Fetishists Fight City Hall

BDSM protest.jpg
They came in kilts, white face, chains, collars and boots, braving the heat in full leather and latex regalia, to protest what they see as unfair treatment of the Montclair’s sex toy and fetish store, Dressing for Pleasure. One man, dressed as a Puritan, staged a fake counter protest, carrying a small megaphone and denouncing the shocking behavior of the BDSM (Bondage Discipline Sadist Masochist) cluster that had found its way to 205 Claremont Avenue. Meanwhile, councilors Rich Murnick and Cary Africk, who were planning to attend the Planning Board meeting inside, looked on awkwardly.
not in our town.jpgDressing for Pleasure found itself at odds with the township in mid-June, when the town’s compliance department received an anonymous tip in the form of an email from “Joe Shmoe.”

Someone should inspect Dressing for Pleasure at 220 Bloomfield Ave. Their basement doubles as a sex club. The place is a fire trap from hanging wires and has no emergency exit. The air stinks and is a health hazard.

The store was cited for code violations, including failing to get building and electrical permits, and agreed to close down the basement, sometimes called the crawlspace or dungeon, where BDSM events were held. They have since reapplied to re-open the basement, but were turned down by town attorney Alan Trembulak. “We’ve made a decision that the use that they’ve proposed isn’t permitted under the zoning ordinance,” Trembulak said.
Trembulak said the store could ask the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a “formal interpretation of the zoning ordinance.” The Planning Board, which met tonight, did not invite the protestors in or agree to hear them.


leather in the parking lot.jpgBut store owner Ed Dougherty, who goes by the name Master Ed, believes that Trembulak “misunderstands what we’re trying to do” and has mischaracterized the basement meetings as adult entertainment. “There’s no sexual activity permitted,” Dougherty said. The events there have been, rather, educational in nature, such as a workshop on the subject of bondage safety. “If you want to explore bondage, there are ways to do it safely and unsafely, right ways and wrong ways.” In June, a gay couple demonstrated leather culture, he said.
Some events are more “theatrical” in nature, Dougherty added, such as “fire play,” which involves torches and rubbing alcohol. “Done correctly, it’s harmless,” he said.

“Montclair has a reputation as one of the more liberal progressive communities,” he added. “I’d hate to think that only extends to religion or the color of your skin.”
“I’d think this area has a whole lot more to do focusing on a recession than the fact that one of the oldest and most reputable stores of its kind might be offending some people’s sensibilities,” said Jeff Mach of Hackensack, who attended the rally.
lace and striped stockings.jpgAnother protestor, who goes by the name Skully, defended the BDSM community as “one of the few places where you can see someone being a gentleman, where you can see old-world charm.”
“I want people to understand these are mothers, fathers, doctors, lawyers,” said Lady D. “All we want to do is live our lives as consensual adults.”
Both Skully and Lady D. said they’d attended gatherings in Dressing for Pleasure’s basement. “A bunch of cool people hanging out,” said Skully.
And what about sex?
“Sex is not allowed at any club,” said Lady D. “That’s what you do at home.”
She referred to people outside of the BDSM as “the vanilla world.”
Photos by Fran Liscio.

83 COMMENTS

  1. Perhaps Dressing for Pleasure could move to the abandoned Kid Kadoo space? I’m sure the Panera Bread and 7/11 could use the extra business.

  2. I don’t have a problem here.
    But IF dfp is using the space that “isn’t permitted under the zoning ordinance.”
    That should be easy to fix.
    I fear however, that Trembulak’s statement is a catch all that begs the question for all Montclair businesses: are they using ALL of their space in all “ways permitted under the zoning ordinance”?
    I bet not.
    So I hope our town is not being selective in its enforcement.
    Understand, the prof has no problems with consenting adults engaging in whatever pleases them as long as its legal.
    That some are uncomfortable with these good folks, is their problem.
    We don’t want to go down the road of deciding what’s “morally” acceptable, do we?

