Are swingers still monogamous?

[DnM69 70]

I have been reading an article based on a survey that asked swingers if they thought were monogamous.

 

At first I thought it was a silly question as swingers by definition are having sex with people outside of their relationship. But the more I thought about it the more it thought that maybe a swinging relationship is still monogamous.

 

My reasoning is that you are still in a relationship with one person, and as a swinger you have a very different point of view on sex and what it means emotionally.

 

As a successful swinger you have to be able to separate sex from emotion and attachment, having sex with someone at a club is purely a physical interaction similar to a vanilla friend giving you a hug or a kiss on the cheek, well maybe it's not that simple but close.

 

Our relationship is based on an emotional level and we don't share that with anyone else, if we did we would then be in a poly relationship.

 

So does anyone else share this opinion or am I slightly crazy for thinking that even though I have sex with others I am still in a monogamous relationship? after all it is only a physical interaction with another person.

 

Maybe we should be classed as social monogamy not sexual monogamy.

[sunbuckus 3,567]

As someone else coined this phrase--it is emotional monogamy.

[angelkin 1,326]

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a vanilla friend some time ago. I said that we as swingers define our own "monogamy", of course she argued that we were not monogamous - which I guess in the purest sense of the word is true...but I've always felt differently about it.

[mauijanedoe 1,414]

Swinging doesn't fit the technical definition of monogamy, but I think it's fair to say that many of us are emotionally monogamous. As swingers, ideally we operate within a tight pair bond and we have sex with others. I don't know how (or why) you'd try to explain that to non-swingers, but it makes sense to me.

[D&D 362]

I have been reading and article based on a survey that asked swingers if they thought were Monogamous.

 

At first I thought it was a silly question as swingers by definition are having sex with people outside of their relationship. But the more I thought about it the more it thought that maybe a swinging relationship is still monogamous.

 

My reasoning is that you are still in a relationship with one person, and as a swinger you have a very different point of view on sex and what it means emotionally.

 

As a successful swinger you have to be able to separate sex from emotion and attachment, having sex with someone at a club is purely a physical interaction similar to a vanilla friend giving you a hug or a kiss on the cheek, well maybe its not that simple but close.

 

Our relationship is based on an emotional level and we don't share that with anyone else, if we did we would then be in a poly relationship.

 

So does anyone else share this opinion or am I slightly crazy for thinking that even though I have sex with others I am still in a monogamous relationship? after all it is only a physical interaction with another person.

 

Maybe we should be classed as social monogamy not sexual monogamy.

 

I think this oversimplified. There is always emotional content to every swing. It's not like swing sex is robot/zombie sex. That wouldn't be very enjoyable at all! It's like comparing sex with my wife to sex with others; Sex with my wife is different than sex with others, it's still sex. The emotions we feel when swinging are still emotions just different emotions. Swingers are not emotionally monogamous any more than we are sexually monogamous. Perhaps swingers can separate love and commitment from other emotions like lust and desire but those are emotions nonetheless.

 

Recognition that emotions play a significant part in any swing experience doesn't mean that you are Poly.... It just means you recognize that emotions play a role.

[Coupleerotic22 1,419]

Ahhh, the favorite American past time of word parsing. I'll join.

 

We do not consider ourselves monogamous, but we do believe we maintain our love for and our fidelity to each other. I am sure most non-swingers would not agree.

[funcoupledayton 2,708]

Dan Savage calls it Monogamish. Basically, it means appearing monogamous to the outside world but having freedoms with agreed upon boundaries within your relationship that allow for some forms of outside sexual contact.

[mauijanedoe 1,414]

Dan Savage calls it Monogamish. Basically, it means appearing monogamous to the outside world but having freedoms with agreed upon boundaries within your relationship that allow for some forms of outside sexual contact.

 

I love that term, but it doesn't really apply to swingers, most of whom by definition are decidedly not monogamous in a sexual sense. Monogamish, unless it has morphed in the last few years since he coined the term, describes a couple I know who are allowed to kiss, cuddle and do whatever with their clothes on, or another (lesbian) couple who allow themselves the occasional fmf but would consider sex with other women cheating or another that is monogamous except on their occasional trips to either Desire or Hedo (I can't remember which).

[funcoupledayton 2,708]

I love that term, but it doesn't really apply to swingers, most of whom by definition are decidedly not monogamous in a sexual sense. Monogamish, unless it has morphed in the last few years since he coined the term, describes a couple I know who are allowed to kiss, cuddle and do whatever with their clothes on, or another (lesbian) couple who allow themselves the occasional fmf but would consider sex with other women cheating or another that is monogamous except on their occasional trips to either Desire or Hedo (I can't remember which).

