Bachelorette parties- immaturity and sexism

[realman]

OK, so I'm a bit in shock (if that's still possible these days).... I've heard some pretty childish, immature, and/or sexist stuff goes on at bachelorette parties that already makes me cringe (for instance, hearing about how much fun grown women can have with suggestively-shaped exploding volcano cakes and the like, and of course the inevitable usual ho-hum male-bashing sessions)... but I've just recently come to hear about a product on the market called the "penis pinata" that apparently is quite popular.

It makes me cringe to think that there are men out there who would marry women who consider beating apart the likeness of a penis with a big stick a "good time." On a personal level it came as a bit of shock to hear this, because the two women involved in the conversation were people who, up until now, I had held in fairly high esteem as "good peoples". This one comment has made me reconsider that a bit....

Seems to me that a bunch of men beating apart the likeness of female genitalia would be treated as more or less of a hate crime or a psychosis. And that the typical "bad behavior" by men at bachelor parties (hiring strippers, going to a "gentelman's club", drinking too much, joking about mourning for their "fallen" brother, etc..) are all fairly good, clean fun when compared with the level of sexism and debauchery I hear about going on at bachelorette parties. We're talking 20-30 something women finding humor on a level comparable or below that which the boys and I found hilarious in the 6th grade gym locker. Really makes one think about what really goes on in the minds of modern women when it comes to their feelings about love, marriage, sex, and men. Not to read too much into it, and admitting that what goes on at some bachelor parties is pretty juvenile and sexist too... but still, even the bad bachelor party stories are mostly just about drunk guys getting stupid, or about "sexism" in the sense of objectifying women as sex objects- not sexism in the sense of bashing apart symobols or likenesses of female sexuality in a violent sense. There seems a difference between that, and the level to which some bachelorette parties sink in terms of sexual immaturity and sexism (and the fact that perfectly sober women will still find things like bashing apart a papier mache penis "funny" when they tell the story later, and that there is even seemingly a social "acceptance" of this, whereas if the guys were telling stroies of debauchery in a mixed crowd later, there would probably be a tone of "grow up guys"). I'm not sure if this type of behavior reflects on the immaturity or sexism  of the participants, their own lack of a comfort level in the topic of sex, or all of the above. I suppose it -could- amount to nothing more than allowing onesself to regress into a pit of juvenile hormonal disconnection from reality for an evening... but then again, you don't hear much about guys getting together and beating apart papier mache vulvas.

Just an observation from a guy who has just seen yet more evidence for being cynical about women. As I said, this really hit me because I heard this coming from women that I have known fairly well for about a year and had previosuly considered "quality people" and who I had never before heard or seen anything to suggest they bought into the typical "feminist/princess good-men BAD" mentalities. Anyone else have any thoughts or experiences to share on what goes on at bachelor vs. bachelorette parties and what it all might mean?

[Aegis]

Some years back, I worked with a team of programmers, some of whome were located in L.A.  One of them had a night job as a stripper at a club for bachelorette parties.  He said that dancing for a full shift was strenuous, but he could handle that aspect easily.  The difficult part was the women's sense of entitlement.  He had to tolerate being grabbed and groped at by all of them.  If the club were to eject every woman who behaved in this way, they would have no patrons.  If, hypothetically, there were to be a bouncer who ejected a woman every time she grabbed his crotch, dozens would be ejected a night, and the club would have to deal with being served with lawsuits for assault in the morning.

[Mr. X]

Some years back, I worked with a team of programmers, some of whome were located in L.A.  One of them had a night job as a stripper at a club for bachelorette parties.  He said that dancing for a full shift was strenuous, but he could handle that aspect easily.  The difficult part was the women's sense of entitlement.  He had to tolerate being grabbed and groped at by all of them.  If the club were to eject every woman who behaved in this way, they would have no patrons.  If, hypothetically, there were to be a bouncer who ejected a woman every time she grabbed his crotch, dozens would be ejected a night, and the club would have to deal with being served with lawsuits for assault in the morning.

