Jump to content

Adam-n-Eve

Registered
  • Content Count

    126
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

Adam-n-Eve last won the day on August 24 2010

Adam-n-Eve had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

223 Excellent

About Adam-n-Eve

  • Rank
    100 Posts Club
  • Birthday 01/01/1950

Personal Info

  • Relationship Status
    Couple
  • Location
    Reno, NV
  • Swinging Experience
    three years

Swinger Info

  • SLS Name
    eve_n_adam
  • SDC Username
    adamandeve5
  • Favorite Club(s)
    Desire Cabo and Cancun
  1. Eve has has so much bad swinger sex that we aren't even swingers anymore. We just look for people for one-on-one encounters these days -- preferably a long-term FWB who we know we're compatible with. It's been much more fun for us this way. My experiences were better, but even I prefer the FWB to the four-way. But honestly, I've come to the conclusion that we're just not into the same things most swingers are. Watching each other isn't really a priority for us -- and that seems to be what drives most couples. We'd rather have you in a room to ourselves and just have some great vanilla sex. Adam
  2. So adding more pressure is your response to this problem? Perhaps your response is why it's happened so much? Seriously. If anything was going to throw me off my game it would be a woman telling me just how disappointed she would be if I couldn't get it up. If, god forbid, I went a little soft as I was going down on you (something that does happen with me if I'm down there without stimulation for 10 minutes) I might get so preoccupied about getting it up that I wouldn't recover. This is coming from a guy who can usually engage in intercourse an hour or more without giving it a second thought. How you handle these things and how you talk about them goes a long way towards the ultimate result.
  3. Sure, lots of us have done it -- that's not the unique part. The unique part is asking couples to have a threesome with you one at a time -- as the only way you'll swing. Add the reasoning behind it, and I think you're in pretty rare territory.
  4. I'm not sure that thread would get a lot of attention. That seems to be a pretty unique situation. Personally, I think you need to get to the bottom of your wife's insecurity first. I would bet she's going to be just as upset about you being with another couple as she was with a single woman. She's not being rational -- her imagination is just going to invent all sorts of crazy goings-on -- so it's not going to matter how you set it up.
  5. I think we forget about the Golden Rule. We like to espouse things like "personal responsibility" instead. I think the Golden Rule is a fairly good standard to use here. I whole-heartedly agree that people need to take responsibility for their own actions, but we're talking about a case where someone is intruding upon this couple's life and insinuating themselves into it. At that point, it's not about personal responsibility so much as power. The swingers have more power and more control because they're moving in a world they understand, whereas the vanilla couple is off-balance and out of their area of experience. The vanillas are obviously not in as strong a position as the swingers; but yet, they're supposed to act and react as though they fully understand all the consequence. But, why would they? If a couple has never thought about swinging, why would they have thought about the consequences? I manage an IT department. I hear IT people make snide comments about professional individuals who don't understand computers as well as they do. These individuals may be lawyers who spend all their time studying law, but they're also supposed to know computers as well as some IT guy who lives, eats, and breathes technology. It's idiocy. And, it gives IT people a bad reputation. The public thinks IT workers are jerks. Most people would ask that these IT workers use the Golden Rule. When the IT worker goes to a lawyer, should the lawyer make fun of him for not knowing all the ins and outs of the law? I'll bet the IT worker would say "no." So should he make fun of lawyers who don't know computers? No. I see a correlation here. Why are people expecting some vanilla couple to understand swinging and all its possible pitfalls just because they know it? Again, I think it's idiocy. And if we act this way, people are going to think swingers are jerks. Personally, I don't want that. OK, there are grammar errors in this message. For one, the final pronoun "they" in the first sentence of the third paragraph is unclear. Is it talking about IT workers or the professional individuals? I think it's clear enough that it's the professionals, and since rewriting it without the pronouns makes it a rather clunky sentence, I've left it in. Still, it's wrong. However, I promise not to attack your grammar if you don't attack mine. That's not just for this thread; it's a promise I make to all of you for all time. The only exception I make is when someone uses absolutely no punctuation or the grammar is so bad I can't make out what the author intended. At that point, it's about being able to understand the message, not about attacking the author. So, can we drop the grammar stupidity now?
  6. No, please go on. I would like to see you pick out 10 or more errors in any one of my posts. Remember, I didn't start this grammar bashing; I was the victim of it. If someone is going to attack me for a typo, and tell me I have bad grammar, they shouldn't have 10+ errors in the very message they've written in order to chastise me. So please, go on. And no, it's not "grasp of" any more than it's "grasp on." You can take a "grasp of" something or you can have a "grasp on" something. You're mistaking a saying for a grammar rule, and hackneyed sayings are not rules. I would like to see the grammar book that lists "grasp of" as a rule. LOL! But in any case, none of us are perfect. That's exactly why I don't attack people for bad grammar. You must be a friend of hers since you're attacking me for defending myself. Why aren't you attacking her for the original offense? Hmm? All I can say is that you must be out of ideas if you have to start making this about grammar rather than address the more difficult subject of the original post. I know it's not easy being honest with yourself, but I have a lot more respect for someone who can say it's not in the vanilla couple's best interest but that they're going to continue the practice. But let's talk about grammar instead. It's a lot easier. Especially when you start to make up your own rules! LOL!
  7. Very well said. That's what upset me about Slevin's response. It lacks respect for the vanillas. Otherwise you're just using people. That's bad. Sure, you can say it's on them, but that's blaming the victim. The victim you've victimized. I thought we were better than that as a community. I'm saddened to see that some people can be such blatant users, but I suppose you're going to find good and bad people in the lifestyle just as you would in the greater world.
