what percentage of Americans swing?

[Mister_Chris]

I suspect that there could be as many different labels as there are relationships; effectively, an infinite number. Human sexuality is a hugely multifaceted spectrum, and any attempt to describe a specific relationship with a pre-defined name is probably doomed to failure. Or so I am coming to believe.

In researching polyamory, I found myself speculating that any daily relationship with multiple partners would almost inevitably lead to feelings of jealousy. And apparently this is the case, and is a real problem. I suppose one form of polyamory would be the classic Mormon approach - one husband, multiple wives. Somehow I don't get the gut feeling that this would lead to feelings of jealousy amongst the women, but I truly don't know. I certainly stand to be corrected. But I could certainly understand jealousy surfacing in a relationship with two males and a female - particularly if children are desired. Whose DNA gets replicated? It's a pretty fundamental drive.

I have seen video interviews with self-identified swingers who claim to be very much in love with their also-swinging partner. So, clearly, at least some swinging couples do make a distinction between love and sex - in love with one person, but receptive to sex with many.

I dunno. Maybe it's sorta like Jazz. "If you don't get it, you never will." Sigh. My stumbling through the unmapped, unlit, labyrinth-like catacombs of human relationships continues.

>MC

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I suspect that there could be as many different labels as there are relationships; effectively, an infinite number. Human sexuality is a hugely multifaceted spectrum, and any attempt to describe a specific relationship with a pre-defined name is probably doomed to failure. Or so I am coming to believe.

In researching polyamory, I found myself speculating that any daily relationship with multiple partners would almost inevitably lead to feelings of jealousy. And apparently this is the case, and is a real problem. I suppose one form of polyamory would be the classic Mormon approach - one husband, multiple wives. Somehow I don't get the gut feeling that this would lead to feelings of jealousy amongst the women, but I truly don't know. I certainly stand to be corrected. But I could certainly understand jealousy surfacing in a relationship with two males and a female - particularly if children are desired. Whose DNA gets replicated? It's a pretty fundamental drive.

I have seen video interviews with self-identified swingers who claim to be very much in love with their also-swinging partner. So, clearly, at least some swinging couples do make a distinction between love and sex - in love with one person, but receptive to sex with many.

I dunno. Maybe it's sorta like Jazz. "If you don't get it, you never will." Sigh. My stumbling through the unmapped, unlit, labyrinth-like catacombs of human relationships continues.

>MC

People form couples for every reason there is, we instinctively search for the lid to our pot. And we wear masks for our society, even each other.

Sit at the mall some time and study the couples you see. Knowing none of them youll recognize your soulmates, and they'll recognize you. Once that happens anything is possible or impossible.

Many of the couples you see will puzzle the hell out of you, because their mutual attraction isn't part of your mind-set. He may like it when she stands over him and shits. She may like it when he knocks up her friends and sisters.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't know much about swinging, but I do remember an article on cheating that I read more than twenty years ago. Seems that someone was doing research on genetics back in 1945...

Remember, pre DNA testing, so they only went by blood type. They found that 10% of the babies could NOT have been fathered by the Husband.

I've heard similar figured cited before, but it's hard to find attribution; often when it's available, the study turns out to be non-representative (e.g. paternity tests requested by people who already have reason to doubt paternity).

This article discusses the issue, quoting a study that puts false paternity rates at about 2-3%:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/

 

[CyranoJ]

I will admit to having a very personal hatred of polar bears; a friend of mine was killed by one about 40 years ago. Many animals will kill a human if they are surprised, or feel threatened; but Polar Bears are the only animal I'm aware of that will deliberately hunt, track, and kill a human being.

Sorry about your friend... though perhaps he's revenged to some extent by the number of polar bears we've shut up in tiny zoo enclosures over the years. In the bigger picture sense, I do feel like humans got pretty lucky that the only species that consistently sees us as a menu item happens to live largely above the Arctic Circle. (Climate change isn't going to drown all the polar bears, though, I'm afraid; they're too adaptable for that.)

I've been trying to work up the gumption to actually read that Marion Engel novel for years. Maybe this will be the year I manage it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In researching polyamory, I found myself speculating that any daily relationship with multiple partners would almost inevitably lead to feelings of jealousy. And apparently this is the case, and is a real problem. I suppose one form of polyamory would be the classic Mormon approach - one husband, multiple wives.

Yes and no. Technically that might fit under "polyamory" but you're unlikely to hear it described that way, because although it looks superficially similar (multiple spouses, right?) it's coming from a very different place and mindset.

Polyamory tends to be about people designing their own relationships - ignore social/religious norms, throw out the standard model of how a relationship is supposed to work, and figure out something that works for the people involved.

