Swinging: Right or wrong?

[scott3x]

Perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree here.

Scotty, archaic or infrequently used definitions aren't going to save your ass here. We're going with the mainstream usage. No, you haven't.

I will go with the usage that I have heard in actual polyamory groups, which I have attended. Have you?

Oh, I can agree with that. But if you're secure in yourself, you can be ok being tied for first or even being #2.

You're not even content to agree you're wrong about claiming you've been in a polyamorous relationship.

Because I don't believe I am. I don't think my disagreement with you on this point has anything to do with being secure in oneself. If anything, I would contend that it actually shows the reverse; that I can live with you not agreeing with me on this point.

Scotty, if you can't admit you're incorrect to the general pop and even the majority of the poly crowd, you're not going to be secure there.

Again, I have actually -been- in poly group meetings and it's there that I have drawn the definition of what it means to be poly. Where are you getting this idea that the majority of the poly crowd sees things differently?

If my ex says certain women I know were attracted to him or he slept with were attractive, I am knee-jerk to point out they're less pretty/smart/interesting than I am, and I'm sure he'd be the same.

Perhaps that's the typical reaction. It's not mine. I have experienced jealousy, but it dissipates almost momentarily. I believe that the strongest love wants what's best for one's partner; and if oneself isn't what's best for one's partner, someone who's secure in oneself can admit it and even offer to step aside if one thinks that's what's best.

And right now I sort of feel like I'm discussing former relationships with my seventeen year old neighbor, and I'll tell you what I've told him: You don't know because you haven't done it.

Actually, I have. Note that I didn't say that I was in a threesome in the above statements.

You haven't been in a relationship that's lasted for years.

Sure I have. Just not sexual ones.

You haven't had multiple sex partners in a short time period.

Yes I have, although only one included physical sex.

Now, you're a product of biology and western culture. The former means that you've got an unconscious drive, as a hetero male (or bi male, shit, I don't know), to have your desired female partner to yourself. It's a breeding thing, put simply. You're biologically wired not to like your female partner screwing another guy.

I would contend that there's a thing that can over-rule genes in people; they're memes, or ideas/value systems, a term coined by noted biologist author, Richard Dawkins.

On the latter, you were just taught to view polyamory as the devil's own work. It's unconsciously ingrained in each of us. I'd bet dollars to donuts most of us have sexual fantasies that would be intensely hard to carry through in real life. Why do you think most practicing polyamorous folks (like, 99.9%) are in the closet?Because of shame.

Whoa! I wouldn't call most polyamorous people as being in the closet because of shame. Some may choose not to tell their friends and/or their parents (not my case), but most in the polyamorous community hold it as a given that you -must- tell all your lovers. Otherwise, I think the category most would place them in would be 'cheaters'. I can agree that this could be a sub category of polyamory but it's not one that the mainstream polyamorous community accepts as good. I think the 'like' part preceding your statistic suggests that you made it up.

And the fact that to a certain degree, it doesn't work. We don't have social rules for this because it runs so counter to societal beliefs.

You ever heard of sub cultures? Trust me, there -are- rules, and even books, on how to behave ethically in polyamorous relationships. An old one is called 'the ethical slut'. I don't particularly like the title and I haven't read it myself, but it's been recommended. There's a web site of information concerning polyamory as well:
http://www.polyamory.org/

Here's a good excerpt from their FAQ on the definition of polyamory:

2). What's polyamory, then?

(Glad you asked that. ;-) ) Polyamory means "loving more than
one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any
combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of
the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out
trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or
filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball
club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by
people who are open to more than one relationship even if they
are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are
involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is
a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide
range of poly arrangements out there.​

And I'm anything but a typical woman, so let's not brush me off with that my views are just very mainstream and humdrum.

I didn't mean to imply that you were typical in -every- way. Just in the particular point you were speaking of.

I'm not trying to scare you off the idea of non-traditional sexual practices; I'm just saying you're talking about something that you only understand in theory.

Again, I disagree .

If you were saying swinging was evil, I'd be saying the same thing. Until you've done it, you don't get it.

Ironically, I actually have reservations about swinging to some extent; I have never viewed sex as a casual thing and it seems that atleast some swingers do.

