FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Is meaningless sex fake?
Is meaningless sex fake?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think this is a really interesting post... And sometimes I feel like it's a performance albeit very enjoyable... Lee however always throughs his all into a meet... And is passionate... I find it hard to do that with others... But then I find a lot of male halfway of couples hold back... For fear of enjoying it to much. Even had a woman getting annoyed that I got her fella turned on..hmmm thought that was the point... So I think the op is just lucky with his encounters and shouldn't start doing what I do and over think it."  Interesting question.
I think there's a different level of connection with someone you know really well or have a relationship with. The sparks when you kiss.... looking in each other's eyes as you fuck and connecting that way... I don't think it's different for singles, it would be the same for couples meeting other couples.
I can still connect with someone 'new'- but not in the same way. There's lust in the air but no 'history' with that person.
If it's just a shag then there can be no connection. It can still be fun if someone is there to share it. No fun on your own without someone to share the moment (for me anyway). | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"A It strikes me that a lot of people in the swinging scene are scared shitless of this 'connecting with each other'. Does that mean they protect themselves by being fake? " No, it can be entirely physical, carnal, lustful without being fake. That kind of sex can be fun but in my opinion is like the joke about chinese food - it does not satisfy deeply or for long without more of a connection. it's ephemeral. | |||
| |||
| |||
   | |||
"Everyone lusts for someone even if they ain't into each other. I can vouch for that. Many of my mates would say sex with someone they aren't into 'it's better than wanking alone'. Everyone can fake 'connection' to get something they want. Connection is created with time and effort, not just a chat and profile pics." Not everyone can or would! | |||
| |||
 | |||
"Everyone lusts for someone even if they ain't into each other. I can vouch for that. Many of my mates would say sex with someone they aren't into 'it's better than wanking alone'. Everyone can fake 'connection' to get something they want. Connection is created with time and effort, not just a chat and profile pics. Not everyone can or would! " Men can have sex with anyone, search on YouTube 'asking guys for sex' I will rest my case | |||
"So what you're basically saying is it's a bit like wanking but you're using someone elses body to help you enjoy yourself "I heard a Rabbi on this subject saying exactly that. Sometimes it is true of me and I know it has been true of some of the men I have met. As long as that is clear I think all is fine. It can be great to have a momentary connection as intimate as that with your own hand but involving another person. I enjoyed meeting in a completely different way when I was in a couple. Love making is a whole different ball game for me now. However, being close and affectionate with the people I already know comes easily. | |||
"I like meaningless sex, means you don't have to fancy them when you fuck em " | |||
"Everyone lusts for someone even if they ain't into each other. I can vouch for that. Many of my mates would say sex with someone they aren't into 'it's better than wanking alone'. Everyone can fake 'connection' to get something they want. Connection is created with time and effort, not just a chat and profile pics. Not everyone can or would! Men can have sex with anyone, search on YouTube 'asking guys for sex' I will rest my case " Not all. I have had the meets where it just hasn't been possible. Nice enough but the pheromones didn't really meld together. | |||
| |||
" It strikes me that a lot of people in the swinging scene are scared shitless of this 'connecting with each other'. Does that mean they protect themselves by being fake? ? Or am I just blessed that I've never experienced fake sex before "Of course you may have done and they were very good at faking
NSA sex doesn't have to mean saying "hello get your knickers off" and then you all get down to it.....it can mean a horny connection with someone who wants the same out of a meet as you.
I can't see why anyone would want to meet another if they didn't have some sort of connection....barring GB's etc where I suppose that is different | |||
"hello get your knickers off" Gave me an idea for a chat up line here lol | |||
"hello get your knickers off Gave me an idea for a chat up line here lol " Fill your boots.....let us know if it works | |||
"hello get your knickers off Gave me an idea for a chat up line here lol
Fill your boots.....let us know if it works "Thanks and yes I will, will give it a weeks trial run and see  | |||
Why would anyone put themselves through that? | |||
But why do you think people would add crap sex to their sex life? Wouldn't they be looking for what they consider good sex? | |||
"You have lost me totally now
But why do you think people would add crap sex to their sex life? Wouldn't they be looking for what they consider good sex?"I'm also confused lol So are you saying that sex with others, where there is no connection, and you're basically just using their body to pleasure yourself... can be good sex? I literally have no experience of that kind of scenario so perhaps you could excuse me if this sounds like a silly question.. I'm completely naive here. | |||
| |||
"This seems so loaded with presumptions that I feel trying to educate or enlighten the op would be hard work. Think he's saying he doesn't want to be here, it's not for him." No I'm not... I'm genuinely confused about this... perhaps it would help if you highlighted my presumptions, I'm sure I'm making a few that are mashing my noodle, maybe that'll help unpuzzle me | |||
 | |||
| |||
"You have lost me totally now
But why do you think people would add crap sex to their sex life? Wouldn't they be looking for what they consider good sex?
I'm also confused lol So are you saying that sex with others, where there is no connection, and you're basically just using their body to pleasure yourself... can be good sex? I literally have no experience of that kind of scenario so perhaps you could excuse me if this sounds like a silly question.. I'm completely naive here."I didn't say that at all. I said "NSA sex doesn't have to mean saying "hello get your knickers off" and then you all get down to it.....it can mean a horny connection with someone who wants the same out of a meet as you. " I think this thread started because you think people who don't want to cuddle people have a problem with swinging.....I suppose it could be said the other way....that people who want to cuddle others are looking for something more than swinging. It isn't pleasant for me when other swingers question why you are not doing as they do. If someone wanted to meet at the drop of a hat with no connection at all.. who are we to argue....it is their choice and what they get out of it is non of my concern. No one has to agree with it or play like it....you just do your own thing what you like. | |||
"I need a connection,.. can't get hard if I don't feel the lady wants to. Its just weird. Maybe that's why I stepped back from gangbangs as in my experience, a lot of the time, the lady in question was in "any cock will do" mode.. which only served me well for so long, eventually I wanted more - I wanted "I want you!". Is that bad? "I'd agree with you Ahabs. So maybe the point is that there is a place in swinging for people that want connection as a per-requisite for any kind of sex... and all we need to do is vet out the people who don't want that and seek those who do... is that the mistake I'm making in this thread? i.e. that there are swingers out there who are happy to want the people their fucking... to make love/lust with them?
Maybe this is what just goes on anyway across all meets lol and I'm just making a tit of myself lol. It's just that some recent conversations have alerted me to the fact that what some people phrase as "keeping the intimacy out of sex" might be better translated into "being fake and not letting others in"... which doesn't really appeal to me as an experience | |||
| |||
" It's just that some recent conversations have alerted me to the fact that what some people phrase as "keeping the intimacy out of sex" might be better translated into "being fake and not letting others in"... which doesn't really appeal to me as an experience" I think that's the problem you are having....the translation of what people have said. | |||
| |||
"You have lost me totally now
But why do you think people would add crap sex to their sex life? Wouldn't they be looking for what they consider good sex?
I'm also confused lol So are you saying that sex with others, where there is no connection, and you're basically just using their body to pleasure yourself... can be good sex? I literally have no experience of that kind of scenario so perhaps you could excuse me if this sounds like a silly question.. I'm completely naive here.
I didn't say that at all.
I said "NSA sex doesn't have to mean saying "hello get your knickers off" and then you all get down to it.....it can mean a horny connection with someone who wants the same out of a meet as you. "
I think this thread started because you think people who don't want to cuddle people have a problem with swinging.....I suppose it could be said the other way....that people who want to cuddle others are looking for something more than swinging.
It isn't pleasant for me when other swingers question why you are not doing as they do.
If someone wanted to meet at the drop of a hat with no connection at all.. who are we to argue....it is their choice and what they get out of it is non of my concern. No one has to agree with it or play like it....you just do your own thing what you like. "Thanks for clarifying that Rugby I think what you're saying is that most meets have an element of being into the person you're fucking i.e. that you want to pleasure them just as you want to pleasure yourself. This, for me, suggests a connection... and it makes total sense.
I guess I was just freaking out because I've heard it banded around that people don't cuddle, don't kiss, don't have eye contact whilst fucking, don't have candlelit meals, etc... and I'm cool with those rules, even though we wouldn't have them ourselves... but it suddenly struck me that what this seemed to amount to was something so un-intimate that it could actually be quite fake and unsexy.
I think, from your reply, that this is not the norm... and that, instead, most of the time there is a genuine attraction and you are actually enjoying pleasuring the person your with and 'making love' with them in some vague sense... it's just not the same as running off and marrying them lol
Does that sound better? lol | |||
| |||
"When I meet someone, for that evening their pleasure is a part of my pleasure. There is passion and desire and attraction, and to a degree it is a short term thing, but it certainly isn't 'fake'. There are some out there with the mentality of any shag is better than no shag, but they are so easy to spot as they generally message to say how beautiful/sexy/amazing you are and expect the reply to be a time, date and location to meet! I need mutual attraction to get aroused, without it I might as well get the rabbit out. Everyone on here is looking for something different, I meet those on the same wavelength and whilst yes I may be scratching an itch to some extent, that scratch needs to be scratched in an enjoyable way for all involved" This! | |||
| |||
"I think part of the problem (am not saying for a fact it is) is some peopel on the scene (not just Fabs a s a site) feel you don't need a connection to play.. while the extreme opposite worry a "connection" would result in "promises of monogamy, profile updated of 'found the one am looking for', splitting up couples, running off together, getting married" and the like. Both extremes I find are not the case and couldn't be further from the truth in context of what I think you're saying, but I could be wrong "I think there are many who fear developing a connection as they think this means that it can't be NSA sex, then there are a some at the other end of the scale who think that fleeting connection is an exclusive thing to them. I connect in the moment, with some that is repeated but with many it isn't. I often feel (and many will disagree I'm sure) that those who want to keep intimacy with swinging partners at arms length aren't the most secure in themselves and so aren't the right people for me to meet. | |||
| |||
So lets get this straight... on the one side you've got...
