I find the question a little disingenuous. Maybe I'm cynical but it seems obvious that a swinger club that allows single men quickly turns into a bukakke.

Has this woman ever met a man before? We're quite disgusting.

lol @1. That was my thought too. Seems like the LW has not met many men, or the answer to her question would have been obvious. If single guys were allowed at swinger's parties, they would completely overwhelm the place. Single women are allowed because they are so rare, in an attempt to somewhat even the odds.

I think ODDS has a point. Whenever there's someplace that welcomes women and excludes men, I think a) there are hidden cameras, and 2) there's some alpha gorilla nightmare at the center of this who doesn't want competition.

If LW is looking for a higher m-to-f ratio, check the schedule of clubs near you (or while traveling); many clubs have special nights for gangbang, etc.. Also, as part of a couple who's attended both kinds of clubs, I can attest: my girlfriend feels way more comfortable at couples/women only clubs, has a way better time, and has no problem finding guys to join in. Times we've gone to clubs open to single men she's spent much of the night dodging requests (respectful and otherwise) and the occasional grope. And while any good club has a very strong "Ask before anything" policy, she doesn't love thinking up kind ways to say "No" all night.

LW if you don't want to go to the club you don't have to. Admitting that seems better then wailing 'what about the meeennnnn'.

And yeah being surrounded by hundreds of horny, grasping guys, sounds like a nightmare. I would think even the women into in would get burned out after an hour or so.

"identifies as poly" Is poly an identity? I thought it a lifestyle/preference.

As the perpetual cynic, I kinda wonder if ODDS is actually a guy. Like a fake letter, but slightly different. The sentiment is genuine, the direction of enquiry is a bit off.

What if the single guys were all bi? Would this help?

@8 maybe. I've been to some pan-sexual sex parties, open-access no invite required (all genders and orientations welcome), at which there were far more visibly male-bodied people than female yet everyone was well behaved, better than at some all-male open-invite gay sex parties where some dudes can get pretty aggressive despite a "ask first" policy. Even at the gay orgies the vibe is very different depending on the party, some have a culture of complete respect some are over-riden with entitled pricks who won't take no for an answer. One difference is that at gay ones, almost no one minds someone watching and jerking from a distance / eyefucking you, even if you're not into them. But the whole gender ratio thing isn't a factor so you don't have a giant crowd of dudes watching one guy. (Well, if the guy is really hot, sometimes you do!)

" He described the club as a couples-only venue. I checked out the website and it actually allows couples AND single women while prohibiting single men.

My boyfriend explained that Unicorns—I just learned the definition—are allowed but if single guys were allowed it would just be a bunch of men jerking off. "Not sexy" he says. Well, not sexy for who? This feels like a double standard perpetuated by a patriarchal view of the sexes. Why is it that women can be Unicorns but there is no male equivalent? Why can't the swinger community accommodate single men but welcome single women? "

1) Go first and then you'll understand the dynamic.

2) These clubs DO occasionally have nights where single men are welcome in larger numbers, but they're usually "gangbang"-focused, where, as your boyfriend suggests, due to the ratio imbalance the guys may do exactly as you expect.

3) @3 "there's some alpha gorilla nightmare at the center of this who doesn't want competition."

That's hilariously ungrounded in reality. In swingers clubs, men are limited in order to make women feel more comfortable. Men are already disproportionately represented in these scenes.

@9: "Dirty little secrets that "progressives" hate:

1. Women control the scene at swinger clubs."

I think that's a secret that you hate, not "progressives"?

Don't tar everyone with your douchebaggery.

And how is it a "secret"? Consent is VERY WELL RESPECTED and policy of letting the woman (or anyone else) have a voice about with who and how they want to be touched is in the paperwork you'd sign when you visit.

"Newcol", you have zero clue what you're talking about here.

I hear that in the seventies, single men and man-on-man action were much more accepted in the swing scene. Then there was AIDS and the swing scene decided that in order to keep everyone comfortable they needed to differentiate themselves as “nice clean straight people” not like those “homosexuals and their diseases.”

I wasn’t there at the time but that’s what I hear.

@15: Did they mention that in American Swing? ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058058/ ) I forget.

@14: You have this dumb caricature of a "liberal PC" in your head, but zero real-world experience talking about these matters. Maybe fuck right back off to Breitbartland?

@7 totally. I don't care how doe eyed and new to the swingers scene you are--no woman with a vaguely functional brain would ask this question. This came from a dude who wants in to the clubs.

@9 I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're not getting laid. You're not getting laid because you're a douche.

@18: YUP.

To continue on to @14 anyway, if you don't want to feel excluded on a night when unescorted dudes are minimized, bring a female friend. If you don't have any female friends, no amount of whining about how progressives have stolen your manhood can help you. You can start your own club, I'm sure it'll do well and you must understand these clubs better than the men and women who run them.

@17: Yup, sounds it.

No one cares to hear about your partisan views.

@17, oh, that's totally it.

