Jump to content

davephx

Registered
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

Community Reputation

32 Excellent

About davephx

  • Rank
    Contributor

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    Single Male
  • Location
    Phoenix AZ
  • Interests
    Esalen massage, caring high touch intimacy see also http://www.touchangels.com
  • Occupation
    Counselor
  1. What contradictions are in the Bible you ask? Ask and ye shall receive. (Though this is far from a complete list.) CONFLICTING VERSES (short sample there are zillions more) God dwells in light (1 Timothy 6:16) God dwells in darkness (1 Kings 8:12) --- John the Baptist is Elias (Matthew 11:14) John the Baptist isn't Elias (John 1:21) --- A brother will marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy 25:5) Such a thing is unclean (Leviticus 20:21) --- Think not that I come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matthew 10:34) ... all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52 & Revelations 13:10) --- And no man hath ascended up to heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven. (John 3:13) ...and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven. (2 Kings 2:11) -- If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. (John 5:31) I am one that bear witness of myself... (John 8:18) [Jesus Christ was the speaker in both of these quotes] ---- Love God. (Deuteronomy 6:5; 11:1 & 13 & 22; 19:9; 30:6 & 16, Joshua 22:5; 23:11, Psalms 31:23, Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27) Fear God (Leviticus 25:17, Deuteronomy 6:1 & 13 & 24; 10:12 & 20; 31:12-13, 1 Samuel 12:14, Psalms 33:8; 111:10; 115:13; 128:1; 147:11, Luke 12:5, 1 Peter 2:17) Love and fear God (Deuteronomy 10:12) There is no fear in love. (1 John 4:18) ---- If a man vow a vow unto the Lord or swear an oath... he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth. (Numbers 30:2) But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven... nor by earth. (Matthew 5:34-35) -------- Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to regin. (2 Kings 8:26) Fourty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign. (2 Chronicles 22:2) ---- God is seen (Exodus 24:9-11, 33:11 ("face-to-face"), 23 ("hinderparts"); Genesis 32:24-30 (both seen and physically touched); John 14:7; Numbers 14:10, 16:19, 42; Deuteronomy 5:4 (face to face) God is unseeable (John 1:18 (has never been seen), 5:37 (can't be seen/never seen); Exodus 33:20 (death for seeing His face); 1 Timothy 6:16) --- God is heard (Exodus 33:11 (direct physical conversation); Genesis 3:9-10, 22:1-2, 11-12, 15-18; Acts 9:7; Numbers 12:5-8, 14:10-11, 16:20, 23-24, 44-45; 1 Kings 19:12-18) God is not heard (John 5:37 (never heard) --- And God saw everything that he made, and behold it was very good. (Genesis 1:31) And it repented the Lord that he had made man on earth, and it grieved him at his heart (Genesis 6:6) --- God rested (Genesis 2:2, Exodus 20:11 & 31:17, Hebrews 4:4) God never rests (Isaiah 40:28) --- Do not murder/kill (Exodus 20:13, 23:7; Leviticus 19:18, 24:17, Matthew 19:18) David orders a cold-blooded murder (II Samuel 1:15) David sings of slaughtering children (Psalms 137:9) Moses orders killing (Numbers 31:17-18 (wanton slaughter), Exodus 32:26-27 (3,000 die) Elijah -- most holy of the prophets -- kills (1 Kings 18:22 & 40 (kills 450); 2 Kings 1:10-14 (102 men), 2:23-24 (causes 42 children to die)) God kills or orders it done (Ezekiel 14:9; Acts 5:5 & 10; Genesis 19:24-25, 22:2; Exodus 21:14, 15, 16, 17, 23, 29, 22:18, 19, 20, 24, 23:27, 32:27; Leviticus 20:2, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 21:9, 24:14-16 & 23, 21, 26:17, 22, 29; Deuteronomy 13:5, 9-10, 21:18-21, 22:21; Numbers 16:31-33, 35, 21:6, 31:1 , Matthew 15:4) _-- Those that seek me early shall find me. (Proverbs 8:17, Luke 11:9-10) Then shall they call upon me but I will not answer; they shall seek me early, but shall not find me. (Proverbs 1:28) --- Shaving of beards is not allowed (Judges 8:5, Leviticus 19:28) Long hair is shameful (I Corinthians 6:14) --- Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (Matthew 5:16) Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them. (Matthew 6:1) --- Jesus dies at the 6th hour (John 19:14-30, Luke 23:44-46) Jesus dies at the 9th hour (Matthew 27:46-50, Mark 15:25-37) --- God sees everything (Proverbs 15:3, Job 34:21-22) God does not see everything (Genesis 18:20,21) --- David's throne was forever (Psalms 89:34-37) David's throne was not forever (Psalms 89:44) David's throne will be given to another (Luke 1:32) --- Israel had 800,000 fighting men & Judah 500,000 (2 Samuel 24:9) Israel had 1,100,000 and Judah 470,000 (1 Chronicles 21:5) --- The Lord made David number the people (2 Samuel 24:1) Satan made David number the people (1 Chroncles 21:1) --- David took 1700 horsemen (2 Samuel 8:4) David took seven thousand horsemen (1 Chronicles 18:4) --- Be angry (Ephesians 4:26) Don't be angry (Ecclesiastes 7:9) --- Michal had no children (2 Samuel 6:23) Michal had 5 sons (2 Samuel 21:8) --- Abraham had 2 sons (Galations 4:22) Abraham had only 1 son. (Hebrews 11:17) Abraham