Prostitution Now Coalition
Your Tax Dollars Are Being Wasted Ruining Citizens Lives
Instead of fighting real crime
COPYRIGHTED 1998 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - MAY BE REPRINTED OR QUOTED FROM ONLY IF CREDIT IS GIVEN Decriminalize Prostitution Now Coalition, MAILING ADDRESS IS SHOWN AND WE ARE SENT A COPY OF PUBLICATION.
Great Az Republic article on sex laws
Arizona Republic Is Exposing The Foolishness of New Sex Laws
Empty laps, happy pols, sad swingers
By David Leibowitz December 11, 1998
Great article at http://www.azcentral.com/news/cols/1211leib.shtml (now broken link) for those who didn't see it or who are out of Phoenix.
My favorite two paragraphs:
In Phoenix, the capital of Arizona, it's now perfectly legal to stroll down Central Avenue with a .38 revolver strapped to your hip and no license of any sort. But should you want to display a pair of 38Ds while dancing at Le Girls, you'll need a background check and an official ID.
Tiffany's Cabaret was slow, Le Girls looked deserted, and the Blue Moon on Van Buren Street was
near-empty. However, there were two hookers drawing plenty of attention 50 feet up the street. From johns, not the cops.
New Phoenix Ordinance = Abuse of Women At Strip Clubs
December 9, 1998 Press Release to Media, Newsgroups & Websites
"Sex Clubs an
Enticing Target"Sex Clubs an
Enticing Target" by Chris Fiscus
Arizona Republic Front Page Lead Article 12/8/98
Chris and I have exchanged E-mails and I thought his article was quite good. The only objection I have is the paragraph near the end indicates that vice cops found many entertainers in nude clubs crossing over the line to make more money. In reality the cross over the line was in most cases simply breasts touches of themselves or sometimes customers. The report shows repeatedly attempts to get more from dancers such as hand jobs were rejected in almost all cases. Calling this prostitution as the City would like you to believe, distorts the facts as to what all the uproar is about and is contrary to the city's own report. Defining breast touching as prostitution is silly and not what most would assume prostitution means.
The new ordinance abuses women in three ways:
1) Eliminates the greatest source of income - lapdancing
2) Makes women's bodies a sex object with dirty parts.
3) Instead of allowing sensual fulfillment as currently available the new laws result in teasing men and sending them out to the community totally unfulfilled. This increases the risk to women by increasing the likelihood of sexual harassment etc. vs. healthy wholesome sensual (non-sexual) intimacy previously available at many nude clubs.
The City Council is
obsessed over sensual touch
The ordinance is an abuse of women who are to be regarded as a body with dirty parts. It allows full nudity without any 3-foot limit but with no touch. It also allows non-sexual touch if not nude. But it is worded so tightly that this will probably be impossible. A hug could close down a nude club even fully clothed because those dirty immoral breasts of a dancer might touch the man!
All the nude clubs I've talked with will go nude with no touch since they cannot risk one breast swipe (even clothed) closing them down.
As one dancer I met last night at Eves Tease said: "I'm not going to just dance nude in front of clients, that's disgusting."
She and many other dancers I talked with believe the law is an immoral abuse of women. The new law objectifies women as nothing but sex objects with dirty body parts vs. current opportunity for more wholesome, wonderfully sensual, healthy lap dances. She and her customers enjoy the softness of her breasts and she enjoys them being sensually squeezed against the mans clothed chest. Just why is this so immoral or wrong it has to be illegal? I don't get it! She wants to decide how her body is touched, not the men on the City Council, as long as there is no health issue.
We are not talking about any direct sexuality, not even handjobs, simply having an attractive woman's body in your lap interacting as humans sensually. We are created to have this desire which can be very fulfilling and lessen need for more overt sex.
All of the City Council members voted for the sexual repressive view of those wishing to impose morality ideas on those who believe morality should be left to the individual.
There was not one shred of honest, documented, legitimate evidence
There was not one shred of honest, documented, legitimate evidence that made any logical sense at all the public hearings to support the need for the new restrictions. 80% or more of all the speakers were opposed to the restrictions yet the City claims its "demanded by the citizens". That is simply a lie by politicians.
The citizens that did favor the law all spoke about how it would somehow protect neighborhoods (clubs all in industrial areas), stop immorality and promote decency. The funniest common theme is restrictions somehow protect children! They never have any factual argument so they dream up emotional rants that somehow restricting activities inside a building where no minors are allowed protects children! They had no a shred of evidence to support it other than wild claims.
There was overwhelming evidence at the public hearings no new laws were needed and a huge amount of disgust over why the city is wasting so much time and money over such things as a breast swipe when the City has so many other real issues to deal with. The public hearings were only because they were legally required and most members of the Council have long made up their minds to outlaw positive healthy sensual adult pleasure in Phoenix. The Council ignored the majority view of the Citizens as expressed at the public hearings. The result will be legal challenges, Court restraining orders, more waste of city funds and a win for the moralists that want to control our private lives. It is the political process at its worst.
Being sensual is a
God-given need that we never outgrow
Surveys have shown overwhelmingly that most people do not give or receive touch as much as they would like, especially with the opposite sex, even when no other sexual activity is desired. Men often cover up our need for intimacy by drugs, alcohol, or sex for only selfish physical pleasure.
But Phoenix and those religious moralists that want to stamp out any positive sensuality in some twisted way think it is better for the community to have dancers simply tease customers and abuse women by treating dancers as sex objects.
