Originally posted by justlooking
1 - My response is that your post is beside the point. I wasn't asking what you -- an academic who is not a strip-club professional or even frequenter -- think.
2 - What to me is most notable is that the almost universal view on Stripper Web was that the conduct of the woman who took $30,000 from a customer under the false pretense she'd have a sexual relationship with him (and she admitted she directly lied to him about that) wasn't even questionable.
3 - The view there was, "she didn't force him to give her the money, so what she did is in no way wrong."
4 - So I think that really bolsters my point about the dangers of the"special arena" theory as an easy rationalization for misconduct. Especially when you're dealing with an arena that (at least on the evidence of Stripper Web) attracts fairly sleazy people to begin with.
1 - Well, while giving my own opinions too, I did intend to answer your question about why the stripperweb crowd might see the pick pocketing (#2 on your list) very differently from the cons (#1 and #3). See point 3 below. (Btw, while I plead guilty to the charge of being an academic, in fact I
have been a fairly frequent strip club patron in various places and times...not so much recently, but quite a lot altogether over the years. In fact this whole "special arena" notion came to me because my personal subjective experience of strip clubs reminds me of playing poker.)
2 - I did not read the $30,000 thread over there, though I vaguely recall it being mentioned here, but I am
very surprised that there was "
almost universal" approval of what she did. I agree that this is inconsistent with the views expressed there about the pick pocket dancer. Moreover, and even more to the point, it is not what I have heard numerous strippers say online and in person re directly lying to customers. I would have thought that there would be at least a sizable minority who condemned the dancer's actions.
3 - In any case, note that they are not taking an "anything goes to get the customers' money" position; they are stipulating that the use of force would not be OK. So, even though I am surprised at your report of their universal approval, I would still say it is a special arena type perspective, not just a completely amoral one.
4 - You might be surprised that I entirely agree with you on this point. In fact, I think it is a very general sort of problem with "special ethical arenas"; once you change the rules in a special situation, it will encourage some people to ignore or change the rules further or in other situations. For example, it seems to me fairly clear that the "special arena" rules allowing use of violence in various contact sports (football, hockey, boxing, ...) reduces the inihibitions of the atheletes involved from using either greater (than allowed) violence in the arena or violence in their everyday lives outside the sport. It is so common that I don't think it would take any careful study to make the case; just follow the sports news for a while and there is a constant stream of examples. Now this might be used to argue that these sports (that allow the use of violence as a part of the game) are a bad thing; indeed many have made precisely that argument. However, given that these sports are not forbidden, it surely does not mean that the atheletes are doing wrong when they play the game on the field and within the rules, for example that a boxer who punches his opponent in a match is as culpable as if he had punched someone in a bar room brawl. Right?
-Ww
