Description of an orgy party
September 11th 2006 21:31
One more old post, written about two years ago. This will probably be the last in this alternative sexuality series I've been doing, and I'll get back to boring stuff tomorrow.
* To run a successful orgy you should: (a) encourage single girls and couples -- give them free entry; and (b) regulate the numbers, so that the guys don't badly outnumber the girls -- though keeping a list of invites is difficult: at least fifty per cent of the names on the list will be no shows.
* Apparently, it takes guts to go in the first place. Overheard conversation: "horror stories" about people who come up to the door, raise a knuckle to knock, then freeze, and walk away; or people who make it through the door, and sit for a whole five minutes before scampering. What's the terror, or why the nerves? Are you afraid that you won't attain your desire, or that you will? Is the fear to do with the nature of the act? -- the shame of outrageous want? Or is it to do with exposure, profaning of the sacred, ousting of the inward?
* So the party last night is held in a suite of a large apartment building. I arrive early. Looks like a hotel room. Surprisingly matter of fact introduction when I get past the door. There are two bedrooms, one to the left and one to the right; there are two bathrooms; if I want to smoke, the balcony is to the left; the names of the girls already present are x, y, z; they practise safe sex and use condoms, although most are happy to do oral without; do I want a coke or a beer?
* Crackers, cheese, salami, chips on tables. Porn movies on three TV sets. A guy with a notebook computer preparing a webcam broadcast. Numerous erotic magazines. Intense lonely awkward men distributed evenly, staring into their drinks or at the wall, not talking. Most of these are probably newbies, unsure how this works. Atmosphere is comically full: the tension and the sexual desire is knife-cuttable. Any of the scantily clad women walking by get sized up and salivated over.
* Erotic reading material surprises me. Isn't like any magazines I've seen. Smaller than regular magazines for starters; not sure why -- because it's easier to turn the pages with one hand? because an A4 page dilutes the impact of pictures? Titles of the magazines are quite specific, appealing to niche tastes. Content is very badly laid out, with replication, as if the editors were compelled to fill a certain number of pages, and ran out of images, so used the same ones over and over. Not many words, and the paragraphs that appear are caption length.
* When party eventually fills up, the types of people seem to include: (1) the thirty or fortysomething creepy loner, socially inept, ready to explode with hidden desire. The funny thing is that sex is only really shameful, dirty, dreaded and nebulous when it's locked, built up inside your head: -- once it's public, and you speak freely of it, it's mundane; (2) the very comfortable guy, very friendly, fiftysomething plus, greying or whitehaired; (3) the tourist couple, never participating. Age bracket, just as for the BDSM scene, seems to be thirtysomething plus; I spent a while talking to a 70-year-old woman. People need to reach a certain age to be comfortable with their wants, or to weary of conventional wants. And, aesthetically speaking, no one particularly ugly nor particularly beautiful -- just a regular range of people.
* This particular event is one to which couples are encouraged to come. Surprising numbers do. Atmosphere of the party changes, in fact, as more arrive -- transforms from oppressive and fearful, to absurdly normal. Crowded with people drinking and talking. You're struck by how normal it is. Everyday conversation. "Everyone is here to kick back and unwind -- a chat and a drink and a bit of fun." Though, of course, undeniable undercurrent -- naked people walking around, porn on the TV, fucking going on a few metres away from you. The conversation, also, while free-flowing, excludes any personal information; and many of the guests operate under fake names, or make jokes about fake names: implied code of discretion.
* It's mainly the two regular girls who get up to anything, and they get a lot of action. The women guests mainly just watch. Presumably the regular girls are happy to oblige pretty much anyone. They aren't prostitutes, but they do get a cut of the party profits.
* Usually you'd only fit four people on a bed at the same time. There would be different configurations -- the four could be two couples -- but it seems to me that the women tend to like watching other people in ecstasy, and to touch them when they are.
* Seems to be a general rule that it's okay for spectators to come up and caress you while you're on the bed. After all, you can tell them if it's not okay. A person can initiate themselves into the action by this means.
