Swinging vs Monogamy.

[Mbgdallas 203]

Reading the posts about "how bad swinging is for relationships" got me to thinking.

 

I think we can agree that "swinging" or the "lifestyle" is not for couples unless they have an extremely strong relationship and good communication. As such, what does the lifestyle add to such a great relationship? Are couples looking for something that is missing from their relationship? If so, is that relationship strong?

 

Not questioning the lifestyle. Just curious about the answer.

[MrDiscover 802]

I think it is. For me it is not a question of weak vs. strong. Something that is already strong can become stronger.

 

If you like to add an extra deep level of love and commitment (that is what it is doing for us), it does not mean such level was not there at all. There was no problem, nothing to fix. Something great became even better.

[kikonkrome 844]

It let's you 'borrow' your wife's toothbrush when the airline loses your bag for a couple of days, after all we have shared more intimate things at this point!! True story...also used her razor and deodorant...strong enough for a man as the ad goes.

 

The lifestyle certainly opens up the lines even more in the communication sphere. It let's you talk about the 0.1% that you really don't talk about with other people and keep to yourself. Not only is she open to discuss her vulnerabilities but so am I. There is more acceptance about what we have. We know each of us isn't perfect, but we also look out for the best interests of the other regardless.

[Lionheart72 2,191]

I think we can agree that "swinging" or the "lifestyle" is not for couples unless they have an extremely strong relationship and good communication. As such, what does the lifestyle add to such a great relationship? Are couples looking for something that is missing from their relationship? If so, is that relationship strong?

 

Speaking solely from my point of view, what the lifestyle adds is that it's fun. If something is missing that something is the ability to magically duplicate myself and fuck my wife from both ends simultaneously. I'm pretty sure that doesn't represent a weakness in our relationship.

 

Seriously, the lifestyle is a fun, shared experience. It is also a framework, for my wife and I, to acknowledge and explore the fact that we simply aren't monogamous. For us, sex is a fun physical activity which can be shared with other people. It doesn't mean we love each other any less or that we're looking for something we can't find in our marriage (except the aforementioned third).

[bbarnsworth 2,652]

I see many relationships where guys feel they can share stuff with me, but can't share it with their wives. Wait, WHAT? You can't share this with the person you've sworn to be with for the rest of your life? The person you spend an incredible amount of your life with? Mind boggling.

 

Swinger relationships that I've had the pleasure of seeing do not share this trait. They are completely open with each other, and with that complete openness comes a greater, deeper sense of love. A complete intimacy, if you will. That to me is one of the greatest things it brings to marriages.

[MrDiscover 802]

Never thought about that, bbarnsworth. But even with our limited experience in the LS, we can confirm this!

[Alura 2,775]

Mbgdallas said:

I think we can agree that "swinging" or the "lifestyle" is not for couples unless they have an extremely strong relationship and good communication. As such, what does the lifestyle add to such a great relationship? Are couples looking for something that is missing from their relationship? If so, is that relationship strong?

 

The "Why?" question was probably the most important (to us) reason that Laura and I chose to write a book about swinging. We hoped to explain why a couple who were deliriously happy with their relationship together would choose to include others. The answer we settled upon was surprisingly simple.

 

Both of us were sexually active for some time prior to our meeting and had experienced a number of partners. Our communication seemed total at the start. The feeling soon changed to love. Our sex together became an expression of our love for each other to the point that, even if the act began in fun, it quickly became an expression of love. We both longed for that carefree feeling that "fucking for fun" offered. Eventually, after trying several alternatives, we found we could recapture that feeling with people we didn't love.

 

That, in turn, allowed us to have fun, laughing, joking, making punny remarks, with each other, something we'd learned with other people. Still, our sex acts together always seemed to end with an overwhelming feeling of love for each other.

 

Swinging didn't fill a void that we couldn't have lived without, but it surely added a welcome aspect of fun that we might not have otherwise discovered.

[couplers 4,724]

My take is that humans are not inherently monogamous. Some have been whipped into it by society's expectations, some cheat, some divorce. Overall, a sad state of affairs. We here (swingers, polyamorists, whatever) have come to a responsible way of dealing with that and keeping everybody happy.

