What are the Risks of swinging?

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

There's a reason I don't kick trolls out immediately or remove their posts. It's because sometimes they bring up really good food for thought, even if they approach the subject in a bad way and are obviously just trying to stir the pot. A recent one had some good points in that there are many risks we take in regards to swinging and many of them are risks we don't even think about.

 

The topic is a good one and one that I think does need to be considered, especially in light of some other topics we've had recently.

 

The risk we seem to think about most often is STDs. Every time someone comes and asks about that risk it seems that the typical answer is "yes, we understand that risk and have decided that it's worth taking.....". But there are many other risks. As we've seen from Lost my job for swinging!! one of the biggest risks that often gets over looked is what could happen if the wrong person/people find out about your lifestyle choice. And that leads to even more risks...

- loss of job

- loss of family

- loss of children (we've seen swinging become an issue in custody battles more than once).

- loss of friends (are they really friends?).

 

Another risk is that you may destroy your relationship over swinging, if your relationship is not ready for swinging.

 

What are some of the other risks that you think people need to be thinking about before they decide whether or not to swing?

[TeamSoBe 36]

The biggest risk of all in swinging is that you're messing with your relationship with your significant other.

 

You're betting that your relationship is strong enough to handle it. You're risking that they might not come back to you if you encourage them to have sex with other people. One or both people could feel threatened or harmed if something goes wrong for whatever reason and the relationship could suffer or end.

[MoonLightKiss 28]

I do not know if this would qualify as a risk, but I do know there was some discussion in our marraige about the religious aspect of swinging. I am Pagan/Wiccan, even though I was raised deep south Baptist. My husband was and is currently Baptist, even though he does not attend church. He did bring up the question of "will this send me to hell" We came to our own terms in this, thanks in large part to some threads we found concerning religion on here, but I do believe it is something that is considered more often than not.

[Thrax 384]

Julie, that is an excellent question.

 

At this point in my life, as a self-employed single male who at present has no long-term personal relationship with anybody, no kids, and no political aspirations, the only "risk" I bear is that my parents would find out. My siblings and close friends may be shocked that I have dabbled in the swinging world, but if they judge my actions negatively, then that's their problem.

 

However, I would be very upset if my parents found out. That is my risk. Although I disagree with them on many issues, I respect my parents so much for the way they raised me. No, they weren't/aren't perfect, but I give them some slack for who they are: working class children who survived the Great Depression, WWII, and numerous physical difficulties to give birth to me and my siblings, get us to an American middle class lifestyle, get us through college, and push us into being contributing members of the American Dream. They don't have a right to know about my sex life, but I would be devastated if they found out that I was involved in something that they considered "socially unacceptable." That may be hypocritical to some, but not to me.

 

Dammit, this was the first time on the Board where I almost cried.

[JnCC 24]

One risk of the lifestyle that doesn't get mentioned very often is the possibility that by having a great deal of casual sex, often and with many different people, it loses it's appeal in the long run. It ceases to be "special" with anybody. I came very close to that in the early 80's, again (briefly) in the lifestyle, then once again in the past year (although not in the lifestyle).

 

Eventually, I realized that while a "happy ending" was an important part of sex, a "happy beginning"...the seduction, the courtship, the not knowing for sure if I was going to get to the "happy ending"...was important too. Sex, at least in the context of the lifestyle, became just like another Adam Sandler movie. A pleasant diversion, but not intellectually challenging nor stimulating, and you know how it's going to end even before it begins.

 

Even female nudity has become somewhat passe' for me. I remember the first time I saw a pair of unfettered "perkies" poking out of a woman's tank-top (Champaign, IL - 06/70). Now, I hardly take a second look. Likewise, the first time a woman flashed her tits in a bar (The Oar House, Santa Monica, CA 08/77) But these days, when in a club or on a nude beach or even on a motorcycle run, I scarcely notice. It's kind of sad, really. I liked looking at naked women more when I didn't see them everywhere, everyday.

 

Maybe my friend is right. Maybe it's time for me to "take a sabbatical..."

[Mr. Truelove 81]

One risk of the lifestyle that doesn't get mentioned very often is the possibility that by having a great deal of casual sex, often and with many different people, it loses it's appeal in the long run.

