Importance of words

[lovefest04 701]

 AND SEX.

 

However, for this post, I'll stick to words. Words matter.

 

Reading through the threads there are often questions that hit at the heart of how open and accepting this community is. There seems to be an assumption that swingers are more open and accepting of non-vanilla activities inside of a 'monogamous' relationship and generally within the greater world of relationships, sex and partnering and when we see language that is counter to that it is somehow surprising.

 

I think swingers are every bit as judgemental as 'vanilla' folks sometimes even when trying to show otherwise.

 

Words matter.

 

People often comment that they are okay with whatever people want to do, and in fact will go so far as to say they are tolerant of certain behaviors they themselves would not participate in. I find the word tolerant tends to get my attention.

 

Tolerate is generally defined as: to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.  Do people intend to say they don't approve?

 

It seems to me that to tolerate or be tolerant of someones choices is to provide your approval for their actions that are in your mind unacceptable in some way. Personally, I don't need someone to tolerate my behavior, especially when it's related to my sexual choices. And in fact, I do not ask for their tolerance, nor are others in a position of power over me to judge my actions. It seems to me that this distinction is at the core of a lot of our judgement of others within and outside the swinging community.

 

Everyone has the right to have opinions and to participate in activities as they please, but I don't believe anyone has the right to judge others activities ( I am no talking about law breaking or causing others harm in some way) and to say "I tolerate that behavior" 

 

So, I'm looking for a better word. The best I have come up with is Rejoice. In other words, I'm not interested in anal sex, but I can rejoice in others doing so. It's positive, supportive, non-judgemental and has nothing to do with me either approving or judging another's activities.

 

I think words matter and wonder how others feel. I also wonder if using a word like rejoice vs tolerate can help to brighten the world in general.

[cplnuswing 4,713]

I agree "tolerant" does carry some negative connotation with it, but the definition from the source I looked at is to me slightly different/softer than they one you cited.

 

1.  allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference.

 

Comparing the two definitions, it appears to come down to "approve of" vs "allow the".  Using the anal sex example, some don't tolerate/approve of anal sex because of a belief it's perverted, sinful, dirty, nasty, etc.  Others are tolerant of anal sex because while they don't necessarily agree on a personal level that it is pleasurable or fun, they acknowledge that some people do in fact find it pleasurable and fun.  Like a "nobody should have anal sex!" vs "not for me, but if you like it, good for you".

 

When one is personally ambivalent about something though, it's sort of hard to rejoice in it. I think "rejoice" involves some active engagement or participation in some way, and that's hard to muster when it's something you don't personally care much about.

 

Maybe "acknowledgment" is what we are after here?  That everyone should acknowledge that others may have, and are in fact entitled to, different beliefs, opinions, practices, etc.

 

Put more bluntly, I really think it boils down to more people need to remember something some of us probably heard from our parents growing up - if it doesn't directly affect you, then best to mind your own business.  And no, just because the fact that people simply exist that don't meet your standards/personal definition for x, y, and z, that doesn't mean that it affects you.

[adamgunn 1,461]

I totally agree with your point that words, and their definitions, matter. Without them, we cannot communicate.

 

Without disagreeing with you, I have no problem with the verb 'tolerate.' If I'm doing something that another doesn't choose to partake in, or actually upsets them, it makes no difference to me if they then decide to tolerate me and my behavior. I really don't expect them to 'rejoice' in my behavior. But as long as they don't try to do anything that would harm me because of my behavior (which is what I think tolerate means,) I'm fine.

 

When they don't tolerate me and my behavior, when they talk about me behind my back, when they report me to authorities, when they actually start shooting at me, then we have a serious problem.

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

Sometimes it's not the verb, but the context that matters. Consider three non-sexual scenarios...

