Conservatism beyond the line

[Brad Johnson]

Well, it's official.  There will be no charges filed in any court.  Late yesterday the Lubbock city attorney declined to prosecute the case, just as the Lubbock county district attorney had.  No one has said it "officially", but scuttlebutt in legal circles is that there was insufficient evidence to warrant taking the matter to court.

Now there is the entirely different issue of dealing with a self-righteous city code enforcement manager, an overzealous police chief, and a city council that has taken it upon itself to be the morality police beyond many legally allowed activities. 

Of course, the above decision opens the city up to all kinds of liability for any number of stupid things in relation to the arrest and incarceration of the Chippendales.  I'm certain, given the Chippendales worldwide populatrity and success, that they have to deal with this kind of ignorant crap all the time.  I bet they have a bevy of attorneys just frothing at the mouth to take on our "enlightened" city leadership.  As much as I hate to see if from a monetary standpoint (it's my taxes footing the bill!) this city needs a swift kick in the butt.  This ain't the 1950's anymore.  If we are going to survive and thrive as a regional economic center, we're going to have to adopt at least a few slightly less dated ideas in regards to the community and how it's managed.

Brad

[Lee]

"Now there is the entirely different issue of dealing with a self-righteous city code enforcement manager, an overzealous police chief, and a city council that has taken it upon itself to be the morality police beyond many legally allowed activities. "

Maybe they offer compensation by performing the Full Monty for charity.

[tyme]

What's the difference between being paid to have sex on film and being paid to have sex in the privacy of a hotel room?

It's mostly, but not completely, arbitrary.

The idea is that a third party can pay whoever they want to have sex, on or off camera, as long as everyone involved is over 18.  But if the person paying gets involved, that's sex for money and it's forbidden.

As I understand it, porn sites get around that by way of the corporate shield.  It's the porn production company, not any individual, paying everyone who appears on screen.  If someone attached to the company gets involved in the action, that's as an individual.

[Matthew Carberry]

One should form a non-profit "film" corporation, which would have a "studio", into which corporation both the  prostitutes and people who wish to hire prostitutes would donate money in varying amounts, which would then pay both parties in a sexual encounter on a variable scale.

[Strings]

carebear: you've thought about this WAY too much...

[Matthew Carberry]

That took like a minute to put together.

I'm a good thinker, horrible at actually following through.

Sort of an idea man.  Say, did I ever show you my new invention?

O <- right there, ya know, for kids. 

[tyme]

Don't forget to make it a BDSM porn studio, and allow the "participants" to place side bets with each other about who will end up using their safewords.

Bonus points if the studio has a "club" (the kind with heavy drug use) next door on one side, and a chapel hosting gay marriages on the other.

[Matthew Carberry]

Don't forget to make it a BDSM porn studio, and allow the "participants" to place side bets with each other about who will end up using their safewords.

On a serious note, from what I know about BDSM betting on that would ruin the whole experience.

Bonus points if the studio has a "club" (the kind with heavy drug use) next door on one side, and a chapel hosting gay marriages on the other.

Not sure if the gambit would work for "backdoor" legality for those two things.

[roo_ster]

Not sure if the gambit would work for "backdoor" legality for those two things.

carebear:

Was that a pun, slip of the tongue, or freudian slip?