 

No, he uses it to describe swingers and people with discreet open relationships as well.

[sunbuckus 3,567]

I think this oversimplified. There is always emotional content to every swing. It's not like swing sex is robot/zombie sex. That wouldn't be very enjoyable at all! It's like comparing sex with my wife to sex with others; Sex with my wife is different than sex with others, it's still sex. The emotions we feel when swinging are still emotions just different emotions. Swingers are not emotionally monogamous any more than we are sexually monogamous. Perhaps swingers can separate love and commitment from other emotions like lust and desire but those are emotions nonetheless.

 

Recognition that emotions play a significant part in any swing experience doesn't mean that you are Poly.... It just means you recognize that emotions play a role.

 

Perhaps you might be more satisfied with romantically monogamous?

[Chicup 41]

Once you separate sex from love and sex from procreation, the concept of monogamy becomes rather fuzzy.

 

There is only one woman I love like my wife. We don't make love, we have been doing it to long to thing our love is coming from genital friction, we simply love each other. That makes us monogamous in the classical definition of the word, I have one spouse.

 

We are not sexually monogamous, but so are about 1/4 of all Americans, so I'm not going to worry.

[D&D 362]

"Perhaps you might be more satisfied with romantically monogamous?"

 

I can understand where you are coming from and I get your and the OP's point. I just don't see the need to redefine the term. It comes across as "monogamy envy". Like a justification, "I'm monogamous like you, just in a different way.... In fact I'm monogamous in the most important way--- emotionally or romantically." Swingers aren't monogamous and there isn't anything wrong with that! Monogamy isn't a higher form of love or moral fiber.

 

I'm non-monogamous- I still love my wife as much and perhaps more than what I did when we were monogamous. (I don't really know how to quantify or compare love at different life stages) I also love having sex with other women. The sex between my wife and I is different than the sex between the other women and I. Likewise, the emotions we all feel towards each other are different. That one woman elicits a particular and unique kind of emotional response from me doesn't make me monogamous. That emotional response makes me "in love" with her and not in love with the other women. If you want to use a euphemism for swinging call it "ethical non-monogamy"

[sunbuckus 3,567]

"Perhaps you might be more satisfied with romantically monogamous?"

 

I can understand where you are coming from and I get your and the OP's point. I just don't see the need to redefine the term. It comes across as "monogamy envy". Like a justification, "I'm monogamous like you, just in a different way.... In fact I'm monogamous in the most important way--- emotionally or romantically." Swingers aren't monogamous and there isn't anything wrong with that! Monogamy isn't a higher form of love or moral fiber.

 

I'm non-monogamous- I still love my wife as much and perhaps more than what I did when we were monogamous. (I don't really know how to quantify or compare love at different life stages) I also love having sex with other women. The sex between my wife and I is different than the sex between the other women and I. Likewise, the emotions we all feel towards each other are different. That one woman elicits a particular and unique kind of emotional response from me doesn't make me monogamous. That emotional response makes me "in love" with her and not in love with the other women. If you want to use a euphemism for swinging call it "ethical non-monogamy"

 

I know what you mean and some people are like that. However, I didn't see the OP as coming across that way and I'm certainly not monogamy envious. I thought it was more of a simplification of how to easily term what the majority of swingers do to someone is vanilla or doesn't understand the difference between swingers and poly.

[Gordo 618]

Monogamy actually means this: "state or practice of having only one husband or wife over a period of time" so it really has nothing to do with sex unless you take into account an unspoken assumption that you only have sex with your spouse.

 

You might also notice the time factor is not defined so I can be monogamous with my wife, monogamous with someone else's wife for an hour or so and back to monogamy with my wife again

 

Based on that I would answer we are monogamous. In fact we are "Serial Monogamists"

[D&D 362]

Monogamy actually means this: "state or practice of having only one husband or wife over a period of time " so it really has nothing to do with sex unless you take into account an unspoken assumption that you only have sex with your spouse.

 

You might also notice the time factor is not defined so I can be monogamous with my wife, monogamous with someone else's wife for an hour or so and back to monogamy with my wife again

 

Based on that I would answer we are monogamous. In fact we are "Serial Monogamists"

 

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not...

 

This is an empty definition. If this is what you mean by monogamy then the only times you aren't having a monogamous relationship is when you are having sex with multiple partners simultaneously or you aren't in a relationship at all. The vast majority of polygamists are monogamous under this definition.

 

Secondly the term serial monogamy comes from the sociologist Margaret Mead and doesn't mean what you think it means. She invented the term to refer to having multiple long term relationships over the course of ones life. It does not refer to a series of one night stands or one on one encounters.