 

I'm tired of Chocolate cake, I want cheesecake now. Now I'm tired of cheesecake, I want white cake. Aww...now cake just doesn't do it for me. I want some ice cream. =(

[fun4Ds 1,098]

We had a bad experience and all of the things were brought to our immediate attention! Std's so far so good but have to do follow ups. Breaking up our marriage? No way. Kids finding out? We can handle that. Parents finding out? We could deal wit that also. It is maybe strange to others but porno doesn't seem exciting, actually kind of boring in a way now, compared to real sex. Yes we thought about all of the above before swinging but when reality hit we realized we were flirting with our lives!! We are not cutting down the swing lifestyle as we consider ourselves swingers. Our circle became very small compared to the chase we were on before. Would we put ourselves out there again?? Maybe. If so we would have a whole new outlook on things. Reality has a whole new meaning now.Sex between ourselves has become so much more exciting when you look at each other and you have some thankfulness to be alive.If and when we put ourselves out there it is definitely going to be different.... Experience

[fun4Ds 1,098]

mr.truelove? Not sure about your post. See here's the thing, mrs.fun for our 26 plus years together has been a women with a thousand flavors and I'm still at the beginning of the menu.   Maybe I have the perfect women?

[Sweet_Candy 54]

fun4Ds said:

mr.truelove? Not sure about your post. See here's the thing, mrs.fun for our 26 plus years together has been a women with a thousand flavors and I'm still at the beginning of the menu.   Maybe I have the perfect women?

 

Hmmm . . . Candy must be cut from the same cloth too! Every day is a new treat to relish and enjoy.

[Amanda69 24]

I'm tired of Chocolate cake, I want cheesecake now. Now I'm tired of cheesecake, I want white cake. Aww...now cake just doesn't do it for me. I want some ice cream. =(

Dito

 

Julie you made some good points and they are things for all new and experienced couples to consider carefully.

 

You could also add:

 

1) Loss of privacy - for those couple who choose to put up details and copious amounts of pictures which are then copied and placed on various sites on the web.

 

2) Loss of focus - we have seen more than a few couples who no longer seeem to have a close relationship but keep on swinging as a "couple." The point of doing this to enhance their relationship seems to have been lost.

[Mr. Truelove 81]

mr.truelove? not shure about your post. see here's the thing, mrs.fun for our 26 plus years together has been a women with a thousand flavors and im still at the begining of the menu. maby i have the perfect women? facelick

 

You got me there! My wife is of that cloth. But I was more or less talking about other people. My wife is that one thing that I could eat every night, and still want more of. Pizza. =)

 

How romantic is that. I need to go tell my wife now that she is my "pizza".

[intuition897 2,179]

Persecution is definitely a major concern, but that kinda goes without saying.

 

JnCC brings up a good point: the risk of "burnout" if swinging sex becomes a major component in your sex life. Mr. intuition and I consider ourselves highly selective swingers, and only play very occasionally...and we're currently "on sabbatical" right now. So we haven't seen any seriously negative effects, but it's true that you do become used to certain things. The idea of sex with other people, for the traditionally involved vanilla couple, is something akin to a 12-year-old boy's fantasy about seeing real live boobies for the first time. It's built up in the mind into some kind of life-changing religious experience to look forward to. Then after you've had a few girlfriends, you find out that - on all of them - they're just two lumps of flesh. Fun to play with, nice to look at...but a religious experience? Not quite. We've jumped the fence to see if the grass actually IS greener on the other side, and when you get over there, you kinda of say, "Oh. It's green, but...it's just...grass. Well howdy doody, would ya look at that! Our grass looks pretty damn green from this angle! Who woulda thunk it?" It's all the same, no matter where you go. Sex is sex is sex. Just innies and outies in various combinations.

 

So I'd say that there's definitely a psychological risk that one should make with some degree of sobriety: You can't unlearn something. If you really enjoy the titillation of the other-sex fantasy, and would be upset if the real thing didn't quite live up to it, I'd say be careful what you wish for.

 

Similarly, another risk is the loss of connection with the world in general. I find it so difficult to sincerely, genuinely connect with most people, people who are really good long-term friend material, because of our views. It's unbelieveable how deeply sexuality influences people, and how it shapes their ways of thinking. It's amazing, too, just how much of their fear and insecurity find their roots in it. The things they are afraid of, and concerned about, we simply can no longer relate to. And you can just TELL that there is no point in trying to offer your perspective on things. Their fears and insecurities are so firmly set that, even though they've known you for years and always thought very highly of you, this one aspect of our life would suddenly undermine what is otherwise a good relationship. And it would cause them much distress if we disclosed everything. So we don't. The end result is that we find that we can't be as open and genuine with people as we wish we could be, and because of that our vanilla friendships tend to be somewhat superficial. This sucks.

[honeydome2 15]

Julie, I spoke last nite with "The fisherman," and he sends his regards from the land of "Buh-Bye" (about 30 miles south of Dubai). I asked him about risk, and he mentioned several points. Among them are the following.

 

A. All risks are not equal quantitatively or qualitatively.

 

1. To illustrate that not all risks are equal quantitatively, consider this case. Suppose one jumps to the ground from the following heights:

 

a. 2 feet

b. 6 feet

c. 10 feet (a 1-story building)

d. 20 feet (a 2-story building)

e. 30 feet (a 3-story building)

f. 60 feet (a 6-story building)

g. 100 feet (a 10-story building)

 

Associated with each height is a risk of being injured. The risk at 2 feet is virtually nil, and the risk increases to a virtual certainty at 100 feet. Again, all risks are not equal quantitatively. To justify a high-risk activity by saying that even driving to the grocery store involves risk is to miss the point.