 

1. Our home backs up on lovely woods. Someone buys those woods and puts up a three story home and we now look into a wall of aluminum siding. (hypothetical, we back up onto a ravine, no one will build there)

 

2. Those new neighbors have an older relative living with them who has decided to forego aggressive cancer therapy that might be successful in favor of living the time she has left without treatment, in direct contradiction to what her (and our) spiritual leader has told her (hypothetical, has not happened to our knowledge)

 

3. The matriarch of those new neighbors is a state legislator and has announced her support for a bill aimed squarely at restricting voting rights in our state by eliminating mail-in voting and demanding that all voters physically show up and produce a state issued driver license or equivalent. (Such a process is indeed happening in our state where one party lost to another party that effectively waged a campaign to turn out the mail-in vote, but there is no matriarch in our backyard who is a state legislator). 

 

What is the expected level of "tolerance" here? Reciprocally, if *you* happen to be erecting the new home, if *you* happen to be the person foregoing the treatment, if *you* happen to be the legislator, do you expect your actions to be tolerated?

 

The first situation impinges on what we might perceive to be a right and would likely cause us to check with the planning commission, try to reach an amicable agreement, file a lawsuit, or--failing all that--move; the second might pain us but is clearly none of our business; and the third we would object to vehemently on the principle that no one should be disenfranchised, and if an elected legislator lives across the street we are going to let them -- and the  neighborhood--know our opinion.

 

 

  

[AndrewandAnn 360]

18 hours ago, lovefest04 said:

 

 

18 hours ago, lovefest04 said:

 

 

18 hours ago, lovefest04 said:

 AND SEX.

 

However, for this post, I'll stick to words. Words matter.

 

Reading through the threads there are often questions that hit at the heart of how open and accepting this community is. There seems to be an assumption that swingers are more open and accepting of non-vanilla activities inside of a 'monogamous' relationship and generally within the greater world of relationships, sex and partnering and when we see language that is counter to that it is somehow surprising.

 

I think swingers are every bit as judgemental as 'vanilla' folks sometimes even when trying to show otherwise.

 

Words matter.

 

People often comment that they are okay with whatever people want to do, and in fact will go so far as to say they are tolerant of certain behaviors they themselves would not participate in. I find the word tolerant tends to get my attention.

 

Tolerate is generally defined as: to accept behavior and beliefs that are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them.  Do people intend to say they don't approve?

 

It seems to me that to tolerate or be tolerant of someones choices is to provide your approval for their actions that are in your mind unacceptable in some way. Personally, I don't need someone to tolerate my behavior, especially when it's related to my sexual choices. And in fact, I do not ask for their tolerance, nor are others in a position of power over me to judge my actions. It seems to me that this distinction is at the core of a lot of our judgement of others within and outside the swinging community.

 

Everyone has the right to have opinions and to participate in activities as they please, but I don't believe anyone has the right to judge others activities ( I am no talking about law breaking or causing others harm in some way) and to say "I tolerate that behavior" 

 

So, I'm looking for a better word. The best I have come up with is Rejoice. In other words, I'm not interested in anal sex, but I can rejoice in others doing so. It's positive, supportive, non-judgemental and has nothing to do with me either approving or judging another's activities.

 

I think words matter and wonder how others feel. I also wonder if using a word like rejoice vs tolerate can help to brighten the world in general.

Just a few comments on this:

 

Firstly, people are judgmental. It is human nature. It doesn't matter what social group(s) with which they happen to associate. And everyone has the right to their private thoughts and opinions, including judgments about others. The issue is when one group, or a society, starts to impose limits on the liberties of another group or individual. This is where things get tricky. 

 

Secondly, words definitely matter. Unfortunately, they matter a lot less today than they have in the past. Our ability to communicate and understand complex, nuanced ideas, either verbally or with the written word, is quickly diminishing. For me, the "canary in the coal mine" is what many literary critics describe as the "death" of the long-form novel. Not coincidentally, literary critics themselves are going extinct. Thanks to the advent of the "digital age" (All hail Nitwitter and Faceboo!) the whole of western civilization seems to have developed a case of collective Attention Deficit Disorder. If a thought cannot be expressed in 280 characters, or if it doesn't pass the "purity test" of the Faceboo Gustapo, it doesn't deserve consideration. 

