The "Lap" of Luxury
JustGB
JustGB
The New York Times
October 25, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
The Lap of Luxury
By ELISABETH EAVES
Paris
IT'S happened again. Another innocent man who just wanted a few lap
dances claims to have been victimized by an exclusive New York strip
club, Scores.
This time it's an executive from Missouri named Robert McCormick, who,
treating himself and friends, ran up a $241,000 bill at Scores on his
corporate American Express card two years ago. American Express is now
suing him for refusing to pay up. Several other unhappy customers have
also sued Scores over large bills.
These don't seem to be cases of bill padding. American Express sought
signed receipts from the club before bringing its suit against Mr.
McCormick. In the most recent suit against Scores, meanwhile, the
plaintiff's justification is simply that he was drunk when he signed
his bills.
Nevertheless, the Manhattan district attorney's office is investigating
allegations of overcharging at Scores. To which I say, as someone who
has worked in strip clubs, you've got to be kidding - there's no such
thing as "overcharging" in this industry.
Does Christian Dior "overcharge" when it sells a handbag for $13,000?
That depends on how you look at it. If you see the handbag as a few
pieces of stitched leather, the price is grossly inflated. If you see
it as a source of heady self-worth - a passport to an exclusive club -
then it's hard to say what price would be too high.
This is the economic logic relied on by purveyors of luxury goods. It's
not about the utility of the product. It's about making the customer
feel as if he has arrived.
Strip clubs, particularly high-end ones like Scores, provide a luxury
service. That $3,000 price tag on a bottle of Champagne isn't just for
the beverage; it's part of the price of the experience. Mr. McCormick
probably didn't go to Scores strictly to see topless women, or even for
the physical contact and potential sexual gratification of a lap dance.
Both experiences can be had in simpler, cheaper ways.
Rather, he and his colleagues probably went because being surrounded by
fawning, semi-naked, Champagne-flute-wielding women was for them a
symbol of success. It's like hiring a chauffeured limousine: a taxi
would get you there, but without the aesthetic experience.
When I worked in a Seattle peep show, I had a customer who told me his
name was Excalibur and quietly slipped me his poetry. Part of my job,
in that moment, was to make him feel like a Knight of the Round Table.
This required only a show of curiosity and respect. He must have found
those things hard to come by in the real world, though, because he paid
me well to help spin the illusion.
With many customers, fawning is key. What a stripper sells is not her
ability to dance or take off her clothes, but her ability to suspend
the customer's disbelief.
If she is doing her job right, his bald spot and his mortgage cease to
exist, and he enters an adolescent fantasy of sexual prowess,
temporarily transformed into James Bond, Han Solo and Hugh Hefner all
rolled into one. The dancers keep cooing and flattering until the money
runs out. It's not duplicitous; it's what the patron signs up for.
I have little sympathy for these carping customers. Their complaints
are the height of boorishness. It's acceptable to indulge your James
Bond fantasies, but it's not acceptable, when the bill comes due, to
remain convinced that you're James Bond. The dancers weren't in it for
kicks.
Among strippers I worked with, the most dreaded customers were not the
obese or the lame. Rather, we feared customers who thought they were
exceptions to the rule. They were just handsome enough, or successful
enough, to foolishly think that their own sex appeal was tip enough.
It's just this kind of guy who would backpedal on a strip club bill and
go crying to the courts that he was hustled. Well, sure, the dancers
hustled Mr. McCormick, but no more so than the occasional Mercedes
dealer. Buyer's remorse is not an occasion to stiff the seller.
So, gentlemen, pay the bill. A reasonably priced lap dance is not a
right.
Elisabeth Eaves is the author of "Bare: The Naked Truth About
Stripping."
jacqui{JB}
news:1130243842.8...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> What was it in another thread -- the "right"
> to be serviced? Pay up!
Interesting article -- thanks for posting it.
-j
Albert 4
wrote:
>...
>When I worked in a Seattle peep show,
I guess I should have read the very beginning of the article,
because until I read...
>
>Elisabeth Eaves is the author of "Bare: The Naked Truth About
>Stripping."
I though that or dear JustGB was relating about how one of the
old jobs she had related to an article she read.
Roy. Just Roy.
1) As someone who has been to strip clubs in half a dozen cities, I can
tell you this - visit the ATM BEFORE entering the club (in other words,
while sober), and NEVER take any plastic other than your driver's
license for proof of age. Take ALL the debit cards, credit cards,
backup cards, hell, even your movie rental card OUT of your wallet, put
them in a zippered bag and stash them safely away in the trunk of your
car. And do so BEFORE you get to the parking lot of the club - that is
not the place for anyone to see your hiding place. Even better, use a
money clip, with your license and your money, and leave the whole
wallet at home.
