How can singles be called swingers?

I was talking to a friend of ours who is in the lifestyle about singles and we came up with a thought. Since both of us are married and play with couples we were wondering why singles are called swingers. The dictionary definition of "swinger" is married couples who swap partners for sexual pleasure. It says nothing about singles - male or female.

We have no vendetta against single males, but sometimes it really makes you wonder. Most (not all) single males think that they are gonna rock your woman's world and are great in bed. Well, if they are so great why can't they get a woman of their own to swap?

thump69us said:

if they are so great why can't they get a woman of their own to swap?

And some people ask if a swinging couple is so great in bed and have such a good marriage why do they have sex with others?? Easy to ask a question like that, isn't it? But, things aren't always the same if looked at from different angles.

There have been so many posts on this lately. A good thread for you to read would be the "Any single males just give up?" in the swinging and singles area.

I swing with single female friends, sometimes as a couple with a couple. I date. But, finding someone you want to share your whole life with is a lot different than finding someone you are good bed buddies with or is fun on a date. Since most any female can find a boyfriend or at least a one night stand in a bar, why do they swing?? It's a different world with different people and different attitudes than the "vanilla" world.

Recently a female friend came by with a friend and the friend's boyfriend. Long story short, at one point, the two females were laying on the couch together and began a little kissing and hair stroking. I mentally began tallying up my supply of condoms and watched, wondering when the right moment would be the try to join the action. The other male jumped up, stated that was sick and insisted they all leave. I am a swinger, the other girls boyfriend isn't. It's all in the perception and attitude that separates swingers from non swingers.

I'm sorry if you have had single males say they can do something for you your husband can't. That's like the females that figure they can do something for your husband you can't. They're just misinformed, mistaken, whatever, cut them some slack, they can't help it.

thump69us said:

i was talking to a friend of ours who is in the lifestyle about singles and we came up with a thought. since both of us are married and play with couples we were wondering why singles are called swingers

I know 3 other guys who are gonna answer this, but since I'm the only one up at this crazy hour, I'll go first. (Whoops, looks like I'm second. Old "Curious" is up early too)

I'm NOT a swinger. I'm not TRYING to be a swinger. Being a swinger is 1% about what you're doing with your dick (assuming you're a male) and 99% about what you're doing with your relationship. Since I'm NOT in a committed relationship, my contribution to the swinging lifestyle is only 1%...too little to be of consequence.

On a few occasions, I have been invited to be a guest of a swinging couple. When that happens, my role is initially quite "amorphous"...that is, it is without form or definition. I arrive with no expectations, no agenda, nothing other than to possibly explore a couple's fantasy of what it might be like to have another man present while they make love. Sometimes, just knowing that another man...a virtual "stranger in the crowd" so to speak...finds the woman attractive and desirable, is enough to "light their fire" and make the endeavor a successful one. It doesn't offend me in the slightest if a couple concludes our time together by saying "we don't think we're quite ready yet." I always have my own room and my own transportation, and unless I'm meeting somebody in some God-forsaken place (Klamath Falls, Oregon, comes to mind here) I can usually find something to occupy my time after they've retired alone, titillated and re-energized by the thought of "what they almost did with a guy they met on the internet."

Other times, I become a willing and enthusiastic participant in their fantasy. But...and this is a big "BUT"...it's always THEIR fantasy I'm participating in, not mine. I'm a "walk-on," a "guest performer" invited onto the stage to play a song, maybe stay for the whole set, but never a member of the band.

Quote

most (not all) single males think that they are gonna rock your woman's world and are great in bed

"Most" of us think WHAT??? Leave me out of this one, pally. She's your wife, not mine. The ONLY thing I can possibly add to your playtime is the opportunity to explore, playfully and without judgement, the body and sexual response of an unfamiliar person. That's IT! Unlike you, I don't know where her sensitive spots are. You do. I don't know if her breasts are sensitive to a man's warm breath and gentle kisses, or if she prefers that her nipples be squeezed and pulled, HARD...but you do. I don't know if she likes a man's head to move when he's "down there," or where she "likes one of his fingers to be" while he's doing it...you do. I don't know if she likes a man that fucks like "Ol' John Henry" or a "gentle-rollin' sort of fellow" with swivel-hips. But you do. In short, for everything I do, there's at least a 50% chance I'm doing it wrong or in a manner that she find's unfamiliar or uncomfortable. If, against those odds, you're afraid that I'm going to outshine you in bedroom skills, the problem is in you, not me.

If there's any "rocking" to be done in your woman's world, it will be because she feels YOU are secure enough in your marriage and your love for her to indulge her fantasy of having more than one male.

Quote

if they are so great why can't they get a woman of their own to swap?

Well, there's a couple different ways to answer this question, so I'll try them both, and you can pick the one that makes the most sense to you.

