Is SLS a good site for single males?

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Dooode

BUT some singles certainly can have the mindset of a lifestyler, hold to the rules of a dedicated lifestyler and even have references from other couples; be actively involved in his/her own swing community and work for making a safe environment for couples. So for all practical purposes, this person can very much be considered a swinger.

No, he can be considered a good toy. There is more to swinging than being into casual sex and being a nice guy about it. Singles don't have to get over jealousy issues, they don't have to be willing to let the love of their life enjoy their fantasies, and if something goes bad, they just go home. I'm not sure why singles are so interested in being called swingers, but to me, and a great many couples you can't be by definition. It doesn't matter if you are a creep or not. I've been the extra male in a MFM more times than I can count, and its not the same thing.

[Dooode]

Chicup:

Who's definition?

According to NASCA International:

Who the Swingers Are

People who swing come from all economic levels. Every job classification, all races and nationalities are represented, though the majority are Caucasian, middle to upper middle socio-economic class, and married. Swingers, married and single, tend to be adventuresome, emotionally mature, and have excellent relationships with their mates and friends. Single people are involved in swinging but not to the extent of couples. Many single women have joined swing clubs, finding them a refreshing alternative to the traditional bar scene.

For the record, I have ALWAYS considered myself a toy (but reversely, some of them make pretty good toys themselves! hehehe). As you've pointed out, singles don't have the same problems couples do ... but they certainly do have problems within the lifestyle as well.

Why are we so interested? BECAUSE IT IS A HAT.

We wear the hat, we assume a certain beingness. We follow certain rules. We act a certain way. We dress a certain way.

WITHOUT THE HAT, you have singles (and couples too, for that matters) who act OUT-OF-SYNC with the rest of the swing community.

And that is the complaint many couples have with singles who've invaded the lifestyle. Some are rude, don't know how to take a "no", are persistent to the point of stalking ... and the list goes on.

Make sense?

[Alura]

If I owned NASCA, I'd be interesting in having as many members as possible and, thus, open up membership to everyone. Hell, if the family horse could send in the dues, he'd get a card, too. That doesn't mean he'd be a swinger.

So it remains that the definition of "swinger" is dependent upon who is doing the defining. Those who aren't interested in single people will continue to use "married couples" in their definition. Those whose sole or major interest is MFM (or FMF) threesomes may agree to call singles "swingers."

There are others, ourselves included, who do our own thing in our own way. If someone disagrees with our definition, so be it. We're unaffected.

Mr. Alura

[Rockme]

Originally Posted by Alura

If I owned NASCA, I'd be interesting in having as many members as possible and, thus, open up membership to everyone. Hell, if the family horse could send in the dues, he'd get a card, too. That doesn't mean he'd be a swinger.

So it remains that the definition of "swinger" is dependent upon who is doing the defining. Those who aren't interested in single people will continue to use "married couples" in their definition. Those whose sole or major interest is MFM (or FMF) threesomes may agree to call singles "swingers."

There are others, ourselves included, who do our own thing in our own way. If someone disagrees with our definition, so be it. We're unaffected.

Mr. Alura

Your post hit it on the nose This is how I view it as well.

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Dooode

Chicup:

Why are we so interested? BECAUSE IT IS A HAT.

We wear the hat, we assume a certain beingness. We follow certain rules. We act a certain way. We dress a certain way.

WITHOUT THE HAT, you have singles (and couples too, for that matters) who act OUT-OF-SYNC with the rest of the swing community.

And that is the complaint many couples have with singles who've invaded the lifestyle. Some are rude, don't know how to take a "no", are persistent to the point of stalking ... and the list goes on.

Make sense?

No one told me about a dress code

What you are saying is by being called a swinger it means you 'get it' you can have casual sex without drama, you respect peoples boundaries. To me that just makes you a good toy for couples into that in the lifestyle. Perhaps you need a 'good toy' hat instead.