* On the whole, there was less fucking than expected. I was there for 3.5 hours; the party went for five. I only witnessed six instances of penetrative sex, four of them involving the two regular girls. Most of the time most of the people stand around drinking and talking.
* Disappointingly civilized fucking. Not messy or nasty or imaginative or acrobatic or excessive. No anal sex, for instance; and any ejaculation stays in the condoms. Not particularly frenzied and primal -- very culturated. Very down-to-earth, straightforward. Very normal; why did one really think it would be different? People talk courteously: is it okay if I do x? would you like me to do y? Is doggy fine? Yeah, sure, go ahead. That's nice, could you do it a little longer? It's striking to me, also, that even the tone of the voices is everyday -- not thick with lust.
* People seem happy to have conversations with spectators while in the middle of it.
* Any laughter is immediate, short, and loud, releasing tension.
* Compared with a porn film: it's slow. That's the first thing that strikes you. People take their time. For instance, massaging an area for ten minutes, or lightly touching it, running over it with an implement. Non-erogenous zones are given attention to as well as the more traditional places. -- Secondly, it's very give and receive. It's as if the people are very aware that you're doing me a favour by providing me pleasure, by taking the time to create me a sensation. Other types of sexual interaction I know of -- in porn films, at BDSM parties, in private relationships -- have a different dynamic, and are usually one-sided. Whereas the sex here is all about reciprocation and kindness and gift. -- Thirdly, it's repetitive. Porn is frenzied, and involves switching from position to position. Real sex is boring: people will stay in the same position until it's over, and will continue doing the same thing over and over, with variations only in tempo. After all, if you keep changing, it can interfere with being lost in it. You need to build up rhythm. Sontag writes in her essay on porn that the mechanical, positional side to sex admits of few variations. You only have a set number of workable positions, with anything else being usually a transition. In one of the Dune books, Frank Herbert has one character tell off another that there are actually 1000 positions, not 800; but more likely there are three main ones.
* Standard structure: foreplay, oral, then bag it in rubber and pick one of the three positions. Though not all the couplings follow this trajectory. Some consist merely of caressing, and some involve oral without bringing things to closure.
* Tell you how naïve I am: I've never actually touched a condom before, but the people at this place were opening the packets with their teeth, with the same sort of familiarity with which beer drinkers remove bottle tops.
* The actual physical side is boring, it's the enaction, the fantasy, that's interesting. Faces are more interesting than vaginas. You become very aware that sex is in the head. Any interest in this repetitive act must involve either: (a) you going into your own trance, becoming absorbed in your own fantasies; and/or (b) you trying to enter into the headspace of the participants. It's the same, also, with observing repetitive BDSM play. It's hypnotic, meditative, verging on the ceremonial: the room is filled with a respectful silence (you don't want to interrupt them), and you're conscious, also, of your witnessing, of your participation in the ritual.
* I didn't see any spectator jerk off to it incidentally, though I saw a couple kiss.
* It's very public. Of course you're going to be watched. People are going to be standing less than a metre away from you. How does this affect the act? Well, it's still going to be more "real" than a porn film; people are freer to behave according to pleasure's dictates. -- But presumably they get less lost in it than in private. And it's possible, of course, that they enjoy the exhibitionism, will make eye contact with spectators, will look at themselves being looked at. -- It could be argued, incidentally, that all partner sex -- including sex in private -- has a performative dimension.
* People were sensitive to the limitations of the public. If the topic was intimate, they whispered it.
* You don't just go up and stick yourself in someone, or shove yourself in someone's face. That would be rape. The word "orgy" conjures up images of a thrashing, indiscriminate free for all, sweaty and dirty, whereas the sex at this particular "orgy" was controlled and clean and consensual -- and based, as I've mentioned, on a reciprocation dynamic. You give a little, you get a little; to be permitted penetration, you'd be expected to proceed slowly from all the initial stages. The women weren't pieces of meat.
