Does swinging exist since it can't be perfectly defined?

[MrYaWanna 15]

Here's a question for the board. Mrs. and I were discussing swinging and the lack of commonly, universally accepted rules or guidelines. We landed in an odd sort of spot. If there is not a single definition of swinging that a large group of people agree with, does swinging exist?

 

Let's look at other accepted "things". Marriage: Two People, married according to the laws of the land. Set up house together, Love, Honor and Cherish. Society understands this, accepts this therefore it exists. You can stand on the street corner and say "we're married" and people get it.

 

Hockey: Five skaters and one goaltender per team, three 20 minute periods. A goal is scored when the puck crosses the goal line in between the posts. Again, we can stand up in a bar and say "How's it going eh? I play hockey!" People get it, they understand it and wonder to themselves how many of this guy's teeth are his.

 

Swinging: It's married couples playing with married couples only. The couple is monogamous in their emotional relationship, but not so sexually. Swinging is not a "must have" thing in their relationship, it's an extra, an enhancement they both enjoy and agree to. They always play together in the same room. It's a couple, not necessarily married, playing with the same. It's a couple, both cheating on their spouses playing with other people. It's a couple banging a single cause they like that. It's a couple hooking up with a single because they don't satisfy each other and need a 3rd to get there. It's a group of people all naked and playing in a Hot Tub, they don't even know any other person's name. It's a couple where one of the two is using the other just to have sex with as many people possible, with no regard to any one's relationship, even their own. It's a couple who play separately with each other's permission and knowledge. I'm sure there are more possible definitions, but I think I've made my point. So you stand on the rooftop and shout "I'm a Swinger". “Hmmm...what does that mean?” your neighbor says.

 

Because we can't agree on what swinging is, does it exist? How can something exist if it can't be defined? (Think back to Philosophy courses folks)

 

Maybe swinging does not exist. What do you think? Have I had too much coffee today?

[wrnakedru 38]

IF... a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, is that possibly also when and where the echo of a duck's quack is resounding???????

 

I think, therefore I am.

 

I do not require a recognition or definition of myself to be provided by you or any other for me to exist.

 

Your eyes may see me differently than mine do, your ears certainly hear me differently.

 

If you want any definition of who I am, what you see, and what you are hearing to have significant correlation to whom I believe myself to be, you must receive these clarifications through communication with me. Anything less/different is most likely incomplete, incorrect and/or totally erroneous.

 

Dictionaries exist to provide meanings for words for all to use so that communication is based on a common set of standardly held definitions.

 

No such reference book is universally held to be correct for all, about all, or by all. If we are to place understood value of one another, we must communicate one by one to receive this knowledge.

 

[i don't drink coffee.]

[yawanna 17]

So how does one know they are joining a bowling league and not the cast of Cats?

 

If swinging is totally self defined, how can it be an entity or group of so called 'like-minded people' with an arbitrary definition.

 

And, why do so many people want to join? What's to join?

 

[BiloxiCouple 695]

Swinging is about self-defined rules.

 

Marriage is about self-defined rules.

 

You understand sex. You say you want to fuck and people understand that.

 

Swinging is about recreational sex.

 

Rules:

 

1. No means no.

 

2. No pressure.

 

3. Courtesy.

[4funfriend 15]

I think that swinging is different for everyone depending on what you want out of it. You make your own rules, other then the simple few that are known by all, or at least should be, everything else should be up to the couple or person in the lifestyle. It is a choice that we made, and we should be able to change if we want.

[sepacouple 15]

Is it really any different than many things we as individuals call ourselves?

 

We have occupation titles but that does not mean that each of us that have the same title does the same job or even has the same responsibilities.

 

Do those of us who call ourselves Christians share the exact same beliefs of religion and what is right, wrong or acceptable according to our various religions.

 

Do those of us who affiliate ourselves with a political party believe in all the same things as others in that same political party.

 

And speaking of marriage, although it is understood what it means publicly to be husband and wife, that does not mean that every marriage is the same. There is much variation depending on upbringing, beliefs, etc., on how a husband and wife treat each other, who is in charge in the relationship, who works, who raises the kids, and so on.

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

It really is a great topic though!

 

My husband is a musician who plays woodwinds (particularly flute). He has a friend that is also a musician that plays guitar with him. They share a common profession in that they both play music -- they differ very much though since my husband plays jazz and his friend plays rock. They don't even seem to speak the same language.

 

Using the analogy of Christians -- all Christians do not accept the same standards and yet they do share certain commonalities that form the base of "what it is to be Christian" -- among these is a belief that there is/was a Christ.

 

In that sense then -- what belief forms the universal basis of swingdom ?

 

Is it recreational sex? Maybe, but that aspect is shared with the group that calls themself slut .

 

Is it recreational sex when a partner to the act is married? Maybe, but that definition also applies to cheater, adulteress, etc...

 

Is it "recreational sex involving one or both members of a couple (married or not) - with full consent of both members of the domestic partnership." hmmmmmm If so, then all other descriptors (such as MFM, FMF, soft-swap) become nothing more than subsets of the one "swinger" set.

