LW tropes in real life

[desecration]

From an NYT story about open marriages:

Elizabeth did not announce that the friendship was turning romantic, but she did not deny it either, when Daniel, uneasy with the frequency of her visits with Joseph, confronted her. That she intended to keep seeing Joseph despite Daniel’s obvious distress shamed him: He was suddenly an outsider in his own marriage, scrambling for scraps of information and a sense of control.

And from the sometimes-informative Psychology Today, an opinion piece:

Unlike the goal of an open marriage, in which the focus is on meeting individual needs and desires at the expense of marital unity, a monogamous marriage focuses on individual growth within and not at the expense of the protected space of marriage.

And the classic CNN list of statistics:

Some research suggests that open marriage has a 92 percent failure rate. Steve Brody, Ph.D., a psychologist in Cambria, California, explains that less than 1 percent of married people are in open marriages.

Then Pew Research gives us some poll data about opinions of open marriages:

Half of Americans say open marriages – a marriage where both spouses agree that they can date or have sex with other people – are somewhat or completely unacceptable. This includes 37% who say these marriages are completely unacceptable and 13% who say they’re somewhat unacceptable.

One study gives a bit of demographic data:

For instance, results of a 36 study meta-analysis on CNM indicate a largely homogenous population of educated, white, middle- and upper-middle-class professionals, with the percent of people of color ranging from zero to a rare high of 48% (Sheff & Hammers, 2011). Specifically, within the context of polyamory communities, Sheff (2005) found race to be the most homogenous demographic characteristic, with the majority (89%) of 81 participants identifying as white.

And we get some data on how many people are opening marriages ("we have to talk"):

Approximately 89% of participants (n = 2110) reported being in monogamous partnerships, 4% reported CNM (n = 83), and 8% reported NCNM (n = 178).

 

[SimonDoom]

The thing that strikes about the cited "data" is it's really all opinion. Most people don't approve of open marriages. That doesn't mean they cannot work. Perhaps in many cases they do not work. That still does not show that they cannot work, or that two people, if they knowingly choose, cannot have a meaningful and satisfying open marriage. Clearly, there are cases where they succeed.

 

[Lifestyle66]

From an NYT story about open marriages:

And from the sometimes-informative Psychology Today, an opinion piece:

And the classic CNN list of statistics:

Then Pew Research gives us some poll data about opinions of open marriages:

One study gives a bit of demographic data:

And we get some data on how many people are opening marriages ("we have to talk"):

Just my opinion, but I take all of these "studies" with a high amount of skepticism.

How many would lie to their own spouse about having affairs? How many people today are finding their "happily married" parents had another kid stashed away in the family secrets, and they now have a step-sibling they never knew? (I know of two friends who found such step-siblings via DNA tests.)

How many people would refuse to admit to their own doctor they went out an paid a hooker or if they had sex outside of marriage? (And that's with someone who is forbidden by law to reveal your health data!) Unless they are there fearing having caught an STD already and needing treatment, many people are VERY reluctant to discuss such things.

And how many guys embellish their sexual deeds when bragging to their friends?

When it comes to any studies discussing extra-marital sex as being a major CAUSE in breaking up the marriages, I tend to question what other underlying problems led up to that and would have broken the marriage in any case sooner or later.

I have several comments on my Loving Wives stories pointing to the "statistics" that swinger marriages will fail. But I personally know several couples happily married for decades who have no problems with their lifestyle.

So, IMO, such studies are more likely skewed by the tendency for people to lie about sensitive subjects.

 

[NoTalentHack]

These type of statistics are rarely useful or, honestly, accurate. I'll give an older example:

Back when I was a kid in the 80s/early 90s, maybe sixteen or so, the preacher at my folks' church stated the (accurate) statistic that a couple was more likely to divorce if they lived together first, then flipped that around to "so, obviously, we can see that living in sin leads to..." whatever bugaboo he was on about.

Which, of course, is bullshit. There are any number of reasons that statistic can be true but also misleading. The most obvious is this: couples that live together before they marry probably care less about the interpretation of the bible that says premarital sex is evil than a churchgoing couple does, which means they also don't have a taboo about divorce as a concept, either. Given that, they're more likely to divorce if things turn bad, rather than stay in a bad marriage for fear of divine retribution.

