Swinging/open marriages?

[blind_otter]

for spousal coverage on one's company health plan.

 

I hope that was meant to be amusing, because I found it highly so.

[riobikini]

re:

 

Amerikajin: "... swinging might be a practical way to save the marriage.."

 

That's like trying to save a cardboard box with a soggy, wet bottom for later storage purposes.

 

 

-Rio

[Salicious Crumb]

I hope that was meant to be amusing, because I found it highly so.

 

LOL...what other reasons would there be? There has to be some benefit to being married if all you really want to do is screw other people and have that arrangement with your spouse.

 

So the only thing I could think of was....health insurance.

[amerikajin]

re:

 

 

 

That's like trying to save a cardboard box with a soggy, wet bottom for later storage purposes.

 

 

-Rio

 

That's how you see it. That's not how everyone sees it.

[InsanityImpaired]

How can it be a committed relationship when they sleep with other people?

It appears that the only commited relationship you know of, is the Hollywood version of "commitment" (aka exclusive rights for screwing), and of course "love." Which makes you the expert on other life-styles as well..

[Ladyjane14]

I'm in agreement with Salicious Crumb... it's got to be the health insurance.

 

Seriously, I can't think of any other reasons except for financial ones that a person would waste time being married to somebody s/he can't even bother working up any jealousy over. Extreme jealousy, of course, is a problem. But I can't help but think it's just right and natural to be passionate enough about your lover that you don't want to pass him around like a box of cookies.

 

Good sex within the marriage makes it healthy. But to prioritize "gettin' some strange" AHEAD of the marriage... reduces what was a unique and intimate expression of passion between the married partners to meaning nothing special. It's not 'making love' anymore. It's just f*cking somebody. Nothing special about that.

 

Personally, I wouldn't want to be with someone who took the ONE aspect that separated his relationship with me from his relationships with all other people... and treated it like it was no more important than taking his morning 'dump'. Just another bodily function.

 

If a person wants to be "unique and special" with multiple partners though... why not just be single? Because after all... isn't the point of "swinging" that sex with other partners be meaningless to the extent it doesn't interfere with the emotional intimacy of the marriage? Sorry, but if a person is "passionate" enough about an other partner to qualify him as "special"... chances are good that that feeling is going to interfere with the emotional bond of the married couple.

 

There's the soggy bottom of the box.

Eventually some other lover will come along evoking enough "passion" so as to ruin the emotional intimacy of the marriage.

[riobikini]

re:

 

InsanityImpaired: "....the only commited relationship you know of, is the Hollywood version of "commitment" (aka exclusive rights for screwing)..."

 

 

That's the "Hollywood" version?

 

 

-Rio

[riobikini]

AK: " That's how you see it. That's not how everyone sees it."

 

(In regards to different opinion in this "debate".)

 

Actually, AK -that's a given.

 

Different opinion is always welcome.

 

-Rio

[riobikini]

re:

 

LadyJane: " Good sex within the marriage makes it healthy. But to prioritize "gettin' some strange" AHEAD of the marriage... reduces what was a unique and intimate expression of passion between the married partners to meaning nothing special. It's not 'making love' anymore. It's just f*cking somebody. Nothing special about that."

 

Thanks, LJ, for your input.

 

The part of your post (above) that I emboldened, though, is *precisely* the point often used by advocates of the swinger's lifestyle to promote this kind of sexual "freedom".

 

From what I gather, having the ability to have unemotional sex with other partners, while allowing your own partner to do the same, and still remain "close" with your Number One, is supposed to "prove" that monogamy is an outdated Victorian idea wickedly imposed on modern day folk and having darker ulterior motives than we realize -and which, (they say) goes against the "natural" grain of our genetic prehistorical make-up (which we, apparently, thru the ages, have still developed *no control* over.)

 

(There's that soapbox, again.)

 

(Smile)

 

Apparently, -according to the clouded theory- if you can "swing", you have a higher developed sense of how to form, treat, and maintain relationships in general -which makes you, somehow, superior emotionally and, probably, intellectually, as well.

 

(Smile again.)

 

And I heartily agree with your sentiments, LJ.

 

-Rio

[InsanityImpaired]

Exclusive screwing is the Hollywood definition of commitment. In real life it does not happen that much - but we love our dreams, the more unrealistic, the better. Even half of the married people cheat once in their marriage. And supposedly marriage is less prone to cheating partners, than a simple BF/GF relationship ...