First, when you use the phrase "get a woman of their own to swap" you're implying that women are possessions, to be traded like baseball cards. I don't "own" a woman because, as far as I know, that's still illegal in this country. Even if it were legal, I doubt I'd "own" one. Hell, considering my record with houseplants and goldfish (which have pretty simple needs by comparison), I doubt I'd fare any better with a woman. And you can't flush 'em down the toilet when it doesn't work out, if you know what I mean.

I was married to a woman, and we were active in the Lifestyle for a number of years. But her body was not mine to "trade" for sexual favors with another man's wife. I told her long before we ever became intimate with anybody that the worst possible thing we could ever do was to do something we were basically uncomfortable with, just to please the other. As far as I know, she never did. And boy, was I ever glad we had that agreement when she and one of her girlfriends said that just for kicks, they'd like to watch 2 guys getting it on...

The other answer to your "why can't they get a woman of their own" question is..."What makes you think we don't get women of our own?" I spent last weekend (both Friday and Saturday) at a local swing club with a female FWB who's revealed to me that she's had a fantasy about 2 men for years. I knew we weren't going to find "him" in any swing club, but it was a good opportunity to introduce her to open nudity, sexuality, and possibility. We would probably go back this weekend, but to be honest, I have plans for both nights that involve 2 other women.

I hate to tell you this, but many single guys (and I'm one of them) have more opportunities for sex with different women than we ever had as married swingers.

"Most" of us think WHAT??? Leave me out of this one, pally.

In our experience of unsolicited contacts by "single" (real or not) males, all too many of them seem to think just that.

You may well be (and I hope you are) an exception, but we get far too many messages from these "singles" telling us just how great they are in bed and just how they are going to take Red to places she has never been before.

Okay, so we do get messages from "singles" (I use the "" because half the time we are never sure whether they are or aren't single) who do seem to be decent and knowledgeable. We've even had messages where the guy has simply complemented Red on her appearance without suggesting anything at all. But the majority of them wouldn't get near our garden gate let alone the bedroom door.

Does anyone remember the term "swinging Singles"? I can remember my grandmother using it to describe my uncle when he got out of the service in the 70's! LOL

Regardless... I will give my opinion; I think there are 2 types of single men.

The first type is the "swinging singles" category. They are men who may have had a lot of interest in the lifestyle, but for what ever reason decided they couldn't participate in it for a time until now. Maybe they were married and the wife didn't want to, or maybe they just couldn't take the next step, whatever. Those men are looking to have a good time with other like minded individuals and to explore their sexuality. They may not be in a committed relationship, or they may be and participate with their girlfriends. These men are new, learning etiquette, looking for good times, and to make friends.

We have a lot of men in that category that visit our club. They are men who are interested in the lifestyle, but in the vanilla world, would not readily be acceptable to women who are looking for husbands, not uncommitted sex. We have single women,too, with the same views. Sometimes they pair off with the single women, and then... at our club, they pair off with a couple looking for a single man.

The second type of male we will call the 'Swinger Laureate" (as JNCC put it)

These men have participated in the lifestyle for awhile, and they know the etiquette. they have explored their sexuality enough o know what it is they want out of life. But perhaps they are now divorced to their swinging spouse, or widowed. They now participate in the lifestyle, more behind the scenes, perhaps. Just looking to meet the right people and continue their lives.

I have often asked myself what I would want MR. Indy to do If I passed away. And my answer is that I would want him to remain friends with our swinging friends, I would want him to continue to have a good time. I would hate to know that he would be chastised for it!

Now it is safe to mention the 3 kind.... the cheaters. They do not belong to either category above. The surest way to identify them is when they say, (they all say) "I am just checking the club out first,before I bring my wife."

As I said in my original post, I don't have a vendetta against single men. There are a lot of nice respectful ones out there.

It just seems lately that a LOT of swing sites and clubs that allow them have been inundated with single men. A lot of who think it is just an easy way to get laid.

Yes, there are single women who have the same attitude. But, there aren't nearly as many of them as the single men.

The last "club" party we went to had so many single men in there that the ratio of men to women was at least 3 to 1. (the club's fault I know).

Kinda hard to enjoy a party when the singles out number the couples. (if you're not interested in a single)

word play, just word play!! single men get to play with swingers!!

If he calls himself a swinger, cool!

If he doesn't, cool!!

Debating this is simple mental masturbation!!

Singles were swinging in the sixties and seventies before couples took up the term. It simply meant going from one sex partner to another. I think a minister coined the phrase, thinking it would be derogatory. Instead, it became a symbol. Then couples started using it because it sounded better than wife swapper, which isn't a true description of what they do and spouse swapper sounds so...bleh

Now, a single man or woman can't be a spouse swapper because there's no one to swap. If swapping partners is your definition of swinger, then no. Singles can't swing.