FLDS-style polygamy is very much about following a standard model. There's no room there for same-sex relationships, or a woman who wants to have multiple husbands, etc etc - it just replaces one norm with another that's even more rigidly enforced.

Somehow I don't get the gut feeling that this would lead to feelings of jealousy amongst the women, but I truly don't know. I certainly stand to be corrected. But I could certainly understand jealousy surfacing in a relationship with two males and a female - particularly if children are desired. Whose DNA gets replicated? It's a pretty fundamental drive.

In my experience there are a couple of different kinds of jealousy.

One is the "I can't stand the idea of my partner being with another lover" type. That might be a hard-wired psychological drive for some people; for others, it might be social conditioning that can be unlearned. (We certainly have a lot of messages telling kids that monogamy is the most important thing in a relationship.)

Whatever the cause, I can tell you first-hand that not everybody gets that kind of jealousy. I've happily waved my partner off to go have fun with her lover, and she's done the same for me, even when that meant encouraging me to spend thousands of dollars on plane tickets to go see my long-distance sweetie.

The other type of jealousy is "I'm okay with my partner having another lover but not when that gets in the way of important stuff in our relationship". If I've scheduled a date with my sweetie, and then their partner shows up unexpectedly and wants quality time with them, somebody's going to be disappointed. If handled badly that can be upsetting even for people who aren't bothered by nonmonogamy per se. But it doesn't have to be a deal-breaker for people who are willing to put in the time to talk about how to deal with situations like that and set boundaries that everybody can live with.

IMHO that kind of negotiation is important even in a monogamous relationship, because you can't expect to be the only priority in your partner's life. My partner has work, study, hobbies I'm not involved in, family, so even without polyamory in the picture we'd need to figure out how to balance that stuff.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I do feel like humans got pretty lucky that the only species that consistently sees us as a menu item happens to live largely above the Arctic Circle.

Crocodiles.

 

[Mister_Chris]

Crocodiles? Hunting humans? Really?

I could imagine an opportunistic attack - paths cross, wrong place at the wrong time, that sort of thing.

But Polar Bears are really intelligent, and they actually set out to hunt humans. They will track humans. They will observe humans, determine their patterns, learn their weaknesses, and plan their attack. They are not warm and fuzzy. They are 800 pound intelligent psychopaths with claws.

I kinda put Polar Bears in the same category as the Smallpox virus. The DNA should be safely stored in a level 4 containment facility, just in case we ever need it. Beyond that... boom. Gone.

Anyway. My viewpoint is hopelessly polarized. Most people don't share my views on this matter.

But when Al Gore shows you that picture of the sad polar bear perched on the tiny floe of ice...

That's actually a good thing. I hope they all drown.

Humph. Clearly, I need a tranquillizer now. Peace - MC

 

[Hypoxia]

Crocodiles had their chance at me and they passed me by for less troublesome food. I don't blame them. I haven't hung around polars so I can't judge their attitudes. If I want to be tracked by human-hunters, I need only venture to mosquito land.

 

[Hypoxia]

Crocodiles had their chance at me and they passed me by for less troublesome food. I don't blame them. I haven't hung around polars so I can't judge their attitudes. If I want to be tracked by human-hunters, I need only venture to mosquito land.

 

[Mister_Chris]

And I'm so totally insane on this topic that I can't help myself.

Here's advice from a pro-polar bear website (Polar Bears International) on what to do when you're in Polar Bear country:

1. Minimize attractants (items with strong odors, including food and some chemicals). Tough to do. Remember, you are the food.
2. Stay alert to your surroundings. Yes. Easier said than done. Watch your back. Constantly.
3. Carry pepper spray (100% effective), a firearm (76% effective), and other non-lethal deterrents (flares, bear bangers, etc.) Loaded shotgun. Once a bear picks you, nothing else will save you.
4. If the bear is out of spray range, use other deterrents like a flare or banger (Once a PB is within spray range, you are so totally fucked it doesn't matter. A charging polar bear will easily cover the effective spray range distance in about 1/4 of 1 second.)
5. If camping, string a trip wire alarm system and/or an electric fence around your campsite. If you have to camp in an area with polar bear activity, set a watch. Yep. Absolute Yep. At minimum.
6. Always travel in a group of two or more and stay together if a bear approaches.

And a final note from MC: when you're creating that group of two or more, make certain that your partner is fatter and slower than you are. Remember, you don't have to outrun the Polar Bear; you just have to outrun your partner.

 

[CyranoJ]

Crocodiles.

True. But they're not as dangerously bright as polar bears, as I see MC has already covered.

Sorry I don't have better news, Mister Chris. Like I said earlier, the polar bears ain't gonna drown. What they might do is start moving south. Not ideal, but a species as ravenous and destructive as ours probably ought to be able to appreciate some fellow hunters in good part, in the bigger scheme of things*. Granted if I or anyone I know is ever devoured by a polar bear I may admittedly feel differently, so, stay tuned on that. It's certainly a good idea to not have the mental image of their being warm, fuzzy Coke merchandisers, anyway.

