CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge PELLEGRINI.This case involves whether the MAJ Entertainment, Inc. (MAJ) occupancy permit listing the use of its premises as “a restaurant with accessory live entertainment and dancing by patrons” allows it to use the property, located in a C-2 commercial district, to permit customers to engage in sex while other customers watch. Focusing on the “restaurant” portion of the occupancy permit, the majority finds that the permit does not give MAJ the right to occupy the premises to permit customers to engage in sexual activity and others to view them because such use is not “customary and incidental to its use as a restaurant.” However, the permit does allow live entertainment, and while engaging in sex in public with others watching is not what most people would consider tasteful, it still would be considered entertainment under the regulatory scheme set forth in the Philadelphia Zoning Code. Instead, I would hold that MAJ’s occupancy permit does not give it the right to occupy the premises for the aforesaid purpose because that use falls within the Philadelphia Zoning Code’s definition of “cabaret,” a use not permitted in a C-2 commercial district.
MAJ has a right to use the property for the use listed on its occupancy permit — “a restaurant with live entertainment and dancing by patrons.” What uses are permitted are largely determined by how they are defined in what is commonly known as the Philadelphia Zoning Code under the general definition section at § 14-102.1 Under those definitions, the use granted by the MAJ permit was that of a “night club,” defined as a “use engaged in the preparation and retail sale of food and/or beverages which includes live entertainment, a disc jockey or a self-contained sound system providing music; with or without amplified sound and which may or may not provide for dancing by guests and patrons.” Philadelphia Zoning Code § 14-102(80). If the entertainment is sex and the viewing of sex, though, that use is no longer a “night club” use under the Philadelphia Zoning Code, but a different use, that of a “cabaret.”
A “cabaret” is defined as “an adult club, restaurant, theater, hall or similar place which features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators or similar entertainers exhibiting specified anatomical areas2 *849or performing specified sexual activities.3” Philadelphia Zoning Code § 14-102(24). Entertainment featuring sex and the viewing of sex falls within this definition whether the entertainers are paid or unpaid.4 Because a cabaret use is not permitted in a C-2 commercial district, Philadelphia Zoning Code § 14-303,1 would hold that MAJ has no right under the occupancy permit to occupy the premises so that the patrons — performers—can engage in sex while other patrons watch.
Accordingly, I concur with the majority and would affirm the trial court.
Judge LEAVITT joins.. We note that Section 14-102 begins "[i]n Chapters 14 — 100 through 14-1800 inclusive, the following general definitions shall apply ..." What uses are permitted or not permitted in zoning districts are contained in those provisions.
. Philadelphia Zoning Code § 14-1605(2)(e) defines "Specified anatomical areas” as:
*849(i) Less than completely and opaquely covered;
(.a) Human genitals, pubic region;
(.b) Buttocks; and
(.c) Female breasts below a point immediately above the top of the areola; and (ii) Human male genitals in a discemibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered.
. Philadelphia Code § 14-1605(2)© defined “Specified sexual activities " as:
(i) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal;
(ii) Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse or sodomy;
(iii) Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breasts.
(Emphasis added.)
. I recognize that there is another definition of "cabaret” contained in the Philadelphia Zoning Code § 14-1605(2)(d) that requires performers to be paid. This provision is contained in the portion of the Zoning Code commonly know as an "Anti-Skid Row” ordinance that was widely adopted after the United States Supreme Court decisions in Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976), and City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986), which imposed restrictions on certain types of uses because those uses impeded the economic development of the surrounding neighborhood. That definition of "cabaret” does not apply here because it only applies to the imposition of the restrictions on the use in § 14-1605, not whether the use should be allowed. See footnote 1. In any event, § 14 — 1605(7) provides that if any provision of § 14 — 1605 conflicts with any other provision of the zoning title, the more restrictive controls.