Swinging/open marriages?

[riobikini]

re:

 

LJ: " 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.

 

You pegged the "money" insight, I believe, with the part of your post (above) which I emboldened.

 

(And P.S. -I hate it when my post gets enetered before I remember to do the spellcheck, is embedded by another post and can't be editied. But to have been compensated with *your* insightful post was well worth it, LJ!)

 

(Smile)

 

-Rio

[riobikini]

re:

 

LJ: " 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. "

 

 

Another weight-bearing point in bold.

 

-Rio

[lonelybird]

Wedding vow:

"We will love each other through thin and thick, until my little general feel we shouldn't"

[RecordProducer]

OK, well the original poster stated in another thread that she is not in love with her husband, never been, she just loves him in a friendly way. She doesn't need sex with another man. She craves to fall in love with someone. And an open marriage won't make her happy in this respect. It will only ruin her marriage. So she has 3 options:

1. to divorce

2. to cheat

3. to continue to live like this.

[riobikini]

Thanks for the info, RP -often, we don't run across what they've written in other posts, and a lot of times it would help us out tremendously in knowing more about where they're actually coming from.

 

In any case, with that information, it seems to be telling us (just as many of us suspect, already) that there may be a lot of folks out there rolling around the idea of swinging or beginning an open marriage in their heads -kind of like a kitten with a ball of thread -but not really cut out to be a "swinger", after all.

 

I think we get a lot of folks like that responding to the subject, who've never really seriously lived that lifestyle and are only dissatisfied with their present circumstances, and who think it sounds like a quick way to avoid having to deal with the problems in their relationship.

 

But who's to say this isn't how the supposed "genuine" swingers *also, evolve?

 

I think, all it takes is the longstanding practice of shoving relationship problems under the rug, a ho-hum sex life that slowly progressed to nothingness, and which caused the feelings of emotional intimacy to dissipate.

 

It's *then*, I think, a person can suggest "swinging" without batting an eyelash, and, with time, become quite adept at defending it.

 

And, RP -I agree with the three options you gave:

 

1. to divorce

2. to cheat

3. to continue to live like this.

 

That's the way I see it, too -with the addition of *one* more: working on the marriage.

 

 

-Rio

[RecordProducer]

That's the way I see it, too -with the addition of *one* more: working on the marriage.

She said he's been a fantastic husband from day one, for years. They have a lot in common, she loves him as a friend, they have a child together. There is nothing wrong to work on. She simply doesn't feel any chemistry for him.

 

She apparently made a mistake by marrying him and now is living a life as a mistake. Working on the marriage for them would be the same as if they put you with ______ (insert a name of someone you're totally not attracted to) under the same roof and told you to work on your relationship until you're completely satisfied and don't feel the need to sleep or fall in love with someone else.

[scubafish]

so--- once a swinger, always a swinger? I know someone who says they liked that lifestyle, but trying to tell someone now she will never do that.

 

what are the chances ? I realize it probably has alot to do with her emotional state in new relationship, from reading these posts.

[Topper]

One has monogamy ever really worked/ all through History stories and legends say no. even the Christian Bible has stories on Adultery. King David the greatest of Jewish Kings Had the General of his army and his friend killed so he could have the guys wife. All the very early Biblical patriarch were Polygamist wives and concubines are listed sometimes in the 100s. How did those guys ever get any rest? In the Bible there isn't any actual prohibition on having more then one spouse. Think about that. For thousands of years Greeks Roman Persian and other ancient cultures all in one way or another practiced open marriages or polygamy. In Ancient India tantric sex was and is considered a path to God. That is where the term scared sex comes from. In that culture woman are revered and they are the high Priestess of a faith Tantric sex goes back more then 3000 years. In medieval Northern Europe when the wife decided she was to old for sex most likely in menopause she became a crone. Crone is a compliment it means wise woman. She would often find her Husband a suitable concubine. The wife was always head of the Household no matter what. Most of the funding fathers of our country had mistress it was a very open secret. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington all were getting a little. John Adams was definitely a puritan.