@9: Actually, women with applicable orientations are much more likely to agree to casual f/f sex than women with applicable orientations are likely to agree to casual m/f sex. I'm not sure if the reason why has been explained, but I think one reason being considered was that the study participants reported that casual sex with a woman was more likely to be physically enjoyable and result in both parties getting off. The lack of pregnancy risk and reduced STD risk was probably also a factor.

It's impossible to tell which differences in sexual behavior are a result of socialization and which differences in sexual behavior are a result of how we come wired from the start, because the human brain is plastic enough that socialization absolutely does change how we work. If you took a bunch of babies, half of each, and raised them in an artificial environment where all stereotypes they'd see about gender, related to sexual behavior or otherwise, were reversed - where women were the pursuers and men were the pursued, where women who had a lot of sex were studs and men who had a lot of sex were sluts, where women who weren't having sex were too pathetic to score and men who weren't having sex were frigid future cat gentlemen, where it was assumed that the woman would be the more active partner in heterosexual sex, where media for little boys focused disproportionately on romance and family as life goals and media for little girls treated that stuff as mostly something for boys to care about, where raising children was mostly the responsibility of men, etc - then you'd probably see different patterns in which gender is more interested in sex. It probably wouldn't exactly be reversed, because we do have biological differences, but it wouldn't be the same, either.

In such a microcosm, it would likely be normal to make sure men weren't outnumbered by women in situations like a swinger's club.

The LW sounds like what is really bugging her is the presence of single women, not the absence of single men - but to frame it as a question about equality for the menz comes across as less insecure or less potentially jealous. Perhaps she's concerned that she'll be stuck with the choice of either pretending to be into a girl-on-girl scene, or watching her BF with some chick while she has nothing (no one) to do.

LW sounds very GGG, but maybe should spend a little more time identifying what she's comfortable with and being honest with herself and the boyfriend about her boundaries.

undead ayn rand @16,

Maybe. Never saw it.

romanticize @22,

While I am not a big biological determinist, you might do well to familiarize yourself with the very sad story of David Reimer. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Re…

Reminds me about that Pokemon party or something that Dan talked about where it was supposed to be a free for all sex party and only guys showed up.

@26: I imagine that was a feature and not a bug.

@25: I am familiar with that story, and I think that giving a cis child gender dysphoria by altering his body and forcing him to perform the opposite social role is sort of a different case. He was still around other boys, and around the usual messages about what sorts of people boys should be, he was just also forced to be a girl, likely while feeling more and more at odds with his body. It's also quite possible that the sexual abuse he and his brother went through as children contributed to the tragic ends to both of their lives.

Meanwhile, gender roles - not gender itself, but the roles attached to it - has changed quite a bit throughout human history. Pink is currently considered a feminine color, while blue is considered a masculine color. Hell, there are studies to try to prove that female primates prefer pink. But years and years ago, blue (considered more delicate and dainty) used to be a feminine color, while pink (considered stronger and more decided) was for boys. Currently men are thought of as more sexual than women, but in ancient Greece, women were thought of as more sexual than men (in fact, they were seen as more hedonistic in general, while men were more clear-headed). Lysistrata, the play about women going on a sex strike to stop them men from going to war, was funny at the time in the way that a story about men going on a sex strike would be funny today - the joke would be that they'd never be able to hold out longer!

I have no idea how this actually impacted anyone's behavior, especially since men were still very much in power, and were often able to limit women's sexual expression on an individual level. It does, however, seem like cis people will generally not experience gender dysphoria no matter what the narrative about their bodies, as long as they're subject to the same narrative as people with similar bodies. To me, it seems like the physical wrongness is more likely to be the root of the social wrongness (i.e. a trans boy or a cis boy like David Reimer wouldn't necessarily be acting masculinely because modern American masculinity is hard-coded in the male brain, but because his neurological setup is telling him he should be physically male, and masculinity is a set of rules for how male people should act. Hell, people might even be fine without any social system of gender at all, as long as medical transition was available for the people who needed it.)

Ms Cummins - Well, we've seen over and over again that the vast majority of people just can't stand MM - which is just another reason to let a few states secede and set up as the QSA; then let the rest of them elect as many Clintons and Trumps as they like.

I think the real problem is largely that too many people are too invested in the Entitled Men / Angelic Women model to do much for serious change. Plenty of people prate on and on about the scorn with which women who don't adopt the angelic pose are treated, but the scorn bestowed upon men who don't feel Male Entitlement and display conduct corresponding to the same comes from both sides and is too strong to be overridden by anything that might be deemed an easy fix. As is the case with so many things, too many people would rather have the "problem" than the solution.

Our local club has a waiting list for single men. To get on it, you have to be nominated by an established couple. Then they are let in to balance any single women who show up to keep the ratio 1:1.

Just a tangential rant- Dan's comment about "men without social skills" really stands out here. Women at the very least wear well fitted club dresses, while unescorted males (nearly as a rule) put zero effort into appearance and presentation. It's not an issue of sartorial choices so much as not trying at all and lax dress codes don't help. Jorts and flip-flops and logo tees abound and suggest "I've given up".

@30: "I think the real problem is largely that too many people are too invested in the Entitled Men / Angelic Women model to do much for serious change ... the scorn bestowed upon men who don't feel Male Entitlement and display conduct corresponding to the same comes from both sides and is too strong to be overridden by anything that might be deemed an easy fix."

