I’d like to begin by thanking Andy for allowing me to guest post here. My choice of this venue, versus any other blog or other media is not intended to slight any other blog or website. Rather, I believe this blog attracts people from all sides of the issue at hand. For those who ask why I am the “voice of the opposition”, I am wondering the same thing. I will say, as far as I know, I am the only person who has spoken with all involved and interested parties, and while I am on the side of opposing KK’s Temptations, I think I have a unique perspective to offer. I hope you will consider my opinions and observations when formulating yours.
I’d also be remiss if I did not thank Mr. & Mrs. Skokan. They had several potential clients present, when I walked in, but took the time to speak with me.
It is not secret that I oppose KK’s Temptation’s business model, and I hope I have been clear in what I object to, and why I object to it. Simply put, I object to KK’s Temptations sale of XXX-rated DVD’s, and the “Adult DVDs” advertisement in their front window. I do not think that these items appropriate for sale in Old Town Manassas, and clearly advertising their sale in an area frequented by families detrimental to the image that the City and Old Town business community is trying to portray in Old Town. I do not object to the “Lingerie, Lotions & More” portion of the business model.
For those who had not seen it, Mrs. Kim Skokan and I presented our sides of the issue on a local nightly news segment. I said I objected to XXX-rated videos, and their being sold in an area frequented by families with children. Mrs. Skokan admitted that she did in fact sell these XXX-rated DVDs. When asked by the anchor if she would stop selling them to be “neighborly”, she argued that people were purchasing these items, so as long as there was a business demand, she would sell them. In the back and forth, she asked if I had been in her store. I admitted I had not, and said I hadn’t because she sells something I object to, as a matter of principle. She responded that I should visit her store, before I condemn it. Some folks who saw the exchange said she had a point. While I didn’t exactly see it that way (saying she admits she sells the XXX-videos), I did get to thinking about it, and decided to visit the store. Well, maybe Mrs. Skokan and others had a point, after all.
Accompanied by Mrs. Thomas, I visited the store on Saturday afternoon. The Skokans, quite graciously took the time to talk to me, and I must say that this was time well spent on my part. I hope they feel the same way. First, I will say I can see the effort that the Skokans have put forth to present their store in the most tasteful manner possible. They have given up potential shelf space to keep the more risqué items hidden from the street. The front of the store, where the intimate apparel is displayed, is very much laid out in a tasteful manner. According to Mrs. Thomas, the items in the front section of the shop are classy, and reasonably priced. Having a limited frame of reference, I’ll accept her assessment without reservation.
The Skokans greeted me in a warm and friendly manner, and considering the fact that I have been one of their most vocal opponents, honestly this surprised me. They actually appeared happy to see me there, and escorted me to “the back”, as they fully understood why I was there. Mr. Skokan explained how the shelves were laid out, and said “If I understand your concerns, you would be interested in this area of our shelf-space”. This was the area where their DVD selection is displayed. This consisted of about half of one wall, with approximately 150 titles on the shelves. Mr. Skokan pointed to one section and said, “we consider these, “instructional videos” “, which made up about 25% of the shelf-space devoted to DVDs. I asked a few questions regarding these DVD’s, and agreed with their characterization of them as “instructional”. We spent the remaining time discussing the XXX titles (and they agree that the DVDs are indeed XXX), what percentage of projected sales on these items are, and what their rationale was for carrying these items. I was surprised as to how little of their entire store is devoted to XXX-videos. To help you visualize this, if KK’s Temptations were a burger joint, the lingerie, shoes, undies and such are the burgers and soda. The lotions and “toys” the fries, and the XXX-rated DVD’s the “apple pie”. They are trying to be a “one-stop-couples-shop”. I can see this. I just object to the “apple pie”. I offered suggestions, they offered counters to them. We also discussed how things unfolded. I think it was here where we came to the most mutual understanding.
I think both Mr. and Mrs. Skokan and I agree that there were points in the timeline where misunderstandings could have been avoided. We also agreed that the press had little interest in conveying facts, and was more interested in keeping the acrimony flowing. Mrs. Skokan cited many examples of the press editing her comments where she tried to make or clarify some point. I agreed, because they did the same to me. They also, very graciously, told me that they only began to understand the opposition until I started to comment publically on the issue. I told them I only represent a constituency of one, although I think I my objections representative of the majority of those opposed to their business.
