Swinging/open marriages?

[Pink_Tulip]

InsanityImpaired,

 

I think you are assuming a lot about marriages and cheating. 99.999% of people who cheat do NOT cheat b/c they want multiple sex partners, or are 'predisposed' to spreading their seed, but b/c some EMOTIONAL needs are not being met. They meet someone who can fulfill that, and a physical desire naturally follows. I think most people would agree that cheating would be cut drastically if men and women had a much better understanding of eachother, and had some sort of education on communication, etc.

 

One of the first signs of a partner cheating is that partner all of a sudden becoming jealous. Seems ironic, but that partner sees what they are doing and realizes it can happen to them too, and they DON'T want that. It seems to me that if swinging and multiple partners were natural amonst humans, that partner, after cheating himself, would reach an epiphony and encourage their partner to experience sex outside marriage, rather than trying to protect that spouse through overbearing jealousy.

 

I really don't care what choice consenting adults make in their personal lives. But if anyone asks, I think I (and others in this forum) have the right to say that through our personal experience, we understand that for the most part, emotionally healthy marriages would be destroyed through swinging. I know personally, the ONLY time I have ever seen swinging brought up is when a partner is missing something, and rather than looking into the marriage, they look outside, and want to convince a spouse to do the same. This is very destructive. I would be more than happy to discuss this topic with a swinger who also has a successful marriage and has done so for a significant amount of time, however my experience has shown me this person does not exist. I am sure there are exceptions, but I doubt there are many. My goal here, as is with many members, is to help others with questions, and learn a few things myself. I don't believe, nor will I ever believe, that encouraging an open marriage or swinging lifestyle is helping. Just my two cents.

[CarolAnne]

While it sounds like it might work for some people in theory, I can think of a few reasons why in REALITY this is a terrible idea, even for non-jealous "against ownership" couples

 

STD's

 

A condom won't prevent herpes or mono because those are spread by kissing and mouth/saliva. Also, crabs live in the pubic hair and are spread just by coming in contact with their pubic hair or bedsheets, even with condoms. Nothing says "maybe this swinging relationship was a mistake" quite like contracting the herpes virus and having open sores on your mouth for the rest of your life to share with your husband/wife and possibly kids. Particularly as some "swingers" seem to get around quite a bit. Anyone with that many sexual parterns could literally be a walking petri dish of human diseases. Some people who don't know any better and do oral without any protection. Did you know gonorrhea can grow in your mouth? Syphilis too. Yikes. It happens when an infected person is given unprotected oral. Then the newly infected-in-the-mouth person can spread it by kissing. Of course, looking into stranger's mouths to check for red spots and infections isn't very sexy. Also, oral on a person with (undiagnosed) HIV - if you have open sores in your mouth or bleeding gums from gingivitis, it is a route allowing the virus to pass through into your circulation.

 

From a disease epidemiology standpoint, having sex with random people who sign up on the internet to have sex with lots of strangers every weekend is just... extremely scary. Even if you catch something "not so bad" like someone else's yeast or crabs, I think that is just disgusting. The only way I could even imagine doing something like that is if every single person involved had just received an STD screen and come back negative for every single one. Even that wouldn't guarantee they don't have HIV or another virus because of the latency period. But the "meeting strangers in a club wearing a special symbol so other swingers in the club can recognize you" scares the living bejeezus out of me. Do you have any idea who they have slept with in the past and how dedicated they are to protected sex? An STD screens to prove they and each of their recent partners are clean?

 

Anyone who is thinking of doing such a thing, I would highly recommend that you be VERY selective and only do it with another couple that you know and have everyone take a full STD screen/blood test beforehand. Yes it ruins the impromptu nature of crazy swinging with hot strangers. But truly, you do not want to get a call in a few months from the state health service reporting to you that one of the swingers recently tested positive for HIV and they want you and your partner tested too

 

That is why personally, I prefer porn. No human touching, spreading of lifelong diseases, issues about other people in the relationship, getting unwanted calls etc.

[lonelybird]

Some women here are really good writter, well said.

 

This is my original thought "swingers are basically controlled by their sex organ, no feeling involve at all", but I remember an article about a certain religion ritual. that people on this ritual will sleep with one another, basically a large group, kinda like today's swing. the author of this article said something like this "people have a basic need to connect to other people, so they think they can chieve this goal by sexual intercouse. at the spot they actually superficially achieve that goal, but soon they will find out they are still isolated from each other in a deep level. then they want to do group sex again and again, but since that group sex couldn't bring that connection with other people, these people feel more desperate than before." seems they are finding something in a wrong place.

