Susan Paynter thinks all the talk about "freedom of speech" around Referendum 1 (the four-foot rule, etc.) is a ruse -- what the clubs really want to keep "legal" is prostitution:

If we want a vote, up or down, on legalizing prostitution, then, in the words of G.W. Bush, bring it on. But if, outside of Nevada, we still oppose the oldest profession when it is practiced on the street, do we ignore it when it's inside a club that may soon be built next to your house?

Dan Savage insists "There’s no prostitution at Rick’s, folks. Just hard-up guys with lumps in their pants tossing twenties at pretty girls." But Paynter quotes an older version of her own column and insists she knows what really "what really happens in the darkened corners of these clubs":

"Although touching is supposedly forbidden, in the less-lighted recesses of at least two of the clubs, men reported seeing 'dancers' opening patrons' pants, putting on condoms and, at the very least, rubbing private parts through men's clothing to the point of some tough laundry stains."

If Paynter's right, though, she undercuts her own argument: people who are really interested can already tell when someone's crossing the line between lap dances and prostitution, without brighter lights or a four-foot rule in place. And we suspect they don't need to spend $10,000 on lap dances to figure it out.

Because the new strip club rules don't outlaw prostitution -- that's already illegal. They make it easier for cops to crack down on prostitution by throwing out any possibility of gray areas.

We're not voting no on Ref. 1 because we want handjobs -- we assume there are far more comfortable places in the city to enjoy illicit carnal activity with sex workers than the recesses of Rick's. We're voting no on Ref. 1 because we want the occasional lap dance. They're sexy! They're fun! If our wife is GGG, what's it to Paynter, the cops, local bluenoses, or Greg Nickels?