The Repression of Swingers

The Repression of Swingers in Early 21st Century Britain
Mark Roberts
Sociological Notes No. 28
ISSN 0267-7113, ISBN 1 85637 591 9

SUMMARY
Swinging is a safe, international, middle class and increasingly popular leisure choice for married and courting couples. Yet contrary to its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, the United Kingdom effectively criminalises swingers in contrast to the high degree of tolerance it rightly extends to gay men for precisely the same activities. This provides the justification used by unethical elements in the press to harass swingers even in their own homes. The British government promotes bigotry against swingers by funding an NGO that campaigns against swingers by pretending contrary to the scientific evidence that their lifestyle is detrimental to any couple’s relationship. The British government should recognise its responsibilities under the European Convention on Human Rights to respect the sexuality of swingers and stop discriminating against them. It should cease to fund the NGO that campaigns against swingers and investigate whether it has breached its charitable status; and should legalise swingers’ activities and lightly regulate their dedicated premises through Acts of Parliament.
CONTENTS

• 1 Swingers for beginners
• 1.1 Characteristics
• 1.2 Demography
• 1.3 Perceived benefits
• 1.4 Research
• 1.5 Popularity
• 1.6 London and Paris compared
• 2 Swingers and the law
• 2.1 The dead hand of the state
• 2.2 Legal repression of swingers
• 3 Swingers and the press
• 3.1 Mahmood music
• 3.2 The case of Dougie Smith
• 3.3 Press, privacy and the law
• 4 Anti-swingers and their arguments
• 4.1 Bigots ‘R’ Us
• 4.2 Julia Cole in Cosmopolitan
• 4.3 Julia Cole in The Daily Telegraph
• 4.4 Julia Cole on Emotionalbliss.com
• 4.5 Denise Knowles in the Evening Standard
• 4.6 Paula Hall on Woman’s Hour
• 4.7 Paula Hall in Eve
• 4.8 Secret agenda
• 4.9 Thou shalt not
• 4.10 Cash for cant
• 5 Double standards and human rights
• 5.1 Pc PC
• 5.2 Human Rights and Wrongs
• 5.3 Conclusions
• 5.4 Recommendations
• 6 Sources
• 6.1 Endnotes
• 6.2 References
• 6.3 Bibliography

1 SWINGERS FOR BEGINNERS
1.1 Characteristics
Couples who jointly seek recreational sex with others while maintaining their emotional monogamy are most often called ‘swingers’.1 Swingers’ sexual habits are typically characterised by partner-swapping, female bisexuality2 and group sex.3 Full penetrative sex, though common, is not essential.4 Male bisexuality is absent.5 All swinging couples have their own rules of sexual behaviour and these come in an infinite variety from the restrictive,6 through the asymmetric7 to the relaxed.8
Swingers find each other through contact advertisements in magazines,9 newspapers10 and on websites,11 via chatrooms12 and webcam13 interfaces on the Internet, and at swingers parties14 and clubs.15
Swinging is only part of the world of recreational sex, which also includes hard-core gay and lesbian activity, the bukkake scene,16 the bisexual male scene,17 the adult cinema scene18 and the more directly sex-orientated sides of the various sexual specialities usually more associated with merely risqué displays. Recreational sex has in turn a wide penumbra of socio-sexual recreation, covering the whole spectrum of fun in a more-than-usually-sexual context but not normally actual sex. Most fetish, rubber and BDSM activities, adult babies, pony-girls19 etc. and much of the gay and lesbian worlds are part of this outer circle.
Swinging itself is internally diverse. Couples can prefer couples only scenes; mixed scenes;20 gang-bang scenes;21 a younger or smarter scene where this is available;22 party scenes; orgies; two-on-two scenes or ‘dogging’.23 Among the more earnest the diversity extends even to the philosophical. Christian swingers,24 for example, are among those who prefer the term ‘polyamory’25 which they feel gives due emphasis to the emotional dimension of the style of swinging they favour. In Toronto there is an (anonymous) clergyman who claims to have been a swinger for 10 years.26
1.2 Demography
Swinging is an enthusiasm that crosses social, economic, political and religious boundaries.27 The existence of a Christian swingers organisation in the USA is not as surprising as one might suppose (though they seem aware of the irony of their position).28 American research has consistently found that swingers are, as Bergstrand & Williams say
“surprisingly mainstream, even conservative, in their characteristics.”29
Up to 90% of swingers identify with a religion and up to 47% regularly attend their place of worship.30 More recent research has suggested lower levels of religious attachment that nevertheless are still higher than the norm.31 US swingers tend to be Republicans, middle to upper-middle class, middle-aged and (over 90%) white.32 They are less racist, less sexist and uphold traditional relationship roles less than the population at large,33 though they place the same importance on marriage and family life.34 The incidence of disturbed family backgrounds (a charge levied by critics of swinging35) is lower than average.36 This is not a subculture of the ghettos or the caravan parks.
