There's an old joke, "What's The longest sentence in the English language?" The answer is, "I do." I would like to opt out of that answer and say the real answer is, "Let's try Swinging." There are a lot of people who get bent out of shape by the "labels" that are being applied to swingers, one of them being the term swingers. I can't count the number of times I've heard, "We're not ‘swingers,' we're ‘open.'" People don't like labels that semi-accurately describe the general concept of what we do with our weekends, there's No surprise there. Remember your individual, just like everyone else. The term I hear complained about the most has to be "The Lifestyle." This terminology for swinging is apparently a major Rub in the minds of many people.
I propose that "The Lifestyle" is the only accurate terminology for swingers. I have yet to see anyone drop out of swinging permanently. I've seen people banned from clubs, ostracized from their swinging circle, get stuck in relationship drama, and literally get hit by a car to only return to the lifestyle as soon as the world returns to normal. Yes Ladies and gentlemen I am postulating the "Pringles Principle" to swinging, "Once You pop, you can't stop."
I know this is going to irritate a lot of people because everyone likes to think they have complete control over their actions. We've "dropped out" of the lifestyle probably 5 or 6 times in the last 10 years, every time we've returned because we miss the social contacts, the playful banter, the Knowledge that there are people out there who aren't sexual prudes, and of course the sex. Our longest stint of not being lifestyle was 10 months, our longest period between Playing was almost 3 years, yet we keep coming back to the same place, we are swingers and there's nothing that can be done about It.
I've seen couples get divorced and (not kidding here) the biggest argument was who got "custody" of the club, ironic since none of them OWN the club. I've seen "single swingers" who were formerly married swingers have as a requirement for a new Mate that they be interested and/or in the lifestyle. Let's face it we're here to stay as swingers, for good..
Perhaps it's a Pandora's Box that we've all opened and can't close again. That would be the pessimist's concept of our situation. I propose the alternative. We've finally broken the chains of social and religious conditioning and are living as humans were supposed to live. We're simply not built to handle monogamy. A frightening set of statistics here in the United States. Over 95% of people have admitted to cheating on their marital partner. Over 50% of the babies born in the United States are not ‘their fathers' genetic makeup. Wrap your minds around those statistics. That's basically stating that 95% of the population has cheated on their lovers at some point in time. It's also stating that half of the babies in the United States Come from an extra-marital affair. With swingers comprising 3% of the population who wants to guess that we have very few of these "issues?" We're honest with our partners, use protection (several methods) in our playtime, and communicate better than most Vanilla couples we know. Who's flawed us or them?
As an avid Heinlein reader I can say that I believe that we are of a higher consciousness than vanilla people. There are articles and books that state, "Don't get high on the thought of being better than others. You're not." I don't know if I believe that. There is definitely a social evolution that we have achieved that 97% of the population has not. I would call that "being better." Yes I'm arrogant and I admit it freely.
The bottom line is I've been on several "public" boards where some 12 stepper comes in and blames us all of being ‘sex addicts' or ‘controlled by sex' or some other drivel where they're projecting their addiction on to us. I don't believe it's an addiction, I believe that it's a way of living that's more psychologically and socially elevated than the majority of society. I firmly believe that most of society is crippled by its social value structure that forces them to live in sexless, loveless marriages due to a vow in the witness of a deity. I won't get into the "religion debate" as it's a fruitless one that cannot be won or lost. I will however state that the man made social ritual and social concept of ‘marriage' is bass ackwards. It has failed time and time again for the human animal and as a people we continue to drink from the same water generation after generation. That is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
So what is the longest sentence in the English language? "Honey, you ever looked into this swinging thing?" At that point someone theoretically could turn back, but that thought is going to linger forever in the originators mind, even if no action is taken on the concept. I think that's why the "Christian Right" has such a problem with swingers, the sheer fact that we exist publicly and provide information to new comers is a threat to their mandated concept of what a family, marriage, and life should be. There's a reason monogamy and monotony rhyme. So welcome to the LIFEstyle, once you're here you'll NEVERFully go back to your life of monogamy.
I agree with the general thrust of your argument but I think that monogamy has its place. I'm not going to get into a massive debate about monogamy but at the same time, I'm not going to tell people they're wrong for being vanilla.
I'm definitely not going to say I'm more evolved for being a swinger! Lol People will live their lives in a variety of ways and I don't really care what they do with themselves as long as I'm not persecuted for my choice of lifestyle.
Saying vanilla people are lesser beings is certainly not going to persuade them that swinging is better - surely you'd want them to think so? Especially if you'd prefer that the majority of people would change from being vanilla?
Don't forget the people who are just horrible and manipulative too. They could use 'the lifestyle' to justify all kinds of emotional abuse... if you can't get monogamy right for a while, I don't think you'd make a sensitive swinger. So I'd prefer to continue saying that it's just not for everyone.
