another adult video store closed

http://xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=8333
"The case will be presented before a grand jury next month, represented by Webster District Attorney Schuyler Marvin, who is using local community standards to try and prove the store's material is illegal.

Marvin is waging the argument that more than just the sale of adult videos was taking place at La. Video Plus and that the establishment's owner was providing porn viewing booths, which he claims were in direct violation of state law.

"I think that clearly is beyond the limits of our community standards," Marvin said."

it seems to me that if those booths were beyond the limits of community standards, that no one would be IN the booths.

Interesting how homophobia (c'mon porn booths are all about men having sex with men) is being used to argue the store violated "community standards."

It reminds me there's a clear-cut connection between politics and sexuality, and we can't participate in one and ignore the other. If we continue to demand our sexual freedoms we are advocating for our political rights, and vice versa.

I respect gay men who choose a more conservative lifestyle, but those who argue against public sex and pornography, saying they have nothing to do with political rights, are dead wrong.

Wow, that's deep! I need to go home and watch some HGTV. That'll fix me right up.

i used to manage a book store with booths - every hour, i'd have to go through the halls between the booths and was supposed to throw out everyone co-mingling. i was in my 20's - i didn't want to throw out a bunch of 50 year old execs (we had a lot of suit and tie guys). so i used to yell "i hope everyone is in their own booths, and if your hand is in your pocket, it's 'cause you're looking for change!" before i went in.

it's amazing to me sometimes how much politics is about sex. look at the sex toy laws in texas and some other states - it's all about not letting women enjoy their sexuality.

i strongly believe that someone else's sexuality is not about me. it is not a rejection of me, a challenge to me or to my beliefs. the white older males in power have the need to contol everyone's sexuality - and i just don't get it. think of all the more useful things they could be doing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dillmedia

It reminds me there's a clear-cut connection between politics and sexuality, and we can't participate in one and ignore the other. If we continue to demand our sexual freedoms we are advocating for our political rights, and vice versa.

---

I totally agree. Politics and sexual freedom go hand in hand and are tied together with the religious bonds that have helped cement American society since the Pilgrims fled to America in fear of religious persecution.

Funny how, since the Pilgrims came to America, they've done nothing BUT persecute, and judge, each other. Those poor people killed in the Salem witch trials! Remember all the protests against the pill? The bra burning and women’s sexual liberation? Abortion rights? Gay marriage? ALL ABOUT SEXUAL FREEDOM.

Gay marriage is about sexual freedom as much as it is about equal rights IMO. It's sad that some people don't like Gay rights being visible in the public eye and fear a backlash. We get nothing but discrimination and harassment when we're silent so what does it matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

I strongly believe that someone else's sexuality is not about me. it is not a rejection of me, a challenge to me or to my beliefs. the white older males in power have the need to control everyone's sexuality - and i just don't get it. think of all the more useful things they could be doing!

---

I don't think it's a white older males thing. Look at Africa and how the chiefs control every aspect of village life, including who can have children and who can marry who. I think it's a power hungry mongrol kiind of thing. Every society, no matter what race, has those in power that want to control everything everyone does. A planet wide pissing contest. :francais:

Interesting article. But the authorities may have seriously hurt their case by seizing anything and everything, since "fishing expeditions" are looked upon with disfavor by judges. Search warrants must be carefully crafted, and the "blunderbuss approach" can backfire on prosecutors. Most small town prosecutors are inexperienced with obscenity law, as Salina KS authorities learned recently when charges against Lion's Den were dropped.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dillmedia

Interesting how homophobia (c'mon porn booths are all about men having sex with men) is being used to argue the store violated "community standards."

It reminds me there's a clear-cut connection between politics and sexuality, and we can't participate in one and ignore the other. If we continue to demand our sexual freedoms we are advocating for our political rights, and vice versa.

I respect gay men who choose a more conservative lifestyle, but those who argue against public sex and pornography, saying they have nothing to do with political rights, are dead wrong.

---

Ok - San Francisco reality check needed here - maybe the adult bookstores in S.F. are totaly gay, but in reality gay men do not have a monopoly on vice. An aquaintence of mine who owned several adult bookstores in San Antonio/South Texas always said that the entire reason they stay in business is due to straight, married hispanic guys who stop in and jack off to a movie in one of their booths. There are plenty of bookstores where if you go in looking for some gay nookie, you're going to find nothing. (and there are plenty where you will)

To say all blue activity is connected to gay male sex is cavalier.

(Andy - you may not know how much I love to debate Squirt ) So should I go on to argue that sexual freedoms and politics are not one in the same? Gay rights is about acheiving equal treatment with straight people. It has little to do with public sexual activity.

INTERESTINGLY - Let's grant your suggestion that sexual freedom and political rights go hand in hand. If that were so, then I can point to last year's landmark Supreme Court decision that established a right to privacy for sexual activity in the bedroom. (which began with overturning Texas' sodomy law) Now IF your thesis were true then last year would have been an amazingly successful year in advancing our rights. There has never been an articulated, iron-clad right to sexual privacy until last year's Lawrence v. Texas.

That is a first ever --- more important then a law passed at the legislative level. This trumps all of it. So where's the hurrahs?

If there is a clear cut connection between politics and sexuality, then that means the sword cuts both ways. Not just all about the grim negatives.

However I distinctly recall almost no mention of this event, but rather last year we heard an unending pontification of how gay rights and our lives are mercilessly assulted by Bush, Ashcroft and the Republicans. However, the point of this is not to go down that rabbit trail. I just thought that using your theory actually shows that 2004 was an historic progression on many levels.

I'm not saying at all that life is a panacea. I am only testing the ramifications of the specific case made here.

If anything, this might show a fundamental problem with that theory.

Steve :turtle:

PS: Where the hell is Webster, LA ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

Ok - San Francisco reality check needed here - maybe the adult bookstores in S.F. are totaly gay, but in reality gay men do not have a monopoly on vice. An aquaintence of mine who owned several adult bookstores in San Antonio/South Texas always said that the entire reason they stay in business is due to straight, married hispanic guys who stop in and jack off to a movie in one of their booths. There are plenty of bookstores where if you go in looking for some gay nookie, you're going to find nothing. (and there are plenty where you will)

To say all blue activity is connected to gay male sex is cavalier.

---

Maybe I should have been clearer. I don't mean "gay" as in self-idetified out men, the kind who participate in gay pride events (like me). I understand lots of these guys may not identify as "gay," adn that many are married and consider themselves striaght. But the point is the perception of these stores and the activity that goes on there is "gay." I believe homophobia is about the fear and disgust peopl feel a the idea of two men having sex, whether out men in a committed realtionship (like marriage) or straight guys getting BJs through glory holes in bookstores. I don't think those who vote against us feel there much of a difference.

I think the overturning of the Texas sodomy law had a very direct effect on our political efforts. Mainstream converative America saw that succes as one more sign of the country' moral decay led by "sodomites" allowed to flaunt their perversity. These forces again see little difference in gay people having butt-sex and getting married...it's all part of the same Satanic plan. And that rallied many to vote more conservatively and anti-gay.

I'm not saying that we are obligated to take up the banner of public bookstore sex, as part and parcel of who we are. Frankly some of that gives strength to our enemies. But I think we need to understand that we say "the freedom to marry" and they hear "anal sex."

True.

Steve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

so i used to yell "i hope everyone is in their own booths, and if your hand is in your pocket, it's 'cause you're looking for change!" before i went in.

---

ROFLMAO!!! Patti, this is brilliant! Thanks for giving me that first big guffaw of the morning. :)