 

When a people is very selfish, only seek for own benefit, that will bring isolation feeling to others, and that could not resolved by having sex.

[InsanityImpaired]

InsanityImpaired,

I think you are assuming a lot about marriages and cheating. 99.999% of people who cheat do NOT cheat b/c they want multiple sex partners, or are 'predisposed' to spreading their seed, but b/c some EMOTIONAL needs are not being met.

And how do you know about the 99.999%? That means out of a million cheaters only 50 cheat because of spreading their seed. Highly reasonable assumption.

 

It does not even matter. Cheating, in a monogamous relationship can be emotional or physical, without the other partner accepting such acts beforehand - and some people even consider the use of porn cheating. If monogamous people cannot deal with the concept of monogamy and its implications, the concept is skewed.

[riobikini]

re:

 

InsanityImpaired: " Cheating, in a monogamous relationship can be emotional or physical, without the other partner accepting such acts beforehand .."

 

So, (just curious) -given your statements on monogomy, is that to say that #1 -there can be *no cheating* in a swinging lifestyle *because* each already accepts the fact their partner will be sexually intimate with others?

 

Or, #2 -that, even in consideration of the fact that a partner is allowed to be sexually intimate with others, and that each of them accept the allowance, s/he *can* still be considered a cheater in some way?

 

And if so, explain how.

 

With this statement posted by you, " Cheating, in a monogamous relationship can be emotional or physical..", -is the *same* possible for swinging couples?

 

Or thirdly, is there some other explaination not mentioned here for your statement quoted first, above?

 

Again, just curious.

 

-Rio

[MySugaree]

Swingers or the polyamorous are not less capable of love than their monogamous counterparts. Some monogamists have a condescending arrogance towards people who refuse to "relate" in prescribed ways. It's a tyranny of morals with a dash of pop psychology.

 

People connect in evolving, manifold ways over the long course of their erotic lives. People change, relationships change. What I find most disturbing about the pathologizing of swinging is that it places couples in identical little boxes and people are told that to be monogamous is the only true, mature, resposible and correct way to relate. That "cookie-cutter" relationship stuff is crap.

 

Monogamist-Tyranny is Political Correctness in the realm of erotic relationships.

 

If you want to swing, then do it. Personally, I find most swingers physically unappealing. In the right situation and with the right lover, however, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

Go poly!

[riobikini]

re:

 

CarolAnne: " While it sounds like it might work for some people in theory, I can think of a few reasons why in REALITY this is a terrible idea, even for non-jealous "against ownership" couples.."

 

Thank you for bringing up the term" ownership", again -that makes at least, twice in this thread, and I think it's a facet of thought regarding swinging that should be addressed.

 

Respecting an individual's right to do with their own body whatever they wish is a "given", here.

 

But the whole idea takes a different twist and an unexpected, expanded role when applied to swinging.

 

The common thread of advocating support normally goes like this: " I believe it's OK for my partner to do whatever s/he likes with his/her body -having sex with someone else doesn't mean they love me any less. The kind of love we have between us is about much more than sex. Both of us have needs and/or desires which cannot be met by the other -but we are closer than some monogamous couples."

 

And I cringe.

 

It seems, to me, to be taking the very idea of love, marriage, and sacred vows of marriage to task, to shame, to a destructive level of unemotional, disrespectful, and undeniable disregard and mockery.

 

I *do* return to the happier knowlege, though -the knowlege that -if swinging were, indeed, an *ideal* lifestyle so full of freedom, promise, and love without jealousies, a relationship free of tension, and full of deep, and meaningful love and commitment- that we would never hear, again, the words "I do" on earth.

 

But it *isn't* -and people are still saying, "I do".

 

Thank God!

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

 

P.S. Thanks again, CarolAnne, for your statement.

[JackJack]

I think swinging, just like porn is something that can be debated over and over again till the cows come home. If it works for you, great, enjoy. If it doesn't great, enjoy. Everything in life has pros and cons.

[Salicious Crumb]

I think swinging, just like porn is something that can be debated over and over again till the cows come home. If it works for you, great, enjoy. If it doesn't great, enjoy. Everything in life has pros and cons.

 

You are correct in your assessment.