* After the guy is finished, the activity usually is over very quickly -- no lingering. He hunts around for tissue paper and a rubbish bin, while the girl pulls on her underwear, gets a drink, strikes up a conversation with someone -- or goes to take a shower. What did one expect? That they'd lie there tenderly holding each other? That they'd proceed to a second innings? That they'd have to recover from the mind-blowingness of it? The relationship is detached, and is purely about sensation -- and not about, for instance, the power trip. It seems normal for participants to formally express gratitude afterwards: "Thank you. That was amazing." "No problem, it felt good."
***
* To run a successful orgy you should: (a) encourage single girls and couples -- give them free entry; and (b) regulate the numbers, so that the guys don't badly outnumber the girls -- though keeping a list of invites is difficult: at least fifty per cent of the names on the list will be no shows.
* Apparently, it takes guts to go in the first place. Overheard conversation: "horror stories" about people who come up to the door, raise a knuckle to knock, then freeze, and walk away; or people who make it through the door, and sit for a whole five minutes before scampering. What's the terror, or why the nerves? Are you afraid that you won't attain your desire, or that you will? Is the fear to do with the nature of the act? -- the shame of outrageous want? Or is it to do with exposure, profaning of the sacred, ousting of the inward?
* So the party last night is held in a suite of a large apartment building. I arrive early. Looks like a hotel room. Surprisingly matter of fact introduction when I get past the door. There are two bedrooms, one to the left and one to the right; there are two bathrooms; if I want to smoke, the balcony is to the left; the names of the girls already present are x, y, z; they practise safe sex and use condoms, although most are happy to do oral without; do I want a coke or a beer?
* Crackers, cheese, salami, chips on tables. Porn movies on three TV sets. A guy with a notebook computer preparing a webcam broadcast. Numerous erotic magazines. Intense lonely awkward men distributed evenly, staring into their drinks or at the wall, not talking. Most of these are probably newbies, unsure how this works. Atmosphere is comically full: the tension and the sexual desire is knife-cuttable. Any of the scantily clad women walking by get sized up and salivated over.
* Erotic reading material surprises me. Isn't like any magazines I've seen. Smaller than regular magazines for starters; not sure why -- because it's easier to turn the pages with one hand? because an A4 page dilutes the impact of pictures? Titles of the magazines are quite specific, appealing to niche tastes. Content is very badly laid out, with replication, as if the editors were compelled to fill a certain number of pages, and ran out of images, so used the same ones over and over. Not many words, and the paragraphs that appear are caption length.
* When party eventually fills up, the types of people seem to include: (1) the thirty or fortysomething creepy loner, socially inept, ready to explode with hidden desire. The funny thing is that sex is only really shameful, dirty, dreaded and nebulous when it's locked, built up inside your head: -- once it's public, and you speak freely of it, it's mundane; (2) the very comfortable guy, very friendly, fiftysomething plus, greying or whitehaired; (3) the tourist couple, never participating. Age bracket, just as for the BDSM scene, seems to be thirtysomething plus; I spent a while talking to a 70-year-old woman. People need to reach a certain age to be comfortable with their wants, or to weary of conventional wants. And, aesthetically speaking, no one particularly ugly nor particularly beautiful -- just a regular range of people.
* This particular event is one to which couples are encouraged to come. Surprising numbers do. Atmosphere of the party changes, in fact, as more arrive -- transforms from oppressive and fearful, to absurdly normal. Crowded with people drinking and talking. You're struck by how normal it is. Everyday conversation. "Everyone is here to kick back and unwind -- a chat and a drink and a bit of fun." Though, of course, undeniable undercurrent -- naked people walking around, porn on the TV, fucking going on a few metres away from you. The conversation, also, while free-flowing, excludes any personal information; and many of the guests operate under fake names, or make jokes about fake names: implied code of discretion.
* It's mainly the two regular girls who get up to anything, and they get a lot of action. The women guests mainly just watch. Presumably the regular girls are happy to oblige pretty much anyone. They aren't prostitutes, but they do get a cut of the party profits.
