On Beyond Swinging: Tongue-In-Cheek Infographic Offers Views of Non-Monogamy
|
Posted:Apr 3, 2015 10:24 am
Last Updated:Apr 11, 2015 9:24 am
46511 Views
|
In theory, there are as many sexual combinations as there are ways that 7 billion people can combine with 7 billion other people, if one ignores niceties such as distance and attraction. Designer, computer enthusiast, and self-avowed polyamorist Franklin Veaux has attempted to represent the various permutations into a single diagram.
His effort (available at the tacit.livejournal site if one adds /333842.html to the usual site suffix) is colorful, informative, thought-provoking, and grin-inspiring. (Once on the site, click on the graphic for a larger view -- and use your computer's zoom keys to further enlarge it.)
Veaux takes several types of sexual expression (such as open relationships, polyamorous relationships, swinging, BDSM play, and others) and through the use of color fields attempts to show how they interrelate.
His diagram is accompanied by sometimes-whimsical sentiments which attempt to illustrate the attitudes held by someone who falls into a specific location on the chart. (The intersection of BDSM play and D/s non-monogamy with polyfidelity and closed-group swinging, for example, is linked to the phrase “As your Dom, I like sharing you with my friend Jay. He does, too.” The overlap between open relationships and poly/mono relationships is represented by “Yes, Mr. Hefner, I’d love to be part of your harem. Wow, nice mansion!”)
Veaux’s infographic is best viewed as an amusing introduction to possibilities. It lacks – because, save for Veaux becoming adept at etching manuscripts on the head of a pin, he couldn’t possibly incorporate – the depth and nuance and negotiation non-monogamous relationships require.
That said, to its credit, the various sentiments accompanying the diagram incorporate female outlooks and non-gender-specific attitudes, which reflect the “woman in control” approach the best swinging (and other non-monogamous) situations espouse.
The diagram has been revised several times since its initial launch. As Veaux notes in his post, “…polyamory intersects with swinging now--it was supposed to from the beginning, and I'm not quite sure why it didn't.”
Eh, most of the categories, in theory, could intersect with others… which would make the overall color scheme a mottled brown. Probably better to leave it open for comment and criticism – and dialog. Definitely worth a click… and a mull.
|
|
|
26
Comments
(Page:)
|
|
Critics Agree: A&E Reality Show Manages To Make Swinging Boring
|
Posted:Mar 28, 2015 1:24 pm
Last Updated:Apr 16, 2015 10:05 am
47692 Views
|
When a PG-13 network takes on an X-rated subject, the writers must step up and create scenarios (and dialog) that crackles, in order to replace the sex it can’t show. Unfortunately, reality shows don’t offer that level of flexibility… and even if they did, it takes a knowledgeable writer with a strong sense of nuance to bring more than superficial takes to a topic.
The critics have weighed in on the A&E network’s “Neighbors With Benefits” -- an ostensibly reality-based take on swingers in suburban Ohio -- and the show has been found wanting. In “This reality show about married swingers is crazy, but for the reason you think,” The Washington Post notes “for a ‘controversial’ show about swinging and sex, it goes an incredibly tame route. Instead of delving into scandalous topics, it chooses to focus much of its first episode on swinger etiquette. Because that’s what viewers really want to know when they tune in to this kind of show, right? Rules and regulations.”
To step back, rules and regulations and etiquette are important in swinging. Without ‘em, this potentially emotionally charged activity can devolve into a lot of bruised egos, busted relationships, and even the occasional broken nose. But people -- singles and couples alike -- don’t get into swinging for the drama: They get into it because they enjoy this type of variant sex, and “Neighbors With Benefits” seems to skimp on the enjoyment part.
As for the rules themselves, another review, on Variety’s site (“TV Review: Neighbors with Benefits”), claims that “The premiere... doesn’t even do a particularly good job of laying out the rules, such as they are.” Variety adds that “the real takeaway is just another reminder that attempts to conjure drama with reality shows often feel pretty pallid next to their scripted counterparts.”
That sounds about right. Most people know that the axiom that truth is stranger than fiction. And that can be correct, if one focuses on the occasional bizarre bit of truth. But when one considers a randomly chosen half-hour or hour, a TV show can pack in a lot more strangeness -- and, therefore, entertainment -- than true life. Or, as a friend is fond of saying, “If you want realism, go down to the corner and watch traffic.”
Entertainment Weekly’s Gillian Telling takes a swing at encapsulating the rules -- at least, the rules she was able to glean as a result of watching the program, as opposed to any true rules about swinging which were clearly stated.
As part of her review, “Neighbors With Benefits react: Reality swinging is (no surprise) cringe-worthy,” the rules she offers range from the valid (“Condoms are a must”) to the catty (“If you are a woman and go to a swingers party in suburban Ohio, you have to wear a tube top”) to the ignorant (“Unless you are really, really drunk and at a party with other really drunk people, this lifestyle is mostly just awkward and uncomfortable”) to the truly worthy of consideration (“Swinging is hard. Almost everyone on the show admits the lifestyle is not easy to get into or sustain”).
