Talk:Swinging (sexual practice)/Archive 1

message: I removed this paragraph:
"Where bisexuals are included, motives are often incompatible with those of other bi-positive groups. Many members of the polyamorous community differentiate themselves from the swinger lifestyle by putting a greater emphasis on long-term relationships and sites such as  will indicate that the "poly group is NOT a contact organization for swingers"."
Lots of contact groups aren't contact organisations for swingers.  This seems obvious in the extreme.  So just because some bisexuals swing, we're surprised that not all bi-positive groups are swingers?  Polyamory and swinging are fundamentally different, but that doesn't mean that they are incompatible.  
Imagine if the text said "Where heterosexuals are included, motives are often incompatible with other hetero-positive groups."
Inkwell 21:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bisexuals and other "bi-positive" groups

message: I'm too new to Wikipedia to go hacking at something with a 'disputed' label, but there should be a link to the Dogging article somewhere, as that's essentially a Subgroup, like 'urban swingers'
----
Dogging - This should be added as a subgroup to swinging but unfortunately I don't know enough about it beyond it being both a seperate scene to swinging worthy of its own entry and a scene that intercects sufficiently with swinging to be mentioned as a subgroup. I have linked the Dogging section at the bottom--AlanD 20:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogging 

message: I have noticed that many pages try to be objective and show both points of view, even those that dispute the article in general. An example would be pornography and the inclustion of a subsection of those agaisnt pornography, as well as an article alone about the anti-pornography movement. I was going to add that myself, but I wanted to ask first, is there a reason why a subsection stating the objections to swinging should not be included? (just recently got an account, hence the odd time stamp.)--Simao rod15 21:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about those opposed to swinging? 

message: I am very sorry that I noticed this -- but it seems like somebody copied.
See http://www.thecottageinpa.com/documents/101.html.
I didn't want to use an official notice, because I don't want this to get deleted or anyone in trouble.
But sombody better do a rewrite quickly `` David carly 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copyright violation 

message: OK, so "hot wife" got merged in.  Do we still need that notice up top?  Just curious.  If not, let's get rid of it.  (And also somebody fix the copyright problem before this entire entry gets into trouble!) -- 206.138.130.2 18:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hot wife merger 

message: How do we know that we copied it from them?  The date on the root directory of that file says Jan 2006, and this article is older than that.  I think they copied it from us. Inkwell 21:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I googled around, and lots of sites have the same thing WP does.  I suspect there is one root source, and lots of people are copying.  It is possible that the very first version was WP, but somehow I doubt it. David carly 22:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Going back to the first edits of this article, it looks very much like this is the root source.  The first drafts of this article are very short and they build up slowly and gradually, not in big copied chunks.  The only repeats I can find on the internet are much later edits. Inkwell 09:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright? 

message: (Moved from the top of the page)
I have changed the 600 clubs in Europe and 400 in America because it is exclusive of the rest of the world and i have found a site that has over 3,000 worldwide club listings in it that i believe is a more accurate and all inclusive "WORLD" view of swinger clubs. (Unsigned comment)
Ok, we'll compromise.  I'll change the text so it says "over 3,000 clubs worldwide," but without the link. Inkwell 21:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over the constant adding of a certain external link on this page 

message: The only mention of opponents makes quick dismissal of their views and does not give credibility to anyone who does not agree with the lifestyle.  Also, the "research" uses anecdotal evidence and is not backed by any research I have come across.   How can you measure one couples "happiness" vs another??  Since "happiness" is subjective by nature, how can it possibly be measured and compared?
:The research is externally linked to the source and certainly backs up other statistics I have read on the same topic.  Things like "happiness" are hard to measure and that's why sociology will never be like mathematics.  I think that editing the article to discuss whether or not any sociological study can be objective would be off topic.
:As for the opponents of swinging, the space given to their views seems equal to the space given to the common responses to their views.  I can't see how it can be improved without adding "some people don't like swinging because they don't want to do it themselves".  What would you like added or changed?Inkwell 08:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not objective to opponents of swinging 