The situation in Britain is not identical. There has been no research. In the absence of hard figures, from my own 8 years of experience I perceive that an earlier predominance of the late-middle aged and C2s among British swingers has abated. A substantial growth in the number of participants has brought with it a more balanced profile across ages, income and social background. In particular, economically successful couples in their thirties and aspirational 20-something graduates have begun swinging in considerable numbers.37 An analysis of couples advertising in Desire Contact magazine,38 Britain’s leading swingers contact publication, found an average age of 43 (men 45, women 41) with only 15% over 50, 26% under 40 and 59% in their 40s. The Guardian has suggested there are between 500,000 and 1m swingers in the UK.39 The Internet has vectored this minor social revolution.40
In British swingers clubs I have encountered people from the ranks of Hasidic Jewry, television presenters, ministerial advisers, retired diplomats, orchestral conductors, professional singers, dancers and sports-people, big corporate names, local councillors, classical and rock musicians, many doctors and lawyers, builders, taxi drivers, IT whiz kids, marketers, advertising geniuses and policemen & women. Just about every profession, every race and an extremely wide range of nationalities is represented. In my assessment Asians are statistically over-represented among UK swingers as, inevitably, are former Catholic schoolgirls. Among younger swingers the media (broadcasting, press and advertising industries) followed by lawyers and the self-employed are probably the largest occupational groups.
1.3 Perceived benefits
Bergstrand & Williams41 justify their academic interest in swingers by recounting American rates of admitted affairs (37% of husbands, 29% of wives), divorce, family instability and neglected children.42 In the light of this:
“any attempt to redefine “love” and strengthen the marital bond is worthy of our attention. If swingers have found a way to stabilize relationships, prolong family ties, and enrich the lives of couples we would be remiss if we did not take their lifestyle and their redefinition of monogamous love seriously.”43
It is not claimed for swinging that is appropriate for every relationship or even a large percentage of them.44 What is claimed is that it benefits or at least brings harmless enjoyment to a proportionately small but numerically large minority of couples. Estimates for the proportion of couples in the US who have included something that can be described as swinging at some point in their relationship vary from 1% to 15%.45
Although sexual promiscuity is posited as the antithesis of emotional fidelity in the western romantic tradition, swingers maintain that joint experiences of recreational sex enhance their sexual and emotional bonds. By openly acknowledging their individual desires for sexual variety and pursuing these needs together, swingers claim to obviate the usual sources of deceit, betrayal and guilt in relationships. These destructive impulses, they say, are replaced with a deeper understanding and a higher plane of trust.46
Some have argued that because of the very high degree of mutual knowledge and trust, this mental bond displaces sex from its status dictated by Judeo-Christian tradition as the central mystery of a relationship. Anne Terrien, a student at George Washington University, elucidated this point in a precocious conference paper delivered in 2002:
“At the heart of a strong swinging relationship is not sex at all; rather, there is the openness, trust, and communication necessary to both talk openly about desires and fantasies and to act on them within the bounds of commitment.”47
Butler (1979) quoted a female interviewee thus:
I have a lot more emotional aspects of life other than just sex. Sex is just one part of it. I have many years invested in building a complete and total relationship with my husband. Sex, like I say, is just one facet of it and it’s been exclusive where as all my other relationships with people have not been exclusive. I’m able to talk to people. I’m able to dance with people, with all these things then why can’t I have sex with them? It doesn’t have anything to do with the exclusive relationship I have with my partner, who happens to be my husband. This is my choice and it’s the total, exclusive relationship that I want to keep and want to have and I don’t want to get rid of; yet I do have needs to have sexual fulfilment that I can’t get from just one type of person. One person can’t satisfy all my needs, and I can’t satisfy all of anybody else’s needs. As far as I can see, that’s impossible.