Telling knows damned well “Neighbors With Benefits” artificially plays up the drama. Why else would she highlight the presence of characters “staunchly opposed to the lifestyle, like...Mark, who looks like a bearded Brooklyn hipster and is into Jesus, and his cute wife Aimee who wants nothing to do with it.”
Side note: These bluenoses’ presence strikes me as artificially contrived as well. At minimum, it’s an example of the United States Federal Communications Commission’s Fairness Doctrine, which requires broadcasters to “both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the “ to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced.” I want equal time to show the positive, pleasurable aspects of swinging on “The 700 Club.”
Most damning of all is Telling’s observation that “While any married couple [the show focuses on couples, thereby eliminating a significant portion of the swinging community] might understand the need for some variety or excitement in the bedroom after a while, something about “‘Neighbors With Benefits’ ends up being a real turn off from ‘the lifestyle.’”
Those wanting to be sure to be busy when “Neighbors With Benefits” airs should avoid the A&E network on Sundays at 10 p.m. ET -- at least for the near future.
|
|
|
24
Comments
|
|
Participants List For The Sixth Virtual Symposium: Odd Then, Fantastic Now
|
Posted:Mar 22, 2015 1:03 am
Last Updated:Apr 20, 2015 2:41 pm
59000 Views
|
Welcome to the sixth virtual symposium, an informal collection of bloggers who – purely for the hell of it – voted on a single topic (Odd Then, Fantastic Now: How attitudes toward specific aspects of sex change between youth and maturity) and agreed, on or about March 22, to post their interpretations of that topic.
There are no prizes or awards, save for the opportunity to build a more-closely knit blog community. All bloggers are invited to participate in this, as well as all future, virtual symposiums. To participate, watch this blog for future symposium topics: We anticipate doing one per month.
The rules, such as they are, are simple: Once a topic was picked, all bloggers were and are invited to interpret the topic as loosely as they choose, and offer any type of post they like which either tangentially or directly addresses the topic, whether through fantasy/fiction, essay, photographs, image collages, poems, one-liners, or any other form they choose. Contact me to be included on this list, which I will update as new participants make themselves known.
We (that’s the editorial we – or perhaps I have a tapeworm) hope readers will use these virtual forums to discover new, interesting voices. A request of readers: If you find an entry you especially like, please don’t be shy about leaving an attaboy/attagirl on the appropriate blog. Applause never hurts!
A continually updated list of participants can be found below: Please check back often, as I’ll add new posts as often as appropriate (and as other responsibilities allow). Please leave a note here if I haven’t included your submission!
Note: The site's system is being temperamental about posting hot links: Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't... sometimes they take a few attempts. If a link isn't hot, please track down the appropriate blogs. They're worth it.
AND... BY ALL MEANS, IF YOU HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED AND WANT TO, PLEASE DO SO! Was hoping to get most of the submissions input at the start of the start of the day... but people do keep checking the list for new contributors... so if you're so moved, write a post and let me know here so I can include you.
Hey, gang, looks like we picked up some new participants! Check the list, and give ‘em an appropriately inappropriate welcome!
In no particular order at all, our participants include:
KittySC78: Ginger Shots [post 3603750]
Petitandnaughty: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad world... Contribution to Sixth Virtual Symposium of bloggers
Kzoopair (by PD): Take two- they’re small Gail
Kzoopair (by Bill): Take two- they’re small The Oddyttey
apollorising2021: Going LOCAL [post 3602433]
lovetokissplease: My Blog Sixth Virtual Symposium Odd Then, Fantastic Now
Humorguaranteed: Confessions of a Lifestyle Man Virtual Symposium On Odd Then, Fantastic Now American Swinging Rose Through The Military's Ranks
MnSweet: Sweet Musings [post 3603607]
_Lady_X_: LongCoolDrink of Verblissitude [post 3603611]
SnuggleBuni41: Bag of Smashed Assholes [post 3603651]
Myelin36: Dirty Little Secrets My Odd Then, Fantastic Now Aspect of Sex The Sixth Virtual Symposium
AntiquePearl: The Observatory [post 3603484] (No, that's not a mistake: There really ARE two posts with the exact same title!)
