Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a common lament on here that this site is now full of people who aren't swingers and just looking for a hook up, which begs the question as to what is a "swinger" and what distinguishes swinging from casual sex. I would hazard a definition to the effect that swinging involves sex outside a committed relationship where there are more than two people involved or you are at least not looking exclusively for one on one meets. The floor is open.. " Okay, I’m not agreeing or negating your definition - but can I clarify this? You are saying that if you’re a committed couple and you “swing” by bringing in an additional individual play partner (as opposed to another couple) then that is not swinging, but simply (I don’t know) experimenting or having a threesome etc. So to “swing” in your definition all swingers have to be operating from a committed relationship? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a common lament on here that this site is now full of people who aren't swingers and just looking for a hook up, which begs the question as to what is a "swinger" and what distinguishes swinging from casual sex. I would hazard a definition to the effect that swinging involves sex outside a committed relationship where there are more than two people involved or you are at least not looking exclusively for one on one meets. The floor is open.. Okay, I’m not agreeing or negating your definition - but can I clarify this? You are saying that if you’re a committed couple and you “swing” by bringing in an additional individual play partner (as opposed to another couple) then that is not swinging, but simply (I don’t know) experimenting or having a threesome etc. So to “swing” in your definition all swingers have to be operating from a committed relationship? " Apologies, that was unclear - the additional individual play partner is single and not coming from a committed relationship OR is but not a relationship where their other half is aware of what’s going on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a common lament on here that this site is now full of people who aren't swingers and just looking for a hook up, which begs the question as to what is a "swinger" and what distinguishes swinging from casual sex. I would hazard a definition to the effect that swinging involves sex outside a committed relationship where there are more than two people involved or you are at least not looking exclusively for one on one meets. The floor is open.. Okay, I’m not agreeing or negating your definition - but can I clarify this? You are saying that if you’re a committed couple and you “swing” by bringing in an additional individual play partner (as opposed to another couple) then that is not swinging, but simply (I don’t know) experimenting or having a threesome etc. So to “swing” in your definition all swingers have to be operating from a committed relationship? " No. If the couple in a committed relationship have sex with each other that's not swinging. If they bring in a third person outside the relationship, it's swinging. For sex to be swinging I would say it has to be outside a committed romantic relationship. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a common lament on here that this site is now full of people who aren't swingers and just looking for a hook up, which begs the question as to what is a "swinger" and what distinguishes swinging from casual sex. I would hazard a definition to the effect that swinging involves sex outside a committed relationship where there are more than two people involved or you are at least not looking exclusively for one on one meets. The floor is open.. Okay, I’m not agreeing or negating your definition - but can I clarify this? You are saying that if you’re a committed couple and you “swing” by bringing in an additional individual play partner (as opposed to another couple) then that is not swinging, but simply (I don’t know) experimenting or having a threesome etc. So to “swing” in your definition all swingers have to be operating from a committed relationship? No. If the couple in a committed relationship have sex with each other that's not swinging. If they bring in a third person outside the relationship, it's swinging. " You’ve misunderstood me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves - I'm not a fan of the "that's not swinging" or "this is a swinging site not a sex site" brigade at all. Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all?" Yep  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KLP - what I’m saying (to confirm my understanding of your definition): Committed relationship couple (CRC) sleeps with each other - not swinging CRC sleeps with another CRC or individual from a CRC, where the non playing half of the second CRC is aware and happy about it - swinging My question was - CRC sleeps with an individual not from a CRC, is this swinging and if so, can the individual call themselves a swinger as they aren’t coming from a CRC?" The single is having hook up sex, the couple are swinging, is what I have been led to believe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KLP - what I’m saying (to confirm my understanding of your definition): Committed relationship couple (CRC) sleeps with each other - not swinging CRC sleeps with another CRC or individual from a CRC, where the non playing half of the second CRC is aware and happy about it - swinging My question was - CRC sleeps with an individual not from a CRC, is this swinging and if so, can the individual call themselves a swinger as they aren’t coming from a CRC?" Yes, I'd say the latter is swinging. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all?" Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Swinging, to me, is couples meeting up regularly to have sex with each others' partners. No blurred lines." Thats what it means to me too... quite simple really | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KLP - what I’m saying (to confirm my understanding of your definition): Committed relationship couple (CRC) sleeps with each other - not swinging CRC sleeps with another CRC or individual from a CRC, where the non playing half of the second CRC is aware and happy about it - swinging My question was - CRC sleeps with an individual not from a CRC, is this swinging and if so, can the individual call themselves a swinger as they aren’t coming from a CRC? Yes, I'd say the latter is swinging. " I thought so. My question is what does the individual get to call themselves? A swinger? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves - I'm not a fan of the "that's not swinging" or "this is a swinging site not a sex site" brigade at all. Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all?" Well yes, anyone can use the site however they want and no one is obliged to accept anyone else definition. However, in order to communicate words have to have meanings, and I think it's quite interesting to discuss definitions of this particular word. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KLP - what I’m saying (to confirm my understanding of your definition): Committed relationship couple (CRC) sleeps with each other - not swinging CRC sleeps with another CRC or individual from a CRC, where the non playing half of the second CRC is aware and happy about it - swinging My question was - CRC sleeps with an individual not from a CRC, is this swinging and if so, can the individual call themselves a swinger as they aren’t coming from a CRC? Yes, I'd say the latter is swinging. I thought so. My question is what does the individual get to call themselves? A swinger?" I'd say if you are a single who has sex with couples, you're a swinger. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site " Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KLP - what I’m saying (to confirm my understanding of your definition): Committed relationship couple (CRC) sleeps with each other - not swinging CRC sleeps with another CRC or individual from a CRC, where the non playing half of the second CRC is aware and happy about it - swinging My question was - CRC sleeps with an individual not from a CRC, is this swinging and if so, can the individual call themselves a swinger as they aren’t coming from a CRC? Yes, I'd say the latter is swinging. I thought so. My question is what does the individual get to call themselves? A swinger? I'd say if you are a single who has sex with couples, you're a swinger. " I would not define myself as such ... As much as i am uncomfortable with the definition a single woman who has sex with couples is a unicorn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"KLP - what I’m saying (to confirm my understanding of your definition): Committed relationship couple (CRC) sleeps with each other - not swinging CRC sleeps with another CRC or individual from a CRC, where the non playing half of the second CRC is aware and happy about it - swinging My question was - CRC sleeps with an individual not from a CRC, is this swinging and if so, can the individual call themselves a swinger as they aren’t coming from a CRC? Yes, I'd say the latter is swinging. I thought so. My question is what does the individual get to call themselves? A swinger? I'd say if you are a single who has sex with couples, you're a swinger. I would not define myself as such ... As much as i am uncomfortable with the definition a single woman who has sex with couples is a unicorn" I would say a unicorn is a sub spieces of swinger.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Swinging, to me, is couples meeting up regularly to have sex with each others' partners. No blurred lines." This for us too. Before same sex couples was recognised, it used to be wife swapping and a significant portion of society was husband and wife, that's our thing. Each person involved swings from the significant other to another from the opposite sex. We are open (at least in principle) to meeting singles, but would consider these to sexual encounters. In our world singles meeting singles are sexual encounters too. But hey, what do we know? Whatever it is to each of us, be happy doing it.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? " I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always thought it was group sex." I often hope it is.... How about ‘recreational sex with a variety of relative strangers’? That’s my interpretation anyway. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
We just find the partners for the sex we consensually participate it, not giving a damn about who's defining it in any specific way. Everyone is going to form it differently, and language evolves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another day, another need for a label
"Hardly...it is swinging that has been the same label for donkeys years I am not sure why people don't like labels , they let you figure out who you want to play with | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us." On most questions in life there's no final answer to be found, nevertheless discussing them can be interesting and enlightening. All I can suggest in respect of people who find such discussions pointless is that they ignore them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves - I'm not a fan of the "that's not swinging" or "this is a swinging site not a sex site" brigade at all. Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all?" Seconded. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another day, another need for a label
Hardly...it is swinging that has been the same label for donkeys years
