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 |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I already reference this as use the fullest format of LGBT+ (LGBTQQIAAP). " Just to clarify: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, asexual, ally, pansexual and + which covers other, eg poly, swinger, transvestite typically. Apologies, I dropped my + in the brackets above. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? " Yep , I think it’s a great idea  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. " It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apologies, I dropped my + in the brackets above." Not forgiven... the + matters 
Nope swingers should not be added, they have a whole alphabet already, and swingers have a whole nest of sub divisions that would fuck up an important organisation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apologies, I dropped my + in the brackets above. Not forgiven... the + matters
Nope swingers should not be added, they have a whole alphabet already, and swingers have a whole nest of sub divisions that would fuck up an important organisation."Yeah but the bars would be a great idea wouldn’t they ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. " Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, swinging is a lifestyle choice. You don't choose to be LGBTQI+. Two completely different communities" Do you extend to include ally or poly? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Apologies, I dropped my + in the brackets above. Not forgiven... the + matters
Nope swingers should not be added, they have a whole alphabet already, and swingers have a whole nest of sub divisions that would fuck up an important organisation.
Yeah but the bars would be a great idea wouldn’t they ? "I agree with both points. I don't think the two should be forced together but I think there should be "swingers" bars where people of any sexual persuasion would be welcome without the pressure or exclusivity of clubs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, swinging is a lifestyle choice. You don't choose to be LGBTQI+. Two completely different communities" Swinging is as much of a choice as being gay is. We're both just acting in accordance with our nature, as we see it. We could try and force monogamy and gays could try and force a hetrosexual relationship. Neither groups want to for obvious reasons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? " Without getting into the whole persecution and political side of it , I think the op means that bars and clubs would be a good idea for the fun side . The liberal outlook that’s shared between the communities would lend itself to a bloody good night out wouldn’t it ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? " I fully understand your point too, I agree that allies, those that choose to live poly lifestyles etc aren’t in the same position. I do though utilise a fuller encompassing community that includes both, but with that understanding. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? Without getting into the whole persecution and political side of it , I think the op means that bars and clubs would be a good idea for the fun side . The liberal outlook that’s shared between the communities would lend itself to a bloody good night out wouldn’t it ? " And I agree with this point too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you extend to include ally or poly?" No, I think it should be kept to sexuality and gender expression. You choose to be poly etc, makes it completely separate from being gay, bi, trans or whatever | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? " Why does ANYONE need a ‘badge’ for their sexual persuasion? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. " Except it is. It's called adultery. LGBT have as much control over their nature as non monogamous people do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? Without getting into the whole persecution and political side of it , I think the op means that bars and clubs would be a good idea for the fun side . The liberal outlook that’s shared between the communities would lend itself to a bloody good night out wouldn’t it ? " The biggest problem gay bars are having lately is straight people invading them with their fucking hen parties and other stupid events because they think they're so fun and novel. I think we can all share outlooks without opening up some of the only spaces lgbt people feel safe because other people think they sound like fun places. Why not just have swingers clubs that are open to all sexualities? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Swinging is as much of a choice as being gay is. We're both just acting in accordance with our nature, as we see it. We could try and force monogamy and gays could try and force a hetrosexual relationship. Neither groups want to for obvious reasons. " No, being LGBT+ is part of who you are, you have absolutely no choice over it. If you really wanted to, you could be monogamous, I can't not be gay | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you extend to include ally or poly? No, I think it should be kept to sexuality and gender expression. You choose to be poly etc, makes it completely separate from being gay, bi, trans or whatever" I respect your view. They are accepted in some parts of the community though. I’m also just going to pose the same question that Broken references; do we know with absolute certainty that non monogamy and monogamy are always choices? I don’t know the answer to that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? " There was a survey of 1,092 swingers that found, on average, swingers are slightly more conversative than the average population and have more traditional values. So i don't think that's a good mix with the LGBT community which is very integrated with far left ideology. Gay bars are very accepting and there's no reason a swinging couple wouldn't be welcome there already. Personally i prefer gay bars to straight ones at the weekend because they aren't full of peacocks. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? Why does ANYONE need a ‘badge’ for their sexual persuasion?" They don’t necessarily , but by having a collective group allows for a greater voice . The greater voice carries more clout politically and changes are made to the way the more narrow minded think and behave . Thus those with sexual persuasion that doesn’t necessarily fit in with societies norm , are treated as well those that do . And hopefully don’t get bullied , harassed and generally treated as badly as they have been in previous generations . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Swinging is as much of a choice as being gay is. We're both just acting in accordance with our nature, as we see it. We could try and force monogamy and gays could try and force a hetrosexual relationship. Neither groups want to for obvious reasons. No, being LGBT+ is part of who you are, you have absolutely no choice over it. If you really wanted to, you could be monogamous, I can't not be gay" Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you extend to include ally or poly? No, I think it should be kept to sexuality and gender expression. You choose to be poly etc, makes it completely separate from being gay, bi, trans or whatever I respect your view. They are accepted in some parts of the community though. I’m also just going to pose the same question that Broken references; do we know with absolute certainty that non monogamy and monogamy are always choices? I don’t know the answer to that. " They are choices because they are actions. You can't help being attracted to someone but you can help acting on those attractions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. " Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you extend to include ally or poly? No, I think it should be kept to sexuality and gender expression. You choose to be poly etc, makes it completely separate from being gay, bi, trans or whatever I respect your view. They are accepted in some parts of the community though. I’m also just going to pose the same question that Broken references; do we know with absolute certainty that non monogamy and monogamy are always choices? I don’t know the answer to that. They are choices because they are actions. You can't help being attracted to someone but you can help acting on those attractions. " Yes, I see that. I’m wondering if there’s a more intrinsic desire to want to be non monogamous that you can’t help. It doesn’t mean you do act on it. In the same way someone might desire someone of the same sex but not act on it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Do you extend to include ally or poly? No, I think it should be kept to sexuality and gender expression. You choose to be poly etc, makes it completely separate from being gay, bi, trans or whatever I respect your view. They are accepted in some parts of the community though. I’m also just going to pose the same question that Broken references; do we know with absolute certainty that non monogamy and monogamy are always choices? I don’t know the answer to that. " To act upon it is always a choice. To feel it, is not. Real monogamy is something of a myth in terms of being achieved by societies for a significant period of time. Most cultures in history are not monogamous (polygamy is far more common). The nominally monogamous ones always had a host of exceptions, at least for men. Serial monogamy is a better description of the current culture and infidelity is still rampant. Serial monogamy is not monogamy! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Swinging is as much of a choice as being gay is. We're both just acting in accordance with our nature, as we see it. We could try and force monogamy and gays could try and force a hetrosexual relationship. Neither groups want to for obvious reasons. No, being LGBT+ is part of who you are, you have absolutely no choice over it. If you really wanted to, you could be monogamous, I can't not be gay Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. " Literally a closeted gay man in a relationship with someone he is pretending to be sexually attracted to. I don't get the point you are trying to make because you don't understand how soul crushing these men feel. There is plenty of accounts from elderly gay men who have only got the strength to come out in later life. Quite sad to be honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves" They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Swinging is as much of a choice as being gay is. We're both just acting in accordance with our nature, as we see it. We could try and force monogamy and gays could try and force a hetrosexual relationship. Neither groups want to for obvious reasons. No, being LGBT+ is part of who you are, you have absolutely no choice over it. If you really wanted to, you could be monogamous, I can't not be gay Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Literally a closeted gay man in a relationship with someone he is pretending to be sexually attracted to. I don't get the point you are trying to make because you don't understand how soul crushing these men feel. There is plenty of accounts from elderly gay men who have only got the strength to come out in later life. Quite sad to be honest. " No I'm not talking about people in the closet. Go watch "my husbands not gay" if you want some examples. The title is ironic, don't take it literally. They are gay as the day is long. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. "  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. " No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do"
Exactly. Our community came together through hardship. We didn't all join because we thought a fun night out together was a great idea. Stupid fucking post. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do" Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do
Exactly. Our community came together through hardship. We didn't all join because we thought a fun night out together was a great idea. Stupid fucking post. "Do yourself a favour and don't check the science behind your ideas about your sexuality. You won't like what you find. Another anti-swinger thread on fab | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
You can't join we wont accept you because others don't accept us! Sorry and not ragging anyone but is well just a bit....... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. " Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I've got an idea, why don't we all just call ourselves "human beings"?" Ah but then people wouldn't be in their little box, with their labels, so everyone can tell exactly what they are | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through" I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative." I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do
Exactly. Our community came together through hardship. We didn't all join because we thought a fun night out together was a great idea. Stupid fucking post.
