Swinger's View of This Couple

[DarkVoyuer]

Suppose a couple had the following rules:

1. Neither member of the relationship can attend night clubs without the other.
2. No member of the opposite sex can not be friend of neither of the partners, they can only be their(the partners') acquaintances.
3. Flirting with those of the opposite sex is forbidden.


Many vanilla peers who are monogamous find these rules too restrictive. I personally think these couples should be able to set any rules they want in their relationship. What I find amazing is when these types of couples are on talk shows, many monogamous vanillas accuse them of being "insecure." I do not have an objection towards people who create these rules if they think it will protect their marriage. I am also amazed that some vanillas are certain that only the act of sexual intercourse outside of marriage or a serious relationship should be viewed as potentially harmful to all monogamous relationships. Many of them would strongly support rules 1 and 2.

I would like to know how swingers feel about this situation. If you knew a couple like this, would you tell them that they are too insecure? Do you think this could be a model for a healthy relationship for some vanillas? I ask this because the swinger ideology has rules that are less restrictive than this couple.

[BiloxiCouple]

Fantasy couple, fantasy rules, and fantasy world.

[Alura]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Suppose a couple had the following rules:

1. Neither member of the relationship can attend night clubs without the other.
2. No member of the opposite sex can not be friend of neither of the partners, they can only be their(the partners') acquaintances.
3. Flirting with those of the opposite sex is forbidden.


Many vanilla peers who are monogamous find these rules too restrictive. I personally think these couples should be able to set any rules they want in their relationship. What I find amazing is when these types of couples are on talk shows, many monogamous vanillas accuse them of being "insecure." I do not have an objection towards people who create these rules if they think it will protect their marriage. I am also amazed that some vanillas are certain that only the act of sexual intercourse outside of marriage or a serious relationship should be viewed as potentially harmful to all monogamous relationships. Many of them would strongly support rules 1 and 2.

I would like to know how swingers feel about this situation. If you knew a couple like this, would you tell them that they are too insecure? Do you think this could be a model for a healthy relationship for some vanillas? I ask this because the swinger ideology has rules that are less restrictive than this couple.

If Laura and I had met this couple, we'd still be trying to understand Rule #2 because of the plethora of negatives. My tired old mind just can't wrap around it.

Alura

[DigginIt]

If I'm understanding the question, these are a vanilla couples rules and you want to know (outside of us being swingers) that as a vanilla couple, how we would feel about these rules if this couple was maybe a friend?

Yea, I would say they are way on the insecure side.

Even when we were vanilla ... my wife can't help but flirt with both sexes and everyone knows that a woman can be friends with a man without thinking about having sex with them but the Opposite is MOSTLY not true. If I have a friend, and she is a woman, I've probably thought about sleeping with them ... several times over.

The last rule about going to the club without them. I kind of agree with that in the vanilla sense. We never did that but there were times when we allowed exceptions but it wasn't frequent. Of course, we enjoy going together.

[exploringRM]

Perhaps this is why we are successful with swinging, but we had a complete opposite of the rules above for as long as we have been together (30 years). Due to kids, work schedules, whatever we were frequently out without the other. We had friends of the opposite sex, though none were super close, but more than just aquaintances. And I know I'm flirty and I'm sure my wife was not a wallflower either in situations without me.

I would say any couple with the above rules are stiffling the others potential for growth and are very insecure.

And yeah, we've encountered couples like this, many were very conservative.

[AskMeOk]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

...If [we] knew a couple like this...

... we'd stay as far away as humanly possible, swingers or not. Your imaginary couple has issues of trust, jealousy, and an immense potential for drama....

[DarkVoyuer]

Originally Posted by Alura

If Laura and I had met this couple, we'd still be trying to understand Rule #2 because of the plethora of negatives. My tired old mind just can't wrap around it.

Alura

I agree with you but I do understand it within my own ideology. I personally believe I would rather strive to have as less boundaries as possible.

I think part of the reason behind this rule is because of the belief that men and women can not just be friends. Someone in the platonic relationship, stereotypically the male, wants it to be sexual. As male who finds stereotypes annoying, I disagree with it. However, if that rule makes them more secure, good luck to them.

[DarkVoyuer]

Originally Posted by exploringRM

Perhaps this is why we are successful with swinging, but we had a complete opposite of the rules above for as long as we have been together (30 years). Due to kids, work schedules, whatever we were frequently out without the other. We had friends of the opposite sex, though none were super close, but more than just aquaintances. And I know I'm flirty and I'm sure my wife was not a wallflower either in situations without me.

I would say any couple with the above rules are stiffling the others potential for growth and are very insecure.

