Sex parties. Orgasms with strange people. Cost $75,000 per year.
A) Should an ostensibly decent conservative-leaning publication, in this case the NY Post, run stories such as this?
B) Should an ostensibly decent public, in this case excluding the likes of me and you, OK - me: fondle unfamiliar humans – and spend big bucks to do so?
C) Hey! This is the internet right? Everything on first-offer is for free. Where’s the participants’ cop-a feel freebie demonstration? And where are the conservatives that back the NY Post – aren’t they supposed to shun sex for fun, only partaking in it when it’s necessary to inflict the world with more Republicans?
So what’s on tap if you’ve the lucre? Wild monthly sex parties.
Looking at the pictures, one must research, right?! - shows black-colored lingerie in vogue, with way more women in the photos than guys.
Elizabeth Lippman, of the aforementioned NY Post, hopefully did not bend over backwards to detail these doings. This is not to say the NY Post is a one hung horse, one trick pony, offering nothing but salacious smut. The next tab on its on-line serving reported on Afghan woman training in Shaolin martial arts.
Generally, we with no lives wonder: How many sexual soirees are open (for big f’---bucks) to the public? Is this where we, as a society, want to descend to? And, if it be so, how soon can we, society’s also rans, horn in on this action?
And what’s with the bunny ears some of the girls are wearing? Are rabbit ears inherently sexy? I mean, if the 90% nakedness and the 10% lingerie don’t do the trick, how can bunny ears help?
Okay. Let’s forget the questions and pretend we’re ready to go randy, ready to spend the money to have sex with unfamiliar folks. But, we gotta ask this: should we not worry that a sex party website, like pseudo-porn websites, are crooked and skanky, just waiting to hoover up your money for nothing in return or are, worse yet, hooked into bandits from faraway lands, waiting to take my buying credentials and suck my identity out of me, right in front of my eyes?
Tell you what, here’s what I did see...when finding out about the sexual monthly party festivities on the internet, I discovered Google led to a whole bunch of links that go nowhere – or at least go somewhere, but not to what your search should result in. I typed:
Wild monthly sex parties for $75,000 per year
– and the first link gave me a photo of the bunny rabbit ladies and one lucky man, and the link under sent me to Yahoo News which then provided a link telling all at www.inusanews.com , which, when opened, told me the full story was in the NY Post, which, when selected, brought back the photo of the rabbit girls and lucky guy again.
But this New York Post link actually works. It publicizes “Sanctum, an LA based high-end sex party.” Strangers having sex. They sign a blood oath - not sure why that is...But for those too shy to partake, they can watch the carnal carnival. But paying $75 big ones a year to look at other people having fun, doesn’t sound like a good use of one’s money or time, does it?
Heather Hauswirth wrote the piece. She does point out that if one wants to pay as they play, they (men) can go à la carte, and fork over $1,850 per party. So that’s something.
Women, not surprisingly, get to go for free. And not surprisingly a lot of men want other women to have sex with their wives...
Men. Who needs ‘em?
Anyway, Damon Lawner is the impetus and maestro behind these parties. No doubt Damon’s life has gotta be pretty-out there, but while effusive about some details behind Inner Sanctum, he’s tighter than a clam when asked about what the blood oath involves. Oh well, it’s his party and he can shut up if he wants to...
But Damon is adamant that his sex galas are not sex or swinger parties.
Ok, then.
He says, as reported by pretty, but pretty-odd, Gwyneth Paltrow, or at least by her GOOP website, that Snctum (and no, that’s not a spelling mistake) “...is about exploring the boundaries of what sex means, and how it inherently makes us all feel.”
Ok, then.
Damon says he struggled with the tussle between monogamy and
"...also desiring to fully actualize my authentic self.”
Monogamy lost out -
but seriously, he seems to sound like a nice guy. And he likes sex. That’s gotta be worth something...
Worth, definitely, in having Snctum now entering its 4th year of operations, no doubt a testament to his likeability and a testament to the kinda classy offerings on the buffet table. (And here, women make the first moves, I think it’s a law, or golden rule there...)
Probably, that should be the golden rule everywhere.
Hey, perhaps Snctum is on to something, that we, as a decent public, should adopt after all !?