[GuyInMD79 1,500]

We did have very good communication between us (we had been friends/lovers/married for a total of 35 years before we started swinging). But we found a new depth and level of sharing when we entered the lifestyle.

 

Honestly, I think there may have been something missing for us, or at least diminished a little, before we started swinging. I think every couple has cycles, ebbs and flows in different aspects of their relationship. We had, in recent years, each had our "adventure" activities- hers was competitive equestrian activity (riding dressage, to be specific), while mine was piloting small airplanes (specifically, flying an aerobatic airplane in competition). We each enjoyed our respective activities, and supported each other, but these were not activities that we directly shared together. When we each drifted out of active participation in these activities, we were missing the fun and adventure of those things, but also were hungry for a way to share some fun and adventure together.

 

Over the past year and change, we have enjoyed swinging as a part of a general sexual reawakening we have had together! We were strong before, and we are even stronger now!

[Lionheart72 2,191]

My take is that humans are not inherently monogamous. Some have been whipped into it by society's expectations, some cheat, some divorce. Overall, a sad state of affairs. We here (swingers, polyamorists, whatever) have come to a responsible way of dealing with that and keeping everybody happy.

 

It is my understanding that anthropology tends to agree that humans do not pair-bond in the same way some other animal species do. However, my personal experience suggests that - as with sexual orientation - humans tend to fall along a spectrum. Some people are actually entirely monogamous. Others are entirely polyamorous. Most fall somewhere in the vast in-between. I actually have a friend who has proposed a "scale" of monogamy/polyamory akin to the Kinsey scale of homosexual/heterosexual.

[Mbgdallas 203]

It is my understanding that anthropology tends to agree that humans do not pair-bond in the same way some other animal species do. However, my personal experience suggests that - as with sexual orientation - humans tend to fall along a spectrum. Some people are actually entirely monogamous. Others are entirely polyamorous. Most fall somewhere in the vast in-between. I actually have a friend who has proposed a "scale" of monogamy/polyamory akin to the Kinsey scale of homosexual/heterosexual.

 

Interesting take. Is it societal demands that make people monogamous or desire to be monogamous from your personal experience.

[Lionheart72 2,191]

Mbgdallas said:

Interesting take. Is it societal demands that make people monogamous or desire to be monogamous from your personal experience.

 

The people I know who are strictly monogamous, I think that's just who they are. No one's rules forced them into that mindset. They have no objection to other people being non-monogamous, they simply know that it wouldn't work for them.

[couplers 4,724]

couplers said:

My take is that humans are not inherently monogamous. Some have been whipped into it by society's expectations, some cheat, some divorce. Overall, a sad state of affairs. We here (swingers, polyamorists, whatever) have come to a responsible way of dealing with that and keeping everybody happy.

 

Lionheart72 said:

It is my understanding that anthropology tends to agree that humans do not pair-bond in the same way some other animal species do. However, my personal experience suggests that - as with sexual orientation - humans tend to fall along a spectrum. Some people are actually entirely monogamous. Others are entirely polyamorous. Most fall somewhere in the vast in-between. I actually have a friend who has proposed a "scale" of monogamy/polyamory akin to the Kinsey scale of homosexual/heterosexual.

 

Until I read a recent article, that is what I thought as well, that some species are monogamous. What the article said, however, was that when some researchers were genetically studying a thoroughly monogamous species for other reasons, they found that about 10% of the pair's offspring were not the male's. Further study led to the conclusion that these species were "socially" monogamous - they had sex outside their pair, but didn't split. So those "socially monogamous" species are actually like us here on the Swingers Board, play around but stick together.

 

Perhaps some people/couples are genuinely sexually monogamous, but a most I believe are conforming to society's expectations, are afraid to talk about it let alone do it, or like many things nowadays, are just too damn lazy to get up off the couch.

[Lionheart72 2,191]

Perhaps some people/couples are genuinely sexually monogamous, but a most I believe are conforming to society's expectations, are afraid to talk about it let alone do it, or like many things nowadays, are just too damn lazy to get up off the couch.