[D&D 362]

I know what you mean and some people are like that. However, I didn't see the OP as coming across that way and I'm certainly not monogamy envious. I thought it was more of a simplification of how to easily term what the majority of swingers do to someone is vanilla or doesn't understand the difference between swingers and poly.

 

I understood that to be your intent.

 

I just don't think its helpful to explain it that way to non-swingers. It's better not to allow the implied negative judgement that monogamy is better. When what is really better is being honest and true with our spouses.

[Gordo 618]

I can't tell if this post is sarcastic or not.....

 

This is an empty definition. If this is what you mean by monogamy then the only times you aren't having a monogamous relationship is when you are having sex with multiple partners simultaneously or you aren't in a relationship at all. The vast majority of polygamists are monogamous under this definition.

 

Secondly the term serial monogamy comes from the sociologist Margaret Mead and doesn't mean what you think it means. She invented the term to refer to having multiple long term relationships over the course of ones life. It does not refer to a series of one night stands or one on one encounters.

 

You need to work on your sense of humour.

 

And it's you that doesn't understand the term monogamy. It doesn't come from Mead rather:

 

"monogamy

 

1610s, from Fr. monogamie, from L.L. monogamia, from Gk. monogamia, from monogamos "marrying only once," from monos "single, alone" + gamos "marriage."

 

It has roots in ancient french and greek and the definition I posted comes STRAIGHT from the dictionary!

[sunbuckus 3,567]

I just don't think its helpful to explain it that way to non-swingers. It's better not to allow the implied negative judgement that monogamy is better. When what is really better is being honest and true with our spouses.

 

That's a good point but although it's reasonable to be presumptive that most people value monogamy in a relationship it's not always the case. Either way, I think it could be a good starting point for others to consider that monogamy isn't just about sexual fidelity and broaden their views.

[Chicup 41]

I can understand where you are coming from and I get your and the OP's point. I just don't see the need to redefine the term. It comes across as "monogamy envy".

 

I have to disagree with this idea. Maybe it comes across as monogamy envy to you but that's your take on it. I don't feel any need to claim to be monogamous, in fact I never thought of it until this thread, its a non-issue. By definition we are monogamous, by "biological" stance we are not but they only think of it in terms of procreation, something we are not doing in swinging.

 

Now from a knee jerk societal reaction we are non-monogamous, but then again society is generally full of average people with average intelligence who don't know the actual meaning of many words they use. Their take would be "YOU FUCK OTHER PEOPLE, HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU ARE MONOGAMOUS!" and my take would be "Look up the word.".

[D&D 362]

I have to disagree with this idea. Maybe it comes across as monogamy envy to you but that's your take on it. I don't feel any need to claim to be monogamous, in fact I never thought of it until this thread, its a non-issue. By definition we are monogamous, by "biological" stance we are not but they only think of it in terms of procreation, something we are not doing in swinging.

 

Now from a knee jerk societal reaction we are non-monogamous, but then again society is generally full of average people with average intelligence who don't know the actual meaning of many words they use. Their take would be "YOU FUCK OTHER PEOPLE, HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU ARE MONOGAMOUS!" and my take would be "Look up the word.".

 

The intention was not to get into a game of semantics. You can define or use the term monogamy however you like. The point was that when talking to a non-swinger the term has a certain meaning. The OP's use of the term emotional monogamy is playing off the common/colloquial meaning of monogamy, i.e. I'm not sexually monogamous but I am emotionally monogamous. Secondly my use of the term "monogamy envy " wasn't insinuating that anybody was jealous of those who are monogamous. It was meant to highlight that using terms like emotional or romantic monogamy are attempts to convey the moral status that monogamy has to swinging. Swinger "monogamy envy" isn't rooted in the actual monogamy vs non-monogamy rather it's that one has a moral status in society the other doesn't. That is why the OP, Dan Savage, and others continue to use the term in the way they do. They are relying on the common vernacular and not a literal reading of Merriam-Webster to try to explain/justify their actions.

 

Again my point wasn't a semantical one about how to define monogamy! I did not correct or redefine monogamy for either the OP or Sunbuckus.

[D&D 362]

You need to work on your sense of humor.

 

And it's you that doesn't understand the term monogamy. It doesn't come from Mead rather:

 

"monogamy

 

1610s, from Fr. monogamie, from L.L. monogamia, from Gk. monogamia, from monogamos "marrying only once," from monos "single, alone" + gamos "marriage."

 

It has roots in ancient French and Greek and the definition I posted comes STRAIGHT from the dictionary!

 

I do need to work on my humor.... That's why I prefaced my post.

