Talk:Swinging (sexual practice)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeSwinging (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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed

Article reorganization[edit]

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)[reply]

Online links[edit]

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)[reply]

It's not that your links aren't relevant, more that they aren't appropriate. Adding links to Wikipedia should always add content, not just links. The Nip/Tuck reference is something that you won't get by just typing "swinging" into Google and demonstrates a protrayal of the topic in the media. The links that you added were just links - they didn't add content. Hope that helps. Inkwell 17:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

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)[reply]

hotwifing[edit]

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)[reply]

It is odd that the term 'hotwife' does indeed direct here, but there is no mention of the phenomenon. Not sure what you mean about cuckolding being in the article as it is only mentioned in the See also list.--Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention of the "phenomenon" because such a thing simply doesn't exist (or its existence cannot be verified). (The "hotwife phenomenon" implies that this type of adult lifestyle arrangement made by couples is constantly increasing in numbers in today's societies as compared to the past and as compared to other adult lifestyles.)--Cory Gendum (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are swingers who hotwife. But just because they do both doesn't mean those two are the same or that one term was subordinate to the other. "Cuckold" and "Cuckquean" are separate articles. Why is not "Hotwife"?--Cory Gendum (talk) 22:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
i put in a section on hotwifing and some prude deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Pruning of "bisexuality" section[edit]

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)[reply]

swingers like biwomen bi men are less popular. lesbians are okay but they tend not to like bi women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My perception of the swingers community is that it is not based on baring someone. That would even be contradicting their basic principles! However, it is based on personal freedom and mutual respect of an individual`s choices, their dos and donts. From my experience it is statistically true that most of the active swingers are heterosexual, some bisexual (= heterosexual and homosexual) where women are the far greater group. But there are also bisexual and even strictly homosexual men. The point is that respecting an individual`s choice also means to accept their notion of a pleasant environment that is essential to relax. Many heterosexual men within the adult lifestyles` community wouldn`t find a surrounding pleasant if there were, say, 70% of male homosexual activities going on around them.
To serve those different needs a local swingers club, for instance, has sceduled weekdays with different focuses. One "couples only" day, one day where both couples and single women are welcome, a "newcomers" day where everyone is welcome, but people usually stay dressed outside the "playgrounds", and a day dedicated to couples, bisexual and homosexual men. This practice is known by the regulars in the club and respected and works very well. I know that there are clubs that reject homosexual men because of either the lack of interest or purely because the operators want to lead their club in another direction. That such an approach raises criticism amongst homosexuals who feel discriminated against is obvious. Yet we cannot define swinging simply based on statistical majority and leave smaller groups out. Most of all it is a matter of an adult being`s attitude and identification with this lifestyle, and not their sexual preference or "orientation".Cory Gendum (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA?[edit]

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)[reply]

UK/US approaches to swinging (including M-M swinging)[edit]

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)[reply]

I've just tagged the statement that MM activities are "very rare" and "almost never allowed" as dubious, for essentially the same reason. I don't know about the US swinging practices but even there I am certain there are going to be MM establishments, bathhouses, clubs and the like for MM or male-bisexual style swinging. For sure it's far from "almost never allowed" in other countries. At a minimum it's an uncited and unsourced comment. At the least this statement needs reworking.
It's also a good opportunity to expand the article to cover homophobia and swinging, or gay swinging issues, if these are a feature in some locales. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