I saw another thing while researching DNA testing for paternity. I don't remember the exact statistic; it got cited by a "women are always cheaters!" guy, so I was already dubious, but it said that something like in one study, the researchers found that 30% of the children tested were not the husband's. That set my bullshit alarm off, so I looked into it: the researchers were specifically looking at cases where the men sought out DNA tests because they already suspected their wives of cheating. So, true, but also bullshit. Most statistics put it somewhere closer to between 2 and 9%, depending on a variety of demographic and geographic factors.

The open marriage stats are also, probably, both accurate and bullshit. Who opens their marriage after twenty years? People who are unhappy. Whose marriages don't last? People who are unhappy. People who look for a magic bullet to fix things or a hail mary when that's the only shot.

Who goes into an open marriage at the beginning? People who are unafraid of the possibility that relationships can end, but who also want to try out something that gives permanency in a society that legally values monogamous structures.

Also, that 92% is from a study in 2010. That's almost (from a statistical standpoint) almost a generation ago; gay marriage wasn't even legal back then. Sociological changes come FAST in the modern era; any attempt to look at a subject this complex without breaking it down by demographic groups is immediately suspect, too. Pew did some adjacent reaserch:

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/09/14/views-of-divorce-and-open-marriages/

There's a HUGE variance there about all sorts of opinion, and expecting the same outcomes from, say, a young, liberal, urban couple, both with multiple previous sexual partners and an older, conservative, suburban couple who were each other's first is going to have massively different probable outcomes.

One other thing: I've been divorced. We were a bad fit and never should have gotten married. Would I call that a "failed" marriage? Maybe for the first couple years after. Now, though, with twenty-five years of hindsight, it was just my "first" marriage, one where I learned a lot of things about myself and what I wanted from a partner.

Neither my first nor second marriage were non-monogamous; they wouldn't have been a good fit for us, and we knew that. But I also have friends who outlasted my first marriage while happily swinging or being the center of a polycule. Some of them have kids and some don't, but those that do have raised some really great folks. Monogamy would have been a terrible fit for them, and, in some cases, it had been in a previous marriage.

That's the problem with relying on "averages" and statistics badly applied: it destroys lives. Just ask the USAF back in the 40s and 50s: https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...cle_e3231734-e5da-5bf5-9496-a34e52d60bd9.html

In the late 1940s, the United States air force had a serious problem: its pilots could not keep control of their planes. Although this was the dawn of jet-powered aviation and the planes were faster and more complicated to fly, the problems were so frequent and involved so many different aircraft that the air force had an alarming, life-or-death mystery on its hands. “It was a difficult time to be flying,” one retired airman told me. “You never knew if you were going to end up in the dirt.” At its worst point, 17 pilots crashed in a single day.

The two government designations for these noncombat mishaps were incidents and accidents, and they ranged from unintended dives and bungled landings to aircraft-obliterating fatalities. At first, the military brass pinned the blame on the men in the cockpits, citing “pilot error” as the most common reason in crash reports. This judgment certainly seemed reasonable, since the planes themselves seldom malfunctioned. Engineers confirmed this time and again, testing the mechanics and electronics of the planes and finding no defects. Pilots, too, were baffled. The only thing they knew for sure was that their piloting skills were not the cause of the problem. If it wasn’t human or mechanical error, what was it?

...

Using the size data he had gathered from 4,063 pilots, Daniels calculated the average of the 10 physical dimensions believed to be most relevant for design, including height, chest circumference and sleeve length. These formed the dimensions of the “average pilot,” which Daniels generously defined as someone whose measurements were within the middle 30 per cent of the range of values for each dimension. So, for example, even though the precise average height from the data was five foot nine, he defined the height of the “average pilot” as ranging from five-seven to five-11. Next, Daniels compared each individual pilot, one by one, to the average pilot.

Before he crunched his numbers, the consensus among his fellow air force researchers was that the vast majority of pilots would be within the average range on most dimensions. After all, these pilots had already been pre-selected because they appeared to be average sized. (If you were, say, six foot seven, you would never have been recruited in the first place.) The scientists also expected that a sizable number of pilots would be within the average range on all 10 dimensions. But even Daniels was stunned when he tabulated the actual number.

Zero.

Out of 4,063 pilots, not a single airman fit within the average range on all 10 dimensions. One pilot might have a longer-than-average arm length, but a shorter-than-average leg length. Another pilot might have a big chest but small hips. Even more astonishing, Daniels discovered that if you picked out just three of the ten dimensions of size — say, neck circumference, thigh circumference and wrist circumference — less than 3.5 per cent of pilots would be average sized on all three dimensions. Daniels’s findings were clear and incontrovertible. There was no such thing as an average pilot. If you’ve designed a cockpit to fit the average pilot, you’ve actually designed it to fit no one.

