This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swinging (sexual practice) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Swinging (sexual practice) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I made some pretty significant changes to the layout/structure of the article. My intent was to tidy things up somewhat, and present the information in a more logical manner. I'm sure the other editors will let me know if I didn't succeed. :-) OscarTheCat3 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm new to Wikipedia but not to this subject. I added some links to some online resources which have just been removed. I don't understand why a mention of swinging on Nip Tuck is relevant but my cited reference to a top 100 website being about swinging isn't relevant? I really am keen to get involved but struggling to understand how things work here! Panda2 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Sexual Freedom League was founded by a man named Jefferson Poland, who had his name legally changed to Jefferson Fuck Poland. I was at one time a member of the SFL. Poland had relocated from New York City, where he had founded the SFL, to the San Francisco Bay area, where it thrived. Please refer to the book Sex Marchers for a history of the SFL.
Robert McGinley, PhD founded The Lifestyles Organization, a large California swinging group with national connections that holds an annual convention, usually in Las Vegas, in conjunction with his NASCA (now NASCA International) umbrella group for local swinging clubs. Dr. McGinley also founded and operates Lifestyles Tours and Travel to organize and sell swinging travel vacations and cruises. Dick Kimball ( talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
why is this not considered swinging? i know many swingers who hotwife. if cuckolding is in this article, why wouldn't hotwifing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 ( talk) 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I edited this section because of some logical flaws ("adultery" mentioned in this context in comparison, ...), but more importantly I deleted/changed a part that listed up very specialized sexual practices that need not necessarily be associated with this subject. I also pointed out that "hotwifing" really is a "couple thing".-- Cory Gendum ( talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I've cut a few chunks of uncited info out of this section, mostly because they seemed to be about lesbian/gay reactions to swingers and lesbian and gay biphobia, which seemed irrelevant to me.
Does anyone think the information I cut should be kept in some form? Inkwell 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has vastly improved over the past few months. Anyone up for trying to seek Good Article status? OscarTheCat3 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the old discussion page it is clear that a lot of the issues that arose did so because of the difference between the US and UK swinging scene. I do not wish to sound at all contraversal here but it would appear (reading between the lines, and in some cases just plain reading the lines) that the US swing scene is relatively elitest and homophobic in comparision to the UK scene. (As I say I am not trying to cause waves here by saying this, it is just a reflection on the discussions that have been had. The opposite is true. I think the arguments are simply based on the difference between the UK and US).
Surely one could state the case that this article may need to be split or subdivided to reflect the differences in these two scenes (and eventually, perhaps, reflect the scene in other countries too).
One only has to watch 'sexetra' to see how conservative the American sex scene appears in comparision to the average Rude Revel or night at Gems, The Office, Utopia or Liberties for example (this was also shown on a UK TV show that followed a UK couple to a US swinging event). AlanD 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup thats my point. I've never run across any clubs or attendees that have a problem with male bisexuality. As with all things it is simply the case the folks need to communicate and respect each others boundaries. It is even the case that the swinging club Gems in Yeovil used to run regular Bisexual nights but stopped them, not due to homophobia or lack of interest but the complete opposite. The bisexual nights became unnecessary as there was so much bisexual play and acceptance of bisexual play that the seperate nights simply became irrelevant. The Office in Bristol runs successful TV/TS (and admirers) nights that have male and female bisexuality as a feature. I have also come across and participated in such things there on 'normal' nights. The Rude Revels held at Ceasers in Basal Common feature TV/male play and play from fully bisexual couples without any problems.
The issue with regard to "conversion" is irrelevant and insulting to be honest. You can't change your sexuality. It is clear that far more men are bisexual than will admit to being. This can be seen in adverts on Local Swingers where they will slip in the possibility of male biplay amongst their description (almost trying to hide it amongst other things) whilst not mentioning that they are seeking bimales within the bullet point advert. Equally I have come across (no pun intended) many men who state they are straight in adverts and most conversations but will admit to being bi in private.
Male bisexuality may well be as prevelant as female but it is not as accepted in society as a whole. This latent homophobia does impact on the swinging community in so far as people are concerned that others will act differently towards them if they come out. But as I have said this is a perception. Communication and resepecting boundaries - if you do both then you rarely run into problems in UK swinging. It might be the case that some clubs have a problem with male bisexuality but as I have said (and my experience goes beyond the three clubs mentioned) it simply has not shown up as an issue for me or anyone else I have spoken to.
If this is not the case in the US then this highlights one difference immediately. There may well be other major differences such as to do with body image etc that are the case. UK swinging is very welcoming of all body shapes and all ages equally (in fact in our experience the UK swingin scene is quite scathing towards those who are 'body/age facists', it accepts that some folks simply do not find certain things (eg too much hair, too much fat etc) attractive but prefers folks to be open to try new things and to get to know folks). Many in the UK see a swinging lifestyle as sexual adventuring which includes swinging, BDSM, dogging and more. AlanD 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I had to check with the missus about Fever as I'd never heard of it, lol. Does it rate such a prominant mention? Anyhoo back on topic as well as research into sexuailty my other point was body image, ages and a host of other factors (prudishness and so on included) that may well be VERY different between the US and UK. Friends of mine have noted large differences bewtween the UK and French scene too. I wonder if anyone has done research into sexual attitudes and swinging communities in different countries?
I do, honestly, feel there is a need to split up the article as there is nothing worse than trying to put together a 'best fit' mish-mash. There will be many overlaps but I get the feeling that they may well be dwarved by the differences. This would also avoid the need to mention differences constantly and need to reach comprimises on statements. AlanD 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Looked good if it is the edit I'm thinking of. AlanD 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"The most recent study, based on an Internet questionnaire addressed to visitors of lifestyle-related sites, found swingers are happier in their relationships than the norm." I guess it's better than original research or unverified claims, but this seems pretty dubious to me. For one thing, it's based on an Internet questionnaire, and for another, the questionnaire seems to be asking people who are already involved in the swinger "scene". If they were unhappy with swinging, well, chances are they wouldn't be visiting those sites. It would be more accurate to ask all people who had had swinging experience, regardless of their current involvement or interest.