I had a friend in chicago who work at the Sugar Shack, a strip club for female patrons. He had the same problem. He served drinks and maybe danced once in a while. There were nights he couldn't even get across the bar because women would literally grab him, pull him on a table and start kissing him, hands everywhere etc. Most all the guys had this problem but if you pushed a woman etc they would get pissed. Yes the women had a huge sense of entitlement. Their attitude was that they say yes so you gotta want to do it. Or they would my friend gay if he didn't respond.

In a male strip club, if you are even rude to a stripper let alone touch her, you will be beaten thoroughly by a half dozen men including patrons and tossed out fast. Perhaps these women need a few jaws broken before they learn not to touch.

[Garak]

If you look at most women you know you will realize that they are alot like big children. They are very materialistic and never seem to get out of the high school gossip stage.

One of the things the feminist movement has done has freed women up to act according to their true nature. As we can see their true nature is that of manipulation and childishness. No longer are women seen as made of "sugar and spice" and rightfully so. Feminism has hurt the perception of women by allowing their true nature to come out.

There are exceptions of course but as a rule, these things are accurate.

Now before anyone accuses me of sweeping generalizations, consider 2 things:

1) The truthfullness of my post (put your political correctness aside for this one).

2) This is nothing compared to the generalizations made about men.  

[Aegis]

The problem that these clubs with the male dancers had was that the deck was stacked against enforcing a no-touch policy.

It occurred to me that there may be another solution.  A pay-per-offense system.  When the patrons enter the club, they have to leave a credit card at the front desk, and they get it explained that if they touch the dancers, the cashier will ring a bell and charge their card $50 per incident.  They are free to come collect their credit card and leave at any time.  It would take a lawyer to make it all legit, I suppose.  Maybe signing some forms.  And it would be nice if they rang it up for the credit card statement as "out-of-court settlement for inappropriate contact with male exotic dancer".  That would be a conversation-starter for the husband or boyfriend at home.

[Garak]

The problem that these clubs with the male dancers had was that the deck was stacked against enforcing a no-touch policy.

It occurred to me that there may be another solution.  A pay-per-offense system.  When the patrons enter the club, they have to leave a credit card at the front desk, and they get it explained that if they touch the dancers, the cashier will ring a bell and charge their card $50 per incident.  They are free to come collect their credit card and leave at any time.  It would take a lawyer to make it all legit, I suppose.  Maybe signing some forms.  And it would be nice if they rang it up for the credit card statement as "out-of-court settlement for inappropriate contact with male exotic dancer".  That would be a conversation-starter for the husband or boyfriend at home.

How about this, let men touch female strippers the same way women are allowed to touch male strippers? Equality, not special treatment.

Think about it, If you take on the job of a stripper you are "laying it all out there for the public". Why then would you get special protections based on your gender?

[Aegis]

How about this, let men touch female strippers the same way women are allowed to touch male strippers? Equality, not special treatment.

Think about it, If you take on the job of a stripper you are "laying it all out there for the public". Why then would you get special protections based on your gender?

I think if a club has a no-touch policy, it should continue to be allowed to enforce it.  And since hauling female patrons out of their club routinely is so difficult to do in practice, I'm suggesting maybe they should try another approach.  Hearing a ding and knowing that another $50 just got charged might just give pause.  Clubs lacking no-touch policies are called brothels.  Within the US, they are only legal in Nevada, unless I am mistaken.  The question of whether there should be brothels, gambling, and so forth, is for the states to decide.  Currently all the states but Nevada have decided no to brothels.

