Swinger Party and the Circle-Trigon Party

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

JoAnn and I occasionally attend parties that are hosed by a married couple who are long-time friends. At one of these, a different married couple of our acquaintance perceived that they had picked up a hint that we were members of the same political party toward which their feelings lean. In order to steer clear of any trouble by naming an actual party, I will refer to it here as the “Circle-Trigon Party”. Knowing the rules that our host and hostess have set up for all of their parties, we did our best to disengage ourselves from the conversation. That having failed, we did our best to disengage ourselves from these people who were trying to lead us outside of the party’s rules. 

 

They had actually guessed correctly. Our feeling do lean this same way but it would not have mattered whether feeling matched or did not match, we just don’t do that stuff at swingers’ parties. 

 

At a more recent parties, we had taken note of the fact that the Circle-Trigon people have not been in-attendance. Being mildly interested, I asked our hosts. Making me raise my right hand and place my left hand upon The Swinger’s Manual, they made me take an oath that I would repeat to nobody what he was about to say. He told me that Mr. and Ms. Trigon had been disinvited. The reasons did not include the fact that they were members of the Circle-Trigon Party included the simple fact that they had brought up the subject of somebody's political beliefs. 
 
We told our hosts that we are in complete agreement with their rule. You can say what you believe on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, or Instagram, but you are not allow to stir this particular pot at a Swingers’ Party. 
 

[Fitlakecouple 451]

Their party, their rules... End of discussion.

 

That said, in our one-on-one play we feel perfectly comfortable eliminating potential playmates bases upon politics. Our party, our rules...

[Lionheart72 2,190]

4 hours ago, SW_PA_Couple said:

Making me raise my right hand and place my left hand upon The Swinger’s Manual, they made me take an oath that I would repeat to nobody what he was about to say.

You do realize you kind of just violated that oath to a potential audience of thousands, right? Just saying...

 

21 minutes ago, Fitlakecouple said:

That said, in our one-on-one play we feel perfectly comfortable eliminating potential playmates bases upon politics. Our party, our rules...

I would say we are perfectly comfortable eliminated potential playmates who we don't feel comfortable or compatible with for whatever reason. Strongly held personal beliefs, be they about politics, religion, social issues or whatever shape an individuals personality and may or may not be enough to eliminate someone from consideration, depending on the situation.

[SW_PA_Couple 4,024]

We have. Lionheart72, had tumbles in the hay with several people who do not share our views of politics, religion, social issues. We do believe it is very poor form to express these views at a party -- thus invading many people's happy spaces. 

[Lionheart72 2,190]

4 minutes ago, SW_PA_Couple said:

We have. Lionheart72, had tumbles in the hay with several people who do not share our views of politics, religion, social issues. We do believe it is very poor form to express these views at a party -- thus invading many people's happy spaces. 

I hear what you're saying... but I think it's a sad commentary on our society, or at least American society since you and I are in America and I, at least, can only really speak to that (having never spent a significant enough amount of time in any other societies to intelligently comment).

 

It basically means that either a) we have become so polarized that we can't discuss differing sociopolitical points of view without it becoming uncomfortable at best, hostile at worst, or b) we have a large enough population who hold such genuinely extreme points of view that there can be, in good conscience, no middle ground.

 

I think it would be nice, especially in a community that prides itself on open, honest communication, if we could actually have intelligent discussions of complex issues. Of course, I am my own worst example... because there are some viewpoints of religion, politics and/or social issues which I will not engage in conversation with because I find them so extreme that there be, in good conscience, no middle ground.

[njbm 2,870]

They do say it’s not polite to discuss politics or religion. We don’t discuss it with our play partners. Unless it’s obvious we are on the same page. I don’t think we could play with people who were fervently on the opposite side. We consider ourselves moderate and we understand some people in the other party. A good topic to avoid discussing. 

[Fundamental Law 2,885]

It's no longer party affiliation. It's what party affiliations have become. The labels are surrogates for sets of polarized positions that allow for no middle ground. The nature of relationships (vertical or horizontal) requires acknowledgement, respect, compromise.

 

The "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Go There" aspect of politics, religion and so on at LS parties is understandable as a pragmatic exclusion-avoidance strategy. It doesn't solve the underlying challenge of finding common ground beyond the most banal topics. 

[lcmim 1,082]

For some reason I find that NOT being able to share political or religious beliefs an extreme turn off.

 

This seems to filter out those who personal psychologies do not suit my own.

 

There is no need to agree with me. There is just the need to be able to state and defend their viewpoints and listen as I do the same. 

 

Most of my closest friends approach life from a perspective much different than mine. I value this.

 

While I am right most of the time  I would worry about a world that was totally in lock step with me.

 

Perhaps my gonads  are too intimately connected with my head but those conversations take place early on.

Edited October 2, 2021 by lcmim