 

so how does one know they are joining a bowling league and not the cast of Cats?

 

Cats! Cats! Cats! I wanna be in Cats!!!!! I wanna play Demeter! Nope! no bowling league for me -- gimme a cat costume any day....

[MrYaWanna 15]

Ok, so there is only one rule commonly agreed to in swinging: Everyone makes up their own rules.

 

In other activities we participate in there are parameters we have to follow otherwise we get fired, black balled, ostracized or asked to turn in our key. In swinging we do whatever we want to anyone anytime. You could have a rule to agree to someone else's rules just to get laid and you can still say you are a swinger.

 

So anyone can call themselves a swinger, as long as they have their own rules.

 

No wonder there is lots of confusion in this lifestyle!

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

Ok, so there is only one rule commonly agreed to in swinging: Everyone makes up their own rules.

 

I don't think so though -- everyone doesn't make up their own rules. There are certain sets of rules that certain subsets of swingers accept as the game rules for the day.

 

In fact, rules has been the subject of more than a few threads in this forum. It's not the rules of the game that define what is and is not the game but instead the common principles (IMHO)

 

Example - football. Football remains football whether it is played by a HS, college, or pro team. And yet, there are differing rules in each -- some having greater impact than others. It's not the rules then that define football but instead it's the ball. Maybe also the uniform. Certainly the general layout of the field. These certain commonalities transcend the specific rules of each level of play and allow us to recognize that HS football is essentially the same game as pro football.

 

In swinging then -- we have a couple (the home team) and some other playmate(s) (the away team). The game can be played with any number of players. The objective of the game is to put a "ball in play" and the winner(s) go home happy.

 

The same equipment is used whether we have MFM FMF soft-swap group-play what-have-you. The primary equipment is a penis and a vagina. Secondary equipment (toys, mouth, or anus etc...) are usually specified in the pre-game discussion. Bottom line then is that "some sex act is required" in order to be determined to be "swinging"

 

The playing field layout and the number of players is not requisite for a game. The thing that seems to always transcend the game rules is that it involves (though not always actively) at least one couple.

 

Of course, as with anything, we can make this example more or less complicated. We'd still have the same outcome.

[windsor4fun2 130]

You could have a rule to agree to someone else's rules just to get laid and you can still say you are a swinger.

 

This type of rule wouldn't mean they are not swingers, it just may be they are not the type of swingers you want to play with. While I don't think I would choose to swing with someone with this philosophy, the more important question would be whether they followed the other peoples rules once agreed upon.

 

While most rules tend to vary with the people involved I think one rule that could be (or should be) considered universal is to "Respect other peoples rules".

[yawanna 17]

BettyAnn you rock my world What a wonderful analogy!

 

I understand the playing field and rules of the game for that day

 

We are seriously just having many doubts about just what the 'game' is... football, baseball, recreational sex, swinging, whatever the hell THAT might be

 

There ARE posted rules.....but just like the 'don't spit on the rink' signs...not many seem to follow them. Like someone else posted it's a couples world and singles just visit, then we have singles saying they are swingers just like couples say they are...whether they are active or not at the moment, they are still swingers.

 

Then we get blasts for even challenging where a single may participate and what jersey might they wear, if any.

 

I'd love a Roberts Rules of Order, or at least that NASCA for example has set out that swinging is couples, singles are welcome as participants, and this is adhered to rather than some single saying the rules aren't real, or couples challenging what I've read is swinging.

 

Make it all up as we go along? Then it's not a community with rules or base understanding. At least religious folks have the 10 commandments

 

We have nada when everything is up for individual interpretation and there is no benchmark.

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

We have nada when everything is up for individual interpretation and there is no benchmark.

 

Well, at risk of offending a few singles, it is my opinion that singles are not "swingers" but may become participants in the interpersonal relationship that is swinging.

 

Maybe, couples are not swingers either -- anymore than players of the game of football can be rightly called footballers

 

Maybe, swinging is an activity whose participants are properly called by their position. Not unlike my descriptor as "F half of bi-couple" -- which then makes me not a "swinger" but simply a participant in "swinging"

 

That said, a person that used to play music but has stopped is not a musician -- he used to be a musician but now is not. Maybe a person who used to be a participant in swinging but is not now ("inactive swinger") is not "a swinger" but is a "former swinger"

 

It remains clear though that singles can and do participate in the activity known as swinging. I know this to be true because we most often play MFM or FMF and not couple+couple. That these singles participate in the lifestyle with us makes them "swingers" doesn't it? Or do they remain "singles" who got laid? Does it really matter?

 

When all is said and done -- this is nothing more than a label we apply to ourselves. Then we must at some point define what the label means if we are going to effectively communicate with others.

 

As for the rules that are posted -- I've found that most participants do generally follow the ones they understand. "Don't cum in my hair!" isn't that hard to understand -- the penalty for breaking that rule is a suspension from the tournament. We might even have a "delay of game" while I wash my hair.

 

There are some rules that get ignored from time-to-time. Sometimes we agree to suspend the rules (condoms) and sometimes we end up with an unintentional infraction (getting too attached).