 

Look at evolutionary biology, and it is everything but a clear-cut matter whether humankind is supposed to be monogamous. It certainly does not rule out the idea that commitment does not necessarily conform to the ideas propogated by church, conservatives and Hollywood.

 

If you can only judge people's behavior and words, by putting your interpretation of the behavior and words, and insist on these interpretations being necessarily true, then you will never understand them. Although you would be the last to understand.

If someone is using a term inappropriately that is exactly what happens. A swinger may will consider you an exclusive sex slave to your SO. And our most reverent Moral Authority will think of swingers that they are AIDS-prone sl*ts.

[Ladyjane14]

From what I gather, having the ability to have unemotional sex with other partners, while allowing your own partner to do the same, and still remain "close" with your Number One, is supposed to "prove" that monogamy is an outdated Victorian idea wickedly imposed on modern day folk and having darker ulterior motives than we realize -and which, (they say) goes against the "natural" grain of our genetic prehistorical make-up (which we, apparently, thru the ages, have still developed *no control* over.)

 

I think those same people probably don't spend enough time considering 'WHY' monogamy has been developed and encouraged by a predominent number of societies.

 

It makes sense to me from a historical vantage point on nearly every level that forwards human and individual progress....financially, emotionally, and even medically. If you think about it... before the advent of modern antibiotics, a basic case of PID (pelvic inflammatory disease) caused by sexual exposure to all sorts of various flora and fauna, had the potential to cause a level of infection that would not only threaten a woman's future fertility, but even her very life. Sex wasn't always safe. Still isn't.

 

Even today, it's more difficult to provide for the financial and security needs of two households rather than one. Mongamy helps to keep the domestic partnership in place by disallowing outside influences that could otherwise divide the family. As human animals, we're better able to forward our genetic materials when we insure the success of our progeny.

 

So yeah... we might have the animal drive to procreate, but we also have the social resource of our collective historical knowlege to influence us on how to do is more successfully.

[InsanityImpaired]

I think those same people probably don't spend enough time considering 'WHY' monogamy has been developed and encouraged by a predominent number of societies.

Inheritance rights.

[bab]

Personally, I wouldn't want to be with someone who took the ONE aspect that separated his relationship with me from his relationships with all other people... and treated it like it was no more important than taking his morning 'dump'. Just another bodily function.

 

Personally, I don't think that swinging is a great idea, and I don't see it in my future, but to each his own. On the other hand, this is above quote is a huge red flag for me. While I love having sex with my H, it is definitely not the defining factor of our relationship. The defining factor is that we've joined our lives. We are planning OUR future instead of individual ones. He's my support system and I'm his. This is what makes our relationship different, not the fact that we are having sex. You can have sex with anybody, you can't join lives with just anybody.

[Ladyjane14]

You can have sex with anybody, you can't join lives with just anybody.

 

I don't know about you... but if I have sex with "anybody", I'm gonna be looking for somebody else to "join lives with"... cause my ass is kicked to the curb on that day.

 

But no... I'm gonna stand on what I said. If two married people are healthy enough for sexual activity, and they aren't sharing sexual intimacy... I think they're risking their sense of emotional intimacy as well. The sexual bond is a means for reaffirming their passion for one another. Allowing some other person the same, taints it.

[riobikini]

re:

 

InsanityImpaired: " Look at evolutionary biology, and it is everything but a clear-cut matter whether humankind is supposed to be monogamous. It certainly does not rule out the idea that commitment does not necessarily conform to the ideas propogated by church, conservatives and Hollywood."

 

I'm looking, I'm looking -and while I'm at it, I'm thinking, too.

 

I'm thinking about my last husband who -the piece of work that he was- had the heart of a swinger.

 

So much so, that he attempted to incorporate it -by surprise- in every marriage he tried to have.

 

I would get a call mid-day to my office from his that went like this, "Honey, there's someone here in my office I want you to meet -an old friend- would love for you to hurry on over."

 

So, I'd drop what I was doing -have Penny take my calls- and rush right over.

 

(You see, during that time I was working in my own business -and doing whatever I could to pull *his* out of a hole whenever I could make the time.)

 

His office was farthest away from all his employees, very private to occlude conversation being heard- and upon arrival his secretary would barely look at me (-should have been a clue).

 

Long story short, it *nearly always* had nothing to do with his business -but, instead, was some guy (or female) that he wanted to see me sleep with.

 

I stayed married to this person for 3 and 1/2 years -much longer than I should have.

 

He had practiced this behavior in all his marriages (all of them have now ended -count them: 7 currently) -and amazingly, he never understood *why* any of the women he was married to rejected the idea.

