Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Face control

Face control is a selective entry policy practiced at upscale nightclubs, bars, and restaurants, primarily in and certain post-Soviet countries, where bouncers or designated hosts assess potential patrons' appearance, attire, demeanor, and perceived to determine admission and preserve an exclusive environment. This practice, often transliterated from as "feis-kontrol," emerged in the early years of the Federation during the and , amid the post-Soviet economic boom that saw a rise in oil wealth and a desire among venue owners to attract affluent crowds while excluding those deemed unsuitable, such as the overly intoxicated or those lacking style. The process typically involves a quick visual and behavioral evaluation at the entrance, with decisions made arbitrarily by security personnel who may cite reasons like a "private event" for denials, though criteria can vary by venue—ranging from requiring elegant dress and sobriety at places like 's ICON club to emphasizing positive energy and mixed- groups elsewhere. Originating as a means to balance gender ratios in favor of more women or to signal prestige to high-profile patrons like oligarchs and celebrities, it has become a hallmark of in cities such as , St. Petersburg, , and , though its strictness has somewhat relaxed in recent years at some establishments. Critics view face control as elitist and discriminatory, prone to inconsistency that can bar even notable figures, and it has been linked to occasional violence or resentment among those rejected. Notable figures in its enforcement include "," a prominent who shaped the practice at clubs like Diaghilev before his death in , underscoring its cultural significance in urban nightlife. While less common outside , similar selective policies exist globally under different names, but face control remains distinctly tied to the region's post-communist social dynamics.

Origins and Definition

Definition

Face control is a selective entry policy employed by upscale nightclubs, casinos, restaurants, and similar establishments, where bouncers or door staff make subjective judgments about a person's appearance, attire, demeanor, and perceived social compatibility to determine admission, with the goal of preserving an exclusive and desirable atmosphere. This practice, often termed "face control" particularly in and contexts, relies on a rapid, informal assessment—sometimes described as a "snap judgment"—without standardized checklists or processes, allowing venues to their clientele for enhanced , perceived safety, and commercial profitability. Unlike routine door policies such as verification through or basic enforcement, face control emphasizes aesthetic and social elements, prioritizing the overall "fit" of patrons within the venue's targeted upscale demographic over . This distinction enables establishments to reject entrants arbitrarily, often citing vague reasons like a "private event," to maintain selectivity without explicit rules. Bouncers play a central role in this process, acting as gatekeepers who evaluate individuals at the entrance. The policy is most prominently associated with high-end nightlife venues in cities like and St. Petersburg, such as the Billionaire Club or , but extends to luxury events and restaurants where exclusivity drives appeal. In these settings, face control helps signal and attract affluent crowds, though its application can vary by location and time, sometimes loosening for larger groups or peak hours.

Historical Origins

The practice of face control has roots in 20th-century Western nightclub policies aimed at exclusivity, particularly the use of velvet ropes at venues like in during the 1970s, where door staff selectively admitted patrons based on appearance, celebrity status, and perceived desirability to cultivate an elite atmosphere. In , face control emerged as a formalized policy during the economic boom, driven by and the rise of oligarchs who sought to emulate Western luxury and celebrity scenes in and St. Petersburg. The term "face control" (Russian: фейс-контроль), a directly transliterating the English phrase to refer to judgment by physical appearance, originated in this context as clubs transitioned from Soviet-era restrictions to commercial entertainment hubs catering to the newly wealthy. Russia's first nightclub, Night Flight, opened on October 25, 1991, in and introduced rigid face control to exclude mafiosi and ensure a sophisticated crowd, often requiring suits and rejecting those in casual attire like tracksuits. Early adopters like Manhattan Express in the early further popularized the practice, using it to filter for affluent patrons displaying signs of wealth, such as expensive watches or cars, while barring "unfriendly-looking" individuals including bandits and teenagers. By the mid-1990s, face control had evolved from into a named, status-enforcing policy at upscale venues like (1995-1997), which targeted business elites and bohemians, while more accessible clubs like (opened 1995) applied lenient versions amid surging demand for exclusive . This shift reflected broader influences from European and American , imported via communities and media, leading to the term's spread into English usage among internationals in . By the early , the practice was entrenched, with growing public discourse on its discriminatory aspects appearing in Russian media.