Edited February 19, 2021 by AndrewandAnn

[AndrewandAnn 360]

46 minutes ago, Fundamental Law said:

Sometimes it's not the verb, but the context that matters. Consider three non-sexual scenarios...

 

1. Our home backs up on lovely woods. Someone buys those woods and puts up a three story home and we now look into a wall of aluminum siding. (hypothetical, we back up onto a ravine, no one will build there)

 

2. Those new neighbors have an older relative living with them who has decided to forego aggressive cancer therapy that might be successful in favor of living the time she has left without treatment, in direct contradiction to what her (and our) spiritual leader has told her (hypothetical, has not happened to our knowledge)

 

3. The matriarch of those new neighbors is a state legislator and has announced her support for a bill aimed squarely at restricting voting rights in our state by eliminating mail-in voting and demanding that all voters physically show up and produce a state issued driver license or equivalent. (Such a process is indeed happening in our state where one party lost to another party that effectively waged a campaign to turn out the mail-in vote, but there is no matriarch in our backyard who is a state legislator). 

 

What is the expected level of "tolerance" here? Reciprocally, if *you* happen to be erecting the new home, if *you* happen to be the person foregoing the treatment, if *you* happen to be the legislator, do you expect your actions to be tolerated?

 

The first situation impinges on what we might perceive to be a right and would likely cause us to check with the planning commission, try to reach an amicable agreement, file a lawsuit, or--failing all that--move; the second might pain us but is clearly none of our business; and the third we would object to vehemently on the principle that no one should be disenfranchised, and if an elected legislator lives across the street we are going to let them -- and the  neighborhood--know our opinion.

 

 

  

Obviously, item three is a politically incendiary post.

 

However, it may be worth considering the people on the other side of that argument are equally worried about being "disenfranchised" thanks to a system that is fraught with the potential for fraud and abuse. Reasonable people on both sides genuinely want every legal vote counted. The question is how best to make that happen? I think most would agree the current system is an unqualified mess, regardless of if one's candidate(s) won or lost. 

[lovefest04 701]

1 hour ago, Fundamental Law said:

What is the expected level of "tolerance" here? Reciprocally, if *you* happen to be erecting the new home, if *you* happen to be the person foregoing the treatment, if *you* happen to be the legislator, do you expect your actions to be tolerated?

I guess in looking at your examples and conclusions 1 & 3 are outside what I was speaking to. Both of those examples clearly have a direct affect on another person. #2 is clearly non of our business and has zero affect on another person and for lack of a better word, I would rejoice in that persons decision to forgo treatment for whatever reason and support their decision and in fact celebrate it. How would any other reaction be positive and supportive.

 

@adamgunn - yes, I agree. And I want to take it one step further. If we as people, human beings tended on the positive instead of just tolerance wouldn't the planet be a better place? Wouldn't we all feel better and happier in some way? I think of LGBTQ children with so much angst about 'coming out' to parents, friends, co-workers. Wouldn't knowing that those around them would be more than tolerant potentially reduce the angst and challenges they face?

 

I get rejoice might be too far. Any other words?

 

[GoldCoCouple 4,068]

When I hear the word 'tolerate' I actually hear a negative word...as in I don't like or approve of their actions, but will ALLOW then to do it because I can't do much to stop it. I tolerate the neighbors playing loud music as long as it is before 10pm (actually, I don't mind loud music as long as it is music I like and my neighbors all live too far away from me for me to really hear it anyways). When it comes to sex, I INCLUDE and accept all sexual activities under that banner even if I don't participate in them. Swinging includes everything that has to do with conscientious non-monogamy from same room but separate sex to hot wives to cuckolds and everything in between. Now we don't PRACTICE hot wiving (is that now a verb?) or cuckolding (or cuckqueaning), especially when it includes the humiliation of one of the participants, it doesn't mean it isn't a part of swinging or that we should exclude or tolerate it because we don't enjoy or participate in it. It's part of the bigger group of swingers and we want to welcome all who seek that group. What we DON"T accept or include is non-consensual non-monogamy (cheating) since that goes against the very definition of swinging: where both members knowingly and willingly participate in having sex outside of their relationship.

