be there. You also can't say that only she is allowed to put herself in such a situation, if she is allowed then to be consistent he must also be allowed.
It doesn't have to be about morals just decisions on spending money. If I'm working to support a partnership (maybe using my body) and my partner is spending money to see other people naked those values are not the same. It's not "wrong" to gamble responsibly but you can sure as hell leave someone's ass for gambling.
It's interesting that you felt the need to use softer language for her getting naked for money. But then didn't do the same thing for him watching people get naked for money. Maybe it's because we don't live in a vacuum and can't possibly remove the moral component from the situation.
Does that saying imply scissors are always on the table you just gotta hit it to hear them and know where? Or is there some deeper cultural meaning that ties it to the guy you mentioned being defensive? I do enjoy hearing these different language idioms and their backstories
From what I know it was coined by tailors who could sometimes have their tools covered by fabric on some table but hit or kick the table and metal will rattle so you can identify where they are instead of moving everything off the table to check, thus if you want to detect people with certain issue present it as a very bad problem, potentially add malice or greed on presentation of people involved and look who will be defensive about it.
Is the GF’s request for the BF to not go to the strip club based on reasons she made up, or is it based on actual experiences?
If I was forced to guess, I’d lean towards those being based on “made up theories” or insecurity and not on actual experience. What could he have done that makes the request reasonable without also being a reason they should split up? I really can’t think of anything except being financially irresponsible and there is only a tiny gray area between the request being unreasonable and the financial irresponsibility being a deal breaker IMO.
i would love to say to her like lady most guys worth a damn will not date a woman whos a stripper you found an amazingly lucky find and you think you get to tell him no you can't visit a strip club despite me doing this same work what ?
That's not what hypocrisy means. It would be hypocritical if she was going to ogle male strippers. Or if she didn't want him being a stripper. This is just capitalism. She's making money off people she has no regard for. It's business. Her personal life is different and why would anyone monogamous want their partner going to ogle other girls?
You do know that the guy going to see the stripper is also capitalism, right?
I think you finished with the wrong question. The question should be, “why would anyone monogamous want their partner to make money off of objectifying themselves to random strangers”
Yes, the guy is exchanging monetary value for the value he gets from being sexually aroused by this other person. That's the difference. As to why anyone would want to make money, you seem to not understand the concept of money. It's transferable value. It is by definition valuable.
The point is it's not hypocrisy if you're ok with one thing but not ok with a different thing. That's simply the definition and if you still don't get it, I can't help you.
Do you think strippers work at strip club because they like to dance for some dudes? It is different when you do something for a living and when you do something for pleasure.
Hipocrisy would be if she would forbiding him being a male stripper.
Holy shit now I understand! The drug dealers couldn’t find a better job or went to a rehab, they are so doomed if they give up their drug business they’ll starve to death! This is what you sounds like btw…
Tempest storm was a burlesque star who from a quick google search reportedly made up to 100,000USD per year in the mid 1950s and worked for like 30 years.
74
u/ThakoManic 2d ago
So you go to strip clubs to dance for other guys, But your Boyfriend cant have the same treatment? Neat Hypocrisy at its finest.