 

However, if you are into the swinging lifestyle, then you have forfieted all rights to cry about cheating. One cannot get upset that the other is off screwing someone else...thats the bed they made, they have to lie in it.

[riobikini]

re:

 

JackJack: " I think swinging, just like porn is something that can be debated over and over again till the cows come home. If it works for you, great, enjoy. If it doesn't great, enjoy. Everything in life has pros and cons."

 

 

JJ -(Smile) -you are probably, right.

 

But then, if we stopped discussing random, practically answerless issues -that would just about shut down the *whole* LS board, wouldn't it?

 

And then what would we do?

 

Get a *real life*?

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

[JackJack]

You are correct in your assessment.

 

However, if you are into the swinging lifestyle, then you have forfieted all rights to cry about cheating. One cannot get upset that the other is off screwing someone else...thats the bed they made, they have to lie in it.

 

 

Very true.

[JackJack]

I *do* return to the happier knowlege, though -the knowlege that -if swinging were, indeed, an *ideal* lifestyle so full of freedom, promise, and love without jealousies, a relationship free of tension, and full of deep, and meaningful love and commitment- that we would never hear, again, the words "I do" on earth.

 

 

I agree with this.

 

 

 

JJ -(Smile) -you are probably, right.

 

But then, if we stopped discussing random, practically answerless issues -that would just about shut down the *whole* LS board, wouldn't it?

 

And then what would we do?

 

Get a *real life*?

 

(Smile)

 

True. I was just saying, and yes theres nothing wrong with dicussing these things at all, I'm just saying its one of those topics that can be debated all day long (which is fine) but more than likely it wont make much difference to those who see things the way THEY feel is correct for them.

[riobikini]

re:

 

JacKJack: "(Swinging) its one of those topics that can be debated all day long (which is fine) but more than likely it wont make much difference to those who see things the way THEY feel is correct for them."

 

No one is debating *anyone's* right to do with their life -or body- or anything so personal and precious- except as they choose.

 

The focus, here (see original post in thread) is the issue of the "swinging" lifestyle -how it works, what it's good points are, what it's bad points are- and generally, a *defining* look into the lifestyle in order to better understand how *emotions* -and *lives* are affected by practicing it.

 

We just want to know the *specifics* in regards to what's so great about it -and why.

 

By the way -there have been *no* good answers, so far.

 

-Rio

[JackJack]

No one is debating *anyone's* right to do with their life -or body- or anything so personal and precious- except as they choose.

 

 

Ok wheather its debating, talking, discussing, comminucating, or however its worded, carry on.

[riobikini]

Speaking of *real life* -it's calling my name.

 

Later.

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

[Ladyjane14]

Swingers or the polyamorous are not less capable of love than their monogamous counterparts. Some monogamists have a condescending arrogance towards people who refuse to "relate" in prescribed ways. It's a tyranny of morals with a dash of pop psychology.

 

People connect in evolving, manifold ways over the long course of their erotic lives. People change, relationships change. What I find most disturbing about the pathologizing of swinging is that it places couples in identical little boxes and people are told that to be monogamous is the only true, mature, resposible and correct way to relate. That "cookie-cutter" relationship stuff is crap.

 

Monogamist-Tyranny is Political Correctness in the realm of erotic relationships.

 

If you want to swing, then do it. Personally, I find most swingers physically unappealing. In the right situation and with the right lover, however, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

 

Go poly!

 

You know, I generally enjoy your posts, MySugaree. In fact, I make a point of reading them, even though you and I are very different in our viewpoints. I have to admit... I'm kind of surprised to see you pulling out that old, tired, "Morality Police" arguement.

 

People aren't "condescendingly arrogant" just because they can see the pitfalls in 'swinging' or 'adultery'. Regardless of any argument made to the contrary, the needless potential for irrevokable damage to an emotionally committed relationship is there.

 

When it comes down to sexual expression within marriage... it either means something or it doesn't. It's not really reasonable to try and have it BOTH ways. Say, a guy comes here and tells us he feels emotionally abandoned by his frigid wife. Does it make any rational sense for that same guy to turn around and claim the sex act has no meaning?

 

While I do realize that some people are better able to compartmentalize the sexual function and I'll buy into that to a certain extent... I would still argue that it's damaging to ACT on it because of the potential to destroy emotional intimacy. How is a partner supposed to know if THIS time it means something, and THAT time it didn't.

On the one hand sexual intimacy contributes mightily to emotional intimacy, but on the other it's just another orgasm? Why should ANY committed partner have to do the math on that? It's a recipe for potential disaster.

