What you have before you is the end result of the most rewritten blog post I’ve ever done. And I hope to never do this again. In preparation for PCAP 2022, Erin and I started listening to episodes from the podcasts who would be presenting who we have never listened to before. One such podcast was Swinger University, and Erin noticed an episode called/used to be called (more on that later) Drinking & Drugs in the Lifestyle. Naturally we gravitated toward that one.
One thing to note before we go any further: Erin and I don’t recommend that people use substances at lifestyle events. One of our first posts was about why we don’t mix party drugs and lifestyle clubs. But having had all of the substances Swinger University discusses (alcohol at 5:17, cannabis at 9:43, cocaine at 14:31, MDMA/Molly at 17:36, and ketamine at 25:28), we fully understand why others do.
On this blog we try to tackle the conversation about drug use in the lifestyle from two angles:
- To make sure that people who use drugs at lifestyle events are doing so responsibly.
- To provide an accurate understanding of a responsible drug experience for those with limited experience being on these drugs. We have seen a lot of misconceptions from nonusers, which can lead to unwarranted bias against substance users.
The episode felt counter to everything we’re trying to do in regard to goal #2.
From Ed and Phoebe of Swinger University
After our initial shock at Shane’s review of our episode [Shane: AKA Draft 5; you’ll hear more about that later.], we worked with Shane and Erin to better understand and reframe expectations for our episode’s purpose for our listeners. Both Phoebe and I have more experience than we admit to in the episode, but that wasn’t the main focus.
Although we tried to provide some of the positives of drugs in terms of their social lubricant aspects at events, we meant this episode to be a cautionary tale. Using substances or alcohol at lifestyle events can easily get away from you. Observing and experiencing these slips into overuse can adversely affect the play experiences of everyone.
So we agree with Shane and Erin that using drugs and alcohol at events has risks and the unfortunate side effect of reinforcing stereotypes of substances. We encourage all our listeners to seek sources (like this blog) before experimenting to better understand the effects and pitfalls of experimenting with substances, especially at lifestyle events.
A Quick Tip Right Upfront
Swinger University has been great about collaborating with us on making adjustments. During a group chat they made a point that deserves some attention as good advice/a word of caution.
They recorded Episode 22 after being frustrated by meeting people at parties who were overly intoxicated. Not wasted but altered just enough that it was difficult to form genuine connections.
I could write a whole post about how being on different levels of intoxication can ruin the experience for everyone involved. Maybe I will. But the point here is to be mindful of your consumption and intoxication levels—which can be tough when you’re nervous. And lifestyle events are rife with new experiences and uncharted territory. Don’t mindlessly sip a cocktail or anxiously puffing a vape pen just to have something to do with your hands.
My assumption (hope!) is that most people who get wasted at lifestyle events do so accidentally. That’s understandable and forgivable! It happens to the best of us. But given how infrequently most of us can attend these events, that’s certainly something to keep any eye out for. You don’t want to squander your rare night out.
And now, back to the post.
Not That We Thought It Was All Bad
This episode was a masterclass in frustration for us. The information wasn’t wrong, per se, but rather was narrow. Swinger University reported accurate facts about the benefits and drawbacks of substances, but it was rather flat given the backdrop of them not having had experienced being on these substances other than alcohol.
The episode is rounded out with anecdotes of their interactions with people who were intoxicated on these substances. Those experiences range from bad to awful, and that negative history certainly leeches into the overall tone.
We agreed with the underlying points, but their stories highlight what I call irresponsible substance use. Not that Ed and Phoebe have a sense for what irresponsible use would look like compared to what I believe to be responsible use, which would be barely perceivable.
However, by not understanding how much dosage can affect each experience (because of that limited experience being on any of these five substances), their stories can come across as though they are the typical—perhaps even unavoidable—consequences of taking these drugs when in fact they represent a high level of intoxication and overindulgence. The negative side-effects of these substances can be mitigated with appropriate dosing.