Not to say that I question the ability of swingers to be happy, but to outright say that swingers are happier than most based on such limited evidence is kind of... I don't know. Not very encyclopedic?-- John 06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with the research but I'd also agree that the source may be dubious. Perhaps a few words to introduce the research first addressing concerns with its neutrality? AlanD 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify. I don't know the research, was the swinging question amongst a host of others? I DO happen to feel that established swingers feel happier and more secure in their relationship than the 'average' couple. However this is purely anecdotal... plus there is also a question of are swingers happier and more secure or does one have to be happy and secure in a relationship to be able to become an established swinger (ergo the percentage of happy and secure couples in the swinging community will be much higher than in the wider community (I see swans are white birds therefore all white birds are swans and so on...))? AlanD 11:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've not really dabbled in adding images to WP articles...and I'm not 100% sure this article needs one, really. But let's suppose that an image would help the article. The challenge becomes finding an image that expresses the concept of swinging without being unnecessarily graphic. Oh, and either fair use or public domain...that too. So...any thoughts on this one? I have no idea as to the copyright status of the image, BTW. OscarTheCat3 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am going to fail the article according to the GA criteria. It appears to be well-written, even though the lists of films and television shows could be cleaned up a bit or even converted to prose. The main reason I am going to fail the article is because it only has a few sources for the information in the article. Many of the statements could be deemed to be original research since there are no inline citations stating sources to show their verifiability. I'd recommend going through the article and adding an inline citation after any statement that may be challenged to be true or not. The article appears to be broad, stable, and for the most part neutral. It would be beneficial to add an image or two to help improve the overall quality of the article. Once you fix these suggestions, please consider a renomination. -- Nehrams2020 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I recently heard a rumour that pampas grass planted out the front of a house in the UK, has been used as a code that the occupants are swingers. There are printed citations to the rumour (e.g. http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/brian_viner/article96599.ece) but not (that I could find) to its truth: can anyone from the scene add anything to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cromagnon ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
It may very well be misogynistic, inaccurate etc, but I don't think "archaic" is accurate. That would imply that the term is no longer used in everyday parlance, and that's just not the case, at least in casual speech here in the UK. Even if participants never now use it, that doesn't make it archaic in the wider community. 86.136.252.156 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any opinion on the two podcasts that have been added? I have no expertise in this area to judge whether or not they are relevant or just spam. Inkwell 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the podcasts are a lot more relevant than most of the movie links on this entry. Many of the movie links only mention swinging as a gag or a side bar. The Playcouples film, for example, is a documentary and has information on swinging subject matter.
The podcasts are definitely relevant. Swingercast was the first podcast to be introduced into the Kinsey Library and it also provides a free resource for people to learn about the Lifestyle. StewartHuffhines 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see The Cherry Pit. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I belive the term for dogging is wrong. You do not necessarily have to be a swinging couple to do this. Two strangers can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.197.13 ( talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In the C19th section I have added a rider about Marx condemning recreational sex among the married bourgeoise, in order that the term 'Communist' is not misconstrued in a political way.
In the selective swinging section I have removed the two named derivative organisations because (a) both are reportedly defunct and (b) there are any number of derivative organisation of which these were two at random, and their inclusion was therefore merely advertsing. EroticAcademic ( talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Under "Health dangers", the article mentions the sentence
Opponents are concerned about the risk of pregnancy and STDs such as HIV, arguing that even protected sex is risky given that some STDs may be spread regardless of the use of condoms, such as Herpes and HPV
While there is a small but real posibility that these virusses can be transmitted when using condoms, their use still dramatically decreases the chance of infection, so I think it's misleading to phrase this sentence like this.. -- 72.195.132.131 ( talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The part about dönmehs in turkey is slander. Seems people have been listening far too much to turkish conspiracy theory. The sources used to support the severly insulting claim about orgies among the dönmeh starts with branding Zevi Sabbutai as "a false jewish prophet". This view itself shows that the source is partial - the rest of the articles is full of rubbish, half-truth and lies. Please correct this soon. If noone answer Ill remove the section all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.57.159 ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I removed part about sabbateans and dönme. This is harresment of minorities. The people who described sex-ritual among dönme are heresiologists and not reliable sources. No internet sources put in this connection have done proper source-evaluation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.57.159 ( talk) 16:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just passing through trying to learn more about swinging and I thought I'd raise a problem with the section on 'selective swinging.' I don't understand the intended meaning of this sentence:
Because of the high proportion of female same sex activity (and interest), interested single females are called "unicorns" in the context of their existence being a fantasy, rather than a reality.
If there is a high proportion of female same sex activity, doesn't that mean that there are a lot of women present? Should the sentence be rewritten to say:
Despite prevalent interest in female same sex activity in swinger's clubs, the presence of women rarely outnumbers men because most of the women who attend swingers' events are in heterosexual relationships. The presence of single women in swingers' clubs is compared to that of unicorns - greatly desired, but largely limited to fantasy.
If my paraphrasing is factually incorrect, I suggest rewriting the sentence some other way so that the meaning is more clear. 131.111.184.8 ( talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm amending a para in the selective swinging section because it has transparently been edited, innaccurately, for commerical reasons.
The para currently states:
"Younger swingers who wish to swing with people in their own age group find that this is not always possible at swing clubs. Similarly, physically attractive swingers often find that because traditional swingers' clubs do not screen guests, a substantial number of physically and socially unappealing people are present at any given night. This has given rise to several exclusive parties and clubs being formed in major cities like New York City. Recognized as founding the 'selective swinging' movement, New York City's Behind Closed Doors swinger club requires that all attendees are young, attractive, and open-minded.[25]"
This version errs in two fundemtnal respects:
1. The first selective swingers parties began in London in 11998 with Fever Parties, which restricts for both age and looks, as this Wikipedia article verified for many years. A glance at their website shows media coverage going back to 2001 [1].
