Your attitude I A says it all; you have no respect for the sensibilities of others whether they live here or not. There are many of us, who have pride in our nation; you are obviously not within that clan. That does not mean you are exempt from the laws of our nation. I can imagine the response from many people from other nations “What is your abiding memory of Scotland� “well I saw people having group sex�.

If as you say this is a normal part of a club, which welcomes gays, then I will be one of the people making very strong complaints to Scottish Government and the Scottish Police Force.

I could not care who is having group sex, save it for a private room and get a little respect for others.

I see no reason why any other person should be forced to be careful what type of nightclub our relatives or friends visit for fear they encountered a group of people having sex.

I do not agree with your comment about police and the work they do. If a complaint is made to the police they have a responsibility to make enquiries. Just as a for instance, if your attitude is typical of the people who frequent these venues then how are the police to know that no other activities take place which are also illegal.

Tough luck, if this is your way of enjoyment, do it in a private room and get rid of this selfish attitude. To use another very modern saying “get a life�, if this is the highpoint of your week you have my sympathy.

<<Lev - It's so sad that for you sex is such a dangerous and fearful activity, so full of unknowns and risks. What demons must stalk your imagination. Are you are friend of Hank and Betty by any chance?>>

I can be fairly sure that Lev with his attitude will not catch STDs AIDS or any other illness, which will cost our nation a fortune. This takes up money, which could be used to treat people, with for instance, cancer or MS or any other illness, which is not caught by having group sex in a nightclub with mindless selfish morons with no more thought in their head than group sex at the weekend.

It's a bit a like a philatelist 'cos you get to lick sticky things that have been around a bit.

Philately will get you anywhere.

Imitation is the sincerest form of philately.

Any more for any more?

Lydia, there's a whole lot of responses I could make if I could stop laughing long enough. Your post and Lev's are ill informed nonsense mixed with personal insults and insinuations. They merely illustrate your own ignorance and naivety, and your anger at being challenged and contradicted.

So I'll just say this -

Promiscuity doesn't kill people, ignorance about sexual health kills people.

If you want to blame anyone for the AIDS epidemic, blame those who are ignorant and fearful about sex and who selfishly demand everyone else is kept as ignorant and fearful as they are. Blame those people who are so stupid and naive that they think telling young people "just say no until you're married" prevents the spread of STDs. Blame the egoists who think only heterosexuality is normal and gay people should be tolerated only as long as they're invisible. Blame the hypocritical pharisees who want to reduce funding for sexual health education because it offends their moral self-righteousness.

Oh wait, that would be the likes of you and Lev, wouldn't it.

ps. I've never contracted any STDs. And it had got nothing to do with good luck either. Unlike you and Lev I know what I'm talking about.

Obviously if your "careful" you can lessen the risk of STDs but don't try to pretend that homosexualists don't have a much higher rate of STDs than straight folk. Obviously some sort of gay abandom ovecomes those who indulge in sex with multiple partners and the result is a higher incidence of every STD amongst those who practice homosexualism. You can't argue that homosexualists don't contract more STDs since it's well documented that they do. One doesn't have to descend to the nonsense of "gay bowel syndrome" a look at the figures for syphilis and HIV will suffice.
I've worked in laboratories that deal with the diagnosis of STDs and I'm well aware of the patterns of infection in those who attend GUM clinics.
I really don't care what your preferences are but don't try to tell us that group sex with 30 other folk behind a curtain in a sweaty nightclub is in any way normal - it just ain't.

InfrequentAllele wrote:
Lydia, there's a whole lot of responses I could make if I could stop laughing long enough. Your post and Lev's are ill informed nonsense mixed with personal insults and insinuations. They merely illustrate your own ignorance and naivety, and your anger at being challenged and contradicted.

So I'll just say this -

Promiscuity doesn't kill people, ignorance about sexual health kills people.

If you want to blame anyone for the AIDS epidemic, blame those who are ignorant and fearful about sex and who selfishly demand everyone else is kept as ignorant and fearful as they are. Blame those people who are so stupid and naive that they think telling young people "just say no until you're married" prevents the spread of STDs. Blame the egoists who think only heterosexuality is normal and gay people should be tolerated only as long as they're invisible. Blame the hypocritical pharisees who want to reduce funding for sexual health education because it offends their moral self-righteousness.

Oh wait, that would be the likes of you and Lev, wouldn't it.

ps. I've never contracted any STDs. And it had got nothing to do with good luck either. Unlike you and Lev I know what I'm talking about.



