Consent and respect

That sums it up well.

I think your logic is a little flawed. Child molesters are horribly broken people who would not be swingers. There aren't children in swinger groups. They will take up hobbies and occupations to be around children. Child molesters did not get into the priesthood for religion, they got into it because they are predators.

 

Drugging women is something another type of predator does, and it isn't just celebrities doing it. My guess is that it is more about control of women out of their league...but I'm guessing. As a father of four girls, that is a frightening type of monster. I can't imagine this type of person being a swinger. Do you need to drug the willing? If they are not willing, do you drug the man as well? Seems like a logistical nightmare.

 

The border control agent had a perfect job for a serial killer. Hoards of people with no identity and a ton of open land. A serial killer as a swinger would be another logistical nightmare.

 

Trump is a rich, self entitled douche-bag. He would be a lonely swinger.

 

Christians view all humans as sinful, not just swingers.

 

Also, what is the swinger to vanilla ratio? If there were billions of swingers, the odds are that monsters would be more prevalent. My feeling is that most swingers are not the victim type. They are also not flying solo.

 

These are not vanilla behaviors, these are aberrant behaviors. Just because these are not the behaviors of swingers, you should not group them with the behaviors of vanillas. These are monsters, not vanillas.

VanillaBeen I’m not sure what your point is. If you talk about some of the things coming out lately and you figure that maybe one in ten or twenty crimes are ever reported, and I think sexual assault of this nature is even higher. You’re talking about a higher percentage of abuse than most groups in this country.

 

I think the honesty, the cordial nature, and the openness of the swinger community will be higher than about any group you could name. The driving nature of the swinging community is having fun with willing participants. There will be bad eggs in any group, I’ve found far less in swinging than in any other I’ve ran across.

I made a few points. One is that this is not news from the vanilla world, it is news from the world we all share. These sexual predators are not interested in swingers, and swingers, like most groups, are not interested in sexual assault.

 

If there were billions of swingers, the odds of twisted people in the lifestyle would skyrocket. I agree with the OP that the nature of swinging keeps them safe from falling prey to these monsters. I also believe that someone into swinging is just that, into swinging. That doesn't include sexual assault.

 

Sexual assault is a sexual predator thing, not a vanilla thing.

VanillaBean: One of the problems with this logic is that while, in this example, "you" chose to go to the club and get drunk, you do not CHOOSE to be sexually assaulted or raped. You cannot control the actions of another person, particularly one with ill intentions. Could "you" have made safer decisions, maybe. Could "you" be assaulted or raped when you are sober, yes. Could you be assaulted/raped when you are wearing ratty sweat pants and a sweatshirt, yes. Rape/sexual assault is not typically about sex-- it is about power/control/aggression.

 

The husband and I had a similar experience at a club. Woman was either drunk or unable to walk in high heels. Later her partner was back in the play area spanking her so hard her ass was purple. Management watched. It made me uncomfortable.

 

Also, re: the percentage of the population who are "bad" vs "not". Until a study is done (yes, with all the inherent issues in these type of studies accounted for) looking at the rate of these bad acts in the general population compared to the swinging population, everything that has been said in this forum is anecdotal and what "we think/hope". As often as sexual crimes are not reported in the general population, I could see them not being reported even more often in taboo populations (BDSM, swinging, polyamory, etc). If you can't even be honest with people about your lifestyle, it makes sense that you would be more reluctant to report a crime as those details would come out.

agreatguy, excellent summation of the point made by Fundamental Law. An observation is that 1) What you hear on the news is not necessarily accurate, 2) The media is biased in favor of "awfulizing" for ratings. There is a reason that the Weather Channel is not appreciated by some communities. I have no idea why Bill Clinton is revered after his well-documented sexual predator activities and Hillary can be an advocate for women when she attacked Bill's accusers. But that's the stuff we're fed. If this forum is any indication of the culture prevalent in the swinging community, it should be a model for respect, love and full appreciation of human pleasure. This stuff is not going to be a subject of the rating-hungry news outlets. Humans acting well? Nah.

Unfortunately we have weirdos and overly aggressive males in the LS too. Single guys, or married acting single on SLS or other sites think meet for drinks and get acquainted means I’ll climb on the bar and f you as soon as you arrive. Wish it weren’t so.

