Phoenix Fun

[ncc1701d]

Hi there..Can anyone give me a run down of the 2 saunas in Phoenix..Flex vs Chute in terms of location and clientele? I will be there for a short business trip on a weeknight without a car..so need to maximize my time for fun. Thanks.

[eastbayguy]

>Hi there..Can anyone give me a run down of the 2 saunas in

>Phoenix..Flex vs Chute in terms of location and clientele? I

>will be there for a short business trip on a weeknight without

>a car..so need to maximize my time for fun. Thanks.

 

Simple: The bear/daddy/leather crowd prefers The Chute, Flex attracts more guy next door and younger types.

 

--EBG

[nate_sf]

I had fun at Flex last time I was in Phoenix. It can be hard to find if you're just going by address though -- it's on a freeway frontage road. Here's map & directions in case you haven't found it already:

 

http://www.flexbaths.com/phoenix/map.htm

[Guest bighugbearphx]

Be aware that Chute is kind of on the police "radar" at the moment, following the conviction of one of its assistant managers for allowing sexual activity to take place on the premises (which he claimed he was unaware of ... uh, huh). The police haven't actually hassled customers so far, but, with "Sheriff Joe" (the publicity-addicted bozo who made a national name for himself by putting prisoners in chain-gangs, feeding them spoiled green bologna and making them wear pink boxer shorts) in charge, one can't be too sure. I know it is still open, and lots of people go there, though.

 

Here's the story from the current Echo magazine:

 

An employee of the adult club the Arizona Chute, Scott A. Griswald, was convicted with a misdemeanor on Nov. 19. under a Phoenix city law banning live sex act businesses. The verdict was delivered after two hours of deliberation on the case, full of sexually-explicit testimony. Presiding Judge Carol Scott Berry ordered Griswald to serve one year probation, a 10-day suspended sentence, and pay a $750 fine.

Enforcement of the law, section 23-54c of Phoenix city code, is intended to combat the effects of adult-oriented businesses that may be providing illegal sexual activity to patrons. The city council originally enacted the law at the urging of religious conservatives, who feared the businesses were deteriorating their surrounding neighborhoods. Fans of the clubs have considered the law antiquated, however, interfering unfairly in the private sexual lives of adults.

City prosecutor Mike Cruess mounted a vigorous defense of the law, starting with his opening statements. He declared early on that the case did not target gay people, but was meant to target businesses providing sexual activity for pay.

"This case is not about homosexuality, it's about sexually-oriented businesses," he said.

Griswald's defense lawyer, Chad Belville, countered, saying that none of the police who entered the Chute that night could describe what Griswald was doing, besides giving customers their supplies.

"All this case is going to show is that he handed out a couple of towels and keys," Belville added. "In the end, they got the wrong guy."

The trial was marked as unusual from the outset. Potential jurors were faced with a daunting questionnaire that covered more than their concerns about policemen, or their feelings about the United States' justice system. Jurors were asked if they had ever seen pornography, had gay friends, or could withstand sexually-explicit testimony enough to render a fair verdict. Nearly two full days of jury selection, rare for misdemeanor cases, was required to find able jurors. Several jurors had to be eliminated because of personal prejudices against gay sex acts, or gays and lesbians generally.

Jurors who remained were treated to a rare glimpse into the operations of undercover police officers. Four of the department's officers entered the club under false names on Dec. 12, 2003, around 9pm. Once inside, the officers testified to seeing three men engaged in a three-way, as two other men watched. Upon discovering the illegal activity, police summoned nine uniformed officers to enter the club and arrest Griswald, who was serving as assistant manager at the time.

Much of the case hung on how the jury would understand the technical language of the city ordinance. While sex in public places is illegal, in adult clubs, usually businesses, and not customers, are responsible for observance of the ordinance. In fact, not one patron in the Chute at the time of the raid was held for committing a crime.

Griswald's lawyer claimed the activity was not Griswald's fault, and that the law was designed to attack adult business owners, who "operate and maintain" the business by paying rent, utility bills or other managerial functions.

"He wasn't dong anything on his own, not exercising any authority," Belville added.

Prosecutor Creuss disagreed, saying that Griswald, as a manager, was responsible for the business' violations, in part because he was unaware of what was happening in the building. According to detective testimony, the patrons were totally unsurprised by nudity or sexual activity.

"They're seeing what they expected to see, that it was commonplace, Cruess said.

The jury was convinced, and convicted Griswald, who intends to appeal.

[ncc1701d]

Thanks for the helpful responses...Nate I sent you a private message..hope you have time to answer.:-)