 

2. Qualitative differences. Driving my car to the store involves some risk, but if I return home safely, then that risk is gone, and my mind is free to think about other things. If I go out and have sex with a virtual stranger, then upon returning home, my mind is NOT free to think about other things. Every moment of the next few days, weeks, or months, I may wonder if I contracted a STD. To justify a sexual-exposure risk by saying that even driving to the grocery store involves risk is to ignore these important qualitative differences.

 

B. Some risks are under one's control; others are beyond one's control. When I drive my car to the grocery store, the risk of having an accident is largely under my control. I can drive safely and intelligently, or I can drive stupidly (by speeding, running a stop sign, or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol). When I toss a fair die or buy a lottery ticket, the risk is beyond my control. One can take various measures to reduce the risk of contracting a STD, but those measures do not reduce the risk to zero. One of those measures is to use a condom. But once one begins the sex act, the condom's performance is largely beyond the actors' control. For example, the condom may have a latent defect. A car also may have a latent defect, but the chances that such a defect will affect every remaining day of my life are virtually zero. They are not virtually zero with a condom.

 

C. The number of trials increases the risk of a given outcome. Example: Consider a fair 2-sided coin. Since the coin is fair, the probability of a head or a tail is each .5. Let's focus on the chances of obtaining a tail. Toss the coin once, and the chances of a tail are ½. Toss the coin twice and the chances of obtaining a tail on either or both tosses are ¾. That is, 2 tosses produce 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which involve at least one tail. Toss the coin 3 times, and the chances of obtaining at least one tail are 7/8. Now suppose that a tail corresponds to contracting a STD. This example shows that the risk of contracting a STD increases with each sexual encounter. The risk may be less than ½ on each "toss," but whatever the risk is, it increases with each sexual encounter, and it increases quickly.

 

Me and hubby are just country folk (but he's pretty bright); so we are interested in your views of the fisherman's points.

[EvilMJ 65]

As a still fully functioning child bearing woman, there is always the pregancy risk. You can take all the precautions you want, but nothing is 100% (unless they are 'fixed') and it only takes once.

 

Health risks are always a factor

 

loss of closeness with family and friends. They may not totally give up on me, but I can see the possilbity of them distancing themselves from us as much as possible.

 

Anything else that has been previously noted applies.

[intuition897 2,179]

honeydome2 said:

Julie, I spoke last nite with "The fisherman," and he sends his regards from the land of "Buh-Bye" (about 30 miles south of Dubai). I asked him about risk, and he mentioned several points. Among them are the following.

This sounds promising.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

A. All risks are not equal quantitatively or qualitatively.

1. To illustrate that not all risks are equal quantitatively, consider this case. Suppose one jumps to the ground from the following heights:

 

a. 2 feet

b. 6 feet

c. 10 feet (a 1-story building)

d. 20 feet (a 2-story building)

e. 30 feet (a 3-story building)

f. 60 feet (a 6-story building)

g. 100 feet (a 10-story building)

 

Associated with each height is a risk of being injured. The risk at 2 feet is virtually nil, and the risk increases to a virtual certainty at 100 feet. Again, all risks are not equal quantitatively. To justify a high-risk activity by saying that even driving to the grocery store involves risk is to miss the point.

But risk is still risk, if the consequences of that risk are the same. That is the point of this argument. Shit happens. Know what it's called when the guy in the Volvo gets killed instead of the guy in the Pinto? Or what it's called when the guy who smokes a pack a day lives to be 100 and the health nut dies at 30 of a coronary? Irony. In the words of Nicole Kidman, "Control is an illusion...". So when shit happens to you, don't take it personally. It's just BUM LUCK. Setting out on a mission to "save us all from ourselves" is just silly. SOMEbody has to be the guy who falls into that .001% Don't you wish you'd bought a lottery ticket instead?

But let's carry on, shall we?

 

 

honeydome2 said:

2. Qualitative differences. Driving my car to the store involves some risk, but if I return home safely, then that risk is gone, and my mind is free to think about other things. If I go out and have sex with a virtual stranger, then upon returning home, my mind is NOT free to think about other things. Every moment of the next few days, weeks, or months, I may wonder if I contracted a STD. To justify a sexual-exposure risk by saying that even driving to the grocery store involves risk is to ignore these important qualitative differences.