Honestly, I don't see what this has to do with the topic at hand. It's not even about "entitlement". The men visiting these clubs are generally heterosexual and not going to pair off with each other if they vastly outnumber the women present and create a more awkward vibe than if the sexes were more evenly balanced.

There is scorn for persons outside that scene who lob confused and uninformed disdain for any attempts to make women feel welcome and comfortable as commenters in this thread (and potentially the LW if they were only posing as a sincere potential patron, it's obvious that they have not actually attended any parties) have done.

If you want to talk from a place of understanding, sure. Discussions can be had and met. But they're lobbing nothing but ignorance and bad evo-psych garbage.

@31: And persons should be vetted and vouched for, because we live in a world where you can't visibly tell or screen at the door whether another is abusive and hostile, one person can make many men and women unhappy with their actions/attitudes. Sex is fun, but feelings are absolutely important and the responsibility of the whole.

Even beyond the club aspect, anyone who doesn't understand this probably hasn't hosted any non-sexy parties themselves. Dynamics are important. Making sure people are having fun is important. There's so much micromanaging that goes on, of COURSE social dynamics are going to matter. Stamping ones feet without empathizing doesn't show that you're a better fit.

To get back to the letter...

"Neither of us is into same-sex sex; we are fully heterosexual. He's communicated that multi-partner scenarios is something he really loves, I want to please him"

I don't hear much in the letter about what she wants, except for the idea that she wants sex with men if she's going to be non-monogamous.

So I would advise her to negotiate up front:

"Sure, honey, we can go to a swinger's club, and if we connect with someone there, we can have a FMF, where you have the attention of two women on you -- that sounds fun! And you also understand that on other nights I'll be going out on my own dates with men, one-on-one, looking for my own sexual connections which won't involve you -- right? And you're cool with that? Of course you'll have the same ability to find another woman or women to date."

iseult @6, for some people, poly is an identity. They can't imagine not being poly; being able to connect with multiple partners feels intrinsic to their very nature. For other people, it is more of a choice.

@34: "I don't hear much in the letter about what she wants"

At the very least the letter is insincere. But this lack of voice and attempt to frame a scenario where the woman feels comfortable to be... anti-feminist (or whatever the shoddy framing) does lead the rest of us to question the author.

@35: undead ayn rand, exactly! My discomfort with this letter stems from the fact that although I know the letter is disingenuous, I don't know which point the lw is trying to make. Is it written by a disgruntled straight or bi man, partner-less and frustrated that he can't get into the party or club of his dreams, or is it written by a Social-Justice/Feminist/Fuck-the-Patriarcy Idealist Warrior (either male or female or neither) to try to Make A Point or Make Us Think?
Did the lw want Dan's approval or agreement, or did they know that they were unlikely to get it, but they just wanted to get their message out?

Eh, it's not fruitful to guess too much, i guess it could be option 3, the "i'm not like other girls, I'm not 'PC'" one that "wishes men would compliment me on the street" and doesn't see what a lot of the "fuss" is about with other complaints.

I can't imagine how it would be a covert "SJW" of male or female variety as the presentation and message is pure "meninist" / MRA "well, if men and women were TRULY 'equal'... I would get my way slash due more often."

"did they know that they were unlikely to get it, but they just wanted to get their message out?"

This is my expectation. They just wanted to seethe-rant and try to push their agenda, without really caring about why things are the way they are. Toxic masculinity is absolutely unfair to nonafflicted men, but don't appear to care that/how it hurts women.

Er, the letter-writer doesn't.

@37: Straight woman who doesn't want to be left out, as some people have been suggesting, feels most likely to me (especially with the "It wouldn't be sexy"/"Not sexy for who?" bit in the letter). Allowing m/f couples and single women but no single men is very likely going to lead to having more women than men present, If she's imagining that the people there are going to try to pair up one-man-to-one-woman, then at the end there would logically be "leftover" women and either no men remaining, or only men that nobody else would want to swing with. I don't think that's necessarily how it would realistically go - I've never been to one of those places myself, but I imagine that plenty of the women there would be shy about pairing up, or have more interest in sex with women, or be there to have a FFM threesome, or be in a relationship with a one penis policy - but I can understand why someone might expect it to go that way, and why someone might feel like disallowing single men is unfair to the women who attend.

It sounds like she could stand to think about her desires and her boyfriend's desires separately. If she wants to be non-monogamous herself, and she wants to have sex with other men, then couple-swapping, getting permission to look for casual sex/other relationships on her own, or scheduling a FMM threesome sounds closer to what she wants than going to a sex club. Which doesn't mean they shouldn't go to a sex club, especially if he's looking to have sex with multiple women simultaneously and he's decently GGG about the nonmonogamy more relevant to the LW's interests, but the activities that satisfy his needs aren't necessarily going to be the activities that satisfy her needs, and it won't help the relationship for her to expect them to be.

