Do we have a choice to be swingers?

[JandY 61]

I know that, as swingers, we choose whether or not to act upon our desires to share ourselves and our most loved significant other, but do we actually choose to want to?

 

It's generally (not always) agreed that being homosexual is not a choice. Being an active homosexual is a choice.

 

Being heterosexual is not a choice, but being sexually active is.

 

My lady says she doesn't choose to be a vegetarian, but that she physically finds it impossible to eat dead flesh, so she chooses to be an active vegetarian.

 

Even paedophiles are treated with medication to curb their choosing to act upon their urges and it's recognised to be an "illness/state of mind" - i.e. they do not choose to be paedophiles, but they do choose whether or not to be active.

 

If I never engaged in another swinging experience for the rest of my life, I think I always was and always will be a swinger by nature and that I have no choice in that. I only have choice whether or not to follow my nature.

 

Or is swinging different to fundamental sexuality (homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bi-sexual, bestial, paedohile etc., etc.)?

 

Do we become swingers (or polyamorus) through curiosity and then sampling and ultimate consumption/engagement pleasure (leading even to addiction) - as with alcohol or drugs?

 

There are probably many takes and opinions on this subject and where better to seek them than here, on this board?

[Dave_kat 227]

Boy, another one for interesting philosophical discussion...

 

I'd have to start with the assumptions on this one... As I don't think there is conclusive proof that one's sexuality is defined genetically. Granted there is research that supports this theory, but there is research to support almost any viewpoint. Is homosexuality hardwired? Way off topic and a different discussion.

 

We all choose to be active sexually, and if you agree with Darwinism, survival of the fittest and natural selection and all of those, then swinging becomes a quite natural extension of this in a world where monogamy is the cultural norm. The desire to seek out as many playmates as possible and "spreading your seed" far and wide.

 

Yet intellect gives us the ability to control those desires. We are not forced to act upon them, but we choose to do so.

 

Our theory is simple. Humankind is not designed to be monagamous, not in our basest form. We are always looking at others, contemplating what we see on a physical level.

 

Culturally, we are in a monogamous society. This has been built through the ages to promote stability in society. This in itself causes so many arguments in different areas - homosexuality, marriage rights, even the abortion issue. If you notice, each one of those arguments is based on things that go against society's norms (primarily religion, the strongest enforcer of our society rules).

 

Even watching porn is considered taboo in our society, and looked at in another way is a form of voyeurism and then possibly swinging (granted the couple or more on the DVD can't see you, but is it really that much different from same-room swinging?)

 

Either way, we think the answer is this: we become swingers as we develop trust within our relationship and eliminate jealousy in our lives. As our bonds become stronger between us as a couple with others, it alleviates the natural sexual tension while forming bonds between the couples that promote friendship and openness.

 

Is swinging an addiction? Quite possibly. While we all say we can stop if we needed to, we would feel some kind of withdrawl from the "fun days." Simply because we are closing part of ourselves off. It would be like grounding your child or taking away their favorite toy. Can they live without it? Sure. But something that is gone and lost does cause some kind of pain.

 

Are we hardwired to be swingers? This has to be a no. We're hardwired to wander from person to person and express physical desires, but swinging is something that couples do together to explore their desires, with a foundation of a monogamous relationship. We've never heard of this kind of group mate seeking within the animal kingdom, (although it could exist), which leads us to think that this is a societal stabilizer that allows us as a group to relieve those tensions built up from fighting our natural wandering.

[CXXC 435]

Damn Dave_kat! I can't add a thing to that! well put.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

I think when it comes down to it, everyone is attracted to people around them, whether they are married or not, and no matter how long they are married. What they (and we) choose is how to act on those feelings.

 

Do we have a choice to feel attracted to others? I don't think so. Do we have a choice on having fantasies about other people? I don't think so. I do think everyone makes a choice on what they are comfortable accepting in their lives and sexuality is just a part of that.

[MrsPandMe 150]

Interesting discussion!

 

Dave+Kat hit on some great points. I believe that, actually, monogamy is an act of suppression of your natural instincts. Though we have a high intelligence and an ability for logical thought, we are still animals, and as such our basal need to survive as a species depends on our drive to procreate. Obviously this ultra-simplifies a lot of things, but when you get right down to it, our brains are happiest when they get what they desire!

