One measure of how easy it is to attack strip clubs is how rarely you hear the other candidate take an opposing stand. What are the chances you'd hear, "The sheriff is wasting your tax money trying to take away your right to be entertained and stimulated by naked girls." Not very likely. It's a built-in advantage of incumbency. Little wonder that they use it.
The main reason this stuff happens before an election is because it generates a lot of free publicity. If the news media wasn't so taken by anything that has a sexual element none of it would happen. So if you must blame someone, blame it on the news media.
The comments about religion are interesting. I wonder what would happen if some group started a religion who's rituals included nudity and contact. But I guess they couldn't charge for it other than to pass a collection plate.
I guess your view of the average voter is a lot more cynical than mine. I actually think that anyone who BOTHERS to vote, also bothers to ... well ... think.
Why? Because it's EASY. It's the politician's version of that button in the Staples commercials, only it's labelled VOTES. Cleaning up corruption in city hall is hard work, and might put your supporters in prison. It's not about covering up tits. That's what matters to us, but to the average voter, it's a news story that commands their attention for all of 15 seconds and translates into "Good, they're doing something to limit sleaze in my backyard".
But why election-time? And why strip clubs? Wouldn't cleaning up the prostitute stroll, or the corruption in city hall, engender more votes? I just don't understand the fascination that the "general public" (and, by extension, the politicians who want to get elected by them) has for covering up breasts. What is it, exactly, that the existence of human breasts DOES to them?
I think the reason strip clubs are such a popular target at election time isn't so much religion or legislating morality as a very primitive appeal to law and order. It's an easy, no-risk way to make headlines that look like they're "cleaning up" bad places that endanger the well-being of families, neighborhoods, children and other things that are nice. It plays beautifully on TV, of course. And there's just enough truth in it to avoid a backlash for political pandering.
They just need to leave the clubs alone; and while they are at it, why are cops on the beaches measuring bikini tops and bottoms? Shouldn't my tax dollars go toward stopping things like struggling underpaid convenience store clerks being shot in the face for $40? These people need to get a clue. You can't legislate morality.
Not to come down to hard on you, but your statement, "My apologies if I offended anyone here. My statements were not directed at you literally and no harm was meant.", are a major problem in this country. We worry much to much about "offending" others. Like this post, if it offends you, that is your problem. I just state my opinion, and it is up to you to deal with it.
I agree. Why do elections bring out hate-mongers? It seems such a strange time to go publicize just how fascinated you are with covering up titties. "Mmmm, lets go find some that are uncovered! Are there any in here? How 'bout HERE? ... Mmm, keep on' lookin'! An' VOTE FER ME."
I think you all know, that I'm a dedicated strip-club-goer. I like 'em. But, I have to say, I just don't buy the argument that a dancer's "right" to perform (or perform nude; or perform on my lap; pr perform nude on my lap) is protected by the US constitution. The legal niceties always put it, that it's a type of self-expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment's right to free speech. But really ... I don't buy the connection at all. Sorry to say. :( Dancers aren't "expressing" something inalienable, the silencing of which might somehow detract from the democratic functioning of our democracy! If you talk to most of them, dancers can't even "express" themselves VERBALLY, much less physically. Their stage performances aren't anything akin to what's protected in the First Amendment, to me.
The argument that I think would really make a case in favor of strip clubbing (heck, of prostitution!) wouldn't be the free speech argument. I think it should be the free RELIGION argument. Religions tend to ban public displays of sexuality (or ANY sexuality, for that matter); most opponents of strip clubs oppose us largely because of their own (usually Protestant fundamentalist Christian) religious beliefs; therefore, the laws banning stripping are a type of imposition of one group's religion onto another. Seems more of a slam-dunk than the free-speech argument, to me at least. And, it would really put the opposition in a difficult position, of having to publicly disavow either their hate of strip clubs or their luvv of Jayzus H. Christ. I'd like to see 'em screw up their faces over THAT one. :)
I recognize the major figures in the battle on the linked-to news page -- Luke Lirot and Joe Redner, up against the powers-that-be all over again! I think Redner relishes this type of fight. For him, it's nothing but free publicity. I mentioned in another thread, that when Tampa previously cracked down on lapping in the jurisdiction that covers his club Mons Venus, he pro-actively fought it, deliberately posting on his big highway sign things like "Still lapping!" and offering to pay any customer's or dancer's court costs or legal fines. Eventually it "went away" like all these things do.
