City Wants to Regulate Sex Businesses

DTag writes: The Hook has a news report in this week’s issue regarding the new zoning ordinance including regulation of sexually-oriented businesses, e.g. video stores and stores that sell sexually-related items. Jim Tolbert of Neighborhood Development and Lisa Kelley of the City Attorney’s office are taking the lead in drafting this legislation. A public hearing will take place on December 10. High points of the ordinance are the “1000 feet” rule and the definition of “adult use”.

57 Responses to “City Wants to Regulate Sex Businesses”

  • I bristled when I first read about this, but the more that I read, the more OK that it seemed. It appears that the city wants only to prevent too many of them from popping up in one place. This seems reasonable, although it would be nice if this would be applied more fairly.

    For example, more than one Starbucks in town seems excessive. Also, more than one Top 40 Country station should qualify as "obscene," and be similarly prevented. Finally, having more than one strip mall within any five mile stretch certainly seems to qualify as offensive, and should also be regulated.

    In short, it’s a good start. But let’s apply this rule across the board in the name of fair play.

  • Laws constraining speech (like this one looks to be) tend to be very difficult to write and are very subject to litigitious attack. That makes them very expensive laws.

    Is the marginal benefit from this law worth all of that cost? Is the time spent drafting this on gov’t dime?

  • This City needs a strip club. People (like myself) are so damn uptight around here and worried about offending someone that they fight anything that may be seen as "different". I am proposing that someone with proper funding open a strip club that contains two rooms or two floors. One area for the lady patrons and one for the men. No offense, but the City lets the homosexual population have their club, what about the rest of us? It doesn’t need to be dressed up with neon lights and billboards.

  • I agree 100% for a strip club in Cville, too many trips to Richmond is bad for the gas milage just to go to a strip club.

  • I think you’re getting your wants confused with your needs.

  • I WANT a strip club and I NEED a strip club

    easier said then done in CVille :P

  • I can understand the city being worried about a red light district popping up, but it’s pretty difficult to find any location in the city that is 1000 feet from "residences, schools, religious institutions, public parks, playgrounds, or day care centers". Particularly any location that isn’t far away from the main strips. Personally, I want all of my deviant desires easily attainable close to home, and preferably all near each other. Sucks to have to drive across town to get the proper matching toy for this accessory, or restraint for that attachment.

    Props for your cleverness on the across-the-board idea, Waldo. But you’ll find me there speaking loudly against this one on the 10th. Charlottesville has a rather large kinky population, and it’s a shame that they frequently don’t seem to have a voice.

  • This reminds me of where I used to live in New Jersey (1995-1997). The floods of a few years back that had downtown under two stories of water might have changed things, but Bound Brook is a good example of "adult oriented businesses" in a small area.

    Bound Brook is in Somerset County, within the NYC metro area, sandwiched between Middlesex and Somerville. The town only takes up 1.6 square miles. Even more notable than the 10,000+ crammed into that little place or the massive superfund site right on our drinking water supply was the sheer number of adult businesses. I know of a couple of bars and way too many liquor stores for such a small area, and the town had a total of five strip clubs. Oh, I’m sorry, not strip clubs, "gentlemen’s clubs."

    I’m not bitter.

    Anyway, besides the fact that it’s in New Jersey, Bound Brook was actually a nice place to live. The high population led to a little claustrophobia, but it also created a good community atmosphere. Despite the readily available alcohol and topless girls, there did not seem to be a great deal of crime. There was some, but it was mostly just local teens getting into mischief. Even though I was only in my early teens at the time, I never felt uneasy about being downtown, even at night.

    To relate this to C-Ville, especially with state control of the alcoholic beverage market, I don’t see how regulating adult businesses is necessary. The adult businesses we do have seem to be operating responsibly, and I really don’t think there is much demand for much more than we have now. Besides, I doubt the adult video stores and the new place next to Big Jim’s (I forget the name) are creating nearly the mess that some corner bars are.

