What is it with sex clubs in this city?
We were hanging out with Dave C. the other day and telling him about our experience at Trapeze, and he said, “This makes me depressed for my city. I’d like to think there’s something going on here.”
Well, Trapeze looks good now compared to Club Venus.
And, the club I went to ~5 years ago looks GREAT now compared to both of them.
I’m not sure how long we stayed at Club Venus last night, but it wasn’t very long. Maybe half an hour, or 45 minutes at the most. Fortunately it wasn’t a long drive. Club Venus is nestled on a side street just off Monroe, near Ansley Mall (yes, in the heart of the gayborhood, ironically enough).
The building is small and nondescript, save for a neon purple “V” in the window. The rest of the exterior is painted black. It appears to be a former office building. Inside, the entry area is small and cramped - just like the rest of the place would prove to be. After paying our $50 entry fee (significantly less than at Trapeze), we walked through the door and into the dark, labyrinthine club. It actually reminded me a lot of BJ’s description of the gay sex clubs he’s been to. Lots of twists and turns, and in some places it was so dark I could barely see in front of me at all. Why does it have to be so freakin’ dark??
Anyway, boy oh boy was this an all-around disappointment, not to mention a real creep-fest. There were four or five rooms with beds and decor that appeared nicely appointed (but maybe that was just the dim lighting) - and they were empty. There were two rooms that were packed with several mattresses, and had multiple levels - also empty. There was a half-assed dungeon - empty, except for the people staring through the “voyeur window” into the “couple’s room,” which is the only place we saw any actual sex. You couldn’t go into the couple’s room unless you were a) a couple, and b) intent on participating. If you did not meet those criteria, you could watch through the window. Unfortunately, the window was small and hard to see through; we had to shove our faces right up in it, and even then, we couldn’t see very clearly. There was a couple fucking in there, but it got boring pretty quickly. Plus all these single men kept crowding around trying to watch too.
And that’s the thing that REALLY sucked about Club Venus - all the single men!!! And this was on a Saturday night, when their web site says a “limited number” of single men are admitted. I guess they do that in actual numbers, not percentages! Because the ratio of single men to everyone else was way high, and they were all CREEPY! Just constantly walking - excuse me, skulking - around, eyes darting here and there, not saying a word.
That really sucked, and definitely set the mood in a bad way. Who knows whether the lack of sex had anything to do with all those creepy guys (because again, it’s not like there were a whole hell of a lot of other people there anyway) but I sure as shit wouldn’t want to fuck in front of them. And I’m someone who’s a bit of a exhibitionist!
What else? Well, the only food was a pathetic-looking tray of cookies and crackers sitting in a side hallway. There was a bar that served juice; the bartender came and went. (Rusty overheard her saying it was a slow night, so who knows what it’s like on a non-slow night; but we won’t be going back to find out.) There were no other employees in the “inner” area (there were three employees working in the front reception area). The dance floor was utterly empty. There was bad porn (though not quite as bad as the porn at Trapeze) playing on TVs that no one was watching. There was also a separate porn viewing room, and that’s where most of the people seemed to be. And always, the single men skulked, and lurked, and leered.
I’m trying really hard not to make generalizations here. Maybe there are sex clubs - and, honestly, we need to be more precise; these are swingers’ clubs - in other cities that don’t suck. I don’t know.
But I do think it’s fair to say a few things, generally speaking, based on my experiences thus far. One thing that stood out to me about both Trapeze and Club Venus was the seriousness. Everyone seemed so grim and tense. There was no laughter; no joy. It’s a very specific, bad feeling that I can’t convey with words; but I believe it absolutely stems from all the shame and other sex-negative bullshit entrenched in our society.
Sex - including group sex - should be fun! It should be silly, and relaxed, and people should be laughing and smiling! I know this is possible, because I’ve experienced it - but not at a club. And I’m wondering if it’s at all possible to have that kind of atmosphere at a club where anyone can show up - including weird, creepy single dudes. I’m not sure that it is.
I dream of a world where none of this stuff has to be hidden behind (metaphorical) closed doors, and where there isn’t all the sex-negativity. I know some people argue that for some, a big part of the thrill is the fact that it’s seen as “dirty” and underground. The fun is in the sneaking around, they say. Well, I totally disagree. I think you can still get that “ooh, I’m dirty” feeling if that’s what you’re into, without having the actual stigma there, bringing everybody down and manifesting itself as creepiness and joylessness.
From my limited interaction with them, it seems like the local BDSM and fetish communities pull this off far better than the swingers’ clubs. But, a crucial difference there is, you can’t just randomly show up at one of the fetish group’s events; you have to be invited. You have to know someone, so that when you show up, even if the people there don’t know you, they know someone who does know you.
I don’t know what to say about all of this other than, I’m disappointed, but not surprised.
Next weekend, we’ll be going back to Trapeze one more time - on a Saturday, which is couples-only night, to see if the dynamic is different. Then we’ll record a podcast with our thoughts on all of it. (So think of these blog posts as the slightly-expanded Cliffs Notes version.) Meantime, if you’ve had a different experience with a swingers’ club, I’d love to hear it!
96 Responses to "Another shitty sex club"
ummm, i think it’s atlanta, up here, most of the clubs have a NO single males rule…and the dance floors are packed, the music is good, and everyone knows everyone…
One note I’d add: at Trapeze, there was that weird serious vibe in the clothed area up front, but people did seem to be laughing and having a good time in the rear no-clothes area. Then again, there wasn’t anybody fucking, and I got the feeling that most of those folks knew each other.
yelch. You’d probably want something more like Carol Queen’s Queen of Heaven parties. that does confirm my worst stereotypes about “swinger” clubs, i gotta say.
although the cliqueyness and desultory vibe i am more familiar with from some lesbian BDSM events.
still, yeah, there is a special creepy kind of single men (and, i gotta say it, a number of partnered men, though not nearly to the same degree) at any mixed such events, i tend to find, sadly. that is one arena where i -do- get sex-segregation (although of course obviously my tastes are different…)
You think some of the creepiness and seriousness might have to do with self-selection? Like, if you’re motivated enough to pay $50 to get in, then you’re probably pretty earnest about getting something out of it.