 

For some reason my head just went to a line from the 2004 remake of The Stepford Wives - "Before I came on this show I only had sex with one man, and that was usually Hank."

[econobiker 165]

Interesting take. Is it societal demands that make people monogamous or desire to be monogamous from your personal experience.

 

Sexual desire level differences play in to it also in my view.

Supporting your partner with his/her choice of ~hobbies~ even if it WASN'T the lifestyle either.

 

Emotional versus physical intimacy and monogamy.

[GoldCoCouple 4,068]

Since successful couples already have a much better than normal relationship, what this adds is the sprinkles on top of the ice cream sundae. While not necessarily needed, it takes something that is already great and pushes it over the top.

[couplers 4,724]

I see many relationships where guys feel they can share stuff with me, but can't share it with their wives. Wait, WHAT? You can't share this with the person you've sworn to be with for the rest of your life? The person you spend an incredible amount of your life with? Mind boggling...

 

Agree 100%. I've had friends (women friends) ask me, "Should I tell my fiancé/husband that...?" Usually it is completed with something sexual like had a threesome, had dozens of sex partners, am bi, really like what some other guy did to me, etc. I always say that if you can't share it with him, someone who is supposed to be your most intimate and life partner, then reevaluate your relationship! Not only should you be able to and actually share it with him, he should be happy and take joy where you took joy, and be happy to learn so as not to repeat something you didn't like.

[intuition897 2,179]

I have thought about this, too, after discussions with my friend, who is (for now at least) naturally monogamous. She tried swinging with her husband with disastrous results.

 

I don't believe we are naturally geared for monogamy, from a strictly biological standpoint. Our bodies were designed to want other bodies, period. Sure we get the warm-fuzzy hormone, oxytocin, which causes us to want to pair-bond, but the fact that we still want outside partners doesn't go away. "Yes," the nay-sayers say, "But we are not animals, we can choose to rise above that sinful shit." To that I say...whatever! Do whatever you want to do, whatever you can live with. It's a simple physical act. Yes! Animals do it! They don't put much thought into it, they just do it. Likewise, the act, when we do it, has no meaning aside from what we ourselves have created for it. Whatever meaning it has to us is self-created. For those who were brought up in a culture that put monogamy up on a pedestal as something sacred, as the ultimate expression of how much you love your spouse - enough to essentially cut off a piece of yourself for their sake - if you find this truly beautiful, monogamy is probably the choice for you. If, like me, you were also brought up in this culture, and it just never took, and you found yourself having to fight against it every step of the way, while something in you was saying, "OMG, this is so stupid! I just want to have fun! I'm not trying to hurt anyone and I don't mean any disrespect."...then maybe it's time to reevaluate your relationship style.

 

It's so hard to explain to vanilla people, because our concepts are so SOOO foreign to them. They can't get far enough past being offended to gain any understanding of it. If they could just let that shit go, and humour us, we could try to explain how/why this works. But no, they get their panties all in a wad about it.

 

We don't have to be monogamous, so we aren't. We are able to do what we do without hurting ourselves, one another, or other people. It is just illogical to say no to positive experiences when we know with such certainty that the risks involved are almost nil. And it feels wrong to deny one another those pleasures, and the memories they make, for no good reason except, "Well they say it's wrong." Who the hell is "they"? And what "they" care? I don't recall them standing there, saying our vows with us. This is OUR marriage, and we do what we want.

[benawyl 35]

Alura said:

The "Why?" question was probably the most important (to us) reason that Laura and I chose to write a book about swinging. We hoped to explain why a couple who were deliriously happy with their relationship together would choose to include others. The answer we settled upon was surprisingly simple.

 

Both of us were sexually active for some time prior to our meeting and had experienced a number of partners. Our communication seemed total at the start. The feeling soon changed to love. Our sex together became an expression of our love for each other to the point that, even if the act began in fun, it quickly became an expression of love. We both longed for that carefree feeling that "fucking for fun" offered. Eventually, after trying several alternatives, we found we could recapture that feeling with people we didn't love.