Take along only what you can afford to lose. When the money is gone,
your night is over. Period. The same strategy works in gambling casinos
as well.
Oh, and it's usually a good idea if you're in a strange city to hold
back $30 for cab fare home. If you peek outside the club at 2 AM and
the street makes you feel uncomfortable, take a cab home. No amount of
money is worth getting beaten up or stabbed for.
2) I went to New Orleans this June. I got 2 lap dances (plus a little
bit more) from a wonderful dancer that was working on a book of her
experiences at the club. Between dances, we talked - she was a very
literate woman working in one of the less profitable clubs (I don't
frequent Scores or any of the "VIP" establishments. That's for Howard
Stern and his crew). I still wonder to this day if she got out of the
city in time - I still remember her mentioning that she didn't have a
car.
She didn't need one, she said.
JustGB
JustGB
The Dave
Just Roy." <deld...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Two thoughts on this:
>
>1) As someone who has been to strip clubs in half a dozen cities, I can
>tell you this - visit the ATM BEFORE entering the club (in other words,
>while sober), and NEVER take any plastic other than your driver's
>license for proof of age. Take ALL the debit cards, credit cards,
>backup cards, hell, even your movie rental card OUT of your wallet, put
>them in a zippered bag and stash them safely away in the trunk of your
>car. And do so BEFORE you get to the parking lot of the club - that is
>not the place for anyone to see your hiding place. Even better, use a
>money clip, with your license and your money, and leave the whole
>wallet at home.
Or just learn some self control.
>Take along only what you can afford to lose. When the money is gone,
>your night is over. Period. The same strategy works in gambling casinos
>as well.
Yes, if self control is a problem...
I've been to local strip clubs a few times, but somehow I didn't manage
to run up more then a few dollars for overpriced drinks.
*shrugs*
>Oh, and it's usually a good idea if you're in a strange city to hold
>back $30 for cab fare home. If you peek outside the club at 2 AM and
>the street makes you feel uncomfortable, take a cab home. No amount of
>money is worth getting beaten up or stabbed for.
True. You can also get a prepaid taxi card/slip in many places, or even
have them take an impression of your card in advance, so that all you
have to do when you get in the cab is fill out the amount and sign (I've
done this to get friends home from my house without giving them my card)
Minty
Roy. Just Roy. wrote:
> Two thoughts on this:
>
> 1) As someone who has been to strip clubs in half a dozen cities, I can
> tell you this - visit the ATM BEFORE entering the club (in other words,
> while sober), and NEVER take any plastic other than your driver's
> license for proof of age. Take ALL the debit cards, credit cards,
> backup cards, hell, even your movie rental card OUT of your wallet, put
> them in a zippered bag and stash them safely away in the trunk of your
> car.
>
One would hope that if you're planning on drinking then you wouldn't be
taking your car with you!
Minty
Norton
>*shrugs*
I want to go to *your* parties... ;-)
Norton.
The Dave
wrote:
>The Dave <somecal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>True. You can also get a prepaid taxi card/slip in many places, or even
>>have them take an impression of your card in advance, so that all you
>>have to do when you get in the cab is fill out the amount and sign (I've
>>done this to get friends home from my house without giving them my card)
>
>I want to go to *your* parties... ;-)
I don't think you'd be very impressed :(
The Dave
"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>One would hope that if you're planning on drinking then you wouldn't be
>taking your car with you!
Why not? -- Obviously you won't want to drive home if you're drunk, but
if you end up consuming a reasonable amount of alcohol plus give it
enough time, you can still drive home.
Alternatively, a lot of places have a "driving alternative" type system
available, where someone shows up to drive you and your car home -- It's
more expensive then a taxi, but usually cheaper then a taxi home plus a
taxi back to pick up your car (or a taxi each way)
Minty
The Dave wrote:
> In message <1130493548.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> "Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >One would hope that if you're planning on drinking then you wouldn't be
> >taking your car with you!
>
> Why not? -- Obviously you won't want to drive home if you're drunk, but
> if you end up consuming a reasonable amount of alcohol plus give it
> enough time, you can still drive home.
>
People (although I'm not at all suggesting you personally) frequently
have some drinks and make the judgement that they are fit to drive,
either because they think they have left enough time, or that they can
'handle their alcohol', etc. And taking the car when they go out
drinking makes it just too tempting to drive home, even when they know
perfectly well they shouldn't.
I'm afraid drink-driving is something I feel very strongly about.
> Alternatively, a lot of places have a "driving alternative" type system
> available, where someone shows up to drive you and your car home -- It's
> more expensive then a taxi, but usually cheaper then a taxi home plus a
> taxi back to pick up your car (or a taxi each way)
>
Yes, those are a good invention.