  3. I was hardly standing by looking “awkwardly.” I had no idea what the fuss was about, and was simply getting an explanation of what had transpired.
    I then went into the planning meeting and asked the chair if we had any jurisdiction. Finding that the procedure was to “file an appeal” and appear at the Zoning Board, I went out and conveyed that information.
    The group wanted to be heard, I wanted to listen. But more important I wanted them to speak to people who can solve their problem.
    I indicated to them that they were welcome to come to the Council meeting, this Tuesday evening if they wanted to.
    Other than that, I most certainly agree with the “prof.”
    If it’s a question of law, that’s one thing. But we need to be reasonable.
    Right now, in Upper Montclair, for example, it is against zoning to have a Realtor’s office on the first floor. Go figure that! I’m looking to make changes there.
    Cary Africk
    2nd Ward Councilor

  4. This is not a matter of, despite the protesters’ claims and the sign pictured above, “discrimination of sexual orientation” (sic).
    The proprietors were merely caught running an operation in premises which were not up to code. Were rather outrageousy ill-maintained, it seems (perhaps the better to convey a properly sleazy atmosphere). And the operation in question is surely one that most would not want next-door to their own homes. Leather, latex and BDSM freaks likely do not make for the best of neighbors, at least not on party nights.
    The claim, too, that the participants include “mothers, fathers, doctors, lawyers,” always offered up in such cases, remains a dubious one. It’s thrown out for effect, but almost invariably without accompanying documentation.
    This is not a test of Montclair’s vaunted liberalism, in other words.
    Really, too, if the protesters pictured are representative of the crowd that gathers in the basement of Dressing For Pleasure, really, who wants to hang around with such pasty-faced creeps anyway? From having a lifelong friend who ran a sex club himself for quite some time, I long ago learned that being a member of the sexual demimonde is never quite a guarantee of one’s physical attractiveness. And most folks look terrible in PVC bondage wear. But just fine in “vanilla,” even the much more forgiving garb vended by the likes of Burberrys and J.Press.

  5. Ah yes: “gentlemen with old-world charm” politely serving up
    rubbing alcohol with a blow torch.. Give me a break…

  6. I was going to comment on how open minded the posts in this thread seemed to be, but then I read the last 3.
    I completely agree with the Prof: If these people can get their store up to code and are really just doing demonstrations, then there is no legal reason why they shouldn’t be allowed to re-open.
    And before anyone asks the inevitable NIMBY question: If they were to re-open the shop on N. Fullerton, I would welcome the chance to run into some of my friends from the old “Rocky Horror” days.
    I happen to know two of the people quoted above (Jeff Mach & Lady D). While not exactly friends with either of them, we do know a lot of people in common. Some of whom make well in excess of 6 figures but would never come to a protest like this because doing so could put their careers in jeopardy.

  7. Cathar has written:
    “This is not a matter of, despite the protesters’ claims and the sign pictured above, “discrimination of sexual orientation.”
    For once I agree with Cathar.
    DFP’s business operations have no more to do with sexual orientation than Sarah Palin has to do with rationality.
    I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of the store’s patrons are heteros, anyway! (Not that it matters).

  8. Cary,
    You mention “Upper” Montclair. Does this non-existent “town” (vs. a section of regular ‘ol Montclair) have it’s own laws?
    Or were you speaking of the Upper Montclair Business district (there are several such districts in town)?
    If so, does each Business District have its own zoning laws?
    Or is it a “Ward” issue, where each “ward” can determine it’s own laws?
    Or despite not being a town, have some created separate laws for “Upper” Montclair, wrongly believing that it’s a separate town?
    Though I refer to my estate as being in “Upper” Montclair, I pay taxes- a lot of ’em- for my stately mansion to the Township of Montclair.
    The prof is confused.

  9. The place is harmless. Be glad it’s not Checkers, one of the “up-scale” swingers joints in Connecticut frequented by many lawyers, doctors and business professionals. So,Cath, don’t rule out the possibility of the same clientele at DFP.

  10. Prof,
    First, remember that I’m on your side and am agreeing with you.
    Second, I am referring to the “NC Zone,” also known as “neighborhood commercial.” This zone encompasses the area around Valley and Bellevue, including Warner Communications, the area that is being considered for development by the same person who did the “Olympic Building.”
    The NC Zone is spelled out on a zoning map, just as the C-1 zone, R-1, etc.
    Different “laws,” actually zoning laws, apply in each designation. So, yes, different parts of Montclair have different “laws.” Zoning allows, or doesn’t allow, drive through banks, gas stations, etc. in certain places.
    Sometimes I scratch my head and think “Why” this or that particular designation. The Planning Board considers these things. In the case of no realtors on the first floor in the NC zone the thought was that there was a proliferation of realtors in the area and that more wouldn’t be “good” in some way.
    Zoning is VERY complex and can be very controversial. There are mechanisms to get “variances,” however and “fairness” often prevails.
    My point was that let’s see what laws DFP broke and give them, like anyone else, fair treatment.
    By the way, How did the person writing the anonymous letter siting all sorts of “wrong doings” in the basement of DFP get their information? And how were violations written up? Did the code inspector actually WITNESS the illegal behavior? Don’t we have a right to confront our accuser?
    Cary Africk
    2nd Ward Councilor