There was so much we liked about the episode, and yet through it all, we kept getting bashed by sarcasm, surprised by their generalization, and confused by some of the conclusions they were making. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say we were confused by their confidence in their conclusions given their lack of experience being on these substances.
I cannot tell you how often we shouted things like, “I mean, yeah…but…not really!,” “Of course you don’t! You’ve never been on it. You can’t understand!”, or “But only if you take too much!”
Getting Defensive
So what did I do? I listened to the episode multiple times, took copious notes, and wrote my critique. My first few drafts were overly hostile because I kept getting increasingly frustrated by all the little things that were off and info that was missing.
On my sixth listen or thereabouts, I started to get over it. It’s clear that Swinger University wasn’t being malicious with their sarcasm. Their intent wasn’t to insult. They weren’t shaming drug use, simply venting their own frustration at how and when the substances were used. Unlike other episodes of theirs or talking to them in person, both Erin and I felt the sarcasm was overly caustic. The jabs had a little too much bite and were fired out too often across the show to just be humorous to us. Having learned even more about their history with substance use, this is also justified and reasonable, but it doesn’t make for an even, informative look at these substances.
Even in the absence of maliciousness, harm can be done without intending it.
Swinger University danced right up to the edge of using certain phrases that are pet peeves of ours, so close that Erin (who is one of the kindest, most even-tempered people) had been riled up after that first listen because she was sure they’d used them. We both had.
But my multiple reviews of the episode brought clarity and precision on such points.
After all that, I thought I had gotten “Draft 5” to a much more even level. I was incorrect.
My Standard Operating Procedure
Whenever I make references to other content creators’ work, I like to use direct quotes. I use embedded links and timestamps so that I don’t need citations and a reference list. Because that’s exactly what I would have instead. You can see this back in my 2019 post The Ambiguity of Male Sexiness. And there’s the blog post offering MDMA advice to Kate and Liam of the Monogamish Marriage blog. For my Magic Mike post, I went through a file of the movie and created clips of the scene I wanted to highlight and uploaded them to my YouTube so that I could embed them into that post.
I am that much of a pedant.
Whenever I directly quote content creators, I send them a message telling them I’ve done so shortly after the post is published but before I do any kind of promotion. I don’t want to blindside people, and I offer to review or revisit things that the content creators think I misunderstood or misrepresented.
Swinger University quickly voiced some concerns, and Draft 5 was unpublished. I sent them a link to my draft and gave them commenting permission on the file.
Point, Counter Point
What I attempted to express in way too many words was that we had certain expectations for the content based on the podcast’s branding. It’s called Swinger University, many of their episodes are called courses, and they call it educational in their intro.
I spent a lot of time in earlier drafts explaining why I didn’t think this episode lived up to that expectation.
Swinger University’s counter to that is that they are an educational podcast about swinging. Their stories are real-world examples of experiences they had in lifestyle situations. The accompanying information about substances—benefits and drawbacks of each—were accurate.
Fair point.
Our disappointment was a direct result of our expectation that this episode would provide an even, balanced exploration of substance use in the lifestyle. Responsible use would be juxtaposed by irresponsible use. That the good experiences and the bad would be given their due. But Swinger University had never promised that.
I still have concerns others will seek out this episode with the same expectations but who have less knowledge and experience with substance use. I’m picturing a newbie couple who are just starting to dip their toe into the lifestyle. Having heard stories about drug fueled sex parties in the news and watched that one season of Swingtown, this new couple is concerned about what they will find when going to their first event, house party, or club.
This episode provides useful information, and it could help swingers avoid some pitfalls. But tone and heavy lean on stories about negative experiences could also bias listeners against engaging with others who are using substances responsibly because responsible use was mostly ignored.
Swinger University Releases a Patreon Audio
Ed shared with me an audio Swinger University recorded about their experience with our critique. This more so than their other feedback clearly indicated that the majority of what I had written and why I wrote it the way I did had not landed as intended.
