Is it in our nature?

[Professor_Zoom 15]

I've had this on my mind for a while now, but is being poly, and even swinging in our nature? Society says that you are only allowed to love one person. If a woman is sitting in the park with her two boyfriends and her two girlfriends, and she is openly affectionate with all of them, people will look at her like she the biggest slut, when in fact she loves each of them. I know people look at swingers and must think, "Oh my God, have these people done everything sexually possible, and the only way for them to get off now is to have sex with other people," when in fact it's something that they both enjoy and have an agreement about. I don't think that there is anything wrong with monogamy, but I do think that we limit ourselves. Just like homosexuality is natural. Some of us are, and some of us aren't. Then isn't it also in our nature to be polyamorous? Some of us are and some of us aren't. I expressed this to a friend of mine, and she told me that I'm just a cheating dog and that she feels sorry for whoever I date.

[turnuptheheat 98]

Could not agree more.

[Guest BamaRide]

Interesting.... There are but a few on the board that know me well enough to know enough about me to understand that I have had a considerable amount of religious training. In fact at one time that was my chosen vocation and why I had all that training.

 

My departure from the 'church' was not based on a loss of faith. But rather a realization that dogma was implemented by the 'church' to influence social order.

 

And so it is much so with religion and with social structures that for the order of things it is easier managed in pairs. Nothing says that is the natural order of things or normal.

[mnd7398 46]

I've had this on my mind for a while now, but is being poly, and even swinging in our nature? Society says that you are only allowed to love one person.

 

Monogamy and marriage are religious concepts. We could spend countless hours debating this. It is natural to be attracted to people we find physically or intellectually fascinating, man or woman. It is possible to love many people equally if not truly all of humanity. It is by no accident that making something that unites humanity is used to divide it.

[Rackir 159]

I think one can look at the incidence of infidelity to show that multiple sexual attractions are, if not the dominance, at least as "normal" as single person attraction.

 

As for polyamory, I think that the more people one really opens up too, the more people one will find themselves actually "loving" in a very deep and emotional way. However that process tends to be so involved that I think most people, once they have found a person that they can open up too like that, don’t bother going through that extreme and often painful process again with anyone else.

 

As for polyamory, I think that the more people one really opens up too, the more people one will find themselves actually "loving" in a very deep and emotional way. However that process tends to be so involved that I think most people, once they have found a person that they can open up too like that, don’t bother going through that extreme and often painful process again with anyone else.

 

But then I am posting while fairly inebriated, so I may be totally off base with this (or may very well be posting complete and utter nonsense).

[Guest BamaRide]

But then I am posting while fairly inebriated, so I may be totally off base with this (or may very well be posting complete and utter nonsense).

 

I"m with ya!!

 

BamaRide

[dumbasarock10 49]

Who's to say what is right and what is wrong? Or what is natural and unnatural? The same people with different opinions, no matter how strong, still breath the same air is you or I. If it's right and natural for you, then you and your partner are the only ones who deserve justification. Just make yourself happy. I constantly hear biased views and varying opinions on the topic and while I find the conversation entertaining at times, I owe them nothing by way of an explanation. I don't care for their approval. And neither should you. Just my thoughts. Although I am not drunk, I may be spouting as much nonsense as Rack' up there.

[gatorvol64 216]

My departure from the 'church' was not based on a loss of faith. But rather a realization that dogma was implemented by the 'church' to influence social order.BamaRide

 

Same for me. Along with the fact that the people who should be the least judgmental were actually the most.

 

So, what you are asking is...is non-monogamy in our nature? Right?

 

I have to say that yes, it certainly can be. Maybe even is period.

 

I do find it "natural" to find others attractive. Anyone who claims that they never find someone else other than their SO attractive is either lying or way to obsessed with the SO. What you do with that attraction is the point. Swinging, open marriages and polyamory are ways of admitting this attraction and dealing with it ethically.

 

I also find it "natural" to love many people. And most agree with that. They just limit romantic love to one person. And, just as above, if you find you love someone else, it is what you do with that love that matters.But I wonder at times how many people would still feel that loving more than one was the only way if they knew they were free to love more than one person at a time.

 

Now, I have not always believed some of this. Once I left the church and started thinking for myself some things changed. Swinging wasn't hard to do really. After all, I was sharing this with my husband. And I know sex doesn't have to include love. Knew that even as a Sunday school teacher and the wife of a deacon.

