[Avarence]

Link here. (Includes NSFW photo)

Quote:

SOUTH GLENS FALLS — Police are trying to determine whether allowing strippers at a 16-year-old's birthday party is illegal or just a case of bad parenting.
A Nov. 3 party at Spare Time Bowling Alley featured two exotic dancers, with attendees as young as 14 witnessing their performances. The dancers did not fully disrobe but stripped to thong underwear and bras. A photo taken by one partygoer with a cellphone camera shows a stripper with her legs wrapped around the guest's head and her head between his knees as others watch.
District Attorney James Murphy said two issues are being investigated: whether the welfare of minors was endangered and whether the bowling alley violated its liquor license.
The dancers were in a separate room in the bowling alley, with butcher paper covering the windows and the glass on the door, he said, but witnesses as young as 14 were present and saw the performances. Police are withholding the names of the parents while the investigation is done.
"There were 80 people at this event. There certainly are plenty of witnesses," Murphy said. "It's going to take some time as to who saw what."
South Glens Falls Police Chief Kevin Dunn said investigators are questioning witnesses to determine exactly what happened.
"The plan of attack is to interview everybody who was there," he said. "It's going to take some time. We're still looking into it and contacting people."
People answering the phone at both the bowling alley and Tops in Bottom, the business that provided the dancers, said no one would comment.
Defense Attorney Cheryl Coleman said endangering the welfare of a child is a broadly written statute, but she doubts allowing a teen to get a lap dance violates it.
"It's sure not something I would have done for my son at 16," she said. "We involve the government and criminal justice system in far too much. The endangering the welfare law is really vague. If you use the same logic, you could charge people with it for taking their child to McDonald's several times a week."
Coleman said she also thinks the fact the strippers did not bare all may protect the parents from legal trouble.
"Probably they shouldn't win the Parent of the Year award," she said. "It might be stupid but it's not illegal."
But Murphy said it depends on what contact was made, even if the strippers kept their underwear on.
"The statute says touching of the private area through clothing is a Class A misdemeanor," he said. "Bad parenting isn't a crime but endangering the welfare of a child is."

A commenter claimed this taught the boys to "objectify women at a young age."

My response:

These women are strippers. They chose that career path. They objectified themselves. These lucky teenage bastards are just reaping the benefits by watching them work their bodies. I'm sure they learned more at this party about their own and the female sexual anatomies than at any scare-tactic 7th grade health class. Paying for sex is a desperation move, but this isn't sex, it's entertainment. And there's nothing wrong with growing up and becoming men a little early.

Advantage: Red Pill Parents.

Thoughts?

[Alpha Hunter Zero]

A see a little bit of hamsterization in that article.

[R Smoov]

I think thats an awesome way to have a birthday party thrown at whatever age. I mean, its not prostitutes so its not like you're paying to get laid.


I feel like an idiot for rejecting my friend's request to have go to a strip club for my birthday this year. You do stupid shit when growing up that you might not like and that's one of those moments for Rosca. Had fun my 20th birthday but then I also blacked out and celebrated it in the hospital. Fuck that shit.

But I'm not making that mistake again. When I get a good amount of income coming in, I'll make sure my 21ist is the coolest bash ev.

[Timoteo]

You have to enforce the "no pictures" rule at these kinds of bashes. I love the way homie is getting his head straddled!

"The statute says touching of the private area through clothing is a Class A misdemeanor," he said. "Bad parenting isn't a crime but endangering the welfare of a child is."

Is it a misdemeanor only if the touching is unwelcome?

[Timoteo]

(11-16-2012 11:21 AM)IQVX Wrote:  

Link here. (Includes NSFW photo)

Quote:

SOUTH GLENS FALLS — Police are trying to determine whether allowing strippers at a 16-year-old's birthday party is illegal or just a case of bad parenting.
A Nov. 3 party at Spare Time Bowling Alley featured two exotic dancers, with attendees as young as 14 witnessing their performances. The dancers did not fully disrobe but stripped to thong underwear and bras. A photo taken by one partygoer with a cellphone camera shows a stripper with her legs wrapped around the guest's head and her head between his knees as others watch.
District Attorney James Murphy said two issues are being investigated: whether the welfare of minors was endangered and whether the bowling alley violated its liquor license.
The dancers were in a separate room in the bowling alley, with butcher paper covering the windows and the glass on the door, he said, but witnesses as young as 14 were present and saw the performances. Police are withholding the names of the parents while the investigation is done.
"There were 80 people at this event. There certainly are plenty of witnesses," Murphy said. "It's going to take some time as to who saw what."
South Glens Falls Police Chief Kevin Dunn said investigators are questioning witnesses to determine exactly what happened.
"The plan of attack is to interview everybody who was there," he said. "It's going to take some time. We're still looking into it and contacting people."
People answering the phone at both the bowling alley and Tops in Bottom, the business that provided the dancers, said no one would comment.
Defense Attorney Cheryl Coleman said endangering the welfare of a child is a broadly written statute, but she doubts allowing a teen to get a lap dance violates it.
"It's sure not something I would have done for my son at 16," she said. "We involve the government and criminal justice system in far too much. The endangering the welfare law is really vague. If you use the same logic, you could charge people with it for taking their child to McDonald's several times a week."
Coleman said she also thinks the fact the strippers did not bare all may protect the parents from legal trouble.
"Probably they shouldn't win the Parent of the Year award," she said. "It might be stupid but it's not illegal."
But Murphy said it depends on what contact was made, even if the strippers kept their underwear on.
"The statute says touching of the private area through clothing is a Class A misdemeanor," he said. "Bad parenting isn't a crime but endangering the welfare of a child is."

