Help
This topic is locked
Men's Clubs
This would be under the Places Directory.
Description:
Men's Clubs. Strip, topless, bikini.
Category Proposal: Men's Clubs
#3
Posted 15 August 2005 - 11:44 PM
lol, the first thing I thought of was swanky gentlemans clubs with old guys in smoking jackets. Guess I was off base!
#5
Posted 16 August 2005 - 04:50 AM
<EDIT> see post below
This post has been edited by Special Ed: 16 August 2005 - 06:07 AM
#6
Posted 16 August 2005 - 04:59 AM
Speaking as a youth member of the forum-
I thought this was supposed to be family friendly? How'd you like to stumble upon this website when it goes public, think it's a cool concept, download all the waypoi-er, marks into your GPSr without looking at the page (assuming there is a checkbox download method like gc.com has) and find yourself at Bo Peep's?
Blue
I thought this was supposed to be family friendly? How'd you like to stumble upon this website when it goes public, think it's a cool concept, download all the waypoi-er, marks into your GPSr without looking at the page (assuming there is a checkbox download method like gc.com has) and find yourself at Bo Peep's?
Blue
#9
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:07 AM
The brain is alive and functioning now....
As a guy I love the idea but as a father, not good...
Hmm... I guess a no vote should be entered.
As a guy I love the idea but as a father, not good...
Hmm... I guess a no vote should be entered.
#10
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:08 AM
Webfoot, on Aug 16 2005, 08:23 AM, said:
I vote no. This isn't a family friendly waymark.
We need a special "Adult Section" hidden behind the swinging doors.
#12
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:14 AM
you have to kidding! if someone wants to find a "gentleman's club", they can look in the phone book. i'm sure all the women would be real happy about that kind of category. don't guys have enough trouble getting their wives involved?
i can see it now. "honey, i just need the dollar bills so i can find a few waymarks. i'll take a cab home.".
sheesh!
i'm sure all the women would be real happy about that kind of category. don't guys have enough trouble getting their wives involved? i can see it now. "honey, i just need the dollar bills so i can find a few waymarks. i'll take a cab home.".
sheesh!
#13
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:21 AM
uperdooper, on Aug 16 2005, 08:14 AM, said:
you have to kidding! if someone wants to find a "gentleman's club", they can look in the phone book. i'm sure all the women would be real happy about that kind of category. don't guys have enough trouble getting their wives involved?
i can see it now. "honey, i just need the dollar bills so i can find a few waymarks. i'll take a cab home.".
sheesh!
i'm sure all the women would be real happy about that kind of category. don't guys have enough trouble getting their wives involved? i can see it now. "honey, i just need the dollar bills so i can find a few waymarks. i'll take a cab home.".
sheesh!
There are ladies' clubs too. Go start your own category
#14
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:22 AM
There's already caches at some of these places, like this one: http://www.geocachin....aspx?wp=GCNECB
#17
Posted 16 August 2005 - 08:31 AM
YES... I see no reason why not... simply a collection of waypoints. No need to go inside.
#18
Posted 16 August 2005 - 08:45 AM
You've got to be 18 to actually enter the club, right?
As long as there aren't pics of the girls next to each post, I don't see how this could offend.
I think it's a good idea. I may even have a mark or two to get you started....
(And BTW, McDonalds, which already has a category, is FAR less healthy for your children than stumbling across the name of some gentleman's club....)
As long as there aren't pics of the girls next to each post, I don't see how this could offend.
I think it's a good idea. I may even have a mark or two to get you started....
(And BTW, McDonalds, which already has a category, is FAR less healthy for your children than stumbling across the name of some gentleman's club....)
#19
Posted 16 August 2005 - 09:06 AM
some_guy, on Aug 16 2005, 08:45 AM, said:
You've got to be 18 to actually enter the club, right?
most of the time you have to be 21 because they are bars... and bars already have a category... I see no reason not to add this category.
As a family website we should keep the content PG, but the names and addresses of these types of clubs can already be found in the phone book.... in other words I think the topic while being adult in nature is actually pretty tame.
Thats just my two cents... I know many will disagree with me... probably including TPTB.
#20
Posted 16 August 2005 - 09:17 AM
haven't we had enough problems lately with the image geocaching is trying project? all we need is for anti-caching groups to see a listing for "gentleman's clubs".
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
#21
Posted 16 August 2005 - 10:20 AM
uperdooper, on Aug 16 2005, 10:17 AM, said:
haven't we had enough problems lately with the image geocaching is trying project? all we need is for anti-caching groups to see a listing for "gentleman's clubs".
