Swinging or Casual Sex?

6 Feb 2005

Just to add my thoughts to this very interesting thread -
numerous different views and perspectives have been aired and many questions asked.
As I see things, swinging requires more than two people, gender and marital status are irrelevant.
What defines 'swinging' for me is the realationship between at least two of the people in the equasion.
For example - Kat and I are a couple, we have a realationship that is more than a shagging relationship lol

We began swinging with single guys, at this stage the physical presence of 3 people was required - Kat, Kit and guy all in the same room.
However, add another dimension - ie Kit is away from home and shags a stranger she has met. Kat does not know about this at the time but on her return home Kit tells Kat all about it rolleyes

In my view Kit is swinging when she does this.
My rationale is that she shags the stranger cos she wants to and because she knows she will share this shag with Kat on her return home and they will both get to enjoy the shag wink

Still with me confused

:
My point is that in order to swing only the physical presence of two people is required although the involvement of at least one emotional relatiionship between the 3 is necessary for it to be a swinging experience. Anything without at least one emotional relationship is casual sex.
bolt

6 Feb 2005

Quote by The_Ultimate_Fluffy_Thing
Eeeeehhhh....well I killed this thread
I'm off for a bath.....

Damn !!! Missed an opportunity to offer my back scrubbing services :doh:

6 Feb 2005

Just stumbled upon this thread after returning from Vix' & my weekend "honeymoon", and it brought to mind an e-mail conversation with a friend in the 'States just a few days ago. A recent transatlantic visitor was talking to her after having met us, and she came to the conclusion that my current lifestyle was a bit "promiscuous"...which, to me, implies that I engage in casual sex. This is how I replied:

Quote by Reese
Not sure what XXXX has said to you, but I certainly wouldn't describe myself as "promiscuous". To me, promiscuity implies having indiscriminate, casual sexual relations frequently with different partners. I don't know if I'd mentioned this before, but I simply cannot do "casual sex"...there has to be something more. I would never engage in physical intimacy with someone I didn't share a strong connection with, be it emotional, intellectual or spiritual. There has to be some other intimacy in place before I could ever "get physical" with anyone.
The way I would best attempt to describe it is that I have a number of very close friendships with wherein I share a variety of intimacies. Typically, we're conditioned to believe it is perfectly acceptable to share social, intellectual or emotional intimacy with our close friends - pouring out our souls to each other, sharing joys as well as tears, and just accompanying each other upon this journey of life. The best and most soul-satisfying friendships are those within which multiple intimacies are shared.
However, for that friendship to extend into the realm of physical intimacy is largely in conventional thinking. Why is it that we can enjoy a strong emotional or spiritual bond with another, but that a physical bond is not permitted (unless within the context of a monogamous relationship)? Are we not losing out on experiencing the whole of that person? I merely feel that physical intimacy should be allowed to be just as open as the spiritual, emotional and intellectual!
To that end, I do indeed have a number of dear friends with whom I share a physical bond, but these become so only when other strong connections exist with them in addition to the physical. That might sound a bit biased against physical, to make other intimacies a prerequisite to "going there", but it's just the way I am. I just could never engage in sex or cuddling or anything like that just for the sake of the experience. In every case, there has to be a strong and enduring bond with a person before I'd ever venture into any sort of physical relationship. I have to share my mind and spirit before I'll share my body.

~Reese!

6 Feb 2005

Quote by nandslondon
Eeeeehhhh....well I killed this thread
I'm off for a bath.....

Damn !!! Missed an opportunity to offer my back scrubbing services :doh:
:mrgreen:
I quite fancy a double spa :twisted:

6 Feb 2005

Quote by Rainbows

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.
No-one is saying that what you do is casual. Put whatever name you like on it, we used casual as the third possibility and we much prefer to say playing. However, we never think of the sex we have with couples or singles as anything but casual though, because we want fun, friendship if it happens, but not a new relationship of any kind. We would think that most playing couples are looking for fun, not polyamoury.
The point we were making is that the emotional experience of a single is very unlikely to be the same as the couple's emotional experience because of the couple's shared history etc, unless they are all living as a threesome. The single shares the relationship with the couple, a positive, two-way thing, but does not become a permanent part of it, and therefore there are aspects of the relationship that the single cannot be party to.
As Steve said, eventually the single says good-night or good-morning and leaves, whereas the couple can continue to share the experience with each other. This is not devaluing the single's experience of the scene but pointing out that it is definitely different to the couple's experience... at least in our view.

