Polyamorous vs Swingers

If the last part is true, then swinging is as compatible with asexuality as monogamy - in this scenario.

Well, yes and no. I mean, the last part you're talking about refers to A and B dating. A is asexual, B isn't. As a result, B is nonmonogamous. B might be swinging, but B isn't asexual. A might be asexual, but A isn't swinging. So I'm not sure I would call them compatible. One part of a couple is one, the other part does the other. No overlap here.

If you mean the asexual person swinging too, forcing themselves for their partner, then I adressed that option already.

Polyamory, on the other hand, I can very well see the asexual member of a mixed relationship being polyamorous, as opposed to only the other one.
 
To me, as I understand it:
Swinging *can* involve an emotional connection but doesn't have to. It *does* have to involve sex.
Polyamory *can* involve sex but doesn't have to. It *does* have to involve an emotional connection.
That's exactly how I'd define the difference between poly and swinging, too.


Polyamory, on the other hand, I can very well see the asexual member of a mixed relationship being polyamorous, as opposed to only the other one.
Agreed. To the point that at least some poly aces (myself included) would actually scratch someone off the potential partners list the moment we learn they aren't poly, no matter how well we might fit otherwise. I simply can't see myself being partnered up with mono folks.
 
I would disagree that going to an event designed for swingers is engaging in swinging as an activity. Swinging is the sexual activity part of it. Going to a swingers' club or party is common for voyeurs - they're not swinging or swingers, necessarily, since they're just watching but they are at a swingers' event. I have close friends who attend a club on a regular basis. They have no interest in swinging or casual sex with others, but they enjoy exhibitionism. They go to swingers' events but aren't involved in swinging as an activity - they're just putting on a show.

I would agree with whoever earlier defined swinging as casual sex (including all sexual activity, not just intercourse since there's everything from soft swinging to full swap) with someone other than your partner. I wouldn't limit it to marriage/primary relationships since I have engaged in swinging with someone who would have been considered my "secondary" at the time.

And this is where we disagree - I think voyeurism in a swinging setting constitutes engaging in swinging. They voyeuristic individuals may not self identify as swingers but they are participating in a swinging event with their attendance and for the sole purpose of engaging either in viewing sex or being watched as they have sex.

Last time I checked, there were no "swinger police." So, anyone can be a swinger, all they have to do is self-identify.

And this really emphasizes the importance of allowing the people doing the act to choose their labels. Many people cuddle outside their partnerships without considering themselves even non-monogamous, let alone swingers specifically. So it's never the case that "these and these behaviors mean you're swinging, and those and those behaviors mean you're polyamorous." Self-identification is of utmost importance.

Exactly how I see it.

Originally Posted by KC43
To me, as I understand it:
Swinging *can* involve an emotional connection but doesn't have to. It *does* have to involve sex.
Polyamory *can* involve sex but doesn't have to. It *does* have to involve an emotional connection.

Originally Posted by InsaneMystic
That's exactly how I'd define the difference between poly and swinging, too.

And this is another thing I disagree. I agree the main difference between swinging and poly is sex - specifically when it happens and why it happens. But swinging definitely DOES NOT have to involve sex. That seems to be the crux of this problem. There are many people who are involved in swinging who do not have sex. Or only have sex within a quad situation - much like quads in poly. To say swinging has to involve sex and does not involve emotion or love is incorrect.

Neither polyamory or swinging have to involve sex. Both can and do. And both involve love - because there is love in swinging - at the very least between a committed or married couple who are participating in swinging together, with or without rules. But not all swingers are couples.. there are plenty of single men and women both.
 
Last edited:
So, what (would y'all say) is the defining difference between swinging and polyamory? I mean, are they just two different words for the same thing? Is the difference between the two a stylistic difference?

Is it inappropriate to ask such questions because swinging and polyamory are words that are best defined uniquely and subjectively by each individual? What if I can't decide how I want to define the two words? Can I turn to other people (e.g. those with more experience) for suggestions?

Can I just ask (survey style) how various people choose to define the two words, just for the sake of obtaining more perspective on the matter? I know we're kind of doing that already but I wonder:

  • How many people think the definitions should be universally fixed (rather than individually diverse)?
  • How are swinging and polyamory differentiated (if at all) in various people's perceptions?
  • Is there (or can there be) a slider with "extreme swinging" and "extreme polyamory" at its opposite ends?
  • Which if any dictionaries can we turn to for the answers to these questions?
I sense that the words swinging and polyamory are relatively new to the English language and as such are in the process of relatively rapid evolution. Is "swing is about sex" an idea that swingers used to agree with, or is it a misconception that polyamorists have been harboring all along?

Gee, I count 12 questions in this post. Do I get special points for that? (Oh wait, that's 13 questions.)
 
Is that what you are trying to get to - is a definition? Because that isn't what I've read on here. I've also said that for me the main difference between poly and swinging is sex - when it happens and why.

There are already definitions established on swinging and polyamory:

Swinging is the practice of partners in a committed relationship (ie in love) or single people engaging in sexual activities with other consenting adults as a recreational or social activity. Does it involve sex, YES. Does it involve love, YES. Does it involve building relationships, friendships, etc YES.

