Kansas House approves bill to regulate strip club industry

Senators approve bill to protect victims of child pornography

— Kansas legislators approved two bills Wednesday aimed at the strip club industry and protecting victims of child pornography.

One bill, approved by the House on a 106-16 vote, would place restrictions on the location of strip clubs and their activities. The sponsors said it cleans up activities viewed as immoral in their communities.

Rep. Joe Patton, a Topeka Republican, said he had questioned whether the state should be involved in regulating sexually oriented businesses until he read numerous studies about their effects on communities.

“All the studies showed this hurts communities, increases crime, hurts property values,” Patton said. “If you want to do this kind of work, do it in a way that doesn’t destroy our communities — that’s the whole point.”

The bill would prohibit strip clubs, adult stores and other sexually oriented businesses from locating within 1,000 feet of schools, libraries, public parks, licensed day-care centers and houses of worship.

Sexually oriented businesses would have to close from midnight to 6 a.m. Nudity would be outlawed, and dancers could be seminude but would have to remain at least 6 feet away from patrons.

Some critics of the bill said the measure would shut down such businesses and put at least 2,500 Kansans out of work.

But Patton said the bill only imposes “narrow” regulations and prevents sexually oriented businesses — called “SOBs” by the measure’s backers — from clustering in communities.

“They tend to do that,” Patton said. “They create an economic dead zone. When crime goes up, they create a combat zone.”

But Rep. Stan Frownfelter, a Kansas City Democrat who voted against the bill, said Kansans have a better way than the bill to get rid of sexually oriented businesses.

“If people don’t want to go, they don’t have to go,” he said. “The best way to run them out of business is not to go to them.”

Senators, meanwhile, adopted a bill on a 39-0 vote that would allow victims of child pornography to file civil lawsuits to recover up to $150,000 in damages. The lawsuits could be filed by private attorneys or by the attorney general at the victim’s request.

To file a suit, a victim would have to allege and prove that while they were under 18 they were the victim of a sexual offense and that a portion of the offense was used in the production of child pornography. The victim also would have to prove that they suffer personal or psychological injury as a result of the production, promotion or possession of such child pornography.

A Kansas City Democrat, Sen. David Haley, abstained from voting on the measure, saying unintended consequences are likely being overlooked.

For example, Haley said teenagers have started sending each other lewd photographs of each other by texting, or sexting. He is concerned the exchange of these photos could be considered child pornography among consenting couples and lead to litigation.

Comments

Richard Payton says...

Puts Anna Undercover out of work?

Posted 24 March 2010, 5:10 p.m. Suggest removal

David Albertson says...

I love how the GOP champions small government, deregulation and fee enterprise. Except when it comes to sex, intoxicants and "morality", then they want absolute control or an outright ban. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Posted 24 March 2010, 5:26 p.m. Suggest removal

scopi_guy says...

Wondering what is meant by "seminude".

Posted 24 March 2010, 5:37 p.m. Suggest removal

Heather Perry says...

pasties :) the little tassles over the nipples and panties

Posted 9 March 2011, 9:50 a.m. Suggest removal

sundancewierdo says...

I think that means if you can't wear it to the swimming pool, you can't wear it at the strip club...

Posted 24 March 2010, 5:42 p.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

hmmm,
no word from "our dear Anna" and "Vic" creepie stripper groupie?

maybe they're keeping their six-foot-distance from their keyboards and each other.

***
Good job legislature!
this has been needed.

Posted 24 March 2010, 5:51 p.m. Suggest removal

manplanner says...

Okay, how many SOB's are currently within 1,000 of any schools, day-cares etc., in the state of Kansas? I doubt very many at all. In fact, I can't think of any in the Lawrence/Topeka area. Most of the strip clubs are out in the county anyway.

Posted 24 March 2010, 6:21 p.m. Suggest removal

Tact says...

Actually there is one proposing to go up two doors down from a daycare & 900 ft from a middle school in a small town north of Topeka...

Posted 7 January 2011, 10:30 p.m. Suggest removal

Mike Ford says...

do these dumblican church types ever realize that the first amendment will stop
their "Jihad" of moralism if brought to a court case? guess not guess we're
still in dumb dumb Kansas surrounded by dumblicans.

Posted 24 March 2010, 6:33 p.m. Suggest removal

beatrice says...

6 ft.

That is four feet closer than the pole I'd use to keep them away.

dumblican? Isn't that an item on a Chinese food menu? Goes well with sweet and sour sauce I believe. (seriously, dumblican? This "demonrat" calls that lame, lame, lame)

Posted 24 March 2010, 7:11 p.m. Suggest removal

nut_case says...