7 Feb 2005

Quote by northwest-cpl
No-one is saying that what you do is casual. Put whatever name you like on it, we used casual as the third possibility and we much prefer to say playing. However, we never think of the sex we have with couples or singles as anything but casual though, because we want fun, friendship if it happens, but not a new relationship of any kind. We would think that most playing couples are looking for fun, not polyamoury.
The point we were making is that the emotional experience of a single is very unlikely to be the same as the couple's emotional experience because of the couple's shared history etc, unless they are all living as a threesome. The single shares the relationship with the couple, a positive, two-way thing, but does not become a permanent part of it, and therefore there are aspects of the relationship that the single cannot be party to.
As Steve said, eventually the single says good-night or good-morning and leaves, whereas the couple can continue to share the experience with each other. This is not devaluing the single's experience of the scene but pointing out that it is definitely different to the couple's experience... at least in our view.

I hear what you saying - and to some extent I agree with you - but lets take Kit's analogy of sharing a sexual experience with Kat and turn that around slightly. Take the couple who have great sex with a single person - then go onto have great sex together another time - whilst discussing the single person - and then tell that single person just how much that "recollection" added to their own sex that particular night. They are including that person in their own sexual world without that person being there.
Now bear in mind that that same single person is probably also seeing two or three couples and enjoying that same experience with all of them.
Does that still make the single person a non swinger?
Rs :color: (wondering if Venus's insomnia is catching!)

7 Feb 2005

Quote by Rainbows

This is not devaluing the single's experience of the scene but pointing out that it is definitely different to the couple's experience... at least in our view.

Does that still make the single person a non swinger?

Yes, of course the single is a swinger. We carefully avoided using the words swinger or swinging because we are not putting values or labels to this. We see singles as an integral part of the scene, and for a couple, singles can provide a very different playing experience, as we know from experience. The single, playing with a couple is surely a "swinger", but their experience of the encounter will be a different one to the couple's, that's all.

Quote by Kit
My point is that in order to swing only the physical presence of two people is required although the involvement of at least one emotional relatiionship between the 3 is necessary for it to be a swinging experience. Anything without at least one emotional relationship is casual sex.

If there is a need for labels and definitions, then this seems a good definition of the difference between â€œswingingâ€ and other forms of sex outside a monogamous relationship. Maybe recreational sex instead of casual sex would be a better term to use though, since casual sex has seemed at times to have the hint of disapproval to it.
Probably though, we should all just get on with playing in whatever way we do and not worry too much about what itâ€™s called. lol

7 Feb 2005

Wow! This is a remarkably interesting thread with so many aspects to it. Bearing in mind

Quote by PoloLady
At the end of the day - does it really fucking matter?

before posting I thought, 'What can be gained by adding to the debate' (One person's 'truth' being another person's waffle. . .)?
So at the risk of waffling, I think it's good to debate it if it adds to a spirit of understanding, tolerance, openness - the general values most peeps here hold in common - or also if it's fun (and not hurting peeps in the process).
Definitions of swinging
1) Swinging in swinger clubs
2) Swinging at private parties
3) Swinging at private meets
4) Swinging as a lifestyle philosophy
5) Swinging as promiscuous sex or free love (I only include this definition as it's one the newspapers and many of their readers would lap up, not one I subscribe to.)
1) Swinging in swinger clubs is an activity defined by where you are. That's what you do - if you have sex in a club where it's called that. Everyone knows the rules, whether you know the people well, whether there's committed relationships, whether you're a couple or a single, swinging is the club activity. I personally think (because of my personal experience, not because holding a different view is less or more valid) that this is the most straightforward form of swinging, that other styles involve optional extras like friendship and emotional commitment.
2) Peeps on here have opened my eyes as to the potential of private parties. You can have a distinctly different experience and arrange scenarios with a group of peeps at a party with degree of sophistication and extended trust that you could not arrange at a club. I think it's a different style, and excellent in its own way. The safeguards are through knowing people better rather than the more official rules of a club situation.
3) Private meets are a softer option, they have more emotional similarities to traditional ways of meeting and having sex with peeps. There's lots of different variations, some would call some swinging and some wouldn't.
4) The attitude of mind is central to all of them except the fifth one (because the fifth one describes a fantasy rather than a reality).