Practices and Implementation

Selection Criteria

Selection criteria in face control encompass a range of factors that bouncers evaluate to determine entry into upscale venues such as nightclubs and bars, primarily in Russia and post-Soviet countries. Primary considerations include physical appearance, which involves assessments of attractiveness, grooming, and style, as these are perceived to align with the venue's desired aesthetic and atmosphere. Attire plays a central role, with preferences for fashionable and upscale clothing that signals sophistication; for instance, casual items like jeans or sneakers are often rejected to maintain an exclusive environment. Group composition is another key element, favoring balanced gender ratios—often prioritizing more women—and smaller, non-disruptive parties over large all-male groups, which may be seen as higher risk for altercations or to balance the crowd dynamics. Subjective elements further refine these evaluations, incorporating demeanor, which encompasses , positive attitude, and non-aggressive posture, alongside assessments of intoxication levels to prevent disruptive inside. Age appropriateness is ensured through passport checks, often prioritizing adults aged 21 or older (sometimes 25+ at stricter venues) to align with the target demographic and legal requirements. "Vibe fit" evaluates overall compatibility with the venue's clientele, such as affluent young professionals or high-profile guests, based on subtle cues like and social ease. Venue-specific variations adapt these criteria to operational goals; luxury nightclubs in emphasize "" by enforcing strict no-casual-wear policies to cultivate an ambiance, rejecting "scruffy" looks or overly relaxed outfits, while some have relaxed standards as of 2025 to attract broader crowds. Examples include denying entry to males deemed too casual or intoxicated, or preferring mixed-gender groups that appear non-threatening and socially integrated, thereby balancing with the venue's exclusive parameters.

Operational Methods

Face control is typically executed by trained door staff, commonly known as bouncers, who are positioned at the entrances of upscale nightclubs and similar venues to regulate access, particularly in cities like and . These individuals conduct initial visual assessments of potential entrants, including scans of attire, group composition, and demeanor, to determine suitability for entry. They may also consult guest lists or VIP rosters to expedite approval for pre-vetted individuals, such as celebrities or oligarchs. Operational procedures begin with queue management, where bouncers maintain orderly lines and deter disruptive behavior through physical presence and authoritative . Quick verbal screenings follow, involving brief questions to gauge attitude and intent, while applying selection criteria such as perceived fit with the venue's image. Internal coordination occurs via communication with venue management or additional staff about potential issues, ensuring smooth flow. Rejections are handled diplomatically, often with euphemisms like "private event tonight" to de-escalate tensions and avoid confrontations, with backup security ready for escalations. Tools and techniques for face control are predominantly low-tech and observational, relying on the bouncer's judgment, though some venues employ for pre-screening crowds. Passport verification is standard, with bouncers checking documents carefully to confirm and , particularly emphasizing by refusing entry to those appearing intoxicated, such as stumbling or slurring speech. Techniques emphasize discretion and , such as polite refusals and monitoring for disruptive behaviors to prevent risks inside. Training for bouncers focuses on informal guidelines provided by venue management to align with the establishment's desired image, including emphasis on maintaining , recognizing disruptive behaviors, and techniques. This preparation equips staff to enforce entry rules consistently while prioritizing patron safety and venue reputation. Face control practices in private venues are generally permissible under property rights doctrines in many jurisdictions, allowing owners broad to refuse entry for reasons such as or behavior, akin to longstanding U.S. precedents like "no shirt, no shoes, no service" policies that uphold a business's right to curate its atmosphere. However, this discretion is curtailed by anti-discrimination statutes that prohibit refusals based on protected characteristics, including , , , and , treating nightclubs as public accommodations open to the public. In the United States, federal law under Title II of the explicitly bans in places of public accommodation on grounds of , color, , or national origin, with state variations adding protections for and other traits; for instance, New York City's Law extends these safeguards to and . Venues cannot use subjective criteria like appearance as a proxy for bias, though proving intent remains challenging. In , face control lacks specific statutory prohibition, but of the prohibits on grounds such as , , and social origin, while Article 151 of the permits civil claims for moral harm, including humiliation or dignity infringement from arbitrary denials, potentially leading to compensation if is evidenced; however, enforcement in private nightlife venues remains weak, with no dedicated regulations as of 2025 and rare successful challenges due to evidentiary hurdles. Within the , Directive 2000/43/EC on mandates non- in access to available to the public, encompassing nightclubs; , as an EU member, implements this via Law 4443/2016 (as amended by Laws 5023/2023 and 5089/2024), which covers racial, ethnic, and other biases in public venues through provisions on access to , imposing fines for violations. In the , the similarly outlaws in service provision based on nine protected characteristics, including and , applying to door policies at licensed premises. Regulatory oversight often includes licensing for personnel to ensure compliance. In the UK, door supervisors must hold a (SIA) license, which requires training on equality laws and can be revoked for discriminatory practices. EU member states like enforce venue licensing through municipal authorities, incorporating anti-discrimination checks under national equality frameworks. Prohibitions on overt extend to public accommodations, where venues must justify refusals objectively to avoid liability under civil rights enforcement bodies. Notable cases illustrate enforcement boundaries. In the U.S., a 2013 lawsuit against a alleged when four Black patrons were denied entry while white individuals were admitted, resulting in a settlement highlighting federal violations. A study of urban nightlife from 2000 to 2014 documented over 100 alleged incidents of dress code-based racial discrimination in New York venues, some leading to investigations by the city's . In , 2010s civil suits under the for moral harm from face control denials, often citing humiliation without clear justification, yielded mixed results, with courts occasionally awarding nominal damages but rarely banning the practice outright. In the UK, a 2017 non-discrimination notice against a compelled policy changes after evidence of racial bias at the door, enforced under the Equality Act.