I've met plenty of swingers, who as you said don't get it, don't understand no, don't respect boundaries and are basically assholes, some perhaps slightly insane. They are still swingers, as they are a committed couple even if perhaps, they should be committed.

If I were to be single tomorrow, I'd be a great toy. I'm youngish, in ok shape, understand the lifestyle, have no baggage or lifestyle 'issues', am well versed in 3somes and separating sex from love, and the women seem to enjoy me. Ok that sounds like bragging but its not meant to be, I just know whats out there and expected. Odds are I'd work out even more to get that 'look' to be even more appealing. To me I'd still not be a swinger, I'd be a guy who enjoys sex and isn't put off by the fact that her husband wants to do it to her with me, and can have fun with it.

Interestingly though, being a single male toy really doesn't appeal to me in the least, because I AM a swinger. I'm looking for a committed relationship where we can be open with each other too. I'd end up dating a lot of women, until I found one who was not only right for me as a soul mate, but also potentially open to swinging, odds are if she were right for me, she would be, much like my wife is

Some singles and couples who play with singles tend to take this opinion of mine as an attack on singles in the lifestyle, and its not at all. I can understand the desire for single females (like we don't see enough people looking for them) and for single males. They have a place in the lifestyle with those who enjoy that sort of play, and the horde of crappy single men really doesn't change that. My guess is the reason so many 'poor' quality males are looking for swingers is they can't find anyone who will have sex with them vanilla style so they are hoping they have a chance with swingers who they think screw everything. These guys don't count.

You know this is turning into a rambling post but being an evolutionary biologist at heart I'm developing (more like fleshing out) a theory on why 'good' single males are so rare it seems in swinging despite the huge number of single males who try.

First you must accept a few facts as the explanations would be to long.
1. Males are by nature more ployagymist
2. Females are by nature more monogomist (there are very interesting facts to back this up) and more picky.

Most 'desireable' males (good singles for swinging) are already in a relationship because they are sought after by females.

Many 'undesireable' males are unattached as they are not sought after by females.

Sex drive being what it is, these celebate single males who are single due to being undesirable look for any outlet for that sex drive and turn to swinging. The problem for these guys is females tend to be picky by nature, even when its just for fun, so these males which are undesireable for whatever reason be it looks or more likely personality, are undesireable to swing with.

So the odds of finding a desireable single male who is unattached is quite low, in fact just about as low as finding a single female unicorn.

[Sweet_Candy]

Damn Chicup I think you've fleshed out some of my thoughts about Singles in the LS as well from an Evolutionary slant . . . good job.

[Thrax]

Ahh, ya doesn't has to call me Johnson! You can call me Ray, or you can call me Jay, or you can call me Johnny or you can call me Sonny, or you can call me RayJay, or you can call me RJ... but ya doesn't hafta call me Johnson.

Actually, I think I still prefer Toy to Missing Link.



Thrax

[Dooode]

LOL@Thrax!!!

Well I am going to ignore the evolutionary "all monkeys are the same" crap.

Every time some monkey says "every monkey is the same", some other monkey comes along and points out that they're not. Monkeys are NOT human beings and it takes evolutionists time to figure that out.

Originally Posted by Chicup

Perhaps you need a 'good toy' hat instead.

No, not instead, along with. And yes, I have that one too. They go very much hand-in-hand.

Originally Posted by Chicup

Interestingly though, being a single male toy really doesn't appeal to me in the least, because I AM a swinger. I'm looking for a committed relationship where we can be open with each other too. I'd end up dating a lot of women, until I found one who was not only right for me as a soul mate, but also potentially open to swinging, odds are if she were right for me, she would be, much like my wife is.

And there ya go. So you do (sorta) understand the role of beingness. Now once you get the idea that other people can have their own beingness too, you'll be on your way.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by Dooode

Monkeys are NOT human beings

This hurts more than being kicked in the groin...



SpooMONKEY

[Dooode]

Originally Posted by Spoomonkey

This hurts more than being kicked in the groin...

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

Oh shit, I just about bust a gut, that was too funny!!!