LOL -

Balance Budget - NO
End Deficit Spending - NO
Create Jobs - NO
Ease tax burden on citizens - NO
Cut pork projects and maintain funding for schools - NO
Ensure citizens get tax refund checks on time this year - NO

Ban potpourri - check
Regulate novelty cigarette lighters - check
New regulations for strip clubs - check

Nice to see government working hard on the big issues!

Posted 24 March 2010, 7:13 p.m. Suggest removal

beatrice says...

In all honesty, I agree with the idea of keeping these joints out of neighborhoods and away from schools and such, but I actually disagree with the rest. I might find the whole concept repugnant and I certainly don't mind telling the the random stripper that her job in no way empowers women, but I wouldn't restrict it from being allowed. Grind on a stranger's lap if you want, just don't expect my respect if you do.

Posted 24 March 2010, 7:16 p.m. Suggest removal

sad_lawrencian says...

These "morality laws" are stupid. Strip clubs generally ARE located nowhere near churches, schools, suburbs, etc. Time for lawmakers to stop legislating morality.

Posted 24 March 2010, 7:32 p.m. Suggest removal

Liberty275 says...

In a shocking turn of events, I agree with Beatrice except I've never found anything repugnant about strippers or the stripping business. No, wait a minute - I find the concept of male strippers pretty repugnant. Ewwwwww!

Posted 24 March 2010, 7:34 p.m. Suggest removal

sundancewierdo says...

'“If people don’t want to go, they don’t have to go,” he said. “The best way to run them out of business is not to go to them.”'

Rather than trust you with your own moral judgement, repubs get to decide what's right and wrong for you. As the above statement says you can easily avoid the strip joint.

Posted 24 March 2010, 7:54 p.m. Suggest removal

Jeff Cuttell says...

Worry about something that is actually a problem. Fine, don't allow any new adult businesses to open within the 1,000 ft perimeter. There is no logical reason to put more sanctions on them than have been implemented. Why put all this effort into putting people out of work and business? In an economy like this we want to spend our energy on petty issues like this? Come on Kansas! You can't be that close minded and afraid.

Posted 24 March 2010, 8:18 p.m. Suggest removal

scott3460 says...

"KRichards, think you will find, average person has no respect for either performers or patrons of these dumps. Sadder still is the fact that the performers have so little self respect that they perform there."

Gotta disagree here. I actually have a great deal more respect for the women who are working hard to provide high levels of customers service to members of the American public who, lets face it, is not a terribly agreeable bunch - and the drunk young boys and sad, lonely men to be found in most strip clubs even less so. Certainly they are working much harder and providing significantly better product than 90% of most "legitimate" business. And, by definition, most strippers are better looking than most, and our society does place a great deal of importance on looks. So I think there is much to admired about the work ethic of most American strippers - and, of course, I've always been a fan of the goods they were peddling.

Posted 24 March 2010, 8:36 p.m. Suggest removal

SnakeFist says...

Great points, nut_case.

Last I heard, the state was facing serious problems, but the republican legislature would rather spend its time legislating morality and infringing on the freedoms of adults.

Posted 24 March 2010, 8:54 p.m. Suggest removal

Mike Ford says...

I've been using dumblican as long as I've been using Geriatric Oppressive
Partisans. This has been since Bob Dole ran against Bill Clinton in 1996.
Not new usage. As long as half of Kansas thinks this is still the 1890's,
I'll use it.

Posted 24 March 2010, 9:11 p.m. Suggest removal

denak says...

I agree and disagree with parts of this bill.

First, I have no problem with a SOB such as Priscilla's or Naughty and Nice being in a neighborhood that also has other businesses as long as their signs are tasteful and their windows are covered. I think it should be left up to the local government to decide their zoning and business times in response to citizen concerns and crime level.

As for regulations regarding strip clubs, I agree with them given the proven, documented link between prostitution and strip clubs.

Lastly, I wholeheartedly agree victims of child porn should be able to sue the pornographers for civil damages. As for the concern that this law could be used to prosecute consenting teenagers, that concern could be addressed in another law similar to the Romeo and Juliet statues in place.

Dena

Posted 24 March 2010, 9:17 p.m. Suggest removal

kansasmutt says...

I have to say this state has lost its frikin mind. My God, can they not fix what needs fixing and leave what works alone ? I can not believe the crap this leadership is forking out. Why not make it illegal to breath and poop in Kansas ? Your almost there now. What a bunch of wacked out , self centered , backwords , brain farting , jesus joking , maroons . with personal agendas.