* Usually you'd only fit four people on a bed at the same time. There would be different configurations -- the four could be two couples -- but it seems to me that the women tend to like watching other people in ecstasy, and to touch them when they are.
* Seems to be a general rule that it's okay for spectators to come up and caress you while you're on the bed. After all, you can tell them if it's not okay. A person can initiate themselves into the action by this means.
* On the whole, there was less fucking than expected. I was there for 3.5 hours; the party went for five. I only witnessed six instances of penetrative sex, four of them involving the two regular girls. Most of the time most of the people stand around drinking and talking.
* Disappointingly civilized fucking. Not messy or nasty or imaginative or acrobatic or excessive. No anal sex, for instance; and any ejaculation stays in the condoms. Not particularly frenzied and primal -- very culturated. Very down-to-earth, straightforward. Very normal; why did one really think it would be different? People talk courteously: is it okay if I do x? would you like me to do y? Is doggy fine? Yeah, sure, go ahead. That's nice, could you do it a little longer? It's striking to me, also, that even the tone of the voices is everyday -- not thick with lust.
* People seem happy to have conversations with spectators while in the middle of it.
* Any laughter is immediate, short, and loud, releasing tension.
* Compared with a porn film: it's slow. That's the first thing that strikes you. People take their time. For instance, massaging an area for ten minutes, or lightly touching it, running over it with an implement. Non-erogenous zones are given attention to as well as the more traditional places. -- Secondly, it's very give and receive. It's as if the people are very aware that you're doing me a favour by providing me pleasure, by taking the time to create me a sensation. Other types of sexual interaction I know of -- in porn films, at BDSM parties, in private relationships -- have a different dynamic, and are usually one-sided. Whereas the sex here is all about reciprocation and kindness and gift. -- Thirdly, it's repetitive. Porn is frenzied, and involves switching from position to position. Real sex is boring: people will stay in the same position until it's over, and will continue doing the same thing over and over, with variations only in tempo. After all, if you keep changing, it can interfere with being lost in it. You need to build up rhythm. Sontag writes in her essay on porn that the mechanical, positional side to sex admits of few variations. You only have a set number of workable positions, with anything else being usually a transition. In one of the Dune books, Frank Herbert has one character tell off another that there are actually 1000 positions, not 800; but more likely there are three main ones.
* Standard structure: foreplay, oral, then bag it in rubber and pick one of the three positions. Though not all the couplings follow this trajectory. Some consist merely of caressing, and some involve oral without bringing things to closure.
* Tell you how naïve I am: I've never actually touched a condom before, but the people at this place were opening the packets with their teeth, with the same sort of familiarity with which beer drinkers remove bottle tops.
* The actual physical side is boring, it's the enaction, the fantasy, that's interesting. Faces are more interesting than vaginas. You become very aware that sex is in the head. Any interest in this repetitive act must involve either: (a) you going into your own trance, becoming absorbed in your own fantasies; and/or (b) you trying to enter into the headspace of the participants. It's the same, also, with observing repetitive BDSM play. It's hypnotic, meditative, verging on the ceremonial: the room is filled with a respectful silence (you don't want to interrupt them), and you're conscious, also, of your witnessing, of your participation in the ritual.
* I didn't see any spectator jerk off to it incidentally, though I saw a couple kiss.
* It's very public. Of course you're going to be watched. People are going to be standing less than a metre away from you. How does this affect the act? Well, it's still going to be more "real" than a porn film; people are freer to behave according to pleasure's dictates. -- But presumably they get less lost in it than in private. And it's possible, of course, that they enjoy the exhibitionism, will make eye contact with spectators, will look at themselves being looked at. -- It could be argued, incidentally, that all partner sex -- including sex in private -- has a performative dimension.
* People were sensitive to the limitations of the public. If the topic was intimate, they whispered it.
