Bad, Swing Clubs! Bad, Bad!
Bad, Swing Clubs! Bad, Bad!
Wouldn't you love to have had a set of biometric readings
on Kenneth Starr as the "Starr chamber" interrogated
various members involved in the Clinton sex scandal --
or rather, various people involved with Clinton's
member? The readings would go something like this: "You
put your mouth on his penis?" (Temperature: woop-woop-woop.)
"Could you show us how?" (Pulse: rat-a-tat,
rat-a-tat). "And could you describe what you did
next?" (Heart: boom-boom, boom-boom). "And
then?" (arousal index: boi-oing, boi-oing.) Or
something like that. Surely, if you wanted to collect hormones
in that courtroom, you could have squeezed them from the
air.
Lately, the city of Phoenix, AZ, has given lucky law enforcers
a similar chance to spice up their workaday world by "cracking
down" on swingers' clubs. An ordinance passed
in 1998 says "operating a business where live sex
acts occur" is "inimical" (as in "public
enemy") to the "morals of the inhabitants."
According to the Assistant City Attorney, policemen in
the December sting "found patent sex acts, open and
obvious, occurring on the premises." Oh, my! Wonder
how long they spent finding these acts before, as the report
says, they "had to ask people to stop fornicating."
Only the husband-and-wife owners along with the club's
manager were to be arrested, but of course a policeman needs
plenty of back-up in these troubled times. One of the patrons
who were at the club during the arrest said that the uniformed
police basically mulled around the place, while scantily
clad couples continued dancing, bump-and-grind de rigueur.
"I wonder if when the order comes down for a raid on
the club, do they ask for volunteers?" she commented.
"The guys who got the job sure seemed to enjoy the view.
Don't take me wrong. I love a man to stare at my ass and
smile as I walk by....it is just a bit weird when he is wearing
a gun."
Perhaps it's a lucky thing police uniforms are a little
baggy around the crotch because a lot of policemen were
probably making a clear stand as to where they'd like
to put Phoenix's morality ordinance.
A few years earlier, in the Fort Lauderdale swinger club
arrests of '99, officers invaded the private back
rooms. Oddly enough, when the Broward police raided the
Trapeze II, they felt it necessary to explore the private
back rooms where they found, lo and behold, a fellow member
of Fort Lauderdale's finest in the buff with his wife,
going at it. This officer caught with his pants down eventually
filed a law suit against the city. The case had ended up on
national TV and turned some lives of the Trapeze patrons
upside down. Needless to say, it made excellent talk show
fodder.
Can you say law suit?
There in Broward county, the crime was not about running
a sex-oriented business, but about "intent to offend"
(which puts the behavior at the clubs under the definition
of lewdness). So, first someone has to be offended; then
prosecutors have to prove that the whole reason these happy
sex partners were getting down was so they could offend
some onlookers. "Gee, Mabel, sex just isn't
the same when you can't make someone gasp in horror
-- let's head on down to the Trapeze and see who we can
offend." Of all the people at the club that evening,
including police, only one male officer could say he was
"offended" by what went on at the club. The next
closest complaint prosecutors could come up with was a
female officer who used the word "embarrassed, "
rather than "offended." Apparently that wasn't
enough, and the case was dropped. It's just possible
the city considers the hundreds of thousands of dollars
in law suits fair compensation for the officers' thrilling
evening. And can you blame officers for wanting a break?
Shortly after the Phoenix law first took effect in 1998,
policemen dropped in on several of the private clubs, wandered
around checking ID's and generally getting a good
view without paying the admission. (Shouldn't the
department be billed for that show?) At that time, the guy
who wrote the anti-sex club legislation, city attorney
Jim Hays, seemed rather anxious to shore up his law. Having
written it, he also prosecuted the cases. He tells a Phoenix
New Times reporter, "You can't say they're
[swingers clubs] private[just] because someone fills
out a membership form and then, poof -- private club, five
bucks a year. Come on now. The law is not so easily evaded."
Yes. It's the law. But wait. Later in the same article,
New Times reporter David Holthouse writes, "Hays
seemed to enjoy himself in several stormy depositions
preceding the March 4 [1999] hearing, as he prodded club
owners to explain precisely what message sex acts in their
businesses deliver."
Club owner Dutch Van Brunschot admitted to having sexual
relations with his wife at the club, and Hays kept pressing
him to tell the court what message such an act might be sending...
[to be continued next week]
|