Right now, it's merely something you would like to try. My ex and I used to discuss how we would try double penetration because we both found it interesting, but we didn't. Hence, you will never see me praise the wonders of it, although I've read/thought about it lots of times. And I'm not going to argue that a finger in one hole and a penis in the other is DP. It's an extreme example, but see what I'm getting at?

All you're saying is that I haven't, say, tag teamed a woman or had 2 women tag team me. You may take this to mean that I know not what I say. I think that even through this discussion, however, that it's clear as to who between us is more amenable to the idea of a threesome.

 

[takandjive]

I will go with the usage that I have heard in actual polyamory groups, which I have attended. Have you?

If you mean swing clubs, yes. If you mean do I have friend lifestylers that I have hung out with, yes.

Again, I have actually -been- in poly group meetings and it's there that I have drawn the definition of what it means to be poly. Where are you getting this idea that the majority of the poly crowd sees things differently?

Probably from having friends who do it in various forms and having a pretty colorful sex life with the ex, and generally just being around the block. Scott, you've merely existed in a relationship where you thought you'd be okay with polyamorous happenings. Not where it happened.

Sure I have. Just not sexual ones.

Yes I have, although only one included physical sex.

I'd let this go if we were teens. Scott, we're grown people, and I'm betting neither of us are religious cultists. Now, if I am wrong, I'll apologize. No one's pulled bigger bullshit since I told my father I didn't sleep with the ex before we lived together.

I would contend that there's a thing that can over-rule genes in people; they're memes, or ideas/value systems, a term coined by noted biologist author, Richard Dawkins.

Rapidly insulting me on my knowledge base, and minconstruing usage of the word "meme." A meme is merely a unit of meaning. I believe you're talking about sememes, entire symbols, not individual units. Also, the entire to pass on one's genetic code through a male securing "his" female is just throughout the animal kingdom. And no, the term "meme" was not coined by Dawkins. I am pretty sure that's Saussure's baby.

Whoa! I wouldn't call most polyamorous people as being in the closet because of shame. Some may choose not to tell their friends and/or their parents (not my case), but most in the polyamorous community hold it as a given that you -must- tell all your lovers. Otherwise, I think the category most would place them in would be 'cheaters'. I can agree that this could be a sub category of polyamory but it's not one that the mainstream polyamorous community accepts as good. I think the 'like' part preceding your statistic suggests that you made it up.

Again, we're twisting words. Most poly folks do not tell friends and family. Fact. It tends also to involve power exchange with the two primary partners, and where there's routine swapping, it almost always tends to be the idea of/at the expense of one partner.

You ever heard of sub cultures? Trust me, there -are- rules, and even books, on how to behave ethically in polyamorous relationships. An old one is called 'the ethical slut'. I don't particularly like the title and I haven't read it myself, but it's been recommended. There's a web site of information concerning polyamory as well:
http://www.polyamory.org/

Scott, there's no reason to insult me. You just wish I'd take you to school on sex - And I've read, and practiced. Doesn't every good girl have a copy of The Ethical Slut and The Story of O on her shelf?

Ironically, I actually have reservations about swinging to some extent; I have never viewed sex as a casual thing and it seems that atleast some swingers do.




All you're saying is that I haven't, say, tag teamed a woman or had 2 women tag team me. You may take this to mean that I know not what I say. I think that even through this discussion, however, that it's clear as to who between us is more amenable to the idea of a threesome.

Scott, my point is, you've never been with one partner sexually, and another while in that former relationship, in any context, and to talk about something you haven't done is foolish.

 

[scott3x]

I will go with the usage that I have heard in actual polyamory groups, which I have attended. Have you?

If you mean swing clubs, yes.

Ah, now I see the problem. tak, swingers and polyamory people while there is some overlap, as a general rule, they're not the same.

Again, I have actually -been- in poly group meetings and it's there that I have drawn the definition of what it means to be poly. Where are you getting this idea that the majority of the poly crowd sees things differently?

Probably from having friends who do it in various forms and having a pretty colorful sex life with the ex, and generally just being around the block. Scott, you've merely existed in a relationship where you thought you'd be okay with polyamorous happenings. Not where it happened.