I am not sure why people don't like labels , they let you figure out who you want to play with"Yes, I mean when I ordered that TV from the electrical goods manufacturer who didn't believe in labels and ended up with a toaster, I was slightly pissed off when he told me I was being oppressive to insist he comply with my definition of the label "TV". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I always thought it was group sex. I often hope it is.... How about ‘recreational sex with a variety of relative strangers’? That’s my interpretation anyway. " A good one too...the same for us...we liked relative strangers too , just people we got on with enough to have sex with rather than friends. I know others like to swing and have a friendship before having sex with someone which is obviously right for them | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us. On most questions in life there's no final answer to be found, nevertheless discussing them can be interesting and enlightening. All I can suggest in respect of people who find such discussions pointless is that they ignore them. " I wasn't suggesting the question was pointless (more that there is no single answer to it, which we're agreed on) - if I were I wouldn't have made what I considered a very valid point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify. 1. Two people in a relationship having sex = not swinging 2. Two people not in a relationship with each other or anyone else having sex. = not swinging 3. Two people not in a relationship with each other but one or both in a relationship with someone else who is not aware of the extraneous sex = not swinging 4. Three or more people having sex where all are in a relationship with each other = not swinging 5. Three or more people having sex where at least one is not in a relationship with the others. = swinging 6. Two people not in a relationship with each other having sex where at least one is in a relationship with someone else and that person is aware of the extraneous sex = swinging. " So, you're saying that as long as two of the people are in a relationship, in a 3 sum, they are all swingers? I've had 3 sums with people who are married or in long term relationships, I don't class that as swinging. Even though I've known them for 25+ years, and am good friends with them, it was just hook up sex for us. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us. On most questions in life there's no final answer to be found, nevertheless discussing them can be interesting and enlightening. All I can suggest in respect of people who find such discussions pointless is that they ignore them. I wasn't suggesting the question was pointless (more that there is no single answer to it, which we're agreed on) - if I were I wouldn't have made what I considered a very valid point "Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition. If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify. 1. Two people in a relationship having sex = not swinging 2. Two people not in a relationship with each other or anyone else having sex. = not swinging 3. Two people not in a relationship with each other but one or both in a relationship with someone else who is not aware of the extraneous sex = not swinging 4. Three or more people having sex where all are in a relationship with each other = not swinging 5. Three or more people having sex where at least one is not in a relationship with the others. = swinging 6. Two people not in a relationship with each other having sex where at least one is in a relationship with someone else and that person is aware of the extraneous sex = swinging. So, you're saying that as long as two of the people are in a relationship, in a 3 sum, they are all swingers? I've had 3 sums with people who are married or in long term relationships, I don't class that as swinging. Even though I've known them for 25+ years, and am good friends with them, it was just hook up sex for us. " My definition is that if at least one of the people in a threesome is not in a relationship with either of the others, that's swinging. Of course, we then have to define. "relationship".. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"To clarify. 1. Two people in a relationship having sex = not swinging 2. Two people not in a relationship with each other or anyone else having sex. = not swinging 3. Two people not in a relationship with each other but one or both in a relationship with someone else who is not aware of the extraneous sex = not swinging 4. Three or more people having sex where all are in a relationship with each other = not swinging 5. Three or more people having sex where at least one is not in a relationship with the others. = swinging 6. Two people not in a relationship with each other having sex where at least one is in a relationship with someone else and that person is aware of the extraneous sex = swinging. So, you're saying that as long as two of the people are in a relationship, in a 3 sum, they are all swingers? I've had 3 sums with people who are married or in long term relationships, I don't class that as swinging. Even though I've known them for 25+ years, and am good friends with them, it was just hook up sex for us. My definition is that if at least one of the people in a threesome is not in a relationship with either of the others, that's swinging. Of course, we then have to define. "relationship".. " I don't see the relationship status as defining it as swinging. If you're looking up with single people you're not swinging. If you have a single person you meet regularly, they are the partner's bit on the side, or lover. I would never consider myself a swinger even though I have met, or will meet couples. Adding a spouse to the bed doesn't change anything for me. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us. On most questions in life there's no final answer to be found, nevertheless discussing them can be interesting and enlightening. All I can suggest in respect of people who find such discussions pointless is that they ignore them. I wasn't suggesting the question was pointless (more that there is no single answer to it, which we're agreed on) - if I were I wouldn't have made what I considered a very valid point
Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition.