Posted 24 March 2010, 9:36 p.m. Suggest removal

jrswift says...

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." And, in this case, it is a bunch of self-righteous idiots as well.

Posted 24 March 2010, 9:46 p.m. Suggest removal

beatrice says...

I just wonder if anyone is going to read the blog "Anna Unemployed."

Posted 24 March 2010, 9:49 p.m. Suggest removal

beatrice says...

KRichards, actually my comments were intended to address the issue of respect raised by our own LJWorld stripper blog written by "Anna Undercover." She actually has asked about respect. I was addressing not only this story but the stripper blog comments made in the past. Out of context, however, I can see why that seems a bit harsh.

By the way, I totally respect your guitar work with the Rolling Stones.

Posted 24 March 2010, 9:53 p.m. Suggest removal

beatrice says...

I agree with Py. The two types of businesses are not in the same league ... unless they have those ultra-creepy booth things in the back! Yikes!

Still think they shouldn't be outlawed, though, ... just fumigated every now and then.

Posted 24 March 2010, 10:29 p.m. Suggest removal

withlovelucifer says...

pywacket-
lets not blame the strippers rather the perverse men who give into their sexual cravings to see skin. sex is biological, its part of human nature. the women aren't forced to strip and the men aren't forced to go.

bottom line: this bill is bull.

with the business closing early, the strippers will be left to work the streets to sell...K2!!!!

stop associating such negative stereotypes to these women and men. you would be surprised to see how many well respected men and women of the community go to these clubs.

Posted 24 March 2010, 10:59 p.m. Suggest removal

denak says...

"....I just wonder if anyone is going to read the blog "Anna Unemployed."...."

Yes, I can't wait for such riveting blog entries as: "Anna files for unemployment," "Anna gets evicted," "Anna holds a garage sell and no one buys her smoke drenched negligees" and the big one, "Anna throws a fit because she can't understand why no one is hiring her even though she chirps and giggles but doesn't have anything on her resume for the last year."

It should be spectacular!

Dena

Posted 24 March 2010, 11:06 p.m. Suggest removal

parrothead8 says...

Sweet! Topeka is legislating morality!

I'm eagerly awaiting the bill that prohibits churches from locating within 1,000 feet of schools, libraries, public parks, and licensed day-care centers.

Posted 24 March 2010, 11:17 p.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

Jesse:
Replace strip club with Gun and ammo dealer... still like it?

I don't know of one person who has died from a lap dance.

---yes, I'd far prefer a gun ad ammo club, shooting range to a strip hjoint! 2nd amendment, plus shooting a gun doesn't warp your mind, doesn't increase property crime, rape, std's, etc. and overwhelmingly people using the shooting range have training, are not the wacked-outs depicted by hysterians.
see below.

***
a lot here acting like strip joints are victimless.
in recent testimony to the *Canadian* Parliament, discussing work visas, both sides *agreed and recognized the evidence I'm going to list below. up there, you have to call them "Exotic dancers" and not strippers. being from Canada, I assume that qualifies for the liberal mind as evidence.
they found that:
*exotic dance businesses contributed to *human trafficking and prostitution.
*frequently girls and women involved were underage.
*the "exotic dancers" often didn't just "choose" to do it.
*property values are depressed by having a business in the neighborhood.
*property crimes sometimes are concentrated in the area of such businesses.

---Now stripping is a form of live porn. does porn contribute to violence against women?
I think I have to write a lengthy blog to consider this question properly. it is a common faith belief among feminists, but some of their radical leaders also believe that all men are potential perps.

does stripping objectify women, you betcha! makes women into objects rather than whole persons, objects to satisfy a man's lusts.

is that a good thing? I don't think so.

Posted 24 March 2010, 11:41 p.m. Suggest removal

jackpot says...

parrothead8: WBC #1 on the list?

Posted 24 March 2010, 11:50 p.m. Suggest removal

Cooky_the_Cook says...

edjayhawk says...

Two Teens: He is 17 she is 15. They have been going out and dating like any other couple. He gets brought up on sexual predatory charges. This is wrong. No harm was ever attempted.

Cooky says...

Does "going out and dating like any other couple" mean having sexual intercourse?

Does "brought up on sexual predatory charges" mean charged with statutory rape?

That would make a lot more sense.

I don't think people get charged with sexual predatoriality (?) for going to the movies and sharing popcorn.

Wait.... did this happen at a strip club?

Posted 25 March 2010, 12:46 a.m. Suggest removal

kansasmutt says...