The Society for Human Sexuality48 enumerates 14 potential advantages of swinging:

• Variety of sexual partners and experiences
• Pleasure and excitement
• Increased social life
• Watching others so as to learn new techniques for your spouse
• Overcoming sexual inhibitions
• “Recapturing one’s youth”
• Feeling reassured that you’re still attractive and desirable.
• Increasing mutual attraction and love within the marriage.
• Re-creating that “first date” feeling of anticipation and excitement, in a safe way that won’t harm your marriage, and to exercise social skills (e.g. flirting) that you may not have used in along time.
• It’s human nature to appreciate someone even more if you notice other people desiring them, which may explain why swinging makes me feel even more attracted to my partner.

Although this may vary slightly from club to club, I’ve found the swinging community to be quite accepting of a wide variety of body types, sizes, ages, and shapes.
It’s an opportunity to dress sexy or [in the case of on-premises parties] to go completely nude.
It’s an opportunity for people with healthy sex drives to have that aspect of themselves appreciated rather than snickered about.
It’s an opportunity to socialize and form friendships amongst people who are comfortable talking about sex openly.49
It has been commented that the swingers lifestyle is ‘banal’50 and this list certainly implies that some couples begin swinging with otherwise dull social lives, restricted outlets for conversation and self-expression, lacking in sexual self-confidence and with a feeling that their best years are behind them. Such a description fits a large percentage of middle-aged C1 and C2 couples. For historic reasons swinging has usually been considered, both by protagonists and antagonists, from the perspective of the middle-aged married person.
However, this is increasingly an out of date picture. Fever, the young swingers’ party club with which I am involved51 points to biology as a general explanation for the motivation of swingers.
“The thrill of sexual adventure is so powerful that we can follow it impulsively even when it threatens our happiness in other important areas of life. We are actually all biologically programmed to be like this – the optimum procreative strategy for both sexes is monogamy plus adultery.”52
In contrast to the 14 pros of swinging listed by the Society for Human Sexuality, Fever – whose partygoers are overwhelmingly unmarried and on average 14 years younger than the sample of swingers from Desire Contacts in 2.1 above – takes fast-paced social lives, expanding horizons, sexual self-confidence and the legitimacy of experimental sex with multiple partners for granted. “Recapturing youth”, improving sexual techniques, shedding inhibitions and socialising with people who are comfortable talking about sex do not figure.
“Swinging allows a couple to have sexual variety in the context of a loving relationship; constantly reaffirms the desirability of each partner in the eyes of the other; completely blows away the need or temptation for sexual deceit; provides sexual opportunities that are not really available to single people; and removes the prime cause of relationship breakdown. As each partner is instrumental in providing the other with fantastic sexual experiences beyond the hope of most people, swinging can actually reinforce the bonds between a couple.”53
Fever argues that swinging can benefit couples who are:
“BOTH sexually self-confident and adventurous and who don’t want emotional fulfilment to mean sexual retirement.”54
and enumerates six reasons why such a normal young couple might enjoy swinging.
“If you share your innermost sexual wishes and fantasies together. If acting them out together would bring you closer rather than provoke jealousy. If you are proud of your lover and want to show him or her off in an atmosphere where their talents will be appreciated. If having other people present would heighten your sexual enjoyment. If you both want to do things with your bodies that you cannot do by yourselves. If you would find making love with your lover and other people mind-expanding and self-esteem enhancing: then you should consider swinging.”55
Part of this echoes the earlier point made from an older perspective about gaining appreciation for having a high sex drive or being a good lover. If a couple’s hobby was chess, Fever claims, nobody would expect them to play only with each other.56
Fever highlights four extraordinary circumstances where they believe swinging may enhance or ultimately save a relationship “in almost a therapeutic way”:57
Couples with bisexual women, who clearly cannot find sexual fulfilment within a monogamous relationship either heterosexual or lesbian.
Other situations where one partner cannot satisfy all the sexual needs of the other
Couples with asymmetric levels of sexual experience, where one partner feels the need to ‘catch up’ with that of their partner without excluding him or her.
Couples for whom habitual promiscuity was such an important part of both their lives before they met that a monogamous relationship involves too great an abstention from pleasure to be realistically sustainable.
