Swinging and Liberation

IvoryTowers · January 11, 2009

Mr. Ivory here. This is going to be a long post, and it's the culmination of a lot of thinking I've been doing in the past six months or so since Mrs. Ivory and I entered into the swing life. As most of you know, Mrs. Ivory has been the main voice of our couple here on the board. I have been reading and waiting. I tend to listen to any discussion for a long time, then think for a long time, then talk for a long time. :-) So please bear with me while I get a few things off of my proverbial chest.

For me, swinging is an extension of my general ideology. I'm in favor of nearly all forms of liberation: political liberation (anarchism), liberation from dogma (free thinking/atheism), animal liberation, intellectual liberation (free and equal education, etc.), and, of course, sexual liberation. But I see much less sexual liberation in the swinging world than I'd expected when Mrs. Ivory and I began this journey. Let me explain what I mean:

1) Swinging tends to be (at times cruelly) hetero-normative, especially for men - though almost every profile we see claims that the woman is bi or bi-curious, we've been involved in very little F/F play. Even at clubs, we see a lot of F/F dancing, flirting, and even some kissing, but we see very little bi-play. Among men, we've never seen public bi-play, and most profiles listing bi males might as well have a scarlet "A" (or "B"?) emblazoned on them. We've seen just as much homophobia in the swinging world as in the vanilla world, and this has really shocked us.

2) Swinging tends to be mono-normative - this may seem to be a contradiction (after all, aren't swingers by definition engaging in non-monogamy?), but I don't think it is. While I have certainly been pleased by the lack of jealousy in swinging, and while many people who swing do seem genuinely pleased by their partners' pleasure, I've also been surprised by swingers' hostility toward polyamory. If sex with other partners is o.k. but loving other people is not o.k., have we really transcended monogamy, or have we just extended monogamy a bit, allowing a few more things to qualify as monogamous?

I've seen troubling language in profiles and on this board referring to things to do or not to do with "my" man/woman or pointing out ad infinitum how "together" a couple is. I don't think of Mrs. Ivory as "mine" any more than I think of any human being as belonging to me. She is an autonomous person, capable of making her own decisions. I have to trust that she will not purposely act in a way that completely ignores my feelings; I have to trust that she will stay with me; I have to trust that she will be honest with me and communicate her needs and desires, and listen to and be sensitive to mine. None of these things is a given. And she is not "mine" forever. Every day we have to choose whether or not we want to stay together in the arrangement we have agreed upon. I know that she wants to be with me now, and I want to be with her. In a year, or five years, who knows? No marriage vow, ring, etc. will change that. I value our relationship precisely because it is freely chosen, not obligatory. Monogamy built on obligation is not liberating.

3) Swinging tends reinforce the patriarchy - this is probably the most upsetting element of swinging, in my (our?) opinion. One simple example is the way we all refer to ourselves and each other in these forums. We talk about Mr. and Mrs. Ivory, thus reinforcing the patriarchal norm of calling a woman by her husband's name. We can't be Mrs. Ivory and Mr. Towers without causing confusion, even though in real life we have different last names.

Another way swinging reinforces the patriarchy is by perpetuating several patriarchal double-standards. The main double-standard we've already discussed: the encouragement of female bisexuality and condemnation of male bisexuality. Insisting that women put on a show for men but that men not do the same is inherently sexist. Insisting that F/F play is hot and sexy while M/M play is disgusting reinforces a patriarchal (i.e. male-dominant, male-centered, and hetero-normative) view of desire.

A second double-standard is that single females are welcome (hell, we even use the term "unicorn" to lionize them) while single males are ostracized. The assumption is always that a couple is looking for more women to play with--the ultimate hetero-male fantasy--while extra men are a threat to male power and dominance, and women shouldn't be fantasizing about being with multiple men anyway (unless their husbands want them to do so--i.e. the cuckold fantasy). But we must also think about it from the single person's perspective. Why is a single man interested in having threesomes with couples a horny, desperate pariah while the single female interested in the same thing is a national treasure? And why is a coupled male who plays alone (with his partner's full consent) viewed suspiciously while no such suspicion attaches to a coupled female making the same request? For me, the answer lies in the assumptions we make about men's and women's motivations, desires, etc. Those assumptions are almost always patriarchal, and this seems to hold true in swinging as much as it does in vanilla life.

Finally, swinging reinforces the patriarchy by creating cultural spaces that duplicate the major tropes of the patriarchy. The biggest example of this is the way in which adult personals web sites reinforce the male gaze. Women are almost always pictured in ways clearly designed to appeal to a man's gaze, while men are seldom pictured at all: even when we see men on profiles, they are almost always fully clothed and in poses that reinforce their power and dominance, not their sensuality. All of this simply reinforces the patriarchal norm that men are (or should be) sexually active--they like to look, they like to pursue, etc.--and that woman are (or should be) sexually passive--they should want to be looked at, the be pursued, etc.

I'm not saying that *all* swingers are homophobes, or sexists, etc. In fact, we have certainly seen some great profiles on Swing Lifestyle and AFF, and some great posts here, that evince a sensitivity to these issues and a truly egalitarian spirit. And yes, sometimes couples want women to play with because the woman in the couple is actually bisexual. And yes, sometimes couples really *are* looking for single males. And yes, some swingers are perfectly tolerant of polyamory.

My point, however, is that such people seem as rare in swing life as they are in the vanilla world, and this surprises me. I see swinging as a part of a larger program of human liberation. My ideology brought me to swinging just as much as my sexual desire did. And I've found it disheartening that so few people in "the lifestyle" seem to share my sense of sexual liberation.

I don't intend this post to be a long complaint or to vilify everyone on this board (or in swing life in general). I'm actually hoping to open up a discussion/dialogue. Does anyone else share my concerns, or even some of my concerns? Am I off base here? If so, where/how/why? Let's discuss these issues. To me, at least, they're vitally important, and I haven't seen them addressed in a public forum, and I'm looking for some answers.

TNT · January 11, 2009

My point, however, is that such people seem as rare in swing life as they are in the vanilla world, and this surprises me.

I'm really not surprised by your observations...there are those who enter the swinging lifestyle and think it's a whole different world than the "normal vanilla" world we all live in. The truth is that the swinging world is made up of the same people that the vanilla world is, after all, that's where we all come from.

Swingers are just normal people. The only difference is that we choose to engage in different sexual practices to different degrees.

Some are homophobic, some are not...just like the vanilla world.

Some are more patriarchal minded, some are not...just like the vanilla world.

Some are open to polyamory, some are not...just like the vanilla world.

There are those with strong religious beliefs and there are those who have no religious beliefs...just like the vanilla world.

The one thing I found that is so wonderful about the swinging world is, it allows you the chance, if you stay in it long enough, to come across those who do think and feel exactly like you do.

I'm not sure I understand your statement of "sharing concerns"...I don't have any concerns in our swinging life. Ted and I have been in it long enough that we have successfully navigated the waters and found those who share our interests and beliefs and we've learned to be tolerant and respectful of those who don't.

A lot of people, IMO, put too much thought into something that is suppose to be fun...we really try and go with the KISS philosophy...it's worked really well for us.

Teresa

bbarnsworth · January 11, 2009

1) Swinging tends to be (at times cruelly) hetero-normative, especially for men - though almost every profile we see claims that the woman is bi or bi-curious, we've been involved in very little F/F play. [...] We've seen just as much homophobia in the swinging world as in the vanilla world, and this has really shocked us.

My wife has commented on this hypocrisy many times.

3) Swinging tends reinforce the patriarchy - this is probably the most upsetting element of swinging, in my (our?) opinion. One simple example is the way we all refer to ourselves and each other in these forums. We talk about Mr. and Mrs. Ivory, thus reinforcing the patriarchal norm of calling a woman by her husband's name. We can't be Mrs. Ivory and Mr. Towers without causing confusion, even though in real life we have different last names.

I think the opposite is the case. In the swinging world, women have more of the power than men do.

--while extra men are a threat to male power and dominance, and women shouldn't be fantasizing about being with multiple men anyway (unless their husbands want them to do so--i.e. the cuckold fantasy).

I have no interest in being a cuckold. I do have a strong interest in my wife being happy, fulfilled, pleasured. To that end, she's made it clear she wants to play with more than one man at a time. We haven't even pursued single women. We were contacted by one once, and nothing came of it. Fine by me.

And yes, some swingers are perfectly tolerant of polyamory.

I don't view polyamory in any negative way. If it works for some people and they are happy, then fine. There's no victim. It's their life. I was briefly in a polyamorous triad. It's not what I want in life now. I have no qualms in playing with someone or a couple who professes to be polyamorous, so long as they understand that's not on the menu for us. That's our job to communicate that.

Hotwallabies · January 12, 2009

Too many big words! Speak English please! Just Kidding!

I actually agree with most of what you said. I definitely have seen some strong double standards and not nearly as many liberated people (socially, sexually, ideologically, etc.) as I had hoped to. But, we have met some pretty amazingly free-thinking people as well.

I've heard (seen?) people on this sight over and over say (write?), and have grown to believe it to be true, that the swinging culture is like any other. In swinging you will find the same ignorance, mysogyny, double-standards, and closed mindedness as you will in regular culture.

If you find a place where people are free from these things and like to have lots of liberated sex too let us know cuz we'll be on the next flight (and I hate flying).