[curiousagain]

Originally Posted by Chicup

No, he can be considered a good toy. There is more to swinging than being into casual sex and being a nice guy about it. Singles don't have to get over jealousy issues, they don't have to be willing to let the love of their life enjoy their fantasies, and if something goes bad, they just go home. I'm not sure why singles are so interested in being called swingers, but to me, and a great many couples you can't be by definition. It doesn't matter if you are a creep or not. I've been the extra male in a MFM more times than I can count, and its not the same thing.

And I'm not sure why some people get so bent out of shape if a single calls themself a swinger. I see a lot of much ado about nothing on either side of the issue. I agree it is not the same thing to be the extra male in MFM vs the husband/BF/SO. A SM who is a swinger or who "gets it" will understand that and act accordingly. Finding a male half of a couple that can be loaned out occasionally with everybody in both couples fine with it is probably as rare as a unicorn also. It takes a certain mindset by everybody for that to be OK. What to call these people? Everybody will have their own definition.

Originally Posted by Alura

If I owned NASCA, I'd be interesting in having as many members as possible and, thus, open up membership to everyone. Hell, if the family horse could send in the dues, he'd get a card, too. That doesn't mean he'd be a swinger.

So it remains that the definition of "swinger" is dependent upon who is doing the defining. Those who aren't interested in single people will continue to use "married couples" in their definition. Those whose sole or major interest is MFM (or FMF) threesomes may agree to call singles "swingers."

There are others, ourselves included, who do our own thing in our own way. If someone disagrees with our definition, so be it. We're unaffected.

Mr. Alura

I agree, other people's definition don't affect me. Some think if you haven't swung in a while you're an ex swinger or wannabe swinger. I've primarily been a SM but, have swung with a GF but, we're presently not a couple so am I an ex swinger, wanna be swinger, use to be swinger, in between partners swinger, toy, single male? I have to admit I'm ignorant and apathetic. I don't know and more importantly, to me at least, I don't care.

Need a single male for a MFM or to fill out a foursome with a SF you know, that understands the dynamics, and is able to "do it", and to some most importantly, keep his mouth shut? I just might fill the bill. Need someone to argue pointless word definitions and maybe try to figure out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? I'll pass.

I've had a couple of relationships disappear like a puff of smoke when I told them I was a swinger, so you won't hear me using that word to describe myself again any time soon. Because, as so many have pointed out, this is primarily a couples activity and it's much much more fun with a "partner in crime" then going it alone. Now, if I could only figure out how to make someone think it was their idea..................

[Chicup]

Originally Posted by Dooode

LOL@Thrax!!!

Well I am going to ignore the evolutionary "all monkeys are the same" crap.

You mock but you don't understand. Try reading 'The Red Queen:Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - Matt Ridley'. The genetic terms might be new to you but the genetics really isn't that important and he gives enough basic descriptions that a non-biologist can follow along.

Plus we arn't monkeys we are apes.

[Spoomonkey]

Originally Posted by Chicup

Plus we arn't monkeys we are apes.

Apes are icky...



Spoomonkey

[ANGEDKY(mr)]

My thoughts:


Being a Swinger(s) is a mindset. It is knowing your role in that evenings production and having compassion for your partner(s) and the processes they went through to get to the present moment AND ACTING APPROPRIATELY

It is not about your relationship status, gender or sexual preference. Anyone can achieve "Swinger" status, few do...

[TNT]

I had a long post typed out...then I thought...why bother? This is an old debate and most on here know our thoughts/feelings on it.

Our definition of a swinger has nothing to do with marital status...never has and never will.

We've seen many couples who profess to being swingers that really have no clue ...we've seen many singles (male and female) who also consider themselves swingers and again, they have no clue. Even in couples we've seen one half "get it" and the other not...so to us, being married does not mean you automatically "get it".

It all comes down to an individual/personal attitude/mindset and it has nothing to do with whether your single or in a committed relationship at all, in our opinion.



Teresa