Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

'Naked Twister' nights inspire suburb's sex club ban

Rate this topic


Mammon

Recommended Posts

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/naked.twi...ref=mpstoryview" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/07/naked.twi...ref=mpstoryview</a>

You know, it's rare that I find a news item that touches on so many problems I have with the world at large. This one is treasure trove of issues for me, Dallas, Texas, Christians, Property rights, Swingers parties....

I was going to make threads about all these individual issues sooner or later, but this provides an excellent real world example. Let's take blurbs out of the article and examine them.

The most popular address on Cedar Ridge Drive is Jim Trulock's split-level home, which has a group sex room and attracts as many as 100 people to swinger parties featuring "Naked Twister" nights.

Okay, regardless of what you think about orgies (for the record I hate swingers parties) the man is using his property as he sees fit. Right? No one's rights are being violated. But, according to the local community it is.

"It's not trying to judge anyone or pass judgment on someone's lifestyle," city spokeswoman Tonya Lewis said.

This illustrates the major driving principle behind Christian thought in todays culture. There words contractdict their actions with this..

To support its claim, the city notes that the Cherry Pit accepts money from guests and promotes the parties on its Web site.

"We're not about infringing on the rights of the Cherry Pit patrons or owners," Lewis said. "But now your right to have fun has infringed on everyone else's. And now you have to draw the line."

Okay, as explained later in the article, the place isn't a business. They accept donations for foods and drinks like *gasp* churchs do. But, a bigger questions is how does this violate their neighbors rights exactly? Their right to have fun behind closed doors apparently makes it impossible for everyone else to do the same. Which, to me, amounts to "I have a right to not feel uncomfortable anytime ever and anything that makes me squamish must be banned from existence." This is proven in the statements as to why this club is a problem...

Retiree Jack Martin, who lives a block behind Trulock's home, said he's concerned that the parties will reduce the value of his property.

Others are annoyed by the procession of cars that crowd their street on weekend evenings, or the flood of strangers who descend on the neighborhood.

Oh, okay. Well, the other day, on Thanksgiving, a whole bunch of people came to a party down the street from my house. There were lots of cars, and people I don't know. Knowing what I know now, I should of called the cops on them and had the city pass a law banning Thanksgiving parties because there are more cars in the street then usual and people I don't know are within a block of my house. These outrageous Thanksgiving parties call for imidiate action on the part of my local party. They reduce the value of my property, because one of parties down the street were hosted by black people! No one wants to live near black people! These reduces the value of my property. Also, I'm willing to bet some people brought food over... which counts as a donation to a party which according to Texas is now criteria for running a business.

The only reason I think that these people want the parties banned are because of this --

Duncanville, which proclaims itself "The Perfect Blend of Family, Community and Business," is an unlikely venue for a neighborhood swinger club. The city of 36,000 just southwest of Dallas has about 50 places of worship and not a single registered sexually oriented business.

and this...

The case against the swinger parties "does appeal to a lot of people's sense of morality," said Lewis, the city spokeswoman. "That's been a lot of complaints we've gotten from residents: 'I came to Duncanville to have a family. I didn't come here to live next to a sex club.' "

It's perfectly fine to have lots of cars and strangers in the neighborhood every Sunday and Wednesday at the "50 places of worship"... but not on someones private property anymore.

If I was living there I'd say the 50 places of worship, the tons of cars and strangers that go to them are all infringing on my right to have fun and that the local government should close them down... see how they like that. :)

Edit: Oh yeah, I forgot to mention Christian Taliban. :D

Edited by Mammon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thus is the way of the hypochristian.

I don't understand how a private sex club interferes with the ability of others to have fun. Are they angry that they are not being invited? Or perhaps angry that their religion doesn't allow this kind of open sexual activity?

I would never get involved in something like this but I think if my neighbors ran a sex club I think it would be funny and always be a good laugh, so long as they didn't disturb me with loud noise late into the night!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Which, to me, amounts to "I have a right to not feel uncomfortable anytime ever and anything that makes me squamish must be banned from existence."

Well yeah, I'd probably be uncomfortable if something made me squamish too. Especialy if it's a game of Naked Squamish growing out of Naked Twister. That would be even twistier and more twisted than Twister.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well yeah, I'd probably be uncomfortable if something made me squamish too. Especialy if it's a game of Naked Squamish growing out of Naked Twister. That would be even twistier and more twisted than Twister.

I meant "squeamish" :P

Thus is the way of the hypochristian.

I don't understand how a private sex club interferes with the ability of others to have fun. Are they angry that they are not being invited? Or perhaps angry that their religion doesn't allow this kind of open sexual activity?

I would never get involved in something like this but I think if my neighbors ran a sex club I think it would be funny and always be a good laugh, so long as they didn't disturb me with loud noise late into the night!