  11. “So I hope our town is not being selective in its enforcement.”
    This is the common practice in Montclair. The zoning officers work on a complaint driven basis (as harnett explained to me in an email once). This creates the type of situation you have with Joe Shmoe finking on the DFP business or your neighbor tattling to stick it to you.
    I received a ticket for my hedges being too high (although meticulously maintained). If the zoning officer looked a block in either direction, there were other violations, but they only chose to target me and a few of my neighbors. The judge didnt care that the ordinance was selectively enforced, he only cared that my bushes were more then 3 feet tall, even when I provided a stack of pictures detailing other properties (including many town properties) that were more egregious violations.
    Selective enforcement at its finest and laziest.

  12. The unfortunate conclusion to my winded story is I had to chop my hedges down dramatically and they look uneven now.

  13. I have personally been set on fire and whipped (to extinguish the flames, you see 🙂 as part of a bondage show elsewhere (in NYC) numerous times. And I can tell you it doesn’t actually hurt!

  14. Maybe I should get myself a pair of those shoes with buckles and a big silly hat, because I’m not sure we should allow people to light themselves on fire in a crowded basement. Yeah yeah, it’s “harmless if done correctly”, but I imagine operating a Real Estate office on the first floor is harmless if done correctly as well.
    I’m not saying they can’t run their club, I’m just saying that if you’re not allowed to have candles at a wedding without hiring a Fire Marshal they probably shouldn’t be allowed to pour rubbing alcohol on their skin and light it on fire.

  15. Jo (and please don’t presume to shorten my posting name, we haven’t even howdied – would you like it if I shortened your own handle to “O” as in “The Story Of…”),
    If the basement at DFP is really full of doctors, lawyers and suchlike, it might behoove them to pop up and, instead of having someone else claim to “represent” them, proudly announce their professional accomplishments. Lest we mistake them, either here or in CT for garden-variety sleazeballs who may not have professional degrees. And that you half-boast of what you purportedly know about a place called “Checkers” (did you know they have a burger franchise of that name in nearby Passaic?) is neither here nor there re the local issue at stake.
    But I will add how pathetic it often seems that the devotedly, organized polyamorous (who often turn out, according to the available research, to be fairly conservative in most ways, even to their homes usually sporting beige drapes) have to call themselves “swingers.” As if mere peppy nomenclature outweighs the reality of their otherwise shabby little lives when compared to the generally monogamous masses.
    Generically…, if you would feel comfortable with some of the folk you once met at “Rocky Horror” showings and their ilk as neighbors, you’re quite welcome to them. I’ve personally seen few people clad in PVC and chains wih whom I’d like to share so much as one beer. Me, I prefer to shy away from people who squeak and jangle artificially during sex.

  16. Realtors should be allowed to set themselves on fire, first floor or not. If Upper Montclair is not zoned for first floor real estate sales offices, why is Weichert exempt ? Or Coldwell Banker which is now in the old Schweppe office? Or Rhodes Van Note? It seems all the realtors in Upper Montclair have first floor offices.

  17. ANd what does it mean, pray tell, to describe someone as “listeny?”
    Contrastingly, I might suggest that the two local politicians simply look somewhat annoyed. As I might too if I had to stand there and listen to a knot of grammtically challenged fetishists defend dangerous zoning violations and practices in the name of sexual adventurism.

  18. Cath … call me what you will. It’s as you say “just a handle”. Maybe your problem is just as you state and a little squeak or jangle would do you some good.

  19. O, maybe your problem is just that you squeak and jangle all over even without benefit of PVC and chain mail. Like when you attempt to use what little there is of your brain. (Hint: scrunching up your eyes won’t help. Neither will massage oil.)

