Where are all the beautiful people?

[Girlfit]

"and chances are they aren't even there to meet anyone more than socially. Up here they are called 'posers'.
A few clubs cater to them, at least one other club allows them as part of an overall swinger environment.

Granted...no one is expected to meet and play everytime. The posers are the ones who rarely, if ever, get sexual with anyone. "

Am new here, want to say hello to everyone! I just wanted to reply to this thread as I seem to be in a reverse predictament. So let me get this correct, if you go to swingers clubs and turn down everyone that makes you a "poser"? Arent people entitled to fuck who they want? Aren't people entitled to their own personal standards? I am not familiar with how the swinging world is in Canada, but maybe some couples are turning others down because they simply aren't attracted to anyone there?! Maybe you could clarify exactly what makes these people "posers" in your book?

My ex boyfriend and I checked out a few swingers parties in our area (this was several years ago) and found the pickings to be slim. Of course we were friendly with everyone but we left largely empty handed as no one there met our standards.

I guess I am one of those "beautiful" people you refer to. I am not a total hard body but I've been rated an 8 or better by most people. I'm a former internet model so I certainly don't break any mirrors. My fiance is your typical "Average Joe", definately not ugly but cute in his own way. We recently signed up for an online swingers website to meet others to play with and are starting to get very very frustrated with the selection. I would like to think that I'm not snobbish or stuck up, but I've worked damn hard for my appearance I would think I have the right to have my own personal standards for people I would want to sleep with. . I am not attracted by men who are old enough to be my father. I'm not attracted by a man who has a gut so big he looks pregnant. If I am upfront with our standards and what we ARE looking for, should it be unreasonable that we would get just a little bit PEEVED when people who are obviously NOT what we are looking for tries to hook up with us? I realize everyone's version of what is beautiful or attractive varies. But some things are just common sense. If an ad says they are looking for someone "fit" and height weight proportionate, it should be common sense that if you are a woman who is 5'4" and pushing 200 pounds you are NOT height weight proportionate!

I think its unfair to dub someone a "poser" just because they aren't willing to fuck anything that moves just for the sake of fucking someone. No one is perfect (myself included!) but I shouldn't be EXPECTED to lower my standards in order to "fit in" or be "accepted" in the swinging lifestyle.

hopefully I haven't ruffled too many feathers by this post. Surely not looking to make any enemies my first post in...facelick

[De and Ci]

Good point Girlfit. Be aware that there are a lot of people here who are very touchy about this subject. I'm guessing that most of the "poser" talk is from frustrated couples. We have had to deal with a very frustrated couple firsthand-but it just goes with the territory. Not much you can do about it. Yes we all have standards and people need to respect them. I'm sure even couples who describe themselves as "big and beautiful" will not swing with "butt uglies", and to them, the "big and beautifuls" are "posers". In our area there are 2 couple's clubs and there is a definate difference in the attractivness of the patrons. You just have to find the right club. However, even if the none of the patrons meet your standards for swinging. Just have a good time socializing with them.

[Elusive BiFem]

These types of threads always interest me because I suspect we could put a hundred of us in a room and we would all define beautiful quite differently. Additionally, we would all most likely be far more critical of ourselves (and our individual body parts)than most others in that same room.

Over the years, I've known some people that found me quite attractive, and I've known others that thought quite the opposite. As for what I think about myself...I'm just me. Take it or leave it sort of attitude. I am what I am. I do all I can to make myself feel attractive - you know...clothes, make-up, hair...that sort of thing and I know some will like me and some will not. But the main thing to me is how I feel. Not how someone else perceives me. That's their problem. Not mine. Nor am I afraid of those that I personally find beautiful. I won't lump them into some category that tells me they are not accessible. I won't give them that power over me. People are people. They all have their own self-doubts, self-worries, self-concerns. Just like I choose people I do or do not want to involve myself with, I allow others that same privilege. Again, some might like me, some might not. Does that mean that all that don't like me are posers? Don't think so. And the reverse is true, too.

One of my best friends...I think she is absolutely gorgeous, yet I used to date a fellow that thought she was just "OK." Just goes to prove that thing about beauty being in the eye of the beholder, I suppose.

I don't know...I just think each and every one of us needs to make the very best of what we have to work with and not worry about things that we have little control over. I haven't met the perfect person yet. Have you?

- EBF

[Spoomonkey]

Originally posted by Girlfit
Arent people entitled to fuck who they want?

Short answer... No... You are no more "entitled" to fuck who you want than others are "entitled" to fuck you. You can be choosy, but that doesn't make you "entitled". Keep in mind that others have to want to fuck you back.

If I am upfront with our standards and what we ARE looking for, should it be unreasonable that we would get just a little bit PEEVED when people who are obviously NOT what we are looking for tries to hook up with us? I realize everyone's version of what is beautiful or attractive varies. But some things are just common sense. If an ad says they are looking for someone "fit" and height weight proportionate, it should be common sense that if you are a woman who is 5'4" and pushing 200 pounds you are NOT height weight proportionate!