Connect with the people who share your same beliefs, be friendly to those who don't, and every once in awhile say something that will make people go "Hmmm!? I never thought about that before!"

lustylearning · January 12, 2009

Connect with the people who share your same beliefs, be friendly to those who don't, and every once in awhile say something that will make people go "Hmmm!? I never thought about that before!"

Just like in the vanilla world, as TNT pointed out.

We came to similar conclusions as you, Ivory Towers. But people are people, and changes in thinking take place slowly. It may be that the next generation of swingers more closely resembles what you thought you would find.

Chicup · January 12, 2009

Ideally point by point replies are not the best to encourage in depth discussion but there is so much going on here its perhaps the easiest way to proceed.

For me, swinging is an extension of my general ideology. I'm in favor of nearly all forms of liberation: political liberation (anarchism), liberation from dogma (free thinking/atheism), animal liberation, intellectual liberation (free and equal education, etc.), and, of course, sexual liberation. But I see much less sexual liberation in the swinging world than I'd expected when Mrs. Ivory and I began this journey. Let me explain what I mean:

Thats something unique to you, just like swinging being an extension of my personal philosophies. What leads one to swinging is going to be very different. From reading your wifes posts and this one, I'm going to say that about the only aspect we share in common is atheism and yet here we both are swingers.

1) Swinging tends to be (at times cruelly) hetero-normative, especially for men - though almost every profile we see claims that the woman is bi or bi-curious, we've been involved in very little F/F play. Even at clubs, we see a lot of F/F dancing, flirting, and even some kissing, but we see very little bi-play. Among men, we've never seen public bi-play, and most profiles listing bi males might as well have a scarlet "A" (or "B"?) emblazoned on them. We've seen just as much homophobia in the swinging world as in the vanilla world, and this has really shocked us.

I would say for most swinging men its less homophobia and more that male homosexual behaviors are a turn off. While undoubtedly SOME swingers are truly male homophobic, I think most just don't' want to see it and when they are in a location where they want to feel sexy, they don't want the couple next to them being two guys doing things they consider unattractive to look at. Its not a condemnation, its not homophobia, its just 'get a room, a different room'.

2) Swinging tends to be mono-normative - this may seem to be a contradiction (after all, aren't swingers by definition engaging in non-monogamy?), but I don't think it is. While I have certainly been pleased by the lack of jealousy in swinging, and while many people who swing do seem genuinely pleased by their partners' pleasure, I've also been surprised by swingers' hostility toward polyamory. If sex with other partners is o.k. but loving other people is not o.k., have we really transcended monogamy, or have we just extended monogamy a bit, allowing a few more things to qualify as monogamous?

My personal feeling in this issue is that monogamy is in fact the normal behavior for humans as animals. Polyamory is much more difficult to have work and most polys tend to really be pair bonded with 'secondaries', but when push comes to shove, the original pair takes precedence. Our genes seem to promote monogamy with mild polygamy (male + multiple females). I personally think fighting ones genetics in terms of behavior is a lost cause and trying to do so results in unneeded human suffering.

I've seen troubling language in profiles and on this board referring to things to do or not to do with "my" man/woman or pointing out ad infinitum how "together" a couple is. I don't think of Mrs. Ivory as "mine" any more than I think of any human being as belonging to me. She is an autonomous person, capable of making her own decisions. I have to trust that she will not purposely act in a way that completely ignores my feelings; I have to trust that she will stay with me; I have to trust that she will be honest with me and communicate her needs and desires, and listen to and be sensitive to mine. None of these things is a given. And she is not "mine" forever. Every day we have to choose whether or not we want to stay together in the arrangement we have agreed upon. I know that she wants to be with me now, and I want to be with her. In a year, or five years, who knows? No marriage vow, ring, etc. will change that. I value our relationship precisely because it is freely chosen, not obligatory. Monogamy built on obligation is not liberating.

Semantics. My wife is my wife, as my wife she has certain obligations to me and as her husband I have certain obligations to her. Part of those obligations used to be no extra-marital sex, and we modified those obligations when we became swingers. Still what we have not different than what you have, nothing is a given. Still she is MY wife until either of us decides that she no longer is.

3) Swinging tends reinforce the patriarchy - this is probably the most upsetting element of swinging, in my (our?) opinion. One simple example is the way we all refer to ourselves and each other in these forums. We talk about Mr. and Mrs. Ivory, thus reinforcing the patriarchal norm of calling a woman by her husband's name. We can't be Mrs. Ivory and Mr. Towers without causing confusion, even though in real life we have different last names.

As I'm sure you know by now, swingers are not out to change the world. Mrs. Chicup has no problem with 'the patriarchy' and in fact happily changed her name at the earliest possible time after our marriage. It was her choice and we have no problem with it. This is your fight but don't expect a whole lot of swinger recruits. Most of us have no problem with the traditional American family.

Another way swinging reinforces the patriarchy is by perpetuating several patriarchal double-standards. The main double-standard we've already discussed: the encouragement of female bisexuality and condemnation of male bisexuality. Insisting that women put on a show for men but that men not do the same is inherently sexist. Insisting that F/F play is hot and sexy while M/M play is disgusting reinforces a patriarchal (i.e. male-dominant, male-centered, and hetero-normative) view of desire.

I find M/M play to be unpleasant to look at, a good analogy would be people into 'water sports'. If you want to pee on each other thats fine, but I don't want to see it. Thats about the level I hold M/M activities at in terms of 'wanting to be near'.

A second double-standard is that single females are welcome (hell, we even use the term "unicorn" to lionize them) while single males are ostracized. The assumption is always that a couple is looking for more women to play with--the ultimate hetero-male fantasy--while extra men are a threat to male power and dominance,

Thats your assumption and I think for a lot of newbie couples this is true. The men don't know if they can handle another man in the mix.

and women shouldn't be fantasizing about being with multiple men anyway (unless their husbands want them to do so--i.e. the cuckold fantasy).

This is not true in a lot of cases. I have no problem with my woman fantasizing about mutliple men and I am no where near a cuckold.

But we must also think about it from the single person's perspective. Why is a single man interested in having threesomes with couples a horny, desperate pariah while the single female interested in the same thing is a national treasure?

Capitalism, supply and demand, for every single female perusing swingers there is a legion of men. This has more to do with how most male brains are wired for sex compared to females and less to do with liberation. Another point is that if a single female were to join my wife and myself, she (provided she were bi) offers more alternatives then a straight male does, though I do think this is minor.

And why is a coupled male who plays alone (with his partner's full consent) viewed suspiciously while no such suspicion attaches to a coupled female making the same request?

I don't think there are no suspicions, I think people are just more willing to over look them due to the rarity of single females. Many swinger couples will say they are not in charge of the other swingers morality and have no problem with married males or married females who are 'cheating'. Personally I think its irresponsible and stupid to play with either, I also think its immoral but thats another issue.

For me, the answer lies in the assumptions we make about men's and women's motivations, desires, etc. Those assumptions are almost always patriarchal, and this seems to hold true in swinging as much as it does in vanilla life.

While I am not surprised you dismiss the differences in motivations, I happen to believe in them, due more to my study of human behavior and evolutionary genetics, and nothing to do with a social patriarchy.

Finally, swinging reinforces the patriarchy by creating cultural spaces that duplicate the major tropes of the patriarchy. The biggest example of this is the way in which adult personals web sites reinforce the male gaze. Women are almost always pictured in ways clearly designed to appeal to a man's gaze, while men are seldom pictured at all: even when we see men on profiles, they are almost always fully clothed and in poses that reinforce their power and dominance, not their sensuality. All of this simply reinforces the patriarchal norm that men are (or should be) sexually active--they like to look, they like to pursue, etc.--and that woman are (or should be) sexually passive--they should want to be looked at, the be pursued, etc.

While there need to be more male pictures online, I challenge you to make the average suburban white male (who btw would be the majority of the swingers) look sensual . Its just not something the male form does well. I need to add that while most men look ridiculous trying to look sensual, most look good looking 'powerful' or confident. Its those sex differences again. My wife didn't respond to me while dating because I was sensual but because I was confident.

I'm not saying that *all* swingers are homophobes, or sexists, etc. In fact, we have certainly seen some great profiles on Swing Lifestyle and AFF, and some great posts here, that evince a sensitivity to these issues and a truly egalitarian spirit. And yes, sometimes couples want women to play with because the woman in the couple is actually bisexual. And yes, sometimes couples really *are* looking for single males. And yes, some swingers are perfectly tolerant of polyamory.

My point, however, is that such people seem as rare in swing life as they are in the vanilla world, and this surprises me. I see swinging as a part of a larger program of human liberation. My ideology brought me to swinging just as much as my sexual desire did. And I've found it disheartening that so few people in "the lifestyle" seem to share my sense of sexual liberation.

I don't intend this post to be a long complaint or to vilify everyone on this board (or in swing life in general). I'm actually hoping to open up a discussion/dialogue. Does anyone else share my concerns, or even some of my concerns? Am I off base here? If so, where/how/why? Let's discuss these issues. To me, at least, they're vitally important, and I haven't seen them addressed in a public forum, and I'm looking for some answers.