So, what do we learn from this? Don't have sex with virtual strangers (it's okay to be picky! ) = decreased risk, get tested frequently = the responsible monitoring of the spread of (and therefore a measure of control over the containment of) any acquired diseases, and if it still bothers you that much...just don't friggin' do it! If the risks outweigh the rewards for anyone, they should not swing. Period. For others, though, the reward far outweighs the risk. Don't hold it against them.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

B. Some risks are under one's control; others are beyond one's control. When I drive my car to the grocery store, the risk of having an accident is largely under my control.

No it's not.

That's why it's called an accident. Driving stupidly is simply recklessness or negligence. Again...Control Is An Illusion.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

I can drive safely and intelligently, or I can drive stupidly (by speeding, running a stop sign, or being under the influence of drugs or alcohol).

To translate this into swinging terms, you can also either wear condoms, be tested regularly, know your partners, swing responsibly (no alcohol or drugs which would seriously screw up your judgment...causing you to, say, not wear a condom or have sex with a high risk partner), and adopt the "quality over quantity" mindset... OR ...You can get completely hammered (both partners), lay on a pool table, spread your ass cheeks and shout, "Everybody take a number!" Condoms? Condoms? We don't need no steenking condoms! Those mofo's break anyway...

 

 

honeydome2 said:

When I toss a fair die or buy a lottery ticket, the risk is beyond my control.

Risk is always beyond your control. All you can do is check the wind direction and stay clear of the spatter when the shit hits the fan.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

One can take various measures to reduce the risk of contracting a STD, but those measures do not reduce the risk to zero.

Yeah. We know that. But we're totally okay with it. It was much safer to just remain a virgin...but...that simply was not a risk I was willing to take with my life.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

One of those measures is to use a condom. But once one begins the sex act, the condom's performance is largely beyond the actors' control. For example, the condom may have a latent defect. A car also may have a latent defect, but the chances that such a defect will affect every remaining day of my life are virtually zero. They are not virtually zero with a condom.

Tell that to an 18-year-old quadriplegic victim of a drunk driving accident. He was picking up his sister from her soccer game. He was sober, they were both wearing their seat belts and driving responsibly. She dies, he's in a wheelchair and the other guy gets a couple of broken bones and what amounts to a slap on the wrist. Fair? No. But that is life. Sometimes you get the shit end of the stick, and there's nothing you can do about it. Or perhaps they should've stopped driving altogether?

 

You know, I might've bought the world's safest automobile, with the most advanced airbag system on the market (good quality condoms)...But I'm still going to buckle my seatbelt (choose my partners carefully, because defects happen).

 

 

honeydome2 said:

C. The number of trials increases the risk of a given outcome. Example: Consider a fair 2-sided coin. Since the coin is fair, the probability of a head or a tail is each .5. Let's focus on the chances of obtaining a tail. Toss the coin once, and the chances of a tail are ½. Toss the coin twice and the chances of obtaining a tail on either or both tosses are ¾. That is, 2 tosses produce 4 possible outcomes, 3 of which involve at least one tail. Toss the coin 3 times, and the chances of obtaining at least one tail are 7/8. Now suppose that a tail corresponds to contracting a STD. This example shows that the risk of contracting a STD increases with each sexual encounter. The risk may be less than ½ on each "toss," but whatever the risk is, it increases with each sexual encounter, and it increases quickly.

 

So you're saying that the risk is cumulative? Okay, let's say it is. But let's not be quite so broad about it. I'd have to say that the odds of catching an STD are WAY less than 50/50, realistically. There are plenty of experienced swingers on here who have already attested to that fact. If the risk was indeed 50/50 every time they had sex with new partners, it is virtually impossible - as in, odds that are astronomically long - that they could swing, oh, say, 20 years (!) and never catch a thing. Agreed? So the risk is then less than that. I am not a stats expert nor a lawyer (but I DID stay at a Holiday Inn last night...). However it's just logical that risk increases or decreases with inclusion or disinclusion of certain variables. ]

• Partner choice (are they IV drug users, indiscriminate in their choice of sex partners, refuse to wear condoms, dishonest, etc. - or are they swinging "virgins", completely honest, completely paranoid about partner choice, medical testing, and use of barriers, and until this moment have been completely monogamous for the past 8 years?)
• Type of sex (anal, vaginal, oral, manual, etc.)
• Condom usage
• Healthy host immune system (no bleeding gums or open wounds, no menstruation, etc)
• Testing frequency, thereby "hitting the reset button"...all past partners check out okay, and any diseases contracted after the fact MUST therefore come from partners after that date.
• Sober, responsible behaviour: drug and alcohol use to the point of inebriation render a person unable to use their judgment fully, and therefore increases the risk of making a stupid decision.
• Using outdated, damaged (sun, heat, puncture, etc) or bargain-basement condoms...is it really worth that $2 you saved?