 

Some rules are very well adhered to in most circles -- ladies don't intentionally (like "forgetting" her BC) get pregnant and the guys don't intentionally (like moving the diaphragm) try to impregnate us. In most cases, the absence of "I love you" between playmates is an unspoken rule.

 

Some rules only apply to certain playing fields. At our field, there is a no drugs rule. We do allow drinking though (as long as you bring your own). We also have friends that don't have the no drugs prohibition at their playing field and some that don't permit drinking at all.

 

None of these really effects the nature of the game -- those rules which are broken generally result in some sort of sanction (unless the penalty is waived) and teams with a history or reputation of rule breaking generally don't get invited to compete again.

 

So, what we have here is two discussions:

 

1) what exactly is swinging?

2) what exactly are the codified rules?

 

reality is, they are both really hard to answer...

[yawanna 17]

That these singles participate in the lifestyle with us makes them "swingers" doesn't it? Or do they remain "singles" who got laid? Does it really matter?

 

Yes... this is my question exactly. Does it matter? It seems it doesn't so WHY should they toss out 'I'm a 'swingle' into the mix... hell...we can't even effectively define what a swinger is.. never mind the periphery of singles. And ultimately... why should we since swinging can't even be defined.

 

Biloxicouple said there were 'rules'... I challenge those rules. Read all the horror stories of meetings gone wrong. Of people not respecting boundaries, which means No doesn't mean No. Of which there is no 'courtesy'. We're coming to see there's a lot of myth and not much truth to the stated 'rules'.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

I think you have to look at swinging as a bigger term and then narrow it down from there. While soft-swingers are still swingers, not all swingers soft-swing and so on.

 

There are as many types of swinging as there are people who swing. Swinging is kind of an all-encompassing word that defines any action where a couple invites others into their playtime. Whether it be simply to have another couple in the same room with you while you have sex (with your own partner and they with theirs) or whether you swap partners.

[yawanna 17]

yes Julie...and... the latest post was about singles swinging as singles...not necessarily with couples. And in the case of one poster...he meets with only the woman...ever. Thus our confusion about rules.

[JustAskJulie 2,595]

For that I revert to my original post in your Swingles thread. In order for it to be swinging a COUPLE has to be involved. If the guy in this couple knows what's going on (or not) it sounds more like cuckolding than swinging as he is not involved in what is happening.

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

IMHO

 

If a couple is involved (meaning two people that share an emotional relationship) and that couple invites a person(s) that is not a part of that relationship to enjoy sex with them -- then it is swinging.

 

Now, if the involvement of the couple in the actual sex act is that he tells her she can go to the local motel and get laid and then bring home a cream-pie and a story --- then that too is swinging. The couple is involved. If she simply goes to the motel to get laid and he knows nothing about it, then that is nothing more than an illicit extramarital affair.

 

Now, if the "extra player" isn't part of a couple but is simply used by the couple to fulfill the couples fantasy of a clandestine 1:1 encounter, is that single participant a "swinger" -- probably not. If his only purpose is to have 1:1 MF alone relations with her then his role is absolutely no different than his sex role when entertaining any woman -- he is "a guy having sex" and in this example "a guy having sex with married woman"

 

IMHO -- in order for a single to accurately consider himself "a swinger" he would have to be "a guy having sex (of some sort) with a couple"

 

It still remains that the basis of swinging is "the couple" -- without the couple there is no swinging. There may be sex, but it's not within the realm of swinging. So, while in this example of a 1:1 MF, the couple may in fact be swinging -- the single participant is not since the couple is not directly involved in the activities from his point of view.

 

Is it possible then for a woman to be each of a swinger, bi-fem, and slut-wife --- AND to be able to engage in activities of each of these descriptors separately from the other? Absolutely!

 

So, what many (by all means not all) of the single guys I talk to are really interested in is not "swinging" but instead they want to engage in relations with a "slut housewife" -- in that they are interested in only a 1:1 private encounter with her.

 

It remains that many women who meet the "slut housewife" descriptor are also "swingers" but their partners for 1:1 MF encounters are not swingers.... maybe we need a word for those guys --

[TNT 1,155]

Because we can't agree on what swinging is, does it exist? How can something exist if it can't be defined?

 

Yes it exist.

 

If I tell you I'm having a soda (coke here in the south), you know that I'm having a carbonated beverage. You don't know what flavor it is, (i.e. Sprite, Dr. Pepper, Mt. Dew, Coke) so if you want to know you ask what kind?

 

If I tell you I'm a swinger, you automatically know that my attitudes toward sex are totally different than what society generally thinks they should be (one couple having sex with each other only). However, you don't know what flavor of swinging I participate in unless you ask.

 

Swinging is a different way of viewing sex, and yes, I believe that singles can be swingers if they have the same views.

 

Swinging is having sex outside what most of the world perceives as the norm (just two people having sex, either married or not married, straight couples or gay couples...ok, I know most don't view gay couples as being the norm, but views are definitely changing on that).

 

To swing you have to have more than two people.

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

I personally don't buy the debate that it is all a matter of views. Someone that likes football is not a football player until and if he actually plays the game. A person is not a participant in the lifestyle until such time as he actually participates.

