Ireland votes to legalize gay marriage

[Simon_Jester]

Have there been examples of "interracial" marriage before the term was invented?

Did you actually need that question answered?

[blinks]

I mean, people were doing that for quite a while, until someone decided it should be illegal. That's the thing, there's this mindset that "traditions" are things that are just somehow default states. They're not; someone had to sit down and decide "this should be forbidden, that should be permitted." There is no naturally occurring law just sitting around, independent of social convention or religious custom, that tells us Betty can marry Fred but not Susie. Not in the sense that, oh, gravity or natural selection is a law.

For the same reasons the LGBT community rejected the 'civil unions' compromise. Because no compromise was ever possible. They want A = B and those in oppostion don't see the need to be a party to a lie.

My opinion is that your idea of a "lie" is based on a very silly semantic quibble. It's like having some schoolchild who hears "I assigned the homework yesterday" and says "TECHNICALLY yesterday was SUNDAY and you assigned it FRIDAY so you're a LYING LIARPANTS!"

It says more about the childishness of the person calling you a liar, than it does about your own position.

"DISQUALIFY!" All kidding aside, if you don't believe that lying is a problem, well, then I guess you shouldn't enter into contracts with people. Lying about something as basic as how the world works is a terrible thing to do to someone, especially the young and vulnerable (who tend to be a large part of the LGBT community) let's trot out an example:

Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

Honestly, yes, because both those things are true. There is nothing about being a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person that actually stops you from living a functional life in normal society, IF other people are willing to let you live such a life.

Therefore, it is not 'unhealthy' to live in such a way, even if it were a choice, which it may well NOT be for some*. It may get in the way of childbearing, but there are lots of things you can decide to do, or be compelled to do, in life that get in the way of childbearing. We don't call all of them unnatural perversions.

Moreover, there is nothing to judge. It is not your damn business. You have no grounds to go pooh-pooh at them and harass them and give them crap. So yes, it is true that no one should be 'judging' them, in the sense that you meant the word 'judge,' for their sexual identity or orientation.

Since it is always right to tell people things that are true, it is right to tell LBGT young people these things, as well as to tell LGBT nonagenarians, and everyone in between.

*Did you 'choose' to be straight? I know I didn't. But apparently that's a "lifestyle choice" in your mind.

one of the guys in my platoon is very pro-LGBT, out of, I believe, certain sense of compassion and he said: "SFC Jones, don't you think that someone who has been through the surgery, the hormones, the paperwork etc etc and calls themself a woman should be treated as a woman?"

I said: "No, you're born either XY or XX and no amount of drugs, or surgery, or paperwork will change that, and to encourage people in that vein I believe is being party to a lie, a possibly very harmful lie, and I can't do it. No matter how much they may want me too."

Does it affect your opinions that we now have documented cases of people with XY chromosomes who, with no surgery/hormones/whatsoever look biologically female to every medical test, and who are in fact fertile and give birth?

Chromosomes aren't the equivalent of God putting a little floating tag on people's heads saying "is female no matter what" or "is male no matter what."

I remain somewhat skeptical, but anything is possible. AS far as that person is concerned, I wouldn't urge them to mulitate themselves to become 'male' either. Depending on how many of these cases there are, I'd hazard a guess that we could file this under 'the exception that proves the rule'

What does that even mean?

Does "the exception that proves the rule" just mean "we can continue enforcing this rule regardless of the exception, as though the exception isn't even evidence? That's idiot-thinking right there.

Now, more seriously and sane-ish-ly...

If your argument is that no one should undergo surgery that has to do with their gender identity, how do you decide whether any given person is a man or a woman?

As far as I can tell you have three choices. One is chromosomes. One is how people's bodies look at birth. The third is what's in their minds.

Doing it with chromosomes is crap, because we've just pointed out that you can have a person who in literally every other way imaginable is a woman, and who could go her whole life without anyone ever noticing anything is funny... but who has a Y chromosome.

Doing it with how people's bodies look at birth is crap, because there are Heaven knows how many different intersex disorders and things that can cause a person's genitals (and secondary sex characteristics) to develop in ways that have nothing to do with their chromosomes or their brain.

Doing it with how people think and believe... well, that leads to tolerance of transgender and 'queer' people who don't want to fit in your idea of how the boxes work.

