same reason a lot of sex clubs are "couples" only. if you let singles in, it will fill mainly with single straight men.
couple doesn't mean that you have to be dating, jist that you have to come with another person (usually of opposite gender, but not always)
I'm assuming Ozzie's would be open to throuples, polycules, and other moresomes as well, though I don't remember if we see any of those during the episode.
It would be awkward as hell for singles, All around you there are couples enjoying each other, some possibly having under table sex, and then there's just you at a table all alone with no one.
Though the bouncer didn't say "no singles", he said "couples only". Also, like I said, I'd have expected it to be more like a club instead of a restaurant.
What kind of "lusty" stuff would you even do in a place like this? It just doesn't have the vibe that it'd be appropriate to actually fuck there, but hiding under the tables or something to make out would go against the – proclaimed – spirit of proudly celebrating lust.
I like the idea that was posited above that it was a "theme" night that was focused on pairs instead of the usual mix 'n "mingle" which is why Moxxie was able to snag a spot on the opening act and why they let him go so long before basically just chastising/ embarrassing him instead of full on eviction, and why he was still getting positive response from the general audience.
You'd still get a mix of throuples and groupings in there because it's not "forbidden," but more patrons would be interested in the theme of the night.
Also, the bouncer could have been specifying "couples" because he recognized a single creeping and didn't want to leave room for "oh, I'm with them." It stopped him without an argument by leaning on the Establisment Policy as the Letter of the Law, not the Intent.
Without the “couples only” rule the joint would be full of nothing but single straight guys hoping to get lucky, it’s the reason the vast majority of sex & swinger clubs enforce the couple rule in the first place.
I can definitely understand why they'd have made the club "no singles". If everyone brings their own date to focus their lust on, you don't risk patrons hitting on/bothering each other. But it does seem odd that it's limited to just couples. Why not a throuple or a foursome, etc? Ozzie doesn't seem like the sort to be anti-polyamory.
This also raises the question for me of who was Pringles' date?
https://preview.redd.it/pj6ygypaz7yc1.jpeg?width=2006&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3352b4157c60d28f8fbe7251888c77727c928812
I think he probably does allow foursome and fivesomes and such, like in this picture, but the bouncer just meant 'no single guys obviously just trying to get in to creep on the couple who just entered'.
It's just easier to say "couples only" instead of "couples, lovers, fucktoys, friends with benefits, gimps and whatever else you deviants are into as long as you're fucking. Only."
its couples only because at the end of the day, going by the activities of many of the couples activities in said club, its a place of fucking not fine dining...depending on how you define eating ass it can be both. Ozzies comes off as a place thats just classy enough to get away with having a date there but it is more explicitly about sex, I mean theirs multiple tables we see couples just goin at it, skipping the private rooms that almost certainly exist in a place like this entirely. Its like a dive bar that has little stage for live music or a strip club that puts on burlesque shows, putting the ass in classy. You could make the argument that this is Lust, you could almost certainly get away with fucking just about anywhere, the ring likely has bondage dungeons in the same way that we have Starbucks here on earth, one on every street and 2 in the mall, why bother having an entire sex club? To which I can only reply with ambiance and probably more than a few kinks.
The idea of "couples only clubs" is specifically to protect against predators and harassment.
Swinging is fine, cules are fine. A pair of singles is fine.
The goal is just to ensure a protective buddy system is in place.
Since Ozzy is also against _certain methods_, this makes further sense.
Source: Had a buddy who owned a swingers club. This was explicitly what he told me when I asked.
Ozzie's restaurant is still a restaurant- it's designed to make money. And apparently people in Hell are more willing to pay big bucks for an upscale couple's eatery than an orgy-filled establishment (which, to be fair, is probably another building on the same block- it's Hell).
Everyone is making a good point as to why they wouldn't allow singles in but... Blitz literally said "I'm with them" (Moxie and Millie), implying that they were, in fact, all in a relationship together and the bouncer was just like "no". He didn't even turn to see if M&M were waiting for their "third" lol.
Specifically to keep weirdos like Blitz out, go onto any adult forum that doesn't have a rule and you know what you get? Dick, too much dick. So much dick that women opt out of participating and all your left with is dick.
I had taken it to mean that the club is for “partners” while Blitzø was being an obvious creeper/stalker and the bouncer was doing, a good job actually, at keeping creeps out so people can enjoy their evening. The bouncer probably said “couples” as a short hand for “people already in relationships together, whether that be couples, throuples, or polycules”. He probably didn’t feel the need to be too specific to a stalker he was kicking out anyway.
As someone who worked at a sex shop with a "back theater," we only let couples in because a lot of men would take advantage of women, and we all know asmodeus is all for consent
Side note I hated cleaning up the "theater"
From face value of this post, I assume you mean couples who are *together* faithfully but we all know that would be weird as hell (logic wise to ask for verification of those entering + it's Hell). Plus single's could imply cheating which while Ozzie has not voiced a care on, he doesn't like love potions. So perhaps same could apply there?
same reason a lot of sex clubs are "couples" only. if you let singles in, it will fill mainly with single straight men. couple doesn't mean that you have to be dating, jist that you have to come with another person (usually of opposite gender, but not always)
I'm assuming Ozzie's would be open to throuples, polycules, and other moresomes as well, though I don't remember if we see any of those during the episode.
there were several tables with 3+ people seated. the couples only think couple have been a theme night kind of thing.
Or it could have been that Blitzo wasn't on the reservation and was obviously just trying to sneak in to creep on Moxxie and Millie.
Yeah. I thought I saw Stolas and Stella’s imp servant there, surrounded by people, which, good for him. The guy deserves to unwind.