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
But it would give me another legitimate reason for visiting the nudie bars when I go up to Canada. Then I could go inside and explain to the dancers, over drinks, why some people find their performances to be demeaning to woman rather than an expression of individual freedom & artistic expression.
#22
Posted 16 August 2005 - 10:20 AM
No thanks. Take it to Terracaching. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
#23
Posted 16 August 2005 - 11:05 AM
uperdooper, on Aug 16 2005, 12:17 PM, said:
haven't we had enough problems lately with the image geocaching is trying project? all we need is for anti-caching groups to see a listing for "gentleman's clubs".
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
But this isn't geocaching...it's waymarking...why are bars ok and not gentlemen's clubs?
Are people using the site because they're alcoholics?
This post has been edited by KoosKoos: 16 August 2005 - 11:06 AM
#24
Posted 16 August 2005 - 11:21 AM
KoosKoos, on Aug 16 2005, 03:05 PM, said:
uperdooper, on Aug 16 2005, 12:17 PM, said:
haven't we had enough problems lately with the image geocaching is trying project? all we need is for anti-caching groups to see a listing for "gentleman's clubs".
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
i wouldn't want a "ladies club" in here either. i just don't see it as a plus for this site.
But this isn't geocaching...it's waymarking...why are bars ok and not gentlemen's clubs?
Are people using the site because they're alcoholics?
it's still sponsored by Groundspeak. it's an image thing. it doesn't have a very positive image. if someone can't see the difference between this, and a bar or brewpub, then that's their problem.
#25
Posted 16 August 2005 - 11:30 AM
uperdooper, on Aug 16 2005, 12:17 PM, said:
"look! we were right. geocachers are just as depraved as we thought they were. first graveyards and now this!"
first graves
then plane crash sites
then casinos
Hmm...I guess different people have different definitions of depraved...my point being that any of these could be considered "bad taste" by some people in the general public who are against certain locations.
#26
Posted 16 August 2005 - 11:35 AM
The Cow Spots, on Aug 16 2005, 11:20 AM, said:
No thanks. Take it to Terracaching. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
I agree. No need for trash.
#27
Posted 16 August 2005 - 11:36 AM
I am OK with the idea of adult oriented waymarks. I don't see waymarking as quite the same as caching. So perhaps there is room to push the envelope a bit. I would say OK to it.
#28
Posted 16 August 2005 - 11:40 AM
I'm flippin' my collar up, puttin on my shades and pullin my cap down.
YES!!!
YES!!!
#30
Posted 16 August 2005 - 02:20 PM
We vote a resounding NO!
This has already been a hot topic on Geochums, our northeast Ohio forum. Some say it is no different than an ad in a phone book or on the sports page of the newspaper. Here is our thought:
"Well, I don't know who said it first, but in the words of some famous person "Two wrongs don't make a right". Kids pictures and family photos are plastered all over Geocaching.com. They pride themselves on being family friendly. The yellow pages don't. Heaven knows the sports world doesn't! Not with the behavior of the major sports figures these days. Therein lies the difference.
If you want to go to a gentleman's club in any city then by all means use the phone book in that city, or do a search on the Internet for one. Why should this have to invade every aspect of life including our sport?
Some may say that this type of thing is "everywhere we look so you can't shelter your kids". I say that it is only everywhere we look if WE let it be everywhere we look. There is no reason it has to be on this site. There are plenty of other wonderful, exciting, artistic, etc places that can be featured. Why not just concentrate on those. There certainly are enough places already where the "seedy" side of life can be viewed or researched."
This has already been a hot topic on Geochums, our northeast Ohio forum. Some say it is no different than an ad in a phone book or on the sports page of the newspaper. Here is our thought:
"Well, I don't know who said it first, but in the words of some famous person "Two wrongs don't make a right". Kids pictures and family photos are plastered all over Geocaching.com. They pride themselves on being family friendly. The yellow pages don't. Heaven knows the sports world doesn't! Not with the behavior of the major sports figures these days. Therein lies the difference.
If you want to go to a gentleman's club in any city then by all means use the phone book in that city, or do a search on the Internet for one. Why should this have to invade every aspect of life including our sport?
Some may say that this type of thing is "everywhere we look so you can't shelter your kids". I say that it is only everywhere we look if WE let it be everywhere we look. There is no reason it has to be on this site. There are plenty of other wonderful, exciting, artistic, etc places that can be featured. Why not just concentrate on those. There certainly are enough places already where the "seedy" side of life can be viewed or researched."