Your problem was going into swinging assuming that people would be drawn to it for the same reasons you were. I see swinging as a way to satisfy our natural desires for multiple partners while maintaining our desires for a strong pair bond. A majority of people do this by having affairs, or visiting prostitutes, we as swingers have worked out a way that lets us have our cake and eat it to. Its philosophically neutral and explains why swingers are not homogeneous in thought on these issues.

Thats not to say I dismiss your observations. I think there will be some changes in swinging, especially as it pertains to male bisexuality. I think men like me are in the minority. I have never contemplated a bisexual encounter, even in periods where I was not having sex for months, not even once did it cross my mind as even a desperate alternative. I think most men are more open to it, or at least less repulsed by it. My thoughts on this even a few years ago was that while most women are more open to bisexuality few men were truly bisexual. This was backed up by some research showing that while bisexual women showed stable relationships and maintained their bisexuality over time, most male bisexuals would gravitate to straight or gay. Likewise while female bisexuals were turned on by both FF and MF porn, most male bisexuals were ONLY turned on by MF or MM porn. Since this fit my personal beliefs I didn't look at it critically enough (sadly something that I see more and more of today with science, where people are finding research to back up their preconceived opinions, not the science forming the opinion). Now I think the problem with that study and some others was the selection process for the males. They were not getting bisexual males as much as homosexuals in denial, and if I recall correctly they found their male subjects primarily in homosexual hang outs and areas.

I do expect to see more male bisexuality acceptance as time goes on, as much as I personally do not like it. I think of it akin to the antismoking laws, as a non-smoker with a very sensitive nose they benefit me greatly but I still think the laws themselves overstep government bounds. Likewise I think its unfair that male bisexuality isn't allowed in most clubs even though it benefits me personally.

And you are correct that its not 'liberated', by your thoughts, that women are still attached to male via name, or that people feel possessive of their spouses. I don't attribute this to a 'patriarchal' society but to our very natures. I know the common retort is 'well look how much else has changed over time, its not our nature' but that can only go so far. You might see a time where women no longer take the mans last name, but you will never see a time where there is no identifier that people are a pair bonded couple. While it might have been society that decided other races were inferior under law and now no longer say so (and even that has genetic roots with outgroups) you can't legislate sexuality or the dynamics of it. We have tried for generations, and it never works, it only leads to unhappiness for those that don't fit the allowed norm. Boys will be boys and girls will be girls, and no matter how much we might not like some of the aspects, you won't be changing it without something akin to eugenics anytime soon.

IvoryTowers · January 12, 2009

Wow. Thanks so much for so many thoughtful responses, and all in only half a day! I'm eager to keep the discussion going.

Something I didn't say in the original post, but should have, was that I was trying to come to terms with some elements of swing "culture" as a whole. While I do agree that we could look at swing culture as a microcosm of our larger culture (or cultures--I'm being ethnocentric in essentially discussing only American culture), I guess that seems an odd way to look at it since we all share this one thing--this pretty huge thing--that differentiates us from vanilla culture. I probably shouldn't be so surprised when that one tie really is all that binds us, but still I *am* surprised.

I also agree that I am probably looking for swinging as a whole to do something it will never do, but I'm such an ideologue that I always seem to have to believe that the activities in which I engage can help to change the world a bit, even if in a very small way. That's why I'm vegan, why I recycle, etc. Millions of people still throw paper away with their trash, and billions of animals still suffer under factory farming. How many lives am I saving, or how much carbon is my lifestyle offsetting? Not much. But I like to think that if I help "show the way" others may join me and that might make a bigger difference. So I want that kind of "unified front" in swing life, and it's not there. Or I can't see it yet, and this troubles me.

But as everyone has very politely pointed out, I'm still very new to this, and I'm learning so much just from this conversation that I feel it was worth the risk of upsetting y'all (yes, I said "y'all"--I brought my southern upbringing with me to the ivory tower) with my original, strident post. I do strident very well. But perhaps I should work on a few other moods.

good times · January 12, 2009

Does anyone else share my concerns, or even some of my concerns?

I originally had a response similar, ok almost identical to Chicups, but that would have been redundant. So, I will just leave it at the following.

No, I can honestly say I don't share your concerns. I can't really explain it, but I just never assumed that lifestyle folks would be any different than anyone else. In fact, I have been somewhat surprised that swingers, in general, are much more tolerant of other lifestyle choices than average people in the vanilla world. The bottom line is, most swingers only differ from the rest of the population in that they like to have a little recreational sex. To expect any more than that is unrealistic, in my opinion.

So I want that kind of "unified front" in swing life, and it's not there. Or I can't see it yet, and this troubles me.

Sorry, no unified front, at least I have never seen it.

Chicup · January 12, 2009

So I guess you won't be coming over for a BBQ

We are practically polar opposites, but we've come to the same decision for swinging.

Either we would hate each other or get along well.

TNT · January 12, 2009

Swingers vary more in their personal mores than any other subculture I can think of. The best indication I can think of is the music. At virtually any other bar or club, it will have a general theme such as country or pop. At a swinger venue the tastes will cross all boundaries and it is impossible to keep everyone happy. Why? Because swingers come from every background, a true cross section of today's culture.

I have encountered many who exhibit hypocrisy, a sort of any kink we don't share is weird or disgusting attitude. Overall I still believe you will find more relaxed attitudes among us, but people have an amazing tendency to want to look down on others for something. The softer ones look down one the wilder ones, the wilder ones look down on the separate swingers, and so forth. Me, I just worry about making me happy.

Ted

rpu3 · January 12, 2009

But I like to think that if I help "show the way" others may join me and that might make a bigger difference. So I want that kind of "unified front" in swing life, and it's not there. Or I can't see it yet, and this troubles me.

Just a quick post and run, but my primary thought is that who is to say your way, when you help "show the way" is the right way? It's right for you. It might be right for a certain percentage of others, but I don't see swinging, or anything else for that matter, as liberating when it starts to take away individuality in favor of a united front or if it turns into any form of a "this is the right way" mentality.

I've not thought in a long, long time that swingers were much different than the general population. The predominant attitude or mentality I do get out of swinging is the general acceptance of personal choice with its inherent side of personal responsibility. That's about as far as I'm willing to go on a united front with swingers, as all I want out of this community is to be left alone to do what works for my life, and I'll do return the same to any other swinger. It would trouble me to have it any other way, actually.

slevin · January 12, 2009

I'm in the same boat as Good times, I had a lot to say as I was reading it, but Chicup beat me to it and said it far more eloquently than I ever could! I'll just add that we're not here to be a part of a lifestyle, or a movement or anything like that. We're swinging because it is fun and exciting to us. We love meeting great people and have fun involving them in our sex life for a little while.

Other than that, we don't expect much from swinging. It's part of our sexlife, thats about it.

two4youinswva · January 12, 2009

My thoughts pretty much fall in line with what the rest of the gang that has posted.

Back when we first started swinging, I had thoughts that all of us swingers were folks that had reached a higher plane of knowledge, acceptance, etc. Over time, I've figured out that, while many of the folks we've met have been incredible people, swinging itself is the only thing that we all have in common.

You know, we can't even agree to the definition of a swinger, or "what makes you Bi".

January 12, 2009

I'll be curious to see what you think after a year, or three years in the lifestyle.

PB&J · January 13, 2009

Well, I got curious and checked out your profile. Nothing personal, but how does "A second double-standard is that single females are welcome (hell, we even use the term "unicorn" to lionize them) while single males are ostracized." mesh with

single men will be deleted immediately and

if you are ... a single female,you move to the top of the list!.

Just asking.

ncmd_couple · January 13, 2009

Well, when we were out in the hot tub earlier this evening, my wife told me, "Honey I love you." Well, the rest follows, you two are young, let us know how you feel in 20 years or so when you have the grandkids at home for the weekend.

S

IvoryTowers · January 13, 2009

Well, I got curious and checked out your profile. Nothing personal, but how does "A second double-standard is that single females are welcome (hell, we even use the term "unicorn" to lionize them) while single males are ostracized." mesh with
single men will be deleted immediately and
if you are ... a single female,you move to the top of the list!.

Just asking.

Our original profile did not say, "No single men," but rather did invite MMF or MFM possibilities and explained what we might be looking for in a man: we found that we received a huge amount of mail from single men who had not read our profile, were not our type, etc. (and, frankly, were often rude). So we now prefer to seek them out rather than have them seek us. If we are at a party or club and a man approaches us, that's fine. But at a party or club we would not see ten men for every couple, as is the case on SLS. "No single men" is an SLS "survival" technique. I'm not happy about it, but it's necessary on that site. And as I'm sure you know, saying "no single men" only reduces the number of single men who approach you: it does not scare them all off.

Notice that we do not say anything about not playing with couples with bi-males, and in fact we like to do that. Even though I have found that I much prefer playing with women to playing with men, I am willing to "try" a new guy from time to time, especially since Mrs. Ivory loves to see two guys together. Mrs. Ivory is also straight, but she's willing to see if chemistry develops with the right woman. We have had FMF/FFM and MMF/MFM threesomes--in fact, more of our threesomes have been with men than with women--so we're open to all scenarios, as our profile says. At the time we wrote the profile, we were looking much more for women than men, hence the line you quoted. That has changed, so now we have removed that line. I imagine that line will reappear some time when we're more in the mood for a F in a threesome.

