Or the Other Sided Swinging...

[incommunicado]

"One Sided Swinging..." addressed couples that let the woman swing (w/ men or women, together or separate) but the man can't. I suggested that rules that feed the physical pleasure of one, while limiting the other, were unfair and unbalanced.

But... what if the swinging couple swings exclusively with women, because the husband is uncomfortable with the wife having sex with another man? Now, keep in mind, this scenario differs from "One Sided Swinging..." because both members are allowed to have sex with others, the others just happen to be women.

If both partners get to have sex with those women, aren't the scales of fair and equal exchange balanced? Even if their isn't another man involved?

Everyone gets to have sex with somebody else, right?

I'm curious to get the groups take in this one.

[frisson]

Originally Posted by incommunicado

:
"One Sided Swinging..." addressed couples that let the woman swing (w/ men or women, together or separate) but the man can't. I suggested that rules that feed the physical pleasure of one, while limiting the other, were unfair and unbalanced.

But... what if the swinging couple swings exclusively with women, because the husband is uncomfortable with the wife having sex with another man? Now, keep in mind, this scenario differs from "One Sided Swinging..." because both members are allowed to have sex with others, the others just happen to be women.

If both partners get to have sex with those women, aren't the scales of fair and equal exchange balanced? Even if their isn't another man involved?

Everyone gets to have sex with somebody else, right?

I'm curious to get the groups take in this one.

The question in any case is not who does what with whom, but whether all parties are truly satisfied and more or less equally fulfilled.

No doubt, there are some relationships where the F half is truly and strongly bisexual, has no great desire for sex with another man, and is perfectly happy to limit herself to having sex with a woman whom she shares with her husband.

If so, good for them.

In our experience, however, this is rarely the case. Most of the time, when a couple specifically restricts themselves to sex with a F third, it's because, as you state it, "the husband is uncomfortable with the wife having sex with another man."

Well, that's bullshit. Most straight or bi women, if given the chance and if they're truly honest with themselves, would enjoy the chance to casually sample some strange dick. Swinging is about the opportunity to explore and experiment, and something is wrong if one partner claims a certain amount of freedom, but restricts his partner's opportunities out of the insecurity or jealousy.

They may call it swinging, but to us it's just a fancy way to dress up cheating. To us they are pretty much on the same level as the cheaters who leave a wife at home while hoping to of enjoy a threesome at a club. It all comes down to a guy taking his own pleasure in his own way while his wife foreclosed from from doing the same.

Sorry to be so harsh, but our F half has had the chance to talk openly with a number of wives in this situation (i.e. couples who advertise that they're looking for a bi-female third). In most cases, the wife admits that she would prefer a man and has agreed to play with a woman mostly because this is what her husband wants. So even the F-F play is mainly for the husband's pleasure.

[JustAskJulie]

I think it really depends on the couple involved and what hte female wants. If she only wants to be with other women then it's totally fair. But if she

a) is only being with other women because he wants her to be/ to please him.

b) wants to be with other guys but can't because he is too insecure

Then it's still very unfair.

[incommunicado]

FRISSON: "Well, that's bullshit. Most straight or bi women, if given the chance and if they're truly honest with themselves, would enjoy the chance to casually sample some strange dick. Swinging is about the opportunity to explore and experiment, and something is wrong if one partner claims a certain amount of freedom, but restricts his partner's opportunities out of the insecurity or jealousy."

JustAskJulie "I think it really depends on the couple involved and what hte female wants. If she only wants to be with other women then it's totally fair. But if she

a) is only being with other women because he wants her to be/ to please him.

b) wants to be with other guys but can't because he is too insecure

Then it's still very unfair."

In the interest of some healthy and heated discourse, I'm going to further open this can of worms...

How is this bullshit? How is this unfair?

Isn't swinging slanted quite a bit to the woman's advantage in terms of equal distribution of sex already? She can have sex with both men AND women (and, from what I have read here, MOST do). Where-as, male bisexuality is uncommon and, generally, frowned upon at swingers parties, clubs etc., limiting men to their wife/SI and the other woman.

If a one-sided arrangement exists, where only one spouse gets to swing while the other watches(usually, the woman, from the postings I have seen), I see this as unfair and unbalanced.