I've been to clubs that allow single guys in, and each time I went I had at least one or more unpleasant experiences. As Dan said, men often feel entitled. That means if you pick one of the single guys to play with, then there's going to be at least three others who think THEY should be able to play with you, too. That you may not be attracted to them or just not interested doesn't even enter their minds. They are thinking only of what THEY want, and don't actually care what you want. If you're lucky, they will just ask if you want to play, and move on if you say no. If you are unlucky, they'll grope and grab without even asking. One time I was with a guy, and suddenly had three other cocks in my face! WTF?!? Needless to say, I stopped going to that club even though the hosts and hostesses were nice people, and though they did try to screen the guys, the questioning process still didn't screen out the assholes well enough.

I heard it closed down a few years later. Once women realized they were going to have negative experiences every time they went, they stopped trying to go.

And that, LW, is why most clubs don't allow single men. Because even if you believe a guy is a good guy, you really don't know how he's going to behave in those circumstances. While most men have both empathy and social skills, other men are just entitled assholes. And in those circumstances, taking that chance isn't worthwhile for women.

And to the commenter who said "one of four women just doesn't like sex" - citation needed. You can't make a statement like that without being able to back it up with nothing but bullshit stereotypes.

@9, there was a study a couple of years ago that said, yes, women DO like casual sex....but they're picky about who with, because the physical and social risks that women disproportinately bear from sex (pregnancy being the big one, followed by disease, sexual assault/rape, slut shaming, and being treated like a living masturbation sleeve) are high. They were willing to have casual sex, but only with a person they felt safe with and who they thought would pay attention to their pleasure.

When, "will this person kill or violently assault me" is a real everyday threat in your dating and sexual life, and you know that if he does try to kill or violently assault you that you will have your entire life picked apart in vivid detail, your past sexual experience questions, and flat out called a liar, you learn to be choosy of who you want to get naked with.

When, "Will I find myself with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy as a result of having sex with this person" is an everyday reality for you, which no matter what the outcome will end with a bloody mess, you learn to be picky about who you fuck and when.

@43: "Seattle is so politically correct that the men don't even bother to dress up from slob"

You're gibbering, kiddo.

Iseult @6: Yes, many people who are poly consider "polyamorous" an identity or orientation, rather than a choice. (Because if it's a choice, then it's okay for a partner to demand they "choose" monogamy, a conclusion with which the poly person disagrees.)

Jujubee @17: I can imagine this question coming from someone who is a feminist and has zero experience of how badly some single men can behave in situations involving naked people in their general vicinity. Or from a woman who likes seeing men make out with each other.

And yeah @9: The single men are, in fact, excluded because so many single men don't respect boundaries and consent, and it's easier to exclude them than to police them.

Romanticise @22: "@9: Actually, women with applicable orientations are much more likely to agree to casual f/f sex than women with applicable orientations are likely to agree to casual m/f sex."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA NO.

Ohthetrees @31: That sounds like a good system.

Newcol @43: "Everybody knows it, except for you." Well, I'm convinced. :P

42-Slinky-- If women like casual sex, but they're picky about finding someone with whom they feel safe, who will pay attention to their pleasure, who will be responsible if she gets pregnant, who is responsible about health and not spreading disease, who won't slut-shame her, and is guaranteed non-violent and coercive, then what's the definition of casual sex? Because the screening process for finding a guy who fits the above criteria sure sounds like looking for a long term relationship to me, or if not a ltr, at least a short term one or a friends with benefits one with the emphasis on the long lasting absolute kindness and devotion that goes with friendship.

Fichu @47: I believe it's possible for women to at least attempt to accurately analyse even one-night-stand partners for likelihood of not being an asshole prior to going home with them. We make snap value judgments about people all the time. Do they seem like a decent person? Are there any red flags to suggest they might be selfish lovers, might not take no for an answer, have slut-shaming double standards? Sure, the longer you know someone before trying to determine these things, the better chance of guessing right. But you could easily come to a "probably a decent guy" / "probably a shithead" conclusion in an hour or two of getting to know someone. Or at least enough women think they can that hookups are still a thing.

@47: I think that 'casual sex' does not automatically mean anonymous sex, or hookups, or one night stands, or what have you. It can mean a sexual relationship in which you're not close--so you wouldn't say you're friends, exactly--but you have sex dates periodically.

As an aside, I've found myself in one of these recently, and I'm trying to work out how I feel about it.

Back when I was swinging at the clubs in my major metro city, there was one day that allowed single men in. The rest couples and no single men. Yes on those single men nights it got damn scary for me. Boy did the single guys think if you were there you were for the grabbing. No. Thank. You.

As to whether women are willing to have one night stands with strangers. I did quite a few, but never with someone who just came and but his hands on me. People complain that women won't have one nights stands are really complaining they won't have one night stands with any comer. No, I won't sleep with you because you want me to.

Every girl who has reached the age of maturity gets this. I won't bite. I think lw is a man too.

@51: Is that what "dating" means to you, Newcol: men overcoming female resistance?
If you and I were friends and met to have coffee and catch up and you asked, "so, are you dating anyone?", I would be supposed to take that question to mean is there a man who is overcoming your resistance to him fucking you right now?