- Total lack of connection and intimacy i.e. don't look me in the eye while you're fucking me, the minute we're done get out, and I don't even want to know what you're name is.
On the other end of the spectrum, which is probably nearer where we're at philosophically...
- Happy to completely connect, chat, enjoy a romantic meal out, kiss, make wild and passionate love, but just as long as you respect we're a couple and you don't try and change that.
And in between... is what most swingers do... which is...
- Happy to connect and find out a little about you, flirt, get into you and your sexiness, enjoy your energy and physical sexiness, have enough of a connection that we can share our bodies together and have a deeply intimate moment which is ultimately some kind of making love... but for the sakes of emotional security we'll call it 'just sex', and then maybe stay in touch maybe not.
Sound right?
I think what's come from this, for me, is that there probably is a deep incompatibility between what we're looking for and what the 'no intimacy' swingers are looking for (you don't say lol )... so we should really make sure we don't connect with these types of swingers... it just helps to clarify what we're putting out and looking for. Thx everyone | |||
" I guess I was just freaking out because I've heard it banded around that people don't cuddle, don't kiss, don't have eye contact whilst fucking, don't have candlelit meals, etc... I think, from your reply, that this is not the norm "I can only speak for myself so I don't know what the norm is, I only know what we do. As for candelight meals....we would run a mile at that.
This is a fantasy for us, we are not looking for romance.
| |||
Put all them ticks together and you get some lovely fireworks! | |||
"When I meet someone, for that evening their pleasure is a part of my pleasure. There is passion and desire and attraction, and to a degree it is a short term thing, but it certainly isn't 'fake'. There are some out there with the mentality of any shag is better than no shag, but they are so easy to spot as they generally message to say how beautiful/sexy/amazing you are and expect the reply to be a time, date and location to meet! I need mutual attraction to get aroused, without it I might as well get the rabbit out. Everyone on here is looking for something different, I meet those on the same wavelength and whilst yes I may be scratching an itch to some extent, that scratch needs to be scratched in an enjoyable way for all involved." | |||
"Some really great replies on this thread... thx
So lets get this straight... on the one side you've got...
- Total lack of connection and intimacy i.e. don't look me in the eye while you're fucking me, the minute we're done get out, and I don't even want to know what you're name is.
On the other end of the spectrum, which is probably nearer where we're at philosophically...
- Happy to completely connect, chat, enjoy a romantic meal out, kiss, make wild and passionate love, but just as long as you respect we're a couple and you don't try and change that.
And in between... is what most swingers do... which is...
- Happy to connect and find out a little about you, flirt, get into you and your sexiness, enjoy your energy and physical sexiness, have enough of a connection that we can share our bodies together and have a deeply intimate moment which is ultimately some kind of making love... but for the sakes of emotional security we'll call it 'just sex', and then maybe stay in touch maybe not.
Sound right?
I think what's come from this, for me, is that there probably is a deep incompatibility between what we're looking for and what the 'no intimacy' swingers are looking for (you don't say lol )... so we should really make sure we don't connect with these types of swingers... it just helps to clarify what we're putting out and looking for. Thx everyone "To a degree but that can change with different partners. I have a few 'regular' meets (one I've been seeing for almost 3yrs) so the connection with them is deeper because I know them and explore with them, and keep in touch between meets, but we all still continue to do our own thing as individuals. Guess what I'm saying is it is just sex, but with friendship too... There is not fear about emotional security as we are secure in the way our sexual friendship works. | |||
"I often feel (and many will disagree I'm sure) that those who want to keep intimacy with swinging partners at arms length aren't the most secure in themselves and so aren't the right people for me to meet. " I can really see what you're saying. But having said that, I do think that people in relationships are playing with fire when they start having sex with others. The only difference is that I don't believe that intimacy has anything to do with the problem... in the slightest... rather that it's friendship which you've got to keep an eye on... how much are you communicating with this other person? how many times are you meeting this other person? how important is this other person becoming to you as a friend?
Short term feelings of lusting for someone are just a thrilling new addiction that can be overcome. It's the friendship I would suggest you'd need to keep an eye on if you want to protect your relationship.. a bit off topic.. but that's my opinion anyway | |||
" I guess I was just freaking out because I've heard it banded around that people don't cuddle, don't kiss, don't have eye contact whilst fucking, don't have candlelit meals, etc... I think, from your reply, that this is not the norm
I can only speak for myself so I don't know what the norm is, I only know what we do.
As for candelight meals....we would run a mile at that.
This is a fantasy for us, we are not looking for romance."Candle lit meals can be fantasy or role play. If you're already married... they're clearly not romance in the usual sense... so we'd expect such things to be understood to just be another level of erotic fun... perhaps swapping partners at the restaurant and each making out with the other as if we were lovers... it's just role play on another level really | |||
" I guess I was just freaking out because I've heard it banded around that people don't cuddle, don't kiss, don't have eye contact whilst fucking, don't have candlelit meals, etc... I think, from your reply, that this is not the norm
I can only speak for myself so I don't know what the norm is, I only know what we do.
As for candelight meals....we would run a mile at that.
This is a fantasy for us, we are not looking for romance.
Candle lit meals can be fantasy or role play. If you're already married... they're clearly not romance in the usual sense... so we'd expect such things to be understood to just be another level of erotic fun... perhaps swapping partners at the restaurant and each making out with the other as if we were lovers... it's just role play on another level really "Whatever floats your boat | |||
| |||
"When I meet someone, for that evening their pleasure is a part of my pleasure. There is passion and desire and attraction, and to a degree it is a short term thing, but it certainly isn't 'fake'. There are some out there with the mentality of any shag is better than no shag, but they are so easy to spot as they generally message to say how beautiful/sexy/amazing you are and expect the reply to be a time, date and location to meet! I need mutual attraction to get aroused, without it I might as well get the rabbit out. Everyone on here is looking for something different, I meet those on the same wavelength and whilst yes I may be scratching an itch to some extent, that scratch needs to be scratched in an enjoyable way for all involved"
This...I'll also add that (for me) in a club environment, in a free for all, I often neither know nor care whose fingers/cock/tongue is currently exciting some part of my body; but in 1-1 or with a couple outside of clubs I have to have some sort of spark and be able to chat as well as fuck - that's the connection for me | |||
"And I think that's the best bit: the exploration to find what makes YOU tick, what makes others tick.. and those that you tick with
Put all them ticks together and you get some lovely fireworks!" | |||
"Having read the whole thread it seems the op is questioning the whole swinging llifestyle , in order to see where he sits in it . I can only guess he has yet to have a real swinging experience , hence all the hypothetical assumptions and conclusions . So may I say that before making these statements it may be a good idea to actually have an experience ! Until you do its all conjecture and tbh sounds daft to me . A bit like someone describing a country they have never visited . "Ach you got me Yep I confess... We're still parked in the garage, sitting watching the traffic go by with great curiosity and amusement... looking forward to getting on the road ourselves. Had a completely nutty year that would sound like the sequel script to 'Four Weddings & A Funeral' if we explained it to you... just to say that we've got an imminent house move left and then, after that, we might finally have some space open up for us to start dabbling | |||
| |||
"i have had several meets where there has not been a great deal of connection but the sex has been anything but fake....i have never faked anything! It is possible to have great sex with someone you have just met." I totally agree. Great sex is not necessarily about a connection. I've had amazing sexual experiences with guys with whom I've hardly shared a sentence before we got down and dirty. And similarly I've had bad sex with the man of my life with whom I've had a deep heartfelt connection for years (thankfully this happens rarely). But that's just me... Often it's about the mood, the situation, the body, the skills, the novelty, the fantasy... Not the connection at all. | |||
"i have had several meets where there has not been a great deal of connection but the sex has been anything but fake....i have never faked anything! It is possible to have great sex with someone you have just met. I totally agree. Great sex is not necessarily about a connection. I've had amazing sexual experiences with guys with whom I've hardly shared a sentence before we got down and dirty. And similarly I've had bad sex with the man of my life with whom I've had a deep heartfelt connection for years (thankfully this happens rarely). But that's just me... Often it's about the mood, the situation, the body, the skills, the novelty, the fantasy... Not the connection at all." This
Sex is sex is sex. | |||
"i have had several meets where there has not been a great deal of connection but the sex has been anything but fake....i have never faked anything! It is possible to have great sex with someone you have just met. I totally agree. Great sex is not necessarily about a connection. I've had amazing sexual experiences with guys with whom I've hardly shared a sentence before we got down and dirty. And similarly I've had bad sex with the man of my life with whom I've had a deep heartfelt connection for years (thankfully this happens rarely). But that's just me... Often it's about the mood, the situation, the body, the skills, the novelty, the fantasy... Not the connection at all. This
Sex is sex is sex. "I think as long as your purpose is to give the other person at least as much pleasure as yourself, if not more, then there is a connection of sorts. It's only when you're only using their body as a tool to turn yourself on and you're totally in your own world that there's no connection at all. This may be because you aren't really into them so your faking your pleasure... or it may be because you're so insecure in your relationship that you don't want to actually enjoy the experience your having too much so you try to put yourself into a removed and detached state. I was talking about this with my wife earlier and I think a good analogy is this... Imagine that I make my wife laugh, I mean really really laugh... and she really loves my jokes. Then she turns to me and says she'd like to go and see a stand up comedian. I have two options. Either I say ok honey you can go see a stand up comedian... just as long as you don't see a funny one and you don't laugh. Or I can say she can go see any stand up comedian she likes, laugh her head off, just as long as she returns to me and doesn't go and see stand up comedians all the time for her laughs. The worry that ignited this thread was that all you swingers were off seeing unfunny stand up comedians... which just sounded fake and not much fun. I think the thread has sorted out my head and I now understand that it isn't really that black and white | |||
| |||
)
As a bloke on here, by far the hardest thing is getting that first meet, so if you're not an arse, easy to get on with and at least a half decent shag then theres a good chance you're going to be asked for another meet- so all the fun without the time chasing round trying to find someone interested in you, you can put that effort into having better fun together
The majority of the people i've met in swingworld have been repeat meets, theres only 1 person i met that i didn't want to meet again- all because we've taken the time to make sure we click on more than a 'shag now' level | |||
" Imagine that I make my wife laugh, I mean really really laugh... and she really loves my jokes. Then she turns to me and says she'd like to go and see a stand up comedian. I have two options. Either I say ok honey you can go see a stand up comedian... just as long as you don't see a funny one and you don't laugh. Or I can say she can go see any stand up comedian she likes, laugh her head off, just as long as she returns to me and doesn't go and see stand up comedians all the time for her laughs. The worry that ignited this thread was that all you swingers were off seeing unfunny stand up comedians... "So the question really should have been....are you swinging for fun for you and your partner or doing it just for your other half. | |||
| |||
"i have had several meets where there has not been a great deal of connection but the sex has been anything but fake....i have never faked anything! It is possible to have great sex with someone you have just met. I totally agree. Great sex is not necessarily about a connection. I've had amazing sexual experiences with guys with whom I've hardly shared a sentence before we got down and dirty. And similarly I've had bad sex with the man of my life with whom I've had a deep heartfelt connection for years (thankfully this happens rarely). But that's just me... Often it's about the mood, the situation, the body, the skills, the novelty, the fantasy... Not the connection at all. This
Sex is sex is sex.