One example: My use of the direct quotes and timestamps was seen as hostile and nitpicky. Phoebe describes this as making her go nuclear. Certainly not my intent.
I view my use of quotes as protection for the original content. If I were to base my arguments on supposition and taking words out of context, then I wouldn’t want my readers to be able to reference what had been said.
But the timestamps make it easy for anyone to jump into the section I referenced to get the quote in context. No one needs to just take my word about what was said or how it sounded. In my mind, using direct quotes and timestamps protects the original content. This wasn’t meant as a hostile suppression technique. My goal was to get people to listen to the episode.
I can see now how it was taken otherwise. That’s just a difference in background, I suppose. Whereas Phoebe took my quotes as hostile, I found the lack of direct quotes in the Patreon audio to be frustrating because I don’t know to which parts of my blog they are referring with their criticism.
An Almost Complete Rewrite on My Part…
I had to fight the urge to keep as much of Draft 5 as possible as a way of defending myself. I’ve been in the field of academic writing a long time, and I’m pretty good at not doing what Swinger University said I did in the Patreon. Though I admit, I danced right up to the edge.
But maintaining Draft 5’s material would just be me getting defensive. Again.
And defending myself as a writer is entirely the wrong thing to do because that Patreon audio made one thing crystal clear: I had fucked up big time. I had meant to be critical. I hadn’t intended to hurt anyone, but harm can be done without intention.
Swinger University took me to school on that one. Lesson learned.
In the end, all four of us want to provide something that has value to the lifestyle community. Simply editing the other version wouldn’t do that. It was too tainted by my defensiveness.
…Additional Info and a Title Change on Swinger University’s
To their credit, Swinger University was quick to add additional info to the show notes to ease our concerns. During our back and forth, they asked if we thought changing the episode name would help. We absolutely do! Part of our criticism was that neither the title, the show notes, nor the discussion in the episode itself made it clear that the focus was on overindulgence.
The episode is now called “Some Downsides of Overindulgence While Swinging,” which fixes that issue.
Also Ed and Phoebe made some statements on their Patreon audio that cleared up most of our other points.
First, they said they didn’t intend this episode to be a thorough critique of the benefits and drawbacks of drug use. It’s a light, fluffy piece about how badly those interactions can go.
Second, Ed and Phoebe identify alcohol and drug intoxication as a spectrum. That when people are on a light dose, they can receive some benefit from that substance, but the flip side is that overindulgence leads to people being wasted to the point of blacking out.
Had these statements been in the opening minutes of the episode, I wouldn’t have written Drafts 1 through 5 to begin with. Those statements wouldn’t have fixed the negative tone, but we’d have gotten over that.
My First Misstep in My Analysis of the Swinger University Episode
One of the goals of this blog is to demystify the drug experience and help people see that these substances can have a positive effect if used responsibly. The baseline knowledge most people have is whatever was retained from their DARE program in school (which was horrible in both the information it provided and the goal of preventing drug use) or what they see in movies or on the news, and those are usually terrible as well.
So when I first listened to the episode, my initial reaction was to write a blog post that pointed out the flaws in the Swinger University episode. Because that’s the goal of my blog, right?
No, it’s not.
As I’ve noted, Ed and Phoebe have limited experience taking the substances they discuss other than alcohol. What they have is experience interacting with people on drugs like MDMA (AKA second-hand experience with MDMA), as evidenced by their stories. This was never in question.
I said in Draft 5 that I felt that the gaps in information, the pieces that Ed and Phoebe did not touch on or gave little attention to (particularly in comparison to the negatives, which got more screen time), were a result of them not having that first-hand experience of taking these substances.
The voice of the experienced user, a perspective that could provide balance, was missing. Instead of highlighting where I saw the gaps and why, I should have filled in the gaps instead.
Fortunately, I can still do that.
