
Ms. Teaz: Lingerie Shop on Sutter Street
#616
Posted 01 November 2004 - 02:27 PM
#618
Posted 01 November 2004 - 03:09 PM
There's the rub for me.
I don't think a lingerie shop is bad for our society. I don't think an adult novelty shop is bad for our society. It is what it is.
What it is NOT is a porn shop, or sex shop. What is a sex shop anyway?
I'd rather six lingerie shops on one block of Sutter, than 6 bars.
Steve Heard
Folsom Real Estate Specialist
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
#619
Posted 01 November 2004 - 04:08 PM
That doesn't cross my mental line. I wouldn't like its opening, but I wouldn't attempt to have it stopped. Nor would I attempt to have a satanic church opening at that location stopped. Again, would not be my preference....
How do we know? Who's to say? Maybe Folsomnites have a weakness for such figurines leading all of us to purchase them and go bankrupt.


On this we agree. Isn't that freedom of speech?
I partially agree with you here nomo. Let me try to draw another poor analogy to see if I can express it properly.
If little green men (that reproduced without sex) landed on earth and we asked them what's their opinion on pornography, I don't think we'd get an answer. They would have to be exposed to some degree to have the discussion. And while there is a dictionary definition of what constitutes pornography (as shown below) the interpretation of what that is, is disputed.
por·nog·ra·phy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pôr-ngr-f)
n.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).
For some naked imagery is pornography (maybe for them it causes arousal and they view it as the primary purpose).
One can always skirt or circumvent whatever definiton is derived at by calling it art, education, a movie line/story, etc. making its 'primary purpose' something else.
The reason we all just jump into the discussion immediately is because we not only have different values, morality, etc., but we also bring to the table different perceptions as to what constitutes pornography.
You may not need to buy a Penthouse mag, but you need some exposure and understanding as to what it is.
It would be difficult for us to have a discussion on zyblocks, unless we had a common understanding as to what a zyblock is, a picture of a zyblock may be needed to help in that understanding, etc.
It's difficult for me to extrapolate knowing what pornography is, to establishing an opinion as to its effects. Well, I'm sure we can all arrive at opinions, but some would be more valuable than others, and not because it's the preferred view on the subject.
Let me try the zyblocks again. We can all learn what one is, and form an opinion as to what is effects on people are, but the opinion of a zyblock expert that has studied the effects of zyblocks on people in a scientific setting, would be an opinion that is more valuable, than that of somewhat with limited knowledge in the area. After all, isn't that why lawyers rely on expert witnesses?
-- Albert Einstein--
http://folsomforum.com/

#620
Posted 01 November 2004 - 04:15 PM
#621
Posted 01 November 2004 - 04:33 PM
then they can have a rally and tar and feather the owners and run them over to orangevale on a rail. now that would get old folsom on the map. maybe that tough talking candidate starskey will take charge...
wonder if they are going to have a ribbon cutting ceremony when they open up like all the other chamber businesses..
#622
Posted 01 November 2004 - 06:59 PM
Actually, I agree with you that we are no longer talking about a "sex shop" (my shorthand for a shop devoted to selling hard core sex toys). I believe that the evidence suggests the ORIGINAL intent for the store was more like a sex shop, a la Spartacus. I am satisfied that with the public outcry and the oversight of the City Council, the Dafours have significantly watered down what they plan to carry in the shop.
At this point, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt... unless I hear reports of them selling stuff different from what we've recently been led to believe. So, I think we're on the same page.
My point was just that when we understood the Dafours were planning a more hard core shop, we certainly had the result to express our dismay -- regardless of the fact that there may be worse societal ills we haven't yet solved.
#623
Posted 01 November 2004 - 07:38 PM
Actually, I agree with you that we are no longer talking about a "sex shop" (my shorthand for a shop devoted to selling hard core sex toys). I believe that the evidence suggests the ORIGINAL intent for the store was more like a sex shop, a la Spartacus. I am satisfied that with the public outcry and the oversight of the City Council, the Dafours have significantly watered down what they plan to carry in the shop.
At this point, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt... unless I hear reports of them selling stuff different from what we've recently been led to believe. So, I think we're on the same page.
My point was just that when we understood the Dafours were planning a more hard core shop, we certainly had the result to express our dismay -- regardless of the fact that there may be worse societal ills we haven't yet solved.
Hey Border
Remember, I was there and visited them before the outcry. They NEVER had the intent to make the store a 'sex shop'. In fact, they were always mindful of the rules that a max of 25% of their revenue could come from adult novelty items.
The space they have devoted to it is considerably less than that. The room appears to be no more than a 12 x 12, if that.
Also, they realized early on that Sparacus was a poor comparison, but their opponents latched on to that and wouldn't let go. They are nothing like Spartacus.
Just as a political party would, the 'concerned citizens' will take credit for the absence of pornography, as if they were responsible, when the Dufour's never ever intended to sell porn in the first place. While they can tell people, 'See we're not purveyors of porn. We told you so', the righteous and concerned will say, "See by banding together and letting our opinions be known, we prevented those perverts from selling their filth".
I am not proud of what the city council, chamber and concerned citizens have done. I am more embarrassed by it.
We have real, serious threats to our families, in the form of drug and alcohol abusem, violence and ignorance. Those issues are ignored.
When the Chief of Police spoke at the Healthy Families Forum, he remarked that he wished the people who were at the City Council meeting had been at the Healthy Families Forum, instead.
It's as though the people of this city want to 'save face', or put on airs for visitors.
We have sleaze, porn, homelessness, racism, drug and alcohol problems with kids, but as long as the tourists don't wander into a store that has sex toys in the back, they'll think we're better than that.
You didn't keep porn out of the community, it's availabe within walking distance of Sutter Street. You (collectively) saved face for your own personal satisfaction.
That is sad.
Steve Heard
Folsom Real Estate Specialist
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
#624
Posted 01 November 2004 - 10:04 PM
I started this thread after seeing an article in The Bee about the controversy that had erupted among Sutter Street merchants. By this time, the questionable "Business Plan" and reference to Spartacus had already circulated. Based on your posts, you visited them sometime after that.
I know you buy the Dafours' explanation that the business plan, the reference to Spartacus, etc. were just "mistakes." I don't buy it. Maybe as a former trial attorney I've become cynical about people's "explanations."
#625
Posted 01 November 2004 - 10:31 PM