I think as long as your purpose is to give the other person at least as much pleasure as yourself, if not more, then there is a connection of sorts. It's only when you're only using their body as a tool to turn yourself on and you're totally in your own world that there's no connection at all. This may be because you aren't really into them so your faking your pleasure... or it may be because you're so insecure in your relationship that you don't want to actually enjoy the experience your having too much so you try to put yourself into a removed and detached state.
I was talking about this with my wife earlier and I think a good analogy is this...
Imagine that I make my wife laugh, I mean really really laugh... and she really loves my jokes. Then she turns to me and says she'd like to go and see a stand up comedian. I have two options. Either I say ok honey you can go see a stand up comedian... just as long as you don't see a funny one and you don't laugh. Or I can say she can go see any stand up comedian she likes, laugh her head off, just as long as she returns to me and doesn't go and see stand up comedians all the time for her laughs.
The worry that ignited this thread was that all you swingers were off seeing unfunny stand up comedians... which just sounded fake and not much fun. I think the thread has sorted out my head and I now understand that it isn't really that black and white "But that's in your eyes, other people would see maybe a funny comedian who you don't find funny. Sex is whatever two or more make it to be, we are all on different emotional states and all have different perspectives. You can tell a joke on here and some ikely hood the thread would be deleted. At the same time im sure men and women fake orgasms | |||
| |||
| |||
"I need a connection,.. can't get hard if I don't feel the lady wants to. Its just weird. Maybe that's why I stepped back from gangbangs as in my experience, a lot of the time, the lady in question was in "any cock will do" mode.. which only served me well for so long, eventually I wanted more - I wanted "I want you!". Is that bad?
I'd agree with you Ahabs. So maybe the point is that there is a place in swinging for people that want connection as a per-requisite for any kind of sex... and all we need to do is vet out the people who don't want that and seek those who do... is that the mistake I'm making in this thread? i.e. that there are swingers out there who are happy to want the people their fucking... to make love/lust with them?
"I think this is where you are confusing the boundaries - virtually all people on here will really WANT the person they are meeting, but it will be about 'making lust' not 'making love' in the vast majority of cases, even if it is making lust with people who have become friends. The more you veer towards candlelit dinners and lovemaking, the more stringy the sex would become, yes, and most people on here don't want that, or don't want to risk it. | |||
| |||
| |||
I feel that when people talk about strings being attached they're talking about getting feelings for someone else or getting tied up in a new relationship with someone. This is a description of a scenario which I would suggest is impossible to achieve on the back of one swinging meet with a couple (I'll concede it's possible with a single person as they're 'available')... unless you're some crazy drama queen who suddenly wants to throw themselves under a bus if they can't run off with somebody's life partner just because he or she kissed you
A no strings attached philosophy merely means there's an agreement between each other that the sex is not going to develop into a relationship.
If I fly off to France, bump into some woman, we immediately click, I tell her I'm married, she talks on the phone with my wife and gets her consent, after which we ravish each other, make wild and passionate love, then wander off hand in hand through the romantic Parisian streets, before running back to my hotel to make love some more, and then I fly back home... that is no strings attached sex.
Compared to that, what some people are describing sounds more like hiring a prostitute and, like Love O, I'd rather just have a wank... after all.. it's sex with someone I love | |||
"Frisky thanks for chiming in, as usual... a thoughtful post
I feel that when people talk about strings being attached they're talking about getting feelings for someone else or getting tied up in a new relationship with someone. This is a description of a scenario which I would suggest is impossible to achieve on the back of one swinging meet with a couple (I'll concede it's possible with a single person as they're 'available')... unless you're some crazy drama queen who suddenly wants to throw themselves under a bus if they can't run off with somebody's life partner just because he or she kissed you
A no strings attached philosophy merely means there's an agreement between each other that the sex is not going to develop into a relationship.
If I fly off to France, bump into some woman, we immediately click, I tell her I'm married, she talks on the phone with my wife and gets her consent, after which we ravish each other, make wild and passionate love, then wander off hand in hand through the romantic Parisian streets, before running back to my hotel to make love some more, and then I fly back home... that is no strings attached sex.
Compared to that, what some people are describing sounds more like hiring a prostitute and, like Love O, I'd rather just have a wank... after all.. it's sex with someone I love "Sorry but I would have a fit if the man that claimed to love me went off and made love and wanderered hand in hand and had meals with another woman like that... Sex is one thing... Even with having just what we share currently I know I would feel put out about things like that. A great sex session is one thing... Spending the night as a couple with another... I'm not married, attached but I wouldn't like it.... And if it was properly my man then no way. | |||
Her | |||
| |||
"Frisky thanks for chiming in, as usual... a thoughtful post
I feel that when people talk about strings being attached they're talking about getting feelings for someone else or getting tied up in a new relationship with someone. This is a description of a scenario which I would suggest is impossible to achieve on the back of one swinging meet with a couple (I'll concede it's possible with a single person as they're 'available')... unless you're some crazy drama queen who suddenly wants to throw themselves under a bus if they can't run off with somebody's life partner just because he or she kissed you
A no strings attached philosophy merely means there's an agreement between each other that the sex is not going to develop into a relationship.
If I fly off to France, bump into some woman, we immediately click, I tell her I'm married, she talks on the phone with my wife and gets her consent, after which we ravish each other, make wild and passionate love, then wander off hand in hand through the romantic Parisian streets, before running back to my hotel to make love some more, and then I fly back home... that is no strings attached sex.
Compared to that, what some people are describing sounds more like hiring a prostitute and, like Love O, I'd rather just have a wank... after all.. it's sex with someone I love
Sorry but I would have a fit if the man that claimed to love me went off and made love and wanderered hand in hand and had meals with another woman like that... Sex is one thing... Even with having just what we share currently I know I would feel put out about things like that.
A great sex session is one thing... Spending the night as a couple with another... I'm not married, attached but I wouldn't like it.... And if it was properly my man then no way. "But it is still no strings attached sex... and that was my point | |||
"We all do things differently. When you take the plunge you may find yourself interested to find out about the panda sex. You might enjoy it or it might confirm what you thought. Interaction with two is very different to making that work with three, four or more. " Lol I'll confess I didn't know what you meant by Panda sex Lickety.. so I googled it and this is what I found...
Panda style
A sex move where one person punches the other in the face, resulting in them getting a black eye. The punch can occur at 3 different stages:
1: Before sex. Most commonly performed by wife beaters.
2: During sex. Most commonly performed by kinky partners.
3: After sex. Most commonly after an ill recieved post-coital slip of the tongue. e.g. "By the way, I'm married"
.
lol that's a classic... I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to that.. or were you lol | |||
"We all do things differently. When you take the plunge you may find yourself interested to find out about the panda sex. You might enjoy it or it might confirm what you thought. Interaction with two is very different to making that work with three, four or more. Lol I'll confess I didn't know what you meant by Panda sex Lickety.. so I googled it and this is what I found...
Panda style
A sex move where one person punches the other in the face, resulting in them getting a black eye. The punch can occur at 3 different stages:
1: Before sex. Most commonly performed by wife beaters.
2: During sex. Most commonly performed by kinky partners.
3: After sex. Most commonly after an ill recieved post-coital slip of the tongue. e.g. "By the way, I'm married"
.
lol that's a classic... I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to that.. or were you lol "No! 
I meant eats, shoots and leaves.
| |||
"We all do things differently. When you take the plunge you may find yourself interested to find out about the panda sex. You might enjoy it or it might confirm what you thought. Interaction with two is very different to making that work with three, four or more. Lol I'll confess I didn't know what you meant by Panda sex Lickety.. so I googled it and this is what I found...
Panda style
A sex move where one person punches the other in the face, resulting in them getting a black eye. The punch can occur at 3 different stages:
1: Before sex. Most commonly performed by wife beaters.
2: During sex. Most commonly performed by kinky partners.
3: After sex. Most commonly after an ill recieved post-coital slip of the tongue. e.g. "By the way, I'm married"
.
lol that's a classic... I'm pretty sure you weren't referring to that.. or were you lol
No!
I meant eats, shoots and leaves."Lol I hadn't heard that one... I'll have to remember that | |||
| |||
"To us, recreational sex is for fun and fun is what we have. The fun is real and fun has meaning - life's no fun without fun "Does that mean that when you have sex with each other it's just recreational fun too? If not what are you doing that's different... surely the activity is the same... is it just how you rationalise it in your mind? I realise now, after this thread, that I've never ever had recreational sex. If I now go off and do that... when I return to my wife and do those same things again with her... isn't that going to make my sex with her more recreational too?