Kathynj: Done and Dusted [post 3603414]
LadyLuck2: Play the Hand You Were Dealt! Unknown
CookiesNMischief: Hands in the Cookie Jar The Sixth Virtual Symposium To Those Who Ever Loved Their Own Mrs Robinson
Connect 4...: rascalQUALITY [post 3603808]
Sabrina_xxx_2: "It is a truth... [post 3603813]
CountessMeville: A Submissive's Heart [post 3603817]
GoodYear2All: Travels in FriendFinder-x [post 3603821]
ElDeano64116: Deano's Place Odd Then, Fantastic Now The Sixth Virtual Symposium
Spunkycumfun: Sexy TIMES SPURTS AND SQUIRTS
MidcoastMILF: San Antonio Adventures [post 3603872]
jadesmith69: two bodies entwined, or more An Oddly, FANTASTIC LifeSTYLE
SlenderGal88: To Be Consumed [post 3603853]
KtMnDu Ramblings.............. [post 3603943]
khuXBFXM8u: The Down and Dirty The Diamond in the Rough The 6th Virtual Symposium, Odd Then, Fantastic Now
TerraNova4Two: Terra Nova [post 3603952]
Demonicsexkitten: Life, or something like it Odd Then, Fantastic Now My Contribution
Missthee: me, myself, and missthee hedonic Sixth Virtual Symposium Odd Then, Fantastic Now
mature_951: psst, over here.... [post 3604281]
KItkat1415: Kinks and High Jinks [post 3604179]
osphena: So, you like older women? Mmmm [post 3604147]
misssquirtsALOT: Normal By Day Naughty By Night [post 3604274]
intendadiversion: Inside an Adulteress [post 3603938]
very_highsided: Ride on Fantastic then, more fantastic now Sixth Virtual Symposium Odd Then, Fantastic Now
VenusGenus: EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN [post 3605087]
paperboy__23: The Paperboy's round [post 3606195]
VerandahPoly: From the Outback Verandah ODD THEN, FANTASTIC NOW
|
|
|
30
Comments
(Page:)
|
|
Virtual Symposium On “Odd Then, Fantastic Now”: American Swinging Rose Through The Military's Ranks
|
Posted:Mar 22, 2015 12:55 am
Last Updated:Apr 4, 2015 3:14 am
46270 Views
|
This blog entry is part of the sixth virtual symposium, an informal collection of bloggers who – purely for the hell of it – voted on a single topic (Odd Then, Fantastic Now: How attitudes toward specific aspects of sex change between youth and maturity) and agreed, on or about March 22, to post their interpretations of that topic. A continually updated list of participants can be found here: Participants List For The Sixth Virtual Symposium Odd Then, Fantastic Now
Most readers will likely be surprised to learn that modern swinging in America, perhaps one of the most libertine, if not liberal, activities citizens can engage in, came up through the conservative armed forces.
Terry Gould. whose book The Lifestyle: A Look at the Erotic Rites of Swingers is considered a seminal work on swinging, told the web site Kasidie that “If you look at warrior cultures from way back throughout human history, you'll find that there's a large degree of spouse sharing. The reason there is because the warriors that get killed left their widows behind.”
Okay, but how did swinging “from way back throughout human history” emerge in America? According to the Kasidie interview, which ran under the headline “A vanilla’s experience of the swinger lifestyle,” swinging took root among U.S. Air Force pilots.
“In World War II, the United States & Canadian Air-force had all these bases across North America, training pilots to go overseas. These were officers usually the rank of captain or up, fairly well paid, and they usually brought their wives to live on the bases,” Gould told Kasidie.
“So you have this society of Air Force pilots living on the bases with their wives around them,” Gould continued. “These pilots had a very high death rate -- higher than the death-rate of the other armed services. 1/3 got killed in combat so there were a lot of widows left. So swinging was going on all over these bases. These pilot[s] were exceptional men. The Air Force chose the best of the best, and their wives were exceptional too. So you have these good looking guys and their beautiful wives who are risk takers. So when the survivors came back home after World War II, they moved to the suburbs but they still kept at it, and still kept sharing wives.”
(Side note on something odd then, and drummed out of the corps now: The terms “wife swapping” and “wife sharing” aren’t used much in the swinging community these days. First off, the term smacks of wives as chattel to be passed around. Should have been icky then, but those were different times… thankfully. Second, there are a lot of solo swingers. No spouses at all are swapped, or shared. Gould is historically accurate in his terminology, however.
Another side note: The bit about handsome pilots and beautiful wives sounds a little too Tom Cruise/Meg Ryan for me. I would have thought pilots were chosen based on their ability to, y’know, fly planes, not on their high school yearbook photos.)
Gould is aware that the lifestyle is about more than men getting their rocks off, however. As Gould told Kasidie, “The swinger subculture is basically set up as a conservative institution. The misconception of the lifestyle by the straight world is that it's just a vehicle for men to have sex with other women while their wives come along. But that's not what it's about at all. If it were about that, it would not have grown by such leaps & bounds over the last 20 years, penetrating all ends of the continent and Europe and Australia and doubling and tripling in numbers.”
How did swinging survive World War II, when assumedly there wasn’t as much need for the men of U.S. warrior clans to protect their women? According to Gould, a former pilot named Leidy began traveling around the country, passing lists around to his buddies of willing couples.
“That list was passed around to upper middle class, suburban, married people and that's basically where it stayed for the next 50 years,” Gould said. “That's why you see a lot of clean-cut people with healthy attitudes and above average intelligence in the lifestyle, because that cohort stayed the same right from its origins right after World War II.”
That trend is probably democratizing – or at least reverting to the mean, especially as more and more people embrace the lifestyle. People who don’t have healthy attitudes, who are of average intelligence, and who aren’t clean cut swing… in short, American swingers have begun looking more and more like Americans.