-- Albert Einstein--
http://folsomforum.com/

#626
Posted 01 November 2004 - 11:10 PM
I started this thread after seeing an article in The Bee about the controversy that had erupted among Sutter Street merchants. By this time, the questionable "Business Plan" and reference to Spartacus had already circulated. Based on your posts, you visited them sometime after that.
I know you buy the Dafours' explanation that the business plan, the reference to Spartacus, etc. were just "mistakes." I don't buy it. Maybe as a former trial attorney I've become cynical about people's "explanations."
By 'outcry', I am talking about the display put on at the City Council meeting last week, while a few truly concerned citizens were next door learning about the threat of drugs and alcohol in the community.
Steve Heard
Folsom Real Estate Specialist
EXP Realty
BRE#01368503
Owner - MyFolsom.com
916 718 9577
#627
Posted 02 November 2004 - 08:35 AM
Steve, I am very concerned about the tales of rampant drug and alcohol abuse among Folsom's teens (though my girls at ages 4 and 5 aren't quite there yet). I know you are a huge advocate of education programs. I was also surprised to find that my daughter's elementary school was doing a full week on anti-drug education ("Red Ribbon week").
Are you aware of studies that demonstrate that anti-drug education is effective in reducing drug experimentation? My fear is that too much immersion in drug information (i.e., starting in 1st grade?!) may send the message that drugs are MORE widely used and accepted than kids might otherwise think. --If you think it's worth it, we can put this in a new topic.
#628
Posted 02 November 2004 - 04:34 PM
We have sleaze, porn, homelessness, racism, drug and alcohol problems with kids, but as long as the tourists don't wander into a store that has sex toys in the back, they'll think we're better than that.
[B] Stevethedad,
contrary to what you stated, Folsom children do not have problems with sleaze, porn, homelessness, racism, drugs, and alcohol as compared to most of our neighboring communities. You should be grateful that Folsom is such an ideal community to raise children.
You say that there are rampant problems with the children of Folsom that need to be addressed, but you have no interest in adressing the potential problems brought on by this store. The tourists wandering into the back room and thinking less of us is not a concern here. It is about preserving our historic community and our wonderful town.
#629
Posted 02 November 2004 - 05:36 PM
[quote=stevethedad,Nov 1 2004, 07:38 PM]
We have sleaze, porn, homelessness, racism, drug and alcohol problems with kids, but as long as the tourists don't wander into a store that has sex toys in the back, they'll think we're better than that.
[B] Stevethedad,
contrary to what you stated, Folsom children do not have problems with sleaze, porn, homelessness, racism, drugs, and alcohol as compared to most of our neighboring communities. You should be grateful that Folsom is such an ideal community to raise children.
You say that there are rampant problems with the children of Folsom that need to be addressed, but you have no interest in adressing the potential problems brought on by this store. The tourists wandering into the back room and thinking less of us is not a concern here. It is about preserving our historic community and our wonderful town.
[/quote]
I think you would be surprised at the amount of drug use, legal and illegal, and alcoholism within Folsom.
#630
Posted 02 November 2004 - 06:22 PM
The only way I have ever looked at this lingerie shop issue is as something comparable to the family filter on my computer or V-chip on a TV. There are certain things that I do not consider to be a positive influence, and I don't want them in my home. Likewise, many of us don't want certain influences on the prize street of Folsom.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users