Tuesday, December 27, 2005

Swing Away

On a recent night out on the town, Michel and Chantal Delbecchi left their suburban Montreal home and drove to the L'Orage Club in the city's east end, where they had sex with a couple they had never met before.

This strikes me as curious. My dates typically take the form of a dinner and a movie. I am not here to defend my modest and uncreative romantic maneuvers, such that they are. Swinging appears to be so much more fascinating.

Though dinner and a movie are accepted by millions, I have no idea just how popular swinging actually is. The phenomenon has come into the news recently because it is now legal in that wonderful hoser-ridden land to the north, namely Canada.

In a landmark decision on Dec, 21, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted a ban on swingers' clubs, ruling that group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society.

The ruling sparked outrage, largely in English-speaking parts of Canada, where critics said it would erode limits on indecency or obscenity, encourage prostitution and even contribute to the corruption of minors.

This is one of those times when the libertarian in me shrugs, while the Catholic side goes beserk. Strictly speaking, the ruling makes sense. It is not so much that consensual sex between individuals is not a threat to society, so much as it cannot be stopped. It is not prostitution so much as mutual degredation of the sexual act, but this is a moral principle, one that could not be held up by any legal scrutiny.

There is a case to be made that free loving types--swingers being only one sub-set of this group--do pose a threat to society, but that case is not particularily solid. Facts such as higher divorce rates, fewer traditional homes for children to grow up in, as well as infidelity are problems, but ones that tend toward moral. There is also the curious exception in the case of swinging of mutual infidelity. That's a new one.

Which brings me to my main point, or rather, my main question: what is the new goal of the sexual revolution, that appears to continue to this day? Not long ago, there was an incorrect notion about which said sex was itself bad. The revolution asserted that sex was good, which is correct. But it forgot something important. Just because something is good does not mean we should always engage in it, or that there are not limits to the circumstances surrounding this good thing. Chocolate is a good thing, but eating it constantly is bad for the body. Alcohol, likewise, is a good thing, some would say that it is even better than chocolate. For that very reason, the abuse of alcohol is a very bad thing.

In my last post I discussed a wrong thinking done by members of the right. The left does mean well, even if it would seem otherwise. Likewise, this sexual revolution was supposed to be good for us. Does anyone else think that swinging is not a degenerate behaviour? It is time the pendulum swung back a bit in the direction of chastity and purity.

There is one other bit from the article which exposes a fallacy of modern liberal thinking.

As for Michel and Chantal, a 25-year-old woman has become their mutual lover and all three plan to move in together early next year. Despite that new relationship, the Delbecchis expect to continue exchanging sex partners in Quebec clubs.

Said Michel: "At the club, we have sex with people. At home, we make love."

Someone please explain the distinction.

4 comments:

Sauce said...

Yeah, one of the other interns this summer tried to explain the difference between those terms but it didn't really make sense to me either. I think you're right in your thoughts though. One side of me says that this is outrageous and terribly wrong, the downfall of the western world or something. The other side says, well people have a right to do whatever they want and as long as it doesn't effect me then I can't say anything about it.

I had an interesting thought the other day and wondered what comments you have about it, maybe you can put together a rant of some sort haha. What if politics was never meant to be a career? What if we set something up where you can serve as many terms as you want as long as they are not consecutive? Do you feel this idea is good, bad, ugly, or close but misguided?

A Wiser Man Than I said...

You mean term limits? I absolutely love the idea. I'm not sure if I've written something about it, but I know for a fact that term limits would go a long way towards minimizing corruption in Washington.

More farmers and small-town folks with a little common sense couldn't do much worse than the lawyers who currently run the show, now could they?

If you head to my April archives and check out a post called Delay and another called More Money for Iraq War, you'll see some comments on term limits.

Thanks for mentioning this though, when we get back to school I'll talk to Joel from PCP and see if we can write something up for the ol' Lode.

troutsky said...

Interracial sex was consdidered degenerate not that long ago. Who gets to decide and based on what? In the past(and still), chastity and purity were more valued in the female sex so one aspect of the sexual revolution has been egalitarian in nature. This emancipation comes with risks for social structure and control.

A Wiser Man Than I said...

You've given me an idea for a post. Thank you Troutsky.