Polyamorous vs Swingers

however the term is not the best because by the word progressive it implies that the opposite of it is not progressive.

You don't think "stagnant swinging" is likely to catch on? :p
 
Re (from Blonde7915):
"Just the like LGBTQ people but aside their differences to help each other out and move their rights along, I believe that swingers and poly folk are very similar and need to put aside their differences and work together."

Totally agree.

Re: progressive swinging ... interesting that there is an actual word for it, though it's too bad a better word could have arisen. Perhaps "transitional swinging" would have worked better?

Re: stagnant swinging ... haha, or static swinging, just as insulting but smells a bit more air-freshened.
 
poly closed to a patner relationship

poly closed to a patner relationship, while swinger closed to casual sex.
Both can co-exist to one person.
I got it.
 
Polysexual -- desire or capacity to share sex more than one partner

I use this word that way too, but apparently people have been using the word Polysexual to describe what I think of as Pansexual, i.e. dating people as people regardless of gender, for years!

And this, kids, is why I don't like labels. They become more confusing than helpful the more you look at them.

So maybe people are accepting non-monogamy as a "solution" for bisexual people, thinking a bisexual person "has" to have one partner of each gender?

Actually, a "solution" for bisexual women. The kinds of people who think it's wrong to have sex with more than one man also think it's wrong for two men to have sex together. You know, basically judging all-around.
 
Being relatively new in polyamory I have a hard time accepting that many full-blown swingers describe themselves as polyamorous.

How do you see this issue?

The only issue I see is when one person tells another person what labels they may or may not choose to use for themselves.

If a given label resonates with someone, for whatever reason, then they may use it as they see fit. It might create some confusion if they're using it in a different way than is typical, and that may result in some discussion as people struggle to understand what they really mean, but those discussions are never boring and usually good for a nugget or two of insight into the way people think.
 
I use this word that way too, but apparently people have been using the word Polysexual to describe what I think of as Pansexual, i.e. dating people as people regardless of gender, for years!

Yup -- same here.

And this, kids, is why I don't like labels. They become more confusing than helpful the more you look at them.

Which is why calibrating with a new person I'm talking to matters. Something like...

"Wait... when you say X, do you mean ____?"

It's part of the "get to know you" process to me.

GG
 
Re (from SchrodingersCat):
"The kinds of people who think it's wrong to have sex with more than one man also think it's wrong for two men to have sex together. You know, basically judging all-around."

Ewww.
 
I use this word that way too, but apparently people have been using the word Polysexual to describe what I think of as Pansexual, i.e. dating people as people regardless of gender, for years!
From how I've heard the word used, the difference between pan- and polysexual is that pan is open to dating folks of all sexes and genders, while poly is open to many, definitely more than two, but not all.

E.g., if you're not open to, say, dating transmen (for whatever reasons), but open to literally everyone else but transmen, you'd be polysexual; pans would be open to dating everyone you're open to plus open to transmen.


Yeah, labels can be confusing. I still love having them around, though... I actually like to sort myself into small boxes. Maybe I'm part cat. ;)
 
From how I've heard the word used, the difference between pan- and polysexual is that pan is open to dating folks of all sexes and genders, while poly is open to many, definitely more than two, but not all.

E.g., if you're not open to, say, dating transmen (for whatever reasons), but open to literally everyone else but transmen, you'd be polysexual; pans would be open to dating everyone you're open to plus open to transmen.


Yeah, labels can be confusing. I still love having them around, though... I actually like to sort myself into small boxes. Maybe I'm part cat. ;)

The way I saw it used, monosexual meant gay or straight, polysexual was anything else.
 
This topic always surprises me when it comes up. Society in general views both polyamory and swinging as negative. It doesn't help when one group denigrates another because they fear being misrepresented by society in general.

People believing polyamory "is like" swinging is only bad when polyamorists allow those archaic and wrong beliefs to define either polyamory or swinging. There is nothing wrong or negative with wanting multiple loving relationships... and there is nothing wrong or negative about a person or a couple wanting to open their relationship sexually with or without strings.

I see so many common misconceptions in this string about swinging and it makes my heart hurt to see these misconceptions being perpetuated by another non-monogamous group. I personally love it when monogamous people share their misconceptions with me about poly or swinging because it gives me an opportunity to straighten out the misconception and it gives a human face to something most people fear.