Nicki,
Nope, I don’t think so. If anything, the opposite. Most people who actually have a sex-positive outlook don’t exude that sense of entitlement and that general joylessness. I know plenty of guys - single or otherwise - who are into group sex and/or non-monogamy who aren’t creepy. It’s an attitude thing, and I think a lot of it comes back to that cultural conditioning. First and foremost you have to have the awareness to break out of it.
May be a testament to the fact that actual sex is and ought to inherently be a private matter. ;)
Oh, valeko, that comment is such a big bag of stupid, that tempted as I am to spam it, I’ll leave it here for others to enjoy and poke at.
“Make it DO something…!”
What do you mean “stupid”? It’s an interpretation that exists entirely within my subjectivity. Your account of how people looked in that club suggests to me that no matter how hard and “sex-positive” they try to feel in relation to being out in public with that side of themselves, it’s not inherently comfortable.
It may have no empirical basis and no credibility with you. Doesn’t mean it’s “stupid.”
How can you come to that conclusion when Amber said right up there in the very same post that she has been to parties where it was quite comfortable?
In that light, your point about what it “suggests” to you seems, er, stupid.
Why’s that? There are plenty of people that have acclimated themselves to be comfortable with unusual perversions. But if it is of more predominant social consensus that we’re talking…
The problem here is the epistemic and emotional arrogance of suggesting that everyone ought to adopt your rather extreme and marginal view of what sex ought and ought not be premised on some kind of repression or anachronistic, retarded social conditioning on their part if they choose to think — and feel — otherwise.
Now, to be fair, there are some very insightful and poignant deconstructions of sex that have been undertaken by feminist scholarship, and expose — with reference to persuasive psychological data — the weighted gender inflection and inherent asymmetry of its “traditional” incarnations. This is all very valuable discourse.
But saying that group sex ought to be fun! is a value judgment that doesn’t command the credibility of such inquests, and calling people who do not seem to share that perception “stupid” off the cuff is even worse.
Wow, you really haven’t been paying attention AT ALL to my blog for the past, oh, 5 years, have you?
You know the great thing about the internet, valeko? You can, in a matter of minutes, go and set up your very own blog where you can prattle on all day about “epistemic and emotional arrogance” and whatever else gets your motor running.
Or, to put another way, it’s one thing to say, criticise ass-backward attitudes about sex that inherently render women diminuitive and passive and humiliate them, or otherwise fail to make it an experience of complete mutuality, respect and honesty.
Quite another to presumptuously universalise particular sexual lifestyle choices as such. Most people do not want group sex and most people do not go to these sorts of establishments, and that’s not just because they don’t see the light.
Actually, valeko, we’re talking about the consensus of the people who were at the sex clubs Amber’s been to, not the “predominant social consensus.” Presumably those who would go to sex clubs would be more sex-positive and open minded about public or group sex than your average sexually repressed member of society.
How do you know that?
Well, good; then they’re not wasting $50-$100 that could be better spent stocking the fridge for an orgy at their own home. ‘Cause as we can see, Venus and Trapeze suck.
Well, one might presume that, perhaps.
But what I read out of the evidence — especially the lucid accounts of the inherent creepyness and nervousness radiated by the other visitors — is that they were acting contrary to their own impulses about decency and propriety on the optimistic side, and eccentric perverts on the not so optimistic side.
You keep using that word “pervert.” Not a good idea.
Why?
Because you’re complaining about Amber making judgments about how people should widely view sex (which she wasn’t actually doing, btw) while making value judgments about how people should widely view sex yourself. It’s hypocritical.
I can appreciate your point, but I’d like to think I’m more interpreting the manifestations of people’s own value judgments about sex, whereas Amber saying that this is reprehensible and everyone should be like her.
Of course, it could just be that my interpretations are completely wrong, I’m the last to deny that. But this general feeling about sex as a nonprivate affair is very ubiquitous.
Then again, I may be a very strange audience to comment. I’m a liberal and an atheist and by all decent accounts, not a social conservative, but I’m surprised more people don’t feel ashamed of themselves going to strip clubs. :-)
Where did she say that? I only see that she said people who have already determined they are interested in watching or participating in group sex should act that way, not everybody.
And why should someone feel ashamed about going to a strip club?
And please lay off the emoticons. Thanks.
Oh don’t get him started on the strip clubs again. Don’t you know, there’s inherent SHAME in watching naked ladies! There’s SHAME in feeling sexual desire! There’s SHAME in being a stripper! There’s SHAME in sexuality, if it’s not confined to x, y, and z specific requirements and of course, behind closed doors at all times, not in the public eye, because nice people just don’t do that; or, if we do, we make sure to compartmentalize it nice and tidy like.
But, no, that’s totally not a socially conservative position, AT ALL.
As I see it, what is said is that everyone at the club, let’s say, ought to feel the same level of comfort and inconsequence about being there, or not have unusual / somewhat ulterior-sounding motives. I question whether that’s a reasonable expectation.
Strip clubs: Superficial and pecuniary interaction with women in a humiliated and degraded position, not predicated on sincerity or respect. Not too different from brothels.
I will of course respect your injunction against emoticons, but am perplexed as to why it’s issued.
Amber, you can take your Louisville slugger and obliterate that straw man if it makes you happy, but I never said any of that as stated.
Yeah but sure, strippers are always humiliated and degraded, end of story, but no no don’t ask THEM about it… that’s just the WAY IT IS and everyone knows.
You REALLY haven’t been reading my blog, at all!!
As I was reading the post I starting thinking, “Maybe they should have a ‘no frowning rule,’” but that would get really strange — everyone wearing these fake smiles, walking around a dark labyrinth, expecting an orgy to break out.