 

So let's say you do everything right. Everyone is completely healthy (with papers to prove it), honest, otherwise monogamous, sane and sober...and condoms are used. Is it still possible to catch something? Sure! Maybe Fred was secretly stepping out on Louise, and caught a dose of something from Ms. Otherwoman the day after everyone got tested. The day after that, the herpes simplex virus that she passed on to Fred gets spread around to everyone else. Shazam, everybody's got an incurable disease. THAT is an example of shit hitting the fan. Fred was an asshole, and sometimes you just can't see assholes coming. But my point is that taking precautions reduces those cumulative risks. Let's throw a hypothetical number out there. Let's say you've got a 96% chance of NOT catching a disease. And IMO, 4% risk is a generously high estimate. The only time that 4% risk increases is when a new partner is added to the mix, and the risk that it increases by depends on that partner's "riskiness". If it's some asshole who's out screwing around on his wife...and getting some ass wherever he can...then your risk increases accordingly.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

Me and hubby are just country folk (but he's pretty bright); so we are interested in your views of the fisherman's points.

I'm a country girl myself, but I don't think geography has too much to do with IQ. Honestly? I think the fisherman's not being realistic about his stats.

[honeydome2 15]

Inuition897:

 

1. You have missed "the fisherman's" points. Reread and try again.

 

2. To make a blanket statement that "Risk is always beyond your control" is absurd.

[athena2910 17]

Like Thrax said, I too would be mortified if my mother ever knew I was a swinger. But the reality is, I'm not a swinger - at least not yet. (Unless you're counting those "threesomes" I had way back in my twenties when I single!)

 

My problem is: I'm torn: on one hand, I have no problem with casual sex or sex for the sheer fun of it. The idea of swinging is a huge turn-on for me -- at least in my head and in my present single state. My problem is, I'm also a huge romantic... and I'm wondering if swinging is compatible with romance -- for example, I couldn't have imagined swinging with my ex-husband, and I consider him if not the love of my life, at least one of my life's great loves.

 

To complicate matters further, I'm also a practicing Christian! (Yes, I know, you don't have to tell me swinging is completely incompatible with Christian doctrine.)

 

Ironically, the sermon at church this week was how the spirit and flesh are always at odds with each other!

 

I guess this explains why I've just been lurking here for several months. Sigh.

[NandTfromCA 84]

honeydome2 said:

2. To make a blanket statement that "Risk is always beyond your control" is absurd.

Is it?

 

Can you tell us actions you perform which have outcomes that you have complete control over? (you mentioned physicists and statisticians in another thread so lets use that view point)

 

To what I think the fisherman was trying to say in Point #1, some risks are very small and some are very high. There is not zero risk when you jump from 2 feet high. There is just very minimal risk. You are not certain to die if you fall from 100 feet, you are just most likely to die. Can you control ALL of the factors involved? You could take your vitamins, exercise regularly (taking risk doing that even), and study the best ways to fall but you still aren’t in total control, you have just minimized risk…not eliminated it.

 

Let’s consider going river rafting. You could hire the best guides, be an Olympic swimmer, wear a safety vest, choose a fairly mild stretch of water, and take a myriad of precautions. In the end, you are still taking a risk. The best you can do is minimize risks.

 

So that bring us to the main point- Why would anyone every want to raft on the river and take that chance? Why would anyone ever want to play amateur soccer, go horseback riding, climb stairs, drive more than 50mph, drive more than 10mph, eat food that someone else prepared…

 

We do those things because they give us pleasure and/or are convenient. The risk for all of those are different but there is still some amount of risk.

 

If there is a decision involved, the outcome will not be certain. In some cases it will be extremely probable, but not certain.

 

If you know how to calculate (we would need to consider factors such as how often we have sex with strangers, if we use protection, etc) my statistical probability of getting an incurable STD I would be interested to know about it. I’m not just being an ass. I really would like to know.

 

If I want to be really safe though, we would need to do the same calculations for boxing, water skiing, jogging outside, mountain biking, and swimming with my kids. Those are some other things I like to do that might be even more dangerous.

[intuition897 2,179]

Inuition897:

 

1. You have missed "the fisherman's" points. Reread and try again. facelick

 

2. To make a blanket statement that "Risk is always beyond your control" is absurd.

 

1. I really can't see how I've missed "the fisherman's" points. I thought I addressed them in more detail than was necessary.

 

2. Let me rephrase: No matter WHAT you do, you experience risk. Swing and you take a risk. Stay a virgin and you risk living an un-lived life. Use condoms, you reduce risk, but don't eliminate it. What, pray tell, does "the fisherman" suggest we are to do?? Stop swinging I suppose?

 

My point is that to believe you, the fisherman, or any other person has "control" over the length of his or her natural life (aside from suicide, I mean) and control over the precise chain of events that take a person from birth to death is an absurd delusion. ALL YOU CAN DO IS REDUCE RISK. If you choose to strive for the elimination of risk in everything you do, you ironically risk living an empty wasted life.