Of course, none of this really matters. I never said in my original post that individual swingers weren't free to chase single women and shun single men (of course we all have our own sexual preferences, and bisexuality shouldn't be forced on anyone any more than heterosexuality should); I was trying to make a point about swing culture in general. You chose an ad hominem attack rather than a critique of my logic. O.K. I'd really much prefer to see the latter.

interested-05 · January 13, 2009

since I dont have time for a full answer, I'll keep it short. very little of it reinforces the patriarchal attitude, as in reality the woman in most situations has the power and control of whether a couple meets, play or anything elsewhen it comes to swinging. She generally has full veto power, and the often repeated rhyme of swinging is, "men bring the women to swinging and women bring them back." Therefore it has a greater capacity to support the matriarchial form of relationships, with the woman having primary control and leaving men as equals but w/o the final say in the matter.

Political anarchists freedom, if we dont like what you are doing we will burn you out. ie, ELF: Earth Liberation Front, & those who violently protest anything the government does.

atheism/free thinking: unwilling to consider the possibility that a God or creator may possibily exist.

animal liberation: cattle and horses among other species of animal would probably be extinct, if not for the domestication and care of humanity.

Intellectual liberty unless of course, they disagree with the elitist priests of higher education.

And of course sexual freedom, where if one is not interested in bi play they are treated as second class sexual beings who need to be reeducated into the mold of the sexual elite.

Some would prefer not to think of swinging as poly-monogamy,

hetronormative, only in that we have our personal desires, which are normal for each individual to choose, and for those to deride anyone for making such a choice as somewhat less a person for enjoying what pleases them. Sounds like an educational elitists creation of his own form of non-anarchy amongst the swinging population.

If you are really anarchist, free thinking, intellectual and sexually liberated,simply have fun with those who desire sex with you, and leave everybody else alone, quit denigrating their free choice, allow them to enjoy their anarchial sexual freedom seperated from your negativity.

IvoryTowers · January 13, 2009

since I dont have time for a full answer, I'll keep it short. very little of it reinforces the patriarchal attitude, as in reality the woman in most situations has the power and control of whether a couple meets, play or anything elsewhen it comes to swinging. She generally has full veto power, and the often repeated rhyme of swinging is, "men bring the women to swinging and women bring them back." Therefore it has a greater capacity to support the matriarchial form of relationships, with the woman having primary control and leaving men as equals but w/o the final say in the matter.
Political anarchists freedom, if we dont like what you are doing we will burn you out. ie, ELF: Earth Liberation Front, & those who violently protest anything the government does.
atheism/free thinking: unwilling to consider the possibility that a God or creator may possibily exist.
animal liberation: cattle and horses among other species of animal would probably be extinct, if not for the domestication and care of humanity.
Intellectual liberty unless of course, they disagree with the elitist priests of higher education.
And of course sexual freedom, where if one is not interested in bi play they are treated as second class sexual beings who need to be reeducated into the mold of the sexual elite.
Some would prefer not to think of swinging as poly-monogamy,
hetronormative, only in that we have our personal desires, which are normal for each individual to choose, and for those to deride anyone for making such a choice as somewhat less a person for enjoying what pleases them. Sounds like an educational elitists creation of his own form of non-anarchy amongst the swinging population.
If you are really anarchist, free thinking, intellectual and sexually liberated,simply have fun with those who desire sex with you, and leave everybody else alone, quit denigrating their free choice, allow them to enjoy their anarchial sexual freedom seperated from your negativity.

Mrs. Ivory here. I don't understand this post (or several of the proceeding posts) and the anger expressed therein. Mr. Ivory posed a theoretical, intellectual question and people are responding as if he'd attacked them personally.

If he'd said "I got into swinging expecting that everyone would be kinky, since breaking down one barrier would seem to naturally lead to breaking down others" I hope that the responses would be more like those of the first page (nope, swingers come in all shapes) than those of the latter (your profile rejects water sports! You're hypocritical!).

People, this is an honest intellectual question, not an attack on you or an attempt to "fix" the lifestyle! Mr. Ivory (and to a lesser extent myself) are just interested in teasing out and understanding some of thinking behind swinging. It's entirely possible that most people don't think much about why they swing, but we've seen some very thoughtful discussions on this forum so we figured some had and would be willing to share their greater experience and longer reflection.

Now, as for the attacks above, I have these brief responses:

Political anarchists don't blow things up. Terrorists do. Get your terms right.

Atheists have considered the existence of god. Just because we don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean we haven't considered it (do you also assume gay people haven't considered the possibility of being straight).

Without us, domesticated animals wouldn't exist. Yes, because being crammed into a tiny cage, tortured, and then brutally slaughtered at an early age is SO much better than not existing at all!

Intellectual freedom for all, except for those who sneeringly attack others without foundation or information! Wait...I agree with that one.

Yeah, we're intellectualizing, over educated thoughtful people who question everything. Believe it or not, our existence isn't an attack on yours. We posed a question for those who wanted to debate it. Attacks on our way of living are not welcome or useful.

Chicup · January 13, 2009

atheism/free thinking: unwilling to consider the possibility that a God or creator may possibily exist.

Flag on the play. Intentional use of a logical fallacy, straw man fallacy present, 15 post penalty and loss of down.

I would venture to bet that as an atheist I've spent more time considering the possibly of God existing then most theists have spent considering the possibility of God not existing. Regardless your claim is without merit.

I would caution people to not debate the points of philosophy presented that do not relate directly to swinging. Ivory is just giving us some background on where he is coming from, but his being a vegan or an atheist isn't really the debate here, no matter how horrible life would be without bacon.

Willing29 · January 13, 2009

maybe, just maybe your idea(s) of liberation are not my idea(s) of liberation. (not meant to be an attack on personal views) Everyone has the right to create their own views.

interested-05 · January 13, 2009

AS stated in the first line, there is not enough time to fully discuss intellectualize, and answer this question. IF considering the possibility that there may be a god, then possibly your not atheist but a Jeffersonian deist. And when it comes to fouls, the origional post had more than simply a sweet,sensitive, intellectually honest request for input. It had a good percentage of negativity implied, regarding those who did not view swinging from your point of view.

Not anger, but an expected reaction and disagreement and when the post was started.

The percentage of cattle, horses, pigs and other domesticated animals, crammed into tiny cages, tortured, and brutally slaughtered are minimal. Mother nature is a cruel master, without mercy, and cruel to the extreme. Any implication that someones pet cat will not trap, torture and brutally slaughter a mouse, is not an implication that mother nature, is somehow kinder, gentler and more hospitable than humanity. Since it only appears that herbivores are the only creatures which are not vegan, then I am completely within natures plan to be carnivorous as well.

In which case, humanity is simply the result of mother nature and her evolutionary process taken to the level that mother nature expected.

By the way you failed to discuss the patriarchial/matriarchial nature of swinging, in your response, which seemed so important in your origional post.

Willing29 · January 13, 2009

Since it only appears that herbivores are the only creatures which are not vegan, then I am completely within natures plan to be carnivorous as well.

I was a vegetarian for 20+ years (true statement) and I can swear that every time I ate a carrot, potato or tomato I could hear it scream. Maybe it was just my opinion but REALLY I heard it. Aren't they living things as well or at one time were. What makes them any less meaningful than a 'free range organic' chicken? Aren't atoms atoms? All things on earth are precious and need to be honored such as the Native Americans did, by showing respect. With that said I love everything (although my wife and family first) and will liberate things in my own way.

Peace and Enjoy,

Chicup · January 13, 2009

I was a vegetarian for 20+ years (true statement) and I can swear that every time I ate a carrot, potato or tomato I could hear it scream. Maybe it was just my opinion but REALLY I heard it. Aren't they living things as well or at one time were. What makes them any less meaningful than a 'free range organic' chicken? Aren't atoms atoms? All things on earth are precious and need to be honored such as the Native Americans did, by showing respect. With that said I love everything (although my wife and family first) and will liberate things in my own way.
Peace and Enjoy,

Lets not over praise the Native Americans in terms of showing respect. They used everything because they were primarily neolithic semi-nomads who had no choice but use every bit of protein they could get their hands on. You will find Europeans were the same way until farming really took off, its why we still have things like Haggis and blood pudding. We used every bit of the animal as well. Eating meat was infrequent, and refrigeration non-existent outside of the winter months, so you ate EVERYTHING, and what you didn't eat you used for other purposes.

The noble savage is a myth.

I do hope your food no longer screams at you, because really that means you need professional help. Its one thing to feel for living creatures, its another to hear voices in your head. Let me add that many plants WANT us to eat them. Its part of their reproductive strategy. They expect animals to eat the fruit/stem, move away a bit, defecate out the seeds, thereby both fertilizing and spreading itself. Just like flowers produce nectar to entice bees and other insects to spread the pollen.

I need to stop now or I'll start bringing in the Hitchhikers guide to the gallaxy (yes if you read it you know where I'm going).