Do yourself a favour and don't check the science behind your ideas about your sexuality. You won't like what you find. Another anti-swinger thread on fab "The fact is that plenty of swingers have been outed and lost their jobs , their credibility and even their children over the years . So yes , we are oppressed too , but that’s not the point here . It’s a light hearted post saying Grand Canaria has bars that house LGBT and swingers together and why not here too . We know plenty of people who are in the LGBT community , and have partied with plenty of them too . They certainly don’t have such a closed mind , and embrace swingers rather than pushing them away with such hostility . | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on?" You imagine wrong people do get sacked for it there are grounds for certain jobs that lead to dismissal. You on the other hand won't get sacked for being gay. You really need to cut the anger people are not attacking you or the community far from it.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? You imagine wrong people do get sacked for it there are grounds for certain jobs that lead to dismissal. You on the other hand won't get sacked for being gay. You really need to cut the anger people are not attacking you or the community far from it. "Teachers can get sacked (in Ireland anyway) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on?" It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? You imagine wrong people do get sacked for it there are grounds for certain jobs that lead to dismissal. You on the other hand won't get sacked for being gay. You really need to cut the anger people are not attacking you or the community far from it.
Teachers can get sacked (in Ireland anyway)"Can they? Give me an example you can post media links here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. " Yeah because you get married, have a wife, live a normal hetero life etc, and have sex with people on the side, whereas it would be my relationship/marriage questioned | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. Yeah because you get married, have a wife, live a normal hetero life etc, and have sex with people on the side, whereas it would be my relationship/marriage questioned " Can I caution (again) you to not make assumptions about the sexuality of those you’re speaking to... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. " With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime." Do those actually exist? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. Do those actually exist?" Diversity quotas and positive discrimination? Oh yeah, most definitely so. In work, as well as in tertiary university education. Can't run from it at all. It's one of those things that sickens me a lot in this country, coming from one where meritocracy and equality are two fundamental cornerstones to its very survival. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. Do those actually exist?" In my place of work it certainly has happened, in one particular instance the boss said it was so. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-fear-consequences-of-coming-out-as-gay-1.3542812%3fmode=amp https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/feature-my-experience-as-a-closeted-gay-teacher-in-ireland-i-want-to-say-i-fought-for-my-equal-rights-483951 There's just two articles" You said "Teachers can get sacked" there is no sackings in either article if you are going to make claims then I would be interested in seeing a couple of specific sackings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-fear-consequences-of-coming-out-as-gay-1.3542812%3fmode=amp https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/feature-my-experience-as-a-closeted-gay-teacher-in-ireland-i-want-to-say-i-fought-for-my-equal-rights-483951 There's just two articles You said "Teachers can get sacked" there is no sackings in either article if you are going to make claims then I would be interested in seeing a couple of specific sackings." Can't say I can find "a couple", but here's just one. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/primary-school-teacher-accused-grooming-pupil-unfairly-dismissed-tribunal | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? " Swingers aren't accepting. I find many conservative, right wing and generally ignorant of LGBT+ issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I wrong here this is a swingers site and we have rightly members of the LGBT community on a swingers site they have joined and been accepted into some for some while saying that swingers shouldn't be allowed to join in with the LGBT community? Surely I have read this wrong? Do I need to go to speck savers? "No you didn't read it wrong... This is why I hate labels so damn much. The moment labels start getting used, you'll get all the ideological purists pouring out of the woodwork trying to act like they themselves are the preordained authorities on who's what and what's only what. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I wrong here this is a swingers site and we have rightly members of the LGBT community on a swingers site they have joined and been accepted into some for some while saying that swingers shouldn't be allowed to join in with the LGBT community? Surely I have read this wrong? Do I need to go to speck savers? "Yes, it's Specsavers! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? Swingers aren't accepting. I find many conservative, right wing and generally ignorant of LGBT+ issues." You didn't need to bring political leanings into this?! Now the waters are going to be even more further muddied!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. Do those actually exist? In my place of work it certainly has happened, in one particular instance the boss said it was so." Huh. Had no idea there was ones based on sexual orientation | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/education/teachers-fear-consequences-of-coming-out-as-gay-1.3542812%3fmode=amp https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.joe.ie/amp/life-style/feature-my-experience-as-a-closeted-gay-teacher-in-ireland-i-want-to-say-i-fought-for-my-equal-rights-483951 There's just two articles You said "Teachers can get sacked" there is no sackings in either article if you are going to make claims then I would be interested in seeing a couple of specific sackings. Can't say I can find "a couple", but here's just one. https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/primary-school-teacher-accused-grooming-pupil-unfairly-dismissed-tribunal" Thats not in Northern Ireland and he was accused of forming a ‘highly inappropriate’ relationship with a pupil. And the judgement was he was unfairly dismissed its not that you could be sacked for being gay. I assumed employment laws which state you cannot be sacked for your sexuality applied to all of the UK. I was asking for proof this is not the case. I hate people being discriminated for any reason be it swinging or sexuality but without some proof or clarification to me it looks like people dreaming things up to make a point. I will stand corrected if you can point out an occasion of a teacher being sacked for his her sexuality though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. Do those actually exist? In my place of work it certainly has happened, in one particular instance the boss said it was so. Huh. Had no idea there was ones based on sexual orientation" This should make interesting reading for you... Even percentages get listed in it. The BBC wants to aim for at least 8% of its workforce by 2020 to be LGBT, amongst other quotas. Can't get a clearer example of an organisation explicitly basing its hiring principles around the idea of diversity and having a certain quota of certain kinds of people for the sake of "representation", with merit taking secondary importance I might add! https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Am I wrong here this is a swingers site and we have rightly members of the LGBT community on a swingers site they have joined and been accepted into some for some while saying that swingers shouldn't be allowed to join in with the LGBT community? Surely I have read this wrong? Do I need to go to speck savers?
No you didn't read it wrong...
