The new sexual revolution: Porn, Swingers, and shifting moralities

[The Collector]

Men who are confident in their sexuality are attracted to women who are likewise. And men who are insecure will prefer a churchy virgin type.

[Moose]

Men who are confident in their sexuality are attracted to women who are likewise. And men who are insecure will prefer a churchy virgin type.

That was rich....!

 

I actually prefer the, "churchy virgin type" because deep down, (whether you realize it or not) they really want a, "Bad Boy".

 

I don't think your statement is true in all cases....

[Mr. Lucky]

However, I was dating all kinds of guys, and invariably, they did not like being with a woman who was in touch with her sexual self.

I'm curious about the specifics of how your sexual confidence presents itself in the kinds of relationships your describing and what kind of resistence you encountered from the men involved (if you don't mind talking about it )

 

Mr. Lucky

[sxyNYCcpl]

Men who are confident in their sexuality are attracted to women who are likewise. And men who are insecure will prefer a churchy virgin type.

 

Despite it's brevity, I think there's a lot of wisdom contained in this statement.

 

Frequently, when people learn that my wife and I share our sexuality with others, as part of the subsequent conversation a question will be asked along the lines of "How can you sit there and watch him/her have sex with someone else??"

 

Our response is always the same. It is because we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that at the end of the night, we're going home together. It doesn't matter that that guy over there is a foot long and knows how to use it, or that that girl has that "special" thing she does with her tongue. We are so completely and totally secure that our relationship is safe from any risk of dissolution that our outside activities are irrelevant.

 

I think this concept is an undercurrent to this entire conversation.

 

Many of the expectations that we place on our SO's are fundamentally about fear. Fear of loss of the relationship.

 

We expect physical monogamy because if our SO has sex with someone else, they may leave us for that person.

 

Those who have no tolerance for porn ultimately feel that way because of fear. What does it mean? Are they not satisfied with me? Am I not enough for them? Are they going to leave me? If that fear did not exist, the objection to porn could not exist.

 

There are many behaviors that can be explained by fear. Men who flip out over someone "looking at my woman". Women who object to their man having an innocent conversation with the waitress. I could go on and on, but I think my point is made.

 

Ultimately, these things come down to self confidence... How secure is any given person in the health of their relationship. More secure=less controlling.

 

What say you?

[JackJack]

I say some people are delusional.

 

Now onto the part about the "churchy virgin types."

 

That's pretty much describes my wife, and I love it! "Churchy" on the outside, slut in the bedroom with me! PERFECT!

 

If she was slut like on the outside to others and in the bedroom, wow what a bore. But thats just me.

[Moose]

I say, Don't you hold anything in your life sacred, or exclusive?

 

If not, I say that it's very depressing....

[quankanne]

I'm curious about the specifics of how your sexual confidence presents itself in the kinds of relationships your describing and what kind of resistence you encountered from the men involved (if you don't mind talking about it)

 

pervert! :laugh:

 

okay, my problem in my long-term relationships was that initially, by being open to sex was embraced, but later became something "bad" ... I guess because the thrill of a having an earthy lover wore off? I liked sex "too" much, I've been accused by a former boyfriend that every kiss I gave was just a means of trying to live out a romance novel, even my husband thinks something's wrong with me. But I can't help if I consider sex (full-blown or just the anticipatory stuff) something very natural and therefore something nice to indulge in on a more than regular basis. I know a lot of it has to do with not meeting a perception men have of sexy women (I don't look like a centerfold), but hell, I believe intent and open-minded atttitudes about sex was supposed to be sexier than just looks

 

I guess I'm just very misguided, stoopid or both

[quankanne]

Many of the expectations that we place on our SO's are fundamentally about fear. Fear of loss of the relationship.

 

I think that's the pat answer of someone trying to make a point about a lifestyle. My thought is if it works for you, so be it – you've got the concerns and problems taken care of, go for it. But don't impose your judgment on someone who is WAY outside your circle when they don't hold the same values toward sex as you do, because it's trying to compare apples with zebras.

 

my expectation of my spouse is to be in an exclusive relationship because no one else is needed. And because my belief in marriage as something more than a civil contract makes me strive harder to keep it monogamous, because that's what floats my boat. And I'm 99.8 percent sure that my husband is on the same page, based on his past marital relationships as a cuckolded husband.