I don't think the definition of a swinger has to be so strict that it excludes singles.

I am perfectly happy seeing the term used broadly.

Mr LM and I have not yet played with a single swinger, but it would not concern us in the least to do so when we feel the time is right, or the opportunity would present itself.

My 2001 edition of Websters defines swinger as: n. [slang] a sophisticated, uninhibited, pleasure-seeking person.

Princeton University's online dictionary defines swinger as: a person who engages freely in promiscuous sex.

So I would take it from that, that it can be anyone single, attached, or married. I have to agree with EternallySingle on his history of the word.

WesternSwing said:

Princeton University's online dictionary defines swinger as: a person who engages freely in promiscuous sex.

Even dictionaries can be off. It is not unusual for a definition to be outdated in a few years, depending on societies views and use of a word.

The problem I have with the above definition of a swinger is the word promiscuous. It it most often associated with being "indiscriminate."

I am not an indiscriminate swinger.

I carefully choose who I will swing with. I think most swingers do--not all--but most.

LikeMinds321 said:

Even dictionaries can be off. It is not unusual for a definition to be outdated in a few years, depending on societies views and use of a word.

 

The problem I have with the above definition of a swinger is the word promiscuous. It it most often associated with being "indiscriminate."

I have a problem with that definition, also. Promiscuous compared to who's standard? This is a judgemental word.

I like the first one much better.

Personally I think people are to hung up on titles and defentions.

Merriam-Webster says a swinger is: one who engages freely in sex

Years ago the common defention for a swinger was: A person that particapates in recreational sex between consenting adults.

Note in the last one, it said PERSON. Much later in life someone decide to change that word to couples.

I think many are making this lifestyle way to hard. If you like to play with couples, do it, if you like men, do them, women, do them. This is not really that tough of a lifestyle unless you make it that way.

VegasLee said:

I think many are making this lifestyle way to hard. If you like to play with couples, do it, if you like men, do them, women, do them. This is not really that tough of a lifestyle unless you make it that way.

Dito

WesternSwing said:

My 2001 edition of Websters defines swinger as: n. [slang] a sophisticated, uninhibited, pleasure-seeking person.

I like this definition too.

I'm in swinging to explore my sexuality, make friends, learn things, etc....

And I've never had the mindset that I was going to ROCK her world once the sex began. I've tried to remain confident but not arrogant.......I approach it the same way every time......learn what she's comfortable with FIRST, then explore her, find her soft/sensitive spots, and see what turns the switch on.

Afterwards, while we're recovering, I can then say I rocked her world J/K!!!

Maybe it's just me, but I think "swingers" should be considered only as people in a committed relationship. Single guys and single girls who are out on the prowl for uncommitted sex simply strike me as single guys and single girls who are behaving more or less normally.

To me, the key element of swinging is the difference between "making love" with someone you're in a relationship with, and "having sex" with any good-looking friend or couple who catches your fancy. The willingness to detach sex from emotional involvement is the difference.

So, I'd say, singles aren't really swingers, no matter what the dictionaries say.

I'd also say part of the problem is "swinging" is a rotten word to use for what happens when couples hook up with other couples. "Swapping" isn't much better, but it's probably a little more accurate.

To me, the key element of swinging is the difference between "making love" with someone you're in a relationship with, and "having sex" with any good-looking friend or couple who catches your fancy. The willingness to detach sex from emotional involvement is the difference.

 

So, I'd say, singles aren't really swingers, no matter what the dictionaries say.

I don't mind of some single has sex with Laura but I sure don't want them getting attached to her.

By your defenition here people having sex without attachment are swingers, I think singles do that just as married couples do yet you say that singles can not be swingers?

Swinging used to be about the sex, no attachment. No involvement is needed to be a swinger. Just good fun with others that you share an experience with.

I have to say that I have always wondered what benefit there was for a single male swinger... and the only ones I could come up with was good entertainment and a chance for a free ride with someone else's wife. So, I've had a negative mindset... BUT JNCC's post has made me reconsider. Maybe there are some good apples in the bunch. Thanks for clarifying your personal position for us.

I don't mind of some single has sex with Laura but I sure don't want them getting attached to her.

 

By your defenition here people having sex without attachment are swingers, I think singles do that just as married couples do yet you say that singles can not be swingers?

 

Swinging used to be about the sex, no attachment. No involvement is needed to be a swinger. Just good fun with others that you share an experience with.

Not exactly. What I mean is that for me to consider someone a "swinger" they've got to be in a position to have BOTH a committed sexual relationship (i.e. "making love") AND having casual sex with friends and/or strangers. (With the consent of your significant other--otherwise, that's not swinging either. That's cheating).