 

That, in turn, allowed us to have fun, laughing, joking, making punny remarks, with each other, something we'd learned with other people. Still, our sex acts together always seemed to end with an overwhelming feeling of love for each other.

 

Swinging didn't fill a void that we couldn't have lived without, but it surely added a welcome aspect of fun that we might not have otherwise discovered.

 

Wow I just can't relate to that. I fuck for fun with every woman I'm with every time.

 

Can you describe what you mean a little more clearly?

[intuition897 2,179]

Wow I just can't relate to that. I fuck for fun with every woman I'm with everytime.

 

Can you describe what you mean a little more clearly?

 

So if I understand correctly, you're saying you never "make love". You always just...fuck. For fun. Have you never used sex to express love for someone?

 

Perhaps you could explain your side of it a bit. I know there are those who have difficulty sharing someone they love with anyone else, and view sexual exclusivity as a reflection of "how much" they love one another. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not something I can relate to anymore.

[benawyl 35]

So if I understand correctly, you're saying you never "make love". You always just...fuck. For fun. Have you never used sex to express love for someone?

 

Perhaps you could explain your side of it a bit. I know there are those who have difficulty sharing someone they love with anyone else, and view sexual exclusivity as a reflection of "how much" they love one another. Nothing wrong with it, but it's not something I can relate to anymore.

 

Ok thinking back I've never thought I'm going to express love for my partner with sex. It's always been damn that's a hot piece of ass sitting over there I want some of that. Then whatever form of hard pounding sex ensues.

 

For me sex and sex life is around 60-70% of a relationship. While I don't express love with sex, sex and sex acts that are based in lust from my partner make me feel special. I would not want a woman who had obligatory sex with me because she loves me. I want her to have sex with me because she craves it from me and is in lust with me.

 

A woman cooking for me or doing laundry etc don't make me feel special I can do all those things for myself.

 

A woman sharing her innermost feelings secrets and thoughts with me also don't make me feel special. She can and I'm sure does share those with he best GF.

 

Did that answer your question? I'd be glad to share more.

[intuition897 2,179]

benawyl said:

Did that answer your question? I'd be glad to share more.

 

Yep. But it's just so foreign a concept to me I couldn't possibly relate to it.

[benawyl 35]

Yep. But it's just so foreign a concept to me I couldn't possibly relate to it.

 

Which part or all of it?

[longun45 115]

Word and context are very important. The english language is very confined in the term "LOVE", it can be misconstrued and the context must be taken into account. My son and his wife had a blow up recently and I had to remind her that love has many different meanings and many of them are causal in nature and must be read in context. We know that love has many qualities and they differ by context and situation. They do not have to be sexual in nature. I think the greeks had better more clearly defined types love. This article has 6 different greek words for different types of love.

 

From: The Ancient Greeks? 6 Words for Love (And Why Knowing Them Can Change Your Life) by Roman Krznaric ? YES! Magazine

 

1. Eros, or sexual passion

The first kind of love was eros, named after the Greek god of fertility, and it represented the idea of sexual passion and desire.

 

2. Philia, or deep friendship

The second variety of love was philia or friendship, which the Greeks valued far more than the base sexuality of eros.

 

3. Ludus, or playful love

This was the Greeks' idea of playful love, which referred to the affection between children or young lovers.

 

4. Agape, or love for everyone

The fourth love, and perhaps the most radical, was agape or selfless love. This was a love that you extended to all people, whether family members or distant strangers.

 

5. Pragma, or longstanding love

Another Greek love was the mature love known as pragma. This was the deep understanding that developed between long-married couples.

 

6. Philautia, or love of the self

The Greek's sixth variety of love was philautia or self-love. And the clever Greeks realized there were two types. One was an unhealthy variety associated with narcissism, where you became self-obsessed and focused on personal fame and fortune. A healthier version enhanced your wider capacity to love.

 

 

As we want Pragma, or longstanding love as between a committed couple, we are wanting to include the other types of love as well.

 

I think Ideally operating from Pragma requires Philautia in the positive sense and Phillia. Seeking Eros or Ludus is normal in a relationship But is harder to obtain as time goes on. It is easier with others as they are new and unknown. If you can get Philla along with Eros it's a home run.

