[malvolio]

Strip club artfully slips by anti-nudity law

BOISE, Idaho (Reuters) - A strip club in Boise, Idaho has found an artful way to prance past a city law that prohibits full nudity.

On what it calls Art Club Nights, the Erotic City strip club charges customers $15 (8 pounds) for a sketch pad, pencil, and a chance to see completely naked women dancers.

In 2001 the Boise City Council passed an ordinance banning total nudity in public unless it had "serious artistic merit" -- an exemption meant to apply to plays, dance performances and art classes.

"We have a lot of people drawing some very good pictures," said Erotic City owner Chris Teague, who has posted many of the drawings around the club.

Teague said he got the idea when a customer asked if he could get in for free to sketch the dancers. Realizing that "art classes" were exempt from the law, Teague decided to bill Mondays and Tuesdays as art nights, and let the dancers go without their G-strings and pasties.

In the two months since they began, Art Club Nights have drawn full crowds of 60 people but no police citations, he said.

"So what do you do for a living, miss?"

"I'm an artists' model."

[Kilbey]

It's amazing how people feel such a need to circumvent the law.

They will do anything for their "porn fix".

You do realize the women at these places think lower of their clientele then their clients think of them.

[screamingFit]

Oh, yes. All those poor, crazed, tortured souls doing anything to get their "porn fix".

For shame, they should be at home waxing one off to their bibles instead.

[Agent69]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It's amazing how people feel such a need to circumvent the law.

That's because it is stupid. In the world of today, you would think people would have more important things to worry about then some nudity.

And you can bet some busy-body, uptight puritan/christian got that law passed in the first place. "I have problems with sexuality, so I'm going to punish you too".

[Oisín]

Wow, this must almost be a new record: A fairly funny and quite harmless story derailed into a Christian-bashing vs. anti-Christian bashing cr*p-slinging contest already from the very first reply! Amazing!

[Agent69]

Yeah, ****ing sweet.

[sugar_coated]

Art is pure.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It's amazing how people feel such a need to circumvent the law.

The law is stupid, intrusive, and unnecessary in the first place. They should be applauded.

Take your moralizing elsewhere.

[willed]

Originally posted by wataru:
The law is stupid, intrusive, and unnecessary in the first place. They should be applauded.

Take your moralizing elsewhere.

Do you hear that? That's the sound of the smack-down being laid on Kilbey.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by willed:
Do you hear that? That's the sound of the smack-down being laid on Kilbey.

No, I think it's the sound of an incoming lockination because people can't just let it go...

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
It's amazing how people feel such a need to circumvent the law.

They will do anything for their "porn fix".

You do realize the women at these places think lower of their clientele then their clients think of them.

Dude, don't.

[Apple Pro Underwear]

ALL FOR IT.

drawing is a great and easy artistic endeavor

[effgee]

It's all about supply and demand - how can free markets possibly be a bad thing? Aaaah, I love the smell of restoration in the morning!!

[TheBadgerHunter]

This would be a great way to get teenagers interested in art.

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
This would be a great way to get teenagers interested in art.

Until the fat chicks come out. Asthetically, a challenge to draw correctly. But otherwise, still a fat chick who's cooter you just can't get the shadowing right on.

[malvolio]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Until the fat chicks come out. Asthetically, a challenge to draw correctly. But otherwise, still a fat chick who's cooter you just can't get the shadowing right on.

I don't think most strip clubs hire fat chicks.
Hmmmm, might be the makings of a job-discrimination lawsuit there...

[CD Hanks]

Originally posted by malvolio:
I don't think most strip clubs hire fat chicks.
Hmmmm, might be the makings of a job-discrimination lawsuit there...

While you've raised an excellent (yet horrid) case in favor of fat chicks, I meant that if this were to get kids turned on to art (haha), they'd instantly be turned off (HAHA) from the whole thing when said hypothetical fat chick prances out and disrobes.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by willed:
Do you hear that? That's the sound of the smack-down being laid on Kilbey.

The only "smack-down" is the one people here are putting on themselves.

The objectification of women is pathetic. As pathetic as the ones who defend it.

[MountainMac]

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
Until the fat chicks come out. Asthetically, a challenge to draw correctly. But otherwise, still a fat chick who's cooter you just can't get the shadowing right on.

