SS 91: Open Sex Positivity – Spreading the Good Word


Kendra Holliday joins us in a discussion on how to be open and sex positive while still staying friendly and approachable. Our discussion heats up when Dylan suggests that he misses Rick Santorum competing for the Republican presidential nomination because it was such a great opportunity to discuss sex positivity in comparison to the extreme positions Santorum took on… well everything from sex's role to women's health, and cools back down once we all figured out that we're all best served by having calm reasoned discussions with people we disagree with… Who knew?!

Check out the Talula G2 Dildo by Vamp Silicon at The Smitten Kitten!

Join the Swingset crew at Desire Resort & Spa from November 3-10, 2012!


A podcast about swinging, polyamory, open relationships, and "the lifestyle" from the trenches. A diverse group tackles many issues involved with non-monogamy and what it means to be a swinger or polyamorous from the point of view of educating and illuminating what, for many, is a confusing journey to start on. Subscribe on iTunes Subscribe on Stitcher Subscribe via RSS


  1. This comment is for Dillan and Cooper and is a comment on the Oct 15 show. The discussion on Oct 15 came around to how confusing it was that people in the Lifestyle could possibly vote for the Republican ticket because of the ‘threat to women’s reproductive health’, ‘the republican party wants to get rid of our pornography’, ‘they want to take away contraception’ and ‘there will be an end to the availability of abortion’. For me and I think many that vote with the right the primary issue is one of ECONOMIC LIBERTY. [caps for emphasis I’m not shouting] If you don’t control your own resources, the fruits of your labor, your ability to enter into private contracts and your own economic choices you will be left with increasing dependency on the government leviathan and ultimately become a ward of state. Right wing candidates are just incrementally better in this regard. I’d rather have economic liberty and the right private contract without government involvement than some assurance that my “trustworthy politicians” will take care of my needs. It really does come down to one’s perception of the likelihood of certain political changes taking place. I view the probability of extremely high taxes to pay off the enormous debt we’ve accumulated and HUGE economic dislocation as a much more likely event than the eventual absence of contraception, abortion and porn. Think about it … Remember Reagan’s Meese commission ? They accomplished nothing ! Primacy of the individual is key. People such as Locke, De Tocqueville, Rousseau, Burke, Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hoppe, Smith, Paine and Say influence my vote and my outlook on social arrangement more than the remote possibility of the absence of contraception, abortion and porn. The left wants to control my wealth and the right wants wants to legislate my morality. Both are wrong but the former is much more likely in the U.S. today. [One note, I typically vote for right wing candidates and primarily on economic considerations as they impact so many other issues. I’m more libertarian than conservative if you take the whole of my political views] Hope this helps. J

    • I couldn’t say it better than this:

      From Pulitzer and Tony winning playwright Doug Wright: “I wish my moderate Republican friends would simply be honest. They all say they’re voting for Romney because of his economic policies (tenuous and ill-formed as they are), and that they disagree with him on gay rights. Fine. Then look me in the eye, speak with a level clear voice, and say, ‘My taxes and take-home pay mean more than your fundamental civil rights, the sanctity of your marriage, your right to visit an ailing spouse in the hospital, your healthcare, your right to inherit, the mental welfare and emotional well-being of your youth, and your very personhood.’ It’s like voting for George Wallace during the Civil Rights movements, and apologizing for his racism. You’re still complicit. You’re still perpetuating anti-gay legislation and cultural homophobia. You don’t get to walk away clean, because you say you ‘disagree’ with your candidate on these issues.”

  2. Cooper,

    First, cool down. Jon never mentioned Romney’s name, much less whether Jon plans to vote for him. You don’t know whom Jon is voting for.

    Second, by your reasoning, since you are an avowed Obama supporter, you tacitly endorse:

    – Obama’s “evolving” (that is, ambiguous) stance on gay-marriage
    – warrantless wiretapping
    – secret kill-lists
    – murder of U.S. citizens without trial
    – increased blowback risk due to massive use of drone strikes
    – the NDAA
    – crackdowns on whistleblowers.

    Does your life and liberty mean more to you than swinging? It should, because without the former, you don’t have the latter.

    Voting for someone other than your candidate-of-choice is not “being complicit” with homophobia. You and I know people who will vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, despite the fact that neither has a chance of winning. Is that being complicit with homophobia? If so, then I know bi and gay people who would disagree with you. Chances are, so do you.

    What Jon didn’t point-out is that economic liberties ARE civil-liberties. You would not be able to run your podcast without money, and were the government to tax it all away and not provide you a means to voice your opinion, you would have no voice at all.

    Your recent 1 million download milestone? Gone. Your podcast, and this entire site, exists because of the economic liberty Jon describes.

    Support for economic liberty specifically, and civil liberty, generally, are not mutually-exclusive, as you assume. To the contrary they are very, very complementary by inheritance and symbiosis between economic and non-economic civil-liberties.

    Sadly, neither Obama nor Romney care about either of these. And before you claim “Obama is the lesser of two evils”, ask whether you still abide by your own reasoning: that you’re still voting for evil!

    • No Q, but you and many other voters certainly value certain personal liberties over other peoples’ liberty.

      My head is spinning from the mad in your post which is a bit hilarious because you asked Cooper to calm down. I’m sure he’s sufficiently calm but you’ve gotten my blood boiling.

      Just because we vote for someone, we don’t explicitly endorse every single position they take. I can get behind that.

      You talk about life and liberty, but those who talk about life and liberty including you seem to feel that as long as YOU have life or liberty it’s ok but you’re not willing to fight for others’ if it doesn’t conform to your own definition of life and liberty.