 

Rejoice might just be a touch too far...we include and accept.

[njbm 2,904]

I like the word compersion. You enjoy another person receiving pleasure, as I understand it. 

[adamgunn 1,461]

2 hours ago, lovefest04 said:

@adamgunn - yes, I agree. And I want to take it one step further. If we as people, human beings tended on the positive instead of just tolerance wouldn't the planet be a better place? Wouldn't we all feel better and happier in some way? I think of LGBTQ children with so much angst about 'coming out' to parents, friends, co-workers. Wouldn't knowing that those around them would be more than tolerant potentially reduce the angst and challenges they face?

 

I get rejoice might be too far. Any other words?

 

I also would love to take it further, lovefest. Unfortunately, there are limits as to what love and tolerance will accomplish, given that some other people choose not to love or tolerate other's actions. 

 

Your example is very poignant to me. I have a lesbian daughter. I knew of her lifestyle when she was in college, but I felt I couldn't come out and say, "Hey, I know, it's okay." What I did was be careful never to say a discouraging word about it, and when appropriate praise the LGBT movement. When she finally admitted it to me a decade later my comment was, "What took you so long?" and we both laughed our asses off.

 

The only other word I can think of that seems apt may be 'condone.'

[adamgunn 1,461]

I would like to say to everyone who has posted to this that I truly appreciate the opinions and viewpoints expressed. I come to this board for great discussion without rancor, and I almost always get that. Thank you!

 

And, because nobody's done it yet, here's the definition of Tolerate from Merriam Webster

a: to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction

b: to put up with

 

It seems to me that these are two very different things, and sometimes we've confused the two. English is such an imprecise language! 

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

The language is indeed imprecise. On some level, it is self-correcting as it allows for neologisms (such as "compersion" that njbm mentioned)--coinage of new terms helps all, but this takes time. 

 

As adamgunn experienced, it is one thing to "tolerate" what others choose to do.

 

It is quite different when you learn that someone you care deeply about has an alternative lifestyle, different-than-what-you-thought sexual orientation or gender identity. All too often, they fear rejection, ostracism, or worse. Tolerance is not enough, one must embrace. That embrace may not be enough, one must rejoice. 

 

It's worth remembering that every casual acquaintance of (y)ours is someone else's family member or loved one. 

[shy_couple 460]

Glad to see I’m

not the only one who sees tolerant has a negative connotation.

I strongly prefer acceptance:

1. Action of consent in ting to undertake/receive something offered

2. Action/process of being received as adequate or suitable

 

At is heart it isn’t condoning or actively decrying and action or point of view. And it doesn’t have the negative connotation as tolerate. 

[AndrewandAnn 360]

20 hours ago, GoldCoCouple said:

When I hear the word 'tolerate' I actually hear a negative word...as in I don't like or approve of their actions, but will ALLOW then to do it because I can't do much to stop it. I tolerate the neighbors playing loud music as long as it is before 10pm (actually, I don't mind loud music as long as it is music I like and my neighbors all live too far away from me for me to really hear it anyways). When it comes to sex, I INCLUDE and accept all sexual activities under that banner even if I don't participate in them. Swinging includes everything that has to do with conscientious non-monogamy from same room but separate sex to hot wives to cuckolds and everything in between. Now we don't PRACTICE hot wiving (is that now a verb?) or cuckolding (or cuckqueaning), especially when it includes the humiliation of one of the participants, it doesn't mean it isn't a part of swinging or that we should exclude or tolerate it because we don't enjoy or participate in it. It's part of the bigger group of swingers and we want to welcome all who seek that group. What we DON"T accept or include is non-consensual non-monogamy (cheating) since that goes against the very definition of swinging: where both members knowingly and willingly participate in having sex outside of their relationship.

 

Rejoice might just be a touch too far...we include and accept.