 

I think you need to re-read my post: I never said the term monogamy came from Margaret Mead rather I said the term "serial monogamy" came from the sociologist Margaret Mead... Maybe you need to work on your reading like I need to work on my humor. :-)

[DnM69 70]

I never intended to come across as having "monogamy envy". In fact I considered myself non monogamous until reading that article. Then I formed a different opinion, Monogamy is defined by the boundaries of your relationship and your own personal definition of the word not necessarily what the dictionary defines it as being.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

I have been reading and article based on a survey that asked swingers if they thought were Monogamous.

 

At first I thought it was a silly question as swingers by definition are having sex with people outside of their relationship. But the more I thought about it the more it thought that maybe a swinging relationship is still monogamous.

 

I'd be interested in seeing this article and survey, do you have a link? I think it's an interesting discussion overall. I agree with the idea what most swingers experience is actually emotional monogamy, but in the end it's all semantics and it doesn't really matter much as long as you understand your own beliefs behind whatever term you choose to use.

[Rlrose 5]

On 9/21/2013 at 7:36 PM, DnM69 said:

I have been reading an article based on a survey that asked swingers if they thought were monogamous.

 

At first I thought it was a silly question as swingers by definition are having sex with people outside of their relationship. But the more I thought about it the more it thought that maybe a swinging relationship is still monogamous.

 

My reasoning is that you are still in a relationship with one person, and as a swinger you have a very different point of view on sex and what it means emotionally.

 

As a successful swinger you have to be able to separate sex from emotion and attachment, having sex with someone at a club is purely a physical interaction similar to a vanilla friend giving you a hug or a kiss on the cheek, well maybe it's not that simple but close.

 

Our relationship is based on an emotional level and we don't share that with anyone else, if we did we would then be in a poly relationship.

 

So does anyone else share this opinion or am I slightly crazy for thinking that even though I have sex with others I am still in a monogamous relationship? after all it is only a physical interaction with another person.

 

Maybe we should be classed as social monogamy not sexual monogamy.

That makes complete sense to me. I could never feel, emotionally, The way I feel for my husband. Besides, sls is not cheating in my opinion so, yes I am monogamous!

[adamgunn 1,460]

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: 

Definition of monogamy

1a: the state or practice of having only one sexual partner at a time

[RockNCpl 71]

On 10/30/2020 at 8:24 PM, adamgunn said:

From the Merriam-Webster dictionary: 

Definition of monogamy

1a: the state or practice of having only one sexual partner at a time

Based on that definition, we would still be considered monogamous as long as we are only sleeping with 1 partner at a time. Even if we are swapping in the same bed and there is no interaction between the 2 sexual pairings, it is still monogamous bc you would only behaving sex with 1 person.  If there were 10 couples and they all swapped partners, this would still apply, even if eveyone swapped a second time, then a third..as long as the was no interaction between pairings. Even if every pairing was right next to each other, you would still only have 1 sexual partner at that given moment. 

 

That view is based on the fact that "time" is a loose and general term without having a actual time window. 

 

Now, if there is a threeway (or bigger) in action, that goes out the window. 

 

But, I could be totally wrong....Mrs R and I still consider ourselves new to the LS......?

[adamgunn 1,460]

RockNCpl, oh come now . . .

[discreetplay 235]

I always find the grouping of people interesting. Why are people grouped? If you watch the news or listen to the elected morons everyone belongs to a group. A person isn't allowed to be themselves, they are part of a group. Once put in a group by some loudmouth fool, they must do as the group does. Absurd.

 

Is a man/woman who hits the bars a few times a month and sleeps with people they just met, people they know, whoever defined as a "swinger"? What if a boyfriend and girlfriend do this, are they swingers? Sure, group them as "swingers" so wackos can demonize them for their impure choices! 

 

The copied dictionary definition is sad. Is a swinger "monogamous"? Why does it matter? 

[RockNCpl 71]

1 hour ago, adamgunn said:

RockNCpl, oh come now . . .

Getting to technical? ?

[lcmim 1,082]

Well I guess my highschool Greek teacher was wrong. I finally would find a practical use for studying it. This is something he said would never happen and we should just learn it for the joy of it. (It was fun.)

 

mono = one or once  gameo = to wed

 

Monogamy in our view has every thing to do with marriage and nothing to to with who puts what where  in terms of genitals.

 

My wife has first place, my love, my loyalty and my trust, and a shared life, and I hers in each area. We are married to each other, bound in a fashion that is for most of us all there is. I say most of us because I know of poly families in which the marriage extends to more than one other person.

 

Playmates are something we have gifted each other. Lord knows there may even be love between some of us and a playmate, but there is not marriage. Everyone is perfectly clear about that.

 

People get confused when they equate sexual exclusivity as an essential component of all marriages. There are times when it is practical, for instance while building a family. Even then it is not absolutely essential.