had at least 7 children (Genesis 22:2 & Genesis 25:2, 6) --- Incest is quite bad (Deuteronomy 27:22, Leviticus 20:17) One may commit incest for specific purposes (Leviticus 21:3) Abraham commits incest (Genesis 20:11,12) --- Paul's attendants heard the miraculous voice (Acts 9:7) Paul's attendants hear nothing (Acts 22:9) _________________________________________________________________ Christ = God ("I and my father are one." John 10:30) Christ & God are not equal ("My father is greater than I." John 14:28) --- Honor thy father and mother. (Exodus 20:12, Matthew 15:14, 19:19) If any man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and children, and bretheren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. (Luke 14:26) For I come to set a man at varience against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. (Matthew 10:35) --- Thou shalt not steal (Exodus 20:15; Leviticus 19:11; Deuteronomy 5:19, 24:7; Matthew 19:18) Steal the wealth of besieged cities (Genesis 34:27-29, Deuteronomy 20:13-14) --- There shall no evil happen to the just. (Proverbs 12:21) God will allow evil to happen to the just (Hebrews 12:6, Job 1:12) Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. (Matthew 4:1) --- Jesus is omnipotent (Matthew 28:18) Jesus is less than omnipotent (Mark 6:5) _________________________________________________________________ What scientific inconsistencies? Let's see... Rabbits whom chew their cud LEV 11:6 (No doubt an extinct species of rabbit.) The world having "corners". (Unless, perhaps mountain peaks count as some sort of "corner"?) Insects having 4 legs. (No doubt the evolutionary predecessors to the modern cockroach... ) Having Jesus being born before the person whose rule he is supposedly born during has even been made ruler. There are more, but surely one gets the point by now... The mother of Abijah: 2CH 11:20 Maachah the daughter of Absalom 2CH 13:2 Michaiah the daughter of Uriel When did Baasha die? 1KI 16:6-8 26th year of the reign of Asa 2CH 16:1 36th year of the reign of Asa How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? 2KI 8:26 22 2CH 22:2 42 Who was Josiah's successor? 2CH 36:1 Jehoahaz JER 22:11 Shallum The differences in the census figures of Ezra and Nehemiah. What was the color of the robe placed on Jesus during his trial? MAT 27:28 scarlet JOH 19:2 purple Many Many Many more shown at A List Of Biblical Contradictions
  2. Adultery and marriage in biblical times was an ownership issue. Adultery was only wrong for a married women, never for a married many as long as the "other women" was single - not owned by a man. A married man could have as many wives, concubines and "common prostitutes" as he wished or could afford as long as not a another man's property (wife). Marriage was based on a financial deal with the father. Once the bride price was paid sex before marriage was common since no longer damaged goods once the father got his negotiated price. Couples often had sex while waiting till age 12-13 to marry. In other cases the bride and groom sometime first met each other on the marriage day. Marriage had nothing to do with love but a financial deal by families. Today we don't own our wives and concubines (for breeding) and women have the same rights to pleasure as men. Swinging is based on mutual consent not ownership of the man. Much of what is in the bible is cultural and has no relevance today, not to mention the zillions of direct contradictions. The bible (which was decided upon what writings to include by men) claims only to be "useful" never the "word of god". God would not be so confused in the zillions of direct contradictions. Some of the problems are obviously biased translations.. i.e. porenia translated fornication is a total lie in translation that totally changed the original meaning. Decades ago I was a Lifestyles convention speaker along with some members of our Phoenix couples group topic "swinging Christians not a biblical conflict" Although dated and have not updated for years due to other interests lots of info at Liberated Christians Polyamory, Swing, Biblical, Sybian Cyber Center
  3. Gee interesting poll from 2 years ago has some posts. I haven't had time to read all but confused what exactly "practising/practicing is. One doesn't have to go to Church or "practice" to be a Christian. I consider myself Christian since I believe it is more likely than not Christ was real etc. But I also believe God (I do believe in a one universal God) may reach people equally without having to be branded a certain religious belief. I was an extreme conservative Christian 25 years ago until I started researching on my own especially on biblical sexual issues. After years of study I had to conclude I was wrong in my traditional beliefs - the preached sexual repression simply has no true biblical basis. That resulted in my forming Liberated Christians to share idea (libchrist.com) about 20 year ago and spoke at Lifestyles conventions many years on "Swinging Christians - not a biblical conflict. Not having the right partner I am not active in swinging now but other intimacy interests more than just pure sex.