  • Reading that our city might be weighed down with adult entertainment zoning ordinances disappointed me. In other cities, these regulations are mostly used to punish legal businesses that even the most hypocritical politicians cannot shut down outright. Conservative Christians and politicians trying to appeal to them use these ordinances to publicize themselves with lawsuits that they often lose but that bankrupt small businesses anyway. We cannot let these elements control a government that is supposed to be secular.

    It is unfair to use our cultural shame of sex to treat sexually-oriented adult businesses different than alcohol-oriented adult businesses. Drunkenness has more potential to harm than sexual arousal. It is hypocritical to punish businesses retailing sexual health or sexual entertainment while not even considering doing the same to the many bars in our town. If we applied a thousand-foot rule to bars, Venable would cause the shutdown of the Corner; and if "school" includes "private school", you might as well close the Downtown Mall now. The businesses mentioned in your article, along with Victoria’s Secret and the many porn-selling convenience stores that went unmentioned, have served us without incident for so very long in Charlottesville. They have provided a lot of fun and orgasms, and I think the freedom to have sexual fun is the highest level of freedom’s evolution.

    Dee Taggart


  • Taking tongue out of cheek, it’s not fair. It’s about repressing sexual expression. The idea that Cville, after 2 centuries of existence, 100 years of cinema and 20 years of adult video would suddenly develop a "red light district" makes no sense. "Red light district" implies amsterdam-style hookers in display windows. This is so unbelievable. We already have laws against prostitution, and street prostitution does not seem to be a problem as of now in Cville. This is big government at its worst.

  • I just read on the city’s website that the public hearing of the 10th has been postponed.

    Hoo2LA has a good point. Isn’t this kind of law like a "chilling effect" or "prior restraint" or something?

    Krues8dr: I think the idea of a "red light district" is a bogeyman. Cities create red light districts by restricting adult business to distant, isolated, impoverished, industrial zones. It’s not fair to inhibit sexual speech in this way. What’s next, controlling the distance between sex therapists? "Sorry, UVA, you have to kick the peer sex educators out of the Student Health building because they’re too close to the STD clinic" Think about it…if they’re trying to control sexual media, what’s to stop them from trying to control something like the PSE’s, whom I’ve seen using dildoes in their presentations! Oh my god…I just thought…what if they label a Dunglison Sex and the Citython as "adult use"?! We could have first-years kicked out. Wait, maybe those dorms are legally in the County. Hmm. Actually, the more I think about it…Sex and the City *is* unrated, isn’t it? It’s a tv show, so it didn’t have to go through the MPAA. Every single episode is focusses on "specific sexual acts"! "Funky spunk" anyone? The comptroller with a urine fetish? Wanking off to wedding proofs of your wife glued into Juggs magazine? They’re gonna have to block the opening of the new Blockbuster because it rents and sells Sex and the City!

    I have to disagree with you on one small thing, though, K: I don’t think any kind of consensual sex is "deviant". Even BDSM is so widespread that it can’t be labeled "deviant" anymore. I know for some people it’s fun/arousing to label their sexual activities as somehow rebellious. Sex is natural. Sex is good. And contrary to George Micheal, everyone *does* do it.

  • dkachur: this is a good story. You should send it as a letter to the Hook editor.

  • I say fight fire with fire. If they want to take a step backwards, we should take one forwards. Open a strip club, rake in the profits, and laugh all the way to the bank. All I need is first round financing, can I get some ends yo?

    This ordinance would shut down 216. Can I get a hell yeah from my ACLU crew? *trumpet blast* LITIGATE!!!

    Every video store has to clean up? Every quick-e-mart? Every book in barnes and noble would have to be screened for content? Are there going to be internal body cavity searches?

    As soon as that neon light flickers on for the first time, the reactionary right will be blaming eachother for bringing this upon themselves.

  • Sorry, but S&M isn’t sex. No more than football is sex. Sure, if you wanna wear strange straps and ropes and such, great… but its not adult nor sexual. Sure, if you want to stick bananas in your bodily orifaces, great… but that doesnt make bananas obscene for the general public (I stick them in my mouth all the time, they’re yummy and loaded with vitamins and minerals!)