If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging. "Actually I didn't question the need for any definition "at all" - I said: "I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves" Which is somewhat different. I of course have my own definition or perspective of what swinging represents to me which I am sure some will agree with and others won't - hence my original point about there needing to be a "general" definition for all, which was my interpretation of your original post | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So as I single guy I can not be classed as a swinger unless I play with a commited couple or I still play when I am in a commited relation ship. Hope I am following. I personally would say that it is people who are sexually liberal and engage in sexual and social actives together no matter how many are playing. " Does it matter that you aren't labelled a swinger? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So as I single guy I can not be classed as a swinger unless I play with a commited couple or I still play when I am in a commited relation ship. Hope I am following. I personally would say that it is people who are sexually liberal and engage in sexual and social actives together no matter how many are playing. Does it matter that you aren't labelled a swinger? " Nope quite happy plodding along as I am. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us. On most questions in life there's no final answer to be found, nevertheless discussing them can be interesting and enlightening. All I can suggest in respect of people who find such discussions pointless is that they ignore them. I wasn't suggesting the question was pointless (more that there is no single answer to it, which we're agreed on) - if I were I wouldn't have made what I considered a very valid point
Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition.
If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging.
Actually I didn't question the need for any definition "at all" - I said:
"I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves"
Which is somewhat different. I of course have my own definition or perspective of what swinging represents to me which I am sure some will agree with and others won't - hence my original point about there needing to be a "general" definition for all, which was my interpretation of your original post "I really don't think it can be defined. If you're enjoying what you're doing, call it what you want. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So as I single guy I can not be classed as a swinger unless I play with a commited couple or I still play when I am in a commited relation ship. Hope I am following. I personally would say that it is people who are sexually liberal and engage in sexual and social actives together no matter how many are playing. Does it matter that you aren't labelled a swinger? Nope quite happy plodding along as I am. " Me too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It's a common lament on here that this site is now full of people who aren't swingers and just looking for a hook up, which begs the question as to what is a "swinger" and what distinguishes swinging from casual sex. I would hazard a definition to the effect that swinging involves sex outside a committed relationship where there are more than two people involved or you are at least not looking exclusively for one on one meets. The floor is open.. " swinging is dating for couples  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" I really don't think it can be defined. If you're enjoying what you're doing, call it what you want. " My point exactly - it can only truly be defined on an individual basis | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Surely as grown adults we are all capable of deciding what the site means to us, and as a result taking what we want from it on an individual basis, without having to question how others choose to do so, so long as it doesn't impact ourselves at all? Maybe that is why they are asking the question, so we can all put our own definition to it rather than they are questioning how people use the site Exactly. Why do people have to think general discussions are some kind of personal attack? I didn't see it as anything of the sort - although invariably discussions along these lines do turn into people attacking/questioning others views/methods (and I'm not suggesting you do OP I actually respect your opinion on most things) and yes it's interesting to discuss and debate but my point was that there is no single answer to be found - it's a very individual thing for each of us. On most questions in life there's no final answer to be found, nevertheless discussing them can be interesting and enlightening. All I can suggest in respect of people who find such discussions pointless is that they ignore them. I wasn't suggesting the question was pointless (more that there is no single answer to it, which we're agreed on) - if I were I wouldn't have made what I considered a very valid point
Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition.
If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging.