IvoryTowers · January 13, 2009

IF considering the possibility that there may be a god, then possibly your not atheist but a Jeffersonian deist. And when it comes to fouls, the origional post had more than simply a sweet,sensitive, intellectually honest request for input. It had a good percentage of negativity implied, regarding those who did not view swinging from your point of view.
Not anger, but an expected reaction and disagreement and when the post was started.
The percentage of cattle, horses, pigs and other domesticated animals, crammed into tiny cages, tortured, and brutally slaughtered are minimal. Mother nature is a cruel master, without mercy, and cruel to the extreme. Any implication that someones pet cat will not trap, torture and brutally slaughter a mouse, is not an implication that mother nature, is somehow kinder, gentler and more hospitable than humanity. Since it only appears that herbivores are the only creatures which are not vegan, then I am completely within natures plan to be carnivorous as well.
In which case, humanity is simply the result of mother nature and her evolutionary process taken to the level that mother nature expected.
By the way you failed to discuss the patriarchial/matriarchial nature of swinging, in your response, which seemed so important in your origional post.

Oh sigh.

1. "IF [sic] considering the possibility that there may be a god, then possibly your [sic] not [sic] atheist but a Jeffersonian deist."

So if I consider the possibility that there might be a god I'm not allowed to come to the conclusion that there isn't one? Just the mere consideration of a possibility makes something true or a belief? That hardly seems logical.

BTW, Mr. Ivory is the one who is the atheist. I'm a Buddhist.

2. Mother Nature is not cruel or kind. It simply is. It requires consciousness, at the least, to have an emotional state. I'm not going to get into the debate about whether or not animals have that level of awareness (I'm not sure how I stand myself), but I would point out that human beings have set themselves apart from the natural world in practically every way and so I don't buy the idea that nature excuses us from ethical considerations.

In other words, if you give up vaccinations, indoor plumbing and heating, cooking, clothes, eye glasses, cell phones, etc, then you can claim, "I am completely within natures plan to be carnivorous as well." If you don't want to be in natures plan [sic] 99.9% of the time, you need a better reason the other .1% of the time.

Oh, and you aren't carnivorous. If all you ate was meat, you'd get sick eventually. Humans are omnivores.

3. "Since it only appears that herbivores are the only creatures which are not vegan...." I think you meant to say that herbivores are the only creatures that ARE vegan. The sentence before the quoted one is not a complete sentence and I cannot respond to it because I don't understand it.

4."you failed to discuss the patriarchial/matriarchial [sic] nature of swinging, in your response, which seemed so important in your origional [sic] post."

The original post was by my husband, not me.

I chose not to address that particular point because it is a huge topic. I didn't think it was possible to address it a single response. Please forgive me if my apparent lack of interest in your claims upset you or made you feel I wasn't giving your post enough care and attention.

I hope you would agree that I'm not responsible for defending, explaining or clarifying the posts of my husband point by point. Nevertheless, since it seems important to you, let ask just a few questions about this supposed female centered world of swinging:

If women run swinging, how come the clubs are packed with scantily clad women while the men are covered up? Why do most couple profiles feature the women and if there are male pictures, the men are dressed? Yes, yes, I know, men are more visual than women. But surely women at least like to know what the men they might have sex with look like!

If women run swinging, why are there more threads in the archives about how to get wives/gf into swinging than the reverse?

Let me be clear. I'm NOT saying men run swinging. Really. I'm not saying either gender does. I am saying that the norms of our culture tell us that men are more sexual, more visual, more interested in sleeping with a variety of partners (whether or not these claims are true is another matter). These carry into swinging as do all cultural attitudes. So if there is any sexism in swinging, it reflects the sexism inherent in the larger culture, which is patriarchal.

Maybe women do 'run' swinging in that they are generally the ones who decide when to move forward and what couples to play with. But both men and women function under beliefs and norms that I consider patriarchal (others may consider them natural and that's a valid option, since there is a lot of data about genetics that supports gender differences).

So to sum up--we're arguing about different things and I didn't feel like getting into that in my first post. I hope that's clear now and you don't feel slighted.

Willing29 · January 13, 2009

I need to stop now or I'll start bringing in the Hitchhikers guide to the gallaxy (yes if you read it you know where I'm going).

Yes they stopped screaming but thanks for your concern

. Just trying to bring a little humor to this way to serious thread. Wait was that a carrot, gotta run now.

PB&J · January 13, 2009

I never said in my original post that individual swingers weren't free to chase single women and shun single men ... You chose an ad hominem attack rather than a critique of my logic. O.K. I'd really much prefer to see the latter.

Sorry. Your use of the term "double standard" seemed to imply that it was a bad thing. I just found it interesting that your own profile had that same double standard.

Chicup · January 13, 2009

In other words, if you give up vaccinations, indoor plumbing and heating, cooking, clothes, eye glasses, cell phones, etc, then you can claim, "I am completely within natures plan to be carnivorous as well." If you don't want to be in natures plan [sic] 99.9% of the time, you need a better reason the other .1% of the time.

Oh, and you aren't carnivorous. If all you ate was meat, you'd get sick eventually. Humans are omnivores.

An interesting post

At what point did we become outside of nature? The first real tool we have in our line is the hand axe (I'm sure wooden sticks were first, but they didn't survive) which goes back to homo erectus (and I find it amusing that my spell checker wants to replace that with homoerotic). Did we leave the natural world when we invented tools, prior to even being 'human'?

We have worn clothes long enough that lice have evolved to live in them (between 35-65k years), and thats nature adapting to us.

I see no fundamental difference between eye glasses, cell phones, and a stone axe wielded by a pre-human ancestor or cousin, depending on who's phylogenetic tree you follow.

Now this statement really has interesting implications as well...

Oh, and you aren't carnivorous. If all you ate was meat, you'd get sick eventually. Humans are omnivores.

Humans are definitely omnivores, thats not controversial, but we to what degree is very interesting. For example early northern European coprolites (fossilized shit for those playing at home) showed a diet of around 80% protein, which would be understandable for an ice age people, in a northern area, surrounded by megafauna. Likewise native Alaskin's showed very high protein levels in their diets. This is a bit of nutritional debate right now, but many human problems like malnutrition and diabetes can be linked to the farming of grains and lower protein diets. I was also surprised when I first looked into this field. I was investigating the Atkins diet and I expected it to be horrible in terms of health. Interestingly what I found, besides hyperbole about how bad it was, was rather favorable, including a small study done in the 30's where the researches only ate meat proteins for a year and were found to be in better health than when they started the diet. Please don't ask me to cite here, as this was all investigations I did 10 years ago and its not that important to me currently . Regardless of the health of an all protein diet, one thing thats not debatable is how little real nutritional research has been done, and how much of it is based on what sounds good and what is good for agricultural production.

Now it is possible these days, with effort, to eat a perfectly healthy all vegetarian diet, but it takes effort to be sure you are getting all your body needs as some proteins and such are far harder to find in plants than in meat.

So back to the concept that humans are separated from nature.

When growing up I played typical male dominance games, whos roots you can see in any chimpanzee family group.

I still possess the 'thrill of the hunt' behavior when fishing and hunting. The evolutionary reason for this should be obvious.

I still want to have sex, a lot, which is obviously linked to nature and is otherwise a complete waste of time as I am done having children.

I still mate in the normal mammal fashion, both doggy style which is land mammal norm and missionary which is common among bonobo chimps.

I need to get my energy from other living sources both plant and animal.

I still catch diseases.

I have an non-rational love of my children.

Wealth and power is still the best way for men to find the best 'mates'.

Physical attractiveness is still the best way for women to get men of wealth and power.

I could keep blathering on, but the point is we are not outside of nature. We are still animals, doing animal things, living animal lives, dying animal deaths. We are still ruled by our desires as animals, and more specifically social animals. Hunger, sex, thirst, power, comfort, all that drives humans are based on our animal nature. As an individual we can try to step out from that, but as a species, we are no different than the first early human looking off into the distance and wondering what they could kill to eat that day. The ability for abstract thought seems to be unique to us, though its hard to be sure, but it doesn't remove us from nature.

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make in thought is thinking that we are better than our natures. That we can be ruled by pure logic or fairness. That because they don't mind working for the greater good, that the species as a whole will act that way. We are still just apes, and the ones with the most kids are the ones whos tendencies will be the next generation.

rpu3 · January 13, 2009

Mrs. Ivory here. I don't understand this post (or several of the proceeding posts) and the anger expressed therein. Mr. Ivory posed a theoretical, intellectual question and people are responding as if he'd attacked them personally.

Several posts with anger expressed therein? I must be missing it. Just because some of us don't share Mr. Ivory's concerns or ideals and choose to express that lack of commonality doesn't equal a characterization of anger.

I was a vegetarian for 20+ years (true statement) and I can swear that every time I ate a carrot, potato or tomato I could hear it scream.

If I could get my favorite carbs to scream now and then. I'd be a happier weight-watcher.

Willing29 · January 13, 2009

If I could get my favorite carbs to scream now and then. I'd be a happier weight-watcher.

Actually they are still talking to me, they are saying that they taste pretty good with chicken.

Mrs. Willing wants to hear more about Hitchhikers!

ncmd_couple · January 14, 2009

An interesting post

At what point did we become outside of nature? The first real tool we have in our line is the hand axe (I'm sure wooden sticks were first, but they didn't survive) which goes back to homo erectus (and I find it amusing that my spell checker wants to replace that with homoerotic). Did we leave the natural world when we invented tools, prior to even being 'human'?

We have worn clothes long enough that lice have evolved to live in them (between 35-65k years), and thats nature adapting to us.

