Dubner's childhood home goes from sacred to profane -- and then back again.
I was also surprised and a little disappointed to find that Dubner was so prudish. I'm by no means a swinger, and I can imagine that the club may have been a little on the sleazy side. I can even empathize with Dubner and his sister's feelings. And it sounds like the couple that's renovating the house is doing a great job. Nonetheless, from everything in the story, it sounds like the sex house was perfectly legitimate and catered to consenting adults, so live and let live. People should have a place to do that sort of thing if they want, and it may as well be a big, rambling house in Upstate New York, even if it is someone's childhood home.
I was very disappointed with this episode. It wasn't a story about economics; instead it was a bunch of prudish moralizing about how the previous owners of a property can somehow feel personally insulted by the perfectly legal business run in said property by its later owners.
The anger and hurt the narrator and his sister somehow manage to feel are perfect examples of the ridiculous sex-negativity of American culture. If their house had instead become a crack den or an illegal gambling parlor, do you think they would have been so horribly scandalized? Would they have asked the police what can be "done about it"? Of course not. This kind of baseless moral outrage is reserved for victimless non-crimes such as operating a 100% legal sex club.
If sex clubs aren't your thing then fine, don't go to one. But save the histrionics for something worthwhile.
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm
your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the
right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the
Comment Guidelines before
By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's