Polyamorous vs Swingers

Tonberry said:
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by social bonding, but it's pretty common knowledge that bonobos, which are our closest relatives, use sex as a form of social bonding. They use it after fighting, they use it to socialise, and they pretty much have no taboos about sex.
Dolphins also use sex in non-reproductive ways (such has having forms of sex that can't possibly lead to reproduction) but I'm not sure how much they bond over it.
Click to expand...

Bonobos also use non-reproductive sex in social bonding. In fact, humans are the only species that uses possibly reproductive sex in bonding. It's therefore perfectly possible this is a quite recent trait in human evolution that doesn't need to be a universal that applies to everybody.

Tonberry said:
This being said, I fail to see how what other animals do is relevant to us. Humans are humans, and I don't think basing what we should do on what other animals do, rather than what we're personally naturally drawn to as a species, is conducive to a better self-understanding.
Click to expand...

It is relevant for us because we are a hybrid species. At least, Eurasians have Neanderthal ancestry. Since the research on exactly what traits the Neanderthals contributed to our genome is still in its infancy, we have no definite answers on this yet. My hypothesis is that it is neurodiversity that is the Neanderthal contribution to our genome, and that this can explain asexuality and why our species is both monogamous and polyamorous. This combination would not really be possible in a non-hybrid species.
 
Last edited:
rdos said:
It is relevant for us because we are a hybrid species. At least, Eurasians have Neanderthal ancestry. Since the research on exactly what traits Neanderthals contributed to our genome is still in its infancy, we have no definite answers on this yet. My hypothesis is that it is neurodiversity that is the Neanderthal contribution to our genome, and that this can explain asexuality and why our species is both monogamous and polyamorous. This combination would not really be possible in a non-hybrid species.
Click to expand...

Rdos, for the love of all that is good and perky, what in the hell are you talking about?

Maybe we could swing this wild detour back toward a topic relating to polyamory? Or, Allah forbid, the topic at hand?
 
rdos said:
Seems totally incorrect. AFAIK, the only species that uses sexual intercourse to keep attachments is humans, and I very much doubt that oxytocin has a special function in humans.
Click to expand...

Unless you have PhDs in Anthropology and Neuroscience, and have done detailed, peer-reviewed studies to support your beliefs, I'm going to go ahead and ignore what you think you know. That bonobos use sex both for social bonding and reproduction is well-documented in primate research. That oxytocin is involved in human and bonobo bonding is well-established in neuroscience literature.

Mothers release oxytocin when they nurse. Partners release it when they have sex and cuddle. It's been measured and documented. I honestly don't care if you believe it or not, but it's accepted in the literature, so refusing to believe it doesn't really help your argument. It just makes you appear uninformed and willfully ignorant.
 
Marcus said:
I don't see the denigration in this thread that people are referring to. I saw one statement about bringing poly down to a lower level to elevate the standing of swinging... that is certainly a negative way to say it, but that's the only comment I've noticed.
Click to expand...

To be fair, it was one peson who made the "denigrating" comment regarding this thread, and it was me, and from an emotional place, because I do find it tiresome to read any comments where a poly person stands firm against being equated to swinging because they find it insulting. I can understand wanting the average person who is unfamiliar with non-monogamy in general to understand that polyamory and swinging are not the same, but I loathe reading comments like they hate swingers calling themselves polyamorous, or that swingers are "in it" for the sex, because no one here knows why anyone does anything with any certainty. I don't know who the OP associates with that they have this viewpoint, but I find it insulting.

As I've stated, I have both swinger and poly friends who are "in it" (their respective relationships) for a multitude of reasons and none of them "fit" this (as I see it) hateful misrepresentation of their choices. I find those kind of comments judgmental and demeaning and completely counterproductive to a common goal we all seem to have-- being accepted by society at large for who we are. So I apologize for labeling the entire conversation in this thread as such when it was only a few comments.

Whether or not a poly person chooses to personally "join hands" with a swinger person really has no relevance to the conversation (and as such, there was no "memo"), but I personally find it hypocritical of a person or a group to demand respect and equality from a society and not return the favor, especially to another non-monogamous group.

By and large, I have enjoyed this conversation, even though some of it is a bit confusing, mostly because I can't understand the asexual aspects of the conversation, I think, because I am not asexual myself. But I am trying to understand that viewpoint in regards to this conversation. I can understand how an asexual person would be concerned that their beliefs were not represented in the terms we use to describe relationships, and I can see why that would happen-- because a large portion of individuals who are in these relationship types we've been discussing are, in fact, sexual, and sex is a large part of our relationships, whether we have sex immediately for physical gratification, or we do it once we've established a relationship and use it to bond further.