So, my impressions of the Skokans are they are reasonable, pleasant people, and they willing to listen. They are trying to run a business, and make money doing so. I can appreciate this. They are business owners, and I believe that if dropping the XXX-DVD’s was a demonstrably good business decision, where they gain more sales than they are currently losing, they would. I understand what marketing theme they are trying to convey, and honestly can’t call it “bad” or “evil”. They are marketing to women and couples, and that’s who I saw in their store. As we were leaving, Mrs. Thomas pointed to some bit of clothing that caught her eye, and Mrs. Skokan noticed this as well. I left this with: if they can find a way to quit selling XXX-rated videos, I would be back to purchase that item myself. Mr. and Mrs. Skokan, as well as Miss Skokan all smiled. I smiled too.
I think that finally, we are talking.
October 25, 2010 at 3:36 pm
Thank you for the fair and reasoned article Steve. It would be interesting to know how the same sort of visit would go in comparison at the other local establishments.
October 25, 2010 at 3:45 pm
David,
I think I shall visit the other establishments, at some point in the future, for comparisons sake.
October 25, 2010 at 3:53 pm
That took guts, Steve. Hope others will follow your lead, so Old Town with a New Attitude will ring true.
October 25, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Proof, if any were needed, that Steve is a gentleman. A reasonable voice. No grandstanding. Keep up the good work.
October 26, 2010 at 6:21 am
I don’t want to be critical here because Steve ultimately did the right thing. What I hope is the moral of Steve’s experience is that folks should not “fire, ready, aim” at every opportunity. Controversy is best addressed with open minds and the willingness to listen maturely to all sides before developing solutions.
October 26, 2010 at 6:45 am
I’ll still point out that gun shops and beer stores do not have to hide their products from the general public because the products are not suitable for children to see.
So, people can defend the store all they want, but in the end, it comes down to why do they have to hide some products they have to sell.
October 26, 2010 at 9:32 am
COM,
You’ll get no argument from me on your point. I opposed to the sale of XXX-videos, and think that it is right that society considers it prudent that they be “kept in the back”. I think if we get to a point where “anything goes” is the norm of society, we will cease to have one.
October 26, 2010 at 12:16 pm
Well, there hasn’t been anarchy in Manassas yet, and MVC, Fashion Fantasy and One Dollar Movies have been in place for years.
Steve Randolph, where are you? I’m sure there was something in the turn-of-the-century News & Messenger about women are bobbing their hair:
In olden days a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking,
But now, Heaven knows,
Anything Goes.
— Cole Porter, 1934
October 26, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Theres lots I dont care for but Id rather not involve the government in doing something about it. While most of us share common norms, I dont want the government imposing my norms on others or the norms of others on me.
But it is difficult to determine where the dividing line should be. In terms of jurisprudence there are crimes malem in se (a wrong in and of itself, such as murder, stealing, etc.) and there are crimes malem prohibitum (a wrong merely because the government says it is a wrong, typically a regulatory crime, ordinance violation, etc.).
The great majority of societies share a common definition of crimes malem in se, but they widely differ on crimes malum prohibitum. Even individual states often differ on the latter.
Since crimes malem prohibitum are not innately wrong but are wrong merely because a legislative body says they are, there is often disagreement as to whether the conduct should be criminalized in the first instance. Thats kind of where we are here. Merely an observation.
October 27, 2010 at 10:19 am
FYI – This morning the Fernandez lot looks like
the entrance to an International Hotel with
at least a dozen flags representing what
appear, from a glance, countries in
South and Central America. They join
the Mexican one that has been up for several
weeks.
October 27, 2010 at 10:36 am
Cindy,
The music played and the attire worn at local
dances were apparently an issue here decades ago.
“Any one who has impure and immoral thoughts of a
dance would much better stay away from Manassas
ballrooms, because it is through such as they the ‘Tango’
and other harmful influences encroach upon this great
and useful pleaure of the young and old.
And the extreme in split skirts at dances is only worn for
advertising purposes and deserves a prison sentence
instead of a fine.”
Manassas Democrat (July 24, 1913)
October 27, 2010 at 4:04 pm
I knew you could top Cole Porter. Wasn’t there an opera house in Old Town with a ballroom, Steve?
October 27, 2010 at 10:24 pm
Cindy, we pass it all the time on Center Street…The Opera House used to be the dance hall, theatre, and of course, opera events. Everything you would want in a community center.
Home once, as we know, to the Opera House Gourmet till they moved up the block.
Home also to the last reunion of the Mosby Rangers…and some say a few ghosts or two!
October 28, 2010 at 10:35 am
Cindy,
What would you object to in the City? Do you think we should legalize whore houses? How about live sex shows?
Do you think it’s a good thing that pre teen girls are wearing suggestive clothing?