[Zeropoint]

Now you may say that he should never have been subjected to that abuse and that society/his roomates/whomever was acting terribly towards him, and yout would BE RIGHT...

Good, I'm glad we agree on that.

however,

Oh dear.

to tell Tyler that this kind of thing could never and should never happen to him, is the kind of lie I am talking about.

"Could" and "should" are two VERY different things. Yes, it would be a tragic lie (in the here and now) to tell someone that they COULDN'T experience abuse for being different, but it's entirely correct to tell them that they shouldn't receive any abuse from it.

Homosexuality IS a deviation from the norm,

So is being left-handed. How is this relevant?

and if everybody adopted it, the human race would swifty go the way of the dodo.

This is incorrect on at least two levels. First, it's not true because even if no one was having any heterosexual sex, humanity could still reproduce via artificial insemination. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this is not a remotely realistic scenario because most people aren't gay and have no desire to be. People don't choose to be gay or bi any more than they choose to be left-handed, and about the same percentage of the population exists in either category--there will always be enough breeders to keep things going.

I also note that the very same "humanity would go extinct if everyone did that" argument applies equally well to Catholic priests and nuns and such--but somehow I doubt that you bring it up in that case.

Now, that being said, I am for the best outcomes for the most people.

The best outcome for LGBT people is acceptance. Their acceptance won't cost anyone else their own good outcome.

IMHO, the homosexual lifestyle (which is the choice I am referring to) is a difficult row to hoe, to put it mildly.

Yes, because people like you make it that way. The solution to the fact that assholes make LGBT life hard is for people to stop being assholes.

Lost of places are MUCH more hostile to gayness than the enlightened west, so I may be a bit more circumspect about supporting it than you, that is all.

What? Are you trying to say that you'd like to be more open about your support for LGBT rights, but you're afraid of backlash from your local community? If that's the case, then you have my sympathy, and also you need to work on your tone because that's NOT how you come across.

If that's not what you meant (and I don't think it is) then I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here.

[K. A. Pital]

It is also important to note that the life for LGBT does not necessarily have to be hard like hell. In many places in Europe they feel themselves quite fine. The homophobic attitude prevalent in the US is not an indication of the norm. Neither are the much more homophobic nations indicating a norm. Warped by centuries of religious intolerance and dark-age hatred that were spread across the world by that Victorian Empire, the "traditional" societies are in fact the abberation, and if we could overcome considering slavery normal, why is overcoming homophobia such a hard thing to accept?

[salm]

Apple is a subcategory of Fruit...

Gay marriage could be a subcategory of marriage, but first we have to find out where it came from and what it contains.... so, who invented marriage?

So all gay marriage is marriage but not all marriage is gay marriage. Just like all hetero marriage is marriage but not all marriage is hetero marriage.

BTW, did you know that apples are roses?

[AniThyng]

I'm not entirely convinced the British were the sole motivator behind homophobia in Asia.

[Iroscato]

Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

First off; sexual orientation is not a choice. Never has been, never will be, and your infantile labelling of it as such will never change that.
Second, absolutely - it is entirely healthy to encourage people of different sexual orientations than 'the norm' to feel comfortable and at ease in their own bodies and minds. What the fuck would you have as the alternative exactly?

[cmdrjones]

It is also important to note that the life for LGBT does not necessarily have to be hard like hell. In many places in Europe they feel themselves quite fine. The homophobic attitude prevalent in the US is not an indication of the norm. Neither are the much more homophobic nations indicating a norm. Warped by centuries of religious intolerance and dark-age hatred that were spread across the world by that Victorian Empire, the "traditional" societies are in fact the abberation, and if we could overcome considering slavery normal, why is overcoming homophobia such a hard thing to accept?

What is this "overcoming slavery" that you speak of?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icial.html

[cmdrjones]

Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

First off; sexual orientation is not a choice. Never has been, never will be, and your infantile labelling of it as such will never change that.
Second, absolutely - it is entirely healthy to encourage people of different sexual orientations than 'the norm' to feel comfortable and at ease in their own bodies and minds. What the fuck would you have as the alternative exactly?

hence why I used the phrase "Lifestyle Choices" instead of "sexual Orientation"

As to your question, I would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior. I'll use myself as an example, I LOVE tits, BUT I haven't been in a strip club in a couple years because I recognize that is is unhealthy both for me AND for the strippers. In a better world, they'd go broke and have to find other employment for lack of male interest... but, the world being what it is, I am neither surprised that strippers do good business nor that people (often churchian type christians) like to point fingers at LGBT people and abuse them. Neither are condoned.