Yeah, in the article they said they were non-judgemental and didn't want to ban "spouse swapping" I think they are all for kinky orgies, so long as they themselves aren't judged by it. They are tying to look like a nice, clean, family-orientated community... whatever that else.

I think this boils down to the Christian mentality of not wanting to be judged as bad, or looking bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw this on the local news, and the couple who runs the place is not very good looking, leading me to suspect they did it in order to see good looking naked people. Nonetheless, I don't think the authorities should have shut it down on the premise that it was a club. I can see neighbors being ticked off if they had difficulties going in and out of their driveways while the events were going on, but I don't think that was the primary motivation. I think it was the Christian Taliban, you know those guys Dr. Peikoff warned us about :P

Christians think that all these types of events will cast aspirations on them leading to God striking them dead if they live next door or down the street. I'm reminded of an episode I saw on the history channel regarding Muslims in about 800 AD finding out about the Kamasutra people having palaces and temples with carvings of naked people all over them -- which they promptly destroyed because it was an offense to Allah.

Locally, some of those good Christian folk have tried to shut down Hooter's restaurants -- you know, because those good looking girls were showing off their perfect legs and breasts.

It's pornography! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is simply a Christian issue. As an atheist, I wouldn't want this type of thing going on in my neighborhood, especially if I had moved there under the impression that it was "The Perfect Blend of Family, Community and Business."

I don't think there is any reason to believe that the people of the neighborhood are trying to "force their morality down [the partiers'] throats," as one of the attendees put it. The people pushing for this ban are not trying to force their morality on others--they're trying to make it so that the debauchery of others is not forced through their windows.

It is one thing to have some sort of promiscuous gathering in your house that is private and inconspicuous, and from the article it seems there is no reason to suspect that the people of the neighborhood have a problem with what anyone else does in the privacy of their own homes. It is another to host an event which creates "noise, traffic and parking problems" on a weekly basis. And just because of the nature of the party, all of these things are a persistent, unrequested reminder of the types of activities that are taking place a few doors down.

If I was this guy's next door neighbor and could hear a dozen whores screaming their lungs out while I was trying to put my children to sleep, I would want it to end also.

And I don't believe the solution, as some might suggest, would be to "just move away," as if the problem were the fault of everyone else in the neighborhood. The party host is clearly the infringer, the broadcaster, the discourteous one--it should be he who has to move to continue his preferred lifestyle, if he so wishes.

Keep in mind that the end result is that "the city has outlawed sex clubs in residential areas." They haven't outlawed sex clubs and they haven't outlawed sex in residential areas. They haven't even outlawed modest orgies which could probably go unnoticed. They've outlawed scheduled and recurring events of a sexual nature which are large enough to disturb the usual harmony and composure of the neighborhood they're maintained in. It is not unreasonable for communities to say, "If you want to do this, do it somewhere else."

Rationally this would apply to any type of obnoxiously large gathering, whether its theme be gambling, the football game, or whatever.

Edited by cilphex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a straightforward application of the concept zoning and the new-found NIMBY right from the 70's. When a society allows a person to be blocked from opening a business in some area because it is "residential", then you have accepted the principle that leads to a trivial extension to a naked twister bordello.

Has (had) anybody actually scoped out the parking situation there? We can conjecture all we want about the "real" motivations: the one question of substance is whether the event was creating an actual nuisance because of noise and traffic problems. None of the zillions of posted stories on this seem to give any relevant facts, like whether the guy have any parking places at his place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've mentioned before, this story made it big time on the local news (I live in the Dallas area) and the only reason it was shut down was because they didn't have a permit to have a sex club in that neighborhood -- which they shouldn't have needed in the first place. The couple running the place wasn't even charging for their parties, but asked for a donation, which people attending the parties gladly paid. According to the reports, there was not a lot of excessive noise or so much traffic that the neighbors couldn't get in and out of their drive ways.

Basically, it was shut down because it was a sex party.

And it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or whatever, you don't have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do on their own property. The streets where not privately owned, which means that anybody had the right to use them so long as they weren't being blocked by traffic.

I used to work at a time when I would have to leave my apartment parking area during school hours, and there is a grade school right across the street from me -- and it would take me fifteen to twenty minutes just to move one block -- every single day; but I doubt if I could get the school shut down due to excessive traffic when I was trying to get to work.

The neighbors were imposing their morality on others; and that is evil :P

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is exactly the sort of problem that could be solved by having the streets be privately owned. Then, if the street owner said "no parking in the street", they'd either have to put in a parking lot, have their guests park a significant distance away and shuttle them in, or move their party.