 

trying to tell me that your lifestyle is a shift in the moral area that everyone is embracing because it's liberating, is more than a little fallacious, because you're assuming everyone has the same desires in a relationship that you do. For me, it's liberating to be in a committed relationship where I can focus sexually on my husband, even though I'm pretty sure he thinks I'm an old she-goat

[angie2443]

men want to pigeon-hole women into certain roles (as described before) and rarely appreciate the woman who breaks out of those roles. When you say, "if you're encountering this attitude over and over, you may be choosing your men poorly," you have a point. However, I was dating all kinds of guys, and invariably, they did not like being with a woman who was in touch with her sexual self. Probably because it meant they weren't in control, or something.

 

Deep down, men just do not want a woman who break the mold when it comes to sexuality.

 

This is so often true. Even the younger guys who you'd think would be more liberal towards their attitudes of women often want a tradritional wife at home while fanticizing about the more sexual women on the side.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I say, Don't you hold anything in your life sacred, or exclusive?

 

If not, I say that it's very depressing....

 

Why would you find that depressing?

[Kasan]

I have followed this thread with great interest, because the concepts of swinging are totally foreign to me.

 

I really don't know about the "new" sexual revolution, (the early 70's were pretty wild) but I do think that you surround yourself with like-minded friends and our friends don't swing or at least don't admit they do to me.

 

Is it right, is it wrong? Personally, I could care less, and I don't care that my husband looks at porn occasionally............

 

But after thinking about this, I would feel uncomfortable engaging in sex with another man while my husband looked on.....and I'm not exactly sure why--as I am not a religious person, or feel my moral compass is less or better than the next person's.

 

I think that you could be right about the fear issue.... For me, I just wouldn't want to even go there and open that can of worms.

[Moose]

Why would you find that depressing?

I just think that one loses the connectivity that makes an exclusive/sacred relationship, (whether with a person, or object), so unique unto itself.

 

Without that, you're nothing special to anything or anybody.

[PandorasBox]

I just think that one loses the connectivity that makes an exclusive/sacred relationship, (whether with a person, or object), so unique unto itself.

 

Without that, you're nothing special to anything or anybody.

 

 

I agree.

 

I think to, that maybe there are some people who try to keep people or certain people like loved ones at a distance. I know that may not make sense, but perhaps they keep people at arms length and do not connect with them on a real intimate or emotional level for fear of being hurt or rejected. Some people sdon't want anyone or anything special, they don't even hold themselves in a sacred position so of course they wouldn't expect that from another.

 

I think what is gets me is people who say they swing or have open relationships due to both people having self confidence, I disagree. If there was self confidence then they would be ok with only having one partner in a loving commintted relationship. I think its lack of self confidence that is behind the drive of people sharing spouses. Plus the fact that sex is more of a priority than anything else. I didn't say it wasn't important, but if its above all be all, then I can see why some people hold that so dear, maybe they feel they don't have anything else.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I think that's the pat answer of someone trying to make a point about a lifestyle. My thought is if it works for you, so be it

 

I was not attempting to make a point about my or anyone else's lifestyle, merely was trying to analyze why things happen.

 

But don't impose your judgment on someone who is WAY outside your circle when they don't hold the same values toward sex as you do

 

I don't judge or think badly about people because they choose monogamy. I do hold some people in contempt (actually that's a bit of a strong word, but something like that) because they feel the need to control others, but that's a different issue.

 

my expectation of my spouse is to be in an exclusive relationship because no one else is needed.

 

For what? Of course other people are needed, even with the confines of an emotionally and/or sexually exclusive relationship. You cannot provide every single need of your hubby, and vice versa. That does not preclude sexual monogamy. That does not preclude emotional monogamy. It probably precludes mental monogamy (if you don't know what that means, it's a reference to another thread, and don't worry about, you really don't want to know.)

 

There is nothing wrong with wanting monogamy, to any extent that I've implied otherwise please forgive me. I would ask, though, if that's a thought out and deliberate position, or if it was simply the default, and selected with no thought given as to alternatives. It sounds to me like, for you, the answer is yes.

 

trying to tell me that your lifestyle is a shift in the moral area that everyone is embracing because it's liberating, is more than a little fallacious, because you're assuming everyone has the same desires in a relationship that you do.

 

I have explicitly stated on more than one occasion that I recognize swinging is not the norm. Which is why this thread was, or at least was intended to be, about multiple topics.