[jennandjamesinm 87]

To complicate matters further, I'm also a practicing Christian! (Yes, I know, you don't have to tell me swinging is completely incompatible with Christian doctrine.)

 

Athena,

 

Swinging doesn't have to be inconsistent with Christian doctrine. Do a search for morals, Christanity, religion, anything related to that - there are some great threads that deal with it. you can also try http://www.libchrist.com for some really great info about Christianity and Swinging. Hope this helps.

 

Jenn

[honeydome2 15]

1. The blanket statement "Risk is always beyond your control"--and please note my words "blanket statement"--suggests (to me anyway) that there is nothing I can do to control (i.e., reduce) a risk I face. As long as we agree that one can take steps to reduce the risks one faces, then you and I are on the same page.

 

2. Now can I take steps to reduce a risk to zero? Yes, in some cases. I can remain a virgin, thereby reducing to zero my risk of becoming pregnant.

 

3. Now let me address one of Intuition897's statements. She says, "Stay a virgin and you risk living an un-lived life." Sir Isaac Newton and Henry David Thoreau (who wrote "Walden") reportedly died virgins. Did they live "an un-lived life?" Your answer may be, "Yes," but mine is, "No." And I doubt very seriously that either man considered his life "un-lived."

 

4. Newton spent his spare time trying to figure out how the world works. Thoreau spent his spare time writing about the world. From what I can tell, many swingers spend their spare time wondering how to execute a double vaginal penetration and wondering what their next STD test will show.

 

5. In the fisherman's first point about jumping from 2 feet off the ground, he did not say that the risk of injury is zero. He said it is "virtually nil." The fisherman's point, as I understand it, is that risk A may differ from risk B quantitatively and qualitatively. Even if risks A and B are equal quantitatively, they may differ qualitatively, and those qualitative differences can be hugely important. They are to the fisherman, who seems to value his peace of mind.

 

6. Neither the fisherman nor I know the quantitative risk of contracting a STD. But the fisherman's point C is that whatever that numerical risk may be to begin with, (1) it increases with each additional sexual encounter and (2) it increases fairly quickly. His coin example shows those points clearly. The risk is not static.

[LOL_OMG 130]

I can remain a virgin, thereby reducing to zero my risk of becoming pregnant.

 

Welp, there was that ONE time....

[HappyPeople 17]

Quote

3. Now let me address one of Intuition897's statements. She says, "Stay a virgin and you risk living an un-lived life." Sir Isaac Newton and Henry David Thoreau (who wrote "Walden") reportedly died virgins. Did they live "an un-lived life?" Your answer may be, "Yes," but mine is, "No." And I doubt very seriously that either man considered his life "un-lived."

 

It's best for you to determine what "lived" is and then live your life accordingly.

 

 

Quote

4. Newton spent his spare time trying to figure out how the world works. Thoreau spent his spare time writing about the world. From what I can tell, many swingers spend their spare time wondering how to execute a double vaginal penetration and wondering what their next STD test will show.

 

You are making a HUGE assumptions, I hope that you are aware of them.

 

 

Quote

6. Neither the fisherman nor I know the quantitative risk of contracting a STD. But the fisherman's point C is that whatever that numerical risk may be to begin with, (1) it increases with each additional sexual encounter and (2) it increases fairly quickly. His coin example shows those points clearly. The risk is not static.

 

Are you attempting to create a useful stat formula for the risks of swinging or deciding if you'd like to do it or not?

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

honeydome2 said:

the fisherman's point C is that whatever that numerical risk may be to begin with, (1) it increases with each additional sexual encounter and (2) it increases fairly quickly. His coin example shows those points clearly. The risk is not static.

 

Well, "No shit Sherlock" .......

 

ever hear someone say

 

"To have unprotected sex is to have sex with all your partner's partners" ???

 

Basic fundamentals (or so I thought till now)

 

 

honeydome2 said:

Hi folks:

 

Thank you Sexy Shelby and the others who replied to my other post. Me and hubby have been reading the posts on this sight and we see that there are quite a few bi-sexuals out there. Well I'm a tri-sexual--if it involves sex, I'll try it. I'm looking forward to trying something--and somebody--new! So is hubby.

 

We agree with Amanda69--the fisherman got a raw deal. It's nice to know that at least one poster on this board shares our love of fishing. We always catch more fish when we troll than when we park the boat and fish in one spot. facelick

 

 

 

"Dissssssssssmissed"

[athena2910 17]

Athena,

 

Swinging doesn't have to be inconsistent with Christian doctrine. Do a search for morals, Christanity, religion, anything related to that - there are some great threads that deal with it. you can also try http://www.libchrist.com for some really great info about Christianity and Swinging. Hope this helps.

 

Jenn

 

Thanks Jenn! I'll check it out!