Respectfully, I think you are expressing an appealing ideal. But not reality.

 

Yes, we are all participating in a lifestyle choice that is outside the mainstream so, by definition, we all consider ourselves to be rather openminded. However, I think if we are being entirely truthful, we all have limits about what that will we truly "accept" rather than simply tolerate.

 

When it comes to alternative lifestyles, sexual activities, fetishes, etc., I consider myself a very accepting person. And it's rather difficult to shock my sensibilities. However, I have limits about what I will accept and embrace. To maintain proper decorum, I won't give specific examples. But I'm sure your imagination can fill in the blanks.

 

 

[AndrewandAnn 360]

17 hours ago, Fundamental Law said:

The language is indeed imprecise. On some level, it is self-correcting as it allows for neologisms (such as "compersion" that njbm mentioned)--coinage of new terms helps all, but this takes time. 

 

As adamgunn experienced, it is one thing to "tolerate" what others choose to do.

 

It is quite different when you learn that someone you care deeply about has an alternative lifestyle, different-than-what-you-thought sexual orientation or gender identity. All too often, they fear rejection, ostracism, or worse. Tolerance is not enough, one must embrace. That embrace may not be enough, one must rejoice. 

 

It's worth remembering that every casual acquaintance of (y)ours is someone else's family member or loved one. 

Interesting hypothesis.

 

I have to ask: Do you apply the same obligation to "embrace and rejoice" people's choices in other areas of their lives, such as religion and politics?

 

Or is your obligation limited only to lifestyle choices?

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

1 hour ago, AndrewandAnn said:

Interesting hypothesis.

 

I have to ask: Do you apply the same obligation to "embrace and rejoice" people's choices in other areas of their lives, such as religion and politics?

 

Or is your obligation limited only to lifestyle choices?

For religion, absolutely--provided that the religion is not committed to the elimination of all other religions. There are some religions--and their adherents--who are sworn as a tenet of the faith to eliminate other religions and their adherents. 

 

For politics, that gets into the definition of that word. If, by politics, you mean "the way that people living in groups make decisions", then generally yes. On the other hand, if you mean "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power" then also yes, with the understanding that debate and conflict in the pursuit of power is part of political life. It is reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to have debate. Conflict is inevitable; this is why we believe that elections are the essential way to make the most essential decision--who best represents me and my system of values and priorities. We absolutely embrace and rejoice in the ability to make that choice. That's not the same as the embracing and rejoicing in the victory of the opposing candidate. We do not choose friends on the basis of political affiliations; we do embrace them as friends irrespective of their political bent. 

Edited February 20, 2021 by Fundamental Law

[AndrewandAnn 360]

9 minutes ago, Fundamental Law said:

For religion, absolutely--provided that the religion is not committed to the elimination of all other religions. There are some religions--and their adherents--who are sworn as a tenet of the faith to eliminate other religions and their adherents. 

 

For politics, that gets into the definition of that word. If, by politics, you mean "the way that people living in groups make decisions", then generally yes. On the other hand, if you mean "the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power" then also yes, with the understanding that debate and conflict in the pursuit of power is part of political life. It is reasonable, appropriate, and necessary to have debate. Conflict is inevitable; this is why we believe that elections are the essential way to make the most essential decision--who best represents me and my system of values and priorities. We absolutely embrace and rejoice in the ability to make that choice. That's not the same as the embracing and rejoicing in the victory of the opposing candidate. We do not choose friends on the basis of political affiliations; we do embrace them as friends irrespective of their political bent. 

So, essentially you are agreeing with me that is more the expression of an ideal. In reality, it is not absolute and limits do exist. We do make judgements, after all.

 

For instance, you would "embrace and rejoice" freedom of religion as an ideal, but would not "embrace and rejoice" a religion that called for the mutilation of female genitalia, am I correct? Nor would you "embrace and rejoice" a religion that prohibited the modern medical treatment of sick children, yes? 

 

Regarding your answer concerning politics, what you are really saying is that you are "embracing and rejoicing" the political *process*, not the political choices.