Or if you're doing it on the cheap, public transport?
Minty
Jana
> The Dave wrote:
>
>>In message <1130493548.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>>"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>One would hope that if you're planning on drinking then you wouldn't be
>>>taking your car with you!
>>
>>Why not? -- Obviously you won't want to drive home if you're drunk, but
>>if you end up consuming a reasonable amount of alcohol plus give it
>>enough time, you can still drive home.
>>
>
>
> People (although I'm not at all suggesting you personally) frequently
> have some drinks and make the judgement that they are fit to drive,
> either because they think they have left enough time, or that they can
> 'handle their alcohol', etc.
But people who have about 0.3 promiles (sp? wording?) of alcohol in
their blood drive slightly better than those with 0.0. Then there is a
practically exponential gain in accidents after the 0.5 mark. It's not
totally linear.
Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
<snip>
> Minty
>
Jana, who has to study subjects she couldn't care less for
Ken Tough
>Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
>drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
The most effective anti-speeding device is a small spike on
the steering wheel.
--
Ken Tough
Steve Daniels
compelled The Dave <somecal...@gmail.com>, to say:
>In message <1130493548.9...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>One would hope that if you're planning on drinking then you wouldn't be
>>taking your car with you!
>Alternatively, a lot of places have a "driving alternative" type system
>available, where someone shows up to drive you and your car home -- It's
>more expensive then a taxi, but usually cheaper then a taxi home plus a
>taxi back to pick up your car (or a taxi each way)
And it's a hell of a lot less expensive than a drunk driving
arrest.
--
Steve Daniels
compelled Jana <jana.pe...@gmail.com>, to say:
>Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
>drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
Seven times more dangerous to whom?
--
Jana
Er, to people? To all those involved in trafic accidents. A drunk person
in a car you happen to crash with is seven times less likely to kill you
than if you don't use a seatbelt but crash with another sober driver.
Jana
Steve Daniels
I think what you are saying is that if you are in a crash, you
are seven times more likely to be injured if you are not using a
seatbelt. I still fail to see how the drunk/sober variable
changes that.
--
Jana
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 19:41:44 +0200, against all advice, something
> compelled Jana <jana.pe...@gmail.com>, to say:
>
>
>>Steve Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:14:33 +0200, against all advice, something
>>>compelled Jana <jana.pe...@gmail.com>, to say:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
>>>>drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seven times more dangerous to whom?
>>
>>Er, to people? To all those involved in trafic accidents. A drunk person
>>in a car you happen to crash with is seven times less likely to kill you
>>than if you don't use a seatbelt but crash with another sober driver.
>
>
> I think what you are saying is that if you are in a crash, you
> are seven times more likely to be injured if you are not using a
> seatbelt.
No, you're 50% more likely to get killed in a crash of equal severity.
There's a lot of different numbers involved. You are seven times more
likely to get killed when driving without a seatbelt then when driving
drunk, given that all other conditions are equal.
> I still fail to see how the drunk/sober variable
> changes that.
It doesn't, it's just that you're less likely to get badly hurt when
driving drunk than when driving without a seatbelt. But people are
usually more likely to, say, let a passenger drive without buckling up
than to drive after drinking some. In some cultures (like mine), they're
even ready not to use a seatbelt if the driver tells them he or she
drives well and there's no need to do that. Heck, I didn't put a
seatbelt on when I took my driving test because the cops would laugh or
take it as a sign of insecurity about my driving. The situation is much
better now, but not everywhere (I hear it's dreadful in Turkey, and not
to mention the Middle East).
Oh, and I had sex in several different cars in my life ;-)
Jana
Ken Tough
>It doesn't, it's just that you're less likely to get badly hurt when
>driving drunk than when driving without a seatbelt. But people are
>usually more likely to, say, let a passenger drive without buckling up
>than to drive after drinking some. In some cultures (like mine), they're
>even ready not to use a seatbelt if the driver tells them he or she
>drives well and there's no need to do that. Heck, I didn't put a
>seatbelt on when I took my driving test because the cops would laugh or
>take it as a sign of insecurity about my driving. The situation is much
>better now, but not everywhere (I hear it's dreadful in Turkey, and not
>to mention the Middle East).
Plus, American car manufacturers set the pressurisation level of
their airbags according to how many lives can be saved. Because
lots of big heavy (typically men) don't wear seatbelts, upping the
pressure tends to save more of them. Unfortunately, the airbags
as a result kill many small women and children who do wear their
seatbelts, every year.