I have defined polyamory multiple times, using wikipedia and polyamory.org for sources. I think our problem is that you're thinking of the -swinging- definition of multiple relationships. I also believe I'd be fine with various threesome possibilities, but it'd have to be with 2 people I trust; the idea of casually having sex with people I don't know very well doesn't appeal to me.

Sure I have. Just not sexual ones.

Yes I have, although only one included physical sex.

I'd let this go if we were teens. Scott, we're grown people, and I'm betting neither of us are religious cultists. Now, if I am wrong, I'll apologize. No one's pulled bigger bullshit since I told my father I didn't sleep with the ex before we lived together.

Look tak, I think it's clear that you're going by the swinging definition of multiple relationships while I'm going by one of the polyamorous ones.

I would contend that there's a thing that can over-rule genes in people; they're memes, or ideas/value systems, a term coined by noted biologist author, Richard Dawkins.

Rapidly insulting me on my knowledge base, and misconstruing usage of the word "meme." A meme is merely a unit of meaning. I believe you're talking about sememes, entire symbols, not individual units.

I'm talking about memes as defined in wikipedia:

A meme (pronounced /miːm/ - rhyming with "theme"), a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for "something imitated".[1]) Supporters of the concept of memes believe that they act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.[2] Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism; they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory therefore lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart and inspiration, genetics.

Richard Dawkins first introduced the word in The Selfish Gene (1976) to discuss evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches.[3]

Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (in a manner similar to that of biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Theorists point out that memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[4]...​

Also, the entire to pass on one's genetic code through a male securing "his" female is just throughout the animal kingdom. And no, the term "meme" was not coined by Dawkins. I am pretty sure that's Saussure's baby.

Take it up with wiki if you like. I knew Dawkins' coined it before I read it in wiki, however; I read his Selfish Gene quite a while back.

Whoa! I wouldn't call most polyamorous people as being in the closet because of shame. Some may choose not to tell their friends and/or their parents (not my case), but most in the polyamorous community hold it as a given that you -must- tell all your lovers. Otherwise, I think the category most would place them in would be 'cheaters'. I can agree that this could be a sub category of polyamory but it's not one that the mainstream polyamorous community accepts as good. I think the 'like' part preceding your statistic suggests that you made it up.

Again, we're twisting words. Most poly folks do not tell friends and family. Fact.

Perhaps, but how would you know?

It tends also to involve power exchange with the two primary partners, and where there's routine swapping, it almost always tends to be the idea of/at the expense of one partner.

I'm really not sure about that one. What draws you to that conclusion?

You ever heard of sub cultures? Trust me, there -are- rules, and even books, on how to behave ethically in polyamorous relationships. An old one is called 'the ethical slut'. I don't particularly like the title and I haven't read it myself, but it's been recommended. There's a web site of information concerning polyamory as well:
http://www.polyamory.org/

Scott, there's no reason to insult me. You just wish I'd take you to school on sex

Maybe, depends on the course material

And I've read, and practiced.

Doesn't every good girl have a copy of The Ethical Slut and The Story of O on her shelf?

I seriously doubt it . Anyway, you're one up on me with that ethical slut book.

Ironically, I actually have reservations about swinging to some extent; I have never viewed sex as a casual thing and it seems that atleast some swingers do.

All you're saying is that I haven't, say, tag teamed a woman or had 2 women tag team me. You may take this to mean that I know not what I say. I think that even through this discussion, however, that it's clear as to who between us is more amenable to the idea of a threesome.

Scott, my point is, you've never been with one partner sexually, and another while in that former relationship, in any context, and to talk about something you haven't done is foolish.

I disagree. I believe that if one has enough data, one can come up with reasonable theoretical conclusions for possible events.

 

[takandjive]

Ah, now I see the problem. tak, swingers and polyamory people while there is some overlap, as a general rule, they're not the same.

You know, you take only part of my answer, out of context. You're treating me as though I don't know the difference, and I don't appreciate that.

