There were a pair of interesting legal matters that came to light just before Christmas. The first of these was a Supreme Court of Canada ruling that swingers clubs are not indecent and therefore are not criminal. The thrust of their logic (based on the published account and not a personal reading of the decision) is that the test for indecency is the harm it causes society and not community standards, and that acts at such clubs do not harm society (setting aside the question of whether or not they harm the individual participants). Curiously, this came just before - and independent of - my decision to finally read Edward de Grazia's 1992 book "Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius". A review of legal cases on obscenity in Britain and the U.S. dating back to the 1880s, the first five chapters cover the suppression of works by Joyce, Zola and D.H. Lawrence, and is so far everything the reviewers said it was more than 13 years ago: detailed, highly-entertaining, with no agenda other than to tell the truth. Splendid stuff, and critical to anyone who values the hard-earned freedom of self-expression which we often take for granted, especially on the web.
I suspect this decision will not cause a mad rush to join swingers clubs, since I'm guessing if you were inclined that way you pursued it no matter what the risks. But if you do join, with dreams of multiple copulations with willing and attractive partners, I suspect you'll be disappointed. Let's do the math on this, shall we. As any married man can tell you, it is often very difficult to have sex with your own wife, a woman who has proclaimed in public that she is willing to have sex with you. At a swingers club, you not only have to find another woman willing to have sex with you, but her husband must also be willing to have sex with your wife. At the same time, I suspect that all parties will want their mate's new buddy to be attractive enough to satisfy him or her but not so attractive as to pose a threat to your own position in the relationship. On top of this, I suspect the appeal of such places is the opportunity to push the envelope of sexual experience by trying things you might not otherwise get the chance to. If your proposed partners want to get kinky and you don't, it's on to the next couple for both of you. Or what if they want a little man-man and woman-woman action thrown in (or maybe that's all they want). Then it becomes a question of do the men and women dig their opposite-but-same number as a partner, along with all that attractive-but-not-too-attractive stuff. And, if my occasional viewing of Sex TV has taught me anything, it is this: most of the people who frequent this kind of place are like the people who attend porn conventions (ala "The Girl Next Door") - no one you would risk your marriage for. Because no matter how open-minded you and your spouse are about this, any time you add extramarital sex to a relationship, the core relationship is being tested. And, without being a prude, I personally would never want to take that risk.
In the end, it seems to me the odds of having a satisfying (meaning aesthetically, mentally and emotionally along with physically) experience at such a place are pretty slim. Better off to take your entrance or membership fee and invest in some porn. At least you'll be certain of scoring before the night's out.
The other story that caught my eye was the touching tale of Ray Sobeski and Nynna Ionson. In April 2004, Sobeski collected $30 million from a Super 7 lottery ticket from a draw held almost one year previous. His soon-to-be-ex-wife Ionson (a former stripper, as the reports were fond of mentioning) claimed she was entitled to half. Sobeski denied this claim, and a court soon froze his assets pending resolution of the dispute. On December 20, they reached a negotiated settlement and, presumably, are now going their separate ways.
Reading about the case, you have to conclude that the settlement was reached because, as Ionson claimed, she could prove they continued to be involved even after separating. The evidence apparently included love letters and a recorded telephone message. But for me the most interesting item was that on April 1, 2004, after collecting his windfall, Sobeski took Ionson to the Quality Inn in Woodstock, Ontario for sex, never telling her that he was now a wealthy man. The question I would ask is how Ionson could prove that this night of love took place. Phone records wouldn't be conclusive. There may be witnesses, but given how deceptive Sobeski was, I suspect he was careful about it. The one thing that comes to mind is that she paid for the room. Assuming this is true, what does it say about Ray Sobeski that on the day he became a multi-millionaire, not only did he take a woman to an establishment like the Quality Inn, but he made her pay. Dude, couldn't you at least have sprung for the Hilton since you were going to try and screw her out of millions? Further, why her? Sure, you wanted to celebrate your good fortune. Write this down - this is why hookers were invented. And having sex with one doesn't bind you to her legally (unless you get busted, which is another matter entirely).
This proves two things to me. First, that having money doesn't make you smarter and may in fact reduce your I.Q. Second, never trust a former stripper. Oh, and third, always celebrate with a professional.
Thank you for your time.
I suspect this decision will not cause a mad rush to join swingers clubs, since I'm guessing if you were inclined that way you pursued it no matter what the risks. But if you do join, with dreams of multiple copulations with willing and attractive partners, I suspect you'll be disappointed. Let's do the math on this, shall we. As any married man can tell you, it is often very difficult to have sex with your own wife, a woman who has proclaimed in public that she is willing to have sex with you. At a swingers club, you not only have to find another woman willing to have sex with you, but her husband must also be willing to have sex with your wife. At the same time, I suspect that all parties will want their mate's new buddy to be attractive enough to satisfy him or her but not so attractive as to pose a threat to your own position in the relationship. On top of this, I suspect the appeal of such places is the opportunity to push the envelope of sexual experience by trying things you might not otherwise get the chance to. If your proposed partners want to get kinky and you don't, it's on to the next couple for both of you. Or what if they want a little man-man and woman-woman action thrown in (or maybe that's all they want). Then it becomes a question of do the men and women dig their opposite-but-same number as a partner, along with all that attractive-but-not-too-attractive stuff. And, if my occasional viewing of Sex TV has taught me anything, it is this: most of the people who frequent this kind of place are like the people who attend porn conventions (ala "The Girl Next Door") - no one you would risk your marriage for. Because no matter how open-minded you and your spouse are about this, any time you add extramarital sex to a relationship, the core relationship is being tested. And, without being a prude, I personally would never want to take that risk.
In the end, it seems to me the odds of having a satisfying (meaning aesthetically, mentally and emotionally along with physically) experience at such a place are pretty slim. Better off to take your entrance or membership fee and invest in some porn. At least you'll be certain of scoring before the night's out.
The other story that caught my eye was the touching tale of Ray Sobeski and Nynna Ionson. In April 2004, Sobeski collected $30 million from a Super 7 lottery ticket from a draw held almost one year previous. His soon-to-be-ex-wife Ionson (a former stripper, as the reports were fond of mentioning) claimed she was entitled to half. Sobeski denied this claim, and a court soon froze his assets pending resolution of the dispute. On December 20, they reached a negotiated settlement and, presumably, are now going their separate ways.
Reading about the case, you have to conclude that the settlement was reached because, as Ionson claimed, she could prove they continued to be involved even after separating. The evidence apparently included love letters and a recorded telephone message. But for me the most interesting item was that on April 1, 2004, after collecting his windfall, Sobeski took Ionson to the Quality Inn in Woodstock, Ontario for sex, never telling her that he was now a wealthy man. The question I would ask is how Ionson could prove that this night of love took place. Phone records wouldn't be conclusive. There may be witnesses, but given how deceptive Sobeski was, I suspect he was careful about it. The one thing that comes to mind is that she paid for the room. Assuming this is true, what does it say about Ray Sobeski that on the day he became a multi-millionaire, not only did he take a woman to an establishment like the Quality Inn, but he made her pay. Dude, couldn't you at least have sprung for the Hilton since you were going to try and screw her out of millions? Further, why her? Sure, you wanted to celebrate your good fortune. Write this down - this is why hookers were invented. And having sex with one doesn't bind you to her legally (unless you get busted, which is another matter entirely).
This proves two things to me. First, that having money doesn't make you smarter and may in fact reduce your I.Q. Second, never trust a former stripper. Oh, and third, always celebrate with a professional.
Thank you for your time.
posted by George @ 12:18 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home