 

[TheLobster]

When it comes to any studies discussing extra-marital sex as being a major CAUSE in breaking up the marriages, I tend to question what other underlying problems led up to that and would have broken the marriage in any case sooner or later.

Like with any such speculation, there is always a question where do you decide to break the causal chain. Otherwise, you might just as well say that the undeniable cause of all divorces are weddings.

As for the statistics being more like opinion polls, that's true, but there is this bit:

Some research suggests that open marriage has a 92 percent failure rate. Steve Brody, Ph.D., a psychologist in Cambria, California, explains that less than 1 percent of married people are in open marriages.

which clearly indicates that open marriage is not a popular option. This is as good a prior probability as any that any particular marriage won't work as an open one, but also doesn't preclude every marriage from being happily open (which is why there are still plenty of anecdotes that fill the articles like the NYT one).

 

[LMWM321]

I've not read the article (don't have a subscription) but I hope they draw distinctions b/w sex outside the marriage and an "open marriage." After about 20 yrs of marriage, I've given my wife permission to have NSA sex with other men but not permission to have an on-going relationship with other men.

If I came home unexpectedly, saw the UPS truck out front, walked into our bedroom and saw my wife fucking the guy, I'd laugh, say something like, "don't mind me, please carry on!" then high-five both of them when they came downstairs. I'd be so happy my wife did something so outrageous that brought her joy. Why wouldn't I mind? Because I'm pretty goddamn certain my wife of 30 yrs isn't leaving me for the UPS guy.

But if I went to a nice steakhouse downtown with a client and saw my wife sitting with a guy, holding hands laughing, smiling, kissing... I'd be absolutely devastated.

After 30 wonderfully happy years of being together, I know my wife isn't leaving me for the UPS guy just because he made her cum harder - which probably happened only because he wasn't ME, he was someone new.. To me, NSA sex w/ a guy once or twice poses no threat to our marriage - so why should I disallow it or resent her for wanting it? I deeply love my wife and want her to wring all the joy she can from life - we're only here a very short while. But beginning an on-going relationship w/ another man? That would pose a threat, I'd feel.

 

[gordo12]

Like with any such speculation, there is always a question where do you decide to break the causal chain. Otherwise, you might just as well say that the undeniable cause of all divorces are weddings.

As for the statistics being more like opinion polls, that's true, but there is this bit:

Some research suggests that open marriage has a 92 percent failure rate.

which clearly indicates that open marriage is not a popular option. This is as good a prior probability as any that any particular marriage won't work as an open one, but also doesn't preclude every marriage from being happily open (which is why there are still plenty of anecdotes that fill the articles like the NYT one).

Please define an open marriage. There are so many variations. For instance, I've seen polls on swingers that indicate only 5% ever get divorced. The rest report increased satisfaction and the ability to talk about sex in their marriage. A bugaboo subject for so many!

But if my wife wanted to be free to go out and date or screw anybody she liked...I'd have a major problem with that.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

I never cheated on my first husband, who certainly can't say the same thing. Nor have I cheated on my soulmate, second husband. I only write about cheating and cuckolding. I think that in fiction, cuckolding stores are fun. The actual cuckold husbands I have spoken with like what their wives do to them. Which I have always found a bit bizarre.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

My experience is that open relationships often work fine, but opening a relationship that's been strictly monogamous rarely does.

It's practically a cliche in poly circles that the guy persuades his female partner to try polyamory, she then gets more dates and partners than he does, and sulking and breakups ensue.

I've never understood the idea of being OK with your main partner having random sex but not any relationship with others - do they not have friends? In practice there's a pretty fuzzy boundary between swingers who consider their sex partners friends, and poly people who have friends with benefits - probably the main distinction between swinging and poly is how much the friendships are site-specific vs integrated in the rest of your life.

And the open question as to whether poly people all play board games, and which comes first, the board games and then being poly to get enough players, or being poly and happening to meet people into gaming?

(I'm in the middle of a game of Sagrada with the spouse and his girlfriend, he's just off on an errand).

 

[SlutAddicted]

I agree with what others have said about statistics and the error in assuming causation.