A quick search and check with friends shows that several UK clubs are open to bi or gay activity, and few seem to have body image or age anxiety. Considering the several rather POV statements that I've already cleaned up here, I think this article might be due for a fairly thorough look for NPOV, balance, and geographical and subject coverage issues. FT2 (Talk | email) 01:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, that constitutes original research, and couldn't be used as a source for cleaning up that part of the article. Agreed that the entire article could use another good NPOV sanitizing though. I'd like to see the article reach good article status, and I believe having verifiable sources is a prerequisite for that. OscarTheCat3 02:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, "my friends report X" is OR. But what they report, should be sourcable online in a non-OR manner, with some effort. It is more my own checking for myself that there is a question of accuracy going on here. Now we just have to NPOV review, check facts, and fix errors and structural issues, like you say. FT2 (Talk | email) 03:24, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm in the UK and I still think male bisexuality is rare. It's not so much disapproved of, just not desirable. For example, Fever, who get a prominent mention here, have been known to throw men out who give it a go. (Their website makes their position very clear).
I can think of one club where there is a specific playspace for bisexual men and women, but it's very out of the way and very small in what is an enormous club. And it was empty when I was there. Even when clubs are tolerant of it, it just doesn't happen often. If you do a quick search for "male bisexuality" and "swinging" on Google, you get back lots of different clubs and parties saying that male bisexuality is rare. Acceptance is improving, but actual activity is still low.
Of course male bisexuals are welcome in men-only clubs, but that's a very different matter.
Without conducting original research or making unsourced comments, I think all we can say is that female bisexuality is far more prevalent and attitudes to male bisexuality vary. Inkwell 10:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'd have to disagree. It would be like splitting BDSM into UK and US - huge amounts of repetition. Most of the information would be duplicated: the nature of clubs, the objections, the age, the references in popular culture, etc. The differences you talk about seem minor to me and even those haven't really been agreed upon. The main differences in the article seem clear and it makes sense for them to be together, in the same article, for easy reference and comparison.
The part about Selective Swinging (or Urban Swinging as it used to inexplicably be called here) has been part of the article for a very long time, and if it's going to stay, you can't really not mention Fever and Belle Baise, as the selective swinging scene wouldn't exist without them. They've both had the kind of national press coverage that ordinary swinging organisations just don't get, and they are significantly different from what the others offer to merit a specific mention.
It would be good to back this up with details about the young swingers' movement in Europe and the US, but I don't feel at all qualified to write about that.Inkwell 17:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a small change, which I think is general enough to be considered true. If we are to get more specific than that (for example, if we want to say male bisexuality is on the increase, or there is a difference between the UK and US scene), we need sources. Is this okay? Inkwell 17:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looked good if it is the edit I'm thinking of. AlanD 18:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering as you just reverted it, I don't think it is!
I totally disagree that my change was homophobic. In fact, I think what I wrote was less homophobic than what was before (something about "turning" bisexual). I added that male bisexuality is sometimes forbidden, and it is (I could link to club policies as evidence if necessary).
And I can't see how anyone would disagree that when male bisexuality is accepted, it is not as common as female bisexuality. It is certainly not homophobic, however unintentionally. For the record, I would love for swinging to be more accepting of male bisexuality, but no matter how accepted it is, female bisexuality is still far, far more prevalent.Inkwell 19:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and you undid my reference tidy as well! Snowolf reverted my changes by accident, and reverted back, which is why the last edit said it was his, when it was actually mine. Inkwell 19:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I reverted from the version that said male bisexuality is not accepted to the one that said acceptance varies. The homophobic bit I removed was the bit on "turning bi" That was what I found homophobic.AlanD 19:22, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some very confusing edits recently. The 'turning bi' bit was removed several edits below your revert, so your revert didn't affect that - it was gone already. The one you reverted also said acceptance varies, it just stated that it was sometimes forbidden, and sometimes allowed. Inkwell 19:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research[edit]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

It does say that the research is "subjective" and also says: "This study, while enlightening, is of limited accuracy of the swinging population as a whole, due to its self-selected sampling technique. Internet-based sampling procedures create a substantial potential for bias." I think that's probably enough emphasis on its limitations. It we add anything more, we might as well just remove it entirely.Inkwell 17:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Image?[edit]

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)[reply]

Personally, I'd vote no picture. I've had a look and I can't find any other sex-based articles that have one. Inkwell 16:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A few images would enhance this page and they do not need to be as graphic as the one that Oscar suggested. Perhaps pictures of airmen from World War II or smiling couples whispering into each others ears? StewartHuffhines 16:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed[edit]