Today, The fundamentalist Church of Latter Day saints practises polygamy. It is estimated that there are from 50,000 to 100,000 members of that church in Utah Idaho AZ Canada and Mexico. I do have problems with them because they marry off young girls as young as 12 and 13. The so called official Mormon chruch does disavow Polygamy But many members are descendants of polygamist SF 49ers QB Steve Young is one Utah senator Orin hatch. Rep candidate for President Mit Romney another. all descendants of Polygamy. In many Native American cultures it was widely practiced. In Victorian England It is estimated that 1 out of every three lower class woman in London wasa prostitute 1in 4 It was excepted that a husband would go off and have sex to satisfy his beastly urges. A wife only had sex to have children. Upper class woman were pure and above the those animal urges yet the suicide rate and the rate of mental illness among upper lass woman was very high. the Notion of woman being the weaker sex comes out of this puritanical time. in today's world we practise serial Monogamy more then actual monogamy relationships end, marriages end we move on to the next and the next and so on. multiple partners just one at a time. Monogamy might be the real deviant human sexual behavior I do not advocate one way or the other. I did engage in a few weekends of group sex when i was in my twenties it was at a swaggers club a place called the Ranch in a remote area in CA. most there were upper middle class professionals, real PTA and little league Base ball type people. cheating in marriages is at an all time high as more and more woman enter the work place more are having affairs numbers are getting close to the numbers of men. Just some thoughts. we are all screwed up in our own delightful way.

[ansaz]

So if other people messed up should we also? So since David also went up against a bear with sling and a stone should I do the same? After David stole Uriah's wife didn't you see how his family became so messed up it never recovered fully? I don't know much about marriage but I do knoe that there certain things that cannot be shared, the marriage bed is one of those and if we cannot control our lust then it is a quick way to hurting our spouses and kids cause lust is alot like the grave, it never is satisfied

[amerikajin]

So if other people messed up should we also? So since David also went up against a bear with sling and a stone should I do the same? After David stole Uriah's wife didn't you see how his family became so messed up it never recovered fully? I don't know much about marriage but I do knoe that there certain things that cannot be shared, the marriage bed is one of those and if we cannot control our lust then it is a quick way to hurting our spouses and kids cause lust is alot like the grave, it never is satisfied

 

Ahhh, shaddup.

[Topper]

I think you have King David and Danial Boone mixed up. You have been brought up to believe the marriage bed is just for two people. That is the moral code of Christians. The Western world for better or worse is for the most part Christan and live by that code of one man one wife. It is not the Moral code of other people. the world is much bigger then your little world. If it works for you fine. But It may not work for others. Why should they live by your morality? Many people are in long term loving polygamist unions, that are happy with their lives They raise happy well adjusted children. they don't have a problem with worrying that their husband is cheating. They have other woman to help raise the kids.

Many Psychologist, Anthropologist and others who study the human condition are of the opinion that monogamy is not the human norm.

With the way things are going in the USA I would think that a 20 year old Male or Female today will have at lest two marriages in their life time. With many time more multiple sexual partners. In stead of sleeping with a lot of people once they are sleeping with a lot of people but doing it one person at a time. As more and more woman enter the work place more are cheating on their husbands. The numbers are getting close to the numbers that are reported on men that cheat. Is that really monogamy? Yes even the born again Christians will be subject to this, Of course they would never admit to sex outside a marriage untill caught.

[Flyin in Clouds]

... There is no love involved at all if you have to go screw 100s of other people and can't just be happy with your partner. People in a relationship like this are not in love. I think love in its most pure form is one where you do not need other people.

Suppose my wife really liked sex, and I couldn't give her all she wanted. And supose I really loved her and wanted her to be as happy as possible and experience as much sexual pleasure as she possibly could. Would it be loving to tell her she could only have me?

[Flyin in Clouds]

Here is a better question...why in the hell get married if you don't want to honor wedding vows?

 

Why do you assume that all wedding vows are the same and preclude swinging?

 

Committed relationships with one person?...yet screwing other people?...ya...that makes alot of sense.

 

If you are messing around with other people, it is NOT a committed relationship.

 

Not true. In many swinging relationship there are "rules" (vows if you like) that both partners agree to abide by. They are committed to those rules or vows and are committed to each others happiness.

 

If my wife derived pleasure from multiple partners (of either gender) why would I deny her those? If it was 24/7 other people I probably wouldn't hang around. But if it was occasional... and mutual... then I would accept it.

 

How can it be a committed relationship when they sleep with other people? I do not presume I am the most moral person or the highest authority on love. However I just think if people want to sleep with a bunch of people they should not try to say they have the most pure love of anyone out there because they sleep with anyone they want and let their partner do the same.