 

Nor is simply "having sex outside the norm" a reliable indicator of who is and is not a swinger. That simply defines who isn't having sex within societal norms -- all German Shepherds are dogs but all dogs are not German Shephards...

 

It's easy to talk about countering the feelings of jealousy or self-doubt that sometimes (inevitably) arise if you've never actually seen your husband go down on another woman. It's another matter altogether to discuss those feelings when you've "been there-done that"

 

One problem we have in swinging circles is not misunderstanding by participants but one of misinformation propagated by non-participants.

 

I have no way of knowing which people post to this board that have never once engaged in any activity that could be called swinging. I have some suspicions though. I also don't know which members of the list have experienced "a threesome once in college" 10 years ago and now consider themselves "swingers". I suspect that a large number of the singles that post here are not "swingers" and my suspicion is based on their failure to comprehend same base realities.

 

Some of the posts that I've read over the past year on this board are clearly the advice of non-participants and therein lies a large problem with defining "who we are"

 

That though is just my opinion and not directed toward anyone in particular...

[imsnowman 34]

Originally posted by TNT

Yes it exist. SNIP

If I tell you I'm a swinger, you automatically know that my attitudes toward sex are totally different than what society generally thinks they should be (one couple having sex with each other only). However, you don't know what flavor of swinging I participate in unless you ask.

 

Swinging is a different way of viewing sex, and yes, I believe that singles can be swingers if they have the same views.

 

Swinging is having sex outside what most of the world perceives as the norm (just two people having sex, either married or not married, straight couples or gay couples...ok, I know most don't view gay couples as being the norm, but views are definitely changing on that).

 

To swing you have to have more than two people.

Very well said.

 

I think that most non-swingers would think of wife-swapping if a person who is part of a couple told them they were a swinger. Single males would be judged as somewhere on a line between cad and stud. Single females would go from slut to ??? Does anyone know one word that would be synonymous with stud for women? i.e. praising rather than derogatory. I'll probably kick myself at the answer but I sure can't think of one.

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Originally posted by imsnowman

Very well said.

 

I think that most non-swingers would think of wife-swapping if a person who is part of a couple told them they were a swinger. Single males would be judged as somewhere on a line between cad and stud. Single females would go from slut to ??? Does anyone know one word that would be synonymous with stud for women? ie, praising rather than derogatory. I'll probably kick myself at the answer but I sure can't think of one.

 

With assistance from wrnakedru...what about courtesan?

 

Can be defined as...

 

A courtesan is a person paid and/or supported for the giving of social companionship and intimate liaisons to one or more partners. The word is generally reserved for those who enjoyed the most social status for such services. Although the term has been applied to people from several cultures and historical periods, it is most applicable for those to whom it was first given: the women of Renaissance Europe who held a socially recognized, if not quite socially accepted, position as well-compensated companions.

 

The role of courtesans should be neither overly romanticized nor offhandedly scorned. On the positive side, they had freedoms that were extremely rare for other women at the time. They were not only financially comfortable (when business was good) but financially independent, with control of their own resources rather than dependency on male relatives. They were very well-educated compared even to upper-class women, and often held simultaneous careers as performers and artists.

 

Of course, some definitions call it a prostitute...but I prefer the above.

 

Does that help?

 

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

Does anyone know one word that would be synonymous with stud for women?

 

I personally like slut and intend to take that word back from those that would make it a bad word. Not in its original meaning related to slattern and certainly not in the sense related to strumpet or harlot. Strumpet is a cute word though but it sounds too much like food -- maybe a desert...

 

fornicatress is an interesting word but its a bit of a mouthful as is fellator (hehehe). I'm not sure that I like trollop but it could have a place. Tart is an interesting word too, but it too sounds like a desert (oh yeah! it is.).

 

Were I more of a group player, I might use party girl or even party slut -- I know one that is a very sweet child.

 

We sometimes use Don Juan and Casanova for stud guys, maybe we should use our own literary figures. Wonder who'd be a good example -- Hester Prynne wasn't really a slut nor was Madame Bovary.... Aldonza was a professional whore.

 

Since most of us aren't paid (at least not directly) for sex; we can't really use Ho, whore, hooker, streetwalker, working girl, lady of the evening, or call girl. I like the euphemism social aider for professionals -- but it doesn't apply to me since I don't really give lessons I am sometimes referred to though as Betty the Virgin-Slayer

 

So, as I consider all of the many words we have in modern usage that describe a woman that likes to have sex - and enjoys sex with many partners; I have to concede that the term most people think of first to describe such a woman is slut -- sometimes in a negative way and sometimes in a positive way -- but always with the same interpretation -- "she's a real slut" means "she has sex with a lot of guys..."

 

now, she can be a party-slut in which case she favors being the only dish on the plate at the banquet - or she could be a lipstick-slut in which case she's 110% feminine and likes to tease. She could be a slut-wife, trailer-slut, or just "a-little-slutty" each having their own connotations. Slut is just such a great word!