[K. A. Pital]

What is this "overcoming slavery" that you speak of?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icial.html

I said overcoming the view of slavery as a social normal. Did you not read what I wrote? It means that slavery is no longer perceived as normal by the greater majority of mankind, unlike the old times when holding and trading slaves was perfectly fine. What is different is that the IS is considered barbaric for slaveholding and slave trade, something that was culturally accepted and perfectly fine in Britain and US for centuries.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As to your question, I would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior. I'll use myself as an example, I LOVE tits, BUT I haven't been in a strip club in a couple years because I recognize that is is unhealthy both for me AND for the strippers. In a better world, they'd go broke and have to find other employment for lack of male interest... but, the world being what it is, I am neither surprised that strippers do good business nor that people (often churchian type christians) like to point fingers at LGBT people and abuse them. Neither are condoned.

Is cmdrjones implying here that being gay is harmful behavior that is comparable to going to a strip club? If so, I'd like to demand evidence of such an absurd claim.

[cmdrjones]

What is this "overcoming slavery" that you speak of?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... icial.html

I said overcoming the view of slavery as a social normal. Did you not read what I wrote? It means that slavery is no longer perceived as normal by the greater majority of mankind, unlike the old times when holding and trading slaves was perfectly fine. What is different is that the IS is considered barbaric for slaveholding and slave trade, something that was culturally accepted and perfectly fine in Britain and US for centuries.

Are you so sure about that?

http://slaveryfootprint.org/survey/#where_do_you_live

http://www.endslaverynow.org/learn

Now if we're talking JUST chattel slavery, I agree to a point. To say nothing of the various forms of wage slavery and reuglatory slavery we have in the west now. (try not paying child support or taxes sometime).

Now, to relate this back to the point without anwering ALL of the posts above: Yes, Slavery, "miscegenation," polygamy, and all of the other things we bring up as corollaries to "gay marriage" can all be bandied about (BTW when I brought up interracial marriage above, several people didn't quite catch that it was a rhetorical question. I was pointing out that "interracial marriage" existed long before the TERM was coined. Much like gay-relationships existed long before the TERM "gay marriage" was coined.) What's different now is the political baggage that goes along with the idea of equalizing 'gay marriage' and Marriage.
Also, the tangenital reason that interracial-marriage and the gay-marriage comparison fail is because rascists were uspet at their gene pool being "polluted" by other races, whereas 'homophobes' should be ALL FOR gay marriage because it would #1 ID gay folks openly #2 reduce the # of gay men in the closet who have children and thus propagate the 'gay' genes into the future, but the 'homophobes' don't seem to want that? Strange, huh?

but the real issue, IMHO, is whether we can call "gay" marriage, Marriage. I understand that 'marriage' hasn't always had the same definition for the past couple thousand years and that 'gay' marriages have been solemnized in the past and that many people won't fit neatly into 'male' and 'female' identities, for X, Y and Z reasons, and I freely admit that for the VAST majority of LGBT people don't make a 'choice' on who they are attracted to.
My only beef is with the legal wrangling over something that shouldn't be a fedgov issue in the 1st place.

I am pointing out that the suggested compromises are usually rejected because of a certain political agenda that not even all LGBT people agree with.
That political agenda rejects comprmise because securing legal and ecnomic rights for gays are not the issue, attacking Christianity IS (for them anyway).

[cmdrjones]

As to your question, I would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior. I'll use myself as an example, I LOVE tits, BUT I haven't been in a strip club in a couple years because I recognize that is is unhealthy both for me AND for the strippers. In a better world, they'd go broke and have to find other employment for lack of male interest... but, the world being what it is, I am neither surprised that strippers do good business nor that people (often churchian type christians) like to point fingers at LGBT people and abuse them. Neither are condoned.