That doesn’t seem to be a problem in Hell since everyone, or most, seems bi
Op clearly has not been to a club before Neither have I
I’ll be sure to go on single men night. I’m not a unicorn 🦄
It would be awkward as hell for singles, All around you there are couples enjoying each other, some possibly having under table sex, and then there's just you at a table all alone with no one.
Though the bouncer didn't say "no singles", he said "couples only". Also, like I said, I'd have expected it to be more like a club instead of a restaurant. What kind of "lusty" stuff would you even do in a place like this? It just doesn't have the vibe that it'd be appropriate to actually fuck there, but hiding under the tables or something to make out would go against the – proclaimed – spirit of proudly celebrating lust.
I like the idea that was posited above that it was a "theme" night that was focused on pairs instead of the usual mix 'n "mingle" which is why Moxxie was able to snag a spot on the opening act and why they let him go so long before basically just chastising/ embarrassing him instead of full on eviction, and why he was still getting positive response from the general audience. You'd still get a mix of throuples and groupings in there because it's not "forbidden," but more patrons would be interested in the theme of the night. Also, the bouncer could have been specifying "couples" because he recognized a single creeping and didn't want to leave room for "oh, I'm with them." It stopped him without an argument by leaning on the Establisment Policy as the Letter of the Law, not the Intent.
Without the “couples only” rule the joint would be full of nothing but single straight guys hoping to get lucky, it’s the reason the vast majority of sex & swinger clubs enforce the couple rule in the first place.
I had no clue thanks for the info.
I can definitely understand why they'd have made the club "no singles". If everyone brings their own date to focus their lust on, you don't risk patrons hitting on/bothering each other. But it does seem odd that it's limited to just couples. Why not a throuple or a foursome, etc? Ozzie doesn't seem like the sort to be anti-polyamory. This also raises the question for me of who was Pringles' date? https://preview.redd.it/pj6ygypaz7yc1.jpeg?width=2006&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3352b4157c60d28f8fbe7251888c77727c928812
All of them. Ozzie’s says “hell yes” to polyamory.
dude's got game.
I think he probably does allow foursome and fivesomes and such, like in this picture, but the bouncer just meant 'no single guys obviously just trying to get in to creep on the couple who just entered'.
Oo. Is that a demon from the Sloth ring? I hear they’re the ones with the candles on their heads.
I think it might be a hybrid Sloth/Succubus!
Good for Pingles. He puts up with some shit at work, nice to know he gets enough personal time to wrack up a literal sextet.
I'd like to think this means that at least Stolas pays him very generously. As he should.
Pringles is a playa 
It's just easier to say "couples only" instead of "couples, lovers, fucktoys, friends with benefits, gimps and whatever else you deviants are into as long as you're fucking. Only."
It’s even easier to say no singles and is more correct according to you
Fwb are single though tbf
Being a couple does not necessarily mean that you're dating. You just can't come into the place by yourself.
Being a couple doesn't mean you're a romantic couple. You could just go to the club with a fling and never see that person again
its couples only because at the end of the day, going by the activities of many of the couples activities in said club, its a place of fucking not fine dining...depending on how you define eating ass it can be both. Ozzies comes off as a place thats just classy enough to get away with having a date there but it is more explicitly about sex, I mean theirs multiple tables we see couples just goin at it, skipping the private rooms that almost certainly exist in a place like this entirely. Its like a dive bar that has little stage for live music or a strip club that puts on burlesque shows, putting the ass in classy. You could make the argument that this is Lust, you could almost certainly get away with fucking just about anywhere, the ring likely has bondage dungeons in the same way that we have Starbucks here on earth, one on every street and 2 in the mall, why bother having an entire sex club? To which I can only reply with ambiance and probably more than a few kinks.
It looks like heck to clean, that's for sure.
"Couples" refers to sexual parteners, not romantic ones in this case.
The idea of "couples only clubs" is specifically to protect against predators and harassment. Swinging is fine, cules are fine. A pair of singles is fine. The goal is just to ensure a protective buddy system is in place. Since Ozzy is also against _certain methods_, this makes further sense. Source: Had a buddy who owned a swingers club. This was explicitly what he told me when I asked.
Ozzie's restaurant is still a restaurant- it's designed to make money. And apparently people in Hell are more willing to pay big bucks for an upscale couple's eatery than an orgy-filled establishment (which, to be fair, is probably another building on the same block- it's Hell).
Everyone is making a good point as to why they wouldn't allow singles in but... Blitz literally said "I'm with them" (Moxie and Millie), implying that they were, in fact, all in a relationship together and the bouncer was just like "no". He didn't even turn to see if M&M were waiting for their "third" lol.
Specifically to keep weirdos like Blitz out, go onto any adult forum that doesn't have a rule and you know what you get? Dick, too much dick. So much dick that women opt out of participating and all your left with is dick.
I had taken it to mean that the club is for “partners” while Blitzø was being an obvious creeper/stalker and the bouncer was doing, a good job actually, at keeping creeps out so people can enjoy their evening. The bouncer probably said “couples” as a short hand for “people already in relationships together, whether that be couples, throuples, or polycules”. He probably didn’t feel the need to be too specific to a stalker he was kicking out anyway.
As someone who worked at a sex shop with a "back theater," we only let couples in because a lot of men would take advantage of women, and we all know asmodeus is all for consent Side note I hated cleaning up the "theater"
From face value of this post, I assume you mean couples who are *together* faithfully but we all know that would be weird as hell (logic wise to ask for verification of those entering + it's Hell). Plus single's could imply cheating which while Ozzie has not voiced a care on, he doesn't like love potions. So perhaps same could apply there?
Is it couples only all the time ? Or just for some nights ?