I hate to be the contrarian here, but honestly, remember that APing is not universalizable conduct (if everyone were an APer than blackjack would not be offered by casinos) and those sucker games end up subsidizing AP-able games.
Blackjack indeed is popular because the game has a low house margin and is beatable by card counting. However, the game does have to be profitable for casinos and the game does need to have generally low house edges for basic strategy players.
There are 4 constituencies here;
1) Advantage Players that require a game that is beatable
2) Casinos that need the game to be overall profitable
3) Basic strategy players that need a sensible house edge
4) The dumb mass market who are the primary customers
All these groups need to be factored into consideration when deciding whether a set of gambling conditions are good or bad.
I should clarify that over the long run, if any of these constituencies screws over the others, the situation will be bad for everyone involved. It is probably fair to say that, these days, Constituency 2 is excessively paranoid about Constiuency 1 and as a result of this is shafting Constituency 3 by hiking house edges (which is also bad for Constituency 4). What is required is balance between all the relevant interests.
That said, my (admittedly somewhat arbitrary) standard for an "acceptable" house edge is 0.5%. Any game over this should not be played (although obviously one should play the lowest edge game one can get, assuming a multitude of games with acceptably low house edges). I also think CSMs CAN be acceptable if the rules are more liberal than an equivalently-priced shoe-dealt game (or the limits are lower than an equivalent-rules shoe dealt game) and the game is played with 4 or 5 decks and there is a 1 deck discard tray (this provides variance, which makes the game more exciting).
If we add in a Party Pit to the equation, then we have a situation where it is proper to raise the house edge as a payment for the utility provided by the eye-candy.
6:5? I think that is too extreme, honestly. But I think in the case of a Party Pit, a house edge approaching 1% is fair payment. So a 7:5 payout on an H17 8D LS RSA DA2 (HE: approx 0.9%) game is, in my judgment, a fair tradeoff for the utility provided by the eye candy.
I should add that I think any single casino should offer games suited for all consitutencies, and I think that making one's entire blackjack selection "party pit" is a foolish strategy over the long term.
Would I personally play a party pit game? Probably not. I'm a stingy gambler and a house-edge fundamentalist and if I want to see some eye candy I'd go to a specialist establishment (although I am certainly contemplating a visit to the Playboy Club at the Palms... it might be H17 @ 25 mins, but the rules are otherwise liberal and I'd consider the H17 a reasonable tradeoff for the atmosphere).
But my definition of a "reasonable gamble" is not everyone elses.
Also, as to the "I only tolerate topless dealers if the dealers are female," what about opposite-sex-attracted (i.e. straight or bi) women who play blackjack? I'm sure several of them would enjoy a bit of fanservice here and there. Same applies to same-sex-attracted (i.e. gay or bi) men. From a business perspective, Fanservice For Everybody is a profitable approach.