  4. Maybe the reason it is so hard for single guys is because by tradition and definition swinging is about couples. Some swing clubs allow single guys on some nights to make money, but basically they allow singles to watch usually the exhibitionist couples that come those nights and many other swingers avoid. There are very good reasons why couples like to share with other couples. Yes there are some couples that enjoy a extra man once in a while but the supply of wantaparticipate single male is humongous. There does seem to be more interest in some cities for single males if the male is bi. Back years ago when I led the Phoenix couples group, we ran ads and for every 10 couples that responded we had 100 single guys and maybe one single female (they often were doms looking for slave guys). Out of frustration not being able to help single guys I got interested in sexwork which often is a far less expensive practical alternative than the disappontments of trying to be a single guy in swinging which again by definition is for couples. Dave in Phoenix Founder, Liberated Christians http://www.libchrist.com and Sexwork Resource Center http://www.sexwork.com LoveTouch & Therapeutic Touch Institute http://www.lovetouch.info
  5. J5T said applying today's definition of adultery to the topic of swinging is absolutely relevant. I suppose a christian, if they feel so inclined, can choose as they will as to which doctrine to beleive and follow - the ancient doctrine (adultery by married men with single women - good) or the modern doctrine (adultery by anyone - bad). To me this seems totaly unChristian, to make up new laws based on Mans ideas that has no biblical basis. Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ and traditions of his time. There is no "modern doctrine" other than lies of twisting what is biblical. True Christianity doesn't change based on new doctrine, other than if certain things were totally cultural. Jesus taught that a Christian has the freedom in Christ to be free from the legalism of Hebrew times in various areas. But there is no new modern doctrine that is valid in my view that is more restrictive than in biblical times. Modern doctrine is nothing but lies of translations of ancient doctrine in my view. Christ's teachings on which Christianity is based does not change. And Christ never said a word about any sexual restrictions. As a serious biblical Christian it is clear there is absolutely nothing biblically wrong with swinging, polyamory or being as God created people to be, homosexual, bi or heterosexual. The false lies of traditions that have no biblical basis are the abomination based again on lies. Many Christians follow what the bible actually said as understood in the culture in which it was written vs the lies of traditions, even admitted by the NIV committee as an example. The issue in bible translation is traditions vs "dynamic equivalency" . Are the lies of traditions more important than what the bible actually said in the original language and context is the issue. Many ministers and theologians are on the side of biblical facts instead of the lies of traditions regarding sexual issues. We gave a huge biblical section that looks more seriously at these issues and every sex related passage that is lied by sex negative traditions at http://www.libchrist.com/bible/contents.html Also see my background as I use to be very traditional conservative until I took my Christianity and the bible more seriously. See http://www.libchrist.com/background/founders.html And just a small sample of the zillions of ministers and theologians that write in support of biblical honestly at http://www.libchrist.com/christiansin/contents.html And a sample bibliography at http://www.libchrist.com/bible/books.html How Sex Was Made A Sin A huge number of other Christians who now are enjoying more open relationships, more living in Christ's love. But many have struggled with exactly the same issues that many who visit our site are concerned about. Centuries of indoctrination by traditional Christian teachings are hard to overcome. But the sex negative traditions clearly have no biblical basis. Jews (the group out of which Jesus preached) do not have the same sexual hang ups that today's traditional Christians (vs Biblical) have. They view sex in a much more wholesome way than most Christians. Christians borrow their negative view of sex from the Greeks and also from St. Augustine who over-reacted to his previous sexual progligacy with his ascetic responses that mad sex totally evil even when it was used in marriage for sexual reasons. It was only valid if it was for the purpose of procreation. Now, if that is the only use you make of sex then you are in sympathy with St. Augustine. That is a sorry place to put your loyalty. Regarding Christ, I believe that his silence indicates a wholesome acceptance of Jewish openness about the subject. Christians(?) are too often in tune with negativism and not open to honesty about their own sexuality and, as a result, so many of them end up in deviancy. Sex is not a disease. It is a gift from God. That does not mean that we use it carelessly. Many traditional Christians have a lot to work out on a psychological level sexual issues, before they can engage in dialogue with honest, searching Christians eager to find solutions to the errors created by organized religious fanatics. The Emperor Constantine (354-430 A.D.) was perhaps the world's most important convert to the new religion of Christianity. Christianity was perhaps the only thing left to try to hold the Roman Empire together. While the political empire fell in the next century, the Church stepped in as the new central authority. Threats of burning in hell were even more effective than the army for controlling large and diverse populations. Augustine was a primary theological shaper of thought and went so far as to argue that sex was sinful even within wedlock unless the specific purpose was always conception! This reflects the need at the time for many more children. Infant mortality was very high and the economic and political structures were based on families. Likewise, clerical celibacy was in part shaped