2. Even in the USA, selective swinging was not 'founded' by Behind Closed Doors. It first came to the USA with Wet parties in LA [2] (selecting for youth) more thn 5 years later than its appearence in London. It then extended to Florida with Bliss [3] (selecting for smartness). It finally arrived in New York City with OneLegUp [4].
So although it is no doubt somewhat selective (despite allowing in those up to 50), Behind Closed Doors is not "recognised as founding the selective swinging movement" even in NYC, let alone the USA or the whole World. It simply seems to benefit from an over-enthusiastic marketing team.
I am amending the para to say the following:
"Younger swingers seeking peer group options find this is not always possible at conventional swingers' clubs. Similarly, those seeking to exclude the physically unappealing from their sexual ambit are often frustrated at conventional swingers' clubs because guests are not screened. Beginning in 1998 with Fever Parties [5] in London, this gave rise to exclusive parties and clubs that selected by looks and/or imposed an upper age limit. Within the USA the phenomenon translated first to Los Angeles, then Miami and eventually to New York City".
I'd have no fundamental objection to the names of the various clubs in LA, Miami and NYC being added into the copy.
If this article is edited back to a version that credits Behind Closed Doors with being anything other than that latest selective swingers club in NYC, it will be the subject of a complaint.
EroticAcademic ( talk) 13:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous that this section only talks about 20th century swining in the '90s. The late '60s and the early '70s saw the emergence of swinging in popular culture if not an actual increase. I've tagged that section as one of the most blatant examples of {{
recentism}}
I've seen in a while.
Toddst1 (
talk)
15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
With regard to; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Swinging&diff=prev&oldid=478847625
The reference to the Swinger Blog on swingersocial.com falls under WP:USERG. It's a self-published source, and no use to Wikipedia ref; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohannVanbeek#swingersocial.com
I have reverted the text back to the original, I have also updated the reference link to a copy of the original source on web.archive.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.66.96 ( talk) 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has become critically unviable due to editing - evisceration - in April 2011. In particular, the division into separate articles for swinging and sex clubs and the addition of tedious and tenuous historic details have resulted in a less informed, less interesting, less useful and generally worse article. I will attenpt a major revision re-instating much of the bowdlerized material( EroticAcademic ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC))
I was surprised to see a description of a towel religion and simpson religion. The source was Fields 1998 but no other info is there, as if the original reference got deleted.
What is the source for the reference to towels and simpsons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBoaN ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest that the reference be changed to "Swing Club"? The modern swing club is as much about socializing, dancing and general partying as it is sex, and the term "Sex Club" implies the illicit and even has a connotation of illegality. Cosand ( talk) 13:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Update...I attempted to clean up and make some sense of the "sex clubs" page and make it actually worth while by listing prominent international clubs as well as cruise lines and resorts, but was thwarted by two(2)Wikinazis, whos talk pages clearly showed they had broom sticks up their ass, a bitter failed Sex club co host who passes himself off as an "owner", and one "senior editor" they managed to annoy enough with their incessant moaning to get him to take their side and laughably claim two editors (when no less than 15 contributed to the page) represented a "consensus". The result is that vague, inaccurate, hatchet job of a page called "Sex Clubs". Sorry, I tried Cosand ( talk) 00:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Commercial links removed;
This is debatable, however, since it would have been unusual for wives to accompany their husbands on foreign tours. [2]
In addition the above statement is incorrect, http://www.sexuality.org/swinging.html provides a far more accurate version of information on the Community origins together with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.66.96 ( talk) 13:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"In addition, according to the conclusions of the report the STI rates of swingers were in fact nearly identical to those of non-swinging straight couples, and concluded that the safest demographic for STI infection were female prostitutes."
I have absolutely no idea what the second part of this sentence means. Is it trying to suggest that female prostitutes have the lowest rates of STIs? I suggest that it be rewritten and made more intelligible. A Big Teletubby ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that "swinging" is an obsolete term? I'm not asking if anyone agrees that my unverified opinion should be incorporated into the article. I am just trying to gauge where other editors are coming from and see whether or not this might be a useful thing to look into (ie find a source for). Personally, I've never heard the word swinging used except in history classes talking about jazz clubs in the 1930s. Certainly, nobody under the age of 50-60 uses the term.....in America, at least... 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a good list that is updated on a regular basis of books about swinging and polyamory located here... History of Swinging. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 11:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Swinging → Swinging (sexual practice) – This discussion resulted in Category:Swinging moving to Category:Swinging (sexual practice).
Several editors suggested renaming the article as well. Should the article be renamed? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
So, now we have Swinging redirecting to the Swing dab page, which links to dozens of uses never referred to as Swinging, like Swing (Java). The only other reference to Swinging on there is something to do with juggling that does not even have an article.
Anyone actually searching for "Swinging" will not be helped by being taken to the Swing dab page. They should be taken to this article. -- B2 C 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hotwives (bless them) need to show up as an unwritten article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Not knowing that this topic had been discussed briefly on this page, I wrote an article on Hotwife, deleted the redirection page, and it was all promptly reverted.
Hotwife is quite different from swinging. Swinging deals, most often, with couples, both of whom participate, usually with other couples. The hotwife, in that type of arrangement, has her activities herself, while her husband observes, or without him being present. The husband is frequently humiliated (he wants this), or locked in a chastity device, or made to be the "bull"'s fluffer, all of which is completely absent in swinging.
