SAN ANTONIO -- A new ruling means exotic dancers in San Antonio will have to wear bikini tops. And a local lingerie shop operator says that's going to mean less money for dancers who are struggling to make ends meet. Carrie owns Secrets Boutique on Wurzbach Parkway, and she says making dancers wear bikinis on stage will mean less money in their paychecks. Carrie has dressed local erotic dancers since 1983, and she said the city's law that bans pasties will harm the local industry and have a snowball effect on tax revenue from liquor sales. "[Those are] the taxes that we need for our schools," Carrie said. Another dancer asked why customers would want to see someone dancing in a bikini. "Why do they want to go to a strip club to see a girl in a bikini when they can go to the pool to see that?" she said. She's drowning in debt and fears the law will break her. She's considering fleeing to Dallas or Austin to dance for dollars. "A lot of people are just going to relocate," she said. But the city says covering up will help curb crime and violence spawned by sexually oriented businesses. The clubs fought back and sought an injunction to stop enforcement of the rules. "The city's goal of lowering crime all sounds magnificent," said Jame Deegear, a local attorney who has represented local strip clubs in past battles with the city. "Today, it's pasties," Deegear said. "Tomorrow, it's burkas." "These girls are using this money to put themselves through school," Carrie said. "Your bartenders are going to be affected, your waiters are going to be affected, and your deejays." On Monday, a U.S. District Court judge sided with the city by denying the request of local strip clubs to prohibit the city's enforcement.
Replies (22)Latest
Time was (10 years ago) full nudity and FS were common in the Alamo city...
Mrs. Grundy strikes again! The morality police close clubs while raping 8 yo's at home.
Is it me or does it seem more and more localities are hammering down on SCs:
e.g.
Memphis
Arlington, TX (small city that used to have 10+ SCs b/f I left the Dallas area ~3 years ago – the SC closures have been attributed to Cowboys owner Jerry Jones after he opened the new stadium in Arlington – I think there is only 1 or 2 SCs still alive but probably closing at some point IMO)
Seattle
Houston (dancers having to wear pasties now)
Etc.
Use the ballot box to save them.
I agree with tiredtraveler. They need to look at their own lives instead of looking down their nose at people that like to see tits
Persons who try to legislate morality wish with GREAT ferver to impose their moral beliefs & way of life on others. They are TOTALLY convinced their way is ABSOLUTELY the only way.
If persons like Tiredtraveler or crazyjoe dislike the efforts of these people, that won't change things. Use the ballot and vote them out at the next election. If the morality police are NOT elected officials, MAKE damned sure you vote in persons who agree with your stance on morality.
Bellyaching on TUSCL won't save a Club.
Says the moron who shouts "Ban guns!' every chance he gets.
Life is complex jester214. You can't always fit it into the box you want it in.
^^^^^^^^^^ says imam alucard. in his islamo world there would be no guns, no drinking, no drugs, no smoking, no murdercycles, no rap, no blondes, no ballot boxes,no freedom and women wouldn’t be whores but they would all provide bbbjcimnqns for $50 as is their purpose in life. ROTFLMFAO
"heartless bastard aren’t you?"
Nope that is you DP!!!! And that's being EXTREMELY nice about describing you.
"says imam alucard. in his islamo world there would be no guns, no drinking, no drugs, no smoking, no murdercycles, no rap, no blondes, no ballot boxes,no freedom and women wouldn’t be whores but they would all provide bbbjcimnqns for $50 as is their purpose in life"
I'm not Islamic as much as you would LOVE for me to be in YOUR RACIST Hatred!
Based on your rants against me I believe you are an alias of another attack dog A.H. here on our most "Lovely" forum. Have the FUCKING BALLS to attack me using your REAL forum Handle. Why make up a new name?
well, well, well. we’ve had a break through. how many times did you check your messages before you realized i was never going to open and read your onslaught of pm’s and you would have to step out into the light if you were going to lash out?
we collectively want to help you but that means you can’t hide in the dark giggling while you fling your feces at random passersby. stupid can’t be fixed so we won’t be able to help you there but we want to help with your mental illness. it will take years to work through your clinical depression, paranoia, persecution complex and mommy issues. we will help you understand why you hate other men, why you hate women, why you hate yourself but it will mean lots of tuff luv.
first you will have to address something you referenced in your post. you talk about REAL and MADE UP names. before our next session think about this, ALUCARD is not REAL, ALUCARD doesn’t exist, ALUCARD was MADE UP by the lunatic in your head, YOU created ALUCARD.
smeagol or gollum your choice
See PM DP. "FINIS"
NO, NO, NO
you’re regressing. i’m not going to enable you by even looking to see how many more pm’s you sent. don’t slink back into your shit smeared cave. come out into the light. there isn’t any Star Dust [From Supernovas] to be afraid of out here. just the cleansing light of truth awaits. you don’t have to suffer with your mental illness any longer but YOU have to WANT to get well.
smeagol or gollum, which is it goin’ to be?