    You’re just shamelessly self promoting your attempt at a contrived counter-culture persona. Please, some of us are eating here. Go home and play with your toys, and please don’t bother us with your entierly non-sexual control issues.

  • screw the expense. city council will just jack up our water rates again to pay for the legal fight.

  • do they really think a "red light district" is going to pop up in c’ville? gimme an f’n break. i think they should open up more sex shops, strip clubs and brothels, and use the profits to lower our damn water rates!!!

  • stfu ?

    What is that? Frech?

  • "Sexual speech" is only a subset of what we’re talking about here – selling sex toys, for example, is no more "speech" than is running a paper mill that dumps toxic waste in your backyard. Part of the problem in this area is trying to draw a line between protected speech and unprotected obscenity or commercial activity.

    And "deviant" has a psychological meaning independent of any moral or legal judgments to which the issue of consent would be relevant. Sex can be legal and morally acceptable yet still be deviant.

  • Go back to kindergarten, Lars. Who made you the arbiter of what’s "adult" or sexual, anyway? Just because it doesn’t give YOU a thrill doesn’t mean it’s perverse, childish, or a pose (hmm, come to think of it, a childish pose would be more like cutting down other people in a discussion because their tastes don’t meet with your approval).

    And for the record: Mirriam-Webster’s defines sex as, among other things, "sexually motivated phenomena or behavior," which it seems to me includes S&M but not football, and sticking bananas in certain orifices for sexual pleasure but not in others for consumption. Try to grasp the difference.

  • For your information, I never went to kindergarden.

    First off, how can you say a rope is sexual? I’m not talking about the act. If Billy goes to lowes and buys some nice new soft nylon rope, will the clerk assume its for sexually deviant entertainment? Not unless he tells him.

    My point was that the items he wants to buy (toys) are not really sexual in nature, until someone markets them as such :)

    And for the record, Tying someone up is not sexual, nor is dressing up in a costume or beating someone else with a whip or stick or whathaveyou. Its simply not sexual in nature. It’s about control and loss of control. Sure you can have sex with your S&M partner(s) but just because 2 people have sex and also play tennis does that make tennis sexual? I was trying to point out that this law wouldn’t ban the sale of billy’s toys, whatever they are… leashes, or whips or whatever it is he implies he’d like to buy. They’re not obscene, they’re simply objects.

    Football can be a fetish. Just as beating someone or tying someone up can be a fetish. How is one more inherantly sexual than the other? The motivation is not sexual. How does sexuality motivate you to beat someone or tie them up? Its CONTROL ISSUES that motivate the S&M crowd. Well winning or loosing a football game is about control. It involves lots of violent physical contact… There are even cheerleaders urging more violence! I’m pretty sure there is cheerleader porn. Does that make all cheerleaders on earth obscene? No. Some people have fetishes that involve all sorts of normal everyday items and activities. They aren’t somehow tainting those things for everyone else. I.E. We’re not banning the sale of bananas or rope or riding crops.

    I’ve known billy for his entire adult life, and I’d prefer he just stop trying to link anything that arises in public discussion with the fact he likes to buy fetish toys. Wheee! Billy likes toys, wheee! I REALLY needed to be told that, AGAIN. I don’t dislike him, nor do I dislike his idea of fun. I just think it’s irrelevant since what he’s talking about is not porn, tittie bars, etc. And thus not covered by the proposed law.

    And I’m glad I didn’t go to kindergarden, What EXACTLY did they teach you in kindergarden about the motivation behind S&M and bondage and other assorted passtimes. I may never know.

  • I think the peace protestors protesting the potential war in Iraq are offensive, especially when they walk up to your car.

    I think one peace protestor every 1000 feet is probably a good number.

    I know it’s free speech, but hey, I’m offended, and I have rights.

  • Can I get an employee discount if I ante up?

    Not EVERYONE on the "right" is against strip clubs!

  • Rock on, brother!

    I see the tagline now – "Screwing for water" or something like that.