Anywhere which needs automatic seatbelts because the citizens
can't be arsed to do them up is, frankly, pathetic.
--
Ken Tough
Jana
Yeah. All they did here was charge some fines. The situation changed
completely in a matter of weeks.
Jana
The Dave
"Minty" <mi...@mail.com> wrote:
>People (although I'm not at all suggesting you personally) frequently
>have some drinks and make the judgement that they are fit to drive,
>either because they think they have left enough time, or that they can
>'handle their alcohol', etc. And taking the car when they go out
>drinking makes it just too tempting to drive home, even when they know
>perfectly well they shouldn't.
Yeah, unfortunately it happens. A lot, unfortunately.
>I'm afraid drink-driving is something I feel very strongly about.
I used to. In fact, I used to be in the "cut up the license on the
spot, auction the car, etc"
However, that all changed once night when my dad got pulled over, blew
over the limit on the test at a checkstop.
He passed the other tests, including whatever the cops had him do on the
scene, he took a blood test (within the appropriate amount of time),
plus he'd only drank one beer that might well over two hours earlier (as
confirmed by affidavit from the waitress and his coworker, and his
credit card receipt), yet the prosecutor still wouldn't back down on
charging him.
He was able to plead to a lower charge, but he still needed to give up
his license for a period of time, plus take driving lessons and some
other related garbage.
He later learned that the breathalyzer was proven faulty (he knew
someone else that was pulled over that night at the same checkstop, but
he didn't find out until after he'd pled out)
So that this point, while drunk driving still pisses me off, my feelings
as far as enforcement and punishment have changed a lot over the years.
>> Alternatively, a lot of places have a "driving alternative" type system
>> available, where someone shows up to drive you and your car home -- It's
>> more expensive then a taxi, but usually cheaper then a taxi home plus a
>> taxi back to pick up your car (or a taxi each way)
>
>Yes, those are a good invention.
Damn fine idea.
>Or if you're doing it on the cheap, public transport?
Yeah, I don't actually drive, I always take public transit if I have the
time, or a cab if I'm in a hurry.
I spend a lot less on transportation then when my ex-g/f and I had a
minivan. I take cabs a lot, pretty much whenever I need to go somewhere
in a hurry, or whenever I'm carrying something bigger then I feel like
lugging around on a bus.
Unfortunately it can sometimes be tough to get a cab shortly after last
call, even if you're right downtown. More then once I've ended up
walking to a hotel (where I know that the hotel has a cab standing 24/7)
The Dave
<k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>Jana <jana.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It doesn't, it's just that you're less likely to get badly hurt when
>>driving drunk than when driving without a seatbelt. But people are
>>usually more likely to, say, let a passenger drive without buckling up
>>than to drive after drinking some. In some cultures (like mine), they're
>>even ready not to use a seatbelt if the driver tells them he or she
>>drives well and there's no need to do that. Heck, I didn't put a
>>seatbelt on when I took my driving test because the cops would laugh or
>>take it as a sign of insecurity about my driving. The situation is much
>>better now, but not everywhere (I hear it's dreadful in Turkey, and not
>>to mention the Middle East).
>
>Plus, American car manufacturers set the pressurisation level of
>their airbags according to how many lives can be saved. Because
>lots of big heavy (typically men) don't wear seatbelts, upping the
>pressure tends to save more of them. Unfortunately, the airbags
>as a result kill many small women and children who do wear their
>seatbelts, every year.
My understanding is that it is possible to create adaptive airbags
(airbags that set the force and other parameters based on the weight of
the passenger, position of the seat, and force of the impact), but that
it's simply not cost effective to do so.
>Anywhere which needs automatic seatbelts because the citizens
>can't be arsed to do them up is, frankly, pathetic.
Define "needs" -- I used to get a ride to work in a car that had
automatic seatbelts, it was handy. I've used my seatbelt since before
it was law, so I don't really care one way or the other.
dreas
Good accident avoidance skills save more lives than any belt
or air bag. If you don't get into accidents it's safer than
any safety device. There's no substitute for common sense
[which is unfortunately not so common as I'd like]...
-'dreas
dreas
The really pathetic thing is that so many people are such bad
drivers that most of us need seatbelts and airbags to protect
us from them...
-'dreas
Minty
As a rule of thumb, alcohol in the system slows down reflexes and
detracts from concentration and alertness. (I can't comment on the
specific figures quoted earlier, as I haven't seen that study).
Therefore, the driver is less likely to notice a problem (be it another
car or a pedestrian) and their foot will be slower on the brake,
meaning that they are going faster at impact. At higher speeds, crashes
cause more damage. I can't quote a source for this, but I remember
reading that a pedestrian hit at 35mph is twice as likely to be killed
as if they were hit at 30mph.