  20. And Amandala, I don’t necessarily think that having been set on fire and subsequently whipped (inquisitors used to do this in “reverse” order to heretics) is worth bragging about. At least not unless you’re at a party at, say, Edmund White’s beach house.
    As for it not hurting, I suspect the victims of the Inquisition and of various pogroms and persecutions throughout history would disagree vehemently. Just because you make such a curious admission above doesn’t quite make it acceptable party behavior for anyone else, either.

  21. I really don’t wish to offend you Cath but “HUH”?? Why not one of those long winded diatribes that usually spew from your finger tips?

  22. Who is Joe Schmoe and why is he so intent on leading this place out of bondage? If he saw the violations, he must have been there..HMMM…

  23. I don’t see the problem with sex clubs, fetish clubs, whatever, if they are run legitimately and conform to local and state regulations. It’s a business like anything else. If you don’t want to visit, no one’s making you do so.

  24. 1. Cathar, the point is that it’s not necessarily some kind of perverse thing where people need to get hurt to get their rocks off because A) no one is actually getting hurt and B) no rocks are getting gotten off. It’s just a show.
    And even if it is some kind of perverse thing where people enjoy getting hurt, people’s clothes (scant as they may appear) remain on at these events and their genitals remain inside. It’s just a show. It’s entertainment, not prostitution.
    2. ROC, see previous paragraph.
    But as an aside, even if you would “prefer” not to have a “sex club” in town, it’s not your right not to have a “sex club” in town because in no way would you be harmed or your rights infringed upon by a “sex club” being in town.
    You notice how no one ever gets upset about the sort of place that ROC suspects DFP to be until someone else tells them it’s there? …obviously, it wasn’t having any effect on you.

  25. DFP is one of the businesses that were in Upper Montclair when my family moved here, decades ago. It used to be by The Cheese Shop and Vitti’s.
    They’ve been around long enough to prove they won’t harm the neighborhood, property taxes or frighten celebrities away from moving here. If you don’t like it then don’t be a patron.

  26. Cathar, another thing you don’t seem to understand is that out of all the people you associate with pleasantly on a regular basis, at least a few of them ARE going out and getting “clad in PVC and chains” at night on occasion at the very least. And your very judgmental and prejudicial attitudes, as evidenced by your statement about not even wanting to drink a beer with such a person, is exactly why those few people are hiding who they are out of fear of totally baseless and unwarranted rejection from people like you.
    YES, they are normal people with jobs and families. What they do in their spare time isn’t hurting anyone, least of all you. Yet in order to pursue their chosen lifestyles or hobbies, they have to lead a double life because this country has so many people like YOU in it, who would refuse to associate with them or even employ them just because they get all got up in fantastic gear in the evenings and like to fancy themselves as part of some kind of risque underground thing.

  27. We have much bigger problems in this town than these [portion of comment deleted]. The picture is actually quite comical. I doubt these council members pictured themselves addressing a group [portion of comment deleted] when they ran for office. This type of establishment does not belong in Montclair, politely push them a few towns East down Bloomfield Ave. I would imagine the further east they go, the more misfits and interest there will be in becoming a member of their little club.

  28. It’s been a business in town for what…30 years? So I guess it is a business people want in town NOC.
    Unless you’d rather have another empty storefront or a nail salon?

  29. “This type of establishment does not belong in Montclair.”
    And what type of establishments DO belong in Montclair? Are you basing this on personal preference or other criteria?
    For exmaple, I don’t have or plan to get a tattoo but I don’t have a problem with tat parlors or with people who have them.
    As long as they pay taxes, keep the place clean, adhere to local/state laws, keep underage people out, I don’t see what the problem is.

  30. Amandala,
    We decide all the time which kinds of businesses are allowed and not allowed in town because of any number of effects it will have on the community.
    We don’t have 400 liquor licenses in this town, for example, because we don’t want that much drinking and its related “activities” in town.
    You don’t have a “civil right” to build a copper smelter in town or a pig farm either.
    I don’t find the denials of the activities in the basement convincing.
    It’s a matter of zoning and allowable business use.
    Here’s my list of businesses I’d like to see prohibited by zoning:
    Off track betting
    Sex clubs
    lap dancing
    peep shows
    porn outlets

  31. Is the circus in town? Look at these people. If you want some respect, have all the doctors, lawyers, and professional people that supposedly frequent this place to show up at town hall and be heard. Maybe take off the sex garb and put on a tie and appropriately address the town about their issues. Regardless of who shows up though, I don’t find this as an appropriate business to have in Montclair. Maybe its just me, but there are enough things that my kids are exposed to, I don’t need to answer questions from them about the crap that is displayed in their storefront window.