  • Sexual speech is *exactly* what we’re talking about here. The samples of the ordinance I read in this week’s Cville Weekly are specifically about sex. If it’s not about controlling the sexual message of "sex is positive and fun," then why single out sellers of things sexual? It’s not the same as a polluting factory because there’s no pollution coming out of a place like Ultimate Bliss.

    Does anyone here even know why they’re making these laws? The people in charge seem to have nothing more to say than "Well, Roanoke and Richmond have them. So should we!" That would be like some other state saying, "Well, Virginia has ancient statutes against certain sex acts. We should have ’em too!"

  • Umm…this law *is* about the selling of sex toys, along with those other things.

  • No, just the reactionary ones.

  • I’m now lawyer, but I didn’t see anything about leather straps and feather dusters in the hook article:

    A draft of the new ordinance spells out in explicit detail what constitutes adult use. Its specifics regarding adult anatomical areas and sexual activities make it the only regulation on the books that uses the words “turgid,” “areola,” and “tumescence.”

    Hmmm, So every cop carrying handcuffs is distributing sexual toys?

    Note the quote above “regarding anatomical areas and sexual activities” NOT objects billy likes to hit people with.

    Plain and simple, little old ladies are NOT going to wander into a strip club and die of a heart attack. If you’re afraid of your own body or those of others, just don’t go in.

  • I am fairly certain that the proposal includes a grandfather clause, so that 216, the video stores, barnes and noble and others would be fine.

  • From my limited investigation, the sexual is the erotic and the erotic is that which is sexual. It seems to me that issues of control are tightly intertwined with the erotic for many people.

    How, then, is S&M not sexual? Merely because it is not aimed at some sort of easily-identified biological release?

    Given how contrary your position (that S&M is not sexual) is to that of the vast, overwhelming majority, I think that you have to take another step.

    This is not to say that control and eros are always tied together, just that, for most people, S&M is sexualized control.

  • "Adult bookstore: An establishment that devotes more than 15% of the total floor area for the display and sale of…instruments, devices or paraphernalia which are designed for use in connection with specified sexual activities."

    This is from the new ordinance.

  • Except:

    –If they want to move.

    –If they want to expand.

    –If they are hit with fire or flood and have to move

    –If the city decides to *not* grandfather them in in the final draft

    –If the city decides later to amend the z.o. to un-grandfather the grandfathered. It’s happened in other places. It may end up with the city losing in court, but that won’t stop them from doing it in the first place and in the process bankrupting the business with legal defense costs.

    –The city could also, at a future date, decideto change their definition of an adult business to include businesses that had formerly not been considered such. This happened in Richmond just a couple of years ago. The definition was so strict it ended up including national video store chains like Movie Gallery.

  • The things banned include not only the things banned but also the things that might be banned. Overbreadth is a criticism applicable to critiques, my friend.

    As apparently currently written, the dire results suggested by the earlier poster are inaccurate. Further, if he takes the tack you are suggesting, that of political realism, then his criticisms again fail. Though it is _possible_ that the rule would be used against B&N book by book, few would wager that to be the case. Political realism does not support that argument, though political extremism might.

  • Ok fine, you disagree, great. If only we had some psychologists here to post. It is widely accepted that S&M is not sexual. Infact, many S&M BDSM whatever partners DONT have sex with eachother. You can go to a "club" in new york and have a dom beat you. No sex involved. That wouldnt be covered by the law.

    Whats next? Are you going to tell me that rape is sex? Rape is not sex, if someone hit you with a frying pan, would that be cooking?

  • S&M is *not* sexual. It may be often perceived as a sexual release simply because it involves physicalities common to both, that is the elaboration on body parts (amongst other things), but that does not make it sex. It may even be substituted for sex by an S&M individual, but still, it’s not sex.

    What I find offensive in your post – and the reason I am jumping in – is that you lay claim to some illusionary ‘overwhelming majority’ to be in agreement with you. Even if you could make some statistical references to mass opinions on the subject, so what? Majorities may rule, but that doesn’t make them right. Jumping to that conclusion and acting upon it is dangerous. This kind of thinking has been the origin of the most horrible human atrocities. In other words, why can’t you just state your position without needing the backup of others?