message: Here’s the problem with this page:
1.	The content was not rewritten but rather stolen verbatim from this website: http://www.thecottageinpa.com/documents/101.html.
3.	'Urban swinging' began with Fever Parties [3] in London in the late 1990s and involves affluent metropolitan young people, discrimination on the basis on looks and an upper age limit usually around 40. Urban swinging events include mostly childless, unmarried young graduates and can have average ages as low as the late twenties, whereas ordinary or 'suburban' swingers events tend to have average ages in the 40s. Urban swinging subsequently spread to Manchester (UK), Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA. This is not true and an obvious plug for fever parties, parties of this nature have been going on long before the 1990s see the skin party or the bliss party etc.
4.	Urban swinging subsequently spread to Manchester (UK), Norway, South Africa, Sweden and the USA. This is demographically incorrect, urban swinging for want of a better word probably started in Amsterdam at world famous clubs like fun4two which has been in business for 26 years.
5.	There are over 3,000 swinging clubs worldwide. I added this correction while you have chosen to leave it in you have not chosen to leave the source of information namely http://www.swingersclublist.com, I run this site, its free so its not a commercial plug and because I run this site I know there are currently 3012 swingers clubs in the list while you choose to use this information you chose to remove the source of this information, wouldn’t a wikipedia user reading the swinger document want accurate and up to date information of the worldwide swingers clubs it is referencing?
6.	Regarding SDC and your removal under the acronym of is just wrong. SDC Media owns both a federal trademark registration for its SDC mark, U.S. Registration No. 2,818,125, and a pending U.S. trademark application for the same term. Type SDC in Google, what do you get? http://www.sdc.com hence Google seems to think sdc.com is the number one ranked website for the term sdc yet you do not, I wonder who's right?. The term SDC means swingers date club we own the trademark on it, you can buy a logo pin of it - https://www.sdcmedia.com/cc_sdcpin.aspx?AccountID= , you can buy t-shirts with it on - www.cafepress.com/lifestylegear/1182919, you can buy an adult movie starring its members - http://sdc.adameve.com/p-8833-swinging-in-the-usa.aspx, you can see the SDC clothes line - http://www.wickedtemptations.com/sdc-sdc-wear-styles.html, you can see us featured on playboy tv, and hbo. I want to reference SDC because it is the WORLDWIDE website in six different languages for swingers (BTW we do call ourselves SWINGERS, it is the number one term for our lifestyle according to Google analytics yet in wikipedia they seem to think the movie swingers is more important for that term, this is asinine.)  
7.	You talk about swingers club and parties but do not reference any, surely people would like to see accurate examples, we have over 50 parties a month worldwide, no other website has this but still you surreptitiously moderate this topic without actually thinking about the benefits of examples. If you want real examples of real swingers parties, clubs and communities currently active you only need to look here - http://www.sdc.com/subdomains.aspx. I am defending SDC because it is a definitive source worldwide for swingers in six different languages and I think people interested in researching swinging would want to know about it, correct me if I am wrong?
8. The critique of urban swinging among traditional swingers is that it is unethical to discriminate. For example the North American Swing Club Association (NASCA) does not accept into membership clubs which are not open to all and some couples may advertise themselves as "not Ken and Barbie" as an implicit rejection of what they perceive to be a superficial ideal of youthful physical attractiveness. If this was true why do i find sites on nasca with descriptions as follow: 1.the premier adult-dating website, catering exclusively to sexy young couples & singles world wide, 2.is an upscale lifestyle site catering to only the sexiest couples and single women, 3.Exclusive Parties in Luxurious Hotels for L.A.'s Sexiest People. (L.A.S.P) LA's exclusive weekly sex parties for 20-25 sexy young couples and several single women.
(Unsigned comment, 16:41, 14 February 2006 from user Swingers - moved from the main discussion page as it dominated and hid other important topics - Inkwell) 
This discussion was also posted on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Inkwell, where I responded.  I haven't repeated my comments there. Inkwell 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to have that sorted. Inkwell 09:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: That is a false statement.  The Skin Party and the Bliss Club, the examples cited by the original poster, both fit perfectly into that category.  Both have strict physical appearance standards that the promoters enforce by requiring photo approval for new guests.  Both are frequently criticized for the same reasons presented in the article.  There are plenty of other examples, including parties that operate within 'ordinary' swing clubs like Miami Velvet.  The "urban swinging" references in this article are clearly intended as promotional material for a specific party in London.  The references listed in that section consist only of promotional materials from the parties and promoters in question and are not objective.  The existence of similar events and community niches in the US from at or before the time of the parties listed in the article are a clear refutation of the notion that those parties were the origin of the niche.  "Urban swinging" is not a uniquely British phenomenon or one that provably originated in the UK.  The entry as written is not objective and is over-reaching.  (TeamSoBe 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Skin Party claims not to be a swinging club, and I can't see the rules for the Bliss Club to check.  Neither say when they started, nor can I find any reference to any similar organisation which ran prior to 1997.  I am UK based, so wouldn't know.  All I know is that the information is correct for the UK.  Some changes to show how similar organisations began in the US would be useful.Inkwell
4. Fun4two is not in Amsterdam it is in Rotterdam, it in no way discriminates as to who can enter. Howling errors like this suggest the writer does not know what he is talking about. 
7. SDC.com is above average but not definitive. I am often in its chatroom and its clientele appear to be almost exclusively in the UK, the Netherlands and Texas with a few in Spain. Huge swathes of Europe and the USA are unrepresented let alone the rest of the world.
8. NASCA seem to have changed their policy from the original one which was much more broadly non-discriminatory. They now focus on racial and national discrimination. However, the sites mentioned are just using marketing language. They don't actually have competitive entry. Cymro61
*although we don't care much about trademarks, here is an answer to that "charge" . SchmuckyTheCat 23:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of the article and its editing from user Swingers 