The city only allows dancers to get the customer all excited and send them out into the streets to find sensual fulfillment rather than having positive outlets with no disease concern. No intercourse is occurring at clubs so health simply isn't an issue.
Being sensually fulfilled such as in lap dances can relieve sexual frustration that otherwise might be acted out in sexual harassment of women or worse ways, like rape. Instead under the new law, the dancer will be teasing the customer by her dance saying "See how sexy I am? ha ha, you can't have any sensual pleasure from me. Go out on the street if you seek fulfillment or sex." The previously allowed sensuality helped eliminate the desperate need for sex. Most importantly men got to know women as sensual human souls, not just body parts to stare at and be teased by.
Sensual touch is the most powerful way to communicate empathy, friendship, approval, affirmation and love to another even if only for the moment, even with a dancer with no long-term real relationship expectation. Our inner spirits can nurture and share with each other most powerfully through caring sensual touch.
Touch messages are transmitted to our brain through a network of over 100 billion neurons. Once the brain receives the touch message, it has powerful effects, stimulating the production of chemicals that provide physical good feelings, as well as good emotions by combining with certain hormones and enzymes in the blood.
The new ordinances
define a woman as a sexual object for tease
A woman's breasts are fine to have bounced in front of you as long as not touched. The city is defining breasts as a sex object only for tease. This is typical of the puritanical view in America. European women come to American beaches and don't understand why they have to cover their breasts. Or, why breast-feeding is so controversial. We taken a wonderful natural part of the women's body and defined it as so dirty it can't be touched.
While I don't do this much at clubs, breast massage is very medically beneficial. I do breast massage to stimulate veinous, intercellular and lymph circulation, which flushes out toxins and by doing so, can help prevent nodules or cancer to develop. Supportive ligament massage can also increase circulation and strengthening the ligaments and chest muscles, which help, hold up breasts.
Likewise the new regulations define a women's butt as a sex object too dirty to be touched by her or a customer. I have had many a dancer enjoy my massaging her gluteus maximus muscle that so few people realize is so pleasurable (not sexual) because we don't do it to others enough.
Likewise the insertion points and the base on the spine are where muscles are often tight and many dancers have never experienced such good massage relief before. I share these ideas on our website to teach men who are interested more skills to provide more women-centered sensual pleasure. Previously they could experiment with very willing dancers at some of the nude clubs and become better at it for real relationships.
There is no reason to make the "butt" a sex object. The law should be no sexual penetration into the vagina (no fingering). That should be the only sensible restriction and few dancers would put up with that anyway.
A lot of what I teach in intimacy workshops I lead for Liberated Christian couples is about positive pleasure sharing. In our sex negative culture, except for tease and to sell products, we have so much ignorance especially regarding women's sensual pleasure.
For example, I also enjoy the usually very favorable reaction to slowly massaging the primordial tail area. This is very sensual whether she has clothes on or not. It is where the sexual nerve endings from the vaginal area connect to the lower spine and can be very sensual/sexually stimulating. Since few women have experienced it before, I often get interesting wonderful reactions. But this pleasure feeling is against someone's values so those of us that teach a more holistic view of the body must now be criminals. I never receive any money for giving women pleasure so I have broken no laws. I simply enjoy it.
While there is no overt sexuality going on at the clubs and we do not propose this be allowed, the larger issue is the archaic prostitution laws restricting consenting in private (or adult club) adult sex work. Almost every other country in the world has had the wisdom to allow various forms of sex work to provide sensual satisfaction for its citizens. I use to say most all countries allow prostitution except Iran and Iraq until I was informed that even in Iran they have "Temporary Marriages", which may last only a few hours, which are allowed for this purpose.
There is also
absolutely no conflict with biblical Christianity and prostitution.
It is a sad day for the political process and the rights of adults as well as the abuse of women as sex objects. It is a sad day for the political process and the rights of adults as well as the abuse of women as sex objects. The result is much more a threat to neighborhoods. Many of the women who previously provided healthy, positive sensual services will just go underground and have to play the hide from the vice cop games to fulfill the natural wholesome desires of many men. The women providers simply seek to make a good living providing such positive services to men which benefits our society with more satisfied men. Such women should be honored and recognized as providing a healthy positive service instead of made criminals by the immoral laws that restrict consenting adult, in private, sensual and sexual pleasure.
Don Jindra wrote to Mayor Rimza a great letter. I reprint a portion, with his permission and his desire to use his name. Don said:
I know there are people out there who get offended when others appear to be having too much fun, but is this sort of sociopathic envy really to be encouraged by the city council? I surely hope not. History shows that attempts at prohibition only make matters worse.
But as long as the city council is on this "ethics" kick, I have a better suggestion. What we really need is an ordinance restricting churches. None should be permitted within 1000 feet of a school or a residential area. It's those buildings that churn out the control freaks who demand this type of ordinance.
I've seen too many church-goers
turn from decent human beings into pathological moral bullies. They pay lip service to
lofty concepts like "love" and "free will" while they conspire to beat
us into submission. I see evidence of a perverse gratification when they inflict sexual
repression on others. They slaughter other people's passions like it's a fertility rite.
That's the real meaning of this ordinance. It's nothing more than religious persecution and exploitation in the guise of a morality play.
I, for one, am getting tired of the unwarranted sanctimony coming from the lot. Please don't let yourselves become the tools of those misguided, mean-spirited, busybodies who want to people- proof the world.
Back To Coalition Home Page