Let’s give Gould the final word on what’s odd then but fantastic now, specifically in terms of how morals have been reshaped. “Morals are fashion, they change all the time. In the 1950s it was immoral to have oral sex. Now it's promoted between married people. It's considered a perfectly moral act now. It used to be immoral for a woman to look directly into a man's eyes. Morals will always change.”
|
|
|
27
Comments
(Page:)
|
|
Doctor Finds Drugs and Swing Parties are Contraindicated
|
Posted:Mar 20, 2015 5:56 am
Last Updated:Mar 27, 2015 11:21 am
42016 Views
|
Here’s one that ain’t gonna make the alumni notes: A Howard University-graduated doctor got busted for violating one of swing party hosting’s chief rules. Y’see, swinging may be legal, but drug and alcohol laws still apply. And law enforcement agencies will cheerfully use those laws to shutter legal activities they consider icky.
I’ll get to the tale of the Las Vegas-area orthopedic surgeon whose swinger events allegedly featured some extremely non-prescription pharmaceuticals in a moment. But first, a story shared by a different swing club operator. Seems that a male patron was boasting about someone he’d introduced to the lifestyle: A lovely 20-year-old woman who was absolutely game for anything. The male patron proceeded to delineate exactly what “everything” entailed.
“That’s fine,” the swing club operator replied. “But if she’s under 21, I’ll tell you one thing she’s not going to do in my club, and that’s drink.”
That’s a story Andrew Scott Martin – the orthopedic surgeon mentioned above – probably should have heard before he started hosting what the Las Vegas Review Journal called “themed sex parties that attracted hundreds of people who snorted cocaine, swallowed pills and smoked marijuana,” according to an article titled Local doctor threw drug, sex parties at his Henderson, Nevada home.
(Side note: Hundreds? Yikers! The sprawling estates of Henderson (a bedroom suburb of Las Vegas) may offer a lot of square footage, but a party that size requires a lot of room for people to congregate standing up – never mind floor or mattress space for those wishing to pleasantly flop around a bit.)
This isn’t Martin’s first brush with the law: In late 2014, the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners suspended his practice for two months after police found cocaine, hallucinogenic mushrooms, marijuana and ecstasy. For shame, doc: A house capable of hosting hundreds of swingers should come with a few good nooks and crannies suitable for hiding one’s stash…
So what happened this time ‘round? According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, “a confidential informant years ago told police about the ‘adult-type parties’ rife with all kinds of narcotics.”
But the police had trouble gaining access to the parties (despite, again, “hundreds” of participants facing no such hurdles) until late 2013, when undercover agents “snagged an invite to a ‘Frost and Furs’ party at Martin’s Henderson home,” according to the Review-Journal.
“The undercover cops, who would follow the doctor for months, played along with the winter theme of the event, dressing in furs, and attended as a couple,” the Review-Journal added.
The officers claim that at that party, they were offered MDMA by both the good doctor himself (“to get you loose,” Martin allegedly said) as well as by another attendee. They were also presented with a gift line of cocaine, which they scooped into a napkin and stashed for evidence.
The doctor, along with several other individuals who allegedly proffered drugs, are awaiting a November trial date.
Not much to add to this story: It’s a sad one, on many levels. Never mind the doctor – he sounds like a yutz, to put it mildly. But of the other seven people arrested, a few seem to have history of drug problems. (Incidentally, only two of the other seven were charged with sale: The rest are simple possession … compounded by being stupid – i.e. in a high-risk environment, in many senses of the phrase.)
The abovementioned anonymous swing club operator – the one who was all set to bar an drinker for drinking – had posted a bumper sticker above the mirror in one of the bathrooms in his club. The sticker itself read “SAY NO TO drugS” Under it, someone had used a Sharpie to add the word “HERE.”
Sound advice. Worth teaching in medical schools, perhaps?
|
|
|
14
Comments
|
|
“Odd Then, Fantastic Now” Is The Topic For The Sixth Virtual Symposium!
|
Posted:Mar 17, 2015 4:24 am
Last Updated:Mar 25, 2015 3:07 am
48235 Views
|
“Odd Then, Fantastic Now: How attitudes toward specific aspects of sex change between youth and maturity” narrowly eked out more blogger votes than “Food,” and is the topic of choice for the next virtual symposium.
The virtual symposium is a simultaneous act of blogging. Here’s how it works: Anybody with a blog on this site is welcome to join in. All choosing to participate will create something – an essay, a cartoon, an erotic story, a memoir, a series of one-line aphorisms, an image collage, a photo montage, a poem, or anything else – relating to “Odd Then, Fantastic Now.” At a pre-arranged time and date (see below) all participants post their contributions.
Want inspiration – or just some good reads? Here’s a link to the participants’ list from the fifth symposium: Participants List For The Fifth Virtual Symposium Warning Signs
Feel free to take the basic idea of “Odd Then, Fantastic Now” and stretch it to as wild an interpretation as you like -- the post should reflect you! The last thing we need is a dozen monotonous texts on the same topic. Anything goes, as long as there is a trace of the original idea in the post.
On the morning of March 22 (a Sunday, for those keeping score), all participants will post their creations. Please, please, post ‘em to your own blogs early: I do want to link to them in a central post here, but I don’t want to be stapled to my desk all day.