I see no fundamental difference between eye glasses, cell phones, and a stone axe wielded by a pre-human ancestor or cousin, depending on who's phylogenetic tree you follow.

Now this statement really has interesting implications as well...

Oh, and you aren't carnivorous. If all you ate was meat, you'd get sick eventually. Humans are omnivores.

Humans are definitely omnivores, thats not controversial, but we to what degree is very interesting. For example early northern European coprolites (fossilized shit for those playing at home) showed a diet of around 80% protein, which would be understandable for an ice age people, in a northern area, surrounded by megafauna. Likewise native Alaskin's showed very high protein levels in their diets. This is a bit of nutritional debate right now, but many human problems like malnutrition and diabetes can be linked to the farming of grains and lower protein diets. I was also surprised when I first looked into this field. I was investigating the Atkins diet and I expected it to be horrible in terms of health. Interestingly what I found, besides hyperbole about how bad it was, was rather favorable, including a small study done in the 30's where the researches only ate meat proteins for a year and were found to be in better health than when they started the diet. Please don't ask me to cite here, as this was all investigations I did 10 years ago and its not that important to me currently . Regardless of the health of an all protein diet, one thing thats not debatable is how little real nutritional research has been done, and how much of it is based on what sounds good and what is good for agricultural production.

Now it is possible these days, with effort, to eat a perfectly healthy all vegetarian diet, but it takes effort to be sure you are getting all your body needs as some proteins and such are far harder to find in plants than in meat.

So back to the concept that humans are separated from nature.

When growing up I played typical male dominance games, whos roots you can see in any chimpanzee family group.

I still possess the 'thrill of the hunt' behavior when fishing and hunting. The evolutionary reason for this should be obvious.

I still want to have sex, a lot, which is obviously linked to nature and is otherwise a complete waste of time as I am done having children.

I still mate in the normal mammal fashion, both doggy style which is land mammal norm and missionary which is common among bonobo chimps.

I need to get my energy from other living sources both plant and animal.

I still catch diseases.

I have an non-rational love of my children.

Wealth and power is still the best way for men to find the best 'mates'.

Physical attractiveness is still the best way for women to get men of wealth and power.

I could keep blathering on, but the point is we are not outside of nature. We are still animals, doing animal things, living animal lives, dying animal deaths. We are still ruled by our desires as animals, and more specifically social animals. Hunger, sex, thirst, power, comfort, all that drives humans are based on our animal nature. As an individual we can try to step out from that, but as a species, we are no different than the first early human looking off into the distance and wondering what they could kill to eat that day. The ability for abstract thought seems to be unique to us, though its hard to be sure, but it doesn't remove us from nature.

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make in thought is thinking that we are better than our natures. That we can be ruled by pure logic or fairness. That because they don't mind working for the greater good, that the species as a whole will act that way. We are still just apes, and the ones with the most kids are the ones whos tendencies will be the next generation.

Chicup,

Over the last year or so, I think that this is the best post I have seen you write. Want to go kill a deer and then swap wives?

S

knb2004 · January 14, 2009

If women run swinging, how come the clubs are packed with scantily clad women while the men are covered up? Why do most couple profiles feature the women and if there are male pictures, the men are dressed? Yes, yes, I know, men are more visual than women. But surely women at least like to know what the men they might have sex with look like!

My take? The "average" woman is more physically attractive than the "average" man, to men and women, st8 or bi. Mrs. knb looks fantastic wearing a thong or other lingerie, were I to try that, while I wouldn't necessarily cause people to want to gouge their own eyes out, neither is it nearly as easy on the eyes. Course I have a tendency to run around completely naked, where appropriate of course.

If women run swinging, why are there more threads in the archives about how to get wives/gf into swinging than the reverse?

Well, those posts are not made by swingers. They're made by swinger wanna-be's who do tend to be male more than female. Why is that? My opinion is that it's got more to do with classic vanilla thinking than swinger. Most of us, even those who choose the Lifestyle, were taught that sex was a sacred, yet at the same time awful thing that was to be done within the confines of a bonafide marriage ONLY!!! We teach women that if they like sex tooooo much they're sluts, or whores. Many, perhaps most, are taught that masturbation, oral sex, or anything that doesn't involve a genuine attempt to procreate is bad, wrong, gross, sinful, or all of the above. This message is given to women so much more so than men which is why, IMO, the "average" woman becomes more sexually repressed than the "average" man and explains the disparity. If a man wants to have multiple partners, well that's just boys being boys, the minute a woman is even OPEN to the idea, much less enthusiastic about it they are the worst kind of slut there is.

I think the idea that women are inherently, genetically, biologically less interested in sex is hogwash, rather I think we train them to be that way.

I also think to some degree that explains the disparity of why single female swingers are desired, and single men are not, but is not the full story.

I think many single-males who self identify as being a swinger are really not. They're simply out to get laid, pretty much do not care by whom, and figure hanging out with swingers is an easy way to make that happen. Many, but not all of those types are too jealous and possessive to be a true swinger, and if and when they get into a relationship, at best will be totally monogamous, at worst will expect monogamy from their SO but will continue to have their own flings.

So, you combine the learned sexual repression that many women are afflicted with with single guys just looking for a piece of ass and the result is imbalance. Personally, we are not interested in going to an event or club where it's 80% men.

SamuiCouple · January 14, 2009

My point, however, is that such people seem as rare in swing life as they are in the vanilla world, and this surprises me.

I don't think they are rare, in swinging or in vanilla life. It's probably more a case of those that have very set black-and-white views tend to be much more vocal about their beliefs when they encounter someone or something that crosses their very concisely defined boundaries. It's more a defense against perceived attack on their world as they'd like to see it. Almost a religion.

People who tend to be willing to move their boundaries are more likely to not react or react in a less vocal way, so they are less noticeable.

Notice for instance, how many males who pronounce themselves non-homophobic, will drop into the bi forum and post in a thread that may be about male-male interaction, simply to 'beat their chest' and post 'no way, Jose', just to be heard.

interested-05 · January 14, 2009

Oh sigh.

1. "IF [sic] considering the possibility that there may be a god, then possibly your [sic] not [sic] atheist but a Jeffersonian deist."
So if I consider the possibility that there might be a god I'm not allowed to come to the conclusion that there isn't one? Just the mere consideration of a possibility makes something true or a belief? That hardly seems logical.

BTW, Mr. Ivory is the one who is the atheist. I'm a Buddhist.
Answer) Guess i need to rephase it for you. Considering something as a possbility does not prove something does or does not exist, but coming to the conclusions that something cannot possibly exist, is a CLOSING of the mind to the possibility, that it just might exist.. You are perfectly welcome to believe any religious or nonreligipous position you wish. AS the Religious tradition I was raised in made it very clear you are free to choose belief or nonbelief, a.k.a. Free choice.

2. Mother Nature is not cruel or kind. It simply is. It requires consciousness, at the least, to have an emotional state. I'm not going to get into the debate about whether or not animals have that level of awareness (I'm not sure how I stand myself), but I would point out that human beings have set themselves apart from the natural world in practically every way and so I don't buy the idea that nature excuses us from ethical considerations.

In other words, if you give up vaccinations, indoor plumbing and heating, cooking, clothes, eye glasses, cell phones, etc, then you can claim, "I am completely within natures plan to be carnivorous as well." If you don't want to be in natures plan [sic] 99.9% of the time, you need a better reason the other .1% of the time.

answer1) the above listed conveniences, have nothing to do with any of the bodily functions, hormones or or physical desires, which govern the instincts passed down genetically to each and everyone of us.
answer2) Based on the evolutionary model of modern education, we are no different than any other creature. Doesn't matter whether we set ourselves apart or not. Whether we like or not, if darwinian evolution is correct, (not denying the possibility), we are a direct result and product of that process. We are no better than any other animal, and the question of ethics become moot, as humans are therefore a collosal freak of nature. A great example of Darwinian ethics was Jeffery Dahmer. Since I dont have the exact quote in front of me, you get to look it up. but basically, paraphrased version " since god does not exist, there was no longer any law higher than myself and he realized he was free to do anything"
The Ethics of Fascism and and genocide, simply allowed them to "scientifically" decide who was the fittest, and deserved to survive. If we are a tad higher than the animal kingdom, (animals may or may not have the ability to think freely and who am I to say they don't have free choice.}
Decide for yourself, then ethics is an issue one may consider. The question arises because of our design and decadent omnivorous nature, which one may freely choose to set aside, that killing another animal for food is either ethical or not based on our evolutionary standards. Or we can base it on our emotional standards, or what ever standard you choose to enforce.
Personally, My standard is that "all persons are equal, and we have a responsibility to treat one another accordingly." Mans inability to meet that standard, isn't my responsibility but one I can strive for.
Now if we throw in the anarchist ethic of liberty without law, or we instate a law set at the anarchist standard, then I have to question whether anarchy is actually an honest standard. Or please inform all of us what laws are actually acceptable to anarchy, and how they might be enforced without violating the anarchist standard. Then we can base further discussion based on that standard. With that, I have to ask was the french revolution an attempt at forming an anarchist government. If I understood Jefferson correctly, he felt that every generation should have its own revolution, therefore was he a terrorist?

oh by the way and you aren't carnivorous. If all you ate was meat, you'd get sick eventually. Humans are omnivores.
answer) Fair enough, but you at leat this time understood the point.

