Stay tuned for some serious comedy
The "strippermobile" is coming to Portland!
Strippermobile Winter Tour 2010 will be filmed, and Beard hopes to have it broadcast on cable television. It might need to be on adult on-demand channels though, because the itinerary includes Portland, Ore. Beard says the decency laws there are lax, so the dancers will be nude during that stretch of the trip....We can't wait to watch Fireman Randy's take on this one. How will he try to shut it down? It's just a naked bike ride with a motor, right? Especially if they agree to run the truck on bio-diesel.The strippermobile will then go up the coast, lingering in Portland for some extra exposure.
“You can be naked up there on the street so long as you’re not aroused and not arousing anyone,” Beard contends.
| Posted at 8:04 AM | Permalink |
|
Comments (7)
The premier stripper aficionado in this town is David Bragdon.
Posted by Richard Starkey | December 21, 2009 9:39 AM
Honestly, I don't want to see the kind of dancers they can find who manage to be nude yet not arouse anyone.
Posted by Dave J. | December 21, 2009 9:55 AM
A High School Latin instructor once wrote a phrase on her class room blackboard that translated to "there's no accounting for taste". Wish I could remember it.
Posted by David E Gilmore | December 21, 2009 11:18 AM
De gustibus non est disputandum
Posted by Garage Wine | December 21, 2009 11:45 AM
ORS 163.465 Public indecency. (1) A person commits the crime of public indecency if while in, or in view of, a public place the person performs:
(a) An act of sexual intercourse;
(b) An act of deviate sexual intercourse; or
(c) An act of exposing the genitals of the person with the intent of arousing the sexual desire of the person or another person.
(2)(a) Public indecency is a Class A misdemeanor.
Portland City Code:
14A.40.030 Indecent Exposure.
It is unlawful for any person to expose his or her genitalia while in a public place or place visible from a public place, if the public place is open or available to persons of the opposite sex.
Apparently there is no state constitutional conflict between the 2 laws, see City of Portland v. Jackson, 316 Or 143 (1993).
Even if the Portland code provision were not good law, can there be any dispute that the purpose of stripping is to arouse the sexual desire of the viewer?
Posted by Stanton | December 21, 2009 7:12 PM
Stanton, please go back to your cubicle at ater/wynne......
Posted by marcianofan | December 21, 2009 7:37 PM
Seat belts. You gotta have seat belts. and that presumes a seat. Solved.
Posted by Concord Bridge | December 22, 2009 11:15 AM