 

I take that back, only due to the fact that, at least, one of them played along.

 

It was always embarrassing for me to walk in and discover why he'd asked me to appear.

 

I was angry -but he didn't care.

 

I think the part about his *not caring* reveals the true reality of the swinger's lifestyle.

 

It takes it, in order to do it.

 

-Rio

[InsanityImpaired]

I was angry -but he didn't care.

 

I think the part about his *not caring* reveals the true reality of the swinger's lifestyle.

 

That is not the swinging. Else you would not have cared either way. It is because of the difference in your ideas and his ideas on the whole thing. He did not care. That is the issue. And as long as it is an issue in his relationships they will all fail. Unless someone is content with the lack of care.

 

Is the belief of a divorced man or woman that all members of the opposite sex are evil justified, because they were married to one such specimen? I think not.

[riobikini]

re:

 

InsanityImpaired: " Unless someone is content with the lack of care."

 

 

Is that to say swinging doesn't work unless *both* partners are content with the lack of care in the relationship?

 

(Smile)

 

It's the lack of care that makes my point, II.

 

InsanityImpaired: " Is the belief of a divorced man or woman that all members of the opposite sex are evil justified, because they were married to one such specimen?"

 

Making such broad sweeps of judgement towards "all members" of the opposite sex is ridiculous.

 

*Read more thoroughly.*

 

-Rio

[InsanityImpaired]

re:Making such broad sweeps of judgement towards "all members" of the opposite sex is ridiculous.

 

*Read more thoroughly.*

 

-Rio

So why do you insist that ALL swingers display lack of care?

[IWalkAlone]

I think the Hollywood definition of committed love is that a couple would be monogamous for decades, have a happy sex life (or at consistantly least see eye-to-eye on sexual issues), and never have a sexual thought about anyone other than their partner.

 

A big problem is that many people do have the above expectations. That's why some wives get upset if they see their husband checking out another woman at the beach or husbands are upset when their wife talks with another man.

 

But more level-headed people acknowledge that when a married person interacts with the world, they WILL encounter people they find attractive, and WILL feel that "chemistry" from time to time. The secure and mature spouse understands that this by itself is not bad. It's what the person might do with those feelings that MIGHT be bad.

 

Still, all the messages on all the forums here are evidence for me if decades-long monogamany was the natural and optimum human lifestyle, it would be a heck of a lot easier to acheive and maintain.

[riobikini]

re:

 

InsanityImpaired: " So why do you insist that ALL swingers display lack of care?"

 

Why do monkeys like bananas?

 

Why do frogs live in ponds?

 

Why do posters post the following (target emboldened) advocating the swinging lifestyle with the forthright admission that it takes detached emotions in order to *be* a swinger -and then attempt to set a flimsy word trap to entice others into a round of debate that (backpaddles) and denies the admission, becomes downright ridiculous, clarifies nothing, and keeps the pot boiling on an issue we all seem to agree on is the right of each individual to choose -or not- to be involved in???

 

 

InsanityImpaired: "That is not the swinging. Else you would not have cared either way. It is because of the difference in your ideas and his ideas on the whole thing. He did not care. That is the issue. And as long as it is an issue in his relationships they will all fail. Unless someone is content with the lack of care."

 

For the sake of understanding the lifestyle in debate (or question) I urge any who uphold it to speak a little clearer on the subject.

 

And be ready to backup (and own up to) your comments and statements.

 

-Rio

[InsanityImpaired]

re

Why do posters post the following (target emboldened) advocating the swinging lifestyle with the forthright admission that it takes detached emotions in order to *be* a swinger

That was your assumption. An assumption I have not even bothered to verify or oppose. So I must believe it, because I must ( ) be a swinger, like your ex-H, because I do not stupidly agree with media concoctations on the swinging life-style. (, using a brain is not illegal:eek: ) So where you are getting this form?

 

Or is this a demonstration of a thought written earlier in this thread by me? That you want to believe that I must believe that, which only leads to "fake" knowledge. But be my guest. But it will get you nowhere.

[riobikini]

(Sigh!)

 

InsanityImpaired, define for us, please, a list of both the *benefits* and the *drawbacks* of such a lifestyle.

 

It would be, at least, a beginnng insight into the real world of a couple of swingers.

 

(I'm exhausted with this!)

 

By the way -believing that I'm responding to a bonafide swinger, here- can you tell me how long *you* and *your wife* have practiced this lifestyle?

 

Please tell your *experience* with it.

