Adult Toys
When a movie-any movie-is filmed in New York City, the media capital
of the world, it's a safe bet that photos of the outdoor scenes will
turn up in a celebrity gossip magazine or website. But what happens
when that movie is "Sex and the City," the feature film based on the
wildly popular television show that made Sarah Jessica Parker a
household name? With just a few clicks of a paparazzo's camera,
every location chosen by director Michael Patrick King could become
the Next Big Thing almost immediately. 
A good PR person knows conflict makes a story newsworthy. She also knows there is no conflict greater than war. So it is that a promo letter from LifeStyles condoms came to us subject-lined: "Condom Wars: LifeStyles Make-out Booths vs. Trojan Bus."
Our money is on the Trojan bus. How many soldiers could be hiding in a make-out booth?
LifeStyles' make-out booth is "a condom-dispensing photo booth that offers a strip of condoms with each strip of photos." The idea is to plant the booths in night clubs, where they will make "a natural fit for club-goers to experience a new attitude toward safe sex."
For a door, the booth has a curtain that hangs a revealing foot or more above the floor. It seems we like our night-club sex celebrity-style: in a toilet stall.
The booth has another design flaw. Like a traditional photo booth, its dispenser is outside. By the time users emerge to collect their condoms, they have finished their session-- the damage is done. The safer-sex order of proceedings would be 1) collect condom; 2) shag; 3) retrieve commemorative photos.
Trojan has "retaliated" to Lifestyles' "innovative approach" by sending a tour bus to "travel across the U.S. raising awareness regarding the poor state of sexual health in America while urging young people to make a change." LifeStyles vs. Trojan-- badly thought-out photo op vs. inspirational travelling show. It's Hillary vs. Barack, in lubricated latex.
We went to Lifestyles.com to see what else is new.
On each page there's a "sexy fact": "Sexy Fact #4: Sperm can survive for three or more days in a woman's reproductive tract. A woman could have intercourse on Saturday, ovulate on Sunday and get pregnant on Monday!" Or "Sexy Fact #10: Three percent of adult Americans have never had sex!"Sexy fact #2 starts promisingly: "Food can be an aphrodisiac." But then, "oysters are the best source of zinc, which has been established as helpful for healthy sperm production" -- sends the blood rushing back to our brain. Oh, never mind the condom after all.
Pub bans male bum cracks
A SURF club has banned male patrons from wearing low-riding jeans in a "zero
tolerance" attack on exposed underwear and bum cracks.
The Coolum Beach Surf Lifesaving Club in Queensland has drawn a line in the sand
after members complained they were tired of seeing "too much of male patrons.
The club adopted a zero tolerance approach to low-slung jeans and shorts and has
threatened disobedient patrons with eviction.
Those who break the rules could have their membership revoked and find
themselves banned from all 59 Queensland surf clubs and a total of 305 clubs
Australia-wide.
A sign at reception now reads: The management of the Coolum Beach Surf Life
Saving Club and Supporters Association have a policy of ZERO TOLERANCE to the
practice of gentlemen not wearing trousers and shorts at an acceptable level
around the waistline.
Any person flouting this requirement will be asked to leave the premises
immediately and will have their membership of the club reviewed by the
Management Committee.
The sign is a revised version of an earlier declaration that threatened patrons
with legal action under the Wilful Exposure section of the Legislation Summary
Offences Act 2005.
A police spokeswoman said anyone who revealed their genitals in public could
face wilful exposure charges and a maximum $3000 fine or one year's jail.
The spokeswoman said exposed buttocks could lead to public nuisance charges and
a $750 fine or six months' jail.
It was believed the club erected the sign to stop young males wearing very low
jeans that exposed both buttocks and skin near the genital region.
The trend follows the fad that saw young males wearing boxers above the
waistline of jeans and shorts.
But a spokeswoman for clothing outlet Dotti said male teenagers had taken things
one step further.
The spokeswoman said youths were buying female jeans in stretch fabrics that
could be pulled down to reveal buttocks, hip bones, snail trails and more.
They're pushing the boundaries and have started buying chicks stretch jeans
that can be worn really, really low, she said.
The bum crack is just a thing of the past. Now it's all about wearing their
jeans a good 7cm below the belly button and you see a lot more than their coin
slot.
A Coolum Surf Life Saving Club spokesman refused to comment. However, Coolum
locals and surf club regulars Luke McLaren, 19, and Shannon Mahony, 18, said
they would no longer attend the club.
Mr McLaren said he chose to wear low-riding jeans for "style and comfort.
Wearing your jeans low makes skating easier and is generally a more comfortable
and better look, Mr McLaren said. "I was shocked when they told me my jeans
were too low.
When Mr McLaren, a surf instructor, queried the zero tolerance policy last week,
he was denied access to Coolum surf club. He said he was told his jeans were
inappropriate.
I asked the man at reception if the rule applied to my jeans and he said, Yes
your jeans are far too low, Mr McLaren said.
You don't see them banning the girls for wearing hipsters and showing their
undies so what right do they have to threaten us? he said.
Queensland Council for Civil Liberties president Michael Cope said the rule was
discriminatory
He said the club was being "harsh and should simply deny access to patrons who
failed to meet dress standards.
Obviously, the club has the right to install a dress standard, Mr Cope said.
But to throw people out and revoke their membership is a bit of overkill.
Having Sex With Your Entree? Not So Fast, Says Court
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania rules against Club Kama Sutra in dispute with city of Philadelphia
A divided Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has ruled in favor of old-fashioned dining etiquette, ruling that sexual activity is not an accessory use to a restaurant.
The split seven-judge panel upheld a trial court's ruling against Club Kama Sutra in Philadelphia.