Unfortunately we have weirdos and overly aggressive males in the LS too. Single guys, or married acting single on SLS or other sites think meet for drinks and get acquainted means I’ll climb on the bar and f you as soon as you arrive. Wish it weren’t so.

 

The imagery in your statement made me laugh. We experienced an orgy night at a club in CA. We wondered why the place basically cleared of most couples just before the orgy started. Well, we found out. The single guys were like sharks circling their prey, ready to have their penis in your face while they talked to you as you sat down. Not all are like that, of course. Thank goodness.

The OP didn't sound to me like a comparison of swingers vs predators vs vanilla lifestyle. It sounded like a commentary on the hypocrisy of the societal acceptance of deviant behaviors that harm innocent people while condemning behaviors that build love, trust, openness and honesty in relationships within a group of people that are preying on no one, where the cardinal rule is that No means No.

 

Agreed! This was the subject of the OP. I think for some reason a subsequent commenter lost the thread and wrote about issues, which perhaps were of interest, but that had little or nothing to do with the OP.

However you view The Bible, as a work of divine inspiration or as a nice piece of fantasy fiction, it does have a nice summary, the Ten Commandments, laying out how people should act toward each other. Various legal systems take the principles contained within these commandments and expand them into a set of codes and a collection of laws. Happily these codes and laws evolve. The laws take some right turns and sometimes some left turns but in the long run, go straight down the middle and continue to relate closely to the commandments.

 

If a famous TV dad goes to jail or a former reality TV star grabs pussy without permission, I do not see subsequent legal action as retribution or punishment as much as a lesson on what is not the way to act in a civil society. Cannot speak for everybody's society, but in north America and western Europe, swinging is, happily, not contrary to law.

Thanks to all who commented on our original post. Always good to see discussion.

 

A few observations.

 

Most of us on this board live in two worlds, the vanilla world and the LS world. These are, in the jargon, "alternative lifestyles". When we pass between these two worlds, we carry not only our physical selves but also some system of values. Indeed, it is precisely those systems of values that not only enable us to inhabit both worlds but also to find sufficient satisfaction in those worlds to keep us going over and back again.

 

The vanilla world encourages violence as entertainment yet discourages sexual expression except in narrowly circumscribed situations.

 

The swinger world encourages sexual expression among consenting adults and discourages violence except in the narrowly circumscribed situation of consensual role play.

 

Yes, there are monsters in both worlds. It seems odd, though, for a civilized society to label the vanilla world "normal" and the swinger world sinful, aberrant, destructive etc. Yes, it's hypocritical. But the deeper question is why the hypocrisy persists.

. . . But the deeper question is why the hypocrisy persists.

People look around and find people to whom that can point and make the claim, “I am above him, I am above her, I am morally superior.”

People look around and find people to whom that can point and make the claim, “I am above him, I am above her, I am morally superior.”

 

Not only those three but racism is somewhat the same. Most racists have nothing going for themselves other than their belief that they are superior simply because they happened to draw a white card at conception.

 

I've sometimes thought that a happy couple playing with others makes other couples, who can't/don't/won't, envious. It's like the folks who, for religious reasons, can't drink and want liquor to be illegal. Or folks who don't smoke but see others enjoying a buzz, wanting to keep recreational marijuana illegal.

 

If they can't have fun, they don't want anyone to have fun.

The OP didn't sound to me like a comparison of swingers vs predators vs vanilla lifestyle. It sounded like a commentary on the hypocrisy of the societal acceptance of deviant behaviors that harm innocent people while condemning behaviors that build love, trust, openness and honesty in relationships within a group of people that are preying on no one, where the cardinal rule is that No means No.

 

Sexual deviants are getting publicity and through that publicity they gain a certain amount of acceptance. The ACLU recently represented NAMBLA in a wrongful death suit. NAMBLA members would bristle at even being considered sexual deviants and, it appears, there are those in the mainstream who would defend that position.

 

Hollywood can't even make a decent, honest movie about the lifestyle. Even Playboy TV cancelled Swing in favor of more salacious programming that is sometimes full of negativity and drama.

