LMAO at peeps! Think it's obvious though she wasn't wanted for her brain power, I mean, cmon! Haha!

She was smart enough to think of job security... why would she think it was ok to pay her employer instead of her employer paying her? That's just dumb.

It was pretty obvious that the employer was smart. He knew who to take advantage of. And the woman, oh, she could use more common sense. ;)

Well, if you played your cards right, you might would be able to... never mind. I'm not going to finish that sentence. And what's with you and the Slutty McSlutslut stuff lately?

Your question is better directed to the people who work for the Associated Press. I just work with what they give me ;). Or at least, the interesting things they give me.

Ashton King above said "why would she think it was ok to pay her employer instead of her employer paying her?" This is a naive statement. Having worked as a stripper all over the country, I can tell you that this is how it works. Almost all strip charge the strippers to work.

As far as unionizing goes, the only place I've ever heard of being successful is the Lusty Lady in San Francisco. Here is what the Exotic Dancer Alliance says it takes to unionize: http://www.bayswan.org/EDAunionLL.html

@Trixie Racer: I honestly don't appreciate you calling me naive. This was written based on the information I was given and I never professed to know the ins and outs of stripping.

As for my previous statement, I'm standing behind it. It's ludicrous that any stripper should be paying his/her employer. And if it truly is that way at all stripping establishments, then the entire business is ludicrous.

Definition of naive: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naive

Since you are up-front about your occupation as a reporter, there is an expectation that you have researched the topics you blog about. Your comment was naive because you did not realize that paying the club is the norm for the stripping industry. As a regular reader of your blog, my intent wasn't to offend you; it was to correct the misinformation.

Those who posted were also uninformed and may have felt differently had they known that strippers are considered "independent contractors". They are required to rent space in the club to make their own money--just like most manicurists and hairstylist are required to do to work in salons. The "stage fee" charged to a stripper when she goes to work is to pay for use of the club. Most hairstylists pay to "rent a station" in a salon. It's the same thing. For both occupations it is worth it because they are paying to be in a location which brings in customers for them. Independent contractors are self-employed by law.

I know the definition of naive - lack of understanding of a situation. Naive is not the appropriate term for this situation. I believe the term you're looking for is ignorant.

I admit that I was ignorant of the fact that strippers in a sense "rent the pole", but that doesn't change the sentiment of this post or any of my comments.

Regardless of the norm of stripping establishments across the country, I do in fact still believe that paying your employer is crazy. That's all the post was about.

As for your remark about research, this was merely my opinion about a story originally done by a national news network. I was only voicing my opinion about that particular situation.

I'd also like to point out that nowhere in this blog do I profess to be a reporter. I am not, I never have been and I don't plan on being one in the future. I work for a television station, yes, but there are many more professions other than that of a reporter.

And one more thing - you said your intent was not to offend me, only to correct my misinformation. That's all well and good, and I would have interpreted it that way had you not called me naive and thus made me look as if I somehow failed at my job.

Thanks for reading and for the comments.