I am outraged that they would treat you, a valuable, currently non-paying customer that way. Allow me to assure you that when the revolution comes, lap dances and slot machines will be plentiful and free, as they are in every socialist paradise.

Hi again,
You’re confused. This was about W.A. llg at the Hustler club, not Blaser at Scores (and in that case, obviously the facts were disputed). Currently, the issues for this issue remain whether he had the capacity to form a contract; there is, last time I checked, no allegation of fraud, just that he was not capable of making financial decisions. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that fraud is okay, so that is a straw-club; therefore it does not, even remotely prove any point that was in contention.

What you have been suggesting is not that “fraud is bad” (because, duh) but that a) there should be a limit of $10,000 that a customer can spend in a strip club and b) that after a customer reached a spending limit of $18,000 that dancers and the bar should provide free services for the rest of the night. I also don’t think anyone has suggested or argued that strip club services are NOT overpriced – I mean, there are lots of guys who think stripclubs are overpriced and they deal with that by not going to them, and power to them. We don’t care if people think stripclubs are overpriced. The objection comes out when it is suggested that a) because you think they are overpriced it is okay or less bad to to purchase a service and decline to pay your bill, b) that because you think it is overpriced that we should work for free and c) because you think it is overpriced, other people should have a cap on what they spend.

I tried demanding free slot machine time at the casino, since I spent so much money there already, and it didn’t work. They told me to leave. Wah! 🙁

Maybe you should take more care to distinguish between the workers and the management. Especially if you’re going to use an anti-capitalist critique here. Who do you believe is being greedy – the management which allows exorbitant tabs to be run up (or fraudulently charged up), or the people giving the lapdances?

Really, it takes some nerve to cry “capitalist greed!!!” and then expect the WORKERS to pay for that greed with providing services for FREE.

A scenario you described:
“”How about saying to the guy, ‘Sir, you have spent $18,000 tonight in our champagne rooms. The 3 dancers you have been with have made $5,000 each, just from you. The club has profited another $3,000 from you. Thank you for the $18,000 in total and absolute profit. For the rest of the night, the lapdances are on us. We appreciate your business.” “”

– You make no distinction between management and non-management, and you give management total power in the scenario to demand unpaid labor from the workers. THAT sounds more like the typical capitalist attitude than a worker who expects to get paid for the time spent on the job.

You also said:
“The dancers didn’t have to purchase additional outfits or put out ANYTHING OTHER THAN TIME.”

How much time are you willing to spend working without getting paid? How much time is that lawyer in your example willing to work without getting paid?

If your beef is with the high cost, complain about the high cost if you must, but expecting workers to provide unpaid labor because of management policy is… it’s just wrong is what it is.

First, one very key fact: the guy involved is no ordinary joe. His name is Mitchell Blaser and he is the chief financial officer for the American Division of the giant Swiss Re insurance outfit.

So according to the article from The Smoking Gun, the guy and his friend decide to check out Scores in New York City. The club asks for a card to open a tab and Blaser hands over his American Express card.

The article notes the club says that Blaser ran up the 28K tab by “ordering five magnums of Clos Du Mesnil Champagne, at $3,200 a bottle, and partaking in hundreds of $20 lap dances.”

According to Blaser, at the end of the night, when he asked to close out his tab, he was presented with a bill for $8,615. He complained that the bill was incorrect and did not accurately represent services rendered. Blaser says the club told him, if he did not sign, he would not get his card back.

He complained again that the charges were inacurrate and the club repeated if he did not sign, he would not get his card back.

Blaser signed and left the club.

The same night his card was charged again, after he had left the club, for an additional $4,000, making the total charged $12,615.

Blaser then called American Express to complain and was told his card had been charged a total of 4 times the previous evening, for a total of $28,021.06.

If you can’t see fraud or greed or deceit in the jungle of extortion, God bless you.

Also I never get why some people get so hot and bothered with the assertion that stripclubs are astronomically overpriced or that someone would want to sue because he wasn’t satisfied with the service he got from a lapdancer. People sue all the time because they are not satisfied with the service they paid for. Landlords and tenants, car repair shops and their customers, doctors and patients. So a guy getting a 28K bill from a stripcub has every right to sue if he feels he did not get what he was charged for.

It’s the American way.

The bottom line is this, barring provable fraud, this gentleman is out $28k.