An important point that I note in the story, is that this new law applies to COUNTY but not CITY areas surrounding Tampa. It's the unincorporated rural areas near Tampa, on the East side of Tampa Bay, alone, that are affected. Popular places like Mons Venus and Ybor Strip aren't affected by the new rules. Unpopular ones like the clubs in Clearwater and St. Pete aren't, either.
It's an election year. Look for all kinds of crazy stuff between now and November. In fact you might want to be a little more cautious where you go and what you do for the next few months.
What I don't understand is why the federal and statewide elections that fall on even numbered years should lead to all this grandstanding. The ordinances and crackdowns we always get are local actions, and those elections are as likely to be in odd numbered years. I guess we should just be thankful it's only ever other year.
A city ordinance enacted this year in Grand Rapids, Michigan recenly survived a court challenge, which will be even more strict than the one in Florida. Thing is, Grand Rapids had only a few lame, no contact clubs to begin with. What fuelled the opposition was some dumbass club owner who tried to overreach by opening a big nude club near the downtown hotels. A real in your face kind of move. However, he didn't have his ducks lined up very well. The accounts I saw of the court hearings made it sound like his attorney was out of his depth, unable to respond to the most predictable questions from the judge. He could hae used that Luke Lirot who represents Joe Redner.
15 comments
Latest
Well I am sure glad I didn't offend anyone. LOL Keep up the great input!
The comments about religion are interesting. I wonder what would happen if some group started a religion who's rituals included nudity and contact. But I guess they couldn't charge for it other than to pass a collection plate.
Silly me.
Not to come down to hard on you, but your statement, "My apologies if I offended anyone here. My statements were not directed at you literally and no harm was meant.", are a major problem in this country. We worry much to much about "offending" others. Like this post, if it offends you, that is your problem. I just state my opinion, and it is up to you to deal with it.
I think you all know, that I'm a dedicated strip-club-goer. I like 'em. But, I have to say, I just don't buy the argument that a dancer's "right" to perform (or perform nude; or perform on my lap; pr perform nude on my lap) is protected by the US constitution. The legal niceties always put it, that it's a type of self-expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment's right to free speech. But really ... I don't buy the connection at all. Sorry to say. :( Dancers aren't "expressing" something inalienable, the silencing of which might somehow detract from the democratic functioning of our democracy! If you talk to most of them, dancers can't even "express" themselves VERBALLY, much less physically. Their stage performances aren't anything akin to what's protected in the First Amendment, to me.
The argument that I think would really make a case in favor of strip clubbing (heck, of prostitution!) wouldn't be the free speech argument. I think it should be the free RELIGION argument. Religions tend to ban public displays of sexuality (or ANY sexuality, for that matter); most opponents of strip clubs oppose us largely because of their own (usually Protestant fundamentalist Christian) religious beliefs; therefore, the laws banning stripping are a type of imposition of one group's religion onto another. Seems more of a slam-dunk than the free-speech argument, to me at least. And, it would really put the opposition in a difficult position, of having to publicly disavow either their hate of strip clubs or their luvv of Jayzus H. Christ. I'd like to see 'em screw up their faces over THAT one. :)
I recognize the major figures in the battle on the linked-to news page -- Luke Lirot and Joe Redner, up against the powers-that-be all over again! I think Redner relishes this type of fight. For him, it's nothing but free publicity. I mentioned in another thread, that when Tampa previously cracked down on lapping in the jurisdiction that covers his club Mons Venus, he pro-actively fought it, deliberately posting on his big highway sign things like "Still lapping!" and offering to pay any customer's or dancer's court costs or legal fines. Eventually it "went away" like all these things do.
An important point that I note in the story, is that this new law applies to COUNTY but not CITY areas surrounding Tampa. It's the unincorporated rural areas near Tampa, on the East side of Tampa Bay, alone, that are affected. Popular places like Mons Venus and Ybor Strip aren't affected by the new rules. Unpopular ones like the clubs in Clearwater and St. Pete aren't, either.