Swinging has switched from a male to a female focus: Apart from the numeric growth of the phenomenon, swinger behaviour has also greatly changed over the last 25 years. Both in Italy and in the rest of the world. Twenty-five years ago couples sought almost exclusively other couples or single females; now a days couples seek other couples, single males and groups of males. The phenomenon has thus evolved from situations in which the centre of sexual intercourse was the male component of the couple to “harder” situations in which the centre of sexual intercourse is the female component and the male takes his pleasure from sharing his companion with other men. … Now a days an increasing number of single males seek swingers rather than prostitutes, since swinger women are considered more participative than prostitutes.
I don't have a college degree.Nor does she. Does that mean we are stupid? To people that believe a college degree is a necessityThere is a song......I'm So Vain...Carly Simon.
If you are looking for literature references from studies to support that claim, then no. I am sure there has not been a population study where someone attempted to determine the strength of the bond between partners based on the openness of their relationship. To explain how I have come to that conclusion would take more time than I care to give, but here are the bullet points of my credentials:
- Intimate exposure to large sample group throughout the US.- Ability, via internet, to dialog with many different sub-categories of people on the subject. These categories include age, race, and religion.- Plus my advantage of not always being a swinger, and therefore having a solid understanding of the psyche of both groups, allows me to better evaluate the subject.
Bottom line, if you need a double-blind study from a non-biased team of experts to accept the idea that couples without jealousy in their relationship (swingers) will have a better chance of staying together than those who more often do (monogamous partners), then I am not smart enough to help you understand the lifestyle any better.
However, lifetime partners who participate in the swinging lifestyle tend to share a bond that is more fulfilling and stronger than most “vanilla” couples.
Do you have any references to support this? Anecdotal reports are not enough, since they may be affected by selection bias.
It would seem that the majority of your approaches to this "phenomenon" are biased with a negative implication that the act of swinging is "deviant". Here are some things to consider for future evaluation of the swinging lifestyle that may produce more accurate (and less confusing) results.
1) While it may be true that a small portion of the swinger community is involved for reasons not totally clear to both parties (i.e. woman wants to be with other men, so she convinces husband to swing), the ultimate reasons for an open relationship of this nature are vast and loosely connected. However, lifetime partners who participate in the swinging lifestyle tend to share a bond that is more fulfilling and stronger than most “vanilla” couples. This is because they transcend the issues of jealousy and ownership of each other, and instead give to one another the gift of freedom to choose. 2) MF, FF, and MM who open their relationship to others should be the only true definition of "swingers" for the purpose of studying this lifestyle. Single males and females are simply components with individual motivations not necessarily connected to "swinging."3) Trends, as you have called it, are not so easily measured by even studying a large population. This is because each individual has their own preferences, each couple has their agreed upon limits, and each group has their own collective standards. Plus, if you only look back 25 years, then your conclusions would be similarly misguided as if you were to take the weather patterns of the past 25 years to define global climate patterns. 4) To refer to women who enjoy swinging and sex with multiple partners as "slutty" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and known concepts of evolutionary-based sexual behaviors. As for a woman that enjoys multiple men at the same time, I wonder if this is as hard to understand as a man who would enjoy multiple women at the same time. One simple psychological explanation would be the need (and erotic desire) for attention.5) To a much less important point, the prices listed above are not common. Females tend to have free admission or a relatively low price, MF couples are charged a cost relative to the party venue, and single males are charged a premium. This is because most females of a swinging couple are bisexual and therefore both members of the couple can be sexually attracted to, and share, the same female (which is not nearly as common with single males.)
I hope these points are helpful in your understanding of the swinging lifestyle. While the choice to have an open relationship may not be as common as monogamy, it definitely is common enough to command the respect of others as a lifestyle that is healthy and fulfilling. In the future please consider this for all walks of life: Conviction without knowledge is the most dangerous form of ignorance.
There's an obvious flaw in the pricing - unless the party organizers know all the attendees, an MFF trio should go in as an MF couple and a single female, and save $5. (An MFF trio and an MMF trio could save $20 by presenting as 3 MF couples.)
I've seen similar sorts of arrangements where the implicit price for women was negative.
Arrested Development on this thread and the NYT article that Mike linked above:
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised...a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.
I am surprised that nobody noticed that arbitrage opportunity inherent in that price structure: Any group of two females and one male wishing to participate should, for purposes of admission, separate in one male-female "couple" and one "single" female and save $5 ($120-$90-$25). How this consumer (?) surplus is to be allocated is left as an exercise to the reader.
I am surprised nobody here is analyzing this in terms of markets. Here is a theory that seems plausible to me: there are many more men interested in exploring outside of traditional monogamy than women. This shortage of female participants can explain most of the phenomena described above: women "calling the shots" (they have the valued goods); more MFM threesomes than FMF (simple matter of what's available); lower prices for single women at sex clubs (just like "ladies night" at nightclubs); etc.
It's my suspicion that the gangbang fetish is closely related to the cuckoldery fetish; that both are derived from 'betaized' masculinity, men who have been taught to feel shame because of their gender and thus fear displaying confidence around women. Instead they turn submissive, seeking security in female dominance, which tends to lead to contempt for them by the women. My own sex life is fairly open and bizarre, but this dynamic creeps the hell out of me.