The subdivision builder could build special areas that had access to large parking lots at the end of the street, or something, and charge a bit extra on the price of the homes for access to "visitor parking". Either that or just put up a gate and collect a toll. This situation needs an entrepreneuer, not a government punk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think this is simply a Christian issue. As an atheist, I wouldn't want this type of thing going on in my neighborhood, especially if I had moved there under the impression that it was "The Perfect Blend of Family, Community and Business."

Then it shouldn't be marketed as such a thing because they have no right to control what people do in their houses behind closed doors. I wouldn't want this type of thing going on in my neighborhood, but I recognize that I have to right to tell people to stop it, or use the government to do so.

I don't think there is any reason to believe that the people of the neighborhood are trying to "force their morality down [the partiers'] throats," as one of the attendees put it. The people pushing for this ban are not trying to force their morality on others--they're trying to make it so that the debauchery of others is not forced through their windows.

They don't exactly have to look at the house, and I'm sure the people at the party cover the windows up, as is custom at that type of event. I wonder how they even knew about the parties in the first place? I wonder how many people actually have a clue what is going on, before the local news broke the story.

It is one thing to have some sort of promiscuous gathering in your house that is private and inconspicuous, and from the article it seems there is no reason to suspect that the people of the neighborhood have a problem with what anyone else does in the privacy of their own homes. It is another to host an event which creates "noise, traffic and parking problems" on a weekly basis. And just because of the nature of the party, all of these things are a persistent, unrequested reminder of the types of activities that are taking place a few doors down.

I don't think the noise (What are they hearing exactly, do they even say? Do the even say they heard anything?) and the traffic problems are the real issue. If they had a gathering of equally the same size to watch the Cowboys play football, I bet $100,000,000 they wouldn't have a single complaint about it. Then they could call it "The Perfect Mix of Family, Community, Business and SPOOORRRRTTTTSSSS!!!!!!"

The traffic thing is just being used as an excuse. If they implement what JMeganSnow said, and there was no more traffic problem, they would find another thing to nitpick about and call the government in to force them out.

If I was this guy's next door neighbor and could hear a dozen whores screaming their lungs out while I was trying to put my children to sleep, I would want it to end also.

That's understandable. But, what if the guy next door was trying to have sex with his whore and was being disturbed by a dozen of your kids screaming and running around the house making noise. If he asked you to keep the noise down, I bet the community would be up in arms about the violation and suppressing of "family values" and "family rights."

I don't see that difference between the two situations and I'm curious if people even heard any noises coming from the house or just made it up to have the place shut down.

And I don't believe the solution, as some might suggest, would be to "just move away," as if the problem were the fault of everyone else in the neighborhood. The party host is clearly the infringer, the broadcaster, the discourteous one--it should be he who has to move to continue his preferred lifestyle, if he so wishes.

Again, if he was making the same amount of noise with a ton of children or friends watching a football game, there wouldn't be a single complaint. The complaints are just masks because what he is doing makes them feel uncomfortable.

Keep in mind that the end result is that "the city has outlawed sex clubs in residential areas." They haven't outlawed sex clubs and they haven't outlawed sex in residential areas. They haven't even outlawed modest orgies which could probably go unnoticed. They've outlawed scheduled and recurring events of a sexual nature which are large enough to disturb the usual harmony and composure of the neighborhood they're maintained in. It is not unreasonable for communities to say, "If you want to do this, do it somewhere else."

So a community has the right to tell people what they can and can't do on their private property? As long as the neighborhood maintains a harmony that doesn't make the Christians look bad, then it's fine.

Rationally this would apply to any type of obnoxiously large gathering, whether its theme be gambling, the football game, or whatever.

You'd think that, but I'm positive that any of these gatherings, like a football, would be encouraged and not shut down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then it shouldn't be marketed as such a thing because they have no right to control what people do in their houses behind closed doors.
Well even if it is marketed as such, unless this community has contractual covenants (which parties must therefore have agreed to), there is no right to control what goes on in private. It's only when one party prevents the peacible enjoyment of their property -- by blasting their Pink Floyd album ultra loud at 3:00 in the morning, or blocks the road preventing access to their property -- that there is any question of rightfully reigning them in.
I wouldn't want this type of thing going on in my neighborhood, but I recognize that I have to right to tell people to stop it, or use the government to do so.
To? Two? Too? I assume you were using the Squamish word for "no". You're half right and half wrong. You have the right to tell them to die; they have the right to ignore you.
I don't see that difference between the two situations and I'm curious if people even heard any noises coming from the house or just made it up to have the place shut down.

...

The complaints are just masks because what he is doing makes them feel uncomfortable.

I take it you don't see the contradiction here. On the one hand you're saying that you don't know if there was a noise problem, and on the other you're saying that you know that there isn't. One of these has to be a rationalization. You know things based on the evidence of your senses. What did your sense organs indicate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They don't exactly have to look at the house, and I'm sure the people at the party cover the windows up, as is custom at that type of event. I wonder how they even knew about the parties in the first place? I wonder how many people actually have a clue what is going on, before the local news broke the story.