How is it loving to prevent your partner from having pleasure? Why must they only get if from you? Are you the only one that can cook them a meal?

 

I have a question. I doubt it will get answered, but I'll ask anyways.

 

what is the point of getting married if you want to swing?

Because you love the person you are marrying? And you both like sex and aren't so insecure that sex has to be limited to just the two of you?

 

... 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.

Is it right or even loving to be controlling and possessive. Because that is what monogamy is, isn't it?

 

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.

Nobody said anything about putting swinging ahead of the marriage. And what is wrong with "just f*cking" somebody? Can't you enjoy sexual pleasure just for the pleasure of it? Must it always be wrapped up in some mystical deep emotional "making love" thing? What is wrong with enjoying pleasure for pleasure's sake?

 

I'm not saying sex in marriage shouldn't be about intimate sharing, but why does it always have to be that. What is with this always having to "mean" something? Can't you women just f*ck once in a while? Can't you just be wanton nymphos every now and then?

 

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...

Isn't it rather special to give the gift of "freedom" to one's partner.

 

I told my wife that if I wasn't lighting her fire and some other guy could and she wanted that then I'd want her to have it (with certain conditions, like knowing all about it. No secret affairs. Otherwise it was cheating.) She wasn't interested bless her heart. But I love her and if she needed more than me to make her happy, I'd want her to be happy.

 

... 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?

again with the "meaning" argument. How about just enjoyable, and nothing more complex than that? Friends with Benefits like.

 

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

That is a risk with or without swinging.

 

... 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.

here, here....

 

... However, if you are into the swinging lifestyle, then you have forfieted all rights to cry about cheating. .....

Not at all. Cheating for swingers means a partner goes against the rules they establish for their swinging. For instance if they agree to only go with each other to some out of town club and discretely swing with a few other trusted couples with each others full knowledge and consent, but one partner decides to start up a secret affair with a co-worker... that would be cheating and grounds for divorce. Simply having mutually consensual sex would not be cheating.

 

.... When it comes down to sexual expression within marriage... it either means something or it doesn't.

Why does it have to always mean the same thing? Why not sometimes it just means we enjoyed the orgasm and nothing more? Other times "I love you in the deepest of ways".

 

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.

Indeed! How do you know now in a vanilla relationship?

 

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.

Why would they have to do any math on that? Sometimes it means something, sometimes it's just enjoyment. What does it matter?

 

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.

If my wife felt the need occasionally for other men how would keeping her locked up in a virtual chastity belt keep her exclusively mine? If you love someone are you also willing to make them miserable in order to keep them to yourself?

 

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.

You got something against orgasms? Cause I'd like my wife to have as many as she can have. And I'd like some for me too.

 

 

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.

On the contrary those that prioritize emotional intimacy before orgasm are likely to not have a long term commitment. See that's what the sexless marriage is all about. Women that say, just love me, i.e. give me emotional intimacy, but skip the physical (sexual) intimacy. Sorry I don't think that is a prescription for a long term successful marriage.

 

....

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.

I'll settle for a lot less admiration and a whole lot more orgasms if you please. And if I cherish my wife above all others I certainly don't want to frustrate her needs.

 

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?

What's better an apple or an orange? And are you only ever going to eat the one that is best and never have the other? What color do you like best? Is that the only color cloths you ever wear? Is it the only color the rooms in your house are painted?

 

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.

No you aren't. You are just telling him a little variety would be good.

 

Let me switch gears to my preferences in women. I like blue-eyed blonds and green-eyed redheads. Is one better than the other? No... they are just different.

 

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 agree that successful swinger are the rare exception.

 

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.

OK, so what you are saying is that these two should avoid swing because it might bring them something better than the marriage they have. That saving the marriage even though they no longer have much emotional feeling for each other is all important.

 

...

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.

After a while having to do all that emotional stuff all the time with the sex gets rather smothering.

 

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.

apples and oranges. Just because I eat an apple today doesn't mean I found oranges unappealing.

 

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".

Why do you continue to assume that everyone's vows includes forsaking all others?

 

...

Many Psychologist, Anthropologist and others who study the human condition are of the opinion that monogamy is not the human norm.

Yeah, this monogamy thing is way over rated.