Remember stories from the 60s and 70s, when couples went to parties and put their house keys in a punch bowl? The person's keys you drew at the end of the night was the person you went home with.
Few people know this, but swinging as a fad in America actually began in the 1950s with Air Force officers in California swapping wives. Today, though, in clubs and private homes in London, Paris, New York, and many other places, the swinger trend has reemerged. Nightline, ABC News, The Daily Mail and plenty of other media outlets have covered it. Some participants are bored, middle-aged couples trying to revitalize their sex lives. Others are young, sophisticated urbanites looking for a weekend thrill and a way to blow off steam after a stressful work week.
Times have certainly changed since the 60s Sexual Revolution! What was once extremely taboo and only took place behind closed doors now has a website, and researchers are noticing a shift towards younger generations. Once, swingers were generally 35+, but that's changing. Today's 20- and 30-somethings are marrying later and are taking their liberated dating habits into marriage. It's not surprising that they are also more apt to take part in zestier enterprises once there, lacking the urge for secrecy and guilt the older generation faced.
Gen X and Millennials are interpreting monogamy in an entirely new way these days. What's more, women seem to be the ones driving the most recent swinging fad, calling the shots and being choosy with their partners.
So should you try swinging?
That's entirely up to you, your partner, and your shared interpretation of your relationship. Some people can't stand the idea of their lover with someone else. Others find nothing hotter. There are women who allow their partner to kiss and touch other partners, but still keep sex off-limits. Others allow kissing, touching and oral sex, but no penetration. Some couples allow freebies during business trips or when one partner is more than 20 miles away from home. Then, of course, there are plenty of "no holds barred" couples as well. There are endless variations and combinations. Some couples don't want to know anything about the other's escapades; others want to know every detail. Swingers are just as varied and individual as any like-minded group of people, and it all comes down to individual preferences that have been clearly communicated between committed partners.
So how can you get into swinging?
If this is a conversation you've never had with your partner, try to feel them out first with indirect questions and casual conversation. Be subtle at first. Suggest a movie or book where swinging takes place and is portrayed positively, and then see how they react. Then sometime later discuss it with them, and don't just make it sound like you're looking for some guilt-free cheating. Tell them what excites you and turns you on about it, and ask if it excites them too. ...
When *** was handwritten on books and periodicals in the New York Public Library’s permanent collection, it meant one thing: supervision required.
The triple-star code, created some time in the first part of the 20th century, identified the printed works that were considered too hot for the general reader to handle.
Playboy was once classified with a triple star. So were raunchy pulp novels, fliers for Times Square massage parlors, business cards offering phone sex for $2 a minute, even playing cards with illustrations of naked women.
For decades, they were kept in locked cages, accessible only with special permission and viewed in a small, secured area in the main research library.
More recently, hundreds of works that make up the triple-star collection have been liberated from the restricted controls. An adult with a library card can simply fill out a request and peruse the material on the premises. (The library maintains a filter system to restrict access to erotic materials on the Internet.)
“Erotica was not something we were particularly going after, but we needed to collect life as it was lived,” said Jason Baumann, a collections curator. “We needed to understand and document for history what the city of New York was like. That meant collecting the good and the bad. It was always part of our mandate.”
The triple-star collection is a miniature version of the vast archive of erotica at France’s National Library. That collection, called “L’Enfer” (“Hell”), dates from the 19th century, when the library, in Paris, isolated any work considered “contrary to good morals.” In 2008, the National Library mounted its first major exhibition of highlights from the collection. It drew record crowds; no one under 16 was admitted.
The New York Public Library, by contrast, has never had a similar exhibition. The materials are not as rich, and the standards of what is considered proper for an exhibition in a public institution differ in France from those in the United States.
And unlike France’s National Library, whose sexually explicit material is contained in one archive, only a part of the Public Library’s erotica was designated triple star. The rest is dispersed in other collections in the building, including in the Berg Collection of English and American Literature (rare books and manuscripts) and the Spencer Collection (artists’ books and illuminated manuscripts).