"It took me like three hours to finish the shading on your upper lip. It's probably the best drawing I've ever done."

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

[Agent69]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The objectification of women is pathetic. As pathetic as the ones who defend it.

Oh please. If you don't like looking at chicks, don't look.

[waxcrash]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The only "smack-down" is the one people here are putting on themselves.

The objectification of women is pathetic. As pathetic as the ones who defend it.

Kilbey has to say that because his wife periodically lurks on MacNN when he is at work.

[Person Man]

Originally posted by malvolio:
I don't think most strip clubs hire fat chicks.
Hmmmm, might be the makings of a job-discrimination lawsuit there...

What about fat guys? My art major roommate in college would bring home sketches of both naked fat women and fat men.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Person Man:
What about fat guys? My art major roommate in college would bring home sketches of both naked fat women and fat men.

But he probably didn't draw them in strip joints, did he? And if he did, they'd be more likely to be the customers than the strippers, wouldn't they

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The only "smack-down" is the one people here are putting on themselves.

The objectification of women is pathetic. As pathetic as the ones who defend it.

It isn't objectification. The women like it as much as men men 90% of the time. In fact I've never met a women that didn't like to be complemented from a purely physical stand-point.

We both know that this doesn't have crap to do with objectification. You might want to accept that your religion has taboos on things which are not in the least bad.

Or keep thinking that we're all smacking down on ourselves. However that works.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
It isn't objectification. The women like it as much as men men 90% of the time. In fact I've never met a women that didn't like to be complemented from a purely physical stand-point.

We both know that this doesn't have crap to do with objectification. You might want to accept that your religion has taboos on things which are not in the least bad.

Or keep thinking that we're all smacking down on ourselves. However that works.

So, you think women like to be thought of as sex objects. Purely eye candy. You need to meet a higher class of woman is all I can tell you.

I have believed this even when I was a firm atheist. I haven't been a Christian for even half of my life. It's just a matter of what's right and what's wrong.

you can stay on the side of the fence with the perverts and rude men who like to objectify women. The houses are worth more on my side of the fence.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by waxcrash:
Kilbey has to say that because his wife periodically lurks on MacNN when he is at work.

No, I say it because I believe it. But believe whatever it is that makes you feel better about your actions.

There are people who hold themselves to a higher standard.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
... There are people who hold themselves to a higher standard.

I've heard that, too - thought it was a rumor. But you're not seriously trying to lead us to believe that such folk would stumble into this particular neck of the woods (aka "lounge"), are you?

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
So, you think women like to be thought of as sex objects. Purely eye candy.

Yes. Just like men do.

Obviously not all the time and by everybody, but to varying degrees, yes, we do all like to be seen as a sex object.

And although your attitude and statements about the objectification of women (I'll assume your stance is the same regarding the objectification of men) are both admirable and noble, they are not very realistic. We objectify older people all the time, consciously or subconsciously. Every time we see someone and our instincts/brains/libido/whatever tells us that we think that person is (sexually) attractive, that's an objectification.

The fact that it's a whole room full of men watching one girl intently for half an hour doesn't really make much of a difference, it just makes the objectification more clear and outspoken. But it's just as much an objectification when you think, "Wow, she was beautiful" about the girl you pass on the sidewalk. Just as it's also an objectification if you think the opposite. To be able to pass any kind of comment on anything, we need to objectify it, basically.

And, once in a while, it is nice to see other people objectify you in the right way, thinking that you're beautiful/sexy/gorgeous/whatever. It gives you a bit of self-esteem. The girls who become strippers are (if they have a choice in the matter, which, at least here, they normally do) usually the kind of girl who likes to see it rather blatantly, and is not made uncomfortable by the fact that it's completely out in the open and unrestrained. If they don't feel like that, they tend to make very bad strippers.

[Astro-Creep]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The only "smack-down" is the one people here are putting on themselves.

The objectification of women is pathetic. As pathetic as the ones who defend it.

If men don't objectify women, women will. Case in point, have you ever seen one of those famous beer commercials with the hot women in a bikini handing a beer to a guy? How about in the last couple years? The answer: No. The reason: Too many women complained that it objectified women.