In point of fact, Amber, I’m perfectly aware that strippers vary widely in their perception of their occupation. I’ve had one good friend in the past that was immensely proud of herself, her appearance and her accomplishments in this area and I never encouraged her to think otherwise and never held that against her. She can do what she wants.
But I do see it as something that really is becoming of a cultured person. I don’t know any respectable man that would go dance on a table naked if you give him so much as millions of jeering female fans throwing money at him, even provided that women erotically perceived that sort of thing in quite the same way men do.
really is becoming = really is not becoming.
Oh, this is rich.
You just wait until some of my stripper friends see this shit. They’ll either tear you a new one, or decide not to bother, because honestly, I mean, are we STILL having this conversation? It’s just so BORING at this point. Over and over and over again… the SAME thing… it never ends.
Not to mention the fact that for a long time I wanted to be a stripper and in many ways I still do. But it’s totally unbecoming, so never mind.
I do read your blog, actually, quite carefully. And I’ve followed the wealth that you’ve had to say and link to on the importance of advocacy for sex workers’ rights and welfare, and the assertion of legitimacy and social acceptance for their trade. From a humanitarian standpoint, I agree with much of it.
Do your thing. In the end, what matters is what you want to do and what makes you happy, as with your stripper friends.
Where I think you’re going wrong is being morally indignant when you can’t coerce the outside world into looking at it the same way. Sometimes that kind of indignation is very justified, as with genuine injustices of the sort often illuminated by feminism, or in other areas (criminalisation of teenage sex comes to mind, as in the Genarlow Wilson case).
But when it comes to sexual lifestyle choices that do not have a moral magnitude, and you try to give them one, well, that’s just going a bit far, IMHO, and that’s all I’m trying to say.
Because stigmatization of sexuality, and sex workers, isn’t a genuine injustice.
Where have I heard this before? Oh wait - EVERYWHERE.
“Moral magnitude” I won’t even touch. Give me a freaking break.
What do you mean by “moral magnitude”?
This seems somewhat irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Amber complained that the environment at the sex club didn’t live up to the other group sex experiences she’s encountered. She isn’t trying to coerce anyone into adopting her worldview; she’s lamenting the uncomfortable situation there and theorizing that harmful negativity around sexuality may be at fault.
Perhaps the disconnect is here.
To me, “genuine injustice” usually does not include the moral perspectives that social constituencies choose to adopt on a given subject. The injustices faced by oppressed and/or legally underground people are technical and juridical in nature; they constantly live in fear of prosecution, abuse, often inadequate access to medical care and contraceptive facilities, etc. That’s awful.
But why should sex workers be automatically entitled to be the beneficiaries of a particularly favourable social consensus where they are viewed in glowing terms by people other than their clientele?
The point is not really about sex workers–extrapolate that to much of what I said. People should be able to choose their lifestyles. And if they want to go to sex clubs and have group sex, okay. Valeko the eminent social conservative is nowhere to be found advocating the removal or regulation of such establishments or their clientele.
But demanding that people view the activity a certain way — in or outside the club? And professing righteous indignation that they don’t, and proceeding to pontificate on how ignorant, repressed and confused they must be?
Valeko:
Amber isn’t the one pontificating on peoples sexual lifestyles here…you are. “perverts”, “no self respecting man”, “Degraded by a profession”….
Amber is very live and let live, you, on the other hand, seem to be very, very comfy taking a moral high ground. She went to a sex club she thought was creepy. Hell, most of us have been to MALLS that are equally creepy.
Now, no one here is trying to tell you how to have sex or what to enjoy visually or recreationally. So, lay off the “perverts”…
Sincerely-
One of those stripper/sex club goin’ types.
Oh, vomit. valeko, can you please either learn how to think or just go the fuck away?
Here, I believe, is the crux of what you fail to understand.
You are judging people based on what is right for you, not what is right for them. You fail to understand that everyone has different points of view. e.g. Your view that stripping is degrading. If you feel that you are degraded by stripping, don’t strip. If you feel that you are degrading others by watching them strip, don’t watch.
However, you cannot accurately assume that all people share this view, as we have proven time and again here. (Good lord, why do we have to go through this rigamarole every damn time with you. Please see above on thinking or going away.)
There are people for whom stripping is empowering. There are people who just enjoy it. There are people who enjoy watching stripping. And there is nothing wrong with any of that. Just because you don’t feel that way doesn’t make it fact. Just like we all don’t have to have the same favorite color, we all don’t have to agree on sex work. I do not claim the color yellow to be morally inferior to green. I just don’t like it.
Are there people in sex work who are degraded by the work they do? Yes. Are there people in EVERY field of work that are degraded by the work they do? Yes.
If you had come here and said, “I really don’t understand the appeal of sex clubs.” that would have been a constructive way to voice your dissent while possibly stimulating an interesting dialogue. By contrast, you chose to parade around on your high horse of righteous indignation. And that horse just shat all over this post.
See, valeko, in my world you are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to claim it as the only one that’s valid. Please absorb that concept and stop judging people or go the fuck away.
Tedious. Mind-bogglingly tedious.
valeko: “But I do see it as something that really is [not] becoming of a cultured person. I don’t know any respectable man that would go dance on a table naked if you give him so much as millions of jeering female fans throwing money at him, even provided that women erotically perceived that sort of thing in quite the same way men do.”
Oh, please, I know a number of men who would love that kind of attention if they felt they could get it. My husband for one. Assuming you see attorneys as cultured people, which granted some don’t. He’d keep the tips, too.
“But why should sex workers be automatically entitled to be the beneficiaries of a particularly favourable social consensus where they are viewed in glowing terms by people other than their clientele?”
