2005 Archived Reports

[Admin]

Thread Starter.

[Kodiak]

Long time listener.

Has anyone heard anything about a new club in Vernon called Unique Diversion? Looking at past posts I see that they must have been located in Thomaston previously. Uniquediversion.com

My wife recently asked me to take her to the Blue. To make a long story short (details available), she really enjoyed herself. I mentioned this new club and she sounded game. I hate to brag, but she is real cute. She got alot of attention at the Blue. I want to bring her along slowly. I'm wondering if this Unique Diversions is a good thing.

[Stoner]

Long time listener.

Has anyone heard anything about a new club in Vernon called Unique Diversion? Looking at past posts I see that they must have been located in Thomaston previously. Uniquediversion.com
....I'm wondering if this Unique Diversions is a good thing.

This is welcoming news. No, I had no idea it was in Vernon now. Please share details. Pending on how it goes, I may bring a friend up there and give it a whirl.

Have you ever swung before?

[Member #4196]

This is welcoming news. No, I had no idea it was in Vernon now. Please share details. Pending on how it goes, I may bring a friend up there and give it a whirl.

Have you ever swung before?

Have not been to Unique Diversions but have been to Leisure Times in Conn http://www.geocities.com/lesureclb/ and Le Trapeze in NYC. Le Trapeze is by far the better of the two experiences.

I have a lady friend who like to go and play. We were scheduled for a UD party but heard from others that it was rather clicky so we headed for NYC as Le Trapeze is well worth the trip.

CH

[Kodiak]

I'm no stranger to the Blue. I must confess I am guilty of fumbling around in the LP with Kiwi and I have given serious thought to purchasing an apartment for Kendra. However a few Saturdays ago.

The EB became interesting, my wife was obviously curious and when we walked in she went right up to the stage and sat down like it was the only empty seat in the place. I thought for sure she'ld want to cozy up to the bar. It was a late Sat night and the place was hoping. Strangely, there were several other women customers in the place. She proceeded to generously tipp any stripper who got near her. I wanted to get her a lap dance but the situation didn't present itself. I think some of the dancers are intimidated dancing for another women. The veterens however weren't.

At this point details start to get a bit blurry, but a girl (patron) came up to us, introduced herself, and told her that she was watching her from across the bar and that she was very beautiful.

Completely caught off guard I somehow managed to keep from dropping my pants right then and there. She chatted for a bit and then disapeared. The next morning my wife indicated that we probably missed a great oppertunity with that girl.

I've been waiting my whole life for this to happen.

Now what do I do?

I found the Unique website and E-mailed them. Didn't hear back. There is a phone number. I think a girls voice calling would probably get more attention. Any suggestions?

[Scotch]

There A Swinger Pary In Nyc On Dec 17th Sat In Nyc. I Have Not Been To One In A While But I Will Have A Partner By The 17th. See the New York City section for flyer.

[Stoner]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561253/from/RSS

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called "swingers" clubs.

In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

"Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society," said the opinion of the 7-2 majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

The decision does not affect laws against prostitution because no money changed hands among the adults having sex.

The court was reviewing an appeal by Jean-Paul Labaye, who ran the L'Orage (Thunderstorm) club. He had been convicted in 1999 of running a "bawdy house" -- defined as a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency took place.

Labaye -- who is running L'Orage despite his earlier conviction -- said he was relieved and would go ahead with a new venture with backing from a group of Florida investors.

"We hope clients will be more calm. This will probably lead the way to a good future," he told reporters, saying he was looking at adding a Jacuzzi and a swimming pool.

Labaye said he had about 2,000 regular clients who paid around $17 in U.S. currency a year for a membership card.

Attorneys for Labaye and the owner of another swingers' club in Montreal argued that consensual sex among groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent nor a risk to society.

The Supreme Court judges agreed.

"Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offense. [Its] case must therefore fail," McLachlin wrote.

In indecency cases, Canadian courts traditionally have probed whether the acts in question "breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society."

The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be actively harmed.

This seemed to ensure there could be no repeat of Labaye's original conviction for causing "social harm" by allowing degrading and dehumanizing group sex to take place.

The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers' clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

"The causal link between images of sexuality and anti-social behavior cannot be assumed. Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear," the judges said, noting that no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in the cases the court considered.

"The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question ... only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch," they said.

They also dismissed the idea -- raised during Labaye's original trial -- that group sex was dangerous because it could result in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

"Sex that is not indecent can transmit disease while indecent sex might not," they ruled.

[Love Taipei]

It is a swinger's gathering a few Saturday's a month. They rent out the ball room at a hotel in Windsor. As long as you show up as a couple, then you can come in.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10561253/from/RSS

OTTAWA, Canada (Reuters) -- Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called "swingers" clubs.

In a ruling that radically changes the way courts determine what poses a threat to the population, the top court threw out the conviction of a Montreal man who ran a club where members could have group sex in a private room behind locked doors.

"Consensual conduct behind code-locked doors can hardly be supposed to jeopardize a society as vigorous and tolerant as Canadian society," said the opinion of the 7-2 majority, written by Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

The decision does not affect laws against prostitution because no money changed hands among the adults having sex.

The court was reviewing an appeal by Jean-Paul Labaye, who ran the L'Orage (Thunderstorm) club. He had been convicted in 1999 of running a "bawdy house" -- defined as a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency took place.

Labaye -- who is running L'Orage despite his earlier conviction -- said he was relieved and would go ahead with a new venture with backing from a group of Florida investors.

"We hope clients will be more calm. This will probably lead the way to a good future," he told reporters, saying he was looking at adding a Jacuzzi and a swimming pool.

Labaye said he had about 2,000 regular clients who paid around $17 in U.S. currency a year for a membership card.

Attorneys for Labaye and the owner of another swingers' club in Montreal argued that consensual sex among groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent nor a risk to society.

The Supreme Court judges agreed.

"Criminal indecency or obscenity must rest on actual harm or a significant risk of harm to individuals or society. The Crown failed to establish this essential element of the offense. [Its] case must therefore fail," McLachlin wrote.

In indecency cases, Canadian courts traditionally have probed whether the acts in question "breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society."

The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be actively harmed.

This seemed to ensure there could be no repeat of Labaye's original conviction for causing "social harm" by allowing degrading and dehumanizing group sex to take place.

The judges said that just because most Canadians might disapprove of swingers' clubs, this did not necessarily mean the establishments were socially dangerous.

"The causal link between images of sexuality and anti-social behavior cannot be assumed. Attitudes in themselves are not crimes, however deviant they may be or disgusting they may appear," the judges said, noting that no one had been pressured to have sex or had paid for sex in the cases the court considered.

"The autonomy and liberty of members of the public was not affected by unwanted confrontation with the sexual activity in question ... only those already disposed to this sort of sexual activity were allowed to participate and watch," they said.

They also dismissed the idea -- raised during Labaye's original trial -- that group sex was dangerous because it could result in the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.

"Sex that is not indecent can transmit disease while indecent sex might not," they ruled.