* I mean, within realistic limits. It's not like I expect anyone to be all "pip-pip, smashing claw work, old sport" about it as they're watching their friend be devoured by a polar bear or something.

... aaand this is now the Bears Thread. Sorry everyone.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Crocodiles? Hunting humans? Really?

I could imagine an opportunistic attack - paths cross, wrong place at the wrong time, that sort of thing.

But Polar Bears are really intelligent, and they actually set out to hunt humans. They will track humans. They will observe humans, determine their patterns, learn their weaknesses, and plan their attack.

See below...

They are not warm and fuzzy. They are 800 pound intelligent psychopaths with claws.

"Psychopath" is a human concept, not applicable to bears. But yep, absolutely, polar bears are dangerous predators that will kill and eat humans without compunction if they get a chance.

All I can say there is, humans hunt and kill bears in far greater numbers for less reason; I never heard of a bear who travelled into a human city just to get a trophy for his living room.

True. But they're not as dangerously bright as polar bears, as I see MC has already covered.

I wouldn't care to bet on that. By reptilian standards, crocs are overengineered in several areas, including intelligence. They learn their prey's habits and they've even been known to bait birds with bits of fish or, in nest-building season, sticks.

They don't track AFAIK, but they don't need to; they can afford to wait a few months for something or somebody to come down to the water. I saw several in the wild a couple of years ago, and while they look like big old tubby lizards on land, they're amazingly graceful in the water; one minute there's a croc gliding along, the next there's just a smooth patch of water with a one-ton ambush predator somewhere underneath, without so much as a ripple to mark the spot.

 

[Mister_Chris]

Not to worry, CyranoJ. I think I hijacked my own thread, which I seem to do distressingly often.

I think that, as humans move farther north (global warming, population increase) and bears are forced off the ice by global warming, we're going to have an increasing number of human/bear interactions. I'm told that this is already a problem in Churchill, Manitoba; and I cannot see things getting any better, any time soon.

So, I think you're right. They're not going to drown, and they are going to be seriously hungry.

Miscellaneous thread destroying hand grenades follow:

Zeb Carters' avatar title is 'WTF' in Morse Code. I don't know if this qualifies as outing someone. I just thought it was a really creative avatar title.

The phrase "Strong enough for a Man, but made for a Woman" was originally used to sell an anti-perspirant. I'm thinking of using it to describe a guys cock. Are there any other slogans that can be creatively bent?

 

[Mister_Chris]

"Psychopath" is a human concept, not applicable to bears. But yep, absolutely, polar bears are dangerous predators that will kill and eat humans without compunction if they get a chance.

All I can say there is, humans hunt and kill bears in far greater numbers for less reason; I never heard of a bear who travelled into a human city just to get a trophy for his living room.

Yeah, I knew someone would call me out on using the term psychopath. I think that many humans try to visualize animals in human terms; and if you're going to think of a human personality type to associate with Polar Bears, the best type is psychopath. Or so I believe.

But polar bears are not psychopaths. They are intelligent animals working to maximize their chances of staying alive long enough to have children. And that's it. They don't distinguish between a human and a seal. Nor should we expect them to; but many people expect that they will, and that drives me nuts. Please, if you see a Polar Bear walking toward you, don't run forward and try to pet it.

And there's no question that humans kill more of every species on Earth, and for far less reason, than are killed by those species.

It's just that Polar Bears are intelligent, and cunning, and they want to eat us. I think that warrants an asterisk beside their name.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yeah, I knew someone would call me out on using the term psychopath. I think that many humans try to visualize animals in human terms; and if you're going to think of a human personality type to associate with Polar Bears, the best type is psychopath. Or so I believe.

But polar bears are not psychopaths. They are intelligent animals working to maximize their chances of staying alive long enough to have children. And that's it. They don't distinguish between a human and a seal. Nor should we expect them to; but many people expect that they will, and that drives me nuts. Please, if you see a Polar Bear walking toward you, don't run forward and try to pet it.

And there's no question that humans kill more of every species on Earth, and for far less reason, than are killed by those species.

It's just that Polar Bears are intelligent, and cunning, and they want to eat us. I think that warrants an asterisk beside their name.

^^^^^A rush to judgment

 

[49greg]

I've heard similar figured cited before, but it's hard to find attribution; often when it's available, the study turns out to be non-representative (e.g. paternity tests requested by people who already have reason to doubt paternity).