Often people make the mistakes of writing some couples because they are interested in personality... This tends to give them the false hope that who they are writing may be interested in personality as well. Personally, I think a 1-10 scale is a great thing for beer commercials, but a lousy thing for actually connecting with people. Having never broken a mirror in my life either, I can tell you that I would much rather be with a fun 5 with an awesome personality than a stick in the mud 10. Eyes, personality and a great sense of humor are worth three years in a gym.

My advice - if writing a simple "not interested" makes you so terribly frustrated, perhaps learning a bit of Tai Chi would help.

I shouldn't be EXPECTED to lower my standards in order to "fit in" or be "accepted" in the swinging lifestyle.

You should never lower your standards. Nor should you expect anyone to lower theirs. Everyone approaches the lifestyle hoping to find something. For some it's parts and other "skin deep" affects. For others, it is friendship, personal connection and a great time with good people. Some people will lower their standards for someone who's beauty is only skin deep - but not everyone will.

hopefully I haven't ruffled too many feathers by this post. Surely not looking to make any enemies my first post in...facelick

No you haven't ruffled my feathers. I hope I am not sounding too harsh (it's been a rough week at Spoomonkey Ranch). But I am passionate about the fact that the lifestyle is about great people. You'll find more love handles than six packs - and more wonderful personalities than internet models. I just want to make sure that you know that - from another "average joe" - failing to meet a persons standards doesn't mean that a person isn't "good enough". It could simply mean that said standards are a bit narrow and shallow. And not everyone in the lifestyle thinks of it as a meat market.

Spoomonkey

[leftcoastcouple]

Originally posted by Spoomonkey
I just want to make sure that you know that - from another "average joe" - failing to meet a persons standards doesn't mean that a person isn't "good enough". It could simply mean that said standards are a bit narrow and shallow. And not everyone in the lifestyle thinks of it as a meat market.

But why do you say that, Spoomonkey, seriously?

I am playing Devil's advocate here to some degree, but the fact is--using my wife and myself as examples--we're average or slightly above in looks, and if we're going to sleep with another couple, we're going to look for people who are equal or better to us in terms of overall appeal, looks and personality included.

If we choose not to sleep with a couple we find overall less attractive than us, why would you label us "shallow?" I find this tendency as troubling as that of those who'd only fuck "beautiful people" and walk around with their noses in the air waiting for perfection that's unlikely to show up.

My wife and I are in this to a large degree for fantasy fulfillment, and part of that means screwing people we'd want to sleep with if we weren't married. While there may be couples less physically appealing than we'd generally consider who make up for it with personality--just as their would be if we were single and seeing singles--it's more likely we'll be attracted to the physical package first and the personality afterwards. And I don't see why that makes us, or anyone else who feels that way, inferior to those who'd be less discriminating.

Hell, I could make a really good argument why sleeping with folks you don't necessarily find attractive makes you more of a slut and more of a "meat market" shopper than those who wouldn't, but why bother? The fact is, we're all in this for our own reasons. And if I'd be more discriminating as an unattached single, then I'm surely going to be as part of a swinging couple, just as you are obviously more willing to take on all comers in hope of a good outcome, if I'm interpreting your post correctly.

Bottom line is you don't have to be a belt notcher just because you want the best package you can find. And you're not a "poser" just because you're waiting for Mr. & Mrs. Right, IMHO. We'd rather go home alone than think, "Ugh, we shouldn't have gone through with that." And we're not going to go through with something just to avoid a label, either.

I'll shut up now, because I enjoy your posts and generally respect your opinions. But you're not the first to express this one, and I felt the need to air another side.

[yawanna]

The term 'posers'..as it is used up here..is a label for people that are in a swinger club that is chock full of attractive people who aren't really swingers. As in....they are not there for swinging. It is not for a lack of attractive and potentially desirous folks. Ex models or what have you. They just don't engage in intramarital (thanks Alura) sexual relationships beyond flirting.

That's the definition up here anyway. It's not a slam on swinging as they aren't participating in swinging.

It's one thing to go to a regular club and 'play dirty'... that can be done anywhere. It's another to attend a swinger club and rarely, if ever, participate in what most would define as swinging.... engaging in sexual activities with others either at the club or later.

Posers have also been previously referred to as looky-loos and wannabes. This isn't a new thing.

[Bumpkin]

Hi everyone I have been reading the boards for a couple of days now, and just had to reply to this thread.

You can take the a beautiful super model man/woman and if they have a blah personality than that takes away from the outward appearance.

If you take an average man/woman and they have a super bubbly personality that is going to ADD to the what you see on the outside.