      TO be clear here, no, voting for a candidate in my opinion does not mean you endorse EVERY single stance they take. When your candidate specifically speaks in public in 2008 to a group of donors about how it’s terrible and horrible and unnatural that gay parents are having children and want birth certificates to reflect that change?

      Yes. You voting for that candidate means you implicitly value other things in life than the ability for gay parents to without hassle be legally recognized as parents.

      When your candidate EXPLICITLY endorses a personhood amendment on a national radio show and and picks a vice presidental candidate that has ACTUALLY submitted and voted for a personhood bill in the United States Congress, yes… you voting for that candidate means you implicitly value other thinks than the ability for women to make their own decisions about their bodies. Birth control, in-vitro fertilization, abortion, vital embryonic stem cell research, whether you agree or disagree with the existence or progression of any of these you implicitly value other things than these existing for ANYONE.

      When your candidate explicitly backs the “Blunt” amendment on national television and picks a vice presidential candidate that ACTUALLY voted for it, you have implicltly valued a twisted disgusting interpretation of “religious liberty” in exchange for the ability for all women who have health insurance under employers to depend on safe and free access to any womens’ health specific medical care or for that matter, mens’ ability to obtain vasectomies or future male birth control (it’s coming boys!).

      Listen… it’s been years since I’ve been able to vote for a national Republican candidate and it’s specifically because there is no compromise, there is no conversation, there is. no. choice. They are CURRENTLY the platform and party of anti-choice in almost every issue with the exception of this vague “economic liberty” term you throw out there. That’s where I am coming from where I vote. I value the ability of people in this country to make their own choices, about their bodies, about their lives, and yes, about their economics. We could get into a whole other whirlwind of discussion here and if you want to throw down some time lets do it. You bring up VALID FUCKING ISSUES about warrentless wiretapping, kill lists, murders of us citizens without trial, drone strikes, whistleblower crackdowns, and the yearly NDAA and these are WORTH talking about and hacking out.

      But don’t fucking claim you’re ALL FOR FREEDOM AND LIBERTY when you’re really just valuing your own personal liberties over others. If we had a functioning second party (not to mention a third party) right now we could have addressed these issues, instead we’ve had to deal with access to fucking birth control in 2012 and the ability for women to make choices about what they do with their bodies BECAUSE REPUBLICANS STATE AND NATIONWIDE have focused on nothing but these issues. If they cared about the things you brought up they could have spent the last four years, nay, FOUR MONTHS talking about them and legislating against them.

      But nothing.

  3. The conversation here (as in our country) had become a bit bi-polar with all the emphasis on the manic (mixed metaphor intended).

    Where is a reasonable libertarian non-anarchist type person to go?

    If it is not OK for the State to deny a woman an abortion, it is also not OK for the State to force an observant Catholic (Christian/Jew/Muslim) to support something they find it immoral.

    What is the State doing legislating who can marry whom anyway? Isn’t that really a social/religious question? I can pledge my love and commitment to whomever (or the plural of whomever, for Shira), I want. And for those worrying about spousal rights, what about the two siblings or friends who have outlived their spouses being each others significant other for legal purposes?

    Why is your not being OK with your tax dollars subsidizing Church run daycare centers (or agribusiness or big oil) morally superior with someone else not being OK with their tax dollars funding art they would never see (or TV they don’t watch)?

    Why should I have to pay for someone’s bad decision making in having a child when they could not afford it when we agonized over being ready to raise one ourselves?

    Why is legitimately disagreeing with an Obama position racist, but favoring someone of a given skin color for college/job/promotion not? What happened to be judged solely on the content of one’s character (qualifications/skill/brain/brawn)?

    I would suggest that the State has the responsibility to assure equal opportunities, but not equal outcomes. Unfortunately, the means some will fail, but they own the result of that failure (mostly with cause- choosing means risking and earning the reward or consequence). Those of us with a charitable heart will help them. Equally, those without a charitable heart should not be forced to. They equally need to live with the burden of their decisions. Those who get helped and how they are helped should be determined by the giver, not some amorphous uber-organization (ie the State).

    So who does someone that believes that government has grown far too invasive and is leaving a legacy of debt for our kids vote for or against? Unfortunately, it is not the party looking to legislate outcomes, expand government powers and redistribute hard earned incomes.

    • I agree with this sentiment, Barry:
      “If it is not OK for the State to deny a woman an abortion, it is also not OK for the State to force an observant Catholic (Christian/Jew/Muslim) to support something they find it immoral.”

      BUT the problem is that when a pharmacist or employer denies something they find immoral to someone who doesn’t find it immoral (let’s say birth control pills regardless of their purpose) this should not be allowed. We are all free to believe and feel what we want, but when we can legally take it away from someone else? That’s foolishness

  4. I see your point, but….

    The government , should not prohibit the availability of the drug or treatment. The government should not disallow anything without real good reason (individual gun ownership is OK per the constitution, but even the most rabid NRA person would generally agree that individual Abomb ownership is too risky).

    On the flip side, the government should not compel anything without good cause either. It should not compel monogamy. That choice is left up to the chooser. If you find monogamy morally imperative, go for it. If you find monogamy morally irrelevant and personally objectionable, go for it. Similarly (and not to pick on a particular group), a Catholic hospital should not be compelled to perform abortions or cover it in their employee insurance plans. If a given person has an issue with that, they can go elsewhere for their health care or work elsewhere for their health insurance.

    I fully realize that sometimes the practicality of working or going elsewhere for healthcare is problematic, but it comes down to what the State should be able to compel people or organizations to do. If something is important enough, we do have the freedom of movement. Folks who like a more liberal leaning area can live in San Fran (for example), folks who like a more religious right area can go to {insert name of bible belt city here}.

Leave A Reply