Sorry to be unclear. That's what I get for posting before my morning coffee.

You know, after 3 years of referring to ourselves as "Swingers", We still don't like the term. Frankly, It seems to limit what others think is acceptable.

We just like sex, and we like it with singles, groups, couples, males, females, as long as they're human, attractive to us, and over 21. So, Guess we'll just call ourselves "freaky"...Then we'll fit into whatever definition we like.

Like someone said before, this is a word play, I think the term swingers covers now couples and single men or women who accept and embrace this lifestyle.

Even we respect and have had our share of threesomes, we agree that the real swingers lifestyle starts when you have a stable long term relationship with someone, then swinging takes up to a whole different level, I'm sure than most couples in here know what I'm talking about.

Besides, I'm sure that most single guys or girls, doesn't mind if they're called swingers or not, as long you share the intimacy of your bed with you

See ya all

It's really quite obvious that everyone has their own definition of "swinger", even the dictionaries show that. So really no one is particularly wrong or right as I can gather, but it is a good lesson in the inadiquacies of verbal communication to express thoughts and ideas. So essentially to be a "swinger" means something diffrent to each person and no two "swingers" are the exact same kind of "swinger". Which I think makes things all that much more interesting.

I don't call myself a swinger. I am the only single male in the off premise lifestyle club I belong to. Since I am a staff member no one has had a problem with it. I have one couple I get together with at most of the parties I attend. There are several others that are possibilities. I don't hook up at every party, I don't expect to. I do have a good time though, drinking, dancing, meeting new people. A group of single ill-informed men will ruin a lifestyle club though. You have to know the rules and live by them. If you are single and in a lifestyle club you are very lucky. Don't screw it up.

thump69us said:

well, if they are so great why can't they get a woman of their own to swap?

well if they're single they don't have a woman, in my definition of being single. If I'm in a relationship I don't consider myself single, however I know most men do even if they are in a relationship.

anyhow...

perfect topic for me!

Why you ask?

IN MY experience anyhow, MAYBE someone can learn from this, I SURE did! and I'm using the word *they* in loosely general terms, I DO mean ONE guy in particular in this case, although I'm SURE hes not the only guy to play this game, notice I didn't use the word *man*

- because they lie and manipulate to try n get what they want, saying they want more than FWB, thinking that will win them the prize of boinkin whoever they want to.

- because they have selfish reasons for wanting to swing.

- because they have their own agenda.

- because they are disrespectful.

Dez

parcarcaliente said:

Like someone said before, this is a word play...

ok that's it, I dont know if I'm a swinger or not. Call me what you will, freak, nympho, bisexual, whatever! LOL

My new label for myself is: SWINGLE!

It is blatantly obvious a lot of couples in the swing community do not consider us swingles as swingers. Personally I choose to look at it and define myself in that fashion first, because I have been invited to participate with swingers and second because I think I have the appropriate attitude to do so. I actually think there could be some sort of badge issued to the few of us who "get it" but apparently a majority of the couples are so offended on the mere idea of a swingle male that that is not going to be accepted. Somehow nobody notices the inequity of swingle females being not only accepted but the highest demand "commodity" in this "lifestyle." Damn we have euphemisms for everything. What is the difference between a swingle female being accepted and a swingle male not being accepted, folks it is your prejudice. If you categorically superimpose the actions of others, rather than the actions of the individual, that is the definition of prejudice.

There are obvious differences in the preferences of swinging couples. Lots only play couple to couple. Lots of others only swing with females (thus the high demand for bifems). A minority of couples will play with another male. Those are recognized facts. My complaints, called whining in the other topic, were directed at the limitation of those couples who do like MFM to select only from the males from other couples at the exclusion of legitimate swingle males like me. Granted female bisexuality is the most common reason. BUT lots of women will indulge their man's fantasy to be with multiple women, but their men do not have the BALLS to indulge her fantasy of being with multiple men. OK, I said it. That's my prejudicial statement. The lack of BALLS extends to those who only play with males who are not perceived to be a threat to them (because they are already in their own relationship). That male ego condition does effect the ratio described above. If you base your acceptance to even use the euphemistic label of this kind of activity simply on your prejudice, you really aren't the open minded people you claim to be, are you?

In The Plight of the Single Male , my supposed whining, I tried to pose a literate appeal to make you think and possibly change your mind. Essentially I got flamed. At least JnCC has managed to sway one of those people--that's the best we can hope for.

badgirl0372 said:

I have to say that I have always wondered what benefit there was for a single male swinger... and the only ones I could come up with was good entertainment and a chance for a free ride with someone else's wife. So, I've had a negative mindset... BUT JNCC's post has made me reconsider. Maybe there are some good apples in the bunch. Thanks for clarifying your personal position for us.