October 28, 2010 at 12:25 pm
citizenofmanassas, leave it to you to take a thread that is calm with a good discussion and then you call someone out. While I wont speak for Ms. Brookshire, My thought is whore houses and live sex shows are illegal. The selling of adult themed videos is legal. You are comparing apples and oranges. Again, don’t try to push your morals on me. But I really don’t expect anything better out of you, because you are always such a rude mean person with your comments. If you are so unhappy in Manassas, why don’t you just move.
October 28, 2010 at 1:35 pm
” My thought is whore houses and live sex shows are illegal. The selling of adult themed videos is legal. ”
MCR,
There are certain jurisdictions in Nevada (to my knowledge, the only State where prostitution is legal), were there are licensed brothels. Parhump Nevada is home to many of them. The selling of “adult themed videos” is only legal if they fall below a defined standard, and this standard differs from community to community. Currently, the generally accepted measurement is the “Miller Test”. This was derived from the SCOTUS case “Miller v. California, 1973” The Miller test measures:
-Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
-Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
-Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
For a video, show, item or work to be considered “obscene” or illegal, it must satisfy all three requirements above. The first one is a standard set by the local community, the second by the individual state, and the third by America as a whole.
Or to put it another way, what may be legal and acceptable in one locale, might be legal and unacceptable in another. What I believe at issue here, is Manassas really hadn’t had to establish the first element of the test, or the debate surrounding this until very recently. I know, MVC has been around for a long time, but I believe that it was an “out of sight, out of mind” kinda thing.
That is not to say that MVC has had a pass either. The CA’s office got a misdemeanor conviction on MVC about 8 years ago, when MVC was caught selling XXX-rated videos where the female “stars” were clearly preganant. MVC claimed they were “instructional”. The court ruled against them. I believe MVC also got hit for selling “golden showers” videos, and these were also found to be obscene.
October 28, 2010 at 1:37 pm
” might be Illegal and unacceptable in another” I meant to say
October 28, 2010 at 4:16 pm
Glad to see the Mrs T. knows the price of some items…Mr. T should shower her with such gifts!
Here’s my FAVORITE SAYING…TOLD YA SO! LOL
October 28, 2010 at 4:25 pm
“Mr. T should shower her with such gifts!”
And I would be happy to, but not at the expense of my principles….
October 28, 2010 at 4:38 pm
Regarding Houses of Prostitution….
And playing a bit like Steve Randolph here, this is the extract of the Town of Manassas Ordinances of 1900:
“XII – Any person keeping a house of ill fame, or a gambling house, or suffering gambling in his house, within the Corporate limits, shall be fined not less than $20.00 nor more than $100.00”
The balance of the 1900 Ordinances, which also make interesting reading for the morals of the time, can be found at:
http://www.pwcvabooks.com/documents/1900Ordinances.pdf
October 28, 2010 at 7:49 pm
Ray, interesting find. I had not seen that specific
list before.
There was also an ordinance from the same period about
not driving large herds of livestock through the town.
Proud to say, I think the current council has that
problem under control.
October 29, 2010 at 2:12 am
I’d like to point out there’s no such thing as an “xxx” rating. I went to CARA’s (the group that rates films for theatrical and/or home release) website and found out the “X” rating was abolished in 1990 was replaced with the “NC-17” rating. So I doubt the Skokan’s are selling “xxx-rated videos” as described. I haven’t examined them but my guess would be that the DVDs are rated “R”, “NC-17”, or do not have a rating. Not having a rating is not a bad thing since it’s a purely voluntary rating system anyway. The films in there are rated just the same as all other films so I’m sure similarly rated films in any store that sells films as well as all major online store. Some, like Amazon.com, sell exactly the same type of films (check the “sexually” section under “Movies & TV”) and no none are “xxx-rated”- all are unrated,” NC-17”, or “R.” Shall we stop buying things in all those places because of the ratings and because we don’t like the content? Just kidding of course, that would be silly.
Now I’m single and not dating or anything but if I was married and I knew my wife wanted something, and had hinted at me to buy it, from a store that also sold things I did not like, I would go ahead and buy the thing anything. Seems to me, I wouldn’t bet supporting the thing I don’t like by not buying and am only supporting the thing my wife liked. Besides, my wife and I would probably be happier if I bought it rather then if I refused to buy it.
Back to present day, I don’t drink due my personal principles (long personal story and don’t ask ‘cause I won’t post) but I don’t refuse to go to place that serve alcohol or where alcohol can be bought. I mean, I’d have to avoid every supermarket and most, if not all of the, restaurants in the area out of principle. I’d be pointless to do that so I don’t bought buy what I don’t support and that’s the best I can do since alcohol is legal. Just won’t make sense to do so…
Oh, and only LIMITED prostitution is allowed in NV. It’s only legal in said licensed brothels and NOWHERE ELSE. Only about 10% of the people live in areas where such brothels exist and there all in rural countries. All the major urban areas have outlawed those brothels. Interesting topic to Google, very debated issue out there.