 

Let's hear it: the "ups" and "downs" of a swinger.

 

And I'll see if I can muster some sympathy for the "downs".

 

(Smile)

 

Bring it!

 

-Rio

[riobikini]

I think some only advocate swinging on here -and IRL- to feel as if they "belong", or because it sounds "cool".

 

(Smile)

 

I also think it's a very foolish person who actually *practices* it, if they are *not* well-acquainted with the drawbacks, and absolutely committed and prepared (emotionally, esp.) to be involved in it.

 

And unless *you* are currently a practicing "swinger" -or have loads of experience with it -it might not be the path to switch to- and who's comments (having no experience with it) I am not persuaded by.

 

-Rio

[InsanityImpaired]

I am not going to draw up a list. Because the pros and cons will be different for different swingers (the same holds for marriage). And even the swinging experience itself can be very different between people, as Rio has shared in this thread.

 

It is certainly not something to pursue carelessly, or without feeling like her ex-H did. It is one of the many things people (within the context of a committed relationship) need to be on the same page about (kids, finances, career, sex, chores, place to live). And if not, it will be anything but a harmonious relationship. And even agreement does not mean that people are on the same page (it may be a compromise, against one's own judgment). People's attitudes and opinions change. Both people involved need to deal with the change(s). If that does not happen, people can and often will grow apart.

 

Feelings are important in any relationship. Whether it is a friendship, or an intimate relationship. You can't maintain them, if you are indifferent to them. Why anyone would think it would be different between two people who are in a swinging relationship is beyond me. Because they have sex with more than one person, while in a relationship?

People don't own each other, and that includes feelings, thoughts et cetera. Swingers simply deny that their SO has exclusive ownership over their body.

Although a lot of people think otherwise. If there is a feeling of ownerhip of your partner, as is all too common in "normal" relationships, this can lead to

the demise of the relationship. The same is true for a couple who swing. If a swinger treats his SO likewise, by not caring about her, waving away the partners' concerns.and just insisting on what one wants to do himself the relationship will not be healthy. And is likely to fail. Same for any committed relationship.

 

In addition, the whole conception of monogamous sex and love should be addressed - as I mentioned before, half of the married people cheat during marriage at least once. If you have sex with someone other than your partner, it does not diminish the love you have for your partner, in the mind of a swinger.

 

It is psychology 101, that people judge others, based on their similarity with one's own view points. Similarly we judge members of other groups, based on the limited experience we have with the members of that group. If that experience is bad, then crass generalizations can be the result.

 

Making such broad sweeps of judgement towards "all members" of the opposite sex is ridiculous.

And that is exactly what happens in case of a big let down, and horrible experiences. How many times have we seen threads like that on LS? Too many times.

That is what is happenning here people are making generalized assumptions about all people involved in the lifestyle and are making such broad sweeping statements, based on the experience (if any) with the lifestyle. But mainly those responders are basing their opinions on initial perception of "swinging", whether they actually know anything about the lifestyle at all.

[riobikini]

re:

 

InsanityImpaired: " ...people are making generalized assumptions about all people involved in the lifestyle and are making such broad sweeping statements, based on the experience (if any) with the lifestyle."

 

In response to that, *my own* judgements are based on much more than my personal experience.

 

With one particular couple I was acquainted with years ago, they had been married for so long (raised children through college) that they simply decided to remain together, instead of divorcing after all the passion had gone from their marriage.

 

They had what is more closely described as a friendship -but no love in the sense that a true marriage could survive.

 

This couple became swingers, allowing the trespass of others into each of their lives for sex, intimacy, and whatever other emotions could be derived out of it.

 

While they may have remained married, I see nothing there (then or now) that constitues any similarity to a heartfelt, meaningful, respecting relationship that traditional marriage vows are founded on.

 

Because this couple *allowed* this behavior and willingly committed to this lifestyle only makes it functional in the sense that there was an atmoshphere of "abiding" which prevailed -and no feelings of true, passionate love existed that might have spurred hurt or jealousy from either partner.

 

This deeper, more meaningful kind of intimacy, respect, -and love- I believe, is what's missing in swinging lifestyles.

 

In closing -and to be fair with *all* who might want to do a little "inputting", here -it would be interesting to know how gay couples feel about adopting the swinging lifestyle.

 

That might be a little more gasoline on the fire, so to speak, than swinging advocates can handle -especially, in light of the fact that -I believe- a lot of gay couples can tell us a thing or two about *commitment*, *respect*, and *love* in a relationship.

 

-Rio