 

I'm sorry. I'm not buying the claims of "love". If you really love somebody, it doesn't add up that you'd be willing to take such HUGE risks on losing the relationship.

 

I'm viewing this discussion as just another in a long line of other similar ones... where people tend to prioritize orgasms ahead of common sense. And for ANYONE reading along, whose partner suggests this idiocy.. my personal advice to you would be to "get out while the gettin' is good". It just stands to reason that people who prioritize orgasms ahead of emotional intimacy will not be able to maintain a long-term commitment.

[amerikajin]

People aren't "condescendingly arrogant" just because they can see the pitfalls in 'swinging' or 'adultery'. Regardless of any argument made to the contrary, the needless potential for irrevokable damage to an emotionally committed relationship is there.

 

There are pitfalls to any kind of relationship, the key is to find someone in a relationship who shares your own view of how relationships can and should work. Relationships run the gamut...what about traveling salesmen who hardly ever see their wives at all? I've met married couples who've lived apart for a year or more in some cases, yet they choose to remain together. That's not everybody's idea of what a marriage should be, but for some of the couples in that situation, it works out just fine. I knew one couple who decided it was best to take a month-long break from each other at least once a year. Not in the sexual, swinging sense, but just a physical departure - they'd usually go on vacation in different parts of the country/world. Then you have things like sexless relationships. The point is, you have all kinds of relationships and while it's perfectly fine for you to say "Hey, that's not gonna work with me, bud" it's wrong to say it can't work for anybody. You don't know that.

 

When it comes down to sexual expression within marriage... it either means something or it doesn't. It's not really reasonable to try and have it BOTH ways. Say, a guy comes here and tells us he feels emotionally abandoned by his frigid wife. Does it make any rational sense for that same guy to turn around and claim the sex act has no meaning?

 

Okay, suppose the sex "means nothing", suppose one or even both of the couples just don't feel that way about each other anymore. We've already established that sex is an act of mutual consent, right? Usually someone has to feel sexually charged in order to have sex, and that's especially true for men who need to feel something in order to keep their copulatory organ in good working order. But what if one or both simply don't have those kinds of feelings after they've been married for a few years, and yet what if they still love each other on another level. The world is full of these kinds of relationships. You care about the person but they just don't make you feel sexually energized anymore. I'd be willing to bet the majority of marriages end up like this eventually, and I'd be willing to bet that it's an overwhelming majority of marriages/relationships. For one thing, our sexual interests and potency changes as we age - that's just plain biology. But that doesn't mean we've necessarily lost the desire for sex, nor does it necessarily mean that we've stopped respecting our partners. It just means we see our partners in a different light. Now in that case, you have a limited number of choices. You can try to go to counseling and work it out, but while it works for many couples, it fails for many others - and then what? Divorce?! Well, I suppose you could, but for any number of reasons maybe one or both partners simply don't want to go through a divorce. Maybe they like other aspects of their relationships just fine but need to redefine the sexual aspect of their matrimony.

 

Mysugaree is absolutely spot on, though. There is a tendency in our society to view marriage through the prism of our Judeo-Christian-Western code of morality. I think we tend to assume that there are moral absolutes when in fact there may be room for some relativism. Understandably, relativism is not necessarily what a lot of people want in a relationship, and that being the case, I think people have to pair up with the right type of partner accordingly. If you tend to see moral absolutes in marriage and the thought of swinging is repulsive, and the thought of changing how you regard your relationship is unacceptable over time, try to find someone who tends to take an equally binary view of the world around him/her.

 

While I do realize that some people are better able to compartmentalize the sexual function and I'll buy into that to a certain extent... I would still argue that it's damaging to ACT on it because of the potential to destroy emotional intimacy. How is a partner supposed to know if THIS time it means something, and THAT time it didn't.

On the one hand sexual intimacy contributes mightily to emotional intimacy, but on the other it's just another orgasm? Why should ANY committed partner have to do the math on that? It's a recipe for potential disaster.

 

To be honest, I would probably not agree to swinging myself for the reasons you've described. I don't think I could deal with the prospect of having a lover fall out of love with me after finding someone potentially more appealing on a sexual level. But if someone's been married for 20 years and they've stopped having sex long ago and they're both sexually frustrated, and they want to try it out...who am I to say they're wrong? I don't know the profile of your average swinging couple, but my guess is that they probably didn't go into the marriage with the intent to swing all along - that just wouldn't make much sense. I think they generally like each other but tend to see each their relationship as having evolved into a friendship more than a marriage, but just don't want to get divorced for any number of reasons.