And how should swingers clubs be labeled? As places where men try to overcome female resistance with partners different from their typical victims--um, sweethearts?

Do you like women? Any women? Do you ever like a particular woman and want to be with her because she seems interesting, or nice, or funny, or fascinating, or do you just view every woman as a vagina that is being denied you until you do what it takes (if possible) to gain access to it? Your view of women, of relationships between men and women is sad and, thank god, not universal.

@Newcol in general, continued: It sounds as if you don't think women ever want to have sex. It sounds as if you think that women always have to be worn down, or coerced, or manipulated, or appeased or whatever in order for them to have sex.

You're wrong. Many women like having sex. A whole lot of us like having sex for its own sake, and even more of us like having sex with men we like.

It's kind of a shame that you haven't realized that yet, but that fact that you are in ignorance of it speaks volumes about how you think about and interact with women in general. Your loss, dude.

Newcol: Gee, I wonder why you have difficulty convincing women to date you. All every woman wants is a man to whine at her about how oppressed he is because she's not fucking him. What a turn-on. Ever think that maybe it's not that women are resisting men, but that they're resisting you? Ever think that maybe that massive chip on your shoulder is why? Ever try something radical like, I dunno, treating women as if they are human beings, the same species as you? It sounds crazy, I know, but I hear some chicks dig that.

I recently read a story that asked women about "liking casual sex" v. "liking orgasms". Also asked women about willingness to have PIV sex, give a BJ, receive oral from a man,e tc.

Guess what, women like orgasms. Guess why, even when there aren't any real risks, they don't engage in casual sex?

Newsflash: because they aren't having orgasms. Because for a lot of men like Newcol, casual sex is defined as PIV sex.

So, duh, not interested.

This is why at swingers clubs, women aren't interested in men like Newcol. Because the "sex" that's on offer isn't centered on the types of acts that get women off.

not "story" = "study".

@53, @54

I wouldn't bother engaging further. He doesn't want to understand.

It's not that women don't like casual sex. It's that we don't like the types of casual sex we are usually offered from men.

I'm sure most of the women on here would totally enjoy casual sex if it were them getting serviced instead of the other way around.

I'm also sure that the frequency of women having casual sex would change greatly if society wasn't so biased toward heteronormative PIV sex as "sex" and the default for casual hookups.

I recently was having a chat w a group of about 25 middle aged women. One woman asked if anyone there had EVER had an experience where the man pleased her and kept his pants on (i.e., no orgasm, no attempt at orgasm for her). Only 2 (me included). When asked if they'd ever had an experience where they'd pleased a man w/o any reciprocation, every one had done so. All of these women had been in loving, LTR at some point in their lives.

If men who love their women aren't doing this, then why would one expect casual sex partners to.

If men like newcol really want women to engage in more casual sex, the answer is for men as a whole to up their game.

I have a male friend - not particularly attractive physically - who has 4-6 casual hookups per week. He also has a tongue of steel and nimble fingers. Wonder if there's any correlation.

@55 -"1 in 4 women don't like sex" is not reality. Neither is taking all of your internalized gender bullshit calling it "biology." You're an idiot.

@45, I've never been to a swingers club, think dudes making out is insanely hot, and am absolutely a feminist--that has no coloring on my understanding of why an unlimited number of single men in an environment like that is a bad idea. I literally can't imagine how sheltered someone would have to be to not grasp that concept...unless that someone is a dude who wants in because he feels entitled to it.

@53 & 54 nailed it.

@55: Your experience with women appears limited to reading new-age garbage "men are from mars" books, nobody gives two fucks about your lonely, uninformed opinions.

@60: "unless that someone is a dude who wants in because he feels entitled to it."

Even in the best case, let's step beyond the male fantasy of a woman's "ideal" fantasy, have these people ever thrown a party? Have they ever tried to keep all their guests happy? My guess is that they're not qualified at anything approaching social encounters either.

In any party, you want people having fun, you want a good mix of people, and the only thing they think is necessary to get a party going is dongs, dongs everywhere and as far as the eye can see. They're confusing spending time in strip mall peep booths with clubs.

Newcol @55: Made you laugh? Glad we could return the favour.

Jujubee @60: I recently met a 36-year-old straight man who had never given oral sex before. Some people ARE that sheltered.

Slowpokey: Absolutely. Notice the verb tense in my above anecdote. You see, I like having orgasms, and I was not going to be horny enough to go home from a club with someone and NOT have one. Top tip, women: If he doesn't get you off, why should you get him off? My 36-year-old turned out to be quite educable, funny that. We all have the power to demand better! Let's use it!

@60 cont. You literally can't imagine a horny straight woman might think, "Wait, there won't be enough men to go around? There will be several women per man, but we'll have to queue up for men who won't be any use once they've come once? Where's the fun in that?"

Yes, it's a naive view, but a completely understandable one.