3. "Since it only appears that herbivores are the only creatures which are not vegan...." I think you meant to say that herbivores are the only creatures that ARE vegan. The sentence before the quoted one is not a complete sentence and I cannot respond to it because I don't understand it.

answer) I will have to check the sentence referred to to make a correction, My anarchist nature (just kidding)allows me to crucify the language. Obviously I hated english class.

4."you failed to discuss the patriarchial/matriarchial [sic] nature of swinging, in your response, which seemed so important in your origional [sic] post."

The original post was by my husband, not me.

I chose not to address that particular point because it is a huge topic. I didn't think it was possible to address it a single response. Please forgive me if my apparent lack of interest in your claims upset you or made you feel I wasn't giving your post enough care and attention.

I hope you would agree that I'm not responsible for defending, explaining or clarifying the posts of my husband point by point. Nevertheless, since it seems important to you, let ask just a few questions about this supposed female centered world of swinging:
answer) your an individual and not responsible for the actions or choices of any other adult.

If women run swinging, how come the clubs are packed with scantily clad women while the men are covered up? Why do most couple profiles feature the women and if there are male pictures, the men are dressed? Yes, yes, I know, men are more visual than women. But surely women at least like to know what the men they might have sex with look like!
answer) perhaps many of the women also enjoy seeing other scantily clad women and have a greater propensity to enoy bisexual experiences than men do. Whne perusing the profiles, a very large percentage of the profiles indicate a lesbian preferance or bicurious interest in other women. They are free to choose ther personal interest. I am not telling them who they may or not be interested in.

If women run swinging, why are there more threads in the archives about how to get wives/gf into swinging than the reverse?
answer)And if you look at the archives, there are a fair number of women seeking to interest their reluctant men. I will admit our culture does push young men towards as many sexual liasons as possible, and discourages young women from doing so as well. hypocritical maybe, that that is current modern reality. That being said men as a result by nature are more educated to accept multiple partners and maybe this is genetic, (I don't know) and women are seemingly more naturally into relationships than men are. It is an item open for discussion thta I am still trying to figure out.

Let me be clear. I'm NOT saying men run swinging. Really. I'm not saying either gender does. I am saying that the norms of our culture tell us that men are more sexual, more visual, more interested in sleeping with a variety of partners (whether or not these claims are true is another matter). These carry into swinging as do all cultural attitudes. So if there is any sexism in swinging, it reflects the sexism inherent in the larger culture, which is patriarchal.
answer) The couples, or individuals are free to figure out for themselves how they wiill proceed, if one of them chooses to leave the relationship its etween them, or they are free to establish their own working rules of who, how, when and where they will choose to play, and society will just have to deal with it.

Maybe women do 'run' swinging in that they are generally the ones who decide when to move forward and what couples to play with. But both men and women function under beliefs and norms that I consider patriarchal (others may consider them natural and that's a valid option, since there is a lot of data about genetics that supports gender differences).

Answer) None the less women have often times more say in the process, than is typical of any patriarchial society. Therefore their relationship is matriarchal. There are couples for whom the male is the individual running things. In that situation, they have a patriarchal relationship. But that choice is between them.
There are couples in which, their only interest is the mfm sexual play, how does one figure that as a patriarcal relationship, unless the guy is bi and seeking to enhance that choice. SInce I cant read their mind, they have to decide which form of relationship they have or not. Maybe its simply none of the above.

All this being said, you and everyone else are free to choose to live, have sex with or eat anything you freely choose. Nor does it allow a minority of any persuasion, religious, atheist, vegan or otherwise to decide for everyone else how they will play or whom they will play with.

sahajacpl · January 14, 2009

IvoryTowers, you make excellent talking points regarding the swinging lifestyle and the swingers' preferences and your observations, thoughts, etc.

Chicup has responded brilliantly nad logically to the concerns and thoughts you have raised. We give him five stars for his well thought-out rebuttal.

We concur that swingers as a class reflect the society in general, vanilla couples included, no more and no less.

JustAskJulie · January 15, 2009

TnT pretty much said exactly what I would say. But, then again, knowing them I can say with all honesty that they actually do share my opinion of all things as they relate to this thread. For me, they are one of the rare the couples I've met in this lifestyle that are truely open-minded. What is open-minded? What is liberated? IMO it is understanding that we are all different and being willing to accept that, while being willing to accept that others don't share our point of view and may not be open to things we enjoy, but we don't shun them for that reason.

Something I didn't say in the original post, but should have, was that I was trying to come to terms with some elements of swing "culture" as a whole. While I do agree that we could look at swing culture as a microcosm of our larger culture (or cultures--I'm being ethnocentric in essentially discussing only American culture), I guess that seems an odd way to look at it since we all share this one thing--this pretty huge thing--that differentiates us from vanilla culture. I probably shouldn't be so surprised when that one tie really is all that binds us, but still I *am* surprised.

The problem is that swinging IS a microcosm of society as a whole, just the same as probably golfers are, or movie-goers. Swinging is a part of who we are, it is one of our interests, but it does not make us who we are. It is not the finale say on who we are. It is NOT our culture, our culture is so much more than swinging, and our culture is what makes us, and it is the reason why swingers vary so greatly.

JustAskJulie · January 15, 2009

My take? The "average" woman is more physically attractive than the "average" man, to men and women, st8 or bi. Mrs. knb looks fantastic wearing a thong or other lingerie, were I to try that, while I wouldn't necessarily cause people to want to gouge their own eyes out, neither is it nearly as easy on the eyes. Course I have a tendency to run around completely naked, where appropriate of course.
.

To add to this, there is also the issue of more women being attracted to both men and women than the other way around. I have to agree with the above tho. In general, I've seen more women at the clubs that I enjoy looking at scantily clad than I have men. Too often when a man takes his shirt off at a club I want to go up to him and tell him to put it back on and please don't take off anything else. Then again, I also see many women that I wish would cover up ... but not nearly so many.

There may also be a bit more to this going back to the whole swinging is a microcosm of general society. Consider that in general women dress more scantily than men. For most women a man is sexy when he is dressed nice and has shown that he has made an effort to look good. For most men, it seems, that women are dressed sexy when they are wearing very little.

I don't think they are rare, in swinging or in vanilla life. It's probably more a case of those that have very set black-and-white views tend to be much more vocal about their beliefs when they encounter someone or something that crosses their very concisely defined boundaries. It's more a defense against perceived attack on their world as they'd like to see it. Almost a religion.

People who tend to be willing to move their boundaries are more likely to not react or react in a less vocal way, so they are less noticeable.

Notice for instance, how many males who pronounce themselves non-homophobic, will drop into the bi forum and post in a thread that may be about male-male interaction, simply to 'beat their chest' and post 'no way, Jose', just to be heard.

This is an excellent point and one that I have seen as well. In general those who scream the loudest are those who feel the need to stand against something. Those who are more open to whatever are going to just stand back and let others do the debating. If I can go either way, then what do I really have to add to the discussion?

BiloxiCouple · January 15, 2009

Overthinking the situations.

Relax, have fun together with the journey.

IvoryTowers · January 15, 2009

Thanks to everyone who has put this thread back on track after it got a bit dicey. But I must warn you all that I'm about to go back to the atheism/anarchism again. These issues, for me (Mr. Ivory), are just too important to let go. If you don't want to read about atheism or anarchism on this board, please go to the next post. Thank you...

Considering something as a possbility does not prove something does or does not exist, but coming to the conclusions that something cannot possibly exist, is a CLOSING of the mind to the possibility, that it just might exist..

Since the idea of closing one's mind is almost always used pejoratively, I have to address this claim. Do you believe in Zeus? Does anyone alive today believe Zeus is the supreme god? No, of course we don't. Perhaps at some point we considered the possibility that Zeus exists (or existed once but does no longer), but we've all decided that the Zeus story is simply a myth. We are all atheists with regard to Zeus. Does that make us closed-minded? I don't think anyone who doesn't believe in Zeus thinks so.

The only difference between you and me is that while you're an atheist with regard to Zeus, Mithras, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulu, and possibly Allah, Shiva, etc., I've added one more bronze-age sky god to my list. I don't see how that makes me closed-minded.

Personally, My standard is that "all persons are equal, and we have a responsibility to treat one another accordingly." Mans inability to meet that standard, isn't my responsibility but one I can strive for.
Now if we throw in the anarchist ethic of liberty without law, or we instate a law set at the anarchist standard, then I have to question whether anarchy is actually an honest standard. Or please inform all of us what laws are actually acceptable to anarchy, and how they might be enforced without violating the anarchist standard. Then we can base further discussion based on that standard. With that, I have to ask was the french revolution an attempt at forming an anarchist government. If I understood Jefferson correctly, he felt that every generation should have its own revolution, therefore was he a terrorist?

I think many people misunderstand anarchism. It's not so much laws that anarchists oppose as it is statism. Anarchists are against being ruled, not necessarily against having rules. If members of a collective, guild, etc. cooperatively decide on rules in order to run their businesses, co-ops, etc. more smoothly, that's fine. But rules must be established from the bottom up, not from the top down. And we must never create the artificial entity of the state, whose sole purpose is to serve the interests of one faction (usually the wealthy and powerful, who are least in need of assistance) at the expense of everyone else (usually the working classes). The only reason a state is necessary is to allow one group to exploit another. In a truly communalistic society, no state is needed.

slevin · January 15, 2009

The only difference between you and me is that while you're an atheist with regard to Zeus, Mithras, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulu, and possibly Allah, Shiva, etc., I've added one more bronze-age sky god to my list. I don't see how that makes me closed-minded.