(SH Terminology) Swinging isn't simply 'Wife Swapping', nor is it quite as simple as 'Recreational sex between consenting adults' - even though we prefer the latter definition. No, it's more a state of mind. It's about being honest, open-minded, and expressing yourself freely. It's about enjoying sex with other people while not endangering pre-existing relationships. It's about enjoying sexually liberated fun no matter whether you're a single person or a couple or a triple or...

This is not only an excellent (if imperfect) definition, it also includes peeps (and I'd include myself) who see swinging as a more evolved lifestyle, however defined - and one that more people would choose if they understood it. In this sense, a swinger is a state of being, like a religion or something essential to you. (By analogy, I think of myself as a dancer, even if I haven't been dancing for two weeks - I believe passionately in dance!*) Or as Blue said,

Quote by bluexxx
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?

Yep!
5)This has to be included simply because it is a commonly understood sense of the word, however falsely applied. It maybe stems from the 'Swinging Sixties'.
When I think about my own attitude (I would say I 'dip in and out of swinging'): I might have not been involved in swinging for, say, a couple of years - but people who don't know what swinging is about would still probably class me as a 'swinger' in view of my past history. Truth is in the ears of the beholder (A pertinent thought when you are thinking of 'fessing up to your orthodox pals?)
Eek! Sorry for the length of the post! Some silliness before continuing
hump

:violin: :swingingchair: 69position

:bounce: but that's a different thread rotflmao

Casual sex
I confess to having an issue about the labels that some maybe share. 'Casual sex' is a phrase that was once used freely without any moral overtones. Nowadays it carries shades of disapproval - and also ignorance I think. Non-swinger friends whose main experience has been monogamous as far as they can remember, can think of the singles lifestyle in lurid terms because they have no knowledge of it. Some of my sexual relationships have not been long term ones, but I can think of very few I would describe as 'casual'. Whether I've known someone a long time or just met them, I am fairly methodical and think carefully before having sex with them. 'Casual sex' also often implies unconsidered sex, or sex without condoms - not something I do.
In a swingers club, the whole process will often happen quite quickly, but I still wouldn't say it was 'casual'. In non-swinging terms, if I have a 'fling' then my philosophy is still similar to the (SH) philosophy - I might be selfish but am decent, open, good value selfish, as usually are my partners. I care about the people I have sex with - they help me grow as a human being, and some of the swingers I have met (sometimes just for a few hours in a club) have been among the most caring peeps I have ever met.
Finally, Calista's quote was so cool I want to mention it again -

Quote by Calista
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.

I'd say I am quite new to polyamory, and have been 'introduced' over the last few months by a wonderful couple both of whom I care about deeply. Previously I had just thought it was a dangerous area but, managed skilfully, it's an enriching emotional experience for which I'm thankful! In a different way, private parties and much SH intercourse (if you'll excuse the pun) involves some emotional intimacy even if not to the extent of polyamory.
Rainbows echoed my thoughts on this

Quote by Rainbows
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.

though I do enjoy other forms of sex and swinging too.
Thank you to everyone contributing to this thread for expanding the ideas and the ways we have for discussing them.
Be true to yourself and one another (as Springer might say lol) - the definitions are icing on the cake.
xx Chris
* note to Corriefem - good luck with the salsa tonight!! :-)

7 Feb 2005

I just asked myself the question: 'If nip home at lunchtime for a quickie with Kit, are we swinging?' rolleyes

But it did start me thinking about the likes of WIll and Sappho, two singlies who arrived on here looking for their own thing, and ended up with something very different. - In fact, two somethings. :twisted:
I'll stick with swinging being an attitude that manifests itself in many ways, rather than a behaviour.
lhk
Kat