A) Should an ostensibly decent conservative-leaning publication, in this case the NY Post, run stories such as this?
B) Should an ostensibly decent public, in this case excluding the likes of me and you, OK - me: fondle unfamiliar humans – and spend big bucks to do so?
C) Hey! This is the internet right? Everything on first-offer is for free. Where’s the participants’ cop-a feel freebie demonstration? And where are the conservatives that back the NY Post – aren’t they supposed to shun sex for fun, only partaking in it when it’s necessary to inflict the world with more Republicans?
So what’s on tap if you’ve the lucre? Wild monthly sex parties.
Looking at the pictures, one must research, right?! - shows black-colored lingerie in vogue, with way more women in the photos than guys.
Elizabeth Lippman, of the aforementioned NY Post, hopefully did not bend over backwards to detail these doings. This is not to say the NY Post is a one hung horse, one trick pony, offering nothing but salacious smut. The next tab on its on-line serving reported on Afghan woman training in Shaolin martial arts.
Generally, we with no lives wonder: How many sexual soirees are open (for big f’---bucks) to the public? Is this where we, as a society, want to descend to? And, if it be so, how soon can we, society’s also rans, horn in on this action?
And what’s with the bunny ears some of the girls are wearing? Are rabbit ears inherently sexy? I mean, if the 90% nakedness and the 10% lingerie don’t do the trick, how can bunny ears help?
Okay. Let’s forget the questions and pretend we’re ready to go randy, ready to spend the money to have sex with unfamiliar folks. But, we gotta ask this: should we not worry that a sex party website, like pseudo-porn websites, are crooked and skanky, just waiting to hoover up your money for nothing in return or are, worse yet, hooked into bandits from faraway lands, waiting to take my buying credentials and suck my identity out of me, right in front of my eyes?
Tell you what, here’s what I did see...when finding out about the sexual monthly party festivities on the internet, I discovered Google led to a whole bunch of links that go nowhere – or at least go somewhere, but not to what your search should result in. I typed:
Wild monthly sex parties for $75,000 per year
– and the first link gave me a photo of the bunny rabbit ladies and one lucky man, and the link under sent me to Yahoo News which then provided a link telling all at www.inusanews.com , which, when opened, told me the full story was in the NY Post, which, when selected, brought back the photo of the rabbit girls and lucky guy again.
But this New York Post link actually works. It publicizes “Sanctum, an LA based high-end sex party.” Strangers having sex. They sign a blood oath - not sure why that is...But for those too shy to partake, they can watch the carnal carnival. But paying $75 big ones a year to look at other people having fun, doesn’t sound like a good use of one’s money or time, does it?
Heather Hauswirth wrote the piece. She does point out that if one wants to pay as they play, they (men) can go à la carte, and fork over $1,850 per party. So that’s something.
Women, not surprisingly, get to go for free. And not surprisingly a lot of men want other women to have sex with their wives...
Men. Who needs ‘em?
Anyway, Damon Lawner is the impetus and maestro behind these parties. No doubt Damon’s life has gotta be pretty-out there, but while effusive about some details behind Inner Sanctum, he’s tighter than a clam when asked about what the blood oath involves. Oh well, it’s his party and he can shut up if he wants to...
But Damon is adamant that his sex galas are not sex or swinger parties.
Ok, then.
He says, as reported by pretty, but pretty-odd, Gwyneth Paltrow, or at least by her GOOP website, that Snctum (and no, that’s not a spelling mistake) “...is about exploring the boundaries of what sex means, and how it inherently makes us all feel.”
Ok, then.
Damon says he struggled with the tussle between monogamy and
"...also desiring to fully actualize my authentic self.”
Monogamy lost out -
but seriously, he seems to sound like a nice guy. And he likes sex. That’s gotta be worth something...
Worth, definitely, in having Snctum now entering its 4th year of operations, no doubt a testament to his likeability and a testament to the kinda classy offerings on the buffet table. (And here, women make the first moves, I think it’s a law, or golden rule there...)
Probably, that should be the golden rule everywhere.
Hey, perhaps Snctum is on to something, that we, as a decent public, should adopt after all !?