I'll be responsible for posting links to your blogs here – I want to make this as effortless for participants as possible! Once you’ve posted, leave a note in the comments section here so I know to link to your submission. I will, of course, post latecomers… people do check back to see whether new participants have joined the symposium. But after the morning of March 22, I may not be updating the list as obsessively.
As for contributions themselves: The idea is to create something new, as opposed to using posts to respond to other posts (although the comments section will, of course, remain fair game). Leave a note in the blog comments, and I’ll use a post on this blog that day to link to all contributions.
A suggestion: Participants may want to refer to either the virtual symposium or the topic itself in their headline. Not a requirement – there are no requirements, save for originality and participation – but a suggestion which will let the wide blog community know what we’re doing.
This is not a contest. No souvenir mugs will be sent, nor ribbons awarded. The idea here is for those interested to, on a single day, offer an interpretation of a single topic for the sheer fun of it.
By all means, encourage other bloggers to participate – and to let me know they’re doing so through this post, so on the morning of March 22 I can link to their posts. Oh, and please consider this an invitation – if not a request – to the symposium both on your own blogs, and in individual requests to bloggers whom you’d like to see represented. The more the merrier, right? There are some folks with very distinct voices on this site who aren’t yet participating – let’s bring ‘em in and make ‘em one of us, one of us, one of us!
Remember, of course, to keep things in your voice!
Can’t wait to see the results!
the symposium, the symposium, the symposium... the viewers you bring in may be your own. Can't get more (verbally) naked than that...
|
|
|
48
Comments
(Page:)
|
|
|
|
Fly In Joy, Terry Pratchett (Not A Swinger, Just A Damned Fine Author)
|
Posted:Mar 12, 2015 8:59 am
Last Updated:Nov 8, 2017 9:13 am
41537 Views
|
The world lost a good one today. British author Terry Pratchett died of complications from Alzheimer's disease at 66.
Pratchett combined smart humor with fantasy novels, and created the very rich, very detailed Discworld. He was also -- again, with no knowledge of his sex life, save for his long marriage to his wife, Lyn -- an extremely cunning linguist: Longtime readers of his books know the obscene amount of fun he had with footnotes.
Not much else to say. Those who like the Harry Potter books (or Marion Zimmer Bradley, or anything of that ilk) could do worse than pick up a few of his novels.
Here's hoping his , Rhianna, picks up his torch.
|
|
|
12
Comments
|
|
British Swinger Describes Watching His Wife Play With 2000+ Men
|
Posted:Mar 11, 2015 12:30 pm
Last Updated:Mar 22, 2015 11:07 am
42416 Views
|
Consensual voyeurism, in which all parties involved agree to watch or be watched, can be part of a joyful swinging experience. David – no last name, at least none apparent – has enjoyed this particular pleasure at least 2000 times, or so he told Jeremy Kyle, a daytime talk show host on England’s ITV.
For the uninitiated: Voyeurism doesn’t have to be part of a swinging experience. Some individuals don’t enjoy being watched, and even some couples who enjoy swinging take pains not to observe their partners. Whatever works.
But not watching one’s partner means not watching one’s partner being satisfied. As David says in “Swinger tells how he's watched wife have sex with over 2000 men.. sometimes up to 30 in just one night,” an article on the Daily Record’s site, “She has sex with men and I watch and I go with women and she watches.”
There’s an all-too-brief clip from the show accompanying the article, and viewers can hear host Kyle use the delicious phrase “saucy pictures” – a phrase one might have thought went out of vogue in the early 1960s.
Viewers will also hear Kyle asking David’s wife “Doesn’t it demean you as a woman to have 30 men in one night?”
Her answer is simple, uncontrived, and unrehearsed, which is a rarity in this media-aware age. She says, simply, that she enjoys it and that it doesn’t diminish what she feels for her husband. Initially, yes, she started because her “old man” (as Kyle puts it) wanted it, but now “I love it just as much as he does.”
Alas, the clip cuts out before the couple has a chance to elaborate on their enjoyment of “dogging” – a British slang term for having sex in public.
It’s pretty clear the Kyle show folks didn’t intend this to be a serious exploration of the lifestyle: The segment offers a chance to titillate the audience, and perhaps let Kyle offer some shocked – shocked! – reactions to what gets this couple off. But the couple – this is an exhibitionist couple, remember – doesn’t seem to mind.
If a serious discussion is beyond one’s wish list, it would have been nice if David had dolled himself up just a bit. With an untucked shirt and an open-legged slouch, he doesn’t exactly project “desirable” (to me, at least, but I’m not his type: Some women may be turned on by his bad-boy demeanor).
Still, they’re out and proud. And they’re being responsible, or at least saying the right things: Safe sex all around, and regular checkups.
It would be interesting to know what repercussions befell the couple after the show – for all the first-name-only coyness this was an interview on television. Did either of the couple get reprimanded at work? High-fived? Promoted? Solicited?
If nothing else, they did have a talk with their daughters before outing themselves. That, alone, would have been worth an interview. Anyone who can find a full video of the segment (the one on the Daily Record's site is only 53 seconds, and the full one has eluded me so far) is encouraged to post details.