Now to keep it focused on entertainment, let's look at TV. Look at any woman's advertisement. "Overstock.com" is a good example. Obviously geared at women, yet that woman is all but spreading thigh on your screen to try to hock some cheap jewelery. One example isn't enough, huh? Take your pick. The last commercial with a sexy woman geared towards men was that Godaddy commercial. Remember that? Of course you do, it made the news.

How many L-shaped blankets do you own? Because they're all over Hollywood, baring the man's chest and covering the woman's. Not that I'm trying to say we should all just go around naked and hump everything, because I do think modesty is needed. Just not fanatical, overbearing, half-million dollar fine modesty.

Remember kids, the female body is evil.

Personally, I think we as a country need to just go get laid.

[willed]

Hey, this thread isn't locked yet!

I blame St Augustine. A truly great mind, but many sexual hang-ups which he passed down to the Church in general.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by willed:
Hey, this thread isn't locked yet!

I blame St Augustine.

Now-now... St Augustine may be a lot of things, but I don't think it's quite fair to blame him for this thread still being unlocked...



(Yes, I know... go to bed...)

[ghporter]

Municipalities typically believe that "adult entertainment" establishments draw "the wrong crowd," and thus increase the probability of incidents of drug trafficing, prostitution, and other violations of societal norms. Nice idea, but they usually have it backwards; making these locales illicit, even slightly, is what increases the possibility of the crimes they're worried about. When such establishments are out in the open and well known, they almost never have any problems with druggies, prostitution, or anything else, for the simple reason that too many people are watching.

This is the situation currently here in San Antonio, Texas. The "I want to look like I'm protecting the public morals" city council folks have drawn up an ordinance that makes it an awful hassle for anyone to set up or operate a strip club. The owner, the manager, and each and every dancer is required to buy a license and wear an identification badge while on the job!!! (Ok go ahead and ask: "WHERE?!?!") There are some less than stupid stipulations, such as no private areas where patrons are not visible, but most of the ordinance is pretty much blatantly aimed at stopping these businesses, which have historically won in court on first amendment grounds. It looks both silly and pathetic to me.

A friend and I went to one of these clubs several months ago, just to see what the commotion was about. It was smoky, the customers were an interseting mix of folks-that is not to say interesting in the "I'd like to meet you socially" way-and the "dancers" didn't do much more than wiggle around a pole in the middle of a runway stage. Yawn. Not only were the dancers no great dancers, they didn't seem to be enjoying being there. Not at all entertainment as far as I'm concerned. We left both sad and disappointed-this is what so many people are up in arms about?

If that's such a threat to decent society, then decent society is way worse off than I ever imagined! No, it's not a threat to society; it's a threat to somebody's control of society. 'Nuff said?

Off my soapbox now.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
The only "smack-down" is the one people here are putting on themselves.

The objectification of women is pathetic. As pathetic as the ones who defend it.

As someone already said, if you don't like it, then don't do it. But that does not give you the right to impose your opinions on the rest of us. That law is wrong, no matter how much you may agree with it.

You and your high-horse "standards" can kiss my ass. Who gave you the right to decide what's right and what's wrong? It's this kind of unwanted, unneeded, unjustified nannying that makes the whole family-values-we-love-America-God-is-great Christian Right so irritating.

For the record, I've been to a strip club and thought it was sleazy and disgusting. But that doesn't mean I think it's ok to take away other peoples' right to see naked people in a sleazy, disgusting environment.

[hayesk]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
So, you think women like to be thought of as sex objects. Purely eye candy.

Yes. I think strippers who voluntarily work in strip clubs want to be thought as sex objects. That's how they get paid, which is why they work there in the first place.

You need to meet a higher class of woman is all I can tell you.

You need to learn the difference between looking at a woman in a strip club vs. meeting a woman in other situations. Most mature men can distinguish between the two situations.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally posted by wataru:
The law is stupid, intrusive, and unnecessary in the first place. They should be applauded.

Take your moralizing elsewhere.

I say the same godamn thing about no-smoking laws in bars and restaurants.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by hayesk:
Yes. I think strippers who voluntarily work in strip clubs want to be thought as sex objects. That's how they get paid, which is why they work there in the first place.

I'll concede that. But I still think any man who patronizes a strip club has low respect for women.

Originally posted by hayesk:
You need to learn the difference between looking at a woman in a strip club vs. meeting a woman in other situations. Most mature men can distinguish between the two situations.