My own personal experiences are similar to those of JnCC below. Egos seem to get in the way here. I try to leave mine at the door. If either member of the couple I get to play with regards me as a threat to the male of the couple, they have it entirely wrong. I KNOW I will go home alone and likely will never see them again--though I have been asked back to play again. I am a guest performer that adds spice to their relationship. Its not about me being better than he is (though I do seem to lose a lot of opportunities to the demands of some women for a monster cock--if that is their fantasy, I can't help), it is about my presence adding up for something special for both of them. With the right mindset, it works quite well. And I have continued a few conversations with my new play friends--I know about the post-MFM sex frenzy that playing this way causes for them. OK, hearing that I helped cause THAT is a kick to my ego. I'm not a participant in that fun. Maybe the perception of a threat to their relationship makes them hot, but we all know anything beyond that ain't gonna happen.

JnCC said:

On a few occasions, I have been invited to be a guest of a swinging couple. When that happens, my role is initially quite "amorphous"...that is, it is without form or definition. I arrive with no expectations, no agenda

 

I become a willing and enthusiastic participant in their fantasy. But...and this is a big "BUT"...it's always THEIR fantasy I'm participating in, not mine. I'm a "walk-on," a "guest performer" invited onto the stage to play a song, maybe stay for the whole set, but never a member of the band.

 

The ONLY thing I can possibly add to your playtime is the opportunity to explore, playfully and without judgement, the body and sexual response of an unfamiliar person. That's IT! Unlike you, I don't know where her sensitive spots are. You do. I don't know if her breasts are sensitive to a man's warm breath and gentle kisses, or if she prefers that her nipples be squeezed and pulled, HARD...but you do. I don't know if she likes a man's head to move when he's "down there," or where she "likes one of his fingers to be" while he's doing it...you do. I don't know if she likes a man that fucks like "Ol' John Henry" or a "gentle-rollin' sort of fellow" with swivel-hips. But you do. In short, for everything I do, there's at least a 50% chance I'm doing it wrong or in a manner that she find's unfamiliar or uncomfortable. If, against those odds, you're afraid that I'm going to outshine you in bedroom skills, the problem is in you, not me.

 

If there's any "rocking" to be done in your woman's world, it will be because she feels YOU are secure enough in your marriage and your love for her to indulge her fantasy of having more than one male.

I will say that one thing that attracts me to this is exactly what JnCC refers to in the guise of problems. I enjoy taking my time (thus the handle) playing with a new woman, exploring her and finding her buttons. Once I know what turns a woman on, I'm more inclined to skip past the other stuff and go right for the home run--it could get monotonous. Maybe, subtly, that has been a problem in my relationships. Which, I suspect, is why couples like to mix up the spices. I learn from them, they learn from me, we expand our experiences and experience "we"--its all good.

I also am attracted to challenging situations where I don't know what is going to happen next. Fun surprises are a great turn on. And it is a big kick to overcome the fear of the unknown. That got me into MFM situations in the first place. Now I know I enjoy playing with a woman who is that turned on and of course enjoy being part of getting her to that extra level.

Since I'm writing such a dissertation again (should I have broken this into multiple posts?), I've got to mention Dezaray above. Yes, of course I play with single women, but those women deal with the average single male all the time. If you think some of the vultures you have met in the swing world are bad, look at the regular barflies out trying to get laid. Those scummy men cause very cynical, jaded women. I can't count the conversations I have had with women who have all the personality of a DMV worker and I blame the way they are treated by, or lied to, by the common male. That does make the true swingers (however we define the term) much better to deal with. They know what they want, they know why all of us are here. If I happen to fit what they want, nobody has to deal with the extra layers of bullshit in the way.

I know my own style, if you are not interested in me, you will barely know I'm there. I'm actually quite shy about initiating the subject of sex and struggle to initiate a conversation beyond saying hello without your reciprocation. That puts me about as far away from the obnoxious vulture as you might ever find. I'm the wallflower watching the same act from across the room. And maybe some of the obnoxious males might learn from my experiences, because being the least pushy guy in the clubs I have gotten in to (rare as they are) HAS set me apart and gotten me invitations to play.

slow did you read your thread?

You are not a swinger, not because you don't 'get it' or think you 'get it' or whatever your motivations for having sex with other peoples wives while they watch are.

You might be the greatest, most wonderful guy for a MFM since the first caveman invited his hunting buddy over for a ride on his woman. You still have a very different experience, outlook and risk than the husband.

So once you let the love of your life have sex with another man come preach about how you understand and you are a swinger.

I think its ironic you are quoting JnCC when he is the one single male who really 'gets it' in this case.

slowluvr65 said:

My complaints ... were directed at the limitation of those couples who do like MFM to select only from the males from other couples at the exclusion of legitimate swingle males like me. ...their men do not have the BALLS to indulge her fantasy of being with multiple men.