It needs a separate article, in my opinion. Deisenbe ( talk) 12:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there I have just created an account on wikipedia and made some edits under cuckold and hotwife , a few days ago. They were originally taken down because I did not include the correct referencing format. I read up on how to include the proper citation and then made the edits again and included the book reference using what I believe is the correct citation system following the one already in exsistence on the entry. My edits were then removed, I believe in one instance somebody was under the impression that the sourse was a writer of erotic fiction. I do not want to get into one of these edit wars. If I am doing something incorrectly I would rather know why .The book reference I had included is not by an eroric author, it is not fiction, it is a work about the psychology of erotic personality types.It is not an ebook, it is an actual published book. It may be only the considered opinion of one author, but it is being considered in the context of many other erotic personanily tpes which the author maintains can overlap with each other.
What I wanted to include was the following paragraph below. I realize it may not be evereybodys cup of tea, but it is a verifiable source of information and I believe that is the correct way of placing things on wikipedia.if somebody else has verifiable material they would prefer to see here, why not put it up to contest what i have have edited instead of just removing mine. I included the IBSN book number at the end of the piece on my last posting that was removed.
According to the Author Sage Vivant, in her book (Your Erotic Personality - Identifying and understanding your sexual self p 51), the cuckolding personality type takes two forms in the modern world, stag cuckolds and sissy cuckolds with the majority of cuckolds belonging to the stag cuckold category. She defines a ‘stag cuckold’ “as a man that simply takes erotic pleasure in hearing or seeing his girlfriend or wife engaging in sexual relations with another man or sexually sharing her with another man or men. This occurs with his full consent and encouragement and such female partners are known as ‘hotwives’. This pleasure can also include knowing such relations are or have taken place without actually hearing or seeing them directly himself, or having details of such relations told to him by his significant other. He simply takes huge pleasure is seeing his female partner being fully sexually fulfilled and exploring her sexual boundaries. There is no humiliation, degradation or homosexual aspect to these encounters like those found in strictly ‘sissy cuckold’ encounters in which a ‘hotwife’ is really a cruel and disdainful ‘cuckoldress’ or at least plays that role. The’ hotwife’ partners of stags do however often engage in playful teasing that can vary in range and intensity between such 'stags' and their 'hotwife' partners in order to heighten her own or her stag's erotic feelings. Such stag- hotwife relationships are solid and genuinely caring ones between two individuals. The other extra solely sexual partners of such’ hotwives’ are known as bulls and these men only serve the sexual needs of such ‘hotwives’ and have no function in the relationship other than this. This ‘stag-hotwife’ relationship is a subset of swinging in which only the female partners takes on extra sexual partners, either by bringing a third male party to assist the stag in pleasuring the hotwife, and/or bringing in elements of exhibitionism, voyeurism and sexual tease into the relationship in which the stag either listens, watches or hears about such sexual encounters. A ‘sissy cuckold’ is a man that derives sexual pleasure from being humiliated, degraded and denied by his ‘cuckoldress’ as she engages in, or relates details of, sexual encounters with other men . This type is a form of submissive masochism and can sometimes involve ritualised homosexual acts performed by the sissy cuckold at the behest of the cuckoldress and/ or bull.” [1]
Thanks Earlymanbc — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Earlymanbc (
talk •
contribs)
16:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an obvious imbalance in the article between the criticisms (just some paragraphs explained without detail); and the contrary opinion (more sources, explaining in detail the results of them). It could even be seen by some as propaganda, when it explains how much happier and better are those involved.
Am I the only one who finds the quality of the article to be somewhat lacking? It should be marked as needing improvement. There is no need to remove content, just a better coverage of the criticism section 83.41.230.17 ( talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
While perhaps swinging has been around for millennia, organized group sexual (& sex-positive) gatherings & organizations aimed at the middle class seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. It's NOT much of a "history" without at least a few significant dates.
There's not a single mention of Group Sex: a scientist's eyewitness report on the American way of swinging (1971) by Gilbert Bartell. This at least offers some interesting facets of swing in the late '60s.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
21:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Swinging (sexual practice). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is literally a scattered mess. Here's why it will be pared back.
Organized swinging evolved in the mid-20th century amongst U.S. military officers deployed overseas; this became somewhat "mainstreamed" in so-called swing clubs, by which is meant both groups that get together in order to swap spouses (who have sex one-on-one in separate rooms) and organized orgies. The
sex club is a different phenomenon, as is "spouse-trading" in non-Western cultures. The list of supposed Western precursors to swinging is highly questionable.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
10:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys! (attribution given) ( el:Swinging) Cinadon36 ( talk) 12:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Have to note though, IMHO I feel there is a link between Swinging and
free love that was practised among individualist anarchists in the USA during the late 19th century.
Cinadon36 (
talk)
12:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is showing a commercial logo ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Swinger_Symbol_05.png/180px-Swinger_Symbol_05.png) and inaccurately claiming it is a swinger symbol used by the community. That image is actually the company logo of a jewelry company called Swinger Symbol ( https://www.swinger-symbol.com/) and they only came into existence in 2019. Most swingers have no idea of this commercial company or their logo jewelry they are trying to sell. If you are going to be posting commercial logos that swingers use, you should include Partners ID https://www.partnersid.com/ which has been around much longer (since 2015). Neither of these companies or their logos are widespread among the swinging community.
There is no widespread swinger symbol. The image of an upside pineapple is more known than either of these logos but even that is not widespread or official. It is more about some swingers making a joke of the urban legends that live on in poorly researched articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallynardi ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is showing a "swinger flag" claiming to be designed by Ted Williams. I can find no reference that this is true besides this wikipedia article. There is no official swinger flag because there is no official organization that oversees swingers nor is their consensus within the community. Swingers prefer keeping their sex life private & would not fly a swinger flag even if such a thing did exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallynardi ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Swinging (sexual practice) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Swinging (sexual practice) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||
|
![]() | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I made some pretty significant changes to the layout/structure of the article. My intent was to tidy things up somewhat, and present the information in a more logical manner. I'm sure the other editors will let me know if I didn't succeed. :-) OscarTheCat3 00:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'm new to Wikipedia but not to this subject. I added some links to some online resources which have just been removed. I don't understand why a mention of swinging on Nip Tuck is relevant but my cited reference to a top 100 website being about swinging isn't relevant? I really am keen to get involved but struggling to understand how things work here! Panda2 22:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The Sexual Freedom League was founded by a man named Jefferson Poland, who had his name legally changed to Jefferson Fuck Poland. I was at one time a member of the SFL. Poland had relocated from New York City, where he had founded the SFL, to the San Francisco Bay area, where it thrived. Please refer to the book Sex Marchers for a history of the SFL.