* You don't just go up and stick yourself in someone, or shove yourself in someone's face. That would be rape. The word "orgy" conjures up images of a thrashing, indiscriminate free for all, sweaty and dirty, whereas the sex at this particular "orgy" was controlled and clean and consensual -- and based, as I've mentioned, on a reciprocation dynamic. You give a little, you get a little; to be permitted penetration, you'd be expected to proceed slowly from all the initial stages. The women weren't pieces of meat.
* After the guy is finished, the activity usually is over very quickly -- no lingering. He hunts around for tissue paper and a rubbish bin, while the girl pulls on her underwear, gets a drink, strikes up a conversation with someone -- or goes to take a shower. What did one expect? That they'd lie there tenderly holding each other? That they'd proceed to a second innings? That they'd have to recover from the mind-blowingness of it? The relationship is detached, and is purely about sensation -- and not about, for instance, the power trip. It seems normal for participants to formally express gratitude afterwards: "Thank you. That was amazing." "No problem, it felt good."
| 244 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
And for anyone pruriently interested -- the truth is that I didn't get any action. Didn't so much as touch a breast, though one was offered.
Comment by Cibbuano
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Comment by Anonymous
Is this because you have practiced a lot of unsafe sex, or that you've only been in relationships where the woman is using the contraceptive, or, you've always insisted that the woman puts the rubber on you ...?
I nearly went to a swingers/orgy party once, but chickened out when I starting panicking that I wouldn't be able to get it up in front of so many scrutinizing strangers ... It was a Catch-22 really ... It turned me on the idea of indulging in no strings sex with sexual activity going on all around me, but at the same time gave me anxiety that I wouldn't be able to perform normally in such an unfamiliar and heightened situation.
Comment by Ragin Cajun
Observer's Post
Death By Myopia
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Dear Cibby -- no doubt there's different types of orgies. I've heard tell of some gangbangs and sex worker parties that are more free-for-all (though there's often an element of everyone knowing everyone...) Will blog about it when I go to one of these more extreme events, but I suspect they're commoner in the homosexual world.
Dear Anon -- I've touched one since then, but if you really want to know (and I'm sure you do), the main reason is just that I hadn't had much sex back then. Thanks for making me expose my personal life on the internet.
If you're game to give more details of what the party you mention was and how you found out about it (without being too specific -- don't want to incriminate anyone), I'd love to hear.
I think people react in different ways to the publicness of it. I mean, some will find it a turn on, others will find it very artificial... You can't not be conscious of it, though.
Dear Ragin -- *lol* Maybe not quite a dinner party, but more just like a regular party with a strong sexual undercurrent (ie the possibility of having sex with the person you're talking to if you play your cards right). The motivations of the people there were either to have sex (obviously), or to watch sex, or maybe just to have a wild night out and say "I've been to an orgy party".
People in these sorts of places (BDSM parties, orgy parties, the polyamorous scene) tend to be a lot more welcoming, open, friendly than people you'll meet elsewhere. It's partly the "I'm okay with you being a freak because I'm one too" factor. It's partly that you sort of need very open communication channels to make sure that everything is above aboard.
Comment by Justin
The analysis was mesmerising to read, (the layout of point-form structure you described) fascinating to read and relieving almost to hear of the humane, sensitive yet not tender side of it all.
Well done. Taking one for team blog. lol
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But I figured, what the hell, might as well be authentic to myself, plus I want this blog to cover all aspects of human experience -- including things like sexuality -- and including things like death, friendship, love, humour...
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
So you'v been to one of these things then?
Whats the possibility of disease spreading? LIke if one person in that party has aids then, well, ther is that chance its going to catch lots of people.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
There are people who do extremely unsafe things (check out Catherine Millet's book), and never catch anything, and there are people who get AIDS the first time they have sex.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
I suppose your right, but it is also based on opinion. Some (most) people probably would prefer sex with just one other person as a large part of it for them is the intimacy dynamic I suppose. BUt thats just an assumption, could be just some people are like that.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
The stereotype is that, evolutionarily speaking, males want to impregnate as many women as possible, and women prefer just one mate, for the security. This is not unchallenged (for instance, there is the recent idea that women, also, are naturally polyamorous, because making paternity ambiguous provides them with several carers).
