Comments

1
smirk, would mind explaining how you came to this conclusion "women in zoo-like cage is more troubling than regular strip clubs"? How is this that much different than the Lusty Lady in Seattle or San Francisco?

I don't want to sound like I'm defending this incredibally stupid travelling idiocacy of a truck. I just don't think you're taking the wrong tack on how to lambast a moronic concept.

For instance, if this stupid truck show up anytime that it's raining, drivers are pretty much not going to be able to see anything due to the numerous different angles of refraction in play. Or that with the roughly eleventy ka-billion bars with naked girls in them and the fact that majority of the patrons in these bars are already ignoring the naked girls, what's this selling?
2
how am i supposed to put dollars down while i'm driving? do they have like a paypal link that i can send from my iphone? how will i be able to send money from my iphone when the no-hands law starts january 1?

IF YOU ASK ME, THIS SYSTEM IS FLAWED, STRIPPERS OR NO.
3
and all things considered, how am i supposed to "make it rain" with a paypal account? don't they know oregon has like 24.3% unemployment?
4
โ€œYou can be naked up there on the street so long as youโ€™re not aroused and not arousing anyone,โ€

Um. Unlike a stripper?

This will be shut down ASAP based on the seatbelt law alone. Nice gimmick though.
5
@Graham: Giant windshield wipers? As for what it's selling, well, they made the thing and may as well wring some more press out of it since they can't use it in Vegas any more.

@Blabby: What about the exemption for "any person who is a passenger in a vehicle if all seating positions in the vehicle are occupied by other persons"? (811.215: http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/811.html)
6
This whole thing just sucks on level after level after level...
"Truly none hath greater genius than the Genius that came up with this" Lord F. Wordington
7
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.
8
@miguelaron E-Zpass.
9
@atomic i said "make it rain"
11
In Oregon, we call it the Stryppermobile.
12
@miguelaron Get a bunch of kids with tolling tags on their dirt bikes to circle the strippermobile while it's stopped at a light.

Geeze, I've got to do all the thinking in this outfit.
13
I can't believe people are whining about this! What the fuck is wrong with you people?!
14
Perhaps this could work parked along with the food carts.
15
Hmmm...the seat belt concern that Uncle Blabby has cam be resolved by very secure bondage. Maybe the Spartacus people can rig something up...

The parked cart in a lot might be interesting...

Oh, and I'm wondering why Smirk hasn't criticized this idea for being a motorized vehicle instead of a bike-oriented one.
16
@Blabby: You are right, the point of strippers is generally arousal. However: If you accidentally arouse someone, that isn't your problem, it is a question of intent. They may be able to claim that they are not trying to arouse anyone by saying that the primary purpose this is actually marketing, (which is protected free speech by the Oregon constitution,) and not arousal, but I think their case is a good deal weaker because they don't have any clubs in the state. (On the other hand, Hawaii advertises in our state, and Hawaii obviously isn't in our state, so I don't know.) The other option is that the G-string can stay on, since you can be topless and arousing people without any problems.

What I really want to know is: Are they going to able to pole dance while going over potholes? The real problem may not be our laws, but our roads.
17
Someone needs to brush up on their Portland City Code regarding public indecency...more restrictive than ORS...sucks for you...and you...and you....
18
@dohhhh: The city code conflicts with a freedom of expression right given by the Oregon constitution. As such, that city code has never successfully been enforced, (although, not from lack of trying.)
19
Last time I checked, young people under 17 are restricted from going to an R rated movie. Right? There's a reason for that. So, the question is do we or do we not respect family and children and desire to protect them in our city. I think yes. There's a reason for that, too. No? Ok. I guess we should just let anyone do anything anywhere anytime. Hmmmm...oh, no,,,that's right....I remember now. That's anarchy. Everyone for anarchy, raise your right hand. Oops. Forget that idea. Shoot. That's democracy. Democracy. What a novel idea. I vote. I vote they stop these idiots at the city limits and turn 'em around, and tell 'em to go back where they came from. LOL...now THERE's another NOVEL idea. Give me a break, people. It's NOT ok for glass cages on wheels to drive down the streets of our fair city with women in plain view who are virtually naked and posing to, yes, arouse.
20
@hunnytree: You know, people have made the same arguments about gays getting married or black people being allowed in town after dark*. It is always in the name of protecting the "families and children," they never claimed that they just didn't like it. Yes, those laws are indeed democracy, but just because the majority thinks it is a good idea doesn't always mean it is fair, it is considered "tyranny of the majority" and you should look it up. As for naked people in particular: I'm fairly sure we were born that way, so if you want to claim that there is something wrong with it, I'd suggest you take that up with your god.

*Seriously, there was a law against that in Portland at one time.
21
How is this any worse than the nearly-nude women that children can see in TV and magazines every day? Why aren't people outraged about the graphic violence and brutality that children are exposed to on a daily basis? Don't people think that's much more damaging than seeing the human form? What kind of message does that send? Violence is okay but you should be ashamed of your body?

Family values...my ass, you hypocrites.

22
"Last time I checked, young people under 17 are restricted from going to an R rated movie. Right?"

"Restricted" in an artificial sense, yes, but the MPAA rating system is entirely voluntary. But people under 16 are restricted from driving in a car, so anyone younger than that that's in a car is going to be accompanied by someone old enough to see an R-rated movie. So by the same specious logic, it all works out and the stripper-mobile will not lead to anarchy. Hurray!
23
Matthew D - You need to brush up on your law...the Oregon Constitution does not grant the right to expose your genitals in public. ORS has a public indecency ordinance and it talks about arousal/intent of the person exposing themselves. Portland has it's own more restrictive public indecency ordinance (which says you can't expose your genitals...period) and it is successfully charged and prosecuted all the time. Do yourself a favor and don't get all pompous when you know not what you speak....
24
@notalawyer: "Oregon Constitution does not grant the right to expose your genitals in public."

The Oregon Supreme Court certainly thinks it does:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.a…

"ORS has a public indecency ordinance and it talks about arousal/intent of the person exposing themselves."

That sounds like almost exactly what I said on Dec 21st at 5:58pm. (I also pointed out the potential loophole they could use, since they could claim the intent is marketing, which is protected speech.) I'm not sure why you are repeating it back to me.

"Portland has it's own more restrictive public indecency ordinance (which says you can't expose your genitals...period)

I've exposed my genitals to probably 50 police officers in the last year, and none of them said a thing to me about it. But maybe they were busy with other things, like, stopping traffic for me:
http://www.katu.com/news/local/48028862.ht…

"and it is successfully charged and prosecuted all the time."

Name one case.
Not a, "threat of arrest," like this one:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2…
Nor an unsuccessful prosecution, like this one:
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2…
(The DA basically admits that the law is bogus at the trial: "[The DA] told the judge that if he dismissed the charges against Hammond on free-speech grounds, he was in essence invalidating city code.")
But an actually successful prosecution under that law, (where they couldn't nail them under the ORS concerning arousal.)

"Do yourself a favor and don't get all pompous when you know not what you speak...."

You really should follow that advice.

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.