Its not a condemnation of people's behaviour just a differentiation and definition of the two 'conditions'.
If you meet someone new and do it, I think its casual. With someone I know about , I think its swinging.
That's it. How else can I look at it?
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Swinging or Casual Sex?
Sex God
Quote by duncanlondon
If you meet someone new and do it, I think its casual. With someone I know about , I think its swinging.
So, by this definition, two monogamous married people would be swingers, but someone who fucks their brains out with strangers at Cupids every Saturday night would not be.
Errrr, I'm not getting this, am I?
:? :? :? :? :? :? 
Sex God
Quote by bluexxx
If you meet someone new and do it, I think its casual. With someone I know about , I think its swinging.
So, by this definition, two monogamous married people would be swingers, but someone who fucks their brains out with strangers at Cupids every Saturday night would not be.
Errrr, I'm not getting this, am I?
:? :? :? :? :? :? we fuck the brains out of strangers every sat night at cupids and we thought we were swingers !!errrr , we aint gettin this either ???????? 
Sex God
Quote by hornyred and dino
we fuck the brains out of strangers every sat night at cupids and we thought we were swingers !!errrr , we aint gettin this either ????????
Really? Seems to me you're getting quite a lot of it.
Honestly, some people are so ungrateful. :twisted:
Quote by duncanlondon
Its not about having a list of the people you had sex with.
Its knowing who they were with before you have sex with them. Knowing that there is a sequence of partners who are as clean and safe as you.
That is why you have a group of knowing and consenting adults. Otherwise you let in someone who presents a risk.
Sorry, I'm new to the scene and late to the party...but I just had to comment on this...
How on earth can ANYBODY truly verify ANYONE'S sexual history? I mean, I *could* give you a list of who *I* have shagged, but I couldn't tell you who THEY have shagged before me.
Surely trust, honesty & regular sexual health check-ups are better all round, than presenting a potential fuck with a list of names that means absolutely sod all to anyone, and saying "I dunno who they slept with..." ???
:? :? Please elaborate....
Sex God
:shock: Tufty said the "V" word! 
Quote by duncanlondon
Its not about having a list of the people you had sex with.
Its knowing who they were with before you have sex with them. Knowing that there is a sequence of partners who are as clean and safe as you.
That is why you have a group of knowing and consenting adults. Otherwise you let in someone who presents a risk.
Oh...and how would you know who your potential shag had been with prior to you? Just HOW would you know?
And what if one of that "chosen group" had slept with an "unclean" stranger?
It's all the same...I don't see how you can verify ANYONE'S sexual history...
Sex God
She said it again! :smackbottom:
:smackbottom: Quote by duncanlondon
The point is that when you know about the sequence of activity of a partner you are swinging. If you don't know who they last had sex with, you go back to doing casual.
Its quite simple.
So...by YOUR reckoning, EVERY swinger is actually a casual. Unless, of course, all the said swingers are actually medical virgins (only way to truly tell that somebody is or isn't "clean")...
Sex God
Quote by The_Ultimate_Fluffy_Thing
Please elaborate....
Yes, please do, Duncan, cos you've well and truly confused me! Can't you see that the basic premise of your theory, i.e. "knowing" is flawed. I agree with those that say being a swinger is a state of mind, not a specific type of activity. "Knowing" your partners' sexual histories is irrelevant.
ops: Sex God
Quote by The_Ultimate_Fluffy_Thing
She said it again!
Can I say it again? I'm enjoying this.... :twisted:
Go on then, I realise it's just an excuse for more auto-flagellation. Whatever rattles your cage. :twisted:
Sex God
come back all is forgiven
Orgasminator
Blimey, it got a bit heated about midnight didn't it! 
Sex God
Quote by Ice Pie
we fuck the brains out of strangers every sat night at cupids and we thought we were swingers !!errrr , we aint gettin this either ????????
Really? Seems to me you're getting quite a lot of it.
