*NSFW* so this is what swinger parties look like

[Ruptga]

So that makes sense to me - but it feels like I wouldn't be able to enjoy sex as a deeper connection if I was using people for sex as just an activity. (and all sorts of experiences and degrees in-between)

You don't have to look at it that way though. Not being in love isn't the same as being emotionally dead.

 

[Darwin333]

Lets start out by saying that I'm not trying to tell anyone what they should do. I've stated explicitly that if you are happy with how you have sex, then be happy. I'm talking about what they can do.

There is no reason why marriage must include a sexual fidelity clause.

I've explicitly stated the same thing but also rather explicitly stated that people wrongly attach significance to sex when in your opinion it's just an act like eating supper. Could you explain why your opinion is more important than the opinion of the people who do attach a significance to it?

 

[destrekor]

I've explicitly stated the same thing but also rather explicitly stated that people wrongly attach significance to sex when in your opinion it's just an act like eating supper. Could you explain why your opinion is more important than the opinion of the people who do attach a significance to it?

Obviously he'll have to answer for himself, but honestly, I don't see it as an issue regarding validity of any particular opinion, or importance for that matter.

It's more just a part of adding additional points of view - much like education, adding other viewpoints isn't necessarily to say what you know it wrong, it's more about enlightenment. Perhaps you didn't know this, and might like to know that it is possible. Maybe someone knows it is possible and also knows it is not for them.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

You don't have to look at it that way though. Not being in love isn't the same as being emotionally dead.

Good point - this is probably the false dichotomy I was building my ideas around.

I've explicitly stated the same thing but also rather explicitly stated that people wrongly attach significance to sex when in your opinion it's just an act like eating supper. Could you explain why your opinion is more important than the opinion of the people who do attach a significance to it?

I don't see him saying wrongly as in, normative, "it is wrong to attach significance" I see him saying that people wrongly (factually incorrectly) see it as a necessary situation.

Again, I'm sure that for me I'm not "wrong" in how I feel and I don't think who I am could make this his perspective "right" for me; but I think his point is others can experience things that you-yourself couldn't experience as making sense.

For example - gays make no sense to me but I want nothing but total acceptance of them and how they experience the world.

Also left-handed people: I don't get it, the right hand makes so much more sense, particularly given social expectations of right-handedness, but I would never call them sinister.

https://english.stackexchange.com/q...-word-for-left-handed-get-its-current-meaning

 

[ch33zw1z]

Also left-handed people: I don't get it, the right hand makes so much more sense, particularly given social expectations of right-handedness, but I would never call them sinister.

https://english.stackexchange.com/q...-word-for-left-handed-get-its-current-meaning

We are sinister. Watch your back, brah...and then we get you from the front with a smile. Lefties are like that.

 

[kage69]

So we know what they look like, but what do they sound like? Is there a swinger pod cast?

Something tells me it would be less of *boot stuck in mud, only wetter* + moaning, and more "anyone have a good hummus recipe? This stuff is bland. That salsa needs work too. Horseradish, really?"

 

[SMOGZINN]

I don't see him saying wrongly as in, normative, "it is wrong to attach significance" I see him saying that people wrongly (factually incorrectly) see it as a necessary situation.

Yes. I seem to be doing a bad job at explaining myself. I do not intend to put a moral value on it. I'm just trying to say that there are other ways to look at it. I'm trying to say that we assign significance to the act, and most people never think about why. People assign the meaning to the act that society tells them to without ever questioning if that significance is inherent in the act or imposed by societal norms. I'm stating that the meaning is not inherent in the act, but assigned by the actors. Then that meaning is then reinforced in a feedback loop by the way we treat the act to the point it feels like the act itself is what is special. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with doing this, on the contrary, it can certainly create a strong emotional bond between partners, which is a good thing. I'm just saying that it is not the act that is special, it is the people that are. They are the important part of the equation.

 

[brainhulk]

So we know what they look like, but what do they sound like? Is there a swinger pod cast?

Something tells me it would be less of *boot stuck in mud, only wetter* + moaning, and more "anyone have a good hummus recipe? This stuff is bland. That salsa needs work too. Horseradish, really?"

"Are you wearing Muresan cologne? You smell like cabbage..."

 

[kage69]

I think Tim Meadows should launch a Pina Colada butt lotion line under a Leon Phelps label. Could be huge, could save Kmart!

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Yes. I seem to be doing a bad job at explaining myself. I do not intend to put a moral value on it. I'm just trying to say that there are other ways to look at it. I'm trying to say that we assign significance to the act, and most people never think about why. People assign the meaning to the act that society tells them to without ever questioning if that significance is inherent in the act or imposed by societal norms. I'm stating that the meaning is not inherent in the act, but assigned by the actors. Then that meaning is then reinforced in a feedback loop by the way we treat the act to the point it feels like the act itself is what is special. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with doing this, on the contrary, it can certainly create a strong emotional bond between partners, which is a good thing. I'm just saying that it is not the act that is special, it is the people that are. They are the important part of the equation.

I wonder, however, if there isn't some basic evolutionary cause for deeper pair-bonding in the species being sexually based - something that goes beyond culture/tradition. And while we can 'learn' to overcome that, the default switch for such perspectives are built in, and perhaps not in the same way for everyone (much like being right/left handed).

What do you think?

Or is it like the poem says:

Hogamous, Higamous,
Man is polygamous,
Higamous, Hogamous,
Woman is monagamous.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I wonder, however, if there isn't some basic evolutionary cause for deeper pair-bonding in the species being sexually based - something that goes beyond culture/tradition. And while we can 'learn' to overcome that, the default switch for such perspectives are built in, and perhaps not in the same way for everyone (much like being right/left handed).

What do you think?

I definitely think there are a large degree of variation between people on the subject, but that on average (in general) biologically we only really pair for about 3 years, after that the pair bonding tanks quickly and the amount of work required to maintain an exclusive relationship increases exponentially (with a cap somewhere near the 10 year mark). I also think that we can overcome our biology, either way.

I also don't think that pair bonding needs to be exclusive, I think we can pair bond with multiple people at the same time. This might (probably is) variable for different people, and different combinations of people. So that some people can only form single pair bonds together, but separately those same people could with a different group form multiple pair bonds, some people will only be able to form a single pair bond with anyone, and some people can barely pair bond at all.

I think if we could find a way to test this we would find a bell curve rating how easily people form pair bonds where most people can form multiple pair bonds simultaneously, but they have trouble maintaining any pair bond more than 7 years, with the average being 3. The people that can only ever form a single pair bond at a time or can't form any at all and those that can form dozens are outliers on the far ends of the bell curve.

I think that most people in our society work hard at not forming multiple pair bonds, and I think that it shows pretty clearly in our culture.

 

[Darwin333]

Good point - this is probably the false dichotomy I was building my ideas around.


I don't see him saying wrongly as in, normative, "it is wrong to attach significance" I see him saying that people wrongly (factually incorrectly) see it as a necessary situation.

Again, I'm sure that for me I'm not "wrong" in how I feel and I don't think who I am could make this his perspective "right" for me; but I think his point is others can experience things that you-yourself couldn't experience as making sense.

If that is his actual stance then I have absolutely zero qualms with it. As I have previously said, as long as the adults are consenting then to each their own. It's frankly none of my business what consenting adults do behind closed doors so they are, and should be, free to do whatever floats their boats. I was specifically replying to this statement:

I think what a lot of people forget is that sex is just an activity. Most people attach a lot of significance to that activity because they restrict it so much that doing it feels special.

Which doesn't even imply, it directly says, that the only reason people attach a lot of significance to sex is that they aren't having enough of it. See my above statement, imo, you can have all the sex in the world and still attach a lot of significance to it. What people attach to sex is up to them to decide and I don't think there is any right or wrong answer as to how significant they should see it as.

 

[Darwin333]

Yes. I seem to be doing a bad job at explaining myself. I do not intend to put a moral value on it. I'm just trying to say that there are other ways to look at it. I'm trying to say that we assign significance to the act, and most people never think about why. People assign the meaning to the act that society tells them to without ever questioning if that significance is inherent in the act or imposed by societal norms. I'm stating that the meaning is not inherent in the act, but assigned by the actors. Then that meaning is then reinforced in a feedback loop by the way we treat the act to the point it feels like the act itself is what is special. There is nothing morally or ethically wrong with doing this, on the contrary, it can certainly create a strong emotional bond between partners, which is a good thing. I'm just saying that it is not the act that is special, it is the people that are. They are the important part of the equation.

I can agree with that, thanks for elaborating.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I definitely think there are a large degree of variation between people on the subject, but that on average (in general) biologically we only really pair for about 3 years, after that the pair bonding tanks quickly and the amount of work required to maintain an exclusive relationship increases exponentially (with a cap somewhere near the 10 year mark). I also think that we can overcome our biology, either way.

I also don't think that pair bonding needs to be exclusive, I think we can pair bond with multiple people at the same time. This might (probably is) variable for different people, and different combinations of people. So that some people can only form single pair bonds together, but separately those same people could with a different group form multiple pair bonds, some people will only be able to form a single pair bond with anyone, and some people can barely pair bond at all.

I think if we could find a way to test this we would find a bell curve rating how easily people form pair bonds where most people can form multiple pair bonds simultaneously, but they have trouble maintaining any pair bond more than 7 years, with the average being 3. The people that can only ever form a single pair bond at a time or can't form any at all and those that can form dozens are outliers on the far ends of the bell curve.

I think that most people in our society work hard at not forming multiple pair bonds, and I think that it shows pretty clearly in our culture.

That makes some sense, though the ld50 (time until half of marriages end in divorce) is actually 30 years, there is much more cheating going on than happiness with that situation would imply.

Which doesn't even imply, it directly says, that the only reason people attach a lot of significance to sex is that they aren't having enough of it. See my above statement, imo, you can have all the sex in the world and still attach a lot of significance to it.

I think you may both agree. His statement 'restricting' may not mean 'not having it' but rather 'not having it in open-bounds (i.e. with lots of other people).

Interesting how honest conversations can be differently understood so easily via text... totally explains all of P&N!

What people attach to sex is up to them to decide and I don't think there is any right or wrong answer as to how significant they should see it as.

Here I would make a distinction (not that I think it disagrees with you): there may well be 'right' for an individual. That is, it feels right/authentic/good/true-to-me to ascribe meaning as I do - it makes me happy. That said, I could see people ascribing meaning because of things they do not personally identify with, and thus being particularly unhappy - thus it may be what they do but still wrong-for-them.

Even more complex - many have the ability to 'make' something right for them. That is, internalize the social expectation they are living under; and this may be a better solution than seeking an external change to match what they have internalized. I'm not sure about this though, and would love to hear what others think?