 

I saw the OP as a person compartmentalizing vanilla and swinger worlds and throwing everything that is not in the swinger world into the vanilla world. I just pointed out that sexual predation is not an acceptable vanilla behavior. The hypocrisy point is a straw-man argument. However, vanillas and everyone else can be hyper-judgmental and we should all treat each other well.

Unfortunately we have weirdos and overly aggressive males in the LS too. Single guys, or married acting single on SLS or other sites think meet for drinks and get acquainted means I’ll climb on the bar and f you as soon as you arrive. Wish it weren’t so.

 

Sorry to hear that. Stay safe and vigilant.

One more observation.

 

Americans (and perhaps others who visit this board) are currently consumed with a contentious nomination to the Supreme Court. Political drama aside, "he said, she said" aside, we think there is an opportunity--and maybe an obligation--to reaffirm the foundational principle of swinging and the lifestyle: play occurs ONLY by mutual consent, and "no means no".

 

For years and even decades, the vanilla world has focused on the "non-monogamous" aspect of the LS. With fair frequency, that focus is intended to vilify how we live and play.

 

Perhaps the time has come to change the narrative and focus on the "consensual" aspect of the LS. While we would never pretend to speak for others, our perspective might be summarized:

 

1. We believe in autonomy: the right of persons to control what is done to and with their bodies. We believe that to be a fundamental and inalienable human right.

 

2. The exercise of that right involves a process called consent. Consent means that a person understands and agrees to whatever is going to be done with, for, and to their body.

 

3. Persons who cannot understand what is going to be done with, for, or to their bodies cannot give consent. Infants fall into this group, as do intoxicated persons, people with dementia and so on.

 

4. Coercion negates the validity of consent. The use of threat, physical power, weapons, confinement, starvation, or other force invalidates any apparent consent.

 

5. Consent is a process and is always voluntary. Autonomy requires that persons can change their mind and say "no" just as easily as they can change their mind and say "yes".

 

6. Marriage is a legal relationship typically founded on deep emotional and spiritual connections. Marriage never requires surrender of autonomy: intimacy can never be compelled.

 

7. Neither can monogamy be compelled. Couples (married or not) may choose monogamy as part of their reciprocal commitments and devotions. That choice cannot be assumed or implied; monogamy is voluntary and, as such, is an extension of the autonomy of both parties.

 

8. Consent requires clear understanding of what is intended, and equally of the risks. This is part of "informed consent".

 

9. Persons capable of making informed choices and giving consent must be able to do so willingly and without sanction or fear. The right of autonomy provides for the right to say "no" and also for the right to say "yes".

 

10. Persons not capable of making informed choices are unable to give consent to intimate behaviors. Consent to intimate behaviors cannot be implied, substituted, or delegated. Ever.

 

Those in the LS might remark that "these truths are self-evident". Perhaps they are--to people in the LS. To vanillas, maybe not so much.

1. We believe in autonomy: the right of persons to control what is done to and with their bodies. We believe that to be a fundamental and inalienable human right.

 

2. The exercise of that right involves a process called consent. Consent means that a person understands and agrees to whatever is going to be done with, for, and to their body.

Regarding these first two very fundamental points, I must say that not everybody who presents as being a swinger understands them the way that my wife and I understanding them. On many occasions, especially likely to happen at a swingers' club, a guy will ask me in one fashion or another if he can have sex with my wife. I typically answer, with as much understanding and diplomacy as I am able, that this is a question for her to answer.

Regarding these first two very fundamental points, I must say that not everybody who presents as being a swinger understands them the way that my wife and I understanding them. On many occasions, especially likely to happen at a swingers' club, a guy will ask me in one fashion or another if he can have sex with my wife. I typically answer, with as much understanding and diplomacy as I am able, that this is a question for her to answer.

 

This is an important yet subtle point. The act of asking you for permission to play with her most likely reflects a persistent notion of possession in their relationship. We imagine there would be less of an issue if you invited a lady to play and she responded,”I’ll just check in with my husband first.” The former situation assumes that authority has been delegated, the latter merely reflects how that particular couple had negotiated their own rules of engagement.

One more observation.