Even socialist countries have strip clubs. Yikes, now we are going full throttle comunist. Look out, next will be loading people onto the nice trains to go to the happy place.Women and children first, only the ones with black hair and brown eyes. Nice fog machine on this train. Remind anyone of anything ?

Posted 25 March 2010, 6:10 a.m. Suggest removal

grammaddy says...

Do our state legislators have NOTHING better to do. I thought most of this already was the law. How about they stop wasting time and money on stuff like this and figure out how to save our schools.

Posted 25 March 2010, 6:26 a.m. Suggest removal

BMI says...

Something tells me those "Hobby Lobby gift bags with cute tags that say "please vote no on HB2633" Anna ran out to buy for the legislators" when she testified at the statehouse on the 11th didn't get the response she wanted. Wouldn't that be bribery?

Posted 25 March 2010, 7:38 a.m. Suggest removal

Tom Miller says...

Ya know, this bit of garbage legislation is a prime example of why I am a political misfit. I am absolutely incapable of agreeing with EITHER so-called political party. They both suck.

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:05 a.m. Suggest removal

Tom Miller says...

...like THAT is gonna happen...

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:29 a.m. Suggest removal

parrothead8 says...

jackpot: Might as well be. We gotta start somewhere.

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:30 a.m. Suggest removal

Seth Peterson says...

This bears repeating:

Balance Budget - NO
End Deficit Spending - NO
Create Jobs - NO
Ease tax burden on citizens - NO
Cut pork projects and maintain funding for schools - NO
Ensure citizens get tax refund checks on time this year - NO

Ban potpourri - check
Regulate novelty cigarette lighters - check
New regulations for strip clubs - check

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:55 a.m. Suggest removal

Seth Peterson says...

If the point of this bill was to reduce prostitution and immoral activity around children and schools it should have included the State House as the rates for drug, alcohol and sexual abuse are far higher in our State and Country capital buildings than at any strip club.

It's also nice to see the list of individuals who would rather put people out of work than find ways to create more jobs. Virtually everyone who voted on this bill just announced they would rather put people out of work than help fix a budget that is causing our own community to close schools.

How much easier would it be to put up a new strip clubs that follow these guidelines now that there are 3 fewer schools that they have to stay 1,000 feet away from? I suppose that rather than shut the clubs down, they could find a way to effectively build more schools where they don't want the clubs to be - but that would probably hurt their own paychecks too much.

Posted 25 March 2010, 9:04 a.m. Suggest removal

brujablanco says...

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

Posted 25 March 2010, 1:07 p.m.

Joe Hyde says...

I think this bill is oppressively vague (at least as its wording has been paraphrased in this news story).

While driving around the state, most strip clubs I've seen are already located near or just beyond the city limits; most are located in the countryside well away from the city. Which means the bill's 1,000-ft. radius feature will not affect them.

The 1,000 ft. feature does strike me as reasonable, but only as it relates to the proximity of schools, libraries and public parks. ("Reasonable-ness" determined by the high probability that young children will frequently walk by within close proximity.)

But as for licensed day care centers and houses of worship, the bill doesn't make sense. Children get taken to day care centers by their parents then left there for the day, during which time they are not free to independently venture off-property. Thus they are in no danger of wandering into a strip club or adult store.

In a similar vein, people who attend houses of worship typically do so on Sundays. Usually a church's services are held on a Sunday morning. That day and time frame of operation does not overlap with the typical strip club's or adult store's hours of business.

And I'm curious whether the bill contains "grandfather clause" wording that protects an existing strip club or adult store from being forced to move to a new location in the event a new school, new house of worship or new city park gets built inside the 1,000-ft prohibition radius. Put another way, does an established strip club enjoy the same 1,000-ft protection radius in the event someone wants to build a new church, school or city park inside its established radius? Point being, to be fair the radius must protect the interests of all parties described in the bill, including the strip clubs and adult stores.

And what exactly is a "sexually oriented business"? If the term, as it will be used, attempts to define commercial enterprises that sell sexually suggestive or sexually exciting garments, then I guess we can kiss Weaver's department store, Kohl's, Target, Wal-Mart, Sears and Penney's goodbye. Because for the last 40 years at least, the floor and window displays at mainstream clothing stores have become quite explicit in the ways they model the female body. I don't object to seeing all those nicely-moulded perky breasts and shapely hips, and apparently few other Kansas residents have a problem with it, either. Point being, there's probably less than 4 square inches of fabric coverage difference between what the window mannequins at Weaver's reveal, compared to what you'll see on a mannequin at a "sexually oriented business" such as Pricilla's (or whatever it's called now).