 

If my hypothesis that it's growing is right, which is difficult to prove either way, and for which I have only anecdotal evidence, then that means something.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I just think that one loses the connectivity that makes an exclusive/sacred relationship, (whether with a person, or object)

 

That is because, for you, sex=love. That's fine, I just happen to disagree. For me, love (of the romantic, SO/Spouse kind) is not likely to exist with out sex, but sex can easily exist without love.

 

I hold no objects as sacred, only those I love. Objects can be replaced. People can't.

[PandorasBox]

That is because, for you, sex=love. That's fine, I just happen to disagree. For me, love (of the romantic, SO/Spouse kind) is not likely to exist with out sex, but sex can easily exist without love.

 

I hold no objects as sacred, only those I love. Objects can be replaced. People can't.

 

 

But if you hold those you love sacred, then you wouldn't feel the need/want to be with others or for your spouse to be, right? Just trying to understand that's all.

 

I agree sex can exsist without love, for some people they learn to seperate the two. Its kind of like taking love putting it in a box, setting aside so people can go about their business with sex. That is for those who can seperate the two though.

 

For me, I equate love=sex, it comes first. Not sex=love.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I think what is gets me is people who say they swing or have open relationships due to both people having self confidence, I disagree. If there was self confidence then they would be ok with only having one partner in a loving commintted relationship. I think its lack of self confidence that is behind the drive of people sharing spouses.

 

Isn't that a bit like me saying "anybody who doesn't swing is a prudish dumb-ass"? You are completely assuming facts not in evidence, and making wild assumptions that have no foundation in reality.

 

As an extreme example, a woman whose extreme lack of self confidence manifests itself as her repeatedly accusing her husband of sexual and emotional transgressions that were merely figments of her imagination (because deep down inside,she thinks so little of herself that she assumes any man who might be with her is of course pursuing better options) is the last person on the planet who has any business even thinking about swinging.

 

If we are not confident in ourselves or relationships, we can't possibly survive seeing our spouses interact sexually with other people as it's far to easy to leap to the conclusion that one thing will lead to another, thus leaving us out in the cold.

 

Why do you think self-confidence implies a connection to sexual monogamy?

 

(Disclaimer: I am not saying anyone who chooses monogamy is lacking in confidence.)

 

Plus the fact that sex is more of a priority than anything else. I didn't say it wasn't important, but if its above all be all, then I can see why some people hold that so dear, maybe they feel they don't have anything else.

 

Quite the contrary, I have found that in many instances sex is a much bigger deal to non-swingers, frankly you need look no further than this board to see example after example after example. For us, it's just sex. We don't wake up feeling weird, or hyper-analyze why he or she did or didn't do something, or entangle our selves in long term remorse because we did something "bad".

 

It's just sex, like any other recreational activity we might partake in.

[sxyNYCcpl]

But if you hold those you love sacred, then you wouldn't feel the need/want to be with others or for your spouse to be, right?

 

Wrong. Because sex is not sacred. It's just sex.

 

Now, at the risk of opening a can of worms, there's making love, and then there's f**king. Same physical act, viewed on film one is indistinguishable from the other, but when there is love, it does make a difference. Doesn't make just plain old f**king any less fun though.

[rainfall]

Why? You throw that out there like your stating a simple, indisputable fact. You've made no point that backs up your position whatsoever, all you've done is restate your position in different ways.

 

 

What if it's not to get turned on? What if one person likes watching, like one might watch a sporting event? What evidence do you wish to proffer that use of pornography by definition is indicative of other relationship problems? Restating your opinion over and over again is simply repetitive, not productive.

 

How else would you like me to state my position? One of the needs for most people in a relationship is some type of sexual satisfaction. If they feel they are not getting what they want/need then they look elsewhere.

 

Porn is an example of looking elsewhere. You are needing more sexual satisfaction then your partner gives you so you use porn sluts as a way to feel more satisfied.

 

There are lots of threads here on women saying how porn is affecting there relationship. If you would like some evidence I am sure those would have alot.

[quankanne]

Of course other people are needed, even with the confines of an emotionally and/or sexually exclusive relationship.

 

I'm finding more and more that with marriage (or a similar one-to-one, exclusive relationship) the two principle partners make their own little world. Not to the point of intentionally excluding others but that bond makes others a bit ... superfluous. And that is a mixed bag when it goes out of the realm of sex and into interpersonal relationships with others. Just an observance!