Honestly, some people are so ungrateful. :twisted:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: Why do people get wound-up about the definitions of labels?
Answer - As previously stated it relates to self-image and identity.
Example:
Anne is a 25 year old, female, long distance runner with a daughter - her conscious and subconscious identity may include the following ‘labels’…
Woman
Single mother
Daughter
Sister
Athlete
Sports person
Driver
Worker
Etc…..
She may be proud to be a ‘single mother’, as she relates this to being a strong characteristic; believing it shows she is capable of caring for her child, providing a loving home and still having a career.
She may be proud of the label ‘athlete’ and sees this to be a strong indication of her personality; believing ‘athlete’ reflects her dedication, discipline, commitment, etc.
She may identify strongly with the label ‘sports person’; believing this indicates to people she is healthy, fit and takes her training seriously, has a talent/skill, etc.
Then along comes a ‘chavette’ single mum, who signs on welfare, has a range of children from different fathers, smokes, drinks, leaves the kids to run wild, etc. Her current boyfriend is a part-time doorman, who pops pills and goes to the gym once a week, if he has time. He considers himself an ‘athlete’ because he trains his body at the gym and has entered a couple of body building contests. Her 18 stone farther plays darts, between pints, for a darts team and has won several crown bowling championships. She is proud to ‘label’ her dad a ‘sports person’.
Can we all see where this is going?
All of the positive attributes Anne associated with her identity ‘labels’ are challenged by the fact that others are now sharing these labels and she cannot relate to their attitude, way of living, etc. Anne will wish to disassociate herself from the attributes of the ‘chavette’, her boyfriend and farther. As Anne feels being a ‘single mother’ is a fundamental part of her identity, Anne is likely to attempt to create a new label for the ‘chavette’.
I can be bothered to try and explain this anymore – it’s too early.
Answer - As previously stated it relates to self-image and identity.
Example:
Anne is a 25 year old, female, long distance runner with a daughter - her conscious and subconscious identity may include the following ‘labels’…
Woman
Single mother
Daughter
Sister
Athlete
Sports person
Driver
Worker
Etc…..
She may be proud to be a ‘single mother’, as she relates this to being a strong characteristic; believing it shows she is capable of caring for her child, providing a loving home and still having a career.
She may be proud of the label ‘athlete’ and sees this to be a strong indication of her personality; believing ‘athlete’ reflects her dedication, discipline, commitment, etc.
She may identify strongly with the label ‘sports person’; believing this indicates to people she is healthy, fit and takes her training seriously, has a talent/skill, etc.
Then along comes a ‘chavette’ single mum, who signs on welfare, has a range of children from different fathers, smokes, drinks, leaves the kids to run wild, etc. Her current boyfriend is a part-time doorman, who pops pills and goes to the gym once a week, if he has time. He considers himself an ‘athlete’ because he trains his body at the gym and has entered a couple of body building contests. Her 18 stone farther plays darts, between pints, for a darts team and has won several crown bowling championships. She is proud to ‘label’ her dad a ‘sports person’.
Can we all see where this is going?
All of the positive attributes Anne associated with her identity ‘labels’ are challenged by the fact that others are now sharing these labels and she cannot relate to their attitude, way of living, etc. Anne will wish to disassociate herself from the attributes of the ‘chavette’, her boyfriend and farther. As Anne feels being a ‘single mother’ is a fundamental part of her identity, Anne is likely to attempt to create a new label for the ‘chavette’.
I can be bothered to try and explain this anymore – it’s too early.
Quote by PoloLady
Question 1:
If a couple invite a single female to their home to enjoy and evening of sexual activity, because the female is single (and therefore cannot be a swinger as she is not a couple - as defined by some people) does that mean the couple are not actually swinging in this situation?
The couple are inviting someone into their sex life for the evening so I would have to say yes, they're swinging. The single female is being invited to join in so she's helping them to swing for the evening, she's involved in the swinging. Does that make the single female a swinger?