I'm surprised that it hasn't come up in the comments already about the "swinging double standard" but "swinging" by definition is usually something done by couples. I was never a regular but the club I occasionally attended was restricted to couples only, and in their required orientation session prior to first attending a party, there was a lot of emphasis on the primacy of the couple....I.e. people usually swinging to augment and supplement their primary relationship, not to date or to find others for more traditional poly arrangements. (not to say that poly people might not get in somehow, but there is quite a difference between poly and swinging.) My "primary partner" and I actually overemphasized how much of a "couple" we were to get in. If it's like dating at all, it's more like finding compatible bridge partners or couples to double date with. Generally I would think it's a better place to find a foursome for a "swap" than a unicorn for a threesome. The bi male (at least at the place I went) would be a rare animal. Women tend to be more fluid about contact with other women but "swinging" is mostly hetero and men trying to cruise other men at a swinger party would be not particularly welcome.

I think LW will discover that a statement on a club's website that single women are welcome does not translate into a surplus of women at the event. As Squidgie says, "swinging" is a couples activity. Sure, some single (mostly bi, I'd expect) women may go along, but "share my man" is not particularly tempting for women who are easily able to pick up a man they could have all to themselves at pretty much any bar in town. "Single women welcome" is probably more wishful thinking than anything else.

@64/65, never performing oral sex isn't exactly the kind of sheltered I was referring to. By sheltered I mean never having left the house as a woman, never having been the subject of unwanted advances, never actually interacted with men in a social situation. That's the level of sheltered a woman would have to be to not grasp why single men aren't given unfettered access to a swingers club. It's not a question of available men, it's a question of safety. I don't care how new to a scene someone is-an adult woman has safety at the forefront of her mind at all times, it's simply a fact of functioning in the world.

@67: I doubt the LW will ever disabuse themselves of this, if that naivete comes from a place of sincerity, I wonder if what she wants is not a "swingers club" but some sort of Club Domina.

If, again, this is not just a straight guy's attempt to channel his feelings of being excluded into something cargo cult "feminism", going once and observing will definitely help explain odd questions like this-

"I mean this club has all sorts of rules, why not make rules to mitigate the propensity for a circle jerk and allow everyone equal access to the experience?

That's exactly why these rules are in place? These venues exist to create safe spaces from what is. They are not places where society does not exist, they do not through mere existence change society to the point where these rules would not be necessary.

Whatever the purpose of the letter, the LW needs to address the willful gap between fantasy and reality, sit back and observe the human dynamic a bit more.

@68: Ah, the slightly malicious / self-destructive naivete where a person states that they "wish people would say things to them in the street" whenever a woman complains that she's receiving street harassment. "Other people who complain about receiving negative attention are just babies or are being held back by feminism, I would feel validated as a person if rando creeps shouted things at me on the street!"

undead ayn rand,

I was an early-developing white girl growing up in a white neighbourhood. Lots of guys of all ages tried stuff on me from the time I was a preteen. Definitely upsetting, especially as my parents minimized it and didn’t teach me appropriate coping tactics.

A close friend was an early-developing black girl also growing up in a white neighbourhood. She got her first catcall when she was sixteen, while visiting Africa. She had never been perceived as a sexual person before. That mattered.

As I cycle through depressive and manic-ish phases as a middle-aged woman, I can choose to get catcalled or not. If I wear high heels and a tight minidress and strangers indicate they are enjoying the view from a respectful distance, I smile and wave. I’m glad to have the option. Glad to be able to solicit and get sexual validation when I want to, glad that I communicate a Don’t-Mess-With-Me vibe to maintain that respectful distance, glad that when I don’t want to deal I can just not be a flashy femme and I don’t have to.

While I never want to be a stalked eleven-year-old-girl again, it was made very clear to me that I was perceived to be a sexual person. I never had to seriously question my desirability in a general way. And at my age now, catcalls can be fun if I want them to be.

Not everyone has my options. If I had never been catcalled in my life when other women were complaining about the sexual attention they received, that would actually be a different kind of violence.

@7: I was indeed wondering that myself. You'd have to be astonishingly naive and on top of that, never been a woman on a dating site to even ask this question.

Unless you're a guy whose delicate feelings were hurt by the no-single-men rule. Then that makes total sense.

Late in the game.... As others noted letter is likely to be fake. "Newcol" seems like a new and slightly improved version of someone who's not here anymore. Or maybe...

The text after the asterisk explaining, "Not all men..." to me reads like the perfect description of the type of male unicorn(s) that the writer would like to have welcomed at swinger parties.

The swinger world is different from the swinger club, or so I have found in my home town. Vetted singles are common at house parties, especially divorced swingers. New straight girls learn to find guys through other channels than the club, and some do escort single guys to clubs. Married guys can be just as pushy/creepy as straight guys. Either they learn or get blacklisted or never understand . And just cause I had sex with one guy does not mean I want to have sex with every guy.

The club exists to at least break even, if not make money. If there were lots of single men , women would come once, and not come back. This would be unsustainable. This is not a moral issue.

@71: "If I had never been catcalled in my life when other women were complaining about the sexual attention they received, that would actually be a different kind of violence."

Sigh.

This woman is very sweet. She's in for some eye opening things.