 

Now, sharing my husband with someone else emotionally wasn't easy. Loving one person at a time in much more ingrained by society I think. And you have much more of yourself invested in the process of love than just a physical act. You are vulnerable in many ways here.

 

Through my journey since 2005, through swinging and polyamory, I've learned that people are capable of more than the world will let them know they are. Can everyone get past what they have been taught even if they suddenly believed all this was in their nature? No. Absolutely not. Some won't be able to stand up to the work of relearning and some just will not want to. I was very happy in my marriage of 20 years. I have a different life now in many ways. But I am still happy in my marriage of 25 years. And if it came down to it, I could still be happy with just Gator in my life...sexually and romantically. It's all in the depth of my love for him and what we have come through in this world together.

 

While I could be happy in a monogamous relationship with Gator again, I will never again believe that is the only way.

 

Hmmm....so, I guess all that boils down to it depends on what you do with it. I think a lot of things can be in our nature. Whether good or bad. Certainly many bad things are done by people in the world. What you do with things you feel is the answer. No hurting others seems to be the answer.

 

Vol

[Shelia 15]

Good luck

Shelia

[Guest BamaRide]

Vol.... Well stated!

 

I know why your loved.. you have a beautiful mind dear.

[Shelia 15]

Beautiful minds make beautiful people

[sweet_tna 680]

I think we, as humans have the capacity for many things, polyamory and swinging among them. As Vol so eloquently stated, it's what we choose to DO about any inclinations we have that makes all the difference.

[Guest BamaRide]

Guess I will come back with how I really feel and 'sweet tna' touched on it. I believe that people are different each unique male female whatever... each of us the 'rules' are different for and we share with those most who's set of standards match our own closest. But we all are unique... Are we prone to the faithful pairing of a couple? Are we prone to giving ourselves to multiple partners... are we capible of loving more than one person??? YES!

 

We as a collective group are capable of many things and with each and every new person we are capable of more. Each unique, each different... The really neat thing? We have found a group of those things that make us close and have focused on those... not the differences... but what we share in common.

 

Why you all are wonderful!

[Chicup 41]

I am going to briefly get all evolutionary biology on you and state that for humans MONOGAMY (yes all caps) is the natural order.

 

Now before everyone gets up in arms, it is the natural order for a hunter gatherer people, which our genes are mostly adapted to.

 

It is also completely normal to have affairs without our partner's knowledge. Basically we are designed for one mate who we will cheat on.

 

Added while we are set up for one partner, that doesn't mean there isn't a desire for more, which is seen when there is a disparity of wealth and power.

 

Swinging is a way to have our cake and eat it to. It is satisfying our innate desire for affairs while maintaining our pair bond with our mate.

[Additude 457]

Swinging is a "concept", a different perception of the socially accepted process' of our societies fabric. While proven in our planets biology, monogamy is the default of those animals and species that do "mate for life". Humans have been subject to that concept of monogamy by religion, although biological scientists and anthropologists studying human evolution have a different belief about the promiscuity of the female gender, whose hard-wired sole responsibility within the species is the survival of the species. Hence the adaptation of the "Alpha Male" concept, where the alpha male is typically stronger and are the more aggressive males therefore considered more capable of survival. But alpha males do not typically make the best "providers". Some researchers believe that before the adaptation of the civilized world, the female was promiscuous.... bearing the child of the alpha male while being provided for by another male. Over the last couple of years there have been documentaries on Discovery Channel addressing this.

 

Anyway, my point is, that as long as swinging remains a small slice of society, it poses less of a threat to the social fabric. If swinging was socially accepted by all and common practice by all of society, then we have to ask what problems would exist from that type of social behavioral structure? Religion has addressed this by marriage and monogamy. So although we swingers see swinging as "our whole world" that works for us within the confines of our liberties, we are really just a very small slice and have minimal impact on the overall social structure. Personally, I think swinging would be a huge social problem if it was practiced by all. Not so much the swinging itself, but more so the derivatives of it in the forms of the concept of "Family Structure", Sexual Promiscuity by both male and female, what it would do to the institution of marriage, etc. Swinging works for us, because we know how to work with it. Not all people can do swinging.... but all can do monogamy. Religion protects that.