[MySugaree]

I'm not a Swinger but I do know some couples who swing (and my current girl friend played with it in earlier relationships). These long time marrieds are usually well into Middle Age when they decide to go over to the Dark Side. Young marrieds, on the other hand, lack the mind set and are too busy to swing with kids to raise and careers to establish. (Hence my earlier comment about finding many real life Swingers physically unappealing).

 

Sorry for being a Johnny-One Note on moral "tyranny" (or is that "vanity"?): It's just my contrarian side. Plus, I love to stir the pot!

 

As for you Amerikajin, I salute you my friend for being so prescient about so many things.

[Ladyjane14]

There are pitfalls to any kind of relationship....

 

This is true. But why MAKE more? There are problems enough already when a person makes a life-time commitment to something that is more fluid than static. There are ups and downs in marriage. That's just a given, the only thing you can 'take to the bank' when you decide to get married.

 

There's been no argument here that convinces me the risks of inviting other people into the intimate relationship don't clearly outweigh whatever marginal benefits to be had. STD's, unwanted pregnancy, the loss of emotional intimacy, and above all the probability that one or the other partner will lose their sense of commitment under the influence of infatuation with an outside partner... these are HUGE RISKS. (!!!!)

 

...what about traveling salesmen who hardly ever see their wives at all? I've met married couples who've lived apart for a year or more in some cases, yet they choose to remain together. That's not everybody's idea of what a marriage should be, but for some of the couples in that situation, it works out just fine. I knew one couple who decided it was best to take a month-long break from each other at least once a year. Not in the sexual, swinging sense, but just a physical departure - they'd usually go on vacation in different parts of the country/world. Then you have things like sexless relationships.

 

There are other, less hazardous, solutions for these kind of relationship problems. To bring in an outside party can only exacerbate them, not solve them. You end up with more issues to deal with instead of less.

 

You know, I am one of the few people still posting here who has come back from the brink of divorce and who isn't scarred by anxiety and insecurity because of it. ( I've got scads of other anxieties and insecurities ... but none about this. I'm stronger now than I was before in that regard.)

And for the better part of the last three years, I've been trying to figure out why my marriage survived and why so many others in the same condition have failed.

 

Honestly, I think alot of it comes down to 'passion'... not just the sexual kind, although I believe that's a necessary element... but rather the kind of passion you have when you REALLY believe in something. I chose to BELIEVE in my husband. I chose to love him actively. I chose to allow NOTHING to interfere with that. I'm passionate about it. I'm passionate about him.

 

I believe in the concept of ENs (emotional needs), because that's what's WORKING for me. And one of the most primary of ENs for most of us is the need for a certain amount Admiration. We need to know that our partner admires, adores, and cherishes us above all others. We need to know that even if it's just one other person on the entire planet... that person thinks we're THE BEST.

Through 'admiration', we prove the 'passion' we feel for our partner.

 

How am I going to convince my man that's he's "the best", if I've just rolled out of some other guy's bed?

If he's "the best", why would I go out looking for more?

 

No... if I feel the need to get a little somethin' on the side, I'm clearly telling my man that he's nothing special. With that action, I'm telling him that I think I might be able to do a little better.

 

Altogether, I think alot of these kinds of relationships you've described Amerikajin, are fundamentally broken. And when something's broken, you can choose to fix it or to toss it. If you ignore it and leave it laying around.... it's just JUNK taking up space. Why try to hang onto something that's defective to the point where it's no longer serving it's purpose? Is it just because we're afraid to let go? .. Because we're too chickench*t to roll the dice and and take a chance on ALL or NOTHING.

 

Hey, I rolled 'em. And I won.

 

And I think alot of people, who are just marking time in these broken relationships, can't see that it's possible to WIN either way. You either create something better, or you free yourself up for other opportunities. In either event, you're not settling for less than the full measure.

 

I'm not going to deny, I wish there was a way to fix a broken marriage without allowing a CRISIS. But when the landscape is stagnant, it seems to me, that a fresh approach is absolutely necessary... not a fresh 'other' person. That's just a distraction, a way to stick your head in the sand and pretend like you don't have REAL problems. If bringing that fresh approach means stirring the pot, and bringing on the crisis of ultimatum... then so be it. At least you have addressed the problem rather than ignored it. You've rolled the dice.