Is cmdrjones implying here that being gay is harmful behavior that is comparable to going to a strip club? If so, I'd like to demand evidence of such an absurd claim.

Lust is a sin no matter who commits it. The redefinition of sin as NOT sin is what Christians are talking about. I understand fully that this entire concept in nonsense to the greeks, but here I am again and again trying to offer milk instead of steak.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

As to your question, I would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior. I'll use myself as an example, I LOVE tits, BUT I haven't been in a strip club in a couple years because I recognize that is is unhealthy both for me AND for the strippers. In a better world, they'd go broke and have to find other employment for lack of male interest... but, the world being what it is, I am neither surprised that strippers do good business nor that people (often churchian type christians) like to point fingers at LGBT people and abuse them. Neither are condoned.

Is cmdrjones implying here that being gay is harmful behavior that is comparable to going to a strip club? If so, I'd like to demand evidence of such an absurd claim.

Lust is a sin no matter who commits it. The redefinition of sin as NOT sin is what Christians are talking about. I understand fully that this entire concept in nonsense to the greeks, but here I am again and again trying to offer milk instead of steak.

What kind of shit answer is this? You said you would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior and then go off to compare it to going to a strip club. The implication of your statements are clear; that being gay or that the activities related to an openly gay person is harmful. There are rules on this board that we all have to adhere to, including the necessity of providing evidence when making a claim as outlandish as yours. So put up or shut up.

[Joun_Lord]

What kind of shit answer is this? You said you would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior and then go off to compare it to going to a strip club. The implication of your statements are clear; that being gay or that the activities related to an openly gay person is harmful. There are rules on this board that we all have to adhere to, including the necessity of providing evidence when making a claim as outlandish as yours. So put up or shut up.

To be fair being gay like being a stripper is harmful behavior...........because others make it to be. Gay people get, and pardon this word and I don't mean bashed, "fag bashed" by homophobic haters. They are physically attacked for being gay. Even when they aren't being physically punished for their "sins" they are criminalized, jailed, locked up in mental hospitals, and just called sinful people.

Strippers will get beat up, attacked physically and mentally and legally by moral crusaders and perverted misogynists, and be called sinful people for flashing some gash.

But thats all just the result of the stupidity of other people. Being gay and showing dem titties isn't actually harmful by itself.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

To be fair being gay like being a stripper is harmful behavior...........because others make it to be. Gay people get, and pardon this word and I don't mean bashed, "fag bashed" by homophobic haters. They are physically attacked for being gay. Even when they aren't being physically punished for their "sins" they are criminalized, jailed, locked up in mental hospitals, and just called sinful people.

Strippers will get beat up, attacked physically and mentally and legally by moral crusaders and perverted misogynists, and be called sinful people for flashing some gash.

But thats all just the result of the stupidity of other people. Being gay and showing dem titties isn't actually harmful by itself.

Well, many strippers may have gotten into their jobs for a variety of reasons beyond their control and there are multiple avenues of possible solutions to such exploitation. On the other hand, I don't really see a healthy alternative to a gay, lesbian or bisexual individual embracing their sexual orientation.

[Iroscato]

Should young LGBT persons be told that A. Thier lifestyle choices are 'normal and healthy' and B. That no one should ever judge them based on their chosen sexual identity or orientation?

First off; sexual orientation is not a choice. Never has been, never will be, and your infantile labelling of it as such will never change that.
Second, absolutely - it is entirely healthy to encourage people of different sexual orientations than 'the norm' to feel comfortable and at ease in their own bodies and minds. What the fuck would you have as the alternative exactly?

hence why I used the phrase "Lifestyle Choices" instead of "sexual Orientation"

Then you should frame your sentences better, to avoid someone reading "their chosen sexual identity or orientation" and assuming you mean chosen are both.

As to your question, I would never encourage people to be comfortable with harmful behavior. I'll use myself as an example, I LOVE tits, BUT I haven't been in a strip club in a couple years because I recognize that is is unhealthy both for me AND for the strippers. In a better world, they'd go broke and have to find other employment for lack of male interest... but, the world being what it is, I am neither surprised that strippers do good business nor that people (often churchian type christians) like to point fingers at LGBT people and abuse them. Neither are condoned.