Ethical Concerns and Controversies

Face control practices in nightclubs have drawn significant ethical scrutiny for reinforcing systemic inequalities through subjective entry decisions based on appearance, attire, and perceived social status. Critics argue that these judgments perpetuate classism by favoring patrons from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, often excluding those from lower-income groups who may not afford upscale clothing or grooming standards deemed acceptable by bouncers. Similarly, sexism is evident in the preferential treatment of conventionally attractive women, who are frequently admitted to balance gender ratios and enhance the venue's appeal to male customers, while men or women not fitting narrow beauty ideals face rejection. This dynamic objectifies women and upholds patriarchal norms, as highlighted in analyses of marketing and door policies that prioritize sexualized aesthetics over inclusivity. Racial and ethnic further compounds these issues, with face control serving as a covert mechanism to exclude minorities. Studies using methods in urban nightclubs demonstrate that African patrons are denied entry at higher rates than similarly attired white individuals, even when dress codes are ostensibly neutral, indicating under the guise of maintaining venue standards. In international contexts, such as Tel Aviv nightclubs, selectors have been observed excluding Mizrahi Jewish men based on stereotypes associating their features or clothing with Arab ethnicity, labeling them as potential "threats" and thus enacting everyday . manifests in rejections of individuals with disabilities or non-normative body types, as seen in cases where patrons in wheelchairs or plus-sized women are barred for not aligning with the club's desired image, exacerbating feelings of exclusion among marginalized groups. High-profile controversies underscore the discriminatory nature of face control, sparking public outrage and legal challenges. In 2022, two plus-sized women were denied entry to a , prompting accusations of and that highlighted how such policies humiliate individuals and damage . Similar incidents, including a 2025 colorism lawsuit against a club for favoring lighter-skinned and white women over patrons, and a Texas racial bias case reaching the U.S. , illustrate ongoing debates over versus business autonomy. In , where face control is a entrenched practice, arbitrary rejections have fueled criticisms of , with reports of intense leading to psychological distress among those turned away, though specific protests remain limited. These events have ignited broader discussions on the psychological toll of rejection, including increased anxiety, , and lowered self-worth, akin to the effects of documented in . Feminist and civil rights advocates have vehemently criticized face control for perpetuating , arguing that it entrenches imbalances by commodifying bodies and silencing marginalized voices. Groups such as the National Union of Students have condemned nightclub door policies for fostering environments rife with and potential , calling for in selection criteria or outright abolition in venues to promote . These critiques emphasize how subjective judgments amplify broader societal biases, excluding minorities and lower-income individuals while prioritizing profit-driven aesthetics. In counterarguments, venue owners and security experts maintain that face control is essential for ensuring and preserving the desired atmosphere, rather than stemming from malice. By screening for potential disruptors—such as intoxicated or inappropriately attired individuals—bouncers prevent conflicts and maintain a controlled environment, which is critical in high-risk settings. Proponents assert that without such measures, venues could face increased for assaults or , framing the practice as a necessary safeguard despite its ethical pitfalls.