So the basic idea of this bill isn't particularly bad. But its wording needs careful consideration to ensure that it doesn't unnecessarily or unfairly intrude on businesses that may not be extremely popular but are nevertheless legitimate.

Posted 25 March 2010, 2:38 p.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

Jesse,
thanks for keeping it civil man.

well yes, that is what I think. close those establishments earlier will decrease some of the crime.
human trafficking and prostitution, well enforcing a 6ft rule sure could make that a less profitable action.
the government sticking its nose in? see my above ref to the Canadan parliament (I'll go find that derned link tonight), there are victims. plus, communities ought to be able to decide whether they want this kind of business as it is now, they don't have that autonomy. and, that is probably a lot of what is driving this issue in the legislature.
is the making of laws to prevent victimization and to give communities control of their own environments conservative, I sure think so.

you didn't address the issue of whether this kind of business is healthy for the psyches of the community. our government severely taxes and regulates smoking, some of which I think is going too far. but smoking by itself doesn't have some apparent links to other criminality.

Posted 25 March 2010, 4:18 p.m. Suggest removal

workinghard says...

Did they define day care center, does that include the in home day care? If so, how many are in Lawrence? If they are included, I would love to see a map with the areas zoned for the business such as adult stores and location of any day cares with the 1000 ft shown on the map and see if they overlap. Also would video shops with pornography for rent be included in this bill?

Posted 25 March 2010, 4:28 p.m. Suggest removal

Sean Livingstone says...

Regulating strip club? Well, they'll go underground. If there's a need, there's sure to have a supply. Is stripping a crime? Maybe they shouldn't regulate strip club, but making it glamorous. Why? Low cost housing has higher crime rates too. So do you want to regulate low cost housing or people who stay there? It's not strip club, but how strip club is presented. If you go to the high end strip clubs in Miami, you'll find low crimes, and expensive porche.... not sure what's the excuse is all about. Just saying.

Posted 25 March 2010, 4:46 p.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

link for the Canadian Parliament material:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicati...

***
workinghard,
interesting definition question and I think its probably part of the bill's language.

and I agree with Bea above, the SOB's with the booths in back is a very creepy thing.

Posted 25 March 2010, 4:48 p.m. Suggest removal

somewhereundertherainbow says...

This is a blatant pandering issue to distract from the fact that this state is bleeding cash. I find it very funny that Rep. Patton who sponsored this ludicrous nonsense was one of 54 members of the House that voted against the statewide smoking ban. I guess some people think we need to be protected from lap dances (which to my knowledge haven't killed anyone), but think people should be still able to stink up a nightclub with cigarette smoke (despite 50 years of documented research on tobacco as a carcinogen). Legislators like Mr. Patton should be removed from power for having such a blatant double standard in their voting records.

Posted 25 March 2010, 6:33 p.m. Suggest removal

independant1 says...

I won't say ours was a tough school, but we had our own coroner. We used to write essays like: What I'm going to be if I grow up. (Lenny Bruce)

Posted 25 March 2010, 7:06 p.m. Suggest removal

independant1 says...

wrong thread, my bad

Posted 25 March 2010, 7:15 p.m. Suggest removal

independant1 says...

Hope this makes up for it

I wasn't naked, I was completely covered by a blue spotlight. (Gypsy Rose Lee)

Posted 25 March 2010, 7:20 p.m. Suggest removal

workinghard says...

beobachter, maybe Larry has to tell himself that to justify it to himself and feel better.

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:10 p.m. Suggest removal

RoeDapple says...

Speak for yourself LarryNative! Although I have had a few somewhat racy pictures sent my way I delete them immediately. I have a relative who works in the computer security field. She has assured me if I have ever looked up porn I wouldn't be able to hide it from her. She does all my computer security, updates, etc. I have challenged her to find porn on either of my computers. Hasn't happened. But you enjoy your fantasy . . .

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:20 p.m. Suggest removal

fcgt says...

This is unbelievable. This bill is proposing what are basically the same strip club regulations that Utah has! Are we really on the same level of sexual repression as Utah? I could understand a bill to tax strip clubs heavily but this bill serves no useful purpose and will only result in reduced tax receipts which the state of Kansas cannot afford to abide at this point in time.

Posted 25 March 2010, 8:32 p.m. Suggest removal

anomicbomb says...

Bearded Gnome

"plus, communities ought to be able to decide whether they want this kind of business as it is now, they don't have that autonomy."