  • You are absolutely right. Laws exist for the ease of prosecution. Something along the lines of "we came up with banning this before you came up with doing it, so we win". Laws are just a "toolkit" used as the powers that be see fit. I may have a monkey wrench in my toolkit, but I’ll only use it if I feel the pipe I’m removing causes me problems, leaking for example.

    I presented such overblown examples to point out this fact. I often assume people can read between the lines. Basically we turn a blind eye to some infractions of the law, and focus on others. When I talked to investors about a strip club, I was told "even if its not illegal, they’ll shut you down"…. So in reality, you don’t need a law, you simply need legislators and lawyers who wish to control your actions. They’ll dig in their toolkit of laws, and if they don’t find what they need, they stop by the local hardware store and pick up a new one.

    Freedom is an illusion. Our government is based on the british system, developed to replace the rule of the king with the rule of law, to create some predictability and remove the arbitrary whim of an inbred control freak king. Well now we just have many many more inbred control freaks. Nothing has changed.

    Watch your step!

  • Well, what *has* changed is the wished for predictability is in fact LESS so, precisely because it is so much more difficult to monitor and deal with the multitude of powers that be (rather than a King and a slew of minor royalties).

    That being said, these powers that be, however numerous [and inbred], are mostly very predictable, since they tend towards the typical modern methodologies for either taxation or indoctrination.

    But your take on American Inquisition is spot on. Right now, under the current Disseminator of Globalized Truth, watch your step should you be a dissident, a union member, an Arab, a priest, an immigrant, a Democratic President or a smoker. There’s a law somewhere that can be unearthed should a power take a disliking to you; maybe you have sex in a non-missionary position? [isn’t that still on the books in Virginia,?]

  • I didn’t say that I was correct because I was in accord with the majority view. Please take a minute to READ my post:

    "Given how contrary your position (that S&M is not sexual) is to that of the vast, overwhelming majority, I think that you have to take another step."

    All that I am saying there is that when to urge an assertion that is clearly extremist, a good rhetorician will actually supply an argument. I did not say, as I hope eventually dawns on you, that being in the majority makes you correct.

    Now, then, the arguments.

    Lars has argued that S&M is not sexual because S&M is not sex. That is exactly what he is said and also all that I can take from his lone argument in support that S&M is not necessarily exactly sexual intercourse.

    You have argued even less. You have made NO argument that S&M is not sexual (only described some similarities in how they are perceived).

    I reiterate my argument, which was, I remind you, the only real argument made:

    The sexual is the erotic. The erotic is the sexual. For some people, issues of control are tied in to the erotic. For those people, S&M can be sexual.

    That is all. Simple, straightforward, unrefuted by the two of you.

    I await a bumbling response.

  • Although you will undoubtedly mock any response I may have, as you “await a bumbling response” from me, I will substitute but one single word with your ‘very own’, ‘rhetorical’ construct:

    “The sexual is the erotic. The erotic is the sexual. For some people, issues of control are tied in to the erotic. For those people, [PARENTING] can be sexual.”

    Is parenting not a control issue? We could again substitute for a zillion other control derivatives, such as RAPE, BUSINESS SUCCESS, LEADERSHIP, etc. All these would fit just as well as S&M, which you kind of drop in the construct, ad hoc, sans reasonably obvious link.

    Now if you’re saying S&M activities are most often thought of as sexual behavior, both by the persons involved or by others witnessing it, then you may be right.

    But sex itself involves other motives entirely. In fact, I’d say that sex is almost opposite to S&M. In sex, the parties tend to shed their façades and bare all, whereas S&M is mostly a pretend or make-believe behavior. In sex, especially good sex, there’s a desire to get closer and more intimate, whereas S&M is enacted by emotionally distancing the participants from each other, as in “take that, you whore!”, or again, “beg for my calming, you weak slave!”. In it’s best incarnation, sex is said to make the participants become “one”. I don’t see any of these emotions expended during an S&M session.

    But when I reread myself, I submit I am just bumbling. Sorry. I beg your forgiveness. Pleeeeeaaaaase forgive me! R u feeling any better?