Lets see. Parties of up to 100 people every friday and saturday night, I suppose it didnt take too long for the neighbors to figure out what was going on. As was mentioned earlier, you dont have to be some rabid Christian fanatic to not want that sort of thing going on in your neighborhood. I am no Christian and certainly no prude, but if that was going on next door to me, I would be leading the procession down to city hall. Maybe in some futuristic dream world there will be a free-market solution to this sort of problem, but until then, I would be in full support of those neighbors using any legal means necessary to shut that whore house down. This guy, Jim Trulock, has got to be every home owners worst nightmare.

Edited by fletch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...the one question of substance is whether the event was creating an actual nuisance because of noise and traffic problems.

...I'm curious if people even heard any noises coming from the house or just made it up to have the place shut down.

That's the question, isn't it? I suppose our disagreement comes from two opposing assumptions: that the events really haven't been loud, obnoxious, or an inconvenience in terms of parking for the rest of the neighborhood (yours [Mammon's]), and that they probably have been all of those things (mine). Mine was based on the complaints of the neighbors and the fact that the parties could get as large as 100 people in number at a neighborhood house. Yours, I assume, was based on the church to population ratio.

If Thomas is correct in that "there was not a lot of excessive noise or so much traffic that the neighbors couldn't get in and out of their drive ways," then I'm wrong. But in the circumstance that things do get that obnoxious, I think my point still stands. I could go on, but it will all be moot without the context and details, as David pointed out we (or at least I) just don't have.

And it doesn't matter if you are an atheist or whatever, you don't have the right to tell other people what they can and cannot do on their own property.

I understand this. My point in mentioning it was to illustrate that the "blame it on religion" theme in some of the first few posts wasn't really valid, not that a lack of religion gives anyone more of a right to say what other people can or cannot do.

Edited by cilphex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets see. Parties of up to 100 people every friday and saturday night, I suppose it didnt take too long for the neighbors to figure out what was going on. As was mentioned earlier, you dont have to be some rabid Christian fanatic to not want that sort of thing going on in your neighborhood. I am no Christian and certainly no prude, but if that was going on next door to me, I would be leading the procession down to city hall. Maybe in some futuristic dream world there will be a free-market solution to this sort of problem, but until then, I would be in full support of those neighbors using any legal means necessary to shut that whore house down. This guy, Jim Trulock, has got to be every home owners worst nightmare.

If there is a noise or traffic problem that is a seperate issue which could resolve the problem without a new law to ban group sex in a PRIVATE home.

Also if they succeed this is a violation of the right to privacy in the constitution.

The issue is that they are not attacking the noise problem or traffic problem, they are attacking the morality of it. It's slippery slope. They can ban gay sex next or pre-martial sex based on this logic.

Edited by Dorian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't see any details about noise or traffic problems. Did you?

No, but do the math. 100 people allowing 2 per car is 50 cars. I guess it would depend on the residential side street, but on my residential side street, that is a shit load of cars. I am not sure if there is a number, but it seems to me that at some point a party stops being private. 100 people is a very big party. Most neighbors would tolerate such things if they were rare. But every friday and saturday night. Give me a break. Many people buy homes in order to start a family and raise children in a safe environment. Having the neighborhood sexual hedonist invite 100 perverts from across the city for weekly orgies isnt exactly conducive to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of my favorite timewasters in Property class last year was Googling the addresses of the properties involved in the cases we were reading. Mr Trulock is listed in the phone book, so I don't think there's anything particularly invasive about posting this.

As you can see from the satellite image, he's got a long driveway that will hold, maybe, 15 cars. The driveway loops to the north a bit off Cedar Ridge Drive, as can be seen in this street level photo.

There is no development on the block across the street. In the satellite, you can see a wide dirt berm running much of the Western side of the road where, presumably, more cars may park without being too obtrusive, as there are no driveways on that side of the street to block, and the berm is quite wide enough to not block the lane.

It looks like the city could have solved any potential legitimate parking-related problems by ordering "no parking" signs to be put up on Cedar Ridge Drive. That, of course, would probably not have stopped the sex parties, but it would have solved the parking issue, if that was really what they were trying to do. Obviously, it wasn't.

I'm with JMeganSnow - "public property" is again the problem.

~Q

Edit: Fixed map URL. Twice.

Edited by Qwertz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny. That place is right around the corner from my house, and I never heard about it until it made the local news when it was getting shut down. Frankly, I think our neighborhood has much bigger concerns, like meth-dealers and our bi-weekly overflights by the local police helicopter looking for said meth-dealers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...