 

As for the whole genetics vs. choice thing, I'm of the belief that most everything everyone does is a choice. Not necessarily a CONSCIOUS choice, but certainly NOT genetics. Genetics is when you eat shellfish and go into respiratory shock.

 

An UNCONSCIOUS choice is a good example of someone who is, say, homosexual... That seems to be a pretty good explosive topic. This sort of thing is a desire that develops as a person gains an understanding of their world around them and the role they want to take. Homosexuals are not physically unable to BE sexual with someone of the opposite sex, it's just something they don't desire to do. They're not diseased or cursed, and they're certainly NOT genetically broken.

 

A conscious choice is monogamy. We are not predisposed to be monogamous, we inflict that upon ourselves. Vegetarianism and veganism is another example of conscious choice. Rare indeed is the human that develops normally with an inability to process meat. If humans were incapable of eating meat, none of us would be able to, so this is clearly a sociopolitical decision. Not saying it's wrong, don't misunderstand me, but your statement about your S/O's reasoning behind it gives it away.

 

"My lady says she doesn't choose to be a vegetarian, but that she physically finds it impossible to eat dead flesh, so she chooses to be an active vegetarian."

 

It is very much plausible that eating meat is revolting to her and might well make her sick, but it's not a physical malady, it's a psychosomatic one. Her brain has convinced her body to react in this way.

 

As an aside, I really do think that swingers, and by that I mean truly SUCCESSFUL swingers, have a trust and love in their significant other that goes well beyond the vows of marriage and commitment. When M and I first started swinging, we THOUGHT we knew our love for each other was strong. We had no idea just how powerful of a statement we would make to each other when we had our first swing experience and came out of it with a love and understanding more powerful they we could have possibly imagined. We had questions about the experience, yes.. But not one of them approached anything like "are we okay as a couple". We knew right away that answer to that.

 

P

[drziggy 89]

I know that, as swingers, we choose whether or not to act upon our desires to share ourselves and our most loved significant other, but do we actually choose to want to?

 

It's generally (not always) agreed that being homosexual is not a choice. Being an active homosexual is a choice.

 

Being heterosexual is not a choice, but being sexually active is.

 

My lady says she doesn't choose to be a vegetarian, but that she physically finds it impossible to eat dead flesh, so she chooses to be an active vegetarian.

 

Even paedophiles are treated with medication to curb their choosing to act upon their urges and it's recognised to be an "illness/state of mind" - i.e. they do not choose to be paedophiles, but they do choose whether or not to be active.

 

If I never engaged in another swinging experience for the rest of my life, I think I always was and always will be a swinger by nature and that I have no choice in that. I only have choice whether or not to follow my nature.

 

Or is swinging different to fundamental sexuality (homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bi-sexual, bestial, paedohile etc., etc.)?

 

Do we become swingers (or polyamorus) through curiosity and then sampling and ultimate consumption/engagement pleasure (leading even to addiction) - as with alcohol or drugs?

 

There are probably many takes and opinions on this subject and where better to seek them than here, on this board?

 

 

There is actually a rather simple answer to your question(s). We make a choice to have sex with different partners. WE, as a species, are NOT monogamous by nature, on the contrary, we tend to be mildly polygamous (albeit the term polygamous doesn't really reflect the desire to have sex with several partners, but rather reflects a "relationship" arrangement/marriage).

In most cultures (but not all) we, as individuals are "conditioned" by the rules of society from a very early age to regard having several partners as something "deviant". So we internalize those rules and break them at every opportunity, being careful not to be found out, lest we suffer the negative consequences.

Swinging (and swingers) on the other hand, appreciate and encourage extra-marital sex, knowing that sex does not equate(or interfere) with the emotional connection they have with their partners. This is liberating and tends to enhance the relationship between the couple. Swinging frees one from the shackles of sexual conformity impose by society, allows for exploration of desires, wishes, or curiosity. It allows individuals to be true to their sexual selves.

Thus, as you see, swinging is part of a re-conditioning of individuals back to their natural sexual state.

I could engage in a discussion of pedophilia and homosexuality (both pre-determine behaviours based on the size and structure of specific brain structures, and one could say "anomalies"), but it would take too long....LOL

So, rest assure that one is not born a 'swinger" or carry the "swinger gene". After all, we are ALL born with the predisposition for extra-dyadic sexual interactions, one partner rarely satisfies one individual....some need many, many partners sexual exitment and variety), while others are satisfied with only a few.