However, if the pleasure is shared by all, BUT the third-party happens to be a woman, SO WHAT? There are far to many sincerely bi female swingers, who get tons of pleasure from other women, to cry foul just because there isn't also an extra penis there for the wife/SI to play with.

I'm not suggesting that limitations based on insecurity have any place in swinging for long, but, if everyone gets sex from the third party involved and everyone has all the orgasms they can handle for the night, everyone should be happy.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but a threesome with an extra guy, ends up with two guys pleasuring one woman. Where-as, a threesome with an extra woman usually ends up with one guy pleasuring two women and two women pleasuring each other. Again, pleasure and orgasms equally distributed, how can that possibly be unfair just because there isn't an extra penis for the woman to play with? In fact, in terms of equal distribution of sex, isn't a foursome with two bi females completely slanted towards the women? The men get two women each. The women get two men AND (usually)each other.

I understand that this doesn't fit if you are not bi or, at least, tri (try anything). But, we are talking specifically about bi women here.

All reasons and insecurities aside...I find it very interesting that a scenario where both spouses enjoy sex with women, can be considered unfair, because the wife doesn't also get a man to play with.

I think the difference is in ideology. You both are looking at this from the standpoint of potential desire and the freedom to satisfy those desires by whatever means...well...desired.

I'm talking, pure and simple, about fair and even distribution of sex. Guys who are only allowed to watch, even if it arouses them, are being stifled, while their wives/SI's get pleasure from others. Couples who share an interest in, and desire for women, where each can achieve pleasure with the other women, are NOT being stifled. Everybody gets to come with someone other than their spouse.

Again, I'm the devils advocate here. We (my wife and I) share equally (or, unequally, depending upon how you perceive this argument). But the question came up, what if both partners get pleasure, but it happens to be with a woman. Is that fair? I have to say, yes.

[frisson]

First, you have somewhat widened the scope of the question.

In your original message, you talked specifically about couples who swing solely with other women because the husband can't handle the idea of his wife having sex with other men.

Almost by definition, these are newcomers to swinging. That's because we know few women who can be coerced into such situation for an indefinite period of time, especially when they see that other women around them have the freedom to pick and choose their own partners according to their own tastes and desires.

For that reason, we're skeptical of the the "women only" requirement in newcomers. And we both feel a certain amount of sympathy for the wife.

The wording of your second message seems to open things up quite a bit to include almost any MFF swinging situation.

That's a different story. If a couple has been in the lifestyle for a while, we assume that everybody involved is getting what they want. How they get it is really their own business.

Now on to the parts of your message that deal with the question of what swinging is all about:

Isn't swinging slanted quite a bit to the woman's advantage in terms of equal distribution of sex already?

if everyone gets sex from the third party involved and everyone has all the orgasms they can handle for the night, everyone should be happy.

Why should happiness in swinging be described in terms of orgasms? There is more to pleasure than the climax, and what makes people happy in swinging is usually not so much having an orgasm as participating in a scene where everyone involved gets a chance to pursue pleasure in a way that suits him/her.

Orgasms are easy. It is possible to have an orgasm while you are disgruntled, angry, jealous, or just plain feeling shitty. So using orgasms as a measure of happiness is futile.

Unfortunately, not all swingers are wholehearted about what they're doing, even when they're doing what ought to make them happy. We've seen a husband drag his wife out of a party house five minutes after he had his own orgasm, because he didn't like the way she was carrying on with another guy. We've known couples to party much of the night and then regret it the next morning "because we didn't really want to do what we ended up doing."

Don't assume that because people are panting and moaning that they're really happy about what's going on.

I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but a threesome with an extra guy, ends up with two guys pleasuring one woman. Where-as, a threesome with an extra woman usually ends up with one guy pleasuring two women and two women pleasuring each other. Again, pleasure and orgasms equally distributed, how can that possibly be unfair just because there isn't an extra penis for the woman to play with? In fact, in terms of equal distribution of sex, isn't a foursome with two bi females completely slanted towards the women? The men get two women each. The women get two men AND (usually)each other.

This is a totally new perspective for us. We have never approached sex or swinging with a scorecard in hand, calculating who gets how many body parts to play with.

Frankly, if this mattered to us or to the people with whom we play, most of the impromptu group arrangements that we enjoy so much would never happen. Our playmates would have to fill out questionnaires listing all their sexual do's and don'ts, and we'd need an Excel spreadsheet to keep it all balanced.

