"Ethical Non-Monogamy"?

[ViSexual 1,008]

I just ran across this term on another site and did some research on it. Here's a link:

 

ARE YOU OPEN TO AN ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE? Have You Considered Non-monogamy??

 

You know, we've gotten a stigma on the term swinging, and lifestyle, over the years and this new term, to me anyway, sounds more socially acceptable.

 

I'd think that I could easily say that I practice ethical non-monogamy easily!

 

I guess it's like politics... it isn't what you do nearly as much as choosing the right words, or spins, in describing it.

 

And, in swinging, the thing that makes it not just 'getting strange' like you do with cheating... it's the ethical part of discussing and sharing the experience with your lover.

[rpu3 630]

I personally subscribe to this theory, only we call it consensual non-monogamy. Perhaps it's just "spin", but I don't feel either my spouse or I fall 100% into the "traditional" swinger category. This "spin" seems to fit us better.

 

I really enjoyed The Ethical Slut (one of the recommended books in your linked article) for its common sense approach to nonmonogamy, swinging, polyamory, and all of the alternative sexual lifestyles.

[Spoomonkey 421]

I think it is semantics - and I am not a fan of splitting hairs with words. If you say to someone you are "ethically non-monogamous" they will say "you do what with a mongoose?" Tell them you are a "swinger" and they understand as much as they really need to.

 

My choice? Don't tell them anything. People at swing clubs don't care what you call it and people who aren't swingers don't need to know what you do with your spare time.

 

As long as we (as a couple) get to enjoy the freedoms of sexual expression and the excitement of realizing fantasies, we can call it whatever... If we called it "tater totting" and it meant the same - I'd be cool with that...

[rpu3 630]

I think it is semantics - and I am not a fan of splitting hairs with words. If you say to someone you are "ethically non-monogamous" they will say "you do what with a mongoose?" Tell them you are a "swinger" and they understand as much as they really need to.

 

My choice? Don't tell them anything. People at swing clubs don't care what you call it and people who aren't swingers don't need to know what you do with your spare time.

 

For the spouse and I, and in the context of the world of personal ads or personal interactions, the words we choose to describe ourselves is quite important.

 

What we seek in a swing club when we go, versus what we seek in a more personal approach via personal introductions, or personal ads or other approaches, or in talking with some of our friends (we are open about our activities with a few close vanilla friends), requires words, or, more precisely, splitting hairs with words. We don't wish to lead anybody on as to what we are and what we seek. I have used in our ads that we wouldn't necessarily describe ourselves as swingers, but as opportunists or consensual nonmonogamists, so that people that seek sex without friendship or whatever know to pass us by.

 

"Words are made for a certain exactness of thought..." (Rene Daumal)

 

Heck, the fact that we prefer to split hairs on the words is fair enough warning to others that we may not be their cup of tea, and vice versa, as everyone's mileage may vary. Vive la difference!

[DGrey 28]

The definition of monogamy is the practice of being married to or only having one mate in a lifetime (or in these days at a time I suppose) and comes from the Latin mono, meaning "one" and gamen meaning "marriage".

 

So, according to that, swingers are monogamous. I don't consider other people I sleep with as mates and I'm certainly not going to marry any of them.

 

Of course, within the definition of monogamy, sexual exclusivity is implied but I'm all about what's within the root of a word. I'm an Anglophile at heart and etymology is a fascination of mine.

[Tybee Swing 286]

I think that ethical or consensual non-monogamy sounds more intelligent, thought out and more like a valid way of life than the word "swinging" does.

 

I think that those who don't know much about the lifestyle view swingers as wild party animals, sex addicts, will-screw-anything people. I think they picture what we do as sort of a crazy gang-bang with a pile of strangers. In fact, I've been approached by newbie men in the lifestyle a few times who assumed I was like this, because they had this image. They think they can just reach out and take. (It's what they see in porn or have read that swinging is.)

 

I don't think the general public knows that the majority of swingers are more selective and generally like to know who they're having sex with. I think that today, most of us who swing are more like selective single people are when they're looking for a partner...we have certain tastes and standards, and we want a connection and attraction before we have sex. The only difference is that we are doing it together as couples, rather than 1-by-1 as singles. I know of people who play with friends and don't define themselves as swingers, because they believe the stereotype of swingers (even though they are swinging).