There is nothing wrong with being a stripper, just as there is nothing wrong with being a prostitute. What makes it harmful is bigoted, judgemental holier-than-thou morons making regulation and security next to impossible to introduce and enforce.
There is nothing harmful about homosexuality. If you think there is, you are a fucking moron...though this would only confirm my long-held suspicions anyway.

[Joun_Lord]

To be fair being gay like being a stripper is harmful behavior...........because others make it to be. Gay people get, and pardon this word and I don't mean bashed, "fag bashed" by homophobic haters. They are physically attacked for being gay. Even when they aren't being physically punished for their "sins" they are criminalized, jailed, locked up in mental hospitals, and just called sinful people.

Strippers will get beat up, attacked physically and mentally and legally by moral crusaders and perverted misogynists, and be called sinful people for flashing some gash.

But thats all just the result of the stupidity of other people. Being gay and showing dem titties isn't actually harmful by itself.

Well, many strippers may have gotten into their jobs for a variety of reasons beyond their control and there are multiple avenues of possible solutions to such exploitation. On the other hand, I don't really see a healthy alternative to a gay, lesbian or bisexual individual embracing their sexual orientation.

I ain't saying either one should find a "healthy" alternative (I don't actually see what is unhealthy about flashing them boobies and two dudes getting it on beyond maybe rectal tearing) just stating the only reason why either of those things are even considered unhealthy is the actions of others.

Its the same way with being black, being a woman, being an atheist, being a Christian in the ME, being a Muslim in America, or being a baby around baby hating communist feminazi left wing feminists who want to destroy traditional childbirth and all male kind, atleast thats what the internet tells me and the internet would never lie. Some are those things are a choice, like being black atleast according to Punisher 60 by way of Linkara, but even if being gay is a choice it still shouldn't matter. Choice or natural, the only reason any of those things are a health hazard is through the actions of others.

And one should not change themselves to conform to bigots. I shouldn't start believing in God because Christians get offended by me not believing in God and want to physically assault me for it. The Micheal Browns of the world should get that Micheal Jackson alleged surgery to be white and right because racist motherfuckers want and do kill them. A gaymosexual shouldn't stop liking balls because some morons holy book apparently says ball lover need beat down, dragged behind cars, or made into criminals. A stripper shouldn't stop showing desperate men their melons and pussies because religious morons don't like aficionados of plants of the family Cucurbitaceae and Felis catus and those that purvey it.

[Zeropoint]

Lust is a sin no matter who commits it. The redefinition of sin as NOT sin is what Christians are talking about.

Christians are not the world's or the nation's designated adults. What your sect of your branch of your religion believes to be or not be sin is between you and your fellow believers, and has no bearing on anyone who does not choose to accept your belief system. You have the right to freedom of religion, and I agree with and support that right, but your right to practice your religion stops short of allowing you to harm others because of your religion.

And I should point out again, as others have said here, that the only reason LGBT behaviors and lifestyles lead to harm or suffering is because bigots inflict that harm and suffering on them.

but the real issue, IMHO, is whether we can call "gay" marriage, Marriage. I understand that 'marriage' hasn't always had the same definition for the past couple thousand years and that 'gay' marriages have been solemnized in the past

Well, then why CAN'T we call gay marriage marriage? You admit that "marriage" has been redefined before; why can't we redefine it now?

My only beef is with the legal wrangling over something that shouldn't be a fedgov issue in the 1st place.

I could accept this as an honest argument . . . IF you were advocating that the government should have nothing whatsoever to do with marriage; IF you were saying that marriage should have no legal status at all, and that being someone's spouse (for example) provided no legal next-of-kin privileges.

I don't think that's what you're saying, though. I strongly suspect that you want these legal benefits for couples that you approve of and not for the couples you don't approve of.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Well, many strippers may have gotten into their jobs for a variety of reasons beyond their control and there are multiple avenues of possible solutions to such exploitation. On the other hand, I don't really see a healthy alternative to a gay, lesbian or bisexual individual embracing their sexual orientation.

I ain't saying either one should find a "healthy" alternative (I don't actually see what is unhealthy about flashing them boobies and two dudes getting it on beyond maybe rectal tearing) just stating the only reason why either of those things are even considered unhealthy is the actions of others.