"We thought we had everything worked out just right, when Jane said that she didn't mind giving head to 37-year-old female schoolteachers, because that meant Claire had four bi women to play with instead of three. But then we found out that Sarah won't do anal with red-headed plumbers on the second Saturday of the month, which means that Harry only has five holes to play with instead of six, so we have to start all over."

I understand that this doesn't fit if you are not bi or, at least, tri (try anything). But, we are talking specifically about bi women here.

That's another pitfall. Because this depends on how you define bi. In our experience, most swinging women can be found giving or getting head with another woman at some time.

If you are talking about women who will have sex with other women under certain conditions, that takes in at least 90 p.c. of swinging females. Therefore, most likely, the hypothetical wife in your example falls into this category. If that's the case, then she's unlikely to get a great deal of fulfillment from the situation.

If you're talking about women whose taste for other women eclipses their desire for men, then that's a way smaller number.

And that really should be your working defiinition, since the situation you're referring to requires that the woman forego sex with other men in favor of women...not just once in a while, but every time she swings.

In fact, in the example you used, we can pretty much assume that the woman in question really does have an unsatisfied taste for men. Why else would her husband even be worrying about it, if he didn't know that it was in her?

I think the difference is in ideology. You both are looking at this from the standpoint of potential desire and the freedom to satisfy those desires by whatever means...well...desired.

I'm talking, pure and simple, about fair and even distribution of sex.

You have defined our differences here. As far as we're concerned, the numerical distribution of sex is irrelevant. What matters is not how many orifices and appendages each participant has available, but how everybody feels about the encounter--before, during, and after. A good swinging encounter leaves everybody happy and fulfilled, feeling that (paraphrasing you) they've had the opportunity to freely pursue their desires.

That's why we talk about expectations, limits and boundaries. Not to achieve an equality in body parts, but to make sure that what you'd really like to do doesn't fall outside the limits of my boundaries (and vice versa). If everybody's cool on that score, then there's a good chance that we'll all end up feeling happy when it's all over. Otherwise, the scene is probably going end up being a bummer for somebody, regardless of how many orgasms we have.

[ 07-06-2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: frisson ]

[incommunicado]

After reading your posting at length,FRISSON, and, as your answers pertain to my original question, I think we are actually more in agreement than disagreement.

Sorry to hear that you have encountered such negativity (i.e., women coerced into threesomes, men dragging their wives from parties etc.). I can understand why these experiences would influence your preceptions.

I still would be interested in hearing what others have to say on the original topic, though.

[JustAskJulie]

It's unfair because one partner is being forced to give up their fantasies because of the other partners insecurities.

Who said every women involved in swinging (or in 3somes with another women for that matter) actually wants to play with other women? Obviously they all don't as we've seen here.

I, for one, agree that there is a double standard when it comes to male bisexuality. But that wasn't part of your original question, now was it?

So back to your original question. If a couple swings only with single bisexual women because THE GUY is insecure about letting his wife have sex with another man. Then yes it's unfair no matter what she gets to do with the other woman. He is getting his cake and eating it tooo... where's hers?

[incommunicado]

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

It's unfair because one partner is being forced to give up their fantasies because of the other partners insecurities.

Who said every women involved in swinging (or in 3somes with another women for that matter) actually wants to play with other women? Obviously they all don't as we've seen here.

I, for one, agree that there is a double standard when it comes to male bisexuality. But that wasn't part of your original question, now was it?

So back to your original question. If a couple swings only with single bisexual women because THE GUY is insecure about letting his wife have sex with another man. Then yes it's unfair no matter what she gets to do with the other woman. He is getting his cake and eating it tooo... where's hers?

Interesting. I went back to my original question and fount the flaw in my logic. Nowhere did I state that the wife was bisexual, simply that both husband and wife enjoyed sex with the third party. Let's correct that and re-address the question...

First, let's talk about the arrangement itself (MFF, two bi women):

Is this STILL an unfair arrangement if the wife is bisexual and both parties enjoy pleasure with the third? You, Julie, by your own description of bisexuality in the Female Bisexuality string, under the HELP catagory, describe a bisexual person as one who can be sexual attracted to both sexes. This means that she can be aroused and pleasured by either a man OR a woman. You say "yes it's unfair no matter what she gets to do with the other woman. He is getting his cake and eating it tooo... ". How can this possibly be the case? How is she not getting her cake as well? She is pleasured by her husband, to whom she is attracted, and by a woman, to whom she is attracted. If we assume she subscribes to your definition of bisexuality, this should be fulfilling enough.