we are here for you buddy
what’s that Lassie? alucard is trapped in a mineshaft?
no. no girl, he isn’t a vile creature. he’s just mentally ill
smeagol or gollum? gollum or smeagol?
we will ALWAYS be here for you little buckaroo
Just to mention a couple of parts of alutard's rant that I don't get:
yeah some activities carry high risk to person health, how does it follow from that they shouldn't be allowed to do it? Why does some get to choose what risk are and aren't acceptable choosing to live their life as they want?
the whole part about the you must respect the laws stuff, um, the guy openly admits to purchasing sexual services from prostitutes in jurisdictions where it is illegal. So is his position really I'll obey laws I like, and ignore ones I don't? Not sure how he can claim any moral higher ground given that he is being just as idiosyncraticly selective in which laws he chooses to obey.
Don't fell like dissecting the whole rant but those were the two most glaring flaws in it. I'm sure there are at least a dozen others in there for anyone who feels like picking apart manure, however.
Actually if you put all other alutard's reasoning together, you get the following conclusions (remember the following is all consequences of alutardian logic, not claiming I think any of it is legit):
a) people who purchases sexual services from prostitutes have a greater risk of contracting STDs than others b) because of a) the government is thus justified in making purchasing sex from prostitutes illegal, as it has in nearly all states in the US c) since alutard openly admits to purchasing sexual services from prostitutes in states where it is illegal, he is not acting consistent with his claim "you need to obey the law or get out!", from this, alutard needs to be restricted to only purchasing sexual from services from those few parts of the US where it is legal ("shithole counties in Nevada" I believe was the way jester214 put it)
It's actually fun to play around with alutardian logic some more. For example, since homosexuals have higher risks of contracting the very deadly STD known as HIV compared to hetrosexuals, alutard's logic leads to the conclusion that the government would be quite justified in making homosexuality illegal.
I think alutard slam dunked himself in demonstrated what a complete retard he was with his rant above. Normally he just states his beliefs without any elaboration, as if there were self-evident pontifications directly from god. Once he tries to back up his proclamations with actual reasoning, well lets just saying finding holes in his logic is about as challenging as finding holes in swiss cheese. :-)
"Just to mention a couple of parts of alutard's rant that I don't get:
yeah some activities carry high risk to person health, how does it follow from that they shouldn't be allowed to do it? Why does some get to choose what risk are and aren't acceptable choosing to live their life as they want?
the whole part about the you must respect the laws stuff, um, the guy openly admits to purchasing sexual services from prostitutes in jurisdictions where it is illegal. So is his position really I'll obey laws I like, and ignore ones I don't? Not sure how he can claim any moral higher ground given that he is being just as idiosyncraticly selective in which laws he chooses to obey.
Actually if you put all other alutard's reasoning together, you get the following conclusions (remember the following is all consequences of alutardian logic, not claiming I think any of it is legit):
a) people who purchases sexual services from prostitutes have a greater risk of contracting STDs than others b) because of a) the government is thus justified in making purchasing sex from prostitutes illegal, as it has in nearly all states in the US c) since alutard openly admits to purchasing sexual services from prostitutes in states where it is illegal, he is not acting consistent with his claim "you need to obey the law or get out!", from this, alutard needs to be restricted to only purchasing sexual from services from those few parts of the US where it is legal ("shithole counties in Nevada" I believe was the way jester214 put it)
Don't fell like dissecting the whole rant but those were the two most glaring flaws in it. I'm sure there are at least a dozen others in there for anyone who feels like picking apart manure, however.
It's actually fun to play around with alutardian logic some more. For example, since homosexuals have higher risks of contracting the very deadly STD known as HIV compared to hetrosexuals, alutard's logic leads to the conclusion that the government would be quite justified in making homosexuality illegal.
I think alutard slam dunked himself in demonstrated what a complete retard he was with his rant above. Normally he just states his beliefs without any elaboration, as if there were self-evident pontifications directly from god. Once he tries to back up his proclamations with actual reasoning, well lets just saying finding holes in his logic is about as challenging as finding holes in swiss cheese."
"Dougsterian LOGIC???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
No just pointless ranting as usual.
was that really you?
admitting you need help was a big step and burning that alias to send that first pm convinces me that you are serious. ok you can communicate with me via pm and i won’t post them but i insist on replying out here in the open. it is important that you see others here want to help you as much as i do
take it or leave it.
well the dam burst there didn’t it. that is a lot for me to process but i’ll tell you many people have faced these issues. this may be painful to hear but your mother was wrong. not all females are filthy whores and more important to you is that she was wrong about your desires too.
listen to me alucard. it is OK to be gay.
i don’t know why she didn’t believe you but i don’t believe in repressed memories. i think you remember every detail. if you say that it was extraterrestrial aliens who anally probed you then i believe that is exactly what happened
that was a lot to deal with in one session and frankly i need to get over the shock of your irish setter red hair experience before we talk any more about that. get some rest little spaceman
Join the conversation
Sign in to reply to this discussion.