This article discusses the issue, quoting a study that puts false paternity rates at about 2-3%:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2010/06/the-paternity-myth-the-rarity-of-cuckoldry/

I'm glad someone else has seen it, and I have to admit that while I claimed I had read the article, but thinking back it seems like I actually heard it discussed on NPR (Nat'l Public Radio) while driving to or from work one day. And as time went by my mind seems to have expanded the percentage.

Thanks for the correction.

But it's still interesting that it happened back in the good old days with the greatest generation. Come to think of it, I have a brother who looks nothing like myself or my other brother, or anyone in my father's or mother's family, and has a hair color and texture nothing like either side of the family. Makes me wonder, my Dad did periodically have to travel for his job back then, so I'm told ....

 

[49greg]

Yeah, I knew someone would call me out on using the term psychopath. I think that many humans try to visualize animals in human terms; and if you're going to think of a human personality type to associate with Polar Bears, the best type is psychopath. Or so I believe.

But polar bears are not psychopaths. They are intelligent animals working to maximize their chances of staying alive long enough to have children. And that's it. They don't distinguish between a human and a seal. Nor should we expect them to; but many people expect that they will, and that drives me nuts. Please, if you see a Polar Bear walking toward you, don't run forward and try to pet it.

And there's no question that humans kill more of every species on Earth, and for far less reason, than are killed by those species.

It's just that Polar Bears are intelligent, and cunning, and they want to eat us. I think that warrants an asterisk beside their name.

Way off the OP, but the polar bear example makes me think of something I read a long time ago, it was discussing a test given to young children in class, with four animals shown in drawings, and the kid was supposed to tell which was different than the rest. The animals were: A rabbit, a lion, a lizard, and a squirrel.

The "right" answer was supposed to be the lizard since it wasn't a mammal, but in the story, the comment was that the lion was truly the different one, with the statement something like, just try to pet each one, and see what happens when you walk up and pet the lion as opposed to the other three.

I guess that both examples bring out that for much of human existence we weren't at the top of the food chain, and that there are places, such as walking unprepared in the wild, or swimming in the sea, where we still aren't.

 

[sr71plt]

I would have answered the lion too--because it can easily tear your head off.

 

[Hypoxia]

ObTopic: Forget USAnians. What percentages of crocodiles, polar bears, and lions swing?

 

[Mister_Chris]

Hypoxia, that's hilarious! Count on you to bring us back on topic.

The real question is, do they swing inter-species? And if they do, is it considered bestiality?

 

[Hypoxia]

The real question is, do they swing inter-species? And if they do, is it considered bestiality?

When the polar bear fucks you, you're fucked. Definitively. Doesn't matter if you're human, porcine, moose, whatever. Anyway, I think bestiality requires a human presence. When a dog humps a cat, it's just... natural. Sick, but natural. Dogs are like that, eh?

 

[CyranoJ]

The "right" answer was supposed to be the lizard since it wasn't a mammal, but in the story, the comment was that the lion was truly the different one, with the statement something like, just try to pet each one, and see what happens when you walk up and pet the lion as opposed to the other three.

Don't underestimate the squirrels. Squirrels give fewer fucks than the honey badger and make up for viciousness what they lack in size. Squirrels will fuck you up. (With apologies for linking to the Daily Fail.)

 

[Hypoxia]

Don't underestimate the squirrels. Squirrels give fewer fucks than the honey badger and make up for viciousness what they lack in size. Squirrels will fuck you up. (With apologies for linking to the Daily Fail.)

Squirrels are nasty little tree rats. Oh, look how cute! They're playing! No, actually those are competing females trying to run the bitch off. It's a fucking war out there. Hmmm, I wonder what percentage of squirrels swing?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm glad someone else has seen it, and I have to admit that while I claimed I had read the article, but thinking back it seems like I actually heard it discussed on NPR (Nat'l Public Radio) while driving to or from work one day. And as time went by my mind seems to have expanded the percentage.

Thanks for the correction.

But it's still interesting that it happened back in the good old days with the greatest generation. Come to think of it, I have a brother who looks nothing like myself or my other brother, or anyone in my father's or mother's family, and has a hair color and texture nothing like either side of the family. Makes me wonder, my Dad did periodically have to travel for his job back then, so I'm told ....

Genetics can do weird things without any sort of infidelity, but yeah, there's nothing new under the sun. The original author of Wonder Woman lived in a menage au troi back in the 20s-40s and as far as I know, they didn't make much effort to conceal it from friends or colleagues. (Might well have caused him problems in the 1950s, but he was dead by then.)

 

[slyc_willie]

I think this thread has to, in some way, rank in the upper percentile as having gone off on a tangent far removed from the original post.

From swinging Americans to polar bears . . . .

Next: let's discuss the potential ramifications of the consequences of vampire bats growing to human size, gaining human-level intelligence, and obtaining a fondness for Cheez Whizz . . . .