Interesting read, one thing stood out to me though when describing rules experienced in a planned group sex session:
They also had a very specific anti-oppression stance: “If you perpetuate oppression based on gender identity or expression, race or ethnicity, ability, HIV or STI status, body type, sexual or BDSM orientation, religion or spiritual path, you’ll be thrown out without a refund. (However, if you come to us crying about reverse racism or misandry, we will laugh in your face.)”
Isn’t STI status pretty pertinent and absolutely relevant to the sex party scene? Also what’s the difference between perpetuating oppression and having different preferences?
You would think everyone involved would need to prove a ‘bill of health’ before spreading around any dangerous STIs.
Especially HIV but there are also really nasty resistant strains of other STIs.
I think they obviously are big on using protection but shouldn’t they be last line of defence, the first line being sorry you’re not invited with an infective STI.