  32. Don’t be an idiot. The town would have more liquor licenses if we could get them. There was just an article on this and how we still can’t get even one more because of the population count.

  33. Oh please, the place is harmless. I didn’t even know it was there up until recently and I’ve lived in that area my whole life.
    There is no sex allowed, so it is not a “sex club”. If you have a problem with the BDSM lifestyle and what goes on in the club, then mind your business. Since it isn’t happening in plain sight, why the hell would it matter to you, there is no one asking you to participate.
    IMO, all of the bars cause more damage to neighborhoods than places like DFP do.

  34. LOL, Nellie.
    I guess some folks haven’t learned not to judge a book by its cover. Everyone thought that Philip Markoff was a nice, normal-looking, yuppie kinda guy (pre-med, too!) and we all know how that worked out.

  35. Have to agree with ROC on this one. Local ordinances are just that – local. We (the residents of Montclair, as represented by our elected officials) are allowed to set our own standards and policies when it comes to businesses that operate in our town. The right to freedom of expression does not immediately translate into the right to run this kind of business in a community. I lived in San Francisco for years, a short walk from the Castro District. The sex shops and nudity at the Halloween parade were part of the culture of that neighborhood, and both are in ample supply. And that is fine because the majority of the residents of that area approve. Call me old fashioned, but I’d rather not field questions from my 4 year old about 12 inch turquoise dildos in storefront windows on Bloomfield Ave. Therefore, as a taxpaying resident of Montclair, I would prefer that our zoning ordinances prohibit these types of businesses.

  36. No ones child has asked questions regarding the store window or its name, nor have their been “12 inch turquoise dildos in storefront windows on Bloomfield Ave.” If they had we wouldn’t be hearing about this protest, we would have heard from angry parent groups long ago.
    And again, this business has been in Montclair for 30 of the paast 40 years, so the majority of the locals don’t seem to have a problem with it.

  37. It always comes back to “it’s bad for the chhhillldrunnn!”
    As other posters have pointed out, many of them didn’t even know this store was there until they saw something on Baristanet about it. The storefront is rather innocuous. Unless youi’re specifically looking for it, if you blink, you might miss it.

  38. I said that my preference is to not allow such stores. If I am in the minoroty here in Montclair, so be it. And yes, Mrs. M, as a parent I DO have a responsibility to influence what my children are exposed to. And I take that responsibility seriously. Hopefully my kids will grow to be well adjusted adults, and will refrain from snorting coke, attacking others with baseball bats, and melting wax onto their genitals.

  39. Mrs. Martta makes it clear.
    NO ONE cared, until now.
    And suddenly, good old open minded Montclair shows itself (some of us, knowing the town’s history are not surprised).
    But comments like Spicoli’s are as dumb as most racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-Semitic rants, in which, under any inspection, make no sense whatsoever.
    However, I’ll ask the obvious Spicoli: what will you do WHEN your children snort coke, attack another with a baseball bat?
    Disown them?
    Moreover, when one of your children chose to engage in perfectly legal adult activity like what’s described here or as you suggest: melting wax onto their genitals– do you disown them for that too?

  40. I believe things take on a different perspective when one has children and that is where Spicoli-the Sequel is coming form. I respect that. I do agree, however, that no one cared about this place until it was posted here today.

  41. Nellie,
    If you’re going to defend him, at least explain why.
    I don’t have a clue what “things take on a different perspective when one has children” means within the context of consenting adults engaging in legal activity.
    Understand, this is the same rationale some use to deny same-sex couples their full, legal rights— WHAT ABOUT THE KIDS???
    I say, talk to the kids and explain life to them.
    Here, I strain to understand exactly when one would even need to explain to a child what folks are doing in the basement of dfp?

  42. I just hope that Cary does not decide to show solidarity with DFP by dressing up for a town council meeting in leather.