Nobody’s asking you to view anything in glowing terms. You’ve been asked not to make blanket statements about what’s “degrading” or “uncultured.” These statements are ridiculous whether applied to strip clubs, technology companies, law firms, or auto manufacturers (all of which I’ve been employed in, and none of which I thought were either uniformly degrading or uniformly moral entities).
Bottom line: your analysis is devoid of any kind of technical accuracy. You’ve got a personal agenda, and a boring one at that. Let’s not pretend it’s anything more global.
Did the Cavemen sitcom start early or something?
No, Ken. We’re in re-runs. And these episodes sucked the first time around.
Gah! Fortunately these people are occasional at BDSM clubs. I’d probably never do anything if they were more common.
I often wonder what it is that makes some men that way. Skulky and weird, I mean. There are plenty of single men who aren’t, and then there are… these folks. Is it a combination of loneliness and poor social skills, or something else entirely?
I remember when one came around my usual BDSM haunt. I pretty much got him kicked out.
It must really suck when people like this are so much part of the clientele that you can’t bid them never come back…
I don’t think it’s so weird that someone in a swingers club would have their “game face” on. Everyone worries about rejection, which is a big risk in a situation where you’re openly looking for sex partners. I also think that it’s risky to be too friendly at a sex club, as an innocent smile could be misconstrued as some deeper interest. Anyway, I don’t think it necessarily stems from either shame or sex negativity.
I think that the reason you may have had a better experience at sex parties is that you knew the people involved — or at least knew people who knew them, and thus it was a generally “safer” environment for play, more room for up-front joy, etcetera, etcetera.
From our discussions, it sounds more like you and Rusty are just going to these places as voyeurs (and maybe exhibitionists). If there were more to it, though, I’d suggest that you start your own group parties. I’m pretty sure you’d enjoy the atmosphere at them better than what you’ve found at Venus or Trapeze.
It wasn’t a “game face” - it was a creepy face. As I said in my post, it’s not something I can accurately convey with words. Guess you had to be there.
Well, I was actually more referring to your comments about “seriousness” and “lack of joy” in people’s faces. I don’t really have any comments one way or the other about the club participants’ relative creepiness.
I’m going to a local club before too long.
I’ll let you know how it goes.
:)
I never suggested that my opinion is the only one valid one, or that nobody else is entitled to theirs.
But not everything is purely subjective and relative, either; it is not in principle forbidden to think, as an organising principle, that one’s opinions are more morally and socially constructive.
Valeko:
Well, you just go ahead and think that, with the morally and socially constructive thing…and maybe not comment about “those less moral and socially constructive” people, places and subcultures that you A) Don’t know about, B) Don’t care to learn about, and C) Already feel superior to.
In short, go away, we don’t want your morally and socially constructive kind ’round here….
Damn Amber, do I need to loan you a better troll?
I suppose that’s fair. Can’t really argue with, “I don’t like your opinion or its moral foundation so don’t talk.” Not much, from a purely cognitive standpoint, that represents a meaningful rejoinder.
If morals weren’t a social construct your argument might have some teeth. Since they are, we come full circle back to the subjective.
What other circle would you like to dance around again?
Guess it comes down to what you believe about morals. I am the first to say that morals are to a considerable extent socially constructed, and, for example, perfectly willing to acknowledge that the perspectives I lend are often infused with the cultural inheritance of my Eastern European upbringing to which I am indebted, for better or for worse.
(I wish there was some way I could convince you and Amber that I’m not a troll, and do not say what I say here in order to get a rise out of anyone. Nothing could be further from my intent.)
But I suppose I differ in the critical respect that I do believe some aspects of human morality can be universalised, as reflected in the desire for fundamental empathy, compassion, community and security. These have anthropological and sociological bases and a meaningful historicity and continuity that should not be simply cast aside irreverently. There is a reason certain things are the way they are. (And no, this is not a teleological appeal; I am an atheist.)
I don’t see why something being socially constructed means it is subjective, especially morality or particularly sexual morality. Construction by the social is not construction by a subject, nor is it willy-nilly brick-laying. I think I use the word ’subjective’ differently, so I don’t follow that part. This is perhaps totally unimportant.
Charles,
The way people are using the words here is to mean, just because something is at a particular time widely accepted as “the norm” by society, does not make it a universal truth about how each individual experiences the world - and indeed it has the effect of silencing many individuals.
Society may say, “Sex is something that is special and sacred and should occur only between two married people - a man and a woman - in the privacy of their home, behind closed doors, with no one else present.” That doesn’t mean that’s in line with what *I* want or need.
You should be, at least in principle, willing to converse with the possibility that by taking that stance you are making a less moral decision, in the very well-reasoned and thought-out eyes of someone, somewhere, rather than jerking your knees and casting it aside as dogmatic tripe.
It doesn’t make your decision any less authentically yours, any less legitimate, or any less free. It doesn’t strip you of the agency involved in making that decision, and it doesn’t take away your voice to defend it or assert it as a personal preference.
But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t engage in conversation about it. If you are so sure society is wrong, you need to know why you’re right. And if it comes down to a matter of purely aesthetic personal preference, then just say that, and appreciate that some people have different aesthetic preferences from your very own — including aesthetic preferences that may conflict with yours or compel them to criticise yours(!), in much the same way that you feel compelled to visibly grimace elements of lifestyles you find morally revolting or offensive (a modern-day “1950s marriage,” for example) — that have just as much leg to stand on.
Coming over to my blog and telling me what I should talk about, and what I shouldn’t do, is not a very good way to stimulate discourse on my part. Quite the opposite in fact, and it comes with a big ol’ “fuck off.”
I don’t find that sort of lifestyle morally revolting or offensive, and have never insinuated anything even remotely close to such a ridiculous statement. I have said, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms, that that sort of life is not for me, and that it isn’t automatically “more moral” than any other arrangement just because society says so.