by fear that offspring would fight over Church property. Thanks to widespread illiteracy - or apathy -whatever the Church said was now law. Intercourse was no longer natural and good; sex was dirty and only for procreation. Celibacy was the new standard for the clergy. And it was a great money maker! If you sinned by enjoying sex, you must come to the Church for repentance, which required a donation to demonstrate your faith. What a perfect way for the Church to raise capital; make everyone a sinner because of their innate sexual desires and then offer to absolve them for a sizeable donation. The sexual morality of Christianity did not come from Jesus. It instead came from later Christians whose main interest was the control of the masses. It is important to recognize the source of religious dogma about sex - when and where it came from - and put it in perspective in present time and circumstances. Making polygamy a "sin" was a slow process. It was even common for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses. Pope Gregory II in a decretal in 726 said "when a man has a sick wife who cannot discharge the marital function, he may take a second one, provided he looks after the first one." Later, with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance, Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree that offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could not inherit anyway). In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality (multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times), but it was about MONEY! Polygyny (many wives for 1 man) was the norm due to the male-dominated society and the fact a man's status was determined by the number of children he fathered. Today, women should enjoy equal rights and sex can be for pleasure and an expression of sincere love. This makes polyamory a more equal and loving lovestyle. For much more detailed historic information on how sex became a sin see: http://www.patriarchywebsite.com/monogamy/mono-history.htm The Liberated Christian Sexual Ethic We affirm that our sexuality is a natural gift from God. It should not be artificially restricted by regulation. God honors a free sexual expression that seeks the enjoyment and good of the each person, and the glory to God as He participates with us in this glorious aspect of living and loving others, ourselves and God. In our scriptural understanding, a New Testament biblical argument cannot be made against most cases of consensual sexual pleasure sharing, whether premarital, marital, or postmarital. Negative cases can be made only if the parties involved are not functioning within Christian love guidelines, but are rather using one another for their own selfish gratification or are doing harm, physical or psychological, to their sexual partners or to other parties who are involved. Among the sexual practices which would be harmful would be the careless disregard for sexually transmitted diseases or contraceptive protection.
  6. This is the typical problem with today's Christians. Take a modern definition of adultery and apply it to biblical times. See my earlier message. In biblical times adultery was ONLY wrong for a married women, NEVER a married man as long as the other women was single. Men had many wives, concubines, "common" prostitutes and it was NEVER wrong. What relevance is the fact that 2000 years later we have a different definition of adultery? Webster didn't live in biblical times. Examples of Polyamory (actually polygamy), adultery and fornication in the Bible. Today in our cultural equal polyamory relationships are even more in line with Christ's teaching of love than biblical cultural where male dominated polygamy was the norm. Abraham had two wives; Isaac only one; Jacob had four; David "had his hundreds" and Solomon had "his thousands." A man could marry (literally to "become the master of the woman") as often as he desired. In Genesis 4:19, Lamech became the first known polygamist when he took two wives. Subsequent men who took multiple wives included: Esau with 3 wives; Jacob: 2; Ashur: 2; Gideon: many; Elkanah: 2; David: many; Solomon: 700 wives of royal birth; Rehaboam: 3; Abijah: 14. Jehoram, Joash, Ahab, Jeholachin and Belshazzar also had multiple wives. Genesis 16: Sarah gave permission to her husband Abraham to engage in sexual intercourse with her maid, Hagar. Presumably this was done without the consent of Hagar, who had such a low status in the society of the day that she was required to submit to multiple rapes at her owner's command. What could be clearer than the Song of Songs, celebrating Solomon's love for a new woman? Verse 6:8 tells us that at the time Solomon was celebrating love with this woman, he had 60 wives and 80 concubines and "young women past counting." Concubines were often for breeding and the other young women, too numerous to count, were also available for his sexual pleasure. Eventually Solomon ended up with 700 wives, 300 mistresses and never a word was spoken that their was anything wrong with having sex with all these women. In OT times concubinage was an official status. God rebuked Solomon not for polygyny and the concubines, but for the fact that many of his wives were non-Hebrew and these foreign wives brought idols in for worship from their pagan cultures, which was contrary to God's teaching. Esther 2:17 "And the king loved Esther above all the women (concubines), and she obtained grace and favour in his sight more than all the virgins; so that he set the royal crown upon her head, and made her queen instead of Vashti. (his disobedient wife) David One of the greatest figures of the bible, King David, not only had a multitude of wives but many concubines as well. And he was considered PERFECT in "all" things by God. Not some, or most, but ALL. His many sexual partners was not what was meant by adultery back then. 1Ki 11:4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. What is interesting is that David was "perfect" yet he did commit adultery with Bathsheba but only because Bathsheba was married. She was not one of his own women. The other 7 wives and 17 concubines that David was sleeping with were given to him