Finally, personal growth for both sexes but especially women is another benefit claimed for swinging. Anne Terrien offers the perspective that
“The outside world does not offer anywhere near the same degree of security in non-sexual situations let alone those that are sexually charged. Swinging can be seen as an incredible source of sexual freedom for women who would otherwise not have a sexual outlet other than that available within the bounds of marriage or commitment… Swinging offers not only sexual freedom, but also offers the ability for self-discovery.”58
This corroborates Butler’s seminal findings that in the “second stage of swinging”:
“a woman becomes selective because she no longer needs to prove she is desired or can satisfy other men. In order to make the experience meaningful, she arrives at a point where she feels that she must refuse the advances of many men. She learns to define her preferences more clearly and to learn to act on these preferences. This is an experience that many women never have because they rely on their husbands to make decisions in social situations. In short a woman learns to individuate both herself and others”
But how does this long litany of pros match up against scientifically researched cons?
1.4 Research
Swingers are an under-researched phenomenon. Bergstrand and Williams, whose work has already been cited, conducted the latest research, drawn from by far the biggest sample yet, with over 1000 participants from across the USA. Their paper “Today’s Alternative Marriage Styles: The Case of Swingers” published in the Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality in October 200059 is currently the leading authority on the subject. They are candid about the shortcomings of their methodology but it is significant that their findings are in line with previous studies on swingers going back 30 years. The paper summarises earlier research, is relatively short and worth reading in the original.
To those unfamiliar with the corpus of learning on swingers the results are surprising in both result and clarity. Bergstrand & Williams found that swingers are happier in their marriages than the norm.60 60% of swingers said that swinging improved their relationship and only 1.7% said it made their marriage less happy.61 Half of those who rated their relationship very happy before becoming swingers maintained it had become even happier.62 90% of those with less happy relationships said swinging improved them.63 Almost 70% of swingers claimed no problem with jealousy, around a quarter admitted to some jealousy but only 6% said it was very much a problem.64 Swingers rate themselves happier (59% against 32% very happy)65 and their lives much more exciting (76% against 54% exciting)66 than does the rest of the population, by surprisingly large margins. There was no difference between the responses of men and women.67
It would be conventional to contrast this study with others from which differing conclusions could be drawn. The problem is there are none.68 That is not to say they could not be some. A contemporary and properly sampled study of ex-swingers would be fascinating and if it established a verifiable rate for the success or failure of swinging relationships it would be seminal. However, in the last three decades what research has been done is relentlessly positive about swingers. Sceptics of swinging have produced not a single page of scientifically researched data to support their prejudices, as we shall see later in some detail.
A typical critic of swingers is Dr. David Woodsfellow, an Atlanta psychologist who claims to have counselled more than 1,000 couples in 24 years as a marriage therapist.
“When clients tell him they swing, he tells them to stop. ‘The human need for security – the question of ‘Am I not enough for you?’ – is real enough that most people can’t do this for long’ before one partner begins to feel threatened or coerced, he says. ‘I believe swinging is a recipe for disaster, and I’ve seen plenty of examples where it’s torn a marriage apart.’…the Lifestyle can easily compound problems in a shaky relationship and damage a healthy one, Woodsfellow says. ‘Now, most people believe that [swinging] doesn’t work for the vast majority of couples’ he says.”69
This is as good as scientific scepticism of swinging gets. Given the enormous weight of supposition in favour of the traditional monogamous relationship model, it is to say the least underwhelming.
Woodsfellow employs the rhetorical ruse of arguing against something his opponents do not maintain – a ‘straw man’ – in this case by upholding the uncontentious truth that swinging doesn’t work for most people and can cause more problems in a troubled relationship. The true burden of his argument lies in the sentence “I believe swinging is a recipe for disaster”. It has two components. One is that swinging is a recipe for disaster, not can be, not often is, not usually is, but always is a disaster.
The other is the weasel words we will encounter again – “I believe”. Dr Woodsfellow is prescribing narrow lifestyle strictures, with grave consequences for the happiness and fulfilment of millions of people, on the basis of personal faith. Nor quite enough faith, however, to quantify and publish his ‘research’ so that others can verify it.
Woodsfellow follows a pattern familiar from anti-swingers in the UK: ‘Therapists’ lay down prescriptive rules for the behaviour of others, absolute rules that allow no leeway for individual difference. They refuse to accept that any alternative relationship model can work for however small a proportion of the population. They justify themselves with reference to anecdotal encounters with troubled couples, who nevertheless have not been studied sufficiently to produce a scholarly paper, thus preventing the evidence from being verified or the conclusions challenged. These anecdotes in turn are drawn from a sample that excludes successful swingers, because happy people do not visit counsellors.
