[sereneiders]

It's an interesting question, whose answer (I think) changed over time (and may be there are many answers!), that I feel important enough, not because of setting up a hard limit to tell swingers from vanillas or whatever, but to define our community, our subculture, regarding to the acceptance we have in our society.

We use to take for valid a definition starting form a couple whose members "have sex" with third parties "without cheating", or starting from singles who invole themselves as third parties in such activities, but taking care of the rules protecting the couples involved.

However, there are a lot of things that may or may not fall in the "swinger" definition, including some that overlap with other lifestyles definitions.

For example, in other thread we discussed if "cuckolding" have to do with swinging. The cuckold (usually the guy) enjoy to be "cheated on" by his wyfe, with a very particular definition of "cheating", since he already knows, but being part of a game where he's being put down this way by his wyfe... so, it isn't "cheating" so it would fall into the swingers definition. In the other hand, this involve some D/s relationship components that could lead the situation of allowing one of the partners to be "swinger" and forbidding the other to swing (or even have intercourse at all), so, depending on this game extent it may not fall into (my) "swinging" definition.

This is just an example of what I want to point out, that there are a lot of activities where a couple share and/or enhance their sexuality by allowing some degree of participation from third ones, ranging from cybersex, phonesex, exhibitionism (limited to a game where other people knows in advence they have the witnesses role), "soft" activities (seduction games with others), to "harder" activities.

As for me, I'd make explicit something that also are part of the "swingers" definition. There should exist a seldom equality in the rights to play with others for both parts of the couple. For example, going back to the cuckolding, I'd say it is also swinging if being just one of the many games a couple may play, having the cuckolded one the right to play with others too (even if s/he doesn't want to), but it isn't swinging if the cuckolded one desn't have the right to do so.

This has to do with the "cheating" concept (even as part of a game), and also sets appart couples where one of them agrees to "swing" as a last resort to get accepted and "feel loved". What I mean is that for me there are several ways to cheat your partner, and this doesn't necesarily mean to lie, you can play with your partner feelings and force him or her into something he or she wouldn't do otherwise, without such a pressure. For example, to accept you having sex with others, or to make him or her have sex with others for your pleasure. In such an scenario, this couple would fit in our first definition, but I don't believe they're swingers, and moreover, as a political statement, I think that accepting such a behavior as "swinger" feeds all the fears and prejudices the rest of the society have against swingers.

So, I'd say this is a more important ground from where to define swinging, for a couple, whose members agree in a contract where the fidelity concept aquire more solid grounds on taking care of each other feelings and needs, and (perhaps because of those feelings and needs) the standard fidelity concept, limiting the sexuality to be shared exclusivelly with each other, is relaxed. This mean the couple may share their sexuality with third ones (in the degree they feel confortable with), BUT EXCLUSIVELY as a part of that caring of each other feelings and needs. And the key concept then would be to SHARE the sexuality with others to ENHANCE the current relationship.

As for the couple, swinging is a private activity where those third parties doesn't (or shouldn't) have the chance to break the relationship (much in the same way than a dildo being used in the bed by the couple), wich means those third ones are, to some extent, objects for the couple.

In the other hand, when you're that third one with another couple, you'd know and accept that transient "object" role. Two couples in the same bed knows they're both subject (inside their own couple) and objects (for the other couple), you won't prettend to be more than an object for any one of the other couple's members, meaning that you'll do you best to help them keep and hold to their own contract as if you weren't there at all.

So, for singles, the definition of "being swingers" have to do with the understanding of the role they have when being with a couple. If a single likes to party in orgies but lacks this understanding, I wouldn't say he or she is a swinger.

So, I think "sex with others" here is a consecuence of the way we develop our relationships, a natural consecuence, but not the motto.