Now, is she getting everything she MIGHT want? Maybe not. For that matter, she might want two or three or four men, but she's not getting that either. Nor is HE getting another man, two extra women or an Orangatan. So, they both might not be indulging ALL their desires. But are they unfulfilled sexually because they don't get everything they MIGHT want? I don't think so.

My wife, who is only "situationally bi", completely agrees with me that sex shared with another with whom there is mutual attraction, excitement and pleasure, is fair (and she would happily disagree if she felt differently). She says it is not a matter of the sex of the person, buy the other person themselves that should be the issue.

Second, let's address the fairness of "the rules":

My wife also comments that, ALL rules (or relational boundaries) in swinging are based on insecurity at the root level, and I would agree with her. "No kissing", "no seperate swinging", "FF only", "MFF only", ---whatever... these are all examples of limitations we place, based upon our comfort level. Our insecurities, if you will. Only a VERY prescious few couples offer each other complete and total sexual freedom. The rest of us place limitations on our swinging. As long as those limitations allow for shared pleasure by all, I stick to my guns and say that they are fair.

[JustAskJulie]

I will go back to my original answer. It depends on the couple. I know plenty of couples where the female is bi and has no interest in men other than her husband but enjoys playing with other women. So being with other men is not one of her desires/fantasies but being with other women is.
The male has no desire to be with other males or have his wife with other males but it is not an insecurity issue. That said having a 3some with another woman satisfies both of their desires/fantasies and leaves no one out.

On the other hand you may have a couple where yes the woman is bi but she has just as much desire to be with other men as she would to be with other women. The only thing holding her back is that her husband is too insecure to allow it. But while he has no desire personally to be with other MEN, he does want to be with other women so he sees a MFF threesome as a pefect answer to HIS problem. He gets to be with other women and she does too.

I guess the simplest way to explain my logic is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If he doesn't want her to be with someone of the opposite sex then he shouldn't be allowed to be with someone of his opposite sex either. So if she can't be with other men he can't be with other women. Where does this leave them? Same goes if she can be with other women then he should be able to be with other men (if he chooses and some do). If he doesn't want to be with other men then that is beside the point so long as he has that option. Make sense?

He can be with other women so she should have the option open to her to be with other men.

[sccple29073]

If we are talking about purely sex and each spouse "getting it on" with someone other than their spouse then yes a mff 3-some would be fair if the woman was bi.

Now if we move onto desires then that really depends on the couple and their desires. Ex. If a man desires to see his wife with another woman then he doesn't have to have sex with the other woman to get a desired fulfilled, hence "one-sided" swinging would be fair.

Personally, I think that it would have to boil down to a matter of "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". Not just for sex but for all "rules" that couples may have. After all would a 3-some be fair if the woman could kiss but the man couldn't or vise versa?

[frisson]

Julie, well said.

I would add only one thing. One of the great aspects of swinging is that it's probably the only place in our society where a woman can explore her sexuality without being put down or branded a whore or slut. It's a safe environment, the people around her are supportive, and if she is bold enough to ask for what she wants, it will happen.

So a situation where her mate's insecurities prevent a wife from exploring her desires is really missing an essential part of swinging. I would almost say that it's cruel, because she can see other women getting the chance to experiment and live out their own fantasies while she is denied that chance.

If her sole fantasy and desire is to share another woman sexually with her husband, that's great. Otherwise she is swinging on his terms.

If she's being denied the chance to explore because of her husband's insecurities, then it's unfair, plain and simple. (And that was part of the premise in your original question).

She may not even know what she really wants. That's the purpose of experimentation: to figure these things out. Can any of us here say that we really knew exactly what turned us on until we had the chance to be exposed to different situations with different people?

BTW incommunicado, your F half sounds really cool. Her thoughts on limits mirror ours, exactly.

[incommunicado]

This string could go on and on. I appreciate that everyone concedes, as HLLMAIL says:

"If we are talking about purely sex and each spouse "getting it on" with someone other than their spouse then yes a mff 3-some would be fair if the woman was bi."