You're right. There is a difference between looking at a woman in a strip club vs. meeting a woman in other situations. One is objectifying women and the other treating a woman as an equal.

I know that a person who goes to a strip club is a lower-class of individual. I can differentiate between those who go to a strip cub and those who don't.

[wataru]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
I say the same godamn thing about no-smoking laws in bars and restaurants.

I see your point, but smoking damages others' health, while nudity doesn't.

The other issue is that people don't like smoke. Evidence: Most bars found that business went up after the ban because customers preferred a non-smoking environment. No one going to a strip club prefers clothed women. I suppose, though, that smoking or not should be up to the bar or restaurant.

Originally posted by Kilbey:
I know that a person who goes to a strip club is a lower-class of individual.

What a smarmy bastard you are. Doesn't your own religion say "judge not lest you be judged?"

[TheBadgerHunter]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
You're right. There is a difference between looking at a woman in a strip club vs. meeting a woman in other situations. One is objectifying women and the other treating a woman as an equal.

I know that a person who goes to a strip club is a lower-class of individual. I can differentiate between those who go to a strip cub and those who don't.

An equal? I'm sorry but the primary motivation for attraction is physical appearance. Yes, personality etc comes into play but initially it is purely physical, in other words sexual. I don't see anything wrong with strip clubs. Those people are simply scratching an itch exactly the same as masturbating or pornography. And yes, women do like being appreciated on a purely sexual (object if you prefer) the same as men do. They don't spend crap-loads on cosmetics for the hell of it. The fact is many women find it both empowering and esteem-boosting.

Firstly I think judging people like that is disgusting. One paragraph goes on about equality and the other says they're less of a person. Secondly you can't tell.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
An equal? I'm sorry but the primary motivation for attraction is physical appearance. Yes, personality etc comes into play but initially it is purely physical, in other words sexual. I don't see anything wrong with strip clubs. Those people are simply scratching an itch exactly the same as masturbating or pornography. And yes, women do like being appreciated on a purely sexual (object if you prefer) the same as men do. They don't spend crap-loads on cosmetics for the hell of it. The fact is many women find it both empowering and esteem-boosting.

No, the primary motivation of attraction is not physical appearance. Physical attraction is based upon physical appearance. And physical attraction isn't primarily sexual. It may be for you, but it isn't for me.

I don't like to be appreciated as a purely sexual object.

You talk with such absolutions. Not everyone is as you think they are. People are different. It's called diversity.

You simply are as intolerant as I am. The difference is, I'll admit it.

Originally posted by TheBadgerHunter:
Firstly I think judging people like that is disgusting. One paragraph goes on about equality and the other says they're less of a person. Secondly you can't tell.

You really don't understand the English language completely do you? Go look up the definition "judging". Here, I'll help you.

v., judged, judg·ing, judg·es.
1 To form an opinion or estimation of after careful consideration: judge heights; judging character.
...
v.intr.
1 To form an opinion or evaluation.
2 To act or decide as a judge.

I was judging and labeling. You also were judging. You just hold the people who objectify women in higher regard. I consider them a lower class individual than a person who doesn't objectify women.

[Astro-Creep]

You may be able to point out the creep that goes to a strip club every night, but I guarantee you that you can't point out the guy that goes to the strip club every once in a while because he might just want to go see a naked (or nearly naked) woman without any strings attached.

Your argument doesn't hold water. "OBJECTIFYING WOMEN IS BAD!" You're full of it. Like I said, the worst offenders at objectifying women are WOMEN. They like it, they're just ashamed to admit it.

You're just whipped.

[Kilbey]

Originally posted by Astro-Creep:
You may be able to point out the creep that goes to a strip club every night, but I guarantee you that you can't point out the guy that goes to the strip club every once in a while because he might just want to go see a naked (or nearly naked) woman without any strings attached.

I can't point out anyone for anything from a purely visual standpoint. But if a guy tells me he likes strip clubs then I have a lower opinion of them.

Originally posted by Astro-Creep:
Your argument doesn't hold water. "OBJECTIFYING WOMEN IS BAD!" You're full of it. Like I said, the worst offenders at objectifying women are WOMEN.

Oh, so if women do it to other women it's O.K.?

Originally posted by Astro-Creep:
They like it, they're just ashamed to admit it.