  • Shhhh!!!! They’re watching our every word!

    In your comment that "a law somewhere that can be unearthed should a power take a disliking to you" rings true in my ear. Much more succinct than my rambling attempt at an explanation of the situation. But I would like to add a caveat. Just as such laws can be unearthed when a power needs them, other laws can be buried when they get in the way of the master plan. Have you ever heard of the posse comitatus act of 1878? In a nutshell, this act bans the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines from participating in arrests, searches, seizure of evidence and other police-type activity on U.S. soil. Most americans would assume this protects us, but there are "ways" of dealing with such problems.

    A Presidential Executive Order, whether Constitutional or not, becomes law simply by its publication in the Federal Registry. Congress is bypassed.

    Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution is concise in its language, "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." That is no longer true. The Bill of Rights protected Americans against loss of freedoms. That is no longer true. The Constitution provided for a balanced separation of powers. That is no longer applicable.

    Executive Order 12148 created the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA has only spent about 6 percent of its budget on national emergencies, the bulk of their funding has been used for the construction of secret underground facilities to assure continuity of government in case of a major emergency. Apparently its ok with them if the rest of us are incinerated, poisoned, etc.

    Government officials, who spoke to the Washington Post, said the back-up government consisted of anything from 70 to 150 people at two principal locations on the East Coast. They are suspected to be living and working in heavily fortified mountain bunkers, carved out under Pennsylvania’s Raven Rock Mountain and Weather Mountain in Virginia. code-named "High Point", it is a 61,000 square foot mountain bunker near Berryville, Virginia, where the president, the cabinet, and the Supreme Court justices would be relocated. Given that the locations of such bunkers have been disclosed(including the outing of the greenbrier bunker in WVa) FEMA has undoubtedly relocated such facilities.

    Which brings us to speculation. As an interesting side note… During the peak of post-sep-11th hysteria, I was standing outside of work and noticed a Boeing 757 painted with US Air Force colors (white with blue stripe) circling downtown. I am a huge airplane freak, so I watched carefully. After a few rotations, it flew over the Azalea NDB and started on approach to CHO airport. As it passed over me, I was able to identify it as Air Force Two (tail number 90004). The plane designated to transport the Vice President, and occasionally high ranking EOP officials. Undisclosed location? After consulting up to date FAA sectional charts and drawing circles representing unrefueled helicopter ranges (specifically the Sikorsky VH-3D Sea King) around airports in VA capable of landing Air Force Two (5000+ ft runway), I’ve found that the mountains west of Charlottesville are a prime candidate for such a bunker.

    Meanwhile, back in reality, the EOP (executive office of the president) can grab this country by the balls any time it chooses, all it needs is to engineer an excuse. We are no longer under the threat of 10,000 thermonuclear devices detonating on US soil. However Dubbya has decided that it IS possible for terrorist groups to obtain a small number of nuclear weapons, and as such has initiated this "continuity of government" plan "just in case". All he has to do is pull his prewritten and presigned executive orders out of the safe, and poof, martial law.

    The only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.

  • You’re cattishness aside, I still don’t see why you deny that S&M can be (and usually is) sexual.

    If I may summarize:

    * S&M is about control (as is rape, business success leadership, parenting)

    * Sex is some shedding facades activity, apparently limited strictly

    * S&M is make believe

    * Therefore, S&M is not sexual

    In return, I submit:

    * The sexual is the erotic (as I’ve said before)

    * S&M, as culturally understood, is a sexual activity (that is, it is strongly associated with sex)

    * S&M can be understood to be erotic, and oftenly is, in a way that your other ridiculous examples are not

    * Therefore, S&M is sexual

    I still don’t see how your argument responds to either a real sense of understanding of our culture or to my argument.

    I can’t say that your descriptions of sex and S&M as anything but closed-minded. For some, the emotional distancing of S&M is what allows them the release to be themselves, hence to be truly erotic.

  • It is not widely accepted that S&M is not sexual (hence you having to make a big stink of it here).

    Also, I submit to you that there are sexual things (a lingering kiss, an erotic photo) that are not sex and where no one has sex. Sex and the sexual are two related but different things.