by God as a blessing! It keeps amazing me how people can claim adultery or sex with singles is Biblically wrong. Clearly adultery only applied to married women and never to a married man with a single women. It was a property issue -the man owned his wives and their sexual rights. Women had no such sexual rights over their husbands. Today women simply have the same right of sexual enjoyment and options that men have always had. This is certainly in line with Christ's teaching that the only "rule" is the rule of love. Today polyamory relations are based on love and equality between men and women - clearly Christ would very much approve. God seems to have been quite pleased with what some Christians would consider adultery. But they have no basis for attacking polyamory or swinging (responsible, consensual non-monogamy). The bible never suggested it was wrong for a man to have many wives and fornicate with concubines. It was only wrong for a married woman since her husband owned her sexuality. Again today's polyamory equal, no ownership relationships are based on love which is what Christ taught. Indeed, both Judaism and Christianity were originally much more tolerant about matters sexual than they are today. That changed dramatically when St. Augustine, after years of personal lewdness and licentiousness, declared that "Nothing is so much to be shunned as sex relations." He certainly did not preach what he practiced! Then Judaism became much more puritanical about 800 years ago when monogamy was instituted in order not to offend or scandalize the Christian communities in which Jews then lived. The late Rabbi Abraham Feinberg wrote a book about 20 years ago, "Sex and the Pulpit," in which he argues that The Church - meaning "organized religion" - controls sex, and by controlling sex controls us. How true! This control becomes a form of slavery to dogma and is what Bob Marley was referring to when he coined one of his famous lines, "Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery..."
  7. There is no conflict between BIBLICAL Christianity and swinging. The only conflict is with traditions that have no biblical basis. In biblical times it was perfectly fine for a married man to have as many wives, concubines and "common" prostitutes as he could afford. Adultery was only wrong for a married women since it violated the husbands ownership of his wife. But a married man could have as many sex partners as he wished as long as they were single (not owned by another man). Adultery was a property crime not a sex crime. The only exception was of the elders of the Churchs of Timothy and Titus could only have one wife. We don't know why but it may have been there were lots of Gentiles in those Church's that were uncomfortable with the Hebrew way of many wives and concubines. We have zillions of ministers that agree and have a huge biblical section at http://www.libchrist.com and extensive bibliography. I use to be as conservative Christian as you could be. I was active in Bible Study Fellowship, Christian Business Men's Committee, elder in a conservative Church. More than 20 years ago I set out to prove my conservative traditional beliefs correct vs some more liberal views. But with years of study I had to admit that I had been lied to about sexual issues by the Church traditions that I found by extensive research and prayer simply had no biblical basis. We continue to have over 2000 folks a day visit http://www.libchrist.com with no sexy pictures just a lot of information that has been helpful for so many swingers and others around the world since 1998. Dave in Phoenix Liberated Christians
  8. That is an easy question to answer. Most single women are not willing to go into what might be a sexual situation such as clubs without a trustedmale companion to go with them that usually they are in a relationship with. That is why there are so few single females. I suggest you go out and find single women and bring them with you.. then you are a couple and no problem.
  9. Swingles is a great idea. Start a SWINGLES group, that way you won't have to bother swingers which by tradition has always been couples. But I know from experience you wil wind up with a 99% single mens group since most single women are not comfortable going to such a group or swing club unless they have a partner to go with...i.e. they are a couple. In swinging there is a HUGE oversupply of nice single men and all most no demand. There are many very sound reasons why most couples prefer to be with other couples. You disliking the facts of life does not change them.
  10. BiCoupleNJ Actually a referendum if gets enough valid signitures (I think its about 20,000 for Phoenix), in Az it HAS to go on the ballot. Just a few weeks ago, such a referendum was successful when enough signatures were raised in Los Angeles for the City to reverse the 6 foot rule for strip clubs instead of taking it to the voters. In TV polls here in Phoenix, after Operation House Call, whcih was one of the biggest sting operation in the U.S. against 80 private sexworkers and clients, ran 80% calling it a waste of police resources. The usually very conservative media here has been virtuall 100% raising the issue of using police resources to go after sex in private. The swing club issue is far simplier than the overall sex in private issue. I agree it will not be easy if it goes to a vote. There will be a huge anti sex campaign from both Christian and Morman leaders. Regarding privacy - voting is the ultimate in privacy. No one will know you voted for or against swing clubs or sexworkers. Instead of just sitting back and letter our sexual freedoms be dictated by those in control, many of us feel something needs to be done. Even a failed vote will get the issue discussed and gradally over time I think it will be more and more supported if money can be raised (not simple) to educate the public etc. The only other hope is in the Courts on privacy issues. I agree no way there is going to be anything favorable from Council on swing clubes or State Legislature on sexwork issue. Too much of a huge Huge Morman voting blocking at the State level and very conservative Phoenix City Council.