 

Poly relationships are using different kinds of love to form different bonds between people. People in Poly relationships who do not have a good positive Philautia will not last.

 

Swingers who can get Eros and Phillia in another couple while maintaining Pragma will benefit greatly from swinging. They are by definition emotionally healthy to begin with. What are swingers looking for - Fun with other people and sex, usually combining the two.

[benawyl 35]

There is zero reason you can't have eros for life with either a monogamous partner or a poly one. ZERO. You should and if you don't then you should do what you have to do to fix it.

[intuition897 2,179]

Which part or all of it?

 

Pretty much any part that equates a sex act with specialness/love. Oh, and the part where you don't value her sharing her innermost secrets, feelings and thoughts. Sex is just sex. Everybody's got a dick or a vagina. They all pretty much work the same. There is NOTHING special about a body function. However, I am very selective about whom I share those innermost thoughts/feelings you refer to. My swing partners - nice as they might be - simply don't rank high enough to get that from me. My best girlfriends don't rank high enough to get that from me. That is reserved for Mr. intuition alone. He's the only one "lucky" enough to see the real, ugly, not-so-nice, fuck-you-I-hate-that-it's-Monday me, if that's what you want to call it. Everyone else gets the edited version.

[intuition897 2,179]

There is zero reason you can't have eros for life with either a monogamous partner or a poly one. ZERO. You should and if you don't then you should do what you have to do to fix it.

 

The way you say it, you make it sound like eros is the most superior kind of love there is. Eros, to me, just translates to chemistry. You're right, couples should have good chemistry. But as they have known one another longer, love has a tendency to transform itself into philia and pragma. The focus shifts, and it's normal. I can get ludus, philia and eros with play partners and doing so refires the eros between Mr. intuition and me. Not because it went away, but because the familiarity of many years of seeing the best and worst of each other, causes us to stop seeing it. We see one another with fresh eyes and remember how incredibly sexy we are to each other. I love the smell of another woman on my husband. If I had to choose between eros and pragma? Pragma wins, hands down. Every time. It's the real deal.

[Mbgdallas 203]

Ok thinking back I've never thought I'm going to express love for my partner with sex. It's always been damn that's a hot piece of ass sitting over there I want some of that. Then whatever form of hard pounding sex ensues.

 

For me sex and sex life is around 60-70% of a relationship. While I don't express love with sex, sex and sex acts that are based in lust from my partner make me feel special. I would not want a woman who had obligatory sex with me because she loves me. I want her to have sex with me because she craves it from me and is in lust with me.

 

A woman cooking for me or doing laundry etc don't make me feel special I can do all those things for myself.

 

A woman sharing her innermost feelings secrets and thoughts with me also don't make me feel special. She can and I'm sure does share those with he best GF.

 

Did that answer your question? I'd be glad to share more.

 

In a strange way this makes a lot of sense to me. I see women I want to fuck all the time... I just don't love them. I love my wife and would love her without sex. The love is much much more than sex. However, sex is special with the one you love.

 

I would agree with this except say that the sex is about 10% of any relationship.

[benawyl 35]

The way you say it, you make it sound like eros is the most superior kind of love there is. Eros, to me, just translates to chemistry. You're right, couples should have good chemistry. But as they have known one another longer, love has a tendency to transform itself into philia and pragma. The focus shifts, and it's normal. I can get ludus, philia and eros with play partners and doing so refires the eros between Mr. intuition and me. Not because it went away, but because the familiarity of many years of seeing the best and worst of each other, causes us to stop seeing it. We see one another with fresh eyes and remember how incredibly sexy we are to each other. I love the smell of another woman on my husband. If I had to choose between eros and pragma? Pragma wins, hands down. Every time. It's the real deal.

 

You shouldn't have to choose is what I'm saying. You should have a fun playful sexy and deep relationship with no need for outside influence.

 

The outside influence should be a nice unnecessary treat like gravy.

 

The reason eros goes away is because people do things that kill attraction.

 

Gain weight. Don't take care of their health. Show each other their worst sides.

