# Swingers Clubs Ruled Legal **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 22, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730 "2005-12-22T02:52:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/21 "2005-12-22T18:03:50Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > Link? I read it in a magazine, I think. You can probably find something on it by doing a google search, but I’m afraid what I will come up with at work. One hint: I recall there being a football star in England who was caught “dogging” and admitted that he had been very into it for a while now. That incident had given the new trend a lot of press. ---
**Author:** ![Hostile\_Dialect](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e495f1/32.png) [@Hostile\_Dialect](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hostile_Dialect)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/22 "2005-12-22T18:15:52Z")
Prostitution\* was legal in Canada but swinging wasn’t? \*Yes, I know there are technicalities. Don’t ruin my moment. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > If only the US was as forward-thinking as our Canadian neighbors. Is swinging illegal here? I thought adultery was illegal until I took a class on the California court system last semester. Apparently, at least in CA, it’s not. Is swinging illegal somewhere? > [@Kalhoun](#): > > Link? [Urban Dictionary entry](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dogging) > [@eleanorigby](#): > > What if these clubs take off and are the hot new thing–and there is a sharp increase in STDs and HIV? There have always been swinger clubs, and always will be. The legality of those clubs just means that it will be less dangerous for people who already do it. Nobody who isn’t into swinging is going to see this new law and think, “sweet! Now I can go swinging.” ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/23 "2005-12-22T19:09:09Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > [Urban Dictionary entry](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dogging) This was my favorite entry – no idea how it made it into the public lexicon: > [@](#): > > In Warcraft III, (either Reign of Chaos or Frozen Throne), the practice of, when playing the Orc race, to select the Far Seer as the first hero and repeatedly “hero rush” the opponent’s base using summoned Spirit Wolves to attack, usually targeting the workers (orc peons, human peasants, night-elf wisps, or undead acolytes). > Damn, that Far Seer is dogging me, I gotta sleep him and kill the wolves before they kill all my acolytes. ---
**Author:** ![photopat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e95f7d/32.png) [@photopat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/photopat)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/24 "2005-12-22T19:15:48Z")
A toast to Canada! A country that acknowledges that what goes on between 2, 3, 4 or more consenting adults is _their business_ and nobody elses. If only our government would take a page. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/25 "2005-12-22T19:42:37Z")
> [@fetus](#): > > Is swinging illegal here? See my comments above. Depending on the situation, a swinging encounter might also violate state fornication or adultery laws, assuming that any of these laws remain constitutional after [Lawrence](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/02pdf/02-102.pdf) . > [@](#): > > I thought adultery was illegal until I took a class on the California court system last semester. Apparently, at least in CA, it’s not. Here is a [list](http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/505.htm) of state laws. The list is dated, and as I noted above, some or all of these laws are unconstitutional. \*Lawrence \*only invalidated sodomy statutes, but it’s logic probably extends to some other sex laws. E.g., [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050125.html](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050125.html) (discussing Virginia’s invalidation of fornication statute); [http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20030708.html](http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20030708.html) (same author discussing implications of \*Lawrence \*for other laws). OTOH, I have seen cases that say that privacy applies to acts between two people in private–not public gatherings. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2005, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/26 "2005-12-22T19:58:47Z")
[Article on Legality of Swing Clubs](http://www.moralityinmedia.org/nolc/caseStudies/swingersPack.pdf) [Florida Judge Throws Out Case Against Swing Club](http://www.libchrist.com/swing/Flclubswin.html) [Indiana Swing Club “Discovered”](http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050918/NEWS01/50918006) > [@](#): > > Muncie Building Commission Jerry Friend cited the facility for minor code violations of exit lights and a bathroom that was out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. > > Friend said the building has changed in the past 20 years since he played in basketball leagues inside. > > “There’s a lot of mattresses,” he said. 😉 > [@](#): > > In 2002, there were several police raids against alternative sexual expression clubs, including a raid that resulted in the closure of Behind the Scenes, an SM club in Philadelphia, PA. In July, a raid against Club Zinc, a swing club in Atlanta, GA, resulted in the arrest of patrons who consulted with NCSF. Another lifestyle club in Connecticut was raided and closed in June because they were improperly located in a residential neighborhood. In Phoenix, AZ, NCSF worked with several swing clubs that continue to be threatened with closure because of overly-restrictive zoning laws. [http://www.ncsfreedom.org/Incident\_response\_2002.htm](http://www.ncsfreedom.org/Incident_response_2002.htm) ---
**Author:** ![drewcosten](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@drewcosten](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewcosten)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/27 "2005-12-23T01:17:26Z")
> [@Jotun](#): > > What do you think will be the long term effects of this judgement? I’d assume that less gay bath-houses will be raided by the police now. Not sure I can think of any other long term effects at this point (apart from the obvious that operators of swingers clubs will finally be left alone). ---