You just put a dent in your credibility as a "legitimate" swinger.

I agree with Chicup that just being a nice guy doesn't mean that you 'get it'. You're assuming that swinging couples who aren't interested in you are avoiding you because the man feels threatened by you, but that's rarely the case. To a swinging couple, it's all about having casual group sex within the framework of a relationship. To you it's about getting your dick wet. Swinging couples who are interested in sharing their vibe with an extra man are looking for men who 'get it', they aren't just looking for the hottest possible guy for the women. That's why couples often select the male from another swinging couple or even a vanilla male friend for MFM adventures rather than picking from the endless swarms of horny single guys on swing web sites or at swing clubs.

By completely missing that concept you're proving Chicup's point that you aren't approaching the situation as a swinger, you're approaching the situation as a single guy who likes casual group sex. I don't speak for Chicup but he and I are both insisting that there is a difference. I don't see anything in your outlook that makes you any different from any random single horny guy that we could meet at any random bar anywhere. Plenty of them are perfectly nice and attractive guys too but that doesn't make them swingers. They're just horny. Respect for the couple's relationship and empathy with the man who is sharing something with you is what makes you a swinger. A single guy who has never been in that position can't understand and lacks that empathy. And if you let them talk long enough they normally will reveal a lack of respect as well, as illustrated here.

If a swinging couple breaks up and then the man or the woman continue to play as individuals then I would consider that man and that woman to be single swingers. In that case the single people do have the necessary respect and empathy because they have been there themselves, and they 'get it'. It does seem possible that there could be some rare example of a single guy who is somehow mature enough to 'get it' even though he's never been able to get a relationship of his own to the point of swinging. Possible theoretically, but I haven't ever met a guy like that even though my wife and I enjoy MFM, and even though I live in South Florida where swingers grow on trees.

If a swinging couple breaks up and then the man or the woman continue to play as individuals then I would consider that man and that woman to be single swingers. In that case the single people do have the necessary respect and empathy because they have been there themselves, and they 'get it'. It does seem possible that there could be some rare example of a single guy who is somehow mature enough to 'get it' even though he's never been able to get a relationship of his own to the point of swinging. Possible theoretically, but I haven't ever met a guy like that even though my wife and I enjoy MFM, and even though I live in South Florida where swingers grow on trees.

I'm not sure if I agree with this part. I think a former swinger who is now a single will understand the mindset and lifestyle much better than most 'swingles' but that just makes them a better single, not really a swinger. As I stated in slows first thread, I've been the extra male too many times to count and its a very different experiance for me despite being with a couple we have had more 4'somes with than we can count. If I were to become single, and I decided to take the route of being a single male in the swinging world (which I would not do, but suppose I did) I'd still be a single guy looking to get his dick wet as you put it (very well I might add). Sure I might understand the couples motivation, and when I have sex I always think of the womans pleasure before my own, but I'd still just be a guy doing what guys do.

I suppose what I don't get is why single guys want to be 'swingers' vrs being single guys. What is it with the label that makes it desirable to a single guy? There is nothing wrong with just wanting to get laid, and nothing wrong with singles joining couples. The issue for me is when single males get whiney that they are not wanted or treated like pieces of meat by couples and don't understand why because after all they are 'swingers' too.

Chicup said:

I suppose what I don't get is why single guys want to be 'swingers' vs being single guys.

I don't understand that either. I can understand a single guy who likes casual sex. I can even understand a single guy who likes casual group sex. But if you were a single guy who 'got it' and who wanted to be accepted by swingers as an equal, then you would find yourself a partner in crime. If a single guy is so focused on casual group sex that he can't or doesn't want to maintain and nourish an open relationship with a woman, then he isn't a swinger. He's just a guy who found a short cut.

Maybe the reason why some of us resent singles picking up the "swinger" label and slapping it on themselves is because we invested a lot of work and years of time into getting on the same page as our partners. As husbands, boyfriends, wives and girlfriends, we have to earn the right to call ourselves swingers. We take a risk when we get into it that our relationship could be harmed. A single guy who wants to fuck my wife who wants to skip all of that tedious communication and trust building is going to meet with some resentment if he thinks that an erection is the only prerequisite.

A single puts in no risk. A single guy doesn't have what the swinging husband has or else he would be there with a partner. He doesn't know what it is to share his partner. I have to think that it generates a lot of resentment when he insists on being treated as an equal in the face of these deficiencies.

Chicup said:

I suppose what I don't get is why single guys want to be 'swingers' vrs being single guys. What is it with the label that makes it desirable to a single guy? There is nothing wrong with just wanting to get laid, and nothing wrong with singles joining couples. The issue for me is when single males get whiney that they are not wanted or treated like pieces of meat by couples and don't understand why because after all they are 'swingers' too.