[CXXC 435]

Attitude

 

You make a great point regarding swinging and the family structure. I would have to say, as we are WELL BEYOND the need to propagate the species further, (the cause for a female to have multiple partners for the possibility of impregnation) the NEED for multiple partners is no longer viable.

 

However, the desire has not been bread out of us. Society, in all its glory, has made nearly every effort and attempt to squash the desire. Laws have been passed to prohibit such activities. Social standards have been set up, religious rules and regulations have been written and pushed down the throats of the congregations, The list goes on!

 

Is swinging, poly, open marriage in our make up? Yes. The necessity is no longer there, but the desire remains. We are creatures with self awareness. In that awareness we come equipped with a a pleasure center in our brains. Society attempts to regulate the activities regarding fulfilling that pleasure center.

 

Love is defined by the individual. The standard definition used by society is a general guide. Many in the lifestyle, detest labels and definitions to which others use for placing us in categories. Defining love as monogamous would be foolish. However, to make a society function as a whole, it becomes necessary to limit the expanse of our capabilities in order to govern. This is done through defining what is and is not acceptable behavior.

 

To love more than one person equally is unacceptable to those who are not capable. To share ones body with anyone other than your chosen S/O falls under the very same rule. Those who do not understand the mind set or the freedom that comes with enlightenment will look toward the lifestyle, poly, open marriages with disdain.

 

Inwardly, EVERYONE wishes to be with another. They may well have the closest relationship, best marriage, or find no other AS appealing to them as their S/O. However, in the heart of hearts, if they are honest, they will find that they too have this very same desire. They are hard coded with it.

 

Is poly hard coded? I dare say the ability is not. I would argue that it is only the individual and their ability to be so open that enables them to love, EQUALLY, another. In defense, I present the love of a parent. We all claim to love our children equally. We would be hard pressed to select one as the favorite when discussing t=our love with our children. However, if we were honest, we must admit, there is ONE who stands as the favorite.

 

Is it truly possible to love two or more equally and openly? I cannot say no. But I know that I am unable to. Many in both the lifestyle and the Vanilla world do not possess this ability. For us and for them, the scale tips to one side every time.

 

There you go. My .02 again.

[bbarnsworth 2,637]

I expressed this to a friend of mine, and she told me that I'm just a cheating dog and that she feels sorry for whoever I date.

 

The mere act of considering something from a philosophical standpoint makes you a cheating dog?

 

Ok, she's a closed minded weeble wobble swaying in the breeze of society and I feel sorry for whomever she dates.

[Rackir 159]

I am going to briefly get all evolutionary biology on you and state that for humans MONOGAMY (yes all caps) is the natural order.

Now before everyone gets up in arms, it is the natural order for a hunter gatherer people, which our genes are mostly adapted to.

It is also completely normal to have affairs without our partner's knowledge. Basically we are designed for one mate who we will cheat on.

Added while we are set up for one partner, that doesn't mean there isn't a desire for more, which is seen when there is a disparity of wealth and power.

Swinging is a way to have our cake and eat it to. It is satisfying our innate desire for affairs while maintaining our pair bond with our mate.

 

I thought that from an evolutionary biology standpoint that women were programmed to be monogamous while men were not.

 

The rationale being that women are limited in the number of offspring they can have. So women are biologically inclined to find the fittest member of the species they can find, and have as many children as it is possible for her to raise with that male.

 

Men on the other hand have no real limit to the number of offspring they can produce, so the best strategy for them to continue their line is to breed with as many women as possible.

 

But then of course one has to consider the fact that immediately (and for some time thereafter) after birth the children are extremely vulnerable and so there is an argument for the male staying with the mother until such time that the children can fend for themselves. Couple that with a woman’s biological to keep the fittest breeding partner with only her (to eliminate competition for her progeny) and you do have a pretty solid argument for biologically driven monogamy. It’s also a good bio basis for group living and settling as opposed to solitary roaming.

 

Of course I also believe that we have progressed so far from the biological impetuous that it is at this point almost nothing more than a point academic interest with almost (not quite none, but almost) no real relevance in today’s societies. Sure is fun to think about though.

[Chicup 41]

I thought that from an evolutionary biology standpoint that women were programmed to be monogamous while men were not.

 

The rationale being that women are limited in the number of offspring they can have. So women are biologically inclined to find the fittest member of the species they can find, and have as many children as it is possible for her to raise with that male.