Cultural and Social Dimensions

Role in Nightlife Culture

Face control plays a pivotal role in shaping the of by creating an aura of and exclusivity that transforms entry into a coveted . By selectively admitting patrons perceived as desirable based on status cues such as connections and , venues elevate their allure, making admission a marker of social worth that reinforces hierarchies among attendees. This practice fosters networking opportunities among s, as the curated crowd facilitates interactions that can lead to professional and connections, embedding as a space for subtle power displays. In Moscow's , for instance, face control ensures a "glamorous and harmonious" environment, prioritizing polite, high-status individuals over mere wealth to maintain this fabric. For patrons, face control builds anticipation and reinforces hierarchies, distinguishing VIP lines from general queues and influencing trends in and behavior within club cultures. Rejection or admission based on appearance and demeanor heightens the thrill of , compelling individuals to align their —such as polished attire and confident attitudes—with venue expectations to navigate these barriers. This dynamic not only stratifies experiences but also perpetuates broader cultural norms of desirability, where exclusion can underscore inequalities and prompt among diverse groups. Venues benefit economically from face control by attracting high-spending crowds that enhance profitability, even if short-term revenue is sacrificed through rejections, as the practice builds long-term and a "cool factor" essential for . By associating with high-status guests who embody warmth and competence, clubs cultivate a desirable user imagery that drives repeat visits and for entry and services. This exclusivity sustains the venue's , turning it into a of that appeals to affluent patrons seeking validation through . The cultural evolution of face control traces back to the late 1990s in , where it emerged amid oligarch-driven parties in clubs like , emphasizing aesthetic and attitudinal selectivity to curate elite gatherings. Over time, it has adapted to contemporary influences, such as the integration of facial recognition technology at events to facilitate selective photo sharing and enhance while maintaining exclusivity. As of 2025, face control continues to shape 's nightlife, with policies at clubs like Gipsy favoring well-dressed or local patrons to preserve an exclusive atmosphere.

Representations in Media and Society

Face control, the practice of selectively admitting patrons to nightlife venues based on appearance and , has been prominently depicted in as a symbol of exclusivity and social hierarchy. In documentaries and journalistic reports, particularly from the and , 's club scene exemplifies this through rigorous door policies that emphasize aesthetic judgment and class signaling. For instance, Vice 's 2012 investigation into VIP in highlighted "face control" as a "relentlessly cruel practice" enforced by bouncers to curate an elite atmosphere, portraying it as a barrier that reinforces in post-Soviet urban spaces. Similarly, Western equivalents, such as the velvet rope policy at in 1970s , have been romanticized in films like 54 (1998), which dramatizes the doorman's arbitrary power to exclude based on looks and celebrity, underscoring themes of aspiration and rejection in American pop culture. In Eastern European media, face control often symbolizes post-communist aspirations toward Western-style and , appearing in television series and films that satirize or glamorize drama. productions from the , such as episodes in series exploring urban , frequently depict velvet rope scenarios as markers of newfound wealth and , reflecting the transition from Soviet to market-driven exclusivity. These portrayals contrast with subtler representations of gatekeeping. Globally, such depictions influence public perception by normalizing exclusion as a in , perpetuating the allure of "" status while critiquing its superficiality.