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)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. You mentioned that the primary criterion for the article not passing GA at this time was that "it only has a few sources for the information in the article". While some may consider 11 distinct sources to be more than "a few", it certainly never hurts to have more, in the interest of scholarship. Therefore, when you have a chance, would you mind terribly marking up the article with {{fact}}, {{specify}}, and {{verify source}} tags in some of the areas that you felt lacked attribution? I'm sure that doing so would help give direction to those who have been editing the article on a regular basis. Again, thanks. OscarTheCat3 17:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also just happened to notice that the article had been heavily vandalized on 01 March, and consequently several sections (including an entire section on "Research" had been deleted. Please advise whether the article should be renominated now, with the missing sections returned. The Research section itself is quite well-cited. OscarTheCat3 06:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the places which are marked as needing citations are going to be problematic. They are about things like clubs' policies on single men and alcohol etc. The best sources from that information is swinging clubs' websites, but I don't know if lots of links to swinging clubs is what this article needs.Inkwell 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. The single male and information presented in the article is just common knowledge or the prevelant attitude in the swing community. I research for a living, and do swing, and I can't find a definitive source to "prove" this, outside of 100+ club sites which show their single male policies and prices. rpu3 12:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I noticed that the Swinging article on sexuality.org had a somewhat decent reference list; many from academic journals. Might be a good place to start looking? OscarTheCat3 00:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is the same problem with "Greedy girls". I can find references to them being gang bangs on a million different club websites, but reputable sources will be tricky. Inkwell 06:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pampas Grass rumour[edit]

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).[reply]

The term "wife swapping" is not archaic[edit]

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)[reply]

Podcasts??[edit]

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)[reply]



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)[reply]

A new article for you to edit[edit]

Please see The Cherry Pit. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dogging?[edit]

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)[reply]

Minor clarification and update[edit]

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)[reply]

Safe Sex Practices[edit]

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)[reply]

False about dönmeh[edit]

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)[reply]

I agree that this should be removed, or at least rewritten to reflect the nature of the source. It really sounds like little more than typical orientalist fantasies written in the colonial era. I have removed the sentence on Tantra because it is misleading - Tantra is rooted in the intimate union of polarities between male and female, so I can't see it being employed in swinging. 131.111.184.8 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective swinging section confusing[edit]

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)[reply]

Editing for commercial gain[edit]

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)[reply]

20th century[edit]

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)[reply]

With regard to; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

Degeneration of this article[edit]

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))[reply]

Newbie question about reference[edit]

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)[reply]

"SEX CLUBS" is neither an accurate or current term[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Commercial Links[edit]

Commercial links removed;

[1]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ What is Swinging - History of Swinging
  2. ^ What is Swinging?

"The safest demographic for STI infection"[edit]

"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)[reply]

obsolete[edit]

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)

Sorry. Swinging is still a very popular term. At least with those individuals who engage in open sexual relations that most people have understood to be swinging. The concept and its application have evolved considerably since the "key parties" of the 1970's, but just do some basic research into the the alternative lifestyle movements and you'll see that the term, the concept and the activities are still practiced by millions.JVB (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to be sorry about :) ... but anyway of course the concept and activities are practiced by millions. I'm only saying that the word itself is obsolete, not the practice. However, I guess one might disagree based on the sources that describe the phenomenon. However, my point is that actual people - not academics - don't use the term. Charles35 (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, people (still) use the term. However, today it does not seem to mean the same thing as back in the 1960s. Swinging has changed a lot over the last decades. In the beginning it could have accurately been described in one scentence. "An act carried out together by a heterosexual couple where one or both intentionally have sexual activities outside their relationship with consent by the partner." Usually swinging took place in a private setup, most commonly with one or more other heterosexual couples. Today the swinging scene is quite different, as follows: There are (for adults) public accessable locations dedicated to swinging ("swinger's clubs", sometimes called "lifestyle clubs"). There are conventions and magazines. There is a community of people defining themselves as "swingers" that has its own set of rules (an "etiquette"). Today's swinger's community also includes single persons, homosexuals and bisexuals. Fashion and personal hygiene are important.--Cory Gendum (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation sources[edit]