 

 

 

[adamgunn 1,461]

Okay, speaking of words. I absolutely abhor the use of the term, 'monogamish.'

 

Dan Savage coined this term when a perfectly good one is available, "Open Marriage." It confuses people and, I think, it cheapens 'monogamy.'

Now, when people use it (it usually seems to be newbies,) we have to spend a message or two defining just what the hell they mean.

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

Of note, the words "marriage" and "marry" do not appear in biblical Hebrew. Etymologists trace the origins of the words to around 1300. The concept of durably joining a couple (for historic reasons, this was always a man and a woman--propagation of species and securing alliances--the idea of marrying for love is only a few centuries old) predates the notion of marriage.

 

What has not changed, of course, is the fact that the couple within the marriage defines the scope, behaviors, and core values within that marriage. We would add that long-term-couples of our ken not only defined but continue to refine that scope and the behaviors--while holding the core values constant. 

 

"Open" is a scope; "monogamish" is a behavior. The durability of the joining is based on the values. 

 

Our perspective:  early and open discussions about values can avoid a lot of later discomfort   

[adamgunn 1,461]

55 minutes ago, Fundamental Law said:

"Open" is a scope; "monogamish" is a behavior. The durability of the joining is based on the values. 

 

Maybe I'm dense, please explain using small words. ☺️

 

What's the difference between saying, "We're in an open relationship", and "we're monogamish"? (Using the common definition of 'open marriage and Savage's definition of monogamish, of course.)

[Fundamental Law 2,903]

If we hear someone say that they are in an "open relationship", we perceive a focus on self equivalent to the focus on the relationship. When we hear someone say "monogamish", we perceive a focus on their relationship greater than their focus on individual experience.  The latter are -- in our experience -- swinging as a couple. 

 

As for "common definitions", we retreat to the famous exchange penned by Lewis Carroll in Alice in Wonderland: 

 

“When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' 'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things. ' "

 

Words carry emotions--without such emotions, rhetoric and politics would be dull indeed--and words used around love and sex are inevitably emotion-laden. Both Humpty-Dumpty and Alice seem to acknowledge this. 

 

Humpty--Dumpty goes on: "'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'" The problem is that the emotion sent may not be the emotion received. Perhaps why we perceive the terms "open marriage" and "monogamish" not to be synonyms. 

[adamgunn 1,461]

1 hour ago, Fundamental Law said:

When we hear someone say "monogamish", we perceive a focus on their relationship greater than their focus on individual experience.  The latter are -- in our experience -- swinging as a couple. 

It may mean that to you, but I don't see that being true in the majority of posts regarding the subject. I won't be continuing this discussion.

[AndrewandAnn 360]

22 hours ago, Fundamental Law said:

Of note, the words "marriage" and "marry" do not appear in biblical Hebrew. Etymologists trace the origins of the words to around 1300. The concept of durably joining a couple (for historic reasons, this was always a man and a woman--propagation of species and securing alliances--the idea of marrying for love is only a few centuries old) predates the notion of marriage.

 

What has not changed, of course, is the fact that the couple within the marriage defines the scope, behaviors, and core values within that marriage. We would add that long-term-couples of our ken not only defined but continue to refine that scope and the behaviors--while holding the core values constant.

"Open" is a scope; "monogamish" is a behavior. The durability of the joining is based on the values. 

 

Our perspective:  early and open discussions about values can avoid a lot of later discomfort   

Interesting topic.

 

You're claim that "marrying for love" is a concept that is only a few hundred years old is historically inaccurate. The notion of romantic unions has been well established throughout the western world for literally thousands of years.

The ancient world is full of stories of couples joining, and remaining joined, for romantic love. Sometimes these stories are based upon fact--for instance, Mark Antony and Cleopatra; Abelard and Heloise--or based upon fictional accounts--Tristan and Isolde; Thisbe and Pyramus; Odysseus and Penelope. These stories of romantic love have endured through the ages because they are part of the fabric of western civilization.