There are British examples of the tendency to offer advice to the public on the basis of unscientific (or even counter-scientific) anecdote that masks or misrepresents the consensus of learning on swinging. The BBC women’s magazine Eve70 reported Dr Petra Boynton as saying about swingers:
“…in many couples she’s encountered, the men enjoyed the experience, but the women are more reluctant – feeling that they’ll lose their partner if they don’t join in.”
Surprisingly, given her willingness to comment on this subject, although Boynton assures us she is distinguished in her field
“I am a world leader in taking sex and research to the public”71
her own list of expertises and researches72 does not include anything on swinging. (She has however broken new ground with her work on “ways to make cooking in relationships easier”73 and “girls’ nights out”74).
If accurately reported, Boynton’s comment
a) is apparently not based on published and falsifiable research by herself or anyone else.
b) is offered in vague and unscientific terms that cannot be challenged – how many swingers exactly has Dr Boynton “encountered” and what was the methodology of this study?
c) does not appear to be based on a valid sample
d) runs counter to the consensus of published research on swinging
Boynton’s credibility as an authority on swinging is not helped when she goes on to say:
“People do have successful open relationships but they should be aware that they can unleash many insecurities and worries”75
Open relationships are an entirely separate phenomenon from swinging. The academic consensus is that swinging is a development within traditional marriage whereas open relationships are something much more revolutionary. For example, in his seminal college textbook Butler wrote:
“Swinging marriages probably represent the least revolutionary of the emerging alternative lifestyles. Generally, swingers challenge traditional beliefs only in the area of sexual monogamy. Strong relationships outside the pair bond are still, for the most part, regarded as threats rather than potentials for personal growth…Swinging may be a preservative rather than a catalyst for change in the basic structure of the family in our society…swinging supports rather than disrupts monogamous marriage as it currently exists in our society.”76
An elementary error of this sort suggests Boynton has little familiarity with the basic paradigms of the subject. One hopes that one day Dr Boynton will make available the private information that convinces her to draw such widely differing conclusions from those who have undertaken and published research in the conventional scientific manner.
Not all therapists agree with the likes of Woodsfellow and Boynton. Professor Petrushka Clarkson,77 renowned Harley Street sex therapist and author, says group sex can be positive or negative for a couple:
“just the same as anything else – cars, food, alcohol, air travel.”78
Professor Clarkson cautions against general condemnation of swingers on the basis of unsuccessful personal experiences, the stock in trade of those therapists who can imagine no swinging experiences that differ from the failures of their own clients. And she also warns of those commentators who
“are only prescribing their own behaviour to others.”
This concurs with Thio (1988) that:
“We may conclude that swinging is like a two-edged sword – it may swing in the direction of positive consequences or in the opposite direction of negative consequences. The nature of the consequence depends more on the individual who uses the sword than on the sword itself”79
Glasgow’s Senior Consultant Psychiatrist Dr Prem Misra JP,80 an expert in treating sex-offenders and sex-crime victims81 told the Scottish Sunday Mail that
“in only two or three per cent of cases had the issue of ‘swinging’ ever became problematic for participants”82
In summation, insofar as science has yet been able to establish, the perceived benefits of swinging have been validated to an extraordinary degree. It remains true that swingers need more research, particularly in the UK, particularly among the younger unmarried swingers who did not exist when most of the major American studies were conducted. However it is significant that for 30 years studies have been uniform in suggesting the swinging lifestyle is beneficial for some couples. Those who refuse to accept these tentative conclusions are unable do so with reference to any scientific studies.