This is why I hate labels so damn much. The moment labels start getting used, you'll get all the ideological purists pouring out of the woodwork trying to act like they themselves are the preordained authorities on who's what and what's only what. "Its not good and I guess labels aren't I am happy to accept others but it will only create resentment and less like me when people asking others to accept and be tolerant and are not that way themselves.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. Do those actually exist? In my place of work it certainly has happened, in one particular instance the boss said it was so. Huh. Had no idea there was ones based on sexual orientation This should make interesting reading for you... Even percentages get listed in it. The BBC wants to aim for at least 8% of its workforce by 2020 to be LGBT, amongst other quotas. Can't get a clearer example of an organisation explicitly basing its hiring principles around the idea of diversity and having a certain quota of certain kinds of people for the sake of "representation", with merit taking secondary importance I might add! https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity" I can see where they're coming from. Obviously LGBT+ people are going to have a different viewpoint on certain topics, be good to have a mix of people in a workplace like that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems to have veered off topic massively here, which is a shame." Alright, here's Captain Stay-On-Topic to steer this ship back on course! Here's a radical thought. Why can't swingers and LGBT people have their own communities, but still interact with one another as and when the opportunity arises? Both communities could be allied together and yet still be separate with different emphasis and focus on different issues and lifestyles. Shocking right? I for one don't get all this talk that seems to point towards erasing community ring-fencing here in favour of one big union. That's not a requirement to be a basic decent open minded human being that respects other people's differences! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems to have veered off topic massively here, which is a shame. Alright, here's Captain Stay-On-Topic to steer this ship back on course! Here's a radical thought. Why can't swingers and LGBT people have their own communities, but still interact with one another as and when the opportunity arises? Both communities could be allied together and yet still be separate with different emphasis and focus on different issues and lifestyles. Shocking right? I for one don't get all this talk that seems to point towards erasing community ring-fencing here in favour of one big union. That's not a requirement to be a basic decent open minded human being that respects other people's differences! " I don’t think the conversation was about presupposing one or the other was how to result in being basic decent open minded human beings that respects each other’s differences though, was it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems to have veered off topic massively here, which is a shame. Alright, here's Captain Stay-On-Topic to steer this ship back on course! Here's a radical thought. Why can't swingers and LGBT people have their own communities, but still interact with one another as and when the opportunity arises? Both communities could be allied together and yet still be separate with different emphasis and focus on different issues and lifestyles. Shocking right? I for one don't get all this talk that seems to point towards erasing community ring-fencing here in favour of one big union. That's not a requirement to be a basic decent open minded human being that respects other people's differences! I don’t think the conversation was about presupposing one or the other was how to result in being basic decent open minded human beings that respects each other’s differences though, was it?" I wholly concur being basic decent open minded human beings that respect each other’s differences is important, but I didn’t see anyone arguing against that foundation. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? " This wouldn’t work because not every LGBTQS person is a swinger....the ones I know are in monogamous marriage... Just imagine a couple hitting on a guy/girl of a couple that has no interest in swinging at a LGBTQS bar.. it would be a fight.... But if a LGBTQS couple came to a swing club , you would know it’s except able to approach them because they are open to swinging... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I say yes. There's safety in numbers and it's a community that gels nicely, is accepting, and has fun. In Gran Canaria you see it all lumped together as LGBTS and it just seems to work. I think it would be great to have LGBTS bars in the UK for example. What do you think? " It is bad enough on a Friday night here when guys are pissed and horny. A LGBTS bar just before last orders would be a nightmare. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative." I’d go and seek legal advice on that one dude. Even if you felt you had to leave because of being outed as a swinger, I would probably come under work place bullying and maybe constructive dismissal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So can the fetish and BDSM people come and play? You’d need a few more letters in there for them. "Generally they tend to be bi or gay so already included as would swinging couples if they are bi but swinging and BDSM are sexual activities not sexualities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? Without getting into the whole persecution and political side of it , I think the op means that bars and clubs would be a good idea for the fun side . The liberal outlook that’s shared between the communities would lend itself to a bloody good night out wouldn’t it ? " Being a swinger doesn’t equate to being liberal, you only have to read peoples profile and go on the forums to see that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So can the fetish and BDSM people come and play? You’d need a few more letters in there for them.
Generally they tend to be bi or gay so already included as would swinging couples if they are bi but swinging and BDSM are sexual activities not sexualities. "People with fetishes tend to be bi or gay? Really? If your calling swinging a sexuality BDSM certainly deserves the same respect. I’m curious why a swinger thinks they can just add other people’s groups into theirs? A swingers club would treat a gay couple (or bi male couple) exactly the same as a pair of straight men, I’m assuming a lesbian couple (or bi female couple) would get treated as single females with reduced or free entry. So why would you be wanted in a gay club? Except to get a door fee. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"[Removed by poster at 17/10/18 07:24:41]" Oh | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. " This | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No, swinging is a lifestyle choice. You don't choose to be LGBTQI+. Two completely different communities" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People with fetishes tend to be bi or gay? Really? If your calling swinging a sexuality BDSM certainly deserves the same respect. " Yes many into BDSM do tend to also be at least mildly bi, check the gay/bi sites, they are full of them, if they are gay or bi then by default they fit into the LBGT community same goes for swinging couples if they are bi then by default they also fit in the LBGT community. That is not saying the BDSM or Swinging should be classed as a sexuality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow, this is a revealing thread. So there's me trying to convince various clubs that gay men and women should be encouraged and welcomed into the clubs, where typically in the past they haven't been. When in reality gay men and women actually hate swingers and bi people and think they are the only ones that need protection and acceptance. Genuinely a revelation. Thank god the gay people I know aren't this nasty, aggressive and exclusive. " Gay men don’t hate bi people I’m Bi and my partner is gay. But there is a part of the gay community who don’t actualy like being a spectacle for straights. That’s why in a lot of gay bars and clubs, on certain nights the only gays in the village are the DJ and some staff. All the gays are off boogying somewhere else where they will get left alone. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People with fetishes tend to be bi or gay? Really? If your calling swinging a sexuality BDSM certainly deserves the same respect. Yes many into BDSM do tend to also be at least mildly bi, check the gay/bi sites, they are full of them, if they are gay or bi then by default they fit into the LBGT community same goes for swinging couples if they are bi then by default they also fit in the LBGT community. That is not saying the BDSM or Swinging should be classed as a sexuality." Nah straight porn is full of fetish and bdsm and as many people who enjoy one or the other are as straight as it’s possible to be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow, this is a revealing thread. So there's me trying to convince various clubs that gay men and women should be encouraged and welcomed into the clubs, where typically in the past they haven't been. When in reality gay men and women actually hate swingers and bi people and think they are the only ones that need protection and acceptance. Genuinely a revelation. Thank god the gay people I know aren't this nasty, aggressive and exclusive. " LGBT+ SWINGERS should be allowed into the clubs, that doesn't mean LGBT+ people in general want to be included | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People with fetishes tend to be bi or gay? Really? If your calling swinging a sexuality BDSM certainly deserves the same respect. Yes many into BDSM do tend to also be at least mildly bi, check the gay/bi sites, they