 

When it's all said and done... Yeah, there might be the RARE exception to the rule, but for the majority of couples, I think "swinging" is just an accident waiting to happen. That, and a way to avoid crisis-type conflict in resolving marital problems.

 

 

 

(I hope you don't think I was picking at you, Sugaree. I do so love to to see various opinions, particularly when they're intelligently expressed, as yours are. )

[Pink_Tulip]

 

Okay, suppose the sex "means nothing", suppose one or even both of the couples just don't feel that way about each other anymore. We've already established that sex is an act of mutual consent, right? Usually someone has to feel sexually charged in order to have sex, and that's especially true for men who need to feel something in order to keep their copulatory organ in good working order. But what if one or both simply don't have those kinds of feelings after they've been married for a few years, and yet what if they still love each other on another level. The world is full of these kinds of relationships. You care about the person but they just don't make you feel sexually energized anymore. I'd be willing to bet the majority of marriages end up like this eventually, and I'd be willing to bet that it's an overwhelming majority of marriages/relationships. For one thing, our sexual interests and potency changes as we age - that's just plain biology. But that doesn't mean we've necessarily lost the desire for sex, nor does it necessarily mean that we've stopped respecting our partners. It just means we see our partners in a different light. Now in that case, you have a limited number of choices. You can try to go to counseling and work it out, but while it works for many couples, it fails for many others - and then what? Divorce?! Well, I suppose you could, but for any number of reasons maybe one or both partners simply don't want to go through a divorce. Maybe they like other aspects of their relationships just fine but need to redefine the sexual aspect of their matrimony.

 

The thing with this is, for most people, sex is an emotional issue. So John and Mary arne't turned on by eachother anymore, but they still love eachother. And they somehow come to the logical conclusion that having sex with others will fulfill that physical need while still keeping their marriage in tact. Sounds reasonable, but eventually both will meet someone who does it for them physically AND emotionally, and now that person is superior as a partner than thier spouse. So with that decision, the marriage is in danger. As MySugaree said, she would not be interested in having sex with someone whom she didn't find attractive, and I assume she means personally as well as physically. That is just playing with fire, and I think most people can see that. This has nothing to do with religious morals, it has to do with making decisions not to put a marriage at risk. The OP asked if swinging was a viable option to fix a marriage, and anyone who thinks swinging can fix anything is, sorry, but nuts. I will never believe two people in a swinging marriage have a stronger bond than two committed people, and we can debate that all day long. But the point of this thread is, can swinging 'fix' a troubled marriage.

[MySugaree]

"I hope you don't think I was picking at you, Sugaree. I do so love to to see various opinions, particularly when they're intelligently expressed, as yours are."

 

Not at all Ladyjane. You took some good shots, which were thoughtful, fair and on the mark. It's always a pleasure.

 

As for Swinging, I suspect it's better fantasized than done. While my objections to Swinging are aesthetic, as opposed to moral, I completely understand how switching partners can interfere with the dynamics of even a long time relationship. Is the sex worth it?

[riobikini]

re:

 

AK: " Usually someone has to feel sexually charged in order to have sex, and that's especially true for men who need to feel something in order to keep their copulatory organ in good working order."

 

Which -I take it- the same may be less important for women, since the entire gender is eliminated from that thought.

 

May I also point out -that I believe it to be (more often than not) the male who brings up the "swinging" idea in any relationship, it goes back to the worn-out-but-true idea that women are "wired" differently than men.

 

So what hurdles do *they* (generally speaking of the female gender) have to jump across to get chummy with the swinging lifestyle?

 

Knowing well the heart of the woman I am -I could never separate my emotions from my physical expression of love with someone I chose to invest my "all" into.

 

AK: "...suppose the sex "means nothing", suppose one or even both of the couples just don't feel that way about each other anymore."

 

Then, it makes better sense, to me, to treat them like the cousin your close to and see on holiday, or the good friend from college that shred some of the best years of your life, or the view them as your "best friend", for God's sake -but don't stay married to them and assume a slowly damaging progression of disassociation from the essential things that constitute "marital love" and shame, and mock the vows that define them.

 

AK: "If you tend to see moral absolutes in marriage and the thought of swinging is repulsive, and the thought of changing how you regard your relationship is unacceptable over time, try to find someone who tends to take an equally binary view of the world around him/her."