1.5 Popularity of swinging
Swinging is booming. The story is the same across the whole of western civilisation. Most large towns in western Europe have at least one swingers club. The most comprehensive listing available in English (http://clubsandparties.com) counts 61 in the Netherlands, 54 in Belgium, 107 in France, 117 in Germany, 152 in Italy, 113 in Spain, 23 in Austria and 9 in Switzerland. Virtually all of them are on-premises clubs. Paris has 40.83 The large number in the Low Countries84 include some which are renowned enough to be international travel destinations in their own right.85 Cap D’Agde,86 the famous nudist town in the South of France, has a population of 40,00087 in the summer months, many of them swingers. It has around half a dozen swinger clubs and the notorious ‘adult beach’ where people have sex in the dunes at sundown.88
There are around 400 clubs in North America89 and several swingers holiday resorts in the Caribbean.90 In the USA and Canada swingers also hold conventions91 where thousands of sexual adventurers fly from all over the continent to take over large hotels and party between the lectures and workshops.92 Australia has over 90 swingers clubs.93 They have spread to New Zealand, South Africa, Eastern Europe and South America.94 Even Malaysia has one.95
Swinging is booming in the UK too. Given the lower base, it must have increased by a greater factor here than on the continent. The most authoritative listing, Clubsandparties.com,96 includes 123 swingers clubs in the UK,97 more than in France (107).98 Although this does reflect the number of swinging enterprises in Britain (and the demand they are struggling to meet), there the likeness ends.
In France libertinage is recognised as a niche market within the leisure industry. Though standards vary the clubs are typically smart, licensed, well furnished, incorporate dancefloors and restaurants and have attractive playrooms99 (the areas of swinging clubs where sex takes place, as opposed to the purely social zones). In acknowledgement of the great popularity of swinging the French government runs a safe-sex campaign Couples Contre le SIDA100 directly targeted at club echangisme users.
The contrast with Britain could hardly be more stark. For while the French listing includes only on-premises clubs, very few of the British clubs have permanent venues and none are in the same league as continental clubs in terms of facilities. The clubs that do exist are little more than sexual shebeens. They live in a twilight world in constant fear of police or local authority busts, without serious investment, without alcohol licences, without higher spending consumers and the increased profits they bring. Consequently they are trapped in an artificial depression. Equally, their clientele run the gauntlet of cruel exposure by an ethically degraded press.101 Historically this has frightened away potential middle-class custom, leaving only those with little or nothing to lose. These lower socio-economic elements in turn militated for lowest-possible costs and minimum standards, adding to the downward pressure on suppliers.
Although more middle-class consumers have now entered the swinging market, they do not generally find the quality experiences they take for granted in the rest of the leisure industry. As a result, they return much less frequently and spend a fraction of what they could if their needs were properly met.
1.6 London and Paris compared
To illustrate the disparity between Britain and the rest of the economically advanced world, it is instructive to compare the 44 swingers clubs listed by Clubsandparties.com in London and the South East of England102 with the 31 it lists in Paris. The Parisian clubs are all purposely designed, licensed establishments open several nights a week if not every night and many incorporate a restaurant.
The real figure for SE England should be 32 as four are closed103 and eight are duplicate names.104 Four are only fetish clubs;105 2 are 100% gay in practice;106 three are contact clubs107 that also organise houseparties; five are believed by some to provide men with encounters with single women, particularly those who enjoy gang-bangs, not all of whom are amateurs. One is a dining club108 that meets in private houses, two are social clubs109 that arrange meetings in bars where sex does not take place, one is a quarterly party club that meets in private houses110 and one is a twice-monthly party club that meets in bars and restaurants closed to the general public for the night.111
The remaining 13 have some sort of premises of their own. Five of these are private houses outside Greater London sometimes used for swingers parties112 – in Brighton (weekly), Hertfordshire (monthly), Gatwick and Kent (once or twice a month) and Maidenhead (occasionally). Two are nudist establishments in the Kentish countryside113 and are used unofficially one evening a week only.
Of the last six in London itself, two are nudist/health clubs114 with weekly couples only nights; two are unoccupied houses converted to swingers venues115 but only used for one or two days on the weekend. All four are unlicensed and badly undercapitalised. One is a basement bar (with a licence) that has one or two swingers nights a week and no swingers facilities whatsoever.116 Finally, there is one in a warehouse in outer London117 with an unlicensed raffle-ticket bar, a weekly programme of events, some soft furnishings and plywood walls dividing it up into discrete areas. But it is still a structurally unaltered warehouse in outer London.
So despite first impressions London has in fact not a single, proper on-premises club to compare with Paris’s 31.
Admittedly property prices are higher in London and Parisian clubs are not uniformly excellent. They tend to be overpriced, many let in single men and there is often a noticeable percentage of older men with young women-of-uncertain-status. Nevertheless, a swinging couple in Paris has a very wide choice as consumers almost every day of the week. In London, for on average fewer than two days a week there is a risible choice between establishments so downmarket that they could not compete anywhere else in the western world.

Be Sociable, Share!

• 

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.