Let’s Talk About Talking About Substances
Toward the end of the episode, Ed and Phoebe ruminate on how to start the conversation about substance use with potential playmates. I think this is the most important part of the episode and wish it had gotten more focus. So I am giving it that focus.
At 27:35 (I’m sorry, Phoebe, it’s a thing I do), Phoebe says, “You can’t just ask, ‘Do you take drugs?’ ‘cause it’s kinda personal.”
Ed replies: “You could say, ‘Do you play sober?’”
That is better, but sober is subjective and mostly associated with alcohol even though it’s not restricted to alcohol. I would imagine that if you asked that, you’d get a lot of, “Well, I usually have a few drinks,” said while the person is holding a beer or cocktail. Not a lot of new information is gained.
Also, when put on the spot, it’s an easy dodge to just answer in regards to alcohol consumption.
My suggestion is a little more direct: “What’s your comfort level with substance use during play sessions?”
I think there is less chance of perceived judgment in this phrasing. There’s a weird holier-than-thou element to sobriety in our culture. Sobriety is both exalted as a virtue while at the same time viewed with confusion and even disdain. Teetotalers know this well: Not drinking, no matter the reason, can be met with an odd degree of suspicion or ridicule.
Similarly, the word drug is polarized to two extremes: The legal prescription stuff that saves lives and the illegal street chemicals that ruin lives. Neither of those generalizations are accurate but both can come to mind when the word is used.
Hence my avoidance of both of those words.
Here are some canned answers to that question you can use to get that conversation started.
Answers Based on Which Substances You Take
Teetotaler. “We don’t drink or do drugs.”
Drinkers. “We drink socially and like to have [a little] alcohol before play.
420 friendly. “We use cannabis to help relax socially and/or we find it makes play so much better because….”
Casual Recreational Users. “We enjoy some substances and sometimes mix it with sexual activity, but it’s not necessary for play. We’re on ____ right now. If that bothers you, we can hold off playing until another time.”
Party and Play Users. “We only partake in lifestyle activities when on ______. If that’s not your thing, cool!”
Erin and I would be Casual Recreational Users.
Answers Based on Your Comfort Level With Substances Being Used by Play Partners
Not Comfortable: “We don’t drink/do drugs, and we don’t want to associate with people who do, even if you keep that behavior in your private life.”
On the Same Level: “We only want to play with people who are on our level during play.”
Curious. “We don’t have experience with _____, but we’re curious what that would be like.”
Comfortable. “We don’t use _____ during play, but we’re comfortable with play partners doing so [in moderation].”
Experienced. “We’ve used _____ several times before, and we’re cool with others using it during play. We might even join in from time to time.”
LFG (Looking For Group; it’s a video game term). “We really enjoy _____ especially with others. We’re always on the lookout for people who might be interested. [It doesn’t have to be during play.]”
Sherpas. “We have a lot of experience with _____ and guiding people through their first experience. We’d be glad to do so for you if you are interested.”
Erin and I would be Experienced, LFG, Sherpas.
Lightening the Conversation
Ed noted in the Patreon audio that he assumed the vitriol of my critique was a result of feeling shamed. I don’t think their episode was shaming users. I felt it was mocking us by being dismissive of the benefits these substances can provide while also focusing hard on (hehehe) the drawbacks. That, combined with the sarcastic tone, frames people who might use these substances (particularly in a lifestyle context) as moronic.
If users in the lifestyle community feel that their usage is looked down upon by nonusers, then there’s no value in being honest about it. I made a similar observation on things said by Paige and Pen in a Swinger Diaries episode, that the negativity people have for substances and substances users makes most of us not want to bring it up.
But we need to be able to talk about this with each other. If someone doesn’t want to play with people who are intoxicated, that’s their decision. Substance users should be open about that and respect that choice.
If the lifestyle community wants substance users to be open about usage, then the community needs to not be judgmental, dismissive, or hostile toward users.