Polyamory is the practing of building multiple intimate relationships at a time with other consenting adults. Does it involve sex, YES. Does it involve love, YES. Does it involve building relationships, friendships, YES.

Do these two concepts approach sex differently, YES. Do they have commonalities even though their philosophies are different, YES.

I never stated poly and swinging were the same in anyway. They have fixed definitions that are very black and white and many people on here seem to understand that - what I've been trying to convey is that black and white is not our world and there are a multitude of similarities between polyamorists and swingers that we should acknowledge, celebrate and support in each other. My apologies if that message was not conveyed.
 
Last edited:
Polyamory is the practing of building multiple intimate relationships at a time by consenting adults. Does it involve sex, YES. Does it involve love, YES. Does it involve building relationships, friendships, YES.

That's incorrect. The definition of polyamory does NOT include sex. It does include love and emotional attachment, but sex is optional (not in the definition).
 
I respectfully disagree with you rdos. To a majority of people sex is part of love - and in my humble opinion, I feel it is incorrect to state that because the fixed definition of polyamory does not include the word "sex" directly in it that it means sex is optional.

I think I am going round and round on this one and really, I've said what I meant to say. Whether you agree with me or I disagree with you (a public you - not anyone in particular) seems moot at this point. Thanks for the conversation.
 
Last edited:
I respectfully disagree with you rdos. To a majority of people sex is part of love - and in my humble opinion, I feel it is incorrect to state that because the fixed definition of polyamory does not include the word "sex" directly in it that it means sex is optional.

I respectfully disagree with you. There are many, many people in polyamorous non-sexual relationships, for a variety of reasons. They may be asexual. They may be long distance. There may be physical or emotional reasons why sex is not desirable or possible. Perhaps attraction has waned, but love has not. We have even had polyamorous virgins post here, who were not interested in changing that status for the foreseeable future. Yet, the fact that these people are not having sex does not diminish the quality of their romantic relationships or their practice/orientation of being poly.
 
I never stated that not having sex within a relationship diminished the quality of any relationship.
 
Last edited:
That's incorrect. The definition of polyamory does NOT include sex. It does include love and emotional attachment, but sex is optional (not in the definition).

Well I finally agree with you.

Polyamory means loving more than one. That can exclude sex, but typically does not. The relationship structure around loving more than one is optional.
 
I respectfully disagree with you rdos. To a majority of people sex is part of love - and in my humble opinion, I feel it is incorrect to state that because the fixed definition of polyamory does not include the word "sex" directly in it that it means sex is optional.
When I (and many others) say sex is optional in polyamory, what it means is you don't have to have sexual relationships to be polyamorous. But I do acknowledge that sex isn't just optional in many people's personal relationships, be they mono or poly.
 
That was what I meant in my post as well. Polyamory does not HAVE TO include sex, since it means *loving* more than one person. It most definitely can include sex, but that isn't a requirement for polyamory.

Guy and I don't have sex because he's 900 miles away and neither of us has body parts that stretch that far. But we most definitely have a relationship that, on my end at least, is polyamorous.
 
I think it's the idea that swinging "requires" sex to me that bothers me. I don't think that is necessarily true. It makes it sound like if you go to a swinging event, you are "required" to have sex. And that is not true. And it's a damaging comment. When someone states swingers are "in it" for sex, it sounds negative.

There are swingers who never have sex with anyone outside of their partnerships. And while it may be couple-centric, there are feelings involved at times as well and yet I don't think they would consider themselves poly either.
 
Ahem ... I hope I didn't give the impression I was singling you out mmkeekah, or trying to give you a bad time. If anything, maybe I was trying to give the whole forum a bad time. You know, ask uncomfortable questions that make people think.

See now what I kind of think is that it's good to have a sex-positive outlook on life in general. For example, let's say a couple of people were having sex, and it was just for the sheer sake of sex. Well, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Sex is great, awesome, etc. ... granted it's not everyone's cup of tea, but if anyone is having sex just because they like sex, I say cool, go for it. It's hot. :)

I don't know what the "right" definition for swinging is (Can there be a right definition?), but if it were "People getting together just to have sex," I wouldn't think that was a bad thing. Sex is cool.

Having said that, I also don't mind giving swingers credit for other stuff besides just sex. This is actually educational for me, I didn't realize extrasexual elements of human interaction mattered a lot to swingers, but now I think such elements do matter a lot.

If I was looking for concrete definitions (and I suppose I was to some extent) for poly and swing, for purposes of comparison or whatever, then I find that you (mmkeekah) provided perfectly good ones:

Swinging:
"The practice of partners in a committed relationship (i.e. in love) or single people engaging in sexual activities with other consenting adults as a recreational or social activity."

Polyamory:
"The practice of building multiple intimate relationships at a time with other consenting adults."

Sounds good to me.

