“What Shirley?”
Shirley wants it noted that they are no longer called ‘strippers’ but are now referred to as ‘exotic dancers’. That makes no sense to me, sounds like false advertising. ‘Exotic Dancing’ is what those Thai ladies with their pointed headdress thingies do. ‘Strippers’ do erotic dances and make their money by removing pieces of clothing one item at a time accompanied by undulating body movements in time with Ravel’s Bolero or some other non-hymnal type music. They should at least have the honesty to call themselves ‘Erotic Dancers’ if the name ‘Strippers’ offends them. Which brings up a good point, if the term ‘Stripper’ offends them, even though that is what they do in public, why do they do it? Strip, I mean. Seems to me that if you don’t want to be called by the title of what you do because it offends you, then you shouldn’t be doing it at all. And besides that the newspaper article referred to the clubs as “strip-clubs”. If the clubs are “strip-clubs” then why aren’t the ladies that work in them by stripping off their clothing, called “strippers”? But I’ve digressed.
Seems that these ladies who remove their clothing for a living want to be considered ‘employees’ of the Clubs in which they undress and not be classed as “independent contractors”. They would then be able to demand at least $7.25 per hour plus their tips for, well, for removing their clothing. Turns out the current system of remuneration of the typical lady that makes a living by removing her clothes in public places is somewhat complex and not to the liking of the ladies, per this lawyer.
This could place the Clubs in somewhat of a Hobson’s choice dilemma since about six of these ‘damsels of delight’ who worked at The Paper Moon Club were arrested last month on charges of prostitution (4) and sexual indecency (2). If the ladies’ status is that of employees, would that now make the Clubs in which they dance brothels, subject to all the laws and legal issues associated with that new business activity? These things can get pretty messy once you open up the can of worms.
The lawyer attempts to make his most telling point, that “some of these ladies are young (unwed?) mothers, just doing the best they can to hold down a job.” If one has somewhat of a suspicious and slightly dirty mind, one might opine that they might possibly be enjoying motherhood due to the things they do that are associated with their profession as dancers who take off their clothing and subsequently get arrested for sexual indecency and prostitution.
Left undefined by said lawyer is the term “best”. What “best” are they doing? Their “best” dance? Their “best” strip, excuse me, “best” removal of their clothing? Their “best” what “to hold down a job”? We need to know this to be more fully empathetic with their artistically “unstatused” plight.
The lawyer is seeking a “class action status” for his lawsuits and already has two ladies for one lawsuit and three ladies, who do this type of “best”, signed up for the other lawsuit. I’m certain that the lawyer is doing this purely for altruistic reasons and not for money or free lap dances, but “two or three” potentially naked ladies doesn’t sound like a lot of ladies to warrant it being a “class action law suit”.
The lawyer states “are just like waitresses, except they’re topless. If these girls had their tops on, we would call them waitresses and they would be paid.” I don’t know where this lawyer dines out, but I’ve yet to find a restaurant where a fully clothed waitress, or per his specs, one with her top on, comes up to the table and begins to gyrate in all types of undulations and gyrations designed to arouse in the customer the insatiable desire to give her a large tip.
But hold on just a minute; our legal “root hog” may just have found an acorn. Now I’ve not been to the “Paper Moon” to witness the work of these two oppressed lawsuit ladies, but it has always been my understanding that ladies so engaged begin their professional act with their clothes on. The lawyer Sanford may have something here. Since they are in some degree clothed at the initiation of their public denuding ritual, could they call themselves “waitresses” per the lawyer’s above allegation and thus qualify as employees? Of course that will offend all those decent women who are employed to merely take food orders and in no way, shape, or form would ever dream of removing their clothes in a public place.
So we need to come up with a more descriptive title for the ladies that practice ritualistic denuding in front of tipsy tipping patrons. We could call them “Waitresses Awaiting Denuding Act-Badly Oppressed Denied Income Enrichment” and refer to them by the acronym “WADA BODIE”. Not an offensive term, doesn’t completely obfuscate their real occupation and desire, plus qualifies them for employment status per their lawyer, and seems to neatly wrap this whole thing up.
It’s amazing what we can accomplish when we put our best minds on a problem! Do you think I should run for Congress?
No comments:
Post a Comment