"I agree with the general thrust of your argument but I think that monogamy has its place. I'm not going to get into a massive debate about monogamy but at the same time, I'm not going to tell people they're wrong for being vanilla."
I agree 100%. Monogamy has it's place and it is definitely the only viable means for some people. I also won't tell people they're "wrong" for being monogamous, but I think we're operating on a different definition of vanilla.
"I don't really care what they do with themselves as long as I'm not persecuted for my choice of lifestyle."
I see 'vanilla' as the protesters who go to the media to get a club closed. I see vanilla as the people who petition the government for moral legislation making our lifestyle illegal. (Happened in Florida and lost, but by a very slim vote.) I see vanilla as people who are attacking us because they are so insecure in their sexuality they can't handle the fact that some of us actually have a handle on it. Vanilla are the 'friends' someone has who preach to them about how you're going to Hell when they trip onto the fact your a swinger. To me vanilla and monogamist are not one in the same.
Do I feel that we are superior to these people? I can't see how I can feel equal to them, that's for sure.
I can see benefits (and drawbacks) to every possible alternative and monogamous lifestyle out there. I accept that they all exist, and will exist even if I don't wish to proscribe to them. I'm elevated enough to understand that everyone has free thought and can practice any lifestyle they wish and it's not my place to banish or even complain about their existence. They cannot see any of this.
To those who look to force their belief structure on me, now we're talking a totally different monster. I will push against them, with every last muscle in my body and mind. I will not back down or hide from them out of fear or retribution.
While this was not the intent of my writing, I will say that some of it seeped out. The writing stemmed from a conversation with a fellow swinger who refused to accept any 'label' because he felt that it gave 'my definition of' vanilla's ammunition against us. His statement was, "If we don't give them a term they have no frame of reference to discriminate against us."
I popped my lid. I couldn't fathom being so cowardly as to censor my thoughts, writings, and ideas to avoid actions by someone. Yes there are people who seek to abolish us from the face of the earth, no I will not cower in fear of them.
I do not look at monogamy practicing people as having anything wrong with them. Vanilla's who repeatedly attack our lifestyle, have a great number of things wrong with them. I can't even think of these people without thinking of a couple quotes...
Winston Churchill, "When going through hell, keep going."
and...
Emiliano Zapata, "It is better to die standing than to live a century on your knees."
I have an entire musing I wrote only on this subject, but I'm hesitant to post it given it's darker nature. The point of the above writing was to explore a truly descriptive term for what we do, and lifestyle to me fits the bill. I'm sorry some of my seething anger towards those who seeks to abolish us seeped out, but it's something that's in the forefront of my mind. I've recently been subpoenaed to testify in defense of swinging, I can't talk about the case beyond that, but it's going to be ugly for me and a lot of people because we're potentially sacrificing everything we have for the survival of the lifestyle.
Well you do lead a mysterious and seemingly dark life, Mr J. I'm sad however that 'vanilla' is not just the term for monogamous people... isn't it? I mean... that's the way I use it.
All the other stuff ... well that's just people and you know people... they're the worst.
Is 'vanilla' a term that people usually use to refer to these vicious people who try to eradicate the swinger way of life? It seems that it's more likely to be a Christian thing than a vanilla thing per se...
I don't agree though that we should go out guns blazing and proudly state that we are swingers. I can only see this sort of behaviour as generating a greater reaction in conservative folks and possible panic. I reckon a gentler approach is necessary.
Standing for a cause doesn't necessarily mean you have to martyr yourself is how I see it. You gotta consider the real impact it will have.
For example, Dan Savage in his podcasts tells straight folk, who say they will not marry till all gay people in America can marry, NOT to do this. It doesn't help the gay community for straight people not to marry. Instead marry, he says, be happy, and support the gay cause by donating, etc
[OMG if Dan would even just turn bi for me I'd be a happy girl! ]
Is 'vanilla' a term that people usually use to refer to these vicious people who try to eradicate the swinger way of life? It seems that it's more likely to be a Christian thing than a vanilla thing per se...
This is a matter of vocabulary definition. Kind of the point of my above writing... We can agree to have opposite definitions for thing. I am hesitant to use "Christian" as a blanket term for bigoted monogamists. I know some very compassionate, non-judgmental, non-swinging, Christians and I know some swinging Christians who foster no guilt over their transgressions. I don't wish to lump an entire religion into a group of bigots. Just as I don't wish to include compassionate understanding monogamists into bigots either, which is why I personally choose monogamists and vanillas.
Quote:
I don't agree though that we should go out guns blazing and proudly state that we are swingers.
I'm open to options. I personally prefer to remain passive and peaceable but I don't take lightly to being trampled on. Some 'claim' my public activity in the lifestyle is 'why' I get trampled. Since I do swinger websites and don't change my name or hide who I am through pseudonyms professionally. I argue that I shouldn't have to hide to avoid being trampled.