 

sex is just sex if there's no connection, just a happy occasion where one can get his/her rocks off as needed. But when that bond forms (again, the "own little world" thing) it crosses over into the realm of sacredness because no other IS needed to complete the experience.

[sxyNYCcpl]

How else would you like me to state my position?

 

I'd like some evidence of your assumptions other than "Because I said so."

 

One of the needs for most people in a relationship is some type of sexual satisfaction. If they feel they are not getting what they want/need then they look elsewhere.

 

No two people are going to always be 100% in sync. You want sex twice a week, your husband wants it three times. Your choices are:

A- Sacrifice your desires to your husbands needs and go 3x.

B- Sacrifice your husbands desires to your needs and go 2x.

C- Have sex twice and let him have a spanky session with the Vivid girls once.

 

Seems to me the porn option is the best, as nobody has to sacrifice that way.

 

Porn is an example of looking elsewhere. You are needing more sexual satisfaction then your partner gives you so you use porn sluts as a way to feel more satisfied.

 

Watching other people be sexual has a stimulating effect on most humans. Simply because it is stimulating does not imply the viewer is attempting to replace his primary partner, just as watching professional sports does not make most people want to quit their job and sign up for the NFL.

 

There are lots of threads here on women saying how porn is affecting there relationship. If you would like some evidence I am sure those would have alot.

 

Way too many. I can't say I've read them all, but those I have are full of nothing but hyperbole and biased opinions, very little evidence of anything to be found. Regardless, you made a statement, and threw it out there as if were fact. It's up to you to back it up if you can, not me.

[rainfall]

 

No two people are going to always be 100% in sync. You want sex twice a week, your husband wants it three times. Your choices are:

A- Sacrifice your desires to your husbands needs and go 3x.

B- Sacrifice your husbands desires to your needs and go 2x.

C- Have sex twice and let him have a spanky session with the Vivid girls once.

.

 

Seems to me the best option would be A. If he is spanking to other women then I am suffering. If the difference is only one more time a week for him to not look at porn I would think most women would make that "sacrifice" if they are really against porn.

[sxyNYCcpl]

I'm finding more and more that with marriage (or a similar one-to-one, exclusive relationship) the two principle partners make their own little world. Not to the point of intentionally excluding others but that bond makes others a bit ... superfluous.

 

I know exactly what you mean, isn't it great?

 

But that's an emotional bond that two people can achieve regardless of their sexuality. They need not even need be sexual with each other to have that, though I suspect that's rare.

 

sex is just sex if there's no connection, just a happy occasion where one can get his/her rocks off as needed. But when that bond forms (again, the "own little world" thing) it crosses over into the realm of sacredness because no other IS needed to complete the experience.

 

I agree again! (The happy, pervy swinger dude is agreeing with you, hope it's not frightening you lol...)

 

But it's the emotional connection that creates the sacredness. It can be enhanced by sexuality, and it can enhance sexuality, but sex, in and of itself, is not sacred.

[sxyNYCcpl]

If the difference is only one more time a week for him to not look at porn

 

OK. What if he wants it 6x a DAY and you'd prefer once or twice a MONTH? Then what?

 

I would think most women would make that "sacrifice" if they are really against porn.

 

"Most" women are not "really against porn". That any are seems silly to me.

 

If he is spanking to other women then I am suffering.

 

That is only true if his spanking to other women is directly responsible for you NOT getting what you deserve and want in the bedroom. If it has a neutral effect on your sexuality, the only way you can be suffering is because of your own (unrealistic) expectations. In other words, the problem is not the problem, the problem is your attitude about the problem.

[rainfall]

OK. What if he wants it 6x a DAY and you'd prefer once or twice a MONTH? Then what?

 

"Most" women are not "really against porn". That any are seems silly to me.

 

That is only true if his spanking to other women is directly responsible for you NOT getting what you deserve and want in the bedroom. If it has a neutral effect on your sexuality, the only way you can be suffering is because of your own (unrealistic) expectations. In other words, the problem is not the problem, the problem is your attitude about the problem.

 

If he wanted it 6 times a day I would probably end the relationship. I would rather be with someone who I could satisfy enough where porn wasn't needed. I want sex more then once or twice a month so its kinda hard to imagine that.

What I want in the bedroom is a man who only needs me to be turned on. If he is spanking it to porn then I am not getting what I want or deserve.

It is not unrealistic to want to be with someone who doesn't need to think about screwing randomn people.