I think this is an opportunity to understand an uncommon viewpoint that sounds as if it's been misrepresented up until now, and I welcome the opportunity to learn more.
 
Last edited:
Well, how about these questions:

  • Can an asexual person be a swinger?
  • Can swinging occur without sex?
  • What does asexual swinging look like?
  • How does asexual swinging differ from asexual polyamory?
Not trying to be the devil's advocate here, just confused.
 
kdt26417 said:
Well, how about these questions:

  • Can an asexual person be a swinger?
  • Can swinging occur without sex?
  • What does asexual swinging look like?
  • How does asexual swinging differ from asexual polyamory?
Not trying to be the devil's advocate here, just confused.
Click to expand...

Are you asking me, Kev? Cause I can't answer that question, I am not asexual.
 
Heh, no, I did not mean for you to have to answer those questions. Officially I was just throwing them out there for anyone who might want to tackle them. Unofficially I was interested in what rdos might have to say.

My bad for the confusion, I just got curious and suddenly changed directions.
 
kdt26417 said:
  • Can an asexual person be a swinger?
  • Can swinging occur without sex?
Click to expand...
I think the answer to the first question depends on the answer to the second one. Some asexuals are into non-sexual fetishes or BDSM, so if swinging can be about those things, then yes, I can imagine an asexual being a swinger.

Some people would say an asexual can be a swinger even if swinging means having sex, because they prescribe to the "lack of sexual attraction" definition of asexuality and believe one can desire sex without feeling sexual attraction. But I'm one of those who believe sexual desire (desire for partnered sex to be more specific), rather than sexual attraction, is what asexuals lack. So I don't think an asexual would want to be a swinger in the sexual sense at all.
 
I think swinging by definition involves having sex with others outside the marriage/primary relationship. So if that is the correct definition, then someone who is asexual could only be a swinger if they go against their orientation and have sex anyway.

To the second question, no, I don't think swinging can occur without sex, because I think the definition of swinging includes sex. Not necessarily penis in vagina intercourse, but some type of sexual interaction.

So, given the answers above, I would say that swinging and asexuality are mutually exclusive.

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.

So that would be the difference. Asexual polyamory would be a polyamorous relationship not involving sex. Asexual swinging, in my opinion, can't exist, because swinging includes sexual interaction.

And it is possible for someone to act against their sexual orientation, so by that logic someone who identifies as asexual could "swing" if they're having sex despite their asexuality. My answers above presume that that isn't happening.
 
KC43 said:
I think swinging by definition involves having sex with others outside the marriage/primary relationship. So if that is the correct definition, then someone who is asexual could only be a swinger if they went against their orientation and had sex anyway.

To the second question, no, I don't think swinging can occur without sex, because I think the definition of swinging includes sex. Not necessarily penis in vagina intercourse, but some type of sexual interaction.

So given the answers above, I would say that swinging and asexuality are mutually exclusive.

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.

So that would be the difference. Asexual polyamory would be a polyamorous relationship not involving sex. Asexual swinging, in my opinion, can't exist, because swinging includes sexual interaction.

And it is possible for someone to act against their sexual orientation, so by that logic, someone who identifies as asexual could "swing" if they were having sex despite their asexuality. My answers above presume that that isn't happening.
Click to expand...
I pretty much agree. Many asexuals do act against their sexual orientation and have sex. I'm one of them. But most do so to satisfy a partner who needs sex, especially if they're in a mono relationship with a sexual person. But swinging is very different from the common "sexual compromise" scenario. An asexual may have sex to maintain a relationship with a sexual partner, but I doubt an asexual would gain any benefit from swinging. The most I can imagine is they try swinging out of curiosity, but give up soon because it doesn't do anything for them.
 
Last edited:
I think it's possible for anyone to get involved in swinging as an activity. All you have to do is go to a swingers event. Not everyone who goes to swinging events actually has sex, even if sex is on the agenda. Not all swinger events are orgies, despite what is believed or portrayed.

Whether or not a person chooses to identify as a swinger is a personal question/choice. Some people go because they like the sexually-charged atmosphere. Some go to be with like-minded open people who like sex and are proud of their open sexuality. Some people go because they are voyeurs or exhibitionists, and the environment allows them to either be watched, if they have sex in the open, or because they like to watch those who have sex in the open. Some go on dates with other couples because this is the only place where it is socially acceptable to be seen with someone other than your spouse without facing open judgment from others. Some go because their spouses or partners are swingers and they are trying to understand. Some are just curious.