 

Athena

 

"Love is an irresistible desire to be irresistibly desired."

Robert Frost

[intuition897 2,179]

honeydome2 said:

1. The blanket statement "Risk is always beyond your control"--and please note my words "blanket statement"--suggests (to me anyway) that there is nothing I can do to control (i.e., reduce) a risk I face. As long as we agree that one can take steps to reduce the risks one faces, then you and I are on the same page.

*sigh* yeah sure we're on the same page.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

3. Now let me address one of Intuition897's statements. She says, "Stay a virgin and you risk living an un-lived life." Sir Isaac Newton and Henry David Thoreau (who wrote "Walden") reportedly died virgins. Did they live "an un-lived life?" Your answer may be, "Yes," but mine is, "No." And I doubt very seriously that either man considered his life "un-lived."

I said RISK living an un-lived life, not "WILL live and un-lived life." I'd say that dying a virgin, while not a tragedy, and apparently preferable for some, would be a less-than-fully-experienced life to me.

 

 

honeydome2 said:

4. Newton spent his spare time trying to figure out how the world works. Thoreau spent his spare time writing about the world. From what I can tell, many swingers spend their spare time wondering how to execute a double vaginal penetration and wondering what their next STD test will show.

Well, that was a trollish statement if I ever heard one. Do ya s'pose that's all we have time for, what with all the reckless fornicatin' we do? Newton I'm not, and Thoreau I ain't, but though the life I lead may never set the world on fire, my search for meaning in my own life and the desire to help others on their own journeys in the search of that same Ultimate Truth is no less valid, just because you haven't read about it.

 

I was going to continue arguing about the risk thing, but you know what?...I just don't have the time, what with all the DVP's and STD's to ponder.

[honeydome2 15]

How can anyone properly assess a risk without understanding how the risk behaves? Me and hubby have read many posts on this sight, and not one of you has shown us with a numerical example (which helps us to understand) how the risk of contracting a STD behaves. About all you have done is tell us that crossing the street also involves risk. What a simplistic and unhelpful statement!!!

[HappyPeople 17]

How can anyone properly assess a risk without understanding how the risk behaves? Me and hubby have read many posts on this sight, and not one of you has shown us with a numerical example (which helps us to understand) how the risk of contracting a STD behaves. About all you have done is tell us that crossing the street also involves risk. What a simplistic and unhelpful statement!!!

 

If you are asking us to create a mathematical model of risk for you then you are asking the wrong people - consult a statistics board or better yet, hit some science journals. If you are so well versed in mathematics, then you should be able create such a mathematical model for youselves or at least find one. Given your attempt at the english language, I only pray that your math is better.

 

I take it that you are trying to show off... Coming on here saying "If you could explain it with math, it would make sense to us, blah, blah, blah. IMO, you are coming off as a weak attempt at elitism. Do you really think that your attempt is impressive? PULEASE! Several posters on this site could eat you AND a side of differential equations for lunch.

[Spoomonkey 421]

intuition897 said:

Similarly, another risk is the loss of connection with the world in general. I find it so difficult to sincerely, genuinely connect with most people, people who are really good long-term friend material, because of our views.

 

I lost the plot after page one - so I am going back to it for a quote...

 

Intuition - is this a risk or a given? I think it is almost a 100% certainty.

 

But, I resonate with it. For me - I think the risk is losing yourself. I mean, I know that sounds weird, but for me I am a pretty sincere person. In fact, I have that tattooed on my back. "What you see is what you get" - of course, it is an abbreviated form of the Latin for that, but that is basically what it says...

 

After a weekend visit with my brother, I realized that - as much as I love him - I really need to learn how to lie. And not just about this one issue - but about pretty much all areas of my life. Since swinging is something we do very little (but far too much to contemplate anything but DPs and such ) we have found that just being IN the lifestyle has really expanded our views on a lot of things. And being a Christian* this "expanded mind" thing has been an issue between me and my family.

 

Even if they don't know about our swinging they do know that we no longer hate gays...

 

And - as anyone with family knows - when you step out of the scope of your "family values" there is stress aplenty. The struggle, then, is finding a balance between honesty, sincerity and discretion - which I frankly am not very good at.

 

Sometimes it feels like I get lost in the middle of it all when I just want to say, "yes, my wife and I are swingers. Get over it and pass the gravy. This turkey is dry as hell..."

 

(Yeah - I fantasize about this happening at Thanksgiving dinner for some reason )

 

The risk to me, then, is losing yourself behind all the masks you have to wear. If that makes sense...

 

*Yes, it is possible to be a Christian, and while you can easily discover there is no conflict between you and God, you will be up to your ears in conflict with His folks...