That isn't true. If a community doesn't want a strip club, it won't have enough patrons to support it. And creating a state-wide regulation that makes strip club much less likely to exist across the state is not the same thing as increasing autonomy at a community level.

Almost all of your other points are bad as well, but this one is worth pointing out to other people who might be reading along.

Strip clubs wouldn't exist if people didn't demand their services.

Posted 25 March 2010, 10:29 p.m. Suggest removal

anomicbomb says...

bearded_gnome,

Your link to Canadian Parliament is misleading at best. What it sounds like here is that a sex-trafficking ring was designed using foreign immigrants as sex-laborers, and then used stripping as a cover for what was really occurring. There is no evidence that this occurrence was widespread in Canada. In deed, it seems like a small group of opportunists were behind it.

Do isolated cases of this kind of abuse happen in Canada and the US? Yes they do. Are they legal? No they aren't. Do you have any evidence of recognized strip clubs in Kansas participating in activities like these? No you don't, because such evidence does not exist.

These activities are already underground. Making legitimate stripping more difficult will do nothing to change this situation of illegal abuse of immigrants as sex workers in so far as it occurs.

On a larger note, if you think somehow this bill will reduce prostitution in the state, you are truly naive about the nature of reality.

Posted 25 March 2010, 10:51 p.m. Suggest removal

RobertMarble says...

idiots....just another example of contemporary politicians over stepping the authority they were originally intended to have. In this case it appears to be nothing more than to serve some special interest groups- most likely religous zealots and feminazis. Since nudie bars don't go into business near schools, etc, it's a non issue. And they don't attract any more or less crime that other bars- that's more dependant on location and who runs the place. There are several places in lawrence that attract exponentially more crim than all of the town's nudie bars together. This is a transparent attempt at targeting a small minority based on little more than deliberately misleading distortions of fact. No attractive, surgically enhanced woman should be prevented from dancing naked if she so chooses. Nor should any man who chooses to attend the show be prevented from doing so. hell, the liberals get the government to fund all kinds of "art" crap, they should get the government to instead provide large sums of money to protect the stripper's art.

Posted 25 March 2010, 11:16 p.m. Suggest removal

RobertMarble says...

correction: ...overstepping the authority they were *NOT originally intended to have......

dammit

Posted 25 March 2010, 11:21 p.m. Suggest removal

denak says...

I think it is interesting that so many people are quick to jump to the defense of strip clubs but without exception, I haven't seen one of those strip club defenders say anything regarding the child pornography part of the bill.

I guess reality--protecting those who are victimized-- is much less fun and much less important than getting one's jolly off at a strip club.

Dena

P.S. Anoicbomb, if you don't think there is a circuit of human trafficking running through our country, you are sadly mistaken. Traffickers use strip clubs and massage palours to move prostituted men, women and children through communities. Google "human trafficking in the U.S." and you will find out. Or go to the FBI website or the Center for Missing and Exploited Children website.

Posted 25 March 2010, 11:25 p.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

Anomicbomb:
Strip clubs wouldn't exist if people didn't demand their services.

---okay, the logic here is extremely easy to refute.
hitmen wouldn't exist if people didn't hire them and pay for their services.
*thus, we must legalize hiring hitmen?

earlier I think it was Larry referenced Sigmund Freud on masturbation.
following down a similar logical rabit trail: thus we must immediately legalize the use of cocaine because after all, Freud used it.

***
try giving that document more than a 2.215minute reading Anomicbomb. yes, it references two crime organizations. however, it also includes *many* generalizations about strip clubs [aka exotic dancing establishments].
I have correctly summarized it above.
we recall that you are one of "our dear Anna's" fawning groupies from other blogs.

I note that apparently you don't mind that women are objectified. that there's at least a lot of evidence to suggest that porn contributes to rape and other violence against women. guess these issues don't bother your conscience.

funny to see the creepy stripper groupies come out here.

Posted 25 March 2010, 11:43 p.m. Suggest removal

Cait McKnelly says...