I have defined polyamory multiple times, using wikipedia and polyamory.org for sources. I think our problem is that you're thinking of the -swinging- definition of multiple relationships. I also believe I'd be fine with various threesome possibilities, but it'd have to be with 2 people I trust; the idea of casually having sex with people I don't know very well doesn't appeal to me.

Most intelligent human beings take the literal definition of polyamory as sexual love relationships with more than one person. You're wanting to claim that simply saying you'd be okay with a nonmonogamous relationship is polyamory. It's not.

I'm talking about memes as defined in wikipedia:

A meme (pronounced /miːm/ - rhyming with "theme"), a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for "something imitated".[1]) Supporters of the concept of memes believe that they act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.[2] Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism; they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory therefore lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart and inspiration, genetics.​

A meme is an individual unit. You're using entire cultural symbols.

Richard Dawkins first introduced the word in The Selfish Gene (1976) to discuss evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches.[3]

Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (in a manner similar to that of biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Theorists point out that memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[4]...

Take it up with wiki if you like. I knew Dawkins' coined it before I read it in wiki, however; I read his Selfish Gene quite a while back.

Go read Saussure. Wikipedia's just incorrect here. The term "meme" has been used in linguistics much longer than the 1970's.

I disagree. I believe that if one has enough data, one can come up with reasonable theoretical conclusions for possible events.

Scott, what I'm going to say is going to sound very arrogant. This is a case of someone knowing more about linguistics and human sexuality, both through reading more than Wiki and doing more than listening to a few poly lifestylers.

I know you want to be right. I don't care if I'm right so much as I don't want misinformation or misperceptions. You're merely interested in polyamory. Until you've done it, don't talk about it. The most comparable thing in my life to that is sex with a friend and a lover a few times, but I don't tout myself an expert about it. When someone who hasn't even done much beyond vanilla starts talking about alternative sexuality, it's insulting to those who actually have tried some different things and know that while it's fun, it's not all a bed of roses.

 

[John99]

takandjive,

pardon my interruption but you are just going to go back and forth here and the person you are debating will pull stuff from thin air just to win the debate. as far as i can see reality is a non issue for some people.

 

[takandjive]

Eh, I probably just need to start dating again.

 

[scott3x]

Ah, now I see the problem. tak, swingers and polyamory people while there is some overlap, as a general rule, they're not the same.

You know, you take only part of my answer, out of context. You're treating me as though I don't know the difference, and I don't appreciate that.

I call it as I see it. What do you believe I took out of context?

I have defined polyamory multiple times, using wikipedia and polyamory.org for sources. I think our problem is that you're thinking of the -swinging- definition of multiple relationships. I also believe I'd be fine with various threesome possibilities, but it'd have to be with 2 people I trust; the idea of casually having sex with people I don't know very well doesn't appeal to me.

Most intelligent human beings take the literal definition of polyamory as sexual love relationships with more than one person.

Why do you believe this?

You're wanting to claim that simply saying you'd be okay with a nonmonogamous relationship is polyamory. It's not.

I agree. Being ok with something is one thing, but looking for such a thing in your own life is something else.

I'm talking about memes as defined in wikipedia:

A meme (pronounced /miːm/ - rhyming with "theme"), a postulated unit or element of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, gets transmitted from one mind to another through speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena. (The etymology of the term relates to the Greek word mimema for "something imitated".[1]) Supporters of the concept of memes believe that they act as cultural analogues to genes, in that they self-replicate and respond to selective pressures.[2] Memeticists have not definitively empirically proven the existence of discrete memes or their proposed mechanism; they do not form part of the consensus of mainstream social sciences. Meme theory therefore lacks the same degree of influence granted to its counterpart and inspiration, genetics.​

A meme is an individual unit. You're using entire cultural symbols.

Memes, like genes, work together, forming various species and (in the case of memes) ideologies.

Richard Dawkins first introduced the word in The Selfish Gene (1976) to discuss evolutionary principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. He gave as examples melodies, catch-phrases, and beliefs (notably religious belief), clothing/fashion, and the technology of building arches.[3]

Meme-theorists contend that memes evolve by natural selection (in a manner similar to that of biological evolution) through the processes of variation, mutation, competition, and inheritance influencing an individual entity's reproductive success. Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread, and (for better or for worse) mutate. Theorists point out that memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.[4]...​

Take it up with wiki if you like. I knew Dawkins' coined it before I read it in wiki, however; I read his Selfish Gene quite a while back.