Quote:
I can only see this sort of behaviour as generating a greater reaction in conservative folks and possible panic. I reckon a gentler approach is necessary.
I see your point and agree with it on the surface, but one can only handle a tiger like a kitten for so long. Eventually it will bite your arm off.
Quote:
Standing for a cause doesn't necessarily mean you have to martyr yourself is how I see it. You gotta consider the real impact it will have.
In my situation I don't have a choice. To avoid the subpoena would result in contempt of court, which would be much worse than being publicly outed in the media.
Quote:
For example, Dan Savage in his podcasts tells straight folk, who say they will not marry till all gay people in America can marry, NOT to do this. It doesn't help the gay community for straight people not to marry. Instead marry, he says, be happy, and support the gay cause by donating, etc
I'm not familiar with Dan Savage, but I agree with his position that boycotting marriage does nothing productive. The support he speaks of is the "guns a blazing" approach though. Public support (money) goes to propaganda, the top notch legal teams, and self produced media that can't be slanted by the corporate funded outlets.
So what other options are there? It seems that most of the "gentle approach" translates to laying down and getting trampled to not "scare" the lion. I personally would rather scare it into a position where it makes a mistake than be it's lunch.
I understand that you're using 'vanilla' in a particular way and that it is a matter of definition. However, if most people use 'vanilla' in a certain way, then that is its true meaning as far as I'm concerned because more times than not you will use it and convey those oft-thought assumptions. So if it usually used in connection to awful people, I'd rather not use it to describe my friends.
I suppose you feel a more passionate hate for these people because you encounter so many of them. I don't so I feel less irritable about it. I HAVE, however, been accosted on many occasion by evangelical Christians so I'm more likely to be wary of them... and when it comes down to it, how can you be friends with someone who thinks you're going to hell??? (wow... tangent)
You argue that you shouldn't have to hide to avoid being trampled, but being public about anything at all will always invite criticism and hatred. The more well known you are, the more hatred you'll have directed at you no matter how small the cause. I reckon if you choose to be open about it, its to be expected. I just don't think the world is ready for the entire concept of the lifestyle just yet so there's nothing wrong with 'hiding' for now.
Epodec wrote:
In my situation I don't have a choice. To avoid the subpoena would result in contempt of court, which would be much worse than being publicly outed in the media.
Whoa. I never said that had anything to do with it. lol By all means comply with the law!
I don't agree that donating money to a cause it the 'guns blazing' option. I guess I'm referring more to the way the issue is handled - in the media and otherwise, the way that it is presented - more than the type of support given.
For example, I think it's too bold to say "we're swingers and there's nothing wrong with it!!" I don't think we should be so eager to show the world everything all at once. That's all.
I suppose you see it all as pussyfooting around - especially because of the flack you cop - but I think that's just the way these things go.. just like international relations... one small step at a time.
I suppose you see it all as pussyfooting around - especially because of the flack you cop - but I think that's just the way these things go.. just like international relations... one small step at a time.
I wouldn't dare degrade your methodology by calling it pussyfooting. I do see your point and am willing to concede on several levels that the touch and go or small step method will work over a long period of time.
I would however like to offer a compromise. Every major liberation through out history had two fronts, one that consisted of a diplomat and one that consisted of an enforcer. The diplomat most the time would negotiate the small steps, the compromises and win the little victories. While publicly condemning the actions of the enforcer, yet they would actually privately support the actions of the enforcer knowing that the enforcer is a necessary evil to successfully advance the total victory.
The late Martin Luther King Jr. had the 'strength' of the black panthers. While he publicly criticized their actions, he is known to have stated on many occasions that without their actions he wouldn't have such a strong platform to stand on.
A more quasi-historical reference would be that of William Wallace in Scotland. Supposedly, depending on which lore you believe, Robert the Bruce supported William Wallace while simultaneously condemning him to the King of England.
Depending on the version of history you choose to believe Robert the Bruce so publicly condemned Wallace to the point that he betrayed him to advance the freedom of Scotland. Ultimately Scotland was freed of British rule, for the most part. It would not had happened so rapidly if not for the rallying ability of William Wallace and the diplomatic efforts of Robert the Bruce occurring at the same time.
So I propose you run for office and fight the diplomatic battles and I'll run the grassroots, in your face, movement. You can publicly condemn my grassroots movement while we simultaneously work towards the same goal. I just would prefer to not be disemboweled in the end, okay?
Glad you enjoyed it. I also need to thank Petitmiam for providing me with an civil, fun, spirited debate. I so enjoy the true art of argumentation as opposed to the petting fighting that usually occurs when to net entities disagree.