Quote by PoloLady
Question 2: This time the single female takes a single male (who is a close sexual friend) along to the couple's house. A frequent amount of switching and swapping takes place during sexual activity. Because the female and male are not legally/socially considered a couple, again does this mean the actual couple are not swinging in this situation?
Same thing again. I don't think there's any question about whether the actual couple are swingers or not because they're inviting other people into their sex lives. The question is more about whether the makeshift couple are swingers or are they just swinging for the evening?
Steve
At the end of the day - does it really fucking matter? 
It is a self-imposed 'label' and in the grand scheme of things it is no more relevant than the label in the back of my knickers.
If you are unfortunate enough to be getting really wound-up by the definition of ‘swinger’ then either…
A – you are obsessive about your identity and need help!
B – you only identify with this ‘label’, which indicates your hierarchy of needs is not being met at an unhealthy level (which means you don’t have a life!) and again you need help!
C – you are getting wound-up over fuck-all! Chill!
Debate is good – but don’t have a ‘cow’!
It is a self-imposed 'label' and in the grand scheme of things it is no more relevant than the label in the back of my knickers.
If you are unfortunate enough to be getting really wound-up by the definition of ‘swinger’ then either…
A – you are obsessive about your identity and need help!
B – you only identify with this ‘label’, which indicates your hierarchy of needs is not being met at an unhealthy level (which means you don’t have a life!) and again you need help!
C – you are getting wound-up over fuck-all! Chill!
Debate is good – but don’t have a ‘cow’!
Sex God
the label in the back of my knickers.
You wear knickers? Are they M&S or Tesco's ?? (sorry)
Bev
xx
Quote by cool4catz
What's the difference? If the two single people are just "swinging for the evening" why doesn't that also apply to the couple?
Which kinda brings us back to the original question.
OK.......let's fast forward to the end of the evening. The makeshift couple have left the home of the actual couple and gone their separate ways back to their own homes. The actual couple spend some time discussing the evening and which parts of it turned them on the most, what they liked, what they didn't like, whether they'd like to repeat the experience etc. They fall asleep together safe in the knowledge that they have a strong relationship and are happy to involve other people in their sex lives.
The makeshift couple left the house and before going their separate ways said something like "That was fantastic, we must do it again some time".
Everybody had a great night, all of them were swinging, but who are the swingers and who was just having casual sex in a swinging environment?
Gawd........when will i learn to keep my mouth shut? :doh:
Steve
Quote by steveg_nw
Gawd........when will i learn to keep my mouth shut? :doh:
Steve
Keep it open Steve. That summed the difference up perfectly as far as we're concerned.
We feel that there is a commitment to each other within a couple that cannot be replicated by singles when playing, having recreational (casual) sex, whatever people choose to call it.
This does not mean that singles are a second class swinger, but their experience of the scene must surely be different to a couple's, if only for the reasons Steve outlined.
Quote by northwest-cpl
We feel that there is a commitment to each other within a couple that cannot be replicated by singles when playing, having recreational (casual) sex, whatever people choose to call it.
This does not mean that singles are a second class swinger, but their experience of the scene must surely be different to a couple's, if only for the reasons Steve outlined.
Kinda have to disagree with you a tad there guys. I am a single woman whose preference is to "swing" with couples who are in a strong relationship (as opposed to "make-shift" couples). The fact that I am a part of that loving, strong relationship is part of what makes the experience a fantastic one for me. It certainly isn't just casual sex for me. It's a whole lot more.
Sex God
Quote by steveg_nw
OK.......let's fast forward to the end of the evening. The makeshift couple have left the home of the actual couple and gone their separate ways back to their own homes. The actual couple spend some time discussing the evening and which parts of it turned them on the most, what they liked, what they didn't like, whether they'd like to repeat the experience etc. They fall asleep together safe in the knowledge that they have a strong relationship and are happy to involve other people in their sex lives.
The makeshift couple left the house and before going their separate ways said something like "That was fantastic, we must do it again some time".