Go read Saussure. Wikipedia's just incorrect here. The term "meme" has been used in linguistics much longer than the 1970's.

Alright, I will concede that this is possible. I certainly haven't studied etymology for years. Even Dawkins makes it clear that he took the term from the french term of the same name and if you're saying that the term actually already existed in english, perhaps he simply didn't know it (if he was mistaken, he's clearly not alone, as wikipedia makes clear). However, I think that Dawkins' use of the term is the one that caught on in more mainstream circles; evidence of this is wikipedia's entry on the term.

I disagree. I believe that if one has enough data, one can come up with reasonable theoretical conclusions for possible events.

Scott, what I'm going to say is going to sound very arrogant. This is a case of someone knowing more about linguistics and human sexuality, both through reading more than Wiki and doing more than listening to a few poly lifestylers.

I know you want to be right. I don't care if I'm right so much as I don't want misinformation or misperceptions. You're merely interested in polyamory. Until you've done it, don't talk about it.

I have done it, by some definitions of the term. Again, from the polyamory.org site, certainly a well known site in polamory circles. This time I'll highlight some important points:

Polyamory means "loving more than
one". This love may be sexual, emotional, spiritual, or any
combination thereof, according to the desires and agreements of
the individuals involved, but you needn't wear yourself out
trying to figure out ways to fit fondness for apple pie, or
filial piety, or a passion for the Saint Paul Saints baseball
club into it. "Polyamorous" is also used as a descriptive term by
people who are open to more than one relationship even if they
are not currently involved in more than one. (Heck, some are
involved in less than one.) Some people think the definition is
a bit loose, but it's got to be fairly roomy to fit the wide
range of poly arrangements out there.​

The most comparable thing in my life to that is sex with a friend and a lover a few times, but I don't tout myself an expert about it.

At the same time? Anyway, I'm not saying I'm an expert on threesomes myself, but I'm fairly confident as to what I'm open to.

When someone who hasn't even done much beyond vanilla starts talking about alternative sexuality, it's insulting to those who actually have tried some different things and know that while it's fun, it's not all a bed of roses.

I've done more then vanilla, but mostly what I've done is speak my mind on the subject of sexuality. Sex without thought is only a mechanical interaction. I wish for the type of sexual interaction that has been written about by such authors as Robert Heinlein in his book Stranger in a Strange Land.

Anyway, I never said it was all a bed of roses. But no relationship is that, unless you take into account that roses have thorns.

 

[scott3x]

takandjive,

pardon my interruption but you are just going to go back and forth here and the person you are debating will pull stuff from thin air just to win the debate. as far as i can see reality is a non issue for some people.

This from the guy who knows how insurance works

 

[Randwolf]

I have done it, by some definitions of the term.

As usual here at SF, we are being bogged down in semantics and definitions.

Scott, takandjive has a point. (sorry for speaking on your behalf tak)

I think she is saying that by her definition (i.e. simultaneous sex with more than one person) you have no experience. From what I've read of your posts, this would seem to be fact. I reiterate her cautionary position:

Until you have actually experienced it, you do not know how you will react. No matter how much you contemplate, you can not know until you actually are / have been in that situation.

I have been there - more than once, with more than one partner. I have seen everything from complete acceptance and arousal to hysterical reactions involving running from the room screaming "I can't do this". In all cases though, the other party "thought" they were down with it and ready for anything. It is amazing what "instincts" kick in - be they learned or hardwired. Also, in every case, my partner had previous experience with lovers of the same sex, so it wasn't a "lesbian" or "homophobic" reaction. In the cases of negative experiences I believe the behavior was predicated on jealousy or perhaps low self-esteem. Maybe they feared that they were going to be replaced by the third party. Perhaps they just found out it was a great fantasy, but not so great in reality.

In any event, when the experience was positive and all parties could "handle" it, our relationship was enriched. These partners wanted to "do it again". The ones with negative responses never wanted any part of the lifestyle afterwards, at least as long as we were together.