  43. williams, it is painful to watch as you try, unsuccessfully, to make logical arguments.
    Are you suggesting that people should parent based on what is “legal”? Please – talk about making no sense. We are all entitled to our own values, and most parents raise their children according to those value systems. Whenever we bring our children to a particular church or discuss our positions on social or political issues, we are sharing our value systems with them. I have a value system, and it does not include exposing pre-pubescent children to things that are sexually explicit. And in your very odd little world, that puts me at the same level as racists, sexists, homophobes and anti-Semites.
    Did I say anything about disowning my children if the choose to have different values than me? No – that is a complete fabrication on your part. But you like to play loose with the facts – don’t worry we’re used to it here.
    To reiterate, my PREFRENCE is that our local zoning ordinances not allow sexually oriented storefronts in our business districts. If you want to dip yourself in butter and roll around in cornflakes in the privacy of your own home, by all means go for it.
    And as for the true Montclair showing its colors – yes that is true. I guess I’m not entitled to voice an opinion, especially when it does not conform yours.

  44. Stu,
    Cary shows solidarity with those who believe in the Constitution and the fourth amendment.
    Not that there were necessarily any violations, mind you.
    He also believes that zoning laws are perfectly reasonable, and that there is recourse for DFP. Hopefully they will give their side of the story at the proper meeting.
    Lastly, while laws have to be upheld, lets make sure we’re not making up in our minds laws that we would like to exist, but don’t exist. I have no idea what went on, but if laws were broken we have a very competent police department that will look into it.
    Cary Africk
    2nd Ward Councilor

  45. “If laws were broken we have a very competent police department that will look into it.”
    Agreed. In fact, I recall not that long ago when the police looked into this, as well as this. Not that it did much good. But at least these establishments are pumping some money into the local economy.

  46. Here’s my list of businesses I’d like to see prohibited by zoning:
    Off track betting
    Sex clubs
    lap dancing
    peep shows
    porn outlets
    This is your list of business you would like to see prohibited.. DFP does not fall in under any of these so why give them such a hard time? In a time of such economic hardship it makes just perfect sense to shut down an establishment based on what YOU feel is not the norm….. More ignorance

  47. The address of your first ‘massage’ parlor is the same as Dressing for Pleasure. What the heck’s going on over there? I’ve never even noticed either business and I live less than a mile away.

  48. “Lastly, while laws have to be upheld, lets make sure we’re not making up in our minds laws that we would like to exist, but don’t exist.”
    Cary
    With regards to the specific circumstances surrounding the DFP closure and their recourse, I completely agree. The existing laws are the standard by which DFP should be judged. But with all due respect, laws are not static. And, within reason, laws can and should change over time based on what the citizens want. There is a broader issue about the types of businesses that Montclair permits. And regardless of all of the jabber on this blog, there is a “line” somewhere. I don’t know where that line is in the current zoning statutes (i.e. strip clubs/naked dancing not allowed, commercial BDSM events allowed, etc.) but where that line falls should be a point of discussion.
    I would hope that in addition to your own reasoned response, you also look to your constituents when determining the standards to apply in your ward and the town.

  49. Spicoli,
    You play the hurt and wounded bird quite well. But as a believer in the state of things, forgive me for not wanting to put you in a box, bring you home and nurse you back to health.
    And THANKFULLY, your “preference” is not the law (which is why I put you in with the “racists, sexists, homophobes and anti-Semites,” who only want their “preference” to rule the day.)
    And just who is stopping you from “voicing” your opinion?
    Or was that a bit of the Obama-Straw Man tactic?
    Because as far as I can see— you’ve “voiced” your opinions, preferences and thrown a few verbal jabs here today.
    (But playing the hurt bird does get some sympathy I guess.)

  50. BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!!!!!!
    WHAT ABOUT THE ILLEGAL “HAPPY ENDINGS” JOINT UPSTAIRS FROM DFP?!?!?! THAT’S RIGHT!! SKEEZY OLD MEN ROLLING UP AT 11:00 AT NIGHT, LOOKING OVER THEIR SHOULDER BEFORE CAUTIOUSLY ENTERING AND SNEAKILY ASCENDING THE STAIRS!!!!
    “AROMA THERAPY”
    YEAH RIGHT!!!!!
    HOW ‘BOUT THAT?
    grrrrrr. . .

  51. This was also in today’s Ledger. In that article, I notice that the person who came forward to make the complaint remains anonymous. Kinda cowardly, in my opinion. Also, this anonymous weasel was able to give a complete description of said “dungeon,” including the way the air smelled (bad). Sounds to me like a disgruntled customer. How else would they be able to describe the place in such detail?