To respond to Bijou, why is this a typical capitalist response? You are making the assumption that this guy did not willingly and knowingly spend this money. I could think of any number of reasons why he might have racked up that tab. Perhaps he was entertaining business associates? Perhaps it was a bachelor party? Also, we are assuming this is out of the ordinary for such a club, perhaps this is a typical of this club that high-rollers come in. Why should an establishment nanny it’s customers? If you are a bar owner and a high-roller comes in and starts purchasing goods and services from you, why would you stop this person from doing so? If you want to be a big boy and play at the deep end of the pool, you had best know your limits…

I like to imagine I have an extremely well developed sense of fairness – but it never dictates that I, my peers or my colleagues must provide services that we normally charge for, for free. “Fairness” only dictates a full and free understanding of the cost and service to both parties. It is in no way fair to me or my peers to say that “well you’ve made enough money – although you are still providing this service, you’ve maxed out what I think your earning potential should be. Not only can you not make more money tonight, but you have to keep providing the service, for free because I judge the amount you’ve made tonight to be in excess of what you deserve.” We are not indentured servants, and our pay is not based on when we change “outfits”. What a peculiar sense of “fairness” you have.

What I am talking about this is not actually capitalist – this is not based on any advanced or complicated economic theory. If we both have the capacity to form a contract for a legal service, we have the right to form it, and no matter how much you stress that the bar and dancers have made too much money for your taste, that is what you are suggesting we should not be able to do.

I think it this is interesting actually – that instead of discussing the topic of the post – a person who is/could be/may be INCAPABLE of forming a contract, we are, in essence (as Charlotte points out) discussing when sex workers have made too much money. I think this is quite revealing, actually, of where a lot of stigma against sex workers still lies.

It’s only “poor guy” if, as Irony explained, he’s too drunk to be able to make decisions for himself, and the club knows or suspects that he’s at that point of intoxication. I just got back from seeing a client who owns his own jet. Would you really feel like “poor guy” if he were to walk into a strip club totally sober, buy everyone in the club their own champagne bottle, tip all the dancers in hundreds, and walked out six hours later about 28k poorer? $28,000 is like a sneeze to him. That doesn’t mean people can or should take advantage of him when he’s nearly black out drunk. It would still be wrong. But it also doesn’t meant that it’s inherently unfair to charge him for a variety of prices and products purchased when the price was already set when he walked in. If it were too expensive for him, he could have left. He doesn’t have an inalienable right to infinite VIP strip club dances at the club of his choice for a price that pleases him.

I think the crux of this pushback is the stereotype that 1) sexual services should be sold cheaply because selling sex is a cheap, trashy thing to do (why are you personally the one who decides that the “activity”—VIP dances, I guess you’re referring to?—is overpriced? Oh right, because they don’t have that “VALUE”) and 2) strip clubs are gross, dive-y places that don’t deserve high profit margins. Do you also expect vendors like Emirates Airlines and Porsche and any Vegas casino to tell their customers “oh gracious, you’ve already spent enough with us. We simply cannot allow you to spend anymore.”

More importantly, how is it fair for someone to come into an establishment, partake freely, and then decide not to pay? It’s not. The options for overpriced products or services is 1) don’t buy or 2) buy it and live with the price, not 3) buy a lot and hope that the people you’re working with get tired of making money so they don’t charge you. No one has the right to overpriced goods, even if they or you think the seller is immoral for overcharging. It might not be fair that I can’t afford to take an 18 hour flight in ultra first class, but the response isn’t to book the flight and then deny the charges. The presence of greediness doesn’t automatically render the other person a victim. What I’m disagreeing with is your equation that strip clubs = greedy, therefore the man doesn’t have to pay for things he purchased. I wouldn’t disagree with an equation like that strip club is greedy, so the man can spend his money elsewhere or not go to any strip club at all. But thanks for trying to portray Irony and I as monsters instead of people with logic that differs from yours. Did you even read her piece? The thrust of it was not “milk the guy dry.”

And instead of looking at it as putting a cap on earnings, think more positive. It’s a way to show appreciation for a customer who has already spent an obscene amount of money on an activity that is already astronomically overpriced.

How about saying to the guy, ‘Sir, you have spent $18,000 tonight in our champagne rooms. The 3 dancers you have been with have made $5,000 each, just from you. The club has profited another $3,000 from you. Thank you for the $18,000 in total and absolute profit. For the rest of the night, the lapdances are on us. We appreciate your business.”

The club didn’t have to hire additional security to service the customer. The dancers didn’t have to purchase additional outfits or put out anything other than time. They were drinking with the guy, flirting with him and passing time. For that he must pony up $28,000??

Where is your sense of fairness??