Swinging, a type of sexual orientation?

[Lindonca]

Probably a stupid question, but it's got me wondering ( doesn't take much).*
I was wondering about this the other day. Could being a swinger be considered as a type of sexual orientation in the same way as being hetero, bi or gay? Obviously you have to also be either hetero, bi or gay to be a swinger to start with but to me it almost feels like identifying yourself as a swinger classifies you in a category in a similar way*as identifying yourself as being bi. For example, I am a hetero male and sex is an important part of my life. I could get through life reasonably happily if I only ever had sex with my wife, but it would feel that there was something missing in a similar way that I imagine a bi sexual person would feel if they only ever had sex with their heterosexual partner.
*
What are other people’s views on this?
*
D

[Gordo]

I guess if I went with that theory then every fetish would be a new sexual orientation. I don't think that's valid.

My own personal belief is that successful swingers are probably in the top 5% in their ability to handle relationship issues, particularily issues such as jealousy.

But what do I know. As my wife says we just like to f**k

[SW_PA_Couple]

Sexual orientation is primarily genetic. Being in a swinger is a choice. Being a swinger is nothing like a sexual orientation.

[ratimadan]

Originally Posted by SW_PA_Couple

Sexual orientation is primarily genetic. Being in a swinger is a choice. Being a swinger is nothing like a sexual orientation.

Amen.

[JustAskJulie]

Being a swinger is the same thing as being non-monogamous. There are studies regularly that try to show whether or not that is a choice... most show that different mammals are not genetically monogamous.

Interesting question.

[shrevecouple]

Originally Posted by Lindonca

For example, I am a hetero male and sex is an important part of my life. I could get through life reasonably happily if I only ever had sex with my wife, but it would feel that there was something missing in a similar way that I imagine a bi sexual person would feel if they only ever had sex with their heterosexual partner.
*
What are other people’s views on this?
*
D

Thank goodness you have an "adventerous" wife eh? I would hate to know that my husband was only reasonably happy with just me. It's suppose to be an addition to not a requirement for a happy married sex life in my mind.
I don't think it's an orientation but a choice.

[Lindonca]

I think I better clarify myself before I dig an unintentional hole here.. I love my wife and think our sex life is amazing. I did not intend to imply that it was only adequate except for the swinging side of things. The fact that we are both swingers does however mean that we can both express our true sexuality without guilt which in turn enhances our "conventional" sex life. I was trying to explain to similarity between someone that was for example bi but was in a vanilla relationship and someone that was at heart a swinger but in a vanilla relationship. In both cases if the person was true to thier relationship then they would be suppressing an important part of thier life.

To me being a swinger by nature is more than simply being non monogamous and also more that a simple fetish even though both are a part of it.

Thanks for your comments. I think I should stop over analyzing!

D

It may be time to mention Sex at Dawn.

The book argues that before agriculture, when people were hunter gatherers without fixed location, that the normal mode was females entertaining multiple males, and partners were flexible.

This says that swinging is an orientation (like gender preference) wired into a lot of people by hundreds of thousands of years of existence.

And the nature vs. nurture also applies, just as with gender preference.

IMHO, what we see today is strong nurturing (societal norms) prevailing most of the time over natural predetermination.

[Lindonca]

Thanks for the link RDY46227. I will check that out.
I am a strong believer that the way most people regard sex comes about as a result of the nurturing effect of society.

Either that or I am just a throwback..

D

[JM153]

I do think that humans are genetically non-monogamous. I have read (don't know the reliability of the source) that monogamy is a rather recent social convention invented by the organized church for control purposes. Whether this is true or not what I do know is every day, every hour, there are people in this country who are risking serious financial, reputation, and emotional pain in return for sex. I just don't think people would take such risks in such large numbers if we were genetically monogamous. Swinging just takes some of the potential for pain out of being non-monogamous.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by rdy46227

It may be time to mention Sex at Dawn.

The book argues that before agriculture, when people were hunter gatherers without fixed location, that the normal mode was females entertaining multiple males, and partners were flexible.

This says that swinging is an orientation (like gender preference) wired into a lot of people by hundreds of thousands of years of existence.

And the nature vs. nurture also applies, just as with gender preference.

IMHO, what we see today is strong nurturing (societal norms) prevailing most of the time over natural predetermination.

I'm going to have to disagree with their basic premise.

Most hunter gatherer societies that have been studied in 'modern' times still have pair bonding.

Humans have only limited sperm competition meaning that matings tended to not be 'gang bang' style like chimps.

Factors like sexual jealousy are not very compatible with that life style, and being most swingers don't start swinging until they surpass what the average life expectancy was when we were all hunter gatherers (and why young people are so full of drama) I don't think we have evolved for multiple partners swinging style.

What we have evolved for is pair bonding (marriage) but with a lot of cheating. This is not an uncommon reproductive strategy and many animals do this. What we as swingers have done is rationalized it, and instead of it being a negative thing its a positive thing. We get our genetic needs met (more sex partners) while maintaining our pair bond.

[Gordo]

Originally Posted by Lindonca

a result of the nurturing effect of society.
D

Err didn't you mean to say the destructive effect of society.....

[Lascivious L&L]

I will read this book. But the blurb on it, if accurate, spells problems with the authors' thesis. Egalitarian society? That is very likely wishful thinking. One aspect humans have little success with is egalitarian societies.

But monogamy has certainly been over emphasied. I hardly think we are genetically monogamous, especially since it is a rariety among mammals and even married humans. Pair bonding is certainly genetic. The question being how linked pair bonding is to sex. Methinks they are separate, but often conveniently linked.

[bbarnsworth]

Originally Posted by JM153

I do think that humans are genetically non-monogamous. I have read (don't know the reliability of the source) that monogamy is a rather recent social convention invented by the organized church for control purposes. Whether this is true or not what I do know is every day, every hour, there are people in this country who are risking serious financial, reputation, and emotional pain in return for sex. I just don't think people would take such risks in such large numbers if we were genetically monogamous. Swinging just takes some of the potential for pain out of being non-monogamous.

I read recently that 97% of mammals are non-monogamous (Ah, here's a link). Humans are mammals. We are, genetically, closest to mammals. Chances are rather likely that we have a genetic predisposition to being non-monogamous.

Of course, the church would rail against this, asserting things like "we're not animals!", "God made us different!", etc. Opinions not supported by fact. And I am quite religious.

That said, while non-monogamy is likely wired into us in a genetic way, I would never think of it as an 'orientation', or what I am attracted to. I find a woman in a dress and heels far more sexually attractive than a woman in work boots and jeans (in most scenarios). I would never call that an 'orientation'. Even though I find swinging erotic, at times highly erotic, I wouldn't call it an orientation.

[Coupleerotic22]

Originally Posted by bbarnsworth

I find a woman in a dress and heels far more sexually attractive than a woman in work boots and jeans (in most scenarios).

We watched the Victoria Secrets Fashion show last night. (My preferred way to shop, I hate malls ). One of the models had on boots and a denim bustier. That was a sexy pair of boots and jeans.