This is however based entirely upon my personal experiences. The fact that I'm pretty good with people could be entirely a statistical artifact, but this study does seem to gel with what I've concluded. When it comes to complex social interactions its difficult to find much better evidence than this.
Somewhat related its Porn Star Tyler Knight's description of what it's like being an actor at a bukkake shoot: http://tylerknight.com/arch... The general attitude of most men there is a sort of creepy-pathetic thing.
[Full disclosure: Knight is somewhat of an E-Friend of mine, but I wouldn't link the article just to spam things. His personal insight on the matter is relevant.]
I have to second Matt's comment: the pricing scheme suggests that there is still a "tax" on men relative to women. Perhaps the size of the price differential has fallen over time, but it is still positive. As I explained in a post a couple of years ago, intra-customer externalities provides a simple explanation for the differential.
Judging from the price list and the bullet points, the article seems to be focusing on a specific segment of the swinger "scene". From what I saw in the UK, clubs operate along different lines:
* Single males are usually allowed, with restrictions (couples+fems only days, coupls+fems only zones). They basically fund the clubs.* Typical price list: GBP40+ for single males, 30 for couples, 10/free for single females. This reflects the supply/demand situation.* There is a distinction between the more commercial clubs and the "neighbourhood", independent clubs. E.g. the former allow more single males (and charge them more), and may more or less openly hire escorts for special events. The latter tend to be independent small businesses with regular patrons and a local attendance (which doesn't mean that they can't be highly professional).* I haven't seen any "groups" in the sense you talked about (a small number of people who exclusively shag with each other). But I guess such groups are by nature exclusive.* Nationwide internet communities with thousands of active members exist. These in turn branch into local "scenes", composed of a few tens of people who meet each other regularly, including for purely social (non-sexual) events. These communities undergo all the drama/gossip/dynamics that can be seen in any such community. It's not that different from Linux User Groups.
Just some notes on local swinger behavior in a country in northern Europe:* net is the future outside typical swinger clubs, and couples looking for a bi-female is very common* swinger parties are for MF couples and single women* male bisexuality is frowned upon although not entirely banned (this has improved in recent years)* there are many interested single heterosexual men without play partners* other forms of nonmonogamy are more popular with younger people
The rise of MMF activity is probably attributable to a decrease of inter-male homophobia in the swinger circles.
I keep missing what the point of the post was and what exactly was being claimed.
I don't have a college degree.Nor does she. Does that mean we are stupid? To people that believe a college degree is a necessityThere is a song......I'm So Vain...Carly Simon.
If you are looking for literature references from studies to support that claim, then no. I am sure there has not been a population study where someone attempted to determine the strength of the bond between partners based on the openness of their relationship. To explain how I have come to that conclusion would take more time than I care to give, but here are the bullet points of my credentials:
- Intimate exposure to large sample group throughout the US.- Ability, via internet, to dialog with many different sub-categories of people on the subject. These categories include age, race, and religion.- Plus my advantage of not always being a swinger, and therefore having a solid understanding of the psyche of both groups, allows me to better evaluate the subject.
Bottom line, if you need a double-blind study from a non-biased team of experts to accept the idea that couples without jealousy in their relationship (swingers) will have a better chance of staying together than those who more often do (monogamous partners), then I am not smart enough to help you understand the lifestyle any better.
However, lifetime partners who participate in the swinging lifestyle tend to share a bond that is more fulfilling and stronger than most “vanilla” couples.
Do you have any references to support this? Anecdotal reports are not enough, since they may be affected by selection bias.
It would seem that the majority of your approaches to this "phenomenon" are biased with a negative implication that the act of swinging is "deviant". Here are some things to consider for future evaluation of the swinging lifestyle that may produce more accurate (and less confusing) results.
1) While it may be true that a small portion of the swinger community is involved for reasons not totally clear to both parties (i.e. woman wants to be with other men, so she convinces husband to swing), the ultimate reasons for an open relationship of this nature are vast and loosely connected. However, lifetime partners who participate in the swinging lifestyle tend to share a bond that is more fulfilling and stronger than most “vanilla” couples. This is because they transcend the issues of jealousy and ownership of each other, and instead give to one another the gift of freedom to choose. 2) MF, FF, and MM who open their relationship to others should be the only true definition of "swingers" for the purpose of studying this lifestyle. Single males and females are simply components with individual motivations not necessarily connected to "swinging."3) Trends, as you have called it, are not so easily measured by even studying a large population. This is because each individual has their own preferences, each couple has their agreed upon limits, and each group has their own collective standards. Plus, if you only look back 25 years, then your conclusions would be similarly misguided as if you were to take the weather patterns of the past 25 years to define global climate patterns. 4) To refer to women who enjoy swinging and sex with multiple partners as "slutty" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and known concepts of evolutionary-based sexual behaviors. As for a woman that enjoys multiple men at the same time, I wonder if this is as hard to understand as a man who would enjoy multiple women at the same time. One simple psychological explanation would be the need (and erotic desire) for attention.5) To a much less important point, the prices listed above are not common. Females tend to have free admission or a relatively low price, MF couples are charged a cost relative to the party venue, and single males are charged a premium. This is because most females of a swinging couple are bisexual and therefore both members of the couple can be sexually attracted to, and share, the same female (which is not nearly as common with single males.)