I would not get in a car with someone I knew was over the limit (or for
that matter if they were stoned, etc.) and I would try to prevent them
from driving. Not for their own safety, but for the safety of the
others that might be hurt by them.
I don't give a damn about drivers who choose not to wear a seat belt.
If they want to risk killing themselves, they are free to do so, as I
can't see how it makes any difference to their potential victims.
However, if I'm the one driving, I insist on everyone else in the car
belting up too. This is unrelated to my own skill at driving, by the
way.
If anyone's interested, there are some statistics on seat belt use
here:
http://www.carpages.co.uk/news/seat-belts-27-07-05.asp?switched=on&echo=922626492
Minty
JustGB
Minty wrote:
> I don't give a damn about drivers who choose not to wear a seat belt.
> If they want to risk killing themselves, they are free to do so, as I
> can't see how it makes any difference to their potential victims.
Sorry to say (or glad to say depending on your vantage point) this is a
major source of organs for transplant. In fact potential recipients at
Heart Transplant Units are placed on standby on weekends in
anticipation of available hearts.
JustGB
Ken Tough
>Good accident avoidance skills save more lives than any belt
>or air bag. If you don't get into accidents it's safer than
>any safety device. There's no substitute for common sense
>[which is unfortunately not so common as I'd like]...
You only have to look at the number of SUVs to see just
how scare a commodity it is.
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
Maybe those drivers should be given the option of paying an extra
tax (to cover the cost of heroic efforts to save their lives, plus
a bit extra) in order to carry on their nasty habit. It works
for cigarettes..
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
>Good accident avoidance skills save more lives than any belt
>or air bag. If you don't get into accidents it's safer than
>any safety device. There's no substitute for common sense
>[which is unfortunately not so common as I'd like]...
You only have to look at the number of SUVs to see just
how scarce a commodity it is.
(though it is scary, too)
--
Ken Tough
The Dave
<k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
The problem always comes back to the fact that it's not the drunk
driver's life they're risking, it's everybody else that they happen to
drive near.
Steve Daniels
compelled "JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com>, to say:
I left my heart in San Francisco,
My right kidney went to San Antone.
A retina gazes out in Alabam,
and my liver's doing fine it its new home.
--
The Dave
wrote:
>The really pathetic thing is that so many people are such bad
>drivers that most of us need seatbelts and airbags to protect
>us from them...
Have you seen those commercials for cars that supposedly make it safer
for the person you hit?
wtf? I'm sure I'm not the only one that is scared by cars being
marketed to people who think they'll hit people.
How about you just don't run into pedestrians in the first place?
Ken Tough
We were off drunks, and onto those who refuse to wear seatbelts.
Aside from an obvious committment to fuckwittery, they are not
necessarily more dangerous to everyone nearby.
--
Ken Tough
Ken Tough
>Have you seen those commercials for cars that supposedly make it safer
>for the person you hit?
>
>wtf? I'm sure I'm not the only one that is scared by cars being
>marketed to people who think they'll hit people.
>
>How about you just don't run into pedestrians in the first place?
Things will return to sanity once some idiots sue the car
manufacturers for the deaths of the people they hit. Then those
deemed inadequately evolved will be denied purchase of a vehicle
by vendors unwilling to accept the thought of them behind the wheel.
--
Ken Tough
ron
driving,lets keep it real.Ronnie
The Dave
<k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>The Dave <somecal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The problem always comes back to the fact that it's not the drunk
>>driver's life they're risking, it's everybody else that they happen to
>>drive near.
>
>We were off drunks, and onto those who refuse to wear seatbelts.
Yes, welcome to usenet where thread drift is not only commonplace, but a
fairly critical part of the community.
And this started with a spam supporter who didn't want to pay his adult
education bill before it even go to drunks...
>Aside from an obvious committment to fuckwittery, they are not
>necessarily more dangerous to everyone nearby.
Drunk drivers you mean?
Ken Tough
><k...@objectech.co.uk> wrote:
>>The Dave <somecal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>The problem always comes back to the fact that it's not the drunk
>>>driver's life they're risking, it's everybody else that they happen to
>>>drive near.
>>
>>We were off drunks, and onto those who refuse to wear seatbelts.
>>Aside from an obvious committment to fuckwittery, they are not
>>necessarily more dangerous to everyone nearby.
>Drunk drivers you mean?
No, I mean "those who refuse to wear seatbelts".
--
Ken Tough
darklily
Isn't there some reason these(automatic seatbelts) went out of favor?