 

Men on the other hand have no real limit to the number of offspring they can produce, so the best strategy for them to continue their line is to breed with as many women as possible.

 

That's the standard logic and its not quite true. Men are more apt to be promiscuous but women are programed to be choosy, not necessarily monogamous. Finding a good stable husband is important, but its NOT important that the children be his, only that he helps raise them. So for women who can't get a man of 'good genes' it pays to have an affair with them while cuckolding the husband. This is common in many previously thought of 'monogamous' species, and we have even developed counter strategies as men who's wives are away from his sight/control for a period of time will ejaculate more than men who are with their wives all the time. The reason is that if shes off having an affair you can 'swamp' out the genes. Likewise women who are having an affair are more likely to do so when ovulating and more likely to have an orgasm which aids in pregnancy.

 

One reason for seeing your wife with another man may be such a sexual turn on in the age of contraception, is that you have a much more powerful orgasm as a result of seeing her like that.

 

Of course I also believe that we have progressed so far from the biological impetuous that it is at this point almost nothing more than a point academic interest with almost (not quite none, but almost) no real relevance in today’s societies. Sure is fun to think about though.

 

We NEVER really escape our genes. The very reason we waste out time with sex is our genes. Based on studies done it has HUGE relevance to today's societies as there have been studies done where up to 20% of the children born are not born to the listed father.

 

The only real major difference is with effective birth control we can be more intellectual about it and embrace our natures without the most obvious negative consequence.

[ratimadan 75]

I've had this on my mind for a while now, but is being poly, and even swinging in our nature? Society says that you are only allowed to love one person. If a woman is sitting in the park with her ll.

 

We fully agree. It is in our (human brings) nature to be attracted to the opposite (and also same) sex. This does culminate in desire for sexual intercourse with the male or female.

 

Being poly is also a very natural state of affairs, though some couples do limit the love part to their own mate, husband/wife, or s.o. with good reason.

[Karmickiss 28]

ooooo...Good one...

 

I love this question, I've thought about it a lot. It's one of those, when I began reading the responses, there was so much in my mind at once, I had to just go to the original post, here, and reply from the heart. Then go back to read the rest. Everyone has such good points and ideas, that I could go in indefinitely, so will try and simplify..

 

For me, yes, it is in my nature. I like what Rackir said about deeply and truly loving, and the work and often pain to get to that level, might be a very good reason to limit this to one(or one at a time), or not limit. Those are my words, though, so if I missed the mark I take responsibility. I have had this thought(since I was really young), that why, if there were the "right" (minded) people, and the proper care and love in place for all, then why wouldn't it work, that we can love more than one. I felt like love could overcome jealousy, and that love if present, doesn't ever truly "leave anyone out".

 

I immediately faced resistance to this, and resistance to freely loving even in one primary relationship, according to my first model. I do tend to think fear of intimacy in general can add fuel to the fire. It was also in my nature to be bi-sexual, and there's a lot of resistance to that idea too...including in straight and gay populations. Like, straight people could say, I have some insatiable sex drive, and/or I'm not being true to myself. And in gay communities the other extreme is to see me as not fully committed, all the way and maybe less capable of love, or that I can't embrace the fact I'm really homosexual. There are so many variations to this, and additions on both sides that I'm truly simplifying.

 

I have heard the observation that I must be over-sexed, and the reason I want to swing, and by being bi...is b/c I cannot get enough sex, that I am unable of really "loving" one person. I grew up hearing this. But the act of sex of course can occur with or without love. However, I have said it here before, I was very much, deeply and madly in love with my late partner. I experienced this kind of love one other time. It was worth every tear, and every moment. He could not swing, and out of my love for him there was no resentment from me...I was fully satisfied, but being satisfied fully did not mean that I wouldn't have "gone there" with him, if he had been able. It did not threaten my love...and it was amazing, b/c I consider it is my nature to be able to love more than one, but b/c my love didn't share this, it was not seen as sacrifice by me to be with just him. I did not get bored, I did not feel cheated. The things that came out of that relationship has helped define who I am today.