are full of them, if they are gay or bi then by default they fit into the LBGT community same goes for swinging couples if they are bi then by default they also fit in the LBGT community. That is not saying the BDSM or Swinging should be classed as a sexuality. Nah straight porn is full of fetish and bdsm and as many people who enjoy one or the other are as straight as it’s possible to be. " Straight porn also includes cuckold, bi MMF or FFM and guys being shagged with strapons worn by their girlfriends/wives, don't use porn as a reference as it's not remotely like real life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" People with fetishes tend to be bi or gay? Really? If your calling swinging a sexuality BDSM certainly deserves the same respect. Yes many into BDSM do tend to also be at least mildly bi, check the gay/bi sites, they are full of them, if they are gay or bi then by default they fit into the LBGT community same goes for swinging couples if they are bi then by default they also fit in the LBGT community. That is not saying the BDSM or Swinging should be classed as a sexuality. Nah straight porn is full of fetish and bdsm and as many people who enjoy one or the other are as straight as it’s possible to be. Straight porn also includes cuckold, bi MMF or FFM and guys being shagged with strapons worn by their girlfriends/wives, don't use porn as a reference as it's not remotely like real life." I can use whatever I like as a reference. And it’s not realistic but it’s what straights watch 
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread doesn't make for good reading I can only hope that the main protagonists are at the extreme of their chosen camp rather than occupying the centre ground I have been in a gay relationship for the last six years We aren't wholly monoganous, but we are open about it with each other We sometimes go to saunas together as well as having separate profiles online It is sad that we wouldn't be regarded as a couple in a swingers club (in terms of entrance fees at least) That said, I only know of two saunas who allow females or mixed sex couples in (and that is only on given days / times) So I accept that, as a couple, we can't have it both ways (for now, at least) I don't particularly identify as gay or swinger, but I'm not ashamed to be associated and aligned with both I don't see why the two need to be mutually exclusive " In regards to the saunas, I think there should be men only ones and mixed ones, I wouldn't go to one where women were allowed so I only go to men only | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread doesn't make for good reading I can only hope that the main protagonists are at the extreme of their chosen camp rather than occupying the centre ground I have been in a gay relationship for the last six years We aren't wholly monoganous, but we are open about it with each other We sometimes go to saunas together as well as having separate profiles online It is sad that we wouldn't be regarded as a couple in a swingers club (in terms of entrance fees at least) That said, I only know of two saunas who allow females or mixed sex couples in (and that is only on given days / times) So I accept that, as a couple, we can't have it both ways (for now, at least) I don't particularly identify as gay or swinger, but I'm not ashamed to be associated and aligned with both I don't see why the two need to be mutually exclusive " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. No I disagree, if your wife said she doesn't want yous to swing anymore I think you could stop and only be with her.And also, the LGBTQI+ community has gone through, and still goes through, too much shit to allow people who fuck other couples to compare themselves to us. You don't get beaten up, called names etc, we do Look up what happens to adulters in Africa and the Middle East or historically in this country. It's obvious from your statements that you haven't fact checked in the fields of evolutionary biology or psychology so I'll leave it there. The LGBT is really just a political movement and rampantly discriminates against bisexual people. Many homosexuals want nothing to do with the LGBT community because there are such things as conservative homosexuals. Historically maybe. Let's keep it to the present day in first world countries. Have you ever been attacked for swinging? I was attacked for 'being a fag' about 3 months ago. You have no idea what we go through I've lost a job for being exposed as a swinger. Have you? Oh no, because that would be illegal. Unlike swingers who have no protection. So save me the victim narrative. I'd imagine that was illegal. On what grounds were you fired on? It wasn't illegal, I went through every appeal. I'm not discussing my case here as it way too specific. I'm not denying LGBT people suffer hatred and have unique problems like the violence you mentioned. But don't assume you know so much about non-mongamous people. You don't see any diversity quotas for us or any companies actively making policies to ensure we're accommodated or hired. You write it off like a choice between chicken or beef for dinner but the science and facts are totally against you on that. With all due respect to you because it's not you but I'd like to pick up on just one point, since you mentioned it. I don't think they should have quotas or positive discrimination at all, period, the best person no matter what should get the job or promotion everytime. Do those actually exist? In my place of work it certainly has happened, in one particular instance the boss said it was so. Huh. Had no idea there was ones based on sexual orientation This should make interesting reading for you... Even percentages get listed in it. The BBC wants to aim for at least 8% of its workforce by 2020 to be LGBT, amongst other quotas. Can't get a clearer example of an organisation explicitly basing its hiring principles around the idea of diversity and having a certain quota of certain kinds of people for the sake of "representation", with merit taking secondary importance I might add! https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2016/diversity I can see where they're coming from. Obviously LGBT+ people are going to have a different viewpoint on certain topics, be good to have a mix of people in a workplace like that" Hardly. The LGBT community, which is far from representing most queer people, is overwhelming far left it's views. Add that to the left leaning BBC and it's just another leftist echo chamber. Diversity my ass. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread doesn't make for good reading I can only hope that the main protagonists are at the extreme of their chosen camp rather than occupying the centre ground I have been in a gay relationship for the last six years We aren't wholly monoganous, but we are open about it with each other We sometimes go to saunas together as well as having separate profiles online It is sad that we wouldn't be regarded as a couple in a swingers club (in terms of entrance fees at least) That said, I only know of two saunas who allow females or mixed sex couples in (and that is only on given days / times) So I accept that, as a couple, we can't have it both ways (for now, at least) I don't particularly identify as gay or swinger, but I'm not ashamed to be associated and aligned with both I don't see why the two need to be mutually exclusive In regards to the saunas, I think there should be men only ones and mixed ones, I wouldn't go to one where women were allowed so I only go to men only" Oh I se, so gay men should be allowed into swingers clubs, but women and hetero couples shouldn't be allowed in saunas? Yes of course, all be oming very clear what some members of the LBGT community feel, just relieved it isn't all. All a little bit animal farm, everybody is equal except some are more equal than others. Lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread doesn't make for good reading I can only hope that the main protagonists are at the extreme of their chosen camp rather than occupying the centre ground I have been in a gay relationship for the last six years We aren't wholly monoganous, but we are open about it with each other We sometimes go to saunas together as well as having separate profiles online It is sad that we wouldn't be regarded as a couple in a swingers club (in terms of entrance fees at least) That said, I only know of two saunas who allow females or mixed sex couples in (and that is only on given days / times) So I accept that, as a couple, we can't have it both ways (for now, at least) I don't particularly identify as gay or swinger, but I'm not ashamed to be associated and aligned with both I don't see why the two need to be mutually exclusive In regards to the saunas, I think there should be men only ones and mixed ones, I wouldn't go to one where women were allowed so I only go to men only Oh I se, so gay men should be allowed into swingers clubs, but women and hetero couples shouldn't be allowed in saunas? Yes of course, all be oming very clear what some members of the LBGT community feel, just relieved it isn't all. All a little bit animal farm, everybody is equal except some are more equal than others. Lol. " The LGBT community is the best example of 'scratch a liberal' you'll ever find. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever the history, I don't think it can be disputed that in the UK in 2018, if I, as a bloke, we're asked at work on a Monday morning, what I did over the weekend, it would be much more socially acceptable to say. "my male partner and I went to a barbecue", then it would be to say. "my female partner and I went to a club and had sex with another couple". " Maybe, depends where you work. But you're not likely to get harassed or beaten up for being a swinger. Hate crimes on LGBT people are still a thing and it's a bit naive to think that everyone is just chill and relaxed about such things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever the history, I don't think it can be disputed that in the UK in 2018, if I, as a bloke, we're asked at work on a Monday morning, what I did over the weekend, it would be much more socially acceptable to say. "my male partner and I went to a barbecue", then it would be to say. "my female partner and I went to a club and had sex with another couple". Maybe, depends where you work. But you're not likely to get harassed or beaten up for being a swinger. Hate crimes on LGBT people are still a thing and it's a bit naive to think that everyone is just chill and relaxed about such things. " I think what the socially accepted norm is these days is hetero or homo normativity. If you are in a monogamous relationship, hardly anyone outside a rapidly dying off cohort cares much about the sex of your partner. However, people who are not monogamous, whatever their sexuality, are still subject to social disapproval. Add that to the fact that sexuality is a legally protected characteristic, but that case law narrowly defines that as being of a straight, gay or bi identity. It does not cover actual sexual practice. Thus, if some Christian business sacked someone for being gay they be definitely acting unlawfully. If they sacked someone for attending a swingers club, whilst you might still be able to argue the dismissal was unfair, you would not have the automatic protection a gay person would have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread doesn't make for good reading I can only hope that the main protagonists are at the extreme of their chosen camp rather than occupying the centre ground I have been in a gay relationship for the last six years We aren't wholly monoganous, but we are open about it with each other We sometimes go to saunas together as well as having separate profiles online It is sad that we wouldn't be regarded as a couple in a swingers club (in terms of entrance fees at least) That said, I only know of two saunas who allow females or mixed sex couples in (and that is only on given days / times) So I accept that, as a couple, we can't have it both ways (for now, at least) I don't particularly identify as gay or swinger, but I'm not ashamed to be associated and aligned with both I don't see why the two need to be mutually exclusive In regards to the saunas, I think there should be men only ones and mixed ones, I wouldn't go to one where women were allowed so I only go to men only Oh I se, so gay men should be allowed into swingers clubs, but women and hetero couples shouldn't be allowed in saunas? Yes of course, all be oming very clear what some members of the LBGT community feel, just relieved it isn't all. All a little bit animal farm, everybody is equal except some are more equal than others. Lol. The LGBT community is the best example of 'scratch a liberal' you'll ever find. " Got to say my support is fading fast reading this unpleasant thread. And knowing a large number of gay people and gay couples, bizarrely, despite them all getting beaten and persecuted daily, not one of my friends has suffered anything worse than a disapproving look or comment.and get treated a lot better in work than I was when being a swinger became widely known and I too was constructively dismissed. Yes I got compensation, but not a parade, lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Whatever the history, I don't think it can be disputed that in the UK in 2018, if I, as a bloke, we're asked at work on a Monday morning, what I did over the weekend, it would be much more socially acceptable to say. "my male partner and I went to a barbecue", then it would be to say. "my female partner and I went to a club and had sex with another couple". Maybe, depends where you work. But you're not likely to get harassed or beaten up for being a swinger. Hate crimes on LGBT people are still a thing and it's a bit naive to think that everyone is just chill and relaxed about such things. I think what the socially accepted norm is these days is hetero or homo normativity. If you are in a monogamous relationship, hardly anyone outside a rapidly dying off cohort cares much about the sex of your partner. However, people who are not monogamous, whatever their sexuality, are still subject to social disapproval. Add that to the fact that sexuality is a legally protected characteristic, but that case law narrowly defines that as being of a straight, gay or bi identity. It does not cover actual sexual practice. Thus, if some Christian business sacked someone for being gay they be definitely acting unlawfully. If they sacked someone for attending a swingers club, whilst you might still be able to argue the dismissal was unfair, you would not have the automatic protection a gay person would have. " 'Hardly anyone' is a very, very optimistic take. Lots of people still care a great deal about other people's sexuality and would be only too happy to roll back the progress that has been made on gay rights. As I say, people are still beaten up for being LGBTQ. I agree that non-monogamous people can be treated unfairly. I just don't see any value in trying to portray us/them as the more discriminated against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow! This thread went pear shaped. There are a few reasons why I think they work well together. = Common agenda Firstly I believe in moving people's basic assumptions about things in broad strokes first. Then get more particular later. A large LGBTS community would very successfully push a sexual liberation and toleration agenda. It would do this because it would no longer be an us and them group but would include swingers too. There is also a legal/religious liberation agenda which needs pursuing. Last time I looked it was legal to be gay or lesbian or trans. Yet it is still illegal in this country to be polygamous. That needs sorting out right? Should the swingers try to force change by themselves? Yeah right good luck with that one. = Opening Minds Swingers should be a great community for making friends with LGBT people. Yet many swingers are really starchy about this. Put them together more, have some fun parties, and hopefully those barriers will melt. Swingers then becomes a more accepting voice of sexual difference out in the world. Broad shoulders eh. = Safe Spaces For Accepting Divergent Sexualities I get that the LGBT community didn't just form to have a party. But they have definitely used their party image very effectively in winning over the public to them. LGBTS bars would be great spaces for people of all divergent persuasions to gather and party. But above all... People have the right to be swingers without suffering any stigma whatsoever from that choice And that clearly is both true and completely in keeping with the whole point of LGBT. I know it's all more complex than that. But this is why I started this thread " Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. " My point is that they should have a common agenda | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda " They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. " I believe "we have a right to exist" is a common agenda. I just think they should all join for that and then support each other in their other divergent agendas. I also think they should all just enjoy each other and be a source for celebrating each other... not doing what happened on this thread | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. I believe "we have a right to exist" is a common agenda. I just think they should all join for that and then support each other in their other divergent agendas. I also think they should all just enjoy each other and be a source for celebrating each other... not doing what happened on this thread "There is already a campaign group that represents "freedom of sexual expression among consenting adults", swingers should support that. The fact is that the LGBT community is just far better organised and supported, that's your real logic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. " I haven't seen figures for the UK, but in the 2016 us presidential election 72% of lgbt voters supported Clinton. I tend to agree that swingers are much more Conservative inclined. It's an interesting question why. My pet theory is that it's basis and origin is fundamentally hetero normative. Men having access to more than one woman. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"No. I really don't agree. And the lgbt+ community has massive issues with acceptance with the sexualities that are already in the acronym. Not that I think swinger is a sexuality. Because it isn't. It doesn’t just cover sexualities though. Transgender isn’t a sexuality. Yeah, I'm aware of that. Neither is intersex but I doubt you or the op are equating swinging with being trans or intersex. Swinging is not something you have no control over being. It is not something you have been historically persecuted for. It's not something people get murdered, beaten, abused, disowned etc for. So why should it be in the lgbt community? " Is the correct answer! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. I haven't seen figures for the UK, but in the 2016 us presidential election 72% of lgbt voters supported Clinton. I tend to agree that swingers are much more Conservative inclined. It's an interesting question why. My pet theory is that it's basis and origin is fundamentally hetero normative. Men having access to more than one woman. " The LGBT community is a sub-set of queer people. I'd imagine those actively associated with an LGBT group are far more likely to vote Democrat than 72% or support far left parties in the UK. 72% is lower than the ratio of university professors voting democrat! Being a conservative gay or a gay Christian is persona non grata in the LGBT community generally. The LGBT community tried to get a TV show banned for showing mormon men who fancy other men but choose to marry women. Most swingers place an importance on family stability and emotional monogamy, see the survey. Essential swinging is a quirky way they've found to preserve against the tide of divorce culture and family breakup. Hence they are more likely to be conservative leaning (not the same as supporting the UK conservative party) and have nothing in common with radical leftists who have an ideology that says the nuclear family is where patriarchy starts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain." You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. I believe "we have a right to exist" is a common agenda. I just think they should all join for that and then support each other in their other divergent agendas. I also think they should all just enjoy each other and be a source for celebrating each other... not doing what happened on this thread
