Help needed with collecting accurate anonymous on-line research about swinging

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by rvedd001

As many of you know I have close friends and a sibling that swings, so my interest in this was from the start truly genuine. In almost two years of researching this, I have loved truly every minute of it.

I'm sure you will miss, those swingers in the mist.......

[rdy46227]

First, Many Thanks! for reporting and discussing with us, Rachel, You are a gem!


I've been reading for a long time, and my eyes (and brain) are getting tired, so please bare with me...

1. Does the common measure of "strength of relationship" (Investment Model Scale) include sexual exclusivity as a positive attribute?

2. What does the sexual permissiveness sub-scale (Sexual Attitudes Scale by Hendrick and Hendrick) say about sexual exclusivity? It is a plus, minus, or neutral?

In other words, is permissiveness equivalent to "vanillaness", where a sexually exclusive couple practicing only the most accepted form(s) of sex is "vanilla" and if they practice additional forms of sex then they become less vanilla?

Or does the scale place class a person who does exactly the same thing(s) with fewer partners (e.g. is exclusive) as "less permissive" than a person who does exactly those same things with multiple partners?

3. Obviously, many swingers want data which is "sexual exclusivity" neutral so they can see "commitment" measures are not biased by the fact that (by definition) they have multiple partners, and "permissiveness" measures aren't biased by multiple partners.

Am I correct that you wanted exclusivity neutral data? Did your choice of scales interfere in any way?

[rvedd001]

rdy46227-Great questions! Sorry it has taken me so long to reply.

The Investment Model scale-Within aspects of this scale you are not measuring sexual exclusivity specifically, but you do measure something called “quality of alternatives.” This was something that I thought was really interesting for this population, as it looks at can you get everything from your current relationship, such how ready are you to bail on the friendship you have with your partner, the close intimacy you have with your wife/husband/lover, and just the general support things? It is not measuring are you sexually exclusive, it is measuring do you think you are getting the goodies in life from your partner or do you think you could get them easily fulfilled elsewhere.

As swingers are sharing aspects of their life with others that many don’t I was really intrigued by this portion on the scale. It turns out most of you are pretty darn happy with what you’ve got, and aren’t looking to fulfill your needs elsewhere.

Regarding the Permissiveness subscale, there are some things that I may be able to shed some light on for you. This may or may not answer your question.

When the scale was initially made, correlations were compared between the Ludus scale (love scale) and the Permissiveness scale. To quote Hendrick and Hendrick “The ludic lover takes a rather utlilitarian stance towards love and seeks to avoid deep commitment, such an individual would be expected to endorse the items on the Permissiveness scale. On the other hand, one would expect an agapic (selfless) lover to disagree relatively with Permissiveness, and that occurs with modest correlations which were found in all three studies.

It is also of note that the researchers found that subjects found that individuals that were currently in love, and those that had been in love more were less permissive when they took the scale. “Persons high in permissiveness are high towards erotica, more orientated towards game playing lovestyle, and are susceptible to boredom. The scale does not note specifically that sexual exclusivity is anything-good, bad, or neutral. It is just measuring in a sense an attitude.


Yes, I wanted scales that did not affect exclusivity in their measurements (as much as possible).

If you have further questions, I will get to them , but I am afraid it will be awhile. I will be offline due to moving and camping.

Thanks. Rachel