References

  1. [1]
    Face Control Definition & Meaning | YourDictionary
    The policy, in upscale nightclubs, of restricting entry based on a bouncer 's snap judgment of the suitability of a person's looks, money, style or attitude.
  2. [2]
    How Do You Get Past Face Control In Russia? - Culture Trip
    Jul 3, 2018 · Face control is the sometimes arbitrary decision made by the bouncers as to who gets past them and who doesn't. It can make or break a night.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition<|control11|><|separator|>
  3. [3]
    How face control works in Moscow night clubs - Russia Beyond
    Nov 28, 2019 · Face control consists of two bouncers. “The main thing for us is that people aren't too drunk. Otherwise we basically let everyone in. Just show your passport, ...Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  4. [4]
    What Is face Control at Moscow Clubs and How Can You Get Past It?
    May 9, 2016 · A ritual barbarism carried out by stern-faced bouncers at the city's more upscale establishments, it essentially involves you either getting the nod of ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  5. [5]
    Studio 54 | History, New York, Fashion, Owners, & Facts | Britannica
    Sep 12, 2025 · Indeed, Studio 54's velvet rope, separating the crowds of hopeful guests from the select few allowed to enter, became legendary.
  6. [6]
    Midnight In Russia: A History Of Clubbing & Raves in Moscow
    Aug 4, 2016 · A brief history of the Moscow club scene and how it rose out from under the restrictive Soviet Union control to have one of the leading ...
  7. [7]
    The wild times never end: Russia's oldest nightclub Night Flight ...
    Oct 25, 2016 · Night Flight was the first club in Russia to introduce a system of rigid face control and far from everyone was pleased with this. The club ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
  8. [8]
    History of Moscow Club-life II - Passport magazine
    For many clubs the real motivation behind the face control was to prevent bandits from getting in, however, they usually besieged the entrances every night.Missing: origin | Show results with:origin
  9. [9]
    [PDF] Bouncers, Policing and the (In)visibility of Ethnicity in Nightlife ...
    Sep 17, 2014 · Subjecting bouncers to principles of colorblind good governance, whether this is done on official training courses or at police-bouncer ...Missing: face | Show results with:face
  10. [10]
    New York's Door People on How to Get in the Club - The Cut
    Sep 5, 2025 · We asked New York's most stylish door people what will get you turned away from the bar. Dress (and act) accordingly.Missing: criteria | Show results with:criteria
  11. [11]
    Would you let this guy into a bar? Identifying cues that signal a ...
    Sep 9, 2023 · Minority ethnicity is a cue that is frequently utilized by bouncers to deny admission (May, 2018; Søgaard, 2017). In the present study, we ...<|separator|>
  12. [12]
    Complete Gambling Glossary | Words, Expressions, Phrases
    Face control – Checking at the entrance to the casino for compliance with the rules of the casino. For example, checking for age, drug or alcohol ...<|separator|>
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Best Practices for Nightlife Establishments - NYC.gov
    3. Security guards should be trained in communication and de-escalation techniques, recognition of terrorist indicators and behaviors, and criminal and.Missing: bouncers | Show results with:bouncers
  14. [14]
    [PDF] Mandatory Identification Bar Checks: How Bouncers Are Doing Their ...
    Jan 1, 2011 · DeMichele and Tewksburg (2004) argued that bouncers are responsible for maintaining social control, and rule enforcement, at establishments ...Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
  15. [15]
    [PDF] a training manual for staff in nightlife settings - Irefrea
    developed to prevent or face the problem and overcome it. Several participatory process methods are presented in the training module to facilitate active ...
  16. [16]
    Adult Nightclubs & The Right to Refuse - RMS Hospitality Group
    Feb 20, 2017 · The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits "discrimination ... However, what about the rare scenario where a patron poses legal risks for a nightclub?
  17. [17]
    Federal Protections Against National Origin Discrimination
    Jul 11, 2023 · Laws prohibiting national origin discrimination make it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language.
  18. [18]
    Section 15 Race and Color Discrimination
    Apr 19, 2006 · This document addresses Title VII's prohibition on race or color discrimination in employment, including disparate treatment, harassment, and other topics.<|control11|><|separator|>
  19. [19]
    Hate crime legislation in the Russian Federation | HCRW
    Actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity, as well as humiliation of dignity of a person or group of persons on the grounds of sex, race, nationality, ...Missing: control | Show results with:control
  20. [20]
    [PDF] HANDBOOK ON THE RACIAL EQUALITY DIRECTIVE
    Sep 4, 2020 · European law prohibits unequal treatment on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation, sex ...