UPDATE: Props to sabrina_xxx_2 for finding the full show. Interested parties will have to do a little finessing, but here's the address, more or less:
player.stv.tv/programmes/the-jeremy-kyle-show/2015-03-09-0925/
|
|
|
17
Comments
|
|
A Roundup Of French Swing Clubs Highlights – What Else? – Food!
|
Posted:Mar 4, 2015 6:51 pm
Last Updated:Apr 21, 2021 8:49 pm
50066 Views
|
The French are known for being highly experimental regarding what they put in their mouths. This tendency explains why they are both great gastronomes and great lovers.
This epicurean bent helps explain why an online overview of ten Paris swing clubs includes notes on the food and wine several offer. For the uninitiated, that’s a pretty big difference from U.S. clubs, where alcohol is often B.Y.O.B. due to licensing laws, and food, when provided, would be sniffed at derisively by any self-respecting Denny’s.
According to “So where are all these sex clubs in Paris?,” an article appearing on English-language French site thelocal, France is home to nearly 500 swingers clubs. The piece doesn’t claim to be comprehensive: Instead, it offers an overview of some of the poshest venues. (Look the article up: It also features photographs, some of which are rather striking.)
But what makes the piece worthwhile – at least, for those of us with warped perspectives – is how author Priscillia Charles notes the refreshments included in each club’s admission fees. The fees, incidentally, are listed in euros. Need help translating? The euro’s taken a beating of late: For those looking to add currency swaps to any other swapping they might be pursuing, as of March 4 the euro stands at around $1.11 U.S. or $1.38 Canadian.
Admission prices for the clubs range from 50 to around 150 euros. Rituel Foch bears an 80 euro entrance fee – a price that includes two drink tickets, which gives joyfully obscene connotations to the American club “two drink minimum” standard.
Club Libertin 2Plus2 charges couples 85 euros for admission. Couples get access to a buffet and a bottle of champagne with their fee… although one must wonder whether projectile corks are a smart idea for a venue that encourages unprotected delicate bits.
Le Mask’s entrance fees go up to 150 euros, but that price features the promise of champagne. At 149 euros, Taken Club’s fee, which includes a buffet, might seem a bargain… but there’s no mention of alcohol included in that cost. In contrast, Quai 17’s 160-euro price includes champagne – but there’s no mention of food.
Side note: Ah, Paris – where the swing clubs offer not just booze with their admissions costs, but specify champagne. Me, I’m a red wine man: Give me a halfway decent Cotes du Rhone and a sippy cup and I’m happy.
But where would France be without at least one truly decadent overindulgence? Les Chandelles (literally, “The Candles”), true to its name, offers a candlelit dinner, with wine, at fees which can reach 290 euros – that’s more than 320 U.S. dollars, or nearly 400 Canadian dollars.
Patrons assumedly are allowed to use the melting wax from their table setting in any consensual fashion they choose.
|
|
|
28
Comments
(Page:)
|
|
Size Matters: Texas Swingers Club Shut By Zoning Board
|
Posted:Feb 27, 2015 7:30 am
Last Updated:Mar 1, 2015 1:54 pm
42004 Views
|
Here’s a turnaround on the size question: A swingers club in North Arlington, Texas, was shut by a local zoning board after the board determined Lone Star perverts were playing in every nook and cranny of a 4,680-square-foot house, according to The Dallas Morning News.
That’s too large for an “incidental business,” which is limited to 25 percent of a residence in that particular zone. As a result, David and Shannon Esopenko have closed down Eutopia, reporter Robert Wilonsky wrote in “Couple running a swingers club out of massive Arlington house has decided to move on.” And they’re taking their $14,000 in annual real estate tax payments with them.
An article in The Daily Mail, “Couple running a swingers MANSION in suburban Texas move out after neighbors are left outraged over weekly parties for hundreds,” puts the limit at 20 percent. Check out this article as well: It features photos and video of the club, which seems to have been pretty nice.
I’m torn on this one. On the one hand, I support the idea of sex-healthy businesses, and certainly want to boost the swinging community. But on the other, rules are rules, and laws are laws. Perhaps the question is whether Eutopia was selected for special scrutiny among businesses in the region.
According to The Dallas Morning News, the club wasn’t singled out (if one can use such a phrase about a couples’ club) due to the nature of its activities: Municipal officials say they were responding to complaints from neighbors. David Esopenko isn’t so sure, however: He maintains that neighbors – including an 80-year-old woman – had started renting out their land for overflow parking after an initial series of articles revealed the club’s existence.
The ugly truth is that swing club proprietors – I’m not talking about people who host the occasional party in their home or a suite of hotel rooms – have to be especially cognizant of laws and regulations, and they have to be bears when it comes to enforcing ‘em. Take BYOB clubs… a guest might have to be 18 to play, but if that guest ain’t 21, he or she ain’t drinking… and smart club operators will make damned sure that law isn’t violated. (This is one reason why swing clubs often have 21-or-older restrictions – and yes, they card.)
I dunno, maybe the Esopenkos could have claimed that the 1.5 acres the house sits on should have been counted as part of the business premises, which might have increased the overall square footage, bringing the play space under the 25 percent total. It just takes one couple (or however many people might be involved) playing on the lot to give some legitimacy to the claim, no?