Undead @69: Oh, I know all of this. I'm not the one who has thought only as far ahead as "wait, what if I want an MFM threesome? Why can't this club cater for that?" but not quite as far as "men, those are the ones who sexually harass and grope women and worse, right? Okay, I see your point." I'm only disputing the assertion that a female LW so naive can't possibly exist. She most certainly could, in my experience of the world.

CMD @73: We'll see if the word "shitstain" appears in their vocabulary, then we'll know for sure.

Eh. I'm a woman and I've been in the swing community for some ten years, at times partner and at times single, and I really wish more clubs let in single men. I'm all for a screening process (which most have anyway) and limiting the number to keep ratios in balance, but it would be great to be able to (1) meet like-minded guys when I'm single or (2) MFM with a guy without spending my life negotiating for it with his girlfriend / wife. I know a lot of pretty awesome swinger guys who suddenly can't attend parties or clubs just because they're no longer partnered. It feels like an unreasonable and unfair bias to me and I wish it weren't so.

@79: "Oh, I know all of this."

I knowww, I wasn't really arguing. And as I accidentally summoned, you can find someone to be contrarian about nearly any topic.

@80: This is all really a matter of reality and fantasy and capitalism colliding.

* You're going to get some weirdos and looky-loos when you have open membership
* You're going to get less money when you get more picky about regular attendance, I don't doubt that there are a bunch of great guys that could keep everyone happy but are they going to show up regularly enough to pay the rent?

"I know a lot of pretty awesome swinger guys who suddenly can't attend parties or clubs just because they're no longer partnered. It feels like an unreasonable and unfair bias to me and I wish it weren't so."

So let them in with you? If you can vouch for them, what's the concern?

"I really wish more clubs let in single men."

They do, just on more specific nights, costing more to get in, and/or a limited number a night.

Get there earlier, pay a still-reasonable fee, what's the deal? If they're great, they'll be welcome.

That, or organize the parties yourself, and avoid offloading the selection, active social maintenance of balance and entertainment onto a club, you get to set the exact dynamic you want!

Hrm, I have a longtime friend whose relatives have owned a club for dozens of years and should pass on some these questions and quandaries and get their opinions.

VBee @80: Hmm, that does seem unfair (lose your partner, lose your entry privileges). I'd think that could be rectified by having memberships which, once issued, remain valid for the individual halves of each couple. If he could behave himself with his partner around, perhaps he could be presumed to be able to behave on his own (until proven guilty of course).

I'd just like to point how comfortable most people seem with the logic: It's perfectly OK to exclude single men because men act like [this or that]. I wouldn't even debate the effectiveness, these parties probably are a lot better with a non-male gender skew. But next time you are up in arms about some regressive cave-man douche ex-military guy saying women shouldn't be in combat because women are [like this or that]; or some troglodyte racist saying that there shouldn't be a [some store/service] in black neighborhoods because black people don't like shopping there/doing that; just remember that you subscribe to the exact same way of thinking, and the only difference between you and them is the identifiable group you side with.

@83 - Not really, I think the letter writers as a whole have been fairly nuanced. Some stereotypes are much more based in truth than others, and power imbalances always magnify consequences. The stereotype of black people committing drug crimes is based on the fact that enforcement for black americans is so much higher than white americans, even though use rates are the same. In the case of the swingers club and in life in general, broad experience and much evidence shows that a significant portion of men are gonna be entitled assholes, and the power imbalance magnifies the consequences. I say all this as a man, and if you still think that I am painting with too broad a brush I offer you the support of Donald Trump's candidacy as exhibit B.

Its a fake letter anyway.

@84: It's useful as a thought experiment but positing that asking men to come in tandem with a woman is the same as racism... woof. That's insane.

If you're well-entrenched in any of these communities you can find a friend to come with, they don't even have to stay very long.

The purposes of these requirements isn't to ban men from attending, it the attempt to screen out looky-loos and... casuals? I don't really know the out-word used. Again, men are not banned, they are not screened out on all nights, and singles should be restricted on nights dedicated to "swingers" and "couples". If women were the only ones showing up and changing the dynamic, the general policy implemented to ensure balance would also change to match.

There seem to be a lot of concern trolling (with various amounts of sincerity) around perceived slights to man, but my based on any actual rules or policy.

For fun, someone should examine actual entrance reqs, the weekly nights these sex clubs have, and actually speak to management at one. It'd help ground their concerns in how things actually operate, how this is tuned for happiness (and self-sustaining profit.)

And yes, it's a letter designed to appeal to people with frustrations that they haven't put a lot of thought and empathy into.

They're not going to put much effort into why things are the way they are, how they personally can be a contributing member to whatever community, they just want to show up and participate.

If these are "parties", they need to conform to party rules and policy so everyone feels welcome. There's fetlife and local resources if you want more spontaneity, but even still persons will expect some amount of pre-qualification for safety and to screen out participants.

We sympathize with the loneliness, not so much the impatience and lack of effort put forth.

So some of the guys think this is just pandering to a sterotype? That most single men would behave themselves at these get togethers...maybe. Young males can be an unpredictable lot. Single older men, should be able to play nice. Maybe it's the married men who have slipped this rule in. I do see the wisdom of screening and letting some single men in, for the women who like a poster above, don't want to worry about the wives.