To what extent these evolutionary arguments transfer to modern day humans is an open question, of course.
But numerous practical benefits could be cited for having multiple partners. There used to be a notorious "slut manifesto" that detailed all these. I'll try to get permission from the author to post the text of it here.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people who would agree with you that there is a depth vs breadth problem -- do you seek depth of experience with one partner you know like the back of your hand, or is it better to be with lots of partners? Sex can be viewed as something like conversation, because you gain something new, some new knowledge, from every new person you interact with; and the movement of desire is itself like a language, let alone the actual dropping of barriers and heart-to-heart talk that characterize post-coital pillow talk.
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Cinico
Small Business Scope
Comment by MamaB
Seriously? Seriously.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Comment by Vixter
People
Diet Food Lifestyle
CHEATERS
I must say it was very honest and I really never thought about this subject.
I think i might need a couple o mins to think about the whole detached nature of it...
thanks
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Re the condom stuff, I kinda answered this question before -- scroll up a little...
Re the detached nature of it, what can I say? To some people sex is sometimes just about sensation.
In fact, I went to a BDSM talk tonight, and there was this interesting comment made: that sex should be about more than just in and out. It should also be about trust and intimacy. And it was implied that straightforward sex was often just sensation -- it was suggested that BDSM could supply trust and intimacy in ways in which vanilla fucking could not.
Comment by Vixter
People
Diet Food Lifestyle
CHEATERS
I like the insight on the BDSM night - I appreciate that sex is discussed so honestly and well I suppose it has to be - I know there have been sexual revolutions up the yin yang but you know people don't really talk about it openly - well I am being a little judgemental....I don't really talk about it that much - well not with my friends really, it's more comments jokes and innuendo - and we're all adults here.
What I am trying to say is that people consider should be kept underwraps - the truth is it's just part of life - like diets and eating - people are very open about that.
Especially these days.
I hope i wasn't too convoluetd...office traffic is confusing me now.
Comment by Anonymous
Good piece.
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
There is arguably sense, in a society, to keeping a distinction between public and private; and perhaps (some might argue) there is sometimes similar sense in keeping a gap, in the individual, between spoken and unspoken.
Anon -- thanks for the drop in and the kind words!
And incidentally, I don't think you needed to add a "still" to your first sentence... Nothing wrong with being a virgin, and I hope you don't feel under any pressure to change.
Comment by Fingertip Titans Unite
Idiots Among Us
Fingertip Titans
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for the comment!
You know, for the sake of balance, I should point people towards another description of orgies.
Do you know of the "Worst Case Survival" books? I think one of the series was about "what it's like" -- what it's like to fall off a train, be a mobster's moll, etc.
I think the orgy description there might be closer to expectations. Indiscriminate flesh, everyone grouped in one bisexual puddle, senses afire. Will see if I can find my copy of this book and post some of the passage.
Comment by JaneJane
Inside the mind of a superspy
ASIOJane
Thoughts and Thin Kings
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Care to write a description?
Comment by Sisi
Great post nonetheless!
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Waiting for someone else to describe their experiences (JaneJane, where are you?).
Thanks for the comment Sisi!
Comment by JaneJane
Inside the mind of a superspy
ASIOJane
Thoughts and Thin Kings
Things were different in my time; sex was sexy because it was great. It happened a lot and in some of the most unexpected places. Now I worry that it's the deadly, risky, dangerous side of sex that makes it sexy. I guess people who are getting a good dose of sex these days are also getting a good dose of fear, apart from those who are trying to make babies, which comes with its own set of fears.
I shouldn't comment any further, it’s been a long while between drinks.
Comment by Anonymous
Comment by JaneJane
Inside the mind of a superspy
ASIOJane
Thoughts and Thin Kings
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I think the trend is towards no sex during marriage rather than no sex before...
Comment by badgerbag
I would comment also that different parties have different cultures or dynamics and this is often city specific or scene-specific. For example being from San Francisco I was surprised to find the party rules in Seattle to be completely different.