Oh my Oh my, now people will still catch STDs if they abstain from sex, ok are they airborne now.

I certainly have not laughed at your posts; I feel nothing but pity for people who have nothing else in their personal life worth caring about other than the so-called excitement of sex at the weekend. That does not mean a lack of sexual enjoyment is something alien to me it just means that I am not pathetic enough to need that kind of stimulation.

We only have your word for the fact that you have not caught STDs and quite frankly, your statement is irrelevant. It is the general trend of the cost of STDs to the nation, which is important. You may very well feel well educated about sexual protection, obviously the figures researched by Lev prove this is not so for every participant.

You are trying to make excuses for the fact that groups of people whether gay or not have sex openly in front of others in a nightclub. There is no excuse, and if that makes me a prude, I take that as a compliment. I will gladly stand up and say I am proud to be one, so thank you, just call me Mary.

The point of this discussion is selfish people no matter their sexual preference. Don’t try to use this age-old “stop picking on us because we are gay routine�. I have not, at any time, in any post, differentiated, between gay and heterosexual people in the point I am making about group sex in a nightclub or any other venue.

It is a well-known fact that the type of group hysteria, that exists within a group having group sex, and especially when drink and drugs are in use can lead to mindless actions. Those mindless drink or drug-induced actions could very well be the lack of protection or the use and abuse of a young drunk person.

The whole point is simply put why should others avoid a venue or find the need to choose carefully a venue because of the sexual activity of others and why should our country be given a bad reputation because of the selfish self-centred actions of a minority. I repeat get a private room.

Levenax wrote:
You can't argue that homosexualists don't contract more STDs since it's well documented that they do. One doesn't have to descend to the nonsense of "gay bowel syndrome" a look at the figures for syphilis and HIV will suffice.
I've worked in laboratories that deal with the diagnosis of STDs and I'm well aware of the patterns of infection in those who attend GUM clinics.
I really don't care what your preferences are but don't try to tell us that group sex with 30 other folk behind a curtain in a sweaty nightclub is in any way normal - it just ain't.

If you're going to make such stereotypical claims lets have figures please (or at the least relevant weblinks) rather than the type inflamatory personal anecdotes beloved by tabloid hacks and unscrupulous politicians.

I just wonder if the persons concerned had been of the heterosexual persuasion if we'd even be having this discussion?

Would the polis have busted the gaff?

Would it have made the papers unless some vaguely famous person had been caught or was alleged to have been there in the past?

As to worrying about poor mythological tourists....words fail me.

Never mind some of the highest rates of heart disease in the developed world, never mind our well publicised alcohol 'problem', never mind our 'lets rip off the tourists' holiday industry.
Essential tourist services like decent food at decent prices....as rare as free range haggis!!!!

And we're worrying about a few adults with albeit unusual sexual preferences?

Lets worry instead about the treatment of those who have actually been raped or otherwise sexually exploited rather than consenting adults in a private club...and it WAS private the door policy would have seen to that.

Never mind the tourists, I object strongly to open displays of group sex (ok even if it is behind a curtain) whether homo or hetero. It is NOT normal!

It is a moot point whether it would be featured in the news if it happened in, say a lap dancing club. The fact remains that this is illegal and, frankly, distasteful.

It is wrong to state that this goes on all the time in lap dancing clubs. I've been to a fair few in my time (stag nights, works nights out etc) and I have never seen that type of behaviour. It does go on in saunas, I believe, but that's behind closed and locked doors.

The key objection here which no right minded person can object to is the public aspect of this.

As far as STDs are concerned, high incidences of STDs occur where there are high levels of multiple partners, homo, hetero or both. Surely this is common sense. In multiple sex sessions like this the risk must be enormous, regardless of precautions taken. There is always a risk of accidents and the more partners you have, the greater the risk.

Martin wrote:
Never mind the tourists, I object strongly to open displays of group sex (ok even if it is behind a curtain) whether homo or hetero. It is NOT normal!

The key objection here which no right minded person can object to is the public aspect of this.

As far as STDs are concerned, high incidences of STDs occur where there are high levels of multiple partners, homo, hetero or both. Surely this is common sense. In multiple sex sessions like this the risk must be enormous, regardless of precautions taken. There is always a risk of accidents and the more partners you have, the greater the risk.