I agree with you Agnostick but for one factor; conservatives do want control of your mind/heart. But they also most certainly want control of a woman's body. Not only are they anti abortion they are also anti birth control and anti sex education. Both sex ed and birth control can be summed up in one word; abstinence. Abstinence is an archaic concept based on the Judaeo-Christian patriarchal belief that women are chattel and men must know what children they have fathered. In part, this may be a back lash to the growing pressure that the government, both state and federal, has placed on absentee parents for child support in the past couple of decades or so. Yes, there is a sprinkling of women in that group but by and large the over whelming majority is male. The other part is most certainly a wish to control the religious beliefs of the population and fits in with your theory.
"1984" was written by George Orwell during the post war obsession with Communism. Thematically, it was a statement on a communistic (notice the small "c") society run amok. Ray Bradbury's "Fahrenheit 451" and Huxley's "Brave New World" were in much the same vein. What I find so frightening, in a fresh look at all of those works, is that the same can be said of the current conservative climate. All of these books are based on "thought control" of the masses.
When it comes down to it, the liberal idea of wanting control of one's body (as applied to the whole population) isn't nearly as terrifying to me as the idea that the far right, especially the religious right, wants control of my mind.

Posted 26 March 2010, 1:08 a.m. Suggest removal

Mike Ford says...

Barry Penders.... Democratic fixes of GOP economics live, GOP denial lives, and healthcare
for dummies with risky behaviors.

flying spaghetti monster bless us all

Posted 26 March 2010, 2:04 a.m. Suggest removal

somewhereundertherainbow says...

denak wrote: "I think it is interesting that so many people are quick to jump to the defense of strip clubs but without exception, I haven't seen one of those strip club defenders say anything regarding the child pornography part of the bill."

Apples and oranges. Strip clubs involve a consenting relationship between patrons and entertainers. Minors cannot go into these places, and adults who find them objectionable can stay out of them. Child pornography by its very title, can not be consensual. It isn't coincidental that social conservatives would wrap both of these into the same bill, so people who might have an issue with the state telling consenting adults what to do will be forced to vote yes, for fear of being painted as abetting sickos who prey on children. The tactic has been commonly used in other states.

bearded_gnome wrote: ---okay, the logic here is extremely easy to refute.
hitmen wouldn't exist if people didn't hire them and pay for their services.
*thus, we must legalize hiring hitmen?

Actually your logic is what's easy to refute. Again, apples and oranges. Dancers and patrons consent to their involvement at a strip club. The target of a hitman does not.

bearded_gnome wrote: I note that apparently you don't mind that women are objectified. that there's at least a lot of evidence to suggest that porn contributes to rape and other violence against women. guess these issues don't bother your conscience.

There is no such evidence. Just a bunch of junk science propagated by right wing activists and feminists, which apparently the crap that Rep. Patton has bought into. Men who become sex offenders have the seeds sown for this long before pornography enters the picture. If there were any truth to porn causing rape and other violence against women, incidences of both would be off the charts.

Its very clear neither of you have been into these places and met any of the gals who do this for a living. They are by and large average Janes just trying to put food on their tables. Some are single mothers, some are college students, some are women with regular day jobs who are trying to bring home some extra money. Many of them choose to dance because of the flexible hours the job provides which allows them time to be with their kids, attend school, or pursue their hobbies.

I assure you the great majority of these women do what they do on their own initiative, and find your patronization of their chosen line of work insulting. But hey, if you don't believe me, you can go to this website and find out for yourself.

http://forum.stripperweb.com/index.php

This law will go to great depth to impede the ability of these women (many of whom do not have a lot of other options) to make money, at least legally. As for that small minority of dancers who may be stripping against their will, this law will do absolutely nothing to improve their fortunes. Their pimps will simply move them someplace else.

Posted 26 March 2010, 10:02 a.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

from the U.S. State Department,
excerpt of report on conditions in Iceland:
Trafficking in Persons
The law prohibits trafficking in persons; however, there were anecdotal reports that women were trafficked for exploitation.
The general penal code states that "whoever is found guilty of trafficking in persons with the aim of sexual abuse, or forced labor, or for organ removal
shall be punished by up to 8 years imprisonment." Criminal procedures provide that victims may testify against traffickers at government expense. During
the year, police did not charge any persons with trafficking, although traffickers have been convicted under the law on alien smuggling.
The law provides that a person may be extradited as long as the offense involved would be punishable by more than 1 year's imprisonment; therefore, the
law would allow the extradition of persons who were charged with trafficking in other countries.
Police, airport authorities, and women's aid groups reported that there was anecdotal evidence of foreign women trafficked to the country, primarily to
work in striptease clubs or massage parlors offering sexual services. The Baltic countries were the main region of origin for women working in such clubs
and parlors, with others coming from Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. There were no statistics on the number or origin of women actually trafficked.
To work as an exotic dancer, any person from outside the European Economic Area (EEA) must first obtain a work permit, which is typically valid for 3 months.
In 2002, the number of foreign dancers applying for work permits dropped sharply after Reykjavik authorities prohibited private dances that served as a
front for prostitution. The Supreme Court upheld the ban in 2003, and other municipalities have since enacted their own bans, thus largely destroying the
profit incentive for trafficking women into the country. Social workers suspect that most foreign women working in this field now come from within the
EEA and are thus impossible to track through work permit applications.
Trafficking victims could seek help at the women's shelter, counseling center, and hospital, all of which receive government funding. There were no domestic
NGOs dedicated solely to assisting victims of trafficking, nor was there an established government assistance program. Some NGOs provided government supported
counseling and shelter to women and children who were victims of violence or sexual abuse. The government-funded Icelandic Human Rights Center was also
available to assist with trafficking cases and make referrals.
The Government participates in the Nordic-Baltic Action Group Against Human Trafficking, which hosts periodic meetings to discuss programs and strategies.
The group, established to succeed the Nordic-Baltic Campaign Against Trafficking, ...