  • If I come across as “cattish” or “close-minded”, it must be because I’m not very good at S&M. And since you are valiantly defending your opinion that S&M is sexual, and not mostly a role-playing game about control (with sexual undertones), as I have contended, then that is that. I respect your opinion, particularly now that you’re not calling upon Tom, Dickie and Harriett to assist you in pulverizing someone else’s opinion on a subject matter, I will add, is most obviously subjective, no?

    Bye :-)

  • Your info on covert governmental operations was a good read. And shhh… I believe every word!

    You say: “The only thing standing between us and dictatorship is the good character of the President, and the lack of a crisis severe enough that the public would stand still for it.”

    This is not very reassuring, as I expect you well know, especially the part about the hopeful existence of “the good character of the President”. Also, aren’t ‘they’ trying to claim the imminence of some severe crisis? No wonder you’re out in the mountains (as am I)!

  • *dons overalls, wide brimmed hat, and double barrel shotgun*

    *sits on rocking chair*

    I love my country!!! I just hates da gumment!

  • Myself, I’m partial to Ruger mini-14, Natuzzi leather and just plain Levi’s, but otherwise…

  • Would these be banned?

    All I can say is “boob scarves”

  • hey someone who is a computer geek told me that stfu means "Stup the F’n UP"

    wow such a nice reply

  • I dunno I don’t think S&M is right either. You get people dress up in leather spanking the hell out of each other.

    I want sex to feel nice and not hurt :P.

  • lol @mmike

    we should send these protesters to Iraq so they can construct a human chain and protect the innocent people like Saddum.

  • Just for the record. Air Force 2 (actually, one of a number of aircraft that could possibly bear that designation [1]), makes frequent visits to our lovely KCHO. They’ve been practicing touch-and-gos their for the last 5 years that I know of, and likely longer. I was more familiar with their schedule (at least once a month) when I actually worked on the airport grounds, but I still tend to notice ’em from time to time. I feel fairly certain that they’re just keeping trained, and KCHO is a convenient short-field practice site.

    And just a side note, in all that time I’ve never seen them make a full-stop landing. A bummer too, since bringing that much iron to a stop on that (relatively) short of a runway should be quite a sight. Not to mention taking off again!

    Anyhow, I wouldn’t read *too* much into their presence.


    [1] Air Force 2 is, by definition, the aircraft that is carrying the VP. Theoretically, even a Cessna could be Air Force 2. And I believe that there’s about half a dozen of these 757-200s (potential AF2s) anyways.

  • As I said before, I dont have a problem with billy, or with his passtimes. Infact, it may even be lots of fun. Although I’ve never had any motivation to engage in such activities, I’ve always believed "Don’t knock it until you’ve tried it". And since you and I have not tried it, we have no right to complain.

    But I agree with you, sex is fine all by itself. Even without causing pain, the associated bondage and dominance are not needed. Sex is fine all by itself. That said, we can only speak for ourselves.

    If you want to be beaten/dominated, I suggest sending an email to your friends saying "tomorrow b0m8". You’ll get the professional treatment :) Definitly S&M, but sadly, you (probably) won’t be getting any sex out of the deal. Yet another clear distinction between the two :)

  • I agree fully!

    "I think the peace protestors protesting the potential war in Iraq are offensive, especially when they walk up to your car"

    I have a solution. PEPPER SPRAY.

    Protester? Carjacker? How am I to know the difference? He had a big stick! I was scared!

  • Thats a good point. CHO gets a lot of military traffic, once I saw an F18 make a full stop (THAT was spectacular, I fully expected it to bust through the fence.) Apparently it was an emergency. The big guy with a gun (he’s big, he’s got a gun, he’s BIG GUN GUY!) didn’t mind me doing a walk around, but got quite upset when I looked up into the wheel well. Must be some secret bits in there. I was saddened that I did not get to see it take off (now THAT would be a sight). Apparently it was impossible, they took the wings off and drove it away in a truck.