Ok so you object which you have every right to do. However you have no right to then go on to talk about 'normal' which you don't define, or even more derogatorily 'right-minded' meaning I presume those whose views you agree with and thus safely casting as lesser beings and not worth considering those with whom you don't agree.
I fundamentally object to your pious sanctimonious 'right minded' thinking and characterisations. Such thinking is often the resort of the intolerant and dictatorial. I can object to your views if I so wish and you have no right to prejudge and label me as not being of 'right mind' if I should do so.

Normal is a normative term, frequently used in a pejorative fashion and is usually used by those who seek to impose their moral biases on others (often with no concomitant dissection of their own behaviour).

So just what do you mean by 'normal'? Do you mean in line with societal norms which is what the term is linked to? Or do you mean behaviour which falls within some measure of average defined by reference to some statistical measure of sexual behaviour?

If the former to who's mores are you referring? Those extoled by our tabloid hacks? Those exhibited by some sector of the population of whom you approve?

If it is the latter then to which sector of the population are you ascribing said 'normal'ness? I suspect you would get vastly different results from grannies in Inverness than you would from twenty year old clubbers in Glasgow. And then again you'd need to know who carried out the survey and what sampling techniques they used. See my thread Lies, Damned Lies & Statistics.

The behaviour was NOT going on in public. It was going on in a place to which members of the public MAY have had access (which is unlikely given the sorts of door policies these nights employ). To attempt to portray its location as 'in public' is scurrilous and inflammatory.

As to rates of STD infection can you provide figures which show that those who indulge in 'orgy' type sexual acts suffer higher rates of sexual infections than those who are merely having sex with many different partners? If you can please post them or at least the link to the studies.

If not, then like Lev, you are merely displaying personal intolerant preferences with no objective basis in fact.

You have every right to your opinions. You don't have the right to present them as fact and in the process castigate anyone who offends your moral sensibilities, either me or our fellow citizens.

B'man, that was a bit of a rant was it not? Shall I tell you what annoys me? People like you who detest the word normal. If you are happy to go with the "if it feels good do it" brigade fine, just say so.

There is a word "normal" and its definition is generally known so I really don't know why you are so upset about the use of it. Normal describes the usual way, the common way, or, dare I say, the norm. What's the problem with that?

The anus is an exit for body waste, that is its "normal" function and that is a fact. It is also a fact that regularly using the anus as an entrance for a penis causes damage which can lead to surgery being required up to and including a full colostomy because the anus has been completely destroyed beyond repair. And why? Because it isn't what the anus was designed for!

I would broaden that argument out to cover STDs too. The body if it was designed for promiscuity would cope with it and not break down the way it clearly does. That is a fact too no matter how much you wish to simply attack anyone saying such things. Promiscuity does indeed kill the body eventually or damages it very badly and yes I know there are treatments for STDs but the point I am making here is that it clearly hurts the body. That is a biological fact and ranting at people for daring to use the word "normal" is just plain daft. You're banging on about people dictating and just look at your own post and the tone adopted throughout. Whether the sex involves group sessions or otherwise the fact is STDs are through the roof and we have even seen the return of the really old ones like syphilis and gonorrhea. Others like chlamydia can be present and do great damage to a woman without her even being aware of it. But hey, don't speak about these things in a negative way or one's view is compared with that of some ancient wee auld-fashioned Inverness granny! This isn't about moral bias B'man, its about plain old common bloody sense and its the "if it feels good just do it" mob who actively now encourage young people and even pressure them into living lifestyles that can do them great damage in the long run.

Bananaman wrote:
As to rates of STD infection can you provide figures which show that those who indulge in 'orgy' type sexual acts suffer higher rates of sexual infections than those who are merely having sex with many different partners? If you can please post them or at least the link to the studies.

Referring to infectious syphilis the report Sexually Transmitted Infections,
including HIV, in Scotland 2005 published by Health Protection Scotland said on page 18
"Between 2001 and 2005, there has been an almost 700% increase in diagnoses at GUM clinics – this is primarily due to a 25-fold increase in diagnoses among MSM." See www.documents.hps.scot.nhs.uk/bbvsti/sti...forward-20061122.pdf
There's lots of other stuff about things like anal warts and hepetitis B that MSMs are particularly likely to get.
Now if you use your imagination it it obvious that so called safe sex in an orgy situation is nigh-on impossible. Can you imagine a participant changing condoms between partners? Sure, if he kept the same one on he'd be "safe" but the subsequent recipient of his attentions would be exposed to the body fluids of the previous partners. Yuk.

Clare wrote:
There is a word "normal" and its definition is generally known so I really don't know why you are so upset about the use of it. Normal describes the usual way, the common way, or, dare I say, the norm. What's the problem with that?