A guided visit to the library revealed some of the richness of its erotic (or pornographic, depending on who was doing the classification) material. The works are hidden treasures, many of them awaiting discovery. Not even the curators and librarians know everything that is there.
“There were many materials in the library’s special collections that I had never seen before,” Mr. Baumann said. “The range and depth of our collections never ceases to astonish me.”
The main building of the Public Library had such an impact on the neighborhood that there was once a massage parlor a block away on West 43rd Street named the Library. A 1976 flier in the *** collection advertised its $10, tip-included service, with “7 Beautiful Librarians to Service You.” The flier shows a longhaired “librarian” dressed in a necklace and high heels. A large bunch of feathers covers her private parts. ...
Bob Dylan had it right when he said "The times they are a changing." While a few decades ago the idea of a polyamorous relationship may have been largely unheard of, more Americans than ever are accepting of the practice (although a majority still oppose it) and psychologists estimate that up to 5% of Americans are in consensual, poly relationships.
This is potentially for good reason. A recent study published in The Archives of Sexual Behavior is perhaps providing further proof that less traditional configurations of love and sexuality may have some benefits we hadn't yet considered.
The study, which compared "mate retention behaviors" between monogamous and consensually non-monogamous (CNM) couples discovered that when it came to satisfaction with the primary partner, both types of relationships reported equal levels of happiness.
But non-monogamous couples did express a notable difference in one key area: communication. According to the study, "...Monogamous participants reported less satisfaction with the amount of communication and openness they had with their partner compared to CNM participants’ reports of their primary partner." Despite the idea of "sharing everything" with your partner, polyamorous couples tend to be more open and sharing than their monogamous counterparts. I guess communication really is that important. ...
Plush Talent, a New York City-based agency representing adult film stars, recently started giving new clients a welcome guide to the porn industry. Along with tips on social media (“Twitter is a must have for every porn star, period.”) and taking photos for producers (“Don’t use filters”) the guide has a section on “Reputation.” It begins: “The adult industry is a lot smaller than you think and everyone talks, especially if they run into a problem with someone. What I tell the girls is, they are to act like robots …. Little adorable performer robots.”
Telling women to be well-behaved may sound repressive, said Kelli Roberts, the 19-year industry veteran who wrote it, but her intention was to warn female performers to let their agents handle on-set issues. The guide even suggests that if an issue arises, they pretend to go to the bathroom to make the call.
Roberts, who serves as kind of den mother/advocate for young women in the industry, said on-set issues tend toward “jackass producers who try and change what they agreed to at the last minute,” like one director who booked a model for a blow job scene then asked her to perform in rape fantasy once she was on location, or adding new partners to a scene last minute.
Her advice is a reminder that on-set “issues” in the porn business are common enough that models literally need a guidebook to help navigate them, and that there’s a wide gulf between what happens on paper and what happens on set.
That ambiguity extends far beyond respecting agreements about what people are willing to do on camera. In interviews with dozens of performers, producers, directors, and agents, BuzzFeed News found that not only are avenues for reporting sexual assault on a porn set unclear — it’s even a point of contention whether such assaults are common. Many described the industry as a close-knit community that bands together to drive out bad actors, where assault is rare and consequences for it unforgiving.
Many also argued such an environment leaves performers, especially those new to the industry, vulnerable to abuse, with little formal recourse if something goes wrong. And the events of recent weeks have shone a harsh spotlight on the industry and one of porn’s few household names, who has been accused of — and vehemently denied — sexual assault against co-stars and fellow performers dating back years.
Since late November, nine women have claimed that James Deen sexually assaulted them, quickly elevating the issue from the insular porn community to the national stage.
Two of the allegations were related to incidents said to have occurred in his personal life, but the others allegedly took place in a professional context, at a shoot or in a porn studio — during and after a scene. None of Deen’s accusers formally reported the alleged assaults at the time; in the instances where the women did speak up in the moment, neither the studio nor the director investigated further.
