State Ok's underage stripping.

reply to post by EsSeeEye

It'll be a non-issue if nobody makes any money on it. Nobody will employ underage girls if nobody pays to see it.

Ya right! This will be bigger than Vegas! You really think that there aren't 100's of 1000's of men already booking trips to see underage strippers?

I agree that Nudity and Sex in the United States is taboo, and our thinking is entirely backwards on it, but "stripping" is a little different animal. An underage girl strutting and humping and sliding on a pole is not the same as frolicking in the sand at the beach!

Still, I may have to check it out for myself just to be sure.

Hey..........

Mind your own business

If it's legal and a young woman wants to support herself by stripping, bartending or working in a fast food restureant....

it's none of your business!!

Keep your religion, your constipated ideologies and your dumbass moralizing to yourself.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by whaaa]

Well the creepy Caberet left so maybe some intelligent conversation can continue. That was a bit too strange for me. 17 is a non issue but I really have an issue with all the adult ages. It can vary from 13 to 25 for certain things nation wide. 18 is the leagl age to vote and should be the leagal age for someone to make a decision for themselves. I've known many strippers in my time and the majority are in for the quick cash. A year or two and away they go with a house ,car and degree. men are just entertainment when needed.

reply to post by tribaltrip


Why does the State's opinion even matter? You know that when we word things in that manner "State says its OK" we sound no better than any Communist Country?

But I suppose we NEED the State to hold our hands and to make decisions for us.

And seriously, unless it is YOUR CHILDREN IN QUESTION people seriously need to butt-out of other people's business. If I allowed my daughter to do something like this, that would be MY DECISION.

And of course my daughter's as well.

Not the "State."

And not any of the nosy Communists who happen to live in America.

I would dare any of you, or any one for that matter, to just try to step in...

For the record, in some states your criminally an adult at age 17...

So, if you can be charged as an adult for crimes, why can't you strip?

Just sayin'.

And I'm not necessarily for or against this, because in particular it doesn't matter to me since I don't visit those types of establishments. I will however say that if I had a 17 year old daughter, I wouldn't let her take a job like that while she's living under my roof

Odd that no one against this seems to have a problem with a 16 year old getting behind the wheel of a few thousand pounds of metal and combustible substance, yet they go nutty if that same person were to take their clothes off on a stage.

Originally posted by brainwrek
Odd that no one against this seems to have a problem with a 16 year old getting behind the wheel of a few thousand pounds of metal and combustible substance, yet they go nutty if that same person were to take their clothes off on a stage.

What those same people fail to realize is that, in regards to the behavior of another individual, their opinions do not matter. Period.

This is a republic, not a democracy, and mob rule has no place here.

reply to post by dalan.


100% correct.

If the "panties in a bunch people" dont like it, they can exercise their free will and not go into a place that has 17 year old strippers.

Odds are likely that they will just sit around and whine about still, since thats all they know how to do. They are of the mindset that If its not good for them, it shouldnt be good for anyone else.

They are whats wrong with this country.

reply to post by brainwrek



It never ceases to amaze me on the attitude of so called conservatives that call for personal responsibility and liberty; so willing to force their ideology, morals, aesthetics and attitudes on others, in effect, taking away their liberty.

Hypocrites

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
Oh if you say it's perfectly natural and
why not and
don't get hung up on it....
then why stop at 17?

Why not 7?

How about some 7 year old strippers?
I mean they're just trying to make a buck in these difficult economic times right

What are Fallacies?
Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments. By learning to look for them in your own and others' writing, you can strengthen your ability to evaluate the arguments you make, read, and hear. It is important to realize two things about fallacies: First, fallacious arguments are very, very common and can be quite persuasive, at least to the casual reader or listener. You can find dozens of examples of fallacious reasoning in newspapers, advertisements, and other sources. Second, it is sometimes hard to evaluate whether an argument is fallacious. An argument might be very weak, somewhat weak, somewhat strong, or very strong. An argument that has several stages or parts might have some strong sections and some weak ones. The goal of this handout, then, is not to teach you how to label arguments as fallacious or fallacy-free, but to help you look critically at your own arguments and move them away from the "weak" and toward the "strong" end of the continuum.

Logical Fallacies

Because by your logic 17 and 7 are totally the same.

Slippery Slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by dalan.]

Like I said...look at the stats where England is more sexually liberal and here

people are repressed

-Kyo

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
reply to post by seethelight

 

Alright. Let's go with Libertarianism then. Let's give 7 year olds the liberty to strip for cash. We can provide security for them because everybody has a right to a safe work place, right? We can make sure they are safe and let them earn as much as they can earn in the free market. Can you come up any good reason not to?

7 year olds do not have "liberty" because they are not mentally mature enough to handle the responsibility that comes with Liberty...which is why they are children and their Parents guide them. There is no comparison between 17 and 7.

You, apparently, do not retain the mental capacity for liberty either.

[edit on 2/17/2010 by dalan.]

Originally posted by Bilw85
Common guys its only ONE year, 17 is fine...Common guys its one ONE year, 16 is okay...Common guys quite being prudes, they're old enough at 15...Common people!

If you want us to start being nude like europeans, then move to Europe. Part of our attitude about being nude is that this once was a Christian nation. Once upon a time there were sacred and loyal bonds between a husband and a wife. Most nations of Europe are also a very passive. Where Americans should and still sometimes do draw lines in the sand on what we will accept as standards, Europeans will roll over to any whim that gets passed along.