The general impression I get (from everyone in general so far) is that swinging and polyamory, taken as a whole, both have sex going on in many instances, while in certain particular cases (of swinging or polyamory), maybe sex isn't going on. Now is swinging and/or polyamory a sexual word? I'm guessing that most of the unwashed masses, when they hear "polyamory" or "swinging," the first thing that comes to their mind is "sex." And if that's true, maybe that's the problem. Maybe we need more people to understand that "polyamory" and "swinging" are relationship words.

Still, there's the virtues of sex-positive perspective to consider. If people want to think of me as slutty because I'm poly, for example, that's actually okay with me. I'm glad and proud to be slutty. Wish I'd embraced that part of me a long time ago.

Not sure if that helps, but at least I didn't ask as many questions that time. :cool:
 
I think it's the idea that swinging "requires" sex to me that bothers me. I don't think that is necessarily true. It makes it sound like if you go to a swinging event, you are "required" to have sex. And that is not true. And it's a damaging comment. When someone states swingers are "in it" for sex, it sounds negative.

There are swingers who never have sex with anyone outside of their partnerships. And while it may be couple-centric, there are feelings involved at times as well and yet I don't think they would consider themselves poly either.

Do you identify as a swinger? If so, why did you become one?

When I have identified as a swinger, I did so because I wanted to have purely casual sex with people. No potential for anything beyond friendship and sex. I was 100% in it for the sex, and I'm sure I will be again in the future. I don't consider it a bad thing; I consider it a personal preference. There's no point (IMO) of identifying as a swinger if you're not having swinger sex (casual sex with someone other than your committed partner/s). In my mind, swinging DOES require sex. Going to a swingers' event is not swinging to me, so I see no damage. I agree with kdt that sex is fun, so I also don't see being "in it" for the sex as a negative.

At the moment, I attend swingers' clubs/parties on occasion. I do not consider myself a swinger, because I don't have sex. At times I'm a voyeur, others an exhibitionist, sometimes I just go to hang out with some cool people. Just because I go to a swingers' event doesn't mean I'm a swinger and it also doesn't mean I have to have sex.

But that's all just me.
 
That makes sense to me.

Like, if I go to a swing club but don't participate, I can self-identify as a "swing event attendee;" it's not like my self-worth will take a ding if I don't self-identify as an actual swinger.

Still, I guess voyeurism is a type of participation that one could define as "one way of not having sex." It depends on what sex is defined as, and there's all kinds of opinions on that.

In examining Wiktionary, I observe that only intercourse counts as having sex. Yet Wiktionary also has a specific entry for oral sex. And for phone sex. And for cybersex. So obviously "sex" contains many subsets that aren't mentioned in the main entry for sex. Maybe voyeurism is one of those subsets -- who knows?
 
Polyamory:

"The practice of building multiple intimate relationships at a time with other consenting adults."

I don't think this is a good definition, as "intimate" in most people's mind means sex, and thus this definition again excludes asexual polyamory.

I would prefer:
"The practice of building multiple attachments at a time with other consenting adults."

Or:
"The practice of building multiple romantic attachments at a time with other consenting adults."
 
I identify as a bisexual polyamorous swinger although I am neither swinging nor am I in a polyamorous relationship right now.

Just because I am not in either right now, I still identify as both because I believe it is possible to have casual sex relationships in a responsible manner and to be intimately and romantically involved with more than one person at a time. While I understand and respect other people's right to be monogamous, I have no inclination nor desire to ever identify as that myself, although technically, I am currently monogamous as I am only romantically involved with my long term partner and I only have sex with him at this time.

I don't think you have to actively have sex to identify or be either a swinger or polyamorous. I think you just have to understand what it is and know for yourself, if the timing and people were right, you could do either.

I attend both polyamorous and swinging events - because I like the open nature of the event - well mostly open... I mean, as long as you act like the people in the room - as long as you conform to their standards and thoughts - then you are welcome. But I try to set that aside because at least when I'm with one or the other, the tendency is for them to be as open minded as the rules of that group allow them to be. I also take my monogamous friends - those who are brave enough to go - or invite them to my events with the hopes that they will at least understand that, while you don't have to swing/be poly, there are some really cool people who identify as one or the other - again trying to put a human face to these titles we assign ourselves.

It seems to me (and I find it upsetting and sad) that other poly people look down on monos and swingers. And other swingers look down on monos, don't understand poly people and actively dislike bi males. It isn't my ideal - either situation - but these are my choices. My choice is also to never actively support when either group makes blank statements about a group of people based on a name or title in the hopes that there will be some understanding that there are actual humans involved behind the titles "swinger" and "poly."
 
Last edited:
Still, I guess voyeurism is a type of participation that one could define as "one way of not having sex." It depends on what sex is defined as, and there's all kinds of opinions on that.

I think that voyeurism is related to exhibitionism (obviously, if you have one, you need the other as well), and that both of these are not related to sex in the traditional way (sexual intercourse for bonding). Technically, they are paraphilias.
 
No arguments here ...

It seems that it can be appropriate to self-identify as anything that you'd participate in if the right opportunity presented itself -- understanding that you'd like such an opportunity.
 
Back
Top