That's got to be the most pathetic thing I have read on here. I'm sure the rapist thinks the same thing you do.

Originally posted by Astro-Creep:
You're just whipped.

Nope. We're pretty equal in our relationship. But keep telling yourself that if you think it makes your argument better.

You just have a lack of respect for women. You like to objectify them.

[Astro-Creep]

Originally posted by Kilbey:

Oh, so if women do it to other women it's O.K.?

Ask a woman. Generally the answer is yes.

Originally posted by Kilbey:

That's got to be the most pathetic thing I have read on here. I'm sure the rapist thinks the same thing you do.

So now I'm a rapist because I'm not afraid to admit the failings of a whipped society?

Originally posted by Kilbey:

You just have a lack of respect for women. You like to objectify them.

No, in fact it's the opposite. I have enough respect for them to NOT put them up to some higher standard than I would have for a man. While it is true that women do want to be respected for who they are and what they know, you're delusional if a woman doesn't like somebody saying "damn you look good."

But I'm done arguing my point, I'm getting nowhere. As are you.

[Oisín]

Originally posted by Kilbey:
No, the primary motivation of attraction is not physical appearance. Physical attraction is based upon physical appearance. And physical attraction isn't primarily sexual. It may be for you, but it isn't for me.

In the very first instances, physical attraction always comes from something sexual, consciously or not. The fact that you say it doesn't for you simply tells me that you don't want it to (because that would mean you couldn't live up to what you want to live up to), and therefore you thwart the sexuality of initial attraction as fast as possible, probably before you even realize it. But the very fact that your eyes wander towards some persons that you instinctively think might be attractive, is powered by a sexual instinct that we can't get rid of, no matter how hard we try.

I know you don't like being seen/thought of/described as a mere animal, but in this particular instance, there's no escaping that physical attraction is a purely instinctive thing (you could even call it 'chemical' if you want). It's what you do with this attraction that could justify your viewpoint of being 'more than a mere animal', not the initial reaction.

[TheBadgerHunter]

No, the primary motivation of attraction is not physical appearance. Physical attraction is based upon physical appearance. And physical attraction isn't primarily sexual. It may be for you, but it isn't for me.

I don't like to be appreciated as a purely sexual object.

You talk with such absolutions. Not everyone is as you think they are. People are different. It's called diversity.

You simply are as intolerant as I am. The difference is, I'll admit it.

Sorry boy but attraction is almost always physical. You might want to look up the definition of the word because you seem to be using it incorrectly.

I assume you've been married for some time, so why would you?

Absolutions? I said "primary". Obviously if there is a primary there must others.

Who am intolerant of? I accept all religions, faiths, beliefs. I can accept pretty much anyone. I've never said I hated or disliked anyone here.

You really don't understand the English language completely do you? Go look up the definition "judging". Here, [URL=http://www.answers.com/judging&r=67]I'll help you.

Ah, applying a moral judgment on someone. I believe christians are not supposed to cast judgment, like saying someone is less of a person because of going to a strip club. You'd think the normal reaction would be to try and reach out to those people not look down on them.

I was judging and labeling. You also were judging. You just hold the people who objectify women in higher regard. I consider them a lower class individual than a person who doesn't objectify women.

I'm saying they aren't objectifying women any more than everyone does. I'm not saying its a healthy fixation or one I share. If a woman wants to be viewed in a purely sexual way its her choice. No one is forcing anyone to be viewed as an object.

[ghporter]

Women do objectify women. So do men. The difference is that women seem to do so on an impersonal basis, passing judgement (moral, stylistic, whatever) and then moving along, while a lot of men don't seem to be able to make it impersonal. There are a lot of adult males (and I think that term is more appropriate here than "men") who think that anything they consider to be attractive is meant specifically for them. While this sort of thinking is developmentally appropriate for a 6-10 year old of either sex, somehow too many people never grow out of it in this context.

Yes, I look at women; I am a straight, adult male who likes the fact that there are differences between the sexes-and likes the wide variety of differences too. My wife says that if I ever stop looking it will be time to light the bonfire and roll me into it, because I have failed to notice I'm already dead. But I NEVER think of those attractive qualities I see as aimed at myself personally and/or individually. Partly because of the way I was raised, and partly through experience, I have learned to "grow out of" that particular issue.