I've known swingers who eventually ended up in a poly relationship and I've known poly people who went back to swinging. I've known unethical swingers and unethical polyamorists. I've known swingers who wholeheartedly enter into relationships and strong friendships with their swinging partners, and I've known polyamorists who have closed themselves down in specific formations. These characteristics are not inherent to one group and yet we continue to try and define (i.e. limit) these relationship types. I think that is a sad comment.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree, mmkeekah ... polys and swingers need to join hands and set the example of accepting each other. After all, both groups have the important characteristic in common of challenging the monogamous standard.

Oh and by the way ... welcome to the beehive. :D
 
This topic always surprises me when it comes up. Society in general views both polyamory and swinging as negative. It doesn't help when one group denigrates another because they fear being misrepresented by society in general.

People believing polyamory "is like" swinging is only bad when polyamorists allow those archaic and wrong beliefs to define either polyamory or swinging. There is nothing wrong or negative with wanting multiple loving relationships... and there is nothing wrong or negative about a person or a couple wanting to open their relationship sexually with or without strings.

I see so many common misconceptions in this string about swinging and it makes my heart hurt to see these misconceptions being perpetuated by another non-monogamous group. I personally love it when monogamous people share their misconceptions with me about poly or swinging because it gives me an opportunity to straighten out the misconception and it gives a human face to something most people fear.

I've known swingers who eventually ended up in a poly relationship and I've known poly people who went back to swinging. I've known unethical swingers and unethical polyamorists. I've known swingers who wholeheartedly enter into relationships and strong friendships with their swinging partners, and I've known polyamorists who have closed themselves down in specific formations. These characteristics are not inherent to one group and yet we continue to try and define (i.e. limit) these relationship types. I think that is a sad comment.

I think this brings up a resounding point I more or less live by. Consider how similar successful monogamy, successful swinging and successful poly are to each other.

We as a whole have less differences with each other than we try to find. How I behave, act, and relate today is no different than when I considered myself monogamous.

I live life exactly how I always have, just with better time management.

Or.. succinctly

people who suck at mono relationships will also suck at non-mono relationships...

Thats enough koombaiya from me.
 
I totally agree, mmkeekah ... polys and swingers need to join hands and set the example of accepting each other. After all, both groups have the important characteristic in common of challenging the monogamous standard.

I disagree. I'm basically asexual and live in a mono-relationship, but I'm polyamory by nature. I wouldn't accept sex outside of the relationship, but I would accept other attachments (and have one myself). I really dislike it when it is assumed that polyamory is something sexual, and you are supposed to be hypersexual and a swinger to really be polyamory. I'd rather focus on the attachment profile of polyamorous people rather than how they are sexually, as sex shouldn't be in the picture at all. Kind of like assuming that all mono-people also like to play football, when there really is no connection between the two.
 
I disagree. I'm basically asexual and live in a mono-relationship, but I'm polyamory by nature. I wouldn't accept sex outside of the relationship, but I would accept other attachments (and have one myself). I really dislike it when it is assumed that polyamory is something sexual, and you are supposed to be hypersexual and a swinger to really be polyamory. I'd rather focus on the attachment profile of polyamorous people rather than how they are sexually, as sex shouldn't be in the picture at all. Kind of like assuming that all mono-people also like to play football, when there really is no connection between the two.

If it's important to you that people don't think you're sexual, make sure to insist on that point. But I agree with others. We should definitely be supportive of each other because we face similar challenges, in the same way as someone gay and someone trans face similar challenges. And while someone might be gay or trans, they have otherwise little to do with each other, and it would make sens for a trans man not to want to be taken for a gay woman. Not because a gay woman isn't something good to be, but because they're not.

I want people to know I'm poly, and also not a swinger. But I'm not going to do it by denigrating swingers. Just because I'm not one doesn't mean they're bad, less evolved, or that their relationship as less valuable than my own.
 
Or.. succinctly

people who suck at mono relationships will also suck at non-mono relationships...
I could not disagree more.

Consistently failing miserably at one while totally owning the other is absolutely possible, and simply shows that one of these things is an unworkable concept that one should not give room in one's life.