Point is, again, don't be so sure that you are able to predict the emotions you will feel if you ever do involve yourself in a "threesome" including someone you already deeply love - you may be surprised...

 

[scott3x]

I have done it, by some definitions of the term.

As usual here at SF, we are being bogged down in semantics and definitions.

You sure about that? I find that usually what happens when people disagree is insult wars .

Scott, takandjive has a point. (sorry for speaking on your behalf tak)

I think she is saying that by her definition (i.e. simultaneous sex with more than one person) you have no experience. From what I've read of your posts, this would seem to be fact.

Yes, I know that that's her definition of polyamory. I would contend that it's not the mainstream version for polyamorous people. I have stated in the past and I state again, what she's referring to is more apt as a definition for a swinger.

I reiterate her cautionary position:

Until you have actually experienced it, you do not know how you will react. No matter how much you contemplate, you can not know until you actually are / have been in that situation.

I have already acknowledged that I can't 'know' it. I simply believe that the odds of me being fine with it are extraordinarily high.

I have been there - more than once, with more than one partner. I have seen everything from complete acceptance and arousal to hysterical reactions involving running from the room screaming "I can't do this". In all cases though, the other party "thought" they were down with it and ready for anything. It is amazing what "instincts" kick in - be they learned or hardwired.

To be sure. As you have said however, some accepted it and were also aroused by it. While I have not -had- sex with 2 people at the same time, I -have- been in situations where nudity was involved for a group of people, including myself. No, not a nudist beach type thing. Cuddling was permitted, but I'd never been there before so I was somewhat aloof. And yes, it definitely got me aroused.

Also, in every case, my partner had previous experience with lovers of the same sex, so it wasn't a "lesbian" or "homophobic" reaction. In the cases of negative experiences I believe the behavior was predicated on jealousy or perhaps low self-esteem. Maybe they feared that they were going to be replaced by the third party. Perhaps they just found out it was a great fantasy, but not so great in reality.

My life experiences have made me someone who is extraordinarily unjealous. It's hard to prove that online I suppose, but I know it to be a fact. If a partner I'm with decides they want to be with someone else, so be it. As I mentioned before, I might tell them I don't think they're making the best choice for themselves if that's what I believe, but that's about it.

In any event, when the experience was positive and all parties could "handle" it, our relationship was enriched. These partners wanted to "do it again". The ones with negative responses never wanted any part of the lifestyle afterwards, at least as long as we were together.

Point is, again, don't be so sure that you are able to predict the emotions you will feel if you ever do involve yourself in a "threesome" including someone you already deeply love - you may be surprised...

Again, it's hard to demonstrate that my odds are high that things will be fine for me; you know very little about me, after all. I, on the other hand, know myself quite well.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

No, I don't think swinging is wrong. I've actually heard from some couples that it strengthened their relationship. Emotionally they are intimate with each other, but had little chemistry sexually. If it makes you happy, no is harmed, why care about what other people think?

 

[scott3x]

No, I don't think swinging is wrong. I've actually heard from some couples that it strengthened their relationship. Emotionally they are intimate with each other, but had little chemistry sexually. If it makes you happy, no is harmed, why care about what other people think?

Even with the conditions you speak of, there are a great deal of reasons to care about what other people think. However, so long as society isn't overly stringent on x or y action you'd like to undertake, it can be worth mainstream society's dissaproval.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

Even with the conditions you speak of, there are a great deal of reasons to care about what other people think. However, so long as society isn't overly stringent on x or y action you'd like to undertake, it can be worth mainstream society's dissaproval.

Why if what you are doing isn't illegal, then why should you care what other people think. As far as swinging goes though, no one would even know that you and your spouse do it, unless you told them. So unless it bothers you personally why would you care?

 

[Meursalt]

You mean your friend and his partner decided to include you in a threesome and it led to the dissolution of their relationship?

It contributed toward them eventually breaking up, yes.

He thought he could handle it, and in the end he couldn't. I suppose it didn't help that she couldn't, either. She wasn't satisfied with him anymore, and couldn't hide it.