Actually I didn't question the need for any definition "at all" - I said:
"I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves"
Which is somewhat different. I of course have my own definition or perspective of what swinging represents to me which I am sure some will agree with and others won't - hence my original point about there needing to be a "general" definition for all, which was my interpretation of your original post "But presumably you would say my knitting definition was wrong even though that's an individual defining swinging for themselves? There's a broader philosophical issue about this kind of radical subjectivism generally. Words are tools of communication. If they don't have accepted general meanings then communication becomes impossible and all of us are trapped in our own private worlds. Hence you can't have everyone defining swinging on a purely subjective basis if you want people to understand each other. There has to be some broadly accepted general definition. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition. If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging. Actually I didn't question the need for any definition "at all" - I said: "I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves" Which is somewhat different. I of course have my own definition or perspective of what swinging represents to me which I am sure some will agree with and others won't - hence my original point about there needing to be a "general" definition for all, which was my interpretation of your original post
But presumably you would say my knitting definition was wrong even though that's an individual defining swinging for themselves?
There's a broader philosophical issue about this kind of radical subjectivism generally. Words are tools of communication. If they don't have accepted general meanings then communication becomes impossible and all of us are trapped in our own private worlds.
Hence you can't have everyone defining swinging on a purely subjective basis if you want people to understand each other. There has to be some broadly accepted general definition. "Yes there is of course a very high level "general" definition that would read something along the lines of "sex outside of a monogamous relationship" (which kills your knitting thing dead - and I also appreciate leaves open to question a lot of other things) but when it comes to the specifics that are "often lamented" (and it is the specifics not the generally accepted that are questioned) by some on here then the definition does become individual and to an extent subjective. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition. If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging. Actually I didn't question the need for any definition "at all" - I said: "I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves" Which is somewhat different. I of course have my own definition or perspective of what swinging represents to me which I am sure some will agree with and others won't - hence my original point about there needing to be a "general" definition for all, which was my interpretation of your original post
But presumably you would say my knitting definition was wrong even though that's an individual defining swinging for themselves?
There's a broader philosophical issue about this kind of radical subjectivism generally. Words are tools of communication. If they don't have accepted general meanings then communication becomes impossible and all of us are trapped in our own private worlds.
Hence you can't have everyone defining swinging on a purely subjective basis if you want people to understand each other. There has to be some broadly accepted general definition.
Yes there is of course a very high level "general" definition that would read something along the lines of "sex outside of a monogamous relationship" (which kills your knitting thing dead - and I also appreciate leaves open to question a lot of other things) but when it comes to the specifics that are "often lamented" (and it is the specifics not the generally accepted that are questioned) by some on here then the definition does become individual and to an extent subjective. "I actually tend to agree with you on the broad definition. Essentially anyone looking for non monogamous sex is pretty much in the right place here. But do two individuals having sex with the understanding that their relationship is not exclusive count as swingers.
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Fair enough. Going back to the original point where you question the need for any definition at all, surely if someone said. "swinging for me means knitting whilst watching daytime TV", you would say that was an incorrect definition. If so, it follows that you do have a definition of swinging. Actually I didn't question the need for any definition "at all" - I said: "I'd question the need for a definition beyond what we each as individuals define it to be for ourselves" Which is somewhat different. I of course have my own definition or perspective of what swinging represents to me which I am sure some will agree with and others won't - hence my original point about there needing to be a "general" definition for all, which was my interpretation of your original post
But presumably you would say my knitting definition was wrong even though that's an individual defining swinging for themselves?
There's a broader philosophical issue about this kind of radical subjectivism generally. Words are tools of communication. If they don't have accepted general meanings then communication becomes impossible and all of us are trapped in our own private worlds.
Hence you can't have everyone defining swinging on a purely subjective basis if you want people to understand each other. There has to be some broadly accepted general definition.
Yes there is of course a very high level "general" definition that would read something along the lines of "sex outside of a monogamous relationship" (which kills your knitting thing dead - and I also appreciate leaves open to question a lot of other things) but when it comes to the specifics that are "often lamented" (and it is the specifics not the generally accepted that are questioned) by some on here then the definition does become individual and to an extent subjective.
I actually tend to agree with you on the broad definition. Essentially anyone looking for non monogamous sex is pretty much in the right place here.
But do two individuals having sex with the understanding that their relationship is not exclusive count as swingers.
"To answer with a Fab cliché (and emphasise my point )...
...to some it will to some it won't | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I kind of see swinging as a mindset, just open minded people playing together in what ever way suits them. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