 

"Swinging" sounds so 60's-70's to me. I think a smaller percentage of us are swinging in the old sense of the word.

[Tybee Swing 286]

The definition of monogamy is the practice of being married to or only having one mate in a lifetime (or in these days at a time I suppose) and comes from the Latin mono, meaning "one" and gamen meaning "marriage".

 

So, according to that, swingers are monogamous. I don't consider other people I sleep with as mates and I'm certainly not going to marry any of them.

 

Good point!

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

Sounds a lot like "sanitation engineer" to me. Call it whatever you want but it's all the same thing in the end.

[WesternSwing 504]

Regardless of the words used, the article is eloquently done and something I feel even the staunchest "monogamist" could read through and at least get a glimmer of understanding about a lifestyle we have freely and openly chose together.

[Spoomonkey 421]

Sounds a lot like "sanitation engineer" to me. Call it whatever you want but it's all the same thing in the end.

 

My thoughts exactly...

 

I have used in our ads that we wouldn't necessarily describe ourselves as swingers, but as opportunists or consensual nonmonogamists, so that people that seek sex without friendship or whatever know to pass us by.

 

Why not just say "friends first"?

 

Call me a minimalist when it comes to my approach at communication, but I tend to think the terms that are more readily understood and accessible are always preferable to jargon.

 

Besides "opportunists" or "consensual nonmonogamists" doesn't say a thing about a desire for friendship. In fact, both seem to give me the impression - based just on the terminology - that either of you would sleep around without the other if the opportunity arises. "Opportunists" makes me think the exact opposite of developing friendship...

 

And if Daumal was correct (and I am not so sure he was) then these words have fallen well short of "exactness of thought".

[Mr. Truelove 81]

Dressing up the title doesn't change what it is. And eventually it would become to mean the same thing as it does to say you are swingers.

 

I'm fine with being called a swinger.

[rpu99 44]

Sounds a lot like "sanitation engineer" to me. Call it whatever you want but it's all the same thing in the end.

 

 

Julie,

 

if it were the same thing in the end, then yes there would be no need for different descriptors. But to me, it is not the same thing in the end and different words are an attempt to make clear those differences.

 

Simply put, the sanitation engineer example does not apply.

[Spoomonkey 421]

if it were the same thing in the end, then yes there would be no need for different descriptors. But to me, it is not the same thing in the end and different words are an attempt to make clear those differences.

 

What is the difference?

[rpu3 630]

Why not just say "friends first"?

 

Because I don't want to and choose not to?

 

Call me a minimalist when it comes to my approach at communication, but I tend to think the terms that are more readily understood and accessible are always preferable to jargon.

 

Besides "opportunists" or "consensual nonmonogamists" doesn't say a thing about a desire for friendship. In fact, both seem to give me the impression - based just on the terminology - that either of you would sleep around without the other if the opportunity arises. "Opportunists" makes me think the exact opposite of developing friendship...

 

And if Daumal was correct (and I am not so sure he was) then these words have fallen well short of "exactness of thought".

 

For the record, given the right set of circumstances, the position of the moon, my Tarot reading for the day, global warming, or whatever, we would consider playing alone or to "sleep around", so that particular interpretation of the words might be correct.

 

Perhaps the words don't mean anything to some and conveys the exact opposite. That's cool, as everyone is different and seeking what they want. At the same time, we have met with enough people who understand what we are saying. Those successes are enough for me to keep using my/our "jargon". The jargon seems to weed out the rest who don't understand or do understand and are simply not interested.

 

Oh, whatever. Freakin' words. Like everything in these alternative lifestyles, it's personal choice and personal expression. I don't care what people call themselves; I just want the ability to label myself as I see fit.

[LikeMinds321 1,527]

Regardless of the words used, the article is eloquently done and something I feel even the staunchest "monogamist" could read through and at least get a glimmer of understanding about a lifestyle we have freely and openly chose together.

I agree with Mr. WS. This article is well written and gives a great overview of the basics. It would be a good primer to pass on to anyone who has never considered swinging, and if they were asking for my input on the subject I'd pass this article on to them. I think it's a positive first glimpse for people who have questions about non-monogamy.

