
"I don't think this is a fair compromise. I'm not sure how your parties go, but often there is the expectation when attending an orgy that all bodies present are fair game. This may not be true-boundaries can be set whenever and consent can be revoked at will, but the general vibe tends to be predicated on an opt-out approach to consent rather than opt-in."
"It's not outrageous for someone to assume after receiving an invite to your place for an orgy that you/your partner want to have sex with them. Explaining that you don't might make the situation much more awkward, which would defeat the purpose of the invite: courtesy. For everyone's sake, don't ever invite someone to a sex party out of sheer politeness."
A couple hosting regular sex parties faces discomfort when a regular attendee wants to bring the husband's ex to an upcoming gathering. The husband proposes allowing the ex to attend with an agreement that neither host will engage with him. The advice columnist explains this compromise is problematic because sex parties typically operate on an opt-out consent model where all present bodies are assumed available unless explicitly declined. At smaller, curated gatherings especially, invitees reasonably expect hosts want to engage with them. Explaining a no-contact boundary would create awkwardness and defeat the purpose of the invitation. The columnist advises against inviting anyone to sex parties out of mere politeness, as this creates unnecessary complications.
Read at Slate Magazine
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]