Personally, I don't really care if I'm labeled a swinger or not. You and several other posters have explained how you view singles as not being swingers, and other posters have explained how they consider some singles "with the right mindset" to be swingers. And I'm sure there are some other viewpoints that I'm forgetting or not aware of. Fair enough.

I realize that only a certain number of single females in the vanilla world are interested in me as a sex partner. I know, boy do I know, that of the single females that I met in swinging venues, only a very few are interested in me. I also am very much aware that only a certain number of couples are interested in MFMs, and a much smaller number of couples would be interested in inviting me to join them in one. Or a limited number of people would invite me to their orgies, house parties, etc. I can accept that. While I hope that people will not be discriminatory, everyone has the right to be discriminating. I'm not really keen on having a sexual encounter with someone who isn't at least marginally interested, if not downright enthusiastic, about having sex with me. So, that's why I very swiftly got over my whiney period several years ago.

From a lexicological standpoint, though, I'm between Scylla and Charybdis here. If you don't consider me a swinger, then even if I am engaged in an MFM with a swinging couple, I am not swinging. However, to me, an MFM is definitely NOT Vanilla World sex. I've engaged off and on (heh) in Vanilla World sex for about 30 years. That would be the whole single guy dating thing but also having short-term and long-term relationships. (BTW, my significant long-term relationship -- 8 years -- did not involve swinging. The swinging issue never came up in any of my relationships.) So my serially monogamous relationships from one-night stands to several-years-in-length were what I would term vanilla sex. Although toys, porn, games, etc., were used on occasion it was just me and one female at a time.

So 5 years ago I entered Swing World. If I'm not swinging when I'm in an MFM with a couple of swingers, or in an FMF with two women who are both married swingers (with the hubbys' permissions), or in an MFMFMFFMFM, and I don't consider these encounters vanilla sex, then what are they...French vanilla? All natural vanilla with vanilla bean specks?

What this tells me is that not only are there a variety of definitions for swinging, there is apparently more than one definition of VanillaWorld sex. Unless there is the undefined Middle Way.

So, when I talk about my non-vanilla encounters on this Board, I use the term swinging to differentiate it from my "regular" dating, because to me the non-vanilla stuff is...definitely...not vanilla.

You can call me a swinger...or not...or call me a toy (a term I think was mentioned on the other thread)...or a stunt cock ( which I don't like because it might set unreasonable expectations...and anyway stunt is too close to "stunted")...or an auxiliary...or an adjunct...or maybe just call me Thrax, and we can call it Thraxing or Thraxing around.

Just don't call me a swingle (that sounds just a little too cutesy)...and PLEASE don't call me late for the party.

Mmmm, so I guess that after reading these posts, am I to understand that swingers are actually defined by having a partner. In other words, if we singles can't be swingers because we don't have someone to "bring to the party" (vanilla ice cream with real vanilla flecks notwithstanding) than we are not swingers.

Interesting.

Well, Athena, there are some differing views on the topic. Here's another thread The Plight of the Single Male (Single females are also discussed in the thread)

Some folks might term it The Blight of the Single Male or Don't Slight the Single Male.

Mmmm, so I guess that after reading these posts, am I to understand that swingers are actually defined by having a partner.

My opinion is that flying in formation with a partner is swinging. A single person doing the same stuff is just a person having casual sex. Casual sex was around way before anybody needed a term "swinging" for it. The term refers to couples having casual sex in each others' presence. As such, a single person isn't swinging even if they are having casual sex.

Many disagree.

I consider swinging to be having sex outside of a conventional relationship. Any party of three or more would be swinging , in my book. Swapping is between couples, the depth of their commitment to each other isn't even relevant; they could be the banal "friends with benefits" for all it matters. What they are doing is having sex with a small or large group of people. It's not a couples only thing, yet within that realm people make personal choices to only play with other couples, and some broaden their play to include other like minded people with whom they can share their sexual energies.

I look at swinging as a philosophy towards ones own sexuality; unthreatened by contact and physical and even emotional closeness with people outside of a conventional relationship; I don't see it as having anything whatever to do with your conventional relationship, per se. For couples, however, it creates a new dimension to their relationship. It's an ideology. The participants vary. the men get short shrift, in general, because a lot of them do see it as just getting laid, without respect to the dynamics of the relationships that exist within the group. I certainly don't see myself, as a single woman, as a player in some couples fantasy play, as JnCC does as a man; I am a participant in my own right, and I have chosen not to play couples who give me the impression that they don't respect my own feelings, too. I've played as part of a couple and as a single woman, and I know both sides of the coin for women. I have to make my choices based on what I am looking for out of this, which is an expanded sense of the sexual energy that always exist. It is the most wonderful experience to be with a group of people who are open to each other that way.