 

sign me a slut in South Carolina - but not a slovenly slattern

[imsnowman 34]

Originally posted by BettyAnnMBSC

I personally like slut and intend to take that word back from those that would make it a bad word. Not in its original meaning related to slattern and certainly not in the sense related to strumpet or harlot. Strumpet is a cute word though but it sounds too much like food -- maybe a desert...

 

SNIP

 

Slut is just such a great word!

 

sign me a slut in South Carolina - but not a slovenly slattern

I totally agree that slut should be on both ends of the scale. Cad to stud and slut to Slut depending on the tone of voice. But in my note I was talking about your average get-the-news-from-CNN neighbor. If they use slut on one end of the scale they probably won't on the other.

 

The words suggested so far are great words but probably not common-usage type words. Does it say something about the English language and society that there doesn't seem to really be a word for a woman who enjoys sex, participates with more partners than the "average" lady and does so "ethically"?

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

Does it say something about the English language and society that there doesn't seem to really be a word for a woman who enjoys sex, participates with more partners than the "average" lady and does so "ethically"?

 

I'm not sure that the problem is one of language but of social attitude. I say that because slut does describe the woman you write of. In simplest terms -- a slut is a sexually promiscuous woman (i.e.: she has many partners, and she probably has many partners because she enjoys sex)

 

Where there is a social conundrum is in our prevailing attitude toward the open sexuality of women. "she's such a slut" is taken as an affront -- even when she IS a slut. We take that word to be a disgracing commentary on her moral character instead of a simple comment on her sexual proclivity.

 

So, let's put an end to that usage -- we can. All we have to do is start using it ourselves as a self-descriptor.

 

I'm a slut and I don't care who hears it!

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

I have this printed in my notebook -- I wish I knew who to attribute it to. If anyone knows please let me know too.

 

I really wish I had written it -- it's the kind of prose that just makes you think....

======================

 

I used to not think this, but there comes a time in a man's life when he appreciates the value a good slut. A slut will suck your cock right. Sucking your cock wrong means timidly putting her lips around it, making a perfunctory effort for about one minute, and then coming back up for more kissing. Wrong! A slut doesn't mention condoms, and if you have one, she doesn't put it on backwards three times before getting it right. That's what's great about sluts. I mean, they know how to fuck. A slut will lie flat on her back if that's what you want. If you want her flipped over, she flips over. No questions asked. No forms to be filled.1 If your wish is to lie there and be ridden like a broomstick, a top-of-the-line slut can gyrate at twenty-two cycles per second. That's serious fucking. A slut doesn't worry when you put your finger over her asshole. She knows you'll move on soon enough like a bee at the picnic table. A slut loves poetry and knows the power of the spoken word. Original poetry like 'fuck me harder' and 'God I want you deep inside me'. A slut will match your level of dirty talk like a lizard matches brown. A slut doesn't want to sleep over. And she doesn't kiss and tell. What is there to tell? And who would she tell it to? While you ponder these and many other questions, a good slut is already busy fucking, someone else.

 

===========================

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Originally posted by BettyAnnMBSC

I have this printed in my notebook -- I wish I knew who to attribute it to. If anyone knows please let me know too.

 

I really wish I had written it -- it's the kind of prose that just makes you think....

======================

 

I used to not think this, but there comes a time in a man's life when he appreciates the value a good slut. A slut will suck your cock right. Sucking your cock wrong means timidly putting her lips around it, making a perfunctory effort for about one minute, and then coming back up for more kissing. Wrong! A slut doesn't mention condoms, and if you have one, she doesn't put it on backwards three times before getting it right. That's what's great about sluts. I mean, they know how to fuck. A slut will lie flat on her back if that's what you want. If you want her flipped over, she flips over. No questions asked. No forms to be filled.1 If your wish is to lie there and be ridden like a broomstick, a top-of-the-line slut can gyrate at twenty-two cycles per second. That's serious fucking. A slut doesn't worry when you put your finger over her asshole. She knows you'll move on soon enough like a bee at the picnic table. A slut loves poetry and knows the power of the spoken word. Original poetry like 'fuck me harder' and 'God I want you deep inside me'. A slut will match your level of dirty talk like a lizard matches brown. A slut doesn't want to sleep over. And she doesn't kiss and tell. What is there to tell? And who would she tell it to? While you ponder these and many other questions, a good slut is already busy fucking, someone else.

 

===========================

 

If that is your definition of slut, I'm happy for you.

 

I'm not one - not by that definition.

[wrnakedru 38]

I agree with EBF - I am NOT a slut. Additionally, I believe the word carries far too negative a connotation to be gotten past. So I offer instead the following - which is a reprint of something I offered several months ago on a different thread:

 

The idea behind it came from my rather ambitious aspiration to get the word Cliterati into the Oxford English Dictionary as a positive alternative to the word 'slut'. Now 'slut' can be used as a compliment - 'I love that you're such a filthy slut' for example. But it's still tainted by negative connotations. Cliterati on the other hand, still has a chance to mean something positive.

 

Members of 'The Cliterati' are feisty women who love sex and aren't afraid to admit it.

 

Whatever they do, whether alone or with a partner (or several), they throw themselves into.