Surely it's better to make love with others in a controlled and adult way... and preserve the intimacy involved in the act so that, when I come back to my wife, it will still be an act of love making to me and not some kind of sport? | |||
| |||
"Frisky thanks for chiming in, as usual... a thoughtful post
I feel that when people talk about strings being attached they're talking about getting feelings for someone else or getting tied up in a new relationship with someone. This is a description of a scenario which I would suggest is impossible to achieve on the back of one swinging meet with a couple (I'll concede it's possible with a single person as they're 'available')... unless you're some crazy drama queen who suddenly wants to throw themselves under a bus if they can't run off with somebody's life partner just because he or she kissed you
A no strings attached philosophy merely means there's an agreement between each other that the sex is not going to develop into a relationship.
If I fly off to France, bump into some woman, we immediately click, I tell her I'm married, she talks on the phone with my wife and gets her consent, after which we ravish each other, make wild and passionate love, then wander off hand in hand through the romantic Parisian streets, before running back to my hotel to make love some more, and then I fly back home... that is no strings attached sex.
"Haha, well whilst conveniently 'expendable' weekend strangers in Paris would be nice (offers on a postcard please!) I think most of us will meet people nearer to home, and will want to repeat the experience if it goes well, so establishment of boundaries is usually required. I think the depth of connection you yearn for, whilst it does occur, is certainly a rarity on a first meet, and I would guess more dangerous ground than most couples would want to tread anyway. Of course being free and single, I can just go along for whatever ride comes my way anyway, I prefer depth too, and I'm well up for intensity. That's simpler for me in some ways of course as I don't meet couples or attached men, so I don't qualify as a swinger per se. | |||
" Surely it's better to make love with others in a controlled and adult way... and preserve the intimacy involved in the act so that, when I come back to my wife, it will still be an act of love making to me and not some kind of sport? " I really don't follow your logic? Surely you can contemplate having recreational sex with a stranger but coming home to make love to your wife?? Yes, I agree it is nicer to make love, but to look for that from every casual encounter is a fantasy, the required depth of connection is just not there in most cases. | |||
" But it is still no strings attached sex... and that was my point "see I don't see how "Making Love" to someone is no strings attached.. or holding hands or going for a meal by candlelight.. Sex with others is just extras... | |||
" Surely it's better to make love with others in a controlled and adult way... and preserve the intimacy involved in the act so that, when I come back to my wife, it will still be an act of love making to me and not some kind of sport? I really don't follow your logic? Surely you can contemplate having recreational sex with a stranger but coming home to make love to your wife?? Yes, I agree it is nicer to make love, but to look for that from every casual encounter is a fantasy, the required depth of connection is just not there in most cases." I'm talking from a place of ignorance... I haven't done it so I don't know. What I'm thinking is that I've never had penetrative sex with someone that was disconnected and 'just sex'. Therefore... if I do this won't it effect how I have sex with my wife as it will essentially be the same activity... and yes I'll be trying to connect with her and think about how much I love her... but surely there'll be this little voice in the back of my head saying "hey this is similar to 'just sex'"... and that's likely to linger over me isn't it? I mean it's similar to what porn stars report i.e. that they can't really make love with anyone anymore because they've had sex too much in such a meaningless way that they simply can't have a special connection through it any more. Maybe a tad extreme... but surely there's gonna be a little tiny weeny bit of this involved in suddenly introducing 'just sex' into our love life? | |||
" But it is still no strings attached sex... and that was my point
see I don't see how "Making Love" to someone is no strings attached.. or holding hands or going for a meal by candlelight..
Sex with others is just extras..."As long as it's a one off... or you control it, communicate transparently with your partner about it, and don't let it turn into something it isn't... there are no strings. You might have really really enjoyed that person and showed them a deeply intimate caring side of yourself, perhaps like a nurse might show a patient, but you aren't really actually 'in love' with them... surely any feelings are only likely to be lust? ...and no one here is arguing about not enjoying lust with someone else. Sex with others can be 'just extras' or it can be a form of exploration... wandering off on a brief holiday to some strange and bewitching exotic land... before returning home to the place where you really belong | |||
 | |||
" But it is still no strings attached sex... and that was my point
see I don't see how "Making Love" to someone is no strings attached.. or holding hands or going for a meal by candlelight..
Sex with others is just extras...
As long as it's a one off... or you control it, communicate transparently with your partner about it, and don't let it turn into something it isn't... there are no strings. You might have really really enjoyed that person and showed them a deeply intimate caring side of yourself, perhaps like a nurse might show a patient, but you aren't really actually 'in love' with them... surely any feelings are only likely to be lust? ...and no one here is arguing about not enjoying lust with someone else.
Sex with others can be 'just extras' or it can be a form of exploration... wandering off on a brief holiday to some strange and bewitching exotic land... before returning home to the place where you really belong "I would hate it if a partner behaved like that with someone else to be honest.. making love is just for someone you have feelings for in my book.. | |||
It seems like this subject does kinda split down the couples / singles line, with most singles desiring connection, whilst most couples don't.
I think there have been a couple of expressions that have caused confusion... so I just wanted to focus on them.
The first is 'connection'. By this I do not mean having some kind of great knowledge about a person, being their friend perhaps... I merely mean some level of eye contact, kissing, having sex with them rather than just with yourself... abandoning yourself to them in some way, rather than holding back and trying to hide behind a mask of some sort. In this sense I'd say that most people on Fab do like having this kind of connection... even if they don't want candle lit meals and prolonged cuddles afterwards
The second term is 'making love'. I must say I'm personally confused about what this means. When I have sex with my wife I 'make love' with her. It would not be possible for me to 'make love' with anyone else... as I don't love them. What I mean by this is that when I have sex with my wife it is unlikely to be any different from how I would envisage having sex with someone else. The only difference is that I love my wife whereas I don't love someone else. So the 'making love' part of our sex life is something that happens in the heart and the soul... not in the bed. What happens in the bed with my wife is what I expect will happen in the bed with a stranger. Therefore when I used the phrase 'making love' I am evoking an image of intimacy, of kissing and cuddling, of arousing and desiring, of looking deep into the other persons eyes whilst I come inside them, of kissing them passionately whilst we cum together. In truth, however, that can only ever be 'just sex'... because I don't actually love them... even though all the outward signs might be that I'm treating them as if I do... I don't.
When others have problems with my use of the phrase 'making love' are they criticizing this vision of an intimate type of sex? Because if so I'd say I don't even know if I could 'perform' sex without reveling in it and loosing myself to it in this kind of intimate way. Or are they assuming that I'm somehow describing a situation where I can somehow actually love a stranger and therefore not have 'just sex' but also feel passionately in love with them in my heart and soul? Because that's just crazy imo lol | |||
"I've taken the time to read back through the thread and I must say it's been a very interesting read... so thanks for everyone that posted
It seems like this subject does kinda split down the couples / singles line, with most singles desiring connection, whilst most couples don't.
I think there have been a couple of expressions that have caused confusion... so I just wanted to focus on them.
The first is 'connection'. By this I do not mean having some kind of great knowledge about a person, being their friend perhaps... I merely mean some level of eye contact, kissing, having sex with them rather than just with yourself... abandoning yourself to them in some way, rather than holding back and trying to hide behind a mask of some sort. In this sense I'd say that most people on Fab do like having this kind of connection... even if they don't want candle lit meals and prolonged cuddles afterwards
The second term is 'making love'. I must say I'm personally confused about what this means. When I have sex with my wife I 'make love' with her. It would not be possible for me to 'make love' with anyone else... as I don't love them. What I mean by this is that when I have sex with my wife it is unlikely to be any different from how I would envisage having sex with someone else. The only difference is that I love my wife whereas I don't love someone else. So the 'making love' part of our sex life is something that happens in the heart and the soul... not in the bed. What happens in the bed with my wife is what I expect will happen in the bed with a stranger. Therefore when I used the phrase 'making love' I am evoking an image of intimacy, of kissing and cuddling, of arousing and desiring, of looking deep into the other persons eyes whilst I come inside them, of kissing them passionately whilst we cum together. In truth, however, that can only ever be 'just sex'... because I don't actually love them... even though all the outward signs might be that I'm treating them as if I do... I don't.
When others have problems with my use of the phrase 'making love' are they criticizing this vision of an intimate type of sex? Because if so I'd say I don't even know if I could 'perform' sex without reveling in it and loosing myself to it in this kind of intimate way. Or are they assuming that I'm somehow describing a situation where I can somehow actually love a stranger and therefore not have 'just sex' but also feel passionately in love with them in my heart and soul? Because that's just crazy imo lol "If you read your post again, you will see that your descriptions of 'connection' and 'making love' are actually the same.... the difference is in people's heads. If you can't separate the two in your head, and 'make love' to another woman, would that be like cheating on your wife? Would you want her to 'make love' to another man? | |||
| |||
 | |||
" The first is 'connection'. By this I do not mean having some kind of great knowledge about a person, being their friend perhaps... I merely mean some level of eye contact, kissing, having sex with them rather than just with yourself... abandoning yourself to them in some way, rather than holding back and trying to hide behind a mask of some sort............ Therefore when I used the phrase 'making love' I am evoking an image of intimacy, of kissing and cuddling, of arousing and desiring, of looking deep into the other persons eyes whilst I come inside them, of kissing them passionately whilst we cum together. In truth, however, that can only ever be 'just sex'... because I don't actually love them... even though all the outward signs might be that I'm treating them as if I do... I don't. When others have problems with my use of the phrase 'making love' are they criticizing this vision of an intimate type of sex? Because if so I'd say I don't even know if I could 'perform' sex without reveling in it and loosing myself to it in this kind of intimate way. " I think that may be the point!! There is a sliding scale for sure between entirely 'animal' sex (which is not fake, just not connected really), having sex with a 'friend' who you respect and like and have begun to know, and having sex with someone for who you have deeper feelings. Now I am pretty damn good at reckless abandon, but I am pretty sure you will find the real tenderness, the looking DEEP into someone's eyes etc, comes from the emotional intensity of lovemaking and will just simply not be there with someone you do not love. It can be heady and passionate and intense in a more physical way, but without the turbocharge of emotional involvement it will not FEEL the same, and I have never met anyone who tried to fake those feelings. I have occasionally found a very tender lover who feels so close to that he makes me want to let go the end, and maybe you might be one of that type. But most people on here are avoiding even an approximation of deeper feelings, and so go for the passionate type of sex alone. If you are very trusting maybe you could 'let go' with a total stranger, but to my mind it is more likely to be about getting lost in the passion of the moment, rather than getting lost in the other person. Most people on here won't want to go there in my opinion. | |||
| |||
 | |||
Really great responses. But thank fuck for Rumour You've finally made me feel like I'm not the only fruit cake on here lol Thx... and yes you and we are definitely on the same page... what you describe IS what I've been on about
So it seems, to me, to come down to this...
