Melissa Gira of Sexerati: Smart Sex. quotes Dr. Gilbert D. Bartell, Ph.D., author of a 1971 book called Group Sex.
The trouble is that swingers often find themselves too busy; the rule is to swing only once with the same couple (so that no intimate, marriage-destroying relationships develop). Thus the search for “beautiful” or “great” (contrasted with “moldy”) partners is never ending. Eventually hours of the swingers’ waking day are spent on the phone or writing letters to make new contactsâ€â€or driving hundreds of miles to meet them.
Gira’s quoting someone else. Follow the links to the source starting here.
To be honest the old 60’s and 70’s-era “swingers” were messed up for other reasons having a lot to do with the cultural climate that allowed “wife swapping” to be used, accurately, as a synonym. But I remember hearing about, but hadn’t previously registered, that bit about trying not to repeat contacts as a means for avoiding intimacy.
Look, can we just take it as a given that there’s something a little odd about this ongoing, evidently timeless obsession with not getting emotionally tied up with one’s “hookups?”
I mean, compare that with Hannah of down the rabbit hole… assesses potential partners she might have a MFM threesome with
My current criteria – or one of them – for judging someone worthy of sleeping with is what I call the Breakfast Test. Meaning, if I can’t see myself sitting across from you at breakfast the next morning without watching the clock and wondering when the hell you’re going to leave, I’m not fucking you (probably not, anyway – there are always exceptions to any rule, after all). Besides, I want cuddling and breakfast in bed and maybe an encore if things feel right, and it’s been my experience that those thing are generally borne out of attraction and affection, not one night stands.
It seems to me that it’s not that leave-immediately hookup sex is bad or wrong, it’s just… well, it’s just as squeamish as the other way ‘round. Me? Like Hannah if I was going to have sex with anyone else I’d really really like to have sex with my friends — with people who, if I don’t entirely spend the night with afterwards I nevertheless might reconnect with the following evening for platonic (or mostly platonic — I’m not talking about “compartmentalization” here) conversation with each other’s families or with other friends. Y’know… friends with benefits!
Am I just talking out of my hat here or does that idea work, at least in principle, for you?
Submitted by 1663 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-10 07:06.
One of my problems with the whole swing-set lifestyle (and yes, I do call it that, have since I was a child) is that the emphasis for so long has been on the numerous, anonymous, multiple partners aspect. If I go poly (and it may be an issue in the future), it's going to be with someone we BOTH won't mind waking up with in the morning, having over to dinner, having in our bed. They should be friends. Otherwise, to me, it's sex for sex's sake, fucking just to be fucking, and the risk of disease and bad feelings becomes astronomical.
As a single woman, I've been to bed with people where there is no friendship, there is no 'want to see' in the morning. It's cold, depressing and it doesn't feel very good at all. If you do go to bed with someone, unless you have reason to make it feel bad, it should be with friends.
[I don't have any problem with sex for sex sake, by the way. But going to elaborate lengths to separate everything *but* sex hints at problems in a different direction. And yeah, "swingers" really does go back to our childhoods doesn't it? How "Austin Powers" is that word nowadays? :-) Thanks, DN! --fl]
Submitted by 1663 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-10 07:36.
I think I have agreed with you on a roughly similar topic before. If I don't like you enough to have breakfast with you, I certainly don't like you enough to have sex with you, even if that sex is of some casual kind: a one night stand, a "hook up", a threesome with my primary partner, or part of a general polygamous life style. No emotional connection at all just leads to bad sex.
[Yeah. I mean... look, even if I'm going to be teamed up with someone to help *stack chairs after somebody's book reading* I'm probably going to want to have *something* else to say with them besides "where do you want me to put it?" So if I'm going to have sex with someone I certainly want to know *something* else about them besides "where do you want me to put it?!?!" It doesn't have to be a lot, it doesn't mean we have to develop a life-long friendship, but... I dunno, it's like those bridge clubs where you're not supposed to waste time talking. Thanks, E. --fl]
Submitted by 1663 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-10 22:18.
You're not crazy, this is the principle I live by!
I've had a couple of friendships with benefits and they've greatly contributed to my quality of life and general attitude about relationships.
I recently found myself simultaneously 'dating' two people, and what struck me was the vast difference in the way I related to them based upon the precedent of each of our respective relationships.
One guy I started dating cold-turkey, pretty much right when we first met. Because of how we started off, there was all this momentum to behave like a traditional couple *and* feel out all the romantic/intimate/sexual stuff of a 'Relationship'(with a capital R), all in the midst of trying to get to know each other as near-strangers. I was going through the motions of a 'relationship' in the hopes of kindling the *real* thing along the way. It was exhausting and uncomfortable, and downright dishonest and backwards(at least for me and the types of things I wanted from our interaction).
Meanwhile, I sort of fell into a great impromptu romantic encounter with a good friend of mine, and it was this nice, natural escalation from 'just friends' to 'more than friends'. It struck me as a sign that I cared a hell of a lot more about him than I did the other fellow.
So yeah, friendly sex is great. No pressure, no outside standards to live up to, no rush to get the 'getting to know you' out of the way as fast as possible, more compatible in areas of interest beyond sex and if/when things end, more likely to do so on decent terms.
[Yeah. It seems to me that just believing it's possible to be friends and no more increases the chances that you can go back to being just friends if it doesn't work out otherwise. Thanks, Albinosquid. --fl]
Submitted by 1663 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-10 22:26.
..oh and by the way, I have no issue with sex-for-sex's-sake. It has its place along the spectrum of consentual, respectful adult relations. My comment was just focused on the benefits of friendship, as that's what I have experience with:)
[Agreed on sex for sex's sake -- it's when you tailor it to rule out any other possible contact with a sex partner that makes me go "huh?" In other words it's fine if that's all the contact you have, weird when one feels obliged to preemptively make sure that's all the contact you *can* have. Thanks, Albinosquid. --fl]
Submitted by 1663 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-10 15:30.
Well the last comment I made here hasn't appeared after 3-4 hours so I think it has been swallowed.
Of course trying to recreate it makes it sound inane, so I'll leave it at - I agree with you, friends with benefits sounds good to me.
[Yikes, A, I didn't see it either in regular comments, in moderation, or even in the junk filter. (I think my ISP has little brain farts or something. Still better than the old server but...) I'm very sorry your more extensive comment was lost. My apologies! Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 1663 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-10 10:33.
One of my students had a perceptive comment on this a day ago. We were talking about sexual ethics, and I asked if they saw any moral harm in having casual hook-ups. One of the women replied that although some people might find it easy to remain detached, most won't - and trying to pretend detachment means they are being fundamentally untrue to themselves. She wasn't condemning hookups, just arguing that they are often more complicated than people admit. So the issues you mention for 70s swinger culture maybe haven't changed all that much, if the college hook-up scene is any indication.
As for me, I might occasionally fantasize about being swept away by a stranger. In my real life, though, great sex has almost always started with great conversation.
But speaking of being swept away - Figleaf, you've posted a link with a most alluring name, but no picture. The suspense is killing me!
[First of all I fixed the link -- sorry about that. Hope it was worth the wait. Second of all your student was exactly right about the fundamental disconnect between detachment and *pretending* to be detached. If you really were able to detach then ok. Or if you were willing not to pretend to be then that would be ok too. But just as there's more to food than either a 9-day feast or eating out of the can over the sink, so there can be more to sex than either using someone else as a sex toy or marrying them. Thanks, Sungold! --fl]