One of the things I really like about the party is that we just don’t care about that sort of thing, and while he might be doing it to get votes, Ithink he’s going for the wrong votes, and will alienate a lot of people that just, quite simply, don’t care.

As long as the club is not in a residential area, where it could cause a nuisance or embarrassment to residents, I don’t really see a problem.

Prostitution is different, because it usually takes place in residential areas and without regulation, and it involves exploitation, often of quite an extreme kind.

A members-only club doesn’t invite every Tom, Dick and Harry into the area, and it won’t be encouraging its members to “dog” in the middle of Lord Street.

The 1950s Police campaign against gay men was halted when the Police started targeting aristocrats. Perhaps a duke or a marquis should go to Southport and “swing”.

Licensing is becoming a cultural issue not just a quasi-legal one.

There’s a divide between those that want equality of sameness (if one section of society doesn’t want to do it even though it causes no harm then nobody should do it – something nu labour love) and those that are `Millsian Liberals` (what matters is whether or not the parties involved are not doing any harm to others and have taken as reasonable steps as possible not to cause offence).
In this respect it’s an idea that society is mature enough to allow individuals to culturally self-select the establishments they frequent and that offence will be caused in extreme circumstances from time to time.

I mean i was offended by John Pugh’s remarks but I don’t want to ban his website.

John Pugh obviously believes in cultural sameness if not just an old-style Tory.

However, one can’t help wonder whether or not this is nothing more than a simple vote-gathering exercise.

My test for ethical sex is even simpler than Geoff’s: I’d say that as long as there’s informed consent from everyone involved (which, by definition, means people over the age of consent), that should be fine. And unlike gambling or pole-dancing, it’s not even somewhere where you can talk about an employee potentially being exploited: surely swingers’ clubs would be about adults mutually consenting, not paying for sex. It’s difficult to think of a more textbook case of a victimless ‘crime’.

Top tip to John Pugh: he may be shocked, but “sex” has something to do with “families”. I think he’s old enough to be told.

Hmmm.. I think your idea of ‘keeping it private’ is rather different to that of most people. If people ‘swing’ in the comfort of their own homes, then I suspect most people would understand that to mean ‘private’. But if it is in a club, albeit a ‘private members’ club, that seems materially different.

A ‘club’ like the Athenaeum or the Garrick can well be understood as ‘not a public place’, but I’m not sure that a ‘night club’ has the same degree of exclusivity. The ‘swingers’ club does seem to be somewhere between the two, and the membership legislation is probably more akin to the ‘pre-watered-down’ casino legislation.

Gambling in a casino is a perfectly legal and ‘legit’ activity, which I’m sure no Liberal Democrat would want to ban. That is not quite the same as being happy to see a ‘super-casino’ in town, or a ‘lap-dancing club’ in the village..