I would also note that a lot of these things tend to come from a clear position of bias. The quote from Psychology Today is laced with presumption about the selfishness of an open marriage and the premise that a protected space in the marriage is predicated on monogamy. Yet in almost every other relationship we have in life we are non-exclusive with the other person yet can still exist in a safe space and grow together. Many people have a belief system that is rooted in faith or pre-existing presumptions - neither is fact based. If one thinks that being non-monogamous is intrinsically wrong then one will have a hard time accepting it and that presumption becomes self fulfilling.

This might sound silly but it is a bit like Reefer Madness. If you think your kid is going to destroy their lives by smoking a joint and respond with harsh condemnation and punishment that drives them away their lives may well take a turn for the worst. But it wasn't the joint that did it. It was the way you responded.

I think we also have a tendency to only notice things based upon our own preconception. For instance people who are harshly judgmental of promiscuity might observe that every person they know who was promiscuous has ended up in failed relationships. But the only people they recognize as having been promiscuous are the ones whose promiscuity led to a failed relationship. There may have been many people that they knew who were promiscuous, but they didn't know they were promiscuous because they didn't fit the stereotype of what they thought that was supposed to look. And because that promiscuous person was discrete especially around judgmental people. In fact, they may have known lots of people who were promiscuous who ended up in happy faithful monogamous relationships or in well adjusted poly relationships.

 

[policywank]

Interesting how much of the opinion on the problems with non-monogamy seems to come from people who think that it is an unacceptable form of relationship. I mean if it is not for them that is a personal decision, but what does that have to do with whether it might work for others?

It is not clear to me what the race based observations are getting at. It makes sense that white middle and upper-middle class couples would be more likely to participate in CNM. First of all that is one of the largest population groups so there is the matter of shear numbers. Secondly, that group is less likely to be bound by faith based dogma that promises divine retribution for non-monogamy. They are also more likely to have progressive attitudes on gender roles in a way that mitigates the inclination to prioritize female purity or exclusivity or the need for a man to keep tabs on his woman (more so than vice versa). Doesn't that suggest that the CNM is not only more prevalent but also more likely to be viable when society and our peers aren't actively trying to force us to reject that possibility.

There are numerous examples throughout history of how societal constraints and pressure to conform affects people's behaviour. Those pressures alter people's lived experiences to be something different than it would otherwise be because they cave in to the pressure. It compels people to hide the aspects of themselves that are deemed unacceptable so that surveys and polls get flawed data (in many cases they are not just hiding it from the surveyor, they are hiding it from themselves as well). It creates a situation where the people who do rebel against those constraints are those with the most extreme views or in the most extreme circumstances and therefore more likely to have the extreme outcomes (I.e. the first gay men to "come out" tended to be the most flamboyant and rebellious). And those pressures punish people for not complying. Like with SlutAddicted's Reefer Madness analogy the behaviour of society towards people who engage in CNM has an impact on how those relationships work. Look at what happens now to anyone deemed not compliant with sexual norms. They will be condemned by faith based groups, subjected to harassment and shamed. Just look up "cuck" and look at all the people shitting on any man who doesn't insist on his wife' or girlfriend's sexual exclusivity. Those are pressures that traditional monogamous relationships don't have to endure.

 

[Cagivagurl]

From an NYT story about open marriages:

And from the sometimes-informative Psychology Today, an opinion piece:

And the classic CNN list of statistics:

Then Pew Research gives us some poll data about opinions of open marriages:

One study gives a bit of demographic data:

And we get some data on how many people are opening marriages ("we have to talk"):

The problem with this is....
You have attacked it from a singular perspective.
Using opinion pieces as data...
We get it... You don't like non monogamous relationships....
That is of course your privilege in a free society.
It would be far more powerful if you used actual data rather than somebody's opinion. Which of course is nothing more than somebody else's opinion...

Cagivagurl

 

[lustychimera]

Then Pew Research gives us some poll data about opinions of open marriages:

Half of Americans say open marriages – a marriage where both spouses agree that they can date or have sex with other people – are somewhat or completely unacceptable. This includes 37% who say these marriages are completely unacceptable and 13% who say they’re somewhat unacceptable.

It looks like the question was phrased "open marriages are a __ arrangement for people to have," but I still wonder how many people were inserting their own marriage into the question rather than what's acceptable for other people.

 

[MillieDynamite]

People in both open marriages and swinging tend to be very discrete. They also tend to be upper middle class with the means to hide their lifestyle, while the objects of their dalliances tend to be middle or lower middle class, enamored with the wealth their "friends" have and use.