Valeko:
Hey, I was raised by Eastern Europeans too…
There are some things that MOST people agree as a moral norm…murder is generally bad, for instance, but sex and sexual practices? Very, very dangerous territory. Implying that people are “less moral” than thou because they have different views on sex and sexuality? Also very dangerous territory. After all, there are folk out there who find being superior, or judgmental, or condescending to be pretty “less moral” as well.
Amber: You say that now, but you routinely criticise other prevalent moral norms elsewhere in your posts, although I will grant it’s not your main staple–you are conscientious about pontificating. The most vivid example was the now-long-passed “sorostitutes” discussion. I don’t really care to dwell on that point; the point is that yes, you do have an opinion that projects implications beyond the scope of your individual immediacy. That’s not a bad thing at all.
Otherwise, “fuck off” and “don’t tell me what to do” is pretty much the reaction I expected. Consider taking my suggestion in the spirit in which it’s given, and not some other.
RenegadeEvolution: Well, that’s fine. Part of having moral convictions and being a principled human being is being able to make those kinds of judgments about what others do, and knowing why they’re wrong and you’re right to do what you do and not what they do. The essential element of a democratic and inclusive society is to not prevent them from doing what they want in a juridically coercive or other functional sense, but it doesn’t mean you aren’t entitled to an opinion or shouldn’t be allowed to voice it in your capacity as a reasonable person.
ah, but see, that’s where it gets tricky now, doesn’t it? People blow their heads off (or those of others) for being constantly made to feel ashamed or lesser than due to others moral judgments, which is why I think people need to be very, very careful with tossing them around so lightly. It’s not moral to hurt unconsenting people, but that’s exactly what a sense of moral superiority, actively and repeatedly directed at those who do not comply does. It hurts people.
I realise that, and it should be a consideration that enters into the mind of anyone that expresses such judgments, or in particular utilises shame or remorse as rhetorical devices, whose implications can potentially be very psychologically violent and authoritarian.
At the same time, you can’t possibly sell me on the fact that being moral is about being as relativistic and diplomatic as possible. One has to stand up for what one believes is right. Hopefully with an open mind, an agreeable philosophical disposition, and an awareness of one’s own epistemic limitations, but nevertheless. There is a qualitative difference between right and wrong, and not all of it is a figment of utterly arbitrary social construction. There are many aspects of moral propriety humans have developed in various cultures because they engender social order and cohesion, and provide trust and security and responsibility in a shared communicative universe that the collective understands and can help to enforce through solidarity and persuasion.
This dynamic has begotten much bad in the balance of human history, but also much good, and in any case it is at one’s peril to dismiss it categorically.
There’s standing up for what one believes is right. And then there’s having poor boundaries; or, as Belledame is wont to say:
“I’m cold. Put on a sweater.”
How is it hurting you if someone else experiences their sexuality differently than you experience yours?
(I can’t believe we’re still having this conversation. It’s STILL a topic of debate… really?)
Relatively few moral decisions others make tangibly affect me. But that does not make it unacceptable to make certain conclusions about their character based on perceived moral qualities of their choices.
For example, if my friend is unfaithful to his wife, in the balance of things this does not particularly impact me. But it tells me what kind of person he is, and how devoted and principled he is (or, on the other side, how cynical and opportunistic and hedonistic and selfish he is).
P.S. Why this rage, this churning bile at the mere principle that some discussion you find tiresome, unworthy or frustrating is still … going on?
Right. And that’s because of the LYING. Not because of the sex.
If he and his wife were to have an agreed upon arrangement of responsible non-monogamy, it would be a non-issue. (And therefore the word “unfaithful” would not apply…)
Well, I disagree with that, although I can certainly endorse that the lying is probably the primary issue. But I cannot and will not support “marriages” that participate on this basis either, nor am I persuaded to retreat from the view that monogamy is morally superior and socially desirable to any sort of polyamoury, both in the context of marriages and romantic relationships overall.
It might be worth considering that, erm, the people in such marriages don’t give a rat’s ass what you think about it or whether or not you “approve.” It’s really not on their radar screen at all.
Of course, and it is not in the hopes of persuading them that I state my view.
Valeko:
Hey, you are totally allowed to think what you want, to find some things more moral that others, and to live your life by that code. That’s fine…people should have some codes, really. What makes you annoying is that you feel the need to say how much more moral you are than others. Sure, you have a right to express that opinion as well, say what you beleive, and stand up for it, and people then also have a right to tell you “we don’t give a fuck”, “keep your morality to yourself and out of my blog”, or “hey, that works for you, but it doesn’t work for me, and that does not make you better than me, it merely makes us different”.
Some people think sex is a very intimate, personal, sacred thing. Others do not. Neither are right, neither are wrong, they are different, and so long as they are not hurting people, or putting undue stress on others, why beat the “morality” of it over other peoples heads? Because that? That will only breed resentment. For instance, by your moral standards, I am pretty damn immoral, but hey, that doesn’t bother me too much because I don’t advocate in jumping all over consenting adults for their sex lives. But I will smirk at the moral superiority of your “judgment”…let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all.
Valeko, the reason Amber and others of us are frustrated at the continuation of this discussion is that this is a victimless situation, unlike the examples you’re provided such as your cheating friend (in which the cheated-on wife is the victim). Ultimately, in life, every moral person looks at costs and benefits of her actions. Amber, here, has done so. There are no costs. Nobody’s geting hurt. There are countless other situations which are much more deserving of your evidently ample time.
Perhaps obviously perhaps not, there are greater reasons for me to believe that what is being discussed in this post is wrong than a mere point of aesthetic preference. There are real social detriments that come from this sort of lifestyle, and it is not a victimless crime. The ways in which that comes to play out are not readily apparent on an individual and situational level; the real question here is much more cosmological — what kind of world do you want to live in? That is a very real and tangible matter with very substantive and palpable direct impact on each and every one of our personal lives.