 

Americans (and perhaps others who visit this board) are currently consumed with a contentious nomination to the Supreme Court. Political drama aside, "he said, she said" aside, we think there is an opportunity--and maybe an obligation--to reaffirm the foundational principle of swinging and the lifestyle: play occurs ONLY by mutual consent, and "no means no".

 

For years and even decades, the vanilla world has focused on the "non-monogamous" aspect of the LS. With fair frequency, that focus is intended to vilify how we live and play.

 

Perhaps the time has come to change the narrative and focus on the "consensual" aspect of the LS. While we would never pretend to speak for others, our perspective might be summarized:

 

1. We believe in autonomy: the right of persons to control what is done to and with their bodies. We believe that to be a fundamental and inalienable human right.

 

2. The exercise of that right involves a process called consent. Consent means that a person understands and agrees to whatever is going to be done with, for, and to their body.

 

3. Persons who cannot understand what is going to be done with, for, or to their bodies cannot give consent. Infants fall into this group, as do intoxicated persons, people with dementia and so on.

 

4. Coercion negates the validity of consent. The use of threat, physical power, weapons, confinement, starvation, or other force invalidates any apparent consent.

 

5. Consent is a process and is always voluntary. Autonomy requires that persons can change their mind and say "no" just as easily as they can change their mind and say "yes".

 

6. Marriage is a legal relationship typically founded on deep emotional and spiritual connections. Marriage never requires surrender of autonomy: intimacy can never be compelled.

 

7. Neither can monogamy be compelled. Couples (married or not) may choose monogamy as part of their reciprocal commitments and devotions. That choice cannot be assumed or implied; monogamy is voluntary and, as such, is an extension of the autonomy of both parties.

 

8. Consent requires clear understanding of what is intended, and equally of the risks. This is part of "informed consent".

 

9. Persons capable of making informed choices and giving consent must be able to do so willingly and without sanction or fear. The right of autonomy provides for the right to say "no" and also for the right to say "yes".

 

10. Persons not capable of making informed choices are unable to give consent to intimate behaviors. Consent to intimate behaviors cannot be implied, substituted, or delegated. Ever.

 

Those in the LS might remark that "these truths are self-evident". Perhaps they are--to people in the LS. To vanillas, maybe not so much.

 

Nice post. I would disagree that vanillas vilify swingers. I think that for the most part, they do not understand swinging. I, for one, think swinging is harmless. Live and let live.

My wife and I have another agreement in our marriage: the spouse is not entitled to intimacy, sexual activity or intercourse. The spouse has the right to ask. That's it.

 

Terrific list, Fundamental Law. Articulated very well. One area that I didn't see specifically, although it is probably covered many times, is the coercion from a person in authority--a boss, teacher, etc. I believe these rights to be for persons of every sex or orientation, but I see most of them as statements of the rights of women in the lifestyle.

My wife and I have another agreement in our marriage: the spouse is not entitled to intimacy, sexual activity or intercourse. The spouse has the right to ask. That's it.

 

Terrific list, Fundamental Law. Articulated very well. One area that I didn't see specifically, although it is probably covered many times, is the coercion from a person in authority--a boss, teacher, etc. I believe these rights to be for persons of every sex or orientation, but I see most of them as statements of the rights of women in the lifestyle.

 

Thanks for the comment. Regarding intimacy within marriage, we will strengthen that point. Regarding threats from persons in authority (superior-subordinate), we will strengthen than point as well. There is a question as to whether a superior-subordinate relationship is ever appropriate. Coercion goes both ways. However, we have seen a fair share of Professor/trainee situations where both were of the age of consent, and some have worked out well. It is important to sever the superior/subordinate relationship early by reassigning the trainee to another mentor. Such things are complicated. Regardless, there must not ever be an implicit or explicit threat.

 

Regarding gender equality, we can only agree. While women are by far the most common victims in such situations, men are also at risk. Nor are these issues confined to the heterosexual communities.

 

Thank you for your helpful comments.

Perversions are "newsworthy" as they are outside of "normal". Be glad that swinging, MMF, FMF, MMMMMF, whatever, is not shocking as considered to be worth "reporting" on as "news".