 

Cliterati girls don't worry about whether they look OK naked. They know that if they're there and naked, the person they're with is too busy thinking about the debauched activity going on to notice a bit of cellulite.

 

Forget faking it - Cliterati girls do the job themselves if their partner isn't pushing the right buttons - but they make sure their partner has a good view so that they can learn from the experience...

 

...and they know what they like because they've been masturbating regularly for years.

 

Cliterati girls set their own boundaries; who cares what everyone else is doing? If they want to try something new, they'll do it because they've decided it's a good idea, not because some magazine tells them to...

 

...but they are always prepared to push their own boundaries

 

...although they never force their ideas on anyone else, whether partner or friend. They accept that sexuality is a personal thing and just 'cos something might push their buttons, it doesn't mean that it will push anyone else's.

 

Cliterati girls aren't afraid of making the first move...

 

...but know how to flirt, for when they feel like being seduced.

 

The Cliterati always practice safe sex, to protect themselves and their partners. They've got enough self esteem to refuse sex if it's unsafe.

 

Cliterati girls know that there's a difference between fucking and making love...

 

...and know that both can have good points.

 

Cliterati girls might sleep with loads of people. They might be virgins. They might be married and monogamous. They can be straight, lesbian, bi or whatever. But they know who they are, they love their sexual side and they don't give a damn who knows.

 

Surely a word that means all this would be a good addition to the dictionary?

[Elusive BiFem 70]

I can buy cliterati!!

 

Cliterati girls set their own boundaries; who cares what everyone else is doing? If they want to try something new, they'll do it because they've decided it's a good idea, not because some magazine tells them to. ..

 

[BigSmoke 15]

Originally posted by BettyAnnMBSC

I personally like slut and intend to take that word back from those that would make it a bad word.

 

S.L.U.T. = Sexually Liberated Uninhibited Type

 

Does that help?

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

If that is your definition of slut, I'm happy for you

 

NO! that's just some guys musings on why he likes a slut that I thought I would share. It doesn't say that is my definition at all

 

you'll notice that my preface in that post reads:

 

it's the kind of prose that just makes you think....

 

and that was indeed the intent - to make others think -- not to redefine the word...

 

I wrote a definition in an earlier post up this thread -- it is the generally accepted definition of the word. In my book -- I don't get to write "my own definition" of a word -- a word only means what others think it means -- nothing more and nothing less.

 

We can all discuss ad nauseum what we think it should mean, what it originally meant, where it came from, when it entered common use, ... we can discuss and rant and even argue and debate. We can attempt to change the perception of a word - we can embrace those words that we like. We can use words and we can abuse them.

 

What we can't do is change (based solely on our own perception or ideology) what a word means in common use to the masses at present. A prime example is the word gay -- saying "he's gay" has a common understanding; even if we meant "he's happy"...

 

Therefor, a slut is "A woman considered sexually promiscuous" by almost every dictionary -- and therefor, any woman "considered" sexually promiscuous IS a slut whether she likes it or not. Since the definition says "a woman considered" and NOT "a woman who considers herself..." this is not a word that is to be self-ascribed but one which is assigned by others. Further, "considered" isn't the same as "is" -- therefor, you need not even be sexually active to be a "slut" -- you simply need be "considered" sexually promiscuous.

 

Now some folks will read this and think "but I don't think that is what a slut is" and to those I say, it doesn't matter what you think -- it matters what general usage understands. Some will argue that general usage is wrong somehow -- and it may well be. But in order to communicate effectively, we MUST learn to understand general common usage -- even if that usage is not academically or philosophically correct.

 

Now me; I like the word. I refer to myself by it from time-to-time. I understand that some people don't like -- but that's them. Some people don't eat meat either, but I do...

 

So, in reply -- that single post IS NOT my definition of slut it is nothing more than some persons writing on the topic -- if we don't like what he wrote then fine -- that's the nature of art. And, prose is art.

 

================

 

as another side topic -- wouldn't Cliterati refer to those who pursue a clitoris? The concept behind the efforts of Dubberley et al are commendable but, isn't the etymological formation of this word fatally flawed?

[yawanna 17]

I can totally buy into "I quoted others". Geez Louise I copy 2 links, paraphrase some others with a and get told I'm blasting single guys ?:slam" The written words, never mind common usage of spoken ones, can be SO confusing for some.

 

There are some folks we've met who think it's 'fun' to call the women sluts, whores, etc. at swinger events. Twice I've been called 'whore' and my hair pulled by a man and then a woman who were smiling and thinking they were complimenting me.

 

I liked being called by my name or, as my neighbor calls me, 'hey Gorgeous' My radical militant days are behind me and I stopped long ago trying to Take Back The 'B' Word, for one

 

(along the topic thread line.....) If a word has no recognized common usage definition, is it a word? And, is 'swinging' an accurately represented definition? I understand the thoughts of it's football if there are teams, and jerseys and a football etc. etc. It's obvious it's about football, like it's obvious swinging is about sex. But the various published definitions of the word and the activity give it a connotation different from reality in many cases. Can the word still be applied to an activity that doesn't fit the definition? Can you say it's football if they're using lacrosse sticks?

