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.
But the festivities could soon be over. In response to neighbors’ complaints, the city has outlawed sex clubs in residential areas. Citations have been issued, and search warrants may be next.
“It’s crazy that they want to force their morality down our throats,” said Dawn Burton, 45, a regular guest at the parties. “We’re all frustrated.”
So are those who complain of the noise, traffic and parking problems that occur in their otherwise quiet, upscale neighborhood every Friday and Saturday, when Trulock’s home is transformed into “The Cherry Pit.”
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.
Duncanville officials insist they are not just another prudish Texas town giving the boot to spouse-swappers. They say it all boils down to a matter of law: Trulock is operating a business featuring live sex acts.
Heh, I remember when this first came out (no pun intended) in the news down here. Sure these people have a right to do whatever they care to do behind closed doors….but were I a resident in that particular Duncanville neighborhood, I’d side with the people complaining about the club. I don’t mind when “Joe Smith” down the road has a family reunion once a year with cars lining the streets, but I would mind tons of cars lining the streets every weekend. Residential areas around here don’t lend themselves very easily to that kind of traffic flow.
I’d also be upset at the amount of noise a party like that would produce. I also believe there are zoning ordinances in residential areas that prohibit such large gatherings of people in one small building, like a fire code or something.
While I obviously agree that a weekly swingers club is immoral, I’d be more concerned with the immediate effects of loud obnoxious weekly parties such as noise, parking, and traffic flow. I also believe that leaving the moral debate out of the situation for now at least is the best way of getting it to stop. It’s easier to fight when relying on the legality of a situation if the offending party can’t claim “oh they’re just religious bigots.” But that’s just my take.
Grace, if you’re so courageous, why don’t you admit that the main problem here is what they’re doing, not the noise & traffic, however bothersome these may be? This ain’t no Tupperware party. And it’s drawing the kind of people into the neighborhood that shouldn’t be allowed within a mile of children. Remember the Polly Klaas murder.
I will not concede for one minute that “these people have a right to do whatever they care to do behind closed doors”. I am tired of hearing this rationalization. “Closing the door” doesn’t excuse tax fraud, running a meth lab, or any other crime. Why should it always excuse things like this?
Excuse me? I don’t really personally care what they do. I will pray for them since it seems they need it but as there’s not any LAWS in the state of Texas that prohibit the behavior, it’s not my place to tell them they can’t have sex. I’m not saying they have an excuse, but am trying to point out that arguing the morality of the situation does nothing to help the side of those who are complaining.
Tax fraud, running a meth lab, and other such crimes are exactly that….CRIMES. They are ILLEGAL. Running a swinger’s club is NOT illegal (as long as it’s run in a place zoned for certain types of business). Since this club is being operated in a residential area, it is ILLEGAL. That is the point I am trying to make.
And a sex club in North Texas does not really have anything to do with a kidnapping and murder in California, why bring that up? Not all adults who engage in extramarital affairs are pedophiles.
In case you didn’t read my comment, I did state “While I obviously agree that a weekly swingers club is immoral…” but that the way to fight something like this is to point out the illegality of the situation, not whine about how it’s going to corrupt our youth. One can complain about the immorality of the club until they’re blue in the face but an emotional argument is not going to sway a judge.
I do believe that every state in the Union has some kind of law on the books to make it illegal to operate a house of “ill repute”.
This is practically in my backyard. We have people in our parish who live in that neighborhood! I hope and pray (and will even go into action, if necessary) that the crackdown will force this “house” to close down, cease, and desist! Perhaps some brave church-goers in Duncanville, rather than shaking their heads and saying “shame, shame!” might actually work together on trying to reach these poor, lost souls for Christ. Something to think about.
Well, Grace, your approach might be what a modern lawyer would advise, but I do not greatly care if my neighbors don’t have a permit for their garage sale, even though they are operating “illegally”. Zoning violations are not high on the list of things I worry about.
You are right, Polly Klaas wasn’t who I meant. There was another case a few years ago, where the parents were into these sorts of shenanigans, and one of the pervs they had invited over kidnapped & killed their young daughter.
[blockquote]I do believe that every state in the Union has some kind of law on the books to make it illegal to operate a house of “ill reputeâ€.[/blockquote]
I think you’re right, but I think it also depends on if the services are being paid for (I admit I could be wrong about this). I don’t have enough information to know whether or not the operators of this club are charging a fee making it a business transaction, or whether it’s free to “members”, and to add to that the illegality of either (I’m certain the first is but not sure about the second). Or perhaps that last sentence made no sense at all…I’m a bit under the weather right now and my head’s a bit foggy.
As a side note to Wilfred: Please refrain from making rude (as that is how I perceived it) comments about my choice of username. My first name (Anna) literally means “grace” and my middle name (a form of the masculine Ferdinand) means “courage”, therefore I picked a username that literally describes my legal name without having my real name plastered all over the internet. Hence the reason I named my blog the same as well. Please remember that there are real people behind these posts and making fun of them can be hurtful.
The Supreme Court, in Lawrence v. Texas, has made it near-impossible to ban sexual activities unless they’re paid for or cause direct physical harm. The zoning argument is the only one left, and indeed if a neighbor were having very large Tupperware parties every Friday and Saturday that caused parking problems and late, loud noise, neighbors would be justified in objecting to that, too. The courts have ruled moral arguments out of bounds.
Grace, my apologies for my rudeness. I tend to do that frequently. Both your names are lovely, & we considered them both before naming our daughter.
Katherine, you may be right in what our courts have “legislated”. But I reject this innovation – the notion that morality is of no concern to the law – as the product of corrupt judges who should be removed from the bench. It is a false, modern idea, that will one day be overturned by wiser courts.
Apology appreciated and accepted.
Heh, after years of teasing because of my name (pronounced as though it rhymes with “Donna” instead of the more common pronunciation, and middle name is pronounced like “fern” but is spelled in Old English style), I decided my son is getting a normal name when he’s born in a few weeks…George Preston Alexander. Yes, he’s getting two middle names. At least people can spell it and pronounce it!