Robert McGinley, PhD founded The Lifestyles Organization, a large California swinging group with national connections that holds an annual convention, usually in Las Vegas, in conjunction with his NASCA (now NASCA International) umbrella group for local swinging clubs. Dr. McGinley also founded and operates Lifestyles Tours and Travel to organize and sell swinging travel vacations and cruises. Dick Kimball ( talk) 14:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
why is this not considered swinging? i know many swingers who hotwife. if cuckolding is in this article, why wouldn't hotwifing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 ( talk) 03:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I edited this section because of some logical flaws ("adultery" mentioned in this context in comparison, ...), but more importantly I deleted/changed a part that listed up very specialized sexual practices that need not necessarily be associated with this subject. I also pointed out that "hotwifing" really is a "couple thing".-- Cory Gendum ( talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
I've cut a few chunks of uncited info out of this section, mostly because they seemed to be about lesbian/gay reactions to swingers and lesbian and gay biphobia, which seemed irrelevant to me.
Does anyone think the information I cut should be kept in some form? Inkwell 17:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
This article has vastly improved over the past few months. Anyone up for trying to seek Good Article status? OscarTheCat3 01:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Looking at the old discussion page it is clear that a lot of the issues that arose did so because of the difference between the US and UK swinging scene. I do not wish to sound at all contraversal here but it would appear (reading between the lines, and in some cases just plain reading the lines) that the US swing scene is relatively elitest and homophobic in comparision to the UK scene. (As I say I am not trying to cause waves here by saying this, it is just a reflection on the discussions that have been had. The opposite is true. I think the arguments are simply based on the difference between the UK and US).
Surely one could state the case that this article may need to be split or subdivided to reflect the differences in these two scenes (and eventually, perhaps, reflect the scene in other countries too).
One only has to watch 'sexetra' to see how conservative the American sex scene appears in comparision to the average Rude Revel or night at Gems, The Office, Utopia or Liberties for example (this was also shown on a UK TV show that followed a UK couple to a US swinging event). AlanD 20:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup thats my point. I've never run across any clubs or attendees that have a problem with male bisexuality. As with all things it is simply the case the folks need to communicate and respect each others boundaries. It is even the case that the swinging club Gems in Yeovil used to run regular Bisexual nights but stopped them, not due to homophobia or lack of interest but the complete opposite. The bisexual nights became unnecessary as there was so much bisexual play and acceptance of bisexual play that the seperate nights simply became irrelevant. The Office in Bristol runs successful TV/TS (and admirers) nights that have male and female bisexuality as a feature. I have also come across and participated in such things there on 'normal' nights. The Rude Revels held at Ceasers in Basal Common feature TV/male play and play from fully bisexual couples without any problems.
The issue with regard to "conversion" is irrelevant and insulting to be honest. You can't change your sexuality. It is clear that far more men are bisexual than will admit to being. This can be seen in adverts on Local Swingers where they will slip in the possibility of male biplay amongst their description (almost trying to hide it amongst other things) whilst not mentioning that they are seeking bimales within the bullet point advert. Equally I have come across (no pun intended) many men who state they are straight in adverts and most conversations but will admit to being bi in private.
Male bisexuality may well be as prevelant as female but it is not as accepted in society as a whole. This latent homophobia does impact on the swinging community in so far as people are concerned that others will act differently towards them if they come out. But as I have said this is a perception. Communication and resepecting boundaries - if you do both then you rarely run into problems in UK swinging. It might be the case that some clubs have a problem with male bisexuality but as I have said (and my experience goes beyond the three clubs mentioned) it simply has not shown up as an issue for me or anyone else I have spoken to.
If this is not the case in the US then this highlights one difference immediately. There may well be other major differences such as to do with body image etc that are the case. UK swinging is very welcoming of all body shapes and all ages equally (in fact in our experience the UK swingin scene is quite scathing towards those who are 'body/age facists', it accepts that some folks simply do not find certain things (eg too much hair, too much fat etc) attractive but prefers folks to be open to try new things and to get to know folks). Many in the UK see a swinging lifestyle as sexual adventuring which includes swinging, BDSM, dogging and more. AlanD 21:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I had to check with the missus about Fever as I'd never heard of it, lol. Does it rate such a prominant mention? Anyhoo back on topic as well as research into sexuailty my other point was body image, ages and a host of other factors (prudishness and so on included) that may well be VERY different between the US and UK. Friends of mine have noted large differences bewtween the UK and French scene too. I wonder if anyone has done research into sexual attitudes and swinging communities in different countries?
I do, honestly, feel there is a need to split up the article as there is nothing worse than trying to put together a 'best fit' mish-mash. There will be many overlaps but I get the feeling that they may well be dwarved by the differences. This would also avoid the need to mention differences constantly and need to reach comprimises on statements. AlanD 11:38, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Looked good if it is the edit I'm thinking of. AlanD 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"The most recent study, based on an Internet questionnaire addressed to visitors of lifestyle-related sites, found swingers are happier in their relationships than the norm." I guess it's better than original research or unverified claims, but this seems pretty dubious to me. For one thing, it's based on an Internet questionnaire, and for another, the questionnaire seems to be asking people who are already involved in the swinger "scene". If they were unhappy with swinging, well, chances are they wouldn't be visiting those sites. It would be more accurate to ask all people who had had swinging experience, regardless of their current involvement or interest.