 

(There's that Canadian content again! )

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

Can you say it's football if they're using lacrosse sticks?

 

I don't personally think so. So, what does the dictionary say about swinging.... at least as it applies to "our" type of swinging....

 

=======

11. Slang.

a) To be lively, trendy, and exciting.

b) To engage freely in promiscuous sex.

c) To exchange sex partners. Used especially of married couples.

d) To have a sexual orientation toward one or both sexes.

======

 

Hmmmm.. b) is also slut and d) is confusing -- "one or both" is also "either or all" -- which should be about everyone who is sexually active.

 

C)!!!! there though lies a definition that looks promising for exploration....

 

In another entry for the adjective swinging we find: Practicing exchange of partners, especially spouses, for sex.

 

So, we have to accept that swinging does exist -- since this particular dictionary (Dictionary.com) defines it -- AND there is a definition for it.

 

The two uses of especially give us an insight the word, at least a little, and indicate that it is most properly used in reference to married couples...

 

I consulted several other references as well -- Wordsworth Dictionary of Sex gives us "a euphemistic term for partner swapping or mate swapping..." which doesn't imply or state that the participants are married. "More widely applied to individuals or couples who engage in a wide variety of sexual practices with a wide variety of partners..." individuals could well mean singles or one member of a couple. Yet both references do imply a coupled relationship.

 

Oxford Etymology doesn't give us a definition that applies to our question but I did find Swingle which means to "stroke with a rod" I guess that fits... bwahahaha

 

From now on, I'm gonna call them swingles

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Originally posted by BettyAnnMBSC

NO! that's just some guys musings on why he likes a slut that I thought I would share. It doesn't say that is my definition at all

 

Right...it doesn't say it is your definition. However, you did comment, "I really wish I had written it -- it's the kind of prose that just makes you think...." That...in combination with your previous post in which you described your desire to be called a slut..."sign me a slut in South Carolina - but not a slovenly slattern," and "I'm a slut and I don't care who hears it!" rather lends itself to thinking that you might find that definition to your liking. With this thought in mind...

In my book -- I don't get to write "my own definition" of a word -- a word only means what others think it means -- nothing more and nothing less.

...if you don't reinvent the word to accommodate your personal meaning, that leaves us with the commonly known definition of the word slut...a woman considered sexually promiscuous, a woman prostitute, a slovenly woman; a slattern.

Where do you go from there. You want to be called a slut, but if I think of you as such, that is exactly what I think of...the definition I am familiar with...the one I can look up and read about. (This is the same argument you made to me in your previous post).

 

So obviously I'm confused here. You like the word slut, you want to be referred to as a slut, and you occasionally refer to yourself as a slut. So...what is your definition of the word and why would you want to be referred to with a word with such negative connotations unless, of course, you have your own definition...and that takes us back to "I don't get to write "my own definition" of a word."

 

Generally I follow your post quite easily...you make a lot of sense. But you've lost me on this one. (and I still hate the word slut! )

[Elusive BiFem 70]

Originally posted by yawanna

(along the topic thread line.....) If a word has no recognized common usage definition, is it a word? And, is 'swinging' an accurately represented definition?

 

So yawanna, where do regional differences and definitions fit into your thought process? Years ago, I used "50 cc catheter tipped" syringes in the hospital on a daily basis. I moved up North and someone asked for a "Toomey" syringe. What the hell! I had never heard of one. Come to find out it was the same 50 cc catheter tipped syringe I knew so well.

 

Another thought that comes to mind...definitions that go along with symbols. In the thread about smilies Julie asked about those to keep and those to get rid of. I voted to get rid of this one - ()() . To me, this means "kiss my ass" or some other very negative and inflammatory thought. Julie replied that it means "kiss my grits" or something like that. Well, Julie is from the South and here, "kiss my grits" is not really a negative statement...somehow we know what it means. But for those in the North...would this same smilie - ()() - mean "kiss my grits?" I think not. Right off the bat...grits generally are not well thought of in the North. (I don't know about Canada - educate me on that one...do I need to send you a box of grits for a taste test? )

 

And thinking of that very statement...if I wrote it as, "yawanna, do I need to send you a box of grits? ()() - would you interpret it differently? Or something...

[BettyAnnMBSC 24]

...if you don't reinvent the word to accommodate your personal meaning, that leaves us with the commonly known definition of the word slut...a woman considered sexually promiscuous, a woman prostitute, a slovenly woman; a slattern.

Where do you go from there.

 

 

When a dictionary offers several meanings for a word, it isn't saying that every meaning is applicable to every instance of use -- it is simply saying that these are the generally accepted meanings.

 

Now, let's look at slut

 

slut ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slt)

n.

1.

a. A woman considered sexually promiscuous.

b. A woman prostitute.

2. A slovenly woman; a slattern.

 

Understand too that most people have no idea what definition 2 means without also looking up those words. Slovenly and slattern are not words in common use in the USA. It is definition 1a that is the most common understanding of the word slut.

 

Since I am involved in the lifestyle (and other personal sexual choices) -- I am by most social standards considered to be sexually promiscuous (at least in the sense that the word means "2: casual and unrestrained in sexual behavior; "

 

Since I clearly meet the accepted definition of the word found in 1. a.) cited above -- I am then "a slut" by that definition.