Comments on the article range from those who feel the property should be bleached clean and then burned to the ground to those who saw Eutopia as a destination attraction. Asks petenelson277:
And why would the city let them leave?
The Rangers are not very good.
The Cowboys are a bad back away from a disaster
And Six Flags is pretty dull.
People need a reason to go to Arlington.
Final note: As one commenter pointed out, a Texas court allowed a Far North Dallas synagogue to continue operating out of a home after zoning officials attempted to shut it (“Court allows Far North Dallas synagogue to operate in home,” per The Dallas Morning News.) Perhaps the moral to this story is, before you play, pray.
|
|
|
17
Comments
|
|
Virtual Symposium on Warning Signs: Unlike Sales, In Swinging Not All Deals Are Worth Closing
|
Posted:Feb 22, 2015 8:01 am
Last Updated:Nov 8, 2017 9:15 am
51631 Views
|
This blog entry is part of the fifth virtual symposium, an informal collection of bloggers who – purely for the hell of it – voted on a single topic (Warning Signs) and agreed, on or about Feb. 22, to post their interpretations of that topic. A continually updated list of participants can be found here: Participants List For The Fifth Virtual Symposium Warning Signs
Swingers – newbie swingers, especially – may fall into a trap of being so eager to enlist a potential partner or two that they ignore obvious red flags in those partners. Those experienced in the lifestyle, however, know that there is more to choosing playmates than obtaining the gynecological equivalent of signing on the dotted line.
Some warning signs mirror those of meeting people in the vanilla world. Watch out for excessive drinkers, for example. Other warning signs are specific to the swinging lifestyle. Take the alcohol warning: If one member is drinking to excess, he/she may not be comfortable with the idea of playing. Being involved in a situation in which one partner is taking one for the team really isn’t fun for anyone.
Folks share their cautionary tales on the swingersboard website under a thread headed “What warning signs have told you that a couple is not ready to swing?” For instance, JustAskJulie mentions “Couple comes to dinner and only one of them talks, the other doesn't look like they really want to be there.” Mmm-hm. While it’s possible the one who doesn’t want to be there might have a toothache, or might generally be laconic, it’s also possible that person has been pressured into meeting. Proceed with caution.
That said, sometimes the opposite is true – and similarly, presents a yellow signal. As JustAskJulie adds, “We met a brand new couple, our dinner was their first time even exploring the idea of swinging, and within an hour and a half they were asking if we wanted to a get a room. We turned them down and they ended up playing with another couple. They now appear to be happily swinging full blast, but we just weren't willing to take that jump with them, without feeling a bit more comfortable about their readiness.”
Another poster, Slevin, write about an indication that a couple might not be as ready to play as they say. One sign is “They drink a lot, and more when you start getting closer to going somewhere private.” Yep. And drinking makes people stupid – as in, risky behavior stupid. Or exaggerated reactions stupid.
Other potential hazards? As VanHlebar writes, don’t be put into the rule of a marriage counselor (or two). “How about during dinner the husbands tell you that they where [sic] going to get out of the lifestyle but they received your email and thought, hey lets [sic] give it one more try? Or Up until just a few weeks ago, we actually where separated but when we got your email, we thought we needed to meet you and see how things might go.”
Amen to that. Swinging is the last thing a couple on the rocks, or having doubts, should be doing… and comments like this indicate that a couple isn’t really interested in how their behavior affects other potential partners. It’s an indication of a high level of self-absorbedness… and that doesn’t make for good swing partners. Especially if, after the first play session, you start getting the endless texts and emails seeking advice about their relationship…
Watch how they behave toward each other and the world at large As Mr. Essex writes, be on the lookout for:
1. Overt sexual interraction (outside of the sexual arena)
Leering and goggling is great, when you're at a nude beach or club or party. A few lewd comments or innuendo-laden asides are also fine, when you're in the proper venues. Hearing a couple talk about DP'ing at a diner or library is out of the question. Discretion, as always, is paramount.
2. Lack of physical intimacy between the couple
If she doesn't want to touch him, there's something wrong. If he doesn't want to touch her, there's something seriously wrong. And when I see that the couple in question is barely acknowledging each other, it makes me wonder if I want to go anywhere with them that doesn't have video surveillance.
3. One half of the couple monopolizes the conversation
When this happens, you know that there's going to be trouble. There's nothing wrong with being shy ("It's always the quiet ones.", right?) but when the quiescent member of the party won't even speak up when he or she is being talked to (even when the question or topic of conversation is something that they've stated is one of their personal interests) it's time to pay the check and get moving.
Perhaps the final word comes from the female half of “Edison Carter,” who posted the following anecdote which illustrates braggadocio as a warning sign:
“We have not had many surprises. Yet, we did meet a couple for drinks and she was going on about how great she was in bed. Hey, a bit of bragging is fine, but this was going on so much it surely was covering up some type of fear or inadequacy. Meanwhile the husband is looking really uncomfortable in a way that was telling me she was making all of it up.