41/blondegrrl: One time I was with a guy, and suddenly had three other cocks in my face! WTF?!?

That's precisely why, when that fast food craving hits, you should never go to Cock-in-the-Face.

@89: Hee hee.

@88: These letters (alongside the daddy/daughter one) show a great deal of angst and apprehension, but no desire to bridge the knowledge gap or introduce reality to their perceptions.

I don't know, why not talk to anyone who goes to these places or ask questions to those enthusiasts on Tumblr before deciding to tell Dan that sex clubs are unfair to men and that the roleplayers are straight-up pedophiles?

I feel like a lot of these letters could be headed off at the pass by an honest curiosity and an attempt to... actually participate before deciding that they know everything there is to know without needing to sully that impression with actual participation. As persons earlier have posited (assuming it's not a dude trying to shame women) it seems like they're trying to justify their dismissiveness, not understand.

I haven't read all the comments here, sorry.

To me, the subtext of the LW's letter is this: My bf wants to be poly. I'm not into girls. I'm into guys. We keep going to places where we will only meet girls. Therefore, I'm going to get MFF experiences and no MMF experiences. This is unfair.

And, yes. In my experience of the world, that's the whole problem with straight dudes who say they're poly.

OK now I've read the first couple dozen and scanned the rest. You guys are probably right that it's fake, assuming the LW's main concern is why there are single women allowed but not single men. But if you assume that the LW's main concern is trying to figure out exactly what it is about her new bf's poly identity that makes her uncomfortable (especially considering how nice and gentle he is, taking it slow, suggesting clubs) then I'd say it's the fact that poly to HIM means they get to fuck new girls when she's all like, but hey, I'm not into girls, I'm into dudes. She keeps talking about how straight they both are, and this is overlooked in the discussion about her understanding of swingers clubs. She's not really having a prob with the dynamics of the clubs, imo, she's having a problem with the fact that poly (in their case) means they get a new girl.

@47 It's hard to generalize about half the world, but I doubt most women think about all of those things in the hands of the stranger. Certainly in my hookup days (and in the hookup days of friends who I supported in their endeavors), I took control of my own birth control and did the best for my own safety. So those things weren't major concerns assuming you had some element of control over them. For myself, it was far more about whether or not the guy who I met seemed like he could hang and be cool/casual about it or if he was going after it like it was the thing he most wanted in the universe and then afterwards would be all weird about. You want to be able to hook up with someone who is fun and who could hang with you as a friend with sex as a nice bonus but who otherwise could still hang. You don't want to hook up with someone who is obviously really pushing hard to get laid right then- all grabby hands and eager beaver. That's really high school, and most women I know have been down that road enough by the time they are legal adults that they tend to either really know how to avoid it or else they avoid everything. The best casual hookups I ever had (back in my young and single then later open and married days) were on vacation. You meet someone, hang out with them doing backpacker things, just like you would with anyone, and by the end of the day you are pretty damn sure they aren't a serial killer or a stalker or horny repressed freak, and regardless of whether or not they'd be a good partner/boyfriend/father, you are pretty certain you can have a good time in the sack. The thing I always wondered was, how cool will they be the next day? If they can still hang over breakfast like we're pals, that's the casual hookup dude for me. I've found that this ability increases with age and experience- unfortunately so many folks are damaged/repressed/insecure by then.

Probably men have their version of this with women too, but I've never dated women so I wouldn't know.

@45
"Jujubee @17: I can imagine this question coming from someone who is a feminist and has zero experience of how badly some single men can behave in situations involving naked people in their general vicinity. Or from a woman who likes seeing men make out with each other. "

Yup, that could be it. I don't know what her being a feminist has to do with it, but otherwise I agree with this. Especially the last part. It's pretty common in heterosexual relationships that a MFF threesome will involve the FF interacting sexually with one another even if they are both straight. And as easy as Dan says it is to find a third guy for a MMF, a straight guy usually wants the third male to be there "for her"- which means no MM interaction. Straight guys who can have fun with other guys (even in the presence of their female partner) is usually considered bi, which is in fact a double standard since it's normal for straight girls to make out for their male partners without the same implication. Though maybe I'm extrapolating from my own experience too much, and I have super limited experience with swingers clubs, hence my tendency to believe that the LW could exist and could seriously find the dynamic unfair- despite the fact that Dan's explanation for that dynamic is also true.

@66
"Generally I would think it's a better place to find a foursome for a "swap" than a unicorn for a threesome"

Yeah, but if my experience is of any indication, there are a lot (and i mean A LOT) of swinger couples who are in reality disillusioned unicorn hunters, who settle for, basically, "my wife will play a unicorn for you, your wife willplay a unicorn for us" thing.
Absolute majority of swingers we know would love an MFF thing if presented with the opportunity, so even if there are as much single women as couples (which is a highly unlikely situation already) and everyone likes everyone (which is even unlikelier) everyone will threesome up and be happy.
Which isn't true for an opposite scenario.

And there is this other thing - some swingers (a sizable portion, in our experience) don't have sex at clubs at all. They meet people there, to have sex with in the privacy of their own home.