So in the end I lost both of them as friends.
We had fun times, and we blew it. Then again, it was probably always going to happen... it only took him agreeing to it to make it official. I have no idea whether or not it would have without that. Or whether or not they would have survived had it not happened.

It did, and now they're gone. I miss them still, sometimes.

 

[swarm]

Why frustrated?

Different people react differently to this sort of thing. Also, particularly for women, how emotionally secure you feel with the people can make a big difference.

Also, hearing an ex's exploits is not going to be the same as hearing the exploits of some one you are currently invloved with for a lot of people.

One of our survival traits as a species is our tremendous sexual diversity.

Now perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it seems like you've mentioned you want to be in a poly relationship, but haven't actually been in one yet and have only had one real relationship which was fairly short term, who is now "ex" and one other sexual encounter with a prostitute that did not become a relationship.

Personally I wouldn't say I was for sure poly without a full on poly relationship under my belt. You may see it diferently and that's fine. Certainly you can call yourself poly if you wish.

And I do wish you the best of luck in finding partners! You seen like a good chap.

 

[swarm]

It contributed toward them eventually breaking up, yes.

Pehaps.

He thought he could handle it, and in the end he couldn't. I suppose it didn't help that she couldn't, either. She wasn't satisfied with him anymore, and couldn't hide it.

This sounds more like the writing was already on the wall.

So in the end I lost both of them as friends.

That's always a shame.

 

[swarm]

Why if what you are doing isn't illegal, then why should you care what other people think.

There is more to life than just being legal.

 

[Exterminate!!!]

Definitely wrong. Immoral. Purpose of relationship should be love between the two.

Morality has little to do in relationships seeing the local divorce rates.

I believe that swinging should not be practiced in most relationships because love, between two people, can be so incredibly stressed by things such as swinging. The reason swinging puts stress on such things is the emotional level that sexual intercourse creates between two people is undeniable. Most people cannot handle the awkwardness and change that kind of connection brings.

 

[CutsieMarie89]

There is more to life than just being legal.

Well surely, but I meant as far as what people think goes, you might want to watch your back if you're doing something illegal, unless you want to get caught and point out the supposed injustice. Like my great uncle used to do during the Civil Rights movement.

 

[scott3x]

Why frustrated?

Different people react differently to this sort of thing. Also, particularly for women, how emotionally secure you feel with the people can make a big difference.

Oh I certainly think that's important too; wouldn't want to be with someone who didn't make me feel this way. The thing is that I wouldn't feel that sharing a woman I'm with would be a problem, as long as we all got along well.

Also, hearing an ex's exploits is not going to be the same as hearing the exploits of some one you are currently invloved with for a lot of people.

I agree, a lot of people certainly are this way.

One of our survival traits as a species is our tremendous sexual diversity.

Now perhaps I've misunderstood you, but it seems like you've mentioned you want to be in a poly relationship, but haven't actually been in one yet

No, I haven't had sex with 2 people at the same time; I was with my girlfriend and had phone sex with another woman. My girlfriend didn't like it, allegedly because I didn't inform her beforehand what I was going to do (honestly, it wasn't exactly planned out); I had thought that should only apply to -physical- sex and told her so, but I acquiesced to her wish. Then, when we had broken up more or less, I had cybersex with yet another woman; again, she didn't like it, but I told her that as I felt we had been broken up at the time, it was fair that I didn't inform her beforehand.

and have only had one real relationship which was fairly short term

My last girlfriend lasted for a year; for me it was a while, but you may think of it as short term. I had had one other girlfriend before that, but that only lasted about a month or so.

who is now "ex" and one other sexual encounter with a prostitute that did not become a relationship.

I had a few other sexual encounters, but I only had sexual -intercourse- with the prostitute and (10 years later) with the girlfriend.

Personally I wouldn't say I was for sure poly without a full on poly relationship under my belt.

If that's what you wish. However, it's clear that the definition I quoted makes ample room for my particular case; it's much more about a state of mind then anything else.

You may see it diferently and that's fine. Certainly you can call yourself poly if you wish.

Ok.

And I do wish you the best of luck in finding partners! You seen like a good chap.

Thanks swarm. And to think, when we first met, I was saying you had a flocklike mentality ;-).