A commenter claimed this taught the boys to "objectify women at a young age."

My response:

These women are strippers. They chose that career path. They objectified themselves. These lucky teenage bastards are just reaping the benefits by watching them work their bodies. I'm sure they learned more at this party about their own and the female sexual anatomies than at any scare-tactic 7th grade health class. Paying for sex is a desperation move, but this isn't sex, it's entertainment. And there's nothing wrong with growing up and becoming men a little early.

Advantage: Red Pill Parents.

Thoughts?

I've always found the objectification argument dubious. These women aren't forced to disrobe for the entertainment of others. It's a choice. Maybe it's a hard choice for some, but a choice nonetheless. Be they with or without clothes, men always see women as sexual objects. Strippers, hookers and nude models are simply stripping away the bullshit and giving us what we want anyway.

[Avarence]

(11-16-2012 11:52 AM)Alpha Hunter Zero Wrote:  

A see a little bit of hamsterization in that article.

Indeed. Understatement.

[christpuncher]

hahah. I love how the article starts "Police are trying to determine whether allowing strippers at a 16-year-old's birthday party is illegal..."

What the HELL does that even mean? What are they determining?

It should more accurately say "Police aren't going to do anything because nothing illegal happened. But maybe if we piss and moan about it long enough and get it on enough tv channels the police will go arrest the boy's father just for the fun of it."

[Hades]

They're just strippers. Nobody was getting sexually abused. If anything, charge the stripper for doing what seems to be a little more than a lapdance.

[Alpha Hunter Zero]

Since the parents hired strippers at age 16 it's only fair they hire hookers when the kiddies turn 21.

[BurnFirst]

Why do they assume it's bad parenting. Idiots.

[Parlay44]

My friend's mom did that for him senior year of high school. She wasn't a stripper as much as a belly dancer.
It wasn't a big deal. She didn't get naked or anything. They were Portuguese. It was a cultural thing.
Just a big party. Nobody had an issue with it.

[Giovonny]

On my 21st birthday my dad took me to this bunny ranch

[2Wycked]

Hilarious. Hamster is strong in that article.

[Therapsid]

If the cops are having such trouble "determining" whether or not a crime was committed, they should let it go. Otherwise we should start calling them the nannies with guns they've become.

It's interesting that they'd not also consider the strippers, and not just the bowling alley and parents, culpable. If it a single mom hired male strippers for her adolescent girls birthday I wonder if they'd overlook their role in it.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

I wish the strippers didn't have to have those tattoos, but then they're strippers and I guess expecting class is barking up the wrong tree.

As for men "objectifying women..." that's biological -- men's brains are wired to seek out new women. It would be great if people would post this link or quote from the article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scien...genes.html

[Kabal]

(11-16-2012 12:17 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

I've always found the objectification argument dubious. These women aren't forced to disrobe for the entertainment of others. It's a choice. Maybe it's a hard choice for some, but a choice nonetheless. Be they with or without clothes, men always see women as sexual objects. Strippers, hookers and nude models are simply stripping away the bullshit and giving us what we want anyway.

That's what they're afraid of, that the kids might figure out that:

Men see attractive women as sexual objects, and said women like it that way--it's a source of unique power and status--otherwise they would need to depend on things like hard work and accomplishments to make money, gain status, and/or be lavished attention (in other words, they'd be grinding it out like men and/or ugly chicks).

Girls love being slampieces.

[aphelion]

Probably nothing illegal happened, but let's not kid ourselves, that was bad parenting.

[Mage]

That's bad parenting for two reasons:

1)Teaches the boy to spend money on women.

2)Teaches the boy to spend money on women who just tease and don't even have sex with him.

If they had given him a book on pickup techniques or Sperm Wars or something like that - now it would be a good parenting.

[Architekt]

My mate and his sister have very close birthdays, so they celebrated their 16th and 18ths together. The sister's boyfriend decided it would be a great idea to hire a stripper.. Made for some serious lulz at least