And yeah, we've encountered couples like this, many were very conservative.

Some people are insecure and they may need those types of rules. However, can we honestly say these types of rules do not work? Couples with very conservative boundaries and swinging couples with very liberal boundaries can have successful relationships.

[AskMeOk]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

I agree with you but I do understand it within my own ideology. I personally believe I would rather strive to have as less boundaries as possible.

I think part of the reason behind this rule is because of the belief that men and women can not just be friends. Someone in the platonic relationship, stereotypically the male, wants it to be sexual. As male who finds stereotypes annoying, I disagree with it. However, if that rule makes them more secure, good luck to them.

I don't think you get it. Read sentence #2 to somebody else and have them put it in their own words....

[DarkVoyuer]

Originally Posted by DigginIt

If I'm understanding the question, these are a vanilla couples rules and you want to know (outside of us being swingers) that as a vanilla couple, how we would feel about these rules if this couple was maybe a friend?

Yea, I would say they are way on the insecure side.

I would agree with you but a lot of people are insecure in some areas. I would not implement such a rule but would you be the person who tries to persuade them to have less stringent boundaries.

Originally Posted by DigginIt

Even when we were vanilla ... my wife can't help but flirt with both sexes and everyone knows that a woman can be friends with a man without thinking about having sex with them but the Opposite is MOSTLY not true. If I have a friend, and she is a woman, I've probably thought about sleeping with them ... several times over.

Perhaps I am like a woman, but I find it hard to believe that 90% of men can not be friends with women without wanting to fuck them. I have been friends with many women, and very of few of them I wanted to sleep with. I am sorry, I just don't get that. It frankly does not make sense to me. Do you only pick woman friends who you find sexually desirable? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I am absolutely clueless on why this perception exists and its logical foundation.

BTW There are a lot of women who are friends with men they(women) want to sleep with.

[good times]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

If you knew a couple like this, would you tell them that they are too insecure?

No, I would consider it none of my business.

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Do you think this could be a model for a healthy relationship for some vanillas?

Maybe, different things work for different people. I think pretty much anything will work for any couple, swinger or vanilla, as long as both partners agree with it.

[DigginIt]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

Perhaps I am like a woman, but I find it hard to believe that 90% of men can not be friends with women without wanting to fuck them. I have been friends with many women, and very of few of them I wanted to sleep with. I am sorry, I just don't get that. It frankly does not make sense to me. Do you only pick woman friends who you find sexually desirable? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I am absolutely clueless on why this perception exists and its logical foundation.

There is a whole thread on this very topic here on SB somewhere, lol. Can a man be friends with a woman and not want to sleep with her or something like that. It's good reading.

Let me rephrase, I believe that most men cannot be friends with a woman who is generally attractive, and not think about sleeping with them at some point or another. Don't want to hijack the thread but wanted to respond.

[Newpants]

Originally Posted by DarkVoyuer

.



Perhaps I am like a woman, but I find it hard to believe that 90% of men can not be friends with women without wanting to fuck them. I have been friends with many women, and very of few of them I wanted to sleep with. I am sorry, I just don't get that. It frankly does not make sense to me. Do you only pick woman friends who you find sexually desirable? Perhaps I'm missing something, but I am absolutely clueless on why this perception exists and its logical foundation.

The reason 90% of men can't be friends with women without fantasizing about sex with them is because approx 10% of men are gay.

There is a big difference between finding someone desirable and having a sexual thought or two about them and actually trying to have sex with them. Even Jimmy Carter when he was president said he had lust in his heart for women but kept his hands to himself.

If a woman is attractive and a man has a drop of heterosexuality in him and a breath of life in him, he is going to have some sexual thoughts about her. There is nothing wrong with that as long as his behaviour is appropriate.

We can't help our feelings nor our thoughts or our urges but we can choose our behaviour and in many instances it is simply not appropriate or even desirable to act on our feelings or to let them interfer with how we need to behave.

[two4youinswva]

Originally Posted by Newpants

The reason 90% of men can't be friends with women without fantasizing about sex with them is because approx 10% of men are gay.
......
......
......
If a woman is attractive and a man has a drop of heterosexuality in him and a breath of life in him, he is going to have some sexual thoughts about her. There is nothing wrong with that as long as his behaviour is appropriate.

I would add that there is a very small (1%?) group that are asexual, having no sexual attraction, male or female. Small number, but seems worth mentioning.

[DigginIt]

Originally Posted by two4youinswva

I would add that there is a very small (1%?) group that are asexual, having no sexual attraction, male or female. Small number, but seems worth mentioning.