Not to say that I question the ability of swingers to be happy, but to outright say that swingers are happier than most based on such limited evidence is kind of... I don't know. Not very encyclopedic?-- John 06:40, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree with the research but I'd also agree that the source may be dubious. Perhaps a few words to introduce the research first addressing concerns with its neutrality? AlanD 10:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
To clarify. I don't know the research, was the swinging question amongst a host of others? I DO happen to feel that established swingers feel happier and more secure in their relationship than the 'average' couple. However this is purely anecdotal... plus there is also a question of are swingers happier and more secure or does one have to be happy and secure in a relationship to be able to become an established swinger (ergo the percentage of happy and secure couples in the swinging community will be much higher than in the wider community (I see swans are white birds therefore all white birds are swans and so on...))? AlanD 11:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
I've not really dabbled in adding images to WP articles...and I'm not 100% sure this article needs one, really. But let's suppose that an image would help the article. The challenge becomes finding an image that expresses the concept of swinging without being unnecessarily graphic. Oh, and either fair use or public domain...that too. So...any thoughts on this one? I have no idea as to the copyright status of the image, BTW. OscarTheCat3 22:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I am going to fail the article according to the GA criteria. It appears to be well-written, even though the lists of films and television shows could be cleaned up a bit or even converted to prose. The main reason I am going to fail the article is because it only has a few sources for the information in the article. Many of the statements could be deemed to be original research since there are no inline citations stating sources to show their verifiability. I'd recommend going through the article and adding an inline citation after any statement that may be challenged to be true or not. The article appears to be broad, stable, and for the most part neutral. It would be beneficial to add an image or two to help improve the overall quality of the article. Once you fix these suggestions, please consider a renomination. -- Nehrams2020 05:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi - I recently heard a rumour that pampas grass planted out the front of a house in the UK, has been used as a code that the occupants are swingers. There are printed citations to the rumour (e.g. http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/brian_viner/article96599.ece) but not (that I could find) to its truth: can anyone from the scene add anything to this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cromagnon ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC).
It may very well be misogynistic, inaccurate etc, but I don't think "archaic" is accurate. That would imply that the term is no longer used in everyday parlance, and that's just not the case, at least in casual speech here in the UK. Even if participants never now use it, that doesn't make it archaic in the wider community. 86.136.252.156 01:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Anyone have any opinion on the two podcasts that have been added? I have no expertise in this area to judge whether or not they are relevant or just spam. Inkwell 12:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the podcasts are a lot more relevant than most of the movie links on this entry. Many of the movie links only mention swinging as a gag or a side bar. The Playcouples film, for example, is a documentary and has information on swinging subject matter.
The podcasts are definitely relevant. Swingercast was the first podcast to be introduced into the Kinsey Library and it also provides a free resource for people to learn about the Lifestyle. StewartHuffhines 05:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see The Cherry Pit. Grundle2600 ( talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I belive the term for dogging is wrong. You do not necessarily have to be a swinging couple to do this. Two strangers can do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.197.13 ( talk) 20:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
In the C19th section I have added a rider about Marx condemning recreational sex among the married bourgeoise, in order that the term 'Communist' is not misconstrued in a political way.
In the selective swinging section I have removed the two named derivative organisations because (a) both are reportedly defunct and (b) there are any number of derivative organisation of which these were two at random, and their inclusion was therefore merely advertsing. EroticAcademic ( talk) 15:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Under "Health dangers", the article mentions the sentence
Opponents are concerned about the risk of pregnancy and STDs such as HIV, arguing that even protected sex is risky given that some STDs may be spread regardless of the use of condoms, such as Herpes and HPV
While there is a small but real posibility that these virusses can be transmitted when using condoms, their use still dramatically decreases the chance of infection, so I think it's misleading to phrase this sentence like this.. -- 72.195.132.131 ( talk) 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
The part about dönmehs in turkey is slander. Seems people have been listening far too much to turkish conspiracy theory. The sources used to support the severly insulting claim about orgies among the dönmeh starts with branding Zevi Sabbutai as "a false jewish prophet". This view itself shows that the source is partial - the rest of the articles is full of rubbish, half-truth and lies. Please correct this soon. If noone answer Ill remove the section all together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.57.159 ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC) I removed part about sabbateans and dönme. This is harresment of minorities. The people who described sex-ritual among dönme are heresiologists and not reliable sources. No internet sources put in this connection have done proper source-evaluation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.57.159 ( talk) 16:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm just passing through trying to learn more about swinging and I thought I'd raise a problem with the section on 'selective swinging.' I don't understand the intended meaning of this sentence:
Because of the high proportion of female same sex activity (and interest), interested single females are called "unicorns" in the context of their existence being a fantasy, rather than a reality.
If there is a high proportion of female same sex activity, doesn't that mean that there are a lot of women present? Should the sentence be rewritten to say:
Despite prevalent interest in female same sex activity in swinger's clubs, the presence of women rarely outnumbers men because most of the women who attend swingers' events are in heterosexual relationships. The presence of single women in swingers' clubs is compared to that of unicorns - greatly desired, but largely limited to fantasy.
If my paraphrasing is factually incorrect, I suggest rewriting the sentence some other way so that the meaning is more clear. 131.111.184.8 ( talk) 18:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm amending a para in the selective swinging section because it has transparently been edited, innaccurately, for commerical reasons.
The para currently states:
"Younger swingers who wish to swing with people in their own age group find that this is not always possible at swing clubs. Similarly, physically attractive swingers often find that because traditional swingers' clubs do not screen guests, a substantial number of physically and socially unappealing people are present at any given night. This has given rise to several exclusive parties and clubs being formed in major cities like New York City. Recognized as founding the 'selective swinging' movement, New York City's Behind Closed Doors swinger club requires that all attendees are young, attractive, and open-minded.[25]"
This version errs in two fundemtnal respects:
1. The first selective swingers parties began in London in 11998 with Fever Parties, which restricts for both age and looks, as this Wikipedia article verified for many years. A glance at their website shows media coverage going back to 2001 [1].