  11. I have been involved in the cities process from the beginning. In 1999 with great cooperation from the Scottsdale based National Community Foundation (Christians with goal to help 1000 cities across America pass anti-sex laws to "protect neighborhoods and children) proposed making swing clubs illegal in Phoneix to protect the "health and morals" of citizens. One of their other main arguments was it was prostitution and clubs create crime in their areas. Obviously that made no sense, but neither does protecting neigborhoods and children. You don't need to have arguments that make sense when your fighting on religious moral grounds it seems. There were.. 5 or 6 public hearings. I was at all of them and spoke against the law change (they also made new restrictive laws for strip clubs). Club C was there very well represeneted. I think it was Club C's laywer, although not certain that even had reserached police reports and showed that if you want to fight crime, close all the Circle K stores, not the swing clubs that had very low rates of police calls. About 90% of all the speakers at all the public hearings and the final "big" overflow Council meeting were AGAINST the proposed law changes. The only speakers for the law was the representitive from National Community Foundation and a few "church ladies" I remember one "little old lady" who was so upset with what was going on that she said she would move out of Phoenix if the law did not get passed since she doesn't want to live in such an immoral city that would allow these terrible clubs to operate. At the final city council meeting after the last speaker was heard, their was a motion to pass the law and a "breathingtaking" fast roll call where despite all the overwheliming opposition it was UNANAMOUSLY approved on an EMERGENCY BASIS which means a dire health threat and bypassses the usual waiting period before goes into effect. I have far more details of these events on libchrist.com but that is a summary of what I recall from 1999. The ONLY club in my view that has really been "in there" in the fight to protect your rights as swingers is Milo and Nancy of Club C. The worst club that just wants to run and hide and pretend there is no issue is Guys and Dolls where Robert got very upset with me for my reports since it may discourage business, even though I point out clearly no customer is at risk, only the brave club owners fighting for swingers rights to enjoy these clubs in Phoenix That is how it came about. The National Community Foundation is watching the Phoenix legal fight and I'm sure there are many other cities with its help in writing the Phoenix law are waiting for the Court results in Phoenix to enact the same or modified law based on Phoenix experience in the Courts, in zillions of cities across America. In my view the only practical hope of solving the problem other than hopeing for a favorable Court ruling is a referendum petition to get the issue to the voters. I use to think that was hopeless. But with the recent uproar of most about wasting police resources to fight victimless crimes (swing clubs, private sexworkers, $22,000 spent in drinks and tips at strip clubs), the public may have had enough and might actually vote to get rid of at least the swing club law but it would be a costly hard fight. At least the swing club law is only a Phoeinx issue, vs sexworkers which have both City and State laws that would have to be changed.
  12. United We Should Stand For consenting adult private sex rights Uniting Swinges, Adult Entertainers and Sexworkers My "sermon" to swingers on the Club Chameleon Board --- L M > lessons learned by the gay community. They gained respect of lawmakers only one way, by showing power of their numbers by organizing nationally. Amen...but... > Wouldn't it be nice to have the President of the ILA come to Phx and talk to the council and mayor about this problem. Dave in Phoenix said: I think it would be more effective if a group of members from a Council persons district got together and tried to meet with their "representative". But sarcastically I say "good luck". Based on prior experiences with City Council, they only want to meet with the religious right groups - they sadly are a vastly larger voting block than swingers and share most of the Council's personal beliefs it seems. But I think folks should be contacting their Council reps, trying to meet, express outrage (in a nice way). But as in many cities in the U.S., it seems very difficult to get anything done at the Council or legislative level, and our best friends are often the Courts. So we have to play the game, of restrictive laws, busts and then hope to win in Court fights which is expensive. However as a privacy issue we eventually may start winning in the Courts. It is a slow hard battle against those that wish to protect the "morality" of citizens by force since many of us won't voluntary follow the dominant religious morality beliefs of the culture (Christian/Jew/Mormon). I get especially upset since their "morality" has no biblical basis only sex negative traditions. Whether you are Christian or not, our culture and laws are clearly impacted by the power of the Christian majority. The other smaller glimmer of hope is getting laws changed by referendum. We saw it succeed in Los Angeles where in November 2003, enough signatures were raised to force a vote on 6 foot law for strip clubs where dancers can't come within six feet of a customer while topless or nude. In the face of a referendum the city backed down and mostly rescinded the law. My idea is that various sex positive groups work together including adult entertainment (technically porn isn't prostitution only in California based on the Freeman California Supreme Court decision), swingers, strippers (in Phoenix it is a criminal act for a dancer on stage to touch her own breasts) and the huge sexwork industry of escorts etc which is my main interest, since not finding the right partner for swinging. I bet there are more escort/sexworker clients in the U.S. than swingers! Most just won't admit it. In my view, we should have a united focus on "consenting adult