#31
Posted 16 August 2005 - 02:26 PM
Well, If my vote counted, I would have to vote no. Just my 2 cents.....
Baptist Deacon
Baptist Deacon
#32
Posted 16 August 2005 - 04:50 PM
NO
It's just not an appropriate person/place/thing to have as part of waymarking.
It's just not an appropriate person/place/thing to have as part of waymarking.
#33
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:39 PM
Well Super Size Me.
There are few things as sickening as letting our society swell up and explode on the fatty portions served up by Mr. Ronald McDonald, yet that is one of the first categories of waymarks.
If we're mapping locations as mundane as McDonalds, I assume we'll have Walgreen's, too (more useful) and supermarkets and dry cleaners and public restrooms and chinese restaurants and sandwich counters. And gun stores, too please.
Why exactly would we exclude some legal businesses?
(Strip clubs are family friendly - your money goes to support their kids, you know.)
There are few things as sickening as letting our society swell up and explode on the fatty portions served up by Mr. Ronald McDonald, yet that is one of the first categories of waymarks.
If we're mapping locations as mundane as McDonalds, I assume we'll have Walgreen's, too (more useful) and supermarkets and dry cleaners and public restrooms and chinese restaurants and sandwich counters. And gun stores, too please.
Why exactly would we exclude some legal businesses?
(Strip clubs are family friendly - your money goes to support their kids, you know.)
#35
Posted 16 August 2005 - 06:58 PM
Quote
Well Super Size Me. There are few things as sickening as letting our society swell up and explode on the fatty portions served up by Mr. Ronald McDonald, yet that is one of the first categories of waymarks.
As our thoughts weren't requested about McD's - all I can do is respond to the category being flown up the flagpole here.
Granted - I"m imposing my own moral standards here, but I happen to believe that certain places just are inappropriate for family oriented games.
JMHO.
#37
Posted 17 August 2005 - 10:40 AM
Would Hooter's be in this catagory or would another one have to be developed? It is a legitimate and family establishment. Where's the line in comparison?
#38
Posted 17 August 2005 - 11:45 AM
Yamahammer, on Aug 17 2005, 12:40 PM, said:
Would Hooter's be in this catagory or would another one have to be developed? It is a legitimate and family establishment. Where's the line in comparison?
I've taken my kids to Hooters several times. There is no age limit there, and they show much less than girls at the beach.
Should the beach be restricted to the adults only section?
#39
Posted 17 August 2005 - 03:57 PM
I don't see any harm in a category like this. It's not like people would be logging pictures of "dancers" inside the clubs or anything. I can drive down certain streets in any town and see a marquis for a stripclub. They're there, out in the open. And while I'm not a patron, there is some amusement to be had in some of the signs. So is there a harm in logging these? Not in my opinion. Show me an 8 year old who has never heard of the term stripper. Most probably don't understand the concept, but they've seen the club signs and/or billboards for these type of places while riding in the car. Kids younger than that who don't already know what a stripper is, well having a waymark category for it isn't really going to expose it, now is it?
No, I would never take my kids to locate these places and take photos of the marquis (actually, it's not likely I would do this without my kids even, but there are others who are interested in doing so apparently.) But do I think this should be banned as a category? No. H-A-R-M-L-E-S-S.
No, I would never take my kids to locate these places and take photos of the marquis (actually, it's not likely I would do this without my kids even, but there are others who are interested in doing so apparently.) But do I think this should be banned as a category? No. H-A-R-M-L-E-S-S.
#40
Posted 17 August 2005 - 11:27 PM
SerenityNow, on Aug 16 2005, 02:20 PM, said:
Some may say that this type of thing is "everywhere we look so you can't shelter your kids". I say that it is only everywhere we look if WE let it be everywhere we look. There is no reason it has to be on this site. There are plenty of other wonderful, exciting, artistic, etc places that can be featured. Why not just concentrate on those.
First, if it's only where you look if you let it be, use that same blind eye here. Second, life is more than the wonderful, exciting, artistic places that some people would like to limit it to. Life includes scrap heaps, construction areas, waste water recycling plants, and, yes, strip clubs. Just because they exist doesn't mean you have to go there.
And if they want to add an adults only section to accomodate this type of target, fine.