I hope these points are helpful in your understanding of the swinging lifestyle. While the choice to have an open relationship may not be as common as monogamy, it definitely is common enough to command the respect of others as a lifestyle that is healthy and fulfilling. In the future please consider this for all walks of life: Conviction without knowledge is the most dangerous form of ignorance.
There's an obvious flaw in the pricing - unless the party organizers know all the attendees, an MFF trio should go in as an MF couple and a single female, and save $5. (An MFF trio and an MMF trio could save $20 by presenting as 3 MF couples.)
I've seen similar sorts of arrangements where the implicit price for women was negative.
Arrested Development on this thread and the NYT article that Mike linked above:
Tobias: You know, Lindsay, as a therapist, I have advised...a number of couples to explore an open relationship where the couple remains emotionally committed, but free to explore extra-marital encounters.Lindsay: Well, did it work for those people?Tobias: No, it never does. I mean, these people somehow delude themselves into thinking it might, but... but it might work for us.
I am surprised that nobody noticed that arbitrage opportunity inherent in that price structure: Any group of two females and one male wishing to participate should, for purposes of admission, separate in one male-female "couple" and one "single" female and save $5 ($120-$90-$25). How this consumer (?) surplus is to be allocated is left as an exercise to the reader.
If you are analyzing it terms of markets the modelling hetero/bisexuality in a sensible way will probably be important.
Also the age-distribution of swingers has changed during the last decades (iirc, don't have a source) which may also lead to the changes observed.
The medium-age in the italian study was 40...
I am surprised nobody here is analyzing this in terms of markets. Here is a theory that seems plausible to me: there are many more men interested in exploring outside of traditional monogamy than women. This shortage of female participants can explain most of the phenomena described above: women "calling the shots" (they have the valued goods); more MFM threesomes than FMF (simple matter of what's available); lower prices for single women at sex clubs (just like "ladies night" at nightclubs); etc.
It's my suspicion that the gangbang fetish is closely related to the cuckoldery fetish; that both are derived from 'betaized' masculinity, men who have been taught to feel shame because of their gender and thus fear displaying confidence around women. Instead they turn submissive, seeking security in female dominance, which tends to lead to contempt for them by the women. My own sex life is fairly open and bizarre, but this dynamic creeps the hell out of me.
This is however based entirely upon my personal experiences. The fact that I'm pretty good with people could be entirely a statistical artifact, but this study does seem to gel with what I've concluded. When it comes to complex social interactions its difficult to find much better evidence than this.
Somewhat related its Porn Star Tyler Knight's description of what it's like being an actor at a bukkake shoot: http://tylerknight.com/arch... The general attitude of most men there is a sort of creepy-pathetic thing.
[Full disclosure: Knight is somewhat of an E-Friend of mine, but I wouldn't link the article just to spam things. His personal insight on the matter is relevant.]
I have to second Matt's comment: the pricing scheme suggests that there is still a "tax" on men relative to women. Perhaps the size of the price differential has fallen over time, but it is still positive. As I explained in a post a couple of years ago, intra-customer externalities provides a simple explanation for the differential.
It seems so complicated for straight people!
So now I finally know why you switched from physics to social science. It's all about who throws the better parties. :)
Judging from the price list and the bullet points, the article seems to be focusing on a specific segment of the swinger "scene". From what I saw in the UK, clubs operate along different lines:
* Single males are usually allowed, with restrictions (couples+fems only days, coupls+fems only zones). They basically fund the clubs.* Typical price list: GBP40+ for single males, 30 for couples, 10/free for single females. This reflects the supply/demand situation.* There is a distinction between the more commercial clubs and the "neighbourhood", independent clubs. E.g. the former allow more single males (and charge them more), and may more or less openly hire escorts for special events. The latter tend to be independent small businesses with regular patrons and a local attendance (which doesn't mean that they can't be highly professional).* I haven't seen any "groups" in the sense you talked about (a small number of people who exclusively shag with each other). But I guess such groups are by nature exclusive.* Nationwide internet communities with thousands of active members exist. These in turn branch into local "scenes", composed of a few tens of people who meet each other regularly, including for purely social (non-sexual) events. These communities undergo all the drama/gossip/dynamics that can be seen in any such community. It's not that different from Linux User Groups.
Just some notes on local swinger behavior in a country in northern Europe:* net is the future outside typical swinger clubs, and couples looking for a bi-female is very common* swinger parties are for MF couples and single women* male bisexuality is frowned upon although not entirely banned (this has improved in recent years)* there are many interested single heterosexual men without play partners* other forms of nonmonogamy are more popular with younger people
The rise of MMF activity is probably attributable to a decrease of inter-male homophobia in the swinger circles.
I keep missing what the point of the post was and what exactly was being claimed.
There are many great comments at that post.