In MAJ Entertainment Inc. v. the City of Philadelphia, the panel consisting of President Judge Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter and Judges Renée Cohn Jubelirer, Robert Simpson and Doris A. Smith-Ribner -- with Judges Dan Pellegrini and Mary Hannah Leavitt concurring -- ruled that the MAJ-owned Club Kama Sutra violated its restaurant permit by providing an area on the premises where patrons could openly engage in sexual activity with one another.
Judge Rochelle S. Friedman dissented.
The majority ruling maintained the trial court's decision, which supported the original decision of the Philadelphia Zoning Board of Adjustment denying MAJ's appeal from a cease operations order issued by the city's Department of Licenses & Inspections.
According to the majority opinion, penned by Cohn Jubelirer, Club Kama Sutra's property was previously occupied by a restaurant called Señor Rattler's, which had operated under a 1988 provisos of a variance stipulating that the club would not provide live entertainment, that there would not be a dance floor on the property and that the owner would not apply for a license to operate the restaurant as a club.
When MAJ acquired the South Street property in 2000, it obtained a permit to operate a restaurant with accessory "live entertainment and dancing by patrons." MAJ then opened Club Kama Sutra, which featured a buffet on the first floor, dancing on the third floor and, according to the opinion, "open cubicles with futon mattresses where patrons could engage in sexual activity, as well as watch other patrons so engaged, on the second floor."
According to the majority opinion, the cease operations order was issued in 2005. MAJ appealed to the board, which found that the 1988 provisos of variance ran with the land and, therefore, bound MAJ to the same stipulations that had been imposed upon Señor Rattler's.
The board also found that allowing patrons to engage in sexual relations with one another was not a use customarily incidental to a restaurant. Without taking any additional evidence, the trial court affirmed these conclusions on appeal, adding that even if the 1988 provisos had not been binding to MAJ, the owner still was not using the property according to the guidelines of the 2000 permit.
The trial court also said that just because the city's zoning ordinances do not expressly prohibit sex clubs, it does not mean they are permitted.
On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, MAJ argued that it was in compliance with the 2000 permit because sexual activity on the property was "live entertainment," making it an accessory use to the restaurant, and therefore MAJ had a vested interest in the 2000 permit. The owner also maintained that Philadelphia zoning ordinances do not specifically prohibit sexual activity on the premises.
The majority challenged MAJ's attempt to prove its first argument by citing as precedent a case where the state Supreme Court ruled that off-track betting was an accessory use to a restaurant. In this case, the Commonwealth Court concluded, the ruling was based on the Race Horse Industry Reform Act, which only permits off-track betting in facilities that also have high-end restaurants.
"In effect, this legislation created a custom whereby off-track wagering was associated with fine dining," said Cohn Jubelirer. "Currently, we are aware of no such legislation associating semi-public sexual activity with haute cuisine."
According to the majority, another reason the Supreme Court ruled in favor of allowing off-track betting in a dining establishment is that in that particular restaurant, gambling was subordinate to dining because the betting area accounted for much less of the building space.
The majority said sexual activity was not subordinate to dining at Club Kama Sutra because the establishment's pricing structure seemed more in keeping with that of a sex club than that of a traditional buffet-style restaurant.
According to testimony from the board hearing by MAJ's president, as quoted in the majority opinion, the establishment charged $100 per couple on Saturday nights, $75 per couple on Friday nights, $25 for a single woman to attend on either night and $100 for single men, who were only allowed in on Friday nights.
"This pricing structure seems geared more toward maintaining a felicitous gender balance for the operation of a swingers club than to the operation of a restaurant," Cohn Jubelirer wrote.
The majority also said that at the time it was opening Club Kama Sutra, MAJ would have been better off applying for a permit to operate a "cabaret," which by city zoning ordinance definition is "[a]n adult club, restaurant, theater, hall or similar place which features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators or similar entertainers exhibiting specified anatomical areas or performing specified sexual activities."
Cohn Jubelirer wrote that if the drafters of this zoning code had considered sexual activity to be an acceptable form of live entertainment for a restaurant, "there would have been no need to either define cabarets as a separate use, or to provide that a restaurant could be a cabaret."
On the issue of whether MAJ had a vested interest in the 2000 permit, the majority concluded that it did not because it failed to exercise due diligence and exhibit good faith when it failed to disclose on its permit application or any time thereafter that Club Kama Sutra would include an area specifically designated for sexual activity by its patrons.
The majority refuted MAJ's final argument, in which it said it had operated within its rights because city zoning ordinances did not expressly prohibit sex clubs, by ruling that because city zoning ordinances did not expressly allow for sex clubs, MAJ was in violation.
In her dissenting opinion, Friedman argued that in Club Kama Sutra's case, sexual activity is a form of entertainment for the patrons who engage in it and can therefore be considered akin to other disparate but permissible forms of entertainment like off-track betting and karaoke.
Friedman also wrote that she believed MAJ had exercised due diligence by seeking advice from the Department of Licenses & Inspections once it realized, a year after opening, that it was not allowed to operate a sex club with the permit it had obtained. She maintained that even if MAJ knowingly continued to operate Club Kama Sutra in violation of its permit, the department also had full knowledge of what was happening on the premises and it still allowed sexual activity to continue there until 2005. It is for this reason that she said she believed MAJ acted in good faith.
Finally, she said Club Kama Sutra did not fit all city zoning code definitions of a "cabaret" because those engaging in sexual activity were not paid performers.
MAJ's attorney, Kenneth A. Young of Kenneth A. Young and Associates, said he and his client would "definitely" be "filing an allocatur brief."
"Some people get moral issues and legal issues confused," he said of the Commonwealth Court's ruling.
Cheryl Lorraine Gaston, a lawyer for the city, could not be reached at press time.