 

[lustychimera]

People in both open marriages and swinging tend to be very discrete. They also tend to be upper middle class with the means to hide their lifestyle, while the objects of their dalliances tend to be middle or lower middle class, enamored with the wealth their "friends" have and use.

I agree with the first part, but not the upper middle class part.

Even anecdotally, my brother tells me that back home in that ultraconservative little town, there's a heck of a swinging culture. Which makes sense. In a place that size, you can fuck your second cousin or Daphne's husband--which isn't even a dig, it's just the truth. People are bored and directionless, so they fuck. There's some happy people--typically the folks who got out of town and came back to settle down later in life--but mostly, the ones who stuck around feel hopeless, so they drink and fuck.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Swinging clubs are private, unadvertised, and filled with people wealthy enough to afford them. Their guests tend to be less well-off. Usually, single women or married men married women well out of their physical class; the wife is more the guest, and the husband is a plus one. Single men are often not allowed except for certain single men (often gigolos). The open marriage thing is an issue for work advancement if it becomes well known. It hurts their status at clubs and religious organizations they belong to, so description is always a priority. Many travel to nearby larger cities to find their play partners. I'm just reporting what I've observed on the ones who know. Both Jo and I are one woman women, and neither of us plays the male of the species. MEN

 

[NoTalentHack]

Swinging clubs are private, unadvertised, and filled with people wealthy enough to afford them. Their guests tend to be less well-off. Usually, single women or married men married women well out of their physical class; the wife is more the guest, and the husband is a plus one. Single men are often not allowed except for certain single men (often gigolos). The open marriage thing is an issue for work advancement if it becomes well known. It hurts their status at clubs and religious organizations they belong to, so description is always a priority. Many travel to nearby larger cities to find their play partners. I'm just reporting what I've observed on the ones who know. Both Jo and I are one woman women, and neither of us plays the male of the species. MEN

Swinger clubs are like that, but not everyone goes to swinger clubs. Some people--and I speak from pre-married personal experience here--prefer to have a more amorphous, unstructured arrangement within groups of friends. In college, there was a group I ung out with for a while where, at a given party (maybe a dozen people or so), the chance of everyone in the room playing videogames or everyone in the room in a daisy chain were about 50/50. That also shows up in smaller towns, albeit with different structure and more discretely. We were a bunch of nerds and eternal students in a college town, but you do see, for example, a lot of soft swapping among younger Mormon couples in Utah, etc.

 

[Bramblethorn]

From an NYT story about open marriages:

No-login version: https://web.archive.org/web/2024021...e/is-an-open-marriage-a-happier-marriage.html

I'd note that even though Daniel and Elizabeth made some serious mistakes in that story, and then had to deal with the stress of a serious medical diagnosis - not explored in the article in much depth, but that's the kind of thing that can easily destroy a relationship on its own - they look to have ended up with a better and healthier relationship than where they started.

And from the sometimes-informative Psychology Today, an opinion piece:

Unlike the goal of an open marriage, in which the focus is on meeting individual needs and desires at the expense of marital unity, a monogamous marriage focuses on individual growth within and not at the expense of the protected space of marriage.

This article is full of false dichotomies, bad assumptions about what open relationships entail, and what I'll call the "therapist's fallacy": he reasons that open relationships are harmful because every open relationship he sees is on the rocks, ignoring the fact that couples only come to him to talk about their relationships when they are on the rocks. It leans heavily on "Avatar", a fictional Hollywood movie about blue space aliens, as a source of truths about how marriage works.

He writes:

I’m going to assume that, given a choice, most of you would want a loving connection, like the Na’vi have, rather than an open relationship in which the emphasis is on self-expression, need fulfillment, and multiple experiences.

This is an example of the kind of false dichotomy I mentioned. My open relationship is a loving connection. Self-expression and need fulfillment are still important in monogamous relationship. I'm not sure what he means by "multiple experiences"

A marriage in which you and your partner compete to get your needs met is a scenario for a marital nightmare, like two kids fighting over a five-cent toy.

That does sound awful, but it's no more intrinsic to an open relationship than a monogamous one. When my partner says "hey Bramble, you haven't had quality time with your long-distance girlfriend lately, we can afford for you to go visit her", that's not "competing", it's supporting.

Some research suggests that open marriage has a 92 percent failure rate.

Never, ever trust somebody who attributes statistics to "some research" without identifying that research. It's impossible to know from that description how the research defined "failure", or how it was measured, or what the target population was for the research.