Cheers!

DrZiggy

[CXXC 435]

I always delight in the arguments I get into with Vanilla people regarding the lifestyle. When I state the facts they always fall back to the moral debate or some religious dogma that "clearly" states that having more than one lover is bad.

 

When I state that we are animals like all others and are programmed to take multiple partners they toss back that we are cognizant.

 

I counter the cognizant by pointing our statistics and figures that show, even though we are self aware and can reason, almost 3/4 of the human race will fantasize or actualize its desires. The numbers dont lie but they argue back.

 

Not all animals are like that. Wolves, Geese, Penguins are monogamous. I point out the rarity of monogamy in nature using their own words.

 

I then argue the facts about morality. It is a suppression of human nature. They argue that without it society would crumble. I counter that society is largely NON-monogamous! Look at the rates of infidelity and the number of divorces based upon infidelity. What about the people who are not married and having sex with more than one person in a certain time frame? Are they not moral? I toss this back and forth for a while with a few other points to discount the argument so much they either give up or stand their ground in ignorance.

 

Then comes the religious debate. I point out where the bible clearly points out where its historical figures have MULTIPLE partners. I then ask them to show me where the bible states that you are not to have multiple partners. They hit me with the 7th commandment! "You shall not commit adultery!"

 

I have not really been able to overcome that one completely with anything other than logic, etymology and translation arguments. This probably takes the longest to work. 2000 years of recorded history and they still think the written word was the same then as it is today. At least I am able to put a little question in their minds.

 

We have a choice in every activity we engage in. That is the only thing I am certain of.

[lustylearning 705]

Oooh, I like this question! I read it to my husband, who answered, "We are sexual by nature. The expression of sexuality is made by choice." I agree with him, but would also answer the question in terms of world view.

 

I am a practicing swinger. I became a swinger because I finally came to the conclusion that sex is not love, and sex is not what makes marriage sacred, which means it's okay to share sex. In essence, my belief system was permanently altered from what it had been for 36+ years. So when you ask, will I always be a swinger, even if I'm not practicing? I would have to answer, yes. I think like a swinger, therefore I am one.

[Spoomonkey 421]

I also think this is an interesting question and tend to agree with lustylearnings' husband.

 

"We are sexual by nature. The expression of sexuality is made by choice."

 

Total nail-on-head action.

 

What I would add is that I don't think it comes down to a single person (in the best situations) within a couple, but the couple as a whole. Even if one S.O. were predisposed, without agreement (and similar predisposition) then swinging doesn't happen.

 

That probably only makes sense to me...

 

Spoomonkey

[drziggy 89]

Not all animals are like that. Wolves, Geese, Penguins are monogamous. I point out the rarity of monogamy in nature using their own words.

 

 

We have a choice in every activity we engage in. That is the only thing I am certain of.

 

I have to agree with all of the major points you made in your response. people outside of the swinging context find it very hard to understand why someone is 'allowed" to do something that they, themselves, secretly wish they could..

Now as for the monogamy of wolves, geese, and penguins...it isn't quite as straightforward as all that...Wolves mate monogamously for the mating season and tend to live in very small packs with a dominant male and 2 or more femles (you could say this is a polygamous exclusive relationship); geese again live in small flocks which doesn't allow for much choice, but males tend to form homosexual relationships with other males, females may interfere and the happy lot becomes a threesome: penguins, again, are seasonal maters, they stick with the same male/female pair only for the mating season...the following year is another story, if they find each other again they may do the breast to breast mating dance...

Cheers!

[Dave_kat 227]

 

When I state that we are animals like all others and are programmed to take multiple partners they toss back that we are cognizant.

 

 

I guess we should give up our subscription to the Darwin Awards.

 

Then comes the religious debate. I point out where the bible clearly points out where its historical figures have MULTIPLE partners. I then ask them to show me where the bible states that you are not to have multiple partners. They hit me with the 7th commandment! "You shall not commit adultery!"

 

I have not really been able to overcome that one completely with anything other than logic, etymology and translation arguments. This probably takes the longest to work. 2000 years of recorded history and they still think the written word was the same then as it is today. At least I am able to put a little question in their minds.