For folks like me, monogamy simply is bullshit, and I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, because I know I would ruin my life and the one of the unlucky person stuck in the mono-prison with me.
For others, it's the other way around.
And for a third group, both work more or less equally, for better or worse.

All of that's ok - people are different, sometimes fundamentally. Just don't try and mingle with the incompatible ones, relationship-wise, and you'll be ok.
 
I could not disagree more.

Consistently failing miserably at one while totally owning the other is absolutely possible, and simply shows that one of these things is an unworkable concept that one should not give room in one's life.

For folks like me, monogamy simply is bullshit, and I won't touch it with a ten-foot pole, because I know I would ruin my life and the one of the unlucky person stuck in the mono-prison with me.
For others, it's the other way around.
And for a third group, both work more or less equally, for better or worse.

All of that's ok - people are different, sometimes fundamentally. Just don't try and mingle with the incompatible ones, relationship-wise, and you'll be ok.

You are misunderstanding the gist of what I am saying.

Relationships skills (good or bad) are universal. You are either good at relationships or not.

Whether or not you are wired for a certain type really shouldn't have a bearing on your relationship skillset.

Just the fact you know you can't do monogamy is part of that skillset. Its been a consistent observation I have made across many mediums when discussing relationships.

Of course I have no proof, and don't care to argue the point beyond what I have said. Until I see one relationship that proves otherwise. I will stick to that observation.
 
You are misunderstanding the gist of what I am saying.

Relationships skills (good or bad) are universal. You are either good at relationships or not.

Whether or not you are wired for a certain type really shouldn't have a bearing on your relationship skillset.

Just the fact you know you can't do monogamy is part of that skillset. Its been a consistent observation I have made across many mediums when discussing relationships.

Of course I have no proof, and don't care to argue the point beyond what I have said. Until I see one relationship that proves otherwise. I will stick to that observation.
I think I get your point, it's just that the way you word it makes no sense to me.

A: "There's one single relationship skillset" => healthy 'ships are all basically the same, regardless of mono or poly
B: "Some people can be wired for mono or poly, and not wired for the other" => mono & poly are fundamentally different from each other
C: "Knowing your wiring is part of your relationship skillset" => SYNTAX ERROR when combined with A+B

If both A and B are correct, then it logically follows that only either mono or poly are covered by the skillset; the other system simply is not a "real/legitimate/healthy" relationship... which, when stated as a universal rule instead of as "not a 'ship model that could ever work in my own personal life", obviously sounds elitist/One True Way-ish.

Personally, I'd accept statements B and C and reject A. To me, there are multiple forms of workable 'ship skillsets, some of which are mutually incompatible. That doesn't rule out that there can be overlap between all the various skillsets that lead to forms of happy, healthy 'ships. (In fact, I'd be surprised if there wasn't some kind of overlap area that all of them share; I just firmly rule out that all the skillsets are 100% identical.)
 
Last edited:
Again, it really isn't about whether or not polyamory is about sex or not. That is one aspect of both polyamory and swinging. It's taking a complicated love relationship style and bringing it down to its lowest common denominator for the sole purpose of elevating another relationship style.

Just as as an asexual person dislikes equating polyamorous directly with sex, it's equally demeaning to not only think but continue to say out loud that swinging is just about sex. It's making assumptions and belittling something a non-swinging person not only doesn't know anything about, but (ironically I might add) actively refuses to try and understand - out of fear of being labeled by the very society that actively puts down those who are different than them. In my very humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree. I have been coming to understand (lately) that swinging frequently involves a solid friendship (between the participants). It's not necessarily sex with random strangers. But as a non-swinger, I figure I have plenty more to learn about swinging, and I am very willing to open my mind and ears to whatever those with pertinent experience have to say. If I wasn't so lazy I'd employ Google and Wikipedia in my quest for enlightenment, but so far I am content with what the poly forums have to offer. :)

As for polyamory, I normally think of it as multiple romantic relationships, where "romantic" may or may not include a sexual element. But I know that some people would even object to the use of the word "romantic" (in defining polyamory), so in those cases, I just try to accept their definition and speak with them using their definition. I certainly don't mean to offend or disclude any asexual persons (for the record).
 
Back
Top