 

It's love itself that dictates me, I'm volunteering for this:D I have always just gone with the natural flow of things around me. I think the purpose for my life probably has many factors, and I follow my heart. In the ideal world for me, there'd be no raised eye-brows. I believe in these karmic processes, that I define my reality and if I am only but open, to what my hearts telling me at the moment, there's no internal conflict. I know that over my life I've fit inside of many labeled categories, but for me, it's more like, "Oooh, that was interesting"...and rather than not making any commitments, I commit to love in general, and feel so blessed to have experienced what I have.

 

Ok. more than enough from me. I fear I wont do this the justice it deserves, b/c the subject to me is so wide...so personal, again... and thankfully, my nature I feel is one of love...and I feel like I'm constantly being surprised and awed by it's power, and just appreciate beauty in all it's forms and love in motion is wondrous to watch and be a part of.

[ncmd_couple 597]

Karmic,

 

I kept my true thoughts and feelings very carefully hidden because I knew that society would not understand. Of course, this has, over the years, made a rather reserved person and though I try very hard not to, I still keep my true thoughts to myself.

[little firefly 64]

Well, I'm a monogamous woman in a serious relationship with a swinger. I'll admit that yes I do notice when I see good looking men but in all honesty I've never had even the slightest desire to be touched by anyone but my NDN. I've never felt limited or that I've been missing out on anything (we have a very good sex life). For me it has nothing to do with religious beliefs and such, I'm just naturally monogamous I suppose. Monogamy is comforting to me (for lack of a better way to explain it, lol). I don't crave the variety of being with others the way that NDN does. I guess It's a bit weird that I have no sexual desire for anyone but NDN but that's part of what makes me "me"

[Chicup 41]

Well, I'm a monogamous woman in a serious relationship with a swinger. I'll admit that yes I do notice when I see good looking men but in all honesty I've never had even the slightest desire to be touched by anyone but my NDN. I've never felt limited or that I've been missing out on anything (we have a very good sex life). For me it has nothing to do with religious beliefs and such, I'm just naturally monogamous I suppose. Monogamy is comforting to me (for lack of a better way to explain it, lol). I don't crave the variety of being with others the way that NDN does. I guess It's a bit weird that I have no sexual desire for anyone but NDN but that's part of what makes me "me"

 

Give it 10 years

[little firefly 64]

Give it 10 years

 

lol...nah, I don't think so. I was actually married 15 years and was monogamous throughout the relationship without ever having a desire for anyone else but him. We divorced when we found ourselves wanting different things out of life (our sex life was never an issue though)...I guess I'm just a strange breed, but that's ok, I like being strange

[SheLovesTheSun 40]

If it's what you want, it's what you want. Not everyone will like it or agree with it. If your partner wants a monogamous relationship, you're probably won't be able to change his/her mind. If your partner wouldn't mind (heck, maybe wants to go for) a polyamorous relationship, the you're good to go!

 

I don't know about being monogamous or polyamorous being in our nature. I can see both sides. I think it's about choice. Some will choose monogamy, some will choose polyamory; either way, all involved should not be forced into a decision they don't want.

[Guycurious 39]

Male here. My wife and I have been involved with the lifestyle for several years now. It was easy for me, a struggle for her. I've always been able to separate sex from intimacy. Sex is a physical act that makes two (or more) people feel good. Intimacy is shared with my wife.

 

These days I am curious about polyamory. It seems natural to be able to share a physical and emotional attraction to others. Maybe it's my bisexuality that leads me in this direction.

 

I've started doing some research, joined a few online groups. My wife struggled to accept swinging into our lives, I'm not sure how this new found part of me will sit with her. But if I'm not being true to myself, then I'm not being who I really am.

[Kristyhensley20 15]

Hi. I also just found my way into this way of life and was a Sunday school teacher. Some of the things you mentioned struck a cord with me as I also have found I don't feel guilty as long as my spouse is involved and no one is being hurt. Would love to chat with you.

[love2dp 52]

I want a poly situation big time. I'd love to have it where I am one of two or even three males with one, or two women as our ladies. Our girlfriends. We all share intimacy with the women. I need my loving, but I also need my time alone. I can't dedicate enough time to a relationship myself. Not now. I want to get my business going. There is no time for a regular relationship. I'll make time to a certain degree, but without dedication to my business it will never get off the ground. But I still want a relationship with a female. I don't want or need to be tied down. Swinging is for fun. Poly would be for a serious relationship situation. More incomes to cover all involved. With multiple incomes we could have a HUGE home with many bedrooms to play in. Oh my I could go on and on.