No Clare there is a difference between the definition and the usage. My point was that the usage and what behaviour is classified as 'normal' varies depending on context.
Normal means in accordance with norms. Norms are NOT fixed they are socially constructed and as such vary from place to place and from era to era.

What is defined as 'normal' therefore also varies from group to group and place to place. Normal behaviour in one setting and by one person will vary depending on the situation. Eating your young is relatively abnormal in most species and in most situations. Yet under certain conditions it is widely observed and is therefore normal under those conditions.

What is normal behaviour for today's teenagers may well have been considered disgraceful and deviant 40 years ago (although the behaviour of young people has been a source of concern and a sign of moral breakdown since there were newspaper letter pages to complain to). Likewise the lives lived by today's pensioners would not have been considered normal for pensioners 50 years ago.

You're right it was a rant and I make no apologies for it.

The rest of your argument was a variant on the 'use as God intended' arguments and is just pseudosceintific moralising to suit whatever preferences the user wishes to portray as above reproach and criticism.
Homosexuality it would appear is as old as the human race. It is evident in all our major cultures, although it is true that most of the major religions frown on it (to put it mildly in some cases). Therefore to try to claim that it is 'unnatural' is more than a little untenable.

Our skin was never intended to be used to stick needles in yet we do it all the time. Our eyes were never designed to look at flat objects for hours on end yet we do it all the time. Women were designed for childbirth therefore they should stick to rearing children. Our feet were designed to walk barefoot on yielding surfaces yet we encase them in shoes and build footpaths of concrete, our spines were not designed to walk fully upright yet we do, etc, etc, etc.

It would appear that the body isn't designed to deal with much of modern life Clare hence the rise in asthmas, immune system diseases, incidence of depression, etc, are you advocating a return to a more agrarian social structure? Shall we do away with cities? All move to the country?


I am concerned about the rise in STD's as a public health issue however the premises weren't raided under public health grounds and neo-puritan moralising is not the answer in my opinion.

The whole 'swinger' scene be they gay or straight is not my idea of a satisfying relationship nor is it a way I would choose to spend my time. However I do NOT believe that it is my business, or anyone else's to police the activities of consenting adults in a private setting.

Levenax wrote:

Referring to infectious syphilis the report Sexually Transmitted Infections,
including HIV, in Scotland 2005 published by Health Protection Scotland said on page 18
"Between 2001 and 2005, there has been an almost 700% increase in diagnoses at GUM clinics – this is primarily due to a 25-fold increase in diagnoses among MSM." See www.documents.hps.scot.nhs.uk/bbvsti/sti...forward-20061122.pdf
There's lots of other stuff about things like anal warts and hepetitis B that MSMs are particularly likely to get.
Now if you use your imagination it it obvious that so called safe sex in an orgy situation is nigh-on impossible. Can you imagine a participant changing condoms between partners? Sure, if he kept the same one on he'd be "safe" but the subsequent recipient of his attentions would be exposed to the body fluids of the previous partners. Yuk.


As to the figures you present Lev... they don't specify whether the MSM's also slept with women and actually there were fewer new cases in MSM's (a drop of 1) than in heterosexuals (a rise of 9) between 2004 and 2005.

For Genital Warts they don't specify MSM they merely talk about men and women.
There were also more HIV cases in heterosexuals than in MSMs so it's hardly a 'Gay plague'. AND ·"Increased HIV testing is considered to be the principal explanation for the increase in the number of newly identified cases of HIV in 2005." which is a direct quote i.e. its not that there is more HIV out there its just that we went looking for it. In fact the incidence is 4% in MSMs and 6.5% for men who had exposure in 'high risk countries' (10% for women with the same exposure) again hardly a 'gay plague'.

It is difficult to compare infection rates as they only talk about MSMs who presented for testing or had one STD who then proved positive for another not as a percentage of the whole MSM population. Whereas they do give these figures for young people. This creates a bias since by definition those who present for testing would be more likely to have a disease (why else would they be there?) so their infection rates will be much higher and therefore make the incidence in the whole MSM population appear worse as a result.

Another direct quote:
"Young women and young men aged less than 25 accounted for 40% and 27%, respectively, of the total workload in GUM clinics." i.e. almost 70% of the workload of the clinics were people under 25 years of age, Nearly half of those who went to the clinics were YOUNG WOMEN Lev NOT, repeat NOT, gay men. No mention here of MSM or not. Why are you not highlighting them as reprehensible? After all their behaviour is resulting in far more use of our health resources.