Everybody had a great night, all of them were swinging, but who are the swingers and who was just having casual sex in a swinging environment?
I see the idea here, but I don't think in this instance the "real" couple are no more swingers than the "makeshift" one. It doesn't make sense in my experience. See, I can be in both of the above situations. I can "swing" with Satin, with whom I have a committed relationshp (we live together balh blah blah). But I also have a male friend with whom I go to "swingers" clubs with on a regular basis. Me and him only see each other on clubbing nights and usually only contact each other when we are planning the next night out. We are not "good" friends although I have known him around 4 years. We have an "arrangement", ie, we are a "makeshift couple" on clubbing nights. He dates other people and I'm not sure he really classes himself a swinger. However, I digress.... taking the "end of the evening" scenario.....
If me and D ("makeshift couple") have a good night, on the way home we might say "that was fantastic, we must do it again sometime", or we may even discuss bits we liked and bits and we didin't like, etc etc.
But
If me and Satin ("real couple") have a good night, on the way home we might say "that was fantastic, we must do it again sometime", or we may even discuss bits we liked and bits and we didin't like, etc etc.
See... exactly the same... so much so that I copied the first paragraph and just changed the second name
The point I'm making is that, for me, I am a swinger. Whether I swing with my committed partner, with a partner I choose for the evening, or if I go out on my own and fuck some stranger in the park, I still define myself as a swinger. It is not about my actual behaviours on a particular time, but my attitude to the experience. Can you see the difference?
That is my definition of myself. I am not saying that a swinger should be defined in those terms, just how I identify myself. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. I'm just answering the debate as I see it
Quote by bluexxx
The point I'm making is that, for me, I am a swinger. Whether I swing with my committed partner, with a partner I choose for the evening, or if I go out on my own and fuck some stranger in the park, I still define myself as a swinger. It is not about my actual behaviours on a particular time, but my attitude to the experience. Can you see the difference?
That is my definition of myself. I am not saying that a swinger should be defined in those terms, just how I identify myself. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter. I'm just answering the debate as I see it
I sat thinking of a way to say how I felt but whilst I did and was editing it in word Blue posted this and it says exactly how I feel but in a better way
My thoughts .....
Asked Hubby the following question .... if we invite MrX to join us in a threesome is that swinging? If I go out with MrX alone and we end up in bed is that swinging, casual or recreational sex? If MrX joins us with a female and we all shag together . is that the only definition of swinging????
He looked at me, asked me if I was horny and now thinks he's on a promise with me and his mate :shock: :shock: :shock:
did that get lost in translation somewhere?????
After a discussion on polyamory which is where we have considered ourselves to be ... not a label but a stage of development in our relationship ~ I read this
What is Polyamory?
Polyamory is a relationship style that involves an openness to be being involved with more than one person at the same time. Polyamory is about responsible non-monogamy. Polyamory is not about cheating, or dishonesty. Polyamory pre-supposes that all people involved consent to this arrangement, and are honest about what is going on.
Polyamory is NOT swinging
There is a major distinction to be made between what is called "Swinging" and Polyamory. In swinging, the intent is to engage in non-monogamous sexual behavior without the development of love, affection or personal intimacy between oneself and the secondary partners. Swingers generally seek to engage in recreational sex without emotional intimacy. With polyamory, there is no such restriction, and the intent IS to allow such emotional intimacy to exist, develop, and grow between the people involved.
Now I’m not so sure. As a couple I’m a swinger, as a female I would say I’m polyamorus. I have other partners with whom I have an emotional/intellectual attachment (not love though) and have recreational sex with them with the permission of hubby. I wouldn’t say that it is casual sex because I don’t just jump into bed with strangers … I need some form of trust and connection.
There must be a crossover at some point …………
C xx
Quote by Calista
As a couple I’m a swinger, as a female I would say I’m polyamorus. I have other partners with whom I have an attachment (not love though) and have recreational sex with them with the permission of hubby. I wouldn’t say that it is casual sex because I don’t just jump into bed with strangers … I need some form of trust and connection.