This is most of my initial argument. I also appreciate the premise that, as soon as limitations based on insecurity are placed on the relationship, an element of unfairness can be perceived. That certain desires are going unexplored.

But, I stick with what my wife said...ALL rules and limitations that a couple agrees to, to govern their swinging relationship, other than safe sex (which is a MUST in my book) are based upon insecurity and may limit the exploration of desire.

As I said before, very few couples lead completely open swinging lives, giving each other free reign to do as they please ("honey, can you watch the kids Saturday night? I have a date."), and Mazel Tov to those that do.

Most of us set rules that, most likely, limit the exploration of desire to some extent.

It is in those arrangements, be they strictly same room swingers, no kissing swingers, MFF with a bi wife swingers...whatever, that I stress that the importance is on the desires that DO get reallized, not the ones that don't. Does everyone get to have a good time? Yes! Do we all get a taste of something different? Yes!

I'll illustrate. My wife and I are same-room swingers. That might change, but for now, that's the way it is. We do this to share in each other's pleasure, but also because I am simply not comfortable with either of us swinging seperately. It's not a lack of trust or love. It's not fear of loss. It's just territory I'm not happy going into. We've talked about it. She could do it, I can't. She understands and accepts that I'm not cool with it. Is this a rule based, at least in part, on insecurity? Yep. Am I stifling her sexual desire or growth because I don't want to open the door to her going on dates without me? Maybe/Maybe not. But our relationship comes first for both of us, and sometimes compromises have to be made. She made it clear, before we ever got into this, that any discomfort on either of our parts, and the plug gets pulled. AND, she gets to have sex with other people in front of me. That's a guilty pleasure that very few get to enjoy.

I suppose, why one swings, may be a mitigating factor in their position on this topic. For us, it's not about sexual boredom or a means of coping with infidelity, or even individual sexual exploration, it's about sharing. We want a human toy chest for each other. She gets back the sexual freedom she willingly gave up when we married and I get to explore a level of sexual freedom that I had never experienced and we get to do it together.

We compromise on how we do it because, in the end, it is still about us as a couple, not us as individuals. I think you will find that insecurity drives pretty much ALL limits on couples swinging, but love for the relationship and willingness to compromise is what supports those rules. And, again, it is about the desires you do reallize, individually and together, not the ones that you don't.

[JustAskJulie]

But, I stick with what my wife said...ALL rules and limitations that a couple agrees to, to govern their swinging relationship, other than safe sex (which is a MUST in my book) are based upon insecurity and may limit the exploration of desire.

I have to disagree with this. Yes MOST limits that couples set are based on securities but many are based soley on preferences.

For instance we have very few rules when it comes to swinging. But two that we do have are
1. We always use condoms and
2. No anal (for me). If hubby wants to do anal on another woman go for it. He isn't big on anal anyway tho so it's not an issue.

Both of those are based on solely on preferences. We choose to always use condoms and I don't care for anal sex.

[incommunicado]

Originally Posted by JustAskJulie

I have to disagree with this. Yes MOST limits that couples set are based on securities but many are based soley on preferences

You're not really disagreeing with me. Now, you're just picking. (I know, your site, your perogitive.)

I covered the condoms part in my blanket "safe sex" reference. And, I left out "no anal" because it really is an individual preference, not generally an agreed to swinging limitation that a couple decides on together ("honey, let's keep anal between us." Actually, that raises an interesting sidebar, because I perceive the reason that a couple keeps a certain intimacy for themselves, as being governed directly or indirectly by an insecurity--perhaps a fear of surrendering everything.)

So we are back to "most rules being based on one, or the other, or both partner's insecurities".

[JustAskJulie]

That brings up an interesting "twist" on this question. What about a couple where one partner or the other does not enjoy a particular activity (say anal sex) and since they do not enjoy it prohibit their partner from enjoying it. You can't do it with me or anyone else?

I have some friends where the woman does not enjoy be cummed on (facials), and prohibits her man from doing it to others as well (even if the other woman requests it). I don't care for facials myself but far be it for me to tell my friend who does that my man can't cum on her face.

So where does that land. Yes, we are past the idea that MOST limits are based on insecurity. But isn't this a bit extreme? Where is there insecurity in that? Is it an "if he can do this thing with someone else that I won't let him do with me he'll leave me for this other person who will let him do it?"