But to end on a positive note, I am happy that Mr. Thomas visited the store and saw what was actually being sold. One of my concerns with those who oppose the store is that I feel a good number have not at least visited the store and have never productively communicated with the Skokans. It’s good that there’s communication now and maybe the issues can be worked through.
October 29, 2010 at 9:22 am
Mr. Thomas, my point both are illegal in Virginia. I don’t really have time to be concerned with every oher state in the Union. My thought is if the store survives it must meet community standards or it wouldn’t be in business. But I do appreciate you being proactive on the issue. It shows that people with differencs of opinion can get along.
October 29, 2010 at 3:43 pm
Manassascityresident.
I directed a question to Cindy, because she’s pushing her values on me and others, and seems to think having such stores in the City is no big deal. So, I wanted to know where she would draw the line at.
How is that mean?
October 29, 2010 at 7:40 pm
She never tried to push her values on you. I never once have heard her ever tell anyone they should shop at the store. but why should you get to choose what stores are located where when the store occupied the building legally? It seems to me you are pushing your values on me. You are always just such a negative mean spirited person.
October 31, 2010 at 9:49 pm
MCR,
She’s pushing her values by supporting the store. I’ve never said people should not shop there. I have pointed out how it’s pretty sad that a store has to cover up what they sell, and or restrict the age of a shopper in the store. That’s not the case for a gun shop( which for the most part libs love to try and ban the sale of, even though it’s protected by the second amendment).
In one thread I even tried to compare this store to a store opened up by the KKK, which of course would be very legal. Of course at least one defender(moonhowler) of KK’s said why should the KKK open a store and who would shop there. Which of course exposed their double standard. They want people to understand why KK’s should be allowed to open, but can’t understand why under the same laws a KKK store is allowed.
If this is only about a store being legal, or illegal, then OK. But, it appears that is not the case at all.
BTW, stop the name calling, please. Thanks.
November 2, 2010 at 10:31 am
“So I doubt the Skokan’s are selling “xxx-rated videos” as described. I haven’t examined them but my guess would be that the DVDs are rated “R”, “NC-17”, or do not have a rating.”
There is no trademarked “XXX” rating by CARA. You are correct. However, X, XX, and XXX are recognized ratings by the Adult Film industry, and are meant to convey an expectation to the viewer, at to what he or she should be expected to see. Wikipedia has a pretty good article on it.
November 2, 2010 at 10:33 am
and furthermore, I have seen what they are selling, spoken with them at length and they do not dispute them being characterized as “XXX videos”.
November 5, 2010 at 2:10 pm
@Mr. Thomas above
Mr. Thomas, in college, everyone is told to come up with a better source on a paper or other assignment then Wikipedia since anyone can edit it to say anything. Just an FYI. Though to entrain your comment, the one article I found, entitled “X rating” is the only one I found that goes into the subject so I will discuss only that. First, you seem to fail to recognize the distinction between official movie ratings and letters placed on a box for marketing value. Even the article admits that only some add more Xs and do so only for marketing value to better their “adult” videos seem I guess “better” if one call it that then the competition and are official ratings in any way. Second, it can be said from the article that the meaning of the additional Xs is completely arbitrary and is not uniformly accepted so not everyone takes the Xs to mean the same thing. And third, these additional Xs are recognized in the article to have never been accepted by the MPAA (CASA) as official ratings. Therefore, since the CASA is the standard in the US where we live and it does not have any of those ratings, my original point stands on nothing having an official rating of “xxx”.
To your other point, I agree. No-one that I know of is saying the movies in question are not “adult” videos, or as you call them “XXX videos.” I am only objecting to your phasing that implies an official rating by the CRSA, or anyone else, of “xxx” for having nothing but sexual content when no such official rating exists by anyone I can find.
October 23, 2011 at 12:22 am
I’m a single woman living in Westgate, and didn’t hear about this store until recently.
When I saw it during a leisurely walk through Old Town yesterday, it was a delightful surprise to see and I went right in. It’s a great store, and I’m glad you choose to make the trip yourself.
Stores like this are not where “addicts” and perverts would shop. There is so much bad stuff available online the real pervs don’t bother. However, I can imagine plenty of married couples stopping by on an anniversary night. And I can think of no better gift for a newlywed couple on their honeymoon than a gift certificate to this store.