private sex" which should be legal in all of its forms from swinging to sexwork, porn (shot in private) and strippers (private locked rooms). Street prostitution should remain illegal as a public nuisance issue unless in special zones of tolerance. Sexwork and swinging should be done in private including in private swing clubs like Club C for swingers or house/hotel room parties. Polls taken even my Phoenix conservative media after "Operation House Call" seem to support the right of adult sexuality in private, even the City in the AZ Republic article 12/1/03 reporting the Club C story made "in private" the main issue. And we now have a U.S. Supreme Court case supporting the right of privacy for gay sexuality. We should do what we can on the Council and Legislative front. But with groups such as The National Community Foundation based on Scottsdale working hard and fulfilling its stated goal to help 1000 cities across America pass more and more restrictive adult sex laws (to "protect neighborhoods and children"), it is the Courts or a Referendum process that seems more likely to be successful. We have seen the legal system vs lawmakers beginning to show success regarding Operation House Call (the local conservative media even calling it Sheriff Joe's publicity stunt for using 350 officers to arrest 80 private sexworkers and their clients in one of the largest such stings in U.S. history). All charges have been dropped. But like it seems with Milo's they can still be re filed, except the customers were dropped based on entrapment (the cops set up operations in the busted sexworkers homes and lured clients in). The U.S. is virtually the only country in the world where consenting adult private sex is illegal (which is why I enjoy Canada so much. Phoenix I believe is still the only city in the world where swing clubs are illegal. The city's argument against swing clubs has been based on either prostitution or protecting morality theories. Phoenix is also a focal point for other cities across the nation regarding swinging. The morality fight began in Phoenix but it is in all U.S. swingers interest to be concerned what happens in Phoenix. If the religious groups are successful in restrictions on adult sexual freedoms in Phoenix, it will expand to other cities who are watching the legal fight in Phoenix. On the other hand if we can have victory of private rights to sexual freedom over morality laws it will help all sex positive adults in the U.S. In Phoenix it has been mostly Club C under the powerful direction of Milo, Nancy, many Club members and attorney Nick Hentoff that have been the primary fighters for swingers. I like Nicks filing lawsuits against the city for their actions against Milo/Nancy and Club C. Stevi Secret has fought the legal battles and won cases in the adult entertainment industry. She has been in the forefront of successful legal battles in Nevada and other places for adult entertainers. Stevi gave the "unite with swingers, sexworkers, adult entertainers" speech yesterday to her group. She owns a Phoenix strip club which features different porn star each week - Stevi Secrets . The club hosted a great fund raiser last weekend for PAW which helps adult entertainers in trouble. Stevi is a porn star and features with strip acts in major clubs in Las Vegas and San Francisco. We have been working closely together on issues for a number of years. She especially wants me to keep her group informed of the swing clubs issue and supports the common goals of swing clubs and adult entertainment/sexwork. I am giving my "unite" sermon...and included Stevi's to my Private List Community of about 300 subscribers which is about sexwork in Phoenix, but needs to be via private e-mail for its legal protections. I founded the group in 1996. I will also have my "unite sermons" consolidated soon on both libchrist.com and sexwork.com. We have enjoyed some great media support. I have been very pleasantly surprised by the mostly on our side media take and their theme of wasting taxpayers dollars going after private adult sexworkers and swingers vs serious crimes that actually hurt people not morality crimes. The Channel 5 report on cops spending $22,000 on drinking and dancer tips in strip clubs to watch for slightest illegal touch was timely. On with the battle.. the winning the war against morality laws is worth the fight for right of all sex positive people to have the right to consenting adult sexual privacy, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"! Dave in Phoenix Liberated Christians Liberated Christians Polyamory, Swing, Biblical, Sybian Cyber Center
  13. Highlights of My Latest Updates: 1) Cops Bust Club Chameleon Saturday Night 12/6/03 2) AZ Republic Reports charges dismissed and Lawsuit filed against City. 1) Cops Bust Club Chameleon Saturday Night 12/6/03 Just when folks are celebrating the dismissal of the running a swing club charges the cops bust Club Chameleon again From Club Chameleon Board: For those of you still looking for info about last night... my wife and I were there the entire night and I'm happy to share my perspective. A little before 11 a number of Phx police officers - I would say a dozen - came into the club. They immediately spread out through out the club - opening all unlocked doors and shining flashlights. They arrested Kyle within the first few minutes and then basically just stood around until after the Club's lawyer showed up - probably 45 minutes later. During the time they were in the club things were weird but the cops didn't hassle anyone. A few members were freaked and left but the staff did a great job keeping things as calm as possible and believe it or not a great number of people really didn't realize that something was even happening. Myself and a few other members that were up front at the bar had a fairly lengthy discussion with the officers. They said that nobody attending the club was in any trouble at all and that they were not trying to close the club or cause any "trouble". They claimed that the club was violating Phx city ordinances regarding live public sex acts and that they were attempting to arrest