[realman]

I don't disagree Pentium... but is it the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure that, in a society that did not punish men for acting selfishly and immaturely, men wouldn't be just as bad. I'm not sure that women are by nature "worse", or if it's just that society has been handing women passes, looking the other way when they behave badly, etc. for so long that it's under the radar at this point. Is it the nature of women, or is it a product of social conditioning of men to be "men" , and women to be girls but treated like  "women"? That men might generally be less materiaslistic, less selfish, etc. because they are conditioned not to be, whereas there is no real reinforcement for women to not remain in a state of arrested adolescene (i.e., why grow up and deal with grown-up problems, when you don't have to? When everyone gives you sympathy and pats you on the head and says "that's ok" and gives you a lollipop, what positive reinforcement is there for giving that all up?

On the flip side though, the "female nature" side may have some validity from a natural/evolutionary standpoint... as once upon a time it was men's job, out of neccessity for continuation of the species, to provide for and protect themselves, women, and children; while women only had to look out for themselves and their offspring... and that therefore, thousands upon thousands of years of evolution has given women no biological or innate "need" to "provide for" or "protect" men, and every reason to view men as "providers and protectors" (and thus continue to view men as little more than work animals whose job in life is measured in terms of what they can do and provide for women). Of course, nature/evolution probably has a part in why men started to give women passes and look the other way at their selfish behaviors to begin with...


That being said, in a modern society where women don't generally need protection from hungry tigers and can make dinner for themselves and their children in a matter of minutes instead of literally devoting most of their life to obtaining sustenance and shelter, and in which women claim to want to be "equal" to men... well, if we're saying we're taking that huge evolutionary step and rejecting our "traditional"/evolved gender roles.... shouldn't that mean that if women are no longer viewed as cooks and baby makers and child caregivers, men should be entitled to get something back from women as well, i.e. not be viewed simply in terms of "What can HE do for ME" and reduced to the status of servant, sperm donor, and bodyguard?

[Garak]

How about this, let men touch female strippers the same way women are allowed to touch male strippers? Equality, not special treatment.

Think about it, If you take on the job of a stripper you are "laying it all out there for the public". Why then would you get special protections based on your gender?

I think if a club has a no-touch policy, it should continue to be allowed to enforce it.  And since hauling female patrons out of their club routinely is so difficult to do in practice, I'm suggesting maybe they should try another approach.  Hearing a ding and knowing that another $50 just got charged might just give pause.  Clubs lacking no-touch policies are called brothels.  Within the US, they are only legal in Nevada, unless I am mistaken.  The question of whether there should be brothels, gambling, and so forth, is for the states to decide.  Currently all the states but Nevada have decided no to brothels.

Why is it difficult to haul female patrons out of clubs?

[Garak]

I don't disagree Pentium... but is it the chicken or the egg? I'm not sure that, in a society that did not punish men for acting selfishly and immaturely, men wouldn't be just as bad. I'm not sure that women are by nature "worse", or if it's just that society has been handing women passes, looking the other way when they behave badly, etc. for so long that it's under the radar at this point. Is it the nature of women, or is it a product of social conditioning of men to be "men" , and women to be girls but treated like  "women"? That men might generally be less materiaslistic, less selfish, etc. because they are conditioned not to be, whereas there is no real reinforcement for women to not remain in a state of arrested adolescene (i.e., why grow up and deal with grown-up problems, when you don't have to? When everyone gives you sympathy and pats you on the head and says "that's ok" and gives you a lollipop, what positive reinforcement is there for giving that all up?

On the flip side though, the "female nature" side may have some validity from a natural/evolutionary standpoint... as once upon a time it was men's job, out of neccessity for continuation of the species, to provide for and protect themselves, women, and children; while women only had to look out for themselves and their offspring... and that therefore, thousands upon thousands of years of evolution has given women no biological or innate "need" to "provide for" or "protect" men, and every reason to view men as "providers and protectors" (and thus continue to view men as little more than work animals whose job in life is measured in terms of what they can do and provide for women). That being said, in a modern society where women don't generally need protection from hungry tigers and can make dinner for themselves and their children in a matter of minutes instead of literally devoting most of their life to obtaining sustenance and shelter, and in which women claim to want to be "equal" to men... well, if we're saying we're taking that huge evolutionary step and rejecting our "traditional"/evolved gender roles.... shouldn't that mean that if women are no longer viewed as cooks and baby makers and child caregivers, men should be entitled to get something back from women as well, i.e. not be viewed in terms of "What can HE do for ME"?