And we’re only going to get to that point when people have a better understanding of actual drug experiences rather than the false understanding often perpetuated by all forms of media.
The Medicine Is in the Dosage
Our two most surprising revelations from this weird drug experiment journey Erin and I have taken are relevant to this part of the discussion:
- These substances, at a moderate effective dose, are less altering than we ever imagined given what we were taught in school and how they are presented in the media.
- They are also shockingly analogous to alcoholic intoxication.
A light dose of a substance gives a gentle buzz that just makes you feel a little uplifted but doesn’t overtly affect behavior. As dosage goes up, so too does the impairment. At higher doses, side effects become more prominent: uncontrolled laughter, stumbling, slurring words, loss of train though, or twitchy and frantic behavior. When blackout levels are reached, behavior is often quite erratic; with alcohol, this presents as falling over, vomiting, or passing out.
With any of these substances, someone can start light and then take more later, increasing their intoxication levels (although unlike with alcohol, some of these become less effective while you are on them. Taking the same dose again is less effective.)
If someone adds more before they have fully come-up on that last dose, they can be in for a world of hurt. What do I mean? Imagine someone has taken a few shots. But before giving those shots time to kick in, they decide they aren’t buzzed enough, so they have a few more. Thirty minutes later, they are trashed and only getting drunker as the last round kicks in. Same thing can happen with the other stuff, too.
On this spectrum a lifestyle-appropriate dose is on the bottom end, down around buzzed. Experimentation is required to find the right level.
Understand the Variables
It is common knowledge that consuming alcohol on an empty stomach will affect someone faster than if they drank on a full stomach. This variance is common for ingested substances, but it’s not the only consideration. The route of administration (ROA) makes a significant difference. Smoked and insufflated (snorted) substances have a much faster uptake time, hit more intensely, and often don’t last nearly as long. The faster it gets into your bloodstream, the more substantial the impact, but also the faster it is cleared from your bloodstream.
Furthermore, dosage needs to be adjusted based on ROA. Insufflating my normal ingestion dose of MDMA would get me wasted quickly. Whereas ingesting my normal insufflation dose of cocaine would barely affect me at all. (Yup, cocaine works just fine when ingested if you know your dosage.)
Even if someone is experienced with a substance, every batch can vary in purity and strength (that’s one of the big problems with an unregulated market). Which means every batch can hit differently. This doesn’t mean every drug experience is a crapshoot because each batch is relatively consistent, and even if batches vary, they shouldn’t vary that significantly.
Once you find your sweet spot, then you have a good baseline for future experiments.
The medicine is in the dose. So is the poison. Which is true of everything humans consume: Drinking either too little or too much water can kill you.
Events Aren’t the Time to Experiment
Swinger University nails this 100%. Lifestyle events are not a suitable time to experiment with a new substance, batch, ROA, or dose. Which would include not taking substances from other people unless that person knows exactly how you react to substances.
Which Ed and Phoebe clearly state: “Typically, don’t take drugs from anyone who’s just handing it to you, that’s the first rule.” (27:14)
We’ve rolled with our friends Han and Leia a few times now. Leia has been an interesting case in getting her MDMA dose correct. She’s remarkably sensitive to it, so she takes less than half what I do as a starting dose. Han is closer to my level. If I know my dose with a batch, I can accurately predict their doses.
Han and Leia know me well enough to trust that I have used multiple test kits to check my supply. Because I always do.
If you don’t have that level of trust in someone, don’t take drugs from them.
Social Lubricant Versus Oblivion
There are advantages and disadvantages between the medium I use and the one Swinger University uses. One disadvantage of mine is that you can’t hear my voice, so certain aspects of communications that give additional context are missing. One disadvantage of theirs is they can’t edit things as easily.