No it would appear its gay men and their behaviour which you dislike. If that is how you feel then fine as a citizen in a liberal democracy you have that right. What I find distasteful is your attempt to impose your morality on other adults who have the same rights as you claim for yourself.

Bananaman wrote:
Clare wrote:
There is a word "normal" and its definition is generally known so I really don't know why you are so upset about the use of it. Normal describes the usual way, the common way, or, dare I say, the norm. What's the problem with that?

No Clare there is a difference between the definition and the usage. My point was that the usage and what behaviour is classified as 'normal' varies depending on context.
Normal means in accordance with norms. Norms are NOT fixed they are socially constructed and as such vary from place to place and from era to era.

What is defined as 'normal' therefore also varies from group to group and place to place. Normal behaviour in one setting and by one person will vary depending on the situation. Eating your young is relatively abnormal in most species and in most situations. Yet under certain conditions it is widely observed and is therefore normal under those conditions.

What is normal behaviour for today's teenagers may well have been considered disgraceful and deviant 40 years ago (although the behaviour of young people has been a source of concern and a sign of moral breakdown since there were newspaper letter pages to complain to). Likewise the lives lived by today's pensioners would not have been considered normal for pensioners 50 years ago.

You're right it was a rant and I make no apologies for it.

The rest of your argument was a variant on the 'use as God intended' arguments and is just pseudosceintific moralising to suit whatever preferences the user wishes to portray as above reproach and criticism.
Homosexuality it would appear is as old as the human race. It is evident in all our major cultures, although it is true that most of the major religions frown on it (to put it mildly in some cases). Therefore to try to claim that it is 'unnatural' is more than a little untenable.

Our skin was never intended to be used to stick needles in yet we do it all the time. Our eyes were never designed to look at flat objects for hours on end yet we do it all the time. Women were designed for childbirth therefore they should stick to rearing children. Our feet were designed to walk barefoot on yielding surfaces yet we encase them in shoes and build footpaths of concrete, our spines were not designed to walk fully upright yet we do, etc, etc, etc.

It would appear that the body isn't designed to deal with much of modern life Clare hence the rise in asthmas, immune system diseases, incidence of depression, etc, are you advocating a return to a more agrarian social structure? Shall we do away with cities? All move to the country?


I am concerned about the rise in STD's as a public health issue however the premises weren't raided under public health grounds and neo-puritan moralising is not the answer in my opinion.

The whole 'swinger' scene be they gay or straight is not my idea of a satisfying relationship nor is it a way I would choose to spend my time. However I do NOT believe that it is my business, or anyone else's to police the activities of consenting adults in a private setting.

I did not mention God once in my post so please don't twist my words. What you are doing here is exactly what you accused Martin or doing, ramming YOUR views down everyone else's throats B'man. Your views are ok, but mine are wrong? Well I disagree and I'm entitled.

Modern life, as you put it, includes a lot of things that do damage the body and that is a fact, one which you cannot dispute. That isn't down to me or my morals, or anyone else's for that matter, it is just the truth. I was not moralising but simply stating biological facts. Facts you clearly can't deal with considering the ludicrous argument you have come back with. You can fill pages with your objections to my statement that the body does not physically cope with certain practices and you will still not change the the truth of that statement. The anus is an exit for body waste and that is its function. When used as anything other than an exit, it becomes damaged and eventually breaks down.

Your last post is almost hysterical given the extent to which you have frankly made things up and attempted to pass them off as views of mine. I did not say anywhere that women should have children and do nothing else. I did not say we should abandon our cities because of the rise in athsma either. Good grief, you're even trying to re-define the word normal so determined are you to score some sort of points victory in your own mind. I find that a bit worrying.

I don't really know what the status of this club was B'man. Some posts suggest it was not a private club which means "the public" had access to it. As far as I'm aware that makes the venue subject to certain laws although I'm sure it would be better to ask a policeman about that.

I would never make any attempt to impose my views on homosexualists. They can do what they want as long as it's legal and does no harm to anybody else. I don't think that sodomy is an abomination, it just a sexual preference. It's quite obvious that it's a risky practice especially when homosexualists typically have more sexual partners than straight folk. I take no moral view on the matter. You can finesse the STD fugures all you want but it's a plain fact that MSMs DO contract syphilis and many other STDs much more often than straight people AND they tend to get repeat infections, unlike straights who usually learn their lesson after one nasty experience.