The lack of reporting is a red flag, many believe. “The question I think our industry has to ask ourselves is why did the women feel that they wouldn’t be heard or why didn’t they feel safe coming forward?” Diane Duke, CEO of the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association for adult film producers, told BuzzFeed News. “The avenues are there,” she continued. “Why don’t people feel comfortable using them?”
In contrast, the industry’s response to the women going public — long after the fact and without the involvement of authorities — has been unequivocal. “He’s the biggest performer in the industry,” said Eric John, a longtime actor and producer. “And they blacklisted him.” ...
On a warm Saturday night in November, about 800 gay men wearing harnesses and other items made of leather gathered at Brut, a party held at Santos Party House in Lower Manhattan.
Mostly in their 20s and 30s, the men danced to pounding house music, flirted in an intimate lounge below the dance floor and ogled two beefy go-go men gyrating on boxes. Shirts came off, but leather harnesses stayed on all night, as Brut bills itself as New York’s only monthly leather party.
But if the party was introducing the leather scene to younger gay men who had never heard of the Village People, it also underscored a social shift: The leather scene has lost much of its overt sadomasochistic edge, and is now more about dressing up.
“I’m wearing a harness from Nasty Pig” — a sex-oriented clothing store in Chelsea — “but I’m not a part of the leather community,” said Joseph Alexiou, 31, a writer in New York, who was taking a break from the dance floor. “This party is introducing leather in a fun way that doesn’t seem so serious.”
Stalwarts of the leather scene agree that there has been a shift from lifestyle to sexy dress-up.
David Lauterstein, who opened Nasty Pig in 1994 with his husband, Frederick Kearney, said that his store has undergone a transformation of its own. While the store still carries leather harnesses and chaps, they have become seasonal items tied to specific parties; most racks these days display flannel shirts, hoodies and nylon bomber jackets.
“Leather has been integrated into the larger downtown culture, as gay sexuality has become more accepted,” Mr. Lauterstein said. “Being into kinky stuff doesn’t mean you have to wear certain clothing to let the world know.”
The leather scene used to occupy a very visible part of gay culture. In the 1960s through the early ’80s, men in leather caps and chaps could be seen strutting about Christopher Street, looking as if they had emerged from aTom of Finland illustration by way of a Marlon Brando movie still.
“Leather became metaphoric for claiming masculinity,” said Michael Bronski, a gender and sexuality studies professor at Harvard University and author of “A Queer History of the United States.” “These guys were baby boomers who’d been told that being gay meant being a sweater queen or being fluffy or effeminate.”
Gay leather bars dotted Manhattan, with names like the Spike, Rawhide, the Ramrod and Badlands. And during the city’s annual gay pride parade, wearers of leather played a prominent role. Indeed, the annual Leather Pride Night party was one of the parade’s main sources of funding.
But “progress” in the name of same-sex marriage, social acceptance and civil rights seemed to have taken its toll on the leather scene.
“Many factors, like gentrification and the fight for marriage equality, have contributed to the rise in homonormality,” said Jeremiah Moss, who chronicles the city’s evolution on the site Jeremiah’s Vanishing New York. “This is a very American melting pot phenomenon: If you assimilate, if you give up what makes you different, you can have rights.” ...
What is there to say about this BRIC TV video on Bushwick's polyamory house that wasn't already said with lingering shots of curved faucets and supple hands wrapped around goblets of wine?
"What's the garbage situation?" the embedded reporter asks the group, comprised of comely 30-somethings all lounging on a mattress covered in fake (?) furs. It's collected on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, but look! Poly houses: They're just like us.
"I thought it was going to be like a bad MTV reality show," says housemate Deniz Akyurek, who said he first became acquainted with the place as a subletter. "It was better than any roommate situation I've ever been with."
The buried lede is that the inhabitants of the home—called Hacienda Villa—don't actually sleep with each other, which actually makes perfect sense and shame on us (fine, me) for making the snap judgment that "polyamorous" is just a euphemism for "relentless sex parade." The Bushwick abode is simply a community of people who practice non-monogamous relationships, within whatever context that fits into their particular lives.