---tie trafficking to strip clubs stated definite and repeated.
couple of users above need new foil hats.

Posted 28 March 2010, 11:19 p.m. Suggest removal

bearded_gnome says...

excerpt from an Icelandic commission working for the elimination of discrimination [I'm not attempting their actual name!]:
Article 8. Prohibition of slavery and compulsory labour

In recent years slavery and forced labour have come to the fore related to anecdotal evidence that women, mainly from the Baltics, may have been trafficked
to Iceland to work as exotic dancers. There were also indications that Iceland was being used a transit point for trafficking of women between Europe and
the United States. It is therefore commendable that Iceland has signed the United Nations Convention against Transnational and Organized Crime of 15 November
2000, as well as the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, especially Women and Children and it is hoped that the Government
ratifies these instruments soon. We also commend the enactment of Act No. 40/2003, introducing into the General Penal Code a specific provision, Article
227(a), on trafficking in persons making criminal provisions on this issue substantially clearer than before when provisions regarding, inter alia, ‘alien
smuggling’ had to be resorted to in cases of suspected trafficking.   Furthermore, in 2002 the City of Reykjavik and other municipalities enacted a ban
on ‘private dances’, which served in some instances as a front for prostitution, thus apparently destroying the incentive for trafficking to the country
as applications for work permits for exotic dancers decreased dramatically.

---note they believed Iceland served as a transit point for human trafficking to the U.S.

Posted 28 March 2010, 11:47 p.m. Suggest removal

pfunk81 says...

Jeez, I never thought of it like that. Banning lapdances in Kansas will surely end human trafficking. Worked in Iceland! Guess what, buddy? no one cares!

Posted 29 March 2010, 1:15 a.m. Suggest removal

DillonBarnes says...

I'd like to read those biased studies. There is likely a correlation between strip clubs and crime areas, but that doesn't make strip clubs the reason.

Hypocrites

"Don't tell me I have to get Health Care! I'm trying to tell you you can't go into that strip club!"

Posted 29 March 2010, 1:49 a.m. Suggest removal

Dovienya says...

Ludus is 100% correct. They had time to debate this issue, but they don't have time to do real work like balancing the budget and cutting frivolous special intrest spending. Ridiculous! This is more important than our schools? What a way to think of the children.

And to Gnome.
All of your arguments are based on conjecture and speculation. Show us a report from here in the United States that states facts and not the writer's opinions and guesses. You speak like the sex trade is the only human trafficking in town, but you should also take a look at other fields, like Chinese Resturaunts, Dry Cleaners, and Textile Sweatshops here in the US. We should move quickly to introduce more and more legislation prohibiting such businesses from being located in any "decent" parts of town. Once we have done that and found a way to champion the children in doing so, we'll move on to red meat being the bane of human existance and enjoy our broccoli vanilla shakes. And increased crime rates around these establishments? I find it likely that I could more easily prove the correlation between the lack of education and crime rates in the areas that these "reports" cite, than the link between the stripclub and the crime rate. So go ahead and enjoy your burlap sack ride down the slippery slope, just remember there's a deep dark hole at the bottom.

I would also like to ask where did we come up with this idea that exotic dancing is demeaning to women? For all it's appearance I say this idea stems from repression and jealousy, and not from any reliable, practical source (and no, the bible is not a reliable, practical source, for anything that actually matters for that matter).

All I see anymore, is taxes going up, my rights, my liberties, my freedoms as a taxpaying citizen going down, and my purchasing power with what little is left of my paycheck remaining stagnate even as I work harder and make more money. How has what the state accomplished corrected these significant problems.

Posted 3 April 2011, 12:17 a.m. Suggest removal

Sign in to comment

Full LJWorld.com site