 

The article is titled "Are you open to an alternative lifestyle?" and the term 'alternative lifestyle' as well as '(ethical) non-monogamy' are terms that would have been understood and used 40 years ago and will also be understood 40 years from now. For this reason I feel they are the best words to describe the subject and much better than the words that have come before and gone, i.e. "wife swapping" and our present word "swinging" which will probably be replaced with some new descriptive in years to come.

 

Let's look at the bigger picture, focus on what we're all talking about - a choice we've made in how we live - not the latest trend in pop terms for 2007. Let's look at how well the article focused on the positives of sharing ourselves sexually with more than one person.

 

If you took the article and replace the words 'non-monogamy' with 'swinging,' then put the article in front of the public, most people would likely never read it with an open mind. The author was smart enough to realize this and has written an article that will never seem outdated. It will be as viable decades from now as it is today.

[Spoomonkey 421]

Oh, whatever. Freakin' words. Like everything in these alternative lifestyles, it's personal choice and personal expression. I don't care what people call themselves; I just want the ability to label myself as I see fit.

 

Which was my original point anyway:

 

As long as we (as a couple) get to enjoy the freedoms of sexual expression and the excitement of realizing fantasies, we can call it whatever... If we called it "tater totting" and it meant the same - I'd be cool with that...

 

So I guess we agree

 

The bottom line is that one term is no better than the other - it is not the label that makes the person, it is the person who makes the label. Just some labels say an awful lot about the person who slapped it on themselves

 

Swinging = Ethical Non-Monogamy = "tater totting"...

 

Six of one - half dozen of the other...

[rpu3 630]

So I guess we agree

 

The bottom line is that one term is no better than the other - it is not the label that makes the person, it is the person who makes the label. Just some labels say an awful lot about the person who slapped it on themselves

 

Swinging = Ethical Non-Monogamy = "tater totting"...

 

Six of one - half dozen of the other...

 

I'm not so sure about the "agree" part. I think words are important and I feel the words we chose are not "semantics" but more descriptive of how we practice "alternative". You feel that some of these words are "jargon".

 

Both the spouse and I think there can be differences in the definitions; the words are not the same to us. After all, you are the one that understood our particular terms meant we'd "sleep around" without the other, which we would consider (which I have already explained in another thread). Hence, our penchant for using different words - it's not "dressing up" the word "swinging", it's trying to communicate our POV on our alternative activities. Whether or not the majority understands our terms is not important to us - enough people we have enjoyed meeting have understood.

 

I certainly understand that others choice of words and their definitions may equate various terms, while we just don't see it quite the same way. And with that, I officially give up. Which doesn't mean agree, at least to me.

[intuition897 2,179]

I dunno. I am a swinger. I practice responsible non-monogamy. I think I might have also described myself as "emotionally monogamous" when I have tried to explain the finer points of it. I like using those kinds of terms because they were the most suitable descriptors at the time. But for every person who agrees with you, at least two or three will disagree. I have never been able to successfully explain the nuances of our relationship or its merits to a vanilla person. And it ain't for a lack of tryin'. It's been a tough pill to swallow, but I think I've finally come to terms with the fact that you just can't convince someone of something if they don't want to change their minds.

[Spoomonkey 421]

Whether or not the majority understands our terms is not important to us - enough people we have enjoyed meeting have understood.

 

The bottom line is that I see no value in using a term that needs even more explanation than the one it is replacing. Sounds like contract law to me.

 

But let me ask you this? What sort of topics would they discuss over on the "consensually-non-monogamous" board and how would they be different than what we discuss on the "swingers" board?

 

Words are swords, not surgical instruments. They never have been that exact. One word is just as much in need of a definition as the next. And the minute we have guys in gold medallions and too much Old Spice running around calling themselves "ethical non-monogamists" we'll have someone needing (to feel better about themselves) new terminology.

[prettylady 221]

OK, I am really confused here.

We are talking about the new political way of what to call ourselves.

This is a group who proudly displays the fact that they are sluts and "ho's" and we are worried about how to describe what we do?

