http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2275142
Summary: Sugar House (a suburb of Salt Lake City) citizens speak out against “sexually-oriented business” moving into their neighborhood. The business in question: The Blue Boutique.
For those who aren’t familiar with it, the Blue Boutique is a costume, lingerie, and adult novelty shop. There are lots of different takes on the franchise, from those which focus almost exclusively on the costume aspect, to almost exclusively on the novelties aspect.
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=2275142
Summary: Sugar House (a suburb of Salt Lake City) citizens speak out against “sexually-oriented business” moving into their neighborhood. The business in question: The Blue Boutique.
For those who aren’t familiar with it, the Blue Boutique is a costume, lingerie, and adult novelty shop. There are lots of different takes on the franchise, from those which focus almost exclusively on the costume aspect, to almost exclusively on the novelties aspect.
The way I see it, there are at least two separate questions:
- Is the Blue Boutique a “sexually-oriented business”? I’ve shopped a few of these stores with my wife, and the strictly “adult” items are always in a clearly delineated, walled-off area of the store marked Adults Only, which is policed by store employees to ensure no minors get in. Up front, it is little more explicit than perhaps a Victoria’s Secret store. If I had a sliding scale with the grocery store that sells condoms on one end and a whorehouse on the other, BB is somewhere in the middle leaning toward the grocery-store end. Its license was also “retail accessory” in its previous location, not “sexually oriented business” like the magazine/DVD shops in Salt Lake. The BB doesn’t even sell videos of any sort.
- Does a business of this nature damage children?
Regarding the second question, there’s a quote from the article that I want to call out:
Annelle Doxey said, “The window displays and products they offer will greatly increase the amount of exposure that our children will have to items and pictures of a sexual nature. Studies have shown that this kind of exposure will damage the natural development of a child’s personality.”
Obviously, a City Council meeting is hardly the place to be citing references, but I’d be interested in learning exactly what “studies” have shown that lingerie stores damage the “natural development of a child’s personality”. Kids are going to have sex whether we want them to or not. By the age of 19, even here in prim, proper Utah, there’s a 4 out of 5 chance that the child will have had anal, vaginal, or oral sex. When they have an interest in the topic, they are of an appropriate age to learn something about it.
On the other hand, I’m not comfortable with the idea of my teenage daughter bringing home a bondage kit and massive rubber dong to decorate her room. So I think there’s a sliding scale of appropriateness there, too.
While I understand the concern of these parents, why not let the business open, and then if the window displays are objectionable, report that infringement to the city council?