By our powers combined, let’s attack this sticky widget:
“Most importantly…you may say yes to things that you aren’t really comfortable with if you weren’t drinking. Your inhibitions are lowered, you’re going to say ‘Yes.’ Now, that’s probably why a lot of people use it ‘cause they are a little timid and a little shy and they want to jump that gap to the other side, which is ‘Ok, I’m compliant now.’” (at 7:18)
I noted in Draft 5 that I don’t think Ed ends up where he expected to by the end. Or maybe he didn’t start where he wanted in the beginning.
I take the first part, using alcohol (or any substance) to lower inhibitions, reduce timidity, and skirt inherent shyness, as a positive. Yay for social lubricants!
This takes a hard turn (hehehe…oh, never mind) right at the end with the compliant bit, because I see that as a huge negative.
I wasn’t sure which—if either or both—they had intended. I had shared ideas, Swinger University shared others, and I think we’re in agreement with the following scenarios.
One Positive Scenario
As a social lubricant—the lifestyle-appropriate dose—these substances can be useful. Some of us (by which I mean us), are not the best at social interaction. Given Erin’s social anxiety issues and my…being me problem…these help us get out of our own heads. There’s nothing wrong with needing a crutch to help get through social interactions, to overcome acute reactions to jealousy, or just to catch up and settle in with the group. But this needs to be a decision made by the imbiber, preferably made before that moment.
Swinger University generally agreed so long as substances aren’t used to avoid dealing with underlying issues. Jealousy, after all, is a symptom of a larger problem that needs to be addressed.
It’s a fair point, so I included it.
But as an experienced user, I will add that the level of dose we recommend shouldn’t numb someone to a larger, on-going issue.
It is possible, and not even difficult, to process emotions while on most of these substances (by which I mean the five discussed in the episode). Cannabis, MDMA, and ketamine are being researched as therapeutic aids, often at doses higher than our recommended lifestyle-appropriate dose. MDMA would make it easier to discuss and process such issues with your partner outside of lifestyle settings.
We find that cocaine can have the same opening up and comfortably-make-yourself-vulnerable effect as MDMA.
One Negative Scenarios
We’ve never had this experience ourselves, but Swinger University pointed it out and I recall other podcasters having mentioned the same thing: When someone unintentionally gets trashed but still seems keen to play.
Ed and Phoebe are upfront about not thinking drunkenness/overindulgence is sexy (2:44; 3:13; 8:50). We don’t either. At least not with other people.
But this scenario isn’t just about a lack of desire to play. If someone is intoxicated enough, that creates a problem of consent. Even if interest in playing was established before someone gets wasted, it still becomes one after they are wasted. Consent should be considered withdrawn.
I’ve written previously about preconsent in regards to having sex while drunk. I have it with my wife because we’ve been together for nearly 25 years now. Preconsent requires a level of familiarity and intimacy that is beyond swinging. You don’t have that after a handful of dates and certainly don’t when just meeting someone at a club or house party.
It’s a weird gray area if you can’t tell if someone is that wasted before having sex with them. For example Swinger University’s friend who doesn’t remember the orgy he was in because he was wasted on MDMA and alcohol (starts at 22:50). Most of these substances can shut down a guy’s ability to perform at high doses, with MDMA being one of the more potent cockblockers.
But if he still manages to…come…through (hehehe), I’m going to go with it’s not your fault if you had sex with someone who you didn’t know was wasted. (He said as if he had any kind of authority on this matter.)
And the Awful Scenario
Someone in the group doesn’t want to be there, and they get wasted to check out.
My hypothetical background story was that one of the wives in a group isn’t feeling like playing—either in that moment or with the other couple at all—and one or both of the husbands encourage her to drink more or take more drugs to get in the mood, which results in her being trashed.
Swinger University’s version steps it back a little further and the reluctant wife isn’t even interested in swinging at all. Her husband is the one pushing the idea, and she gets wasted—or even worse, surreptitiously dosed—so that she’s compliant. Any swingers they engage with might have no idea the wife doesn’t want to be there at all.