[MoonLightKiss 28]

How can anyone properly assess a risk without understanding how the risk behaves? Me and hubby have read many posts on this sight, and not one of you has shown us with a numerical example (which helps us to understand) how the risk of contracting a STD behaves. About all you have done is tell us that crossing the street also involves risk. What a simplistic and unhelpful statement!!!

 

Well, I properly asses that I am more likely to find liars and cheaters in jail and in the insurance company. I am also assessing the risk of just getting out of bed each morning and I find that 364 out of 365 days, not counting leap years, my kids are going to fight and argue, the hubby will do or say something I don't agree with, and my hair won't do what its supposed to. Out of those 364 days, about 50% of the time I won't call hubby to the carpet on what he said/did. About 25% of the time, I let the kids fight it out cause I am tired of getting in the middle. and nearly 90% of the time my hair will look okay but not perfect. But thats as good as my math gets.

 

4. From what I can tell, many swingers spend their spare time wondering how to execute a double vaginal penetration and wondering what their next STD test will show.

 

Perhaps you might be right...Between two boys, a husband, a lawn care business that we own and run, PTA meetings, doctors appointments, dentist appointments, baseball for me and my oldest son, full time job for hubby, cleaning my house, cleaning my mothers house because she has a bad back and really can't scrub like she wants, cleaning my grandmothers house because well frankly she is 80, chasing said kids, referreeing said kids, helping take care of my father in law who has alzheimers because noone else in the family will help my mother in law, and going to school full-time so that at some point I can attend law school, ...And i am sure i left some things out...You are probably right, I spend the all of FIVE minutes spare time thinking about sex...three of those minutes are probably spent thinking of activities that would entail swinging.

 

So please accept my deepest apologies for spending what free time I find here, laughing at trolls, admiring Intuitions smile, spewing water on my monitor when our resident purple monkey makes funny comments, and looking forward to Chiccup's posts that always seem a bit on the sarcastic side.

[intuition897 2,179]

How can anyone properly assess a risk without understanding how the risk behaves? Me and hubby have read many posts on this sight, and not one of you has shown us with a numerical example (which helps us to understand) how the risk of contracting a STD behaves. About all you have done is tell us that crossing the street also involves risk. What a simplistic and unhelpful statement!!!

 

What, and your statements have been helpful?? I asked for the stats that "the fisherman" apparently was referring to when he alleged that we didn't have a clue about what the "real" risks were. So...where are they? If you're asking us, we're working on the same amount of information that you are. We make the decisions we have with what information we have, and throw in a bit of common sense. It's all we can do.

 

If you need the numbers to crunch to decide whether swinging is for you or not, then quit while you're ahead. Because to my knowledge, the data that you are looking for - good quality, reliable, conclusive data - doesn't exist. Smaller studies have been done, but that's it. Small samples = fewer data points = less reliable data. Plus, because of the nature of the lifestyle, it's difficult to get an accurate measurement. For example, only a fraction of sexual assaults that occur are actually reported. Authorities are certain that more are happening than they know about, but there is simply no way to measure the scope of it. Same with swinging. Because it is so poorly understood and poorly accepted, swingers choose to remain anonymous. Of any study that I know of, Kinsey's study had to be the most comprehensive and reliable because of its consistency and sheer magnitude.

 

Bottom line: Risk varies so greatly depending on the circumstances and the people involved that it would be irresponsible of me to even attempt a guess. There are so many freakin' variables I couldn't list them all! Everything from when the disease carrier contracted the disease, gender of the carrier, gender of the receptor, the receptor's immune system health, sexual frequency...I mean the list just doesn't end. If you really want to try swinging? You're going to have to accept that some things simply cannot be measured accurately enough to make a reliable yardstick by which to make a decision.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

Julie, I spoke last nite with "The fisherman," and he sends his regards from the land of "Buh-Bye" (about 30 miles south of Dubai). I asked him about risk, and he mentioned several points. Among them are the following.

 

Does "the fisherman" (aka Golfer) often talk to himself and refer to himself by other names? He might want to see a shrink about this, it seems that he may be suffering from multiple personality disorder and one of those personalities is a Married Female calling herself "honeydome2".

[intuition897 2,179]

Does "the fisherman" (aka Golfer) often talk to himself and refer to himself by other names? He might want to see a shrink about this, it seems that he may be suffering from multiple personality disorder and one of those personalities is a Married Female calling herself "honeydome2".

 

I was thinking it...

 

golfer/honeydome2, what is it you're looking for here? Really... What was the question again? Or was there ever a question in the first place? I can't help but get this image in my head of a person standing in the middle of a crowd of otherwise happy people, pitching a fit about something that no one else is remotely interested in being upset over, or arguing over. Yet this person persists in his efforts to piss these people off, because he's mad about something and can't stand that other people aren't as upset as he is over it.

[corkwan 20]

team sobe is bang on.

 

the biggest risk is fucking up the relationship with the one you love.