I'm going to send you an article via e-mail. I want you to read it, several times over before you post it. It's on the subject we've been debating all day and defiantly of a darker tone than I usually write. So please read it before posting.
no need to thank me. lol Forums are for discussing all these issues... like David and Margaret discuss movies, and that's what I like to do.
Before the onslaught of darkness, I just wanted to add a couples last notes...
I wouldn't attribute all fear of labels to a fear of losing individuality. For one thing, to attach a label to something - and something that's an intimate part of your life - can bring all the negative connotations that are NOT part of your life to you. I can really understand how someone would want to avoid that. You get pinned as something, and alllll the sterotypes come with it.
Also, to give it a name and talk about it like it's a constant battle can make it seem like more of an issue than it really is. The lifestyle or swinging or whatever you want to call it, IS NOT what defines any of us. I certainly don't think it defines me. It's just part and parcel of who I am and some other people think that's a major deal - but for me, it's not. I like going to the gym, swimming, writing, travelling to exotic locations,... and sometimes getting sexy with select friends.
So SOMETIMES I'm talking to people and think I'd like to show them just how much I like them... and sometimes that can happen. But you know... it doesn't have to be a bigger deal than that. Hell it hardly even happens with everything else I have to bloody do in my ordinary life.
I feel it needs to be distinguished from say, sexual orientation because that is something fundamental about your physicality - but swinging? Well for me, it's just getting a little cosier sometimes with people I fancy. Apart from that, I don't feel THAT different from my non-swinging counterparts.
Ok, I am relatively new at all of this but one question that occurs to me on reading this article and subsequent debate is this:
"is there a difference between 'the lifestyle' and having sex with other people (or swinging if we're going to label it)"
Bryan and I started doing this as a choice not a necessity and although I have to admit that for a while what we were doing was so overwhelming as to be all consuming- for the most part our 'lifestyle' is unchanged.
We simply feel we have a new hobby which is something fun we can share together. We have had many others in the past (caveing, skydiving, kyaking etc) which have come and gone.
I do acknowledge that a lot of people would disapprove of what we're doing, but for the most part I don't give a shit and don't feel like it really affects my life or that I am persecuted for it. So my standing doesn't seem to have changed as a product of "lifestyle". Perhaps its easy for me because I am not in the public eye. But I do know that over the last couple of months I have become a lot less paranoid about people (even my own teenaged children) finding out - because I honestly don't believe that what we are doing is immoral or harmful to anyone, and therefore not something I need feel ashamed of.
What really intriques me is Jeff's stance that once you start you are forever hooked. We have come to this very late in life and both feel we have a very limited shelf-life. I know there are 80 year old couples out there still having sex, but are there 80 year old swingers around? I sure hope so, but I doubt it.
The club in Tampa that my wife and I attend has an age range of 23 to 87. No I'm not kidding. The couple that is 87 just celebrated their 65 year wedding anniversary. They say they've been in the lifestyle since their 40's, so 47 years of swinging damn!
We have a healthy group of "seniors" aging between 65 - 80 that they Play with from time to time. They are some of the coolest couples I've ever met. The funny thing is the music dramaticalyl changes at 10:30, that's when all the senior filter out of the club.
They tease that it's their bed time, but somehow they're ALWAYS leaving at the exact same time, and going the SAME direction down the street
They are the oldest swingers I've met to date, and some of the funniest. Despite the fact that I wouldn't "guess" their age over 60, they pull out the senior jokes when they come to the club (about once a month.)
Once I got to know them and could tease them a little bit I asked the gentlemen of the group if I needed to go find him some Viagra since he was heading off with two lady frieds. He looked back and said, "Aw hell kid, get me two tongue depressers and some duct tape. Vitamin-V won't cut it tonight!" and he trotted back to the play area.
Two hours later he came back, looked at me and said, "Damnit kid, where the hell were those tongue depressors? I was only able to go 4 times!" He then headed to the dance floor.
Crazy old bastard is one of the funniest guys at the club and despite endless teasing of being a dirty old man he's also probably the most polite guy there too. His wife is a sweet heart too, but very reserved.
Wow, Jeff, can't tell you how pleased I was to read your reply. Looks like we may be able to keep going with this forever and not feel like we have to rush things and fit all of our experiences into the next couple of years. The senior member of your club sounds like an absolute hoot! Hopefully that will be me one day. Thank you so much for the encouragement.
Laura
xxoo
The
]
We can agree to have opposite definitions for thing. I am hesitant to use "Christian" as a blanket term for bigoted monogamists. I know some very compassionate, non-judgmental, non-swinging, Christians and I know some swinging Christians who foster no guilt over their transgressions. I don't wish to lump an entire religion into a group of bigots. Just as I don't wish to include compassionate understanding monogamists into bigots either, which is why I personally choose monogamists and vanillas. 
Just live for the moment guys - Life is only what you make it.
where have you been B and L?