What you said about touching people and the spectating/wanking from less than a meter distance is completely different here in SF - it would be considered rude to interrupt someone's ongoing scene by being noticable as a watcher - there would have to be some permission given to stay that close and certainly to touch anyone!
The parties I like best have a much less couple-focused dynamic and also much more of a queer/bi base.
V. interesting party report, anyway, and thanks!
Comment by badgerbag
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for the comparison comments! I really need to get my butt to SF one of these days and spend a few years living there. Sounds a lot more diverse and interesting than Sydney.
(My main impression of SF comes from Atticus and Nova of Fetish Flame -- do you know of them / know them personally?)
About the proximity thing... I didn't make clear that the venue wasn't large. There wasn't much space in the bedrooms for anything other than the beds. So it was kind of inevitable... I've experienced the same thing at BDSM parties. Sometimes the "dungeon" is more like a broom closet.
Comment by Shani
Re: Vixter's comment.
Sometimes not being completely open can make thinigs more exciting, due to taboo status. As you say some of the sex at the party was quite mechanical and detached.
So how does one get invited to such a party? ;p
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
Thanks for reading (and for reading the comments!).
Totally agree with you that taboos can make things interesting. They're interesting things to play with and around. If there weren't any, most of the comedians in the world would be out of jobs.
One doesn't so much get invited to this sort of party as go looking for it. I get the feeling that this entire party was really just a thinly disguised form of prostitution.
For BDSM parties, you sometimes have to have met the hosts at another event. And for things like swingers parties or dogging spots (never been to a proper one), my impression is that there's usually some sort of application process, or else you just find out about the information -- these days, online; and in the old days, through personals columns.
One question I've been meaning to ask is whether you think this entry has a philosophical angle after all?
Comment by Shani
But what is philosophy?
Certainly your article has provoked lots of argument on the nature of the human condition...
And I have been invited to apply for an S&M party before, but they're so expensive, between $50-$100 which kind of relates to your comment about prostitution. And I suspect the people that go are mostly old(er).
Comment by BigCountry
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
But there's a reasonable-sized under-30s BDSM crowd in Sydney. Depending on how curious you are, there's even a Yahoo! group for them, which hosts free workshops and events.
Hey BigCountry, thanks for the input. I think the one I was describing was tacky as well. And I remember someone else using the word, in description of swinger clubs in London -- something like "It was older people, with sleazy men, and with the women all dressed in tacky PVC nurse outfits. I got mobbed because I was the only attractive person."
Won't spend too much more time here rambling on about "tacky", but I do think the word, and the emotion, are interesting. What are the conditions under which people are provoked to use the word? For instance, Is tackiness some sort of judgement about appropriate behaviour? Or some sort of difference between pretence and reality? Or...?
I do think everyone ought to go to orgy and swinger parties -- because such events are romanticized as heaven. So one ought see what they're really like, and ask oneself if this is what you really want.
Comment by Ahmed
Video Gamer Kids
Little Green Foosballs
PolyKicks
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
Can't wait for all the blissful one night stands I'll be getting when I meet the right person...
Stanford was an hour away, so why do I feel homesick whenever I think of San Francisco?
Epiphanie
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
I must have said this somewhere before, but I guess the attraction of such a thing is a question, firstly, of how much you get out of it (and I suspect most people don't like sex as much as they think they do); and, secondly, of what level of risk you're prepared to live with (and it should be noted that there's a lower rate of STDs among the swingers population than the general population).
Dear PMC,
Yeah, it's definitely not for everyone. And I've been told that "soft" swinging is as popular as "hard" -- where you get a kick from making out with your partner in the same room as other people, but not interacting with the other people otherwise.
Does Sydney remind you of San Francisco?
Comment by postmoderncritic
Postmodern Critic
Relativity Watch
Padsoc
I just had a great idea for a post (or two), thanks!
Comment by mray29@ymail.com
Comment by mray29@ymail.com