 

[lustychimera]

Swinging clubs are private, unadvertised, and filled with people wealthy enough to afford them. Their guests tend to be less well-off. Usually, single women or married men married women well out of their physical class; the wife is more the guest, and the husband is a plus one. Single men are often not allowed except for certain single men (often gigolos). The open marriage thing is an issue for work advancement if it becomes well known. It hurts their status at clubs and religious organizations they belong to, so description is always a priority. Many travel to nearby larger cities to find their play partners. I'm just reporting what I've observed on the ones who know. Both Jo and I are one woman women, and neither of us plays the male of the species. MEN

I can see that. Wealthy people are more prone to attend swinging clubs and are more prone to have the foresight to structure their play.

The people I'm thinking of are the type to go out booze-cruising in the country while Martha fucks Ted's wife in the backseat or whatever.

I kind of find that to be the more interesting psychology for a story. They're in a dying town with a few hundred people, no hope for the future, but it's all they know, so they just live to be happy in the now.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Granted, whatever experience you have might be in conflict with what I've observed. OKC isn't a small town, but it is not that big a city either. Mileage and mingling well vary from one group to another all over the place. LOL

Swinger clubs are like that, but not everyone goes to swinger clubs. Some people--and I speak from pre-married personal experience here--prefer to have a more amorphous, unstructured arrangement within groups of friends. In college, there was a group I ung out with for a while where, at a given party (maybe a dozen people or so), the chance of everyone in the room playing videogames or everyone in the room in a daisy chain were about 50/50. That also shows up in smaller towns, albeit with different structure and more discretely. We were a bunch of nerds and eternal students in a college town, but you do see, for example, a lot of soft swapping among younger Mormon couples in Utah, etc.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Granted, whatever experience you have might be in conflict with what I've observed. OKC isn't a small town, but it is not that big a city either. Mileage and mingling well vary from one group to another all over the place. LOL

Yeah, there was a swinger’s club in the same town. One of the folks in the aforementioned group went there, and their brief account was, “Never again. Creepy middle aged people as far as the eye could see.”

 

[MillieDynamite]

They'd be all the redneck in redneckville, out yonder in red county, just west of Your Cheatin' Heart junction.

I can see that. Wealthy people are more prone to attend swinging clubs and are more prone to have the foresight to structure their play.

The people I'm thinking of are the type to go out booze-cruising in the country while Martha fucks Ted's wife in the backseat or whatever.

I kind of find that to be the more interesting psychology for a story. They're in a dying town with a few hundred people, no hope for the future, but it's all they know, so they just live to be happy in the now.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Not all the clubs are inhabited by strictly middle-aged people, but many are, as those are the only folks who can afford them.

Yeah, there was a swinger’s club in the same town. One of the folks in the aforementioned group went there, and their brief account was, “Never again. Creepy middle aged people as far as the eye could see.”

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Not all the clubs are inhabited by strictly middle-aged people, but many are, as those are the only folks who can afford them.

Swingers clubs exist at all income levels. In the UK the stereotype is tacky as hell, full of men wearing gold medallions and women with fake tan. I've ended up at a couple clubs where they tried to cater to both fetish and swinging groups, which didn't really work. The poly/kinky/queer group were pretty much all middle class, mostly uni-educated geeks, and the swingers working class and straight - the social areas actually led to some good chat, but the queer-friendly vs don't even think about crossing swords kept the groups well apart in the sexual zones.

But then there's places like the infamous Rio's sauna - no membership fees, £23 now for a couple, and at least you and your partner would get a sauna out of it. Or just go to dogging spots and it's free.

Sure there's 'exclusive' sex clubs, but their blurbs to me always sound rather desperate and implausible. Too much fantasy fic crossed with the kind of 'high powered' dating agencies that are probably scams and never get many 'high net worth individuals' actually signing up.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Swingers clubs exist at all income levels. In the UK the stereotype is tacky as hell, full of men wearing gold medallions and women with fake tan. I've ended up at a couple clubs where they tried to cater to both fetish and swinging groups, which didn't really work. The poly/kinky/queer group were pretty much all middle class, mostly uni-educated geeks, and the swingers working class and straight - the social areas actually led to some good chat, but the queer-friendly vs don't even think about crossing swords kept the groups well apart in the sexual zones.

Imma just going to cut and paste that straight into my ideas folder.

EDIT: And I'm just going to add the words - "My Fair Lady but at a swingers club" as an aide to memory.