Truth is, women would likely still be in their traditional evolutionary role if men had not created the modern conveniences that women thrive on today.

Isn't it convenient that women want equality now that men have made it possible?

There may be some social conditioning here that causes most women to act as they do today but I think most of it is simply nature. Nature that older societies understood and restricted.

It is logical to me that the restrictions put on women in the past were to prevent them from acting this way. For the betterment of society as a whole because left to their own devices....this is the chaos we have.

Think about it from this perspective. Men who marry foreign women claim that they are much happier especially those who do not expose those women to the American lifestyle (rights without responsibility).

Now we can point the finger and say that this proves it is all about social conditioning but if we really examine what that conditioning is...it is really giving women the freedom to act according to their nature. This is apparent when you compare it to how women are treated in other parts of the world.

What you have to ask yourself is:

Would Muslim women act like American women if given the freedom to do so? I think you know the answer to this. 

[The Gonzman]

Why is it difficult to haul female patrons out of clubs?

Ah.  Allow the former bouncer to answer, sil vous plait.

First off, the observation re: Women in Strip Clubs are absolutely correct.  When I worked in strip clubs,. I could go a month without having to resort to more than the hand on the shoulder and the "Say, bro, can you do me a favor..."  Get me working a Ladies' Night, and it was a war zone.  It got so bad we had to move Pervert's Row away from the stage, and put up a rope barrier on more than one occasion.

And most of the "unwanted touching" that occurred when women were dancing was instigated by the dancers themselves.  It's had to enforce a hands off policy when the strippers themselves are putting their shirts over a mans head and urging him to suck on their tits.

When we had "Ladies' Night" we had to increase the cover - because the women were cheap, and wouldn't tuck, so we had to pay the Male Revues more; and we had to have more security working longer hours because if you waded in to eject one woman, you wound up having to eject a half a dozen screeching harpies who would spring to her defense for "laying hands on her."  They'd go limp.  They'd scratch.  They'd break bottles (We had to go to plastic glasses and no bottles on Ladies' Night), they'd get naked themselves.  They'd try to have sex with the dancers on stage (And yes, a good part of the dancers WERE gay).  They'd scream rape and sexual assault even when it was obvious no hands were even near their "private parts."  I went through two cans of pepper spray one night, and hardly the Ladies' Night went by where I didn't have to unlimber a club, or some spray.

Yes, fucking animals, full of a sense of entitlement.  When I got sufficient seniority I declined to work them.  It was the shit detail, that nobody wanted to work.

[Garak]

Why is it difficult to haul female patrons out of clubs?

Ah.  Allow the former bouncer to answer, sil vous plait.

First off, the observation re: Women in Strip Clubs are absolutely correct.  When I worked in strip clubs,. I could go a month without having to resort to more than the hand on the shoulder and the "Say, bro, can you do me a favor..."  Get me working a Ladies' Night, and it was a war zone.  It got so bad we had to move Pervert's Row away from the stage, and put up a rope barrier on more than one occasion.

And most of the "unwanted touching" that occurred when women were dancing was instigated by the dancers themselves.  It's had to enforce a hands off policy when the strippers themselves are putting their shirts over a mans head and urging him to suck on their tits.

When we had "Ladies' Night" we had to increase the cover - because the women were cheap, and wouldn't tuck, so we had to pay the Male Revues more; and we had to have more security working longer hours because if you waded in to eject one woman, you wound up having to eject a half a dozen screeching harpies who would spring to her defense for "laying hands on her."  They'd go limp.  They'd scratch.  They'd break bottles (We had to go to plastic glasses and no bottles on Ladies' Night), they'd get naked themselves.  They'd try to have sex with the dancers on stage (And yes, a good part of the dancers WERE gay).  They'd scream rape and sexual assault even when it was obvious no hands were even near their "private parts."  I went through two cans of pepper spray one night, and hardly the Ladies' Night went by where I didn't have to unlimber a club, or some spray.