While I am not asexual, I can't really see why an asexual person would want to go to a swinging event, much less identify as a swinger. But I think it is possible.
 
Last edited:
I could imagine an asexual person swinging because it's their partner's kink and they're willing to compromise that much, but honestly I can't imagine it being too common, and it would probably be like someone straight having sex with someone of their gender because their partner finds it hot. Some people do it, but they're few and far between.

So I would say that generally, swinging wouldn't be for asexual people. And even in the above case, it's still for an ace's partner, anyway.

Polyamory, however, is as compatible with asexuality as monogamy is. I could even imagine a polysexual person being more willing to have an asexual partner, because they can still have sexual partners. And so, while they'd have to go without sex with the asexual person, barring some compromise on the ace's part, they wouldn't have to go without sex at all. On the other hand, other forms of sexual nonmonogamy, including swinging, would have the same benefit. So it's not specific to polyamory.
 
Tonberry said:
I could imagine an asexual person swinging because it's their partner's kink and they're willing to compromise that much, but honestly I can't imagine it being too common, and it would probably be like someone straight having sex with their gender because their partner finds it hot: some people do it, but they're few and far between.

So I would say that generally, swinging wouldn't be for asexuals (and even in the above case, it's still for an ace's partner anyways).

Polyamory however is as compatible with asexuality as monogamy is. I could even imagine a poly sexual person being more willing to have an asexual partner because they can still have sexual partners (and so while they'd have to go without sex with that person - barring some compromise on the ace's part - they wouldn't have to go without sex at all). On the other hand other forms of sexual nonmonogamy (including swinging) would have the same benefit so it's not specific to polyamory.
Click to expand...

If the last part is true, then swinging is as compatible with asexuality as monogamy - in this scenario.
 
mmkeekah said:
I think it's possible for anyone to get involved in swinging as an activity. All you have to do is go to a swingers event. Not everyone who goes to swinging events actually has sex, even if sex is on the agenda. Not all swinger events are orgies, despite what is believed or portrayed.
Click to expand...

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.
 
nycindie said:
Uh-oh, I didn't get the memo. What is each group's purpose?
Click to expand...

Whoops, sorry. I'll have to get you on the mailing list. ;)

World domination, of course.

("Benefit" would have been more suitable than "purpose.")
 
mmkeekah said:
I personally find it hypocritical of a person or a group to demand respect and equality from a society and not return the favor - especially to another non-monogamous group.
Click to expand...

This.
 
kdt26417 said:
Well, how about these questions?

  • Can an asexual person be a swinger?
  • Can swinging occur without sex?
  • What does asexual swinging look like?
  • How does asexual swinging differ from asexual polyamory?
Not trying to be the devil's advocate here, just confused.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, there were no "swinger police." So, anyone can be a swinger. All they have to do is self-identify. If an asexual person finds some resonance with the label swinger, then by all means, may they wear it with pride. They'll definitely get a lot of confused stares, and they'll be asked to explain themselves time and time again, but that shouldn't stop them from expressing themselves however they see fit.

Let's try this on for size: in general monogamous society, it's not kosher for a married woman to cuddle with a married man. So an otherwise monogamous couple going to a cuddle party with other otherwise monogamous couples may constitute "soft swinging." These people may then want to wear the swinger label, even if they don't engage in sexual relations, because they're not forming loving relationships to an extent that they may feel justifies polyamory. They may resonate with the swinger label, and seek support from people who won't judge them for having physical contact outside their matrimonial bonds.

So, in this hypothetical situation, yes, an asexual person can be a swinger. Swinging can occur without sex, through cuddling. Asexual people could participate in these parties. Asexual swinging differs from asexual polyamory the same way sexual swinging differs from polyamory: the lack of a romantic relationship.

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 behaviours mean you're swinging, and those and those behaviours mean you're polyamorous." Self-identification is of utmost importance.
 
Last edited:
SchrodingersCat said:
Unless you have PhDs in Anthropology and Neuroscience, and have done detailed, peer-reviewed studies to support your beliefs, I'm going to go ahead and ignore what you think you know. That bonobos use sex both for social bonding and reproduction is well-documented in primate research. That oxytocin is involved in human and bonobo bonding is well-established in neuroscience literature.
Click to expand...

Reference: http://sgo.sagepub.com/content/3/3/2158244013497722

Theory: http://www.rdos.net/eng/asperger.htm

Your turn to show your credentials in the appropriate areas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top