By only looking at people on the outside you are going to be missing half the picture.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally posted by leftcoastcouple
we're going to look for people who are equal or better to us in terms of overall appeal, looks and personality included.

Actually, that was my point. The post I was responding to seemed to be quite full of "appearance first and only." Let's say for the sake of arguement that I am a 5. Since this is the internet, I could say I was a 10 and actually be a 1, so it really doesn't matter where we start. But - let's start with 5.

Being a 5, I am likely comfortable approaching other 5s, reluctant to approach the 9s and 10s, generally disinterested in 1s and 2s. The great equalizer is personality. A personality can elevate a 2 to my level, or sink a 10 well under it. A personality can raise me to the level of a 10 or put me exclusively with the 1s.

I have found that regardless of what number I would actually put on myself, I've been hit on by 1s and 10s. My personality likely attracted the 10 and my looks may have attracted the 1. But, if in the course of conversation their personality doesn't click with mine, I doubt I am going to be interested. And, if the 1 turns out to have a wonderful sense of humor and a great sense of self - and the 10 turns out to be self-absorbed and a little dense, then guess who I'd rather play with.

Now - I understand that there are some people that, great personality or no, I just couldn't play with. That has happened for both me and Mrs Spoomonkey. But, my point is, the personality carries a lot of weight.

If we choose not to sleep with a couple we find overall less attractive than us, why would you label us "shallow?"

I wouldn't. I'm not advocating in my post that people simply sleep with whatever opportunity presents itself. Heck, there are as many 1s with crappy personalities as there are 10s. We all have our standards and our interests. Like you, we would rather go home alone than have an encounter that we have a tough time shedding the next day.

In my opinion, someone is shallow when the sum of a person is their outer appearance. That is not coming from a "frustrated swinger" as one person stated. We run in a really good looking circle of people. That is coming from someone who eats the peanut, not the shell.

While there may be couples less physically appealing than we'd generally consider who make up for it with personality--just as their would be if we were single and seeing singles--it's more likely we'll be attracted to the physical package first and the personality afterwards. And I don't see why that makes us, or anyone else who feels that way, inferior to those who'd be less discriminating.

I'm not advocating a lack of discrimination. We certainly don't jump in bed with the first couple who approaches us. We are selective.

Hell, I could make a really good argument why sleeping with folks you don't necessarily find attractive makes you more of a slut and more of a "meat market" shopper than those who wouldn't, but why bother? The fact is, we're all in this for our own reasons. And if I'd be more discriminating as an unattached single, then I'm surely going to be as part of a swinging couple, just as you are obviously more willing to take on all comers in hope of a good outcome, if I'm interpreting your post correctly.

I hope you've seen that you didn't interpret my post correctly. I likely didn't make my points well, but we certainly don't take on "all comers." We aren't "belt notchers" or "scalp collectors." We just enjoy good people and not all good people are packaged like Gwen Steffani (if I could whistle here, I would).

I'll shut up now, because I enjoy your posts and generally respect your opinions. But you're not the first to express this one, and I felt the need to air another side.

And I appreciate your points to the opposing side. I think we are likely closer to agreement than our posts may sound.

Spoomonkey

[curiousagain]

Wow!!! Spoomonkey, you explained it very well with the numbers thing. I have been on Swing Lifestyle a few months (can't remember exactly) and I had put seeking HWP on my profile after being inundated by emails from people weighing twice what I do. Then it seemed like only contact was from very very thin people and there are few of those. So, I have taken the HWP thing off and hopefully will just go on a case by case basis. It seems that everybody has a different idea of HWP and after reading some of these post on the message boards, I understand that much better. There was one where a woman who was something like 36-35-40 thought she wasn't HWP and wouldn't respond to an add requesting such. Hey, anybody with numbers like that is certainly HWP to me. So, won't use that in an ad anymore.

As to the numbers thing (sorry, got off subject a little). Let's say someone thinks they are a 5 (using your example). Someone of the opposite sex may think they are a 10 and someone else may think they are a 1 on the looks scale and the same can be said of personality. One person's sense of humor is another's warped view and one person's HWP is another's BBW and another's skinny minnie.

For example, two people can be the same gender, age, height, and weight and look totally different in shape and distribution. If I were a woman I would be a thick chick. LOL Not everybody likes that but it's kind of like licorice. Not everybody likes licorice, but those that do, like it a lot. I am 5' 11" and 208 with a 34 waist and 46 chest. Some women like that and some don't. God bless those that do and to those that don't, no problem everybody has preferences and I certainly don't take it personally. I am not a gym rat but spend about 8 to 9 hours a week working out. I don't do it for other people, I do it for me. I feel better and I can do more of what I like. I don't get tired as easily at work or play. I am able to enjoy hunting and fishing in the mountains around here much better and for me it is worth the time for what I gain and it is pretty much a hobby for me. But, some think it is a vanity thing and are turned off by it. That's OK, it's a free country and no skin off my nose as they say.

But, I know I have always sought out curvy, voluptous women, thick chicks if you will. Of late, I have been with a couple of thin women and what an eye opener. Evidently I had been turning down some good times throughout my life. It has made me rethink the BBW thing. Maybe I have been turning down some good times there too. I know that is subjective and we all have our limits on physical appearance, personality, etc. But, maybe it is time I thought outside of my old envelope. Maybe its not too late for an old dog to learn new tricks.
Play careful, play safe, it's a big world out there.
Curiousagain

[Girlfit]

"My advice - if writing a simple "not interested" makes you so terribly frustrated, perhaps learning a bit of Tai Chi would help."

You're probably right, I could use a little Tai Chi! What I probably should've clarified is when our listing very CLEARLY SPELLS OUT what we ARE looking for (age limitations, weight, etc) and people somehow think they are the magic exception to our rule. Yes, I get a bit frustrated when we as a couple in our late 20's-early 30's CLEARLY STATE in CLEAR ENGLISH we do not want anyone older than 40 and someone 20 years older than THAT emails us.

What is even MORE aggravating is when we give a simple "no thank you" reply and people have the AUDACITY to ask "well, why NOT" and DEMAND an explanation for us turning them down. As if we have to JUSTIFY our reasons to ANYONE. Isn't it one of the unwritten rules of the lifestyle that a "no" means NO?


And you're very correct, personality does mean quite a bit. But the hunchback of Notre Dame could have the personality of say, I don't know, Robin Williams, that doesn't mean I would fuck him. But transversely, a guy ripped with a six pack who acts as if he's doing me a "favor" by banging me will instantly turn me away. I may have come across as conceited in my post, but honestly I really am not.

And what I said about having the "right" to fuck who I want, I think it should've been understood that I meant we have the right to fuck who we want granted they would also want to fuck me/us as well. I have my physical standards and as it was so eloquently stated by someone else, we are in this as a couple to satiate our own fantasies. And part of that involves being freaky, if you will, with people who are equally or more attractive than us. In an ideal world, for us anyway, that would mean a drop dead model type with a heart and personality of gold. But that rarely happens. But we'll wait until it does. It may never happen, but we aren't going to lower our standards either just for the sake of getting laid.

I certainly don't want to give anyone the impression that I am hung up on looks , but let's cut through the bullshit folks, whether or not you want to ADMIT it, looks do weigh HEAVILY for everyone when deciding who they want to play with, based on YOUR own standards. And while everyone has their own perception of beauty (which is GREAT, the world would be lonely if we all had the same ideas of what is "beautiful"), for ME, my standards are a bit higher than some. I don't think that makes me shallow, I just think it makes me honest and selective.

[leftcoastcouple]

Originally posted by Girlfit
[BI certainly don't want to give anyone the impression that I am hung up on looks , but let's cut through the bullshit folks, whether or not you want to ADMIT it, looks do weigh HEAVILY for everyone when deciding who they want to play with, based on YOUR own standards. And while everyone has their own perception of beauty (which is GREAT, the world would be lonely if we all had the same ideas of what is "beautiful"), for ME, my standards are a bit higher than some. I don't think that makes me shallow, I just think it makes me honest and selective. [/B]

Agreed 100%, Girlfit. My wife and I were discussing this tonight, and she agreed with me--and you--completely.

Having said that, our interpretation of "beautiful" runs a bit off the beaten path. Guys I know drool over, say, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and I say, "Hunh?" Yet, I'll drool in similar fashion over women some guys consider plain or even nerdy. Wife's the same way. There's a minor celebrity we kinda sorta know who she was joking tonight that she'd like to "do," and given his unconventional appearance, it made me realize that while we both want people who meet OUR definition of "good looking," the folks we'd target prove that we're not just looking for 10s.

Conventional or not, that we'd focus on folks we find attractive does not, as I said last night, make us shallow in my book. Granted, we might miss out on some great prospects in the process, and we'd be the first to admit that we both find 7s with charisma far more appealing than 10s without. But if SOME initial physical attraction isn't there, it's likely to be a chance meeting at best that would bring us to those 7s!

PS to Spoomonkey: Thanks for the detailed response. Obviously, there was some misinterpretation on my part, and I'll respond via PM when I can give it the time and thought it deserves, rather than dragging it out here.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally posted by Girlfit
the hunchback of Notre Dame could have the personality of say, I don't know, Robin Williams, that doesn't mean I would fuck him.

Ouch... I think you just nailed me...



Thanks for the response. I think I understand you a little better now. Jusy my opinion, but I think you are describing pushy swingers - who also don't fit your desired profile. Pushy is a personality issue. See? We all can get along

Thanks for allowing the spirited debate. I shall now return to the bell tower.

Spoomonkey