There is already a campaign group that represents "freedom of sexual expression among consenting adults", swingers should support that. The fact is that the LGBT community is just far better organised and supported, that's your real logic. "Yes. I think the combination would be mutually beneficial. Swingers and BDSM could do with being more accepted. Certainly the law against polygamy should be repealed. The LGBT community is much better organised to help that. And I fear there is still alot of animosity towards the LGBT community, both in the vanilla world and on here, which could be dispelled by bringing in these borderline groups which aren't so much about biological needs but divergent sexualities. Partying and drinking together would heal a lot. That's what I saw in GC and I liked it alot | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. I haven't seen figures for the UK, but in the 2016 us presidential election 72% of lgbt voters supported Clinton. I tend to agree that swingers are much more Conservative inclined. It's an interesting question why. My pet theory is that it's basis and origin is fundamentally hetero normative. Men having access to more than one woman. The LGBT community is a sub-set of queer people. I'd imagine those actively associated with an LGBT group are far more likely to vote Democrat than 72% or support far left parties in the UK. 72% is lower than the ratio of university professors voting democrat! Being a conservative gay or a gay Christian is persona non grata in the LGBT community generally. The LGBT community tried to get a TV show banned for showing mormon men who fancy other men but choose to marry women. Most swingers place an importance on family stability and emotional monogamy, see the survey. Essential swinging is a quirky way they've found to preserve against the tide of divorce culture and family breakup. Hence they are more likely to be conservative leaning (not the same as supporting the UK conservative party) and have nothing in common with radical leftists who have an ideology that says the nuclear family is where patriarchy starts. " I think we're saying the same thing. Many swingers are hetero normative types who occasionally want a break from hetero normativity. Which probably also explains why most swingers keep quiet about it and there's no a swingers liberation movement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. " Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. I believe "we have a right to exist" is a common agenda. I just think they should all join for that and then support each other in their other divergent agendas. I also think they should all just enjoy each other and be a source for celebrating each other... not doing what happened on this thread
There is already a campaign group that represents "freedom of sexual expression among consenting adults", swingers should support that. The fact is that the LGBT community is just far better organised and supported, that's your real logic.
Yes. I think the combination would be mutually beneficial. Swingers and BDSM could do with being more accepted. Certainly the law against polygamy should be repealed. The LGBT community is much better organised to help that. And I fear there is still alot of animosity towards the LGBT community, both in the vanilla world and on here, which could be dispelled by bringing in these borderline groups which aren't so much about biological needs but divergent sexualities. Partying and drinking together would heal a lot. That's what I saw in GC and I liked it alot "The reality is that you just want their resources. Im not saying it wouldn't be nice, but i can't get on board with gender neutral pronouns just for a bit of lobbying support. Stop being lazy and join 'backlash' which is mainly BDSM lobbying but very welcoming of swingers. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person)." And I’m obviously focusing on poly rather than as you say above swinging as I agree with your points above. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person)." I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Swingers don't have a common agenda with the LGBT. You're view of swingers is very skewed. Read the Journal of Human Sexuality October 2000 edition and look for the survey of 1,092 swingers for a more representative view. My point is that they should have a common agenda They don't and they shouldn't. You're looking at one strand of their ideas and willfully ignoring far bigger ones. I believe "we have a right to exist" is a common agenda. I just think they should all join for that and then support each other in their other divergent agendas. I also think they should all just enjoy each other and be a source for celebrating each other... not doing what happened on this thread
There is already a campaign group that represents "freedom of sexual expression among consenting adults", swingers should support that. The fact is that the LGBT community is just far better organised and supported, that's your real logic.
Yes. I think the combination would be mutually beneficial. Swingers and BDSM could do with being more accepted. Certainly the law against polygamy should be repealed. The LGBT community is much better organised to help that. And I fear there is still alot of animosity towards the LGBT community, both in the vanilla world and on here, which could be dispelled by bringing in these borderline groups which aren't so much about biological needs but divergent sexualities. Partying and drinking together would heal a lot. That's what I saw in GC and I liked it alot
The reality is that you just want their resources. Im not saying it wouldn't be nice, but i can't get on board with gender neutral pronouns just for a bit of lobbying support. Stop being lazy and join 'backlash' which is mainly BDSM lobbying but very welcoming of swingers. "I'm also making a point about a broader acceptance of LGBT. I fear if they wall themselves off and fight for their rights they'll end up with their rights but end up being "them" rather than part of all of us, which is a better goal imo. I think it could benefit the LGBT community to accept swingers and BDSM as a way of reaching out into the community and breaking down barriers. It's more of a love in approach than an embattled protest for our rights approach | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. " I think there’s a distinction between poly and swinging here. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. I think there’s a distinction between poly and swinging here." I am not sure that a preference for any form of relationship structure is inherent in any way. I would say it's pretty much socially determined. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. " That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. I think there’s a distinction between poly and swinging here. I am not sure that a preference for any form of relationship structure is inherent in any way. I would say it's pretty much socially determined. " It was more the love of multiple people aspect then how you choose to implement it, I meant. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. I think there’s a distinction between poly and swinging here. I am not sure that a preference for any form of relationship structure is inherent in any way. I would say it's pretty much socially determined. It was more the love of multiple people aspect then how you choose to implement it, I meant. " But everyone loves multiple people. Isn't poly loving multiple people with whom you have sexual relations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. I think there’s a distinction between poly and swinging here. I am not sure that a preference for any form of relationship structure is inherent in any way. I would say it's pretty much socially determined. It was more the love of multiple people aspect then how you choose to implement it, I meant. But everyone loves multiple people. Isn't poly loving multiple people with whom you have sexual relations? " I’m not sure I’ve found my wording. I’ll continue to ponder. Thanks! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. " Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. " Perhaps this is the better wording! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording!" Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. " Agreed, I’m really not actually arguing one way or t’other - was just exploring it last night. I think I do still fall into social influence, in the same way I’d argue the influences with many ‘sexual preferences’. And absolutely it doesn’t diminish the anguish of not being able to be who you are, however you became you. Continues to think. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. " How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. " Can you give me an example to ponder? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. Agreed, I’m really not actually arguing one way or t’other - was just exploring it last night. I think I do still fall into social influence, in the same way I’d argue the influences with many ‘sexual preferences’. And absolutely it doesn’t diminish the anguish of not being able to be who you are, however you became you. Continues to think. " Have a read of "sex differences in the influence of mothers on the sociosexual preferences of their offspring". Your female sexual plasticity is greater than my male one, on average. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. " But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. " Ooo tell me more about this mystical inherent essence | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. Ooo tell me more about this mystical inherent essence "It's non existent | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. Can you give me an example to ponder?" I'm pondering it a lot myself and currently reading two books that argue against each other on the nature of pre-agricultural societies. Either way, it wasn't monogamous in any sense of how we mean the term. Surely that would leave an imprint on your genes? Do you have to do what your genes want? No. When you look at societies rather than individuals, you don't see the majority being very successful going against their genes even if the culture demands it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. Can you give me an example to ponder? I'm pondering it a lot myself and currently reading two books that argue against each other on the nature of pre-agricultural societies. Either way, it wasn't monogamous in any sense of how we mean the term. Surely that would leave an imprint on your genes? Do you have to do what your genes want? No. When you look at societies rather than individuals, you don't see the majority being very successful going against their genes even if the culture demands it. " Interesting. And confusing. I like the brain pain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. " There's not a single evolutionary logic. There's as much evolutionary logic as there are viable strategies to multiply your genes at an advantageous rate. You'll still find something called the Cinderella effect, whereby male step parents are around twice as likely to assault step children and genetically related children. Why? Because that's the legacy of infanticide. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Utter nonsense. You are defined by your choices and your actions, not your thoughts. There are people in the world who feel same sex attraction and choose not to act on it. There are men who are attracted primarily to men and choose to have a hetrosexual marriage. Doesn't make them not gay/bi though? Just means they won't admit it to themselves They acknowledge that they feel that they want to fuck dudes. They choose not to. You cannot stop wanting to fuck dudes any more than i cannot wanting multiple partners and wanting my wife to be part of that experience. "Rudeness at its best, roll and breath...Best way?  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. Can you give me an example to ponder? I'm pondering it a lot myself and currently reading two books that argue against each other on the nature of pre-agricultural societies. Either way, it wasn't monogamous in any sense of how we mean the term. Surely that would leave an imprint on your genes? Do you have to do what your genes want? No. When you look at societies rather than individuals, you don't see the majority being very successful going against their genes even if the culture demands it. Interesting. And confusing. I like the brain pain. "We have about 4.3 billion years of evolution to look at. Agriculture kicks in 8,000 years ago and things are pretty clear after that. The key divergences from a common ancestor with apes, kick in at 8 million years ago. So 4.3 billion to 8 million is easy. The last 8,000 years are easy. The bit in between is far more tricky because you basically need archaeology, biology, psychology and sociology to piece together an opinion on it, and it will only ever be an opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. There's not a single evolutionary logic. There's as much evolutionary logic as there are viable strategies to multiply your genes at an advantageous rate. You'll still find something called the Cinderella effect, whereby male step parents are around twice as likely to assault step children and genetically related children. Why? Because that's the legacy of infanticide. " Yes, but society has a whole is against that evolutionary logic and punishes severely people who act in accordance with it. That's why I don't find evolutionary biology a useful theory . It essentially re phrases Pope's "whatever is, is right". Anything that happened in societies that were sustained must be in accordance with evolutionary biology because of the fact that said societies were sustained. So Killing disabled children was functional in ancient Sparta, but it isn't now. You can tell that because both societies were sustained and people reproduced. It seems to me an economic argument for something like that is much more plausible. The Spartans had a much lower margin of subsistence than we do. Hence the difficulty in sustaining non productive people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. There's not a single evolutionary logic. There's as much evolutionary logic as there are viable strategies to multiply your genes at an advantageous rate. You'll still find something called the Cinderella effect, whereby male step parents are around twice as likely to assault step children and genetically related children. Why? Because that's the legacy of infanticide. Yes, but society has a whole is against that evolutionary logic and punishes severely people who act in accordance with it. That's why I don't find evolutionary biology a useful theory . It essentially re phrases Pope's "whatever is, is right". Anything that happened in societies that were sustained must be in accordance with evolutionary biology because of the fact that said societies were sustained. So Killing disabled children was functional in ancient Sparta, but it isn't now. You can tell that because both societies were sustained and people reproduced. It seems to me an economic argument for something like that is much more plausible. The Spartans had a much lower margin of subsistence than we do. Hence the difficulty in sustaining non productive people. " Sparta is way too modern. Hunter gather groups didn't stay in one place, they wondered perpetually. So all sorts of people were left behind (old, ill, disabled) because not moving to food sources would have wiped out all the genes in the group. I don't think society punishes evolutionary logic anywhere near as much as you make out. It tends to create a bullshit compromise which is why you know I have no time for fashionable opinions. What is serial monogamy other than a desperate attempt to cling on to values that make sense in an agricultural society with no effective birth control? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pondering it a lot myself and currently reading two books that argue against each other on the nature of pre-agricultural societies. Either way, it wasn't monogamous in any sense of how we mean the term. Surely that would leave an imprint on your genes? Do you have to do what your genes want? No. When you look at societies rather than individuals, you don't see the majority being very successful going against their genes even if the culture demands it. " All I'm gonna say on that is that there's no doubt in my mind that when I finally fall in love with a beautiful woman I'm going to want to fuck her and cum inside her alot. ALOT!
So I'm a total victim of my biology on that front | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
If a gaggle of swingers wander into an lgbt+ pub / club and behaved in accordance with the ambience of the regulars, they would probably be made welcome. But the same holds true of every pub and club.
Wander in and try to change it to a swinging event and the welcome will rapidly cool.
Biology would indicate we are supposed to live in groups with a group relationship rather than monogamy, but we went and created society. Society favours monogamy with some (but few) exceptions.
Several forms of swinging are an escape route from the established norm, and I suspect if it became normal several types of swingers would be a bit miffed as the secrecy and "naughtyness" would be missed.
Better bet would be to open swingers pubs and tell LGBT+ they are welcome to pop in. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pondering it a lot myself and currently reading two books that argue against each other on the nature of pre-agricultural societies. Either way, it wasn't monogamous in any sense of how we mean the term. Surely that would leave an imprint on your genes? Do you have to do what your genes want? No. When you look at societies rather than individuals, you don't see the majority being very successful going against their genes even if the culture demands it. All I'm gonna say on that is that there's no doubt in my mind that when I finally fall in love with a beautiful woman I'm going to want to fuck her and cum inside her alot. ALOT!
So I'm a total victim of my biology on that front "Yes but your mind does interesting things if you realise that you weren't the first that day. The biology of the penis and sperm are fascinating. A significant proportion of your jizz exists to prevent other mens spunk reaching her eggs, it's very curious that such a trait would need to evolve in a monogamous species | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm pondering it a lot myself and currently reading two books that argue against each other on the nature of pre-agricultural societies. Either way, it wasn't monogamous in any sense of how we mean the term. Surely that would leave an imprint on your genes? Do you have to do what your genes want? No. When you look at societies rather than individuals, you don't see the majority being very successful going against their genes even if the culture demands it. All I'm gonna say on that is that there's no doubt in my mind that when I finally fall in love with a beautiful woman I'm going to want to fuck her and cum inside her alot. ALOT!