Milo/Nancy or the mgmt responsible for this. There was quite an exchange between the officers and members concerning whether there was in fact any violations occurring. The police claimed to have received "reports" of activities in the open areas during the past 2 weeks. They also said that they considered rooms without locks as public areas. As such they felt that people having a good time in the TV room for example would be a violation. When asked specifically what was needed to make the club "conform" they refused to answer other than to say that the ordinance is clear and that members shouldn't worry because it is up to the club management to enforce and comply. There was a little confusion immediately after the police left - nobody was really sure/clear on what was off limits. Initially the staff asked everyone to stay out of the "unlocked" rooms (mass hy, TV, and couples room) but within a few minutes they announced that only the TV room was off limits for the rest of the night. The Couples and Mass H rooms had locks available on the doors so their immediate solution was to lock them and place staff at the doors to handle admission. Other than having to have staff unlock the doors to let you in everything was normal. So for those of you wondering - that's what we experienced last night. The staff did a great job and although it was weird for awhile I would say that everyone still had a good time. I hope you will all join us in continuing to support the club and in sending M&N, Kyle, and the rest of the mgmt team are best wishes ---------- And in the Parking Lost .........so much for "victory" - at 11pm the police were out in force last night. Two checking license plates in the parking lot. Two at the doorway with pad & pen, two more at the entrance of the parking lot. This city is out of control, the "holier than thou" crowd really needs to get some grip on reality. Phoenix now has it's very own "American Taliban leaders" where freedom of choice no longer has a place - you will be told how to live and act, ENJOY!! How sad. -------- Another humous report The most humorous parts of the evening were when Zoe (the worlds sexiest DJ) rounded up all her "cop" songs....and played them one after another....Marley's "I shot the sherrif" got a loud round of applause and yells! And as for nothing (sexual) happening? Well, I personally witnessed one of the raunchiest nights I have seen in ages in Mass Hysteria and the TV was being used and used well....the screens were just showing the previews of the film, but NOBODY cared! My husbands view point was...."this is my club, damnit, and I intend to use it!" So we did! And we will continue to do the same. SEE YOU ALL THIS SATURDAY FOR THE TOY SHOW AND GIRLS ONLY PARTY!!!!!!! -------- The police seemed to enjoy the standing ovation they received when they were leaving but they didn't seem to care much for Zoe playing "I Shot the Sheriff" or her remark that "If your into handcuffs, we have a real treat for you tonight!" The rest of us liked it alot, though!!!! 2) AZ Republic Reports charges dismissed and Lawsuit filed against City but obviously didn't know about the Saturday night Bust at Club C. To make matters even more confusing (although something here maybe a hint good for sexworkers): Swingers hit back at city The Arizona Republic Dec. 8, 2003 PHOENIX - The relentless battle between a swinger's club and Phoenix officials moved into a new phase Friday with the filing of a $500,000 claim against the city alleging false arrest and malicious prosecution. Milo Fencl and operators of three other establishments were arrested during a Phoenix police operation last year that targeted social clubs where patrons openly engage in sex. Fencl and co-defendants claimed the misdemeanor criminal prosecution violated constitutional rights to free expression and association. Various tangents of the legal conflict have been waged in Phoenix Municipal Court, Maricopa County Superior Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals, the U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit Court. Last week, city prosecutors dropped charges against Fencl, owner of Club Chameleon, who promptly had attorney Nick Hentoff submit a letter demanding $500,000 in personal damages. The letter paves the way for a lawsuit. Hentoff previously demanded $15 million on behalf of the club owners, and filed a civil complaint that remains open in Superior Court. City officials, who were unavailable Friday, have said the statute was adopted to protect public health and morality. Even among consensual swingers, they argued, sexual acts are not protected by the First Amendment. Fencl is the third defendant to have charges dropped; a fourth pleaded guilty. The city has since modified its law, he added, and Club Chameleon has changed its operation so that sexual intercourse and other consenting acts by patrons occur in private. Dave in Phoenix Liberated Christians http://www.libchrist.com
  14. I have been around swinging for about 15 years, hosted the Phoenix Couples Group with over 300 participants and participated in zillions of discussions back to the days when newsgroups were popular. It seems like its always the guys who defend single males in swinging that protest the loudest while the vast majortiy of couples want nothing to do with single males. There are many good reasons for this as the previously referenced article of mine points out. All my points are based on what couples have said over the years. It is clear that the vast majority of couples aren't interested in single males yet they insist on forcing themselves on couples. In polyamory there is not any male/female issue. Swinging is different by long tradition, origin and the desires of most couples.
  15. And from the NASCA website: Though single men and women are involved, it is primarily an activity of couples. Yes they are allowed on certain nights so the clubs can make a lot of money. BTW why are all NASCA conventions couples only if your trying to argue they consider single men swingers? Yes, they are "tolerated" or "involved" so clubs can make money off of them.
×
×
  • Create New...