[flkeyscouple 21]

I think rpu3 stated very eloquently what she perceives the difference to be between terms for this lifestyle. I, too, hate the word 'swinging' because of the stereotypical thoughts it provokes in others. That being said, I use the term because it is understood. I like Intuition's term of "emotionally monogamous"! That's one I haven't heard and I plan to use in the future!

 

I don't think using these other terms makes one more 'high brow'. It's simply a preference. I do think "ethical non-monogamy" has a lot more thought to it than 'swinger'. Swinger to me still refers to 'wife swapping'.

 

To each their own, and the more power to those that feel more comfortable with more than one term! We all know that no matter the term, we all have fun!

[rpu3 630]

Yes - I changed this post...

 

The bottom line is that I see no value in using a term that needs even more explanation than the one it is replacing. Sounds like contract law to me.

 

 

Fine - we agree that we don't agree. Again, vive la difference.

 

But it is humorous to me that you seem to understand my use of these particular terms perfectly, from the sleeping around without my spouse part to the contract law (not unusual given my profession).

[rpu3 630]

OK, I am really confused here.

We are talking about the new political way of what to call ourselves.

This is a group who proudly displays the fact that they are sluts and "ho's" and we are worried about how to describe what we do.

 

I don't think this was a PC issue, nor do I think the article and the subsequent discussion was an attempt to change anything.

 

Personally, I was originally commentating that my spouse and I call ourselves a similar term as the article in question.

 

The author's choice was an attempt to get the ideology out into the mainstream.

[Spoomonkey 421]

But it is humorous to me that you seem to understand my use of these particular terms perfectly, from the sleeping around without my spouse part to the contract law (not unusual given my profession).

 

And I find it humorous that you originally said that "opportunist" means "friends first" in some exacting way

 

Ah well - some folks need their terms and I'll not begrudge them of that. Still I would love to know what difference you see in the terminology. As for me, I don't need to fluff my words to make me feel better. I am a swinger - because that communicates clearly. People know what it is without me needing to hand them a lexicon.

[gatorvol64 216]

When I read this article I came away with the idea that "ethical non monogamy" is an umbrella term the author was using to describe several forms of non-traditional relationships. Open marriages, swinging, poly relationships, etc. Even those that are just open to the idea if things were to fall in line a certain way. The "ethical" part was to convey it isn't the traditional form of non-monogamous either ... cheating. That all parties involved are aware and agree on the terms.

 

We can each call it something different but, it is what it is. And using the term most recognize is just the most realistic. If you feel the need to elaborate to others what that term may additionally mean to you as an individual/couple, I'm all in favor of your freedom to do so. But I think you have to realize, even if you use other words to convey swinging, it will eventually get broken down to it's base meaning that we can relate to ... swinging ... no matter the image or stereotype associated with it.

 

And really, who of us in the lifestyle should care about the image. We understand that it isn't accurate but we will never get those who aren't interested in understanding to recognize the image is incorrect. There are all kinds of things in this world that we may not like but just have to live with.

[Thrax 384]

...I am a swinger - because that communicates clearly. People know what it is without me needing to hand them a lexicon."

This has been an interesting exercise in semantics.

 

This isn't a diss, but Spoo, I want to point out that you appear to be contradicting your earlier post: "Words are swords, not surgical instruments. They never have been that exact. One word is just as much in need of a definition as the next." If that's true, then the term "swinger" does NOT communicate clearly. And really those of us who have been on the Board for at least a year KNOW that just from reading some of the threads here.

 

Many people call Austin Powers a "swinger." Even though he's a fictional character, his "lifestyle" was a "swinging" lifestyle modeled after Swinging London of the late 1960s, when those hedonistic trendoids, many unmarried, were boffing each others brains out outside the bonds of marriage. They were called swingers, but many of them were single. We've had several go-rounds on this Board regarding whether singles in the "lifestyle" can be considered swingers, so I think the term "swinger" does NOT necessarily "communicate clearly."

 

Wikipedia, not the best source, but which appears to be okay regarding this definition, describes Swinging as, "...sometimes referred to in North America as the swinging lifestyle, is a non-monogamous sexual activity, treated much like any other social activity, that can be experienced as a couple... Swinging has been called wife swapping in the past, but this term is now archaic, as it is androcentric and does not accurately describe the full range of sexual activities that swingers may take part in...Typically, swinging activities occur when a married or otherwise committed couple engages with either another couple, multiple couples, or a single individual."