So I'm a total victim of my biology on that front
Yes but your mind does interesting things if you realise that you weren't the first that day. The biology of the penis and sperm are fascinating. A significant proportion of your jizz exists to prevent other mens spunk reaching her eggs, it's very curious that such a trait would need to evolve in a monogamous species "It's dem cheatin bitches init | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Yes but your mind does interesting things if you realise that you weren't the first that day. The biology of the penis and sperm are fascinating. A significant proportion of your jizz exists to prevent other mens spunk reaching her eggs, it's very curious that such a trait would need to evolve in a monogamous species "We also have an appendix and hairy ears / toes. Evolution is not that good at re-engineering.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This thread continues to astound. So gay people who are psychologically attracted to same sex relationships, etc. CNt control themselves and we should all just accept them for what they are. Which I happen to agree with. However swingers, the majority of true swingers, not singles wanting easy sex, etc. But real swingers, which I include myself in, are very strongly psychologically inclined to multiple partners and sharing, despite risks and complications. But I can control it evidently. Well isn't that just what gay people have been getting told for millenia, perhaps I can get cured? So basically you lgbt lot are just as bigoted against swingers as the anti gay loonies telling you to get cured and control yourself. This is now the most depressing and unbelievable thread I've read on fabs. What utter bollocks. I can assure you my urge to share and have multiple partners is every bit as strong as yours to stick your cock up another guys ass or lick your gay girlfriends vag. Talk about judgemental, you now hold the record. AND NO, I absolutely don't want people like you anywhere near the clubs I go to. Nasty, vile exclusionists. Luckily the gay people I know would run a mile from you. " Yours is about fucking multiple people, not your sexuality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. There's not a single evolutionary logic. There's as much evolutionary logic as there are viable strategies to multiply your genes at an advantageous rate. You'll still find something called the Cinderella effect, whereby male step parents are around twice as likely to assault step children and genetically related children. Why? Because that's the legacy of infanticide. Yes, but society has a whole is against that evolutionary logic and punishes severely people who act in accordance with it. That's why I don't find evolutionary biology a useful theory . It essentially re phrases Pope's "whatever is, is right". Anything that happened in societies that were sustained must be in accordance with evolutionary biology because of the fact that said societies were sustained. So Killing disabled children was functional in ancient Sparta, but it isn't now. You can tell that because both societies were sustained and people reproduced. It seems to me an economic argument for something like that is much more plausible. The Spartans had a much lower margin of subsistence than we do. Hence the difficulty in sustaining non productive people. Sparta is way too modern. Hunter gather groups didn't stay in one place, they wondered perpetually. So all sorts of people were left behind (old, ill, disabled) because not moving to food sources would have wiped out all the genes in the group. I don't think society punishes evolutionary logic anywhere near as much as you make out. It tends to create a bullshit compromise which is why you know I have no time for fashionable opinions. What is serial monogamy other than a desperate attempt to cling on to values that make sense in an agricultural society with no effective birth control? " So we're agreed that it's economics that are primary. Societies disposed of unproductive people when they didn't have resources to support them and evolved a morality that said that was OK. In societies where we do have resources to support the unproductive, morality says that it's terrible to kill them. Social being determines social consciousness as someone once said. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. There's not a single evolutionary logic. There's as much evolutionary logic as there are viable strategies to multiply your genes at an advantageous rate. You'll still find something called the Cinderella effect, whereby male step parents are around twice as likely to assault step children and genetically related children. Why? Because that's the legacy of infanticide. Yes, but society has a whole is against that evolutionary logic and punishes severely people who act in accordance with it. That's why I don't find evolutionary biology a useful theory . It essentially re phrases Pope's "whatever is, is right". Anything that happened in societies that were sustained must be in accordance with evolutionary biology because of the fact that said societies were sustained. So Killing disabled children was functional in ancient Sparta, but it isn't now. You can tell that because both societies were sustained and people reproduced. It seems to me an economic argument for something like that is much more plausible. The Spartans had a much lower margin of subsistence than we do. Hence the difficulty in sustaining non productive people. Sparta is way too modern. Hunter gather groups didn't stay in one place, they wondered perpetually. So all sorts of people were left behind (old, ill, disabled) because not moving to food sources would have wiped out all the genes in the group. I don't think society punishes evolutionary logic anywhere near as much as you make out. It tends to create a bullshit compromise which is why you know I have no time for fashionable opinions. What is serial monogamy other than a desperate attempt to cling on to values that make sense in an agricultural society with no effective birth control? So we're agreed that it's economics that are primary. Societies disposed of unproductive people when they didn't have resources to support them and evolved a morality that said that was OK. In societies where we do have resources to support the unproductive, morality says that it's terrible to kill them. Social being determines social consciousness as someone once said. " Marx my words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Kinkylondonpair, what do you think about the discussion on whether non monogamy and monogamy might be an inherent desire versus solely a choice? This is the thing that’s whirring my brain. You'd have to give me a definition as to how an inherent desire differs from a choice. I like Brown sauce and always have done. When I choose to put Brown sauce on my bacon sandwich as I always do that seems to me both an inherent desire and a choice. Fair point, I mean whether it can be equated to being gay/bisexual, what was touched on at top of thread (polyamory and say loving more than one person). I think there probably is a distinction in that there are clearly some people who can only conceive of having sex with someone of a particular sex and are actively repulsed at the idea of having sex with the other sex. . I am not aware of any swingers who can only have swinging sex. But, then if we argue on that basis that would make bi people conceptually distinct from gay or straight people. That's just framing bollucks. Gay people aren't inherently repulsed by the opposite sex. You are perfectly aware of people who won't remain monogamous leading to inevitable chaos in a marriage with a partner expecting monogamy. You can say 'they could' do it but you'd start sounding awfully religious there. The rates of infidelity in socieyy are absolutely rampant so it's nonsense to frame it in that way. Actually, you're probably right on that. I was framing it as swinging versus gayness. If its framed as monogamy v gayness, I think it's correct that some people would fine living a monogamous life as much of a strain as a gay person only having hetero sex. Perhaps this is the better wording! Because I'm an old lefty Atheist heavily influenced by Marx, I am terminally suspicious of any theories that explain social behaviour by some sort of mystical inherent essence. That doesn't mean, of course, that socially determined behaviours are any less real for being socially determined. How about explaining with a predisposition arising from differences in evolutionary traits which manifest urges in certain environments. Not to say that we are animals that can't use willpower to overcome said urges, but it takes a lot of energy and one should question the cost-benefit of that. But the point about evolutionary traits, it seems to me is they only form a very basic bedrock and that particular social conditions are more immediately relevant. Evolutionarily logic would suggest we kill all disabled children and either enslave or kill captured enemies. And that's what happened for millions of years. Now it's considered utterly repulsive. There's not a single evolutionary logic. There's as much evolutionary logic as there are viable strategies to multiply your genes at an advantageous rate. You'll still find something called the Cinderella effect, whereby male step parents are around twice as likely to assault step children and genetically related children. Why? Because that's the legacy of infanticide. Yes, but society has a whole is against that evolutionary logic and punishes severely people who act in accordance with it. That's why I don't find evolutionary biology a useful theory . It essentially re phrases Pope's "whatever is, is right". Anything that happened in societies that were sustained must be in accordance with evolutionary biology because of the fact that said societies were sustained. So Killing disabled children was functional in ancient Sparta, but it isn't now. You can tell that because both societies were sustained and people reproduced. It seems to me an economic argument for something like that is much more plausible. The Spartans had a much lower margin of subsistence than we do. Hence the difficulty in sustaining non productive people. Sparta is way too modern. Hunter gather groups didn't stay in one place, they wondered perpetually. So all sorts of people were left behind (old, ill, disabled) because not moving to food sources would have wiped out all the genes in the group. I don't think society punishes evolutionary logic anywhere near as much as you make out. It tends to create a bullshit compromise which is why you know I have no time for fashionable opinions. What is serial monogamy other than a desperate attempt to cling on to values that make sense in an agricultural society with no effective birth control? So we're agreed that it's economics that are primary. Societies disposed of unproductive people when they didn't have resources to support them and evolved a morality that said that was OK. In societies where we do have resources to support the unproductive, morality says that it's terrible to kill them. Social being determines social consciousness as someone once said. Marx my words. "Hence my opposition to the idea of individual essences mystically floating free from social bonds... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
