From what I am hearing from your comment, you believe that if the majority of an organized strip club are opposed to, as you say, "going further" sexually, their beliefs should prevail over those who have no problem with "going further".  Even if "going further" can be done safely and even if the majority of clients (who remember, are the ones that actually allow for all of the workers' existence to begin with) would have no problem with "going further"??? I would say to that that if the majority of dancers really felt that way, then they could simply insist explictly to their clients that they would not "go further" and that if their clients wanted that kind of behavior, then they were free to go to those who freely offered such. But to criticize and basically outcast those willing and wishing to "go further" as the "minority" deviating from the "majority"??  That's not only quite reactionary in my personal view; it's actually the exact opposite of "sex positive".  Indeed, it is the heart of sex negativism to impose arbitrary sexual restrictions on dancers merely because they happen to be a numerical "minority".

And to justify this in the name of "labor rights" as if labor was only responsive to the needs of the "majority" or that personal choice should be reduced down to what "the majority" imposes on the rest: I'm sorry, Kerwynk, but I find that hardly either progressive or an expression of "labor rights" trumping "sexual rights".  Frankly, I find it to be quite the opposite: "sexual rights" of individual choice hardly means a "narrow reduction" of worker's conditions, but it enhances the labor rights of all by offering diverse practices and choices, and by easing the pressure of having those not wanting to go so far to do so.

Now, these changes might have been imposed by management as a way to make more money for themselves, and those who didn't like the new rules had every right to challenge them by whatever means.  But what if the opposite had been true, and the workers were the ones who wanted to "go further", but were blocked by the fear of management that such would bring in the authorities, which would threaten their profits??  Would the "sexual rights" of the workers be trumped by the labor rights" then??

And this statement of yours practically horrifies me:

Yes, people should have rights to do all sorts of things, but that doesn't mean that doing a particular behavior in a particular environment should automatically be OK.

Ahhhh...are you sure you're in the right venue, Kerwynk??  I thought that this was a forum for expanding sexual expression, not constraining or prejudging it. 

The only conditions whether an act or behavior should be judged as "OK" or not should be the degree of mutual consent and respect, and the degree to which the worker is adequatedly and fully conpensated for his/her efforts. That type of statement you just said belongs with the Religious Right or the antiporn feminists, not in a forum seeking a broadening of sexual expression.

Sorry for dropping a stinkbomb here, Elizabeth and all, but I just can't keep silent when I hear stuff like this.

Anthony