Yes, fucking animals, full of a sense of entitlement.  When I got sufficient seniority I declined to work them.  It was the shit detail, that nobody wanted to work.

More proof that women, given complete freedom, are like undisciplined children.

[Mr. X]

Why is it difficult to haul female patrons out of clubs?

Cause women are herd animals. Its hard enough getting them into a club and bouncing them out is just going to alienate them enmasse. Plus laws and social rules don't protect men so men are fair game. Heck look how hard it was to prosecute female teachers when the attitude is boys are lucky to have adult women mess with them. These guys are supposed to feel lucky they are dancing for women. In a male strip club the men feel lucky women will dance for them.

[Aegis]

Why is it difficult to haul female patrons out of clubs?

According to the guy I knew who danced in one of these joints, a number of bad things can happen.  Typically, all of the ejectee's friends leap to her defense, screaming and thrashing around about how rough and out of line the bouncer is for putting his hand on her wrist when all she did was put her mouth where it was not invited.  At this stage, the bouncer is in a situation that is six or more to one, and physically dangerous.  The gang is steadily escalating the conflict and trying to pull the other patrons into the incident.  The club manager and bouncers now have a choice to make.  They can call the police.  That basically means closing early, and is a risky proposition.  Some police will gallantly arrest the bouncer.  The bouncer could slug the ringleader and drag her and the offender out.  Then he will definitely spend the night in jail.  Or the manager can signal the bouncer to throw up his hands like he always does, apologize for the woman's sexual assault on a dancer "misunderstanding", and start the music back up.  Meanwhile, all dancers leave the floor, drinks and food are no longer served to the offender's party, and after a few minutes a waitress drops by the table and whispers to the bachelorette "Maybe you should ask your friend to leave.  Now."  Option number three is the least bad for business.

[realman]

Again, you make good points, but I would add:

How would men act if they were given the opportunity to act like western women? ()i.e., if women, other men, the government, society as a whole, etc. allowed it without consequences)

How would men be "by nature", were it not for the fact that nature and evolutionary selection has forced men to NOT be immature, materialistic and selfish- ESPECIALLY when it comes to how they treat and deal with women?

In short, I think both men and women are, by nature, in part selfish, lazy, immature, materialistic little snots. The difference is that nature and evolutionary gender roles gave women quite a bit more wiggle room than it gave men; and men either had more important things to worry about, weren't around, or saw the positive side of giving more to women (and presumably, correspondingly to their children) without asking for more in return. So, we started out as more or lesse qually selfish, lazy, etc....but as time goes on and nature and evolution conditioned us, the survival of the clan or the species was bettered by the selflessness and hard work of men and the contributions and efforts made by men to women; whereas women's efforts and sacrifices were better spent on the children. ANd so the pattern goes for ages, until one day women's lives have been made so safe and easy through men's work and sacrifice, and the survival of society is a given, so women are free to break out of their formerly rigid roles; but women are still looking at the world through "me and the children"-colored glasses, and men are still in the habit of being providers and protectors, and of given women passes; thus, women now have the best of bth worlds, and are free to flip between "strong and independent" and "weak and helpless"; between "I can do alright thank you" and "you're job is to provide for me"; and can say "I want to be loved and appreciated for who I am" but because of their distorted viewpoint do not even consider that a man might appreciate the same; and men, meanwhille, habituated and evolved to "do what men do", allow things to go on and look the other way...

Anyway, getting back to the original topic, does anyone else see the sad irony in women acting in such selfish, sexist ways even as they are about to profess their "love" for a man?