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)[reply]

Nice blog, Scalhotrod. The problem is that swinging has changed a lot over the last decades and still has a vivid scene. I have found lots of scientific studies and papers on BDSM but unfortunately only few about swinging let alone accurate ones. :( --Cory Gendum (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed renaming to Swinging (sexual practice)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Eh, I don't much care either way. Flyer22 (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and it's best to start a formal WP:Requested move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've done this retroactively. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: When I first came across this article, however long ago that was (but not too recently), I did ponder, given that swinging commonly refers to the physical and quite literal swinging movement of a person or object, whether the sexual lifestyle topic of swinging should be the default material for the Swinging page. But then I saw Swing (disambiguation), and noticed that the aforementioned "quite literal" aspect is covered there. There is also Swingin' (Swinging disambiguation). And so it seemed, and still seems, that it's fine that the sexual lifestyle aspect resides at the Swinging page. I would look to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for a case such as this, but I'm not sure how it factors into this case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:07, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: imho Swing is already a very long DAB, and there are more than enough articles to have all 4 DABS:
  • Support: Swinging should be a WP:MOSDAB page. The Yeti 10:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "Swinging" has many meanings, and there is no clear primary topic here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The proposed name is more clear, and swinging could be used for many other things. Such as what children do on a playground with swings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Absurd result of above RM[edit]

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. --B2C 20:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. The best solution is a 3-way merge of the two related disambigation pages Swingin' and Swinger into Swing. I have started a discussion at Talk:Swing#Proposal - Swing-related dab pages "merge all" into Swing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who knows how please delete the redirect from Hotwife[edit]

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)[reply]

Hotwife deserves a separate article[edit]

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)[reply]

It needs a separate article just like "Cuckold" and "Cuckquean" have. But because of other reasons than you mentioned, Deisenbe. The most important thing that differs from swinging is that swingers "swing" with swingers, all of them are aware of their swinging and consensuous. In a hotwifing relationship the wife/female partner may have regular dates "on the side" without the one she is dating even knowing she is already married/has another partner - that's quite a different thing. As for the husband's humiliation or gay practices you have mentioned... that's a specialization. Although such things exist they are not crucial for hotwifing.--Cory Gendum (talk) 23:21, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Deisenbe, yes, I deleted the Hot wife content you created back in October of this year. That topic is not WP:Notable. Also, see WP:Content fork. Topics that are essentially the same thing, but with minor differences, do not need separate articles.
Also, like I've told you before, remember to sign your username; I signed it for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sage Vivant[edit]

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)[reply]

This section was added to an old discussion higher up on the page. I moved it down to give people a chance to see it. The fact that a book is published on paper does not automatically make it a reliable source, and there's no sign of this book being reliable. The author is an erotica writer, not actually an expert, and her "personalities model" is simply her personal opinion - we all create our models of how reality works, but a layman's theory about personalities is definitely not something we want to include in an encyclopedia as if it were an expert opinion. Note that the exact same passage was included on Cuckold where it was removed by four different people, and this exact same discussion is going on on that talk page. --bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Earlymanbc. I agree with Bonadea; furthermore, the content you added looks like WP:Original research, and has some unencyclopedic wording. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Bonadea removed the material. Thanks, Bonadea. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of neutrality?[edit]

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)[reply]

the "History" section is pitiable[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

overdue for pruning[edit]

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)[reply]

Part of the article has been translated to Greek[edit]

Thanks guys! (attribution given) (el:Swinging) Cinadon36 (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]


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)[reply]

No, not so much. Orgiastic sex (particularly in a religious/superstitious manner) has been around for millennia; codified swinging did not exist before the 1940s.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image Spam[edit]

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)[reply]

Flag[edit]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Swinging_(sexual_practice)&oldid=1195076645"