>From what I recall they weren't judged all that safe. I think it had
something to do with them being rendered ineffective if the door
opened. I do remember when reading the instructions for my my kid's car
seats that they couldn't be installed with automatic seatbelts.
darklily (ummm...I fell out of a moving car when I was a kid...probably
explains alot ;)
Nanook
> Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
> drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
I don't know what this has to do with sexuality beyond the obvious fact
that being dead really ruins your sex life, but not putting on a seat belt
endagers yourself, driving drunk endangers others.
Personally, I think the state has an obligation to protect us from each
other but not from ourselves. Of coarse the insurance company has lots of
lobbiests and their only interest is protecting them from actually having to
pay claims.
--
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Eskimo North Linux Friendly Shells, Web Hosting, 56K/ISDN/DSL, 2-Week Trial!
Internet access with real toll-free human help as low as $9.00 / month!
See our web site: http://www.eskimo.com/ (206) 812-0051 or (800) 246-6874.
Nanook
> I would not get in a car with someone I knew was over the limit (or for
> that matter if they were stoned, etc.) and I would try to prevent them
> from driving. Not for their own safety, but for the safety of the
> others that might be hurt by them.
In general I agree but I read many years ago that people under the
influence of marijuana were less likely to be involved in serious accidents
than people under the influence of alcohol.
Apparently, people under the influence of marijuana realize they are
impaired and slow down significantly to compensate, while those under the
influence of alcohol tend to actually speed up.
I'm not suggesting people go out and drive stoned, I am just saying that
I've read there is a huge difference in the risk involved, alcohol being much
worse.
Ya all know that the nerves that control orgasm exit from the very lowest
vertebre of the back, so if you mess your spine ANYWHERE you're likely to ruin
that functionality.
Jana
> Jana wrote:
>
>>Steve Daniels wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 18:14:33 +0200, against all advice, something
>>>compelled Jana <jana.pe...@gmail.com>, to say:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
>>>>drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
>>>
>>>
>>>Seven times more dangerous to whom?
>>
>>Er, to people? To all those involved in trafic accidents. A drunk person
>>in a car you happen to crash with is seven times less likely to kill you
>>than if you don't use a seatbelt but crash with another sober driver.
>>
>
>
> As a rule of thumb, alcohol in the system slows down reflexes and
> detracts from concentration and alertness. (I can't comment on the
> specific figures quoted earlier, as I haven't seen that study).
> Therefore, the driver is less likely to notice a problem (be it another
> car or a pedestrian) and their foot will be slower on the brake,
> meaning that they are going faster at impact.
Well that's the thing, it's not true of *any* dose of alcohol, but of
those above 0.4 promiles. Lesser values decrease tenseness but don't
decrease alertness - coz our nervous system isn't one big autonomous
glob of tissue. That's why it doesn't make sense to have, say, a law
forbidding any amount of alcohol in the bloodstream (which will promptly
register a value above 0.0 if you drink two glasses of wine in the
evening but sit down to drive next morning). A value of 0.5 *will* be
dangerous, but 0.6 is already twice as dangerous as that, and so on,
exponentially.
As for the study, it's a very old one, from the days when the first laws
on consumption were made. Some countries followed the findings, others
set the limit lower, and tried to get people not to drink and drive by
telling them that *any* amount of alcohol decreases reflexes and
alertness. But it just doesn't.
> I don't give a damn about drivers who choose not to wear a seat belt.
> If they want to risk killing themselves, they are free to do so, as I
> can't see how it makes any difference to their potential victims.
Oh, forget about it. We obviously come from very different places when
it comes to this. You (and pretty much everyone who has posted) assume
every car has a seatbelt on every seat, and that not putting one on has
only to do with one's responsibility to oneself. I don't come from a
place like that, and that's pretty much it, really. If no one can
imagine a country full of kids in the back seat who don't have a belt to
put on, this conversation is ridiculous.
<snip>
> Minty
>
Jana
JustGB
Nanook wrote:
> In article <3shljcF...@individual.net>, Jana <jana.pe...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Not putting on your seatbelt, however, is seven times as dangerous as
> > drunk driving, and the most dangerous single driving (mis)behavior.
>
> I don't know what this has to do with sexuality beyond the obvious fact
> that being dead really ruins your sex life, but not putting on a seat belt
> endagers yourself, driving drunk endangers others.
>
> Personally, I think the state has an obligation to protect us from each
> other but not from ourselves. Of coarse the insurance company has lots of
> lobbiests and their only interest is protecting them from actually having to
> pay claims.
>
Well of course they don't want to pay claims and I think we should be
interested in the same thing. I would much prefer having worn my seat
belt and not having to be compensated than having a bunch of broken
bones or worse.