  52. Nellie,
    If you’re going to defend him, at least explain why.
    —————-
    Prof,
    I don’t have children so I’m not really a player in that arena. But the point I was making is that when people have children, their focus seems to be shifted to how situations will affect their children. I don’t always understand that and sometimes I think it’s silly, but I try to respect it.

  53. I can think of a dozen reasons the whistle-blower chose to remain anonymous. For one, to admit he/she knew the layout (and odor) of the basement dungeon completely implies he/she was down there.

  54. Oh cathar, don’t be so apple pie! Of course there are mothers and fathers and priests, etc. who enjoy an occasional spanking. They just don’t do it in your front lawn. They do it in the privacy of their own homes or in the dungeon.
    I am a mother of two little girls, but if you send me your picture, I’ll let you know if I’ll let you spank me…

  55. There has been an Eyewitness News van outside of there for most of the day. It looks like they’re doing some live feed for the evening news. Oy!! If they’re not breaking the law, big deal people. The real news is upstairs. . . I live across, and I’m telling you it’s ILLEGAL!!!!!!!!!!!!

  56. oh please, the only type of diversity this town actually enjoys is the choice of farmer’s market vendors. Leave these people alone. What’s the harm. Get it up to code and then who cares? Charge them taxes on the extra space.

  57. “Mrs. hchen,” the general presumption is that men wish to be spanked by women, not the other way round. The French term for spanking is “la vice Anglaise” but even as they put it this way, they presume the desire to be so treated is male gender specific.
    In any case, and especially because you’ve posted a public e-mail address (whether or it’s genuine is another matter entirely), I could now transfer it to assorted wash room walls in biker bars and porno shops, did you think of that? (Did you in fact hope for that, come to think of it?) Heck, even the weirdos you may hear from who post here are probably enough to, as they say, scare the horses. Also you already sound way too used and much too public for whatever my tastes are in anything (and no, they don’t include pubic contact with people wearing Huckleberry Hound and Yogi Bear suits, as convened in Denver this very week).
    That also you claim to have two little girls, well, perhaps your sexual tastes then allow you to “spare the rod” when disciplining them in turn? If so, that’s a good thing to come out of this whole overrated, sleazy affair.

  58. It should be viewed as a code problem only from the perspective of safety, not the content of the activity. If they get a proper emergency egress for hosting groups of people in a basement, they should be allowed to do it.

  59. cathar, mon ami —
    “vice” is masculine en la langue francaise, and so would be put differently. I don’t care all that much, mind you, but they do. That’s why they have the Academy, after all.
    I think that you may have been looking for “la malaise anglaise”, which usually referred to veneral disease. Those of us who served in the Royal Navy called it the “French pox”. The usual sort of thing, what?
    As far as this contretemps is concerned, it is a bit of a tempest in a teapot, to my mind. Folks who seem rather silly to me are gathering in basement, and doing silly things. How does this endanger the republic?
    Live and let live, I say. Even in latex.
    Just don’t make me watch, thank you.

  60. Oh Cathar, you are being apple pie again! Who cares what the “general presumption” is when it comes to spanking? Humanity comes in all shapes, forms, inclinations, spanking preferences, etc. We protect our children, property, etc. But beyond the basics, I just try to live and let live.

  61. Dressing for Pleasure
    Is a store that when you walk by looks like a high end lingerie and leather shop and it is but deeper in to the store is a closed area where the fetish gear is on display the store owners are watchful as to who and the age group of the patrons of the store so in general passers by that’s what you see. As for the (Private Club) known as the Crawlspace you would not know that it is there people come and go in fetish wear that is street conscious
    On a Friday or Saturday night we the club was open you would not know it yet travel up town at the same time and your shure to find 6 police units in a (Public bar or club) having to keep the peace think about it think hard about those actives that makes you wonder
    As to the use of property ordnance in a commercial zone in Montclair is I am not sure but to me I see it like thus in a book store can you not read in a night club can you not dance in a restaurant can you not eat drink and be merry see my point the Crawlspace is a extension of Dressing for Pleasure But a Private one
    As for safety code infractions if it’s broke they will fix it
    As to the owners of Dressing for Pleasure and the Crawlspace I have never met finer people

Comments are closed.