"All pants are not khakis but all khakis are pants," the reporter says. "Unpack that notion for us." I can't totally discern what that means, but housemate Kenneth Play seemed to pick up on what he was going for.
"We are human, and we have very opposing needs in a relationship," Play said. "One side, we want security, devotion, dependability....and to count on that person in sickness and health. Then there's times when we want adventure, we want novelty, we want new people." To illustrate that point, the scene switches over to a man in brightly patterned briefs reclining on a long green couch. "I can light you on fire!" offers a peppy woman in striped Zubaz. She does. ...
Want a special someone who will bring you to your knees? One who will be totally in charge? One who will tell you that you are really, really bad and threaten you with punishments? Maybe you have a little day dream about being a captive virgin. Or maybe you prefer to fantasize about a man who is helpless, who, say, has his arms secured to a crossbeam. Christianity has something for everyone.
I’m not the first person to observe that religious and sexual ecstasy have a lot in common—or that the love songs Christians croon to Jesus sound remarkably like other love songs. Nor am I the first to point out that Christian ministers, musicians, and recruiters play with this blurry boundary deliberately. Tim Tebow posing as sexy Jesus-on-the-cross for GQ kind of says it all. As if there weren’t enough Christian girls and boys struggling with Jesus fantasies already. (here, here, here)
Early pagan religions incorporated sexuality explicitly into religious practice, for example, in the form of temple prostitutes or fertility rites or sacred sexuality. Some Dharmic traditions, like tantric Buddhism, continue to do so today. Given the power of religion to arouse and exploit sexual energy, it should come as no surprise that sacred sexuality takes a wide variety of forms—or that, despite an overt attempt by the Abrahamic traditions to constrain and control sexuality, these traditions also make use of the very same urges they seek to suppress.
One offshoot of the religion-sensuality-sexuality nexus that doesn’t get talked about much is the relationship between Christianity and kink. On the surface, the two couldn’t appear more different. Christianity has often advocated abstinence or sex exclusively for procreation, as a means to propagate the religion itself, while kink is about consensual pleasuring limited only by an agreement between the individuals involved. Christianity can be thought of as seeking to sublimate, or redirect, sexual passion, while kink tries to enhance it. Christianity claims to be about the end game, while kink often is about the moment. Christianity is deadly serious, while kink commonly is framed as playful. Christianity is a multi-billion dollar, multi-billion member, multi-national enterprise, while kink is a small counter culture without revenue and membership goals.
But just beneath the surface both communities may be leveraging a similar set of instincts and emotions. Consequently, comparing Christianity and kink may illustrate how seemingly unrelated activities can draw on some basic human impulses that we all share. I am not suggesting that Christianity is all about sexual arousal, even sublimated or redirected sexual arousal, though that most certainly is a part of the picture. Nor am I suggesting that kink typically represents a far-reaching moral and spiritual worldview, though perhaps for some it does. I am suggesting that kink and Christianity appear to tap an overlapping array of social and psychological impulses that include sexual arousal, moral emotions like shame and disgust, our tendency to seek hierarchy, our desire to escape rationality, our heightened sensory acuity in the presence of emotional arousal, and our tendency to take every pleasure to its extreme. In all of these, the themes of dominance and submission, inflicting pain, and receiving pain, have parts to play.
Pleasure and Pain: In the past five hundred years, few Christian writers have described the relationship between pain and pleasure as graphically as St. Teresa of Avila, whose sixteenth century vision of mystical union with God drips with sexuality:
In his hands I saw a long golden spear and at the end of the iron tip I seemed to see a point of fire. With this he seemed to pierce my heart several times so that it penetrated to my entrails. When he drew it out, I thought he was drawing them out with it and he left me completely afire with a great love for God. The pain was so sharp that it made me utter several moans; and so excessive was the sweetness caused me by the intense pain that one can never wish to lose it, nor will one’s soul be content with anything less than God.