In our relationship there are times when we have wonderfully dreamy love infused sensual love making... and then there's moments where we become more animalistic and we fuck. For us, both things are related... not separate... because they're sex with someone we love.
When having sex with a stranger, we're not going to feel that love, that spiritual 'connection'. But that does not mean that we need to disconnect ourselves from them whilst being sexual with them... we can still acknowledge their beauty... and seduce and ravish them... them... not ourselves... we can 'connect'. And that's the difference between having sex with someone else and wanking.
It seems that most couples feel that when having sex with strangers, despite the fact that you don't love them, you shouldn't engage in the kind of gentle, intimate sex.. because it looks like you love them if you do... and that's something that should only be left to each others partners. Instead you should only have the more animalistic fucking, driven by desire... despite the fact that, when you do this with your partner, this is also a form of love making. Thus there is the general recognition, amongst most of the couples that have replied to this thread, that one form of sex looks like love making whilst the other doesn't... even though neither of them actually are, when done with a stranger, because there obviously isn't any love that's actually there between two strangers... precisely because that love can only come through prolonged intimacy and friendship.
It seems that most singles, on the other hand, would tend to see such a definition as arbitrary... and that perhaps pure animal sex is merely bad sex... compared to the more 'connected' intimate kind of sex that feels so rewarding. Note that most singles feel happy having this second type of sex and then packing their bags and leaving in the morning... knowing that it wasn't really genuine love making... because, whilst they might feel tingly feelings... they're not really in love yet. In particular it feels to me that most single women crave this more poetic and intimate kind of sex... so we might suggest that it is somehow perhaps more feminine? Maybe not... just an idea.
Now we get to the punchline. Me and my wife turn up at someone's house. We've 'connected' because we share a similar sense of humour... and because she's got great tits and he's got a nice bod... and, above all, because we fancy them i.e. we're attracted to them as people i.e. if we were single they might be the kind of people we'd date and seek to have romantic feelings for. Have we already made a catastrophic error? Should we, instead, have put a bin liner over the heads of our meets and just looked at them as lumps of meat? Anyway... fast forward... we get into the bedroom... and things start to get steamy and blurry... and, for whatever reason, we decide that tonight we're gonna actually do a full swap. So I turn to the woman.. and it's time to get jiggy... I want her to have a night to remember... I want it to be good sex... wild and passionate... and I hope my wife's gonna get the same... so what do I do?
A) Approach her body like an assault course, pounding every orifice, licking her, sucking her, trying to make her body cum?
or
B) Move close to her and do the only thing I really know how to do... seduce her, work with her spirit and body, enjoy the sensuality of her, and either roughly or gently 'make love' with her, listening to her responses, moving with her body, being with her?
There is a subtle difference. The one sounds more mechanical to me... whilst it could be argued that the second is just more responsive and soulful. To me the second approach just sounds like it's gonna be better sex than the first. I have no fear that I will actually be 'making love' with her, despite outward appearances... because that is not at all possible as I don't love her.
I think that's the can of worms right there | |||
| |||
""Making love" is just a phrase created by Mills & Boon because they couldn't print "fucking". "Connection", "meaning", "intimacy" are all words that are completely open-ended and can mean pretty much anything. Sex has only 2 purposes - pleasure, or procreation. There wouldn't be half as many kids in the world if it wasn't fun, and neither would sites like FAB exist." Precisely.. so when people say that we shouldn't "make love" with strangers... just "fuck" them... either what they're saying doesn't make any sense... or they're referring to the difference between gentle sensual sex (love making) and the rougher animalistic sex (fucking). Yes? | |||
"I've gotta be honest... what Nortyair describes doesn't sound like a good experience to me. The idea of having someone turn up and 'perform' something does not appeal... to be honest it sounds quite unsexy. And the post reads like someone who's using other people's bodies to fulfill their own fantasies... which again isn't something I'd want to hang around and be a part of. Plus describing a situation where a couple enjoys disengaged physical sex with others but not any intimacy makes the claim of relationship security sound dubious, although I'm sure your relationship is solid Nortyair.. I'm just talking about how it appears from my perspective. I'm sure Nortyair have a very fulfilling and enjoyable time swinging according to their own rules... and I'm not arguing that they should change what they're doing... I'm just saying it's not a description which appeals to me. I'm much more in Love O's mindset. If we're gonna do this thing... we're gonna do this thing for real. Swinging, imo, is totally pointless if it isn't about opening yourself sexually to others, pleasuring others, opening your eyes to the beauty beyond your closed relationship... even if it's just for one night... or one hour. Heck you've already got the parachute on so why jump out of the car when you can jump out of the plane? My sincere apologies if this comes across as too personal. I fully respect your choices, Nortyair. But I've gotta be honest that what you've written doesn't sound like anything we're looking to do. I hope that doesn't offend you too much "You haven't offended us but you appear a little judgemental to be honest. Saying that we might not have a secure relationship is quite condescending. We have been together for over 26 years, have four grown up kids, grandchildren and have been enjoying sex with others since the nineties. We also play with singles of both sexes, as well as couples, and know that we are both secure enough to watch our partner having fun without feeling like we are missing out. You guys do not seem to play with single guys but we wouldn't necessarily think that was down to 'hubbies' insecurity or jealousy issues. As for us using others bodies to fufill our sexual fantasies then the answer is yes. Try and fufill a sexual fantasy without another body.... hard isn't it. You failed to point out that we hope that this body use was recirocal and they enjoyed our bodies to fufill their need to. As for the word 'perform' you are being a little pedantic and are trying to make out that the whole thing is an act which we are somehow orchestrating. We could have easily used the word 'do', in that we would hope all parties would respect each others boundaries and have a great time. Reading your other posts you seem to claim you want the same experience from swinging as you get from making love to your wife. Well why swing at all? You are obviously satisfied with your wife so why go with another woman if you want it to be the same, you appear to be getting nothing more from the experience of swinging. You claim that the act is the same and that you should perform.... sorry 'do' it the same and have the same results. Swinging for us is about fantasy sex', something different from the every day. If it wasn't then it would seem like a huge amount of effort to have the same thing you could both have everyday at home. You can have a lovely sunday drive down a country lane but how exciting would it be strapped into a rally car tearing down the same lane. Both are driving but both are very different, that what swinging is for us, it adds a little excitement. (And before you start' she is not an old banger she is definately the rally car ) | |||
| |||
""Making love" is just a phrase created by Mills & Boon because they couldn't print "fucking". "Connection", "meaning", "intimacy" are all words that are completely open-ended and can mean pretty much anything. Sex has only 2 purposes - pleasure, or procreation. There wouldn't be half as many kids in the world if it wasn't fun, and neither would sites like FAB exist. Precisely.. so when people say that we shouldn't "make love" with strangers... just "fuck" them... either what they're saying doesn't make any sense... or they're referring to the difference between gentle sensual sex (love making) and the rougher animalistic sex (fucking). Yes? "I don't think anyone said you shouldn't 'make love', just that they wouldn't call it that themselves. I think it's just a difference in terms. Many people do what you call 'love making', they just don't call it that because it's not love, it's just sex. As in not with someone they love. You seem to think most swingers are cold beasts that 'just fuck'. It's not like that at all. x | |||
""Making love" is just a phrase created by Mills & Boon because they couldn't print "fucking". "Connection", "meaning", "intimacy" are all words that are completely open-ended and can mean pretty much anything. Sex has only 2 purposes - pleasure, or procreation. There wouldn't be half as many kids in the world if it wasn't fun, and neither would sites like FAB exist. Precisely.. so when people say that we shouldn't "make love" with strangers... just "fuck" them... either what they're saying doesn't make any sense... or they're referring to the difference between gentle sensual sex (love making) and the rougher animalistic sex (fucking). Yes? "I don't think of "gentle sensual sex" as love-making, just less energetic fucking. Showing love for my OH doesn't have to involve any kind of sex. | |||
| |||
We are looking to swing for various reasons... so, like you, there are fantasies we want to try out... and for those we don't really need any kind of connection, as I've said before on this thread. When it comes to having penetrative sex with another woman, however, I don't think I'd feel clean about it if I didn't try and 'connect' with her as a person i.e. make her feel like I wanted her, that I 'saw' her in some deep way. Doing this with another woman would, in no way, be anything like doing it with my wife... mainly because it wouldn't be half as good (sorry ladies there's no way you can compensate for 20 years of love between a man and a woman) ... but also because it's the people and their spirit, their mannerisms, their essence, that makes all the difference.