 

There is no need to consider that a negative word unless I also find the activities which assign that label negative. If I find those activities negative then I should probably not be doing them. We can say that slut is a negative word only if we accept that what it refers to is negative activity -- if you don't consider promiscuous sex, or prostitution, or even slatterns to be negative -- then why would the word be negative? Just because the user of the word intends it as such -- or does he?

 

How can a woman that knows she is what society calls a slut reasonably argue that she is not? Isn't "If it walks like a duck....." also "if it acts like a slut....." -- we can attempt to rationalize our behaviors all we want -- "I'm not a slut because...." and yet, if general consensus would assign that label then we are wasting breath and effort by debating.

 

So, maybe the problem is deeper than simply the word -- maybe it is some people's perception of the word in common use. Well, let's be realistic here; most people in our society don't agree with or approve of our lifestyle choice -- that's an absolute reality in the USA. Further, some of our activities are illegal in many states. They are going to refer to it by a label that we may well find "negative" -- that's reality.

 

Now, were I to go out and have sex for pay then I would be a prostitute. Also called a whore, harlot, street-walker, etc... It'd be pretty asinine on my part if I became annoyed when referred to as a "hooker" if in fact I met the commonly accepted standards of one.

 

Now, understand too that the prose I posted was not a definition as such -- it is some persons musings on why he likes a slut -- he never once defines exactly what a slut is, only that he likes them and why. What this one person thinks of sluts shouldn't offend anyone anymore than if he had written a commentary on why sluts are bad (an example I can find many more of).

 

 

I wish I had written it because it is very good prose! I wish I had sculpted David too -- that doesn't mean that I fancy myself a Greek man with a relatively small penis exposed in a museum. It doesn't even mean that I know how to sculpt.

 

 

I would hope that my writings on this board are clear enough that they don't require aesthetic interpretation or literary criticism. I do attempt to not use figurative language when it could confuse. So, if I have confused any in my writings in this thread - I do apologize.

 

Let me clarify by saying clearly here and now:

 

They are just words and they only mean what people understand them to mean. Any words that are misunderstood still only mean what they are understood as.

 

If we don't like the way a word has a negative meaning then we must attempt to change that meaning -- we can't do that by simply speaking up. We certainly can't do it by not embracing the word because it is "bad". We have to demonstrate that it's not a bad thing. We have to "walk the walk..." Only then will people remove negative meaning from sexuality. It's changing -- slowly but surely. It's amazing the changes. And it's the next generation that will let their women openly enjoy sex == then it will be "good to be a slut" just as it is "good to be a Don Juan".

 

Once you've known a hooker personally you learn that they're people too and "it's just a job" -- until then, people tend to ascribe certain inaccurate misperceptions. There is no difference in the swinging community and among sluts. We could ascribe the word "swinger" as negative and instead prefer non-monogamous serial polysexualists" but who would we really be fooling.

 

sign me this time = a non-monogamous serial polysexualist

[yawanna 17]

That is interesting EBF...there are colloquialisms - local slang, then there are acronyms specific to an industry or field. How many of us have sat in meetings with new people or a new position and everyone seemed to be talking space talk or something

 

Now take the umbrella term of 'swinging' - I don't think the various interpretations of what this is has much to do with locale. I've chatted on swinger boards in CA, international, and locally, and the differences in the interpretations are the same issues: couples, singles, cheaters and the various permutations of their 'status' as a swinger.

 

I seriously may stop using the word 'swinger' because of the lack of definition and meaning it has to the activities or participants. It's basically a free for all with everyone making their own decisions about sex with others, for their own reasons.

 

I think that 'sex with others' is the only accurate definition, and when you break that down, that could be anyone who has sex. So back to what makes some sex 'swinger sex'. It's more accurate to say 'we had a threesome' than to say 'swinging'. Really.

 

If there is any trend arising lately in swinging, it is not the acceptance of single men being swingers as some have implied, it's that 20 & 30 somethings do a lot more of what some of us call swinging, and they don't call it swinging. They call it orgies, or one nighters, or open relationships, or threesomes.

 

nerve.com is probably one of the better sources of what's going on societally regarding sex and taboos.

 

As far as 'grits' goes

 

I don't think I've ever had grits, or chicken fried steak for that matter. And, just what ARE grits anyway?

[shoreguy 15]

Shame on you people for having such a fun discussion during a holiday week. No compassion for those of us who were getting ready for the family to come for dinner. Of course, in the past I've only been a lurker...

 

I'm a guy. I like the word slut. Sluts are fun. I think of it as a very positive word. Many people give it a very negative connotation. Not that I go around calling women sluts. I have been known to profess my admiration of sluts in general in certain company.

 

Words are just words. Labels can hurt, but only if you let them. Words like slut have negative connotations, but the people who think negatively about sluts would think negatively about them no matter what word you used. I.e. they'd think we are all immoral deviants. I don't value their opinion on my sex life. The connotation depends a lot on who is using a word and how they are using it. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet and all that.