Canada OKs group sex

[ViRaL1]

Maybe you guys aren't all bad after all. :P

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

Group sex among consenting adults not a threat to society, it says

Updated: 2:33 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005
OTTAWA - Group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Wednesday as it lifted a ban on so-called “swingers” clubs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labaye said he had about 2,000 regular clients who paid around $20 ($17 U.S.) a year for a membership card.

Lawyers for Labaye and the owner of another swingers’ club in Montreal argued that consensual sex among groups of adults behind closed doors was neither indecent or a risk to society.

The Supreme Court judges agreed.

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

In indecency cases, Canadian courts have traditionally probed whether the acts in question “breached the rules of conduct necessary for the proper functioning of society”. The Supreme Court ruled that from now on, judges should pay more attention to whether society would be actively harmed.

Deviant, maybe, but not dangerous
This seemed to ensure there could be no repeat of Labaye’s original conviction for causing “social harm” by allowing degrading and dehumanizing group sex to take place.

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

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

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

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

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

[Grimey]

Go Canada go!

[Shadowmistress]

Ah dang, the secret is out now.

[Noahtuck]

Ah dang, the secret is out now.

Womens Lib Equal Rights my ass!!!!!!!!!

[Shadowmistress]

Womens Lib Equal Rights my ass!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry? Did you say your ass wants equal rights?



(Sorry, it was too tempting a burn to pass up. )

[Caple]

Damn, no pictures... :P

[SquirrelDip]

Group sex: Use two hands...

[zzyzzx]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051227/od_nm/sex_dc;_ylt=Amtba5nnGTTdyMX3eKnw0Oqs0NUE;_yl...RpBHNlYwM3NTc-

Group sex club patrons swinging free
Tue Dec 27, 8:38 AM ET


MONTREAL (Reuters) - On a recent night out on the town, Michel and Chantal Delbecchi left their suburban Montreal home and drove to the L'Orage Club in the city's east end, where they had sex with a couple they had never met before.

The Delbecchis, husband and wife since 1978, are "echangistes," French for "swingers," who for the past 21 years have been visiting clubs like L'Orage (Thunderstorm) to have consensual sex in a group with one or more other people.

For future outings, they will no longer have to fear police will raid the club and arrest them for being in a "bawdy house," a place where prostitution or acts of public indecency take place.

In a landmark decision on Dec, 21, the Supreme Court of Canada lifted a ban on swingers' clubs, ruling that group sex among consenting adults is neither prostitution nor a threat to society.

The ruling sparked outrage, largely in English-speaking parts of Canada, where critics said it would erode limits on indecency or obscenity, encourage prostitution and even contribute to the corruption of minors.

In the mainly French-speaking and predominantly Catholic province of Quebec, however, the decision caused barely a ripple of adverse reaction. Newspaper editorialists fumed in Toronto, but largely yawned in Montreal.

Swingers across Canada cheered the ruling, especially those in Quebec, where adherents go to clubs not only to meet others like them, but also to have sex on the premises.

"It might make it easier for others interested in swinging to take the next step and visit a club," said Michel, 48, huddled next to Chantal, 43, on a sofa at the dimly lit L'Orage.

Michel, who works at an outlet of warehouse retailer Costco, and Chantal, on leave from her job at a school bus operator, said most swingers are not comfortable in the public spotlight.

"We have a few friends who were afraid to come out to a club because they were worried about how a raid might affect their work or family situation," said Chantal.

For L'Orage club owner Jean-Paul Labaye, the court ruling is vindication after a seven-year court battle that began with a 1998 police raid in which he and 40 of his patrons were arrested for being in a bawdy house.

"Everyone was shocked that we would be treated like bandits," said Labaye. "I vowed to defend myself and their cause if that was their desire and that is what I did."

GANG BANG TUESDAYS

Labaye, a portly and jovial 46-year-old native of France, said swingers celebrated the Supreme Court victory with a late-night party at L'Orage.

In an interview the next day at the club, temporarily housed at a venue which features "gang bang" Tuesday afternoons, Labaye apologized for not being able to show a reporter and photographer the upstairs rooms where groups have sex because the housekeeping service had not yet cleaned them.

The club is housed in an elegant but aging two-story house on a busy street. The ground floor has mismatched sofas and chairs, scant lighting and framed photographs on the walls depicting scenes of mild sexual bondage.

The club has no license to sell alcoholic beverages, but sports a small bar that offers coffee and caffeine-loaded soft drinks.

Labaye hopes a group of Florida investors will help him move into swankier digs, which in addition to the requisite private rooms will have something resembling a refined cigar lounge.

Club rules will be the same -- no illicit drugs or alcohol abuse, and when it comes to propositions for sex, a reply of no means no.

In the meantime, the swinger soirees will continue at L'Orage and at least two dozen similar clubs in Quebec, including one in Gatineau, just opposite the Ottawa River from the imposing stone hulk of the Supreme Court building.

Labaye and the Delbecchis, who have three adult sons, are preparing for important changes in their personal lives.

Labaye plans to marry his girlfriend in Paris in May.

As for Michel and Chantal, a 25-year-old woman has become their mutual lover and all three plan to move in together early next year. Despite that new relationship, the Delbecchis expect to continue exchanging sex partners in Quebec clubs.

Said Michel: "At the club, we have sex with people. At home, we make love."

[supergravi]

Hey, great idea. Another way to spread disease, de-moralize the world and trivialize a marriage commitment.

[Shadowmistress]

Hey, great idea. Another way to spread disease, de-moralize the world and trivialize a marriage commitment.

It is a great idea. Survival of the fittest. If they all get diseases then so be it, let them pay the consequences of their decisions. Whether it's against the law or not, they'll still do it as they've done it in the past, and to say that this trivializes marriage is like argueing whether the chicken or the egg came first. Marriage is hardly viewed as sacred by the majority in this day and age.

At least this way it frees up the authorities to concentrate on real criminals such as murderers and thieves.

[Noahtuck]

Womens Lib Equal Rights my ass!!!!!!!!!

I'm sorry? Did you say your ass wants equal rights?



(Sorry, it was too tempting a burn to pass up. )

Well, i could give you "Multiple" explinations to/for my statement.... but i'm not sure you would understand :P
(Ya never know... you might be one of those that have never experianced.... yeah well......)

Hey, great idea. Another way to spread disease, de-moralize the world and trivialize a marriage commitment.

Bet he's a NOOB to more than just here :P

At least this way it frees up the authorities to concentrate on real criminals such as murderers and thieves.

[Shadowmistress]

Well, i could give you "Multiple" explinations to/for my statement.... but i'm not sure you would understand :P
(Ya never know... you might be one of those that have never experianced.... yeah well......)

Ah, I didn't catch that particular jist earlier. Upon further consideration, I think you're justified to resume .

[ViRaL1]

Well, i could give you "Multiple" explinations to/for my statement.... but i'm not sure you would understand :P
(Ya never know... you might be one of those that have never experianced.... yeah well......)

Ah, I didn't catch that particular jist earlier. Upon further consideration, I think you're justified to resume .

Can I join your group? :P

[Cobra]

This isn't really a very tasteful thread.

Cobra