Scarlet... if that's the case I truly don't understand the phrase "you shouldn't make love when swinging... you should just fuck". Either that's an attempt to warn people away from gentle sensual fucking and to stay in the realms of harder animalistic fucking... in which case your assumption is wrong... or it just doesn't make any sense at all i.e. it is a paranoid delusion that a person in a 20 year long relationship can go and connect on that kind of level with a complete stranger and have sex with them sharing a profound love for them at the same time... which is surely just a neurotic delusion, rather than anything that could actually happen, no matter how gently and intimately you fuck someone. | |||
"Just don't expect everyone to have the same view and don't look down on people whose views differ to yours also your way isn't the only way. Lots of people need a connection to have sex me included doesn't mean we need to get all lovely dovey or go for romantic meals with someone. Maybe when you actually experience swinging you will be more open to how other people swing and not be so bloody patronising. As for being insecure in our relationships get a grip" I'm sorry you feel that way. I haven't meant to impose my vision or be patronising... the purpose of this thread was to try and determine what swingers meant when they warn against intimacy in sex... and whether, as a result, swingers don't do gentle 'connected' sex with others but just fuck like robots. I think, reading back, you'll find there's a lot of mixed opinions on it... which show there is something there buried in it all that's worth thinking about | |||
"Just don't expect everyone to have the same view and don't look down on people whose views differ to yours also your way isn't the only way. Lots of people need a connection to have sex me included doesn't mean we need to get all lovely dovey or go for romantic meals with someone. Maybe when you actually experience swinging you will be more open to how other people swing and not be so bloody patronising. As for being insecure in our relationships get a grip I'm sorry you feel that way. I haven't meant to impose my vision or be patronising... the purpose of this thread was to try and determine what swingers meant when they warn against intimacy in sex... and whether, as a result, swingers don't do gentle 'connected' sex with others but just fuck like robots. I think, reading back, you'll find there's a lot of mixed opinions on it... which show there is something there buried in it all that's worth thinking about "err there is more than one way to have sex to be connected lol, I find it very strange that you only associate in your words love making with being connected. Maybe its you that has the problem | |||
" Precisely.. so when people say that we shouldn't "make love" with strangers... just "fuck" them... either what they're saying doesn't make any sense... or they're referring to the difference between gentle sensual sex (love making) and the rougher animalistic sex (fucking). Yes? "Or the depth of connection in my case - I think I have only seen one person state they feel sensual, responsive sex is in itself out of bounds? I agree your romantic encounter in Paris sounded more like an affair! I never said one 'shouldn't' make love with strangers, just that it is unlikely to happen because the connection is not deep enough, though I agree, soulful, sensual, responsive sex is still possible, and a complete delight when you find it in a stranger. | |||
""Making love" is just a phrase created by Mills & Boon because they couldn't print "fucking". "Connection", "meaning", "intimacy" are all words that are completely open-ended and can mean pretty much anything. Sex has only 2 purposes - pleasure, or procreation. There wouldn't be half as many kids in the world if it wasn't fun, and neither would sites like FAB exist. Precisely.. so when people say that we shouldn't "make love" with strangers... just "fuck" them... either what they're saying doesn't make any sense... or they're referring to the difference between gentle sensual sex (love making) and the rougher animalistic sex (fucking). Yes?
I don't think of "gentle sensual sex" as love-making, just less energetic fucking. Showing love for my OH doesn't have to involve any kind of sex. " I would agree. It is impossible to 'make love' with a stranger... therefore we would have none of the concerns about intimacy which other couples might have. Similarly, as a couple who have been married for 20 years, it is impossible to have a 'romantic candlelit dinner' with a stranger that has anything like the meaning it would if we were both single i.e. it's really something closer to role play than anything truly 'romantic'.
As a result, I just don't 'get' how a whole raft of things that other couples do to protect their relationship from the dangers of swinging could have any kind of protective effect at all i.e. they're mostly pointless acts of neurosis that limit their abilities to enjoy good sex with others imo.
Obviously it's difficult to convey to you that the purpose of this post is not to cast aspersions about how others are doing what they're doing. I totally believe every couple and individual has the complete right to play the game of swinging by whatever rules they wish... and we will completely respect the rules of whoever we play with. In this response I'm really only expressing how I see things i.e. that I can't see the logic in any of it | |||
""Making love" is just a phrase created by Mills & Boon because they couldn't print "fucking". "Connection", "meaning", "intimacy" are all words that are completely open-ended and can mean pretty much anything. Sex has only 2 purposes - pleasure, or procreation. There wouldn't be half as many kids in the world if it wasn't fun, and neither would sites like FAB exist. Precisely.. so when people say that we shouldn't "make love" with strangers... just "fuck" them... either what they're saying doesn't make any sense... or they're referring to the difference between gentle sensual sex (love making) and the rougher animalistic sex (fucking). Yes?
I don't think of "gentle sensual sex" as love-making, just less energetic fucking. Showing love for my OH doesn't have to involve any kind of sex.
I would agree. It is impossible to 'make love' with a stranger... therefore we would have none of the concerns about intimacy which other couples might have. Similarly, as a couple who have been married for 20 years, it is impossible to have a 'romantic candlelit dinner' with a stranger that has anything like the meaning it would if we were both single i.e. it's really something closer to role play than anything truly 'romantic'.
As a result, I just don't 'get' how a whole raft of things that other couples do to protect their relationship from the dangers of swinging could have any kind of protective effect at all i.e. they're mostly pointless acts of neurosis that limit their abilities to enjoy good sex with others imo.
Obviously it's difficult to convey to you that the purpose of this post is not to cast aspersions about how others are doing what they're doing. I totally believe every couple and individual has the complete right to play the game of swinging by whatever rules they wish... and we will completely respect the rules of whoever we play with. In this response I'm really only expressing how I see things i.e. that I can't see the logic in any of it "so your way is the right way and because others do it differently their insecure in their relationship. You need to stop reading mills and boon | |||
""Making love" is just a phrase created by Mills & Boon because they couldn't print "fucking". "Connection", "meaning", "intimacy" are all words that are completely open-ended and can mean pretty much anything. Sex has only 2 purposes - pleasure, or procreation. There wouldn't be half as many kids in the world if it wasn't fun, and neither would sites like FAB exist." | |||
| |||
When they did I wanted to prod them and enquire. If this came across as me being dogmatic that my way was the right way I apologise... I'm just a curious sniffer dog sometimes and I can't resist picking at a scab to see what's behind it... philosophically speaking.
I think, ultimately, the question has been answered... and the answer is an empathatic NO... swingers do not fuck like robots. Indeed swingers can enjoy gentle intimate sex with others... and it was this alone that I was worried about... because that is what I would like to do with others... not just use their bodies like Lickety's Pandas lol
In the end Frisky describes the whole purpose of this thread well in her last post when she says...
"soulful, sensual, responsive sex is still possible, and a complete delight when you find it in a stranger." Thanks everyone for chiming in And sorry if some feel I have looked down my nose at them in the process. I think in the end the initial paranoias behind my OP were unfounded... but I needed to explore them over the length of this thread to really confirm that | |||
The thought of having sex with someone I have no connection with makes my skin crawl. Why would you? To scratch an itch? I think I'd rather have a wank than have meaningless sex. It can still be casual with strings in my view but I guess we all roll in different ways!
Good topic though. | |||
"... As a result, I just don't 'get' how a whole raft of things that other couples do to protect their relationship from the dangers of swinging could have any kind of protective effect at all i.e. they're mostly pointless acts of neurosis that limit their abilities to enjoy good sex with others imo. ..." People go by whatever rules work for them as a couple. I think it's a bit much to label them neurotic... | |||
"... Scarlet... if that's the case I truly don't understand the phrase "you shouldn't make love when swinging... you should just fuck". Either that's an attempt to warn people away from gentle sensual fucking and to stay in the realms of harder animalistic fucking... in which case your assumption is wrong... or it just doesn't make any sense at all i.e. it is a paranoid delusion that a person in a 20 year long relationship can go and connect on that kind of level with a complete stranger and have sex with them sharing a profound love for them at the same time... which is surely just a neurotic delusion, rather than anything that could actually happen, no matter how gently and intimately you fuck someone." I didn't say "you shouldn't make love when swinging... you should just fuck". Who said that? Please can you explain your post above, I've read it a few times and I don't really understand. Not sure if some words are missing? The bit from " i.e. it is a paranoid delusion that a person in a 20 year long relationship ..." What are you saying is a paranoid delusion? | |||
| |||
"Please can you explain your post above, I've read it a few times and I don't really understand. Not sure if some words are missing? The bit from " i.e. it is a paranoid delusion that a person in a 20 year long relationship ..." What are you saying is a paranoid delusion?" I often find new ideas difficult to put into words... and this is a new idea to me. But here goes
It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities. I am suggesting that they seem to classify these actions as 'love making'... which, for many couples on this thread, is off limits to others.
If we accept that it is impossible to 'make love' with a stranger, because it is impossible to love a stranger in any meaningful way beyond simply being caring, considerate, and responsive to their desires i.e. listening to them... Surely it follows that no kind of sexual activity with a stranger actually is 'love making'... that there is only gentle sex and rough sex.
Now returning to this original concept that underpins so much of the philosophy of swinging i.e. that people should separate sex from love... We see that it is a house of cards... love and sex are two totally different things which do not need separating. There is no sexual activity which you could possibly do with a stranger which would result in love. Therefore the assumption that, in order to protect a relationship, you should cordon off certain activities just for yourselves is a fallacy.... one which I would suggest arises more from a common neurosis exhibited by most conventional middle aged people... a neurosis about intimacy with others... a neurosis which we do not observe either in youngsters or old people. Stick a bunch of old people on a bus for a day and they'll all come back singing and laughing as if they're best friends... do the same with a crowd of middle aged couples and they're likely to stay strictly in their couplings.
So the idea that you have to, in any way, change the sexual act in order to separate sex from love is a fallacy. Doing that will have utterly no impact upon whether your relationship is protected or not. Instead couples should ignore any gobbledy gook about this type of sex being 'love making' and that type of sex being 'ok'... and they should look closer at the issue of love, which is completely separate from the issue of what type of sex is being done. Love forms out of two areas...either the growth of a friendship, via continued and increasing communication and sharing of personal stories and revealing insights into each others lives... or via repeated lust filled sexual contact with each other that eventually stimulates feelings of a stronger connection. So frequency of meets and amount of communication between them is actually the real danger of swinging not any particular type of sex.