To me, being closed minded would be begrudging people who do believe in something you don't. While I might not believe in Zeus, I still respect anyone who does believe in Zeus. I don't begrudge their beliefs and while I may engage in an intellectual conversation with them, I'd never deign to try and say that they can't have their own beliefs on the subject.

We can disagree and still respect each other. That is being open minded. Listening to arguments for a contrary view, considering it and either keeping your opinion or forming a new one is open minded.

Chicup · January 16, 2009

I think many people misunderstand anarchism. It's not so much laws that anarchists oppose as it is statism. Anarchists are against being ruled, not necessarily against having rules. If members of a collective, guild, etc. cooperatively decide on rules in order to run their businesses, co-ops, etc. more smoothly, that's fine. But rules must be established from the bottom up, not from the top down. And we must never create the artificial entity of the state, whose sole purpose is to serve the interests of one faction (usually the wealthy and powerful, who are least in need of assistance) at the expense of everyone else (usually the working classes). The only reason a state is necessary is to allow one group to exploit another. In a truly communalistic society, no state is needed.

Remember when I talked about people who try to work against human nature because they think it should be different? This is one of those examples. Its why communalistic endeavors always run into trouble. So you start rules from the bottom up, of course whats up anyways? Then you need people to enforce those rules, and some people will be more interested in working on the rules than others. Welcome to politicians and police and 'the state'. Then some will try to use this system to their benefit under the guise of 'for the people', welcome corruption.

Social status is as natural to us as peeing, which leads to leaders, politics, and eventually 'the state' in one form or another.

Hotwallabies · January 16, 2009

To put away a belief in a certain god/goddess is not closed minded at all, but to completely put away the idea that there could possibly be some form of god/goddess/creator at all, I think does seem a little closed minded (IMHO). Personally, I definitely don't believe in the traditional views of God, but I do believe there is "something" greater than us out there (or inside for that matter), but I am more than willing to admit that there might not be at all. The truth is nobody knows for sure. I'm more than okay with someone who doesn't believe in a god (however you define that). After years and years of thinking about these things God just seems to make sense to me, but I definitely can understand why lots of people don't believe.

I understand most of your concerns Ivory and like I said earlier I even agree with some of them. Just be careful how you present them. I was once an idealist and I knew everything. When my beliefs began to change it threw my world all out of whack because I had to admit that a lot of my beliefs which I was so sure were right actually were just plain wrong. Not to mention the regret I had over people I had hurt and offended by being so dogmatic. I now try to follow the Kevin Smith idea from Dogma where I no longer have beliefs I have ideas because you can change ideas, but beliefs are much more difficult to change.

"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing"--Socrates.

interested-05 · January 16, 2009

Flag on the play. Intentional use of a logical fallacy, straw man fallacy present, 15 post penalty and loss of down..

under the rules of anarchy and chaos, Red flag challenge, no rule, none violated, no loss of post, no loss of down.

Straw man received his Diploma from the Wizard to confirm (reassure him) he had a brain. Last record of the Straw man, he was running the Emerald City from its highest tower, after the sudden unexpected departure of said wizard. Installed socialist form of government. As Emerald City became increasingly dependent on social services, fewer people felt an inclination to work, harvest crops, or manufacture goods for sale elsewhere. Taxes increased to pay for services. Further deteriorating incentive to work or investment in production, which would increase tax burden, negating increased profits.

JustAskJulie · January 16, 2009

under the rules of anarchy and chaos, Red flag challenge, no rule, none violated, no loss of post, no loss of down.

Straw man received his Diploma from the Wizard to confirm (reassure him) he had a brain. Last record of the Straw man, he was running the Emerald City from its highest tower, after the sudden unexpected departure of said wizard. Installed socialist form of government. As Emerald City became increasingly dependent on social services, fewer people felt an inclination to work, harvest crops, or manufacture goods for sale elsewhere. Taxes increased to pay for services. Further deteriorating incentive to work or investment in production, which would increase tax burden, negating increased profits.

I see we have another Wicked fan here.

Stillblue · January 17, 2009

I'm really not surprised by your observations...there are those who enter the swinging lifestyle and think it's a whole different world than the "normal vanilla" world we all live in. The truth is that the swinging world is made up of the same people that the vanilla world is, after all, that's where we all come from.

Swingers are just normal people. The only difference is that we choose to engage in different sexual practices to different degrees.

Some are homophobic, some are not...just like the vanilla world.

Some are more patriarchal minded, some are not...just like the vanilla world.

Some are open to polyamory, some are not...just like the vanilla world.

There are those with strong religious beliefs and there are those who have no religious beliefs...just like the vanilla world.

The one thing I found that is so wonderful about the swinging world is, it allows you the chance, if you stay in it long enough, to come across those who do think and feel exactly like you do.

I'm not sure I understand your statement of "sharing concerns"...I don't have any concerns in our swinging life. Ted and I have been in it long enough that we have successfully navigated the waters and found those who share our interests and beliefs and we've learned to be tolerant and respectful of those who don't.

A lot of people, IMO, put too much thought into something that is suppose to be fun...we really try and go with the KISS philosophy...it's worked really well for us.

Teresa

KISS - yes indeed.

Al x

Jamie&Kieth · January 17, 2009

Geesh, I just enjoy group sex a lot, simple as that.

Jamie

vanillaknot · January 17, 2009

I'm coming late to this somewhat long discussion, so I want to comment on only one thing:

extra men are a threat to male power and dominance

My perspective on this comes from the fact that I've worked at a swinger club.

The problem with single men isn't that they're any kind of threat. Indeed, the single men who are looked down upon aren't a threat to anyone or anything except the smooth operation of the club (or the party, sometimes). The (perceived, and very often real) problem with single men is that they come to a club or party and act as though they believe that having paid their entrance fee is grounds to expect to have someone to play with that evening. They tend to be (*) pushy, arrogant, socially unskilled, insensitive, and rude. Many times when working the door (which meant, in the later parts of the evening after the door was shut for the night, I worked the open areas of the club, keeping an eye out for exactly this sort of troublemaker), I had to spend inordinate fractions of my time literally tailing certain single men, to ensure that they knew they were being watched, because the awareness of being watched is the surest way to keep a person on his nimblest socially-adept toes.

There are a couple men whose arrival at the club always meant my evening would be occupied in a certain way.

All this said, and with regard to my "*" footnote marker up there, this is a tendency, not any kind of absolute rule. There is a big bunch of single guys that I'm totally happy to see at any play event. It's just that one bad apple really can ruin an evening, especially when that one bad apple is mobile, meaning that he can (mis-)interact with a lot of people all over the place in relatively short order.

Sorry if this isn't "liberating" enough for some folks, but one gets a certain perspective after being in the trenches.

couplers · November 21, 2009

Hello, Petra here. This is one of the more interesting and thoughtful threads I have read. What caught my attention after joining this site (both then and now having some, but not much swinging experience - just poly, actually) is how many rules most couples here have. There will be no tisk-tisking from me about the way people want to do things, but I am surprised about all the discussion of rules on kissing, playing alone (or even just in separate rooms), anal, using the L-word (oh my!), getting permission in advance, etc. And all the angst about the rules being broken. Although hubby and I have been very limited in our play partners, neither of us limits what we do with them (including separate play) or what we say to them. If either of us had an unanticipated, unannounced, non-preapproved sexual encounter at some point, we would unashamedly talk about it and the other would lovingly ask how you are doing and if it was fun. This is the way it is now when one of us gets home from, or comes home to see the other, coupling up with our respective play partners. Sex is like food, something we need, something that is better with variety, something hubby and I like sharing together. But there are no rules or preapprovals needed for one of us to take a meal with someone else. And regardless of how good or different the food or company may have been, there is no jealousy or recriminations.

Sign In

Please Visit Our Sponsors

Swinging and Liberation

Recommended Posts

IvoryTowers 380

Share this post

Link to post

TNT 1,155

Share this post

Link to post

bbarnsworth 2,636

Share this post

Link to post

Hotwallabies 90

Share this post

Link to post

lustylearning 705

Share this post

Link to post

Chicup 41

Share this post

Link to post

IvoryTowers 380

Share this post

Link to post

good times 991

Share this post

Link to post

Chicup 41

Share this post

Link to post

TNT 1,155

Share this post

Link to post

rpu3 630

Share this post

Link to post

slevin 1,374

Share this post

Link to post

two4youinswva 3,068

Share this post

Link to post

Guest screaminggood

Share this post

Link to post

PB&J 1,086

Share this post

Link to post

ncmd_couple 597

Share this post

Link to post

IvoryTowers 380

Share this post

Link to post

interested-05 135

Share this post

Link to post

IvoryTowers 380

Share this post

Link to post

Chicup 41

Share this post

Link to post

Willing29 66

Share this post

Link to post

interested-05 135

Share this post

Link to post

Willing29 66

Share this post

Link to post

Chicup 41

Share this post

Link to post

IvoryTowers 380

Share this post

Link to post

Willing29 66