**Author:** ![Jotun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/46a35a/32.png) [@Jotun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jotun)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2005, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/28 "2005-12-23T03:14:48Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > [Moderator Mode] > > Please do not quote entire articles from copyrighted sources, even if the link breaks. > > [/Moderator Mode] For what it’s worth, it wasn’t the entire article. But your warning is noted. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/29 "2005-12-24T04:37:52Z")
> [@Jotun](#): > > What do you think will be the long term effects of this judgement? The judgments have changed the test for indecency from impinge on community standards to significant risk of harm to the autonomy and liberty of members of the public. In the long term, this will chip away at the criminalization of sexuality, and will also deter prosecutions in communities where the religious right holds sway. Socially, it will not make a significant difference in and of itself, but when added to similar left leaning decisions ranging from prostitution to nudity to same sex marriage, it contributes to strengthening of individual freedoms with respect to sexuality. It helps build a society based on toleration. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/30 "2005-12-24T04:43:34Z")
Here are the judgments: R. v. Labaye, 2005 SCC 80 [http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc080.wpd.html](http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc080.wpd.html) R. v. Kouri, 2005 SCC 81 [http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc081.wpd.html](http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc081.wpd.html) ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 5:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/31 "2005-12-24T05:21:29Z")
Another vote for things not changing much. Swingers’ clubs, saunas, etc., already exist and mostly go unmolested. The problem was that the law still existed and could be used to harass them at the pleasure of the police department. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/32 "2005-12-24T19:14:15Z")
> [@Debaser](#): > > OTOH, I recently read an article about “Dogging” which is the new trend in England and is spreading. This is something that should be cracked down on, since it takes place in public and is dangerous IMO. This British cite ( site ) gives a fairly straightforward definition of what [dogging](http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/dogging/) is. \*\* Fair warning- this link has zero adult visual content but IS in fact a gateway to register to find locations in the U.K. for dogging and for people interested in this behavior. This link is likely not so safe for work, though as I said there is no "porn " content at all.\*\* As far as the Canadian decision presented in the OP, it comes as no surprise that our neighbors to the north are more modern in their thinking than the U.S. counterparts in the Judicial branch of government. There are the moral stances, then there are the plain and simple health and safety stances. I have been invited to be in involved in a swinger group in the Massachussettes area, but have declined. ( that ain’t mah thang 😃 ). I did ask about safe sex and was informed that this was a rigidly controlled group, wiht mandatory blood testing results provided by all. Hoo-Hah, I say. I get a blood test on Friday and the results show me clean. On Saturday I fuck eleven people and contract everything from scabies to HIV to syphillis to warts \*\*\*\*\*\*. The paperwork I present says I am clean, because I was on Friday. I say bullshit to the entire concept of “safe infection-free” swing situations. IMHO you are playing with huge fire to enter into such situations- but I also think that nobody has the right to legislate said situations. Consenting adults take their own risks, assume responsibility for their actions. At least, in a free society they get to. :rolleyes: Cartooniverse \*\*\*\*\*\* Not that I’m capable of performing sexually with eleven partners in a single weekend. I’m just sayin’… ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 24, 2005, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/33 "2005-12-24T19:23:06Z")
So are these legal or not in the United States? Any laws on adultery are typically only mentioned in the United States when some state finally decides to clear them off the books, since they had been non-operational for generations. Some of these adultery laws go back over a hundred years, and people should remember that once you get back more than a hundred years or so, you get into a time period where adultery was considered a legal misconduct in virtually all of the Western world. The United States is unique in that we often don’t strike old laws from our books, but typically once society has come to regard something as okay, whatever laws are on the books really don’t matter. It’s a good reflection of the fact that, a law in and of itself really doesn’t mean anything. Without any public support, and without any desire by the authorities to enforce them, they’re really nothing more than little quirks in the code books. In fact the only real adultery law that I think is seriously enforced in the United States is in the military. Personally I’m going to wager with our fifty states it’s a good bet that the answer is going to be different across the country. It does tick me off to some degree that people talk about adultery laws in this country in a derogatory manner. Some people seem to be willfully ignorant of the fact that they’re just a relic in a code book that no one has ever taken the time to change, and that they are almost never enforced. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/34 "2005-12-25T02:46:02Z")
It’s irrelevant. A law is enforceable until it is revoked or altered. Kind of simple, really. Hence the phrase " The law of the land ". ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/35 "2005-12-25T12:44:08Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > It’s irrelevant. A law is enforceable until it is revoked or altered. Kind of simple, really. Hence the phrase " The law of the land ". Not exactly. I think Martin Hyde is closer to it. In Canada a law may be on the books without having been revoked or altered, but still may not be enforceable. A good example is s.159(1)(b) of the _Criminal code_: > [@](#): > > 1. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal Intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction. > > (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between > > (a) husband and wife, or > > (b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more, > > both of whom consent to the act. > > (3) For the purposes of subsection (2), > > (a) an act shall be deemed not to have been engaged in in private if it is engaged in in a public place or if more than two persons take part or are present; and > > (b) a person shall be deemed not to consent to an act > > (i) if the consent is extorted by force, threats or fear of bodily harm or is obtained by false and fraudulent misrepresentations respecting the nature and quality of the act, or > > (ii) if the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the person could not have consented to the act by reason of mental disability. > > R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 159; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 3. In Ontario, the Court of Appeal found it to be unconstitiutional: _R. v. Carmen M_ (25 May 1995), 98 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (Ont. C.A.), affirming (1992), 75 CCC (3d) 556 (Ont. Gen. Div.), but it still sits on the books. A Federal trial court found it to be unconstitutional: _Halm v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration)_, [24 February 1995] 2 F.C. 331 (Fed.Ct. Tr.Div.), but it still sits on the books. Recently, an Alberta trial court found it unconstitutional: _R. v. Roth_, [2002] A.J. No. 159, (Alta. Q.B.), but it still sits on the books. What it comes down to is that the law remains on the books and has not been tested in all jurisdictions, but inthe jurisdictions in which it has been tested, it has been found to be unconstitutional. In jurisdictions in which it has not been tested, a stupid Crown could make a run a prosecuting under it, but would fail. If it ever made its way up to the Supreme Court of Canada (which often happens when a law is found unconstitutional in one province but constitutional in another province), then even if the SCC found it to be unconstitutional, there still would be nothing forcing Parliament to remove it from the books. In short, just because a law is on the books and has not been revoked or altered does not mean that it is enforceable. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2005, 1:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/36 "2005-12-25T13:07:27Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > It’s irrelevant. A law is enforceable until it is revoked or altered. Kind of simple, really. Hence the phrase " The law of the land ". It is worth remembering that in the cases referred to in the OP, the law was not tossed. It still is the law of the land. What changed is what it takes to trigger the law. The charge was for keeping a common bawdy‑house for the practice of acts of indecency under s. 210(1) of the Criminal Code. This remains the law. What has been changed by the decisions is what constitutes criminal indecency, the test for which has been changed from community standards to actual harm. It will be interesting to see how this plays out concerning sex workers. As it stands, prostitution is legal, but due to s.210 sex workers are at risk of prosecution for keeping a common bawdy-house if they service their clients at their own facility. This has resulted in out-calls being the norm, by which sex workers visit their clients rather than the clients visit the sex workers. Out-calling increases the risk to sex workers, so there has been pressure from the sex worker industry to toss the common bawdy-house law. The SCC decisions partly turned on the swinger clubs not being for profit, thus the decisions would not directly save sex workers from prosecution, however, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the same reasoning, sans profit remarks, applied in a brothel case. All in all, I think these decisions signal a move toward the de-criminalizing common bawdy-houses, such that eventually we will see such issues as municipal zoning matters rather than criminal code offences. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/37 "2005-12-26T02:59:37Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > It’s irrelevant. A law is enforceable until it is revoked or altered. Kind of simple, really. Hence the phrase " The law of the land ". Not true at all. In fact many States have laws concerning abortion that violate the decision in Roe v. Wade. They’re irrelevant because they lost their power in all cases where the law violated that decision, so there’s really little reason, aside from good recordkeeping to bother with getting them off the books. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 7:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/38 "2005-12-26T07:13:24Z")
> [@photopat](#): > > A toast to Canada! A country that acknowledges that what goes on between 2, 3, 4 or more consenting adults is _their business_ and nobody elses. > > If only our government would take a page. For all those expressing the “U.S take a page” or “get a clue” or somesuch opinion: Is there any evidence that swinger’s clubs are closed/harassed/prosecuted or even illegal in the U.S.? Just curious, as I’ve never heard of any legal action against such places. Remember, we’re not talking brothels or strip clubs, but swinger’s clubs. Maybe, in this case, our Dear Friends to the North are simply playing catch-up. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/39 "2005-12-26T12:41:23Z")
> [@John Carter of Mars](#): > > For all those expressing the “U.S take a page” or “get a clue” or somesuch opinion: Is there any evidence that swinger’s clubs are closed/harassed/prosecuted or even illegal in the U.S.? > Just curious, as I’ve never heard of any legal action against such places. Remember, we’re not talking brothels or strip clubs, but swinger’s clubs. Psst. Check out posts 25 & 26 above. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@John\_Carter\_of\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Carter_of_Mars)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2005, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730/40 "2005-12-26T14:50:57Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > You’d be surprised. They get raided every now and then. They aren’t always charged. There are some TN cases holding that they can be houses of assignation under this [statute](http://198.187.128.12/tennessee/lpext.dll/Infobase/1308e/13111/13122?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&2.0). > [@Gfactor](#): > > Psst. Check out posts 25 & 26 above. Sorry I wasn’t clear. You do cite some circumstances where such clubs were harassed, and some local laws. However, I still don’t see where swingclubs are the target of some national law that needs repealing, or that swing clubs in general are in need of a protective national law such as Roe v. Wade. If isolated local law enforcement officials have a problem with swing clubs, they’ll drum up some other charge to cause the clubs trouble. I think people posting that the US needs to Get A Clue in order to catch up with Canada in regard to swingclubs don’t have much to stand on. U.S. law doesn’t seem to even acknowledge that swingclubs exist, let alone persecute them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/swingers-clubs-ruled-legal/336730.md?page=3)