 

Yes my partner sharring her secrets with me does not fulfill a need for me. It's not my love language. I feel no need to discuss my problems with my women.

 

You are a woman. Obviously your needs will be different. The male and female brains are different.

 

And for me if my partner started needing outside stimulation to have eros with me( as long as I'm doing what I need to do to maintain attraction) that's when I start to look for the door.

 

Fortunately that's never happened and I hope it never does.

[intuition897 2,179]

You shouldn't have to choose is what I'm saying. You should have a fun playful sexy and deep relationship with no need for outside influence.

 

The outside influence should be a nice unnecessary treat like gravy.

 

The reason eros goes away is because people do things that kill attraction.

 

Gain weight. Don't take care of their health. Show each other their worst sides.

 

We just spent the last 10 years doing most of the above: we gained a bunch of weight, spent too much time on our asses at our desks, and not enough time enjoying life. The result was that we were miserable with ourselves. So you're right, not paying attention to one's health and well-being is not a good recipe for raunchy sex; it's hard to feel confident and sexy (which is what sparks eros) when you hate what you see in the mirror. That's a fact. We've taken ourselves to task about it, lost weight and are both feeling much better. And yes, we have had a lot more (athletic) sex. However, it didn't "kill" my attraction to Mr. intuition. Physical changes to our bodies are just circumstantial and subject to change. I'm not about to leave him because of that! I just hated seeing him feeling so unhappy with himself. Good sexual energy starts with being happy with one's self first and foremost.

 

Yes my partner sharring her secrets with me does not fulfill a need for me. It's not my love language. I feel no need to discuss my problems with my women.

 

You are a woman. Obviously your needs will be different. The male and female brains are different.

 

I don't dispute that male and female brains and thought processes are different in general. My needs, however, are not nearly as obvious as you might think. What, pray tell, would those needs be, benawyl? Do you think me sentimental and clingy? Needy? Do I require ego-stroking ("Tell me I'm pretty")? Am I doomed to "fall in love" with my sex partners? Which stereotype would you say best fits? What I'm trying to say here is that, while men and women have general tendencies, it is wise to not assume that all men and women fit into the boxes we create for them, all of the time.

 

I really prefer the company of men to women. I like the masculine mind: forthright, black and white, logical, and generally geared towards valuing the truth of things. What I call the "masculine mind" can be found in either gender; it's just found more often in men. While I definitely embrace my femininity, I also fully identify with the more masculine traits of my personality, which show themselves in my thought processes. I sometimes have to rein that in and remember to be softer with people, men included. My ability to compartmentalize and see sex as wholly separate from love, to view most things in life from the perspective of an alien visiting Earth and studying its strange inhabitants and their customs, and going about my human life as some grand experiment for the sake of the experience, is usually seen as cold and distant. Maybe it is, but it's who I am. I don't develop attachments easily; I am okay with people coming and going in and out of my life. Mr. intuition was a surprise; I have attached to him in a way that is actually terrifying.

 

And for me if my partner started needing outside stimulation to have eros with me( as long as I'm doing what I need to do to maintain attraction) that's when I start to look for the door.

 

Fortunately that's never happened and I hope it never does.

 

I've found that emotional intimacy tends to deepen eros, so we've never had a problem with it. It can cool a little if we're unhappy with ourselves, distracted by work/other stresses, or if we start drifting away from one another. And it's normal to start to focus on other things as we get deeper into relationships. Otherwise no one would ever take out the trash, mow the lawn or clean. We'd starve to death because we'd be too busy banging each other's brains out to cook.

 

You don't need to fuck other people to have a great sex life, but if you can do it and it makes it even better, why the hell not? I'm not about to apologize for it. I just don't feel safe hinging my "specialness" on something that can be so easily gotten elsewhere, something that really is not unique, and relies on something so unreliable as the human body. Bodies get old, get sick, get injured, develop all kinds of unsexy characteristics...does that, then, mean that I am unlovable? Because I'm no longer the best deal sexually? If that's where you get your love from, you'll have to update us on your love life when you're sporting a colostomy bag and wheeling around in the retirement home.

 

I guess I'm just saying, why settle for just eros, when you can have both pragma AND eros?