  21. [21]
    [PDF] Greece- country report non-discrimination 2025
    In Greece, the personal scope of anti-discrimination law covers natural and legal persons ... According to Article 23 of Law 4443/2016, from the entry into force ...Missing: nightclub | Show results with:nightclub
  22. [22]
    These are the rights you have when you approach a nightclub door
    Sep 30, 2015 · It also stops discrimination on the basis of "protected characteristics" such as disability, sex, gender reassignment, sexual orientation, age ...
  23. [23]
    Apply for an SIA licence - GOV.UK
    When you apply for an SIA licence, we ask you if you have been compulsorily detained, or subject to any compulsory measures (such as a community treatment order) ...SIA: Get Licensed · Check what training you need · Security Industry AuthorityMissing: face control
  24. [24]
    NYC nightclub sued for discrimination - UPI
    Feb 8, 2013 · Four black partygoers are suing a New York City nightclub for barring them while allowing white patrons to enter, court documents show.
  25. [25]
    [PDF] Velvet Rope Discrimination
    This Article examines public accommodations law through the lens of velvet rope discrimination and argues for the legal prohibition of dress codes and gender- ...
  26. [26]
    The racist nightclub ordered to change its entry policy - BBC
    Oct 27, 2017 · But it would be more than a decade before a Birmingham nightclub was issued with the first non-discrimination notice of its kind, ordering it to ...
  27. [27]
    Nightclubs Are Making A Business Model Out Of Sexist Lad Culture
    Mar 1, 2014 · Nightclubs are making a business model out of a sexist, misogynistic lad culture which glorifies rape and sexual violence towards women, ...<|separator|>
  28. [28]
    Dress Codes and Racial Discrimination in Urban Nightclubs
    I focus on how these incidents are negotiated between patrons and nightclub management, observing that owners who face allegations of racial discrimination turn ...
  29. [29]
    Face control: everynight selection and “the other” | Request PDF
    Aug 9, 2025 · The paper shows how in these face-to-face interactions, the face of the “Other” (the “dangerous” Mizrahi male client) is fully recognized and ...
  30. [30]
    'Thicker, curvy' women denied entry to Hollywood bar - KTLA
    Nov 10, 2022 · It's the bigger picture of how many girls face this every single day. It was discrimination – 100 percent.” The Tao Group, operators of The ...
  31. [31]
    Miami Club Mona Faces Colorism Lawsuit After Denying Black ...
    Jul 17, 2025 · Much of Miami's colorism and body type discrimination accusations stem from favoritism of women who are Latina or white. Club Mona, like many ...Missing: high profile control
  32. [32]
    SCOTUS sidesteps racial bias case at Texas nightclubs, Justice ...
    Jun 2, 2025 · ... nightclubs that discriminated ... Although she had faced racial discrimination in the past, none of those incidents had been officially documented ...
  33. [33]
    The pain of social rejection - American Psychological Association
    Social rejection increases anger, anxiety, depression, jealousy and sadness. It reduces performance on difficult intellectual tasks, and can also contribute to ...
  34. [34]
    Nightclub Security Guide - LPT Security Consulting Expert Witness
    Jun 26, 2013 · If your club has a “right to search” policy, it is recommended that the policy is heavily signed throughout the club and at the entrance.Missing: selection criteria
  35. [35]
    Status Distinctions in Interaction: Social Selection and Exclusion at ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · In their study on discrimination in urban nightlife, based on experimental audit methods, May and Goldsmith (2018) found that although whites, ...
  36. [36]
    Shop Talk | Clubbing, Moscow-Style
    Oct 7, 2009 · In Moscow, nightclubs control who gets in and when according to a strict and often opaque system of what is called “face control,” a culture ...Missing: social function
  37. [37]
    Building nightclub brand personality via guest selection
    Nightclubs build their brands by admitting guests with desirable image and by rejecting guests with undesirable image. · The desirability of guests depends on ...
  38. [38]
    Billionaire Fridman Redefines Face Control for Huge Russian Rave
    Jun 29, 2016 · Russian billionaire Mikhail Fridman is throwing a rave party that will give a whole new meaning to the nightclub practice of face control.
  39. [39]
    A Big Night Out with... Moscow's Young Elite! - VICE
    Jun 14, 2012 · “Face Control” is the relentlessly cruel practice of letting some Siberian bouncer arbitrarily decide whether or not you're allowed in to the ...
  40. [40]
    Behind the velvet rope line of Studio 54's short, sordid life
    Feb 8, 2019 · Together, they turned an empty theater on West 54th Street into the global destination for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll.
  41. [41]
    Functions of (Illegal) Nightlife for Youth during the Pandemic
    Apr 19, 2023 · Functions of (Illegal) Nightlife for Youth during the Pandemic: Between Neoliberalism and Neotribalism. Authors. Sonja Janičić Faculty of ...