“So, I looked at her and said,"So, when I'm having sex with your husband and you look over and realize I'm making him cum like a freight train and he's into me beyond ways that words can describe, you're cool with that, right?" And I smiled.
“She stood up, said, ‘No, I'm not,’ she left the table and he followed.”
|
|
|
22
Comments
|
|
Participants List For The Fifth Virtual Symposium: Warning Signs
|
Posted:Feb 22, 2015 4:54 am
Last Updated:Mar 17, 2015 4:18 am
44003 Views
|
Welcome to the fifth virtual symposium, an informal collection of bloggers who – purely for the hell of it – voted on a single topic (Warning Signs) and agreed, on or about Feb. 22, to post their interpretations of that topic. Interesting note: Early on, there seems to be a higher preponderance of funny entries than in previous symposiums. But that’s the A*F*F* blogger – we laugh in the face of danger.
There are no prizes or awards, save for the opportunity to build a more-closely knit blog community. All bloggers are invited to participate in this, as well as all future, virtual symposiums. To participate, watch this blog for future symposium topics: We anticipate doing one per month.
The rules, such as they are, are simple: Once a topic was picked, all bloggers were and are invited to interpret the topic as loosely as they choose, and offer any type of post they like which either tangentially or directly addresses the topic, whether through fantasy/fiction, essay, photographs, image collages, poems, one-liners, or any other form they choose. Contact me to be included on this list, which I will update as new participants make themselves known.
We (that’s the editorial we – or perhaps I have a tapeworm) hope readers will use these virtual forums to discover new, interesting voices. A request of readers: If you find an entry you especially like, please don’t be shy about leaving an attaboy/attagirl on the appropriate blog. Applause never hurts!
A continually updated list of participants can be found below: Please check back often, as I’ll add new posts as often as appropriate (and as other responsibilities allow). Feel free to toss me an email if I haven’t included your submission!
Note: The site's system is being temperamental about posting hot links: Sometimes they work, sometimes they don't... sometimes they take a few attempts. If a link isn't hot, please track down the appropriate blogs. They're worth it.
AND... BY ALL MEANS, IF YOU HAVEN'T CONTRIBUTED AND WANT TO, PLEASE DO SO! Was hoping to get most of the submissions input at the start of the start of the day... but people do keep checking the list for new contributors... so if you're so moved, write a post and let me know so I can include you.
Hey, gang, looks like we picked up some new participants! Check the list, and give ‘em an appropriately inappropriate welcome!
In no particular order at all, our participants include:
demonicsexkitten: Life, or something like it Warning Signs
Petitandnaughty: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad world... Fifth Virtual Symposium Warning signs
sabrina_xxx_2: It is a truth… [post 3587250]
KittySC78: Ginger Shots [post 3587272]
Intendadiversion: Inside an Adulteress [post 3587235]
Osphena: So, you like older women? Mmmm [post 3587252]
Lovetokissplease: My Blog Warning Signs my view on the blog topic
MyUndoing: Dances With Words Warning Signs The Fifth Virtual Symposium
Koffla: My Life Is A Comic Strip [post 3579162]
Myelin36: Dirty Little Secrets Step Away from the Blog Warning Signs You Might Have a Blogging Addiction
Kzoopair (by Bill): Take two- they're small Linda
AntiquePearl: The Observatory [post 3587044]
_Lady_X_: LongCoolDrink of Verblissitude [post 3586997]
Japaneseass: ♥ Sperm Harvester Chronicle ♥ A WARNING SIGN VIRTUAL SYMPOSIUM
MitchVMadison: Mitch’s Poetry Corner Warning Signs Is The Topic For The Fifth Virtual Symposium My take on it
misssquirtsALOT: Normal By Day Naughty By Night [post 3585683]
MidcoastMILF: Before you Write [post 3587336]
Humorguaranteed: Confessions of a Lifestyle Man Virtual Symposium on Warning Signs Unlike Sales, In Swinging Not All Deals Are Worth Closing
KtMnDu: Ramblings.............. [post 3587347]
TicklePlease: Refried Confusion My submission
Kzoopair (by PD): Take two- they’re small Warning Signs
khuXBFXM8u: The Down and Dirty The Fifth Virtual Symposium, Warning Signs
kinkyfem73: Kinkyland [post 3587471]
CookiesNMischief: Hands in the Cookie JarA Sign as a Warning that You're Running on Empty Friends' Bet Goes in a Step in the Wrong Direction
sweet_VM: In your Dreams The Fifth Virtual Symposium Warning Signs In the real world
superbjversion2: Life According to BJ [post 3587528]
KItkat1415: Kinks and High Jinks [post 3587624]
MnSweet: Sweet Musings...[post 3587664]
Mature43Sums: MatureMochaWARNING SIGNS WS
Kathynj: Done and Dusted [post 3587738]
Eros_Space: LOVE AND ROCKETS [post 3588265]
burblesback07: The Erection Inspection Warning Signs Fifth Virtual Symposium
VerandahPoly: From the Outback Verandah Warning signs
|
|
|
22
Comments
|
|
To link to this blog (humorlife) use [blog humorlife] in your messages.
|
|
|
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
| |
1
|
21
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
71
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
|