I do not see why exploring that is unconstructive or annoying. Different perspective, I guess; I’ve never been annoyed by people questioning the validity of my personal and seemingly subjective — and indeed, in the sense in which you use the term, victimless — decisions. If anything, I’ve always thought people, even ones proceeding from a set of values I find familiar and repetitive — dare I even say tiresome? — are generally doing me a service by offering critical perspective and a cause for introspection and self-examination, provided they take a discursive rather than a dogmatic and prescriptive stance.
But if it annoys you so, fair enough. But I encourage you to give some thought to the possibility that I am not a bad person, and I mean well. I have no interest in ascertaining my personal moral superiority in specific contraposition with yours, Amber’s, or anyone else’s, nor a lot of reason to believe I have always behaved inscrutably.
Bwahahahahahaha!
No further comment necessary. It speaks for itself.
And… scene.
Also, I keep coming back to what I wrote in this comment.
The only way something can “speak for itself” that way is if the audience can read your mind, or, more realistically, already agrees with every single one of your precepts and takes them as granted axiomatically.
Amber, I think you’re right — nothing more to be said. Valeko’s made it clear that “what kind of world do you want to live in?” is the best he can do to illustrate why he has a reason to care about this, and frankly if what happens behind others’ closed doors is where he feels his time should be best focused, he’s not really worth our continued time and effort.
My instinct is that someone who’s overly obsessed with what’s going on in everyone else’s bedrooms is typically suffering from an absense of activity in his own. We can pity Valeko based on the (strong, IMO) likelihood that this is the case here, but he appears to have outstayed his welcome.
“Perhaps obviously perhaps not, there are greater reasons for me to believe that what is being discussed in this post is wrong than a mere point of aesthetic preference. There are real social detriments that come from this sort of lifestyle, and it is not a victimless crime.â€
Really? Do tell? How do a bunch of consenting folk having sex produce victims, or “ruin society†or whatever else?
“The ways in which that comes to play out are not readily apparent on an individual and situational level; the real question here is much more cosmological — what kind of world do you want to live in? That is a very real and tangible matter with very substantive and palpable direct impact on each and every one of our personal lives.â€
Let’s see, how about one where adults can choose their own destiny as far as sex goes, do not feel locked into heterosexual traditional marriage and child producing roles, one where people are not shamed for being gay, trans, bi, or heterosexual, one where women do not feel the failure to have babies makes them lesser creatures, or where if they choose to have lots of sex they are not demonized for it, one where kinky people are allowed to do their thing without being labeled sick, deviant freaks, one where the government and the church stay the fuck out of my bedroom, my business, and my sex life…how’s that for a start?
“I do not see why exploring that is unconstructive or annoying. Different perspective, I guess; I’ve never been annoyed by people questioning the validity of my personal and seemingly subjective — and indeed, in the sense in which you use the term, victimless — decisions. If anything, I’ve always thought people, even ones proceeding from a set of values I find familiar and repetitive — dare I even say tiresome? — are generally doing me a service by offering critical perspective and a cause for introspection and self-examination, provided they take a discursive rather than a dogmatic and prescriptive stance.â€
Well, aren’t you special?
“But if it annoys you so, fair enough. But I encourage you to give some thought to the possibility that I am not a bad person, and I mean well. I have no interest in ascertaining my personal moral superiority in specific contraposition with yours, Amber’s, or anyone else’s, nor a lot of reason to believe I have always behaved inscrutably.â€
No one said you were a bad person. Not once. But you do come off as if you think you are superior, and oh so logical and right, and that shit gets old real quick.
Valeko, you have made your point, many times over - yes, yes, wanton sexuality has CONSEQUENCES for SOCIETY (of course you haven’t shared what those are or how you’re privy to them, but never mind THAT inconvenient point, and besides, my blog isn’t your soapbox; feel free to get your own). Your comments are not constructive. Further comments from you along these same lines, of round and round and round ’til we all fall down, will be deleted.
Understood, and fair enough. It is your blog–I can appreciate that.
I would like to say, however, to RenegadeEvolution and octagalore that I have not the slightest interest in what actually goes on in people’s bedrooms, nor a sense that anyone ought to infringe on that. My concern is — in line with your own sensibilities — purely with the potential consequences. The difference is that I believe there are certain consequences to the collective whose existence you do not acknowledge or do not find important in your own lives. That’s it.
and everyone is asking…WHAT ARE THOSE CONSEQUENCES????
The task of finding out what they are is not well served by the use of caps in the line of questioning.
But to speak to your question, Amber appears to have requested that I not air such views on her blog, presumably because I am regarded as a tiresome and bromidic hack for having them and because they not likely to be received with understand or appreciation anyhow. So I won’t treat of it at length.
But it suffices to say that I do find romantic monogamy, monogamous marriage and a devoted, family-centric way of looking at things to be conducive to social order, responsibility and community, and that the most decent and kind people that I have personally met in my entire life have all been the beneficiaries of such social arrangements and such upbringings. I think that such developments as appear to be in evidence in casual-sex lifestyles (not that I’m against fundamental sexual freedom, or sex before marriage or anything like that, dear Lord no) bring out the worst in people collectively in terms of cynicism, jealousy, hedonism, opportunism, and general lack of personal consistency, and for the most part, I see this actually embodied in the people I know who practice it. If you want to have children, it is my inexorable impression from personal and vicarious experience that having a devoted mother and a father is a very essential aspect of healthy psychological development. And most importantly of all–and what really cuts down to the heart of it for me–I do not see people who are unable to make romantic commitments as able to carry out the tasks of a principled human being who serves purposes higher than his or her own pleasure and convenience, not unlike a type of market interaction where you remain in a relationship only while it’s perceptible in its emotional profit. This leads to less responsibility to one’s society and community in a range of matters that have demographic correlates, from the legitimacy and care of children to the transmission of venereal diseases to sexual objectification and emotional abuse. Oft-repeated and oft-cited “myths” that I have found to have considerable basis in fact in my dealings with people, and that have a strong correlate in human anthropology, although certainly not universally and not without exception.