message: We should add Law/Legal section to here. Last month in Canada question aboult legality of on-premise swingers clubs was brought up to Supreme Court. Any lawers whoc will be willing to take on task? When we travelled to South American country for vocation we were unsure on whenever club is legal there ...
:I am a Lawyer, and willing to tackle this to some degree, though a warning should be included that laws can vary from state to state and country to country widly regarding these issues...  However I am not very good with the Wiki format and will have to rely on someone else to move this to the main board after reasonable discussion.
:Currently Swinging in the United States is legal as a practice and likely protected from direct state interferance due to the recent US Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas. This ruling  held that there was no valid state interest in criminalizing consensual homosexual activity between consenting adults and overturned Texas' laws outlawing homosexual conduct. While this case does not directly effect swingers, the same logic applies in that so long as the participants are over the legal age for consent in the state where that activities occur and gave consent the state seems to lack the ability to directly outlaw swinging. Under this logic is seems that the state does not have the power to in any way limit swinging that occurs at a persons home.  
:Lawrence however does not limit that ability of local governments to indirectly control or outlaw swinging at bars or clubs however. The most common way to limit swinging is through the use of laws restricting alchohal liscenses from being distributed to businesses which allow full or partial nudity. In these localities many swing clubs are forced to make a choice to either not allow alchohal, or to not allow swinging on the premises. This is why most on-premises clubs ask guests to bring their own liquor, since they can not legally sell it. The other way in which swinging clubs have been restricted is through zoning ordinances that specifically outlaw types of businesses in an area. These zoning laws are generally created narrowly in order to effectively only effect the swingers club. While these types of ordinances could be challenged in court, few clubs have both the resources to engage in a protracted legal battle, or the desire to continue such a fight since it is likely that a members list would become available to the general public as a result of legal discovery. Specifically of interest is Phoenix Arizone when they passed Ordinance 'Sec. 23-54. Findings; definitions; live sex act businesses prohibited' which outlawed charging to enter a business to provide the oportunity to engage in sexual activity or to watch sexual activity. This ordinance was upheld at least throught the Federal Circuit court of appeals and is the best example of an ordinance drawn to prohibit Swinging. 
    While this does nothing to outlaw swinging per se, it does outlaw swinging clubs very effectively. Thus while even today it is legal to participate in swinging, the operation of an 'on premisses' club in the city would be prohibited.
  Canadian law has adressed a similar issue though in a slightly different way. A recent Canadian Supreme Court ruled held that the operators of a swing club did not violate the law in doing so. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Kouri. Under this ruling while it is never stated, it seems to be reasonable to conclude that if operating a swing club is not a violation of the law, then participating in swinging would not be either.
:: I can help with the Wiki formatting. I am a big fan of  verifiable references for newly added material. I will gladly format all the references you want to add for the new material. Kelly 17:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I write a lot about psychological perspectives on relationships, and the majority of my references are to publications in scientific journals and books. That's mostly because I try to write both for lay readers and for undergraduate students who may be doing research. But this is your work and you get to make some decisions! Here's the verifiability policy in a nutshell. Kelly 07:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law/Legal issues 

message: In my experience, just about all swingers clubs allow single males, but only on one or two days of the week.  I did a random internet search for swinging clubs and found the same thing: most clubs do "couples only" nights as well as nights where single men are allowed.  Very few clubs exclude single males altogether - they get a lot of money from them.~~
This is true, however, large groups of single males are almost never a welcome commodity. However, there is a difference between an on-premise club, and a Lifestyle group that organizes parties. Single males are rarely allowed at Lifestyle related parties, though they may be allowed at physical clubs.
:I don't dispute that they aren't welcome, and it is true that they are rarely welcome at parties, but it the paragraph in question is about clubs.  Maybe an edit about parties would help here. Inkwell 19:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single Males in clubs 

message: I removed the links to The Hellfire Club and Wreaves from the "See Also" section, because neither has anything to do with swinging.  I moved the Hellfire Club link to the "See Also" section in the BDSM article, where it is pertinent. (TeamSoBe 14:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See Also

message: The only reference I can find to "urban swinging" is from this article, or derivatives from it.  I can find no evidence that the term has ever been used outside of Wikipedia.
Would anyone have an objection to a rewrite to remove the term and replace it with a more generic title?  Something that links together the types of organisations mentioned without making it sound as though there is a definitive term that defines them.
Inkwell 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone agree or disagree?  I'll start on a rewrite and see what people think. Inkwell 11:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I've done it.  The term "selective swinging" seems far more descriptive, easily understood, and is actually used outside of Wikipedia.  It's required a jiggle around of the information, but it is basically the same.  I disagree that the "urban" nature of these events is key; after all, the majority of swinging clubs are in cities.  Hopefully some other people will work on this section now.  Inkwell 19:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban swinging - redifine as "Selective Swinging"?