Thus, rather than place any kind of barrier on the sex act in order to prevent strings from being formed... couples should shake off these arbitrary chains (imo) as they serve no purpose whatsoever to the effect they are seeking... and instead look closely at how many times they are meeting the same people, what levels of communication go on between meets, and what feelings they are beginning to feel for their meets i.e. how addicted are they to a particular person.
The reason why it is perhaps worthwhile voicing this opinion is that I can imagine many couples imposing rules upon what type of sex they get up to, thinking that's got their relationship protected, and then ignoring the fact that their partner seems to be messaging this other person 50 times a day... which is actually far more of a threat than anything which could possibly go on during a meet...be it a sleepy cuddle or a candle lit meal or even a whirl wind romantic weekend away in Paris.
Does that make any more sense? I hope so lol | |||
" It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities.
"I think that is your view....I am not sure anyone has actually said they do this. | |||
"It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities.
I think that is your view....I am not sure anyone has actually said they do this."Perhaps not on this thread... I'd have to read back through it to double check... but you must admit there are other threads which cover this.. plus certain couples on this thread have reacted badly to perfectly benign things like holding hands etc... and we often hear of couples profiles that don't allow kissing etc | |||
"It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities.
I think that is your view....I am not sure anyone has actually said they do this.
Perhaps not on this thread... I'd have to read back through it to double check... but you must admit there are other threads which cover this.. plus certain couples on this thread have reacted badly to perfectly benign things like holding hands etc... and we often hear of couples profiles that don't allow kissing etc"have you thought perhaps they actually don't want or need these things with others..??? I never used to kiss anyone before I met lee.. not a partner no one.. and then it was just him, then women, and now other guys too...but to be honest it doesn't move heaven and earth for me with others.. I don't get lost in it.. its just part of the physical.. where as doing it with someone you care for... well that's totally different. And I don't think holding hands is "nothing"... I wont even hold hands with close friends.. as its quite a strong sign of affection. And Affection has no place in this for me . Lust, passion and desire yes.. affection... nope. that's just for someone I care for. | |||
"It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities.
I think that is your view....I am not sure anyone has actually said they do this.
Perhaps not on this thread... I'd have to read back through it to double check... but you must admit there are other threads which cover this.. plus certain couples on this thread have reacted badly to perfectly benign things like holding hands etc... and we often hear of couples profiles that don't allow kissing etc
have you thought perhaps they actually don't want or need these things with others..???
I never used to kiss anyone before I met lee.. not a partner no one.. and then it was just him, then women, and now other guys too...but to be honest it doesn't move heaven and earth for me with others.. I don't get lost in it.. its just part of the physical.. where as doing it with someone you care for... well that's totally different.
And I don't think holding hands is "nothing"... I wont even hold hands with close friends.. as its quite a strong sign of affection. And Affection has no place in this for me .
Lust, passion and desire yes.. affection... nope. that's just for someone I care for. "I fully respect your point of view... and you seem really nice and considerate in all your posts So I can imagine play time with you both would actually be quite lovely. But we have come to swinging from a totally different source. We're trying to free ourselves from any barriers we are putting up between ourselves and the universe... to become more affectionate with everyone, as people, and to honour the beauty of others in more than just the usual 'spiritual' way... to witness their 'true' sexual being
We want to take all that love which is currently bouncing around within the walls of our relationship and let it radiate out to everyone, whether that be sexual or not... and it is the sexual aspect of that 'self-improvement' project which is bringing us to swinging.
I'm not trying to convert anyone.. I'm just describing part of our purpose here ... as well as realising some of our kinky fantasies like everyone else here lol
If we ever meet I'll make a mental note not to hold your hand and give you beautiful kisses... just in case you end up doing Panda style on me lol | |||
"It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities.
I think that is your view....I am not sure anyone has actually said they do this.
Perhaps not on this thread... I'd have to read back through it to double check... but you must admit there are other threads which cover this.. plus certain couples on this thread have reacted badly to perfectly benign things like holding hands etc... and we often hear of couples profiles that don't allow kissing etc"I am not sure anyone has reacted badly. I will still say ....this is your view of this.... as you can't possibly know reasons of why couples have bounderies unless you asked them. | |||
"I think this is a really interesting post... And sometimes I feel like it's a performance albeit very enjoyable... Lee however always throughs his all into a meet... And is passionate... I find it hard to do that with others... But then I find a lot of male halfway of couples hold back... For fear of enjoying it to much. Even had a woman getting annoyed that I got her fella turned on..hmmm thought that was the point... So I think the op is just lucky with his encounters and shouldn't start doing what I do and over think it." That would be a nightmare, why do couples meet couples if they aren't prepared for the outcome  | |||
"I think this is a really interesting post... And sometimes I feel like it's a performance albeit very enjoyable... Lee however always throughs his all into a meet... And is passionate... I find it hard to do that with others... But then I find a lot of male halfway of couples hold back... For fear of enjoying it to much. Even had a woman getting annoyed that I got her fella turned on..hmmm thought that was the point... So I think the op is just lucky with his encounters and shouldn't start doing what I do and over think it. That would be a nightmare, why do couples meet couples if they aren't prepared for the outcome "I think you will find from our veries we have a great time.. what I mean is I CAN NOT give my all to someone else.. I don't lose myself in the moment.. and the big turn on for me is watching lee and the others while I play myself. Been doing this a long time.. although new as a couple like this.. I just don't want to cuddle or hold hands or have affection on a meet. Just passionate lustful sex. | |||
| |||
...and as I've said several times... we're also open to rolling around with strangers without that connection if there's no penetration going on.
Feel free to keep on chatting. I just wanted to let you all know that the day has finally arrived.. we are moving house... so I will probably be disappearing for a while. If I don't reply or I go silent for a while... that's the reason why
If I don't actually return to the forum... it won't be because we've left Fab... it'll be because my time away has enabled me to 'kick the habit' of being on the forums lol ...and the chances are that we're actually getting started swinging for real... in which case, me coming on here asking a bunch of dumb questions and spouting philosophical religious rants lol isn't exactly what we're gonna want to be putting out into the Fab universe. It's been really fun hanging out with you bunch of reprobates
Have fun... I'm sure you will | |||
"Some of the most exhilarating, liberating, unadulterated pleasure and god damn horny fucking sex I have ever had involved people I had not previous spoken to and didn't have a clue what their name was.... before or after. Some of the most exhilarating, liberating, unadulterated pleasure and god damn horny fucking sex I have ever had involved people I have grown to know and treat as true friends. I think of neither situation fake. I think of neither situation as meaningless.... they mean something to me.... they meant I had a great time! If someone needs a list of conditions being met and connections being made prior to dropping their draws to enjoy casual/recreational sex, well, that's what they need. However, if other people can achieve the same satisfaction from fewer or even without a string of conditions being met and connections being made, it doesn't make the sex they enjoy any less meaningless and certainly not fake. Rather than putting down the 'let's just bloody enjoy it' types by creating some mythical hierarchy of recreational sex and dumping them at the bottom... decreeing the sex they have as crap and fake... may be we should all aspire to reach their dizzy heights of liberation." Great post.....
Just re-read some of the posts from the OP and not only do they seem condescending, some are quite offensive. Using words such as paranoid, delusional and nuerotic paints a picture of those people the OP does not agree with as suffering from sort of mental condition. That's rude and coming from someone who has not 'swung' yet seems more than a little presumptious.
We wouldn't dream of doing that, live and let live, don't judge. | |||
| |||
"It seems that a certain group of swingers have it set in their minds that sharing intimate caring moments with strangers is dangerous to a relationship so, to protect themselves from these dangers, they put up rules that prevent people from doing these activities.
I think that is your view....I am not sure anyone has actually said they do this.
Perhaps not on this thread... I'd have to read back through it to double check... but you must admit there are other threads which cover this.. plus certain couples on this thread have reacted badly to perfectly benign things like holding hands etc... and we often hear of couples profiles that don't allow kissing etc
have you thought perhaps they actually don't want or need these things with others..???
I never used to kiss anyone before I met lee.. not a partner no one.. and then it was just him, then women, and now other guys too...but to be honest it doesn't move heaven and earth for me with others.. I don't get lost in it.. its just part of the physical.. where as doing it with someone you care for... well that's totally different.
And I don't think holding hands is "nothing"... I wont even hold hands with close friends.. as its quite a strong sign of affection. And Affection has no place in this for me .
Lust, passion and desire yes.. affection... nope. that's just for someone I care for. " | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Definitely need to click with someone for various reasons. As great as the sex with a random might be, unless you plan on turning up, slipping inside then wiping your cock on the curtains on the way out, you're going to have that time when you're both lying/sitting there- so if you've got that connection then you fill the time between fun with a chat, a giggle, a drink etc. (or in the case of the FB, cakes and mutual sarcasm )
As a bloke on here, by far the hardest thing is getting that first meet, so if you're not an arse, easy to get on with and at least a half decent shag then theres a good chance you're going to be asked for another meet- so all the fun without the time chasing round trying to find someone interested in you, you can put that effort into having better fun together
The majority of the people i've met in swingworld have been repeat meets, theres only 1 person i met that i didn't want to meet again- all because we've taken the time to make sure we click on more than a 'shag now' level "So it' not all about the cake then? Phew! | |||
"No way !!! There's a huge turn on in having sex with strangers ...." I wonder what the OP would say about your way of having sex. | |||
"No way !!! There's a huge turn on in having sex with strangers .... I wonder what the OP would say about your way of having sex. "I'd say good on her Just popping back n for one last 'hello' before everything starts going crazy and disappearing into boxes.
This thread, for me, has been entirely philosophical... much like one which questions Christianity or the views of the Tory party. I think I have unearthed some hypocritical thinking, not in specific individuals or in couples... but in basic 'swinging thought', if there is such a thing. Whether anyone actually believes any of the stuff I've been talking about... or whether they recognise any of the neurosis I've been describing, is up to them. I can't say. All I've ever been commenting on is the ideas themselves... not the people If that's sounded condescending or insulting at times... I apologise... it was only meant as a deconstruction of philosophies... not people. I know that might not make a lot of sense to people... but I'm not lying... that was my intention
Anyway... time to get back to the packing before I get a thick ear lol | |||
"No way !!! There's a huge turn on in having sex with strangers .... I wonder what the OP would say about your way of having sex.