I fully expect you to wave your all-knowing hand dismissively and, at the very least, declare yourself immune to such problems inspite of your permissive lifestyle. That’s OK. If so, I’m glad for you. But if it is of building a certain type of society by legitimising and affirming certain behaviours that we are talking, we have to look at things from a genuinely holistic and aggregate vantage point.
I’m leaving that comment because I’m sure everyone will get a good laugh at the absurdly staggering level of hubris (not to mention, complete bullshit). But it will be your last along these lines to not get thrown into the spam queue, if you are unwilling to stop the superiority act.
This article explains one of the reasons I find these discussions to be annoying. One person just repeats an opinion until they’re blue in the face. There is then the possibility that someone observing will take that one dumb opinion repeated ten times equally as seriously as ten people who say it’s a dumb opinion. It’s a cheap tactic.
Someone should make a Bingo card for these discussions, kind of like the Sexual Assault Bingo, Anti-Feminist Bingo, White Liberal Bingo, and Geek Girl Stereotype Bingo that have already been created.
Ren, somehow, I’m lookin’ at you… :)
“It is so true! That’s why it’s funny!” - Dane Cook
What? You mean, some things get repeated out there? :) Naw… come on.
But yes, Amber, your point is taken. Like I said, I wasn’t expecting it to be well-taken or appreciated, I just figured it’d be polite to respond to RE if only in a piecemeal manner.
Valeko:
Huh. Funny, I’ve been both a sex worker and involved in the swing scene for over a decade. Most of the participants (myself included) are either married, or in long term relationships. They have main, solid, everyday life partners, and just have “fun” on the side. They are obsessed with safe sex, safe sexual practices, and get tested regularly. Some of have children, who do not know of their activites, and seem to thrive like other peoples children, and to these people, their children always come first. Almost all of them have steady, good paying jobs, are interested in politics, education and other academic pursuits. Many of them have never been divorced. Now, granted, it does take a certain type of mentality and a whole lot of trust for people in committed relationships, as well as a whole lot of trust, to engage in swinging or any form of sex work, but those who pull it off (which is the people I know, a fairly large number of them), have excellent relationships because they are confident enough in those relationships, the strength of them, to be able to have sex with/ behave sexually for other people.
Good, upstanding moral folk have been cheating and lying for centuries. With this sort of lifestyle, there is no cheating or lying (and usually, it is the lying which causes the most pain), everything is out in the open and their relationships are pretty strong because of it. They are not all thinking with their hormones all the time. So while I respect your right to have your views and your reasons for having them, I would suggest that your “study” of the people who have open relationships and participate in this kind of a lifestyle is not as nearly indepth as it should be, and your judgment of this lifestyle as “less moral” is flawed…swingers who are open and honest about what they do are far more moral than the “traditional” sort who has an affair, or hires prostitutes or goes to strip clubs or watches porn or carries on an online afair and lies about it to their partner…after all, there are many traditional marraiges that end in divorce.
RE:
It has been my experience that people who practice non-monogamy, are in open relationships, go to sex parties, and the like, are FAR more educated and conscientious about safer sex practices, respecting boundaries, and clear communication than the general population.
Like the book says, you cannot put new wine into old wineskins. Valeko, perhaps the reason why your personal and vicarious experiences lead you to see that there were non-monogamous relationships that had negative consequences is because people were trying to fit the non-monogamous form of life into the model of the monogamous one. As I take Ren’s comment, it does take a different kind of person with a different kind of way of relating to others to engage in a loving and reciprocating non-monogamous relationship (or relationships). My own personal and vicarious experiences confirm that impression, although I admit that I’m neither a sex-worker nor in a practicing non-monogamous relationship. And, if you are at the very least correct that sexual practices form some significant part of the basis of social, cultural, moral development (a thesis I think we participating in this discussion accept, which is the remarkable but often missed thing connecting “social conservatives” with “queer theorists”), I think you could also accept, and even already have admitted (”cosmological”, “what kind of world do you want to live in?”), that what goes on in having a non-monogamous relationship coheres with an entirely different social, cultural and moral form of life.
And that’s the significant point. I think you are somewhat correct that the monogamous form of life is strongly associated with the development of many cultures in the world, and especially with the imperial ones that spread this form of life through military, money, or missionary, cultures that more than likely give all of us our original backgrounds and backdrops. But this is by no means a history of stability, and for all that we, we the inheritors of the Enlightenment, would want for there to be a universality in the politics we adopt, I don’t think a student of the age can reasonably shake off the impression that inferring to the universal on the basis of how our people have done things is precisely what moves the dialectic of the Enlightenment from “liberté, egalité, fraternité” to the Terror—that part where the neglected “ou la mort” signals as much our own death as the death we give to those who deny us.
But what if people want to put aside that form of life, that cultural development, and shunt off towards a different model, a different form? No doubt, if you are strongly committed to the model and the interpretation where monogamy brought stability to troubled times, you see non-monogamy as unstable for the larger and longer picture, since it is nothing more than instability itself. It seems to me, though, that what we are seeing is a classical crisis: there is a turning point in the culture where what was formerly unstable brings about an entirely different form of life.
And for some, pouring this new wine is very frightening and threatening. Afterall, it bursts the old skins. But, not if one has new skin.
One also must consider, in imperial forms of government, the monogamy was often one sided. Men of wealth often had many lovers on the side, it was pretty widely accepted, and ignored by their wives due to economic need and status.
Charles: Certainly a well-thought out and intriguing response, and I thank you for it.
It is entirely logically possible that the discord simply arises from the incommensurability between the ways that I relate to people and the ways that others who have adopted a suitably divergent reference frame do, and that both can yield productive, fruitful, humanity-affirming, and by all accounts, fruitful results. I just haven’t seen evidence of it myself, but, I’ll be the first to say I haven’t made the utmost effort to dredge it up, either, to the enourmous credit of those who speak from the other side. This is all entirely possible, and, being a person of a libertarian disposition it is difficult for me to see why you would arrive at the concern that I wish to universalise aspects our collective cultural inheritance to such a degree that a comparison with the Terror or the Crusades becomes operative.