The most awful cost to the entire society is some idjit who thought
that not wearing his seat belt was cool and whacking the windshield
wouldn't leave him brain injured. You think you don't pay for that?
Wear your seat belt. Practice safe sex. Not at the same time.
JustGB
JustGB
Jana wrote:
> Minty wrote:
>
> > I don't give a damn about drivers who choose not to wear a seat belt.
> > If they want to risk killing themselves, they are free to do so, as I
> > can't see how it makes any difference to their potential victims.
>
> Oh, forget about it. We obviously come from very different places when
> it comes to this. You (and pretty much everyone who has posted) assume
> every car has a seatbelt on every seat, and that not putting one on has
> only to do with one's responsibility to oneself. I don't come from a
> place like that, and that's pretty much it, really. If no one can
> imagine a country full of kids in the back seat who don't have a belt to
> put on, this conversation is ridiculous.
>
Seat belts haven't been around forever. There are a lot of us here who
remember the days before the seat belt laws and grew up riding 6 or 8
kids in the back seat of the car. And even more of us who remember not
having to strap babies and toddlers into special car seats. It's a
pain in the rear for sure, but these laws didn't come about for
nothing. You'll get them too and you'll be safer.
JustGB
Jana
"JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1130758813.2...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Yeah... Sadly, what we're doing right now is spending money on importing
anti-drinking media campaigns from the West, while leaving this law as it
is. The same thing was done in Turkey - and, "surprisingly", their death
rate is still about 25 times as high as in Scandinavia. But what was amazing
to me was how easily it stopped being something people did (in the driver's
seat) once there was nobody to enforce the law. Drinking, on the other hand,
was and still is mainly a habit of very young drivers. The dangers are just
more obvious.
Jana
dreas
> In message <XD59f.362699$tl2.332270@pd7tw3no> dreas <dr...@shaw.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
>>The really pathetic thing is that so many people are such bad
>>drivers that most of us need seatbelts and airbags to protect
>>us from them...
>
>
> Have you seen those commercials for cars that supposedly make it safer
> for the person you hit?
Fortunately, no. Looks like just another one of those excuses
for bad driving instead of discipline and proper enforcement...
> wtf? I'm sure I'm not the only one that is scared by cars being
> marketed to people who think they'll hit people.
Well, locally there are lots of people just begging to be hit,
but hitting them automagically puts you in the wrong so the
incentive just isn't there...
> How about you just don't run into pedestrians in the first place?
Who's at fault if they walk into the side of my car and do a
faceplant on my windshield? Being a cab driver, I have weird
stuff like this happening all the time...
-'dreas
suzee
Some people just don't look when they step out into the street. And you
can't see 'em until they're right there.
sue
Steve Daniels
compelled "JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com>, to say:
>
I remember when seat belts were an extra cost option. I also
remember napping on the rear windshield shelf of my Dad's Volvo
on long trips. Had we been involved in a head on crash, I'm sure
I'd have traversed the car and gone out the front, and if anyone
were to put there kid in that position today they'd probably be
arrested and have the kid placed in protective custody or
something. But there was a time . . .
--
Minty
Jana wrote:
>
> > I don't give a damn about drivers who choose not to wear a seat belt.
> > If they want to risk killing themselves, they are free to do so, as I
> > can't see how it makes any difference to their potential victims.
>
> Oh, forget about it. We obviously come from very different places when
> it comes to this. You (and pretty much everyone who has posted) assume
> every car has a seatbelt on every seat, and that not putting one on has
> only to do with one's responsibility to oneself. I don't come from a
> place like that, and that's pretty much it, really. If no one can
> imagine a country full of kids in the back seat who don't have a belt to
> put on, this conversation is ridiculous.
Well, no, actually. I was talking specifically about the attitude of
those drivers who *choose* not to wear a seatbelt, implying that I was
talking only about those drivers who have that choice to make. I was
not making any comment regarding drivers around the world who do not
have the option.
Minty
Norton
>The very interesting topic of lap dancing went to ot of drunk
>driving,lets keep it real.Ronnie
Of course. When the spider spins her web all
sorts of things happen.
Norton.
Norton
Let me second what Justy wrote. We had no seat belts
until rather recently. What we did have were kids
sitting in the back set flying through the windshield
on a collision.
The US auto death rate dropped rather much when the
seat belt laws went into effect.
I'm not criticizing. I *am* saying that seat belts
are a positive good.
Norton.
Norton
Understood.
If I had to choose, I'd pick seat belts over enforcing
the no alcohol thing.
Norton.