There must be a crossover at some point …………
Very interesting addition to the debate there Calista. Thank you. Like you - I need some form of trust, connection and definitely attraction. I am lucky in that I have built a friendship with the couple I see regularly. To the point where they now pop in for just a cup of tea etc. There is a connection there and also a trust. It is very obviously NSA - but it is more than just a casual "shag" for all of us. Where is that line then I wonder. Something to ponder on.
Sex God
Quote by Calista
What is Polyamory?
Polyamory is a relationship style that involves an openness to be being involved with more than one person at the same time. Polyamory is about responsible non-monogamy. Polyamory is not about cheating, or dishonesty. Polyamory pre-supposes that all people involved consent to this arrangement, and are honest about what is going on.
Polyamory is NOT swinging
There is a major distinction to be made between what is called "Swinging" and Polyamory. In swinging, the intent is to engage in non-monogamous sexual behavior without the development of love, affection or personal intimacy between oneself and the secondary partners. Swingers generally seek to engage in recreational sex without emotional intimacy. With polyamory, there is no such restriction, and the intent IS to allow such emotional intimacy to exist, develop, and grow between the people involved.
Now I’m not so sure. As a couple I’m a swinger, as a female I would say I’m polyamorus. I have other partners with whom I have an attachment (not love though) and have recreational sex with them with the permission of hubby. I wouldn’t say that it is casual sex because I don’t just jump into bed with strangers … I need some form of trust and connection.
There must be a crossover at some point …………
C xx
Interesting. Well, yes, polyamory is not swinging unless the people involved in that relationship are also swingers
. You could have a case where there are three (or more) people living in a polyamorous relationship, but sometimes they also engage in recreational sex with others, which would (in my view at least) would be swinging. However, if the three (or more) people were only having sex with each other and never involved others within their Three (or more)some, they would not be swingers. Does that make sense? Probably not. :? But it can be more complicated than that. WIth my ex, with whom I split up with about 6 years ago, we had an open relationship almost from the beginning. He was bi but was not interested in swinging - at all. he was happy for me to pursue sex or indeed relationships outside of our relationship, but he did not wish to do the same. he had an occassional minor fling with a guy, but that is all. There is only one time I can recall that he did that, and he was apparently happy with the state of his sexual affairs. I was not a hard swinger at the time. I did occassionally shag guys, but not that often, though if I did I knew I had the permission of J (my ex). However... and I'm getting to the point now... I did have a sexual and meaningful relationship with a guy that lasted for around a year or more if you include the flirting for months before anything actually happened :? , whilst I was living with J. J and the guy (R), became friends and R used to very often stay at our house. When he did I selpt with R. I also used to stay at R's place very often, maybe once or twice a week. So.... is that polyamorous? I would say so, on my part. But R was a bit of a cheater :? . I kind of knew (and wasn't really bothered) that he was fucking a couple of women without telling me. He did admit it actually and became pretty open about it afterwards. Was he swinging? No, he was just fucking :? :? :? ... Hmmmmm..... becomes blurry though, doesn't it! Then I met someone else called A. I shagged him a couple of times behind R's back (naughty naughty). But I'm not a good cheat so I told R and finished the relationship. J knew about A from the start, and then A started to be a regular at our house. But A was married (shock) and although it lasted on and off for a few months it fizzled out when his wife left him :? :? :? .... Was all that swinging? No. That was just naughty shagging....
So.... if you followed all that........ :shock: ...... you can maybe now see why I think definitions of behaviour at a bit useless really. I did not have the "attitude" of a swinger in those days. I do now, so that's why I think that swinging is more like an identity not just a collection of fucks.
To bring it up to the present a bit.... I suppose I've tried polyamory (sort of) and though I wouldn't rule it out now, I don't think I could do it with Satin cos he is too jealous. Polyamory has it's own set of rules that are waaaaaaaaay more complicated than swinging. Well I think so anyway :?