2. Even in the USA, selective swinging was not 'founded' by Behind Closed Doors. It first came to the USA with Wet parties in LA [2] (selecting for youth) more thn 5 years later than its appearence in London. It then extended to Florida with Bliss [3] (selecting for smartness). It finally arrived in New York City with OneLegUp [4].
So although it is no doubt somewhat selective (despite allowing in those up to 50), Behind Closed Doors is not "recognised as founding the selective swinging movement" even in NYC, let alone the USA or the whole World. It simply seems to benefit from an over-enthusiastic marketing team.
I am amending the para to say the following:
"Younger swingers seeking peer group options find this is not always possible at conventional swingers' clubs. Similarly, those seeking to exclude the physically unappealing from their sexual ambit are often frustrated at conventional swingers' clubs because guests are not screened. Beginning in 1998 with Fever Parties [5] in London, this gave rise to exclusive parties and clubs that selected by looks and/or imposed an upper age limit. Within the USA the phenomenon translated first to Los Angeles, then Miami and eventually to New York City".
I'd have no fundamental objection to the names of the various clubs in LA, Miami and NYC being added into the copy.
If this article is edited back to a version that credits Behind Closed Doors with being anything other than that latest selective swingers club in NYC, it will be the subject of a complaint.
EroticAcademic ( talk) 13:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's ridiculous that this section only talks about 20th century swining in the '90s. The late '60s and the early '70s saw the emergence of swinging in popular culture if not an actual increase. I've tagged that section as one of the most blatant examples of {{
recentism}}
I've seen in a while.
Toddst1 (
talk)
15:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
With regard to; http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Swinging&diff=prev&oldid=478847625
The reference to the Swinger Blog on swingersocial.com falls under WP:USERG. It's a self-published source, and no use to Wikipedia ref; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JohannVanbeek#swingersocial.com
I have reverted the text back to the original, I have also updated the reference link to a copy of the original source on web.archive.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.66.96 ( talk) 10:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
This article has become critically unviable due to editing - evisceration - in April 2011. In particular, the division into separate articles for swinging and sex clubs and the addition of tedious and tenuous historic details have resulted in a less informed, less interesting, less useful and generally worse article. I will attenpt a major revision re-instating much of the bowdlerized material( EroticAcademic ( talk) 20:20, 26 April 2011 (UTC))
I was surprised to see a description of a towel religion and simpson religion. The source was Fields 1998 but no other info is there, as if the original reference got deleted.
What is the source for the reference to towels and simpsons? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBoaN ( talk • contribs) 03:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
May I suggest that the reference be changed to "Swing Club"? The modern swing club is as much about socializing, dancing and general partying as it is sex, and the term "Sex Club" implies the illicit and even has a connotation of illegality. Cosand ( talk) 13:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Update...I attempted to clean up and make some sense of the "sex clubs" page and make it actually worth while by listing prominent international clubs as well as cruise lines and resorts, but was thwarted by two(2)Wikinazis, whos talk pages clearly showed they had broom sticks up their ass, a bitter failed Sex club co host who passes himself off as an "owner", and one "senior editor" they managed to annoy enough with their incessant moaning to get him to take their side and laughably claim two editors (when no less than 15 contributed to the page) represented a "consensus". The result is that vague, inaccurate, hatchet job of a page called "Sex Clubs". Sorry, I tried Cosand ( talk) 00:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Commercial links removed;
This is debatable, however, since it would have been unusual for wives to accompany their husbands on foreign tours. [2]
In addition the above statement is incorrect, http://www.sexuality.org/swinging.html provides a far more accurate version of information on the Community origins together with citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.159.66.96 ( talk) 13:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
"In addition, according to the conclusions of the report the STI rates of swingers were in fact nearly identical to those of non-swinging straight couples, and concluded that the safest demographic for STI infection were female prostitutes."
I have absolutely no idea what the second part of this sentence means. Is it trying to suggest that female prostitutes have the lowest rates of STIs? I suggest that it be rewritten and made more intelligible. A Big Teletubby ( talk) 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone agree with me that "swinging" is an obsolete term? I'm not asking if anyone agrees that my unverified opinion should be incorporated into the article. I am just trying to gauge where other editors are coming from and see whether or not this might be a useful thing to look into (ie find a source for). Personally, I've never heard the word swinging used except in history classes talking about jazz clubs in the 1930s. Certainly, nobody under the age of 50-60 uses the term.....in America, at least... 01:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
There's a good list that is updated on a regular basis of books about swinging and polyamory located here... History of Swinging. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 15:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa ( talk) 11:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Swinging → Swinging (sexual practice) – This discussion resulted in Category:Swinging moving to Category:Swinging (sexual practice).
Several editors suggested renaming the article as well. Should the article be renamed? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 23:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
So, now we have Swinging redirecting to the Swing dab page, which links to dozens of uses never referred to as Swinging, like Swing (Java). The only other reference to Swinging on there is something to do with juggling that does not even have an article.
Anyone actually searching for "Swinging" will not be helped by being taken to the Swing dab page. They should be taken to this article. -- B2 C 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hotwives (bless them) need to show up as an unwritten article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deisenbe ( talk • contribs) 21:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Not knowing that this topic had been discussed briefly on this page, I wrote an article on Hotwife, deleted the redirection page, and it was all promptly reverted.
Hotwife is quite different from swinging. Swinging deals, most often, with couples, both of whom participate, usually with other couples. The hotwife, in that type of arrangement, has her activities herself, while her husband observes, or without him being present. The husband is frequently humiliated (he wants this), or locked in a chastity device, or made to be the "bull"'s fluffer, all of which is completely absent in swinging.