With regards to “social conservatives” / “queer theorists,” I favour the interpretation that sexual behaviour is more of a projection of social, moral, cultural development than it is a cause or basis for the latter, although their interplay and dialectical relationship is not really in doubt. The other does not have the mark of plausibility without submitting to a vicious reduction.
I would like to reiterate that I think everyone should be able to do whatever they please. I just personally find it very bewildering on a moral and extrinsic level — not purely as a matter of personal taste — that one should want to enjoy sex in a manner other than the one I have previously suggested, and I wanted to say that I do have reasons for thinking that.
RE: This is very true. And I have always found it a phenomenal outrage that male promiscuity, flightyness, tentativeness, noncommitment, unreliability, whim, and general hedonism and selfishness in the sexual regard is historically accommodated. Which, as a note to Charles, implies considerable departure on my part from some of the most persistent legacy attitudes that inevitably grant men leeway to screw around and make women suffer for it. Both parties to a relationship should be bound by a very strong, deeply held, and realised commitment.
Amber, please, for the love of all that is interesting, coherent and logical…stop being so damn polite and ban valeko. I quote (or at least paraphrase) Rusty:
You’re not running a democracy, you’re running a blog.
If he has so much to say, he can start his own damn blog. If he really wants to reply to your posts, he can link to them and pontificate in his own space. As it is, this is tedious, annoying and just plain rude - as many of us have noted multiple times.
another vote for banning the bore.
so, i can’t make the graphic, but “sex-negative bingo” would probably include, among other things:
*I don’t care what you do in the privacy of your own bedroom, BUT…
*I am NOT (a prude, homophobe, ’sex-negative,’)
*and i find it really insulting that you imply that I AM (a sex-hater, prude, etc.) by calling YOURSELF “sex-positive,” getting offended by my sweeping stereotypes of BDSM, sex workers, non-monogamists, etc.
*Your sex life is HURTING SOCIETY
*Your sex life is HURTING WOMEN
*Your sex life is HURTING ME
**DOUBLE POINTS!!** WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN, HUH?!?!
*Justify/defend your sex life/preferences to me.
*That’s REALLY gross,
*and yet here I go with even more lurid details than you’ve EVER provided, unasked
*I’m okay, you’re perverted, they’re just plain sick.
*Well, have you ever EXAMINED your desires?
*Wow, you must have been terribly abused at some point (you poor broken sicko).
*Wow, you must never have been abused or suffered anything, (you callous dilettante).
*Yer so SELFISH.
**BONUS!! Slut, sexbot, whore, or some variant thereof.
*I just don’t understand these people who are so obsessed with sex. No one wants to hear about your sex life! (yet, here I STILL am, strangely)
Belle: Man, I can tell you read my blog!
Belle,
Great job on the Bingo! I love it. Seriously well done. Now, if someone could just make a graphic (I certainly can’t)… Ren? Rootie? :)
Re: our boring blog gnat - don’t worry, his comments will be spammed from here on out. (And don’t worry, Jenny, I was never concerned with being “polite” to him. I thought certain visitors might enjoy a scratching post, though.)
“Do not run…we are your friends…ZAP!…”
but yeah, that right there sums up why he makes a lousy scratching post, even. dude, no one CARES if you mean well; the point is: it’s none of your business, you’re sucking up everyone’s energy and patience, and, worst sin of all, you’re just -aggressively- dull.
Fair ‘nuf on politeness. I did enjoy, er, scratching that post a time or two.
Seriously, WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN? There’s a market for that Bingo, Belle…
And a free clue for you to take into your next host: it’s not rage that the discussion is going on -anywhere,- it’s -exasperation- that the woman is TRYING to talk about HER LIFE on HER BLOG and here YOU are trying, ONCE AGAIN, to turn it alllll into your own agenda.
People host a barbecue for the block: it’s an open party, but it’s still being held in their home. While in other circumstances they might be open to discussing the ethical pros and cons of eating meat at all, in THIS instance, it’s just barely possible that people don’t want to get into that particular debate with some schmo who’s wandered in, particularly if he’s done this same thing at -every single event- they’ve ever hosted, driven off the other guests through his sheer determined lack of social skills, and oh yeah: despite his ethical reservations, is busy eating all the coleslaw and drinking all the beer. And don’t even get us started on how long he stays in the can.
oh lord. how can we miss you if you won’t go away?
and yes, thingie, none of us have EVER heard the pro-monogamy viewpoint, ’twas like a revelation from the clouds, really. Or would have been if your style wasn’t so frigging pretentious that MEGO just trying to get through the first paragraph. Dude: “Politics and the English Language.” Read it, learn it, live it.
I marked valeko’s last two comments as spam. From now on, Akismet should automatically catch his comments.
For the record, you may be amused (though not at all surprised) to learn - if you didn’t see it before I deleted it - that he did pull out the “Just expressing an opinion” line.
Can we make Concern Troll Bingo?
Seriously, there is money to be made off an online game of Concern Troll Bingo. And Sex-Negative Bingo.
Also, I feel as though the heavens have just parted and a beam of light is shining down upon your blog, Amber. I will have no further need to start ihatevaleko.com. Bliss. Such bliss.
Actually it’s not so much a beam of light - and perhaps this is why conservative Christians don’t get very far in their arguments with me, I know thine text - because the quote that’s in my head is, “and the spirit descended like a dove and a voice from heaven cried ‘This is my beloved son, with whom I’m well pleased.’”
*sigh* I need to sleep. I have just equated the banning of valeko to the baptism of Jesus. Dooce might get a special place in heaven, but I’m pretty sure mine’s in hell…
Leave a comment