If someone needs to be this wasted to go through with swinging or swapping or any other kink because they don’t want to do it at all and being checked out is the only way they can manage, that’s a sign of Really Bad Things, possibly an abusive relationship.
No one should need to be wasted.
Regarding Party ‘N Play
I stand by that previous statement: No one should need to be wasted.
But I’m not sure how many people in the lifestyle would say they need substances as opposed to wanting something to take the edge off. Erin and I don’t need them, particularly for the sex part. However, some sort of social lubricant certainly makes interacting with people much more pleasant. For us it’s a personal preference to be on something but never a requirement.
That said, there are people who only want to play when on a substance: Party and Play (PnP). Note the difference between PnP and the Awful Scenario listed above: In the Awful Scenario, the person doesn’t actually want to play and the substance use allows them to check out so that it can happen to them. With PnP, the people actively want to play but only while on substances.
Because it’s a small subsect and we aren’t in it, we don’t often discuss PnP on this blog. But since we’re here: There’s nothing wrong with PnP so long as everyone who’s invited to a PnP event has been told explicitly beforehand that substance use is intended and expected (or even required). Attending such an event is tantamount to giving explicit consent to being intoxicated (possibly wasted) and engaging with intoxicated (possibly wasted) people. Not that such consent can’t be rescinded by withdrawing to a designated safe space (and there should be one!).
PnP should not be sprung upon people mid-event or worse, inflicted upon them without their knowledge by dosing a drink. Having sex with someone who has been slipped a drug or given a dose stronger than they consented to take is rape.
Irresponsible Use Does Harm
I don’t consider just taking a heavy dose of a substance irresponsible. If someone wants to get blackout drunk, take so much MDMA they can’t form words, or snort so much ketamine they K-hole and pass out, that’s their decision.
I’ve done all three of those myself. But never intentionally, never around strangers, and I have no plans to go that far again. Limit testing can be a part of experimentation, and sometimes we overestimate our capacity.
Use is irresponsible when overindulgence occurs in inappropriate environments. A necessary consideration of substance use must be to cause no harm to others. Overindulgence happening at lifestyle events, especially in conjunction with any form of swapping, has great potential for harm:
- Creating discomfort, fear, or concern due to erratic behavior
- Forcing someone else (a house party host perhaps) to take care of the person who’s wasted
- Being unable to properly tend to guests (if the wasted person is the host)
- Causing emotional harm to others (by not remembering having sex with someone)
- Exposing others to risks through their own risky behavior (i.e., if you don’t remember who you had sex with, you certainly can’t remember if you used a condom every time)
- Being incapable of providing, asking for, or following rules
- Having no ability to give or receive consent
I would say that the men who played with Ed and Phoebe while so wasted they couldn’t remember the sex were on the same level of irresponsible as someone who doesn’t practice safe sex and doesn’t test themselves for STIs. Intoxication at this level is unsafe in public and wildly inappropriate at lifestyle venues.
Looking Ahead to PCAP 2022
So that’s how that blog post should have gone the first time around.
I think that it works much better with the post being more of a supplemental piece to go alongside that episode to round out some of the information and offer additional points for consideration.
I’m not trying to invalidate Swinger University’s experiences, nor do I want to obfuscate the potential pitfalls of substance use. There are very real concerns for users and for those who are engaging with them. Irresponsible use needs to be called out, but I think it’s unhelpful for open discourse to not understand or recognize the potential for responsible use.
And we do need to be able to have open discourse. Everyone has the right to make well informed decisions about who they are having sex with, and if users are not open about their substance use, then their play partners are not being allowed to make truly informed decisions.
At the very least, most of what is written here might be useful to the community, as opposed to Draft 5. For the undue distress I caused Ed and Phoebe, I am truly sorry.
I’m glad we’ve had the chance to talk and smooth things over. We look forward to meeting you in person in Palm Springs in…wow, just a tad over one week!