Lusus Naturae
>I remember when seat belts were an extra cost option. I also
>remember napping on the rear windshield shelf of my Dad's Volvo
>on long trips. Had we been involved in a head on crash, I'm sure
>I'd have traversed the car and gone out the front, and if anyone
>were to put there kid in that position today they'd probably be
>arrested and have the kid placed in protective custody or
>something. But there was a time . . .
In 1958, my parents took six of their seven children, age 7 to
15, piled everybody into a Chevy station wagon and spent five
weeks touring our nation's national parks and scenic areas. It
was a magnificent thing to do, the highlight or our childhoods
-- and with today's seatbelt laws it could never happen.
Safety comes at a price.
--
Lusus Naturae
Ken Tough
>JustGB <getti...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Seat belts haven't been around forever. There are a lot of us here who
>>remember the days before the seat belt laws and grew up riding 6 or 8
>>kids in the back seat of the car. And even more of us who remember not
>>having to strap babies and toddlers into special car seats. It's a
>>pain in the rear for sure, but these laws didn't come about for
>>nothing. You'll get them too and you'll be safer.
>
>Let me second what Justy wrote. We had no seat belts
>until rather recently. What we did have were kids
>sitting in the back set flying through the windshield
>on a collision.
>
>The US auto death rate dropped rather much when the
>seat belt laws went into effect.
Yup. Many of us will fondly recall the days when we rode in the
back of station wagons. I loved my parents' VW bus, where as a
5 yr old I could hang out standing between the bucket seats and
chat and look at the window as we drove along. But there were a
hell of a lot of deaths.
There were airplanes without seatbelts, and the fondly remembered
(and still occasionally driven) old VW beetle was a real death trap.
There comes a time when those things (and cars without rear seatbelts)
have to be retired. Yes, the poster with no rear seatbelts should be
forced to have some installed. There is a degree of safety and standard
which any vehicle must attain. You can't just grab an apple cart, strap
on an engine, and call it a car. Similarly, junk that was driven 25
years ago is no longer safe on the road. Time has moved on. Driving
is not a right, it's a privilige. You think installing seat belts is
expensive? Try supporting a child disabled for life by losing limbs or
being paralyzed in an accident. You get in a crash, your child will
pay the price for your lack of seatbelts. You'll have to live with
that decision.
--
Ken Tough
dreas
This is especially true at night in the rain and they're
wearing black...
The little pedestrian light says "DON'T WALK" for a reason?
Imagine that concept...
-'dreas
suzee
How about the ones that don't use the crosswalk and step out between cars?
sue
Jana
"Norton" <nor...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
<snip snip>
>
>>Yeah... Sadly, what we're doing right now is spending money on importing
>>anti-drinking media campaigns from the West, while leaving this law as it
>>is. The same thing was done in Turkey - and, "surprisingly", their death
>>rate is still about 25 times as high as in Scandinavia. But what was
>>amazing
>>to me was how easily it stopped being something people did (in the
>>driver's
>>seat) once there was nobody to enforce the law. Drinking, on the other
>>hand,
>>was and still is mainly a habit of very young drivers. The dangers are
>>just
>>more obvious.
>
> Understood.
>
> If I had to choose, I'd pick seat belts over enforcing
> the no alcohol thing.
Norty is my friendie!
>
> Norton.
>
Jana
Anonymous Jack
suzee wrote:
> How about the ones that don't use the crosswalk and step out between cars?
Darwinian selection?
I watched a group of dark-costumed kids (no flashlights, reflective
bits, glo sticks, etc) dart out last night (Halloween) in the dark,
rainy street - in front of a car. Fortunately, the driver was paying
attention _and_ had good reflexes/brakes/tires.
Norton
Norton
Yeah. I love it. Dressed in black on a dark rainy night.
You slam on the brakes while they jump out of the way. And
then they cuss at you and call you a blind fool.
Makes me think, "hey, let's replay this scene. I don't
really have to slam on the brakes, do I?"
Norton the evil one.
Norton
And never look. I've watched them as I approach. They are
looking the other way. And keep looking the other way as
they cross the street.
Where is Darwin when you need him?
Norton.
Jana
In Serbia. We got rid of the pitiful blokes that don't RUN across the street
long, long ago.
> Norton.
>
Jana
Albert 4
wrote:
>
>Albert 4 wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2005 05:37:22 -0700, "JustGB" <getti...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >...
>> >When I worked in a Seattle peep show,
>>
>> I guess I should have read the very beginning of the article,
>> because until I read...
>>
>> >
>> >Elisabeth Eaves is the author of "Bare: The Naked Truth About
>> >Stripping."
>>
>> I though that or dear JustGB was relating about how one of the
>> old jobs she had related to an article she read.
>
>It helps to start reading from the beginning.
>
>JustGB
Indeed; however, sometimes it is just not as much fun.