 

Similarly, rpu3 (and again, rpu3, this is not meant as a diss to you either) uses the term opportunists, which sounds negative to me. After all, single males have been referred to as a group using that term, and I get the sense that it's not in a positive sense. But she uses this term in what she thinks is a positive way for her and her spouse. Others might not think it's the best term to use. So? Maybe she uses that term and terms such as "consensual monogamy" to weed out the people that, although there might be a sexual connection, might not pass the ever-elusive "WE CLICK" test. Well, to each his or her or their own.

 

So yes, words can be swords, but is the swordsman wielding a slashing sabre or a pointed rapier? And surgical instruments should be sharp, but in some circumstances a surgeon must deal with the steel he or she has been dealt, and the patient must rely on the supposed skill of the surgeon. So, who is wielding the word "swinger" or "whatever-non-monogamist" term, and who are the partners/victims/patients? (THAT's not a good picture...physically OR [literally] literally. I know what I mean, but...let's just stop there.)

 

Enough of the metaphors though, and enough of this (s)wordplay. Time for dinner.

 

Or supper. Or the late evening meal.

 

Whatever. I'm hungry.

[Spoomonkey 421]

This isn't a diss, but Spoo, I want to point out that you appear to be contradicting your earlier post: "Words are swords, not surgical instruments. They never have been that exact. One word is just as much in need of a definition as the next." If that's true, then the term "swinger" does NOT communicate clearly.

 

To quote one of my favorite movies: "Martin, it's all psychological. You yell barracuda, everybody says, "Huh? What?" You yell shark, we've got a panic on our hands on the Fourth of July." - Mayor Vaughn in Jaws (Yes, I have this on DVD)

 

Walk up to someone at work and use the word "ethical non-monogamy" - and then walk up to someone else and say "swinger". I have not tried this experiment myself, but I am fairly sure that you will form a much clearer picture in the head of the second person.

 

"Swinger" is a term that is readily understood. Yes - it was used in Austin Powers, but to be fair they weren't using much in the way of contemporary context. Does the term describe exactly the lifestyle choices of my wife and I? Not really - but it is a far better starting point as it is easily accessible, In my opinion.

 

Start with a colloquial word and you can explain, from common ground, the differences between the typical idea of what a swinger is - and what you are. Start with an uncommon word and you have to work yourself back to "swinger" first anyway to give people some point of reference.

 

I would say that - if you'll allow me a metaphor - starting with the word "swinging" is quick and to the point, like relatively non-invasive arthroscopic knee surgery. But starting with "ethical non-monogamy" is more akin to starting your surgery with a hack saw on the wrong leg entirely...

 

[lovinher 505]

Great debate!

 

Everyone knows what a sanitary engineer is and I think everyone would know what an ethical non-monogamous person would be if the term was used. Might make them think a bit though.

 

No matter how it's labeled it isn't going to change perceptions because the definition will still be the same. If swingers think the term "swingers" promotes a bad connotation then how could we expect the general population not to? The word is burned into our language and isn't about to go away. With only a very small percentage of the population "in the lifestyle" the negative attitude toward swinging will be around for a long time

Somebody said it is what it is....and it is....still swinging.

[Thrax 384]

I would say that - if you'll allow me a metaphor - starting with the word "swinging" is quick and to the point, like relatively non-invasive arthroscopic knee surgery. But starting with "ethical non-monogamy" is more akin to starting your surgery with a hack saw on the wrong leg entirely...

 

Hey, whatever floats yer boat. Definitions can be so imprecise.

 

You prefer a word that some associate with the hairy-chested-Brut-drenched-medallion-wearing view and some go to the other end of the spectrum to terminology some perceive as the Ivory-tower-academic-Kinsey-defined-social-scientist side. Fine.

 

Either way, like you, flkeyscouple, rpu3, and others have said on this thread that it comes down to what one prefers, what appeals to their sensibilities, what works for them.

 

Each term has it's baggage, it just depends what each user wants to carry.

 

God bless us every one.