Question;

a lot of posters on the board have never had sex with a third person or a couple, are considering it, but may never make that leap. Are these people swingers?

BiWoman33 said:

Question;

a lot of posters on the board have never had sex with a third person or a couple, are considering it, but may never make that leap. Are these people swingers?

Nope.

No more than I am a spelunker because I've read about and think I'd like to try cave exploration.

athena2910 said:

Mmmm, so I guess that after reading these posts, am I to understand that swingers are actually defined by having a partner. In other words, if we singles can't be swingers because we don't have someone to "bring to the party" (vanilla ice cream with real vanilla flecks notwithstanding) than we are not swingers.

Pretty much. In the same way that "gay" used to mean "happy" but now means "homosexual," "swingers" used to mean "people who had frequent sex" but now means "wife swappers."

I have an interest in the Indy 500. I think the next time they hold Time Trials, I'm going to go up there, buy a pit pass, put on a drivers suit, and hang around the pits all week, offering to "help" some of the hot shoes qualify their cars. True, they'll consider me a pain-in-the-ass and laugh at me behind my back, but won't it be cool to be able to tell people I'm an "Indy Car Driver?"

, JnCC!

Bravo! ...it will give you the opportunity to show those experienced race car drivers "how it's done," and you can drive that car "like it's never been [driven] before." TeeHeeHee!

Mr. Alura

slowluvr65 said:

OK, I said it. That's my prejudicial statement. The lack of BALLS extends to those who only play with males who are not perceived to be a threat to them (because they are already in their own relationship).

This is the kind of thing that proves our point, dude...

You simply do not get it.

My wife has had the pleasure of multiple male partners and ALL of them were "legitimate" singles... Though I am not sure that "legitimate" is the the right word for ALL of them. I would consider a "legitimate" single one who had a "legitimate" shot at getting laid by a "legitimate" single woman...

And that "legitimate" single woman had a "legitimate" shot at actually enjoying herself...

A guy who is socially backwards, selfish in bed, or in any other way relationally retarded isn't what I would call "legitimate" - much less "swingle" - I'd call them desperate wannabes. And no matter how much they whimper about it - I'd stick to that "euphemism." Let's keep in mind that piss and moan as ye wilt - you still have to be "invited" to the party.

And if you aren't being invited - then YOU are the one doing something wrong. You can lecture us about it all you want - but the sad fact still remains that you are the one responsible for the "action" you are or are not getting.

I think Slowluvr makes a fatal mistake in his reasoning. He assumes that a couple's decision to not include single males in their play always comes from the husband.

In our case, Mrs. Alura has been the one who has opposed it most. She had a bad stalking experience that resulted from her having fucked a single professor while at an out-of-state competition. He instantly "fell in love." He would "happen" to pass her between classes, just chance to be near her car at the end of the day, called her constantly, etc. Only a threat from her Mom's attorney to go to the president of the university if the stalking continued cooled his ardor.

Yes, there is some safety in knowing our playmates are already involved in treasured relationships just like we are, but the safety is hers, not mine. It has nothing to do with whether or not I have balls, or a lack thereof.

But even couples don't always provide safety. Our first experience turned out to be a one-nighter because the other wife couldn't contain her jealousy. The husband, however, was convinced that his big dick (He claimed 9.5" and Mrs. Alura believed him.) would lure Mrs. Alura away, at least for an occasional cheating session.

She was not gentle in setting him straight and he never called her at work (or anywhere else) again.

Threesomes are too easy to achieve with playcouples. It's not necessary to court disaster with single people.

Whether singles should be called "Swingers" is immaterial to us. They just don't fit into our idea of what constitutes a "Swinger."

Alura said:

I think Slowluvr makes a fatal mistake in his reasoning. He assumes that a couple's decision to not include single males in their play always comes from the husband.

He also doesn't seem to understand that now and then us husbands also like to be with other females much like our wives like other men. I hope it is ok if I like a FMF or MFMF. Being an MFMF is our preferred type of play, he should be able to see he is missing 1/2 of that equation.

Quote

Threesomes are too easy to achieve with playcouples. It's not necessary to court disaster with single people.

True and the horror stories I hear about single females seem even worse than the single males when it comes to stalking.

Quote

 

Chicup wrote:

 

True and the horror stories I hear about single females seem even worse than the single males when it comes to stalking

 

How right you are, Chicup! You remind me of the movie, "Play 'Misty' for Me," and an experience I had when single (about a century ago) with a female alcoholic who, in her drunken stupor, decided God himself sent me to her. Fortunately, a career opportunity presented itself in another country and solved the problem. I never think foldly of the experience. Never.