Still today, in some Christian traditions, pain and religious passion go hand in hand. Mother Theresa is quoted as saying that love isn’t real unless it hurts. In one anecdote, she tells a suffering woman that her pain is the kiss of Jesus. The nuns of Mother Teresa’s order, the Missionaries of Charity, have practiced self-mortification techniques including striking their legs with rope and wearing a spiked chain called a cilice. Dan Brown’s thriller, The DaVinci Code was a wild fantasy, but the mortification practices of the order Opus Dei are real.
With or without the erotic overtones, pain appears to heighten some spiritual experiences through several mechanisms. Self-inflicted pain or voluntary submission to pain can be proof of commitment, as in gang initiations. It may offer temporary relief from guilt, anxiety, emptiness, or self-loathing, like self-cutting does for some depressed girls and others. It may produce an endorphin release as when runners and rowers push past a pain threshold. It may intensify focus on the present moment by causing distractions to recede into the background, like pinching oneself can do. It may offer a mesmerizing rhythm of sensation, as in head banging. The point isn’t that Christian penance and self-mortification are always or even usually erotic—they aren’t—but that both Christianity and kink can use pain as sensory enhancers. ...
My dom once stopped a scene to make sure I was still breathing.
I wasn't mad or anything. I was really glad she checked, because if I hadn't been, it would have confirmed all my mom's fears about the dodgy, catacomb-ish sex dungeons she thinks I frequent.
I was breathing, just deep in subspace and kind of incoherent. I'm a quiet player, and I like scenes that involve monumental stillness, so sometimes it's hard to tell if I'm, you know. Alive. My dom and I hadn't been together long, and she was still working out the whole, "Okay, what do you look like blissed-out versus what do you look like asphyxiated?" puzzle. She's a trooper.
A couple of years before I met her, I was raped during what was supposed to be a no-sex scene. That "dom's" response was, Yeah, but I was just trying to get you turned on so you'd enjoy the scene more. And even though I knew that was bullshit, I spent years wondering if it was a misunderstanding. If I'd failed to communicate clearly. If the rules were somehow different in BDSM because I'd agreed to be "submissive."
Here's what I've learned: Consent works the same way in the kink world as it does in the vanilla world. If you don't know what your partner likes or wants, ask. With your words. You can use nonverbal communication too, but your words are best. It won't kill the mood, I promise. After I told my dom, "Yep, still breathing," the scene went on. Kind of like how in the pre-streaming era, you could watch TV, go microwave a frozen burrito during a commercial break, then return to the couch and dive right back into the story.
Kitty Stryker, in her essay "I Never Called It Rape," says, "[When] I reflected on the number of times I've had fingers in my cunt that I hadn't consented to, or been pressured into a situation where saying 'no' was either not respected or not an option...I'm kind of horrified." I've heard similar stories from other subs -- boundaries are violated, and no action is taken because how do you explain to likely-vanilla authorities that yes, you wanted to be whipped until you bled, but no, you didn't want to be fingered? It can be equally hard to find support within the kink community. Blogger Thomas MacAulay Millar has a seven-article series about unprosecuted rape and abuse in Kinklandia, where he notes that the power structures in BDSM communities sometimes privilege abusers and silence survivors.
So what are some the myths about kink -- particularly about dominant/submissive dynamics -- that perpetuate rape and abuse and make it difficult for survivors to speak up?
Mind-reader dom reads my mind so good.
I write romance novels. And yes, sometimes the Oh, I've never been able to ask for what I want sexually -- please, experienced and outlandishly attractive stranger, make my body your banquet and show me hitherto untold pleasures trope is fun.
But in real life? When you're kinking? All parties need to be able to articulate what they want and what they don't want. Or, if they're exploring uncharted territory, to be able to stop and say, "Nope, that's not working." Or "Yes, do that forever."
Being dominant is about asserting control.
Being submissive is about asserting control. It's about knowing and communicating your limits. Being dominant is about listening. It's about orchestrating a scene within parameters that someone else has set. It's also about communicating your own limits. If there's something a sub asks for that you don't feel comfortable doing, you can say no. You don't have to stumble through out of a desire to prove that you are, in fact, dominant. ...