#41
Posted 18 August 2005 - 01:38 AM
This should help clarify a bit:
From http://forums.Ground...howtopic=105962
Jeremy, on Aug 16 2005, 07:17 PM, said:
We had an inclination that one of the first category requests would be something taboo. In fact Places > Entertainment category is currently using the joke icon we had for hooker corners. For the first iteration of waymarking we decided not to allow any taboo categories but even so you may end up seeing them in categories like bars anyway. I mean some bars are also strip clubs, right?
So, considering that the GPS wielding community of geocachers is used to a family-friendly, the question is posed - What is an inappropriate waymark category and should they be allowed in some fashion? Yes, I expect this to be a very popular topic.
Here are my thoughts:
1. During the beta period, we should keep this family friendly for the sole fact that the site isn't designed to handle adult material and filter it from members of the family.
2. Features (whatever they may be) will be created to designate categories as "family friendly" - to maintain this rating the category manager should agree to uphold a set of requirements to make the category meet these requirements.
3. Reporting methods are in place for waymarkers (new word!) to report, ala craigs list style, waymarks to be labeled "inappropriate" or "miscategorized" or "spam" (or whatever). After some determined threshold of reports the listing is autoarchived by the site.
Additionaly we could adopt ratings systems like the ESRB for certain categories. From there you would have to put a cookie on your machine to allow you access to certain ratings, or you would need to be logged in and have your account set to allow this level of material.
Your thoughts?
So, considering that the GPS wielding community of geocachers is used to a family-friendly, the question is posed - What is an inappropriate waymark category and should they be allowed in some fashion? Yes, I expect this to be a very popular topic.
Here are my thoughts:
1. During the beta period, we should keep this family friendly for the sole fact that the site isn't designed to handle adult material and filter it from members of the family.
2. Features (whatever they may be) will be created to designate categories as "family friendly" - to maintain this rating the category manager should agree to uphold a set of requirements to make the category meet these requirements.
3. Reporting methods are in place for waymarkers (new word!) to report, ala craigs list style, waymarks to be labeled "inappropriate" or "miscategorized" or "spam" (or whatever). After some determined threshold of reports the listing is autoarchived by the site.
Additionaly we could adopt ratings systems like the ESRB for certain categories. From there you would have to put a cookie on your machine to allow you access to certain ratings, or you would need to be logged in and have your account set to allow this level of material.
Your thoughts?
From http://forums.Ground...howtopic=105962
#42
Posted 16 September 2005 - 12:56 PM
Thumbs down on this - this is supposed to be family freindly!
#43
Posted 16 September 2005 - 03:22 PM
I am 100% for it. If you dont want to waymark it, guess what....DONT!
#46
Posted 17 September 2005 - 05:33 PM
Bear Paughs, on Aug 17 2005, 04:57 PM, said:
I don't see any harm in a category like this. It's not like people would be logging pictures of "dancers" inside the clubs or anything. I can drive down certain streets in any town and see a marquis for a stripclub. They're there, out in the open. And while I'm not a patron, there is some amusement to be had in some of the signs. So is there a harm in logging these? Not in my opinion. Show me an 8 year old who has never heard of the term stripper. Most probably don't understand the concept, but they've seen the club signs and/or billboards for these type of places while riding in the car. Kids younger than that who don't already know what a stripper is, well having a waymark category for it isn't really going to expose it, now is it?
No, I would never take my kids to locate these places and take photos of the marquis (actually, it's not likely I would do this without my kids even, but there are others who are interested in doing so apparently.) But do I think this should be banned as a category? No. H-A-R-M-L-E-S-S.
No, I would never take my kids to locate these places and take photos of the marquis (actually, it's not likely I would do this without my kids even, but there are others who are interested in doing so apparently.) But do I think this should be banned as a category? No. H-A-R-M-L-E-S-S.
I have an 8 year old and an 11 year old. If you asked them what a stripper was, they'd have no clue. Not every town allows strip clubs. We have none within 3 hours of us.
#47
Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:48 AM
To quote another post...
I vote no. This isn't a family friendly waymark.
I vote no. This isn't a family friendly waymark.
#49
Posted 18 September 2005 - 01:49 PM
garri, on Sep 17 2005, 06:18 PM, said:
Men's club are disrespectful to women
How so? the wonen inside are there by their own choice. No one forced them.
#50
Posted 18 September 2005 - 02:12 PM
Team GPSaxophone, on Sep 18 2005, 02:49 PM, said:
garri, on Sep 17 2005, 06:18 PM, said:
Men's club are disrespectful to women
How so? the wonen inside are there by their own choice. No one forced them.