  8. I only know of one case of vanilla hunting, so I'm not really sure who does it. However, I could see that being the case. It would be nice to actually hear from some hunters though. So far it's been all us non-hunters espousing our feelings on the issue. I'd like to hear someone's experiences with hunting and how it's gone. Perhaps I'm completely off-base and most couples don't have any more regrets than those of us who talked about it ad nauseam. I think you're completely correct: in most areas (even Reno, a somewhat small town) the community is big enough to find what you want within it. I suspect it's the thrill of the chase that gets them; after all, it's easy to catch swingers. At least, we're easy to catch.
  9. Wow. That must be some vibe you're putting out. Eve had some of that going on before we met. Bi-girls seemed to love her and she was asked to be the third in a three-way many times. She never did it. Oddly, it hasn't happened since we started swinging. To your last point: I think to some extent we're all hunters. It can't be helped to some degree.
  10. Yeah, it was harsh, but not too harsh. The suggestion that couples are supposed to be prepared for a swinger couple to come on to them and have thought through the consequences of their actions is absurd at face value. It's also callous. "I don't care if we ruin your marriage, you should have thought about that before you gave in to temptation. Of course, we tempted you, but you should talked about this long ago!" It's complete BS. They didn't approach anyone. In this fictional scenario, Slevin approach them. But they were supposed to have made sure they were prepared for Slevin's advances so that they didn't ruin their marriage? That's idiotic. Are you prepared for your husband to walk in the door in a dress and say that he wants a sex change? I hope you are, otherwise if you don't handle it well it's your fault for not approaching it in the proper way! Stupid, right? Right! By the way, if you're going to throw out the grammar crap you should make sure your own house is in order. Your use of the ellipsis is totally out of control. The very phrase, "Sorry...my inner grammar picker won't be quiet tonight" is a shambles. You would use a comma there, never an ellipsis. Your use of an ellipsis instead of em dashes is also wrong. Also, by putting "swingers" and "vanillas" in quotes you are suggesting that they aren't really swingers or vanillas. Trust me, you don't want to correct me on grammar. I may not be the world's foremost authority, but you're not even close to being in my league. I make the occasional typo (many, actually), but I can see that I have a much better grasp on the rules of the English language than you do. For example, you need a comma after "basically" in the third paragraph. Another would be correct after "house." I literally could go on. EDIT: Now to be honest, that was a little harsh. Sorry, it's just that this whole "vanillas beware" attitude kind of pisses me off. And it disappoints me. I'd like to think we're better than that -- we're not animals who can't control ourselves. And we all know that when it comes to sex and alcohol humans don't always make the right decisions. But hey, if it takes preying on the weak to get laid, I suppose that's the tack some would take.
  11. OK, so you don't care if you ruin a couple's marriage. Fine. My point was that most people here will say you shouldn't swing until you've worked out the details. If you're one of these, and you go vanilla hunting, you're not being consistent in your lifestyles values. Of course, to suggest that they should have prepared for your advances in advance of you advancing is just a cope out that allows you to feel better about not taking responsibility for the damage you visit upon an unsuspecting couple while you satisfy your sexual urges at their expense, but that's a whole other issue for another thread.
  12. I understand what you're saying, it's just that I think it's a pretty thin line that's easy to cross, to the possible detriment of the vanilla couple. And I'm not trying to say that vanilla hunters are bad people. I'm against sleeping with a cheater, but I'm positive that if she's hot enough I'd forget all about my concerns for her husband. Sex does that to you. But, after thinking about this from a new perspective, I think I have to say I'm against it and would generally speak out against the practice on the grounds that it's unfair to the vanilla couple and their relationship. At the same time I can't say I'd walk away from a really hot couple that's just become fascinated with our lifestyle.
  13. By the way, I think there are some circumstances where having sex with a vanilla couple is acceptable. Let's say you meet a vanilla couple and tell them you're swingers. If their reaction is one of curiosity, and they start talking to you about it and asking questions, and they talk to each other -- if it becomes very clear that the idea is a turn on and they seem really ready to try it -- no one is going to expect you to walk away from that. I still don't think it's in their best interest, but I understand it.
  14. Honestly, both of the approaches seemed pretty clumsy. She only described two: one was a couple they met in a hotel bar, and the other had been friends for a couple of years. Actually, the strangers weren't as clumsy as the friends. The strangers asked them up to their room and then the wife suggested that the woman writing the article have sex with her husband. Probably pretty typical vanilla hunting methods, I would guess. The friends were pretty bad as she described it. The friends invited them over to play cards and had porn playing when they walked in. She says she went to the bathroom and went she come out the couple was already engaging in some oral. I think that would freak me out, to be honest. She claims to have been approached seven times. If that's true, they must give off some swinger vibes. We were at a July 4th event back in Michigan and met a couple who worked with my mom. I remember thinking that the woman was a swinger. It was like she was at a lifestyles meeting and greet instead of a family picnic. It wasn't anything over the top, but it was obvious enough that Eve came up to me later and told me she thought they could be swingers. Who knows, but they could have been just really friendly vanillas.
  15. But, is anyone really ready if they haven't talked about it? Sure, many couples would have entered into the lifestyle sooner if they'd been hunted, but how many would have had big fights the next morning because one of them did something that hurt the other? How many people on this site would offered the advice: "don't think about, just hookup with the first couple you like!" Ready or or not, if they haven't talked about it, there's just too much danger that they're going to regret it. I don't think it's fair.
×
×
  • Create New...