 

 

We'd simply point this out to them:

 

"Adultery is defined as having sex with someone other than your spouse... So let's re-legalize polygamy so it won't be adultery"

 

Another response would be:

 

"That works for christians and jews, what about those with other religions?"

 

Then of course we'd get the we're going to hell comment, and respond with, heck, might as well join the 75% of other couples of all religions who commit adultery and have some fun, assuming my religion even believes in hell.

 

It always has shut everyone up when we bring in the mention of other religions because they usually realize that not everyone believes the same things.

 

We'd just avoid the rest of the conversation where someone starts preaching the merits of their own religion.

 

But then there is always the old tried and true:

"You're taking advice from a pair of stone tablets from a book that has been translated 200 different ways from Sunday? Now explain to me this... Why does the 10th commandment go back and say "Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife?" It needed to be said twice, or did something get lost in transition?

[If_You_Please 81]

OK...a couple of things.

 

First. The idea that humans are innately not monogamous was one I held to for many years. I got to thinking though - their wouldn't be a cultural/religious institution like marriage and all of it's varieties if there wasn't a natural drive behind it. I did some reading and came across an interesting theory. Never being one to argue with solid logic, I now prescribe to it.

 

As homo sapiens evolved, two mutations were important in the development of our need for monogamy: our arms getting weaker and shorter and bipedal transportation. At some point, our offspring could no longer cling on to our necks and torsos with their arms and legs. The female now has to carry the offspring - she's now essentially defenseless to predators and at a diminished food-gathering capacity. The father becomes a necessary commodity for survival and so he sticks around...at least until the offspring can walk . Therefore, monogamy. The good thing about this is, the more couples together, the safer. I bet it got pretty chilly in those caves...and no TV to occupy ourselves...the same damn thing's on every cavedrawing, I've been surfing for hours...what to do?

 

I think this whole movement, including the revolution of the '60s, is a physical expression of evolutions opposite reaction. We've now dominated the planet, mostly thanks to this nifty gray goop betwixt my ears. No more predators (except each other...I'll get back to this) and food and shelter are readily available. The beauty of it, to me, is that right now to a large degree we still strive for monogamy of some kind. But every other couple and individual in the world is accessible. Gotta love living in the age of planes, trains, and automobiles. So we find others like ourselves, ones we like, ones we love, ones we use for that one great thing they do, and we all just enjoy it together.

 

 

 

 

Second. As far as rabid homosexuals, pedophiles, rapists, serial killers...any kind of sexually driven criminal there is: Once we, as a society, progress a little further down the path that all you good people are helping to tread, you'll find very quickly that without sexual abuse and sexual repression and the concept of sexual deviance those criminals simply disappear in a matter of generations.

 

 

I think that's all I have to add....Great Post JandorY, way to stir up some brain cells!

[Dave_kat 227]

As homo sapiens evolved, two mutations were important in the development of our need for monogamy: our arms getting weaker and shorter and bipedal transportation. At some point, our offspring could no longer cling on to our necks and torsos with their arms and legs. The female now has to carry the offspring - she's now essentially defenseless to predators and at a diminished food-gathering capacity. The father becomes a necessary commodity for survival and so he sticks around...at least until the offspring can walk . Therefore, monogamy. The good thing about this is, the more couples together, the safer.

 

I'd have to disagree with the conclusion of this leading to monogamy - although it would lead to the building of a society (tribe if you will). Keep a few guards on the caves and let the other males go hunting and you have accomplished the same sense of security.

 

Once the beginnings of tool working and woodworking and basket weaving came about, and the invention of the papoose (or whatever they called it, you know that backpack thingy to carry the child) and you're back to the women being able to tend the fields while the men hunted, and women could participate in their own defense as well.

 

What's funny is that the so-called cradle of civilization, over there in Iraq (Mesopotamia) is, and always has been, a polygamist society.

[MrsPandMe 150]

I think we're unfairly blurring the definition of monogamy. Nowhere in my vows to my wife did I swear never to have sex with other people. I vowed to be TRUE to my wife, but see now we're talking about truth vs. lies. If I went off an cheated on my wife, that would be a lie. If my wife and I go and have sex with other people in full notion and approval, we are still TRUE to each other.

 

I am in a monogamous relationship with my wife. She's my wife, and I do not wish that to change ever. Having sex with other people does not change the monogamous nature of our relationship any more then having lunch with other people does.

 

Paul