Not sure it is, I don't have to swing I do it because I enjoy it, it is not a need.
I know that Germaine Greer has said that she thinks that besides the two sexualities, Heterosexual and Homosexual, that perhaps should be considered as a third.
None of the above I believe can be considered choices where as swinging, I feel, is.
I think it has something to do with early sexual experiences.
Homosexuality is a sexuality i.e. homosexuals are born not made the same as heterosexuals.
Swinging/threesomes/gangbangs are choice, if there is anyone out there that HAS to swing etc I would be interested in knowing because that then would imply that there is an extra sexuality, or atleast it would mean there could be others.
We, and I mean A_tre and myself, choose to do this, its fun, sexy and highly enjoyable but if she turned around to me and said she didnt want us to do it anymore we could stop.
Isn't it more likely to be a throw-back to our ancestors who got laid with whoever, wherever and whenever they could in order to maximise the chances of passing on their genes?
There is some merit in that, but brief encounters does not necessarily improve the gene pool choice. Humans select mates (if they know it or not) because they feel their mate is a good bet genetically speaking.
On the merit side it could ensure your genes are continued in the event that a fatal event happens to your "family" offspring. But it doesn't allow for the competitive nature of humans not wanting another mans sperm swimming in your chosen mates tubes (obviously from a male point of view)
Actually perhaps swinging is a more female thing than a males? Allowing her suitors respective sperm to fight their way through.
I dunno.
According to Darwin we are given sexual drive to procreate and so keep the population going. If men were merely designed to procreate at will spreading their genes as widely as possible then the population would be 1 guy for 100 girls ….. (ahh just thinking of that utopia ! ) As populations tend to settle on equal numbers – after recovering from war, famine etc. men spreading their seed is not required – we are clearly required to bond and bring up children. So there is no evolutionary advantage.
In swingers however I think it is the liberated upbringing that differentiates. Especially with women. Both sexes have a sexual drive but society has for years accepted that blokes – ‘put it about’ so they are called studs etc (generally aspirational terms) where as women who act in the same way are slags etc (generally derogatory terms ) This is because society (run by blokes) has used the excuse of spreading their seed – which I think is a misnomer ! Ok a Guy can father potentially 1000’s of children where as women can just about have 15 (I bet that brings tears to the eyes girls ).
If you have been brought up with a fairly liberal attitude to sex and see it as recreation rather than procreation then one uses ones sexual drive to its full by swinging. Those who don’t swing are repressing their natural drive as they considered it to be ‘wrong’.
We will see when there is true equality between the sexes when the entry price to clubs are the same for single blokes as women – but that was another topic !
So a sexual Orientation – I don’t think so .
Fun and a sign of superior development – oh yes :-)
Bugger my old boots if we carry on having informed light hearted sexual discussions I may have to dig my thinking head out of the turnip bin and dust it off.
I think sexual energy, for the want of a better word, is primarily genetic as evidenced by my parents and siblings and offspring's behaviours and attitudes and those exhibited by the relatives of other people I know who are deeply into sex----some love it some dont. This doesn't mean that evolution will lead to ever randier humans because fucking a lot doesn't seem to have that much impact on how many of the kids you make reach maturity.
On top of that of course you have social conditioning and life experience.
Now that's just as far as liking sex is concerned, if we move on to swinging then the social/upbringing aspects have even more bearing I think, to the extent that I have met quite a few swingers who don't actually like sex that much but are fulfilling other emotional needs.
In summary I think theres a randy gene not a swinging gene. I think there are as many reasons for becoming a swinger as there are swingers.
ah, now then... evolution....
as far as that is concerned, I think we, as a species, have shot ourselves in the foot as soon as we learned to pick up a tool and start 'thinking' for ourselves.
we learned to not only adapt to our environment, but adapt the environment to suit us! To such a degree that the environment is now racing away from us, leaving us playing with our ever less effective tools. (the tools being not practicle and necesary for survival, but life enhancing fripperies that sedate our survival instincts.
as to shooting ourselves in the foot, we made the weapon ourselves... how silly is that?
the nearest we may have gotten to evolutionary progress was in our heads, though now we have the machines to do that for us.
the sooner we go back to picking up a bone-shard and descimating the local populous the better.
ugh let's fuck ugh
lp
Yes it is genetic and yes it has been suppressed over the past 2000 years.
Only swingers must be allowed to survive! :twisted:
Now where did Sara go with those SH badges?
Monogomy is an artificial state for humans imposed by the church as a means of control.
Mother nature intended multiple partners. What "we" do is ignore what the church/society preaches in favour of what comes naturally.
Some people suit monogamy. Some people don't, but they "do" monogamy because it's what's expected of them. Some people suit Polyamoury. Others suit Promiscuity. Rollop the Trollop suits rubber.
Such is life.
Genetics? Nope, me saw a pro gramme on the telly :shock: