Why is swinging also called wife-swapping rather than husband- or even partner-swapping? Is it b/c in a hetero relationship men typically are more powerful in a variety of ways than their female partner, so the female is a resource they appear to be trading the use of w/ other men? The typical swinger couple picture on here stars the wife primarily or exclusively, her attributes are usually listed first and foremost, and in the more descriptive, glowing terms.
I appreciate opinions may differ between older and younger couples for a variety of social reasons (a woman getting married nowadays is less likely to marry her first sexual partner than her mother was, for example).
I appreciate opinions may differ between older and younger couples for a variety of social reasons (a woman getting married nowadays is less likely to marry her first sexual partner than her mother was, for example).
My understanding is that the term first started (LONG before the term 'swinging' or 'lifestyle') back in the 50's/60's in the military...and more specifically in the Air Force when pilots would ask their buddies to "take care" of their respective wives while they were deployed and especially if they didn't return from war. Later during peaceful times that practice supposedly evolved into swapping and things like key parties. If that is indeed the case, I can easily see how it was termed wife swapping rather than husband swapping or swinging. You don't have to look very far in the military to see very entrenched macho attitudes (Tailhook, anyone?) that would insinuate some sort of male dominance or even pseudo-ownership of women. Happily, today swinging is often female driven and women, in most circumstances, are free to express their opinions and desires when it comes to sexual play with others. But there is still a lot of macho bullshit that sometimes goes on behind the scenes. We've been in the scene since the late 80's and have only very rarely heard very many people use the term wife swapping. To my ear it sounds as antiquated as "groovy" or "far out".
Because women are valuable and men are not.
RUSTIEZ wrote:
Because women are valuable and men are not.
Aw, I think someone's feelers might be hurt.
EVILDOERS wrote:RUSTIEZ wrote:
Because women are valuable and men are not.
Aw, I think someone's feelers might be hurt.
I noticed you didn't disagree with my statement you went straight for the fee fees.
I absolutely disagree with you. I have no idea what you base that assertion on but it has not been my experience that women are valuable and men aren't. Is this something about being a single male in the lifestyle?
EVILDOERS wrote:
I absolutely disagree with you. I have no idea what you base that assertion on but it has not been my experience that women are valuable and men aren't. Is this something about being a single male in the lifestyle?
No. I'm totally wrong you're right! I mean single men being invited in equal proportions to parties as single women prove your point!
Oh wait....
RUSTIEZ wrote:EVILDOERS wrote:
I absolutely disagree with you. I have no idea what you base that assertion on but it has not been my experience that women are valuable and men aren't. Is this something about being a single male in the lifestyle?
No. I'm totally wrong you're right! I mean single men being invited in equal proportions to parties as single women prove your point!
Oh wait....
Do you mean from your perspective ON couples in the lifestyle as you've seen interactions?
Ah, thought so. So it's all about you gettin' (or not, I guess) your fair share of hot swinger nookie. If you really want to get into it I could give you my perspective looking back on almost 30 years in the lifestyle trenches. Admittedly only as a married man...but we've played with, interacted with and talked with many, many single men over the years. And if it's any consolation at all Ms. Evil and I have never sought out single women nor invited any to any of our parties over the years.
CHEFFETTE wrote:RUSTIEZ wrote:
[quote=EVILDOERS]I absolutely disagree with you. I have no idea what you base that assertion on but it has not been my experience that women are valuable and men aren't. Is this something about being a single male in the lifestyle?
No. I'm totally wrong you're right! I mean single men being invited in equal proportions to parties as single women prove your point!
Oh wait....
Do you mean from your perspective ON couples in the lifestyle as you've seen interactions?[/quote]
No, I'm talking from experience on what couples have personally said to me about this topic. Regardless of why the term wife-swapping got started, it endures because the person perceived as being worth the most is the one that gets "traded". If men were considered to be more valuable in the LS the term wife-swapping would have changed to husband-swapping. This attitude of female value also applies when you look at what singles are allowed at parties, and any event organizer will tell you that though they personally may prefer males, attendees want women. I've been told that twice by two different organizers.
EVILDOERS wrote:
Ah, thought so. So it's all about you gettin' (or not, I guess) your fair share of hot swinger nookie. If you really want to get into it I could give you my perspective looking back on almost 30 years in the lifestyle trenches. Admittedly only as a married man...but we've played with, interacted with and talked with many, many single men over the years. And if it's any consolation at all Ms. Evil and I have never sought out single women nor invited any to any of our parties over the years.
You really need to not read into what people say.
RUSTIEZ wrote:EVILDOERS wrote:
Ah, thought so. So it's all about you gettin' (or not, I guess) your fair share of hot swinger nookie. If you really want to get into it I could give you my perspective looking back on almost 30 years in the lifestyle trenches. Admittedly only as a married man...but we've played with, interacted with and talked with many, many single men over the years. And if it's any consolation at all Ms. Evil and I have never sought out single women nor invited any to any of our parties over the years.
You really need to not read into what people say.
So what did I read into your comment? You're not upset by the amount of sex (or lack thereof) that you're getting in the lifestyle? Or is it simply about egalitarianism and fairness in that single women ostensibly get invited to more parties? If it's the latter, I'm hoping we can count on your full support for Bernie Sanders and his platform.
EVILDOERS wrote:
To my ear it sounds as antiquated as "groovy" or "far out".
Personally, I preferred "gravy" and "farm out".
But back on topic, strangely enough, for some reason or other, that exact same question popped into my head while I was driving back from SLC Wednesday evening, even though I figured I already knew the answer.
But yeah, whether it started in the US Army Air Forces (or US Air Force, after 1947) or wherever, it for sure started back when it was just plain assumed that the husband was in charge of everything and the wife was subordinate. It was called wife swappping in the '70s, and had already been around a while before then.
Hell, it wasn't until the Fall of 1979 that the first man in the US was convicted of raping his wife. Before that, and based, like many of our laws, on English Common Law, marriage was considered permanent, unconditional and irrevocable consent for sex with the husband. And in most stetes, the definition of rape in the law specifically excluded husbands. In fact, earlier that year, a man in Salem, Oregon was found not guilty of raping his wife even though the testimony of both said it was violent, that they had fought. But the very fact that he'd even been charged was historical. That Fall in Salem, Massachussets the first husband in the US (there's a strange coincidence, both in places called Salem on completely opposite ends of the country) was convicted of raping his wife, but the fact that he and his wife were estranged and in the middle of a divorce, and he broke into her home, likely made the difference. In general, at least into maybe the mid-'60s the general societal attitude was that a wife was, in many ways, the property of her husband. So it's hardly surprising that it started out being called wife swapping. What's now called "sexism" was once just what everyone knew and accepted as normal and even natural.
But as Evil pointed out, nobody involved in "the lifestyle", or "swinging", or whatever anyone calls it, either calls it or sees it as wife swapping anymore. Maybe us Hippies from the '60s and '70s and our "sexual revolution", a prime tenet of which was that there was absolutely nothing wrong with sex without the "benefit" of marriage, even deserve a tiny bit of credit for it. In fact, as I recall, we were pretty much the first sociallly/culturally identifiable group who started talking about and decrying sexism. Even our sort of "predecessors", the "Beatniks", were largely male-centric.