I'd say good on her Just popping back n for one last 'hello' before everything starts going crazy and disappearing into boxes.
This thread, for me, has been entirely philosophical... much like one which questions Christianity or the views of the Tory party. I think I have unearthed some hypocritical thinking, not in specific individuals or in couples... but in basic 'swinging thought', if there is such a thing. Whether anyone actually believes any of the stuff I've been talking about... or whether they recognise any of the neurosis I've been describing, is up to them. I can't say. All I've ever been commenting on is the ideas themselves... not the people If that's sounded condescending or insulting at times... I apologise... it was only meant as a deconstruction of philosophies... not people. I know that might not make a lot of sense to people... but I'm not lying... that was my intention
Anyway... time to get back to the packing before I get a thick ear lol "You obviously are very judgemental. Firstly you use words such as neurosis. Do you understand what this is or is it just a 'big' word you like the sound of? Do you truly believe that those couples wbo express a difference from you as being mentally disturbed or mentally unstable? If you don't then please stop using these kinds of words, have consideration for others on here who may have had to deal with this kind of things in their lives. Secondly' how pompous do you sound when you say that people won't understand wbat you have to say in relation to your de-construction of philosophy. Are you a long lost member of Socrate's school, a contempory of Plato. So what does The Republic have to say about swinging? You say you are a 'hippie' but weren't they reknown for their libertine, no -judgemental approach to life? You don't seem to follow a live and let live attitude, more like it's your way and the highway. You have said that there is no distinction for you between 'making love' and 'fucking', the distinction couples make you described as a 'fallacy' based upon insecurity and neurosis. You say this because you state that the physical act is the same and therefore must be the same. In reality there can be a huge difference in both, requiring different levels of emotions. When couples make this distinction it is based upon a collective understandiing for the need for such distinctions. It has to be a sliding scale never black or white. The reason why I could never agree with your logic is that penerative sex is a very different act depending upon the emotions felt at the time. I say this because if this were not true the abhorent side of sex would be seen as just sex and it is not. I do not want to be flippant and our hearts go out to those who have suffered this but rape is about sexual penetration. And while everyone can distinguish between this evil act and normal sex, you seem to have problems making distinction between sex at the other end of the spectrum. These distinctions are not only valid but essential. act of | |||
"No way !!! There's a huge turn on in having sex with strangers .... I wonder what the OP would say about your way of having sex.
I'd say good on her Just popping back n for one last 'hello' before everything starts going crazy and disappearing into boxes.
This thread, for me, has been entirely philosophical... much like one which questions Christianity or the views of the Tory party. I think I have unearthed some hypocritical thinking, not in specific individuals or in couples... but in basic 'swinging thought', if there is such a thing. Whether anyone actually believes any of the stuff I've been talking about... or whether they recognise any of the neurosis I've been describing, is up to them. I can't say. All I've ever been commenting on is the ideas themselves... not the people If that's sounded condescending or insulting at times... I apologise... it was only meant as a deconstruction of philosophies... not people. I know that might not make a lot of sense to people... but I'm not lying... that was my intention
Anyway... time to get back to the packing before I get a thick ear lol
You obviously are very judgemental.
Firstly you use words such as neurosis. Do you understand what this is or is it just a 'big' word you like the sound of? Do you truly believe that those couples wbo express a difference from you as being mentally disturbed or mentally unstable? If you don't then please stop using these kinds of words, have consideration for others on here who may have had to deal with this kind of things in their lives.
Secondly' how pompous do you sound when you say that people won't understand wbat you have to say in relation to your de-construction of philosophy.
Are you a long lost member of Socrate's school, a contempory of Plato. So what does The Republic have to say about swinging?
You say you are a 'hippie' but weren't they reknown for their libertine, no -judgemental approach to life? You don't seem to follow a live and let live attitude, more like it's your way and the highway.
You have said that there is no distinction for you between 'making love' and 'fucking', the distinction couples make you described as a 'fallacy' based upon insecurity and neurosis. You say this because you state that the physical act is the same and therefore must be the same.
In reality there can be a huge difference in both, requiring different levels of emotions. When couples make this distinction it is based upon a collective understandiing for the need for such distinctions.
It has to be a sliding scale never black or white. The reason why I could never agree with your logic is that penerative sex is a very different act depending upon the emotions felt at the time. I say this because if this were not true the abhorent side of sex would be seen as just sex and it is not. I do not want to be flippant and our hearts go out to those who have suffered this but rape is about sexual penetration. And while everyone can distinguish between this evil act and normal sex, you seem to have problems making distinction between sex at the other end of the spectrum.
These distinctions are not only valid but essential.
act of " | |||
"No way !!! There's a huge turn on in having sex with strangers .... I wonder what the OP would say about your way of having sex.
I'd say good on her Just popping back n for one last 'hello' before everything starts going crazy and disappearing into boxes.
This thread, for me, has been entirely philosophical... much like one which questions Christianity or the views of the Tory party. I think I have unearthed some hypocritical thinking, not in specific individuals or in couples... but in basic 'swinging thought', if there is such a thing. Whether anyone actually believes any of the stuff I've been talking about... or whether they recognise any of the neurosis I've been describing, is up to them. I can't say. All I've ever been commenting on is the ideas themselves... not the people If that's sounded condescending or insulting at times... I apologise... it was only meant as a deconstruction of philosophies... not people. I know that might not make a lot of sense to people... but I'm not lying... that was my intention
Anyway... time to get back to the packing before I get a thick ear lol
You obviously are very judgemental.
Firstly you use words such as neurosis. Do you understand what this is or is it just a 'big' word you like the sound of? Do you truly believe that those couples wbo express a difference from you as being mentally disturbed or mentally unstable? If you don't then please stop using these kinds of words, have consideration for others on here who may have had to deal with this kind of things in their lives.
Secondly' how pompous do you sound when you say that people won't understand wbat you have to say in relation to your de-construction of philosophy.
Are you a long lost member of Socrate's school, a contempory of Plato. So what does The Republic have to say about swinging?
You say you are a 'hippie' but weren't they reknown for their libertine, no -judgemental approach to life? You don't seem to follow a live and let live attitude, more like it's your way and the highway.
You have said that there is no distinction for you between 'making love' and 'fucking', the distinction couples make you described as a 'fallacy' based upon insecurity and neurosis. You say this because you state that the physical act is the same and therefore must be the same.
In reality there can be a huge difference in both, requiring different levels of emotions. When couples make this distinction it is based upon a collective understandiing for the need for such distinctions.
It has to be a sliding scale never black or white. The reason why I could never agree with your logic is that penerative sex is a very different act depending upon the emotions felt at the time. I say this because if this were not true the abhorent side of sex would be seen as just sex and it is not. I do not want to be flippant and our hearts go out to those who have suffered this but rape is about sexual penetration. And while everyone can distinguish between this evil act and normal sex, you seem to have problems making distinction between sex at the other end of the spectrum.
These distinctions are not only valid but essential.
act of "You're reading me wrong... probably because I've got your back up. I've already apologised for that... but explained that that was not my intention. You are suggesting it was my intention... that I am judgmental and condescending. All I have done is question ideas designed to protect relationships and found them entirely unwarranted i.e. they don't protect relationships. If someone doesn't want to kiss other people because they don't want to, not for any other reason, I see absolutely no problem in that. But if they're doing it to protect their relationship I feel they are approaching the issue with the wrong solutions. Using someone elses body to fulfill one's own set of fantasies, if there is no concensual agreement from the other, is a form of rape imo. Of swinging hinges upon that concensual agreement. But 'taking it for the team' is a borderline act. I was not pompously suggesting people wouldn't understand my philosophy... it's pretty bloomin easy to understand. I was suggesting that people might have a difficult time accepting that none of it was personal and that, instead, it was only ever a deconstruction of ideas... not the choices people make. Or to put it better... it was a analytical look at the reasons behind choices and how they don't match i.e. that protecting a relationship as a reason is valid.. but the choice to put kissing or cuddling out of bounds as the solution to that reason is mistaken.... it's flawed logic. If you're excluding kissing for a different reason then your logic is not flawed. But if that is the reason why you're doing it then I believe you should rethink your strategy... because it doesn't make sense in any way other than as an unnecessarily neurotic act of worry that kissing will result in relationship chaos.. when it won't. I am not stating that it's my way or the high way... heck I don't even know what my way is... and I'm not stating that anyone actually is neurotic.. I'm just saying that disallowing kissing etc purely as a means to protect a relationship is only an act of worry rather than anything that actually serves any use. If you're not actually worried about intimacy and you're only doing the no kissing thing because you think that'll protect your relationship then you needn't have that rule. Finally, you say there is a huge emotional difference between fucking and love making. This is something I and others have repeated throughout. But there is no physical difference in the act. Therefore it is possible to repeat exactly the same act with your partner and with a stranger and in the first case recognise it as being genuine love making, with all that lovely emotion, and in the second case as just sex, without any of that emotion. Thus any action, be it kissing or cuddling or romantic candlelit dinners, that lacks an emotional aspect is not love making... it's just sex
I think I've defended my reasons for exploring this subject and tried several times to explain that it was not meant as a personal attack on people's choices... more a deconstruction of the possible philosophies behind them. If you remain adamant that I have some vendetta against you or that I am looking down my nose at others... then that's your problem. But I'm probably not going to make a continued effort to put your fears at rest.... and I'm sorry you feel that way. Having ideas you rely on being questioned can be pretty confrontational, whether they're religious, political, or whatever. But that doesn't mean those ideas are untouchable. A healthy debate should be able to question pretty much anything... and a 'hippie' needs to keep an open mind... not let everyone let live.... that's just laissez faire | |||
| |||