The lack of setting standards in Europe has created a void that when filled will become a dangerous backlash to the relaxed ethics they hold today.

Then maybe you missed that bit of American history when prostitution was lawful? I am sure marriage was sacred then too...

Slippery Slope

Definition: The arguer claims that a sort of chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but there's really not enough evidence for that assumption. The arguer asserts that if we take even one step onto the "slippery slope," we will end up sliding all the way to the bottom; he or she assumes we can't stop halfway down the hill.

Tip: Check your argument for chains of consequences, where you say "if A, then B, and if B, then C," and so forth. Make sure these chains are reasonable.

reply to post by Nurv47


Pretty much. The middle school I went to had the shortest cheerleader shirts and tightest tops I've ever seen, and there was more air-humping going on from those girls than you'll find in most strip clubs.

i didn't mind at the time, of course.

Originally posted by dalan.

Originally posted by brainwrek
Odd that no one against this seems to have a problem with a 16 year old getting behind the wheel of a few thousand pounds of metal and combustible substance, yet they go nutty if that same person were to take their clothes off on a stage.

What those same people fail to realize is that, in regards to the behavior of another individual, their opinions do not matter. Period.

This is a republic, not a democracy, and mob rule has no place here.

While I get your point in general, the actual point you're making is riducuulous and farcical.

The United States is a democracy. How so? because a republic is a form of democracy. The United states is not a direct democracy, and the reasons for that have nothing to do with mob rule, and everything to do with hte simple logistics of it.

Originally posted by whaaa
reply to post by brainwrek

 

It never ceases to amaze me on the attitude of so called conservatives that call for personal responsibility and liberty; so willing to force their ideology, morals, aesthetics and attitudes on others, in effect, taking away their liberty.

Hypocrites

Conservatives want Individual Responsibility. Then a little bit of Local and State Government, and a Constitutional Republic for a Fed.

We do not push our morals on anybody any further than the Golden Rule, and an Eye for an Eye, etc.

You can read my Conservative Posts all over ATS, and right next to them, you can read all about my views of sex and nudity. The more the better!

The weirdo's mentioning 7 year olds can be ignored, and the others are exactly what you say . . . . HYPOCRITES.

You can die in war at 18, you can vote for the fate of the country, but you can't drink? You can be tried for adult crimes at just about any age these days, but 16 and 17 are commonly tried as adults, and yet they can't make decisions with their own bodies?

I readily volunteer to attend as many strip clubs in Iowa as possible, and donate to those poor strippers, especially the young cute ones!

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by dalan.

Originally posted by brainwrek
Odd that no one against this seems to have a problem with a 16 year old getting behind the wheel of a few thousand pounds of metal and combustible substance, yet they go nutty if that same person were to take their clothes off on a stage.

What those same people fail to realize is that, in regards to the behavior of another individual, their opinions do not matter. Period.

This is a republic, not a democracy, and mob rule has no place here.

While I get your point in general, the actual point you're making is ridiculous and farcical.

The United States is a democracy. How so? because a republic is a form of democracy. The United states is not a direct democracy, and the reasons for that have nothing to do with mob rule, and everything to do with hte simple logistics of it.

No.

America was not a democracy, it was a republic based upon the Law of Property. Democracy is its own tyrant, and our forefathers laid the groundwork to protect us from mob rule.

This kind of issue is irrelevant to a republic because the seventeen year old in question owns her body and it is unlawful for anyone to dictate to her what she can or cannot do with it, State or otherwise.

Say you and I were landowners within a community of other landowners. One of our neighbors, who we shall name Bill, is the only person in our community with water on his land (that he lawfully owns). I attempt to purchase his land because I want his water, but he refuses. So I gather the community, including you, to vote on who wants to take Bill's land.

And of course Bill gets to vote, I mean, this is a democracy after all...

A republic is NOT a form of democracy, that is a fallacy. A republic protects 1 man against the votes of 25 million if the law is on that one man's side.

Period.

Furthermore, the question of the seventeen year old girl stripping, if she is a minor, then her parents are her "lawful owners," unless they volunteer that right away...say like to the State. In a republic if the seventeen year old girls parents say that she can be a stripper, then there is nothing that anyone can do about it. It is simply non-negotiable under the law.

If I allow my seventeen year old daughter to be a stripper, I dare any of you to do something about it, because you will learn the error in your ways quickly. She is not State owned...

Originally posted by Cabaret Voltaire
reply to post by avatar01

 

Then you would probably love our 7 year old strippers... you wanna come see the 7 year olds?
They're amazing, and they don't even expect $10's and $20's because candy is cheap!
You can have a great time and not spend as much.

It's a win/win situation, right?

I mean it's only natural, right?

No one with their own daughter(s) could be in favor of this.

Sorry, don't have a second line. First one should have been good enough.

The difference between 17 and 18 is minimal. However, while I am very sexually open..I do believe we should stick with 18 for lawful purposes. Arn't 17 year olds subject to "child" labor laws?

If you can't fight for this country or buy a pack of cigarettes.....

Or be considered an "adult"....

Or most importantly patronize the club itself (there are some 18+ clubs out there...but they're mostly 21+)

Then you certainly shouldn't strip in one.

P.S....Strip club hours are not conducive to maintaning a 4.0 average.

Which is actually the most important thing, not breasts being covered or not.

Horny old bastards don't care how young their victims are. Typically they will go for the younger ones. This brainfart just makes it easier for child molestors to do what they do best.