    AF2 made a full stop landing. And it identified as AF2, I had my radio on. The runway is now 6001 feet. It should be no problem for an aircraft equipped for 5000ft (or less) to make a stop.

    And I didn’t read too much into it. I was simply reminded that CHO is a good place to land. We’re less than a 10 minute flight from DC. The contingency plans require a 15 minute evacuation. They don’t have to be IN the bunker that fast, just out of the blast radius of DC. Speaking of time, why did it circle downtown? If it was a standard military maintainance flight then why would they wait for landing at an airport with no other traffic in contact with the tower? (maybe I missed something on the ground traffic, I can’t hear the ground traffic from 10 miles out). One could speculate that there were some arrangements on the ground, perhaps secondary transport or security that were not in place in time.

    And on top of that, there are a couple dozen 5000ft runways in the DC area that are literally "under the cake" of the bigger airports. You dont need to come down here for that. Combine that with the fact that it happened during the whole 911 fisasco and you have to admit it is a bit fishy.

    I don’t know how many they have. But I only know of 2 of these planes so far. I gave you the tail number. Who cares how many others there are? THATS the one I saw.

    And now the obligatory speculation. The new National Ground Intelligence Center is on a sprawling compound smack dab between Charlottesville and the airport. Perhaps they have a huge bunker there. The problem with building such a huge compound is covering up the construction. Birds are watching these things, and building a huge above ground complex is great cover. In addition to that, 150 or so people work in such a bunker, and you have to cover up their movements. Seeing as NGIC employs a large number of people, many of whom stay for days or weeks on end without going home. It makes a lot of sense.

    I admit it is 100% speculation. The point of my previous post is that this bunker isn’t just sitting there in wait. Wherever it may be, it is fully staffed upon order of the President. This means they expect to switch over in a heartbeat. Thats all I was implying… The location IS and SHOULD REMAIN a secret. If I knew where it was, I certainly wouldn’t tell you.

  • UVA and the Hidden Bunker Department! I suspect this ties into the water troubles, too.

    I wonder if HBD pays a living wage? For the radar guy, sure, but for the guys who make the beds a mile down?

    I bet HBD and UVA have a little agreement whereby UVA takes all the heat, and HBD builds secret underground garages in every neighborhood – one morning, we’ll all wake up and every single car will have a reserved spot in a massive and yet delicately designed garage!

  • If this interested you at all, the Federation of American Scientists is your bread and butter.

    Click below to read their take on Mount Weather (operation “High Point”). It cost you one billion dollars, so you might as well know what it is.


    And my favorite, Mt Pony in Culpepper VA, it used to contain over $1 billion dollars in cash. They’ve since packed up and moved out… but it’s still cool. Mt Pony

  • I’ve known billy for his entire adult life, and I’d prefer he just stop trying to link anything that arises in public discussion with the fact he likes to buy fetish toys. Wheee! Billy likes toys, wheee! I REALLY needed to be told that, AGAIN.

    Congratulations, you sound like a big asshole. What Krues8dr said was totally reasonable and appropriate for the topic. If you’ve got some beef with him, fine, but the way that’s manifesting itself here just makes you look like a dick. Furthermore, as someone who’s obviously familiar with the web, you should know by now that using someone’s real name on a public discussion forum when that person doesn’t use it is really bad form. Oh, and don’t even try bullshitting about how you “don’t dislike him”, if that were even remotely true then you wouldn’t have chosen the subject you did.

    Tying someone up is not sexual, nor is dressing up in a costume or beating someone else with a whip or stick or whathaveyou. …just because 2 people have sex and also play tennis does that make tennis sexual?

    For them it obviously is, so yes. As far as I’m concerned anyone can make just about anything sexual for them. If Catholic schoolgirl uniforms get you hot, then obviously those are sexual for you. They’re not for most people, and that doesn’t make it sexual for most people, but for some it clearly is. And on the subject of S&M, saying it’s not sexual is just plain naive. That’s the whole point, it’s sexual. I mean, yes, it also involves power disparity, but those people get off on that. So yes. Just because something isn’t plain vanilla sex doesn’t mean it’s not sex.

Comments are currently closed.