It needs a separate article, in my opinion. Deisenbe ( talk) 12:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi there I have just created an account on wikipedia and made some edits under cuckold and hotwife , a few days ago. They were originally taken down because I did not include the correct referencing format. I read up on how to include the proper citation and then made the edits again and included the book reference using what I believe is the correct citation system following the one already in exsistence on the entry. My edits were then removed, I believe in one instance somebody was under the impression that the sourse was a writer of erotic fiction. I do not want to get into one of these edit wars. If I am doing something incorrectly I would rather know why .The book reference I had included is not by an eroric author, it is not fiction, it is a work about the psychology of erotic personality types.It is not an ebook, it is an actual published book. It may be only the considered opinion of one author, but it is being considered in the context of many other erotic personanily tpes which the author maintains can overlap with each other.
What I wanted to include was the following paragraph below. I realize it may not be evereybodys cup of tea, but it is a verifiable source of information and I believe that is the correct way of placing things on wikipedia.if somebody else has verifiable material they would prefer to see here, why not put it up to contest what i have have edited instead of just removing mine. I included the IBSN book number at the end of the piece on my last posting that was removed.
According to the Author Sage Vivant, in her book (Your Erotic Personality - Identifying and understanding your sexual self p 51), the cuckolding personality type takes two forms in the modern world, stag cuckolds and sissy cuckolds with the majority of cuckolds belonging to the stag cuckold category. She defines a ‘stag cuckold’ “as a man that simply takes erotic pleasure in hearing or seeing his girlfriend or wife engaging in sexual relations with another man or sexually sharing her with another man or men. This occurs with his full consent and encouragement and such female partners are known as ‘hotwives’. This pleasure can also include knowing such relations are or have taken place without actually hearing or seeing them directly himself, or having details of such relations told to him by his significant other. He simply takes huge pleasure is seeing his female partner being fully sexually fulfilled and exploring her sexual boundaries. There is no humiliation, degradation or homosexual aspect to these encounters like those found in strictly ‘sissy cuckold’ encounters in which a ‘hotwife’ is really a cruel and disdainful ‘cuckoldress’ or at least plays that role. The’ hotwife’ partners of stags do however often engage in playful teasing that can vary in range and intensity between such 'stags' and their 'hotwife' partners in order to heighten her own or her stag's erotic feelings. Such stag- hotwife relationships are solid and genuinely caring ones between two individuals. The other extra solely sexual partners of such’ hotwives’ are known as bulls and these men only serve the sexual needs of such ‘hotwives’ and have no function in the relationship other than this. This ‘stag-hotwife’ relationship is a subset of swinging in which only the female partners takes on extra sexual partners, either by bringing a third male party to assist the stag in pleasuring the hotwife, and/or bringing in elements of exhibitionism, voyeurism and sexual tease into the relationship in which the stag either listens, watches or hears about such sexual encounters. A ‘sissy cuckold’ is a man that derives sexual pleasure from being humiliated, degraded and denied by his ‘cuckoldress’ as she engages in, or relates details of, sexual encounters with other men . This type is a form of submissive masochism and can sometimes involve ritualised homosexual acts performed by the sissy cuckold at the behest of the cuckoldress and/ or bull.” [1]
Thanks Earlymanbc — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Earlymanbc (
talk •
contribs)
16:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an obvious imbalance in the article between the criticisms (just some paragraphs explained without detail); and the contrary opinion (more sources, explaining in detail the results of them). It could even be seen by some as propaganda, when it explains how much happier and better are those involved.
Am I the only one who finds the quality of the article to be somewhat lacking? It should be marked as needing improvement. There is no need to remove content, just a better coverage of the criticism section 83.41.230.17 ( talk) 14:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
While perhaps swinging has been around for millennia, organized group sexual (& sex-positive) gatherings & organizations aimed at the middle class seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. It's NOT much of a "history" without at least a few significant dates.
There's not a single mention of Group Sex: a scientist's eyewitness report on the American way of swinging (1971) by Gilbert Bartell. This at least offers some interesting facets of swing in the late '60s.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
21:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Swinging (sexual practice). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The article is literally a scattered mess. Here's why it will be pared back.
Organized swinging evolved in the mid-20th century amongst U.S. military officers deployed overseas; this became somewhat "mainstreamed" in so-called swing clubs, by which is meant both groups that get together in order to swap spouses (who have sex one-on-one in separate rooms) and organized orgies. The
sex club is a different phenomenon, as is "spouse-trading" in non-Western cultures. The list of supposed Western precursors to swinging is highly questionable.
Weeb Dingle (
talk)
10:30, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks guys! (attribution given) ( el:Swinging) Cinadon36 ( talk) 12:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Have to note though, IMHO I feel there is a link between Swinging and
free love that was practised among individualist anarchists in the USA during the late 19th century.
Cinadon36 (
talk)
12:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is showing a commercial logo ( https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/Swinger_Symbol_05.png/180px-Swinger_Symbol_05.png) and inaccurately claiming it is a swinger symbol used by the community. That image is actually the company logo of a jewelry company called Swinger Symbol ( https://www.swinger-symbol.com/) and they only came into existence in 2019. Most swingers have no idea of this commercial company or their logo jewelry they are trying to sell. If you are going to be posting commercial logos that swingers use, you should include Partners ID https://www.partnersid.com/ which has been around much longer (since 2015). Neither of these companies or their logos are widespread among the swinging community.
There is no widespread swinger symbol. The image of an upside pineapple is more known than either of these logos but even that is not widespread or official. It is more about some swingers making a joke of the urban legends that live on in poorly researched articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallynardi ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
The article is showing a "swinger flag" claiming to be designed by Ted Williams. I can find no reference that this is true besides this wikipedia article. There is no official swinger flag because there is no official organization that oversees swingers nor is their consensus within the community. Swingers prefer keeping their sex life private & would not fly a swinger flag even if such a thing did exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallynardi ( talk • contribs) 14:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)