There's nothing wrong with flashing boobies but there is a problem when someone is flashing boobies because it's what they have to do to make end's meet. Not all strippers do it out of necessity of course but we can't discount those who are if we're making analogous comparisons. A specific profession is hardly comparable to sexual identity as the comparisons fail on so many levels.

[Joun_Lord]

Well, many strippers may have gotten into their jobs for a variety of reasons beyond their control and there are multiple avenues of possible solutions to such exploitation. On the other hand, I don't really see a healthy alternative to a gay, lesbian or bisexual individual embracing their sexual orientation.

I ain't saying either one should find a "healthy" alternative (I don't actually see what is unhealthy about flashing them boobies and two dudes getting it on beyond maybe rectal tearing) just stating the only reason why either of those things are even considered unhealthy is the actions of others.

There's nothing wrong with flashing boobies but there is a problem when someone is flashing boobies because it's what they have to do to make end's meet. Not all strippers do it out of necessity of course but we can't discount those who are if we're making analogous comparisons. A specific profession is hardly comparable to sexual identity as the comparisons fail on so many levels.

Well thank da lawd I wasn't actually comparing them for much else then the reaction they both get from knuckle draggers with sexual hang-ups and the fact they are both considered sinful.

Of course some people don't want to use their knockers to get cash but tits a job, some people hate their jobs. A burger flipper at McDonalds ain't going to be a fan of their job, some office drone will over time start looking at all the instruments in their cubicle they can commit suicide with, a stripper will hate showing their skin to random strangers, dudes that spin signs will hate having shit thrown at them while standing practically in traffic in possibly horrible weather while sometimes wearing horrible costumes.

As long as they are doing it safely and legally like any other job it ain't really a bad thing for a stripper do be stripping because its the only job she can find. It sucks, sure, but so does it suck for anyone who has to take a demeaning and shitty job because thats all thats available. Thats life, especially in a shitty economy. You gotta do what you gotta do to put the bread on the table.

Do you think it is wrong any other time when someone does a horrible demeaning and downright terrible job they dislike?

[Zeropoint]

Do you think it is wrong any other time when someone does a horrible demeaning and downright terrible job they dislike?

Telemarketers, maybe?

[Simon_Jester]

Since a stripper is, because of their job, unusually likely to be pressured into providing sexual services, unusually likely to be sexually abused or assaulted, and unusually likely to be disrespected by the world at large...

I think that the treatment of strippers is MORE wrong than the treatment of other people with merely 'shitty' jobs.

[Joun_Lord]

Do you think it is wrong any other time when someone does a horrible demeaning and downright terrible job they dislike?

Telemarketers, maybe?

You got me there, that is a pretty terrible job that I probably wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. I worked a telemarketer job for about a month, it was a bit of a right of passage into the life of jobs for my area until the place closed down, and the sheer amount of abuse both from bosses and the people you had to call was nerve wracking. Never did I want to smoke more then that.

Since a stripper is, because of their job, unusually likely to be pressured into providing sexual services, unusually likely to be sexually abused or assaulted, and unusually likely to be disrespected by the world at large...

I think that the treatment of strippers is MORE wrong than the treatment of other people with merely 'shitty' jobs.

If they are mistreated then thats a problem but thats more then just a problem with their field of employ. Plenty of strippers can go through life without being sexually abused or made into a prostitute, it of course helps if there is legal protection in place rather then the American method of letting strip joints be ran like mini-ghettos. I can assume with making an ass of myself that there is generally more sexual abuse and assault for strippers then say a person flipping burgers for the clown. But its not like other fields aren't immune to that either.

Again, its a problem not of the job but the attitude and prejudices people foster upon it. In areas where there is legal protection for those shakers of their money makers and less repressed shitbags making the job shit, I'm sure the job ain't too bad.

But people can still think its a shitty job even without the abuses and without the abuse its no worse then any other shitty job. Probably a bit more drafty though. Probably more glitter too.

[bilateralrope]

In areas where there is legal protection for those shakers of their money makers and less repressed shitbags making the job shit, I'm sure the job ain't too bad.

I'm not sure about strippers. But prostitution is definitely healthier and safer for all involved where its legal. I see no reason why stripping would be any different.