 

I assume you mean: try to marry someone from the get-go who has the potentential ability to "swing" without difficulty, so that later on, if you happen to find out that you "need" to go "swinging" you won't have to deal with a screaming, book-throwing, lamp-crashing fight at two A.M. in your bedroom when you bring it up to her just before you lie down to sleep.

 

Make sure that -just before the "I do's", " I will's", and "I promise's" that you've already had that little discussion -and taken care of all the details about what will happen, later, if she suddenly stops generating sexual appeal for you. Throw in that you also grant and give pre-approval for *her* to sleep with all the other people she wants to, as well, if she doesn't find you appealing, any longer.

 

One of the things -I believe- I am having the most difficulty in swallowing whole, here -is the *way* all this starts out: with a traditional marriage, with two people appearing as fully committed to the traditional marital vows as *everyone else* -even to the point where, during the ceremony, you can hear sighs and sniffles and near-swooning, wishful other guests who are inspired by (surprise!) the later-would-be swinger even writing and speaking his *own* traditional marriage vows, delivered, no less, on bended knee to his beloved.

 

It *does* come as a surprise, or doesn't it? that the first one of the pair to mention swinging -and what a great solution it would be- is the one who first becomes bored by the marriage, or finds his partner sexually unappealing.

 

And, yet -he started out "loving" and "cherishing" his partner.

 

So that brings me to your next statement:

 

AK: "....our sexual interests and potency changes as we age - that's just plain biology. ... doesn't mean we've.... lost the desire for sex, nor.....stopped respecting our partners. .....means we see our partners in a different light. ......Maybe they like other aspects of their relationships just fine but need to redefine the sexual aspect of their matrimony.

 

So these feelings are not so different, as it turns out, from those of a partner who feels "stuck" in a *loveless* marriage.

 

Mentally highlight the word "loveless" for emphasis, mull it around -and think back to what I said in one of my earlier posts about that "something" that I felt was missing with "swinger's".

 

Giving the benefit of the doubt, though -the most I could offer would be that it, indeed, *can* occur in those who have suppressed, or depressed love emotions -or that have taken the emotions once felt and allowed them to become nothing more than ashes of an earlier passion that they are reluctant to dispose of due to the comfort, familiarity -and the strange sentiment they may hold as a reminder of a much happier time in the relationship.

 

It would certainly account for their holding onto the remnants of an otherwise, useless relationship they continue to call a "marriage".

 

-Rio

[Ladyjane14]

Is the sex worth it?

 

 

I suppose that would depend on one's priorities.

 

The real shame about all this is that people have a tough time believing that it really IS possible to redirect their energy and SOLVE the problems. Sometimes they get really bogged down in their own position when it comes down to lop-sided libido, or lack of passion. They tend to believe that feelings dictate choices... when in actuality, life is easier when it's the other way around.

 

Take our OP as an example, since she was kind enough to open the thread. Taken in with her other posts, this isn't really about alternative lifestyles so much as it is about evading her marital problems. She lacks passion for her marriage and doesn't believe she has the power to redirect her energy. She admits that her husband is a marvelous lover, but her emotional energy is ALREADY fixated on an old flame.

 

I kind of think her example is more the norm rather than the exception in couples who are entertaining the prospect of 'open marriage'. There seems so often to be a hidden agenda already at work.

 

In this case, who knows? The husband might just agree to it. He seems desperate to prevent crisis-type conflict. And if he does accept this dubious "solution"... he'll be relagated to a position that's commonly feared by married men, that of the common, ordinary, everyday, household meal-ticket.

 

He'd be better off to "roll the dice", face the conflict, and refuse to trade on his most fundamental ENs. If he pushes the conflict to it's conclusion, he wins either way. If he doesn't, he faces an agonizingly long fight before probable defeat, resulting in YEARS of his life wasted.

[MySugaree]

All good points, Ladyjane. I was not familiar with the back story. Then, again, no one swings in a vacuum.

 

I have a difficult time envisioning how swinging would benefit an unsatisfactory marriage. If anything, swinging would most likely be a catalyst for the break-up.

 

I'm just reluctant to concede that swinging is per se harmful to all marriages, or that swingers are less healthy (or, stated differently, more pathological) than their monogamous counterparts.

 

At the end of the day: you swing at your own risk.

 

I prefer good porn.

[Salicious Crumb]

Here is another reason swingers should not get married aside from the obvious mockery of marriage they are making out of it.

 

The vows, "forsaking all others".